Indiana
Plan for Title II
Reporting Requirements
of the Higher Education Act
(Sections 207 and 208)
October 4, 2000
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements…………………..………………………………..…………………….…….3
Introduction…………………………………………….……………..……………………..…….5
Section I: Identify the agency submitting the report..…………………….………………….……7
Section II: Describe the implementation procedures for collaboration.……………………….….7
Section III: Describe procedures that ensure definitions and information are
complete and accurate……………………………………...…………………….10
Section IV: Major steps for aggregating data for pass rates……………………………………..11
Section V: Subject areas for program completers for licensing……………..…………………..12
Section VI: Identification of important data reporting deadlines……..…….…………………...14
Section VII: Low performing institution guidelines………………….……..…………………...16
Section VIII: Other information, Supplementary data…………..…………...………………….16
Appendix I: INTASC Principles.……….……………………….………………………………18
Appendix II: Educational Testing Service Reporting Schedule..…………….…………………20
Appendix III: Title II Institution of Higher Education Contacts…………….………………….21
2
Acknowledgements
Personnel of the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) acknowledge with appreciation
the contribution of many educators in developing the Indiana Plan for the Title II reporting
requirements. The IPSB also acknowledges the exemplary work of the Division of Preservice
Education Workgroup representing deans and program directors. The group members consist of
the following:
Marilyn Haring
Purdue University
Tom Pickering
University of Southern Indiana
Roy Weaver
Ball State University
Lynne Weisenbach
University of Indianapolis
Gerardo Gonzalez
Indiana University Bloomington
Tom Schroeder
Ball State University
Rebecca Libler
Indiana State University
Deborah Butler
Wabash College
Roberta Wiener
Indiana University Purdue University Ft. Wayne
Robert Rivers
Purdue University Calumet
Sue Blackwell
Marian College
Ray Graves
Indiana Professional Standards Board
3
Indiana Professional Standards Board Staff
251 East Ohio Street
Suite 201
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2133
Ray Graves
Director of Teacher Licensing and Transition Coordinator
Bet Kotowski
Director of Preservice Education
Dick Frisbie
Director of Induction and Continuing Education
Thomas Hansen
Director of Legal and External Affairs
John Baker
Director of Operations and Information Technology
Shawn Sriver
Assistant Director of Licensing
Don Schroeder
Assistant Director of Licensing
Judy Miller
Education Consultant, Preservice Education
Sheridan Rayl
Performance Assessment Coordinator
Marie Theobald
Director of Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
4
Indiana Plan for Title II Reporting
Introduction:
In 1992, the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) was created by Public Law 46-1992 to
govern the preparation and licensing of educators (see Ind. Code Chap. 20-1-1.4). The staff and
funds of the Teacher Training and Licensing Advisory Committee of the Indiana Department of
Education were transferred to the IPSB as of July 1, 1992. The Board’s mandate encompasses
all components of the education profession.
The Board created by this legislation was intended to be representative of all constituencies of
the education profession. The Board consists of nineteen voting members, eighteen of whom are
appointed by the Governor, and the nineteenth is the State Superintendent of Public Instruction,
who serves ex officio. Thirteen of the nineteen members are required to hold an Indiana
teacher’s or administrator’s license and must be actively employed by a school corporation.
These members represent specific subjects, positions, and grade levels, and include a
superintendent, two principals, an early childhood teacher, an elementary education teacher, a
middle/junior high school teacher, a special education teacher, a vocational education teacher, a
student services representative, an English/language arts teacher, a mathematics teacher, and a
science teacher. Three members must represent Indiana teacher preparation units within Indiana
public and private institutions of higher education. They must hold a teacher’s license, but not
necessarily an Indiana teacher’s license, and be actively employed by the respective teacher
preparation units. One member must be a local school board member, another must be a
representative of the business community, and at least one member must have a child enrolled in
an Indiana public school. The Board’s composition is noteworthy in that a majority of the
members are actively practicing professionals.
The Board’s authority was also outlined in the legislation, which states: The Indiana
Professional Standards Board is established to govern teacher training and licensing programs.
Notwithstanding any other law, the board and the board’s staff have sole authority and
responsibility for making recommendations concerning and otherwise governing teacher
training and teacher licensing matters. IN. Code Sec. 20-1-1.4-2. Based on research undertaken
during its first two years of existence, the Board determined that new goals and standards could
elevate to even higher levels the quality of education in the state. Therefore, in 1994, the Board
voted to adopt performance-based content and developmental standards for the preparation and
licensure of education professionals.
