Technical Review Page 1 of 10

Race to the Top

Technical Review Form - Tier 1

   

Maine Application 

A. State Success Factors

da? .
nuleL?.? i

Articulating State's education reform agenda and LEA's participation in it B5 23
Articulating comprehensive, coherent reform agenda 5 3
(ii) Securing LEA commitment 45 14
Translating LEA participation into statewide impact 15 6

(NH) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

i) The application describes the five interrelated elements of the State's plan that generally address the four
ARRA areas. The focus on standards and individualized learning build on prior state efforts and are a
strength of the application. However, the clear and credible path to achieving these goals is much less
evident.

ii) The MOU is similar to the model one; however, there is an "opt?out" clause for bargaining units that
diminishes the potential impact.

Only 38% of LEAs and 63% of schools will be participating statewide, which is not high representation.
Of the participating districts, of concern is that only 78% had Local School Board President signatures, and
only 30% had Local Teacher Union Leader signatures. The lack of teacher support is a critical weakness.
By the time the State reduces the participating LEAs by those that have signi?cant support of critical
stakeholders, the lack of LEA participation is a weakness in ensuring broad impact. The application states
that the effort will reach of all students and only 59% of highest need students,

which only indicates partial statewide impact on the students critical to closing the achievement gap.
Though the state's achievement rates are already fairly high. student achievement goals are not ambitious
and there isn't a stated rationale for how they were set. The plan only vaguely addresses closing the
achievement gaps and how the State will improve from an 80% to 90% graduation rate.

Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain 30 18
proposed plans 

Ensuring the capacity to implement 20 14
(ii) Using broad stakeholder support 10 4

Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1)

i) The plan articulates an existing organizational structure that would add accountability to it's
responsibilities. It is positive that the recent reorganization of the Maine Dept. of Education has
resulted in increased alignment of the organization to the assurance areas and priorities increasing
the likelihood that the capacity of existing MDE staff could be built to sustain the reform effort after the
funding ends. The inclusion of leadership from other involved agencies such as the Higher Education
Commission is positive. However, it is not clear how this very large effort will just be integrated into existing
efforts without a specific plan which is not articulated here. The primary SEA support to LEAs described will
be through dedicated support teams and consultants, funding for professional development and continuous

10 3&0 ll)

Technical Review Page 2 of 10

evaluation; however, much of the detail about the how the State will monitor and provide these supports is
missing so it is not clear what the actual implementation plan would be. The plan is heavily dependent upon
external contractors, again without much detail on how their efforts will be integrated with existing efforts.
The budget reflects the high reliance on external resources throughout the duration of the grant and raises
the question of how the reform efforts will continue after the funding ends.

ii) The application includes indicated support from the State's legislative leadership, higher education, the
administrative association, school board association, the business community and various other
educational partners. However, key support from the State's principal and teacher associations and parent
constituencies is not included and considered a signi?cant weakness.

(AH3) Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing 30 19
gaps
Making progress in each reform area 5 3
(ii) Improving student outcomes 25 16

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1]

i) The plan describes a well?developed content standards process that began in 199T and brie?y describes
a school improvement effort that has been implemented with Title I schools. However, their state
longitudinal data system has only been in place since 200? which suggests a relatively new effort in
regards to data systems. Additionally, the plan does not describe any efforts to assess teacher and
principal effectiveness in relation to student achievement and only mentions distance learning as the
method for ensuring statewide access to high quality teachers.

ii) The State describes prior student achievement gains in the state assessments and a generally high level
of achievement on the NAEP. However, NAEFJI scores in reading and mathematics have been relatively ?at
since 2003 and achievement gaps have not decreased. The graduation rate has dropped but the State
attributes this to changes in the calculation method. No direct connections between interventions and
student achievement increase were described that would indicate that the planned interventions would
result in improved outcomes.

- :25 as
B. Standards and Assessments
:1.va Tie." '1
Developing and adopting common standards 40 3?
Participating in consortium developing high-quality standards 20 20
(ii) Adopting standards 20 17

{31(1) Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1)

i) The State is participating in the Common Core State Standards Initiative. which includes a significant
number of states.

ii) The State has committed to adopting the Common Core Standards during the summer of 2010 to be
complete by the end of August. An Emergency Rulemaking Process is described that may or may not
enable the standards to be adopted by August 2, 2010.

Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments 1D 9

1 0 WHEN I 0

Technical Review Pagc 3 of 10

Participating in consortium developing high-quality assessments 5 4
(ii) Including a significant number of States 5 5

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

i) As described in the applications, the State is participating in several consortia to devetop assessments
including the SMARTER consortium but the speci?c content and quality of each assessment set is not
clearly stated .

ii) The appendices includes the list of 33 states participating in the SMARTER assessment consortium, of
which Maine is a governing member.

Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality 20 8
assessments

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The State describes that it will be impiementing a variety of formative and summative assessments which is
a strength and provides a general plan for the "rollout" of the new standards and assessments. However.
the articulated plan provides few implementation details so it is not clear how this rollout will be
accomplished. Many of the timelines are too broad "Beginning in the Fall of 2010 and continuing through
2014, the State will develop and provide support for regional collaboratives) to be useful for implementation
or monitoring. Finally, the plan describes the implementation of many new assessments without a clear
indication of how each will be used and overall how they are aligned.

C)

C. Data Systems to Support Instruction

Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system 24 22

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)
The plan articulates implementation of 11 of the 12 America COMPETES Act elements (12 is missing).

(CH2) Accessing and using State data 5 3

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The description of how the state would build a system for accessing and using data represents a positive
effort to integrate various data systems. The State does not provide a description of the implementation
details for how it will ensure that all stakeholders are able to fully access the data, as well as the
comprehensive training to address how to help stakeholders review, examine, and interpret their data. The
State has convened a Data Management Team to work collaboratively with LEAs to discuss the
implications and bene?ts of using the longitudinal data systems. but details regarding actual implementation
are very general and the goals for implementing such a robust system so ambitious that they appear to be
unrealistic. The table that outlines the implementation goals and activities includes some activities for which
the timeline is so general (Dec 2009-Apr 2015) that it is effectively meaningless.

(CH3) Using data to improve instruction 18 4

Increasing the use of instructional improvement systems 6 2

Rae 0 7/13/2010

Technical Review Page 4 of 10

(ii) Supporting LEAs, schools, and teachers in using instructional improvement 6 2
systems

Making the data from instructional improvement systems available to 6 
researchers

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

i) The plan very brie?y describes that the State will develop statewide benchmarkfformative assessments
for the new standards, which is very ambitious and that these assessments will be used by teachers to
inform instruction but there is little detail as to how that will be implemented. The plan also indicates that
these 'real-time' formative assessments will be tied to assessing teacher effectiveness and lead to
identifying professional development needs for teachers, without sufficient detail as to how this would
happen.

ii) As described in the plan support to LEAs, schools and teachers in using the Maine's Formative
assessment System for Teachers will be accomplished by SEA?provided data coaches who
would train school and district personnel. The proposal very briefly describes this significant activity and
includes a table with three goals and related activities; however, the timeframe for the majority of the
activities is too broad {June 2011 - Feb 2014) for it to be useful for tracking or actual implementation. Also,
this signi?cant aspect of the reform agenda is heavily dependent on an unnamed external vendods) so the
capacity of the State to implement this is dif?cutt to assess.

This goal is very brie?y stated with no supporting detail as to how it would actually be implemented.

.. a 

D. Great Teachers and Leaders

?i
Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals 21 3
Allowing alternative routes to certification 7 1
(ii) Using alternative routes to certification 7' 0
Preparing teachers and principals to ?ll areas of shortage 7 2

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

i) The State does currently have alternative routes to certi?cation for teachers (principals are not
mentioned), but they are all within institutions of higher education and only include one of the provisions
defined by the notice (they provide supervised, school-based experiences).

ii) No information about how many teachers or principals have been certi?ed through the alternative routes
is included in the application.

The application described areas of shortage and an overall percentage of teachers in shortage areas,
but did not include speci?c quantitative information about which areas were of greatest need. The
description of the EFM Loan Program is a good example of an incentive for teachers to serve in areas of
need; however, information regarding the number of teachers eligible for this program is not indicated so it
is unknown the impact that this program will have in addressing the problem, nor is it clear that this Program
would actually address the areas of shortage. The application describes a committee of stakeholders that
has been convened to develop a plan for resolve the shortages, which is a start, but not a plan that can be
implemented. No description of incentives or a strategy for preparing principals is described.

(DMZ) improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance 53 18

1 0 Tf13f2010

Technical Review Page 5 of 10

Measuring student growth 5 1

{ii) Developing evaluation systems 15 4
Conducting annual evaluations 10 3
(iv) Using evaluations to inform key decisions 28 10

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

i) Given that the state has just recently begun to track individual student data. implementing a Multi-faceted
Professional Accountability System (MPAS) that will be able to link student growth to teacher and principal
effectiveness and be fully operational by Fall 2012 as stated in the plan is very ambitious, and given the
lack of implementation detail, probably unrealistic. Additionally, the plan appears to have multiple aspects
that are variable and could compromise the integrity of the program such as using measure other than
NECAP, or using a locally developed system instead of the MPAS.

ii) The plan describes that the State will permit the use of either the MPAS or a 'locally developed system
deemed as equivalent in design, rigor and focus' which provides a level of flexibility that potentially weakens
the strength of the proposal. Additionally this local model may need to be approved by a stakeholder group,
but does not de?ne the stakeholder group or the approval process. The performance measures for this
aspect of the plan only identify 35% of participating LEAs as the target for implementation by the end of the

grant, which is very low.

The description of the evaluation systems that incorporate indicators of teacher and principal
effectiveness based on student performance is very general and only describes that the MPAS annual
evaluation system makes ?possible', not that it will ensure this aspect of evaluation. Annual teacher
evaluations are only broadly described and the nature of timeliness and quality of feedback to teachers is
not described. Principal evaluation based on student achievement is only vaguely mentioned.

iv] A general implementation plan with a timeline is articulated but does not include many details. The
MPAS Project Goals address the ?ve required areas; however, as indicated in the Performance Measures.
by the end of the grant {2014] the targets for the percentage of participating LEAs that would be using the
evaluation systems to inform teacher or principal compensation, promotion or removal of ineffective
professionals is very low.

Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals 25 7
Ensuring equitable distribution in high?poverty or high-minority schools 15 5
(ii) Ensuring equitable distribution in hard?tc-staff subjects and specialty areas 10 2

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

i) The State has defined high-poverty and high-minority schools that meets the definition of the notice;
however the definition of effective teachers and principals does not appear to include student achievement
growth. Additionally, the targets for ensuring this equitable distribution by the end of the grant are very low
(306091;).

ii) The State has identi?ed specific areas of teacher shortages {lists them) and brie?y describes that
technical assistance that was previously provided that focused on offering professional development
opportunities to address these areas. However, it is not clear that the technical assistance was effective
because no data is provided that links the professional development to decreasing these teacher
shortages, particularly in high-needs schools.

Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation 14 3
programs
Linking student data to credentialing programs and reporting publicly 3

0 7f 1 3!.2010

Technical Review Page 6 of 10

(ii) Expanding effective programs 7 

(D){4l Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1}

i) While the plan indicates that "many" of Maine's public and private educator preparation programs have
agreed in a 'Statement of Purpose' to transition to a system based on Maine's 10 initial Teacher
Certi?cation Standards linked to "national teacher certification standards and Maine?s content standards".
there is no implementation plan for how this would happen. Additionally, given that the tracking of
individual student achievement data is a relatively new effort for the state, it is very ambitious to indicate
that the effectiveness of these preparation programs could be effectively linked to the preparation
institutions. However, given that there are only 16 teacher and 8 principal credentialing programs in the
state. perhaps this is more achievable than it initially appears. The lack of detail in an implementation plan
makes it dif?cult to assess.

ii} The application does not indicate how the State would expand effective programs.

(Dit?) Providing effective support to teachers and principals 6
Providing effective support 10 3
(ii) Continuously improving the effectiveness of the support 10 3

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

i) The plan articulates a leadership development effort based on prior efforts in the Maine Leadership
Academy. It appears that this is primarily for principals but some of the content refers to teacher leadership
so it is unclear who the exact audience is. Also. the number of participants identified in the plan is for three
cohorts of 30 individuals or 90 over the course of the grant period. This appears to be inadequate for
supporting the teachers and principals in the 412 participating schoois. Speci?c details regarding common
planning and collaborations for teachers and principals that are job embedded are not described. Specific
strategies for improvement such as differentiated instruction (particularly for speci?c high-needs students)
are mentioned but no implementaion details included.

ii} The plan states that the professional development system will include ongoing evaluation and that an
external ?rm or consultants will be engaged to assist. Because of the lack of implementation detail, it is
unclear what the evaluation activities will be and also unclear how the results would be used to inform and
improve other professional development.

E. Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools

lntervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs 10 1O

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

As described in the application, legislation currently exists that allows the State to intervene both
in persistently low-achieving schools and LEAs.

Turning around the lowest-achieving schools 40 23
identifying the persistently lowest?achieving schools 5 5
(ii) Turning around the persistently lowest?achieving schools 35 23

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

1 ti 7713:9010

Technical Review Page 7 of 10

i) The application has articulated a method for identifying the persistently lowest-achieving schools as
defined by the notice.

ii) The application describes that each of the four school intervention models could be used and therefore
addresses the requirement of the notice. The State has demonstrated prior success with turning around a
considerable number of Title low-achieving schools which indicates that they can build on this

success. The application identifies an "improvement Network" as a system of support and a Turnaround
Team of School Consultants that would be comprised of former administrators. These teams would also
work with the regional improvement teams to evaluate outcomes on a regular basis. The plan also
describes intensive support for dropout prevention that incorporates the Jobs for Maine's Graduates (JMG)
which has demonstrated previous success. Each of these aspects of the turnaround plan is evidence that
the State could be successful in future turnaround efforts.

However, given that the State has been using these strategies with the persistently lowest-achieving
districts, it is unclear what additional intervention will be provided in a systemic way to stimulate
improvement. Additionally. the description of the framework or structure that would be used by all schools is
limited. Significant customization of the activities and implementation plan is required for each school so it
is difficult to determine how systemic the reform efforts would be.

F. General
Tier i
Making education funding a priority 10 8
Allocating a consistent percentage of State revenue to education 5 5
(ii) Equitably funding high-poverty schools 5 3

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

i) The percentage of the state revenue allocated to education was greater in 2009 than in 2008


ii} The application described provisions for equitable funding for high-needs LEAs but no provision for
equitable funding for high-needs schools within LEAs.

(FHZ) Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and 40 5
other innovative schools

Enabling high-performing charter schools "(caps)"
(ii) Authorizing and holding charters accountable for outcomes
Equitably funding charter schools

(iv) Providing charter schools with equitable access to facilities




Enabling LEAs to operate other innovative. autonomous public schools

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1}
i iv) None of these criteria are addressed in the application.

