Www.astate.edu



Arkansas State UniversityEducator Preparation ProgramCOPEWednesday, February 12, 20208 amEducation Leadership Room 216MinutesMembers present: Nicole Covey, Scott Doig, Kimberley Davis, Latoisha Woods, Rob Williams, Alicia Shaw, Joan Henley, Amanda Lambertus, John Humphrey, Joanna Grymes, Heloisa Corsi Campus via zoom, Tonia Fillippino via zoom, Susan Whiteland, Lance Bryant, Gwendolyn Neal, Audrey Bowser, Scott Doig proxy for Mitch MathisCall to OrderApproval of the January 22 minutesMotion by Latoisha, second by Susan, motion carriedOld Business:IPAC proposal regarding 712/K12 Performance Based Course – still in consideration (no action)—will report out next meetingCounseling and Psychology about edTPA and relent course content (no action) – will report out next meetingNew BusinessUCC #032 Correcting MLED ELA content (Teacher Education/Fillippino and GrymesClears up mistakes in Bulletin about the names of courses (not prefix or number) for Mid-Level content courses.Motion by Susan, second by Alicia, motion carriedIPAC Recommendation regarding Technology Plan and Assessment (IPAC/Doig)“IPAC Committee would like to forward the recommendation to have the College Technology Committee consider how to address implementation of the Technology Action Plan.” Amanda asked about the wording ,may be incorrect. It may not be a college tech committee but possibly an EPP tech committee. Joanna mentioned we could form an ad hoc committee. An ad hoc committee will be created to include someone from outside the college of education to represent the secondary groups and will also include those from the college tech committee. Joanna will send out an email with committee members names and we will conduct an email vote. Kimberley mentioned we should also have an advanced program representative as well. Latoisha mentioned that the plan was approved for initial programs so we need to consider those components for advanced programs and how they will be implemented. Scott mentioned possibly the advanced programs forming their own committee. Joan believes the advanced programs can meet with the ad hoc tech committee and work with them to add those programs into the plan, and several others agree. Timeline to collect required data for CAEP accreditation is an issue. All recommendations to this ad hoc committee will be sent to Joanna by Monday and she will proceed with an email vote.Change in Admission to Teacher Education Criteria (Ad Hoc Admissions Committee/Bowser) for initial programsProposed Revised Admission RequirementsChanges to Basic Skills AssessmentRemoval of ACT Composite Superscore from admissions requirements, as this is not submitted as a stand alone score to CAEP for accreditation. Lower Praxis CORE Writing score requirement to 162—three points below the minimum CAEP criteria of 165. With the new calculator, once calculations are made the lower score should not hurt us overall because of our high ACT scores. CAEP Section 3.2 is mandatory and it is pass/fail. The calculator is new to CAEP and we have not used this before but we think we will be fine in the end. Amanda mentioned to the group that policies concerning admission to the university will possibly alter the current admission scores. Rob says he is leary of lowering here if the university lowers their scores and in turn we could possibly not meet the CAEP calculated score. Rob asked about legislation detailing admission requirements, and Joanna mentioned there is no longer licensure laws concerning this. Latoisha asked where the 162 score for writing came from, and John stated that is what other institutions in the state currently use. Kimberley mentioned discussions about CAEP concerning this score, now we know there is a multiple component calculator which looks at a calculated score to determine meeting CAEP requirements. Our higher ACT scores will help our average if we lower the writing. Joanna mentioned we are merely going back to what we used to have. Joanna clarified the way the calculator should work in our favor. Susan asked if the removal of the ACT superscore is to our advantage. Joanna stated it just won’t matter.Motion by Scott, second by Kevin, motion carried.Delete the Career Decision AwarenessSince we now have EDA, we feel comfortable that our dispositions are thoroughly checked and no longer need this assessment. Susan asked what led to the decision, if this began with our department or the counseling center. Audrey mentioned when we can pare down what we require that we should look closely at if certain requirements are being duplicated in measures. Susan believes it is useful for students to do this career decision awareness and gives us a second check of dispositions. Amanda sees these come back and they often all look the same, which makes us wonder if the career awareness decision survey is not really a good and accurate measure, but rather just checking off boxes. Audrey talked to the counseling center director for a while and she is on board with us deciding what we need for our students. Joanna mentioned that off campus sites do not meet with a counselor, they complete an online survey which is quite different than what our on campus students complete. Latoisha mentioned no measure we currently use will catch more serious mental health issues, but we often see those manifest in placements. Motion by Scott, second by Alicia, two opposed (Susan and Amanda), motion carriedDocumentation of an Approved Background Check is included at submission of admission packet for the Teacher Education ProgramOnce a student is cleared with the 3 background checks, it is good for the entire time they are in the teacher education program. It will expire by the time of licensure which means our students will need to do an additional series of background checks to get a licensed. We do not allow students to begin internship field work who do not have a completed and cleared background check. Amanda asked about holding applications prior to the PBID course. By registering for the PBID course they are conditionally admitted so they need to go ahead and submit applications. Joanna asked for Audrey to clarify that when elementary and middle level programs send applications to PEP that we must have a printout showing a cleared background check, and Audrey stated yes. Susan asked if secondary students, because she does not know them or see them this early on, once they have registered for intro courses, do they need background checks. Audrey said they do not have to have for field work in intro. Its for PBID that the background check needs to be completed because at this point they are admitted to the teacher education program. Audrey meets with all intro courses, she tells them these requirements, she feels that she gives several opportunities to ensure all students realize they must get this done prior to any field work. Intro professors will need to make sure they address this issue with all secondary students. Lance asked about a realistic timeline for background checks being approved. Audrey stated the Deans Council has also discussed this issue. Currently the process takes four to six weeks for completion. The fingerprint scans are completed at co-ops, and those are quick--about three days to process. The child maltreatment is what takes so long. It can sit on a desk for a while and only one person is entering the information for the whole state. Rob asked if we could require it at the intro course so that we can make sure it is done in time. Amanda said they currently do this. Will require revised statement on the Admissions Application—John asked when these changes will come into play. Joanna stated fall 20 students will adhere to these approved changes. Motion by Joanna, second by Alicia, motion carried.OtherAdjourn ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download