CR 14-022 Rule Text

CERTIFICATE

ORDER ADOPTING RULES OF THE

WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM BOARD REPEALING AND RECREATING RULE RELATING TO CERTIFICATION OF PERSONNEL

The Wisconsin Technical College System Board proposes an order to repeal and recreate TCS 3 related to Certification of Personnel: Requirements and Procedures. The scope statement for this rule, SS 088-13, was approved by the Governor on July 18, 2013, and published in Register No. 692A on August 14, 2013. The final rule was approved by the Governor on January 15, 2015.

ANALYSIS PREPARED BY THE

WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM BOARD

1. Statutes interpreted: Wis. Stats. § 38.04 (4)

2. Statutory authority: Wis. Stats. § 38.04 (4) and 38.14(a)

3. Explanation of agency authority: Wis. Stats. § 38.04 (4), Stats., states that the qualifications of educational personnel shall be approved by the technical college system board. Wis. Stats. § 38.14(a), Stats., states that the WTCS Board shall promulgate rules, applicable to all district boards, establishing general district policies and procedures on personnel (and other topics).

4. Related statute or rule: Wis. Stats. § 38.12 (3)(b), Stats.

5. Plain language analysis: The Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS) recently reviewed Chapter TCS 3 of the Wis. Admin. Code, entitled Certification of Personnel: Requirements and Procedures, to ensure that the process is efficient for both the System and its colleges while maintaining a high quality process that supports the statutory responsibilities of the WTCS Board. TCS 3, which was last amended in 1993, establishes the standards and procedures for implementation of a personnel certification system.

6. Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations: There are no federal rules regarding certification of technical college personnel.

7. Comparison with rules in adjacent states: Not applicable.

8. Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies: Not applicable.

9. Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report: Not applicable.

10. Effect on small business: None

11. Agency contact person: Nancy A. Merrill, Senior Policy Advisor and Federal Relations Officer, Wisconsin Technical College System, 4622 University Avenue, P.O. Box 7874, Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7874, telephone [phone], e-mail [e-mail].

12. Place where comments are to be submitted and deadline for submission: Comments were submitted to the agency contact person listed above. Deadline for submission was 5 PM on April 29, 2014. A public hearing was held on April 29, 2014.

PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY

A public hearing was held on April 29, 2014 and the deadline for comments to be received was 5 PM on April 29, 2014. Five members of the public were present at the hearing with three people testifying and submitting written comments.  Two of those who testified opposed the changes, one supported the changes. Two additional people who attended the hearing registered but did not speak (one in favor, one opposed.)

Those who appeared and registered in favor of the proposed changes at the public hearing were: William Patrick Barlow (registered) and Terry Webb (spoke).

Those who appeared and registered against the proposed changes at the public hearing were: Jean Kapinsky (spoke), Leigh Barker (spoke) and Nancy McMahon (registered).

Including the public hearing, a total of 130 comments were received as electronic comments and written letters and testimony at the public hearing. Overall, among the 130 comments, 18 (13.8%) opposed the changes and 112 supported the proposed changes (86.2%). There was widespread support from all across the state. When a reason was given for supporting the proposed changes, two primary factors were cited most often: that the new rules would:  1) reduce administrative burdens in hiring full- and part-time faculty and thus increase efficiency; while at the same time 2) maintain high quality and qualified faculty.  We agree that the new requirements strike an appropriate balance between reduced administrative burdens and maintaining high faculty quality.

The most common concern cited by those opposed to the new rule is that eliminating certification requirements for educational administrators other than faculty will hurt educational quality, with 12 people raising this concern. They argue current requirements should be maintained requiring certification for presidents, counselor and librarians and those teaching adult continuing education courses and non-district personnel in K12 and prison settings. We believe the new requirements more consistently and appropriately apply certification requirements to faculty teaching credit courses and as such, they are consistent with regional accreditation requirements.

The second most commonly cited concern by those opposed to the change is that the changes will create variations in hiring and qualifications for staff at different colleges by eliminating statewide minimum standards. The nine people raising this issue were concerned that a lack of statewide standards may limit the ability of students to seamlessly transfer credits between the WTCS and 4-year institutions. The System believes that the proposed changes actually strengthen statewide standards by clarifying minimum hiring and professional development standards and better ensuring compliance with national accreditation standards that have, in the past, been linked to credit transfer questions.

The third most common concern, raised by seven people, was that elimination of the State Certification Committee hurts the credibility and objectivity of certification by removing state-level oversight.  On the contrary, the System believes that the new rule appropriately places the major responsibility for certification at the college level while strengthening standards for documenting credentials prior to teaching and for establishment of a Faculty Quality Assurance System that includes consistent standards for professional development, recruitment and hiring, and performance evaluation. The proposed new rule maintains the authority for System-level review of college compliance with the rule.

RESPONSE TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

The Legislative Council staff recommendations were largely technical in nature related to numbering of sections and formatting of rule and clarifying language for consistency. The recommended changes were accepted in full.

FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS AND ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORTS

Attached.