1 0 7i? i 3:20 0

Technical Review Page 8 of 10

v) Legislation was enacted in early 2010 that enabled LEAs to operate ether innovative, autonomous public
schools and it appears that several have applied for approval. Most aspects of the definition in the notice
were addressed with the exception of budgetary control.

Demonstrating other significant reform conditions 5 2

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)
The application describes the following reform activities:

- AP4AII

- increased graduation goals

- STEM plan

- preschool effort

- school administrative reorganization act

Documentation of increased enrollment in AP classes was cited in several LEA's. Without additional
information it is unclear that these activities represented signi?cant reform in the State.

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Emphasis on STEM

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Emphasis on STEM 15 0

Competitive Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The description of STEM activities was not coherent or pervasive throughout the application. Of the three
categories of a high-quality plan to address the STEM priority, the only one that the description met was
that of collaborating and cooperating with various partners. It did not describe a rigorous course of study in
the STEM areas. and specifically did not address the needs of underrepresented groups and of women and

girls.
i 15 r?
Absolute Priority - Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform
I lie Til: 
Absolute Priority - Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform No

Absolute Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The application describes goals for each of the reform areas but lacks speci?city regarding how the
State would actualize each goal. This is a major weakness. The application is very general throughout and
the lack of clarity about what would actually be implemented is problematic. The relatively low participation
of districts statewide in combination with the low support teacher associations and the low targets for
implementation indicate a low level of statewide impact on student achievement (particularly for high~needs
students).

http:/I {i 7f13i?201f}

Technical R?view Page 9 of 10

233

http:/f id=2950ME-1 0 7J1 3/2010

'l'cchnical Review Page 1 ofll

Race to the Top
Technical Review Form - Tier 1

Maine Application 

   

A. State Success Factors

Available Tier 1

(Al(1) Articulating State's education reform agenda and LEA's participation in it 65 39
Articulating comprehensive, coherent reform agenda 5. I 5
(ii) Securing LEA commitment . I - I. 45 24
Translating LEA participation into statewide impact Reviewer Comments: [Tier 1)

The state is moving forward to create personalized learning opportunities for all students. This overall
plan is focused on Maine's vision- its people will be among 'the best educated in the world'. The plan
addresses standards and assessments, expanding the longitudinal data system, creating new educator
evaluation systems and addressing school achievement for low performing schools.

The approach appears unique for a statewide K12 education system, especially in areas related to
personalized learning, laptop initiativelfocus on technology. and the systems supports to assist students
and teachers. The reform plan is impressive in many ways.

The reform plan at ?rst did not appear to have a focus around persistently low performing schools, but
subsequent sections of the proposal present the Maine plan and their success rate of improved student
achievement. The work around persistently low performing schools in Maine has produced impressive
results.

(ii) The MOU provided in the appendix contains both required components and optional components. Of
concern is the level of commitment from various required groups. The number of LEA commitments
includes an opt-out clause for LEAs, and apparently many of the LEAs have taken advantage of this
option. It appears as if the Maine reform plan has not attracted strong support from teacher union groups.
Overall there are key issues with the securing of LEA commitments for the reform plan.

The scope of work descriptions requiring LEAs to implement all or signi?cant portions of the plan is
questionable, with both required and optional components included. Maine appears to have difficulty
creating a program to tie student achievement to educator evaluations. In addition, the focus in the plan for
great teachers and principals focuses almost exclusively on teachers. Principals are mentioned in various
parts of the section on great teachers and principals. but the quality of strategies to meet the criterion are
limited to discussion and little concrete action re: these strategies.

A significant number of the LEAs are participating in the plans. with all superintendents on board
and of school board presidents. Only 30% of teacher unions are committed via the MOU, and there is
no explanation for these discrepancies. The participation of LEAs, in terms of superintendents is a positive
signal that LEA participation has the potential to produce strong statewide impact. The overall support of
many of the school board presidents also is a positive sign for the potential of state-wide impact. However.
the lack of strong teacher support is cause for concern.

hnicalre 7f] 2f2010

Technical Review Page 2 of 

The data provided regarding NAEP and ESEA subgroup performance show an overall positive trend for
subgroups from 2003-2009. Of note is the plan to raise NAEP scores by 2-3% from one testing cycle to the
next, yet no explanation of how this will be accomplished. Setting arbitrary goals without de?ning the steps
to be taken raises serious concerns.

Maine has both positive programs and results in place to build a foundation for statewide impact. LEAS
appear to have been successful in the positive, steady growth in student achievement over the past few
years (2003-2009). On the other hand. the proposal acknowledges a need to focus on high school
achievement and graduation rates. Steps taken to address ways to increase college enrollments are
impressive through increased accountability at the high school and higher education levels.

{Aim Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain 30 21
proposed plans
Ensuring the capacity to implement 20 14
(ii) Using broad stakeholder support 10 

Reviewer Comments: [Tier 1)

Most of the LEAs are participating in the plans, with all superintendents on board and 78% of
school board presidents. The state appears to have built strong support from all component parts of state
and community, with the exception of the teacher unions, and appears to have the capacity to implement
the proposed plan. The lack of the Maine Teacher Union signature on the plan impacts the state-wide
capacity, but overalt the level of support appears to be strong, as evidenced by the breadth of support at all
levels- federal, state and local of?cial letters of support.

The plan proposes extensive professional development to support implementation of initiatives. This
is an example of the support that appears extensively throughout the grant application to demonstrate
strong support for LEAs. Of signi?cance, Maine has 82 LEAs and a low population base overall. In this
setting support for LEAs from the state appears to be ongoing based on past history.

The implementation of effective and efficient operations is strong. as evidenced by the plan to use similar
processes, budget reporting and monitoring as currently being used with ARRA funds. Furthermore. the
plan's budget proposal refocuses current initiatives into a single funding stream that will allow the state to
expand current projects such as leadership academies and professional development in
standardsiassessments) while reallocating and re-purposing funds to meet meet the four reform
requirements. Examples include new efforts in alternative certi?cation programs and more options for
innovative schools.

The plan for this state builds on many current initiatives and expands these strategies at a much quicker
pace based on funding. In addition, there are legal and regulatory provisions to support many of these
initiatives. This is evidence of continued support for plans after funding ends.

(it) The state principalr?administrators associations appear to be strongly supportive of the state plan. As
mentioned previously the state teacher union leader did not sign onto the plan, and only 30% of teacher
union leaders at the LEA level committed to the plan.

Other critical stakeholders have strongly committed, as evidenced by the letters of support. The number
and content of many letters is evidence of this strong support. These letters came from elected of?cials at
the state and federal levels. business organizations, higher education institutions and other education-
related non?pro?ts.

(ANS) Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing 30 19
gaps
Making progress in each reform area 5 4

7f12f2010

'l'cchnica] Review Page 3 ol? 1 1

(ii) Improving student outcomes 25 15

(Ana) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)
The state appears to be making progress in three of the four reform areas. Especially impressive is the
state's work in turning around many persistently low performing schools (24 of 36 to date). The one reform
area where there appears to be a real lack of progress is Great Teachers and Leaders- almost all of their
focus in this area is on teachers. with little emphasis on principals.

(ii) Achievement in a variety of outcome measures in mixed. as evidenced by the information below:

. Performance on the state assessment shows general progress. with subgroups improving their
performance signi?cantly.

- NAEP performance appears to be ?at in some areas and generally improving (slowly in others).
Achievement gaps mirror the trends of state assessment results.

. Graduation rates have actually declined since 2003. with the plan stating the change in calculation
impacted the trend. However. a review of the data beginning in 05-06 shows a four years trend of
overall decreasing graduation rates.

Total 125 79

B. Standards and Assessments

Available - Tier?t

Developing and adopting common standards 40 40
Participating in consortium developing high-quality standards 20 20
(ii) Adopting standards 20 20

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The state is participating in a number of consortia. including the New England Compact Consortium. and
the SCASS project sponsored by the Council of Chief State School Of?cers. These consortia are creating
common standards that are internationally benchmarked and provide standards to improve student
preparation for post-high school success. Each consortia is made up of a number of states. ranging from
the New England Consortium (5 or fewer states} to the SCASS project (40+ states). In addition. Maine has
been one of the 48 states involved with the Achieve consortia on setting world class standards.

(ii) The state has outlined a specific adoption process for the common standards currently being finalized.
This plan includes legislative action to permit the Commissioner to ?nalize this over the summer of 2010 to
meet the August deadline for adoption.

(3H2) Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments 10 10
Participating in consortium developing high-quality assessments 5 5
(ii) Including a significant number of States 5 5

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The state's commitment to assessment is evidenced by its participation in a number of consortia focused
on improved assessments, including the SMARTER Balanced Assessment program. Accountability and
Systems Reporting. Career and Technical Assessment Consortium. Science Education Assessment. and
the State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards. In addition. the New England Consortium

7/1320?)

'l'cchnica] Review Page 4 of] 

is involved with the development of high-quality assessments. The number of states in these numerous
consortia exceeds the minimum state requirement of the rubric, with state participating in these consortia

Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality 20 15
assessments

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The state has provided a comprehensive and coherent plan to support the state?s transition to enhanced
standards and assessments. The implementation of the Common Core Standards appears to be the driver
of signi?cant initiatives to focus standards and assessments around the state's vision for students-
personalized learning.

The plan includes activities. timelines and the responsible parties; the overall activities are followed by
specific. concrete steps to achieve these activities. Especially appropriate for this proposal is the emphasis
on designing and developing STEM-related assessments, as well as developing a plan for increasing
statewide support for students through professional development of teachers.

In addition. the state is proposing to focus on early childhood standards and guidelines as a part of the
whole system's approach to improved standards and assessments.

The major weakness of the plan is a lack of specificity around the development of a plan to incorporate the
Common Standards into the roll out of these standards by content area. A set of bulleted steps is provided.
but the lack of speci?city makes it dif?cult to assess the comprehensiveness and the practicality of this area
of the proposal.

Total To 65

C. Data Systems to Support Instruction

Available Tier 1
(CH1) Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system 24 22

(CH1) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The state has completed all elements but #12. although the ambiguity in response around specific capacity
and implementation issues is cause for concern.

Accessing and using State data . 5 4

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The state's plan includes a Data Management Team to work cooperatively with other state agencies and
LEAs on the longitudinal data system effort to access and use state data. The plan is coherent and
comprehensive. as evidenced by the plan's goals. activities, dates and persons responsible. Included in
this plan is concrete and speci?c- in the proposal provides a series of speci?c steps are provided to
implement the missing elements of the America COM PETES act. The goals of the plan are especially
appropriate. focusing on key weaknesses the state has identi?ed. Throughout the discussion of the state's
plan. the state's willingness to audit all agencies in state government, provide professional development for
LEA personnel, and create dashboards on performance. provides strong evidence of a well crafted
approach.

The major weakness is the lack of an explanation regarding the capacity to inform parents in the
plan, including the availability of information in the native language of the state's subgroups of population.

7f 1 2/201 0

technical Review Page 5 01' I 1

(CH3) Using data to improve instruction 18 5
Increasing the use of instructional improvement systems 6 2
(ii) Supporting LEAs. schools. and teachers in using instructional improvement 6 2
systems
Making the data from instructional improvement systems available to 1
researchers

(CH3) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The overall information provided in the narrative section appears to be a philosophical discussion
about the need for the subsection elements of (OMB). A few speci?c examples of systems currently in use
are mentioned. such as (the state's current testing program). but the explanation of the use of
these examples is limited. There is limited discussion of the details of how the plan will increase
instructional improvement systems- the speci?cs are missing. In addition. the overall concept is to take the
current state testing program and enhance its current functions to address improvement through providing
educators with additional data and information. However, there is limited information presented about how
this would be accomplished.

The state plan provided has listed goals. activities. timelines and persons responsible. but due to the lack of
information in the narrative, the plan as presented is not as clear as necessary to adequately review.

In sum. the applicant's information regarding the increase in acquisitionladoption of local instructional
improvement systems is not clear in the proposal. The current LEA efforts to provide professional
development on how to use data systems is not clear in the proposal. The availability of data to research
efforts is also not clear in the proposal. 

Total . 4? 31

D. Great Teachers and Leaders

Available Tier 1

Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals - 21 4
Allowing alternative routes to certi?cation 3 1
(ii) Using alternative routes to certi?cation 1 0
Preparing teachers and principals to ?ll areas of shortage 7 3

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)
The options. current usage and a process for monitoring shortages are all focused on teachers.
Limited information is provided about principal alternative routes or ?lling shortages in high needs schools-
there appears to be neither provisions nor options for principal candidates. A leadership academy is
mentioned in the area of principal professional development. but this appears questionable as viable
alternative route to certi?cation for principals.

The discussion of alternative routes to certi?cation is mixed. There appear to be appropriate statutory and

regulatory policies to allow alternative routes. but there are none currently in use. and the provision of non-
IHE options is apparently not in place. There was no explanation of why there is statutory provision but the
alternative route is apparently not being used.

The discussion ofways to deal with critical shortages is limited. with the Maine loan forgiveness program
cited as a key strategy to provide incentives for teacher shortages in critical high needs areas. However.

[l

'l?cchnical Review Page 6 ol' 1 

the Maine loan forgiveness program does not appear to be a unique program focused on shortages of
teachers andlor content. This information in this sections needs further clari?cation.

{01(2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance 58 29

Measuring student growth 5 1
(ii) Developing evaluation systems 15 9
Conducting annual evaluations 1D 5
(iv} Using evaluations to inform key decisions 28 14

(01(2) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1}

Maine has not implemented a growth model at this time. and the plan to develop a growth model is
inadequate, stating that the Department is developing one for full operation by 2012. No evidence or
explanation is cited to explain how this is being developed. The state does have a current plan to measure
student growth overtime. and the focus on raising NAEP scores 2-3% from one testing cycle to the next
does not provide a detailed explanation of how this improvement is to be achieved.

(ii) The design and implementation of an evaluation system is hampered by the lack of a viable plan to
develop a growth model to measure student growth over time. The plan presented appears to be focused
on teachers only- principal evaluation tied to performance appears not to be a factor.

The narrative in this section is very limited. yet the plan appears to be coherent and
comprehensive. The lack of details explaining the plan. including use with principals, is a concern. It is
dif?cult to understand the intent and implementation plan without a narrative base as a foundation. The
plan is presented in chart form and covers the requirements of activities. timelines and responsibilities.
However, there is little presentation of a narrative to explain in detail the implementation process for this

plan.

(DHS) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals 25 5
Ensuring equitable distribution in high-poverty or high-minority schools 15 3
(ii) Ensuring equitable distribution in hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas 10 2

{01(3) Reviewer Comments: [Tier 1)

The state is not addressing the equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals in its plan. The
proposal states that because of the size of Maine and its rural nature. the number of high-poverty. high-
minority schools is not as pressing a need as found in other states. The narrative on equity includes
general information, but not speci?c details about the plan other than the use of MPAS than 'includes
measures to promote equitable distribution of teachers". One strategy proposed is to use technology to
bring new opportunities to all students. which will bene?t those high-poverty schools.