An important foundation for Indiana’s performance-based system is the work done by
professional organizations at the national level in setting standards for all three phases of teacher
licensing (preparation, induction and continued practice). The standards developed by these
national groups embody the most up-to-date professional knowledge about content and
pedagogical preparation programs for education professionals. These organizations share the
5
view that the complex art of teaching requires performance-based standards and assessment
strategies that evaluate what teachers can actually do in authentic teaching situations. These
groups include:
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). The IPSB has a full
partnership agreement under the performance-based option with NCATE. National accreditation
of college and university units for the preparation of all teachers and other professional school
personnel at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels is the sole responsibility of NCATE,
which is recognized as the only accrediting agency for teacher education by the U. S.
Department of Education. NCATE provides a mechanism for voluntary peer regulation of the
professional unit that is designed to establish and uphold national standards of excellence, to
strengthen the quality and integrity of professional education units, and to ensure that
requirements for accreditation are related to best professional practice. Actual accreditation by
NCATE is strongly encouraged by IPSB but not mandatory, although NCATE standards are
utilized whether or not the institution seeks national accreditation. Indiana has 38 teacher
preparation institutions of which 33 are NCATE/IPSB accredited. Three are seeking NCATE
accreditation over the next two years and two are state-only accredited.
The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). INTASC was
established in 1987 by the Council of Chief State School Officers It supports collaboration
among states interested in rethinking teacher preparation, induction, licensing and assessment for
the beginning teacher. In 1994, IPSB adopted the INTASC model standards for initial licensing
of teachers as the basis for Indiana’s system for preparing and licensing teachers. The INTASC
standards describe what every beginning teacher should know and be able to do. The INTASC
core standards include knowledge, disposition and performance statements (see Appendix I). All
teacher preparation programs in Indiana are required to submit a performance-based Unit
Assessment System based on the INTASC principles and IPSB content and developmental level
standards for summative review on or before June 30, 2002. Indiana’s Unit Assessment System
preceded and is in alignment with the recently adopted NCATE 2000 Performance Based
Standards.
The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). The NBPTS is an
independent non-profit organization, founded in 1987, governed by a sixty-three member board
of directors, the majority of whom are classroom teachers. The NBPTS establishes standards for
what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do. The NBPTS operates a national
voluntary system to assess and certify teachers who meet these standards. National Board
certification differs from state licensure in that it is voluntary and is designed to recognize master
teachers with at least three years of teaching experience. Certification recognizes mastery of
accomplished practice within the education profession. It is designed to complement, not
duplicate or replace, existing state licensure procedures. Indiana recognizes NBPTS certification
and will award accomplished practitioner licenses to National Board certified teachers.
6
I. Identify the agency responsible for submitting the State Report
The IPSB is the state agency with reporting responsibilities for legislation enacted by Congress
under Title II of the Higher Education Act. The IPSB was created in 1992 by the Indiana State
Legislature and granted statutory authority to govern the preparation and licensure of education
professionals (teachers, administrators, and school service personnel).
Bet J. Kotowski, Ed.D., Director of Preservice Education, is the individual responsible for the
submission of the Title II information. For further information, please contact Dr. Kotowski at
Indiana Professional Standards Board
251 East Ohio Street, Suite 201
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2133
Telephone: (317) 232-9010
Fax: (317) 232-9023
E-mail: bkotowsk@psb.state.in.us
Internet: www.state.in.us/psb
II. Describe the process the state has used to establish implementing procedures in
collaborating with public and private institutions in the state and, as applicable, the testing
company.
The communication among the reporting units with the state of Indiana is considered critical to
the integrity of the reporting process. IPSB is fortunate to have established organizations and
committees that are actively involved in teacher preparation. Staff members of the IPSB met
with representatives of the Indiana Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (IACTE) to
discuss a collaboration plan for meeting the Title II reporting requirements. Formal and informal
presentations on Title II requirements, including panel discussions, have been included in all
subsequent meetings of IACTE.
A group of professional education unit heads and representative members of IACTE forms a
working group assisting IPSB Division of Preservice Education. This working group meets
bimonthly at the IPSB offices in Indianapolis. Frequent electronic communication between the
members of this group and IPSB facilitates decision-making and reporting content. This group
has agreed to serve as the initial review committee for all state Title II reports, before submission
to a larger group representing all teacher preparation institutions. All institutions have been
given the opportunity to review and comment on the contents of this report prior to submission.
This review mechanism will be implemented prior to submission of future Title II reports, as
well.
