October 21, 2005 Meeting Minutes

Meeting of the Commission
Friday, October 21, 2005
10:00 A.M. – 4:00 P.M.
Recital Room, Richards Hall
Dixon University Center, Harrisburg

Present at Meeting

Caroline Allen	Michele Fabrizi	David Monk	Gerald Zahorchak
John Augustine II	James Fogarty	Ivory N. Nelson
Robert Bartos	Peter Garland	Robert Palestini	Pat Halpin-Murphy for T. Kirsch
Terry Blue	James Gearity	Donna Piekarski	Clythera Hornung for D. Surra
Jane Bray	David Gilbert	Harris Sokoloff	Donald Kockler for C. Tartaglione
Donna Cooper	Tomás Hanna	Michael Speziale
Ronald Cowell	Mark Holman	Stinson Stroup	Robert E. Feir
Heather D’Angelo	Rita Jones	Cathy Trombetta	Stephen Pavlak
Colleen Dorsey	Richard Kneedler	James W. Turner	Sarah Coon
Carolyn Dumaresq	Alan Lesgold	Elizabeth Useem	Michelle Tarlecki

Swearing-In and Introductions

Dr. Kneedler called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and introduced himself. 

Deputy Secretary of State Michael Aumiller asked everyone to stand.  He proceeded to administer the oath of office to all Commissioners present.

Dr. Kneedler introduced the staff of the Commission: Robert Feir (Executive Director), Michelle Tarlecki (Administrative Assistant), Sarah Coon (Research Coordinator), and Steve Pavlak (Fiscal Agent).

Next, everyone took a few minutes to introduce themselves.

Commission Charge and Work Plan

Donna Cooper, Secretary of Policy and Planning, discussed reasons for establishing the Commission (and a parallel group, the Commission on College and Career Success).  She said the state needs to assure it is continually making progress in preparing the best possible teachers for our schools.

Secretary Cooper also explained that Pennsylvania is known for its excellence of medical facilities and universities (“meds & eds”).  If we strengthen the image of Pennsylvania as a national leader in producing teachers, the Pennsylvania economy will be helped to grow.  Although the students may leave to teach in another state, while they are in school in Pennsylvania they are helping the economy of the state.  Currently, Pennsylvania exports an estimated 6,000 new teachers from the state every year.  She expressed a need to create a niche in preparing students for teaching in both rural and urban areas and in preparing the best math and science teachers in the country. 

Secretary Cooper also looked at students on a personal level.  These students need to be passionate about what they are doing.  A question arises as to how students, who have passion for the teaching profession, are found.  Some people may not be teachers, but have a passion for a specific subject matter and children – “How do we get them into the classroom?”

She concluded her presentation with two reminders: the Commission needs to think outside the box, and the future will be very different from today.  She asked that the Commission look beyond traditional paradigms and think about tomorrow’s classrooms.  She noted that more liberal arts students are studying abroad and how it is now mandatory at one university in Maryland.  She ended with a comment that we need to think far ahead with great ambition.

Dr. Gerald Zahorchak, Acting Secretary of Education, began by discussing the future.  He reiterated that the ultimate goal would be for Pennsylvania to be viewed as one of the best teaching states in the country: a place where students come to be molded into great teachers.  State statistics show that a higher percentage of K-12 students are becoming more proficient in Pennsylvania.  A key to this success is their teachers.  Despite progress, more needs to be done to ensure universal student proficiency, and some of that needs to be improved teacher preparation and professional development. 

One problem that exists for teachers today is the lack of support, recognition, or career development.  This is partially the reasoning behind the framework for Act 48.  New teachers or students considering the teaching profession need to be shown there are opportunities for further development of their careers. 

How do we get teachers to go to areas where they are most needed but may not want to go?    Pennsylvania needs to prepare teachers for both urban and rural areas so that they will be prepared for anywhere they may get a job.

Secretary Zahorchak noted that he has recommended to the State Board of Education several changes in the scope of early childhood, elementary, and special education certificates.  He said the Commission has an important mission – one that is more focused on strategic policy issues – and an ambitious work plan and should not get bogged down in discussions about specific certificates.  He urged Commissioners with an interest in the State Board proposal to discuss their concerns with him and the State Board.

Dr. Kneedler, the Commission Chairman, began by explaining that there is no absolute roadmap for the Commission, although the work plan does give us guidance.  Dr. Kneedler referred to what both Secretaries Cooper and Zahorchak said reiterating that the nature of the classroom has changed and there are several types of classrooms: rural, urban, and suburban.  He commented on how diverse the makeup of the Commission is and how everyone has come together for an opportunity to create a report that will help the external as well as the internal needs of Pennsylvania. As our nickname the “Keystone State” implies, this is our opportunity to become the “Keystone State of Education.”  The historical ties that Pennsylvania has to education are significant.  Pennsylvania has had free public education since 1751, and this leads to a historical responsibility the Commission has.  He described the present time as one of special opportunity.  He noted that we are fortunate to have a Governor who is vitally interested in education and who has consistently worked to develop educational quality.  We also have a Legislature and a two-party government now in place that have shown promise of responding to the public’s demand for progress.  Our role is to provide the forces of cooperation and improvement with good strategic advice on how to accomplish those ends within the area of our charge.

