<p> PTEAC Minutes Thursday, October 20, 2016 1104 KC 3:00 PM</p><p>Present: Armstrong, Campbell, Cimitile, Coffey, Evans (recorder), Gibbs, Helder, Kanpol, King, P. Lancaster, McDonell, Owens, Rybzinski, Tutt, White, Zwart</p><p>I. Welcome (Barry Kanpol)</p><p>A. Brief introduction, academic background discussed</p><p>B. Brief introductions from PTEAC members</p><p>II. CAEP Request for CLAS Data (Caryn King)</p><p>A. Handout prepared that wasn’t on the agenda</p><p>B. CAEP is being very specific about the way they need data presented/commented on</p><p> i. It would be beneficial for CLAS Faculty to prepare plans on how these data </p><p> will be collected/reported</p><p> ii. Alignment of InTASC data with SPA data</p><p> a. Data in addition to the InTASC data will not need to be collected</p><p> b. CAEP deal with InTASC data, not SPA data</p><p>C. Across all COE programs, we need aggregated data on each student by InTASC </p><p> standards</p><p> i. Disaggregated data for each program will also need to be presented</p><p> ii. Programs that will require disaggregated data</p><p> a. Elementary Programs</p><p>- Language Arts, Social Studies, Integrated Science, Math</p><p> b. Secondary Programs - Biology, Chemistry, Earth/Space Science, English, French, </p><p>German, History, Latin, Math, Music, Physical Education, </p><p>Physics, Social Studies, Spanish, and Visual Arts</p><p> iii. Initial report is due June 2018</p><p>D. Discussion on how we gather data on InTASC standard 1, aggregated across 3 cycles </p><p>(each time a course is offered = 1 cycle) for EACH program, and data needs to be disaggregated by EACH program</p><p> i. Comparison between education majors and non-education majors within </p><p> each program</p><p> a. There is no difference between the teaching track candidates and </p><p> non-teaching track candidates in, for example, Integrated Science</p><p> ii. Considerations of reasonable approaches to gather comparative data</p><p> a. What is it that we are supposed to be comparing?</p><p>- Content knowledge of preservice teachers to the content </p><p> knowledge of non-education majors, within a program</p><p> b. Folks who aren’t going to be future teachers may not provide </p><p> adequate content knowledge comparisons</p><p> c. GPA mean for the whole class v. mean for education majors is one </p><p> comparison point</p><p> iii. What would be the desired outcome for our teacher candidates?</p><p> a. Gathering data on students by program</p><p> b. Collection of information so people can study it and make </p><p> generalizations about it E. PPE in 330, 331, 430, and 431 lists the InTASC standards for all admitted COE students</p><p> i. COE can provide PPE data within the content area</p><p>F. Evidence of both Elementary and Secondary candidates ability to teach content in P-</p><p>12 classrooms</p><p> i. Are Elementary teachers being placed with content specialists?</p><p> a. Not necessarily</p><p> ii. One measure in this area is already collected by cooperating teachers and </p><p> field coordinators</p><p> a. We have been collecting this information</p><p>G. Caryn King expressed a desire to work more collaboratively with CLAS content faculty to present adequate data to show students’ content knowledge</p><p> i. Preponderance of the evidence required</p><p> ii. MTTC scores is one measure, but it is not enough</p><p> iii. Requesting additional measures within the content areas</p><p> iv. What do CLAS content faculty need to do for Elementary students?</p><p> a. CAEP is silent when it comes to the matter of content people </p><p> reviewing the content knowledge of Elementary students</p><p> v. CAEP requires measures across time</p><p> a. GPA- Are our candidate’s grades higher, lower, similar to, etc. than </p><p> other candidates going into a particular program (content area)?</p><p> b. Portfolio</p><p> c. Developmental Arc on second portfolio d. Suggestion that the content faculty also review student portfolios </p><p> and have the CLAS content faculty also review the portfolio?