Archived Licensure Framework Documents

SELECTIONS FROM THE LICENSURE COMMITTEE
INDIANA PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BOARD 
November 23 ,1998

Licensure Committee Members Present: Lisa Bischoff, William Christopher, Lewis Ciminillo, Jeffrey Doebler, Dan Grayson, Barbara Horvath, David Kinman, Kathy Klawitter, Phil Metcalf , Elaine Pitts and Jim Renz. Staff Present: Shawn Sriver

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

-MONDAY, 8:00A-3:00P EST
MEETING #3 of (probably) 8 for 1998-9
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES

TASKS
-Welcome new member... [this is a pleasure, not a "task."]
-Decide developmental levels designations or what steps still need to be taken
-Decide social studies issue or what steps still need to be taken
-Hear expert testimony
-Review Focus Group data
-Review new information since 10/22/98
-Expenses information

GOALS
-Recommendation in place for developmental levels designations
-Recommendation in place for social studies
-Recommendation in place for direction on other recent issues
-Strategy in place for editing the draft framework

MATERIALS
-Agenda (Jeff)
-"Notecards" suggestions from IPSB members (Jeff, attached to agenda)
-Written expert testimony received since 10/22/98 (Shawn)
-Copies of letters received since 10/22/98 (Shawn)
-Focus Groups data report (Shawn)
-Comparison document of other states' licensing patterns (Shawn)

Morning

8:00	Welcome new Licensure Committee member  School Services representative:  Dr. Lisa Bischoff School of Education Indiana State University Welcome scheduled presenters:  Ms. Wilma Shakleton Ms. Mary Beth Morgan Dr. Dorothy Drummond

 

Expenses information from Shawn Sriver and submit receipts.

Preview agenda, especially noting expert testimony, small group work sessions and working lunch. Licensure Committee members may begin making mental notes regarding issues, questions, concerns, etc.

Place lunch orders with Kathleen

Phil, Lew, Elaine, Dan, Dave, Bill, Nancy, Shawn, Jeff share brief reflections of 11/18/98 IPSB Discussion Session on Proposed Licensure Framework. Note that (now) the January presentation will be more of a "report" than a document for which a vote is needed.

Reference Document II.

8:30	Expert Testimony:     Written Testimony:	Ms. Wilma Shakleton, Chair, Social Studies Advisory Group  Ms. Mary Fortney, Indiana Department of Education
9:00	Expert Testimony:	Ms. Mary Beth Morgan, Middle Childhood Advisory Group, Department of Education - Prime Time
9:30	Expert Testimony:	Dr. Dorothy Drummond, Geography Educators Network of Indiana
10:30	Brief overview of Dr. Scannell's 11/18/98 memorandum (Shawn) Brief overview of other states' license patterns (Shawn) Overview of draft idea on generalist standards (Dave) Brief overview of Purdue University and IACTE documents (Dave) Initial overview of data garnered from Focus Groups
Noon	Working lunch  -Divide into three sub-committees (Jeff serve as alternate and/or observer) (1) (2)      (3)	Developmental Levels (see attached Reference Document I) >Kathy, Kathleen, Lew, Elaine, Dave Social Studies >Jim, Phil, Bill, Nancy Other Recent Issues: Building Level Administrators, Gifted and Talented, Speech/Communication, Other stakeholders who feel left out (e.g., business, agricultural science and business, family and consumer sciences, others) >Barbara, Dan, Lisa, Shawn Goal: By 2:00, provide a report to the full Licensure Committee which either (a) recommends a specific solution to the issue, OR (b) recommends specific action which should be taken prior to making a decision (e.g. hear additional expert testimony and from whom, garner additional research and from where, etc.)
2:00	Sub-committee reporting, discussion, consensus
2:45	Preview December 3 agenda -additional expert testimony, if necessary (e.g., bldg level admin, early childhood) -initial editorial changes interpreted by Jeff -finalize editorial changes for January presentation for submission by 12/7/98 -planning for January presentation to IPSB -preview draft of new charge -schedule upcoming meetings -preview what needs to be accomplished January-June, 1998 -discuss formulas for to achieve above (e.g., sub-committees, expert testimony, etc.) -begin discussion on minors, endorsements, etc. -other items suggested 11/23/98
3:00	Adjournment

Currently scheduled upcoming meetings:

(#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

 

Reference Document I: Developmental Levels
Here is the document again from 9/8/98. My notes from the 10/22/98 meeting suggest that (a) no consensus was achieved, and (b) we discussed...
Early Childhood: Possibly using a phrase like "at the primary grade levels or below"
Middle Childhood: Possibly using a phrase like "at the intermediate grade levels"
Pattern: Four levels instead of the three indicated

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 designations of the NBPTS.
(3)	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.
(4)	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.
(5)	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 and younger (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.
 

