LICENSURE COMMITTEE MEMBERS The members of the Licensure Committee were selected to represent the stakeholders in the process to develop a Licensure Framework. All Licensure Committee members, with the logical exception of the outside facilitator, had served on at least one content area or developmental level advisory group. The Licensure Committee members are listed below, including place of employment, community, and designated area represented on the Committee. Jeffrey Doebler served as chair and Kathleen Klawitter served as recorder. James Fleck was engaged to facilitate.

Lisa Bischoff, School of Education, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, representing school services

William Christopher, Student Assistance Commission, Indianapolis, state governmental representative

Lewis Ciminillo, Indiana University Northwest, Gary, IPSB member representing higher education

Jeffrey Doebler, Chair, Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, representing higher education

James Fleck, Facilitator, Fleck Leadership Center, Columbia City

Daniel Grayson, Twin Lakes High School, Monticello, representing vocational education

Barbara Horvath, Monroe County Community School Corporation, Bloomington, representing specialty content areas (vocational education, exceptional needs, library/media)

Kathleen Lattimer, North Central High School, Indianapolis, representing elective content areas (fine arts, physical education, foreign language, health)

David Kinman, Indiana University, Bloomington, representing higher education and licensing advisors

Kathleen Klawitter, Recorder, Northeast Dubois County School Corporation, Dubois, representing elementary educators

Philip Metcalf, Wawasee High School, Syracuse, IPSB Chair, representing core content areas (mathematics)

Elaine Pitts, Gavit Middle School, Hammond, representing core content areas (mathematics, science, social studies, language arts)

James Renz, Greencastle Community School Corporation, Greencastle, representing administration/student services

Elizabeth Schurtz, Indiana Professional Standards Board, Indianapolis, IPSB Director of Teacher Licensing

Shawn Sriver, Indiana Professional Standards Board, Indianapolis, IPSB Assistant Director of Preservice Education
 
 

PREFACE

The Decision to Move to a Performance-Based Preparation and Licensure System for Education Professionals

In August 1994, the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) made the decision to adopt performance-based standards articulating what beginning educators should know and be able to do as the basis for revising the rules for preparation and licensure of education professionals in Indiana. This decision, they believe, will bring three advantageous results: (1) a clear conception of what education professionals should know and be able to do, based on a common set of standards; (2) a teacher preparation continuum that is linked to Indiana's goals for prekindergarten through grade 12 education; and (3) a focus on the student's knowledge and ability to apply that knowledge rather than on prescriptive curriculum expectations. This performance-based model is consistent with "the view that underpins the new paradigm for school reform that starts with the assumption that students are not standardized and that teaching is not routine." (Darling-Hammond, Linda, "Reframing the School Reform Agenda: Developing Capacity for School Transformation," Phi Delta Kappan, June 1993)

In addition to the desired linkages among student achievement, teacher preparation, teacher performance, and continued professional growth, through the redesigned system the Board seeks to:

• produce a simpler licensing configuration, which has fewer and broader licensing areas;
• produce clear and understandable rules for licensure candidates, those who prepare them, and those who hire them; and
• encourage innovative and diverse preparation programs by moving the focus from required courses and credit hours to the competence of the candidates they produce.

How a Performance-Based Model Differs from the Current System

Limitations of the current model include problems such as no provision for life experience; students "jump through the same hoops" irrespective of their abilities; and it focuses more on inputs (specific course, credit hours) rather than on outcomes. Because the new system will be performance-based, the focus is on what the teacher will be able to do rather than on the number of courses and credit hours completed. The current model is narrow and prescriptive. The shift to a performance-based licensing model enables the Board to permit greater innovation and diversity in how teacher education programs operate by assessing their outcomes rather than merely regulating their inputs or procedures.
 

Standards Supporting the Performance-based System

The new system will encompass the same three phases as the current model (preservice preparation, extended clinical practice through the Beginning Teacher Induction Program, and continuing professional development). The difference will be how programs that prepare education professionals are designed and how educators are assessed. The focus, which is consistent with Indiana's initiatives for kindergarten through grade 12 education (K-12), will be on learning outcomes and actual demonstration of understanding and application.

An important foundation for Indiana's new system is the work done by professional organizations in setting standards for all phases which are interrelated and consistent. These organizations include:

• The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). NCATE was formed in 1954 through the efforts of five groups: the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification, the National Education Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National School Boards Association, and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. In Indiana, approval of Preservice programs preparing education professionals is based on NCATE standards.
• The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). INTASC, established in 1987, is a program of the Council of Chief State School Officers to enhance collaboration among states interested in rethinking teacher assessment for initial licensing as well as preparation and induction into the education profession. INTASC has articulated standards for a common core of teaching knowledge and skills that should be acquired by all beginning teachers. The IPSB has adopted 17 sets of content and developmental standards for teacher preparation and licensing that are based on the INTASC standards (see Appendix A).
• The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). The NBPTS is independent, non-profit organized, founded in 1987, and governed by a 63-member board of directors, the majority of whom are classroom teachers. The NBPTS has established standards and assessments for what accomplished teachers (those who have taught for three years or more) should know and be able to do. The organization of Indiana's content and developmental standards for teacher preparation and licensing is based loosely on the NBPTS certification framework (see Appendix B).

