001Um, welcome to our October um, Epsi stakeholder group meeting. Excited to see everyone today. Um, just as a few reminders um, you know, general uh, Zoom norms um, to keep yourself muted um, unless you're speaking. It's great to see people's faces if you're able to turn your camera on. And then it's helpful for us if folks put their name and their organization um, in their title. Um just continuing to ground in the work of the state board for educator certification um that um our team supports um knowing their mission to improve student achievement and ensure the safety and welfare of students across Texas um and their core principles here just to continue to ground and anchor our work. Um and as a reminder, the ESPback meets um uh six times or five times during the
002year. Um and their final meeting of this um calendar year will be in early December. So they just had a meeting in midepptember. I know a number of you were able to join that meeting um in part and whole. It was a two-day meeting. Lots to update folks on relative to that. um and are looking forward to picking up with an additional 2-day meeting in um December. Just a reminder, things that fall under the ESPEX um authority include everything from admission into a preparation program all the way through continuing professional education and certification renewal. Um and the ASPC oversees a rule making process um that on average takes about nine months from start to finish um if not more time um dependent upon um the depth and complexity of the rule making. So it starts
003with a discussion um that can sometimes be a highle policy discussion or a discussion where we're looking at concrete rule text um and then moves into a proposal stage. That's the first vote that the board takes on those rules and that really locks in the proposed policy. From there, those rules go out for 30 days of public comment, opportunity um for stakeholders to provide formal written comment. Um and then comes back to the board for adoption or a final vote. Um after the um after the rules go to the board for adoption, they then go to the state board of education for their review. um and um a consideration to take action or to take no action. Um so the goal of this group as we uh reinforce each time we have a chance to
004meet together is really to gather input and feedback and actively collaborate um on topics related to everything from educator preparation to certification to enforcement and broader set of agency initiatives that focus on educator support and really leverage you all the experts the stakeholders who are engaged in this work on the ground day in day out um uh to to support us as we're considering additional policy and practice um actions. We've had a great year with this uh reconstituted EPS stakeholder group. Um we actually have some time uh later on in our agenda to actually step back and reflect um on what um what's working and what we can do to continuously improve um these processes. Um and we are um excited later on today to talk through the uh proposed schedule of meetings into the
005next calendar year as well. Um we've established early on as we've kicked off this structure a set of norms for the in these stakeholder spaces as well as norms for our tea team as we plan um and facilitate these meetings. And so just wanting to consistently anchor us back in them. And then today we will be using a Padlet. Um I know one of my uh team members will likely be putting that Padlet link in the chat here in just a second. Um but a Padlet is is a um mechanism that we can use to capture um input thoughts from uh the group overall. And so um there are going to be four columns in today's Padlet and we'll kind of orient you towards them as we um go forward. When you can see kind
006of a screenshot here on the right hand side if you want to add a comment or thought to one of the Padlet questions. You click the um plus sign to add the comment and then you hit the uh pink kind of send to post your comment to the board. And so we'll be using that to kind of track um engagement. Um oh there's animations. Uh just anchoring into today's agenda that we shared out in advance. Appreciate folks for elevating topics for discussion. Um we're going to spend a good amount of time today talking about House Bill Two. Um the preparing retaining educators through partnership. um programs and aotment implementation. Um talk through some of the the policy considerations we uh raised with the ASPC during their um September meeting and talk about some of our
007commissioner of education rules that are um currently in process as well. We're then going to turn our attention to educator misconduct. Um, we had a a robust discussion with the board around educator misconduct rules at their September meeting and want to get additional input from stakeholders on some of the key decision points ahead. Um, and then we'll um provide some updates and discussion related to the continuing approval review redesign process and the development of the Texas test for educator proficiency. And then would like to close out by doing a little uh collaborative reflection on our overall meeting structure and cadence. Um and then close out close out um with a discussion of what's on deck for um our November SBOE meeting and uh the December as meeting. All right. Um with that, I want to
008start with a little bit of a highlight of um the work that um the board engaged in during their September meeting. Um so I think a few things to note. There was approval of additional uh programs to offer the Texas teacher residency preparation route. Um the board uh adopted proposed updates to chapter 229 which are their accountability system rules. Um this is a part of the annual refresh of the accountability system rules um that the board engages in coming out of the most recent execution of the accountability system. Um the board also voted a proposal on um one item that was chapter 231, the board's um uh educator personnel assignment rules. Um, specifically here, uh, the board was looking at adding new certificates that they've, uh, recently improved to the personnel assignments, as well as
009doing some cleanup of the chapter overall and tracking some of the new courses that the SBOE has approved and adding those to the personnel assignments and defining the appropriate certificates for those assignments. Um, additionally, the board spent the majority of their time across the two days of the meeting really digging deeply into a set of um, policy discussions related to um, educator misconduct firstly. So that would be chapters primarily chapter 247, but also did some look into chapter 249 as well. um really thinking about implementation of Senate Bill 571 um that added some additional um parameters for the ESPC related to their educator misconduct work. And Sarah will discuss um in more depth today some of those policy points. And then the board also had a chance to really go deep into kind of a
010a set of rulemaking chapters. Chapters 228 um which holds their educator preparation program requirements. chapter 227 which holds their admissions requirements to ed prep programs and chapter 230 which holds our general certification requirements. Um really looking across those three chapters as kind of the three core chapters that will uh need to be updated to implement the requirements of House Bill 2 and specifically the new requirements for preparation programs and the new um all capital prep uh routes. Um finally uh the board had a chance to receive updates um on two areas of note. Um first being the uh progress that um the field has made in the redesign of the continuing approval review process. Um and we've got some of those updates again in the agenda today. And then finally, um the board discussed um
011some near-term next steps um to execute on um the House Bill 2 directive for the ESPback to review national board certification. Um so with that, I won't uh pause for too long on on this slide because the majority of these topics um we're going to actually go into more detail on um in the course of our time together today. But um if there's any additional questions on generally on topics related to the September meeting that we don't get a chance to touch on today, we do have a slide at the end that has some general questions. So happy to discuss anything further at that time. Um with that I am going to turn it over to Melissa who's going to talk a little bit more around um aspect rulemaking for prep. >> Thank you Jessica.