Additionally, IPSB conducts regular institutional sessions to which representatives of all teacher
preparation units are invited and encouraged to attend. Title II reporting updates have been and
7
will continue to be offered during these sessions. All unit heads and accompanying
representatives participated in a policy forum, sponsored by the IPSB Division of Preservice
Education and the IACTE August 16, 2000, to learn more about reporting requirements.
Indiana is a partnership state with the Educational Testing Service (ETS) in the data reporting
aspects of this process. As part of this collaborative effort, ETS has participated in formal
meetings attended by members of IPSB, and provided videotape information. ETS personnel are
available by e-mail and phone as necessary. Several teleconferences have been scheduled and
members of IPSB have participated. Reporting institutions are encouraged to communicate with
ETS directly, as well as personnel from Westat, the organization that is contracted by United
States Department of Education to assist in reporting.
The following table outlines the formal meetings that have occurred to support the
communication process.
8
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDIANA PLAN
DATE
ACTIVITY
LOCATION
June 23-25, 1999
INTASC meeting
Alexandria, VA
Sept.
IPSB/IACTE meeting
Indianapolis, IN
Sept. 23-24, 1999
INTASC meeting
Alexandria, VA
Nov. 2, 1999
ETS client meeting
Chicago, IL
Nov. 17-19, 1999
INTASC meeting
Alexandria, VA
Dec. 6, 1999
IACTE meeting with
deans/unit heads of all
teacher preparation
institutions
Session with
deans/program directors
of teacher preparation
programs
IACTE meeting with
deans/unit heads of all
teacher preparation
institutions
Preservice Education
Workgroup meeting
The first Title II
Advisory Panel meeting
including the satellite
teleconference about the
Title II reporting
requirements
Policy Forum of
deans/unit heads of all
teacher preparation
institutions
IACTE meeting with
deans/unit heads of all
teacher preparation
institutions
Institutional session with
deans/unit heads of all
teacher preparation
institutions
Indianapolis, IN
1999
March 3, 2000
May 28, 2000
June 1, 2000
June 6, 2000
August 16, 2000
Sept. 15, 2000
Sept. 29, 2000
DESCRIPTION
Update on the development of the definitions and
reporting requirements for Title II.
Discussion about amendments to the Higher
Education Act and the required institutional and
state reporting responsibilities.
Meeting for state members on Title II 1998
amendments to the Higher Education Act and the
reporting requirements.
Workshop on the role of ETS for the Title II
reporting requirements.
Status updates on the federal government’s
progress toward completing the definitions and
reporting requirements.
Update on Title II reporting requirements
Indianapolis, IN
Update with a final draft of the Title II Reference
and Reporting Guide
Indianapolis, IN
Update on Title II reporting requirements
Indianapolis, IN
Work on state preliminary plan
Indianapolis, IN
Nationwide teleconference about Title II
reporting requirements
Indianapolis, IN
Update and discussion regarding Title II
reporting specifics
Indianapolis, IN
Update on Title II reporting requirements
Indianapolis, IN
Update & Q/A on Title II reporting requirements
and institutional needs.
9
III. Describe procedures that ensure that the report will use the definitions used in
guidelines and also that information reported by institutions is complete and accurate.
As described in section II above, the IPSB and, more specifically, staff responsible for Title II
reporting, have multiple formal and informal mechanisms for interaction with the stakeholder
institutions to facilitate consistent implementation of the Title II reporting guidelines. These
interactions include:
1) presentations at Indiana Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (IACTE)
meetings;
2) Policy Forums;
3) IPSB Institutional Sessions;
4) unit head working group meetings;
5) regular e-mail reminders to unit heads and licensing advisors;
6) ETS resources, including web page and e-mail contacts;
7) Westat Resources, including web page and e-mail contacts; and
8) availability of IPSB staff by e-mail and phone.
The following are the key definitions that will be adhered to in the preparation of the Indiana
Title II report.
Teacher Preparation Program: A state approved course of study, the completion of which
signifies that an enrollee has met all the state’s educational and/or training requirements for
initial certification or licensure to teach in the state’s elementary or secondary schools. In
Indiana all accredited teacher preparation programs are housed within an institution of higher
education. As noted below, Indiana has not accredited alternative routes to licensing.
Program Completer: A person who has met all the requirements of a state-approved teacher
preparation program. Program completers include all those who are documented as having met
such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate,
program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the program’s requirements.
