November 2016 Committee on School Initiatives Item 6

Review of Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 229, Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs

November 18, 2016

COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL INITIATIVES: ACTION
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: ACTION

SUMMARY: This item provides the State Board of Education (SBOE) an opportunity to review State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) rule actions that would revise 19 TAC Chapter 229, Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs. The proposed amendments to 19 TAC §§229.1-229.9 and the proposed repeal of 19 TAC §229.21 would include changes as the result of recent legislative changes, SBEC input, stakeholder input, and input received from staff at the Texas Education Agency (TEA).

STATUTORY AUTHORITY: The statutory authority for 19 TAC Chapter 229 is the Texas Education Code (TEC), §§21.041(a), (b)(1), and (d), 21.0441(c) and (d), 21.0443, 21.045, 21.0451, and 21.0452.

TEC, §21.041(a), allows the SBEC to adopt rules as necessary for its own procedures. TEC, §21.041(b)(1), states that the SBEC shall propose rules that provide for the regulation of educators and the general administration of TEC, Chapter 21, Subchapter B, in a manner consistent with TEC, Chapter 21, Subchapter B. TEC, §21.041(d), allows the SBEC to propose a rule adopting a fee for the approval or renewal of approval of an educator preparation programs (EPP), or for the addition of a certificate or field of certification to the scope of a program's approval. A fee imposed may not exceed the amount necessary, as determined by the SBEC, to provide for the administrative cost of approving, renewing the approval of, and appropriately ensuring the accountability of EPPs.

TEC, §21.0441(c) and (d), requires the SBEC to adopt rules setting certain admission requirements for EPPs.

TEC, §21.0443, states that the SBEC shall propose rules to establish standards to govern the approval or renewal of approval of EPPs and certification fields authorized to be offered by an EPP. To be eligible for approval or renewal of approval, an EPP must adequately prepare candidates for educator certification and meet the standards and requirements of the SBEC. The SBEC shall require that each EPP be reviewed for renewal of approval at least every five years. The SBEC shall adopt an evaluation process to be used in reviewing an EPP for renewal of approval.

TEC, §21.045, states that the board shall propose rules establishing standards to govern the continuing accountability of all EPPs.

TEC, §21.0451, states that the SBEC shall propose rules for the sanction of EPPs that do not meet accountability standards and shall annually review the accreditation status of each EPP. The costs of technical assistance required under TEC, §21.0451(a)(2)(A), or the costs associated with the appointment of a monitor under TEC, §21.0451(a)(2)(C), shall be paid by the sponsor of the EPP.

TEC, §21.0452, states that to assist persons interested in obtaining teaching certification in selecting an EPP and assist school districts in making staffing decisions, the SBEC shall make certain specified information regarding educator programs in this state available to the public through the SBEC's Internet website.

EFECTIVE DATE: The proposed effective date of the proposed amendments to 19 TAC §§229.1-229.9 and the proposed repeal of 19 TAC §229.21 would be December 27, 2016.

PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: None.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND SIGNIFICANT ISSUES: The SBEC rules in 19 TAC Chapter 229 establish the process used for issuing annual accreditation ratings for all EPPs. The TEC, §21.045, states that the SBEC shall propose rules establishing standards to govern the approval and continuing accountability of all EPPs. At the January 2015 SBEC work session, the SBEC members received three presentations on educator quality as it pertains to EPPs in the state of Texas. The Texas Teaching Commission, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, and the National Council on Teacher Quality provided state and national perspectives on educator quality in relation to Texas EPPs. SBEC members provided feedback to TEA staff on those presentations. Specifically, as it relates to 19 TAC Chapter 229, the SBEC requested policy options that focus on raising EPP standards, improving teacher preparation programs, and new and improved ways to train better teachers. The TEA staff also convened three stakeholder meetings in December 2015 and three stakeholder meetings in June 2016 to gather input on the proposed revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 229.

General Provisions and Purpose of Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs

Language would be amended in 19 TAC §229.1(a) to replace certification field with certification class or category. This would align the language used in 19 TAC Chapters 227, 228, 230, and 233.

Definitions

The definitions of accredited institution of higher education and site supervisor would be added for clarity and alignment between other chapters in the TAC. The definitions of candidate, clinical teaching, cooperating teacher, educator preparation program, field supervisor, internship, and practicum would be amended for clarity and alignment between other chapters in the TAC. The definitions of completer and educator preparation program data would be amended for clarity, the definition of campus-based mentor would be replaced by mentor for clarity and alignment between other chapters in the TAC, and the definitions of alternative certification program, institutional report, and scaled score would be removed because the terms are not referenced in the chapter.

