Print 🖨

The SBEC met on July 21 to take up a number of items. The Committee issued default judgement in a number of disciplinary and then considered some rule changes including to the EPP accountability system, which was significantly discussed. A copy of the agenda is available here. A video archive is available 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 and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

Items 4-10 Taken up without discussion

Item 11: Pending or Contemplated Litigation, including Disciplinary Cases

Item 12: Consideration of Petition for Adoption of Rule Change Concerning 19 TAC Chapter 228, Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs, §228.35. Preparation Program Coursework and/or Training

TEA Staff

  • Staff is recommending that we deny the petition because it already exists in your rules
  • Gore- I think there may be appoint in the future where we may want to revisit this, but I don’t think that this is something we need to address at this point
  • Streepey- I agree
  • Muri- What is being requested is already in the rules?
    • Correct
  • Streepey- I know the first part is. But online as opposed to face to face is not in the rules so far?
    • The current rules require that assignments must be in a face to face setting and cannot be virtual
    • There are half day options for clinical teaching, but the virtual piece is not allowed
  • Gelsinger- I do think that virtual clinics is something that will consider in the future
  • Galvan- I think TEA did an outstanding job during covid, giving flexibility with virtual. Its important that we can always do this in an emergency
  • Galvan- it is important to me that it be face to face
    • Would it be helpful for staff to do a landscape analysis at where virtual education is working?
  • Muri- Some recommendations were made to the legislature? Maybe we should wait to see what they decide in September
  • Gore- I agree that time is not of the essence. I could see a time in the future where we may come to the point where we believe it should be explored
    • Muri, are you saying you want us to wait until after session?
  • Muri- Yes
  • Streepey- I agree with that. Perhaps we want to do it down a residency certificate
  • Gelsinger- Is there data that could be collected on students who went through virtual during COVID? We don’t actually know how a fully virtual setting is impacting outcomes yet
  • Gore- Motion to deny the petition

Motion Carries

 

Item 13: Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 229, Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs

TEA Staff

  • We are looking to amend chapter 229
  • Changes since item discussed in April: Removal of reference updates to Chapter 228
  • Relevant updates will be made in 2024
  • We will wait for board to finish discussion on approval review fees before changing that
  • SBEC has high standards for EPPs but they are below 100% we allow for flexibility
  • For small programs those standards can effectively be 100%
  • If a prep program doesn’t pass with 95%, if only one candidate doesn’t pass the program passes anyway
  • What would the impact be?
  • If this rule had been in place, 18 programs would have had its rating changed
  • This policy would have changed the accreditation status for 5 EPPs
  • The rule is narrowly designed to address these specific programs
  • Small Group adjustment: when there are three years of data and you miss by one candidate in a small group, you will not fail
  • Had this rule been in place in 2018-19
  • 11 groups would have been evaluated under provision
  • None of those programs missed one candidate
  • This provision would have affected none
  • Determination of accreditation statuses
  • If an EPP does not have enough data to be evaluated the status remains the same
  • There is risk that program could have probation status and hold that status for 3 years until it was revoked
  • This would not have impacted any programs had the rule been in place
  • There is no minimum number of candidates for EPP’s to have
  • The rule change allows us to use continued evidence instead of the absence of evidence for revocation
  • EPP accountability system: existing language says compliance evidence must be provided within timelines established by staff
  • Now it says 4 months for transparency
  • Did some manual and technical cleanup
  • Updates to teacher survey: now called Evaluation of EPPs by Teachers
  • Response rate increased to over 50%
  • Instating principal survey as well
  • Gore- How is the data from the principal survey tagged? What if some principals give harsher analyses than others?
    • We have about 8 years of data there, we are able to associate principals with survey records. We can attach district and school information and bring all those pieces together
  • Rodriguez- I appreciate the change of name. I would like to see the name as evaluation of EPP’s of first year teachers. I think it is a better representation of who this is
    • We have beginning teachers and first-year teachers defined. I want to make sure that we are aligned with the definition. This might be something we want to tackle once we have that updated
  • Rodriguez- I think teachers is very broad and I’d like to see it more narrow
  • Rodriguez- Also, the language indicates that all first-year teachers who finished an EPP in the 5 years prior. Who are we serving?
    • We do use a five year cut-off. The language that you see underlined matches the language in the principal survey. To address your prior question: we define a first-year teacher as a teacher in the first year in the classroom and a new teacher as a teacher in their first year under a standard certificate. So we do have separate definitions for those
  • Galvan- I think we should reflect on the intern. If they have a probationary certificate, is that a first year teacher? How do we factor in interns on their second year on a certificate?
  • Galvan- Is the four months approval from the time they submit or from the time of review?
  • Galvan- Thank you for the dashboard training. On the consumer map, can we make sure it is updated? I think it is outstanding
    • We will work on getting that map updated
    • Related to the 4 months, it is four months from when they are directed to come into compliance
    • This isn’t a gotcha, it provides direct guidance on the timeline
    • To your first question, the way we do this with the principal survey is a candidate only gets surveyed once. If you work as an intern, you will not be surveyed again
  • Streepey- Can you clarify that for me? Will the interns get a survey at some point?
    • The principal will receive a survey in the first year of the intern
    • We wouldn’t ask the teacher until their standard certificate
    • The update is to make sure that the principal survey and teacher survey happen in the same year
  • Rodriguez- I have questions about indicator 1a. Do we take both pedagogy tests into account? When other chapters our updated PASO will move to 1a, I still see here that it remains content pedagogy.
    • Given the timeline we wanted to make sure that we weren’t changing this mid year. We did that just for timelines
    • Currently, we do not accept the pilot pedagogy tests, but we need to remove the pilot name. The target affective date is 9/1/2024
  • Rodriguez- could we potentially end up with programs with smaller numbers of PPR test-takers? If a certain number of test-takers did bad, they could be in a bad position
    • A program did have this come up for them. We worked with the program to help them understand how this works to find the best way forward
    • We do provide data that shows the PPR pass rate, and we provide the programs the opportunity to monitor that pass rate
    • When the board made the decision to move to the index system, they introduced flexibility to this system. Under the legacy system, you were automatically warned if you missed one standard

