March Board of Ed: teacher licensure and preparation

 Hills: "a really good Board conversation broke out" when it was proposed 
anyone having an issues, we should postpone the vote until April
"and no, individually answering questions is not the same as the Board discussion"
yeah, there is an uncomfortable amount of offline discussion...

Martinez: good intentions within the law
part of a larger initiative
"this by itself will not solve it all"
make sure we're doing research on it, monitoring it

memo is here; summary of public comment is here 

reviews changes: there are two revisions proposed stemming from public comment

• school based employment does not need to be all at one school
• passing score on a licensure test for a Career Technical teacher license in the field of the license sought 

Grant asking about solving for filling critical shortages, diversifying workforce

Martinez: this requires a much bigger initiative in finding and creating teachers in special ed and so forth
expression of barriers to enter education
will come back to you based on what they see and offer changes as needed

Fisher: this is legislation to create a pathway
people who are in buildings--paras, building subs--getting access

portfolio has to matched to what we're trying to ascertain from tests
culturally responsiveness from those from other states; teacher ed programs reviewed in pedagogy

computer based assessments of MTEL causing failure from those applying

West: agree with Fisher about portfolio component's importance
have other states taken this route; models we can look at?
Abbott: structures in place and models in place
portfolio assessment probably done by a vender; not an affordability
MTEL isn't strongly predictive; some false positives, but also false negatives
"open to this philosophically" trick is making sure we've got this right
wondering about a pilot period for the alternative routes, language that would have to "undone by our future states"
Mohamed: how do we maintain standards while increasing pathways
interstate agreement on licensure: temporary licenses but need to take the MTEL, anyway
ongoing back and forth here on what to require, for how long, and when

Craven asking if they should "refine the vote language" for next month
Smidy: received proposal as not to address critical shortage 
not clear what the true purpose is, not appropriately addressing diversifying workforce
seems like a very small, almost inconsequential, step towards
do support proposal, think it could be done today
strongly look at what we're doing in general to diversify the workforce

two votes
approve most of the matter
subject matter test until 2031 sunsetting

Hills: whatever the threshold is for needing additional conversation, we have passed that
in April, the Board might be sending out amended subregulations for public comment
discussion now of if this needs to go back out for another round of public comment...

Martinez: less concern about the first part of the proposal; more concern about the second part, wish for a timeframe, backed by data
second part is the subject matter test
some question of if they can move to vote
West no reason not to treat first as a pilot as well
Grant is arguing that no need for additional public comment 
Abbott saying could come back with additional impact feedback for Board, based on questions and concerns raised today
Martinez: bigger initiative at play
Sense the good question you have, but that is the real issue

West: one part of a larger approach, don't need to see all the other parts of the plan to take action on this

Fisher: we need to not expect this to be the silver bullet; would urge us not to separate the vote; getting the questions answered as much as possible
framing it correctly is today's outcome
and now people are talking away from their mics

will come back in April
Craven askes for a "revised proposal" which Martinez says the legal team will look at