Print đź–¨

The State Board of Educator Certification met on February 21, 2020 to take up various agenda items that proposed revisions or set rules for adoption for 19 TAC Chapter 230, regarding certification, 19 TAC Chapter 239, student services certificates, 19 TAC Chapter 232, general certification provisions, and educator preparation program accountability and commendations. There was discussion on 19 TAC Chapter 249, regarding good cause for contract abandonment, 19 TAC Chapter 228, requirements for educator preparation programs, 19 TAC Chapter 235, classroom teacher certification standards, 19 TAC Chapter 231, requirements for public school personnel, and discussion on the edTPA pilot. The full agenda can be found here: https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/leadership/state-board-educator-certification/sbec-meetings/sbec-2020/sbec-2020-february

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing 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.

Public Comment-Unrelated to Agenda Items

Scott Fikes, ECAP

  • Increased regulation on teachers is driving people away from the profession
  • Last years testing: 21,000 drop in first time testers from the year before
  • To address this issue, another test was put in place called the TX PACT in front of the TX test
  • First time testers- failure rate is 18% among white, 34% among Hispanic, 48% among African Americans
  • Multiple testing indicates minorities have higher improvement than whites
  • 2 time test rule: it goes against accreditation if you sign off for someone to take it a second time and then fail
  • Have to pass PPR within one year to keep job, lost 4,000 last year who didn’t take PPR

Item 5: Consider and take appropriate action on adoption of proposed amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 230, Professional Educator Preparation and Certification, Subchapter C, Assessment of Educators, Subchapter D, Types and Classes of Certificates, Subchapter E, Educational Aide Certificate, and Subchapter G, Certificate Issuance Procedures

Ms. McLoughlin, TEA

  • Adoption item proposed in Dec. meeting, went out for public comment, and is now looking for adoption
  • Key Changes:
    • Reduction in time between exam retakes from 45 to 30 days. Would allow candidates an extra window during the summer to ensure they met certificate requirements
    • Allow Aide I credential for those 18 and over after completing courses, response to stakeholder feedback to help students be career ready for accountability measures
    • Reflected in testing figure, certificate exam adjustments to implement legislation from 85th and 86th legislature
    • Small proposed changes in language for certificates for Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments and Physical education EC-12
    • TEA recommendation to create new certificate names for certificates impacted by HB 3 that signals completion of Science of Teaching Reading exam (Ex: EC Core subjects with Science of Teaching Reading)- Will bring certificate name proposal in May meeting
    • Impact on programs- EPPs won’t have to reapply to offer new certificates but will continue to be required to update curriculum with the Science of Teaching Reading Standards

Item 5, Public Testimony

Scott Fikes, ECAP

  • Up until last month, for initial cert., you had to pass TExES Exam:
    • Governs certification
    • Limited to 4 retakes
    • Used as route to enter into an EPP
  • TExES was listed as Content Certification exam
  • TExES PACT introduced last month
    • Can be used for admission into a program
    • It is now called Content Certification exam
    • It does not govern certification or have 4 retake option
  • Content Pedagogy governs cert, limited to 4 retakes, but cannot be used as admission into an EPP
  • On handout given: Tests required for cert.- missing name “Content Certification Exam”
  • Why did we complicate what was simple before January?

Ms. McLoughlin, TEA

  • Response to comment from Scott Fikes:
    • TExES PACT exams are not certification exams, they are a service proved to EPP as a tool for entry into an EPP
    • TExES exams are content pedagogy exams which align with standards in rule
  • Public comment on Ch. 230
    • Strong stakeholder support for Education Aide credential and reduction in time for exams
    • Stakeholder opposition to amendment for assessments added for EC-3 cert
    • We have noted that we have continued to offer EC-6 cert to offer flexibility
  • Bricker- Restate what you said about PACT, used diagnostically?
    • Franklin- New PACT, optional admission only test for those with lower GPA or less content hours. Cert exam previously done before admission rather than it being at the end of the process, new assessment is admission only test, rather than summative
  • Amended motion passed

