Atnre Alleyne, the Executive Director of DelawareCAN, sent out an email blast to Delaware educators today. The email was unsolicited and left Delaware teachers wondering how Alleyne even got their email address in the first place. This pattern of abuse on Alleyne’s part ends a week filled with his mischief. Continue reading
Senator Sokola. You need to get a Governor to try to win an election. The Negan and Lucille of public education. I would quote their silly little letter to the News Journal, but it is all rubbish. Nothing you haven’t heard before. It appears desperation breeds laziness in these two. When they can’t come up with anything new, they resort to the same old every single time. It is a broken record trying to be heard when the record player stopped working years ago. Yawn…
God help us if David Sokola is re-elected. Which means Meredith Chapman has to win! We don’t need Governor Markell’s right-hand man destroying public education for another term. Markell wouldn’t have been able to get 3/4 of his initiatives through without his Lucille.
This is the second time in the past two months we have been subjected to Sokolaness in the opinion section of the News Journal. The last time was Sokola taking credit for the Council of State Legislatures big report on public education. As if education would just stop working unless David Sokola wasn’t involved. You have seen the videos. DSEA did not endorse him. But he is fine with endorsing a bogus lawsuit against Christina School District. John Carney has the Sokola blinders on. He screws over teachers every chance he gets. He helped Newark Charter School get away with financial invisibility. He serves on the Joint Finance Committee with this fellow Newark Charter School cheerleader. He keeps his knife sharp so when he betrays his peers in the General Assembly it has the sharpest cut. He brought the DSTP and Smarter Balanced Assessment into our schools. He does not support parental rights. He has a very bizarre partnership with the 2016 Genghis Khan of teacher evaluations. When he lost his political prowess last Spring, the Governor had to issue an Executive Order to do the job Sokola couldn’t do. He rips on blogs while providing the ammunition they hurl at him. He chickened out on a vote to put the State Board of Education under Sunset Review.
Sadly, Delaware being what it is, his fellow Democrats are forced to support him. As the Lucille to Jack Markell’s Negan, Sokola smashes Delaware public education constantly. And then Jack takes all the credit.
A Delaware teacher in the Red Clay Consolidated School District asked the Delaware Dept. of Education for the growth goals for Group 1 educators, which would be English/Language Arts and Math teachers. Not an unreasonable question given that we are already a month into school. It would be a pretty neat idea to have teachers measure goals based on the goals the DOE provides them. Especially since this is a major part of their evaluation each year. But in the below email exchange between Red Clay Teacher Steve Fackenthall and DOE Teacher/Leader Effectiveness Unit employees Laura Schneider and Jon Neubauer, something comes out.
I apologize for the squinty eyes some of you may have experienced looking at the pictures of these emails. I tried to make them bigger, but c’est la vie! But notice how the teacher had very specific concerns about the targets and the response from Schneider at the DOE? As a married man, if my wife came to me with a concern and I said “thanks for sharing”, she wouldn’t take it too well. I know if my boss addressed something with me at work and I said “thanks for sharing” and walked away, that would NOT be good for me. So why is it that the DOE feels they can talk to teachers like that? I give the DOE a hard time…a lot. But it is this kind of exchange which lends that feeling of a lack of communication a great deal of credibility. I understand the DOE is busy and they have a clear mandate for what their duties are. But a bit of empathy and compassion goes a long way.
I know John Carney (should he be elected as Governor) wants to make the DOE less a compliance factory and more of a valued resource for educators. If I were a DOE employee and I read the teacher’s concern, knowing Carney is probably going to be our next Governor (based on what others have written), I might think twice of giving a “thanks for sharing” response. Something to the effect of “that is a valid concern. Maybe we should talk about that” or “can you go into more detail?” would go a loooong way towards mending old wounds teachers feel.
