Teacher Standards and Practices Commission s6

Iss Teacher Standards and Practices Commission March 4-5, 2004 465 Commercial Street NE Salem OR 97301

MINUTES - TSPC MEETING Parkrose High School and Community Center Rooms 12003 NE Shaver Street, Portland OR 97220

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2004

1.0 CONTINUING TEACHING LICENSE SUMMIT

Chair Cathy Gwinn called the Continuing Teaching License Summit to order at 8:42 a.m. on Thursday, March 4, 2004. The Summit meeting was held in the Parkrose High School and Community Center Rooms. Chair Gwinn introduced Summit facilitator Vicki Willis from Chemeketa Community College and asked the audience to introduce themselves. Chair Gwinn also mentioned the importance of signing the clipboard indicating attendance.

Rich Steiner, TSPC Commissioner Juanita Lamley, Oregon State University Karen Higgens, Oregon State University Syd Steinbock, University of Portland Nancy Wolf, Lesley University Brian Putnam, Oregon Department of Education Bill Beck, COSA Marit Pierce, TSPC Commissioner Deb Miller, Portland State University Linda Samek, Western Baptist College and incoming chair of the Oregon Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (OACTE) Bonnie Morihara, Oregon University Systems Chuck White, Silver Falls School District and Oregon School Personnel Association Patricia Morrell, University of Portland Sue McGrory, Calapooia Middle School teacher, Greater Albany SD, and survived continuing licensure Courtney Vanderstek, Oregon Education Association Rob Larson, Oregon Department of Education Nancy Watt, TSPC Commissioner Katrina Myers, TSPC Commissioner Phil Waber, Coquille School District and COSA Sharon Chinn, Lewis and Clark College Elaine Hopson, State Legislature Sherri Carreker, Lewis and Clark College Tad Shannon, North Eugene High School teacher and CTL survivor Isaac Ersoff, Eastern Oregon University Barbara Whitaker, Lake Oswego teacher Tom Ruhl, Lewis and Clark College Charleen Hoiland, TSPC Commissioner elect, Library Median Specialist at Oregon School for the Deaf Dianne Ferguson, University of Oregon Mary Lou Pickard, TSPC Commissioner

4.5 TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 2

Karen Buchanan, Cascade College Brooke Mowry, Teacher at Hillsboro School District Holly Lekas, Administrator at Beaverton School District Susan McKinney, Human Resources in Beaverton School District Meredith Brodsky, Western Oregon University Teaching Research Erin Henson, Hillsboro School District teacher and Lesley University student Jerome Colonna, TSPC Commissioner William Greene, Southern Oregon University Jan Albrecht, Concordia University Kathie Tippens Wiper, former Commissioner and was on the design team and working with Lesley University as they develop their CTL Betsy Adams, University of Phoenix Stuart Tennant, Northwest Christian College Dick Pratt, Umatilla-Morrow Education Service District Carolyn Ortman, TSPC Commissioner public member and Hillsboro school board member Teresa Ferrer, Oregon Education Association Jo Nan LeRoy, Western Oregon University, Division of Extended Programs Regi Christensen, Sutherlin Schools, COSA Gary Railsback, George Fox University Kip Gladder, University of Phoenix Heather Stanhope, Eastern Oregon University Margaret Mahoney, University of Oregon Anne Jones, TSPC Commissioner Pat Evenson-Brady, TSPC Commissioner Dew Anna Brumley, Warner Pacific College Nancy Nagel, Lewis and Clark College Karen Weiseth, Oregon Education Association Board of Directors Melody Hanson, TSPC Staff Sue Thompson, Western Oregon University Karen Hamlin, Willamette University Chris McKay, Elementary Principal in Brookings and COSA Susan DeMarsh, TSPC Commissioner Leslie Walborn, TSPC Commissioner Mary Ann Winter-Messiers, University of Oregon Thomas Greene, Assistant Superintendent in Beaverton Pam LaFreniere, Acting Coordinator of Teacher Licensing, TSPC Hilda Rosselli, Western Oregon University Gordon Munck, COSA member Peter Tromba, TSPC Commissioner Jonathan Leonard, Concordia University Lynn Keyne-Michaels, Concordia University Trish Lichau, Concordia University Karen Edwards, TSPC Staff Maureen Musser, Willamette University Carol Mack, TSPC Commissioner Vickie Chamberlain, TSPC Executive Director Aurora Cedillo, TSPC Commissioner Cathy Gwinn, TSPC Commissioner and Chair Judy Keeney, George Fox University Gary Andeen, OICA Pat Burk, Oregon Department of Education Kevin McCann, Oregon School Boards Association TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 3

Nan Willis, Northwest Christian College Janine Allen, Northwest Christian College Mark Ankeny, George Fox University Jan McComb, Legislature Jim Worthington, George Fox University Peter York, Lewis and Clark College

Chair Gwinn was pleased with the tremendous showing of interest for the discussion on the Continuing Teaching License. She is delighted to find such varied backgrounds represented, yet all an important element of the education community.

Vickie Chamberlain stated an attempt was made to balance the seating and representation at each table among Summit attendees. In attendance are approximately 40 representatives of higher education; 20 administrators; 11 teachers, 16 Commissioners and one Legislator. This Summit is a result of a directive from the Legislature and the field to discuss the implementation of new licensure. A guidebook entitled Stakeholders’ Conference on Second Stage Licensure contains an outline of the sessions for the day. This guidebook contains a copy of the enrolled House Bill 2575 with the following directives: (1) During the 2003-2005 biennium, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission shall study the policy issues that have arisen from the implementation of the continuing teaching license. (2) Prior to May 1, 2004, the commission shall report to the interim committee on education about the progress of the study. (3) Prior to February 1, 2005, the commission shall report to the Seventy-third Legislative Assembly about the plan for changing the administrative rules of the commission to reflect the conclusions from the study.

The day has been designed to discuss the concerns surrounding the license, any issues that have not been raised, brainstorm and bring fresh thinking to the concerns. At the end of the day, it is Vickie’s hope and expectation that it will be very clear where additional work needs to be directed. This summit is to discuss second stage licensure and provide advisory information to the Commission. The full Commission will debrief the following day on information received during Summit, but will not be making any decisions.

The Summit Facilitator, Vicki Willis, has worked at Chemeketa Community College for 18 years and has worked with a number of groups. She hopes to maximize use of the time allowed and engage all the brains in the room. For that reason, a guidebook has been developed to keep the summit flowing. Some of the key outcomes for the summit are: Bring some fresh thinking to the concept of second stage licensure. Identify possible solutions for the concerns that currently exist. Assess the level of agreement on recommendations for change to the Commission.

The agenda for the day: Illuminate concerns about current licensure process. Identify criteria for an improved process. Explore possible alternatives and solutions. Develop recommendations for the Commission. Identify most important ideas and recommendations. TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 4

Facilitator Willis went over the ground rules for the summit to ensure the best use of everyone’s time and contributions. She explained that a lot of the work will take place in table groups and suggested each table group appoint a timekeeper, recorder, reporter, and facilitator for the various group activities. To ensure the best possible environment in terms of care and listening to one another, she asked Summit participants to pair off and engage in a brief discussion on a mutual topic to practice generous listening. Some hallmarks of generous listening are: Not interrupting Giving your full attention Respect what they have to say No premature judgments Listening for possibilities Being willing to listen more than speaking Giving people feedback to clarify what is heard Good eye contact Reach some type of common ground

Task 1: Survey of Concerns Individuals were given a few minutes to complete a survey of concerns that have been identified for second stage licensure for teachers entitled Future of Second-Stage Licensure in Oregon. It asks individuals to indicate their perspective and level of agreement with each item listed. It allows for an individual reflection opportunity to think about the concerns and issues involved and some possible recommendations. Table groups then discussed their areas of concerns and listed additional concerns. Each table was asked to share one concern that was not included on the list.  Do we really need to fix things and what is the benefit?  Financial concerns for the universities; capacity and hiring concerns; increased cost of teacher salaries because of additional required preparation and pressure for tuition reimbursement at the district level; added cost for the district if doing shared program with the university.  Idea that we connect to relevancy and value for the educator.  Candidates that come from 4-year institution that may not have a CTL program, how are they informed and brought into the process and moved into a CTL?  Communication about the CTL license between candidates, TSPC, OEA, universities. Teachers are confused making it a greater challenge.  Recruitment, retention and attrition.  Issue of culturally competent workforce.  How do teachers demonstrate effective student learning; CTL seems more clock hourly than performance based.  Issue around property rights in terms of the teacher and possibility of not being continued and denial of property rights. Legal ability to continue one’s profession once one has received a license. Property rights to the employment.  Possibility of inadequate support for districts to create their own programs especially for rural and remote schools.  Teachers prefer the older system with fewer requirements.  Uneven implementation of programs. So few candidates have gone through the programs it is hard to do program evaluation and improvement.  Decision needs to be made in a timely fashion. That decision needs to satisfy legislative constituents.  Time. Competing demands between profession as a teacher and spending time on the process.  Desire to continue professionalization on part of education community. TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 5

 Keep eye on quality teachers and effective learning for kids and not get bogged down in current economic conditions.  General lack of understanding of what lead to the new licensure requirements.  Requirements in terms of flexibility in selecting individual options in coursework. Coursework needs to be education oriented as opposed to questionable credits.  Programs having the same focus as student teaching years. Not adult learner friendly.  Whether or not this is a summative or a developmental formative kind of a teaching license cause that impacts costs, the issue of property rights, the issue of value added and frames the discussions.  Teachers would like to have flexibility in choosing classes in their content area.