Dr. Kneedler discussed the format for the meetings.  All meetings will follow the Sunshine Act, whether it is required or not.  The meetings will follow the model of State Board of Education meetings.  There will be a limited number of rules unless it becomes apparent that some are needed.  There also will be opportunities for discussion and public input.  If necessary, the Chair will rule on controversies, and his rulings will be subject to review by the full Commission.  Information and time for a full discussion will be provided to the Commission before anything important is decided.

Dr. Robert Feir, Executive Director, discussed the work plan.  The goals listed on the first page of the work plan are in accordance with the charge set by the Governor for this Commission.  He continued that there is a lot of work in the work plan and little time to accomplish everything.  The meetings will follow the work plan; each meeting will focus on a different goal.  The meetings will be interactive and present information that is consistent with the issues for each goal.  The purpose of this meeting is to present general background information so that everyone will have an equal knowledge of the relevant issues.  Before each succeeding meeting, Sarah Coon, the Research Coordinator, will prepare research summaries on the questions associated with that meeting’s goal.  Each Commissioner will receive the information before the meeting.  There will also be presentations by people who are knowledgeable in the subject area and have a sense of what is going on nationally.  The last few meetings are to discuss what recommendations the Commission is going to make.  A Steering Committee has been appointed by the Secretary of Education, as required by the Governor’s Executive Order.  Members have been chosen from every group that is represented on the Commission.  The Committee will look at draft reports before the copy is distributed to the entire Commission.  Dr. Feir also noted that we will make use of our website at www.pateach.org to keep the public informed.

Presentations on the Current State of Affairs

Dr. James Gearity, Deputy Secretary for Postsecondary and Higher Education, explained that the resources of the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) are available to the Commission.  There is a range of background and expertise on the Commission, but anything that PDE can do, it will do.  He introduced his PDE colleagues who made specific presentations.

Teacher Preparation and Certification System

Marjorie Blaze, Director of the Bureau of Teacher Certification and Preparation, noted that most teachers are prepared by one of the state’s 95 approved teacher education institutions.  They are approved by the state and reviewed every five years through a peer review process using the state’s standards.  Some are prepared in teacher intern programs operated by 39 of the teacher education institutions in concert with school districts; these programs are designed for people with bachelor’s degrees who decide at a later time that they want to become teachers.  She noted that Pennsylvania is the sixth largest producer of teachers in the nation.  For more detail, see “Background Information on Teacher Education in Pennsylvania,” prepared by staff and distributed to the Commission in advance of the meeting (http://www.pateach.org/documents/teacherEdBg.htm) and “Summary of Data on Teachers and Teacher Education,” prepared by staff and distributed to the Commission in advance of the meeting (http://www.pateach.org/documents/teacherEdSummary.htm).

Questions/Discussion:

How many students do we attract and from what states?  Staff will be researching this.

In 2001-2002 the number of certificates issued was around 11,000.  After that year, the number increased and stayed up.  A question was asked whether 11,000 was a low number or are we currently in a high period of certifications.  The next question was about how state policy affected these numbers.  Two factors were mentioned as potential reasons for the change: during the time period mentioned, education became a national subject, more talked about, in turn making it more valuable; and the early retirement scheme created many jobs for students. 

Legal Basis for the Current System

Dr. Feir presented a Power Point presentation, which is available at http://www.pateach.org/meetings/agenda102105.htm.  Click on “Legal Basis for the Current System.”

Questions/Discussion

Questions were raised about partnerships between colleges and school districts through a teacher’s induction phase.  Some suggested that we look at the parallels in the medical field.

Other points discussed:

1. Each university/program independently determines how much time/experience a student needs to achieve his or her degree. 
2. There is no way to judge what schools have an acceptable rate of students passing certification tests because there is no minimum standard in place.
3. Why are there 95 teacher education institutions?
4. Who gets to make decisions about quality (peer judgments in PDE program approval)?

Dr. Kneedler recessed the meeting for lunch at noon and reconvened the meeting at 12:45 p.m.

Data on Induction, Programs, and Students

Ms. Blaze noted that the database at PDE is very large.  It contains data on every teacher in Pennsylvania.  The department also has data on every college with a degree program.  In total there are 95 colleges in Pennsylvania that have teaching degrees: a mixture of private, public, and state-related.  Some have 1 degree program, while Temple has the most with 61.  Having such a large number of schools creates diversity in the type and amount of programs we have in Pennsylvania.  Of all the students awarded Instructional I certificates, 43% are from State System universities, 16% are from state-related universities and 41% are from private institutions.