Many teachers feel that the DOE gives off a superior attitude to teachers. It shouldn’t be like that. It should be a collaborative relationship. The very nature of the teacher’s email shouldn’t even be a reality. Those goals should be sent out before school starts so teachers can start preparing. Targets are one thing, but actual student’s goals shouldn’t wait until over halfway into a marking period or well into a trimester (which some districts and charters have). This is the number one complaint I hear about the Delaware DOE. And I think the lack of transparency is connected to that attitude. It gives off a vibe of “we will release information when we want to do it, not when YOU want it”.
I have seen many emails from the DOE that came from FOIA requests. I have seen them totally dog teachers between each other. I’ve seen a dismissive attitude when teachers or other district staff reach out to them for help.
The DOE is filled with a lot of caring and wonderful people who care about kids. But the leaders and higher-ups need to look at the perception people have of them. If not, we can expect more of the same no matter what John Carney or the next Governor plan. I understand the DOE isn’t going to please everyone all the time. They get their marching orders from the big boss (and it is not the Secretary no matter what you think). This same thing does take place in some charters and districts. Just because you have a loftier position does not mean you are better. It means you have an opportunity to provide more answers and deal with employees and constituents (whether they are parents, teachers, anyone really) on an equal level. You might get a bigger paycheck but it should always be about the end goal: helping kids. And upsetting and frustrating teachers is not the way to go. They are the front line in education. I get that politics play a big part, but be human! I’m sure this sounds hypocritical coming from me, but when I react it isn’t always pretty. I get upset when I see this kind of thing. I could have easily written a title like “DOE doesn’t give a crap about teachers” but it has become more than obvious that there is a severe disconnect happening in Delaware education. This isn’t anything new. But how can we set a new course if the old matters aren’t addressed or pointed out? Sitting at the table and hashing it out is good if there is less baggage to deal with. That baggage needs to be dealt with.
Yesterday, Delaware Secretary of Education Dr. Steven Godowsky sent a memo to all Delaware public school teachers. This message reiterates existing Delaware law about Component V of the DPAS-II teacher evaluation system. In other words, Smarter Balanced counts in teacher evaluations this year.
It was supposed to “count” last year, but legislators from the 148th General Assembly persuaded the Delaware Department of Education to submit an ESEA flexibility waiver in 2015 to extend the exemption period another year. The US Dept. of Education approved that request. Beginning this year, for almost every single public school in the state, the highly controversial high-stakes test will be a major part of Component V.
House Bill 399 will start a pilot program in select Delaware schools where the teacher and the administrator can choose another type of assessment for Measure A of Component V, but the administrator has final say in the event of a deadlock. Governor Markell is expected to sign the legislation in the coming weeks.
Back in the spring of 2015, at a Common Core for Common Ground event, Governor Markell unwisely told a room full of educators to be prepared because he was:
Giving you another year before consequences kick in.
That was before the US DOE approved the flex waiver. In 2015, the Governor very condescendingly told WHYY/Newsworks:
We know that some people don’t agree with higher standards and accountability.
When those “higher standards” and “accountability” are rigged from the get-go, it is hard to take the Common Core loving Jack Markell seriously. It is very convenient for Markell to be okay with Component V hitting teachers after he leaves office. Just yet another example of our “education” Governor creating destruction and leaving it for others to clean up the mess.
In the meantime, the dynamic due of Senator Sokola and Atnre Alleyne all but assured House Bill 399 was morphed into something from the corporate education reform playbook when it passed the Delaware General Assembly on July 1st. Sokola’s amendments added a student and parent survey to the pilot program which enraged teachers across the state. Newark Charter School has these types of surveys and it is something the DOE has been planning for a lot longer than we think…
In June of 2014, Atnre Alleyne worked at the Delaware DOE in the Teacher/Leader Effectiveness Unit under Chief Christopher Ruszkowski. He contacted a company called Panorama Education Inc. since they administered surveys to schools in New Haven, Connecticut public schools. They provided information to Alleyne showing what these parent and student surveys could look like in Delaware:
And here are examples of the surveys this company wrote:
Student Perception Surveys for 3rd-5th Grade Students:
Student Perception Surveys for 6th-12th Grade Students:
For those who may be wondering how I was able to uncover these documents, they came from a FOIA request a Delaware teacher received from the Delaware DOE over a year and a half ago. While looking back at the emails in this FOIA a few weeks ago, I found this. It didn’t mean a lot at the time I initially reviewed the FOIA material, but in context of the Sokola amendment added onto House Bill 399, it is huge. As an exclusive bonus, here are the emails that allowed Ruszkowski, Alleyne, and Laura Schneider (still with the TLEU at the Delaware DOE) to begin looking at student surveys over two years ago:
The problem with any survey is how it is worded. Surveys can very easily slant towards a very specific purpose. There are a multitude of factors that can cause surveys to be tainted. For students, there are many reasons why they could bash a teacher in a survey. But Sokola and the DOE seem to want these surveys, along with parent surveys. For what purpose? I think we can all figure that one out: to label more teachers as ineffective in their path to destroy teacher unions.