012Um so Jessica already teed us up nicely here and we are going to talk about um next steps in progress towards uh aspect rulemaking for prep implementation. Thank you. Yeah, just roll through the animation. All right, the joys of animation, y'all. Okay. So, um just to kind of like reanchor us here, um during our September meeting with our historic five and a half hour item, um we did discuss um proposed updates to chapter 228 educator preparation requirements um that serve to implement um the statutory requirements coming out of house bill 2. Um so across across this item and then chapter the subsequent chapter 227 chapter 230 items we had a set of key policy decision points that we walked through with the ESPC um related to this implementation. Um when it comes to chapter 228
013our broad topics were as follows. Um we discussed with the board requirements across all preparation routes. We also talked extensively and this is where we're going to focus today um around new and then updated preparation route requirements um pertaining to those new prep routes. Um and then finally when it comes to those prep routes as well, we talked a bit about content training requirements and then um the process by which um ed prep programs would be reviewed and approved to offer those routes. I'll come back and kind of do a more of a recap of some of these other discussion points, but we're going to we're going to dig into for the purpose of today's time and your expertise and feedback um into some uh further feedback from you all regarding the pre-ervice alternative certification
014pathway within um the bucket of those updated preparation route requirements. Um but just to kind of reanchor us and I know many folks on this call uh either attended the board meeting, watched it live stream and have also been um engaging in some of our lasso webinars. This is probably a very familiar slide and you've heard us heard us share about this often but but just to regroup here um HB2's statutory requirements um put into place a prep the preparing and retaining educators through partnership prep aotment um that provides for five formulafunded programs aimed at supporting the recruitment preparation and mentorship of teacher candidates all in service of well-prepared teachers who stay in the classroom and support the needs of our students in Texas. Um again, five programs. The Grow Your Own program, um supporting
015the recruit the local recruitment of pair professional employees and high school pathways uh to promote uh those folks into uh teacher pathways. Um and then um the pre-ervice preparation programs, there are three for the purposes of this year. There will be um the prep residency pre-ervice program and then there is the mentorship program that funds uh mentor stipens and uh training and has training requirements and we'll take a we'll take a look at some of these pieces and shortly. Great. All righty. So, within the statutory of requirements of HB2, um we're going to kind I just wanted to kind of recap first the requirements for the pre-ervice partnership programs. Um and the idea here is that by setting a set of requirements, we're able to actually ensure that there's consistent highquality training across all program
016types. Um and those those four big things are as follows. All programs have requirements pertaining to practice-based preparation. So, whatever the program is, um they provide um ensure that teacher candidates are provided with opportunities to have access to clinical practice under the supervision of a high quality mentor teacher um prior to becoming a teacher of record. Um they also require that candidates are prepared through um within their educator preparation programs with key state developed content um for certain certification areas EC3 and EC6 um that would include the reading and mathmies and then um there are other areas that will be state developed um pertaining to development of candidates skill and use um in high quality instructional materials um through use of blue bonnet learning um and then also other prioritized content areas such as for
017example classroom management um and it will also um we'll also discuss a bit about the um requirements to train um and certify facilitators of that content. Um the third piece here is the importance of having formal written agreements of formal partnership um between the LEA and the EP um to implement these programs. Um and this really establishes a documented path forward between the two entities to ensure that candidates are getting access to the high quality preparation. Um and these the requirements laid out in each pre-ervice program. Um and then in doing so, we're able to really expand on what partnerships have already been doing in the state. Right? you all have already been working in partnership to develop high quality residency programs for example. So in having these formal established partnerships, we're able to like
018really lock in and make sure that the candidates needs are met um and that the candidate is prepared to meet the instructional vision of that LEA where they're are serving. And then finally um the each program allocates for success and needs-based funding um for um those candidates who are prepared in each prep partnership program. And so um this means that each for each candidate that attains certification and later on completes the first year of teaching in a Texas district. um would this would attribute this would um cause for the candidate to generate additional funding on top of the initial funding generated through the lotment. And we're not going to go deep into funding expectations today, but please join us also in our LASO application um overview sessions um to go deep into those uh priorities.
