The State Board for Educator Certification met on February 11 to discuss a number of items including a proposed amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 230, implementing edTPA as the primary educator assessment. The board addressed revisions to public school personnel assignments, proposed ASEP accreditation statuses, commendations for educator preparation programs, an order for Lubbock Christian University program to continue operation, and various educator disciplinary cases. An archive of the hearing and the agenda 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.


SBEC took up items 4-17 as a whole and they were consented upon unanimously. Full materials for these items can be found in the agenda here.


Public Comment

Megan Guidry, Texas Counseling Association

  • School counselors are vital for social and emotional learning; thanks SBEC for their support


Item 18 – 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; and Subchapter E, Grades 9-12 Assignments

  • Proposed revisions would incorporate courses approved by the SBOE would add certificate areas, incorporate technical edits where needed to improve readability and align citations
  • Provides certificate and assignment guidance for PK-12 setting
  • Removes outdated/incorrect courses or certificate reference, adds new SBOE approved courses
  • Adds Trade and Industrial Education and Trade and Industrial Workforce Training certificates
  • Adds Science of Teaching Reading certificates
  • Updates licensure requirements to teach cosmetology based on legislative changes
  • Motion carries unanimously


Item 19 – Proposed Amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 230, Professional Educator Preparation and Certification, Subchapter C, Assessment of Educators, §230.21, Educator Assessment

Amy Hickman, Texas Tech Teacher Education Department, Site Coordinator/Instructor

