November 2022 Committee on School Initiatives Item 2

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

November 18, 2022

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

SUMMARY: This item provides the State Board of Education (SBOE) an opportunity to review the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) rule actions that would propose amendments to 19 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 229, Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs. Chapter 229 establishes the performance standards and procedures for educator preparation program (EPP) accountability. The proposed amendments would provide for adjustments to the 2021–2022 Accountability System for Educator Preparation (ASEP) Manual; would implement Senate Bill (SB) 2066, 87th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2021; would clarify assessments used for accountability; would update procedures for EPP commendations; would provide the SBEC additional flexibility when sanctioning programs; and would clarify what data is used for the determination of accreditation statuses.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY: The statutory authority for 19 TAC Chapter 229 is the Texas Education Code (TEC), §§21.041(a), (b)(1), and (d); 21.043(b) and (c); 21.0441(c) and (d); 21.0443, as amended by House Bill (HB) 159, 87th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2021; 21.045, as amended by HB 159, 87th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2021; 21.0451; and 21.0452, as amended by SB 2066, 87th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2021.

TEC, §21.041(a), allows the SBEC to adopt rules as necessary for its own procedures.

TEC, §21.041(b)(1), requires the SBEC to propose rules that provide for the regulation of educators and the general administration of the TEC, Chapter 21, Subchapter B, in a manner consistent with the TEC, Chapter 21, Subchapter B.

TEC, §21.041(d), states that the SBEC may adopt a fee for the approval and renewal of approval of an EPP, for the addition of a certificate or field of certification, and to provide for the administrative cost of appropriately ensuring the accountability of EPPs.

TEC, §21.043(b) and (c), require SBEC to provide EPPs with data, as determined in coordination with stakeholders, based on information reported through Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) that enables an EPP to assess the impact of the program and revise the program as needed to improve.

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

TEC, §21.0443, as amended by HB 159, 87th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2021, 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 incorporate proactive instructional planning techniques throughout coursework and across content areas to provide flexibility in the ways information is presented and students respond and are engaged, to reduce barriers in instruction, to provide appropriate accommodations, and to maintain high achievement expectations for all students; must integrate inclusive practices for all students and evidence-based instruction and intervention strategies throughout course work, clinical experience, and student teaching; must adequately prepare candidates for educator certification; and must 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, as amended by HB 159, 87th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2021, 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. It further states that the SBEC has authority to make rules to take any necessary action in sanctioning EPPs, including but not limited to requiring the program to obtain technical assistance or professional services, appointing a monitor to participate in and report to the SBEC on the activities of the 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, as amended by SB 2066, 87th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2021, states that to assist persons interested in obtaining teaching certification in selecting an EPP and to assist school districts in making staffing decisions, the SBEC shall make certain specified information regarding EPPs in this state available to the public through the SBEC's Internet website.

The full text of statutory citations can be found in the statutory authority section of this agenda.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND JUSTIFICATION: EPPs are entrusted to prepare educators for success in the classroom. TEC, §21.0443, requires EPPs to adequately prepare candidates for certification. Similarly, TEC, §21.031, requires the SBEC to ensure candidates for certification demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to improve the performance of the diverse student population of this state. TEC, §21.045, also requires SBEC to establish standards to govern the continuing accountability of all EPPs. The SBEC rules in 19 TAC Chapter 229 establish the process used for issuing annual accreditation ratings for all EPPs to comply with these provisions of the TEC and to ensure the highest level of educator preparation, which is codified in the SBEC Mission Statement.

Following is a description of the topics for the proposed amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 229. The relevant proposed rule text from 19 TAC Chapter 229 is presented in Attachment I. The proposed Figure: 19 TAC §229.1(c), which is the ASEP Manual, is presented in Attachment II, and the proposed Figure: 19 TAC §229.3(f)(1) is presented in Attachment III. A detailed description is included below.

§229.1. General Provisions and Purpose of Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs.

