We are facing a significant shortage of math teachers throughout the Commonwealth.  In reading the changes, the only oportunity for math “relief” is the possibility for a Teach for America license.  Otherwise, it appears that the changes make the math content tougher to access additional endorsements.  While I understand the need for maintaining the integrity of the license, I would like to see some alternate pathways for licensure, especially in the area of mathematics/Algebra.

Thank you.

Will those people who have Algebra 1 addon endorsement be grandfathered in if this action is approved?

I think that those that hold the addon endorsement should be allowed to retain the endorsement without taking the new proposed methodology class.

Will Middle School teachers who are not Secondary Endorsed lose their Math Specialist endorsement if the proposed changes go into effect?

I believe that individuals with the endorsement should be grandfathered in and not lose their endorsement.

I am Jim Batterson.  I have a current Post Graduate Professional Virginia Teaching License with endorsements in physics and mathematics.  I have taught high school physics and mathematics, served as chairman of the Newport News City School Board and of the New Horizons Governors School in Science & Technology Board.  I retired from a 30-year career as a flight control engineer with NASA in 2008 and have served as the Senior Advisor to the Commonwealth for STEM Initiatives in 2008.  In 2007-2008, I served as industry representative to Virginia’s American Diploma Project Math team and led three panels of subject matter experts and K12 teachers in a gap analysis of Virginia’s SOL/program content in high school physics, chemistry, and engineering.  As a result of the engineering gap analysis, it was discovered that Virginia, like almost all other states, treats engineering as a CTE discipline, and, having no endorsement in engineering, requires our high school engineering teachers to be endorsed in technology education.  Our panel found this to be inappropriate, as engineering requires significantly more science and mathematics background than technology education majors generally receive.  Moreover, because there is no engineering endorsement, an engineering major cannot obtain a provisional teaching license directly out of college, as can majors in mathematics, biology, chemistry, and other sciences for which Virginia has endorsements.  Foe example, if an MIT chemical engineering major wants to teach engineering in a Virginia high school, she must first take an additional twelve hours of technology education courses in order to receive a provisional license in technology education.  If we had an engineering endorsement, she could immediately qualify to teach engineering, and, with the deep chemistry coursework required for her degree, likely qualify via Praxis 2 to teach chemistry also.  Thus, because proposed endorsement 8VAC20-23-330 will both guarantee a stronger engineering background for our high school engineering teachers AND remove barriers to bringing fresh-out college graduates with engineering degrees into the teaching profession, I strongly support the creation of this engineering endorsement.

That said, I believe that as the endorsement was passed on June 27, 2013 by the VBOE, it offered the listed five pathways as five alternative paths to the endorsement and thus there should be an “or” between each of the five listed pathways. Thank you for this opportunity to comment

Recommend that an additional option for earning at least a provisional license for school library media specialists be added. This would be for individuals who hold a non-school Master's Degree in Library Science. Rather than having to ask for a waiver to receive a provisional license from the DOE (which is normally the case in this situation), these individuals woud automatically be eligible for a provisional licesne and be required to complete an additional course on the role of the library media specialist using the updated wording in the proposed regulations for that requirement.

This would eliminate the need for a waiver request, particularly in an area where there are shortages, and which normally the DOE has approved the modification request. The expectation would be that a person with such a degree would surely have the content knowledge to handle the duties and if hired, receive a provisional license.

There is a shortage of special education teachers now and adding more requirements before we can get an applicant a provisional license seeks to further complicate our recruiting and hiring efforts.  The area of special education is designated as a critical need area yet this change is being proposed. I would urge more study and reflection on implications this wil cause for school divisions.

I agree that more than 3 credits of special education law is needed in order to obtain a special education provisional teaching license.  However, I believe anyone without a teaching license who is applying for a provisional special ed teaching license should complete an introductory special ed law course that gives an overview of IDEA, in particular the development and implementation of an IEP. That course should should be followed by a characteristics course and a behavior management course.  It is also important that provisionally licensed teachers who are not already licensed to teach in another area (general education, health education, etc.) need to show that they have completed an undergraduate degree and they can meet minimal skills in reading, writing and math (i.e. taken and passed Praxis Academic CORE, or demonstrate competency with ACT/SAT scores) AND they have been accepted in an approved teacher preparation program to complete the rest of their course and internship requirements to obtain a renewable license.  In lieu of student teaching, their teacher preparation program should demonstrate that these provisionally licensed teachers have had management and mentorship supervision as part of completing program requirements. 

These recommendations are made for several reasons. First, provisionally licensed teachers need to have an understanding of the laws, regulations, policies and procedures that govern the IDEA process. This includes the components of an IEP and their role in creating and following an IEP. They need to understand the characteristics of students with disabilities and what research states are best practices in meeting the academic, social and functional behavioral needs. Management of behavior to include FBA/BIPs are also essential for beginning special education teachers to know. Second, teachers without minimal literacy and numeracy skills are not effective in teaching students who struggle in those areas. Provisionally licensed teachers with low skills in reading and writing have a hard time passing the VCLA and RVE tests- requirements to obtain a renewable teaching license. Third, every beginning teacher, licensed or on provisional status, needs support and mentoring in order to learn what is needed to do their job. This is why it is critically important to provide mentorship within the school system as well as proper supervision within an approved program. Teachers who have such support are more apt to stay in teaching, and the students they serve also benefit from the support. Research shows that it costs schools systems too much money when new teachers leave at high rates within their first five years of teaching.

In order to attract good, qualified candidates to the teaching profession in VA, we need to use education funding at the state level to help school districts hire recent college graduates for paraprofessional positions that place them in schools fulltime at the same time they begin master degree programs that lead to initial teacher licensure. Part of the funding would be used as staff development funds to help pay the tuition of these paraprofessionals who are working toward endorsements in critical need areas such as math, science and special education. By working in schools, these candidates would be earning invaluable teaching experiences - similar to candidates in professional development schools.

By requiring CPR training, we have put ourselves in a position to truly make a difference in someone's life. However, I feel like we need to ensure that hands-on training is involved in the process. There are several online "certifications' you can buy that are based on American Heart Association/Americal Red Cross guidelines. No hands-on takes place, and people can complete it in 30 minutes or so. This is not adequate training. AHA/ARC both require hands-on to obtain certification. It is of utmost importance to be able to demonstrate your understanding of the material and have time to practice while not in a life or death situation. Please consider adding this requirement to the guidelines.

Thanks,

Ann Blankenship, RN

I am writing in support of the creation of an endorsement in engineering for high school teachers in Virginia.  I currently serve as the Dean of the College of Integrated Science and Engineering at James Madison University (JMU), and previously served as the interim director/unit head of our new Engineering program. I hold a PhD in Theoretical and Applied Mechanics from Cornell University (1990) and have served as a faculty member in the innovative Integrated Science and Technology (ISAT) program at JMU since 1995.  I was recognized with a State council of Higher Education Outstanding Faculty Award for Teaching with Technology in 2012.

During my more than twenty year career at JMU, I have worked extensively with Virginia STEM teachers in developing new applications for technology use in the classroom.  I have also been a part of efforts in ISAT to develop and support an endorsement for CTE teachers. 

The development of an engineering endorsement is critical to help support the inclusion of engineering in the K-12 curriculum.  CTE teachers simply do not have the background to be able to support instruction in engineering design, the most critical element of engineering for K-12.  Engineering, and specifically engineering design, is not a significant part of CTE teacher training – I can say this with some authority having worked trying to develop a CTE endorsement track at JMU, as well as leading an engineering undergraduate program with design at its core.

The need for an engineering endorsement is critical to those of us developing innovative undergraduate programs in engineering.  Students coming to JMU from CTE programs simply don’t have an understanding of what engineering entails, and many struggle at the outset of our program.  In addition, we see the possibility of a career teaching engineering as a potential draw to bring more talented and motivated students to our program.

In Virginia, the current endorsement or license for high school engineering teachers is in technology education. Technology education, by its nature, focuses on  technologies that exist today – how to build them, how to use them, and how to repair them if they break.  Technology education is important in developing the production workers of the future.  However, engineering focuses on how to create technology of tomorrow to solve human or societal problems and needs in the face of constraints. 

Students graduating from our engineering program are not currently eligible for certification in Virginia (even with appropriate education coursework).  In order to teach the discipline in which they have a degree, they must complete substantial additional coursework – a clear disincentive to becoming a teacher.   At a time when we need more K-12 teachers in this area, this is clearly not good policy.

If Virginia wants to bring high-quality engineering curricula to its high schools, it needs engineering teachers with a significant amount of engineering coursework or experience – either as an engineering major, or, in addition to a science or technology education major, or as a practicing engineer. Virginia must become more welcoming to engineering majors and reduce barriers to bringing them into the teacher workforce if we are to build our capacity to teach engineering in K-12.  An engineering endorsement will be a dramatic step forward to improving and spreading engineering in Virginia’s high schools.

 

I have been a licensed teacher in VA for 41 years PGP NK-7.  I am a Developmental & Experimental Psychologist and Board Certified Behavior Analyst.  I recently completed the graduate certificate in Autism Spectrum Disorders offered by George Washington University.  Completion of this program offered by the School of Education and Human Development Department of Special Education and Disability Studies results in a special education endorsement in DC, but Virginia does not have a comparable endorsement.  Therefore, I have not been able to add a special education endorsement to my certification in VA.  I am currently involved in the establishment of an inclusion program for children with ASD through early intervention in DC. My employer also serves VA and I would like to make this program available in VA as well.  As you revamp the teacher certification procedures, please make the process flexible enough to accept candidates who present with such excellent program training.  This training would increase expertise in your teaching staff and enhance your special education program offering to families of children with autism.  If completion of this program resulted in special education endorsement in VA, more teachers might be encouraged to seek further training in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 

I too am concerned about the proposed requirement to be eligible for a special ed provisional license. We struggle to fill special education positions with the current regulations, I fear increasing them will result in more vacancies. We'll be forced to increase class sizes or use substitutes.  While I agree that one-class does not adequately prepare someone to teach special education students, perhaps there are other options.  For example, if the individual already holds a full license in a content area, the existing 3 semester hour prerequisite course could be sufficient to allow them to convert to a provisional in special education.  Perhaps the 9 hour requirement could be reserved for individuals without any prior teaching experience. 

To:          Virginia Board of Education

From:     Albert L. DiMarcantonnio

                113 Broadwater, Williamsburg, VA  23188

                30 September 2015

 

Subject:  Proposed Engineering Endorsement for Teachers

 I urge your support for the proposed ‘engineering endorsement’ requirement for high school teacher qualifications and certification.  The proposal addresses the key point differentiating engineering from technology and applying rigorous math and science disciplines that are essential to understanding, practicing and teaching engineering with the competency and passion that will hopefully make a positive difference in our next generation of engineering professionals. 

My opinion herein is personal and is based on a forty-year career in civil government, the military and private industry in programmatic, operational and technological/engineering roles as a practitioner, manager and executive.  I took my technical education in Aerospace Technology at the Academy of Aeronautics where I also earned an FAA Aircraft and Power plant Mechanic License.   At Columbia University I received a B.A. in Government.  I also attended the U.S. Naval War College, Command and Staff program.  A Naval Aviator, I have over 3000 flight hours in jet and prop aircraft and served as Airframes Branch Officer and Aircraft Division Officer aboard aircraft carriers and ashore.  I have a Commercial Pilot license and am qualified in the DC-8 aircraft.  I worked as a systems engineer for Pacer Systems, Inc. developing the multi-media training curriculum for the SD-330 commercial aircraft, was technical advisor for the P3C Orion avionics upgrade, and managed the training and installation of the Anti-Submarine Warfare Data Interpretation and Analysis Center for the Canadian Forces.  In an active Reserve capacity I was Commanding Officer of several space units of national importance and the architect and first Director of the Naval Space Reserve Program.  For GE, I was manager for C3I programs involving imagery sensing and space communications projects and was book manager and on-orbit electrical systems analyst for the Defense Satellite Communications System.  At GTE I was manager of Imagery and Intelligence Systems and later, manager of commercial enterprises building a business base in Africa.  For NASA, I served as Business Manager and as Deputy Director of the International Space Station Program.  Detailed to DoD I was Deputy Undersecretary for Space programs, Program Executive for the congressional interest Pacific Disaster Center and representative to the Vice President’s Global Disaster Information Network initiative.  I later served at the National Reconnaissance Office.  I am currently the Director of Special Programs at NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia.  In 2014 I was publically awarded for my support to STEM education by the Governor’s School for Science and Technology.