  • Chairman Kelly – This is the most important item on today’s agenda
  • This amendment specifies timeline by which a passing score on a certification exam can be used for certification purposes, updates exams for probationary or standard certificates, and removes certificate categories
  • Based on confirmation received from the Board at December 2021 meeting, staff plans to:
    • Implement edTPA to replace the PPR
    • Codify a process to vet and approve additional performance assessment certification exams
  • edTPA captures a one-lesson cycle; teacher understands scope and sequence, identifies target objectives, and designs lesson plans accordingly
  • Allows teachers to review and reflect on their lessons and analyze student progress
  • Skills needed to succeed on the edTPA are summative of the elements of successful teaching
  • Teachers must complete portfolios
  • Superintendent Kim – Do you see any barrier where teachers, once they get in, do they stay in even though this is in place?
  • Hickman – We work diligently to make sure our teachers are prepared and will be successful in the edTPA program; have not seen barriers in program so far
  • Kelvey Oeser – Timeline for candidates’ completion differs by programs? Does this happen differently in different pilots?
    • Hickman – Each pathway does have a different timeline, they have approximately six weeks, student teachers have about three weeks
  • Alma Rodriguez – Can candidates who do not pass use the same material and portfolio, that has already been submitted, and possibly revise their content based on score report?
    • Hickman – Results are out over spring break, condition codes are specific on which elements candidate did not satisfy
    • Plenty of time to review and make changes before May graduation
    • There is opportunity to edit for resubmission
  • Rodriguez – Would edTPA limit the number of submission each candidate has? Would there be any limit on using the same portfolio for multiple submission?
    • TEA Staff – Candidates might need to take multiple sections again, there are rules regarding how many times a candidate may take each part
  • Rex Gore – How long does it take for Pearson to assess? Shares concern about capacity issues for reviewing, should assessment be moved earlier?
    • TEA Staff – There are specific assessment windows and result dates are clearly listed on website; does not anticipate needing to change result dates
  • Oeser – How will we scale this large number of scores?
    • TEA Staff – Scorers are teacher educators that go through a robust training process
    • 10% of portfolios are double scored randomly; Pearson is researching double scoring practices and their effects
    • Scoring is certainly a priority and consistent discussion occurs regarding scoring credibility and scaling, recruitment vetting, and other concerns
  • Rodriguez – Is there an intention for scorers to be from Texas?
    • TEA Staff – Goal is to scale the number of Texan scorers as quickly as possible, expects widespread interest once SBEC implements
  • Rodriguez – What are the qualifications to become a scorer?
    • TEA Staff – Scorers are required to be educators or teacher educators
    • Often are faculty and staff of teacher preparation programs, schoolteachers, school administrators
  • Galvan – edTPA is more expensive than current exam; will this change demographics? Many candidates have serious financial burden and do not qualify for financial aid
    • TEA Staff – Many new strategies will be implemented to provide financial support
  • Rex Gore – Of the states where it has been implemented, how deeply were you able to look into the norms of results?
    • TEA Staff – Candidates receive a $30 rebate after receiving test scores, allocation of financial assistance waivers, program; purchased edTPA vouchers and vouchers for all exams
    • Developing tools and resources to ensure there are models to integrate cost
    • Longer term; consider updates to exam design to potentially lower overall number of exams required for some certificates
  • Chairman Kelly – How much is financial assistance?
    • TEA Staff – $30 rebate and the remaining amount is covered by financial aid
    • Will be seeking guidance from stakeholders to intentionally and ethically administer these waivers
  • Rodriguez – Will financial assistance also apply for all certification exams or exclusively for edTPA?
    • TEA Staff – Some are specifically for the edTPA, but some work for all exams
  • Emily Garcia – Could be an opportunity for nonprofits to underwrite the cost of certification?
    • TEA Staff – TEA has bargaining power with test administrators, there is a baseline cost for the exam, but are opportunities to address pricing, scoring, branding
    • These conversations are currently occurring and setting expectations
  • Oeser – The financial burden is that this is one of multiple exams, how can we streamline overall tests with a single vendor?
    • TEA Staff – The board has long-term opportunities to change expectations so that the number of required exams is lowered
    • For example, elementary educators are required to be ESL certified, many are also special education certified
    • edTPA is subject and grade specific, board can discuss ways to streamline other exams so we assess priority content and possibly integrate subjects
  • Andrew Kim – Hiring flexibility is much needed and these changes would have great outcomes; current struggle to match grade level certifications with needs
  • Chairman Kelly – Was there a correlation with student improvements?
    • TEA Staff – 17 states have implemented or are taking steps towards edTPA implementation; 5 states have removed edTPA as a requirement
    • Staff have been applying the “lessons learned” from other states’ paths to inform approach; has not been a coherent trend
    • 3-year pilot provides ample time to learn and evaluate data to drive decision making at the agency and EPP level
  • Chairman Kelly – Gore’s question was more focused on student improvements
    • TEA Staff – Research has not found a solid correlation between edTPA and student outcomes, but generally higher edTPA scores had positive benefits
  • Gore – Was there an aggregate improvement rather than a national trend?
    • TEA Staff – Unique contexts in each state with varying priorities; will continue to monitor and analyze as data is gathered
  • Superintendent Kim – Research should study whether a good score on edTPA determines how long teachers stay in the profession?
    • TEA Staff – Board has been making changes in teacher preparation for years; this is one critical policy among many
    • Rigorous and meaningful preparation programs drive candidates’ success
  • Kelly – How old is the edTPA for research purposes?
    • TEA Staff – 2013
  • Galvan – Have other states ever permitted different time periods? For example, many candidates are doing permanent substitution
  • Superintendent Kim – When we try to hire clinical teachers, they can’t be hired as subs until the second or third year
    • Would prefer to pay these individuals as they are being prepared, so they do not need to pursue secondary income to subsidize costs
  • Galvan – Permanent subs are neither clinical nor interns, and this could help financial burdens
    • Gives opportunity to earn passing score on an assessment and then go on to internship
    • Many candidates do not want the stress of exam during internship
  • Oeser – Looking into more innovative staffing models and how to integrate them into certification options
  • Kelly – Is it more beneficial to use edTPA in the formative part of certification program as opposed to a summative assessment at the end? Fundamental question to answer today
  • Rodriguez – Board has responsibility to ensure that the most competent and well-prepared teachers remain in every classroom
    • TEA Staff – Pedagogical readiness must be proved, candidates can only serve with intern certificate for one year, can serve on probationary certificate for an additional two years
  • Rodriguez – Is the proposal the edTPA would be required before probationary certificate?
    • TEA Staff – Correct, only the intern certificate could be obtained without edTPA
    • Programs already monitor candidate readiness, robust set of requirements already requires formative evaluation
  • Lofters – If candidate does not pass, is there a restriction on when they can submit next?
    • TEA Staff – There are 19 submission windows over the year, must obtain approval before resubmitting
    • This is a safeguard to ensure that candidates receive program support
  • Galvan – How can interns retake?
    • TEA Staff – Programs are intentional about backwards planning to ensure district needs are met and candidates get scores quickly, allows for resubmission
    • Interns serve over the course of the school year, have learned from the edTPA pilot
    • Candidates complete edTPA during the Fall and can resubmit in Spring, allows opportunities for multiple submission windows


