Print đź–¨

The State Board for Educator Certification met on December 8 to take up item 7 and items 12-16 on the agenda here.  A video archive of the meeting can be found here.

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.

 

Item 7. Election of State Board for Educator Certification Officers

  • Jean Streepey elected Chair by acclimation
  • Scott Muri elected Vice Chair by acclimation
  • Tommy Coleman elected Secretary by acclimation

 

Item 12. Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 230, Professional Educator Preparation and Certification, Subchapter A, General Provisions, Subchapter C, Assessment of Educators, Subchapter D, Types and Classes of Certificates Issued, and Subchapter G, Certificate Issuance Procedures

  • Link to Materials
  • Adding cert exams to certificates discussed yesterday in 233
  • Highlights launch timeline for pedagogy exams; numerous exams launching & will be pretty busy over the next 5 years
  • For example, in Special Education, currently have EC-12 and Supplemental, moving towards “Special Education Specialist EC-12,” new exam launching in 2025, Core Subjects with Special Education launching in 2027
  • Teacher Performance Assessments
    • Highlights history of recent action on TPA, will be coming back in February once procurement is complete & will have more details about it
    • edTPA and Texas-specific TPA expected to be launched 2026
    • Rules changes include provisions accounting for sunsetting the PPR exam, rule shows 2.5 year runway before TPA becomes consequential
    • In edTPA is a requirement & Texas specific TPA is an optional requirement; TX TPA will need additional rulemaking to define parameters
    • 8 new edTPA handbooks for candidates to provide options; candidates can also complete either the 15 or 18 rubric edTPA
    • Final change is carve-out for CTE fields
  • Veronica Galvan, SBEC – With Core Bilingual; what happens to Spanish proficiency exam?
    • Staff – New proposed certification exam, 165 Bilingual Spanish Education Supplemental
    • Have been talking about this for some time now, now looking to combine supplemental and proficiency
    • Accounts for new standards on bilingual Spanish instruction
  • Galvan – Need to account for ISDs that already have a certified teacher, teachers will not want to take another exam; do we foresee keeping supplemental as add-on for cert?
    • Staff – Yes, will continue to be a certificate, just updating the certification exam
    • Also adding additional option of Bilingual Core Subjects exam, both would be active
  • Galvan – Candidates have options? New candidates must do it one way?
    • Staff – Would be up to the program to determine, programs would need to be approved to offer certain cert categories
  • Jean Streepey, SBEC Chair – Clarifies that this item is about the timeline and there will be future rulemaking on TXTPA
  • Rex Gore, SBEC – TXTPA is extraordinarily consequential, highlights importance of reviewing respondents to the RFP
  • Alma Rodrigeuz, SBEC – Appreciate combining bilingual exams into one; in Core, will the new 494 also integrate?
    • Staff – Yes, this the North Star exam
  • Rodriguez – If we have candidates who have passed the supplemental but not the BTLPT, are there options to avoid retaking exams for covered content
    • Staff – Have last operational date for that BTLPT of 2026, have rules saying candidates can use scores for that exam for 1 year
    • Received feedback from stakeholders that is would be handy to use STR in these reqs, but that would need legislative action
  • Streepey – Having one less exam is important, definitely a barrier
  • Streepey – If we ran into issues during the procurement, you noted there would be ongoing rulemaking?
    • Staff – Will have update on outcome of RFP in February, before SBEC is asked to take action in February you will have understanding of the RFP
    • If you look in the testing figure itself, in the language rolling out PPR but accounts for Texas-specific TPAs; likely in the process we would develop a high school specific social studies exam (top of pg 42 of Materials)
    • Staff gets the green light from SBEC and then develops the exam; only makes sense once SBEC has blessed the path we’re walking
  • Galvan – We went to changing 291 to 391 and adding STR, it is the responsibility of the program and university to make sure we have signatures that we’ve informed candidates of the last day and where they are in the path
