Teacher Standards and Practices Commission · Web viewTeacher Standards and Practices Commission 465 Commercial Street NE Salem OR 97301 March 6-7, 2003 MINUTES - TSPC MEETING Comfort

Teacher Standards and Practices Commission465 Commercial Street NESalem OR 97301

March 6-7, 2003

MINUTES - TSPC MEETINGComfort Suites at Salem, Oregon/Pacific Rooms630 Hawthorne Avenue SE, Salem OR 97301

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003

1.0 PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

1.1 Call to OrderChairperson Evenson-Brady called the meeting to order at 8:34 a.m. on Thursday, March 6, 2003. The Executive Committee met March 6, 7:30 a.m., in the Salem Board Room at Comfort Suites. The Program Approval Committee met at 12:30 p.m. on March 6th. The Licensure Committee and Discipline Committee met concurrently at 1:00 in the Pacific Room and the Salem Board Room.

1.4

TSPC MINUTESMarch 6-7, 2003Page 2

Commission Members PresentAurora CedilloPat Evenson-BradyCathy GwinnAnne Jones Carol L. MackKatrina MyersCarolyn OrtmanMary Lou PickardMarit PierceDebra RobinsonRichard SteinerPeter TrombaLeslie WalbornNancy Watt

Commissioners AbsentJerome ColonnaSusan DeMarsh Sharon Shannon

Commission Staff PresentVickie ChamberlainMelody HansonJanet MadlandJoe McKeeverSusan Nisbet

ObserversJan Albrecht, Concordia UniversityEdie Baker, Northwest Christian CollegeBill Beck, COSAJudy Beck, Oregon State University Sherri Carreker, Lewis & Clark CollegeSharon Chinn, Lewis & Clark CollegeTeresa Ferrer, OEAKip Gladder, University of PhoenixMargaret Mahoney, University of OregonMary Ann Messier, NWCCMaureen Musser, Willamette UniversityBrian Putnam, Dept of EducationHilda Rosselli, Western Oregon UniversityJack Stoop, COSAStuart Tennant, Northwest Christian CollegeKaren Weiseth, OEAKathie WiperValerie Camilli

TSPC MINUTESMarch 6-7, 2003

Page 3

1.2 Introduction and Comments of Agency and Organization Representatives and GuestsAgency and organization representatives and guests present at this time introduced themselves to Commissioners.

Bill Beck, COSA, reported that COSA has reached a final decision to hire Kent Hunsaker as the new executive director to replace Ozzie Rose after 29 years of leadership in their organization. Hunsaker will assume that position August 1. Also, COSA and the six institutions of higher education that have administrative licensure programs were planning an Aspiring Administrators’ conference on Saturday, March 15. More than 50 people registered for that conference.

1.3 Review and Acceptance of AgendaThere were no corrections or additions to the agenda.

MOTION, to accept the agenda for the March 6-7, 2003, meeting of the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission that incorporates the Addendum items.

Moved by Watt/Seconded by Steiner/Carried*Absent/Gwinn, DeMarsh, Colonna, Shannon

1.4 Approval of Minutes—January 9-10, 2003MOTION, to accept the minutes from the January 9-10, 2003, Commission meeting.

Approved as part of the Consent Agenda**Absent/DeMarsh, Colonna, Shannon

1.5 Chairperson’s ReportEvenson-Brady reported that the Executive Committee members reviewed the items listed on the Executive Committee agenda at that morning’s meeting.

Evenson-Brady said she and Chamberlain attended the Ways and Means Committee budget hearing. They were few comments regarding the budget. There were comments, questions and interest in the work of the agency and what is done at Commission meetings. It was an interesting and new experience for her. Evenson-Brady hoped they were able to educate legislators about the agency’s mission and provide them with data to help them understand the importance of that mission.

The evening’s dinner meeting was cancelled. Chamberlain said the rule for Commissioners is that they are entitled to reimbursement for their actual expenses and are encouraged to stay within the per diem, which is $15. In any case, they need a receipt, which is another new change. Previously, if it was less than the per diem a receipt was not required and if it was more than the per diem a receipt was required. Reimbursements will be made on tips of up to 15 percent. Evenson-Brady said the newest directive from the Governor’s office is that state employees cannot be paid with agency money to eat dinner or to consume a meal with their board.

* 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.


1.6 Review of Correspondence to CommissionersNo correspondence was received.

1.7 Information of Interest to CommissionersTeresa Ferrer said OEA distributes a magazine entitled Today’s OEA. She said the latest edition had some very good articles about the adequate yearly progress, priority schools and achievement gap issues in regard to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. There is also an article on adequate school funding.

2.0 REPORTS, PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION

2.1 Update and Discussion of Commission Role in NCLBChamberlain said there is much work to do on No Child Left Behind. The role the Commission will play will be kind of like a surrogate state education agency for the highly qualified teacher portion only. That means that with the help of the Commissioners, they will fit together the pieces of the consolidated state plan that relates to highly qualified teachers. She said it was clear to her that they will need to have some separate administrative rules as part of the state plan for the act.

Stan Wall and Larry Warren are working to gear up the agency’s technology so we can hire temporary staff to begin inputting the degrees and majors of all Oregon teachers into the TSPC database. The state plan requires the ability to calculate the percentage of highly qualified teachers each district has as well as what percentage of highly qualified teachers each building has. The state is requiring the agency be able to report specifically how they are going to assist school districts in making sure that all their teachers are highly qualified.

Chamberlain discussed a handout developed by NEA. It is a helpful flowchart in helping to understand the law. Two handouts on definitions were provided. Additionally, information on final Title IA and Title ID allocations for 2002-03 were provided.

Chamberlain said there was initial confusion about who had to be highly qualified. As of this academic school year, every teacher who is hired in a Title I program and/or a Title I school must be highly qualified. There are 19 school districts in Oregon that receive no Title I money; therefore, they are not subject to the law. Another 25 school districts receive less than $100,000 per year and must provide quite a bit of compliance for that money. Title I is reading and remedial education. Title II is professional development and those funds ($27 million for Oregon) can be used for highly qualified teacher requirements. For those funds, 95% is required to go to the school districts. The federal government put some restrictions on the funds. Any professional development program used to assist someone to become highly qualified must use scientifically-based research. One-day workshops will not count as reimbursable professional development under the Title II funds. A school district could use the money to reduce class size if they thought it added quality but they would be required to make their case in their local plan. All the teachers who are currently teaching in Title I programs must be highly qualified. All the teachers hired after last January must be highly qualified and must be highly qualified in the core academic subjects by he end of 2005-2006 academic year. The subjects in which teachers must be highly qualified are: English, reading or language arts (those are counted together), mathematics, science, foreign language, civics and government (those are counted together), economics, art, history and geography. TSPC must determine whether or not they are competent


Page 5

and tests in all these areas are not currently available. The issue of embedded class and curriculum had not yet been addressed. Alabama defined the only subjects to which this did not apply were P.E., health and vocational education. That is a fairly bold step. There is no statutory definition for these core academic subjects. The federal government is clear they will leave that determination to each state to define and the agency will work with the Oregon Department of Education and Chamberlain had alerted them about this issue. This is another area where administrative rules will need to be drafted that offers such definitions.

Chamberlain said that in order to be considered highly qualified, every teacher must have full state certification. Under the new licensure system, that is only one of two licenses – the initial license or the continuing license – because the transitional license is given because some have not completed all of the requirements to receive an initial license. Virtually every out-of-state teacher receives a transitional license and then must attend a discrimination workshop, provide fingerprints and pass the requisite test. Once they accomplish those things, they are eligible to receive an initial license. For the past three years, 60% of Oregon’s new licenses each year are provided to people from out-of-state.

Full state certification can be waived for individuals who are on an alternative route. The sole alternative route license is a restricted transitional license that the district must request along with the teacher. In Oregon, all that is required for the restricted transitional is a Bachelor’s Degree. Under that structure, the restricted transitional license could potentially be highly qualified, but a transitional license where somebody’s completed a teacher preparation program would not be.

Here is what the federal rules said about alternative route: Teachers must have some intensive pre-training before they go into the classroom. Then they must be making progress toward full state certification over the next three years. If they do that, they can be deemed to be highly qualified whether they have a regular state license or not under the state certification requirements. Additionally, if there must be a mentorship relationship, that will take the place of some of the subsequent staff development and professional development that would be required on an alternative route, according to the new rules. TSPC determines what an alternative route is. In addition to that, the alternative person must have a major in the subject matter in which they are teaching and/or pass the test because being on an alternative route does not allow individuals to get away from showing competency in their subject matter. That is new and was the result of a clarification in the rules. At first, it appeared that anybody with a Bachelor’s Degree could be deemed to be on an alternative route but that is not the case under the federal rule. At the end of three years, those individuals must meet the state’s requirement for full licensure, which includes teacher preparation. So it does not make sense, if they wish to continue to teach, to not complete teacher preparation programs. TSPC cannot require those individuals to take teacher preparation during those three years because the U.S. Secretary of Education thinks that will keep people from going through an alternative route.

There are a couple of alternative pathways programs, which have included flexible timelines. Chamberlain discussed the Transition to Teaching program, which some individuals take five years to complete. The problem is that they cannot be considered highly qualified until they have a Bachelor’s Degree.

Chamberlain discussed new teachers. One of the things the Attorney General did for TSPC was ask the question of what is “new”. TSPC essentially has the authority to define what qualifies as “new”. The federal law continues to talk about things in three years. We could say that a new teacher is someone who has taught less than three years. We are going to want to pay really


close attention to this definition, however, because part of the annual yearly progress the school districts must report what percentage of their disaggregated students that they have to report on the disabilities and second languages and low income, are taught by inexperienced teachers. Chamberlain said “inexperienced” and “new” looked pretty equal to her. The question she asked the Commissioners to ask themselves, particularly for school districts, was “How long is a teacher inexperienced?” Chamberlain suggested two years and asked if Commissioners considered teachers inexperienced longer than that. She discussed some of the problems that could be expected. The agency must be credible when the state plan is submitted. The agency says that individuals must teach three years in order to supervise student teachers and there are a lot of three-year thresholds within the rules and expectations but we do have the right for the purposes of this federal law to define what “inexperienced” and “new” is. The whole issue of what districts need to do if all of their teachers who are assigned to their disaggregated groups are inexperienced is something that will be discussed in May.

Teachers new to the profession must have a full state license, a Bachelor’s Degree and must demonstrate competency in their subject matter area. Elementary teachers must demonstrate competency on the licensure test in reading, math and writing. Middle school or high school teachers must demonstrate competency by having a Bachelor’s Degree and/or passing the test in every subject matter in which they teach and/or have a Master’s Degree in their subject matter and/or a major only in their subject matter or have received advanced certification in their subject matter. Just any Master’s Degree will not be sufficient; the federal law and the rules say that it must be in their subject matter. One of the questions that went into the federal rules was why elementary teachers cannot have a major in elementary education and have that be equal to a middle school major or high school students. That question was not answered. All of the initially licensed people in the Attorney General’s opinion and in Chamberlain’s opinion who have passed the basic skills test and passed the MSAT are highly qualified. If they are authorized from pre-K-6, they are authorized to be highly qualified in those six grades.

For middle level, which the federal law defines as grades 7-12, teachers must be highly qualified in every subject they teach. They also went on to say that a state generalist test for middle level does not qualify as a test of competency in the subject matter. Under the basic standards system, most of those teachers will be in pretty good shape if they are teaching within the subject matters in which they majored or were certified. The biggest challenge will be with the newest teachers. For teachers who have taught for more than two years, there are standards other than that. To be highly qualified and competent in a teacher’s subject matter area from grades 7-12 in every core academic subject area they teach, they must be highly qualified by either test, major, a Bachelor’s or Master’s Degree or advanced certification. A question was asked: Does a long-time social science teacher teaching economics, history, civics and government have to have a major or minor or pass a test in each one of those areas? Chamberlain said federal law requires a major but does not specify what constitutes a major and minor. In the past, a minor was 24 hours so, theoretically, 25 hours could be considered a major. If a teacher is not highly qualified, the district must notify the parents that a non-highly qualified teacher is teaching that core academic subject after more than four consecutive weeks.

More experienced teachers just get a new test. They qualify in the exact same way that new teachers do. If they did not have a major and they did not pass the test, they did not have a Master’s Degree in the program, TSPC could deem them to be highly qualified through what is called the HOUSSE standard. They must have the full state license, a Bachelor’s Degree and must be able to demonstrate competence. The agency is pretty much taking the position that the standards of the state have set the licensure in an academic area since 1965, which is offering


Page 7

stakeholders a high level of competency, is aligned with the curriculum and the standards of the students and the state and if anybody has been teaching that long, we are going to deem them in our highly qualified, the clincher will be the teaching on subject. The school district must report teachers’ degrees, their majors and what they are teaching. The logistic issues for TSPC is we do not look at assignment success beyond renewal every three to five years. If the agency is going to be the partner who assists school districts in accomplishing this, a different type of connect will need to be formed with school districts. School districts have already begun to cooperate and send the information they have on their teachers so the agency can help them in return. The agency has not had a reason to ask whether teachers have a Master’s Degree if it did not apply. For an elementary teacher with a Master’s Degree, for example, the agency may not know about that. It will require that the records be updated with such information. Chamberlain shared some statistics about Oregon schools:

There are approximately 26,000 teachers. There are 7,227 initial licenses currently active.

o Of those, 3,785 are employed.o Of those, 688 have renewed once.

There are 1,275 active middle level licenses. There are 1,164 of these do not overlap who we know have middle level and high school

licenses. This is out of the 7,227 initial licenses. There are 721 middle level, authorized, initially licensed teachers. There are 731 employed middle level high school co-authorizations as of the fall

reporting data (October 2002).

Issues that need to be addressed in the proposed rule include: The creation of an expedited path for transitional people; What to do with SEDCO coming in from out of state; What to do about out-of-state teachers who are deemed highly qualified; Determining what range the commission will accept in the MSAT score. If that is done,

that should be acceptable for a determination competency at the middle level other than taking the test, unless they had majored or already taken the test in the subject matter area. That benefits only those individuals who have taken the MSAT, which still leaves an issue about what to do with that test. To summarize, it may be possible to disaggregate the subject matter scores on the MSAT and use those as a marker for competence for highly qualified.

Chamberlain will bring draft rules to the next meeting. She asked anyone interested in working on the committee to notify Evenson-Brady. The Commission will need to review the draft rules and expedite them for adoption by August 2003 so they will be in place for the state plan.

Chamberlain discussed the state’s obligations regarding highly qualified teachers in schools. The state plan will require that all public elementary and secondary teachers in core academic subjects are highly qualified by 2005-06. Minimum measurable objectives must be established for each school district and building to ensure they have an annual increase in their percentage of highly qualified teachers. It will require the state to set a standard for the percentage of increase that will be acceptable. A minimal measurable objective must also be set for an annual increase in the percentage of teachers who are receiving high-quality professional development. It appears that any partnerships with higher education that are related to teaching instantly qualify for good activities under those requirements. The problem with the CTL is it is not subject matter specific, however, it is about teaching skills. In addition in the state plan, the state must describe the strategy the state will use to help the school districts and schools achieve those requirements.