Currently there are no provisions for compensation tied to performance for either teachers or principals.
and plans in the future appear to be general and limited.

The requirements of this section are addressed in a limited manner. If there is not a pressing need re:
equity in the state. additional information and data should be provided to validate this position.

(01(4) Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation 14 5

programs
Linking student data to credentialing programs and reporting publicly 3
(ii) Expanding effective programs 2

E-S 7f12i?20 

technical Review Page 7 ol? 1 

Reviewer Comments: [Tier 1)

The narrative for is inadequate in terms of linking student achievement and growth to teachers
and principals. The information presented is limited and generic there is no clear commitment to this
requirement other than as statement that says with the SLDS this information could be linked. The plan
does not commit to the requirements of this subsection.

(ii) The information supplied in above applies to this subsection as well. The narrative refers to generic
possibilities. but there is no commitment in writing to the requirements of this subsection.

Overall, there does not appear to be a detailed plan for this criterion, which contributes to the scoring of this

section.

(DHS) Providing effective support to teachers and principals 20 9
Providing effective support 10 5
(ii) Continuously improving the effectiveness of the support 10 4

(0H5) Reviewer Comments: [Tier 1)

The narrative discusses at length the professional development plans for aspiring principals. including
the curriculum at various Academies. Generic strategies with no explanation are mentioned for teachers.
There does not appear to be a high quality plan. with activities, timelines and persons responsible for
teachers. and a set of strategies for principals.

(ii) The narrative does not provide a speci?c plan to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of the
supports for teachers and principals, in order to improve student achievement. Continuous improvement as
a philosophical support mechanism is mentioned in the narrative, but there is no accompanying plan in this
section.

Total 133 - 52

E. Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools
Available Tier '1
lntervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs 10 10

Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1)

The state clearly has the authority, both in statute and regulation, to intervene in both School Administrative
Units (LEAs) and schools that are persistently lowest-achieving. Numerous statutes and regulations were
presented to support the intervention in these schools. Clear documentation through various legal steps is

presented.

(EH2) Turning around the lowest-achieving schools 40 40
Identifying the persistently lowest-achieving schools 5 5
(ii) Turning around the persistently lowest-achieving schools 35 35

Reviewer Comments: (Tier1)

The state has presented a wide-ranging and impressive plan to identify the persistently low-performing
schools, both Title 1 and non-Title 1, and has a wealth of strategies that have already been implemented,

13-5 2.90 t}

technical Review Page 8 of i i

with signi?cant success. In addition. new strategies are being proposed to help these schools. The
activities, timelines. and people responsible are anchored by the narrative description of current efforts and
the success of the Intervention Team strategy Currently in place. Examples of this plan include a list of
state statutes that clearly outlines the Commissioner's responsibilities to intervene. a list of current schools
in improvement. corrective action or restructuring. and the use of the turnaround model as required by 
in future identi?cation and intervention.

(ii) The support for LEAs in turning around these schools is well chronicled through two primary support
mechanisms- support for the implementation of the Intervention Model and support for assisting schools in
analyzing root cause analysis and intervention planning. Maine has signi?cant data to support the current
work in this area- 20 of 34 persistently low performing schools have exited CIPS (Continuous Improvement
Priority) status and have continued to make AYP.

Total 50 50

F. General

Available Tier 1

Making education funding a priority 10 9
Allocating a consistent percentage of State revenue to education 5 5
(ii) Equitably funding high-poverty schools 5 4

(F111) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

ti} Based on the information provided. the state has increased its percentage of state revenues dedicated
to education from FY 2008 to FY 2009.

{ii} Based on the information provided. the state has policies that appear to support equitable funding for
high poverty schools andfor LEAs. Included as evidenced is the state adequacy-based funding formula
entitled Essential Programs and Services. This model has been in place since 2003-2004.

Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and 40 3
other innovative schools
Enabling high-performing charter schools "(caps)" 8
(ii) Authorizing and holding charters accountable for outcomes
Equitably funding charter schools 7- 

(iv) Providing charter schools with equitable access to facilities

Co_mico;cn
on c: 

(v v) Enabling LEAs to operate other innovative. autonomous public schools

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

No evidence is provided about charter schools other than the following statement; "These are not
applicable in Maine". No points are awarded.

The state does allow LEAs to operate innovative andior autonomous schools other than charter
schools. Evidence provided include;

A new statute to promote the development of "Innovative Schools" by LEAs across the state. giving them
the authority to establish and operate innovative. autonomous public schools.

Online learning and technological opportunities. especially given the rural nature of the state.

7f12i?20 i]

'l'cchnical Review Page 0 of i i

Taken together these opportunities address the innovation requirement of It is not clear exactly it
and how the autonomy of schools are provided.

(FH3) Demonstrating other significant reform conditions 5 5

(FMS) Reviewer Comments; {Tier 1}

The state application has provided a number of significant reform efforts, both in statute and regulation.
that demonstrate evidence to support additional reform conditions. One reform in place is a redesign of
high schools. including redirecting federal funds to support whole school high school reform. Also
presented in the narrative are legislative goal setting around graduation. ?nancial incentives for pre-school
and a state STEM plan to target high needs LEAs.

The evidence supports satisfactory demonstration of significant reform conditions.

Total 55 22

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Emphasis on STEM

Available Tiori

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Emphasis on STEM 15 15

Competitive Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1]

The proposal could have been signi?cantly stronger in identifying and describing the STEM effort but there
is enough information presented to demonstrate that STEM is an important component of the K12 system
in Maine. Especially helpful was the description of Priority 2 in area Vll- Competition Priorities. This
information was helpful in better understanding the overall focus of STEM in the state. Also helpful was the
discussion of the state STEM plan to target high needs LEAs.

The current and planned STEM-related initiatives include;

. STEM partnerships in LEAs across the state.

- STEM Collaborative (non-profit) committed to improving STEM learning.

- STEM grants that have been applied for and are awaiting final decisions.

- A set of ambitious goals for raising student achievement in STEM areas, Increasing teacher training.
and increasing student aspirations.

This information and other references throughout the proposal provide suf?cient information to support
awarding appropriate points for the emphasis on STEM category.

Total 15 15

Absolute Priority - Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform
Available 'l ier1
Absolute Priority - Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform Yes

Absolute Reviewer Comments: [Tier 1)

The state plan is strong in a number of the reform areas, and needs improvement in the area of teacher
and principal performance issues. The lack of teacher union support raises questions about the capacity of
commitment to make the plan successful across the state.

7. 13'1?] ll

'I'cchnical Review Page 10 of 

Especially strong is the work on standards and assessments, as evidenced by the number of consortia the
state is participating in to create internationally benchmarked standards and assessments. The plan (is
personalized learning) is designed to signi?cantly improve K12 education in the state. The use of
technology related to improved instruction around new standards and assessments is especially
appropriate given the rural nature of the state.

In addition to the weakness of the teacherlprincipal reform area the charter schools area appears to be
limited. However, the state appears to have the legal authority to move fonivard with alternative options for
some educators and for students who want options for school attendance.

Overall the plan has both and weaknesses. with the most glaring concern the lack of teacher
support for the reform plan and this impact on capacity to implement.

Total 0

Grand Total 500 314

7/12/2010

Technical Review Page 1 of 1

Race to the Top
Technical Review Form - Tier 1 Vt?
Maine Application 

A. State Success Factors

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EE .. .. Avalla?ble?TmrL
(EAH1) Articulating State' education reform agenda and participation In It? 24
Articulating comprehensive. coherent reform agenda 5 4 
(ii) Securing LEA commitment 45 13 

Translating LEA participation into statewide impact 15 

 

 

[Aim Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1}

Maine articulates a moderately comprehensive reform agenda Their narrative indicates that they are dedicatedE
to designing a transformational system that Is comprised of ?ve interrelated elements: personalized learning; .
performance-based learning; systems of learning support; great teachers and leaders. and data used to guide teaching
and learning. Maine is in the process of implementing the new Common Core Standards and Common Cross State
Performance Assessments including STEM areas. Maine is in the process of implementing the Maine Professional
Accountability System which will evaluate teachers and principals in part based on the growth and achievement of
students. Maine plans on providing ongoing support to teachers and principals in low-achieving schools. Maine earned
high points for this element.

Maine's MOU requires a high level of participation and is moderately ambitious. However, it is weakened by
"the opt out" phrase related to collective bargaining. The scope of work is ambitious but is weakened considerably by
having over 25 of the elements being optional. Maine seems to have garnered only low to moderate support from
LEAs. Maine only has 38% of LEAs agreement to participate in Part of the criteria is that the state should have
as "Signatures from as many as possible of the LEA superintendent (or equivalent). the president of the local school
board (or equivalent. if applicable]. and the teachers? union leader the extent of leadership support
within participating LEAs Of those LEAs who have agreed to participate. only 78% of the President's of local school
i boards signed the agreement. and only 30% of Local Teacher's Union Leader signed the agreement. Maine appears to
have only low to moderate commitment from LEAs. Maine earned lowtmoderate points for this element. 

Maine is working across state agencies to achieve content area goals. However. the lack of broad LEA
support (see weakens the proposal. In particular, only 30% of union leaders signing the MOU agreement.
making it dif?cult to achieve broad statewide impact. They have set moderate goals that result in a 243% per year

gain across reading and mathematics. and similar yearly goals for post-secondary enrollment rates. However. Maine's
narrative only talks generally about decreasing achievement gaps among minority and special populations. so it is hard
to make a judgment as to the level of commitment and ability to closing the gap. Of equal concern is that some of the
items of the scope of work only had partial commitment (as low as from the School Administrative Units

(SAUs). Maine only talks in generalities about graduation rates. Maine earned moderate points for this element.

 

 

4. ?n-M?rl? 

 

 

 

 

Building strong statewide capacity to implement. scale up. and sustain 3t} 14

'proposed plans
Ensuring the capacity to implement 20 10
(ii) Using broad stakeholder support 10 4

 

 

 

7! 13/2010

Technical Review Page 2 of 11

Reviewer Comments: 

i) Maine appears to have weak to moderate capacity to implement and sustain them after funds are
dispersed. To Maine's credit. the state appears to plan to provide strong leadership through building an
integrated team composed of: Career and Technical Education; Guidance and Counseling and ESEA teams to .
allow schools and LEAs to work with one integrated team from the Department Maine plans on using an interfintra i
agency team but gives little detail as to the composition of this team and the team members responsibilities The
narrative suggests that efforts will be integrated into the Department's effort but there is no plan on how this will i
be accomplished in an ef?cient manner. More detail as to the implementation of the plan would have strengthened the
narrative. Detail in the budget suggests that most of the work will be done by outside contractors with few provisions to I
continue the work after funds have been dispersed. It Maine does not have the infrastructure to implement these 3
plans hiring outside contractors could be an ef?cient method to bring in the necessary expertise. HoweverI it is not clear
how the outside contractors will build internal support and sustainability for There is a general statement related 
to the integration of funds but no details are provided to how different funds will be used to support the initiative.
it appears that Maine has the internal mechanisms to manage the grant funds. The narrative states that Maine will use
its current grants management and fiscal oversight procedures to administer funds. Maine earned low-moderate
points for this section.

Maine has moderate to weak stakeholder support for Maine has received letters of support from 30
stakeholders such as Ii-lEs, business community members, state legislatures, and congressional members.
However Maine only has 33% of LEA's support. and only 30% of the union leadership has signed the MDUs.
Additionally. the Maine Education Association voted to not support the application. The Maine Principals
Association did not provide a letter of support either. This is a de?nite detriment to implementing and sustaining the
process. Maine earned low points for this element.

 

 

 

 

Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing 30 19

_gaps

I Making progress in each reform area 5 4
(ii) Improving student outcomes 25 15 

 

 

 

 

3 Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

Maine has used state funds, ARRA funds and funds from such organizations as the Gates
Foundation and the National Governors Organization to make progress in the four education reform

areas. Maine has been involved in developing content standards since 1997. These standards were revised i
in 2007. As a continuation of this process, Maine is a member of the consortium that is developing the 
Common Core Standards They plan on adopting these standards later this year They also have made
strides in developing assessments that are tied to their standards. Maine points to its innovative use of
technology to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of educators in high needs areas. Maine has had
a Statewide Longitudinal Data System since 200?. Additionaily, Maine has passed legislation that allows

the use of Student Social Security numbers in the data system This support is weakened by the fact that I
parents do have an opt-out option. Maine points to their success with Title I schools as evidence to supportI 
their ability to turn around schools but they do not give evidence as to what that success is. Maine

has made signi?cant progress in these reform areas. Maine earned high points for this element.

Maine has had mixed results in their quest to improve in student achievement. Maine historically
has had high achievement in their state. Generally the whole group improved approximately at a rate of
change of1.0? in mathematics and 1.15 in reading for grades four. eight and eleven. In reading. this is an 8 I
change since 2005. Mathematics has had a modest increase at the fourth and eighth grades of about
3% and has held steady for eleventh graders. Similar results were reported for NAEP data. Aggregated 
data suggest that scores went up two to three scaled points per year. While there was general improvementi
across all categories of students in both NAEP and ESEA data, gaps between majority groups and minority
groups have not been closed signi?cantly. Graduation rates have been trending down since 2002 -2003.
Maine changed their method of counting graduates in 2009, and believes it is not possible to compare that 
year to previous years. However, even discounting 2009 data, graduation rates have been trending 

7f13f201 0

Technical Review

Pageii ofll

downward to the point where there was almost a negative 5% difference in 2008 from 2002. Data were not
desegregated for graduation rates. Maine receives moderate points for this element.

 

 

 

 

 

 

WELT 125 s:
B. Standards and Assessments

I -. -. Avg?gble 7.9? i
Developing and adopting common standards 40 35

Participating in consortium developing high-quality standards 20 20

rm (ii) Adopting standards 20 



 

 

 

 

Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1)

Maine is working with several consortia to develop high-quality standards. This common set of K-

12 standards are supported by evidence that they are internationally benchmarked and build toward college
and career readiness by the time of high school graduation. Some examples of the consortia include: 3
Common Core Standards Consortia (50 statesfterritories); American Diploma Project (35 states) Career
Technical Education Consortium of States (14 states). A significant number of states are involved in these
efforts. Maine earns high points for this element.

i{ii) Maine plans on having the Common Core Standards adopted in August with ?nalization planned
for 2011 by the legislature. The governor signed into law legislation giving the Commissioner of
Education the ability to adopt the standards through emergency rule making. it is not clear in the narrative
what the difference between ?nalization and adoption is and therefore how this will impact the
implementation, thus weakening the plan. Maine earned in the low range of high points for this element.

 



 

Developing and Implementing common, high-quality assessments 10 10
(ii Participating in consortium developing highouality assessments 5 5
{ii} Including a signi?cant number of States 5 5

 

 

 

 

i





i assessments

 

. . .. 