019Awesome. So when it comes to the work of the ESPC um and to implement those requirements I just talked through that are part of HB2 um the ESPC is has the responsibility to establish requirements for prep funded and also there is some ripple effect on non-prep funded routes um coming out of the HB2 requirements. So you can see here in this visual um we have our current prep structure which includes residency, traditional undergrad, postback and alternative certification and with the implementation of the statutory requirements of the prep aotment. Um it shifts into this revised prep structure which will include the residency route which will be the prep funded residency route. um the prep traditional route. So the traditional route would meet those previous requirements we discussed. Um and then um the existing traditional route, the
020brand new prep preservers alsert route where we'll sp focus our time today. And then finally um we have our existing alsert route which would have no state funding. Um and then there is the opportunity here as well to formalize the late hire also route which also would not um would not generate funding. Great. So let's dig into our priority for the day which is the discussion of the pre-ervice alternatives uh preparation route. Um when we were stepping back initially with the ESPC, we were trying to define at the end state like what do we want in the experience of the pres-ervice alternative ser candidate and we named a few things um in this rainbow colored bar on the left can it that that would ensure that the candidate met those met a preparation met preparation
021requirements pertaining to what we just discussed on that previous green slide but also um would lead them to be successful in the classroom. So, not going to read these verbatim, but you can see here that these priorities um emphasize um datadriven um data driven practices to support candidate development, the pre-ervice practice piece, strong coaching and mentoring, and um high quality course coursework and training. And so we're going to take a peek at some of the pieces um related to the pre-ervice alternative preparation route pathway. Um and we we want to take this time now to get your feedback related to some of those key pieces. So we're going to have like a little bit of a a a read and pause protocol as we walk through the pre-ervice clinical requirements, supervision and coaching, and the
022evaluation of candidate readiness. All righty. So, first area pertaining to coursework and training is um we're going to take a look at the clinical training requirements. So, this um table here outlines our initial recommendations that were shared with the ESPC and there is a highlighted little chunk here that illuminates an area where the ESP had had signaled, hey, we need more information about what would make sense to include here. So, I'm just going to like briefly recap this, give you all a second to read it, and then I'm going to give you directions for the Padlet. Um, so in the initial proposal stated um that we were recommending 140 hours of pre-ervice practice, and you can see here in parenthesis, we've included this total to about 20 days if we were looking at a seven-hour
023day, which we have typically done in in past rulemaking. Um we also um proposed that there are required experiences and then also additional priority experiences. Um within those required experiences we included the co-eing which is a statutory requirement. So that has to happen. Um in discussion with the aspect we talked about how we likely need some minimum threshold for co-eing. So, that's one of the areas where we'll be looking to get some feedback from y'all today. Um, additional priorities. You can see here we've listed a few. Um, and that's another area for y'all to provide us feedback today as well, like are there other things to consider um that you would um emphasize. And then we also presented to the ESP some additional considerations. Um, one one piece being that given that we want this
024to be a flexible model and we know that there will be some different decisions that have to be made within a partnership. You know, days and hours do not necessarily need to be consecutive. Um, but there should be this sense of coherence across practice um that the candidate experiences. So they might be working in a school um one or two days a week in the spring and have for example a culminating summer school experience. That's just one example. But um so thinking about if there's any parameters there. Um and then finally um the other piece of consideration we would lay on we laid on the table for the aspect was that serving in the paraprofessional role um could meet the requirement um for this pre-ervice clinical practice. And so our questions for you all today
025are there any initial reflections that you have on the total proposed um number of hours? Are there additional activities you would recommend adding to the required or priority um additional experiences? And then related to co-eing, are there considerations for a minimum number of hours for that co-eing experience and or any other experiences? So, we would love to get y'all's feedback today on these on this initial set of recommendations. So, I'm going to pause us for a few minutes and give you all a second to go into the Padlet and I'll paste it in the chat again and then you can see in the Padlet in the >> Well, so I'm going to um share that screen. So, >> great. I was about to >> Perfect. Perfect. So you can see the second column and question
026one includes those three. It's a three-part question. We love long questions. Um there and then you can see how Jessica just put the cursor in that little box and you would begin typing and that little pink arrow box should generate so you can add your comment. So we will take a few minutes and then I'll bring us back for the other two sections. This is probably the lengthiest section for us to weigh in on um here. So, I want to give you all a few minutes to respond and start to add your thoughts. And I'll reshare the slides right now so that folks can look at those virus. I still see a couple comments coming through. Um, so I'll give you all like wrapping up in the next minute. I see folks in the chat
