Archived Licensure Framework Documents

APRIL 28, 1999

DRAFT FRAMEWORK FOR INITIAL LICENSURE OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS IN THE STATE OF INDIANA
SUBMITTED BY THE LICENSURE COMMITTEE OF THE INDIANA PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BOARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• PREFACE
• INTRODUCTION
• RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK FOR INITIAL LICENSURE
• APPENDIX A  Licensure Committee Members
• APPENDIX B  Definitions
• APPENDIX C  Other Recommendations on Unresolved Issues
• APPENDIX D 
  Clarification of Issues Suggested
  During Public Dissemination
  Including Recommendations
• APPENDIX E 
  Graphic Organizer for Licensure Committee (Revised Charge) and 
  Complete Charge on May 15, 1997

PREFACE

The original Charge and the revised Charge (see Appendix E) given to the Licensure Framework Committee by the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) required the committee to:

• recommend a Framework for licensing professional educators;
• test the Framework against the IPSB standards for preparation and licensure; and
• test the Framework for real world applicability.

Additional desirable outcomes for the Framework would be to reduce the number of available licenses, and to streamline the licensure process.

This Draft Framework is based on several factors:

• explicit parameters set by the IPSB;
• expert testimony;
• recommendations of advisory groups;
• feedback from IPSB focus groups;
• feedback from the Indiana Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and from institutions of higher education;
• letters from the public; and
• the IPSB-approved standards developed to date (which can be viewed under "Standards" at the IPSB Web Site: http://www.doe.in.gov/psb/standards/standards.htm) .

Members of the Licensure Committee have taken their charge seriously and have found the process over the last two years to be extremely rewarding professionally. In considering the suggestions received throughout the dissemination and editing process, the Licensure Committee continuously reflected on what is best for all learners at all levels.

Licensure Committee members would like to express their sincere appreciation to the IPSB and to all of the stakeholders for the privilege of serving the profession by preparing a new Licensure Framework for Indiana educators.
 
 

INTRODUCTION

It is essential to remember that the IPSB teacher education reform project is designed around performance-based standards. A key concept to recall as this Framework is reviewed and implemented: "The Standards Are The Standards," which means that only those qualified to teach in a particular area will be able to meet the standards.

The IPSB has adopted 17 sets of standards, 13 of which pertain to content areas and four of which relate to developmental levels. (IPSB Web Site: http://www.state.in.us/psb/Standards/standards.htm)

Content area standards fall into three categories: instructional, corresponding to subjects taught in schools, such as math, social studies, science, etc.; administrative, such as building level and district administration; and school services, such as counselor, nurse, and social worker.

The developmental levels, for licensing purposes, need a K-12 connection and should respect school configurations at the local level, while ensuring that educators will be thoroughly prepared for the developmental levels which they will teach. The four developmental levels correspond to schools as follows:

• Early Childhood: based on the IPSB Early Childhood Standards, this developmental level covers teaching in a preschool and/or in the primary grades of an elementary school.
• Middle Childhood: based on the IPSB Middle Childhood Standards, this developmental level covers teaching in the intermediate grades of an elementary school.
• Early Adolescence: based on the IPSB Early Adolescence Standards, this developmental level covers teaching in schools designated as middle schools or junior high schools.
• Adolescence/Young Adulthood: based on the IPSB Adolescence/Young Adulthood Standards, this developmental level covers teaching in high schools.

The Licensure Committee recommends a single Professional Educator License. It will indicate the type of license: Initial Practitioner, Proficient Practitioner, or Accomplished Practitioner. It will be evidence of demonstrated proficiency in one or more content standards, and one or more developmental level standards. However, instead of listing developmental level(s) on the license, it will state school setting(s) for which the educator is licensed. (The exception would be the administrative licenses, where all developmental levels are already covered in the content standards for administrators.)