Public Testimony

Dr. Michael Brezinga—One UTSA Circle

  • Do not apply negative values to NDCs that are below standards for 2 consecutive years
  • Programs do not have time to respond before negative weights come into effect
  • If a program meets a standard they get 12 points, if they are below, they get 0 points, if they are below for 2 years, the get -12 points
  • The problems present in cohort one’s survey will be there in cohort 2’s survey
  • The program will not have time to change in response to the data it gets
  • Staff- are there other ways for programs to know how they are doing other than the survey data?
    • I don’t know how to do that
  • Staff- You don’t think there are indicators in the current program?
    • I think they continually look at the data available. The data we are held accountable for is not available to us
    • If our new teacher results are bad last year, and this year they are good something is wrong with the survey
  • Staff- I think it is very similar to other types of lagging data, used in the accountability system
    • Do other systems double down on the penalty for those?
  • Muri- One of our lagging indicators is CCMR. We have developed a way of viewing progress over time. I would anticipate that there is something that could be put in place to help the program understand how teachers are feeling
  • I thought her question was do they give you credit for a minus amount
  • Muri- We don’t have negative indicators, but we do have negative consequences
  • My concern is that the minus score doubles down on negative impacts
  • Rodriguez- Why do we have a negative score assigned?
    • Staff- In the legacy system, there was already language that if a program missed demographic groups it had a larger negative affect
    • Staff- this is not new
    • Staff- We tightened the negative impact, so you had to negatively impact the same demographic group in the same year
    • Staff- This is not something we can evaluate because this has only been in play for one year
    • Staff- also this is two years with qualifying sample data, so it may not be 2 consecutive years
  • Gelsinger- How often was this a problem in the previous system? I hear that the curricular revision process is long. I think people don’t understand how long that can take
  • Rodriguez- I couldn’t agree more. I think it is worth us thinking about how we want programs to use the data available to them
  • Staff- I was thinking about the lagging indicator issue, I am unfamiliar with programs only using ASEP
  • Rodriguez- we use multiple sources of evidence and I hope that most programs use multiple sources
  • Galvan- I agree that we need to take the temperature as we go along the way
  • Staff- We did take a look at this year evaluated under legacy vs now. Under the new system 74% of programs were accredited, under the old system that would have been 47%
  • Rodriguez- let’s assume this case happens. This program could fail and still remain accredited
    • Staff- yes, that is what is nice about the survey. The teacher survey is weighted at a 2 out of four which is less than other indicators
  • I calculated what it would mean for UTSA to do poorly on the survey. We would go from accredited to accredited probation
  • Staff- didn’t you fail on other indicators as well?
  • Rodriguez- That to me is a significant impact. It is concerning to me
    • Staff- TEA does not forbid a program from reaching out to their graduates. We know that that is a common practice. PPE programs can understand through that system as well
    • Staff- the reason it is weighted at 2 instead of 4 is to evaluate some of your concerns
    • Staff- There is no question that the survey specifically evaluates the PPE program
  • Galvan- It is possible for an individual to earn a certificate and wait to begin being a teacher. Should we put a time limit? You could allow negative experiences to reflect poorly on the program
  • Streepey- I would like to hear further discussions on this issue. I would like staff to look into this