027are loving all the nicknames. That is my favorite part um of the Padlet process. All right, y'all. Um appreciate all the comments here. And then just just like stepping back for two seconds here. Um and I know we mentioned this at the top of the section, but being that it is a it is a paid route, you know, the goal was definitely to set a like certain threshold for some rigorous clinical uh clinical practice, but within reason and and to ensure that candidates can meet a set of competencies, which we'll take a look at in just a second. um when it comes to evaluation of candidate readiness. I'm going to shift us over to the next section for sake of getting y'all's input here. >> Well, so one thing just to I because I saw
028it come up a number of times in the um on the Padlet just to clarify the um serving in a paraprofessional role meeting the pre-ervice requirement that's actually in the statute itself. Um so it says that if an individual um is serving in a paraprofessional role their service as a paraprofessional kit will like basically serve in lie of the pre-ervice practice component. So that is a statutory uh component and so actually something we've been we were reflecting on um with the aspect was I was trying to be clear what is actually like directly from the statute like it is a requirement versus an area where the the spec has like broader latitude to define um specific parameters. >> Yeah. Thanks Jess. All righty. Let's take a look at the next area which is supervision and
029coaching. Um so here we've just laid out the things I would have you zero in on um are the requirements for the informal and formal observations. So here you can see that because there is this added pre-ervice clinical component for these candidates. Um we've parsed out the informal uh observation requirements from both the pres-ervice clinical and the internship and the re initial recommendation proposed to the ESPC was for three informal observations with feedback and written feedback provided to the candidate recommending that these were face-to-face during that initial intensive um pre-ervice clinical period and then during the internship the candidate would get access to those four informals um that could be more flexibly conducted as currently um stated in chapter 228. This would yield one additional um one more additional informal than is than is what
030is current for um our current um alter route. When it comes to formals, we also conducted that same bifurcation recommending one formal observation serve as like a summitative um and then that could also support um recommendations around how to prioritize uh supports for the candidate moving into their intern internship. Um and then it for the internship the remaining four um formals would occur and this would result in five totals which is the same as current um the current pathway um but just pro more spaced out um intentionally to support that um candidates's progressive development. And so with that, if you all can go back into the Padlet and tell give us any input you have here regarding does this seem appropriate um when it comes to the level of support candidates need. Um I think
031you know again we were trying to be really intentional here with increasing some some of the rigor of the observations and feedback given that there is also this pres-ervice clinical but also trying to be really intentional about maximizing um what is currently in place. One additional context I think to to name for folks as they're reflecting on this. Um, as Melissa named, the teacher candidate receives uh funding while they're completing the pre-ervice practice. Additionally, the LEA and the EP also both receive funding for each individual uh pres-ervice alternative candidate. And so when we're thinking about I know um number of um folks like cost of conducting the informals and formals is often a consideration and so just naming here that um the prep program um and the LEA will also both receive funding under the
032prep aotment. >> That's a great reinforcer. Thanks Jessica. So we'll take a few minutes here and I'll have you all pop over. I see you've all started to answer question two. One additional clarification I'll name as I'm just looking at some initial um comments in the chat. Those these observations would occur across the pre-ervice clinical practice and then carry into the internship year. So thinking about um not just during that the what we had proposed previously the 140 hours but also during the entirety of the internship year. So that's um that's why they're bifurcated in these two ways. All right, y'all. I've been trying to track your comments here. It looks like they've slowed down a little bit. Um, appreciate all the input here and um, we're looking forward to like digging deeper into your
033recommendations for these. And then our final area pertains to the evaluation of candidate readiness. Um so what we've laid out here is kind of the two-pronged back to Jessica's comment um reinforcing that we were mapping out requirements for the pre-ervice clinical and then again for the internship year. So we've set up um parameters here um for the attainment of the intern um following completion of the uh pre-ervice clinical requirements and and others which we'll take a look at in a second. And then the second piece pertains to the attainment of the standard certificate once the candidates completed their entire internship and all requirements. So to attain the intern with pre-ervice certificate, um what we've laid out here is that the candidate must complete the first 150 hours of coursework including the 50 hours of FBE
034field-based experiences. And then highlighted in bold, this is like the new piece for the route that um would would be different than what is currently in place for the alter pathway. Um where the candidate would need to complete preser the pres-ervice clinical requirements and demonstrate specific proficiency levels on foundational dimensions and tests. Um for context here, the intensive pre-ervice route of of the past had a component um where candidates needed to complete a set of competencies at specific proficiency levels. So we did discuss this approach with the aspect um in September um to as a means to like verify that they've attained a certain level like at least for example developing a key dimensions um prior to um beginning that intern experience um and then also of course pass the content pedigogy exam for the
035certification area. So that's me as a candidate getting my pre-ervice intern to start my internship. Um to complete standard certification um it is pretty akin to to what we have currently in place remaining uh completing the remaining coursework. Um and then there would of course be the recommendation by the field supervisor and campus supervisor and then passing passing scores on all of the certification exams. The second piece here is the successful one-year completion of the internship. Um, we have a a caveat down here that the candidate who does not meet the requirements in one year could continue as an intern for up to two years, but they would no longer be eligible for um the success-based funding that would come with this route when you've completed it within one year. So they would drop into
