Print 🖨

The State Board for Educator Certification met on December 10 to hear an update from Commissioner Mike Morath, discuss alternative solutions to the current PPR teacher certification exam, and to take public comment. The agenda can be found here and a link to the hearing 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 2. Commissioner Morath’s Comments

  • Only half of students enter kindergarten ready for literacy and numeracy which adds significant challenges to the work of teachers; this shapes how we move forward in structuring education
  • We were almost at 50% of students reaching literacy and numeracy in 3rd grade; after COVID this number reduced to 31%
  • From 2012-2019 there was a steady increase in reading and math on grade level; this progress was lost due to COVD
  • Four years after Hurricane Katrina, students recovered state averages in reading but not in math; seeing the same pattern after COVID-19’s impact
  • This is not a function of inadequate work but inadequate system; need to change practices to address the needs of students
  • Proposed changes; collective teacher efficacy, counseling effects, school leadership school climate, extracurricular, and summer school
  • Teachers are the most important part of our system; the quality of beginning teachers is determined on their preparation
  • Speaks anecdotally about how he was unprepared for the 6 months of computer science he taught at his alma matter
  • First year teaching is the most difficult and the effectiveness is low
  • There are a lot of novice teachers; A little over ¼ of teachers hold 0-5 years of teaching experience
  • These new teachers traditionally teach low-income students and students of color; if we can affect the level of preparation the achievement gap will significantly improve
  • SBEC priorities to improve teacher preparation include rigor, ASEP, expansion of preparations practices, and improved framework
  • Rigor is not about academic high achievement but the focus on content skills and ability to perform the job well
  • EPP accountability for performance on exams, student growth and feedback
  • Emphasis on recognition of teachers and preparation; these incentives matter to staff performance
  • Some would argue that increasing teacher preparation rigor will reduce teacher pool in terms of recruitment; valid concern and there needs to be a balance
  • Efforts made to incentivize teaching; HB 3 raised base level of compensation for teachers (around $5,000 for higher education experience), Teacher Incentive Allotment can increase salary up to $30,000, Grow your own program that introduces teaching to CTE centers and district of innovations approach to create flexibility in the hiring process
  • ~14% of teachers quit after their first year; The impact of improvements in preparation practices will reduce the likelihood that novice teachers quit
  • Programs that increase retention can reduce the need of new teachers by ~3,500
  • Kelly – It is an honor to be on this committee and speak to the needs of 40,000 students per grade level; Morath focuses our eyes on the main goal of student achievement

 

Consent Agenda

  • TEA Staff – only includes routine and straightforward items where any items can be pulled
  • Agenda Items 6-13
  • Motion passes unanimously

 

Item 14. Request to Approve New Educator Preparation Program at International Leadership Texas (ILTexas)

  • Allows state to approve request form ILTexas to be approved as an educator program (EPP) through alternative preparation program

 

Public Comment

 

Carrie Griffith, Texas State Teachers Associations

  • ILTexas charter schools has high turnover rates and low performance
  • Concerned that they are not equipped to prepare new teachers
  • Recommend a delay of the vote until the information is available to all; only upon PIR right now
  • Coleman – Do you feel the board is educated on the ILTexas chapter schools?
    • TEA Staff – There is a codified process with a strict set of rules to ensure expectations are met
    • On your report there are 9 qualifications we reviewed and the applicable evidence in its favor
  • Coleman – Has there been concern with capacity of the program?
    • In the pre-approval staff visit we evaluate these parameters before deciding]
    • We do not review data that is in context of the larger LEA
  • Galvan – This review is intensive and picked with fine tooth comb; my concern is where its occurring
  • If there is a high turnover in ILTexas there are no mentors or experienced teacher; what happens to the funds and observational hours if they leave the school
    • TEA Staff – We can hear from ILTexas to increase clarity
  • Kelly – 23% of teachers left ILTexas after the first year; this is higher than state average and it is concerning

 

