Archived Licensure Framework Documents

SELECTIONS FROM THE LICENSURE COMMITTEE
INDIANA PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BOARD 
October 22,1998

Licensure Committee Members Present: Lewis Ciminillo, Jeffrey Doebler, Barbara Horvath, David Kinman, Kathy Klawitter, Kathleen Lattimer, Elaine Pitts and Jim Renz. Staff Present: Shawn Sriver and Nancy Taylor

The meeting was called to order at 8:00 am at the Washington Township School Administrative Offices.

-TENTATIVE AGENDA-

LICENSURE COMMITTEE OF THE INDIANA PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BOARD

MEETING #2 of (probably) 8 for 1998-9

TASKS
-Welcome new members... [this is a pleasure, not a "task."]
-Decide developmental levels designations
-Hear expert testimony from history
-Interact with Drs. Scannell and Carnes regarding licensure issues
-Review focus sessions in general and with specific data presented by Jim Fleck
-Discuss strategies for editing the framework and addressing real world issues
-Discuss whether we can change the November meeting date
-Expenses information
 

GOALS
-Recommendation in place for developmental levels designations
-Communication and understanding between Licensure Committee and Dr. Scannell,
IPSB and IPSB senior staff has been clarified
-Strategy in place for editing the draft framework
 

MATERIALS
-Agenda (Jeff)
-Copies of current draft of licensure framework (Shawn)
-Letters of concern from history teachers (Shawn)
-Notes from 8/10/98 meeting with Dr. Scannell and IPSB senior staff [also found in Agenda from 9/3/98] (Shawn)
-Feedback from IACTE (Shawn and Jeff)

Morning

8:00

Welcome new Licensure Committee members  School Services representative: Dr. Lisa Bischoff, School of Education, Indiana State University Vocational Education representative:  Mr. Dan Grayson, Twin Lakes High School, Monticello  Welcome scheduled presenters:  Dr. Wilson Warren Dr. Marilyn Scannell, Dr. Bill Carnes

Expenses information from Shawn Sriver and submit receipts

Preview agenda, especially noting presentations scheduled by Dr. Warren, Drs. Carnes and Scannell, and Mr. Fleck. Licensure Committee members may begin making mental notes regarding issues, questions, concerns, etc.

Begin debriefing from focus groups by sharing general observations (not a time for debate, discussion, decisions)

8:30	Review "First draft of new idea for developmental levels designations" (9/8/98) (below) and make decision of what recommendation to make to IPSB on this matter
9:00	Expert testimony representing history teachers  Dr. Wilson Warren, Indiana State University, Indiana Council of History, Education member -Also note copies of letters from history stakeholders
9:30	Break
9:45	Discussion and Question Session  Dr. Bill Carnes: Refocusing the Licensure Committee Charge and Its Implications for This Year's Work of the Licensure Committee  Dr. Marilyn Scannell: Thoughts on the Licensure Process and Roles of the Licensure Committee and IPSB Staff
11:30	Lunch
1:00	Report on Focus Groups Jim Fleck will present data gathered from the Licensure Focus Groups -Also note IACTE data received
2:00	Discuss Strategies for Editing the Framework and Addressing Real World Issues Framework Editing Timeline:  11/30 all data to Edit Team 12/7 Editing complete Who will be the Edit Team (two or three people)?  What direction does the Licensure Committee give to the Edit Team? Are there major issues to revise, or just minor wording?  Shall the 12/7 document be sent to Licensure Committee members by email (Kathy) and hard copy (Shawn)?  Per Phil Metcalf's request, can we change the date of the November meeting (see tentative meeting dates below)?
3:00	Adjournment

Currently scheduled upcoming meetings:

(#3)	Friday, November 13, 8a-3p, Washington Township School Administrative Building
(optional)	Wednesday, November 18, 9a, IPSB discussion session, Gov't Ctr, Indianapolis
(#4)	Thursday, December 3, 8a-3p, Washington Township School Administrative Building
(#5)	Tuesday, January 19, 8a-3p, Washington Township School Administrative Building Wednesday, January 20, 9a, Present Edited Document to IPSB, Gov't Ctr, Indianapolis
(#6)	TBD
(#7)	TBD
(#8)	TBD
(#9)	Wednesday, June 16, 9a, Presentation to IPSB, Government Center, Indianapolis

September 8, 1998
TO: IPSB Licensure Committee
FR: Jeff Doebler
RE: First draft of new idea for developmental levels designations

Here is what I perceive to be our line of thinking from 9/3. Please send comments to Kathy [kklawitt@siec.k12.in.us] and copy them to me[jdoebler@exodus.valpo.edu].
We also agreed that we would "float" this idea at the focus sessions if the opportunity arose. At our October meeting we can discuss our reactions and the reactions of stakeholders.
One question from me: What if a teacher preparation institution in Indiana was preparing educators for the middle childhood level and not for the early childhood level (or vice versa)? Would they be: (1) out of elementary education business altogether, (2) forced to add early childhood, (3) preparing educators only to teach in other states?
One other thing: I think I have a better understanding of Elaine's concern with this possible plan. I will state it here for Elaine to tell me if I am incorrect, and so that we can discuss it further:
What if someone wants to be an early childhood educator and NOT a middle childhood educator (or vice versa)? What if they can meet the standards for EC
but not for MC (or vice versa)? Would that mean they would not be allowed to
teach in an elementary school in Indiana?

FIRST DRAFT OF NEW IDEA FOR DEVELOPMENTAL LEVELS DESIGNATIONS
PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS

(1)	The standards are the standards. If we believe in the standards, then only those qualified to teach in a particular area will be able to meet the standards.
(2)	There is a great deal of stakeholder disagreement about the age level standards.
(3)	There is a great deal of stakeholder disagreement about the age level designations of the NBPTS.
(4)	There is a great deal of stakeholder disagreement in general about the age level designations and overlaps as they relate to the IPSB developmental levels.
(5)	All school corporations maintain a configuration of schools, grade levels, etc., that most logically serves their local situation. Therefore, to most logically serve the school corporations in Indiana, the developmental level designations should reflect each school corporation's organizational pattern. Similarly, each school corporation should determine the developmental level(s) an educator in that district should hold.
(6)	Should school configurations change, this idea could be amended and updated through the IPSB plan to keep the educator preparation system current.

DEFINITIONS

Early Childhood	This developmental level covers teaching in a preschool or an elementary school, and includes instruction of learners who are usually eight years old (Note that IPSB does not currently and has no plans to license preschools or preschool educators.)
Middle Childhood	This developmental level covers teaching in an organized elementary school, and includes instruction of learners who are usually six to eleven years old and who are normally enrolled in grades one through six.
Early Adolescence	This developmental level covers teaching in a middle school or junior high school, and includes instruction of learners who are usually ten to fourteen years old and who are normally enrolled in grades five through nine.
Adolescence/Young Adulthood	This developmental level covers teaching in a high school, and includes instruction of learners who are usually fourteen to eighteen years old and who are normally enrolled in grades nine through twelve.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENTAL LEVEL LICENSURE PATTERN

(1) Early and Middle Childhood Educator, based on the definitions above.
Note: Candidates for the Early and Middle Childhood Educator license would
have to meet the standards for BOTH Early Childhood AND Middle Childhood.
(2) Early Adolescence Educator, based on the definitions above.
(3) Adolescence/Young Adulthood Educator, based on the definitions above.

MEETING:
Jeff went through agenda

Perceptions were shared by committee members regarding the focus meetings across the state.

Generally perceptions of the groups were positive, though there appears to be some confusion regarding the framework. There was a perception that the framework has not been well enough publicized. There were concerns voiced by people representing business education and social studies at all groups. There were also concerns voiced at some groups by the agricultural and journalism and special education representatives, as well as there being a perception that we didn't pay much attention to the needs relating to technology in the schools as there are no standards for that, and concerns regarding reciprocity. The developmental levels did not seem
to be a problem.

