Request for Information from KCEA Members

Earlier this summer a bill was introduced in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives by Representative Kristin Hill (R-93) that, if enacted, would lead to new Instructional certification grade bands in Pennsylvania.  Rep. Hill’s sponsorship memorandum indicates the following about her bill:

Specifically, my legislation would create the following certification levels for new teachers:

·       Early childhood: pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, grades 1 though 4 or ages 3 through 9;

·       Elementary: kindergarten, grades 1 through 6 or ages 4 through 11;

·       Middle: grades 6 through 9 or ages 11 through 15;

·       Secondary: grades 7 through 12 or ages 11 through 21;

·       Specialized areas: pre-kindergarten through grade 12 or up to ages 21; and

·       Special education: pre-kindergarten through grade 12 or up to age 21.

The bill stipulates that certifications issued under current regulation would remain valid for the term of those certificates, but that PDE would be obligated to develop pathways for teachers holding those credentials to earn certification in the new grade bands in the event they wanted to do so.

Language in the bill that is not mentioned in the sponsorship memo involves what is essentially a repeal of language in Chap. 49 requiring that applicants for certification in special education (PK-8 or 7-12) must also obtain certification in another certification area, such as PK-4 or a 7-12 content area.  From the bill:

(6) Special education - prekindergarten through grade twelve (12) or up to age twenty-one (21). An additional content area shall not be required for a special education certificate issued in accordance with this section.

HB 1386 is currently sitting with the House Education Committee.  According to the House calendar, this committee has no meetings or hearings scheduled at this time.

The PAC-TE Government Relations Committee met on August 1, 2017 to discuss the bill and decide if it is one on which we might want to take a position as an organization.  Since we were not able to come to consensus on that question, we decided to solicit input and opinions from the membership organizations of KCEA.  We will use your input to develop a statement we would (potentially) share with the House Education Committee for their information and use as they consider the bill.

Please take a look at the sponsorship memo and the bill linked above (the bill itself is quite short) and provide us with your feedback using the following questions as a guide.

1.     What is your initial opinion on the reorganization of the certification grade bands?

2.     The proposed grade bands overlap each other.  Does this overlap make sense to you?  Why or why not?  For example, will PK-4 and K-6 overlap too much?  Does the slight shift from 4-8 to 6-9 make sense?

3.     Do the new grade bands serve the needs of PK-12 schools?  Why or why not?

4.     Do you agree with the repeal of the requirement that special education revert back to a stand alone certification (i.e., does not require previous or simultaneous certification in another area such as PK-4, 4-8, or a secondary content area)?

5.     What other thoughts and opinions do you wish to share?

Please provide your feedback to these questions or general opinions about the bill on my blog (here).  Provide your comments no later than Friday, September 8, 2017.  Please include your association affiliation.  We will not be share this information beyond our organization without your express permission.  If you wish to follow the feedback of others, please check back there from time-to-time.

Thanks so much,

George Drake

PAC-TE President-Elect and Chair of Government Relations

Looking for your Opinion, Millersville University

Hello members of the Millersville University community,

Earlier this summer a bill was introduced in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives by Representative Kristin Hill (R-93) that, if enacted, would lead to new Instructional certification grade bands in Pennsylvania.  Rep. Hill’s sponsorship memorandum indicates the following about her bill:

Specifically, my legislation would create the following certification levels for new teachers:

·       Early childhood: pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, grades 1 though 4 or ages 3 through 9;

·       Elementary: kindergarten, grades 1 through 6 or ages 4 through 11;

·       Middle: grades 6 through 9 or ages 11 through 15;

·       Secondary: grades 7 through 12 or ages 11 through 21;

·       Specialized areas: pre-kindergarten through grade 12 or up to ages 21; and

·       Special education: pre-kindergarten through grade 12 or up to age 21.

The bill stipulates that certifications issued under current regulation would remain valid for the term of those certificates, but that PDE would be obligated to develop pathways for teachers holding those credentials to earn certification in the new grade bands in the event they wanted to do so.

Language in the bill that is not mentioned in the sponsorship memo involves what is essentially a repeal of language in Chap. 49 requiring that applicants for certification in special education (PK-8 or 7-12) must also obtain certification in another certification area, such as PK-4 or a 7-12 content area.  From the bill:

(6) Special education - prekindergarten through grade twelve (12) or up to age twenty-one (21). An additional content area shall not be required for a special education certificate issued in accordance with this section.

HB 1386 is currently sitting with the House Education Committee.  According to the House calendar, this committee has no meetings or hearings scheduled at this time.

Please take a look at the sponsorship memo and the bill linked above (the bill itself is quite short) and provide me with your feedback using the following questions as a guide.

1.     What is your initial opinion on the reorganization of the certification grade bands?

2.     The proposed grade bands overlap each other.  Does this overlap make sense to you?  Why or why not?  For example, will PK-4 and K-6 overlap too much?  Does the slight shift from 4-8 to 6-9 make sense?

3.     In your opinion will the new grade bands serve the needs of our PK-12 partners? Why or why not?

4.     Do you agree with the requirement that special education revert back to a stand alone certification (i.e., does not require previous or simultaneous certification in another area such as PK-4, 4-8, or a secondary content area)?

5.     What other thoughts and opinions do you wish to share?

Please provide your feedback to these questions or general opinions about the bill in the comments section below at your earliest convenience.  If you wish to follow the feedback of others, please check back there from time-to-time.

Thanks so much,

George

p.s., this request will look similar to one you may receive from PAC-TE.  If you are a member of PAC-TE you will likely receive a similar request soon.  Please also leave your thoughts according to the directions in that request.  