Laura Carrasco, ILTexas

  • We are ready to take on this challenge; at ILTexas we have a dual language for 100% of students
  • There is a teacher shortage especially bilingual teachers; we have a need for bilingual candidates
  • We have also opened new facilities and buildings meaning an influx of new teacher; part of why we are applying for EPP is to help support the vacancies in our retention
  • We have worked with our HR program and have established mentor teachers that are ready to support this program
  • Gore – How many students are you currently serving?
    • 20,557
  • How many campuses?
    • 33 orgs in 4 districts; EPP will focus on Fort Worth only
  • How many teachers?
    • ~1,500
  • How many teachers are 5 years +?
    • About 40% of teachers; majority of teachers are novice
  • How many teachers do you anticipate in your first EPP year?
    • We are looking at only 40 out of the gate; working towards 500
  • Kelly – It is extremely demanding to be a bilingual teacher and to recruit them
  • Galvan- How many teachers are mentor certified; how do you determine mentor readiness and what happens if they leave?
    • We are prepared to meet mentorship requirements; we are apart of the Teacher Allotment program that incentivizes teachers
    • We have a modified T test to qualify an “outstanding” teacher; especially important to bilingual program
  • Kelly – How confident is TEA in its recommendation; What monitoring happens over the next year to determine success?
    • TEA Staff – We are confident in ILTexas success; our team conducts approval review each year after implementation

 

Motion to approve Item 14. carries with one abstention

 

Procedure Overview by TEA staff

  • TEA Staff – Overview of meeting procedures and rules; begin with decision making and end with discussion items
  • If anything is going to be changed with a rule it needs to be changes in the proposal period before it is released for 30 days of public comment

 

Item 15. Adoption 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

  • TEA Staff – Rule item does two things; implements HB 2519 and update the good cause of mitigating factors
  • Remove word additional to allow training without sanction under HB 2519
  • Default sanction of inscribed reprimand for resignations 30-44 days before first day of instructions under HB 2519
  • Mitigation can result in no disciplinary action under HB 2519
  • Clarify procedure for informing educator of appeal process under HB 2519
  • God Cause; reasonable belief that the educator has written permission from admin to resign
  • Mitigating factors: career change, reduction in base pay, change in campus assignment caused significant adverse health needs, and working conditions posed an immediate threat of significant physical harm
  • Received 88 public comments; this is staff draft response but if your opinion is different staff will make amendments as needed
  • In general Teacher associations are in favor of the good cause clause and the school districts are opposed
  • Drew Darby concerns: The new Good Cause and Mitigating Factors are not needed under HB 2519; the mitigations listed limit other possible mitigations
    • They are two separate rules; not necessary but helpful
  • More guidance on educator sanctions
  • TASB concerns: Fear the inscribed reprimand as default sanction will not apply because 30 days of notice is already a mitigating factor
    • We are going to fix this overlook
  • Texas State Teachers Association concerns: inscribed reprimand as default sanction is too harsh
    • Only adds a mark on your transcript; this is necessary information for schools to know
  • Good Cause is supported by teacher associations because it allows SBED to consider individual education and it will keep them in their profession
  • School districts are against Good Cause because it is unnecessary, inspire mid-year quit and risks student stability
  • Expansion of mitigating factors is supported by teacher associations because they address harm of teacher staying in contract, the educators are still subject to discipline and guides staff and SOAH while allowing SBEC discretion
  • School districts and admin oppose because there is too much leniency on teacher responsibility which can harm students in return
  • Under mitigating factor of career change it would allow admin to transfer positions; teachers support, and districts oppose
  • Reduction in base pay is supported by teacher groups because it gives power to commissioner; school districts oppose precedent because it a rare situation that does not need separate consideration
  • Teacher resignation because of harsh situation is supported by teachers because it addresses human needs; districts do not support it because it interferes with an authority and increased commute should not be an excuse
  • Resignation due to physical harm work conditions is supported by teachers because some teachers are assaulted and should be allowed to leave the situation; school districts oppose because physical harm is vague and student safety should address teacher safety

 

Public Comment

 

Krystal Dockery, Self

  • Speaks against teacher resignation after change in campus assignment because superintendents have to have power to make assignments based on the kids needs

 

Julie Leighey, TCTE

  • Supports HB 2519 and Good Cause and Mitigating Factors
  • Teachers should stay because they want to not because they have to; only hurts the students

 

Kevin Brow, Texas Association of School Administrators

  • Concerns about resignation of teachers after campus assignment change
  • Main concern is it hurt the students; hurts the additional teachers that pick up extra slack

 

Mark Terry, TSTPA

  • Opposing expanding mitigating factors
  • Mitigating factors for contract abandonment is setting students up for long-term subs and poor education

 

Andrea Shoveler, Texas Association of Professional Educators

  • Stability for students have to be balanced with he needs of an educator
  • Teachers are still going to have sanctions on their certificate, they are still being discouraged from resigning but treats teachers as humans; supports

 