For the Delaware DOE, they have already paid a very large chunk of money to Panorama this year. What were the services Panorama provided for the DOE? I can only imagine it was for the implementation of surveys into DPAS-II. Note the date on the below picture. This was before House Bill 399 had the Sokola amendment added to it. Almost two months before…
I firmly believe the original intention of House Bill 399 was hijacked from the Delaware DOE and Senator Sokola even before it was introduced. They knew exactly what the outcome of this bill would be. I would almost prefer Governor Markell does not sign it because of the Sokola amendment and the potential damage this could do to the teaching profession in Delaware.
In terms of Atnre Alleye, he is a nice guy. But I have serious “heartburn” as Senator Sokola frequently says, about his role as a founder of TeenSHARP and the work they do while he was an employee of the Delaware Department of Education. I believe there was a clear conflict of interest. While he did leave the DOE in February of this year, he was very involved with House Bill 399 and what became of it.
Going back as far as 2010, Alleyne’s motivations were very clear for what he wanted in education:
I don’t believe a company he co-founded should in any way benefit from policies he helped contribute to as an employee of the Delaware Dept. of Education. There is a blurring of the lines so to speak. In fact, when you look at Alleyne’s Twitter account, it is filled with love for corporate education reform companies.
For Delaware teachers, this year will be the true test for them on the absolute damage one high-stakes test will do to their careers. But is this a smokescreen for something even worse coming to all of education in America? I believe it is. I think the very loud protest coming from teachers in this state will lead to an elimination of the Smarter Balanced Assessment as we know it. The test will evolve into weekly or bi-weekly tests in a personalized learning/competency-based education environment where the role of the teacher will be reduced to that of a glorified moderator. Now, more than ever, teachers in Delaware need to not only fight what is here but what is coming. And prepare now!
For Delaware Governor Jack Markell, a great deal of time is spent during his summer months signing legislation passed by the Delaware General Assembly. But some legislation has not received a signature by the Governor. Three education bills, in particular, all show what can only be seen as resistance to many of the policies and agendas Governor Markell, Rodel, the Delaware Charter Schools Network, and the Delaware DOE have put forth in Delaware the past eight years. The Governor has nothing on his public schedule this week. That doesn’t mean he won’t sign bills this week. But when he has nothing, that usually means he isn’t in Delaware.
House Bill 399 w/House Amendment 1, Senate Amendments 1 and 2
This is the controversial teacher evaluation bill that stretched into the wee hours of July 1st this year. Coming out of the DPAS-II Advisory Sub-Committee recommendations, this bill generated a lot of heat after Senator David Sokola butchered the intent of the bill. It was originally designed so other state-approved assessments could be used as a measure in Component V of the DPAS-II teacher evaluation system. By forcing the Smarter Balanced Assessment scores to factor into teacher evaluations, the Delaware DOE and Markell got a ton of heat the past few years. The bill was supposed to change that. But Senator Sokola decided to intervene with a lot of help from ex-DOE employee Atnre Alleyne and the usual suspects over at the DOE and State Board. So why hasn’t Jack signed the bill yet? Rumors circulated at Legislative Hall that Markell did not like this bill. We all know what happened the last time Jack “didn’t like” a bill. Engrossed version of bill.
