Meeting of the Commission
Friday, February 10, 2006
10:00 A.M. – 4:00 P.M.
Recital Room, Richards Hall
Dixon University Center, Harrisburg
Present at Meeting
| Caroline Allen |
James Fogarty |
David Monk |
|
| John Augustine |
Peter Garland |
Ivory Nelson |
Lesley Crozier for P. Browne |
| Robert Bartos |
James Gearity |
Jeffrey Pyle |
Clythera Hornung for D. Surra |
| Terry Blue |
Tomás Hanna |
Michael Speziale |
|
| Jane Bray |
Mark Holman |
Stinson Stroup |
|
| Nancy Bunt |
Rita Jones |
Cathy Trombetta |
Robert Feir |
| Ronald Cowell |
Richard Kneedler |
James Turner |
Stephen Pavlak |
| Colleen Dorsey |
Alan Lesgold |
Elizabeth Useem |
Sarah Coon |
| Carolyn Dumaresq |
C. Kent McGuire |
|
Michelle Tarlecki |
Opening and Introductions
Dr. Kneedler called the meeting to order at 10:05 am.
Dr. Lesgold moved that the minutes of the January 13 meeting be
approved. The motion was seconded by Dr. Bartos and approved without
objection. After the minutes were approved, Dr. Kneedler asked if
anyone had any comments or concerns about the research. There were
none.
Dr. Feir introduced Representative Jeffrey Pyle and Lesley Crozier,
who was representing Senator Pat Browne.
PDE Presentation:
To get a better understanding of what the Department of Education
is doing in terms of continuing professional education, Dr. Feir
introduced Amy Hodges Slamp, Acting Director of the Bureau of Teaching
and Learning at PDE. Ms. Slamp began her presentation by introducing
Michael Toth, the CEO of Learning Sciences International (LSI), who
assisted in the presentation.
Ms. Slamp noted that new teachers coming out of the universities
have the benefit of current thinking about pedagogy, but many veteran
teachers do not.
When Act 48 was created, PDE contracted with LSI to create on-line
courses for teachers to complete some of their required hours. Ms.
Slamp introduced the on-line course in professional education that
has been available to all teachers in Pennsylvania since 2000. When
the course was first introduced it was advertised as “on-line,” but
the Department has since changed it to “embedded learning” to
reflect its evolution into a school-based offering requiring teachers
to engage in reflective practice. Some elements of this model require
teachers to work alone, while others require them to work in a facilitated
group.
A demonstration of the program was given. When completing it, the teacher must
complete the steps in sequential order. The teacher may go back to material
that was already covered, but cannot skip over material. Throughout the program,
all resources may be printed out by the teacher. In the videos and examples
within the program, the students and teachers are from a real classroom giving
the teachers an idea of how things may work in their classrooms.
When the embedded learning model was introduced, it was targeted
at PK-3. The program is growing to target all levels. There is a
vision of a multi-level program. Within the model there are some
programs for secondary levels, but the majority of the programs are
targeted at elementary.
This model is facilitated to minimize mis-direction for teachers
and increase their understanding of the material. PDE has partnered
with the intermediate units and master teachers to help facilitate
this program. The feedback to the teachers about the program is given
by the facilitator and not the principal; i.e., it is not evaluative
in nature. Within the program, the teacher does a holistic review
of him or herself.
Another program that PDE has created is the Governor’s Institutes.
These institutes are week long, intense educational experiences for
teachers. There are twenty institutes each summer around the state.
Each institute generally has about 100 participants. Each year it
is estimated that 2,000 teachers participate in the Governor’s
Institutes. PDE encourages teams from the same school district to
attend to increase the likelihood that they will be able to implement
things from the program at their schools. A calendar of the Governor’s
Institutes for summer 2006 is available on the PDE website.
Ms. Slamp also discussed Act 48 and its requirements. Act 48 requires
that every teacher have 180 hours of professional development every
five years. There are currently very broad guidelines for Act 48.
PDE is trying to make these guidelines more focused in terms of what
is considered acceptable and what is not. PDE hopes that this will
define the more rigorous standards that Act 48 had intended initially.
Commissioners expressed a concern about higher education faculty
with teaching certificates. It is harder for them to accomplish the
prescribed number of Act 48 hours and credits. Although they may
teach a class that allows each classroom teacher to get credit, they
cannot get credit more than once for teaching that class.
Ms. Slamp concluded her presentation by discussing a symposium on
teaching that was led by PDE. It was made up of national and state
experts. They looked at several things: what does teaching look like
and how do we get that and what are key guiding principles for teaching
and for each individual subject.
