strikethrough of proposal is here
memo is here
alternative licensure pathway
revised subject matter knowledge requirements
updates in various sections
most licenses require passage of two assessments: communications and literacy assessment; subject matter knowledge
are predictive of success in classroom
but can act as barrier to entry
proposed amendment would allow educators to waive one of these assessments
"can be other ways to show knowledge"
what specific criteria and experiences are comparable to MTEL?
proposed alternatives for communication and literacy skills test:
- completion of an approved educator preparation program
- license from another state
- master's or doctorate from accredited degree program
- 2 years of field experience and recommendation from school and district leader
- completion of an approved educator preparation program in the field of license taught
- license from another state in the field
- master's doctorate in field of license sought
- 2 years of field experience in role/license sought + recommendation
Vote proposed at March 24 meeting
West: compare with other processes for licensure; approved a pilot, then review, then pilot permanent
here going immediately to permanent; "but are shifting the default before we have the evidence"
law is very specific as to what "we may do"
Martinez "it's kind of Massachusetts speak; it's what we 'may' do, but it's that you kind of have to"
never want to weaken our standards
"I do think this is an interesting balancing"
how we acknowledge actual knowledge
Grant: share the Commissioner's sentiment
not just that you have a license, but where is it from
"not just having the credential, where is from, what is the standard"
will we hear only in March?
Martinez: get a lot of data and share it with you
Hills: suggestion based on what was said
"if we don't have a chance to weigh in before recommendation"
what? Yes, because that then comes back to you; and you can then send out
Board members to weigh in "in a non-binding way"
smells like serial deliberation! he's suggesting an open meeting law violation! unless it is going to happen in a meeting!
Martinez: count on us doing briefings
after the public comment period
time to analyze it, have conversations with you
Hills: here's how I would operationalize this
preliminary conversation in February "maybe we hold this the night before"
"can be a prototype for how we deal with this going forward"
Fisher: not all programs are equal
"I am referring to approved programs within the Commonwealth"
"I have some concerns...I also have the concern over costs of these exams"
educators who have this cultural knowledge, what this looks like for folks who are not going through educator programs
review of educator programs and the length of time between reviews
"they may not be doing what we need them to be doing before they get in front of the Commonwealth's children"
Grant: "not creating a pathway that people can bypass overall"
Smidy: extrapolate on points: rigorous standards for educators, but also have seen potential educators blocked out due to costs of MTEL or reviews
Grant: budget priorities
Martinez: Legislature did ask for cost study
Rocha: access to field-based experience; can be a problem for certain teachers
Mohamed: would be valuable to understand what teacher prep programs look like
Hills: disagreements that easily could have been avoided
what does he think deliberation is?
Hills: can we make a motion to delegate an extension of the time?
what?
Grant: "they're going to have to operationalize this"
legal opinion is that the Commissioner can extend the time
motion to send out to public comment: passes unanimously
No comments:
Post a Comment