Archived Licensure Framework Documents

TO: Members, Indiana Professional Standards Board
FROM: Continuum Linkage Committee
DATE: June 19, 1997
RE: Assessment System Recommendations

BACKGROUND

For the past two years, members of the Assessment Committee, its successor - the Continuum Linkage Committee (CLC), and four work groups (Teacher Education, Teacher Induction, Continuing Education, and National Exam and Waiver) have been working to develop an assessment system that would complement the Board's performance-based standards. During the past year, the CLC and its work groups have been guided by their charges as approved by the Board at its June 1996 meeting and further clarified at its December 1996 meeting (Document I.), and the Ten Principles of Assessment, approved by the Board at its August 16, 1996, meeting (Document II.).

At its May 2, 1997, meeting the CLC formally approved the following for the Board's
consideration:

Recommendations for a proposed assessment system for Teacher Education, Teacher Induction, Continuing Education, and National Exam and Waiver as included in Document III;
a structure for continuing the development and monitoring the implementation of the proposed assessment system as depicted in Document IV; and

a time line for implementing the proposed assessment system as shown in Document V.

While stakeholder input was solicited by the various work groups, the CLC recommends further dissemination of its recommendations by the Board and that the dissemination process be the first item to be considered by the CLC's successor at its first meeting.

Committee Recommendation:

The Committee recommends that the Indiana Professional Standards Board approve (1) the recommendations for an assessment system proposed in Document III.; (2) the recommendations for a proposed assessment structure during 1997-98 proposed in Document IV.; and (3) the recommendations for an implementation time line proposed in Document V.

Professional Standards Board Action:

Attachments:

Document I. CLC Charge and Clarification
List of all CLC and Work Group Members

Document II. Ten Principles of Assessment

Document III. Assessment System Recommendations

Document IV. Recommended Assessment Structure for 1997-98

Document V. Recommended Time Line for Implementation of Proposed Assessment
System

Document I.

Charge and Clarification
CLC and Work Group Members

TO: Members, Indiana Professional Standards Board

FROM: Richard Therrien

DATE: June 21, 1996

RE: Assessment Subconunittee Report

In the June Board materials. are copies of the revised Matrix and Draft Recommendations of the Assessment Subcommittee. In these materials, the Subconunittee has identified the points during preparation and practice at which assessments should occur, the nature of who should conduct the assessments, and how the assessments should be conducted.

Additionally, the Subcommittee expands to become the Continuum Linkage Committee, and four work groups will be formed. The Continuum Linkage Committee will be have eighteen (I 8) members as follows:

the ten current Assessment Subcommittee members,
one Board and one staff member from the Teacher Education, Teacher Induction, and Continuing Education Subcommittees,
the Director of Legal and External Affairs,
a representative from the External Indiana Association of School Principals Committee (IASP).

The charge of the Continuum Linkage Committee will be to receive and to react to the work
groups' proposals, insuring linkages along the continuum.

The four work groups, which will be informal, staff appointed and staff led are:

Teacher Education
National Test and Waiver
Teacher Induction Continuing Education

The charge of each work group is to determine:

What assessment(s) will be used, and how will these be developed?
How will the assessments(s) be linked to the standards and other assessments along the continuum?
When will the assessments(s) be administered?
Who will administer the assessments?
How will the results be reported, to whom will they be reported, and how will these results be used?
What are the legal ramifications of the proposed assessments?
What are the implications for statute changes?
What suggestions are there for rules pertaining to the assessment(s)?
Are there any additional issues specific to the area that will need to be addressed?
(NCATE Partner Protocol for example)

Membership of each work group will include at least one member of the Continuing Linkage Committee, one staff member, one other committee member as appropriate, and other expertise as needed.

Timelines of the work group/Continuing Linkage Committee are as follows:

Work groups will be established as soon as possible.
July 17 and 18 are dates for the Board Retreat; there will be an initial meeting of the work groups and Continuing Linkage Committee on one of these dates.
November 21 - Work Groups will report progress to the Continuum Linkage Committee.
January 15 - Work groups will present a proposal to the Continuum Linkage Committee.
March 19 - Work Groups will present the second drafts of their proposals to the Continuing Linkage Committee.
May 14 - Work groups will present the third drafts to the Continuing Linkage Committee.
June 18 - The Continuing Linkage Group will report out to the IPSB, specifying matters pertaining to assessment throughout the continuum.

TO: Members, Indiana Professional Standards Board

FROM: Saundra Tracy, Chair Continuum Linkage Committee

DATE: December 19, 1996

RE: Clarification of the CLC and Work Group Charges

At its November 21 meeting, the Continuum Linkage Committee (CLC) and Teacher Education, National Exam and Waiver, Teacher Induction, and Continuing Education Work Groups reviewed their original charges and clarified the charges as follows:

1. "Receiving and reacting to the work group proposals..." includes the CLC's approval of those proposals prior to forwarding them to the Board.

2. When feedback will be gathered on the proposals was not addressed in the original CLC charge. The CLC agreed that stakeholder feedback on the recommendations in the work groups' proposals should be gathered by the Board after receipt of the reports from CLC. The CLC work groups will be responsible for gathering sufficient input from knowledgeable persons or organizations in their work area to address their individual charges.

The Continuum Linkage Committee Recommendation:

The CLC recommends that the Board accept the two clarifications of its original charge as
indicated.

Professional Standards Board Action:

WORK GROUP MEMBERS

CONTINUING EDUCATION WORK GROUP Ms. Bobbie Escalante, Hammond Schools Dr. Gail Huffman-Joley, Indiana State University Ms. Dionne Schmid, MSD Washington Township Ms. Beth Schurtz, IPSB Staff Dr. Ena Shelley, IPSB Member, Butler University Ms. Mary Mickelson, PBA, Department of Education Ms. Santa Brink, Premier Educational Consultants State Board of Education Representative NATIONAL TEST AND WAIVER WORK GROUP Ms. Mynelle Gardner, Martin University Mr. Dan Miller, IPSB Member, Putnam County Area Vocational School Dr. Dale Scannell, IUPUI Dr. Marilyn Scannell, Executive Director - IPSB Mrs. Nancy Taylor, IPSB Staff
TEACHER EDUCATION WORK GROUP Ms. Judy Briganti, IPSB Member, Elkhart Community Schools Mrs. Sylvia Kolb, University of Evansville Ms. T.J. Oakes, IPSB Staff Dr. Dale Scannell, IUPUI Dr. Saundra Tracy, Butler University Mr. Joe Weaver, IPSB Member, Oak Hill School Corporation Mr. Curt Winkle, Indiana State University
TEACHER INDUCTION WORK GROUP Mr. David Cooper, IPSB Member Ms. Margaret Finders, Purdue University Mr. Dennis Overberg, Montezuma Schools Dr. Vince Schrader, IPSB Staff Ms. Joy Seybold, Lafayette School Corporation Dr. Margo Sorgman, IU Kokomo Mr. Richard Therrien, IPSB Member
Document II.
Ten principles of Assessment
The Indiana Professional Standards Board will follow the ten principles listed below in all deliberations on assessment: 1. An initial license will be granted after one completes preparation program assessments. 2. A standard license will be granted after one completes induction assessments. 3. Re-licensure will be granted after one completes continuing education assessments. 4. Accomplished teachers will be recognized by staged licensure. 5. The content and developmental standards currently being developed by Indiana Professional Standards Board advisory groups and external standing committees will be the standards throughout the continuum. 6. Work groups must focus on the assessments to accompany the standards at their particular stage of the continuum. 7. Work groups must focus on issues related to preparation and licensure. 8. Formative and summative assessments lead to decisions for licensure. 9. Licensure depends on meeting the Indiana Professional Standards Board standards, not time requirements. 10. There will be multiple forms of assessments including performance-based assessments.

Document III
Assessment System Recommendations

A. Teacher Education

Background
The Teacher Education Work Group was charged to provide recommendations(s) to the Continuum Linkage Conunittee (CLC) for an assessment process, specifically for the review of institutional assessment systems. Items to be addressed in detail by the work group are:

recommendation to the CLC;
consultant assistance for review of institutional assessment systems;
presentation/workshops for institutions; assessment systems;
accreditation review committee meeting, training and third year reports, and approval process including time line;
initial program approval as well as transition from the old system;
board of examiners training, visit and reports; and
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) partnership implications and documents.

The work group operated under the following principles:

the Indiana standards for educators are based on the linkage of: Indiana Essential
Skills for Students, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium
principles (INTASC), and National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE) standards including NCATE-approved curriculum guidelines;
ten principles of assessment adopted by the EPSB must be considered;
the work of previous groups, i.e., Indiana Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education (IACTE) Task Force for Perforinance-based Licensure and the IPSB
Teacher Education Subcommittee, provides a foundation;
the process and procedure should be as unobtrusive as possible to the institution as
well as be efficient, e.g., reduce paperwork;
each institution is unique and must deal with its unique circumstances; therefore,
flexibility and autonomy are key to creativity, yet the institution must be held
accountable to the EPSB and the public;
incorporation of the Indiana standards will be a developmental process for the institution;
assistance should be available to institutions that need it; and
the IPSB and institutions have the same goal: to produce quality teachers.

In January, a memo with attached work group documents was sent to Indiana unit heads, e.g., deans, chairs, etc., to solicit feedback on the proposed assessment system. Five responses were received. In February, the work group met with the pilot institutions to discuss the preliminary reports and work of the group. Revisions were made based upon the feedback. In addition, some members of the work group met with NCATE staff to discuss the work group documents. Indiana's proposed system and movement toward a performance-based system was well received by NCATE staff.

Basic Changes
Listed below are the basic changes proposed for teacher education:

institutions no longer submit program portfolios or revisions to programs (if desired, institutions may still submit documentation to learned societies);
institutions do submit an institutional assessment system for review and decision (the system addresses candidate as well as program assessment);
the institution moves from a snapshot (a point in time, e.g., end of program) to a motion picture (continuous assessment, e.g., a process that begins at the time a candidate enters a program and continues until a license is granted);
institutions demonstrate program quality through the demonstration of student quality;
new program approval follows the guidelines similar to experimental programs and is a part of the accreditation process;
a Teacher Education Committee will convene twice a year and review new program proposals and provide a recommendation to the IPSB;
NCATE/IPSB annual reports must be submitted by the institution;
NCATE/IPSB annual reports follow an Indiana template (for details see work group documents); and
a consultants and Teacher Education Committee will review and respond to the annual reports and make reconunendations.

Implications for Rules and Statute
Please refer to the attached rule for recommended revisions to the teacher education rule. Also, unit assessment is now linked to candidate assessment and induction data. Therefore, the need for an external written test is now eliminated once this system of institutional assessment is implemented,

Teacher Education Recommendations

proceed with the rule change (refer to attached rule);
implement the unit assessment system (refer to attached documents);
grant an initial license after the candidate meets performance-based assessments during the preparation period; and
create a Teacher Education Committee.

Issues for the Teacher Education Committee to Address
The Teacher Education Committee will provide oversight of the transition including teacher education activities, e.g., review of annual reports which include the unit assessment system, development of an appeal process for IPSB teacher education decisions, and assistance with the NCATE partnership.

Outcomes

All accredited professional education units will have a full assessment system
approved by 2002-2003; and
A performance-based NCATE partnership is anticipated in 1999.

Attachments: Draft rule
Indiana Accreditation Process Chart
Criteria for Development & Review of Unit Assessment Systems Transitional Time Line
New Program Approval Process

(To review the original draft rule, please contact IPSB. Below is the rule in it's final form.)

TITLE 515 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BOARD

515 IAC 1-2-21 Accreditation of institutions preparing educators

Authority: IC 20-1-1.4-7
Affected: IC 20-6.1-2-1; IC 20-6.1-2-2

Sec. 2 1. (a) State approval of institutions preparing educators is based on Standards Procedures & Policies for the Accreditation of Professional Education Units of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (hereby incorporated by reference), Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Licensing and Development of the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) (hereby incorporated by reference), and the Standards for Teachers adopted by the Indiana professional standards board. Actual accreditation by NCATE is strongly encouraged but not mandatory. An institution not accredited by NCATE must be reviewed for approval according to subsection (d).

(b) A unit assessment system must be approved by the Indiana professional standards
board according to Indiana professional standards board guidelines.

(c) An institution accredited by NCATE must submit to the Indiana professional standards board, prior to the NCATE accreditation visit, reports which comply with the Indiana professional standards board guidelines and expected time line.