Task 2: Criteria for an Improved Process This step identifies the criteria to address the concerns. How would we judge whether the changes are actually an improvement or not? Table groups were asked to identify three important criteria for improving the process having heard the area of concerns. There may be numerous criteria as people are coming from different perspectives.

Proposed criteria from table groups were:  variety of models that have identified similar rigor that are understood by everyone  measurable—if want to improve have to be able to measure  structure and flexibility—structured to help teachers improve and flexible enough to have a variety of options  be realistic—acknowledge resource and time limitations and self-reported relevance  need for communication amongst education community that creates enthusiasm and clarity  all stakeholders view the change as relevant  address legislative concerns while maintaining the profession’s ownership  no whining  results in improved student learning through improved instructional practice over time  increased participation in the program and professionals would see the need for continuing professional development  appropriate timeline for a second tier of development where teachers maybe are not allowed to work on it during their first three years of teaching  put legal questions to rest  look like and sound like mentoring. Mentoring has to very locally based and yet supportive  align with existing organizational teacher development structures

Task 3: What If…. The purpose of this task is to identify possible options for improving the second stage licensure process. Based on individual experiences plus the current conversation, what options and possibilities are there to actually improve the process? This could be anything from changing the content to changing communication processes. Participants were given a few minutes to note their ideas for improving the second stage licensure process before sharing within the table groups. Groups were then asked to agree on the “top ten” ideas to bring forward to the Commission.

A. Common Core / Standards  Programs aligned to a criteria and subject to audit if not using university credit  Keep what is valuable with current CTL (10 competencies embedded)  Is there a core of commonality TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 6

B. Out-of-State Issues  Change rules for teachers coming out of state with Masters (to honor experience)  Different rules for out-of-state teachers  Resolve out-of-state experienced teacher licensure issue  Create viable alternatives for experienced out-of-state teachers  Eliminate in-state and out-of-state discrepancies

C. Relevant Teacher-Centered Courses  Efficient; job centered  Measure of professional growth and development evidence  Eliminate redundant requirements  Candidates identify what they need to improve instruction  A CTL IEP for every teacher  Add breadth to the licensure in terms of examples: endorsement  Recognize that pre-service is very different than in-service

D. The Big D  Diversifying the teaching corps  CTL - require knowledge of cultural, linguistic diversity in student population

E. Additional Options  Clearly defined currency for CTLs (PDUs, university credits, etc.) Complete 10 quarter hours or 200 PDUs or a combination of both around defined domains to acquire CTL (Masters or equivalent required). Could be with Districts, ESDs, Universities and professional organization or combination to create programs.  Project delivery beyond universities  Continue the evaluation started by the 3.1 Design Team  Flexibility which makes and/or allows for program to meet individual needs of teacher  Entice development of alternative delivery systems. Creates incentives for.  Increase flexibility to create relevance (i.e., partnership focus, teacher designed project; district/university program or university courses.)  Cohorts of CTL seekers  Periodic Shared Training (PST) by all persons; shared understanding of providers and participants  Clearinghouse of programs  Formulate additional site based models (cost?!)  Could be combination of college courses and professional development activities  Accessibility of process to all  Adapt”ability”  Alternative to CTL - a renewable license based on continual growth rather than final stage  Mix or menu of choices (some generated by teacher / TSPC / District driven)  Variety of ways for teachers to demonstrate meeting standards  Incentive for the development of innovative CTL delivery models  Move away from one high-stakes gatekeeper  Make the process a hybrid; not one or the other TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 7

F. Partnerships  CTL Partnership Delivery Model—Higher Education Institution(s), ESD(s), Local Districts leading to shared criteria requirements standards leading to regional programs  Joint recommendation for CTL (university / district)  Formulate regional partnerships  Partnerships with districts, ESDs and universities  All stakeholders endorse the CTL (TSPC/COSA/Higher Ed/OSBA/OEA….)  Need to establish timeline for decisions around this!  Districts recognize the importance of CTL  Real buy-in from all stakeholders in field

G. Communication / Public Perception  Influence public perception by giving teachers public recognition  Plain language OARs…  Simplify  Find common agreement on purpose of a second tier license  No mixed messages  Clear written communication from TSPC that all stakeholders pass along to their constituency (purpose, relevancy, requirements)  Clarification and coherence between Division 017 and Division 060  TSPC needs a public relations arm  Jazz up the nomenclature  Develop attractive symbols of achievement

H. Mentoring  Mentoring is the one proven method of helping teachers and retaining them (research based)  Lift up mentoring  Mentorship and appropriate advising  Mentoring important for beginning teachers – partnerships with higher ed, ESDs, etc.  Candidates’ mentoring of newer candidates would equal CTL credit

I. District-based  Tied to district/school improvement plans (more local control and relevant)  Allow local districts and ESDs to develop CTL programs with or without universities  Use of retired teachers in supporting ESDs and districts in remote areas to deliver the CTL  Articulate with district programs  District participation or buy-in to professional development

J. Assessment  Common assessment system  Mirror assessment process  Second state should be quantitative. Leave the qualitative aspect to the district (form partnerships)  University / District / Mentor support in deficient area: Have support be immediate,-specific, and relevant to teachers. Options based on teaching for seminars, coursework, etc. Reevaluation of area after completion of work.  Keep performance based  Review competencies  Advancement through proficiency  Standardize assessment centers  Second stage license that is formative rather than summative TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 8

K. Masters / Graduate Degree  Interinstitutional MA programs built on proficiencies with multiple delivery models  Have a Continuing License that maintains a Master’s or equivalent plus structured professional development plan  Keep Masters’ requirements for CTL  Allow a rigorous alternative to a Master’s degree for CTL  Second tier professional development plan plus MS differentiated learning / cultural competency  Continue existing rules for NBPTS candidates or doctorate in education  Define what is meant by Master’s degree content? Education based? Content based? Non- related field MBA?  Value the Master’s degree as a benchmark that reflects achievement of professional learning / knowledge  Allow Master’s degree or equivalent  Process for documenting performance-based growth within local school improvement plans with individual teacher choices available (the Kansas Plan).

L. Reasonable Timeline  Change Initial License to a five-year license and show enrollment for renewal~ complete CTL by 10 years  Longer timelines nine or even 12 years to capitalize on when teachers are best ready to learn  3-9 year timeline (cannot start before three years)  Initial License, then experience, then CTL coursework  Extend timeline  What about teachers who step out to start family or for other reasons?  Not begin until 3-6 years of experience  Fast track experienced with Master’s degree  Fast track experienced out-of-state teachers  Staged CTL  Not allowed to start the process for three years  Lengthen timelines  Timeline: 1-3 years for new teacher development; 4-10 years for advanced proficiency CTL/mentoring of new teachers; 11-13 years for mentoring of CTL candidates  Timelines. Must teach three years before you start second tier  Allow for flexible deadlines  Make Initial License a five-year license

M. Other  The second tier license is not a silver bullet that will solve all of the education’s problems  Administrative competence at district level would help improve process  Administrator training to be designed to include an understanding of the CTL  Require every Legislator to take at least one PD workshop

Vickie Chamberlain stated it has been very evident that everyone brought their heart and their head to the summit. At this point, the work on the ideas generated from this morning and the process in the guidebook will continue. At the end of today’s meeting, Linda Samek will be introducing a higher ed proposal that they have been discussing and working on. In addition, Gary Railsback from George Fox University wants to distribute information dealing with research around some of the elements and information on the capacity issue for higher ed. TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 9

During the May Commission meeting, there will be an opportunity for anyone who wants to state an idea or formal proposal. Hopefully the work from today can inform any proposals. It would be ideal for the Commission to make a decision no later than the summer meeting.

Task 4: Recommendations The “top ten” ideas recorded on half sheets from the previous task were organized into the themes. During the lunch break, participants were to review repeated themes and/or good ideas to bring back to table groups for further discussion. Table groups attempted to summarize important ideas and identify recommendations that represent common ground. These recommendations should reflect what is true for the group and not necessarily any one individual. If a table cannot identify common ground, summarize the key points of view. The summaries from each table were recorded on a piece of chart paper.

