The State Board for Educator Certification met on February 16 to discuss a number of items including revisions to educator preparation programs, revisions to educator certificates, revisions to certain special education services, among other items. archive of the hearing and an agenda can be found here.
Â
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight 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.
Opening Remarks
Emily Garcia, Associate Commissioner’s Comments
- Gave opening remarks and pointed out Dr. Bob received national certification
Consent Agenda
Jean Streepy, Chair
- Items 4-6 were items for consent, before they moved to approve, public testimony was taken on item 6
- Item #6 Adoption of Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 239, Student Services Certificates, Subchapter A, School Counselor Certificate, §239.20, Requirements for Issuance of the Standard School Counselor Certificate
Elizabeth Rogers, Texas Counseling Association
- Additional certification requirements for school counselors so they enter our schools as prepared as possible
- Like the board to consider other states’ requirements, multiple states require counselors to earn teaching requirements even though they do not hold a teaching position
- Current Texas rules do not require counselors to take any special education classes or classes pertaining to teaching
- We can address this in EPPs or higher education
Motion
- Gore- I move to pass agenda items four through six as presented on the screen
- Chair Streepy- Motion passes, consent agenda approved which included classroom teaching certifications, approving the meeting minutes and adoption of this proposed amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 239
Chapter 250 Petition for Rulemaking
- Staff recommends board deny the petition
Â
Dr. Michael Marder, I Teach
- Rule changes would provide common sense information
- These changes will much longer than expected
- Plan to spend one hundred thousand dollars annually in teacher stipends and travel reimbursement, these were not mentioned in the fiscal discussion earlier in the year
- Relating to residencies, while there is not strong evidence for enhanced student earning gains or retention, it is clear there will be a huge additional bureaucratic burden on EPPs, students and districts to put these rules in place
- Burden is undocumented
Â
Q&A
- This would apply to all SBEC’s administrative rules
- Impediments to implementing the petition for rulemaking; creates conditional administrative rules, less consistency for the field and the public, applies to all SBEC rules
- We are looking for data driven rules
- Four-year rule review applies here as well
- Gelsinger- curious to this exception you all have mentioned and how it interfaces because the rules we review are a part of legislation
- A lot of times it is required explicitly by statute like the code of ethics, legislature explicitly requires rules pertaining to the code of ethics
- The board also has a lot of broad rule making ability in terms of adopting rules for programs
- There are exceptions as you see in the text and across other agencies as well
- Presenting to the EPSG was more of a formality; they were required to present it to stakeholders according to the ordinances and there was no feedback to report
- Gelsinger- Adoption of this as a whole would present several legal problems
- Jean Streepey- Understands that the data behind making decisions is critical to making decisions, but this idea also carries several administrative problems
- McDonald- Supports research-based policy making; this research will allow progress and aid conversations moving forward, but understands there are many limitations to standardize this practice; this idea is not applicable across a large scale
- Galvan- Agrees, data is useful, but there are too many variables to quantify; afraid it would create more challenges
- Rex Gore- More legislation does not always produce worthwhile results; tendency to believe rigid requirements will solve the problem, but more requirements often do not cause positive change; continue diligence on getting stakeholder feedback
- Emily Garcia- Staff currently working to revise the continued review process do so by checking every single detail; focus on data driven feedback that drives programmatic improvement
- Gelsinger- Focus should not be on rules that need to change, but rather the processes behind them; we must evaluate every step and determine if it is necessary; might be useful to provide benchmarks for success and make them available to the public to produce a streamline process
- Streepey- Implications on expecting data and 4 year rule review
- Motion- Deny petition for rulemaking
- Motion carries
Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 227, Provisions for Educator Preparation Candidates
- Staff notes this addresses requirements with preliminary certification
- Conforms language in 227 with updated certification and exams in chapter 228, 230, 233
Q&A
- Galvan – this item is to help programs better understand subchapter B for preliminary evaluation on criminal history, burden is on individual to provide documentation and complete application but wants to know why additional information is saying it “may” be required instead of “should” and wants clarification on what it the request and what should stay on file
- Staff will bring back more details on that at a later time
- Motion – approve the proposed amendments
- Motion carries
TEA Staff
- The timeline was reviewed and today’s action is to approve the recommended statuses
- Individual indicators are combined into index score
- Reviewed weights of index system
- Number of EPPs accredited 96, 3 were accredited-not rated, 6 accredited-warned, and 16 accredited probation
- Less informal reviews in 2022-23 reporting year than the year prior
- Majority of informal reviews are based on indicator 4a which is observation indicator
- Slight uptick in accredited status this year
- Accredited-warned and accredited-probation declined this year
- Regardless of time EPPs meet the standard that ASEP has set
- All indicators, which are weighted, in the index contribute to the differentiation in scores
- Negative weight on index system, creates additional differentiation between programs who are missing indicators in consecutive years
- 27 EPPs had at least one negative weight result
- 14 of these have been recommended a status of accredit-warned or probation
- 13 resulted in an accredited outcome
- Evaluation of EPPs by teachers was the most flagged
- All indicators have some EPPs not meeting a standard
- All indicators have fewer small group exceptions because of second year of data
- SBEC approved adjustments for the year were reviewed
Michael Vriesenga, UTSA
- Asking not to approve, asking them to not harm their program as they are being judged on after candidates have left the program
Â
Q&A
- Streepy – asked to review the negative weights in light of the testimony
- Negative weight is reviewed
- Garcia – asked for review of percentages on negative weight
- One program could generate up to 7 data points
- McFarland – how many programs were impacted?