The state must also describe, in detail, the strategies the state will use to monitor progress of school districts in meeting those requirements. Until all of the teachers in the state who are teaching in core academic subjects are highly qualified, the state plan must describe the specific steps the state will take to ensure that Title I schools are providing instruction by highly qualified teachers, including steps that the state will take to ensure that minority children and children from low-income families are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers. Out-of-field is defined in the federal government as a teacher teaching in an academic subject or at grade level for which the teacher is not highly qualified. The state must evaluate and publicly report the progress the state is making with respect to all of these steps and the state’s plan may include other measurable objectives they may want to impose on schools and school districts. Every local school district who receives Title I funding needs a plan to ensure that all elementary and secondary teachers teaching core academic subjects are highly qualified by not later than the end of the 2005-06 school year. Local plans must demonstrate, through incentives for voluntary transfers, professional development, recruitment programs or other effective strategies, that minority students or students from low-income families are not taught at higher rates than other students by unqualified, out-of-field or inexperienced teachers. The school districts who receive Title I money were listed on a handout entitled “Oregon FINAL Title IA and Title ID Allocations for 2002-03”. Those districts are subject to all of these requirements.

The Commission is responsible for the highly qualified teacher requirements and measurable objectives to increase the percentages requirements. TSPC is developing a database to calculate percentages and reporting.

One issue that remains unresolved is what to do if there are no highly qualified teachers to fill vacancies in these programs. Not having a full staff of highly qualified teachers in core academic subjects is a problem when the adequate yearly progress requirements are not met. It does not appear that a school would not qualify for making adequate yearly progress solely by being unable to increase the number of highly qualified teachers.

School districts cannot publish this information on the Internet and consider that sufficient notification. They must do whatever they can to reach parents with the information. Chamberlain wants the agency to help school districts with insufficient staffing or technology to be able to say instantly what their teachers are highly qualified to teach.

Chamberlain reviewed the Commission’s priorities: A written rule on what defines a highly qualified teacher – a draft will be provided in

May; A first draft of the state plan of how the agency will assist the school districts to track

their requirements for percentages to increase; A draft definition for inexperienced; Between this meeting and May, work closely with the Oregon Department of Education

to define what history, geography and other subject matters are; Chamberlain will gather data on individuals who will likely encounter difficulties.

However, if they have a basic, a standard or an initial, she felt they were likely to be considered highly qualified if they are teaching on subject. She said she was most concerned about the newest middle school teachers because under the old rules it was a requirement that individuals possess some subject matter mastery.

Federal law enables states to define what constitutes elementary, middle level and secondary


Page 9

schools. Under federal law, if a teacher is licensed to teach K-8, is teaching in an elementary school building and is highly qualified as an elementary teacher, he/she is considered highly qualified to teach all eight of those grades. However, if the school calls fifth, sixth, seventh or eighth grades “middle school” or “a school within a school,” the requirements for the middle level apply to those grades. The Department of Education has definitions of middle level, junior high and grade school in administrative rules. This applies to long-time teachers as well. Chamberlain said the agency will defend as highly qualified, for example, a teacher who has taught math for 10 years, has had teacher preparation training, has been regularly evaluated and has met the state licensure standards.

If a new teacher is defined as one who has taught for less than two years, teachers who have not taught for two years but who kept their licenses active must be considered.

One of the ways to define a highly qualified teacher is through advanced certification, which Chamberlain said is subject matter specific. The standard license could be considered advanced certification. The continuing license itself would not apply but could if a teacher acquired an endorsement that TSPC deems equal to a major. Chamberlain said the agency had been gearing up technologically to accomplish all this. ODE may have some funding available to assist in this process. In the agency’s budget hearings, Chamberlain was clear that this obligation exists and, while no dollar figure was available at that time, the agency may need to return to the Legislature with a funding request. Chamberlain’s goal for completion of this process was the end of June 2003.

2.2 Report on Legislative Hearings (Budget and HB 2575)Chamberlain reported that the agency’s budget was heard before the Oregon Legislature two weeks prior. It was the first education related budget to be heard before the Ways & Means Education Subcommittee. Staff requested a 13.8% increase on the agency’s budget. The committee questioned the agency’s 6-7 month reserve because the target is around two months. Chamberlain explained that, two years prior, a fee increase was requested and the Legislature approved that increase but required the agency to implement the increase then return to have it ratified. That increase was implemented January 2003. The budget analyst explained to legislators that the fee increase was necessary to fund current staff positions that primarily provide public services and expenditures to cover those costs would leave an eventual reserve of the targeted two months.

When the Governor began trimming state agency spending in January, restrictions for spending and travel, etc., applied only to general fund and lottery funded agencies. Now those restrictions apply to all agencies because the Governor believes Oregonians will support a new revenue source only if they believe the government spends money wisely. The agency requested four new positions. A license fee increase of $3-$5 per year was sought, which would bring the license fee to $75 per year. Many agencies are seeking $300-$400 per year to maintain their licenses. The legislative committee was operating without adopted rules and will call the agency back at a future date to actually work on the budget. Chamberlain predicted there would be some cutbacks. She noted legislators did not ask any questions about the No Child Left Behind Act. They asked staff to return with a chronology of the past 10 years if possible of every complaint that has been filed and the resolution. They also wanted to see all school nursing rules and asked what topics TSPC allows school nurses to address with their students. Chamberlain said there are 96 licensed and 20 employed school nurses. Staff discussed cultural competency with the committee as well.


Chamberlain distributed some links that were required to be in the budget, which the Commissioners worked on in July in terms of goals and performance indicators. Legislators were pleased with the links but were interested in remodeling them so Chamberlain did not know how they would be when the agency returned to the Legislature. They wanted TSPC’s measurable performance goal on discipline. Chamberlain said the agency was not able to affect the number of discipline cases or the incidences of discipline. The agency requested an additional full-time investigator. The Governor’s budget analyst submitted a recommendation of a half-time investigator, which could be dealt with in one of two ways: The agency could hire a full-time investigator for one year, prove through data that there was sufficient work to keep that person busy and rely on the Emergency Board to authorize funding for an additional year. Or the positions could be considered temporarily authorized, which would require the agency to return and prove with data that the positions were needed long term. Chamberlain and other agency staff were complimented at the hearing about how the information was organized and the way the material was presented.

HB 2575: This bill is sponsored by the agency and would allow TSPC to fix timeline issues with the Continuing Teaching License. Timelines and other issues on the license have created some problems. There are currently approximately 3,700 licensed, employed initial licenses and 688 have renewed once. It was not known how many of those were part of the employed group. The 3,700 represents about 10.5% of the total workforce. The total workforce of just teachers is just more than 26,000. Teresa Ferrer (OEA) projected around 1,000 teachers will be laid off next year, which is in addition to the approximately 1,000 that were laid off this year. Chamberlain said there are 65,000 people who have active licenses and approximately 32,500 with administrators’ licenses. Legislators have a perception that TSPC is very tough on out-of-state teachers. Chamberlain discussed actions to abolish the agency and said the sponsoring legislator, Tootie Smith, indicated her intent was to get the attention of the agency. While she was not going to promote her bill, she was drafting amendments to prohibit TSPC from requiring a Master’s Degree. Chamberlain did not anticipate problems with the timeline bill moving forward.

SB 337: Senator Gordly has re-introduced her cultural competency bill with some modifications. It would require demonstrated cultural competency from every teacher on renewal and for new teachers. The word demonstrated could be problematic. Chamberlain anticipated the bill would move forward.

SB 745: John Minnis sponsored this bill, which would require TSPC evaluate administrative rules and, if any of the rules have a fiscal impact on school districts of greater than $250,000, that rule would be required to be repealed.

Chamberlain discussed three bills that were scheduled for hearings that afternoon. One of the bills would abolish licensure for administrators and take anything to do with administrators away from TSPC and transfer that to local districts.

Another bill would require that up to 10 percent of school districts’ staff must hold a professional license other than a teaching license. A related bill would allow school districts to hire up to 10 percent of their staff as unlicensed. Bill Beck said these two bills would remove the requirement for background checks. Teresa Ferrer said the outside professionally licensed teachers do not have to be paid according to a contractual agreement. Also, any teacher teaching in a Department of Corrections school must be TSPC licensed. Chamberlain was concerned that bills appear to be drafted without consideration of NCLB requirements. It was stated that part of the legislative


Page 11

intent was to get people from real life situations into the classrooms. Other legislators have expressed a desire to provide relief from onerous regulations because of the dire funding situation.

Chamberlain discussed the Master’s Degree situation. There was some perception on the part of legislators that the Master’s Degree is an unnecessary cost. Chamberlain said she would make a copy of the article that supports scientific research in NCLB guidance materials that suggests anyone can come in and teach. If legislative language prohibits TSPC from requiring a Master’s Degree, it would wreak havoc for administrative licenses, as well as NCLB requirements, which states a Master’s Degree in the subject matter area deems teachers competent. Chamberlain said legislative intent with the 1991 Oregon Education Act for the 21st Century was intended to increase student mastery. It makes sense that if students are required to have mastery, that teachers would also be required to have mastery as well. Chamberlain said 75% of Oregon’s graduates end up with a Master’s Degree. However, that is only 40% of the new licensures each year because 60% of the new licenses are from out of the state. Somewhere near 70% of Oregon’s teachers most likely have Bachelor’s Degrees in Education. If new licensed teachers are required to obtain their Master’s Degrees within the next six years without the statutory changes, these are the factors that are affecting the districts. Legislators want to know is what TSPC is going to do about that issue.

Cathy Gwinn suggested a unified message be presented to legislators and at hearings and volunteered to participate in preparatory efforts. Ortman said it is important that the Commissioners approve statements that go out as members of TSPC to legislators. Gwinn felt the discussion of the Master’s Degree should be in the context of reviewing rules, setting programs, examining parameters, etc., and she did not support such legislative decisions for the agency. The requirement of a Master’s Degree is new for elementary but not for other teachers.

David Myton shared what the commission was thinking about when the Master’s Degree requirement to obtain a CTL began. The reform of teacher education, as indicated on the handout entitled “Chronology of the Redesign of Teacher Licensure 1986-1996,” started with the publication of The Nation at Risk in 1983. The following fall, the Legislature met and addressed an expected teacher shortage and a concern that the preparation of teachers was being hindered by the extensive requirements at the undergraduate level.

Following that meeting, the Legislature created an interim education committee co-chaired by Vera Katz and John Kitzhaber. That committee appointed a 22-member citizen advisory committee. Phil Keisling drafted a report, which recommended professionalizing teacher preparation to create a large pool of qualified candidates who could be selectively admitted to teacher education programs. The model was the Bar or medical school and they wanted very high standards. They wanted liberal arts preparation for people who were going to be admitted to the fifth-year programs. They specifically said that these programs would be 9-12 months in length and would culminate in a Master’s Degree and a teaching license. So the whole fifth-year teacher education program was spawned off of that report.

Within a year, the State Board of Higher Education (SBHE) had directed all the state system institutions to drop their undergraduate teacher education programs and replace them with fifth-year programs. Oregon State shut down its teacher preparation program for a year to make that transition. Some of the other institutions attempted to make the change while they were running.

When HB 3565, (Oregon’s Educational Act for the 21st Century) came along in 1991, it reflected


all the things that had been proposed and incorporated into teacher preparation at that point and moved down to the K-12 level the notion that there would be high stakes testing and that the people who are working with those students would have high levels of preparation. The result of HB 3565 was to get the State Board of Education (SBE) and SBHE equally fired up about this.

In the bill, there was no mention of teacher licensing or TSPC and the Joint Boards of Education initially assumed responsibility for figuring out what needed to be done with teachers. However, TSPC asserted that the commission had equal status with those other boards in terms of the appointment process and statutory authority and could not be left out of discussions related to major changes in teacher preparation. It was agreed that the SBE, SBHE and TSPC would have action plans and each entity was given specific responsibilities and each of the three action plans was approved by all three boards.

Coming out of that was the development of the Redesign Committee, which was established in July 1994. From that time through 1996, a report from the Redesign Committee was provided at each meeting. The first work that the committee did was to work on the initial teaching license. There has been very little discussion over the years about what is required for the second stage license. In the redesign process, the issue about the second stage license was taken up quite early but much of the conversation was around what was different about the second stage license and what would people be able to do with one that they could not do without one. In the process, there was much conversation around more convincing evidence of student learning gains. It became sort of a slogan that we were really looking for experienced teachers to demonstrate more convincingly that they could bring about student learning gains. Beyond that, the initial teacher was not being treated with the same expectations.

It was part of the plan to reinstate the mentor programs. Even as early as the Phil Keisling report, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards was proposed as one way to recognize these higher skills and that was folded into the redesign all the way through so if you had the national board, you had already met the requirements for the continuing license. While the actual words “Master’s Degree” was not written in to the proposed rules until early 1996, it had been part of the discussions starting as early as 1986. Discussions around the continuing teaching license were somewhat clouded by conversations around continuing professional development for renewal of licenses. That was eventually sorted out and the requirements for the initial and continuing licenses were both approved by the commission prior to the end of the 1996 calendar year and were incorporated into the bill that the commission sponsored in 1997, SB 124, which established a new licensure system. They did not write the Master’s Degree requirement in there but rather attempted to keep the statutes in SB 124 as clear as possible, so it states the requirement is completion of an academic program approved by the commission as well as other test requirements, etc., that are approved by the commission. They were attempting to avoid the complexity of having every rule and fee set in statute.

Gwinn said it appear from the chronology that school districts participated in hearings during the initial teaching license design and that some of the concerns are related specifically around the Master’s Degree but it did not appear they participated much in discussions about the continuing license. Myton said there were 14-15 hearings around the state before that was all done, which included the continuing professional development requirements.

Myton thought the districts who participated in those discussions felt their issues were dealt with at the time. One of the issues that arose at the time was whether or not there would be a system designed for middle-sized and larger schools or whether it would be one that would be a perfect


Page 13

fit for small schools that would then be imposed on the other schools. It was decided to create a system for medium-sized and larger schools and that small schools would be able to apply for a small school waiver. It is written into the rules that if a school is in the lowest quartile in terms of the size of the school building or in the lowest quartile ranked by district size, they qualify for waivers of the requirements. Another example was that in the early drafts of the proposal around endorsements, it was planned to have all of the endorsements be four levels but there was quite a lot of testimony that that would not work in small schools. They might have only one music teacher, for example, for the whole district and that person had to be licensed to teach all of the grades. The compromise was that about six of those endorsements were designated as two levels rather than four levels.

In terms of what ways the commission attempted to solicit that information, there were assignments given to each of the teacher education institutions to talk with their consortia about the changes as they were being developed. The SBE was responsible for convening a large group, which ended up being 65-75 people. TSPC’s approach was to go to the regions and hear from people first-hand.

To the question of whether the commission originally discussed a Master’s Degree requirement, Myton said the commission knew that was a part of the requirements and made an effort to inform the public to that effect. It was commented that the Master’s Degree requirement is most challenging for teachers who move in from out-of-state and for the districts who employ more of those teachers, which are the districts in the two-thirds of the state where there is only one teacher preparation institution and is along the border areas. Myton was asked if the proportion of teachers prepared outside of the state changed from when the Master’s Degree was included. Myton said he was not certain but for many years it was stated we import about the same number of teachers that we prepare, which is typically around 2,500 prepared in-state and another 2,500 prepared out-of-state.

