Meetings

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Members, Indiana Professional Standards Board

FROM:

Judy Briganti, Chair
Continuing Education Committee (CEC)

DATE: March 15, 2000

SUBJECT: Continuing Education Committee – Minutes of January 26, 2000, Meeting

CEC members present on January 26, 2000: Judy Briganti, Sheliah Dorton, Irene Eskridge, Richard Frisbie, Nancy Geyer, Daniel Hartz, Linda Hus, and Phyllis Largey.

CEC members unable to attend: Diane Airhart, and Ena Shelley.

Others in attendance: Marilynn Edwards.

The Continuing Education Committee (CEC) of the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) was convened on January 26, 2000, at 8:30 a.m. in the 9th Floor Executive Committee Room, Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA), by Ms. Briganti, Chair.

I. Consultations with representatives of education stakeholders groups: None.

II. Materials reviewed as related to the CEC=s charge:

A. Update on the Redesign

B. 1999 Assessment System Recommendations: Continuing Education Committee

C. Reports from Continuing Education Pilots

D. Summary of Similarities and Differences Among Pilots

E. Fort Wayne Community Schools Final Report

F. Greater Clark County Schools Final Report

G. M. S. D. of Decatur Township Final Report

H. North Judson-San Pierre Schools Final Report

I. Vigo County Schools Final Report

J. 1998 Assessment System Recommendations: Continuing Education Work Group

K. 1997 Assessment System Recommendations: Continuing Education

L. A Model and Conceptual Framework for Designing and Making Policy Decisions about the IPSB Teacher License Renewal System

M. Indiana State Teachers Association 1999 School Quality Resource Guide

N. Continuing Education Pilot Discussion: 10/20/99 Memo to Executive Committee

O. The Forsyth County Schools Professional Appraisal Cycle Guidebook

P. Trends: Teacher Licensure, Certification and Relicensure – Illinois

III. Issues/Questions examined as related to the CEC=s charge:

A. The committee discussed the October 20, 1999, memo from Richard Frisbie to the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) Executive Committee on the subject, "Continuing Education Pilots Discussion." The memo contained five staff recommendations. The committee established its position on each recommendation and will forward them to the Executive Committee at its February 16, meeting through these minutes. The committee also established a sixth recommendation.

Each staff recommendation is listed below, followed by the committee recommendation. In addition, the committee recommends each Executive Committee decision be assigned to a CEC work group by the CEC as a whole for in-depth study and further development. The committee as a whole will address these topics as part of a two-day meeting in April.

1. Staff Recommendation: The IPSB continuing education relicensure process shall use no Professional Growth Experience (PGE) points systems.

Committee Recommendation: Disagree. The IPSB continuing education teacher relicensure process shall use a state-wide points system for Professional Growth Experience (PGEs). This points system shall be used to establish the minimum state-wide expectations for the types and amounts of PGEs. However, obtaining the minimum amount of PGE points shall not be sufficient to renew a teaching license. Acceptable performance in relation to an established scoring rubric also shall be required.

2. Staff Recommendation: The IPSB continuing education relicensure process shall use an IPSB managed, regionally-based process for making the final relicensure decision.

Committee Recommendation: Basic agreement, but clarification of roles. The IPSB continuing education relicensure process shall use an IPSB managed, regionally-based process to make a relicensure recommendation to the IPSB. The final relicensure decision shall be made by the IPSB.

3. Staff Recommendation: The Executive Committee requests the CEC to identify a Aprofessional growth model@ that encompasses the interests of the various stakeholders, where those interests are compatible and where they are not, and how a Acontinuing education relicensing model@ could complement an independent and distinct Aemployment evaluation model.@ This process should take into account all pertinent state and local initiatives, including but not limited to the recently enacted HB1750 Aaccountability@ legislation.

Committee Recommendation: Basic agreement, but simpler version. The Executive Committee requests the CEC to identify a Aprofessional growth model."

4. Staff recommendation: The Executive Committee requests the CEC to identify a comprehensive model for continuing education standards-based, performance assessments and then make recommendations about which of those elements should be used to make relicensing decisions and which, if any, should be recommended to other entities, e.g., schools, teacher education units, and/or the Indiana Department of Education, for complementary assessments.