#1  Nine year window for initially licensed teachers to complete the requirements of the CTL; three additional licenses.  Hire a professional public relations employee or consultant for TSPC to address concerns, especially legislative concerns. Legislators will be more informed and on board if their constituents and the teachers are, which they are not at this point.  Option to apply for a fee based CTL standardized assessment with or without the 6-9 credit requirement. A person could challenge and say they want to take a performance assessment based test at an assessment center, pay that fee probably to a university or university district, ESD consortia. If pass, that person would be done. If don’t pass, the other route is the existing route which is coursework, the existing CTL route through the university. The group did not finish their discussion on whether the performance assessment would exist for the challengers only or for the challengers and those folks who completed the 6-9 credit.

#2  Timeline extension.  The out-of-state audience is a very different audience. The solutions may be very different.  Flexibility in the delivery systems. Teachers have different needs so that flexibility needs to be there.

#3  Extended time to meet the requirements.  Re-examine out-of-state teacher requirements.  Differences: work on master’s or program approved program and alternative delivery methods of meeting the requirements.

#4  Partnership with higher ed, regional districts, ESDS, school districts and supporting each other.  Looking for a Collaboration Bureau.  Ongoing evaluation of the CTL is important for people involved in the process.  DIP (district-improvement program) + CTL + PDU to work in harmony.  Mentorship is essential.  Lay vocabulary for ease of understanding. TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 10

#5  Timeline.  Initial license should get an automatic renewal at 3-years as long as the person is teaching. This allows the teacher to focus on their classroom.  Notification at that 3-year point that in order to renew again, the teacher must be committed to a CTL program.  Flexibility and relevance.  Domain proficiency, options domain meaning what chunk of your teaching do you need help with.  Aligned with grade level or content areas. Different teachers have different needs. For some it may be content, classroom management, communication skills, etc.  Partnerships. University cohorts in the school districts in order to make it more accessible for teachers. Include ESDs and using them more efficiently. Mentors are a very important piece. Cooperating with OEA, districts and universities.  Clear communication among all the stakeholders. Clear communication from TSPC to the teachers. Communication has a ways to go. Communication with the public. Celebration when teachers achieve milestones in their careers.

#6  Extending the Initial Teaching License. Provide mentorship and support to career entry teachers in their first three years. It could be a redesign of CTL programs from the institutions or district kinds of things.  The difficulty that districts have in creating some sort of ESD or district partnership program. Some assistance or structure in developing these programs would be appropriate.

#7  Driving question is to define the purpose of a second-stage license. Table did not reach agreement on definition.  Professional development, experience, and a master’s degree are equivalent to be part of the second-stage licensing process.  Differences: declining of timelines for differing circumstances. For example, someone who has graduated with a BA and going to a Master’s degree, to say that we weren’t going to do anything in the first three years, they would be wanting to continue their Master’s degree and how would that be impacted. The group could not figure out how to make mentoring a part of the continuing license process, but agree it was important.

#8  Timelines whether a 5 year or 3 year renewal which would end up with more of a 9 year program.  Partnerships and alternatives with professional development for practicing teachers and districts.  Professional development activities and PDUs are a part of that program.  Clearing house would definitely be helpful and help with the public relations piece.  Alternatives for out of state teachers and those who have unique licensure options.  Allow for rigorous equivalent alternatives to the Masters degree.  Differences: in terms of a purpose and property rights. TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 11

#9  Master’s are equivalent. Equivalent needs to be clearly articulated and defined so there is a focus on high standards.  Out-of-state and in-state meanings have different yet parallel CTL requirements.  Start CTL after three years of experience and must be completed within 9 years for in-state and include renewals.  Allow hybrid programs that meet a combination of credits or CBUs.  Common assessment standards and criteria no matter what the programs are.  Differences: Some felt master’s degree still need to be held; remove performance based component of the CTL; concern about property right procedures.

#10  Extending timeline for when to begin, when to renew, when to complete.  Master’s degree in education or a content related area.  Encourage a variety of approved options and partnerships.  Fast track for experienced out of state teachers with five years or more of experience.  Common standard example is the core document 3.1 has to do with assessment.

Facilitator Willis reiterated the main themes as extend the timelines, partnerships, an alternative for out of state teachers, maintain the master’s degree or alternative, hybrid programs with some alternatives and a variety of variations. The next individual task on the agenda was to have participants place dots next to the ideas or recommendations they believe are the most important and should receive the greatest consideration from the Commission. Facilitator Willis feels that the groups have done quite a bit of winnowing and appreciates all the work to define common ground and differences. She feels the dot voting process would not serve the process. The information obtained gives TSPC some excellent guidance on where to proceed. She suggested the group talk about next steps.

Vickie Chamberlain asked participants to review the Survey of Concerns that they completed earlier in the day which asked individuals to indicate their perspective and level of agreement with the items listed. Participants were asked to redo the survey to see if they would rate the areas of concerns the same after spending the day talking about the issues. Participants were asked to please indicate on these surveys whether they are representing teaching, administration, higher education, etc. Name is optional. Information gathered from today’s summit meeting will be published as soon as possible. Formal proposals will be considered at the May Commission meeting. The goal is to be firmly on track for the direction we want to go by the summer meeting.

The Summit transitioned from the facilitative process of Vicki Willis. She thanked participants for being so terrific and remaining engaged. As a result, the Commission has some very good clarity and guidance. She expressed appreciation and hoped participants felt the process worked well.

State Representative Elaine Hopson shared what she has been hearing inside the Capitol walls regarding second-stage licensure concerns. Elaine Hopson stated she has 35 years invested in education as a teacher, principal, superintendent, personnel director, custodian, etc. One of the main things to be aware of and constantly reinforced is how complex this issue is. One of the comments at her table group was how to address a legislator’s concerns. The legislator’s concerns are addressed by the people with whom they interact. She stated a PR person for TSPC is a great idea, but TSPC already has a PR person in Vickie Chamberlain. Vickie talks to all 90 legislators trying to portray the issues that were discussed today and help them understand the TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 12

complexity. There are approximately 80-85 legislators who don’t have the level of understanding needed. Of the existing legislators, there are five or so who were former teachers and educators. The legislators’ concerns are almost totally dependent upon information that they have received from a source. That is a critical piece of information. Vickie is the source that speaks for TSPC but, as seen here today, she doesn’t really speak for each and every stakeholder. Yet she is the point person that has to say this is what we want when stakeholders do not totally agree. Most legislators’ concerns are generated and supported by the people who call them, who live next door to them, who teach their kids, etc. As complex as it seems in this room where everyone knows the concerns, imagine how complex that is dealing with 80-85 legislators who are ultimately going to vote on something. It is really important to always emphasis the commonality of wanting quality education; however, our differences are just as extreme and they are all on how do we get there and how do we do it. There is a whole bunch of turf issues from the organizations or the constituencies represented that will be represented in the legislature. No legislator is really going to understand all the complexities. The bottom line is accountability. We want accountability for our children, but also want accountability for our educators. The concern listed to have competent administrators came from Representative Hopson. There was discussion in her table group about whose responsibility is it. Is it higher ed or administrators’ responsibility to stop teachers from going through for not being competent? It is a relativity small number for a variety of reasons. She states to teachers “how many of your colleagues have helped me either get improvement, staff development, or helped them”. Very, very few. So no one really faces the accountability piece like we should. Then we wonder why the parents are mad at us and legislators are mad at us and we are even mad at ourselves sometimes. In closing, it is so wonderful to see this kind of a mixed group - people who care enough to come here and to grapple these issues. We all knew we weren’t going to come out with the answers or something that says Vickie go forth and we are all there behind you. But it does clarify some issues and gives all of us an opportunity to share. Thank you.

Chair Gwinn stated there seems to be consensus that it would be of some value to hear the kind of conversations that higher ed folks have been having in their work with the CTL. They are not going to bring forward their proposals until the May Commission meeting. They want to present some information as to the kind of conversations held and to help inform your thinking as you develop proposals or commentaries. This is not a time for discussion, but clarifying questions are in order. Comments should be e-mailed to the respective presenter(s).