House Bill 408 w/House Amendment 2
The school breakfast bill, which would also give free breakfast to students in Delaware, caused a lot of controversy with a part about charter schools not being included. An amendment in the House made sure they were. Gee, when did a charter school meal program last cause a lot of conversation? Perhaps when they applied for a major modification and it came out their meal program was not what it appeared to be? Hello Newark Charter School! Engrossed version of bill.
Senate Bill 93 w/Senate Amendment 1 and House Amendment 1
This bill is awesome. The Autism community in Delaware spoke loud and clear in support of this bill. But when an amendment was tacked on in the Senate giving the Delaware DOE a seat at the table through the very controversial Special Education Strategic Plan, led by ex Rodel employee Matthew Korobkin, the Autism community was outraged. An amendment in the House stripped the entire Senate amendment out. Over two years after Governor Markell signed this Special Education Strategic Plan into the FY2015 budget, we have yet to see it. I’m hearing it is due any time now. I can’t wait to see what Rodel and the charter lobbyists comes up with for this one! Engrossed version of bill.
I see confusion on Markell’s part. Does he sign these or not? If he does, what does that say to some of his key allies? If he doesn’t, he invites the wrath of many. He is a lame duck, but he still has political aspirations. Depending on what they are, could signing some of these bills affect those plans? What to do, what to do…
A former Delaware Department of Education employee is now a Principal at a Delaware school district. As part of their evaluation, for the DPAS-II teacher evaluation system, they are measured on five components. In Component V, it states the following:
If an administrator is not assigned to supervise and/or lead at the grades levels assessed for the Statewide ELA/Math Assessment, he or she shall use Part B1 & B2 to calculate the Student Improvement Component which will be weighted at 50% each, unless administrator and evaluator agree that Part B1 will include 100% of the Student Improvement Component during the Goal-Setting Conference.
A Principal has to be certified to supervise the administration of the Smarter Balanced Statement. This ex-DOE employee who is now a Principal at a Delaware middle school, and actually worked in areas around accountability, is exempt from having Part A apply to this Princpal’s evaluation because this Principal is NOT certified in this area. Talk about a complete hypocrisy and the ultimate irony! So we can consider any DOE employee who enters the school system as a Principal, looking at this through a history lens, as BC, while others who actually do the work and get certified as AD. Incredible!
And for teachers, the very damaging Component V is still a part of their evaluation. Even though House Bill 399 passed the General Assembly in the wee hours of July 1st, Governor Markell has yet to sign the bill. The original recommendation from the DPAS-II Advisory Committee Sub Group was to have teachers and the Principal choose which measures to use and not have Smarter Balanced be an automatic 50% of their evaluation. But Senator David Sokola turned the bill into a pilot program for three schools and added controversial amendments. Remember that on Election Day folks! Markell has given no indication whatsoever if he is even going to sign HB399. His public schedule is blank this week. And school starts on Monday for most students. Way to go Jack! He is probably out there pimping for Blockchain or some other ludicrous education get rich scheme.
The Delaware Department of Education sent out a bid solicitation on the DPAS-II teacher evaluation system in Delaware. They wanted to know how teachers and administrators are doing with the student growth portion of the system, part of Component V. To say the report gives more sides from the pro-testing crowd would be an understatement. It is very hard for me to take these reports at face value when they ask a limited amount of questions.
What I find even more interesting is the fact that Research For Action, the vendor who created this report, is not listed as a current Delaware vendor, and there is no current contract or one that recently ended calling for such a report. But the Delaware DOE paid this company $140,000 on 6/17/16, which is well over the threshold that would trigger a mandatory bid solicitation as required by Delaware state law. In fact, a contract was signed a few months ago with American Institutes for Research (the current Smarter Balanced Assessment vendor in Delaware) to do a review of the DPAS-II system. Research For Action is also not listed as a Cooperative contract vendor or a set-aside contractor in Delaware.