(d) An institution not seeking NCATE accreditation must submit to the Indiana professional standards board, prior to the accreditation visit, reports which comply with the Indiana professional standards board guidelines and expected time line. Based on the model of NCATE accreditation, the Indiana professional standards board will conduct an accreditation visit using the Indiana board of examiners.

(e) The Indiana professional standards board will make the final determination of the
Indiana accreditation status of all institutions desiring to prepare educators for licensing.

(f) The Indiana professional standards board shall assist institutions in developing quality
programs for preparing educators.

CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT & REVIEW OF UNIT
ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS

Definition:
The unit assessment system details how the education unit ensures that its programs prepare students with the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to be effective educators. In other words, what evidence does the unit have to demonstrate its effectiveness, and how does it use this evidence to continually improve its programs?

A subset of the unit assessment system is the assessment system for individual students. How does the unit ensure that each individual student has attained the necessary knowledge, skills and dispositions?

The unit's assessment system shall meet the following criteria:
System Development

1. provides description of stakeholders involvement in system development

System Components

2. provides evidence that the conceptual framework(s) incorporates the Indiana standards

3. includes a coherent, sequential assessment system for individual students that:

a. provides evidence that the Indiana standards are shared with students

b. utilizes, for both formative and summative purposes, a range of performance-based assessment strategies throughout the program that provides students with ongoing feedback

c. has multiple summative decision points, e.g., at entry, prior to student
teaching, prior to program completion

d. clearly documents students' attainment of the Indiana standards

4. documents the quality of programs through the collective presentation of student assessment data, e.g., how well students meet the standards

System Evaluation

5. demonstrates how the information gathered via the individual student assessment system is utilized to refine and revise the conceptual framework(s) and programs' goals, content and delivery strategies

6. describes how the assessment system is managed

7. explains the process for reviewing and revising the assessment system

Assessment Systems during the Transition Period
The initial assessment system will describe what the unit intends to do, providing examples of the kinds of information to be collected and will be submitted to IPSB as part of the NCATE/IPSB annual report. Subsequent annual reports will present summaries of data gathered and document the actual processes used in assessing both the unit and individual students.

EXAMPLES OF COMPONENTS OF AN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

Examples of what the unit might initially submit for each of the areas of a unit assessment
system as just described are:

System Development

1.

Stakeholder involvement

Describe the process for creating the plan, how others were involved and what they contributed.

System Components

2.
Evidence of Indiana standards

Map the standards to unit goals showing where standards are addressed or how they spiral through the curriculum. Demonstrate the relationship between the conceptual framework and the standards.

3. A student assessment system

a. How does the unit share the standards with students throughout their program?

b. What kinds of assessments are used to determine students' attainment of the
standards? Provide detailed data on a small sample of students, e.g., a portfolio and its assessment. Provide examples of the assessments-tools, instruments, guidelines. They must include a range of different types used at different times.

c. Describe the summative decision points. What assessments and criteria are used for admission to the unit/programs? Where do other go/no go decisions occur, and on what are they based, e.g., must demonstrate that decisions have a performance base?

d.
How does the unit know a student has met the standards? Describe the evidence the unit has of its students' performances. Show where the various standards are assessed through the program.

Show how the assessments link to the standards and provide credible evidence of attainment. How does the institution know the assessments provide credible evidence? Show how the results of the assessments provide students useful feedback for professional growth. Are there assessments of life experience that are incorporated into the total student assessment? If so what are they and how does the unit determine success in meeting the standards through experience?

4.

Quality of the unit

Provide examples of what the collective data on student performance will look like and how it will be interpreted as a measure of program quality. What will be the unit's criteria for judging program quality using these data?

5.

Information used to r-efine and revise programs

Describe how the collective data will be used to make program improvements. Explain a systematic process for reviewing these data and using them to promote program change.

6.

Assessment system management

Describe the person(s) who will oversee implementation of the assessment system, how it will be operationalized within the unit.

7.

Reviewing and revising the assessment system

Explain how the assessment system will be assessed. When will it be reviewed? How will the unit determine if the system is effective?

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NCATE ANNUAL REPORTS
AND THE IPSB UNIT ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS

It is the IPSB's intent to allow units maximum flexibility and creativity in program design while ensuring the high quality of the graduates of their programs. Increasing flexibility means reducing, whenever possible, the time spent in producing reports. Therefore, we recommend that the IPSB unit assessment system be incorporated into the NCATE annual report structure. This will require NCATE approval of an Indiana template for the NCATE annual report.

Submission of the initial unit assessment system for approval by the IPSB will occur no later than October 1, 2002. Prior to this time, units must submit evidence that they are planning and developing their assessment systems. Plans for creating an assessment system that addresses INTASC standards will be due October 1, 1997. Revised plans for creating an assessment system to address Indiana standards including a report of progress on addressing INTASC standards will be due October 1, 1998.

Subsequent NCATE annual reports will document changes in the assessment systems, summaries of the years data and programmatic refinement based on those data. The entire assessment system need not be repeated in these reports.

A Suggested Indiana Template for the NCATE Annual Report

Category 1: Design of Professional Education
Standards IA-1
Reporting on individual standards will be replaced by the descriptions of the unit's assessment system, addressing the criteria noted earlier. This assessment system will speak to the conceptual framework(s) and to what students know and are able to do as a result of the general studies, content studies, professional and pedagogical studies, integrative studies, field experiences and advanced professional studies. It also should clearly show how instruction is continuously evaluated and how the professional community plays an integral role in educator preparation.

Category II: Candidates in Professional Education
Standards IIA-D
This section of the report will be replaced with the individual student assessment system. Such a system should demonstrate in a far more detailed way than previously reported the quality of students brought into the unit/programs, monitoring of their progress and how the unit ensures the competence of its graduates.

In addition, unit will provide evidence of the demographics of its student body and efforts to diversify it.

Categories III & IV: Professional Education Faculty and The Unit for Professional Education
Standards IIIA-D & Standards IVA-C
Units will continue to provide evidence that they are meeting these standards as in previous NCATE annual reports. Standards I and 11 are the key standards for demonstrating a unit's performance. However, Standards III and IV also are necessary, though not sufficient, indicators of unit quality.

