From

:

Sent:
To:

Subject: Attachments:

McGoldrick, Lee < lee.mcgoldrick@teachforamerica.org> Friday, November 19, 2010 2:02 PM Jennifer Wallace; Wong, Gregory J.; Ortega, Janis RE:Draft letter PESB Ltr to TFA.pdf

JenniferHappy to help. Attached is a scanned copy of the letter.

Have a great weekendLee

From: Jennifer Wallace [mailto:Jennifer.Wallace@k12.wa.us]

Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 3:19 PM
To: Wong, Gregory J.; Ortega, Janis; McGoldrick, Lee Subject: RE: Draft letter Slightly embarrassing to be asking - but do you all have an electronic copy of the final letter you could email to me? All I can seem to find is an earlier draft and Pamela is on vacation for the next week and I need it to respond to a flood of inquiries we're getting right now! From: Wong, Gregory J. [mailto:greg.wong@klgates.com]

Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:37 PM
To: Jennifer Wallace; Offor, lfy; McGoldrick, Lee Subject: RE: Draft letter

Hello Jennifer, I received my copy of the signed letter today. Thank you for yout quick turnaround. And, once again, thank you for all of your efforts to help Teach For America as it explores the potential for placing teachers in Washington State. \'{1ewill be in touch as we go forward. Best Regards, Greg

Greg Wong
I(B{:I~

tes 92S Fourth Avenue, Suite 29()O

Se:lillc, \X/A lj8lU4 Direct: 20().,'J70.G575 Fax: 206.:) 7()'() 103

From: Jennifer Wallace [mailto:Jennifer.Wallace@k12.wa.us]

Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:36 AM
To: Wong, Gregory J.; Offor, Ify; McGoldrick, Lee Subject: RE: Draft letter

1

Sorry about all the typos - thanks for these! We'll get it cleaned up and out to you asap! From: Wong, Gregory J. [greg.wong@klgates.com]

Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 12:30 AM
To: Jennifer Wallace; Offer, Ify; McGoldrickr Lee Subject: RE: Draft letter

Hello Jennifer, Thank you for your quick and thorough response. We have looked over the letter and it addresses all ofTF A's questions at this time. Attached are a few minor edits in redline, mostly correcting small typos and places where the auto-numbering confused itself. The only substantive piece that we noticed is that the second part of Question 10 is identical to language in Question 9. This seemed redundant so we removed the relevant language from Question 10. If there was a particular reason you wanted it repeated, please feel free to add it back in. We look forward to receiving the final, signed letter soon. Once again, thank you for the attention you have given to this matter during a very busy period. We truly appreciate your efforts. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Greg

Greg Wong Gates
925 Fourth ,\venue, Suite 2900 Seattle, \X/A 9g104 Direct: 206.370.6575
]0';1:\:

2CJ6.370.G403

From: Jennifer Wallace [mailto:Jennifer.Wallace@k12.wa.us]

Sent: Sunday, January 31r 2010 5:30 PM
To: Offor, Ify; McGoldrickr Lee; Wong, Gregory J.; McLaughlin, Michele Subject: RE: Draft letter Ify Great to know you've got some growing Puget Sound interest! The Governor's bill is moving along and I was kind of waiting for first cut-off to update the letter - but let's go with this ---- I've attached the latest version plus additional info reflecting the policy objectives of the Gov / PESB bill. I've also included a link to the actual legislation so your legal folks can track it. I believe I have addressed all questions and concerns in the letter -including the ones raised by Lee in his last email. I will have Pamela print this for my and David Kinnunen's signature and we'll get you a PDF asap. If any amendments are offered that change what we've stated in this letter, I will definitely let you know! Jennifer

From: Offer, Ify [ify.offor@teachforamerica.org]

Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 4:04 PM
To: Jennifer Wallace; McGoldrick, Lee; Wong, Gregory J.; McLaughlin, Michele Subject: RE: Draft letter Dear Jennifer, 2