Linda Samek, Western Baptist College and incoming chair of the Oregon Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (OACTE), wanted to share the cumulation of literally years of conversation with the higher ed groups. There are a number of folks in this room who have been involved with the Continuing Teaching License since the mid 90s either on the Commission, part of the Program Approval Committee, designed programs, implemented programs, or worked with candidates through the programs. The group thought long and hard about the issues and this is certainly not the first time that these folks have gathered together to talk about some of the hard issues around the Continuing Teaching License. The higher ed group, mainly OACTE, reached a point where we were ready to put together our concept of what a slightly different model might like look that addresses a number of the issues that have come up over the last couple of years. It does represent OACTE’s collective thinking pretty well and came to this conclusion through some of the processes summit participants went through. Two critical pieces of information were distributed to use as a conversation starter. One of the assumptions made right away was to distinguish between Oregon prepared initially licensed teachers and out-of-state prepared initially licensed teachers. The flowchart shows there are tracks for both of those groups. Many of the ideas from today’s summit are captured in this model. The second paper distributed lists a number of assumptions and eight scenarios that fit with the flowchart. The third paper distributed is not directly connected, but contains a very brief history of where the Continuing Teaching TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 13

License came from. It is also a reminder that our focus always needs to be on providing excellent education for our kids from preschool through high school. Linda would be happy to answer any questions as well as any of the higher ed members. She can be reached via e-mail or telephone at Western Baptist College or at her residence. OACTE did not come to any consensus around the purpose of the CTL program because there are two basis models: the mentoring model and the summative assessment model. Some institutions designed programs that lead more toward the mentoring model and some choose to design programs that lead more toward the summative assessment model. Carol Mack added a part of that discussion revolved around resources. It is certainly much more expensive and time consuming to create a developmental model which is probably preferred. But when the reality comes down to it, maybe it is only possible to do a summative evaluation. Rather than philosophically, we are really talking about resources more than anything. Linda Samek stated that because we are all teachers at heart and mentoring is what we do, even the models that look like summative assessment models have amazing amounts of mentoring embedded in them. We devote a lot of time to working with those teachers. The Oregon Administrative Rules do not specify the content of CTL programs and has been left to the individual institutions. It reflects an institution’s mission, conceptual framework and what they believe about education. The content has some common threads around the state and also some distinct differences. Suggestions on a clearinghouse or places for more information about the different CTL programs that are available is a wonderful idea for candidates to really take a look at what might best suit them. There are currently 13 approved continuing teaching license programs operating in the state. There are at least three more institutions that are ready to move into programs. Most of those currently operating have at least one district partnership of some sort that they operate.

Cathy Gwinn added that when the Program Approval Committee reviews an institution’s proposal for a CTL program, they look at how the program supports the development of the advanced competencies, how candidates will be assessed, and what systems are in place for supporting candidates who are not developing as proficiently as desired. Elements of the programs have been looked at very carefully. Some institutions have reworked elements of their programs to satisfy the Commission’s desire to produce high performing teachers. Linda Samek stated that while proposals have some substantial content in them, they are all different looks at the same goals and outcomes at the end.

Gary L. Railsback, George Fox University, distributed an orange colored summary entitled “Research on Teacher Quality and the Continuing Teaching License”. He stated he was on the 3.1 Design Team that started 4-5 years ago. There are also a number of people in the room that have been on that committee, but there has been a lot of turnover as institutions have changed responsibilities. For the last 3+ years, a group of higher education folks met on an every other month basis to communicate, share ideas, collaborate and discuss the CTL program. One of the questions that continues to come up is “what does the research say about the idea of a continuing license?” He summarized his research findings into four areas:

1.Early career teachers enter the profession with proficiencies that need further development. That is aligned with having an initial license where people have initial competencies, but then move on and have advanced competencies later. Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford University, has written a lot of research in this area. 2.Teacher professional development should be performance based. There were a couple of examples of places around the country that are doing that. Some are statewide assessments that have been approved and everybody has to go through the same system. Jonson and Jones (1998, Summer) found that as teachers shift from assessing their own students with paper and pencil and multiple choice tests, they realize that their own performance evaluations could be more authentic. They write that “for years teachers TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 14

have felt the frustrations of cursory evaluations of their performance conducted by busy site administrators....[and that] many of these teachers now want to extend the concept of authentic assessment upward to include themselves.” This is kind of like what we are doing for kids with standards and authentic assessment that some teachers are buying into it, obviously not all. 3.Teacher quality has been shown to have a direct relationship to student learning. There have been all kinds of studies. We know poverty, language, disabilities has a huge impact on student learning. There are also some things that have a positive impact. Doing whatever we can for teacher quality is significant. 4.Teacher quality improves with graduate degrees. This area is controversial. Oregon Administrative Rules for standard licensed teachers who are secondary teachers require that they have the equivalent of a master’s degree up until 1999. Yet for elementary teachers, there were no requirements for continuing graduate education. So there was kind of a system that had two different levels of teachers. Elementary teachers got that license and they could renew until they retired and didn’t have to have any professional development. With the adoption of the requirements for the continuing teaching license in January 1999, all teachers were required to earn a master’s degree within six years. This new policy was not problematic for most newly initial teaching licensed candidates in Oregon as the number of new, inexperienced teachers that entered the profession which had master’s degree increased from just 10% in 1990 and had grown to 47% by 2000. When you think that almost half of the people already have a master’s degree, and for the old system probably a third of them had to do the equivalent, we are not talking about something that affects 100% of new teachers. The question is does a master’s degree make a good teacher? Giving someone a diploma does not make them a better teacher. But in studies completed, there are some differences.

The Design Team has been trying to gather information by candidates and by institutions. The candidate survey is still continuing. When completed, Gary Railsback will summarize and provide a report to the Commission. Concerns from the institution group have been that these programs are too costly for institutions to continue and is there capacity. Eight of the institutions have responded saying they have room for more students in their institution and capacity is not an issue. Institutions stated they are doing okay with the financial aspect. The greatest concern is about spending time communicating to candidates and having mixed messages. Or having people think they are going to be in a program and then be told it is going to go away. There was a lot of agreement around the idea that it is a great program and should continue.

The Commission will debrief Friday morning on the information received from the Summit Meeting. Vickie Chamberlain thanked everyone for coming and participating in the Summit process. Teresa Ferrer, OEA, expressed appreciation for the Summit on behalf of teachers in Oregon. She hopes Commissioners leave with the creative thinking and concerns from the Summit. She looks forward to finding that common ground and working on the differences. Bill Beck stated that Representative Hopson has fought the battles for everyone in this room for a long time and has done a superb job representing constituents. Participants applauded Representative Hopson for her work.

Recess at 2:34 p.m.

FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 2004 TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 15

Chair Gwinn called the meeting to order at 8:50 a.m. At the end of the agenda, an agenda item was added for the Good of the Order to discuss several housekeeping issues.

Vickie Chamberlain introduced Cameron Lane (Cam) as the new Investigator for TSPC. This is the half-time position approved by the Legislature last year. Cam was a Compliance Officer at the Building Codes Division and former Police Officer at Yamhill County. TSPC is delighted to have him. His hours are Tuesday through Friday in the mornings.

2.0 REPORTS AND DISCUSSION

2.1 CTL Summit Debrief The framework for the debrief is designed to give the Commission a chance to respond to and summarize the discussions from the CTL Summit. It will not include discussion from the audience. One of the purposes is to identify some trends from the discussions that resonate. Vickie Chamberlain distributed the Common Ground Statements received from each table during the CTL Summit.

The Executive Committee, in hindsight, would still like to do the task from yesterday’s Summit of placing sticky dots next to the ideas or recommendations participants felt the most important and should receive the greatest consideration from the Commission. The Executive Committee felt the half-sheets of information received during the Summit could be compiled and sent to participants as a survey and bring the data back to the Commission for consideration in developing a framework. Stakeholders would be asked to identify which constituency they represent on the survey to categorize responses and weigh support across the various groups. Several Commissioners felt that the Summit was very effective in getting information to Commissioners about stakeholders concerns and sending out a survey will only prolong the issue and not provide any additional information.

Chair Gwinn stated the goal is to develop a framework of a proposal from the Commission. Some resonating issues from the Summit are timelines, flexibility, out-of-state issues, communication, master’s degree and/or equivalent, the purpose of CTL and resource issues. Having these items as an umbrella or framework will be useful and drive the decision. Is this a high stakes decision or is it to be more of a developmental program with a high stakes decision at the end?

Peter Tromba stated it would be nice if universities and teachers had the time to do all the formative stuff and had legislative mentoring through the licensing procedure, but that is unrealistic. At the end this is a summative test of whether or not a teacher has reached advanced levels and it’s hard to imagine that it should be broadened. A decision should be made that it is one thing or the other. Pat Evenson-Brady hopes a developmental process leads to a summative process.

Jerry Colonna asked the Commission to consider a model delivery system that TSPC might help sponsor. It comes from the idea of higher education, ESDs and regional districts in partnership. Would TSPC consider helping a pilot go forward that would be a model that could be tried and considered if successful? If interested in moving forward, the Commission should put some action models out there as possibilities as well. Pat Evenson-Brady stated the current program approval practice gets in the way of developing a certain kind of model since it is designed only for higher education. If the Commission truly wants models that are more independent of the universities, the program approval rules would need to be amended. Vickie Chamberlain stated there is an administrative rule that school districts can deliver CTLs, but don’t have a model for TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 16

approving school districts programs. The OARs are aligned with institutional delivery and that is the problem. What standards would the Program Approval Committee use to allow a school district to literally deliver a licensure program? How would it be enforced – audit or site visits? Jerry Colonna stated any potential models should have the higher education aspect for some viability that would make it easier to work through the existing approval structure.

