if you cannot be called directly, dial 888-803- 6395. for technical assistance, e-mail...

If you cannot be called directly, dial 888-803-6395.

For technical assistance, e-mail [email protected].

www.relnei.org

Thursday, March 3, 2011Thursday, March 3, 20112:30 – 4:30 p.m. EST2:30 – 4:30 p.m. EST

Defining and Measuring Educator EffectivenessPart II

1



www.relnei.org

Agenda

2

Overview and Introduction Pamela Buffington

Featured PresentationFeatured Presentation Laura GoeLaura Goe

Regional ContextRegional Context Pamela BuffingtonPamela Buffington

State and Local ContextState and Local ContextBarbara MoodyBarbara MoodyPatrick PhillipsPatrick PhillipsPortland Public SchoolsPortland Public Schools

Roundtable DiscussionRoundtable Discussion All PanelistsAll Panelists

What’s NextWhat’s Next Pamela BuffingtonPamela Buffington



www.relnei.org

Adobe Connect Pro

3

1

3

3

2

2



www.relnei.org

4

Who’s With Us Today?



www.relnei.org

• Network of ten RELs

• Serves regional needs:

– Applied research– Development projects– Studies – Technical assistance

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/

What Is a RegionalEducational Laboratory?

5



www.relnei.org

• Connecticut• Maine• Massachusetts• New Hampshire• New York• Puerto Rico• Rhode Island• US Virgin Islands• Vermont

Five-million-plus studentsNearly 10,000 schools and 2,000 districts

REL-NEI States and Territories

6



www.relnei.org

Defining and Measuring Educator Effectiveness

Working Together

• REL Northeast and Islands

• National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

• New England Comprehensive Center

• Maine Department of Education

7



www.relnei.org

Agenda

8

Overview and IntroductionOverview and Introduction Pamela BuffingtonPamela Buffington








www.relnei.org

Featured PresenterDr. Laura GoeResearch ScientistEducational Testing Service

Principal InvestigatorNational Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

9

www.tqsource.org10

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (the TQ Center)

A federally-funded partnership whose mission is to help states carry out the teacher quality mandates of ESEA

Vanderbilt University• Students with special needs, at-risk students

Learning Point Associates• Technical assistance, research, fiscal agent

Educational Testing Service• Technical assistance, research, dissemination

If you cannot be called directly, dial 888-803-6395.For technical assistance, e-mail [email protected].

www.tqsource.org

The Goal of Teacher Evaluation

11If you cannot be called directly, dial 888-803-6395.For technical assistance, e-mail [email protected].

www.tqsource.org

Federal priorities (August 2010)

From “Race to the Top” and reiterated in the August 5, 2010 Federal Register (Vol. 75, No. 150) “Secretary’s Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs”

• Teachers should be evaluated using state standardized tests where possible

• For non-tested subjects, other measures (including pre- and post-tests) can be used but must be “rigorous and comparable across classrooms” and must be “between two points in time”

• Multiple measures should be used, such as multiple classroom evaluations


www.tqsource.org

Questions to Ask About Models

Are they “rigorous and comparable across classrooms”?

Do they show student learning growth “between two points in time”?

Are they based on grade level and subject standards?

Do they allow teachers from all subjects and grades (not just 4-8 math & ELA) to be evaluated with evidence of student learning growth?


www.tqsource.org

Evaluation Models

Austin, TX

Delaware

Georgia

Hillsborough, FL

New Haven, CT

Rhode Island

TAP (Teacher Advancement Program)

Washington, DC


www.tqsource.org

Evaluation System Models

Austin (Student learning objectives with pay-for-performance, group and individual SLOs assess with comprehensive rubric)

http://www.austinisd.org/inside/initiatives/compensation/slos.phtm

Delaware Model (Teacher participation in identifying grade/subject measures which then must be approved by state)

http://www.doe.k12.de.us/csa/dpasii/student_growth/default.shtml

Georgia CLASS Keys (Comprehensive rubric, includes student achievement—see last few pages)System: http://www.gadoe.org/tss_teacher.aspx Rubric:http://www.gadoe.org/DMGetDocument.aspx/CK%20Standards%2010-18-2010.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F6B59CF81E4ECD54E63F615CF1D9441A92E28BFA2A0AB27E3E&Type=D


www.tqsource.org


Hillsborough, Florida (Creating assessments/tests for all subjects)