The Continuing Accreditation Report
The unit's Continuing Accreditation Report also will follow the format described above with emphasis on the results of the assessment system for the unit's programs and its students. It should provide a summary of the data collected over the five years period via the assessment systems in order to document the quality and continuing progress of the unit. This emphasis reduces the importance of documentation of process such as course syllabi and other indicators of an institutions intentions to prepare students well and increases the importance of evidence of results.

Transitional Time Line for Development of
Unit Assessment Systems

On or before October 1, 2002, units submit the unit assessment system for review and approval by the IPSB

All units submit plans for creating an assessment system to address Indiana Standards and report on the incorporation of the INTASC principles

All units provide plans for creating an assessment system for addressing INTASC* principles

Five pilot submit plans on addressing INTASC* principles

October 1, 1996 October 1, 1997 October 1,1998 October 1, 1999 - October 1, 2002

* Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium
IPSB Teacher Education Work Group Draft April 16, 1997

B. National Exam and Waiver

Background

The National Exam and Waiver Work Group was charged to provide recommendations to the Continuum Linkage Committee (CLC) about national tests, waivers, and alternative procedures to the tests for initial licensing. Items to be addressed by the work group were:

recommendation to the CLC;
test waivers and a Board Test Waiver Committee;
exams to be used until colleges/universities have assessment plans in place;
alternative procedure to the test for initial licensure; and
policies for teachers coming in from out-of-state.

The work group operated under the following principles:

the Indiana standards for educators are based on the linkage of. Indiana Essential Skills for Students, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium principles (INTASC), and National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards including NCATE-approved curriculum guidelines; and
the ten principles of assessment adopted by the IPSB.

In December, a memo was sent to Indiana unit heads and licensing advisors informing them of proposed testing changes and asking their feedback. Five written responses and two oral ones were received. Consideration was given to these responses and information was reported to the IPSB.

Basic Changes
Listed on the following page are the basic changes proposed. These recommendations are intended to serve until such time as institutional assessment systems for teacher education are implemented. The long term plan for the assessment of candidates for the initial teacher license rests with college/universities subject to the approval of the IPSB.

Changes from granting an initial standard license to an initial license to one who has demonstrated proficiency on a written examination or through other procedures as prescribed by the Board in basic reading, writing, and math, pedagogy, and specialty areas licensed to teach;
Eliminates the core battery and substitutes a basic skills test, the Pre-professional Skills Test (PPST);
Permits a college/university to exempt a candidate from the PPST given a sufficient score (to be determined) on a comparable nationally standardized test such as the ACT, SAT, or GRE;
Revises requirements for out-of-state license applicants to eliminate experience verification and to accept tests comparable to Indiana licensing exams; Identifies minimum acceptable scores for successful completion of basic skills test (PPST);
Identifies minimum acceptable scores for successful completion of specialty test(s);
Establishes a Test Waiver Committee composed of three IPSB members rather than IPSB staff, stipulates documentation required for waiver based on disability and provides the number of meeting dates of the Waiver Committee per academic year;
Provides a dual system of testing until eolleges/universities have their own assessment systems approved by the IPSB;
Implements Praxis II specialty tests and acceptable scores as necessary.

Implications for Rules and Statute
Revisions to the teacher testing rule will be needed. The National Exam and Waiver Work Group presented its recommendations to the Continuum Linkage Committee to serve until such time as the assessment for the initial license is implemented. The long term plan for the assessment of teacher license candidates rests with the college/universities subject to the approval of the IPSB. The recommendations follow. The statute as revised follows.

Recommendations

1.
National Exam

The Pre-professional Skills Test (PPST), prepared by Educational Testing Service, will be required by the state with qualifying scores established by the state, to test basic skills in math, reading and writing. It has to be passed prior to a candidate's being recommended for initial licensure as specified in the college/university's assessment system.
Where necessary, Praxis 11 specialty tests will be implemented to replace NTE specialty tests being phased out.
If a college/university wants to exempt a candidate from the basic skills test (PPST) on the basis of that candidate's performance on a comparable nationally standardized test such as the ACT, SAT, GRE, the institution may do so on the basis that a reviewer(s) can provide sufficient technical information to the Indiana Professional Standards Board for so doing.
Please remember, it is intended that the state required tests in both basic skills and subject areas will be discontinued for students from colleges/universities with assessment systems approved by the IPSB. A dual system will be maintained for an undetermined period. This recommendation is subject to Board approval when the entire assessment system is presented.

2.
Waiver

Rules will remain the same for people with physical disabilities (This covers a learning disability.) and for an applicant who has successfully completed any section of the Indiana teacher examination in accordance with Section I (b)(2) of Rule 4, Teacher Proficiency Examination.
In accordance with a suggestion from legal counsel, Rule 4 for the out-of-state applicant will be revised to say: "An applicant who holds a valid out-of-state license may not be required to meet the provisions of subsection (a)(1) of this rule if the applicant has successfully completed an examination for certification or licensing which is substantially equivalent to the examination required under subsection (a)(1) of this rule." (This would eliminate the necessity of experience verification for out-of-state applicants, and the staff could determine "substantial equivalency" unless choosing to defer to the Test Waiver Committee.
A Test Waiver Committee composed of three IPSB members, one of whom is a school psychologist or a special education professional, will be formed to address waiver requests for people with physical disabilities who have taken all required tests with special accommodations, but have not met all qualifying scores.
This committee would meet four times per academic year to consider waiver requests. (Meeting dates would be recommended by staff so as to allow candidates to retake tests, if necessary, at the earliest testing opportunity.)
Rule 4, The Teacher Proficiency Examination would identify items of documentation required by the Test Waiver Committee as follows:

(a) Letter by candidate requesting a waiver,
(b) Documentation by a professional of a disability,
(c) Evidence of taking the Teacher Proficiency Exams with special
accommodations(s),
(d) Test history (provided by staff),
(e) Transcript copy,
(f) Report from professional educator who has worked with the candidate and can
attest to the competency of the candidate as a classroom teacher,
(g) Report from college faculty member who supervised the candidate's clinical experience and had the opportunity to work with and observe the candidate's teaching and classroom performance,
(h) Statement from the candidate/other appropriate person as to any special assistance or accommodation(s) the candidate had while in school, and
(i) Any relevant additional documentation required by the IPSB.