Reference Document II: "Notecards" suggestions of IPSB members,
11/18/98

Numbering is simply for reference and is not meant to imply any priority.
Some comments are phrases; these have not been edited. priority.
These mostly refer to the Licensure Committee timeline,

MEETING

Board members who attended the November 18th IPSB meeting provided some reflections:

• We are still expected to have an updated framework by January. The report in January should include the responses from the focus groups compiled by IU, what we changed and why we changed it. But we will give ANOTHER report in June.
• Selections should be placed on web as soon as possible. Also the times and location of our meetings will be posted on the web site so people who want to come can.
• The Board thoughtfully suggested that we didn't need to stick to a strict schedule.
• The Board thought it would be a good idea for this committee to come to board meetings to discuss problems, perhaps in a small group setting with the executive board.
• There was confusion and misunderstanding about the framework from the board, so how is the public feeling? It will be good to post the Selections so they know the discussions going on.
• The structure of the meeting and consequent dialogue were very appropriate. Everyone entered into it in a serious and constructive fashion. There was surprise expressed by our committee members who attended that some of the items were not clearer to the Board. Hopefully they were clarified. A board member made a great statement, that she hoped wed do the job right, take the time, rather than having to go back and redo it.
• Overall the reaction to the framework was positive. There was strong support for us from the Board. We appreciate that support.
• The format was different from the one they expected.
• The January report is a pause in the process, carefully built in.
• The last page of the agenda was composed of notecards generated by facilitator Kunkle from the Board. We might want to look through those today.
• We need to deal with Business even though it wasn't part of our charge. The Board asked us about that.

TESTIMONY
Testimony from Wilma Shakelton and Joan Schriber regarding Social
Studies licensure included:

• A review of the history of the committee
• The charge included not considering licensure.
• A change in the original Standards document on p. 22 would help, and that would be intense content preparation.
• The focus groups responses caused some revisions. Ms. Shakelton didn't recall there were many about the developmental level preparation.
• She made personal contact with most members of the Advisory Group since the October letter inviting her to come to this meeting. They discussed their memories of what happened. The believed they did the work, listened to expert testimony and used the feedback from the focus groups. Most of them said the purpose of their work was to define what social studies teachers needed to know and be able to do, and it was not licensure.

Question:
Social studies is not a course. In Indiana social studies is not a separate subject. There is concern that the framework will allow teachers to teach things they don't have. What if in depth preparation meant the area one was allowed to teach. What do you think? So for example a teacher would have 9 hours in sociology to teach sociology, or 15 for intensive.
Answer:
We didn't consider how much one needed. Teaching areas should have minimum amounts It would be up to colleges see how they would implement that. Social Studies is a broad field, and interdisciplinary, by definition made up of these various disciplines. There has been a social studies license since 1966. What we saw were area majors, minors, primary concentrations, etc. Social studies has never said separately history. We don't want that as it is fragmenting at a time when we want integration.

A member of the committee who served on the Advisory Group concurred. When people get hired the expectation will be that they can go back and pick up what they need. Partly the worry seems to be over how many hours. At no time has anyone said we will be cutting back the number of hours that will be required for social studies licensure. There are assumptions being made about how the new licensure will effect the number of hours that are not necessarily accurate. The present number of hours might not need to be changed. Perhaps there should be some provision for indicating on the license a concentration.

Response from Joan Schriber :
126 hours are required for graduation. Presently 52 hours are needed to be in social studies. Basically the pattern has been 18, 12, 12, and then electives. Almost everyone has a general studies program. For example, ALL students take world history, social/behavioral science, and international/global studies. Could get hours from general studies. When you look at the 9 strands, current events is integrated with the others, and civics could be too. So now we are at seven. Its easy with EC and MC. The trouble is defining breadth and depth for EA and AYA particularly. Intensive could mean 12 or 15 hours. We want broad coverage AND intensive preparation. We could do it by addressing the Standards. There is nothing magical about three areas. Or we could address it through the State Proficiencies which divide things up somewhat differently.