Now I did find a contract with Research In Action that ended on 6/30/16 which did require an evaluation of DPAS-II. Are these the same companies? Since the report below shows them as Research For Action, I would assume they are. The Delaware DOE did award a contract to Research For Action Inc. that went from 3/19/15 to 8/31/15 for the amount of $225,000.00. Since the second awarded contract gave a fixed amount of $181,117.62, can someone at the Delaware DOE please tell me why we have already paid this company $450,742.04 for work that is $44,624.42 over the two contractual amounts? Or is there, once again, some other contract hidden away on the state procurement website under yet another different name for this company?
I wish I could get paid over $450,000 to come out with a seven page “briefing” once every couple of years, interview a few teachers and administrators, and call it a day. More DOE magic at work! Or, as some call it, cash in the trash. And we once again wonder why Delaware schools are underfunded (much more for this topic coming up on this blog).
The “briefing” is below:
House Bill 399 was heard in the Senate Education Committee today, June 29, 2016, the penultimate day of the 2015-2016 legislative session. This bill, which passed the House unanimously (with two absent Representatives and one amendment), was one of only two bills heard by the committee, yet the public filled the small meeting room beyond capacity. Among the onlookers were the usual subjects; individuals from the Department of Education, the Executive Director of the State Board of Education, a handful of educators, lobbyists, and the general public affiliated with different groups of their own. It was the general tenor of the public comment that compelled me to pen this post, as although I have studiously refrained from engaging in the raging online debate up to this point, I do feel that misconceptions need to be cleared and the process, as transparent as it has been, should be outlined.
Please note that all of the information I am sharing comes directly from the information that can be found through the online state calendar if you care to scroll back through each and every Department of Education meeting from September 15, 2015, through March 8, 2016. The only two meeting dates that do NOT have associated minutes were November 9 and 30 of 2015, although draft minutes are floating around.
Let’s take this back to the beginning, shall we? That’s always a good place to start.
In April of 2015, I was contacted by the Delaware State Education Association to participate in a workgroup of teachers, specialists, and administrators, co-facilitated by the Delaware Association of School Administrators. The pitch was novel: Let’s get teachers, specialists, and administrators in a room and give them a task discussing the evaluation system and see what happens. As I have undergone the training for new administrators at the Department of Education and was, at one time, a credentialed observer, and because of my continued interest in and work with the evaluation system, I understood why I was invited. As for the other members of the workgroup, I cannot say, but as I got to know them I realized that they were all amazing individuals with really spot on observations and unique perspectives on the evaluation system. Only one of the nine other educators did I know prior to our first meeting.
On April 21 we met, broke into groups, and began the task of looking at the current rating system to make a proposal for alignment of formative component ratings with summative component ratings as well as to look at the summative component ratings and how they could roll up to an overall rating for teachers and specialists. The groups were random, although an effort was made to have teachers/specialists mixed in with administrators, so no group had just one category of educator. By the end of our allotted time together, we realized that more work needed to be done, and we were eager to continue, so we met again a week later, on April 28.
After the two work sessions, the team had come up with terminology that would be consistent across formative and summative categories, designed a numerical system that would go along with the ratings and reduce the potential for inconsistencies and “discretion” in the system, and made a few recommendations that addressed some issues we discussed, including the concept of an annual summative process (instead of the current biennial process) and a pilot for the numerical system (which is being referred to publicly as an algorithm).
The workgroup recommendations and proposals were presented to the DPAS II Advisory Committee, a group of educational stakeholders who meet regularly to discuss the evaluation system and offer suggestions for changes as necessary. Based on feedback from the committee members, the workgroup reconvened and refined the process accordingly on May 12, 2015. What has come forward into HB399 that bears mentioning here is the mathematical algorithm, and specifically how it was established and the criteria for “cut scores”.