Issues Still to be Addressed

Rules are to be written and promulgated.
A standard setting will need to be done for the PPST and a qualifying score set.
A decision will need to be made as to how the IPSB will determine the acceptability of "comparable nationally standardized tests" both in the case of examinees who score well on certain tests and in the case of applicants from out-of-state who have taken examinations of "substantial equivalency" to those required by the IPSB.
A determination of what Praxis 11 tests to implement will need to be made.

Outcomes

A dual system of testing will exist until college/university systems are approved by the
IPSB.
A Test Waiver Committee will be created to deal with testing issues.

Attachments: New Statute HEA 161 1

HOUSE ENROLLED ACT No. 1611

AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning education.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SOURCE: IC 20-6.1-3-3; (97)HE1611.1.1.--> SECTION 1. IC 20-6.1-3-3 IS ANM'NDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1997]: Sec. 3. (a) The board shall designate:

(1) the grade average required for each kind of license; and
(2) the kinds of license to which the teachers' minimum salary laws apply, including nonrenewable one (1) year limited licenses.

(b) The board shall determine details of licensing not provided in this chapter. These details may include requirements regarding:

(1) the conversion of one kind of license into another;
(2) the accreditation of teacher training schools and departments;
(3) the exchange and renewal of licenses;
(4) the endorsement of another state's license;
(5) the acceptance of credentials from teacher training institutions of another state;
(6) the academic and professional preparation for each kind of license;
(7) the granting of permission to teach a high school subject area related to the subject area for which the teacher holds a license;
(8) the issuance of licenses on credentials;
(9) the kind of license for each school position;
(10) the size of an elementary school requiring a licensed principal; and
(11) other related matters.

However, the board shall, not later than December 31, 1984, establish at least one (1) system for renewing a teaching license that does not require a graduate degree.
(c) The board shall periodically publish bulletins regarding:

(1) the details described in subsection (b);
(2) information on the kinds of licenses issued;
(3) the rules governing the issuance of each kind of license; and
(4) other similar matters.
SOURCE: IC 20-6.1-3-10.1; (97)HE1611.1.2. --> SECTION 2. IC 20-6.1-3-10.1 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE SEPTENMER 1, 1999]: Sec. 10.1. (a) The board may not grant an initial standard license to an individual unless the individual has demonstrated proficiency in the following areas on a written examination or through other procedures prescribed by the board:
(1) Basic reading, writing, and mathematics.
(2) Pedagogy.
(3) Knowledge of the areas in which the individual is required to have a license to teach.
(b) An individual's license examination score may not be disclosed by the board without the individual's consent unless specifically required by state or federal statute or court order. (c) The board shall adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 to do the following: (1) Adopt, validate, and implement the examination or other procedures required by subsection (a). (2) Establish examination scores indicating proficiency. (3) Otherwise carry out the purposes of this section.
(d) The board shall adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 establishing the conditions under which the requirements of this section may be waived for individuals holding valid teachers licenses issued by another state. (e) Subsection (a) does not apply to individuals holding Indiana limited, reciprocal, or standard teaching licenses on June 30, 1985. (f) If the board is notified by the department of state revenue that a person is on the most recent tax warrant list, the board may not grant an initial standard license to the person until: (1) the person provides the board with a statement from the department of state revenue indicating that the person's delinquent tax liability has been satisfied; or (2) the board receives a notice from the commissioner of the department of state revenue under IC 6-8.1-8-2 (k).
SOURCE: IC 20-6.1-3-10; (97)HE1611.l.3. --> SECTION 3-IC 20-6.1-3-10 IS REPEALED [EFFECTIVE J-ULY 1, 1997]. SOURCE: ;(97)HE1611.1.4.--> SECTION 4. [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1997](a)As used in this SECTION, "board" refers to the professional standards board established by IC 20-1-1.4. (b) From July 1, 1997, through August 31, 1999, the board may not grant an initial standard license to an individual unless the individual demonstrates proficiency in the following areas on a written examination or through other procedures prescribed by the board: (1) Communications skills. (2) General education. (3) Professional education. (4) Knowledge of the areas in which the individual is required to have a license to teach.
(c) An individual's license examination score may not be disclosed by the board without the individual's consent unless specifically required by state or federal statute or court order. (d) The board shall adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 to allow an individual who completes a teacher preparation program before September 1, 1999, who is administered an examination described in subsection (b) before September 1, 1999, and who does not demonstrate the level of proficiency described in subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2) to be eligible for employment as a teacher: (1) on a renewable one (1) year limited license status; and (2) subject to the individual undergoing an additional examination in an area described in subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2) in which the individual did not demonstrate proficiency.
(e) The board shall adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 to do the following:

(1) Adopt, validate, and implement the examination or other procedures required by subsection (b).
(2) Establish examination scores indicating proficiency.
(3) Otherwise carry out the purposes of this SECTION.
(f) The board shall adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 establishing the conditions under which the requirements of this SECTION may be waived for individuals holding valid teachers licenses issued by another state. (g) Subsection (b) does not apply to individuals holding Indiana limited, reciprocal, or standard teaching licenses on June 30, 1985. (h) If the board is notified by the department of state revenue that a person is on the most recent tax warrant list, the board may not grant an initial standard license to the person until: (1) the person provides the board with a statement from the department of state revenue indicating that the person's delinquent tax liability has been satisfied; or (2) the board receives a notice from the commissioner of the department of state revenue under IC 6-8.1-8-2 (k).
(i) The board may not issue a license under this SECTION that is valid after September 1, 2000. j) This SECTION expires December 31, 2000. SOURCE: ;(97)HE1611.1.5.--> SECTION 5.[EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER1,1999](a)As used in this SECTION, "board" refers to the professional standards board established by IC 20-1-1.4.

C. Teacher Induction

Background

The Teacher Induction Work Group was charged to provide recommendations to the Continuum Linkage Committee (CLC) for assessments and strategies for the Proficient Practitioner license of beginning teachers.

Items addressed in detail by the group included:

intern assessment;
retention of the current Beginning Teacher Assessment inventory;
development of classroom performance assessments;
implementation of classroom performance assessments;
the role of various constituencies in the assessment process;
linkage of assessments to preparation and preparation providers;
internship program length.

The work group operated under the following principles:

The recommendations of the Teacher Induction Work Group will incorporate comments and suggestions from a range of education constituencies;
the recommendations will reflect the commitment of the work group to address its charge within the context of the INTASC principles;
the ten principles of assessment adopted by the IPSB will be considered;
the new process of assessment for induction purposes will build upon the strengths already established by the current Beginning Teacher Internship Program;
the work of the INTASC Performance Assessment Development Project will be examined for incorporation as a part of the induction concept.