Small Group Activity:
Dr. Feir discussed the group assignments for this meeting. Group
1 was to look at the roles of universities and schools in induction.
Group 2 was to look at the roles of universities and schools in continuing
professional education. Group 3 was to look at roles for veteran
teachers in both induction and continuing professional education.
Group 4 was to look at increasing teacher retention.
After the group discussions, the Commission meeting recessed briefly
for lunch, and after lunch, each of the groups reported back to the
full Commission.
Group 1
Topic: “Quality Induction Programs – Roles of Universities
and Schools”
Facilitator: Mrs. Cathy Trombetta
Recorder: Dr. Kent McGuire
-
Induction Programs:
- Attempt to pin down what is and higher ed.’s role
in the status quo.
- Variation is great
- Higher ed. role; limited for many reasons.
- Strong view: can strengthen induction experiences.
- Informed choice re: appropriate professional development
experiences
- Greater linkages to content/certification area
- Not hard to imagine larger role for higher education
- Expertise in cognate areas, etc….But no clear
structure or system for how higher ed. works effectively
with K-12 on induction.
- Blinding insight → Bold Recommendation:
- Graduated System of induction…where higher ed. and
K-12 have well conceived roles to play
- The law and medical professions do not let their
new graduates in the workforce alone. Why does the
teaching profession?
Core Idea:
Year 1 2-3 days in classroom; balance in continuing education
development experiences
Year 2 3-4 days in classroom
Year 3 4+ days
Can imagine many variations on this theme.
- Raise all kinds of issues
- But makes many things possible
- greater refinement/improvement in preservice experience
- greater linkage between preservice and in-service
- Very curious about relevance of this idea for existing policy – e.g.
Act 48 and how PDE prescribes the 24 credits to be earned in
the first 6 years
Discussion:
A question was asked about the role of higher education in this
bold, new idea. Higher education needs to be involved to see
what they are producing in new teachers and what is actually
needed in the classroom. One person said that universities are
willing to help, but there are not clear mechanisms to help teachers
once they are in the schools. They are not being told what their
role is in induction.
Do the schools really want higher education institutions involved?
The schools have a culture of their own and may not want higher
education institutions involved. Should the roles and responsibilities
of induction be divided up between PK-12 schools and universities?
Would Professional Development Schools help? Would responsibility
for induction overload Professional Development Schools?
Group 2
Topic: “Quality Continuing Professional Education – Roles
of Universities and Schools”
Facilitator: Mr. James Turner
Recorder: Ms. Colleen Dorsey
- Quality Continuing Professional Ed.
- Act 48 opened the door to quality professional development
but did not guarantee it.
- Act 48 needs to enhance partnership opportunities with external
agencies.
- Partnerships between districts and higher ed. improve the quality
of teacher prep. programs of those institutions. (mutually beneficial)
- Coalition of higher ed. institutions to improve professional
development opportunities.
- Value of external partnerships – can help prepare better
teachers and improve higher ed. institutions.
- Higher ed./IU partnerships.
- It should be required to have a portion of the Act 48 credits
received from somewhere other than the school district that a
teacher resides.
Discussion:
What makes quality? The door to more relevant and rigorous standards
was opened through the creation of Act 48, but Act 48 needs to
be more prescriptive or have more clearly defined standards to
be included in school district professional development plans.
Relevancy is the most important. The needs of the students need
to be reflected in Act 48 plans.
To what degree should Act 48 credits be about the teacher’s
current assignment as opposed to getting ready for the next assignment
or job? More stringent requirements are needed for Act 48.
Group 3
Topic: “Roles for Veteran Teachers in Induction and Continuing
Professional Education”
Facilitator: Dr. Stinson Stroup
Recorder: Dr. Clythera S. Hornung
- Mentoring – part of the role of a veteran teacher
- Range of mentor pay: $200-$2,850 per year
- Issue of accountability
- Induction is mandated but not policed
- Incentive for SD – teacher retention
- Is this an artificial process?
- Correlation in research between induction and retention
- Separation between induction and evaluation
- Veteran teachers do not know how to remediate weaknesses
- Define: coach, mentor
- There are stages of mentorship which may not be content specific
- Formal v. informal mentoring → role of mentoring is PD
and induction
- Induction and mentoring IS Professional Education for a veteran
teacher.
- Induction issues may vary in large urban districts v. smaller
rural/suburban districts
- IIP --- Individualized Induction Plan - Professional Development
- Act 48 plan is not an individual need but a community (school/building/district)
need
- Induction often STOPS after the initial “indoctrination” to
the school culture
- where things are
- what kind of students
- time deadlines
- grading
- community demographics
- etc.
