---

Indiana Professional Standards Board

External Committee for School Leaders

Selections

November 17, 2000

Members Present: John Hill (chairperson), Fred Bechtold, Mike Horvath, Earlene Holland, Steve Heck, Larry Gambaiani, Ed Burkhalter, Cindy Finney, Kathleen Sherman, Dan Grayson, Miriam Matthews, Becky Libler, Roger Thornton, Dave Kinman (facilitator), Gary Collings (recorder)

Members Absent: Deb Lecklider, Rich Roames, Peggy Hinckley, Sue Switzer, Earl Williams,

Staff Present: Shawn Sriver

Guests Present: Larry Lindsay (Indiana Wesleyan University), Pam Frampton (Purdue - Calumet)

______________________________________________________________________________

The External Committee for School Leaders of the Indiana Professional Standards Board convened at 9:30AM on November 17, 2000 at the office of the Indiana Association of School Principals at 5091 Center Run Drive, Indianapolis.

John Hill, chairperson, called the meeting to order and asked Shawn Sriver and Dave Kinman for any announcements.

1. Announcements - Shawn Sriver commented that the Building Administrators assessment framework as adopted on October 18 by the IPSB executive meeting was presented by Steve Heck to the full IPSB on November 15 and approved with minor edits. All five administrator frameworks are now finalized.

Dave Kinman reported that he and Shawn Sriver met with Larry Grau (Governor's office) to discuss Mr. Grau's review of the IPSB budget as related to this committee's work. Mr. Grau's main concern was about the three mentors in the administrator frameworks in comparison to only one mentor in the teacher framework. He asked for a clear and concise rationale for any of our proposals that would be easily understood by members of the legislature. The list of discussion questions which the committee will address in today's meeting was derived from the meeting with Mr. Grau.

Roger Thornton noted that the Quality Teacher Focus group, which he and Becky Libler attended, heard a presentation by a representative from Connecticut where the induction cost per teacher was reported as $1,300. Roger noted our proposals estimate per capita costs as high as $4,000. He cautioned that we need to listen and make budget adjustments accordingly. Shawn Sriver clarified that mentor stipends are not paid in Connecticut. Indiana, in contrast, has statutory requirements for payment of a $600 teacher stipend.

2. Discussion Questions - Members were divided into four groups with assigned questions. The following comments were presented to each question related to the Beginning Administrator Induction Performance Assessment (BAIPAP):

a. How does the BAIPAP align with better school and better student performance and how will it enhance student learning?

I. Standards for both teacher and administrators are parallel
II. BAIPAP is performance based and standards driven with an expected outcome of effective school leadership resulting in continuous school improvement and higher student achievement (How?).

b. In clear, concise, jargon free language, describe the overall objective of the assessment program.
I. BAIPAP will ensure that candidates have mastered the standards and can provide effective school leadership.
II. The standards focus on a knowledge of how children learn and how teachers teach.
[Discussion around parallels to other professions with state board type exams, e.g., medical, CPA, clinical psychologists, etc.]

c. How will our system make a better administrator, which, in turn, will lead to improved student learning?
I. As designed it uses actual performances to demonstrate ability to impact student achievement by assisting teachers. It transfers theory base to practical application.
II. Training programs are accountable to the same standards; the same "road map" is used by the candidate, the IHE, and the IPSB. Candidate performance is part of the IHEs assessment. Assessment calls for administrators to pursue continuous learning in the same way as are teachers and students.
III. The system is a means to hold both candidates and IHEs accountable. Candidates must demonstrate that they have the skills to effectively lead schools towards increased student learning.
[There is no preliminary information from ETS regarding data from the other four pilot states.]

d. What would you tell and show a stakeholder to convince him/her that he/she should support this program?
I. These standards have required IHEs to reform their training programs?
II. It is possible to go through life with minimal direct contact with a doctor or lawyer. It is impossible to go through life without contact with educators. Medical and legal practitioners, who are products of educational institutions, are held to high standards with exams and renewals. Why settle for less with educators?
III. Standards that serve as the basis for preparation programs include the essential skills required of school leaders; the assessment and mentoring process holds all candidates accountable to demonstrate mastery of the standards.
IV. School leaders need to step up to the plate and demonstrate proficiencies. School leaders need to have an understanding of accountability the same as teachers.
V. The program calls for a "Chief Learning Officer (CLO)" who can clearly articulate K-12 achievement with higher expectations for both teachers and school leaders.
VI. All standards include a stem to assure student learning.
VII. We are building arguments against a "Taco Bell" drive through licensing of administrators that is evidenced in New Jersey.
VIII. No longer is the licensure based on a series of courses but now a set of standards.

e. Identify 3-5 compelling arguments for the administrator induction program?
I. It measures candidates according to problem based preparation and proficiency mastery.
II. It expedites the process of informed intuition.
III. It promotes problem based learning and a broad based perspective of school leadership.
IV. It parallels requirements in PL 221 for professional development and accountability.
V. It promotes identification and coaching of potential school leaders.
VI. An appropriate induction protects the heavy investment in preparation and training.
VII. Attrition is reduced from the support and appropriate assessment.
VIII. The induction program creates a seamless transition from theory to practice (quality control).

