Good morning, everyone. It is 09:01AM, and the meeting is called to order. I will conduct a roll call and, ask that you when I call your name, please respond that you're present. Jean Streety, present. Kelby Oser, present. Alma Rodriguez? Present. Good morning. Rex School Good morning. Present. Julia Dvorak? Present. Michael McFarland? Present. Courtney McDonald? Yes. Bobby Lynn Weir? Here. Jenna Glasscock? Present. Veronica Galvan? Present. Emma Gelsinger? Present. Bob Brescia? Tara Zaffron? Leticia Andrews? Present.
If you will, please join me 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, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And for a moment of silence. Thank you, you, board. Here, good morning everyone. So great to see everyone this morning. Thank you for such a great session yesterday. I do have a few reminders. The meeting is being live streamed. It works best if you'll raise your hand and wait to be recognized to speak.
That way, you can wait till the previous speaker finishes, completely so the audio won't pick up completely. Thank you. Speaking of. To ensure we maintain a quorum, board members please remain in the room during the meeting. We'll take several breaks throughout the day, but of course we know, things happen. Today, I typically start with, something that's going on in our schools. Some planning or events or just the daily work of schools. But today, I'd like to address the devastating flooding and the heartbreaking events of the last month.
As a board specifically committed to our families, to our students, and our communities, I want to express our deepest sympathies and our prayers to those who lost or are awaiting information on loved ones, friends, neighbors, and community members. I attended one of the funerals at our church recently, and it was just heartbreaking, as as you would guess, to see the families and the friends, and the wide eyed classmates who came in with their parents, holding their hands and learning to sign the guestbook for the first time.
And then I looked around and I saw the teachers and counselors and the principals who were there, with their own grief, but they came to school to support our teachers and our students and our families and our community. And that made me think of what's to come in our schools in the next few weeks. Amidst their own grief and caring for their own families, our teachers and our staff will need our support. It's tricky as a teacher, not knowing which children have what type of information and what conversations we've had at
home. And we don't know how it'll play out in the classrooms, whether a child is quiet, or acts out, or is worried. But what we do know is that our teachers are often the bridge between our home and our community, and sometimes between worry and feeling comfort. So with that in mind, and amidst all that goes on in our school every day, I pray that our teachers hear what they need to hear and see what they need to see in responding to our students' needs. And I pray that we as a community wrap around our teachers so that they
feel supported at every turn. On a different note, I would like to welcome two of our new board members. I believe Ms. Zaffron is, traveling today today and may be able to join us, and at that time, we'll have her introduce herself. But we are so lucky to have Ms. Leticia Andrews, who is an administrator from Veda Academy. And would you like to introduce yourself? Sure. Thank you. Happy to be here today. My name is Leticia Andrews, and I am the founder, CEO, and superintendent of Beta Academy. We started with 33 students,
and we serve, just about 2,000 this year. So, long journey and very happy to be here and very happy to serve the students of, Southeast Houston. Thank you. Appreciate it. We're so glad to have you. Already leaning into the board meeting yesterday. I'd also like to thank, not only all, all board members for leaning in yesterday, but for all of the clear work that staff had to do in helping us understand the new legislative agenda and possible ways of working through that body of work. So thank you all for that. I'd also like to thank the people who are here today in attendance and leaning
into the work with us. And there were two people I wanted also to recognize, which was, Doctor. Scott Murray, who, is retired, from the board and from, his position in that he we haven't had a chance to recognize him yet, but he I wish he had been here yesterday. He was such a champion of residency. And I know, he helped set that foundation, as hopefully all of us are doing for the future for our students too. He brought the lens of being both the superintendent and EPP knowledge.
And he always brought the systems view so he could speak to both the school concerns and the preparation concerns. I'd also like to recognize Josue is no longer on the board, but I want to take a moment to thank him for his service as well. Not only did he serve on, the SBEC board, he served on the teacher vacancy task force as the chair. And so, he really dove into his work. He had young children of his own, taught elementary school. If he couldn't be here in person, he was online. If he needed to testify, he would show up either in person or again online.
And for my memory of him, it's always children top of mind for him. So, and always brought that back to all of us. So, I want to thank them for their service. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Assistant Commissioner Jessica McLaughlin. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Streepy, and good morning, everyone. Appreciate everyone's engagement yesterday throughout our work session. So I'm gonna keep my comments brief this morning because I think y'all heard me talk a fair amount yesterday. But I just wanna echo,
my gratitude, to this board for the level of enthusiasm, engagement, and commitment to the work that we have collectively ahead, of us over the course of the next few years to implement the legislation coming out of this eighty ninth legislative session. So, just expressing gratitude. And then I I wanna also thank, chair Srivastava, thank you for, those beautiful words that you shared during your opening comments related to the floods in Kerr County. Just know that our our TA family, our our partners, our prayers are with folks in that community. I wanna acknowledge that our our vice chair, McDonald,
is from that community, and so I wanted to give, vice chair McDonald an opportunity, to to share. Thank you. I haven't I haven't had a chance to talk to people outside of Cook County, about this yet. So I'm very nervous, and I I wrote things down. So just bear with me, and I'm gonna try to keep it focused on education since that's what we're all here for. And that's how we can relate, I think, to the situation. And so I just wanna start with our neighbors. We're the Zunkers, and the whole family passed away. Rhys, the father, was a teacher, and coach at Tidy High School in Kerrville. He was also the teacher of the year last year.
His wife had also been a teacher at Tybee. Our other friends, the burgesses, were back in town to visit since July 4 is a huge holiday in Kerrville. The parents and their sons were lost in the flood. Their daughter was at camp and is now a total orphan without her parents or her, brothers. The mother was fighting cancer, and had just taken a leave from from teaching. They had just purchased an RV so that they had a familiar place to stay when they were making their trips to, MD Anderson instead of staying in ho different hotel rooms. They thought it sounded fun to try out their new camper for the first time when they came to town for the fourth,
And that whole entire park, washed away. So anyway so, and then the very first mom, I think y'all might remember I was pregnant, or having Mary Kate actually the day, the week of the my first SBEC meeting. And the week after the first meeting that I was able to attend, Mary Kate started Mother's Day out at three months old. And the very first mom I met, the first day I dropped off of Mother's Day out, she lost her daughter, at Camp Mystic. A neighborhood where many teachers and young families live was completely wiped out. For most, this home was their first purchase in attempt to put down roots in Kerr Kerr
County. Home insurance doesn't cover floods, and they have work they have to return to work in just a couple of days. I believe Monday and Tuesday are their return to work days. The Hunt School, which is such a special place, is currently a shelter filled with families that have to find new housing next week before school starts. The amazing people at the Hunt School will then have to get everything ready for those kids that have lost everything, lost their classmates, and whose teachers have also lost everything. I wanted to point out Crystal Dockery White, the executive director of the Texas Association of Community Schools has been invited here multiple times, for work sessions and for our meetings to testify.
