Teacher Education Council

February 7, 2008

3 � 4:30pm

Fireplace Lounge, Corey Union

 

Members Present:� J. O�Callaghan,� G. Porter, V. Marty, K. Mack, M. Barduhn,� K. Beney, �W. Buxton, J. Governali, K. Coffey, M. Prus, J. Mosher, A. Pagano, J. Malavasic, J. Bailey, R. Ponteria, T. Christodouleas, C. Dore, M. Pitcher, C VanDerKarr, �L. Melita, E. Gravani, Y.Murnane, S. Pesesky.

 

I.                    Review of today�s agenda - accepted

 

II.                 Review of December 6, 2007 minutes �- accepted

 

III.               Old Business

 

��������� Relatives and student teaching draft policy � K. Beney and J. O�Callaghan

They presented the following draft: Proposed addition to existing information contained within the Student Teaching Handbook:

When completing the application for student teaching, teacher candidates are required to disclose information to their department coordinator and the Field Placement Office regarding relatives employed or attending school in any school district where placement could occur. The term �relative� includes parent, spouse, children, step-children, siblings, aunts, uncles and/or in-laws. Under most circumstances, teacher candidates will not be placed in districts where relatives are employed. Failure to provide this information may result in dismissal from the teacher education program.

J Bailey asked for clarification about the �Under most circumstances�� sentence. K. Beney replied that it gave flexibility in making determinations. There are rural school districts where a rigid policy would cause hardship. M. Prus asked if there had been problems. K. Beney replied that there had been anecdotal incidents that have been problematic on our campus, more so on other campuses. TEC members approved draft with no objections. Draft will be submitted to Provost for approval.

 

CPR and AED implementation � next steps? In looking over the draft proposal for �CPR certification recommendation from T.E.C. there were questions from J. Malavasic about how the subcommittee arrived at number of students to be certified and whether the MAT and MST students were included in that figure. M. Barduhn replied that undergraduate graduation figures were used to determine the number of students who would receive this training. B. Buxton pointed out that the original wording of the proposal stipulated undergraduate. G. Porter suggested that the TEC needs to look at a way of phasing in graduate students to this CPR/AED course. The Provost�s memo indicates this requirement would be effective fall, 2008.� B. Buxton pointed out it would be possible to get course set up for people graduating next spring. E. Gravani asked if this course would show up on the CAPP report. M. Barduhn responded yes, and that it would probably show up on the report where CARR and SAVE are, as a yes/no � having completed the course. G. Porter pointed out that this training is not required for certification. It is something that enriches and enhances a student�s qualifications.� Y. Murname agreed to providing a proposal for the next TEC meeting agenda discussing the addition of graduate students to this requirement.

 

Fingerprinting � subcommittee needed? Cortland City schools is now requiring that all student teachers going to their schools be fingerprinted. This may be true in other districts. 1. We need to make sure that students who are placed in those schools are fingerprinted. 2. We need to be proactive because this looks like this is going to be a requirement that all districts are going to have, in the not to distant future. G. Porter proposed that we have a subcommittee �look into what are the issues. Where would students be fingerprinted? What would the cost be? Could that be something that is provided on campus? One question that came up was that when students are fingerprinted, that information is forwarded to Albany but there isn�t any record that we have, locally, indicating that occurred. How would a school know that the student had been fingerprinted? K. Beney provided additional research because of the impact on Field Placement office. A lot of organizations are taking on the fingerprinting process in order to have local records. The large school districts are adopting a mechanism of doing it electronically. They�ve purchased the equipment, people come in, they fingerprint them, the information gets sent to State Ed and they have a record of it both at the site it was done and the state education department. What she has not found out yet is the cost of purchasing such electronic equipment but she does know it is very efficient in terms of a 3 to 4 day turn around time. Dr. Porter is absolutely on target in terms of the exponential in terms of the number of districts that are suddenly cropping up. It�s going hand in hand with their board requirements for volunteers to be fingerprinted before they come into the schools. So this is a natural extension of that, that college students coming into schools be fingerprinted. B. Buxton asked if she felt that is would be easier to let the districts do it. She responded, no, she thinks that we should do it centrally. She just doesn�t know the specifics involved, the costs, and how we would go about implementing it. She has calls in to her counterparts on other campuses to see how they are dealing with this issue. Y. Murnane asked about UPD as a choice for students to be fingerprinted. K. Beney �s understanding is that is on an ad hoc basis, with there not being consistency in turn around time. M. Pitcher provided anecdotal experience of months long turn around time and unreadable quality of prints. K. Beney pointed out that some students are having fingerprinting done in their hometown. We can�t assume that those fingerprints are sent to Albany so some of our students end up fingerprinted twice. K. Beney and K. Mack will form a subcommittee to report at the next meeting. V. Marty pointed out that there would be fingerprinting/certification fees that would have to be factored into to a plan to have the college offer this service.