If you are not a member of PAC-TE, what are you waiting for?  :-)

PAC-TE Request for Feedback on HB 1386

Earlier this summer a bill was introduced in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives by Representative Kristin Hill (R-93) that, if enacted, would lead to new Instructional certification grade bands in Pennsylvania.  Rep. Hill’s sponsorship memorandum indicates the following about her bill:

Specifically, my legislation would create the following certification levels for new teachers:

·       Early childhood: pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, grades 1 though 4 or ages 3 through 9;

·       Elementary: kindergarten, grades 1 through 6 or ages 4 through 11;

·       Middle: grades 6 through 9 or ages 11 through 15;

·       Secondary: grades 7 through 12 or ages 11 through 21;

·       Specialized areas: pre-kindergarten through grade 12 or up to ages 21; and

·       Special education: pre-kindergarten through grade 12 or up to age 21.

The bill stipulates that certifications issued under current regulation would remain valid for the term of those certificates, but that PDE would be obligated to develop pathways for teachers holding those credentials to earn certification in the new grade bands in the event they wanted to do so.

Language in the bill that is not mentioned in the sponsorship memo involves what is essentially a repeal of language in Chap. 49 requiring that applicants for certification in special education (PK-8 or 7-12) must also obtain certification in another certification area, such as PK-4 or a 7-12 content area.  From the bill:

(6) Special education - prekindergarten through grade twelve (12) or up to age twenty-one (21). An additional content area shall not be required for a special education certificate issued in accordance with this section.

HB 1386 is currently sitting with the House Education Committee.  According to the House calendar, this committee has no meetings or hearings scheduled at this time.

The PAC-TE Government Relations Committee met on August 1, 2017 to discuss the bill and decide if it is one on which we might want to take a position as an organization. 
Since we were not able to come to consensus on that question, we decided to solicit input and opinions from the PAC-TE membership.  We will use your input to develop a statement we would (potentially) share with the House Education Committee for their information and use as they consider the bill.

Please take a look at the sponsorship memo and the bill linked above (the bill itself is quite short) and provide us with your feedback using the following questions as a guide.

1.     What is your initial opinion on the reorganization of the certification grade bands?

2.     The proposed grade bands overlap each other.  Does this overlap make sense to you?  Why or why not?  For example, will PK-4 and K-6 overlap too much?  Does the slight shift from 4-8 to 6-9 make sense?

3.     In your opinion will the new grade bands serve the needs of our PK-12 partners?  Why or why not?

4.     Do you agree with the requirement that special education revert back to a stand alone certification (i.e., does not require previous or simultaneous certification in another area such as PK-4, 4-8, or a secondary content area)?

5.     What other thoughts and opinions do you wish to share?

Please provide your feedback to these questions or general opinions about the bill in the comments section below no later than Friday, September 1, 2017.  Please include your name, title, and institution.  We will not share this information beyond our organization without your express permission.  If you wish to follow the feedback of others, please check back there from time-to-time.

Thanks so much,

George Drake

PAC-TE President-Elect and Chair of Government Relations

I Got Trolled on Twitter Today...

Today I received a pair of Twitter notifications from a group called Iowa Women for Trump who decided they needed to do a little hating on me based on one of my tweets from the stage at Millersville University's spring commencement a few weeks ago.  I'll share the pair of tweets they sent on my behalf in a moment, but first some context.

Our commencement speaker this year was Marie Harf from Fox News.  Marie is the daughter of a good friend and alumnus of Millersville University, James Harf.  Currently, as I noted, Marie is a contributor and political commentator on Fox News who, as a Democrat, provides a perspective that is a little more from the left than is usual for Fox (but, hey, props to Fox for the bipartisanship).  Prior to Fox, she served as Senior Advisor of Strategic Communications to Secretary of State John Kerry during the Obama administration and led the Iran nuclear negotiations communications strategy.  She has also served as Acting Spokesperson and Deputy Spokesperson for the State Department.

And she is a fellow grad of the University of Virginia.  As fellow UVA grad and Facebook friend Timothy Shea replied to the tweet:  Wahoowa!

Anyhow, I took a few moments to tweet about her commencement address from my place on the stage and attempted to tag her in the process.  Here is that tweet:

Innocent enough, right?  Nothing political, nothing controversial.  I just wanted to give a little shout out to our guest, the successful daughter of a friend of the university.  Well, it seems that the hashtag I used is NOT Marie's, rather it belongs to this group of Trump supporters in Iowa.  Just a dumb mistake on my part.  If you visit them on the Internet, you will see that they are decidedly not supporters of Marie's.

Here are their tweets:

At least now I know that I got Marie's hashtag wrong...

How does this pertain to the Classroom Reflecting Pool?  Here are a few thoughts on what this means for us in education:

• Discourse on issues - How do we help children learn that it is natural to disagree about issues and productive to engage in conversations about those issues and the points of disagreement?  
• Critical thinking - Related to discourse, how do we help students learn to think outside their own mindsets, place themselves into the minds of those with whom they disagree, and reflect on the differences as a means of seeking understanding?  Can we expand their thinking in this way?
• The use of evidence - Can we do a better job of teaching children to use facts as evidence to support their arguments? 
• Civility - Teachers who are civil, maintain their classrooms as civil spaces, and reinforce civility among their students will be more likely to be surrounded by students who are able to engage others in civil ways by the end of the school year.  I know it can sometimes be hard to maintain civility during debates and disagreements, but civility IS important.  How can we do better on this?

So, I guess haters are gonna hate no matter what, but should we be complacent about trolling like this?  My suggestion to teachers and teacher candidates in the face of this is to use it as an opportunity to pause and reflect on what they can do for their students to prepare them for something better.

Until next time...