The Committee on School Initiatives met on Thursday, January 27, 2022, to discuss approval of a special purpose school district advisory board member for University of Texas at Austin High School; recommendation for one appointment to the Boys Ranch ISD Board of Trustees;  recommendation for reappointments to the Randolph Field ISD Board of Trustees; proposed new 19 TAC Chapter 61, School Safety Training for School Board Members; open-enrollment charter school Generation 27 application updates; review of proposed amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 230; review of proposed amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 234; and review of proposed amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 249. A video archive of the meeting can be found here.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

Item 1: Approval of Special Purpose School District Advisory Board Member for University of Texas at Austin High School

TEA Staff

  • Michael Griffith, executive director of Breakthrough Central Texas, submitted as replacement for board member recently resigned
  • Chair motions to approve new member on UT Austin High School district advisory board; Motion passes

 

Item 2: Recommendation for One Appointment to the Boys Ranch Independent School District Board of Trustees

TEA Staff

  • Item provides one appointment for board of trustees for board member replacement for BRISD board of trustees, recommends Joshua Sprock
  • Two-year term from January 28, 2022 to January 28, 2024
  • Appointment is necessary because one board member resigned
  • Cortez motions to approve Joshua Sprock term appointment for BRISD board of trustees; Motion passes

 

Item 3: Recommendation for Reappointments to the Randolph Field Independent School District Board of Trustees

TEA Staff

  • Recommends re-appointment of Jimmy Cornelius and Vanessa Boden for Randolph Fields ISD Jan 28,2022- Jan 28, 2024
  • Reappointments are necessary because two board members’ terms are expiring
  • Cortez motions to approve item; Motion passes

 

Item 4: Proposed New 19 TAC Chapter 61, School Districts, Subchapter A, Board of Trustees Relationship, §61.3, School Safety Training for School Board Members

(First Reading and Filing Authorization)

TEA Staff

  • In November, board approved school safety training developed by Texas School Safety Center
  • These rules govern the training and let trustees know how often to take the training
  • Mentions proposed rules in agenda
  • New rules would reflect changes made by HB690
  • Staff from Texas School Safety Center present to answer questions
  • Hickman – Mentions public comments in November, were any changes made?
    • Jeff Coppell – Recommends ongoing training instead of one-time training and legislative update
    • Coppell – Legislative update reviews new laws and adjustments to statutes; Suggests recurring training instead
  • Davis – What do you propose to change?
    • Coppell – Evaluating training and continue to evolve content as a part of collaborative process with Texas School Safety center
    • Coppell-things are constantly changing with school safety; different iterations of this training would be beneficial for trustees
  • Davis – Texas School Safety Center has the capacity to do this annually?
    • TEA Staff – Yes
  • Cortez motions to approve item, Motion passes

 

Item 5: Open-Enrollment Charter School Generation 27 Application Updates

  • Cortez – Why are we having remote testifiers?
    • TEA Staff – Chair approved remote testimony

 

Kara Belew, TEA Board Member, Texas Public Charter School Association – Head of Regulatory Affairs

  • Questions State Board of Education has brought to TPCSA attention regarding generation 27 applications
  • Under what circumstances should the commissioner and SBOE grant a new charter school?
  • According to Texas Law, a robust number of charter schools should be available to increase opportunity of learning
  • New charter school does not need to demonstrate innovation, traditional school districts may need to change its start date and schedule
  • Testifiers comments become unintelligible
  • Texas Law provides that only high quality charter schools with community support will be approved; any new charter school offering learning opportunity is an innovative charter school
  • Davis – Mentions asking about Special Education members, did you get an exact number on that?
    • Belew – Yes, 10% for ISD and around 8% for Charters
  • Davis – How do you ensure these applicants are hiring certified special education instructors?
    • Belew – Texas law requires that charter schools comply with all state and federal laws regarding special education, so they provide the same services under law
    • Belew – If specific examples are mentioned, they can be reviewed
  • Davis – There are two full generations that do not have a single certified special education teacher
    • Belew – Generation 27 application has robust screening to ensure schools will comply with Texas law for all special student groups, like special education and ESL
  • Davis – Would like to ensure future generations are providing required services for Special Education
    • Belew – Absolutely

 

Marian Schutte – , Staff, Director of Charter School Authorizing Administration, TEA