http://communication.sdhc.k12.fl.us/empoweringteachers/?page_id=317

New Haven, CT (SLO model with strong teacher development component and matrix scoring; see Teacher Evaluation & Development System)

http://www.nhps.net/scc/index

Rhode Island DOE Model (Student learning objectives combined with teacher observations and professionalism)

http://www.ride.ri.gov/assessment/DOCS/Asst.Sups_CurriculumDir.Network/Assnt_Sup_August_24_rev.ppt


www.tqsource.org


Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) (Value-added for tested grades only, no info on other subjects/grades, multiple observations for all teachers)

http://www.tapsystem.org/

Washington DC IMPACT Guidebooks (Variation in how groups of teachers are measured—50% standardized tests for some groups, 10% other assessments for non-tested subjects and grades)

http://www.dc.gov/DCPS/In+the+Classroom/Ensuring+Teacher+Success/IMPACT+(Performance+Assessment)/IMPACT+Guidebooks


www.tqsource.org

Austin Independent School District

Student Learning Objectives:

Teachers determine two SLOs for the semester/year

One SLO must address all students, other may be targeted

Use broad array of assessments

Assess student needs more directly

Align classroom, campus, and district expectations

Aligned to state standards/campus improvement plans

Based on multiple sources of student data

Assessed with pre and post assessment

Targets of student growth

Peer collaboration


www.tqsource.org19

Rubric for Student Learning Objectives

www.tqsource.org20


www.tqsource.org21


APPROVAL NEEDS REVISIONLevel 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1

RIGOR: How rigorous in your SLO? Content is

challenging, complex and progressively deepens knowledge of core content.

Content is thought-provoking requiring high thinking demand.

Requires analytical thinking and active use of knowledge.

Content is relevant to life/experiences.

Content is challenging, complex for most, but not all, students.

Requires analytical thinking.

Content is relevant for most, but not all students.

Content is challenging, complex for some students.

Does not requires analytical thinking.

Content is relevant for some students.

Content is not challenging

Does not requires analytical thinking.

Content is not relevant to life and learning experiences.


www.tqsource.org

SLO Model Strengths/WeaknessesStrengths

• Teachers take an active role in determining student learning goals

• Good professional growth opportunity for teachers

• If objectives are of high-quality and teachers plan instruction to meet them, students should benefit

Weaknesses• Heavily dependent on administrator understanding and time

commitment to supervision

• Not “comparable across classrooms” because teachers set the objectives and they will vary widely

• “Rigor” dependent on evaluators’ understanding and/or having an appropriate rubric


www.tqsource.org

“Rhode Island Model” is Another Example of an SLO ModelUnder consideration, not yet implemented

• Teachers measure student growth by setting student academic goals aligned to standards

• Principals, during the goal setting process, will confer with teachers to establish each goal’s degree of ambition and select the appropriate assessments for measuring progress against the goals

• Teacher evaluation will be based on students’ progress on the established goals, as determined by an end-of-the-year principal review of the pre-determined assessments and their results


www.tqsource.org

The “Rhode Island Model”

The Rhode Island Model (RI Model)1. Impact on student learning

2. Professional Practice (including content knowledge)

3. Professional Responsibilities

“…each teacher’s Student Learning (SL) rating will be determined by a combination of state-wide standardized tests, district-selected standardized tests, and local school-based measures of student learning whenever possible.”


www.tqsource.org

RIDE Model: Impact on Student Learning Category 1: Student growth on state standardized tests that

are developed and/or scored by RIDE

Category 2: Student performance (as measured by growth) on standardized district-wide tests that are developed and/or scored by either the district or by an external party but not by RIDE (e.g., NWEA, AP exams, Stanford-10, ACCESS, etc.)

Category 3: Other, more subjective measures of student performance (growth measures and others, as appropriate) that would likely be developed and/or scored at the district- or school-level (e.g., student performance on school- or teacher-selected assessments, administrator review of student work, attainment of student learning goals that are developed and approved by both teacher and evaluator, etc.)


www.tqsource.org

Rhode Island DOE Model: Framework for Applying Multiple Measures of Student Learning

Category 1: Student growth

on state standardized tests (e.g., NECAP, PARCC)

Student learning rating

Professional practice rating

Professional responsibilities

rating

+

+

Final evaluation

rating

Category 2: Student growth on standardized

district-wide tests (e.g., NWEA, AP exams, Stanford-

10, ACCESS, etc.)