Elizabeth Ward—Texas Coalition for Educator Preparation

  • TCEP supports the recommendations made by Dr. Brezinga
  • There are realistic scenarios on how a program could be negatively impacted
  • An intern who serves 5 months and one day is only halfway through their program, would be required to evaluate a program they haven’t completed
  • Streepey- I would hope that I do enough formative assessments to know if a child is going to struggle before it happens. I think that’s one piece of it
  • Streepey- I think the other piece is that we have given some flexibility in the system. Yet, it seems like the ed prep programs on our board are struggling
  • Muri- What is the purpose of the negative instead of a 0?
    • Staff- if a prep program gets a 0, they can still be accredited. If they get a 0 again, they don’t have to change their performance
    • Staff- This forces programs to improve rather than complacency
    • Staff- by removing the negative impact, there will be no repercussions
  • Muri- Logically that makes sense. What do we do to account for performance? Does the TEA provide technical assistance
    • Staff- there are a number of strategies we use. We try to connect programs. There are plenty of ways for people to learn how to address this
    • Staff- some work with outside tech assistance providers
  • Rodriguez- Agree that we want continuous improvement. What is particular about this instance is that the people who respond will have left before improvements could be made
    • Staff- I think this is interesting because of the purpose of the accountability system. I think that two years in a row should indicate a problem. Should we give programs a little more time so that they should have time to fix this?
  • Streepey- Could we do a 0, 0, and then negative one?
  • Gore- Maybe we could affect the way the data is reported. Could we give a grace period on negative reports being public so that the program can learn before it becomes public knowledge
    • Staff- we are required to publicly report the results of the system. That is by statute
    • Staff- if we delay the implementation of ASEP could exacerbate issues. I think we should approve this now and make changes later.
  • Rodriguez- I think it is important to adopt the continuous improvement mindset. Could this be one indicator that we want to see what happens when there is data, just to evaluate if it is working?
    • Staff- Are you talking about the teacher survey or the negative weighting?
  • Rodriguez- I am looking to how we could adjust one or the other to have data?
    • Staff- This is the first year, so this would give the board full data. We did try to look back at the old system. It would have only changed the results for about one or two programs. Typically when a EPP fails, it fails a lot of indicators
  • Gelsinger- If you receive a significant number of comments on this, will staff change it?
    • Staff- once we propose it to you, we cannot make substantive changes
  • Muri- This falls into a flag category that we should monitor. I don’t think this is a time to change because our system is flexible
  • Gelsinger- lets say this does occur, do we have the authority to change accreditation status based on a revision of indicators?
    • Staff- I think that would be retroactive application. I think that it would be very legally difficult
    • Staff- to be shut down, a program must be on probation status for 3 years
    • Staff- year 1, they get a warning. I do think that there is a consumer transparency piece as well
    • Staff- warned and probation are now zones of the score. A program could go directly to probation under the old system and now
    • Staff- if a program failed the teacher survey 2 years in a row, they would lose 2 points
  • Staff- large programs have over 100 points, so 2 points would not be a significant effect
  • Staff- There were 173 points possible at UTSA
  • Galvan- I’m trying to look for a common theme, are we focusing on just one indicator like the teacher survey?
  • Staff- I would hesitate to remove that because it is a problem if a program failed to prepare students for 2 years in a row. I think big red lights should flash
  • Oeser- To me this is going to give a small negative impact on programs which should really put the onus on the program to act on the data. They have three years before we even consider revoking their status
  • Oeser- If I am a first year teacher, I want to know if people in these programs are unprepared
  • Muri- Moves to approve the amendments

Motion Carries

 

Item 14: Discussion and Action Related to Implementation of the Effective Preparation Framework

TEA Staff

  • Board requested staff to develop an EPF (Effective preparation framework) with stakeholders throughout the state
  • Galvan- I agree with the recommendation that we should further define the practice-based experiences in terms of field experiences
  • Rodriguez- Under instruction and support, it has the word competency-driven, can you elaborate?
    • We want to prioritize the aspects of education that are most effective of students. There is a value in the demonstration of readiness
  • Rodriguez- this is not a synonym to competency-based?
    • No, it is more conceptual
  • We wanted to talk about next steps
  • We talked about redesigning the continual approval review process
  • We talked about vetting third party technical assistance and professional services providers
  • Having a vetted list would be the first line of support for EPPs
  • We should consider updating commendation 4: Innovative EPP practices
  • Muri- What types of individuals would be on the technical support list?
    • Teaching Works is one such organization
    • Providers may end up on our list to be used from improving curriculum and instruction
    • When we update commendation 4, that could be a formal way where we have EPPs help one another
  • Rodriguez- On the redesign of the approval review process, I am thinking about essential action 6. It was like the introduction. If this is going to drive the redesign, is it still an option
    • Knowing that the EPF would be an aspirational vision, we decided to figure out what would lead to that aspirational visions
    • We wanted to know if there are certain parts that are for accountability and some would be just for feedback
    • We would discuss with stakeholders
  • Galvan- On the continuing approval review, I think it is distinguishing that they had to invest time explaining code. We have the experts from TEA to make sure that we are transparent and aligned with the improvement we want
  • Galvan- on the vetted list, when the parties apply, can they be very specific with what they can provide?
  • Streepey- Is it clear to our programs which pieces set the stage for quality preparation and at what point do we cross over into aspirational aspects? If we are going to use some of this for commendations, what would aspirational look like. There may be other things
    • I think in part that’s the reason we are calling this 1.0. The field is still evolving and we may need to adjust content in the framework
    • I think the aspirational vision would be part of the process
  • Gelsinger- I am gathering that there is a fear in the field that they would be penalized for not having a yearlong residency. I think that we need a way to evaluate programs that are not using that program