036being prepared in that final fully prepared in that current the current alter route. So they would need to meet the requirements for standard certification within a year to generate any of the success-based funding um for the prep aotment. And so with that um this now we haven't proposed any of any of the um dimensions and proficiency level specifically here but as a general approach does this approach to evaluate candidate readiness make sense for the pre-ervice alter um and this is on question three in your Padlet. So we'd love to get you get y'all's thoughts um there. I see some folks have already started to um add some notes. I'm seeing one comment in the chat. Yes, it would include the the first 150 hours of coursework and the um and the 140 hours of the
037pre-ervice clinical if that remains the total number of hours for that pre-ervice clinical in advance. All right, y'all. If you have further questions or further comments on this section, we would encourage you to leave them. But we appreciate um all the input here um and look forward to providing further specification in the uh December uh draft of rules. And with that, um, we're going to pass it over to Lori to talk through, um, chapter two, uh, components of chapter 227. >> Thanks. Hi, everyone. It's great to see everyone. Um, and thank you for being here and helping us out with uh, reviewing these requirements and giving us input. It's very helpful. Um so as we have mentioned um 227 is going to have to walk through these updates with 228 handinand uh because in some
038cases they point back and forth to each other as many of our rules do. And so just making sure that we have covered everything that we need to cover. There were a couple of areas that we brought up at the ESPback meeting. You'll recognize this slide if you if you viewed that meeting um as we were trying to initiate some discussion with them about how we want to meet this requirement. So I have two things for your input today. This one is specifically related to a statutory requirement for residency programs. Um, and on the left column, just to reiterate, these are the current requirements, minimum admission requirements for programs. And I did have this, as I said, in the ESPback item, and it generated quite a bit of unexpected discussion. Um, but those are the
039requirements that are currently in place. And then the statutory language you can see in that first box on the right uh which identifies that in proposing rules for a teacher residency program preparation route. Um the aspect must require that the program use researchbased best practices for recruiting and admitting candidates into the program. And so um we wanted to have some discussion with the aspect and now we want to have some um input from you all about what this might look like and if we are currently or are not meeting those requirements. So um I offered up as consideration some um some requirements essential actions from the effective preparation framework for consideration. Um, and you can see those here in that box at the bottom. So, what I've done is I've attempted to take these essential
040actions and turn them into some potential description of what some language might look like to meet the statutory requirement. So on the next slide um so applicable to all EPS not just specific to residency updating the existing screening process which currently identifies that candidates must parti applicants to your EPS must participate in an interview or other screening instrument uh to determine if the applicant's knowledge, experience, skills an aptitude are appropriate for the certificate sought. So just tweaking that language from must participate in an interview or other screening instrument to what you see in bold a screening process that is based on a set of normed criteria and uses multiple measures. So that would be tweaking a rule that's already in place for screening. And then moving down to specific to residency. Um the language would
041be something like shall offer counseling and support for applicants and candidates to consider pursuing certification in the areas of need for partner LEAs. So thinking about those two updates, um the one that's applicable to all programs would get more closely aligned with what the expectations are for screening requirements. Now in terms of establishing screening processes that really help to understand the applicant's knowledge, experience, skills and aptitude and also have a normed um evaluation process for evaluating the candidates's performance in an equitable way. and that really helps you understand what kinds of experiences and skills and knowledge your applicants are coming in with. So that would be the benefit of the first update. And then the second update just aligns um pretty closely to what the statutory requirement was asking. So, um, on your Padlet, then
042what I would like for you to do, if you don't mind, please, is take a look at these and really think about does this wording implement the statutory requirement with fidelity and does it provide flexibility for EPS to customize as needed. So, we'll give you just a minute to go on to the Padlet. Um, and I think it's question four. That's correct, Larry. Okay. So, I don't see any more comments coming in. Oh, there's one. Um, one of the questions was about is there an example of um the type of screening process? So, um I know that a variet programs have a variety of different processes that they implement for screening. Um some of them include things like um developing a uh a less a lesson or uh delivering a segment of a lesson um
043to the screeners that are observing and giving feedback. Um, and then that would be scored on a rubric with a norm set of criteria that help uncover what it is you're trying to learn about that candidate or that applicant as that applicant is performing that task. Okay. Okay. So moving to the next one then um and so this one is not really necessarily an update due ne u related to prep but what this one is about is about expiring certificants certificates and transparency for candidates. So when a um a test expires and is replaced by a new test and or when the related certificate expires and is replaced by a new certificate, there is a timeline in place for that process. It usually ends up being about 2 years. So programs are notified. Um within
