The SBOE Committee on School Initiatives met on June 16th to review rules relating to educator preparation programs, board member requirements, grade level courses and certificates, and SBEC’s petition procedures. A video archive 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.
Â
Emily Garcia, Associate Commissioner EPCE, TEA
Jessica McLoughlin, TEA
- Item provides SBOE opportunity to review SBEC’s rule actions that would propose changes to 230.21 educator assessment
- Looking to implement edTPA to replace the pedagogy certification for probationary and standard certificates
- Purpose of the SBEC is to ensure that all candidates for certification have the knowledge and skills necessary to properly serve students
- Do this by establishing curriculum and training requirements for all EPP’s
- Hold programs accountable for quality of training and curriculum through certification exams
- edTPA is not a curriculum or set of training requirements, it’s a demonstration of what candidates have learned
- Programs update training and curriculums to ensure candidates are successful on exam
- In 2017 SBEC realized the current pedagogy wasn’t driving changes in EPP quality or effectively measuring new educator standards
- Authentic alternative was edTPA
- Implemented a pilot of edTPA with goal of understanding it’s impact, will it drive change?
- Across three years of the pilot participation grew from 27 to 34 to 40 programs
- Data on program implementation, candidate performance, and EPP faculty perspectives constantly shared with the board
- Information used to make any improvements needed to help with the pilot
- Data from the pilot indicated that edTPA was serving its goal, programs implementing edTPA were using the data to support improvement and quality of preparation
- Data from the pilot indicated that edTPA wasn’t creating undue barriers for entry into classrooms
- Data found that there were critical supports necessary to support successful edTPA implementation
- Supports include a need for strategy to address the cost of the exam
- If edTPA moves forward, TEA will dedicate 2 million annually to offset exam costs
- Additionally structures are in place for preparation programs to buy vouchers that pay for or embed the cost of the exam into their program
- Candidate experience and success depended on quality of supports they got from their program
- Means we need to provide programs with Texas specific edTPA training and hold programs accountable for the quality of support
- Also learned we need to implement edTPA slowly and carefully while monitoring impact on teacher production and program improvement
- SBEC determined that edTPA should replace the PPR on a multi-year implementation timeline
- 2022-2023 schoolyear edTPA would remain optional along the PPR exam
- 2023-2024 schoolyear edTPA would be required and candidates would need to submit a full portfolio to pass
- Also in 2023-2024 new accountability rules would begin to hold programs accountable for candidate performance on edTPA
- 2024-2025 edTPA would be required and could be the first year that a passing standard is in place
- SBEC decided to implement edTPA as a certification exam
- In the current proposed pathway programs are required within Chapter 228 to provide 300 hours of course work and at least 14 hours of student teaching
- Programs also required to provide formative assessments, conduct three formal observations and provide formative feedback and coaching
- Chapter 230 requires candidates to demonstrate proficiency on a content pedagogy exam
- In front of you for consideration is to require candidates to take edTPA exam at the end of their preparation
- Pathway suggested by stakeholders is to have a locally evaluated performance assessment implemented in program requirements
- In this pathway candidates would still be required to pass their content pedagogy exam and their PPR exam
- Suggesting additional requirement requiring candidates to complete a locally evaluated portfolio
- For consideration today is requiring candidates to take the edTPA at the end of their preparation
- Alternative certification programs in Texas make most of their money once a candidate is on an intern certificate
- Programs would need to either implement a standardized product like edTPA or create something on their own
- Problem with creating something is ensuring it is equitable across the state
- Cortez – If this measure fails are these EPP’s on their own?
- Garcia – No, sorry I was unclear
- The 26 organizations from the letter you received are asking for a local performance assessment
- They would have the autonomy to design and grade it
- Davis – If we choose that option can we put in language saying the agencies will have to vet those programs?
- Regarding program requirements every five years we check if that has actually happened
- We don’t look at the quality
- Garcia calls up other staff to address Davis’s concerns about statutory authority
- SBEC has strange authority over educator preparation programs
- Can set up what someone is required to learn and their training programs
- Don’t have authority to meddle in to programs cut scores that determine when someone has met requirements and is ready for certification
- Very little authority to demand quality requirements
- Davis – But SBEC can set it up so that EPP’s can choose what portfolio program they want to use?
- Yes, but we can’t do any quality control on that
- Garcia – There would be no consistent gage of what’s successful because each EPP would choose their own assessment and the success criteria
- Cortez – Who from these 26 organizations told you that?