Public Testimony

Kimberly Hughes, UTeach Institute

  • UTeach prepares middle and high school STEM teachers
  • High quality clinically intensive program
  • Our approach is not aligned with the proposed framework
  • We are not opposed to residencies
  • We are opposed to mandating residencies, including in a de facto manner
  • Requiring a yearlong residency would make it impossible for many our students to complete the program
  • The language should be changed to be more inclusive
  • The agency should develop minimum compliance criteria
  • Gore- What percentage of your teachers end up secondary vs. non-secondary?
    • We disproportionately prepare high school teachers
    • It is unsurprising that the majority choose to be high school teachers
  • Gore- What percentage of them are four and five year completers?
    • It would basically add a semester. It would take away more time that they need to complete their bachelor’s degree
  • Gore- What is the range of hours needed for a junior or senior?
    • Well- its only somewhere between 18-24 hours of teacher credentialing coursework
  • Gore- If they are doing that 18-24 hours, are the major specific courses being pared back or is that a substitution for optional courses?
    • It is a combination of both, it can sometimes substitute for electives. Our goal is to keep the degree under 120 hours
    • Programs often work with their STEM departments to create a degree program
    • The student is still prepared to go on to graduate school
  • Muri- I am interested to see how your residency program pans out. Continue to do your work
  • Oeser- I just want to thank you. I don’t think the intention of this board is to make residencies the only pathway. We want to find the highest quality program. We need to find alternatives that produce the same outcomes and results
  • Oeser- What are the pieces of the UTeach program that makes it different from traditional prep?
    • We are aligned with expectations around clinically intensive preparation. We begin that as early as first semester of an undergraduate. It is spread out through the program
    • Students are getting feedback every time they are teaching. It is less about the total hours and more about the intensity of the experience
  • Staff- the biggest barrier for a residency for UTeach is that math and science majors are taking classes and don’t have time to do a residency
    • Yes and no, some students have enough AP credit and could free up the time. But, these programs cannot have that for all their students
  • Staff- Your model has a full semester of clinical teaching in the final semester, how many days a week is that?
    • It meets the definition of what TEA defines as full day. For a long time, we had a half-day teaching exception. We abandoned out insistence on that for a variety of reasons
  • Staff- The current rules we are looking at implementing would require a 3 day a week residency which is more flexible than you model. Maybe more candidates would be eligible under that system
    • Possibly, I think it is really hard. As a student, you don’t get to decide what courses you want to take if they are offered on specific days
  • Staff- It would require the institution to enable that opportunity
    • In secondary education we don’t have the ability to work easily with schools because our students are across 6 or 7 colleges and we don’t have easy control around scheduling
  • Streepey- As far as being in the schools, we need deep content knowledge so that physics teachers can pick up an extra sessions. There is such a difference between secondary
  • Streepey- Maybe our aspirational review should be about high quality prep and that may differ based on type of education

Allison Skerritt, Director of Education at University of Texas at Austin

  • UT Austin supports the Effective Preparation Framework
  • Concern is that language suggests that residencies are the supported model of teacher prep
  • Characteristics should be inclusive of various models of Educational Prep
  • Any accountability should be tied to minimum requirements

Elizabeth Ward, Texas Coalition for Educator Preparation

  • Stakeholders are wondering how the EPF will be operationalized in regards to the continuing approval process
  • Most people in the field feel that the EPF is targeted towards residency
  • We need to do something to correct that if that isn’t SBEC’s intention
  • We want to approve the internship route and we are committed to a continual process of improvement