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

-ii) Maine is actively developing and implementing common. high-quality assessments. Maine is .
participating in two (2) consortia developing high-quality assessments tied to their common core standards.
Maine is a part of the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) which is comprised of four 
states. This consortium has been recognized by the USED as an excellent example of a consortium
developing high quality assessments that are benchmarked to high quality standards. These assessments
are both formative and summative and are being designed to provide timely feedback to students and
teachers. Maine is also a "Governing State" with the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (33
States). This consortium is working together to providing high quality assessment that provides timely
feedback to both teachers and students. These assessments will be internationally benchmarked and can
provide summative program assessment. Maine earned high points for each element (i and ii}.

 

BH3) Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality

 

20 14

 

 

 



Revlewer Comments: (Tier 1)

(B) (3) Maine presents a moderately comprehensive plan to roll out the new Common Core Standards and
concomitant assessments. The ambitious plan includes: providing information sessions for parents1
students and general public; support for development of model syllabi and instructional materials; support
for LEAs to purchase computer based assessment systems, and support for regional collaborative. it



1
i

7/13f2010

Technical Review Page 4 of 1 1

seems to incorporate all of the necessary components. While a timeline is provided, the process of the roll
out is not clearly de?ned which is a weakness. The State refers to various teams as bearing responsibility,
but it is not clear how these teams will function and who will be on the teams. This is a weakness. Maine
earned moderate points for this section.

 

 

 

MI- warp??

 

 

 

C. Data Systems to Support Instruction

Available i Tier 1 
. .u .
Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system 24 i 22

 

 

(cm) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

Maine has eleven of twelve components met. They have not met the tthe last criteria however, They continue 5
to re?ne their system and work on increasing access to data and increasing the types of data collected. Maine earned 
i high points for this element.

nee-m1-

 

.- .1:

i Accessing and using State data 5 i 5

 

 

 

(CH2) Reviewer Comments: (Tier1)

Maine has put together a high-quality achievable plan to ensure that data from the state's longitudinal 
data system are accessible to and used appropriately by key stakeholders. Governance of the data system 
resides with the Of?ce of Information Technology. Maine anticipates that the Data System will provide
educators with objective data that can guide decisions regarding instruction, professional development,
school improvement initiatives. and personnel decisions. The Data Management Team in collaboration with
the School Administrative Units (SAU) school, and community level will work together to ensure there

be continuous improvement of efforts in such areas as policy, instruction, operations, management, 
resource allocation, and overall effectiveness. Maine's timeline and responsible parties table appears to i
meld together a group of contractors and department staff to implement and evaluate the system. The use
of contractors for the design and implementation of the technology and data system seems to be an

efficient method of implementing this complex and comprehensive system. Maine earned high points for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this section.
[cits] Using data to improve instruction 13 12
Increasing the use of instructional improvement systems 6 6
7 
(ii) Supporting LEAs, schools, and teachers in using instructional improvement 8 6
systems i
Making the data from instructional improvement systems available to i 6 i 
i researchers 

 



Reviewer Comments: [Tier 1)

(C)(3i(i)Maine has an high-quality achievable plan to increase the acquisition and use of local instructional
improvement systems. As a part of this plan Maine plans to deploy Maine's Formative Assessment System
for Teachers (Me FAST) which combined with information from their Data Warehouse will feed into an
overall improvement strategy that will provide teachers with on demand access to data. will
include Business Intelligence tasks that will plot achievement trajectories, draws conclusions based upon
trends, and recommends standard-centered interventions. These functions would certainly make it easier
for educatorsradministrators to analyze data, making the use of the system attractive to the stakeholders.

i This would naturally encourage expanded usage. The system as planned would seem to provide

critical performance data for critical tasks to all stakeholders. Maine earned high points for this section.

7f13i?2010

Technical Review Page 5 of 11

. Totai

Maine has built an innovative and achievable plan for supporting stakeholders in using

instructional improvement systems. Maine plans on providing support to participating LEAs and schools

that are using Instructional improvement systems by providing PD to teachers, administrators and principals
on how to use the system and data to support continuous improvement. Maine has developed a plan based .
on job-embedded PD to foster successful implementation of Another ambitious but achievable 
part of this plan is training SAUs to use data to drive Response to Intervention. Maine earned high 
points for this section.

Maine does not present a plan of how they will work collaboratively with researchers and other
stakeholders to identify practices and policies that are most effective in educating all students, especially
practices that are effective in ciosing the achievement gap. Maine's narrative states that they will continue
to work with researchers but does not supply any detail as to how this will be accomplished (who. what,
when and where). The timeline does not address this element either. Maine earned no points for this
element.

4? 39

 



D. Great Teachers and Leaders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I . . .. satay); fig.- 1
Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals 21 5
Allowing alternative routes to certi?cation 7 2 i
(ii) Using alternative routes to certification 0
Preparing teachers and! principals to ?ll areas of shortage 3

 

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

Maine has an alternative route to certi?cation for teachers, but it is housed in IHEs. No mention is
made of alternative routes to certi?cation for principals. These are weaknesses. Maine earned low points
for this section.

Maine has no alternative route teacher programs currently operating in the state. No mention of
principal programs was mentioned. Maine earned no points for this section. i

Maine has a partial plan in place for preparing teachers and principals to ?ll areas of

shortage. This plan includes a method for identifying criticat shortage areas for teachers. No mention is
made of principals. Maine's major way of addressing their shortages is through student loan forgiveness.
Maine currently does not have other methods to address shortages such as an expedited alternative route
or endorsement path. This is a weakness. Maine earned medium points for this element.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



(Dim Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance 58 20
Measuring student growth 5 2
. (ii) Developing evaluation systems . 15 1 5
MW Conducting annual evaluations 10 :i 5
Em (iv) Using evaluations to inform key decisions 28 i 8

 

 

(01(2) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

Maine has a partial plan to tie teacher and principal evaluation to student growth, However, the
plan is weakened by the fact that there will not be a speci?c percentage assigned to student growth as a

7113/2010

Technical Review Page 6 of 1 1

measurement of performance. This is a de?nite weakness of the plan. Low points were earned for this
element.

Maine's plan does not appear to be ambitious. Maine is in the process of developing evaluations
called the Multi-faceted Professional Accountability System. The system appears to have only two or
three ratings: highly effective and effective; and those who do not meet the previous criteria. This does not
seem to be enough of a deferential to provide effective feedback. The narrative does annotate that it will be
developed with principals and teachers by pulling together a stakeholder meeting after the funds are
won. There is an opt out phrase that allows LEAs to use equivalent systems of their own. There is not
enough description provided to allow one to judge how this opt out option would work. it would seem that
this option would considerably weaken the integrity of the plan. Maine uses language such as "makes
possible the use of assessment data". Stronger language that indicates that assessment data ?would be
used" would strengthen the narrative. Performance measures suggest that only 35% of participating
LEAs will be using the system by the end of the grant period. This would appear to not be an ambitious
goal. Maine earned moderate points for this element. 

Maine?s legislation supports annual evaluation of teachers and principals. The plan involves using i
the "Danielson" model but no speci?cs are given about the model, and therefore it is difficult to asses it?s
Additionally, little information is provided about the feedback loop and the methodology for .
implementing this plan. The narrative states that there will be feedback and student growth will be mapped 5
to evaluations, but little detail is provided to help in judging in the comprehensiveness and ability to
implement the plan. Moderate points were earned for this element.

D) (2) (iv) Maine's narrative does not adequately address this element. The performance measures table
suggests that Maine expect only 35 of participating LEAs to have qualifying evaluation system .This
translates into only 12% of LEAs statewide using the system. Of that 12 Maine expects 100% to use the
evaluation system: to develop teachers and principals; to retain principals and teachers, and to grant tenure 3
and full certi?cation. However, Maine only expects 10% of the LEAs with qualifying evaluation system to 
use the system for compensating teachers and principals; 25% for promoting teachers and principals, and 
20% for removing ineffective teachers and principals. This translates into about 2% participation across this 
state in these areas. This is not an ambitious goal. Other areas of the plan seem to have more ambitious
goals for the implementation of speci?c elements such as: retaining effective teachers and principals;
measuring student growth, and providing professional development. However, the plan is weakened since

it does not seem to be able to be used statewide to make some very important decisions.

Maine earned low points for this element.

"honed?, 4, .. n. . u-u-m?n?v?n? --

 

 

 

 

{Dj(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals 25 i 7

. .. .. 
Ensuring equitable distribution in high-poverty or high-minority schools 15 i 5
(ii) Ensuring equitable distribution in hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas 10 2

 

 

lDli3) Reviewer Comments: (Tier1)

-ii) Maine's narrative does not directly present a plan relating to these elements. Maine does have
method for highlighting shortage areas. The narrative refers to a plan that has not been implemented fully,
but gives little detail as to how it will be implemented other than to say that R'l?l?l' funding will enable them

to implement it. The narrative does mention that since 2006 Maine has implemented a Teacher Quality and 
Equity Action Plan. Maine used these funds to deliver monetary and technical assistance to increase
inequitable distribution of effective teachers and principals to schools and hard to staff
subjects and specialty areas. However, with no description of this plan or future plans it is not possible to
assign many points. Additionally, there is no baseline data available tojudge the performance measures
against. Maine eamed low points for both areas.

 

5? . a Mr

Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation 14 5 4

Won?L 

7! 312010

Technical Review

Page ofll

. .. .. . .
(I) Linking student data to credentialing programs and reporting publicly 7 4



nan-JV.

 

 

 

(ii) Expanding effective programs 7 

 

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

1D)(4)1i) Maine?s Student Longitudinal Data System is linked to student performance and growth information i
to individual teachers and principals as well as to preparation programs throughout the state. Performance
measures indicate that Maine expects 100% of teacher and principal preparation programs to have these i
data accessible to the public by the end of the grant. The narrative mentions that these data will help .
stakeholders make decisions about the quality of teacher and principal preparation programs. However, the
narrative does not give a plan for how these data will be reported which weakens the plan. Maine earned I
moderate points for this element.

narrative does not provide a plan for expanding effective programs. The narrative talks
about some of the improvements that have been implemented but there is no plan on expanding excellent
programs. No points were awarded.

.. jme

 

 

 

Providing effective support to teachers and principals 20 11 
Providing effective support 10 I
(ii) Continuously improving the effectiveness of the support 10 5 I

I.

Total 133 i 47 

E. Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools

 

 

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1}

1D)15)(i} Maine presents a plan for providing PD to teachers and leaders. Maine states that the plan will be
data driven. The models of PD focus on Leadership development and focuses on areas such as. Learning
Communities; implementing new teacher evaluation systems Response to Intervention etc However
most of the PD seems to be focused around Leadership Academies which seem to be being run in limited
locations and not at the SAUs themselves. It would seem that the Academy model would be generic and
therefore not able to support the speci?c needs of different SAUs and schools as stipulated in RTTF. For
example, there is no mention made referencing common planning time for collaboration among school
faculty and administration. Induction activities are mentioned in passing: but there are no specifics as to
how the induction activities will be implemented. More detail would have provided support for the
effectiveness of the program. Maine earned moderate points for this element.

Maine's narrative suggests that the evaluation plan will be data driven and Is based on the

National Staff Development Council' 5 Standards The narrative states that there will be ongoing evaluation

in order to continuously improve the effectiveness of support. Maine plans on using outside consultants to
do the evaluation, it is not clear if this will build sustainability within the state once funding Is I
exhausted. Maine earned moderate points for this element. 3



Available

Tier 1

 

lntervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs

 

10

 

10

 

{5)11) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1}

Maine appears to have the ability to intervene in the lowest-achieving schools. and LEAs. Maine
earned high points for this element.

 

TurnIng around the lowest-achlevmg schools

?id=2950ME-6

4D 29

.. 

7113:9010

Technical Review Page 8 of 11

Identifying the persistently lowest-achieving schools 3 5

 

 

(EMZJ Reviewer Comments: [Tier 1) .

24

Hancwiwmwu:


 

(ii) Turning around the persistently lowest-achieving schools 35



Maine shows a record of turning around low-performing schools. Maine has successfully turned 1
around 20 of 34 low performing schools in the last ?ve years. This is a commendable accomplishment and i
lends credence to their ability to implement their current plan in this area. Maine presents a plan that

is modeled on their previous successes. The foundation of this model is a cadre of school improvement
consultants. Additionally, Maine plans on using technology to facilitate the intervention process in rural
schools. This is an innovative use of consultants and technology. Maine says it will ask the schools to adopt
one of the four intervention models. However, Maine's narrative does not supply much information speci?c i
to these interventions. and the way these particular interventions would be implemented at the school or 
LEA level. This weakens the presentation. Most of the narrative focuses on the "consultant teams" that will
work with the schools but little evidence is presented relevant to any of the four sanctioned models. The
narrative refers to "turn around? teams but these appear to be outside advisers not directly related to any of
the models in particular. More information related to the models would have strengthened this 
proposal. Maine earned moderate points for this element.

 

Total 50 39 

 

 

 

 

F. General

. Mahatma Tia-f; ..
llFH'l) Making education funding a priority 10 1i]
i Allocating a consistent percentage of State revenue to educationm 5 5
I (ii) Equitably funding high-poverty schools 5 5

 

 

 

 

(FH1J Reviewer Comments: [Tier 1)



Maine allocates a consistent percentage of State revenue to education. The state is to be
commended for increasing the percentage of funding to education by approximately 3% over the past 2
years. Maine earned high points for this element.

 

Maine has an equitable formula for funding high poverty schools. Maine has a cost analysis
approach that calculates the level and cost of education components in each school. The essential
programs and services allocation calculated depends upon student. staff and school characteristics,
resulting in unique foundation operating costs for each LEA. This model is designed to ensure that
adequate and equitable resources are provided for all students with additional funds being allocated for
specialized student populations. Maine earned high points for this element.

 

Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and 40 

. other innovative schools

 



 

Enabling high-performing charter schools "(caps)"

 

 

rum-w 

 

[ii) Authorizing and holding charters accountable for outcomes

 

t-

n?

 

1mv-v?r-v-u-

Equitably funding charter schools

 

[iv] Providing charter schools with equitable access to facilities

 

Enabling LEAs to operate other innovative. autonomous public schools

.. 

 

 

commence

 

 

 

 

7f 1 3/2010

Technical Review Page 9 of 11

Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1}
Maine has no laws pertaining to charter schools. No points were earned for i?iv.

{F)(2)(v)Maine seems to have recently set the stage for innovation within the state in an ambitious.
innovative manner. Maine has recently enacted a law enabling LEAs to operate innovative autonomous
public schools. This law gives a school administrative unit the authority to establish innovative autonomous 
schools other than charter schools. in order to accomplish these plans, Maine has partnered with various
organizations such as the Chief State School Officers. Maine also are making effective use of technology to
ensure that students in rural parts of the state are exposed to the same types of courses and effective .
teachers as their urban counterparts. Maine earned high points for this section. i

. 