I hope this e-mail finds you well, though no doubt busy with the session in full swing! I wanted to a) update you on our progress in the state and b) follow up on our request for a letter outlining the current ce rtification process. We've had some positive initial conversations about the possibility of bringing Teach For America to the Puget Sound region. One district specifically asked me if you would draft a letter explaining our process before they would commit. I told him that we'd talked to you about doing this and that I was confident you wou Id get back to us ASAP. Could you please update us our progress here? is pretty challenging, but do

Jennifer, thanks so much for engaging in all of this. I know this timeline appreciate you taking the time to help in this regard. Please let us know if there All the best, is anything

we can do to move this process along.

lfy

From: Jennifer Wallace [mailto:Jennifer.Wallace@k12.wa.us]

Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:03 PM
To: McGoldrick, Lee Cc: Offor, Ify; Wong, Gregory J. Subject: RE: Draft letter

I am so sorry I haven't responded yet - I keep waiting for the final version of the Gov's legislation, because I don't want to paint one picture and then have to change it. I fully anticipate the effect of the Gov's legislation will only be good news for TFA - but want to be really sure. Language is at code reviser - once we have a Z draft I'll get back to you!

From: McGoldrick, Lee [mailto:lee.mcgoldrick@teachforamerica.org]

Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 7:24 PM
To: Jennifer Wallace Cc: Offor, lfy; Wong, Gregory J. Subject: RE: Draft letter JenniferHappy 201 O! I hope the new year is off to a good start for you. I was wondering if you had a revised final version of the draft letter we had discussed prior to the holidays? I was just connecting with Ify, and she doesn't have a copy so I'm thinking you may be finalizing it with David. When you have an opportunity, can you just let us know what the best next step on this is? Many thanks! Lee

from: Jennifer Wallace [mailto:Jennifer.Wallace@k12.wa.us] Sent: Thursday! December 17, 20095:17 PM
3

To: McGoldrick, Lee
Cc: Offor, lfy Subject: RE: Draft letter

Hi LeeThanks for the edits! Looks good to me - I might rephrase one sentence - just because the PESB doesn't really have resources to provide direct support / I don't want to give that impression to others who might get copies of this letter - but we're supportive of districts partnering with TFA --- so instead of "supporting school district / TFA partnerships."

I may change this to
"Supporting school district pursuit of partnership with TFA" .. or something like that I'll work on it. I'll send this up to David Kinnunen - since I'll need his signature - he will be reviewing in case there are any subtle technical inaccuracies - but he and I have already been over this, so I don't anticipate anything. I'll get back to you as soon as I hear from him

From: McGoldrick, Lee [mailto:lee.mcgoldrick@teachforamerica.org] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 1:33 PM To: Jennifer Wallace Cc: Offor, Ify Subject: Draft letter JenniferI wanted to reach out to you, as Ify Offor had asked that Greg Wong, with K & L Gates, and I take a look at the draft letter you had sent to Ify, and provide some feedback on it. He and I took the approach of editing some text, while seeking to maintain as much of your original language as possible. I'd just ask that you look this over and see if this version resonates with you, as, clearly, it is a letter from you. Know that my intent in editing was just to be sure that we were all on the same page as to the questions we have and the responses to them. The most significant adjustment I think I made was to add in a question about "highly qualified" as that wasn't something that was in the "question list" in your draft. Many thanks for your deep engagement on all of this. Your partnership and insight into the regulatory context are invaluable. Sincerely, Lee

This communication and any file transmitted with it may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination
4