TEA Staff

  • Are there any additional clarifications?
  • Streepey- Given that this is 1.0 what is the timeline for future versions of the EPF
    • There will be multiple opportunities for us to come to you and say we need to make potential refinements
  • Streepey- What does the timeline for that look like working with the continuing approval review?
    • Ultimately, this framework will not live within your rules. The way you choose to operationalize the EPF will live within your rules. As we move forward, we would bring those back to you and they would be codified within your rules
  • Associate Commissioner Garcia- Could you go through the stakeholder process used in developing the EPF?
    • There have been many opportunities to work with stakeholders. We have gone through prioritization and refinement of the language
    • Skerritt gave feedback in two areas. We heard that those were important across all aspects of education. It applies to more than just residency
    • In 6.2 there is clarification that the residency recommendation includes at least one semester under the guidance of a high quality mentor
    • That does not need to be tied to a residency
    • Things that are general best practices will be reflected in this document
  • Streepey- We heard about the importance of high quality mentors
  • Galvan- Reviewing this through a program, every speaker has agreed to continuous improvement. We need more teachers
  • Galvan- some people cannot do a residency. We need to keep feasibility in mind. We don’t need a dichotomy of yes and no
  • Rodriguez- We need to be responsive to the needs of our teacher candidates. We need to continue to hear from a variety of stakeholders
  • Rodriguez- I want to agree that it is important to clarify what the minimum requirements will be
  • Galvan- It brings to my mind: It would be interesting to look at data within the same program to see with the teacher survey which pathway would best prepare teachers best
  • Muri- Embedding the accountability piece, I heard about that. I think we need to be mindful of these concerns. We need to make sure that the residency is not a requirement
  • Gelsinger- Thinking about redesigning the approval process so that programs know what to expect and what they are being evaluated on
  • To reinforce here, with the consideration of our motions. The motions here represent the first step of many to come
  • We will have stakeholders engaged deeply in each stage of the process
  • Gore- On motion 1, can I get some more clarity on that? If we are moving down a road we are unprepared for due to lack of clarity
  • Streepey- We would still have time within that process to listen to our stakeholders and delineated what is expected vs. aspirational. I think it is good that we are going through this process because we will end up with a better framework in the end
  • There will be many rounds of iterative feedback throughout this. This will be the signal to begin that work
  • Associate Commissioner Garcia- We have built the foundation, but the goal is to create this product by the field and for the field
  • Rodriguez- I’d like to better understand the second motion. I think that technical assistance would very widely. How do we come up with a list right now?
  • Associate Commissioner Garcia- The idea is that we would find technical assistance programs that are aligned with the EPF. We are trying to ensure that we have supports in place when the process begins
  • MacDonald- Is staff developing this list? How does that work?
    • Staff would develop the vetted list. We would have you approve an application process and we would select those providers
    • We already have vetted lists across a number of supports throughout the field
  • Muri- I think this is a good system that provides options to EPPs
  • Streepey- Regarding innovative commendations, I think that will be part of the delineation process. I am personally supportive

No objection to directing staff to moving forward with directives

 

Item 15: Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 19 Texas Administrative Code (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

TEA Staff

  • Amendments to Subchapter D will reflect amendments you have seen previously
  • These relate to types of certificates issued
  • We will have updates related to the fee for residency certificates and renewal
  • Deafblind certification will not be eligible for certification by examination
  • Developments for RFPs
  • Item 15 refers to Texas TPA only
  • Item 16 is the RFP for everything else
  • We have had many conversations about the need to assess candidate readiness
  • A summative performance assessment can help drive preparation
  • IHEs in Texas will help in development
  • When candidates graduate they will be ready because they will have had plenty of time to develop teaching skills
  • TEA has facilitated three work sessions
  • We presented that Assessment should be summative
  • Should be performative
  • Should have demonstrated evidence of candidates understanding of Texas Code of Ethics
  • Should demonstrate evidence of professionalism
  • Should produce concrete data that informs improvement for candidates and programs
  • Scoring should be externally evaluated by trained, calibrated reviewers
  • Stakeholders agreed that test should be aligned with instructional standards
  • It will be very difficult to demonstrate code of ethics in an assessment format
  • Their was less consensus about the need for a content specific assessment
  • The research still supports that type of assessment
  • Galvan- I see general and content pedagogical standards. Where do we include things like emergent bilingual and IEPs? Especially candidates that are ESL and seeking bilingual certificates
    • That is a very important consideration that we should include in the RFP
  • Muri- What role should the assessment play in the development tool? We want to use this as a summative. Can we also use it as a formative
  • Muri- As a school, could I use this data to make my teachers better? It would begin a new phase of teacher development
  • Galvan- I think that is a very insightful idea
  • Associate Commissioner Garcia- I think data sharing would be a great idea. If the rubrics are built properly, we could use a score report

Public Testimony

Jill Marshall

  • To make decisions on how EPPs can prepare for these new exams, we need to know what the exam will look like
  • I appreciate the comment about using them formatively
  • We want to see a correlation between how their graduates succeed
  • We also do not know the possible unintended consequences might be
  • We don’t want to follow the path of states that developed Ed TPA and realized it had unintended consequences
  • We need to determine what metrics will use
  • MacDonald- Do we have the capacity in Texas for someone to develop this or will we need someone outside of Texas?
    • We certainly have the expertise
    • Since we are gifted with such a large database of student data, other states often use our data
  • MacDonald- We seemed to have had some level of difficulty with our own programs
    • With the time schedule that you have already approved we cannot do
  • Gore- One concern I have is that there is only a handful of institutions that exist that have a remote possibility of meeting this time frame
  • Gore- We had this sense that we would get the best of what is out there, but we are limited to a few vendors. Have we explored that?
  • Associate Commissioner Garcia- I think that is the goal of the RFP. I think that is the purpose of this next step
    • (mic off for first part) Its not just the time frame, it is the data in the pilot. There are a number of institutions capable
  • MacDonald- Is there a concern that people would be held accountable to this assessment?
    • We are turning to the data, it is to see how the test actually functioned
  • MacDonald- Is it biased if EPPs are deciding how to evaluate themselves?
    • We can use a peer reviewed process to solve that
    • I am less worried about that the more players there are
  • Galvan- Could it be included in the RFP? Can the types of validity be included?
    • Yes