The definition of certification field would be replaced by certification category and certification class so that the definitions align with 19 TAC Chapters 227, 228, 230, and 233. The definitions would include "also referred to as certification field" so that the common term for categories and classes can continue to be used by TEA staff and EPPs. To align the definitions across all chapters, these proposed changes would be made in 19 TAC §229.2 with conforming changes made throughout the chapter.

In accordance with the TEC, §21.045(a)(5), as amended by House Bill (HB) 2205, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015, a definition of new teacher would be added as the first year of employment as a classroom teacher under a standard certificate after completing an EPP. In accordance with the TEC, §21.0441, as added by HB 2205, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015, a definition of incoming class would be added.

The definition of beginning teacher would be amended to clarify that it means a classroom teacher with less than three years of experience and would be used for the purpose of implementing the TEC, §21.045(a)(3), in this chapter. The definition of first-year teacher would also be amended to clarify that it is used for the purpose of implementing the TEC, §21.045(a)(2), in this chapter.

The definition of pass rate would be moved to the determination of accreditation status section. In addition, the definitions would be renumbered accordingly.

Required Submissions of Information, Surveys, and Other Data

In accordance with the TEC, §21.045(a)(5), as amended by HB 2205, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015, and the TEC, §21.0441, as added by HB 2205, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015, language in 19 TAC §229.3(a), (e), and (f) would be amended and added to clarify who is required to provide data and when the data is required to be submitted. These subsections would also be amended to clarify that the data and information required to be provided is set forth in subsections (e) and (f).

In accordance with the TEC, §21.045, as amended by HB 2205, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015, and §21.0452, as amended by HB 2205, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015, the figure in 19 TAC §229.3(f)(1) would be replaced to clarify data that is required to be collected and reported.

The collection and reporting of new annual performance report data includes:

• the results of teacher satisfaction surveys;
• data related to field supervision of candidates completing clinical teaching and internships;
• the number of teachers employed under standard certificates within one year of completing an EPP;
• the amount of time required by candidates employed as beginning teachers under probationary certificates to be issued standard certificates;
• the ratio of field supervisors to candidates completing clinical teaching or an internship; and
• any other information necessary to assess effectiveness of the program on the basis of teacher retention and success criteria such as the performance of candidates on all examinations approved by an EPP and the percentage of applicants who are admitted to a program.

The collection and reporting of new consumer information data includes:

• for each semester, the average ratio of field supervisors to candidates completing clinical teaching and internships;
• the percentage of teachers employed under a standard teaching certificate within one year of completing an EPP; and
• the results of teacher satisfaction surveys.

Determination of Accreditation Status

In accordance with the TEC, §21.045(a), as amended by HB 2205, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015, language in 19 TAC §229.4(a) would be amended to include disaggregation of EPP accountability indicators by race. Language in 19 TAC §229.4(a)(4) would be amended to include candidates completing clinical teaching in the performance standards related to field supervision. Section 229.4(5) would be added to include the teacher satisfaction survey indicator into rule. The performance standard would be set after the teacher satisfaction survey is piloted during the 2016-2017 academic year. Language in 19 TAC §229.4(d) and (e) would also be amended to align with the accreditation indicators in subsection (a) and include race as a way to disaggregate EPP candidates.

The current definition of pass rate and the performance standard of 80% on all certification examinations in 19 TAC §229.4(a)(1) would continue to be used for accreditation purposes for the 2016-2017 academic year. A new pass rate would be used for accreditation purposes after the 2016-2017 academic year. This pass rate would include, for each academic year, the percent of candidates who passed an examination that was approved by the EPP and required for the certification field in which the EPP is preparing or has prepared the candidate within the first two attempts. The amended definition would also include examination attempts that may occur in the academic years while a candidate is enrolled or after a candidate has completed a program. The amended definition would create a higher and more transparent standard for this accreditation indicator.