In applying this definition, the fact that an individual has or has not been recommended for initial
certificate or licensure may not be used as a definition for determining who is a program
completer. The definition of program completer varies among institutions in Indiana.
Alternative Route to Certification: At the present time the IPSB does not recognize alternative
routes to licensing, although a procedure exists to develop experimental programs based on
standards.
Regular Teacher Preparation Program: All teacher preparation programs within the state of
Indiana are included in this definition.
10
Waiver: Any temporary or emergency permit, license, or other authorization that permits an
individual to teach in a public school classroom without having received an initial certificate or
license from that state or any other state.
The “emergency” license in Indiana is known as a limited license. The limited license requires
the minimum of a Bachelor’s Degree and if the area is senior high-junior high/middle school, it
requires a Bachelor’s Degree with 15 semester hours of course work in the requested area. In
addition, the employing school district must request the license on behalf of the applicant. The
school district must verify an emergency need when making application. The limited license
expires on June 30 of the school year in which it is granted.
Once the limited license has been issued, the applicant must enroll in an approved teacher
preparation program in the area(s) requested. In order to renew the limited license, the applicant
must complete six (6) semester hours toward the completion of the approved program.
IV. Describe the major steps for aggregating the information needed to calculate, verify
and report pass rates.
Indiana will follow procedures adopted and implemented by ETS, Princeton, NJ for this purpose.
ETS has established a cohort reporting system for its client states.
This system:
 collects institutional cohort demographic information;
 matches each cohort member with the correct test by licensure area;
 provides a verification system for the cohort data that enables each institution to identify
matched tests and passing status for each cohort member;
 calculates the test passing rates, aggregate passing rates and summary passing rates for
each institution in the state;
 provides an electronic report to each institution in the state; and,
 calculates the state passing rates for the assessments used for licensure.
Each teacher preparation institution in the state will submit the cohort data directly to ETS prior
to November 1, 2000. After this date, ETS will match the cohort information with the testing
results. This database will then be available for verification to the institutions prior to
completion of the final data analysis required for submission.
11
V. Confirm that the state has established 1) the list of subject areas in which program
completers may receive licensure and the common format with which institutions will send
the identities of their program completers.
The overview outlined in section IV. above describes the relationship of the ETS and the IPSB.
A specific outline of these events (dated July 28, 2000) is included as Appendix II.
Since ETS developed the Praxis I and Praxis II tests used in Indiana, the IPSB agreed that ETS
should calculate the pass rates for the program completers at Indiana teacher preparation
institutions. In Indiana, a teaching license candidate who will complete a teacher preparation
program after September 1, 1999, must complete and pass the Praxis I tests, either the PreProfessional Skills Test (PPST) or the computer-based equivalent.
The IPSB has established the following passing scores for licensure:
Praxis I (effective 9/1/99-7/2/00)
Academic Skills Assessment
Test Name
Test Code
PPST Reading
710
PPST Writing
720
PPST Mathematics 730
Or
CBT Reading*
711
CBT Writing
721
CBT Mathematics
731
Passing Score
176
172
175
323
318
320
* computer based test
Candidates who passed all three parts of the Core Battery of the National Teacher’s
Examinations prior to September 1, 2000 may also use those scores for licensing.
Core Battery (effective until September, 2000)
Skills Assessment
Test Name
Communication Skills
General Knowledge
Professional Knowledge
Test Code
20500
10510
30520
Passing Score
653
647
646
12
Praxis II (effective 9/1/99 – 7/2/2000)
Specialty Test
License Code
Audio Visual Services
252
Biology
302
Business Education
121
Chemistry
303
Early Childhood
001
Earth Science
305
Economics
353
English
254
French
281
General Elementary
002
General Science
307
Geography
356
German
282
Government
357
Health & Safety
154
Home Economics
463
Test Code
0310
0230
0100
0240
0530
0570
0910
0041
0170
0011
0430
0920
0180
0930
0550
0120
Passing Score
530
510
480
460
510
420
460**
153*
520
143*
450
520**
490
390**
420
540
Industrial Technology
Kindergarten-Primary (K-3)
Learning Disabled
Library Services
Mathematics
Mild Disabilities
Music
Music: Choral/General
Music: Instrumental
Music: Choral
Music: General
Music: Choral General
and Instrumental
Physical Education
Physical Science
Physics
Psychology
Reading
School Media Services
Seriously Emotionally
201
004
406
257
308
417
103
104
105
106
107
108
0050
0020
0380
0310
0060
0380
0110
0110
0110
0110
0110
0110
590
510
430
530
530
430
510
510
510
510
510
510
156
309
310
358
262
260
405
0090
0430
0260
0390
0200
0310
0370
540
360
400
480**
510
530
540
Severe Disabilities
Social Studies
411
351
0380
0081
430
147*
13
Endorsement
Audio Visual Specialist
Biology
Business Education
Chemistry
Early Childhood
Earth Space Science
Economics
English Language
French
Elementary Education
General Science
Geography
German
Government
Health and Safety
Consumer Homemaking
Education
Industrial Technology
Kindergarten - Primary
Learning Disabilities
Library Services
Mathematics
Learning Disabilities
Music Education
Music Education
Music Education
Music Education
Music Education
Music Education
Physical Education
Physical Science
Physics
Psychology
Reading
School Media Services
Severely Emotionally
Handicapped
Severe Disabilities
Social Studies
Sociology
Spanish
Speech Communication
359
285
264
0950
0190
0220
440**
500
490
Visual Arts
102
0130
510
Sociology
Spanish
Speech communication and
Theater
Visual Arts
*These tests have a different scoring range.