f. Identify 3-5 potential outcomes of the induction program?
I. It results in a higher number of individuals staying in leadership roles.
II. It evidences real accountability with assessment based on actual practice and observable behaviors.
III. It produces high quality, highly skilled administrators.
IV. It enables the aspiring school leader to build a leadership network.
V. It promotes the practice of consistent standards for new school leaders (statewide preparation consistency).
VI. The induction period serves as a convincing experience to empower candidates.
VII. It enables higher performance and a greater sense of fulfillment for new school leaders.
VIII. It aids in the transition of new school leaders into full-time leadership positions.

g. Should administrators in the induction program be assigned a mentor? (YES) If so, why?
I. It provides support to those in leadership positions (which can be lonely at times).
II. It encourages reflective practices.
III. It expands candidates' visions (bigger picture).
IV. Candidates learn from others' experiences.
V. It reduces attrition
VI. It expedites the mastery of school leader knowledge, disposition, and mastery (a proving ground).
VII. It enhances expanded responsibility for working with 350 to 3500 individuals (in contrast to a teacher working with 25 to 125 students).
VIII. The knowledge base of mentors is strengthened from the experience.

h. Justify why administrators have three mentors when teachers have one.
I. In the design each of the three mentors have a unique and different perspective to offer (internal, external, and transition from theory to practice).
[Some members thought the process might succeed with one external mentor; others advocated for at least two mentors (building and external)].

One member suggested that the total amount of time for three (3) mentors in the administrator framework may be no more than the one (1) mentor for teachers. The difference may lie in the need for school leaders to have different sources of expertise beyond the building or district. Therefore the cost of mentoring might be similar to that for teachers but the source of mentoring could include three entities. ACTION: From the above input Dave Kinman and Shawn Sriver will create a 200 work document for the Governor's office to be completed by November 29. Readers of the draft document will be Fred Bechtold, Kathy Sherman, Larry Lindsay, and Mike Horvath. After the readers' review the document will be transmitted to members for their input.

3. School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA) - In response to a question about the SLLA, it was noted that the SLLA is aligned to the national standards of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) of the Council of Chief State School Officers from which our standards were developed. The SLLA is comprehensive and nationally normed. The standards are not weighted but are contextual and the mentors contribute to this broad based perspective. The standards do provide a basis for reciprocity. Members expressed interest in being more informed about the SLLA. ACTION: Steve Heck will contact ETS representatives to request their attendance at our next meeting on December 15 for an orientation to the SLLA and a mock exam if possible. Steve Heck distributed a copy of the manual for the School Leaders Licensure Assessment.

4. Principal in Residence - Steve Heck conveyed that Marie Theobald confirmed that a one year contract effective December 1 is being processed. Steve noted his concern that a year 2 contract is not clear and IASP needs a commitment for a second year before the organization can proceed.

5. Emergency Permits - Dave Kinman distributed a 10/20/00 first draft document titled Emergency Permits for Administrators. The committee engaged in a group review of each section. The following revised statements were accepted with implications for each framework:
a. To be eligible for the emergency permit ..., the person would be required to prove that he/she had completed (one year or one-third) of an approved administration and supervision preparation program, but would not need to have a Master's degree.
b. The permit is for one year and may be extended twice with the university verifying completion of appropriate work after the first and second year. The superintendent may request the extension of the emergency permit for years two and three. (This provision does not apply to assistant principals.)
c. There would be no career changer permit available to ... administrators. Teaching experience is the avenue for career changers to enter into (building or district) administration.
d. The question was not fully resolved how a private corporation director of human resources or university professor, for example, might change careers by seeking a director of careeer and technical education license?
e. Superintendent - There should NOT be an emergency permit available for the position of Superintendent. Considerable educational expertise is essential for this position. A permit would not take into consideration all the variables required to lead a school district. There is no other qualified professional in a corporation to supervise or mentor an unlicensed individual seeking the position of a school superintendent.
f. Whether the induction period should be allowed for an individual with an emergency permit was not fully resolved. The tendency was not to allow the induction period as the individual with the emergency permit would be under the oversight of both the university and superintendent.

It was also proposed that candidates for a director of exceptional needs licensure with either a speech pathologist or school psychologist (and school counselor if added) should also demonstrate knowledge of the core standards for educators of students with exceptional needs in the content area of Mild Intervention. [NOTE: This proposal needs additional discussion and would require an amendment to the assessment framework.]

The discussion of emergency permits centered on supply and demand as the driving force for superintendents to seek emergency permits for any eligible school personnel. The aspect of maintaining quality as exhibited by the standards was the other point of discussion. PL 221 with its stringent accountability elements was presented as a major consideration in this regard. Action: Shawn Sriver will prepare a second draft regarding emergency permits for the next meeting.

NEXT MEETING: December 15, 2000 (9:30 AM)