> TO:  ALL SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS
>
> The following message is being sent at the request of the Commissioner.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------
>
> Note:  The Administrative and Informational Letters are available on our
> website at the following address:
> http://www.maine.gov/education/edletrs/homepage.htm
> <http://www.maine.gov/education/edletrs/homepage.htm>
>
> INFORMATIONAL LETTER NO.  23
>
> POLICY CODE:  IKF/DB
>
>
> To:   Superintendents and Principals (please forward to School Board
> Members, Assistant Superintendents, and Curriculum Coordinators)
>
> From: Susan A. Gendron, Commissioner
>
> Date: September 15, 2003
>
> Re:   Timelines for Chapter 127 (Instructional Program, Assessment, and
> Diploma Requirements) and for Essential Programs and Services (EPS)
>
>
> Since Chapter 127 of the Maine Department of Education Regulations went
> into effect in September 2002, the implementation timelines set forth in
> the regulation have provided a clear target for State and local efforts.
> What has not been so clear, however, is our capacity to accomplish the
> complex tasks outlined in the regulation within the established timelines.
>
> Near the end of last spring's session, the Maine Legislature passed into
> law the Essential Programs and Services (EPS) framework for school
> funding.  According to the framework, beginning in 2005-06 and for five
> years thereafter, additional State funds will be added each year until the
> target of 50% State share of school funding is reached in 2009-10.  The
> passage of EPS marks a historic moment in the implementation of Maine's
> Learning Results, an acknowledgement that all local districts must have
> adequate and equitable funding to achieve the standards outlined in Maine
> law.  Though passing EPS was indeed historic, it leaves other timelines
> relevant to the implementation of the system of Learning Results out of
> sync, given that, under Maine law, implementation must be accompanied by a
> 50% State share of total educational costs as determined in the EPS model.
> Under the EPS model, the State share of education costs will not reach 50%
> until 2009-10.  In the Governor's resolution for tax relief, passed in the
> recent Special Session, the State share of educational costs reaches 49%
> in 2007-08 and 52% in 2008-09.
>
> In my view, confirmed by Maine Attorney General's office, the statutory
> language covering the linkage between EPS and Learning Results
> implementation is clear:  the expectation that local districts award
> diplomas based on attainment of Learning Results standards must be
> accompanied by the State providing 50% of total educational costs.
>
> A key principle that I have used to develop and discuss my vision for
> Maine education is balancing accountability with support.  Based on
> Harvard professor Richard Elmore's "Principle of Reciprocity," this
> guiding idea reminds us that any expectation of accountability at any
> level of the educational system must be accompanied by the necessary
> support, resources, and tools to meet the demands.  I have used this
> principle in advocating with our Congressional delegation about the need
> for adequate resources to implement the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
> It is only fair that we apply the same principle here in Maine to balance
> the expectation that all districts meet the accountability provisions of
> the Learning Results.
>
> Charting a course for State education policy against such a backdrop will
> be the subject of a great deal of discussion in the coming weeks and
> months.  I began exploring options to address the discrepancy of timelines
> with the Education Committee on Thursday, September 4th and with the State
> Board of Education during its planning retreat on September 11th and 12th.
> Given the significance of the November referendum to the availability of
> resources, the Education Committee agreed to meet on November 6th to
> review the outcome of the referendum and to consider our course of action.
> If the Maine Municipal Association's (MMA) proposal passes, it would
> increase state share to 55% in 2005-06, as opposed to the Governor's
> alternative measure, which would reach 49% in 2007-08.  A final decision
> cannot be made regarding the required timelines until the results of the
> referendum are known and the State Board of Education, the Education
> Committee, and the Maine Legislature address the implications of those
> results.  I do anticipate a proposed alignment of the phase-in of EPS with
> the requirement to award diplomas based on achievement of the Learning
> Results, as required by Maine law.
>
> In addition to financial resource problems, the State has also experienced
> delays in the development of the Maine Educational Data Management System
> (MEDMS).  We now expect that the local assessment module of MEDMS will be
> completed no earlier than April 2004.  Since every aspect of creating this
> database system has turned out to be more complex than expected, the April
> 2004 projection must also be accepted with caution.
