11-1302-19880-1
STATE OF
OFFICE
OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR
THE
|
In the Matter of
the Proposed Rules Governing |
REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE |
Administrative Law Judge Barbara L.
Neilson conducted a hearing in this rulemaking proceeding commencing at 9:00
a.m. on April 24, 2009, in Conference Center A, Room 14, at the Minnesota
Department of Education, 1500 Highway 36 West, Roseville, Minnesota. The hearing continued until everyone present
had an opportunity to state his or her views on the rules being proposed by the
Board of Teaching (the Board).
The hearing and this Report are part of a rulemaking process
governed by the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act.[1] The legislature has designed the rulemaking
process to ensure that state agencies have met all the requirements that
Bernard
Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, represented the Board at the hearing. The following individuals testified on behalf
of the Board in favor of the proposed rules:
Karen Balmer, Executive
Director, Board of Teaching; Robert Gardner, Teacher, Edina Public Schools; Steve
Norlin-Weaver, Administrator, Minneapolis Public Schools; Susan Thomson, Parent
Advocate; Deborah Dillon, Faculty Member, University of Minnesota; Cara Hagen,
former Higher Education Faculty Member and current TIES Staff Member; Greg
Utecht, Technology Director, Lakeville Public Schools; and John Melick,
Educator Licensing Director, Minnesota Department of Education. Thirty-four
people signed the hearing register.
The Board and the Administrative
Law Judge received written comments on the proposed rules prior to the
hearing. After the hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge kept the administrative record open for an additional twenty
calendar days, until
NOTICE
The Board must make this Report
available for review by anyone who wishes to review it for at least five
working days before the Board takes any further action to adopt final rules or
to modify or withdraw the proposed rules.
If the Board makes changes in the rules other than those recommended in
this report, it must submit the rules, along with the complete hearing record,
to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a review of those changes before it
may adopt the rules in final form.
After adopting the final version
of the rules, the Board must submit them to the Revisor of Statutes for a
review of their form. If the Revisor of
Statutes approves the form of the rules, the Revisor will submit certified
copies to the Administrative Law Judge, who will then review them and file them
with the Secretary of State. When they
are filed with the Secretary of State, the Administrative Law Judge will notify
the Board, and the Board will notify those persons who requested to be informed
of their filing.
Based upon all the testimony,
exhibits, and written comments, the Administrative Law Judge makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Nature
of the Proposed Rules
1.
The
Minnesota Board of Teaching is responsible for teacher preparation and
licensure requirements in the state. In
this rulemaking proceeding, the Board proposes to revise 21 of the existing
licensure rules set forth in Chapter 8710 of the Minnesota Rules, add seven new
rule provisions, and repeal one rule. It
also has proposed several technical changes to the existing rules. Three broad initiative areas are reflected in
the proposed rules: middle level
licensure, reading preparation, and technology-related licensure.[3]
2.
Among
other things, the proposed amendments would extract the current specialty
requirement from the K-6 license; include the content and pedagogy standards
for each of the newly-developed middle level endorsement licensure areas in a
single rule; require completion of the equivalent of a college minor in the
content area; require completion of a 4-week full-time student teaching
experience in the content area in grades 5-8; propose new standards for reading
preparation with respect to teachers of early childhood education, teachers of
elementary education, and content-specific licenses; create a new “Reading
Leader” endorsement; revise the scope of practice and subject matter standards
relating to Library Media Specialists; and require that all teachers include in
their 125-clock hours instruction or other professional development activities
that integrate technology effectively with student learning to increase
engagement and student achievement. The
most controversial portion of the proposed rules involves changes in the
endorsement for “Teachers of Keyboarding for Computer Applications.” The proposed rules would change the name of
this endorsement to “Teachers of Computer, Keyboarding, and Related Technology
Applications” and would expand the scope of the endorsement from grades K-8 to
grades K-12. These changes would be
effective September 1, 2010.
Rulemaking
Legal Standards
3.
Under
4.
The
question of whether a rule has been shown to be reasonable focuses on whether
it has been shown to have a rational basis, or whether it is arbitrary, based
upon the rulemaking record.
5.
Reasonable
minds might be divided about the wisdom of a certain course of action. An agency is legally entitled to make choices
between possible approaches so long as its choice is rational. It is not the role of the Administrative Law
Judge to determine which policy alternative presents the “best” approach, since
this would invade the policy-making discretion of the agency. The question is, rather, whether the choice
made by the agency is one that a rational person could have made.[10]
6.
In addition
to need and reasonableness, the Administrative Law Judge must also assess
whether the Board complied with the rule adoption procedure, whether the proposed
rules grant undue discretion, whether the Board has statutory authority to
adopt the rules, whether the rules are unconstitutional or illegal, whether the
rules involve an undue delegation of authority to another entity, or whether
the proposed language is not a rule.[11]
7.
Because
the Board suggested changes to the proposed rules after original publication of
the rule language in the State Register, it is also necessary for the
Administrative Law Judge to determine if the new language is substantially
different from that which was originally proposed. The standards to determine whether changes to
proposed rules create a substantially different rule are found in Minn. Stat. § 14.05,
subd. 2. The statute specifies that a
modification does not make a proposed rule substantially different if the differences are within the scope of the
matter announced in the notice of hearing and are in character with the issues
raised in that notice; the differences are a logical outgrowth of the contents
of the notice of hearing, and the comments submitted in response to the notice;
and the notice of hearing provided fair warning that the outcome of that
rulemaking proceeding could be the rule in question.[12]
8.
In
reaching a determination regarding whether modifications result in a rule that
is substantially different, the Administrative Law Judge is to consider whether
persons who will be affected by the rule should have understood that the
rulemaking proceeding could affect their interests; whether the subject matter
of the rule or issues determined by the rule are different from the subject
matter or issues contained in the notice of hearing; and whether the effects of
the rule differ from the effects of the proposed rule contained in the notice
of hearing.[13]
Procedural
Requirements of Chapter 14
9.
The
Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act[14] and
the rules of the Office of Administrative Hearings[15] set
forth certain procedural requirements that are to be followed during agency
rulemaking.
10.
On
11.
As required
by Minn. Stat. § 14.131, the Board asked the Commissioner of Finance to
evaluate the fiscal impact and benefits of the proposed rules on local units of
government. The Department of Management
& Budget provided comments in a memorandum dated
12.
On January
7, 2009, Chief Administrative Law Judge Raymond R. Krause authorized the Board
to omit the text of its proposed rules from publication in the State Register
pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.22, subd. 1(b).[18]
13.
On
14.
On
15.
On March
16, 2009, the Board published the Notice of Hearing in the State Register[21]
and mailed the Notice of Hearing to all persons on its Rulemaking List and Additional
Notice Plan mailing list.[22]
16.
On
17.
The
hearing on the proposed rules was held on April 24, 2009, at the Department of Education
in
A.
the
Request for Comments as published in the State Register on
B.
a copy
of the proposed rules dated
C.
a copy
of a memorandum from Kristy Swanson, Executive Budget Officer for Minnesota
Management & Budget, regarding the fiscal impact and benefits of the
proposed rules with respect to local governments;[26]
D.
a copy
of the SONAR;[27]
E.
a copy
of the transmittal letter showing that the Board mailed a copy of the SONAR to
the Legislative Reference Library on
F.
a letter
from Chief Administrative Law Judge Raymond R. Krause authorizing omission of
the text of the proposed rule from the published dual notice;[29]
G.
the
Notice of Hearing as mailed and published in the State Register on
H.
a
Certificate attesting that the Notice of Hearing was submitted for inclusion in
the Department of Education’s
I.
a Certificate
attesting that the Notice of Hearing was mailed to those on the Board’s
rulemaking mailing list on March 16, 2009 and a Certificate attesting that the
rulemaking mailing list was accurate, complete, and current as of that date;[32]
J.
a Certificate
attesting that the Notice of Hearing was mailed to certain members of the
Legislature on
K.
Certificates
attesting that the Notice of Hearing was emailed on March 16, 2009, to the
Dean/Chairs of Minnesota Teacher Preparation Institutions, all persons and
associations on the Professional Organizations list, and all individuals
commenting or requesting a hearing following the Request for Comments;[34]
L.
a Certificate
attesting that the Notice of Hearing was emailed in accordance with the
Additional Notice Plan on
M.
a
Certificate attesting that the Notice of Hearing was emailed to participants in
the 2007 middle level stakeholder meetings on
N.
a
Certificate attesting that the Notice of Hearing was provided to Continuing
Education Committee Members, Superintendents, Charter School Directors,
Principals, and Local Central Office Staff Members on
O.
copies
of comments and hearing requests received from members of the public during the
comment period;[38]
and
P.
copies
of comments received from members of the public after the comment period ended
but before the public hearing.[39]
18.
The
Administrative Law Judge finds that the Board has met all of the procedural
requirements under applicable law and rules.
Additional Notice
19.
Minn.
Stat. §§ 14.131 and 14.23 require that the SONAR contain a description of the
Board’s efforts to provide additional notice to persons who may be affected by
the proposed rules. The Board submitted
an additional notice plan to the Office of Administrative Hearings, which
reviewed and approved it by letter dated
20.
