Home ::
After months of preparation involving numerous stakeholder meetings and several board discussions, the State Board for Educator Certification finally adopted on second reading a set of proposed rules designed to implement minimum standards for all educator preparation programs. The rules went before the State Board of Education in November and were allowed to move forward. They are scheduled for implementation in the 2009-10 school year.
In response to complaints received by SBEC about certain educator preparation programs and a State Auditor’s report reviewing alternative certification programs, SBEC staff held a series of stakeholder meetings, in which TCTA participated, to develop minimum standards for all programs. Minimum standards used to exist in the late 1990s, but were eliminated due to a change in educational policy that focused less on process and more on outcomes.
However, due to complaints, a weak accountability system for educator preparation programs and the lack of statutory authority for SBEC to sanction educator preparation programs, SBEC began the process of developing minimum standards for all educator programs.
The rules adopted by SBEC include requirements of 300 hours of training for all educator preparation programs, including 80 hours of pre-service training and 30 hours of field service to be completed prior to student teaching, clinical teaching or internship.
Additionally, the rules set out admissions requirements, such as a 2.5 GPA (with allowable alternatives for alternative certification programs), passing a basic skills test in reading, oral and written communication, and mathematics or demonstrating equivalent performance on a college entrance examination, and an application and interview or other instrument to determine an educator preparation candidate's appropriateness for the certification sought.
TCTA testified that the board should adopt the rules, with the exception of a provision allowing a "work experience" exception to the 2.5 minimum GPA requirement for admission to an educator preparation program.
The provision allows an educator preparation program to admit up to 10 percent of any cohort of candidates into a program without the requisite GPA upon "documentation and certification that the candidate's work, business or career experience demonstrates achievement equivalent to the academic achievement represented by the GPA requirement." TCTA pointed out that the board initially rejected this language when it was first presented to them at their May 2008 meeting.
However, when the language was again presented to them as part of a package of substitute language at their July meeting, the board, over the objection of some members, adopted the language.
TCTA expressed concern that the language gives no criteria for determining whether a candidate's work experience "demonstrates achievement equivalent" to the GPA requirement, thus exposing educator preparation programs to claims of discriminatory admissions, based on arbitrary and capricious determinations regarding admitting candidates under differing criteria (GPA vs work experience), and regarding determinations about the value of any particular candidates’ work experience.
TCTA additionally pointed out that this language actually achieves the opposite result of the purpose for adopting minimum criteria for all educator preparation programs in the first place, which was to set out objective criteria to ensure consistency between these programs. In addition, TCTA testified against a last-minute proposal by an alternative certification program to allow the 30 hours of field service to be obtained via technology.
TCTA stated that stakeholders who had participated in the process of developing the rules over the past year were adamant that the field service must take place in person, and not via technology. TCTA also pointed out that research supports the need for actual classroom field service in order to adequately prepare prospective teachers for the classroom, and that sufficient preparation is key to reducing attrition rates among new teachers.
However, after public testimony, last-minute language was circulated to board members that allows 15 of the 30 field-service hours to be provided by electronic transmission, or other video or technology-based method.
The language requires that the technology must integrate authentic classrooms in a public school accredited by TEA or TEA-recognized private school, instruction by content certified teachers, actual students in classrooms with identity proof provisions, content or grade level specific classrooms, variable time length of observation and reflection of the observation.
In support of the language, TEA staff explained that although they understood the need for actual classroom field service before becoming a teacher, with the advent of increasingly sophisticated technology, they felt that a compromise allowing 15 of the 30 hours to be obtained via technology that meets the requirements set out above was reasonable.
After some discussion by the board about the value to teacher candidates of technology in constructing classroom situations to illustrate specific issues, the board voted to adopt the rules with the new language allowing for 15 hours of field service to be obtained via technology.
Additionally, TCTA testified against some proposed SBEC legislative recommendations. One particularly troubling recommendation calls for legislation to require superintendents to report to SBEC when a teacher resigns on an allegation of inappropriate conduct, based on a reasonable belief that the educator "may have" engaged in the conduct.
(Current law requires superintendents to report to SBEC if an educator resigns and reasonable evidence supports a recommendation by the superintendent to terminate the educator based on the conduct). TCTA pointed out that the proposed change means that a report would be required even if there was no evidence to support the allegation.
TCTA stated that the real problem is that SBEC fails to enforce the law as it currently exists and that, to our knowledge, no superintendent has ever been sanctioned for failure to make a report under this provision, although the law explicitly gives SBEC the authority to do this.
Updated: 11/24/08
