Good morning, everyone. It is not nine. It is 11:15. I think is that what I have? Okay. The meeting will be in order. I will conduct a roll call and ask that when I call your name, please respond that you are present. Deputy Commissioner Oster here. Doctor Rodriguez? Yeah. Mister Gore, vice chair for it. I have to say congratulations, sir. She's just had a beautiful little baby. Doctor McFarland? Here. I'm here. Miss Weir? Here. Miss Glasscock? Doctor Galvan? Here. Doctor Gelsinger? Here. Miss Turck Saffin? Here. And miss Andrews?
Here. Okay. And miss Grace? Present. Wonderful. I don't I didn't have one. It's not the right time. Okay. But we, at this time, we'll do, a moment of silence. Thank you. And now we will stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, Justice Carl. So just a few reminders, again, to help this meeting run smoothly. This meeting is being live streamed. Raise your hand and wait to be recognized. If you want to speak,
we'll definitely try or I will try to be a little more formal this go around. Please wait until the previous speaker finishes completely before speaking so that the audio will pick them up or pick you up completely. To ensure we maintain a quorum, Board members please remain in the room during the meeting. We will take several breaks throughout the remainder of our business. And for public testimony today, staff will call up three speakers at a time. Speakers, please do not stand at the podium while you're waiting. Once all testimony has been provided,
board members can then begin to ask questions of the speakers or of staff. So please save your questions till the end. And I will turn it over to associate commissioner McLaughlin. Thank you. McLaughlin. Now I know how to do it correctly now. Thank you. Like Sarah. Like Sarah, yes. Thank you, Chair McDonald. Feels odd to be saying, like, welcome in the middle of the day, but welcome again, here to our formal meeting. I just wanna echo my thanks from earlier this morning. Really appreciate the board leaning in and providing such rich feedback and discussion. I know my team's incredibly excited
housekeeping thing to start, before I dive into a few other notices. On your laptop, you, likely have the work session deck pulled up. If you minimize that deck, you'll see on your home screen on likely on the right hand side, a number of PDFs. The PDFs for the agenda book, your disciplinary cases, and the, PowerPoint deck are all there, so you can pull those up and toggle between them like you traditionally do during a meeting. With that said, I did wanna, share a few, congratulations and thanks. As chair McDonald, shared, vice chair Dvorak,
had a beautiful baby boy, Asher Reagan Dvorak, on August 8, and so we're incredibly excited for her and her family. July. Sorry. July 7. July 7. See, July 8. Thank you. Bye. Y'all, it's you would think I I I guess I think we're in August already, but yeah. The the the months are flying by. So on July 7. Seventh. It's been a long day. So It's all We've okay. So sending love to, Vice Chair Dvorak and her family. Also want to,
give a special thanks to, member Turk Zafran who's stepped in, leading our temporary suspension meetings in Ms. Dvorak's absence, so appreciate her leadership and willingness to step into that role. I also have, exciting news to share with the board. We, last week got news from the Office of the Governor that, two new members have been appointed to the SBEC. So Cassidy Estes is a new teacher member that will be joining us at our next meeting and Kathy Ward is a new citizen member that will be joining us at our next meeting.
And, a member of Turgseffrin is now, formerly a teacher member of, the SBEC. So we're incredibly excited to, meet some new members of the team. And I know in my communication with them, they've been incredibly excited to, join you all and lean into the important work that you lead. So, I'm excited to have a full board, here shortly. That concludes my comments. Turn it over to you. Wonderful. Wonderful. Thank you. And now I will turn it over to, miss McCain for item four. Oh, right. Right. Okay. And pop up. I'm sorry. Item three. Expected. Please refrain from anything that can be considered a distraction.
If any of my public testimony have items for the board we're happy to hand them out for you. If you have posters or signs please keep them in a place that is not distracting to your testimony or to the SBEC. As Chair Devore accept Chair Devore. Temporary suspension meetings are just take it Chair McDonald, I'm so sorry, mentioned I will call up three speakers at a time. We will place some chairs right up here for you y'all to sit at and wait for your time to come up. You will have three minutes. Your time will end with the bell. And with that, I have a very easy item for y'all this morning,
your twenty twenty seven board meeting dates. The only special thing to note is that our July meeting next year will move up by one week, so it will no longer be the equivalent of the twenty fourth and the twenty third. It'll be around the eighteenth. Other than that, everything is a status quo. So is there do we is there a motion to approve the meeting dates for 2027? Alright. Is there a second? Oh, I need you to read the motion. Oh, right. Sorry. My goodness. Honey, we're happy. We're gonna make it today. It's gonna be fine.
Motion to approve the 2027 SBEC meeting dates. Is there a second? I second it. Thank you. And if you could say their names since we're doing the oxygen. We'll second. A second by Doctor. McFarland. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? All right. Is there, I'll take a vote at this point. Okay. So all those in favor of approving the motion, say aye. Raise your hand. Signal that you're in agreement. Thank you. All those opposed, please do the same. Put your hand down. Right. My hand is down. I was just being an example.
Sorry. Okay. The ayes have it. The motion is approved. And, we'll add those to our calendar for next year. Thank you. Great. I'm gonna turn it oh, well, I will be trying to get over to mister Jones here in a minute, but we do have a public speaker for item five. So, yes. And I would say that as we get into, item five, recognizing that this is a little bit, of a unique, item for us, the time for public comment will be extended to five minutes for this item only. Thank you. Okay. Doctor Maria Evans. Can I stop you? Can I pass it up? Uh-huh. That is
Well, it's a little bit. We're gonna bias weight of the past. K. Cool. Start fast. Wow. I've compared for three minutes. So good morning. Thank you all for this opportunity to speak. My name is doctor Marie Evans. I am the CEO of Teacher Prep Institute TPI. We've been working towards EPP approval since January 2022. That's four and a half years of full compliance and hundreds of hours of work. Our 2025 application passed two full TEA reviews. In April 2026,
TEA told us in writing TPI was ready for a site visit. A final step before a final decision. No concerns about instructional materials for OER or HQIM were ever addressed across two full reviews and two virtual meetings with the reviewer and the supervisor. Then with no explanation, TEA ordered a third review. That review on May 18 resulted in our denial. Here are the facts. As this graphic shows, TEA's own records show the reviewer on May 18 only visited our EDU 600,
a 150 course for a total of seventy eight seconds in the morning. That afternoon, in a different named course we had submitted previously during the past four years, she wrote six comments claiming to review articles, videos, and assignments across five sections while logged out of EDU 600 entirely. We did ask TEA to look at the correct course twice in writing. Twice, TEA said no. Not because we were wrong,
but because they stated no process allowed them to review the correct course as submitted. We're not asking you to approve us today. We're not asking we are asking you to not accept the TEA recommendation. Instead, send it back. Please direct TEA to review the course that we actually submitted. Let us respond and correct anything they might find as this was the only item they questioned. And then bring it back to you by September 18. The exact response was in our written comments.
One last thing. If we have no choice but to start over, what concerns us isn't only the $9,000 application fee. TEA staff turnover, again, resulting in change in leadership philosophies and priorities, or the hard hours the long, hard hours of work. It's the two years the Rio Grande Valley cannot afford to lose. Two more years without the special ed, ELAR, and bilingual teachers that our program was specifically built to provide.
Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. TA staff here, free to come on up. Oh, perfect, okay. Good morning, Board. It's an honor to speak with you today. We are here to discuss agenda item five, a request for approval of a new EPP in Texas. 19, TAC Chapters two twenty seven, two twenty eight, and two thirty established components that every aspirant EPP must demonstrate compliance in to be considered for approval. We bring before you today a request to consider Teacher Prep Institute as a new EPP. In accordance with your rules, TEE staff conducted a thorough review of Teacher Prep Institute's application and determined they did
not meet compliance requirements in component three and component four. In component three, which pertains to standards based curriculum required for all candidates seeking certification, the review of curriculum provided by Teacher Prep Institute determined that the program's curriculum did not meet the requirements established in your Rules and in statute regarding the instruction of Open Educational Resources found in 19 TAC 228.57 and TEC 21.044A-one-four. In review of all curriculum, there was no evidence that candidates would develop a thorough understanding of and competence in the use of open educational resources as evidenced by the lack of systemic OER integration
across the curriculum to develop candidate knowledge and skills to the level of mastery required in statute. And component four, which pertains to how the educator preparation program prepares candidates for educator certification and ensures they are effective in the classroom. The review of coursework and training provided by Teacher Prep Institute determined the program's preparation for effectiveness in the classroom regarding the utilization of OER did not meet the requirements established in your rules and in statute. Although the application identified EDU 600 pre service course as the vehicle for this instruction,
submitted coursework did not include evidence of explicit instruction on the use of OER or training that would require candidates to demonstrate thorough understanding of and competence in the use of OER. In addition, only one course was identified as covering this content, which is insufficient to address the requirement in statute. As a result of these findings and in accordance with your rules, TEA staff is not recommending to the Board that Teacher Prep Institute's application to open a new educator preparation program be approved because it did not meet the statutory requirements within component three and component four,
the application rubric. Thank you. Thank you. Board discussion? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, chair McDonough. My question is, who was part of their review process? Oh, I'm I'm so sorry. Thank you. And it is on. Who was part from TEA for the review process? So, when we we have assigned program specialists that works through the review process, and we have review specialists that were assigned to this particular application. So was miss Laurie Ayers part of the review? As the, director of that,
team, she was a part of that review. I think we have multiple members of the our team lean in on every review. Correct. So I wouldn't in part identify an in specific Miss Ayers is the she's the director of that team. So But she was involved. She was involved because she is extremely experienced and has been through this process from the very inception of Yeah. This new method of being approved. So her expertise and experience was a critical part.