Item 6: Consider and take appropriate action on adoption of Review of 19 TAC Chapter 239, Student Services Certificates

Ms. Cook, TEA

  • Asks for support in closing out 4-year rule review for Ch. 239- student services chapter
  • Clarifications: Everyone of your rules goes through 4-year rule review, gives public opportunity to comment
  • Reviewed public comment received

Item 6, Public Testimony

Andrea Chevalier, ATPE

  • Urge you to consider using authority to remedy situation for master teachers, as their certs were repealed by HB 3
  • Master certificates say “legacy” and are no longer renewable
  • Certificates that expire lead master teachers to have to take a different cert exam or to transition roles
  • Option is to create new class of certificates called “Advanced Teacher Certificates”
  • There are 5,000 Master Teachers across state that could be transitioned into Advanced Teacher Certificates in order to maintain their teaching assignment
  • Rodriguez- Your concern is that having a new name like the “Legacy Certificate” would kick them out of a position. That teacher would still have the same skills and ability to remain in their position. If the name of the certificate changes, would they lose their position?
    • Their legacy certificate will still expire at the end of 5-year term from when it was renewed. Once expired, it will no longer be valid. We now have teacher allotments which includes the designation “master.” To avoid confusion with wording, they got rid of Master Teacher certs, so we are proposing they use a different word so they can maintain their teaching assignments
  • Rodriguez- The name on the certificate is not an issue of semantics?
  • Franklin- The Master Reading Teacher certification is EC-12. When the Master/Legacy teacher certificate expires, you can only teach that which your other certificate covers (EC-4, 6-8, etc.) Statute says that the board may not renew the Master Teacher certificate

Ms. Cook, TEA

  • If it is your desire for us to continue the conversation, we can come back and talk more about this at the May meeting. The action I want you to take is to consider adopting the 4-year rule at this meeting
  • Kelly- The intention of the legislature was for the certificate to expire and not renew but Ms. Chevalier’s concern was regarding semantics. So maybe we could come back and explore in May. I hate to take away a certificate from anyone that has earned it
  • Franklin- We just received a letter of legislative intent regarding this, we just haven’t had time to absorb it. We will discuss more at May meeting
  • Bricker- Is there anything in rule regarding school services certificates that is for school social workers?
    • No. There is a way for those individuals to serve in school under Ch. 231 but not Ch.239
  • Bricker- Ok, I would like to explore that further at another time
  • Motion approved

Item 7: Consider and take appropriate action on proposed revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 232, General Certification Provisions

TEA

  • Proposal of Ch. 232 is divided into 2 subchapters
    • Subchapter A- requirements for educator certificate renewal, continuing education requirements, and requirements to become a CPE provider
    • Subchapter B-deals with National criminal history review
  • Ch. 232-Subchapter A
    • Gives complete overhaul, implements legislation as a result of 86th session
    • Most of the requirements for CPE remained the same, just changed to help better serve educators
    • Referring to handout: HB 18 and SB 11 provisions regarding mental health and substance abuse training, educators and counselors must have 25% of hours in listed topics
    • Referring to Handout: HB 403 superintendent CPE requirements regarding sexual abuse and human trafficking of students
    • Referring to Handout: HB 2424 micro credentialing certification program- still waiting on further guidance of what this will entail
    • SB 11- prohibits use of student loan default for not allowing someone to renew their certificate
    • HB 37- student loan default, strike out of rule requirements related to denial of renewal for student loan default
  • Ch. 232- Subchapter B
    • Process and technology change
    • SB 9 implemented fingerprinting as required
    • 2008-2012, process to ensure every school had fingerprinted employees (certified and non-certified)
    • Technology updates, we changed our system to match the vendor from DPS, FBI
    • 4 key changes in rule:
    • Added definition of pre-enrollment- fingerprinting vendor provides identifier to person to ensure confidentiality
    • Technology update- no longer sending fast passes to employees or spreadsheets to school districts. Will use secure screen and allows ease of access by district
    • Clarifies vendor will capture info. from school district needed
    • Striking parts in the rule that give districts particularly timeline to notify employees who need fingerprints- most certified teachers are fingerprinted at time of application.; needs to be before hire
    • Change in process, previously authorization form was sent that allowed for consent of use of fingerprints. Used to be sent by agency and now sent by vendor
  • Coleman- are we still using ink for fingerprints?
    • It’s primarily digital
  • Coleman- What happened to previous fingerprints?
    • They are maintained by DPS

