EPCE Stakeholder Meeting (January 9, 2026)

001We're excited to have a chance to uh be with you all. I know we had a chance to see many of you all on Wednesday of this week at our um 228 stakeholder engagement event. Um and so already had a chance to say happy new year and I hope everyone had a a restful holiday, but we haven't had a chance. Um hope everyone had a restful holiday and are excited to be with you today. um we are kicking off a new calendar year um of EPS stakeholder meetings and are really excited to um dig into some topics with you all today. Um if you can go to the next slide I think I lost the deck there for a second. There it is. Perfect. We can go to the next slide. Awesome. Um, just a

002few reminders around norms for this meeting space. Um, feel free to introduce yourself in the chat, particularly if this might be the first time that you're joining the stakeholder meeting. um encourage folks to keep your microphones muted unless you're speaking. We do want to have opportunities for two-way dialogue in um this meeting. Um we love being able to see folks faces, put faces to name. So if you if you're able to keep your camera on, it's always great. Really appreciate it. And then it's helpful for us just as we're engaging. If you wouldn't mind um updating your name to include your organization, um that helps us uh keep track of folks. Um on the next slide um just a uh we always like to start by reggrounding in our state board for the work that

003um uh this stakeholder group and our team supports. Um just wanting to ensure that we're continually grounded in their goals. Um and also just a reminder of the um ASPEC meeting dates for 2026. Um their next meeting um will be held um on February 13th. And so in the course of our conversation today, we will be focusing on largely um topics that will go to the board um for their discussion and vote in February. Um on the next slide, uh just a sort of high level overview of all of the work um that the ESPC oversees related to preparation, certification and enforcement processes. um all topics that we would anticipate at some time likely throughout the um year or time um will come to this um stakeholder group um for consideration. And on next slide,

004um we also think it's just helpful, particularly as the aspect is about to um embark pretty deeply on um some large scale rulem that we think it's always helpful to ground back in the aspects rulemaking timeline. Um so the ESPC most often starts large policy discussions um with a discussion item. Um the board has had opportunities to engage in multiple rounds of discussion items um on uh some of their largest rule chapters. Um I think of note particularly for most recent rounds of rulemaking include chapter 228 which are their educator preparation program requirements um and um chapters 247 and 249 which are their educator misconduct rules. um they've had chances to discuss those um at their July and September and December meetings um and uh do plan on bringing those items to proposal um at

005their February meetings. From there um the board is asked to take a first vote on um rule text at proposal. um that vote um if affirmative from the board um places that rule um out for 30 days of public comment. Um that gives the uh public additional opportunity to weigh in on that rule and then those rules come back to the aspect for a second vote at adoption. Um after adoption um those rules then go to the state board of education um for their review and consideration um at that point the SBOE um can either take no actions on the rule and the rules become effective or the SBOE could veto the rules. Um so overall I think at its shortest this is about a nine-month process. I think if you've been with us on

006this journey from our um ESPC work session coming out of the 89th legislative session, we're looking at about exactly a year and maybe change um from um initial conversation around implementation of legislation um through effective date um if all goes to plan. Um on the next slide um just reinforcing uh the goal of this stakeholder group. Again, this is an open stakeholder group um that we um hold uh five times a year uh really seeking to uh gather input and collaborate with the field on a range of topics related to preparation, certification, enforcement, and then a set of um kind of uh agencyled support strategies um that uh my team oversees that really focus on supporting building strong talent pipelines across the state. And so appreciate you all um joining this space. Uh welcome if

007it's your first time joining us. Um and um we look forward to engaging with you here and in many other stakeholder spaces that we have. We often use this stakeholder space to plug other stakeholder opportunities as well. Um if you go to the next slide, uh we this is our first uh meeting of 2026. If you look at these dates relative to when the ESPC meetings happen, um we try to intentionally schedule these um kind of like the midpoint between two ESPback meetings. That gives us a chance to uh distill what we've heard from the ESPC and stakeholders um and then kind of bring early thoughts to this group to gather input um prior to kind of finalizing items that would then go back to the board. Um, so we've got uh uh this one

008and then four more scheduled throughout the year. Um, on the next slide, just a quick highlight of some of the norms that were actually developed collaboratively uh by um folks who've been a part of these stakeholder meetings for quite some time and TEA staff. So, um just naming uh kind of the the kind of through line here is active collaboration. um want to ensure that we on the TEA side um uh are able to communicate with uh folks who are interested in joining the space early and proactively and that we you know uh try to leverage this to the extent possible as a collaborative space. Um on the next slide um on today's agenda um we have a number of topics to uh dig into with y'all. Um we are going to talk about the

009continuing approval review pilot um that has entered its second formal year. We're going to do a little bit of a deep dive into HB2 chapter 228 updates. Um I will say if you attended our stakeholder event last Wednesday or planning to attend our stakeholder event on Monday, it might be a little bit of a a review or preview. Um but know we're going to um dive into the content today, but you'll also have additional opportunities to dive even deeper into it in other spaces coming up. Um we'll then do a um update on our chapter 249 247 rulem and where we stand on that. Um and then we'll talk a little bit around prep aotment um kind of updates on the application process, communication timelines, etc. Um then we'll share a little bit more about

010um our stakeholder um our our EPS our EP data stakeholder group um work session that's upcoming. Um so with that I think I can likely turn it over to um William and Bethany who are going to share an update on the car pilot. >> Yes. Hello. Good to see everyone. Um this is a pretty short update because we are in the middle um of our car pilot 2.0. We uh have 10 amazing programs that have agreed to participate in this pilot of the redesigned quality review and we have done four of those visits so far. Um gotten some really positive feedback, learned a lot um from those visits and are looking forward to our six in the spring. Um but I just wanted to take this opportunity to give some brief reminders and updates. Um

011just as a quick reminder now um uh in the world we are living in now car redesign uh kind of stems from two different things. So um the original impetus to redesign the continuing approval review was part of the aspects charge to implement the effective preparation framework which is why we're giving updates on both of those uh things today. both a car redesign update and an EPF uh resources update. Um but as you all likely know, House Bill 2 also um included a directive for the aspect to integrate quality measures into the continuing approval review. If you've been following our HB2 uh related rulemaking with uh with the the ESPEC, you've probably noted that that portion of HP2 uh is something that we are not doing um specific rule making on during this cycle. Um

012and that is because if you go to the next slide um with our timeline, oh, it's got transitions. You can just click through them all. uh with our timeline just given um the amount of uh new rules um and uh things related to approval for prep routes um we have um moved the statewide roll out for the redesign car to 2728. So that gives us ample time to engage with stakeholders um as I will share here in a minute um with uh an additional working group opportunity. Um, I wanted to share this because I know that as we hit the spring, um, and talking to programs, um, many of you have shared, you know, we don't start working and preparing for our continuing approval review when we get the email, uh, the official email from

013TEA in June. We have already starting to think about it. We are already starting to prep for it. Um and so given that um we are prioritizing making sure that um after some internal work we are able to communicate with you what this year zero pre-statewide roll out um but post our two years of pilots will look like for uh programs that are up for review in 2627 while we are engaging in rulemaking um for the official statewide roll out in 2728. Um, so please await that communication and just know that we are working to communicate that before you know we come to you in June and say, "Hey, remember you're up for your uh official five-year review." Um, one thing I would say is that for both of our pilots, although we did shift

014um some of it for this second pilot to streamline it, um that compliance component still did exist as part of those pilots. And so um many of you who are already thinking about preparing for your 26 27 review are probably slightly aware of some of the compliance thing evidence um that you do have to start to get in order for those five-year reviews and I would encourage you to uh continue that whether that is just internal auditing um that is something that's always beneficial um and will be beneficial um regardless of uh whether or not you uh kind of your program goes through the redesigned in 2627 or the traditional. Um, so hopefully I I I know that's not um the uh uh official communication of of what 2627 will look like um in specificity.

