academies fact sheet - irrc

-

interstate New leacner Assessment auu ouppon ^oiisuiuuin nwducui) i a u LJUW^

Original : 2039Harbisoncc: Harris ;

Nanorta r , ;Markham •

Interstate New Teacher Assessmen5#W#po&egal c

Consortium

Academies Fact Sheet '"

What is INTASC?

The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), a programof the Council of Chief State School Officers, is a consortium of state education agencies,higher education institutions, and national educational organizations dedicated to reform inthe education, licensing and ongoing professional development of teachers. Created in1987, INTASCOs primary constituency is state education agencies responsible for teacherlicensing and professional development.

The mission of INTASC is to promote standards-based reform of teacher preparation,licensing, and professional development. To carry out this mission, INTASC provides avehicle for states to work jointly on formulating model policy to reform teacherpreparation and licensing, and provides a mechanism for states to collaborate ondevelopmental projects such as crafting new instruments to assess the classroomperformance of a teacher.

| What are INTASC Portfolio Assessment Academies?

INTASC is developing discipline specific standards and performance assessments forlicensing teachers. The initial development of the portfolio assessment system forbeginning teachers in mathematics, science and English language arts has been completed.A series of academies is being sponsored by INTASC, AACTE and Alverno College tohelp teachers and teacher educators understand the design and function of an INTASCportfolio and how the INTASC portfolio assessment process can be used for teacherlicensing, individual professional development and reform of teacher education programs.

How does each of the Academy sessions differ?

Three academies, conducted over consecutive summers, are sequenced to help educatorslearn about INTASC standards and assessments, use portfolio evaluation as a tool forprofessional development, and to develop as portfolio scorers. Participants who completeall three sessions will have a thorough understanding of how to assess standards-basedINTASC portfolios, and will be prepared to conduct similar academies in their own states.

During Session One participants will:

• develop a shared vision of teaching and learning as articulated in the INTASCstandards;

# develop portfolio evaluation skills;* begin to look at implications for higher education institutions; and,# learn how to start developing their own INTASC portfolio.

http://www.ccsso.org/acadfact.html 8/31/99

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Academy fact &neei rage z,ui^

During Session Two participants will:

• gain increasing expertise in Session One goals;• learn how to provide support and mentoring for beginning teachers;• evaluate beginning teacher portfolios; and,• continue to look at implications for higher education institutions.

During Session Three participants will:

• gain increasing expertise in Session One and Session Two goals;• extend leadership and adult training skills to qualify as trainers;• be certified as scorers of INTASC portfolios.

SESSION I(SUMMER1999)JULY 11-16, 1999 (ALVERNO COLLEGE,MILWAUKEE, WI)ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE

SESSION II(SUMMER 1999)JULY 18-23, 1999 (ALVERNO COLLEGE, MILWAUKEE, WI)ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS

SESSION m(SUMMER 2000)ALVERNO COLLEGE, MILWAUKEE, WIENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS

Who should attend?

We recommend that teachers, teacher educators and professionals who work in the fieldof teacher education and certification attend the academies.

Find Out More About the Academies

Download an application

Council of Chief State School OfficersOne Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20001-1431Tel: (202)408-5505 Fax:(202)408-8072

http://www.ccsso.org/acadfact.html 8/31/99

State Board Scuttles Teacher Licensure Redesign rage i 01 j

Strengthening the TeachingProfession

I Tip: for Teachers | Tips for Parents | Infocenter | News and Views| School Resources

Links I Strengthening the Teaching Profession I Site Map

So what does INTASCbelieve beginning

teachers should knowand be able to do?

* Here are the standards:

• The teacher understands the centralconcepts, tools of inquiry, and structuresof the discipline(s) he or she teaches andcan create learning experiences that makethese aspects of subject matter meaningfulfor students.

• The teacher understands how childrenlearn and develop, and can providelearning opportunities that support theirintellectual, social and personaldevelopment.

• The teacher understands how studentsdiffer in their approaches to learning andcreates instructional opportunities that areadapted to diverse learners.

• The teacher understands and uses a varietyof instructional strategies to encouragestudents1 development of critical thinking,problem solving, and performance skills.

• The teacher uses an understanding ofindividual and group motivation andbehavior to create a learning environmentthat encourages positive social interaction,

http://www.knea.org/strengthen/intasc.html

More Articles

PDCs,InservicePoints, "SeatTime" andLicenseRenewal

7 Habits ofGoodTeachers

Talking

Teasing andBullying

"Bullyproor

Classroom

National

Certification

FinancialHelp forNational

Candidates

NEA Code ofEthics

8/31/99

Mate noaru acuiues i cacnci JUICCIISUI c ivcuc^i^ii JL ag^ A U U

active engagements in learning, and self-motivation.The teacher uses knowledge of effectiveverbal, nonverbal, and mediacommunication techniques to foster activeinquiry, collaboration, and supportiveinteraction in the classroom.The teacher plans instruction based uponknowledge of subject matter, students, thecommunity, and curriculum goals.The teacher understands and uses formaland informal assessment strategies toevaluate and ensure the continuousintellectual, social and physicaldevelopment of the learner.The teacher is a reflective practitioner whocontinually evaluates the effects of his/herchoices and actions on others (students,parents, and other professionals in thelearning community) and who activelyseeks out opportunities to growprofessionally.The teacher fosters relationships withschool colleagues, parents, and agencies inthe larger community to support students1

learning and well-being.

tvansas tviasdid it again!

Strengtheningthe Profession

Continuum ofTeaching -The SeriesPARTI

Why is it time

StrengtheningtheProfession...for the kids.

A Vision oftheProfessionalTeacher

What doesNCATE haveto.do withteaching?

"QualityCounts"but not inKansas?

PART IIINTASC andTeacherLicensing

What doesINTASCbelieveteachersshould knowand be able to

http://www.knea.org/strengthen/intasc.html 8/31/99

oiaic noaru ouuiucb icttcuci j^icciibtuc ivcucbi^u ra%c J U I J

Tips for Teachers | Tips for Parents | Infocenter

Redesign ofLicensure forKansasEducators

PART HIThe NationalBoard forProfessionalTeachingStandards

PART IVWhat doesNCTAF haveto do withteaching?

State BoardNewsAugust 1999Julv 1999 III

News and Views| School Resources

Links | Strengthening the Teaching Profession | Site Map

Copyright 1999 Kansas National Education Association715 W. 10th, Topeka, KS 66612

(785) 232-8271KNEAnews<a&nea.org J |

http://www.knea. org/strengthen/intasc.htmf 8/31/99

State System of Higher EducationThe System Works for Pennsylvania SO AU3 13 D:: » :35

Division of Teacher EducationPennsylvania Department of Education333 Market StreetHarrisburg, PA 17126-0333

Dear Members of the Division,

Augusts 1999Original:Harbison

MarkhamNanortaSandusky

I write as a colleague in the field of higher education to strongly endorse the provisions of"Chapter 354."

As a professor of history for a number of years and more recently an academic dean, Ihave concluded from my observations that a strong liberal education supported by alimited number of courses in pedagogy seems to be an effective method for preparingteachers for our public and private schools. I therefore support at least the equivalency ofa major in an academic field other than education on the undergraduate level. During theyears when I taught in California, I came to appreciate the educational requirements thatwere set forth there for prospective teachers. At that time only a minor in education wasallowed on the undergraduate level, but prospective teachers were required to study for afifth year in the field of education, which could be a master's degree.

I also support minimum academic standards for prospective teachers. While theproposed standards in "Chapter 354" represent a starting point, grade inflation mightindicate that a percentile requirement could prove more effective than a graderequirement.

In summary, "Chapter 354" represents a significant step forward for education in theCommonwealth. I endorse it not only professionally but as a parent whose childrenattended public schools in New Jersey, New York, California, and Wisconsin as well asPennsylvania. On the basis of my parental experiences in the five states, I have felt thatPennsylvania would do well to revise curricula and strengthen the teacher educationprograms in the Co; onwealth. I congratulate you for moving in these directions.

ly,

lanielV&ntmci^l Assistant to Vice Chancellor for Information Technology

;burg University106 Waller400 E. Second StreetBloomsburg, PA 17815

Office of the Chancellor The Universities: Cheyney EdinboroDixon University Center Bloomsburg Clarion Indiana2986 North Second Street California East Stroudsburg KutztownHarrisburg, PA 17110717-720-4000

LU

B

Lock HavenMansfieldMillersville

© 8SSiIs

ShippensburgSlippery RockWest Chester

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIADEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

333 MARKET STREETHARRISBURG, PA 17126-0333

August 12, 1999%Gf3 f : 3 S

J. Daniel Vann, IIISpecial Assistant to Vice Chancellor _. {,

for Information Technology C vBloomsburg University106 Waller400 E Second StreetBloomsburg, PA 17815

Dear Dr. Vann:

Thank you for your letter of August 6, 1999 on proposed standards Chapter 354.

The deadline to submit written testimony or comments on proposed standards 22 Pa. CodeChapter 354 was 4:00 p.m. August 2, 1999. Your written testimony was received at the Departmentof Education past this deadline, therefore, your testimony cannot be considered part of the officialrecord of public comments. However, I am forwarding your testimony to the IndependentRegulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen of the House and Senate EducationCommittees so they will have the benefit of your thinking as they develop the final-form of theseregulations.

If you would like to receive information on the final-form of these standards when it becomesavailable, please contact me at PA Department of Education, Bureau of Teacher Certification andPreparation, 333 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333, telephone 717-787-3470.

Sincerely,

Ronald J. SimanovichChiefDivision of Teacher EducationBureau of Teacher Certification

and Preparation

cc: Senator RhoadesSenator SchwartzRepresentative StairsRepresentative ColafellaIRRCPatricia M. FullertonDr. Eugene HickokDon LundayDr. Michael PoliakoffDr. Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

Original:Harbison

2039 99f\UG^

Tyrrell > 'MarkhamNanortaSandusky


333 MARKET STREETHARRISBURQ, RA 17126-0333

August 3, 1999 °•A ft: 3 9

Roberta DiLorenzo, Ed.D.Washington School DistrictAdministrative Offices201 Allison AvenueWashington, PA 15301

Dear Dr. DiLorenzo:

Thank you for your letter of July 28, 1999 on proposed standards Chapter 354.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Regula^>ry Rev(eW Act, copies of your written testimonyare being provided to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen ofthe House and Senate Education Committees. •

Your written testimony will be considerecfcarefully as the Department develops the final-formof these standards.


Sincerely,

shs&rrfh^^tif^

Ronald J SimanovichChiefDivision of Teacher EducationBureau of Teacher Certification

and Preparationcc: Senator Rhoades

Senator SchwartzRepresentative StairsRepresentative ColafellaIRRCPatricia M. FullertonDr. Eugene HickokDon LundayDr. Michael PoliakoffDr. Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

Washington School DistrictADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES

201 Allison Avenue, Washington, PA 15301(724) 223-5000

Telefax (724) 223-5024

Original : 2039Harbisoncc: Harris

My % 1999 ~Sandusky

Division of Teacher Education v -y333 Market Street c!nHarrisburg, PA 17126-0333 r~:

To Whom It May Concern: L ^~

In discovery of the upcoming hearings on the new Chapter 354 regulations on TeacherPreparation ("General Standards and Procedures for Institutional Preparation of ProfessionalEducators"), I felt it necessary to advocate for the inclusion of technology integration skills forindividuals exiting our teacher preparation institutions. Technology is not often considered inteacher preparation training. However, it is increasingly identified as a highly marketable andrequired skill for classroom teachers. While most people in the field recognize the need toformally address this issue, teacher technology training is usually done at local district expense.While this area of staff development will continue, it is also necessary to include such skilltraining in teacher preparation.

The inclusion of technology skills in current regulations will better train teachers to usetechnology in an effective way to increase student learning. Hopefully, persons involved inpreparing the teacher preparation standards will consider addressing standards for technologyintegration skills.

Sincerely,

^ 6<^& /%^^^<-^)

Roberta DiLorenzo, Ed.D.Superintendent

l^^looo^o^ool^l^^lol

August 4, 1999

Division of Teacher Education333 Market StreetHarrisburg, PA 17126-0333

O r i g i n a l :Harbison


Dear Division Chief:

Please accept the follow comments as written testimony regarding the proposed Teacher Preparation Standards. Irealize the deadline for submission was August 2, 1999, however, I just returned from vacation and took some timeto review the proposed standards. There is a major flaw in the document that I am sure was an oversight and bothPDE and the State Board of Education would wish to correct.

My concern is that the proposed standards fail to require instructional technology skills as one of the listed "skilldimensions" in Section 354.32 (a) (1). In fact the only mention of technology related to the expectations of thecandidates appears in Section 354.25 (a) (1). "Candidates complete a sequence of courses or experiences or both todevelop an understanding of the ... uses of technology related to each academic discipline...." does not have thesame impact or expectation as the performance objectives stated as skills in Section 354.32 (a) (1). This is similar tothe reason for changing from the "vague" student outcomes in the former Chapter 5 Curriculum Regulations and theclearly stated and measurable "standards" in the recently approved Chapter 4 Curriculum Regulations.

I have been an assistant superintendent for the past twenty years and have been interviewing graduates of our stateteacher certification programs for those twenty years. I can attest to the fact that our institutions of higher learning,historically, have graduated and recommended for teacher certification, students who have not been up-to-date in theresearch and instructional skills related to our purpose and profession. The proposed standards were developedbecause the community has been concerned with the competencies of the teachers being hired in our schools. Thecommunities in our state have also invested millions of tax dollars for educational technology. If the colleges anduniversities are not required to assure "skill mastery" rather then "providing courses," the public can count on thecontinued short-comings of teacher candidates in our state.

