0.7 Hunt, j., grivetti, j., & Morford, l. (october 2011). your turf  (Page 3/5)

At the end of this year-long process, it seemed that the subcommittees, the overall task force, and the ISBE and IBHE staff had reached a general consensus on recommendations for changes in principal preparation programs. As will be described in detail later in this paper, this proved to be a false conclusion.

After the task force

One of the first things that happened at the conclusion of the task force process involved the ISBE and IBHE staff bringing in special interest and constituent groups to review the work of the task force. These groups were quite adamant about wanting certain provisions included in the guidelines. One of the most active groups represented the parents of special education youngsters. Based upon the input of these groups, the ISBE and IBHE staff recommended that universities needed to strengthen content understanding in their programs by increasing their foci upon school law, special education law, use of technology for administration, teaching and learning, social emotional learning standards, and bullying and school safety. Additionally, universities were encouraged to include instruction on a three-tier instruction and intervention model, commonly called Response to Intervention (RTI). This model is used primarily with students with special learning needs.

While there was general agreement that universities could do more to include the needs of special education students and programs in their principal preparation curricula, there was a widespread sense that some of these recent regulations were overly specific.

Concurrently with the receipt of input from the constituent groups, the Illinois State Board of Education posted a PowerPoint on its website ( www.isbe.net ) which outlined the proposed changes which would impact the state’s public and private principal preparation programs. Then, the ISBE and IBHE staff took the “show on the road” and held a number of hearings throughout the state, rolling out the proposed changes. Rather than just presenting the work of the task force and the subsequent input groups, staff members also accepted and included some of the modifications suggested in some of the public hearings. For a period of time, the ISBE PowerPoint was frequently changed and updated. This proved to be a source of frustration for many universities, since they were using the PowerPoint as a basis for the redesign of their programs. At this point, in the spring of 2010, it appeared that universities would need to begin submitting their new program requests by September 1, 2011.

In May of 2010, the Illinois General Assembly passed the enabling legislation for the principal redesign process, when it enacted SB 3610, House Amendment #2. This legislation, which was skeletal in nature, left much to be flushed out via the rulemaking process. The accompanying rules were to be developed by the ISBE staff and were to be subsequently approved by the Illinois State Board of Education members. As part of this process, the rules were to be examined and perhaps modified by the State Teacher Certification Board (STCB). Finally, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR), consisting of a number of legislators from both parties, would review the rules. Only then would the new rules be in place.