DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 070 746 SP 005 965

AUTHOR Blankenship, M. Elise; Pritchett, E. MiloTITLE Reciprocity. Certification of Special Education

Personnel.SPONS AGENCY Bureau of Education for the Uandicapped (DHEW/OE),

Washington, D.C.PUB DATE 72CONTRACT OEC-23-1701NOTE 120p.; Proceedings of Institute for Higher Education

and State Departments of Special EducationPersonnel

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58DESCRIPTORS *Certification; Educational Certificates; *Special

Education; *State Boards of Education; *State.Departments of Education; *Teacher Certification;Teacher Q.-771ifications

ABSTRACTThis report contains the proceedings of the Institute

for Higher Education and State Department of Special EducationPersonnel. It summarizes the activities of educators andadministrators from Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, andWisconsin during a 3-day meeting. The Institute investigated problemsinvolved im establishing interstate reciprocity in certification ofteachers of handicapped children and developed possible workingmodels with plans for implementation. The General Session T discussedthe current status of certification requirements in the six statesrepresented at the Institute with specific comments on the problemsand concerns in reaching a reciprocity agreement for Special

--Education personnel. Three models of reciprocity in various stages ofdevelopment were presented: the Interstate Compact Model, theMichigan Model, and the Eleven State Compact Model. in ElementaryEducation. The legal and legislative aspects of reciprocity werediscussed before grouping the participants according to state andinstructing them to develop their own working models for reciprocity.With the emphasis on`-interaction, the six models were,discussed andGeneral Session III presented the finalized model: MidwestReciprocity Program in Special Education. The report contains asummary of the proceedings and appendices with the certificationofficers and certification requirements of Special Education.(BRB)

.NCDtiO

C ICertification ofSpecial Education Personnel

Pritchett/Blankenship

JUL z 5 1912

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO.

'DUCE° EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM

THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN

IONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY.

IMP

I

..,...

.s,'.

--:1

.-',-

7'i7

71:2

!,-7

7:7"

71.7

:7"1

71-1

7r.''

'-'4!

`"!':

"ri"

'?m

,:vr-

w.-

--m

s,--

017,

.?...

..7

..

ED

070

746

Certification ofSpecial Education Personnel

M. Elise Blankenship, EditorNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalb, Illinois

ProceedingsInstitute for Higher Educationand State Departments ofSpecial Education Personnel

E. Milo Pritchett, Director

Sponsored byDivision of Training ProgramsBureau of Education for the HandicappedU.S. Office of EducationContract No. 23-1701

3

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 72-250Northern Illinois University, De Kalb 60115

Published 1972Printed in the United States of America

Designed by Publications Services,Northern Illinois University

iv

The project presented or reported herein wasperformed pursuant to a Grant from the U. S. Office ofEducation, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.However, the opinions expressed herein do not necessarilyreflect the position or policy of the U. S. Office of Education, andnc official endorsement by the U. S. Office of Educationshall be. inferred.

January, 1972

ContentsDIRECTOR-EVALUATOR viii

CONSULTANTS viii

PARTICIPANTS ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi

GENERAL SESSION I 1

The Charge for the Institute 1

HAROLD W. HELLER

Current Status of Six StateCertification Requirements 7

E. MILO PRITCHETT

PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS IN REACHINGA RECIPROCITY AGREEMENT FORSPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL 10

Illinois MERLYN EARNEST 10Indiana CLIFFORD GRIGSBY 11Iowa ORMN NEARHOOF 12Michigan LEE LQNSBERRY 14Missouri PAUL GREENE 17Wisconsin ALBERT MOLDENHAUER 19

GENERAL SESSION II 23

Interstate compact Model 23CHARLES C. MACKEY, Jr.

Michigan Model 29LEE B. LONSBERRY

Eleven Northeastern State Reciprocity Plan inElementary Teacher Education 38

WARD SINCLAIR

vi

ContentsLegal and Legislative Aspects of Certification 48

MITCHELL WENDELL

GENERAL SESSION III 57

Development of a Model for a MidwestReciprocity Program in Special Education 57

Tentative Midwest Agreement of SpecialEducation Personnel Certification 57

STATE GROUP REPORTS

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Michigan

Missouri

Wisconsin

GEORGE HARRISON, Chairman 63HAROLD PHELPS, RecorderCLIFFORD GRIGSBY, Chairman 66PHILIP PEAK, RecorderPAUL VANCE, Chairman 70ORRIN NEARHOOF, RecorderMORVIN WIRTZ, Chairman 75HUBERT WATSON, RecorderWARREN BLACK, Chairman 77DONALD COX, RecorderRICHARD SCHOFER, RecorderALBERT MOLDENHAUER,

Chairman 79HEINZ PFAEFFLE, Recorder

SUMMARY 84

APPENDICESAppendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Certification Officers,Chairmen, and Recorders 88Certification Requirements ofSpecial Education Personnel 89Planning Meetings 108

vii

Institute Personnel

Director

Dr. E. Milo Pritchett, HeadDepartment of Special EducationNorthern Illinois UniversityDe Kalb, Illinois 60115

Consultants

Dr. Harold W. Heller, ChairmanDepartment of Special EducationUniversity of AlabamaUniversity, Alabama 35486

Dr. Lee B. Lonsberry, SupervisorTeacher Certification ProgramTeacher Education and ProfessionalDevelopment ServicesP. 0. Box 420Lansing, Michigan 48902

viii

t*

Evaluator

Dr. M. Elise BlankenshipDepartment of Special EducationNorthern Illinois UniversityDe Kalb, Illinois 60115

Dr. Charles C. Mackey, Jr.Interstate Certification ProjectNew York State EducationDepartment99 Washington AvenueAlbany, New York 12210

Dr. Ward Sinclair, DirectorOffice of Teacher Educationand Certification225 West State StreetTrenton, New Jersey 08825

Dr. Mitchell WendellWendell and SchwanConsultants on GovernmentalAffairsSuite 417114519th Street, N. W.Washington, D. C. 20036

Participantslliinois

Dr. M. Elise BlankenshipDepartment of Special EducationNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalb, Illinois 60115

Mr. Merlyn G. EarnestTeacher Certification316 South Second StreetSpringfield, Illinois 62706

Dr. George R. Harrison, HeadDepartment of Elementary EducationBradley University1502 West Bradley AvenuePeoria, Illinois 61606

Dr. Donald Y. Miller, ChairmanDepartment of PsychologyChicago Ste College6800 South Stewart StreetChicago, Illinois 60621

Dr. Harold R. Phelps, HeadDepartment of Special EducationIllinois State UniversitySchool and North StreetsNormal, Illinois 61761

Dr. E. Milo Pritchett, HeadDepartment of Special EducationNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalb, Illinois 60115

Mr. James J. TraversAssist. Director, Special AssignmentsDepartment of Special Education326 South Second StreetSpringfield, Illinois 62706

Indiana

Dr. Clifford GrigsbyDivision of Teacher Educationand Certification230 State HouseIndianapolis, Indiana 46204

Dr. Earl J. HeathDepartment of Special EducationPurdue UniversityLafayette, Indiana 47906

Dr. Philip PeakEducation Student ServicesSchool of EducationIndiana UniversityBloomington, Indiana 47401

Dr. R. B. PorterDepartment of Special EducationIndiana State UniversityTerre Haute, Indiana 47809

Mr. Robert J. Robertson, ConsultantDivision of Special EducationDepartment of Public Instruction635 South Main StreetSouth Bend, Indiana 46600

Iowa

Dr. Lee CourtnageDivision of Special EducationUniversity of Northern IowaCedar Falls, Iowa 50613

Dr. Marvin Fellers, Assistant DeanCollege of EducationDrake UniversityDes Moines, Iowa 50319

Dr. Richard E. FischerDirector, Special EducationEast 14th and Grand AvenueDes Moines, Iowa 50319

Dr. Allan R. FrankDivision of Special EducationW306 East HallUniversity of IowaIowa City, Iowa 52240

Dr. Orrin Nearhoof, DirectorDivision of Teacher Educationand CertificationDepartment of Public InstructionGrimes State Office BuildingDes Moines, Iowa 50319

Dr. Paul C. VanceDivision of Special EducationCollege of EducationDrake UniversityDes Moines, Iowa 50319

IX

Michigan

Dr. Marvin E. BeekmanDirector, Special Education123 West OttawaLansing, Michigan 48933

Dr. Alanzo HannafordDepartment of Special EducationWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazoo, Michigan 49001

Dr. Lee B. Lonsberry, SupervisorTeacher Certification ProgramTeacher Education azd ProfessionalDevelopment Services.,P. O. Box 420Lansing, Michigan 48902

Dr. Hubert P. WatsonDepartment of Special Educationand Vocational RehabilitationWayne State UniversityDetroit, Michigan 48202

Dr. Frank J. WawzraszekAdministration, School of EducationSpecial EducationEastern Michigan UniversityYpsilanti, Michigan 48197

Dr. Morvin A. WirtzAssociate Dean of EducationWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazoo, Michigan 49001

Missouri

Mr. Warren M. BlackAssistant CommissionerState Department of EducationP. 0. Box 480Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Dr. Robert L. BurtonAssociate DeanUniversity of MissouriColumbia, Missouri 65201

Mr. Donald M. CoxDirector, Special EducationState Department of EducationP. 0. Box 480Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Dr. Clifford W. GareyCoordinator of Special EducationCentral Missouri State CollegeWarrensburg, Missouri 64093

Mr. Paul Greene, DirectorEducational CertificationState Department of EducationJefferson City, Missouri 65101

Dr. R. Jeffery MitchellNortheast Missouri State CollegeViolette Hall 143Kirksville, Missouri 63501

Dr. Richard C. Schofer, ChairmanDepartment of Special EducationUniversity of MissouriColumbia, Missouri 65201

Wisconsin

Dr. Kenneth R. BlessingDivision for Handicapped ChildrenState Department of Public Instruction126 Langdon StreetMadison, Wisconsin 53702

Dr. Gerald F. Johnson, ChairmanSchool of Communicative DisordersWisconsin State UniversityStevens Point, Wisconsin 54481

Mr. Albert MoldenhauerBureau'of Teacher Educationand CertificationDepartment of Public InstructionMadison, Wisconsin 53702

Mr. James L. Olson, ChairmanDepartment of Special EducationUniversity of WisconsinMilwaukee, Wisconsin 53200

Dr. Heinz PfaeffleDepartment of Special EducationUniversity of Wisconsin-WhitewaterWhitewater, Wisceosin 53190

Dr. Theodore R. WhitingDepartment of Special EducationWisconsin State UniversityOshkosh, Wisconsin 54901

Acknowledgments

My grateful appreciation to Dr. E. Mil? Pritchett,Director of the Institute and Head of the Department ofSpecial Education, for his leadership, loyal support and guidanceof the Institute and the writing of this document.

Gratitude is also acknowledged to (1) the PlanningMeeting Participants who contributed to the direction ofthe Institute; (2) the Consultants who made worthycontributions; (3) the Chairmen of the State groups whoprovided the leadership in the meetings; (4) the Recorderswho willingly served in this capacity and prepared the Statereports; and (5) the Participants who gave invaluable supportto reciprocity of special education personnel.

Finally, my appreciation to Dr. Jean E. Lokerson, whoassisted me during the Institute, and Mrs. Judy Smith whoserved as secretary. Both gave generously of their timeand efforts to the many details which helped to make theInstitute most productive and comfortable.

Elise Blankenship, Ed.D.

The Charge For The Institute

Dr. Harold W. Heller, Chairman*Department of Special EducationUniversity of Alabama

First, I would like to discuss a little of the backgroundof this Institute. A few years ago the foundation for thisspecial project was laid when several of us met together inMadison, Wisconsin, to discuss special education certification,especially reciprocity and its relationship to training. TheBureau has long been concerned about the teacher whowas trained in one state of the country, moved to anotherstate and is unable to obtain certification from that state.In the U. S. Office of Education the programs that areapproved meet certain minimal types of requirements, andsupposedly teachers who are prepared in any of these programsshould be able to move from one state to another. A minimalstandard of quality is established by experts and should bereciprocal. But this has not been fully realized. So the groupthat met in Madison considered this problem and discussedhow we might get a few states together to come up w;th areciprocity model. Dr. Milo Pritchett accepted responsibilityfor the task and with the help of Mr. Jim Travers of the IllinoisState Education Agency submitted a proposal more than ayear ago. It received a favorable in-house review by theBureau, who then had it reviewed out in the field. As a result

*formerly with the U.S. Office of Education/Bureaufor the Handicapped.

1

13

of the review there were some minor modifications that hadto be made in the work seqUence. The proposal was thenrevised, incorporating these modifications, and it receivedapproval and funding.

The purpose of the proposal was to plan through aseries of meetings a model of reciprocity for special educationpersonnel which could then be implemented across thesix states represented here on a pilot basis. The model wouldthen be evaluated, and if effective, disseminated to otherstates or developed as a national model of reciprocityfor training programs in special education.

That pretty much sets the charge for us here. Wehave a goalthe goal that was written into the proposal"To investigate the problems involved in establishing interstatereciprocity in certification of teachers of handicapped childrenand to develop possible working models with plansfor their implementation."

We have met together, at one time or another, todiscuss particular aspects of certification and reciprocity. Wehave also discussed the problems and issues. Now we areready to develop a model for reciprocity of special educationpersonnel, one that we can pilot and, hopefully, implementas soon as possible.

There are some problems that have intervenedin the meantime concerning this problem of reciprocity andcertification. Most of you, I am sure, have had someinteraction recently with the Bureau in terms of certain typesof changes that are proposed in funding and in approvalof programs. It is now talking about non-categorical types oftraining programs, and in the past years much of ourcertification has been direCted at categorical certification.The Bureau is talking more and more about interrelatedprogramming and different types of personnel. A recentconference sponsored by the Bureau discussed diagnosticprescriptive teachers, resource teachers, crisis resource teachersand other personnel of this nature. Again, these new persons

2

r.

will demand a different type of certification program. TheBureau talked about a greater interrelationship with regulareducation and how to foster such interrelationships. Itdiscussed going to other departments, e.g., social work,child development, and so forth, to evolve a certificationprocedure that is not necessarily the traditional educationmodel. So these things must also become a part of ourthinking today. We must come up with a model that willintertwine with the federal goals for training and preparationof educational personnel. Hopefully, one will not dictatethe other but relate and effectively correlate.

I would like to present in graphic form theconference organization and explain a few things we hopeto evolve from this particular Institute.

After our session this afternoon we will get intoa discussion of problems and concerns of reciprocity viewedby the State Certification Officers of the states representedhere. In other words, what are some of the problems they havealready experienced with programs of reciprocity? TheCertification Officers are in abetter position than any ofus to know what these problems are. I am sure each of youhas frequently contacted your own State Certification Officerwith specific problems. So they will give us some idea ofwhat problems are associated with reciprocity from a StateCertification Officer's point of view. This, then, will befollowed by a presentation of several models of reciprocityalready in various stages of operation: the Interstate CompactModel, the Michigan Model and the Eleven State CompactModel in Elementary Education. This will then be pulledtogether by a discussion of the legal aspects of a reciprocityprogram and the types of legislative factors thatmust be considered. ,

After we have had that discussion we will break upinto groups by states. Each state will be asked to develop aworking model for the six midwestern states that are includedin this project. Each state will develop a possible model that

15

3

.:.%;

Interstate Compact Model

tlr

Problems of midwest reciprocitYptogtam in Special Education

44:4,. e.;

Michigan Model11 Stale Compact

in Elementary Education

Legal aspects of reciprocity

Illinois Indiana Iowa Michigan Missouri Wisconsin

Development of a working model for Midwest Reciprocity Program

Group I Group II Group III 'Group IV Group V Group VI

suggested solutions for compatibility

' '`--..;11111,0155151P-:Illinois Indiana IOWA Michigan Missouri Wisconsin

organize a model incorporating suggestions

develop a model for mid...est reciprocity program in Special Education

Illinois Indiana Iowa Michigan tissouri

finalize niodel for reciprocity wish recommemlatiss,

Model

Midwest Risco; program in Special (dui-anon

,areas of complete agreement

r' ,:"""---areas of possible agreement

areas of further consideration

areas for future direction

Wisconsin

Ato

4 Figure 1

could be implemented for reciprocity among the states.After the state work sessions we will come together to presentand discuss each of the proposed states' models. Again, inthe group sessions and in your state sessions, the emphasis willbe on interactionsharing ideas regarding both strengths

s- and weaknesses of the proposed models. We hope, as we goalong, to keep sifting down so that we will ultimatelyevolve a refined model.

After we have discussed the models and notedaspects of compatibility, we will go back to our groups and,hopefully, come up with an even more refined andefficacious model using those suggestions that came outof the group discussion. Again, we are trying to develop "a"model of reciprocity within this particular group, a model

r. that this group feels could be implemented and one thatincorporates the various criteria the State Certification Officerswill present during the first session.

Hopefully by Monday evening we will have a modelfairly well developed. On Tuesday morning in the statemeetings we will look at the evolved model and discuss thefollowing criterion areas mentioned on the agenda:

1. Areas of complete agreement2. Areas of possible agreement3. Areas for further consideration4. Areas for future direction (steps for

implementation)I am sure there will be areas of the proposed model in

which we have no real disagreement. Without majoragreement, the model will not have much utility for anyof you. There will be areas of possible agreement, where onlyminor modifications will be needed to resolve our differences.Third is areas for further consideration, points that we mayneed to work on and discuss further.

Once we have a model that we can live with, wewill then take it to our State Certification Officers. They willevaluate the model from the standpoint of the experience,

1.75

needs, and regulations that each has in his respective state, orareas in which each could comply right now. There probablywill be no problem inherent in the model thst they could notimplement q.5 have already available to them forimplementation. As for areas of possible agreement, maybethe model does not go far enough from the standpoint ofcertification and should be extended or modified. Thesewould be the areas or points that do not necessarily haveto be resolved during this Institute or even beforeimplementation, but are considerations which must beevaluated sometime in the future in order for the model tobe completely effective. And of course, there are areas forfuture direction, areas in which the reciprocity agreementshould go or things that will have to be done within a stateto get the model implemented. In this regard, if there is aneed for legislative approval, this is going to have to be done.It must be dealt with within the state and will have to bean activity of the future. We cannot resolve that during thisInstitute, but it is one of the things we,must identify andwork toward.