Committee Recommendation: Basic agreement, but simpler version. The Executive Committee requests the CEC to develop standards-based rubrics for assessing the documents submitted for teacher relicensure.

5. Staff Recommendation: Distribute the CEC pilots RFP early 2nd semester, rather than late 1st semester, with a schedule of selection and initial orientation in late spring and piloting of a refined design package to begin fall semester 2000. The coordination with any Title II requirements, including availability of funding, should be taken into account in this process as well.

Committee Recommendation: Basic agreement, although the RFP probably will be distributed mid to late second semester.

6. Staff Recommendation: None.

Committee Recommendation: Until the IPSB can validate the criteria, rubrics, and procedures for scoring the documents submitted for teacher relicensure under the redesigned system, a "completion standard" shall be used. This means any teacher who makes a good-faith effort to participate in the Professional Growth Plan process and submits the required documents in a timely fashion shall be "held harmless" and receive a renewed license, barring any substantiated evidence of gross misconduct.

B. The committee reviewed its charge and established a basic strategy to organize its work. The 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:

1. criteria for the professional growth team (PGT);

2. criteria for the professional growth plan (PGP);

3. criteria for the professional growth experiences (PGEs);

4. criteria for the professional portfolio (PP);

5. criteria for the sign off on a professional growth team, plan, experiences, and portfolio, and at what stages;

6. appeals process for those who do not meet continuing education standards;

7. reciprocity, portability, non-public school settings, interruptions in service, and any other Aexception@ processes;

8. implementation, time line and transition process; and

9. cost implications.

The committee decided to hold a two-day meeting in April to address and resolve key design issues around three central aspects of the charge–criteria for the professional growth plan (PGP), experiences (PGEs), and portfolio (PP). Other aspects of the charge will be addressed after basic decisions in these areas are made. Work groups were established to study the background materials presented to the committee (listed in these minutes), research additional resources, and lead the discussions at the April meeting.

The membership and sample topics of study for the three work groups are as follows:

Professional Growth Plans – Sheliah Dorton and Nancy Geyer

connections to student & teacher standards, essential professional development characteristics, school improvement, research & best practices, goal setting, and methods for carrying out the plan;

Professional Growth Experiences – Irene Eskridge, Daniel Hartz, and Phyllis Largey

what types of experiences will "count" – what a teacher may do as part of the plan; and

Professional Portfolios – Diane Airhart, Linda Hus, and Ena Shelley

assessment rubrics – how the submitted documents will be scored.

Judy Briganti and Richard Frisbie will act as "floaters" and assist each of the work groups, as needed. Marilynn Edwards of the Indiana State Teachers Association will be available through Judy Briganti to assist in researching additional support documents.

C. To allow time for the work groups to prepare their assignments, the February 25, meeting was cancelled. A two-day meeting on April 13, and April 14, will be held by the committee as a whole. A Thursday session was added to the previously scheduled Friday session.

D. Richard Frisbie and Judy Briganti will monitor any activities under the Title II grant related to preparing and disseminating a continuing education pilot request for proposals (RFP). The committee will communicate electronically if any actions need to be taken before the April meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. The next CEC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 13, and Friday, April 14, at the Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA) Executive Committee Room on the 9th floor from 8:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. on both days. The address is 150 West Market Street, Suite 900, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

TO:	Members, Indiana Professional Standards Board
FROM:	Judy Briganti, Chair Continuing Education Committee (CEC)
DATE:	March 15, 2000
SUBJECT:	Continuing Education Committee – Minutes of January 26, 2000, Meeting

A.	Update on the Redesign
B.	1999 Assessment System Recommendations: Continuing Education Committee
C.	Reports from Continuing Education Pilots
D.	Summary of Similarities and Differences Among Pilots
E.	Fort Wayne Community Schools Final Report
F.	Greater Clark County Schools Final Report
G.	M. S. D. of Decatur Township Final Report
H.	North Judson-San Pierre Schools Final Report
I.	Vigo County Schools Final Report
J.	1998 Assessment System Recommendations: Continuing Education Work Group
K.	1997 Assessment System Recommendations: Continuing Education
L.	A Model and Conceptual Framework for Designing and Making Policy Decisions about the IPSB Teacher License Renewal System
M.	Indiana State Teachers Association 1999 School Quality Resource Guide
N.	Continuing Education Pilot Discussion: 10/20/99 Memo to Executive Committee
O.	The Forsyth County Schools Professional Appraisal Cycle Guidebook
P.	Trends: Teacher Licensure, Certification and Relicensure – Illinois