- That’s what’s statutorily allowable
- It’s in the letter you received
- Hickman – If we adopt edTPA the commissioner could pick a cut score, could you reconcile those?
- Garcia – The commissioner would set the cut score in the third year of implementation
- Based off of data accumulated from across the state
- Hickman – If SBEC picked an exam besides edTPA, the commissioner could adopt a cut score for each of them correct?
- Garcia – Correct
- If we chose another exam it would have to be one that’s equitable across the state which we haven’t found
- Cortez – Have you or your team sat with any of these organizations recently?
- We’ve had conversations with leadership of TASA and other leaders of organizations
- We’ve met with numerous stakeholders on a monthly basis to try finding common ground
- Consistent communication with stakeholders
- Cortez – This wouldn’t be the first SBEC rule we reject, it happens because there’s always a lack of communication between SBEC and the stakeholders
- Garcia – We appreciate that feedback
- Chair Robinson – There does seem to be a lack of communication and people aren’t on the same page
- Davis – Why are there disparities in the PPR between black and white test takers? Why has no work been done to understand this?
- The board in 2015 said we need to change our practices
- Teachers were leaving classrooms and kids weren’t achieving
- Davis – I would encourage real research because teachers aren’t leaving classrooms just because of the PPR’s faults
- Garcia – In regards to this issue the board considered whether it was possible for a multiple choice exam to fulfill the requirements of establishing whether a teacher, at any level, is qualified
- SBEC determined that it was not
- Davis – What are the 3 parts of edTPA?
- 3 tasks
- Planning task, instruction task, assessment task
- Need to focus on preparation for the tests, that is why people are falling short
- The program itself should meet the needs of the candidates
- Davis – What measures have TEA put in place to make sure we don’t keep having these problems that are faced by other states?
- There are mechanisms within SBEC’s current statutory authority to allow for holding programs accountable for candidates’ performance on the edTPA
- Can do this overall and by demographics
- Cortez – During my conversation with the commissioner he mentioned that 20% of these programs are doing great work, what work have y’all done with the 20% to bring them into this conversation?
- There are programs that are doing well under the current model that have also participated in the pilot
- Cortez – What are they doing different? I feel like there’s a breakdown in communication and that’s why this isn’t going to end well for you today
- We have a way of setting the bar for what stellar teaching is
- Some of those 20% are some of the biggest advocates of edTPA
- The ones within this 20% are providing formative coaching and mentorship
- They go far beyond the minimum requirements of TAC
- Cortez – Were any of those ideas absorbed?
- Yes
- We need a measure in place to ensure effective measures
- Davis – Did y’all talk to people in states where this was dropped and what was the feedback?
- Talked to heads of their licensing agencies
- They did make changes that the edTPA pointed out
- Said they did so well that they didn’t need the assessment to be required anymore
- Davis – That’s not what I heard, do y’all have measures in place to ensure that if someone graduates from college but hasn’t finished their edTPA they can still take it for free?
- When they graduate University, they’re still enrolled in the program so the program is still accountable for them
- It would be a programmatic decision
- Davis – So there’s no measures in place, it seems like all of the concerns other states have faced we’re just ignoring and hoping we don’t repeat
- I think we would have different results because of our implementation plan
- We’ve learnt so much about what it takes to educate a candidate from the pilot
- What we’ve learned is what we are basing the implementation plan on
- Davis – How many years were originally in the pilot?
- 2 years
- Davis – Y’all keep bragging about having a three year pilot that you only had because we gave you an extra year due to COVID
- Thank you, it was much better because of that extra year
- Cortez – Citing Georgia’s official reason for dropping EDTPA, they voted to drop the state requirement to strengthen the pipeline of teachers
- Hickman – Moves to recommend to the state board of education to veto the proposed amendment
- Johnson – Everyone up here is in favor of more rigor but this process hasn’t gone well and communication has been lacking, most superintendents that reached out to me asked me to not approve this
- Johnson – You need to include superintendents as stakeholders
Andrew Kim, SBEC Vice Chair
- Since 2018 SBEC has been seeking to find what we can do better
- Believe edTPA prepares teachers to better integrate right into a teaching environment
Jean Streepey, SBEC Chair
- Want an exam to increase teacher preparedness
- Davis – Are you a current Teach Plus fellow?