Technology is not engineering.  I have worked in both roles as an operator, manager and executive for aircraft, space craft, communications and ground based sensor systems and platforms.   Technology involves the assembly, diagnostics and maintenance and repair of hardware and software systems.  Engineering involves innovation, invention and creativity in the conceptualization, analysis, design, test and systems integration of hardware, software systems and operational processes.  Engineering requires a working understand and applications facility of specialized systems and familiarity of various adjacent engineering disciplines.  This understanding is based on the practical knowledge of math and science academic tools that allow for complex thought and cost effective and efficient design and test protocols that would not be readily intuitively obvious.  Engineering involves coming to know what you don’t know and finding solutions to unchartered problems and many times, building previously unimagined capabilities through the final design process.   A competent engineer has working knowledge of a broad range of engineering disciplines in addition to his/her specialty.  Mechanics, electrics, civil, chemical, materials, computer and others.  These are often applied to the development of aerospace, automotive, infrastructure, naval, information and other platforms.  Engineering is 80% intellectual, 10 % manual, and 10% inspirational.   Technology is 15% mental, 80% manual and 5% inspirational.  One may be trained to be a technologist but one must be educated to be an engineer.  Technology is working with things that exist and are documented and known in their structure and operation.  Engineering is imagining things that do not exist, designing them and interfacing them to practical applications.  The design process itself requires complex critical analysis, an imaginative problem solution set, real or simulation protocols, and production and operation documentation.   Education is gotten through classical academics in the hard engineering, science and math disciplines and practical internships and industry experience.  Engineering must be precise, sustainable, and mission and environmentally survivable.  A casual understanding or application of the tools of engineering quite often leads to disaster and a bad day for the technologist, manager, policy maker, executive, and public and private user of the engineering equipment.  Engineering requires attention to detail and does not lend itself to generalization.  An engineer makes a very long term and challenging commitment to academics and practice that relies heavily on truly quality based teaching in the early years.  Many people live in the world that others build.  Engineers are builders and responsible for raising the standard of living to the previously imaginable standards enjoyed today.

Teaching engineering is not a certification that should be arbitrarily conferred on the basis of politics, tenure or casually related skills lest the student body be disadvantaged.  Teachers as well as students must be accountable to a regents-like certification process by an independent agency lest we end up with paper certifications with no performance improvement in our next generation of engineers and abandon the advantages of good engineering to other nations.  The proposed endorsement should be specified and applied in the most effective letter and spirit to serve the students.  The endorsement should not be watered down to accommodate a jobs program but to uplift those talented teachers who would rise to the hard work of teaching as a national mission and a calling.  The current population of qualifiable teachers should be allowed sabbaticals to develop meaningful experience and be appropriately compensated separate from their contemporaries based on the academic difficulties, teaching challenges and engineering leadership qualities required to be a STEM teaching professional.   The proposed engineering endorsement is a step in the direction of building a student body with a competency, imagination and passion for engineering.   Yet, this will happen only if they are exposed, taught and mentored by those with the same competency, imagination and passion.

 

I agree that knowing CPR can be a literal life-saver, but at what point is it just one more thing being mandated to teachers?  Do all parents need to go through CPR training?  Do all restaurant workers?  How about state legislators?  Or do we just focus on teachers because they are compliant?

I do not support the proposed Engineering Endorsement 8VAC20-23-330.

Engineering should be available to everyone, not just the select few students who plan to be engineers. The engineering design process is a broadly applicable skill that all students should learn and use to solve real life problems. Virginia’s technology education program already presents students with opportunities to take courses that challenge them with hands on activities that use the engineering design process while practicing the mathematics and science students they learn in their core courses.

Virginia’s technology program is very successful in teaching engineering. During the 2014-2015 school year there were 312 schools with 9,063 students enrolled in 12 different courses that contained engineering in the title of the name. Over the past 10 years, 48,262 students took these same elective courses. Certainly there are more courses that teach engineering design and habits of mind (e.g. geospatial technology, electronics technology, construction technology, architectural drawing, etc.).

STEM education is on the minds and lips of many educational leaders today. The main issue with creating a valid STEM program is to integrate the practice of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics together. This integration is already occurring in many Governor's STEM Academies. If we are to create another engineering program requirement, it will further isolate those four areas of STEM versus creating true integration. 

I do support the requirements laid out by Senate Joint Resolution 308 passed by the General Assembly in 2011. In 2012, Dr. Patricia Wright submitted a letter to the Virginia General Assembly providing the plan for Virginia to use existing mathematics, science, and technology courses to teach engineering. By collaborating, these teachers will learn from each other, use common examples in their lessons and therefore strengthen student success in all course work, even beyond mathematics, science, and technology courses.

In conclusion, creating a more rigorous engineering endorsement requirement will not be in the best interest of the majority of students in this great Commonwealth. By doing so, we will create additional teacher shortages and provide engineering courses to a select few students versus to all students who would otherwise benefit from learning engineering.

The bottom line is not winning the argument of how and by whom engineering should be taught, it should be about ensuring that engineering programs are available to all students. By doing so, our students will be the winners.

I was happy to see the increase of required mathematics courses that includes an explicit mention of a math methods course for Early, Elementary, and Middle School teachers preparing to teach mathematics. However, I have grave concerns regarding the option for teacher ed programs to replace math content courses with passing a "rigorous elementary subject test prescribed by the Virginia Board of Education”  which presumedly will be a content Praxis exam. The current situation with the content Praxis exam for early childhood/elementary seems to be a moving target - and it’s also not all that clear how Virginia’s cut score relates to other states because they keep changing the exam. For too long VA has allowed the cut score on the Praxis for early/elementary “content” to be much lower than the cut score required by Middle Ed and Secondary Ed content areas - the latter which have been the highest in the nation. Given the foregone conclusion that there has to be an exam for licensure, VA should step up and require their early childhood and elementary teachers to also have to meet the highest cut score in the nation for ALL of their content Praxis exams. Not only is it difficult to find any state where most if not all people eventually pass the elementary Praxis content exams; but D’Agostino and Powers (2009) conducted a meta-analysis on certification exam data that revealed that certification test scores, such as the Praxis, likely do not offer additional information beyond “safeguarding the public from incompetent teaching” – certainly a minimal expectation. In short, the results of that study do not support allowing Praxis to replace required content coursework. In fact, D’Agostino and Powers state "It was found that test scores were at best modestly related to teaching competence and that performance in preparation programs was a significantly better predictor of teaching skill.” So including the option to take a Praxis exam over taking content courses raises red flags for me. And assuming the Praxis exams will continue to be used, at the very least, Virginia should require their teachers to meet the highest cut scores. Virginia's children deserve it. 

I am the foreign language and CTE Coordinator in Harrisonburg City. My opinions are my own and not necessarily those of my school division.

In general, the changes represent a step in the right direction. I appreciate the extension of the International Educators license from three to five years, and the additional flexibility in the Elementary Education endorsements (allowing more of the requirements to be met by passing rigorous content tests) and in the Foreign Language endorsement (removing the TOEFL requirement). The new Engineering endorsement may be helpful to us as well, so long as it is in addition to, and not in place of, the Technology Education endorsement. We have been fortunate to have some wonderful Technology Education teachers who are also good Engineering teachers; the new regulation should not take options away from them when endorsements are matched with courses to determine highly qualified teacher status. 

I would also like to ask the Board to consider additional flexibility, and perhaps a new endorsement area, for the growing and popular Dual Language programs around our state in which students learn for a large part of the day in a language other than English (in our programs, for example, they learn for about half of the day in the Spanish language). The growth in these programs nationwide means that teacher openings are very hard to fill, and the current path to an Elementary Education endorsement is too steep in time and cost for our state to be an attractive destination for Dual Language teachers. I suggest the addition of a new Immersion Education endorsement, with a requirement for advanced proficiency in a foreign language and targeted coursework to ensure quality immersion education. An Immersion Education endorsement would give a teacher highly qualified status to serve as a classroom teacher and would enable us to provide a more direct path to teaching for more candidates, especially those who are career switchers or who move here from Puerto Rico or other states. Utah, Rhode Island, and Illinois are among the states that have created a specific endorsement for bilingual or Dual Language education to respond to the growing demand for these effective programs.

Though the areas I work with - foreign language, Dual Language, and CTE - are different in many respects, one thing they share is the critical need for more great teachers to join the field. Anything the Board can do to make the process of becoming a teacher more streamlined and more attractive is welcome.

Consider reverting to the pre-2007 endorsement requirements for ESL. During that time-frame, individuals who completed an academic major in ESL were considered eligible to be hired. Now, even with a major, unless the person has the required 24 semester hours, one could be considered ineligible for the endorsement and cannot be hired without requesting a waiver from the DOE. Considering the difficulty in finding qualified ESL teachers, making this revision would be a small but needed change.

At the same time, should the DOE keep the changes now listed in the proposed regulations, I would also recommend that rather than counting the six semester hours required for reading as content course work, you would make those six semester hours a professional studies requirement thereby reducing the content requirements to 18 semester hours. This would be in line with the reading requirements for both elementary and special education.

JROTC

Goochland County Public Schools implemented our first Marine Corps JROTC program 

last school year.  The program has been very successful and continues to set paramount 

standards of leadership and excellence for the students enrolled.  The JROTC curriculum 

is unique and created exclusively by the United States Marine Corp.   Likewise, JROTC 

instructors matriculate through an intense Marine Corp training program focused on 

teaching young people leadership, citizenship, personal growth and responsibility, public 

service, and career exploration. To require these men and women to complete 

professional studies courses in areas such as Classroom Management and Curriculum and 

Instruction seems to add little value to the overall impact the program and curriculum has 

on our students.  Since the JROTC curriculum and standards are created and maintained 

by the United States Marine Corp with very little to no input from state and federal 

education departments we are requesting that the Commonwealth consider removing the 

required professional studies requirements for individuals seeking a license to provide 

JROTC Instruction since they already receive training in this area instead.

SPED

Special Education teachers have both formal education and training on how to effectively 

teach, assess, and manage the needs of students with a variety of learning impairments.  

This specialized training allows these teachers to meet the various educational needs of 

exceptional learners.  However, in order for special educators to be considered highly 

qualified to teach a core subject ie. math, science, history, or English to the students on 

their caseload, the individual must also be endorsed in the corresponding subject matter.  

To add the additional endorsement the teacher must either pass the content area Praxis or 

complete additional coursework.  In some cases this requirement creates a hardship for 

the school division and it’s efforts in achieving highly qualified status for their staff. We 

would like for the Department of Education to consider changing the highly qualified 

requirements for Special Educators and allow for a general license to teach courses.

Math Specialist

The current legislation proposed to create an elementary and secondary Math Specialist 

endorsement has the potential to cause staffing issues for smaller, rural school divisions.  

Rural school divisions like Goochland would benefit more from a pool of licensed K-12 

Math Specialists due to the way the role of Math Specialists are structured in these 

divisions. Often times their focus is on multiple areas of instruction across both the 

elementary and secondary curriculum that includes direct math instruction to students, 

(especially at the secondary level), developing and maintaining the district wide math 

curriculum, and providing instructional math support to staff.   By creating two separate 

endorsements the benefit to smaller school divisions diminishes greatly along with the 

employment outlook for individuals with this elementary and secondary endorsement.

Engineering

Goochland County Public Schools are currently offering at least two engineering courses 

being taught by current Career and Technical Education teachers; at least one of them is a 

dual enrollment course being offered through James Madison University.  The purpose of 

these classes is to help expose students to engineering, while at the same time providing 

the necessary pre-requisite engineering courses.  The Commonwealth of Virginia offering 

an engineering teaching endorsement could potentially create a problem in that most Engineering teachers also teach other courses.  Whereas we have an excellent Engineering program now, we could not sustain a full time teacher without them teaching other courses.  We would be comfortable if the Tech Ed endorsement could also continue to teach engineering.  The role of secondary 

education is to expose students to a variety of interests in an effort to help the student 

identify their passions.

CTE Technical Professional Licenses

Please take a look at the technical professional license for Building Trades.  It is not feasible to find a person with the number of hours in electricity, plumbing, HVAC, and carpentry.  We would like to see a specialty in any one of these areas count toward licensure.  Literally, no person has all four.

Also, please consider a longer time period for completing the three required courses.  Since many of these professionals do not even have a college degree, taking three courses is a hardship in an area that is already difficult to recruit.  Frankly, we would like to see the option in CTE (and JROTC) to hire these indviduals based on their experience expertise and require divisions to train them in Human Growth and Development, Curriculum, Discipline, and Technology. 

We feel that CTE and JROTC licenses would be easier to recruit if we provided these skills in training rather than a required course paid by the teacher without flexible scheduling options.