My observations have confirmed the last levels of our educational system, higher education institutions, have notchanged significantly in their teacher training programs for decades. We cannot expect "the highest standards ofacademic excellence" for the 21st century, unless these institutions are required to have their endorsed graduatesdemonstrate mastery of current research and technology skills.

Please include these two skills in the list of "skill dimensions" in Section 354.32.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Sinewy,

Francis P. Romano



August 12, 1999

S9AUGI3 PH ! : 3 6

ZQf"

Francis P. RomanoAssistant SuperintendentEast Penn School District4949 Liberty Lane, 4th floorP.O. Box 3667Wescosville, PA 18106

Dear Dr Romano:


The deadline to submit written testimony or comments on proposed standards 22 Pa. CodeChapter 354 was 4:00 p.m. August 2,1999. Your written testimony was received at the Departmentof Education past this deadline, therefore, your testimony cannot be considered part of the officialrecord of public comments However, I am forwarding your testimony to the IndependentRegulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen of the House and Senate EducationCommittees so they will have the benefit of your thinking as they develop the final-form of theseregulations.


Sincerely,


and Preparation

cc: Senator RhoadesSenator SchwartzRepresentative StairsRepresentative ColafellaIRRCPatricia M. FullertonDr. Eugene HickokDon LundayDr Michael PoliakofFDr Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA /DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION S

333 MARKET STREET 'HARRISBURG, PA 17126-0333 r " r "

August 3, 1999

o9Wj5-5 ^ E: 39

Dr Mary Glennon, RSM 0^Vice President of Academic Affairs

and Dean of College Original : 2039College Misericordia Harbison ±&

Dallas, PA 18612-1098 MarkhamNanorta

Dear Dr. Glennon: Sandusky


Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Review Act, copies of your comments are beingprovided to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen of the Houseand Senate Education Committees. * L

%

Your comments will be considered carefully as the Department develops the final-form ofthese standards.


Sincereltincerelv,

Ronald J. Simanovich

Division of Teacher EducationBureau of Teacher Certification


Senator SchwartzRepresentative StairsRepresentative ColafellaIRRCPatricia M. FullertonDr. Eugene HickokDon LundayDr. Michael PoliakoffDr. Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

*

MisericordiaVice President of Academic Affairs andDean of the College

Original: 2039Harbison

HarriJuly27, 1999


\ \ #&%

. , %Dr Samuel G. MarcusHigher Education AssociatesBureau of Teacher Preparation and Certification333 Market StreetHarrisburg, PA 17126

Dear Dr. Marcus:

It has come to my attention that the Pennsylvania Department of Education, through theBureau of Teacher Preparation and Certification, is considering delegating its responsibility forreviewing/certifying teacher preparation and certification programs in post-secondary institutions toa single agent namely, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE).This letter comes to speak against any initiative designed to enable NCATE to become the soledelegated agent of the Pennsylvania Department of Education for this purpose.

We do not object to the use of NCATE by institutions who wish to do so. We strongly objectto the exclusive use of NCATE for that purpose, and suggest an alternate with which thePennsylvania Department of Education is already familiar, namely the Teacher EducationAccreditation Council (TEAC).

Please know that College Misericordia in general and the Teacher Education Program inparticular welcomes peer review. We have enjoyed our working relationship with the HarrisburgBureau. We have found its review process to be not merely fair, but very helpful in programmaticand professional development. We wish to be held to high standards and to accountability in ourbasic and advanced education and teacher training programs. We have no objection if theDepartment of Education wishes to delegate its responsibility for peer review to an externalprofessional organization. What we object to is exclusivity in the delegation. We request that wehave the opportunity to select between NCATE and the newly formed and authorized TEAC to actas that external review agent.

As you know, TEAC has been recognized and accepted by large research universities forexample, the University of Michigan and Syracuse University, as well as by small liberal arts basedinstitutions, College Misericordia as one example. TEAC s standards and criteria are rigorous andsufficiently broad to accommodate a variety of kinds of teacher preparation programs. On the otherhand, we have reviewed NCATE s review protocols thoroughly and do not find them helpful inaddressing our needs.

College Misericordia 301 Lake Street, Dallas, PA 18612-1098 (717) 674-6218Founded and Sponsored by the Sisters of Mercy of Dallas

FAX # (717) 675-2441

We believe that the authorization of NCATE as the single delegated teacher preparationreview agent would not be in the best interests of liberal arts based institutions such as CollegeMisericordia. We urge in the strongest possible terms that the Department of Education does notadopt an exclusive relationship with NCATE.

Sincerely,

Dr. Mary Glennon/KSMVice President of Academic Affairs

and Dean of the College


333 MARKET STREETHARRISBURG, PA 17126-0333 ? _

August 3, 1999 :

99AU3--

Original:Harbison

5 AMR: 39

TyrrellMarkhamNanortaSandusky

Louis V. Mingrone, PhD. •125 Hartline Science Center iN

Bloomsburg University400 East Second StreetBloomsburg, PA 17815-1301

Dear Dr. Mingrone: ,


Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Revietf^ct, copies of your comments are beingprovided to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen of the Houseand Senate Education Committees.



/W^M^fc/

cc: Senator RhoadesSenator SchwartzRepresentative StairsRepresentative Colafella

Patricia M. FullertonDr. Eugene HickokDon LundayDr. Michael PoliakoffDr. Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin


and Preparation

07/29/99 THU 14:16 FAX 570 389 3028 B.U. HARTLINE

Department of Biologic*! and Allied Health Sctencw

July 29,1999

Division of Teacher Education333 Market StreetHairisburg, PA 17126

Dear Committee Members:

BloomsburgUNIVERSITY

Original:Harbison

Markhapjtipnortt*

T S a n d u ^l e g a l &

I would, in a small way, present my views fa reference to the proposals on Chapter 354. I ha%,advised students in the B.S. in Education program here at Bloomsburg University for the last iOyears. In all that time we have provided some outstanding teachers in public education. -RHowever, it must be noted that the majority of these individuals all had at least a 3.0 average iir£their content area (Biology). The most important aspect of a students degree program here atBloomsburg is that it is comparable to our B.A, degree in Biology without the burden of theeducational courses. Our B.A. in Biology students are free to elect various other courses overand above required courses to fturther broaden their background (see attached).

It has been stated that if we raise the standards (grade point average in content area) there wouldbe very few science teachers produced. However, the way things are currently if you just raisethe overall grade point average requirement. The education department will add more 'educationcourses' so that the grades will be higher to overcome the lower grades in not only contentcourses but also other General Education requirements.

One of our most recent graduates, Mr. James Hostettler, graduated with a vexy high grade pointaverage not only in his content area but overall. Although he got very high grades in his contentarea and elcctives, as well as general education requirements, were just as high. He is currentlyteaching in the Shamokin Area School District. He wanted to be a teacher from day one andeven though he was constantly being recruited to be in a number of various biology programsremained a Teacher Education student It was his challenge and his choice and he is one of ourmost recent best! 1 From all the 30 years of advisement the problems have continually beencompounded. If anyone would ask the teachers out there they would tell you that the mostimportant classes they had were their content courses and not their methods or education classes.The content courses equip them with the updated material so that they can teach their subject totheir students.

The requirements here at Bloomsburg, for the Education degree of 35 credits, have been a slowbut continuous process by which more and more courses were added through the years with noreal merit or reason. I guess it was thought that we can make teachers out of anyone.

125 llaurdinc Science Center • Btoomshurg University * 400 East Second Street - Bloomabufg, PA 17815-1301570-389-4400 FAX* 5'7O-S89-302S

A Mmh*r tf Pennsylvania's $l*t* System of Hitfusr Fdwtititn

07/29/99 THU 14:17 FAX 570 389 3029 B.U. HATI.TWB g , ^

Division of Teacher Education iM y 29,1999 !

Please see Professional Education Requirements. IB.S, Biology/Secondary Education Biology (attached)

35 - credits + the following required general education courses35 - Professional Education12 - Soc. Science CoursesJL - Communication Course

48

All of the above prescribed in order to be a teacher.

Only 35 content area courses in Biology.

The courses that seem redundant and are requirements are the following:Field Studies IPsychological Foundations of EducationField Studies IISoc. Foundations of EducationEducation in Urban SocietyTeaching Reading in Academic Subjects

My personal opinion is instead of all of the above using their own list of courses our students do

Principles of Teaching 3Educational Computing-Technology 3Education Measurements & EvaL 3Teaching of Science (content area) 3Student Teaching I 6Student Teaching II 6

24 credits

Even with the restricted General Education requirements this would be a better approach to theteacher programs. It would eliminate so much redundancy as well as allow the student to selectmore courses in his/her content area and related areas so that he/she would not only be equippedto teach in their selected area (major) but also quite proficient in closely related areas. Makingthem a more versatile and broad based member of a faculty, This also can be a method ofkeeping very good teachers in the schools as they can teach various courses instead of a constantand static curriculum every year of teaching the same old same old each and every year. Nowonder there is burn out and private industry is taking away our science teachers - they are boredand unproductive. No wonder they leave the profession, it can be exciting and challenging outthere without all the hassle of being a teacher,

07/29/99 TOU 14:18 FAX 570 388 3028 B.U. HARTLINE

Division of Teacher EducationJuly 29,1999Page 3

The profession is an important one and society must realize it is through education andultimately teachers that will shape the generations that follow to be productive contributors. Noother profession has such a responsibility to society as does teaching and to require the best to beteachers is not wrong, it is the right thing to do. If the only measure of the best is at this level byrequiring higher grades than that's the way to start. Their are students out there and they want toteach. If we can solve this part of the puzzle then maybe public education can eventually get thecredit they deserve for the job they are doing and being allowed to teach, teach, teach and not allthe other tasks that arc required of them at this time. Because in the future they will indeed beprofessionals with a broad based background in their major area.

Sincerely,

)fLu^/ty*"*.Louis V. Mingrone, PK.D,Chairperson/Professor

'df

attachments


Oftpartnwnt of Biological «nd AUM H«kh 8ctanew

Btoonwburg UnlvwsHy, Btoormburg, PA Dite Entering.

BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE - BIOLOGY ftftriwtf ft* MWGPG

Biology of Animals (50.110) and BWopy of PWs (50.130) should b# M#m duhng Am freshmen year, Blotofly of Mt-cfoorooniims (50.242) *nd C#W Piobgy (60.271) should be taken during th* wphomort y w , A minimum of thirtytlOht (38) credit houw m biology te w|yNd. m *MSfeh'telht 26 or Z7«©ahour»orm^jfridcoufWf t ^ d o f i i *pig*, the *udtnt must select 12 a td ihoum^ i l ^ ^cow i« i l nbWogy .

Chfmlttry and Math«rr«tbft ooursw Should be @ # # d l ^ tt # # at possible in tht program of study. Requiredcourse* In ChemkwymndAMhemsWosoouarequirement; an additional course In this category must be ^mf^mmi€Mtm^mmm.Rm\u\rîm^%ûm^m9courses count towards fulfilling the Communication and/or Humanities general education requirements (see p. 3 for

Chemistry Courses [ie cr. hrnj

»-1i5Fundernentai8 Inorganic Ch«rrtstry 4

62*131 FundemenWs Orpenlc Chemistry 4

52-216 Chemical Principles & Measurement 4

52441 Biochemistry 4

•Change In ### Physiology Requinamenf

B.0»nnffi0 In the FaH 2000 semester, the physiobgy require-mdntfofths môrwill change. You wli choose one of the W-kwing lecture course* (3 cr, hrs. each): Vertedttte SystemsFhytiobgy, Vert JiMPWology, Plant Phy40l<W,M-crobied Phytiotogy. In addition, you will t»k» the 1 or. hr. Me-

hrs. of physiology, botudlng a labomtxy.

Biology Cora Courses pe or 27 cr. hrs.]

S0"110BiolowofANM(S 4

5CM20 Biology of Pterts 4

80-242 BW. Microorganisms 4

504Z71 Cell Biology 4 _ „ , ,

50-332 Gentiles - 3 ' ,

50-351 General Ecology 3 r . r

50-380 Biology Seminar 1

Physiology Course [cftow* one]

50-371 Prin. Mamm. Phys. 4 '

50-372 Plant Physlolop 3

50473 Systemic Physiology 4

50-475 Cell Physiology 3 _ _ _ _ _

M a t h e m a t i c s C o u r s e s (6 cr, hr*,] Choose any two of the following;

63-141 Intro. StaMks 3 OR 4W60 Basic Stat ic*

53-123 Essentials of Calculus3 m 63-125 Analysis I

56-110 Intro. Computer Sci. 3


'• *•'•• • • • •?? ® ?