And she used to be the superintendent of Hunt School District. So if y'all see her around, please, I know this is probably very, very hard for her as well. My daughter who is actually a year early for camp was given an opportunity by our close family friends to attend, camp this year. We would have dropped her off on July 3, and we may not have been able to pick her up, and it's really staggering to think about. They used our school buses and our school personnel to rescue campers and bring them back to reunification sites to meet their parents. The rescue helicopters were using the high school football field to drop off those rescued
from trees and rooftops. It's been horrifying to see and hear the stories. It's been beyond heartbreaking. The impact and loss isn't even fully realized yet. However, it has been amazing to see our community come together and love on each other. The start of school in a couple of weeks will be another huge hurdle. Parents dropping off their children will not be the same this year. Children experiencing the absence of their peers and favorite teachers will make the depth of loss a apparent and will be so difficult for these little hearts to comprehend. It's going to be incredibly tough for these educators to act normal when their colleagues are not there, and they have so much to deal with at home still,
or wherever they're calling home at at the moment. So please keep Cook County in your prayers and as we return to school, please keep our community close to your hearts. Thank you. Thank you, Courtney. Okay. Sorry. Hope that wasn't too long. No. It's okay. Perfect. I believe that, we have public conferences. Mister Jonathan Cabrera? Okay. Good morning. We have the consent agenda this morning. Items four through seven, as always, if y'all have any questions or or wanna discuss one of these items individually, we can. So you have your April board meeting minutes. We are requesting that y'all approve Texas teacher residency preparation route for education
for ed prep programs The adoption of two thirty five, there were no public comments submitted during the public comment period from the proposal in April And a new certificate class for an APP So As always, there's a motion. Sure. I move to approve the consent agenda. Thank you. Is there a second? Thank you, Ms. McDonald. Further discussion from the board? Those in favor, please raise your right hand. Those opposed, same sign. And the motion carries. Thank you. Ms. McCain? Yeah. Is anyone here from,
UNT Dallas for the Super I do not think that they are here. I just wanted to make sure before I thank you. Right, item H. Good morning to the Chair and Board. I'm eager to share with you Item eight, which is a proposal item about updates to Chapter two twenty nine for the twenty twenty four-twenty twenty five reporting year. This item builds on our robust April discussion. ASAP is a multiple measure system that uses performance standards with indicators to measure outcomes of educator preparation programs.
As a reminder, the statutorily required indicators include certification tests, principal survey, a student growth indicator, observation data, an exit survey, and a teacher survey. Looking at recent actions, you may remember in September, last September, you adopted the annual updates for Chapter two twenty nine. Last November, the SVOE approved the rules and we notified the EPPs of our recommended status for the academic year. This previous February,
you approved all your EPPs statuses based on the calculations with the twenty twenty three-twenty twenty four data. In April, we discussed the proposed updates for Chapter two twenty nine for the current reporting cycle. And as it is our typical cadence, we bring a proposal item in the July meeting for the first vote of approval today. Some additional reminders, we update Chapter two twenty nine each year based on feedback that comes in several forms. Each year we update in alignment with Board guidance and questions and stakeholder input that
comes in throughout the year and from the EPP data work group. We also update to maintain alignment with other chapter changes, most recently to ensure alignment with Chapter two twenty eight revisions. We learn each year from executing ASAP calculations, which we monitor and use to inform updates in alignment with existing data. Finally, we review the rules each year and update for readability and clarity. Underlying all this work, we aim to balance conversations with the field with the desire to keep a very
technical process as straightforward as we can. Just for a brief review, in April, we discussed six topics. We will summarize each of those today again, except for the Student Growth section where I will provide the Board with some additional information in response to the April discussion. I want to emphasize today that there are no changes from the discussion item in April. We begin today by reviewing the small group process adjustment. As a reminder, this is a visualization in the ASAP manual representing the small group aggregation procedure.
The procedure is as follows beginning on the left of the visual: Determine if the current reporting year is greater than ten. If it is, we evaluate the outcome. If it is less than 10, we look to the previous reporting year with the data. We add the two numbers and if it is greater than 10, then we evaluate. If it isn't greater than 10, we then go and get a third year of data and then we evaluate as long as we get to a third year of data. A note here that the twenty three-twenty four reporting cycle was the first time after
the pandemic and the ASAP turning back on where we actually got to three years of data again that was available. In addition, the next slide responds to specific feedback of the system that noted that programs could improve and be meeting a standard in the current year, but have fewer than 10 candidates from an EPP. So this led to circumstances where an EPP could have one particularly bad year impact results on an indicator for several years, even if the program was improving and in the current year showed that improvement.
The small group procedure adjustment that the Board discussed in April, responds to that feedback I just mentioned and the board affirmed that we should move forward to proposal. The second evaluation will work as follows. After completing the primary evaluation, which was described on the previous slide, we would then add a secondary evaluation step. The secondary evaluation would be of the current year of data when two conditions are met. The first, the small group aggregation procedure was applied and the evaluation required either two or three
years of data to perform the evaluation and the result of the evaluation was did not meet standard. When the conditions are met and the secondary evaluation of the current year of data meets the standard, the consecutive year counter that we use would pause. When the conditions are met and the secondary evaluation of the current year of data did not meet the standard, the consecutive year counter would continue moving forward. Forward. This may impact the ASEP index by affecting whether a program reaches a third consecutive
year of missing a standard and thus has a negative weight outcome assigned to the point total for that cell. It also may impact EPPs in the certification class or category evaluation by affecting whether the EPP reaches a third consecutive year of missing a certification class or category test. In practice, this means programs now have flexibility to reach a standard when the evidence in the current year suggests improvements may have happened.
We appreciated the healthy discussion with the Board last time and the affirmation to move forward with this rule. This rule will maintain information rich evaluations, a stated Board preference, recognize when EPPs improve in the current year, responds directly to the feedback of stakeholders over the last several years and allows for programs to discharge one bad year of results when they show improvement in the current year. I'm gonna pause here and just see if there are any questions. Or as we discussed last time,
this was, in part, response to our concern of, helping programs that are in the process and showing improvement. We had long discussions over those over the last year, that this was the attempt to come back and support programs that do look like they're turning around. Questions? Alright. Keeping us moving then. So next, we summarize the proposed shift of the Commendations Rule. This one is quick. Last year, the SBEC paused the commendations as the continuing approval review process was updated.
As this work progresses, we continue planning to move commendations into Chapter two twenty eight. The Board also confirmed this was a good idea to move forward on in the April discussion. And I'll see if there are any questions real quickly. Just to make a connection to our discussion yesterday where we talked about, the redesign of the continuing approval review and how we'll need to do rulemaking over the course of the next year to codify that quality review that's now required in statute into your rules in chapter two twenty eight. And so this is an opportunity,
just making that connection, that Jeremy names that we would carry these this commendations process as a part of that redesign over into chapter two two eight as we consider that broader package of rulemaking. Alright. At our last meeting, the Board indicated initial support for a roll in of the performance standard or the student growth indicator while also stating clarifying questions about the student growth indicator. Today, we will spend some time discussing the student growth indicator with the goal of helping you understand why the roll in might be a preferred approach to implementation.
At a high level, the Student Growth Indicator was mandated in tech and methods developed between 2018 and 2020, was adopted as an indicator by the Board in 2020, and now we have one pilot year and three report only years of data. The Board must implement the Student Growth Standard this year to stay aligned with their rules and statute. As some additional context, the ACEF Student Growth Indicator works as follows: To be clear, these represent the Board's current rules.
We begin by using STAR annual growth points, which are produced out of annual testing of students in grades three through eight and certain end of high school courses. Students are awarded one point for accelerated or expected growth, a half a point for Maintaining Proficiency but not meeting expected growth, and zero points for falling to a lower performance level, thereby not meeting growth expectations. Points calculation. A beginning teacher must average 50% of the points possible across all students in a
subject area. Once each teacher has an average student growth point score, we can then evaluate each teacher to determine whether they have met the 50% of points standard. If they meet the 50% standard, they have met this standard for the EPP they represent. If they have not met the standard, they have not met the standard for the EPP they represent. The 50% of points standard, as points standard, as I will describe later in this presentation, sets a standard of performance that considers novice teachers.