Therefore the mission for this Institute is to developa working model for reciprocity of special educationpersonnel, and I certainly think it is worthwhile. Thoseof you who have been in teacher education know the problemsof reciprocity and certification. Those of you in certificationknow the challenge we have put on you from time to timeto get the job done. I think all of us agree that reciprocityshould be a step toward professional certification, and I thinkall of us agree that it should not be a hurdle. I hope thatout of this Institute we can come up with a model that willfacilitate this so that a certified person can be accepted as anequally qualified person in another state no matter wherehe or she received his or her training, as long as that trainingwas of a qualitative nature.

Again I want to emphasize that this Institute isa working conference. You are here to develop a model and,

hopefully, it will be a model that we can present to theU. S. Office of Education and say, "This was our task, weachieved it, and now we are ready to implement it." I hopethat it will be a model of sufficient quality and structureto warrant additional monies that might be needed toimplement it on a six-state pilot basis.

Current Status of Six-StateCertification Requirements

t. E. Milo Pritchett, HeadDepartment of Special EducationNorthern Illinois University

I would like to review the current status of the sixstate certification requirementsthe six-state arearepresented here this evening.

This presentation on the current status of certificationrequirements for special education personnel in the six statesrepresented is based on material which we received from theCertification Officers or Directors of Special Education.

We have analyzed the current status of certificationrequirements in terms of similarities and differences andalso in the areas of reciprocity, policies, special educationcategories, general certification requirements and specialeducation requirements.

In terms of reciprocity, we find that five of thesix states will accept an applicant's request for certification ifthat person has graduated from an institution that wasapproved by NCATE at the time of his graduation. Michiganhas an equivalency system which you will hear more abouttomorrow morning. We also find that three of the six stateshave endorsement or entitlement programs which approveteacher preparation programs in institutions of highereducation and permit those institutions to award teacher

7

1

MIDWEST STATES SPECIAL EDUCATION CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Re uirements III. Ind. Iowa Mich. Mo. Wisc.

Reci rocit -

N ATEk741;.",r. r

;

Equiva en S stem X- ";;+"4,7%":V.:.

Endorsement/Entitlement X X X

Policies

Areas

De artment o E ucation91.533MMICUSIMaZIMMS3314(X X X X-`,; ' '"4 '4F

r.'14L444.4.

Deaf (Hearin Disorders).

Emotionally /Socially )irmailuslmmiammimmtsestagmasmagniema(X X X X

Learnin: Disabilities X X X X

Mental! Handica ed

Ph sicall Handica ed

Remedial Readin

School Ps cholo

Seech & Hearin

ist

Visually Handicapped

X

X

X

X

X

; ..-; .X

General Re uirements

Valid Teacher's Certificate

Bachelor's De ree

Professional Education

47./20..1

X

16

X

18

X

20

X

20.,

X

18

X

18

Special

Student Teachin

Education Re

with Normal

uirements'

Measurement and Evaluation

Methods and Materials

Student Teaching

8

X X

X

X

X

X X

X

X'X

20

X X X X X

Figure 2

certificates to graduates of their programs. All of the statesinvest their certification policies in Departments of Education.

You will note that all six states have certificationrequirements in the areas of the deaf, emotionally disturbed,mentally handicapped, speech and hearing, physicallyhandicapped, and visually handicapped. Only two states havecertification requirements in the area of remedial reading, andtwo states do not have certification requirements in thearea of learning disability. From this material you can see thatthere is a great deal of agreement among the six states.This information indicates that we may be closer to areciprocity model than we might have realized.

Continuing, we find that all states require validteacher's certificates. They could be, of course, provisional,temporary, permanent or life. All states require bachelor'sdegrees for a standard certificate. A temporary certificatemay not require a bachelor's degree but a permanent certificatedoes require the degree. In general, all states require ateacher's certificate and a bachelor's degree.

The number of professional education hoursrequired differs among the states: Illinois requires 16 hours;Indiana, Missouri and Wisconsin require 18 semester hours,and Iowa and Michigan require 20 semester hours. Four of thesix states require student teaching in special education. Iowarequires student teaching with either normal children orspecial education groups. Michigan and Wisconsin requirestudent teaching with normal children in addition to studentteaching in special education. All states require a course in.test and measurement as well as a methods and materialscourse in the area of specialization.

You can see from the chart that we have a greatdeal in common in terms of certification requirements, areasof special education, reciprocity and state administrativeorganization. This is a working Institute and we hope thatwe can leave this Institute with at least some semblance ofa model upon which we can build. To do.this we may have to

.

21 v--)9

think and develop a broader framework regarding ourown state certification.

We have seen the many areas of compatibility .

among the six states represented here; we also have seen theareas of incompatibility as they are today. It is our task in thisInstitute to overcome these differences and move toward afree-flow of special education personnel among the six states.We are in an era in which we need to have a workingreciprocity model for special education personnel.

Problems And Concerns inReaching a Reciprocity AgreementFor Special Education Personnel

State Certification Officers

We have the chief Certification Officers from eachof the six states that are involved here. Their charge is toshare sorn,a of the concerns and problems of reciprocity inspecial education certification. They will pose some questionsthat each of us will want to consider in our state andinteraction meetings.

ILLINOISMr. Merlyn Earnest

The first and most important thing I would like tosay for Illinois in dealing with reciprocity is that "we aretrying." Dr. Michael Bakalis, the State Superintendent, andMr. Vito Bianco are working on a package to take before thestate legislature after the first of the year. They are going to tryto get the state legislature to approve some sort of reciprocity.We are for reciprocity not only in special educationbut also in other areas.

10

22

I think the biggest problem in special educationreciprocity for Illinois is that Illinois demands 32 semesterhours in the special education area. In some of your states yourequire 31 semester hours or 33 semester hours. Therefore,a person with a 31 semester hour certificate does notqualify fo? an Illinois certificate; someone with a 33 hourcertificate or 32 semester hour program does qualify. Thisis a very strict structure and I believe it is going to be quitedifficult to work out a kind of reciprocal program with thesedifferences in requirements. We hope that in the packagethat we put before the legislature there will be someprovision for changes under the Illinois standardspecial education certificate.

INDIANADr. Clifford Grigsby

I don't know whether Indiana is unique in this respector not, but we have a shortage of special education teachers,and as a result, we have attempted to institute some specialkind of programs. The Indiana legislature in 1969 mandatedcertain special education programs; this has compoundedthe shortage problem so that the State Board of Educationnow issues what we call a limited certificate. This mgansthat if you have 15 hours of special education, you malfbe givena limited certificate which is renewable each year for aperiod of five years. At the present time we have issuedapproximately 500 special education certificates andwe still have quite a shortage.

In Indiana if you graduate from a state schoolthat has an approved program in special education or if youare from out of state and graduated from an NCATE-approvedschool you can get a special education certificate. If,however, you graduate from a college dr-university thatdoes not have NCATE. approval, then we will issue a reciprocalcertificate and evaluate thqut-of-state:program along the lines

2311

1

of the Indiana program requirements. If differences existthese must be removed within a five year period.

The problem of interstate certification is one whichIndiana may very well meet by going into the interstatecertification compact agreement. However, one of the stateson our border does not have an enabling act(I believeIllinois) so at this time we may not enter into an agreementwith that state. But if we could work out some kind of anagreement with our border states, 75 per cent of our interstateproblems would be solved. Nye are going to enter into anagreement with Kentucky, and we are also negotiating withOhio and Michigan. I am not sure what this conference cando to help us attract more special education teachers toIndiana; however, we will be very happy to work with theother representatives and I am sure somethinghelpful will occur.

IOWADr. Orrin Nearhoof

One of the problems which must be raised duringany discussion of reciprocity in certification relates to areceiving state, such as Iowa, requiring a higher level ofpreparation than that required in the sending state (or states).For example, we require a master's degree in the area ofspeech correction. How many states have this as the basiclevel of preparation? It is important that we deal withthis type of problem.

Along the same lines of the problem of levels ofpreparation required for certification, we also have differentrequirements in terms of the subject matter preparation. Weneed not only a commitment to reciprocity among the statesbut also among those institutions which are involved inthe preparation of teachers in a specific area.

One concern I have for a meeting of this natureis the focus. an special education alone. This has bothered me

12

24

f.

1

1'

t

from the very beginning. When I was first informed aboutthe project, my reaction was very negative. Since 1966 I havefollowed the Interstate Project out of New York. We havehad a bill to the legislature, but it has never been introduced.

Since 1966 quite a bit of work has gone onnationwide in terms of the compact. It already covers mostgeneral classroom teachers, and I think we could find thiscompact could also include special education teachers forthose states that were party to the contract.

For many years, graduates of NCATE-accreditedinstitutions were the only ones coming to Iowa who gotregular certification. If you did not graduate from anNCATE-approved institution, you could only get a provisionalcertificate, which is a temporary certificate; then you hadto take additional graduate work at a recognized graduateinstitution before you could get a professional certificate inour state. So we have had a pretty strong base forthe NCATE reciprocity system.

The approved-program approach represents anothertype of problem. You have the difference between theapproved-program and the specific-course kind of approach.

What about the different state forms and the differentlists of schools that one has to consult? Is it an NCATE school?If it is not NCATE, is it regionally accredited? Is it approvedby the sending state? Then you go, to another source ofinformation and you encounter different terminology; oneyear it is this, and the next year it may be non-categorical.What does that mean to me as a certification officer?

I am very happy with my very discrete programs:mentally retarded, physically handicapped, emotionallyhandicapped, visually handicapped, communicationhandicapped, speech and hearing, and now I have a personwith a non-categorical type of certification. Where do Iput him and what credential do I give him?I can't give him anything.

Another real problem occurs when one state

25

13

develops, perhaps out of an institution's desire to have aspecific kind of program, a certification program which relatesto the kinds of problems and needs in that state, and thestates surrounding it do not. Here, again, we get into theprocess of developing a reciprocity system before you havesome kind of control concerning where we are goingeducationally. I think we need the development of educationalpersonnel to serve specific kinds of need for children, andI think that states must work together on this, not only stateagencies but also universities that prepare teachers.

Let me go back to the problem of terminology, again.Hopefully, we can come up with some common terms whichwould be mutually understood across the nation. Perhapsin this Institute we 'can come up with some commonagreements on what we are talking about in terms of levelof preparation, the kinds of people we are dealing with, thekinds of services they are going to perform, and if necessarythe kind of credentialing we are going to follow. It is not aneasy task that you have set out for yourself. But Ihope we can help you a little.

MICHIGANDr. Lee B. Lonsberry

I really do not see any major legislative or certificationcode problems which would deter the consummation ofcertification reciprocity agreements among most states. I

do see overly protective certification officers hiding behindthese twin elements in order to preserve the status quoinorder to keep the "boat from rocking."

I do not see a teaching certificate as any kind ofguarantee that the holder thereof is a competent teacher,but I do see proponents of current teacher certificationpractices clinging to the credit and degree concept ofcertification as the only sound basis for teacher licensure.

I would submit, therefore, that current certificationcodes and legislative acts in most states already provide the

necessary flexibility to develop reciprocity agreements withsister states. What then are the problems? I would suggestthat the following are representative:

1. The principal problem, as I see it, is the lackof a genuine commitment for reciprocity on the partof the decision makers, be they state boards ofeducation or state school officers. Numerousstudies indicate that nearly every interested groupfavors reciprocity: teachers, administrators, collegesof education, school boards, state departments,and even the general public have gone on record asfavoring teacher certificate reciprocity. However, likethe weather, everyone talks about it, but nobodydoes anything about it. Therefore, when I speakof genuine commitment by the decision makers, Iam speaking of a willingness to act.2. Reciprocity has always been hampered eitherby an inadequate supply of teachers or by anover-supply of teachers. Research indicates that stateshave tended to "go slow" on reciprocity when thesupply of teachers was inadequatethe fear beingthat we might lose more teachers than we wouldgain. During periods when we have experienced an"over-supply" of teachers,we have been equallyreticent about reciprocity. However, the concernduring the "over-supply" period is to protect theteaching positions which might be available for thosegraduating from our own state teacher education.institutions. The result has been inaction.3. I do not believe a special education reciprocityprogram can get off the ground unless it is partof an overall reciprocity program which includesregular or general teacher certification. In our state,for example, a special education category simplybecomes an endorsement area on the generalprovisional or permanent certificate. Therefore,unless we take general certification with us, I see

15

no possibility of real success.4. If individual states are going to continue tostructure their certification requirements in termsof specific courses and hold rigidly to those courses,then we cannot expect a consensus regardingreciprocity agreements. ...Another example from our state should illustratethe point. Up until two years ago, Michigan requiredall special education teachers to complete acourse in Mental Hygiene and a course in Educationof the Exceptional Child. It made no difference whattype of program a candidate might have completedin another state, and it made no difference thathe might have proved himself to be a verycapable teacher with ten or more years of experience.He still had to have those two courses or he couldn'tbe certificated. Fortunately, these restrictions havebeen removed.5. If you will permit me to step into the role ofthe "devil's advocate," I will outline what I believeto be the number one problem for those of youwho are directly involved in the area ofspecial education.Those who make up the professional family inspecial education must decide, at this juncture,which route they are going to travel. Over the years,they have built literally an educational empire. Theyhave wanted to be with, but not of, the regular'teacher education program in our schools. It issafe to say that some animosity has been directedtoward teachers of special education because of themandated lower class sizes, because of individualclassroom budgets and because of differential salaries.In our state where teacher negotiations are now away of life, teachers of special education havefrequently generated little sympathy for their cause.

16

A second dimension to this problem is the thrustof the state and national associations towardcertification. Three years ago, in our state, theVisiting Teachers Association, now called SchoolSocial Workers, succeeded in having legislationpassed which no longer requires such persons to holdvalid teaching certificates. Thus, we must ask howcan there be certificate reciprocity withoutcertification?We are all aware, I am sure, that the NationalAssociation of Speech Pathologists has launcheda program which will establish a separate licensingoperation for speech pathologists, thereby removingthem from those who must hold valid teachingcertificates. If the trend of the respective specialeducation groups is to break away from generalcertification and establish separate licensingrequirements, then I fear our time and efforts herewill have been wasted.These are the five major areas of concern which I

believe must be considered before consensus can be achieved.Let us not become hopelessly mired down with the mechanicsand individual terminology of each other's certificationprograms. Rather, let us have faith that each state hasdeveloped its certification program with equal care, and,thus, we can focus our attention on the principles, purposesand philosophies which are common among ourrespective prohrams.

MISSOURIDr. Paul Greene

The problem we have here, as mentioned thisafternon, is not an easy one but it is not an insurmountableone. Much has been done regarding certification along otherlines. For example, 47 of the 50 states have most of their

29,1

17

prestigious institutions and most of their teacher educationinstitutions approved through NCATEthe National Councilfor Accreditation of Teacher Education. Also, the InterstateReciprocity Compact has a large program in many of the statesand there are others that will be elaborated on a little later.Now we have been charged to try to come up with some typeof reciprocity for special education personnel.

In Missouri we would not have too much difficultygetting together in a reasonable and workable reciprocityagreement because we have no legislative requirement to meet.Our State Board of Education has been entrusted withestablishing the certification standards and we find thatworking for certain changes through the State Board ofEducation is more efficient, quick, and reasonable. Now wealso find that it is a little easier to make a change, probablybecause Missouri is unique among the states with theexception of Illinois. Missouri has a part of the law which saysthat all persons graduating from one of the state collegesor universities of Missouri with a bachelor's degree ineducation shall be granted the permanent or life certificate bythe institution. Therefore, rather than having one agencyin the state which says, 'these are our standards," we haveeleven agencies: ten state colleges and universities and theState Department of Education. Each one of these agenciesmay make its own standards, and according to law, mayprescribe what is required by the separate institution.

We in the State Department of Education do haveminimum standards for personnel coming from other states.We think if the person has graduated from an institution thatis regionally approved, that is a good basis. We also lookto see if the institution is NCATE-approved, and in lieu ofNCATE approval, if the college has its own State Departmentof Education approval. We can work with those persons comingto Missouri from such approved programs and we wouldgrant them a two-year temporary or provisional certificateand put them on what we call an academic contract. The-

individual who has an academic contract goes to theinstitution that has the particular.special education programand works with that institution on the requirements for fullcertification in a given field. The individual is then workingtoward that goal at the rate of eight semester hours eachtwo years until full certification is met.

I will say that prior to recent times we had thoughtthat in most special education areas with the exception ofspeech correction, a valid elementary or secondary certificateshould be the prerequisite, but that no longer is a requirement.Now one may be a teacher in special education, per se, orone may be an elementary teacher, but the special educationteacher does not have to be certificated in both.

Although it probably won't be in its entirety today,I do think we can make inroads toward solving this problemof reciprocity in special education. I think that we can developa model for the U. S. Office of Education which hopefullymight be a model for other states.

WISCONSINMr. Albert Moldenhauer

I am a relative newcomer in this area of certification,having been in the office about four months. However,even as an administrator of the school systems in Wisconsin,I have long been interested in the area of reciprocity ofcertification. We are the only state represented here whichis now participating in the reciprocity program of theInterstate Certification Project and we are, of course, hopefulof expansion of this program. There are 28 states, I believe,now involved in this interstate project and we have processedapplications for certification from most of the states, eitherfor graduates just coming into the field or people enteringthrough an experience record. It has enhanced the proceduresof certification for out-of-state people.

One of the areas which certainly is important in

this reciprocity arrangemeht is the approved-program concept,in which, I believe, most states around us have participated.The approved program carries with it a necessity for regularprogrammed visitation by the State Department of PublicInstruction or State Department of Education. It is important,we feel, that the institution be accredited by a state, regionalor national accrediting agency. Among-the problems we haveencountered when we try to dig a little deeper is the oneof course descriptions. I think there has tote some reasonable

.likeness in'courses among states. The problems we meetwhen applications come .in form other stateS. are thedifferences in certification- among the states. What is theinitial certificate like in this state or that state? INibw a personbeing fully qualified in any area of teaching in Wisconsingets the three-year certificate or three-year license whichimplies full certification. Then, having served three yearssuccessfully, the person is eligible for the life certificate. Inmost areas there are no requirements for additional graduatework or course work of any kind. Initial certification in otherstates might not be identical with ours. But in the presentarrangement, we are obligated to give a certificate like thatwhich is issued by the originating state or a Wisconsincertificate most nearly like the one issued in the state fromwhich the teacher comes.