Biology E l e c t i v e [Select 12 cr. hn. Additional houm count as ftw •todww.J

50400 DtraUotogy

5(V2i1invdrt©br«e Zoology

50-212 Vertebr«taZodoey

50.221 Nonvwcubr Plants

50-222 VaftCUter Plant*

50433 Human G*n*tte$

60-252 Reid Zootogy

60-253 Fre####r Biology

60-263 Flew Botany

50431 Embiyotogy

50-333 Molecular Biology

50442 Medtart Bacteriology

50-343 Immunology

50350 Plant Pathology

50481 Contp. Veitobi^Anatomy 3

50-364 Vtrlibrato Histology 3

50-365 HlfitoiJH!itoch«m.Techn. 3

60471 Prfn.lttTOfwLPhyfteL 4

5W72 Plant Physiology 3

50-390 Independent Study 1 1-3

50491 Independent Study II 14

-Y «MHRaJtett»Btotogy

1•:.—'-,; 'sii^'Mi^iMi^C

-—'•::'<$#&?**

'•' - ' ; ;»f«A53 Neol^Hcal BWogy

L «/ 60466 EnvkaimPW MIomMol

, 5CM57Entomok)fly

- '•-' mwmOM#@w@y

_' • :• ;_#^^*A#mBlo logy

.5(M62Ptont Anatomy. S&463 Bid. Phdpy. TeehnlqwM 3

KM70 M.dlal PaiMtotogy 3

KM73Sy«t9mlcPhy*iotogy 4

BO-tfsCal Phwtotogy 3

90M76 Nautemuwular Physiology 3

'SCM80 IntonnWp BioVAMed Health 3-19

' K H M Honore liKfcpand Study i 3

, ^60494 Honor* lnd«p«fid Study II 3

••Marine Science Courses also count as Biology Becllves. See p. 4 , M

" A maximum of 6 cr. hrs. from the following may t * spi led as elective credit toward the major.50-279,60-390.50-391,60479.50-490, and 5CM93, and 50484. "

' Open only to those students admitted to the honors program.


General Educat ion Requirements six cr.hn.(2 courses) of cuituni diversitycounts ae required. Designate these as +. See below for details of the foreign language requirement.

Communication p or 9 cr. hre.] Choose one of f/ie foflowfrig #we op<5tora, and one e/ectfve coarse:

! 20-101 English Composition i 3 Communication Elective *

ISO-290 Wming in Biotegy 3

20-101 English Composition I 3

20-201 English Composition I I 1 3

20-104 Honors Composition 3

Survival, Fitness,... per. hrs]

1 20.200 Whtlng Proficiency Exam may be substituted for

2 Suggested communication elective* include: Required for-eign language course (see below); 08-231 Technical Writ-ing; 16-103 Public Speaking; or any other acceptableelective course (see published specific General Educationcourse requirements).

ValU6Sy EthlCS, ,„ [3cr. hrs,]

Group A: Humanities* n2 cr. hrs ]

At lesst 3 different departments must be represented:

An, Communication Studies, English, History, Languages,

« Cultures, Music, Phikaphy, and Theatre Arts

Quantitative [3 cr. hrs.]

Fulfilled by mathematics requirement for major (see p. 1)

Group B: Social Sciences [12 cr. hrs.]

At toast 3 different departments must be represented:

Anthropology, economics, Geography, Political Science,

Psychology, and Sociology and Sodai VfeHare

Group C: Natural Science and Mathematics [12cr. hrs]

Nine credit hours are fulfilled by Chemistry, and Mathematics courses required far the major select one course fromBiology, Earth Science, or Physics,

Foreign Language Requirement for Biology Majors

AIIBS and BA majors in Biology are required to meet a foreign language requirement. Apply these credits to theCommunication Elective, or to Group A above. Any of the following courses may be used to satisfy the requirement10-102 French 2,10-203 French 3; 10-204 French 4; 11-102 German 2 11-203 German 3,11-204 German 4; 12-102Spanish 2,12-203 Spanish 3,12-204 Spanish 4; 13-102 Russian 2,13-203 Russian 3,13-204 Russian 4; 14-102 Ital-ian 2; or 16-106 Chinese 2


Marine Sc ience Course* . Summer courses offered at the Marine Science consor-tium, Wbllops Island, VA are acceptable as elective* for biology majors.

55.221 Marine Invertebrates 3

55.241 Marine Biology 3

55.250 Wetland Ecology 3

55.260 Marine Ecology 3

55.29$ Physiol. Marine Invertebr. 3

55.300 denavtor Marine Organisms 3

55,320 Marine Microbiology 3

55.330 Tropical invertebrates 3

65.342 Marine Botany 3

55.343 Marine icmyoiogy 3

55.345 Marine Ornithology 3

55.3*4 Comp Phys Marine Organls 3

55.431 Ecology of Marine Piantoon 3

55.432 Marine Evolutionary Ecdogy3

65.441 Biology of Molluscs 3

55,464 Biological Oceanography 3

65,470 Research Diver Methods 3

55.490 Marine AquacuKure 3

55.491 CorW Reef Ecology 3

56.492 Marine Mammals 3

55.493 Behorlora! Ecology 3

Free Electives ps - 29 cr. hr»]


Department of Biological and Allied Health Sciences

School of Profaaafonal Studies

eteomiburg Untoretty, Bloomsburg, PA

Dete Entering.R»viMdJufy199ZLVM

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE - Secondary Education Biology

Biology of Animate (50.110) end Biology of Plants (50.120) should be taken during the freshman year; Cell Biology(60.271) should be taken during the sophomore yeer, A minimum of thirty five (36) credit hour* In biology Is required.In mddWon to the 26 credit hours of required coureee Wed on iHs page the student must select 9 credit hours of elec-tive courses In biology.

Chemfrtry end Methematios courses should be scheduled me early ee possible m the program of study. Requiredcourses In Chemistry end Mathematics count toward fulfilling the Natural Science and Mathematics general educationrequirement Additional courses In Earth Science and Physics are required.

Biology Core Courses [26 cr hrsj

50,110 Biology of Animals 4

50.120 Biology of Plants 4

50,233 Human Genetics 3

50,242 Btol. Microorganisms 4

50.271 CeK Biology 4

50.332 Genetics 3

50,351 General Ecology 3

50.360 Biology Seminar 1

C h e m i s t r y C o u r s e s [16 or. h n j

62.115 Fundamentals Inorganic Chemistry 4

52.131 Fundamentals Organic Chemistry 4

52.216 Chemical Principles & Measurement 4

52,341 Biochemistry 4

Biology Elective* [9 cr nra.jSelect 9 cr. hre. of elect!ves from those listedon p. 2, including a Held course other thenGeneral Ecology.

An evolution course and/or physiology coursean, highly recommended to complete the spe-cialization.

Mathematics Courses [6 cr. hrs.)

53.141 Intro. Statistics • 3

48.160 Bsiic Statistics 3

53.113 Pre-Calculus 3

63.123 Essentials of Calculus 3


B i o l o g y E l 9 C t i v e s [Select 0 cr. hrs. Additional hours count as free eteetives.]

80.211 Invertebrate Zoology

50.212 Vertebrate Zoology

50.221 Nonvaacular Plants

50.222 Vascular Plants

50.233 Human Genetics

60,252 Raid Zoology

50.263 Freshwater Biology

50.263 Field Botany

50,279 Co-Op in Biology

3

3

3

3

3

3

50.331 Embryology 3

50.342 Medical Bacteriology 4

50.343 Immunology 3

50.350 Plant Pathology 3

50.361 Camp. Vertebrate Anatomy 3

50.364 Vertebrate Histology 3

50.365 Hlstol./Hlstochem, Techn. 3

50.371 Prin. Mammal. Physbl. 4

50.372 Plant Physiology 3

50.390 Independent Study I 1-3

50.391 independent Study II 1-3

50.411 Radiation Biology 3

50.430 Evolution 3

50.432 Microbiil Genetics 3

50.441 Cytogenetics 3

50.442 Virology of Mammals 3

50.449 Entomology 3

50.450 Mycology 3

60.455 Environmental Microbiology 3

50.458 Fungal Ecology 3

50.459 Ornithology 3

60.461 Animal Behavior 3

50.462 Plant Anatomy 3

50.463 Blol. Photogr. Techniques 3

50.470 Medical Parasitology 3

50,473 Systemic Physiology 3

60.475 Cell Physiology 3

50.476 Neuromuacular Physiology 3

50.479 Co-Op In Biology _

'60 Advanced Special Topics 3

50.490 internship Biol/AWed Health 3-U

250,493 Honors Independent Study 3

"Marine Science Courses also count as Biology Electives, See BS Biologysheet/*

•*A maximum of 6 cr. hrs. from the following may be applied as elective credit toward themajor 50.279,50.390, 50,391,50.479, 50.490, and 50.493,"

1Only 3 cr. h i* , may be applied toward major. 2Open only to thoee studenti admitted to the honor* program.

07/29/99 THU 14:21 FAX 570 389 302* B.U. HARTLINE

General Education RequirementsCommunication {6 or 9 er. iw,.] Values, Ethics,... [3 cr hre.]

Choos* one ofth* Mowing option*.

20.101 EngUth Compowtion I 3

20.201 English Composition I I 1 3

20.104 Honor* Composition 3

Select on* Communication Count:

25.103 Public Speaking 3

25.104 interpersonal Communlc. 3

Humanities [12 or. hrs.]

At least 3 different departments mod be r»pn-mented: Art, Englteh, Language* & Cultures, MusicPhKoeophy, Speech, end History

42.250 History of Science * 3

26.303 Philosophy of Science 2 3

Quantitative [3 crhrs]

FufflHed by statistics requirement tor the major.

Survival, Fitness,.,. [3 or. hrs.i

Social Sciences[12cr.hrs]

The following courses arc required for the major.

48.101 Genera) Psychology 3

48.212 Adolescence 3

70.101 Introd, Except. Individ. * 3

45.211 Principles of sociology 3

Natu ra l S c i e n c e a n d M a t h e m a t i c s [12 cr. hrs.]. 6 cr, hrs. from Chemistry end Mathematics courses re-quired for the major count here. Two additional courses ere required:

Select one from this group:

51.101 Physical Geology

51,255 Meteorology

51.259 Oceanography

3 _

3 _

64.111 introductory Physics I

1 20.200 Writing Proficiency Exam, of any allowable substitute may replace 20,201,

2 Highly recommended. 3 Qualities as a Cultural Diversity Course.

07/23/99 THU 14:21 FAX 570 389 3028 B.U. HARTLINE 0012

Professional Education[35er.hrs]

60.201 Field Studies in Education; 1

60.204 Educational Computing & Technology 3

90,251 Psychological Foundations of Education 3

60,2*1 Principles of Teaching 3

60,301 Field Studiei in Education I! 1

60.311 Educational Measurements & Evaluation 3

60.393 Social Foundations of Education1 3

60.394 Education in Urban Society1 3

65.353 Teaching of Science 3

65.374 Teaching of Reading in Academic Subjects 3

65.497 Student Teaching (1st Experience) 6

65,496 Student Teaching (2nd Experlanca) G

Free Elective*

1 Qualify as Cultural Diversity Courses. 2 Intro. Physics II (64.112) I* highly recommended

Stephen G. SimpsonDepartment of Mathematics333 McAllister BuildingPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, PA 16802


333 MARKET STREET. HARRISBURG, PA 17126-0333 n - '

August 2, 1999

93^5-5 B-.38

Original:Harbison .cc: Harris


Thank you for your written testimony on proposed standards Chapter 354.

;f11

Dear Dr Simpson:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Review Act, copies of your written testimonyare being provided to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen ofthe House and Senate Education Committees. S ' *

Your written testimony will be considered carefully as the Department develops the final-formof these standards. ^ *


Sincerely,

Lonald J. SttnanovichChiefDivision of Teacher EducationBureau of Teacher Certification

and Preparation


Patricia M FullertonDr Eugene HickokDon LundayDr. Michael PoliakoffDr. Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

AUG-02-1999 11:52 U.I. uunru 1 cr\ OUICIIV,L.


PENNSWE / •

MarkhamIjanortaSandusky, Legal

+1 AM 86S-7527 / PAX +1 614 865.3735

Departraent t»tMMbem«cicsEb«rly Coll«R« of ^ci«nc«

C p T h c Pennsylvania State University*" University Park, St&te College PA 16*02

August 2, 1999

Division of Teacher EducationAttn: Jean Peterson333 Market Street, 3rd FloorHarrisburg, PA 1712G-0333

To whom it may concern:

Tke purpose of this letter is to present my comments or written testimonyconcerning the new standards for colleges of education. I have reviewed thenew standards as presented in Annex A, 22 Pa. Code, Chapter 354, 7/7/1999.My understanding is that these new standards were recently passed unani-mously by !,li« Stale Board of Education and arc now in the regulatory reviewprocess, so Lhat my testimony can be considered as part of that process.

1 am a mathematics professor at the Pennsylvania State University. T wantto address the Chapter 354 standards as they would aiTect mathematics ed-ucation programs. Th« main point T want to make is that the requirementsfor such programs desperately need to be strengthened, and T applaud theChapter 354 standards as an appropriate measure.

My understanding is that, under Chapter 3M, students will need a 3.0 gradepoint average in ails aiul science courses for admission to teacher educationprograms. Tn addition, mathematics education majors will have to main-tain a 3.0 average in their mathematics courses, which are to include thesame courses as for a BA/BS degree in mathematics. These standards seementirely appropriate as minimal requirements for mathematics education ma-jors, and T hope they will bo. implemented as soon as possible.

