TSPC MINUTES
June 30, 2004
Page 37
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
465 Commercial Street NE
Salem OR 97301
/June 30, 2004
MINUTES - TSPC MEETING
George Fox University, Portland Center, Rooms 155 A&B
12753 SW 68th Avenue, Portland OR 97223
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 2004
1.0 PRELIMINARY BUSINESS
Call to Order
Chair Gwinn called the meeting to order at 8:34 a.m. on Wednesday, June 30, 2004. The Executive Committee met on Tuesday, June 29th, from 12:30-5:00 p.m. in Room 160 at George Fox University, Portland Center, to discuss agenda items for the July Commission meeting.
Chair Gwinn thanked everyone for taking time out of their busy schedules to attend this special Commission meeting.
Commissioners PresentSusan DeMarsh
Pat Evenson-Brady
Cathy Gwinn
Charleen Hoiland
Anne Jones
Carol L. Mack
Katrina Myers
Carolyn Ortman
Gary Peterson
Marit Pierce
Mary Lou Pickard
Richard Steiner
Peter Tromba
Leslie Walborn
Nancy Watt
Commissioners Absent
Aurora Cedillo
Debra Robinson
Commission Staff Present
Vickie Chamberlain
Karen Edwards
Melody Hanson
Pam LaFreniere
Keith Menk / Observers
Thomas Greene, University of Portland
Sister Maria Ciriello, University of Portland
Teresa Ferrer, Oregon Education Association
Sherri Carreker, Lewis & Clark College
Sharon Chinn, Lewis & Clark College
Diane D’Arrigo, Lesley University in MA
Nancy Wolf, Lesley University in OR
Falis Dion, Portland State University
Jan Albrecht, Concordia University
Bev Peterson, Concordia University
Joe Mannion, Concordia University
Jim Green, Oregon School Boards Association
Margaret Mahoney, University of Oregon
Linda Samek, Western Baptist College & OACTE
Meredith Brodsky, Western Oregon University
Michael Jaeger, Eastern Oregon University
Gordon Munck, COSA
Brenda Simpson, Umatilla-Morrow ESD
Dick Pratt, Umatilla-Morrow ESD
Karen Weiseth, OEA Board of Directors
Hilda Rosselli, Western Oregon University
Sue Thompson, Western Oregon University
Linda Cress, Western Oregon University
Courtney Vanderstek, Oregon Education Assoc
Elise Lunas, Initial Teaching License holder
Stuart Tennant, Northwest Christian College
Nan Willis, Northwest Christian College
Bill Smith, Eastern Oregon University
Bill Beck, COSA
Dew Anna Brumley, Warner Pacific
Nancy Nagel, Lewis & Clark College
Mark Ankeny, George Fox University
Chuck White, Oregon School Personnel Assoc
1.1 Introduction of New Commissioner – Gary A. Peterson
Chair Gwinn introduced Gary A. Peterson as a new Commissioner. Gary Peterson replaces Jerry Colonna on the Commission representing superintendents of city schools.
Gary Peterson stated he is a native Oregonian second generation. He attended college at OSU, WOU and actually has one of the last master’s degrees that say OCE on it. He also served as an instructor for Lewis and Clark College in their administrative licensure program. He has been a Superintendent finishing eight years; three in Dayton School District and five years at Crook County School District. On July 1st, he assumes the position of Superintendent in Redmond School District. He is glad to be here.
Chair Gwinn presented Gary Peterson with his official TSPC coffee cup to welcome him to the Commission.
1.2 Introduction of Coordinator of Teacher Education / Deputy Director – Keith Menk
Chair Gwinn welcomed and introduced Keith Menk as the new Coordinator of Teacher Education and Deputy Director in TSPC.
Keith Menk stated he is alumni of Western Oregon University. His background experience includes 25 years mostly in management and administration in the public sector. He has spent a number of years also doing management training and organizational development. More recently he has worked on several projects related to cultural competency. He is happy to be a part of TSPC.
1.3 Introduction and Comments of Agency and Organization Representatives and Guests
Agency and organization representatives and guest present at the time introduced themselves to Commissioners. No comments were made regarding non-agenda items.
1.4 Review and Acceptance of Agenda
Chair Gwinn requested Agenda Item 2.2 on the Oregon Fund for the Advancement of Teaching Excellence be considered at the beginning of the meeting, prior to the Continuing Teaching License Administrative Rules discussion.
Hearing no objections, the agenda is considered accepted.*
Absent / Cedillo, Ortman, Robinson
2.0 PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION
2.1 Proposed Continuing Teaching License Administrative Rules
The Commission is proposing modifications to the Transitional, Initial and Continuing Teaching Licenses. On March 4, 2004, the Commission held a Summit, attended by over 80 educators, to discuss the future of the Continuing Teaching Licenses. Subsequent to the Summit, a subcommittee of Commissioners met on April 9, 2004, to consider the information from the Summit as well as testimony and input received over the months. Notes from the subcommittee meeting are attached to and made a part of these minutes. The subcommittee’s proposals for change were conceptually presented at the May 2004 Commission meeting. The Commission requested the concepts be presented in the administrative rule proposals before further considering the subcommittee’s recommendations. These proposed administrative rules are also attached to and made a part of these minutes.