Correct? Yes, ma'am. My concern would be, number one, I'm I'm I can understand the amount of work because this is something that, we personally experience. It it does take a tremendous amount of work. The issue to me is equity, that if other programs have had to meet the requirements, Because there is a need for special ed and bilingual teachers. Yes, there is. But if there was not compliance, and were they? Was there an explanation during the meeting that they were not in compliance?
I mean, if if you look at the communications, there was an explanation that there was not compliance with that. Additionally, there is every EPP must go through a workday on before Yeah. Their application, where expectations and requirements are expressly communicated. And so And they were provided with a checklist and the criteria and the rubric as well. Yes, ma'am. Because it's a very detailed and lengthy process having gone through a site visit, as well before we opened our doors.
We understand the complexity and the details. My concern that I think we should ask ourselves is, is the issue equity and nothing but equity? And saying, we're adhering to code. It is commendable. I can understand we're having to repay an application fee is is a financial burden for anyone. However, it's the issue equity. Thank you. Ms. Turks. Thank you, Chair McDonald. So I just wanna, how many reviews do EPP programs typically receive,
or is it doesn't matter? We are required to conduct a single review. At least one? Correct. Okay. So I'm just wondering I mean, I understand if if the the program didn't meet the the standards that were required. But according to the testimony, she said that they had two, they had passed two full TA reviews. Now is that inaccurate? Or Thank you, Thank you. So there is no formal, passing period until a recommendation to the board. So, we review application materials.
As Doctor. Jones named, in your rules, you are only required to, we are only required to review materials once. We did review materials and provide feedback. Again, it is not, TA SAP's responsibility to provide feedback on every individual item within an application. It's the, applicant's responsibility to ensure they have full compliance with the law. But but they were given feedback. And ultimately, there's no such thing as passing until it gets to this body. Okay. That's why I wasn't sure, and that's why I was trying to figure out what this meant.
Deputy Commissioner. Thank you, and thank you, Doctor. Jones. Thanks, ma'am. So my understanding is the, submitted an application, were reviewed, gave feedback. They still did not meet the bar, but and then they're asking for another review. But the the concern, and this is what I heard you say, was that the thing that they're pointing to to be re reviewed as one course. What would be our expectation for thorough coverage of OER? So if you refer back to the statute, it refers to thorough understanding of competence in the use of open educational resource instruction
materials included on the approved instructional materials maintained by the State Board of Education. And in order for that to for the evidence that we would be looking for in this situation, that cannot be covered in a single course. That must be programmatic as you move through. Systemic. It it is it must be in multiple courses and reinforced multiple times in order for that evidence to meet the statutory requirement. And I wanna focus on that. It's this is statute. We there is no wiggle room.
Thank you. Yeah. And and I think, like, this is my concern is that it it it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the requirement is if the, you know, if they're pointing to kind of one course, one mention as the, like, bar. And I think it's probably helpful for us as a board to be sending what is our expectation to meet this thorough understanding of OER. Zwir? I was just gonna say, thank you for that that clarification because I was a little bit confused between, the test the oral testimony that was given and then what was being said.
So I agree in listening to Kelby as well, that it seems like it's a communication misunderstanding and, or maybe not completely understanding the process. Alright. At this time, we have two options. We have the motion before us. And yes. Would would anyone like to make a motion? I'll make a motion. Thank you. Ms. Turk Saffron. Thank you. Motion to deny approval of the teacher prep institute as a new educator preparation program. Is there a second? I'll second. Doctor. McFarland,
thank you. Any further discussion? If not, we will take the vote now. If you are in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, please do the same sign. Alright. The motion carries. Thank you. And then now I will hand it over to for item six, I'll hand it over to doctor Lando. Good morning. Good morning to the chair and to the board. I'm excited to present to you item six today, which is your proposal item for chapter two twenty nine. As with all items, we take public testimony first,
and we have no public testimony. So as normal with this item, I'll start by norming us on some common terms that we use. These include ASAP or the accountability system for educator preparation, which is your system of indicators and standards for EPP accountability that inform the EPP accreditation status. We also have your ASAP index, which is your composite measurement of all the indicator data that is used to determine the accreditation status,
your accreditation status, which is your annual status or rating for the educator preparation program. Chapter two twenty nine is the rule chapter that administers this whole accountability system. You have an indicator, which is your individual measurement or metric in the system. And finally, we're adding today the continuing approval review in light of yesterday's conversation. A reminder that this is a review in which the SBEC evaluates EPP compliance with SBEC rules and state law for continued authorization to operate.
As this is an annual process, I just wanna highlight where we're at in this current year. So, as you can see in February, we hold a data work group meeting, which happens annually. We use information, and then we also have the SBEC approval of the previous year, reporting year's accreditation statuses. In April, we brought to you a discussion item that was rigorous and rich that helps inform both the June FC stakeholder group conversation and the current July proposal,
which is what we are at today. And so today is really to, dig into this proposal item, and, talk about what changes are being proposed. Before we jump further in, I wanna flag or highlight a couple of, things that have been updated since that April discussion item in light of the the conversation that we had. So, one thing that was updated not related to the discussion is we have updated, the teacher and principal survey timelines to be more generalized so that the rules don't
have to be changed every single time t test gets changed. So there's a general rule rather than a specific rule. The other three items that we updated are related to the conversation that happened in April. The first is related to communication to leadership at EPPs regarding accreditation statuses. The second is supports required. The third is the timeline for improvement. So throughout the rest of this conversation, there are going to be four topics that we walk through.
The first three here, adjustments for external changes, indicator population clarifications, and technical enhancements, all were discussed in April. And this is just reiteration of what we've talked about in April. The last part is responding to April feedback. And that will be more specific and precise for today. Last thing, I will walk through the first three altogether. And then I'll pause at the end of that to see if anyone has clarifying questions. And then I will move to the April feedback part, go through that altogether,
and then again, respond to clarifying questions. Alright. So under underneath adjustments for external changes, there are three areas that we are proposing updates to chapter two twenty nine. One is about exam transitions, one is about survey transitions, and one is an observation requirement transition. So as a reminder, we discussed in April updating the rules to provide clarity on how future exam transitions will be handled in ASAP. We've drafted updates in chapter three of the manual as seen here.
These updates specifically begin new counts for accountability purposes when a new test number is created. This ensures we have generalized and transparent practice. This is also responding to stakeholder feedback and corresponds with the existing five tests, five test limit that exists for test taking in general. Second update here is the survey transition update that I'll talk about. So I wanna kind of revisit this one. So, we have updated this from last time we talked.
So just to highlight on our left side, we had a, in 2018, 2019, we executed, T test was updated. We executed updates to the teacher and principal survey. We had a development year, to pilot, and then we had a full year in which there was a report only year in the accountability system. We have updated this from last time. Last time, we said specific years in the rural text. This time we are just using relational language based that says, as soon as the first year where it is fully implemented,
that is a report only year. To show more specifically on this slide. So, these rules are being updated to be more generic, which allows for flexibility in the timeline assignment. This mitigates inherent risks and implementation of a policy that we don't control, to make sure that we can, update the survey and implement it within the system as it responds to the t test implementation. The last part to update is the observation requirement transitions. Again, as this was something we talked about in the April discussion,
and we proposed changes to the chapter two twenty eight observation requirements. As a reminder, you guys, this year have approved updates to chapter two twenty eight, and that included changes to the observation minimum requirement schedule. This specifically says that in the 2627 reporting year is when the new observation schedule will become active in the accountability system. So that's your adjustments for external changes. The second topic here is,
indicator population clarifications. So, as we discussed in April and the board signaled agreement with, we proposed updates to the student growth indicator population in two ways. First, notated on the left, we clarified that when an internship and an intern certificate is deactivated, which happens when a candidate leaves the internship prior to completion, we will exclude the individual from the student growth indicator in accordance with chapter two two eight deactivation rules.