Category 3: Other local

school-, administrator-,

or teacher-selected

measures of student

performance

The student learning rating is determined by a combination of different sources of evidence of student learning. These sources fall into three categories:


www.tqsource.org

“‘Rhode Island Model”: Student Learning Group Guiding Principles

• “Not all teachers’ impact on student learning will be measured by the same mix of assessments, and the mix of assessments used for any given teacher group may vary from year to year.”

Teacher A (5th grade)

Teacher B (11th grade English)

Teacher C (middle school art)

This teacher may use several category 3 assessments

Category 1 (growth on NECAP)

Category 2 (e.g., growth on NWEA)

Category 3 (e.g., principal review of student work over a six

month span)

Teacher A’s student learning rating

+ + =

Category 2 (e.g., AP English exam)

Category 3 (e.g., joint review of critical

essay portfolio)

Teacher B’s student learning rating+ =


www.tqsource.org

“Rhode Island Model” Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths• Includes teachers in evaluation of student learning (outside

of standardized tests)

• Teachers will benefit from having assessment of student learning at the classroom level

Weaknesses• Heavily administrator/evaluator driven process

• Teachers can weigh in on assessments, but do not determine student growth


www.tqsource.org

New Haven Evaluators and Support Providers Instructional managers are responsible for

giving final rating

They may be principals, assistant principals, or “as necessary and appropriate, a designee”

There are also coaches (instructional and content), lead teachers, and mentors

• May have no teaching load or reduced load

• May be itinerant or school-based


www.tqsource.org

New Haven “Matrix”

30

“The ratings for the three evaluation components will be synthesized into a final summative rating at the end of each year. Student growth outcomes

will play a preponderant role in the synthesis.”


www.tqsource.org

New Haven Goal-Setting Process

Teachers administer formative/diagnostic assessments for each of his/her groups of students prior to the Goal-Setting Conference.

During the Goal-Setting Conference, teachers set appropriate academic goals for students in collaboration with instructional manager.

Secondary level: Goals for each of the teacher’s individual classes, with academic goals focused solely on the knowledge and skills that are relevant to the content area.

Elementary level: Where a teacher works primarily with one group of students (or a class) across multiple disciplines, the teacher will devise academic goals that cover the breadth of instruction with a focus on the priority learning areas.


www.tqsource.org

New Haven Goal-Setting Process

Teachers, in collaboration with their instructional manager, will determine the appropriate number of goals as well as whether or not the goals set are “acceptable” – i.e., aligned to standards, challenging but attainable, measureable, and based on assessment(s) that meet district criteria.

If teacher and instructional manager are not able to agree on an appropriate set of goals, a third party individual (e.g., a district supervisor) will mediate and, if necessary, act as the final decision-maker.


www.tqsource.org

New Haven Measures by “Group”

33If you cannot be called directly, dial 888-803-6395.

www.tqsource.org

New Haven Assessment Examples Examples of Assessments/Measures

• Basic literacy assessments, DRA

• District benchmark assessments

• District Connecticut Mastery Test

• LAS Links (English language proficiency for ELLs)

• Unit tests from NHPS approved textbooks

• Off-the-shelf standardized assessments (aligned to standards)

• Teacher-created assessments (aligned to standards)

• Portfolios of student work (aligned to standards)

• AP and International Baccalaureate exams


www.tqsource.org

New Haven Strengths/Weaknesses

Strengths• Focus on support and growth opportunities

• Good documentation/communication

• Teacher and union buy-in/participation

• Student learning growth assessed for all teachers

Weaknesses• Not comparable in many cases because teachers choose

their own measures

• Rigor may vary depending on guidance of instructional managers


www.tqsource.org

Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) Model TAP requires that teachers in tested subjects be

evaluated with value-added models

All teachers are observed in their classrooms (using a Charlotte Danielson type instrument) at least three times per year by different observers (usually one administrator and two teachers who have been appointed to the role)

Teacher effectiveness (for performance awards) determined by combination of value-added and observations

Teachers in non-tested subjects are given the school-wide average for their value-added component, which is combined with their observation scores


www.tqsource.org

TAP Strengths/Weaknesses

Strengths• Value-added becomes everyone’s responsibility, which

should encourage efforts from teachers in non-tested subjects to support teachers in tested subjects

• Multiple yearly observations should be more informative and produce more reliable information about practice