Basic Changes:

increased emphasis placed upon the training of assessors;
valid summative and formative assessment technology;
multiple observations of beginning teachers by a nurturing cadre of support professionals;
expanded expectations for beginning teacher performance (based upon standards);
consideration of context in teacher assessment practice;
a larger infrastructure of support providers for entrants to the profession.

Implication for Rules and Statute

If adopted, this proposal will cause a shift from intern assessment as a condition of
employment and make it a requirement for licensure.

Induction Recommendations:

Grant beginning teachers a proficient practitioner license after they have successfully completed performance-based assessments during their induction period. These assessments will be consistent with the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) principles, and the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) content and developmental standards.
Expand the teacher induction process for initial practitioners to a two-year period, during which the beginning teacher demonstrates his/her proficiency over time. All candidates with initial licenses must achieve proficient practitioner status within the two year period. Establish an appeals process for those who do not pass the assessment.
The beginning teacher will satisfy requirements for fitness for full admission to proficient practitioner status through assessments modeled after INTASC's Performance Assessment Development Project (PADP).*
The performance of the beginning teacher will be assessed by highly trained educational practitioners (P-12 through higher education), whose expertise will reflect systematic training for reliability and validity and will reflect the core principles adopted by the IPSB.
As research and pilot studies, validated in field tests, are completed and allow various teaching areas to be phased into practice, the older model of induction
the (Beginning Teacher Internship Program, and the Beginning Teacher Assessment Inventory) will be discontinued.
Use candidate performance during induction assessments to inform preparation institutions of candidate proficiency and to provide base data for institutional (unit) assessment systems.

*Please refer to the graphical time line in Document V., which indicates the logical flow of implementation of the above recommendations and incorporates the most current state of development of performance assessments as initiated by INTASC through the Performance Assessment Development Project.

Issues to Address

The following issues were not reconciled by the work group and should be addressed
through further study:

Delivery capabilities - developing capacity to assess 3000 teachers per year
Appeal processes for candidates who are over or under-prepared;
Involvment of a greater number of practicing ("life-license") teachers;
Selection criteria for "transition" sites and site activity;
Developing a "fair and reasonable" reciprocity strategy;
Developing specific rule and statute changes; and
Transition processes for those already in preparation programs (grandfathering).

Outcomes:
All beginning teachers will be assessed through performance measures prior to receiving practitioner licenses by the year 2004.

D. Continuing Education

Background

The Continuing Education Work Group was charged to provide recommendations to the Continuum Linkage Committee (CLC) for assessments and strategies for relicensure. Items addressed in detail by the work group were:

what are the stages of relicensure;
what are the appropriate assessments for each stage of relicensure;
how can the needs of career changers be accommodated;
what is the role of the NBPTS in relicensure;
what should be included in the individual Professional Growth Plan (PGP);
what process will be followed to select a peer development team; and
what procedure will be required to sign off on a Professional Growth Plan (PGP)?

The work group operated under the following principles:

the staged system of licensure must be consistent with the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) principles, the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) content and developmental standards and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS);
ten principles of assessment adopted by the IPSB must be considered; and
essential characteristics for professional development from the Indiana Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (IACTE) Task Force Report on Professional Development must be considered.

The work group solicited comments and suggestions from a wide range of Indiana education constituencies, studied professional development requirements for other states, and reviewed the research available to deepen its understanding of current issues and trends in continuing education in the United States. The recommendations of the work group reflect its commitment to address its charge and develop a simplified license renewal process that is consistent with the concept of performance-based standards.

Basic Changes

Listed below are the basic changes proposed:

eliminates the arbitrary inputs for license renewal, approved coursework and/or CRUS;
the teacher will be in charge of his/her professional development and will demonstrate growth from year to year by preparing a PGP and a portfolio that includes evidence that the goals and activities stated in the PGP have been met; and
the broad range of activities open to the teacher will provide more meaningful options for the teacher to achieve his/her stated goal.

Implications for Rules and Statute

This recommendation will impact rules upon completion of pilot projects.

Continuing Education Recommendations

establish a system of staged licensure based upon performance standards that are consistent
with the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) principles,
Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) content and developmental standards, and
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). This system will include
licenses for: 1) initial practitioner; 2) proficient practitioner; 3) accomplished practitioner;
the teacher will satisfy relicensure requirements by developing a Professional Growth Plan
(PGP) and a professional portfolio which will be reviewed by a professional growth team to be formed at the local level;
a PGP may include coursework, Professional Growth Experiences (PGE), a combination of
coursework and PGE, or the NBPTS certification process; and
completing NBPTS certification will automatically qualify a teacher for the accomplished
practitioner license; and
establish a two year pilot with five (5) school corporations chosen to reflect diversity to test the practicality of the proposal. Models will be developed by the IPSB after completion of the pilot.

Issues Still to be Addressed

The following issues have not been reconciled by the work group and will be addressed by the pilot groups:

process models for selecting a professional growth team;
signatory for a teacher's PGP;
appeal process for those who do not meet continuing education standards; and
transition process that addresses who needs to be "grandfathered" in and a reciprocity process for out of state applicants.

Outcomes

recommendations will be piloted with five (5) school districts, 1997-2000; and
a staged system of licensure will be implemented by 2000-2001 based on results of pilot.

Attachments: Continuing Education Recommendation
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Principles Indiana Professionals Standards Board Standards
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
Essential Characteristics of Professional Development
Professional Growth Experiences
Professional Growth Plan

APPENDIX I

A. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) Principles:

Principle #1: The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and the structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students.

Principle #2: The teacher understands how children learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support their intellectual, social, and personal development.

Principle #3: The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners.

Principle #4: The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students' development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.

Principle #5: The teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning and self-motivation.

Principle #6: The teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom.

Principle #7: The teacher plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, the community, and curriculum goals.

Principle #8: The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social and physical development of the leamer.

Principle #9: The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally

Principle #10: The teacher fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community to support students' leaning and well-being.

B. Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) - Standards for teachers have been developed in the following developmental and content areas:

Developmental Areas Content Areas

Early Childhood - 3-8
Middle Childhood - 7-12
Early Adolescence - 11-15
Adolescence Young Adulthood - 11-18+ English as a New Language
English/Language Arts
Exceptional Needs
Foreign Languages
Library Media
Mathematics
Fine Arts
Physical Education & Health
Science
Social Studies
Vocational Education

C. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) Standards*

1. Teachers are committed to students and their learning.

Teachers recognize individual differences in their students and adjust their practice accordingly.
Teachers have an understanding of how students develop and learn.
Teachers treat students equitably.
Teachers' mission extends beyond developing the cognitive capacity of their students.

2. Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.

Teachers appreciate how knowledge in their subjects is created, organized and linked to other disciplines.
Teachers command specialized knowledge of how to convey a subject to students.
Teachers generate multiple paths to knowledge.

3. Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.

Teachers call on multiple methods to meet their goals.
Teachers orchestrate learning in group settings.
Teachers place a premium on student engagement
Teachers regularly assess student progress.
Teachers are mindful of their principal objectives

4. Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience.

Teachers are continually making difficult choices that test their judgement.
Teachers seek advice of others and draw on education research and scholarship to improve their practice.

5. Teachers are members of learning communities

Teachers contribute to school effectiveness by collaborating with other professionals.
Teachers work collaboratively with parents.
Teachers take advantage of community resources.

*What Teachers Should Know And Be Able To Do, 1994.

D. Essential Characteristics of Professional Development*
Standards for professional development must require evidence of:

1. Planning in the context of immediate and long term goals of educators, schools, and
school systems.

2. Collaboration across the profession of educators, including teacher, school administrators, and higher education faculty, with each group bringing unique expertise to the development process.

3. Continuity to promote career-long leaming and professional growth.

4. Rigor to ensure programs and activities that are securely grounded in research and exemplary professional practice.

5. Assessment to ascertain the extent to which planned programs and activities enhance professional performance and serve agreed upon education goals.

The task force envisions the profession as a community of learners who draw from each other's knowledge and perspective to strengthen individual capacities, promote student achievement, and improve schools.

*Indiana Association of Collegesfor Teacher Education (IACTE) Task Force Report on
Professional Development, December 21, 1995.

APPENDIX II

Professional Growth Experiences

Professional growth experiences (PGE). Teachers may consider options such as, but not limited to, the following:

College/University Course work

Completion of relevant (appropriate to licensure areas being renewed) course work from accredited colleges and universities, but not including completion of an approved degree program. Course work must meet INTASC principles, IPSB content and developmental standards NBPTS standards, and IACTE essential characteristics.

Conferences, Workshops, Institutes, Seminars

Participation in relevant (appropriate to licensure areas being renewed) professional growth experiences such as workshops, conferences, institutes, seminars or lectures in the area(s) where licensure is being renewed.

Participation as a presenter in relevant (appropriate to licensure areas being renewed) professional growth experiences such as workshops, conferences, institutes, seminars, or lectures in the area(s) where licensure is being renewed.

Curriculum Development Activities at Regional, State and National Levels

Curriculum development activities at the building or district levels.
Curriculum development activities at the state, regional national, or international levels.

Professional Service
Through:

Supervision of clinical experiences of persons enrolled in teacher licensure program. Membership and active participation in national, state, and/or local committees involved with licensure, teacher education, or professional standards.
Collaboration in the development of pre-service teachers and the preparation of beginning teachers (i.e., working with college/university staff to plan and co-deliver course work, providing course work as an adjunct instructor).
Involvement in a leadership role at a professional development school.
Active participation in national, regional, or state accreditation.

Leadership Experiences

Publication of professional articles in a relevant (appropriate to licensure areas being renewed) professional journal.

Volunteer work in professional organizations related to the areas of licensure being renewed.

Opportunities to Enhance Knowledge and Understanding of Diverse Education Settings

Participation in research and inquiry projects,

Educational experiences with students of another age, ability, culture, or socioeconomic status.

Systematic, purposeful observation during visits to schools and to related business and
industry.

Travel for purposes of improving instructional capabilities related to the field of licensure.

Work experience in business or industry appropriate to the areas of licensure being renewed.

Collaboration with Other Professionals, Parents, and Community Resources

Participation:

Site-based management/decision making teams.
Community resources in the schools.
Peer coaching.
Mentoring process as the mentor.
College or university teacher preparation programs.

Evaluation Processes that Advance the Profession

Participation:

Local committees involved with licensure, teacher education and/or standards.
Evaluator in local accreditation processes.
Regional or national committees involved with licensure, teacher education, and/or standards.
Evaluator in state, regional, or national accreditation processes.
Training as assessors for INTASC, Performance Assessment Development Project (PADP), or NBPTS.

Rewards and Honors

Receipt of local education award; receipt of a major state or national education award.

APPENDIX III

Professional Growth Plan
Annual Review--199___ - 199___

1. Teacher's Name_______________________________________________________

2. Teaching Assignment___________________________________________________

3. Supervisor's Name________________________ Title__________________

4.

School Name___________________________________________________
School Corporation Name_________________________________________________________

5. List up to three goals from your professional growth plan:

A.

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

B.

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

C.

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

6. For each goal listed above, explain how the goal demonstrates INTASC principles, IPSB content and developmental standards, NBPTS standards, and IACTE essential characteristics. Also explain how these goals coordinate with the school improvement plan. (Attach additional pages as needed.)

A.

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

B.

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

C.

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

7.
List below one to four professional development activities you plan to do this year to meet the goals listed above.

____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

8.

Teacher's Signature_____________________________ Date_______________
This signature verifies that I have consulted with my supervisor about my professional development goals and activities for this year.

9. *Supervisor's Signature__________________________ Date_______________

*See glossary for definition of supervisor

Questions 10 and 11 should be completed AFTER concluding this year's professional development activities. Comments should not exceed 400 words for each area. Please use a word process, type, or write legibly. Number your answers and use a separate sheet of paper for each. Attach you responses to this form.

10. Review your efforts to address the goals and strategies outlined in the your professional growth plan. Briefly describe your experiences, including examples of credible evidence that define and support your efforts.

11. Reflect on one professional development activity in which you engaged this year that was particularly meaningful. Discuss the relationship of this activity to your classroom and the learning community.