Myton said the Commissioners should consider the impact on teachers who have Master’s Degrees in the pool of beginning teachers. A George Fox study looked at attrition to see what was happening. It was a timely report because a recent newspaper article indicated there is not a teacher shortage; however, teachers are not being well retained for more than three years. The George Fox study also considered what has been the minimum preparation of people that started teaching. In 1990, about 10 percent had a Master’s Degree when they started teaching and by 2000, it was 40 percent. Subsequent data has not yet been examined but Myton’s inclination was that, based on the curve that was established there and has probably continued, in 2003 about 60 percent would have a Master’s Degree when they start teaching. So, clearly that has been an issue in terms of cost. One of the things that was a concern of the institutions in 1987-89 when they were making the change to the fifth-year programs was that they would price themselves out of the market. Studies were conducted to see how the placement rate for the fifth-year programs compared to the four-year programs because independent colleges were not under the same directive to drop their four-year programs. They were allowed to continue them even though the state institutions were required to drop theirs. What they found was that the placement rate was higher for those who had finished fifth-year programs than for those who came right out of a four-year program. It was not clear why that was but it was surmised that it might be that these were more experienced, older people with life experiences who had interviewed better and who would develop a different relationship with students than the 22-year-old college graduate. Although it was expected there would be a teacher shortage, there ended up being an over-supply of teachers and the state system was told they should reduce the number of teachers they were producing. In 1987, a bill to that effect was introduced; however, they were able to avoid such


action by agreeing to develop fifth-year programs and voluntarily reducing their production. The effect was, whereas they were preparing more than 80 percent of the candidates for the initial license prior to 1987, today they are producing just more than 50 percent, so they have lost a substantial market share in the process.

Wiper said there were more than 20 hearings around the state and also had committee meetings about every two months. She felt everybody who wanted to be involved was involved.

Chamberlain felt if legislators were informed that the commission is aware of the issue with out-of-state folks, that they would wait until the next legislative session to see what steps are taken to deal with the situation. Legislators are very concerned about teachers who do not complete the requirements and the possibility of losing teacher out of the classrooms. Also, they are concerned to see if the “or equivalent” issue will be dealt with. Current rules say “a Master’s Degree” and it is not specified either if it is any Master’s Degree.

It was stated that there did not appear to be a message from the Commissioners that the Master’s Degree requirement should be eliminated. Jones said she was reluctant to pose that question at this point. Mack said a number of reasons could be found to justify that language in statute and the commission could discuss those reasons and have them on the record in the minutes. That information could then be stated very clearly to legislators. Tromba said, within the context of NCLB, the Master’s Degree that does not have subject specificity is worth considering and it may be that the master’s requirement is too well defined. He agreed that it must be discussed within all of the other categories.

Regarding the financial aspect of a Master’s Degree, there was a question about whether it had been investigated to see how much such a step would cost in terms of tuition and additional salaries. Chamberlain said, depending on the salary schedule, a Master’s Degree can be 4-12% removed from the first step of a Bachelor’s Degree but teachers are rarely hired on the first step. A typical starting salary is 3-10% more than that step. Chamberlain expressed concern about folks being distracted by numbers that they would lose site of the policy issue. Almost 46% of all Oregon educators have Master’s Degrees, according to this year’s Oregon Report Card. That figure includes administrators. Chamberlain’s intent was to have a well-considered discussion about what this impact.

Chamberlain said this could end up resembling a funding formula discussion because it could be argued that if a district hires a teacher with a Bachelor’s Degree and then pays for professional development for that teacher to achieve a Master’s Degree, it will not spend any more. It would likely be about the same as for the salary of someone hiring on with a Master’s Degree. Even though to feels like a money issue to legislators, it is for this body a professional issue. The other issue Chamberlain brought up was they are going to wreak havoc on all of the two-plus-two agreements and everything else in agreements that community colleges and colleges have with high schools to do with advanced placement, etc. There are many good arguments. They come in with one conservative cost issue and are less concerned about the policy issue but they care that the commission cares about the cost issue. What needs to happen is the commission needs to communicate to legislators that TSPC believes this is an issue of serious concern that needs to be addressed.

Ortman said this is a huge issue for school boards, who must consider not just the cost of the teachers’ salaries but also related costs, such as for PERS. As policy makers, extra money must be included in the budget. She said the commission must consider what the Master’s degree


Page 15

means and why it is important in order for individual communities to understand the value added and why they should support it.

Cedillo asked Commissioners to also consider the stress that new teachers and out-of-state teachers must go through in the initial years in a new assignment and the requirement to complete the fifth year imposes more stress during what is already a high-stress time.

Watt expressed reluctance to move forward without knowing cost implications.

Tromba said the individual stressed out teacher has a financial commitment when he or she signs up to take courses for the master’s so in an economic climate where teachers are going to have fewer days and possibly make less money, it becomes another salary pressure personally. Pickard thanked Myton for his comments.

Chamberlain said the agenda on the Licensure Committee was to have that committee do a wrap-up statement because she did not anticipate the item would result in closure so she hoped the committee, after hearing the discussion, could summarize what the Commissioners think and can take strongly back to the Legislature. The intent was to summarize and make a proposal at the following day’s committee meeting. She asked if there were objections. There were none.

2.3 Cultural CompetencyThis item was held for the following day.

3.0 DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATION REPORTS

The Executive Committee met Friday morning, March 7, 8:00 a.m., in the Oregon/Pacific Rooms at Salem Comfort Suites.

4.0 COMMISSION BUSINESS

4.1 Standing Committees—Referral of Items to Full Commission for DiscussionThere was no referral of any items to the full commission for discussion from the Program Approval, Licensure or Discipline chairs.

4.2 Review and Acceptance of Consent AgendaThe Licensure Committee requested items 5.2 and 5.6 be removed from the consent agenda. The Program Approval Committee requested items 6.4, 6.6 and 6.7 be removed from the consent agenda.

MOTION, to accept the Consent Agenda.

Moved by Pickard/Seconded by Steiner/CarriedAbsent/Colonna, DeMarsh, Shannon

4.3 Commission Work PlanThis item, which was the Commission’s work plan, was on the consent agenda but Chair Evenson-Brady wanted to call it to the attendees’ attention. Commissioners asked Chamberlain to present the work plan as a timeline that listed, by issue, what actions were expected at


upcoming Commission meetings. Evenson-Brady said she was very pleased with the timeline.

4.4 May 2003 Meeting LocationThe Executive Committee decided the meeting, which had been announced at the January meeting as scheduled for Portland, would instead meet in Salem due to expected ongoing legislative activities. The August meeting will be in LaGrande and the October meeting will be in Portland.

The Commission will also plan to work two full days instead of 1-1/2 days Evenson-Brady asked attendees to anticipate the May Commission’s Friday meeting would last until 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. The same could happen at the October meeting as well. It was suggested the Commission consider adjourning at 3:30 p.m. It was suggested the Commission consider video conferencing. It was suggested that committees meet as needed a week prior to the Commission meeting in order to reduce the amount of time that is needed during the Commission meetings. That would not be possible for the Discipline Committee. Evenson-Brady said the Commission will explore those possibilities. It was pointed out that that puts an added burden on committee members and their institutions. Additional expenses for substitutes must also be considered.

4.5 Executive Director Post Employment AuditThe Secretary of State’s office issued a management letter that found the agency was not using the most current contract boilerplate language, which has been corrected. They could not find one approval trip for one out-of-state trip. They also noted some correction was needed in the use of personal cars and travel. Chamberlain credited Dave Myton for the good shape he left the agency in.

4.6 Expenditure Report for the Month of January 2003Approved as part of the Consent Agenda/CarriedAbsent/Colonna, DeMarsh, Shannon

4.7 Activity Report through January 2003Approved as part of the Consent Agenda/CarriedAbsent/Colonna, DeMarsh, Shannon

4.8 Proposals Regarding Cultural CompetencyChamberlain said during the 2001 legislative budget hearings, Senator Gordly and Jackie Winters were very concerned that there was not some kind of very evident cultural competency standards built into teacher preparation. There were some discussions on the records on those tapes about it and they were going to try to do a budget note that would require TSPC to do some work around the issue of cultural competency. The problem with putting policy into budget notes is not good public policy so they have tried not to do that. There was some expectation that a bill that Senator Gordly supported last session would get through the session and it did not. Chamberlain said it was clear to her that Senator Gordly was going to ask what had been done in the past two years with regard to cultural competency. One thing the Commission did was they had some people attend a meeting and talk about some of the programs and in May there was another discussion about whether it would be a legislative issue for the agency.

At the agency’s budget hearing, the issue of cultural competency was discussed for 30-45 minutes. Chamberlain said the agency does not need a statute to address the issue but rather can take this up in administrative rule and on its own. The senator asked why the commission did not have a goal around the issue of cultural competency in the teaching workforce and


Page 17

preparation program. Chamberlain thought the Legislature might make it a goal for the agency. SB 337 says that the Superintendent of Public Instruction is directed to have meetings and determine what would be needed in teacher preparation and direct TSPC what to do. Chamberlain met with Sen. Gordly and expressed concern about blurring the lines of responsibility between the two agencies. When SB 103 was passed two sessions ago, there was supposed to be a continuous effort on the cultural competency front in K-12 schools with education leaders and it was supposed to be directed by the Department of Education and it did not develop as expected. Chamberlain thought there was a perception that the agency does not listen and if we can talk about this in earnest and put together a plan about what the agency wants to do with cultural competency, the agency may be able to avoid legislative direction outlined in statute.

Chamberlain asked the Commissioners to write down what is protected by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and what is protected by Title IX. She said the Civil Rights Act is a licensure requirement that lives in statute. It was created and added in the 1970s. TSPC has people read a book, sign a form and attend a one-day workshop. The Civil Rights Act protects race, color and national origin. Title IX grants equal rights and better opportunities for women. The problem with that statute is there have been about five other federal statutes that protect marriage, pregnancy, disability and veterans’ status. Part of Senator Gordly’s bill would require that cultural competency demonstration now become a part of this same effort as is done on the discrimination part.

Instead of requiring us to do that, Chamberlain wants to embed it in Commission activities in a collaborative manner so it does not become a layered on mandate. She would like to see it become as valued in some ways as reading skills are for teachers.

Chamberlain was asked to provide a succinct definition of cultural competency. Chamberlain provided an example where a colleague “Americanized” the pronunciation of a Finish colleague’s name and another example about the difficulty a college adjunct faculty member had with a foreign student’s name so she decided to rename him.

Gwinn said until peoples’ minds are changed, there is no way to legislate this type of competency. Educational leaders need to establish a framework by which we begin to move people forward in changing their minds about the words they choose, which reflects their believes and values about other people. We need to find a way to develop a change in culture in the educational community and that is the obligation of leaders. A work plan that addresses the symptoms, cost money and mandate workshops and professional development will not move that agenda. She favors a work plan that will establish a framework for the Commissioners to move on.

Tromba said he was unsure how to set these types of goals. He felt it is important to identify priorities and provide clear direction and wondered if that activity might be appropriate for the retreat in August when goals are reviewed.

Watt said existing programs may be going by many names, such as diversity issues or learning community. She said universities are ahead of the curve in dealing with this issue.

Cedillo commended Chamberlain for acknowledging the importance of this issue and bringing it forward for discussion. She said this awareness must be brought to every segment of society and actively embedded into the fiber of society. She addressed the gap between knowing about the issue and taking that knowledge into daily life.


Pickard said the word respect is being used and taught more often and that seems to be what this issue is about. She feels the preparation efforts are working on teachers dealing with respect in classrooms and schools. It is not perfect and does not always happen but she has noted improvement.

Steiner said the colleges moved away from the book and workshop types of options many years ago and moved this material into their programs. Therefore, those students are exempt from these kinds of inservice requirements. This requirement would apply mostly to out-of-state teachers or those who have been around and for some reason did not meet this requirement. He said it needs to be pointed out that teachers graduating from Oregon institutions have met this segment in the course of their preparation.

Mack suggested the Commissioners discuss what the Commission as an entity believes is important. Oregon State University folks have been considering the term cultural responsiveness and reciprocity, which addresses the respect, interactions, knowledge and skills that are needed in addressing this issue and the behaviors that communicate all of those things. The OACTE has this on actively on their agenda for many years and have a small subgroup that is looking at the Senate Bill and is drafting a response to that bill.

Evenson-Brady summarized as follows: Teachers who are prepared in Oregon currently have some element of cultural competence embedded in their preparations. Teachers who are coming in from out-of-state may or may not have that in place. A question was asked if this should or should not be part of the Commission’s goals. It appears this issue will have to be worked out on multiple levels.

Gwinn looked at the rules to see how they reflect cultural issues and competencies. She found language about respect for students, learning goals, diversity, responsibility, student rights, the professional manner in resolving conflicts and respecting the cultural context of the community. There are many places where we have embedded those notions in our rules. She suggested the Commission demonstrate their commitment to the community and perhaps seek feedback from the community. She said she wants to get moving on this issue.

Evenson-Brady said she reflected to the committee that one of the six domains for continuing professional development is diversity so we do reflect in terms of our continuing professional development that that is one of the six priorities.

Watt said there is a significant issue in terms of recruiting and retaining diverse people. Some people are eliminated because of testing requirements. Addressing the problem is an extremely difficult task.

Chamberlain said the newest minority teacher report had not yet been published. It was something the governor’s office is supposed to do and is another 10-year-old law that every year spends a significant amount of resources reporting data we already know: that we are under-hired, that folks are under-represented. She discussed the performance on the MSAT for under-represented groups. ETS has said there are no cultural barriers they can identify in the MSAT test; however, the institution and preparation folks know otherwise. Chamberlain said some public university folks will steer good teachers who cannot pass the MSAT toward private schools because they cannot get those students through program completion requirements. She has many of these instances on her desk of people who are knocking on the door to get in or


Page 19

school districts who have hired them on transitional licenses and want to keep them and the Commission does not have a rule that enables that.

Chamberlain said there is a difference between diversity and cultural competency. Someone might know all the laws but not allow that knowledge to change how they act or what they do. The intent of the discrimination workshops is to start with out-of-state people who come in new and change the structure of these workshops. It is not necessary to have a law to tell us what that means. The Commission can set that as an incoming standard and can pounce on alternative assessment and MSAT. NCLB will help in these efforts. She said the wording in the professional development piece can be reviewed. She agreed that, while the language is in rule, it is not a visible goal of the Commission. Chamberlain explained that when Senator Gordly says cultural competency, people reply that English as a Second Language classes are available, which misses the point. Chamberlain asked for permission to bring parents of schoolchildren to the next meeting parents so they can share what their children’s daily experiences are like because it is very motivating. This is not a new problem and it is not exclusive to children of color. It also includes children with disabilities, children from low-income families, etc.

Robinson pointed out that there is still a long way to go. She said it is when students get to high school that the separation begins. She shared that she is daily confronted with one issue: that others have privileges she does not have and said there are still restaurants she will not go into because she knows she is not welcome there.

Ferrer said the Commission does have culturally competent administrative rules, especially in the section pertaining to initial licensure. Last year they met with Senator Gordly and then-Senator Castillo to show them these OARs. There is still more that can be done and she wanted to caution against looking for quick fixes that will push people in the opposite direction of what is intended by making the requirements punitive rather than addressing a systemic, valuable change in the way public schools operate. She asked the Commission to work closely with the Department of Education and Susan Castillo for a coordinated effort. She also suggested the Commissioners look for ways to really get to the hearts and minds of individual educators. The most important thing the Commission can do is diversify the teaching force.

Mack said one of the things that challenges her is when the issue of cultural competency is discussed, it is clear it is important but it does not move beyond the meeting room. Cultural competency is a process that needs to be brought to each and every meeting and have it be part of the discussions.

