Meetings

 
INDIANA PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BOARD
SELECTIONS FROM THE LICENSURE COMMITTEE
February 16, 1999

Licensure Committee Members Present: Lisa Bishoff, William Christopher, Jeffrey Doebler, Dan Grayson, Barbara Horvath, David Kinman, Kathy Klawitter, Kathleen Latimer, Phil Metcalf, Elaine Pitts and Jim Renz.

Staff Present: Nancy Taylor.

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

TENTATIVE AGENDA - MEETING #6 of (probably) 8 for 1998-1999.

8:00 a.m.
Nancy Taylor distributed expense information and vouchers.
Audience members signed in. Joan Schreiber was present in the audience.
Note that today's lengthy agenda did not allow for audience members to address the Licensure Committee.

Edward Wall was welcomed as the Research and Communication Consultant for the Licensure Committee.
Ed's role:

 (1) Completely at the disposal of the Licensure Committee and not as a representative for IPSB, principals, or any other group. 
 (2) Outreach communication. 
 (3) Research on issues in other states and at the national level. 
 (4) "Outsider" commentary on clarity of documents, as asked. 

Jeff reported on 2/9/99 meeting at Valparaiso University with Marilyn Scannell, Nancy Taylor, Phil Metcalf, Bill Carnes, Ed Wall, and himself.

Concern was expressed at this meeting regarding the burden connected with distinguishing between a license and a certificate.

Preview agenda and goals.

Preview April IPSB Presentation: two audiences ... one is the framework in its most simple form and the other with an appendix of detailed rationale.

Preview IPSB reports: 4/28 (oral report) (NOTE CHANGE), 6/16 (final draft).

Review current dates for meetings #7 (T, 4/20), #8 (M, 5/10), and #9 (T,6/15).

Consider a meeting in late March; cancel the April and May meetings? Consider March 28 through March 30, 3:00 p.m. See "Proposed Timeline" for this discussion in the Report below.
 9:00 Come to consensus on Social Studies licensure: Jim Renz, leader. See "Social Studies License Pattern" for this discussion in the Report below. 
 9:30

Discuss and edit draft definitions of "license" and "certificate" - Jeff to edit based on this dialogue. 

See "Draft definitions of license and certificate" for this discussion in the Report below.
 10:00 Come to consensus on developmental levels and the "K-12 connection" to licensing.
See "Definitions of Developmental Levels" for this discussion in the Report below. 
 11:30 Lunch Break off-site. 
 1:00 Welcome Diana Pullin, who will discuss (1) legal issues relating to the draft framework, (2) reactions to our draft definitions of "license" and "certificate." (Diana Pullin could not attend.) Will attend on April 8, 1999.
 
 2:30 Briefly preview Action Plan proposed by Jeff. 
 2:45 Preview agenda for next meeting- consider need for expert testimony. Contact Jeff ASAP for the agenda. - Assign communication and research tasks to Ed Wall.  
 3:00 Adjournment. 



GENERAL STATUS REPORT AND ACTION PLAN FOR TASK COMPLETION, as perceived by Jeff Doebler, 2/99.

Note: The final document should have clear criteria and rationale so that the IPSB and other readers know how each decision was made. This is a different expectation than the June, 1998, document, when stakeholder consensus indicated a desire to see the framework itself with less explanation.

Note: Tasks in this action plan are not assigned equitably. Those whose names appear less frequently may be asked to help those assigned more frequently. Also, feel free to volunteer to help with areas of most interest to you.

Proposed Timeline.
February 16: Assign tasks for completion.
Late March or early April (2-3 days): Day one, day--Come to consensus on final issues.
Day one, evening--Jeff type up the final draft.
Day two, dayReach consensus on final draft; plan presentation - April 20?
April 28: Present draft to the IPSB.
May: Cancel this meeting?
June15: Meet to prepare for final IPSB presentation.
June16: Appear before the IPSB to answer final questions in preparation for vote on Licensure Framework.
The committee decided that a March meeting wouldn't work out. We will meet April 7 and April 8. We will present to the Board April 28th. We'll keep April 20th and May 10th open in case we need it. We still plan to meet June 15th to prepare for the the final presentation on June 16th.

ISSUE: Draft definitions of license and certificate.
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: Jeff
OUTCOME EXPECTED: Discussion and editing of proposed definition on 2/16.
DATE TO REPORT OUTCOME: Edited definitions to be presented in April.

LICENSE: The professional educator license is the document issued by the Indiana Professional Standards Board that grants permission for an individual to teach in the State of Indiana. This professional educator license affirms that the teacher candidate has completed a minimum of a bachelor's degree and has met the standards for the developmental level(s) and content area(s) indicated on the license.

