---

The IASP Building Level Administrators External Standing Committee

Minutes of the April 1, 1999, Meeting

In attendance: Robert Brower, Ed Burkhalter, Steve Heck, Miriam Matthews, and Shawn
Sriver.

Unable to attend: Cynthia Finney, Caroline Hanna, Lindan Hill. Tom Hunter, Deb Lecklider, Rebecca Libler, Richard Roames, Ena Shelley, Kathleen Sherman, and Earl Williams.

The committee reviewed the work completed at the March 3, 1999, meeting. Two groups were asked to look at each step of the recommendation to look for inconsistencies or areas that might require additional information, or changes needed to strengthen the recommendation.

Each group reported out, after which the entire group moved toward consensus on a
number of critical issues. A draft follows:

• Not to exceed two (2) years (unless specified otherwise).
• Portfolio development required:
  a) Standards-based
  b) Professional Growth Plan
  c) Evidence of progress in each standard
• Formative process with summative decision.
• Inductee / Mentor team
  a) Inductee building administrator (on a two-year contract)
  b) District peer advisor

1. Selected by the employing superintendent. Preference would be to have district peer advisor come from within district; however, may be selected from another district, if no options within district available.

2. Advisor has comfortable working relationship with inductee and willing to commit time to process.

3. Knowledge of standards and expectations of proficient practitioner license requirements.

4. Objectively critique and provide constructive feedback regarding inten's progress in developing proficiencies in standards.

5. There is no evaluative role in judging job performance for employment decisions.

6. District peer advisor makes recommendation to mentor pool advisor for advancement to proficient practitioner license.

c) University advisor (optional)

1. Selected by the candidate.

2. Available for support and advice as needed.

3. Assists and advises in portfolio development.

4. Meet with "team" as needed, at the discretion of the inductee.

5. Recommendation is that they meet at least two times annually.

6. University Advisor makes recommendation to mentor pool advisor, if applicable.

d) Mentor Pool Advisor

1 . Selected by state principal association from a pool of seasoned volunteer administrators.

2. Trained in portfolio development and standards.

3. Problem solver as needed.

4. Not affiliated with candidate, district peer advisor, or school district prior to assignment.

5. Supportive and willing to be responsive to needs of inductee.

6. Assists and advises in portfolio development.

7. Meets with "team" at least two times annually.

8. Makes recommendation based on portfolio assessment and the recommendation from the district peer advisor and university advisor (if applicable) to the Indiana Professional Standards Board for licensure.

9. May make one of the following four recommendations:

a) recommendation for licensure;
b) recommendation of an additional one-year induction;
c) recommendation of an additional two-year induction; and,
d) recommendation for no licensure.

10. Mentor pool advisor provides written feedback to higher education institution and the Indiana Professional Standards Board for continuous assessment.

• If the intern 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 the 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 or other experiences may be required prior to new induction period.

 

• Five (5) year period.
• May be renewed continually throughout principal's career.
• Portfolio development required:

a) Standards-based

b) Professional Growth Plan.

c) Evidence of progress in each standard.

• Mentor Team becomes Professional Growth Team.
• Continuing education is an expectation of portfolio.
• Mentor Team meets at least one time annually.
• Mentor Team makes recommendation based on portfolio to the Indiana Professional Standards Board for licensure.

• If the practitioner does not meet expectations, he or she may: 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.

 

• Ten (10) year period
• Requires candidate to hold a Proficient Practitioner License and no less than seven years of experience as a building principal.
• Portfolio development required:

  a) Standards-based

  b) Professional Growth Plan

  c) Evidence of progress in each standard

• Advanced decree required (Ed.S., Ed.D., or Ph.D.)
• Mentor Team becomes Professional Growth Team.
• Continuing education is an expectation of portfolio.
• Mentor Team meets at least one time biannually.
• Mentor Team makes recommendation based on portfolio to the Indiana Professional Standards Board for licensure.
• No appeals process necessary; candidate may return to proficient practitioner cycle.

• Video, phone, and current 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 progress 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

The committee recommends a two-year pilot program be implemented to ensure the
integrity of the recommendation.

Recognizing that attendance was low due to spring break and late minute cancellations, the recommendation will be mailed to all committee members for immediate feedback and finalized prior to the April 16 deadline. In addition, it was discussed that the Standing External Committee for Building Level Administrators recommends that it continue with the charge of developing the process for the pilot. However, until this charge (or any additional charge) is approved by the Indiana Professional Standards Board, the work of the committee will be placed on hiatus.