- 14 were recommended for accredited warned or probation
- 14 would be maximum of moving one group to another
- McFarland- Is this a metric that the program could have impacted knowing that the negative weight was in place
- Negative weight has been on the books since 2020
- As we noted in the accountability manual, we provided clear information pertaining to rule making and procedures
- Legacy did penalize for multiple misses but board narrowed same indicator for same demographic
- McFarland- so we approve this rule, and you have applied the rule, but we know now the rule has a negative impact on the organization who has no ability to address the negative placement, or is it our ability to approve the rule
- McFarland – What recourse would we have?
- The negative weight only comes in to place if they miss two years in a row
- Programs are informed throughout the process, they get notice of recommended status
- Can request informal reviews
- Garcia- this indicator is a teacher’s perception of how well the program prepared the for their first year of teaching and allows program to reflect, especially after two years in a row
- Staff – recapped timeline and noted programs were informed of November 2023
- Gelsinger – does the negative weight in this new system mean that those who are on accredited-warned or probation, would they have a lower score
- Gelsinger – if I am having negative weight applied in this system and I am already in the negative would my score be affected more negatively
- Those programs if negative weights were not applied, would have higher scores
- This board approved the index system in 2020 to bring all different results together
- Did not see differentiation in legacy program
- Placed index to see differentiation, flexibility
- Last year to provide transparency, allowed programs to take better of two index scores
- Legacy system did penalize more multiple misses, for any demographic group on any indicator
- New system you must miss same indicator and demographic two years in a row to get a negative weight
- Gore – sounds like the metric of “as a teacher did I feel prepared,” the teacher is out in the field already so the program is getting a negative judgement on something they can no longer address
- Oeser – this gets at heart of issue, should teacher experience in classroom be part of system for accountability or only hold them accountable will in the program that they can address
- Oeser – when is the next time we look at rule set and discuss our accountability, and what are we holding systems/programs accountable for and how
- We will be bringing discussion item in April for chapter 229
- Working for stakeholder input
- Gore – sound like consequences were not identified by the board, teachers out in the field so program can no longer impact
- Garcia – field supervisors are going out to the field, some are taking proactive approach to address
- Gelsinger – timing in which program receives the data is not until next cohort has started, thinks this is something to discuss in April
- McFarland – asks a question off mic
- Staff notes these questions provide direction
- Galvan – in April wants to revisit the weight, why does program rate higher than after one year when teacher is in the field, wants to know if its because of mentorship or lack of mentor or if the teacher changed grade, etc
- Torres – don’t want to overreact and change everything, want to know how to improve the system and make it better
- Garcia – brings up slide to show overall success of programs, can now do a better job of helping programs and working on collaborative continuous improvement
- Motion – to approve the 2022-2023 accountability system for Educator Preparation Programs accreditation statuses as presented
- Motion carries
Request to Approve 2022-2023 Educator Preparation Program (EPP) Commendations
TEA Staff
- Commendation system adopted in 2019
- System uses combination of data and application
- Can be recognized in one or multiple categories
- Category four, innovative educator preparation, is awarded this year
- Category one is rigorous and robust preparation
- Category two allows for the preparation of educators through all demographics, page 9-11
- Recognizing programs who prepare educators in shortage areas
- Category three displays preparing educators in sustainability through success
- Category four is innovative educator preparation commendation
- Area of emphasis for category four examples include but not limited to, co-teaching models, coaching practices, high quality instructional materials implementation, and response to intervention
- Motion to approve 2022-2023 educator preparation program commendations
- Motion carries
- Later updated to include Lubbock Christian University’s commendation that was missing previously from the slide deck for rigorous robust preparation of EPP performance on the principal survey
- Motion carries
Pending or Contemplated Litigation, including Disciplinary Cases
- SBEC heard and voted on a number of cases
Â
TEA Staff
- Chapter 231 provides certificate and assignment guidance for PK-12
- Lists courses aby grade level and subject area
- Proposed changes include adding new core subject
- Subchapter F proposes changes to provide clarity around requirements for placement into special education at the elementary, middle, and high school levels