The
Board took action to inform the following interested and affected parties and
associations of this rulemaking process:
·
members
of the three task forces that worked on the proposed rules;
·
additional
reading stakeholders, including the Minnesota Reading License Coalition,
Minnesota Academy of Reading, Minnesota Reading Association, Minnesota and
International Dyslexia Associations, Reading Center/Dyslexia Institute of
Minnesota, Language Circle/Project Read, Minnesota Literacy Council, PACER Center,
ARC, Title I, Literacy Coalition of Minnesota, Parent Advocacy Group, Groves
Academy, Minnesota Response to Intervention Center, Minnesota Reading Corps,
St. Croix River Educational District, Orton Gillingham Minnesota, Winsor
Learning, Inc., and Lindamood Bell Learning Center;
·
additional
technology stakeholders, such as Minnesota Business Educators, Inc., Minnesota
Educational Media Organization, Perpich Center for Arts Education, and
Technology Information Education Services;
·
all
superintendents of schools;
·
all
deans/chairs of teacher preparation institutions;
·
the
President of the
·
content
area organizations, such as the Minnesota Association for the Education of
Young Children, Minnesota Association for Agricultural Educators, Minnesota
Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, Minnesota Association of Health,
Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, Minnesota Business Educators, Inc.,
Minnesota Council for Teachers of English, Minnesota Educational Media
Organization, Minnesota Middle School Association, Minnesota Council for Social
Studies, Minnesota Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Minnesota Science
Teachers Association, Minnesota Technology Education Association, MinneTesol,
Perpich Center for Arts Education, and Literacy Minnesota;
·
general stakeholders,
such as the Association of Metropolitan School Districts, Board of School
Administrators, Education Minnesota, Minneapolis Public Schools, St. Paul
Public Schools, Minnesota Association of School Personnel Administrators, Minnesota
Human Resource Directors, Interfaculty Organization, Minnesota Association of
Colleges of Teacher Education, Minnesota Association of Alternative Programs,
Minnesota Association of School Administrators, Minnesota Elementary School
Principals Association, Minnesota Middle School Association, the Minnesota
Association of Secondary School Principals, Minnesota Association of Charter
Schools, Minnesota Department of Education, Minnesota Rural Education
Association, Minnesota School Boards Association, Minnesota Staff Development
Council, Minnesota Independent School Forum, Minnesota State Colleges and
Universities, Minnesota Administrators for Special Education, Minneapolis Parents
United, and Schools for Equity in Education; and
·
others
who specifically requested notice.[41]
21.
Copies
of the proposed rules, SONAR, and Dual Notice were also posted on the Board’s
website.[42]
22.
The
Administrative Law Judge finds that the Board has fulfilled its additional
notice requirement.
Statutory Authority
23.
In its
SONAR, the Board asserts that its statutory authority to adopt rules these
proposed rules is set forth in Minn. Stat. § 122A.09, subds. 4 and 9.[43] Subdivision 4 states that the Board “must
adopt rules to license public school teachers and interns subject to chapter 14.” Subdivision 9 specifies that the Board “may
adopt rules subject to the provisions of chapter 14 to implement sections
122A.05 to 122A.09, 122A.16, 122A.17, 122A.18, 122A.20, 122A.21, and 122A.23.” Among other things, these statutes give the
Board broad authority to license public school teachers, impose licensure fees,
adopt ethical codes, and design teacher preparation programs.
24.
Minn.
Stat. § 14.125 sets certain time limits on the exercise of rulemaking
authority:
An agency shall publish a notice of intent to adopt rules or a notice
of hearing within 18 months of the effective date of the law authorizing or
requiring rules to be adopted, amended, or repealed. If the notice is not published within the
time limit imposed by this section, the authority for the rules expires. The
agency shall not use other law in existence at the time of the expiration of
rulemaking authority under this section as authority to adopt, amend, or repeal
these rules.
An agency that publishes a notice of intent to adopt rules or a notice
of hearing within the time limit specified in this section may subsequently
amend or repeal the rules without additional legislative authorization.
Minn. Stat. § 14.125 was
enacted in 1995 and only “applies to laws authorizing or requiring rulemaking
that are finally enacted after
25.
The
Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Board has general statutory authority
under Minn. Stat. § 122A.09, subds. 4 and 9, to adopt rules relating to the
licensure of teachers.
Impact
on Farming Operations
26.
Minn.
Stat. § 14.111 imposes an additional requirement calling for notification to be
provided to the Commissioner of Agriculture when rules are proposed that affect
farming operations. In addition, where
proposed rules affect farming operations, Minn. Stat. § 14.14, subd. 1b,
requires that at least one public hearing be conducted in an agricultural area
of the state.
27.
There is
no evidence that the proposed rules affect farming operations. Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge
concludes that the Board was not required to notify the Commissioner of
Agriculture.
Regulatory
Analysis in the SONAR
28.
Minn.
Stat. § 14.131 requires an agency adopting rules to consider seven factors in
its Statement of Need and Reasonableness.
Each of these factors, and the Board’s analysis, are discussed below.
29.
The
first factor requires “a description of the classes of persons who
probably will be affected by the proposed rule, including classes that will
bear the costs of the proposed rule and classes that will benefit from the
proposed rule.” In its SONAR, the Board identified the classes
of persons who will be affected by the proposed rules as new teacher
candidates, who will be held to the standards set forth in the proposed rules;
higher education institutions that prepare teachers, which will be required to
embed the standards and requirements set forth in the proposed rules;
already-licensed teachers, who will need to satisfy the additional requirement
for renewal set forth in proposed rule part 8710.7200 and will need to meet the
standards set forth in the proposed rules if they wish to add a licensure field
or an endorsement; and Minnesota students, who will be served by teachers who
have met the standards contained in the proposed rules. The Board indicated that higher education
institutions would likely incur costs in terms of faculty time and funding in
order to embed and implement changes required by the proposed rules. Finally, the Board noted that teacher
candidates and
30.
The
second factor requires consideration of “the probable costs to the agency and to any
other agency of the implementation and enforcement of the proposed rule and any
anticipated effect on state revenues.” In
the SONAR, the Board noted that it may incur marginal costs in connection with
reviewing and aligning licensure tests to meet the new standards but stated
that its contracted testing vendor would cover the vast majority of these
costs. The Board indicated that the
proposed rules would not affect the staffing or resource allocation of the
Educator Licensing Division of the Minnesota Department of Education, which
will continue to issue licenses, and no effect on state revenues was
anticipated.[47]
31.
The third factor requires “a determination of
whether there are less costly methods or less intrusive methods for achieving
the purpose of the proposed rule.” The
Board stated in the SONAR that there were no less costly or less intrusive
methods available to bring about the proposed changes other than rulemaking by
the Board.[48]
32.
The fourth factor requires “a description of any
alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule that were
seriously considered by the agency and the reasons why they were rejected in
favor of the proposed rule.” The Board
noted in its SONAR that it relied heavily on participation and input from
stakeholders in each of the three areas encompassed by the proposed rules, and
stated that the rule-by-rule analysis contained in the SONAR provides additional
information regarding each area and the options that were considered.[49]
33.
The fifth factor specifies that the agency must
assess “the probable costs of complying with the proposed rule, including the
portion of the total costs that will be borne by identifiable categories of
affected parties, such as separate classes of governmental units, businesses,
or individuals.” The Board indicated in
the SONAR that the proposed rules should not have an impact on costs incurred
by teacher candidates, who already pay for coursework to meet the licensure
requirements established by the Board.
The Board acknowledged that higher education institutions would need to
devote faculty time and resources to embed and implement the changes required
by the proposed rules, and already-licensed teachers may have to pay for
workshops or coursework to fulfill the additional requirement for licensure
renewal. The Board also noted in the
SONAR that teachers adding a licensure field or endorsement will have to pay
for coursework to meet the licensure requirements, but indicated that the
proposed rules should not have an impact of these costs.[50]
34.
The sixth factor requires a description of “the
probable costs or consequences of not adopting the proposed rule, including
those costs or consequences borne by identifiable categories of affected
parties, such as separate classes of government units, businesses, or
individuals.” In the SONAR, the Board
noted that it had been faced in recent years with unresolved policy issues and
challenges in each of the three areas encompassed by the rules (technology,
middle level, and reading), and indicated that it had determined that
resolution was necessary. Moreover, with
respect to the reading requirements, the Board indicated that heightened
national and state attention to reading preparation made it likely that
legislative action would have been taken if the Board had failed to move
forward with proposed rules.
35.
The seventh and final factor requires “an
assessment of any differences between the proposed rule and existing federal
regulations and a specific analysis of the need for and reasonableness of each
difference.” In the SONAR, the Board
noted that federal regulations are not a consideration because teacher preparation and licensure
requirements are entrusted to each individual state.[51]
36.
The
Administrative Law Judge finds that the Board adequately considered the
regulatory factors required by Minn. Stat. § 14.131.
Performance-Based
Regulation
37.
The
Administrative Procedure Act also requires that an agency describe in its SONAR
how it has considered and implemented the legislative policy supporting
performance-based regulatory systems set forth in Minn. Stat. § 14.002.[52] A performance-based rule is one that
emphasizes superior achievement in meeting the agency’s regulatory objectives
and maximum flexibility for the regulated party and the agency in meeting those
goals.[53]
38.
In its SONAR,
the Board indicated that, in developing the proposed rules, it considered and
implemented performance-based standards that emphasize superior achievement in
meeting the Board’s regulatory objectives.
It stated that the proposed rules were developed by stakeholders with a
broad diversity of experience and knowledge, and asserted that the rules will
ensure that teachers licensed in
39.
The
Administrative Law Judge finds that the Board has met the requirements set
forth in § 14.131 for assessing the impact of the proposed rules, including
consideration and implementation of the legislative policy supporting
performance-based regulatory systems.
Consultation
with the Commissioner of Finance
40.