Another possible problem, as I see it, is the problemof dissemination of information, change in state requirementsand so on. Rather than having each of the states send outliterature to each of the other states, it would be desirable tohave a central clearing house to which each state couldsend its material and then have it dispensed in somewhatuniform format and condition so that it could be moreeasily used in certifying teachers.

I can see only advantages that can come from thisproject, but some of us will have to let the gates down and takea look at the total picture rather than our individual bailiwicksin the area of special education or in any other field.

20

4,94 7? 32

General Session

33

Interstate Compact Model

Dr. Charles C. Mackey, Jr.Interstate Certification ProjectAlbany, New York

I am intrigued by the process of teacher certification.I have had some experience in this field in a large state anda small state. I started in the certification business in thestate of Rhode Island, which issues approximately 700certificates a year, which is a mighty small state and probablydoes not fit your situation. I have been with the state ofNew York for the last five and one-half years, where we do135,000 evaluations a year and issue in excess of 70,000certificates a year. That may not fit your situation either, butyour work probably falls somewhere in between. I feel thatbeing familiar with the problems of the small state andand familiar with the problems of the large state I can readilyunderstand what problems special education departmentpersonnel have, as well as the people in colleges anduniversities, regarding teacher certification. One of thespeakers last evening alluded to the fact that the NationalAssociation of State Directors of Teacher Education andCertification had a terminology committee in existence forabout 15 or 20 years. I served as chairman of that committeefor two years and resigned that position because of thefutility in getting any degree of commonality and any basicdenominators to serve as a foundation in establishingdefinitions in the area of certification terminology. I dofeel that through the Interstate Certification Project we have

23

been able to develop some new and acceptable terminology.Certification is a function delegated by state

legislatures under education law or other statute to therespective state education departments, To put it very simply,however, whatever the legislature giveth the legislature maytaketh away. That brings me to another point of reference.Some of our colleagues feel that we should not "go near" thelegislature, that we should stay away from state senates andhouses of representatives or assemblies. We do not want themto know how well or how poorly we are accountable for ouroperations. I think we can take little comfort in that kindof admonition. To say that we cannot or are unable tocommunicate with our legislative friends or that we muststay away from them because we do not want them to knowwhat we are doing, or that they do not understand ourterminology, is a poor stance for us to take at this point in time.

Having served Rhode Island as State Director ofTeacher Education and Certification from 1963 .to 1966 I amfamiliar with the many compacts, contracts or gentlemen'sagreements that have existed among the many states prior tothe implementation of the Interstate Certification Project.In the mid-1940s the New England States, New York andNew Jersey developed.what was termed the Eight StateReciprocity Compact. This was a provision under which aperson who held a valid teaching certificate in one of themember states and had completed three years of teachingexperience under that certificate would be eligible for theequivalent certificate in one of the other states should hechoose to take a position there. Subsequent to that the EightState Reciprocity Compact was established 011951. Thisincluded the initial eight states and Delaware,. Maryland, andPennsylvania. Under this compact a person completing astate-approved elementary teacher education program in oneof the 11 participating states would be automatically eligiblefor the initial regular "Elementary" certificate from one ofthe other states upon application and verification from the

24

college granting the degree that the individual had completedthe "approved elementary teacher education program." Ithink this is an indication of a basic belief in the rights of thestate and a trust in what the states are doing in the approval ofteacher education programs.

When I was one of the facilitators of these agreements,the major problem I encountered was that as individuals inthe respective certification chairs in the other states cha Ted,so did the policies regarding these agreements change. Ithink these agreements, while in many cases enacted r,r carriedout under regulation of the State Board of Educations orBoard of Regents, did not have the kinds of safeguards whichI think are necessary for the prospective teacher .a.id for thestate education departments as well.

Early in the 1960s with the development of theElementary and Secondary Education A:a, Title V, Dr. Alvin P.Lierheimer, who at that time was Director of the Divisionof Teacher Education and Certification in New York, appliedfor a planning grant to develop a model of an interstatecertification system. This concept had been in existence formany years. The National Association of State Directors ofTeacher Education has addressed the subject; StateCommissioners of Education have spoken about it; andit has been considered in the U. S. Office of Education duringthe tenure of Mr. Studebaker, the Commissioner of Educationduring the Eisenhower administration. Although it had beentalked about for many years, Alvin Lierheimer provided, theimpetus for the Interstate Certification Project. The grant wasgiven to New York State as a planning grant under E.S.E.A Title Vin May, 1966. The Project then called together State Directorsof Teacher Education and Certification from across the nation.The reason i allude to 1966 is because within this short periodof five years it is impossible for me to estimate the amountof time spent in achieving the task of an interstate certificationsystem. It is one of no small measure, and whatever resultsyou are able to come up with within these three days will

certainly be to your credit. As I pointed out, the number ofhours and the amount of money spent bringing peopletogether to discuss all aspects of certification and teachereducation are innumerable. I am hopeful that yourdeliberations will take into account much of what hastranspired among the states participating as direct membersof the Interstate Certification Project and the workof those who are not yet members.

The basic factor in the implementation of theInterstate Certification Project, as we have envisioned it, isthe enactment into legislation of an Interstate Agreement onthe Qualifications of Educational Personnel. This is the firstingredient, if you will, of the implementation of the InterstateProject. It was hammered out in a number of sessions bypersons working in all areas of teacher certification andteacher education. The Interstate Agreement on EducationalPersonnel must be adopted exactly as it appears in orderfor it to be consistent across the states since that interstateagreement is not only a statute, but also a contract betweenthe member states. A copy of that interstate agreementappears in your portfolio. The yellow booklets entitled CarryingYour Talents Across State Lines set out the policies and thefindings as they relate to the Interstate Agreement on theQualifications of Educational Personnel. Regarding theimplementation, we have what is termed enabling legislation.This prescribes in education law the ability of the state toimplement the interstate certification agreement. It ismerely an accommodation for the state to act.

At the present time 28 states across the nation haveenacted the Interstate Agreement on the Qualifications ofEducational Personnel. As of October 1, 1971, 23 states havesigned what is termed the principal contact, which is anotherfacet of the Interstate Certification Project. The principalcontract is the technical aspect of the interstate agreement.This is the operational procedure which the certification officeris required to follow in order to actually grant certification to

26

persons seeking certification in the receiving states. Theprincipal contract, as it was originally written, covered onlyclassroom teachers. Recently added to the principal contractis a codicil. With the principal contract and the codicil, allcertified professional personnel who have as a minimumbasic requirement the baccalaureate degree are covered. Theexceptions are those who carry a title analagous tosuperintendent, deputy, associate, or assistant superintendentof schools. Excluded now from the contract are careereducation people, the occupational or technical teachers,who, by and large, have not been required to hold abaccalaureate degree. The principal contract, as I said, hasbeen signed by 23 states, with a 24th state pending. Thus,of the 28 states which have enacted the legislation, 24 arepracticing members of the original compact itself.

Under the principal contract there are two basicways in which a person may achieve certification. One isthrough the "approved program" route to teacher certificationas spelled out in Paragraph 3 of the Manual. It requires thata state which has the responsibility for approving stateeducation programs will also be responsible for designatinginstitutions within that state which have approved teachereducation programs and for delineating the certification areasfor which that institution was approved. This approval wouldbe based upon standards that are adopted by that particularstate either formally or informally. The standards used mayvary from a state-developed system to a set of nationallyaccepted criteria which the state uses for the evaluation ofteacher education programs. Some state departments ofeducation may also state that institutions which are NCATEapproved are also state approved. This might constituteanother method used by a state to indicate that an institution'sprograms are approved.

Paragraph 3 states that the program must bere-approved at least once every five years and that withinthat five-year period there must be an on-site visit from an

27

38is

evaluation team. A paper and pencil evaluation is notsufficient; there must be an on-site visit by a team of competentindividuals to assess the quality of that program. Paragraph 3also provides for out-of-state certification officers andsimilar people to serve on teams at their own expense. Forexample, in its appro:r4.of programs the state of Pennsylvaniaissues to the other 23 pia6c;oating I.C.P. states a notification

"..41that a particular universityi..1ryand/or secondary education p ovns reviewed on a specifieddate. That notification to other sZt4v,nersonnel officersserves as ar'itinvitation to them to partiel,tme on the team sothat repreentaKes may familiarize themsei with theactivities that the "sending" state uses in evalirc.im teachereducation programs. The reciprocal agreement aR7e.Yi.StS.

Paragraph 3 further permits graduates of theapproved teacher education programs to receive the "ink*,regular" certificate in the receiving' state. One of the 23 Nipthen becomes. the "receiving" state with the other one beingwhat we term the "sending" state. "Initial regular" is oneof the terms coined among members of the Interstate Projectto identify the first regular certificate. You then get over theproblems inherent with "provisional," "permanent,""temporary," or "emergency" certification. "Initial regular"is a certificate that all approved-program graduates receiveupon application and submission of whatever the receiving'state terms appropriate credentials.

Paragraph 4 provides the alternative route to gainingcertification in the "receiving" state. That is, a person whoholds a valid teaching certificate in one of the sending statesand has completed 27 months of teaching experience withinthe past three years, of which 18 months were performedunder a valid credential, may receive the initial valid certificatein the "receiving" state. Let me restate: No matter how theindividual earned the certificate in the sending state, thatindividual having had at least 18 months of service under thatcertificate out of .a total of 27 months of teaching within

28

39:04

the past five years would be eligible to receive the initialregular certificate under Paragraph 4 of the Interstate Project.Here we have the two routes, one based upon "approvedprograms," the second one based upon experience.Remember that under Paragraph 4 we are still treatingteachers whose basic requirement is a baccalaureate degree,i.e., a person who has certification based upon abaccalaureate degree.

These are the highlights of the Interstate CertificationProject. The Project staff is very hopeful about the directionit is moving, considering the project was born in 1966.There is a great deal of flexibility in the programflexibilityin the area of program approval, and flexibility in providinga route to certify both the experienced teacher and thenon-experienced teacher. We feel that the project is off theground; it is working, and it is alive.

Michigan Model

Dr. Lee B. LonsberryTeacher Education and CertificationLansing, Michigan

The Institute program refers to the Michigan Model.What I am about to present has not been implemented inMichigan, but, hopefully, our State Board of Education willtake action on it later this month. The plan, of model, is a verysimple one, but I would like to offer a little background beforeoutlining what we have recommended for adoption byour State Board of Education.

Since each state is responsible for establishing itsown system of education, it is not surprising to find 50 differentand distinct teacher certification codes in operation. Iwould submit to you that it is obvious that no state hasdetermined that "magic formula" for devising a set of code

29

LIOV.

specifications that will guarantee a successful and competentteacher. If this were true, certainly the rest of us wouldhave followed suit long ago and adopted that formula. Therehas been no agreement on a national scale regarding theexperiences the teacher candidate should have beforereceiving a license to teach.

Given the wide variation in state certification codes,it is also not difficult to find one state prescribingrequirements in rather broad or general terms based onsome predetermined principles while another state specifiesin rather definitive terms the number of credits and coursesthat must be successfully completed before the candidate isgiven his license to teach.

Each state requires its teachers to hold validcertificates, issued by that state, before such persons can beemployed in any of its school syitems. Therefore, the teacherwho is prepared and licensed in one state has a potentialproblem whenever he attempts to assume a teachingposition in another state.

To resolve this dilemma, countless studies have beenconducted over the years which have resulted in a numberof feeble attempts to establish certification reciprocityagreements between two or more states. Few of theseagreements, however, have really produced the desiredresults, and, if we examine those agreements, we find thatfew have stood the test of time.

Hopefully, this interstate reciprocity program willmeet with more success. Although Michigan has never had a

reciprocity program authorized by its legislature, it has hadan equivalency state program which has been in effect sincethe late 1800s. In practice, that system has provided for theevaluation of certification requirements in each of the other 49states. Whenever another state's certificate requirementshave been deemed equivalent to those in Michigan, theState Board of Education, through formal action, hasauthorized the Department of Education to recognize as

30

equivalent the valid certificates from that state.We do not accept all types of certification from these

equivalency states, but we classify them according to thetype of certificate we are willing to accept. You have beforeyou a list of the states and certificates which constitutethe Michigan equivalency program.

The Michigan equivalency state system has beenreasonably successful in that persons who come from theapproved states with valid certificates are able to receive ourinitial, provisional certificate without difficulty. However,persons with certificates not deemed equivalent from any ofthese states or from states not on the list must submit theircredentials for individual evaluation. Here is where ourproblems begin; barriers are immediately thrown up becausewe must apply, very rigidly, the strict code requirements.

Throughout Michigan's present certification code,one finds a single phrase appearing repeatedly which leadsone to believe that the heavy emphasis in Michigan teachercertification falls upon "a planned program." Theplanned-program concept implies that a person doesnot just pick up so many hours in a professional educationsequence or in various teacher education programs, but hasa planned program that has been mapped out for him bythe institution which will sponsor him for certification: Butthis planned program does not work very well for the personfrom out of state who is not on the state-approved list orwho does not hold an approved certificate. Currentprocedures for evaluating out-of-state credentials forpersons not on this list make it virtually impossible fordepartment staff to keep faith with what is believed tobe the major thrust of our code. When an out-of-stateevaluation is made, we in the Department of Certificationreally have no basis for determining the extent to which thecandidate has followed a planned program. If it is notedthat he lacks a specified number of credit hours to completethe educatiOnal sequence, or to complete his substantive

42.31

OUT-OF-STATE EQUIVALENCY CERTIFICATES

Michigan Elementary and Secondary Provisional Certificates areissued on an equivalency basis when a candidate holds a valid certificatefrom one of the states listed below. A Michigan Equivalency ProvisionalCertificate is granted only when the Certificate from the Approved state isissued on the basis of the minimum requirements established bythe Michigan State Board of Education.

STATE

AlabamaArizonaCaliforniaConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMississippiNevadaNew HampshireNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaOhioOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTexasVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWyoming

CERTIFICATE TYPE

Elem. & Sec. Classes B, A, & AAElem. & Sec. Temporary & StandardElem. StandardElem. & Sec. Provisional & StandardElem. & Sec. StandardElem. & Sec. Post Grad. Ranks I & IIElem. & Sec. T-5Elem. & Sec. ProfessionalElem. & Sec. Standard & AdvancedElem. & Sec. All grades SupervisoryElem. & Sec. Provisional & ProfessionalElem. & Sec. Degree 3-yearElem. & Sec. Provisional & StandardElem. & Sec. Types A & BElem. & Sec. Provisional & ProfessionalElem. & Sec. Standard & AdvancedElem. & Sec. Classes A & AAElem. & Sec. Professional 6-yearElem. & Sec. ProfessionalElem. & Sec. 4-year ProvisionalElem. & Sec. Provisional & PermanentElem. & Sec. Class A & GraduateElem. & Sec. Professional & PermanentElem. & Sec. StandardElem. & Sec. College ProvisionalElem. & Sec. ProfessionalElem. & Sec. Class I & Class I Adv.Elem. & Sec. Adv. ProfessionalElem. & Sec. Provisional & ProfessionalElem. & Sec. Post Grad. Professional

*Elem. & Sec. Standard'K-12Elem. & Sec. Professional & PermanentElem. & Sec. Professional

major or minor, we advise him of this, whereupon he beginsto shop around for the credits in an effort to eliminate hisdeficiencies. The necessary credit, more often that not, iscompleted without regard to a planned program, and,frequently, the credit is completed at two or more institutions,which almost assures that it is not going to be partof a planned program.

The irony of this, it seems to me, is the fact thata candidate from out of state with a degree and validcertificate is really submitting evidence that he has completeda planned program in that state. It will also be argued thatthis is sufficient for granting the Michigan provisionalcertificate. If the major emphasis in our state is the completionof a planned program, then the candidate from out of statewith a valid certificate based on a bachelor's degree and thesuccessful completion of a teacher education program hasmet the intent of our code, and should, therefore, begranted provisional certification.

I would also argue that there is no place in teachercertification regulations for provisions that would attemptto control the supply of teachers. Rather, regulations shouldserve only to assure the public of reasonably qualified teachers.If we "tinker" with our codes to try to control the supply anddemand of teachers then I think we are sellingour profession short.

One of the glaring incongruities of the equivalencystate system which Michigan currently operates is the varianceof special education requirements among the states. Manyexamples could be cited; however, two will illustrate thepoint. You will note that the states of Maine and Nevadaare on our equivalency states list, which simply means thatwe are prepared to grant a Michigan provisional certificateto any candidate from those two states who can presenta valid certificate. However, you will find that neither Coloradonor Wisconsin is on the approveci list. In the area of specialeducation, the states of Maine and Nevada require only

twelve semester hours to qualify for special education. Onthe other hand, Colorado and Wisconsin are requiring from20 to 28 and from 30 to 36 semester hours for specialeducation majors. I would suggest that there is an obviousinequity here which defies reasonable explanation.

If we assume that our primary purpose is to processand to issue certificates in accordance with the prescribedrules set forth by the State Board, then there is little thatcan be done at the state level to assess how well thosepersons receiving certificates will actually perform in theclassroom. Certainly we cannot determine this when we donot even see the candidate. The performance and competenceaccountability of the teacher rests, I believe, with theemploying school district, although many would concedethat the organized profession should share in thisresponsibility of teacher accountability. Evidence suggeststhat Michigan school district employing officials have formany years done a creditable job of screening and employingout-of-state teacher candidates with varying preparationbackgrounds.

Recent surveys completed in three of ourintermediate school districts revealed that out-of-statecandidates appeared to do as well as those prepared andgraduated from Michigan teacher education programs. In fact,on a percentage basis there was little difference in thesuccess and failure incidence of. Michigan-preparedteachers versus out-of-state-prepared teachers.