044that year the test would expire and then following that expiration candidates would have a year to be certified using that test and then the test andor certificate would go away and the candidate would no longer be able to be certified using that test in that certificate area. So, as I describe that process, you can see where candidates might fall through the cracks and not have the information that they need uh to use the test that they work so hard to pass to earn the certificate that they need to earn to move forward in their education career. And so from a high level perspective at TEA, um we get a lot of calls from candidates, a lot of calls from districts, is there anything you can do to help my candidate get their certificate now? They
045missed the deadline, they didn't know about it, etc., etc. And so these suggested updates in 227 would be required notifications for EPS to merely stay on top of what's going to happen in the next couple of years with respect to expiring certificates and tests and then provide those notifications to applicants at admission so that they're aware. For example, uh recently we had some candidates that had been embedded in the special education area um and then the program failed to renew the special education certificate to the special ed education specialist and now those candidates are sitting there not being able to move forward because um that test is no longer available. The 161's no longer available and the program has not added the new one. So these would be transparent notifications so that everyone is on
046board and then your candidates later on would not be able to come back to you and say you never told me I never knew that these certificates were expiring. So, um, if these required notifications were to be built into 227 as something that you would notify candidates of at admission and then renew that notification later on and just give them a reminder. Um, I'm wanting to make sure there are no unforeseen processing issues for the EP if this should go into rule. So, that's kind of what I'm asking you for feedback on. Now, um, there are tools available for EPS to enable the implementation of this. We do have website one-pages. We have information on the testing page. We also have imported a new chart onto the re redesigned program provider resources page that has
047all of this information. Um we have been holding workshops detailing requirements for every new certificate that's come on board so far um within the last couple of years and we're now sending direct reminders to EPS including data sets with candidate identifiers on them for EP so that you know exactly when the deadlines are and who in your program past finishers or current enroles might be caught up in that transition. ition process. So, if you could please go back to the Padlet, you can use question four um again to capture this information and just let me >> Oh, there's a question five in there. Okay. Sorry, I didn't scroll down far enough. Um, and just let me know if there's anything unforeseen that you can think about that might adversely impact the EP if the rule
048is going to require you to notify candidates when you admit them that the certificate they want to pursue is set to expire within the next year or Thank you. Good comments. Seeing some of them come in. Um, okay. Thank you for that input. Now, let's move on. Let's talk about some just highlevel implementation timelines. Speaking of implementations, um, these are related to prep aotments and prep programs. Um and so you can see now that in 2526 we are starting the application process for the prep aotments that will be available in 2627 and those are for the residency grow your own and mentorship programs. Um and so uh we will be we are doing rule making with commissioner of education rules around this and then we'll be also as you know right now we're going to
049be working on aspect rules related to this. Now um in 2627 you can see where um we're going to continue with the application process and move forward then and then add the additional prep areas at that time. Okay. So 227 is going to go to uh the ESPC in December with some proposed rule text for discussion. Okay. And then um on October 30th, we're going to be having a stakeholder engagement feedback session. So just kind of save the date for that. And then you're going to be getting some more information and a registration link shortly. Uh but we do value your input and if you can be at that feedback session that would be very helpful. >> Thanks Lori. And uh just to name I think there were a number of items that were um
050the board discussed particularly as it relates to chapter 228 that we didn't have time to touch on today. Um and so we'll be going deep into those areas as well um during this uh subsequent stakeholder engagement meeting as well as some decisions around chapter 230. So appreciate uh folks input today. This is a super solid jumping off point for us um but we'll have additional opportunities to engage with folks um before the the next discussion and then also um uh between discussion what we anticipate being proposal in uh February. With that, I'll turn it over to Melissa to talk a little bit about prep imple. >> Great. Thank you, Jessica. Yes. And I'll be brief here because I know we've got a slate of amazing other items to talk about, but y'all know very well
051this is a historic investment um in teacher preparation in Texas um expanding to a reach of nearly 5.5 million students um because it is a recurring reliable funding stream that supports quality teacher recruitment prep and um mentorship. Um y'all have already seen this slide on the previous part of our session today, but these are the programs it funds. And then as Lori just noted, um the lasso application for cycle 4 includes the application for the um prep aotments programs for grow your own residency and mentorship. So we're just going to take a look today at some of the partnership requirements um and some of the big picture timelines. And as a note, of course, prep traditional and prep altsert will be coming in 2728 in the um in the fall 26 application cycle. So they're