Finally, we take the evaluation status I just described and calculate the percentage of teachers who were prepared by an EPP who met the standard to determine the EPP's performance. The current standard sits at 70% of teachers from an EPP must have at least 50% of the annual growth points earned based on their students' performance. This information is critical to keep in mind as we review the roll in, the proposed roll ins
of the standard. You may be familiar, as I was mentioning on those previous slides with the performance levels from STAR that include Does Not Meet, Approaches, Meets and Masters. For ASAP, we use the Enhanced Performance Levels, which allows for additional granularity and measurement in two categories the Approaches and Does Not Meet categories now have a high and a low. Beginning with the visual on the left is an example of a student with two consecutive enhanced performance level scores between Grades three and four.
The example students scored a low approaches enhanced performance level in third grade and scored Meets in fourth grade. The student could have also maintained their performance level as low approaches or had a decrease to one of two categories that does not meet the performance standard. When we shift to the Annual Growth Points Matrix, which is how the scores are assigned, we can see that a score available to a student based on two years of STAAR assessments is 0.5 or one.
Coming back to the student on the left, in third grade, considered the prior year, the student achieved a performance level of Low Approaches grade level. In fourth grade, a student meets grade level. So this student receives an annual Growth Point score of one. As the matrix demonstrates, the annual growth point score represents whether a student's enhanced performance level is improving, maintaining, or declining from year to year in reading, language arts, or math tests. So which former or current teachers will an APP be accountable for?
The rules specify that first that we identify the first instance an intern, probationary, or standard certificate is issued to a person, in this case, the EPP recommends the person that intern, probationary, or standard certificate is issued and now that person is going to be counted for the next three academic years moving forward. What that functionally means is that if I'll use myself as an example,
if in the first if I get my standard certificate this year, before the school year, I could show up at employed for the first time in, the twenty five-twenty six school year as an employee who could earn annual growth point scores whose students could earn annual growth point scores that would then be aggregated for me. I would then be counted for the EPP in the twenty five-twenty six reporting cycle one time. In twenty six-twenty seven,
I can then be counted again because I'm still now two years past when that initial intern, probationary or standard certificate was counted. Again, I can go forward a third year and be counted again for that EPP after that initial certificate. So there are three years that can go by where the EPP is responsible for future perform the performance of students in that teacher's classroom. Last part here that's important is this teacher must have at least 10 students in
the tested area, and that this the class assignment and subject areas must must match. So what that actually means is that if you have students with a reading language arts score, you have to be a teacher of either an English reading or self contained, like generalist class. If you have math scores, you have to have, you have to have an assignment that is either mathematics assignment or a self contained assignment, a generalist teacher.
Yeah. So could you go back? So I think I understood, your explanation for first intern, first year, second year, third year. Can you go over that again? I want to make sure because if the teacher started as a new teacher this year, 2526, they would have growth scores at this point until the end of the twenty sixth school year. Right. The so the the the key here is the reporting cycle itself lags behind everything else. Right? So, like, right now, like in February, you voted on statuses.
February 2025, that we're using twenty twenty three, twenty twenty four data. So, what year what was the year you said again? They start. Right. If they start in August. So and they're in the school year of 2526. Yep. The students would receive growth scores in probably May. That's right. So 2526 data won't be used until and and the board would approve all the statuses in February 2027. So so the time elapses allows us to look at the previous year's data including
the student growth data that is still from the most recent school year. Right. Gotcha. Okay. And then you also I think you cleared this up. I was so if we're only awarding student growth in reading and math. And so if I'm an EPP and I don't have any reading certified, or math certified, then they would not get this student growth. Is that correct? That's right. Mister Ford? What percentage of the, population, the teachers that would or first year teachers, what percentage of them have 10 students?
And what you know, we're out of a universe of a 100. Is it 80 of them that meet that 10 student threshold or is it So I can't I don't have statistics to answer that question directly, but there are so two things I can say to that though. One is like with report only years of data, we can look to previous years. So last year, we had just under 9,000 individuals in the data. So we do have a substantial number of teachers that we can still observe with this. I can't say though,
like, what percentage. The other kind of caveat here is to get an to get an annual growth point score, you require back to back years of testing that you can connect the two in order to see are you moving up or down or staying the same on the performance levels. So there may be a whole bunch of like most teachers might have 10 students but for annual growth point scores, we do get squeezed a little bit in terms of,
how many teachers actually get to the 10 student number. And then the second question is, with the delayed releases, are you guys doing your analysis? Do you have access to the start date and you're doing your now analysis whether or not those scores have been released? We have access to the data and can use the data. Right. Like, I'm we're we're in process of using it right now. Yeah. I mean, the third question that you you are you guys already preparing? Do you have a pretty good sense of what this likely changed from STAR to some other
and have you guys started mapping how that's going to work? We we we don't and we don't do any anticipatory, responses until we see legislation in front of us that requires us to to do something. Testing itself is complicated. And so even if we were to try to do that, I would we would not do a very good job of, like, anticipating where that's going. So I don't He can't predict what the legislature is going to do with If I if I could predict that, I don't know that I would be standing right here right now.
Okay. Yes. Doctor. Gellan. Thank you. Three questions. For the reading and math oh, forgive me. For the reading and math, that does include elementary and secondary? That's correct. Thank you. The second one is, so as an EPP, traditional, non traditional, once that individual is certified through the program or university, that we are accountable for three years even if they move grade level. So if I were EC6 certified with STR,
and I get moved to year two or year three, I do certification by examination. Although I prepared the individual candidate for an ECC certificate, I am still that data will still be reported back to that individual. Is that correct? That's correct. The third one is, and forgive me because you may cover that later, is do EPPs have the opportunity to double check that that is truly their candidate that's enrolled and has an excellent or left a career? Yes,
we're currently working through that process, but we will, similar to the teacher survey, the principal survey, release a roster without any scores on it that allows each EPP to review their roster and tell us if anyone is either not should not be on the list or there's like something we are unaware of that they can alert us to that like require should require us to remove them from the list. So even if they say have an emergency and leave year two or year three,
that just counts as no data for that particular year, but they come back year three, then we go back to being, resuming the data for year three? That's right. Thank you. And just to clarify, so if someone goes EC6 with Doctor. Galvan, then they take a four through eight math, then they're still in the system teaching seventh grade even though that's not what they prepared her for. They're still, they were prepared originally for her. In other words, accountability is accountability. It does not matter if you change certificate.
It's the individual, not the certificate. Yep. And and it critically, it's the initial certificate that is, like, the trigger that says, here's who we count and then we count them for three three total years. And we look for them and if they're not in the data or there's no annual growth points because they're not in a tested area, there wouldn't they wouldn't be part of the evaluation for the EPP. Thank you for that clarification. Doctor Rodriguez? Thank you, chair Stripe. I think I I have the same clarification question.
It was my understanding that EPPs would be held accountable for candidates well, in this case, teachers who were teaching in the areas for which the EPP prepared them. So doctor Galvan had asked earlier about if they if it's certification by exam, then the EPP wouldn't be held accountable for that performance of that teacher who's now teaching in that area by exam. But did I misunderstand that?
Yep. So let me try to parse this a little bit. So, the initial trigger is purely based on whatever the the the certificate that the EPP has recommended, a certificate like, certificate by exam will always happen after that initial certificate. So I think in the end here, like, the the parameter the parameters that have been in rule since 2020 are based on the certification that exists, the initial certificate,
and then matching the class assignment to the tested area. That that is how the rules were set up and approved by the board in 2020. And over the last several years, we've taken more data and just tightened those rules. But we have not taken into account and the rules didn't include any language about cert by exam or other, like, out of field teaching that might occur. Deputy Commissioner? Thank you, Chair Striepe. I actually think this is a really interesting conversation because I think it brings us
back to the importance of those partnerships between Ed Prep programs and the districts, and starting to stretch those partnerships into this first three years, knowing that the Ed Prep programs are going to be responsible for the success of the students in those teachers' classrooms for three years, and recognizing that I do think we have had this disconnect previously around teachers being prepared for one thing and getting placed in a different place, which happens,
you know, because of interest of the candidate, also hiring needs of the districts. So I think having these stronger partnerships between Ed Prep programs and districts can also help make sure that Ed Prep program's being really clear with the district. Hey. You might wanna keep this candidate in these areas that they've been prepared for because they're gonna be more successful with your students there. And for the district to say, yes, but we actually need candidates of these other areas, which is why I'm moving them. Can we be producing more candidates for those areas that we have this demand for?
