Meetings
To: Members, Teacher Education Committee (TEC)
From: John Marsteller, Chair, TEC
Date: December 8, 2000
Subject: Minutes of November 10, 2000, TEC Meeting
Present: Cheryl Clapp, Lou Famiano, Elizabeth Jared, John Marsteller, Gary Ingersoll, Bet J. Kotowski, Judy Miller, and Taylor Hilligoss.
Absent: Susan H. Gooden, Esther Lee, Roy Weaver, Richard Arends, Dale Scannell
At 9:00 a.m., John Marsteller, Chair, convened the regular meeting. The following outline summarizes main points of discussion.
I. Consultations with Representatives of Education Stakeholder Groups. None.
II. Review and Approval of the TEC Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2000.
Minutes were approved by consensus.
III. Unit Assessment System (UAS) Examiner Training Update
A. Gary Ingersoll gave an overview of the UAS Examiner training that occurred October 26- 27, 2000, at the Indiana Government Center South. He explained that training included both instructional and simulation activities. Simulations included representatives from four institutions that volunteered UAS materials for training purposes.
B. Bet Kotowski reported that the first UAS onsite visit has been scheduled for March 25-27, 2001, for the University of Indianapolis. The team has been assembled, and at least one TEC Consultant and one Board member will be assigned to participate as observers of the process.
C. Gary Ingersoll also explained that training for Board members will be scheduled for early in 2001. Board members will be trained to observe and assure the integrity of the process.
IV. Draft Code of Conduct
Bet Kotowski shared the draft Code of Conduct (adapted from the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) document that was used during the UAS Examiner training. She asked for TEC members to review/edit the document in preparation for discussion and vote during the next TEC meeting scheduled for December 8.
V. Title II Reporting Update
A. Judy Miller summarized the status of the Title II reporting requirements. The IPSB State report submitted on October 7, 2000, was approved by the United States Department of Education (USDOE) and will be posted on its web site on or before November 21, 2000. Teacher preparation institutions were required to submit testing information on their program completers by November 1, 2000. Currently, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) is matching program completer data with its testing score database. Institutions will have an opportunity to review the ETS data match. ETS then will do statistical analyses, and institutions must submit their reports to the IPSB on April 7, 2001. The IPSB will produce the final State report and submit it to the USDOE on October 7, 2001.
B. One issue to be resolved is at what point the reporting information referenced above becomes publicly available. Judy Miller cited implications and concerns related to this issue. Discussion also is ongoing with the Preservice Education Work Group of institutional representatives.
C. One suggestion was made for the IPSB to facilitate a workshop for the media representatives from all Indiana teacher preparation institutions. The TEC supported this idea.
D. Members of the Committee also suggested that a workshop be conducted for Indiana legislators o help them understand the implications of the Title II reporting requirements. Gary Ingersoll volunteered to assist with workshop development.
E. Following IPSB's submission of the state report to the USDOE on October 7, 2001, the report will be assimilated into a national report, due April 7, 2002. The national report will be formally submitted to Congress on October 7, 2002.
F. Staff will outline basic components of a Title II Reporting workshop for review at the December 8 meeting.
V. Low-Performing Institutions
A. Judy Miller reviewed proposed criteria for identifying low-performing institutions as suggested by the Preservice Education Work Group. The TEC suggested one change in the last paragraph so that the role of IPSB was clearer. The motion to approve the set of criteria and send it to the IPSB Executive Committee for approval on December 18, 2000, was made by Elizabeth Jared and seconded by Cheryl Clapp. The motion carried unanimously.
B. Judy Miller and Bet Kotowski outlined the requirement in the Title II Reporting legislation that requires IPSB to provide technical assistance to "low-performing" institutions or "at risk" institutions. The Committee reviewed what is already being done (Institutional Sessions, statewide workshops/presentations, Title II Grant assistance, TEC Consultant assistance, and the Standards-Based Teacher Education Project), and suggested that the IPSB provide avenues of access for additional assistance. This might include contact lists of consultants, organizations, web sites, and national/state networks.
C. The Committee agreed that the IPSB should play a role in facilitating access to resources, but that each institution must develop a unique solution to its individual problems.
D. IPSB Staff will develop a list of suggested resources for the Committee to review at its December 8 meeting.
E. The Committee agreed that consequences of failure for an institution would be embedded in its UAS approval and subsequent fold-in with the state accreditation review process. That is, the current five-year accreditation cycle will continue as usual, and once an institution's UAS has been approved, the UAS will be a focal part of the five-year accreditation onsite visit.
VI. Experimental Programs
A. Bet Kotowski distributed copies of three experimental program proposals that have been received for December review by the TEC. She reviewed the process wherein programs proposals must be judged according to the Board-approved Experimental Guidelines for Initial or Advanced Programs. Copies of the Guidelines were also distributed to the TEC members.
B. The three experimental program proposals were submitted by Indiana Wesleyan University,
the University of Evansville, and the University of Southern Indiana.
C. The Committee agreed that TEC members with conflicts of interest regarding any of the above programs would be excluded from TEC discussions and deliberations.
D. Notification of the TEC's decision, complete with rationale, will be sent to the professional education unit head of each institution that submitted a proposal.
VII. Reading Update
A. Judy Miller summarized the progress on the Reading test being proposed in response to Indiana legislation enacted in 1999. The testing instrument was identified and the validation process by ETS was described.
B. Judy Miller explained that the IPSB is prepared to meet the July 1, 2001, legislative mandate.
C. The Committee approved a request to ask the IPSB Executive Committee for approval to disseminate the name of the Reading test in advance of the validation process.
D. The motion was made by Elizabeth Jared and seconded by Cheryl Clapp that the TEC request approval to notify institutions of the testing status. The motion passed without dissent.
VIII. Institutional Sessions for 2001: February 9 and September 28
A. Bet Kotowski reported that the Indiana Government Center South has been secured for both dates.
B. Bet Kotowski stated that UAS Data Management is a popular topic for February 9. Feedback is being obtained from the Indiana Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (IACTE) regarding needs for UAS technical assistance.
C. Judy Miller and Bet Kotowski will follow up with IACTE and the three TEC Resource Advisors to help determine topics for the February 9 Institutional Session.
D. The Committee suggested that a handout from the Teacher Induction Committee be placed in the participant packets for February 9th answering some of questions concerning the proposed teacher induction process.
IX. Other
A. Bet Kotowski summarized the feedback the TEC had received from Chair John Marsteller's letter to Tom Pickering, IACTE President, seeking input on alternative routes to standards-based licensing. The following statements summarize the IACTE's position on the matter:
IACTE is very supportive of the standards-based assessment system and accountability measures currently in placed and being further developed under the UAS.
IACTE does not support any attempt to circumvent the procedures already in place.
IACTE thinks that a better job needs to be done in communicating information about career changer programs that are already available within the state.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.