Under Minn. Stat. § 14.131, the Agency is also
required to “consult with the commissioner of finance to help evaluate the fiscal
impact and fiscal benefits of the proposed rule on units of local government.”
41.
As
required, the Board consulted with the Commissioner of Finance. In a response dated
42.
The
Administrative Law Judge finds that the Board has met the requirements set
forth in Minn. Stat. § 14.131 for consulting with the Commissioner of Finance.
Compliance
Costs for Small Businesses and Cities
43.
Under Minn.
Stat. § 14.127, the Board must “determine if the cost of complying with a
proposed rule in the first year after the rule takes effect will exceed $25,000
for: (1)
any one business that has less than 50 full-time employees; or
(2) any one statutory or home rule charter city that has less than
ten full-time employees.” The Board must
make this determination before the close of the hearing record, and the
Administrative Law Judge must review the determination and approve or
disapprove it.
44.
In the
SONAR, the Board stated that it has determined that the cost of complying with
the proposed rules in the first year after they take effect will not exceed
$25,000 for any small business or small city.[56]
45.
The
Administrative Law Judge finds that the Board has made the determination
required by Minn. Stat. § 14.127, subd. 1, and approves its determination that
costs of compliance for small businesses and cities will not exceed the cost
threshold established by that statute.
Analysis of the Proposed Rules
46.
This Report
is limited to discussion of the portions of the proposed rules that received
critical comment or otherwise need to be examined; it will not discuss each
comment or rule part. Persons or groups
who do not find their particular comments referenced in this Report should know
that all comments, including those made prior to the hearing, have been
carefully read and considered. Moreover,
because sections of the proposed rules were not opposed and were adequately
supported by the SONAR, a detailed discussion of each section of the proposed
rules is unnecessary.
47.
The proposed
rules primarily involve three subjects, which at times overlap: middle level licensure requirements, reading
preparation for teachers, and technology-related licensure requirements. The most controversial aspect of the proposed
rules is the technology-related licensure provisions. The Board convened task forces in each of
those three areas and solicited input in drafting the proposed rules. The discussion below focuses on each of the three
areas.
48.
The
Administrative Law Judge finds that the Board has demonstrated, by an
affirmative presentation of facts, the need for and reasonableness of all rule
provisions not specifically discussed in this Report. The Administrative Law Judge also finds that
all provisions not specifically discussed are authorized by statute and there
are no other problems that would prevent the adoption of the rules.
I. Middle Level Licensure Proposals
Part
8710.3200 – Teachers of Elementary Education
49.
Part
8710.3200 defines the scope of practice, licensure requirements, and subject
matter standards for elementary teachers.
Under the rule that currently is in effect, all K-6 candidates must earn
a license in one of six specialty areas in addition to their K-6 license. The six specialty areas are Preprimary
Children (age three and above), K-8 World Language and Culture, 5-8
Mathematics, 5-8 Communication Arts and Literature, 5-8 Social Studies, and 5-8
General Science.[57] The
proposed rules would drop the specialty area requirement and make the K-6
license a stand-alone license. The
proposed elementary education rule would also add a new student-teaching
requirement to the portion of the rule relating to subject matter standards for
elementary education. The proposal would
specify that candidates must “apply the standards of effective practice in
teaching students in kindergarten through grade 6 through a minimum of ten
weeks of full-time student teaching.”[58]
50.
In the
SONAR, the Board noted that the specialty area requirement has been problematic
because it has caused the preparation of K-6 teachers to become too broad and
provides them with insufficient time to gain in-depth knowledge of critical
areas such as special education, reading instruction, and the needs of English
language learners. In addition,
practical problems have arisen in connection with the existing
requirement. For example, some
51.
John
Melick, Director of Educator Licensing at the Minnesota Department of
Education, testified that the Department of Education supported the Board’s
proposal to allow a teacher to earn a stand-alone Elementary Education license,
noting that teacher preparation programs have reported that there is not enough
time to effectively deliver all licensure standards in both Elementary
Education and a specialty area, and teachers licensed in this manner who enter
middle school teaching positions are not as fully prepared to teach middle
school students as they should be.[60]
52.
Robert
Gardner, a teacher in the
53.
Deanna
Hanks, an elementary school teacher, also supported the proposal to drop the
specialty requirement. She recounted
difficulties and concerns with the math specialty test, and noted that she
never wanted a license for middle school in any specialty area. In her view, the math specialty license has
nothing to do with her ability to excel as an elementary school teacher.[62]
54.
The
Minnesota School Boards Association generally opposed changing the existing
licensing structure, but did not amplify on the reasons for its opposition to
the proposed changes to the elementary education licensure requirements in
particular. No one else objected to the
proposed modification. If the proposed
rules are adopted, the MSBA asked the Board to clarify whether an elementary
teacher with a middle level specialty would still be allowed to teach in the
specialty area, or whether he or she would need to go back to school to get one
of the new endorsements. The Board
responded that, when licensure rules are changed, its practice has been to
continue to recognize existing licenses and allow them to be renewed. Thus, teachers who are already licensed would
not be required to meet the new standards.[63]
55.
The
Administrative Law Judge finds that the Board has demonstrated the need for and
reasonableness of the proposed deletion of the specialty area requirement and
addition of the student teaching requirement to part 8710.3200. It is noted that subpart 6 of the proposed
rules states that the requirements of part 8710.3200 “for licensure as a
teacher of elementary education with a
specialty are effective on September 1, 2010, and thereafter.”[64] The Administrative Law Judge recommends that the
Board consider deleting the phrase “with a specialty” from that subpart of the
proposed rules. Such a modification
would clarify subpart 6 and make it consistent with the other proposed changes
dropping the specialty area requirement.
The suggested modification would not render the rule substantially
different from the rule as originally proposed.
56.
A number
of requirements are proposed to be added to subpart 3 of the elementary
education rule relating to reading preparation requirements. These proposed requirements, which are set
forth in subpart 3(C) – (G) of the proposed rule, will be discussed in further
detail in Section II of this Report.
Part
8710.3300 - Middle Level Licensure in Academic Specialty (proposed
to
be repealed)
Part 8710.3310 – Middle Level Endorsement License for
Teachers of
Communication
Arts and Literature
Part 8710.3320 – Middle Level Endorsement License for Teachers
of
Mathematics
Part 8710.3330 – Middle
Level Endorsement License for Teachers of
Social
Studies
Part
8710.3340 – Middle Level Endorsement License for Teachers of
General
Science
57.
Current
rule 8710.3300 sets forth the scope of practice, licensure requirements, and
general subject matter standards for middle level teachers. The specific content standards for particular
subjects are found in other portions of the existing rules.[65] In this rulemaking proceeding, the Board
proposes to repeal 8710.3300 and instead adopt four separate rules (parts
8710.3310, .3320, .3330 and .3340) governing each of the newly-developed middle
level endorsement licensure areas:
communication arts and literature, mathematics, social studies, and
general science. The requirements would
take effect on
58.
Each of
the four proposed rules includes two new requirements: First, the candidates for each endorsement must
“demonstrate completion of the equivalent of a college minor” in the content
area. In the SONAR, the Board indicated
that this change was proposed in order to strengthen the depth of preparation
for middle level teachers in the content area they wish to teach, in accordance
with recommendations received from stakeholders and participants in the task
force. The Board indicated that it
recognizes that minors may not be offered by colleges in some of the areas,
such as social studies, and that is the reason why it referred in the rule to
the need to have the “equivalent of a minor.”
It stated that institutions that offer one or more of the endorsement
licenses will need to submit their plans to the Board for program approval as
required by Minnesota Rules part 8700.7600 and, at that time, the Board will
review the coursework and materials submitted and decide whether it meets the pedagogy
and content standards. The Board
contends that this does not afford the Board undue discretion. It noted that the use of minors is a
well-established practice on college campuses and asserted that the range of
15-20 credits is generally acceptable as appropriate for earning a minor. The Board further indicated that it “would
not seek to create a new standard or definition of a minor, but would rely on
the current practices of institutions.”[67]
59.
Second,
the proposed rules require that the candidates for each endorsement must
complete a minimum of a four-week full-time student teaching experience in the
content area in grades 5-8. According to
the SONAR, this requirement was included in order to ensure that candidates
have significant experience with middle level learners and their unique needs. In the Board’s view, the proposed student
teaching requirement will clarify the clinical experience requirement, improve
consistency across preparation programs, and ensure that candidates obtain a
greater depth of preparation.[68]
60.
Steve
Norlin-Weaver, a middle school principal and past president of the Minnesota
Middle School Association who participated on the task force, testified in
support of the proposed requirements relating to student teaching and
completion of the equivalent of a minor.
He asserted that these provisions will ensure that teachers have the
necessary skills and knowledge and result in benefit to middle level
students. Robert Gardner, another task
force member, also supported these requirements because he believes they will
lead to a stronger corps of middle school teachers as well as increased student
achievement.[69]
61.
The
Minnesota Department of Education also expressed support for the proposed
requirements relating to student teaching and completion of the equivalent of a
minor. The Department stated that the
modification will require colleges to address the lack of preparation that
candidates for the middle school endorsement receive.[70]
62.
Sandra
Gundlach, Director of Management Services for the Minnesota School Boards
Association, submitted a written comment noting that the MSBA generally opposes
the proposal to change the existing licensure structure for middle-level
teachers. She indicated that adoption of
the proposal would likely cause problems for smaller, rural school districts
and a growing number of larger districts who need flexibility to staff their
programs. The MSBA believes that the
proposed rules would not have a positive impact on a school district’s ability
to hire new teachers in areas requiring middle-level licensure. The MSBA also asked the Board to clarify how
the licensure changes would affect existing teachers; for example, the MSBA
wondered whether the previously-licensed teachers in any of the areas would be
“grandfathered in.”