** After July 1, 2000, these tests were no longer available.
VI. Identify
A. Academic year and test closure date
Indiana has adopted the definition of academic year as beginning with July 1, 1999, and
concluding with June 30, 2000. All testing data available on the cohort of program
completers on August 31, 2000, and for five years previous will be included in the first
report.
B. Date by which institutions submit data to testing company
All institutions will submit the data on their cohort of program completers prior to
November 1, 2000. These data are submitted electronically directly to ETS. ETS will
notify IPSB of any institutions failing to meet reporting deadlines.
C. Date institutions receive pass rates and verification data on this cohort
Institutions will have access to the electronic database compiled by ETS during the
period from November 27 – December 10, 2000, for necessary modifications and
verification.
D. What information institutions will receive to enable them to verify pass-rate data
All institutions will receive completed reports from ETS on or before February 14, 2001.
Institutions will have the opportunity to review all data at this time.
E. Components of the resolution process that will be available to institutions should
they disagree with state or testing company designations.
The period from February 14 – March 14, 2001 is for resolving questions that institutions
and/or states have concerning the pass rate reporting. This will be the final opportunity to
correct and resolve errors in the data prior to preparation of the final report.
According to ETS procedures, the institution will identify any perceived errors and notify
ETS as soon as possible, but no later than March 14, via e-mail at title2@ets.org. ETS
will investigate the inquiry, respond by e-mail whether there will be corrective action,
and whether there will be a fee. ETS will correct at no cost any changes due to an ETS
error.
14
If an institution does not receive the data or is unable to resolve the disagreements prior
to the reporting deadline, IPSB will follow the following procedures to address the
problem(s).
1) Failure to Meet Reporting Deadline
If an institution cannot secure data in a timely manner, the institution must promptly (a)
inform in writing the IPSB and the U. S. Department of Education of the problem, and
(b) propose a schedule for reporting to the IPSB the required pass rates, based on the ETS
estimate of when the institution will receive the needed data.
2) Disputes between Institution and Educational Testing Service
If an institution and ETS (“the parties”) reach an impasse, they must submit in writing a
packet of information to IPSB within 5 calendar days (determined by USPS postmark
date, the date of sending overnight delivery, or date of facsimile transmission) of the date
of the impasse. This packet must contain:




a joint statement that an impasse is reached;
a statement from each party describing its view of the issue(s) at the core
of the impasse;
all correspondence between the parties, including printouts of any
electronic messages, related to negotiations that led to the impasse; and,
a proposed resolution from each party.
Within 5 calendar days of the receipt of an impasse submission, the IPSB must confirm
receipt to the parties in writing and must appoint two administrative law judges (ALJs)
who are knowledgeable about the pass rate reporting process. During the same 5-day
period, the IPSB may submit a written recommendation on how to resolve the impasse,
and must send copies to the parties. The ALJs will review the written submissions from
the parties and resolve the impasse within 10 calendar days of receipt of submissions. If
the ALJs disagree on a resolution, they may appoint a third ALJ who will resolve the
impasse. Any resolution will be sent immediately to the parties and is binding on the
parties.
3) Disputes between Institution and IPSB
If an institution and IPSB (‘the parties”) reach an impasse, they must submit in writing a
packet of information to the IPSB within 5 calendar days (determined by USPS postmark
date, date of sending overnight delivery, or date of facsimile transmission) of the date of
the impasse. The packet must contain:


a joint statement that an impasse is reached;
a statement from each party describing its view of the issue(s) at the core of the
impasse;
15

all correspondence between the parties, including printouts of any electronic
messages, related to negotiations that led to the impasse; and, a proposed
resolution from each party.