{Fit3) Demonstrating other significant reform conditions 5 i 5

. Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

Main has achieved success in setting up conditions to foster significant reform. In particular, Maine
has put significant effort into supporting secondary education. Maine has redesigned support systems for
secondary schools. have a focus on STEM, and seem to be making innovative use of technology to solve 
3 some of the equity challenges of a rural state. Maine has also focused on preschool education, and on
implementing the model of assistance for students at risk. They have enacted legislation that enables
school administrative units to be formed that best ?t the needs of the communities the SAU serves.
- These are all initiatives that set the stage for future reform. Maine earned high points for this element.

 

 

r?m?rv- 

iTotal 55 23

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Emphasis on STEM

.

tAvaiiabiel Tier1
.s

I

 

. 

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Emphasis on STEM 15

15

 

 

Competitive Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1)

Maine over the course of the last several years has placed an emphasis on STEM activities. They have
formed a STEM Collaborative of various stakeholders (non-pro?ts; government, and businesses) committed 
to improving STEM learning. There are other partnerships working to expand resources including those i
seeking grants from USDOED, NSF and NASA. Maine has also used technology innovatively to give rural 
and high-needs students' access to STEM courses. Maine earned points for this element.

 

 



lTotal 15 15 i

 

Absolute Priority - Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform

.. .. . . 

 

Availabte 3 Tier 1



Absolute Priority - Comprehensive Approach *0 Educatic'" ?mm? Yes

 

.

5; Absolute Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

Maine has presented a plan that coherently addresses the four reform areas of ARRA and is in the spirit of
the process. Maine has made significant progress in addressing standards and assessments and
has the backing of63% of the state's LEAs. Maine is member of several consortium that are dedicated

to developing a coherent set of core standards and assessments tied ultimately to student growth.

ew. aspx?id=2 9 OMB-6 32010

Technical Review Page 10 of 11

Maine has addressed issues related to STEM. While more union buy-in would be helpful, Maine?s record of
turning around low performing school districts is an indication of the state's ability to implement this plan.

?rm?w-n

 

?orand Total 500 1 279 

7/ 1 3,2010

Technical Review Page I of?)

Race to the Top

Technical Review Form - Tier 1 

Maine Application 

 

A. State Success Factors

Available Tier 1

(A1111) Articulating State's education reform agenda and LEA's participation in it 65 49
Articulating comprehensive. coherent reform agenda 5 5
(ii) Securing LEA commitment 45 35
Translating LEA participation into statewide impact 15 9

(AM) Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1}

This state has been seriously addressing reform with specific statutory efforts that have translated into
speci?c activities including adoption of rigorous state standards and assessments along with a statewide
achievement data base. These efforts began in 199? and were reaf?rmed in legislation passed in 200?.
The present plan builds on these previous efforts and expands its comprehensiveness. its commitments to
new and more rigorous standards and its expanded efforts to develop (in collaboration) related student
assessments. These expansions are all calling for the enhancement of student achievement. high school
graduation and post secondary readiness. The state plans to develop and implement a new teacher and
principal assessment system that includes student achievement as a key element. In short. the state has
generated a comprehensive and coherent plan aligned with that called for in the Request for
Proposal 

The state has made important efforts to secure LEA commitments that ensure a statewide effort. It was
successful in obtaining MOU sign-off from 100% of superintendents. some 80% of LEA board chairs. and
some 30% of LEA teacher leader representatives. These sign-offs are an important indicator of statewide
support and potential impact. however a key issue may lead to reduced impact:

- Some 60% of teacher leaders did not sign-off on the MOU-- this leaves the possibility of lessened
support by teachers statewide.

The state does articulate a set of statewide goals related to achievement in multiple areas. With regard to
student perfOrmance. the goals are achievable but not particularly ambitious-- increases of some 16%. with
no attention to substantive decreases in student achievement gaps. However. there is a clear mandate in
recent state law that sets a goal for student preparation such that 90% of high school graduates would be
prepared for post secondary education by 2020. an important and ambitious goal that resources
could assist in achieving.

Overall. the state plan as articulated in this proposal builds on present efforts in an important way but could
be weakened by issues related to statewide impact and less than complete student achievement goals

Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up. and sustain 30 20
proposed plans
Ensuring the capacity to implement 20 14
(ii) Using broad stakeholder support 10 6

comr?Racc'l'o'l'hc'l'opi?t Xi )Ft 3C nleS . .. 7:?1452010

Technical Review Page 2 of")

(AH2) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1]

The capacity for the state to implement the proposed plan is supported by a re-organized Department of
Education that has formed cross-cutting teams that are meant to enhance collaboration and are focused on
student educational enhancement at the state level with a "partnership" activities related to supporting
LEAs. The Department will form an Team that is made up of important stakeholders in education
including other state agencies. The Education Commissioner will oversee its efforts and coordinate with
other ongoing Department of Education activities. An Project Director will be employed to ensure day
to day operations in operations and ?nancial domains. In addition. ?scal activities will be monitored
by a newly created statewide ARRA oversight group in the Governors of?ce--this is an added plus in
maximizing communication and ef?ciencies related to state ARRA efforts. These collaborative efforts in
moving the plan forward are very positive and will address important aspects of overall support and
oversight. resources are intended to be used to provide system level develop Support efforts that
allow the antecedents of the products to be sustained once funds are expended. When
examining the budget that will be used to implement the plan. some 40% of the requested budget will be for
contracted services and therefore places a great deal of burden on the quality of those services. Although
this may not be overly problematic. no effort to describe quality assurances in the outsourcing endeavor is
available in the proposal. The budget does seem to tie resources directly to goals, but the lack of quality
assurance related to external contracting can lead to weakened implementation.

Since a statewide impact requires support of teachers and principals, the absence of substantial support on
the MOUs by teachers is relevant here in assessing support of the plan by these stakeholders. Overall,
other stakeholders in higher education. businesses. related professional associations. etc. af?rm their
support in over 30 positive letters.

Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing 30 21
gaps
Making progress in each reform area 5 5
(ii) Improving student outcomes 25 16

(Anti) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The state is making progress in all reform areas of importance in the RFP-- starting in the late 1990's
with adopting standards. utilizing statewide assessments and reaf?rming these with a new state law in
2007. Of particular significance. the state has begun to develop a data system that stretches from early
childhood to adulthood and has had success in turning around low achieving schools.

Maine has a record of solid student achievement. nationally. recently ranking in the top 10 in both reading
an mathematics on the NAEP. It has made improvements in student achievement. overall. on the National
Assessment of Education Progress and state level student assessments. with particular gains from
2006-2009. a period when new assessments were introduced and therefore yearly comparisons are
possible. But. there has been no substantial decrease in achievement gaps. particularly for African
Americans and English Language Learners students. At best the reductions in achievement gaps for
underrepresented students are uneven and dif?cult to interpret for Hispanics and Native Americans In
addition. the high school graduation rate has declined overall in the last few years-- possibly due to new
data collection changes--yet the drop is troublesome.

Overall, progress at the implementation level of reform is evident. with only some positive indicators of
progress in student performance and with little or no achievement gap reductions for African Americans
and ELL students.

Total 125 90

I 7fl4f2010



'3

?5

'l'cchnical Review Pa



8. Standards and Assessments

Available Iiori
Developing and adopting common standards 40 40
Participating in consortium developing high-quality standards 20 20
(ii) Adopting standards 20 20

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1}

The state is working with the state consortium related to development of Common Core standards as well
was with several New England states in New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) on various
standard setting activities. In doing so they are working with over 30 states. a majority of states. in these
efforts.

They are moving forward on a plan to adept core standards but have yet adopted them, indicating that the
adoption process leading to adoption by August 2. 2010.

Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments 10 10
(ii Participating in consortium developing high-quality assessments 5 5
(ii) Including a signi?cant number of States 5 5

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

Maine is working with NECAP in a consortium effort of four New England states in developing assessment
grades 3-8, and with SMARTER, a consortium of 33 states developing more comprehensive assessments
in various domains. By doing so. this state demonstrates a signi?cant effort to work collaboratively on
rigorous student assessment tools.

Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality 20 12
assessments
(3)13) Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1)

The proposal provides a detailed table indicating a set of goals. timetables and responsibility indicators for
Supporting the transition to new standards and assessments in the state. The table and text of the

proposal provides such activity descriptors as "designing," "adopting," "conducting". "performing." but does

not provide any specific articulations of how the state will go about implementing these activities. Without
Such speci?cs, it is unclear whether the plan will be able to succeed in accomplishing these activities and
how the efforts will be implemented.

Total 70 82

C. Data Systems to Support Instruction

Available Tier 1
Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system 24 22

(CM) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1}

The state indicates that its data system provides the "present capacityCOMPETE
requirements.

1 

Technical Review Page 4 of")

(CH2) Accessing and using State data 5 2

(CH2) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The proposal discusses the various elements of the data system at a very technical level indicating that the
system will be accessible to a wide array of audiences. but it does not address how the system will be
made accessible to those various audiences. The descriptions indicate that the system will be primarily a
English language digital system requiring access to computers. This possibly would leave out some parent
audiences that may not have ready access to digitized information. In addition. the information may not be
accessible to non-English speaking parents and students.

Using data to improve instruction 18 4
ti} Increasing the use of instructional improvement systems 6 2
(ii) Supporting LEAs. schools, and teachers in using instructional improvement 6 2
systems
Making the data from instructional improvement systems available to 6 
researchers

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)
This section of the proposal lacks the speci?cs with regard to the system. supports and availability. For
example. to assist teachers and other educators the state proposes the development and deployment of an
advanced tool that provides for easy and continuous access to student achievement data (and other
variables related to achievement) for use in instructional decision making--this is the Maine's Formative
Assessment System for Teachers This system seems quite innovative and potentially of
importance. However. key elements of the tool such as how it will be developed and evaluated is
unavailable in the proposal.

In supporting the use of the tool at the LEA and school level, timetables and goals are addressed but
speci?cs related to implementation of support to educators is quite vague. The specific role of the 
team. the department. the LEAs and the schools are not addressed in any detail. Therefore. verifying the
impact of these support efforts is presently dif?cult without this information.

With regard to making the data available to researcher. the proposal indicates it will make the data
available. but no speci?c avenues to achieve those results are described. By not describing how the data
will be made accessible to researchers. it is unclear how and when it will be accessible to this audience.

Total 47 28

D. Great Teachers and Leaders

Available Tier 1

Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals 21 8
Allowing. alternative routes to certi?cation I . 7 4
(ii) Using alternative routes to certi?cation . - I I - I 7 0
Preparing teachers and principals to ?ll areas of shortage - i" 4

{01(1) Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1)

This state does provide a description of one alternative teacher preparation route that is made available in
concert with those defined in the R'l'l'T rfp?-it meets all the ?ve elements required by No description
of alternative routes for principals are available in the proposal.

I l63 nleS . .. 71459010

'I?cchnical Review Page 5 of 9

That state does not have any active alternative routes active at the moment.

The state does track certification shortages statewide and conducts an annual statewide survey
for identifying teacher shortages and proactively provides a loan forgiveness program as an incentive to fill
these shortages. No description is available for identifying principal shortages

(01(2) improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance 58 35
Measuring student growth I I 5 3
(ii) Developing evaluation systems - I 15 10
Conducting annual evaluations - 10 5
(iv) Using evaluations to inform key decisions . 28 . 18

[01(2) Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1)

The state does not presently have a growth model for student assessment. but it plans to have one in place
by 2012. Positively, the state is moving in the right direction, but this delay will mean that any educator
evaluation system will not be available until this system is deployed. The state will move forward in
developing teacher and principals evaluation systems that will include these stakeholders and it is to be
fully operational in 2012--this is the Multi-faceted Professional Accountability System (MPAS). However.
the state will allow LEAs to develop their own systems-?to be approved by the stateuand recall that only
30% of teacher leaders signed on to this activity, generating some concerns about the viability of the
system. A concern may arise in the short timeframe that allows only two years for the student data system
to meld with the educator evaluation systems. The system will be able to provide yearly evaluations .
however. the projected goal is that only 35%of participating LEAs will be utilizing the system by the end of
the grant period. This is not a goal that would have substantive state impact and does not meet the
proposed requirement by the RTIT RFP. for yearly evaluations.

The evaluation system will be used to assist in decision making in all the areas called for in the R1 1 i RFP.
however it will be used with various goals in mind. These diverse goals may have a significant impact that
negatively effects overall implementation of the plan.

- 100% of participating LEAs will use the system for retention and full certification
- 10% of participating LEAs will use the system for compensation
20% of participating LEAs will use the system for educator removal

Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals 25 9
Ensuring equitable distribution in high-poverty or high-minority schools 15 7
{ii} Ensuring equitable distribution in hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas 10 2

Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1)

The state plans to fully fund a previous effort entitled. "Maine?s Quality Teacher Education Plan." that is the
main effort that addresses equitable distribution of quality teachers. No specifics regarding this plan for
teachers or principals are provided although a timetable with goals are included. In essence the "whats"
are described but the "hows" are absent.

Similarly. goals and timetables are provided for filling hard to-staff areas but it is not made clear how those
goals will be met.

improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation 14 6

programs
Linking student data to credentialing programs and reporting publicly 7 3



'l?cchnica] Review Page 6 of")

(ii) Expanding effective programs 7 3

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The state proposes linking student achievement to educator production programs in the near future.
However no speci?c implementation of evaluations. analyses, communication or publication of these
linkages are provided. Without such information in the proposal, it is dif?cult to determine how the state will
evalute programs and move to enhance the most effective ones.

(OHS) Providing effective support to teachers and principals 20 10
Providing effective support 10 6
{ii} Continuously improving the effectiveness of the support 10 4

(0H5) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The primary focus related to supporting teachers in the plan is to vet and select professional development
efforts developed by LEAs and made available in the state's Professional Development Support Models
portfolio. Participating LEAs can then select from these models to support teachers implementing 
efforts. Although, this oculd be a very valuable way to meet local contexts necessary for professional
development, it will mean several important steps will need to be taken and be successful to fully implement
this support with statewide impact. This could lead to delays and could limit signi?cant impact.

For principals. The R'l?l'T plan calls for the development and deployment of regional Leadership Academies
with course work and experiences related to implementation of the reforms articulated in the plan. This
effort is lead by the state and is well articulated in the proposal-4t will be launched immediately upon
funding.

There is a clear reference in the proposal that evaluation of these efforts will be conducted. including the
use of an external However, there is no description of the timetable. goals or
processes to be utilized for evaluation. internally or externally.

Total 138 69

E. Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools

Available Tiert

lntervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs 10 1O

(EH1) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The state is able to intervene directing to turn around low achieving schools or education units (understood
by this reviewer to be LEAs).

(EH2) Turning around the lowest-achieving schools 40 40

Identifying the persistently lowest-achieving schools 5 5
(ii) Turning around the persistently lowest-achieving schools 35 35

(EH2) Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The state has a clear method for identifying the lowest achieving schools using three consecutive years of
student performance data as well as graduation rates for high schools The state seems well positioned to
identify the schools for efforts.

