Scott A. Harrison, Ed.D., M.B.A., is a senior advisor at The Harrison Group, a consultancy based in Yarmouth.

Maine has long valued local control in education. That tradition reflects an important belief that communities should have a strong voice in shaping their schools. But local control should not prevent us from asking a harder question: Are there core functions that could be delivered more effectively through a single statewide framework?

One of the most important is educator evaluation and professional growth. Maine law already recognizes the importance of this work. Under Title 20-A, Chapter 508 (Educator Effectiveness), districts must implement performance evaluation and professional
growth systems that evaluate educators, assign effectiveness ratings and support
professional growth.

The law further requires superintendents to use those ratings to inform key human capital decisions, including recruitment, hiring, induction, mentoring, professional development, compensation, assignment and dismissal. In short, educator evaluation is not intended to be a compliance exercise. It is intended to be a primary lever for the continual improvement of teaching and learning.

In 2012, LD 1858 sought to advance that vision by giving districts broad flexibility to design their own systems. Districts could choose instructional frameworks, establish measures of effectiveness and determine how evaluators would be trained and calibrated. The goal was to balance local autonomy with professional accountability.

More than a decade later, however, the evidence suggests that flexibility alone has not produced consistent results.

My research involving 130 educators across four Maine school districts found only modest perceptions of performance evaluation and professional growth systems’ effectiveness.

On a four-point scale, average ratings ranged from 2.48 to 2.99. While educators generally agreed that districts provide individualized growth plans and can differentiate levels of instructional effectiveness, they rated several critical implementation areas notably lower, including instructional coaching, evaluator training, feedback quality, evaluator calibration and the use of evaluation data to inform professional learning and personnel decisions.

Although the sample was relatively small, the findings closely mirror what I have observed while working with predominantly rural Maine districts over the past decade.

The qualitative findings were equally revealing. Teachers and administrators described systems that are often cumbersome, inconsistently implemented and difficult to sustain. Educators reported spending significant time developing goals and documenting evidence, while administrators acknowledged that competing priorities frequently reduce evaluation to a compliance exercise rather than a meaningful opportunity for growth.

Participants cited insufficient training, inconsistent expectations, limited coaching support and weak connections between evaluation results and professional learning. Perhaps most significant, though not surprising given the realities of today’s schools, the primary obstacle appears to be not commitment, but capacity — the time, expertise and tools required to implement these complex systems with fidelity.

Designing and sustaining high-quality evaluation systems requires expertise in instructional leadership, observation and feedback, adult learning, professional development, data use and evaluator calibration. While some districts have built this capacity, many — particularly smaller and rural systems — have not. Even where expertise exists, time remains a major barrier.

Effective evaluation depends on regular observation, coaching, feedback and calibration. Yet for principals balancing instructional leadership with the daily demands of running a school, carrying out these responsibilities consistently can be extraordinarily difficult.

As a result, Maine has effectively asked more than 250 districts to independently build and maintain highly complex educator effectiveness systems. The outcome is predictable: uneven quality and implementation, and variable impact on teaching and learning.

This raises an important policy question: Should every district continue to design, train, calibrate and maintain its own evaluation system, or would educators and students be better served by a common statewide framework supported by regional and state expertise?

A statewide approach would not eliminate local control. Districts would continue to make decisions about hiring, staffing, curriculum, budgeting and school improvement priorities. Instead, the state would provide shared infrastructure: a common instructional and evaluation framework, validated tools, evaluator training, calibration supports, professional learning resources and implementation assistance.

The benefits extend beyond evaluation. A common framework would create stronger alignment across Maine’s educator pipeline. Colleges and universities could align coursework, clinical experiences and assessments to the exact same standards used in schools while sharing responsibility for educator success beyond initial placement.

Preparation programs, districts and the state would become partners in a continuous system of educator development, creating mutual accountability for results and a stronger return on Maine’s investment in teacher preparation.

Such alignment matters. As systems thinker Peter Senge observed, people working within the same system tend to produce similar results. If we want more consistent outcomes for students, we must pay closer attention to the systems shaping educator practice.

A common framework would establish a shared language and clearer expectations throughout the career continuum. It would also make continuous improvement easier. Rather than asking hundreds of districts to independently revise complex systems, the state could evaluate implementation, refine practices, share lessons learned and respond to emerging research. Educators have experienced too many short-lived initiatives that consume considerable time and effort before fading away.

A coherent statewide system would provide greater stability and more meaningful long-term improvement. The question is not whether local control matters. It does. The question is whether every district should be expected to independently build and sustain complex systems that require specialized expertise, significant resources and ongoing refinement.

If Maine is serious about improving outcomes for students, it should rethink which functions are best managed locally and which are better supported through statewide infrastructure. Educator effectiveness is one example. There are likely others.

In a previous op-ed here, I argued that Maine should reconsider whether teacher compensation is best negotiated district by district. The same question applies here. When critical human capital systems are essential to student success, a coherent statewide framework may be better positioned to advance equity, efficiency and effectiveness while preserving local decision-making where it matters most.

The goal is not less local control, but a smarter balance between local autonomy and statewide support — one that strengthens schools and improves outcomes for every student, regardless of geography.

PORTLAND (WGME) — It’s now a three-way race for the Blaine House.

After more than a week, the ranked choice tabulation was run very early Friday morning, with Hannah Pingree declared the winner for the Democrats, and Bobby Charles the winner for Republicans.

Moving forward, Independent Rick Bennett is also in the governor’s race.

As a moderate, Bennett could draw votes from both parties.

If Friday is any indication, the next four and a half months will be contentious, with the three candidates pointing fingers at each other.

Charles criticized ranked choice voting and says if elected, he will end it.

“Maine voters deserve to know the results of their elections on the day that they cast their vote,” Charles said.

Pingree disagrees, saying election officials made sure every vote counted.

“Maine’s election officials did their job, and they did it right,” Pingree said.

The two nominees traded jabs Friday.

“The Democrats have just nominated an insider,” Charles said. “A deep Augusta insider.”

Republican candidate for governor Bobby Charles (WGME)

It was Charles’ own primary opponents who labeled him a Washington insider.

“I will say it’s ironic that Bobby Charles is talking about positive change,” Pingree said.

Then there’s State Senator and former head of the Maine Republican Party Rick Bennett, running as an Independent.

Charles calls him a Democrat.

Pingree calls him a Republican.

“I think the choice here is clear,” Bennett said. “We have Hannah Pingree, who I respect, but she’s a continuation of the Mills administration. She was in charge of housing policy. We still have a housing crisis. Bobby Charles, as you know, has spent most of his life in the bureaucracy in Washington and then lobbying for corporate interests in Washington. Maine people are tired of a political system that puts the parties first and results second.”

Independent candidate for governor Rick Bennett (WGME)

Charles says he wants to bring integrity to the State House.

“You either want change, integrity, lower taxes, the drug traffickers out of here, the needles out of here, the energy costs down,” Charles said. “No more fraud. I am sick and tired of all the things we’re putting up with. In my view, a betrayal of trust and a betrayal of integrity.”

Pingree says Congressional Republicans and the President are the ones making life difficult for Maine families.

“This is about healthcare that we can afford, whether you’re in a rural hospital in Houlton or urgent care in Portland. It is about Maine’s potential,” Pingree said. “A real future for our kids and the people who are working all across Maine just to get by. It’s also about continuing to stand up to Donald Trump. His attacks, his wars, his economic chaos that is making life harder for every single Mainer every single day.”

As an Independent, Bennett did not have to compete in a primary.

Also, unlike the primary, there is no ranked choice in the general election for state races, so no ranked choice this fall in the governor’s race.