There was a long discussion of exactly how to do it in terms of hours. With one set of assumptions, preparation in social studies would require 60 hours, with another, it was 57.

Comment from committee:
At no time did we think we were getting away from something like 18, 9, 9 or that wed have that problem. Its hard to find economics and geography teachers these days, with history teachers a dime a dozen.

Testimony continued:

• The premise is that with adequate broad background the beginning teacher could do a creditable job, and then go back and get a concentration if necessary.
• Remember the impact of Core 40.

We've been asked to step out of the box, and many people who are commenting in print aren't understanding that. Either we are going to have to make our language understandable, open it up so there are more options, or go back to saying things in the old way.

Testimony from Dr Drummond included:

• A concern that if we don't force certain assumptions, the larger community will not make them. The Licensure Committee may believe that geography is important, but since history and economics are the courses most taught in high schools, it will be assumed that preparation should mainly focus on those. Currently many institutions are not preparing students in geography. In order to get licensed there must be a core of disciplines that the candidates are prepared to integrate. 9 hours in 5 core subjects. That would encourage sociology, psychology, and anthropology as well. In 1985 only 12% of teachers of social studies had geography courses.
• There needs to be age appropriate balance and depth. Breadth for all age levels, with specialization as developmental level increases. There should be age appropriate balance and depth.
• Dr. Drummond went over her specific recommendations, which have been submitted to the Committee also in writing.
• She suggests 9 hours in 5 basic areas for all social studies teachers, with EA needing additional strength in one or two, so 15 hours for that.

The response was that licensure needs to spell more out than is currently clear.

Testimony from Mary Beth Morgan representing Middle Childhood included:

• EC is commonly considered birth to age 8.
• There is often confusion of MC with middle school.
• The Advisory Group was GIVEN the ages to work with, they didn't choose them.
• In any case we need to approach teaching in a way that's developmentally appropriate, and make all our decisions based on what we know about child development. That's a framework for life, not just for small children. In any grade it needs to be understood that children don't develop according to grade level. That's part of the tension. Some children develop earlier, and some later. And they could develop unevenly in the different realms of development, i.e. physical, language, cognitive.

Question from the committee:

What is your opinion about developmental levels and how to apply that to current grade level configurations?
Answer:
All middle childhood teachers should also have good grounding in EA and EC too.

Comment from committee:
How many schools are offering early childhood? Three quarters have a Kindergarten endorsement, but only 8 have EC

Question:
The standards were written to cover what grade levels for middle childhood?
Answer:
Up to Grade 7.

Question:
How can standards be changed to make them effective within schools as we know them? Would the MC Standards support EC?
Answer:

Assumptions made while writing the document might, but it isn't spelled out in the document. Perhaps there should have been core standards. Since they are best practice it shouldn't be difficult for the university to put together.

(End of testimony.)

The committee went over the handouts. Mary Fortney has provided a letter. The letter from the building principals needs to be dealt with.

Dave compiled the Standards for the EC Generalist and the MC Generalist to give us an idea of how it would look. The was a very big job and very useful for the committee to use to base its decisions on how the developmental levels will be defined. He also looked over the issues,
thinks some aren't in our purview, and for others we need to form ad hoc committees to get the expert advice we need. He distributed a list of motions to help deal with the issues that have been raised regarding licensure.

The committee split into the subcommittees defined by the agenda. At 2 p.m. the committee will reconvene and either recommend specific action, or recommend what we need to do.

(Some questions we will still need to deal with:
Are we certain we don't want endorsements?
What would it take for a licensed teacher to add something to their license?)

Report: Subcommittee -Developmental levels and Generalist license.

