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.

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).