The Washington Post on Pinsky

The Washington Post editors are questioning the role of state senator and MCEA staffer, Paul Pinsky, in the latest round of infighting between the Maryland General Assembly and Maryland State Department of Education.   It just so happens I think the General Assembly is right: MSDE has regulated beyond what is allowed by the law.   But the Washington Post is also right.   There should not be MCEA staffers voting on education bills.   I'm not sure MCEA staffers should be serving on the Maryland General Assembly at all.  Granted it's not illegal, but I for one do not want my elected representatives directly employed by lobbies- even if they are lobbying on my behalf.   Rumor has it newly elected Eric Leudtke will soon be an MCEA staffer as well.   I'd call that some political machinery at work.   The best part is, no one else seems to think this might represent a conflict of interest.   Or maybe they just don't know.   From the Washington Post:

We also hope that this latest - and most egregious - example of a lawmaker refusing to recuse himself from an issue where there is a conflict of interest prompts the General Assembly to do something about its lax ethics rules. Essentially the only thing required is disclosure and an assertion that the lawmaker can overcome any conflict. No doubt Mr. Pinsky brings valuable expertise to the discussion, as he argued to us. But that does not obviate the evident conflict when Mr. Pinsky, a union organizer for the Montgomery County Education Association, plays a leading role on an issue that directly affects his employer

My note to MSDE

 Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) recently celebrated a decision by a committee of the Maryland Genearl Assembly (chaired by an employee of MCEA) to block a  Maryland State Board of Education regulation calling for student achievement data to be 50% of teacher evaluations in Maryland.   The Maryland state law called for student achievement data to be a "significant" factor.    I agree with my union that 50% is too much.    I disagree that our current system is the 7th wonder of teacher evaluation systems.  Here's what I sent to state board members.


Dear Board member,



I am teacher in Montgomery County who has spent a considerable amount of time researching evaluation systems.. I take issue with my union on a number of issues, which I detail at improvingmcps.blogspot.com. However, I implore you to consider the following regarding evaluation systems:

1) Any new evaluation system should seek to more readily identify ineffective teachers. 2) Value Added Modeling, though limited, is particularly useful in identifying those teachers who are ineffective, but only when used over a 3 year period. 3) Conclusions reached by student achievement data, due to reliability concerns, should be corroborated by other evidence of teacher quality. 4) An evaluation that relies heavily on flawed student achievement data is just as arbitrary as a system pays teachers based on seniority. 5) New evaluation systems should promote rewards based on teacher quality, teacher responsibilities, and areas of need. In our current system, new teachers often carry the heaviest load(no classroom, most teacher preparations, toughest population of students) but are paid the least.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.



Sincerely,





Mike McCabe

How Change Occurs

Was reading The Challenge to Care in Charm City, and came across reference to this article by Beverly Anderson in Educational Leadership. It made me think about whether the change Secretary of Education Arne Duncan wants to implement is inevitable. Perhaps all the bickering is just all the powers that be trying to look good with their respective constituents, rather than an honest resistance to change. Here are the six stages of institutional changes as found in the article:

Stages of Systemic Change
Six stages of change characterize the shift from a traditional educational system to one that emphasizes interconnectedness, active learning, shared decision making, and higher levels of achievement for all students. Although Figure 1 displays the six developmental stages as linear and distinct, change is unlikely to follow a linear path. An education system will seldom be clearly at one of these stages but will usually experience “Brownian motion,” going back and forth from one stage to another on the path toward an ideal situation. The six stages are:

Maintenance of the Old System:
Educators focus on maintaining the system as originally designed. They do not recognize that the system is fundamentally out of sync with the conditions of today's world. New knowledge about teaching, learning, and organizational structures has not been incorporated into the present structure.

Awareness: Multiple stakeholders become aware that the current system is not working as well as it should, but they are unclear about what is needed instead.

Exploration: Educators and policy-makers study and visit places that are trying new approaches. They try new ways of teaching and managing, generally in low-risk situations.

Transition: The scales tip toward the new system; a critical number of opinion leaders and groups commit themselves to the new system and take more risks to make changes in crucial places.

Emergence of New Infrastructure: Some elements of the system are operated in keeping with the desired new system. These new ways are generally accepted.

Predominance of the New System: The more powerful elements of the system operate as defined by the new system. Key leaders begin to envision even better systems.

I admit I don't know that many people, but many of those I've talked with- teachers, parents, or just concerned citizens- seem supportive of an institutional change to the way things are done. Maybe tipping the scales is not so far away. Not sure if this letter by the Maryland State Education Association to the Maryland State Department of Education is completely genuine, or is any indication, but at least its a step in the right direction.