1.	Staff Recommendation: The IPSB continuing education relicensure process shall use no Professional Growth Experience (PGE) points systems.
	Committee Recommendation: Disagree. The IPSB continuing education teacher relicensure process shall use a state-wide points system for Professional Growth Experience (PGEs). This points system shall be used to establish the minimum state-wide expectations for the types and amounts of PGEs. However, obtaining the minimum amount of PGE points shall not be sufficient to renew a teaching license. Acceptable performance in relation to an established scoring rubric also shall be required.
2.	Staff Recommendation: The IPSB continuing education relicensure process shall use an IPSB managed, regionally-based process for making the final relicensure decision.
	Committee Recommendation: Basic agreement, but clarification of roles. The IPSB continuing education relicensure process shall use an IPSB managed, regionally-based process to make a relicensure recommendation to the IPSB. The final relicensure decision shall be made by the IPSB.
3.	Staff Recommendation: The Executive Committee requests the CEC to identify a Aprofessional growth model@ that encompasses the interests of the various stakeholders, where those interests are compatible and where they are not, and how a Acontinuing education relicensing model@ could complement an independent and distinct Aemployment evaluation model.@ This process should take into account all pertinent state and local initiatives, including but not limited to the recently enacted HB1750 Aaccountability@ legislation.
	Committee Recommendation: Basic agreement, but simpler version. The Executive Committee requests the CEC to identify a Aprofessional growth model."
4.	Staff recommendation: The Executive Committee requests the CEC to identify a comprehensive model for continuing education standards-based, performance assessments and then make recommendations about which of those elements should be used to make relicensing decisions and which, if any, should be recommended to other entities, e.g., schools, teacher education units, and/or the Indiana Department of Education, for complementary assessments.
	Committee Recommendation: Basic agreement, but simpler version. The Executive Committee requests the CEC to develop standards-based rubrics for assessing the documents submitted for teacher relicensure.
5.	Staff Recommendation: Distribute the CEC pilots RFP early 2nd semester, rather than late 1st semester, with a schedule of selection and initial orientation in late spring and piloting of a refined design package to begin fall semester 2000. The coordination with any Title II requirements, including availability of funding, should be taken into account in this process as well.
	Committee Recommendation: Basic agreement, although the RFP probably will be distributed mid to late second semester.
6.	Staff Recommendation: None.
	Committee Recommendation: Until the IPSB can validate the criteria, rubrics, and procedures for scoring the documents submitted for teacher relicensure under the redesigned system, a "completion standard" shall be used. This means any teacher who makes a good-faith effort to participate in the Professional Growth Plan process and submits the required documents in a timely fashion shall be "held harmless" and receive a renewed license, barring any substantiated evidence of gross misconduct.

1.	criteria for the professional growth team (PGT);
2.	criteria for the professional growth plan (PGP);
3.	criteria for the professional growth experiences (PGEs);
4.	criteria for the professional portfolio (PP);
5.	criteria for the sign off on a professional growth team, plan, experiences, and portfolio, and at what stages;
6.	appeals process for those who do not meet continuing education standards;
7.	reciprocity, portability, non-public school settings, interruptions in service, and any other Aexception@ processes;
8.	implementation, time line and transition process; and
9.	cost implications.

	Judy Briganti and Richard Frisbie will act as "floaters" and assist each of the work groups, as needed. Marilynn Edwards of the Indiana State Teachers Association will be available through Judy Briganti to assist in researching additional support documents.
C.	To allow time for the work groups to prepare their assignments, the February 25, meeting was cancelled. A two-day meeting on April 13, and April 14, will be held by the committee as a whole. A Thursday session was added to the previously scheduled Friday session.
D.	Richard Frisbie and Judy Briganti will monitor any activities under the Title II grant related to preparing and disseminating a continuing education pilot request for proposals (RFP). The committee will communicate electronically if any actions need to be taken before the April meeting.