Purdue University Teacher Education Council (TEC) Meeting Minutes The Teacher Education Council (TEC) met for a discussion session on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. in BRNG 1284. Council Members in attendance: L. Austin, B. Dixon, T. Doughty, S. Flannagan, C. Fontaine, W. Fox, D. Gunstra, C. Himsel, G. Hynd, S. Karcher, K. Kelly, C. Knoeller, J. Lehman, T. Oakes, J. Phillion, G. Rogers, P. VanFossen, A. Welch, O. Wendt, and J. Wipf. Council Members unable to attend: D. Evangelou, P. Farris, S. Moon, J. Pearl, G. Schultz, D. Taub, and A. York. Program Conveners in attendance: J. Alsup, B. Sabol, D. Eichinger, J. Elicker, M. Gupta, C. Elster, B. McInerney, M. Nakhleh, L. Nelson, A. Talbert, and T. Templin. Other guests in attendance: E. Bramson, B. Cisneros, K. Dietz, J. Dimitt, R. Frisbie, and C. Sahley. Note taker: B. Jensen Discussion Session I. Visioning Teacher Education at Purdue University - Council Members Open Dialogue with Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Recommendations for the configuration of the TEC to enhance teacher education advancement: G. Hynd welcomed all present. He also invited program conveners to stay for the entire meeting. G. Hynd asked all guests and Teacher Education Council (TEC) members to introduce themselves. G. Hynd noted that Teacher Education was embedded throughout the university, and six out of ten schools/colleges were involved in the Teacher Education Program (TEP). He also noted there were roughly 30 licensure areas. It was discussed that the TEC was the vehicle through which the TEP was governed; however, campus-wide identity was missing. G. Hynd noted his vision to establish a form of identity that would cut across campus; and in order to do so, there needed to be good representation on the TEC. G. Hynd stated it seemed as though the people missing on the TEC were Program Conveners. By adding Program Conveners input this would help establish an identity, and keep the TEC up-to-date on what was going on in each program area. The goal is to brand Teacher Education at Purdue. It was stated that there was not a portal linking all of teacher education, unless an individual visited the College of Education website. It was noted that a website was currently under construction to bring a coherent sense of Teacher Education identity to Purdue. G. Hynd then opened the floor for discussion. The conversation began with how to help the TEC function more efficiently. It was noted that a common portal was an excellent idea. It was discussed that program areas currently received a lot of information when needed; communication was open and information was being relayed. However, some program areas were still feeling disconnected from Teacher Education. It was noted that Physical Education s identity was more on a state or national level instead of with the TEC or university. It also was discussed that there should be actions to facilitate ideas beyond the TEC and to create a better formula for representation. G. Hynd then commended the exceptional Physical Education model for evaluation and said that there were several good ideas of how to do things.
Page 2 It was stated that the connection line was very thin, and it was too risky to rely on a TEC member who may be on sabbatical or have other absences to relay information. It was asked if there could be a second layer to relay information. A compliment was made to J. Lehman s Monday Memo, and how it is the primary source of information for some program areas. It was asked if a program council or convener meeting could be arranged, and have the Associate Dean for Learning and Engagement, Dr. Sidney Moon, serve as its chair. The purpose of this group would be to have a conduit report to both meetings. It also would be a way to share common concerns, needs, and questions that relate to education. It was reported that the Secondary Education Committee voted to move themselves under the TEC. G. Hynd asked members from the Secondary Committee to report on this issue. It was noted the representation was not equal on the secondary committee. It also was discussed that members were comparing notes from committee to committee to see if all of the information was equal across each committee. Therefore; a vote was taken, and it was determined the Secondary Committee be placed under the TEC. G. Hynd asked if the discussion had been initiated to bring Program Conveners under the TEC as well. It was asked if that decision would make the TEC unwieldy. It was added that if the Program Conveners were part of the TEC, representation would be based upon enrollment to determine the appropriate number of representatives from each program area. G. Hynd asked C. Himsel for his prospective since (Chris) is an off-campus representative. C. Himsel noted that the portal would be a great way to help identify Teacher Education. He also noted the process was not clear as to whom to contact in order to accommodate the student teachers out in the field. Some field teachers were not communicated with and were making other arrangements after issues or concerns had been confronted and substantiated by other staff members. Another example was stated: if an issue arises with a science student teacher candidate; who is contacted, the College of Science or the College of Education? It was discussed that this may be where the confusion of the actual role of Program Conveners comes into play. It was asked if there could be a discussion of what the boundaries and roles of a Program Convener were. It was noted that the Gate C and D documents developed by R. Frisbie were helpful. It was stated that to have that type of documentation would be very useful, be a good guide to find commonalties, and