Courtney MacDonald, TEA Staff

  • Explains edTPA portfolio structure
  • Task 1 involves planning for instruction and assessment, Task 2 involves instructing and engaging students in learning, and task 3 involves assessing students’ learning
  • Lofters – once a student begins the submission process, what is the interaction between the preparation program and its support, specifically on the submission? Is this prescribed by the program or does edTPA give direction?
    • TEA Staff – There are acceptable forms of support outlined by edTPA: boot camps conducted to set expectations, a collaborative writing day with peers
  • Rodriguez – 30 day period between test attempts from day after scores are received
  • Kelly – Suggests discussion of alternatives to edTPA
  • TEA Staff – Pilot programs have offered leverage to make changes to better prepare candidates, having richer data conversations, little different in candidates’ performances across groups, candidates’ reflections of their teaching and effects on students’ learning have improved, candidates are more intentional in providing equitable instruction
  • Overall, longer process has been worth the performance benefits
  • SBEC’s statutory charge; ensure candidates have demonstrated the knowledge and skills necessary to improve the performance of the diverse student population of this state
  • Requirements could be placed to ensure that candidates demonstrate readiness via formative assessments, explicitly outline intern expectations, 228 rules can be made more robust to incentive formative evaluations
  • SBEC priorities to improve preparation: Integrating Rigorous certification exams, ASEP EPP accountability, recognizing and expanding strong preparation practices, and effective preparation framework


Board Feedback on Content Prioritization for Assessments

  • Gore – Does not feel prepared to enter conversation about developing programs, devoting too much time to this conversation removes ability to discuss edTPA implementation
  • TEA Staff – edTPA implementation does not stop board from adding additional exams and changing rules, resolution regarding content and structure not needed today


Dr. Ellis, Representatives from Sam Houston State

  • Collecting data from across the state, determined a more robust evaluation than T-tests is needed
  • Include factors beyond video component to demonstrate preparedness, designed to be formative and consequential for candidate
  • Not designed to be a certification exam, important distinction from edTPA
  • The PPR is not a perfect exam, but has important aspects that could be a great supplement to edTPA to provide fuller picture of candidates’ readiness
  • Kelly – likes direct use of T-test because it is how teachers will be evaluated once employed
    • Do we need a summative final decision on whether teachers are ready? Independent from PPEs, universal across the state
    • Parallel timeline to edTPA for an alternative instrument, edTPA approval could be contingent on development of an alternative with this similar timeline
    • Implementation of edTPA would be delayed until development is complete
  • Kim – Constraint of T tests is time consumption, necessary for teachers to receive feedback
    • Well-prepared teachers are obvious in interview process
    • Believes formative process should be determined by EPA
  • Julia Dvorak – Will candidates succeed on edTPA?
    • Ellis – They will do well, but it could be a distraction from the most important part of their training
    • Focusing on passing exam rather than educating students properly
    • Many candidates come from low-income backgrounds, edTPA could be disproportionately challenging and deter them from the field
  • Rodriguez – Board’s responsibility is that all students are served by properly prepared teachers, have you seen any difference between different programs?
    • Ellis – There are not yet results connected to student outcomes, funding has not been received to develop alternative certification exam
  • Kelly – You could use external evaluators to determine whether results match tests, provides neutral measure of whether PPE is adequately preparing teachers
  • Kim – Content knowledge is critical, credibility is at stake with student access to the internet and other resources
    • TEA Staff – Content Pedagogy is priority for edTPA pilot
  • Ellis – Passing edTPA would be a cost burden for candidates and distraction during clinical experience, administrative burden for program, yet wholeheartedly believes in the reflective aspect of edTPA
    • Analyzing T Tests and edTPA was beneficial