>
> A final factor has also siphoned off both State and local capacity for
> Learning Results work:  the federal No Child Left Behind Act.  Key
> Department staff members have devoted untold hours interpreting and
> developing State systems to respond to the federal law.  I'm certain that
> time has also been required at the local level to address both
> accountability and the meaning of the requirements for highly qualified
> educators.  Later this fall, new Grade Level Expectations (GLEs) required
> by NCLB for mathematics and reading will be distributed to all Maine
> districts, which will require review at the local level for curriculum,
> instruction, and assessment implications.
>
> Given the factors above, I will be strongly recommending to the Education
> Committee that we delay the formal requirement for a standards-based
> diploma in English Language Arts and Mathematics for one year (to
> 2007-08), and to bring these two content areas onto the same timeline as
> is currently set for meeting the standards in Science, Social Studies, and
> Health/Physical Education.  I am also recommending that the current
> timeline for Local Assessment Systems (LAS), due to be completed by the
> end of 2003-04, be delayed for one year (to 2004-05).  In the meantime,
> the Department will survey all districts again in the spring of 2004 to
> gather further data on the status of the work.  Preliminary findings from
> the LAS Implementation Study will also be available near the end of the
> school year, and those findings should help us determine what additional
> steps, if any, would be necessary at that time.
>
> (Note:  under the current EPS timeline, the content areas of Career
> Preparation, Modern and Classical Languages, and Visual and Performing
> Arts are linked to full implementation of EPS.  Once the result of the
> November referendum is known, the precise timelines for these areas will
> also be resolved and announced to the field.)
>
> I realize the timing of these decisions poses problems for local school
> officials in planning for curriculum modifications and in communicating
> with 9th grade students and their parents, many of whom have been already
> been informed of the requirements under the existing timelines.  In an
> ideal world, the timeline discrepancies in the various statutes would have
> been addressed simultaneously in the last Legislative session.  Our
> choices are to forge ahead even though there is compelling evidence that
> state resources are not yet at the levels required by law or to adjust the
> timelines in response to the realities we face.  I encourage
> superintendents and school boards, in districts where systems are in place
> now to allow for moving forward on the existing timelines for Mathematics
> and English Language Arts, to do so.   Data from the recent DOE survey on
> LAS status suggests that 60% of districts are well positioned for full
> implementation.  Much could be learned from such pilot efforts, and
> consideration will be given to including some of these districts in the
> LAS Implementation Study.  Many other districts, not prepared for full
> implementation, will benefit from field testing assessments and validating
> performance standards in preparation for full implementation the following
> year.  The Department has developed a full calendar of statewide and
> regional technical support workshops on LAS development, including
> providing targeted support to districts whose work is still in the early
> stages, to help districts make as much progress as possible this year.
>
> On a personal note, I wish to acknowledge that this issue has raised a
> number of profound ethical, legal, and policy complexities that have
> defied a simple solution.  A range of policy options has been considered,
> including strengthening existing waiver provisions, in the search for the
> best course of action.  I am cognizant of the fact that no matter which
> option we choose, it may be interpreted as breaking faith with local
> needs, either by those who are ready to move forward or by those who are
> not.  In the end, I have relied on the language and intent of Maine law,
> and my ethical commitment to ensure that the State accepts its share of
> responsibility for educational reform in Maine.
>
> Over the coming weeks, I will be working with the Governor's Office, the
> State Board of Education, the Education Committee, and the Maine
> Legislature to ensure that this delay is not perceived as weakening our
> commitment to the full implementation of Maine's Learning Results, and
> that the vision of higher expectations for all Maine students warrants our
> utmost effort and urgent action.  Indeed, this must be a time when our
> commitment to all Maine students is redoubled and announced publicly.  I
> will work hard to make the case that adding 1% to the EPS model in 2007-08
> is the right thing to do, so that further delays can be avoided.
>
> I will be developing a press release on this issue this week to keep
> statewide audiences informed of these recent developments.  I recommend
> that local superintendents discuss this issue with administrative teams
> and school boards to determine what policy, program, staff development,
> and communications steps should be considered at this time.