STATE OF WASHINGTON

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR STANDARDS BOARD

February 2, 2010 Lee McGoldrick Teach For America 315 West 36th Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10018 Greg Wong K&L Gates 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98144 Ms. McGoldrick and Mr. Wong: The Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB) has had em-going conversations with Teach for America (TFA) staff and legal counsel in which the PESS has expressed every intention of supporting school district pursuit of partnership with TFA. The PESS hopes thatthis letter addresses any lingering concerns about potential requlatory barriers. In terms of legal and regulatory context here in Washington State, it is important to know that Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 28A.410.210 broadly assigns responsibility for educator preparation and certification to the PESB. All specific requirements related to approval of preparation programs and certification of teachers is contained in PESS administrative code (WAC) 181. Therefore, if at any point regulatory barriers are mutually identified, it is entirely within the PESS's authority to address them. Our understanding is that your questions are as follows: 1. Does the PESS or OSPI see any regulatory barrier to districts partnering with TFA to hire TFA teachers? 2. What are the three ways that a district may justify its request for a conditional certificate? 3. Have districts applied for a conditional certificate under the third avenue and have they done so successfully? 4. What are OSPI conditional certificate acceptance rates? (In other words, does OSPI grant 100% of all district requests?)

Main Office (360) 725-6275 e FAX (360) 586-4548 fa http://WW\v.pesb.wa.gov Old Capitol Building a 600 Washington Street S., Room 2490 P. O. Box 47236 @ Olympia, WA 98504-7236

Lee McGoldrick,

TF A

Greg Wong, K&L Gates

5. Are there instances where aSPI has denied a district's request for conditional certificate and under what circumstances? 6. Can you provide us with the name of the office/title/person in aSPI charged with approving the district's request? 7. Can you confirm that the district may request conditional licenses for corps members in "batches"? 8. Please clarify when a conditionally-certified teacher must complete their 60 hours of coursework. Does TFA's summer institute count and if so, who decides if it counts, the university. aSPI? 9. Must TFA corps members work toward their residency certificate through one of the state's grant sponsored alternative route programs, or is it possible to work toward certification through another certification program? 10. Assuming that a corps member on conditional certificate has a bachelor's degree, has demonstrated subject matter knowledge through passage of the state contentarea examination, and is enrolled in a certification program, can you confirm that he or she wi/[ be deemed "highly qualified" under NClB? Our responses to your questions are as follows: 1. Does the PESB or OSPI see any regulatory barrier to districts partnering with TFA to hire TFA teachers? No. In fact, as previously mentioned, we are supportive of districts and TFA forming partnerships. 2. What are the three ways that a district may justify its request for a conditional certificate? WAC 181.79A.231 provides conditions under which a district may request the state issue a conditional certificate. Below are links to actual WAC language and conditional certification application form. The conditions under which a district can apply for conditional certificates for corps members are as follows: .
II

II

The applicant is highly qualified and experienced in the subject matter to be taught and has unusual distinction or exceptional talent which is able to be demonstrated through public records of accomplishments and/or awards; Or No person with regular teacher certification in the endorsement area is available as verified by the district or educational service district superintendent or approved private school administrator; Or

2

Lee McGoldrick, TFA Greg Wong, K&L Gates "Circumstances warrant consideration of issuance of a conditional J1 (emphasis added)

III

ceriiticeie.

When the district submits the conditional certificate application, indicating that "circumstances warrant" because they want to partner with TFA - whether related to shortage or as part of their strategy to address the achievement gap or other reasonsthey must verify the following: 1. Signature from school board or educational service district board 2. Assurance that the individual will serve as the teacher of record and will have assistance from the district 3. Assurance that the district will provide orientation and support specific to the ' assignmept '4. Assurancethat the Individual be apprised ofa'nile!ial Iiabifify, .and provided clear information about responsibllitles, line of authority and duration of assignment, 5. Within first sixty days they wi" complete sixty clock hours

will

Given TFA's model, this seems easily addressed through the agreed upon plan between TFA and the district - Numbers 1-3 and 5 would be easily addressed by the structure and timeline of the program itself. Number 4 is standard employment I liability procedure. Candidates must clear fingerprint and background checks, but there are no other ancillary requirements (e.g. basic skills or content testing not required for conditional certification, though we know you plan to require these of your corps members so that they can be deemed "highly qualified" by the state for NeLS-reporting purposes). For your reference, the link to regulation related to the conditional certificate is: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=181-79A-231 3. Have districts applied for a conditional certificate under the third avenue and have they done so successfully?
.,