- Deafblind – addition of section that outlines the certification requirements for assignment of Teachers of Students who are Deafblind and the aligned list of SBEC-issued certificates appropriate to serve in that role
- Special Education – specify the requirements for the assignment of special education teacher at the elementary, middle, and high school levels and the aligned list of SBEC – issued certificates appropriate to serve in that role
- Current rule text
- If an individual is providing content instruction in a special education classroom setting, a valid certification of the subject and grade level of the assignment is also required
- OR the individual must demonstrate competency through the state’s 2010 and 2011 Highschool Objective Unit Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) for elementary and secondary special education teachers
- HOUSSE provision, under NCLB, established definition of “highly qualified”
- An alternative pathway for special education teachers teaching multiple content areas to demonstrate highly qualified
- State assessments could be based on alternate academic achievement or adjusted
- Changes under ESSA
- Removed modified assessment and highly qualified definition
- Heightened focus on student access to grade level curriculum and high expectations
- Working for a Texas specific worksheet, “Texas Core Competency Worksheet”
- Stakeholder considerations include:
- Maintain flexibility so as not to further constrict the special education teachers
- Aim to develop a streamlined worksheet for all content areas to outline options for demonstrating content proficiency
- Options on the worksheet should focus on the determination of content knowledge, no pedagogy
- Allowing more options for professional development would provide a low-cost flexibility for teachers to demonstrate proficiency
- Consider how requirements might be differentiated for teachers at various stages of their careers
- Next steps will include continue engagement with stakeholders to help inform further refinements to special education personnel assignments and item will be brought again in April along with updated worksheet
Quinn McCall, Texas Classroom Teacher Association
- Look forward to continued collaboration, concerned with requirement to obtain further certification
- There is a HOUSSE option under current rules
- Recommend all special education teachers get flexibility provided by HOUSSE
- Streepy – appreciated attention to elementary content and agree with his comments on fluidity between middle school and high school
Kelly Morrison, TCASE
- Believes there is more work to do on this
- Teachers need to know content and strategies for goals for that particular student
- Special educators need a multitude of skills, 150 CPE hours every five years to maintain certification – not sure why they would create new requirements
- Meaningful, simple system is needed
Â
Kate Borg, Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired & Texas Deafblind Project
- Appreciate seeing addition of 237.10, but language is incorrect on TSVIs
- TSVIs do not have deafblind certificate
- Leaving item two on the list, makes the list pointless
Kaycee Bennett, Texas Deafblind Project
- Again supports 237.10 but wants number two removed from the list
- Proposes adding old certificate names under B since some people still have those certifications
- Would suggest adding C to clarify that teacher still needs counterpart both certificates
Steven Aleman, Disability Rights Texas
- Teachers are factor in improving student outcomes
- Students with disability need access to individuals who know content and strategies
- Encouraged by progress in worksheets, more work remains but need to continue to move forward
Q&A
- Staff – Aware there is more work to be done, will continue to work with stakeholders
- Gore – What does process look like to address stakeholder group, how will staff reconcile disagreements
- Will go into discussions with draft that incorporates feedback and present outstanding questions
- Then will solicit additional feedback, make updates and send back to stakeholders again
- Provide several iterations of draft
- Gore – Would be helpful for staff to track testimony, discussion and then see where we agree/where we continue to disagree
- Chair Streepy – Had a great discussion on the teacher pipeline; need both content and pedagogy; are talking about people who already have a special education certification; they have training in the pedagogy, need to ensure those teacher have the content knowledge
- Chair Streepy – Is complicated, is based on how schools structure what classes/grades teachers teach; need to consider time in the profession as a variable as well
- Chair Streepy – Changed HOUSSE rules to focus on providing students access to grade level curriculum
- Staff – Correct
- Galvan – This is a great concern to public schools and charters; if those who are already certified in special education, they are not excluded from this?
- Staff – Correct; will create a worksheet that is flexible so those who have been involved, with experience will be able to stay in their role
- Staff – Includes flexibilities for teachers early in their career and those in multiple content areas
- Galvan – Does data indicate those involved in secondary special education in elementary do not have a content area?