• Professional development aligned with results is required

Weaknesses• Concerns about “fairness” when only a few teachers’

student achievement and progress toward learning goals “counts”

• Tells you nothing about how teachers in other subjects are performing in terms of student learning growth (grades are not always good indicators)


www.tqsource.org

IMPACT Sorts Teachers into Groups That Are Evaluated Differently Group 1: general ed teachers for whom value-

added data can be generated

Group 2: general ed teachers for whom value-added data cannot be generated

Group 3: special education teachers

Group 4: non-itinerant English Language Learner (ELL) teachers and bilingual teachers

Group 5: itinerant ELL teachers

Etc…


www.tqsource.org

Score Comparison for Groups 1 & 2

Group 1 (tested

subjects)

Group 2 (non-tested

subjects)Teacher value-added (based on test scores)

50% 0%Teacher-assessed

student achievement (based on non-VAM

assessments)

0% 10%

Teacher and Learning Framework

(observations)

35% 75%

Commitment to School Community

10% 10%School Wide Value-

Added5% 5%


www.tqsource.org

Group 2 Assessment Rubric

3 “cycles” of data collected & averaged/year

Highest level of rubric:

• “Teacher has at least 1 high-quality source of evidence (i.e., one that is rigorous and reliable) demonstrating that approximately 90% or more of her/his students are on track to make significant learning growth (i.e., at least a year’s worth) towards mastery of the DCPS content standards over the course of the year.”


www.tqsource.org

Non-VAM tests (accepted under Washington, DC’s IMPACT evaluation system) DC Benchmark Assessment System (DC BAS)

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)

Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)

Curriculum-based assessments (e.g., Everyday Mathematics)

Unit tests from DCPS-approved textbooks

Off-the-shelf standardized assessments that are aligned to the DCPS Content Standards

Rigorous teacher-created assessments that are aligned to the DCPS Content Standards

Rigorous portfolios of student work that are aligned to the DCPS Content Standards


41

www.tqsource.org

DC IMPACT Strengths/Weaknesses

Strengths• Uses multiples measures to assess effectiveness

• Permits the use of many types of assessment for students in non-tested subjects and grades

• Includes what is important in the system (in order to encourage specific teacher behaviors)

Weaknesses• No multiple measures of student learning growth

for teachers in tested subjects and grades

• Huge differences in how teachers are measured


www.tqsource.org43

Georgia KEYS

www.tqsource.org44

Georgia KEYS for Non-tested subjects

www.tqsource.org

Georgia KEYS Strengths/WeaknessesStrengths

• Rubric for measuring teacher contribution is easy to understand

• Includes examples of multiple measures of student learning for all teachers, including those in tested grades and subjects

Weaknesses• Rubric (including observation and other

information) is about 100 pages long

• Might be a challenge to implement


www.tqsource.org

Hillsborough, FL

Stated goal is to evaluate every teacher’s effectiveness with student achievement growth, even teachers in non-tested subjects and grades

Undertaking to create pre- and post-assessments for all subjects and grades

Expanding state standardized tests and using value-added to evaluate more teachers

Part of a multiple measures system46


www.tqsource.org

Hillsborough Strengths/Weaknesses

Strengths• Teacher and union involvement in evaluation system

decisions

• Teachers may be able to recommend tests they are already using

• All teachers included, not just tested subjects

Weaknesses• Very expensive to create tests for all grades and

subjects

• Takes teachers out of the assessing/scoring/improving instruction loop


www.tqsource.org

Delaware Model

Standardized test will be used as part of teachers’ scores in some grades/subjects

“Group alike” teachers, meeting with facilitators, determine which assessments, rubrics, processes can be used in their subjects/grades (multiple measures)

Assessments must focus on standards, be given in a “standardized” way, i.e., giving pre-test on same day, for same length of time, with same preparation

Teachers recommend assessments to the state for approval

Teachers/groups of teachers take primary responsibility for determining student growth

State will monitor how assessments are “working”


www.tqsource.org

Delaware Model: Strengths/Weaknesses Strengths

• Teacher-driven process (assumes teachers are the experts in assessing their students’ learning growth)

• Great professional growth opportunity as teachers work together across schools to determine assessments, score student work, etc.

Weaknesses• Validity issues (how the assessments are given and

scored, teacher training to score, etc.)