Within 5 calendar days of the receipt of an impasse submission, the IPSB must confirm
receipt in the parties in writing, and must send a copy of the joint statement and the
statement from each party to the U.S. Department of Education. Each party must then
appoint one of three administrative law judges (ALJs) who are knowledgeable about the
pass rate reporting process. The two appointed ALJs will appoint a third ALJ within 5
calendar days of their appointment and will notify the parties in writing of the
appointment. The AlJs will review the written submission from the parties and resolve
the impasse within 10 calendar days of the receipt of the submissions. The resolution
will be sent immediately to the parties, and is binding on the parties.
VII. Describe, only if the state has developed them, the procedures for identifying lowperforming teacher preparation programs and provide technical assistance.
These procedures are currently under review and development. At the present time information
is being collected from the collaborative groups described in II. above prior to formulation of an
official policy which will be adopted and implemented by the IPSB. The current timeline
provides for adoption of this policy by June 30, 2001.
VIII. Other information
Supplementary Data:
The 38 accredited teacher preparation programs in the state of Indiana are diverse in their
missions, goals and client populations. In an effort to more accurately report the status of the
institutional program, each institution will also provide the following information as part of its
report. This information should be provided in a clear, concise and jargon-free manner and
should not exceed three pages in length.
1) A brief statement of the mission of the program and/or institution. This should include a
brief statement of the philosophical underpinning of the program.
2) Demographic characteristics of the student population. This should include, but is not
limited to the following data:
a.
b.
information on both the student population and the program completers: and,
racial/ethnic characteristics, gender/age characteristics and other information
such as socioeconomic information, that will aid in interpretation of the report.
16
3) Type of institution .
a. The three key types of institutions are defined below:
i. Gatekeeper Institution is defined as one where some or all of the statemandated tests are required prior to admission to a program or prior to a
specified experience within a program (e.g., student teaching);
ii. Exit Institution is defined as one where all state-mandated tests are
required for graduation or program completion or both; or,
iii. Licensure Institution is defined as an institution where all state-mandated
tests are required for licensure/certification but not for graduation.
b. The specific criteria to define program completer by the institution should be
included in this section.
4) Program characteristics . This should include categorization as one of the following type
of institutions, as well as any other unique information that describes the program:
a. undergraduate only – This is a traditional four year undergraduate program;
b. graduate only - The program is offered only to individuals who have completed
a four year degree. This may or may not result in the award of a graduate degree
upon completion of the program of study; or,
c. combination program – the institution offers programs at both the graduate and
undergraduate level that can lead to teacher licensing.
5) State, regional, and national accrediting information for both the program and the
institution.
17
Appendix I
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium
Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Licensing and Development
Principle #1:
The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and
the structure of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create
learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter
meaningful for students.
Principle #2:
The teacher understands how children learn and develop, and can
provide learning opportunities that support their intellectual, social
and personal development.
Principle#3:
The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to
learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to
diverse learners.
Principle #4:
The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional
strategies to encourage students’ development of critical thinking,
problem solving, and performance skills.
Principle #5:
The teacher uses an understanding of individual and group
motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that
encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in
learning and self-motivation.
Principle #6:
The teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and
media communication techniques to foster active inquiry,
collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom.
Principle #7:
The teacher plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject
matter, the community and curriculum goals.
Principle #8:
The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment
strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social
and physical development of the learner.
Principle #9:
The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates
the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students,
parents, and other professionals in the learning community) and
who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.
18
Principle#10:
The teacher fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents,
and agencies in the larger community to support students’ learning
and well-being.
19
Appendix II
Educational Testing Service
Title II 2000-2001 Reporting Schedule
for the
1999-2000 Cohort Year
August 15 - November 1, 2000: Institutions of higher education (IHEs) submit their cohort lists
of program completers and related information needed for matching and pass rate calculation to
Educational Testing Service (ETS). During this period, IHEs may add or delete cohort members
and may edit their information as often as needed.
November 1, 2000: Deadline for IHEs to submit their cohort lists of program completers to ETS.
The ETS Title II Reporting Website will close after this date. ETS begins initial matches.