- Galvan – If those do have a certificate, will be excluded because they do have a content area?
- Staff – Correct
- Galvan – One of the public testifiers recommended certain professional development, concerned we would be double dipping; want to look into federal guidelines
- Galvan – Concerned moat about bilingual and ESL; how are we going to support this as there is a supplemental without content; do we differentiate between grade level?
- Galvan – What about students who are not yet at grade level? Do not want to see people surrender their special education certificate because of this
- Chair Streepy – Would like to see how other states are pairing people with content specialists or how they are handling this in their classroom; will bring this back for discussion in April
Pam Weatherington, Texas Us Texas
- We have submitted public comments on what we support for this proposal
- Thanks for flexibility in what informal coaching could look like and how one can complete their field-based experience, and a longer runway to implement these changes
- Appreciate the attention concerning showing proficiency in performance tasks
- Really appreciate the multiple checks for knowledge and skills in a candidates’ first 150 hours of coursework
Dr. Julie Derges, University of Houston
- Have issues with the definition of “authentic school settings” and “school days” as for music, art, dance, etc. are co-curricular things that occur outside of a school day; is too limited, all aspects of the job should be taken into account
- Request clarification in the language concerning formal observations in each assignment; what does this mean for music teachers teach in two different placements in the school year
Dr. Katherine Hokanson, Austin Community College
- Concerned about increased demand in contacts by observation, collaboration, and data reviews required for residencies, internships, and placements
- Overviews required formal observations, governance meetings, initial contacts, and training requirements of ACC’s program
- Consequences of implementation would be decreased opportunity to differentiate/respond to candidate needs, increased personnel costs, increased documentation demand, increased stress for candidates/administration
- These costs would get passed along to candidates; currently tuition is $3.5-$4k; with this new chapter would see a 15-32% increase in tuition
- Recommend reduction to annual reviews; and meetings to one per semester
Dr. Lecia Eubanks, Teach Us Texas
- Support the proposed changes in chapter 228
- Believe the updates will benefit students and contribute to teacher efficacy
- Proposed changes align with her experiences, the proposed adjustments will help with teacher preparation by ensure comprehensive and practical training
Â
Dr. John Dennis, Texas Music Educators Association
- Concern with definitions like “authentic” and “school day”
- Language would not allow hours will be counted if duties are after school hours
- “Assignments” are also not defined, possible increase of 3x and 3x cost
- Concerned about schedule, there is a difference between campus and EPP schedule so would like to see more flexibility
- Oeser – Asked if they have proposed language for “assignment”
- Could be the clinical teaching experience as a whole, instead of right now saying each location which implies different locations and campuses
- Discusses current field supervisor experience – the language requiring increased observations may require numerous miles to drive to have needed communication, but more observations may mean less quality and feedback
- Garcia – Some of the observations required could be conducted virtually, how does that factor into his recommendation
- Online can be wildly different levels of quality, zoom is not designed for instruments but for voice
- Glasscock – Asked for clarification on recommendation application
- All level certification is concerning, urge committee to consider what is the definition of an “authentic school day”
- Know there is an epidemic of people leaving the classroom and one of the reasons is because of “practice shock” because it is different from what they expected
Michelle DeLeon, Austin Community College
- Endorse the comments of other ACC representatives today
- Work in teacher preparation; overviews work with Del Valle ISD, Austin ISD, and one other ISD on teacher residency programs
Dr. Veronica Garcia, Teach Us Texas
- Teach Us Texas is an alternative teacher certification program
- Support the repeal and updates to this chapter
Dr. Lisa Brown, Austin Community College
- Our alternative teacher certification program serves Austin and surrounding communities
- Concerned about the inflation of requirements for candidates/staff/district partners; including inflated FBE hours, increased frequency of communication, and additional requirements
- Concerned districts will become unwilling to participate in the program due to these increased requirements
- Request delay in adoption and re-look at inflated requirements/tasks/financial burdens
- Chair Streepy – Thank you for bringing those specific concerns to the board
Lisa Perez, Austin Community College
- Endorse comments of other ACC colleagues here today
- Consequence in additional reporting requirements will result in the loss of trust between candidate and field supervisor to build trust
- Unclear from proposed language what type of communications field supervisors are supposed to report
- Recommend changing language concerning this to – shall provide a copy of all formal/informal observation reports – or remove the language altogether
Meredith Stadler, Self
- Educator; support the repeal and adoption of new chapter
- Increased practicing time for teachers would help new candidates; would have helped their personal training
- Have had issues trying to fill the teacher vacancies at my school
- The teacher shortage crisis are not repaired by looser certification rules
- Chair Streepy – Thank you for your feedback; we need to send in prepared teachers to our kids
Clara Altfeld, Disability Rights Texas
- Edits are necessary before final adoption
- Legislation evidence-based practices and disability-based content based on HB 159
- Current and new teachers are to demonstrate knowledge or competence in proactive instructional planning/practices in HB 159
- Requirements for IDA are important for EPPs to be incorporated into the rules
- Candidates should be required to demonstrate knowledge of each disability category
- Coleman – Revised chapter does not track statutory requirement for HB 159? Not sufficient?
