Caroline Allen |
James Gearity |
Ivory Nelson |
Elaine Frombach for M. Fabrizi |
Terry Blue |
David Gilbert |
Donna Piekarski |
Pat Halpin-Murphy for T. Kirsch |
Jane Bray |
Mark Holman |
Harris Sokoloff |
Mark Wescott for C. Dumaresq |
Nancy Bunt |
Rita Jones |
Michael Speziale |
Lesley Crozier for P. Browne |
Ronald Cowell |
Richard Kneedler |
Stinson Stroup |
Robert Feir |
Heather D’Angelo |
Alan Lesgold |
Cathy Trombetta |
Stephen Pavlak |
Colleen Dorsey |
C. Kent McGuire |
James Turner |
Sarah Coon |
James Fogarty |
David Monk |
Cylthera Hornung for D. Surra |
Michelle Tarlecki |
Dr. Kneedler called the meeting to order at 10:15 am.
Dr. Fogarty moved that the Minutes of the April 20 meeting be approved.
It was seconded by Dr. Gearity, and the minutes were unanimously
approved.
Dr. Kneedler began by saying the draft report that was recently
distributed to Commissioners is a fabulous piece of work. Whatever
comes out of the meeting today, we cannot lose sight of the good
work of Dr. Feir.
Dr. Kneedler suggested the Commission discuss the report generally
and then talk about each section of the report. The executive summary
will be filled in after this meeting concludes. In order to ensure
that all sections are discussed, each section will have a time limit.
If the discussion of a section is not complete, there may be time
at the end to discuss it further. Any changes that may be suggested
today may have an effect on another section of the report. All editorial
issues will be resolved by Dr. Feir.
Dr. Feir and Dr. Kneedler met with Secretary of Policy and Planning
Donna Cooper to discuss any concerns or comments she had about the
report. She was very receptive to the report, engaged in a discussion
of the issues, and was not concerned about the length. The Governor’s
Office is our main customer and at some level, we need to be concerned
with how they will view it.
Discussion: Overall Report
It was suggested that the report be divided
into two sections: the recommendations pages 33 to 44 and the rest
of the report. The meat of the report is the recommendations on
pages 33 to 44. The rest of the report is how the Commission came
to the recommendations. The idea is to get people to read it and
to understand it. Those objectives would best be accomplished in
a two-volume report.
Paragraphs three and four on page 33 should be stated boldly and
will get people to read the report.
It was suggested that the recommendations be moved to the front
of the report. Since they are at the end of the report, the Commission
does not convey its message until the end. The recommendations are
numerous at 29. Currently, they are organized by issue. It was suggested
that the recommendations be organized by priority or time frame.
Policymakers will decide to pick and choose which recommendations
to initiate. The Commission needs to put the most emphasize on what
needs to happen first.
Dr. Sokoloff suggested that the audience for the report needs to
be clear so the language is appropriate. Is the audience the Governor’s
Office, the general public, or someone else? Dr. Feir replied that
the Commission was formed by the Governor, so he is the primary audience.
A second audience is other policymakers and practitioners, but the
report is not aimed at the general public.
A question was asked about the Commissioners being able to talk
to other groups about the report. Dr. Kneedler said he does not foresee
this Commission being modeled on the 9/11 Commission. The Governor
asked us to come up with recommendations, but did not ask us to advise
him on how to publicize or implement them.
Dr. Fogarty said the Pennsylvania State Board of Education has looked
at the possible recommendations that pertain to the State Board and
has tried to incorporate them into Chapter 49 or put them on an agenda
for further discussion, so the Commission already is having an impact.
Discussion: Foreword
An editorial change was suggested for the reference of “people
from Pennsylvania” be changed to “Pennsylvanians.” It
had been suggested to Dr. Feir before the meeting and has already
been changed in the next draft that will be released to the Commissioners.
There was a suggestion that the beginning of each paragraph be changed
to match the chapter titles that each paragraph relates to in the
report.
Discussion: Table of Connects
There were no comments on this section.
Discussion: Executive Summary
The executive summary will be in the next draft of the report.
Discussion: What is at Stake? Why Must We Act?
The top of page 3 suggests a preference for alternate forms of certification.