CERTIFICATE: A certificate is a document issued by a college, university or professional
association that indicates advanced, intense or in-depth study in an area that may or may not also be an IPSB content area or developmental level. The certificate suggests to a potential employer that the teacher candidate has gone beyond the traditional training in a particular area. Examples of certificates might include, but are not limited to reading, gifted and talented preparation, Kodaly (music), computer specialists, student publications. The certificate is not monitored by the Indiana Professional Standards Board. Potential employers make decisions regarding the need for, importance of, and strength of certificates from particular agencies and fields in their hiring. Note that the definition of the professional educator license requires that any Indiana teacher must possess a valid professional educator license. Certificates are recognition of program enhancement beyond the professional educator license.

After extensive discussion the committee agreed to the following definitions.

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 the State of Indiana. This professional educator license affirms that the candidate has completed a bachelor's degree or higher and has met the INTASC standards and the Indiana standards for the developmental level(s) and content area(s) indicated on the license.

CERTIFICATE: A certificate is a document issued by the state, a college or university or professional association which recognizes that a licensed educator has met certain qualifications that represent enhancements in a particular area outside of that license. Potential employers make decisions regarding the need for, importance of, and strength of certificates.

It was noted that we need to define a third thing which would cover situations not addressed by the two above. Perhaps a "permit" which would cover some of the vocational education areas.

ISSUE: Social Studies License Pattern.
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: Jim
OUTCOME EXPECTED: Based on Licensure Committee consensus of 2/16/99, revise the Social Studies license pattern, comment, and rationale (below) as necessary.
DATE TO REPORT OUTCOME: April meeting.

SOCIAL STUDIES Developmental Level(s): one or more of the following: Early Childhood, Middle Childhood, Early Adolescence, and 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.

Jim Renz submitted the following additional comments to the committee for resolution of this issue.

"The standards are comprehensive, encompassing civic ideals and practices, historical perspectives, geographical perspectives, government and citizenship, economics, current events, psychology, sociology, and world cultures."

Candidates for Social Studies licensure must have completed preparation in each of the nine content areas of the standards, with concentrated preparation in at least three areas selected from the following: historical perspectives, geographical perspectives, government and citizenship, economics, psychology, and sociology. Civic ideals and practices, current events, and world cultures must be an integral part of each content area. Candidates will be licensed to teach in each area of concentration.

Will this proposed program meet the needs of those we serve? Yes. Students at the above levels will be taught by teachers who have breadth and depth in the social-studies. Teachers will only be licensed to teach in those concentration areas in which they have had preparation. Developers of teacher education programs will have basic guidelines to assist and allow them to develop programs, based on their own expertise and ability to provide the necessary resources. The three concentration areas will serve both teachers who are seeking positions and administrators who are hiring them. It must be emphasized that education is ongoing, and teachers will be obtaining more breadth and depth in their social studies licensure as they continue in the profession. They should be encouraged to add other concentration areas and to seek more depth in the areas currently being taught. One way to provide breadth or depth would be additional required work through the Masters programs as prescribed by the local school corporation. Another example would be requirements following the two year initial license.

Is this proposed licensure program workable? Yes. Institutions of higher education usually have a general studies program or university core (titles vary) requiring students to take, among others, courses in social and behavioral sciences. Often these courses, taken during the freshman/sophomore years, are counted towards the requirements for content areas on the teaching programs.

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

Rationale: 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 on the standards.

ISSUE: Definitions of Developmental Levels.
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: Kathy OUTCOME EXPECTED: Report Licensure Committee consensus on Developmental Levels definitions and their relation to school configurations. The wording below is included in case it might be useful. This wording was NOT (as of 2/11/99) approved by the Licensure Committee. It was developed by Jeff Doebler in December 1998.
DATE TO REPORT OUTCOME: April Licensure Committee meeting.
Developmental levels.
Ask Ena Shelley about kindergarten through twelve.
[Schools make a plan to meet developmental standards that are necessary for kindergarten through six.]

DEVELOPMENTAL LEVELS DEFINITIONS.
Early Childhood or Pre-Kindergarten through Grade Three [exact title to be determined), based on the IPSB Early Childhood Standards: This developmental level covers teaching in a preschool or in the primary grades of an elementary school and includes instruction of learners who are normally enrolled in grades pre-kindergarten through three.

[If the Licensure Committee were charged with adding a hybrid or fifth developmental level, it might look like this: Elementary Grades or Kindergarten through Grade Six [exact title to be determined], based on the IPSB Early Childhood Standards, the IPSB Middle Childhood Standards, and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education Elementary Standards. This developmental level covers teaching in an organized elementary school and includes instruction of learners who are normally enrolled in grades kindergarten through six.]