The most compelling piece to Carolyn Ortman was that the mentoring piece was such a big part of the original CTL. New teachers would have mentors and then go into their second-stage licensure. Whether the Commission wants to make decisions based on current financial considerations, the reality is we do not have mentoring in this state as a whole. To just move on to second-stage licensure is irresponsible. The Commission has not received one proposal from a school district for a program. This is a very clear statement that school districts do not have money to develop a program for teachers to deal with their licensure issues. In reality, if professional development funds exist, they are used to help teachers in their classroom management and not licensure. The Commission needs to be careful in crafting a proposal to not put another load on school districts to develop a program. For flexibility, the Commission needs to look a little broader than just at a school district and have more than one option.

Anne Jones asked the question of the purpose of CTL and do we need it. Is there consensus that CTL is what we want and where we need to be? Do we need a second-stage license and, if so, why and what is it gaining us? Peter Tromba stated the legislative concerns are the voice of our thousands of initially licensed teachers and can’t be ignored. The Commission really needs to make sure we really want the license that we’re giving. Pat Evenson-Brady said a concern among people is the different licensure standards that existed years ago. If the Commission increases requirements, people will state they have to meet higher standards than former teachers had to for a Basic License.

The review of second-stage licensure is a result of House Bill 2575, 2003 Regular Session. Several legislators received complaints from constituents regarding CTL. They were the same concerns heard during the Summit. Some people believed that the additional work was just a repeat of what they had already done. Others believed that because they already had the MAT, they shouldn’t have to do additional work. Some believed the additional work was purely producing a portfolio and putting it on a shelf. The same legislators are also not supportive of student portfolio, the CIM and CAM programs. In addition, several legislators went to legislative trainings that focused on NCLB that said no teacher needs a master’s degree. There were two or three legislative bills attacking the master’s degree issue. One angle was school district costs where it was implied TSPC intentionally tried to increase teachers’ salaries by requiring the master’s degree. The second part was around the lack of scientifically-based research coming from NCLB to support the need for a master’s. This percolated along the side until the directive was received to examine this issue and address constituent concerns in the House Bill.

Pam LaFreniere, Acting Coordinator of Teacher Licensure, stated TSPC has a great number of teachers that are still in the Basic and Standard system. The Commission used to carry people from bachelor’s degree to the master’s degree for the Standard teaching or in 45 hours. With the new system of initial and continuing, it has been front loaded where the majority of the students are coming in with a master’s degree already. They feel they are already at that point where the standard teachers are at. The biggest complaint heard is that they already have a master’s degree which included practicums and student teaching at a more sophisticated level. If the Commission said a teacher did the fifth year program, had a master’s and did 3-5 years of successful teaching and some sort of continuing professional development, there would not be as many complaints from teachers. They are upset at having to do yet another program after completing the gamut to a master’s. They are at the same point the standard people already are at. In their opinion, they TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 17 are asked to do more. The problem is how to encourage the bachelor’s degree holders coming through the institutions to want to develop further. Do we really want them go all the way to a master’s level? Is there some compromise in-between that would show developmental growth and track improvement in teaching at that level?

Anne Jones asked if a comparison has been completed between Oregon and other states in terms of a second-stage license. How many other states have a second-stage licensure? How many other states require a master’s degree for all candidates and how that plays in? If Oregon’s standards are so much higher, are we setting ourselves up to lose teachers? Vickie Chamberlain replied there are nine other states that require a master’s degree for second-stage licensure. Most states require some second stage license. It is not known how many states require a master’s plus a second program.

Pat Evenson-Brady implied that goes back to what is the purpose of the CTL. The purpose was partially to ensure that there was some kind of focus on professional development within the first six years of teaching. She believes that is a good purpose whether or not someone has completed a master’s degree. Are there other ways to accomplish professional development like understanding a district’s health insurance policy?

Nancy Watt inquired whether the issue from teachers is what is contained in the CTL. Part of what she has heard from teachers is that what they have to do for the CTL is not relevant, doesn’t make sense and they do not see it as something they need. Is part of the issue what the CTL is and what we try to do with it? One of the issues from the Summit is that the advanced competencies in the minds of teachers are really the same as the initial competencies. Nancy doesn’t believe teachers are as good as they are going to get in their first year of teaching. Most can improve in that there is virtue in some sort of structure that leads to improvement. A continuation of education is important. The real issue may be people don’t want to obtain a second-stage license because they do not consider it relevant.

Katrina Myers said when she obtained her Standard License, she was rewarded at her school district by receiving additional pay. Any elementary person who added an endorsement or added more hours was also rewarded with an increase in pay. There is no reward system intrinsic in the CTL for a teacher. Teachers do not see a gain in having it; it is just another requirement that infringes on having a family, etc. Mary Lou Pickard inquired whether there is another way to help and encourage teachers to grow professionally without having a license. Teachers are thinking the CTL is hindering them.

ORS 342.138 on Continuing teaching, personnel service and administrative licenses; qualifications for continuing license requires the following: 1. Completion of advanced requirements. [342.138(1)]. 2. Completion of advanced professional education program approved by the Commission. [342.138(2)(a)]. 3. Been employed for a minimum amount of time as determined by the commission [342.138(2)(b)] in an approved educational setting [342.138(2)(b)(A-C)]. TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 18

4. Demonstrated minimum competencies, knowledge and skills required for continuing licensure through: [342.138(2)(c)] a. approved teacher education institution; b. school district; c. Professional organization (NBPTS); or d. Professional assessment approved by the commission.

The preparatory standards developed to address the statutory requirements are contained in OAR 584-060-0041. The administrative rules implementing the statute are contained in OAR 584-060- 0021. The PDU issue is not driven from the CTL; but is a separate issue. PDUs happened before CTL to address Basic and Standard Licenses.

The intent of the second-stage license is to re-inject higher level competencies, reinvigorate the license holder and provide a structure that leads to the improvement of teaching.

Nancy Watt suggested the Commission cannot go forward without some sort of proposal. She suggested that a committee of representative constituents develop a proposal that looks at the issues. It may be more than one proposal that hinges on different things. She is confident the entire Commission cannot go much further as a group.

Carol Mack stated teachers do not understand why they need to do the CTL. They feel they are at the same point on paper as the other teachers. That indicates a communication problem about what the CTL will do for teachers. The discussion revolves around wanting it to help teachers move to the next step, wanting it to be a developmental process, and wanting teachers to continue to develop. One of the ways to do that is the mentoring piece. Legislatively, the Commission had the opportunity for mentoring to help teachers bridge from the Basic to the Standard or now the Initial to the Continuing. That piece does not exist now. There is a lot that is different in terms of our context. There is agreement that teachers do need some way of continuing to develop. Who’s responsibility is that – the teachers, TSPC, or everyone to make sure that happens? Framing it from the standpoint of how do we have the CTL help teachers to continue to develop rather than be something that they see as a hindrance or a barrier. We want teachers to continue to develop and do need something else out there that is doable and is framed within a license. That license has to be helpful to teachers and they need to see it as something they want to obtain.

Leslie Walborn stated she is in favor of an ad-hoc committee, but believes that needs to be Commissioners. At the May Commission meeting, proposals will be brought from constituents. She firmly believes that the Commission must have its own proposal. This may be done in the form of a committee, but from the Commission.

MOTION, to appoint a subcommittee of Commissioners to draft a proposal or proposals to present to the Commission at the May meeting.

Moved by Ortman / Seconded by Jones / Carried * Absent / Robinson

Carolyn Ortman stated a decision has to be made. The time of discussing has got to come to an end without having something concrete to talk about. The Commission has heard from constituents for multiple years on this issue. Because the Commission represents constituencies that does not preclude input being taken through a public hearing process from constituents on what the subcommittee develops. The subcommittee should be very broad based in representing all of those groups. The time to act is now. She does not want to limit the number of proposals TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 19 the subcommittee may develop. The subcommittee would look at the input from the Submit meeting yesterday and take into consideration the testimony received over the years from program participants, institutions, stakeholders, etc. and summarize changes that are reflective of the concerns and issues identified. Nancy Watt stated this may include specific proposals to amend and/or implement the requirements surrounding the implementation of the CTL. The Subcommittee will review the statutory requirements and look at possible modification to administrative rules 584-060-0021 and 584-060-0041. Anne Jones stated the Initial License needs to be included since it contains the timeline. In HB 2575, it is in the Initial License where the rule is about the one renewal.

Constituents were told they could bring CTL proposals to the May Commission meeting. The Subcommittee’s proposal(s) will also be considered. Perhaps a hybrid of proposals may be embraced, but nothing can be implemented that involves a change in administrative rules until a hearing is held. Peter Tromba is against hearing alternative presentations from outside the Subcommittee. Anne Jones also believes that the Commission, in its formal group, does not need to hear six or eight more proposals. She said it is up to the Subcommittee to decide if they need more information and, if so, they could collect it. Vickie Chamberlain stated that when the Subcommittee’s proposal is sent to hearing, the Commission has to listen to testimony on other proposals. That is the purpose of a hearing and the Commission has to respond to those proposals. The Commission could hear proposals informally during a separate scheduled time at the Commission meeting or do it formally during a public hearing. During the Summit yesterday, criteria were developed on what would constitute improvement. All proposals should be measured against those criteria.