Chair Gwinn stated the Commission has been very definite with the desire to move forward and expedite the decisions surrounding the Continuing Teaching License. However, there is work left to be done such as establishing an approved process for district-approved units of study; reviewing CTL program requirements; and reviewing standards and competencies for the license in light of new proposals. A question before the Commission is how to deal with those unaddressed issues whether it be immediately and in context of the proposal and administrative rule or to implement a starting date of January 1st on the rule changes and work on those unaddressed issues in the meantime. The public hearings scheduled for July 28 would proceed as planned. On the other hand, the Commission could delay action on the rules in order to address the unfinished and unaddressed issues. Commissioners did not object to moving forward and keeping an eye to fixes and have a plan for addressing unfinished business prior to July 28.
If the Commissioners substantially modifies the proposed administrative rules today, the changes will be published 21 days prior to the July 28th public hearing in order to receive oral and/or written testimony. If after receiving oral and/or written testimony during the public hearing and amended rule language is needed, the Commission has the ability to hold a second hearing or adopt slightly amended rules depending on the substantive changes. A hearing does not compel adoption of rules, but is required in order to enact the rules. The Commission may wait to adopt at next Commission meeting.
Background information started with preimplementation of the CTL and the Commission moved to development of a second-stage license for all educators with the expectation and desire to move the teacher’s learning base to a higher level. The design was purposely moved from a curriculum-based model to a performance-based model. It was driven by legislation, research and professionalism. The Commission assumed a leadership role with the need to develop this public policy and directed higher ed to design the licensure structure. This was accomplished by teams of educators basing their work upon research. Oregon had set national direction for the performance-based 2nd stage licensure and did a lot of ground breaking work recognizing the work of the 3.1 Design Team. It grew from TSPC direction and a federal grant to OUS. It represents an incredible amount of collaboration among the higher ed institutions (both public and private). It fell from core assessment for schools of education to utilize and also gave us a license that could be granted based upon a defensible assessment that was not arbitrary.
Implementation began almost six years ago with new program proposals coming to TSPC. The Program Approval Committee reviewed every single one of those and institutions came and went from those meetings making modifications and learning from each other. Questions that arose were how to assess working professionals, how good is good enough and how to measure the value of improvement in teaching skills. Programs really attempted to fine tune those programs as much as they possibly could prior to implementation. It was expected that modifications would be needed, always with an eye toward gathering data and looking at what was working and how to improve things that were not working as well as desired. Teaching Research from WOU was extremely valuable with their instate support through federal and other grants to gather research data. From the initial development of this second-stage license, implementation has cost thousands of dollars and lots of time with many people working collectively. The Commission has not rushed to make changes needed to the CTL for good reasons. Dramatic changes take time to implement and evaluate. Legislative action was needed to grant the Commission the statutory authority and flexibility to change the timelines and work with the license. Certainly the rule development requirement for the NCLB federal act intervened, compelled TSPC’s attention and preempted work in process. Throughout this time, the Commission has continued to gather data from stakeholders.
In changing the rules, TSPC is setting policy for the state which affects over 15,500 license holders. The policy needs to be objective and forceful, uniform, flexible and balanced. The factors need to be evaluated in an objective manner. Constituent viewpoints are very valuable and extremely important to the discussion. The extent to which the Commission’s decision supports the mission must be considered and how the action will impact K-12 education.
An important aspect to keep in mind is that a policy without enforceability is no policy at all. Uniformity provides a basis for even, consistent application of rules. Simplification of rules has been one of the Commission’s goals which also contributes to uniformity. The viewpoints of all constituents and contributing factors have to be balanced. The Commission should not favor or appear to favor any one group, but focus on the data that is available. Unintended consequences must be avoided by any action taken. Decisions must be made in a timely manner, yet give thoughtful deliberation and things a chance to work before shifting direction. A mechanism is needed to deal with exceptions that need to be addressed where a body of rules does not need to be built. A challenge is to develop that policy and rules without losing sight of the Commission’s mission.
TSPC again has an opportunity to take a leadership role in the state. It is recognized that there are very strong opinions around the CTL issues, but discussions will be conducted in a respectful and civil manner. A speaking order will be kept throughout the discussion. The Chair reserves the right to limit repetitious or lengthy comments. The discussion will proceed in three parts moving through the sections of the proposed rules: 1) input from Commissioners only; 2) input from the audience where Commissioners might ask clarifying questions; and 3) Commissioners only to take the input from audience and internal discussion section by section. A detailed decision is expected by the end of this meeting. It is hoped to have a final product to take to the public hearing by the end of July.