</p><p> e. Suggestion that students save their feedback from their content </p><p> major faculty and include these artifacts in their portfolios</p><p>- Documentation of the use of technology with children is really </p><p> good evidence to be documented</p><p>- Example includes the student’s use of the Elmo</p><p>- Documentation cannot merely be reporting; CAEP wants </p><p> evidence</p><p>- Particular requirements could be embedded in syllabi</p><p>- Coupled with evidence: Of so many in this class, this many </p><p> students were proficient using this technology with a diverse </p><p> group of students</p><p> f. Inclusion of a pre and post measure to indicate how much the </p><p> children of the classroom have learned during their content area </p><p> experiences pre-COE admission will also help demonstrate a </p><p> preponderance of evidence over time</p><p>H. Discussion on creating a meaningful data collection process</p><p> i. Using a framework for National Board Certification as a platform for data </p><p> collection in these areas</p><p>I. State Proposed Teacher Education Changes</p><p> i. Potential elimination of the teachable minor requirement for those seeking </p><p> secondary certification</p><p> ii. GVSU requires the teachable minor iii. Do we see value in the minor requirement?</p><p> a. We need our candidates to teach in multiple areas in order for many </p><p> of them to get interviews – Middle School Principal perspective</p><p> b. Our students will be competing with all of the alternative </p><p> certification programs coming into the state </p><p> iv. Data that shows who is being hired and what are their qualifications, this </p><p> would help us show the value in keeping the teachable minor at GVSU</p><p> a. We do not want to base this on anecdotal evidence</p><p> v. Elimination of the teachable minor requirement could have a strong negative </p><p> impact on CLAS curriculum and enrollment</p><p> a. Can we survey the Principal’s Advisory Board to find out who they </p><p> are seeking to interview/hire?</p><p> b. We need to not just say we are continuing the minor without </p><p> evidence</p><p>- What is best in preparing our students?</p><p>- Time to graduation tuition, etc. matters</p><p>- We should not just keep our current format of teachable </p><p> major/minor without solid evidence</p><p> c. Could we also survey/benchmark other TPIs to find out how they may</p><p> react to the potential elimination of the teachable minor?</p><p>III. Course and Program Changes (Paula Lancaster)</p><p>A. Teacher Education, Social Foundations, and Special Education faculty have been </p><p> working on a 200 level course on how teachers teach, how learners learn</p><p> i. 3 credit course; 200 level ii. We would like to offer this course as a general education offering </p><p> iii. Orientation/introduction to the profession</p><p> a. Fills a programmatic gap</p><p>B. Seeking feedback and concern from CLAS faculty</p><p> i. Will it be required/prerequisite for any other COE courses?</p><p> a. It would be required for COE students</p><p> ii. Potential impact in CLAS content majors/minors</p><p> a. It would add 3 credits to Social Studies majors</p><p> iii. As a general education course it would need to be inclusive for all students</p><p> iv. Is there another way to rearrange the other requirements within the </p><p>Education major?</p><p> a. This is where we started, but we didn’t consider the additional 3 </p><p> credits for Social Studies majors</p><p> b. Willingness to reconsider where this can fit in the Education program</p><p> and/or where this can fit as a general education course</p><p> c. This may change based on potential (likely) core guidelines from the </p><p>State</p><p>- This may prove an opportunity for us to look critically at our </p><p> programs and restructure in response to the State</p><p> v. Could the number of credits be reduced?</p><p>IV. Announcements</p><p>A. MACTE persuaded the Michigan Department of Education to lower the cut off score </p><p> on the writing ACT to accept a score of 22 as the equivalent as the PRE writing portion</p><p> i. All three content areas now have an ACT equivalent cut off score of 22 ii. Communicating the change to all Education students to ensure that we </p><p> communicate this effectively with their students</p><p>B. Standards Revision Committee work will begin looking at Elementary Certification on </p><p>October 27, 2016</p><p>C. MDE Credentials and Stakeholder Survey</p><p> i. Kevin Tutt will forward to Shawn Evans for distribution</p><p>D. NY Times Opinion Article on Help Teachers before they get to Class</p><p>E. Glenda Eikenberry has retired as the Director of Administrative Services; Casey </p><p>Thelenwood has been named her replacement </p><p> i. Please include her on any curriculum proposals</p><p>F. Close to funding for Advantage Math 380 course during the spring/summer</p><p>G. November 3-4 Michigan Association of School Psychologists Conference hosted at </p><p> the Eberhard Center</p><p>H. COE has received a sum of money to conduct research between traditional and </p><p> charter schools</p><p>V. Adjourned</p>