Dr. Feir told the Commission that he is going to do some work on
the wording of that section so that it does not imply a preference.
Within the same paragraph on page 3, another Commissioner suggested
the reference to school district new teacher practices be extended
to experienced teacher practices also.
Throughout the report there are blue boxes with quotes from the
surveys. The members of the Commission may know that these quotes
are from the surveys, but other people reading the report will not.
Something should be added to the report about where the quotes came
from.
On page 2, bullet point 2 states that employers are generally “happy” with
their new teachers, but how can that be with all the serious problems
stated later in the report? Although it may be what the data show,
it does not sound correct. A suggestion was made to change the word “happy” to “satisfied” with
new teachers. One Commissioner said that although there are mentions
of new teachers being good, good is not good enough.
The comment was made to break point 1 on page 2 into two separate
points.
Dr Stroup said the report should recognize that teachers work in
diverse organizations, and teachers who work in different positions
need different skills. This is not reflected in the report. It might
be that all teachers need four years of generic training and an induction
that is different for each type of teaching position. Do we want
all teachers to do all things or to have the organizations meet all
the needs of the students?
Dr. Lesgold said the universities should train the teachers to achieve
a considerable degree of success with all students regardless of
potential differentiation of PK-12 staffing. Districts can help train
teachers for more differentiated roles through continuing professional
development.
Discussion: How the Commission Performed its Work
There were only editorial comments on this section.
Discussion: Summary of Research
Dr. Kneedler noted that this section summarizes the research performed
by the Commission’s research coordinator, Sarah Coon. It is
an important section in the report because it helps to tell the story
of what the Commission knows and how they came to know it.
Commissioners agreed to strengthen the discussion of diversity throughout
the report.
Commissioners discussed the references on page 6 and elsewhere to
helping students achieve well on standardized tests. Dr. Bunt suggested
that the appropriate concern was that students demonstrate proficiency.
Dr. Feir said this is an important issue but that the report also
needs to reflect the wording of our survey questions. He said he
would try to make more sense of this issue in the next draft of the
report.
Mr. Cowell said the report should discuss national accreditation,
the Mid-Atlantic Regional Teachers Project (MARTP), and financial
incentives to support certification by the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS).
The second full paragraph on page 10, states reasons that teachers
leave schools. Mr. Holman said that another reason that teachers
never attempt to get a job in urban schools is because of stereotypical
myths. This issue should not be overlooked in the report.
Discussion: Summary of Innovative Practices
Dr. Feir said that most of the comments he received about this section
were editorial. One Commissioner, who could not be at the meeting
today, asked Dr. Feir to suggest that the Commission take a second
look on page 16 at the Massachusetts signing bonus.
Dr. McGuire suggested that the Commission should indicate that it
is not taken with the information on innovative practices. He said
this is an area where the state of Pennsylvania should be encouraged
to support and study innovations.
Dr. Sokoloff noted that in terms of induction the ETS Pathwise model
and the New Teacher Model at the University of California – Santa
Barbara campus are not mentioned here but should be.
Commissioners thought there should be a recommendation that challenges
state government to take a role in developing and studying innovative
practices. We might also change the term “innovative” to “promising.”
Discussion: Pennsylvania’s Teacher Education System
On page 19, there is a table that pertains to the number of Instructional
I certificates issued in the past 4 years. Although it gives a grand
total for each year, it does not state if the counts are individual
certificates or people obtaining certificates. Some people are getting
two or more certificates in one year. A note should be included in
the report about what the numbers represent – people or individual
certificates.
By looking at the total Instructional I certificates issued each
of the past four years, a decrease can be seen from 2003-04 to 2004-05.
One Commissioner asked if there was a reason for this decrease. The
reason for this decline is unclear, and with only one year of declining
numbers, it is impossible to tell if there is a trend.
A suggestion was made to include an additional table that would
go along with tables 1, 3, and 4. The table would be broken down
by teachers, certificates, and ethnicity. Dr. Feir said he would
see if he could get the data from PDE.
On page 21, there is a mention of the American Board for Certification
of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE). Dr. Bray suggested we include the
fact that it does not operate under Chapter 354 regulations.
Discussion: What are Our Most Pressing Needs?
Dr. Feir said that most of the comments about this section have
been editorial with one substantive suggestion.