 

Dispositions � see articles, (via e-mail) The TEC has taken a look at and refined a list of dispositions to be more inline with NCATE recommendations. Now it is time to discuss how these dispositions will be assessed.� G. Porter has identified a number of articles that address this issue of dispositions and assessment. These will be distributed to everybody via e-mail. TEC needs to establish a subcommittee to look into disposition assessment and to make specific recommendations on how we should be doing that. To develop some uniform procedures that can be consistently applied across units on campus. So when NCATE comes on campus and asks, how are you determining whether or not students are fulfilling these dispositions. If we have these dispositional competencies we can say yes we have some way of evaluating that. If a student is deficient we have a procedure for remediating that. Or, showing that they are beyond hope, and will be eliminated from the program. Right now the process seems is pretty ad hoc and that really places us at risk in the NCATE accreditation process. J. Mosher, A. Pagano, M. Prus and W. Buxton will serve on the disposition assessment subcommittee.

 

Update: Professional Development School (PDS). Regional Planning Process underway. Everyone knows at this point that we have a professional development school initiative with Cortland City Schools. There are a number of planning groups, that are meeting, which are at very different stages, apparently, developmentally in terms of having proposals to put forward. The basic process is that, by the end of March, these planning groups will submit proposals. Those proposals will be evaluated competitively and the proposals that best fit the needs for implementing the PDS with the resources that we have available, and so on, will be selected and implemented in the upcoming academic year. In the feedback that we have been getting about the planning process, a number of issues have arisen. It has become clear that some, especially teachers in the schools, don�t really know very much about the whole model of professional development schools. �They need to learn more about that and we need to get more information to them about professional development schools, the possibilities there, how it works and so on.� We would like to really encourage and provide some support to teachers to participate. A meeting has been set up for Wednesday, February 13th at Parker school.

There seems to be some confusion about the process. The prospectus that was shared in previous TEC meeting outlined, in broad terms, the expectations for the planning groups and what the proposals need to look like. People are looking for more specificity. The meeting on the 13th will be providing folks with a rubric and answer the questions that people have. What are the specific criteria and what will be rated on those criteria for the proposals to go forward.