November 27 - December 10, 2000: The ETS Title II Reporting Website will reopen so that
IHEs may check the matches of their program completers against the Praxis database. During
this period IHEs may add or delete cohort members and modify demographic information for
those who did not match. To enable IHEs and states to meet their reporting deadline, ETS is not
able to accept cohort changes beyond December 10th.
December 11, 2000 - February 14, 2001: ETS will use the new or modified information to try
to match those not found initially. ETS will extract test scores for matched program completers
and calculate pass rates.
January 8, 2001: ETS will send scores and demographic data to those states calculating their
own pass rates.
February 14, 2001: ETS will send IHE reports by this date.
February 14 - March 14, 2001: This period is for resolving questions that IHEs and/or states
may have concerning pass rate reporting. If ETS has made an error, it will correct the error at no
charge. If the IHE has made an error, ETS will correct it and regenerate the report; however, a
fee will be charged for that service.
March 28, 2001:
ETS sends states or IHEs any final corrected reports by this date.
20
APPENDIX III
TITLE II INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION CONTACTS
Duane Hoak, Chair
School of Education
Anderson University
Decker Hall 384
Anderson, IN 46012
ph. (765)641-4042
email: dchoak@anderson.edu
Roy Weaver, Dean
Teachers College 1008
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
ph. (765)285-5251
email: rweaver@gw.bsu.edu
Jeffrey Peck, Chair
Division of Education
Bethel College Admin Bldg.
1001 W. McKinley Ave.
Mishawaka, IN 46545
ph. (219)257-2669
email: peckj@bethel-in.edu
Ena Shelley, Interim Dean
College of Education
Butler University
Jordan Hall 171
Indianapolis, IN 46208
Ph:(317)940-9466
email: eshelley@butler.edu
Dean Elaine Kisisel, Interim Chair
Education Program
Calumet College
2400 New York Avenue
Whiting, IN 46394
ph. (219)473-4271
email: ekisisel@ccsj.edu
Esther Lee, Chair
Education Department
DePauw University
Greencastle, IN 6135
ph: (765)658-4800
email: esther@depauw.edu
Barbara Divins, Chair
Anita Stalter Lapp, Director
Department of Education
Teacher Education
Franklin College
Goshen College
501 E. Monroe Street
1700 S. Main Street
Franklin, IN 46131
Goshen, IN 46526
ph. (317)738-8253
ph. (219)535-7442
email: divinsb@franklincoll.edu email:anitakl@goshen.edu
Shara Curry, Chair
Division of Education
Grace College
200 Seminary Drive
Winona Lake, IN 46590
ph. (219)372-5100
email:sbcurry@grace.edu
Kay Willimas, Chair
Cynthia Tyner, Chair
Department of Education
Teacher Education
Hanover College
Taylor University
Newby Hall
Upland, IN 46989
Hanover, IN 47243-0108
ph. (765)998-5146
ph. (812)866-7392
email: markel@hanover.edu email: cntyner@taylor.edu
Terrell Peace, Chair
Education Department
Huntington College
2303 College Avenue
Huntington, IN 46750
ph. (219)359-4224
email:
tpeace@huntington.edu
21
Rebecca Libler, Inter. Dean
School of Education
Indiana State University
Terre Haute, IN 47809
ph: (812)237-2919
email: rlibler@indstate.edu
Jerry Summers, Assoc. Dean
School of Education
Indiana State University
Terre Haute, IN 47809
ph: (812)237-2893
email:
esummer@vesac.indstate.edu
Marilyn Watkins, Chair
Michael Tulley, Acting Chair
Division of Education
Division of Education
Indiana University East
Indiana University, Kokomo
2325 Chester Boulevard
P.O. Box 9003
Richmond, IN 47374-9979
Kokomo, IN 46904-9003
ph. (765)973-8211
ph. (765)455-9441
email: mwatkins@indiana.edu email: tulley@iuk.edu
Roberta Behr Wiener, Dean
Education Department, IPFW
2101 E. Coliseum Blvd.
Room 250, Neff Hall
Fort Wayne, IN 46805
ph: (219)481-6456
email: wiener@ipfw.edu
Gerardo Gonzalez, Dean
School of Education
Indiana University
WW Wright Ed. Bldg.,
Room 4130
Bloomington, IN 47405
ph. (812)856-8001
email: gonzalez@indiana.edu
Stanley Wigle, Dean
Division of Education
Indiana University, N. W.
