MACTE has been asked for a position on the standards. I know that there are differences of opinion about the passage of these new standards. So MACTE will not be taking a single position. We recognize that if the Board does not act soon, the legislature will act for them.

However, we have two major concerns which I have expressed to Karen Balmer and shared with Louise Wilson, the higher education representative on the BOT.

1. The first is that the level of detail in these reading standards will set a precedent for future revisions in the standards. Along with that, of course, is the concern about how institutions will be able to document that we are covering and assessing our candidates on all of these standards.

2. The second is that there are some items that are not appropriate for beginning teachers. These are competencies that are developed over time when working with children. They are enhanced by high quality induction and mentoring programs.

 

The Board will be voting to move to rulemaking at their meeting on Friday, July 11th.

 

The status of No Children Left Behind (NCLB) met with vigorous discussion at one of the AACTE "Day on the Hill" activities in June 2008. MACTE members Michael A. Miller and Maureen C. Prenn, John Clementson, Elaine Ackerman and George Guidera were in Washington D.C. to lobby senators and representatives about teacher education funding for Teacher Quality Grants and education policy. "We met with staff from Senator Klobuchar's office, Senator Colman's office, Representative Walz's office and Representative McCollum's office, " MACTE President Prenn said. "Most staff members were quite knowledgeable about education policy and the issues surrounding NCLB." Michael Miller is chair of AACTE's Government Relations Committee.

 

We know that the current accreditation systems for teacher education are not working the way they should. Many of you have commented about the problems with accreditation, including large amounts of people and financial resources devoted to preparation instead of improving our programs, inconsistent feedback and evaluation from reviewers, two competing systems, and a lack of a clear reporting process to policy makers.  AACTE has been instrumental in bringing leaders from NCATE and TEAC together to address these issues. The first concrete step in moving forward was announced this week. A joint NCATE/TEAC Design Team examining multiple pathways to accreditation is being established. While the process may take a couple of years to fully develop, it is good news for all of us. Below is a short version of an announcement from the NCATE website.

Washington , DC -- Dr. Frank B. Murray, President of the Teacher Education Accreditation Council, and Dr. Arthur E. Wise, outgoing president of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, today jointly announced the unanimous agreement of their respective governing boards to work together on the development of an accreditation system for educator preparation that has multiple pathways to accreditation. Both agencies currently perform the accreditation function independently of each other. In particular, both boards authorized the appointment of a joint NCATE/TEAC Design Team to develop a specific proposal for an accreditation system with multiple pathways to accreditation. See http://www.ncate.org/public/063008_NCATE_TEAC.asp. for more details.

 

This month, Education Week published a major study on graduation rates in the U.S. The report, Diplomas Count 2008, bears good news for Minnesota: our state ranks ninth among the 50 states and the District of Columbia in the percentage of ninth-graders who make it to graduation in four years. Furthermore, the report lauds Minnesota and 37 other states for forming P-16 councils to unite elementary and secondary education with higher education. States like Minnesota whose P-16 organizations meet at least quarterly, have dedicated sources of funding, and work together to set P-16 performance goals were cited for their efforts. MACTE has an active presence on Minnesota P-16 Education Partnership, which includes representatives of a broad range of P-12 and higher education organizations as well as business and community groups. Despite all of this good news, however, a closer examination of the data on graduation rates reveals that, among the 39 states that disaggregate data by ethnicity, we are 39^th - last place - in the percentage of African-American students who graduate on time. Only 38.8% of African-American students in Minnesota graduate from high school in four years. In fact, Minnesota ranks near the bottom in graduation rates for all minority groups. Clearly, we have work to do together to improve education for all Minnesota children.

Earlier this month the MACTE Executive Committee met to establish its short-term and long term goals. With an overarching theme of continuous improvement, and a focus on a vision for restoring Minnesota's preeminence as a national leader in education, we continue to offer our organization as a partner to the Board of Teaching. Working together, we can envision and enact a better future for Minnesota students and the teachers who serve them.

On the near horizon in our work together are the proposed changes to the Board's standards for teachers. We embrace the Board's efforts to review, revise, and amend these standards, which are an essential component in efforts to ensure student success. We look forward to working with you and with our own stakeholders throughout the rule-making process. We pledge to work diligently and effectively within our institutions to make the curricular and policy changes necessary to embed the new standards within our programs.