I am Jesse W. White.  I have a current Post Graduate Professional Virginia Teaching License with endorsements in Technology Education, Adult Education, and Building Trades. Over the course of my career, I taught high school Technology, served as President of the Virginia Technology and Engineering Education Association, been a Career and Technical Education Director in Hampton, VA, a business owner, a building contractor, and directed adult developmental disability programs. I have worked in both the private and public sectors over the last 40 years. I have a B.S.E. in Industrial Technology, an M.Ed. in Vocational and Adult Education, an Ed.S. In Vocational Education Leadership, and completed all but my dissertation in Human Performance Technology and completed training in Quality, Lean Processes, and Six Sigma. I have been recognized for leadership and service by my peers in K-12 and have developed solid industry-education partnerships, career academies, and served as a board member in the Virginia Association for Career and Technical Education, Virginia Children’s Engineering Council, and other leadership roles.       

Before retiring last month, my work included developing STEM middle school programs, the only health and medical sciences middle school program in Virginia, and the first Governor’s Health Sciences Academy. I helped develop one of the first Governor’s STEM academies as well as the Architecture and Applied Arts Governor’s STEM Academy in Hampton and one in the application phase to ensure the students in Hampton have rigorous academic and performance-based real career experiences. I have also re-designed the engineering program in Hampton where we graduated two Gates Millennium Scholars, have students who went to post-secondary engineering school or into industry, and students who have done well in ABET accredited post-secondary engineering programs. I have also built positive relationships with our local and regional employers.

After listening to and reading comments on the proposed new engineering endorsement, I do not believe this solution of a new and separate engineering endorsement represents the needs of the Commonwealth, our schools, the career field of engineering, nor our community’s needs or education priorities. I am not saying this work is flawed, however, I do think it is important to measure the right question; if there is a need to improve instruction, why reinvent the wheel? In the town hall comments, it is said (paraphrased) that there is no engineering at the K-12 level. I ask, then where did our engineers come from if they did not learn to be engineers in high school? How did they come to know about these careers and how did our students, who do not know an engineer in their home life, succeed in enrolling in a postsecondary engineering program? Where do first generation STEM learners look in their development and growth for that positive and encouraging adult (teacher)? In the Virginia Board of Education approved and industry-validated curriculim, Engineering has been in our schools since the 1980's and is currently taught at the developmentally approriate level.

I believe that the initial idea of the Governor’s STEM Academies was to resolve the very concern that is posed as if nothing is being done. The advent of the Governor’s STEM Academies in 2008 surely have an impact on creating new engineers. There are now 23 Governor’s STEM Academies in Virginia. These STEM Academies rely on Technology Education for engineering content and processes which is embedded in the essential competencies even if the name of a course does not match a university course. My colleagues and I agree that there is no established need for the proposed endorsement outlined in 8VAC20-23-330. The National Academy of Engineering does not advocate for a segregated curriculum. Mastery of Science, Technology, and Mathematics are the disciplines required to be able to apply the engineering design process. This new endorsement will not guarantee a stronger engineering background of a teacher nor an ability to assure student learning. Currently, there are no barriers to bringing college graduates with engineering degrees and licenses into the teaching profession. Hampton has several and they have been teaching Technology and Engineering for decades. I strongly oppose the creation of this engineering endorsement. While continuous improvement processes are always needed, and in this case we hear from those who state a need  for improvement, it is my hope that the focus of time and money be put in improving the current system (one that has produced desired results) rather than create a fuzzy model that has no research base, nor clarity in its outcomes. It would diffuse school divisions ability to produce college and career ready adults. Perhaps the advocates of this proposal would offer their time to assure a better curriculum offering rather than create an unnecessary burden on the schools in the Commonwealth.   

I believe that a reevaluation and review of more current and relevant data, particularly from the Governor’s STEM Academies would now be more of an urgent need to avoid potential waste of state and local tax dollars. Please do not allow this proposed engineering endorsement. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide my comments.

Jesse W. White

Hampton

t and enter your comments here. You are limited to approximately 3000 words.

I am a professional engineer. I am also a CTE teacher at Phoebus High School in Hampton. I teach two Project Lead the Way engineering classes and two years of Robotics.  I have been teaching for 22 years. I support the proposed 8VAC20-543-280 and 8VAC20-23-330. If passed, I believe these changes will improve engineering education in Virginia. The rationale for endorsing a new engineering program and licensing includes the following:

1. Engineering is a separate subject. It is NOT science, math or even technology. We have a wide assortment of technology education courses for those students who are interested in the broad study of technology. Many of these serve the purpose of teaching technological literacy. Our country recognizes the importance of engineering, but it is a near fatal flaw to think a science,  math or technology teacher can teach engineering. Placing engineering in the Technology Education curriculum may have seemed appropriate in the past, but it should now evolve to the distinct discipline that it really is.

2. Technology Education (TE) teachers are well trained for many of the general courses in technology education. They are not trained as engineers or even possess rudimentary levels of knowledge in the physics and engineering topics involved in courses such as Project Lead the Way (PLTW). PLTW attempts to train teachers in their courses, but an 80 hour summer training is insufficient time to expect a candidate teacher to actually understand statics, dynamics, kinematics, thermodynamics, electricity/electromagnetics, electronics, fluid mechanics, etc. I have watched teachers in these summer trainings who don’t know the subject matter even when the training concludes. It must be realized, but it is rarely explained, that the PLTW summer training courses ONLY require the teacher to DO the same content that the student will do in the school year. It doesn’t teach anything beyond the course itself. Shouldn’t the teacher have knowledge beyond the course he/she is teaching?

3. Virginia’s engineering courses are taught by any TE teacher available to teach the course, with no training in any formal or informal engineering program. Any engineer could identify these teachers when they see them teach a topic that they only know superficially. Imagine a class where a student asks a reasonable question that is “just beyond” what is covered in their high school textbook. Most TE teacher’s won’t have a clue. Teachers don’t have to know everything, but they should be competent in their subject. Engineering subject matter is still “taught” by the teacher with the aid of a textbook. We don’t expect students in math and science courses to “discover” the answers to all their questions.

4. The current status of TE teachers standing in the classroom teaching engineering does a disservice to both students and engineering. Students see mildly competent or incompetent adults in the role of engineering expert. Students are taught that building mousetrap cars, CO2 cars, paper airplanes, balsa bridges, etc is engineering. Many of these “projects” are poorly conceived because students are hardly taught the connection between the science and math (ie. no calculations) to their design. That’s not engineering! We aren’t preparing students well enough to pass engineering school in college. I’m not sure currently whether curriculum for high school engineering courses like PLTW are more limited by the student’s or the teacher’s abilities. This should never be the case!

5. We could verify this lack of knowledge in those who are teaching our students engineering. Ask the teachers of engineering courses to pass an AP Physics test. Physics is the science associated with most of the applications of engineering taught in high school engineering courses. They could also try a combined Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, and Statistics test. Or as a comprehensive test, they could try the Fundamentals of Engineering exam given to engineering school graduates. I am certain the majority of those teachers who would not meet the licensing requirements of the proposed engineering endorsement (as outlined in 8VAC20-23-330) would fail the test. Why do we let them teach a subject that they don’t understand?

6. The arguments made for keeping engineering in TE are simplistic:

1. One argument made for keeping engineering in TE is that they’re already doing it. This is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

2. They also claim to teach the engineering design process (practically a mantra for state TE and VTEEA representatives). That flow chart is taught in the first week. But TE teachers don’t know how to do the FULL engineering design process because they can’t teach the required math and science and its application. Watch an engineering class and see how little (if any) calculations are done as part of a project. We are misleading students.

3. We won’t be able to find the teachers to teach higher performing engineering classes. But this is actually an admission that current teacher are weak or incompetent.

4. TE teacher colleges can’t use the word “engineering” in the title of their courses. This is because the school of engineering knows the sharp differences in what is taught in college TE courses versus what is taught in actual engineering courses. So if we recognize that TE doesn’t really teach engineering in college, why do we pretend that it’s sufficient for high school?

5. But TE courses currently teach “design”. Just because you have the word design in the curriculum, doesn’t make the course equal to engineering. Fashion Marketing and Art teach design. I don’t think anyone confuses these courses with engineering. TE design is just primitive size, shape and color at most. Again, it misleads students into thinking engineering can be divorced from math and science, calculations, and the depth of engineering discipline.

7. The turf war is really about money. Perkins funds are designated for CTE courses. So the current TE colleges and CTE directors use the scare tactic that engineering won’t get money from Perkins Act. If the Perkins funds are currently being properly spent on TE “engineering-like” courses now, then can’t they be used for engineering courses after these proposals are implemented? In the past, CTE has morphed from its roots in Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, absorbed ROTC, and includes the wide variety of endorsements that currently fall under CTE. Couldn’t CTE accept that the engineering endorsement is required to teach any course with engineering in the title (similar to what the colleges do with courses titles)? This would be a SIMPLE SOLUTION THAT JUST REQUIRES THE WILL TO DO IT. IT IS A CLEAR CHOICE TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN VIRGINIA.

Virginia will provide better education in engineering by raising the standards. Education and society call it STEM not STeM. Let’s make Virginia fulfill the “E” for engineering. Let’s make the discipline real.

 

.

 

         MEMORANDUM

 

To:                      Licensure Division, Virginia Department of Education

 

From:                 The Virginia Council of Mathematics Specialists

 

Date:                  October 10, 2015

 

Subject:              Proposed change to the licensure requirement  grade 6-8 Mathematics Specialists

The Virginia Council of Mathematics Specialist (VACMS) is presenting a response to a proposed change to the licensure requirement for grades 6-8 Mathematics Specialists to require that they have grades 6-12 mathematics endorsement.  The Virginia Council of Mathematics Specialist strongly supports the quest for more rigorous mathematics programs at all levels. However, we do not support requiring a secondary mathematics credential for the middle school mathematics specialist endorsement as the way to increase middle school students' learning and achievement in mathematics.

The VACMS concurs with the position of the Virginia Mathematics and Science Coalition (VMSC) that middle school mathematics teachers certainly need to be familiar with the content of both elementary and high school mathematics. As the Coalition states, the course work to prepare teachers of high school mathematics is not appropriate to prepare middle school mathematics specialists. Professional society recommendations are very clear on this point.  From the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Mathematical Education of Teachers:  “Teachers of middle grades students must be able to build on their students’ earlier mathematics learning and develop a broad set of new understandings and skills to help students meet these more sophisticated mathematical goals. Teaching middle grades mathematics requires preparation different from preparation for teaching high school mathematics.” And from the Mathematical Association of America, Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics: “A teacher preparation program for high school mathematics teachers is generally not adequate for preservice teachers who are planning to teach middle school mathematics. The mathematics topics taught in middle schools are substantially different from those taught in high schools, and the needs and mathematical sophistication of the students are substantially different.”  The appropriate way to view preparation as a middle grades mathematics specialists when compared with secondary licensure is as advanced training with a different focus, not as training that is less advanced.  Requiring a secondary endorsement for middle grades specialists is a distraction from the primary goal of achieving the most sophisticated mathematical knowledge appropriate for the middle grades curriculum.

The Virginia Mathematics and Science Coalition (VMSC) formed a task force in the spring of 2008 to study the role and responsibilities of middle school mathematics specialist. Their purpose was to make recommendations about how the preparation for mathematics specialists to work in elementary schools should be changed to prepare well-qualified middle school mathematics specialists.  A group of Virginia mathematicians, mathematics educators, and school division mathematics leaders made up the task force.  Committee members noted in the task force report that teachers preparing to be middle school mathematics specialists need opportunities to understand deeply the mathematics that underpins the middle school curriculum.  Specialists must also have a deep understanding of the mathematics that students have already learned, and be able to make connections to those ideas as they extend their learning to more sophisticated mathematics in high school.  Furthermore, middle school mathematics specialists must be able to support teachers to answer the call to meet the needs of all students.  Middle school mathematics teachers require a skill set to work with a wide range of students with different academic needs.  In some cases, students have not yet adequately mastered content introduced in the elementary grade curriculum.  In other cases, students need additional opportunities to explore a mathematical topic at a more sophisticated level.  More generally, the task force noted that teachers must find ways to teach sophisticated middle school mathematical concepts effectively—concepts that they may not know how to present to their middle school students.

The VMSC led task force, as well as the members of the Virginia Council of Mathematics Specialists (VACMS), agree that much of the course work to prepare K-5 mathematics specialist is appropriate for middle school mathematics specialists.  VACMS is in agreement with the task force recommendations of the adaptions and changes in the K-5 preparation program for preparing middle school mathematics specialists. That is to include a special middle school focus in the mathematical educational leadership courses and research courses accompanied by additional coursework in algebra and geometry beyond that required for the K-5 mathematics specialist preparation.