Public Comment

Dr. Jerry Jackson, Our Lady of the Lake

  • edTPA liaison since year one of the pilot grant; overviews demographics of students
  • Have a 98% retention rate; 100% of candidates are employed within 75 miles
  • Candidates are ready regardless of what exam teachers are given
  • Cost of edTPA is burdensome for students


Addison Old, Teach Plus

  • 5th grade teacher to Austin ISD; trained with edTPA in Tennessee
  • Supports the implementation of edTPA
  • Torres – What components of the program helped you be a successful teacher?
    • Ability to plan engaging lessons and reflection on teaching experience
  • Rodriguez – Elaborate on these experiences?
    • Had to create portfolio and was achievable during clinical experience


Tonya Tsneem, Teach Plus

  • Many teachers self-report that they were not adequately supported by their teacher preparation program
  • With edTPA, felt fully supported and prepared for the classroom


Dr. Beverly Sandy, Prairie View A&M

  • Did not testify


Dr. Gina Anderson, Texas Women’s University

  • Discusses Texas teacher shortage crisis; is an unprecedented number of superintendents resigning as well
  • Increasing cost and changing teacher preparation requirements will create unnecessary roadblocks for teachers
  • Do not aim to lower the bar, should increase program requirements
  • Could allow teachers to use edTPA or an alternative; is another PPR prepared to launch at the same time as edTPA
  • Oeser – Is another PPR already in existence, what exam? Is all grade levels in one exam?
    • NES which is a subsidiary of Pearson exam is being used in other states, not Texas
    • Is a pedagogy exam with constructive responses
    • Correct


Dr. Jim Van Overfelt, Texas State University & Ready Center

  • Commissioner and TEA have been stating that teachers need to be day-one ready
  • Found the most effective new teachers were the ones who completed an educator prep program that involved student teaching; which is 31% of new teachers
  • Least effective are interns and those who are unlicensed and untrained; 69% of new teachers
  • Voting “yes” on this item will ignore the 69%


Dr. Caviler, Association of Texas Professional Educators

  • Asking the board votes “no” on this item
  • Concerned with the increased cost; is $195 over the current cost
  • Concerned all programs teaching to the edTPA program would restrict flexibility and would be a “one-size fits all”
  • Propose the board sets criteria in curriculum and looking at alternatives to the PPR


Carey Griffith, Texas State Teachers Association

  • Oppose this item; speaks to the letter sent to SBEC opposing this item
  • Are 300 names, including associations, who signed this letter
    • Over 200,000 education professionals oppose the use of edTPA
  • Performance assessments should be a required component of the curriculum
  • MacDonald – Question inaudible
    • Opinion is that the proper placement for that activity is in preparation


Dr. Tim Miller, Charles E Butt Foundation

  • Current system of producing teachers has created gaps in student achievement, primarily affects students of colors and students in poverty
  • Recommends that board votes to not move forward with item 19 and waits to hear recommendations from regulatory committee, look at system as a whole
  • Emily Garcia – Do you anticipate changes in how programs who use intern certificates prepare interns for edTPA versus current approaches?
    • Miller – Recommendation was to involve pedagogy exam and have PPR at end of intern certification
    • PPR is not the best measure of proficiency
    • The intensive pre-service model in place requires 150 hours in a summer school program
    • Preparation programs could work with summer programs to provide the 150 hours and feedback u
    • Foundation wants to ensure that every teacher is best prepared to meet student needs