Laura Kravitz, Texas State Teachers Association

  • In support of changes to Chapter 239; offers a good balance between teacher needs and student needs
  • Contract abandonment is a hard decision that is well thought out by teachers; these changes are appropriate and still sanctioned

 

Board Discussion

  • TEA Staff – Best strategy is to propose the motion as is and then amend and adopt
  • Coleman makes the motion
  • Kim – I am concerned about “reasonable belief;” it is too vague and open to too much discretion
    • Jean – For a teacher, the point of contact is the principal; if the principal writes consent it is the best vouch for resignation
  • Courtney Boswell MacDonald, SBEC member – Tells story about misleading back and forth communication
  • Kelly – Issue dies
  • Gore – Cannot effectively make material changes
    • TEA staff – Can clarify or nuance it, no new ideas
  • Kim – Wants to have discussion about section regarding posing immediate threat; overabundance of training of teachers, huge shortage of teachers, some differentiation for this topic? Too broad as is
  • Kelly – Could site a lot of different things in regard to immediate threat; school districts handle 99% of these issues, do not result in contract abandonment
    • Kim – References Tik Tok challenge posing harm to teachers
    • Kelly – Gun concerns, COVID concerns
    • Kim – Who gets to decide what is a perceived threat?
  • Coleman – SBEC gets to make this determination
  • SBEC member – Rule is a mitigating factor, not black and white; allows for flexibility
  • Jean Streepey, SBEC member – Seeing potential violence in special education settings, focus on teachers takes away focus on children; feels for both sides
  • Kelly – Coleman’s idea could be prevailing one; things better decided at local level
  • Veronica Galvan, SBEC member – In event that teacher has made every effort to resolve it, then they can resign? Or is this an immediate resign
    • Kelly – Many issues can be resolved next day, some take a few weeks
    • Moriaty – Factors can compound to decide you do not want to sanction teacher, deems this a mitigating factor
    • Streepey – If we do not list this as a mitigating factor, does that limit it?
    • Moriaty – Even if you struck this, could still consider this case by case
    • Garcia – Everything could be struck, they could all still be considered
    • Streepey – This provision also protects students, one of goals of this board
    • Coleman agrees

 

Motion to approve Item 15 passes

  • Gore – Want to respect teachers’ professionalism, professionals do not just abandon contracts for no reason
  • Moriaty – If this gets vetoed, will be back with a proposal next meeting
  • MacDonald – If this is handled poorly at district, this will not come to SBEC
  • Torres – Explains why he voted against motion, has seen how hard it is to reassign teachers
  • Kelly – Talks about complexities of teachers leaving, having to shift around and add students to classes

 

Item 16. Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 232, General Certification Provisions, Subchapter A, Certificate Renewal and Continuing Professional Education Requirements

  • Already discussed at the October board meeting, major driver was SB 1267
  • SB 1267 removes some CPE topics, remaining topics capped at 25%, new provision for CPE in educating students with disabilities
  • Also discussed the CPE hardship extension & dyslexia training; stakeholder input and SB 1267 led to CPE exemption and CPE training for students with disabilities
  • 1, 2023, implementation date

 

Public Comment

 

Carrie Griffith, Texas State Teachers Association

  • In full support of the proposed rules, process was transparent, and stakeholders were listened to
  • Inherent in rules and enabling legislation is nodded to need for specialized personnel, will hopefully see lessening layered mandatory training
  • Students needs multifaceted support, requiring high level training in all topics is creating jacks of all trade, but experts in none

 

Holly Eaton, Texas Classroom Teachers Association

  • In support of draft text regarding mandatory CPE topics, hardship exemption

 

Jan Fries, Texas Counseling Association

  • Counselors had a difficult challenge in that they are specialized, change in delaying rules until 2024 gives opportunity to fix issues
  • Gives clear message in the interim

 

Questions

  • What happens to a teacher who decides to go back but does not have STR? What happens if I want to get my CPE but do not have the hours?
    • TEA Staff – It is only invalid if they do not have the 150 or 200 hours; does not affect STR

 

Motion to approve Item 16 carries unanimously

 

Item 17: Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 245, Certification of Educators from Other Countries

  • TEA Staff – Amendment would allow certification of educators from other counties
  • Amendment removes the letter of professional standing requirement; often a barrier and discourages participation

 

Motion to approve Item 17 carries unanimously

 

Item 18. Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 230, Professional Educator Preparation and Certification, Subchapter H, Texas Educator Certificates Based on Certification and College Credentials from Other States or Territories of the United States