The Process for Creating the New System

To meet the goals of the redesigned system, four steps must be taken:

To date:

• Standards in seventeen content and developmental areas describing what education professionals should know to practice effectively have been developed, disseminated on a statewide basis, revised based on feedback received, and adopted by the Board.
• In June 1997, the Board approved the initial design of an assessment system for institutions preparing education professionals and for licensing and relicensing education professionals. All components of this system include performance-based assessments; demonstrations by candidates for licensure that they can perform effectively, according to the IPSB standards, with students in classrooms. Because this assessment system is a major departure from the current requirements consisting solely of course completion and paper and pencil tests, it is being phased in over the next several years to allow institutions and local school corporations the necessary time to build the capacity needed to implement required changes.
• In June 1997, the Licensure Committee began its work to design a licensing configuration based on the new standards and assessments. The Committee brought its initial recommendations to the Board for approval in June 1998. This document reflects some revisions based on feedback received to the initial document. A final report will be brought to the Board in June 1999.

 

The Licensure Committee has been charged with "recommending a Framework for licensing professional educators and for testing the Framework against the standards for preparation and licensure and for real world applicability." It was further suggested that reducing the number of licenses available and streamlining the licensure process would also be desirable outcomes, if possible. (The full Charge, including specific instructions on the Framework and real world applicability criteria, is printed in the Appendix C.) This Draft Framework is based on the non-negotiable parameters set by the IPSB, expert testimony, recommendations of the advisory groups, feedback from focus groups, sponsored by the IPSB, the Indiana Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and individual institutions of higher education, letters received from the public, and, most importantly, the IPSB-approved standards that have been developed to date.

How Might the New License Appear?

The Licensure Committee recommends that there be only one Professional Educator License. Then, in addition to the appropriate signatures, seals, etc., the type of license would be indicated --in this case "Initial"--and the developmental level(s) and the content area(s) for which the candidate has demonstrated proficiency. The minimum would be one content area and one developmental level. The exception to this would be in the area of Building Level Administration where developmental levels would be excluded.

What are the Content Areas and the Developmental Areas?

The IPSB has adopted 17 sets of standards, 13 of which pertain to content areas and four of which pertain to developmental areas.

Content Areas: For the most part, these correspond to what we might now refer to as "subjects," like math, social studies, science, etc.

Developmental Levels: Teachers are currently trained for specific grade levels (e.g., K-5, 5-12, etc.). Education research suggests that teachers could serve students better by being trained in one or more of four developmental levels spanning the school ages: Early Childhood, Middle Childhood, Early Adolescence, and Adolescence/ Young Adulthood.

The list of IPSB content and developmental areas is printed in Appendix D.

Other Issues and the Licensure Committee's Continuing Work

The framework addresses how the license will appear/what it will say. There are other procedural issues for the Committee to address; but these, for the most part, will not affect the substance of the preparation program leading to the initial license in the thirteen areas addressed in the proposed Licensure Framework. (Issues to be addressed by the Licensure Committee in the coming year are listed in Appendix E.) These issues may be revised as a result of a revised Licensure Committee charge to be considered by the IPSB at its January 20, 1998, meeting.

Additional Standards

The Licensure Committee was charged with developing a Framework based on standards adopted by the Board. It will address licenses based on Standards for School Services and District Level Administrators during the coming year. Another Board committee, the Standards Review Cycle Committee, will address the process for developing additional sets of standards. (Licensure Committee recommendations for the Standards Review Cycle Committee are listed in Appendix F.) A member was added to the Licensure Committee in October, 1998, to assist in the development of a Licensure Framework for School Services.

The Process

During June, 1997, the Licensure Committee met in Indianapolis for two days of recognition, introduction, and training. The Committee met eight times between June, 1997, and June, 1998. In addition to individual data gathering and group discussion within the Committee, invitations to give expert testimony were extended to each of the content area and developmental level advisory groups. Other stakeholder groups also asked and were welcomed to present expert testimony. Representatives from the following groups presented formal testimony to the Licensure Committee in written and/or verbal form:

• Adolescence/Young Adulthood
• Building Level Administrators
• Business
• Early Adolescence
• Exceptional Needs
• Fine Arts
• Foreign Language
• IPSB Executive Director
• IPSB Senior Staff
• Journalism
• Language Arts
• Library/Media
• Mathematics
• Physical Education/Health
• Social Studies
• Vocational Education

Testimony from these groups allowed the Committee to submit the initial Draft Framework to the Indiana Professional Standards Board in June, 1998. The Board requested that the Committee receive more feedback from the public and scheduled a vote on the Licensure Framework for January, 1999. As a result, five focus groups were conducted around the state in September and October, 1998. Based on the feedback obtained from these focus groups, responses from stakeholders, and numerous letters from educators around the state, the Licensure Committee made the changes found in this document. In addition, the Board delayed its vote on the Framework until June, 1999. The Licensure Committee will continue to work on this Framework according to the revised charge to be approved by the IPSB at its January 20, 1999, meeting, and will bring a final report to the Board at its June, 1999, meeting.