It was not really a question that an Unsatisfactory rating should be unacceptable, and as such a numerical value of 0 was assigned to that. To further differentiate Unsatisfactory from Basic, which can be acceptable as a starting point in some circumstances (hence the need for discretion), Basic was assigned a value of 2, with Proficient and Distinguished assigned values of 3 and 4, respectively. It was agreed that, if multiple data points were available for specific criteria and/or components over the course of a two-year summative cycle, those data points would be averaged to come up with an overall score for the summative rating. It may be important to note here that, under current regulation, all teachers and specialists must be evaluated by a credentialed observer at least once a year, with recommendations and accommodations made to facilitate more regular observations. For instance, certain categories would warrant additional evaluations (novice status, under improvement, etc.), and shorter observation times could be used for supplemental evaluations as necessary.
Let me say that again. Under current regulation, every teacher and specialist must be observed and have a formative feedback document at a minimum of once a year. The summative rating can be done every year in current regulation, though it must be done at minimum every two years.
Let’s say I am evaluated, and in Component I, Planning and Preparation, I receive Proficient scores on all 5 criteria. That means I have earned an average score of 3, Proficient, for Component I. In Component II, Classroom Environment, I receive Proficient scores on 2 criteria and Basic on the other 2. I have earned an average score of 2.5, which falls under Basic. In Component III, Instruction, I received an Unsatisfactory in 2 criteria and a Basic in the other 3. That averages to 1.2, which is an overall Unsatisfactory rating. In Component IV, Professional Responsibilities, I score Proficient for all 4 criteria, earning an average score of Proficient for that category. Finally, in Component V, Student Improvement, I earn an Unsatisfactory, giving me an overall 0 score for that area.
Component I = 3. Component II = 2.5. Component III = 1.2. Component IV = 3. Component V = 0.
Total rating is 1.94, which puts me into the Basic category. Which we could have guessed, because so many of my scores are low. These ratings would also trigger an Improvement Plan, and my teaching career would be in jeopardy unless I followed the plan and earned higher ratings in the next observation and evaluation.
I would be a Basic teacher even with two of five Components rated as Proficient.
I’ve earned 11 Proficient ratings at the criteria level, 5 Basic ratings, and 3 Unsatisfactory ratings, yet am still rated as Basic and warranting an Improvement Plan.
That’s how the algorithm would work. The cut scores are based on the full workup of the entire set of possible ratings combinations, which I calculated using an Excel document with the gentle prodding and patient guidance of my husband, who neither saw nor cared about what I was actually doing, just told me how to get it done. This document was made available to the workgroup, and due to the areas where there was significant potential for the rating to be really inaccurate based on a quick glance at the numbers, a pilot program was suggested. The pilot was generally regarded as a simple thing to do, as the possibility of having one system (Bloomboard, for instance) write in the algorithm so it automatically calculates seemed easy.
Let me repeat that this time that these workgroup meetings, though not “public”, resulted in group consensus on recommendations that were presented to, refined as a result of feedback from, and then endorsed by the DPAS II Advisory Committee. Furthermore, all documents created were made available to the Department of Education, DSEA, DASA, and the Advisory Committee as well as the Sub-Committee later on.
Who was on the workgroup? Who were these educators who sat in a room together and dared to create a set of recommendations and proposal to change the entire evaluation system so dramatically (end sarcasm font) without the possibility of public input?
The members were published in the document made available to all entities listed above, and are as follows: Sherry Antonetti, Clay Beauchamp, Cheryl Bowman, Kent Chase, Charlynne Hopkins, Chris Jones, Jackie Kook, Suzette Marine, Dave Santore, and Nancy Talmo. Four teachers, two specialists, and four administrators.
Two of those individuals were also sitting members of the DPAS II Advisory Committee.
Six of those individuals became members of the DPAS II Advisory Sub-Committee.
When it is alleged, as it has been, that the information from the workgroup was never shared with the DPAS II Advisory Sub-Committee, and that no questions were asked about it, the data shows differently. A presentation on the workgroup recommendations was made on September 28, 2015, at the second meeting of the Sub-Committee. Discussion was held around the recommendations over the September and October meetings, and it is noted several times in the minutes that “discussion was held”, though not every word uttered was captured. Many committee members have their own notes, but the minutes could not possibly be a transcription of the level and detail of conversation that occurred.