- It is not sufficient; are wonderful components included like those candidates who were specializing in teaching; overall requirements were not stringent enough to adhere
- It depends on the interpretation
- SBEC Staff – Appreciate feedback, everything sited in statute is required in curriculum; candidates will be held accountable for proficiency and embedding in coursework
Dr. Michel Marder, UTeach
- UT’s program is responsible for over half of the secondary stem teacher candidates
- Concerned; in 2021-22 more teachers entered into Texas schools than all in college/university combined
- Largest single source of new teachers was those who were uncertified
- A part of this issue is the devastating amount of rules put upon teacher certification programs
- Need large scale programs to be brought back to life; teacher preparation programs by large universities create the highest quality candidates
- Coleman – Decline of teachers coming from Texas universities; how would you solve this?
- To ensure where any place where programs have asked for flexibility, that they have it
- Formula funding for teachers has changed; out of your purview as is social media creating a negative image of the teaching profession, and overall pay scale, specifically for stem
- Galvan – Your data represents a district of innovation as well?
- Have not included any intern certificate candidates; includes those who do not appear in the SBEC system, or those who have an emergency certificates, like those at DOIs and charters
- Rumors there will be an additional doubling on teachers without certificates
- Garcia – Intern certificate not included in all your data?
- In another part of the data, do include intern certificates
- MacDonald – Why did you register as neutral? Other universities have registered as for/against; your data does not seem neutral
- My role is to provide you information and you make decisions on how to act
- Torres – Projecting by 2032 there will be no teachers certified through colleges/universities?
- Projection is a straight-line in relation to trends of last ten years; will never be zero, but never thought we would even be where we are now
Â
Dr. Mike Vriesenga, UTSA
- Think additional requirements are excessive; in light of this UTSA no longer will place their candidates in two places
- Included a cost estimate this rule will cost us per candidate type for extra observations – approximately $200k currently, estimating it will cost approximately $500k under this rule
- Is no way to cover these costs
- Inability of TEA to estimate these costs although they are significant; have provide you with cost estimates across the state
Dr. Heath Morrison, Texas Teachers of Tomorrow
- I made a commitment to focus on meeting need to supply quality teachers and to focus on quality of those teachers
- Fully support proposed changes such as increased in-filed experiences and observations
- Ready to partner with you to address teacher shortages across the state
Mayan Jarnigan, Teach Plus Texas
- Support changes to this chapter; candidates need more experience in the classroom
- Was no official mentor program when I was going through my first years as a teacher
Jamie Vincek, Lamar CISD
- Thanks to the SBEC for their work on the repeal of this chapter; work on this is not done
- Lamar CISD is a hyper growth district; forecasted 22 new campuses to be built in the near future
- Increase in observation hours in appreciated, but allowance of clock hours rather than in-field experience is not enough and creates long-term retention issues
- Minimum field experience should be the same as EPP approved certification area; especially in special education
- Over half of first year teachers in Lamar CISD are coming from EPPs; this is the future
Staff Presentation Item 10
TEA Staff
- Initial focus areas are to make the chapter more readable, integrate minimum standard components, and develop prep route
- Want enhanced support in initial stages of preparation, increased field hour requirements among others
- Is flexibility in clinical teaching duration; are making changes to observation and coaching supports and field supervisor training requirements
- A few points of clarification addressing what we heard in testimony
- Heard concern for candidates in all grade level certificates, like those in two instructional settings, location is defined at the district level not campus/classroom level
- On the other hand, those in both ELAR 1712 and Social Studies 1712 candidate would receive 3 observations in each of those assignments
- Garcia – How could we elevate concerns to the field on this?