    • Staff – Proposed rules are designed to incorporate lessons learned, staff feels responsibility to incorporate as many resources, tools, etc.
    • Part of reasoning for proposing rules implementing exams through 2028 is to signal ahead of time to candidates & allow them to plan accordingly
  • Rodriguez – On the BTLPT and Supplemental, we are combing two exams into one, concerned that candidates have already taken one and would be asking them to retake
    • Staff – Appreciate the feedback, much of the consideration here is about communication about transition dates, programs communicating with candidates, etc.
    • Can take this to stakeholders to discuss
  • Galvan – Should perhaps re-examine the deadline for the supplementals, might should have a little more time for supplementals to end
  • Scott Muri, SBEC – Agrees, candidates are expected to achieve requirements & should consider holding requirements for graduation steady
  • Streepey – Almost like a grandfathering in
    • Staff – Takes a little thinking through, as of now the end date is 2026 and then the new one comes online; we have had instances where two options are available
    • Could work on some substitute rule text to account, could have a year period where both options are available
  • Rodriguez – On Special Education exams, moving away from a supplemental; what is the difference between supplemental and new Special Education Specialist exam?
    • Staff – Lion’s share of certs issued are base certs for Special Education, supplemental is much lower
    • Primary difference between them is number of questions asked, fewer questions on the supplemental, but they are developed the same way, meet the same standard, etc.
    • Stakeholders stated there was a diminished value in having a supplemental, so moving forward with one cert that could be added as base cert or via exam
  • Rodriguez – Good to know for ISDs that they could still ad the cert; what options would there be for secondary programs & would provide a cert without the supplemental option?
    • Staff – Suggestion ifs for dual base cert process, ultimately balance of coursework would be a program decision
  • Streepey – Many teachers take the supplemental so communication on that is important
  • New Residency Route Certificate Enhanced Standard
    • Proposed new enhanced standard teacher cert
    • Includes proposed amendments to Subchapter D, adds enhanced cert to types of certs issued
    • Would still be issued under teacher class of certificates
    • Rules define standards for enhanced cert, rule 230 specifically outlines exam requirements for issuance
    • Would be required to take content pedagogy exams, but not the pedagogy exams
  • Amendments include codification of the fee for the Enhanced Standard certificate; same fee as all other certification fees
  • Updates to the use of certification exam; through edTPA pilot heard feedback on importance of being able to issue more than one certificate in more than one field based on one score
  • Amendments certificate issuance procedures; certification by examination requirements; proposing to add enhanced standards certificate that can be added via certification by examination
    • Proposes addition of the Deafblind certificate to not be eligible for CBE
  • Muri – If you earn the enhanced, can receive another certification, does it work in reverse?
    • No
  • SEBC Member – Why?
    • Tied to certification category, not type of certificate
  • Streepey – Not that they cannot have the Deafblind certificate, just need additional certification
    • Correct
  • Galvan – After someone is EC certified and want to swap grade level, what do they do?
    • Would need to pass the additional content pedagogy exam
  • Additional proposed amendments:
    • Enhanced standard certificate definition, pilot exam definition- to annually review and collect data on these pilot exams
    • Propose a change in the definition of educator preparation program to align with other rulemaking
    • Propose a clarification a passing score on an exam can be used for certification for up to one year after the last operational date of exam
    • Propose a decrease in the number of days a candidate can requires a waiver after their fourth retake from 45 to 30 days and to remove required delay
  • Timeline: Adopt rules in February 2024, will go to SBOE in April, would go into effect May 2024