052one year delayed. We're going to we have this slate of rule making um that comes with establishment of of for example the pres-ervice prep routes and then all of the um subsequent requirements for um all prep programs as well um that will support the implementation of those on that timeline. All righty. So, just to highlight here, and I think we have a great mix of folks from eleas, uh, EPS, and other supporting organizations. I think this is probably some helpful context about the prep, prep partnership requirements, um, pertaining to all of these programs. Um, first thing I would highlight here is prep grow your own and prep residency both require written agreements um to establish um those shared sets of expectations that each partner in the partnership um is accountable to in support of those
053um employees in the prep grow your own and then the teacher candidates um in um the pre-ervice program um the prep grow your require requires um partnership with an instit institute of higher education um and an educator preparation program. Um as folks who have been deep in the work of lasso know um for a district or school system to apply for the and attain the grow your own program they all must also have a prep pre-ervice program partnership in this case the prep residency partnership program. So um applicants for grow your own will submit that written agreement with an institute of higher education and they will als they also need to um have an approved prep pre-ervice residency program to participate. So there's like two things um with grow your own um when it comes
054to the other thing I'll name here um is there is also the requirement for cooperating teachers um to participate in the Texas mentorship training in the prep pres-ervice residency and then as well as um within the um prep mentorship program um process-wise for the prep program aotment. Um there will be a verification of partnership and and and then of course the written agreement process. So just like briefly um awards the intent is to announce awards um in fe on February 2nd 2026. Um and at that time, TEA will also communicate timelines and the process for school systems to submit a verification of partnership form that basically states we're willing to participate. Um we're going to move forward and meet all the requirements. And at that time they will also um when they submit that um
055verification of partnership they will also be sub they will also be um submitting a written or sharing their written agreement with their selected EP partner or partners. Um we've gotten a lot of questions about these written agreements like what should they entail? Um are we going to get support and help? And the answer is yes and yes. So um so the written agree agreement will clearly articulate how the partnership will implement uh requirements for Texas education code in statute and that the requirements um from the commissioner of education rules which we signaled are already underway and thank you to folks on this call who also participated in the commissioner of education rule um feedback sessions a few weeks ago. Um so but the thing is we will be providing um examples a template um so
056all of that guidance and support and timelines for um receipt of those things will be coming um um in a timely fashion. So I'm hopeful that folks will not be stressed about that process. Um, and then when it comes to the prep aotment timeline, just to call out here, it is running in the Elaso application, but there are some stark differences um between the grant timelines because there's pieces that just simply do not pertain to the prep aotment because it's an aotment. It is not a grant. Um, so Jess, you can actually click I'll just highlight a couple things with timelines on the big one. Yeah, fantastic. All right. So, I think the biggest the biggest things here um we are in October. The application window is open. Um program webinars are currently running and
057being recorded and will be posted and shared for u future reference as well. Um and then an FAQ will be published in the month of November. And there are also office hours that have been established for both LEA and EP audiences to attend. And then we've also set up a separate EP facing webinar for the pre-ervice program um to answer any other specific questions there. Um in December through January applications will be reviewed and then February 2nd does mark that anticipated announcement. Um with April and May being that time period for that program verification of participation and for submission of those written agreements I just referenced. And then you can see here got this lovely table that I feel like we've been shopping around on on so many different webinars lately um with all of
058the options um for um thoseformational webinars for the aotment and then the related grant webinars for Texas strategic staffing for residencies um which is a of course a key uh key support piece for programs or partnerships looking to sustainably find those residency models. And that's it. Pass over to Sarah. >> Hi everyone. Can y'all hear me? No. I apologize. My thing just unplugged. Let me put it back in. Um, moving to educator misconduct. We're just going to hit a couple of the high points. Okay, you can probably hear me better now. >> Yes, you can, Sarah. Thanks. >> Sorry, it's not giving me that. Okay. Yeah, we're just going to hit a couple of the high points. So, basically, SB571, as we all know and are very familiar with now, is the main bill that
059impacted educator misconduct. The ESPC plans to implement the new requirements coming out of SB571 through updates to both chapter 247 the educator code of ethics and chapter 249 um the disciplinary proceeding sanctions and contested case rule. And then we two main things we'll be touching on today. The first one is mandatory reporting definitions and the second one is temporary suspension definitions. And moving on to mandatory reporting definitions. So, kind of just as a little highlight of the background, right? Um 571 made a lot of changes when it comes to reporting requirements to TEA for both educators and non-certified employees, which also includes service providers. Um ed superintendent must report to TEA within 48 hours of learning of the incident, right, involving direct harm to students. So, the big change here is it went from seven
060days and it also went from a separation. So there's no longer a separation required or 7 days. It's 48 hours from learning of the incident. And it it expanded what um behavior must be reported to TEA to include mistreatment of students regardless of physical injury, communication, inappropriate communication, and then boundaries. So um let's skip to the next slide. Okay. So the reporting requirements for superintendents, right? SP571 updated this to include any evidence that the educator engaged in an inappropriate communication with a student or minor is defined by board rule or that they failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with a student or minor as defined in board rule. So these two definitions um the statute explicitly points to espec rule for the definitions. So we're going to take each of these one by one. So this