A separate performance standard would also be set for the results of Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities (PPR) and non-PPR examinations after the 2016-2017 academic year. The performance standard for PPR examinations would use the new pass rate, set at 80% for the 2016-2017 academic year, and would be used for reporting purposes only. Beginning with the 2017-2018 academic year, the performance standard would be set at 85% for the 2017-2018 academic year and 90% for the 2018-2019 academic year and beyond. The performance standard for the non-PPR examination would also use the new pass rate, set at 70% for the 2016-2017 academic year, and would be used for reporting purposes only. Beginning with the 2017-2018 academic year, the performance standard would also increase by 5% until it reaches 90% for the 2020-2021 academic year and beyond. As required by the TEC, §21.045(a)(1), the results of certification examinations are required to be used as part of the accreditation status of an EPP. Separating PPR examination results from non-PPR examination results would provide more transparency in the accountability system. Lowering the performance standard below the current standard of 80% and considering 2016-2017 as a reporting year would provide EPPs time to evaluate and make changes to their programs before the performance standards would be used for accreditation purposes. Incrementally raising the standard by 5% each year would be a similar method for raising the performance standard to what the SBEC has done in the past. Raising the performance standard beyond the current standard of 80% to 90% would comport with the SBEC's request for policy options that focus on raising EPP standards and improving teacher preparation programs.

Language in 19 TAC §229.4(a)(2) would be amended to set a performance standard for the results of a principal survey of first-year teachers. The performance standard would be defined as the percentage of first-year teachers who were appraised as sufficiently prepared or well prepared. The performance standard would be 70% for the 2016-2017 academic year and would be used for reporting purposes only. Beginning with the 2017-2018 academic year, the performance standard would increase by 5% until it reaches 90% for the 2020-2021 academic year and beyond. The use of first-year teacher performance data is required by the TEC, §21.045(a)(2), and the proposed performance standards are based on the results of SBEC-approved surveys that have been piloted for several years. Incrementally raising the standard by 5% each year would be a similar method for raising the performance standard to what the SBEC has done in the past. Raising the performance standard to 90% would comport with the SBEC's request for policy options that focus on raising EPP standards and improving teacher preparation programs.

Language in 19 TAC §229.4(a)(4) would be amended to set the performance standards for the frequency, duration, and quality of field supervision of clinical teachers and intern teachers. The performance standard for the frequency and duration of field supervision would be defined as the percentage of candidates who were observed by their field supervisor according to the requirements described in 19 TAC §228.35. For accreditation purposes, the performance standard for the frequency and duration of field supervision would be set at 95% for the 2016-2017 academic year for internship observations. For reporting purposes, the performance standard for the frequency and duration of field supervision would be set at 95% for the 2016-2017 academic year for internship and clinical teaching observations. For accreditation purposes, the performance standard for the frequency and duration of field supervision would be set at 95% for the 2017-2018 academic year and beyond for internship and clinical teaching observations. The performance standard for the quality of field supervision would be based on an exit survey of candidates when they complete an EPP. The performance standard would be defined as the percentage of candidates who rate the field supervision as "frequently" or "always or almost always" providing the required components of structural guidance and ongoing support. The performance standard would be set at 85% for the 2016-2017 academic year and would be used for reporting purposes only. The performance standard would increase to 90% for the 2017-2018 academic year and beyond. The use of field supervision data is required by the TEC, §21.045(a)(4), and the recommended performance standards are based on the results of surveys that have been piloted for several years. Incrementally raising the standard by 5% each year would be a similar method for raising the performance standard to what the SBEC has done in the past. Raising the performance standard to 90% would comport with the SBEC's request for policy options that focus on raising EPP standards and improving teacher preparation programs.

In accordance with the TEC, §21.045(a), as amended by HB 2205, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015, language in 19 TAC §229.4(g) would be amended to include disaggregation of EPP accountability indicators by race. Because the TEC, §21.045(a), requires the SBEC to propose rules that disaggregate EPP performance data by race, ethnicity, and gender, current 19 TAC §229.4(g)(2) would be removed and 19 TAC §229.4(g)(1) and proposed subsection (g)(2), (3), and (4) would be amended to include groups disaggregated by race, ethnicity, and gender if the group contains more than 10 candidates. This would be a decrease from the current small group exception of 20, but a small group size of 10 would provide more transparency as to how EPPs are preparing candidates of different genders, races, and ethnicities. A small group size of 10 is also used for the kindergarten-Grade 12 accountability system. The small group exception would not be applied to compliance with the frequency and duration of field supervisor observations. Language in proposed subsection (g)(3) and (4) would be amended to clarify how two- and three-year cumulated group performance is calculated. Language would be amended in 19 TAC §229.4(g) to remove certification field as a disaggregated group for accreditation status determination but would retain language in 19 TAC §229.5(c) so that approval to offer a certification class or category may be revoked if performance standards are not met by the EPP for three consecutive years. Language would also be amended in proposed subsection (g)(5) to clarify that the SBEC, rather than TEA staff, may modify sanctions assigned to an EPP.