- Will communicate this to the field
- Have the third optional teacher residency route; have collaborated with stakeholders on this for a year
- Proposed new 228 residency route requires application/approved by SBEC for to provide this pathway
- Effective September 2024 if approved today; staff plan to post an application this April
- Anticipate implementation would begin 2025-2026
- Broader 228 implementation timeline; rules effective September 2024, implementation of new 228 is required
- Continuing approval reviews; anticipate in 2024-25 and 2025-26 would still reference implementation of pervious rules; 2026-27 are candidates fully prepared under umbrella of new requirements
- ASEP 2024-25 clinical experiences would be evaluated on previous requirements; in 2025-26 would be able to evaluate new requirements
- If this is adopted, SBOE review this in April
- Will provide notification and informational webinars, training, revisions to applications, and ongoing support
- Clinical testing – strike two words in definition of school day “conference or” to ensure indices can count conference in clinical teaching
- Gelsinger – Covers duties related to teaching outside of M-F?
- An actual school attendance day is the timeframe
- Garcia – Want 490 hours intended to be in the instructional setting, do not want to devalue others, but want a focus
- Glasscock – Asks about increase in hours
- Chair Streepy – Concerning testimony from Dr. Brown ACC; 30-50 hour increase (mic cuts out); 25 of the hours (mic cuts out)
- Chair Streepy – Candidates can use substitute teaching to count towards hours in our proposal?
- Yes
- Chair Streepy – All written feedback going to school administrator – includes text messages?
- Intent was written feedback as an outcome of formal/informal observation; will provide clarification to the field
- Muri – This is an incredible opportunity to move our profession forward; now is the time to increase expectations for our candidates
- Muri – Just because approval has happened, does not mean we cannot improve on the decisions we make today
- Galvan – ASEP measures, changes will help with principal appraisal, improvement in student achievement, and satisfaction for new teachers
- Galvan – There will be additional cost, but ultimately will help our students
- Oeser – See the need to rely on uncertified candidates, need to figure out how to balance to meet needs of districts and ensure certification and high-quality candidates
- Move to approve for adoption proposed repeal of Chapter 228 and new Chapter 228 with an effective date of September 1, 2024
- Motion adopted unanimously
- Galvan – Thanks to those who provided feedback today and all work on this
TEA Staff Presentation
- Propose updates to pedagogy exam requirements; adds additional edTPA portfolios and options, updates requirement for JROTC/CTE fields to PPR and T&I
- RPF is still underway for a Texas-specific edTPA; are striking this and the Sunset provision; have an intention to bring this back in April when it is
- No entities met criteria for the RFP on a Texas-specific program; will bring options to next meeting for further discussion
- Proposing updates to content pedagogy exam requirements
- Proposing new residency route certificate and enhanced standard certificates
- Proposing updates to uses of certification exams and certification by exam requirements
- Proposing additional updates concerning test attempt waivers, test timelines, and pilot exams
- Some propose to launch as soon as September 2024 through 2028; many years for programs to prepare for these new requirements
- Is a lot of work to be done to get stakeholders to understand these changes though a number of communication types
- Pending action, anticipate bringing these rules to the SBOE in April
Public Testimony
Kelsey Kling, Texas Coalition for Educator Preparation
- Appreciate desire for new residency pathway; object to the omission of pedagogy exam as a requirement for obtaining this certificate
- Performance assessment is inappropriate as a tool of measurement
- Removing pilot language is operationalizing edTPA even though it remains just an option in the language
- Suggest addressing accountability in other areas of rule
- Coleman – Agree with you on the dropping of the word pilot; at this adoption phase, cannot make a substantive change, and believe dropping the word pilot is substantive
- MacDonald – Surprised RFP process did not bring any candidates forward; idea has been edTPA is just one component
- Chair Streepy – Have not heard anything from board that we are moving forward with just edTPA; are choosing to not sunset PPR
- That is appreciated, it would be cleaner if the changes were made in the accountability rules rather than in assessment
- Chair Streepy – Want to make sure those who move forward with edTPA they can use it fully, which is why we want to remove the word pilot; but we are keeping PPR
- Gore – Expressed concerns about the RFP process for the Texas TPA; lack of having any qualified candidates is a major failure as a part of the process
- Who manages the RFP process, and who communicates to the procurement group about what these requirements are
- Coleman- Concern on appearance of propriety around RFPs, shares similar concerns to member Gore
- Garcia- When we went to print, timeline had been extended by region 13 and we did not have conclusion of the procurement process
- Instead of leaving as print, staff came out and said we have recently found out the outcome of RFP, even though staff did not have sufficient time for strategy and gameplan
- Wanted transparency regardless of progress
- None of the action presented today 230 has any substantive changes to edTPA in terms of it being an optional pedagogy assessment
