Draft Framework for Initial Licensure for Professional Educators in the State of Indiana Revisions Resulting From Public Comment
January 20, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Since its presentation to the Indiana Professional Standards Board in June, 1998, of the Draft Framework for Initial Licensure of Professional Educators in the State of Indiana, the Licensure Committee has been enthusiastically accepting comments from stakeholders. These comments have come from a wide variety of stakeholders and formats, including expert testimony, written suggestions, and focus groups.

In considering the suggestions received throughout the dissemination and editing process, the Licensure Committee has always tried to reflect on what is best for all learners at all levels.

The Licensure Committee looks forward to presenting this report and to receiving its revised Charge in January, 1999, in order to complete its work by June, 1999.

SPECIFIC EDITORIAL CHANGES MADE TO THE DRAFT
FRAMEWORK, WITH RATIONALE FOR THESE CHANGES

PREFACE AND INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL This report represents editorial changes to the Draft Framework. Based on additional feedback from the IPSB and stakeholders, preface and introductory material will be revised as the final document is prepared for its June, 1999, presentation.

BUILDING LEVEL ADMINISTRATOR

ADMINISTRATIVE

BUILDING LEVEL ADMINISTRATOR

Content:	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. Building Level Administrator will be listed on the same license with the teaching content area(s) (and developmental levels); however, all four developmental areas will not have to be listed on the license in order for one to receive an administrators license. All four developmental levels are addressed in the building level administrator content standards.
Rationale for edit:	Building Level Administrator content standards and training programs ensure that candidates demonstrate competence in all four developmental levels; therefore, listing specific developmental levels is not necessary. The Licensure Committee is tentatively expecting that administrative licenses for District Level Administrators and School Services may be listed in a similar manner.

EXCEPTIONAL NEEDS

Developmental Level(s):	one or more of the following: Early Childhood, Middle Childhood, Early Adolescence, Adolescence/Young Adulthood
Content:	Exceptional Needs: Mild Intervention Exceptional Needs: Intense Intervention Exceptional Needs: Visually Impaired Exceptional Needs: Hearing Impaired
Comment:	The content standards for Mild and Intense Intervention are based on levels of service needed rather than discrete categories. All candidates for Exceptional Needs licensure must demonstrate proficiency of the Mild Intervention content standards. (2) Delete the Comment on page 13 of the Draft Framework: "Exceptional Needs is special education and gifted and talented education."
Rationale for edit:	(1) The comment has been revised to reflect the requirement that all candidates must first demonstrate proficiency in the mild intervention content area. This was the Licensure Committee's intent on the initial draft but was not worded clearly. (2) Expert testimony and other stakeholder comments have indicated that the Exceptional Needs Advisory Group did not consider Gifted and Talented Education as part of the Mild and Intense Intervention sections of Exceptional Needs.

SOCIAL STUDIES LICENSE PATTERN

SOCIAL STUDIES

Developmental Level(s):	one or more of the following: Early Childhood, Middle Childhood, Early Adolescence, Adolescence/Young Adulthood
Content:	Social Studies: Economics Social Studies: Geographical Perspectives Social Studies: Government and Citizenship Social Studies: Historical Perspectives Social Studies: Psychology/Sociology/World Cultures
Comment:	The standards are comprehensive, encompassing: civic ideals, current events, economics, geographical perspectives, government and citizenship, historical perspectives, psychology, sociology, and world cultures. All candidates for Social Studies licensure must demonstrate competence, as a result of intense preparation, in at least three of these five core areas: economics, geographical perspectives, government and citizenship, historical perspectives, psychology/sociology/world cultures.
Rationale for edit:	Although the comprehensive nature of the standards ensures breadth of understanding in the field of Social Studies, professional educator candidates need in-depth training in the specific areas they will be teaching.

MINORS AND ENDORSEMENTS

Consensus within the Licensure Committee at this time suggests that the current practice of listing "minors" and "endorsements" on the license would not be necessary.

Rationale for this consensus: Regardless of whether a course of study is called a major, minor, intense area of concentration, supportive area, etc., the determination of whether a teacher candidate is eligible for licensure in a certain content area or developmental level is based on the demonstration of competence in the standards.

• RECOMMENDATIONS ON AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE SPECIFIC
• LICENSURE COMMITTEE CHARGE, BUT THAT THE
• LICENSURE COMMITTEE BELIEVES WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO
• THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF TEACHER EDUCATION REFORM
• VOCATIONAL/CAREER EDUCATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP
• WITH BUSINESS EDUCATION, AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
• AND FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES

Licensure Committee member Dan Grayson will make contact with representatives of Business Education, Agriculture and Business, and Family and Consumer Sciences. He will ask them to review the content standards in place for Vocational Education and will ask if these basic standards are acceptable. He will then ask for recommendations for how these areas--if they were charged with developing their own specific content standards--may or may not be
included under the title "Vocational/Career Education" (perhaps similar to the way Fine Arts is configured in the Draft Framework) or whether they recommend separate content areas.

Goal: For the Licensure Committee to make specific recommendations to the Standards Review Cycle Committee about how they might proceed with their work in these areas.

GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

(1) Delete Planning Assumption (C) from page 9 of the Draft Framework: "Gifted and Talented education is considered part of the Mild and Intense Intervention sections of Exceptional Needs and is embedded in content areas."

(2) Review (perhaps in January, 1999) suggestions regarding the Gifted and Talented area.

(3) Make an informed recommendation to the IPSB and/or SRCC regarding preparation for educators who will teach students in Gifted and Talented programs.

Rationale for edit: The list of Planning Assumptions was created as the Licensure Committee was commencing its work. Since that time, expert testimony and other stakeholder comments have indicated that this was an invalid assumption; the Exceptional Needs Advisory Group did not consider Gifted and Talented Education as part of the Mild and Intense Intervention sections of Exceptional Needs.

SPEECH/COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING DEBATE)

The Licensure Committee refers the content area of Speech/Communication (including debate) to the Standards Review Cycle Committee for consideration, and further recommends that separate content standards be developed in this area.

Initial rationale for this recommendation: Expert testimony has suggested that this area is not adequately covered in the Language Arts content standards. The Licensure Committee plans to develop additional rationale to support this recommendation.

JOURNALISM (INCLUDING PRINT, RADIO, TELEVISION)

The Licensure Committee refers the content area of Journalism (including print, radio, television) to the Standards Review Cycle Committee for consideration, and further recommends that separate content standards be developed in this area.

Initial rationale for this recommendation: Expert testimony has suggested that this area is not adequately covered in the Language Arts content standards. The Licensure Committee plans to develop additional rationale to support this recommendation.

AREAS FOR WHICH IPSB STANDARDS DO NOT EXIST

Consensus within the Licensure Committee at this time suggests that a recommendation will be made regarding areas which are currently eligible for licensure in Indiana but for which IPSB standards do not exist. The recommendation will be that either these areas (1) continue under the current licensure pattern until the IPSB approves standards, or (2) be granted a license pattern by the IPSB on a temporary basis based on standards in place as developed by the national professional association representing the specific area.

Rationale for this consensus: (1) It is important to maintain licensure for educators in areas that represent current school course offerings yet to be addressed by IPSB. (2) The standards created by the national professional associations are assumed to be rigorous, research-based, and based upon best practice.