015Um but hopefully that gives you some amount of guidance and um you can await communication. Believe me, we know if you're up in 26 27 27 just like you know um and we will be in contact with you shortly. Move to the next slide. Um the great thing about this longer runway for statewide implementation is that um as we were kind of building the plane as we flew it uh with this first round of car redesign um some of our stakeholder input was really peace meal. We saw okay there's a lot of changes that need to be made to this rubric. So, let's get a bunch of different groups together, pilot participants, uh voluntary uh workg groups to um uh to take part in a working group. Um what we've seen the need for over

016um this last these last few months as we consider what stakeholder input looks like um with this longer window is we need to have uh more of like a a running list and not you know several different lists of they showed interest here at this meeting um and they showed interest here. Um, and so what uh I'm asking today is that if you're interested in being part of smaller working groups that will likely meet on a more regular cadence uh likely quarterly to um give you updates on what the work to uh redesign the car rubric process and accompanying rulemaking will look like um that you indicate your interest for that in a survey at the end. It's not a huge time commitment and of course uh you know if you get the invite and

017you're unable to make it um uh there won't be you know consequences for that obviously. Um so encourage if you are interested in what this uh will look like um then please uh at the survey at the end indicate your interest. again uh likely quarterly working groups um that meet for an hour, an hour and a half. Um so with that I'm actually going to uh shift gears towards um a different EPF implementation initiative uh here at TEA um around gathering resources uh to really build that shared vision of what um the effective pre preparation framework uh looks like in action across Texas. For that I'm going to turn it over to my colleague Dr. Bethany Lplay um who is leading these efforts and she will just share a little bit about this opportunity. >>

018Thanks William. Uh so as William set that up the purpose of this resource collection is to just create a space for practical tools and guidance and exemplars that will help EPS to create better support across continuous improvement efforts across the state. And so the benefits of that is to um strengthen those continuous improvement efforts and to create that common language um across the board. As you know, every EP we call things differently, but this would create that common language just to help um highquality preparation across Texas and to ensure that we have statewide alignments with our evidence-based practices. Um, the impact of course is going to help our beginning teachers with those knowledge and skills that they need to help improve our K12 students outcomes across the state as well. And so this is where

019you guys come in. we need you to contribute and why of course is to help inspire that innovation um creating collaboration across EPS and really advancing that shared vision for what high quality teacher prep looks like in Texas. Um the areas of course that we're focusing on are the levers from the EPF um which of course you can see here leadership and planning talent recruitment uh partnerships with PK districts curriculum and instruction and support throughout their um student teaching and field experiences. And so William's going to drop a link in which is going to be where we want y'all to click it and look through what practices do you have at your EP that could possibly help um add to this collaboration. um and be a resource to EPS across Texas. And that will um

020I think that's the wrap of my part. I'm going to pass that back to William. >> Great. We really look forward to hearing from y'all and thank you all uh that we have have already submitted or that we've been in contact with and are gathering resources to submit uh to really share your impact uh across the state. Um and we are we're done for now. Thank you, William and Bethany. So exciting to hear all the all the progress um with the EPF website resources. Um I will kick things off now um with our HP2 chapter 228 EP requirements um rulemaking deep dive. Um as Jessica already noted, we know that we had se quite a few folks I was just getting the list. several of the folks on this call who have already attended on

021the 7th and or are anticipating attending on the 12th. So consider this a review or a preview. Um but in the spirit of transparency, this is you can consider this another opportunity um to provide that input. Um so just to kind of recap here um we know that out coming out of House Bill 2, Article 2, there are requirements um or laws, uh pertaining to EP requirements, prep program requirements um as well as the prep aotment um in order to implement the preparing and retaining educators through partnership program and the a lotment program. Um the program establishes five formulafunded uh programs aimed at um supporting um talent and preparation uh talent pipelines in in service of preparation high quality preparation of teacher candidates. Um, for the purpose of today, um, Patrick, will you scan to

022the next slide? For the purpose of today's work, we will be centering on, if you take a look at those five formula funded programs there, we'll be centering on the work of the ESPC to develop policy um, a regulation pertaining to the three um, pre-ervice programs, prep residency, prep traditional, and prep um, alternative pre-ervice program. Um the ESPC um is well underway as folks know on this call with establishing preparation route requirements um that will ultimately um lend to a focus on high quality pres-ervice practice and improved teacher preparation training content for teacher candidates. Go to the next slide. Great. Um just to take a deeper look at those pre- those three pre-ervice programs here. Um HB2 defines in law a set of requirements pertaining to those three programs. And those are that all candidates

023who participate in those programs have access to practice-based preparation um under the supervision of an effective um mentoring educator. That they also are trained by their educator preparation program in state developed content including the reading mathmies. Um for these programs to be implemented, um formal partnership is required between the educator preparation program and the district partner. Um making sure that the program truly meets the needs and instructional vision of the district partner. Um and then finally when implemented um to meet the requirements in state law um uh the program will generate success base this program may generate success based funding when candidates um attain certification um and employment um milestones and then go next slide. Great. So backing things up to the role of the SPEC in establishing the policy. Um HP2 charges the SPEC

024to as I noted before define new preparation routes, establish the training content requirements and then related establishing the approach to reviewing and approving programs to participate and offer those routes as well as what William noted the um quality review processes for that continuing approval review. Next slide. Great. Um, and in doing so, as I've noted, we're going to talk a little bit about some of those new route requirements today. Um, we'll take a look at the proposed preparation, the new routes and the proposed preparation structure here. Um, because of, um, with these changes, it will result in three funded preparation routes. prep residency, traditional and prep pre-ervice. And it will also result in um an existing traditional and um the [clears throat] alsert and formalized late hire route that will not be funded. Um note

025here as compared to our current preparation structure, these routes are really defined by the type of clinical experience the candidate is um engaging in. You see a star here. For those of you, this is the spoiler alert alert. For those of you who attended on Wednesday, you engaged with us um in discussion about some significant changes to what we had previously proposed for that formalized late hire route that included a fast start um alternative certification route. So, we'll we'll be able to walk you through that um component today as well. Next slide. I forgot about the animations here, y'all. Etc. All righty. And um so going forward um when we look at the our time together today um just to kind of step back for a moment um in December we wrapped our second discussion

026with the ESPC um pertaining to these four big areas um where they're currently engaging in um rulem um across requirements um for all preparation routes. So um not just the prep routes but all preparation routes coming out of HB2's requirements. Um additionally our time will really center today on new and updated preparation route requirements. um as well. And then finally um when it comes to those route requirements the other area where they're other two areas where they're um centering their time or their focus is on um prep program content requirements content training requirements as well as um the review and approval of prep programs um to um participate um and this will and today's uh and we are about to head into the proposal in February. And then to briefly reinforce the importance of stakeholder

027input in this development of chapter 228 policy um going back to December September um where we began with the initial initial feedback from the us on draft proposals led to quite a bit of engagement eps stakeholder group with you all and with other um other groups um during the month of October um which really set us up for success to bring back a strong um updated proposal during the second discussion. Um and that lands us here today in January gathering further input. Um we've already made as I noted previously updates based on um aspect feedback in December um as well as other feedback that has come in in the meantime as well. So, we're constantly um making making those changes based on um based on input from the field. So, we're looking forward to gathering

028the input further with you all today. And next slide. Um just a reminder here, you know, there's a there's a um there's a ripple effect with with these with these uh policy pieces here. the EP requirements that were um coming out of statute that we're seeking to implement um when implemented enable the prep programs implementation which enables the aotment. Um, it has, you know, there's there's quite a few pieces we'll talk to you about, but when we sum it up, we really think about the brand new requirements falling into candidate training for prep content, new route requirements, new route development such as the pre-ervice alsert, and then there's some broader coursework requirement, um, compliance requirement with state law that would span across all programs. Um, we also know that there are some updates coming out

029of HB2 that or some updates that pertain to updating existing requirements. For example, we currently have mentoring and field supervisor training, but we're making some updates um so that um so that programs can engage in this and we want to make sure that prep programs are implemented effectively and meet and that we're able to meet the statutory requirements. is in service of meeting those requirements to um really get at the intent of the legislature um to develop these quality programs. Go to the next one. All righty. So, because of timing today, I want to make sure that we have a a simple way to gather initial thought additional thoughts and in uh input that you all may have. So, we have a participant survey which I will share in a moment um in the chat.