There will be five school settings: PRESCHOOL, ELEMENTARY: PRIMARY, ELEMENTARY: INTERMEDIATE, MIDDLE SCHOOL / JUNIOR HIGH, AND HIGH SCHOOL corresponding to developmental levels as described in the chart below. There are four reasons for using the term "school setting" on the license:

• The age level/range overlaps originally attached to the developmental levels, defined by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), were meant for experienced educators. The IPSB definitions reflect initial licensure in Indiana.
• School corporations maintain grade level configurations that logically serve their needs. Therefore, to serve this need, the development level competencies reflected in the school setting designations on the license should be flexible enough to reflect each school corporation's organizational pattern. Similarly, each school corporation should determine the developmental level(s) an educator in that district should hold based on its local school configuration.
• These definitions allow school districts to make appropriate decisions on staffing based on school configurations.
• Should school configurations change, this idea could be amended and updated through the IPSB plan to keep the educator preparation system current.

The following pages detail the various licensing categories, the school settings and content areas which will appear on the license for an educator licensed in each.

Note that this Framework reflects how a newly issued license will appear. This recommendation does not cover situations which are likely to arise, such as an educator holding a license under the present licensing system (Rules 46-47) who wishes to add a content area or school setting under the new system. These transition questions are yet to be addressed.

RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK FOR INITIAL LICENSURE

The Licensure Committee recommends that there be only one license: an Indiana Professional Educator License. It would bear the appropriate signatures, seals, issue and expiration dates, license number, etc. The license would indicate the type of license: Initial (used herein), Proficient Practitioner, or Accomplished Practitioner.

The license would reflect the standards for which the educator has demonstrated competence. The license would list the school setting(s) and content areas for which the educator has demonstrated proficiency.

The content areas reflect those for which Indiana has adopted standards, including administrative and school services areas.

The five school settings correspond to the standards for teachers of the four developmental levels, as shown in the following chart.

I. RELATIONSHIP OF SCHOOL SETTINGS, DEVELOPMENTAL LEVELS, AND CORRESPONDING CONTENT AREAS

School Setting(s) that will appear on a license	Developmental Level  Standards Required by School Setting(s)	Content Standards Applicable to School Setting(s)
PRESCHOOL	Early Childhood	* See Below
ELEMENTARY:  PRIMARY	Early Childhood	Generalist Standards for Early and Middle Childhood, or Specific Content
ELEMENTARY:  INTERMEDIATE	Middle Childhood	Generalist Standards for Early and Middle Childhood, or Specific Content
MIDDLE SCHOOL/ JUNIOR HIGH	Early Adolescence	Early Adolescence Generalist or Specific Content
HIGH SCHOOL	Adolescence/ Young Adulthood	Specific Content

* As of April 1999, no one IPSB content standard defines the teaching competence required in the Preschool school setting. However, the Comprehensive Standards Document Advisory Group (CSDAG) has identified content standards appropriate to the Preschool school setting within the existing IPSB instructional content standards. CSDAG has shared with the Licensure Committee a document summarizing these content standards and will report a recommendation about this licensing issue to the IPSB in June 1999.

II. CONTENT AREA CATEGORIES

There will be three categories of content areas: Instructional, Administrative, and School Services.