Cedillo said they just held a conference for parents and met with bilingual program principals in their district. There was some feedback that those things were already being done in schools and there was not enough time to support the conference. There were about 650 adults that attended the conference and about 550 students and it was an effort of the community, the bilingual department and the Salem-Keizer School District. The parents and community very much want to be a part of these conversations and be involved in these efforts.

Ortman emphasized the importance of moving the issue out of meetings and putting it into practice. The Commission needs to share achievements in proactive ways and also need to implement and move to take this to the next step. She shared an example from one of her district’s high schools, where learning was being stalled on account of some student groups. They took two school days to provide training, which has transformed the high school. One of the things they do is sit with different people at lunchtime once a week and community members


are invited in on those days as well. This is a practical demonstration of how to move this out of the meeting room.

Gwinn suggested a small group be identified to identify the finer points of the work plan and provide some direction and priorities to be returned to the full body. Then the Commission can decide which people need to work on which steps.

Chamberlain said looking at testing will be a priority because it is proactive and opens a door that is currently shut to address the diversity issue. The Commission cannot go out and recruit for school districts but can avoid actions that make it more difficult for school districts to retain people they recruit. Pickard asked for clarification around that issue. Chamberlain said the only people who are able to have a portfolio alternative assessment must have a documented disability and they must have English as their second language and they must have failed twice.

Tromba said he was in support of whatever the Commission can do. He said the best way to have cultural competency is to have actual diversity. He supported having the Commission offer Chamberlain the flexibility to offer the alternative assessment at her discretion.

Watt encouraged the Commission to act quickly on resolving the testing issue. Walborn said the issue had been discussed for more than a year, as had alternative assessments and testing; however, the issue has not been moved to the forefront. She suggested the Commission deal with the issue now. Gwinn recommended language be crafted immediately and said a mechanism was needed for finding a long-term solution to the testing/alternative assessment issue. She requested Chamberlain language to provide the discretionary authority for her to deal with the backlog of such issues. Chamberlain suggested she be directed to draft a temporary emergency rule related to alternative assessment, which would allow the agency to put the rule into effect as soon as possible. Then it can be brought back to the Commission and ratified through the permanent rule-making process.

Steiner cautioned against allowing incompetence into the field. He did not want to inadvertently allow bad teachers into the profession. Chamberlain said she would send the Commissioners a draft before the recommended language is published.

MOTION, to direct Chamberlain to draft a temporary emergency rule related to alternative assessment.

Moved by Gwinn/Seconded by Ortman/CarriedAbsent/Colonna, DeMarsh, Shannon

Gwinn suggested a group be formed to look intently at the rule, perhaps an ad hoc subcommittee of the Licensure Committee and a program person to bring in the operations perspective. Chamberlain said she had been considering for some time the possibility of having a multi-cultural advisory committee, particularly around the issue of educators with a focus on the classroom.

Cedillo said she and Robinson are on the state multicultural committee, which met once last year. It was a committee that Tina Garcia activated and lost energy when she left. Their job was to attend the state meetings, participate in discussions and bring the TSPC perspective to that committee.


Page 21

Chamberlain will put this item into the work plan.

Rich Biffle, Oregon Association of Colleges and Teacher Education, said in addition to his role as director of the school of education at Willamette University, he is sitting president of OACTE. He said OACTE, which is all 17 teacher education preparation programs in the state – public, private and independent – has been working on a diversity initiative this year and doing some self-studies in their institutions that has yielded a number of really good things. They have a subcommittee, which is akin to a legislative subcommittee, which is looking at some of the legislative bills directly related to education in Oregon. He reaffirmed their commitment in terms of support and lent their voice in collaborative efforts. He encouraged a unified and collaborative approach for all higher education efforts.

Chamberlain said at the previous day’s Senate Education hearing, Sen. Starr and several of the legislators asked repeatedly if there was any research or scientific evidence that supports that advanced education makes a better teacher. She thought his organization could help provide that type of information and said she would contact him to coordinate an effort. Biffle said they just need to know what is needed and they will put together the information.

Ortman said, in dealing with legislators, that successful efforts will require more than anecdotal information. It will require research that shows not only why teachers with a Master’s Degree make better teachers and also shows why teachers are the most qualified to teach.

Ferrer recommended an article that was written by Linda Darmon Hammond that speaks to what is known about the teaching profession. She agreed to forward a link to that article to the Commissioners.

Gwinn asked that the information gathered from the research and statements be provided to Commissioners as soon as it is available. Chamberlain asked everyone to remind those interested in allowing non-teaching professionals to teach classes that none of those professions allows people into their ranks by an alternative route, nor do they allow them to practice in those areas without a license under their standards.

5.0 FULL COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF LICENSURE COMMITTEE AGENDA

5.1 Consideration of Alternative Assessments (if any)Mack reported that the Commission found the portfolio demonstrated competence required for licensure and authorized waiver of the test.

MOTION, to adopt the printed resolution.

Moved by the Licensure Committee/CarriedAbsent/Colonna, DeMarsh, Shannon

5.2 Proposed Procedure to Review Endorsement CompetenciesMack said this information item was pulled from the consent agenda in order to get a discussion on the record. The item has to do with a review of the endorsement competencies and a partnership with NCATE. Apparently we are working on some mediation for that and have until fall 2004 to ensure endorsement programs meet NCATE standards so when institutions go up for their site visits, they are not required to do the folio review through NCATE because we are a partnership states and our


programs are recognized as such. The Licensure Committee recommends that:

1. The matter is taken seriously and the partnership be maintained;2. A process be put in place for developing the competencies by fall 2004;3. Subject matter committees be composed of Commissioners, teachers, teacher

preparation faculty, arts and sciences faculty, Oregon Department of Education staff, school district curriculum directors and administrators;

4. Committee members should also be members of their content area professional organization;

5. We begin the process with the core academic areas, those from NCLB plus the PE area. The reason is that it is on a later agenda item (5.6) and we would like that to be included as well;

6. The committee works with Deputy Director Karen Edwards on test alignment with national organization competency so we do this at the same time, so that we look at the competencies and the testing;

7. Committee members for the subgroups will be announced at the May meeting, if possible, and the timelines can be discussed then;

8. We did not get to the budget, for which there was not enough information.

5.3 Discrimination Workshop Rule RequirementsBecause of the rule change in 1999, there are now some teachers who can wait as many as four years before they are required to do the workshop, which was an unintended consequence that should be cleaned up so everyone must complete the workshop within one year. The Licensure Committee discussed three things:

They wondered if this rule should be folded into the cultural competence discussion. She was not sure if that was relevant after the day’s earlier discussion.

They questioned the impact this would have on staff having to monitor and remind applicants about the process, the amount of work processing the affidavits and following up with those who are not in compliance were all concerns.

They hoped the videotape had been revised.

5.4 Policy Position Proposal on Restricted Transitional License ExtensionOAR 584-060-0161 (4) allows for a district and a teacher to apply to submit a joint application that shows extenuating circumstances and the executive director can act on that. Chamberlain had requested advice on the following issues:

Should the language “extenuating circumstances” continue in the rule? Apparently there is an issue of whether people are waiting until the last minute and then seeking an extenuating circumstance. The committee felt that, because the district is also applying, in a sense the district is making the case for the extenuating circumstances and if they are willing to do that and they are advocating for that applicant, the district is determining there are extenuating circumstances. The committee recommends that the language remain.

A second issue involved holding districts accountable if the applicant fails to meet the requirement. The committee did not have any wisdom on that and did not know how that can be done. If they do not meet the requirement, they will lose their license and then are back in the position of making their case.

Another issue had to do with the case that the districts make that these are the best teachers they have ever hired. The question was if this carries any weight with the Commission. The committee said yes. Regarding the minimum threshold for the number of times to fail a test, these people are spending so much money on the test, the committee did not feel it would be appropriate to stay they should stop taking the test; rather, they felt it would be better to allow


Page 23

this rule to continue to exist and not change that language and let districts co-apply. There was much discussion on this issue.

Tromba asked if there is a different circumstance when the district does not petition along with the teacher for a waiver. Mack said they must co-apply. Evenson-Brady asked if the Commission writes to the districts as well as the teachers when a restricted transitional license is granted. Chamberlain said she was for awhile, saying that this license is good until this date, period, there are no options and unless the candidate meets all the requirements of the initial license, so the districts are on notice, too. Evenson-Brady asked if Chamberlain’s question was answered. Chamberlain said she was going to ignore extenuating circumstances because of the confusion around the new implementation. She really wanted to know if they wanted her to go back to it and if they did, what that would be and what she heard them say was if the district co-applies, she does not have to look any further. The other thing was holding the district accountable tells her that if frivolous language in the rule. The district insures that the candidate will meet all of the requirements.

A question was asked if a candidate can apply with the district for a restricted transitional license (extension) forever and the answer was no, it is good for up to one year. Chamberlain said she had exercised some discretion in that, since January, she had been issuing them to May 30 because 99.9% of the time the issue is passage of one test. What happens is, in January she starts granting one year, they will be in January next year and they may or may not have taken the test. It provides the whole summer for someone to know whether or not that person could qualify to enter the classroom in the fall.

Watt asked if instead of a calendar year the rest of the current academic year should be considered. Chamberlain said they are given 120 days anyway so if the license expires on May 30, nobody is illegal because there is a grace period through the end of the school year. Mack said Chamberlain was accurate, that it was the principle they were looking at for the extenuating circumstances and that Chamberlain does not then have to make that decision.

Tromba said Chamberlain sent an e-mail and he wanted to identify which issue was dealt with. It was regarding a teacher who was exemplary in the classroom and could not pass the test and the principal who was upset about that. Chamberlain said that under the new licensure, there are no alternatives. Either a person qualifies or there are no alternatives except perhaps a substitute license, which is not a true alternative. Also, it is somewhat of the small pitfall if people do not meet their extension requirements under the basic and standard and the vast majority of the workforce is under the basic and standard as only about 10.5% have the new license.

5.4a Extension on Basic Teaching License ExceptionThe executive director recommends adoption of the following resolution:

The Licensure Committee voted unanimously to accept the resolution, basically using the same principle that had just been discussed, that the districts make the determination that this is a valuable employee that they would like to keep.



The adopted resolution states:


RESOLVED, that the committee accept the extension.

5.5 Proposal Regarding Master’s Degree requirement in the CTLThe resolution was to be prepared by the Licensure Committee.

The Licensure Committee resolves that the Commission examine the issue of the Masters’ Degree requirements for the second stage license to:

A. Determine financial impact/hardship for the district and teacher;B. Determine the impact of the degree on out-of-state teachers who may face the seven-

year limit of time for the masters’ courses;C. Examine the history and role of a Master’s Degree in professional licensure; andD. Examine the relationship of a Master’s Degree on student achievement.

Moved by the Licensure Committee.

Gwinn said the Program Approval Committee would need a presence on any committee that is created regarding this issue.

It was stated that the phrase should be “Master’s Degree or equivalent.”

Steiner asked if the Commission is drawing a distinction between the degree and five years of preparation and if the degree means that the Commission is considering eliminating or maintaining a requirement for the fifth year. It was stated the committee did not talk about what “or equivalent” means. Steiner said that is vital because the degree is one thing and he wondered if five years of preparation without the degree if it is not equivalent is good enough.

Mack moved to amend the motion as follows:

The Licensure Committee resolves that the Commission examine the issue of the Masters’ Degree or equivalent requirements for the second stage license to:

A. Determine financial impact/hardship for the district and teacher;B. Determine the impact of the degree on out-of-state teachers who may face the seven-year

limit of time for the masters’ courses;C. Examine the history and role of a Master’s Degree in professional licensure; andD. Examine the relationship of a Master’s Degree on student achievement.

Watt said there are two different issues. One of the issues is requiring a Master’s Degree and the other is if a Master’s Degree or equivalent is considered the same thing.

Madland said that, under the preparatory standards for the continuing license, that language is there already, where it says, “Masters or equivalent.” It meant something else when it was adopted – it meant “an equivalent degree,” such as a law degree but there is no definition for it.

Steiner said these points are in a way a charge to this committee to be formed. He thought there was enough confusion about the fifth year and the degree that a look needs to be taken at what the research shows in terms of if there is a big difference between somebody being handed a piece of paper and somebody being handed a transcript that has that coursework on it. You cannot just assume that when you look at teachers with five years of training that they have got a Master’s Degree or not. Those need to be separated.


Page 25

Chamberlain said the introductory statement to the resolution was “…examine the issue of the Master’s Degree…for the second stage license.” We could say: “…examine the issue of advanced education for second stage licensure,” which engulfs all the master’s the equivalents, the fifth year.

Pickard wanted to know how this is tied in with NCLB as discussed the previous day and the Master’s. She wondered if there was a connection that needed to be considered. Chamberlain said it is a way for a teacher to show competency in a subject matter area.

MOTION, to adopt the amended resolution.

Moved by Mack/Seconded by Jones/CarriedAbsent/Colonna, DeMarsh, Shannon

MOTION, to adopt the resolution.



The Licensure Committee resolves that the Commission examine the issue of the Masters’ Degree or equivalent requirements for the second stage license to:

A. Determine financial impact/hardship for the district and teacher;B. Determine the impact of the degree on out-of-state teachers who may face the

seven-year limit of time for the masters’ courses;C. Examine the history and role of a Master’s Degree in professional licensure; andD. Examine the relationship of a Master’s Degree on student achievement.

Gwinn said, since the resolution to form a committee was approved, she wondered what the timeline would be and when the committee would be appointed and when information could be expected.

Mack said the resolution did not include the subcommittee. That was the part that, as she was writing the resolution she was thinking next steps and actions so she was going there but it was not part of the resolution.

Gwinn said when the chair repeated the resolution, she heard a committee in the statement. It was stated that the word “Commission” was part of the resolution.

Mack said it is fine to adopt a resolution that the Commission is going to study it and she fully supported that but usually that is done in some sort of a subcommittee and the subcommittee brings findings to the full Commission and that was what she thought she was voting on. She said she was not listening as intently as she should have been because she thought she was voting on a committee formation. She was asked if she wanted to move to create such a committee. Mack said the Commission could direct the executive director without a motion.

5.6 PRAXIS Examinations (Review PE scores from other states)This item was pulled from the consent agenda because there was some additional information that


came forward in the committee meeting. This has to do with whether or not the Commission should eliminate the PRAXIS Physical Education content knowledge test. The additional information that came forward was a memo from the Oregon PE Teacher Education faculty group. The Licensure Committee recommends acceptance of the recommendations of the Oregon PE Teacher Education faculty to:1. Continue the PE content knowledge PRAXIS examine as a requirement for program completion

and/or initial licensure;2. Support studying the content validity of the test, particularly as it relates to Oregon’s levels of

authorization; and3. Recommend an adjustment of the passing score as opposed to the elimination of the practice

examine.

It was clarified that this item became an action item instead of an information item. Ortman said if something moves from an information item to an action item, it should have been changed in the agenda acceptance so the Commissioners could be prepared.

The chair asked if there were objections to changing item 5.6 from an information to an action item. There were none.

Watt wondered what kind of timeline was expected when it comes to recommending the adjustment of the passing score. Mack said the committee was recommending that it be part of the group that is looking at the endorsement competencies, which would consider aligning the competencies and tests.

Gwinn asked if they had done a test analysis and were recommending we cut scores if they wanted that done immediately or if it was going to be folded into the test analysis process. Walborn said the minutes from the January meeting indicated the Licensure Committee recommended that we expedite for looking at test scores as quickly as possible and PE is on that list.