Examples of EPP performance based on 2014-2015 data, the proposed pass rate, and the proposed performance standards are included in Attachment III. The 2015-2016 Certification Exam Results are included in Attachment IV. A copy of the Principal Survey Questions is included in Attachment V, and a copy of the Field Supervision Survey Questions is included in Attachment VI.

Accreditation Sanctions and Procedures

Language in 19 TAC §229.5(c)-(e) would be amended to replace certification field with certification class or category. This would align the language used in 19 TAC Chapters 227, 228, 230, and 233. Language in 19 TAC §229.5(d) would be amended to set the 2016-2017 academic year as the first year that candidate performance in an individual certification class or category would be used for determining whether an EPP has failed to meet performance standards for three consecutive years. This would allow EPPs to be held accountable under provisions that are clearer. To provide more consistency and clarity, language would also be amended in 19 TAC §229.5(e) to align the small group exception and cumulating rules for individual certification classes and categories with the accreditation status determination rule in 19 TAC §229.4(g).

Continuing Approval

In accordance with the TEC, §21.0443(b), as amended by HB 2205, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015, language in 19 TAC §229.6(a) would be amended so that the continuing approval review indicators are congruent with those that are in the program approval process section of 19 TAC Chapter 228. In accordance with the TEC, §21.0443(c), as amended by HB 2205, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015, language would be amended in 19 TAC §229.6(b) so that TEA staff makes a recommendation for continuing approval of an EPP and the SBEC makes the final decision for continuing approval of an EPP. In accordance with the TEC, §21.0451(a), as amended by HB 2205, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015, language in 19 TAC §229.6(b) would also be amended to add failure to comply with the TEC, Chapter 21, as a reason why TEA staff shall propose a recommendation to the SBEC relating to an EPP's approval to recommend candidates for educator certification.

Informal Review of Texas Education Agency Recommendations

The TEC, §21.0451, as amended by HB 2205, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015, provides for a contested case hearing for an EPP if the SBEC seeks to revoke the EPP's accreditation. Changes to the rule were not necessary to implement this requirement because the rule is already written in such a way to be in compliance with the change in law.

Language would be amended in 19 TAC §229.7(a) to replace certification field with certification class or category. This would align the language used in 19 TAC Chapters 227, 228, 230, and 233. Language in 19 TAC §229.7(c) would be amended to allow the designee of an EPP's chief operating officer to make the request for an informal review. This would provide EPPs with flexibility in responding to a proposed recommendation for an order or a change in accreditation status. Clarifying language would be added in 19 TAC §229.7(c)(2) so that EPPs have a better understanding of what they are responding to in an informal review request. The proposed change of shall to may in 19 TAC §229.7(c)(3) would provide flexibility for EPPs in their informal review request responses. Cross references to other SBEC rules would also be updated.

Contested Cases for Accreditation Revocation

Language would be amended in 19 TAC §229.8(a) and (c) to replace certification field with certification class or category. This would align the language used in 19 TAC Chapters 227, 228, 230, and 233. In accordance with the Texas Government Code, Chapter 2003, language in 19 TAC §229.8(b) would be amended to remove a sentence that allows the provision to prevail in the event that there is a conflict with the rule or practice of the SOAH. Section 229.8(c) would also be amended to clarify that the finality of an order from the SBEC would be made under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Fees for Educator Preparation Program Approval and Accountability

The TEC, §21.041(d), allows the SBEC to propose rules to adopt fees to provide for the administrative cost of approving, renewing the approval of, and appropriately ensuring the accountability of EPPs. Language would be amended in 19 TAC §229.9(2) and (3) to clarify that the fees for continuing and discretionary approval reviews are assessed when a site visit is required for a review. These amendments would revise the fees to more adequately cover the cost of onsite reviews. Section 229.9(6) would be added to establish a fee for reviewing requests for out-of-state and out-of-country school sites for field-based experiences, clinical teaching, internships, and practicums. This fee would adequately cover the administrative cost of these types of reviews. In addition, 19 TAC §229.9(7) would be added to establish a fee to adequately cover the costs of administering the accreditation, annual performance, and consumer information requirements for EPPs as required by the TEC, §21.045 and §21.0452. This fee would be collected in the fall of each academic year based on the number of candidates an EPP admitted the prior academic year. The revenue from the fees would be used to adequately cover the cost of the personnel, hardware, and contracted services that would be required to develop and maintain the internal and external systems needed to collect, analyze, and report data. The fee would be set at $55 per admitted candidate for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 academic years and $35 per admitted candidate for the 2018-2019 academic year and beyond. TEA staff would provide annual updates to the SBEC on the revenues and expenditures related to this new fee as well as any recommendations to lower or raise the fee to adequately cover costs related to Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs technology systems.