A. INSTRUCTIONAL (listed in alphabetical order)

1	CAREER/TECHNICAL EDUCATION School Settings: One or more as defined in Part I preceding. Developmental Level(s): See Part I preceding. Content: Based on the present content Standards for Teachers of Vocational Education, the license will state the following: [specific content area(s), based on national standards]  Comment: This area was initially referred to as Vocational Education, then Vocational/Career Education. The Indiana Association of Area Vocational Directors and recommends the name Career/Technical Education.  Comment: The licensure recommendation reflects the standards that have been developed to date and their correlation to national standards in the specialty areas. Examples of the specialty areas for which national standards currently exist include: Agriculture Education, Auto Body, Auto Service, Business/Marketing (vocational), Construction, Family & Consumer Sciences, Health Occupations, Printing, and Technology Education.
2	ENGLISH AS A NEW LANGUAGE School Settings: One or more as defined in Part I preceding. Developmental Level(s): See Part I preceding. Content: Based on the content Standards for Teachers of English as a New Language, the license will state the following: English as a New Language Comment: The teacher of English as a New Language was formerly known as the teacher of English as a second language (ESL).
3	EXCEPTIONAL NEEDS  School Settings: One or more as defined in Part I preceding. Developmental Level(s): See Part I preceding. Content: Based on the content Standards for Teachers of Exceptional Needs, the license must state Mild Intervention and may additionally state one or more of the following: Intense Intervention Visually Impaired  Hearing Impaired   Comment: The content standards for Mild and Intense Intervention are based on levels of service needed rather than on discrete categories. All candidates for Exceptional Needs licensure must demonstrate proficiency in the Mild Intervention content standards.
4	FINE ARTS School Settings: One or more as defined in Part I preceding. Developmental Level(s): See Part I preceding. Content: Based on the content Standards for Teachers of Fine Arts, the license will state one or more of the following:  Visual Arts  Vocal and General Music  Instrumental and General Music  Theater Arts  Dance Comment: The standards clearly define each of the fine arts (music, visual arts, theater arts and dance) as a discrete discipline.
5	FOREIGN LANGUAGE School Settings: One or more as defined in Part I preceding. Developmental Level(s): See Part I preceding. Content: Based on the content Standards for Teachers of Foreign Language Education, the license will state the following: Specific Language(s)
6	GENERALIST: Early Childhood and Middle Childhood School Settings: Preschool, Elementary: Primary, and Elementary:  Intermediate. Developmental Level(s): Early Childhood and Middle Childhood  Content: (1) Preschool: based on content standards appropriate to Preschool setting within existing IPSB instructional content standards; (2) Elementary: Primary and Elementary: Intermediate: Based on the Generalist Standards for Teachers of Early Childhood and Middle Childhood, the license will state one or more of the following:  Preschool Generalist  Elementary: Primary Generalist  Elementary: Intermediate Generalist Comment: Early Childhood and Middle Childhood teacher(s) need a broad base of knowledge across content areas.
7	GENERALIST: Early Adolescence School Setting: Middle School/Junior High  Developmental Level(s): Early Adolescence  Content: Based on the content Standards for Early Adolescence Teachers, the license will state the two content areas met as part of the standards:  Early Adolescence Generalist:  [content area 1.]  [content area 2.]  Comment: The Early Adolescence Developmental Level with a notation of Generalist requires two content fields selected from the four core areas (Language Arts; Mathematics; Science; and/or Social Studies). T he holder of the Generalist content field will be eligible to teach in each of the two areas included within the candidate's program of studies. The two core areas will be noted on the license in brackets([ ]). The content of the core areas must fulfill the content standards which are developmentally appropriate for teaching Early Adolescence students. Comment: It will be possible to obtain a license to teach in the middle school setting with a single content area, but not as an Early Adolescence Generalist. Any of the content areas could be matched with a school setting of middle school, or with multiple school settings. This option will be useful to institutions with specialty instructional programs in non "core" areas, such as Physical Education, Music, Art, and Library Services in responding to marketplace realities.
8	HEALTH/PHYSICAL EDUCATION School Settings: One or more as defined in Part I preceding. Developmental Level(s): See Part I preceding. Content: Based on the content Standards for Teachers of Health/Physical Education, the license will state one or both of the following:  Health Physical Education Comment: The standards clearly define health and physical education as discrete disciplines.
9	LANGUAGE ARTS School Settings: One or more as defined in Part I preceding. Developmental Level(s): See Part I preceding.  Content:  Based on the content Standards for Teachers of Language Arts, the license will state:  Language Arts  Comment: The standards are comprehensive, encompassing reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing and enactment.
10	LIBRARY/MEDIA School Settings:  One or more as defined in Part I preceding. Developmental Level(s): See Part I preceding. Content: Based on the content Standards for Teachers of Library/Media, the license will state: Library/Media
11	MATHEMATICS School Settings: One or more as defined in Part I preceding. Developmental Level(s): See Part I preceding.  Content:  Based on the content Standards for Teachers of Mathematics, the license will state:  Mathematics
12	SCIENCE School Settings: One or more as defined in Part I preceding. Developmental Level(s): See Part I preceding. Content: Based on the content Standards for Teachers of Science, the license will state one or more of the following:  Life Sciences  Physical Sciences Earth/Space Sciences Comment: The standards clearly define life, physical, and earth/space sciences as discrete areas.
13	SOCIAL STUDIES School Settings: One or more as defined in Part I preceding.  Developmental Level(s): See Part I preceding. Content: Based on the content Standards for Teachers of Social Studies, the license will state three or more of the following:  Economics  Geographical Perspectives  Government and Citizenship  Historical Perspectives  Psychology  Sociology   Comment: The standards are comprehensive, encompassing: civic ideals, current events, economics, geographical perspectives, government and citizenship, historical perspectives, psychology, sociology, and world cultures. Candidates for Social Studies licensure must complete preparation in each of these nine strands within the standards, with concentrated preparation in at least three areas selected from the following: economic, historical perspectives, government and citizenship, psychology, and sociology. Candidates will be licensed to teach in each area of concentration. Civic ideals and practices, current events, and world cultures are an integral part of each content area.