Julie Lehi, Texas Classroom Teachers Association (TCTA)

  • TCTA was among stakeholders that gave input on proposed revisions
  • Expressed gratitude for maintaining provisions that emphasized importance of continuing professional education and to have more time to complete those

Discussion

  • Kelly- Result of last session was a lot of new training requirements. I am hoping there will be flexibility in how to meet those training requirements. It seems like there has been a bottle neck in how and where to get it. The more we add on, the more flexible we need to be how it’s offered
  • Cavazos- I agree
    • TEA- We know the educators are out in the field, in the trenches. We do not restrict or promote providers. We have provided flexibility in the rules of how educators can comply with requirements and then there are monthly audits
  • Franklin- This board has flexibility and the legislature doesn’t always assign those requirements
  • Oeser- Reading academy requirements are hitting us hard, so we will take that feedback back to those that are overseeing that
  • Brooks-Sykes-I am so happy to see increased mental health training coming to staff and the clarity in rule for Texas Comprehensive Model for school counseling, will help them have solid foundation for trainings
  • Motion approved

Item 14- Discussion of proposed amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 249, Decision-Making Guidelines

TEA

  • Good Cause for Contract Abandonment- hear stakeholder feedback, no proposals today
  • Stakeholders- asked what they thought of having definitions and mitigating factors for contract abandonment. This is a new rule that came into effect in 2017
  • Stakeholders unanimously agreed it was useful to have a definition
  • Added reference to mitigating factor instead of just good cause over a claim- broad mitigating factors that apply to every SBEC case apply here
  • To add to definition of good cause, stakeholders felt it was important to recognize career changes, not just promotions (counselor to librarian, not just principal to superintendent). It reflected what was commonly local policy in most districts
  • Next discussion did not have unanimous support- talked about adding to good cause, an educator’s reasonable reliance of the written acceptance of an educator’s resignation by someone in authority. Teacher associations on one side and administrator groups on other side
    • Teacher associations in favor of change if “apparent authority” language was included. Law is currently TEC 21.160 “teacher employed under contract may resign under approval of board of trustees or board’s designee”
    • Administrators were opposed to adding “apparent authority.” This provision has been interpreted by Commissioner in Ch. 21 appeal cases to say there is no apparent authority- that has been held repeatedly. If we create separate meaning, it could cause confusion. No agreement between sides

Item 14, Public Testimony

Julie Lehi, TCTA

  • Regarding rules related to contract abandonment, propose amendment to include language “apparent authority.” I would urge the reason behind why language was initially brought up to you. The TEA was looking at several cases of contract abandonment where an educator had some type of communication with the district regarding resignation and believed their resignation had been received.

Carrie Griffith, TSTA

  • Speaking against proposed amendments for good cause in contract abandonment
  • TSTA believes contract abandonment with good cause should explicitly state that resignation can be submitted to someone with apparent authority
  • Experience as a teacher in AISD, it is completely understandable how a teacher could think their principal would be the person to submit their resignation to. Especially true in large urban districts
  • We are setting educators up for unfair sanctions

Dr. Crystal Dockery, TACS

  • Represents 600 school districts in TX, 900 eligible members
  • Former superintendent
  • We have problems with “apparent authority”
  • The principal’s role is to recommend hiring teachers and accepting resignations, but they don’t have the authority to do that. Thus, we have school board policy
  • School districts should have local control in school board matters
  • Our obligation as an administrative organization is that we will continue to educate superintendents and principals on procedures related to this process