In response to public comment, language was amended in 19 TAC §229.9(7) to delay the collection of the ASEP technology fee from admitted EPP candidates until March 15, 2017. This delay in implementation would allow EPPs to work with their governing boards and chief operating officers to adopt the fee in their own policies. By delaying the implementation of the ASEP technology fee, fees for the 2016-2017 academic year would only be collected for candidates who are admitted to an EPP on or after March 15, 2017, through August 31, 2017.

Transitional Provisions

Section §229.21 would be repealed because updated transitional provisions have been added to language in 19 TAC §229.4 and §229.5.

SBOE Review of Proposed SBEC Rules

Under TEC, §21.042, the SBEC must submit a written copy of each rule it proposes to adopt to the SBOE for review. The SBOE may reject the proposed rules by a vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the SBOE present and voting.

FISCAL IMPACT: TEA staff has determined that for the first five-year period the proposed rule actions are in effect there would be additional costs for state and local government as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rule actions. The following fiscal implications are based on costs for state government (education service centers and public universities), local government (public community colleges, counties, open-enrollment charter schools, and school districts), and small business and microbusiness EPPs for fiscal years (FYs) 2017-2021. There would also be costs for state government (TEA) for FYs 2017-2021. The effect on the TEA of the proposed costs would be offset by the effect of increases in the EPP approval and accountability fee structure in 19 TAC §229.9.

The proposed rule actions to 19 TAC Chapter 229 would increase TEA costs of administering the Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs (ASEP) as authorized by the TEC, §21.045 and §21.0452. The proposed amendment to 19 TAC §229.9 would add fees to more adequately cover the administrative costs of administering the ASEP and approving applications for out-of-state and out-of-country school sites for field-based experiences, clinical teaching, internships, and practicums for EPPs as authorized by the TEC, §21.041. The proposed amendment to 19 TAC §229.9 would also amend the five-year and discretionary continuing approval review fees so that a fee would be charged only if the review required a visit by TEA staff.

TEA estimates the total costs for state government-operated EPPs at $1,039,500 in FYs 2018-2019 and $647,500 in FYs 2020-2021. TEA estimates the total costs for local government-operated EPPs at $80,500 in FYs 2018-2019 and $46,500 in FYs 2020-2021. TEA estimates the total costs for small businesses and microbusinesses that operate EPPs at $787,500 in FYs 2018-2019 and $501,500 in FYs 2020-2021. TEA estimates the total increase in revenue for SBEC at $2,020,500 in FYs 2018-2019 and $1,248,500 in FYs 2020-2021. The estimated costs and revenue include fees to cover the cost of administering the accreditation, annual performance report, and consumer information requirements for EPPs; processing applications for field-based experiences, clinical teaching, internships, and practicums to be filed by EPPs; and the cost of continuing approval reviews that require visits. These estimated costs and revenues are based on the estimated number of applicants admitted to EPPs, the expected number of applications to be filed by EPPs, and the expected number of continuing approval review visits. No fee or revenue increases are proposed for the estimated FY 2017 cost of $619,500 because the estimated cost of administering the accreditation, annual performance report, and consumer information requirements for EPPs has already been covered by the current appropriations act. While there are no direct costs for individuals required to comply with the proposed rule's provisions, the fees to cover the cost of administering the accreditation, annual performance report, and consumer information requirements for EPPs is expected to be passed on to individuals who are admitted to EPPs.

The proposed amendments to 19 TAC §§229.3, 229.4, and 229.5 would increase TEA costs of administering the accreditation, annual performance report, and consumer information requirements for EPPs. TEA estimates the total costs for administering the accreditation, annual performance report, and consumer information requirements for EPPs to be $2,013,500 in FY 2018, $2,122,500 in FY 2019, and $1,289,000 in each year for FYs 2020-2021. These total costs include personnel costs (10 full-time equivalents) of $1,139,000 in each year for FYs 2018-2021 to develop and maintain the internal systems to collect, analyze, and report data; consultant costs of $824,500 for FY 2018, $933,500 for FY 2019, and $100,000 in each year for FYs 2020-2021 to develop and maintain the external systems to collect, analyze, and report data; and equipment costs of $50,000 in each year for FYs 2017-2021 to support the development and maintenance of the internal and external systems. The estimated FY 2017 cost of $619,500 for administering the accreditation, annual performance report, and consumer information requirements for EPPs has already been covered by the current appropriations act.

