MnSTA Legislative News...

March 20, 2007
Additional science licensure with only a PRAXIS exam:

The Board of Teaching intends to adopt rules regarding science licensure without a public hearing unless 25 or more persons submit a written request for a hearing by April 25, 2007. If so, a public hearing will be held in Conference Center A, Room 14, Minnesota Department of Education, 1500 Highway 36 West, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, starting at 9:30a.m. on Tuesday, May 15, 2007. To find out whether the rules will be adopted without a hearing or if the hearing will be held, you should contact the agency contact person after April 25 and before May 15.

Subject of Rules:

The proposed rules are about allowing a teacher licensed in Chemistry, Physics, Life Science, or Earth and Space Science and who has taught science for at least three years to take the content knowledge test in another area of science licensure. Successful passage of such an exam would result in the issuance of a teaching license in that area.

Comments:
You have until 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 25, 2007, to submit written comment in support of or in opposition to the proposed rules or any part or subpart of the rules. Your comment must be in writing and received by the agency contact person by the due date. Comment is encouraged.

Contact Information:
Comments may be sent to karen.balmer@state.mn.us. Please respond as individuals and please share this with others.

Details are found in this (125 k) pdf file.

March 11, 2007
Upcoming changes in the MCA Science Assessments:

MESTA and MnSTA sent each member of the Senate Education Committee position statements related to the expansion of the MCA II Grade 10-12 test to include both physical and earth sciences. In order for this bill to move forward, it must be a part of the Senate Education Omnibus Bill. For that to happen, Chairman Wiger needs to hear from the masses! The text from Kent below outlines how to do that and what to include in the correspondence. Note that the deadline is prior to March 23rd!

-----------------

Year 2004 Minnesota Session Laws Chapter 294 states that science assessments (the MCA II tests) must be “aligned with state academic standards that districts and sites must use to monitor student growth toward achieving those standards.” The 5th and 8th grade MCA II will assess in earth and space, life, and physical science standards. However the grade 10-12 MCA II will sample life science and the history and nature of science in the context of life science only. In an era where tested standards tend to be most emphasized and valued this may have disastrous consequences for high school earth and physical science.

Fortunately there is a way to change this. Minnesota Senate File 940 deals with the 2011-2012 revision of the MCA test. It calls for questions that sample the full range of currently required strands. In other words questions that relate to the 2004 required earth and space and physical science strands would be included in the future MCA III assessment. This bill is limited to the grade 10-12 assessment. It does not create new standards, new course requirements, or expanded testing. Currently required strands could still be embedded within any required or elective course. Senate file 940 only asks for an assessment that better reflects the full range of required strands.

In order for Senate file 940 to progress through the legislature, it needs to be part of the Senate Education Omnibus Bill. If it is included in the omnibus bill, it will go to conference committee where members of the House and Senate may discuss it. If it fails to be part of the omnibus bill the measure will die. Because it takes time for the Department of Education to respond to legislation and develop an assessment we need to act now.

Please take a few minutes to contact Senator Wiger, who introduced Senate File 940. Urge him to get this bill into the Senate Omnibus Education Bill. Senator Wiger is the chair of the Senate Education Committee and a strong supporter of public education and the environment. His commitment to education goes back over 30 years; he first served as a school board member. He is very willing to hear from science educators.

Please contact him at sen.chuck.wiger@senate.mn. Put “include sf940 in the omnibus ed bill” in the subject line. Send a positive, respectful message to urge support of sf 940’s inclusion in the bill. A few sentences in your own words will be enough. Mention that this is good for students and the state; it supports basic science literacy. It also calls for a balanced assessment that samples all strands rather than life science only. It supports science for all students and reflects the comprehensive and inclusive nature of the required standards. Be sure to mention that you are a science teacher and where you are from when you write your e-mail.

Time is of the essence. The March 23 deadline for all policy bills is approaching. We need to contact Senator Wiger well before this. The time to act is now. As teachers we are all busy and we do so much for our students, and yes now you are being asked to do yet one more thing. Senator Wiger must hear from large numbers of science teachers; it is important that every member of our organization write in support of senate file 940’s inclusion in the omnibus education bill. We now have the moment of opportunity, the membership, and the influence to bring a positive change in support of science literacy for our students. Contact Senator Wiger today.

Kent Gordon
MESTA President-Elect

July 7, 2006

Proposed MINNESOTA RULE 8710.4770 (98k pdf)
MN DOE Teacher Licensing

From MnSTA's Executive Director:

Linked above you will find information about a proposed rule change from the Minnesota Board of Teaching (MnBOT) which would permit currently licensed 9-12 or 7-12 science teachers, licensed under Minnesota rule 8710.4750, to become licensed in an additional science content area by passing the appropriate Praxis II content test. It is a request for comments and I hope you will comment, remain engaged and at the appropriate time engage your legislator in conversation about this. I say a few things about the rule making process as I understand it so take this description with a grain or two of salt. I list them below:

"Rule making" law requires that the public be notified that a rule is being proposed, and that public comment is sought. In the case of the rule referred to above, the public has until September 15, 2006 to comment to the MnBOT.

It is important that specific suggestions are made because at this stage the proposed rule language can be amended to include suggestions posed by the public.

Public comments can be in any form, but they must be written. At this phase of the process, duplicated comments are acceptable, but not really necessary, as one document signed by many will have the same impact. As you would guess, duplicated or uniform statements, while read and counted, are not as useful to MnBOT as specific suggestions backed by personal situations/impact/concerns/rational/etc. These suggestions are considered and may initiate amendments to the proposed rule language. However, comments will not "stop" the process. At this phase, quantity of comments is not as important as substantive suggestions.

The first phase is followed by a second phase of public comment. During this phase there is no option for language changes. In order in order for the proposed rule to go to a public hearing at least 25 written oppositions must be received by the deadline. If less than 25 objections are submitted, then it goes on to the legislature without public hearing. This is when the quantity of comments takes on importance.

With respect to the current request for comments, after September 15, 2006, the "final" draft of the proposed rule is written and forwarded to the Attorney Generals office. After the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General approves it, it is published for public comment again. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT TIME IN THE PROCESS. At this point the final rule language is posted for public comment again. If less than 25 individuals object to it, the rule will proceed to the legislature for action (where they may adopt it or may reject it). However, If more than 25 people send in comments that they do not want the rule to take effect, then the rule has go to a public hearing.

These public comments are absolutely crucial to whether the proposed rule is adopted or not. First, these comments become part of the permanent, public record. Second, if the MnBOT receives 25 or more objections, then the proposed rule HAS to go to a public hearing which allows individuals/groups/spokespersons to publicly express concern about aspects of the rule prior to legislative action. The personal written comments are read and are important to legislators to read to make their decisions. The minutes from this public hearing, and the comments are part of the permanent record that goes with the rule to the legislature for the vote. The public comments in the earlier phase, do not necessarily become part of the permanent record for the legislature. So, a ROT, rule of thumb: If you want to be heard, submit comments twice, even if it is the same document.

MnSTA is on the MnBOT mailing list for these rules and we will receive notification of the stages the proposed rule is in, and will receive notice when the final rule language is posted for public comment again. In the case of the proposed rule this should be in November/December at the earliest. You can ask to be on this mailing list.

Thank you.

Ed Hessler
Hamline University - CGEE
1536 Hewitt Ave.
MS-A1760
St. Paul MN 55104
651-523-2945
email: ehessler01@hamline.edu
fax: 651-523-3041

Contact the webmaster.