• Current school structures that would utilize the Generalist license include grades K-6. The Developmental Standards that would be applicable to include this current structure include both Early Childhood and Middle Childhood. Early Childhood Standards were written for birth (or preschool) to age 8 and which would be appropriate up to grade 3, and Middle Childhood for ages 7 to 12, appropriate from grade 2 to 6.
• One suggested pattern would be to require EC for preschool to 3rd grade and MC for 2nd grade to 6th. That pattern would insure that the standards for EC and MC would be reflected in the licensure, and thus insure that they were met.
• Another possibility would be to require both EC AND MC for the Generalist license.
• In both cases a candidate for licensure wanting to work in what is currently an elementary setting would need the birth to preschool part of EC.
• Current structures existing in institutions for higher education will not support programs which would require the birth through preschool part of the Early Childhood Standards. If we require both developmental levels in those terms the smaller institutions will not be able to offer licensure for K-2. One alternative to provide for current institutional structures would be to extend Middle Childhood to age six to enable it to provide schools with licensed teachers from grades one through six with a single developmental level. But that would be an extension of the standards not justified by the standards themselves.
• Since the content for the Generalist is derived from a variety of contentstandards, a solution, and the one we propose, is that there be an Elementary Generalist (or some name) which defines its content as content as derived from the content standards appropriate for grades K-6 in an elementary setting, with the developmental levels on the license as EC and MC as appropriate for those grades.
• There would still be a Generalist, with just EC, which would license a teacher up to 3rd grade. There would still be a Generalist with just MC, which would license a teacher of 2nd to 6th grade.

• The standards are comprehensive, encompassing nine strands within the field: civic ideals, current events, economics, geographical perspectives, government and citizenship, historical perspectives (U.S. history and world history), psychology, sociology, and world cultures. Candidates for Social Studies licensure must have completed at least one intense and two supportive programs from these five core areas: historical perspectives (U.S. history and world history), government and citizenship, geographical perspectives, economics, and social sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology).

Response:
Performance will be reflected by their portfolio, which is an assessment designed with THEIR CONTEXT in mind. The candidate will be judged relative to their placement. Remember that induction is different from a professional development plan.

Comment from the floor:

• The five core areas may need rewording and clarification. (One commentator suggested the following: US History, World History, Geography, Economics, and Government. Another commentator wanted History to remain one of the Core 5 to discourage fragmentation. Also, where are the social sciences in the Core 5?)
• There seems to be some confusion between strand and core.
• Giving students choice means they will take what they are advised to and will follow traditional structures which will effectively leave geography out.
• There ARE some ways to get in ALL five. Historical perspectives gets US and World History together. Civic ideals could be a capstone course. It could represent anthropology, and social sciences. It needs to go across the developmental levels.

civic ideals represents anthropology, social sciences, needs to go across.
Primary, secondary, need all.
• Perhaps one of the Core 5 should be social sciences and include sociology, psychology and anthropology.

• Building administrators want all the developmental levels to be required on the Administrators License. They say it is a market driven request, with administrators in short supply. They believe broadening the developmental levels on the license will help alleviate that situation.

Recommendation: Invite the executive director of the Indiana Association of School Principals, Steve Heck to bring whomever he'd like, and discuss this change.

• Vocational Education has been providing feedback from three specific areas; agriculture, family and consumer science, and business. Part of the problem is that some don't want to be considered as vocational. They've seen the cover page and haven't gone forward to look at the Standards.

Recommendation: Contact the president of the state associations, review the Standards, and then ask if they could live with the Standards as a whole and then go ahead and add them to the framework, and if not recommend they go to the Standards Review Committee.

• Dan Grayson will make the contacts - business, agriculture, and family and consumer sciences.
• Jeff Doebler will check on whether business is part of our charge. If so, the vastly different contents grouped under the Vocational Education heading (similar to the Fine Arts grouping), need to be defined in terms of the Standards.
• Concern: G/T should be seen as embedded in all the areas. On page 13 of the framework it would be helpful to get rid of the reference to G/T. It gives the impression that G/T is embedded in exceptional needs instead of all areas.
• Concern: The committee indicated last year that anyone who got exceptional needs would get a mild intervention as part of the framework, and that's not very clear. Its not well explained, and needs to be clarified.
• Concern: Speech communication, including debate, and journalism, and radio and TV all need attention, and that's part of the Standards Review Cycle Committee s charge. Lets take one small step further, and recommend separate Standards for speech communication and journalism for another.

submitted Dec. 9, 1998 by
Kathy Klawitter