The Virginia Council of Mathematics Specialists recognizes the importance of developing middle school students' proportional reasoning ability and other foundational algebraic understandings.  The Virginia Council of Mathematics Specialist recommends that the Virginia Board of Education consider requiring the Algebra I Add-on endorsement as one of the requirements for the Middle School Mathematics Specialist Endorsement. The coursework required to secure the Algebra I Add-on endorsement will prepare middle school specialists to help middle school teachers of all students as well as those who are teaching Algebra and Geometry for Carnegie Units at the middle school.

We appreciate the Virginia Board of Education's consideration of the Virginia Council of Mathematics Specialists position on the requirements for the Middle School Mathematics Specialist Endorsement.

My name is Austin Mantay.  I am a STEM teacher & a PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER w/ 4 college degrees.  My father worked for NASA for 40+ years, and I have been around the engineering disciplines my whole life.

That being said, I am one of the FEW STEM teachers in VA that would qualify to CONTINUE to teach the engineering courses our students need.  Yes, it would be a UTOPIA if fully educated engineers with real world experiences could teach the STEM courses with the word ‘ENGINEERING’ in it, but it is a genie wish, riding a unicorn looking for a leprechaun with a pot of gold, a.k.a., it will NEVER WORK.

Example:  Engineers that get out of universities with a 4-5 year bachelor or another 2-3 years for the graduate degree, will want to make the 80k-140k+ a year they deserve, not the 40k a teacher makes.  Plus, most schools only have 1-2 bells of engineering courses per year, so the ‘engineers’ are also going to teach photography or construction, which they will not want to do.

Also, in my 14 years of teaching, I have watched 5 different engineers try to retire/ transition into teaching STEM, and 4 only made it just 1 year and the other made it 1.5 yrs, before going back to industry in the middle of the year.  They often are brilliant, but have no idea on what classroom control is (they can’t handle teenagers).  This coupled with a paycheck that is 33% of what they were earning, in a field where there are PLENTY of engineering jobs available, why would they stay? 

I DO NOT SUPP%0%RT this bill, as it will drop back the TECH ED/ Trade & Industries/ STEM education system that we have been building up since the 1980’s.  Students love doing hands on activities, and many of the high school engineering teachers I know are TECH ED/ Trade & Industries/ STEM educated, and are still GREAT ENGINEERING INSTRUCTORS.  Often students learn math and science principles while applying engineering skills.  If you pass this silly pants of a bill, each school will just re-adopt the 2 year Principles of Technology Curriculum from the late 90’s, and the engineering teachers will still teach the SAME WAY, so don’t waste our tax dollars trying to slow us down, we will just shift directions to continue to teach the students of tomorrow engineering principles.

The comments from these individuals have the wrong attitudes/ trying to get great STEM teachers transferred/ forced into moving/ resignation.  The engineers making 80k-140k will not apply for those pie in the sky jobs you’re dreaming up.  Sorry for the wake-up call fellas:

@ Jim Batterson, Former Sr. Advisor to the Commonwealth for STEM Initiatives

@ Donald Williams

 

I am writing to express my concerns with some changes proposed in the Teacher Licensure Regulations for the commonwealth of VA.  Specifically, my concerns are in these areas:

8VAC20-23-130. Professional studies requirements item 5

8VAC20-23-190. Professional studies requirements. Item 4

In essence, the changes proposed in these sections seem to be doing four things:

1. Removing the title “Foundations of Education” and replacing it with “The Teaching Profession.” 
2. Moving the assessment content out of the foundations course into a separate course.
3. Explicitly adding in content on professionalism, ethical standards, and personal integrity
4. Adding in content on Virginia’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers

While I certainly agree with item number 2 above, that the assessment content is important enough to be moved out and made a professional studies requirement of its own, I do have some strong concerns about item 1. 

My primary concern rests with changing the title of the professional studies requirement of “Foundations of Education” to “The Teaching Profession.”  While it might seem minor, such a title change represents something very significant to the field of educational foundations.

Perhaps the writers of the proposed regulations are unaware that there is a field called the Foundations of Education (also referred to as the Social Foundations of Education), which is served, among others,  by a national organization called the Council for Social Foundations of Education (CFSE).  The CFSE has developed a set of professional standards purposed with informing state regulatory agencies on initial teacher certification requirements in the field of the foundations of education (http://csfeonline.org/about/csfe-standards/).  Removing the wording of “Foundations of Education” from the professional studies requirement in the licensure regulations would, in effect, divorce this professional studies area from its disciplinary mooring.  All professional studies requirements for licensure should be linked to an academic field/area because there is a need for a united professional voice to help articulate what happens in this course (especially when it concerns such a broad statement as “the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations of education”).  How the commonwealth of Virginia titles a professional studies requirement (regardless of how an IHE ultimately titles the course) is important.  By using the title “Foundations of Education,”  the commonwealth is affirming the value of a particular professional field as well as helping an IHE understand who has the expertise to teach such courses (e.g. people who have graduated from PhD programs specializing in the Foundations of Education).  The state regulations regarding teaching licensure are legal documents, and thus semantics DO matter.

Additionally, as relates to items 3 and 4 in the listing above, the disconnection of “foundations of education” as a title seems inconsistent with the wording that follows the title change in the proposed regulations.  The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the foundations of education). In essence, the foundations of education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem, on the surface, to want. 

Based on the fact above that the Foundations of Education is already doing what the proposed regulations seek for “The Teaching Profession” course to do, and that foundations scholars are the best equipped to carry out this mission, I assume that the proposed change to the title is merely a case of the writers of the regulation changes not fully understanding that the the terminology “Foundations of Education” is referencing a particular academic field/focus. I hope that my explanations above have illustrated how the term “Foundations of Education” is important, that such referencing determines how a university teacher preparation program best plans this course and finds qualified individuals to teach it, and thus needs to remain in the regulations.  

I concur 100% with the comment posted by the Virginia Council of Mathematics Specialists regarding the proposal change requiring 6-8 mathematics specialists to have a 6-12 mathematics endorsement. Having a secondary mathematics degree (meaning a BS in mathematics) has not necessarily ensured candidates have a strong command of the middle grades curriculum (especially in terms of depth). The 5 graduate-level mathematics content courses taken by candidates pursuing a K-8 Mathematics Specialist Degree provide opportunities to understand deeply the mathematics that reinforces the middle school mathematics curriculum.

I hope the VBOE will strongly consider the position taken by the VACMS regarding this proposal. 

My name is Michael Starsman. I am a 2007 Graduate of Hickory High School, and a product of the Chesapeake Public School’s initiative to provide Chesapeake Students with a technical and practical understanding of the technologies and mechanisms that drive the and influence the everyday American.

 

As a High School Senior in 2006, I enrolled in a class listed as an Elective by CPS. I expected the course to ‘Probably’ be useful College, and in all likelihood, an Easier A than Trigonometry, which my Dad was pushing for. Unfortunately for me, the course turned out to be much more technical and challenging than I had hoped for. However, I was encouraged and pushed to pursue the subjects we studied: Photography and film development, Photoshop, and professionally using Microsoft Office, a skill universally used today. The class provided an interesting dynamic; plenty of radically new subjects for us to grasp, coupled with the time to explore the subjects for ourselves. The class was encouraged to learn a program or technique, and then to create with it. Retrospectively, this flexibility and push into these new frontiers brought on a new idea of its own: I was for the first beginning to learn at my own will, exploring and growing my base through the course structure. As I transitioned into college, I felt drastically more prepared than my classmates. I even began teaching people Photoshop and revising Powerpoint presentations my Fall Semester.

 

I present to you only one idea I wish for you to consider. I transitioned from using these programs to teaching these subjects independently, but I learned them first in the Chesapeake Public School system. Because they offered a course that was auxiliary, I was introduced to a more technological world that awaited me beyond Hickory, and it hasn’t slowed down yet. The class taught propelled us to a different echelon of understanding to the technologies that phase in and out of our fast-paced culture. As the world continues to become a more technology-oriented and digital society, we must continue to provide students with the outlets necessary to grip the world a little bit stronger upon graduation from High School. If it happened for me, someone who looked for easy course to skip out on Trigonometry, it can certainly happen to another person whose story has yet to be written.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                Best regards,

                                                                                                                                                          Michael Starsman

Upon reviewing the proprosed revisions governing the review and approval of education programs in VA, it appears on p. 7 that candidates seeking an endorsement in special education-gen curriculum K-12 must have 12 to 15 semester hours in a content area (English, math, science or history/social sciences) in addition to passing a Praxis content exam. In my experience, I have quite a few pscyhology majors entering our university's intial licensure program in Sped-Gen Ed K-12. Requiring them to take an additional 12-15 semester hours in a content area in addition to passing a Praxis exam is prohibitive and will only add to the teacher shortage because of time required to complete endorsement requirements.  I have found that psych majors who add on content endorsements by passing the Praxis II exams in a content area are doing quite well teaching students with special needs (especially working with children with behavior concerns) and that by passing the Praxis II exams they also know the content students with special needs have to learn. Let's not make it harder to recruit good candidates into the field of special education- let's make the process doable and reasonable.

In December of 2012, the American Council of Engineering Companies - Virginia (ACEC/VA) and the Virginia Manufacturers Association (VMA) jointly submitted a proposal in response to a NOIRA regarding revision of 8VAC20-22-10 et seq - "Licensure Regulations for School Personnel".  In our submittal, we supported the creation of a new engineering endorsement for high school teachers, and, via this public comment, now support the resulting regulation 8VAC20-23-330 - Engineering endorsement.

ACEC/VA is the largest engineering firm association in the state, made up of more than 80 independent engineering firms representing more than 5,000 employees throughout Virginia.  ACEC/VA brings together engineering firms and offers the opportunity to connect with others in their industry and tackle the issues that the engineering community faces.  One of those issues is workforce hiring difficulties, caused in part by a lack of sufficient numbers of students choosing to pursue careers in engineering following completion of their K-12 education.

ACEC/VA believes that the current proposed engineering endorsement, 8VAC20-23-330 will accomplish the following elements:

1.  Ensure high school engineering teachers are highly qualified in engineering content coursework; and

2.  Remove barriers to bringing engineering majors from universities directly into the Virginia teaching workforce; and

3.  Provide multiple pathways to an engineering endorsement while maintaining appropriate engineering content area knowledge, skills, and experience

Again, on behalf of both ACEC/VA, we support the creation of an engineering endorsement 8VAC20-23-330 for high school teachers in Virginia.

Regards,

 

Benjamin A. Lilly

President - ACEC/VA

A separate license for teaching engineering courses is not needed or necessary.  I have been teaching for 4 years now and I have taught engineering at the high school level for 2 of those years.  I teach a rigorous amount of Math and Physics that astound my peers who are current Engineers in the field.  Those that wish to teach after being an Engineer can already do so following one of the already created routes.  This proposition is unnecessary and has the potential to create more problems in Virginia than it can solve.  

As a 28 year Career and Technical Education (CTE) professional educator (administrator and former teacher), I am not in favor of a separate license for engineers. There are already routes for professionals to enter teaching.  Technology Engineering Education teachers are in high demand and it is difficult to find enough applicants for current positions.  Adding separate licencse for engineers will hinder rather than help our dire situation.  

I am Dr. Charles Camarda, Sr. Advisor for Engineering Development at NASA's Langley Research Center (LaRC).  I began my career as a research engineer at LaRC in 1974 with an undergraduate degree in aerospace engineering from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn.  I conducted research analysis, design, and testing in high-speed/hypersonic vehicle structures and thermal protection systems received my Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering from George Washington University in 1980 and a PhD in Aerospace Engineering from Virginia Tech in 1990.  I was a technical branch head for the Thermal Structures Branch for five years prior to my departure to NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) after being selected for the 16th Astronaut Class in 1996.  I flew one Space Shuttle Mission, STS-114 Return-to-Flight following the Columbia disaster and became the Director for Engineering at JSC following my mission.  I served a detail assignment to NYU Polytechnic for tw years where I taught several engineering design courses and led an effort to infuse creativity and innovation into the engineering curriculum there.  While at NYU, I also taught several engineering design courses with students form over 40 local high schools in the New York/New Jersey areas.  I am currently the Sr. Advisor for Engineering Development at NASA LaRC.

In 2007 I worked with the Govenor's Panel on education in the state of Virginia to develop an engineering program of study in high schools in the state of Virginia.  I have also been working these past 5 years while at NASA to develop integrated programs of study in engineering design by connecting students in college, high school, and middle school and the faculty and educators withsubject matter experts (SMEs) in industry, academia, and the government.  I am also on the educational boards of several museums, universities and non-profit organizations.  I believe it is time we connect students with engineering at an early age and believe it is a natural way to connect the scientific principals they are currently studying with the physical laws which form the basis for engineering study.  To me, engineering helps excite and motivate young learners by allowing them to experience the "right-side" of their brain and the joy of creative discovery and pproblem solving.  Understand the rigorous mathematical principles which relates the theoretical understanding of the physical world around us requires, at the very least, an engineering undergraduate degree.  Engineering requires the mathmatical and numerical understanding to accuately model and represent physical behavior (fluid mechanics, structural mechanics, thermodynamics, heat transfer, electrical flow, etc.) and to experimentally test and validate theroetical/numerical models.  This is understandig=ng, and thus the ability to teach this understanding, is impossible without a prior degree in engineering.