A total of 53 school districts in Monroe, Oakland,and Wayne counties, heavily populated areas, were surveyedrelative to success and failure incidence of state andout-of-state-prepared teachers during the 1968-69 and1969-70 school year. In 1968-69 .8 per cent of those teachersprepared in Michigan teacher education institutions wereeither released or placed on probation for unsatisfactoryservice. In the same year 1.2 per cent of the out-of-state-prepared teachers in those counties were released or placed

4

1

4

P.

on probation. In 1969-70 slightly more than one per centof both Michigan and out-of-state-prepared teachers werereleased or placed on probation for unsatisfactory service.

Statistics compiled by our department duringthe past five years indicate that approximately 20 per centof the public school teaching force received its preparationoutside The state of Michigan. The percentage ofout-of-state-prepared teachers has remained fairly stableduring this period and there is no evidence to indicate thatthese teachers are any less prepared, or any less effective in theclassroom, than those who completed programs throughMichigan education institutions.

Conclusions:From this background, a number of conclusions

can be drawn which appear to lead to several logicalcourses of action.

First, although each state has devised its own setof teacher certification criteria, there is no evidence. toindicate that the certification requirements of one stateare any more effective than another insofar as successfulperformance is concerned. Few would disagree with thenotion that every teacher should have adequate preparationin the area or areas in which he is going to teach. However,successful classroom teaching is apparently keyed to theindividual teacher rather than to the prescribed certificationrequirements he has endeavored to meet. Assuming thisthesis is correct, it is impractical to control issuance of alicense to teach simply on the basis of one state's prescribedset of certification requirements. The first major test of theteacher-candidate is in his selection and nomination duringthe employing district's screening process. The ultimatetest, of course, is the actual classroom performance of theteacher, and as already noted, there is evidence that Michiganemploying officials are at least as successful in theirselection of out-of-state candidates as they are in theirselection of Michigan-prepared candidates.

46 35

/'

7

Secondly, it may be argued that our department,with the present 'certification code to administer, is in noposition to deny provisional certification to an out-of-statecandidate who possesses a degree and a valid certificateindicating successful completion of a planned teachereducation program. I am suggesting that, until performance orcompetence-based certification genuinely exists, the actof licensing should not be confused with the act of performance.Therefore, recognizing the limited success of the stateequivalency system that now exists, it may be concluded.that an equivalency program which guarantees parity to allout-of-state candidates is worthy of consideration.

Thirdly, our State Board of Education hasconstitutional and legislative responsibilities to approveteacher education programs of higher education institutions,and our current certification code calls for periodic reviewof all existing programs. Therefore, it seems logical that themajor thrust of the State Board of Education and theDepartment of Education should include a vibrant programwherein new or amended teacher education programs aresubjected to the most rigorous tests to assure theirrelevancy to current educational needs, while existingteacher education programs are undergoing a continuousevaluation process. In short, tests, measurements, andinspections of programs should be operating while theproduct, the teacher, is being made and not at the time thelabel, the certificate, is affixed. The labeling, which iscertification, should be routine once it is determined thatthe product is of high quariw. Thus, out-of-state candidateswho have not graduated from aporoved- teacher educationprograms should be required to enroll and successfullycomplete such a program from an approved institutionof his own choosing.

This set of conclusions and background led us tothree very simple recommendations which we hope ourState Board of Education will adopt later this month. I do not

36

think they will conflict with the NCATE concept whichour State Board adopted this fall. I do not think they willconflict with the Interstate Reciprocity Compact. In fact, Ithink they may facilitate both of these. We recommendedthat, in accordance with provisions of the code, our State Boardof Education approve a five-year experimental equivalencyprogram whereby a valid certificate issued by any otherstate which is based on a bachelor's degree and successfulcompletion of a teacher education program shall beaccepted as sufficient evidence of equivalency for thepurposes of granting the Michigan provisional certificate.It is a very simple statement. In short, it simply says thatwe are not concerned about either the state or institutionfrom which the teacher candidate comes. If the candidatehas a bachelor's degree, if he completed an approvedteacher education program, and if he has a valid certificate,why not grant the Michigan provisional certificate in return?A license does not guarantee competency. That competencywill have to be determined by the employer duringthe screening process.

The second recommendation provides that anout-of-state candidate with fewer than twelve semester hoursof bona fide professional education credit shall be referredto an approved teacher education institution of hischoosing for the purpose of successfully completing thatinstitution's teacher education program. The thirdrecommendation suggests that the Division of TeacherEducation and Certification be directed to maintain recordsof certificates issued under this program and to prepare annualreports for the State Board of Education concerning theprogram's impact on the state's elementary and secondaryeducation programs. We are of the belief that, withauthorization for a five-year experimental program in thisarea, neither the recruitment nor the quality ofteachers will be affected.

37

48

Eleven Northeastern StateReciprocity Plan in

F Elementary Teacher Education

Dr. Ward SinclairOffice of Teacher Educationand CertificationTrenton, New Jersey

Let us now take a look at what is called the ElevenNortheastern States Reciprocity Plan. This is its official tit.f6", buttoday, there are only ten states in the plan, as New Yorkwithdrew from the agreement in 1970. Giving some of thebackground, I think it is very important to note the geographicproximity of the states involved in the eleven-state agreementfrom Maryland to Maine. This is not a large geographicarea, and transportation is easy among these states. For manyyears the state directors in the northeast region have met .

twice a year. Through these personal contacts over a longperiod of time there has developed a certain respect and"mutual admiration society." Each of the states, I think, hascome to recognize that there is absolutely no evidence toindicate that a particular sequence of courses produces abetter teacher or more effective teacher than a differentsequence of courses. You can play the numbers game forever:Should a test and measurements course have two semestercredit hours, three semester credit hours, so many quarterhours credit or whatever? It just does not seem to make thatmuch difference! Again, the individual is the determining factor.

The eleven-state agreement is limited to elementaryteachers and you would think, on the surface of things,that this would cut down a lot of the discrepancies thatmight exist among states. But it has not. The group hasidentified seven different types of elementary programs

38

49

1

which are eligible for certificates and reciprocal certification.They are:

1. Elementary2. Primary (Grades1-3)3. Kindergarten - Primary4. Niirsery, Kindergarten, Elementary5. Kindergarten - Elementary6. A graduate program that includes supervisedstudent teaching7. Graduate program only; no undergraduateprogram available.Below is the complete list of the state-approved

college programs with the coding of the program which theyoffer in their respective institutions, and also a copy of therequest form for reciprocal elementary teacher certification.For example, Connecticut is the first state listed, andConnecticut College, New London, offers a kindergarten-elementary program which is number five. A graduate comingfrom that program can be awarded the appropriate certificatewhich entitles that person to teach kindergarten-elementaryin the receiving state. At the University of Delaware theyhave two approved programs; one is just elementary(number one) and kindergarten-primary (number three).

Some states issue different certificates, as in NewJersey. We issue two of these certificates ourselves, a primary

._certificate for grades 1-3 and the regular elementarycertificate, which is a K-8 certificate. However, theeleven-state reciprocity agreement is different fromMichigan's equivalency plan in that the list of schools forstates that were listed here is reciprocal, whereas in theMichigan plan there is no indication that that list of stateswould necessarily accept the Michigan graduates. Inreciprocity, we are thinking of a two-way street.

Other discre'pancies or differences among theseeleven states in the northeast are quite apparent. To illustratethis point, take the example of New Jersey on one hand and

39

January, 1970

ELEMENTARY TEACHER CERTIFICATIONELEVEN NORTHEASTERN STATES RECIPROCITY PLAN

GRADUATES OF APPROVED ELEMENTARY TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS

In 1957 a plan was adopted whereby graduates who have completed approved elementary teacher preparationprograms including student teaching in the New England States. New Jersey, New York. Pennsylvania. Delaware. andMaryland are granted an Elementary Certificate. provided that: Ill the candidate holds at least a bachelor's degree. 121the program is approved by the State Department of Education in the state in which the institution is located. and 131

the institution is accredited by a regional or national accrediting agency. Under this plan it is not required that thecandidate have had teaching experience other than successful student teaching.

Below is the revised list of all of the regionally accredited colleges in the northeastern states with state approvedprograms for elementary school teachers. The curricula offered at the colleges are indicated with the following key:

1. Elementaiy2. Primary (Grades 1 313. Kindergarten Primary4. Nursery. Kindergarten. Elementary5. Kindergarten Elementary6. Also has graduate program that includes supervised student teaching7. Graduate program only: no undergraduate program available.

Superintendents desiring to employ graduates of these approved programs should instruct the applicant to obtain"Request for Reciprocal Elementary Teacher Certification Form B" from the state office or from the college. This formshould accompany the official college transcript when application for teacher certification is made.

LIST OF APPROVED PROGRAMS 1967-68COLLEGE AND LOCATION

(Administrative Office)

Curriculum

CONNECTICUT

Curriculum

WILLIS H. UMBERGER, Chief. Bureau of Farmington State College, Farmington SFederaltoteLocal Relations. State Deportment of Gorham Stole College, Gorham SEducolion, Box 2219, Hertford 06115 University of Moine. Orono S

Connecticut College, New London 5 St:Joteph's College, No. WindhamCentro) Connecticut Stole College, New Britain 5Western Connecticut Stole College, Danbury 5Saint Joseph College, West Hartford 4Southern Connecticut Stole College. New Haven 4University of Bridgeport. MARYLAND

Bridgeport 5 W. THEODORE BOSTON. Director of CertificolionUniversity of Connecticut. Storrs 5 and Accreditation. State Deportment of Educotion,University of Hertford, Hillyer College, Hartford 5 301 West Preston Street. Baltimore 21201Eostern Connecticut Stole College. Willimontic 4 Bowie Stole College. Bowie 1

College of Notre Dome of Maryland, Baltimore 1

DELAWARE

ELIZABETH C. LLOYD, Director of TeacherEducolion and Professional Standards, StoleDeportment of Pubic Instruction. Dover. (Box 697).19901

Delawo re Stole College, Dover 14.University of Deloware, Newark I 3

MAINE

J. WILFRID MORIN, Director, Bureau ol ProfessionalServices. State Deportment of Education. Augusto 04330

Aroostook Stole College. Presque Isle 5

N

40

Columbia Union College. Tokomo Pork, Wosh., D.C. 1Coppin Stole College. Baltimore 1 3Frostburg Stole College, Frostburg 3Goucher College, Baltimore 6Hood College, Frederick 3Morgan Stole College, Baltimore 1

Mount St. Agnes College. Baltimore 1

Saint Joseph College. Emmitsburg 1

Salisbury Stole College. Salisbury . 1

Towson Stole College, Towson 14University of Baltimore 1

Un4ersity of Maryland. College Pork 1 4

Figure 4

COLLEGE AND LOCATIONI Administrat ive Office)

MASSACHUSETTS Curriculum

JOHN P. McGRAIL, Director of Teacher CertificotionCurriculum

Georgian Court College, Lakewood 1

and Placement, State Department of Educotion, Glassboro State College, Glassboro 1 3 6182 Tremont Street, Boston 02111 Jersey City State College. Jersey City 1 3 6

American Intemotionol College, Springfield 1 Monmouth College, West Long Branch 1

Anna Maria College, Poston 1 Newark Stott College, Union 1 4 6Atlantic Union College, South Loncoster 1 Paterson State College, Wayne 1 3 6Boston College, Chestnut KM 1 6 Rider College, TrentonBoston University, Boston 1 6 Rutgers, The State University, New Brunswick 6Brondtis University, Wo Idiom 1 Saint Peter's College, Jersey City 1

Cardinal Cushing College, Brookline 1 Sean Hall University, South Orange 1 6Clark University, Worcester 1 6 Trenton State College, Trenton 1 3 6College of Our Lady of the Elms, Chicopee 1 Upsets, College, East OrangeEastern Nazarene College, Wolloston 1

Emerson Callegii, Boston 1 NEW YORKErnonuel College, Boston 1 VINCENT C. GAllETTA, Director, Division ofGordon College, Wenhon 1 Teacher Educotion and Certification, StateHarvard University, Cambridge 7 Educotion Deportment, Albany 12224Hebrew Teachers College, Brookline 1 Adelphi University. Gorden City, long Island 4 6Lesley College, Cambridge 1 Bonk Street College of Education, New York 10014 7Mt. Holyoke College. South Hodley 1 City University of New YorkNewton College of the Sacred Heart, Newton 1 Brooklyn College, Brooklyn 4 6Nirtheastern Univertity, Boston 1 6 City College, New York 4 6Regis College, Weston 1 Hunter College, New York 10021 4 6Simmons College, Boston 1 6 Queens College, Flushing 4 6Smith College, Northampton 1 College of Mount Saint Vincent, New York 10471 4Springfield College, Springfield 1 6 College of New Rochelle, New Rochelle 4State College, Boston 1 6 College of So,.st Rom, Albany 4 6State College, Bridgewater 1 Columbia University, Teachers College,State College, Fitchburg 1 New York 10027 7Stole College, Frominghom 1 6 Cornell University, Ithaca 7State College, Lowell 1 Dominican College of Blauvelt, Blauvelt 4State College, North Adams 1 Dowling College, Oolalale, Long Island 4 6State College, Solent 1 6 D'Youville College, Buffalo 4Stole College, Westfield 1 Elmira College, Elmira 4 6

. Stole College, Worcester 1 Finch College, New York 4Suffolk University, Boston l Fordharn University, New York 10007 4 6Tufts University, Medford I 6 Holston University, Hempstead, Long Island 4 6University of Massachusetts, Amherst '1 6 Houghton College, Houghton 4Wheaton College, Norton 1 klub) College, Keulto Pork 4Wheelock College, Boston 1 Kings College, Briordiff Manor 4

LodycElf College, Highland Falls 4NEW HAMPSHIRE Long Island University 4

HARVEY HARKNESS, Director of Teacher Education C. W. Post College, Brookville, long Island 4State Department of Ed ucotion, Concord 03301 Comity Catlett*, Brooklyn 4

Keene State College, Keene 16 Meriweother Graduate Division, Brookville,New England College, Henniker 1 Long Island 7Plymouth State College, Plymouth 16 Southampton College, Southampton,University of New Hampshire, Durham 16 Lang Island 4

Zeckendorf GraduateNEW JERSEY Brooklyn 7

ALLAN F. ROSEBROCK, Director of Teacher Manhattan College, Bronx 7Educotion and Certification, Stott Deportment ofEducotion. 225 West Stole Street, Trenton 08625

Manhottonville College of the Sacred Heart,Purchase 4 6

Caldwell College for Women, Coldwell Marymaunt College, Tarrytown 4College of St. Elizobmh, Convent Station Marymount Manhattan College, New York 10021Foirleigh Dickinson University, Rutherford Medoille College, Buffalo 4Fekion College, Lodi Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry 4

5241

COLLEGE AND LOCATIONIAdminietretive MOM

Curriculum

Mills College of Education. New York 10011 4

Molloy Catholic College far Women.Rockville Centre. tong Island 4

Mount Saint Mary College. Newburgh 4Nozoreth College. Rochester 4 6New York University. School of Education,

Now York 4 6Notre Dome College of Staten Island.

Stolen Island 4

Nyack Missionary College, Nyack 4Pace College, New York 4Pace College. Westchester,

Pleasantville 4

Roberts Wesleyan College.North Chili 4

Rosary Hill College. Buffalo 4Russell Sage College, Troy 4 6St. Bonaventure University.

St. Bonoventurt 4

Saint John's University, Jamaica 4Saint Joseph's College for Women, Brooklyn 4

Saint Thomas Aquinas College. Sporkill 4Sarah lowrence College, Bronivilk 4

Skidmore College. Saratoga Springs 4Stole University of New York, Albany 7State University of New York, Male 4 6Stole University of New York,

Stony Brook 4State University College oh

Brockport 4 6Buffalo 4 6Cortland 4 6Ftedonio s 3 4 6Genesee 1 6New Peitz 4 6Oneonta 4 6Oswego 4 6Plattsburgh 4 6Potsdam 4 6Syracuse University. Syracuse 4 6University of Rochester. Rochester 4 6Vassar College. Poughkeepsie 4Wagner College. Staten blond 4 6Yeshiva University

Forkauf Graduate School of Humanities andSocial Sciences. Nevi York 10033 7

Stern College for Women. New York

PENNSYLVANIA

WIllIAM 1. CHAMISWORTH. Director. Bureau ofTeacher Education, Department of Education.P.O. Box 911. Harrisburg 17126

Allegheny College. MeadvilleAlvernia College, Reading

N.3 Program Experimental

42

4

4

Beaver College. JenkintownStole College. BloomsburgBucknell University. lewisburgStole College. CaliforniaCobrini College. RadnorCarlow College, PittsburghCedar Crest College. AllentownChatham College, PittsburghState College. CheyneyState College, OptionCollege Misericordio, DallasDuquesne University, PittsburghStole College. East StroudsburgEastern Baptist College. Si. David%Stole College. EdinboroENzobedstown College, ElizabethtownGeneva College, hover FallsGettysburg College, GettysburgGreve City College, Grove CityGwynedd Mercy College. Gwynedd VolleyHoly Family College. TorresdoleImmoculato College. InwnoculatoIndiana University of Pennsylvania. IndianaJuniata College. HuntingdonStole College. Kutztowntebonon Volley College, AnnviNeLehigh University. BethlehemStore College. lock Haven4101111119 College. ValiomsportStott College. MonsiieldMorywood College. ScrantonMercyhur st College. ErieStole College. MillersvilleMotovion College. BethlehemMuhlenberg College. AllentownPennsylvania State University. University PorkPoint Pork College, PittsburghRosemont College. RosemontSt. Francis College. torettoSt. Joseph's College. PhiladelphiaSoon Hill College, GreensburgSlot*Collegt. ShippensburgState College. Slippery RothStole College. West ChesterTemple University. Philadelphia

Thiel College. GreenvilleUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

,University of Pittsburgh, PittsburghVille Mario College, Erie%Roney* University. VillenovoWaynesburg College, WaynesburgWestminster College. New WilmingtonWilkes College. WilliesBarreWilson College. Chansbenburg

Curriculum

4

4

4

434444

44

4

44

4434

4444444

47

434

4444

4444344

44

4

4

4434

4

44

44

44

4

Figure 4

RHODE ISLANDKENNETH P. MELLOR. Chief. Teacher Education andCerhficotion. State Deportment of Education. RogerWilhoms Bldg.. Hayes St.. Providence 029D8

Barrington College. ProvidenceBrown University. ProvidenceRhode Island College. ProvidenceSalve Regina College. NewportUniversity of Rhode Island. Kingston

COLLEGE AND 1.0CATIONAdministra live Office)

Curriculum

7

I 5 6

VERMONT

ROBERT B. VAIL. Director of Teacher Education ServicesState Deportment of Education. Montpelier 05602

Cost leton Stote College. Cost leton'Johnson State College. Johnson'Lyndon State College. LyndonvilleMiddlebury College. MiddleburySt. John the Provider. RutlandUniversity of Vermont and State

Agricultural College. Burlington

Curriculum

Pending final approval in 197D.

