The State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) met July 19 to tackle a discussion-heavy agenda that included revisions to rules on educator discipline and sanctions, teacher pedagogy standards, and certification requirements for special educators.  

The board approved two new in-house Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs) in Andrews and Katy ISDs. Board members also approved amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 229, Accountability Systems for Educator Preparation, or ASEP. ASEP indicators are used to rate EPPs. Also approved was an amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 230 expanding options for demonstrating English Language Proficiency (ELP).  

ATPE Managing Attorney Lance Cain testified against proposed additions to educator discipline rules in TAC Chapter 249. While ATPE is clearly opposed to any adult grooming any child, Cain expressed concern about treating “grooming behaviors”—which, according to agency staff, can include communicating with a child outside of the school day or on a personal account, providing transportation to a child who has been left at school or a school event, or showing empathy to a child—in the same nondiscretionary manner as solicitation. He argued, and many board members seemed to agree, that existing code already provides the board and agency staff with all the tools needed to take action against inappropriate behavior without making actions that on their own may not indicate inappropriate behavior subject to automatic revocation. In the same vein, SBEC members also highlighted the concern that the agency staff’s proposed rule seemed not to take intent into account when it is often a key factor in parsing whether an educator’s otherwise innocuous action is problematic or deserving of sanction. Finally, Cain advised against revisions to contract abandonment rules that would add barriers to claiming a medical exemption, including proposals to require educators to first seek extraneous medical documentation or pursue cumbersome or cost-prohibitive medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Cain pointed out that every educator’s reasoning for leaving their contract is unique, many educators simply cannot afford long periods of unpaid leave, and current contract abandonment rules give the administrative law judge sufficient discretion in considering relevant facts. The board seemed to agree with much of the reasoning presented by ATPE, giving direction to TEA staff to exercise caution in making changes that could result in teachers being sanctioned unfairly. 

Revisions to teacher pedagogy standards 

A revised version of the teacher pedagogy standards was presented to SBEC following a directive from the board in April to put “lesson design” back into the standards. You may recall that the draft standards presented to the board in April did not include “lesson design,” instead focusing on “lesson internalization.” TEA staff members have stated they felt this change was needed as part of implementation of House Bill (HB) 1605 by Chairman Brad Buckley (R–Salado), which passed during the 2023 legislative session. ATPE consulted with Buckley’s office, confirmed that removal of a teacher’s ability to design lessons was not the bill’s intent, and shared that information with TEA staff, along with a reminder that the language in HB 1605 makes clear the bill is meant to be optional for districts. Districts will make individual decisions regarding adoption of Open Education Resource (OER) materials approved by the state and will be financially incentivized for choosing them. However, considering that OER materials will not be available for all subjects and grade levels for years and that not all districts will adopt them, teachers must still have a firm foundation in lesson design. Even in districts where OER materials are adopted, teachers will still need lesson design skills to modify lessons and adjust for student needs. The revised standards presented at the meeting do explicitly include a strand focused on lesson design as directed by the board. However, the standards remain heavily slanted toward the use of High Quality Instructional Materials (HQIM) and OER. These materials are meant to be optional, and ATPE, in concert with our partners in the Texas Coalition for Educator Preparation (TCEP), continues to advocate for teachers’ ability to select instructional materials using their own experience and judgment.  

ATPE testimony on special educator certification 

Discussion continued during the meeting over changes to TAC Chapter 231, specifically focused on which certifications special educators must have. These changes, according to TEA staff, were prompted because the state is currently out of compliance with federal special education law. The document Texas currently uses to show that a special educator is highly qualified (HOUSSE) is outdated and must be updated. ATPE Lobbyist Tricia Cave is currently serving on a workgroup with TEA aimed at updating the HOUSSE document. The group’s challenge has been to balance the need to have a highly qualified special educator working with students while also ensuring these educators are not being unfairly burdened by new requirements. The document presented for discussion with SBEC has different standards for determining competency in a secondary classroom, depending on a teacher’s role instructing the student (teacher of record vs. non-teacher of record). The board asked TEA staff to give more flexibility in determining competency at all grade levels, including elementary.  

ATPE has consistently advocated for practicality in these rules. Our position is that an educator providing special education services as an inclusion teacher who is working alongside the students’ teacher of record may not need to have the same depth of content-area knowledge as the teacher of record (who is the subject-matter expert) or as the special education teacher assigned to a self-contained classroom and serving as both the special education and content-area expert. While special education teachers with enhanced content knowledge represent an ideal situation, making that extra knowledge a requirement does not strike the right balance for educators whose primary purpose is not content delivery area but providing pedagogical support for special education students and ensuring those students’ IEPs are met. This is especially true considering that special education teachers are already in short supply. Additionally, ATPE has advocated for previous classroom experience to factor heavily in determining competency, as well as for classroom paraprofessional experience to count. ATPE provided written testimony to the board asking for clarity on the rules regarding previous classroom experience being used to determine competency, asking for classroom paraprofessional experience to be considered, and making suggestions regarding potential certification options for special educators who are not teachers of record, including a potential special education specific 7-12 generalist certificate option or content area microcredentials.  

SBEC will next meet Sept. 19-20.