BSEd Secondary Oversight Committee and Advisory Board Meeting
October 17, 2014, 1:30 – 3:30 pm (PSU 314)
Meeting Minutes
Committee Members
Chris Craig, Fred Groves, Steve Hinch, Andrew Homburg, Angela Kohnen, Carol Maples, Diana Piccolo,
Debra Price, Gayle Runke, Gigi Saunders, and Rebecca Woodard
Advisory Board
Deana Butcher, Martha Doennig, Rhonda Galbraith, Jessica Jordan, Marty Marsh, Tamra McNabb, Vicky
Scott, and Annie Wallenmeyer
Purpose of this Advisory Committee: The purpose of this Advisory Committee is to strengthen the
partnerships between MSU and K-12 schools as we prepare pre-service teachers in K-12 and 9-12 content
areas. The BSED Secondary Oversight Committee members are interested in your feedback on issues
related to teacher education preparation, as well as your impressions and preparations for the changes in
the teacher certification process. We hope to discuss the successes, obstacles, and effectiveness of MSU
students in your schools in general as well.
I.
II.
Call to Order – Andrew Homburg, Chair
The Advisory Board meeting convened at 1:30 pm. Snacks were provided.
Introductions
Welcome and introductions – Drs. Homburg and Kohnen
III.
Chris Craig
Dr. Craig stated what a great opportunity it was to speak with colleagues from the public schools. He
also stated how appreciated they were of all the help on the accreditation process. He stated how
MSU’s goals were to create excellent teachers, building better relationships and support. Dr. Craig
has given a charge to Dr. Rebecca Woodard over the Ad-Hoc Committee where people may bring
their best ideas and put it on the table.
IV.
Breakout Session by Current Issues
The BSED Committee members have raised a number of questions about current issues in teacher
education preparation and evaluation. The committee requests input on how they may best prepare
students for the realities of teaching. DESE is changing the certification process and requirements for
Beginning Teachers. Cooperating teachers may be working with the MoPTA in your
building/district. The questions put before the Advisory Board are as follows:
i.
What do these teachers think of the tasks? How have the tasks changed student teaching
experience? How smooth is the implementation of the tasks?
MoPTA impact on student teaching will make it harder and harder to get teachers to agree to
be cooperating teachers. Financially it is not worth taking a student teacher. The best
teachers are often the most over-extended and the teachers who are not as good are not ones
that we would want student teachers paired with.
Student teachers are saying they are having to spend so much time on the tasks they and are
unable to spend as much time on lesson planning.
ii.
What support could MSU provide to these cooperating teachers, for the tasks or for student
teaching in general? What would be the most helpful? What are your impressions of the
support MSU student teachers receive?
Navigating away from all the doing but more about the reflection and collaborating to
become a reflective teacher.
Sounds like this will require more collaboration between the university and the classroom
teacher. The university needs to figure out a way to provide information/instruction to the
cooperating teachers. Videos, online portals, modules, professional learning to help the CTs.
Discipline issues are the biggest problem that student teachers face (not just MSU but student
teachers from all university). Administrators maybe should talk to students in the earlier
practicums to discuss this. The ST looks like a deer in headlights. Without classroom
management no learning will happen. Discipline issues are impeding learning. Could
administrators or teachers present case studies and such to prepare students for classroom
management issues?
Students should know something about classroom management before student teaching
because of SFR 486. They role play but don’t go into schools.
Could we do some case studies with current scenarios? What about video scenarios?
Reflective practice around classroom management is needed to prepare students. This is also
true for first year teachers—teaching them to remove emotion and not take it personally.
There is a number of youtube videos (6-8 minutes max)…if anyone has students who would
be willing to take on a task of role playing disciplinary scenarios this would be useful to our
students and first year teachers.
Do the student teachers know/are aware of the different ways teachers are being evaluated?
Different districts are focused on different issues—how do students learn about what different
districts are emphasizing.
iii.
What other changes from DESE concern you? What changes (new standards, assessment,
principal walk-throughs, etc.) concern you? How are your departments/buildings dealing
with the changes?
Principal walk-throughs—in some districts each principal will do a walk-through once a year;
in other buildings, 4 principals will enter at one time, and others the principal will not do a
walk-through of student teachers.
Work committees for the new Missouri Learning Standards—the committees are at different
stages of work. The standards will come before the board in 10/2015.