It is not true that the decision has already been made on what proposals will be approved.� Although some of the initial groups have fallen away or there has been some erosion, there still is a fair level of engagement of groups and certainly enough to move ahead. With the meeting on the 13th and one or two additional meetings hopefully, we�ll be able to maintain the level of engagement and enthusiasm that people started this process with. Process started with administrators from the college and Cortland School district. After Roberta Trachtman came and met those administrators, that group had an epiphany that it would be better to have district teachers and college faculty, who can draw on their immediate knowledge of the needs of our students or the students in the district, develop a set of proposals that were a response to what people knew to be the real on-the-ground issues. G. Porter invited the other members into discussion of their observations of Cortland school district staff perceptions of PDS. J. O�Callaghan mentioned a meeting he attended with field placement folks. There was some grumbling about the PDS initiative having a lack of direction and not knowing what�s going on. A bunch of people in the room had the perception that the purpose and function of the PDS, the goal of PDS, was to resolve complaints that Cortland City Schools had made about some our students. There was a time when Larry Spring had a list of anecdotal problems with particular students here and there. There is a perception growing out there that we�re creating a PDS to make those guys happy so they don�t grumble so much. G. Porter responded that it is true. That is why the district is buying into this is because that�s what they see they are going to get out of it. There�s nothing inherently problematic with each of the parties, that are buying into this, having different agendas. R. Olsen felt that the district personnel�s ultimate goal was to get their students better instructors, better teachers, better prepared student candidates� from our schools, our college into their program. O�Callaghan said that another complaint was that when the sub-groups met there was a disproportionate number of SUNY Cortland people versus district people. G. Porter pointed out that one response to that problem was the scheduling of the next PDS meeting at Parker school but that the falling of if interest weeds out the less enthusiastic. For those people who don�t find participation in the PDS a good fit, it�s probably best that they sit out initially, until we have the first implementation of the PDS. This is a pilot project. C. VanDerKarr asked what kinds of assessment has been done in terms of dispositions. Have there been any focus groups or discussions with teachers where it�s just open-ended in terms of what their perceptions are of what�s needed? Perhaps a venue where the teachers don�t have an administrator there. She thinks it changes the conversation if there�s an administrator who�s advocating for this initiative and the teachers who are willing to sit down and talk versus someone who�s going and saying what do you all need. G. Porter wondered who would convene discussions without administrators. W. Buxton suggested that the school administrators could call a meeting then leave.

G. Porter asked if any of the members who have contacts in the school could provide feedback on teacher perceptions or concerns. M. Pitcher said that he has a couple of friends involved in the PDS process and he has only heard vented frustration from them in terms of direction. On behalf of the faculty that he knows in the schools there is somewhat of an adversarial relationship at the present time between faculty and administration. There may be some implications of that in terms of teacher�s willingness to do certain things and participate in certain ways. He�s hearing from these teacher friends that there are desires to see things happening in the schools that are being presented by people who are never in the schools themselves. K. Coffey concurred with M. Pitcher�s assessment. She is seeing the same frustration, tremendous tension between current administration and teachers, very top down, they feel they are not getting any kind of compensation for doing more and more and more and that it�s just too much. PDS meeting message may not be seen because it probably �comes out in the 100 e-mail message I get a day that I have no time to look at� C. VanDerKarr wondered� when we plan a meeting with district personnel do we check their calendar to see if it conflicts with a busy time of the school year? Are we sensitive to what their lives are? M. Pitcher said that the desire to have PDS initiative be a bottom up process does not equate with the feeling that the teachers have. There is this sense of just another top down type of initiative that they don�t have time for. If there is anything that we can do to impress upon them that this a bottom up type of thing that it might be received better. R. Ponterio concurred. He said the most successful collaborations he has had with the teachers in the Cortland schools have happened when several foreign language teachers have gotten together and decided to work together and then had our meetings together at the high school at a time when it was convenient for those teachers. They were very appreciative of our willingness to fit into their schedule. A. Pagano spoke to the difference between college faculty schedule and public school teacher schedule. School teachers are 100% teaching where college faculty are a third teaching, a third research, a third service. Committee meetings for college faculty are a third of our job. At the public school level committee meetings are a huge burden. Appreciate them first, then start targeting their issues and concerns. Have a dinner or celebration and invite them to something with this appreciation sense. Then have at their table a questionnaire with an emphasis that we�re here to help you.

V. Marty pointed out that there is something in place, it has been in place for 19 years, the Celebration of Teaching. It takes place the first week of May on a Wednesday night. It is a no cost evening of dessert and entertainment. Teachers from 50 miles around are invited and 60% come from Cortland and Homer. They come from Dryden, Groton and Marathon and close environs.