to unify teacher education. A more formal mechanism would be good in disseminating information to specific faculty in the program areas (e.g., Do I only tell my faculty or do I also go to biology and/or physics? ). It was discussed that this raised the issue of communication from the College of Education (COE). It was stated that there were more people than the Program Conveners who needed to receive information regarding the TEP; however, is that the role of the COE or the TEC to disseminate information? It was discussed that the mesh of conveners and TEC may help alleviate the situation of non-communication. It was noted since there were items such as accreditation that were essential to communication, the Program Conveners needed to be involved. It was discussed that the feeling of disassociation lingered because some Teacher Education Council (TEC) faculty do not have contact with other faculty in their respective colleges/schools that are involved in Teacher Education. It was asked how often Program Conveners change; it was stated that it varied by program area. Some program areas change every three semesters; some conveners in program areas take on the role of University Supervisor and Program
Page 3 Convener, and some areas seem to have the same Program Convener for years. It was then asked what the role of University Supervisor was as compared to the Program Convener since these roles, in some instances, are the same person. It was noted in some cases, the position is changed as often as every third semester (e.g., English); the flip side is that there are programs that do keep the position for an extended period of time (i.e., four or five years). It was stated that not only communication, but also confusion was noted in regards to the roles of Program Conveners. It also was stated there was a need to spell out the role of Program Convener and to have a better understanding of the boundaries in each position. If Program Convener and/or University Supervisors could share information and have a better use of resources, it may alleviate the confusion. It was noted other Deans should be made aware of the issues and roles involved for Program Conveners in Teacher Education and in the College of Education. G. Hynd noted the variance in faculty workloads, and that support and credit are not accounted for in the way that they should be. G. Hynd asked for recommendations to the Configuration of the TEC to enhance Teacher Education Advancement. Discussion followed; note the attached comments and suggestions (Recommendations for the Configuration of the Teacher Education Council (TEC) to Enhance Teacher Education Advancement) as provided to Dean Hynd at the conclusion of the meeting. G. Hynd noted this was the first time seeing all the Program Conveners together, and it was apparent that the opportunity was readily available to make the Teacher Education Program more of a family, and to raise the recognition of how great Teacher Education is. G. Hynd recessed the meeting for five minutes before the start of the business meeting.
Page 4 The Teacher Education Council met for a Business Meeting on Wednesday, at 2:30 p.m. in BRNG 1284. Council Members in attendance: L. Austin, B. Dixon, T. Doughty, S. Flannagan, C. Fontaine, W. Fox, D. Gunstra, C. Himsel, G. Hynd, S. Karcher, K. Kelly, C. Knoeller, J. Lehman, T. Oakes, J. Phillion, G. Rogers, P. VanFossen, A. Welch, O. Wendt, and J. Wipf. Council Members unable to attend: D. Evangelou, P. Farris, S. Moon, J. Pearl, G. Schultz, D. Taub, and A. York. Other guests in attendance: E. Bramson, K. Dietz, J. Dimitt, and R. Frisbie. Note taker: B. Jensen Business Meeting I. Welcome and Introduction of Guests - G. Hynd G. Hynd gave special notice to C. Himsel and his role as a new father. G. Hynd noted his excitement regarding the number in attendance at the meeting. II. Action Items - G. Hynd Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. The minutes stand approved with correction to the attachment. III. Unit Assessment System Task Force Recommendations - R. Frisbie G. Hynd asked Council members to pay particular attention to number 17 on the document. It was noted that the Model for Professional Preparation was first created in 1992 and was in need of revisions. Also discussed were feedback for the conceptual framework and the rubrics for Gate D. It was noted the document was a progress report for the rubric process, so feedback was welcomed. Send comments to R. Frisbie. IV. Teacher Education Guidelines - G. Hynd Purdue Teacher Education Student Teaching Remediation and Dismissal Policy - L. Austin This policy was discussed in great detail. There were several suggestions made and noted regarding the extensiveness of this policy. It was discussed that with the new OnePurdue system there were hopes of placing on a candidates transcript not eligible for licensure, if the student was dismissed from the TEP. It also was discussed where the most relevant place was to keep a file for a student involved in the remediation process. Discussion regarding the Department Head followed. It was agreed that the Department Head did need to be involved. G. Hynd noted C. Himsel played an important role in the conversation because he was an outside party, and C. Himsel could directly relate to the student teaching process. C. Himsel noted to not have a school corporation involved in this process could be devastating to candidate, school corporation, and the COE. It was noted that because of No Child Left Behind, schools could not afford to have a candidate in the field who needed remediation, or in some cases, needed to be dismissed from the program. It was discussed that this policy would undergo further revisions before implementation.
Page 5 Draft Program Proposal Guidelines The TEC reviewed this policy, but did not discuss the document. Feedback is welcomed. Please send comments to T. Oakes. G. Hynd reiterated that these guidelines will be followed for all future program proposals. Draft Program Convener Description It was noted this description may be too broad, and could be more beneficial if it were narrowed down. G. Hynd noted the Program Conveners may be the body to decide if they would prefer to modify this document, especially if they decided to be placed under the umbrella of the TEC. TEC Special Cases Committee Operational Guidelines The document was revised to add a section to require the candidate to test with accommodations prior to having his/her case heard by the TEC Special Cases Committee. Feedback is welcomed. Send comments to T. Oakes. V. Purdue University Teacher Education Program Updates Early Adolescence Generalist: Science and Mathematics - G. Krockover There was no report. Special Education (Exceptional Needs) Graduate - T. Doughty See attached report. VI. Other - G. Hynd G. Hynd referred to the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) Transition to Teaching (TTT) document and stated the numbers listed were tallies from throughout the state. G. Hynd noted the top ten significant data findings from Teen Talk. The poll indicated the World Wide Web was the number one way for teens to identify a university. G. Hynd noted the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) workshop presented by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) and NCATE, and stated that the workshop would be beneficial to anyone who attended. The date of the workshop is March 30 April 2, 2005 in Arlington Virginia. VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. The next TEC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 10, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. in BRNG 1284.
Page 6 Recommendations for the Configuration of the Teacher Education Council (TEC) to Enhance Teacher Education Advancement Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of suggestions for that recommendation. - Create a council of Program Conveners [convened by the Associate Dean for Learning and Engagement]. (11) - Disseminate a Teacher Education Council newsletter and other publications or memos monthly; these would be used to address issues or items that have surfaced and ensure communication with program areas and all of our colleagues in schools with whom we work at all stages of teacher Education. (11) - Define role/job description of Program Conveners. (10) - Create open communication with Deans, Department Heads, University Supervisors, and Academic Counselors/Advisors, as well as create a better understanding of the roles, responsibilities, and work load of Program Conveners. (8) - Create a Teacher Education Council (TEC) training manual/packet and College of Education guidelines manual. (5) - Create a website or common portal for Teacher Education. (5) - Define role of University Supervisor. (3) - Create a central point of contact for all student teaching placements (e.g. Office of Field Experiences). (2) - Develop a formula for representation on the TEC. (2) - Define the role of the Teacher Education Council. (1) - Have TEC remain an administrative committee. (1) - Define jobs related to each other within and across program areas. (1) - Be more systematic for expectations, communications, rewards, recognition, consequences, procedures, and decision making. (1) - Count Program Convener responsibilities for tenure and merit. (1) - The Dean of schools/colleges should proportionately fund necessary staff to help improve the placement process. (1) - Explore possibilities to increase collaboration across campus through participation within Discovery Learning Center. (1) - Create a change in governance structure for teacher education programs. (1) - Establish several spheres of councils and have regular cabinet meetings to share across those spheres. (1) - Identify historians, political scientists, and economists to be involved in Teacher Education. (1) - Develop a contact list for particular tasks to disseminate to groups outside of Purdue; perhaps create a listserve for school-based personnel. (1)
Page 7 - Determine what the current communication structure within each school/college is and then determine how to streamline these lines of communication. (1) - Publicize role/events of Teacher Education across campus on a regular basis. (1) - Create a mechanism for Teacher Education Advisors. (1) - Enhance and develop new configurations for Secondary Education Committee. (1) - Put URL/web addresses on documents. (1) - Utilize listserves better. (1) - Reduce use of acronyms. (1) - Create a less diverse TEC agenda. (1)
Page 8 Special Education (Exceptional Needs) Graduate Program "The reformed Master's program in special education is currently moving through the approval process. Currently, the program has received approval from the EDST Curriculum and Graduate Committee and the EDST faculty. It is anticipated that it will be ready to be voted on by the TEC Committee and the EDST faculty. It is anticipated that it will be ready to be voted on by the TEC at the May meeting." Teresa Taber Doughty, PhD