The new evaluation standards—what awareness do the students have of the new evaluation
standards? NEE, DESE, build your own, PD 360—all of the models are about growth
It would be great if student teachers could see the process of what they go through for
observation and evaluation. It was asked if cooperating teachers take students through the
evaluation process.
At MSU the Common Core may be the reality and we may be using it but we are really
worried about EOCs. This is the focus of the district and our work. The English department
has EOCs in Eng 1, Eng 2, and common assessment for Eng 3. EOC is more important than
Common Core.
Curriculum is all on stall in some districts, waiting for more revisions.
NGSS are coming but there is not much focus there since there have been so many changes
by the state, and not sure where the state will land. Try to implement processing skills, add
them to the current Missouri Learning Standards.
Teachers struggle with how to use formative data and to shift their instruction based on the
formative data—emphasizing how to use formative data and adjust next day instruction.
Teachers have to know where the kids are now and adjust.
Also summative data—the EOC scores, reading the scores and deciding what to do next.
Practice data for students to work with would be a plus. Scantron achievement series;
Performance Learning series
Questions that were asked: Should practicum students be required to attend a PLC meeting?
Or a data management meeting? Maybe a recommendation rather than a requirement.
Interview questions: Are you familiar with PLC? Data driven instruction? Data team
training? (there is a brand name for this—students could watch a video and see some
resources on this)
Conclusion
Ideas for getting together more often:
 Kickapoo would welcome people to come over and visit during the conference period. Come
during the day, before school, after school
 PLC time, people can come and visit and talk to different departments
Comment: This has been a more productive time than past meetings. Thank you.
Mandate of the BSED-Secondary Education Oversight Committee: The BSED-Secondary Education
Oversight Committee shall monitor the common elements of the BSED-Secondary Education program.
The committee shall have responsibility for initiating program changes within common elements of the
program and reporting those recommended changes to the PEC [Profession Education Committee]. Every
department/school having a BSED-Secondary Education program shall select a representative from their
full-time PEU faculty. The School of Teacher Education shall select two representatives from their fulltime PEU faculty who have responsibility for core courses in the BSED-Secondary Education program.
The Director of Secondary Education, Head of the PEU or his/her designee, the Director of Certification
and Compliance, a representative from both the Education Field Experience office and the Professional
Education Advisement office shall serve as non-voting, ex officio members of this committee. At the
March session, the chair-elect from the previous year shall assume duties as the chair of the BSED
committee and a new chair-elect from the current committee membership shall be elected and assume
duties as chair-elect. The chair of the committee shall be a delegate to PEC. (PEC Bylaws 2010).
BSEd Secondary Oversight Committee Meeting
I.
II.
Call to Order
The monthly meeting of the MSU BSEd Secondary Oversight Committee convened at 2:30 pm.
Chair Dr. Andrew Homburg.
Approval of Minutes
Motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the September 19, 2014 meeting. Motion
carried.
III.
Announcements & Updates
i.
Secondary Education Update – Rebecca Woodard, Interim Director
If any student needs an override, send the form to Dr. Woodard.
ii.
PEC Update – Diana Piccolo, Chair
The PEC name change is still with the Rules Committee. It may be January or February 2015
before a decision is made. David Hough has been having conversations about what to replace
TASK 4 with.
IV.
Old Business
i.
Results of Departmental MoPTA Support – Andrew Homburg
A handout of the summary of the department responses was discussed.
ii.
Secondary Education Handbook – Rebecca Woodard
The handbook is on the website. If anyone sees any corrections or additions that need to be
made, please let Dr. Woodard know.
V.
VI.
New Business
i.
Ad-Hoc Committee – Rebecca Woodard
Last spring Chris Craig put together an Ad-Hoc committee charged with implementing the
new DESE rule changes. It is not a decision making committee. The next meeting is October
23 when they will be looking specifically at the secondary core and how the new rules fit into
it, and addressing the MoSPE and Certification matrices. If there are any changes that need
to be made, please let Dr. Woodard know. There is a statewide task force looking at the
AAT. There may be significant changes of the courses in the AAT.
ii.
Advisory Board Support – Dr. Homburg
Be thinking of ways we can get more feedback/support from the Advisory Board. Google
Plus was discussed as an added way of contact/discussion, and a sub-advisory board meeting.
Adjournment
3:06 pm