Amy Hickman, Texas Tech University, edTPA Pilot Coordination Team

  • Providing additional support and developmental experiences is a priority
  • Recommends that the board approves edTPA as certification exam
  • Impact on pilot programs is undeniably beneficial, has pushed communication and allowed collaboration
  • Stakeholders are a collaborative team seeking to improve teacher performance
  • Galvan – Texas Tech is listed as not supporting edTPA, confused how Hickman supports edTPA although university does not
    • Hickman – speaking on behalf of the Tech College of Education


Elizabeth Ward, Texas Wesleyan University

  • In other states that have implemented edTPA, various advice to not implement edTPA
  • edTPA added barriers for teachers entering the profession, educators should focus on acquiring necessary skills
  • After 4-8 years, these states recognized that edTPA has not worked as intended, assessment should be required component of curriculum, but not as a certifying exam
  • Peer reviewed study from 2021 showed that edTPA has adverse effects on student learning and supply of teachers, specifically non-white teachers
  • Other states are moving away from edTPA, so why is Texas moving towards it?


Anthony Hernandez, Executive Director of Urban Teachers

  • Challenges associated with edTPA have been worth it, educators have reviewed and improved their craft
  • edTPA can improve teachers by allowing them to reflect and consider needs of all students, prepares them for realities of teaching more than a multiple choice exam could
  • Skills learned through portfolio submission are beneficial through entire teaching career, provides practical tools to improve their teaching consistently
  • Recommends implementing edTPA


Leslie Cooper, Coordinator for Alternative Certification Programs at Region 20

  • Evidence from related coursework assessments and observation shows that edTPA strengthens lesson plan and classroom design
  • Teachers show evidence of key skills reflective of T-Tests and provides strong community
  • Year 3 of edTPA pilot, has shown increase in teacher growth
  • Even if the state does not implement edTPA, they will leave some changes in curriculum
  • Ongoing professional growth is shown by intern program, observations reflected increased effectiveness
  • Offering multiple certifications through edTPA would be efficient, reflects pedagogy and is in alignment with the goal of improving the quality of newly-certified teachers
  • Emily Garcia – Are program improvements a result of participation in edTPA pilot?
    • Cooper – Yes, sustainable changes have been made and intern group has been positively affected
  • Jean Streepy – When do candidates complete portfolio?
    • Cooper – Participate in boot camp within first summer of program, intense preparation summer prior to internship, continue to engage in coursework throughout internship
  • Streepy – Can you speak on the idea of an intensive pre-service training in the summer? Is this a viable option?
    • Cooper – We do have the opportunity to partner with Teach For America, could increase the need for additional program elements and increased partnership with school districts
    • Answer is not no, but additional staffing and structure requirements need to be considered
    • Would be beneficial
  • Chairman Kelly – Decision needs to be made today, proposes maximum of 15 more minutes of discussion before vote occurs
  • Streepy – Would it be possible to make the intensive pre-service requirement in the second or third year of requirements?
    • TEA Staff – Intern requirements are in various chapters of rules, staff can bring forward additional rule text to raise expectations for interns
    • Opportunity to revisit this at a later date and eventually raise expectations