I agree with the recommendations as stated in 8VAC20-23-330 and recommend that engineering educators in the State of Virginia have a degree in engineering from an accredited institution.

I oppose the proposal (8 VAC 20-23) creating an additional path for engineers to gain teacher licensure. Virginia Code (8 VAC 20-22) currently offers options for certification that are based on sound reasoning. There is no need to reinvent the wheel for engineers who are simply seeking to escape the pedagogy requirement.  Research shows that content knowledge is only 20 percent of what makes a good teacher.  Engineers need to understand the ramifications of decisions they might make in a secondary classroom and be especially mindful of adolescent development. Simply knowing how mathematics and science are applied to the engineering process is not enough to warrant placing engineers into a classroom without formal training. I certainly do not oppose having engineers in the Career and Technical education field, nor do I oppose having engineers teaching mathematics or science if that is their desire. What I do oppose is having a separate discipline for engineers and different licensing procedures for engineers to teach, especially procedures based upon faulty reasoning which, if followed to a logical conclusion, would say that only lawyers could teach criminal justice.  Additionally, research shows that the science and engineering courses at the nation’s colleges and universities lose students based not on student performance or secondary school preparation, but on the quality of college education, be it poor teaching resources or lack of pedagogy.  Pedagogy training is absolutely necessary to develop effective educators.

Additionally, the current proposal (8 VAC 20-543), designed to create an engineering discipline is unnecessary and redundant. Current Virginia Code (8VAC 20-542) already incorporates the instruction of engineering coursework within the Career and Technical Education umbrella. There is no statistical evidence that Virginia public schools are not meeting the needs of colleges and universities with regard to students continuing post-secondary study in the field of engineering.  In fact, there is ample evidence cited by numerous studies that there are actually too many engineers graduating from our nation’s colleges and universities each year. Furthermore, according to the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the employment prediction for 2012-2022 job growth in mechanical, aerospace, and industrial engineering fields is slower than average. 

In the majority of comments posted I see no actual statistics provided that support the need for a stand-alone engineering discipline.  The following publications should be read and digested prior to making a determination to add engineering as a discipline or making any changes to the regulations for endorsement for Virginia. This effort to change the existing Virginia Code is unnecessary, arbitrary, and redundant. Such a change will weaken the standards already in place and by which Technology Education teachers demonstrate on a daily basis the application of mathematics and science (engineering) through the use of technology.   Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education is alive and well in Virginia without the proposed changes.

http://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles/2011-profile-engineering-statistics.pdf

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-the-science-and-engineering-shortage/284359/

http://www.tbp.org/pubs/Features/Su09Brown.pdf

http://www.urban.org/research/publication/eye-storm/view/full_report

 

I appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments in strong support of the proposed engineering endorsement (8VAC20-23-330) for high school teachers in Virginia.

I am an Engineer that has been employed with the global engineering firm CH2M HILL for the past 26 years, all as a resident of Virginia. I have a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Stanford University and specialize in the investigation and remediation of environmental contamination. I have also been actively involved for more than 10 years via a managerial role I hold at my company in promoting STEM education in Virginia, particularly the 'E' in STEM. In this role I have directly engaged as a speaker on engineering topics in numerous K-12 classrooms, elected to sponsor STEM-related programs such as FIRST Robotics at several schools, and currently serve as a Board Member of the Virginia Beach Education Foundation. I also previously served as the Chair of the Education Committee of the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), Virginia Chapter. This Committee’s mission is to promote the 'E' in STEM in the Commonwealth of Virginia on behalf of the consulting engineering community.

During my term as the Education Chair of ACEC Virginia, I was fortunate to play a role in helping to promote the 'E' in STEM in a variety of ways, including ACEC Virginia's sponsorship and my involvement with the annual Virginia Children's Engineering Convention, and via support for the proposed engineering endorsement. The primary reason the Virginia engineering community supports this endorsement is due to the difficulties engineering firms face with respect to workplace hiring. This difficulty is caused in part by a lack of sufficient numbers of students choosing to pursue college-level education and careers in engineering following the completion of their K-12 education. In order to remedy this situation, my perspective is that the engineering community would like to see:

1. Significantly more opportunities in Virginia’s K-12 school system for students to be exposed to instruction in Engineering, and

2. Virginia K-12 students receive the educational foundation sufficient to more successfully pursue Engineering at the university level.

The engineering endorsement is an important first step to achieving these goals because it addresses two critical issues that are problematic in Virginia’s K-12 education system:

1. Assuring that high school engineering teachers are highly qualified in engineering subject matter. The technology education leadership in Virginia took the initiative decades ago and helped introduce engineering concepts into K-12 education in the Commonwealth, and that contribution has been invaluable. However, in the 21st century, this is no longer good enough. Engineering is a fundamentally different discipline than both science and technology. Other commenters that have preceded me (that are Engineers) understand this and have pointed out the important and substantial differences between Engineering and these other disciplines, so I won't repeat them here. More true Engineering courses that properly introduce K-12 students to Engineering are needed both to promote the career path and to prepare students for the very rigorous programs of instruction required to achieve college degrees in Engineering. From the decaying infrastructure problems looming over the U.S. to the ever more complex, global issues facing mankind, many more Engineers are needed than our education system is currently producing to innovate and to design the solutions to these problems. And in order to have more true Engineering courses and to properly teach our current Engineering courses, such as those within the Project Lead The Way (PLTW) program, we need teachers that are highly qualified to teach Engineering, working alongside the technology education teachers that so ably teach existing coursework in technology and applied technology.

2. Removing barriers to engineering majors teaching in Virginia’s high schools. The current endorsement scenario where Engineering is inappropriately viewed as a technology education discipline is a significant barrier for Engineers who wish to teach. An Engineer already fully qualified to teach Engineering based on their degree in Engineering is forced to complete an additional 12 hours of technology education courses in order to meet the requirement for a technology education endorsement. This makes no sense. This barrier must be removed in order to bring more Engineers into the teaching profession and to lay the foundation for more true Engineering coursework to be added to high school curricula across the Commonwealth.

I have read the earlier comments posted by some members of the technology education community arguing for preservation of the status quo, and there are several recurring assertions in these comments that I believe are incorrect and warrant a response:

1. Claim: Engineers will not want to teach because they can make much more money elsewhere. This is a very cynical viewpoint that presumes that people with engineering degrees are motivated predominantly by financial considerations more than people with degrees in science, math, or technology. The irony is that people with a technology background sufficient to be qualified as a technology education teacher could also make substantially more money than teaching by pursuing a job in advanced manufacturing, with a firm offering technology services, or through many other avenues. In my view, it is the barriers that currently exist for majors in Engineering to obtain a teaching endorsement, as explained above, that are the primary impediment for Engineers to become teachers. If those barriers were removed, and Engineers could become teachers without the significant added investment of 12 or more credit hours of unnecessary coursework to achieve an endorsement that doesn’t even reflect their discipline, the candidate pool would grow.

2. Claim: Schools cannot sustain a full-time Engineer as a teacher because there are so few engineering classes that they would need to teach other courses. This is a valid issue, but one that I view as having relatively easy and potentially win-win solutions. Where necessary, Engineers are natural candidates to round out their schedules by teaching science or math classes, for which it also can be difficult to find enough teaching candidates. All degreed engineers have very strong backgrounds in physics and mathematics. And the specific engineering disciplines add on top of that significant coursework in other sciences. For example, all Chemical Engineers have an extremely strong chemistry background, as will a Geotechnical Engineer in Earth Sciences. Ideally, the science and mathematics teaching endorsements would be amended to recognize that Engineers have substantial science and math coursework as part of their degrees and to eliminate unnecessary barriers for them to meet the requirements of the various science and math teaching endorsements as long as they have achieved at least a minimum number of credit hours in specific science or math coursework (e.g., a minimum of 18 credit hours). But even absent that, it is highly likely an Engineer, given his or her very strong science and mathematics background, could achieve a science or mathematics teaching endorsement without much difficulty by taking the relevant Praxis II exam(s). And I would also argue that science and math teachers with an engineering background would enhance instruction in these disciplines by being in a unique position to credibly point out to students by example how the theory in science and math can be directly applied to real-world innovation and problem-solving, potentially causing students to be more interested and engaged in science and math coursework. Of course, if Engineers would like to teach technology education coursework in addition to Engineering, then it would be appropriate for them to complete the requirements to obtain a technology education endorsement in addition to their engineering endorsement.

3. Claim: The proposed engineering endorsement will somehow restrict engineering courses to a select few students who plan to be engineers versus all students that would benefit from exposure to engineering. This point of view is illogical, and is illustrative of the fundamental lack of understanding of the differences between Engineering and Technology that is unfortunately so pervasive in the technology education community. Other than some of the coursework in the PLTW program, there are very few courses currently being offered in Virginia high schools that are actually true Engineering courses, and that includes some with the word "Engineering" in the course title. These include technology education classes that touch on the concept of engineering design, but do not delve into the connection between science and math and the design process to the extent necessary to be considered true Engineering courses. That said, these technology education courses are absolutely needed, and the proposed engineering endorsement should not and will not impact the ability for technology education classes to be offered or for technology education teachers to teach them. But the objective of the proposed engineering endorsement is to establish the necessary foundation for more true Engineering courses to be offered in Virginia high schools in addition to these technology education classes. This can't happen unless teachers of Engineering are fully qualified and competent to do so.

In conclusion, I would like to share an article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch I read the other day that illustrates how the status quo is not working to achieve the 21st century workforce that Virginia needs to be competitive in the global marketplace. Our education system is the most critical element in building that workforce and providing opportunities for the residents of the Commonwealth to be as successful as possible. The full article can be viewed at: http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_95b358ee-21c3-58c8-b34b-fba1c6687ef8.html. The article in part describes Governor McAuliffe's attempts to woo major companies to bring jobs to Virginia and quotes him as saying: "I can't bring in jobs unless we have the workforce. That is the secret sauce." The article specifically mentions Governor McAuliffe's conversation with the CEO of Canon, which earlier this year announced a $100 million investment in its Newport News, Virginia facility and is currently looking to locate a new research and development center. The Governor made a pitch to the executive for the project to be located in Virginia. Governor McAuliffe indicated that the CEO replied that Canon is currently struggling to fill 18 engineering jobs in Newport News, and stated: "He said if you can't fill those, how are you possibly going to handle my new R&D facility? Which is a very powerful statement."

Please enact the proposed requirements in 8VAC20-23-330 and establish an engineering endorsement for high school teachers in Virginia as a small but important step forward.

My name is Thomas Oliver Mooney Jr, I am a Hickory High School graduate, and an Electrical Engineering Graduate of Virginia Commonwealth University School of Engineering.

It has come to my attention that there is a proposal, 8VAC20-543-280, which would create a separate Engineering program of study. I believe that this would be a mistake. The better solution would be more support of the Senate Joint Resolution 308, which would create a collaborative teaching environment, as opposed to separating the disciplines further.

Engineering heavily relies on mathematics, and science. The classes that we have in technology inspired me to become an Engineer. I believe that integrating the STEM subject classes would greatly improve the effectiveness of preparing young minds for the college environment. There are programs in Virginia now that are excellent at this integration, programs such as TSA (Technology Student Association), FIRST (For Inspiration of Science and Technology), and VEX (VEX Robotics Competition). These, as well as other, programs offer the integration of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics in a way that no single class can.

The addition of a separate Engineering class is unnecessary. Engineering itself is just the act of problem solving, using math, science, and technology to help with that process. The classes that we have in Technology are already using that mentality successfully.

I am opposed to the Virginia Department of Education’s proposal to eliminate the title of Foundations of Education from one of the professional studies requirements in the teacher licensure regulations and rename the requirement “The Teaching Profession.” While this may seem like a trivial change, I believe that it is actually a very significant and detrimental change.  Foundations of Education has been a requirement in Virginia for at least the last 30 years and the content of such courses is still called for, even in the proposed regulation change.  In the proposed regulation change, the title of the course changes from Foundations of Education to The Teaching Profession, yet the content of the course remains essentially the same.  The proposed regulation appears below:

·        5. The teaching profession. Skills in this area shall be designed to develop an understanding of the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations underlying the role, development and organization of public education in the United States. Attention must be given to the legal status of teachers and students, including federal and state laws and regulations, school as an organization/culture, and contemporary issues and current trends in education, including the impact of technology on education. Local, state, and federal governance of schools, including the roles of teachers and schools in communities must be included. Professionalism and ethical standards, as well as personal integrity must be addressed. Knowledge and understanding of Virginia’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers must be included.