Update of ASEP Manual

The proposed amendment to Figure: 19 TAC §229.1(c) would provide the following changes to portions of the ASEP Manual.

Updates to the table of contents would simplify technical processes related to rulemaking.

Updates to Chapter 1 would simplify and streamline language. These updates would also update the description of Indicators 1a and 1b to align with proposed updates to 19 TAC §229.4(a)(1)(C) and (D), which use the defined terms pedagogy test and content pedagogy test.

Updates to Chapter 3 would align the description of Indicators 1a and 1b with proposed updates to 19 TAC §229.4(a)(1)(C) and (D). Updates would also clarify the exclusion procedures related to the Performance Assessment for School Leaders (PASL) per 19 TAC §229.4(a)(1)(B). Proposed updates would strike the reference to the Core Subjects Adjustment as it is no longer needed, due to the reset of the years of data used for the small group aggregation, in proposed 19 TAC §229.4(c)(6). For the same reason, proposed updates would strike a reference to the earliest available year of data for use in the small group aggregation procedure. Proposed updates to Chapter 3 would also add clarification about the procedure to identify how tests 291 Core Subjects EC-6 and 391 Core Subjects EC-6 are counted in combination to ensure that candidates with results for both are not double counted in the pass rate. This is in response to request for clarification from the field. Finally, the proposed updates would modify the worked examples to provide demonstration of the PASL inclusion and the tests 291 Core Subjects EC-6 and 391 Core Subjects EC-6 procedure. This would provide transparency to the field.

Updates to Chapter 4 would update the term "English language learners" with the term "emergent bilingual students" to implement SB 2066, 87th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2021. Proposed updates would also note the procedure for EPPs to complete a review of the roster of included candidates. This would provide transparency of processes to the field. Additionally, updates to the worked example would provide an example of how the rounding rule operates. This would provide clarity to the field.

Updates to Chapter 5 would clarify the teachers included in the calculation. These updates would note that teachers who exit the teacher workforce prior to being employed for three years and then return to the workforce are not included in the calculation for the EPP following their workforce re-entry. This additional clarification was requested by EPP stakeholders. These updates would also create a threshold of 10 or more students for a teacher's subject area to be included. This is based on recommendations from the working group that provided input to Texas Education Agency (TEA) during the original construction of the Indicator 3 methodology.

Updates to Chapter 6 would remove the term "field experience" and use the terminology "internship or clinical teaching." This would provide better clarity for EPPs, because "field experience" has a separate meaning in 19 TAC Chapter 228. Updates would also clarify the exception procedure to provide transparency to the field. Updates would modify the worked example for Indicator 4a to simplify the figure. Finally, updates to the worked example for Indicator 4b would update the question number references to align with the survey currently in use. This would provide clarity for the field.

Updates to Chapter 7 would replace the term "English language learners" with the term "emergent bilingual students" to implement SB 2066, 87th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2021. Proposed updates would also note the procedure for EPPs to complete a review of the roster of included candidates. This would provide transparency of processes to the field.

Updates to Chapter 8 would shift the performance standard for retention as a teacher and for retention in any public-school role from 95% to 85%. Over the past two years no EPPs have met the 95% retention standard, and this change would allow for this commendation to be achievable while still requiring excellence in preparing educators who are retained in the field. Updates to the description of the rigorous and robust preparation section would align language with proposed updates to 19 TAC §229.4(a)(1)(C) and (D) and align the procedure with proposed 19 TAC §229.4(a)(1)(A). Updates to this section would also clarify that the calculations are done based on the number of candidates with certificates, rather than the number of certificates. This provides clarity for the field and simplifies the standard to address the percent of teachers with a certain type of certificate. This approach allows for clearer recognition of programs who prepare candidates who earn multiple certificates through their EPP. Additional updates to this section would clarify that the percentage of candidates in teacher shortage areas are calculated separately by shortage area, that the percentage of teachers who identify as African American or Hispanic are calculated separately, and that the commendation is awarded separately for these separate results. This provides clarity to the field and addresses questions surfaced by the SBEC in prior meetings. Proposed updates to the preparing educators for long-term success section would clarify that educators are identified as retained when they are continuously employed. This provides clarity for the field and aligns with the reporting specified in TEC, §21.0452. Updates to the Innovative Educator Preparation section would remove the prior year recognition area and would add the new area of commendation recommended by the EPP Commendation Committee at its meeting on April 28, 2022. The new area of commendation will recognize EPPs that engage in innovative development of EPP faculty and staff, field supervisors, and/or cooperating and mentor teachers, in alignment with current research and best practices.