  • Update of Generation 27 Special Education application process that authorizes high-quality charter schools
  • Received 23 applications, 18 have moved on to external review
  • Have a team of 20 charter school experts conducting evaluating process of 18 applications
  • Agency does robust internal evaluation; 11 returning applicants, 7 new applicants
  • TEA will share update on the process in April
  • Commissioner will share recommendations to SBOE in June, schools will potentially open in August 2023
  • Johnson – of the 11 returning, how many got to the recommended stage last year?
    • TEA Staff-One of the 11
  • Johnson – We will only have 2 weeks to review the applications?
    • TEA Staff – Yes, but we can offer the applications now for commissioner review
    • TEA Staff – By April, will know which are eligible for capacity interview, giving roughly 2.5 months of knowing which are eligible for commissioner recommendation
    • TEA Staff – Those eligible for capacity review, will be eligible for commissioner recommendation
    • TEA Staff – Last year, 12 went to capacity review; number expected to drop
  • Johnson – At what point could I receive applications for the capacity interview group?
    • TEA Staff – We will make that determination April 11; will be sent mid-April
  • Hickman – If a special education student applies, will they be able to obtain support? Are there any differences between ISD and charter schools in terms of support?
    • TEA Staff-They have the same rules for special education support
  • Hickman – Is there a different approach to the application for special education support?
    • TEA Staff – Included special education staff in budget, increased engagement with charter school operators, modifications to staff and team, added monitoring
  • Hickman – Have you received complaints from families that could not get in or receive benefits?
    • TEA Staff – Will follow up with the complaints department
  • Davis – Can you describe trigger words for accusations of Critical Race Theory; for example, if you see 1619 project does that indicate dismissal?
    • TEA Staff – We have not decided on words thus far
  • Davis – How do you identify words of CRT or contingencies in application process?
    • TEA Staff – We decide for contingencies based on recommendations from legal team in accordance with federal and state law
    • TEA Staff – As part of application process, will review each school for compliance with the law and let legal team proceed
  • Cortez – Do commissioners know who the 18 current applicants are?
    • TEA Staff – We posted them online, also in display for public review
  • Cortez – Are you considering a remote set-up for interviews?
    • TEA Staff-Yes, they will be virtual
  • Cortez notes concern with remote capacity interviews for applications, recommends live interviews
  • Johnson – Will you send applications to board?
    • TEA Staff – Yes, will have information sheet with relevant details
  • Hickman – Suggests committee puts out guidelines to approve or veto charter schools, will help charter schools know criteria to meet
  • Robinson will speak to chair about adding Hickman’s suggestion about guidelines on this committee’s April agenda

 

Item 6: Review of Proposed Amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 230, Professional Educator Preparation and Certification, Subchapter B, General Certification Requirements, §230.11, General Requirements

Emily Garcia, Associate Commissioner of the Educator Certification Enforcement Department, TEA Staff

  • Presenting three items adopted at December meeting
  • Items come before committee with option to take no action or reject

Marilyn Cook, Director of Certification

  • Item relates to changes to English Language proficiency requirements for international educators coming to teach in Texas
  • Changes proposed are specific to the currently offered 3 options for individuals to demonstrate English Language proficiency: degree from US institution, all four portions of TOEFL exam, or degree from approved list of countries
  • Mentions over 275 applications for certified English Language status, as opposed to taking the TOEFL
  • Proposed language: once you have demonstrated proficiency with designated forms of proficiency, educators are able to obtain certification; no need to duplicate demonstration
  • Hickman – If we reject, does the item still move toward the school board?
    • TEA Staff – If you reject, it is recorded as recommendation of commission, but it still goes to school board for decision
  • Hickman – Mentions concerns for candidates applying for certification without proper proficiency in English language, creating barrier to efficient teaching
    • TEA Staff – If a candidate was exempt from the English proficiency component, they must still meet district requirements
    • TEA Staff – Those individuals still must pass required Texas exams; these rules are limited to path to certification, district determines who to allow in a classroom
  • Hickman motions for commission to take no action on item, Motion passes

 

Item 7: Review of Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 234, Military Service Members, Military Spouses, and Military Veterans

Marilyn Cook, Director of Certification

  • Item implements provision from last legislative session’s HB 139, provision to recognize military members including addition of Space Force to exempt individuals from certification and testing fees
  • HB 139 also requests honoring and recognizing clinical/professional experience obtained in military service; for example, veteran with experience with planes seeking trade and industrial certification
  • Cortez – Motions for commission to take no action on item, Motion passes

 

Item 8: Review of Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 249, Disciplinary Proceedings, Sanctions, and Contested Cases, Subchapter B, Enforcement Actions and Guidelines, and Subchapter E, Post-Hearing Matters

