Fall 2019 COPE Meeting Record

Fall 2019 Meeting
Thursday, November 21, 2019
7:30-9:00 A.M.
PAC E

Meeting Record

Voting Members Present: Jim Ermatinger, Richard Stokes, Jim Klein, Ronda Mitchell, Tena Helton, Kerry Cox, Tiffany Nielson (via phone), Vickie Cook (representing Meghan Kessler)

Guests: Nancy Barrett, Kim Sepich, Rhyann Morris, Aaron Stewart

Community Members: Jennifer Gill, Casey Wills

I:              Welcome and Introductions

Ermatinger welcomed everyone and introductions took place.

Ermatinger reviewed the purpose of the body of the Council on Teacher Education.  He provided some background of previous meetings and the reason for the proposed bylaw amendments.  Ermatinger proceeded to review the nine proposed amendments.

II:            Proposed Revisions to Bylaws

Amendment 1: Section 1, add language “The Council on Teacher Education will hereby be known locally as the Council on Professional Education (COPE).”

Seven in favor, none opposed, amendment passed.

Amendment 2: Replace language in Section II, (2), “elementary and secondary” to “Pre K-12” to reflect Illinois State Board of Education realignment of grade levels.

Seven in favor, none opposed, amendment passed.

Amendment 3: Add language in Section II, (4), “If there are no agenda items or no items requiring a vote, discussion, or other action requiring face-to-face attendance, meetings may be conducted electronically, with the exception that a minimum of one (1) meeting per academic year is conducted face-to-face.”

Seven in favor, none opposed, amendment passed.

Amendment 4:  Under Section III, change language from “one from elementary education and one from secondary education” to “two from teacher education”.

Helton shared concern of the potential for clustering discipline/content areas.  Ermatinger said that Dean appoints voting members so there is a mechanism to avoid such clustering.  Language was suggested that would explicitly state that no more than one faculty member be from each discipline be appointed.  Ermatinger moved to add language “normally not from the same area” to the end of the amendment.

Seven in favor, none opposed, amendment passed.  Seven in favor of the new language, none opposed, amendment revision passed.

Amendment 5: Change language in Section III, paragraph 4 from “The deans shall…” to “The deans may…”

Helton asked for clarification regarding the reason for change.  Ermatinger said the participation has been most of the issue.  Additionally, there has been complication with getting faculty to participate.  There was additional conversation about the purpose of the language.  Wills proposed the language be revised to “Deans shall agree on the need for and may appoint three additional, at-large appointees, two from among the campus faculty and one school practitioner”.

Seven in favor, none opposed, amendment passed.  Seven in favor of the new language, none opposed, amendment revision passed.

Amendment 6: Under Section IV, remove Secondary Teacher and Elementary Teacher area-of-specialization committees.

Seven in favor, none opposed, amendment passed.

Amendment 7: Create Teacher Education Area Committee under Section IV.  The Committee should consist of:

  •         2 teacher education faculty
  •         3 liberal arts faculty, one from psychology and two from any of the following disciplines: science, mathematics, history, English
  •         2 Practitioners
  •         1 Teacher Education student

Barrett asked if this included Educational Leadership and School Counseling.  Ermatinger confirmed that those committees remain in their current form.

Friendly amendment to correct spelling of practitioners in proposed bylaws.

Helton suggested language be revised to combine science and math disciplines and history and English disciplines and that one faculty member be selected from each of those combinations.  New language would read “3 liberal arts faculty, one from psychology, one from science or math, and one from history or English”.

Seven in favor, none opposed, amendment passed.  Seven in favor of the new language, none opposed, amendment revision passed.

Amendment 8: Under Section IV, add language “Composition of the specialization committees will be selected by a designee chosen from the appointed Council Chair.”

Helton asked for additional reasoning.  Ermatinger explained that it has been common that no one knew who was in charge of composing the area-of-specialization committees.  This amendment would resolve that issue. Further discussion ensued.

Seven in favor, none opposed, amendment passed.

Amendment 9: Add language “or by two-thirds vote of all voting members via an electronic vote” to Section V, line 124 after “present voting members”.

Helton shared that those not at meetings would be voting without discussion.  Cook wondered if meeting discussions could be recorded and attached to an electronic ballot.  There was additional discussion regarding attendance at the meetings and the reasoning for having an option to electronically vote.  Ermatinger reiterated that this amendment and the electronic voting is only in relation to amending the bylaws.

Six in favor, one opposed, amendment passed.

III:           Presentation of Data – Barrett

Barrett logged into the IWAS portal through the ISBE site to share some data that is currently not public.  Barrett provided background that two years ago ISBE revised the way data will be reported to them.  Next September all Institutions of Higher Education will have a report card viewable by the public.  As of now, there is no concrete information on how the data will be presented or all the data that will be available. Barrett plans to have more information by the spring 2020 meeting.  Presentation of data is crucially important for small programs, especially with regards to test scores.

Barrett showed EdTPA scores for elementary and secondary students.  Cox asked if there would be a minimum subgroup score.  Barrett was not sure at this time.  Barrett mentioned a perennial issue with Principal II exam, specifically the essay portion.  Wills asked if the essay was scenario based and how long the current version of the test has been used. Barrett believe the test has been used for 4 or 5 years and confirmed that the essay is scenario based.  Wills asked if the scores for the principal exam is split up between content and presentation.  Agreement was that it would be important to know even though the exam only gives a combined score.  Gill said that we should ask about cut scores and student count.  Gill asked if the institution received an itemization of scores like those that students receive.  Barrett mentioned that the institution only gets the combined score.  Wills suggested bringing the students in to have a conversation about their itemized sores and to use that information to look at how to improve programs and curriculum.  Cox mentioned that it is imperative we have that information so we can make corrections.

Barrett showed some more data regarding content-based scores.  Barrett mentioned that the elementary test has had issues with pedagogy and content and as a result of requests ISBE is adjusting the test so students pass/fail will be determined by the combines score as opposed to each sub-area.  Gill asked what our biggest worry about the data being public would be.  Cook mentioned that she believes it will be comparisons to larger universities.  Gill added that even other states could use the data to skew actuality and effect enrollment.

Klein added that numbers are good for School Counseling but that there is an ethical obligation to ensure that students can find employment, which has been an issue in the past.

Gill said that she recommends someone verify data before being submitted to ISBE.  Barrett said that the Education Preparation team has been supportive during this data collection process.

IV:          Education Career Fair/Networking Event

There was a brief conversation regarding the need and who would be invited.  Suggested time would be January, February or late fall.  Must be cognizant of student teaching schedules.

Gill mentioned a need for Speech & Language (Pathology), Physical Education, and Special Education teachers.

There was additional general conversation about district’s needs for school social workers and school psychologists.  Wills added that teachers need more socio-emotional foundations in their curriculum because many students are going to the teachers for that support.  It also effects the effectiveness of pedagogical approaches.

Meeting concluded at 9:10 am.