Expected Outcome
Review of agenda
Common understanding, Identification of additional items
In attendance were Rhonda Sheeley (1), Sara McInerny (267), Brian Unruh (267), Cindy Swanson (9), Sharon Kurns (11), Evan Abbey (11), Judy Griffin (13), Kathy Lockard (14), Barb Chambers (NWAEA), Katie Gavin (GPAEA), Bob Steingreaber (GPAEA), Gwen Nagel (DE), Arlie Willems (DE), Jean Cross (Higher Ed--Drake), and Arlan Thorson (ILO).
Partnership with Higher Education Institutions
Discuss, Look for Next Steps
Evan, Arlie, and Jean
Evan introduced Arlie Willems and Jean Cross, who shared with the group their roles and responsibilities.

Preparation - distance ed focuses on preparation courses. Need to prepare new teachers to teach distance ed. Our council is developing our offerings for training for online instructors. At last meeting we discussed importance of all working together for common courses to offer instructors across the state. Sub-committee working on this. Primarily looking at current teachers.

Jean Cross online instructional designer at Drake. Works in teacher education, work with instructors to teach in online environment. Most instructors hired are content experts, not online teaching experts. Talk about how to move forward involving preparation, including partnerships with Iowa Association for Colleges Teacher Education (IACTE) and Iowa Council for Professors of Education Administration (ICPEA).
Review of 11/24 Online Registration System Sub-committee Meeting; including List of "Operating Principles", RFP process, and Common Online Course Proposal
Inform, Discuss, Next Steps
Evan, Sandy, and Sharon
Kathy's documents -
Started here due to time constraints. Sara M participating as part of the group that the chiefs assigned. This sub-committee looked at developing common understanding around course proposals.

Talked about several things -
1. Length of classes. Recommend that courses be offered a minimum of one month. Rule of thumb would not be compacted course.
2. Implementation - one concern is wide variety of participants with different roles and implementation should be up to instructor. Not one standard implementation expectation for all participants.
3. Seat time - 15 contact hours. To add up the time involved in a course, the work from Evan's subcommittee was used as rule of thumb.
4. Student achievement - some want to customize assignments - strongly recommend that everything needs to be tied to student achievement
5. Formative assessment - rubrics should focus on reflective practices as opposed to solely assignment rubrics. Model formative assessment for teachers - every assignment need not be graded. Rubric can be about implementation. The council should work on universal rubrics.
6. Fee structure - it is recommended there is a common fee structure. Higher fee for out of state registrants.
7. Instructors skills - It is recommended that the instructors must demonstrate their competency. One way would be through pedagogical courses (see discussion below). But, there should be optional ways to evidence competence, especially for seasoned online instructors.

Some follow-up questions on fees - no decision about specific fees will be made until an AEA is selected to operate the system. Recommended that fees not be cheaper than highest face to face class. If AEA choses to pay for AEA staff, that should not be a problem. Content that is on statewide system - one AEA wants to do internal training and provides instructor - are we still saying they still need to go thru statewide system? More internal training online - webinars, etc, if not for licensure or graduate credit - no fee?

Next steps - these recommendations will be taken to the license renewal coordinator meeting, including Geri McMahon from the BOEE, for those individuals to look at. If there is feedback before January 6, send to Sandy or Kathy before then.

Any AEA interested in being the host of on-line registration should send their information to Brian. January 15 is timeline for submitting. Evan will let chief admin know applications will be turned in on 15, looked at on 21st, might or might not have decision at that time. Also in that timeline is hiring of project manager. HR office in contact with Brent Siegrist and an interview committee will be formed.
Common Instructor Training Sequence: Sub-committee Report - Online Collaboration on GoogleDocs
Inform, Discuss, Next Steps
Evan, Judy, and Katie
Consisted of representatives from most AEAs. Looked at options available - 1) no involvement as AEA and send teachers to existing program out there; 2) leasing courses from providers; 3) creating our own; and 4) hybrid of two different options.

Priorities the sub-committee agreed on: 1) Cost containment, 2) discussion with Board of Ed examiners, 3) funding possibilities.

Findings: Drake offers courses using external content provider - 3 credit course = $625; Viterbo offers a couple of online courses $255/credit; Univ of Wisc at Stout - 15 credit sequence consisting of 5 3-credit courses (each 3-credit course = $1080). In terms of cost - Drake courses are least expensive. Experience - several group members took courses - PLS courses and UW-Stout courses - impressed with quality. Viterbo courses were not as technically sound, however new courses being offered.

The sub-committee agreed the AEAs should look at building their own courses, for it would help in cost containment. The committee made a list of instructors available. If we did develop own courses - who would develop? Statewide team? Lease content - unclear if available thru UW-Stout. Through PLS, the cost for leasing was 35% of tuition for the course, min of $125 per participant, per credit. That means $375 for each person to take course, with no revenue going back to the AEAs, or up to $1070 per 3-credit class for maximum revenue going back to the AEAs. Heartland's experience is that this is cost prohibitive. The leasing option does not appear to be cost effective.

Evan has visited with Chuck Sengstock (Drake University) about a hybrid solution - would mean that AEA would create a core of courses for training. Additionally, there would be some electives that AEAs could offer around specific technologies, which would be easier for AEAs to create. With this, additional courses would be offered by Drake. This allows introductory courses to be offered more inexpensively. Plus those credits could be smaller chunks. One concern with a sequence like UW-Stout's- if all courses are 3 credit courses- that is a tough commitment.

Drake can offer specialized courses. A would-be instructor would take core courses and take electives thru AEA and Drake and would have 15 credits - a certificate. The question that arose from this proposal, would that be something the BOEE be interested in for licensure?

Members strongly suggested the hybrid option. The subcommittee said if the AEAs do a hybrid solution, it was recommended to partner with a specific institution - not multiple ones. Jean mentioned consistency is extremely important - when taking courses they need to expect consistency - if multiple providers involved, the more difficult that becomes. Brian asked the council to consider having multiple providers provide offerings that would meet the needs of the BOEE's requirements, especially if other institutions offer courses that are similar in goals and objectives. Arlie suggested visiting with Jean and Evan to develop a plan for common communication to all institutions in the state to see what they currently offer in this area. A crosswalk of the online teaching standards and the proposed course sequence has been created. This crosswalk will be shared with the institutions for them to compare to their current offerings, and will be shared with the council at the January meeting.

It was agreed that Geri McMahon be invited to the January meeting to discuss the licensure implications.

Katie made a request to invite Gail Wortman (teaches full time for Iowa Learning Online) to next meeting and review notes with her because of her perspective of working with teachers and evaluating teachers online.
Communication Plan Discussion
Revisit current stakeholder communication, next steps
Brian, Andy
Review presentation. Not a lot to report as far as information received. Stakeholders list in November 24 notes - potential communications on how that would go back and forth.

Next steps - Brian & Andy will report back from the afternoon meeting with AEA PR people and have graphic ready for the January meeting.
What needs to be communicated?
Future agenda items?

Judy asked how many people applied for project manager position. Sharon will try to get an update on that. If interested in being a part of that interview process team, let Sharon know.

Next meeting = January 21
• Discussion about online training sequence
• Examine RFPs for hosting the online server. Interested AEAs should send their RFPs to Brian by January 15 -- in order to have that information out before the meeting
• Update from communications, including the PR meeting and a draft of an organizational graphic
• Report back from January 6 license coordinator meeting.