So, so I think both of these potentially creates the strong incentive to to be matching the production to the hiring needs of the district and making sure that teachers are placed in classrooms where they're likely to have the most success with students because that's what they've been prepared for. But recognize that this does kind of stretch the, accountability of EPPs into those first three years. Doctor. Yabaughn? Only ELA or Math, not Social Studies, eighth grade. Only ELA or Math. The key,
just to remind, you need back to back years of data. Social studies does not have instances where we have back to back years. Science is the same. Yeah. Thank you. And, although Teach Us is is not a small program, my concern for small programs is then if they have, less say they're a very small program that's starting. If they don't have more than 10, they go into the small group? Yep. The small group aggregation procedures apply for this indicator.
And so if they're under 11 candidates in the first year and that's the only year of data, that would we would apply the small group exception to that year. So then we would need to aggregate more and more years of data in order to be able to evaluate. Yeah. Thank you for clarifying that because that's important for, small EPPs that we need to keep in mind. And also to clarify, so an intern would be considered during their first year because they're teacher of record but a resident. Someone in the residency program would not.
Is that correct? Because they're not the teacher of record? That's right. And in the same way, depending on what we do with the legislature, we'll have, or legislative. We'll have to decide or see how those come down as well. But it'll probably be attached to the intern certificate and that they would be counted? Yeah. I mean, if there's a certification that's issued, an SBEC issued certification, then it would be included in ASAP calculations. But if they're a residency when they're going through a residency program, do they actually have any kind of certificate when they get to school?
Not do they No. Not until they finish with that year, right? Yeah. Correct. Okay. Just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Alright. Thank you for all the good questions. And we'll kinda now show you how this data starts rolling up together. So in ACEF, we begin by identifying a teacher and their students with their enhanced performance level scores from the last two years. As you can see in the table on the left, if we read the first row this teacher had a total of two students who had a low Did Not Meet grade level enhanced performance level in the prior year
and remain there in the current year. The teacher also had three students move up from low did not meet grade level to high did not meet grade level. Three more students who moved from low approaches grade level three more students that moved to low approaches grade level, and one student who moved up to high approaches grade level. The teacher had no students move from low did not meet grade level to meets or Masters in the current year. As a reminder, the peach corresponds with an annual growth points score of zero,
yellow an annual growth points score of 0.5 and green an annual growth point score of one. When we do this math, we count 15 students who earn zero annual growth points for a total of zero points earned. Five students earned an annual growth point score of 0.5, which earns the teacher 2.5 points. And 30 students earned an annual growth point score of one, which earns the teacher 30 points. In total, this teacher earned 32.5 points for their 50 students.
Thus, the teacher has earned 65% of the points available to them. The Board's standard is 50% of the points. Thus, this teacher has met the standard established by the Board for their EPP. Notably here, this teacher is representative of the twenty twenty three, twenty twenty four breakdown of zeros, point fives and ones across the whole state. What this really means is that individuals who like, there can be individuals who perform above or below this level,
but you have a pretty wide like, you have 15 percentage points to work with there for the average teacher across the state. So there is space here between what the average teacher is scoring and what your standard is. There's still gonna be variation and we see that variation from teacher to teacher. Some teachers don't make it. Cross this line, some teachers do, and we can see this right here. So if we look back to the twenty twenty three, twenty twenty four data,
we can see that seventy three percent of the teachers met the board standard. In twenty two-twenty three, this was seventy two percent. Importantly, while this data demonstrates the results across all teachers connected to an EPP or the ACEP evaluation, some EPPs will end up having more than seventy percent of their candidates meet the standard, while others will not. Since the number of teachers meeting the performance standard across the state is so close to the threshold, it also means that programs have little room around that threshold to meet the Board's
established performance standard. In addition, we know this is a new measure and thus people are learning about the measure, making sense about the measure, as Commissioner Osser mentioned, like a possible use case like what do we do once we know we like information from this. And then if we look at an example score for one EPP, so when we shipped from one teacher which was the previous example to now all the teachers that get counted for an EPP, we can see like in this example that 36 of the 50 candidates meeting the
standard met the standard, which amounts to 72% meeting the standard. This again is over the current approved Board standard, performance standard. But you can see it's very tight to that standard. Something to note here though is this EPP, 36 out of 50, which means 14 candidates still did not meet the performance standard established by the Board. If we then look to the next slide, we can consider what this might whether this might be the Sorry,
I'm just gonna jump ahead here rather than saying that. So the proposed rolling of the standard here, so we're proposing, and we discussed this in April, that in 2024, 2025, and 2025, 2026, the performance standard that the Board approves is 60%. In 'twenty six, 'twenty seven, that would move to 65% and in 'twenty seven, 'twenty eight and beyond, it moves to 70%. So we modeled this data, specifically 6070% just so we could see what would have happened with last year's data.
We can see on the left that holding the performance standard for EPPs at 70%, which is the current Board standard, would have resulted in twenty percent of the in a twenty percent fail rate in that data. Were this to be adjusted to the proposed 60%, this would be a seven, about a 7% fail rate. So leaving implementation at the 70% standard would mean nine more EPPs, would have had a lowered Live. Finally, if we also look at twenty twenty three-twenty twenty four data and we look across
all the other indicators that are used in your system, we can see that no indicator had more than a 12% fail rate. So at a 70% performance standard, the indicator would have a fail rate that's nearly double that. That would have an impact in ESO. At a 60% performance standard, the indicator would be performing similar to other indicators. So in April, we discussed the implementation of the Student Growth Standard indicator for the first time. The Board signaled that they liked the idea to roll in the standard,
but also wanted to better understand how the indicator worked. Today we walked you through that, gave you more information about how this indicator is working and we also modeled the data to help you understand like the trade offs between 6070% standards. By building the rolling or performance standards for student growth rather than implementing the student growth as is currently codified in rule, the Board can continue ensuring they have a rigorous accountability system that includes student growth for the first time,
which will increase the urgency for EPPs to begin using this data while providing time for EPPs to learn and respond to the data and for TEA to monitor and continue with informing the Board of their performance of this indicator. And I'll pause again to see if there are additional questions. Yes. Miss Andrews. Just a quick question. When we're evaluating the students for the program based on the teacher, there's no everything is just across the board. Like, does it matter the school district, the title of the school?