My colleagues and 1 regularly teach first-year college courses in mathematics.We have all found that, despite higher University admission standards, thepreparation and ability of the students taking these courses has declined dras-tically, year after year, over the last 20 years or more. The decline has beenacross the board, affecting all of the students.' On the one hand, Uu* numberof badly prepared students has increased dramatically. On the other hand,the number of .students who could be considered well-prepared has drasti-cally decreased, and their ability has also decreased. There may be many

An Equal Opportunity Univ*rwti.y

RECEIVED TIMEAUG. 2. 1:21PM PRINT TIMEAUG. 2. 1:23PM

AUG-02-1999 11:53 U.T. COMPUTER SCIENCh 4<;j yr« wa<* r . e u

factors at work here, but I feel a major factor is that many grade school andhigh school mathematics teachers simply don't know enough mathematics toteach it well. It seems to m«* that th<* Chapter 354 requirements would do alot toward eventually correcting this situation.

I imagine that the most controversial of the Chapter 354 requirements isthe one requiring mathematics education majors to take all the mathematicscourse work lor a mathematics major. It is true that this entails a depthof mathematical knowledge considerably beyond what can be conveyed toK-12 students. However, this greater depth of understanding is of tremen-dous value for mathematics educators in terms of selecting essential conceptsand in other ways. 1 presented some examples of this in my talk ttK-12Mathematics' Education: A Mathematician's Perspective" at the Governor'sInstitute for Maf.lieina.tics Educators, August 3-7, 1998, held at the Penn-sylvania. State University.

1 should also note that our Department of Mathematics at the PennsylvaniaState University currently offers a mathematics major with a teacher certi-fication option. When, the Chapter 354 standards are given final approvaland implemented, I am sure that our department will be eager to collaboratewith the College of Education to make sure that this option meshes well withtheir mathematics education program.

Some may say that the 3.0 grade point requirements arc rather stiff. I dis-agree. After all, 3.0 represents only a B letter grade. My feeling is that,because of recent grader inflation, any student in a college course who nowobtains less than a \'\ has learned hardly anything and cannot be assumedcompetent in the course material. This applies especially to mathematicscourses. In my circles it is w«II known Uiat, a C student in a mathematicscourse is not adequately prepared to lake the next mathematics course.

In summary, I hope the Chapter 354 standards will be approved and vigor-


AUG-02-1999 11:53 U. I . CUHMJltK b^itiNct «4g:_) 17 f W *+t+CJf+ I

ously implemented.

Sincerely,

Stephen G. SimpsonProfessor of [email protected]. psu. edu

RECEIVED TIMEAUG, 2. 1:21PM PRINT TIMEAUG. 2. *=> 1:23PM

Original:Harbigon

TyrrellNanortaMarkhamSandusky

HOUSE EDUCATION COMMITTEE MEETINGTENTATIVE AGENDA

AUGUST 3,1999WESTMINSTER COLLEGE, NEW WILMINGTON, PA

PHILLIPS LECTURE HALL - HOYT SCIENCE RESOURCES CENTER9:00-11:30 AM

9:00 a.m. Call to order, remarks, welcomeRepresentative Jess Stairs, Chairman

9:05 - 9:30 a.m. Dr. Michael Poliakoff, Deputy SecretaryPA Department of Education

9:30-10:15 a.m. PA Association of Colleges and Teacher Educators (PACTE) PanelDr. John Butzow, President (IUP)Dr. James Flynn, Emeritus (Edinboro University)

10:15-11:00 a.m. PA Academy for Profession of Teaching (SSHE)Dr. Steve Pavlak, Director(California University of PA)

11:00 -11:30 a.m. PA Black Conference on Higher EducationJohn Shropshire, Education Policy Chairman

1

07/13/99 16:58 INSTITUTIONAL ADUANCEMENT -> 717 783 2322 NO.587 P03

7

" * mp 6 not dimm to scab." < * B * ! ' * » - » - ^ ^

87-13-99 17:88 TO:PA HOUSE OF REPS FROM:17249467333

07/13/99 16:53 INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT •» 717 783 2322 NO.587 D04

"WSSKT

HOUOAY INN

g > COMFORT *NN

< § > OAKTREf COUNTRY CLU8

< ^ MEW CASTLE COUNTRY CLUB

< F > TME CENTER /DAYS INN Hl»9^ CHryster.Plymouth, oodg*

TOQUE

* * * < % * * , CownfyCA,*'****»»* "»<*"*"»»»*"'

NEWCASTLEComfort fa

* l 422 NmvButlTRoad

87-13-99 17:88 TO:PA HOUSE OF REPS FROM:17249467333

07/13/99INSTITUTIONAL ADUANCEMENT * 717 783 2322

Directions to the President's Home:Follow directions below* then proceedSouth on Market Street down the hilland across the bridge* Take next rightafter bridge (Beechwood Drive). Go upthe hill to next Stop sign (New Castle St)Turn Left and proceed up the hill. Whenalmost at the top of hill* turn leftinto driveway (521 New Castle S t . ) * ^

finora the North <ErU> Buffalo, eta)South on f-79Exit #31 (London - Grove City)West on PA 208 appro*. 9 miles(Watch in Volant for right turn to stay on PA 208 into

New Wilmington,)Turn left at stop lightGo 2 blocks, College is on the Jeft.

From the South (Pittsburgh - PA Turnpike)Pittsburgh:North on US 19 or 1-279 to 1-79North on 1.79Exit #29 (Butler - New Castle - US 422 WesQWest on US 422 toward New Castle -1 mileTravel 10-12 miles North on US 19.Ttim left at "Westminster College" dgn.In Volant, continue West on PA 208 into New

Wilmington.Turn left at stop tightGo 2 blocks. College is on the teit

Turnpike:Exit #3 at Perry HighwayGo North (US 19) t mile to 179 North,On 1-79, take Exit #29 (Butler - New Caste -

US 422 West)/'Note: Samepfrom Pittsburgh (above)

s 7_ l 3_ 9 9 J-.BB TO: PA H0U5E OF REPS

From (be Southeast (Bvtkr, IGttanning,India**) 'West on US 422 ;

North on US 19 approx 12 miles \Turn left at "Westminster Cottage' sign.In Volant, continue West on PA 208. '•Follow 208 into New Wilmington. • ;

TUm left at stop lightGo 2 blocks. College Is on the Jdt

From tfae East f Clarion)West on r#>. Exit #2 (Mercer)South OJJ US 19 about A tnflesWest on PA 208 (at s^n for New Wilmington)Watch in Volant for right turn to stay on PA 208

into New Wilmington. :

TUrn leA at stop light. , ',Go 2 blocks, College Is on the left

From the W e * {Oeoekuut, Akrw, Youxgslown)Bast on 1-80. Exit #1 (West Middlesex)PA 60 South to Route 18 Exit ;South on Route 18 to PA 208(Look for Cheese House on left hand comer.)Turn left (Eas0 on PA 208.Follow 208 one mite into New Wilmington.Turn right at stop tight (Market Street).^2bteck^r^iu^-M^-1y24g467333

07/08/99 INSTITUTIONAL ADUANCEMENT -> 717 783 2322

MOTELS IN THE WESTMINSTER COLLEGE AREA

Beech wood Inn B&B175 Becchwood RoadNew Wilmington, PA 16142724/946-2342

Beams' Bed & Breakfast166 Waugh AvenueNew Wilmington, PA 16142724/946-8641

GabxieTs Bed & Breakfast174 Waugfr AvenueNew Wilmington, PA 16142724/946-3136

"Hie Jacqueline HouseBed & Breakfast1 Mik South ofNew Wilmington on Rt> 956724/946-8382

The Vcazey HouseBed & Breakfast188BeechwoodRoadNew Witaudgton, PA 16142724/946-2918

Tara Country Inn3665 Valky View Rd.Ckik, PA 16113724/962-3535

Gtove Cityy P^i

AmeriHost InnIntersection of 1-79 and SR-208,

Grove City, PA 16127724/748-5836

Comfort InnIntersection of L79 und SR-208Exit 31 -179Grove City, PA 16127800/221-2222

Super 8 MotelIntersection of 1-79 and SR-208

Gtovt City, PA 16127 ;724/748-3000

Wes t Middlesex . PA

Comfott InnRoute 18,1-80 Exit 1-NHemutage, PA 16148724/342-7200

&% Holiday InoRoute 18,1-80 EaridNHcnnitage, PA 16148724/981-1S30

K^Radisson Hotel SharonRoute 18,1-80 Exit INWest Middlesex, PA 16159724/528-2501

Youngstown^ O H

Camdot Inn1-80 at Route 193Youngstown, OH330/759-0040

Day's Inn1-80 at Route 193Youngstowxi, OH330/759-3410

Ramada Inn1-60 at Route 193Youngstovm, OH330/759-7850

Wick-Pollock Inn603 Wck AreaueYoungstown, OH 44502330/746-1200

Metcef . P A

Howard Johnson'sRoute 58 & 1-80Mercer, PA 16137724/748-3030

Magoffin Guest blouseBed & Breakfast129 South Pitt StreetMercer, PA 16137800/841-0824

Mchard Mabot146 N.Pitt StreetMercer, PA 16137724/662-2489

N e w c a s t l e . PA

Comfort Inn1750 New Budet RoadNewcastle, PA 16101724/658-7700

Day's Inn :

304 East North StreetNew CastLe, PA 16101724/652-9991

Lockhard Estate B&B1861 Eastbrook RoadNew Castle, PA 16101724/658-7096

Super 8 Motel1699 Old Budet RoadNew Castle, PA 16101724/65^-8849

Volant t P j ^

Candkfoid InnBed & BreakfastMercer Street;Volant, PA 16156724/533-4497'

Westminster College neither guarantees nor endorses these businesses, but lists them a$ a convenience to visitors.

8 7 - 8 8 - 9 9 8 7 : 4 5 TO:PA HOUSE OF REPS FROM:17249467333



August 3, 1999

Original:Harbison

S3M •5-5 ;.-' B-39MarkhamNanortaSanduskyMahmoud H. Fahmy, Ph.D.

PresidentEducation and Training Center69 Public Square, Suite 805Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701

Dear Dr. Fahmy:


Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Review Act, copies of your written testimonyare being provided to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen ofthe House and Senate Education Committees. \ [%

Your written testimony comments will be considered carefully as the Department developsthe final-form of these standards. i *


Sincerely,


and Preparation


Patricia M FullertonDr. Eugene HickokDon LundayDr Michael PoliakoffDr Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

08/02/1999 15:27 717-823-9302 £I<J Uh NkTA rwc u

Original: 2039n... _ Harbison^ l ^ cc: Harris

Tyrrell

-9#3UG-5 /'O. o- Markhamii>l '" c J Nanorta

Sandusf^V'^t ._. . :y\i"" Legal

STATEMENT OF TESTIMONYREGARDING TEACHERS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

PENNSYLVANIA'S TEACHER PREPARATION INITIATIVEBY

MAHMOUD H. FAHMY. PH.D.PRESIDENT, EDUCATION & TRAINING CENTER

OF N.E. PA.PROFESSOR AND DEAN EMERITUS

OF WILKES UNIVERSITY


08/02/1999 15:27 717-823-9302 tiu m- ncrw

During my graduate training at Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity and Syracuse University, and through myprofessional career experience as a teacher educator forover forty five years I have always been aware and activityinvolved in various pedagogical activities to upgrade thequality of teacher education. I have been an ardentbeliever that the fate of American Schools is depending onthe quality of those who choose teaching as their careerdestination also, I became aware of the destructiondichotomy which plagued teacher preparation programs;that is the conflict between those who emphasize thepedagogical causes and those who advocate for cognatefocused curriculum. School of education and Departmentsof Education at various Universities and College's havesuffered from lack of prestige and are segregated fromother academic units, Look at any university catalogue andyou will find a physics dept., a history dept., and a musicdept.. Look further and you will find separate schools ordepths of education with independent programs that havetheir own faculty and curricula in science education, socialstudies education, math education or music education.Prospective teachers are lacking depth knowledge,understanding and analysis of subject area.

According to the most recent statistics, fewer than 65%of new teachers have either a major or minor in the subjectmatter they teach. Nearly a third of all teachers todayteach subjects in which they have no formal training. Morethan half of all students studying physics in high school aretaught by teachers who had neither a major or minor inphysics. These grim statistics prompted me to call for morevigorous academic preparation for teachers in order for theprofession of teaching to command respect.


08/02/1999 15:27 717-823-9302 ETC OF NEPA r«*at

Therefore, I do endorse Pennsylvania's TeacherEducation Imitative as first and positive step to emphasizethe academic orientation for prospective teachers. I even gofurther to advocate for integration of the functions of the schools ofeducation, and departments of education into the departments orschools of cognate areas.

We must auickly turn the fast approaching teacher shortage tothe advantage of our children by providing well-educated teacherswhom we honor and trust because of the quality and rigor of theirprofessional training.

Lets us view and consider Pennsylvania's Imitative not as thefinal solution but as the impetus to redirect our thinking about thefuture of the prospective teachers in our schools.

Let us work together; higher education, basic education, stateand federal agencies, local Boards of Education and communities atlarge to met the challenge of the new millennium in improving thequality of our schools.

Thank You.