63.
In its
final post-hearing submission, the Board stated that, when licensure rules are
changed, its practice has been to continue to recognize existing licenses and
allow them to be renewed. Accordingly,
teachers who are already licensed would not be required to meet the new
standards. However, the Board noted that
all teachers would have to meet the new clock hour requirement for license
renewal.[71]
64.
The
Administrative Law Judge finds that the Board has adequately demonstrated that
the repeal of part 8710.3300 and adoption of proposed rule parts 8710.3310 –
8710.3340 are needed and reasonable to ensure that candidates receive adequate
exposure to middle level learners prior to licensure and a sufficiently strong foundation
in the content area they wish to teach.
65.
Subpart
3(D) of each of the four proposed rules adds new language relating to reading
preparation in each content area. These
modifications will be discussed in further detail in Section II below.
Part 8710.3350 - Preprimary Endorsement
License
Part
8710.3360 - Kindergarten through Grade 8 World Language and Culture
Endorsement
License
66.
The Board
indicated in the SONAR that it convened stakeholder groups in the preprimary
and world language and culture areas for brief discussion prior to proposing
these rules and stakeholders recommended substantial changes. The Board noted that it may undertake a more
concentrated review of these areas in the future. In the meantime, the Board stated that it had
decided to maintain both fields as endorsement options, and had incorporated
existing standards and requirements for these two endorsements in proposed rules
parts 8710.3350 and 8710.3360 as a “placeholder.”[72] No one objected to the Board’s approach.
II. Reading Preparation
Requirements
67.
In
January 2007, the Board of Teaching convened a task force to perform a
comprehensive analysis of reading instruction in
68.
The
proposed reading standards fall into three main areas: early childhood education and elementary
education; content-specific licensure fields; and reading endorsements. Each of these three subjects will be discussed
in turn below.
A. Early
Childhood Education and Elementary Education
Part 8710.3000 - Teachers of Early Childhood Education
Part
8710.3200 - Teachers of Elementary Education
69.
In this
rulemaking proceeding, the Board proposes to delete the existing language in
each of the above rules relating to reading preparation, and substitute new
language. The Early Childhood license
extends from birth through grade 3, and the Elementary Education license covers
kindergarten through grade 6. The Board
indicated in the SONAR that research and literature suggests that students who
are not reading at grade level by the end of grade 3 face a significantly
greater risk of falling further behind academically and not completing a full
K-12 education. Thus, the Board believes
that teachers of children through grade 3 play a critical role in ensuring that
children are able to read and in initiating assessments and interventions when
children are struggling. Accordingly,
the proposed rule changes are identical for both Elementary and Early Childhood
licenses.
70.
With
respect to the Elementary Education rule, the SONAR emphasizes that, because
the proposed rules eliminate the specialty requirement, additional time will be
available to devote to reading preparation.[73] The standards contained in the proposed rules
apply only to candidates for licensure and do not impose any requirement on
already-licensed teachers, who can continue to seek license renewal without
undergoing further training in reading.[74]
71.
At the
hearing, the Board indicated that it wished to propose a change in the
formatting of the portions of the proposed Early Childhood and Elementary
Education rules addressing reading preparation requirements (subpart 3(E) – (I)
of the Early Childhood rule and subpart 3 (C) – (G) of the Elementary Education
rule). The Board believes that the
formatting changes will make the standards more user-friendly and will better
align to the existing rule text. The
Board provided copies of the proposed modifications during the hearing.[75] Upon review of the proposed modification, the
Administrative Law Judge noticed typographical errors in the lettered items
referenced in the early childhood education rule and questioned why conjunctions
and punctuation had been removed from the provisions of both of the proposed
rules. At the request of the
Administrative Law Judge, the Board submitted a revised version of the
modifications that corrected the typographical errors and included the
punctuation and conjunctions. The
modified version of these rules does not change the substance of the standards
that were originally proposed, but groups them in an easier-to-follow and more
readable format. In addition, the
modification uses the phrase “a teacher of young children in the primary
grades” in items (E) – (I) of the Early Childhood rule, and the phrase “a
teacher of children in kindergarten through grade 6” in items (C) – (G) of the
Elementary Education rule, as did the proposed rules as originally published. The Board thus corrected the language
contained in the earlier version of the modification that was handed out at the
hearing, which referred to “candidates for licensure” as a teacher of early
childhood education or elementary education.
72.
The
proposed reading preparation rules underscore the need for teachers of young
children in the primary grades and children in kindergarten through grade 6 to
have knowledge of the foundations of reading processes, development, and
instruction; have knowledge of and the ability to use a wide range of instructional
practices and curriculum materials to support reading instruction; have
knowledge of and the ability to use a variety of assessment tools and practices
to plan and evaluate effective reading instruction; have the ability to create
a literate and motivating environment that fosters reading by integrating
foundational knowledge, use of instructional practices, approaches and methods,
curriculum materials, and the appropriate use of assessments; and demonstrate a
view of professional development as a career-long effort and
responsibility. The proposed rule
includes a detailed list of topics under each of the above headings.
73.
Dr.
Deborah Dillon, a research professor at the
74.
Susan
Thomson, a parent advocate, reading tutor, and task force member, testified in
support of all of the proposed reading rules.
She asserted that the proposed reading rules are critically needed to
improve the content and rigor of the reading curriculum offered to teacher
candidates. Based upon her review of reading
syllabi on file with the Board, she believes that too little course time is
required of teacher candidates to learn how to teach reading. She emphasized that studies have found that
beginning teachers often feel unprepared to teach reading, particularly to
students from diverse backgrounds or those learning English as a second
language. She asserted that the detail
and specificity in the proposed rules is needed to ensure depth in the reading
curriculum and consistent content in teacher preparation programs.[77]
75.
Christine
Stern, President of the June Stern Family Foundation for Children with
Dyslexia, submitted a written comment in which she noted her agreement with the
testimony of Dr. Dillon and Ms. Thomson and supported strengthening the
qualifications for teachers of reading.
Ms. Stern indicated that the teaching criteria in the proposed rules are
consistent with the guidelines of the National Reading Panel and involve
scientifically proven strategies that will help all children and are vital for
those who struggle with reading. She
stated that elementary teachers who receive scholarships from the Foundation
frequently remark that they did not receive adequate instruction in college to
prepare them to teach reading to class of diverse learners.
76.
Hannah
Tolles, a teacher trainer, expressed support for the proposed rules relating to
preparation for teaching reading, particularly the standards set forth in part
8710.3200. She indicated that many
teachers in her training classes have said that they felt unprepared to teach
reading and have had to seek out additional training to acquire the knowledge
and practice they need. Ms. Tolles
stated that the proposed standards reflect important findings in current
research about what teachers need to know in order to teach children how to
read, and will make teachers better prepared to serve their students. She believes that all students will benefit
from better teacher preparation in the area of reading.
77.
Jeanie
Munsterman, an Elementary Teacher in
78.
C.
Wilson Anderson, Jr., President of the Upper Midwest Branch of the
International Dyslexia Association, filed a letter after the hearing supporting
the changes proposed by the Board to part 8710.3200, subpart 3 (A) through
(F). The Association stressed the
importance of teaching all children to read and asserted that 1 child in 5 will
experience significant difficulties learning to read sufficiently well to use
reading for learning and for enjoyment.
The Association noted that research shows that early intervention
programs that combine instruction in the essential components of reading
provided by well-trained teachers can increase the achievement of at-risk
students to average reading levels, and pointed out that effective instruction
in the early years is much more cost-effective than waiting until children are
older or reach adulthood. The
Association indicated that many teachers have a gap in their knowledge of
effective reading instruction and believes it is important to hold teachers to
high expectations regarding their knowledge of the science of reading and
reading instruction. Accordingly, the
Association supports the proposed changes requiring teacher preparation program
reforms to include specific coursework in research-based reading instruction
with greater consistency across the state.
79.
The
Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Board has shown that the proposed
rules are needed and reasonable to ensure that teachers of young children are
better prepared to teach reading to a diverse population, administer
assessments, and design appropriate interventions where necessary. The formatting modifications to these rules
proposed by the Board are not substantive in nature and do not result in a rule
that is substantially different from the rule as originally proposed.
B.
Content-Specific Licensure
Part
8710.4000 – Teachers of Adult Basic Education
Part 8710.4050 – Teachers of Agricultural
Education
Part 8710.4200 – Teachers of
Business
Part 8710.4250 – Teachers of Communication
Arts and Literature
Part 8710.4450 – Teachers of Family and
Consumer Sciences
Part 8710.4500 – Teachers of Health
Part 8710.4550 – Library Media Specialists
Part 8710.4600 – Teachers of Mathematics
Part 8710.4650 – Teachers of Vocal Music and
of Instrumental Music
Part 8710.4700 – Teachers of Physical
Education
Part 8710.4750 – Teachers of Science
Part 8710.4800 – Teachers of Social Studies
Part 8710.4850 – Teachers of Technology
Part 8710.4900 – Teachers of Visual Arts
80.
Under
the proposed rules, existing language in each of the above rules relating to
reading preparation is deleted, and new language is proposed for adoption
requiring an understanding of the content and methods for teaching reading, followed
by a more detailed identification of required topics. Although there are some similarities in the
proposed rule language between the various licensure rules, there also are
differences between them. The SONAR
indicates that the language in each proposed rule was tailored to the specific
needs and particularities of the discipline.