Tromba said it is hard to find licensed folks for areas like this and it doesn’t feel like it is moving quickly. Chamberlain said the only part she was intellectually struggling with was that the Commission is trying to establish a passing rate in social studies so they are allowing people to take this test and become licensed just by merely taking the test with no cut score or anything else and yet there is a group of people who are taking two out of three tests – and a lot of evidence they are passing two out of three of the tests – and there are many, 47% in our state, who want to become teachers and cannot. A new letter was received that day from a young woman with a 3.7 GPA who cannot do her student teaching because she has five times not met the requirements. Chamberlain said she was struggling because the Commission has the ability to make a decision about these people and solid evidence there is a problem with the test. She said a year seems a long time.

Ortman said Commissioners must be careful to consider testimony and information that comes in but should not do a pendulum swing until more research is done. However, if a serious problem is identified, as it was at the previous meeting and as Chamberlain described, and a solution will take a year, the Commission must come up with an interim solution. The Commissioners cannot allow a solution for one, because somebody came and made them feel really good about that one but then not provide an opportunity for Chamberlain to say more flexibility is needed here because somebody did not come to the Commission and make them feel really good about that one. She was concerned that this feels really harsh. There are letters like this and it takes a year


Page 27

to figure out what to do. She did not object to the motion but did feel it did not go far enough.

Myers said she had just talked to a PE teacher in her area who is teaching but cannot teach PE because he cannot pass this test. He has been teaching for a long time, is a football coach and does many other coaching duties but he cannot run a weight program because he did not pass the test. She wondered if an average performance range would solve some of these problems until the tests could be examined more closely.

Watt said one of the things that troubled her about doing something too quickly with the PE test was that many people who are not prepared in PE ace the PE test. That doesn’t apply, perhaps, to the particular people they were talking about. If 53% pass and they were prepared in PE, then she would believe there was something really wrong with the test but of all of those people who do not pass, she did not know how many of them were not prepared for PE. She did not want to grant licenses to students who are not prepared.

Gwinn said the Commissioners need to be careful in the PE arena for another reason as well, which involves the preparation of candidates. With the addition of content standards for students in PE, the safety issues that are currently involved in the kind of programs that people are offering, the developmental issues of students, etc., it is very important to look at test alignment and fold that into the decision about setting those cut scores. While a year is a long time and there are some issues that are probably very legitimate issues around the test, she has concern about moving without adequate information.

Linda Samek said there are some important things that Commissioners need to know about the way the tests are developed and what they are intended to evaluate for each of the candidates. Except for in a couple of very low incidence areas, such as agriculture and family consumer sciences and a few others, there are two different types of tests that are given in each content area. There is a broad-spectrum multiple-choice test that covers a wide range of material but not in a lot of depth. For each of the content areas, the folks take either one or in some cases two constructed response tests that are very narrowly focused with regard to content but they go much deeper into the particular piece. In social studies, the test that there is not a passing score set is a brand new test developed by Educational Testing Service (ETS) about one year prior. They will not do score setting on those tests until there have been enough people who have actually taken the test so they have data about how candidates score on the test. It has reached the point, and ETS would likely now be willing to say what a reasonable range would be, because when the original validation study was done on that test, the committee there did actually recommend the cut score but it could not be passed on to the Commission to adopt until ETS had some hard-core data. The test the Commission was looking at in PE was the broad-spectrum multiple-choice test. It is a really important issue to know that your candidates have the full scope of knowledge required in that particular content field so doing something quickly without serious consideration could be a great detriment to the PE area and she agreed that that is often an area where people who have endorsements in other areas will take that test thinking they have competed in a lot of sports, are an active person and maybe know enough of the content to pass the test. The other thing to think about is when the Commission gets ready to do serious consideration on the test, they had a group that recommend – and the Commission did agree – to drop a music test about 18 months prior. What happened in that situation was that a panel of experts in the field was brought together, including new music teachers and teachers who had been in the field for a long time, as well as faculty from the music education programs who had been working with candidates. The panel looked at the test specifications for the test, they looked at the test itself, they had long conversations about how the tests aligned with what is expected of Oregon


teachers and the way the test is used. In that case, they determined that that particular music test had far too much music pedagogy – how to teach music – and that it was not appropriate because many of our colleges and universities were using it as an admissions test to their teacher preparation program. So where it should have been at the end of a program, people were being asked to take it at the beginning of the program so it was not appropriate. So there are many things the Commissioners need to consider and the letter that came from Oregon State University and other PE educators around the state – they have taken time to look very carefully at the test specifications that go with that practice test and they believe it is important material and that candidates who are licensed to teach in Oregon should have to pass that test. Whether the cut score is too high is a little bit different kind of an issue but to make that decision, probably the Commission needs to go back and re-evaluate the passing score and that is a process that really needs to be done with the assistance and facilitation of ETS rather than something that is done in a committee meeting like this. There are a couple of people at ETS that she knows and she thought Chamberlain might have talked with one or two and folks like Karen Edwards could get in contact with and they are more than happy to work with the state and give some advice on how to proceed with this.

Pickard asked if the Commission had done anything in this resolution or anything that would allow Chamberlain to make any individual decisions on what she has on her desk or if they want to or need to do that in respect to what Samek said. Chamberlain said she did not want to do that and that to her, even though she does have a Bachelor’s and Master’s in PE, she did not want to do that. She said she does not want to determine on paper or circumstance whether someone is competent to be a teacher. She did want the Commissioners to know they will be turning fair numbers of folks and that the agency would go as quickly as they can.

Beck wanted to draw the Commissioners attention to some of the points that were made in a letter from the Oregon PE Teacher Education faculty. The group that is represented by this letter is a group of highly committed PE educators within the state of Oregon. They have a loose association, they talk to each other and get together and have mini conferences from time to time and all of them are in agreement that the Commission should not eliminate this test. It is important and acts as a gatekeeper to ensure quality PE teachers in Oregon. So oftentimes it has been the experience that many people feel PE is not a strong content. The test in itself is actually aligned with national standards and even though there is some minutia in the test, for the most part it does its job to ensure PE teachers have content knowledge. People with under-graduate majors or people who go through a program in physical education have the content knowledge they need to pass the test, it is clear from the statistics listed that these people do pass the test. It is not a 50% pass rate. For the most part it is in the 80-90% range.

Tromba said in his school district, PE does not exist at the elementary schools except in lucky places that are able to carve out a bit of it. At middle schools it is barely in existence and is in existence in very large class sizes of 35-40 students and as high as 46 students per class. At the high school it is also being reduced and the reason for its reduction in all three areas is a concentration on core content that is dictated by state assessment and PE is likely to not be a state assessment category so administrators de-emphasize and reduce the amount of staffing that goes into PE and the courses are, therefore, much more difficult to teach. He said no offence was intended on content knowledge in PE and on broad-based knowledge but crowd control, effective disciplinary techniques and other skills that are not necessarily tested or broad-based assessment maybe are better tested in a deeper type of assessment tend to be much more important in terms of teacher skills. When he examines people who he knows have taken and failed the test, some of them have taken some coursework in PE and some have not. He wondered if the gatekeeper for


Page 29

this license should be the test. What we are saying now is that the gatekeeper for a lot of students is this one test and the education association is saying keep the test as the gatekeeper and he suggested some other gatekeepers out there. It seems that all of the accountability has been concentrated on one difficult-to-pass test when the real skills needed in the classroom seem to be completely different than what can be measured on the test. He was not saying anything in particular should be done with that.

Ortman said she never wants to be driven by threat but also wants to know that a threat might exist. She wanted to be careful in this legislative time that if the Commission makes it incredibly difficult for teachers to maintain their positions, especially in light of what Tromba just said, where cuts are happening everywhere – PE and music and non-core content areas – they will hear about it in a very loud way.

The question was called for.

MOTION, to adopt three recommendations as presented by the Licensure Committee.

Moved by the Licensure Committee/CarriedOpposed/Tromba, Ortman, MyersAbsent/Colonna, DeMarsh, Shannon


The Licensure Committee recommends acceptance of the recommendations of the Oregon PE Teacher Education faculty to:

1. Continue the PE content knowledge PRAXIS examine as a requirement for program completion and/or initial licensure;

2. Support studying the content validity of the test, particularly as it relates to Oregon’s levels of authorization; and

3. Recommend an adjustment of the passing score as opposed to the elimination of the practice examine.

5.7 Review New Reading Rule Relative to International Reading Association (IRA) StandardsMack said the Licensure Committee wished to move this from an information item to an action item. Mack read the recommendation:

The Licensure Committee recommends a substitution of 584-065-0050:

1. Substituting the International Reading Association Standards. Additionally, the following will be added to the end of the last sentence in items 2.3 and 2.4 of these standards: “…including English language learners”;

2. A sixth standard will be added to reflect (1)(c)(E) in the current OARs to read: “Leadership: Guidance and supervision of paraprofessionals.”

3. Changing the title of the rule from “reading specialist” to “reading.”

Mack clarified that handout entitled: “Standards for Reading Professionals – Proposed New Draft Standards – February 2003” is what they recommended be substituted. The words “…including English language learners” would be added to the end of sections 2.3 and 2.4.


Watt asked why this item needs to be changed to an action item. Chamberlain said the primary reason is that the current rules are not clear on how to substantially comply with the international standards. It is a hodgepodge of subcategories and standards and she was concerned that it does not provide clear guidance. When the Department of Education brought the rule to the Commission, it had never worked its way through committee, it had gone through the rule hearing process and the Commission never had the background of the real reading standards attached to it. Watt objected to making this an action item because she did not feel prepared to deal with it and she did not feel there was a compelling reason.

Chamberlain said this should not be a motion to change the rule because it is not possible to create and adopt new rules by motion. It would have to be proposed that this go back out for a hearing. Watt said she just did not want this to go into rule. Chamberlain said that would not happen.

Ortman said she was going to go back to a previous comment she made. She was feeling frustrated because this was not her committee and she must read the materials and read it and she wanted more of the information to be provided in writing as much as possible. If it only came up a couple of days prior, that was a different matter but she could not tell if it was a good idea to send it to proposed hearing because she remembers how many months was spent working on this issue and now, at the very first meeting, it was proposed to open it back up for another change. It may be a valid and justified change but it felt like adding more work to already full plates, but she was very uncomfortable when a decision is made and then undone. She felt she would vote no because that is what she has a tendency to do when it feels like they are backtracking.

Gwinn said, as a point of order, she thought if there is an objection to a change in the agenda, then the agenda has to stand. She thought it would be a violation of the Commission’s own rules to do otherwise. It was on the accepted agenda as an information item.

Mack said no one had objected yet. There was additional conversation about Ortman’s comment about letting it go forward but she would vote no. There was discussion that if there was an objection, there would need to be a motion to change the agenda and it would require 2/3 vote to carry. Mack said that was what she was waiting to hear. It was stated they don’t hear a motion.

Chamberlain said she asked the committee to consider whether there needs to be a new look at the rule. She heard the committee say there should be a new look at the rule and the committee went a step further by saying look at it this way. She did not know that this had to be an action item and felt there may be confusion on how she constructed the agenda. She felt the committee could have come back and say they wanted to keep it just the way it is. She was unclear where the action had to be and so she thought there was some misunderstanding. She suggested that in constructing future agenda items, if she wants a decision of the Commission, she will make it an action item but most of these are items she wanted to know what the Commissioners thought about.

Mack said the confusion was whether or not they were recommending something. She thought, given the conversation that they had and given some of the history, she thought going to an action item would get them that much further along. Part of the discussion was that the OARs only included some of the IRA standards and when they voted at the last meeting, they thought they were just taking the larger categories and taking out some of the subcategories and that was the basis on which they voted. Come to find out, it is just a hodgepodge of the IRA standards. When she heard ODE and people like Arlene had testified, that having those standards was the basis for a lot of discussion that they were having about reading in the State of Oregon so the Licensure Committee thought those were national standards created and approved by people who know reading and do reading research and that are well-respected in the field and that the professional organization holds up as standards for the country. So


Page 31

they thought that would be something that would make this an easy transition. Then there were some additions. Pat added the words “…including English language learners,” which was something they felt very strongly about so that was how they got to where they were. That was why having it as an action item would be helpful.

Jones spoke about the process of items coming from committee originally intended to be one thing and changing. That is the whole part of committees and if committees are not allowed to spend some in-depth time working on things and then change whatever they bring forward, she was not sure why so much time is spent with committees. Under Robert’s Rules, they must ask people if they wish to object but she was concerned that the group was getting all bogged down in that and that is a logical process so she hoped the committees would be allowed to continue to bring back recommendations.

Gwinn said she fully agreed with Jones. Her issue was that the complexities that had come forward from this committee certainly are indicative of the issues they are tackling. She would just request that when those changes come forward that they come forward in writing. It was stated that this is very possible. Chamberlain said she only received the PE letter the previous day and did not have the capability to copy it – that to let them know sometimes things come in at the last minute.

It was asked if there was additional discussion on the motion that was on the floor to send to hearing the changes in the rules because without objection she had directed that this would change from an information item to an action item. Next thing was the committee had moved changes in the reading rules that would go to hearing. The recommendation was re-read:

The Licensure Committee recommends a substitution of 584-065-0050:

1. Substituting the International Reading Association Standards. Additionally, the following will be added to the end of the last sentence in items 2.3 and 2.4 of these standards: “…including English language learners”;

2. A sixth standard will be added to reflect (1)(c)(E) in the current OARs to read: “Leadership: Guidance and supervision of paraprofessionals.”

3. Changing the title of the rule from “reading specialist” to “reading.”

Ortman said she did not hear in this motion that this is being proposed to be sent it for a hearing. Ortman said all she heard in that motion was to change the rule; it does not say anything else. Jan Madland said the Licensure Committee moved that a hearing should be held in August on the issue.

Arlene Hett said she was representing the reading committee as they had been meeting regarding this issue. She saw it as a very straightforward thing. They wanted to insert the entire IRA standards because they heard from several people, who wondered how phonics could be eliminated because when they just took the headings of those standards, it appeared that they were deleting phonics when in fact that was not their intention at all. By saying they wanted to include the entire IRA standards, some people will feel they have reinserted phonics when they really did not mean to take it out. She saw it as a very straightforward thing. She understood the dilemma regarding whether or not it should be an action item. They strongly recommend that this take place as far as the hearing in LaGrande, those involved in reading will be there or will send testimony if it is desired.

Chamberlain said that later hearing is for practicums, not the reading rules.

The question was called for. The motion was to adopt the recommendations of the Licensure Committee as stated by Carol Mack and to move revisions to existing rule on the reading endorsement


to a hearing process.

Carried.

5.8 Consideration of Request from Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and SchoolsMack said the Licensure Committee denies this request.

Denied by the Licensure Committee/CarriedAbsent/Colonna, DeMarsh, Shannon

5.9 Proposal to Adopt Emergency Teaching License RuleExecutive director recommends adoption of the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that the Commission accept proposal to submit the Emergency License to the rule-making process for hearing at the May 2003 meeting.

The Licensure Committee unanimously voted to accept the resolution.

Chamberlain said there was a grammatical error in the rule on (2). That section should read: “The Emergency Teaching License shall be issued solely at the discretion of the Executive Director for any length of time deemed necessary to protect the district’s programs or students.”

Ortman asked if the Emergency License is an emergency and when it takes affect once it has gone through hearing and is voted on.

Chamberlain said after everything is totally approved, it becomes effective immediately unless a different operating or beginning time is made a part of the rule.