Dr. Casey McCreary, TASA

  • TASA is in full support of the recommendations the agency is making for this item
  • We support what allows educators change to a new class of certification to be good cause for contract abandonment
  • Contract abandonment without good cause should be rare because of the negative effect on our students, it’s difficult to find teachers after the school year has already begun
  • You either have authority or you don’t, there is no binding legal authority on “apparent authority”

Mark Terry, TEPSA

  • We recommend language as presented, omitting “apparent authority”
  • I am a former principal and it was always obvious the school board was the authority

Dr. Lolly Guerra, TASPA

  • TASPA supports item 14 as stated in board book
  • Supports TEA staff decision to omit language that would create further uncertainty about who has authority to terminate contracts with good cause
  • In favor of allowing all employees to progress through careers by adding additional certifications
  • Accept amendments without changes

Rolinda Schmidt, TASB

  • TASB agrees with TEA staff recommendations regarding good cause for contract abandonment, TASB agrees with addition of subsection to allow teachers to change positions as a good reason for contract abandonment

Patti Quinzi, American Federation of Teachers Texas Chapter

  • We want “apparent authority” language included as amendment
  • Agrees with Ms. Lehi, when someone is acting in good faith, they shouldn’t be penalized

Item 14 up for discussion with members

  • Coleman- Encourage board to consider who ultimate authority is vested in. I am for local control but would respectfully caution board to consider extent to which they will want to limit their authority in matters like this going forward
  • Kelly- Vast majority of school districts want to help a teacher when they move onto somewhere else. It is important that authority remains with local level, school board. I am not as concerned about SBEC having broad authority, but more the local school board having broad authority. Because of 2-3 districts that may have not handled it well, we could be making a rule, that includes all school districts. We are only reluctant to not allow resignations because kids come first, and that is the only time it moves up to SBEC. Usually we say you can leave, pending a suitable replacement. I don’t favor “apparent authority” or what has been written as “change in classification.” It muddies the water, kids come first, the need in the classroom comes first before other things. I want to see that authority stay at local level and not move up to SBEC
  • Bricker- Referring to handout: “ a person assists another person with finding employment at another school district, charter, or private school.” What authority do we have over a private school, I don’t remember ever seeing that before
    • That is a statutory change coming out of last legislative session. It is in regard to disciplining someone that assists someone in getting employment at a private school. It is part of bill that was passed last legislative session
  • Bricker- So will we be getting cases from private schools?
    • Yes, private schools are required to report changes in certified staff to SBEC
  • Bricker- Change to a position that requires a new class of educator certification, does this include going to another district or is it just within the district?
    • It would include going to another district that would be excused under this
  • Bricker- I agree with Dr. Kelly, that districts should always nurture teachers to move up the ladder. I am concerned that there is muddied water about whether it is mitigating matters or contract abandonment. How can we make sure that people in authority are aware of this and teachers know how to communicate this?
    • Putting it in rule is the main tool you have for communicating this to the field
  • Lofters- Is there any training that districts have to provide to teachers regarding the process for who can hire you and who you turn your resignation letters into? Maybe that could be required to be a clear process
    • Franklin- I am not sure about any state policy for that
    • Cavazos- Annually, teachers get handbooks with information regarding this. Human resources typically does onboarding and manages resignations. I think when we offer clarity, we sometimes offer ambiguity and vagueness. If something comes to SBEC, we have the authority to further investigate to see what factors led to contract abandonment. “Apparent authority” can mean different things in different circumstances. In local board policy, it is clear who has the authority. Although we provided clarity in 2016, I can count on two hands the amount of cases that have come to SBEC. I think the change in classification/upward trajectory listed under “contract abandonment” should give us all cause for concern. They signed a contract and are leaving their responsibility; we are here to serve the kids first. When people get promotions, 9/10 times, districts let them go, but it is pending suitable replacement. We are moving in a direction where we have more issues than we can solve, anytime there are mitigating factors, teachers can come and look at it here. “Apparent authority” will create more confusion than it can solve, and upward trajectory gives a green light for them to abandon contract, we need to leave districts the authority to make decisions pending suitable replacement
  • Rodriguez- I agree, students come first, but close behind students, come teachers. We can appreciate a school board that protects teachers by allowing them to move vertically and horizontally. We are so sought after as teachers, no one expects a teacher to just walk away and leave a district/classroom abandoned without a teacher. To come to this meeting, I have to ask for permission, the issue of perception for who has authority over me, would be the principal. When I sign a school district contract, I also know that my school district has authority. Policy at state and national level should be somewhat vague and general so there isn’t as much confusion.
  • TEA- Is there anyone on the board that supports the promotion/career change idea?
    • Ms. Brooks-Sykes is in favor