  • TEA Staff – Amendment would allow teachers certified in other states; amendment allows for requirement clarifications about supplemental certifications
  • Kim – How do National Board Certifications fall into this?
    • They can bypass the Texas certification
  • Kim – What is the turnaround time for this process?
    • During a busy time, it can take over 2 months, but average is around 30 days

 

Motion to approve Item 18 carries unanimously

 

Item 19. Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 228, Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs, §228.2, Definitions, §228.10, Approval Process, §228.30, Educator Preparation Curriculum, §228.35, Preparation Program Coursework and/or Training

  • TEA Staff – Deals SB 226, HB 139, HB 159, and SB 1590
  • SB 226 would update training for virtual learning
  • HB 139 – Would allow credit for veterans
  • HB 159 – Add definition of students with disabilities, amendment to EPP approval process
  • SB 1590 – Clarifies requirements for virtual observations to ensure equivalent rigor as in person classes

 

Carrie Griffith, TSTA

  • Concerns about SB 1590 and the equal rigor qualification
  • Suggests a 48hr time period between observations instead of 72hrs
  • It is not possible to match the rigor, so the same regulations are not good enough

 

Teresa Hinojosa, SE19

  • We appreciate virtual flexibility for covid cases and transportation complications
  • The same requirements for virtual and in-person are not transferable
  • TEA Staff – I have read the EPAC recommendations and we are working on finding a good balance

 

Motion to approve Item 19 carries unanimously

 

Item 20. Approval of Continuing Education and Training Clearinghouse Advisory Group

  • SBEC will approve a clearinghouse advisory group representative of educator and orgs that support educators
  • So far have received 40 nominations received, 28 educators and 9 organizations that represent organizations; act as a guide to the board
  • Looking to build this committee starting December announcing in June of 2022

 

Jan Freeze, Counseling Association

  • This is a robust representation of school counselors; they are dually certified and will bring strong perspectives

 

Motion to approve Item 20 carries unanimously

 

Item 21. Approval of Agreed Order for University of St. Thomas Educator Preparation Program

  • University of Saint Thomas is an EPP; not meeting curriculum
  • UST is not going to admit any more students into their school until their curriculum is approved
  • If they fail to meet qualifications, they will be revoked as of August 31, 2022

 

Motion to approve item 21 carries unanimously

 

Item 22. Approval of Agreed Order for Texas A&M University – Texarkana Educator Preparation Program

  • Texas A&M Texarkana held 5-year EPP review and di not meet standards necessary under non-teaching classes
  • After second review, if they fail again their license will be removed

 

Motion to approve Item 22 carries unanimously

 

Item 23. Pending or Contemplated Litigation, including Disciplinary Cases

  • Motions carry unanimously

Item 24: Discussion of 19 TAC Chapter 231, Requirements for Public School Personnel Assignments

  • Provides certification and assignment guidance for PK-12 settings
  • More development to be presented at February meeting

 

Item 25: Discussion of edTPA as a Certification Exam for Standard Teacher Certification

  • Invited testimony to talk about edTPA and alternatives, followed by public testimony

 

Sheena Salcido, Teach + Texas

  • In support of edTPA; Passed the content on the PPR exam easily but received little feedback on the content and lesson plans she created
  • A more rigorous program will better prepare teachers and serve students

 

Elizabeth Ward, ePAC board

  • Presents Alternatives to the PPR exam; PPR found that is fails to prepare teachers for the classroom
  • However, educators with high PPR scores have more successful classrooms
  • Implementation options; Keep the PPR cut score at 240 this would have no increase in cost and students would still see academic growth
  • TEA model by impact by raising PPR score or develop a new exam better suited for classroom skills
  • Kelly – PPR is a one for all for all grade levels; edTPA has different requirements what do you think about that?
    • The next presentation will cover a proposed compromise
  • Study found that the higher the PPR score the better performance by the educator evaluated by the principal; around 92% of the time

 