 

Public Testimony

Josh Jones, Tarleton State University

  • Need an effective assessment of professionalism in program, PPR may not be the most practical method
  • Action based assessment may be more effective
  • Provided quotes from students who went through the program
  • Feedback received indicates students want performance-based indicator of professionalism
  • Opposed to increasing cost for satisfying this requirement, $340 cost for edTPA would be significant barrier

 

Kelsey Kling, Texas Coalition for Ed Prep

  • Appreciates updated definition of pilot program,
  • TCEP maintains that a performance assessment is not appropriate as a cert, but better as an evaluation tool
  • Opposing issuance of enhanced cert without pedagogy exam; teachers should demonstrate
  • Concerned that the rulemaking for proposed cert exam is overlapping with procurement process; would like to request delay in 230 to allow for public input
    • Staff – Extension of the application window did not impact when the award will be issued, intent has always been to bring it to SBEC in February
  • Streepey – SBEC doesn’t approve award of contract, this is TEA
    • Staff – Generally seek SBEC input at front end
  • Streepey – Following legal process, not attempting to stifle public comment

 

SBEC takes 10 minute break to allow staff to write rule proposal for bilingual exam crossover year

  • Motion to approve revisions to 19 TAC 230 as presented with substitute rule text for Bilingual Education Supplemental Spanish to allow for year leeway until 8/31/2027
    • Staff – Gives candidates time to complete, but candidates looking to complete cert starting 2026-27, they would use the new exam
    • Motion carries

 

Item 13. Pending or Contemplated Litigation, including Disciplinary Cases

  • Link to Materials, defaults listed starting Pg 8, SOAH defaults Pg 12, contested cases Pg 13, court cases Pg 14
  • Tamaraz Torres, SBEC – Recuses on default case 14

 

Item 14. Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 227, Provisions for Educator Preparation Candidates

  • Link to Materials
  • Discussion for changes to PACT
  • Subchapter A includes new certs and updates cut scores for Core Subjects: 4-8 PACT
  • Cut score for ACTFL Tamil will be established no earlier than 9/1/25
  • Updates SBEC references to align with 228, 230, and 233
  • Subchapter B has technical edits to update references to 230 schedule of fees
  • Galvan – Should include and make clear that PACT is not viewed as ticket to adminission, but way to address teacher shortage & GPA issues

 

Item 15. Discussion of Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 231, Requirements for Public School Personnel Assignments, Subchapter B, Prekindergarten-Grade 6 Assignments, Subchapter C, Grades 6-8 Assignments, Subchapter E, Grades 9-12 Assignments, and Subchapter F, Special Education-Related Services Personnel Assignments

  • Link to Materials
  • Fifth and final item related to cert redesign, will be moving to add relevant certs into chapters & also deal with special education
  • Dealing with 4 subchapters in rule text, text begins on Pg 7 of materials & adds new certs to rule; language is early to show stakeholders what rules might look like and will be polished
  • Provides history of special education cert and personnel assignments; stakeholder recommendations informed 2019-2020 action by SBEC advisory committees
  • Continuing to grapple with personnel assignment reqs for special education teachers; current rules req person teaching content needs special education cert and content cert in subject & grade level of assignment, with option for individual to demonstrate competency through HOUSSE
  • “Highly qualified” requirements under HOUSSE were phased out around 2016 & stakeholders were concerned that removing option suddenly would lead to staffing challenges
  • ESSA removed “highly qualified” teachers req, ESSA is laser-focused on high expectations for students & teachers must be able to adequately and appropriately serve special education students
  • HOUSSE is no longer applicable more broadly under these federal reqs, so trying to address this as well as challenges in current rules
  • Core challenges update aims to address:
    • Interpretation of “providing content instruction” in special education setting is up to ISD
    • HOUSSE provision could be interpreted to have candidates certified according to perception of student academic level v. actual grade band
  • TEA had 4 stakeholder sessions asking what should reqs be, what should be required with instruction on more than one content area, TEKS, etc.
  • Staff recommends removing HOUSSE provision as means to demonstrate competency (Pg 30 of Materials) & update rule text to allow educators to leverage PACT exams to meet secondary content cert reqs in some circumstances (Pg 31 of Materials)
  • One proposal could be to grade band personnel assignments for special education
    • For EC-4 special educators would be req’d to hold content cert and Special Education Specialist; candidate might be able to take the EC-6 exam discussed yesterday
    • Trickier for high school level, for those teaching grade level on TEKS req content pedagogy cert and special education cert
    • Created carve-out for those responsible for instruction on pre-req skills for TEKS through req for 1) a grade level content cert + 2) content/grade band aligned PACT or undergrad hours in secondary content area
  • Staff has heard a few trends in stakeholder discussions;
    • Recognition of value of flexibility at high school level & asked for similar in earlier grade levels
    • PACT option is flexible but it is still a lot of reqs for self-contained teacher
    • Also heard these reqs make sense for resource & inclusion but could create barriers for self-contained
    • Value for special education teachers to have content knowledge
  • Anticipating bringing this back in February for discussion & possibly more after that
  • Rodriguez – So a candidate who passes Core Subject with Special Education can teach at any grade level in elementary, special ed or not?
    • Staff – Correct
  • Rodriguez – PACT exams only demonstrate admissions reqs, but not cert?
    • Staff – Correct
  • Rodriguez – Are we entertaining the idea that some PACT exams would allow an ISD to say a teacher is qualified to teach or allow a teacher to become certified?
    • Staff – Intent of including PACT is not for those to be cert exams, only to demonstrate content knowledge
    • Would specify that the teacher would need to hold one content area cert
  • Streepey – Do teachers currently need EC-12 special ed and content area or just special ed?
    • Staff – Rules allow individual to get special ed EC-12 cert by passing PPR, but with rule addition of content would need content cert to teach content
    • Most teachers need content area and special ed
    • Rules also allow for supplemental special education which would attach to content area
  • Galvan – On secondary, Would I have to pass a PACT for each of the content areas I’m teaching, is the program going to receive accountability on the PACT score, and what about ISDs that say you must also have bilingual ed?
    • Staff – These are personnel assignments, not for prep; pre-reqs would be dependent on district no the prep program
  • Galvan – So new candidate is covered under the new exams?
    • Staff – Correct
  • Bena Glasscock, SBEC – Would there be a grandfather?
    • Staff – You’ve asked the million dollar question, there are parts of the rule that still need to be worked through with stakeholders
  • Streepey – One of the most impactful day-to-day things I’ve seen for teachers; talking about teachers who are creating relations, taking care of students with severe needs, etc. glad we’re discussing
  • Muri – Operationally at campus and system level, organizationally ensuring student needs are met and credentialing can be taxing for small districts, might be easier for larger districts; need to equip admins with tools needed to make wise decisions
  • Streepey – Small schools were on my list as well, also about the timeline urgency, e.g. can we create a TX HOUSSE
  • Galvan – Could be conflict occurring within a district with new certs coming online, e.g. making someone take a bilingual exam if they’ve been teaching special education for decades
  • Glasscock – In small schools, asking teachers to be experts in possibly 4 content areas, big ask

