When new legislation passes, PSBA is seen as the leader in analyzing it and helping members make sense of it.

Chapter 49-2, Certification of Professional Personnel

Presented to the State Board of Education, Chapter 49 Committee
May 2, 2006

We appreciate the opportunity to present comments concerning the latest draft (March 21 2006) of the proposed regulatory package for certification of professional personnel.

PSBA has been closely following the process taken by the Department of Education and the State Board of Education to establish and improve pre-kindergarten programs. The proposal that is the subject of today's hearing is the companion piece to the package amending Chapters 4, 11 and 12. But as this piece of the package evolves, it has presented stakeholders in the early childhood, basic and higher education communities, as well as parent advocates and others, with the opportunity to make more sweeping changes that go well beyond issues related to pre-kindergarten programs.

We commend the State Board for the thoughtful manner in which these important deliberations are taking place. The changes being proposed will have a major impact on teachers, school officials, teacher preparation institutions, and of course, parents and students. By not rushing the process, you have provided stakeholders the time and ability to participate in these discussions, offer perspectives and make recommendations. Each new draft of the proposal reflects many of the thoughts offered by stakeholders. The document that is the subject of today's hearing offers a more balanced approach that blends the intended goals of these changes with the practical aspects of implementation.

From the onset, we have been supportive of these efforts, both with the changes to Chapters 4, 11 and 12 relating to Pre-Kindergarten programs, and with the Chapter 49 changes. Throughout both of these discussions, we have emphasized the need for flexibility so that school districts will be able to implement new programs and changes to current certification requirements in a manner that meets their local needs and resources. We thank this committee for listening to the needs of school officials and responding by incorporating language that provides balanced flexibility in many instances.

PSBA also is supportive of the new emphasis to revise teacher preparation programs and clinical activities to include training and experience for new teachers regarding students with disabilities and English language learners in a regular classroom setting. We believe that this is an appropriate change, and we support the approach that this committee has taken to establish new requirements under Sections 49.13 and 49.14. In conjunction with this, proposed language under Section 49.16(d) calls for induction plans for first-year teachers to include activities that focus on teaching students with disabilities and English language learners in a regular classroom setting.

Similarly, PSBA supports the language under Section 49.83 (3) that calls for teachers seeking an Instructional II Certificate to take six specific content requirements for each certificate. Again, we support the approach taken by the Chapter 49 Committee with this language. We believe it is important to allow teachers to tailor their program of study to include credits specific to their needs and to fulfill the requirements of the Instructional II certificate. This non-prescriptive language provides flexibility for both the Department of Education and for teachers.

Taken together, the requirements under these sections will create a well-rounded program of training and practical experience for new teachers.

PSBA would like to raise several concerns, however, with the proposed language as drafted under Section 49.17(7) regarding continuing professional education. This language requires school entities to "ensure that all professional employees participate in continuing education focused on education students with disabilities and English language learners in inclusive settings." Let me be clear: PSBA does not oppose a requirement for school districts to include such programs in their professional development plans. However, we do have concerns with the proposal as it is drafted. Our concerns are as follows:

The proposal goes beyond the scope of Act 48 of 1999. While Act 48 requires teachers to earn the necessary amount of credits or hours in subjects related to their type of certificate or area of assignment, it is not prescriptive. Act 48 establishes the parameters, and properly places upon professional employees the responsibility of choosing the ones that will benefit them best and keep their certificates active.

The proposal places upon school districts a new responsibility to "ensure" that all professional employees participate in the required activities regarding students with disabilities and English language learners. If this new mandate were to be implemented, how would administrators be expected to monitor each teacher in order to "ensure" that the expectation was met? What would happen if an employee did not fulfill the requirement? Does this become grounds for PDE to declare a certificate inactive? Does this become grounds for the employee to be disqualified for school employment? What penalties would a school administrator face if he or she could not "ensure" that every professional employee achieved the requirement? Would an appeal process for both schools and teachers have to be established? These questions must be answered now, rather than later.

PSBA believes that it is reasonable and appropriate for PDE to update its existing Act 48 guidelines as necessary to require school districts to provide for specific issues in their continuing professional education plans. It is not reasonable for the Chapter 49 regulations to become overly prescriptive regarding continuing professional education or to place school districts into a policing and enforcement role as teachers determine how they will meet their Act 48 requirements. The current Act 48 guidelines issued by the Department of Education require professional development plans to address three areas: 1) professional education regarding students with limited English proficiency; 2) the requirement under Act 91 of 2000 that school entities offer cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training on site at least once every three years; and 3) gifted education. None of these current requirements were established by amending Act 48, nor are they being proposed as part of the new Chapter 49 regulations.