B. ADMINISTRATIVE

There are two types of administrative license: District Administrator and Building Level Administrator. For each, the license will state "All Schools" under school setting, because the standards ensure that administrators will be well versed in curriculum, pedagogy, and student characteristics of all developmental levels.
 

1

DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR School Setting: All Schools  Developmental Level(s): All  Content: Based on the draft content Standards for District Administrators, the license will state one or more of the following: Superintendent Exceptional Needs Director Career/Technical Education Director Curriculum and Instruction Director Comment: The standards ensure that administrators will be well-versed in the curriculum, pedagogy, and student characteristics of all of the developmental levels. Upon enrolling in a preparation program for district administrator, all candidates would have to hold the minimum of a Proficient Practitioner License. Further, an exceptional needs director candidate would have to hold a license in exceptional needs and a career/technical education director candidate would have to hold a license in career/technical education. It is understood the term "superintendent" encompasses associate superintendent, assistant superintendent, and deputy superintendent. Note that positions of personnel director, business manager, school services director, and facilities and grounds director are not addressed here. These areas do not require a Professional Educator License for employment. Note: Standards for District Administrators are in draft form and have not yet been approved by the IPSB. This recommendation for licensure is based on the Draft Standards for District Administrators as of April 7, 1999.

2

BUILDING LEVEL ADMINISTRATOR School Setting: All schools Developmental Level(s): All  Content: Based on the content Standards for Building Level Administrators, the license will state: Building Level Administrator Comment: The standards ensure that administrators will be well-versed in the curriculum, pedagogy, and student characteristics of the developmental level or levels for the school in which they serve.

C. SCHOOL SERVICES

A recommendation for specific licensing areas under this category will be made to the IPSB Executive Committee in June 1999 by the School Services Advisory Group.
 

APPENDIX A

LICENSURE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Licensure Committee members, as appointed, represent the stakeholders in the process to develop a Licensure Framework. All members, with the logical exception of the outside Facilitator, had served on at least one content area or developmental level advisory group. Licensure Committee members are listed below, including place of employment, community, and designated area represented. Jeffrey Doebler was Chair and Kathleen Klawitter was Recorder. James Fleck facilitated during the first year.

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, (Retired)

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

Nancy Taylor, Indiana Professional Standards Board, Indianapolis,
IPSB Consultant of Preservice Education

APPENDIX B

DEFINITIONS PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR LICENSE

The Professional Educator License is the document issued by the Indiana Professional Standards Board that grants permission for an individual to enter the education profession in Indiana. This professional educator license affirms that the candidate has completed a bachelor's degree or higher (Occupational Specialist(s) are exempt from meeting the bachelor's degree; however, ideally they should have an associate degree or the equivalent) and has met the INTASC standards and the Indiana standards for the school setting(s) and content area(s) pertinent to the areas listed on the license.
 