No. It's just a straight? Yep. It's it we do not pull district information into that calculation. Okay. Great. Doctor Galvan? On the STAR, is it also include and I believe we discussed this during one of the previous spec meetings, it does include STAR, ALT, and all forms of star, correct? Not just that's a very good question. I believe the answer is yes, but I will also go back to my data and make sure that I next
time that this question comes up, I can give you a very definitive answer. Thank you. And and I'm wondering how that would calculate with 10 or more students as well. Yeah. I mean, I think if we're yeah. I'd have to look at it more closely because I just don't I haven't aggregated the data in that way at this point. Can you address how, programs will advance from or you can envision programs advancing from 60 to 65 to 70 to use the data in the way that we hope that is informational and
helpful to their program. So they'll get their '24, 20 '5 information in February? Or they'll get it Programs will be notified in November Okay. When we send the initial letter that they then have the opportunity to review and potentially participate in an informal review. So they know in November, barring any changes to the status, what we're evaluating. To your question, and I'm gonna make sure I'm understanding it,
you're asking like how do we expect programs to get better year by year? Is that Yeah. And I think I may have answered my own question in that know, we we always struggle with the lack the lag of information for them to be able to address, whatever they need to address internally. But, I had forgotten that this is for 2425 and 2526 data we're holding at 60%. And I think that does by November, they'll know,
and then they'll know for that half year and then the whole full year after that. But I'd love to hear what our EPDs have to say about that. And then it takes up to 65 and then to 70. Yes. Just also making a connection to our discussion yesterday as we think about rolling in the, prep allotment and as, deputy commissioner Osler named this, like, deepened partnerships between EPPs and LEAs, that timeline actually nicely mirrors kind of this, like, rolled in phase of we're providing supports for EPPs and LEAs to build those deeper
partnerships, along a similar trajectory to which we would be, slowly raising that performance standard. Yes. Doctor McFarland. So first of all, thank you for for really, listening and and take taking the feedback and providing it. Definitely, I appreciate that. And this was very clear in in kinda how the calculations are done. My my question would be that as we, as we begin to get clear with the rules, I'm assuming that if the or when the accountability system changes, when the rating system changes, regardless of what happened with the test, but when the actual rating system changes,
that we'll be making changes to this as well. And then the other the other challenge is with lagging with the lagging data, it creates a creates a really, challenge both on the EPP and the school district to to intervene for lack of a better word. So, I like the phase in approach. I like the, you know, holding at 60 for two years. And I guess the question would be, will we have the opportunity to come back and to say, well, maybe we need to hold for longer or modify kind of the the the move up to the 70?
So as I mentioned, I'll answer the second question first and I've already forgotten your first question so you'll have to resay it. I have to resay it. I have to resay it. But the the whole goal of the roll in is, like, we're creating flexibility in the system. And one of those flexibilities could be we get two years down the road and we're, like, oh, like, actually, the performance level that we're at might be a performance level that we wanna keep talking about being at or, like but the whole goal here is to create the system so that it's flexible
enough so the board can respond to what we're learning about this new indicator. And to your point, like, about the lag in time, person? And so that's a fair question that I think is going to need to be wrestled with. And so, And so, that's a fair question that I think is going to need to be wrestled with as this becomes live and people are thinking about it. Like, how much time does it really take for us to see, respond, adjust to what we're learning. And so I fully expect, like, part of what we're gonna do here is monitor, bring that information back to you guys to try to help decision making as this
goes fully fully live and becomes part of the accountability system. And I remembered your first question. If if if assessment changes, then, yes, we're gonna have to do a full scale, like, take a look at what they're doing and learn about what they're doing and then apply it to the rules. And so, that's that's a question mark right now. I think that does bring up a good question about the, quality of the data in the first, second, and third year, first year for sure, probably second, and whether or not the third year gives you quality data is something that,
that will be interesting to see as you roll this out as well. Yep. I think that's right. And I would also add, like, a second thing you're gonna wanna think about is teachers get better over time. And so, like, there's a balance here between holding programs accountable but also help like creating a setup here where we're assessing people who still have some EPP effects, like what they learned is still helping them kind of get up to speed in the profess profession.
And that's gonna be intention in this measurement. Great. Do you have anything to add to that? Yes. It's kind of going back to my, question that I had and then thinking this through, you know, we're trying to attract attract educators and then we also and we have improvement needed campuses. And you you want to attract high caliber to go into those campuses, but you put a new teacher in a fourth grade classroom and maybe none of the students can read. Well, it takes time, and then that's actually hurting an EPP. You know, we don't wanna de incentivize for them to get them in schools that really need
great teachers because it it takes a while to kinda see that shift. So I'm I'm wondering about that as it plays out, you know, because we do we do give a little bit of grace to teachers in the TIA program depending on what students, where they are, you know. So I'm just wondering about how that's going to play out for the EPPs in the future, and and we don't wanna decentivize getting students in in critical or not students, but the teachers in critical places. So, you know, no thoughts beyond that. Just thinking forward about it.
Excellent point. Thank you. Alright. Alright. So appreciate the good conversation there. And moving to next here, we have, the Not Rated status updates, which adjusted the accreditation status recommended to the Board when an EPP has no data. This update, which the Board supported a rule change for, strikes the current 02/29 rule and adds new language in a different rule in order to get us in statutory alignment, evaluate based on the current reporting year of data,
driving evaluation on demonstrated performance of improvements while retaining the current general function of the current rule. I'll just make sure I'm super clear here. This one is about accreditation statuses. Previously, we carried over old statuses, but we had to get in statutory alignment with the rule. That meant if there is no data for a program, which typically would occur when a program has a hard reset, stops admitting candidates to kind of redesign things. There are circumstances where there's no data and thus we would just assign a status
of no data in those circumstances. Quick pause to see if there's any questions on that. All right, I'll keep us moving here to the fifth one, which is a look at proposed updates to closure rules to align Chapter two twenty nine to updates previously completed in Chapter two twenty eight. The Board asked good questions in the April discussion and noted that they preferred having Chapters two twenty eight and two twenty nine aligned on closure rules. Specifically, the update to rules in two twenty nine are occurring because there was real ambiguity
in the rules, as you can see on this left side of what we're listing. We are matching 02/29 to 02/28, which was previously updated, as I mentioned. And the goal here is to make them largely talk to each other, with a slight exception here. What this actually means is that programs who have a revocate revocation occur for a certificate class or category or at the program level, cannot admit candidates any longer for for either circumstance.
It also means that EPPs would now have fourteen days to send a letter to TEA that indicates whether it is closing anywhere from ninety to two seventy days after the point of the letter. When a program does not send the letter in fourteen days, it also specifies that the closure date then is August 31 of the current cycle that we're on, which corresponds with the end of the academic year at TEA. Updating these rules with support from the Board will strike existing rule and add new
language to align with Chapter two twenty eight. This aligns closure rules across the chapters, provides clarity and transparency on what the closing processes are, and ensures transparency for candidates and EPPs. Any questions on that one? Board, one of the questions I had was I didn't understand originally how why we would need two seventy days. I was like, wow, that seems like a long runway for someone to close. But, Mr. Landa helped me understand that with an intern starting in January,
that's a different thing because they need to go all the way through. And that made sense to me, but I thought I would share that wondering with you. Alright. Last one, should be the easiest one here, is our normal manual and rule language updates. So we did some definition cleanup. We included our enhanced standards and residency related information into the data system for ASAP. And that's it. I don't think we have any public testimony, so,
just any additional questions from the board. Yes. Doctor Rodriguez. Thank you, chair Strapi. Doctor Lamba, I just want to thank you for, all of the hard work and and such detailed explanations today. The small group exemption and the, student growth indicator are very complex procedures. And today, you presented very, very clear how clearly how the process works. And so thank you for that. Thank you for, being receptive to to the feedback from the field in terms of
looking and embedding looking for ways to embed flexibility that will allow EPPs to continue to get better, particularly in the small group exception. What you're doing really, responds to the efforts continuously improve the the the performance of the program and and the candidate, so thank you for that. And, in all the modeling for indicator three, there's many challenges as as you mentioned that that I have expressed earlier. These graduates that are novice teachers have left our programs
for for a while, and it is important to recognize that it'll take, a lot of, new ways of of using data at the EPP level to inform our practice and to figure out what we need to do in the program, but we're working with a new group of candidates. Right? So so it's the people in the pipeline that that we can work with and improve while the people out already in the field are those who are impacting or will be impacting our our accreditation,
statuses. So thank you for the the willingness to continue to to look at data and and the modeling to to allow the board to to make the best possible decisions to ensure that all EPPs are on the way of of improvement and, and and working with the field to to get there. Thanks. Thank you, doctor Rodriguez. Other questions from the board? And board, do I have a motion? Thank you, Doctor. McFarland. I move to approve the proposed amendments to 19 TAC chapter two twenty nine,
accountability system for educator preparation programs. Subchapter a, accountability system for education preparation program procedures. Subchapter b, accountability system for educator preparation accreditation status. Subchapter c, accreditation sanctions. And subchapter f, required fees and percentage will be published and taken for granted. Thank you, doctor McFarland. And do I have a second? Thank you, miss Glasscock. Those in favor, please raise your right hand. Those opposed, same sign. And the motion carries. Thank you. And our new slide looks like it was added here,
that our next step is to bring an adoption item in September. Thank you. Thank you, mister Landau. Let's take a, ten minute break. It's 10:10 right now, and we'll come back at 10:20. Thank you. Okay. Good morning, board. We are now on item nine, which is the appointment of the temporary suspension committee. Just kind of a refresher of what we discussed yesterday, this committee will hear the two types of temporary suspensions that the SBEC now has authority to hear under SB five seventy one, arrest and continuing and imminent threat.
