Last time I wrote about a bill (LD 1858) in the Legislature that promoted changing the manner in which teachers and principals were evaluated in schools. Depending who you spoke with, either the evaluations are not done well or often or the process is so diluted that it is difficult to move out a poorly performing teacher. I wrote that I was submitting the article just as the discussion took place and after the printing I had a note from one local educator who said she had read it and hoped I would be open minded to hearing the facts. In fact I do try to listen and learned early on that when I come out early with an opinion or statement of my voting intent…it can come back to haunt you as more details emerge. Thus, I was eager to hear the discussion.

The process of a bill is that it is an idea that is submitted by any legislator, and then a brief is produced for them that tries to capture the intent. The legislator then seeks others to sign onto the bill as co-sponsors (trying to get a mix of people to show support) and the bill with co-sponsors is then returned to administration and eventually sent to one of the various (17) committees. In this case it was sent to the Education and Cultural Affairs Committee. Committee leadership schedules a public hearing, which is open to all. After a public hearing, usually another day, will be a committee workshop where a course of action is recommended. This can take more than one meeting depending on the subject and bill. The final committee vote then is sent to the House and Senate, in order they each consider it looking (usually) at what the committee recommends (the higher the vote to unanimous, the more likely it will go smoothly). This bill drew a good turnout, during discussion the MEA (Maine Educators Association), educators and the PTA all spoke against the written bill. The associations for principals, superintendents and other administrative-type groups either spoke in favor or simply not for or against. Discussion went well into the evening.

The story is worth discussing again due to the process. The Department of Education heard the concerns of the educators (making student performance significant in terms of the evaluation and their belief that this tool made it too easy to move out any educator). There was a break of about one week between meetings and as we came back I can honestly say I was not looking forward to the debate that would be so affecting people’s lives. As our party caucus met to plan, I was pleased with our changes to the bill that seemed to still allow for improvements in the evaluation system while not seemingly leaving all educators vulnerable.

As we met as a committee to discuss the changes, I was pleased to see all the “key” players in the audience seemed pleased (this does not happen often). Representatives for the administrators and for the MEA both spoke to say they were OK with the new proposal. In conclusion our committee voted 14-0 to move the concept forward, which will mean it is likely to have an easier time traveling through the remaining process.

Unfortunately, due to space restrictions here, I cannot adequately describe the collaboration and good work done behind the scenes to improve a poor situation. Educators and principals deserve regular feedback and the few who are not meant to be in a classroom deserve a safe way out.

Search bills online at: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/search.htm.

God Bless you all!

Rep. Mike McClellan represents Raymond, Frye Island and parts of Standish and Poland. He can be reached at 329-6148 or [email protected] or on Facebook at “Mike McClellan Politician.”