CERTIFICATE

A certificate is a document issued jointly by the IPSB and another entity that authorizes the individual to teach in a content area not licensed by the IPSB. As a prerequisite, the individual must possess a valid Indiana Professional Educator License. The certificate recognizes that the individual meets the standards of an IPSB-recognized state and/or national professional organization. Note that the certificate is a separate credential, not listed on the license.
 

PERMIT

A permit is a limited-duration, non-renewable document issued by the IPSB that allows an individual to do particular work. As a prerequisite, the individual must have completed course work or a degree program or possess occupational experiences. The permit recognizes that the individual is committed to becoming licensed or certified. A permit holder will be assigned a licensed teacher as a mentor. Note that the permit is not a license.
 

ENHANCEMENT

An enhancement is a document issued by a college, university, or professional association that indicates advanced, intensive, or in-depth study in an area that is not an IPSB content area or developmental level. The enhancement suggests to a potential employer that the educator has completed work beyond that required for the Professional Educator License. The enhancement is neither issued nor monitored by the Indiana Professional Standards Board. Potential employers make decisions regarding the need for, importance of, and strength of enhancements. Note that the enhancement does NOT appear on the professional educator license. Rather, it might be displayed in a portfolio or resume.
 
 

APPENDIX C

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ON UNRESOLVED ISSUES Content Standards

The Licensure Committee recommends that the IPSB assemble advisory groups to create content standards in the following areas:

1.	Communication Disorders - Possibly to be added to the Exceptional Needs content area once standards are developed.
2.	General Business Education
3.	Journalism

Certificates

The Licensure Committee recommends that teacher preparation institutions and/or professional organizations develop certificates in the following areas, which are licensed or endorsed under the current licensure plan:

1.	Adaptive Physical Education
2.	Bilingual Education
3.	Computer Education
4.	Driver/Traffic Safety
*5.	Gifted and Talented
6.	Interdisciplinary Cooperative Education (ICE)
7.	Motorcycle Education
*8.	Reading
*9.	Speech/Communication

Enhancements

The Licensure Committee recommends that teacher preparation institutions and/or professional organizations develop enhancements in the following areas, which are licensed or endorsed under the current licensure plan:

1.	Coaching
*2.	Gifted and Talented
*3.	Reading
*4.	Speech/Communication

* Whether or not these areas are certificates or enhancements depends on the preparation
program.

Emergency Staffing

Under any licensure system, the need for emergency staffing may arise. The Licensure Committee recommends the following plan be forwarded to the appropriate committee, work group, or consultant as determined by the IPSB.

• The IPSB would issue emergency staffing permits instead of licenses;
• The school district superintendent would request in writing the emergency staffing permit;
• The school district would continue to define its own emergency situations and would not be required to show proof of a search;
• The applicant would be required to hold either a valid or expired Indiana license or an equivalent license from another state;
• The permit would be valid for three years from the date of issue;
• The applicant would have up to three years to meet the standards in the area(s) of request to become licensed or certified;
• The school district could request multiple licensing/certificate areas, but the validity period would be three years;
• The higher education institution could petition for an extension on behalf of the applicant at the request of the school district;
• The emergency staffing permit would be transferrable to another school district, but a transfer would not extend the life of the permit; and
• There will be an appeal process.

Clarification of Issues Suggested During Public Dissemination, Including Recommendations

Issue: What about a K-12 license for teachers of traditionally K-12 programs (e.g., visual arts, music, physical education, library/media, exceptional needs, etc.)?

Answer (a): IPSB's non-negotiables require all teachers to meet the standards for the school setting(s) (and content area(s)) to earn a license.

