---

To: Members, Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB)

From: Philip Metcalf, Chair, Teacher Education Committee (TEC)

Date: April 26, 2000

Subject: Minutes of March 16, 2000, Meeting

Committee Members present: Merribeth Bruning, Cheryl Clapp, Esther Lee, John Marsteller, Philip Metcalf, Cathleen Rafferty, and Roy Weaver.

 

Others present: Judith Briganti, Gary Ingersoll, Anna Lynch, Bernard Marley, T.J. Oakes, Cristina Rios, Dale Scannell, and Joseph Weaver.

Consultant/Staff Member absent: Richard Arends and Bet Kotowski.

The TEC was convened by Philip Metcalf, TEC Chair, on March 16, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. in Training Room 11 at the Indiana Government Center-South in Indianapolis.

• Consultations with representatives of education stakeholder groups: None.
  
  

II. Materials reviewed as related to the group's charge:

• January 20, 2000, TEC Minutes
  
  
• National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Accreditation Action Report for Purdue University Calumet
  
  
• Indiana University Northwest (IUNW) Experimental Program Request: verbal information
  
  
• Program Approval Transition Issues: verbal information
  
  
• March 3, 2000, Institutional Session Evaluations Summary
  
  
• Unit Assessment System (UAS) Criteria, Transitional Timeline for Development of Institutional Assessment Systems, and Scoring Matrix/Resource Document
  
  
• Consultants' Recommendations to the TEC:
  
  
  • Draft Timeline: Major Stages for Summative Review of Institution's UAS;
  • Draft Template for On-Site Visit; and
  • Draft Training Document: Major Topics to be Covered in Training for UAS Examiners.

III. Issues/questions as related to the group's charge:

• The Committee approved the January 20, 2000, minutes.
  
  
• A motion was made and seconded that the TEC recommend to the Board that the IPSB use language consistent with that of NCATE, specifically, when NCATE accredits with probation, to change the IPSB action on a continuing accreditation decision to read "accreditation with probation" rather than "accreditation with stipulations." A vote was taken, all in favor, none opposed.
  
  
• A motion was made and seconded to recommend continuing accreditation with stipulations for Purdue University Calumet, with specific notation indicating that stipulations is synonymous with NCATE's probation decision. A vote was taken, all in favor, none opposed.
  
  
• A motion was made and seconded to honor IUNW's request to delay review of its experimental program until fall 2000. A vote was taken, all in favor, none opposed.
  
  
• The Committee addressed the following questions which had been brought up during the March 3, 2000, Institutional Session New Program Approval Process Breakout Session:
  
  • When the team does a short two-day visit, who pays? A motion was made and seconded to proceed in this case in a manner consistent with what is done for other site visits. A vote was taken, all in favor, none opposed.
  • Can institutions include a new program proposal in the UAS and have both approved simultaneously? A motion was made and seconded to maintain the current moratorium on new programs until after UAS approval. A vote was taken, all in favor, none opposed.
  • What happens if an institution does not submit a UAS on time? A motion was made and seconded to forward the following TEC recommendation to the IPSB Executive Committee:

 

If an Institution does not submit a UAS by June 30, 2002, the institution will be notified by IPSB that:

• State accreditation and program approval are revoked, effective immediately;

 

• No new admissions are to be accepted to Teacher Education program for fall, 2002;

 

• Currently enrolled students must complete their course work by August, 2004; and

 

• To reinstate accreditation, institution must reapply as if submitting an initial review.

 

A vote was taken, all in favor, none opposed.

• If an institution is scheduled for an NCATE/IPSB visit in 2003, would the UAS visit and NCATE/IPSB visit be combined, or would the institution have priority for early visits from the UAS team? The Committee agreed to discuss this matter further. Members were asked to e-mail Bet Kotowski or the TEC Consultants with their ideas.
  
• A motion was made and seconded to accept the following documents submitted by the TEC Consultants as working documents:

 

• Draft Timeline: Major Stages for Summative Review of Institution's UAS;
• Draft Template for On-Site Visit; and
• Draft Training Document: Major Topics to be Covered in Training for UAS Examiners.

 

A vote was taken, all in favor, none opposed.

• A motion was made and seconded to amend the title of the Scoring Matrix for Assessors of Unit Assessment Systems to Potential Sources of Evidence of Student Performance: A Resource Document in order to avoid confusion about how this document relates to unit assessment. Roy Weaver will draft a letter to unit heads informing them of this editing change. The letter will be approved by the IPSB Executive Committee and forwarded to unit heads with new copies of the document so named.
  
  
• A motion was made and seconded to recommend to the IPSB Executive Committee that the TIC draft a clear, concise guide to Induction (parallel to the "Pink Sheet" for UAS's) to be distributed to unit heads in order to remedy the perceived disjoint between IPSB Preservice and Induction. Philip Metcalf will bring this recommendation to the Executive Committee.
  
  
• The Committee agreed that the following topics/issues should be addressed at the September, 2000, Institutional Session:
  
  • Performance Assessment examples (including portfolios);
  • Timelines; and
  • On-site visits.

 

Members agreed that breakout sessions should be arranged so as to facilitate exemplary model sharing.

The next meeting was announced as scheduled for April 27, 2000, at 251 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, in the Suite 220 Conference Room on the second floor.

The meeting was adjourned by Philip Metcalf at 3:00 p.m.