Proposed updates to Chapter 9 would align language with proposed updates to 19 TAC §229.4(a)(1)(C) and (D) and would align the procedure with proposed 19 TAC §229.4(a)(1)(A). Additional updates would modify existing references to prior year performance to specify the most recent prior year for which the EPP has data. This would ensure that only data from actionable years will be included in the ASEP index system calculations.

Updates throughout the ASEP Manual would correct date references and minor technical errors, remove footnotes, and provide transparency to the field as to the calculations used to determine accreditation statuses.

§229.2. Definitions.

The updates to the definitions section would add definitions for content pedagogy test and pedagogy test and would renumber the terms in this section. This allows for alignment of ASEP Indicators 1a and 1b and the ASEP Manual with Figure: 19 TAC §230.21(e). This alignment would provide transparency and clarity to the field concerning which exams are used in each calculation.

§229.3. Required Submissions of Information, Surveys, and Other Data.

The proposed updates to Figure: 19 TAC §229.3(f) would update the required collections to add the systematic collection of data related to clinical teaching, internship, and practicum experiences, renumbering the Accountability System Data column. EPPs are already required to create and to retain this data locally; allowing EPPs to report this data to TEA using the Educator Certification Online System would ensure proper record retention, simplifying the continuing review process for EPPs. Additionally, collecting this information would allow TEA to connect this data with campus- and district-level data and to provide summaries and visualizations back to EPPs for their use in program monitoring and continuous improvement of their programs. This collection would allow the TEA staff to address SBEC questions related to clinical teaching and internships to inform policy decisions. Finally, this collection is necessary under TEC, §21.045(b)(2), to allow the SBEC more efficiency in monitoring compliance with the SBEC's requirements for field supervision of candidates during their clinical teaching and internship experiences under 19 TAC §228.35(g). With the addition of data related to clinical teaching, internship, and practicum experiences, the subsequent rows under the Accountability System Data column would be renumbered accordingly.

§229.4. Determination of Accreditation Status.

Update to ASEP Indicator 1

The proposed amendment to §229.4(a)(1) would introduce the terms content pedagogy tests and pedagogy tests into the indicator description. This aligns with the updates to 19 TAC §229.2 and would provide a clear connection to Figure: 19 TAC §230.21(e) and to this ASEP indicator.

The proposed amendment would strike current §229.4(a)(1)(A) and would reletter current §229.4(a)(1)(B) as §229.4(a)(1)(A).

Updates to new §229.4(a)(1)(A) would introduce the terms content pedagogy tests and pedagogy tests into the indicator description. Additional updates would strike the outdated language related to completers issued a probationary certificate under a waiver that was in place for the 2020–2021 academic year (AY).

Updates to §229.4(a)(1)(C) and §229.4(a)(1)(D) would introduce the terms content pedagogy tests and pedagogy tests into the indicator description.

Proposed new §229.4(a)(1)(B) would specify that the PASL would continue to be treated as a content pedagogy test through academic year 2022–2023. This is necessary because the PASL has historically been calculated as a content pedagogy test but is in the pedagogy test column in Figure: 19 TAC §230.21(e). The eventual inclusion of PASL into the pedagogy test calculation brings together all pedagogy tests into the same indicator. This timeline would allow for EPPs to be informed of this change and plan for any necessary adjustments.