The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name?

This proposed change from "Foundations of Education" to "The Teaching Profession" will needlessly cut the course off from the discipline/field of Social Foundations of Education – a distinct field of study with graduate programs across the nation (e.g.University of Virginia; University of North Carolina Greensboro;University of South Carolina;and the  University of Michigan to name a few).

The faculty who teach these courses have had specific training in the Foundations fields, and if the name is changed in the new regulations, we worry that this particular professional studies requirement may not end up being taught by the faculty best prepared to do the course justice.  

Foundations of Education coursework provides a unique and critically important component of teacher education, bringing perspective and meaning to the task of teaching and fostering consideration of the role of public schools in our democracy. Study in Foundations of Education plays a key role in the development of reflective, thoroughly professional, and ultimately effective teachers for the Commonwealth because it places day-to-day classroom practice within wider contexts, providing time and space for consideration of such activities in light of the overall aims of education; such as education's role in supporting freedom of thought, social fairness, care for others, democratic self-government; and the role of schooling in students’ and teachers’ assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes surrounding diverse communities.  In other words, Foundations of Education’s focus on the “whys” of education—from societal goals to cultural and social trends affecting all aspects of education—are critical to effective implementation of the “hows” of classroom practice. Historically, Virginia has served as a point of origin for many of the realizations of the crucial role education plays in our democratic society and Foundations of Education study serves to help Virginia’s teachers continue to understand, appreciate, and maintain these connections.

I hereby petition the Virginia Department of Education to return the title Foundations of Education to its list of prescribed professional studies courses.  Foundations of Education scholars will thus be ensured a place in continuing to equip Virginia’s teachers not only with the practical methods and techniques needed to be successful, but also with the frameworks to understand how, when, and why to apply those tools in light of the broader contexts of education.

I am opposed to the Virginia Department of Education’s proposal to eliminate the title of Foundations of Education from one of the professional studies requirements in the teacher licensure regulations and rename the requirement “The Teaching Profession.” While this may seem like a trivial change, I believe that it is actually a very significant and detrimental change.  Foundations of Education has been a requirement in Virginia for at least the last 30 years and the content of such courses is still called for, even in the proposed regulation change.  In the proposed regulation change, the title of the course changes from Foundations of Education to The Teaching Profession, yet the content of the course remains essentially the same.  The proposed regulation appears below:

        5. The teaching profession. Skills in this area shall be designed to develop an understanding of the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations underlying the role, development and organization of public education in the United States. Attention must be given to the legal status of teachers and students, including federal and state laws and regulations, school as an organization/culture, and contemporary issues and current trends in education, including the impact of technology on education. Local, state, and federal governance of schools, including the roles of teachers and schools in communities must be included. Professionalism and ethical standards, as well as personal integrity must be addressed. Knowledge and understanding of Virginia’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers must be included.

The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name?

This proposed change from "Foundations of Education" to "The Teaching Profession" will needlessly cut the course off from the discipline/field of Social Foundations of Education – a distinct field of study with graduate programs across the nation (e.g.University of Virginia; University of North Carolina Greensboro;University of South Carolina;and the  University of Michigan to name a few).

The faculty who teach these courses have had specific training in the Foundations fields, and if the name is changed in the new regulations, we worry that this particular professional studies requirement may not end up being taught by the faculty best prepared to do the course justice.  

Foundations of Education coursework provides a unique and critically important component of teacher education, bringing perspective and meaning to the task of teaching and fostering consideration of the role of public schools in our democracy. Study in Foundations of Education plays a key role in the development of reflective, thoroughly professional, and ultimately effective teachers for the Commonwealth because it places day-to-day classroom practice within wider contexts, providing time and space for consideration of such activities in light of the overall aims of education; such as education's role in supporting freedom of thought, social fairness, care for others, democratic self-government; and the role of schooling in students’ and teachers’ assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes surrounding diverse communities.  In other words, Foundations of Education’s focus on the “whys” of education—from societal goals to cultural and social trends affecting all aspects of education—are critical to effective implementation of the “hows” of classroom practice. Historically, Virginia has served as a point of origin for many of the realizations of the crucial role education plays in our democratic society and Foundations of Education study serves to help Virginia’s teachers continue to understand, appreciate, and maintain these connections.

I hereby petition the Virginia Department of Education to return the title Foundations of Education to its list of prescribed professional studies courses.  Foundations of Education scholars will thus be ensured a place in continuing to equip Virginia’s teachers not only with the practical methods and techniques needed to be successful, but also with the frameworks to understand how, when, and why to apply those tools in light of the broader contexts of education.

I am opposed to the Virginia Department of Education’s proposal to eliminate the title of Foundations of Education from one of the professional studies requirements in the teacher licensure regulations and rename the requirement “The Teaching Profession.” While this may seem like a trivial change, I believe that it is actually a very significant and detrimental change.  Foundations of Education has been a requirement in Virginia for at least the last 30 years and the content of such courses is still called for, even in the proposed regulation change.  In the proposed regulation change, the title of the course changes from Foundations of Education to The Teaching Profession, yet the content of the course remains essentially the same.  The proposed regulation appears below:

·        5. The teaching profession. Skills in this area shall be designed to develop an understanding of the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations underlying the role, development and organization of public education in the United States. Attention must be given to the legal status of teachers and students, including federal and state laws and regulations, school as an organization/culture, and contemporary issues and current trends in education, including the impact of technology on education. Local, state, and federal governance of schools, including the roles of teachers and schools in communities must be included. Professionalism and ethical standards, as well as personal integrity must be addressed. Knowledge and understanding of Virginia’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers must be included.

The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name?

This proposed change from "Foundations of Education" to "The Teaching Profession" will needlessly cut the course off from the discipline/field of Social Foundations of Education – a distinct field of study with graduate programs across the nation (e.g.University of Virginia; University of North Carolina Greensboro;University of South Carolina;and the  University of Michigan to name a few).

The faculty who teach these courses have had specific training in the Foundations fields, and if the name is changed in the new regulations, we worry that this particular professional studies requirement may not end up being taught by the faculty best prepared to do the course justice.  

Foundations of Education coursework provides a unique and critically important component of teacher education, bringing perspective and meaning to the task of teaching and fostering consideration of the role of public schools in our democracy. Study in Foundations of Education plays a key role in the development of reflective, thoroughly professional, and ultimately effective teachers for the Commonwealth because it places day-to-day classroom practice within wider contexts, providing time and space for consideration of such activities in light of the overall aims of education; such as education's role in supporting freedom of thought, social fairness, care for others, democratic self-government; and the role of schooling in students’ and teachers’ assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes surrounding diverse communities.  In other words, Foundations of Education’s focus on the “whys” of education—from societal goals to cultural and social trends affecting all aspects of education—are critical to effective implementation of the “hows” of classroom practice. Historically, Virginia has served as a point of origin for many of the realizations of the crucial role education plays in our democratic society and Foundations of Education study serves to help Virginia’s teachers continue to understand, appreciate, and maintain these connections.

I hereby petition the Virginia Department of Education to return the title Foundations of Education to its list of prescribed professional studies courses.  Foundations of Education scholars will thus be ensured a place in continuing to equip Virginia’s teachers not only with the practical methods and techniques needed to be successful, but also with the frameworks to understand how, when, and why to apply those tools in light of the broader contexts of education.

I am opposed to the Virginia Department of Education’s proposal to eliminate the title of Foundations of Education from one of the professional studies requirements in the teacher licensure regulations and rename the requirement “The Teaching Profession.” While this may seem like a trivial change, I believe that it is actually a very significant and detrimental change.  Foundations of Education has been a requirement in Virginia for at least the last 30 years and the content of such courses is still called for, even in the proposed regulation change.  In the proposed regulation change, the title of the course changes from Foundations of Education to The Teaching Profession, yet the content of the course remains essentially the same.  The proposed regulation appears below:

·        5. The teaching profession. Skills in this area shall be designed to develop an understanding of the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations underlying the role, development and organization of public education in the United States. Attention must be given to the legal status of teachers and students, including federal and state laws and regulations, school as an organization/culture, and contemporary issues and current trends in education, including the impact of technology on education. Local, state, and federal governance of schools, including the roles of teachers and schools in communities must be included. Professionalism and ethical standards, as well as personal integrity must be addressed. Knowledge and understanding of Virginia’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers must be included.

The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name?

This proposed change from "Foundations of Education" to "The Teaching Profession" will needlessly cut the course off from the discipline/field of Social Foundations of Education – a distinct field of study with graduate programs across the nation (e.g.University of Virginia; University of North Carolina Greensboro;University of South Carolina;and the  University of Michigan to name a few).

The faculty who teach these courses have had specific training in the Foundations fields, and if the name is changed in the new regulations, we worry that this particular professional studies requirement may not end up being taught by the faculty best prepared to do the course justice.  

Foundations of Education coursework provides a unique and critically important component of teacher education, bringing perspective and meaning to the task of teaching and fostering consideration of the role of public schools in our democracy. Study in Foundations of Education plays a key role in the development of reflective, thoroughly professional, and ultimately effective teachers for the Commonwealth because it places day-to-day classroom practice within wider contexts, providing time and space for consideration of such activities in light of the overall aims of education; such as education's role in supporting freedom of thought, social fairness, care for others, democratic self-government; and the role of schooling in students’ and teachers’ assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes surrounding diverse communities.  In other words, Foundations of Education’s focus on the “whys” of education—from societal goals to cultural and social trends affecting all aspects of education—are critical to effective implementation of the “hows” of classroom practice. Historically, Virginia has served as a point of origin for many of the realizations of the crucial role education plays in our democratic society and Foundations of Education study serves to help Virginia’s teachers continue to understand, appreciate, and maintain these connections.

I hereby petition the Virginia Department of Education to return the title Foundations of Education to its list of prescribed professional studies courses.  Foundations of Education scholars will thus be ensured a place in continuing to equip Virginia’s teachers not only with the practical methods and techniques needed to be successful, but also with the frameworks to understand how, when, and why to apply those tools in light of the broader contexts of education.

I am opposed to the Virginia Department of Education’s proposal to eliminate the title of Foundations of Education from one of the professional studies requirements in the teacher licensure regulations and rename the requirement “The Teaching Profession.” While this may seem like a trivial change, I believe that it is actually a very significant and detrimental change. Foundations of Education has been a requirement in Virginia for at least the last 30 years and the content of such courses is still called for, even in the proposed regulation change. In the proposed regulation change, the title of the course changes from Foundations of Education to The Teaching Profession, yet the content of the course remains essentially the same. The proposed regulation appears below: · 5. The teaching profession. Skills in this area shall be designed to develop an understanding of the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations underlying the role, development and organization of public education in the United States. Attention must be given to the legal status of teachers and students, including federal and state laws and regulations, school as an organization/culture, and contemporary issues and current trends in education, including the impact of technology on education. Local, state, and federal governance of schools, including the roles of teachers and schools in communities must be included. Professionalism and ethical standards, as well as personal integrity must be addressed. Knowledge and understanding of Virginia’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers must be included. The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name? This proposed change from "Foundations of Education" to "The Teaching Profession" will needlessly cut the course off from the discipline/field of Social Foundations of Education – a distinct field of study with graduate programs across the nation (e.g.University of Virginia; University of North Carolina Greensboro;University of South Carolina;and the University of Michigan to name a few). The faculty who teach these courses have had specific training in the Foundations fields, and if the name is changed in the new regulations, we worry that this particular professional studies requirement may not end up being taught by the faculty best prepared to do the course justice. Foundations of Education coursework provides a unique and critically important component of teacher education, bringing perspective and meaning to the task of teaching and fostering consideration of the role of public schools in our democracy. Study in Foundations of Education plays a key role in the development of reflective, thoroughly professional, and ultimately effective teachers for the Commonwealth because it places day-to-day classroom practice within wider contexts, providing time and space for consideration of such activities in light of the overall aims of education; such as education's role in supporting freedom of thought, social fairness, care for others, democratic self-government; and the role of schooling in students’ and teachers’ assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes surrounding diverse communities. In other words, Foundations of Education’s focus on the “whys” of education—from societal goals to cultural and social trends affecting all aspects of education—are critical to effective implementation of the “hows” of classroom practice. Historically, Virginia has served as a point of origin for many of the realizations of the crucial role education plays in our democratic society and Foundations of Education study serves to help Virginia’s teachers continue to understand, appreciate, and maintain these connections. I hereby petition the Virginia Department of Education to return the title Foundations of Education to its list of prescribed professional studies courses. Foundations of Education scholars will thus be ensured a place in continuing to equip Virginia’s teachers not only with the practical methods and techniques needed to be successful, but also with the frameworks to understand how, when, and why to apply those tools in light of the broader contexts of education.