Jim Renz stated that his group still supports the current configuration of the social studies license.

Question from committee: If there is only one license with one or more developmental levels, what happens to the person who is a proficient practitioner in science (for example) and want to become administrator? Does that all go on one license with multiple expirations dates?

We need to keep the information regarding the framework out in front ofthe educational committee. It would be good to get information to the principals.

Discussion: On developmental levels. Should we combine early childhood and middle childhood? What are the age designations for them?

No consensus was reached. The central issue in the debate is whether middle childhood should include children traditionally in the first grade. One view was that if that were the case, then the levels should be combined, to insure that first grade teachers had some early childhood
training. There seemed to be some consensus that the levels be discrete. But there was also strong feeling expressed by some that first grade needs to be considered part of middle childhood in order to support existing school structures. The debate was suspended until next meeting when representatives of the early childhood and middle childhood groups could
come and help the committee clarify the issues.

Testimony: Dr. Warren regarding the current social studies configuration.
In summary his testimony focused on the concern that teachers of a particular social studies strand could be unprepared to teach it because of the preparation required for all nine strands.

Presentation: Dr. Scannell and Dr. Carnes
The framework is making a conversation occur. Dr. Carnes led us in a discussion about the thoughts we had leading to the framewok. He went over the timeline for the framework to be completed and submitted to the IPSB. We will report in January and recommend a framework. There will be a summary of feedback which is being done by the University. We will react to the feedback, which will be a big job. He asked us to consider where we want to be in June, and if we don't feel done in June we should express that.

We will be given a new charge that will be fashioned by Jeff Doebler, Marilyn Scannell, Phil Metcalf, and Bill Carnes. We will have the option to reject or accept it as a whole. The committee agreed .

By January should look at what we've done, and finalized the developmental areas. We need to keep sending information out and continue to test the framework in terms of feedback we get. Vocational education, particularly in terms of dealing with business education and special services need some focus as well as looking at the superintendents standards.

The committee asked what to do if we didnt get to all the issues we had defined. The answer was that we should prioritize. The chair suggested that If we don't come to consensus, we may simply need to take a vote.

General discussion suggested we send standard development back to vocational education to deal with the cluster areas, and then send that to the Standards Recycle committee. We could do the same for student services and for superintendents.

Question: How does the framework deal with people with existing licenses when they want a new license under the new framework?

Discussion outlined legislative procedures relating to the framework.

There was a suggestion that we invite Larry Grau and Craig Hartzer and Kevin Brinnegar of the Chamber of Commerce to help clarify issues regarding business education and workforce development. Further suggested that we should invite Ms. Pullin to talk about the legal implications before our final work in June and then bring her in for the Board.

We also want and need to keep Dr. Scannell constantly in the loop.

Jim Fleck reported to the committee regarding his perceptions of the process, the framework, and the focus groups. Primarily input came from higher education. We need to listen to what they are saying and how and why they are saying it. Are we doing an adequate job of disseminating the information?

Discussion of remembering to invite especially higher education to committee meetings. These are public meetings and anyone who is interested should be encouraged to attend. People should feel welcome to be here, but not be allowed to interfere with our work.

We were assigned to read the material passed out at this meeting from the groups, editorials, and responses.

Next meeting we will consider what we might want to do to address the history and social studies issue. Assignment: read stuff from meeting

Our tasks will be to look at the new charge, to continue the discussion of developmental levels hoping to resolve that issue, to establish an edit team, and to look at more dates for meetings after December.

We were reminded that in terms of getting things to the Board, January really means December.

We will invite Wilma from Social Studies to help us resolve the issues there, and Shawn Sriver will perhaps invite Mary Fortney. We would also like representatives of the Early and Middle Childhood to attend.

Submitted November 22, 1998
by Kathy Klawitter