The rule text also provides for deactivations that are reactivated to still be included. This is consistent with our practice and indicator 4A, your observation indicator. On the right, we also propose language that updates with, that aligns with your manual Chapters four, five, six and seven, which allow EPPs to communicate a reason for exception of a candidate from their list for ASAP. There are circumstances that come up that this affords the EPP a right to see
their list of who's being evaluated and give us information that is not contained in our data collection system. In addition, indicator, we also are identifying population updates for indicator for a, your observation indicator. As we discussed in April, we have, we now have the ability to use clinical experience records, which is a new data collection system. This data allows us to leverage data reported in the current year, which is a new practice and a better practice than the old way of doing
this, specifically for clinical teachers. This data is higher quality. It ensures that we have better line of sight, and it allows EPPs to have, data that they can be more responsive to. Last thing I will just highlight is we have technical enhancements. I don't have an additional slide here, but it includes adding definitions to this chapter, as well as removing a couple of outdated rule references. So those are your first three topics that we discussed in April,
and I am highlighting here. I'm gonna pause here to see if there are any clarifying questions. Doctor Galvan? Thank you, chair. Can you please return back to slide 19? I don't have my numbers. I'm sorry. The one it's the one that talks about, when there is a change in the number for an exam, like, when 391 becomes 491 was not an example. But could you then to help programs provide a few examples, that because there's so many exams that are changing,
that would that would help understand Yep. So verification. I don't have the numbers on the top of my head, but the special education specialist certificate just changed. Previously, you have the special education e c 12 and the special education supplemental tests Mhmm. And their associated numbers. The special education specialist test has a new number. Rather than combining those in any way, we have a clean break. Those old tests no longer get counted in the system,
and the new tests start from, like, number that's the first first time we see an attempt is the first time we would count anything in the system. So that would be the same, for example, the bilingual exam that we go from two to the That that's correct. The the only exception right now is our two ninety one to three ninety one Yes. Case. That's the only exception. That's the only exception. Three nine one's gonna become four nine one. And then as we go into What what e c six.
Yep. We we will always, like, take a look at exams. There could be circumstances that make it a special case that we would have to. So like 291391. The the rationale behind that is there was overlap in both of those tests were administered at the same time in the same year. And so there was a choice to make about, is there a clean break here here or could people potentially be double counted within the same year? And the board's guidance at that time was we should combine those.
So if it happened that something like that comes up again, we would have to, like, think about rule making. Because in the bilingual, we're running all three at one time. So this year is the bilingual supplemental, the BTLPT, and the new exam as well. I forgot the numbers. But this is for example, this year, we are running all three at one time. So is that something you could come back and explain as to is that an exception? Because it is a very we go from two exams to one.
So I could see how that would shift. So so I like, recalling the rationale behind this rule, it was because the test substantively changed. In terms of looking to my testing friends here, like as as special ed specialist. Yeah. Okay. I'll go sit down. So so so do you wanna share here? So the that is correct. The bilingual exam launch is a similar case. DeMarco Petri.
The bilingual example is a good one here. Similar to SPED, it isn't, well not necessarily similar to SPED. There isn't necessarily a clean break because currently our bilingual candidates seeking certification experience two exams, the bilingual pedagogy exam and the BTLPT. In September of this year, the bilingual education Spanish proficiency supplemental exam launches, which will include both proficiency and it will streamline proficiency and pedagogy. So, the older two exams
stay in play because some candidates have taken them, they're taking them separately and the new exam streamlines them. So, the VTLPT would remain in the field for a year longer, and then phase out in September of twenty seventh. So, that that would be a case that in next year's rule making process that we'll have to take a look at. And if, with with the consultation of our certification exam team, we would bring rules if that seems appropriate. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you for that feedback. Thank you. Alright. Alright. Give me a second to get us back where we need to be. Alright. The last we're gonna pivot to responding to feedback from the April discussion. So we listened to your feedback in April and synthesized that feedback into three distinct areas. We heard you ask for improvements to communications with programs about accreditation statuses. We heard you ask for increased and earlier supports for programs that are accredited,
warned, or accredited probation status. Last, we heard heard you ask for longer timelines to allow for supports to translate into improvements in outcomes. We begin this discussion today by talking about proposed changes to communication. I'll note before we jump in, and this is why I'm gonna do it all together, that we kind of see this, these three things as working together. So not some synonymously. If one of these things doesn't come with it, I think it makes it harder for the whole package to work as we're proposing
it. So the board requested that we increase the clarity in who gets communications at an EPP or ASAP. In this slide, we show the existing rule on the left and a proposed update on the right. So I'm just gonna go down this list from left to right, top to bottom. So starting with, retain a list of EPP legal authorities. We do not have that in rule in chapter two two nine. And we are proposing in chapter two two nine to require that TEA collect contact
information for a legal authority. And second item on this list is to retain a list of additional EPP personnel. Currently, we do not have a rule. We are proposing to also collect contact information for chief operating officer and governing body chair. The third item on this list is send written notification of accreditation. And right now the answer is yes, we do have a rule for this. But we do not have all required recipients named in that rule of that communication.
So we are proposing an update here that includes the legal authority, chief operating officer, and governing body chair. All are required to receive that communication. The next thing on this list is an EPP can request an informal review. Again, we have a rule here, but we do not specifically name the legal authority as a requester here. So, we are updating that precision so that a legal authority is a named party that can ask for an informal review. Last, provide the specific data and results related to ASAP outcomes and EPPs.
We have this in rule, and we continue, that will continue as part of this proposed communication structure. To make these changes, we have drafted updates to chapter two twenty nine definitions, to our two twenty nine point three F1 figure, to clarify data collections, and to our 229.7 informal review section to increase the precision of who has to receive ASAP accreditation notices. The proposed update commits to transparent communication with multiple stakeholders who are part of an
EPP and responds to Board feedback from April requesting communications with multiple stakeholders. Second on this list is you asked for increased supports. So just a general reminder from yesterday's conversation, we framed EPP evaluation as multiple purposes. ACEF specifically tends to touch on accountability and consumer information right now. The proposed update here though, is leaning into the supports needed for program improvement.
And so, existing I'm gonna highlight existing rule and also the proposed rule. So your existing rules right now allow for required supports, but there is not structure in those required supports. So the language basically says when a program is accredited probation or accredited warrant, the EPPEC can request an EPP to do one of the things on this list. Our proposed rule update requires a structured support. So when an EPP is accredited warned or accredited probation,
the EPP shall complete a CAR. The rules on your left do not go away. Discretion is still available. It's just adding the specific support related to the accountability results. So this proposed approach is, drafted in chapter 229.5. It adds support as a result of ASAP. It ensures that in progress CAR an in an in progress CAR counts towards this kind of scenario. And it is,
again, responsive to board feedback asking for support required for EPPs. Just a moment. Doctor. Delbon? Thank you, Chair McDonald. What if the program was a pilot for CAR? Do they repeat that entire process again? If if they're a pilot for CAR What if the program already piloted the new TPI? Would they I'm I'm talking forgive me. I apologize. Specifically to TPI US. So is the car review just gonna look at ACEF data, if it's specific to ACEF data,
or is it an entire review? Doctor. C. Commissioner. Thank you. Doctor. Gavon, so what's being proposed in this rule, and Jeremy, correct me if I'm off base here, but what's being proposed in this rule, what we didn't want to happen is if a program was already set and in the process of engaging in a five year review, when the assignment of warrant or probation happened, we didn't want them to have to go through a review two years in a row. Right? So if you were in the process of having a review, that that review that's in process counts as your continuing approval review.
For folks who were in the pilot previously, right, they any anyone who's gotten a review in an out year, if I say, like, I had a review, two years ago, part of the pilot, and now I've identified as one, you would need to get another review. So this is really kind of a starting fresh, but really trying to account for, anyone who's actively already in the review process. So, Jeremy, with folks that are in the pilot this year, I guess, when we assign accreditation statuses in February, if I was in the pilot It so, like, in progress car according to our rules
means that the car has not been approved by the board. And so like right now, every December, there is a list of continuing approval reviews brought to the board for approval. If someone is in the pilot, and that pilot is not completed by the time that accreditation status is approved by the board, then that is an in progress car. If it's not, then it's like then you're left with a, you know, a new status and thus a required car according to the rules.