The SONAR further states that the revisions were based on input from
stakeholders as well as reviews of literature in each area conducted by task
force members.[78]
81.
In the
SONAR, the Board indicated that it believes that content teachers “must have
foundational knowledge and skills in reading, as reading is central to success
in each of these content areas.” In its
view, the current reading preparation standard contained in the
content-specific licensure rules is insufficient to prepare these teachers for
this task, and greater depth and clarity is needed. The Board emphasized that the proposed rules,
which will become effective on September 1, 2010, are not intended to turn content
teachers into reading teachers. In
addition, the Board indicated that it anticipates that the proposed reading
standards will be covered in the 2-3-credit course typically required in each
content area which is devoted to “reading in the content area,” and should not
take additional time away from preparation in the specific content area.[79]
82.
Sandra
Gundlach, Director of Management Services for the Minnesota School Boards
Association, submitted a written comment regarding the reading preparation
requirements. The MSBA acknowledged that
new teachers would perhaps be better prepared to help their students understand
the content being conveyed under the proposed content-specific standards. However, the MSBA contended that the
requirement would likely cause problems for smaller, rural school districts and
a growing number of larger districts who need flexibility to staff their
programs. Susan Kuseske, a Family and
Consumer Sciences in
83.
As noted
above, several individuals and organizations, including the Upper Midwest
Branch of the International Dyslexia Association, Dr. Dillon, Ms. Thomson, Ms.
Stern, and others, expressed strong support for the proposed reading standards. In addition, the proposed rules reflect the
work of a task force that encompassed representatives of diverse interests and
organizations.
84.
The
Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Board has demonstrated that the proposed
rules are needed and reasonable to ensure that content teachers have the
requisite foundational knowledge and skills in reading. It is intended that the new standards will be
covered in courses that focus on reading in the content area which are already
required in most preparation programs. The
proposed rules fall well within the Board’s statutory authority to license
public school teachers and design teacher preparation programs.
85.
It is
noted that a typographical error appears in Subpart 5 of part 8710.4500. The effective date referenced in that rule
should be corrected to refer to September 1, 2010, not 2001.
Part
8710.3310 – Middle Level Endorsement License for Teachers of Communication Arts
and Literature
Part
8710.3320 – Middle Level Endorsement License for Teachers of
Mathematics
Part
8710.3330 – Middle Level Endorsement License for Teachers of
Social
Studies
Part 8710.3340 – Middle Level
Endorsement License for Teachers of
General
Science
86.
The proposed
reading standards for those seeking endorsement in the above areas are
contained in Subpart 3(D) of each rule.
In each instance, the proposed rules require that teachers must
understand the content and methods for teaching reading, including knowledge of
reading processes and instruction and the ability to use a wide range of
instructional methods. The topics
detailed under each of these main areas vary from rule to rule.
87.
In the
SONAR, the Board noted that each of the proposed middle level endorsement
licenses for grades 5-8 has a correlating 5-12 or 9-12 licensure field, and
stated that it believes that the reading standards should be the same within a
content area for both the 5-8 rule and the 5-12 or 9-12 content area
rules. As a result, the proposed rule
language mirrors the language found in the correlating 5-12 or 9-12 content
area rule.[80]
88.
The
proposed reading standards in these rules did not generate controversy. The Administrative Law Judge finds that the
Board has demonstrated that these provisions are both needed and reasonable to
ensure adequate reading preparation in each of the middle level endorsement areas
C.
Reading Endorsements
Part 8710.4725 – Teachers of
89.
In this
rulemaking proceeding, the Board is proposing several changes to the current
endorsement. First, the Board proposes
to modify subpart 1 of the rule to recognize that nothing prevents teachers of
English as a second language from providing reading instruction to students
they are licensed to teach. The SONAR
indicates that this modification is intended to clarify that the endorsement is
not required for such teachers. In the
Board’s view, teachers of English as a second language should be treated
similarly to elementary teachers teaching reading in a self-contained classroom
and special education teachers teaching in their licensure areas (both of which
are already mentioned in subpart 1).[81] Second, the proposed rules would modify
subpart 2 to make it clear that teachers of English as a second language are
eligible to earn the reading endorsement.
Third, the subject matter standards set forth in subpart 3 are modified
in accordance with the reading standards proposed in the other rules. Finally, an effective date of
90.
In the
SONAR, the Board noted that, although the scope of the Teacher of Reading endorsement
is K-12, the endorsement is currently required only for teachers in grades 7-12
who work in a targeted assignment focusing on reading (for example, remedial
reading). The task force recommended
that the endorsement be required for teachers in all grades (beyond 7-12) in
targeted reading settings, thereby requiring Title I reading teachers to have
this endorsement. The SONAR states
without further explanation that the Board did not move forward with this
recommendation.[82]
91.
No one
opposed this portion of the proposed rules.
The Board has demonstrated that the proposed modifications to part
8710.4725 are needed and reasonable.
Part 8710.4925 –
Reading Leader
92.
This
portion of the proposed rules adds a new endorsement, entitled “Reading
Leader.” According to the SONAR, this
endorsement is intended for teachers who have district-wide responsibilities (as
opposed to the Teacher of Reading endorsement, which is intended for teachers
who have direct student contact at the site level). The SONAR indicates that this rule was
recommended by the task force. While the
“Reading Leader” endorsement is not required for any teacher, the Board
believes that a substantial number of teachers will pursue this option.[83]
93.
For the
most part, the language of the new Reading Leader rule is similar to that of
the proposed rule relating to the Teacher of Reading endorsement. Subpart 1 states that a reading leader is
authorized to “facilitate and provide site-based or districtwide leadership”
for K-12 student instruction “that is designed to develop reading skills,
strategies, and comprehension” and “provide assistance to teachers who have
responsibility for providing reading instruction.” Subpart 1 also clarifies that elementary
teachers, special education teachers, and teachers of English as a second
language are not required to earn this endorsement to fulfill their duties
under those licenses. Subpart 2 includes
licensure requirements similar to those specified for the Teacher of Reading
endorsement and includes the Teacher of Reading endorsement as a prerequisite
for earning the Reading Leader endorsement.
Subpart 3 incorporates subject matter standards for reading preparation
similar to those in the other licensure rules.
Subpart 4 provides for license issuance and renewal, and Subpart 5 sets
an effective date of
94.
The
Minnesota School Boards Association opposed the establishment of the new
Reading Leader endorsement. The MSBA
acknowledged that the proposed rule does not include a requirement that school
districts must employ a Reading Leader, but believes that it is likely that
future attempts will be made to impose such a requirement. The MSBA asserted that most school districts
are reducing the number of existing administrators and teachers they employ due
to insufficient funding, and the problem is particularly great for small, rural
districts.
95.
The
Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Board has shown that the new
Reading Leader endorsement is needed and reasonable, and within its authority
to regulate the licensure of public school teachers. School districts are not required under the
proposed rules to employ a Reading Leader, and the concerns expressed by the
MSBA are merely speculative at this point.
III. Technology-Related Issues
96.
The
Board convened a task force in March 2007 to conduct an analysis of
technology-related issues, including preparation, support, and training. In the SONAR, the Board indicated that the
task force recommended that no changes be made in several licensure areas, but
did suggest modifications to the licensure rules relating to Standards of
Effective Practice, Teachers of Keyboarding for Computer Applications, Library
Media Specialists, and license renewal requirements.[84] After receiving the task force
recommendations, the Board proposed a number of changes be made to these rules. These changes are discussed below.
Part 8710.2000 –
Standards of Effective Practice for Teachers
97.
This
portion of the Board’s rules sets forth standards that must be satisfied by
candidates for teacher licensure in a teacher preparation program. The proposed rules would amend the current
rule to incorporate several references to the importance of understanding and
applying technology resources. For
example, the proposed amendment to subpart 3 (student learning) would specify
that teachers must, among other things, “demonstrate knowledge and understanding
of concepts related to technology and student learning;” the amendment to subpart
4 (diverse learners) would require that teachers “identify and apply technology
resources to enable and empower learners with diverse backgrounds,
characteristics, and abilities;” the amendment to subpart 5 (instructional
strategies) would specify that teachers must “develop, implement, and evaluate
lesson plans that include methods and strategies to maximize learning that
incorporate a wide variety of materials and technology resources;” the
amendment to subpart 7 (communication) would require teachers to “plan for the
management of technology resources within the context of learning activities
and develop strategies to manage student learning in a technology-integrated
environment;” the amendment to subpart 8 (planning instruction) would require
that teachers “plan for the management of technology resources within the
context of learning activities and develop strategies to manage student
learning in a technology-integrated environment;” the amendment to subpart 9
(assessment) would specify that teachers must “use technology resources to
collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings to
improve instructional practice and maximize student learning;” the amendment to
subpart 10 (reflection and professional development) states that teachers must
“understand the role of continuous development in technology knowledge and
skills representative of technology applications for education;” and the amendment
to subpart 11 (collaboration, ethics, and relationships) would require that
teachers “understand the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding
the use of information and technology in prekindergarten through grade 12
schools and apply that understanding in practice.” These proposed rules would take effect on
98.
In the
SONAR, the Board indicated that it agreed with the task force recommendation to
reference technology more clearly in the Standards of Effective Practice in
order to emphasize that “[a]ll teachers, regardless of what age or subject
matter they are teaching, must be prepared to embed and utilize technology
effectively in the classroom.” The Board
stated that the standards proposed to be added to subparts 3-5 and 8-11 were
adapted from national standards drafted by the International Society for
Technology in Education. The SONAR
further noted that there was no controversy regarding these proposed changes.[85] The Board also proposed other modifications
to this rule to eliminate redundant language and update language.