Data on Pennsylvania Teachers

 Dr. Feir presented a Power Point presentation on race/ethnicity and age ranges of Pennsylvania teachers, which is available at http://www.pateach.org/meetings/agenda102105.htm.  Click on “Data: Teachers, Demographics.”

Questions/Discussion

Several points were made about the reasons people may or may not be going into the teacher profession.  Reasons for people not entering the profession are views from peers (low prestige in being a classroom teacher), salary, lack of flexibility, and the change in the historical choices for women.  Prestige is not found in being a teacher, but rather farther from the classroom in administrative capacities.  The work of a classroom teacher needs to be validated to keep them in the classrooms.  Currently proposed revisions in Chapter 49 of the State Board’s regulations provide some such opportunities through program endorsements that teachers can append to their certificates.

The presentation also brought up the issue of teacher commitments to honor contracts and the costs that are incurred when teachers leave one school district for another.  There is a growing trend in the teaching profession: teachers less committed to staying in the same place for a long period of time.  This is true not only in the teaching field, but rather a generational trend that is now being felt in this profession.  This trend does not mean that the teachers are leaving the profession entirely, however.  The attrition rate of Pennsylvania teachers is less than the national average.  One problem with turnover is the financial burden that is placed on the school district to find a new teacher.  Another is that it impacts on student achievement, since less experienced teachers tend to be less effective in the classroom.

A suggestion for making teachers honor contracts and sparing the school districts such costs is the “60 day rule.”  This is a requirement of state law, but without an effective enforcement mechanism.  California holds the certificate of a teacher who violates such requirements, and other states place monetary penalties on teachers. 

Data indicate a larger portion of the profession is likely to retire in the next several years.  How will we replace them, and how will we account for the fact that the needs of new teachers are very different from those who have been teaching for many years.  While this can be seen as a potential problem, several Commissioners pointed to it as an opportunity.

Teacher Shortages

Ms. Blaze discussed emergency permits that are used by school districts to fill long-term vacancies for which they cannot find properly certified candidates.  Two reasons for emergency permits are geographic locations and subject area.  Teachers may not want to go to a geographic location they are unfamiliar with (i.e., rural v. urban).  While in college, students are not taking the subject areas that are badly needed (e.g., physics).  A disproportionate number of emergency certificates are issued to high poverty school districts.  Out of 5,000 emergency certificates issued annually, 55 percent are in high poverty school districts.  This is not a one time occurrence.  This has not changed very much over the years.  By subject area, a large number of emergency certifications are issued for teaching elementary school.  In correlation to the number of Instructional I certificates that are issued in Pennsylvania the number seems to be too high.  Ms. Blaze suggested the reason for the number being high is the Philadelphia School District, although some from Philadelphia challenged this.

Problems include future teachers’ (and their parents’) stereotypes and a lack of efficient hiring practices in some urban districts.

Induction and Professional Development

Marian Sutter, Chief of the Division of PDE’s Bureau of Professional Education and Planning, discussed state requirements for continuing professional education (Act 48), initial induction for new teachers, the state’s Governor’s Institutes and Academies, and the online service – CORE.  Her notes are available at http://www.pateach.org/meetings/agenda102105.htm.  Click on “Induction and Professional Development.”

No Child Left Behind Requirements in Pennsylvania

Jim Buckheit, Executive Director of the State Board of Education, discussed the state’s response to the federal No Child Left Behind Act’s “highly qualified teacher” requirements.  His Power Point presentation is available at http://www.pateach.org/meetings/agenda102105.htm.  Click on “NCLB Requirements in Pennsylvania.”

Housekeeping Items

Dr. Feir noted that the next meeting will be held on November 11, 2005 and will focus on Goal 1 of the work plan.  The materials will be distributed in advance of the meeting; this includes the research that will be prepared by Ms. Coon.  All the issues of the Commission will be interrelated, but we will focus on separate issues at each meeting.  Travel reimbursement forms were discussed. 

There will be four regional meetings in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Lehigh Valley, and State College.  We would like Commissioners to come to the meeting closest to them.  Commissioners were asked to register for the regional meetings as a way of letting the staff know how many people to expect at the meeting.  Beyond the regional meetings and the Harrisburg meetings the public can provide any input through the email addresses located on the website. 

There was some discussion of an earlier report by Professor Robert Strauss of Carnegie Mellon University.  Staff will review it.

A few suggestions were made about the outcome of the Commission.  A suggestion was made about the format of the final report.  The final recommendations should be clear, explicit and forceful.  Also there should be justification about why some recommendations where chosen over others. 

There was a suggestion that we should look into recording each meeting and turning it into a diagram.  This is known as mind mapping.  Staff will investigate.

Commissioners agreed to end the meeting by reaffirming Secretary Cooper’s charge to think outside the box, to focus on the future and to aim to make Pennsylvania’s teacher preparation programs world class.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:23 p.m.

For more information contact info@pateach.org