Oh, I'm sorry. My microphone. Thank you for your response. Another question I had was back to slide 31. Thank you for adding, to rule the requirement to collect that information for legal authority. My question has to do with the second part of collect content contact information for chief operating officer and governing body chair. What if the university or the program doesn't call a specific person that specific title?
Yeah. Could you, I don't know, perhaps put, a disclaimer that they don't have to have that official. Maybe it's your associate dean or your chair or a person who has authority in some way. We we intend to provide substantive guidance on, all of these roles. We also recognize that every institution or organization is structured differently, has different people involved. But I think just to reinforce, a key thing we heard from the whole board in April was one person getting
this communication is not good. So we need multiple people. And we are trying to set this up to ensure that three people are always listed. In and I think it's gonna ultimately be incumbent on the EPP to define who those people are, that they want getting this communication to help drive actions in their organization. And similar to the conversation we had previously about, that member were brought up about, the candidate the teacher being responsible for updating their phone numbers is the same thing
that the program will be responsible for making any changes. Correct? That that's correct. We also will have an annual process where we where we will likely prompt the organization to make sure that they have an accurate list as we enter the, like, accreditation letter season where we're gonna start communications again. So am I hearing this correctly, sir? You don't necessarily have to have the title of governing body chair. It could be just not necessarily the title.
It's more the responsibility? That that's right. And I I imagine that we will likely bring to the ep FC stakeholder group, this question and talk more about, like, what types of roles might fit into these, like, categories so that we can give good guidance to the field about who does who might who they might select for these different roles. Yeah. And it could be just because you could name three people and someone is out ill or has an emergency and is out on FMLA or,
and so thank you for adding that. Thank you. Doctor. Rodriguez? Thank you, Madam Chair. I had a follow-up clarification question from Doctor. Galvan's previous question regarding, the car that's triggered. In thinking about pilot and the revised car versus the old car, if I'm understanding what we've been doing correctly, the EPPs that have been due for a car have received the option opting into the revised
car or pilot or remain with the old one. In this case, would they have an option? Or because this is moving forward, the old one is going away anyway, and so everybody's going to go into the, revised car if they fall, in this scenario? I think that that's correct. Because in February '27, if they get their status, Doctor. Rodriguez, those subsequently in that twenty seven, twenty eight year, you are theoretically new rules will be effective with your new car.
Do some math there. Doctor. McFarland. Yes. I have a question. It's from slide 35 dealing with, the supports required. So I believe the proposed rule is requiring the car, completion of the car. But I also see that we we do have the opportunity to require technical assistance. And then also, what what is what would be professional services? How we define professional services? Associate Commissioner. Associate, technical assistance might be more, like side by side coaching and support. I would think more professional services being something like a structured training,
that you would contract with, for support. But I think they're pretty vague, terms. They are the terms explicitly from the statute. So, all of these are, permissible requirements that are in the statute. Gotcha. And one thing I would need Doctor. McFarland, today, Doctor. Land is bringing the require the continuing approval review as that first step. But going back to our conversation from yesterday, I think that we would really like to engage further with the board and stakeholders are around if and when the other, components on the left hand side of the
Screen would also be part of that process. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Anyone else? All right. We can continue. Alright. So, I've listed support. I've listed, communication. And the third part of this proposed policy update in response to the board's discussion in April is, this shift we discussed yesterday with, so this is how we arrive at the accreditation status itself. So existing rules as a reminder right now, accredited warned, comp like is recommended when the ASAP index score is between 8084%.
Probation is recommended when the index is below 80%. And as a reminder, statutorily driven three year consecutive years of probation results in a revocation of the accreditation. So right now the existing rules, your timeline is three years once you receive an accredited probation. Three year three consecutive years of accredited probation results in a revocation. And that's a three year window. Our proposed update, as we discussed yesterday, is
eliminating that warned category that exists currently. So no more 80 to 84%. Below 80% is the threshold and then warned is a first year result. Consecutive years thereafter, two, three and four would be probation. So this changes the timeline from first notification to revocation to four evaluation years in total. And it also, as we mentioned on the previous slide, includes the CAR process being required, and the action plan that's part of the CAR proposed CAR policy that's following up
this to be part of this whole process. So that kinda gets us through all of the three items. And so again, like, this last part of the timeline is really meant to better align timelines. It's responsive to board feedback that we heard where you said we need more time to do the things you're you're asking us to do. And I want to kind of like, pull this all together to kind of point to these three things. So as noted in the previous slide, these new proposed updates strengthen ASAP altogether.
So the rules, they could stand alone, but we're kind of suggesting that they are better considered together. For instance, the improved rules for communication ensure that multiple stakeholders understand your current accreditation statuses. But these communications will work best when they also drive the support through CAR, like through diagnosis and action planning. And we ensure that there is time to complete the CAR and for programs to start, begin implementing improvement steps.
Again, I'm gonna pause here and give, the board an opportunity to ask questions. Oh, Doctor. Rodriguez. Thank you, Madam Chair. This item six is a proposal item. And and what you're presenting here, a proposal, is based on April feedback. Much appreciated. Thank you so much for being so responsive and so thorough in incorporating everything that was brought up back in in April. We also had very rich discussions yesterday.
So my question is, what happens with yesterday's recommendations? What opportunities are there to incorporate those given that this is already an itemized proposal? And when can we expect to see a response based on yesterday's rich discussion and and deep reflection about opportunities to continue to improve the accountability system? Yep. You wanna you go, please. So, doctor Rodriguez, we would we our intent would be to pick up that in a formal discussion with you again in September,
and then hopefully proceed through that rule making process along with the line stakeholder engagement to continue to I think doctor Rodriguez has a little bit of follow-up. Just just follow-up. Yes. Thank you. What what you just, you know, your your response right now, how does it translate into the implementation of this proposed chapter two two nine as presented today versus potential further refinements to this chapter? Go first because Okay. Are. Yeah. Fantastic. So ultimate goal is full operationalization of this we called it phase one yesterday,
this proposal right here. And then this phase two proposal, all the stuff we talked about yesterday that was just conceptual and early ideas. The goal would be to operationalize everything before the 2728 school year. That said, what Jeremy is proposing here would the idea would be that it'd be operationalized prior to the February 2027 accreditation statuses so that those programs could be triggered for that early support, as soon as the 2728 school year.
Can can I jump in for a second? Go for it. So, and if you, since we have all of our materials on our laptops, if you are looking back at the work session deck, on slide 76 is the, actual proposed rulemaking timeline. So, again, we're thinking about this in two phases. What triggers a continuing approval review? That's really what triggers a continuing approval review is really kind of the question here today. Accreditation status being one of the things that would then trigger in a continuing approval review. If, the board moves forward on this rulemaking, that rule, would be effective,
really by no well, would pass through the SBOE in November. At that time, programs would receive their initial notification. So November 2026, programs would receive initial notification of their accreditation status. Again, remember, there's that informal review process. February 2027, a program would know if they were now fell below to that new accredited warrant level, or retained their accredited probation level. Those programs, would get triggered into a continuing approval review either that very spring or early the
next fall of, so spring of twenty twenty seven or fall of twenty twenty seven. The second phase of rule making, so think of this, I'm getting my review either in spring of twenty twenty seven or fall of the next year, the spring of twenty six, twenty seven, fall of twenty twenty seven, twenty eight. So keep that in mind. We will bring discussion items for this phase two, which is what happens after you engage in the continuing approval review, that discussion as early as your next meeting.
And we would anticipate just because of the complexity of the rulemaking to have a discussion with this board in September and December, you would of 2026. The board would potentially vote on a proposal item in February 2027. That is the same time when programs would be issued their accreditation status, sort of kicking all of this off. From there, if the board adopted those second phase rules in April and they were approved in June, they would be effective as of August 2027.
