Posted by Heather
Thursday’s portion of the Professional Educator Standards Boardmeeting began with a look at the finances of the PESB. Transportation costs are up, and the PESB, like everyone else, is feeling the effects in its budget. The PESB isn’t running up a huge deficit, but Jennifer Wallace said the PESB will be asking the Office of Financial Management for some additional dollars for FY 2009 because of rising costs.
Later, Ms. Wallace presented on the PESB’s Goal 1 – a state-level system for assessing educator preparation program quality. A large chunk of this is done through site visits and PESB approval of programs. As the committee working on this moves forward, Ms. Wallace said the following are things to think about:
- What should ongoing site visits look like?
- To what extent should data items be included in site visit reports?
- How will the PESB weight items for approval?
- Should types of programs offered be a consideration?
- Is it better to collect information from programs annually?
Members of the board provided feedback, the most interesting focused on a potential “high-performing” label for preparation programs. Some members of the board cautioned against it, and others thought it a good idea if the bar for earning the distinction was raised (eg. earning “exemplary” in categories, rather than just meeting standard).
Corrine McGuigan, OSPI, returned to present on the implementation of Standard V – a new certification standard that requires candidates to provide teacher and student evidence to demonstrate mastery. July 2009 is the deadline for the PESB to approve preparation programs’ implementation of Standard V, and OSPI is working on data reporting templates to provide preparation programs. OSPI is currently raising awareness of Standard V to preparation programs, ESDs and professional organizations. Ultimately, the goal is for all teachers, teacher leaders and school support staff to know about Standard V and the importance of evidence of student learning.
The final agenda item before the board moved into executive session focused on Professional Certificate programs and their differences (ProCert is what teachers must pursue within their first seven years in the classroom). Mary Jo Larsen, OSPI, looked at all of the programs offered in the State and reported on their commonalities and differences. ProCert programs are based on the same WAC framework, but do vary in scheduling and additional portfolio components. Some programs are more flexible in terms of course requirements, while others prescribe specific courses to all candidates.
Final thoughts on the two-day meeting: The PESB is opening up possibilities to change the way Washington recruits and trains teachers. Given the other action in Olympia (State Board of Education, Basic Education Finance Task Force, budget session) the PESB may have its work cut out for it in the next year — I foresee a potential cage match over the importance of pedagogy in teacher preparation and some intense discussion on alternative routes to teaching.