The proposed rule changes are complex. Each of the MACTE institutions faces a great deal of work with faculty, staff, and internal approval bodies to make the necessary programmatic and curricular changes. While we desire to respond to the new standards as quickly and nimbly as possible, we must recognize and plan for other potentially competing demands. We know that an ambitious timeline for rule-making is being considered - and we share the sense of urgency. Yet we wish to express our concern about a timeline that would require MACTE institutions to begin making changes in programs and coursework before the rule-making process is complete. The changes to the standards come at a time when we are participating with the Board to remake the program approval process (currently known as PEPER),while we continue our efforts to embed Response to Intervention (RTI) strategies within our programs, while several MACTE institutions are preparing for state and national accreditation, and while MNSCU institutions are engaged in a process of curriculum review necessitated by the move from 128 to 120 credits in undergraduate majors. As we work on these important initiatives, we must do what is in the best interest of our own students, those individuals preparing to teach in Minnesota. Let us work together to establish an ambitious yet realistic timeline for enacting the proposed changes to the Minnesota standards for teachers.

The Education Week report on graduation rates highlights both successes and challenges in our state. MACTE members take pride in Minnesota's schools, and we recognize that all education stakeholders must make every effort to strengthen the school experience for every child. We care deeply; we are aunts, uncles, caring adults, parents, and grandparents to Minnesota kids. We look forward to continuing our positive relationship with the Board of Teaching - and to working together to restore Minnesota's preeminence as a national leader in education.

 

Changes for the Future

• Collaboration & strategic partnerships
• Capitalizing on online opportunities keeping a balance with traditional discourse
• Recruiting/retaining a culturally competent teaching force
• Quality through collaboration in professional learning communities
• Pre-K through adult
• Re-establish a common purpose for education
• Expanding learning platforms
• Impacts of economic disparity
• International partners
• Teacher is the core for change
• Need for policy and leadership initiatives: Teachers as leaders
• Conceptualize & discuss the achievement gap differently
• Local teaching for global awareness
• Unleashing human potential
• Partner w/ state & national legislators
• Focus on needs of individuals

 

READING STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK

Peg Ballard and Maureen Prenn

(representing MACTE and Minnesota State University, Mankato)

Please identify your area of targeted feedback:

_X__  Early Childhood & Elementary Licensure    

            ___  Content-Specific Licensure: ______________________________________

            ___  Endorsements (Teacher of Reading & Reading Leader)

In your table group, please discuss each of the questions below. One person at each table will be designated to record notes on the laptop provided. To the extent possible, participants representing the same stakeholder group or organization should be seated at the same table. If multiple licensure fields are represented at a table (i.e.; math, music, etc.), the notes should reflect discussion of each specific licensure area.

Discussion Questions

1. What is the role of reading/reading instruction for teachers in this licensure area?

 

Clearly, this is a critical area for both early childhood and elementary teachers. This is the time when the foundation of reading is learned.

1. How are teachers in this licensure area currently being prepared in reading/reading instruction?

Early childhood preparation in reading is currently inadequate. Elementary preparation also needs improvement in terms of depth. Currently, there is not enough time to provide everything that is needed. The MnSCU cap on credits prevents programs from adding more content to the programs.

1. How will the proposed standards impact the licensure area in general?

It would put more of a focus on reading and literacy.

1. How will the proposed standards impact these teachers in the area of reading?

They would have much deeper knowledge of reading and literacy.

1. Will the proposed standards better prepare teachers in this licensure area - in general? In reading?

The proposed standards would enhance beginning teachers' knowledge of literacy in general as well as reading.

1. What are the strengths and benefits of the proposed standards? BE SPECIFIC!

Overall, MACTE supports the goal of increasing the level of preparation of preservice early childhood and elementary teachers in the area of reading. These new standards promote a balanced approach to reading instruction. They are broader than just reading, incorporating literacy in general. Additionally, the needs of English Learners are included. The focus on assessment and interventions is much stronger with these standards than in the current standards.

1. What suggestions do you have for improving the proposed standards? BE SPECIFIC!

MACTE suggests that the level of specificity be reduced to make the standards more usable. We have questions about how the many outcomes can be assessed. When we move to sub-numbers (e.g., i, ii, iii), we move to a level of explicitness that is unwieldy. How would we approach tasks like PEPER with this set of standards? Even if we did not need to report content on syllabi, we would be responsible to report on assessment of too many outcomes. How much time would be spent learning content vs. assessing the learning of content? One suggestion is to reduce the level of explicitness but make the more detailed content available to guide faculty as they develop course syllabi and content. Missing content: Response to Intervention (RTI) and oral language development. In general the document covers important areas, but it needs to be more usable.