So those rules would be effective before any, requirements for what happened after a car, would be necessary. So we're doing this in two phases, but thinking about we wanna get help to programs as quickly as possible. So we wanna start because we recognize the continuing approval review process, you know, does take, you know, to get to all of the programs is gonna take us sometime in the spring, sometime in the fall. These rules that say, okay. Now you have your results of the continuing approval review. What's the required supports would be effective before it'd be necessary,
right, for programs to have that information. So that would be all operational for 2728. And then just to name here your, you know, I think there's some other open questions that we discussed with the board yesterday around, are there risk factors that trigger earlier, recommendations of support, etcetera? Those would also be contemplated in that second round of rulemaking. So I think our headline here is get support as quickly to as possible to and give a longer runway, to programs that are going to be identified in this next accreditation year cycle while
we work to define how we're going to support them after. Thank you very much for the clarification. I think it's important for us to remain nimble in moving forward so that we don't delay any supports and requirements to action, right, for the programs. If I'm understanding correctly, we move forward this 2627 academic year with with the new four years. But as as early as possible in into 2728,
we may also have a pre warned year if if out of yesterday's comp as a possibility, out of yesterday's conversation? We we we definitely took that feedback and is something we, you know, this is an annual process and that it like, as we work through the policy making, that's something we can consider. Any other questions? Yeah, Doctor. Galba. Thank you for that clarification. Because having and moving forward with that prewarned notice that is written,
that is also it may not trigger a car, but it does bring to the forefront this is where you are. Because it's like in everyday life, we get so busy with everyday operations, and we also need to keep in mind, it's important to consider there's so many changes coming up with the implementation of prep, with the changes in exams, and different requirements that having that pre warned notice that is written and to the
three individuals, again, you're back to the three individuals, is is the the noise you hear before your warning light goes on. Associate Commissioner McLaughlin, to go back to your beautiful analogy, you get that light, but there could have been damage already. So it would be great. You may hear some squeaking in your brakes or or something, but thank you for adding that. I appreciate it. I I think just adding to that, like, we also know that the accountability system is complex and, like,
takes time to understand. I think doctor Rodriguez, you noted that yesterday. And so, like, to the point you're making, I think we can continue exploring. Are there ways to try to signal to folks, like, you might be accredited, but there are still some things you need to pay attention to here? Alright. Any other questions before we move forward here? If not, I will entertain a motion. Doctor. McFarland? I make a motion to approve the proposed amendments to 19 TAC Chapter two twenty
nine accountability system for educator preparation programs. Subchapter A accountability system for educator preparation program procedures. Subchapter B accountability system for educator preparation accreditation statuses. Subchapter C, accreditation, sanctions. And subchapter E, review procedures as presented to be published in the Texas register. Thank you. Is there a second? Ms. Kirksoften has a second? Thank you. Sorry, because my voice again. All those, any additional questions or discussion? All right, Then we will take a vote. All those in favor of this motion,
please raise your right hand. All those opposed, same sign. And the motion carries. Are we looking at lunch now? Are we looking at item seven? Lunch. Okay. So at this time, I will find the language. It is it is 12:24, and we will recess for lunch until, I'm gonna say, 12:55. But let's we can please start by one so we can get going. Alright. Thank you. Alright. It is 01:00 on the dot, and, this meeting is back in session. And we will move to item seven.
And at this time, I will turn it over to miss Burkhart and will you start or you start? You'll start. Okay. Perfect. Alright. Welcome back from lunch. So item seven concerns the review of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification Materials review. This is the discussion and action item. As a reminder of our statutory requirement, CEC twenty one thirty five twenty three allows ESSEC to review national board certification to
reauthorize or revoke authorization for a teacher's CIA designation. If the board revokes authorization, the board may at any time conduct a review to determine whether to reauthorize the designation. And if SBEC does not reauthorize by 12/31/2026, the authorization for the designation is automatically revoked. To this end, we conducted a review of materials that began in March and went through June. So this timeline shows where we've been. So back in September, we reviewed criteria,
the board set criteria for the materials reviewers. In December, created a subcommittee to review the materials work or the materials reviewers work. And the contracted individuals reviewed the materials between March and June this year. They submitted a report to this board, and these were their initial findings and the subcommittee reviewed them yesterday. Should the Board decide two, we can enter into phase two where the reviewers will analyze and report on any changes that were made to the materials as a result of this review.
And then in December, the board will determine whether to reauthorize or revoke the designation. The contracted materials reviewed all the materials, for training and preparation for national board certification to ensure that certification does not interfere with the teacher's ability to provide instruction in the essential knowledge and skills without using the common core state standards, To provide phonics instruction without the use of three queuing. To provide instruction in accordance with the requirements and prohibitions in TEC 28.0022.
To provide instruction in accordance with the instructional requirements and prohibitions under any other applicable state law, and whether the components and assessments align with criteria adopted by the State Board of Education under one under 31 dot zero zero two two for the approval of instructional materials. This was a specific statute and ask by the legislation. And so the reviewers stuck to that review. What they did not look for, and I think it's important to name, is that the reviewers did not discuss the merits of national board certification.
They did not recommend edits or omissions to the language in the materials. And they did not discuss the implications on teachers who fold or are currently pursuing national board certification in the state. At this time, I will turn it over to our subcommittee chair, Ms. Weir, for her comments. Thank you, Beth. First of all, I just really wanna say thank you to you and your team. I know that this really was an undertaking, because the about national board, it it's very robust, it's rigorous, and it has a lot of details in it.
So I really wanna commend the reviewers for that. In moving forward, I just really want to make sure everybody understands what our task and what our goal was. And as Beck, we were asked to to review the certificates issued by National Board of Professional Teaching Standards and to either reauthorize or revoke authorization for the teacher's incentive allotment allotment designation. So with that, it comes to with the reviewer's report yesterday.
If you take a look at what they were tasked with, and it's not on the merits of National Board, but it was more or less if it is in tuned with statutory law. And they did find that, the report found that the reviewers did not identify language that would interfere with the teacher's ability to provide instruction without using the common core standards,
nor was there language that would interfere with the teacher's ability to provide phonics instructions without the use of three queuing. View the reviewers did identify potential conflicts in the certificate area standards that may be interpreted to interfere with the teacher's ability to provide instruction in compliance with TEC 28.0022 and TEC one one point zero zero five on prohibit
on diversity, equity, and inclusion duties. The other, item I want to bring to our attention is that I truly do believe that SBEC and NBPTS share a common commitment and to ensure that every student has access to highly professional standards, and effective educators by establishing the rigorous professional standards that we define of what teachers should know and be able to do and continuously strive to improve throughout their careers.
Aspect, we define the readiness to enter the profession, while the MBT PTS defines excellence within the profession. But together, we represent a contimdium of educator quality from beginning competence to accomplished practice, all in service of improving outcomes for every Texas student. Our goal is for Texas to be number one in education and the number one place for here and place of business. And so with that, when you take a look at, the architecture of accomplished teaching,
we know our teachers, we know our students, we know what our content is with the instructional materials that national board has. We designed purposefully the the goals that were needed and, and to monitor our student learning. And then in this situation, we were monitoring our teachers' learning. And we needed to evaluate that, and that was the goal. And the other piece of the architecture of accomplished teaching is to reflect. And that's what we're bringing forward today.
It's a reflection on student learning and the effectiveness of the instructional design. And, again, I do just want to remind everybody that national board we're not here on the national, to on the merits of national board. We are here of, it has to do with statutory. So with reflection and what we've learned is we need to maybe adjust instruction. And that is after reviewing the statutory laws that
it is not fully in compliance of what we are asked to do and tasked with from statutory law. And so with that, our our vote today is to, we we are also tasked with to vote or reauthorize what must take place by December 2026. And this sec subcommittee recommends that the board or do you wanna do public Okay. Is recommending, I don't have in front of me the exact words.
Okay. With that, I am proposing the motion that SBEC to accept the committee's recommendation and direct, MBPTS to make updates to the materials to come into compliance with Texas state law as required by Texas education code two one point three five two three and provide evidence of compliance to TEA staff by November 2. I would say by this request in this motion, I just wanna add,
this would help us go into phase two and to be able to reflect on what we have learned and to adjust our instruction. Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you for your leadership and your work on the committee. Do you want it back or do you want me to go to public testimony? Okay. I think we can go to public testimony. Sorry. Yeah. We can go to public testimony. Okay. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. Madam Chair, real quick, Stephen Ogle with the Office of the Attorney General. We have a number of people signed up to speak today. I wanted to remind everybody of the three minute time limit. Also,
if your testimony is repetitive of the person, who just went before you, could you please be mindful of other people's time, focus on the position that you're taking, and, any new permanent information you have. But please try not to repeat each other as you testify. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. McCain? Thank you. Okay. Our first three speakers, Mr. Brian Pena, Texas State Teachers Association, Association, miss Carrie Griffith, and miss Lauren Smith. I'm not here to talk there anymore. Okay. Okay. Are are you both planning to speak?