- No
- Davis – Why has Teach Plus pushed this so hard despite negative results?
- I can’t speak for them, I stand on my own in my opinions and hope the members do too
- Chair Robinson – Motion to Veto was unanimous
Â
Item 2. Open-Enrollment Charter School Generation 28 Application Updates
Marian Schutte, TEA
- Providing an update on generation 28 application
- The goal of the application process is to ensure we authorize high quality charter schools
- In generation 27 we started to try making improvements that we look to expand on in generation 28
- Changes to the generation 27 application were grounded in making sure we modify the format, provide increased resources, make sure there is alignment with TEA opportunities and priorities
- Also sought to clarify content
- Sought a lot of feedback
- Found resource pages and applicant supports helpful and found that the submission process was straightforward
- Proactively reached out to external stakeholders
- Proactively reached out to applicants, external reviewers, Texas public charter schools association, TASA, and the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
- Going over broad changes we want to make
- Currently in finalized application stage, application will launch on July 15th
- For generation 28 we are getting into a standard application timeline
- Will launch mid July every year and will be due in November, added a whole month to the application window
- We are continuing to streamline criteria to ensure it is clear
- Want to make sure we’re streamlining effectively and can still get in depth reviews
- Chair Robinson – I would not streamline the portion asking if the new charter school is still innovative
- We made improvements to the portfolio workbooks
- Making external and internal training alignments
- Next set of revisions is around the document itself
- Introduced our adaptive application last year
- We are constantly updating our resource pages
- Always trying to make sure we are streamlining our instructions to ensure the best communication with applicants
- Continue to do calls with interested applicant groups
- Offering operational support and office hours for applicants to ensure they have all of the information they need prior to applying
- We’re increasing our robust supports for operators before they open
- This is the timeline for generation 28
- Hickman – Could you limit the length of an answer to each question? Can we have targeted questions that aren’t repetitive? And can we limit the number of questions?
- Cortez – Is there a process for returning charters?
- There is but I don’t believe that speaks to the item today
- Cortez – Is there something in the application that changes for them when they come back?
- We don’t have it for the applicants
Kara Belew, Texas Public Charter School Association
- We want to be very careful to not do anything that supersedes legislation when adopting standards for when to veto or not veto the approval of a charter school
- Chair Robinson – The legislation is actually very vague, we want to give charter schools more guidance regarding what the SBOE is looking for
 Carrie Griffith, Texas State Teachers Association
- Changes have increased the transparency of the process
- Better and more thorough applications make for a better run school
- Recommends that we continue to require applicants to demonstrate innovation as a required criterion on generation 28
- It is also critical that the commissioners are required to consider the local impact of a charter school and how it affects local school districts
- Few teachers spread across even more schools could present a serious problem to local communities
Ellen Williams, Texas Association of School Administrators
Audio interruptions occurred during this testimony
- Wants to talk about innovation
- Encourage different and innovative learning methods
- Would also like to address statements of impact
- Statements of impact can be requested but they’re from a big pool of applicants
- Cortez – Are you suggesting that after the commissioner narrows down his picks the statements of impact be issued at that time?
- It takes schools a lot of time to go through applications
- Chair Robinson – There definitely is a need for a better notification system because statements of impact do get lost in the midst of everything else superintendents address
- Cortez – Tell us about this law regarding notification of statements of impact
- Von (Lawyer) – On receipt of an application is when a notice needs to be provided
- Before a commissioner can approve or deny an application he has to review an impact statement
Christopher Lucas, Office of Governance at TEA
- Quadrennial rule review is required and review ensures that the reason for the rule still exists
- Hickman – Would like to see University of Texas and Texas Tech have the same training as the bases and the boys ranch
- Cortez – Motion to adopt the review of above item was unanimously held
Â
Christie Pogue, Director of Policy Development for SBEC
- This item mirrors and aligns with what SBEC does in regard to rule making
- Chair – Motion to take no action on proposed amendments is unanimously held
- Hickman – Is the substantive change on 4.1.11 changing this by mail and adding the by email button
- Yes, it just clarifies the methods that someone can use to submit
TEA Staff
- Presenting proposed revisions to chapter 221
- Widely considered to be the Bible utilized by districts and teachers to determine which SBEC issued certificates are appropriate for certain assignments
- Support would allow us to have continuous support and guidance out in the field
- Cortez – Motion to take no action be taken on proposed revisions is unanimously held