Laura Moriarty, Director of SBEC Enforcement, TEA Staff

  • Changes to Chapter 249, Educator discipline rules regarding contract abandonment
  • Resigning without good cause or admission, SBEC would remove individuals with 1 year suspension for contract abandonment without valid cause, can no longer do so
  • SBEC rules define contract abandonment, educator with good cause would not be suspended, board mentions concern with narrow definition of good cause
  • HB2519, forbids SBEC from issuing a suspension or revocation, 30 days before instruction
  • Requires SBEC to change guidelines and suspension to reprimand
  • Require SBEC to guide board on mitigating factors to reduce educator standard sanction, will see a change in 249 D2-list of mitigating factors; non-inscribed reprimand or potentially no disciplinary action
  • SBEC has previously had firm rules on mitigating factors; HB2519 says board must consider every factor in every case to attempt to reduce sanction
  • HB2519 asks SBEC to consider giving training without having to order separate sanction for certificate
  • Communicate with educator regarding suspensions; notified how to begin appeal process, what the legal arguments were behind their citation
  • Board’s effort to address mitigating factors in Good Cause process; letting an educator avoid suspension, principals give permission to leave but administration reports contract abandonment
  • Legally, only way for educator to terminate contract is to receive agreement from School Board
    • SBEC does not want to sanction educator’s certificate if they received administrative approval to resign
  • In addition to this, added new mitigating factors for contract abandonment; guidance for non-educators making these judgements
    • New factors: change to new career in new class of education certificate or higher level in principal class; educator who receives reduction in base pay, informed after 45th day of instruction; working condition that pose immediate physical threat
  • Board reviewing mitigating base pay issues of educators not being notified of a change in pay, decided to review options for educators to stay for another term
  • Board reviewing good cause of educators terminating contract due to violent Special Education individuals assaulting them
  • Robinson – Mentions concerns with ability of educators to claim physical harm and use as defense to terminate contract, concerned for students and broadness of this option
  • Davis – Can these educators utilize this defense?
    • Board has been given authority to look at any appropriate factor
  • Davis – Student may become violent; at what point does school have responsibility to provide tools to keep teachers and students safe?
    • TEA Staff – Commissioner’s jurisdiction to check on student safety and welfare; SBEC simply determines certification
  • Davis – Has SBEC come to a prediction of labor shortage among educators if approved?
    • TEA Staff – Not likely to see any more resignations
    • Mitigating factors should not affect decision; only minorly changes sanctions
  • Johnson – Do sanctions remain on educator’s record?
    • TEA Staff – Yes, there is no way to remove it to keep districts informed
    • Sanctions cannot be reduced once determined
  • Hickman – Can you speak more on SBEC’s role, directors, and associated responsibilities
    • TEA Staff – Yes, SBEC board members are appointed by the governor: educators, counselor, representatives of higher education board, commissioner representative, educator preparation programs
    • Regulates educator preparation, certification, and removal of certification
  • Hickman – Asks about suspension of contract and timeline for when educators can terminate contract
    • TEA Staff – There is a time where educators can terminate, there will still be sanctions though not as rigid
    • Attempting to balance flexibility for educators vs. vacancies in school districts
  • Hickman – Did legislators give guideline of mitigating factors?
    • TEA Staff – No, but SBEC has defined mitigating factors for Good Cause, forced to expand scope of factors to allow more consistency

Public Comments:

Mark Wiggins, Association of Texas Professional Educators

  • Gives thanks for consideration of item balancing needs of students and schools, allowing flexibility to keep teachers in schools amidst major shortages
  • SBEC will retain full range of sanctions, mitigating factors are still determined by SBEC
  • This compromise represents tremendous effort from all parties involved; urges committee to take action

 

Julie Leahy, Texas Classroom Teachers Association

  • Many stakeholders; priority is interest of student
  • Board must consider students on both sides of situation when educators terminate contract and leave with “good cause”; some students lose a teacher, while some gain
  • Giving teachers opportunity to leave in unsafe/poor conditions encourages these educators to move to a different school or district, rather than leaving the profession altogether
  • Teachers’ departure creates temporary inconveniences, but benefits profession in whole
  • Mentions HB 2519, and associations believes this is a positive product
  • Davis – Do these penalties commonly cause educators to leave the profession?
    • Leahy – Mentions anecdote indicating educator struggling to keep job; lack of support regarding safety issues made educator feel abandoned by boards, profession became less attractive
    • Wiggins – We must consider default sanctions of 1 year suspension, targeting certain teachers to return to classroom, not targeting educators in dangerous circumstances
  • Robinson mentions concerns for educators offered to transfer to a neighboring district where they will receive increase in compensation, do these rules have mitigation for that?
    • TEA Staff – No, the board is actively trying to decrease opportunities like this due to detriment posed to students
    • These rules do not supply mitigation for that, one year sanction expected
  • Cortez motions to take no action on item
  • Commissioner Hickman votes against item due to concerns of these changes going beyond intention of education code and HB 2519, mentions willingness to amend changes
    • “Reasonable belief” and other changes to sanction language were not included in HB2519
  • Davis-If voted down, what would this look like going forward?
    • Robinson – We would send informal recommendations back to SBEC requesting changes
    • TEA Staff – If rejected, will repropose in February and return in 6 months; effective 20 days after approved
      • Pushes process out 8 months
  • Davis-Is reasonable belief or written statement required?
    • TEA Staff – Educator is required to have both reasonable belief and written statement from school administrator
      • Permission must be reasonable belief
      • For example, speaking to principal in the hall is not reasonable belief
      • Designed to protect teachers who had written permission and believed they had full permission to abandon contract
  • Staff – SBEC has authority to interpret its own rules; could change final decision based on judgement
    • SBEC unlikely to vote to let someone abandon contract if reasonable belief is not substantiated
    • Stakeholders promoted the idea that the school district must give permission to leave; status quo, no rule change required
  • Emily Garcia – Involvement in these decisions as board member and now as staff: intent of board is that written permission is presented to the board for consideration
    • Not the intent of this language to avoid substantiation of written permission
  • Robinson repeats motion to take no action on item; Motion passes 3-2
    • Robinson and Hickman opposed
  • Meeting adjourned