Nov07 Meeting Summarymbh

							               Maryland Teacher Professional Development
                           Advisory Council
                                   Meeting Summary

Meeting Date: November 13, 2007

Members Attending:

     Jacqueline Haas (Co-chairperson)                 Pamela Morgan
     Hanne Mawhinney (Co-chairperson)                 Kathy O'Dell
     Colleen Seremet (Co-chairperson)                 Jana Palmer
     Nancy Carey                                      Margaret Pfaff
     Carol Corwell-Martin                             Sister Sharon Slear
     Kevin Dennehy                                    Carol Williamson
     Clara Floyd                                      Willie Woods
     Leslie Hammond
     Ann Hummer                                       Facilitator/Support:
     Thea Jones                                       Bruce Haslam
     Julie Kimball                                    Linda Adams
     Rebekah Loker                                    Ronald Adams



Introduction

        The meeting was called to order at 12:30 pm by Colleen Seremet. She began the meeting
by telling the council that in order to reach consensus for the February report to Dr. Grasmick it
will be necessary to hold three meetings over the next two months. Those dates are: December
13, January 16, and January 31. The rest of this year’s meeting dates will be emailed to everyone
shortly. Council members were reminded to retrieve the handouts from the side table and the
agenda was reviewed:

       ■       Review of NCLB reauthorization and the implications for the PDAC report and
               ongoing work.

       ■       Discussion of preliminary findings about school-based coaches: What do we
               know and what else would we like to know?

       ■       Discussion of the PDAC Report




                                                1
Review of NCLB reauthorization and the implications for the PDAC report and
ongoing work.

       Nancy Carey and Bruce Haslam reported on the progress of the NCLB reauthorization.
The general conclusion is that NCLB will not be reauthorized until after the election. Congress
will most likely still hold 2014 as the final date.

The draft legislation addresses two topics that are directly related to the Council’s work. One is
new teacher induction programs; the second is requirements for more rigorous evaluations of
teacher professional development. The draft statute contains the following language about
evaluation:

       The professional development program… shall include a formal evaluation system to
       determine the effectiveness of the program on not less than - teacher retention, student
       learning gains, teacher instructional practice, student graduation rates…, parent, family,
       and community involvement, student attendance rates, teacher satisfaction, and student
       behavior.”

Dr. Haslam noted that there is a potentially significant disconnect between what the statute is
calling for in terms of outcomes and what it's talking about in terms of the content focus of
professional development. The list of outcomes is considerably broader and so if teacher
professional development is held accountable for the full range of outcomes there is a serious
risk of watering down the overall focus on outcomes that are important.

        In addition, the proposal also calls for heightened attention to accountability for ensuring
that professional development is of high quality. The draft legislation does a much better job of
defining professional development and it has a lot to say about why it's important and what kinds
of expectations are likely to be in place as part of the accountability provisions at both the state
and local levels.

       Ms. Carey and Dr. Haslam added the following observations about the new law:

      There is an obvious consensus around professional development and it's going to change
       the way federal funding works.

      The new definition of high-quality professional development focuses on school based
       models of professional development, with considerable emphasis on coaching,
       collaboration, principal leadership, and professional learning communities.

      The law is going to deal with growth models and with accountability. Applying growth
       models results in schools meeting accountability provision by demonstrating growth and
       not necessarily meeting proficiency standards.

      Although it does not appear that the law will significantly increase funding for
       professional development it will significantly alter the criteria which guide allocatation at
       the state and local levels.

                                                 2
        In the discussion that followed, Dr. Seremet noted a concern about the language being
proposed that would allow funds to be withheld from states based on the distribution of highly
qualified teachers in schools identified as most in need. She noted that Maryland has been
identified as having the greatest disparity in the distribution of highly-qualified teachers. She
went on to speculate that this could result in districts using Title II funds (which can be used
teacher professional development) in efforts to help unqualified teachers become highly qualified
in the recruitment and retention of highly-qualified new teachers.

         Dr. Seremet also concluded that the Council could be very well positioned to be
influencing the next stage of work in Maryland as it looks at the items on the table: the issue
briefs, the planning guide, the spending tool, and the evaluation guide.


Discussion of preliminary findings about school-based coaches: What do we know and
what else would we like to know?

        Dr. Haslam began this portion of the meeting with a short review of how the data for this
report was gathered. Here, he noted the close communications with the district professional
development coordinators as the data collection plans and instruments were completed.

        Keys points from the preliminary findings (with 19 of the 24 districts having submitted at
least one profile) include the following:

              The initial reports identified a total of 50 coaching positions, with just over 1,100
               staff deployed in these positions as full-time assignments.:

       ■       The preliminary estimate of the annual spending on salaries for these positions is
               $59,637,610.00. This cost estimate is for salaries only and does not include
               benefits or any other expenditures related to these positions.

       ■       The majority of the coaches are in the elementary and middle schools, with
               relatively few assigned to high schools.

       ■       Almost all coaches receive some sort of training for their positions, however there
               appears to be considerable variation in the amount. In addition, six districts
               reported some sort of training for school leaders who work with the coaches.

       ■       Districts report that coaches face a number of challenges.

       ■       Districts indicate that coaches assume a variety of responsibilities and they also
               indicate that there is some variation in the responsibilities of coaches in the same
               position (e.g., reading resource teacher, math resource teacher).

       ■       Almost all districts report some sort of formal performance reviews for some or
               all of their their coaches, although many report using the performance review
               process used for teachers to assess the work of the coaches.


                                                 3
       ■       Initiail reports indicate that there have been almost no rigorous evaluations of the
               work of the coaches.

A more complete review of the findings about the deployment of school-based coaches will be
presented at a subsequent meeting of the Council.


Discussion of the Upoming PDAC Report to Dr. Grasmick and the Maryland State Board
of Education

Dr. Seremet began reviewing the possible forms for the February report and included everything
from a full blown report like the one done for December 2004, to just an oral report. She also
asked the council to think about whether or not to include the recommendations in the report.
The timing was also to be considered to maximize the impact of the report on both the budget
and the Master Plans. She and Dr. Haslam invited the Council to consider the following ideas as
they think about the substance of the report and the key messages that it should include:

              The report will be stronger if it reflects a consensus among the Council members.

              Although No Child Left Behind will not be reauthorized this year, it probably
               makes sense for the report somehow anticipate key provisions of the proposed
               new law.

During the final portion of the meeting, individual Council members offered a number of
suggestions and posed several questions for the upcoming report.

Dr. Seremet concluded the meeting with a reminder about the work necessary to reach consensus
on a report.

Summary prepared by LDRA and PSA




                                                 4