- It is all about LEADERSHIP……building.
- Role of Veteran Teachers….in Induction
- Accept teaching assignments that are not the most desirable.
- Organize teachers into communities that encourage empowerment
of teachers → provide opportunities for veteran teachers
to be leaders
- We must be willing to provide opportunities for teachers
to do educational leadership activities that are not actual
classroom teaching.
Discussion:
What does “veteran teacher” mean? It was suggested
that a veteran teacher is a teacher with strengths and abilities
gained through practice; the term should not depend on age, per
se. Veteran teachers have a special responsibility to the state,
and school districts have a responsibility to put those veteran
teachers to use.
Group 4
Topic: “How to Retain More Teachers”
Facilitator: Dr. Alan Lesgold
Recorder: Dr. Carolyn Dumaresq
Retention Issues
- School Climate
- Discipline
- Work load assignments
- “Reality”
- Professional development requirements and certificate costs
- Appropriate match – hiring practices
- Reimbursement for courses, if reimbursement exists in the school
- Teachers going into the profession because they think they
can accomplish something, but never really seeing what they accomplished
and leaving the profession.
- Cost of attrition
Solutions
- Professional learning communities
- Strong supportive mentor in content area
- Reduced class load
- Team teaching
- Free up older teachers to help newer teachers teach
- Awareness of costs of turnover and teacher learning curve
- Preparation to deal with stress
- Get them out early, often in preservice
- Develop an index or something similar to allow the public to
understand the costs of attrition.
- Correct misapprehension that school boards believe attrition
is cheaper than teachers rising on the pay scale.
Presentation on Deans and Superintendents Surveys:
The Commission’s research coordinator, Sarah Coon, presented
data on surveys given to the deans or chairs of Education Departments
in teacher preparation institutions and superintendents or human
resource officials from Pennsylvania school districts. The reason
for the survey was to inform Commissioners of experiences and opinions
from a variety of perspectives and to identify successes, challenges,
and trends. The survey was completed on–line by 174 superintendents
(35% of 501 districts in the state) and 50 deans or chairs of Education
Departments (53% of 94 universities with certification programs).
There were several issues surveyed: New Teacher Preparation, Recruitment
and Hiring, Induction, Professional Development, Partnerships, and
State Policy. Of these six topics, Ms. Coon presented data on New
Teacher Preparation, Induction, and Professional Development. There
were many questions asked and the statistics of those who answered ‘good,’ ‘excellent,’ ‘somewhat
prepared,’ and ‘very well prepared’ to the respective
questions were presented.
In regard to New Teacher Preparation, 20% of superintendents thought
new teachers were ‘excellent’ while 59% thought teachers
were ‘good.’ 90% of Deans thought new teachers were ‘excellent’ and
5% thought that new teachers were ‘good.’
Deans reported that 64% of field experiences began in the first
year of study. They also reported that 57% of students work directly
in 5 or more classrooms. When choosing a cooperating teacher, most
are chosen by the principal. They have usually taught for three or
more years and have an Instructional II Certificate. 97% of the cooperating
teachers receive training and 90% receive some type of compensation,
usually between $50 to $500.
Several questions were asked about the preparedness of 2005 graduates.
| |
Superintendents |
Deans |
| Delivering Appropriate Content Knowledge |
|
|
Very Well Prepared
|
41% |
95% |
Somewhat Prepared
|
50% |
5% |
| Developing and Implementing Lesson Plans |
|
|
Very Well Prepared
|
38% |
100% |
Somewhat Prepared
|
52% |
0% |
| Integrating Technology into the Classrooms |
|
|
Very Well Prepared
|
34% |
54% |
Somewhat Prepared
|
49% |
46% |
| Helping Students Master State Content Standards |
|
|
Very Well Prepared
|
14% |
85% |
Somewhat Prepared
|
62% |
15% |
| Managing Classrooms and Dealing with Discipline |
|
|
Very Well Prepared
|
3% |
54% |
Somewhat Prepared
|
69% |
46% |
| Providing Appropriate Instruction for Students with Differing
Abilities including Gifted Students, Average Students, and Slower
Learners |
|
|
Very Well Prepared
|
7% |
66% |
Somewhat Prepared
|
56% |
34% |
| Helping Students Perform Well on Standardized Tests |
|
|
Very Well Prepared
|
6% |
25% |
Somewhat Prepared
|
54% |
72% |
| Using the Results from Tests and Other Student Assessments
to Figure Out How to Address Student Needs |
|
|
Very Well Prepared
|
5% |
59% |
Somewhat Prepared
|
39% |
39% |
The next topic was Induction. Most districts (75%) report one-year
induction programs, and 99% have a mentoring component. Almost no
districts (1.3%) provide a lighter teaching load for new teachers,
and 71% report that universities are not involved in induction.