- Feedback we have been working off is that it should not be required until there is a Texas specific requirement alongside it
- MacDonald- In the process of developing a useful tool for TXTPA, not to sell something that has already been developed
- Concerned about Texas schools developing an assessment they would use to evaluate themselves, concerned about accountability system
- Do not want TXTPA to impede on progress of edTPA
- Gelsinger- Return to member Coleman’s legal question, whether removing pilot is a substantive change or not
- Garcia- That is in the proposed rule text, it is not a change of adoption
- The change at adoption is striking the adoption of the timeline for implementing a Texas specific assessment and edTPA, while sunsetting the PPR
- Staff- The intent of striking pilot is so that performance on the assessment can be embedded in the accountability system
- Oeser- public perception of this process is important
- Hope is public views the public RFP looks at what the requirements are and then discussion can ensue to determine how the board will set a TxTPA process up, successfully
- Brought this criterion to the board and stakeholders in advance of region 13 development process
- Chair Streepy- Why is it important to take pilot for programs using edTPA
- Staff- Main reason is the accountability system
- Do not add to the bucket of the exams’ pedagogy pass rates
- Equitable integration into the accountability system
- Gore- Can you share with us the RFP process
- Chair Streepy- Member MacDonald could clarify what you meant by the process derailing, which piece are you saying would derail
- MacDonald- waiting for the TxTPA so that both the TxTPA and the edTPA can move simultaneously
- The edTPA is moving regardless of what the TxTPA is doing, they are not mutually exclusive
- Assume we are still committed to the idea of the TxTPA
- Do not want other aspects like the PPR or RFP to move off track due to the TxTPA
- Cynical about it working
- Chair Streepy- Not going to sunset PPR so we are sure that we have two options, ed and Tx, moving forward
- Gelsinger- Do not want to penalize programs that have done the work to implement the performance-based assessment
- Think it is important to reiterate that the PPR would not go away and the edTPA would not be the only option
- The board would not remove the PPR unless the TxTPA is implemented
- Member- We are giving EPPs options, allowing programs to choose the option they believe is the best
- MacDonald- When do we say enough is enough and take PPR out of commission, we have had problems with it for the past fifteen years
- We have giving flexibility on the PPR for years now
- McFarland- Want to be clear on what it is going on right now
- The agency went through the process to put out an RFP, and they did not get any acceptable responses, so the agency brings it back to us for more options
- The EPPs will still have the option to take a performance-based assessment or the PPR, the assumption is that the agency is going to modify the RFP or learn from responses and go back out for another RFP
- If we take this path, it is a delay, and the agency has given us an option in the delay, but the agency should bring back in a short period, a different RFP and/or a different process
- Chair Streepy- This is my understanding as well, think public comment was telling us to wait until there is a TxTPA
- Waiting would put sidetrack the programs who are doing edTPA and have been coming to us with feedback saying how beneficial this program is for their candidates
- Garcia- Our plan is to take step back, review feedback from board, and come up with options for a discussion in April
- Glasscock- Need to consider our last proposal of a TPA was denied by SBOE, so need to keep in mind whatever we want to pass will also need to be passed by SBOE
- Brescia- SBOE did not necessarily hate the edTPA, more so because it being a one-horse solution
- There is a risk to be considered to eliminate the PPR and sunset it, unfortunately we must accept a decelerated timeline on this
- RFPs are very dicey instruments, especially for a broad matter such as this
- There would be three horses, PPR, edTPA, and TxTPA
- McFarland- move to pass item 15
- Motion carries
TEA Staff
- Highlight two major points of interest, one being the current options available for individuals to meet English proficiency and recommendations for additional options to meet the requirement for your consideration
- Three options available for completing English proficiency; completion of an undergraduate or graduate degree at an institution of higher education, or verification of minimum scaled scores on the test of English as a foreign language internet-based test (TOEFL iBT), or if an undergraduate or graduate degree was completed at a university listed
- For TEOFL iBT, staff recommends to either leave score requirements, in place, as presented, or revisit possible adjustments to score requirements
- Option pertaining to degrees earned outside of the U.S., staff recommends the board implore staff to explore other options to expand the list of approved countries based on specific criteria
- Recommend board to add U.S. territories to ASEP list
- Recommend the board consider two additional options that would allow individuals to meet English language proficiency; an individual holds a standard certificate in another state, an individual who has three years verifiable experience in the U.S. as a teacher, or a related role
Â
Public Testimony
Jamie Vincek, Lamar CISD
- Passing requirement for TOEFL iBT is an 89
- At UT-Austin the passing requirement for English proficiency for a doctoral candidate is 79, and at A&M it is an 80