Jerry Colonna stated there are statutory requirements and believes there should be special meetings to move this issue along faster. He proposes the Commission come to a decision by late June so that by summer people would know where the Commission stands on this issue and what has been decided. This would allow educators to start the new school year with a reasonable determination in their mind about their licensure. There is a great parallel between NCLB, the Bush administration, the CTL and how TSPC is perceived across the state. Like NCLB, it is a noble, wonderful purpose that everybody can embrace, but there are some huge fundamental flaws that are very easy to identify. Rodney Paige said we will shame you into compliance. That doesn’t work very well across the country. In our situation, we know what the problems are, they have been well identified, and we know what the noble cause is and are united behind that, so let’s work on those problems and come up with solutions and move forward in a rapid quick manner. The fallout can be dealt with since not everyone will agree, but it will certainly be better than it currently is. This is the single most important thing the Commission is working on. Until CTL is dealt with, the Commission will not be effective at any other issues.

Pam LaFreniere said that there are 168 teachers who have been issued Continuing Teaching Licenses. At the end of this school year, TSPC will see people at the point of their second renewal. What is TSPC going to do with these people who have completed three full years of teaching experience and coming up fast to the end of their sixth year? With the extra issues of NCLB, TSPC is daily advising teachers of extra coursework and tests that they have to take to become highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year. There are all kinds of things teachers have to be working on right now. The conditional assignment permits are coming up and if people have been missassigned for three years, they have to get off those by passing tests and taking coursework. There are so many commitments going on right now. TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 20

Volunteers for the Subcommittee include Pat Evenson-Brady, Carol Mack, Katrina Myers, Nancy Watt, Peter Tromba, Leslie Walborn, Anne Jones, Cathy Gwinn, Susan DeMarsh, and Mary Lou Pickard to develop a CTL framework. Chair Gwinn looked for a balance of rural and urban, teacher, administrator, public member and higher ed to ensure a good cross-section is represented. Carol Mack suggested that there should be some membership that represents alternative teachers or teachers with alternative assignments or something that looks at the difficulty of CTL and how they demonstrate competencies in the assessment process for certain populations.

Chair Gwinn will schedule some additional meetings to deal with CTL. The Executive Committee will take charge of the scheduling and budgeting. Once completed, the full Commission will be informed. Proposals will be considered at the May meeting allowing for a public hearing after the appropriate time notification. Carolyn Ortman requested the Executive Committee be conscious of graduations occurring at the end of the school year when scheduling additional meetings. Peter Tromba stated the first two weeks of June would not be good. Mary Lou Pickard stated that for the sake of clear and concise communication, information be posted on the Web site.

When the CTL Subcommittee meets, it will be an open meeting. When a Subcommittee is formed that is advisory to the decision-making body, those meetings are public regardless of the size. Notice of the Subcommittee meeting will be posted on the TSPC Web site. This Subcommittee could break into small work groups and have the whole Subcommittee decide where the work needs to happen such as on timelines, language, etc. Cathy Gwinn will chair the CTL Subcommittee.

Vickie Chamberlain transcribed the half-sheets from the Summit meeting yesterday and distributed a copy to Commissioners (information on pages 5-8). This information will help the Subcommittee develop language. Pat Evenson-Brady stated she took the table recommendations and organized them by content area to see the range of specificity and the number of times each group recommended the same thing (see pages 9-11).

3.0 DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATION REPORTS (EXECUTIVE SESSION) The Commission held an executive (non-public) session on the following matters: 1) receiving and discussing preliminary investigation reports on complaints and charges against certified educators; 2) taking action to dismiss the complaint or to charge the educator; 3) deliberating the hearing record in disciplinary proceedings; 4) consulting with counsel with regard to current litigation under ORS 192.660(1)(h); and 5) considering records that are exempt by law from public inspection under ORS 192.660(1)(f). Adoption of an order resulting from a hearing must be done in public session. See ORS 192.660(1)(b) and ORS 342.175 to 342.190.

3.1 Proposed Orders/Actions Six stipulated orders were considered in non-public session.

3.2 Preliminary Investigation Reports and Action to Charge or Dismiss Following discussion and deliberation on seventeen preliminary investigation reports in non- public session, the Commission directed the Executive Director to charge four educators with violation of standards and dismissed complaints against thirteen educators. TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 21

3.3 Reports Requiring No Further Action Under OAR 584-020-0041(2) The Commission considered five reports requiring no further action. One report was remanded back to the Executive Director for further investigation.

3.4 Applications for Reinstatement No applications for reinstatement were considered.

3.5 Report of Cases Pending Before the Commission Katrina Myers reported in non-public session there are 76 cases pending before the Commission. Of those, seventeen are cases requesting a hearing and eleven are pending disposition in another venue.

3.6 New Cases Since Last Meeting Katrina Myers reported in non-public session that the Commission received new complaints against twenty-two educators. District Superintendents, under OAR 584-020-0041, submitted fourteen of those reports.

Katrina Myers stated that with an additional half-time Investigator, the Discipline Committee may need additional time to review reports and stipulations.

4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION (Non-Public Session) The Commission held an executive (non-public) session on the following matters: 1) considering the dismissal of an employee under ORS 192.660(1)(b) and 2) consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation under ORS 192.660(1)(h).

Vickie Chamberlain discussed personnel concerns in non-public session. An employee’s employment with TSPC was terminated effective February 6, 2004.

Vickie Chamberlain gave a status report on a lawsuit for lost wages for not reviewing an applicant’s file within 30 days. Vickie settled for half the amount requested in Small Claims Court, without making it contingent upon Commission approval.

5.0 CONSENT AGENDA The policy procedures for the Consent Agenda are established by Policy 3522. The Executive Director recommends adoption by single consent motion the following listed items which are identified on the agenda by a double asterisk: 6.1 through 6.6. Any of these items may be removed from the Consent Agenda upon the request of any Commissioner. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be considered in the order they are listed on the agenda.

Katrina Myers, on behalf of the Discipline Committee, added Agenda Items 6.7 and 6.8 to the Consent Agenda. Agenda Item 6.3 was removed the agenda.

MOTION, to accept the Consent Agenda with the addition of Agenda Items 6.7 and 6.8 and the removal of Agenda Item 6.3.

Moved by Tromba / Seconded by Ortman / Carried ** Absent / Robinson

6.0 FULL COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE AGENDA TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 22

(PUBLIC SESSION)

6.1 Stipulated Order—Allen, Mark Paul (Coos Bay SD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions.

Approved as part of the Consent Agenda/Carried Absent / Robinson

The adopted resolutions state:

RESOLVED, that the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation, Surrender of License and Order of Revocation for Mark Paul Allen. The order revokes Allen’s Oregon Teaching License.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Commission shall inform Coos Bay Public Schools of this action.

The adopted order states:

Oregon Teaching License of Mark Paul Allen is revoked.

6.2 Stipulated Order— Dale, William Adam (Hillsboro SD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions.

RESOLVED, the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation of Facts, Order of Suspension and Probation for William Adam Dale. The order suspends Dale’s Standard Teaching License for a period of ninety days effective January 10, 2004. Upon reinstatement, Dale shall be placed on probation for two (2) years subject to conditions.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Commission shall inform the Hillsboro School District of this action.

William Adam Dale’s Standard Teaching License is hereby suspended for a period of ninety (90) days effective on January 10, 2004. At the end of the suspension period Mr. Dale may apply for reinstatement of licensure by submitting a complete application and fees pursuant to OAR 584-050-0015(3).

Upon reinstatement of licensure, Mr. Dale shall be placed on probation by the Commission for a period of two (2) years subject to the condition that Mr. Dale comply with the Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance of Oregon Educators under Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 584, Division 020. TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 23

Violation of any term or condition of probation shall constitute an independent basis for the Commission to revoke Mr. Dale’s teaching license or otherwise impose discipline, after first providing Mr. Dale with notice and opportunity for hearing on the issue of whether or not he violated probation.

6.3 Order—Gramson, Jr., Gilbert Gary (n/a) This Order was removed from the Agenda via adoption of the Consent Agenda.

6.4 Stipulated Order—Jones, Robert Leslie (BakerSD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions.

RESOLVED, that the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation of Facts, Public Reprimand and Order of Probation for Robert Leslie Jones. The order imposes a Public Reprimand on Jones and places him on probation for a period of four years.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Commission shall inform the Baker School District of this action.

The Commission imposes a public reprimand on Robert Leslie Jones, and this Order shall serve as the public reprimand.

The Commission places Mr. Jones on probation for a period of four years from the date of this Order. During the period of probation, Mr. Jones shall not engage in sexually inappropriate conduct with co-workers or students and shall comply with all Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance of Oregon Educators under OAR 584 Division 020.