)Ft8CIJny_quG #2010

'I?cchnical Review Page 7 of 9

The state has been using state implemented Turnaround Teams as the vehicle for addressing persistent
underachievement at the school level. There seems to be some record of success in doing so and the
RW plan calls for scaling up these efforts. The functions of the team and the expected outcomes have
demonstrated effectiveness with the Turnaround Teams assisting school level educators with data systems.
instructional intervention and other academic achievement related augmentations. At the high school level.
the Turnaround Teams assist local educators focused on dropout prevention strategies and careeri'jobs
development utilizing the Jobs for Maine Graduates program. A clear timetable with expected results along
with responsible parties is provided and a speci?c budget item is included for these efforts. Overall. this is

a solid state-level partnership that can help expand past efforts and enhance more turnaround activity in
Maine.

Total 50 50

F. General

Available Tier 1

Making education funding a priority 10 
Allocating a consistent percentage of State revenue to education 5 5
(ii) Equitably funding high-poverty schools 5 3

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The percentage of overall state revenues expended for education have risen by an estimated from
2008 to 2009.

The state has ?scal processes that address equitable funding in state funding formulas for LEAs but not
schools within LEAs. Only federal resources are distributed with equity in mind at the school level.

Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and 40 3
other innovative schools

Enabling high-performing charter schools ?(caps)" 8 0
(ii) Authorizing and holding charters accountable for outcomes 8 0
Equitably funding charter schools 8 0
(iv) Providing charter schools with equitable access to facilities 8 0
Enabling LEAs to operate other innovative. autonomous public schools 8 8

(FHZJ Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1)

The state does not address the formulation, evaluation or funding of charter schools. However, there is an
aggressive policy effort to allow and support "innovative" schools at the LEA level. This new legislative
opportunity is available to all LEAs and incentives to deploy these schools are made available.

Demonstrating other significant reform conditions 5 5

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1]

The state has enacted legislation and related educational policy to identify and meet a very ambitious goal
of preparing 90% of its high school graduates for post secondary by 2020. This goal can do much to guide
the educational reforms delineated in the RTTF plan. In addition. the state has launched a substantive
early childhood initiative. an effort that can raise student achievement.

I 7514:2010

'l?cchnica] Review Page 8 of??

55 21

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Emphasis on STEM
Available Tier 1
Competitive Preference Priority 2: Emphasis on STEM 15 0

Competitive Reviewer Comments: [Tier 1)

There are efforts throughout the proposal to address augment activities related to STEM. However. the
state does not provide a clear description of any new rigorous course of study in STEM, nor is there
evidence in the proposal that its STEM efforts will prepare more students for STEM careers. particularly
with a focus on girls, women and underrepresented students.

Total 15 0

Absolute Priority - Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform
Available Tier 1
Absolute Priority - Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform Yes

Absolute Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

The proposed plan addresses all areas of the competition. It is comprehensive. aims at increasing
achievement and reducing achievement gaps and proposes to have statewide impact. It builds on a long
history of reform activities in the state and moves the state forward with new rigorous standards and related
student assessment. its plan to develop and employ a educator evaluation system is promising. There are
aspects of the proposal that do not address goal attainment specifics and the timeline for development and
implementation of the proposed work is challenging and potentially problematic. but if the plan meets all
these challenging and problematic possibilities. it is certainly worthy of consideration.

Total 0

Grand Total 500 320

7f] 4120 0

Technical Review Page i of l6

Race to the Top
Technical Review Form - Tier 1 vv
Maine Application ?r

A. State Success Factors

 

Available i Tier 1

.. . LAW, .. 

Articulating State 5 education reform agenda and LEA participation in it 65 i 45
coherent reform agendaw 5 5 
i so 


W- a ?wt-Mes- M. ~uw '1.va swung-.549. W. u- 

{Aim Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1)
(i Maine has proposed an ambiti plan for educational reform that has student learning and achievementl

as the core focus. The plan has key priorities centered on preparation of students for 21St century learning
through curriculum redesign and alignment with state standards for consistency across Maine school
divisions, collaborations with external partners such as Educational Policy Improvement Center for
curriculum review, revision, alignment ,and validation that the Maine Learning Results are embedded in
multiple courses; and, the (2) Council of Chief State School Off cars for shared access of resources and 
research in the implementation of New Generation Learning Innovation Labs Network to create conditions
for dramatically high student achievement through lab schools 

The plan includes:

1. personalized learning smaller learning communities, multiple pathways, expansion of Course
Pathway for vertical and horizontal alignment, virtual learning opportunities, and implementation of
learning opportunities that focus on certifications and industry standards) 

2. performance-based learning demonstration of mastery through multiple opportunities for 
success through the Course Pathways Project)

3. support systems (implementation of Course Pathways allows for high school students to plan a path
of courses that address standards system of interventions) -

4. development ofgreat teachers and administrators implementation of an evaluation system that
uses student growth and success as one component for evaluation use of multiple measures for
evaluations, evaluation of models includes educational organizations such as Maine Education
Association, new teacher support, Turnaround Teams for lowest performing schools, professional
development to implement the new initiatives, collaborate with teacher prep programs on innovative
practices)

5. data systems that include individual student achievement followed throughout the K-12 course of
study, implementation of longitudinal data that multiple data sources students,
teachers, schools, and district) to speci?c performance measures.

Maine has proposed a plan that addresses the four core areas of education reform and advances their
current processes to design, implement, monitor and evaluate priorities of standards and assessments that
prepare students for college, workplace, and the global economy, enhancing data systems to monitor
progress towards performance measures, supporting teachers and principals through professional
development, and providing lowest performing schools the needed support. Maine has outlined a proposal
that integrates the various components in a plan to reform current practices and policies to prepare and
support student achievement and success.

0

Technical Review Page 2 of 16

{ii} Maine has the support of 82 Local Education Agencies (LEAs) with letters from each superintendent,

'64i82 letters of support from local school boards, and 24 letters of support from educational organizations
such as higher education institutions including the Maine community college system president, KIDS
Consortium. The letters of support indicate commitment to the project; however, a concern is the low
number of school divisions in Maine that have signed on to the project. There are 216 LEAs in Maine
which indicates 38 level of support from the school divisions (82916). Of note, is that all participating
LEAs did not have the support of school boards.

The Memorandum of Understanding with LEAs has 46 components of which 12 are optional. A
review of the MOU finds that LEAs will be required to develop, implement and provide evidence of specific
strategies that strengthen quality standards and assessments. The optional strategies that LEAs are not
required to implement seem counter to the goals of the project as previously articulated. The optional
strategies seem to be ones that would directly support student access to quality educational experiences
that are linked to college access and support implement Maine Course Pathways, access to online
and virtual learning, increase AP or IE course offerings, extended learning opportunities, tracking systems

of student progress towards post secondary and career readiness}.

The chart indicates that the LEAs have not supported all areas listed in the MDU agreement. Additional
review of the specifics goals and LEA support finds some areas that LEA nonsupport may hinder the
implementation and evaluation of the project. A key reform goal was the use of evaluations for teachers

and administrators that hinge upon student performance and achievement; a review of the summary table
?nds that 62% support the use of evaluations to inform compensation, promotion and retention Since this 
aspect is a cornerstone facet of the proposal, the limited participation and support of this objective may limiti
the overall success of the project 2

Despite a 38% LEA participation rate, over 70% of all students and 59% of students in poverty will be
affected by the project. Maine identi?es several areas of concern with regard to student achievement and
closing the achievement gap e.g.,achievement in English Language Arts and Math, and the graduation
rate of 

A review of NAEP data indicates student performance at or above the pro?cient level is low-?40% or less in
some instances. There was no evidence of subgroup performance which was required of this criterion. The i
New England Common Assessment results indicate better performance although not exceptionalf scores
range from 63% to 77% on readingi'mathematics scores). -

The goals set for student achievement are not overly strenuous in that a gain of 1% in a year overall and
1.5% for Free Reduced Lunch (FRL) and disadvantaged subgroups does not seem to be very ambitious.
A gain of 6% for overall student achievement by 2014 seems reasonable although again not particularly
ambitious. A review of the data charts on achievement from 2003- 2009 ?nds subgroup performance has
improved although there is still disparity with Free Reduced Lunch, students with disabilitiesand African
American students. Of note, is the gap for African American students in 8th grade reading and growing in
. proportion in grade 11 reading scores; with only 26% of African American students scoring at the pro?cient
or above level in grade 11. The scores have not improved substantially since 2003 to 2009 for this group
with only 22% at proficient level in 2002-03 and 26% in 2009. Similar data for math achievement clearly
establishes the need for reform efforts.

The applicant notes the SAT has become the state assessment; this is not clearly articulated as to what this
means and for what purpose. It was not clear if Maine Learning Objectives were or were not aligned to the
SAT. The increased graduation rate goal is a specific target for 90% which would be a 10% improvement.

. Wuz-cn-ik-u N. w. mm-tn.m..wm .., .., i- W. hum. . 

(AHZ) Building strong statewide capacity to implement. scale up, inahd sustain 30 22

 

 

 

 

 

proposed plans
ti Ensuring the capacity to Implement i 20 15
Lising broad stakeholder support i 10 7

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

7f14r?201 0

Technical Review Page 3 of to

The applicant provides evidence of how the state education agency has reorganized for ef?ciency and
effectiveness over the past several years. The reorganization has integrated several departments and
appears to be more cohesive in structure and organization, and developed teams for implementation of the
project. The State and grant priorities are aligned making the current organizational structure at the State
level suitable for implementation of the project. The applicant plans to ensure that existing roles at the
State are reexamined for sustained continuity of the project goals and that reform efforts will be built into
the current processes, roles, and responsibilities at the State level.

The state education agency will oversee the grant and has done so with similar projects of this size and
Scope such as the ARRA funds. The applicant provides examples of how the State has worked across
multiple agencies and coordinated activities to support students; for example, Children's Center, and has
coordinated with agencies such as the Department of Labor and Job Corps. Structures are in place to
support grant management and oversight as described by the applicant in the plan; or example, requiring
districts to conduct implementation evaluations.

The capacity to work with multiple partners both government and private is an advantage. A plan that
considers all resources that are available and aligned to the grant priorities indicates support from diverse
participants. The applicant addresses the role of the State and state agencies for implementation and
mentions a Leadership Team. What is not articulated is the role of the LEAs. The State will provide
implementation support through leadership and dedicated teams, and ?nancial resources.

What is not clearly articulated is the connection and conduit from State to local through what
mechanisms will this be facilitated and monitored is not clearly established. While ?nancial resources are
vital to building long-term capacity to support reform efforts, sustained change will require more intensive
support. to change culture and climate. How the State and LEAs will work together specifically and over
time to facilitate reform efforts that lead to sustained change is not clearly articulated. The use of
established regional professional development centers are an effective tool to provide training to local LEA
teachers and administrators.

(ii) The applicant has included letters of support from a range of stakeholders including higher education.
business and education partners. and legislators although not an extensive list. Letters of support from
parents, students, administrators and teachers were not evident. Coupled with low LEA participation and
support, this seems to?limit the overall commitment from stakeholders. The Maine Education Association
local teacher association) did not support this application; the concern was the iinking of student
achievement to teachen?principal evaluations.

- - wuwm-wawam- ?wow-o MW w? en awn. mm .m .I. ..4. sun-.1. WW w:

2

Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing 5 30 17
gaps 5 i
MW . 
Making progress in each reform area 5 3 3

(ii) ImprovIng student outcomes 25 14

. qunhm. .. . .- 

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1}

(ijThe applicant states in the narrative that "reform efforts have been effective" and will build upon the
current model, although there is no description of the model and any details of what constitutes

success. The applicant states that they have undertaken a variety of reform efforts and used funding from
many sources but does not provide any speci?c details. One example that was mentioned was the
expansion of STEM education and yet this was an optional requirement in the LEA MOU requirement to
participate. This presents a an unclear picture of goals and priorities.

(ii) State achievement data on the standards indicates improvement and in some instances extremely low
performance success) for subgroups. The data presents a troubling overview of both success and
lack of success in closing the achievement gap despite almost a decade of reform efforts. Of speci?c note
is the lack of achievement and success for all students in grade 11 reading proficiency and with subgroups
in particular.

7/14/2010

'l'cchnical Review Page 4 of 16

A review of the NAEP and State data show improvement although there continues to exist signit? cant gaps

in the achievement of African American students and students in FRL. The applicant acknowledges the
gaps and the lack of achievement over time despite efforts. To aggregate data to show an average does
not address the gaps that exist and have existed and presents a false positive of long-term success. As
well the graduation rates have declined almost from 2002 -03 to 2008- 09. The applicant addresses
this decline as the result of improved data collection. The applicant acknowledges the issues. however; has
not provided any substantive information as to what reform efforts have worked with success and details of
the current model. The applicant outlines how an intervention team will be provided to schools to assist
with a corrective action plan to address the dropout and graduation rates.

I. v.43.- .wETotal I 125 34

B. Standards and Assessments

Aiv;aiiabie Tier .-.- v. .

Developing and adopting common standards 40 39
(I) PartICIpating In consortium developing high quality standards i 20 i 20
(ii) Adopting standards ms.? -.5 "Ia-ruemwaxmunm .ra - . 

 

 

(BJUJ Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

Maine is a member of several consortia New England Common Assessment Program, Career?
Technical Education Consortium of States Next Generation Learning, American Diploma Project) that are
collaborating on the development and implementation of State standards and the Common Core
Standards. Maine developed their own standards previously but notes the value ofcollaboration in terms of
effectiveness ef?ciency. cost sharing. and higher quality products. Maine is one of 48 states, two
territories and the District of Colombia to sign the MDU to adopt the Common Core Standards at the
onset. Maine continues to be involved and committed to the Common Core Standards. internationally
benchmarked standards. through the development and review with participation by state specialists and
educators. The newest initiative is The Next Generation Learning Partnership. a coalition of six states.
whose work is aligned with Common Core and focused upon strategies and practices focused upon
assessment. The self-assessment included degree of preparation to implement innovative practices as an
Innovation Lab. To establish an Innovation Lab. Maine had to assess their readiness and capacity and
commitment to reform efforts at all levels.

(ii) Maine will adopt the Common Core by August 2. 201 the Legislature will have to formally adopt in
2011 legislative session. Maine has made progress towards seeing the adoption of Common Core
Standards as evidenced by approval of legislation signed by the governor into law giving the
Commissioner of Education the authority to adopt the Common Core through emergency rule making.

 

a we-vnmaHe-I- mu u- Unm- Wan?In..- 

. i I

(BszJ Developing and Implementing common. high-quality assessments ..-. - was
Participating in consortium developmg high-quality assessments i 5 5
(ii) Including a eignIfcant number of States Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1)

Maine is part of a consortium (New England Common Assessment Program) to develop and share a
common assessment system for grades 4 - 8. This model has been recognized by the USED as an
excellent example of sharing and collaboration in the development of assessments. In addition, Maine is a
member of the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium of 13 states and 20 advisory states for a total
of 33. The consortium is using Common Core standards to develop achievement standards for large scale i

77149010

Technical Review PageS of 16

online assessment. The consortium is working to design assessments that use multiple measures of
student assessment and link to teacherradministrator evaluation.