RECEIVED TIMEAUG. 2. 3:26PM. PRINT TIME AUG. 2. 3:31PM

.mn-i 'i M a n n QHAIHOSH

Dr. Michael PollakoffDeputy SecretaryPostsecondary & Higher EducationPA Department of Education12* Floor, 333 Market StreetHarrisburg, PA 17126-0333

May 13,1999

Dear Michael,Thank you for sharing with me Governor Ridge's Initiative for

preparing Pennsylvania's teachers: Teachers for the 21 * Century. Let meseize this opportunity to commend the Governor and the Secretary ofEducation for taking this crucial step to restore the quality andprofessionalism of Pennsylvania's education through attracting a highcaliber of qualified teachers. Throughout my forty five years as aprofessional educator, college professor and administrator, I became anardent believer that the fate of the American schools is depending onthe quality of those who chose teaching as their career destination. I amfully aware of the distinctive dichotomy which has plagued teacherpreparation programs throughout the country; that is the conflictbetween those who emphasize exclusively the professional courses andthose who advocate for the cognate focused curriculum. Thedeterioration of the Progressive Movement in the early years of the 20^Century and the misinterpretation of the Child Centered Movement Ineducation led to the decline of the academic qualities of those whoentered the teaching profession, Schools of education and thedepartment of education in many American colleges and universitiessuffered a decline in prestige and invited skepticism from many laymenand professors of academic subjects.

Wilfred Coombs, MB AProgram Director

30 39Vd VcQN JO 013 30E6-E38-AIZ.

Mahmoud H. Fahmy. PhD

91:91 6661/30/80

mn-i 'i "onvawii anmn

Therefore, I became convinced that prospective secondaryteachers must develop a coherent grasp of a subject matter area. Theconcentration In academic discipline should go beyond superficialaccumulation of the number of semester hours "credits" by developing adeeper approach of the cognate areas. A program of concentrationshould be sequential, so that completion of the most advanced workensures a grasp of what has preceded it. or It should be testedcomprehensively and be capable of being so tested. A so-called"major" that fails to meet either of these tests Is In my opinion a dubiouseducational Instrument. Even for those who are preparing for elementaryschool teaching, especially the upper grades, I do recommend aprogram which provides depth of content and methods of teaching in aspecific subject or cluster of subjects normally taught in these grades.

There Is a way to state the argument of the academic preparationof teachers. Such arguments shaped my philosophy of preparingteachers. If is this: Only through pursuing a subject well beyond theintroductory level can the student gain a coherent picture of the subject,feel the cutting edge of disciplined training and discover the satisfactionof the scholarly habit of mind. Thousands of students wonder throughsurvey courses with only the shallowest and superficial knowledge of thesubjects. I believe that once the student has the experience of gettinginside a subject, he Is more likely to become so interested in It that he/shewill wish to pursue more on his/her own( which I regard as one of thehallmarks of a quality teacher); at the same time he/she will be less likelyto be timid In addressing other complicated subjects, or to acceptdogma, or to countenance nonsense on any subject.

Such an approach of emphasizing the academic preparation ofteachers demands further steps:

1. The term "liberal education" should be defined to mean aprocess which enhances understanding and to strengthenthe ability to think and to act rationally, rather than aspecific program of study.

2. Upgrade and strengthen the status of the departmentsand schools of education by integrating their functionswith the departments and schools of cognate areas. I dostrongly recommend that the professors of educationespecially those who deal with the educationalfoundations courses and the methods of teaching subjectmatter to be dually appointed with other departmentsand schools.

3. Each college or university should be permitted to developin detail whatever program of teacher education it

£ 0 39Vd Wd3N JO 013 Z9E6-EZ8-£U SXIST 6661/20/80

nm-t 'i "onvswix m\mi

considers most desirable, subject to only two conditions;first, the president of the institution, on behalf of the entireinvolved (academic as well as professional), certifies thatthe candidate is adequately prepared to teach on aspecific level or in a specific field, and second, theinstitution establishes in conjunction with a public schoolsystem a state approved practice- teachingarrangement.

4. The lay board of trustees of each institution should bestrongly and directly involved by advocating andsponsoring the policies of all -universities approved toteacher training programs.

The quality of those qualified for teachers education:I do highly endorse the Governor's directives to upscale the grade pointaverage of those admitted to the teacher's preparation program from2.5 to 3.0. Yet grades alone will not be indicative of the caliber of thosewho are admitted to the teacher's preparation training. We need to beprecise in identifying what future teacher's need to know, what they areable to do and to be retained in the teaching profession throughprofessional growth and Incentive. Therefore. I do call for acomprehensive screening program which may identify the personalitytraits and true commitment to the teaching profession. There must alsobe a meaningful exposure to teaching plus field experience, even beforeenrollment In an Initial or advanced preparation program, there must bethe component for such a comprehensive screening process.

The practice-teaching phase.

I can not emphasize enough that the quality of teachers is cruciallydependant on a true partnership between colleges, universities, and thepublic school system. Therefore I do highly recommend that the publicschool system enter into a contractual agreement with a college oruniversity for the practice teaching program. This will enable schools todesignate a practice teacher to work closely with the colleges oruniversities. Those designated persons must be in compliance with thetraining program and should be encouraged by reducing their workloads,raising their salaries and designate them as "mentors". We have to gobeyond the current practice of assigning indiscriminately cooperativeteachers, by establishing such a system which selects and develops these"mentors" who work closely with student teachers and other novicesentering the teaching profession. We may declare these mentors as

PQ 39VdVd3N JO 013 Z9Z&-ZZ8-LU 31=91 6661/38/88

JWtMC 'I 'DflVHHU Q3AI303H

clinical professors who will be the true lalson between higher educationand the public school authorities.

The state should approve programs of practice teaching bydemanding that colleges and universities work with the public schoolsystem authorities and should regulate the conditions under whichpractice teaching is done and the nature of method instructions fhotaccompany It. The state .should require that the colleges and publicschool systems involved submit evidence concerning the compliance ofthose appointed as mentors/clinical professors. In referring to "evidence"I do not have in mind the offering of special courses, but I had hoped toencourage flexibility and to restrict .the state control to the role of catalystencouraging, through Incentives, this cooperation and partnershipbetween higher education and the public school system.

The state should provide financial support to local school boards toinsure a high quality of practice teaching and hold them accountable Inthe selections and development of the mentors/clinical professors.

Finally, we should not ignore the impact of the technology onteacher preparation programs. The advent of computer basedinstructions, distance learning and other technological methods must bespelled out and emphasized in the Initiative.

Certification

The concept of alternative certification which enables talentedand qualified college graduates to achieve certification throughapprenticeships or internship programs is an excellent vehicle to attractquality teaching staff. Military personnel and business people, especiallythose who opted for early retirement, are an additional pool for teachingIn schools and enriching the classrooms with their experience andexpertise. They will be an excellent link to strengthen the partnershipbetween the education sector and the world of business and industry.However, alternative certification has to be closely monitored andevaluated on a continuous basis. Professional teacher organizations,accredited agencies, public school authorities, colleges, and universitieshave to be fully convinced of the concept and must play a major rote inits promotion and assessment.

SummarySalient questions for future action.

In considering the needs of future teachers four issues are revelent:

S 0 3 W d W3Nd0 013 ZdSS-BZ8-LU SV-Ql 666T/S0/80

M \ - l 'I "flflVHRU Q3A13033

1. Recruitment: What kinds of candidates should we be tryingto attract and what image of the profession should we betrying to project?

2. Selection: How do we ensure that only the most qualifiedpeople are admitted to the training?

3. Training: How do we ensure that the new generation ofteachers has the skills we are seeking to develop In thebest current and future workforce?

4. Initiation into teaching: How do we smooth the passagefrom training into full practice.

Michael, please do not hesitate to call upon me for any help orassistance regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

fahmoud H. FahmyPresident

oo TJOHJ Wrf Ki -n n n 7.«pfi-P7.P-/1/ St:QT 6661/30/88

iwfri :e 'i 'snvawii mum

STATEMENT OF TESTIMONYREGARDING TEACHERS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

PENNSYLVANIA'S TEACHER PREPARATION INITIATIVEBY

MAHMQUD H FAHMY. PHDPRESIDENT, EDUCATION & TRAINING CENTER

OF N.E. PA.PROFESSOR AND DEAN EMERITUS

OF WILKES UNIVERSITY

tw^w 4n m q Z*tt-F.ZB-LIL ST".9T 6661/28/80

JI<W:E 'I MV3HU Q3AID33

During my graduate training at Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity and Syracuse University, and through myprofessional career experience as a teacher educator forover forty five years I have always been aware and activityinvolved in various pedagogical activities to upgrade thequality of teacher education. I have been an ardentbeliever that the fate of American Schools is depending onthe quality of those who choose teaching as their careerdestination also, I became aware of the destructiondichotomy which plagued teacher preparation programs;that is the conflict between those who emphasize thepedagogical causes and those who advocate for cognatefocused curriculum. School of education and Departmentsof Education at various Universities and College's havesuffered from lack of prestige and are segregated fromother academic units, Look at any university catalogue andyou will find a physics dept., a history dept., and a musicdept.. Look further and you will find separate schools ordepths of education with independent programs that havetheir own faculty and curricula in science education, socialstudies education, math education or music education.Prospective teachers are lacking depth knowledge,understanding and analysis of subject area.

According to the most recent statistics, fewer than 65%of new teachers have either a major or minor in the subjectmatter they teach. Nearly a third of all teachers todayteach subjects in which they have no formal training. Morethan half of all students studying physics in high school aretaught by teachers who had neither a major or minor inphysics. These grim statistics prompted me to call for morevigorous academic preparation for teachers in order for theprofession of teaching to command respect.

8 0 3svd Vd3N dO 013 Z0E6-EZ8-AIA 9T=SX 6661/20/89

nin-t i mmi anmn

Therefore, I do endorse Pennsylvania's TeacherEducation Imitative as first and positive step to emphasizethe academic orientation for prospective teachers. I even gofurther to advocate for integration of the functions of the schools ofeducation, and departments of education into the departments orschools of cognate areas.

We must quickly turn the fast approaching teacher shortage tothe advantage of our children by providing well-educated teacherswhom we honor and trust because of the quality and rigor of theirprofessional training.

Lets us view and consider Pennsylvania's Imitative not as thefinal solution but as the impetus to redirect our thinking about thefuture of the prospective teachers in our schools.

Let us work together, higher education, basic education, stateand federal agencies, local Boards of Education and communities atlarge to met the challenge of the new millennium in improving thequality of our schools.

Thank You.

60 39Vd Vd3N JD 013 ZK6-ZZB-LU 31=91 666T/20/80

^^7 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^- - 1

i ^ ^ 3

State System of Higher Education &EU&EMY Of fcOUMi lUK13 hi I" 3 6 The System Works for Pennsylvania

Original:Harbison

TQagwaS, 1999MarkhamNanortaSandusky

JaniejsJfcL JVIcCormickChancellor

The Honorable Eugene W. Hickok, Jr.Secretary of Education333 Market Street, 10th FloorHarrisburg,PA 17126-0333

Dear Secretary Hickok:

Attached is the position statement of the Office of the Chancellor, State System of HigherEducation, on Chapter 354 and related facets of this proposed regulation. This statement is based uponagreements that were reached with you on several basic requirements intended to strengthen thepreparation of teachers and other educators in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Further, the statementhas been developed in consultation with the presidents of the 14 State System universities and has theiragreement Consequently, this is the position from which we shall speak as discussions and hearingscontinue over the next several months.

It is our intention to support the initiatives for strengthening teacher certification requirements.We should point out, however, that questions on adverse impact issues may demand careful andthoughtful consideration during the review process. Also, as you know as a member of the Board ofGovernors' Academic and Student Affairs Committee, our position statement has not been presented tonor endorsed by the Board.

On these issues and others we look forward to continuing our work together for the enhancementof teacher education programs throughout the Commonwealth.

Stephen A. PavlakAssistant Vice Chancellor

for Teacher Preparation

James H. McCormickChancellor

Enclosure

c: F. Eugene Dixon, Jr.University Presidents

Office of the ChancellorDixon University Center2986 North Second StreetHarrisburg, PA 17110717-720-4000

Vie Universities: Cheyney Edinboro Lock Haven ShippensburgBloomsburg Clarion Indiana Mansfield Slippery RockCalifornia East Stroudsburg Kutztown MUlersvUle West Chester

Testimony on Chapter 354 by Chancellor James H. McCormick andAssistant Vice Chancellor for Teacher Education Dr. Stephen A. Pavlak

State System of Higher Education, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Teachers for the Twenty-First Century must be prepared to guide the youth of tomorrow througha world filled with learning and knowledge; likewise, our students in the Twenty-First Century must learnto grasp this knowledge and apply it to the concepts learned in the classroom setting. In order to leadstudents in this process, future teachers necessarily will need to be professionally trained in the areas ofpedagogy, as well as the content subject areas. They will possess strong academic subject backgroundswhich are anchored by a broad-based liberal arts and science core of subjects. Additionally, theseprospective teachers must develop a strong academic transcript, demonstrate a like commitment toacademic excellence, understand the principles of the psychological components of teaching and learning,apply current research on the basic principles of learning, and possess a thorough understanding ofteaching techniques.

It may not be agreed that a student's grade point average should be set at a particular level, but itcan be agreed that future teachers must demonstrate a solid understanding of the liberal arts, sciences, andpedagogical techniques and theories. Consequently, the establishment of a 3.0 Grade Point Average foradmission and graduation from a teacher preparation program is seen as an attempt to set one indicator ofexcellence for future teachers. By itself, die 3.0 Grade Point Average required for admission to teachereducation might block potentially outstanding teachers from the profession. Therefore, permittingstudents to earn a 2.8 Grade Point Average and pass a state approved assessment test will enable studentsto enter the program. These requirements are viewed as positive steps for establishing admission toteacher education criteria. Although it is difficult to establish reliable predictors of teaching success, theestablishment of high academic levels raises the bar for entry into the profession and encouragesprospective teachers to pursue high levels of academic achievement

The State System of Higher Education is a strong proponent of academic rigor and appropriatestandards for Pennsylvania's future teachers. Students who have entered State System teacher trainingprograms always have been encouraged to meet high academic standards. As part of these standards, wehave endorsed early field experiences and rigorous academic courses, which place education students inthe same learning environment as content specific majors. Therefore, we endorse the proposal tomaintain rigorous academic standards and to emphasize a solid background in the arts and sciences.