The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name?

This proposed change from "Foundations of Education" to "The Teaching Profession" will needlessly cut the course off from the discipline/field of Social Foundations of Education – a distinct field of study with graduate programs across the nation.

am opposed to the Virginia Department of Education’s proposal to eliminate the title of Foundations of Education from one of the professional studies requirements in the teacher licensure regulations and rename the requirement “The Teaching Profession.” While this may seem like a trivial change, I believe that it is actually a very significant and detrimental change.  Foundations of Education has been a requirement in Virginia for at least the last 30 years and the content of such courses is still called for, even in the proposed regulation change.  In the proposed regulation change, the title of the course changes from Foundations of Education to The Teaching Profession, yet the content of the course remains essentially the same.  The proposed regulation appears below:

·        5. The teaching profession. Skills in this area shall be designed to develop an understanding of the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations underlying the role, development and organization of public education in the United States. Attention must be given to the legal status of teachers and students, including federal and state laws and regulations, school as an organization/culture, and contemporary issues and current trends in education, including the impact of technology on education. Local, state, and federal governance of schools, including the roles of teachers and schools in communities must be included. Professionalism and ethical standards, as well as personal integrity must be addressed. Knowledge and understanding of Virginia’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers must be included.

The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be anethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name?

This proposed change from "Foundations of Education" to "The Teaching Profession" will needlessly cut the course off from the discipline/field of Social Foundations of Education – a distinct field of study with graduate programs across the nation (e.g.University of Virginia; University of North Carolina Greensboro;University of South Carolina;and the  University of Michigan to name a few).

The faculty who teach these courses have had specific training in the Foundations fields, and if the name is changed in the new regulations, we worry that this particular professional studies requirement may not end up being taught by the faculty best prepared to do the course justice.  

Foundations of Education coursework provides a unique and critically important component of teacher education, bringing perspective and meaning to the task of teaching and fostering consideration of the role of public schools in our democracy. Study in Foundations of Education plays a key role in the development of reflective, thoroughly professional, and ultimately effective teachers for the Commonwealth because it places day-to-day classroom practice within wider contexts, providing time and space for consideration of such activities in light of the overall aims of education; such as education's role in supporting freedom of thought, social fairness, care for others, democratic self-government; and the role of schooling in students’ and teachers’ assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes surrounding diverse communities.  In other words, Foundations of Education’s focus on the “whys” of education—from societal goals to cultural and social trends affecting all aspects of education—are critical to effective implementation of the “hows” of classroom practice. Historically, Virginia has served as a point of origin for many of the realizations of the crucial role education plays in our democratic society and Foundations of Education study serves to help Virginia’s teachers continue to understand, appreciate, and maintain these connections.

I hereby petition the Virginia Department of Education to return the title Foundations of Education to its list of prescribed professional studies courses.  Foundations of Education scholars will thus be ensured a place in continuing to equip Virginia’s teachers not only with the practical methods and techniques needed to be successful, but also with the frameworks to understand how, when, and why to apply those tools in light of the broader contexts of education.

I am opposed to the Virginia Department of Education’s proposal to eliminate the title of Foundations of Education from one of the professional studies requirements in the teacher licensure regulations and rename the requirement “The Teaching Profession.” While this may seem like a trivial change, I believe that it is actually a very significant and detrimental change.  Foundations of Education has been a requirement in Virginia for at least the last 30 years and the content of such courses is still called for, even in the proposed regulation change.  In the proposed regulation change, the title of the course changes from Foundations of Education to The Teaching Profession, yet the content of the course remains essentially the same.  The proposed regulation appears below:

·        5. The teaching profession. Skills in this area shall be designed to develop an understanding of the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations underlying the role, development and organization of public education in the United States. Attention must be given to the legal status of teachers and students, including federal and state laws and regulations, school as an organization/culture, and contemporary issues and current trends in education, including the impact of technology on education. Local, state, and federal governance of schools, including the roles of teachers and schools in communities must be included. Professionalism and ethical standards, as well as personal integrity must be addressed. Knowledge and understanding of Virginia’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers must be included.

The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name?

This proposed change from "Foundations of Education" to "The Teaching Profession" will needlessly cut the course off from the discipline/field of Social Foundations of Education – a distinct field of study with graduate programs across the nation (e.g.University of Virginia; University of North Carolina Greensboro;University of South Carolina;and the  University of Michigan to name a few).

The faculty who teach these courses have had specific training in the Foundations fields, and if the name is changed in the new regulations, we worry that this particular professional studies requirement may not end up being taught by the faculty best prepared to do the course justice.  

Foundations of Education coursework provides a unique and critically important component of teacher education, bringing perspective and meaning to the task of teaching and fostering consideration of the role of public schools in our democracy. Study in Foundations of Education plays a key role in the development of reflective, thoroughly professional, and ultimately effective teachers for the Commonwealth because it places day-to-day classroom practice within wider contexts, providing time and space for consideration of such activities in light of the overall aims of education; such as education's role in supporting freedom of thought, social fairness, care for others, democratic self-government; and the role of schooling in students’ and teachers’ assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes surrounding diverse communities.  In other words, Foundations of Education’s focus on the “whys” of education—from societal goals to cultural and social trends affecting all aspects of education—are critical to effective implementation of the “hows” of classroom practice. Historically, Virginia has served as a point of origin for many of the realizations of the crucial role education plays in our democratic society and Foundations of Education study serves to help Virginia’s teachers continue to understand, appreciate, and maintain these connections.

I hereby petition the Virginia Department of Education to return the title Foundations of Education to its list of prescribed professional studies courses.  Foundations of Education scholars will thus be ensured a place in continuing to equip Virginia’s teachers not only with the practical methods and techniques needed to be successful, but also with the frameworks to understand how, when, and why to apply those tools in light of the broader contexts of education.

I am opposed to the Virginia Department of Education’s proposal to eliminate the title of Foundations of Education from one of the professional studies requirements in the teacher licensure regulations and rename the requirement “The Teaching Profession.” While this may seem like a trivial change, I believe that it is actually a very significant and detrimental change.  Foundations of Education has been a requirement in Virginia for at least the last 30 years and the content of such courses is still called for, even in the proposed regulation change.  In the proposed regulation change, the title of the course changes from Foundations of Education to The Teaching Profession, yet the content of the course remains essentially the same.  The proposed regulation appears below:
·        5. The teaching profession. Skills in this area shall be designed to develop an understanding of the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations underlying the role, development and organization of public education in the United States. Attention must be given to the legal status of teachers and students, including federal and state laws and regulations, school as an organization/culture, and contemporary issues and current trends in education, including the impact of technology on education. Local, state, and federal governance of schools, including the roles of teachers and schools in communities must be included. Professionalism and ethical standards, as well as personal integrity must be addressed. Knowledge and understanding of Virginia’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers must be included.
The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name?
This proposed change from "Foundations of Education" to "The Teaching Profession" will needlessly cut the course off from the discipline/field of Social Foundations of Education – a distinct field of study with graduate programs across the nation (e.g.University of Virginia; University of North Carolina Greensboro;University of South Carolina;and the  University of Michigan to name a few).
The faculty who teach these courses have had specific training in the Foundations fields, and if the name is changed in the new regulations, we worry that this particular professional studies requirement may not end up being taught by the faculty best prepared to do the course justice.  

Foundations of Education coursework provides a unique and critically important component of teacher education, bringing perspective and meaning to the task of teaching and fostering consideration of the role of public schools in our democracy. Study in Foundations of Education plays a key role in the development of reflective, thoroughly professional, and ultimately effective teachers for the Commonwealth because it places day-to-day classroom practice within wider contexts, providing time and space for consideration of such activities in light of the overall aims of education; such as education's role in supporting freedom of thought, social fairness, care for others, democratic self-government; and the role of schooling in students’ and teachers’ assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes surrounding diverse communities.  In other words, Foundations of Education’s focus on the “whys” of education—from societal goals to cultural and social trends affecting all aspects of education—are critical to effective implementation of the “hows” of classroom practice. Historically, Virginia has served as a point of origin for many of the realizations of the crucial role education plays in our democratic society and Foundations of Education study serves to help Virginia’s teachers continue to understand, appreciate, and maintain these connections.
I hereby petition the Virginia Department of Education to return the title Foundations of Education to its list of prescribed professional studies courses.  Foundations of Education scholars will thus be ensured a place in continuing to equip Virginia’s teachers not only with the practical methods and techniques needed to be successful, but also with the frameworks to understand how, when, and why to apply those tools in light of the broader contexts of education.
 

I am a Technology and Engineering Education teacher at Blacksburg Middle School. I teach 6th-8th grade Introduction to Technology and Inventions and Innovations classes. I am also a FIRST Lego Legue coach for two robotics teams and the Technology Student Association advisor for both Blacksburg Middle and Blacksburg High School.  As a Virginia K-12 educator for the past 11 years, and a member of both the Virginia Technology and Engineering Education Association (VTEEA) and International Technology and Engineering Educators Association, (ITEEA), I am writing to express my deep concern regarding proposed changes to the Regulations Governing the Review and Approval of Education Programs in Virginia. Specifically, my concerns target the proposed 8VAC20-543-280, Engineering as a new program of study  and 8VAC20-23-330, the addition of an engineering teaching license. If passed, this will affect the current high school pre- engineering programs and teachers. The addition of a new subject area is not needed in the already overcrowded education system. Many of our career and technical education classes here at the middle school level have already been cut due to funding issues.

Virginia led the Nation in 1988 in developing the first high school engineering courses within the subject area of Technology Education, and later incorporated nationally recognized engineering courses developed by Project Lead The Way (PLTW) that align with post-secondary engineering programs. As a result the Virginia Technology Education programs have produced students who successfully completed post-secondary 4-year Engineering programs not only through Virginia universities, but others across our nation.

The Technology Education curriculum is nationally recognized by the NSF, NASA, NAE, and other credible organizations as addressing the K-12 technology and engineering content and practices. My associations and their members have advocated for STEM partnerships for many decades. At the K-12 level in Virginia that partnership was specified in 2011 with the passing of Senate Joint Resolution 308, which established a shared responsibility among the existing science, technology, and mathematics subjects.

Rationale for NOT endorsing a new engineering program includes the following:

1. As submitted to the VA DOE in 2013 the proposed revisions to the Virginia Technology Education Regulations infuses engineering in a manner that aligns with the ITEEA national Standards for Technological Literacy and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for Technology and Engineering Literacy.

2. K-12 engineering education nationally, and in Virginia, is focused on the engineering design process, as specified by the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), ITEEA, and the Next Generation Science Standards.

3. Technology Education is an approved subject area in Virginia K-12 education that teaches the engineering design process.

4. Engineering courses, including Project Lead the Way, are currently taught in Technology Education.

I ask that the infrastructure for STEM education, inclusive of program regulations, funding, and professional development, remain directed at the existing science, technology, and mathematics education programs in Virginia.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Parker

I am opposed to the Virginia Department of Education’s proposal to eliminate the title of Foundations of Education from one of the professional studies requirements in the teacher licensure regulations and rename the requirement “The Teaching Profession.” While this may seem like a trivial change, I believe that it is actually a very significant and detrimental change.  Foundations of Education has been a requirement in Virginia for at least the last 30 years and the content of such courses is still called for, even in the proposed regulation change.  In the proposed regulation change, the title of the course changes from Foundations of Education to The Teaching Profession, yet the content of the course remains essentially the same.  The proposed regulation appears below:

·        5. The teaching profession. Skills in this area shall be designed to develop an understanding of the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations underlying the role, development and organization of public education in the United States. Attention must be given to the legal status of teachers and students, including federal and state laws and regulations, school as an organization/culture, and contemporary issues and current trends in education, including the impact of technology on education. Local, state, and federal governance of schools, including the roles of teachers and schools in communities must be included. Professionalism and ethical standards, as well as personal integrity must be addressed. Knowledge and understanding of Virginia’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers must be included.

The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name?

This proposed change from "Foundations of Education" to "The Teaching Profession" will needlessly cut the course off from the discipline/field of Social Foundations of Education – a distinct field of study with graduate programs across the nation (e.g.University of Virginia; University of North Carolina Greensboro;University of South Carolina;and the  University of Michigan to name a few).

The faculty who teach these courses have had specific training in the Foundations fields, and if the name is changed in the new regulations, we worry that this particular professional studies requirement may not end up being taught by the faculty best prepared to do the course justice.  

