---

 

The IASP Building Level Administrators External Standing Conunittee

Minutes of the March 3,1999, Meeting

In attendance: Robert Brower, Ed Burkhalter, Cynthia Finney, Caroline Hanna, Steve Heck, Tom Hunter, Deb Lecklider, Rebecca Libler, Miriam Matthews, Ena Shelly, Richard Roames, Ena Shelly, Kathleen Sherman, Shawn Sriver, and Earl Williams.

Unable to attend: Lindan Hill.

The committee reviewed past agenda and important next steps. At that time, three groups were formed, with each group taking a separate topic:

Portfolios/Assessment
Oversight
Mentoring

Each group reported out, after which the entire group moved toward consensus on a
number of critical issues. A draft outlining the committee's work to date follows:

• Standards-based preparation using a variety of assessments and field experiences.
• Complete a written assessment:

• Recommended is the School Leaders Licensure Assessment, which is designed to determine whether individuals possess occupation-relevant knowledge and skills at the time of entry into the profession.

• Recommendation for Initial License.
• Portfolio development required:

• Standards-based
• Professional Growth Plan
• Evidence of progress in each standard

• Not to exceed two (2) years.
• Portfolio development required:

• Standards-based
• Professional Growth Plan
• Evidence of progress in each standard

• Mentor team

• Intern building administrator
• District peer advisor

• Selected by the employing superintendent.
• Comfortable with working relationship with intem and willing to commit time to process.
• Knowledge of standards and expectations of proficient practitioner license requirements.
• Objectively critique and provide constructive feedback regarding intern's progress in developing proficiencies in standards.
• There is no evaluative role in judging job performance for employment decisions!

• University advisor (optional)

• Selected by the candidate
• Available for support and advice as needed
• Assists and advises in portfolio development
• Meet with "team" at least two times annually

• Additional advisor from a mentor pool

• Selected by neutral governing body from a pool of seasoned volunteer administrators
• Trained in portfolio development and standards
• Problem solver as needed
• Supportive and willing to be responsive to needs of intern
• Assists and advises in portfolio development
• Meets with "team" at least two times annually

• Make recommendations relative to performance
• Appeals process:

• If the intem does not meet induction expectations, he or she may: 1) accept the decision of the team, or; 2) request an appeals hearing.
• Hearing panel consists of:

• Two (2) administrators randomly selected from the "mentor peer pool"
• One (1) university advisor from an institution other than the one represented on original team.

• Intern presents portfolio and has one (1) hour to discuss and amplify rationale for approving the appeal.
• Hearing panel may consult with original team, or other experts.
• Hearing panel may affirm, or rescind recommendation of original team. Decision must be made within two (2) weeks of hearing.
• If licensure denied:

• Intern may request an additional one(l), or two (2)-year induction period with a new team, if requested.
• Additional course work may be required prior to new induction period.

• Five (5) year period
• Requires a 70% score during the Induction phase as determined by the Induction mentor team as follows:

• 40 points possible = Portfolio
• 30 points possible = Professional Growth Plan
• 30 points possible = Checklist of evidence relative to standards

• Portfolio development required:

• Standards-based
• Professional Growth Plan
• Evidence of progress in each standard

• Mentor team is optional (?)
• Continuing education is also an expectation.
• Assessment team will make recommendation for relicensure

• Two people

• One licensed administrator, practicing or retired
• Higher education or superintendent with building level experience

• Portfolio scored by both assessors independently, using defined rubrics
• Interview with candidate is also required

• Questions focused on knowledge and application of standards

• Appeals process:

• If the practitioner does not meet expectations, he or she may: 1) accept the decision of the team, or; 2) request an appeals hearing.
• Hearing panel consists of:

• Two (2) administrators randomly selected from the "mentor peer pool"
• One (1) university advisor from an institution other than the one from which the candidate completed the preparation program.

• Candidate presents portfolio, as well as other pre-determined evidence, and has one (1) hour to discuss and amplify rationale for approving the appeal.

• Hearing panel may consult with original team, or other experts.
• Hearing panel may affirm, or rescind recommendation of original team. Decision must be made within two (2) weeks of hearing.
• If licensure denied:

• Candidate may request an additional one(l), or two (2)-year limited licensing period.
• Additional course work may be required prior to license renewal.

• Ten (10) year period

• Requires candidate to hold a Proficient Practitioner License

• Portfolio development required:

• Standards-based
• Professional Growth Plan
• Evidence of progress in each standard

• Advanced degree required
• Assessment team will make recommendation for relicensure

• Two people

• One licensed administrator, practicing or retired
• Higher education or superintendent with building level experience

• Portfolio scored by both assessors independently, using defined rubrics
• Interview with candidate is also required

• Questions focused on knowledge and application of standards

• Appeals process:

• If the practitioner does not meet expectations, he or she may: 1) accept the decision of the team, or; 2) request an appeals hearing.
• Hearing panel consists of:

• Two (2) administrators randomly selected from the "mentor peer pool"
• One (1) university advisor from an institution other than the one from which the candidate completed the preparation program.

• Candidate presents portfolio, as-well as other pre-determined evidence, and has one (1) hour to discuss and amplify rationale for approving the
  appeal.

• Hearing panel may consult with original team, or other experts.
• Hearing panel may affirm, or rescind recommendation of original team. Decision must be made within two (2) weeks of hearing.
• If licensure denied:

• Candidate may request an additional one(l), or two (2)-year limited licensing period.
• Additional course work may be required prior to license renewal.

• What process will we use?

• Video, phone, and fresh technology
• Continuous revision
• Should provide evidence that standards have been met
• Starts during preparation
• Should be a continuation of teacher portfolio
• Institutions of higher education are accountable to NCATE
• One measure of procress toward goals
• Feedback to higher education impacts continuous improvement
• Not a prescriptive, but directive process

• Components:

• Vision statement
• Contextual information
• Aligned with standards
• Aligned with a leaming community
• Evidence of significant progress in meeting standards

Shawn Sriver relayed Marilyn Scannell's suggestion that the external Standing Committee for Building Level Administrators consider the possibility of remaining intact after the assessment framework is completed. She suggested that the new focus could be to assist the Board with communication and transition strategies as it moves to the new induction and continuing education/relicensure process for both teachers and administrators. The committee appeared enthusiastic about this option. This option will be explored at a later date.