• Time must be built in for teachers to work together on scoring (particularly for rubric-based assessments)


www.tqsource.org

Final Thoughts Policy is way ahead of the research in teacher

evaluation• It’s too early to tell which model and combination of measures

will provide the most accurate and useful information about teacher effectiveness

Inclusion of student achievement growth data represents a huge culture shift in evaluation• Communication and training are essential

• Teacher/administrator participation and buy-in are crucial to ensure change

Focus on models and measures that may help districts, schools, and teachers improve performance


www.tqsource.org

More Final Thoughts Consider implementing measures in stages

• By subject and grade

• By tested vs. non-tested subjects

• By particular measures (observations, student achievement)

Analyze data from various performance measures before setting cut scores • Check measures for the “widget effect”

Build in frequent “system evaluations” to examine whether measures are working as intended• Good measures used properly should differentiate among

teachers




www.relnei.org

Questions orComments

52



www.relnei.org

Bridging Research and Practice in Maine

53



www.relnei.org

Which of the presented models have characteristics or attributes that align

to your local policy and practice?

54

:: CHECK ALL THAT APPLY::



www.relnei.org

Agenda

55



Regional Context Pamela Buffington






www.relnei.org

Regional ContextNew England Collaborative for Educator Effectiveness (NECEE)

•Regional partnership

•Established in July 2009 by state education leaders from the six NE states

•Focused on defining, measuring, and evaluating educator effectiveness

•Supported by REL-NEI, NECC, and NCCTQ

56



www.relnei.org

REL-NEI Technical Assistance to NECEE• Regional Conference: Bridging Research

and Practice: Multiple Measures of Teacher Effectiveness (June 2010)

• Webinar: Measuring Teacher Effectiveness in New England (May 2010)

• Key Considerations When Measuring Teacher Effectiveness: A Framework For Validating Teachers’ Professional Practices (February 2011)

57



www.relnei.org

REL-NEI Related WorkRace to the Top states • Sharing learning from MA, NY, and RI

State-specific work• New Hampshire: Teacher Effectiveness Task Force Video

Conference

• Connecticut: Rethinking the Role of Teacher Evaluation in Improving Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

• Maine: Defining and Measuring Teacher Effectiveness Conference

• New York: Series of TA projects on educator effectiveness

58



www.relnei.org


59



www.relnei.org

Agenda

60




State and Local ContextBarbara MoodyPatrick PhillipsPortland Public Schools





www.relnei.org

Panelist

Barbara MoodyMaine Department of Education•Title II Coordinator•Math/Science Partnership Grants•State Agency for Higher Education Grants

61



www.relnei.org

Maine’s Path Toward Improving Educator Effectiveness• Removed barriers to linking student achievement

data to evaluations

• Established the Evaluation Model Stakeholders Group

• Applied for Teacher Incentive Fund Grant

• Joined New England Collaborative for Educator Effectiveness

• Joined States’ Collaborative for Educator Quality (national)

62



www.relnei.org

Evaluation Model Stakeholders Group

Approve a model of a “qualifying evaluation system” that local districts can use if they choose to link student achievement to principal and teacher evaluation systems.

63



www.relnei.org

Teacher Incentive Fund

• 5 districts, 15 schools

• Three areas of focus:

– Mentoring and induction

– PD through National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

– Performance-based compensation system

64



www.relnei.org

Maine’s Model for Evaluating and Developing Great Teachers and Leaders

Student Achievement/

Growth

Standards for

Effective Teachers

Standards for

Effective Leaders

65



www.relnei.org

Agenda

66









www.relnei.org

PanelistPatrick PhillipsSuperintendent of Schools MSAD #61 Lake Region School District Bridgton, Maine•Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools, Council for Excellence in Government •Deputy Commissioner, Maine DOE•Distinguished Educator for Learning Results, Maine DOE•Co-chair, Maine Task Force on Citizenship Education•Co-chair, Maine Task Force on Gender Equity in Education

67



www.relnei.org

Teacher Evaluation SAD #61• Local process began four years ago, but stalled

due to lack of a clearly better model

• Broad-based committee re-energized in 2009–10 when State of Maine stakeholders group was convened

• Our research identified the Kim Marshall rubrics and approach to “walkthroughs” as most promising approach and consistent with our philosophy

68



www.relnei.org

Teacher Evaluation SAD #61• Marshall rubrics based on Jon Saphier’s “The

Skillful Teacher”

• SAD #61 has one school participating in the School Improvement Grant process with State of Maine and USED