 

Other Feedback

If there are any areas that you would like to comment on but are not addressed by the questions above, please note these areas on the electronic feedback form. Also, some stakeholder groups and organizations have chosen to provide a more formal response to the proposed rule language. If you have a written statement, please make a note in this section to refer the task force to the supplemental information.

 

READING STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK

Peg Ballard and Maureen Prenn

(representing MACTE and Minnesota State University, Mankato)

Please identify your area of targeted feedback:

___  Early Childhood & Elementary Licensure       

            _X__  Content-Specific Licensure: Communication Arts and Literature

            ___  Endorsements (Teacher of Reading & Reading Leader)

In your table group, please discuss each of the questions below. One person at each table will be designated to record notes on the laptop provided. To the extent possible, participants representing the same stakeholder group or organization should be seated at the same table. If multiple licensure fields are represented at a table (i.e.; math, music, etc.), the notes should reflect discussion of each specific licensure area.

Discussion Questions

1. What is the role of reading/reading instruction for teachers in this licensure area?

The role is to continue to assist students to develop their reading ability, specifically focusing on the reading needs of a specific content area.

1. How are teachers in this licensure area currently being prepared in reading/reading instruction?

Most secondary and K-12 programs have one course in content area reading.

1. How will the proposed standards impact the licensure area in general?
2. How will the proposed standards impact these teachers in the area of reading?
3. Will the proposed standards better prepare teachers in this licensure area - in general? In reading?
4. What are the strengths and benefits of the proposed standards? BE SPECIFIC!

The proposed standards are careful and specific and clear.

1. What suggestions do you have for improving the proposed standards? BE SPECIFIC!

The proposed standards are impractically specific and elaborated. There are 44 new reading content standards proposed. There are only 47 content standards in the original licensure code for English language arts and literature (and those including reading). In the original standards, there are only 8 standards for literature and only 4 for writing. The few standards in those areas do not mean that teaching literature and writing are not complex, not capable of elaboration. It means that the licensure standards represent what can be done well and still done feasibly in an undergraduate program. A related problem is that the sheer scope of the proposed reading standards means that training in teaching English language arts becomes primarily training in reading, and everything else, literature and writing, becomes relatively insignificant. That is not an acceptable emphasis, nor is it a good education for English teachers. And, consequently, it is difficult to support the proposal that a course in reading be added to students' programs; if that means a reduction in the courses in English that future English teachers must take. There is surely a way of integrating content standards into existing courses (which may have to be reduced anyway).

 

Other Feedback

If there are any areas that you would like to comment on but are not addressed by the questions above, please note these areas on the electronic feedback form. Also, some stakeholder groups and organizations have chosen to provide a more formal response to the proposed rule language. If you have a written statement, please make a note in this section to refer the task force to the supplemental information.

 

READING STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK

Peg Ballard and Maureen Prenn

(representing MACTE and Minnesota State University, Mankato)

Please identify your area of targeted feedback:

___  Early Childhood & Elementary Licensure       

            ___  Content-Specific Licensure: ___________________________________

            _X__  Endorsements (Teacher of Reading & Reading Leader)

In your table group, please discuss each of the questions below. One person at each table will be designated to record notes on the laptop provided. To the extent possible, participants representing the same stakeholder group or organization should be seated at the same table. If multiple licensure fields are represented at a table (i.e.; math, music, etc.), the notes should reflect discussion of each specific licensure area.

Discussion Questions

1. What is the role of reading/reading instruction for teachers in this licensure area?

 

These licensure fields are intended to enhance teachers' skills in working with individual readers and groups of readers as well as providing leadership for professional development and curriculum implementation for other teachers.

1. How are teachers in this licensure area currently being prepared in reading/reading instruction?

Reading Teachers are being prepared with a 15 to 19 credit graduate level program.

1. How will the proposed standards impact the licensure area in general?

It will improve it in that it will allow programs to be more specific in focus. Currently, the standards for Reading teacher seem to blend some of the Reading leader competencies into the Reading teacher responsibilities. Additionally, the Reading teacher does not have enough content to fully prepare someone to be a Reading leader. The new license will clarify this problem.

1. How will the proposed standards impact these teachers in the area of reading?
2. Will the proposed standards better prepare teachers in this licensure area - in general? In reading?
3. What are the strengths and benefits of the proposed standards? BE SPECIFIC!

The proposed structure delineates the two levels of advanced licensure in reading. Professional development and other responsibilities associated with district level activities have been moved from the Reading teacher to the Reading leader. The Reading leader standards appropriately focus on district level responsibilities, adult learners, and broader policy issues.