(ii) Maine is a member of other coalitions that support assessment and accountability including
Accountability and Systems Reporting, Career and Technical Assessment Consortium and Science
Education Assessment. While the number of states involved in all the initiatives are not identi?ed, Maine's
involvement with the Common Core and New England Assessment Program indicate their level of
commitment. There are 33 states, a majority, that participate in the SMARTER initiative.

. . pewtsn-n-waWW-emm .. 1.4: .. 

[3)(31 Supporting the transItIon to enhanced standards and high- quality? 20 12
assessments - .

.- - -- uni-mu - mow-wu- amm-w-wnw-pn-eww-woo-s. .. .-- mun-a m- 1- 

Reviewer Comments [Tier 1)

Maine has provided evidence of their commitment to the Common Core Standards as well as other reform 
efforts related to the development of high quality standards and assessments. The emphasis on

preparation for the future and skills needed for post-secondary education or careers is evident in the
documents provided and examples in the appendix, State content standards and Common Core support
Maine Guiding Principles which articulated the skills needed for the future responsible and involved
citizen, self?directed and life long learner, effective communicator) .

The rollout plan articulated by Maine includes incorporation of the Common Core into the state's current
standards in all 8 content areas. The plan articulates specific strategies and a timeline.

What is not clear is what priority Maine is focused upon in terms of standards that support high quality
assessments. The plan does provide not in-depth detail or organization as to how the multiple standards
will frame one coherent and cogent plan of action. There is value in the Advanced Placement (AP)
overview but how this links to the larger plan is not provided. A coherent plan that outlines what standards
will be developed, implemented ,and aligned with international benchmarks that link assessment criteria
that inform practice and efforts to improve student achievement is not overtly provided in the application.
There is no in-depth information as what professional development would be provided to teachers and
administrators to implement the standards in any meaningful manner. The transition to standards does not
seem fully developed in terms of priorities and appears disjoint in terms of what exactly will be done. There
is limited evidence provided as to what the plan will seek to accomplish.

- mum-- a. -m .. . 

Total i 7'0 i 61

 

C. Data Systems to Support Instruction

Available: Tiermm. 

Fully a statevade longItudInal data system 24 i 22


vv-- Ar v-w 2- I I .uu-Reviewer Comments. [Tier1)

Maine has a state system for the reporting and collecting of data and is expanding their system to

provide greater support and infrastructure to the local level. The plan to create a system that allows
educatorleEAs Educator Improvement System} and parents Family Information System)
information that is speci?c to their needs for understanding student achievement. The development of a
Data Warehouse and Decision Support System will provide Maine the ability to collect, analyze and
understand trends as well as make adjustments and changes as needed to the effectiveness of programs,
teachers, administrators and state initiatives.

Maine has developed and implemented a majority (11f12) of the elements of the American COMPETES
Act . With the support ofthe 2010 SLDS Grant (statewide longitudinal data system) Maine plans to extend
their capabilities in data collection and analysis including the extension of local and state capabilities

in formative and summative assessment. The plan to expand and increase capabilities in the collection

)F(shgan0VmGDu590_Ac9EW192rPf. .. 

Technical Review Page 6 of 16

..-



and analysis of data for improving education indicates understanding of the cyclical process of instruction,

data analysis, and alignment of learning objectives with student outcomes. Specific information is missing
on element 12. Clarity and specificity is lacking and more information on each element would have
strengthened the application.

. .. ?muI..- .. t-IA-l-I-IIJJ-Iall?hun - . - 

(CHZ) and using State data Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)



Maine seeks to integrate multiple sources of data into a comprehensive data base for ease of access and
use by stakeholders including LEAs, parents, community, and other state agencies. These efforts will
reduce duplication and streamline data collection and analysis. As well, it will provide a more complete
representation of multiple data points for analysis that inform policy makers, LEA's, parents, students and
other stakeholders as to the progress towards performance outcomes regarding student achievement.

The longitudinal collection of data is vital to inform those set policy as well as practitioners to make changes
to instruction.

Maine has articulated a plan that emphasizes the both the technical aspects of data collection,

management and system components; and, linking reform efforts to Key Performance Indicators. This two
-pronged focus is a strength as it recognizes that implementation of a extensive data system will require 
expertise, planning, and ongoing development for successful implementation.

Maine has proposed a high quality assessment plan for collection, access, analysis and use of data. For
example, Maine has outlined a plan for data analysis on student participation and success in post

secondary education. This data is necessary to improve Maine's declining graduation rates. The goal to link
student data to teacher performance is a key goal of this application. Maine has also proposed that teacher I
performance data be used to develop professional development and improve instruction.

The use of student growth models will chart improvement at the student, teacher, school, division and state
level for an accurate representation of successful programs and practices for all students including at?risk.
The Balanced Scorecard will help parents and community assess the effectiveness of programs and chart a 
course for students. Multiple languages and access to digital information may be problematic for
implementation.

Maine has a goal of sustained and focused collection of data used to improve the quality of education. The
collaborative plan includes input and dialogue with stakeholders as well as pilot testing for utility purposes. 

 

Using data to improve InstructIon ,Increasing the use of instructional improvement systems 6 I 5
(ii) Supporting LEAs, schools and teachers in using instructional improvement I 6 4
systems

 

 

Making the data from instructional improvement systems available to
researchers

4. 

.4 -. .. .- .. .va-szRevlewer Comments: (Tier 1)

(i Maine has proposed an integrated data system for the collection, analysis and use of multiple sources of
data to improve instructional programs and systems through the use of timely access to accurate data.
Maine acknowledges the current limitations "across the state with respect to uniformity and quality of
formative assessments used by teachers to measure progress in learning the curriculum" and proposes a
plan to address this concern.

Educators will be able to make needed changes and adjustments to instruction quickly and based on

current student progress. This real time access to information will support systems in decision making for
instructional improvement and student success in an ef?cient manner. The design and implementation of a
online formative assessment tool thatwill provide educators aligned benchmark items to the Common Core 

7/14/2010

Technical Review Page 7 of 16

and state standards. This alignment will allow educators to see the links and provide appropriate 
instruction. The use of (Maine's Formative Assessment System for Teachers) will allow divisions,
schools and teacher access to make improvements through deep data mining. The program will be a

useful tool in the reform efforts proposed.

(ii) Maine has proposed job embedded professional development for teachers to gain knowledge in the use .
of data for making needed changes to instruction. The applicant proposes to provide training on 

to teachers and administrators during the school day which shows support and commitment to the plan.

The goal is for division. schools, teachers and administrators to become knowledgeable of the use of data
and create culture of continuous improvement.

The applicantdoes not address how the loss of instructional time for training will be impacted. If training is
provided during the school day how will that be accomplished and how classroom instruction be recaptured 
is a concern. The training is not specifically articulated as to the parameters; what will provided. how much. 
how frequently. what is the follow?up for ongoing professional development.

The applicant did not clearly address data would be utilized by researchers for improvement.

The applicant did not provide examples of large scale data analysis that would be useful to the State

or school divisions in making changes. The focus is upon the link of student achievement data to teacher
performance. While this is a goal it is not the only goal and other more comprehensive plans for the use of 
such data should be articulated. This is not a developed goal or plan that provides specific information as 
to what will done by the state.

 

we 
Total 4? i .39

D. Great Teachers and Leaders

Available; as;

@656, 5% i 5

(Missing sessile muta?ici'?e?iiggian? -- 2

an Usmg .,

(Iii) Freparing 7 i 

a- -. 

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1)



Maine allows Alternative Routes to Certification that prepare teachers who possess an undergraduate
degree but not a teaching endorsement or license. Maine currently only has alternative routes through
institutions of higher education. However the legislative body in Maine has passed a resolution to open the
regulations regarding alternative routes to certification for public comment and possible revision.

(ii) Maine does not currently use alternative routes to certification. It was unclear as to what is practiced
with regard to alternative certi?cation in Maine. Data or evidence of any programs in higher education was
not provided.

Maine has identified areas of critical teacher shortage including special education, ELL. mathematics
and science. Those teaching in shortage areas represent 37.59% (total of 6018) of the total teaching force
of 16. 005 with emergency certi?cation of13.1% of the teachers in Maine. This indicates a real need for
alternative routes for certi?cation to be implemented. The application does not provide details to their
process for monitoring evaluating and identifying areas of teacher and principal shortage and for preparing
educators to ?ll these areas of shortage. The focus Is primarily upon teachers working in high need -
subject areas. Administrator preparation is not mentioned.

Maine does offer financial incentives to those teachers through loan forgiveness programs. Maine has a
STEM Collaborative to address teacher shortage in those fields; however. what speci?cally has been

)F(shganOVmGDu590__ 7/1420 1 0

Tee

hnical Review Page 8 of 6

done or strategies to be implemented to address the issue was not articulated. Maine mentions
discussions with the The College Board and Schools of Education to train AP teachers; this is not
developed in-depth .

 

 

..-. .. - .. . 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance 58 
Measuring student growth In" WNW 5 i 1
?(IiiD?ev?elop?Ing I WM -- 15 i 9 
sonata 5 i" 
liv) Using evaluations to informieydecisions I 

.. .- . u. .. pwmwadwu-m wand wand-n 

 

(Dim) Reviewer comments. (Tier 1]

i

The applicant states that a growth model has not been implemented to date. A model will be piloted in
2010 and operational by 2012. It will be difficult to assess student progress and achievement without a plan
for student growth and thus link to teacher and principal effectiveness The gaps in the plan such the lack of
a statewide assessment for grade 9 are areas of concern in overall student assessment

{ii} Maine proposes to implement an evaluation system that links student performance to teachers and
administrators evaluations. There is an initiative to have all stakeholders involved in this developmental
process although specifics are not articulated as to what model was approved or who were the
stakeholders.

Before this system can be used Maine has to build a data system and develop a system for de?ning and
measuring student growth. Maine has plans to designate teachers and administrators as effective or

highly effective based on the student growth model- as yet not defined or articulated. There is cause for
concern that the educator evaluation system is more developed than the student growth model . Increasing 
the cadre of effective educators will require that the foundation of what will be assessed to be
determined first or at the very least articulated in a clear and precise manner. This ambiguity is re?ected in
the MOU agreements and the lack of support by LEAs on this system. Only 35% of participating LEAs are 
onboard with this initiative.

Maine proposes multiple evaluations of teachers and administrators by trained evaluators including
annual evaluations. Specifics were not articulated as to what and how this would occur although the
applicant did mention training supports will be provided to teachers and administrators.

(iv) The Longitudinal Data system will improve the data collection and analysis process and will assist
divisions. schools, and educators to use data for instructional improvement and change in all of the

four required areas. The applicant did not articulate any incentives for those teachers and administrators
who are considered highly effective- this was noticeably lacking in the proposal. The applicant did articulate 
that novice teachers must attend training and show satisfactory levels of student growth before receiving
licensure and tenure protections. Maine is focused upon the link of student achievement to teacher
effectiveness; what is lacking in the narrative are other descriptors and indicator of successful and effective
teachers and administrators.

 

 

 

 

.. .. ?we, ?causewaam 
Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals 25 I 10
New?. W- . i . . 

Ensuring equitable distribution in high poverty or high- minority schools {ii} Ensuring eqUItable distribution in hard- to- staff subjects and specialty areas 10 5 4



 

 

 

Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1]

The applicant has provided monetary and technical assistance to high-need LEAs to increase the
equitable distribution of highly qualified teachers and decrease under quali?ed andfor inexperienced
teachers; the applicant does not articulate or speci?cally provide any detailed information as to the strategy i

7/14/2010

Technical Review Page 9 of 16

Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation

and the effectiveness of the strategy. The link that is established by the funds and technical assistance
does not explain how this facilitated a positive change. The plan provides parameters for high needs
schools including Category A ,(not less than 49.9 qualify for Title 1 and 5% Maine average of 95% for
three years or more} and Category adds more than 12.8 of the teachers have less than 3 years of
teaching).

Recruiting experienced educators for hard to staff schools will require more specificity;~ the plan as stated it .
is general without any precise guidelines. Of note, Maine does not plan to offer any performance
compensation for educators in hard to staff schools. Performance measures do not appear to be overly
ambitious at the end of 2012-2013 with only 20% of the teachers in high poverty andlor high minority
deemed highly effective.

(ii) Additional performance measures for science, mathematics, special education and ELL were more
stringent and more ambitious with 60% deemed highly effective by 2012?2013. The strategies are not
clearly stated nor the plan clearly framed so that previous work done by applicant in this area is utilized to
inform the proposed plan. The plan does articulate the equitable distribution but rather the preparation.

MHrI-nb.1: wtprograms i
?(it Linking student data to credentialing programs and reporting publicly i 2
(ii) Expanding effective programs i 7 5 3 5

mm"- W- .mwoven-mi .

Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1}

The applicant indicates that many of Maine's higher education institutions have agreed to transition to a
preparation system for teachers and administrators that has linked external standards
and Maine's content standards. The SLDS {Student Longitudinal Data System) will -
link student performance to individual teachers and administrators and eventually to individual colleges or -
universities. There are other data that would be useful to utilize in this plan; teacher test scores, GPA,

years of teaching, gender, age. quality of the undergraduate experience; these variables should be
considered in the plan for linking student data to programs. The applicant seems to be establishing a one .
to one correspondence and this may limit the effectiveness of the plan. The targets for performance are not I
articulated and thus. what is unclear is precisely what will be measured and evaluated. What adjustments
colleges and universities will make based on the data is not articulated,

(ii) The collaboration of K-12 with higher education is a positive strategy in that it links the educational
systems in preparation. access and graduation along a continuum. The performance measures seek to
identify successful education programs through student performance outcomes; however, the percentage

of programs for which the public can actually access data is not ambitious. Since there are only 16 teacher 
credential programs and eight principal programs, a target of 25% reported publicly by end of2011 is

small. This assumes that all of the data management components are in place as well.

. .. . - w? 
[D)t5} Providing effective support to teachers and principals ,5 20 i 9
-{ii Providing effective support 10 i 5
..-- .. . .-- w. W--. . . . ..
(ii) Continuously Improving the effectiveness of the support 1 10 4

.4. ?sum .. w. .. ana- m. ?gym .. mmReviewer Comments: {Tier 1)

The applicant will provide coaches and support to LEAs, teachers and administrators with embedded
professional development during the school day for the purpose of working with data and using data to
make informed decisions with regard to instruction and individual students. The State in conjunction with
LEAs and stakeholders will select comprehensive models of teacher and leaders development; the models
will align with the evaluation system for teachers and administrators. The State will develop and provide

71?] 4/20 10

Technical Review Page 10 of 16

modules of professional development performance based learning, use of data mentoring} that will
support LEAs in the reform efforts.