 

Item 15 Public Testimony

Holly Eaton, TCTA

  • Have significant concerns about proposal as it stands; unclear on the premise for the change, not seeing anything different in federal law from when the current rule was adopted; haven’t seen language prohibiting use of HOUSSE, current rule was adopted after ESSA
  • New standard is much more complicated depending on grade level taught, etc., most teachers would need an additional content cert exam
  • Flexibility should be available for all special education teachers in all grade levels
  • Current teachers should be grandfathered & instructional context should be taken into consideration, e.g. when are teachers teaching content or not
  • Streepey – Is there something you run up against aside from HOUSSE that would be another qualifying item, e.g. you wish it was on the HOUSSE worksheet?
    • Eaton – HOUSSE worksheet allows demonstration of competency via hours of teaching, coursework, or closely related field
    • All of this has been well-vetted and established & the new proposal would be extremely disruptive
    • Can get points from professional development; if you move forward with eliminating HOUSSE recommend borrowing these elements

 

Kelly Morrison, Amarillo ISD

  • No one outside of TEA employees has expressed approval, particularly with the high school life skills teacher
  • Would be worried about teachers displaying content knowledge they are not teaching; special education teachers need to demonstrate ability to intervene based on student disabilities, not content
  • Must be more thoughtful about approach to HOUSSE, ESSA allows for flexibility; should look at other state’s solutions, more generalist exams reflecting what teachers are teaching, etc.
  • Galvan – Valid points that should concern every teacher in every district
  • Muri – Concurs, encourages Morrison to continue to be engaged in the process
  • Streepey – Hearing you say that it might be more important to teach what the children need, e.g. maybe 5th grade math rather than geometry at high school level depending on situation
    • Morrison – Absolutely, campus staff can help bring teachers up to speed on grade level content
  • Streepey – What about a 6-8 Core test?
    • Morrison – I would say perhaps an EC-6; many students are not learning in a classroom setting & teachers need different skillsets than general education
  • Galvan – Important points, highlights questions surrounding how professional development will be handled

 

Andrea Chevalier, TCASE

  • Way the rule is written currently would completely fragment staffing at middle school and high school levels

 

