Teacher Education Council KH 3221
12/2/10
In attendance: Voting Members:
Undergraduate: Cherry Steffan (EECE), Diana Gregory (PK-12 rep. and TEC co-chair), Barbara
Salyer (MGE), Anete Vasquez as proxy for Michael Dias (TEC co-chair)
Graduate: Earl Holliday (Ed. L.), Jim Cope representing Gwen McAlpine (ECE M.Ed.),
Changnam Lee (INED, M.Ed.), Doug Hearrington (IT), Lara Pacifica (MAT), Harriett Bessette
(PK-12 Grad)
Academic Support Representatives: Anete Vásquez (CEPP), Beverly Mitchell (Assoc. Dean,
accreditation), Rachel Blasé (ESS)
Guests: Pam Cole, Belinda Edwards, Benjamin Lester, Nita Paris, Maurice Wilson
I.
Approval of Minutes
a. Approval of minutes from 4 November 2010
One correction: Maurice Wilson was in attendance representing Cherry Steffan
who is a voting member; E. Holliday moved to approve these minutes, H.
Bessette 2nd; no discussion, all in favor; so moved.
II.
Old Business, 2nd readings
a. Elementary and Early Childhood Education Teacher Certification Program Policy
Change
This withdrawal/removal policy passed on the first read last time and will be in
Student Teaching handbook. The policy states that in the event that a teacher
candidate withdraws and/or is removed from a placement, the program area's
Admissions and Academic Standing Committee will determine whether another
attempt is warranted. The program area's Admissions and Academic Standing
Committee will determine an appropriate period of remediation and determine
readiness for re-assignment at the completion of the designated remediation
plan. In no case will a candidate be allowed more than two attempts at student
teaching.
The policy will go into effect for ALL programs ending in teacher certification,
and it is about the number of student attempts to complete a course. At the last
meeting, B. Mitchell raised a point of consistency of BCOE/PTEU policy with
university policy; however, no university policy was created that would affect
this policy. B. Mitchell stated she was concerned that the language declares that
“In no case will a candidate be allowed more than two attempts at student
teaching…” This would include student withdrawal from course work. M. Wilson
indicated that the language was such to prohibit students who were performing
TEC Minutes 2 December 2010
1
poorly from merely withdrawing when they realized they would not do well.
Students can appeal to the Academic Standing Committee if necessary.
D. Hearrington moved to approve this on the second read, C. Steffan 2nd, all in
favor, so moved.
III.
New Business – First Readings
a.
Performance-Based Educational Specialist Program
M. Holbein gave an overview of EdS changes submitted because there has been
a PSC rule change. On September 9, 2010, the PSC presented a proposal to
modify Rule 505-3-.58 for Educational Leadership which restricts admissions to
the Performance-Based PL programs as follows: Candidates must: 1) hold a
master’s degree in Educational Leadership or 2) complete a six (6) semester
hours preservice sequence in “school law and ethics…organizational leadership
and teaching and learning with a focus on using data in the school improvement
process.” The first proposed change is to the language of the admissions
requirements to reflect the modification of Rule 505-3-.58.
The next change is a change to the core courses for the performance-based EdS.
The KSU/EDL Performance-Based Educational Specialist program now stand as
approved at 33-36 hours. When the six hour PSC mandated pre-service is added
for those candidates who do not hold a Master’s degree in EDL, the KSU program
will escalate to 39-42 credit hours. It is proposed that 6 hours from current EdS
program be taken out to make way for the additional six hours while still
maintaining the strand of EDL from the core.
It is proposed that content from EDL 8100: Critical issues in School
Transformation be embedded into Residency Courses and eliminated from the
core for EDL candidates. It was determined that EDL 8100 was repetitive because
it is covered in 15-18 hours elsewhere. The one critical assessment will be moved
into another course.
It is conceivable, however, that some students would come to their EdD studies
without having an advanced theory of learning course, so EDUC 8100 will be a
requirement for EdD candidates, not for EdS. This cuts another 3 hours from
program.
The two courses proposed to make up the 6 hours of pre-service learning will be
EDL 7305: Data Analysis and EDL 7500: Education Law and Policy. There is also a
language change to reflect the changing PSC rule. This is for the degree program.
b. Educational Leadership Educational Specialist (EdS) Concentration in
Educational Leadership for Learning Traditional Program (Non Performance
TEC Minutes 2 December 2010
2
Based)
Because of the move of EDL 8100 from the EdS to the EdD, another proposal was
submitted to reflect this change in the EdS Concentration.
This previous revision in language affects the certification only program, so
another proposal was submitted so that the change is reflected in the
admissions language for the EdS as well.
To make the programs uniform, the traditional program also had to be changed.
The traditional students who come to class can self-select while the
performance-based ones who complete the work in the field must be “tapped.”
Hence, proposals had to be submitted for this as well.
N. Paris stated that the complexity of the program may be difficult for GPCC
members to comprehend, so she recommended that a comparison chart across
traditional, performance-based, and certification-only be included to outline the
parameters of each.
Executive summary of modifications: The 6 hour pre-service is not a prerequisite,
it is a pre-service. Students cannot be admitted to the program without these six
houses. However, since it is not part of the program, students cannot receive
financial aid.
M. Holbein stated that this is a concern.
N. Paris recommended making these two courses prerequisites for taking any
other courses. They are not prerequisites for admission to the program, but they
are prerequisites for taking any other courses in the program.
M. Holbein wanted to know how she could state this without naming the two
courses because the PSC might come up with specific names for them.
B. Mitchell asked if these courses were already prerequisites for any other
courses. The answer was no, they are not.