Stacey Edmonson and Christina Ellis, T-Tess Pilot

  • 2020-2021 – 14 participating EPPs from public, private, urban, and rural areas
  • 253 candidates applied using candidates’ videos 44 internal and 21 external evaluators
  • 2021-2022 created and launched the T-Tess with critiques from the SBEC board
  • Students who complete this test complete lesson plans, teaching videos and self-reflections all scored and given feedback
  • This portfolio is more reflective of classroom work; With over 200 signatures T-Tess is supported by high regarded educators because of its applicable classroom model
  • Coleman – You mentioned day 1 readiness; can you differ how this model makes an educator more prepared than edTPA
    • edTPA does not have to be completed until after the first year of teaching; we think they should prove their readiness before they enter a classroom
  • Coleman – Who scores T-Tess and who scores edTPA?
    • edTPA is scored by the program but T-Tess is certified by other Texas teachers and superintendents
    • Many internal reviews completed by supervisors have been held as grading parties with other supervisors
  • Rodriguez – What does the portfolio look like?
    • There is not a specific portfolio requirement; some educator prep programs could facilitate it themselves, but we are willing to aid other programs
    • They are based on board standards but there will be uniqueness to them across programs
  • Rodriquez – What rubric is used to score?
    • It is scored using the edPTA rubric
  • Oeser – Who does the external evaluation of the student?
    • T-Tess appraiser trained educator prep programs
  • Garcia – Do you have data about hoe the performance of the video portion of the portfolio?
    • Internal scores have been graded and give back; external scores are delayed
    • We just completed this research, but it will not be available or evaluated until this spring
  • Are you suggesting that things be handled on a local EPP level; passing standard responsibility of EPP advisory board and the evaluation of external scores
    • It could work either way; If the state wanted to announce passing scores that is great, but we are also okay refereeing it to individual EPP’s
    • Want to avoid adding additional work to the state

 

Public Comment

 

Ginna Anderson, Texas Women’s University

  • Increased teaching shortages, and edTPA requirement concerns; recommending locally scores performance assessment as a curriculum requirement
  • PPR should remain the standard either reformed or how it stands; local test should be added before first day in class

 

Alexandra Level, Associate Dean of Educator Preparation at UNT

  • Will adopting edTPA improve the quality of our teacher readiness; there are many factors working against us, labor crisis, pandemic… etc.
  • Millennials are only participating in the work force 62%; stress and burnout are part of a teacher’s job
  • UNT support the recommendation of the T-Tess

 

Cynthia Savage, Independent Colleges and Universities

  • edTPA was first put in place in Illinois in 2015; advocation to unwind this
  • Governor has placed mandate stopping the requirement of video because it violates the privacy of students and candidates

 

Michael Resinga, UTSA

  • Current conflict; edTPA and field supervisor have different evaluations of teacher performance
  • In support of T-Tess

 

Lilian Hartman, Urban Teachers DFW

  • Provides reports on teachers experience on edTPA
  • Novice teachers are unprepared for teaching because of the lack of portfolio preparation; edTPA will help this

 

Lisa Brown, Austin Community College

  • Reginal coordinator of edTPA; national scorer and teaches edTPA classes
  • Assessment is a way to provide feedback to student and helps prepare students for the classroom
  • Recommends that the elementary requirements be loosened; specifically, task 4

 

Kelly Imedi, Texas Reading Academy

  • Teacher for a decade; served as a mentor for novice teachers and supports edTPA implementation
  • EdTPA would raise the standard of teaching requirements and better prepare students for the classroom

 

Andrea Cavalier, ATPE

  • Revieing edTPA research and teacher testimony about their experience shows that edTPA is more harmful than beneficial to students
  • Support modification of PPR and against edTPA; supports local soring

 

Tim Miller, Raise your Hand Texas

  • Represent 63% of Teacher preparation programs; many already use performance based assessment
  • Better preparation is an equity issue; in favor of performance based assessment before stepping into the classroom

 

Teresa Hijose, ESC

  • Participated in the edTPA program; skeptical but candidates were more reflective and prepared for teaching than anticipated
  • Strengthened the program and teachers; more applicable than PPR because it is not based on memorization
  • Disadvantages to edTPA; expensive and extensive for students who work

 

Carrie Griffith, Texas State Teachers Associations

  • In opposition to edTPA; Not a valid or reliable assessment and is not intended for high stakes classification tool
  • The use of a performance assessment is not an assortment method but it as a great tool for teacher growth

 

Roxanne Schroder-Arse, U-Teach at UT Austin

  • Concerns about edTPA; expensive video review assessment, removes creativity, and it is expensive and excludes students of color

 

Don Steinecker, U-Teach

  • Teacher who facilitates portfolio building for future teachers
  • Most of her college students work full or part time and cannot afford to take the edTPA
  • In support of alternative teaching assessment

 

Holly Eaton, Texas Classrooms Teaching Association

  • Concerns about edTPA as it is not an accurate evaluation of performance
  • Also fears that there is already low interest in being a teacher; edTPA will increase this problem