030Um I also have a QR code here. So if you would like to grab that um you can start to add into the form just as as presenters are providing input across four key topics for today. Um you'll be able to add in uh your input related to those four key topics as you go um at your leisure. Um again I'll reinforce too that we have a large Padlet system we have set up in those bigger stakeholder engagement meetings. So, I would encourage attendance to those. Um, we'll share that link out at the end for the January 12th, but if you are unable to attend, um, think of this as another opportunity to provide some some valuable input to us related to the topics our team will be presented on. And with that, I will

031get that link in the chat for y'all to have access to that form and have it open while our presenters are speaking. Um, but I will pass it over to topic one, which is Kyla Harmo, who will be talking about the new prep route requirements for mentor and field supervisor. >> Awesome. Thanks so much. Um, Melissa, I'll go ahead and transition us to talk about the mentor and field supervisor requirements. Again, as um both Melissa and Jessica noted, this presentation is very similar to those larger stakeholder um calls where you're providing input on the Padlet, but if there's additional um feedback or you are unable to make those, please please use the um survey. So, we can go ahead and um transition into our topic. Again, we're talking for this first part about the prep

032funded route requirements. As Melissa voiced over, we can go through these first couple slides quickly. We can transition to the next slide. And so we're talking about the prep um funded routes. We can transition to the next slide. And so the first topic we're going to talk through is the cooperating teacher and host teacher mentor training. Um you can see the statutory requirements on the left side and the proposed um update to complete the Texas mentorship training um as the training program established by the agency beginning in the 2728 school year for those prep pre-ervice routes. And then we'll go ahead and transition to the next slide. And so we are going to talk about the field supervisor training as well, but do want to just name that the Texas mentorship training for mentoring educators

033is not the same as the Texas field supervisor training. I'll voice over a bit when I move to the field supervisor training how they're aligned trainings, but do just want to note um and reinforce that these trainings have separate competencies, separate time requirements, and separate costs. So we'll go ahead and transition. And so again, just to reinforce for the first part, we're talking about the training that's required for the prep aotment and is for mentor teachers, host teachers, cooperating teachers, and mentors of interns. And so on this next slide, you can see um the definitions of those mentoring educator roles. Throughout this presentation, I'll consistently use the term mentoring educator. And so when I refer to mentoring educator, we're talking about those educators that serve as the host teacher, cooperating teacher, intern of mentor teacher,

034or the mentor teacher of the beginning teacher in their first or second year. You can take just a second to scan and then um again this training just to reinforce addresses some key stakeholder feedback. So this mentorship training is required via um anticipated commissioner of ed rule and so these updates to the aspect rule would ensure the following that these prepf funded route teachers don't have to attend multiple trainings to avoid duplication additional requirements and conflicting messaging just recognizing that mentoring educator roles can vary from year to year. So one year I'm a cooperating teacher the next year I'm a mentor teacher. We also know that mentoring educators in some cases um serve in multiple roles in the same year. And we also know that mentoring educators can mentor teachers um in different EPS yeartoear.

035We've also heard from um LEAs and EPS um longstanding challenges with bandwidth to be able to provide the mentor educator training. And so this is intended to be a support to address those concerns. We've heard from stakeholders we can go to the next slide. So I'll talk just about some key stakeholder feedback we've heard and some recommendations to address the feedback. So we have heard from stakeholders for more information on the funding mechanisms for the Texas mentorship training. And so in the next couple slides I'll be sharing um some examples of how the LEA prep aotment funding can cover the TMT training costs. We've also heard concerns um around the number of training hours from EPS. And so to reduce time requirements, I'll be talking about um two key points. So the first key point

036is that that year 4 refresher will be significantly less time um than that initial 24-hour training based on the stakeholder feedback we've heard. We're also going to for the 2728 school year establish some training tracks um based on set criteria and so I'll be talking about that in a little bit. Um and then some stakeholders have expressed the desire to become a provider of the Texas mentorship training. Um and so we are considering opening an application process um in 2728 to apply. So we can go to the next slide. I will go through these slides um kind of quickly for the sake of time. There is more information on the Lasso4 website on these funding models if you're curious or need more information. I know this group is pretty wellversed um in these slides. Um

037so one thing the LEA successbased funding could be utilized to cover training costs and then if you go to the next slide there's an example of what this could look like. Um, so you can see this funding example that um was shared by Melissa Yodar, but you can see um how that successbased funding could be used for the five host teachers in this example that would be required to go through the TMT. And so you can see the cost for those host teachers would be $2500. And so the LEA still has the majority of their success-based funding remaining. And then this next example on slide B um shows similarly um different scenario with um a little bit less um success-based funding, more host teachers to train but still the majority of the success-based funding remains

038for the LEA. We have heard some feedback that since the success-based funding is not upfront um there could be some potential challenges there. And so do want to name that there are additional options to pay for the um mentorship training. So ei could utilize their prep mentorship um training funds in conjunction with their um if they applied for that in conjunction with the pre-ervice routes. One caveat there I would note um is two things. That would include a higher required stipens for the mentoring educator which there's funding attached to um all aotments for and they would also need to mentor a beginning teacher. And then there's of course the option to combine the mentorship funds and the um success-based funding as just some examples. The next piece we heard was the training requirements. I voiced

039this over just again want to note that as the refresher is being developed with stakeholder feedback um we anticipate it being significantly shorter than the initial training and then again want to voice over that the Texas mentorship training is not an annual required training. Um we did get some questions on this so a couple things I'd like to voice over here. So for the first um year in year 1, the prep pres-ervice route funded mentoring educators attend the Texas mentorship training in the 28 um and 29 school year and 29 2030 school year. Only mentoring educators that were not trained in year 1 would need to be trained via the Texas mentorship training. And then through shared governance meetings, EPSPs and LEAs would determine any ongoing support for mentoring educator to educators to reinforce those

040concepts. And then in the 203031 school year is when those initial pre-ervice route funded educators would do the refresher training. We can go to the next slide. And so based on stakeholder feedback, um we are um while we are developing the training suite of 24 hours, um we do not anticipate all mentoring educators being required to attend 24 hours of training. We're establishing these training tracks for the 2728 school year where the tracks will be differentiated based on the potential factors of successful completion of other relevant trainings such as Arby's and Lyft. um as well as consideration for mentoring educator content areas. Anticipating that a mentor of an elective teacher may need a different track than a teacher um in a core content. And so I'm going to transition us to the field supervisor training.

041And so we can go to the next slide. And so I do want to note that the field supervisor training aligns to the mentoring educator training, but it is a separate training with a reduced cost. And I do want to note that while the mentoring educator training applies to those prepf funded routes, the field supervisor training um does apply to all field supervisors. And then we'll go to the next slide. When I talk about alignment, just want to stamp I know this group saw this um slide presented by Alli um several months ago, but the field supervisor training builds upon the competencies of the mentoring educators to ensure that alignment across the trainings really ensuring that these pre-ervice teachers are hearing the same messages um across all the different entities that are supporting them. And

042this is just an example of one modification. you can take a second to just um review the current field supervisor training requirements. So these are currently in um the chapter 228 rules. And so field supervisors who have completed the TEA approved training prior to September 1, 2025 must renew that training by September 1st, 2026 and must renew that training at least one time per each three-year period. And then on this next slide, you can see the proposed um update of renewing that training instead of September 1, 2026, pushing that to September 1, 2027. And again, that ensures um that alignment, and I'll talk a little bit more on the next slide. The second piece I want to call out here is um the staggered approach to um the renewal process. And again, this um next

043slide just shares that recommendation. And again, pushing back the field supervisor training implementation by a year allows for that increased stakeholder feedback as well as the opportunity to pilot the training prior to making it um available for the >> you know how to change somebody's membership. Like if somebody bought like I bought in my name and I'm >> All right, we can um go ahead and go to the next slide. And so, um, some trends we've heard, we've heard, um, some, um, expressed concerns with cost. And so, I would note that the current, there is a current training cost, um, for the field supervisor training. I'd also note that the training cost for the mentoring educator um, is not the same as the field supervisor training, and we're exploring options to keep the cost um,

