Agencies | Governor
Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Department of Education
State Board of Education
Licensure Regulations for School Personnel [8 VAC 20 ‑ 22]
Action Comprehensive Revision of the Licensure Regulations for School Personnel
Stage Proposed
Comment Period Ends 11/6/2015
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
10/27/15  2:28 pm
Commenter: Philip A. Reed

Proposed Engineering Licensure Regulations

I have over 20 years of experience as a secondary technology teacher, administrator, and program coordinator for a technology teacher preparation program in Virginia. There are key issues and questions that need to be addressed with the proposed engineering endorsement in the Licensure Regulations for School Personnel [8 VAC 20 - 22].

After reviewing ABTEL and BOE materials, it appears the engineering regulations were proposed by a handful of supporters. Further review of Virginia Town Hall postings from this limited number of supporters clearly indicate there are gross miss-perceptions regarding K-12 technology and engineering education. For example, technology education is not “trades” and does not prepare technicians. Trade and Industry is the area in the Virginia licensure regulations that covers the trades. So, although the procedures for proposing regulation changes have been followed, there appears to be a severe lack of validity in the process. Virginia has been a national leader in secondary engineering education ever since the Technology Education Service created the first high school engineering courses in 1988. With such a rich history and strong leadership through the Virginia Technology and Engineering Education Association (VTEEA) and the Virginia Children’s Engineering Council, why weren’t these organizations part of this process? Such an effort as the proposed engineering endorsement clearly perpetuates the silo approach to STEM education and is counter to Senate Joint Resolution 308 passed in 2011 that specifies engineering education within Virginia is the shared responsibility of science, technology, and mathematics. The Board should consider how this proposal arrived, reject it, and develop a process and/or task force to move K-12 technology and engineering education forward in a deliberate, collaborative manner.