Pennsylvania on the other. New Jersey issues only onecertificate, and it is good for life. All you have to do in NewJersey is graduate from a four-year teacher education programand receive the initial regular certificate. You can drop outof teaching for 20 years and come back, and that certificateis as valid as the day it was given. No refresher courses oranything else are required. Pennsylvania, on the other hand,has a three-step certificate; Instructional I, II, and III. Thebaccalaureate graduate receives the Instructional I certificate,which is good for five years. During that period he mustearn 24 additional credits and have three years of successfulteaching, and he will receive an Instructional II certificate.After three years of successful experience under thatcertificate and with a master's degree, he can then receivethe Instructional III certificate. So we have this rather widerange of certification regulations and issuances even amongthis small group of states in the northeast.

In getting a State Board of Education or a statelegislature to adopt either a formal contract, as in the interstatecompact, or .a more informal agreement such as this, certainpolitical questions have to be faced. Educators, in general,I think, tend to overlook the political facts of life. If

43

,

NORTHEASTERN STATESELEMENTARY TEACHER RECIPROCITY COMPACT

The New England States, Delaware. Maryland. New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania

REQUEST FOR RECIPROCAL ELEMENTARY TEACHER CERTIFICATION (Form ID

NOTE, See ide for an eaplsoation o/ the Reciprocity Compact.

INSTRUCTIONS

I. Use only for those students who have completed your entire program for the preparation of elementary school teach.et; including Hideo teacbing. as approve y your own State Department of Education.

2. Check carefully the proper levels) for which a student has prepared and for which he is being recommended.3. Note that only the president or dean of the institution or the responsible bead of the education unit signs.4. Preparing institution. at student's request, sends form to certification officer of the stare where candidate expects

to teach.

5. A health certificate is required in some states.

TO: CERTIFICATION OFFICER. STATE OF

From: State ofMane o/ Instigation

STUDENT PERSONAL DATA

Name Date of DinhFirst Middle Maiden Lass

AddressMo Street City Slate

Ate you a citizen of the United States? Yes No If not, please complete the affidaviton the side when requesting certification in New York.

INSTITUTION STATEMENT

This is to certify that the above-named student has fully completed this institution's program in elementaryeducation approved by the Department of Education of the State ofHe (she) received the degree of onand is bereby recommended Jor teaching at the following level(s). Date

Check appropriate square(s)

Nursery, kindergarten, primary (1.3)

Nursery, kindergarten, elementary (1.8)

Kinderganen, elementary ( I -E)

Elementary (I Br (SEALjOther

Date Signature

Title(President. Dean. or Education Head)

An elementary certificate issued by New York State permits the holder to teach Grades 1.6 only.NOTE: These forms are available at the Education Department of each of the II member states.

44 Figure 5

%le

3

ELEMENTARY TEACHER CERTIFICATION

Eleven Northeastern States Reciprocity PlanGraduates of Approved Elementary Teacher Education Programs

In 1957 plan was adopted whereby graduates of elementary teacher preparation programs inthe New England States, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland are vented an Ele-mentary Teacher's Certificate by the receiving state, provided that (1) the candidate holds at least

bachelor's degree, (2) the program is approved by.the State Department of Education in the statein which the institution is located, and (3) the institution is accredited by regional or nationalaccrediting agency. Under this plan it is not required that the candidate have had teaching es-perience abet than ful student leaching.

AFFIDAVIT FOR NONCITIZEN

Have you declared your intention of becoming a citizen of the United States according to the legal

-requirements/ 0 Yea 0 No

When? Where)

(Signed)

(Date) (Pretext Address)

State of

Cowry o/}SS

the applicant whose true signatureappears above, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the facts set forth in the above statementsare true.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this-day of 19

Comnasionet of DadsNotary P midis

45

.11

your state is one like Florida, where 70 per cent of theteachers are prepared out of state, it is to your advantageto use that argument to attract qualified people to your state.If, on the other hand, your state produces far more teachersthan you can absorb and you are an exporter of teachers,again you use this information to develop your argumentswithin your state legislature in order to get reciprocalagreements enacted.

I think that in the northeast we have come to theconclusion that as long as the home state approves thecandidate for certification in that state, we are willing tosay that the candidate is good enough for us. But again, thereare discrepancies among the eleven states regarding theapproving of teacher preparation programs. An elementaryteacher can be certified in Massachusetts with as little assix professional credits in education. On the other hand,New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware use veryrigid controls in approving teacher education programs beforethey are recognized by the state as suitable or acceptablefor preparing teachers.

Reference was made to the NASDTEC standards.You have a copy of the 1971 edition: Standards for StateApproval of Teacher Education, by the National Associationof State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification.Each college in New Jersey that wants to prepare teachersmust do so according to these standards. This was adoptedin April of 1967 by our State Board of Education and is thebasis on which we approve all teacher education programs.NASDTEC standards are for program approval, notinstitutional approval, and there is a distinction.Through NCATE, or through the Regional Association suchas North Central, the evaluation teams evaluate the institution,but within a single institution you could have a very strongmath department and a very weak English department andthey might produce excellent math teachers and poor Englishteachers. Through NASDTEC you look at each program

46

separately and in these standards there is a section devotedto exceptional children. They are listed in seven different areas:emotionally disturbed, hearing impaired, learning disabilities,mentally retarded, physically handicapped, visually impaired,and speech correction. There are general standards forexceptional children which this committee felt must be metby any institution preparing people in any of the specificfields of special education. One of these is: "The programshall provide competency in individual, and in groupclassroom management procedures appropriate to exceptionalchildren such as: (a) use of diagnostic procedures to identifythe learning difficulties of the exceptional child; (b) theability to develop and implement prescriptive programs basedon diagnostic findings; and (c) knowledge of techniquesutilized in behavioral control." (page 39) These are the kindsof standards that are dealt with, and nowhere in the entiredocument will you find reference to a certain number ofcredits in any particular type of course, foundation, methodsand materials, tests and measurements, and so on. It isclearly spelled out that a program may be approved eventhough separate and discrete courses are not identifiable.

It is possible for the experiences of a teacher intraining to be incorporated within existing blocks of time. Forexample, one of our institutions in New Jersey has a Juniorand Seniorfour-semester sequence in the preparation ofelementary teachers. It is referred to as Curriculum I,Curriculum II, Curriculum III, and Curriculum IV. An evaluationteam must determine if the teaching of reading, arithmetic,science, social studies, and so on are included in thepreparation sequence. But just by looking at a list of coursetitles on a transcript you have no idea what Curriculum I,II, III or IV might actually include. I think that in New Jerseywe have been exceedingly pleased with the results of thisinterstate agreement.

In conclusion, I would only want to echo what hasbeen said before and that is I do not think any one of you

47

has the answer. Nor do I think any one of you has a bettercertification code than any of the other five states representedhere. I think if you are willing to work from that premise andagree that responsible educators hold similar positions inthe other states and that these are honest, honorable people,then you can move very easily and very quickly to somekind of agreement that will be of mutual benefit to all.

Legal And LegislativeAspects of Certification

Dr. Mitchell WendellWendell and SchwanWashington, D. C.

Procedures for certifying members of the educationalprofessions can and do vary. Standards, criteria and methodsfor determining eligibility also take several different routes,such as prescription of preparatory program content,performance measurements, and evaluation of previousteaching or other experience of applicants. Regardless ofthe particulars of any arrangement, however, it is essentialto recognize that certification is a regulatory tool. Acertificate Is a license. Its possession is a prerequisite to theholding of a teaching or allied professional job in the publicschools and, in some jurisdictions, in private schools as well.

Some states include a few eligibility requirementsin their statutes. The most familiar of these are citizenship,good moral character, and the completion of coursesin local history and government. In the main, however,the state laws give broad discretion to Boards and Departments i

of Education in setting the specific requirements byadministrative regulation. This has sometimes led StateDepartment personnel and members of the education

48

professions to forget that they exercise only derivedauthority in passing upon qualifications for certificationand that in effect they are acting on the basis of legislativelyconferred powers.

A certificate is a legal instrument entitling the holderto perform the professional or occupational functions coveredby it in the school systems of the state. Procedures for issuance,and the document itself, should be considered from severalpoints of view. The one most familiar to the majority of youis that of the administrative official who, pursuant to thestatutes of his state, can determine some or all of the elementsof qualifications which applicants must meet or whosecolleagues in another part of the state education agencyhave this function. Another point of view is that of the localsuperintendent or school board members who must considerthe certificated status of applicants for employment. Thethird perspective is that of the teachers and supportprofessionals who apply for or hold credentials. Still afourth set of considerations are those affecting the parentsand children who rely on the certification system as part ofthe apparatus by which qualified personnel for the schoolsare sought to be assured.

Assuming that statutes continue to delegate thesubstantive authority over certification requirements toadministrative bodies, interstate mobility can be achieved inone of three ways: unilateral action, administrativeunderstandings, and binding commitments of an interstatecharacter.

The first of these has been by far the commonest todate. As a practical matter, it is possible for an educationalprofessional graduated from an academic program in anotherstate or with experience there to obtain a certificate. Thecontrolling factors are the extent to which the administrativeagency is willing to allow out-of-staters to obtain certificatesand the conditions that it will impose. On the first score,the general practice is liberality; on the second, many

observers would characterize the situation less charitably.Minor differences abound in numbers of credits requiredin this or that field and even in specific courses. The resultis to compel many well-prepared applicants, including thosewho have demonstrated competence by years of satisfactoryperformance on the job, to take additional academic workat significant expense and inconvenience. Many teachers andsupport professionals suffer through these needless obstaclecourses because they, must have employment or becausethey want badly enough to continue to make their careersin the schools rather than in some other employment.However, many people leave the profession or limit theiremployment seeking to jurisdictions which impose fewer'arbitrary requirements. In special education, theseobservations are particularly apt because it continues tobe a sellers' market with a chronic short supply of qualifiedteachers, psychologists,.social workers, therapists andother clinicians.

The second means of dealing with qualifications ofout-of-state persons to receive certificates is through interstateadministrative agreements or understandings among thecertification agencies of some or all of the states. A verylimited number of such agreements has existed on a regionalbasis. The substance of these agreements can be anythingupon which the parties agree, provided that they keep withinthe area of discretion conferred upon the respectivecertification authorities by the statutes of the party states.The effect and standing of these administrative agreementsare duch more narrowly confined.

We Americans have a great respect for the writtenword and for legal-looking documents. Accordingly, manypeople assume that anything that looks like a contract or aformal agreement is binding and has the force of law.Such is not the case.

Administratively based agreements on certificationare really nothing more than statements of intention. They

50

61

can be considered moral commitments on the part .of thosewho sign them, but there is no legal obstacle to theirrepudiation or violation. Unleis specifically and sufficientlyauthorized by statute, an administrator cannot bind his state.By the exercise of self-restraint he may forebear to use thediscretion that his Legislature conferred upon him or mayexercise it only in the ways that he has promised hiscounterparts in other states, but neither the certificationagencies in other states, hiring school systems who halveentered into contracts with prospective teachers nor thewould-be beneficiary applicants for certificatesobtain any enforceable rights.

The history of interstate administrative agreementsin this field makes the point quite clear. These agreementshave sometimes functioned and sometimes not. Successorstate superintendents and certification directors havesometimes been unaware of the agreements made by theirpredecessors or have chosen not to follow them. Differencesin interpretation have either gone undetected or unresolvedbecause, in the final analysis, each administrator was sole judgeof his own policies and procedures, and such rights asapplicants might have had rested on the statutes orregulations of the individual statenot on the agreement.

There is only one example to date of the third typeof process for interstate acceptance of certificate applicants.It is the Interstate Agreement on Qualification of EducationPersonnel. Before we turn to it, however, a word should besaid about the technique of reciprocity which characterizessome other licensing fields. Reduced to its simplest terms,reciprocity is a device by which one state will confer exactlythe same privilege on persons from another state that thesecond state accords to persons of the first. For example,each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the severalAmerican territories and possessions has a statute extendinga nonresident driving privilege to every operator of a privatepassenger motor vehicle who holds a valid driver's license

51

62*

from another state, territory or possession. The expresscondition is that the state from which the driver holds hislicense must give exactly the same privilege to licenseesof the state extending reciprocity.

In the practice of law, reciprocity is more limitedbecause only some states have authorizing statutes; becauseadmission to the bar of the second state is generally limitedto attorneys who have practiced in the state of original licensurefor a minimum perio4 (usually five years); and because muchhigher fees are charged those who apply under the reciprocitystatute than are charged to domestic applicants.

Either the motor vehicle or the lawyer licenseapproach would be used in certificationoreducationalprofessionals from out of state. But in fact, what is usuallyreferred to as "reciprocity" in the teaching and alliedprofessions is not reciprocity at all. Rather it is either admissionto licensure on the basis of an agreed set of interstate standardsor on the basis of agreed procedures for making determinationsas to one or more of the qualifying factors, such as sufficiencyof educational preparation.

As indicated earlier, the Interstate Agreement onQualification of Educational Personnel uses the third approachto interstate action. The Interstate Agreement is in form astatute of each participating state and a contract among allparticipating states. It confers rights and it authorizes theauthorities of each party state to make implementing

I contracts with one another which bind the states. Thiscan be done because the Interstate Agreement onQualification of Educational Personnel is a statute and,unlike an interstate administrative agreement, has the forceof law and derives from action of that part of the stategovernment which has the constitutional powerto bind the state.

These,Jegal differences among the several methodsof achieving action on interstate applications for certificatesmay appear theoretical and of little consequence until one

52

6,11'

considers them in terms of the objects of the several processes.These objects are the millions of educational professionalsnow in the actual or potential school manpower pool andthe more than one thousand colleges and universities whichprepare persons for teaching and the allied professions.The interstate applicants are not only those who come fromanother state but those men and women from your ownstate who have gone or now go to institutions of higher learningin other jurisdictions and who now or in the future comehome to work in the school districts of their own home states.The objects are also the colleges and universities in yourstates that are trying to do a good and responsive job inpreparing professionals for service in the school systemsof the midwest and the nation. With very limited exceptions,it is impossible for the would-be school professionals toprepare themselves according to the requirements of morethan one jurisdiction, and it is almost as impracticable foran institution of higher learning to prepare its studentsaccording to the requirements of any jurisdiction otherthan the one in which it is situated.

Each of the three basic approaches to interstateeligibility for certification either results in or has failed toinhibit considerable interstate mobility. The unilateral approachleads to the issuance of many certificates to people preparedor experienced in other states, but it requires muchunnecessary and costly retreading of tires that most educatorsand laymen would probably believe to be in excellent shape.The interstate administrative agreement may or may notsubject applicants to retreading, depending on the agreementcontents. But such agreements are not legally enforceableby the applicants whom they are supposed to benefit, bythe school systems who would like to hire them, or byanybody else. Consequently, they have tended to be unstable.On the other hand, an interstate agreement that has a statutoryand contractual base has the same standing as thecertification law itself.

53

.. '"

..,

,'. .

. ...

0irda -Mode!..

Special Education'e "61-We

.

ii°s:ogijnel'afc;!:}!'''r*.C!1:'i!:;C..i..)'+--;c11 proposed: recorders

zosed,.similarities and "co*?differences.

special education These models were developed in theindividual state meetings with input from the interaction

'meeting:. After the six pràposèd models were presented theInstitute

Tentative Midwest AdministrativeAgreement of Special Educational Personnel Certification

'inbv. EST; iNuir!,141§T-: TENTATIVE

AGREEMENT

br;SPECIAL EDUCATION

The Tentative Administrative Agreement of SpecialEducation Personnel Certification between the MidwestStates (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)

the'.

shall be organized within:

'.

,

....

1. Applicants for.: state certific.ation from any StateParty .kith is agreeMentishall be granted the..initial:' certificate a graduate of a'

in-state pregram..APPlicarits- shall .haVe 'met the following

requirements:! .

Teacher Preparatory, ProgramsMc:4:0-f the': teachers: wish to apply for

certifi4tien in another state on the basis_oftheir educationalbackgMuds and who. use this agreement will have .

, :.completed their .teacher; preparatOryipregraMS'but will have;Ii.itleor,Mi teaching eicperierke.LHOWeVer,,:it ShOUld bedotedthatAhere:Wnething: to prevent an.: experienced teacher40100plYIng:for'0.':Certificateif..he or she meets the'edkational'iiijUirethentS*Iiith may be iMPosed; 'consistentwith the Midwest'Administra'tive Agreement of :Special

-.ECIUcation; The only Certificatei which maybe received pursuant

to this agreerrietit:aretliiie.at'Ahellitial.regular" level.

:stViodificationsihf Paragraph 3 and InterstateAgreeMent on QUalificationi of EdUcational

:

1

be ,','i,iii i t t OAwhich66ifi,:,C11C)::t9nt'

'':'; .:::::::r:ifi'il:011iti;i:13:1:::,:

a: ,P.::fdct:111.Cta:- s't.

who

a.1

able tooffer

anus "'I

me

A reernent.f.1509,a."-r

iii h would', g ,i,

.1 d 00t i-raon 9

i naCkgi-,99r

aziin

at.:,

;.. "''' toe, teaching.7,

eniig?'

ijorl 9*.,,.,-reet

,,.ac, ,.0

r1

1

ita:a5 ,... ..,..