Answer (b): The recommended Framework allows teacher preparation institutions to continue preparing teachers for the K-12 setting.

Answer (c): Based on the preliminary findings of the Comprehensive Standards Document Advisory Group (CSDAG), the Licensure Committee believes it is possible to meet the standards for multiple school setting(s) during a four-year degree program-- ELEMENTARY: PRIMARY; ELEMENTARY: INTERMEDIATE; MIDDLE SCHOOL / JUNIOR HIGH; AND HIGH SCHOOL --which would be the equivalent of the current K-12 license. The CSDAG found five unifying themes across all developmental levels: developmental psychology, curriculum development, instructional strategies, field experiences, professionalism. It is imperative that departments/schools of education and their content area personnel work diligently and collaboratively to achieve this goal. This is NOT to say that all initial teacher candidates should or must meet the standards in more than one developmental level; rather, it is a recognition that for at least certain areas which have traditionally had K-12 licensure, there is a need among school corporations to hire one person who can teach at all developmental levels. Finally, meeting the standards in more than one developmental level helps the teacher to better understand the full range of student development and also provides employment flexibility.
 

2. Areas for which IPSB standards do not exist

Issue: What about areas that currently are endorsed, but for which IPSB standards do not exist?

Answer: See Appendix C, Other Recommendations on Unresolved Issues.
 
 

3. Building Level Administrator

Issue: Do the content Standards for Building Level Administrators cover all school settings?

Answer: Members of the Comprehensive Standards Document Advisory Group have closely examined the Building Level Administrator Standards and report that they do cover all school settings.
 
 

4. Business Education

See General Business Education.
 
 

5. Communication

See Appendix C, Other Recommendations on Unresolved Issues.
 
 

6. Communication Disorders

See Exceptional Needs (below) and Appendix C, Other Recommendations on Unresolved Issues.
 

7. Diversity

Issue: Do the content areas and developmental level standards address diversity?

Answer: Members of the Comprehensive Standards Document Advisory Group have closely examined all developmental level and content area standards and report that they do address diversity, corroborating data garnered by focus groups.
 
 

8. Endorsements

See Teaching Majors, Minors, or Endorsements.
 

9. Exceptional Needs

Issue 1: Do the content area and developmental level standards address exceptional needs students?

Answer: Members of the Comprehensive Standards Document Advisory Group have closely examined all developmental level and content area standards and report that they do address exceptional needs students.

Issue 2: Should Communication Disorders be part of Exceptional Needs or School Services?

Answer: The Licensure Committee concurs with the recommendation of the School Services Advisory Group that standards for Communication Disorders be developed and that Communication Disorders be added to the Exceptional Needs content area.
 
 

10. General Business Education

Issue: Should General Business Education (as opposed to Vocational Business/Marketing) be part of Career/Technical Education, or should it have its own content standards?

Answer: The Licensure Committee recommends that the IPSB develop stand-alone content standards for General Business Education.
 

11. Generalist Standards

Based on the IPSB charge to the Comprehensive Standards Document Advisory Group, the Licensure Committee recommends that the Generalist Standards for ELEMENTARY: PRIMARY and ELEMENTARY: INTERMEDIATE be compiled from the IPSB Early Childhood Standards, the IPSB Middle Childhood Standards, and the NCATE Program Standards for Elementary Teacher Preparation. (See note above regarding teaching competencies required in Preschool school setting.)
 
 

12. Gifted and Talented

Issue 1: Do all content area and developmental level standards address gifted and talented students?

Answer: The Licensure Committee believes that Gifted and Talented is addressed in all content areas and developmental levels. All educators are responsible for meeting the needs of all learners in their classrooms.

Issue 2: Should Gifted and Talented be considered a licensure content area?

Answer: The Licensure Committee recommends that Gifted and Talented should be a certificate area and/or an enhancement. (Refer to Appendix C.)
 
 

13. Journalism (Including Print, Radio, Television)

Issue: Do the Language Arts standards address the field of Journalism?