Middle Childhood or Grades Two through Six [exact title to be determined], (based) on the IPSB Middle Childhood Standards: This developmental level covers teaching in an organized elementary school and includes instruction of learners who are normally enrolled in grades two through seven.

Early Adolescence, based on the IPSB Early Adolescence Standards: This developmental level covers teaching in schools designated as middle schools or junior high schools, as well as those secondary schools having grades five through nine included in the school organizational pattern. Any teacher in a middle level school as defined above must hold a license which includes the Early Adolescence developmental level.

Adolescence/Young Adulthood, based on the IPSB Adolescence/Young Adulthood Standards: This developmental level covers teaching adolescents and young adults in high schools and secondary schools that have grades nine through twelve included in the school organizational pattern. Any teacher in a secondary or high school as defined above must hold a license which includes the Adolescence/Young Adulthood developmental level.

Rationale for these definitions: While maintaining the rigorous standards developed by the developmental level advisory groups, these definitions allow school districts to make appropriate decisions on staffing and school configurations.

Additional rationale for these definitions: The Licensure Committee referred to these planning assumptions in drafting the developmental levels definitions:

 (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 much stakeholder disagreement about the age level designations of the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). 
 (3) There is much 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) If school configurations change, this idea could be amended and updated through the IPSB plan to keep the educator preparation system current. 


After extensive discussion the Committee agreed on the following: Early Childhood can be divided into Preschool and Primary. The Primary developmental designation would be based on applicable IPBS Early Childhood Standards and NCATE Middle Childhood Standards. The License will include "School Setting," "Developmental Level" and "Content"
School Setting -------- Developmental Level ------------------ Content

Elementary ----------- Primary- Early Childhood Primary ----- Generalist
and/or--Intermediate- Middle Childhood

MS/Jr High ------------ Early Adolescent --------- Content as defined
by ------------------------------------------------------ the Board

High School ----------- Adolescent/Young Adult --- Content as defined
by ------------------------------------------------------- the Board

of any of it might be useful. This wording was NOT (as of 2/11/99) approved by the Licensure Committee. It was developed by Jeff Doebler in December 1998.
DATE TO REPORT OUTCOME: April Licensure Committee meeting

 (1) Early Childhood Generalist Educator or Pre-Kindergarten through Grade Three Generalist Educator [exact title to be determined], based on the IPSB Early Childhood Standards -Developmental Level: Early Childhood -Comment: Early and middle childhood educators need a broad base of knowledge across content areas. The standards to be met have been compiled from each of the content areas and developmental levels.  
 (2) Elementary Grades Generalist Educator or Kindergarten through Grade Six Generalist Educator [exact title to be determined], based on the IPSB Early Childhood Standards, the IPSB Middle Childhood Standards, and the NCATE Elementary Standards. Developmental Level: Early Childhood -Comment: Early and middle childhood educators need a broad base of knowledge across content areas. The standards to be met have been compiled from each of the content areas and developmental levels.  
 (3) Middle Childhood Generalist Educator or Grades Two through Six Generalist Educator (exact title to be determined], based on the IPSB Middle Childhood Standards. 

Developmental Level: Middle Childhood -Comment: Early and middle childhood educators need a broad base of knowledge across content areas. The standards to be met have been compiled from each of the content areas and developmental levels.
Rationale for edit:

 (a) There is much stakeholder disagreement about the specific ages and grade levels that should be associated with the IPSB Developmental Levels (Early Childhood, Middle Childhood, Early Adolescence, Adolescence/Young Adulthood). The Licensure Committee recommends these three Generalist areas as a means to provide the best education for all learners at all levels without compromising the work of the developmental level advisory groups. 
 (b) By reviewing all of the content area standards and reprinting appropriate components verbatim, Licensure Committee member David Kinman has compiled draft "content standards" for both Early Childhood and Middle Childhood generalists. 
 (c) Based on expert testimony received, the addition of the third Generalist area more accurately reflects the needs of school districts and teacher training institutions, while ensuring that professional educators receive more comprehensive training to better serve all learners at all levels. (Regarding item 4 below, if the "Elementary Grades Generalist..." became also a hybrid or fifth developmental level, stakeholder concerns about current K-12 preparation areas, e.g., physical education, library/media, art, music, etc., could also be addressed.) 
 (d) NOTE: Although this recommendation appears logical and workable in the Generalist areas, it is not within the charge of the Licensure Committee to recommend "Elementary Grades Generalist Educator or Kindergarten through Grade Six Generalist Educator, based on the IPSB Early Childhood Standards, the IPSB Middle Childhood Standards, and the NCATE Elementary Standards" as a distinct developmental level. Therefore, the Licensure Committee seeks direction from the IPSB on whether such a fifth or hybrid developmental level should be added. 