044around the current estimated training cost. Um, we've also heard concerns related to logistics, um, as well as training length. And I think both of those, um, will be addressed via our specific advisory committee for the field supervisor training um, as well as the opportunity to pilot. And I think with that, I will transition us to um, topic two. Great. So, I am uh back um although I work um on the car redesign, I'm also supporting with the uh rulemaking for the pre-ervice altert as well as development of technical assistance uh for that route. So, I just want to um review for you all uh really quickly some of uh the key uh rulemaking ideas uh around the pres-ervice also route, share very quickly the feedback and really frame up for you all um this this

045very new route um and some of the difference between some of the guidelines that um we would like to um uh see set in stone in rule versus uh the flexibility for some of the models that may exist. Um so, next slide. So this is a really great visual just to uh ground you all in um what the journey of a pre-ervice als candidate and this new route would look like. Um so this candidate um which could be a variety of u of different folks seeking an alternative uh certification route as we'll talk about as we uh look at some of the models is um going to rather than uh go straight into an internship as a teacher of record um participate in a pre-intership clinical practice. Um under the current uh what we currently

046have proposed in rule, they will uh go through similar amounts of pre-ervice coursework and uh field-based experience uh before beginning their internship. Um but [clears throat] the main thing is the supervised uh pre-intership clinical practice that they will undergo. We're going to give some quick updates um on the uh pre-intership clinical practice structure. uh what we have heard and what we're recommending in uh our proposal right now as well as the competencies that they would show through that pre-intership clinical practice. So overall we've heard uh positive reception or no major issues uh with a lot of uh what we have in currently in proposal for the structure of the pre-intership clinical practice. But there has definitely been discussion and continues to be discussion around uh what um is both um uh feasible for uh the

047hours in that pre-intership clinical practice as well as um ensuring there is a quality experience that is uh leading to great preparation for that huge responsibility of being the teacher of record uh for for students. And so um just to review the uh recommendations that we received uh and uh what we have in proposal now and are continuing to gather input on um is maintaining those proposed pre-intership requirements. So 120 hours uh 70 hours of required experience which is co-eing with a cooperating teacher leading into lead teaching. Um and some refinements from our December discussion have been to uh really ensure that that lead teaching uh those lead teaching opportunities are maximized. So, uh, getting to 15 hours and not just by, you know, lead teaching for two days in a row, which two school

048days is about, uh, 15 hours, um, but by doing that over, um, at least eight lesson cycles, uh, with a minimum consecutive sequence of three lessons. So those this slide just represents um those guidelines and um goes deeper into the priority experiences and how those um will um look or could look in rule. But what I want to share uh with you all today uh as well is also that um design challenge. Um in addition to some of the feedback we get about we have been getting around the rules, we're also getting questions and feedback around the feasibility of certain models which makes sense because um these rules do not prescribe one specific model. They are designed currently to lead to innovation and district and EP partnerships developing models within these guidelines that best fit

049their unique needs um for uh for their teaching force. And so um what we're showing next is more examples of what that could look like and fulfill the guidelines. Um and want to encourage you all to continue to provide feedback on um on feasibility. knowing that um uh these models are not necessarily going to be prescribed in rule. So the first just shows what a day in the life could look like. Many of you have likely seen this graphic before. So I'll just give you a second to reook over it. This graphic has that ratio of about 70% 60 to 70% spent um co-eing and then additional priority experiences that we know will prepare um the pre-intership candidate for that life as a teacher of record. And then this next slide which is actually a

050a change from uh the what you may have seen from the stakeholder group not really changing any uh content but really just sort of reframing as um a variety of options. We know when we start to put in weeks and certain months um uh then we start to think about like oh this might not work for this school system this might not work for this EP. And so we just wanted to share some of the models that um we have both been exploring um based on their implementation uh uh throughout the state or throughout the country as well as models that districts have come to us and said you know what this could work. So, those four um are a spring pre-entership model. Um potentially a candidate who is a career changer coming in more

051and more throughout the spring while they potentially are, you know, working another job and getting some of that pre-intership experience. And then in May after the STAR, and again, you know, none of this is prescribed. These are models that could be designed in tandem between the district and the EP coming in. Um, STAR is over um and they are able to lead teach throughout that final month and potentially into summer school. That model could also work with an earlier admission where the candidate has the ability to begin their coursework, spread that out over the fall, and then begin the pre-intership in the spring. There's also um the potential for a summer pre-inter internship that is a condensed version where they're lead teaching and co-eing throughout a summer school session as well as a fall option

052where they would then be able to fulfill uh fill a spring vacancy in the district which you know is a a hiring need that is very common throughout the state. You can go to the next slide. So the last update is uh for you all is around some work um that we are doing around the rule making for the evaluation of candidate readiness. This has been a uh a tricky area because as you all could probably um figure out um it takes a very long time to become proficient in some of the things that are both in our tests and in our educator standards. Um and this uh practice is uh while we believe it'll be very beneficial is condensed. Um and so what we are having to tackle is what um would we be

053evaluating in order to determine that the candidates uh pre-intership was successful. Um and so where we have uh landed on at the moment and are continuing to seek input on is the great thing is we have a set of pre-ervice competencies already in rule. Um and we have the opportunity to refine those. Um keeping in mind that these candidates will have the opportunity not just to show uh proficiency in these pre-ervice competencies through performance tasks as it um uh as it says in our current 228.41 rule um but through their actual instruction in the pre-intership. So in our stakeholder group we did share that draft list uh of revised competencies for 228.41 41 that really work to uh condense the most important skills and align to the new chapter 235 standards. Um 228.41 pre the

054current 228.41 precedes those standards. Um and so there's opportunity for revision now. Um and uh we wanted to share those draft competencies and get stakeholder input. [snorts] um uh in this sort of briefer rundown. Um we won't look at them super closely, but we do want to share them again for you all in this next slide. You can flip to the next one because I shared that framing. We'll just leave I'll leave these here for you all for a minute and then we'll move to our next topic. If you were at our stakeholder meeting already shared feedback or uh would like additional time uh to review these um feel free to let us know in the survey. Um and uh we will continue to get input leading up to February. We can skip that side,

055I think. Okay. So, this is uh my section, alternative certification route requirements, including late hires. Hi, everybody. Thanks for being here. Um, I'm going to there's there's a few slides in this section that I think I'm going to just skip over in the interest of going deeper into a couple of them. So, just to center us on this one, these are the the highlighted uh routes or the ones we're going to be talking about right now. The existing alternative certification route and um what we've been thinking of as a formalized late hire and or fast start route and these are not prep funded. So, next slide please. Um, and so just to center us on the statutes that we're looking at, there is now a statutory requirement that we have to create a 2-year intern

056certificate, which works well for candidates because if they need to extend their internship or they need to repeat an internship another year, they wouldn't necessarily have to apply and pay for another certificate and they would not have to have their PBR passed before they could step into a second year of an internship. So, that's a win-win for them. And so, we had proposed language at the last um ESPC meeting and went over this also at the stakeholder meeting earlier this week. And so, if you'll go to the next slide, um I we created a graphic to sort of show frame up all of the things that we're thinking of doing with internships and the observation schedule around this two-year intern certificate. And so, just let's unpack this for a minute. uh because this is the

057main piece of um that shows all of it sort of how it all fits together. So we have right now a requirement for what we call the rule of three that's in chapter 230. And what that rule of three says is that a candidate can serve up to three years in a classroom on any combination of ESPC credentials uh without achieving a standard certificate. So we call those years of eligibility and the black border at the top with the white font lays out those years of eligibility for you in relation to an internship. So if a candidate doesn't complete a successful internship within those first three years, the only option left to that candidate to finish the clinical experience requirement would be to complete clinical teaching. So the next row that says current is the

058way our certificates are currently laid out most of the time um with some variation but within those years of eligibility. So a first year of eligibility normally a candidate would be operating under an intern certificate with their content pedigogy exams passed. Um they would have one calendar year on that certificate but the actual internship is a full school year. Uh, so it's a little bit less than the actual life of the intern certificate. If the candidate, as I said a minute ago, needed to go to a year a second year of an internship, they would have to move to the first probationary certificate, which would require them to have their PPR passed. Um, and then if they had to go into year three, which some do for a variety of reasons, um, they would then