- We have an opportunity and duty to better serve the diversity of Texas citizens
- Many scores of the tests being taken are meeting standard university requirements for proficiency, but not for teacher certification
- Respectfully ask for review and revision of TOEFL iBT requirements and certification
- Chair Streepy- is it because the TOEFL iBT requirements are too high or the university requirements are too low
- Vincek- The reading requirement is the main issue, those taking the test must read the sections in English, translate the passage over to their native language and then translate their answers back into English
- Zero percent of the test takers have passed the reading section
- Chair Streepy- At what level would you feel comfortable with a teacher being in a classroom with your child, in terms of proficiency
- I would put my son in any one of the classrooms in Lamar, they are all professionals
- Chair Streepy- Can you give me a level
- The way universities give a collective score is a very proficient way
- All these individuals are highly educated human beings, the more encompassed they are in the English culture the better they will get
- As well, their native languages in the classroom help support diversity and bilingual students
- Coleman- Still not an answer to the level, what number would ascribe to the cutoff
- Seventy-nine
- Chair Streepy- For students in schools who are learning English, do you feel that is a proficient number for those students so that they can move forward and be able to teach in our schools
- Absolutely do
Â
Q&A
- TEA Staff – We either can keep the TEOFL scores as they are, or you can direct the staff to research adjustments to the score
- Dvorak- Would love for staff to do research so we can help our teacher candidates
- Galvan- Does the board have the authority to override the committee to change the score
- TEA Staff – Yes, you are well within your rights to revisit, review
- TEA Staff – If we say they can work in a district for three years, does that mean only a para-professional, or what about substitutes need to define qualification and define permanent versus substitute
- Need more bilingual teachers
- Gelsinger- Do we have access to the scores of candidates who have taken TEOFL
- Staff- Requirements for TEOFL are used on two pathways, some candidates being admitted into iBT prep programs and others who go through our out-of-country credentials review
- Out of country credential review scores are sent directly to us
- Candidates taking the tests have opportunity to provide the scores to specific entities as well (mic cut out)
- Perez- Are we deciding whether these countries’ citizens are going to be able to take the TEOFL test or are these countries citizens not needing to take the TEOFL, and do these requirements go hand in hand or do I need only one to satisfy
- Staff- If the individual comes from one of the countries already on the list of registered countries, and has a degree from their country, then that individual qualifies for the EPP and does not have to take the TEOFL
- TEA Staff – What we are discussing is whether to add countries to the list, and of these requirements only one is necessary to qualify for the EPP
- Galvan- Suggest that regardless of what we decide, these individuals who come from qualified countries still take the TEOFL
- It guides the individual, not saying it should be for admission, which is a different discussion
- They could take a PACT exam if GPA is in question
- Chair Streepy- So, this is an option as well?
- TEA Staff – The other option that we have here today to add if any individual holds an out of state standard certificate or if the individual has three years of verifiable experience, or a role that has impacted student learning
- Chair Streepy- For three years’ experience, does that include private, charter schools, and a role that directly impacts student learning, is this a student aid
- TEA Staff – Yes on any type of school if it is an entity within the United States
- To answer the question regarding having a role that directly impacts student learning, this could be defined as a college professor who wants to come to K-12
- They are not typical “classroom teachers” but they have/had a direct impact
- Chair Streepy- Less excited about this option and the out of state certificate option than the others
- Galvan- I we decide to this route, need to include the years of experience were solely in English
- Gelsinger- If we were to accept out of state certificates, we would need to make sure these states also have language proficiency requirements
- TEA Staff Less concerned about country and language of country, but whether the degree received in the country was instructed through the English language
- Staff- Typically, the foreign credential evaluation will reflect if the instruction was in English or not
- Glasscock- Would be helpful to gather data on the countries we would potentially add, and see their current TEOFL averages
- TEA Staff – Our next steps will be to take the board’s guidance and do research, then come back to the board with our findings
- Gelsinger- Would this be coming back as proposal or discussion item
- Chair Streepy- Whether proposal be in April or July, this will take effect in the October of the upcoming school year
- Garcia- is there a benefit to questioning or answering candidates’ questions during the busy season in the summer
- TEA Staff – Need to be careful and thoughtful so we do not overpromise and under deliver
- We can gather data on countries TEOFL tests, and it is helpful to question-and-answer questions
- What we need now is board guidance to specify what needs research and review