Tiered Licensure Task Force meeting – 6 December 2011 – MDE

I attended another meeting of the Tiered Licensure Task Force, the 4th held since the task force was appointed and launched in September. As could be expected, with such diverse organizations such as Education Minnesota, MSBA, The Minnesota Business Partnership, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, and others, the discussion has been robust and at times extremely difficult to channel.

For those familiar with the work of Tuckman in group processes: forming, storming, norming and performing, the previous meetings have in all reality been all about background information (forming) and a substantial amount of storming, or political posturing. Yesterday’s meeting seemed to be the first foray into the area of forming. One general premise is that there is a desire to move away from clock hours for renewal of licenses.

The original charge of the task force is as follows, taken from legislation:

The Board of Teaching and the commissioner of education must jointly convene
and facilitate an advisory task force to develop recommendations for a statewide tiered
teacher licensure system, consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 122A.09, subdivision
4, paragraph (g), that is premised on:
(1) appropriate research-based professional competencies that include content skills,
adaptive expertise, college-readiness preparation, multicultural skills, use of student
performance data, and skills for fostering citizenship, among other competencies that
improve all students' learning outcomes;
(2) ongoing teacher professional growth to enable teachers to develop multiple
professional competencies;
(3) an assessment system for evaluating teachers' performance that is aligned with
student expectations and value-added measures of student outcomes and includes an
emphasis on developing students' reading and literacy skills, among other measures and
outcomes, and recognizes and rewards successful teachers;
(4) an expectation that teachers progress through various stages of teaching
practice throughout their teaching careers and receive opportunities for leadership roles
commensurate with their practice and competency; and
(5) a periodic evaluation of the licensing structure to determine its effectiveness in
meeting students' learning needs.

Developments yesterday brought about some sense of general agreement about what might be included in the report to the legislature in February:

• A possible tiered system with three tiers, yet to be named. The first would be for three years with successful completion of a three year induction program necessary to renew.
• The second tier would be a professional tier in which teachers could stay and improve themselves through various forms of professional development. This might include reading certification, or some other licensure endorsement or significant training (certified to be a trainer in the district) for example in areas such as mentorship, SIOP, PBIS, RTI or others. It may also include some sense of having had positive evaluations, although there is some opposition to this as there is a concern that licensure become intertwined with performance.
• A third tier which would be optional, but may look a lot like National Board Certification, or it may in fact be National Board Certification. This might prove to be an impetus for more Minnesota teachers to move in this direction. There is a general agreement that it needs to be rigorous, but not such general agreement on whether these folks would then be released from some of their duties to work with new teachers, or continue to work with students as they have proven themselves to be effective. These however would appear to be employment and not licensure questions.

Areas of continued discussion include:

• To what extent any type of evaluative information should be included in moving from one tier to the next.
• To what extent there should be any student achievement information included in moving from one tier to the next
• What types of public relations would be brought about by having your children taught by Tier One, Tier Two or Tier Three teachers. This would be a district issue to deal with.

 Next meeting: 17 January; report due in February