059have to get a second probationary certificate. So to [clears throat] visualize what the one full school year internship will look like in a 2-year intern certificate, I've laid out the certificates in the proposed row. So you can see in the first two columns that is the the two calendar years of the inter two-year intern certificate and that encompasses those first two years of eligibility for that candidate for an internship. um if the candidate needed a third year that candidate would have to go to the probationary and then if the candidate didn't get it done by that time they would then have to go to clinical teaching. So the recommendation is and has remained since that aspect discussion in December that we maintain the one-year one school year internship and stakeholders widely agreed that that's what

060they wanted to see us um include. So in the first row, well in the the colorful green and red rows, uh green is a successful internship and red is an unsuccessful internship. So in row one, a candidate who is completing a full schoolyear internship in an alternative certification route with a two-year intern certificate, you can see would be successful, would be finished, would be standard certified before the second year of that intern certificate even kicked in. Great, no problem. That second year of that intern certificate would just expire uh when it reached its normal calendar life. the program would not have to deactivate because the candidate would have a standard. You can see on here that the suggested observation schedule would reduce the observations for that candidate to four instead of five which is what's

061current for the intern certificate and then reduce the informal observations to a line two and two per each semester of the internship. So, you can see how this two-year intern certificate would benefit a candidate who was unsuccessful in their first year by looking at the second row. Um, and there you would see that the candidate served the internship, had the observations, was unsuccessful, moved into that second year and was successful and became a finisher in that second year of internship. got their standard issued, they were gone, everybody was happy, they moved on to be a successful teacher. In the third row, what you'll see is a situation where a candidate doesn't get it done for a variety of reasons within the first two years. that candidate would continue receiving field supervision on into that third

062year of eligibility on that probationary certificate. Um, with the understanding that the probationary certificate observation schedule for formal observations would not change according to what it currently is, which would be five observations. Um, so the last row just rounds out what it would look like for a candidate who has to complete clinical teaching to be successful and get standard certified. Let's jump back to the fourth row. Note how eligibility year 1, the internship is successful, but the candidates going into a secondyear extension. This would happen when the candidate was successful, does not need to complete another internship, but maybe has a course left to complete or maybe has a portfolio, a culminating portfolio activity to complete, and they don't want to lose their employment as a teacher by losing the intern certificate, but they still

063haven't completed their program to get their standard certificate yet. So the the suggested um flexibility there would be if that person is extended and has already demonstrated success, uh the program would not be required to formally supervise that candidate. Could formally supervise them, but those observations would not necessarily be included in an observation um uh data collection for accountability. So this is currently what it would look like the way we have um uh the layout according to the feedback that we got um at the last stakeholder meeting and in at the December ESPC. Um so if you have feedback on any of this, please feel free to let us know what of this works and doesn't work. What I can tell you is that the two-year intern certificate is set in stone. It's happening. So

064we're working within that frame up. Okay, next slide please. Okay, so this one, let's change pathways here. We're going to talk about the late hire fast start and this is an area where we got a lot of a lot of comments and there was a lot of discussion about these and so this was a slide that we showed at the ESPback um about some of the initial recommendations. You can see that we had recommended potentially having two pathways. The fast start pathway would be for those candidates who had been serving for one or more years as an uncertified teacher of record in a classroom. And we have DOI listed there, but really it's because most of those candidates probably are hired that way as a district of innovation candidate or teacher. And so that's why

065it says DOI. But this really would be any uncertified teacher in one or more years in a classroom. So they have experience. Um so let's move to the next slide. I have a a graphic here that I want to go get to as well. But what I want to look at first here is some of this feedback that we heard from stakeholders on this was uh overwhelmingly folks did not want to wave the content pedigogy exam for those late hire and fast start teachers to get into um a classroom to begin an internship. So, we heard you. Um, we heard EP concerns about if the content pedigogy exam was waved initially having a requirement for when they have to actually attempt it because EPS are very much responsible for their own readiness determinations for their

066candidates testing. We heard you. Um many stakeholders weighed in and said, "Why do we even need the fast start route?" Those DOI teachers in the foundational areas where DOI is is going to expire eventually for the foundational areas. They have at least three years to go ahead and get certified anyway. So, they should just follow the regular path that everyone else follows. Um, and then a variety of other concerns around late hire, which included folks did not want to see the 5% cap on the number of late hires that could be in a classroom. Um, each year we had proposed a 5% cap um for each intern year that you couldn't have any more than 5% of your interns being late hires in a given year. Um and then just concerns in general about why

067do we want to change the observation schedule? Like why do we need to reduce the observation schedule? Is that the right thing to do? So some things came out of that. Number one, we heard you about fast start. So the thinking now is that we just eliminate that pathway alto together but provide a couple of specific flexibilities. um respectful of the fact that some of those candidates will have been teaching for multiple years and have experience already. and then um retaining the current late hire pathway as it is um according to the related definition that would include removing the cap um the 5% cap but would also include requiring a content pedigogy test to be passed before the candidate could enter the classroom. So let's go to the next slide please. [clears throat] Okay. So,

068this graphic sort of tries to lay out um across the board what these tracks would look like under what we're what we're thinking about now based on feedback that we got um in September and December and all through the months in between from stakeholders. So, the the there's an alternative certification for candidates that are that are pursuing alternative certification. There's what that would look like if the candidate is a late hire. And remember, just for the sake of centering everyone, late hires are those individuals who are admitted to an EP late and are hired by a district late. And by late, I mean within that 45day contract window before school starts. And the understanding is that those folks don't have a reasonable amount of time to finish all of the requirements before they can get

069into the classroom. And so we give them concessions currently that allow them to finish all of their pre-ervice coursework and requirements within the first 90 days of the assignment. Um and so we would maintain that same definition. Those would be their requirements. And then for the uncertified teachers in the last column, this is what they would be required to do. And note the flexibilities would be that once the EP ensures that the the teacher experienced teacher uh has been an experienced teacher in a classroom uh they would collect that at at admission like a service record or whatever they need as documentation. Then the EP would be able to wave the 50 FBE hour requirement for that individual. um and then would um um they would only have the 250 hours instead of the 300

070of course work because the 50 hours would be waved. So go ahead and take a look at this and kind of you know think about it for a minute and if you do have comments you can go ahead and provide those to us as well. Uh, one thing I want to call out is the observation schedule. will note that the late hires are still being required to have the current higher number of formal observations on the observation schedule just because they're coming into the classroom with very little formal training. So, they need more support than somebody who's been through pre-ervice training, has done interactive work with students, um potentially has done uh practice-based skillsbased training with their EP. um before they get into the classroom. Okay, next slide, please. So, um if you have questions

071or comments or concerns or input about the um the altsert suggestions, please provide those to us. Um if you don't get them to us on the survey or if you don't get them to us in one of the stakeholder meetings, you know, you can always email and we're happy to add the emails to the um stakeholder feedback folder. >> Lori, there were a few um questions that have popped up from folks in the chat. I wonder if it I think we've got time to probably run through them if if if that sounds good to you. >> Yeah, sure. First question was from Sherry is if a candidate is on year three of eligibility due to two prior years of emergency permit or two years of internship at a different EP, do they still need those

072five formal observations in year three? Yeah. So, uh currently everyone whether they're on an intern certificate or a probationary certificate has the five formal observations in the observation schedule. that was that was effective uh September 1st with the repeal and replace. Um and the way it's set up, there is not a plan to change the probationary certificate. And if that happens, then yes, if you've exhausted those first two years of eligibility and you go to a probationary certificate, then you would be require they would be required to have five observations. Um, the question really in front of us now, because we've been actually working on requirements to update ECOS with the two-year intern certificate, um, the question in front of us now is if I've if I've got a candidate that served one year on

073a one-year intern certificate and they need to go to a second year, do they have to go to a pro or can they go to a two-year intern certificate, which would actually mean that candidate would have potentially reduced observations as well as no PPR passed if that ends being allowed. So there's a lot of considerations and nuances, Sherry, that in the field right now about how all these could be configured together. So those are things that we're working on and looking into now. >> Awesome. Thanks, Lori. >> Um and then Rey asked um is the plan for this to be in effect by fall 2026? Yeah. So, the two-year intern certificate, yes, that is um what we're trying to achieve right now with our we so we have to go through all these updates and