6.5 Stipulated Order—Tubré, Bruce Joseph (n/a) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolution.

The adopted resolution states:

RESOLVED, that the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation of Facts, Order of Reprimand and Probation for Bruce Joseph Tubré. The order authorizes issuance of a Basic Administrative License to Tubré and imposes a four-year probation to commence on the date of issuance of said license subject to special terms and conditions.

The Commission adopts the above stipulation of facts and authorizes the issuance of a Basic Administrative License to Mr. Tubre subject to all standard terms and conditions.

Furthermore, the Commission imposes a four (4) year probation upon Mr. Tubre to TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 24

commence the date of issuance of said license and subject to the following special terms and conditions of probation: 1. Mr. Tubre shall, at his own initiative and expense, continue to obtain treatment for his alcohol dependency as recommended by his alcohol treatment provider and abstain from the consumption of alcohol; 2. During the period of his probation, Mr. Tubre shall submit to the Executive Director of the Commission reports of his compliance with the aftercare treatment plan. Mr. Tubre shall provide these reports every six (6) months during his probation, on or before: September 5, 2004; March 5, 2005; September 5, 2005; March 5, 2006; September 5, 2006; March 5, 2007; September 5, 2007; and March 5, 2008. 3. Mr. Tubre shall conduct himself as a law-abiding citizen; 4. Mr. Tubre shall report in writing within ten days to the Executive Director of the Commission any arrest or citation for any felony, misdemeanor, major traffic violation or violation of criminal probation; and 5. Mr. Tubre shall comply with the Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance of Oregon Educators under Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 584, Division 020.

Violation of any term or condition of probation shall constitute an independent basis for the Commission to revoke Mr. Tubre’s teaching license or otherwise impose discipline, after first providing Mr. Tubre with notice and opportunity for hearing.

6.6 Stipulated Order—White, Heather Renea ( Fern Ridge SD ) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions.

RESOLVED, that the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation of Facts, Surrender, Order of Revocation and Probation for Heather Renea White. The order accepts the surrender of White’s Standard Teaching License and revokes said license effective January 9, 2004. White may apply for reinstatement of her teaching license five months after the effective date of revocation. During the period of revocation, White shall continue treatment as indicated by her mental health care provider. Upon reinstatement, White shall be placed on probation for four (4) years subject to terms and conditions.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Commission shall inform the Fern Ridge School District of this action.

The Commission accepts the surrender of Ms. White’s Standard Teaching License and hereby revokes said license, effective January 9, 2004. Notwithstanding ORS 342.175(3), Ms. White may apply for reinstatement of her teaching license five months after the effective date of the revocation pursuant to OAR 584-050-0015(4). During the period of revocation Ms. White shall continue treatment as indicated by her mental health care provider and conduct herself as a law-abiding citizen.

Upon reinstatement of Licensure the Commission imposes a four (4) year probation upon Ms. White subject to the following terms and conditions: TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 25

1. During the period of this probation, Ms. White shall continue treatment as indicated by her mental health care provider; 2. Ms. White shall report in writing within ten days to the Executive Director of the Commission any arrest or citation for any felony, misdemeanor, or major traffic violation; and 3. Ms. White shall comply with all Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance under Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 584, Division 020.

If Ms. White does not comply with all terms and conditions of this probation, based on the reports of her treatment provider or as otherwise determined by the Executive Director, she shall be in violation of this probation. Violation of a term or condition of this probation may constitute an independent basis for the Commission to impose discipline, up to and including revocation of licensure subject to Ms. White‘s right to a hearing on the issue of whether she violated probation.

6.7 Stipulated Order—Minyard, Jack H. (Salem-Keizer SD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions.

RESOLVED, that the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation of Facts, Order of Reprimand and Probation for Jack H. Minyard. The order authorizes the renewal of a Basic Teaching License to Minyard, imposes a Public Reprimand and a four year probation subject to terms and conditions.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Commission shall inform Salem-Keizer Public Schools of this action.

The Commission hereby adopts the above stipulation of facts, imposes a Public Reprimand upon Mr. Minyard and authorizes the renewal of a Basic Teaching License. This Stipulation of Facts, Order and Probation constitute the Reprimand.

Furthermore, the Commission imposes a four (4) year probation upon Mr. Minyard subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Mr. Minyard shall, at his own initiative and expense, continue to obtain treatment for his alcohol dependency as recommended by his alcohol treatment provider; 2. During the period of his probation, Mr. Minyard shall comply with the terms of the treatment and aftercare plans. Mr. Minyard shall abstain from the consumption of alcohol; 3. During the period of his probation, Mr. Minyard shall submit to the Executive Director of the Commission reports of his compliance with the treatment plan. Mr. Minyard shall provide these reports every six (6) months during his probation, on or before: September 5, 2004; March 5, 2005; September 5, 2005; March 5, 2006; September 5, 2006; March 5, 2007; September 5, 2007; and March 5, 2008. 4. Mr. Minyard shall report in writing within ten days, to the Executive Director of the Commission, any arrest or citation for any felony, misdemeanor, major traffic violation or violation of criminal probation; and 5. Mr. Minyard shall comply with all Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 26

under Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 584, Division 020.

If Mr. Minyard does not comply with all terms and conditions of this probation, based on the reports of his treatment or as otherwise determined by the Executive Director, he shall be in violation of this probation. Violation of a term or condition of this probation may constitute an independent basis for the Commission to impose discipline, up to and including revocation of Mr. Minyard’s licensure subject to Mr. Minyard’s right to a hearing on the issue of whether he violated probation.

6.8 Annual Report of Teachers and Administrators Subject to Discipline in 2003 Oregon Revised Statute 342.203 requires the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission to annually circulate a list of all teachers and administrators whose licenses have been suspended, revoked or who have been reprimanded or placed on probation during the preceding 12 months. If the decision to discipline has been appealed, the teacher or administrator’s name shall not be placed on the list until such decision has been sustained by the Court of Appeals or until the appeal has been dismissed. This report is available on the TSPC Web site at www.tspc.state.or.us under the General Info directory.

7.0 ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 7.1 Post Notice of Hearing on Administrative Rules a. Fees, Forfeiture and Expedited Service—584-036-0055 Proposed amendments to this rule update fees and clarify expedited service requests. These fees are set in statute and the amendments updates the amount for late fees and added an opportunity for an individual to ask for an expedited license instead of a district having to. When there is an emergency and it cannot be moved to top as a matter of courtesy, an applicant should be allowed to expedite getting their license in a true emergency.

TSPC only has jurisdiction to fingerprint applicants applying for a license or student teaching. Charter School employees, who are not licensed, would have to obtain clearance through the Department of Education under the student contact piece.

b. Reporting Changes of Name or Address—584-050-0042 Proposed amendments to this rule give a license holder the option to submit a legal document that indicates their name change such as a driver’s license, credit card, or social security card. Currently only two options exist: a Professional Educational Experience Report Form or a copy of their marriage certificate or court order establishing the change of name.

c. Waivers for Student Teaching Requirements—584-017-0041 On March 10, 2003, the Commission adopted a temporary rule that allowed the Commission to grant temporary authority to the teacher education institutions to make the determination of student teaching competency in lieu of student teaching the entire 15 weeks, if necessary. Due to the state’s continuing economic crisis, school districts may have to cut days from the 2003-2004 school year. Students in teacher preparation programs who are completing their student teaching in the latter part of the school year may be unable to complete the requisite 15 weeks meaning they will be unable to graduate as planned in May or June 2003, causing students financial and academic hardship and unjustly delay their entry into the workforce.

This temporary rulemaking will avoid or mitigate these consequences because the new temporary rule will allow the institutions to make a determination of student teaching competency on a case- by-case basis in the instance that a candidate’s student teaching time is cut short when a school district closes early due to financial hardship. TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 27

d. Temporary One-Year Extension of Initial Licenses—584-036-0067 Adoption of this rule grants any licensed educator that possesses any Initial License granted on or before October 3, 2003, one extra year on the life of their license to complete CTL requirements. Expiration dates will be altered in TSPC’s database by a year. An electronic notice will be sent to educators when their expiration date is extended a year. If an e-mail address is not available, written notice will be sent. This was not given to transitionally licensed people because they still have the initial licensed time.

MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions:

Moved by Ortman / Seconded by Walborn / Carried Absent/ Robinson

RESOLVED, that the Commission shall post notice of a hearing to amend OARS: 584-036-0055 Fees, Forfeiture and Expedited Service 584-050-0042 Reporting Changes of Name or Address

and adoption of temporary OARs: 584-017-0041 Waivers for Student Teaching 584-036-0067 Temporary One-Year Extension on Initial Licenses

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the hearing shall be held in conjunction with the Commission’s July 2004 meeting.