The chart on page 32 lists some of the responses from the Commission’s
survey. Drs. Lesgold and Monk noted that no Education Dean is going
to say that new teachers are unprepared to teach. They noted that
deans are concerned about many of the same issues as PK-12 administrators
are. Commissioners agreed to note this but also to be clear that
schools of education should be more attuned to what the customers
(school districts) are saying about their products (new teachers).
Mr. Holman objected to the reference to urban school districts being
their own worst enemies. It conveys the idea that urban districts
are not proactive.
Discussion: Recommendations for Action
The discussion of recommendations started with an overall interpretation
of the recommendations and then each recommendation was discussed
individually.
On page 33, the Commissioners thought the third and fourth paragraphs
were very powerful. Dr. Nelson suggested that the third paragraph
should be in the executive summary and that the fourth paragraph
should be printed on the front cover. These sentences help draw attention
to the report.
Commissioners were not sure what was being addressed on page 33
in the second paragraph. Is it saying that every middle school teacher
should have a disciplinary major? Do middle school teachers need
preparation similar to that of high school teachers or enough content
expertise to teach multiple disciplines effectively?
You cannot teach what you do not know. The example in this section
is a high school mathematics teacher. An example of an elementary
teacher would also be helpful.
In a PK-8 organizational structure, are teachers going to have to
be certified in several areas? It should not be read that it is going
to happen in a four year preservice program. A suggestion was made
for a sentence to be added - “All teachers will have to be
highly qualified in their area of content assignment.”
On page 33, there is a list of several key requirements for an improved
system. The Commissioners had some comments on this list. For requirement
10, some of the Commissioners did not like the word “accommodate” and
suggested the word “addressed” instead. Within 10, one
Commissioner thought that the sentence on diversity and teacher development
did not tell the reader very much. The first sentence does not get
to the point of dealing effectively with a diverse range of students.
Some Commissioners suggested trying to prioritized recommendations
or to order them in terms of which should be implemented first. The
prevailing view was that the Commission had not discussed priorities
per se and would be ill-prepared to set priorities without fairly
extensive discussion and that the inter-relatedness of so many of
the recommendations would make it difficult to establish tome parameters
without tying the hands of policymakers charged with implementation.
There was agreement that the next draft include some indication of
which entities should be responsible for implementing the recommendations.
Individual Recommendations
Before the Commission began discussing recommendation 1 and 2, Dr.
Feir informed the Commission that these two recommendations would
be inverted in the new draft. The Commission decided to begin with
recommendation 2.
2) There were several suggestions for this recommendation.
2.A.) A suggestion was made to include the words “for each
student” in part A before subsection 1 to help clarify what
is meant by duplication. Some Commissioners thought that this meant
duplication in terms of having one math course for education majors
and one for math majors when both courses are teaching the same material.
What is really meant here is that each student would not have to
take the same class again with a different label and the same content.
2.B.) A suggestion was made to add English language learners to
this part of the recommendation.
2.E.) In this part, a question was asked if student teachers are
really what is meant or are full-time teachers supposed to be the
focus of this part of the recommendation. Dr. Feir said that the
first half of this is meant to talk about student teachers and the
second half is meant to hold the universities responsible for tracking
their graduates and the graduates’ success in the classroom.
Since they are different issues, it was suggested that part E be
broken into two sections. PDE does need to improve their tracking
system because it is hard for the universities to track their graduates.
A suggestion made was to change the reference from “assessment
system” to “feedback system.”
2.G.) Dr. Lesgold thought that this part of the recommendation may
backfire. There is no purpose for PDE to look at how expensive it
is for each university to educate teachers. Dr. Feir said the intent
was to incorporate national accreditation standards into the PDE
program approval process where that seemed appropriate. The Commission
agreed to retain the recommendation.
2.J.) & 2.K.) Commissioners suggested using standardized statewide
surveys.
4 & 5) A suggestion was made to include recommendations 4 and
5 in recommendation 1 so that they are conditions for a university
to get its program approved. Others thought they should stand on
their own.
6.D.) Following discussion, there was general agreement that the
cooperating teacher and university supervisor should both be involved
in evaluating a student teacher’s performance, although the
university has sole responsibility for assigning a course grade.