6.0 ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

6.1 Leslie University Continuing Teaching License Program Proposal


Moved by Gwinn on behalf of the Program Approval Committee/CarriedAbsent/Colonna, DeMarsh, Shannon


RESOLVED, that the Commission accept the Lesley University proposal for a Continuing Teaching License Program designed to meet the standards of Division 017 and forwards the proposal to the Program Approval Committee for analysis and recommendations.


Page 33

RESOLVED FURTHER, that this proposal shall be scheduled for a second reading and possible action at the May meeting based upon recommendations from the Program Approval Committee.

6.2 Pacific University Site Visit ReportGwinn said there were two site visit reports. She thanked Linda Samek for coming back on a limited basis and chairing the team and she thanked the site committee for their hard work.

The committee moved to accept the report with one small addition. It was noted that there were some editorial adjustments that needed to be made to ensure that omissions and conventions were corrected and that confidentiality was adhered to. There were a couple of places in the site report where there are some typographical errors and there was some need for conventional clean-ups. The Program Approval Committee moved to accept the report, giving the Executive Director the directions to make those editorial adjustments so we could ensure the report was in good shape editing wise but the changes were non-substantive.

Samek said the Commission cannot make changes to the site visit team report, even if they are not substantive. She asked what the edits were. Gwinn said she should not have said confidentiality on this one. It was on the next report where she had some concerns because some individuals’ names were printed in the body of the report. She asked if she could respond to that when they get to it.




RESOLVED, that the Commission accept the on-site approval visit report as submitted by the on-site review team appointed by TSPC and extend approval for Pacific University teacher preparation programs through August 31, 2008.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the institution shall show progress in correcting conditions in the standards determined to be unmet as indicated in the on-site visit report in the university’s 2003 annual report.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that approval beyond August 31, 2008 shall be contingent upon favorable Commission action on the annual reports as required by standards, an on-site evaluation of the teacher and administrator preparation program during 2003-2004 academic year applying Commission standards and procedures and the recommendation of the Executive Director to the Commission.

6.3 Willamette University Site Visit ReportGwinn thanked Samek and the team. The committee moved this report also with the caveat that the Executive Director make those editorial adjustments to make sure there are no typographical errors and that there was not a substantive change to the report. In order to answer Samek’s earlier question, there were two things. It appeared when the text was cut-and-pasted to get them all on the page, that there was a piece missing from one of the standards and that it just needs to be put back in and if Samek had those on a disk it would probably be helpful to insert that because the rule clearly shows that there is


something missing. There are some names that are listed as people who made recommendations and those names, for confidentiality reasons, should not be included in the report.

MOTION, to adopt the printed resolution with corrections as noted above.



RESOLVED, that the Commission accept the on-site approval visit report as submitted by the on-site review team appointed by TSPC and extend approval for Willamette University teacher preparation programs through August 31, 2008.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the institution shall show progress in correcting conditions in the standards determined to be unmet as indicated in the on-site visit report in the university’s 2003 annual report.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that approval beyond August 31, 2008 shall be contingent upon favorable Commission action on the annual reports as required by standards, an on-site evaluation of the teacher and administrator preparation program during 2003-2004 academic year applying Commission standards and procedures and the recommendation of the Executive Director to the Commission.

6.4 Proposal from Lewis & Clark College for Continuing Superintendent License ProgramThis item was pulled from the consent agenda because the resolution was amended by the committee. They had a proposal come forward from Lewis & Clark College for continuing superintendent license program. The committee felt that all components of the program requirements were easily met and many elements were from their already approved administrative license were used in this program as well.

MOTION, to adopt the modified resolution.



RESOLVED, that the Commission approve the Lewis & Clark College proposal for a Continuing Superintendent License Program designed to meet the standards of Division 017.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the institution is authorized to offer this program to candidates as of this filing.

6.5 Northwest Christian CollegeThis item was misprinted on the agenda as an action item and it should have been shown as an information item. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding Northwest Christian College. The verbatim transcript is attached to the minutes.


Page 35

6.6 Future Site VisitsGwinn said it was noted in the cover sheet that Cascade College wished to change their date from spring 2004 to fall 2003. It was pulled from the consent agenda because it was not noted on the calendar and she wanted to be sure the change was made on the calendar on the second page of the resolution. The reason they did that was the have practicum in progress for all their levels and they wanted the team to be able to really see how the program was operating in practice.

6.7 Spring Site Visit TeamsGwinn said there will be site visits at both Warner Pacific College and Concordia University. Samek had begun making arrangements for both of those site visits. They discussed a bit in committee the previous day a need for balance on teams and that was why this was pulled from the consent agenda so that she could share that with the full Commission. The rule says teachers, administrators and teacher educators and it was noted in one of the evaluations that accompanied the site visit reports that they felt there was an abundance of administrative presence on the team that came to their institution. While it was just one comment, even one person’s concern was worthy of consideration so they looked at that. Samek brought forward some issues around having people released from their districts, teachers released from their districts and that had been a difficulty for her in trying to put these two teams together so they brainstormed a few ways they might resolve that and would make an attempt to ensure they have well-balanced teams.

The other thing that was clear in the Program Approval Committee meeting under this discussion item was that question of Commissioners’ roles on site visit teams. There needs to be a policy discussion around that. With Karen Edwards coming on board, she would be a person to involve in those conversations. Gwinn had talked to Chamberlain about part of that. There were many questions about the whole site visit process.

Gwinn thought a good solid policy discussion about this should go on the summer work session agenda.

Ferrer said there are rules that say we need to have teachers and administrators in higher education representation at all site visits so she wondered if those rules were being followed at Warner Pacific and Concordia. She was looking forward to the conversation the Commissioners would be having around Commissioners being able to be on site visit teams. She said Aurora Cedillo was going to be trained as an NCATE assessor and she thought it would be important for her to be able to assist the Commission on partnership visitations.

Chamberlain said at NCATE the Board of Examiners do not make the decision about approval and they keep it completely separate. She was not suggesting that the Commission does not have to do everything like NCATE but one of the issues that came up early on when folks brought up the whole site visit review process months ago was whether or not there should be Commissioners on it and to what extent so there needs to be a discussion about there.

In answer to Ferrer’s questions, Gwinn said she looked into and asked who the people on the college site teams were. She said both of the teams have one teacher represented. She did not think it was balanced. She said “teacher educators” is what the rule says and both of them have a teacher educator on the team as well but not in as great a balance as she would like to see. Scott Miller on the Warner Pacific team is a principal/teacher at Albany Christian School and Winnie Miller, on the Concordia team, is a teacher. She urged Ferrer to attend the summer session and share some of her thoughts on site teams.

Ferrer said she would like to attend the summer session and also wanted to offer the Oregon Education


Association as a resource if TSPC is having difficulty finding a teacher to be on a team. Gwinn said we need to train.

6.8 Temporary Rule Related to Student TeachingThis was really item 8.2.

6.9 Rule Review UpdateThis agenda item was removed via the addendum to agenda.

7.0 FULL COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE AGENDA (PUBLIC SESSION)

7.1 Annual Report of Teachers and Administrators Subject to Discipline in 2002Oregon 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.

Approved as part of the Consent Agenda/CarriedAbsent/Colonna, DeMarsh, Shannon

7.2 Proposed Order—Bluhm, Patrick Francis (Bend-LaPine SD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions.

Moved by Ortman on behalf of the Discipline Committee/CarriedAbsent/Colonna, DeMarsh, Gwinn, Shannon

The adopted resolutions state:

RESOLVED, that contingent upon receiving a signed order by March 4, 2003, or a date deemed appropriate by the Executive Director, the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation of Facts and Order of Suspension for Patrick Francis Bluhm. The order suspends the Transitional Teaching License of Patrick Bluhm for a period of ninety days effective March 7, 2003.

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

The adopted order states:

The Commission adopts the above findings of fact and suspends the Transitional Teaching license of Patrick Bluhm for a period of ninety (90) days effective March 7, 2003. At the end of the suspension period Mr. Bluhm’s teaching license shall be reinstated providing he submits a complete application pursuant to OAR 584-050-0015(3) together with supporting documentation and fees.

http://www.tspc.state.or.us/


Page 37

7.3 Proposed Order—Brinson, Elvie Isaac (Greater Albany Public SD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions:



RESOLVED, that the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation of Facts and Order of Reprimand for Elvie Isaac Brinson. The order imposes a Public Reprimand on Elvie Isaac Brinson.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Commission shall inform the Greater Albany Public School District of this action.


The Commission imposes a Public Reprimand on Elvie Issac Brinson.

7.4 Default Order—Danielson, Sandra Jean (Oregon City SD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions:



RESOLVED, that the Commission adopt the attached Default Order of License Revocation for Sandra Jean Danielson. The Order revokes Danielson’s Standard Teaching License.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Commission shall inform Oregon City Public Schools of this action.


The Commission hereby revokes the Oregon Standard Teaching License issued to Sandra Jean Danielson.

7.5 Proposed Order—Davis, Jeffry Alan (Oregon City SD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions:



RESOLVED, that the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation of Facts, Order of Reprimand and Probation for Jeffry Alan Davis. The order imposes a Public Reprimand on Davis and a four-year probation subject to conditions.


RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Commission shall inform the Oregon City Public Schools of this action.


The Commission imposes a Public Reprimand on Mr. Davis. This Stipulation of Facts, Order and Probation constitutes the Reprimand. Furthermore, the Commission imposes a four (4) year probation upon Mr. Davis subject to the following conditions.

The terms of probation are as follows:1. Mr. Davis 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. Davis shall submit to the Executive Director

of the Commission reports of his compliance with the treatment plan. Mr. Davis shall provide these reports every six (6) months during his probation;

3. Mr. Davis shall comply with all Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance under Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 584, Division 020.

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

7.6 Proposed Order—Hulslander, James Lee (Coos Bay SD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions:



RESOLVED, that the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation of Facts, Order of Suspension and Probation for James Lee Hulslander. The order suspends Hulslander’s right to apply for licensure for ninety days effective February 1, 2003. Upon reinstatement, Hulslander shall be placed on probation for four years.

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


The Commission adopts the above findings of facts and suspends Mr. Hulslander’s right to apply for licensure for a period of ninety (90) days effective February 1, 2003. Upon reinstatement of any teaching license as provided by OAR 584-050-0015(3), Mr. Hulslander shall be placed on probation for a period of four (4) years to commence the date of issuance subject to the following conditions:1. Mr. Hulslander shall conduct himself as a law abiding citizen; 2. Mr. Hulslander shall report in writing within ten days, to the Executive Director of


Page 39

the Commission, any arrest (or citation) for any felony, misdemeanor or major traffic violation;

3. Mr. Hulslander 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;

4. Mr. Hulslander shall provide the Executive Director with a copy of the treatment plan;

5. During the period of his probation, Mr. Hulslander shall comply with the terms of the treatment plan;

6. During the period of his probation, Mr. Hulslander shall submit to the Executive Director of the Commission reports of his compliance with the treatment plan. Mr. Hulslander shall provide these reports every six (6) months for the balance of his probation; and

7. Mr. Hulslander shall comply with all Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance under Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 584, Division 020.

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

7.7 Proposed Order—King, Ralph Frederick (Klamath County SD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions:



RESOLVED, that contingent upon receiving a signed order by March 4, 2003, the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation of Facts and Order of Reprimand for Ralph Frederick King. The Order imposes a Public Reprimand on Ralph King.

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


The Commission imposed a Public Reprimand on Ralph Frederick King.

7.8 Proposed Order—Klem, Robert Lynn (Klamath County SD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions:




RESOLVED, that the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation of Facts, Order of Suspension and Probation for Robert Lynn Klem. The order suspends the Basic Teaching License of Robert Klem for a period of ninety days effective March 7, 2003. To reinstate, Klem will need to verify that he has undergone an evaluation by a psychotherapist or medical professional. Upon reinstatement, Klem shall be placed on probation for two years subject to conditions.

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


The Oregon Basic Teaching License of Robert Klem is suspended for a period of ninety (90) days beginning on March 7, 2003. At the end of this suspension period, Mr. Klem’s teaching license will be reinstated upon submission of a complete application pursuant to OAR 584-050-0015(3) and verification by Mr. Klem that he has undergone an evaluation by a psychotherapist or medical professional acceptable to the Commission, and the evaluator submits a written report to the Commission attesting (1) Mr. Klem is fit to work with children and teenagers, and (2) there is a high probability he will not use school district equipment to access sexually inappropriate materials or engage in similar inappropriate behavior. Any costs associated with the assessment or treatment will be the responsibility of Mr. Klem.

Upon the reinstatement of his teaching license, Mr. Klem shall be placed on probation by the Commission for a period of two (2) years subject to the following conditions:1. Mr. Klem shall substantially comply with any treatment or counseling as

recommended by the individual who completed the evaluation described above. Mr. Klem shall authorize and sign any consent forms as necessary for the treatment provider or counselor to furnish records to or discuss Mr. Klem’s treatment with the Commission.

2. Mr. Klem shall comply with all Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance under OAR Chapter 584, Division 020.

3. Mr. Klem shall provide information as requested by the Commission to verify that he has complied with the conditions of probation, including a statement from a future employing district that he has complied with the Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance under Chapter OAR 584, Division 020.

4. Violation of the terms of this probation may constitute an independent basis for the Commission to impose discipline, up to and including revocation of Mr. Klem’s teaching license subject to Mr. Klem’s right to a hearing on the issue of whether he violated probation.

7.9 Default Order—McCracken, Terri Elizabeth (Bethel SD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions:



RESOLVED, that the Commission adopt the attached Default Order of License Revocation for Terri Elizabeth McCracken. The Order revokes McCracken’s Basic


Page 41

Teaching License.

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


The Commission hereby revokes the Oregon Basic Teaching License issued to Terri Elizabeth McCracken.

7.10 Proposed Order—Munroe, Christy Lynne (Bend LaPine SD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions:



RESOLVED, that the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation of Facts, Order of Suspension and Probation for Christy Lynne Munroe. The order suspends the Basic Teaching License of Munroe effective March 7, 2003. To reinstate, Munroe will need to verify that she has completed an alcohol dependency treatment program. Upon reinstatement, Munroe shall be placed on probation for four years subject to conditions.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Commission shall inform Bend LaPine Public Schools of this action.


The Commission Suspends the Basic Teaching License issued to Christy Lynne Munroe effective March 7, 2003. Ms. Munroe’s Basic Teaching License will be reinstated upon:1. Submission of a complete application and fees pursuant to OAR 584-050-0015(3);2. Submission of documentation that she has completed an alcohol dependency

treatment program licensed by the State of Oregon. Any costs associated with the assessment or treatment will be the responsibility of Ms. Munroe.

Upon reinstatement of her teaching license Ms. Munroe shall be placed on probation by the Commission for a period of four (4) years subject to following conditions:a. Ms. Munroe shall, at her own initiative and expense, continue to obtain treatment for

her alcohol dependency as recommended by her alcohol treatment provider;b. During the period of her probation, Ms. Munroe shall submit to the Executive

Director of the Commission reports of her compliance with the treatment plan. Ms. Munroe shall provide these reports every six (6) months during her probation;

c. Ms. Munroe shall comply with all Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 584, Division 020.

If Ms. Munroe does not comply with her treatment plan based on the reports of her treatment provider or as otherwise determined by the Executive Director she shall be in violation of the terms of this probation. Violation of the terms of this probation may constitute an independent basis for the Commission to impose discipline, up to and


including revocation of Ms. Munroe’s teaching license subject to Ms. Munroe’s right to a hearing on the issue of whether she violated probation.

