Jeff Everett and I were among those who went to Springfield yesterday to take
our turns at commenting on the proposed tech endorsements. If one had
listened only to our formal statements, one would think that Jeff and I were
almost diametrically opposed on some of the issues. But we are not, as
became clear in the informal Q&A and discussion.
We have some ideas we want to flesh out on the listserv and then to provide
DOE as written comment when they have been given body.
The Bachelor's degree requirement for the Resource Teacher.
Grandfathering those who have been on the job for at least three years so
they can opt to go straight for the Level II license.
Clearly separating the definitions of the Tech Coordinator and MIS; a
school (or SU) could have choices about what kind of services they want:
strictly techie or the combination involving intimate knowledge of teaching
We also gleaned some interesting information about "supplementing" from
the regulations that actually cover many tech support positions. Our Network
Administrator, for example, here in Barre would not fall under the proposed
endorsements both through existing regulations and also through the fact that
the proposed endorsements do not address that kind of position.
Jeff will also be making extensive comments to the list.
Barre Supervisory Union #61
Barre VT 05641
[log in to unmask]