Half the superintendents said that mentors and mentees meet regularly.
56% said that they release time for a mentee to observer a mentor,
and 53% release time for a mentor to observe a mentee.
According to 58% of superintendents, their mentors receive some
sort of training, and 93% said that mentors receive additional compensation
range between $200 and $2,850. The assignment of mentor/mentee is
often done by a principal or an administrator. Grade level, subject,
and school location are all considered in these assignments.
The last topic discussed was professional development. 87% of deans
said that schools of education offer PK-12 professional development
including 32% through use of the web; 55% of the Deans said they
would like to offer more web-based professional development.
The superintendents had several suggestions about improvements to
professional development. They suggested that Act 48 focus more directly
on student improvements, that there be more time, more funding, data
driven activities, activities specific to district goals, timely
follow-up, greater teacher accountability, and individualized plans
for teacher needs.
The presentation also suggested evolving areas of emphasis from
initial preparation through induction, to continuing professional
education.
Discussion on Presentation:
Several Commissioners expressed concerns about the validity and
potential interpretation of some of the data. Ms. Coon indicated
that this is a work in progress. In the next few weeks it will also
include data from surveys of new and veteran teachers and that the
concerns about data and data presentation raised by Commissioners
would be reflected in the final report on the surveys.
Commission Discussion of Induction and Continuing Education:
Commissioners expressed varied points of view on how best to improve
induction and professional development. There continued to be (as
in previous meetings) an interest in looking at “teacher preparation” as
something that includes both the undergraduate experience and the
first few years of teaching, thus requiring more focused induction
and professional development efforts. Some expressed an interest
in Group 1’s idea of easing new teachers into the profession
with lighter loads and more time for mentorship. Potential models
included a year-long internship, more fifth-year preparation programs,
and intensive summer preparation between college graduation and beginning
a first teaching assignment. There was general agreement that any
of these models would be costly, but that high levels of teacher
attrition that might be alleviated by better induction are costly
as well. Some cautioned that some districts have much more severe
attrition problems than others and that solutions the Commission
might propose need to be equitable. Several Commissioners urged that
we consider approaches used in other states, including some of the
information in the research presented for this meeting. Some also
expressed a concern about investing too heavily in induction to reduce
attrition given increasing research that suggests young people are
less inclined than their predecessors to remain in any job for very
long. Some suggested that we might identify some ideas as ripe for
experimentation with the state providing seed money to support efforts
of universities and school districts wanting to undertake such reforms
rather than proposing wholesale and more costly statewide implementation.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Executive Director’s Report:
Dr. Feir summarized his January 18 presentation to the State Board
of Education and distributed copies of the presentation to Commissioners.
The presentation noted four emerging themes of the Commission’s
work – connecting preservice preparation with the first few
years of teaching, fostering partnerships between PK-12 schools and
higher education institutions, addressing urban staffing problems,
and national accreditation.
He noted that the last of four regional meetings was held in State
College on January 24.
Around ninety people from around the state attending the regional meetings
and gave the Commission some good ideas and feedback.
From January 29 through February 1, Dr. Feir had the opportunity
to attend the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
(AACTE) conference in San Diego. He attended valuable sessions on
cooperation between education and disciplinary faculty, alternative
routes to certification, induction, recruitment and retention. AACTE
President/CEO Sharon Robinson will be meeting with the Commission
next month. Several of the Commissioners were also in attendance.
On February 2, Dr. Feir met with the Education Committee of the
Pennsylvania Business Roundtable to discuss their interest in promoting
the preparation, recruitment, and retention of more highly qualified
math and science teachers. He also met with the Philadelphia Education
Fund on its math and science coalition and its work with the Philadelphia
School District on issues of recruitment and retention.
During the next two months, surveys will be distributed to new and
experienced teachers with the help of PSEA and PaFT. They will be
ready for distribution in a few weeks. On March 8 there will be a
videoconference from 4 to 6 p.m. at several intermediate units around
the state to gather teacher input.
Dr. Feir has also been conducting phone interviews with major recruiters
of Pennsylvania prepared teachers in Texas, Maryland, Virginia, Florida,
and Georgia. These will continue.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 pm