Elizabeth Ward, Texas Coalition for Educator Preparation

  • Does not support certification exams
  • Concerned about proposed timeline
  • Concerned that the Tex TPA will be like Ed TPA
  • Criticized Ed TPA
  • Concerned that the residency candidates may not have to take a TPA

TEA Staff

  • We decided that we wanted to pursue content specific and grade banded TPAs
  • Streepey- We need to consider this. If the research is showing that knowledge is important for our teachers. We need to consider what EPPs can do
  • Gore- I do have a concern that in this short time frame, it would be hard to develop many content specific based exams. It would further narrow the scope of who can respond to the RFP
    • We do think there would be an opportunity to develop a base set and adjust for content. We don’t think it is as big of a lift as it may seem
  • Muri- I lean towards content specific. I want to learn from the RFP process
  • Rodriguez- Currently elementary candidates take a 4 task TPA and secondary take a 3 task. We should be mindful of that and not end up with a more onerous process
  • We have heard that we need to streamline content around those four tasks
  • We will continue working with stakeholders to develop an RFP and we will discuss Ch. 230 in September
  • Rodriguez- In terms of this item moving forward, what is the timeline there?
    • We would seek guidance from the Board, we could move forward at your direction for proposal at the next meeting
  • Streepey- So we have this scheduled for discussion, but we could change that to proposal?
    • Yes
  • Gelsinger- Reasonably what could be completed by summer ‘25
    • That would be included in the proposed scope of the RFP. The other thing I would name is that there would be a TPA exam requirement in 26-27. We would continue to gather data to ultimately determine cut scores
  • Muri- I would push for proposal in September
  • Streepey- We will move forward toward proposal
  • Galvan- There is still a bilingual supplemental at this point?
    • Yes
  • Galvan- Replacing that exam doesn’t mean its going to be easier. I want to send a very clear message: we are making it more representative of the needs of our students

 

Item 16: Discussion of the Texas Educator Certification Examination Program Request for Proposal Process

TEA Staff

  • The last item was to talk about the development of the TPA itself
  • We are discussing a broader RFP for your whole certification program
  • TECEP includes the development and administration of all SBEC certification exams, including TExES, TASC, PACT, EdTPA, and AAFCS
  • Vendor of this program is tasked with the development and continued update of all these tests
  • We currently plan on continuing to review and provide multiple rounds of feedback on everything that ends up on these exams
  • These processes typically take about 3-4 years
  • Vendors manage and oversee all the testing centers, exam registration, capacity, and security
  • They serve as customer service
  • They oversee the scoring and score reporting

Jenna Mattingly, TEA Director of Procurement

  • State law requires competitive bidding in the standard procurement processes
  • Outlined the Procurement Process
  • During planning TEA staff gathers information and conducts due diligence
  • We submit a solicitation and we take vendor proposals, we award contracts to the highest scoring vendors
  • Law limits contact between vendors and staff
  • Vendors can provide information to TEA, but they cannot be paid for it
  • All vendor communication is handled by Contracts and Purchasing vendors
  • We can speak to incumbent vendors, we just can’t give insider information
  • Galvan- Texas has done an excellent job of providing prep manuals at no cost. We should keep those things in the back of our mind. Pearson has done work on the security issues we had in the past
  • We will take that into consideration as we craft the proposal
  • Exams have been redeveloped or updated due to changes in TEKS, Educator Standards, and new legislation
  • Are there any exams that are missing or need to be prioritized?
  • Muri- if there is anything we can do to accelerate the bilingual exams?
  • Muri- I was also thinking about reciprocity with other states. Are there ways to improve that?
  • Muri- Could we utilize national exams? Can we consider other options?
  • Gelsinger- I understand there is a legislation piece. How does the revision process work for EC-6?
    • Because we had to change the science of teaching exam, we had to reorganize some of the content
  • Gelsinger- The breadth of ec-6 exam and the ability to get everything needed. Can we possibly get enough content in our coursework for students to pass that exam? I am not saying we should make it easier
  • Galvan- I think the benefit of going to EC-6, allowed a subtest. That allowed students to focus on the area that they were successful in the test. Could we have a written constructive response as a subtest?
    • Maybe we should shift to design. We want to think about how vendors would design or redesign exams. We want to ensure that exams are rigorous and relevant
    • We want exams to be relevant to Texas classrooms
    • We want all exams to include at least one constructive response question
    • We want to focus on integrated pedagogical best practice, which is already integrated
  • We have engaged in discussion around the development of a new bilingual supplemental exams
  • If candidates demonstrate mastery of one subtest, they could pass that section and focus on another part
  • We thought about the redesign of your core subject exams
  • One proposal we have is to streamline the core subjects themselves
  • There could be an approach that would allow bilingual Spanish pedagogy and bilingual and combine them
  • That is work that is proposed further down the line
  • Galvan- I think we need to be aware that streamlining, we are trying to make less tests, but it can be overwhelming. I think the subtest is good, because it lets them have the level of comfort that they can focus on
  • Galvan- I think it will be challenging for a company to work out the reliability of a score