Update to Not Accredited-Revoked status

Proposed new §229.4(b)(3)(D) would align with TEC, §21.0451(a)(4), to allow the SBEC to revoke an EPP's accreditation and approval to recommend candidates if the EPP violated SBEC rules, Board orders, or Chapter 21 of the TEC. The rules currently allow the SBEC to change an EPP's accreditation status to "Accredited—Warned" or "Accredited—Probation," but requires that the program remain in "Accredited—Probation" for a year before it can be revoked. The proposed addition would allow the SBEC to seek revocation immediately if an EPP violates an SBEC rule, Board order or statute, so that the SBEC can quickly address severe problems with EPPs and thereby, limit the number of candidates, school districts, and students impacted by the EPP's continuing misconduct. Any EPP recommended for revocation will receive due process through an informal review by TEA staff and a contested case proceeding at the State Office of Administrative Hearings under the existing procedures set out in 19 TAC §§229.5-229.8.

Update to small group exception

Proposed amendments to §229.4(c)(3) and (c)(4) would specify that for the purposes of the small group aggregation procedure, only data from years beginning in 2021–2022 would be used. This reset is aligned with prior approaches to the small group aggregation when indicators are reactivated after being report only. During the 2019–2020 and 2020-2021 AY, all indicators were report only. This update would allow for EPPs that have 10 or fewer candidates in the aggregated or disaggregated groups in 2021-2022 AYs to have that data added to future years of data.

§229.5. Accreditation Sanctions and Procedures.

Update to available sanctions

Proposed new §229.5(b)(3) would renumber this section and would allow the SBEC to order EPPs to provide TEA staff with verification that the EPP is in continued compliance with SBEC rules and the TEC. This will allow the SBEC to tailor EPP sanction orders specifically to the particular program's shortcomings or violations to determine whether an EPP has improved its program to comport with the requirements of SBEC rules and the TEC and will put the program in violation of an SBEC order if it is unable to produce proof of compliance. This will allow the SBEC more options to create sanction orders for EPPs that effectively and enforceably address an EPP's violations, without resorting to the blunt instrument of revocation.

Proposed new §229.5(b)(4) would allow the SBEC to require EPPs with an accreditation status of "Accredited—Warned" or "Accredited—Probation" and EPPs with conditions for continuing approval to post information on their websites to inform the public about the EPP's accreditation status or conditions for continuing approval and to post the documents that support and explain the SBEC's decision to order a particular accreditation status or conditions for continuing approval. This will give current candidates in the program and potential candidates considering whether to enter the program more information and insight regarding the quality of teacher preparation and training the EPP provides and the areas where the program has opportunities for improvement.

Update to certification class or category evaluation

The proposed update to §229.5(c) would introduce the terms ''content pedagogy tests'' and "pedagogy tests" into the indicator description. This would align with the updates above to 19 TAC §229.2 and would provide a clear connection to Figure: 19 TAC §230.21(e).

§229.9. Fees for Educator Preparation Program Approval and Accountability.

The proposed amendment would remove "internships" from the types of applications for out-of-state and out-of-country sites. This update would provide clarity about the out-of-state and out-of-country school sites for field-based experiences, clinical teaching, and practicums fee because out-of-state internships are not allowed under 19 TAC §228.35(e)(9).

SBOE Review of Proposed SBEC Rules

Under the 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 rule by a vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the SBOE present and voting but may not modify a rule.

FISCAL IMPACT: No changes have been made to this section since published as proposed. The TEA staff has determined that there is no additional fiscal impact on state or local governments and that there are no additional costs to entities required to comply with the proposal.

LOCAL EMPLOYMENT IMPACT: No changes have been made to this section since published as proposed. The proposal has no effect on local economy; therefore, no local employment impact statement is required under Texas Government Code (TGC), §2001.022.