• Significant funds and mandate in SIG to improve teacher evaluation

• Grant funds permitted us to seek technical assistance to support the work

69



www.relnei.org

Teacher Evaluation SAD #61• Our belief was to start with a clear definition of

what excellent teaching looks like (rubrics)

• Then to build knowledge of the rubrics through coursework and extensive professional development

• To accomplish this work, we hired Research for Better Teaching to teach an initial course in fall 2010 for 12 administrators and 12 teachers

• Course included training administrators in observing using the rubrics

70



www.relnei.org

Teacher Evaluation SAD #61• In-service day in March will also be devoted to

Skillful Teacher training

• Summer course planned as well

• New evaluation system in place this year for volunteers; will be implemented for all next year

• The evaluation system is “holistic” by design, and will include a broad look at student achievement

• Continue to wait for further development at the state level

71



www.relnei.org


72



www.relnei.org

Agenda

73









www.relnei.org

PanelistsMarkos MillerSpanish Language TeacherHigh School

Suellyn SantiagoAssistant PrincipalLincoln Middle School

Kate TheriaultSchool Improvement Grant Coordinator

74



www.relnei.org

Educator Evaluation in Portland: Context• Prompted and supported by School Improvement

Grant (Riverton School)

• Led by district-level workgroup (n = 11)• Teacher, administrator, and Central Office representatives

• K–5, 6–8, and 9–12 are represented

• Meets twice monthly

• Timeline• 2010–11: Develop plan; seek State Board approval

• 2011–12: Riverton and select schools will pilot

• 2012–13: District-wide implementation

75



www.relnei.org

Educator Evaluation in Portland: Vision“The Portland Public Schools will develop an evaluation system for professional staff and administrators that focuses on student learning as the primary component of decision-making and support. This system builds on the professionalism of teachers, specialists, and administrators, and is based on current research and models in other districts.”

76



www.relnei.org

Educator Evaluation in Portland: StandardsCharlotte Danielson’s Enhancing Professional Practice, with local adaptation

Domains•Student Growth and Proficiency: School-wide targets based on state assessments, plus student learning goals established with teams or individual teachers and measured by various assessments

•Instructional Practice: Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, and Instruction

•Professional Practice: Includes work with families and community

77



www.relnei.org

Educator Evaluation in Portland: ResourcesStudent Growth and Proficiency

• Partnership with USM’s CEPARE

• New Haven, CT; other districts

Portland Evaluation Workgroup website: • http://www2.portlandschools.org/evaluation-work-group

Teacher Union Reform Network (TURN):• www.turnexchange.net

Kate Theriault: • [email protected], 207-874-8210

78



www.relnei.org

Agenda

79





Roundtable Discussion All Panelists




www.relnei.org

Roundtable Discussion

Laura GoeLaura Goe Patrick PhillipsPatrick PhillipsBarbara MoodyBarbara Moody

General Questions

Portland Public Portland Public SchoolsSchools

80



www.relnei.org

What Are the Policy Issues and Implications?

• Data systems — student and teacher

• Compensation

• Teacher preparation and recruitment

Laura GoeLaura Goe Patrick PhillipsPatrick PhillipsBarbara MoodyBarbara Moody Portland Public Portland Public SchoolsSchools

81



www.relnei.org

Agenda

82






What’s Next Pamela Buffington



www.relnei.org

Online Discussion Forum

83



www.relnei.org

Relnei.org

84



www.relnei.org

85

The Reference Desk service provides brief responses to your education-related questions.

Reference Desk



www.relnei.org

86

Laura Goe, Ph.D.P: 609-734-1076 E-mail: [email protected]

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality1100 17th Street NW, Suite 500Washington, DC 20036-4632877-322-8700 www.tqsource.org

Dr. Laura Goe

If you cannot be dialed directly, dial 888-803-6395.


www.relnei.org

REL-NEI’s Maine State Team

Peter Tierney-FifeMaine State ResearcherREL Northeast and [email protected]

Pamela BuffingtonMaine State LiaisonREL Northeast and [email protected]

87

If you cannot be dialed directly, dial 888-803-6395.


www.relnei.org

Panelists

Patrick PhillipsSuperintendent of Schools MSAD #61 Lake Region School DistrictBridgton, Maine

Barbara MoodyTitle IID CoordinatorMaine Department of [email protected]

88

if you cannot be called directly, dial 888-803- 6395. for technical assistance, e-mail...

Documents