Item 7- Consider and take appropriate action on request to approve 2018-2019 accountability system for EPP accreditation statuses

Ms. Pogue, TEA

  • What programs are held accountable for:
    • Certification exams: Content and PPR
    • Principal Appraisal (survey)- For 2018-2019 statuses, this will be a report year only
    • Student Improvement Indicator- Under development
    • Field Supervision:
    • How often a candidate gets support (number of observations required)
    • Quality component (after program, before certification, candidate indicates how well they felt they were prepared by EPP)
    • Satisfaction of newly certified teachers- After being on a standard cert. for a year, teachers will be surveyed to reflect on how well they were prepared (report year only)
  • Specified statuses codified in rules determining which status each program falls under
    • Accredited, accredited warned, probation, revoked
    • SBEC received handout showing each program’s status
    • If programs fail consecutively for 3 years, their program will move to revoked status

Public Testimony

Scott Fikes, ECAP

  • Reiterated first time pass rates and overall test pass rates dropped starting in 2017. Restated same points he made earlier

Ms. Pogue, TEA

  • Clarification on comment from Mr. Fikes: There is a difference between all test takers and tests approved by an EPP. Accountability system as approved by SBEC has a narrower number of tests captured
  • Motion approved for ASEP statutes

Item 9- Consider and take appropriate action on request to approve 2018-2019 EPP commendations

Dr. Olofson, TEA

  • Commendations based on ASEP data and other factors identified as important by SBEC
  • 4 big categories of commendations
    • rigorous and robust preparation category
    • preparing TX educators needs
    • Preparing educators for long term success
    • Programs engaging in innovative preparation practices
  • Reviewed EPP pass rates broken down into different categories, including those that went into administrative roles post-principal EPP, and programs that produced high teacher retention
  • Coleman- What was the motivation behind the commendations?
    • SBEC wanted us to highlight strong programs, specifically Ms. Bricker
  • Motion approved

Item 10- Consider and take appropriate action on establishing a board committee to review and recommend EPP for SBEC commendations

Dr. Olofson, TEA

  • Subcommittee of board could review materials submitted and bring a recommendation to the board for commendations specifically on the 4th category
  • Several members interested in being on committee

Item 11- Consider and take appropriate action on agreed order to close Intern Teacher ACP Alternative Certification Program

Dr. Jones, TEA

  • Program had compliance plan due from earlier board order
  • In Nov. program indicated they wanted to voluntarily close, owner decided to retire. They waived onsite review
  • We have been working with program to help candidates know options
  • Lofters- Can you talk about how this program came out at the top of some of the commendations, but was recommended for closing?
    • The flip side of the ASEP commendations is the compliance side. They had board orders from 2017 that had not been rectified
  • Motion approved