SMALL BUSINESS, MICROBUSINESS, AND RURAL COMMUNITY IMPACT: No changes have been made to this section since published as proposed. The proposal has no direct adverse economic impact for small businesses, microbusinesses, or rural communities; therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis, specified in TGC, §2006.002, is required.

COST INCREASE TO REGULATED PERSONS: No changes have been made to this section since published as proposed. The proposal does not impose a cost on regulated persons, another state agency, a special district, or a local government and, therefore, is not subject to TGC, §2001.0045.

TAKINGS IMPACT ASSESSMENT: No changes have been made to this section since published as proposed. The proposal does not impose a burden on private real property and, therefore, does not constitute a taking under TGC, §2007.043.

GOVERNMENT GROWTH IMPACT: No changes have been made to this section since published as proposed. The TEA staff prepared a Government Growth Impact Statement assessment for this proposed rulemaking. During the first five years the proposed rulemaking would be in effect, the proposed rule in new §229.2(12) would create a new regulation by adding new definitions for content pedagogy test as those exams listed in the column labeled "Required Content Pedagogy Test(s)" in Figure 19 TAC §230.21(e).

The proposed rule in new §229.2(27) would create a new regulation by defining pedagogy test as those exams listed in the column labeled "Required Pedagogy Test(s)" in Figure 19 TAC §230.21(e).

The proposed rule in §229.3(f) would create a new regulation for EPPs by requiring new data reporting collections of data related to clinical teaching, internship, and practicum placements.

The proposed rule in new §229.4(b)(3)(D) would create a new regulation for EPPs by allowing the SBEC to assign a status of Accredited-Revoked if the SBEC determines that the EPP has violated SBEC rules, orders, and/or TEC, Chapter 21.

The proposed rulemaking would not create or eliminate a government program; would not require the creation of new employee positions or elimination of existing employee positions; would not require an increase or decrease in future legislative appropriations to the agency; would not require an increase or decrease in fees paid to the agency; would not expand or repeal an existing regulation; would not increase or decrease the number of individuals subject to its applicability; and would not positively or adversely affect the state's economy.

PUBLIC BENEFIT AND COST TO PERSONS: No changes have been made to this section since published as proposed. The public benefit anticipated as a result of the proposal would be an accountability system that informs the public of the quality of educator preparation provided by each SBEC-approved EPP. There is no anticipated cost to persons who are required to comply with the proposal.

DATA AND REPORTING IMPACT: No changes have been made to this section since published as proposed. The proposal would have a data and reporting impact proposed in §229.3(f)(1). New reporting requirements in 19 TAC §229.3(f)(1) include annual collection of data related to clinical teaching, internship, and practicum placements. This collection is necessary under TEC, §21.045(b)(2), to allow the SBEC more efficiency in monitoring compliance with the SBEC's requirements for field supervision of candidates during their clinical teaching and internship experiences under 19 TAC §228.35(g). EPPs are already required to create and retain this data locally; allowing EPPs to report this data to TEA using the Educator Certification Online System would ensure proper record retention, simplifying the continuing review process for EPPs. Additionally, by collecting this information centrally, TEA would be able to connect this data with campus- and district-level data and provide summaries and visualizations back to EPPs for their use in monitoring and continuous improvement of their programs. Finally, this collection would allow the TEA staff to address Board questions related to clinical teaching and internships to inform policy decisions.

PRINCIPAL AND CLASSROOM TEACHER PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS: No changes have been made to this section since published as proposed. The TEA staff has determined that the proposal would not require a written report or other paperwork to be completed by a principal or classroom teacher.

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

MOTION TO BE CONSIDERED: The State Board of Education:

Take no action on Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 229, Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs.

Staff Members Responsible:
Emily Garcia, Associate Commissioner, Educator Preparation, Certification, and Enforcement
Mark Olofson, Director, Educator Data, Research, and Strategy

Attachment I:
Text of Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 229, Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs

Attachment II:
Text of Proposed Figure: 19 TAC §229.1(c)

Attachment III:
Text of Proposed Figure: 19 TAC §229.3(f)(1)