9) Commissioners agreed that funding for induction should be equalized
using the aid ratio. The $2,000 used in the recommendation comes
from the Connecticut model.
11) The 24 credits needed for Instructional II certification should
be individualized and linked to induction.
12) Dr. Lesgold suggested that districts have data on effectiveness
of their Act 48 activities.
14) Commissioners discussed conflicting research on the National
Board but generally agreed to retain the recommendation.
16) Several points were made regarding this recommendation. First,
it should not dwell on the source of funding. Second, it should focus
ion differentiated – not necessarily hierarchical – staffing.
Third, it should be linked to recommendation 14.
17) On 17-B, Commissioners agreed to add language about credit transfers
for articulated programs at the request of Dr. Garland. There also
was agreement to Dr. Bunt’s suggestion to add a section on
state incentives to promote the growth of programs in shortage areas,
perhaps modeled on the UITEACH program in Texas.
18) Several Commissioners suggested that the sentence about the
Business Roundtable and the particular type of funding be removed.
19) Some Commissioners questioned whether the recommendation should
apply only to hard-to-staff schools. A comment was made that no funding
amount was attached to part B. Dr. Feir said that a funding amount
will be added.
20) Dr. Useem and Mr. Hanna asked that the recommendation not require
three years of experience for reciprocity. Commissioners agreed to
this.
21) When the discussion of this began, the Commission Chair asked
for a vote to see if the recommendation should stay in the report.
The Commission voted 13-8 in favor of keeping the recommendation.
Upon further discussion, Commissioners raised numerous concerns.
Ms. Halpin-Murphy stated that teachers are employees and have the
right to leave their jobs. No other job holds an employee against
his or her will in a job they do not want to be in. It is a courtesy
is for a teacher to give two weeks’ notice.
Dr. Jones suggested students might be hurt if they are taught by
teachers who feel they are being forced to stay at a school where
they do not want to teach. Mr. Cowell said students are hurt when
teachers leave or fail to show up without giving proper notice (60
days is required by the professional employee contract in the School
Code). Mr. Holman discussed the staffing problems caused by teachers
who leave without notice.
Ms. Halpin-Murphy suggested that if the state removes a teacher’s
license for breach of contract, other problems will be created. Teachers
will not sign a contract until closer to the start of the school
year, and that will leave schools wondering what positions need to
be filled and what teachers they will be getting.
PDE does not think it has the authority to take certificates from
teachers for breach of contract.
Several Commissioners suggested a lesser penalty, and others suggested
dropping the recommendation altogether.
22) A wording change was recommended for this recommendation. Instead
of “hiring decision,” the recommendation should state “hiring
processes.”
24 & 25) A general comment was made that the Commission’s
goal is to improve student achievement and not to staff schools,
so the recommendations should be revised to reflect this.
26) Two specific suggestions were made for this recommendation.
First, the amount of money is inadequate. Second, instead of relying
on on-line courses, the Commission should specifically suggest summer
institutes.
27) The comment was made that this recommendation leaves open the
possibility that out-of-state teachers are going to take positions
from in-state teachers. Does this recommendation infer that or does
it suggest increased capacity? Dr. Feir said that it is not intended
to displace Pennsylvania residents.
Procedures for Completing the Report
Dr. Kneedler asked whether Commissioners felt they would be able
to adopt a report at the June 9 meeting. Those present agreed they
would be ready to do so. Commissioners agreed that it would not be
necessary for the next draft to be vetted by the Steering Committee,
and Dr. Feir said in that case he would be able to send a revised
report to the Commission on May 25.
A motion was made by Mr. Cowell and seconded by Dr. D’Angelo
that:
- Commissioners submit any purely editorial changes to Dr. Feir
by June 7.
- Commissioners submit any substantive changes to Dr. Feir – including
suggested revised language and location in the report – by
June 2.
- Dr. Feir distribute to Commissioners a document that consolidates
all substantive proposals by June 5.
- The Commission meet at Dixon
University Center on June 9 and allow full participation by
Commissioners via telephone.
- In order to promote maximum support of the final
report, decisions will be made either by consensus or, in the
absence of consensus, by a two-thirds vote.
The motion was adopted unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 pm.
