| TO: | Members, Indiana Professional Standards Board |
| FROM: | Richard D. Frisbie, Director |
| Induction and Continuing Education | |
| DATE: | November 17, 1999 |
| SUBJECT: | Continuing Education Pilots |
This memo is intended to give the Board an update on the status of Continuing Education Pilots since they were last addressed at the June 16, 1999, Discussion Session. In the fall of 1997, the Continuing Education Workgroup selected five Indiana school districts to pilot the recommended continuing education process approved by the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) in June 1997. The districts selected were Fort Wayne Community Schools, Greater Clark County Schools, Metropolitan School District of Decatur Township, North Judson-San Pierre Schools, and Vigo County Schools. In January 1998, representatives of the five pilots attended their initial orientation session during which they clarified their charge and began their pilot activities.
During the spring semester of the 1997-98 and the entire 1998-99 school year, each pilot refined and implemented their continuing education designs that focused on their charge of testing and making recommendations about the following topics:
- Criteria for Professional Growth Team (PGT)
- Criteria for Professional Growth Plan (PGP)
- Criteria for Professional Portfolio (PP)
- Sign Off on PGT, PGP, PP
- Appeals Process for Those Who Do Not Meet Continuing Education Standards
- Reciprocity Process for Out-of-State Applicants and Portability Process for In-State Candidates
- Implementation & Transition Process, Time Line
- Cost Implications
During the 1998-99 school year, each pilot also sent representatives to the Continuing Education Committee (CEC) to discuss common issues and develop a set of common recommendations related to the above charge. As hoped, each district developed their pilot to reflect their own specific context, needs and strengths. The resulting similarities and differences in the pilots reflect much of the diversity inherent across Indiana school districts.
This diversity enriched the discussions of the CEC but also made it difficult to arrive at full consensus on several key questions. As a result, the committee decided to present its recommendations through two avenues. First, those areas in which the committee found common ground were sent to the Assessment Coordinating Committee (ACC) in April for presentation to the Board in June. Second, each district made a brief presentation to the Board during the June Discussion Session to "tell their story" about their continuing education pilot experiences. Their final reports and a summary of similarities and differences were forwarded to the Executive Committee for review and determination of next steps.
After that meeting, the Continuing Education Committee and its pilots concluded their work. However, individual teachers who participated in the pilots were given permission to waive the current license renewal requirements and continue their own Professional Growth Plans according to their particular district's pilot design until such time that any new continuing education rules take effect.
A new Continuing Education Committee was appointed by the Board at its September 21, 1999, meeting. The composition of this committee does not and will not include any representatives from past or future pilot districts. The intent of this composition is to more clearly distinguish design groups from pilot groups. The current Continuing Education Committee is charged with rules development and pilot testing of the continuing education assessment system. Issues to be addressed by the committee and its work groups, if any, include:
- criteria for the professional growth team (PGT);
- criteria for the professional growth plan (PGP);
- criteria for the professional growth experiences (PGEs);
- criteria for the professional portfolio (PP);
- criteria for the sign off on a professional growth team, plan, experiences, and portfolio, and at what stages;
- appeals process for those who do not meet continuing education standards;
- reciprocity, portability, non-public school settings, interruptions in service, and any other "exception" processes;
- implementation, time line and transition process; and
- cost implications.
The Executive Committee has discussed the Continuing Education Pilots and related issues on June 16, and on October 20, 1999. The Senior Staff have discussed the Pilots and related issues on October 8 and 13, 1999. At its October 20 meeting, the Executive Committee determined the issues required additional study and discussion before any decisions were made about guidelines for future pilots. Consequently, the topic was placed on the Executive Committee agenda scheduled for December 15, 1999. In addition, the Executive Committee decided to defer extending a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the next group of pilots until the second semester 2000, with the expectation that any new pilots would be selected and receive their initial orientation late spring. Individual pilots would then have the option of beginning their work during the summer or fall 2000. This deferral of the next pilots start date does not change the projected timeline for requiring the anticipated new continuing education rules to take effect January 1, 2002.
The first meeting of the newly constituted Continuing Education Committee is scheduled for November 30, 1999. This will be an organizational meeting at which the committee will discuss pertinent background information and establish a basic agenda for future work and meetings.