4. What are aSPI conditional certificate acceptance rates (in other words, does OSPI grant 100% of all district requests?)? 5. Are there instances where aSPI has denied a district's request for conditional certificate and under what circumstances? Washington State annually reports the number of conditional certificates issued, but not by rationale. According to OSPI's most recent Certificates Issued Report, 202 conditional certificates were issued in the 2007-08 school year. It is important here to understand that the WAC provides the state no rationale for denial. Further, the Certification Division is obligated to implement PESB WAC. As described in the email exchange attached to this letter from aSPI certification specialist Laura Gooding, and verified by signature of OSPI's Director, unless the district fails to provide rationale, the 3

Lee McGoldrick, TFA Greg Wong, K&L Gates individual does not have fingerprint / background check, or the application is incomplete in some other way, all requests are granted .. 6. Can you provide us with the name of the office/title/person in aSPI charged with approving the district's request? This letter is co-signed by OSPI's Director of Certification. 7.. Can you confirm that the district may request conditional licenses for corps members in "batches"? . There's no reason why this would need to be "case-by-case" consideration. While one application per corps members would be needed (fingerprint I background is obviously individual), the rationale I supporting documentation would be the same for all. 8. Please clarify when a conditionally-certified teacher must complete their 60 hours of coursework? Does TFA's summer institute count and jf so, who decides if it counts? The district? The university partner? aSPI? The 60 hours are as approved by the employer (school district) and the employer must verify and keep the records. Conditionally Certified teachers with instructional responsibility must complete it within the first 60 days of employment, but we have indicated to districts that those hours could be for training they received prior to the certificate issuance if they are employment. So if agreeable to the district, the summer institute could absolutely count. We understand the TFA pre-service training program is hundreds of hours in duration, which would exceed the 60 hour requirement. 9. Must TFA corps members work toward their residency certificate though one of the state's grant sponsored alternative route programs, or is it possible to work toward certification through another certification program? We want to be clear that partlcipation in the state's grant funded alternative route programs is not required, and that TFA corps members can work toward certification through other certification programs. Any PESB-approved provider, whether participating in the grant program or not, can prepare a conditionally-certified teachers for full residency certification via a TFA-type model (classroom-based, coursework on the side I evenings, early exit depending on competency, etc.) within their existing approval. In fact, we have approved preparation programs operating identical models. 1O.Assuming that a corps member on a conditional certificate has a bachelor's degree, has demonstrated subject matter knowledge through passage of the state contentarea examination, and is enrolled in a certification program, can you confirm that he or she will be deemed "highly qualified" under NeLS? Yes, a teacher on a conditional certificate who has a bachelor's degree, who has demonstrated subject matter knowledge through passage of the state-approved content
4

Lee McGoldrick, TFA Greg Wong, K&L Gates

••••

_.

".,.,

c

c_

-~-----~

__

~_J

area examinations, and who is enrolled in state-approved considered "highly qualified."

certification

program will be

GovernorJs Legislation
Since the first draft of this letter, the Governor and PESB have request legislation before the state legislature that aims to better position Washington for a secondround Race to the Top Application. As such the legislation does several things:

1. Expands eligible PESB-approved
programs beyond higher education

providers of teacher and administrator institutions;

preparation

2. Requires the PEsa to review and revise existing program approval and review
standards for teacher and administrator preparation program providers processes for approval and oversight of a broader range of providers; and establish

3. Applies the requirements
that will be considered

of the four current alternative routes to any I all programs alternative routes to teaching, removing the competitive grant

aspect of the previous program;

4. Requires all current public higher education institutions to operate at least part of
their approved program leading to residency teacher certification route program per the definition established in this legislation; assessment of teaching as an alternative

5. Sets a timeline for PESB implementation
effectiveness Washington their candidates on this assessment

of new preservice program

so that all teacher preparation is part of 14-state consortium

providers will have results for measures. and the of Colleges of University

as part of their accountability lead by Stanford Association

Council of Chief State School Officers and American Teacher Education.

