---

Licensure Committee Members Present:	William Christopher, Jeffrey Doebler, Dan Grayson, Barbara Horvath, David Kimnan, Kathy Klawitter, Phil Metcalf, Elaine Pitts and Jim Renz.
Licensure Committee Absent:	Kathleen Lattimer and Lisa Bischoff.
Staff Present:	Nancy Taylor, F. Edward Wall (serving as consultant).

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1999	(Meeting #7 for 1998-99)
GOAL:	Come to consensus on final issues.

The meeting was convened at 8:00 a.m. at the Washington Township School Administrative Offices in Indianapolis.

Audience members signed in. Note that today's agenda will allow audience members to address the Licensure Committee for up to five minutes each at the beginning of the afternoon session. Joan Schreiber was in the audience.

Preview agenda, goals, and April 28 presentation (two audiences...one is the framework in its most simple form and the other with an appendix of detailed rationale).

Phil Metcalf gave a brief summary of the introductory work being done by the Standards Review Cycle Committee (SRCC) and any implications for the Licensure Committee. At a recent meeting of the SRCC, Marilyn Scannell and Phil presented an overview of our work and how it fits into the SRCC. The SRCC has two tasks. The first is to design a standards review cycle. The second is to determine the process to be used to determine if new standards need to be created. If needed, how will the new standards be created? The definitions of license, certificate, and permit will be important to them. They understood their task. Our work will help their work.

Dave Kinman gave a brief summary of the work being done by the Comprehensive Standards Document Advisory Group (CSDAG) and any implications for the Licensure Committee. The Group has been productive. It had only from January to June to do its work. It is making excellent progress. It will report its conclusions to the IPSB in June. Overall the implications of its work for us are positive. CSDAG'S work generally is supportive of ours. A suggestion of CSDAG is that Generalist" be "enhanced" to include the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Draft Standards for Elementary Education Programs.

Begin review of assigned tasks from 2/16/99 meeting.

Recommendations were presented by members of the committee. These have been incorporated into the "Definitions," the Licensure "Framework," and the "Clarification of Issues" sections of the final report.

Ed Wall presented documentation regarding reciprocity under the new framework, which he had compiled by mailing a questionnaire to each state. Most states that responded did so favorably.

DISCUSSION: Regarding definitions for "license," "certificate," and "enhancement." Ensuring that "workforce educators" could fit into the scheme was of major concern. (See definitions following.)

Expert testimony: Dr. Peggy Hinckley, Superintendent, LaPorte Community School Corporation, representing the Standing External Committee for District Administrators, asked, "Can district level administrators get licensed with only a proficient rather than an accomplished practitioner license?" She addressed additional concerns to which the committee responded.

RESPONSE: There is no license specifically for a curriculum director at this point; so, in that way this is an increase in current requirements. The others were not discussed.
RESPONSE: "Proficient" and "accomplished" reflect a timeline.
RESPONSE: "Proficient" is the minimum to START a program, not the maximum to exit.
CONCERN: It needs to be stated somewhere that in order to exit the program an Education
Specialist (EdS) degree would be required.
RESPONSE: The committee didn't say that to be an administrator at the district level that an EDS would be required.
CONCERN: In teacher preparation programs an internship program will demonstrate how well the standards are being met and taught by the particular institution. Is there anything like that for administrators?
RESPONSE: It is difficult to figure out how to do this even at the building level. How do you simulate "internship" in terms of supervision? It is essential to have a way to assure that the standards are being met. The difficulty is in creating the specificity of knowledge along with a broad-based knowledge.
COMMENT: The IPSB gave the charge to consider several areas in terms of supervision. There are still a number of positions not failing under this standard (i.e. business officials, school personnel director, and school service and facilities directors.)

Continue the review of assigned tasks from the 2/16/99 meeting.

Recommendations were presented by members of the committee. These have been incorporated into the "Definitions," the "Licensure Framework" and the "Clarification of Issues" sections of the final document.

DISCUSSION: Regarding bringing back Early Adolescent Generalist: it would allow the recommendations of the EA groups regarding two content areas to occur while making it remain possible for the framework to work for Fine Arts, Music and Physical Education..

Audience members who have signed in may address the committee for up to five minutes each. Barbara Horvath will strictly monitor the five-minute limit. Audience members with additional suggestions, concerns, or accolades should put them in writing and send to the IPSB Licensure Committee in care of Nancy Taylor.

Continue review of assigned tasks from 2/16/99 meeting.
Recommendations were presented by members of the committee. These have been incorporated into the "Definitions," the "Licensure Framework," and the "Clarification of Issues" sections of the final report.
DISCUSSION: Regarding how exceptional needs teachers are different from gifted and talented teachers. Stress that all the standards specifically state that meeting the needs of ALL children includes gifted. All teachers should be prepared to meet the learning needs of all the students in their classrooms.
DISCUSSION: Regarding vocational education. The committee agreed to change the name from "vocational" to "career/technical education." Dan Grayson reported that family and consumer science and agriculture had come to agreement. Technology and general business need to be referred to IPSB for further development.