 

Susan Sharp, Texas Association of Certification Officers

  • Presenting results of survey in regard to certification
  • Survey showed that 32.8% of respondents supported more than one pedagogy exams; 31% enhanced PPR exam, 30.7% T-Tess, 11% edTPA

 

James Durham, Texas Tech

  • Implemented edTPA into Tech teaching; issues with handbook language
  • During their finals; they felt that they it improved their creative strategy skills and pushed for a more deliberate lesson planning
  • In favor of edTPA

 

Brenda Miller, Arlington Baptist University

  • ABU is piloting edTPA; school and students believe the hard work is worth the preparation
  • Helps build a confidence in students and manage teaching expectations; in favor of edTPA

 

Gwendolyn Peplowski, Houston ISD

  • Based on experiencing mentoring edTPA should be implemented slowly in place of PPR
  • Portfolio development is essential to growth; edTPA is this growth

 

 

Leslie Cooper, ESC

  • Supports edTPA because it matches standards, promotes high quality instruction
  • Evidence based results help formulate feedback rubrics to encourage educator growth

 

Carl Shaperes, Texas A&M San Antonio College of Education

  • Great deal of success with edTPA students; supports its passing
  • Students are more prepared and more hirable

 

EdTPA Board Discussion

  • TEA Staff – edTPA is a valid and reliable assessment of teacher readiness; no red flags
  • The pilot process as provided a Texas-specific roadmap that can be effective for statewide implementation
  • Other alternative options are not ready for implementation and can be considered at any time
  • edTPA implementation has been in progress since 2019 and delivers strong results as seen in the pilot school’s progress
  • The PPR has large gaps in performance differences for students of different ethnicities; edTPA eliminates this gap
  • There is no current edTPA passing score; Texas has control over establishing a passing score
  • EdTPA has been charged by SBEC on order to push for better teacher and student performance
  • Draft implementation edTPA plan; recommend that edTPA be implemented non-consequentially beginning in 2022 meaning I the portfolio is complete the student has passed
  • Becomes consequential implementation in 2024
  • SBEC requires teachers to “demonstrate” competency, and this is not being done with PPR
  • Streepey – Will PPR be taken during the non-consequential years?
    • Staff recommends portfolio only and no more PPR
  • Can edTPA be adjusted to Texas standards?
    • edTPA has a set rubric; There are ways to modify training to Texas programs
  • Rodriguez – you mentioned there are strategies to challenge cost; I would like to see this more specific?
  • Could you further define non-consequential in terms of EPP?
    • EPP would still be responsible for the outcome of students
  • It is extremely important to have EPP representation; also recognize this is for a novice teacher so the expectations should be as such
  • Galvan – What kind of support can candidates get for the cost burden? Is there flexibility in the implementation schedule; it seems there is a lot to get through?
    • We are in conversation with the testing vendor to discuss vouchers; I will bring a whole list of cost strategy to the board in February
    • Staff is concerned with the need for change and that’s reason for the quick implementation; do you have recommendations on a different timeline?
    • Galvan – It seems the program can be overwhelming in content, COVID, and STR
  • Kim – I would love a copy of the PPR and edTPA to review
  • Gore – The PPR might not be a good preparation for teaching, but I am hesitant to get rid of it because data suggests it is reflective of performance
    • Kelly – I agree with Gore; I like the idea that an alternative can be developed
    • TEA Staff – Would you like to see a parallel pilot?
    • I think we could add more flexibility in edTPA as seen in T-Tess
  • Torres – We mentioned we have a rigorous program with edTPA; What if we let EPPs choose between edTPA and T-Tess and compare the results
    • Oeser – we have a responsibility to give local power; it is possible to set criteria but give some local decision
  • We are not in the beginning stages of edTPA, and it is time to decide; I would hate to further entertain other alterative options just to have nothing change for the current PPR
  • Kim – If this is a prolonged discussion about potential alternatives then I think we do have time to explore other options; Maybe we need to workshop this the day before net meeting
  • Garcia – The T-Tess is not ready to be implemented and changing the PPR is not dramatic enough; we are not closing the door on any options but the edTPA pilot is ending and a decision needs to be made
  • Streepey – If our concern is the improved performance of teachers, I am fearful of having the tests locally scored
  • Galvan – If the decision has been this complex, imagine how hard the implementation of this will be; we need to view it from the perspective of a university