Jessica McLoughlin, Director of Educator Standards, Testing and Preparation

  • Reviewing specific rule changes
  • edTPA would be an option as an assessment in addition to the PPR, for the demonstration of pedagogical knowledge and skills for the majority of initial educator certification categories
  • Clarification that EPPs would not be held accountable for candidate performance on the edTPA in the program’s ASEP rating
  • Future rulemaking would be required to implement edTPA in 229.4 as a component of an EPP’s ASEP rating
  • 3 year phased in timeline from 2022 to 2025
    • edTPA not required in 2022 school year, but would be an option
    • Would be required in 2023-2024 and 2024-2025
    • Pass/Fail system remains, complete portfolio is a pass
  • Rodriguez – Would 2022-2023 data be accounted to set standard?
    • TEA Staff – All data, including pilot and 2022-2023 year could be used to make data-informed decisions
  • Amendments to testing figure would implement edTPA to replace current exam
  • Rodriguez – Individuals who graduate and complete clinical teaching without all certification requirements, or who fail the test, Is it still possible for them to complete certification exams?
    • TEA Staff – Draws attention to another rule change that would specify a one-year expiration date for PPR
  • Based on feedback from pilot programs, provide flexibility to select edTPA that best aligns with their education
    • For CTE placement, Candidates can choose a specified portfolio or general portfolio
    • Broaden the number of edTPA exams for STR EC6 certificate, challenging for some teachers to align their material with the required portfolio
    • Now provides 8 aligned portfolios that candidates can select to align with their instructional material
  • Rodriguez – Would the fourth task ever be required for elementary candidates?
    • TEA Staff- Program can determine best portfolio for their candidate, but there is full flexibility in the rule for candidates to select appropriate portfolio
  • JROTC requirements are aligned with industrial education, proposed rule text includes separate PPR exam as the requirement for trade and industrial education
  • Updates to testing chart to ensure that candidate only needs to complete one edTPA exam for probationary or standard certification
    • Original chart would have required multiple portfolios for multiple certifications
    • Candidate can receive certification with one passing edTPA that coordinates with one category of their certificate
  • Final proposed rule change clarifies timeline and process to retire exams and use for certification purposes
    • Scores can be used for up to a year for issuance of certificate
    • Cost is $281 with rebates, wrapped into one assessment cost


SBEC Member Questions

  • Streepy – Did we change vocabulary to match with edTPA rules?
    • TEA Staff – Updated figure titles to align with edTPA, ensures clarity regarding pedagogy requirements being integrated
  • Streepy – Wants to leave door open for other certification alternatives to come through


Final Comments Before Vote

  • Oeser – shared commitment to raising the bar for certification exams and making additional requirements and support options
  • Superintendent Kim – Teacher shortages in current times are negative, students going through pandemic will need great teachers more than ever
    • Shortages occurring across all industries, good time to invest in the future
  • Gore – Concern is that modifications will improve some EPPs but not others
  • Lofters – Concern is turn between formative assessment and summative
  • Coleman – In agreement with Gore’s concerns
  • Courtney MacDonald – focus on what is best for our Texas students
  • Kelly – edTPA is the “Rolls Royce” of progress forward for teacher certification
    • Continues to press idea that we develop a less expensive alternative and is given an equal playing field
    • Best way to do that is to pass edTPA with provision that an alternative will be developed and implemented at same time
    • Directs staff to prep an alternative program with the same timeline as edTPA for the April meeting
  • Motion to amend chapter 19 TAC is approved; 3 board members opposed


Chairman Kelly, SBEC

  • Proposed second motion that alternative be developed with same timeline as edTPA and review progress in each succeeding meeting, find ways to devote budget to alternative
  • Board cannot take action today on alternatives to edTPA, but most board members nod in agreement


Item 20 – Request to Approve 2020-2021 Accountability System for Educator Preparation (ASEP) Accreditation Statuses

Mark Olofson, Director of Educator Data, Research, and Strategy

  • Opportunity to approve the proposed 2020-2021 Accountability System for Educator Preparation (ASEP) accreditation statuses for educator preparation programs (EPPs)
  • October 2021, SBEC adopted rule provisions to Chapter 229 related to accountability and declared state of disaster
  • November 2021, TEA sent notification to EPPs of recommendation to SBEC of “Not Rated: Declared State of Disaster”
  • Today’s action is approving these statuses
  • Superintendent Kim – What goes into EPP process for programs to produce documents?
    • Olofson – Education programs provide data to agency and applicants complete survey after receiving certification
  • Coleman moves to approve the 2020-2021 Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs accreditation statuses for EPPs
  • Gore seconds motion
  • Motion to approve accountability system carries unanimously


Item 21 – Request to Approve 2020-2021 Educator Preparation Program (EPP) Commendations