074it goes with it. Um and so what we're thinking now is that they would be able to have that ready for us by June 1, the the two-year intern certificate. Uh which would be a little bit ahead of potentially the effective date of the 228 rules. Um, so you could begin putting candidates on the two-year intern certificates immediately when it becomes available. And we're going to put information in the uh newsletter about that transition and what those dates look like. But yeah, this would become effective whenever 228 is adopted and clears the SBOE. It this would be effective for those those U alt circles. >> Fantastic. Thanks, Lori. And then question from Cindy. Um, how many years uh did you say would need to be on the service record to wave the FBE requirement? >>

075Right. So, right now the the and this is something we would like your feedback on. Right now, the suggestion is one full school year or more as an uncertified teacher, but it would have to be in the window of time preceding immediately preceding their admission into an EP. And when I say that, the assumption is they're still working in that assignment when they're in the EP. And so they're still teaching uncertified. They've admitted to the EP. They've been that in that s in that teaching position already a year. They're continuing to teach, get their coursework done, and then the EP officially starts their internship. Um, you know, whenever they've met the requirements for the intern certificate. So, it's a seamless process because they're not having to go out and find a teaching position like your

076other alter candidates. They've already got a teaching position. That's a perfect world. Um, and then, uh, Sher, I appreciate your note on kind of thinking through the the various opportunities and options with the prep alt route. um questions around uh technical assistance. We do uh plan on um offering some technical assistance um specifically to prep programs as they're thinking about transitioning to this new pathway. So, we will be sharing more information about that um here shortly. >> Awesome. And then a shout out from Ry about your your visuals. Folks have been quite excited about them as we've been uh talking to stakeholders. I'm glad, Ray. Thanks for giving me that input and Laura for reinforcing it because um you know I was hoping we could come something that kind of show everything in one one

077swoop. So glad >> thanks Lori. >> All right, on the topic four. >> Well, unfortunately I have to follow up with Lori and her amazing graphics. And so uh I'm Josh Jones uh director of EP field support and operations. Uh want to echo the call from earlier. uh thank you for being here and taking time to uh provide feedback to us. Uh it it's invaluable and uh it's helping us uh be better in our work. So we'll go and as we step into this particular one, we'll go uh going to be going through uh review and approval. And just in terms of the approval, we're going to kind of focus on one of the major points of conversation that we've had uh since December, and that's uh surrounding the asynchronous coursework um component in House

078Bill 2. And uh what we've heard is that you know our stakeholders in the SPEC want to ensure that we are taking into account EPS that are already doing great work with their distance learning and particularly uh with uh what already exists with the requirements uh related to chapter 228. And so as we uh are moving forward that's uh something that is key in our mind all the time is you know we don't want to rewrite the wheel for those uh who are doing this well. Uh secondly, we want to look at those competencies and make sure that they are reflecting uh what's most important for asynchronous coursework. And also um and this is from everyone, not just from our stakeholders uh at the ESPC and from EPS and from other organizations, but we just

079want to be real careful about how we're doing our uh another review process, particularly amongst those EPS that might be seeking prep approval. And so we want to make sure that we're streamlining what we're doing and then uh and going through as we go. So we'll go and go to the next slide, please. And uh here uh you may recall from uh our previous discussions and in December we had a two-prong approach originally uh for that and uh when we've taken uh all of the feedback that we've heard is that we have gone ahead and streamline this down into a single uh proposal for uh any group whether they be ICE or uh uh ACP based. Uh and again we're just again taking the information that we've been given and shifting from a a more

080an addition what would be an additional approval process to more of an attestation type uh process instead. Uh please notice that we are ask going to be asking for uh or we're uh proposing that we uh ask for evidence uh just to uh to for programs to demonstrate that they are uh they are meeting uh the the pieces of approval that we have here uh as we go forward. And then two and and also in step three if you'll notice that uh this will also become a component of uh the car review process uh that occurs for EPS every 5 years and uh so that will be just how we're uh working to evaluate that as we go. And uh next slide please. Here are the uh four uh criteria that we've worked uh with

081stakeholders uh and with uh some in the nonprofit sector as well as EPS to identify uh our criteria. Uh one significant change that exists here uh as opposed to what uh was proposed uh in December to the ESPback is in the fourth criteria. Um originally that criteria stated that programs must uh provide weekly synchronous touch points with an assigned instructor. uh after uh much feedback that stated that this could be significantly uh difficult for many programs uh to to require synchronous touch points. We've changed the the verbiage to state that there must be opportunities for that. Um where again the the candidates uh have opportunities to speak in real time uh with their assigned assigned instructors. Uh and so we hope that uh that particular change is one uh that helps uh meet needs uh

082while remaining uh retaining some flexibility for programs. uh as they're continuing to move forward. Uh and on to the next slide, please. Okay. U another uh significant piece of feedback that we received was uh regarding to when all of the prep pieces were going to come in into play. And so we wanted to create a visual that kind of helped us look at by a school year by school year uh process h how this is going to work. Uh we also recognized that um we're on kind of a short timeline and so we really needed to have a tiered approach to uh to approval uh for uh schools or excuse me for uh EPS that are seeking to offer uh the prep uh individual routes. And um you'll notice here that for 2728 uh those

083uh requirements uh for that approval process for that initial approval process will uh simply qualify the EP is prep eligible for that one academic year the 2728 academic year and then there are steps that would that all EPS would need to take in 2829 uh and then moving toward full approval. And again was um as was kind of spoken about with asynchronous um the current proposal states that uh full appro approval for uh offering the uh prep programs and being eligible for the prep aotment would take place as a component of the EP's first car review after prep uh prep route implementation. So, as just part of your five-year uh review, that would be uh they would be looking at um the components of your uh prep program uh and then based upon the outcome

084of that review then take you to the aspect for full approval. Um this could mean that you know uh additional reviews might be necessary. Um but we'll leave that at the discretion um you know that'll be up to the discretion of you know the reviewers uh at that time. In terms of initial and ongoing eligibility, uh a couple of pieces. One, an EP must uh not be rated, uh on accredited probation initially to offer the prep route. So, uh if an EP is uh rated as accredited probation, they will not be eligible uh initially to offer the prep route until they have made adjustments uh to uh to move away from uh that particular rating. Uh, also once you have an once an EP has their initial eligibility for prep, they must not be accredited

085warned for three consecutive ASEP cycles or on accredited probation for two consecutive in order to retain their eligibility uh to work uh under the prep aotment. And on to the next slide, please. Um on this one we wanted to uh kind of speak a little bit uh regarding uh the uh implementation of uh the required uh content for House Bill 2. And uh although she's probably going to stay on mute, I did want to uh introduce my colleague Alli Nichols whose team has been leading the charge uh in developing uh this content and continues to uh work diligently to ensure uh that they're meeting all of the requirements of House 2 while also uh being uh prepared to support EPS uh as they begin to implement themselves. And so um beginning August 26, as you

086can see on this timeline, uh EPS will submit the registration to begin to offer the route which then allows them uh to do the training. Uh faculty training for uh those required uh content areas uh will begin in the fall of 2026 and run through the uh spring of 2027. uh which then ensures qualification for the prep partnerships beginning in early spring of 2027. EPS would then complete their application off of the routes beginning in late spring, early summer. Uh we're proposing that TA would then begin to review those applications with uh the intention of taking the EPS to Espec for approval uh in this either the July or the September meetings in 2027. Um also I would uh note that there as you kind of see at the bottom toward the bottom of the

087screen in green uh lasso 5 is going to be opening uh in fall of 2026. Um, so as you consider district partners uh for uh potential uh partnerships with uh in the in the prep aotment, uh you may want to begin having discussions with them to to alert them to that and prepare them uh as y'all begin to plan for that moving forward. And uh on to the next slide, please. Uh this particular uh point here helps us kind of wrap up and uh put together uh just to provide a little clarity on what you saw in the last two slides. Um what we heard from stakeholders is that they really could use some additional information on what those requirements are going to be to offer prep routes. And so again that's leading us to