-,),e

; inn oY,..,,,,-ccrod

.states

.,i4,,i

botitio7.,..,,a :OreParf :

reel,bylni

Os, .,,!;1;',Ii,'

APR'

.11-1Sti..,- iiiii:,FP-.

em

iri, t f, saesomi

,n

eacher.and:thatrecognition'

,,,,.,_,,,,,..,c,.,,. _, .,i.,,s, ,. ,t,..,,,,,,.:;,,-. ,.:3 ,,icientto 4 Otifli interstate,

c4nce;.o

eserVO el(riglitsIto':denylappliariti.:Whb, a'not;',Corne-.from-,,..Finallit;:-It:shbukCliencited.,,that!t reein ,s tes - :

ie'CiXd7iirlifri65filitgiliiiiaiete'iSresvient'7o4ulit.el:itiii,jiiiii-e:Itil:iiii°4.:°1:::

''iiii4;A

'#'..'.

A,.,-.,6'.,Takr-,..,

=.ny.

as1)0iiitiatP!;it--1.061y.:!:,'Z',...7k.fiit,;.&Via

.., .. at:AOC!?:..

toi'...

,,..iii;e,-..roven15.,'nil4n

'

.:this..:information

07procedures!,,,,,i

:: '..

te

'programs

6er;'',..'bid-

.

tiji:is,#/;

in '".

plicants can obtain only,.initial regular certificates;;under'this agreement The' negotiators of the agreement

6i*V,tli0:0610*4iits*a6e0certificates may offer044)00rfiin joi.;;Specialiie0 requirements

justifiably can vary from 'state to state' Of' course rmo state = .

iani;'t't 1sa

.

,.th

helast,,se, 1,. t: :%,

ca tejbei nt offered for? recognition' -,;

esi3ecttvely in order to make tthe; appltcatton of the'tgreement provisions astclear as`possible to those instances

n ;,tOtAl1,9g0:;Ike:!:#11:1941;!!;;C:01:-:Tiro,,PFARP9P.:;:;;;;;,21.

g.fi. ...'1:icliilrii,iqati*?N,ifk0,(TiPv.r,it:5F,) ".9,4,a,

r.e.mpions!;Ao..,,,,,s#9;agrrernenI:'04;;ajoatiO.filipt9_1,(4*.

agreement'shall be tet e1 tate,parttes o,Atlits !a reerneti,

Illinois State Group Report

RecorderDr. Harold R. PhelpsIllinois State University

The Illinois delegation in its first discussion periodspent a considerable amount of time discussing the certificationsituation in their own state in relation to the presentationsgiven during the general sessions. Several things emergedduring the discussion. Because of recent legislation, thepractice of giving provisional certificates is being discontinuedin Illinois. Until recently out-of-state special educationteachers were certified on the basis of evaluation byconsultants in the Handicapped Children Section of theOffice of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Thisfunction has been placed in the State Teacher CertificationBoard. In doubtful cases resolution is achieved throughconsultation with appropriate personnel in the HandicappedChildren Section. Thirty-two semester hours of course workdistributed over six areas are required for certification inspecial education. Specialization within the 32 hours isrequired for teaching various types of handicapped children.At the present time, Illinois does not have 'enabling legislationpermitting it to sign the contract for membership in the"Interstate Agreement on Qualification of EducationalPersonnel." Plans are being made to introduce enablinglegislation in the1972 session of the General Assembly.Illinois does award full certification to teachers from otherstates who have completed programs in university and collegeprograms approved by the National Council for the

Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE).At the end of the first session the group agreed

upon the following statements:1. The"state should award a temporary certificate to

63

an individual who has earned at least the bachelor'sdegree from an NCATE-approved institution andhas completed a state-approved special educationprogram.2. Upon the completion of two years' successfulexperience in his area of specialization he would

. receive a standard special certificate.The interaction group included participants from

all the states covered by the Institute and New York. Eachstate reported on its own status with respect to certificationand reciprocity. Of the six states in the region covered bythe Institilte, only Wisconsin is a member of the InterstateCompact. For permanent certification of all teachers Michiganrequires a planned program of 18 hours beyond thebachelor's degree and Indiana, a master's degree. It wasreported that a study in New York shows that a fifth-yearrequirement tends to water down the quality of graduatework. With the exception of Michigan, NCATE approval ofteacher training programs is used as a standard in approvingout-of-state teacher qualifications. It is likely that Michiganwill follow suit. Concern was expressed that with an oversupplyof teachers, reciprocity might result in lower qualitypersonnel being encouraged to go to other states. It isestimated that about 20 per cent of teachers in a given statehave been prepared in other states, which jibes with statisticson population mobility in the country as.a whole. It wasagreed that this is not a serious problem and should notbe an item for consideration in establishing reciprocalrelations with other states. Concern was expressed that thereare too many teacher training programs and that availableresources are not being used as efficiently as they should be.As an example, there are currently 110 colleges and universitiesin New York that have teacher education programs.Considerable discussion centered around the legality ofstates using NCATE approval as their criterion for acceptingteachers certified in other states. Some authorities believe

64

that since participation in NCATE accreditation is voluntaryon the part of colleges and universities, discriminationcould be charged if a state accepts such approval as thesole criterion. In light of this it was suggested that each stateeducation agency should have the responsibility for approvingcollege and university teacher education programs. Aquestion was raised concerning the competency of stateeducation agencies to set standards, particularly in specialeducation. It was pointed .out that a-manual has been publishedby the National Association of State Directors of TeacherEducation Certification and includes standaitls for certifyingteachers of exceptional children. A copy of the manual has beengiven to each Institute participant. The opinion was expressedthat NASDTEC may be at least a partial answer to maintainingand upgrading state education agency standards for teachercertification. The group concluded that there weretwo areas of agreement:

1. It would be desirable_for states to move in thedirection of joining the Interstate Compact.2. Should a state educational agency use thecompletion of a program at an NCATE-accreditedinstitution as the sole criterion in certifying a teacherfrom another state it is likely that a legal challengeof some sort will be precipitated. Consequently,state agency accreditation should be theprimary criterion.In the final meeting of the Illinois group some time

was given to reports from the interaction groups. Thereseemed to be general agreement that the six states involvedin the Institute should move toward becoming members ofthe Interstate Compact. A considerable amount of time wasspent discussing various implications of the Compact withDr. Mitchell Wendell. Since Illinois and some of the otherstates participating in the Institute do not have enablinglegislation to enter into contracts with other states in theInterstate Compact it was decided that it would be desirable

65

r1

for the six states to proceed in special education towardentering into administrative agreements which can be madewithout enabling legislation. The following specificrecommendations were made:

1. 'The six states participating in the Institute shouldmove as soon as possible to become members ofthe Interstate Compact.2. In the meantime, immediate steps should betaken among the six states to set up administrativeagreements for reciprocity in certificating specialeducation personnel.3. Administrative agreements should be basedon the fact that

a. the institution from which the applicantwas graduated and the special educationprogram which he completed had stateapproval at the time of the applicant'sgraduation and/or completionof requirements.b. the appliCant meets all non-educationalrequirements and all requiremerits notrelating to teaching experience of the stateto which application is being made.

Indiana State Group Report

RecorderDr. Philip PeakIndiana University

The Indiana group noted that our certification areasand titles of certificates are slightly different from those ofother states. Our "Provisional Certificate" is the initialcertificate issued on the basis of a bachelor's degree whichincludes a planned program in the area of certification that

66

cj'41,41-41

1k.

. .i .'`.....,., .

..., 06.

1+

has been approved by the State Teacher Training andLicensing Commission. Certificates are available in the areas of:

BlindDeafEmotionally DisturbedMentally RetardedOrthopedic and Special Health ProblemsPartially SightedSpeech and Hearing Therapy

There is also a graduate certificate for the Director ofSpecial Education which requires certification in one or moreof the areas above and 20 semester hours of graduate work inSpecial Education as well as some other requirements, indudingthe master'idegree. We also noted that Indiana's requirementof a master's degree after five years of experience isdifferent kohl the other states.

The preparation of special education teachers iscomparatively new, therefore we feel that reciprocity betweenstates should be available only to those completing morerecent programs of preparation and not to those who mayhave been certified in the early days of certification in specialeducation by "grandfather" clauses. A good date wouldbe 1964, the Interstate Compact date.

There are several ways a teacher of special educationcan be prepared. But each method requires a plannedprogram with all parts integrated and all objectives met. Thisdoes not permit the cafeteria approach to preparation inwhich the recipient selects parts from several institutions.We can accept as equivalent the initial certification issuedthose students who have completed a planned programculminating in a bachelor's degree from an institution whoseprogram has been approved by its home state. We could notlegally certify in those areas not offered in Indiana butthis poses no problem because there would be no positionrequiring such certification in our state: We would haveno trouble certifying a narrow area for a student coming with

67

a broader certificate than we offer. Even though standards (

of admission may be different the final quality of thegraduate of state-approved programs would probablynot differ significantly among states.

As we worked together it seemed the differencesamong states became less crucial as we accepted severalbroad principles within which the details of reciprocity wouldbe worked out. These were as follows and we think thereis considerable agreement among the states.

1. The planned program for certification will be thebasis for certification only when taken in aninstitution authorized by the State Departmentof Public Instruction to offer such a program.2. Reciprocity applies only to initial certificatesbased on bachelor's degrees.3. States which may not have a certificate coveringall areas in the certificate from another state shouldissue an initial certificatf for those areas ofcertification included and available in that state.

Indiana is signing an Interstate contract withKentucky and has therefore accepted its conditions.However in paragraph 4 we would prefer to deletethat portion dealing with experienceas a substitutefor the planned program of preparation. We feelthat experience needs some means of evaluationnot now available for use before we can accept itas a substitute for a planned, program of preparation.The following items may not be wholly in agreement

among the states but we accept them.1. We would hold reciprocity to initial certificationwith no deficiences. Those states where requirementsexist beyond the initial certificate for professionalcertification are free to add such requirementsafter issuing the initial certificate.2. We feel there should be no certification validfor life.

68

I77

c.

3. We believe each state should do its best tomeasure incommensurables for teaching such aspersonality, attitudes, psychological competencies,motivations, etc., and make these measures a partof its program of preparation.After all the discussion we agreed such a program for,

reciprocity should be implemented as soon as possible,and it might provide a model for all other areas to follow.

A committee should be established of representativesfrom State Certification offices and Special Education programswith the following functions:

\ 1. Write up a rationale for this reciprocity to beused for support in each state where legislature orother enabling action may be needed.2. To establish further guidelines other than thoseof this Institute if needed for carrying a reciprocity.3. To collect data on the use made of reciprocityby teachers and schools.4. To study the data collected and at the end of afive year period make recommendations to a groupsimilar to members of this Institute on whatfurther action might be taken.We feel that in most if not all the six states

represented, the certification officers or their officialorganizations can probably begin the program immediatelyon an experimental basis through administrative actionand we would encourage them to do so. It would probablybe wise for each state to set up its own advisory committeeto study the problems locally and assist in its implementation.

69

Iowa State Group Report

RecorderDr. Orrin NearhoofState Department of Education

As a point of departure, the group reviewed theseveral models for reciprocity presented during the first sessionsand attempted to identify the salient elements in each.

After this review of the concepts and principlessupporting each model, the group accepted, for discussionpurposes, the Interstate Agreement on the Qualification ofEducational Personnel. The group also examined carefullythe codicil to the principal contract, which will accommodateclassroom teachers of special education.

There was considerable discussion on two keyelements of the principal contract:

(1) state approval of teacher education programs(2) teaching experience and certificationThe discussion on the process of state approval of

teacher education programs incorporated references toNorth Central Association accreditation, accreditation by theNational Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education,and possible standards which would be employed inapproving special education programs.

The following elements concerning a suggestedmodel for reciprocity surfaced during the. discussion:

(1) Any agreement should affect all classroomteachers(2) Iowa should seek legislative enactment of theInterstate Agreement on the Qualification ofEducational Personnel(3) !f the legislation is not adopted, the stateeducation agency should implement, withnecessary modifications, the basic components

P.,

of the principal contract(4) There should be a coordinating body among theparticipating states which would maintaincontinuing supervision of programs and new areasof certificatiori.Asa result of interactions with other state

representatives, the group was able to develop a greaterawareness of the problems in program development,state certification, and new program thrusts in specialeducation within the several states. The interaction sessionprovided an excellent integrative experience for final discussionand development of the Iowa model which is attached.

Iowa ModelElement I. Any model for the interstate movement of

educational personnel should affect all classes ofpersons whose primary function is instructionof students.

Element II. Phase 1. Obtain legislative enactment of theInterstate Agreement on theQualification of EducationalPersonnel.

Phase 2. Execution ofa contract (or theprincipal contract and the codicil tothe contract covering certificationof teachers) in which the implicitnessof teachers of special education isclearly! Understood.Alternative 1. If Element II is not

achieved, the stateeducation agenciesshould seek stateapproval of the basicconcepts of thecontract (e.g.paragraph 3a stateapproved program in

ie

special education andparagraph 4acertificate in specialeducation andexperience in teachingspecial education.)

Element III. The establishment of an advisory body amongthe six states which would maintain coordinationof program direction and areas of certification.

Element IV. Make use of an expanded group of possiblelobbyists from the area of special educationto help secure enactment.

Allied Issues1. A common initial regular certificatea provisionallicense which requires evidence of demonstrated competencefor renewal or for the issuance of the next levelof certification.2. Some identification for the graduates of a program whichqualifies under the interstate contract.

IOWA REACTION TO PROPOSED MODELMidwest Administrative Agreement in Special EduCationPersonnel Certification

Areas of Complete Agreement,Applicants for state certification from any State party to thisagreement shall be granted the initial certificate grantedto a graduate of a similar in-state program.The State parties to this agreement shall support theInterstate Compact.The Administrative Agreement of Special EducationPersonnel Certification shall establish an Advisory Board toevaluate and to propose revisions to Said agreement. (Seebelow for suggested makup and role)An evaluation program of the said administrative agreementshall be established and conducted by the Stateparties to this agreement.

72

Areas of Possible. AgreementWe generally agree with items two (2) (with the insertionof agreement in lieu of contract), three (3) and four (4) of theproposed agreement, except our preferenCe is that thisagreement would affect all classes of teachers.

Areas for Further ConsiderationDoes this agreement affect all classes of special edutcationpersonnelteachers, clinicians, school psychologists? Thisshould be clarified before final adoption of the agreement.

Areas for Future DirectionEstablish a feasible time-line for the implementation of theagreement once a final document has been developedand accepted.

SUGGESTED ROLE AND MAKE-UP OF ANADVISORY BOARDMAKE-UP

One representative from each state education agencyadministrative unit responsible for teacher educationand certification 6One representative from each state education agencyadministrative unit responsible for special education 6One public school representative from each state (a teacherof special education) 6Two college and/or university representatives from eachstate, selected by and from those institutions offeringstate-approved programs in special education 12 total 30

ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY1. Maintain continuous review and evaluation of the agreement2. Seek necessary financial support

---I-Review and suggest processes and standards for programapprovaibrstate-education agencies,4. Maintain a continuous review of-issues_ and trends inprograms designed to serve handicapped children-

STATE RESPONSIBILITYEach state party to the agreement should assume theresponsibilities for publication, transmittal and filing of

O

t

73

AVA

state-approved programs as outlined in paragraph 6for the contract model.Suggested modifications on paragraph 6 are as follows:

Paragraph 6. Publication, Transmittal, and FilingThe designated state official of each State party to thisagreement shall:(a) Publish a list of all programs which he has classified asacceptable for the purposes of the Administrative Agreement.(b) File or cause to be filed in. his office and in the officeof the central state records keeping agency copies of each listpublished or received by him covering programs in hisown State and all other States party to this agreement.(c) Transmit to each designated state official of the otherStates party to this agreement at least two copies of thelist of programs classified as acceptable by the appropriateeducation agency of his State.(d) Upon request, make a copy of any list of acceptableprograms for his State available to any person. Such copy shallbe furnished either without charge or with a charge nohigher than necessary to cover the actual cost of furnishing it.(e) Revise the list for his own State or secure its revisiononce in.each calendar year, and file and transmit each revision,properly dated to show the date of publication, in the samemanner as required for an original list pursuant tooitems (a)-(c)of this program. Revisions shall be as.of July 1 of each year.(f), If at any time in the interim between the yearly revisionsof a list, the designated state official finds that a program isnewly acceptable or has newly ceased to be acceptable,he shall publish this-information_ and make transmittals andfilings thereof, in the same manner as for a yearly revision.

-1!

74

Michigan State Group Report

RecorderDr. Hubert P. WatsonWayne State University

The Michigan group approached the task ofrecommending a "reciprocity" model with the developmentof a general consensus on each of two important positionswhich tended to underlie subsequent discussionsand recommendations.

1. There was agreement that special educationcertification should be an integral part of the"regular" teacher certification program:. It wasacknowledged that in Michigan there had beensome movement toward licensing outside thegeneral teacher certification program with schoolsocial workers and psychologists. In addition, it wasnoted that some pressure was also in evidencetoward the latter direction for speech correctionists.It was concluded, however, that the more pervasivetrend appeared to be in the direction of integrationwithin the general teacher certification program.2. After some discussion, a consensus developedwithin the Michigan group favoring the simplerequirement that the adopted 'model shouldinclude the state program approval requirementbased upon the baccalaureate.The basic principles were accepted in the initial

discussion, but concerns were expressed regarding the needfor some program review by outside authorities. It wasnoted that Interaction Group I appeared to develop a majority,view that NCATE or NASDTEC review should be requiredin addition to state department approval. There appearedto be expressed concern that "total reciprocity" would

75

,J

- ;

"commit all to the weakest state." In contrast, the Michigangroup appeared to feel that agreement would not bepossible unless there was a general willingness to "trust"the certification authorities in the various states. The apparentdifferences in views appeared to this recorder to be relatedto varying concepts of the meaning of the initial teachingcertificate. The Michigan group felt it unreasonable to expectthat the initial teacher credential offers a guarantee of thequality of teachers from different institutions since quality willvary within a state and among states. The.assessment of therequired level of teacher effectiveness is to be made by thelocal employing official. Rather than recommend a requirementfor NCATE or other outside review, the group concludedthat" each of the states should accept a responsibility\ for continuing examination of teacher preparationcurricula and certification programs.