Yes. Okay. Your time starts is when you get to the podium. Mister Pena, you're up first. Howdy, Board. My name is Brian Pena. I'm here on behalf of Texas State Teachers Association. I'm gonna read you a portion of testimony from one of our members who could not make it. This is Jaime Avelos. He's a National Board Certified Teacher out in Crowley ISD. As a high school physics teacher, this pathway was not merely a financial incentive for me to continue in the classroom. Earning National Board Certification was a formative experience that refined my teaching and empowered me to mentor other educators towards higher levels of achievement.
Many districts do not have local TIA pathways for advanced science courses. National Board Certification provided my only viable route to earn a TIA designation in my previous district. We had a lot of folks sign up and send testimony. Ultimately, we're asking you all to please keep this as an option for our really hardworking national board certified teachers. This is an incredible, incredibly rigorous program that our folks work really hard at. And for many of our members, it is their only option when it comes to TIA. So thank you all for your time.
Yes, sir. Digitally. I have papers to hand out. Okay. Perfect. Good afternoon. My name is Lauren Smith, and I'm a proud national board certified teacher with thirteen years of teaching experience, teaching second grade. I'm here to ask you to continue recognizing national board certified teachers under the teacher incentive allotment. Earning national award certification was was one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences of my career. Over two and a half years, I analyzed student data, reflected deeply on my instructional practices, implemented research based strategies, collaborated with families and colleagues,
and demonstrated measurable student growth. National Board Certification is recognized as a gold standard in teaching because it measures not just what teachers know, but how they impact students every day. When educators are willing to dedicate two or more years honing their craft to better support students and families, the outcomes can be nothing but positive. I also wanna clarify an important sometimes misconception. National Board certification is not a curriculum, a textbook, or teacher training program. I teach the bluebonnet learning curriculum every day and faithfully follow the Texas essential knowledge and skills or TEKS. National Board does not replace what we teach.
It strengthens how we teach. It develops our pedagogy by helping us to understand students as individuals, use research based instructional practices, and ensure that every learner regardless of their background or starting point has the opportunity to grow and succeed and has opportunities to elevate their learning. Since becoming national board certified, I've served in many leadership roles, but this is not unique. You will walk into districts and classrooms and see national board certified teachers leading others, helping others, and remaining in the classroom when we know teachers are leaving the classroom at a mass exodus rate.
Research shows consistently that students taught by national board certified teachers experience greater academic growth and NBCTs are more likely to remain in the profession and serve as leaders in their school. We know that we need accomplished teachers in our Texas classroom and our students deserve the best. National Board certified teaching and the TIA incentive does keep teachers in the classroom giving back and all of that. And every five years, we do have to maintain our certificate. So it's not a one and done. We do this. We're checked. We keep going. We keep learning. We keep giving back to our schools and our students.
Please keep this as an option. There are many teachers that this is the only pathway to TIA. We wanna accomplish these in our classroom because our students deserve that. I would be happy to answer any questions or provide additional information if it's asked for. The impact on student achievement is worth continuing this for the teacher incentive allotment. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Doctor Peggy Brookins, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Miss Reagan Curran and miss Stephanie Stobbe. I'm sorry if I said that incorrectly. Alright. Thank you very much.
My name is Peggy Brookins. I'm a National Board Certified Teacher, who taught thirty eight years in Florida before becoming, current president and CEO of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. For nearly forty years, my organization has guided and is guided by the belief that higher standards for teachers means better learning for students. Our mission is to maintain rigorous, high standards of what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do and to certify those teachers who meet those standards. For two decades, research has confirmed that students taught by national board certified teachers learn more in their
classrooms than in others. In fact, new research conducted by Jacob Kurtze and Kristen Mantel found in Texas students, those who are taught by NBCTs gain roughly three and a half additional months of learning in math and about one and a half additional months in English language arts compared to students taught by non TIA, non National Board certified teachers. That same study found that National Board certified teachers reduced the likelihood of student suspensions and chronic absenteeism compared to non TIA teachers.
Given the significant impact on student outcomes, we have been thrilled to see how the teacher incentive allotment has spurred an increase in National Board Certified teachers in Texas. Since 2019, more than eight twenty nine Texas teachers have earned National Board Certification through our rigorous performance based assessment process. This has generated more than $13,000,000 in TIA allotment funds. And more than 900 teachers across the state took a step toward National Board certification this past year.
As a state, and this Board in particular, addresses the retention of highly qualified teachers, our research shows that the State's investment in NBCTs is helping solve important teacher workforce needs. In a survey of almost 200 Texas NBCTs, more than three fourths said that the National Board Certification and TIA designation have influenced their decision to remain in the classroom. We are committed to partnering with SBEC so that we can continue to be a solution for teachers and students in Texas.
To that end, we have reflected on the concerns raised over the past year and on the steps that we might take so that National Board certified teachers continue to play a role in ensuring that Texas has a stable, high performing educator workforce. First, we are in the process of revising our literacy standards. The draft standards are available for public comment on our website right now. We encourage all of you to offer your feedback. Second, we are in the process of adding language to clarify the role of examples in
our standards. Examples are meant to be Thank you. That was your time, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. I'll take any questions. Thank you. And we'll have questions after, right, all of the testimony is concluded. Okay. I also printed off my testimony. I'm just gonna pass that. Okay. So, for clarity and oh, sorry. Reagan Curran. For clarity, I'm going to kind of maybe skip some parts just so that we don't have any redundant information given. Hi. I'm Reagan Curran. I am a nationally board certified teacher. I am also currently appointed to Governor Abbott's Task Force on Early Childhood Education,
and I'm happy to serve Texas as long as well as all of you. And I know that y'all are doing this very well. And I thank you so much for your thoroughness in this review. As it's been mentioned, we are not talking about the merits of National Board Certification. We're talking about, some specific instances and I just want to thank, this Board as well as all of the boards that have gone before it to include special education teachers and TIA. I am a proud special education teacher and you will never take me out of a special education classroom. I love it and I do want to continue serving those students.
However, the problem we have now is if I stay in my special education classroom, I will take a huge, significant fee cut so that I can qualify for TIA. Whereas, if I just taught special ed, I would only get the special education allotment that's given by our school districts. And our school districts do not have the funds to match TIA. And so what's happening is we have a huge lack of teachers in special education. And since I've become certified as an NBCT, I now help mentor other special education teachers,
as well as all NBCTs, but specifically special education teachers, because we do not qualify any other way. I appreciate and applaud the local authority given to school districts to create their own programs. However, due to the intrinsic special needs of our students, we are almost always left off. And this is one of the only ways that we are allowed to participate in this while still adhering to our TICs diligently, meeting our students' IEPs without school districts having to invest even more money in the complex ways that can prove quality special education teaching.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them for you later. Thank you so much for letting us speak. Thank you. Chair and members of the board, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Stephanie Stobee, and I'm a fourth grade teacher in Round Rock ISD. I have twenty years of experience, seven valid Texas certifications, and a national board certification in early to middle years literacy. I'm here today to speak on the review required under house bill two and to ask that this board continue to include national board certified teachers within the teacher incentive
allotment. I want to be direct about something I think is being misunderstood in this review. National board certified teachers do not follow national board standards instead of the TEKS. We follow the TEKS. Every single lesson I plan, every unit I build is driven by the Texas' state adopted standards because that is what Texas law requires and what my students are tested on. The national board standards are not a competing curriculum. They are set of professional tools that ask me to be reflective about how I teach the standards,
how I plan, differentiate, assess, and adjust for the students actually in front of me. TEEFS answer the question of what is being taught in the classroom. Room. National board standards answer the question of how effectively a teacher is teaching. That distinction matters because House Bill two directs this board to determine whether national board certification materials allow for teaching of state standards without deviation, and I want to confirm from firsthand experience that they do. The certification process itself is built on standards based evidence of my own classroom practice,
a content knowledge assessment plus three portfolio components documenting real instruction of Texas adopted curriculum. There's also a structural point worth naming. Every piece of evidence I submit, videos, student work, written reflections, comes from my own TEKS based classroom. There is no separate curriculum a candidate who teaches to satisfy national board. The standards are assessed entirely through how I deliver Texas adopted content. The research bears out. A Texas Tech University study that was already mentioned compared that students being taught by
national board certified teachers gain about three and a half additional months of learning in math and a month and a half in reading compared to peers taught by non designated teachers. Those gains are on par with our state's own exemplary tier and even larger for economically disadvantaged English language learners. Given that, I'm concerned about the current plan to remove national board certified teachers from TIA. That placement doesn't match the evidence, and it doesn't match what districts like mine see in practice. I'd ask this board as it finalizes its decision ahead of 12/31/2020 finalizes its decision
ahead of 12/31/2026 deadline, to continue including national board certification teachers in the teacher incentive allotment. I know the review committee is doing careful work on this question, and I appreciate that seriousness. As a teacher who has maintained their certification. Thank you. Thank you. And finally, Mr. Quinn McCall, Texas Classroom Teachers Association. Hello everybody. My name is Quinn McCall and I'm here on behalf of the Texas Classroom Teachers Association. Our organization supports retaining national board certification as a route to earning a TIA designation
because it's inclusive of functionally all teachers and it allows TIA, teachers to get TIA in non TIA districts. Much has already been said about the merits of national board certification and the potential loss of TIA money for those who wouldn't otherwise be able to get a designation in a school district. So, instead I want to focus, instead on what exactly the law requires you to do with respect to this review. What's been passed out to you is the entire text of Texas Education Code, 21.3523, which is the brief section from HB2 that describes what you're meant to do.