There would be an anticipated increase in local employment in the Region 13 Education Service Center geographic area as a result of the increased costs for administering the accreditation, annual performance report, and consumer information requirements for EPPs. This anticipated increase in local employment would include personnel (10 full-time equivalents) to develop and maintain the internal systems to collect, analyze, and report data. This anticipated increase in local employment would also include consultants to develop and maintain the external systems to collect, analyze, and report data. The anticipated increase in local employment is $1,963,500 for FY 2018, $2,072,500 for FY 2019, and $1,239,000 for FYs 2020-2021. For FY 2017, there would be no costs because no staff would be hired until FY 2018.

There would be an anticipated economic impact for small businesses and microbusinesses that serve as approved EPPs. It is estimated that the proposed amendment to 19 TAC §229.9 would affect between 1-100 small businesses and 1-100 microbusinesses (businesses with 20 or fewer employees). The projected economic impact would consist of compliance costs such as the addition of fees to more adequately cover the administrative costs of administering the accreditation, annual performance report, and consumer information requirements for EPPs and approving applications for out-of-state and out-of-country school sites for field-based experiences, clinical teaching, internships, and practicums for EPPs.

In accordance with Texas Government Code, §2006.002, TEA conducted a regulatory flexibility analysis and assessed alternatives to the proposed amendment to §229.9. Three alternatives that would minimize the adverse impacts on small businesses and microbusinesses include:

1. Not adopting the new fees into rule;
2. Adopting a fee schedule that charges small business and microbusiness EPPs less than other EPPs; and
3. Adopting a fee schedule that does not charge small business and microbusiness EPPs. TEA assessed alternatives, as described earlier, to the proposed amendment to 19 TAC §229.9 that would diminish the impact on small businesses and microbusinesses; however, it is not possible to provide regulatory flexibility on this matter for the reasons that follow.

If the new fees were not adopted into rule, TEA would continue to process applications for out-of-state and out-of-country school sites for field-based experiences, clinical teaching, internships, and practicums without charging a fee to adequately cover the administrative costs of approving these applications. If new fees were not adopted into rule, the timeline for implementing the accreditation, annual performance report, and consumer information requirements would need to be extended. If small businesses and microbusinesses were charged a lower fee or no fee, this would result in fees for other EPPs that would exceed what is required to adequately provide for the administrative costs of administering the ASEP and applications.

The anticipated effect on local economy and the local employment impact statement required under Texas Government Code, §2001.022, is described earlier in this section.

PUBLIC AND STUDENT BENEFIT: The public and student benefit anticipated as a result of the proposed rule actions would be an accountability system that informs the public of the quality of educator preparation provided by each SBEC-approved EPP.

PROCEDURAL AND REPORTING IMPLICATIONS: The proposed revisions would have additional procedural and reporting implications as a result of the new annual performance report data and new consumer information data proposed in §229.3(f), enacted in the TEC, §21.045 and §21.0452, as amended by HB 2205, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015.

LOCALLY MAINTAINED PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS: The proposed revisions would have no additional locally maintained paperwork requirements.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the SBEC rulemaking process, a summary of comments received by the SBEC on its proposed rules were shared with the SBOE under separate cover prior to this SBOE meeting.

ALTERNATIVES: None.

OTHER COMMENTS AND RELATED ISSUES: None.

MOTION TO BE CONSIDERED: The State Board of Education:

Take no action on the proposed revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 229, Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs.

Staff Members Responsible:
Ryan Franklin, Associate Commissioner
Educator Leadership and Quality

Tim Miller, Director
Educator Preparation

Attachments:
I. Statutory Citations (PDF, 32KB)
II. Text of Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 229, Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs (including Figure: 19 TAC §229.3(f)(1)) (PDF, 301KB)
III. Examples of EPP performance based on 2014-2015 data, the proposed pass rate, and the proposed performance standards (PDF, 37KB)
IV. 2015-2016 Certification Exam Results (PDF, 35KB)
V. Principal Survey Questions (PDF, 26KB)
VI. Field Supervision Survey Questions (PDF, 20KB)