PSBA asks this committee to seriously consider whether it wants to set a precedent for Chapter 49 to establish an ongoing list of what courses should be addressed in plans, which ones must be taken by teachers, or even how much time should be devoted to specific areas. These are issues that should be addressed in the guidelines and adapted locally in each school's plan by the professional education committee. We believe the wiser course is for the language under Section 49.17 to be aligned with Act 48 in a more general way, and for the PDE guidelines to establish the criteria for schools to use as they prepare their professional education plans.

49.85 - Changes in the scope of instructional certificates
We have had many conversations with you, and with staff of the Department of Education, concerning changes in the scope of teacher certification and issues related to dual certification. We appreciate the fact that this committee has taken the time to fully discuss and explore the implications of the many certification options that have been suggested to you. Certainly, there are many perspectives to consider as you make these decisions. We support the language that is contained in the latest draft, although we recognize and continue to believe that some occasional staffing concerns may result in elementary schools due to the lack of any overlap in the proposed scope of certificates. It was for this reason that we emphasized the need for temporary flexibility in certain staffing assignments. We will discuss that issue further in our comments related to Section 49.85(d)

On another matter, we would ask the committee to clarify the language under Section 49.83(b)(2) that describes the new Elementary/Middle Certificate as "grades four through eight or ages 9 through 14 with a middle level content certificate." The words "with a middle level content certificate" were added as part of the latest draft, and we would like a better understanding of what this means. Why was it added? What is the intention of the Chapter 49 Committee in adding this language? Does this language simply serve to recognize the requirements to be "highly qualified" under the No Child Left Behind Act or is this a new provision for mandatory dual certification for these teachers? What will teachers with an Elementary/Middle Certificate need to do in order to be properly certified?

49.85(d) - Allows the secretary of education to grant to school districts temporary, limited exceptions to the grade and age level limitations for individual teachers.

PSBA supports this language as an appropriate response to the need for school districts to have some flexibility in their staffing decisions at the elementary school level. If the change in the scope of certificates as proposed in 49.85 is adopted, elementary schools will have to hire educators with Early Childhood certificates to teach Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 3, and with the Elementary/Middle certificates for Grade 4 and above. While we generally support the changes in the scope of the certificates, we also recognize that as a practical matter, this lack of overlap may occasionally cause staffing problems for elementary school administrators.

For example, this flexibility would be necessary if an elementary school had a large enrollment bubble of third grade students in a specific school year, creating a genuine need to temporarily shift staff. Additionally, schools may experience a need when there is an unexpected teacher absence due to a leave of absence, illness or other emergency, or a teacher goes on leave for one semester or one year and they need to re-configure their staff on a temporary basis.

It has been suggested that schools do not need flexibility or that flexibility will somehow compromise the quality of teaching in the elementary classroom. However, it is a practical reality that short-term emergency situations do occur as part of day-to-day operations and must be handled by the school officials who are responsible for ensuring that classrooms are appropriately staffed. We believe that teachers will be well prepared and able to adjust to such changes if necessary. The language in Section 49.85 (d) is reasonable in its approach to providing assistance to districts when it is justifiably needed.

During earlier discussions of the proposal, the Department of Education has suggested the need for other flexibility provisions that could be used if a teacher with an Early Childhood certificate, for example, wanted to earn an Elementary/Middle Level certificate in order to move to another grade level classroom on a permanent basis. In such an instance, flexibility could be provided to allow this teacher to be placed in the other grade level for a specific time while he or she is working to earn the new certificate.

Because of the need for these two different types of flexibility, PSBA suggests that the committee revise Section 49.85(d) to clarify that this waiver can be used by school administrators for limited staffing assignments (like the occasional 3 rd grade population bubble). Additionally, the committee may want to create an additional subsection that contains language that clearly provides more long-term flexibility that is needed when a teacher wishes to earn another instructional certificate in order to permanently teach another grade level.

Thank you for providing this opportunity for PSBA to offer comments on the latest draft of this proposal. We look forward to continuing these discussions with you.