99.
Greg
Utecht, a member of the task force and Coordinator of Technology, Information,
and Media Services for the Lakeville Area Public Schools, expressed support for
the proposed modifications to this part of the rules. He asserted that it is difficult to find any
mention of technology in the current version of the rule, and contended that
integrating technology learning into content learning is consistent with best practices.[86] The Minnesota Department of Education also
noted that it strongly supports more technology preparation for all teachers
given the increasing role of technology in our society and the use of
technology in schools across all disciplines.[87]
100.
Sandra
Gundlach, Director of Management Services for the Minnesota School Boards
Association, submitted a comment indicating that the MSBA supports the proposal
to more clearly articulate the technology-related standards in each of the
licensure program areas addressed in part 8710.2000 and the need to modify the
existing language relating to communication.
101.
The
Board has shown that part 8710.2000, as proposed, is needed and reasonable to
ensure that all teacher candidates receive training regarding the use of
technology in their classes.
Part
8710.4525 – Teachers of Computer, Keyboarding and Related
Technology Applications
102.
Most of
the debate during this rulemaking proceeding was spurred by the Board’s proposed
amendments to this rule provision. In
the SONAR, the Board noted that the “keyboarding for computer applications”
endorsement was created in 2003 to respond to a need for more teachers to teach
skills to younger students. It indicated
that this endorsement has been problematic because the title is confusing and
misleading; the scope of practice and standards contained in the current rule do
not reflect the actual duties of these teachers and do not allow for the types
of duties they should perform in the future; and some stakeholders have argued
that the current scope (K-8) is too limiting and the scope should be expanded
to grades K-12.[88]
103.
In this
rulemaking proceeding, the Board proposes to change the title of the
endorsement to “Teachers of Computer, Keyboarding, and Related Technology” to
better describe the actual role and function of the endorsement. The Department of Education, the Minnesota
School Boards Association, and others commenting on the proposed rules
expressed support for this change in title.
The Board also proposes to change the Scope of Practice set forth in
subpart 1 to better describe the intent of the endorsement, and modify the
subject matter standards set forth in subpart 3 to incorporate a substantial number
of modifications. The SONAR indicates
that the latter changes are based upon the recommended language of the task
force, whose members relied upon research and professional understanding of
best practices in this area.[89]
104.
The
Board also proposes to expand the scope of the endorsement from grades K-8
to grades K-12. This change was not
recommended by the task force but was adopted by the Board. According to the SONAR, the topic received a
significant amount of discussion within the task force, and several members
suggested that the scope be expanded to K-12 in order to provide opportunities
for secondary teachers to expand into these roles. In the SONAR, the Board noted that, under the
current structure, there are only very limited options for licensed teachers to
teach a computer-related assignment. To
do so, they would need to earn a Business license; earn a Technology license
(previously called an Industrial Arts license); earn a Communications
Technology Careers license (previously called a Vocational Education license);
or teach under a variance allowing teaching outside of the individual’s
licensure field for up to three years.
The Board provided the following explanation for the proposed change in
its SONAR:
With the growth in demand for computer-related courses and the need to
provide students with as many opportunities as possible to access this knowledge
and experience, the Board of Teaching believes that there must be another
option for teachers to be able to teach in these areas. Both the Business and Technology licenses
cover vastly more than computer-related topics, and the Board believes that it is
neither practical nor realistic to expect a licensed teacher to earn one of
these licenses if their only objective is to teach computer-related
courses. The endorsement is designed to
be a shorter course of study and targets the skills and knowledge needed for
teachers to teach computer-related courses. . . . [T]he Board maintains that the growing need
for more coursework for students in this area, coupled with the limiting nature
of our current structure, provides rationale that this change is both needed
and reasonable.[90]
105.
During
the hearing, witnesses appearing on behalf of the Board emphasized that the
demand for technology-related courses is growing, and the Board anticipates a
steady increase in their number. In
addition to concern about access to technology-related courses, the Board witnesses
expressed concern that the substance required for the endorsement in the
current rule is not sufficient. Although
Business teachers will continue to be critical, the Board witnesses believe
that there needs to be other options for people to teach technology-related
courses, and assert that the technology standards can be learned by teachers
without having to learn all of the other content required for business
licensure (such as accounting and finance).
106.
Cara
Hagen, an Education Technology Coordinator at TIES and a member of the
technology-related task force, was one of the Board’s witnesses who testified
in support of the proposed rule. She
stressed the need for all teachers to integrate technology throughout the
curriculum and across grade levels and indicated that there is a need for
preparation beyond the level identified by the current version of the
rule. Although the task force could not
reach consensus about changing the endorsement from a K-8 scope to a K-12
scope, she supported that proposed modification as well. She believes that students will benefit by
affording teachers at all grade levels the opportunity to attain licensure in
the area of technology with an endorsement instead of a full license.[91]
107.
Task
Force Member Greg Utecht also testified in favor of this portion of the
proposed rules. He asserted that
continuing to relegate technology or one or a few disciplines would be counter
to the clear trend integrating technology into everything we do. In his view, the proposed rules will help
teachers who hold the endorsement lead technology efforts in their schools and
facilitate the integration of technology across multiple disciplines. He further noted that the colleges that now
offer this endorsement have indicated that they support the expansion to K-12.[92]
108.
The
Department of Education noted that it supports the change in scope from K-8 to
K-12. The Department believes that the
proposed rule “allows districts greater flexibility to embed technology
education across the curriculum and allows more effective integration of
technology into all learning environments.”[93]
109.
The
Minnesota School Boards Association supported the expansion in the scope of
practice to K-12. The Association noted
that, “[i]n the case of technology, school districts would gain additional
options for staffing their respective technology programs, and students would
benefit from being taught by teachers who use technology more effectively,
provided colleges and universities can provide the quality learning
opportunities teachers need.”
110.
Dr. Thomas
J. Reinartz, Jr., an Instructor in Learning Technologies at the
111.
Numerous
individuals and organizations objected to this portion of the proposed rules. During the hearing, Dr. Robert H. Meyer,
Executive Director of Minnesota Business Educators Inc., testified that the
members of MBEI are opposed to the proposed change in the scope of the
endorsement. Mr. Meyer noted that the
task force had recommended that the endorsement remain K-8 and questioned why
the Board would propose the change. In
his view, the proposed rule will dilute instructor knowledge and affect the
depth of knowledge acquired by students.
He contended that the proposed rule is not necessary because there is
more than an ample supply of highly-qualified business educators in
112.
Judy
Lambrecht, a Professor at the University of Minnesota in the area of business
teacher education, David Braaten, a high school business teacher, and Molly
Wickam, a faculty member at Bethel, also testified in opposition to the
proposal to expand the scope of the endorsement to K-12. Ms. Lambrecht served on the task force, which
she indicated focused on the K-8 level and only briefly discussed whether there
should be a second license for those teaching computing classes at the high
school level. Ultimately, the task force
decided that no change should be made regarding the scope. Ms. Lambrecht stated that it is impossible to
teach computing at the secondary level without reference to content areas,
which generally are business-related.
Ms. Wickam stated that allowing others to teach at the high school level
will water down the curriculum because they do not have the same skill set as
Business teachers. Ms. Lambrecht and Mr.
Braaten questioned whether those lacking business training have the requisite
depth of knowledge to teach technology-related courses. They also expressed concern that school
reimbursement through federal Perkins funds may be affected if those lacking career
and technical education (CTE) training teach technology-related courses.[96] Business education teachers Vicki Kapaun,
Cynthia Nolan, Ann Pagel, Lynn M. Falk, Deb Stueve, and Michele MacLeod filed
letters echoing this concern.
113.
Rachel
Cudworth, a
114.
Prior to
the hearing and during the post-hearing comment period, the Administrative Law
Judge also received many written comments opposing the expanded scope of the
endorsement to K-12. Mary Flesberg,
President of Minnesota Business Educators Inc., wrote on behalf of MBEI’s board
and membership to urge that the proposed change be reconsidered to include only
the K-8 level. MBEI warned that
expanding the endorsement to the 9-12 level will lower the standards of
education for high school students and cause them to inadequately prepared for
higher education or work. In addition to
testifying at the hearing, Dr. Meyer, Executive Director of MBEI, submitted a
letter in which he asserted that
115.
A large
number of current and prospective teachers who filed comments opposing the
proposed rule emphasized the high quality of the training provided to those in
the business education field. They
asserted that business educators not only have knowledge of technology but also
are trained in the application of technology and proficiency in its use, and
expressed concern that the proposal would lower the quality and depth of
knowledge of those teaching these skills at the high school level. Many of them maintained that there is an
adequate supply of highly-qualified business educators in
116.
Denita
Clapp, Technology Integrationist/Staff Trainer for the
117.
Laura Jaroscak,
a parent, also filed a written comment objecting to the proposal to extend the
endorsement from K-8 to K-12 without the critical training included in a
business education teacher licensure program.
She noted that she strongly disagreed with the apparent assumption in
the proposed rules that specific methodologies are not necessary to teach
computer applications, computer keyboarding, multimedia, etc., and that there
is not need to link these skills to the business world. She asserted that the proposed change is a
huge step backward for
118.
During
the post-hearing comment period, the Board responded to several of the concerns
raised by those opposing the proposed rules.