We also support having education majors apply for admission to teacher education after they havecompleted 48 university credits. As the producer of over one-half of the new teachers in theCommonwealth, we strongly support efforts to develop and enforce requirements that ensure rigorousteacher education programs in the Commonwealth. We want our future teachers to understand theprinciples of learning, and we also want them to be professionals who possess a high level of subjectcompetence, as well as the ability to inspire the youth of the future to learn and achieve. In short, wewant competent, well-trained teachers who encourage children to embrace knowledge and cherish thechallenges the new century will hold. We believe the standards mentioned above take a positive steptoward establishing these goals.

August 2,1999



August 12, 1999

Chancellor James H McCormick and *->Dr. Stephen A. Pavlak <j ^State System of Higher Education %{ (TOffice of the ChancellorDixon University Center2986 North Second StreetHarrisburg, PA 17110

Dear Chancellor McCormick and Dr. Pavlak:


Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Review Act, copies of your written testimonyare being provided to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen ofthe House and Senate Education Committees.

Your written testimony will be considered carefully as the Department develops the final-formof these standards.


Sincerely,

Ronald J Simanovich

Division of Teacher EducationBureau of Teacher Certification

and Preparation


Patricia M FullertonDr. Eugene HickokDon LundayDr. Michael PoliakoffDr. Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION333 MARKET STREET

HARRISBURG, PA 17126-0333

August 3, 1999

Original:Harbison

RUG8:39Karl H. Lewis, PhJD.

University of PittsburghSchool of Engineering949 Benedum HallPittsburgh, PA 15261-2294

Dear Dr. Lewis:

Thank you for your letter of July 31, 1999 on proposed standards Chapter 3 54.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Review Act, copies of your comments are beingprovided to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen of the Houseand Senate Education Committees. ^


Your comments will be considered carefully as the Department develops the final-form ofthese standards. jj^:*


Sincerely,


and Preparation


Patricia M. FullertonDr. Eugene HickokDon LundayDr. Michael PoliakoffDr. Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

University of PittsburghOriginal: 2039

c / / r r • • Harbison

School of Engineering c c . HarrisDepartment of Civil & Environmental Engineering T y r r e l l


949 Benedum HallPittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261-2294412-624-9870 Telephone412-624-0135 Fax

July 31,1999

Division of Teacher Education '^333 Market Street enHarrisburg, PA 17126-0333

Re: 22 PA. CODE CHAPTER 354

sIn order for the USA to continue to be a leader of the world, it must have a work force with an adequatenumber of individuals who are competent in mathematics, science, engineering, and areas of relatedtechnology. Unfortunately, the number of Americans pursuing the above areas of study has not kept pacewith the demand. The low number of competent teachers of mathematics and science in middle/highschool represents one area of concern where the demand has outpaced the supply. Thus, I very stronglysupport whatever can be done to increase the number of competent teachers of middle/high schoolmathematics and science.

In my opinion, all middle/high school teachers of mathematics and science should have (as a minimum), abachelor's degree with a major in the subject they intend to teach; one or more minors in related areas;classes in the following education related courses: foundations of education, fundamentals of teaching,learning styles of students, use of visual aids and computers in learning, and management of the classroom(especially as it relates to handling the difficult student); and a GPA of 2.8 or greater in the major area ofstudy. In addition, each teacher should be required to complete at least 10 hours of practicum, and at least12 weeks of supervised student teaching. Also, teachers should be made aware of the goals and mission ofthe schools at which they plan to work, and should be committed to keeping abreast of the changing workforce and the skills that are necessary for all students to be successful upon graduation from high school.

The above means that individuals with bachelor's degrees with "equivalent" majors in mathematics orscience and related work experience, should be able to qualify as middle/high school teachers in about 15months without having to take a lot of useless courses in education.

Sincerely,

Karl H. Lewis, Ph. D.Assoc. Prof, of Civil and Environmental Eng.and Director of the Pitt Engineering Impact Program

Fninsfonning the Present — Discovering the Future



HARRISBURG, PfK 17126-0333

August 3, 1999

Original:Harbison


Grace Cureton Stanford VAssociate Professor of EducationCoordinator of Urban EducationPenn State University, Delaware CountyMedia, PA 19063

Dear Ms. Stanford:


Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulalpry Revfew Act, copies of your written testimonyare being provided to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen ofthe House and Senate Education Committees. '.

Your written testimony will be co]of these standards.

as the Department develops the final-form


Sincere]


Patricia M. FullertonDr. Eugene HickokDon LundayDr. Michael PoliakofFDr. Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

z^u^W^t^^f^A

Ronald J. Simanovich. ChiefDivision of Teacher EducationBureau of Teacher Certification

and Preparation

Original:Harbison


A Response to Rule 354, the Teacher Training Initiative

Grace Cureton StanfordAssociate Professor of EducationCoordinator of Urban Education

Penn State University, Delaware CountyMedia, PA

July 30, 1999

CHAPTER 354 WRITTEN TESTIMONY

Introduction

Since the Nation at Risk report in 1983, the nation has been focused oneducational reform. In the ensuing sixteen years, a plethora of reform measures have beenadopted with varying levels of success. Many reforms have focused upon raisingstandards in subject areas in order to bolster student achievement and improving thequality of those who teach. According to the report What Matters Most: Teaching forAmerica's Future (1996) '"what teachers know and can do is the most important influenceon what students learn."

While I agree wholeheartedly that the quality of teachers needs to be improved, Iam opposed to the proposed change to raise the grade point average to 3.0 for thoseentering teacher education programs throughout Pennsylvania. A major argument offeredin support of the proposed change in grade point average is that teacher candidates withhigh grade point averages are more likely to become successful teachers than thosecandidates with lower grade point averages. Intuitively this sounds like a plausibleargument that undoubtedly achieves currency because it is likely to resonate with thegeneral public. However, this argument has serious flaws, some of which are discussedbelow.

Teacher Competence and Grade Point Average

Those who are knowledgeable about teaching understand that teaching is a highlycomplex process that requires competencies that have no relationship to grade pointaverage. In fact, there are no empirical studies that show a link between grade pointaverage and teaching ability. It is true that teachers must be steeped in their subject matterbecause they can not teach what they don't know themselves. However, it is equally truethat teachers may have a deep understanding of a subject yet not be able to teach it.Indeed, there is no shortage of brilliant people who lack the ability to transform theirknowledge into productive learning experiences as many students can verify.

In additional to subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, it iscritical that teachers have good interpersonal skills. Such skills have a direct impact uponthe quality of the teacher/student relationship that, in turn, affects student learning.Additionally, teachers need good interpersonal skills in order to develop constructive andproductive relationships with parents, community members, and colleagues. Indeed,some reforms have specifically focused upon building school/community partnerships inan effort to improve the quality of education.

Despite the fact that interpersonal skills are of equal importance to subject matterknowledge and pedagogical knowledge, they are difficult to quantify. Moreover, studentswith high grade point averages may have poor interpersonal skills that will interfere withtheir ability to teach. By contrast, teacher candidates with lower grade point averagesmay be able to successfully engage students in worthwhile learning experiences because

2 Stanford Chapter 354 Written Testimony

of their ability to create nurturing relationships with students and supportive relationshipswith family members. A study by Irvine (1990) illustrates the importance of teachers'ability to establish meaningful interpersonal relationships with student. While theparticipants in the study were minorities, studies involving white participants have hadsimilar findings:

When 813 minority, low-income adults, aged eighteen to thirty-four, were askedto identify the characteristics of the teachers who had influenced them the most,they most often selected teachers' social and interpersonal skills, affectivecharacteristics, and temperament. The former students chose the followingdescriptors to portray these influential teachers: approachable, pleasant, easy torelate to, accepting, tolerant, helpful, concerned, caring, thoughtful, andperceptive of and sensitive to the needs of students.

Demographic Variables

In addition to the lack of relationship between grade point average and teachercompetency, I am opposed to raising the grade point average from 2.5 to 3.0 foradmission to teacher education because it ignores significant demographic data and theirimplications for teaching. These demographic data point to increased racial and ethnicdiversity among students juxtaposed with the decreased racial and ethnic diversity amongteacher candidates.

The typical teacher candidate is a white middle or working class female, from asuburban or rural community who wants to teach in a similar community. Moreover,most have had little, if any, contact with people of color (Zeichner, 1993). Theproblematic nature of this profile is summarized by Gomez (1994) as cited in Wideen,Mayer-Smith, and Moon (1998): "An increasingly homogeneous population of teachers[are] instructing an increasingly heterogeneous population of students" (p. 141).

The decline in the number of teachers of color is unlikely to change given theprofile of prospective teachers. The proposed change in grade point average for thoseentering teacher education is likely to exacerbate the situation particularly for AfricanAmericans and Latinos who are largely graduates of under-funded, ill-equipped urbanschools that inadequately prepare them for the rigors of college level work. Thosestudents who enter college often face academic challenges particularly in their first yearthat may have a negative impact upon their grade point average. The resulting low gradesare less a reflection of the students' ability than of the quality of the students' educationprior to college. The differential educational opportunities provided to such students, incontrast to their white suburban counterparts, result in differential outcomes that providean unfair advantage to the white students while penalizing the minority students forconditions over which they have no control. The real issues that need to be addressedhave to do with correcting the structural inequities that produce such disparate resultsbetween urban and suburban students.

3 Stanford Chapter 354 Written Testimony

Despite their inadequate academic preparation, many working class and poorminority students do quite well once they become acclimated to college. However, theirgrade point average may be difficult to build to a 3.0 because of their initial difficultieswith college level work. It is worth noting that these very students are the ones mostlikely to return to their urban communities to teach and many do so with a deepcommitment to their students because they understand the social context of urban schoolsand the importance of receiving a quality education. In addition, they know firsthand thaturban students are greatly undeserved in schools Efforts should be made to retain suchstudents in order to meet the chronic shortage of qualified teachers in urban schoolsrather than relying upon hiring unqualified teachers, most of whom leave within their first

Some argue that another major impediment toward achieving teacher diversity isthe lack of diversity among the professorate in departments, schools, and colleges ofeducation. Thus, policies that seriously limit the recruitment of preservice teachers ofcolor will ensure that the pipeline to the professorate will remain essentially monoculturaldespite both state and national accreditation standards that call for a diverse faculty inteacher education programs.

Recruiting and preparing teachers of color is not solely for the benefit of studentsof color. Given the increased racial and cultural diversity in the United States, all studentsbenefit from being taught by teachers from diverse backgrounds. White students whohave only had white teachers are ill prepared to function effectively in an increasinglydiverse workforce where workers are expected to work collaboratively.

Conclusion

While I applaud your efforts to improve the quality of teachers, I urge you toreconceptualize the term quality by shifting the focus away from higher grade pointaverage which is not predictive of successful teaching to one that is more comprehensiveand more likely to have a positive impact upon all students throughout theCommonwealth. After analyzing massive national and international data, the NationalCommission on Teaching and America's Future (1996) concluded that the single-mostdeterminant of teacher quality is quality teacher preparation. Teachers who are graduatesof high caliber teacher education programs are more likely to provide high qualitylearning experiences to students than those from less stellar programs. Thus, theemphasis needs to be placed on improving the quality of teacher preparation programsrather than raising admission requirements to existing programs many of which do apoor job preparing teacher candidates even those with high grade point averages.According to Banks (1991)

An effective teacher education policy for the 21st century must include as a majorfocus the education of all teachers, including teachers of color, in ways that willhelp them receive the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to work effectivelywith students from diverse racial, ethnic, and social class groups.

Career Development CenterWest Chester UniversityWest Chester, Pennsylvania 19383-4230

Original: 2039Harbisoncc: Harris

Markham 610-436-2501Nanorta^GlO-436-3160

S3ALi?7i3 ?U I

July 30, 1999

,.jsir'yK/Bureau of Teacher Preparation and Certification

333 Market StreetHarrisburg, PA 17126-0333

Re: Chapter 354 Written Comment

Dear Bureau Members:

Teaching as both an art and a science provides the cornerstone of all professions. It islaudable that the Pennsylvania Department of Education is seeking to promote highstandards for certification. With the proposed rulemaking 22PA Code Chapter 354:Institutional Preparation of Professional Educators there are several concerns that areobstacles to that goal.

1.. Requiring an undergraduate to have a 3.0 GPA to enter the teacher preparationprogram is arbitrary and hinders those 17, 18 and 19 year old students who arelate bloomers. Many first and second year students experience adjustment andcareer-focus developmental concerns as they engage in mostly generaleducation requirements. Their GPA may not be a true reflection of theirpromise in maturity.

2. We live in a knowledge-based society with ever increasing technologyenabling us to access more knowledge more quickly. In this globalenvironment it is imperative for "quality teachers" to teach the whole personespecially about effective ways to acquire and to evaluate the ever expandingknowledge available.