ISSUE: Standards Review Cycle Committee.
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS TO COMMITTEE: Phil and Dan
OUTCOME EXPECTED: Confirm that these are areas beyond the charge of the Licensure Committee, requiring recommendations from the Standards Review Cycle Committee (SRCC) for resolution. If appropriate, add brief rationale statements supporting the referral to the SRCC. If any of these areas is the responsibility of the Licensure Committee, make a recommendation to the Licensure Committee for resolution.
DATE TO REPORT OUTCOME: April Licensure Committee meeting. If IPSB standards have not been created for a specific area the Licensure Committee refers the following issues to the SRCC for consideration. SRCC may or may not choose to recommend that standards be created in these areas.

Phil will deal with l, Dan with 2 through 7.

ISSUE: Emergency Staffing or Emergency Teaching Permit or Emergency Limited License.
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: Dave
OUTCOME EXPECTED: A recommendation on addressing emergency staffing issues, including justification for (scenarios) and the length of time an emergency permit would be valid. Per previous discussion, the recommendation might be that IPSB form a subcommittee to address this issue, with representatives from the Continuing Education Work Group, Licensure Committee, Teacher Education Work Group, IPSB, IPSB senior staff.
DATE TO REPORT OUTCOME: April Licensing Committee meeting.

ISSUE: License Reciprocity and Transfer between and among States.
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: Ed
OUTCOME EXPECTED: Since the State of Indiana currently has reciprocal agreements with 40 other states, confirmation that the proposed Licensure Framework will maintain this reciprocity, is sought.
DATE TO REPORT OUTCOME: April Licensure Committee meeting.

ISSUE: Recency credit and the validity period for individuals who do not enter the teaching profession immediately upon completion of their teacher education programs.
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: Dave.
OUTCOME EXPECTED: Licensure Committee consensus on this issue is that each candidate must be able to meet the standards to earn a professional educator license. A rationale statement needs to be developed to address who is responsible for assessing the standards.
DATE TO REPORT OUTCOME: April Licensure Committee meeting.

ISSUE: Speech/Communication (Including Debate).
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: Lew.
OUTCOME EXPECTED: Make a recommendation and write rationale as to whether Speech/Communication (Including Debate) should be a certificate area, a content area, or another designation. If a content area, create a recommendation and rationale to refer this area to the SRCC for consideration.
DATE TO REPORT OUTCOME: April Licensure Committee meeting.

ISSUE: Journalism (Including Print, Radio, Television).
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: Dave
OUTCOME EXPECTED: Make a recommendation and write rationale as to whether Journalism should be a certificate area, a content area, or another designation. If a content area, create a recommendation and rationale to refer this area to the SRCC for consideration.
DATE TO REPORT OUTCOME: April Licensure Committee meeting.

ISSUE: Reading.
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: Lew and Kathy OUTCOME EXPECTED: Make a recommendation and write rationale as to whether Reading should be a certificate area, a content area, or another designation. If a content area, create a recommendation and rationale to refer this area to the SRCC for consideration.
DATE TO REPORT OUTCOME: April Licensure Committee meeting.

ISSUE: Areas For Which IPSB Standards Do Not Exist.
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: Phil
OUTCOME EXPECTED: Revise the recommendation and rationale statements below to fit the Framework for areas where IPSB standards do not exist.
DATE TO REPORT OUTCOME: April Licensure Committee meeting -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. 

ISSUE: Potential Certification Areas.
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: Kathleen OUTCOME EXPECTED: Based on the definitions of certificate and license determined by the Licensure Committee 2/16/99, create a list of potential areas for which colleges, universities and/or professional organizations might offer certificates. This list may or may not contain any or all of the following: computer and/or technology specialists, student publications, gifted and talented, reading, journalism, speech, and debate. Note that some other committee members are investigating whether some of these areas should have content standards developed.
DATE TO REPORT OUTCOME: April Licensure Committee meeting.

ISSUE: Real World Applicability Tests.
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: everyone OUTCOME EXPECTED: Although the Licensure Committee is not charged with "solving" all of these issues, we need to consider whether there is a reasonable possibility that the new Framework will work in the real world.
DATE TO REPORT OUTCOME:

(a) License reciprocity and transfer (Ed will check).
(b) License renewal (beyond our charge].
(c) Adding content areas and developmental levels to the license.
(d) District staffing issues [kindergarten through twelve areas, esp.].
(e) Transition and implementation issues (with TEC and IACTE).
(f) Expiration dates and different areas and dates on the license (and add on's).
(g) Other issues suggested through dissemination.

submitted by Kathy Klawitter
3/18/99