Kate Borg, Texas School for the Blind & Visually Impaired

  • Thanks SBEC for codifying TDB license
  • This cert has been added in some parts of the proposal to qualify a teacher for an assignment, problematic in two positions 231.707 re: visual impairments and 231.709 re: deaf or hard of hearing
  • Way it is written would req teachers to teach blind or deaf students, then can complete deafblind; teacher with deafblind cert may be assigned as teacher for deaf students or blind students, regardless of the pathway & even though they may not have completed the complimentary cert
  • Could create new subsection for assignments for deafblind students

 

Kaycee Bennett, Texas Deafblind Project

  • Most places deafblind was added are fine
  • Suggesting new subsection 231.710 for assignments for deafblind students with language for supplemental certs
  • Could also account for additional certs for blind and deaf students
  • Phrase “must be available to students with auditory impairments” should be changed to students who are “deaf or hard of hearing”

 

Rachel Collins, Texas Deafblind Project

  • Dual certification is not the norm, removing deafblind supplemental from 707 and 709 would eliminate some issues, additional section for cert would be ideal
  • Need to focus on adding more TDBs to help fill capacity, with new section could add req that TDBs must be available
  • Ultimate goal is for all deafblind students to have access to TDB

 

Item 15 Discussion Continues

  • Rodriguez – Appreciated comments about value of professional dev for special education teachers; teachers need skills to teach their groups of students, professional dev reqs should be responsive to students served
  • Streepey – IEPs will have grade level but that will change, can imagine need to teach previous grade level content to 8th grade or similar
    • Staff – Might be helpful to distinguish developmental grade level versus level of assignment
    • Gets tricky with federal req that students are instructed scaffolded up to grade level
    • Important to distinguish that kids are taught pre-req skills, rather they are provided access based on pre-req skills; students must be provided access to grade level content per federal law
    • This is one of the problems with HOUSSE itself because it references students being taught at lower grade levels
  • Glasscock – Would a high school life skills teacher have to have every science?
    • Staff – We could do that, but I don’t think the recommendations require this & it’s reasonable to take other pathways to ensure these small numbers of students have access
  • Gore – Obviously need to comply with federal law, but what is the life experience, what percentage of students in special education programs are capable of being served well b grade level content?
    • Staff – 13% of students enrolled in special education have IEP, about 1% can participate in alternate assessment
    • Ability level of students in that population is extremely diverse
  • Streepey – Could you clarify the statements made about HOUSSE and federal law?
    • Staff – HOUSSE talks about teachers teaching off grade level, contains a different standard based on level taught & TEA isn’t really allowed to do that
  • Streepey – What does it look like to provide access to grade level skills through pre-req skills
    • Staff – Could come back in February to go through this with staff from Assessment
    • For alternate test, each question has 4 clusters that start at very basic levels, getting progressively more complex as you get to the ballpark of the grade level standard
    • Passing standard is mid to high 90s
    • Student ability is incredibly diverse and often they are all in the same classroom
  • Emma Gelsinger, SBEC – Assume we’re not the first state trying to deal with this, are there best practices out there?
    • Staff – Will be varied on other state’s approaches, in TX it was big that modified test was going away, but many didn’t pay attention as only 9 states gave modified assessment
    • Many have had rigorous reqs in place for a long time, but can reach out to other staff
  • Streepey – Could you see a world in which we revamp HOUSSE to provide access to pre-req skills?
    • Staff – Possible, but proposal made might be more straightforward
    • Proposal doesn’t take into account years of teaching, etc.
  • Streepey – Also a world in which they have up to a certain amount with IEP but then mainstreamed into high school class?
    • Staff – Not necessarily as student ability is diverse, e.g. could have almost non-verbal student who reads at high school level
  • Streepey – Educator sets standard? You mean put at grade level for IEP?
    • Staff – No, talking about STAAR exam; standard set at state level for the assessments
  • Galvan – Important to factor in that we need to comply with federal law, but have a shortage; what are your recs?
    • Staff – Could look at something like a TX HOUSSE
  • Gore – Recommendations of the Virtual Ed Commission passed Senate but not he House, would’ve allowed asynchronous content to come into a special education classroom, provide access to grade level content
    • Staff – Will take recommendations and discussions, work on issue, and come back for further discussion

 

Item 16. Legislative Update

  • Staff notes that the legislative update was provided to SBEC in the Item 16 Materials