The pilot was requested at least in part because there was no way to see all the possible kinks in the system, and rather than going full-on statewide with an untested program we felt it was more responsible to try it out and make sure it was accurate. After all, these are folks’ jobs we are talking about, as well as the education of students. We must get it done right, even if that means it cannot be hasty.
I do not pretend to speak for this diverse, talented, dedicated group of individuals. The legislation was inspired by the recommendations of the Sub-Committee, and although the words may not reflect verbatim the discussions that were held (after all, even the minutes don’t) and this may still be an imperfect system, the group did work hard and have impassioned discussions about what would be best not only for the educators in the system but also for our students. Keep in mind that The Conjuring was inspired by a true story…
One final point of note, since the data is readily available in the published minutes.
On September 15, the Department of Education was represented by Shannon Holston, who is documented as arriving at 4:45, and Christopher Ruszkowski, documented as arriving at 5:50. The meeting began at 4:30.
On September 28, the Department of Education was represented by Angeline Rivello and Laura Schneider.
On October 12, the Department of Education was represented by Angeline Rivello.
On November 9, the Department of Education was represented by Eric Niebrzydowski, Shanna Ricketts, and Laura Schneider. *Note that these are draft minutes, as final approved minutes are not available on the State Calendar.
On November 30, minutes were not available in draft or final form.
On December 14, the Department of Education was represented by Eric Niebrzydowski, who is documented as leaving at 4:30, Laura Schneider, who is documented as leaving the meeting at 3:30, and Christopher Ruszkowski. The meeting began at 2 pm.
On January 13, the Department of Education was represented by Atnre Alleyne, who is documented as arriving at 4:49. The meeting began at 4:30.
On February 1, the Department of Education was represented by Atnre Alleyne, Laura Schneider, Shanna Ricketts, and Christopher Ruszkowski, who is documented as arriving at 5:01. The meeting began at 4:30.
On February 16, the Department of Education was represented by Atnre Alleyne, Shanna Ricketts, Laura Schneider, and Dr. Steven Godowsky, Secretary of Education.
On February 29, the Department of Education was represented by Atnre Alleyne, Shanna Ricketts, and Christopher Ruszkowski, who is documented as leaving before Public Comment.
On March 8, the Department of Education was represented by Christopher Ruszkowski, who is documented as leaving before Public Comment.
For those of you keeping track, that brings Department of Education representation to a total of 8 different individuals, including the Secretary of Education, and no single representative was present for every single meeting. Again, this is based on the minutes from each available meeting (including one set of draft minutes I personally had for a meeting which minutes are not posted online) that had the individuals listed as “Department Staff/Other Members” and does not differentiate between those who sat at the table and those who did not. The final submitted report lists only Christopher Ruszkowski, Atnre Alleyne, Eric Niebrzydowski, and Angeline Rivello as Department of Education representatives (non-voting members) of the Sub-Committee. Any notation of late arrival and/or early departure is from the minutes themselves and included solely to be comprehensive in providing information. Of the 10 meetings for which documentation is in my possession, no single DOE representative attended more than 5.
The Senate Education Committee just ended their 2:30 meeting about half an hour ago. House Bill 399 was discussed with many proponents and a few opponents. The opponents were Secretary Godowsky, Donna Johnson, and Atnre Alleyne (former DOE employee who has become very active in trying to stop meaningful teacher evaluation reform). Senator David Sokola expressed more than once his feelings of “heartburn” with the bill. I recorded the whole thing. Excellent comments were provided by Mike Matthews, Kristen Dwyer with DSEA, Jackie Kook, a teacher from Caesar Rodney (I will have to get his name later), and others. Hopefully the other members of the Senate Education Committee will see through the obvious smoke and mirrors. But a few thoughts here. Godowsky and Johnson were not this vocal during the House Education Committee. Judging by the fact Godowsky just left from meeting with Governor Markell’s office in conjunction with Godowsky’s adamant opposition of the bill, I think we can all safely assume who is calling the shots here.