And I'm gonna move through these relatively quickly because I know we had an in-depth discussion, so please feel free to interrupt me at any time if anybody has questions. But this is the process that we are beginning today with the appointment of the committee, and as we discussed yesterday, these will be very expedited matters and could potentially be high volume. The hope is that these will be conducted via phone or teleconference so board members will not have to travel into the Austin area, but we do anticipate it could be a high volume. So, I don't believe we have any public testimony, and we can move on to questions,
and I can go back to process screen if that would be more helpful, if anybody has questions. Board members, before we, talk about who might be interested on serving, could do you have additional questions, clarifying questions for Ms. Wolf? More information you need about the committee? Yes, Ms. Dvorak? Once we establish the committee, what does our timeline look like to start doing the work? I believe the work will start in September, and I believe we will engage the committee members to see what would work best for scheduling purposes. Staff obviously wants to accommodate the members and and make it work with their schedules
to the extent that we can. Thank you. Excuse me. Okay. So board, I think at this time we need to see who might be interested in serving on that committee. I know it's a commitment, but it's also equally important. So by a show of hands, could I see who might be interested in that? Wow. Terrific. Thank you. Okay. So support. Mister Gore. Miss Weir. Miss McDonald, Doctor. Galvan, and miss and miss Lascott. Alright. Okay.
Sorry. Doctor McFarland, no pressure. I was seeing who might be interested in serving on our, temporary suspension committee. Is that something you'd be interested in? Okay. Super. Thank you for your help. Miss Wolf, do we have a limit on how many people we can have on that? No, madam chair. And the more we have, the better, honestly. That way, if members can't make it, we have to hit five as the magic number, so that's actually very beneficial. Okay. With, Miss Saffron not here, if she were interested, can a board member be added to that committee?
You can appoint them at any time, madam chair, the members. If madam chair did, she did indicate interest. Oh, she did. Participated. Okay. That's to the to the effect that I could go ahead and appoint her at this time. Okay. Super. Alright. Well, at this time then, we'll appoint, Courtney McDonald, Julia Dvorak, Rex Gore, Bobbie Lynn Weir, Tara Zaffron, Doctor. Galvan, Dana Glascott, and doctor McFarland as our committee. And, miss Dvorak, might I appoint you as the presiding officer? I would be honored. Super. And so miss Dvorak will serve as the presiding officer.
Thank you all for leaning into that work. That is going to be really impactful work, and I think it will also inform our work going forward, too. So thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members. We really appreciate it. Oh, let me go back to that. The next step is we will begin stakeholder engagement in the rulemaking process, as we discussed yesterday, for your rules around temporary suspensions. That now brings us to item 10, the disciplinary cases. We will begin with the defaults. Staff needs to pull default cases number three and number 20. Are there any other defaults that members would like to pull?
Board members, any other ones? Okay. Thank you. If there are no other, cases that members would like to pull Oh. Excuse me, Ms. Wolf. Yes, Doctor. Gebaughn. Can you repeat those that number again, please? We staff is pulling defaults number three and twenty. Thank you. Okay. And we will bring a motion on the screen. Give us just a moment. Actually, I just need to ask you one clarifying question before we vote. When something is suspended until the end of a certification, what happens next? So if someone's suspended and let's say they are able they're suspended through the end
of the certification, which might be just October, what happens in that case? It depends on the type of certificate or permit, but they would need to reapply or be reinstated, and then staff would have the ability based on your rules to look at contesting that reapplication at that time. Okay. Thank you. That helps. Okay. Alright. Board, do I have a motion? Thank you, miss Glasscock. I call to order default cases numbered one through 32 as listed on the agenda, except three and twenty as listed on the agenda. I move that the board grant SAS's request for the issuance of default judgment and
enter final orders consistent with SAS's recommendations. Thank you, miss Glasscock. And do I have a second? Thank you, Ms. Dvorak. Further discussion from the board? Those in favor, please raise your right hand. Those opposed, same sign. And the motion carries. Thank you, madam chair. That now brings us to the SOA default. This is where the respondent answered, but failed failed to appear for the hearing at the State Office of Administrative Hearings. We only have one SOA default, and we have the motion we'll have the motion shortly on the screen. I also have a paper copy of the motion,
if anyone would like to. Thank you. And board, do I have a motion? Thank you, mister Gore. I call to order SOA default number one as listed on the agenda. I move that the board grant staff request for the issuance of SOWA default judgment and enter a final order consistent with staff's recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Gore. And do I have a second? Thank you, Ms. McDonald. Further discussion from the Board? Those in favor, please raise your right hand. Those opposed, same sign. And the motion carries. Thank you, madam chair. We do not have any proposal for decisions at this meeting,
so that is the end of the disciplinary matters. Thank you, board. Thank you, Ms. Wolf. Do we need a we're gonna we're gonna it is, 10:29AM, and we're going to take, a Do you need ten minutes? Yeah. A ten minute break. We'll be back at, 10:40. Not point. I didn't mean to reveal the show just yet. Okay. Good morning, Board. Happy Friday. I'm excited to present item 11, which is a discussion, update on the Texas Test of Educator Proficiency, otherwise known as TTEP.
To ground this Board, I thought it might be helpful for us to take a moment and review some context for the Texas Test of Educator Proficiency, again, otherwise known as T TEP. We, the Board has been engaged in conversation around this assessment for a little over a year now. And in that year has made critical decision points that have ultimately led us to where we are today. During the April 2024 meeting, the SBEC directed TEA staff to pursue a TPA development option with Texas EPPs at
the helm of that opportunity, recognizing that our Texas EPPs have the expertise, to develop an assessment like this given their support of teacher candidates in the state. At the September 2024 meeting, the STEA provided the SBEC with an update around stakeholder engagement related to the development of this assessment and also announced a grant application opportunity that would ultimately select the Texas EPP development team for the assessment. The SBEC in that time also discussed some design considerations,
initial design considerations for the assessment that ultimately the Texas EPP Development Team would review and begin discussing as related to developing this assessment. At the last meeting, we were excited to share that the Texas Test of Educator Proficiency EPP Development Team grant had launched in January 2025 and that we were in the process of selecting your EPP development team. And at this meeting, I am excited to share that we have selected that EPP development team.