088try to be uh to provide some specificity require uh regarding what will be required for 2728 and then moving forward uh for each of the prep routes. Um, again, we understand that there we are in a bit of a timing crunch and there's some concern uh regarding approvals and coursework integration and uh Ally and her team are are continue to work on that as well as providing uh technical assistance to EPS uh to assist uh with the implementation of that coursework. And then also uh one key piece is that we've heard multiple times from stakeholders uh particularly regarding the residency route about having to reapply um particularly if they've already gone through the process uh to be uh a registered uh uh residency provider uh with the agency. And so we do want to state

089that the uh application process will take that into consideration. So if you have a program that has already uh been approved for residency, there will be a modified application for you um as compared to uh uh a program that may not have offered residency to this point. And uh if we can go to the next slide, I do want to put one more plug for any of y'all. I'm looking through and scrolling through. I'm seeing several faces that I recall seeing uh earlier this week when we had uh our state back our stakeholder engagement feedback session uh earlier this week, but we do have another one coming up on Monday. Uh and again, I would encourage you to uh attend that if uh if you are able uh and provide your feedback. Uh Melissa very

090uh just right on time just like always put the link into the uh into the chat. And so uh this again your feedback really does help us as we are working together to u identify any changes that we might need to make um and as we refine um the policies as we get ready to uh take them to the board in February. And I think that's it for me. So unless anyone has any questions. We didn't I didn't see any um questions in the chat, Josh. So hopefully folks are putting some good feedback for us um in the feedback form. But again, just want to continue to echo appreciation for everyone digging in in this um very um detailed rule text with us. I'm going to pass it over to Sarah. Hello. Good morning everyone.

091Just a quick update on where the chapter 249 and chapter 247 educator misconduct rulemaking currently stands. So um we have updated the draft text based on the ESPC feedback at the December meeting. that ESP gave us some great feedback um which we've incorporated and we are also in the process of currently incorporating stakeholder feedback from our December 17th meeting. Still going through and um reviewing all of that and updating the text which you will see in the item for the February meeting. So just going to hit a couple high points today some of the big issues. So one of the conversations we've had with the ESPC is around the um mandatory reporting and the temporary suspension definition. So that's where our focus will be today. Starting with the mandatory reporting requirements, SB571 updated the mandatory

092reporting requirements for superintendent. Um it now requires reporting if and if they find information or evidence that they engage in inappropriate communications with the student or minor as defined by board rule. Oh, I'm sorry, Petra. Can you go to the next slide? Sorry, I should have mentioned that. um or failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with the student or minor as defined by a spec rule. So communications and boundaries are now explicitly called out in reporting requirements and it um explicitly says as defined by board rule. So we are in the process of updating both of these definitions. Moving along to the definition of inappropriate communications. This is the current definition with the addition of staff's recommendations which is underline. So um adding in some standard language at the top factors that may be considered in

093context and on the totality of the circumstances that's language that you'll see throughout aspect rule. So adding it into this definition and then want to highlight um is it Romanet number seven. So all the other language is the current language. Number seven would be the addition of whether the communication could be reasonably interpreted as threatening the welfare safety of the student. So these are currently staff's recommendations for um additions to the inappropriate communications definition. As I stated, we're still going through um stakeholder feedback from the December 17th meeting. So, some of this may be um tweaked based on information we receive from stakeholders. And then moving to the next definition of boundaries. So, as you can see, the original or current definition is very short. The educator shall maintain appropriate boundaries and um based on

094a reasonably prudent educator standard. So, that is your current definition. The addition that staff is recommending is everything that is underline. So once again, similar language factors that may be considered in context and on the totality of the circumstances. And then it's physical proximity, um contacting or meeting the student, transportation without permission from the legal guardian or in violation of schoolboard policy, taking or possessing a photo, um showing favoritism or isolation through gifts. So you'll kind of notice, I believe it's the first two and then the fourth one, right? really tie it to beyond the professional role is kind of the limitation, right? So, physical proximity or contact beyond the professional role, contacting or meeting a student beyond the professional role, taking or possessing a photo or video of the student beyond the professional role.

095And for those of you who um observed or attended ESPEC's December meeting, I think there was kind of a robust discussion from the board about the taking or possessing a photo or video of the student beyond the professional role. So, we got some good feedback there. But um as of this moment, this is still the text that staff recommends. Once again, as I said, some of this may be tweaked as we um are still going through stakeholder feedback from our most recent session. Um and so that is kind of the highlight on the mandatory reporting. So moving into our second topic, which is the temporary suspensions. I'm sure as many of you are aware there are two types of temporary suspension that the ESP has in their new authority under SB571. arrest, which the ESPEC

096has a committee appointed for and is up and running and um currently temporarily suspending licenses for arrest as outlined in the statute. The second is continuing an imminent threat to public welfare. So, I'm going to focus on this second prong today in the definition. So, this was the definition um on the next slide. The definition of continuing imminent threat is the same that we brought before the ESPC with a few minor tweaks based on their feedback at the December meeting. Um I have bolded the romantic relationship neglect or abuse. Um that was tweaked based on ESPback feedback to I believe staff only had solicitation and abuse. So we kind of expanded it based on feedback. But so basically continuing an imminent threat reason to believe the certificate holder is a continuing imminent threat which would

097be defined as and the committee will consider a real danger to the students or to the public from the acts or omissions of the license holder which includes um but not limited to solicitation engagement of a romantic relationship. Neglect or abuse. Whether the harm alleged is more than abstract, hypothetical or remote. Um includes both actions and inactions by the license or permer holder. consideration of whether there have been prior complaints. Staff is planning, I believe, on adding another section here about whether the conduct occurred on or off campus because that is feedback we received from the ASPC. Um some of the other feedback we received which is related to violence, repeated violence and um also I believe a few of the board members specifically called out violations of protective orders. So we are incorporating um

098some of the aspect feedback there about whether it occurred on or off campus and um abuse, neglect and violence. So these are really the topics I'm going to focus on today. So if anyone has a question, now is the time. The goal is to bring this back um at proposal in February. And um I will drop my email in the chat because I obviously accidentally left it off the slide. So if you have any additional feedback, you can reach out to me directly. Okay. Well, thank you all. I'll drop my email in. Thanks, Sarah. Um, with that, I believe I am turning it back over to Melissa for some prep updates. >> You sure are, Jessica. And I'll be very brief here. Um Patrick, you can go to the next slide. All right. Y'all already

099saw this slide today and many many times. So I'm just going to provide you all a brief update on where we stand regarding um prep lasso force applications. And as a reminder, um availability for the um applications for traditional pre-ervice and um prep alternative pre-ervice will begin um in fall of 26 for the 2728 school year. Excuse me. Go to the next slide. Great. Patrick, you're going to have to click a few on this one. I'm so sorry. I just want to click all those those guys in there. All right. So, big thing to highlight here. This is a busy timeline, but we are in January um and heading into February 2nd when an um the anticipated announcement for um prep um partnership approve uh participation approval there's a lot of peace um will occur

100on February 2nd still um uh you can go to the next slide Petra because I think actually the next timeline is more helpful here. So, I want to talk about some things that'll be coming down the line at that time period. Um, this is also a pretty complex timeline, but there's a few things I want to highlight for y'all here, and those pertain to um commissioner rulemaking outside of the wonderful aspect rule making we just discussed um in chapter 228 um as well as some communication um supports and and pieces that will be coming into place to support partnerships, which I think folks have had quite a few questions about as of recently. Um so on the uh rulemaking front for commissioner rule uh commissioner rulem is underway currently for the um to establish the

101uh the rules pertaining to the implementation of the prep partnership program setting forth the requirements um for partnership participation in those programs as well as um monitoring practices and um requirements for them to maintain eligibility to participate in those programs. Those rules will be posted for public comment in January. We are in January. So, we're anticipating a mid January posting still and we will be be able to communicate and provide information um to this group and to to other uh key stakeholders when those do post because we do want your eyes on those. Um I know many of you were involved in providing feedback on the front end in earlier in the fall. So, we want to make sure you all are getting your eyes on those, providing that input so that we can respond