As the lead Senate Sponsor, I felt Senator Bryan Townsend could have supported the bill more than he did. I have found he tends to play to both sides on education issues. During his second “round” so to speak on the bill, he did defend Delaware teachers and appeared to be more on their side. As usual, Sokola played it up for the audience. At one point he made a comment about how there is good news in education and something to the effect of not being able to see that on the blogs. So I made a point in my public comment, as well as supporting the bill, to point out the DOE can get the “good” news out and I’ll do my thing. Perhaps he didn’t like that but I truly don’t care. He can stare daggers into me until the general election if he wants.
I don’t know if it will be released from the committee. I hope it will. New York is already getting out of the kind of teacher evaluations Delaware’s DPAS-II is similar to. In regards to my comment about the Native Americans waiting to meet the Governor, Governor Markell literally just walked past me and we greeted each other. I am assuming the Governor was out of the building. I don’t see the Native Americans now, but the Delaware House did pass House Concurrent Resolution #97 recognizing November, 2016 as “Native American Heritage Month” in Delaware. Yes, it is going to be one of those days! Or possibly one of those lifetimes!
Even though Delaware Senator David Sokola may not support House Bill 399, there is no reason the rest of the Delaware General Assembly doesn’t. Thanks to the Chair of the DPAS-II Sub-Committee Jackie Kook for getting this up!
After many months, we are on the verge of much-needed revisions to the DPAS II evaluation system. These changes will have a profound positive impact on the quality and reliability of DPAS II. Rep. Earl Jaques filed House Bill 399, incorporating recommendations made by the DPAS II Sub-Committee. The bill was voted unanimously out of committee and is headed to the full House for a vote early next week. The bill could pass both chambers before session ends on June 30th.
However, we need your help in making sure members of the General Assembly hear from DSEA members regarding the importance of passing this bill.
Visit the following address to begin contacting your respective legislator: http://bit.ly/HB399-Call-to-Action. Once you have reached the site, you will see a section asking you to enter your name, email, and mailing address. The reason for asking for this information is because the site will automatically select the appropriate state legislator based on your address. All you will need to do is write your letter of support, use the pre-written letter sample, and then click “send letter.” That’s it… No need for you to look up your legislator and type in the email. The site is provided to us by NEA and the information provided is used only for the purposes of this particular campaign.
Here are the key provisions on House Bill 399:
Reverses regulation passed by State Board that would require annual evaluations for all educators. Instead it requires annual evaluations for all educators holding an initial license and allows all other educators to be evaluated every two academic years.
Beginning in the 2017-2018 school year, all five components of DPAS II will be weighted equally.
For the next two years, DOE will conduct a pilot, preferably in one traditional school district, one vocational technical school district and one charter school. The pilot will include the following:
Component V will have two parts of equal weight – Parts A and B
Part A will be an individual goal created by the educator and administrator that is “based upon the school or district improvement document and demonstrate the educator’s contribution to student growth for his or her current cohort of students.”
Part B will be an individual goal created by the educator and administrator that is based upon an assessment approved by the Department.
The statewide standardized test (currently Smarter Balanced) can only be used if agreed to by both the administrator and educator.
If agreement cannot be reached:
For non-tenured teachers, the administrator will set goals, select measures and assess progress toward goals using data generated by the measures.
For tenured teachers with expectations or on an IIP, the administrator will set goals, select measures and assess progress toward goals using data generated by the measures.
For tenured teachers with satisfactory performance, both the administrator and educator will set goals (total of 4 – 2 Part A and 2 Part B – rather than total of 2) and the administrator will select measures and assess progress toward goals using data generated by the measures.
Educators will be allowed to include scores of students attending less than 85% of classes if they want to do so.
DOE must evaluate pilot in consultation with DPAS Advisory Committee and DPAS Advisory Committee must agree to content of evaluation.
For pilot to become permanent, General Assembly must lift sunset prior to June 30, 2018.
The bill puts into place the recommendations of the DPAS II Subcommittee, co-chaired by DSEA Member Jackie Kook and including Clay Beauchamp, Sherry Antonetti and Rhiannon O’Neill. Feedback and input was also given by DSEA Advisory Committee members Jenn Smith and Jill League.