7.11 Proposed Order—Pavletich, Stephen Keith (Hermiston SD) This item was withdrawn from consideration.

7.12 Proposed Order—Pooleon, Gareth Michael (Salem-Keizer SD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions:



RESOLVED, that contingent upon receiving a signed order by March 4, 2003, the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation of Facts, Order of Reprimand and Probation for Gareth Michael Pooleon. The order imposes a Public Reprimand on Pooleon and a four-year probation subject to conditions.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Commission shall inform the Salem-Keizer School District of this action.


The Commission adopts the above stipulation of facts and imposes a Public Reprimand upon Mr. Pooleon. This Stipulation of Facts, Order and Probation constitute the Reprimand. Furthermore, the Commission imposes a four (4) year probation upon Mr. Pooleon subject to the following terms and conditions:1. Mr. Pooleon shall provide the Executive Director with a copy of the treatment plan

and 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 this probation, Mr. Pooleon shall comply with the terms of the treatment and aftercare plans. Mr. Pooleon shall abstain from the consumption of alcohol;

3. During the period of his probation, Mr. Pooleon shall submit to the Executive Director of the Commission reports of his compliance with the treatment plan. Mr. Pooleon shall provide these reports every six (6) months during his probation;

4. Mr. Pooleon 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

5. Mr. Pooleon shall comply with all Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance under Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 584, Division 020.

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


Page 43

7.13 Proposed Order—Shaw, Michael William (Hermiston SD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions:



RESOLVED, that contingent upon receiving a signed Order by March 4, 2003, or a date deemed appropriate by the Executive Director, the Commission adopt the attached Stipulation of Facts and Order of Probation for Michael William Shaw. The order authorizes the issuance of a Standard Teaching License to Shaw and imposes a four-year probation subject to conditions.

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


The Commission adopts the above Stipulation of Facts and authorizes the issuance of a Standard Teaching License to Michael William Shaw subject to all standard terms and conditions.

Furthermore, the Commission imposes a four (4) year probation to commence on the date of issuance, subject to the following special terms:1. Mr. Shaw 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. Shaw shall submit to the Executive Director of the Commission reports of his compliance with the treatment plan. Mr. Shaw shall provide these reports every six (6) months during his probation.

3. Mr. Shaw shall report in writing within ten (10) days, to the Executive Director of the Commission, any arrest (or citation) for any felony, misdemeanor or major traffic violation.

4. Mr. Shaw shall comply with all Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance under OAR Chapter 584, Division 020.

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

7.14 Default Order—Terramin, Michael (Yamhill ESD) MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions:




RESOLVED, that the Commission adopt the attached Default Order of Revoking Right to Apply for Licensure for Michael Terramin. The Order revokes Terramin’s right to apply for a teaching license.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Commission shall inform the Yamhill Education Service District of this action.


The Commission hereby revokes Michael Terramin’s right to apply for a teaching license.

8.0 ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

8.1 Post Notice of Hearing on Reading Licensure RequirementsApproved as part of the Consent Agenda/CarriedAbsent/Colonna, DeMarsh, Shannon

8.2 Temporary Rule Related to Student TeachingGwinn said the committee discussed this item and the urgency was very much agreed upon. The committee recommended adoption of the resolution as stated in 8.2.

MOTION, to adopt the printed resolutions.

Moved on behalf of the Program Approval Committee and the LicensureCommittee/CarriedAbsent/Colonna, DeMarsh, Shannon


RESOLVED, that the Commission shall adopt a temporary rule relating to the amount of time a student must student teach prior to licensure as attached.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Commission establishes that the following emergency exists justifying adoption of this temporary rule.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that this rule shall be effective March 10, 2003, for 180 days.

9.0 ANNOUNCEMENTS

9.1 National Board Certification (OFATE)Jones said the OFATE is the Oregon Fund to Advance Teaching Excellence. Jones was appointed to that committee. The money for this committee comes through the Oregon Treasurer through TSPC to the committee, which is why the Commission is involved in this process. Their goal is to raise money for educators in order for them to complete the process for a national board certification. The money that has been given by the state cannot be used to fund work of the


Page 45

committee so they were able to secure a grant from Washington Mutual, which allowed them to hire staff. They hired Herb Price, a grant writer. The committee and Price have created a strategic plan with goals and objectives.

At Jones’ first meeting in March, Price said he was 25 days ahead of schedule. They had already completed phase 1 and was beginning phase 2. The goal of the committee is to raise money through grants to provide funding for 20 teachers in metropolitan areas. The focus is there because the Ford Family Fund is currently funding in rural areas in populations less than 6,000 teachers.

Kathie Wiper is on the committee. She told Jones that Price had already sent out requests for grants for up to $100,000.

9.2 Read OregonChamberlain said the University System received a grant to do a reading endorsement online collaboratively to allow students to take courses from multiple universities and receive their reading endorsement. Chamberlain asked the Commissioners to review the reading rule.

Chamberlain said, to go with the NCLB information is the draft edition of the middle level consortium, the area she had indicate there would be problems with. It is the latest “about us” information that was being provided to legislators.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 2:16 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Melody Hanson, Executive Assistant

Accepted,

Pat Evenson-Brady, Chairperson


6.6 Northwest Christian College—verbatim transcriptGwinn said Northwest Christian College was asked to return to the Program Approval Committee at this meeting and report on their progress through their transition after losing a good portion of their school of teacher education. They came and presented both written and verbal information. One of the concerns that the committee had at the previous meeting was how students who were caught in the middle of all this were being dealt with as the Commissioners had some concern about that. One of the main components of their presentation was how those grievances were being dealt with. Commissioners were provided several documents, including a student handbook, which clearly identifies where the grievance procedures are located. That was consistent with the findings of the site review team. They provided their catalogue and identified the grievance procedure in that document as well. Chamberlain had sent a letter to Dr. Womack asking for some very specific items to be addressed in addition to the grievance procedures. They went through and answered those questions in a notebook that was provided. After looking at the notebook and hearing the testimony, the committee felt all of the concerns were being addressed. They dealt with 10 grievances and all but two of their candidates are online to graduate in the program that they were expecting to graduate in. The two candidates resigned from the program. There were two candidates who specifically were promised authorizations for which NCC is not entitled to offer those students were being dealt with through a cooperative agreement with Western Baptist College, which was a good way to provide that content and to allow those students to complete the program. It appears there was a tremendous effort on the part of faculty and at all levels to help students complete the transition and to be able to complete the programs they are entitled to complete.

This is not a transition that is finished; they are still in progress in many areas but things seemed to be settling down a bit. The continued updates are to be expected in their annual report. They had posted hiring notices about their faculty positions that are temporary filled and they expected hiring to be completed in June and they will rethink their program at that point and the Commissioners would likely hear from them in September with a major program modification for the committee’s consideration. The committee was very impressed with the thoroughness of the report that was presented and appreciated that not only did the consultant and several of the temporary faculty members came forward but also that Dr. Womack also addressed the committee. The provost from NCC also presented to the committee. Gwinn thought the college had demonstrated their commitment to resolving the issues and understand the seriousness of the concerns that were brought forward and were doing their best to deal with those concerns. They also had a student from NCC that came forward and expressed concerns about the delivery of the program and felt she had not been able to fully air her grievances. The committee expressed concern that in her senior year she was in such a distress position and asked if she had been able to work through the grievance procedures that the institution has in place and she had not. The college has agreed to draw up a list of potential advocates for her and she will choose an advocate, who will help her work through the system in place at the institution and hopefully come to some resolution of her grievances. The committee did ask for an update at the next meeting about the process of that particular grievance. The teacher candidate who came forward with these concerns agreed that was workable for her.

Louise Karther, a community member and former NCC instructor, asked to address the Commission in relation to the NCC issue. She shared a written statement she had prepared for the Program Approval Committee members. Karther attended the committee meeting in support of Vajra Solar, an NCC student. She said the college had taken punitive actions against students, such as Solar, who communicated with previous faculty members. Karther’s purpose in addressing the committee was to question remarks Ms. Samek made about the approved program. She said Samek headed an onsite evaluation team at NCC one year prior and Karther participated in those meetings. Karther reviewed


Page 47

negative comments that had been made by members of the team, which concerned a lack of interest in or sensitivity to the issues of diversity on the part of the administration and the president’s unwillingness to allow students to use a building as promised. She said at no time was there any suggestion that the method by which the program established two-level authorization was out of compliance. Further, she said the written report that followed the onsite visit made no mention that the two work samples required during the senior year would have to be completed at two different levels for students to receive both authorizations. Karther discussed the Teacher Education Program in spring 2002, which she said clearly outlined that one level was to be completed in the junior year and the senior year was outlined as a year-long placement in a single classroom at one level with the two required work samples taught in that classroom.

Karther said this had created a burden on seniors who were already adjusting to program changes. She said Solar had been told three times in the current quarter to change her work sample by her senior instructor. Three times she began teaching the work sample and was told she must change it.

Karther asked the committee to look further before determining that NCC is complying with the approved program. She suggested the committee request copies of the senior online lectures for Ed461, the first of which was available to students on January 30. It could be compared for content with the online lectures offered before. She also suggested the committee arrange a meeting in Eugene, where students could attend anonymously without fear of retaliation. Karther said she was no longer on campus but that she was aware of extreme intimidation going on and said there had been deals made with certain students around what they could be offered in terms of grades if they would trash the previous faculty that is no longer there. She said she was aware that, particularly for students of color, there have been grades that have been changed for other students but not for them after work was handed in late. There are many students who are finding that it is very difficult to speak up because they then are penalized, either scolded verbally and offered another kind of “deal” or they are penalized in terms of grades.

Gwinn said there are many complexities to the situation at NCC and some of the complexities involved employment issues, some involve program issues and there are probably other complexities as well. There were also some legal issues and she said she knew that, due to those kind of things, there are certain things the Commission can interject their authority into and other areas in which, such as this particular situation, the Commission has no authority, although there may be concerns. She encouraged care in this forum that the focus be on those things for which there is authority. The authority is in the program component and the Commission is doing their best to maintain a handle on that.

Karther said it was not an employment issue for her; she resigned prior to all of these other things arising and she wanted the Commission to know she has no axe to grind. She said she was not there regarding employment issues at all. She wanted to bring the Commission information.

Pickard asked if there was someone in the audience that wished to respond to Karther’s remarks.

Watt asked if the students who felt they had not been treated fairly had gone through the grievance process. Karther did not know since she was not on campus. She said one of the reasons Solar did not go through that process was because she felt no one had listened to her and that she had attempted to talk to other faculty members.

Watt said students need to go through the grievance process on their campus and if they do not find satisfaction there, then it comes to the Commission. She appreciated that there was a great deal of unrest and dissatisfaction as there is with abrupt change.


Robinson said if there are issues on the campus with students, the Commissioners had not heard those student voices and it is the Commission’s responsibility, also, to approve programs that are fair.

Tromba asked about the list of advocates and asked what method would be used to get that list out. It was stated that both Messiers and Edie Baker agreed to make such a list available.

Gwinn said it may be that the Commission would like to direct an onsite campus and review. There is no protocol for review mid-review cycle but that may be something to look at regarding that. She asked if it would be helpful for people to receive that information.

Ortman said she had big red flags that were floating and crashing all over because she had not seen materials that were received by the Program Approval Committee. She said this is a unique situation and, recognizing that with so many issues and sides that are happening, it would be remiss as a Commission to just accept this because it is what they were told. She did not mean to say someone was misleading them but she was saying for the Commission to ignore the things that are continuing to come out would be irresponsible. She thought the Commissioners should consider a TSPC site visit, perhaps an independent visit. She did not want to hear from just the interested parties, she wanted to hear from a group that would look at it as a whole and say here’s where we are. She would appreciate the notebook as a start.

Gwinn said this issue would be on the next Program Approval Committee agenda because she expected Solar’s concerns to have been entertained in some fashion and that the list would have been made available and hopefully she would follow through with that. She said she heard Ortman say there is something more to be done than that and her clarifying question to Ortman was if she was suggesting the Commission be directed to send a site team to review the procedures that are happening on campus in person as opposed to on paper. Evenson-Brady said this was an information item and asked members to restrict activities to gathering information that may be available. Ortman said it was her hope that the Program Approval Committee would come forth with some action proposals at a future meeting.

Cedillo asked the Program Approval Committee to look at the cultural piece that was involved in this process to ensure that the seniors and the students that applied to the college receive what was described in their program. Going to another college, if that is what NCC decides to do, that that college follows through with the program they had been promised. The process that is there for grievance, especially for minority students, is sometimes inaccessible because it might be put in writing; however, the cultural behaviors and beliefs of these students dictate another process for achieving the complaints and making sure that their voice is heard. For us to say go back to the grievance procedure does not usually happen and they can go to the grievance committee and go through the process and still not achieve what equity they need to achieve. She asked the Commissioners to also look at other ways of presenting their grievance besides whatever is dictated in a book or on paper.

Myers said her concern was also with seniors in the process of trying to get through their program and be certified to go out and teach. If this is not happening and they are not going to pass or their portfolios are not acceptable, they will be damaged before the Commissioners can get to them and she was concerned about the timeframe because they were expected to graduate shortly. The next Commission meeting was in May, which was just a couple of weeks short of graduation.

Gwinn said she was hearing strongly that there needs to be some investigative presence to determine


Page 49

whether or not the program delivery is in fact what it is said to being delivered. If it needs to come from the Program Approval Committee, then she needs to get back with the committee or she could make a recommendation for action but did not want to be out of order.

Watt said that, given the level of concern by the committee, she thought something needed to be done for two reasons: to protect the integrity of the university and because there appear to have been students who were not heard. She said the scope of the Commission’s duties was to look at programs and faculty, etc., but she did not think it did the Commission or the college any good to simply let the comments hang. Something has to happen and perhaps it would be an abbreviated site visit but it would be to the benefit of all parties.

Steiner said he got the feeling the Commission was being drawn into a patch and he did not know exactly what it is the Commission would do in this case. He believed the Commission should do something. Should we close them down? How would that benefit the students? Would we delay their program in some way? What will we say? That you’re going through a transition and it is not the same as it was with the people who left? He didn’t know where the Commission was going with it and felt they were being drawn into a contest. He said it is kind of like a family who has gone through a divorce. He saw some good faith efforts on the part of the college and some emotional responses to that and it is going to be August before a site visit could be conducted and then it returns to the Commission and what do we have? We have a whole new program in place by then and the students who are most affected now are gone. He did not mean to be insensitive; rather, he wanted to be practical.

Pierce said she had full confidence in the Program Approval Committee and heard that the committee felt satisfied that the program as it is advertised were essentially being met. She thought some of the things Karther say in her letter were serious allegations but she also felt that until those students are willing to go through the grievance process and make their best case that the Commission should not become involved in something that is not substantiated.

Robinson said that a whole faculty resigned when one person was terminated and then they heard these allegations. Given those factors, she has lots more questions.

Jones thought Rich analyzed it well and said she was impressed. She said if any action is taken she would recommend legal advise be sought in terms of where the Commission crosses into legal issues that the Commission is not a part of. She thought getting on campus will require that they have very clearly defined and very exact information about what the Commission can and cannot do because there are some legal things that they cannot get into.