Luckily it all fit on one page. I appreciate that. The legislature is brief. The section lays out your charge to review the national board certification and decide whether to retain its status as a route to earning a TIA designation. Highlighted is the text on which much of your charge relies. Note that the highlighted portion only states what the review must evaluate, not any action required contingent on the outcome of that review. In the agency's presentation yesterday morning, it was implied, if not outright stated, that you are required to revoke National Board as a RAPT TIA if anything in
the standards does not align with state law or the AMRA rubric. On the contrary, nothing in the language before you states an obligation to revoke national board's designation status. It only states that you review must quote, evaluate whether the components and assessments align and comply with state law. The review that you received is simply information to inform your decision. If you still have concerns about making an informed decision, I'd also encourage you to read the full text of the standards in context to get a better picture of how the potentially misaligned language functions in that standard.
From what was shown and discussed yesterday, some of the examples used to help candidates create a better idea of what meeting the standard might look like, but they were presented without the standard, they referred to and provided perhaps an incomplete picture of what's expected of the candidate. As you deliberate between now and November, know this. The law requires you to conduct an initial review of national board certification and with the report before you, you have in the form of having five reviewers conduct that review. The decision rests with you. And I'm happy to answer your questions. Thank you.
At this time, the Board, if there are any questions, for staff, Ms. Burkhardt, or for the speakers, Doctor. McFarland? I have a question for Doctor. Brookins. Doctor. Brookins, I know you were, beginning to explain the adjustments that you all have made to align with with the standards? I'd like you to complete that, please. Well, what I was saying is that we have heard the committee we were here yesterday for the subcommittee report. And basically, we have asked to meet with them. They have agreed, to meet with us as well to go over in detail exactly,
you know, line by line what they are asking of us. We can't make any changes until we know exactly what is asked of us. And as we walk through that, the other piece is that, you know, we're in the process currently of standards review ourselves and the that revision that we do every ten years, we're doing that now. As I said, the LER list standards are on our, webpage now for public comment and invited everybody to that. But, you know, the idea is to meet with the staff, you know, them to tell us exactly what they're looking at,
what they think is out of compliance, and then for us to do that. The one thing I do want to say is that when we think about the timeline and the change of a standard and validity and reliability requires you to do something very different and something very costly at the same time. So, you know, if somebody thinks that you can do that in a matter of months, it doesn't happen that way. And the cost is astronomical to do standards and the assessment,
the public comment, the committee, the profession consensus, all of that in a very short timeline. That's alright. Thank you. Can I just I just wanna make sure I clear like, clarify a point that I think you made yesterday is that I think TEA staff will obviously be working collaboratively with with y'all, but that some of that is still on y'all legal counsel to ensure compliance on y'all's end too? Correct? That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Doctor Gelsinger. Hi. I was wondering if you,
are navigating this with any other states that may have had legislation similar to this, or is this a issue unique to Texas? Unique to Texas. Not in forty years have we had any of this. Thank you. Deputy commissioner? Are there any other states that have this type of state level support for national board? Yes. That's weird. Doctor. Perkins, I was wondering, could you kind of give us an idea about how many teachers are in the
process of obtaining national board certification? In in Texas? Yes. In September. 900? And how many of, those are the ones in process? Like, they're in, like, year two or year three of obtaining certification? Well, you had last year, I think, about 900 people start the process. And and one thing is that you can you have about five years in order to complete the process itself for certification. You can do it in one, two, three, and submit your initial four components.
And then you have a resubmission after that for anything that did not meet the standard. Then you have two years for that. So, it depends on where they are. So you could have teachers who have been in the process, that 900 who started. There are others who add on. And it depends on that flow of how many components they've taken in any one given year when they complete the process. So, they have quite a few choices. Okay. The other comment I just want to, and this may not be directly to you, Doctor. Brookins, but also for our National Board of Teachers that are in the audience.
Maybe at the beginning, with everybody that is here to let them know I'm also a National Board certified teacher and I want to make sure that our teachers that are in the audience, I, definitely understand how National Board is an opportunity to be a part of teacher incentive allotment because I, like you, I'm in that position where, my school is not TIA, but it was an opportunity for me to improve my teaching and an opportunity to increase my pay. So going to getting to my question,
maybe doctor Brookins, what the reviewers had identified was I wanna make sure that this is clear for everybody that is here. The the reviewers did not identify language that would interfere with the teacher's ability to provide instruction without using the common core standards nor the language that would interfere with the teacher's ability to provide phonics instruction without the use of three queuing. And I guess if we had on the screen,
like, the bullet points, you'll understand where we're going. And again, this is to help our audience too. The reviewers identified language that potentially interfered with the teacher's ability to provide instruction when compliance of section 28.022, which applied to the law of TEC, one one point zero zero five and which is on diversity, equity, inclusion duties. And the potential conflicts were identified in the certificate areas to standards only.
And here is the most critical part for everybody to please understand. That potential conflict was more or less were the examples, not rather than the requirements. And again, I believe it was in six content areas. So my question is maybe centered around as we are taught in national board that sometimes we have to adjust our instruction. And I'm also looking at statutory law. Statutory law I'm looking at is asking us to adjust instruction to meet what we
are required to do by Texas law, which where it comes into play of culturally responsive teaching practices that value students' diverse backgrounds and experiences. So I know we're going, hoping, national board, we will go into phase two. And for all the teachers who are national board certified, that I think, like I said, they're better teachers. They're quality teachers. That's what teacher that's what state of Texas wants. And
I believe that you want the same as well. Absolutely. And I'm hoping that you can understand where our hands are somewhat tied, that we have to stay with what our statutory law is. And at the same time, I guess I'm asking I'm hoping that we can expedite the process so we can all be on a win win situation and to be on the path of student growth and quality education. Because that is the goal with SBEC and the goal of National Board.
I understand exactly what you're saying. And one of the things that in the discussion yesterday of the subcommittee that I was hearing and what we would like to meet with TEEA about is Section 11.005 and to see where we are as an organization out of compliance with that. And then take that, you know, my staff will be looking at that. We will be given specific directions from them. We will look at where we're out of compliance, where we're already doing revisions in our own standards,
and then see, take that to our Board of Directors. Thank you, Peggy. Oh, that's great. Yeah. That was the bullet points I was discussing. And if you look at this, and again, this is for people in the audience, to let you know these were the five points that the reviewers were looking at and that there was just one area that came to their attention, which is TC 11.005, and it had to do more or less with the examples. And so I'm a visual learner.
I feel like we're 85, 90% there. We just need to get that 10% over to comply with statutory law. We would love to work with you, And we would love to work with you. Thank you. Miss Gray. Yes. Hi. Thank you all for, providing your testimonies today. But I do have just one question just for clarification. And now it can be with you, doctor doctor Brockens or with Quinn or maybe one of the other teachers, but, one of the other national board teachers. But one of the questions I had,
I know with TIA, it has to do with, mostly with our, student performance as well as with, with our teacher evaluation system. And I was just trying to see with our domains that we have for the teacher evaluation systems, with it being distinguished, accomplished, proficient, developing, and improvement needed, one of the TIA designated, teachers. But, the domains have to do with planning, instruction, learning environment, and professional practices. Is there any kind of way one of you all can, like, describe, like, how t, how national board,
goes along with some of the Texas evaluation system that has to do with those domains? And if you need me to repeat that again, I can. Yes. So I would be happy to answer that as well as if anyone else would like to answer as well. So when it comes to classroom environment and instruction, that directly correlates into your t test preplanning. So a lot of us actually kind of coincide the two because they are pretty closely linked. And, obviously, we follow t test much more strictly than we do, the other. And so the classroom environment,
the planning, that all goes into that like, your pre conference with your administrator, but also just makes it even stronger. So, when I look back at before I did National Boards, I went to Abilene Christian, and we had a lot of these practices already in place. And so, it was a lot easier for me when I got to National Boards. But it has helped me in my pre conference planning and also in my goal setting at the beginning of the year because I'm used to being a reflective practitioner who looks at my students and sees what are they needing. So, for example, yesterday I was talking to some people who are wanting to pursue this.