Selections

Following the model used by the IPSB developmental level and content area advisory groups, the Licensure Committee Recorder, Kathleen Klawitter, provided Selections as a record of each meeting. The Selections were not meant to serve as "minutes," but rather to document important discussion and decisions.

The IPSB "House" Metaphor

The Licensure Committee maintained the IPSB's "house" metaphor for redesigning teacher preparation in Indiana. The Foundation represents preparation, induction, and continuing education. The First Floor represents education standards, including the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) core principles (see Appendix A), IPSB content area and developmental level standards (see Appendix D), and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) certification areas (see Appendix B). Also included are these components for building a Licensure Framework:

Developmental Areas
(1) EARLY CHILDHOOD
(2) MIDDLE CHILDHOOD
(3) EARLY ADOLESCENCE
(4) ADOLESCENCE & YOUNG ADULTHOOD
*While the Licensure Committee has considered a number of proposals, it has not yet come to consensus on the issues connected to developmental areas/grade configurations.

Content Areas
(1) Generalist
(2) Art
(3) English as a New Language
(4) English Language Arts
(5) Exceptional Needs
(6) Foreign Language
(7) Health
(8) Library/Media
(9) Mathematics
(10) Music
(11) Physical Education
(12) Science
(13) Social Studies
(14) Theater
(15) Vocational Education
Other Areas
(1) Building Level Administrators
(2) District Level Administrators (to be addressed at a later date)
(3) School Services (to be addressed at a later date)

Parameters

The Licensure Committee operated within the non-negotiable parameters of the IPSB:

Planning Assumptions
To aid the process of discussion and consideration, the Licensure Committee developed the following planning assumptions:

Content Areas For the New License

The content areas listed here are found in the Draft Framework recommendations. The groupings and numbering differ slightly from the list above because art, music, and theater are included under Fine Arts, health and physical education are organized together, and English Language Arts has been renamed Language Arts.

ADMINISTRATIVE
(1) BUILDING LEVEL ADMINISTRATOR

INSTRUCTIONAL
(1) ENGLISH AS A NEW LANGUAGE
(2) EXCEPTIONAL NEEDS
(3) FINE ARTS (music, visual arts, theater arts, dance)
(4) FOREIGN LANGUAGE
(5) GENERALIST
(6) HEALTH/PHYSICAL EDUCATION
(7) LANGUAGE ARTS
(8) LIBRARY/MEDIA
(9) MATHEMATICS
(10) SCIENCE
(11) SOCIAL STUDIES
(12) VOCATIONAL/CAREER EDUCATION

Additional Recommendations

The Licensure Committee recognizes that several areas need further review, consideration, and clarification. As a result, the Board approved an additional year for the Committee to continue its work. In addition, the Board approved the addition of two committee members in October of 1998: one representative each for school services and vocational/career education.
In the recommendations at the end of the Draft Framework, there are two lists of items identified by the Licensure Committee for further consideration. Most of these items are "real world applicability" issues, such as reciprocity. The first list contains items for the Licensure Committee agenda depending on the revised Licensure Committee charge to be considered by the IPSB at its January 20, 1999, meeting. The second list includes items that are beyond the purview of the Licensure Committee, many of which were suggested during expert testimony. These items should be referred to the Standards Review Cycle Committee for consideration.

Of particular note in the recommendations are the developmental levels set by the IPSB and the corresponding age groupings of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), as well as the question of whether ages should overlap between developmental levels. Serious concern was voiced by representatives of the Early Adolescence Advisory Group that the NBPTS age groupings and overlaps are inappropriate and, if adopted, might indeed be a step "backward" in the redesign of Indiana teacher preparation: The age levels were those recommended by NBPTS for certification of experienced teachers. They may not be applicable for initial licensure of teachers in Indiana. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONSIDER THE AGE RANGES OF THE DEVELOPMENTAL LEVEL STANDARDS WERE ADDED TO THE LICENSURE COMMITTEE CHARGE FOR THE 1998-99 ACADEMIC YEAR. THE LICENSURE COMMITTEE MADE THIS ISSUE A TOP PRIORITY FOR ITS FIRST MEETINGS IN THE FALL. HOWEVER, THE COMMITTEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO COMPLETE ITS RECOMMENDATION ON THESE COMPLEX ISSUES. THEY HAVE CONSIDERED SEVERAL PROPOSALS AND ARE CLOSE TO A RECOMMENDATION. THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE ADDED TO THE FRAMEWORK AS SOON AS IT IS DETERMINED.