The Board pointed out that the Teacher of Business license is a broad
license and those holding such a license are authorized to teach many different
types of courses, including business organization and management, sales and
marketing, finance, accounting, business information systems, economics,
international business, business law, workplace skills, and other topics, in
addition to technology-related courses.
The Board indicated that it does not dispute the idea that Business
teachers are well prepared to teach technology-related courses as a function of
their license, or that Business teachers provide a unique integration of
technology into the content they teach.
However, the Board noted that it does not agree that only Business
teachers may properly teach technology-related courses:
The Board of Teaching does dispute, however, the notion that Business
teachers are the only pool of teachers who can or should teach
technology-related courses. The
integration of technology by a Business teacher may look different from the
integration of technology by a licensed Math teacher, but the Board of Teaching
believes that there are rich underpinnings of content that both teachers can
bring to technology-related coursework.
The specific applications of the technology may be different, but it is
not reasonable to suggest that students cannot learn technology-related skills
and concepts outside of a business-focused setting.[101]
The Board went on to emphasize
that the proposed Scope of Practice for the expanded endorsement states that
teachers with the endorsement may provide K-12 students with “instruction that
is designed to teach computer applications, including general productivity
applications, graphics, imaging, multimedia, video and animation, audio, and
digital communications including but not limited to the Internet and electronic
communications and computer keyboarding” and may “lead, collaborate, and
consult with other classroom teachers for the purpose of integrating technology
learning into content area curriculum.”
The Board contended that preparation for these teachers under the
proposed rule would sufficiently prepare them to teach technology-related courses. The Board also maintained that the culture of
on-going professional development and continual growth is not unique to
Business teachers, but is found across all fields of licensure.[102]
119.
In
response to numerous comments stating that the proposed rule required only
knowledge and understanding of technology, the Board pointed out that the
subject matter standard set forth in subpart 3(A) states that a teacher of
computer, keyboarding, and related technology applications “understands and applies” the topics identified in
the rule.[103]
120.
In its initial
post-hearing submission, the Board also addressed the comments by Dr. Meyer and
others[104]
asserting that there is no shortage of Business teachers to teach
technology-related courses in
121.
The
Board thereafter discussed the four approved Business licensure programs
offered in Minnesota, the number of persons who completed such programs in
2007-2009 (44), the number of persons who earned a Business license through the
Licensure via Portfolio option since 2007 (7), and the number of special
permissions granted during the past three years to allow individuals to teach
courses that require either a Business license or a Keyboarding endorsement. Several types of special permissions (such as
variances, waivers, limited licenses, non-licensed community expert approvals,
and non-renewable licenses) are available to school districts when they cannot
find an appropriately-licensed teacher for a particular assignment or
course. According to the chart provided
in the Board’s initial response, with respect to courses that require a
Business license, the Board granted 33 variances, 2 appeal variances, 1
discretionary variance, 2 waivers, 5 limited licenses, and 6 community expert approvals
in 2005-2006; 39 variances, 2 discretionary variances, 5 limited licenses, 5
community expert approvals, and one non-renewable license in 2006-2007; and 31
variances, 1 appeal variance, 1 discretionary variance, 8 limited licenses, and
6 community expert approvals, and 4 non-renewable licenses in 2007-2008. With respect to courses that require a K-8
Keyboarding for Computer Applications endorsement, the Board granted 68
variances, 2 appeal variances, and 2 community expert approvals in 2005-2006;
55 variances, 1 appeal variance, 1 community expert approval, and 1
non-renewable license in 2006-2007; and 54 variances, 1 appeal variance, 10
limited licenses, 2 community expert approvals, and 2 non-renewable
licenses in 2007-2008. In the Board’s
view, this information demonstrates that there is a need for additional
licensed individuals in these areas. The
Board asserted that, “[g]iven the increased attention over the last several
years to technological literacy and competence, including significant
initiatives at the Minnesota Department of Education, we believe that the
demand for technology-related coursework will continue to increase in the
coming years.” Moreover, the Board
contends that “[t]aken all together, these considerations lead to a reasonable
conclusion that it is appropriate to seek additional opportunities for teachers
to be prepared to teach technology-related courses.”[106]
122.
The
Board stressed in its post-hearing submissions that the options for licensed
teachers to teach a technology-related assignment under the current rules are
very limited, and it believes that it is not practical or reasonable to expect
a licensed teacher to earn a 5-12 Business license, a 5-12 Technology license, or
a Communications Technology Careers license if their objective is to teach
technology-related courses. The Board
maintained that the endorsement appropriately requires a shorter course of
study and targets the skills and knowledge needed to teach technology-related
courses. The Board continues to believe
as a matter of policy that it is appropriate to expand the opportunity for
licensed teachers to teach technology-related courses in addition to courses in
their existing licensure field. The
Board asserted that issues involving federal Perkins funding and potential
impact on the courses offered by licensed Business teachers are of secondary
importance.
123.
In its
initial post-hearing response, the Board indicated that it would consider a
change to part 8710.4525 at its May 22, 2009 meeting. The minutes of the meeting available on the
Board of Teaching website[107]
indicates that the Board did, in fact, adopt that modification. The modification would include the following
language at the end of subpart 2 of proposed part 8710.4525: “A teacher of computer, keyboarding,
and related technology applications is limited to teaching in the scope of his
or her base license(s).” The Board
explained that this modification was proposed in response to the concern raised
by some individuals that any teacher could add the endorsement, and it would be
inappropriate for a K-6 teacher to add the endorsement and teach
computer-related courses at the high school level (or vice versa). According to the Board, the modification will
“still allow any licensed teacher to add the endorsement, but [will] limit its
use to the scope of the base license(s).
So the K-6 teacher could only use it in a K-6 setting, a 5-12 teacher
could only use it in a 5-12 setting, etc.”[108]
124.
After careful consideration, the Administrative
Law Judge concludes that the Board has adequately demonstrated that part
8710.4525 is needed and reasonable. The
Board has provided a rational explanation for its decision to increase the
opportunity for licensed teachers to teach technology-related courses in
addition to their existing licensure field and expand the scope of the
endorsement to K-12. The
Board has broad authority under Minn. Stat. § 122A.09, subds. 4 and 9, to adopt
rules to license public school teachers and design teacher preparation
programs. As noted above, an agency is
legally entitled to make choices between possible approaches so long as its
choice is rational[109]
and is entitled to rely on policy preferences in support of a rule.[110] It is not the proper role of the Administrative
Law Judge to invade the policy-making discretion of the agency and attempt to determine
that another policy alternative presents the “best” approach.[111]
125.
The modified language adopted by the Board on
May 22, 2009, serves to clarify the rule and was proposed in response to the
comments received during this rulemaking proceeding. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that
the modifications to the rule do not render it substantially different from the
rule as originally proposed.
Part 8710.4550 – Library Media Specialists
126.
The
proposed rules include a substantial number of amendments to the current rule
governing Library Media Specialists. Although
the task force recommended only minor changes, the Board determined that more
modifications were needed due to the changes that were proposed to the
keyboarding rule. In the SONAR, the
Board indicated that the changes to the Scope of Practice were made to better
describe the intent of the license, and the modifications to the subject matter
standards reflect the recommendations of the task force and serve to update and
clarify the role of the Library Media Specialist. The proposed amendments also include new
language pertaining to reading preparation.
The licensure requirements would take effect on
127.
The
Minnesota Department of Education supported the clarification of the scope of
practice of Library Media Specialists and the strengthening of the alignment
between the subject matter standards and real world practice.[113] Mr. Utecht provided additional testimony in
support of the proposed amendments. He
indicated that colleges preparing people for the Library Media Specialist license
long ago modified their programs to ensure these specialists obtained the
skills necessary to teach technology, and urged that the rule amendments be
adopted as further recognition of the integrated manner in which technology
skills are learned.[114] The Minnesota School Boards Association also supported
the proposed changes to this rule part and noted that the modifications would
serve to update and clarify the license.[115]
128.
The
Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Board has demonstrated the need for
and reasonableness of the proposed revisions to the Library Media Specialists
rule.
Part
8710.7200 – Clock Hours; Requirements for Renewal of Professional
Licenses
129.
This
portion of the proposed rules adds a new requirement for renewal of teaching
licenses that expire on June 30, 2012, and thereafter. The rule requires that applicants “include in
their 125-clock hours instruction or other professional development activities
that integrate technology effectively with student learning to increase
engagement and student achievement.” The
Board decided not to adopt the task force’s recommendation that all teachers obtain
a minimum of 10 clock hours relating to technology within each five-year
renewal period. The Board noted in the
SONAR that it believes that a requirement relating to technology is appropriate
but does not agree that the rule should require a specific number of
hours. In the Board’s view, “the role of
technology is central to student learning, and . . . it is appropriate to
require that within each five-year renewal period, there is at least minimal
training and development in this area.”
The Board asserted that the proposed rules is consistent with the core
mission of education, and is both needed and reasonable.[116]
130.
Greg
Utecht and the Department of Education supported this requirement. Mr. Utecht stressed that the proposal does
not prescribe the number of hours of training in technology or the means by
which the training must be obtained, and contended that teachers and districts
can easily work to satisfy the proposed rule.
He also pointed out that technology is changing so quickly that the
training requirement is needed to ensure that teachers remain up to date.[117]
131.
