---

Indiana Professional Standards Board

External Committee for School Leaders

Selections

October 20, 2000

Members Present: John Hill (chairperson), Fred Bechtold, Mike Horvath, Earlene Holland, Steve Heck, Deb Lecklider, Rich Roames, Peggy Hinckley, Larry Gambaiani, Ed Burkhalter, Cindy Finney, Kathleen Sherman, Gary Collings (recorder)

Members Absent: Dan Grayson, Sue Switzer, Miriam Matthews, Earl Williams, Becky Libler, Roger Thornton, Dave Kinman (facilitator)

Staff Present: Shawn Sriver, Sheridan Rayl

Guests Present: Larry Lindsay (Indiana Wesleyan University), Marie Theobald (Title II - DOE), Pam Frampton (Purdue - Calumet)

____________________________________________________________________________________

The External Committee for School Leaders of the Indiana Professional Standards Board convened at 9:30AM on October 20, 2000 at the office of the Indiana Association of School Principals at 5091 Center Run Drive, Indianapolis.

John Hill, chairperson, asked Shawn Sriver for any announcements. Dave Kinman, facilitator, and his graduate student were unable to attend today's meeting.

1. Announcements - Shawn Sriver commented that the Building Administrators assessment framework was adopted on October 18 by the IPSB executive meeting as presented by Steve Heck. The full IPSB will act on the framework at a future meeting.

2. Title II - Shawn Sriver introduced Marie Theobald, project director of Title II, who explained the Teacher Quality Enhancement Project and biennial budget in detail. In 1999 the IPSB received a three year Title II State Grant under the federal Higher Education Amendments of 1998. The grant is to address development of performance-based preparation systems, alternative routes to licensing for degreed career changers, and recruitment and retention of teachers in shortage areas in high poverty rural and urban areas. The project year begins September 1, 2000 with $1.3 million+ federal funds and $1.4 million+ state matching funds. Year two combined totals will equal $4.3 million+. Year 3 will have a combined total of $3.3 million+ with the grant ending August 31, 2003.

Activities and personnel that are funded with the state matching monies and in-kind support are: the IASP Principal in Residence (and the current pilot portfolio assessment and future two year mentor pilot study with beginning administrators), ISTA Teacher Quality Support Center, and other personnel and consultants. Activities that are funded with federal monies are the K-16 Transition Partnership awarded to five public institutions and six private institutions and the Indiana Council on Quality Teaching for Student Learning from year two and year three supplemental dollars.

Processing the contract for the Principal in Residence through the State Department of Administration has been a challenge and is not yet completed. Once the contract is approved it will be walked through for the various sign-offs. In reply to a question Marie Theobald acknowledged that the Principal in Residence contract should be paid through the duration of the grant under the renewal clause. She noted that Educate Indiana operates with an assurance page in a more streamlined process, which she will explore for future Title II initiatives.

3. Principal in Residence - Steve Heck remarked that he continues to oversee the 45 participants in the portfolio project in the absence of a Principal in Residence. Each of the ETS pilot project States will have scorers. ETS will assume all costs of training at the Princeton site with the exception of transportation. Sheridan Rayl advocated for the professional growth experience from serving as an ETS scorer.

4. 2001-03 Biennial Budget - John Hill reported on a conference call with Larry Grau that confirmed the beginning teacher biennial budget to be carried by the State Budget Agency will only include the $2.9 million+(first year) and $3.2 million+ (second year) for mentor and corporation release time stipends in the base budget for the IPSB. Sheridan Rayl commented that maintaining these components and the beginning teacher support and assessment components are essential in this biennium budget. Although parallel expenses for the beginning administrators portfolio/mentor process will not be presented until the following biennium (2003 - 2005), John Hill emphasized the need to make legislators aware of this future component as integral to the induction performance assessment program.

Sheridan Rayl observed that the General Assembly created a challenge by not funding the current biennium for the $1million+ each of the two years as requested by the IPSB. The 2001-03 biennium budget allows for an 11% increase of additional teachers. In the second year, 92% of the teachers would be in the portfolio assessment. Of the three stages, preparation/induction/continuing education, induction is the center piece of the biennium budget. With the exception of those amounts to be carried by the State Budget Agency, she observed that all other funds in the three initiatives under beginning teacher support and assessment will need to be sponsored by legislators as requests for new funds. She speculated that PL 221, as a professional development package, may also include avenues to support the proposed IPSB activities.