A further Michigan group consensus developed\regarding the nature of the proposed agreement. Upon

completion of the degree and the approved program, theindividual teacher should be eligible to receive the initialregUlar teaching credential in any of the states within theagreement. It was noted that Interaction Group I viewedfavorably the idea that a graduating teacher might receivean identification card showing the major field. Upon receiptof an offer of employment, the teacher could then requestthat the receiving state department of education processthe initial regular credential.

The MiChigan group noted that a recommendationfor the concept of an approved program based upon possessionof a degree left the department of Education open to proceedwith the CompactshOrtly to be considered by theMichigan Legislatureor to proceed with an appropriateagreement. It was concluded that an agreement basedupon program approval could be implemented at an earlydate; it was anticipated that several years might elapse beforeall the.concerned states could enact enabling legislation

76

for the Compact.The group concluded that a strong evaluation feature

should be built into the adopted model. The change processin each of the states should be based upon "hard data"regarding the efficacy of the certification process and theeffectiveness of teacher training programs. Such a programwould require provisions for the exchange of dataamong the states.

Missouri State Group Report

RecordersMr. Donald M. CoxState Department of EducationDr. Richard C. SchoferUniversity of Missouri

The Missouri representatives at this conference were,from the onset, highly supportive of the concept of reciprocalagreements among the six participating states relative tospecial education teacher certification. It is to be noted thatthe Missouri State Department of Education has, for severalyears, been unilaterally approving for certification anyapplicant who is a graduate of an NCAT1-approved teachereducation program. As a result, the Missouri group hadno difficulty in seeing the desirability of establishing certificationagreements among states of a reciprocal nature, ratherthan a unilateral NCATE approach.

After considerable discussion of the implications andproblems of state reciprocity in teacher certification, theMissouri group stated that they could accept for at leasta two-year provisional certificate any person from one ofthe other five states, who in the past five years:

1. has earned at least a baccalaureate degree, orif the baccalaureate degree was earned prior to the

.1..z4;t16

77

past five years has been engaged, since that time,_inspecial education teaching;2. has completed a special education programapproved by the state education agency in thesending state; and3. is of "good moral character."

The Missouri group recommended that each state establishan agreed-upon base for entry, e.g., a two-year certificate,for movement from one state to another within the six-statearea. It was further recommended that each graduate ofan approved program within the six states be provided witha prepared form indicating his area(s) of certifiability; this formwould be used, along with an official transcript, to facilitatehis obtaining a teaching position. When employment issecured, he would be granted the agreed-upon certificate. It isto be noted that, at this time, Missouri would favor itsparticipation through admihistrative arrangements with thevarious states rather than through legislative action.

At the present time, the Missouri State Departmentof Education does not "approve" programs of colleges anduniversities within the state. To actually approve programswould probably necessitate visits to the .colleges anduniversities and the making of qualitative judgments based

. upon program criteria. It was not felt that current statefinances would permit such periodic visits to college anduniversity programs by site-visit teams. Instead of "approving"teacher education programs, the Missouri State Departmentof Education "recognizes" these programs.

At the-final general session of the Conference,the Missouri group indicated substantial agreement with allaspects of the workeig copy of the "Midwest Administrative

-Agreement in Special Education Personnel Certification,"except point #5. With regard to point #5 ("The State partiesto this agreement shall support the Interstate Compact"),Missouri would assume a neutral stance. Neutrality on thispoint should not, however, alter Missouri's participation

78

in the final agreement. Finally, the Missouri grouprecommended that the Advisory Board for this Agreementconsist of three representatives from each of the six states:chief state certificition officer, state director of specialeducation, and a representative from an approved traininginstitution of higher education. This Advisory Board shouldconvene at least once a year, contingent upon theavailability of outside funds.

Wisconsin State Group Report

RecorderDr. Heinz PfaeffleUniversity of Wisconsin Fi

The initial state group meeting was devoted todiscussion the distributed materials and to the introductoryremarks by the Institute chairman as they related to thecharge of the work conference. Consideration was given tothe areas to be inclUded for professional teaching personnel.The committee questioned whether or not such fields asschool psychology, reading specialization, and social workshould be considered under the same certification standardsas teachers. It was suggested that areas of specializationother than those generally associated with classroomteaching responsibility should not be considered forcertification purposes at the present conference.

The Wisconsin Committee went on record toencourage all states to participate in the Interstate Compactand to suggest that NCATE standards be utilized by statedepartments of Instruction for the approval of teachertraining programs.

At the second state work committee caucus, it wasgenerally agreed that state educational agencies of theparticipating states recognize for certification those teachers

79

who have graduated from programs which have:1. NCATE approval2. State-recognized and approved programsThe stated purpose of this meeting was to prepare

a model for presentation to the other five states representedat the Institute. In preparing the model, areas in whichWisconsin felt it could be in full or partial agreement withthe other states were integrated into the model. Thecommittee formulated the following tentative model:

"The six participating midwest states should worktoward legislative enactments which provide forparticipation in an interstate agreement ofqualification of educational personnel. Until suchtime that the several legislatures adopt legislationenabling participation in the Interstate Compact, werecommend' that states without legislative enactmentdevelop an administrative agreement in accordancewith paragraphs three and four of the InterstateCompact. The Wisconsin group endorses the conceptof an administrative agreement encompassingcertification for all teachers rather thanlimiting it to special education only."The interaction meeting, with Warren Black of

Missciuri as chairman, was devoted in part to the uniquecertification problems of the represented states. Such topicsas protection from certifying poorly qualified prospects fromanother state, initial versus full life certification, categoricalcertification, and competency-based versus,credit-determinedcertification were discussed. Points of agreement anddisagreement of certification requirements as they relatedto the various states were reviewed. This meeting servedas a sounding board to the feeling and thinking of thevarious states.

At the final state group meeting and beforefinalization of a flexible and somewhat tentative Wisconsinmodel or framework which the state department and teacher

80

training institution representatives felt would be workable,effective, and beneficial reciprocal certification agreement,the group reviewed the models of the other states forareas of agreement. Since Wisconsin already is under contractto the Interstate Compact, the proposals by the five otherstates for interstate certification agreement were consideredin line with the state. philospohy and state certificationreciprocity policy. The following are areas of general agreement:

1. Granting of the initial certificate to an out-of-stategraduate from an approved training program similarto the one provided to a graduate ofan in-state program.2. Applicants shall have met the requirements asin provision three of the Interstate Compact butmodified to read "agreement" instead of contract.3. Institutions and programs should be accreditedand approved as in provision three of theInterstate Compact as modified. .

4. Issuance of a certificate by a State party to thisagreement shall meet the requirements detailed inprovision four of the Interstate Compact butmodified to the requirement of a degree from stateapproved training institutions.5. Establishment of an Advisory Board for thesix midwest states or new states as theyenter the agreement.6. Facilitate the inclusion of other states inthis agreement.After recognizing the areas in which the Wisconsin .

group was in agreement with the other states, the followingmodel suggestions were made:

1. The Wisconsin group endorses the conceptof the "Interstate Agreement on Qualification ofEducational Personnel" and urges the adoption of

said agreement by the participating states.2. Until such time that all of the states partiCipating

90..

L

81

in this, institute adopt the above agreement, it isrecommended that the states without legislativeenactment develop an administrative agreementin accordance with paragraphs three and four of theInterstate Compact as modified by the institutemembers.3. The group endorses the. concept of anadministrative agreement encompassingcertification for all teachers and not restrictingthe agreement to special education teachers only.4. Other states should be granted the opportunityto enter into the above agreed-upon interstatecertification agreement.5. It is recommended than an Advisory Board beestablished. The general functions of the Board willinclude such items as the following:

a) to develop policies for the operationof this agreementb) to be responsible for continued reviewand reevaluation of the agreementc) to collect and disseminate informationabout approved programs, certification,actions and decisions of the boardd) to promote participation in theInterstate Compact by all statese) to serve as a review board to advise,mediate, interpret, and to act as aclearinghouse for matters related tothe agreemeht.

6. The chairman and other officers of the AdvisoryBoarCI will be selected by board members.In summary, the Wisconsin group found general

agreement with the proposals and models presented by thevarious state groups represented at the Institute. It was felt thatif any of the finally agreed-upon proposals or models are insome way in conflict with existing Wisconsin legislative,

82

r':

regulatory or philosophical tenets, these recommendationswould be given serious consideration for modification, review,or enactment for immediate, possible, further, or futureadoption. It was further agreed that the spirit of interstatecooperation .for certification be encouraged for enactmentas soon as possible and that minor or personal preferencesshould not interfere with this larger objective.

83

SummaryOne of the significant trends in the midwest and

across the nation is the increasing mobility of educators, andspecial education personnel are a part of this trend. Itbehooves all persons directly or indirectly involved withspecial education certification to consider reciprocity animportant aspect of certification.

Accepting the challenge of developing a workingmodel for reciprocity of special education personnel, theparticipants of the Institute initiated a proposed administrativeagreement for the six midwestern states: Illinois, Indiana,Iowa, Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin. Although theagreement was formulated at the Institute, it is not to beconsidered final or ratified. Such an agreement could not becompleted in three days. But the initiation of anadministrators' agreement for special education personnel hasbeen made with complete agreement among the six statesrepresented. Although moredetails of reciprocity need to bediscussed and considered before this agreement can be.perfected, the framework has been built by the participants ofthe Institute, and the first official draft will soon be forthcoming.

This Institute was, indeed, a working Institute. Eachof the six state groups drafted a model for reciprocity ofspecial education personnel and from these models aproposed model for an administrative agreement wasorganized.

The following points summarize the six states'agreements and recommendations.

AGREEMENTS1. All states agreed that an administrative agreement forreciprocity of special education personnel should beestablished among the six states represented at this Institute..2. All states agreed that immediate steps should be takenamong the six states to organize the administrativeagreement.

84

3. All states agreed that an Advisory Board should beestablished to organize, implement and evaluatethe administrative agreement.

RECOMMENDATIONS1. It was recommended that the administrative agreementmodel should include the state-approved/recognized trainingprograms requirement based upon the bachelor's degree.2. Three states recommended that the administrativeagreement should be a part of the general teacher certificationprogram and should include all teachers.3. Four of the states recommended participation in theInterstate Certification Compact.4. Two states recommended that the initial certificate begranted to the sending state graduate from anapproved/recognized training program which is similarto that of a graduate of the receiving state. One staterecommended that the Advisory Board establish anagreed-upon basic certificate for entry.5. All states agreed to the establishment oran Advisory Board.The following are the states' recommendations for theorganization of the Advisory Board and the suggestedresponsibilities of the Board:

a. Organization (3-4 representatives from eachof the six states)(1) State Certification Officer(2) State Director of Special Education(3) One representative from an approved traininginstitution of higher education(4) One public school teacherb. Responsibilities(1) Develop policies for the operation of theadministrative agreement(2) Collect and disseminate information aboutapproved/recognized 'programs, tertificatioh, andactions and decisions of the state board- 1:!,,

<

(3) Establish review and re-evaluation guidelinesfor the administrative agreement(4) Facilitate the inclusion of other states inthis agreement(5) Serve as a review board to advise, mediate,interpret and to act as a clearing house for mattersrelated to the administrative agreement.

86

a.

. ,

Appendices

Certification Officers,Chairmen, and Recorders

Certification Requirements ofSpecial Education Personnel

Planning Meetings

APPENDIX A

Certification Officers

IllinoisMr. Merlyn G. EarnestIndianaDr. Clifford. GrigsbyIowaDr. Orrin NearhoofMichiganDr. Lee B. LonsberryMissouriMr. Paul GreeneWisconsinMr. Albert Moldenhauer

Recorders

IllinoisDr. Harold R. PhelpsIndianaDr. Philip PeakIowaDr. Orrin NearhoofMichiganDr. Hubert P. Watson

88 97

Chairmen

IllinoisDr. George R. HarrisonIndianaDr. Clifford GrigsbyIowaDr. Paul C. VanceMichiganDr. Morvin A. WirtzMissouriMr. Warren M. BlackWisconsinMr. Albert Moldenhauer

MissouriMr. Donald M. Cox

andDr. Richard C. SchoferWisconsinDr. Heinz Pfaeffle

APPENDIX II

Institute for Higher Education and State Departments ofSpecial Education Personnel

CURRENT STATUS - ILLINOIS1

CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FORSPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL

Reciprocity. Applicants who graduated from institutions thatwere members of the National Council for Accreditationof Teacher Education at the time of such graduationare accepted for Illinois certification provided theymeet Illinois requirements.

Policies. The policies for Illinois were set up by theDepartment of Education and are, therefore, administrative.

Areas.1. Blind2. Deaf3. Educable Mentally Handicapped4. Maladjusted5. Multiply Handicapped6. Partially Seeing7. Physically Handicapped in home instruction

and hospital classes8. Physically Handicapped in special classes9. School Psychologist

10. School Social Workers11. Speech Correction12. Trainable Mentally Handicapped

General Professional Training Requirements.1. A valid Illinois Teacher's Certificate appropriateto the grade level in which he is to teach.2. Entitlement program in special education.3. Special Education Certificate by evaluation from theState Teacher Certification Board. Requirements listedbelow.

89

.00

1:

F"

Specific Professional Training Requirements.1. General Special Education (6 semester hours)

a. Survey of Characteristics, Needs and Educationof ALL Types of Exceptional Children.b. Measurement and Evaluation of ALL Typesof Exceptional Children.

2. Area of Specialization (9-12 semester hours)a. Nature, Needs and Problems of Children withparticular handicapping condition includingHistory and Philosophy.b. Curricular Adjustments; Methods and Materials inEducating the Particular Group of HandicappedChildren including implications of Theory andResearch.c. Laboratory and Field Experiences, includingobservation, demonstration, participating and studentteaching in the area of exceptionality.

Requirements by Areas. (In addition to General and SpecificProfessional Training Requirements.)

1. Blind (38-43 semester hours)a. Background courses (15 semester hours)

(1) Child Growth and Development(2) Mental Hygiene(3) Laboratory work with severe readingdisabilities

b. Specialized courses (9-12 semester hours)(1) Hygiene and Physiology of the Eye(2) Techniques of Braille Reading and Writing

c. The, remaining 16-18 semester hours to be takenin special education courses and related fields.

2. Deafa. In Illinois approval of the area is by entitlement.b. Background Courses (11 semester hours)

(1) Linguistics, Structure of English Languageor Proficiency12) Child Development or Child Psychology

90

3.

(3) Methods of Element'ary Teaching (withplanned observation and practicum)

c. Specialization (38 semester hours)(1) Psychological and Educational Aspectsof Deafness(2) Anatomy mid Physiology of the Speechand Hearing Mechanism(3) Evaluation and Pathology of Hearing andUse of Hearing Aids and Clinical Practice(4) Phonetics'(5) Speech for Deaf and Practicum(6) Auditory Habilitation and Practicum(7) Language for the Deaf(8) Speech Reading(9) Teaching Reading and ElementarySubjects for Deaf

3. Educable Mentally Handicappeda. Background Courses

(1) American Public Education(2) Child Growth and Development throughAdolescence(3) Principles of Mental Health(4), Speech reeducation

b. Specialized Courses (16 semester hours)As listed in General and Specific. ProfessionalTraining Requirements

4. Maladjusted (Socially/Emotionally and LearningDisabilities)

a. As listed in General and Specific ProfessionalTraining Requirements

5. Multiply Handicappeda. As listed in General and Specific ProfessionalTraining Requirements

6. Partially Seeinga. Background Courses (15 semester hours)

(1) Child Growth and Development

91

cR,

(2) Mental Hygiene(3) Laboratory work with severe readingdisabilities

b. Specialized Courses (6 9 semester hours)(1) Clinical and laboratory study of eyeconditions and problems

7. Physically Handicapped in home instruction andhospital classes

a. As listed in General and Specific ProfessionalTraining Requirements

8. Physically Handicapped in Special Classa. Required Courses

(1) Laboratory experience in Diagnosis andInstruction of Children with Severe ReadingDisabilities(2) Mental Hygiene(3) Medical Aspects of Crippling Conditions

b. Elective Courses (6 semester hours) in specialeducation and related fieldg

9. School Psychologista. A Master's degree or higher degrees in psychologyand/or educational psychology with emphasis uponcourses relevant to th,e training of schoolpsychologists.b. Course requirements of 56 semester hours inpsychology and/or educational psychologyc. One year of experience in psychological workwith children including individual psychologicalevaluation under the supervision of a qualifiedpsychologist.d. Competency in individual child study.

10. School Social Workersa. A Bachelor's degree from an accreditedundergraduate school (major in education,psychology, sociology, social sciences, etc.)b. A Master's degree in social work from a

92

1

prokiaional school of social work which has beenaccredited by the Council of School Social WorkEducationc. This Master's degree usually requires two years inresidence because of the combination of closelyintegrated class-and-field-instruction

11. Speech Correctiona. An Illinois approval of the area is by entitlement.b. Specialization (32 semester hours in speechand hearing)

(1) Speech Correction (26 semester hours)(a) Speech and language development(b) Phonetics(c) Anatomy and physiology of the speechand hearing mechanisM(d) Speech science(e) Communicative theory(f) Psychology of speech and language(g) Impairments of fluency(h) Impairments of voice(i) Impairments of articulation(j) Impairments of receptive andexpressive language(k) Structural and neuromuscularimpairments of speech(I) Psychology of exceptional children(m) Practicum in speech correction

(2) Hearing (6 semester hours)(a) Hearing-testing techniques andinterpretation(b) Speech and language training for thehearing impaired

(3) Practicum (200 clock hours)(a) Practicum experience must beappropriately supervised.(b) One half of the hours earned must be ina school situation.

+MO

Institute for Higher Education and State Departments ofSpecial Education Personnel 7,

CURRENT STATUS - INDIANACERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FORSF CIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL

Reciprocity. Graduates of institutions accredited by theNational Council for the Accreditation of TeacherEducation will be granted provisional certificationprovided they have completed teacher education programsas prescribed by the degree granting institutionand are so recommended.

Any person who holds a valid out-of-stateteaching certificate baitd upon graduation from aregionally-accredited teacher education institution will begranted, at the discretion of the Teacher Training andLicensing Commission of the Indiana State Board ofEducation, a five-year reciprocity certificate endorsed inthe same area or areas endorsed on the out-of-statecertificate. Such certificate will list all deficiencie:: to beremoved based upon Indiana's certification requirements.This certificate is non-renewable. Upon removal of alldeficiencies, the applicant will be eligible for aprovisional certificate.