It was questioned whether TEC would want feedback from all of them. C. VanDerKarr suggested sending sweatshirts to every teacher who�s supervising along with a survey about �how can we make this a better experience?� G. Porter pointed out that this would have to happen by early March in order for it to have the desired impact.

W. Buxton had a procedure point. His past experience with PDS was that it could only happen after the entire faculty of the school voted and agreed to become a Professional Development School. Is that any part of this process? If it�s included, that is some way of expanding this discussion and not allowing it to become a few teachers at a few schools, but instead, getting a commitment from everyone. In his experience at University of Utah, they only went to schools in which the school voted and there was very strong support, it wasn�t just a majority. The faculty wanted to become a Professional Development School. An endorsement, yes, so that you had broad spread support before you got involved in trying to decide on individual types of things to do. G. Porter pointed out that there are a lot of different models for PDS. There are plans in the works to invite the superintendents in the region to discuss what a regional PDS might look like. It�s important to keep in mind that this is just a pilot. It is a way of responding to very specific concerns that at least the administration of the Cortland city schools had with the college. By doing this PDS we have been able to have a much stronger voice in how we respond to those concerns. Rather than have them dictate, these are the terms in which we are going to allow your students into our schools. If we are ultimately serious about having Professional Development School, it�s going to cause a major alteration of our curriculum. We are going to have to make it possible for students to begin their experience in the schools as early as the freshman year.� In spite of teachers falling away, some people disgruntled, many more people simply indifferent, there is a core group of people who are engaged and moving ahead.

 

IV. New Business

��������� Teacher Education Council (TEC) � purpose, function, organization, Initial self-examination This august body was formed to make sure that all teacher education programs had a voice in setting policy, but this is an advisory board to the Provost. All seventy teacher education programs have a seat at this table. We haven�t seen seventy people at a meeting so far. Is there a better model of representation? B. Buxton noted the preamble to the TEC by-laws and the role and function as outlined in the by-laws. In particular �While the TEC advises on issues related to teacher education, it does not supersede the authority of regular departments, programs, Faculty Senate, senate committees, curriculum committees�. In looking over the wide range of things TEC has done, it looks like mandating to the departments. It seems time, considering NCATE is coming, to have a discussion about what are the limits to what this body does. Are we advisory? Do we recommend? Do we actually get involved in more proactive, creating policy, standards and procedures for all teacher education programs. He thinks there has been a lot of tension over the years about the limits of what this body should do. G. Porter pointed out that one of the problems is that all of the teacher education programs are not housed in a school of education, which typically is the unit, you need to have some way of making unit-wide policy. NCATE mandates that. His understanding is that TEC is the mechanism by which that expectation of NCATE was fulfilled. B. Buxton agreed and recalled that there was a very vibrant discussion about: Does this body supersede the authority of departments and schools in the college or not? This tension manifests itself in the by-laws. There is some ambiguity there. M. Prus agreed that it is time to have this discussion. That it might return a sense of vibrancy and robustness to the discussion that take place within this organization. Some were around at the start and can recall when there would be seventy people in the room discussing issues regarding governance of the TEC. Issues concerning the conceptual framework. Many of the things that were mandated by the TEC occurred before the revisions to the by-laws passed. In part, the by-laws that we have now were a reaction to things like the NCATE syllabus. Once the by-laws were revised, and it was a long, painful process, they were approved and quickly forgotten about. It�s a legitimate question to ask about where the boundaries between the authority of academic departments and schools begin and end and where the TEC takes over.

G. Porter has the most recent revision of the by-laws and can distribute it electronically so members can look at them. Several members felt the need for a meeting dedicated to a discussion of the by-laws. Some felt an open discussion at the next meeting that had been stimulated by a campus-wide distribution of the by-laws and a set of accompanying questions would be good.� C. VanDerKarr suggested a web-survey posted with the by-laws and invite the college community to participate. G. Porter will meet with C. VanDerKarr to explore this.

 

 

Adjourned 4:45

Respectfully submitted,

Sharon Pesesky