Hawthorn Hall, Room 357A
Gary, IN 46408
ph. (219)981-4278
email: swigle@iunhawl.iun.
indiana.edu
Barbara Wilcox
James Smith, Dean
Executive Associate Dean
Education Division
School of Education IUPUI
Indiana Univ., South Bend
Ed/Soc Work Bldg., Room 3138 1700 Mishawaka Avenue
902 W. New York St.
P. O. Box 711
Indianapolis, IN 46202-5155
South Bend, IN 46615
ph: (317)274-6862
ph: (219)237-4546
email: wilcox@indiana.edu
email: jsmith@iusb.edu
Cristina Rios
Assoc. Dean & Assoc. Prof.
Education Division
Indiana University
South Bend
Greenlawn Hall POB 1711
South Bend, IN 46615
ph. (219)237-4486
email: crios@iusb.edu
Stephen W. Gilbert, Dean
Education Division
Indiana University, S. E.
4201 Grantline Road
New Albany, IN 47150
ph. (812)941-2385
email: sgilbe01@ius.edu
James Elsberry, Chair
Division of Education
Indiana Wesleyan University
Christian Ministry Building
4201 S. Washington St.
Marion, IN 46953
ph. (765)677-2221
email: jelsberr@indwes.edu
Joann Schall, Director
Teacher Education
Manchester College
Administration Bldg. 131
North Manchester, IN 46962
ph. (219)982-5056
email: jaschall@manchester.edu
Susan Blackwell, Chair
Education Department
Marian College
3200 Cold Spring Rd.
Administration Bldg. 11
Indianapolis, IN 46222
ph. (317)955-6091
email: blackwes@marian.edu
Bernard Marley, Dean
School of Education
Oakland City University
143 Lucretia Street
Oakland City, IN 47660
ph. (812)749-4781, ext. 296
email: bmarley@oak.edu
22
Marilyn Haring, Dean
School of Education
Purdue University
LAEB 6114
West Lafayette, IN 47907
ph. (765)494-2336
email: haringm@purdue.edu
Robert Rivers, Interim Head
School of Education
Purdue University, Calumet
2233 171st Street
Hammond, IN 46323
ph. (219)989-2348
email: riversr@calumet.purdue.edu
Jennifer Barce, Chair
Education Department
St. Joseph’s College
Box 935
Rensselaer, IN 47978-0889
ph: (219)866-6384
email: jenniferb@saintjoe.edu
Christine Bahr, Chair
Education Department
St. Mary of the
Woods College
Le Fer Hall
St. Mary of the Woods,
IN, 47876
ph: (812)535-5227
email: cbahr@smwc.edu
Carl Siler, Director
Teacher Education
Taylor University
236 W. Reade Ave.
Upland, IN 46989
ph. (765)998-4879
email: crsiler!@tayloru.edu
Sue Van Wagner, Chair
Department of Education
Tri-State University
1 University Drive
Angola, IN 46703
ph. (219)665-4100, 4200
Joyce Johnstone, Director
Institute for Educational
Initiatives
University of Notre Dame
1023 Flanner Hall
Notre Dame, IN 46556
ph: (219)631-3430
email: johnstone.3@nd.edu
Jeff Daley, Chair
Education Department
Valparaiso University
Miller Hall 227A
Valparaiso, IN 46383
ph. (219)464-5474
email: vanwagner@alpha.tristate.edu
Lynn Weisenbach, Dean
School of Education
University of Indianapolis
1400 E. Hanna Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46227
ph. (317) 788-3285
email:weisenbach@uindy.
edu
Marie Doyle, Chair
Teacher Education
St Mary’s College
320 Madeleva Hall, Room 320
Notre Dame, IN 46556
ph. (219)284-4485
email: mdoyle@saintmarys.edu
Nealon Gaskey, Chair
School of Education
University of Evansville
1800 Lincoln Avenue
Evansville, IN 47722
ph. (812)479-2385
email: np4@evansville.edu
Thomas Pickering, Dean
School of Education, FW 165
University of Southern Indiana
8600 University Boulevard
Evansville, IN 47712
ph. (812)464-8600
email: tpickeri@usi.edu
Richard Avdul, Director
Department of Education
University of St. Francis
2701 Spring Street
Fort Wayne, IN 46808
ph: (219)434-3248
email: ravdul@sf.edu
Deborah Butler, Director
Education Program
Wabash College
Baxter Hall 29B
Crawfordsville, IN 47933
ph. (765)361-6100, ext. 6338
email: butlerd@wabash
Lynn Penland, Dean
College of Education &
Health Sciences
University of Evansville
1800 Lincoln Avenue
Evansville, IN 47722
ph. (812)479-2360
email: sg22@evansv
23
24