Foundations of Education coursework provides a unique and critically important component of teacher education, bringing perspective and meaning to the task of teaching and fostering consideration of the role of public schools in our democracy. Study in Foundations of Education plays a key role in the development of reflective, thoroughly professional, and ultimately effective teachers for the Commonwealth because it places day-to-day classroom practice within wider contexts, providing time and space for consideration of such activities in light of the overall aims of education; such as education's role in supporting freedom of thought, social fairness, care for others, democratic self-government; and the role of schooling in students’ and teachers’ assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes surrounding diverse communities.  In other words, Foundations of Education’s focus on the “whys” of education—from societal goals to cultural and social trends affecting all aspects of education—are critical to effective implementation of the “hows” of classroom practice. Historically, Virginia has served as a point of origin for many of the realizations of the crucial role education plays in our democratic society and Foundations of Education study serves to help Virginia’s teachers continue to understand, appreciate, and maintain these connections.

I hereby petition the Virginia Department of Education to return the title Foundations of Education to its list of prescribed professional studies courses.  Foundations of Education scholars will thus be ensured a place in continuing to equip Virginia’s teachers not only with the practical methods and techniques needed to be successful, but also with the frameworks to understand how, when, and why to apply those tools in light of the broader contexts of education.

I am opposed to the Virginia Department of Education’s proposal to eliminate the title of Foundations of Education from one of the professional studies requirements in the teacher licensure regulations and rename the requirement “The Teaching Profession.” While this may seem like a trivial change, I believe that it is actually a very significant and detrimental change.  Foundations of Education has been a requirement in Virginia for at least the last 30 years and the content of such courses is still called for, even in the proposed regulation change.  In the proposed regulation change, the title of the course changes from Foundations of Education to The Teaching Profession, yet the content of the course remains essentially the same.  The proposed regulation appears below:

·        5. The teaching profession. Skills in this area shall be designed to develop an understanding of the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations underlying the role, development and organization of public education in the United States. Attention must be given to the legal status of teachers and students, including federal and state laws and regulations, school as an organization/culture, and contemporary issues and current trends in education, including the impact of technology on education. Local, state, and federal governance of schools, including the roles of teachers and schools in communities must be included. Professionalism and ethical standards, as well as personal integrity must be addressed. Knowledge and understanding of Virginia’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers must be included.

The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name?

This proposed change from "Foundations of Education" to "The Teaching Profession" will needlessly cut the course off from the discipline/field of Social Foundations of Education – a distinct field of study with graduate programs across the nation (e.g.University of Virginia; University of North Carolina Greensboro;University of South Carolina;and the  University of Michigan to name a few).

The faculty who teach these courses have had specific training in the Foundations fields, and if the name is changed in the new regulations, we worry that this particular professional studies requirement may not end up being taught by the faculty best prepared to do the course justice.  

Foundations of Education coursework provides a unique and critically important component of teacher education, bringing perspective and meaning to the task of teaching and fostering consideration of the role of public schools in our democracy. Study in Foundations of Education plays a key role in the development of reflective, thoroughly professional, and ultimately effective teachers for the Commonwealth because it places day-to-day classroom practice within wider contexts, providing time and space for consideration of such activities in light of the overall aims of education; such as education's role in supporting freedom of thought, social fairness, care for others, democratic self-government; and the role of schooling in students’ and teachers’ assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes surrounding diverse communities.  In other words, Foundations of Education’s focus on the “whys” of education—from societal goals to cultural and social trends affecting all aspects of education—are critical to effective implementation of the “hows” of classroom practice. Historically, Virginia has served as a point of origin for many of the realizations of the crucial role education plays in our democratic society and Foundations of Education study serves to help Virginia’s teachers continue to understand, appreciate, and maintain these connections.

I hereby petition the Virginia Department of Education to return the title Foundations of Education to its list of prescribed professional studies courses.  Foundations of Education scholars will thus be ensured a place in continuing to equip Virginia’s teachers not only with the practical methods and techniques needed to be successful, but also with the frameworks to understand how, when, and why to apply those tools in light of the broader contexts of education.

 

I am opposed to the Virginia Department of Education’s proposal to eliminate the title of Foundations of Education from one of the professional studies requirements in the teacher licensure regulations and rename the requirement “The Teaching Profession.” While this may seem like a trivial change, I believe that it is actually a very significant and detrimental change.  Foundations of Education has been a requirement in Virginia for at least the last 30 years and the content of such courses is still called for, even in the proposed regulation change.  In the proposed regulation change, the title of the course changes from Foundations of Education to The Teaching Profession, yet the content of the course remains essentially the same.  The proposed regulation appears below:

·        5. The teaching profession. Skills in this area shall be designed to develop an understanding of the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations underlying the role, development and organization of public education in the United States. Attention must be given to the legal status of teachers and students, including federal and state laws and regulations, school as an organization/culture, and contemporary issues and current trends in education, including the impact of technology on education. Local, state, and federal governance of schools, including the roles of teachers and schools in communities must be included. Professionalism and ethical standards, as well as personal integrity must be addressed. Knowledge and understanding of Virginia’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers must be included.

The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name?

This proposed change from "Foundations of Education" to "The Teaching Profession" will needlessly cut the course off from the discipline/field of Social Foundations of Education – a distinct field of study with graduate programs across the nation (e.g.University of Virginia; University of North Carolina Greensboro;University of South Carolina;and the  University of Michigan to name a few).

The faculty who teach these courses have had specific training in the Foundations fields, and if the name is changed in the new regulations, we worry that this particular professional studies requirement may not end up being taught by the faculty best prepared to do the course justice.  

Foundations of Education coursework provides a unique and critically important component of teacher education, bringing perspective and meaning to the task of teaching and fostering consideration of the role of public schools in our democracy. Study in Foundations of Education plays a key role in the development of reflective, thoroughly professional, and ultimately effective teachers for the Commonwealth because it places day-to-day classroom practice within wider contexts, providing time and space for consideration of such activities in light of the overall aims of education; such as education's role in supporting freedom of thought, social fairness, care for others, democratic self-government; and the role of schooling in students’ and teachers’ assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes surrounding diverse communities.  In other words, Foundations of Education’s focus on the “whys” of education—from societal goals to cultural and social trends affecting all aspects of education—are critical to effective implementation of the “hows” of classroom practice. Historically, Virginia has served as a point of origin for many of the realizations of the crucial role education plays in our democratic society and Foundations of Education study serves to help Virginia’s teachers continue to understand, appreciate, and maintain these connections.

I hereby petition the Virginia Department of Education to return the title Foundations of Education to its list of prescribed professional studies courses.  Foundations of Education scholars will thus be ensured a place in continuing to equip Virginia’s teachers not only with the practical methods and techniques needed to be successful, but also with the frameworks to understand how, when, and why to apply those tools in light of the broader contexts of education.

 

I am opposed to the Virginia Department of Education’s proposal to eliminate the title of Foundations of Education from one of the professional studies requirements in the teacher licensure regulations and rename the requirement “The Teaching Profession.” While this may seem like a trivial change, I believe that it is actually a very significant and detrimental change.  Foundations of Education has been a requirement in Virginia for at least the last 30 years and the content of such courses is still called for, even in the proposed regulation change.  In the proposed regulation change, the title of the course changes from Foundations of Education to The Teaching Profession, yet the content of the course remains essentially the same.  The proposed regulation appears below:

·        5. The teaching profession. Skills in this area shall be designed to develop an understanding of the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations underlying the role, development and organization of public education in the United States. Attention must be given to the legal status of teachers and students, including federal and state laws and regulations, school as an organization/culture, and contemporary issues and current trends in education, including the impact of technology on education. Local, state, and federal governance of schools, including the roles of teachers and schools in communities must be included. Professionalism and ethical standards, as well as personal integrity must be addressed. Knowledge and understanding of Virginia’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers must be included.

The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name?

This proposed change from "Foundations of Education" to "The Teaching Profession" will needlessly cut the course off from the discipline/field of Social Foundations of Education – a distinct field of study with graduate programs across the nation (e.g.University of Virginia; University of North Carolina Greensboro;University of South Carolina;and the  University of Michigan to name a few).

The faculty who teach these courses have had specific training in the Foundations fields, and if the name is changed in the new regulations, we worry that this particular professional studies requirement may not end up being taught by the faculty best prepared to do the course justice.  

Foundations of Education coursework provides a unique and critically important component of teacher education, bringing perspective and meaning to the task of teaching and fostering consideration of the role of public schools in our democracy. Study in Foundations of Education plays a key role in the development of reflective, thoroughly professional, and ultimately effective teachers for the Commonwealth because it places day-to-day classroom practice within wider contexts, providing time and space for consideration of such activities in light of the overall aims of education; such as education's role in supporting freedom of thought, social fairness, care for others, democratic self-government; and the role of schooling in students’ and teachers’ assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes surrounding diverse communities.  In other words, Foundations of Education’s focus on the “whys” of education—from societal goals to cultural and social trends affecting all aspects of education—are critical to effective implementation of the “hows” of classroom practice. Historically, Virginia has served as a point of origin for many of the realizations of the crucial role education plays in our democratic society and Foundations of Education study serves to help Virginia’s teachers continue to understand, appreciate, and maintain these connections.

I hereby petition the Virginia Department of Education to return the title Foundations of Education to its list of prescribed professional studies courses.  Foundations of Education scholars will thus be ensured a place in continuing to equip Virginia’s teachers not only with the practical methods and techniques needed to be successful, but also with the frameworks to understand how, when, and why to apply those tools in light of the broader contexts of education.

I am opposed to the Virginia Department of Education’s proposal to eliminate the title of Foundations of Education from one of the professional studies requirements in the teacher licensure regulations and rename the requirement “The Teaching Profession.” While this may seem like a trivial change, I believe that it is actually a very significant and detrimental change.  Foundations of Education has been a requirement in Virginia for at least the last 30 years and the content of such courses is still called for, even in the proposed regulation change.  In the proposed regulation change, the title of the course changes from Foundations of Education to The Teaching Profession, yet the content of the course remains essentially the same.  The proposed regulation appears below:

·        5. The teaching profession. Skills in this area shall be designed to develop an understanding of the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations underlying the role, development and organization of public education in the United States. Attention must be given to the legal status of teachers and students, including federal and state laws and regulations, school as an organization/culture, and contemporary issues and current trends in education, including the impact of technology on education. Local, state, and federal governance of schools, including the roles of teachers and schools in communities must be included. Professionalism and ethical standards, as well as personal integrity must be addressed. Knowledge and understanding of Virginia’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers must be included.

The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name?

This proposed change from "Foundations of Education" to "The Teaching Profession" will needlessly cut the course off from the discipline/field of Social Foundations of Education – a distinct field of study with graduate programs across the nation (e.g.University of Virginia; University of North Carolina Greensboro;University of South Carolina;and the  University of Michigan to name a few).

The faculty who teach these courses have had specific training in the Foundations fields, and if the name is changed in the new regulations, we worry that this particular professional studies requirement may not end up being taught by the faculty best prepared to do the course justice.  

Foundations of Education coursework provides a unique and critically important component of teacher education, bringing perspective and meaning to the task of teaching and fostering consideration of the role of public schools in our democracy. Study in Foundations of Education plays a key role in the development of reflective, thoroughly professional, and ultimately effective teachers for the Commonwealth because it places day-to-day classroom practice within wider contexts, providing time and space for consideration of such activities in light of the overall aims of education; such as education's role in supporting freedom of thought, social fairness, care for others, democratic self-government; and the role of schooling in students’ and teachers’ assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes surrounding diverse communities.  In other words, Foundations of Education’s focus on the “whys” of education—from societal goals to cultural and social trends affecting all aspects of education—are critical to effective implementation of the “hows” of classroom practice. Historically, Virginia has served as a point of origin for many of the realizations of the crucial role education plays in our democratic society and Foundations of Education study serves to help Virginia’s teachers continue to understand, appreciate, and maintain these connections.

I hereby petition the Virginia Department of Education to return the title Foundations of Education to its list of prescribed professional studies courses.  Foundations of Education scholars will thus be ensured a place in continuing to equip Virginia’s teachers not only with the practical methods and techniques needed to be successful, but also with the frameworks to understand how, when, and why to apply those tools in light of the broader contexts of education.

The Foundations of Education field deals directly with teaching students not only the historical, philosophical, and sociological Foundations of education, but also with what it means to be an ethical professional of education who has examined issues of personal integrity, especially as related to how one successfully remains in the teaching field and how one equitably serves and understands our increasingly diverse student population (the field of multicultural education is a sub-field of the Foundations of Education). In essence, the Foundations of Education courses around the state are already doing what the new regulations seem to want, thus why change the name?