February 25, 1999
President Innes called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There was a discussion of communication for the meeting.
President’s Report: President Innes opened by noting that CED needed to be more visible and that issues of teacher training, teacher qualifications, and teacher licensure were topics of discussion among other groups (e.g. COR). He also noted that we needed to set aside time at the meeting to step back and look at CED as a whole, as an organization, and whether there were things that we could do to be more effective, more visible, especially between meetings.
Treasurer’s Report: No Report Received.
Accreditation Report: Tom Jones reported on the revision of the accreditation manual. First, there were language changes, such as “hearing impaired” changed to “deaf and hard of hearing.” Second, there were some procedural changes. Third, there were changes required to meet the new standards. First visit using the new standards will begin shortly. Dr. Jones then gave a description of the accreditation process for 5 and 10 year reviews. Training for potential site visitors will take place on Sunday as part of the ACE-DHH meeting. A question was raised as to why only teacher-training faculty were designated as part of the review term. A discussion then followed about the composition of the site visit teams. A question was raised concerning if composition of the team is changed, would that effect either CEC or NCATE requirements. Dr. Jones then described the complicated relationship between CEC, NCATE and CED certifications. After further discussion, Dr. Jones said that he would make clear in the guidelines that programs could add a third person to the panel for the evaluation of a program.
Program Recommendations: 3 programs were recommended for approval: Converse College, University of Minnesota, and University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Actions of the Board are as follows:
University of Minnesota approved
University of Tennessee, Knoxville approved
In the context of the above approvals, discussion took place concerning who and how sign language communication skills were being evaluated. The implementation of the new standards will require that preparation programs be more precise in how they specified sign communication evaluation. A discussion ensued concerning the qualifications of sign language teachers, especially the use of qualified Deaf individuals who may not have a post secondary or advanced degree.
Dr. Jones presented the future CED program evaluation schedule and his proposal to synchronize CED program reviews with CEC reviews. A motion to approve Dr. Jones’ proposal as presented was made and seconded. Motion approved. President Innes thanked Dr. Jones for his excellent report and hard work on behalf of CED.
Individual Certification Program: Dr. Redding reported on staff problems. The program was without staff for two months due to staff illness and there were problems with turn-around time. Current staff time is 8-10 hours per week, which is minimal. Adding the e-mail address on the form has helped. CED really does not have an office, its own computer, etc. – it is not a very functional arrangement. There are currently about 23,000 names in the database, but the old system is non-functional. For example, people do not get certification renewal notices when their current certificate expires. A discussion then followed about whether or not the database system can be converted to MS Access. Motion was made and seconded to investigate the conversion process and a report to the Board by April 1. Following the receipt of the report, President Innes will communicate a procedure for reviewing and discussing the report via e-mail.
Next, Dr. Redding reported on his investigation of certification of
speech pathologist/therapists. It was the sense of the group that
CED should not grant CED certification to individuals who do not meet existing
certification requirements. Dr. Redding brought up the issue of postnominals.
It was agreed that postnominals would be added to certification certificates
beginning July 1. There was then a discussion of the infrastructure
of the CED office. First, a question was asked about what kind of
turn-around time could be expected. Dr. Redding responded that if
the application package was in good shape, two weeks was a reasonable expectation.
There still appears to be some confusion about who and where to send the
applications. There is a longer turn-around time in the late spring
and early summer when there are a large number of graduates applying.
Dr. Redding suggested that there be a different staffing plan for peak
HOME PREVIOUS NEXT