3. Experience has shown that the student with the "best" GPA does notnecessarily make the "best" teacher.

4. Completing the degree in 4 years will be problematic as Chapter 3 54 iscurrently written. Most traditional and non-traditional age college students inthe State System of Higher Education have the expectation that the Bachelor'sdegree they are pursuing can be completed in approximately four years.

5. There will be an adverse impact on shortage areas especially in the math andscience fields which already compete with the other advantages business andindustry offer.

Career Development Center Web page: www.wcupa.edu/_services/stu.car

West Chester University of Pennsylvania is a member of the State System of Higher Education

6. Regarding non-traditionaL students returning to complete a second degree ineducation or certification in education, will they, too, need to meet the 3.0 togain entry into the certification program?

Thank you for the opportunity to highlight my concerns with regards to Chapter 354. Inthe interest of providing quality teachers for the future ofPennsylvania> I urge yourcareful consideration of these points.

Sincerely^

Elizabeth A. GiangiulioDirectorCareer Development Center



August 12, 1999

35

Elizabeth A. Giangiulio , »Director — ^Career Development CenterWest Chester UniversityWest Chester, PA 19383-4230

Dear Ms. Giangiulio:


The deadline to submit written testimony or comments on proposed standards 22 Pa CodeChapter 354 was 4:00 p.m. August 2, 1999. Your comments were received at the Department ofEducation past this deadline, therefore, your comments cannot be considered part of the officialrecord of public comments. However, I am forwarding your testimony to the IndependentRegulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen of the House and Senate EducationCommittees so they will have the benefit of your thinking as they develop the final-form of theseregulations.


Sincerely,


and Preparation

cc: Senator RhoadesSenator SchwartzRepresentative StairsRepresentative ColafellaIRRCPatricia M. FullertonDr. Eugene HickokDon LundayDr. Michael PoliakoffDr. Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

An educational service agency

Chester County Intermediate Unit

Division of Teacher Education333 Market StreetHarrisburg, PA 17126-0333

To whom it may concern:

July 29, 1999Original: 2039Harbison

TyrrellMarkhamNanortaSandusky

I am submitting this testimony in response to the proposed General Standardsand Procedures for Institutional Preparation of Professional Educators, 22 Pa. Code,Chapter 354, issued on December 10, 1998. I will address these standards from theperspective of one who is responsible for coordinating inservice training for teachingstaff throughout Chester County.

In my present position of Director of Educational Technology for the ChesterCounty Intermediate Unit, I have many responsibilities including coordination of theChester County Curriculum Council, Coordination of the Chester County InserviceTraining Program and Coordination of the Chester County Technology CoordinatorsCommittee. As one might suspect, this provides me with a fairly comprehensive viewof the status and needs experienced by the schools with regard to curriculum,instruction and technological resources. In recent years, I have noted an increasingdemand on the part of the schools for extensive faculty training in the area oftechnology. This has been precipitated by the increasing level of sophisticatedtechnology being integrated into the curriculum as a result of substantial investment onthe part of the local school districts and the Pennsylvania Department of Education.

The demand for training represents a positive trend within Chester County. Notonly does it reflect a growing arsenal of educational resources, but also demonstratesa commitment on the part of the school districts to have instructional staff well trainedin its use. The emphasis on training staff in the use of technology is particularlyencouraging since research clearly indicates that this is a critical element if technologyis to have a positive impact on student learning. Unfortunately, the training is bothfiscally and educationally costly since it often requires teachers to miss instructionaltime with their students to pursue courses offered only during the school day.

As I have met with new teachers and discussed their preparation in the area ofeducational technology, I have discovered a disturbing level of inconsistency. Whilesome teacher preparation institutions provide a sound foundation in the integration oftechnology into the curriculum, others provide very little instruction in this area. Theparticular philosophy of the institution and its current resources seem to serve asprimary factors determining the emphasis placed on educational technology within the

Educational Service Center, 535 James Hance Court, Exton, PA 19341-2547Phone: 610/524-5000 • TDD: 610/524-5528 • FAX: 610/524-5154

teacher preparation programs.

I noted with concern that the proposed regulation do not ameliorate thissituation. Upon review, I found no substantive mention of training in the use of thesophisticated educational technology which is becoming prevalent in our schools.

The regulations, as written, will require school districts to continue to bear theburden of providing staff with basic technological training to enable them tosuccessfully implement the innovative educational programs made possible throughtechnology. The alternative will be for districts to hire only graduates of teacherpreparation institutions which voluntarily offer the instruction as part of their programs.This solution would be grossly unfair to otherwise qualified and possibly gifted newteachers. It would also create a competitive marketplace which will assure that themost affluent districts acquire teachers with the prerequisite skills, leaving the expenseof training to the less fiscally able districts.

The problem of training could be further exacerbated by the Bureau ofCurriculum and Academic Services' decision to deny approval for inservice credit fortechnology courses deemed "introductory" by PDE course reviewers. Several coursesrequested by local teachers and school districts have been denied credit due to theperception that they are not rigorous enough to warrant graduate level credit. If theDepartment of Education does not required preservice programs to provide training inthe basic technology skills needed by teachers, and they do not allow them to earninservice credit for them, the incentive for teachers to pursue such training may dropsignificantly. This obviously works at cross purposes with other initiatives of thePennsylvania Department of Education which invest heavily in educational technologyfor the schools.

I would like to thank the Division of Teacher Education for this opportunity toshare my thoughts and concerns with regard to the proposed regulations. I would behappy to answer any questions which the committee might have at a future date.

Sincerely,

y John P. Branson, Ed.D.1 Director of Educational Technology



HARRISBURG, PA 17126-0333

July30, 1999 r., c . 99Original: 2039 ggMw~S ^ ' " " 'Harbison ' ,cc: Harris ^ ' ^

Tyrrell 7 w"John P. Branson, Ed.D, MarkhamChester County Intermediate Unit SnduskyEducational Service Center Legal535 James Hance CourtExton, PA 19341-2547

Dear Dr. Branson:


Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Review Act, copies of your written testimonyis being provided to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen ofthe House and Senate Education Committees. ^ 4



Sincerely,


and Preparation


Patricia M FullertonDr. Eugene ffickokDonLundayDr. Michael PoliakoffDr. Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

Original: 2039COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Harb i son £^DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION cc: Harris J

333MARKET STREET . , - - ' x Tyrrell 'HARRISBURG, PA 17126-0333 Markham

August 2, 1999 r r^o r .39 NanortaCO i uG - 5 ^ ' Sandusky

Dale N. Titus, Ed.D. ^ ' . - - L e g a l

Department of Secondary Education ^Kutztown University l

Kutztown, PA 19530

Dear Dr. Titus:


Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Review Act, copies of your written testimonyare being provided to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen ofthe House and Senate Education Committees. ,

Your testimony will be considered carefully as the Department develops the final-form ofthese standards. *


Sincerely,

Ronald J.^SimanovichChiefDivision of Teacher EducationBureau of Teacher Certification

and Preparation


Patricia M. FullertonDr. Eugene HickokDon LundayDr Michael PoliakoffDr. Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

95AUG-5 AiM^q


Tyrrell

5SSSEGEIVEDSandusl^yL 3 Q m

Daputy SecretaryPostsecondaiy/Higher Education

Written Testimony

Presented to:

Dr. Michael PoliakoffOffice ofPostsecondary/Higher Education

Pennsylvania Department of Education333 Market Street

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126-0333

Concerning:

Proposed Rulemaking 22 PA Code Chapter 354

Institutional Preparation of Professional Educators

By:

DaleN. Titus, Ea\D.Kutztown University of Pennsylvania

July 29,1999

I am professor of education at Kutztown University. In the Department ofSecondary Education I coordinate graduate programs, including the post-baccalaureateteacher certification program. Many students for whom I provide academic advisementpursue a master's degree and teacher certification simultaneously.

On Tuesday, July 20,1999,1 attended the hearing on 22 PA Code, Chapter 354 -General Standards and Procedures for Institutional Preparation of Professional Educatorswhich was held at the Carbon-Lehigh Intermediate Unit at Schnecksville, PA. As amember of the audience not scheduled to testify, I could not add commentary because ofthe hearing format; and I would like to submit my written comments.

Upon returning to Kutztown University after the Chapter 354 hearing, I met witha student for orientation and academic advisement. This newly-admitted student to thepost-baccalaureate teacher certification program in mathematics holds a B.S. degree inCivil Engineering from North Carolina State University. She is a licensed civil engineerwith a strong background in computer technology and extensive experience in highwayconstruction for the departments of transportation in both Florida and New Jersey. Afteradvising her on her academic program and marveling at the experiential background shewill bring to the classroom, I checked her file to see how the new Chapter 354 regulationsmight affect her. I was appalled to discover that she could not be admitted to ourprogram because her Q.P.A. was below the required 3.0. If she could be admitted, shewould have to complete all of the Kutztown University general studies courses whichwere not on her North Carolina State transcript. In addition to the several mathematicscourses currently required for her certification, she would have to complete all of theadditional course work required for a bachelor's degree in mathematics. Even if she hadthe prerequisite 3.0 G.P.A., the additional course work, which could take one academicyear to complete, would probably make her reconsider teacher certification.

Out of curiosity I spot-checked the files of my 147 advisees currently in the post-baccalaureate certification program to see how some of our other outstanding candidatesmight be affected by the new Chapter 354 regulations. In the following paragraphs I willoutline the cases of some real flesh-and-blood human beings now in our program anddetail how they would have been affected if subjected to the new Chapter 354regulations.

A young woman with a Q.P.A. > 3.0 in Computer Science and Engineering fromthe University of Pennsylvania would qualify for admission. Despite worldwideexperience with a global technology finn and a very prestigious degree, she would haveall of the Kutztown University general education and bachelor's in mathematicsrequirements to complete. This would add significant hours of coursework to herprogram of study for certification in secondary mathematics.

A young Puerto Rican man, a protege and the shining star of Reading's bilingualeducation program, holds a B.S. in Chemistry from Villanova University with a 3.03Q.P.A. He has completed the Master of Education degree at Kutztown University andmust successfully complete student teaching to earn certification in chemistry. On an

Chapter 354 • Written Testimony # Written by Dr. Dale Titus, Kutztown University

emergency certificate he has taught bilingual science education for two years at ReadingHigh School. The new Chapter 354 regulations would require him to take additionalcoursework to meet the Kutztown University general studies and B.S. in Chemistryrequirements. If the provision for admitting 10% of candidates who do not meet theminimum G.P.A. is used for affirmative action, the splendid credentials of thisoutstanding Hispanic educator will be suspect.

An attorney with a law degree from the University of Indiana may not bequalified for admission to our social studies certification program. Her undergraduateG.P.A. at Vanderbilt University is < 3.0 on a scale where 3.0 is an "A" average. Becauseher bachelor's degree is in economics, she will have to broaden herself with courses inother social studies disciplines to earn certification in our current program. Under thenew Chapter 354 regulations it appears that she would be qualified to teach onlyeconomics. She would need to meet all of the requirements for bachelor's degrees inhistory and geography in order to teach tixose subjects.

An experienced chemical engineer with a local company is earning certification inchemistry to pursue a lifelong dream of teaching after his early retirement. He holds amaster's degree in chemical engineering, but his undergraduate transcript from theUniversity of Pittsburgh indicates a G.P.A. < 3.0. He would not be qualified for ourcertification program under the new Chapter 354 regulations. If admitted, his program ofstudy would be extended to include all Kutztown University general studies andchemistry B.S. requirements.

A young man with a B.S. degree in mathematics from Ursinus College isextending his mathematics certification to add physics. His G.P.A. of 2.75 does not meetthe standard of 3.0 proposed by the new Chapter 354 regulations. To add Physics atKutztown University to his Ursinus mathematics certification he must take a total of 15courses under his current program of study. Under the new Chapter 354 regulations,which will make duel certification almost impossible, he would have to take all of theadditional coursework required by our general studies and B.S. in Physics programs.

A young Chinese-American woman currently teaching on an emergencycertificate in the Philadelphia school district bilingual (Mandarin and English) programholds a bachelor's degree in English from Lanzhou University in China. It is impossibleto know if she holds the requisite 3.0 undergraduate G.P.A. Although she has earned twomaster's degrees (M.A. in English from Indiana University of Pennsylvania and M.Ed, inSecondary Education English from Kutztown University) she would have to take someadditional undergraduate coursework in general studies under the new Chapter 354.

A young man with a degree in geography from the University of Costa Ricastudied English at a local community college. While working full time he completed amaster's degree in secondary education at Kutztown University. He was then hired bythe Philadelphia school district to teach in their bilingual (Spanish and English) programon an emergency certificate. He was supervised and evaluated for student teaching whilefilling a teaching position for which there is a critical shortage. The new Chapter 354

Chapter 354 • Written Testimony * Written by Dr. Dale Titus, Kutztown University

regulations would add more bureaucratic restrictions which prevent us from usingcommon sense and professional judgment in unique cases such as this.

Obviously the new Chapter 354 regulations were written for students who followa traditional route to teacher certification without considering those who enter theteaching profession from business, industry, and the military. An unintendedconsequence of Chapter 354 will be to exclude some of these people from entry into ourteacher certification program while making it even more difficult for those who areadmitted.

Fortunately the Chapter 354 regulations can be fixed without reducing the highstandards for certification which it establishes. The following recommended changes willallow us to continue certifying approximately 30 outstanding secondary teachers eachyear through our post-baccalaureate teacher certification program:

• Make the 3.0 G.P.A. an exit criterion which includes all coursework taken inthe certification program.