1. What suggestions do you have for improving the proposed standards? BE SPECIFIC!

No improvements suggested.

 

Other Feedback

If there are any areas that you would like to comment on but are not addressed by the questions above, please note these areas on the electronic feedback form. Also, some stakeholder groups and organizations have chosen to provide a more formal response to the proposed rule language. If you have a written statement, please make a note in this section to refer the task force to the supplemental information.

 

 

With the end of the academic year in sight, MACTE leaders are looking toward the future to determine what needs to be emphasized to stay on the cutting edge in order to prepare the best teachers for Minnesota students.  This look into the future includes both a short term and long term timeframe, that is, what do we need to do next year, and what do we need to do to prepare teachers for the schools where they will work five and ten years hence.

Issues on the near horizon include support for students with mental health challenges; guiding students in the use of personal pages like facebook and myspace; using technology in ways that enhance what students already use and know; preparing on-line learning options and opportunities; and it goes without saying the ability to use data to refine teaching to address the educational disparities that exist.  All of these things make an assumption of content knowledge, but clearly much of what is needed is the ability and capacity of teachers to be flexible, adaptable, and thoughtful about how to reach every child and help him or her reach the highest potential.

Rethinking how education is delivered to students and how the outcomes are assessed is a mid-range goal.  No one way of doing education will work for all - charter schools, community schools, private schools, on-line high schools, public schools all need to coexist.  Thus teachers must be ready to teach in many types of settings and all of us must be committed to continuing to learn, re-assess, re-align, and re-vitalize.  While we may not be able to predict exactly what will be in place ten years hence, we must be alert to the possibilities, and flexible enough to adapt without laborious processes and rules. 

What of the more distant future and what is it that should be our collective focus?  As MACTE continues to look forward we see that some progress has been made in preparation for diverse populations - we need to continue to do more here.  There is no longer a need to look to "urban schools" for diverse populations in language, culture, or socio-economic status.  All teachers (new and continuing) are working in these settings.  Rather, looking toward a more global understanding, applied locally, we will be preparing our teachers to educate future leaders to understand much more broadly the world they will enter.

As futurist Gary Marx stated, "As leaders in society our responsibility is to constantly create the future we need, not just defend what we have.  The process of staying in touch with the environment, getting connected to the world of ideas and possibilities around us, staying on top of issues, and considering the implications of massive trends must be ongoing."

As an organization we want to partner with you and other educators to ensure that our teachers are ready to prepare students to live "satisfying and productive lives in the 21^st century". (Marx, 2006).

 

 

 

 

The need for recruiting teachers of color in Minnesota is greater now than ever before. While the No Child Left Behind Act seeks to ensure a "highly qualified" teacher for every classroom, it also strives to close the achievement gaps that persist between students from different ethnic groups and socio-economic levels. Yet little attention has been paid to the issues of cultural competence and diversity in the teacher workforce - both critical factors in improving the performance of students of color (Assessment of Diversity in America's Teaching Force: A Call to Action, 2001; National Collaborative on Diversity in the Teaching Workforce, 2004). 

Although students of color constitute 40 percent of today's K-12 classrooms, the educational workforce is made up of only 10 percent of teachers of color. The issue of diversity in the teacher workforce is especially relevant in Minnesota, where the number of white students enrolled in K-12 education is declining while the number of students of color continues to increase. Over the past fifteen years, enrollments by students of color have risen by 134 percent, while the percentage of teachers of color has not kept pace. One of the largest school districts in Minnesota reports that 40 percent of its more than 22,000 students are students of color. The assistant superintendent from that district summarized her concern in this way: "Consider it an understatement when I say that the need for us to recruit and retain teachers of color is intense."

Four major reasons for recruiting more teachers of color were summarized by Irvine in the 2004 Teacher of Color Summit Report. First and perhaps most obvious, is that teachers of color "serve as role models for all students and counter negative stereotypes that are portrayed in the media and elsewhere in our society". Secondly, all teachers benefit from working in a more diversified workplace. Third, teachers of color demonstrate to students of color that teaching can be a viable career path. Finally, Irvine cites the fourth reason as the most compelling. "Teachers of color have a more profound, positive impact on the achievement and retention of students of color due to culturally-based practices, higher expectations, and roles as cultural mediators and advocates" (p.1).