Elizabeth Ward, Texas Coalition for Educator Preparation

  • I would encourage that we investigate, since we want something with a constructive response, redesigning a core that would also include the requirements of the STR
  • The ELAR portion of the exam could contain the STR
  • Staff- We have not received that feedback from stakeholders, I think that is a much broader question that we could investigate further. That is not within the scope of what we are discussing
  • Galvan- The challenge is that STR has the constructive and it focuses on the learning to read rather than the reading to learn. It lowers anxiety for some of the test takers. It would add more content and length
    • My understanding is that every exam will have constructed response. You take out fine arts, health, pe and we replace those questions
  • Rodriguez- I think it is worth looking into that idea

Estres Cantaro, Simulatus Software

  • We have developed software to develop educational material
  • I am presenting a blueprint of what Tex TPA should be grounded in
  • His version of Tex TPA is more similar to EPP standards
  • It is not necessary to develop a test, we have already done that

TEA Staff

  • The current item does not discuss the development of Tex TPA
  • A separate RFP will be dedicated to that
  • Rodriguez- It is important that we streamline exams, the number is significant and it comes at a price. How do we balance that with the need for our candidates to be certified?
    • We would include that the vendor would be expected to make any updates in conjunction with your rules

 

Item 17: Discussion of Proposed Repeal of 19 TAC Chapter 228, Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs, and New 19 TAC Chapter 228, Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs

TEA Staff

  • Chapter 228 has the components of residency and effective preparation in it
  • We want to divide this rule text
  • There are important aspects in D E and F
  • Chapter 228 has been reorganized to be easier to navigate
  • Language has been refined
  • Addition of requirements for a Residency preparation route
  • Added definitions and clarified the start date for internships
  • Added definition for clinical experience
  • Added definition for co-teaching
  • Codified 80% requirement that we have historically used in continuing approval review
  • More clearly defined what an inactive candidate is
  • Added requirement involving candidate use of instructional materials
  • If candidate is unsuccessful in completing internship, the program can continue for another year, if a plan is in place to help the candidate succeed
  • We added clarity around mentors
  • Foundational components of EPF
  • 4 main focus areas:
  • Feedback to clarify definition of performance tasks
  • Assessing candidate progress and applying continuous support
  • Practice-based preparation requirements
  • Co-teaching refined and explained
  • Are there any other considerations to strengthen these focus areas?
  • Reflection on Teacher Residency Work session
  • Streepey- I thought it was a game changer for candidates to have the opportunity to be paid
  • Gelsinger- The discussion around have folks at the schools dedicated to supporting residents
  • Muri- I think this residency is a win for candidates and they get paid
  • Gore- The magic of the residency program is that there is tight integration between prep and teaching. It creates a good feedback loop
  • Rodriguez- That alignment is key. We cannot stress enough the importance of the pay component. There are still not enough paid opportunities. How will we work on that?
  • MacDonald- The residency model is the way of the future, we should make that the norm. I think that secondary certifications are different vs. the traditional setting
  • MacDonald- We need to figure out where to counsel out educators, that this is not the right career. I think we should figure out where that would work
  • MacDonald- I wish I heard more programs not want to focus on the minimums, they should aspire hire
  • Oeser- I think that collaborative conversations that were forced between groups by these systems were good. I think there is some level of change that will have to happen which will be good
  • Streepey- I thought it was great how the candidates would sub on a Friday
  • Associate Commissioner Garcia- The confidence that the programs had in saying that this level of disruption was real and worth it
  • Galvan- That opportunity to sub may not be enough to help financially, but it does support
  • Galvan- The transparency where they provide a list avoids any miscommunication and conflict
  • Galvan- How can we make sure that we distinguish with the role of teaching assistants
  • Galvan- What do we do if a student wants to complete their residency but something happens, can they move between clinical teaching and residency
  • Galvan- What happens if they go half a year and then stop, can they get partial credit and finish later?
  • I think that is a great point to bring back to stakeholders for more feedback
  • This is not easy, but it is worth it for teachers and kids
  • Certification Exam Requirements for Teacher Residency Candidates
  • What parameters need to be in place for the board to determine that a candidate has demonstrated readiness for certification?
  • Streepey- I would like to know what the gates are and the research behind them
    • You would set what are the requirements for candidates to demonstrate in order to be certified
    • The way we would understand the quality would be through the evaluation process
    • We would build a set of approval rubrics for the boards approval
  • Streepey- Knowing that each program sets their own gates, was concerning to me. I don’t feel that way anymore. I wonder if some gates are must haves
  • Rodriguez- At least some parameters around gates. We heard strong opinions about what particular programs value. It would be important to have a general standard
  • Muri- My expectation is that they have clearly demonstrated that they are a quality educator
  • Discussion about what might be important for candidates to demonstrate
  • Discussion on the number of gates and use of gates
  • Associate Commissioner Garcia- I think that our technical assistance list would be helpful to programs working to develop gates
  • We will focus on timelines and making it easy for programs to implement things successfully
  • We want to continue discussion but we need to get into implementation
  • We want to start proposal process by December
  • SBOE should review these rules in April
  • New rules will be effective June or July 2024