6. Reestablishes
encouraging

the Higher Education and requiring

Coordinating

Board's regional service areas, institutions to examine whether and' educator preparation;

public higher education access to educator regional reporting on how recruitment

they are providing' adequate

7. Creates new state data-driven
workforce preparation needs. need and facilitated program providers

related to forecasting and enrollment

dialogue and planning between school districts and

will address

Below is a link to the legislation (HB 3059 and Part 4 of SB 6696) - this way you may track amendments. htip:/lapps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo!summary.aspx?bill==3059&year-2009

5

Lee McGoldrick, TF A Greg Wong, K&L Gates

The legislation in no way changes the fact that TFA may partner with an institution, whether it meets the state's definition of alternative routes and is connected to the conditional loan scholarship program or not. In our opinion, TFA's program design already fits well within the parameters of either Route 3 or Route 4, depending on employment status of the corps member. But to directly address the concern raised in Ms. McGoldrick's 12/22 email, we confirm that the existence of the four specific . alternate routes does not preclude the existence of other certification programs for teachers on conditional certificates. We hope this letter addresses your questions. Please contact Jennifer if you have additional questions or information needs.

~-i~A
Sincerely, Executive Director, PESB Attachment Cc:

~~ninnunen Director, Certification, OSPI

Ity Offor, Vice President, New Site Development, Teach For America Wendy Kopp, CEO and Founder, Teach for America

6

~-----~-. --_ ~-_~--_~----.---

..

.......;

~_~-

~~------.-------------~~----

__

J

- .. -'-------~---.-----~~----

-_._-_

Attachment
From: Laura Gooding . .

Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 10:04 AM Subject: RE: Thank You
Yes, I think that is denying for district hours on the clock clock hours based required. Laura

To: Jennifer Wallace; Debbie Culwell Cc: David Kinnunen

a true and accurate statement. Neither Debbie nor I remember ever rationale. Anyone can be the clock hour provider since these are as approved by the employer. They don't have to be the 'official' on WAC 181-85 since that rule is not referenced as the type of hours

From: Jennifer Wallace Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:59 AM

To: Laura Gooding; Debbie Culwell
Cc: David Kinnunen . Subject: RE: Thank You
Let's try this - see if you can sign on to this statement ----Because the·WAC is relatively broad "circumstances warrant" - aSPI Cert doesn't have criteria that speaks to acceptable versus unacceptable "circumstances" - so as long as the district presents rationale, you have no grounds for denial. True? ' Also - can either you or Debbie recall ever denying a conditional cert application based on rationale viewed as inadequate? . The district could be the clock hour provider right?

From: Laura Gooding Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 8:42 AM

To: Jennifer Wallace Cc: David Kinnunen
Subject: RE: Thank You
We don't have the data they are asking for. We don't keep track of the reason the district used to obtain the conditional, nor do we keep track of the acceptance rates (approved vs. denied). We issued 258 conditional certificates for the 7-1-08/6-30-09 term and that was for all areas. Typically, if a conditional is denied it is not because of the district request but because the individual did not meet some requirement (no fingerprint results, no renewal hours, no district request, conditional not appropriate because they meet regular cert requirements, etc). Debbie handles most conditional certificate applications for teachers, If the district has not completed the request form appropriately to include rationale, we just ask them to correct the form and they usually do so we don't tend to deny a conditional application because of the district request. 7

As for the 60 hour requirement, that is as approved by the employer and the employer must verify and keep the records. Those with instructional responsibility must complete it within the first 60 days of employment but we have indicated to districts that those hours could be for training they received prior to the certificate issuance if they are employment.

8

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful