Meetings

 

Indiana Professional Standards Board
External Committee for District Administrators
Selections
March 19, 1999


Members Present: Fred Bechtold, Ann England, Peggy Hinckley, Earlene Holland, Ted Kowalski, Susan Switzer, Dan Grayson, Gary Collings (recorder)

Members Absent: Larry Gambaiani, Rebecca Libler, Walter Harrison

Others Present: Dave Kinman, Shawn Sriver, Betty Poindexter

Invited Guests: Judy Briganti, Sheridan Rayl, Richard Roames, Ed Burkhalter
____________________________________________________________________________________

The External Committee for District Administrators of the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) convened at 9:08 a.m. on March 19, 1999, at the Administrative Service Center of MSD Washington Township Schools located at 3801 East 79th Street, Indianapolis.

Fred Bechtold, chairperson, called the session to order and asked for comments on the February 12 selections as mailed. The selections were accepted as presented. Mailing addresses for two members were clarified.

1. Testimony - Continuing Education: Judy Briganti is the IPSB liaison to one of the districts piloting IPSB's Continuing Education Committee. There are five (5) pilot sites: Fort Wayne, Greater Clark, North Judson, Vigo County, and Decatur Township. Although these sites were not given a specific framework to implement, each site was to develop a plan under certain parameters.

Each of the five sites presented a preliminary report in January 1999. The Continuing Education Committee will determine where there is consensus among the models proposed by the sites and forward the pilot reports to the IPSB Executive Committee. Next year there will be ten (10) additional sites to begin in January 2000. The original five sites may serve in a mentor relationship to the new sites.

Emerging options from the pilot sites related to the continuing education recommendations include:

1. a professional mentor team in a district with the superintendent signing off on the renewing teacher;
2. a formative process at the building level with growth (peer) teams and the principal signing off on the renewing teacher;
3. allowing the first voluntary submission in the third year of the five year period;
4. valid assessments that can be used equitably across districts;
5. a proposal for regional centers which would "score" the continuing education portfolios in contrast to only an internal process; and
6. the process should go beyond the portfolio, INTASC, etc. to include professional growth experiences, college credits, etc.

One member commented that the continuing education considerations seemed analogous to the tenure/retention process at institutions of higher education. Peer review is one of the most important elements. He suggested that the Continuing Education Committee would likely need to establish some quantitative standards. Judy Briganti concluded by noting that no one with a life license will be affected by the continuing education provisions. The challenges are in fairness and equity. How is one to demonstrate the applicability of course work, for example, to one's classroom? What is feasible, defensible and equitable? Costs should be measured in both time and dollars. In the year 2002 those educators requiring re-licensing in 2007 would begin the new continuing education process. By 2007 Rules 46/47 will be phased out. The ultimate appeal of continuing education renewals is to the IPSB.


2. Testimony - Teacher Induction: Sheridan Rayl is a teacher in residence for IPSB and is coordinating the assessment portion of the induction process. The Assessment Teaching Portfolio would include: the context of one's teaching; a series of lessons based on a unit or topic; featured lessons including problem solving, inquiry, and discussion; a cumulative evaluation of student learning which is a collection of student work focused on students with differing abilities; and an analysis of teaching and professional growth demonstrated by adaptation of plans to student learning. She distributed samples of mathematics
portfolios for members to review and return.

Members expressed great interest in the time demands and the number of teacher mentors that would seem to be required by the process. The complexity of the process and implementation demands led to a good discussion.

A member asked if there were any plans to tie the induction portfolios to the pre-service education portfolios prepared by graduating seniors entering the field of education? Sheridan responded that the only foundation for the portfolios is the Standards. INTASC is reportedly looking at a higher education model for the portfolios.

In response to a question about results Sheridan noted that the Connecticut data indicates 25-30% of the interns were marginal and required a second attempt. Approximately 3% will not make it after a third year extension of the induction period.

3. Testimony - Building Administrators: Richard Roames, Director of Teacher Education and Head, School of Education at Purdue-Calumet, and Ed Burkhalter, principal of Northwestern Junior High School in Kokomo, were present to update the members on the Building Administrators' Standards. Shawn Sriver noted that these standards have been formally approved by the IPSB and the recommendation on how the standards should be assessed is being formulated.

