Archived Licensure Framework Documents

SELECTIONS FROM THE LICENSURE COMMITTEE
INDIANA PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BOARD

December 3, 1998

Committee Members Present: Lisa Bishoff, William Christopher, Lewis Ciminillo, Jeffery Doebler, Dan Grayson, Barbara Horvath, David Kinman, Phil Metcalf, Elaine Pitts. Staff Present: Shawn Sriver
Members excused: Jim Renz, Kathleen Lattimer, Kathy Klawitter

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

Chair's remarks
Special thanks to Kathy for her excellent work in writing and distributing the selections. Recognizes the time and energy all committee members have put into the process.
Submit expense information
Audience members sign in
Preview agenda and goals

Approved the Guidelines for Audience Member Participation During Meetings of the Licensure Committee of the Indiana Professional Standards Board.

Expert Testimony
Dr. Steve Heck, Indiana Association of Principals, Dr. Rich Roames, Purdue University- Calumet, and Deb Lecklider, Principals Leadership Academy

Dr. Heck reviewed the history of the committee to the present External Standing Committee status with IPSB.

Stated that research supports the critical role of the building level administrator, indicated through handouts presented to licensure committee members. IN Assoc. of Principals supports the standards as written for building level administrators. The role of the principal is a generalist. Preservice candidates are immersed in knowledge base of culture and climate, with curriculum embedded throughout training. As leaders of instruction, they promote seamless curriculum. Preparation programs are in place in many institutions of higher education to cover the needed experiential base across the developmental levels. Research supports that expertise in all developmental levels is not critical.

Dr. Roames indicated that the national trend is to move away from categorical designations, which supports the broad based preparation programs.

Deb Lecklider stated that her training at Butler University and through the Principals Leadership Academy did not support categorical distinctions of developmental levels.

The depletion of administrative forces was recognized, but is not a driving force behind their concern. Rather, the concern is that administrators see and work with the bigger picture, and to be knowledgeable instructional leaders.

All testifiers assured the licensure committee members that the developmental standards appropriate to and necessary for building level administrators are embed in the Building Level Administration Standards approved by IPSB.

Vocational Education
Dan Grayson reviewed the current status of his discussions with representatives of Business Education, Agriculture and Business, and Family and Consumer Sciences. He has made several contacts to date. The overriding concern is that specialty areas are not represented. A major problem appears to be the term "Vocational" on the standards document. This has pushed the belief that all discreet areas are lumped together. Vocationally licensed teachers are differentiated and generate federal dollars.

There are two types of vocational licenses currently: One requires the completion of a higher education preparation program and the other is based on the verification of occupational experience but may not require a degree. Both require some work experience. Many of these areas are also currently available as non-vocational licenses. These licenses require the completion of a teacher preparation program but do not require work experience.

In general, however, there is no resistance to the actual standards themselves. Some areas are not addressed at all (Technology/Industrial Arts). Dan will come back with recommendations for the January meeting to determine what areas should be clearly delineated. May need to make recommendations for discreet area standards to the Standards Review Committee.

More discussion to be held on issue of license vs. certification, i.e. computer instruction. Or should we add more licensed areas?

Selected Comments from Stakeholders
Dave Kinman presented the draft document and offered an overview of all comments made at the regional focus group meetings held earlier this year. He used a software package to search for common phrases and then categorized by common comments. Recommendations from the Purdue University document and perspectives document are embedded in the draft. The committee took a thirty minute recess to allow all members to briefly review the information in the draft.

Comments: (not to be considered recommendations) from committee members based on review of draft document:

• There is currently a lot of confusion concerning the framework. More explicit information needs to be shared with stakeholders.
• Committee must consider how to work with endorsements and minors.
• Certificates are issued based on meeting national standards. There is no reciprocity currently for certificates. Some discreet areas are looking at this process now. This is not a licensure area or issue.
• Content standards are synonymous with current majors language. A university can determine that a preservice candidate has a minor in an area, but that candidate would be required to have met the standards. Major/minor/endorsement would all have to met the standards and that area would appear on the license as either a content or developmental level. This discussion should be continued with the Continuing Education Committee. Licensure needs to collaborate with Continuing Ed, Assessment, and Standards Review Committee to ensure that we are all on the same page and using the same language.
• Many stakeholders are using the old language and attempting to fit it into the new framework. Clarification is needed.
• Only areas that have standards can be licensed.

Language is being designed to suggest that licensure may be granted based on meeting the standards of the appropriate learned national organization if IPSB has not approved standards for a discreet area. This is under discussion, and is not a formal recommendation.

Audience Comments
Joy Garton-Krueger:
Early Childhood Standards: concern that the standards will be attached to infant/toddler.
Social Studies: Concern that it reflect poorly on the universities if initial practitioners are not trained with the necessary depth in assigned areas. Areas of in-depth course work should be indicated on the license "Truth in advertising".
Gifted/Talented: Purdue University is unable to identify any strands or specific standards in the current approved standards.
Purdue University is designing a document which will serve as a comparison
Are institutions of higher ed. committed to using the Indiana standards? Consideration should be given to using the National Standards to ensure flexibility.

Joan Schreiber:
The definition of Social Studies is not in the current document but was in the original. The definition may help with understanding the rationale behind one license for social studies. Social studies is integrated social sciences and humanities.
Suggested using the term standards instead of strands. The standards as written are comprehensive. There is no need for discreet strands.
The standards approved by IPSB are embedded in the current texts and research.

Dorothy Drummond:
There is little hope that the disciplinary structures at the universities will change.
Suggests using a five core area structure:
Psychology: don't need to worry about it, not taught in many schools. The same is true for anthropology and sociology.
World cultures should be integrated into all areas; it does not fit the structure presently being used.

Editorial changes for January presentation to IPSB

Proposed new language for developmental areas:
Teachers with the developmental level of Early Childhood are eligible to teach young children normally in preschools and in grades K - 3.
Teachers with the developmental level of Middle Childhood are eligible to teach children normally in grades 2 - 7.
Teachers with the developmental level of Early Adolescent are eligible to teach children normally in schools designated as middle schools or junior high schools or in those secondary schools having grades 5 - 9 included in the school organizational pattern. Any teacher in a middle level school as defined above must hold a license including the Adolescence/Young Adult level.
Teachers with the developmental level of Adolescence/young adult are eligible to teach children normally in grades 9 - 12.
NEW DEVELOPMENTAL LEVEL: Elementary: based on NCATE standards.

Social Studies: The standards are comprehensive, encompassing nine strands within the field: civic ideals, current events, economics, geographical perspectives, government and citizenship, historical perspectives (US and world history), psychology, sociology, and world cultures. Candidates for social Studies Licensure must have preparation in at least three of the following five areas: historical perspectives, government and citizenship, geographical perspectives, economics, and world cultures.

Building Level Administrators: The recommendation, based on expert testimony and clarifying discussions:
Building Level Administration will be the content area listed on the license. There will be no developmental distinction. The developmental standards, as they apply the administrators, are embedded in those content standards.

Gifted and Talented: refer to the Standards Review Recycle Committee to consider development of standalone content standards for this discreet area.

Exceptional Needs: design language which better states that the mild intervention standards are the core standards for this content area, and that they are to be met by all teachers of students with exceptional needs.

Meeting dates for 1999:
January 19 (IPSB presentation, January 20)
February 16
April 20
May 10
June 15 (presentation to the IPSB)

Submitted for review only by Barbara Horvath
December 5, 1998