Professional Growth Plan
Fifth Review--199___ - 199___

Five-Year Reflective Commentary

Instructions to the Teacher: On separate sheets of paper, use a word process or type your comments related to the following two areas. Comments should not exceed 400 words per each of the following two areas.

1.
Provide an overview of your professional development goals.

Describe one to three professional development activities that were most relevant to the goals on which you focused during the past five-year license period. Discuss why you believe them to have been significant.
Discuss the linkages among your goals, the INTASC principles, IPSB content and developmental standards, NBPTS standards, and IACTE essential characteristics.

2.
Discuss the value of your professional development activities. Describe how you participation has enhanced your skill as a teacher in the area(s) for which you seek renewal.

Focusing on the significant activities described in #1 above, discuss how you are a more effective teacher now than you were before because of your participation in these activities; discuss how you serve your students, your school, and your district differently because of your participation in these activities.
All professional development activities may not have resulted in equally successful changes in your teaching. Discuss why some activities were more successful than others.

GLOSSARY

APPROPRIATE SUPERVISOR

Reviews PGPS. Could be a department chairperson, team leader, principal, or other
designated administrator.

APPROVED COLLEGE COURSE WORK

Course work completed at a college or university with a State approved teacher education program based on INTASC principals, IPSB content and developmental standards, NBPTS standards, and IACTE essential characteristics.

APPROVED PROGRAM

Advanced degree program approved by the IPSB that meets INTASC principals, IPSB content and developmental standards, NBPTS standards, and IACTE essential characteristics.

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH EXPERIENCES (PGE)

Professional experiences based on INTASC principals, IPSB content and developmental standards, NBPTS standards, and IACTE essential characteristics.

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH PLAN (PGP)

Demonstrates goals and strategies related to the INTASC principals, IPSB content and
developmental standards, NBPTS standards, and IACTE essential characteristics.

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH TEAM (PGT)

The school corporation or other local governing body determines the process for establishing PGTs and describes the membership and responsibilities of such teams.*

PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO

Credible evidence demonstrating achievement of goals set forth in a PGP.

*To be determined after completion of pilots.

Document IV.
Recommended Assessment Structure for 1997-98

PROPOSED STRUCTURE FOR CONTINUING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FOR PREPARATION AND LICENSURE DURING 1997-98

The following structure is proposed to oversee IPSB assessment activities from July 1, 1997,
to June 30, 1998.

A. Teacher Education Committee

1.
Composition:
8 members including:
2 Board members representing local corporations
3 institutional representatives (reflecting the diversity of preparation institutions)
And
I staff member (non-voting)
2 consultants (non-voting)

2. Charge:
The committee will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the unit assessment system process, including: refining the criteria used to evaluation the system; reviewing institutional assessment plans; assisting with the development of a pelrformance-based partnership proposal with NCATE; determining how internship and other state and'institutional assessments are reported and used for institutions' annual reports to NCATE and the IPSB; and developing a process by which institutions can appeal IPSB decisions related to teacher education.

B. Teacher Induction Work Group

1. Composition:
5 members, 1 of whom must be a higher education representative, 1 of whom must be a public school intem, 1 of whom must be a public school mentor, and 1 of whom must be a scorer for the INTASC Performance Assessment Development Project (PADP) in Indiana.
And
1 teacher-in-residence (non-voting)
1 staff member (non-voting)

2. Charge:
The group will advise on the implementation of the new internship assessment system, including: addressing the issues of building capacity to assess 3,000 interns per year; developing an appeals process for candidates who are over-or under-prepared; advising on rule and statute changes; developing a reciprocity strategy for candidates from other states; and developing a system for keeping IPSB members well informed.

C. Continuing Education Work Group

1.
Composition:
5 members representating each of 5 corporations selected to pilot test the CLC recommendations for renewing a proficient practitioner licenses and/or obtaining an accomplished practitioner license. Corporations will be chosen to reflect the diversity of corporations in the state of Indiana.
And
1 staff member (non-voting)

2. Charge:
The work group will advise on the implementation of the new continuing education assessment system by piloting the CLC recommendations for same. Pilot corporations must develop models for selecting a professional growth team, developing an appeal process for those who do not meet continuing education standards, and determining who should sign a teacher's professional growth plan. The group will also recommend a transition process that addresses those who need to be "grandfathered" in and a reciprocity process for out-of-state applicants.

D. Test Waiver Committee

1. Composition:
3 Board members, one of whom is a school psychologist or a special education professional
And
1 staff member (non-voting)

2. Charge:
This committee would address waiver requests for people with physical disabilities who have taken all required tests with special accommodations, but have not met all qualifying scores. The committee would also address other Board-related policy matters that arise with implementation of new Praxis I and II tests.

E. School Services Work Group

1.
Composition:
1 Board member
1 Department of Education representative
2 administrators representing local corporations 3 practitioners in school services
3 representing higher education
And
1 staff person (non-voting)

2. Charge:
This group will recommend to the IPSB a system for assessing school services candidates for the initial and proficient practitioner licenses, and for license renewal.

F. External Committee for Building Level Administrators

1.

Composition:
1 classroom teacher
2 representing higher education
1 Board member
2 school principals
1 superintendent
1 Department of Education (DOE) representative
1 sponsoring agency representative
And
1 staff member (non-voting)

2.
Charge:
This committee will reconnnend to the IPSB a system for assessing building level administrator candidates for initial and proficient practitioner licenses and for license renewal.

G. External Committee for District Level Administrators

1. Composition:
1 classroom teacher
2 representing higher education
1 Board member
1 staff member (non-voting)
1 Department of Education (DOE) representative
1 superintendent
And
3 administrators with corporation level responsibilities

2. Charge:
After recommending standards for preparation and licensure of district level administrators, this committee will recommend to the IPSB a system for assessing district level administrator candidates for initial and proficient practitioner licenses and for license renewal.

H. Continuum Linkage Committee II

1. Composition:
18 members as follows:

representing the Teacher Education Committee: 1 Board member, 1 institutional representative, and 1 staff member

representing the Teacher Induction Work Group: 1 Indiana INTASC PADP scorer and 1 staff member

representing the Continuing Education Work Group: 2 representatives from pilot school
corporations and 1 staff member

representing the Test Waiver Conunittee: 1 Board member and 1 staff member

representing the School Services Work Group: 1 group member and 1 staff member

representing the External Committees: 1 member of each committee and 1 staff member and 3 additional Board members