Answer: The Licensure Committee recommends that the IPSB consider the development of standards for the area of Journalism (including Print, Radio, and Television) separate from those of Language Arts. The development of standards would lead to the eventual addition of a license content area in the area of Journalism:

• Writing styles unique to Journalism (e.g., news writing, feature story articles, sports writing, broadcast writing, headlines, captions, etc.);
• Layout/design techniques;
• Photojournalism;
• Advertising;
• Journalism law and ethics;
• Journalism teaching methods;
• Journalism history;
• Journalism editing;
• Coordinating school publications.

14. Majors

See Teaching Majors, Minors, or Endorsements.
 
 

15. Minors

See Teaching Majors, Minors, or Endorsements.
 
 

16. Reading (Language Arts Literacy)

Issue 1: Should Reading be considered a Licensure content area?

Answer: The Licensure Committee recommends that Reading be a certificate area and/or an enhancement.

Issue 2: Do all content area and developmental level standards address reading?

Answer: Members of the Comprehensive Standards Document Advisory Group have closely examined all developmental level and content area standards and report that they do address reading.

- Additional commentary on the importance of Reading:

Research indicates that students who possess a basic understanding of language have a greater chance for success in all future endeavors. Reading must be incorporated into all subject areas. Both expert testimony and the attention given to reading by State Legislators emphasize the primacy of reading. Because reading is integrated into all content areas, strategies to increase literacy skills must be incorporated across subject areas. And while the Generalist Standards for Early and Middle Childhood and the Standards for Teachers of English Language Arts content areas are the most explicitly focused on reading strategies, all content areas include language/literacy. Additional literacy preparation is encouraged for all professional educators.

17. Real World Applicability Tests Not Addressed Elsewhere

Issue 1: License renewal

Answer: License renewal is beyond the charge of the Licensure Committee because it does not apply to the initial license.

Issue 2: Adding content areas and developmental levels to the license.

Answer: It would be possible to add content areas and developmental levels to the initial license during the teacher internship program, but the process for doing so has not been addressed by the Licensure Committee.

Issue 3: Expiration dates and different areas and dates on the license.

Answer: Regardless of when content areas or school settings are added to the Professional Educator License, it is the License that has an expiration date, the areas listed on the License do not.
 
 

18. Recency of Credits

Issue: Recency credit and the validity period for individuals who do not enter the teaching profession immediately upon completion of their teacher education programs.

Answer 1: Individuals who complete an IPSB-approved teacher education program may apply for their license during the five year period immediately following program completion. The application process includes verification of program completion within a five (5) year period.

Answer 2: Individuals who completed an IPSB-approved teacher education program but who did not apply for their initial license within five years of completing their teacher preparation program must either complete an institutional update program (as determined by the teacher preparation institution) or submit a professional growth plan to the appropriate local school district. This plan would also apply to candidates who received their teacher preparation outside Indiana.
 
 

19. Reciprocity and Transfer of Licenses between and among States

Issue: Will the proposed framework allow for reciprocity and transfer of licenses between and among states?

Answer: There are 38 states that currently have a reciprocity agreement with Indiana. Upon review of the proposed Framework, none of them has indicated that reciprocity would be discontinued. On the contrary, several were pleased to received Indiana's Framework as a model for revising their own.
 
 

20. Speech and Communication

Issue: Is Speech/Communication covered in Language Arts?

Answer: The Language Arts standards are comprehensive, encompassing reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing and enactment. Although Speech/Communication is covered for initial licensure, the Licensure Committee recommends that Speech/Communication should be a certificate area and/or an enhancement.
 
 

21. Speech Language Pathology

Issue: See Appendix C; identified as Communication Disorders.
 

22. Substitute Teachers

Issue: Should substitute teachers be a part of the Framework?

Answer: The Licensure Committee believes that substitute teachers cannot be "licensed" within the proposed Framework because their preparation does not match the definition of "license." Rather, the recommendation is that the IPSB allow school corporations to determine their own substitute teacher policy, to be approved by the IPSB.
 