Ferrer said at the last Commission meeting, she had asked a question about the authority that the Program Approval Committee had regarding this issue and she still had the question. To say that the student body cannot be heard from until they have completed the grievance process did not make sense to her under the circumstances. She absolutely believed the Program Approval Committee needs to be the ones to process this and she felt badly that OEA did not have a presence at this meeting to hear some of these concerns. She said there is a real concern about this issue, not particularly at NCC but in particular to education in Oregon. She was thinking about an instance where K-12 obviously there is authority to discipline educators before they hear a legal opinion there is an authority to investigate. She wondered why the Commissioners did not have the authority, then, to even ask questions regarding extreme circumstances in the life of a program in the same way. She said there seemed to be a lot of questions that other Commissioners, and certainly people outside of the Commission, are not hearing about.


Chamberlain reminded the Commissioners that she is not their attorney. She said the Commission only has the authority to approve programs and the rules only offer authority to consider whether or not a program has been modified and/or whether or not the program that the Commissioners approved is still the program that is in place. Part of their standards say that the colleges must have grievance procedures. Only insofar as what students may have to say with regard to the existing approved program does she believe the Commissioners have any authority. The only other thing that she saw in the rules and statutes is that, even if they visit a college and find them noncompliant, they allow the students to finish the program. To her that meant that program issues should not have harsh results on students. That does not mean they do a fact-finding on each individual case. Since they do require a grievance procedure in the standards, the requests that the students go through that are reasonable because they are honoring what you say the colleges must have anyway. There may be issues about whether the Commissioners wish to review their rules in the future. If they have questions about whether the program still conforms to the program that was approved, authority exists to conduct a site visit on those issues.

Responding to Ferrer’s comments, Evenson-Brady said if a similar complaint came from a student, parent or patron to her as a school administrator, she would ask if he/she used the grievance procedure so she did not see it as being different from K-12.

Ferrer said if an entire school faculty left the school, they question that school. Evenson-Brady agreed.

Gwinn said she did not believe the entire faculty left but a significant number left. The things that the Commission requested from NCC, and they complied with, were documentation on what steps NCC has taken to maintain the approved curriculum design and that was provided. They requested a list of the courses that are continuing; an example of a waiver request and the number of requests granted; vita of faculty who have been hired on a temporary basis to replace those who left; information on course syllabi, assessment and standards and how they are continuing to maintain those things; protocol they are using for their grievances and any other applicable protocol. They also talked about sharing the following information with the Commission: NCC’s new faculty and their qualification to certified standards for the initial license, how well NCC maintained the approved curriculum design, what is being done with the Roseburg program, which was separate from the Eugene program, how they will maintain the relationships with schools for placement and supervision of their candidates, continuity for supervision of the year-round placements and the NCC resource to support and meet the licensure standards. They did provide evidence, both written and verbal, around those issues. She said that no matter what program comes to the Commission and in what condition, there is a certain amount of good faith effort that the Commissioners need to accept on the behalf of people. They have to assume that what they bring forward is done so in good faith. She said she understood the red flags but, going back to what Chamberlain said, the Commissioners need to keep in mind what they have authority for and – not to say something more should not or could not be done, she was not suggesting that, but she felt some very clear direction was needed and also some authority under rule in order to do that.

Chamberlain said the rules say the Commission’s standards emphasize qualitative rather than quantitative aspects of institution of programs. The Commission shall determine compliance of standards on the basis of information submitted by the institutions. The findings or recommendations of the Program Review Committee, the results of staff audits of selected elements of the program and performance of candidates for licensure. Chamberlain said those are the delineated forms of approving performance for standards.

Linda Samek said there were a number of statements made by Karther that were directed at her and she


Page 51

said those statements were highly inaccurate. She asked for the option of responding in writing to the Program Approval Committee. She also wanted to say there were some promises made to students in the program that were for pieces that have not been approved by the Commission. There are two students who will be working with Western Baptist on the high school authorization and that is something that was very important for them, which had been promised to them, and as in all situations where the students have approached the faculty and the director at NCC, they have done everything in their power to accommodate students and to help them complete on time and to get the quality preparation that they were expecting when they enrolled in the program.

Mary Ann said no grievances had been filed and she wanted to clarify that there had been 10 waiver requests filed. She said they are sensitive to the point brought up that it is difficult for students who do not feel heard to follow traditional grievance procedures. At the same time, the students primarily involved in expressing their concerns, specifically some students of color number 3-5. She said it was no in way to negate the importance of their comments – if it was one student, that would be critical but she wanted the Commissioners to have an accurate understanding. She said there was absolutely no way in which students were being punished for choosing to speak up or were they coerced in any way so that they would not speak up. It should not be assumed that students were not provided with information when they asked about wanting to speak before the Commission or attend the meeting. They were told, when they asked, that these were public meetings. In higher education, it is not customary on campuses to discuss TSPC meetings. There are announcements put up that say in general that students can come but if they inquire about that, of course they are told that these are public meetings and they are welcome to come and then they enter into the stream of the Commission’s protocol, not the colleges’, in terms of wishing to speak. She urged the Commissioners to remember the larger picture. She said they heard one letter presented by someone who was a former faculty member who clearly was in contact with some students but could not speak to current activities of the current and new faculty. There were 11 new faculty members in the education department at NCC, which was in addition to the faculty members who remained from before. She said there was a large body of people with nothing but the best intentions and greatest sincerity and, among them, great cultural competence and experience and she did not just mean awareness of ESOL. She was talking about cultural competence – sensitivity to cultural issues. She said the majority of us are not faculty of color; however, there are faculty members of color who can and do and need to provide their own unique perspective and experience on the issues at hand but the faculty that they are not all faculty of color does not preclude their ability to function with great cultural competence and sensitivity towards students of colors and their concerns. For that matter, as was stated the previous day to the Program Approval Committee, the Caucasian students and their concerns as well. She said it was extremely important that the Commissioners also hear not an attempt to match point for point but a general statement that these concerns are of the gravest seriousness. She said these issues were red flags to her as well and red flags are dealt with and do get the attention that they deserve. Due to concerns regarding FERPA and personnel privacy constraints, they are sometimes unable to specifically respond to personnel and student cases. There are things they are legally and ethically unable to provide and that is also in the best interest of the students. She wished to state unequivocally that NCC recognizes the gravity of these cultural and program issues and said they are grateful for the opportunity to redouble their efforts at learning to be sensitive in areas where they are not. They realize they are not 100 percent perfect in their ability to be sensitive around cultural issues and this provides a chance to learn more and the transition affords the chance to scrutinize their programs more thoroughly in ways that are always beneficial to faculty and students alike as well as their policies and their community interactions as a community at the college. She said NCC remains absolutely committed and the 11 new faculty members bring the same commitment with them or she assured the Commissioners they would not have joined this faculty even on an emergency temporary short-term basis. She said she could not stress that enough because this was their names going on to this program. They remain


extremely committed to maintaining a safe, respectful, caring, sensitive environment conducive to the preparation of excellent professional educators who are qualified to serve students and their families in their local communities when they graduate with skill, integrity and with cultural competence. She said the Commissioners’ issues, as had been stated, were program and licensure requirements but she understood that those issues are couched in the context of other concerns that bump into the edges. She said she could not promise to do things exactly as someone else did but she could promise that they are attempting to serve students in a kind, courteous, respectful and culturally sensitive manner with great regard for the Commission’s rules and policies, the OARs, the college’s policies and reputation and the profession at large. She said they would welcome the opportunity to respond in writing to the issues the Karther brought out that pertain more generally to the college in addition to the ones that pertain specifically to Linda if that is something the Commissioners would like them to do.

Samek is Western Baptist College’s Director of Teacher Education. She said she agreed to work with NCC on a consulting basis to make sure they were in compliance with TSPC rules and that all of their students were knowledgeable about the requirements they needed to fulfill to receive their teaching licenses on time.

Messier said she is a University of Oregon middle/secondary special education program, instructional and research faculty and currently at NCC as an advisor for their students around licensure and program matters as affect their graduation in the teaching program. She is also teaching two courses this term in the elementary strand of the program and next term she will teach in the middle school strand of the program.

Tromba said one benefit to an ad hoc study group would be to improve the ability to explain the program. It might do the institution, students and the Commission some good. He asked them to comment on whether or not they thought that was true.

Messier said NCC would welcome the opportunity to enter into discussion on matters that pertain to the Commission. This summer there will be great attention given to scrutiny of the entire education program so the Commission’s timelines perhaps should reflect that intention but as to the willingness of the college to address a committee who wished to discuss these things further pertaining to the issues that concern the Commission because, as they had already stated several times, they cannot discuss individual cases of students or personnel but with things that fall under the auspices of the Commission, they would be delighted to entertain such discussion. They would welcome that opportunity.

Robinson asked if there are students in jeopardy of graduating and being certified after they graduate. Samek said she did not believe so, other than the two previously mentioned who had wanted high school authorization. They are also enrolled in both the elementary and middle school authorization program. They will just have to do some work off-campus that they thought they were going to be able to do on campus and the accommodation for that is that they will be going to them to provide what they need to finish up that program and then will recommend from there. This situation occurred because these students were promised an age authorization, in this case specifically secondary, which NCC has never been approved to offer. Therefore, it was inaccurate in the beginning to tell them that they could pursue that program of study so discovering this under the new faculty, the faculty and administration worked together with Western Baptist and the students to arrange a plan that will allow them to graduate on time with their age authorization requirements in place. NCC is also picking up the expense for this.

Robinson asked how the 10 request waivers were related to this. Messier said she brought that up as a


Page 53

matter of clarification because she did not want it to stand in the Commissioners minds that 10 students had filed grievances because that was not the case. These were requests for waivers to be reviewed and that was because former faculty had made quite a few commitments regarding waivers of different aspects of their programs and these needed to be reviewed under the current faculty so 10 of those were formally submitted for review.

Samek said programs can waive courses or field experiences based on prior experiences. That does not happen regularly in programs but if someone comes with very closely related experience it can. One that is seen often is people who have taught in private schools as unlicensed teachers and they have a lot of field experience. There are pieces of field experiences that might be waived based on their presenting evidence that they have met the competencies that would have been evidenced in that experience.

Messier said some are juniors and some are seniors. They were asked to come forward with their understanding of things that have been waived for them so that they could be formally reviewed by the current faculty because they were not expressed for the most part in writing before.

Pickard said she had called to visit the new commissioner of the college before Christmas and did not work it out. She did visit the University of Oregon and had met the prior day with her and Dr. Tenant about visiting them again and they gave her their cards. She would still like to do this but was just asking if, in light of all this discussion, if it was still appropriate that she can do that. It was stated that that was not inappropriate.

Gwinn said she had misspoken when she referred to the waivers as grievances and expressed her apologies. She said when candidates were under the former faculty, they were granted waivers for coursework, experience, student teaching or a variety of things and when the new faculty took over and was trying to piece together where things were, there was not a paper trail to show that the waivers were granted, why the waivers were granted, exactly what was waived, etc., and that was why the students had to go through a process. She said there needs to be some documentation and if there was not, it was perfectly prudent and correct for the institution to re-look at things to make sure it was appropriately done.

Watt said she was not sure she understood all the implications if they do not deal with licensure directly. She said the high school application would have been rejected because NCC is not accredited to offer high school endorsements.

Evenson-Brady said she saw Karther’s hand up and said she was not sure if it was appropriate at that point for additional comment from her. She said they did not want to get into a debate. Samek had indicated she would make some response in writing and she invited Karther to do the same if she has questions about this.

Rich Biffle thought an interim site visit to NCC should be conducted to ensure that all of the things that were said that are being done are actually being done. He thought the Commission had the authority to do that. He said they do have authority and responsibility and certainly there are options that Commissioners have shared with members of the Program Approval Committee. He said they did not necessarily have to act on that at this meeting but certainly there was a range of options and possibilities that they could discuss and act on for a future date. Messier said they would welcome that opportunity.

Cedillo thanked Samek and Messier for all their work they came together to do in such a difficult


situation.

Ortman wanted to be sure her comments were not construed as criticism of the current faculty. The fact that there is a problem has been acknowledged. There were a large number of people who resigned from one institution and there were a number of students who came forward and requested waivers because something was not in place that perhaps should have and could have been. That is not a reflect on the current administration or the current situation. What it is a reflection on is that there is a problem. If the Commission is responsible for oversight of the programs, somewhere the program either was not being followed or now is not being followed and she was not saying it was one or the other; rather, she was saying that if the Commissioners are truly interested, this conversation about the middle school and high school goes back a couple of years and this institution was the one that was here saying, wait a minute, we have a problem. This is not a new situation. So that was where she thought Program Approval needs to make sure that we are in compliance. She said she had not been on a site visit but remembered hearing multiple times that when you go out on a site visit, you have conversations with faculty, students and the president and those are all appropriate. She thought they need to assure not only the Commissioners but the education community as a whole that this is being looked at and that we all have confidence and she appreciated their willingness to come and have that conversation and she thought they would be remiss to not look carefully one by one and make sure that those individual needs are being met.

Evenson-Brady thanked all of the participants and said she felt like the Program Approval Committee had a charge to continue to regard this item and take information under advisement. She asked if they needed other direction from the Commission.

Gwinn said the Program Approval Committee members would put their heads together and let her know. She was hearing some strong suggestions. She said Commissioners want written information to read and be apprised of the same information that the committee members have. She said she will see to it that they get that information and will go from there.

Tromba asked if that would terminate discussion for this Commission meeting. Gwinn suggested at the last part of the break the committee members could meet for a few minutes.

Gwinn reported that NCC will send a letter to the Commission requesting an abbreviated site review. Steiner asked what would happen when the letter came in and Chamberlain said if the Commissioners waited until the May meeting, their term is over and they were interested if there was a visit in having it before their program is redesigned.

Watt said she suggested this personally and not on behalf of the committee because she felt the only way they can deal with the integrity of their institution is to invite people in and it is better at the request of the institution than it is for the Commission to try to find a way to go there.

Steiner felt the Commission was being interjected into a battle that would drag them into a situation where they will not be able to do anything about it either way. If it is a symbolic gesture, that is one thing. If they were talking about getting in between two warring parties, he did not know where they were going to go with that.

Mack said it is very important to give students that voice and if they want the Commissioners to come out and look things, that is a wonderful opportunity to make sure the Commissioners know what is going on and that students do have a voice to air their concerns. She felt the Commissioners could be a resource to help them in this process and if the Commission really believes in diversity and that is an


Page 55

issue – not to get in the middle of it – and they must be very careful legally but if as a Commission they value teacher preparation and are in the best position to help them with that, they should take them up on that invitation and not as an evaluative sort of thing other than offering themselves as resources.

Jones said they would probably run through the same kind of thing as in a regular site visit because a key piece of this is to determine if they are really teaching the curriculum.

Pickard said anytime any of the Commissioners, either personally or as a site team, goes into a college or any school, there are always two sides to a lot of things and politics involved and she thought it was the Commissioners’ responsibility to go in there and look at things and try to keep the focus in that way.

Gwinn said they could debate for a long time about how to deal with something but they did not know what they were being asked to do yet. She said they needed to trust that whatever they are asked to do by one of their constituents that they will carefully craft the parameters and the guidelines for doing that and follow the rules and be as thorough and compassionate and fair as possible.

Samek thought it would be helpful for the Commission and NCC to keep the process as open as possible but she urged the Commissioners to keep their focus on the current program and what the future will look like. She said those were the things the Commission needs to be concerned with, not anything that has gone on in the past but what are they really doing now to work with those students who are in the program. Doing that will greatly reduce the chances of stepping into something they cannot or do not want to be involved with.

Documents

Teacher Standards and Practices Commission · Web viewTeacher Standards and Practices Commission 465 Commercial Street NE Salem OR 97301 March 6-7, 2003 MINUTES - TSPC MEETING Comfort