And I was saying, you know, when I looked at my end of year state assessment data, my kids really struggled in phonics. And so, I made that into my TTEST goal. And then I used the reflective practices we learned through TX and VCT I'm sorry, just national boards in general to then create my goals and implement them well. But I did all of that through Texas' already existing systems. And then as well as being a reflective practitioner when I do look at data, you know, Texas always wants to be the best and we want to make sure our kids are outperforming everyone else.
And so when we're looking at this data that we have and we have great access to awesome data through, all of our systems, we then take that and use it in more meaningful ways. So what TEKS did my kids really struggle with and how Can I use the materials I have been given through Texas to make sure I implement that in the best way? Did that answer your question, miss Gray? Yes. Thank you so much. And I just have one last question. This may be more for, Quinn McCall. I know that you talked about the school districts. Not all school districts, participate in the local designation.
I just so happen to be a school district that does. Do you know about how many schools, that do participate in t in local TIA versus the ones that, this is the only pathway for some teachers to receive TIA, like the number points of data? I checked in a couple years ago. I think so. I don't mean to cut you off, but I do think that that might be, a staff answer first. Thanks. They can get you a very precise number. Thank you, Quinn. Sorry about that. Over a thousand of our 1,200 school districts in the state currently have an approved local TIA designation system.
So, that's a vast majority of our schools in our districts in Texas have a TIA system in place. They vary in terms of the extent to which all certification categories are or all teaching assignments are included in that designation system. But with House Bill two, similar to the significant investment in educator preparation, there was also significant investment into supporting scaling the teacher incentive allotment, including providing supports to school districts throughout the state in expanding the applicability of the
teacher incentive allotment across certification areas. I know area of particular interest is special education, ensuring more teachers are able to earn that designation. And then also expanding the eligibility, to a new eligibility category, called acknowledged that would actually allow for a greater group of educators in total to qualify for the teacher incentive allotment. So all of that is also, like, being operationalized now as well. And so I think we're in a place where there may national board may have been the only option for an educator in years past of their significant movement towards
additional options for individuals in the in the future. The other thing I would name and, Beth, correct me if these numbers are off. I think, right now there's, a decent portion of the individuals who hold the National Board Certification in Texas also earn a designation under their local accountability system. So, there's folks who have a national board, but they are also on the recognized, or distinguished or master level designation through their performance in their school district. Thank you. Miss Weir. Just a minute. This is a staff question.
If a school district elects to do TIA, does that mean all schools in their district have TIA? There are different implementation plans that districts implement as they scale across teaching subjects and scale it across campuses. I think I would ground this board back though in your core charge. Again, reinforcing back to what Ms. Burkhard shared is not to, evaluate the efficacy or the value of national board or the the statute does not,
ask the board to consider impact on the the teacher, core, but rather does the language within the national board materials present potential conflict with the laws of Texas? And so I think just grounding us back in that, explicit charge, in the, that we discussed yesterday during that subcommittee, I think is important here. I think, you know, excellent teachers, throughout our state have strong performance outcomes from national board. I don't think we're disputing that. There's just a very specific charge that this board has related to,
statutory alignment. Thank you. I think we can maybe continue our conversation, but let's stay kind of focused on what associate commissioner, McLaughlin just kind of spelled out for us. Doctor Galvan. Thank you. Thank you, chair. First and foremost, it brings so much joy to my heart to see teachers smile and to be so dedicated to come and advocate for what they truly believe. It's it's commendable. And it's it's commendable for you, to be an advocate and to be a voice for your profession.
The issue is what Chad Weir has so well stated. This is merely, is it compliant with the legal requirement? There is no doubt that it is outstanding. You've gone beyond every Make sure you stay Oh, I'm sorry. Give me every effort, to go over and beyond what you're doing. My question, associate commissioner McLaughlin, I know we discussed this afterwards. Please explain if if a person earned TIA because of their
national board, they're not gonna lose it today. They're can you explain that, please? Yes, ma'am. So, if if the board were to, have to revoke national board certification in December, that would not immediately impact an individual's TIA designation. The law specifically states, that that individual will continue to be eligible for TIA for the remainder of the period with which they were, the number of years that they were on that five year approval cycle. So, if someone was approved last year, they would have four more years on their TIA before they would need to reauthorize.
And at that reauthorization stage, they would no longer be eligible because of national board. So even if there was and I think one of the things I'd like to reinforce here is, the provision in the statute that says even if and I know I appreciate doctor Burkin's naming, time constraints. Even if, the board were to have to revoke national board certification, if if they were able to come back, the board has authority to, at any point, review the materials and reinstate and reauthorize, national boards. So there's an opportunity here to potentially make things right,
even if the board did have to revoke, by, before a a large number of teachers were impacted. And and thank you. And can we agree? Because they did do so well on national board, that that impacted their teacher evaluation and their their performance that then amplified their their, TIA designation. Well, and and I think the the goal would be as, again, house bill two really infused additional funding to support TIA over the next five years as if, again, National Board was to be revoked,
there's also the opportunities for districts to meaningfully expand their designation systems so they can wrap in those educators who National Board may have only been the way that they could qualify previously. So, again, multiple things moving at the same time. Oh, Ms. Turk Sepproen. Okay, I'm about to, I just, again, to reiterate what, Doctor. Galvan said, I commend you guys, especially the sped teachers. I mean, that that's one of the biggest areas that we have the shortages in, and there's turnover constantly. You know, I have family members that are that are all,
you know, like, that are on SPED, like, severe SPED. And the fact that you're so passionate about it is just incredible. And I really hope that, you know, there's a there's a way to work all this out so you so you're able to, get the allotments and and, it's where you're not getting pay cuts and everything. Because it requires a lot of time, effort, planning, and everything. So I truly commend you for, you know, the passion that you have for for children, neurodivergent children. Thank you. Doctor. McFarland. Yes, I just want to make sure that I'm that I understand clearly now what the
committee is recommending and then what our what our charge is. So the committee is recommending that the national board addresses the language that creates the conflict what creates the potential conflict. We're not discussing really the content of what the National Board is doing. We're just saying there's language that could potentially create a conflict And then once they address that language, which doctor Brookins has said that they're willing to work to address it, then then we move forward. Is that is that correct? Okay. Yes. That is correct.
One thing I would oh, I'm sorry. Donald. Associate commissioner. If you just so we can see the language. One thing I would clarify here is that, the committee did specify, a specific date by which, national board would need to make updates in order for the, reviewers to review those updated materials and, to bring a recommendation to the board prior to the deadline that's set in statute of December 31. So the committee, as you can see here in the motion, has, that this would direct National Board to make updates to to your point,
doctor McFarland, to the language in their materials to come into compliance by 11/02/2026. If, again, just to reinforce, if for some reason a national board was not able to meet that timeline, again, the board, given the findings so far, staff's recommendation would likely be to revoke. That does not preclude the board from coming back at your next meeting and considering new evidence, taking an option to reauthorize. So you have that, that authority kind of in perpetuity. Thank you. Just for and then a follow-up then.
So if the committee has identified language or examples or areas where there's potential conflict, will the committee share that directly with the National Board so that they can address it in that time period? Thank you, Doctor. Marpylin. That information has been shared Okay. With national board. Right. And, and that is how come we're able to go into the phase two recommendation that we're making. And I believe to your point, and also assistant commissioner McLaughlin had mentioned is it comes down to for them to hopefully be able to review the potential conflict
by November 2. And then to give a chance for our reviewers to go through, once that they have gone through it. And then by our meeting in December or by December 31 is when we have to revoke or reauthorize at that time. So it has to do with timing right now and and taking into consideration of what will happen if we revoke and also, hopefully, reauthorize is the goal everybody has in mind.
Yes. Wonderful. Mister Gore. Obviously, a lot of work put into this by everyone. I appreciate that. I guess one request would be this is bringing attention to this issue, great, by in in the larger education ecosystem. I can a minor concern would be that the reviewers, no doubt, very thoroughly have identified things they're concerned about.