8.0 FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER 8.1 Executive Director Authority MOTION, that the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission authorizes the Executive Director to represent the Commission before Small Claims Court and negotiate appropriate settlements. This motion also approves any current settlement agreement.

Moved by Evenson-Brady / Seconded by Ortman / Carried Absent / Robinson

The recent action in Small Claims Court has indicated that this is a good way to settle disputes quickly and that the Executive Director has the ability to authorize the small financial settlements that may avoid more difficult problems.

8.2 Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) MOTION, to revise the existing policy to apply the Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) to our established Praxis cut scores using the most current published data from ETS. This policy will be applied retroactively to those applicants who have already the completed exams.

Moved by Watt on behalf of the License & Program Approval Committee/Carried Absent / Robinson Opposed / Evenson-Brady

Nancy Watt stated the motion enjoyed the approval of most of the people in the room. She said TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 28

there are some implementation issues that need to be worked out. Jerry Colonna eloquently stated that the Commission needs to approve the concept and leave the details to staff.

Anne Jones explained that the SEM, according to experts, creates a real true score. Any time you take a test, for example an Intelligence Test, the average score is 100. When this test is administered to students, their real true score is 98 to a 102. The SEM on that test has a two point range plus or minus. If that test is given thousands of times, students will fall between 98 and 102. It is not an absolute. There are variables about how they interpret the questions, the room, the temperature and other variables that impact. By giving tests thousands of times statistically they create a SEM. A person’s true score is not one, but in a range. If that is used with students in school, it follows that that range ought to allow for that range because that is what testing is really all about. It is not as absolute as we’d like to believe. If the Commission moves to a SEM, and keep the same cut score, that says that if somebody has taken the test and falls within that range then they passed that test because they are within the SEM.

Peter Tromba stated that for the MSAT test there is an exercise and a knowledge test on the MSAT. According to TSPC records, approximately 2,900 people took that test over a year. Of the 2,900 people, 5% failed the exercise test and 3% failed the knowledge. Of those who failed, with this change in the policy, about 1/3 of the fails now will be passes. That is approximately 55 people on one test and 40+ on the other. Of 160 failures, about 1/3 of them will now be passes on the MSAT. On the tests that are harder, it is possible there may be a slightly higher percentage or slightly lower. This is for one SEM.

During the Joint Program Approval and Licensure Committee meeting, Mark Ankeny distributed information on approved qualifying scores compared to SEM and as it relates to other state scores. Oregon qualifying scores are way above the other states.

Pat Evenson-Brady stated that if the Commission wants to change the scores, the scores should just be changed. We have confused badly what is the SEM. This is particularly clear when you look at other states scores and talk about SEM. This is two wholly different things. She is not opposed to lowering scores or adopting some other state’s scores. It is not sensible to talk about SEM in terms of using it this way. This statistically derived number should be used as an opinion. Does this motion apply to all applicants who ever took the test? Is this a new cut score that applies to applicants who have ever taken the test for different versions of the test? Nancy Watt stated the intent of the group was to honor the SEM if it’s the same test with the same test number. One SEM could not be used for a different test. As long as the applicant could produce the report that they took the test, it is understood that the SEM changes usually yearly, but not very much. For those tests where the score range is 100 to 200, it is typically less than one point. The Committees did not intend to change the cut scores, but intended to recognize a statistically valid range for a passing test score. In truth it has the effect of lowering the score. Anne Jones added that the test that is taken is only piece of the entire process of educating someone to become an educator. It is one day or a few hours, but these people have also attended school for five years. It seems logical that the SEM allows for a truer basis of what testing is all about. This is done with students and special education students. These people have proven themselves in more than one way and this is just one piece. She sees it as a positive move.

Peter Tromba stated that if the SEM were “1” one year and “2” the next meaning that for one year the test was more precise with tighter and better items. It is different than changing the cut score because each year will be looked at anew and ask how much variance was there. The score could not be lowered and account for the same issue. There would be a new issue of a lower cut score, but would not have accounted for the statistical difference each time a test was administered. Jerry Colonna mentioned that the idea is not to lower the cut scores, but to deal with statistical TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 29 reality of SEM. In fact, the Commission did have this in place for a number of years. The Committees could not justify how someone tomorrow would be allowed to move forward on this new scoring and someone five years ago who produced their test results would not. After ten years, ETS does not provide records of tests. Unless a person had their own record, they would not be able to produce something more than ten years back. If they could process a record, would it be allowed. The Committees decided this is a real issue and there are a number of people this affects and wanted to bring it forward for consideration. The idea is to look at a problem and come up with a reasonable solution. It was compelling in looking at the other states’ information and saw the variety of scores in very category. Some tests don’t have a SEM and this applies only to those that do.

Pat Evenson-Brady indicated that the concept of adjusting the required SEM scores by a standard error of measurement has been considered and rejected. So in terms of what do we do with our students. And for the exact reason that this has the effect of lowering the score. It will be different every year by how much we lower the score by. And we don’t do it for kids.

Vickie Chamberlain questioned whether the SEM that existed at the time the test was taken would be located for the retroactive look because it does change. That assumption is correct and also rounding of figures.

Nancy Watt concluded, in looking at the qualifying scores for the other states, that those scores are not sacred in any way. Even with the SEM, Oregon is either middle or high for virtually all the states. She doesn’t think the application of this statistical piece may be true to a person who understands psychometrics. It is a valid theory and may be applying it a little unusually perhaps, but those scores are not sacred anyway. It does speak to the fact that people can be all over the board in taking a test. She doesn’t want the cut scores because this says this is a range. If a person is one point away from the range, that is too bad.

During the meeting of the Licensure and Program Approval Committee, Pam LaFreniere stated the question about the SEM did come up and the response was that teachers can take it over again right away, up to five times. The difference between the Praxis exams is that they are not offered very often and they are expensive. The reason the consensus was not to lower the cut score was because it is expensive to reset scores and secondly, public relation wise it wasn’t really a good thing to lower our actual scores. This was a compromise to be a little bit flexible when it was warranted.

CALL FOR THE QUESTION by Walborn

Nancy Watt pointed out that this is a policy and can go into effect immediately. Jerry Colonna stated the committees understand that there could be unintended consequences or problems not aware of. The Committees were working with the concept and hope that staff deal with those issues and don’t feel they need to come back to the Commission. TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 30

8.3 Coordinator of Teacher Licensure Position Vickie Chamberlain, on behalf of the Commission, offered Pam LaFreniere the position of Coordinator of Teacher License permanently. She accepted the position, but requested the Commission be patient during her learning curve.

8.4 Summer Meeting in Ashland The July 28-30 Commission meeting is scheduled at Southern Oregon University in Ashland. The Executive Committee expressed concern about lodging since the Shakespeare Festival is occurring in Ashland during this same time. This is a prime opportunity to possibility attend a play. The cost is approximately $60. Katrina Myers volunteered to coordinate this event. Katrina asked that interested parties e-mail her stating the number of tickets needed, what play want to see – straight Shakespeare, indoor theater, outdoor theatre. Cathy Gwinn requested that Katrina e-mail information to Commissioners so they can then reply.

9.0 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:54 p.m. The Executive Committee met immediately following the Commission meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Melody Hanson, Executive Assistant

Accepted,

Cathy Gwinn, Chairperson

* In action items, names are recorded for those Commissioners voting against the motion and for those absent or abstaining from voting. Those members not recorded as absent, opposed, or abstaining voted in favor of the respective motion.

** These minutes may not follow the actual time sequence in order of business, but follow the numerical order of the agenda for easy reference. TSPC MINUTES March 4-5, 2004 Page 31

ATTACHMENT TO THE MINUTES Guest Lists, March 4-5, 2004 Newsletter, February 23, 2004 Agenda, March 4-5, 2004 Addendum to Agenda March 4-5, including new agenda 1.0 Stakeholders’ Conference on Second Stage Licensure Guidebook Future of Second-Stage Licensure in Oregon Rating Survey Continuing Teaching License Proposal from the Oregon Association of Colleges for Teacher Education 3/4/04 Proposed Models from OACTE The Critical Nature of Continuing Professional Growth for Oregon Teachers Research on Teacher Quality and the Continuing Teaching License Common Ground Statements and Difference Statements from CTL Summit 3.0 Confidential Agenda 6.1 Stipulated Order—Mark Paul Allen 6.2 Proposed Order—William Adam Dale 6.3 Order—Gilbert Gary Gramson, Jr. 6.4 Stipulated Order—Robert Leslie Jones 6.5 Stipulated Order—Bruce Joseph Tubre 6.6 Stipulated Order—Heather Renea White 6.7 Stipulated Order—Jack H. Minyard 6.8 List of Teachers and Administrators Subject to Discipline in 2003 7.1 Post Notice of Hearing on Administrative Rules 8.2 Oregon TSPC—Approved Qualifying Scores Compared to Standard Error of Measurement and some other State scores What is Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)? Passing Test Scores PRAXIS Understanding your PRAXIS Scores 2003-04