B. Mitchell stated that it is difficult to track these courses.
N. Paris stated that the syllabi can state that "the pre-service courses" are
prerequisites for all other courses without naming the courses. This should be in
the catalog and on the website.
Students cannot be provisionally admitted to programs and get financial aid.
These pre-service classes are going to go online in GOML.
TEC Minutes 2 December 2010
3
Candidates who do not hold a master’s degree must successfully complete the
six pre-service courses prior to taking any other coursework.
Furthermore, M. Holbein took all of the proposals and changed the title of the
programs.
B. Mitchell asked about implementation. It will be effective in September 2011,
so it will be a fall admissions due date. B. Mitchell asked that the FAAR report be
revised.
H. Bassette moved to approve this on first reading; E. Holliday 2nd. All in favor,
so moved.
c. Non-Degree Graduate Studies in Education
N. Paris brought this before the committee in November. It is a policy change at
the graduate level. Applicants who wish to take graduate courses but do not
want to pursue a degree program may be admitted to non-degree graduate
study. This opens up possibility of non-certified teachers taking some of our
courses, such as area professionals and international students and those
enrolled in degree programs at other institutions.
N. Paris commented on two suggestions that were made at the last meeting and
stated that both of these suggestions were integrated. One suggestion made by
A. Bello was that students need to submit transcripts in order to take
coursework. The other suggestion was to ascertain whether or not the 9-hour
credit transfer limit would still apply to these students. N. Paris stated the 9-hour
rule would still apply and that an advisor or program coordinator would need to
approve the hours for transfer.
B. Mitchell asked what makes this different from the currently held policy about
degree and non-degree taking students. The response was that there is no
difference except that students must be certified to take 9 credit hours.
B. Mitchell also asked about international students - can they take these
courses? Yes, they can take non-degree courses but not for a degree (unless they
are state certified).
E. Holliday moved to accept. D. Hearrington 2nd. Motion passed. All in favor, so
moved. Passed on 1st read; resubmit for 2nd read on January 13. Proposals are
due by Dec. 18 for the January meeting.
d. Prerequisite Changes for Early Childhood Education
TEC Minutes 2 December 2010
4
ECE proposed to change ECE 3302 and EDUC 3320 by making the two courses
co-requisites to be taken together. Both courses are already pre-requisites for
ECE 3330.
E. Holliday moved to accept. D. Hearrington 2nd. Motion passed. All in favor, so
moved.
e. Proposals for Mathematics Education Course Changes
Belinda Edwards proposed the removal of MATH 1190 as a prerequisite and add
MATH 2595 as a prerequisite for MATH 3495 instead. MATH 1190 is already a
prerequisite for MATH 3390. Students enrolled in MATH 3495 often have
difficulty completing the Problem Analysis assignment because they lack the
ability to write mathematically and examine mathematical problems from
multiple perspectives. In MATH 2595, students are provided an opportunity to
solve mathematical problems using multiple representations and to
communicate mathematically in writing. Students who participate in
mathematical problem-solving and writing activities prior to enrolling in MATH
3495 could possibly have less difficulty as they complete the required Problem
Analysis assignment.
E. Holliday moved to accept. D. Hearrington 2nd. Motion passed. All in favor, so
moved.
The second proposal from mathematics only affects math secondary students
not BCOE students, so it did not need to be reviewed.
f. Proposal Program Changes for M.Ed. in Elementary Education
Jim Cope stated that there was a feeling that the program could be made more
rigorous and flexible. There was a survey of graduates as well as a few faculty
retreats. They also reviewed the standards of various organizations. The
proposed changes resulted.
The proposal would allow for nine hours of electives which would allow students
to embed an endorsement in the program.
There will be more of a focus on math and science content and a renewed focus
on composition. They are reintegrating an already existing science course that is
not currently being used but is still on the books.
A global education course was added as was a course called Research III.
They are also combining three courses into a capstone course.
TEC Minutes 2 December 2010
5
B. Mitchell asked what was meant by "continue to use existing course" because
it was a little confusing as it is. To clarify, B. Mitchell recommended make the
comparison clearer through a chart conceptualizing the program differently have the courses side by side regardless of semester. B. Mitchell also asked that
a little narrative be included about the increase in rigor; explain more clearly that
this is happening with the increase in and separating out of math and science, a
stronger focus on writing and research and the collapse of three courses into the
capstone course. Beverly also recommended including why there was a need for
more rigor.
N. Paris also recommended a change for the rationale section. On page 7, the
section about “direct instruction” should be expanded to include constructivist
pedagogy. There was a comment that the link was there, but it was not “live.”
B. Mitchell asked if G. McAlpine's proposal from last time was related to this. Jim
said that it was connected, but that G. McAlpine is at a conference, and the
suggestions she made will be revisited at their next meeting.
C. Steffan moved to accept the proposal on first read with revisions. E. Holliday
2nd. Motion passed. All in favor, so moved.
A recap of what is needed for next reading was outlined:
 Provide a second chart as per B. Mitchell’s suggestion
 Provide a narrative outlining additional rigor as well as the reason for
additional rigor
 Provide a clearer program description
 Elaborate on the “direct instruction” portion on page 7 per N. Paris’
suggestion
 Put the admissions requirements on the correct form
IV.
Heads Up
xx
V.
Other
xx
Next meeting:
Proposal Deadline:
13 January 2011 in KH 3221
16 December 2011
The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 PM, motion from Cherry Steffan, seconded by Earl Holliday.
Minutes submitted by Anete Vásquez, 4 January 2011
TEC Minutes 2 December 2010
6