Adjournment: Kathy Klawitter and other Licensure Committee members will submit notes to Jeff for editing of the draft for Thursday's review. Jeff will determine how copies of the draft will be made before the meeting on Thursday.

Jeff will edit the draft for Thursday's review.

THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1999	(Meeting #8 for 1998-99)
GOALS:	Review and achieve consensus on draft from April 7. Plan presentation for April 28.

The meeting was convened at 8:00 a.m. by Chair Jeff Doebler at the Washington Township
School Administrative Offices in Indianapolis.

Review current draft framework, (edited by Jeff Doebler after 4/7/99 meeting) page by page to achieve consensus on its content and wording, for the purpose of submitting to the IPSB for consideration at its 4/28/99 meeting.

Supporting rationales, definitions, and clarifications will appear in the final document.
The committee carefully examined current areas of certification to be sure that they had dealt with them in some way. All current areas are dealt with in terms of licensure, certification, and enhancement.

Audience members signed in. Today's agenda does not allow for audience members to address the Licensure Committee. Cheryl Clapp, Connie Griffith, Tom Hansen, Sheridan Rayl, Marilyn Scannell, and Joan Schreiber were in the audience.

Commentary and recommendations on the initial licensure draft, especially relating to legal issues, were presented by Diana Pullin, J.D., Ph.D., Professor, School of Education, Boston College. Dr. Pullin's comments to the committee were cogent, thought provoking, and overall appeared affirming of the committee's process.

The committee discussed areas that need further revision, based on Dr. Pullin's suggestions.
(These suggestions are reflected in the definitions that follow.)

DISCUSSION: The committee will not meet in May since the document revised over the last two days of meetings appears to deal satisfactorily with the issues that remained and provides the rationale in the comment(s) section and the appendices of the framework. The group will meet briefly on June 15 to prepare for the IPSB presentation on June 16.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

Submitted by Kathy Klawitter
May 16,1999

A Key Concept to Recall as this Framework is Reviewed and Implemented: "THE
STANDARDS ARE THE STANDARDS."

It is essential to remember that the IPSB redesign of the system for preparing and licensing educators is designed around performance-based standards. If "the standards are the standards," then only those qualified to teach in a particular area will be able to meet the standards.

How Might the New License Appear?

The Licensure Committee recommends that there be only one Professional Educator License. Then, in addition to the appropriate signatures, seals, etc., the type of license would be indicated --in this case "Initial"--and the developmental level(s) and the content area(s) for which the candidate has demonstrated proficiency. The minimum would be one content area and one developmental level. The exception to this would be in the administrative areas, where developmental levels would be excluded because they are embedded in the content standards for school administrators.

What are Content Areas and Developmental Levels?

The IPSB has adopted 17 sets of standards, 13 of which pertain to content areas and four of which pertain to developmental levels.
Content Areas: For the most part, these correspond to what we might now refer to as "subjects," like math, social studies, science, etc.
Developmental Levels: Teachers are currently prepared for specific grade levels (e.g., K-5, 5- 12, etc.). Education research suggests that teachers could serve students better by being prepared in one or more of four developmental levels spanning the school ages: Early Childhood, Middle Childhood, Early Adolescence, and Adolescence/ Young Adulthood.

Working together for the benefit of all learners

Indiana is a leader in the field of education. It is imperative for departments/schools of education and their content area personnel to work together diligently to design and implement a program of teacher preparation that will meet the standards adopted by the IPSB. Alarming numbers of stakeholders have reported that content area personnel and/or professional education personnel have been unwilling to cooperate in such a manner. This unwillingness will force the marketplace to intervene, and teacher candidates will not attend their schools. The list of reasons for this might include: (a) employment opportunities will be severely limited if students' programs are too narrowly focused, (b) professional associations will not accredit their programs if they do not meet national accreditation standards, and (c) the degree program
will take too long to complete, resulting in a financial burden to the students.

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR 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 (workforce educators are exempt from meeting the bachelor's degree) or higher, and has met the INTASC standards and the Indiana standards for the developmental level(s) and content area(s).

CERTIFICATE
A Certificate is a document issued jointly by the IPSB and another entity that certifies the individual to teach in a content area not licensed by the IPSB. As a prerequisite the individual must possess a valid Indiana professional educator license. The certificate recognizes that the individual meets the standards of an IPSB-recognized state and/or national professional organization.

PERMIT
A Permit is a limited-duration, non-renewable document issued by the IPSB that permits an individual to do particular work. As a prerequisite the individual must have completed course work or a degree program, or possess occupational experiences. The permit recognizes that the individual is committed to becoming licensed or certified. It would be required that a Permit- holder be assigned a licensed teacher as a mentor. Note that the Permit is not a license.