We have a development team member, in the audience, Doctor. Crystal Rose. And after this slide I'll walk through who those team members are in addition to some next steps that we're thinking about as it relates to stakeholder engagement. As a reminder, there's a really long title for the grant that launched in January. But, Texas Test of Educator Proficiency EPP Development Team Selection, Onboarding and Training grant launched in January. This was an opportunity for six to eight educator preparation programs,
nonprofit educator preparation programs, to select one faculty or staff member to serve on the assessment's development team. This grant opportunity provided funding for the identified faculty or staff member to attend, well one, to complete the virtual training, ahead of attending an in person training to really kick things off for the development of this assessment. The grant opportunity also outlined stipulations for continued funding throughout the development of the assessment. Again,
this launched in January. Just a brief overview of that grant timeline. So again, in January we launched the grant opportunity in March. Interested applicants submitted their applications, TEA staff facilitated interviews with selected applicants in April. And in May, we announced the selected applicants. Without further ado, I would like to introduce you to our TTEP EPP Development Team. From Region 10, we have Doctor. Patricia Williams.
From Dallas College, we have Shannon Watson. From Region 13, we have Doctor. Gabriela Duran Lara. From Sam Houston State University, we have Doctor. Ashley Britton. From Region 19, we have Elizabeth Bonilla. From Stephen F. Austin State University, we have Doctor. Susan Riley. From Region 20, we have Cindy Dorsey. And from Tarleton State University, we have Doctor. Crystal Rolls. Again, she is in the audience to meet the Board today. And I want to point out there is a handout in front of you that
has their headshots and their bio so that you can read. It's a very brief bio. These are very accomplished individuals and we're really excited to, have them developing this assessment. Last week, the team engaged in a week long training related to the assessment. It was a four day in person training from about 08:30 to 04:00 just about every day. They spent time orienting to your newly adopted Chapter two thirty five teacher pedagogy standards and began initial discussions related to the development of the assessment.
Again, so they spent time, of course, building community with each other, but really, of course, building community with each other but really, beginning those hard conversations around exactly what this assessment will assess, what that will look like, and exploring some non negotiables for the assessment. I thought it might be helpful for us to review this slide again. We've shared this slide at the last meeting, but thought it might be helpful to bring it back this meeting to orient around this idea that the TTIP will the development process for this assessment, really will follow the process that we use for your other content pedagogy assessments.
So, as is typical with the development of a content pedagogy assessment, this assessment is a multi will engage in a multi year process, that typically begins by establishing a vision. And I will add that at the September 2024 meeting, the Board kicked off the vision for this assessment. And as we move through the development process, our steps are to build a project plan, approve that project plan, again, as is typical with the other content pedagogy assessments, and then from there begin to facilitate development meetings with the development team.
I would say as the development team spends more time together and they produce, the actual deliverables of the assessment, those deliverables will, be reviewed within the agency, again, as is typical with the other content pedagogy assessments. And then from there, we'll have multiple opportunities for stakeholder engagement. I don't have the timeline for the assessment here, but those opportunities would begin essentially in 2026, in the upcoming year. From there, as you can see, there's the big red circle around those three stages.
That is an iterative process. So, stakeholders again will have multiple opportunities to review those materials up until, the standard setting of the exam and then the exam launch. As such, there is a near term stakeholder opportunity, coming just around the corner. So, August 4 we are planning to launch an application for the TTEP Stakeholder Advisory Group. This group will provide feedback at critical decision points and milestones throughout the development of this assessment. It will be comprised of each LEA district, teachers and leaders. Again, recognizing lesson learned from edTPA, we heard loud and proud that districts want to be included from the beginning.
And if this is a Texas specific teacher performance assessment that will have to live in Texas EPPs and in Texas districts, excuse me, then we recognize the importance of ensuring that stakeholders are involved at the beginning of the process outside of our EPP development team. Again, this application will launch in, August, so in the next two weeks, August 4, and then applications will be due September 15. I don't think we have any public testimony. Great. Okay, I'll pause for questions.
Mr. Petri, I was wondering if, you mentioned the non negotiables for the assessment. Can you share some more about that with us? Yes. So those the non negotiables in our broader sense are reflected, really within the Chapter two thirty five standards. Specifically thinking about the having candidates demonstrate knowledge around the use of HQIM, having to really distill the difference between lesson design and internalization of lesson plans. So when I mention non negotiables, those are the things that the development team will have to contend with.
Yeah. I'll pause there. Yes, Deputy Commissioner. Thank you. So I know we talked a lot yesterday in the work session about the new content that will be developed and prioritized for the prep allotment. Can you talk a little bit about the the intersection or how the team is thinking about the intersection between the revised educator standards, the newly developed content, and T TAP? That's a really great question, Kelby. So I would say the initial thinking is to really consider how the sort of continuum that TTIP lives
as we think about the required content for educator preparation programs. I do think I heard Jessica mention yesterday that the consideration is to, really think about whether or not the sort of artifacts that are submitted for the EPP, the mandatory content courses, could potentially be used on the T TEP. Or the other option would be to consider if the artifacts used are actually in preparation for T TEP. Again, recognizing that T TEP is a certification exam for the board standard certification.
So I think we are in our initial phases right now of really trying to figure out how all of it lives together. But what we're resting on is that they're all rooted in the Chapter two thirty five standards. And so ultimately candidates will be prepared not only to, contend with or experience this EPP coursework, but when they do experience their T TEP exam, that will be aligned to what they've experienced in preparation. And what about the intersection of T TEP and T TES? That's probably my favorite intersection so far.
Again, we're aware that the T test is undergoing a refresh and that refresh, again, is rooted in the 149 standards, which will be aligned to the Chapter two thirty five standards. That was actually a huge topic of conversation for our TTEP development team in thinking about, what that alignment will look like. I think we have landed on we know that the two evaluative tools will be aligned. Ultimately, the goal will be to create this sort of continuum of expectations from preservice to
in service teachers, and ensure that the tools utilized within that continuum are aligned as well. Because the goal ultimately is to ensure that there are there's a common set of expectations for teachers across the state. So, again, they will be aligned. It's just a matter of what that will look like and how that will be translated across EPPs and districts. And the tools within them, what might that refer to? The the T TESTS and T TEP themselves as tools for development of teacher candidates and in service teachers.
Okay. Other questions from board members? Yes, Doctor. Gavon? Thank you. I think this is also something to factor in is what, Doctor. Landau just called covered regarding STAR. And this is a good way to perhaps evaluate how can we incorporate a reflection about, data, evaluating the data, connecting it back to student performance, and how there is this this iterative cycle of being very meaningful and purposeful in my lesson planning,
in my delivery, how that impacts students, student outcomes, student score, and that in essence the reflection part of the T TAP is not just for teacher improvement, but for students' learning and the outcome of students. So perhaps thinking of how could we look at the accountability for EPPs and incorporating some reflection components that might be instrumental in in I don't wanna say helping EPPs,
but supporting, our mission accountability. Thank you, Dean. DeMarco, was there any discussion about the alignment between, the gates on, teacher residencies and the alignment of TTAP? That's a really great question, Chair Streepy. I'd say there was not a specific discussion on the alignment between the gates for performance gates for residency and how that would essentially translate into T TEP. I will add though, we do have,
residency programs, folks representing residency programs as part of the development team. And so, I see that as being, you know, a sort of natural discussion point as they move further in the development process. Terrific. Yes, I should have said from the beginning, thanks to all who are on going to serve on this. And thank you, Doctor. Rose, for being here. And I noticed that you're, you know, you are, involved with the residency program, so I appreciate that overlap there as well. Additional questions from the board?