The external standards committee for building administrators met last week in the following three subgroups: Portfolio, Oversight (Governance), and Intern/Mentoring.

The Building Administrators Committee has recommended a single license across all grades for principals. One member of the District Committee observed that States with single licenses are seeing a reduction in the number of female principals at the elementary level since male secondary teachers, for example, are eligible for elementary principalships.

The presenters noted that a candidate can continue to renew the proficient practitioner stage if he/she does not wish to pursue the accomplished practitioner level.

The chairperson emphasized his desire for integration of the processes for District and Building Administrators at expedient points. For example, could the District Administrators license build from the optional accomplished practitioner license for building administrators? Members agreed that linkages should be identified and analyzed.

4. Announcements:

a. District Standards - Shawn Sriver reported that the District Standards are being mailed on March 17 & 18 to the standing list of recipients. Members were encouraged to duplicate and disseminate the standards with the feedback form to respective constituents. May 14 is the deadline for reactions to the District Standards. The edit team will meet in the summer for a final review. The final set of standards will be presented by the edit team members to the IPSB in September. Once the standards are approved by the IPSB, they will become the last set along with 17 previously approved standards.

b. Assessment - Shawn Sriver noted that Larry Gambaiani (if available) will report to the Assessment Coordination Committee (ACC) at its April 29 meeting that Roger Thornton, Executive Director of the Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents, will request a time extension of one-year to complete the assessment recommendation before the Indiana Professional Standards Board in his annual report in June.

c. Licensure - The Standing External Committee for District Administrators is to make a recommendation to the Licensure Committee for the areas within its charge to which the Standards for District Administrators apply at its April 7 & 8 meeting. (David Kinman and Dan Grayson are also members of the Licensure Committee.)

5. Discussion: Dan Grayson commented that he had presented the preliminary draft to vocational education directors who were supportive of the standards. Vocational education directors were unanimous in a request to have their positions licensed at the associate superintendent level due to their duties and responsibilities.

Fred Bechtold relayed a plea from superintendents to keep licensure administratively feasible. Their concern is that we not restrict these positions to the extent that no one will apply. He reminded the group that much professional growth can take place on the job.

As requested at last month's meeting Shawn Sriver prepared and presented a proposed licensure committee recommendation in the form consistent with the Licensure Committee framework. After members reviewed the proposal, he reminded the group that the first decision needed to be what district positions should be included in the licensing onsideration. MOTION: Peggy Hinckley moved that there should be no licensing requirements for either directors of finance (business managers) or directors of personnel. After a second by Dan Grayson and no further discussion, the motion was unanimously approved.

The following revised licensure recommendation was agreed upon:

The following may not be included in the framework but would be submitted to the Licensure Committee as part of the above recommendation:

1. In order to enroll in a program for the Superintendent's license, the candidate would be required to hold a proficient practitioner teaching license.

2. In order to enroll in a program for the Exceptional Needs Director's license, the candidate would be required to hold a proficient practitioner teaching license in either Exceptional Needs or School Services (School Psychologist or Speech Pathologist only).

3. In order to enroll in a program for the Vocational Director's license, the candidate would be required to hold a proficient practitioner teaching license in Vocational Education.

4. In order to enroll in a program for the Curriculum and Instruction Director's license, the candidate would be required to hold a proficient practitioner teaching license.

ACTION: Peggy Hinckley volunteered to present the licensing recommendation on behalf of the members of the District Standards Committee.

Shawn Sriver relayed Marilyn Scannell's suggestion that the External Committee for District 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 communications and transition strategies as it moves to the new induction and continuation processes for both teachers and administrators. The same possibility for continuation is to be considered by the External Committee for Building Level Administrators. When this possibility was mentioned to the Building Level Administration committee, its Executive Director and several other committee members discussed the possibility of merging the two committees. This option may be explored at a later date.

NEXT MEETING: April 16, 1999 (9:00 AM) - MSD Washington Township Schools

Selections prepared by Gary Collings and reviewed by David Kinman