Item 12- Revisions to the board operating policies and procedures

Ms. Pogue, TEA

  • Item 12 brought by recommendation and request from SBEC- to formalize the role of non-voting members of the board
  • Non-voting member roles
    • Commissioner of Education designee, Commissioner of Higher Ed of the Coordinating Board, Dean of a College of education, rep from alternative certification program
  • Each of the non-voting member roles could pose a conflict of interest if they were voting
  • Drafted a formalization of current informal policy
    • Can’t make or second motions or serve as SBEC officers
  • Kelly- Would HB 2840 pertain to our operating procedures as it does to school districts?
    • You would not be impacted by it
  • Bricker- I hope that even with this being formalized, that non-voting members of the board will continue to speak up and contribute to discussions
  • Motion approved

Item 13- Disciplinary Cases

Item 15- Discussion of proposed revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 228, requirements for EPP’s

Dr. Jones, TEA

  • Ch. 228 houses all requirements for EPP’s. Highlighted areas for you to review from previous meetings
  • For programs that have expressed they are going to close or consolidate. We did preemptive language in rule text to help EPP’s in this situation
    • EPP shall not admit/recommend candidates for certificate or renewal within one year of Aug. 31st cutoff date
  • Implementation of HB 18, change in the rule- dealing with mental health/substance abuse training- can get training from institute of higher education and not just a list
  • Practicum may not take place exclusively in a summer
  • Situations where candidates don’t test while they are still in the program. They come back and want to test several years later. In the time they were gone, standards likely changed. Current rule doesn’t allow programs to say they need to do additional things to be test ready
    • Change provides for an EPP to provide additional course work and training if test/standards have changed or if it has been 5 years since they completed the program
  • No questions, will bring back as a proposal

Item 16, discussion of proposed revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 235, classroom teacher certification standards

Ms. Burkhart, TEA

  • Revisions to item
    • Specify standards for specialized special educator certification and bilingual supplemental certifications (English/Spanish)
    • Technical changes to Science of Teaching reading standards
    • Provide implementation updates and reorganize current provisions to improve readability
  • Briefly reviewed revisions

Steven Aleman, Disability Rights of Texas

  • TX received federal monitoring a few years ago in SPED and were found to be in noncompliance with various areas of SPED law. With the new standards, we want to make sure we are meeting all requirements and in full compliance
  • State was notified that we are not always correctly identifying students with dyslexia as eligible for SPED. This was listed nowhere in the standards
  • We have a state policy for restraints, but the standards don’t talk about restraint, only behavior management
  • Rodriguez- I am not trained to restrain students but had to think twice about this the other day. The comments of Mr. Aleman are very pertinent to our discussion moving forward. Any teacher needs to be able to step in and administer help without injury to our students

Item 17- Discussion of edTPA Pilot and Test Development Updates

Ms. Burkhart, TEA

  • Update on edTPA pilot- have had 2 programs submit portfolios (Region 4 and UT Tyler) thus far
  • Going into year 2- we sent approval notices to 35 programs that will participate in the 2nd year of the program, 16 alt certs and 19 traditional programs
  • 3 regional coordinators identified
  • Franklin- I did say we would have a side by side to compare edTPA and Sam Houston and we don’t have that today. I will have it at the May meeting
  • Cavazos- When we first started process, we did an all call for a parallel program with submission. Should we have a date for when any parallel program should be considered?
    • Franklin- Yes, I think that makes sense. If we can have any comparison due to us by April 1st, we can make sure we get that to the board to ensure 2nd year timeline runs parallel
  • Science of Teaching Reading will be required for all candidates teaching EC-6 as of 1/1/21 as mandated by HB 3. We are refining communication plan both to candidates and programs to ensure timeline is known

Dr. Christina Ellis, Sam Houston State University

  • We anticipate collecting data on about 775 students this year in regard to T-TESS and have a small subset submitting portfolios

Item 18- Discussion of proposed revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 231, requirements for public school personnel assignments

Ms. Cook, TEA

  • Changes to rule text- primarily to change Master Teacher Certificate name to Legacy Teacher Certificate
  • Additional improvements to requirements for languages other than English 6-8
  • Languages other than English in 9-12 and ASL- improvements we want to incorporate into your rules to align with SBOE
  • Adding in African American Studies course