Agenda Item 2.1 is a side-by-side comparison of the current rule and the proposed rule in layman terms for illustrative and comparative purposes only. Agenda Item 2.1c is background information containing notes on the discussion and conceptual recommendations from the CTL subcommittee meeting notes on April 9, 2004. Agenda Item 2.1a is the substantive proposal in administrative rule form. Also attached are the current administrative rules for Division 5, Definitions, and Division 60, Twenty-First Century Teaching Licenses.
Vickie Chamberlain explained how the rule language was developed and the notations contained in the proposed administrative rules. At the May meeting, Commissioners requested the concepts be put in draft rules and Agenda Item 2.1 is that attempt. There are areas that the subcommittee did not discuss which are marked by notes. In instances where the existing rule would require major amendments, the rule was rewritten. Applicable definitions with some housekeeping changes were moved from Division 005 into Division 060 with the licensure rules. These proposed rules have a few places where built-in conflicts need to be resolved such as out-of-state licenses. An attempt was made to put existing language into different enumeration and paragraph form for ease of reading.
584-060-0002 (proposed new rule) [Repeal 584-060-0001] Page 1 of Agenda Item 2.1a
Subsection (1)(c). Carol Mack inquired whether the provisions for the different entries into the teaching profession are specified elsewhere. Vickie Chamberlain replied that a purpose statement is a broad, general introduction to the following licensure rules and this is the original language that was adopted. She tried not to change things that didn’t seem consistent with the work being done. Carol Mack wondered if a reference to the relevant sections would be helpful if it contributes to looking at the license relative to the continuing license. Carol would like a reference to the OAR on what the standards are for those routes so that if someone comes from one of those routes into a CTL program or option that there is a match between their preparation and what they are going to. Pat Evenson-Brady assumed the purpose was for both Initial and CTL under the 21st Century School licensure. Subsection (1) of the proposed rules is taken directly from the existing administrative rules in Division 60.
Subsection (4) has a notation of [more here?]. Anne Jones feels this is explanatory enough when taken into consideration with the entire proposed rules. Vickie Chamberlain’s rationale for the notation was that the Commission may want to comment in terms of a broader statement for a second-stage license and permanent licensure. Peter Tromba pointed out a purpose statement for CTL is not included in the current rules.
Subsection (5) states there are three options leading to a CTL. Pat Evenson-Brady is not sure what the three options are; however the footnote is meant to indicate that a count will be reconsidered once the rules are finalized. The options being referred to are listed elsewhere in the rules. Carol Mack is not sure of the status in reality of CPD being promoted by assignment of a mentor teacher during the first year of teaching. That is a very big factor affecting implementation of CTL programs. Vickie Chamberlain stated that when the original rule was drafted, the thought was in mind that the mentorship statute would be funded and have an integral part of this. Since the mentorship statute has not been funded, the Commission needs to make a decision whether to leave it in in the event it does obtain funding or still adhere to the belief of the statement that mentorship is really important. Carol Mack stated that historical piece is really significant in what should be in this whole process in moving from the Initial to the CTL, but isn’t really there currently. As the Commission looks at CTL, it must be realized and recognized that isn’t happening and that impacts what CTL should and can be. Cathy Gwinn feels this is unfinished business in terms of working with the legislature for funding which the Commission may want to consider. Nancy Watt asked whether the language is suppose to reflect what it is or what it should be. Pat Evenson-Brady read it as a prescription; as a direction to school districts that it would be good if you did this. Teacher preparation will be enhanced in the school district if a mentor is assigned whether there is money or not. Carolyn Ortman stated the distinction between if it’s in rule and must be done versus Pat’s comments. In reading this, Carolyn would assume this is what is being done or what has to be done and is not optional. She agrees with Pat’s philosophy, but if it is in the rules and has value, this is what the Commission says goes forward and this is what is. If some things become optional, who chooses what is optional and what is not. Pat Evenson-Brady suggest that language be changed to read “During the first year of teaching, CPD should be is promoted by assignment of a mentor teacher. Vickie Chamberlain explained that a purpose statement almost never has language in it that anybody would consider enforceable. A purpose statement is supposed to be an opinion of the intent of the entire division is and what the intent of the rules are. It allows someone to go back and determine what the thinking was. By keeping the CPD sentence in the rules, it is merely a statement that the Commission believes is an important piece and is not directly linked to a mandate or any other comment. It is just a comment on the value of mentorship. The specific statutes referenced are for the Mentor / Principal / Teacher Act within the Oregon Department of Education. It has been promoted at the Capitol several times for funding and remained unfunded for quite some time. It is set up to be a grant program for districts to apply for to set up, run and build mentorship programs. Pat Evenson-Brady prefers to keep the language in so that the legislature and Department of Education see that the Commission considers that to be a critical part of licensure. Chair Gwinn asked Commissioners to make their own notations to reflect back on at the end of discussions today.