The 2006 State of Students of Color Report indicates that though enrollment of students of color in higher education continues to rise, participation of many students of color right after high school still lags behind White non-Hispanic and Asian students. Affordability is a significant obstacle for many students when considering applying to college. Minnesota data reported in Measuring Up 2006, indicates that "The share of family income, even after financial aid, needed to pay for college has increased" with "Net college costs for low- and middle-income students to attend public two-and four-year colleges represent[ing] about one-third of their annual family income" (p.4). Funding needs to be a top priority for both pre-college support programs and for scholarships to future teachers of color. For this reason, MACTE supports efforts such as Senator's Norton's proposed Bill to establish a pilot financial aid program for teachers of color.

In addition to increased funding, there are other significant actions that need to be taken to recruit teachers of color. "Though it seems obvious, Irvine suggests one of the most neglected recruitment strategies is to go where the people are," (2003). This involves going to the obvious places such as predominately ethnic high schools, new-immigrant programs, and Black and Latino churches that have Sunday school and after-school programs. Suggestions in the Teachers of Color Summit Report (2004) include: focusing on culturally-responsive recruitment support practices, such as multicultural curriculum both at the high school and college levels; promoting financial, professional and institutional support systems; developing more university and district partnerships; and pursuing ideas such as "grow your own programs". Finally, teachers of color need mentoring support once they are in the classrooms to establish a "team-oriented support system" and to help combat feelings of isolation.

One of MACTE's four major goals for this year includes a focus on diverse learners. At our most recent meeting, we examined the strategies that each of our higher education programs are taking to recruit and support students of color. We intend to continue our work in partnership with the K-12 schools and the State to develop more college access programs, to seek funding for scholarships, and to personalize our recruitment efforts to increase the number of highly qualified teachers of color for our K-12 students in Minnesota.

 

According to the literature, overall teacher attrition in Minnesota is higher than the national average (Office of the Legislative Auditor, 02-07).   It is feasible that quality induction programs could serve as a catalyst for changing school cultures and improving the teaching profession in our state.

Teacher Induction is not a new concept.  In fact, variations of teacher induction processes can be documented for more than two decades.  As with many initiatives in education, to discover the effectiveness of a particular initiative, it is imperative to operationally define the concept, examine the purpose and understand the underlying processes.

Induction in the broadest sense is defined as an exposure to something unknown or the process of inducting (Robinson, 1998).  Induction programs range from the random assignment of a mentor to comprehensive models beginning with a pre-service component. There is general agreement that these induction programs must focus on increasing teacher retention.  However, a review of the literature reveals a much broader purpose (AASCU, 2006; Moir & Gless, 2001; Wayne, Youngs & Fleishman, 2005; Wong, 2002).  Current research indicates that quality induction programs must also promote a high quality of instruction that will insure student learning and success (Moir & Gless, 2001).

The Alliance for Excellent Education (2004) identifies the components of comprehensive induction as high-quality mentoring, common planning time and collaboration, ongoing professional development, participation in an external network of teachers, and standards-based evaluation. The challenge of executing such a comprehensive model is that of limited financial resources. Though involvement from states have increased over the last ten years, there is little consistency among districts and states with funding for such programs remaining inadequate and unstable (AASCU, 2006).

To promote the need for quality teacher induction in our state, the case must be made that such programs are making a difference.  There is growing evidence of the positive impact of induction programs on teacher retention, costs, teacher quality, and student learning (Education Week, 2006).  For example, results from the National Center for Education Statistics' Schools and Staffing Survey suggest that participation in comprehensive induction programs can cut attrition in half.  Other studies have produced evidence that quality induction programs save money for school districts. It is estimated that for every $1.00 invested in induction, there is an estimated payoff of nearly $1.50 (AASCU, 2006). Research by the Educational Testing Service has found some impact of these induction programs on student achievement (ETS, 2005).

All of us in Education are being held accountable for student learning. To that end, an on-going study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education is designed to examine the impact of induction programs on student learning. In the study, schools are randomly assigned to treatment and control groups.  Teachers at treatment schools will receive a "comprehensive" induction package, while teachers at control schools will receive only what is normally provided. Data gathered at the completion of this study in 2008 will provide greater insight as to the effectiveness of comprehensive teacher induction programs (Wayne, Youngs, & Fleischman, 2005).

The time has come for universities, administrators, teachers, unions, and teacher educators to come together to build a comprehensive model of teacher development that begins in pre-service and continues throughout a teacher's career (Moir & Gless, 2001).  It is for the reasons stated throughout this paper that MACTE supports partnerships between higher education institutions and local school districts to ensure that induction is high-quality and well-designed.