Another important note is the lack of content standards for the Generalist (Early and Middle Childhood). Licensure Committee consensus was that the Generalist content standards are included in each of the content area and developmental level standards, but that the standards pertaining specifically to the Generalist need to be put into one Generalist content standards document.

The two lists referenced in Appendices E and F represent the Licensure Committee's identification of areas in need of further consideration. Appendix E contains items for the Licensure Committee agenda, depending on the Board's approval of a revised Licensure Committee charge in January, 1999. Appendix F contains items that are beyond the purview of the Licensure Committee. Many of these items were suggested during expert testimony. These items will be referred to the Standards Review Cycle Committee for consideration. The Committee has reached consensus on several issued listed in Appendix E and F respectively. These are listed below:

Minors/Endorsements

The consensus of the Licensure Committee is that the content area listed on the license will not include the current terms of "major," "minor," or "endorsement." The content area will be listed alone (with the developmental area) and it will be up to the institution developing the program as to how the licensee will meet the standards for each content area listed on the license.

Gifted and Talented

The statement "Gifted and Talented education is considered part of the Mild and Intensive Intervention sections of Exceptional Needs and is embedded in content areas." In the previous edition of the Framework, under planning assumption (C), on page 9, this statement has been deleted. The Licensure Committee will review suggestions regarding Gifted and Talented in the Spring of 1999, and make an informed recommendation to the IPSB or SRCC regarding preparation for educators who will teach students in Gifted and Talented programs.

Speech/Communication (Including Debate)

While this is outside the specific Licensure Committee Charge, expert testimony has suggested that this area is not adequately covered in the Language Arts content standards. This feedback has prompted the Licensure Committee to recommend to the SRCC that separate content standards be developed for Speech Communication (including debate). The Licensure Committee plans to develop additional rationale to support this recommendation.

Journalism (Including Print, Radio, and Television)

While this is outside the specific Licensure Committee Charge, expert testimony has suggested that this area is not adequately covered in the Language Arts content standards. This feedback has prompted the Licensure Committee to recommend to the SRCC that separate content standards be developed for Journalism (including Print, Radio, and Television). The Licensure Committee plans to develop additional rationale to support this recommendation.

Areas for Which IPSB Standards Do Not Exist

The Licensure Committee recommends the following process for areas for which standards do not exist:

C onclusion

Members of the Licensure Committee have taken the Charge very seriously and have found the process to be extremely rewarding professionally. They would like to express their sincere appreciation to the IPSB and to all of the stakeholders for the privilege of serving the profession in this manner. Members of the Licensure Committee look forward to continuing their work throughout this next academic year.
 
 

RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK
FOR INITIAL LICENSURE

ADMINISTRATIVE
 

INSTRUCTIONAL
(Listed in alphabetical order )

APPENDIX A
INTERSTATE NEW TEACHER ASSESSMENT
AND SUPPORT CONSORTIUM

Early Childhood (Ages 3-8)
Generalist

Middle Childhood (Ages 7-12)
Generalist
English Language Arts
Mathematics
Science
Social Studies-History

Early and Middle Childhood (Ages 3-12)
Art
Exceptional Needs/Generalist
Foreign Language-Spanish, French and Others
*Guidance Counseling
Library/Media
Music
Physical Education
English as a New Language

Early Adolescence (Ages 11-15)
Generalist
English/Language Arts
Mathematics
Science
Social Studies/History

Adolescence and Young Adulthood (Ages 14-18)
English/Language Arts
Mathematics
Science
Social Studies/History

Early Adolescence Through Young Adulthood (Ages 11-18+)
Art
Exceptional Needs/Generalist
Foreign Language-Spanish, French and others
*Guidance Counseling
Health
Library/Media
Music
Physical Education
English as a New Language
Vocational Education-
agriculture, business, health occupations, home economics,
industry/technology and marketing

*NOTE: THE NATIONAL BOARD FRAMEWORK DOES NOT INCLUDE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION OR OTHER SCHOOL SERVICES AREAS.

APPENDIX C Complete Charge of the Licensure Committee

APPENDIX D
 

APPENDIX E Unresolved Issues to Revisit Next Year in Priority Order
Subject to revision based on revised Licensure Committee Charge to be considered by the IPSB at its January 20, 1999, meeting.

APPENDIX F

Standards Review Cycle Committee
Recommended Items for Consideration (in no particular order--numbers used simply for ease of identification)