Elizabeth Ward, Texas Coalition for Educator Preparation

  • Handed handouts to Board
  • We want to make some recommendations regarding the internship route
  • Increase number of field based hours to 50 hours
  • Keep the same 50 50 ratio
  • Recommend that remove long term from the substitute
  • Require any hours that count be part of the grade band
  • First formal observation in first 4 weeks
  • Definition of benchmark should be changed
  • Residency should be changed to average of 21 hours, which would provide more flexibility
  • Clinical teaching is the only route that has days instead of hours
  • Rodriguez- We have a very significant number of first-year teachers on internships. Yesterday, I was very excited about what we heard
  • Rodriguez- I kept wondering what would incentivize a candidate to complete a residency instead of an alternative pathway
  • Associate Commissioner Garcia- I propose that we look at incorporating these rule changes in the next meeting

Katy Tackett, UT Austin

  • Oversees special education at UT Austin
  • We are revising our degree plan to produce more teachers
  • It will include a teacher residency for all students
  • Concerned about the proposed language in 228
  • The current language requires that residents be in placement on first and last day of school
  • This doesn’t match up with our semester
  • When the semester ends, my students do not receive aid or housing
  • This could place a real burden on candidates
  • Recommend that residents are required to attend first or last day of school
  • Gelsinger- We are planning to look into it. We did talk about this yesterday
  • Gelsinger- The folks doing residencies had to work with many problems at their institutions
  • Associate Commissioner Garcia- One of our stakeholders did say it was very important for them to be there for the first day of school. There was significant value
    • I agree with that, we strongly recommend that our students attend, but we cannot require that
    • The last day is not as critical when it comes to educational impact
    • There was a large gap between our semester end and the last day of school
  • Streepey- Getting students through the state tests is important as well. It would be hard if they left during that time. I could live with them being required to stay through state testing
  • Rodriguez- There is a good point that we have to balance that they are students and also district employees

Allison Skerritt, Director of Education at University of Texas at Austin

  • We will be implementing residencies in the near future
  • We are concerned with language that proposes residency as the only pathway
  • We are concerned with structure
  • It could decrease number of teachers in areas where students need them the most
  • We are currently exceeding the states requirements for field based prep, but we need flexibility
  • We want to change minimum of 21 hours a week to average and change to first or last day of school year
  • Those changes could result in increasing the number of students who choose to be teachers
  • Rodriguez- I would like to ask that as we revise 228 we come back to this requirement of minimum hours. EPPs are concerned about maintaining compliance. How do we find a balance between all these considerations?
  • TEA Staff – Our goal is to have an almost final version of 228 in September; we can propose new rules in December

 

Item 18: Discussion of Appointment of Teacher Pedagogy and English Language Arts and Reading and Math Content Pedagogy Educator Standards Advisory Committees

TEA Staff

  • Legislative requirements are the reason for this item
  • HB 1605 from the new legislation is related to a demonstrated understanding in open use of instructional materials
  • We will open up applications for Committee to evaluate educator standards
  • Application opens on Monday
  • Names will be brought to board in September
  • Goal is to have standards in April of 2024
  • HB 1605 (Curriculum Bill)
  • New guidelines in the use of high-quality instructional materials
  • Requires SBEC to develop training requirements to demonstrate understanding of use of instructional materials
  • Requires SBEC to prohibit EPPs from providing instruction on the use of materials that utilize the method of three-cueing
  • We are planning to come to the Board with a deeper dive into 1605 in September
  • Muri- How do you solicit these folks?
    • We will send the application to you and SBOE members and post the application on our website
  • Oeser- I think it is important that we get a great stakeholder group for this
  • Gore- Will these meetings be virtual?
    • That’s a great question, the initial drafting will be in person. A bulk of the work will be virtual
  • Associate Commissioner Garcia- If our application period comes and goes and we don’t have a good pool, what will we do?
    • If we don’t have a good group, we will continue our search and move slower
  • Associate Commissioner Garcia- On items 2 and 3, we are shifting from 87th Session to Legislation passed in the 88th session