102to it. Um the next big thing I would talk to you about related to this very uh complex timeline here um is um we have quite a great deal of um communication supports coming out uh very soon. So following that February 2nd date, you should anticipate that there will be some communication supports for programs anticipating um uh participating in or not programs uh partnerships anticipating uh participation in the allotment. Um, we'll have a series of webinars to help provide more information and support for making that final decision where that where pro where districts will commit to that participation. We'll also be launching we've gotten lots of questions about partnership agreements which are statutoily required as well as um in that proposed um uh commissioner rule for the program implementation. We'll be providing those exemplars um

103and examples and guidance pertaining to setting up those partnership agreements between EBPs and districts um as well as IEGs and districts for the grow your own program. So um all this is to say that in early spring which we're basically in right now you will shortly have some of those those materials at your fingertips um to explore and to to work with um as you're um preparing for engagement in the aotment. Um, and then the other big ticket thing I would I would name here and I'm I'm looking I'm looking at the uh timelines here, but we are also um in the process of developing that master guide book. I know you all have been relying on the FAQ materials um that we've been pro we were posting weekly during the application process but that

104type of process will um really feed into building a big guide book that has business rules overall guidance for the program um part for the program for participants and um I think it's worth noting that our intent is to have a phased approach to development of that guide book um being able to build on it um on a on a regular cadence to provide you timely information regarding the program's implementation. So um a lot of a lot of key dates coming down the line. Um and we'll be providing direct communication again to districts and ed prep programs who who are who will be involved in participating. And next slide, Petra. I think it's just a reminder. Yep. and we'll be again notifying y'all when that roll text is posted. I think that's it. >> Melissa,

105I do know we saw a a question I don't know if Kelsey is still on, but I think we saw a question from Kelsey earlier about the kind of like timeline of when commissioner rules um are posted for public comment, when we'll get those comments relative to ESP rule making. Um any like additional things you wanted to name there? >> Yeah, for sure. Um so actually those those two processes are running on a what we've been kind of saying is a fairly parallel track. Um so that so those will post um mid January. Actually was going to pull up an image that I could share with folks as well. Um those were the commissioner rules of post mid January. Meanwhile we're heading into proposal for ESPC. Um, and then actually this is probably more helpful.

106Can I steal the screen, Patra? Great. I'm just going to share these timelines for folks to see. Can you all see my screen? Great. Um, so we're heading into that 30-day public comment period. Um, in February to Marchish, there would be that response period. and we're still aiming for um effective date of April for those commissioner rules. Meanwhile, we look at the ESP rules and we've got proposal coming out down the line and then the goal would be hopefully with successful proposal um uh for that adoption in April um aiming for that July effective date. So, you can see here that these um these timelines really are pretty parallel um as we're moving forward. >> Yeah. No, I think that that's super helpful, Melissa. And I think just one thing to name as you know

107>> the commissioner has authority over the prep partnerships the USB has authority over the EP requirements but we recognize that there's some interplay between those. So um the [clears throat] commissioner of ed rules will be out for you know 30 days of public comment starting mid January. as those comments roll in. If there are things that uh we see in those comments that we also think potentially have applicability for ESPC rule making, you know, we can intentionally plan to raise those items with the board at the February meeting. I think we won't likely given timelines, we probably won't be totally done with that 30-day public comment period by the time the ESPC meets on February 13th. And so, you know, comments we get later in that 30-day window, we might not have the benefit of

108having like previewed those at those time. But again, recognizing while these are connected processes, I think making sure that folks are really targeting their feedback that's related to the preparation program requirements towards the ESPback through these chapter 228 um stakeholder engagement opportunities through that formal public comment period. And then really the commissioner rules are really about the partnership structures themselves. So um ideally parallel timelines if there are thing trends that we see early in public com comment period we'll make sure to prioritize uh raising those uh with the board to the extent to which they're applicable. Um then with that I think I'm going to hand it over to Jeremy Land to talk a little bit about another stakeholder opportunity. Thanks Jessica and good morning everyone. Uh I'm here to talk a little bit about

109the EP data stakeholder workg group. Uh this is a work group that uh includes stakeholders who are interested in and oriented to both EP data and the accountability system for educator preparation calculation topics. uh we meet annually uh and this is an invited uh invited membership group. Next slide. Uh so some of the prior meetings have shaped things like the principal and teacher survey scoring procedures uh the reporting in ECOS for clinical experience records. uh the insight to impact dashboard content as well as the ASAP index structure that currently uh helps us arrive at recommended statuses for the year. Uh this year's topics are likely to include requests for exception in the in ASAP uh student growth use cases, pass rates updates, and ECOS prep free service updates that are happening currently. And uh some

110details here. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday the 18th of February at 2 PM. Uh if you would like to receive the online meeting invite, please send me an email at jeremylanda.t texas.gov before hon or before uh January 23rd. Um and just a a note again uh we participation is contingent on familiarity with ASAP the ASAP manual calculations and the underlying ecosystem and we typically have some pre and post work and that's all I got. >> Thanks Jeremy. Appreciate it. Um so uh before we wrap today I just wanted to give um a bit of a preview um related to the work of the ASPC as we u are now officially in 2026. Um so the um SBOE will meet the last week of January. If we go back one slide Petra um uh

111SBE Oh. Yep. Perfect. Um, we'll meet the last week of January. There is one aspect adoption item that will go to the committee on school initiatives for their review and the full board um to either take no action or veto. And that are uh those are the ESPEC's recent updates to chapter 231, their personnel assignment rules. Again, really kind of just regularly scheduled updates given new certificates. um needing to therefore align the personnel assignments as well as some updates particularly to the 9 through 12 um assignment categories given updates to the SBOE course titles. Um so anticipate that item um moving through SBOE in January and then I think as we've alluded to throughout the meeting the meeting today the February SPEC meeting will be um held on Friday February 13th. We are back to

112a one-day meeting. We're not trying to overly interpret the fact that this meeting is on Friday the 13th. Um we're gonna you know manifest that to be a good thing. Um but the this meeting will be uh primarily focused on our five proposal items. Um so there are five pretty significant rule chapters uh moving forward to implement House Bill 2 and Senate bills 571 and Senate Bill 12. So you can expect to see a proposal um chapters 228 are EBP requirements. Chapters 27 are admissions requirements to preparation programs. chapter 230 which are certification requirements. Again, those kind of set of three sister uh chapters to implement House Bill 2. Um and then you'll also see a proposal um proposal items for chapters 247 are code of ethics and 249 are disciplinary proceedings um requirements to

113implement Senate Bill 571 and SB12. Um so really, you know, excited for the board to be able to really roll up their sleeves and dig in deeply into um these proposal items. Um we are um aiming to have uh the board book posted with the rule text for those items ideally by um the uh you know the first week of February. Um, with that I will I think our we've got about more slide with any additional questions that folks have. Um, and we've got time. We didn't receive any additional questions in advance. Um, but if folks do have additional questions, uh, feel free to put them in the chat. happy to um address or answer um anything that folks may have uh continuing to be in their top of mind for them. And then if

114we can go we'll give folks a second to think through other questions. If we can go to the next slide. Um just want to really plug the uh meeting participant survey and we do really appreciate the feedback that you all have provided. We've tried to really um take that feedback as actionable opportunities to kind of continue to improve this space as well as other stakeholder spaces that we facilitate. So um if you wouldn't mind taking a few minutes to uh complete that survey, we'd greatly appreciate it. Again, we've got a QR code here on the slide, but I imagine see there we go. Marilyn Cook to the rescue. I knew that someone would be grabbing that um survey form to put in the chat. So, um, if folks wouldn't mind, uh, taking a minute now,

115um, to complete that survey, um, and, um, you know, if there's additional questions that you have, I'm, uh, feel free to put them in the chat. But otherwise, um, want to, uh, communicate my gratitude and thanks again to this group for your your time and your input today and in all ways. Um, and look forward to, um, seeing you all in upcoming stakeholder sessions. and um potentially at the aspect meeting in uh February. I know the board always appreciates hearing from folks who are deep in the work. Um so thank you everyone and um y'all know where to find us if you have any additional questions. Thank you.