• For candidates who hold a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution,consider the general studies requirement met.

• Make all core courses and required elective courses for a bachelor's degree inone major academic area that the candidate intends to teach a requirement forthe Instructional II (permanent certification).

• Remove the 10% quota for affirmative action so that all candidates meet thesame standard and none are stigmatized or stereotyped as token minorities.

• Remove the words "or higher" from the phrase in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d)of section 354.25 which reads "For preparation programs culminating in abachelor's degree or higher."

Sometimes well-intended rules have unintended consequences which yield resultsexactly opposite those desired. The new Chapter 354 regulations in their present formwill reduce the number of post-baccalaureate teacher certification candidates who bring awealth of experience to our schools and add significantly to the quality of education inPennsylvania. Please consider incorporating the recommendations contained in thiswritten testimony into Chapter 354 so that approved teacher certification programs cancontinue to bring talented persons with degrees and work experience outside of the fieldof education into the teaching profession without further burdensome, bureaucraticrestrictions.

Dale N. Titus, Ed.D.

Chapter 354 • Written Testimony • Written by Dr. Dale Titus, Kutztown University

•774-UME.OLS

July 28, 1999

PENNSYLVANIASCHOOL BOARDSASSOCIATION, INC.

/ (717) 774-2331 / FAX (717) 774-0718

Samuel G. Marcus, Higher Education AssociateBureau of Teacher Preparation and Certification333 Market Street ORIGINAL :Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333 HARBISON

COPIES:

Dear Mr. Marcus:Harris, TyrrefNanorta, MarkhamSandusky, Legal

The Pennsylvania School Boards Association would like to provide comment concerningthe department's proposed standards for teacher preparation under 22 PA Code, Chapter354, as published in the July 3,1999 issue of the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

First, PSBA commends the department for developing these standards as a new chapterof regulations that are subject to approval through the regulatory review process. Weagree that the existing General Standards must be strengthened, and believe that suchrules which so greatly impact the quality of our future teachers should be subject topublic review and comment.

PSBA supports the proposed Chapter 354 for many reasons: it would create someuniformity among teacher preparation programs; it would specify skills that prospectiveteachers must demonstrate; it would require teaching majors to spend more time in theclassroom; and it would encourage more collaboration between public schools andinstitutions of higher education regarding teacher training programs.

Each of these reasons serves to recognize the importance of having well-prepared andhighly qualified teachers in the state's public schools. As Pennsylvania strives to requiremore of its students, we also must ensure that its teachers are highly knowledgeable andcompetent in their subject area, and that they are able to teach effectively.

PSBA long has been interested in and involved with teacher preparation and certification.Our special report on the subject in 1984 represented the first time that any state schoolboards association offered comprehensive recommendations about how the process ofpreparing and certifying teachers could be improved. That report supported the programapproval process, provided that the teacher preparation programs met rigorous statestandards. The proposed Chapter 354 will help to ensure that such standards are enacted.

Since that time, we have joined in discussions with the State Board of Education andothers on these issues. Prior to the board's initial approval of Chapter 354, the association

First School Boards Association in the Nation

participated in a reaction panel concerning a study on teacher preparation conducted forthe State Board and issued in 1997 {Ensuring High Performance Classroom Teachersfor the 21st Century, authored by Robert P. Strauss). The report was critical of the currentpreparation process, emphasizing that it needed to be much more rigorous. PSBA, as amember of the reaction panel, recommended that:

• The quality of teacher preparation programs can be enhanced by imposing aminimum required grade point average for those seeking admission.

• The program approval standards should be strengthened through an increasedemphasis on content preparation. They should be well defined and include specificexpectations to be met, such as the minimum number of courses and topics within anacademic subject.

• Institutions of higher education should more carefully evaluate a person's readiness toenter the classroom and their instructional effectiveness through greater supervisionand evaluation of student teachers.

PSBA also believes that the responsibility to prepare new teachers does not end with theissuance of a diploma. School districts and teacher preparation institutions shoulddevelop and maintain ongoing partnerships with a common goal of providing support tonovice educators.

The State Board's 1997 report was troubling because it provided significantdocumentation that demonstrates the need for more rigorous teacher training programs aswell as continuing guidance for new teachers. The changes established in the proposedChapter 354 deal with these concerns. That, in turn, should serve to enhance theacademic achievements not only of our future teachers, but also of the children they willinstruct in the classroom.

We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed standards. Pleasecontact me if you wish to discuss any of the issues addressed in this letter.

Sincerely,

fax&LThomas J. Gtajfeel \jAssistant Executive Director

for Governmental and Member Relations

c: Independent Regulatory Review CommissionDr. Peter Garland, State Board of EducationRep. Jess StairsRep. Nicholas ColafellaSea James Rhoades ^Sen. Allyson Schwartz <^Y \&

Thomas J. GentzelPennsylvania School Boards Assoc, Inc.774 Limekiln RoadNew Cumberland, PA 17070-2398



HARR1SBURG, PA 17126-0333

July 29, 1999

ORIGINAL: 2039HARBISONCOPIES: Harris

NahoirtaMarkhatnSandusky

S9AUG-2 AH 9:55

::m

Dear Dr. Gentzel:


Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Review Act, copies of your comments are beingprovided to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen of the Houseand Senate Education Committees.



Sincerely,


and Preparation


Patricia M. FullertonDr. Eugene HickokDon LundayDr. Michael PoliakofFDr. Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

S9.f r a


774 LIMEKILN ROAD, NEW &Meift&l3>, PA 17070-2398 / (717) 774-2331 / FAX (717) 774-0718

Original: 2039July 28, 1999 Harbison

cc: Harris

Nanorta

MaryLouHarris s Z u s k yIndependent Regulatory Review Commission Legal333 Market Street14th FloorHarrisburg, PA 17101

Dear Ms. Harris:

Enclosed are the comments of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association to theDepartment of Education's proposed standards for teacher preparation under 22 PACode, Chapter 354, as published in the July 3, 1999 issue of the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

PSBA is supportive of the proposal as it intends to create more rigorous expectations ofteacher candidates as well as for the institutions that will prepare them to educate childrenin the classrooms. The association also supports provisions of the proposal that call forschool districts and teacher preparation institutions to develop and maintain ongoingpartnerships to provide assistance to novice educators. We believe that the changesestablished under Chapter 354 will serve to enhance the academic achievements of bothfuture teachers and their students.

We offer these comments to you as the proposal moves through the regulatory reviewprocess. Please contact me if you have any questions or need further clarification on theissues addressed in this letter. Thank you for reviewing our comments.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. (JenjzelAssistant Executive Director

for Governmental and Member Relations



774 LIMEKILN ROAD, NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070-2398 / (717) 774-2331 / FAX (717) 774-0718

July 28, 1999

Samuel G. Marcus, Higher Education AssociateBureau of Teacher Preparation and Certification333 Market StreetHarrisburg, PA 17126-0333

Dear Mr. Marcus:

The Pennsylvania School Boards Association would like to provide comment concerningthe department's proposed standards for teacher preparation under 22 PA Code, Chapter354, as published in the July 3, 1999 issue of the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

First, PSBA commends the department for developing these standards as a new chapterof regulations that are subject to approval through the regulatory review process. Weagree that the existing General Standards must be strengthened, and believe that suchrules which so greatly impact the quality of our future teachers should be subject topublic review and comment.

PSBA supports the proposed Chapter 354 for many reasons: it would create someuniformity among teacher preparation programs; it would specify skills that prospectiveteachers must demonstrate; it would require teaching majors to spend more time in theclassroom; and it would encourage more collaboration between public schools andinstitutions of higher education regarding teacher training programs.

Each of these reasons serves to recognize the importance of having well-prepared andhighly qualified teachers in the state's public schools. As Pennsylvania strives to requiremore of its students, we also must ensure that its teachers are highly knowledgeable andcompetent in their subject area, and that they are able to teach effectively.

PSBA long has been interested in and involved with teacher preparation and certification.Our special report on the subject in 1984 represented the first time that any state schoolboards association offered comprehensive recommendations about how the process ofpreparing and certifying teachers could be improved. That report supported the programapproval process, provided that the teacher preparation programs met rigorous statestandards. The proposed Chapter 354 will help to ensure that such standards are enacted.

Since that time, we have joined in discussions with the State Board of Education andothers on these issues. Prior to the board's initial approval of Chapter 354, the association


participated in a reaction panel concerning a study on teacher preparation conducted forthe State Board and issued in 1997 {Ensuring High Performance Classroom Teachersfor the 21st Century, authored by Robert P. Strauss). The report was critical of the currentpreparation process, emphasizing that it needed to be much more rigorous. PSBA, as amember of the reaction panel, recommended that:

• The quality of teacher preparation programs can be enhanced by imposing aminimum required grade point average for those seeking admission.

• The program approval standards should be strengthened through an increasedemphasis on content preparation. They should be well defined and include specificexpectations to be met, such as the minimum number of courses and topics within anacademic subject.

• Institutions of higher education should more carefully evaluate a person's readiness toenter the classroom and their instructional effectiveness through greater supervisionand evaluation of student teachers.

PSBA also believes that the responsibility to prepare new teachers does not end with theissuance of a diploma. School districts and teacher preparation institutions shoulddevelop and maintain ongoing partnerships with a common goal of providing support tonovice educators.

The State Board's 1997 report was troubling because it provided significantdocumentation that demonstrates the need for more rigorous teacher training programs aswell as continuing guidance for new teachers. The changes established in the proposedChapter 354 deal with these concerns. That, in turn, should serve to enhance theacademic achievements not only of our future teachers, but also of the children they willinstruct in the classroom.

We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed standards. Pleasecontact me if you wish to discuss any of the issues addressed in this letter.

Sincerely,

aThomas J. G njfeelAssistant Executive Director

for Governmental and Member Relationsc: Independent Regulatory Review Commission

Dr. Peter Garland, State Board of EducationRep. Jess StairsRep. Nicholas ColafellaSen. James RhoadesSen. Allyson Schwartz


333 MARKET STREETHARR1SBURG, PA 17126-0333 v

July 29, 1999

c9fc\JS-<£q-5^

Jenny L Hershour15 Ridgeview DriveEtters, PA 17319

Dear Ms Hershour:

ORIGINAL: 2039HARBISONCOPIES: H a r r i s

NanortaMarkhamSandusky


Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Review Act, copies of your written testimonyis being provided to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen ofthe House and Senate Education Committees.



Sincerely,


and Preparation

cc: Senator RhoadesSenator SchwartzRepresentative StairsRepresentative ColafellaIRRCPatricia M. FullertonDr. Eugene HickokDon LundayDr. Michael PoliakofFDr. Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

To: Pennsylvania Department of EducationBureau of Teacher Preparation and Certification

99 m - 2 AH 9: 55From Jenny L. Hershour

15 Ridgeview Drive plitters, PA 17319 ]

Date: July 28, 1999ORIGINAL: 2039 HARBISONOriginal in f i l e

TESTIMONY OF JENNY L/HERSHOUR CONCERNING RULEMAK1NG 22 PACODE, CHAPTER 354

As a parent of two school aged daughters, I am very aware of the impact that teachershave on the students in their classrooms. For 180 days each year, teachers help shapemy daughters' attitudes towards learning thus affecting every aspect of their lives fromthat point forward.

Because of the significance of this constant contact with my children, it is imperative tome that teachers licensed by the Pennsylvania Department of Education meet highstandards for certification. I applaud the efforts of the PDE to make the licensingrequirements more stringent. A 3.0 grade point average along with a passing score onteachers preparation examination is barely the minimum we, as Pennsylvaniaconsumers of education, should ask of our prospective teachers.

While I was preparing this statement my tccnaged daughter made this comment,"How can teachers expect "A" work from me if they could only produce "B" workthemselves?" My nine-year proposed that "teachers should be the smartest people andall smart people should do "A" work." Currently I face the dilemma of explaining lomy daughters that, while their teachers only had to work to the average or "C" level, 1expect more of them academically. 1 would hope that, like myself with my children,Pennsylvania's colleges and universities would also expect more from those enrolled intheir schools of education.

The Pennsylvania Department of Education is not being unreasonable in its proposedstandards for teacher certification. Surely Pennsylvanians do not want to accept thecliche "those who can, do, and those who can't teach" as the norm. We want teacherswho can "do", who are knowledgeable of their subject matter, and who possess theability to convey information in a manner that facilitates learning. By implementingthese new minimum standards the Commonwealth is taking appropriate steps to ensurethat my children's rights to competent teachers will be fulfilled.

Thank you



HARRISBURQ, PA 17126-0333 : * / — \

August 3, 1999

O9&U0-5 AH 8:39

Charlene M. Brennan, Director ; . 0;iCurriculum and Technology ServicesColonial Intermediate Unit 20 Original: 20396DanforthDrive HarbisonEaston,PA 18045-7899 ^ ^ ^ ,

MarkhamDear Ms. Brennan: Nanorta

Sandusky, legalThank you for your letter of July 28, 1999 on proposed standards Chapter 354.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Regula^ry Review Act, copies of your written testimonyare being provided to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairmen ofthe House and Senate Education Committees. ;

Your written testimony will be consideredcarefully as the Department develops the final-formof these standards.




Senator SchwartzRepresentative StairsRepresentative Colafella

Patricia M FullertonDr. Eugene HickokDon LundayDr. Michael PoliakoffDr. Peter GarlandGeorge Shevlin

academies fact sheet - irrc

Documents