One of the things that I'm particularly concerned about is getting, input from the teachers and the districts, in that if you do have a performance, exam and then a teacher goes into a building, how is that supported? What are the logistics from the just the time to do that? And so I think those are really important concerns to have on the table upfront, because we don't want teachers arriving in a school with a requirement that the district either doesn't know about or is unable to support for whatever reason,
they have on their side. And so I think the the sooner we can get some of the information about, you know, not only the logistics, but what do districts need teachers to know how to do because that's our our goal, right, and that's our charge is that we know that they're ready to teach. And so I think, getting that input on what teachers need from the teachers, but also from the end users from the district side and the campus side perhaps as well. I'd say that our development team shares that concern. They discuss that thoroughly.
But again, as they move in the development process, I think we'll be able to just outline more concrete details around what that looks like. As I shared, our first opportunity to really, test this and I use the word test loosely but to really seek more broad feedback around the assessment would be, beginning in spring anticipated spring twenty twenty six. And so that would be an opportunity for us to really get that feedback around logistics and how this assessment lives in a district,
how it lives in a classroom, in a school building. And I really think we're at a good place for this to happen. I'm excited about this, so thank you for taking on that work personally as well. Because, we already have been looking at the research that's really important for our teachers, and there's a thousand things we could teach. But making sure that we're teaching the things that are most impactful for student achievement, is top of mind. So I appreciate your work. Thank you. Thank you, Doctor. Lewis. Yes, Associate Commissioner. Just trying to continue to make some connections to our discussion yesterday.
One thing I think about, Chair Streepy naming the, the cooperating teachers or the mentors or the campus or district level leaders who are gonna have to, in this prep partnership are also gonna be responsible for ensuring that that the teacher candidates are able to be successful on the TTEF. But, if you recall, we talked about that, Texas mentorship training that we're in the process of developing that will train cooperating teachers, mentor teachers, and district and campus leaders. We've also had discussions around that being a really useful opportunity to build understanding and
awareness, for the other individuals who are gonna be supporting that candidate around what, TTEC implementation could look and sound like. So as we move forward, we would anticipate embedding some of that context setting. So down in the short term, getting input from stakeholders, in district to campuses, longer term, a a real a a more systematic approach to building a broader district and campus level leader understanding of the assessment. Great. Yeah. Doctor. Yalbon? Thank you for making that connection because as we work in forming those partnerships,
it's important to inform all the campus leaders, what is going to require, permission. And it might help that even before the rollout, for example, when there's superintendent calls or conferences that TEA does present, that you start informing, Hey, this is coming up, and we need your support, and this is not once the PPR is finally on the last administration, this is something that is not optional. And it's important to keep in mind that we need your support.
And that the candidate needs the support. Thank you. Just to call out some next steps here. So, this of course this item focused on updating the Board and the selection of the development team. We do plan to provide the SBEC with a T TEP related update at a future SBEC meeting as we get deeper into the development process for this assessment. We will also communicate the launch of the stakeholder advisory committee application with SBEC members so that you can share with your networks as well.
Again, that application will launch August 4. And then in terms of rulemaking and the assessment, we do anticipate that there's future SBEC related rulemaking that will need to happen in order to operationalize the assessment. Of course, we'll coordinate, this rulemaking with your work related to HB2, and that work that was outlined yesterday in the work session. Thank you for that update. Exciting to get that. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. And with it still being morning, I am happy to present the final discussion item for the day.
My name is Trenton Lau, director of educator credentialing. And item 12 is a discussion of proposed revisions to chapter two thirty one, which outlines the requirements for public school personnel assignments. These revisions span of chapters A through E and G, covering assignments from early childhood to high school, as well as paraprofessionals, student services, and administrators. My colleagues in Educator Standards and Testing have previously made changes to and provided updates to Subchapter F,
Special Education Assignments. Therefore, it is not included in this item. Oops, too fast. My objectives for this discussion are to review the key proposed changes to subchapters A through E and G, to highlight the collaboration across TEA departments that inform these revisions, to understand the implications for school districts and stakeholders, and finally, to answer your questions and gather feedback to guide the next steps. Subchapters A through D and G include several important updates.
In Subchapter A, we've added language to ensure that substitute teachers, regardless of certification status, possess the necessary knowledge and skills for their assignments. This change was made to prioritize instructional quality and student learning object outcomes, recognizing that substitutes often play a critical role in maintaining continuity of instruction. By setting clear expectations, we aim to support school districts in selecting qualified individuals who can effectively manage classrooms and deliver meaningful instruction in the absence of the regular teacher.
I also wanna point out that your chapter two twenty eight rules also allow, candidates to apply up to fifteen clock hours of long term substitute experience to satisfy the field based experience requirements. So this would be helpful for those, individuals if they can apply that experience and be placed in an assignment to utilize that. Subchapters b and c now include the new core EC through six certificates and subject specific credentials aligned with the science of teaching reading.
We also incorporated language specific bilingual supplemental certificates recently adopted by the board. There were technical edits such as alphabetizing and renumbering of certificates in several sections of both subchapters. Subchapter d includes technical edits, such as renaming ROTC to JROTC to include the junior aspect of that. In subchapter g, we've added principal as instructional leader to the list of certificates appropriate for principal and
assistant principal roles, which was inadvertently omitted in a previous update to the chapter. These changes aim to streamline the structure, eliminate redundancy, and ensure alignment with current certification standards. Subchapter E has undergone a significant overhaul as part of this revision process. In collaboration with the TEA Career and Technical Education and Curriculum teams, we have repealed and replaced the entire subchapter to better reflect current course offerings and
certification requirements and to more closely align with the ongoing CTE programs of study work completed by our TEACTE and curriculum and standards teams. Several divisions have been consolidated and renamed. For example, marketing and finance are now part of business marketing and finance. We've added new SBO approved courses and updated certificate alignments accordingly. The additions include a variety of CTE courses. Bilingual certificates have been added in certain sections to reflect instructional needs.
And importantly, the removal of certain certificates in specific areas to align with the requirements of current course offerings and ensure that assignments are based on relevant, up to date credentials. The goal is to improve clarity and usability for districts making assignment decisions. Attachment three in your item provides a comprehensive comparative chart detailing the proposed revisions made in each section of Subchapter E as applicable. And due to the size of this, attachment and formatting constraints,
it will likely not be included at the proposal. I do not believe we have public testimony, so I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. Yes. Coach Weir, Madam Chair, I apologize. This is a detailed question, but please remember I'm coming from CPEI. When I'm looking at, the proposed new division number eight Career Development grades nine-twelve, I was just trying to make sure I understand on the Career Development grades The Career Prep I is going to be renamed to career prep general,
and then career prep two, is aligned with the current course offering. By chance, can you give me anything? And you said this was in It's on, I'm looking at page, item 12, page six, and at the top, page seven. And I'm okay if I, we don't have the immediate answer because I know it's, you know, CTE has 13 different courses. Yes. They have renamed, several of those courses. Mister Long and Yes, ma'am. Miss Glasscock might have something to add to that. So they're they're igniting SVOE split out the group
So the kiddos who have a job that's not necessarily related to their program of study is the general. And then the other one is where their job is specifically related to their program of study. Thank you. That makes it much clearer. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Glasscock. Are there any other questions? Board, I did ask staff about this as far as, assignments. And, if there are things, for example, the CTE or certain, places where you lean in, please please check those and, ask questions, make recommendations because, you know, there's always someone moving between classes and the school and,
we're the ones that are likely to see that that does make sense for that to be there or not. So and they're certainly open to that input. Thank you. And I will continue to work with my TEA colleagues and stakeholders with the, curriculum and CTE teams as any other additional courses come up. And I will have that at proposed if needed. Okay. Quest other questions from the board? Good. Thank you. So we also have some information in your board book, I believe too, in items, 13 through, 16. And then, I cannot believe I'm saying this,
but it is eleven fourteen. This completes our business as posted. Is there any further business? Any other announcements? All right. It's 11:14, and the meeting is adjourned.