Policies. The policies for Indiana were set up by the Departmentof Education and are, therefore, administrative.

Areas. Areas of endorsement are:1. Blind2. Deaf3. Emotionally Disturbed4. Mentally Retarded5. Orthopedic and Special Health Problems6. Partially Sighted7. School Psychologist8. School Psychometrist

9. Speech and Hearing TherapyGeneral Professional Training Requirements.

1. A valid Indiana Teacher's Certificate appropriateto the level.2. Subject matter or special area of preparation will beendorsed on the appropriate basic certificate.

Endorsement Program Requirements1. Blind2. Emotionally Disturbed3. Mentally Retarded4. Orthopedic and Special Health Problems5. Partially Sighted

a. 8 semester hours in area of specializationb. 4 semester hours in elementary teachirt methods(mathematics and language arts)c. Directed electives in general area of specialeducation

6. Deafa. 24 semester hours in area of specialization

(1) Teaching Speech to the Deaf(2) Teaching Language to the Deaf(3) Methods in Teaching Elementary SchoolSubjects to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing(4) Guidance and History of Educationfor the Deaf(5) Auditory and Speech Mechanisms(6) Audiometry, Hearing Aids and AuditoryTraining(7) Student Teaching with Deaf Children

7. School Psychometrista. A Master's degree that is psychological in natureb. A minimum of course work in each of thefollowing fields:

(1) Human Growth and Development(2) Nature of Exceptional Children(3) Remedial programs

95

7-

(4) Curriculum(5) Nature of LearningOr the equivalent in training and experience

c. An internship of at least 3 semester hours in aclinic, hospital, or school

8. School Psychologista. A Doctor of Education or Doctor of Philosophydegree with either clinical, psychology, or schoolpsychology as a field of concentrationb. Either of the following:

(1) Two years of full time employment as aschool psychometrist under the supervision of aninstitution of higher education which has beenapproved for training school psycholOgists.(2) The equivalent of one academic year of fulltime internship, approximately one-half ofwhich shall be in the public school, theremainder in a child guidance clinic, school forretarded, psychiatric facility, institutionor combination thereof.

9. Speech and Hearing Therapya. 40 semester hours in the following areas:

(1) Basic areas (8-10 semester hours)Anatomy and physiology of the ear and vocalmechanism, phonetics, semantics, speech andvoice science, psychology of speech,public speaking.(2) Speech Pathology (12-15 semester hours)Speech pathology and clinical practice.(3) Audiology (8-10 semester hours)Hearing problems, audiometric testing, lipreading, and clinical practice.(4) Other areas (8-10 semester hours)Psychology, remedial reading, language arts,mental hygiene, education of physicallyhandicapped, or mental measurement.

96 .

ce

Institute for Higher Education and State Departments ofSpecial Education Personnel

CURRENT STATUS - IOWACERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FORSPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL

Reciprocity. Graduates of colleges and universities outsideIowa which at the time of the applicant's graduation arefully accredited by the National Council for Accreditationof Teacher Education shall be eligible for a regularcertificate covering the area or level of teaching for whichthe candidate is recommended by his preparinginstitution and which is supported by the transcriptprovided by the institution.

Policies. The policies for Iowa were set up by the Departmentof Education and are, therefore, administrative.

Areas.1. Communication Handicapped2. Emotionally or Socially Maladjusted3. Hearing Handicapped4. Mentally Handicapped5. Physically Handicapped6. Visually Handicapped

General Professional Training Requirements.1. Completion of an approved four-year teachereducation program.2. A Bachelor's degree from an accredited collegeor university.3. A valid Iowa Teacher's Certificate appropriate to thegrade level in which he is to teach.4. Endorsement program in approval area of specialeducation. (listed above)

Specific Professional Training Requirements.1. Twenty semester hours professional educationsequence to include: . -

97

4,

A

a. Education or Psychology of Exceptional Childrenb. Psychological and Physiological Basesc. Methods and Materialsd. Student Teaching within area of special educationThe remaining six semester hours in specialeducation or related fields.

Requirements by Areas.By endorsement to include General and SpecificProfessional Training Requirements.

Institute for Higher Education and State Departments ofSpecial Education Personnel

CURRENT STATUS - MICHIGANCERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FORSPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL

Reciprocity. Although Michigan. has never had reciprocitylegislation approved, the legislature authorized anequivalency system. This system provided for theevaluation of certificate requirements in each of the otherstates. Whenever another state's certificate requirementshave been deemed equivalent to those in Michigan, theState Board of Education, through formal action,authorized the Department of EduCation to recognize,as equivalent, the valid certificates from that state.Persons with certificates not deemed equivalent fromthose state or from states not on the equivalency list mustsubmit credentials for individual evaluations.

The performance and competency accountabilityof the teacher rests with the employing school districtand the state makes no stipulation in this regard.

Policies. The policies for Michigan were set up by theDepartment of Education and are, therefore,administrative.

981

3

z.

Areas.1. Auditorily Handicapped2. Emotionally Disturbed3. Learning Disabilities4. Mentally Handicapped5. Orthopedically Handicapped (including homeboundand hospitalized)6. Speech Correction7. Visually Handicapped

General Professional Training Requirements.1. A Michigan life, provisional or permanent Elementaryor Secondary Teacher's Certificate.2. A Bachelor's degree with a major in the area ofPhysically Handicapped, Mentally Handicapped, or

'Emotionally Disturbed children.3. 30 semester hours in area of specialization asdesignated below.4. Satisfactoty completion of at least one year as atemporarily approved teacher in an appropriatestate-approved public school program for PhysicallyHandicapped, Mentally Handicapped, or EmotionallyDisturbed children.

Requirements by Areas.1. Auditorily Handicapped

a. Speech readingb. Communication and language developmentc. Use of residual hearingd. Community problems resulting fromauditory handicapse. Adjustment to deficitf. Methods, materials, and equipmentg. Practicumh. Problems in educating the auditorily handicapped

2. Emotionally Disturbeda. Educational models for emotionally disturbedchildren

99

:4!

'74

b. Group and individual intervention andmanagement techniquesc. Practicum (application and experience inappropriate educational settings)

3. Learning DisabilitiesIt is recommended that school districts wishing toemploy teachers negotiate directly with the StateDepartment of Education and a teacher training institutionfor approval of such teachers.4. Mentally Handicapped

a. Physical competence and skillsb. Social competence and skillsc. Community adjustment, including work skills(Preparation for the world of work)d. Problems in educating the mentally handicapped(including methods and materials, and morespecifically (1) language and speech,(2) manipulation of symbols, and (3) oralcommunicatione. Pricticum

5. Orthopedically Handicapped (including homeboundand hospitalized)

a. Developmental problemsb. Social/psychological problems and communityadjustmentc. Applied aspectsincluding all specially appliedtechniques and ancillary services and individualand family counselingd. Problems in educating the orthopedicallyhandicapped, including methods, materials,and equipmente. Practicum

6. Speech Correctiona. Basic communication processesb. Communication (speech, language and hearing)disorders

100

c. Utilization of residual abilitiesd. Case management

7. Visually Handicappeda. Braille reading and typingb. Large type and recordingc. Physical competence and skills (posture, physicaleducation, recreation, orientation, and mobility)d. Social competence and skillse. Community adjustmentf. Problems in educating the visually handicappedg. Methods, materials, and equipmenth. Practicum

Institute for Higher Education and State Departments ofSpecial Education Personnel

CURRENT STATUS - MISSOURICERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FORSPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL

Reciprocity. Missouri has reciprocity with all institutionsaccredited by the National Council for Accreditation ofTeacher Education.

Policies. The policies for Missouri were set up by theDepartment of Education and are, therefore, administrative.

Areas.1. Blind and/or Partially Sighted2. Deaf and/or Hard of Hearing3. Educable Mentally Retarded4. Emotionally Disturbed and/or Socially Maladjusted5. Learning Disabilities6. Orthopedically Handicapped7. Remedialjgeading

General Professional Training Requirements. (Exception:Teacher of Remedial Reading)1. A Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or

'11.0 101

i.

university with at least 18 hours of professional educationcourses and a major (30 semester hours) in an area ofspecial education; or2. A Bachelor's degree from an accredited university orcollege, a valid Elementary or Secondary TeachingCertificate with at least 18 hours of professional educationcourses, and at least 30 semester hours in an areaof special education.

Specific Professional Training RequireMents. (Exception:Teacher of Remedial Reading)1. Education or Psychology of the Exceptional Child2. Student Teaching (5 semester hours minimum)

Requirements by Areas. (In addition to General andSpecific Professional Training Requirements)1. Blind and/or Partially Sighted

a. Methods of teaching the blind and/orpartially sightedb. Teaching of reading and writing braillec. Anatomy and physiology of the eyed. Language development for exceptional children.e. 10 or more semester hours in related course work

2. Deaf and/or Hard of Hearinga. Teaching language and/or speech to the deafb. Speech reading and auditory training

.c. Audiologyd. Anatomy and physiology of auditory andspeech mechanismse. 10 or more semester hours in related course work

3. Educable Mentally Retardeda. Methods of teaching the EMRb. Methods of remedial reading or analysis andcorrection of reading disabilitiesc. Language development for exceptional childrend. 13 or more semester hours in related course work

4. Emotionally Disturbed and/or Socially Maladjusteda. Methods of teaching the ED and/or SM

b. Methods of remedial reading or analysis andcorrection of reading disabilitiesc. Language development for exceptional childrend. 13 or more semester hours in related course work

5. Learning Disabilities .

a. Methods of teaching the child with LDb. Methods of remedial reading or analysis andcorrection of reading disabilitiesc. Language development of exceptional childrend. 13 or more semester hours in related course work

6. Orthopedically Handicappeda. Methods of teaching the OHb. Methods of remedial reading or analysis andcorrection of reading disabilitiesc. Language development of exceptional childrend. 13 or more semester hours in related course work

7. Teachers of Remedial Readinga. Baccalaureate degree from an accredited collegeor universityb. A valid Teacher's Certificate (elementary preferred)c. Course work for permanent certification

(1) teaching of reading(2) methods of remedial reading or analysis andcorrection of reading disabilities(3) individual intelligence testing orpsycho-educational measurement(4) practicum and diagnosis of remedialdifficulties (3 semester hours minimum)(5) practicum in remediation of readingdifficulties (3 semester hours minimum)

103

Institute for Higher Education and State Departments ofSpecial Education Personnel

CURRENT STATUS - WISCONSINCERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FORSPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL

Reciprocity. Applicants who graduate from institutions thatwere members of the National Council for Accreditationof Teacher Education at the time of such graduationare accepted for Wisconsin certification provided theymeet Wisconsin requirements. Out-of-state graduatesmust have been graduated from institutionsrecognized for teacher education by their own statedepartment of public instruction and must makeapplication to the Wisconsin State Department of PublicInstruction for approval.

Graduates of colleges not accredited by the RegionalAc&editing Association will be required to submitevidence of admission to an accredited graduate schoolor of successful completion of at least six graduate creditsin professional education or the teaching field.

Policies. The policies of Wisconsin were set up by theDepartment of Education and are, therefore, administrative.

Areas.1. Deaf2. Emotionally Disturbed3. Learning Disabilities4. Mentally Retarded5. Orthopedically Handicapped6. Speech Correction7. Visually Handicapped

General Professional Training Requirements. -t

1. A Bachelor's degree from an accredited college oruniversity. Speech Correction requires a Master's degree.2. An 18 semester hour professional education sequence

104

1 .113

and 18 to 21 semester credits in special education,depending upon the disability area. Speech Correctionrequires six semester credits in supportive content areas.

Specific Professional Training Requirements.1. 18 semester hours professional educationsequence to include:

a. Child or Adolescent Developmentb. Group Tests and Measurementsc. Student Teaching with normal childrend. Curriculum PlanningThe remaining semester hours to be taken inrelated fields.

2. Six semester credits to include:a. Psychology or Nature of Exceptional Childrenb. Elective in the broad areas of exceptionalityThe remaining semester hours to be taken inspecial education or related fields.

Requirements by Areas. (In addition to General and SpecificProfessional Training Requirements)1. Deaf

a. 18 semester credits to include:(1) Student Teaching and Observation of the Deaf(2) Techniques of Teaching School Subjectsto the Deaf(3) Speech and Speech Reading for the Deaf(4) Language Problems and DevelopmentThe remaining semester hours to be taken inspecial education courses for the Deaf andrelated fields.

2. Emotionally Disturbeda. 15 semester credits to include:

(1) Remediation of Learning Difficulties(2) Methods of Teaching the EmotionallyDisturbed and/or SoCially Maladjusted(3) Student Teaching of Disturbed ChildrenThe remaining semester hours to be taken in

105

1

t

106

special education courses for the EmotionallyDisturbed and related fields.

3. Learning Disabilitiesa. 15 semester credits to include:

(1) Introduction to Learning Disabilities(2) Education of the Child with LearningDisabilities(3) Language Development and Disorders(4) Diagnostic Procedures(5) Student Teaching of Learning DisabledChildrenAdditional semester hours to be taken inspecial education courses in the area of SpecialLearning Disabilities and related fields.

4. Mentally Retardeda. 12 semester credits to include:

(1) Introduction to Mental Retardation(2) Methods of Teaching Mentally Handicapped(3) Student Teaching of the MentallyHandicappedThe remaining semester hours to be taken inspecial education for the Mentally Handicappedand related fields.

5. Orthopedically Handicappeda. 12 semester credits to include:

(1) Methods for Teaching Crippled Children(2) Student Teaching of Crippled ChildrenThe remaining semester hours to be taken inspecial education courses for the OrthopedicallyHandicapped and related fields.

6. Speech Correctiona. A Master's degree in communicative disorders.b. 18 semester credits in professional educationconsisting of:

(1) 9 semester credit hours in basic and relatedareas selected from:

115

t..

C

(a) child/adolescent development(b) learning theory(c) statistics(d) child/adolescent psychology(e) interprofessional relationships(f) personality adjustment(g) educational psychology(h) developmental/remedial reading(i) clinical psychology(j) physiological psychology

(2) 6 semester credit hours in practicum; atleast 300 clock hours of supervised studentpracticum; of this, at least 200 clock hours mustbe earned in working with pre-school andand school age children; of this, at least 100clock hours must be earned in a school settingunder the supervision of a Wisconsin certificatedspeech and hearing clinician. A minimum of150 of the total clock hours earned must beat the graduate level.(3) 3 semester credit hours in methods andprocedures in school speech and hearingprograms

c. 6 semester credits in supportive content areas.7. Visually Handicapped

a. 12 semester credits to include:(1) Techniques of Teaching School Subjects tothe Visually Handicapped(2) Braille Reading and Writing(3) Student Teaching of Visually HandicappedChildrenThe remaining semester hours to be taken inspecial education courses for the VisuallyHandicapped and related fields.

116

107

APPENDIX C

Institute for Higher Education and State Departments ofSpecial Education Personnel

PREPLANNING COMMITTEEDr. E. Milo,Pritchett, HeadDepartment of Special EducationNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalb, Illinois 60115Mr. James J. TraversAssistant Director, Special AssignmentsDepartment of Special EducationOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction326 South Second StreetSpringfield, Illinois 62706Dr. M. Elise BlankenshipAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Special EducationNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKa lb, Illinois 60115

ORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING MEETINGFOR JULY 11, 12, 1971

The Preplanning Committee met at Des Plaines, Illinois,for the purpose of organizing the Planning Meeting for theInstitute for Higher Education and State Departments ofSpecial Education Personnel. Decisions were made regardingthe Planning Meeting participants, lodging, meals, andagenda for the two-day Planning Meeting. The agendadeveloped, consisting primarily of meetings and work sessionswhereby all participants would meet as a total group toplan the Institute. The participants selected wererepresentatives from the six state departments of educationand representatives from the institutions of higher educationin each of the six states who are concerned with the training,certification, and supervision of teachers ofhandicapped children.

109

I__1 ;8 r:

PLANNING MEETING PARTICIPANTS

Mr. James AlleyDirector, Special Education401 State HouseIndianapolis, Indiana 46204

Dr. Marvin E. BeekmanDirector, Special Education123 West OttawaLansing, Michigan 48933

Dr. M. Elise BlankenshipAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Special EducationNorthern Illinois UniversityDe Kalb, Illinois 60115

Dr. Kenneth BlessingDivision for Handicapped ChildrenState Department of PublicInstruction126 Langdon StreetMadison, Wisconsin 53702

Mr. Donald M. CoxDirector, Special EducationState Department of EducationP. 0. Box 480Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Mr. David W. DonaldDirctor, Special Education326 South Second StreetSpringfield, Illinois 62706

Dr. Richard E. FisherDirector, Special EducationEast 14th and Grand AvenueDes Moines, Iowa 50319

Dr. Harold W. HellerChief of Special ProjectsDivision of Training ProgramBureau of Education for the HandicappedU. S. Office of EducationU. S. Department of Health, Educationand WelfareWashington, D. C.

110

11.9

r .

Dr. Clifford E. Howe, ChairmanDivision of Special EducationUniversity of IowaIowa City, Iowa 52240

Dr. Lee B. Lonsberry, SupervisorTeacher Education and CertificationTeacher Education Program andProfessional Development ServicesP. O. Box 420Lansing, Michigan 48902

Dr. Harold Phelps, ChairmanDepartment of Special EducationIllinois State UniversityNormal, Illinois 61761

Dr. E. Milo Pritchett, HeadDepartment of Special EducationNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalb, Illinois 60115

Dr. Richard Schofer, ChairmanDepartment of Special EducationUniversity of Missouri

Missouri 65201

Dr. Robert SeitzDepartment of Special EducationBall State UniversityMuncie, Indiana 47306

Mr. James 1. TraversAssistant Director, Special AssignmentsDepartment of Special EducationOffice of Superintendent of PublicInstruction326 South Second StreetSpringfield, Illinois 62706

Dr. Ted Whiting, ChairmanDepartment of Special EducationWisconsin State UniversityOshkosh, Wisconsin 54901

C-