The
Minnesota School Boards Association urged that the technology-related
clock-hour requirement be deleted from the proposed rules because school
districts already provide technology-related learning opportunities for their
teachers and are in a better position to know what their teachers need. The MSBA noted that this would be the fourth
time the rule has been changed to include specific license renewal requirements
and expressed concern that other requirements could be imposed in the future,
further limiting a school district’s authority to determine based on local
needs what staff development and other learning opportunities should be
provided. Prior to adoption of the
proposal, the MSBA urged that the Board determine who would provide and pay for
the technology-related learning opportunities and whether continuing education
providers would be required to demonstrate competency relative to the
technology standards before offering training.
132.
In its
final post-hearing submission, the Board responded that Minn. Rules part
8710.7300 grants authority to local committees to review the clock hours
submitted by teachers and determine if they are appropriate. The Board indicated that these committees do
not approve professional development providers themselves. While many
133.
The Administrative
Law Judge finds that the Board has shown that the proposed amendment to Part
8710.7200 is needed and reasonable to ensure that teachers receive at least
minimal on-going training with respect to the use of technology to enhance
student learning.
Based on the Findings of Fact,
the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS
1.
The
Board gave proper notice of the hearing in this matter. The Board has fulfilled the procedural
requirements of Minn. Stat. § 14.14 and all other procedural requirements of
law or rule.
2.
The
Board has demonstrated its statutory authority to adopt the proposed rules, and
has fulfilled all other substantive requirements of law or rule within the
meaning of Minn. Stat. §§ 14.05, subd. 1; 14.15, subd. 3; and 14.50 (i) and
(ii).
3.
The
Board has demonstrated the need for and reasonableness of the proposed rules by
an affirmative presentation of facts in the record within the meaning of Minn.
Stat. §§ 14.14, subd. 4; and 14.50 (iii).
4.
The
amendments to the proposed rules suggested by the Board after publication of
the proposed rules in the State Register are not substantially different from
the proposed rules as published in the State Register within the meaning of
Minn. Stat. § 14.05, subd. 2, and 14.15, subd. 3.
5.
Any
Findings that might properly be termed Conclusions and any Conclusions that
might properly be termed Findings are hereby adopted as such.
6.
A
Finding or Conclusion of need and reasonableness with regard to any particular
rule subsection does not preclude and should not discourage the Board from
further modification of the proposed rules based upon this Report and an
examination of the public comments, provided that the rule finally adopted is
based upon facts appearing in this rule hearing record.
Based on the Conclusions, the
Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS
RECOMMENDED that the proposed rules, as modified, be adopted.
Dated: June 23, 2009.
|
s/Barbara L.
Neilson |
|
BARBARA L. NEILSON |
|
Administrative Law Judge |
Digitally Recorded; No Transcript Prepared.
[1]
[2] See Minn. Stat. § 14.15, subd. 1.
[3] SONAR at 1-2, 8.
[4]
Minn. Stat. § 14.14, subd. 2;
[5]
Mammenga v. Dept. of Human Services,
442 N.W.2d 786 (
[6]
In re Hanson, 275 N.W.2d 790 (
[7] Greenhill v. Bailey, 519 F.2d 5, 19 (8th Cir. 1975).
[8]
Mammenga, 442 N.W.2d at 789-90; Broen Mem’l Home v.
[9] Manufactured Hous. Inst. v. Pettersen, 347 N.W.2d at 244.
[10]
Federal Sec. Adm’r v. Quaker Oats Co.,
318
[11]
[12] Minn. Stat. §14.05, subd. 2(b).
[13] Minn. Stat. § 14.05, subd. 2(c).
[14] The provisions of the Act relating to agency rulemaking are codified in Minn. Stat. §§ 14.001-14.47.
[15] The OAH rules governing rulemaking proceedings are set forth in Minnesota Rules part 1400.2000 through 1400.2240.
[16] Ex. H (33 State Reg. 518 (Sept. 15,
2008)).
[17] Exs. Q, U.
[18] Ex. W.
[19] Exs. Y, Z.
[20] Exs. AA, BB.
[21]
Ex. CC (33 State Reg. 1565 (
[22] Exs. FF-HH.
[23] Ex. 11.
[24] Ex. H.
[25] Ex. X.
[26] Ex. U.
[27] Ex. S.
[28] Ex. DD.
[29] Ex. W.
[30] Ex. CC.
[31] Ex. HH.
[32] Ex. HH.
[33] Ex. HH.
[34] Exs. GG, HH.
[35] Ex. FF.
[36] Ex. GG.
[37] Exs. FF, GG.
[38] Exs. M-P.
[39] Ex. JJ.
[40] Exs. I-K, FF-HH.
[41] SONAR at 2.
[42] Ex. EE.
[43] SONAR at 2.
[44]
1973 Laws of
[45]
1976 Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 222, Sections 25 and 27 (effective
[46] SONAR at 3.
[47] SONAR at 3.
[48] SONAR at 4.
[49] SONAR at 4.
[50] SONAR at 4-5.
[51] SONAR at 5.
[52]
[53]
[54] SONAR at 6.
[55] SONAR at 7-8; Ex. U.
[56] SONAR at 8.
[57] See Minn. R. 8710.3200, subp. 1 (A) – (C); SONAR at 9.
[58] See subpart 3(A)(7) of the proposed rule.
[59] SONAR at 9-13.
[60] Testimony of J. Melick; Ex. TT.
[61] Testimony of R. Gardner; Ex. NN.
[62] Testimony of D. Hanks; Public Ex. 4.
[63] Board’s May 21, 2009, Post-Hearing Submission at 2.
[64] Emphasis added.
[65] For example, subject matter standards for mathematics, social studies, and communication arts and literature are found in 8710.3200, and subject matter standards for science are set forth in 8710.4750.
[66] SONAR at 14.
[67] SONAR at 15-16.
[68] SONAR at 16.
[69] Testimony of R. Gardner and S. Norlin-Weaver; Exs. NN and OO.
[70] Testimony of J. Melick; Ex. TT.
[71] Board’s May 21, 2009, Submission at 2.
[72] SONAR at 16.
[73] SONAR at 21; see also Board’s May 21, 2009, Post-Hearing Submission at 2.
[74] Testimony of K. Balmer at hearing.
[75] Exs. LL and MM.
[76] Testimony of D. Dillon; Ex. QQ.
[77] Testimony of S. Thomson; Ex. PP.
[78] SONAR at 22.
[79] SONAR at 21-22; Board’s May 21, 2009, Post-Hearing Submission at 2.
[80] SONAR at 24.
[81] SONAR at 24.
[82] SONAR at 25.
[83]
[84] SONAR at 27-28.
[85] SONAR at 29, citing National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers: Preparing Teachers to Use Technology (International Society for Technology in Education 2002), www.iste.org .
[86] Testimony of G. Utecht; Ex. SS.
[87] Testimony of J. Melick; Ex. TT.
[88] SONAR at 29-30.
[89] SONAR at 31.
[90] SONAR at 30.
[91] Testimony of C. Hagen; Ex. RR.
[92] Testimony of G. Utecht; Ex. SS.
[93] Testimony of J. Melick; Ex. TT.
[94] Testimony of R. Meyer; Public Ex. 1.
[95] Testimony of J. Cherry; Public Ex. 2.
[96] Testimony of J. Lambrecht.
[97] Testimony of R. Cudworth; Public Ex. 3.
[98] Testimony of D.J. Dahl.
[99] Testimony of R. Pettit.
[100] See, e.g., letter comments from Brenda Kellen, Vicki Kapaun, John Kostynick, Mary Toner, Candace Lee, Diane K. Nelson, Becky Ehnert, Leah Lencowski, Ann Pagel, Cynthia Nolan, Pat Kittock, Richard Osman, Charlotte Bergstrom, Angela M. Hartman, Lynn M. Falk, Lois A. Cox, Julie Wolner, Valerie Bradt, Tiffany McGrath, Danielle Dahl, Rachel Cudworth, Denita Clapp, Michael J. Kaluza, Mary Jane Patchin, Kristin Cherveny, Kara Mueller, Joyce Olson, Donna J. Krueger, April Johnson, Lori A. Raebel, Sheryl Krengel, Matt Askegaard, Jana Peterson, Peggy Bausman, Lisa J. Rutt, Michele MacLeod, Molly J. Wickam, Susan Kuseske, Polly Johnson, Sheryl A. Petersen, Jennifer Reinhardt, Robert Murray, Kathi Salvevold, and Terri J. Martin.
[101] Board’s May 13, 2009, Post-Hearing Submission at 3.
[102]
[103] Board’s May 13, 2009, Post-Hearing Submission at 6.
[104] Similar concerns were raised by Molly Wickam, David Braaten, Vicki Kapaun, Ann Pagel, Michael J. Kaluza, Lori A. Raebel, Sheryl Krengel, Michele MacLeod, Polly Johnson, and Robert Murray.
[105] Board’s May 13, 2009, Submission at 3-4.
[106]
[107] A link to the minutes of the May 22, 2009 Board of Teaching meeting is available at http://education.
state.mn.us/MDE/Teacher_Support/Board_of_Teaching/Meet_Minute_Agenda/index.html.
[108] Board’s May 13, 2009, Post-hearing Submission at 5-6.
[109]
See, e.g., Federal Sec. Adm’r v. Quaker Oats Co., 318
[110]
Mammenga v. Dept. of Human Services,
442 N.W.2d 786 (
[111]
Federal Sec. Adm’r v. Quaker Oats Co.,
318
[112] SONAR at 31.
[113] Testimony of J. Melick; Ex. TT.
[114] Testimony of G. Utecht; Ex. SS.
[115] Letter from S. Gundlach (April 23, 2009).
[116] SONAR at 32.
[117] Testimony of G. Utecht; Ex. SS.