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
1. What is your initial opinion on the reorganization of the certification grade bands?
ReplyDeleteWhile the grade bands make sense, there are several issues I think that need to be address for the two online organizations that take job candidates information. Schools need to be notified of these new changes. Also, need to keep in mind that already certified teachers may get lost in the shuffle of the new 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?
Not sure what the necessity to change from 4-8 to 6-9 is for. Seems a bit redundant to me.
3. Do the new grade bands serve the needs of PK-12 schools? Why or why not?
I think it does, but again, need to make sure schools and the two online job location sites understand the difference.
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)?
Since most programs have an overlapping part on the special education certification, I'm not sure that's necessary.
5. What other thoughts and opinions do you wish to share?
Again, I cannot stress enough the need for the online sites for job searches need to be aware of the changes and must keep an open mind to old certification candidates. My original certification is 7-12 in social studies. To apply for a job, I wasted my time getting a 6-9 certification in civics (which wasn't the certification test I took) and the website (run by the Allegheny Intermediate Unit) still would not let me apply for the position.
1. What is your initial opinion on the reorganization of the certification grade bands?
ReplyDeleteMy initial though upon reading these grade bands is "YES" the 4 - 8 grades current band is frankly useless to rural schools and therefore harms candidates. Those holding this current certification should be given the option to pick up the K-6 certification at a reduced fee.
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? They do not overlap too much, but here again in rural schools such as mine we hired elementary certified k-6 folks for our 6th grade in our middle school and 7 - 12 content certified folks for grades 7 and 8 because of the rigor of the content, the standardized testing and the need to accelerate students. I am an avid supporter of middle level education and the philosophy behind it, but I do not see the value in the 6 - 9 generalist/duel certification.
3. Do the new grade bands serve the needs of your schools? Why or why not? In rural schools, we need to hire teachers who can be assigned to were the class size and/or content need is. The PK - 4 and 6 - 9 limit how we can use employees effectively.
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)? I agree with a stand alone elementary special education certified teachers, but having a duel certification at the middle and secondary levels helps with the instruction of the core content standards.
5. What other thoughts and opinions do you wish to share? I am glad that finally someone is listening to us about this matter.
The PA Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (PAMTE) Executive Board discussed this issue. There was consensus among the board and also in these responses to NOT have a general special education degree, but rather keep the requirement of additionally having subject specific knowledge. There does not seem to be wide consensus with the reorganization of the grade bands one way or the other. Clearly, not all institutions think they will be able to offer all of the levels (middle level seems of most concern).
ReplyDelete