The implementation of Leadership Academies will further support the development of teachers and
administrators as leaders for change. The curriculum will include training and support in:

1. Leadership for High Performing Schools--use of research on instructional leadership and standards
based instruction

2. Leadership for Local Accountability and Commitment to Learning- focus on standards and
curriculum delivery

3. Professional Learning Communities- focus on collaboration and building community

4. Collaborative Coaching - role of effective mentors

5. Promoting Teacher Leadership to Strengthen School Culture

The professional development coupled with school! turnaround skills. classroom observations, new teacher
evaluation, cultural awareness, differentiation, general and special education training, and models for
change will provide a platform for supporting LEAs.teachers and administrators in the implementation of the
project. What seems to be missing is the link that binds the individual pieces into a coherent framework.
Professional development should be driven from the data, the data aligned to student learning
outcomes, and outcomes driven by curriculum framework. The PD appears to a singular part that is not
connected into the larger foundation of reform. What is also missing is the link to working with high needs
and high risk students. Information about changing school culture informs and guides but the reality is that 
is takes time and hard work to change beliefs and practices.

(ii) The applicant proposes to provide high quality professional development but does not articulate
precisely what that means or used in support of improving the effective support systems. . The applicant
does plan to disaggregate student data for continuous improvement but does not articulate what data and
how it could be used and plans to utilize outside contractual services to accomplish this goal. The applicant
does not provide any Specifics or any details ofthe plan that supports high quality and ambitious strategies
for reform that are specifically focused upon student achievement9-2.1 

Total 138 i 54

E. Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools

?Av ailable Tier1

. .. .. . . .. . mm .m m- .-

[Eim intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and 10

unnReviewer Comments: (Tier 1)

{i Maine has developed legislative statutes to intervene directly in schools that are low performing and
school administrative units community school distract, regional school district and does not include

a career and technical education region). In the documents provided, the for authority for intervention
provide the Department of Education with the authority to initiate a comprehensive review of low performing 
schools based on the results of Maine content standards assessments. The revised statutes include
language that the commission shall address administrative requirements to develop a school improvement
plan, oversee compliance, validate and report on the status of schools and plan, provide assistance

including an assistance team for at least one year. The State has the authority to intervene as well as the
reasonability to assist and monitor the school improvement plans and provide support to those low
performing schools.

A review of the material provided in the appendices indicate the State has established standards that
govern and provide oversight of all schools with a focus on those that are low performing. Schools that are
persistently low performing are categorized based on student performance as Tierl (receives Title funds)

4i?20 (i

Technical Review Page 11 of 16

or Tier II (does not receive Title I funds), based on student achievement, (3 year average of proficiency in
Reading and Math) and graduation rates less than 60mum-a

Turning around the lowest-achieving schools 40 34
.0) Identifying the persistently lowest- achieving schools 5 4
(ii) Turning around the persistently lowest- achieving schools 35 30

.. .. .-.-

(EH2) Reviewer Comments {Tier 1)

Maine has def ned and developed criteria for the identification of the persistently low performing
schools. Low performing is de?ned as both a three year average of pro?ciency on math and reading from
20012009, and, demonstrating a level of progress less than the median rate for all Maine schools. The
applicant did not identify if the schools were from one or more school divisions or if the under-performance
was characteristic of a few school divisions,

The data utilizes gain in yearly averages to determine ranking and to identify those schools eligible for
funding through Title I School Improvement Grants. Schools that are persistently low performing are
categorized based on student performance as Tier I {lowest achieving 5% of Title schools or graduation
rate less than 60% for 3 years) or Tier II (lowest achieving 5% of secondary schools or lowest 5 that are
eligible for but do not receive Title funds) based on student achievement, [3 year average of pro?ciency
in Reading and Math} and graduation rates less than 60%.

Maine has identified 5 schools in Tier I in 2009-2010 and 5 schools in Tier II using this formula. As well,
Maine will identify additional secondary schools not eligible for Title that are in the lowest 5% of
achievement and with a graduation rate less than 60% over the past three years. The focus on secondary
schools that are both low performing and low graduation rates will couple and link achievement and
graduation. The number of identi?ed schools seems small ?10 speci?c data on the under performing
schools would have provided more details and information. Information as the number of students in each
school, SE3, ELL, etc. would have been useful.

(ii) Maine proposes to build on a current model that has been successful in assisting 20l34 schools to
maintain improvement thus removing these schools from Continuous Improvement Model. The data Maine I
has provided (60% success rate in 5 years of intensive support) shows the challenges faced in making
sustained improvement in academic performance.

Maine's approach to turning around low performing schools is structured to encompass the level of support 
needed by individual based upon the data. Schools will be identified as Turnaround, Closure or
Transformational and assigned a Turnaround Team whose skills align with the needs and priorities of the
school. The Turnaround Team will provide ongoing and sustained support, intervention, and
recommendations to the schools and the school will in turn, develop a corrective action plan for submission 
the State. The applicant outlines support for educators through professional development that addresses
data use for instructional change, leadership strategies, assessment and intervention practices, and linking
the improvement plan to data; and, the development and implementation of an Improvement Network to
share resources and strategies and will use technology through an online platform to assist those schools

in rural areas as well. The applicant mentions new leader participation in Leadership Academies outlines in
section D. The support of new leaders in schools that are historically under-performing is a critical
component; new leader need mentoring and support as do teachers in setting high expectations for

success while changing a culture of underachievement.

Numerous strategies are mentioned for success such as AP, IB, and STEM professional development .
computerized assessment and validation of practices where students have demonstrated success. What is
lacking is a focus on two critical components? how the development of the improvement plan and current 
data are linked to set clear and measurable objectives and specific strategies that assist in the achievement
of the set objectives It is laudable to set goals of AP and IB professional development, however, in schools
that are persistently under?performing with low graduation rates perhaps the plan should scaffold the goals

ogroupcomr?R aceTnTheTopr?(X( )F(shgan0VmGDu5 90_Ac 913W 1 7/1420 I 0

Technical Review Page 12 of 16

and use vertical alignment and teaming to ensure that students are prepared to participate and excel in
advanced coursework.

The applicant describes a strategy to improve graduation rates through research and support on dropout
prevention. While a conference is one strategy, there is abundant research currently available that outlines
specific strategies that have shown to be successful for disengaged youth. for example. mentoring. creating
support systems such as tutoring and computer remediation opportunities, opportunities for technical and
career certification programs.

The applicant describes the implementation of a new data system and how the under-performing schools
and students will receive timely feedback which is a good strategy for periodic review. The kinds of data
and intervention efforts needed on a daily basis to make changes to instruction and target speci?c gaps in
student learning is not addressed. This type of data intervention should occur at the school level through
the use of ongoing assessments; either teacher constructed or computer models that link to the curriculum
and standards.

The applicant mentions a few strategies that have been successful with underachieving schools; for
example. Jobs for Maine's Graduates. Successful strategies should be implemented and build upon as
well as needs assessments as the school level, Although individual schools will have unique needs and
resources. models should consider some consistency of strategies in order to evaluate the effectiveness.

. Total 5g 3 44


. 

F. General



 

5
mm was 
percentage 5 - 5 -
(.II) WEClUitabldy flrl?IfTCIilng high? poverty schools - an. mumw-q. ..- .1v- ?wir-Vm-(OHW vuwn-m?n-v-w? "nun-w M-uv-a-n- 

Reviewer Comments. {Tier 1)

Based on the evidence provided, Maine allocated a greater percentage of total revenues for elementary.
secondary. and higher education in 2009 (43.10%) than in 2003 

{ii} Maine articulates an adequacy-based formula for funding called Essential Programs and Services, that

is calculated based upon student. school. and staff characteristics. The applicant states that each LEA will i
receive additional funding based upon students who are in poverty or ELL for example. The applicant did .
not provide any specifics. evidence or examples to determine if the funding is equitable between high vineedi
andl?or highv poverty LEAs and schools.

?mum 'wahe 4.4. 

 

 

 

 

Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools Ii 40 i 6
Tim's .. New. 
Enabling high performing charter schools I'I(capsr' i 3 I 
I Authorizing and holding charters accountablIeIforIcuItc-om; ?In? IIMIIBIIU
I funding charter schools II Um
I Providing chartefIsIchools with eqUItable accesstofacnities II I II I i? 
Enabling LEAs to innovative autonomous publicscliocls 3 6 

 

 

- Reviewer comments: (Tier 1}

"I'll-42010

Technical Review Page 13 of 16

Not addressed in the application, not applicable according to the applicant.

(ii) Not addressed in the application, not applicable according to the applicant .
Not addressed in the application, not applicable according to the applicant.
(iv) Not addressed in the application, not applicable according to the applicant.

Maine has passed legislation (April 2010) that permits the establishment of innovative schools . Maine's
adoption of an innovative school by an LEA allows for open enrollment, has high student accountability and
?exible program delivery including instructional design, school calendar, staff selection and methods for
assessment; all done so as not to con?ict with any state requirement or statute. Maine also allows for
school choice and in many of the rural areas students have both options and tuition assistance. Maine
indicates that over 9,000 students exercised the school choice option in 2010.

Maine will implement a lab school model as part of the Partnership for Next Generation Learning. This

model has not yet been implemented so evaluation and evidence is not available. Maine appears to be
poised on the next step of proactive and forward thinking with respect to innovative and independent

models of public schools. There is support for such models and a lab school will certainly move the
opportunities forward; however, there is little data or details as to what this will look like and what innovation 
will occur.

Maine implemented the program to provide AP coursework via an online platform for rural and low
income students with success. The program was suspended due to grant funding. Online coursework such
as AP, Dual Enrollment, and other courses with limited teachers, students, and resources can be a
successful strategy to address some of the equity of resources, rural, and access to college preparation for 
all students.

 

Demonstrating other significant reform conditions i 5 4 .
Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1)

Maine has taken the initial steps in educational reform through the passing and enacting of legislation that supports the
achievement and success of Maine students. Efforts at reform begin with an examination of current standards, policies, 
data, programs, funding and it appears the applicant has taken into account not only the successes but the limitations
that exist in the current system. One focus has been upon the Learning Results System. Efforts to support learning
include legislation that supports the development of Innovative Schools. standards for graduation, funding that has
increased since 2003-2009, and additional funding for high needs schools and LEAs. Maine's legislature has set a goal 
of 80% graduation rate by 2012 and 90% by 2016; a very ambitious goal.

The STEM goals focus upon all students who do not have access to advanced STEM coursework and career
opportunities in high need school divisions. Girls and minorities are not speci?cally mentioned nor are strategies

that target initiative. The laptop initiative is another strategy to support high need schools and students. This initiative
requires additional funding and support and the State appears to be supportive although how much support, what kind.
and what is mandated by law is not speci?c. The initiatives require support from the State and through the legislature
of funding, human capital, and a commitment to the process; a process that will require time, strategic planning with all
stakeholders, and an unwavering focus on student achievement. While the legislature has established some statutes
and laws, for a plan of this scale and to accomplish the reform that is proposed, more may have to be considered.
Maine has begun the process of reform as evidenced by their initiatives; however, ?nancial support and laws will need
to be enactedTotal 55 19
Competitive Preference Priority 2: Emphasis on STEM
Availabie i Tier1 

711 4i201 0

Technical Review Page 14 of 16

Co petitive Preference Priority 2: Emphasis on STEM "aw?,wd . .

Competitive Reviewer Comments: (Tier 1]

Maine has proposed strategies for student achievement and success within STEM content and preparation .
within their overall application. The focus on AP courses is one example of providing advanced level
coursework as a preparation for college entry and success. The professional development provided to
educators to enhance their knowledge, skills and strategies for teaching is another area that will strengthen
student achievement and success in STEM courses. The laptop initiative is primarily for elementary and
middle with plans to extend to high school students and teachers. Maine has several partnerships with
organizations that will strengthen curriculum. assessments and links to teacher effectiveness with student
performance. Many of the partnerships including those that are STEM focused are in the early stages of 
development and implementation.

Maine has begun the process of working towards STEM goal and throughout the application, there were
sections that attached STEM priorities and goals. The goals and strategies however, were not woven into a .
comprehensive plan that clearly links the various initiatives in such a manner that reform efforts are clearly 
articulated. Rather, the information is presented more singularly in that STEM seems an addition to other
goals.

The opportunity to partner with community colleges, technical certifications, hospitals, museums, private
industry within and external to the State are not developed as a comprehensive reform plan focused upon
the goals of Collaborations that involve community and business partners that become part of the
school culture were not evident nor were plans to the point articulated.

The plan did not address girls and minorities specifically in terms of other avenues to explore thatwould
assist their entry into STEM careers. Clubs, science fairs, mentoring, are all ways that would make the
strategies more specific the targeted groups. The goals articulated by Maine are worthy and certainly ones
to establish priorities for success; however, there must be strategies that explicit for achieving those goals.
The goals must link back to the overall plan and in places there were gaps in the process and planTotal

7

Etsgc

Absolute Priority - Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform
Available 3 Tier 1

.. . . .-- -.--.. .. .. 
. Absolute Priority - Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform -.. 

 

Absolute Reviewer Comments: {Tier 1}

Maine has submitted a reform plan that proposes to improve student achievement as well as begin to
organize multiple initiatives for efficiency. The initiatives include major tasks associated with curriculum
alignment and assessment, the collections and analysis of data, teacher evaluation linked to student
achievement. There was not a clear sense of the role of the LEAs in the initiatives; for example, in the

STEM activities and goals. Although the State preposes to increase STEM courses and student i
achievement and preparation for advanced as well as other STEM courses little is mentioned as to what the 
LEAs are currently doing in this area and how to utilize successful partners and programs that LEAs have in
place. The role of the LEA seemed secondary and at times was missing in the collaborative nature that this 
application and funding would require for success. Subgroup performance was another secondary focus
and in places was noticeably missing in the data and goals of the application.

Maine has provided a preliminary plan that requires alignment of goals, strategies and priorities that are
clearly defined and articulated. How the individual components fit into an comprehensive and coherent
plan was lacking. The LEA participation was limited although the number of students that could potentially
be impacted of greater signi?cance.

7/14/2010

technical Review Page 15 of 16

The implementation of new standards and training for all teachers is the foundation of creating systemic
reform. The pay for performance and evaluation system was not supported by all of the participating

LEAs. Coupled with a small LEA participation rate this could undo many of the initiatives that this plan is
predicated. There was not a constructed focus of the goals and how the various initiatives and
strategies went together as a framework. Individually, many of the goals seem separate from the plan. The -
plan has to be an ambitious plan that is aligned with the priorities and in places, Maine certainly had
The assessment and use of data illustrated this point. However, there were gaps and this is an
area of concern.

.1. .uhnH. .-. . ..- . -. m-wmvn Law. mumm? ?nir-I-rz-t 

Total 3




:GrandTotal 500 301

4/20 1