Mark Olofson, Director of Educator Data, Research, and Strategy

  • Provides the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) the opportunity to approve the proposed 2020-2021 commendations for educator preparation programs (EPPs)
  • February 2020 was first time these commendations were recorded
  • Four categories: rigorous and robust preparation, preparing the educators Texas needs, Preparing educators for long-term success, innovative educator preparation
  • EPPs can receive commendations in one or multiple categories
  • Reviews commendations in all four categories


Jessica McLoughlin, Director of Educator Standards, Testing and Preparation

  • SBEC EPP Commendations Committee includes Streepey, Galvan, Gore, and Rodriguez


Jean Streepey, SBEC Board Member, SBEC EPP Commendations Committee Chair

  • Reviewed applications and recommend commendations to the full Board
  • SBEC approves recommended commendations
  • Recommends commendation of Sam Houston State University and University of Texas San Antonio
  • Coleman moves to approve commendations as presented
  • Motion to approve commendation carries unanimously


Item 22 – Approval of Agreed Order for Lubbock Christian University Educator Preparation Program

Jessica McLoughlin, Director of Educator Standards, Testing and Preparation

  • Opportunity to approve an agreed order for Lubbock Christian University educator preparation program to continue to operate with conditions
  • Universities are reviewed on 5-year cycle
  • LCU was still out of compliance with rules, entered agreement in January 2022, including expectation that all identified deficiencies must be corrected by August 31, 2022
  • Any class that does not receive TEA approval will be revoked on August 31, 2022
  • LCU can still enroll candidates during this period but is expected to correct deficiencies within time period specified
  • Streepey moves to approve the agreed order for LCU as presented
    • Motion to approve carries unanimously


Disciplinary Cases

Item 23 – Pending or Contemplated Litigation, including Disciplinary Cases

  • SBEC heard various disciplinary cases for educators



Item 24 – Discussion of Effective Preparation Framework Development

Jessica McLoughlin, Director of Educator Standards, Testing and Preparation

  • Discuss the Board’s vision for educator preparation program (EPP) quality and an update on the process to develop an Effective Preparation Framework.
  • Work is underway with a variety of stakeholders to develop an effective preparation framework
  • Framework must have robust and systematic stakeholder engagement process
  • Goal is finalized document by end of year


Alma D. Rodriguez, SBEC Board Member

  • Requests TEA Staff clarifies distinction between regional EPP feedback and commendation feedback
    • TEA Staff – Framework would get feedback from commended programs for their expertise
  • Will we see anything in April or July? Listed as discussion item for July but we will likely not have first draft
    • TEA Staff – Feedback requested by next meeting, TEA can provide update in April
  • Improvements to EPP process are crucial


Dr. Galvan, SBEC Board Member

  • Regarding chart, will this align site visit with different framework aligned to Board’s changes?
    • TEA Staff – shift to continuously improving quality components
    • In leveraging preparatory components, utilize resources to update curriculum in alignment with changes


Alma D. Rodriguez, SBEC Board Member

  • Is this framework intended to become framework for the 5-year review of education programs? Will these be the expectations to allow an EPP to operate for another 5 years?
    • TEA Staff – Review looks for implementation of new rules, opportunity to continually revamp review process
    • Board can give directives to update continual review process
    • Committee drafted new language to consider, involved representative committee of professional organizations for input and feedback


Emily Garcia, SBEC Board Member

  • Updates requested at every board meeting going forward
    • Rodriguez agrees that continuous improvement of education preparation requires updates to board about how process is evolving


Item 25 – Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 230, Professional Educator Preparation and Certification, Subchapter E, Educational Aide Certificate §230.55 Certification Requirements for Educational Aide I

TEA Staff

  • Proposed amendments would update requirements for issuance of the Educational Aide I certificate to high school students who qualify for industry-based certification.
  • Opportunity for high school students to get ahead in career readiness
  • In April, updating TEKS rule chapter references seen by SBOE and adding to list of courses students can complete to qualify for industry-based certification
  • Kelly – Board loves to see high school students begin their career prep this way
    • Meeting adjourned