 

23. Teaching Majors, Minors, or Endorsements

Issue: Would Teaching Majors, Minors, or Endorsements work within the proposed Licensure Framework?

Answer: Licensure Committee consensus is that the current practice of using designators such a Majors, Minors, or Endorsements, while perhaps useful in higher education, serves no appropriate licensing function under the standards-based guidelines. The determination of whether a teacher candidate is eligible for licensure in a certain content area or school setting(s) is based on the demonstration of competence on the standards, as determined by the teacher preparation institution.
 
 

24. Technology

Issue: Do the content area and developmental level standards address technology?

Answer: Members of the Comprehensive Standards Document Advisory Group (CSDAG) have closely examined all developmental level and content area standards and report that they do address technology. 

APPENDIX E

GRAPHIC ORGANIZER FOR LICENSURE COMMITTEE Charge: To make a final committee recommendation to the IPSB in June, 1999, on a new state initial teacher licensure framework

The Board directs the Licensure Committee to conduct its business in the following manner:

 

A.	Continue to:  Solicit responses to the draft Licensure Framework from various interest groups.   a. Identify key issues that are the specific responsibility of the Licensure Committee based on the feedback.  b. Recommend workable solutions to address problem areas within the Licensure Committee's responsibilities.
B.	Make recommendations on the Licensure Framework in the following areas:  a. Licenses for teachers of children with speech and language disorders.  b. Teaching majors, minors and endorsements.  c. Licensing areas within the vocational/career education category.  d. Licenses for district level administrators.  e. Licenses for school services personnel.  f. Provide a definition for "certificate" and "license."  g. Developmental areas.
C.	Test recommendations from #'s I and 2 above for real world applicability including but not limited to such issues as:   a. License reciprocity and transfer.  b. License renewal.  c. Adding content/developmental areas to the license.  d. District staffing issues.  e. Transition and implementation issues (in coordination with the Teacher Education Committee and the Indiana Association of Colleges for Teacher Education).  f. Other issues suggested from dissemination of the Framework.
D.	Adjust the Framework as necessary.

THE FOLLOWING DECISION RULES MUST BE FOLLOWED:


1.) The standards must always be the driving force in all decisions.
2.) Utilize the best research available.
3.) The new framework must have a K-12 connection.
4.) The final recommendation for a licensure framework must substantially simplify the existing framework for issuing licenses.

5.) The new framework must contain broader areas of licensure.

6.) The new framework must cause subject integrated teaching.
7.) Share with the Indiana Professional Standards Board an interim report that addresses both process and present status of the initial Licensure Framework.

Furthermore, the criteria previously listed in the first charge given to the Licensure Committee continue to be important. See attached. 

Complete Charge of the Licensure Committee Adopted on May 15, 1997

I.	The Charge  The Licensure Committee is responsible for recommending a framework for licensing professional educators and for testing the framework against the standards for preparation and licensure and for real world applicability.
II.	The Framework  A. The framework must be congruent with non-negotiables consisting ofThe Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) System for Redesign (The House).  B. Standards (Floor 1) The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) core principles; - The IPSB content and developmental standards and Components for Building a Licensure Framework; and -The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) certification areas.  C. Assessments (Floor 2) - The IPSB Ten Principles of Assessment; and -The Continuum Linkage Committee recommendations (subject to IPSB approval).
III.	Real World Applicability Criteria The framework will: Accommodate the needs of a mobile society by facilitating reciprocity among the states.  Be written in clear, concise language.  Provide a reasonable transition process that is sensitive to the needs of all future and current education professionals.  Address the issue of the generalist and the specialist. -Accommodate the needs of career changers.  Be implemented easily.  Create a valued marketable license.  Provide sufficient flexibility to manage emergency staffing issues.  Promote professional pride and personal commitment among educators.  Promote professional pride and personal commitment among educators.