Shawn Sriver distributed a handout documenting the number of original (not renewal) administration and supervision licenses (including out-of-state applicants) issued during 1990 through 1999. For example, the number of original licenses issued in 1999 were elementary administration and supervision (343), secondary administration and supervision (326), superintendent (86), director of special education (39), and director of vocational education (10).

Shawn S river presented a draft one year budget projection based on 100 beginning administrators which estimates a $3,630 cost per person. He suggested the committee may also need to prepare an alternate budget that included essentials. Members responded that the draft may already reflect essentials and a compromised plan may not be workable. It was suggested that we may be able to draft an alternate budget that would address competence, in contrast to quality preparation, but anything less would not be supportable. Shawn Sriver commented that current IPSB licensing fees are among the lowest in the nation. Although the fees will likely be increased in the future, the new fees will not be sufficient to offset the assessment expenses. Members acknowledged that professional associations seem to have their work cut out for them in mustering support for the proposed budgets.

Larry Lindsay offered the new Educational Leadership program at Indiana Wesleyan as a pilot through IASP as it is designed with both a mentor principal and university advisor in a portfolio process addressing the new standards. The IWU program could be a template as a non-degree licensure piece to be added to a master's degree. In addition, their new Education Leadership Center, which focuses on servant leadership, could assist with the IASP pilot, ETS portfolio, etc.

John Hill inquired about alternative ways to achieve our commission. One response was to explore university tuition as a revenue stream.

5. Building and District Administrator Assessments - Shawn Sriver commented on the need to address differences in the assessments of these two frameworks.

a. Optional or Required University Advisors with implications for a stipend - Members agreed that the university advisor should be required in all frameworks at the Induction stage and optional at the Proficient phase with the stipend to be determined in the future.

b. School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA) as high or low stakes or gateway - Members agreed that once a candidate passes a single assessment, e.g. SLLA, this stipulation is satisfied as a one-time requirement. (Members acknowledged that the distinct administrative fields may identify other valid assessments in the future for which the one-time requirement would apply.)

Of the States in the ETS portfolio project, only Missouri has set a cut-off score mainly to address reciprocity.

c. Number of Standards - There are six (6) standards for building administrators and eight (8) for district administrators. Educational Vision and School Culture differ and Policy Implementation is unique as a district standard. If one only has to complete a single administrative induction in one's career, how are these domain differences to addressed as a building administrator pursues licensure as a district administrator? Members were reminded that the standards can not be changed. Members proposed that this scenario would seem applicable to the role and responsibilities of the Professional Growth Team.

d. Consistent Terminology - Mentor Team language is used in the induction phase of the district standards and Professional Growth Team is used throughout the building standards. Members agreed that Shawn Sriver will check the language in the teacher standards and make a consistent change of terminology in the administrator frameworks.

6. Emergency Permits - Shawn Sriver disseminated a draft document with a proposed definition of a permit as "a document issued by the IPSB that allows a person to do particular work. As a prerequisite, the person must have completed course work or a degree program, or possess required workplace experiences, and is committed to becoming licensed. A permit holder will be assigned a licensed teacher [educator] as a mentor. A permit has a limited duration and is not renewable. Unless specified below, a permit can be issued only once for the content area or specific combination of content areas on the permit."

The draft proposed that an emergency permit have a maximum duration of five (5) years and be issued for one year and could be extended annually. The applicant would have to hold a valid Indiana license (other than an Initial License) or have two or more years of teaching experience in another state.

John Hill assigned members to discussion groups to address questions under the administrative categories of building principals, director of exceptional needs, director of career and technical education, director of curriculum and instruction, assistant or associate superintendent, and superintendent. The following conclusions were reached after the discussion presentations:

a. The emergency permit is not an option for the superintendency but is applicable to all other administrator areas as reviewed.

b. The granting of an emergency permit to individuals who do not hold a Master's degree will require further discussion.

c. The granting of an emergency permit to individuals who hold teaching experience but not in exceptional needs will require further discussion. Retired superintendents, for example, might not be eligible in the absence of a commitment to seek such licensure. Teachers of special education, speech pathologists, and school psychologists are currently eligible to pursue director of special education licensure and have been recommended to continue under the new director of exceptional needs standards. Counselors have been recommended to the IPSB for a pilot study.

d. Should an individual be able to complete his/her induction period under an emergency permit will require further discussion.

e. What should be the duration or "cap" for the emergency permit will require further discussion.

Shawn Sriver will compile the results to be discussed at next month's meeting.

NEXT MEETING: November 17, 2000 (9:30 AM)