061is the standard 3.9 which is the board's current definition for inappropriate communications. So I won't sit here and read it to you and as you have thoughts about this we also have a question related to this in the Padlet. So any thoughts um you have it would be great if you could add it there under question number one for misconduct or if you also want to come off mute um and discuss that's fair as well. But yeah so the question we posed to the board at the September meeting is does this definition need to be tightened? Right. um it doesn't include it does include a lot of behaviors but it's also pretty broad right so we do anticipate hearing from stakeholders that this definition should be tightened so any thoughts you have explicitly on this
062definition for inappropriate communications and I'll pause quickly to see if anyone wants to come off mute and discuss and there's um in the Padlet there is a misconduct column and the first question under there um is uh specifically related to this. >> Yeah, that's right. Thank you, Jess. Okay, so moving to the next definition is um >> Sarah, can we give u folks maybe a minute or two to to look at the definition and and add some comments? >> Yes. Yes. >> Thank you. >> I would like to come off mute. >> Yeah. because uh as a person that fills out for example candidate transfer forms and one of the questions on the candidate transfer form is is this person in good standing. Well, I don't want to bring in anybody to our program that
063isn't in good standing and has had some kind of indiscretion that cannot be tracked by a certificate or I don't want to send anybody in particular. I don't want to send anybody somewhere else that would um although they wouldn't be sanctioned because they're not holding a certificate somewhere else. Could we get some kind of do not hire list or something for candidates or something? >> Right. the commission. The commissioner >> we keep, you know, we that we don't want to pass along anyone to anybody that might be of of Yes. >> Okay. Yep. Yep. Thank you for the feedback. The commissioner does have the do not hire registry, but it's limited. It includes these very same behaviors we're discussing, but it is it applies to people who are currently working or you know are about
064to work, right? So that's that's interesting and I'll definitely note that. Thank you. >> Okay. Anyone else? >> I I want to say that I agree with Jean on that. Um clear pure and simply I always have a struggle sometimes with that as to why a student may have left our program. you know, the university will look at it as were they in good standing in all ways, but then I think we need to have something a little bit more in guidance of what do we consider not in good standing. >> Yeah, very interesting. And looking at the comments, I see one, does educator c cover service providers? So service providers that are not certified by ESPEC would be captured under the commissioner's do not hire registry rules which will we anticipate mimic the definitions
065that the ESPC adopts. Um so hopefully that answers your question. Um okay moving to the next standard standard 3.8. So this standard is very short and minimal as you'll see. the educator shall maintain appropriate professional educator student relationships and boundaries based on a reasonably prudent educator. So when we brought this to the board in September, staff's recommendation is that we definitely need to expand on this rule so that our school districts, our superintendents will be able to recognize this behavior, thus knowing what triggers the requirement to report to TEA. Um so one of the things we discussed with the board is right like there's multiple ways to come at this. define appropriate boundaries, define inappropriate boundaries, define what a reasonably prudent educator would be. Um, and also pointed out that the board's recent definition of
066grooming could serve as a foundation um for defining inappropriate boundaries. So, I will go ahead and pause here and give you all a moment to read this and add any feedback you have um and and also like I said, more than welcome to come off mute um and discuss This is Stephen Alamman from disability rights. Sarah, I believe at one point during the meeting a board member raised a question about maybe certain students with disabilities and relating to a student with a disability and what might be sort of >> uh you know unique circumstance about what's then a boundary or not a boundary. Have you all given that any more thought? um >> is this >> right it's in my notes to do when we go out for stakeholder feedback um because we are going
067to engage in significant I think stakeholder discussions but yes that is a very good point right a boundary could be different depending on the type of student population that um an educator is dealing with but I think we will definitely rely on our subject matter experts like you all to to come in and say what that is >> yeah Stephen if there's any um initial recommendations you have or things to us to be thinking about that's always helpful for sure. I just wanted to see if that was still on your radar or not and we'll we'll follow up then. >> That would be great. Thank you. >> Okay. Um if anyone else has a comment before we move on. Okay, I think we can go to the next slide. So, um so now we're pivoting
068pivoting subject matter. We're switching to the board's new temporary suspension authority. So um the ESPC as we've discussed with them has the authority to now temporarily suspend certificates prior to the opportunity for a contested case proceeding at SOA. The statute gives the aspect two instances when they can do this. One is for an arrest which is um explicitly spelled out in statute what those offenses are and the second is to continuing an imminent threat to the public welfare. So ESP will define what constitutes continuing an imminent threat in their rules. This is what we brought to the ESPC in September, right? Some examples from other licensing agencies that have similar language in their statutes, right? Um the highlights from other agencies rules and statutes are kind of this thought process of a real danger um
069more than abstract, hypothetical or remote can include both actions and inactions, right? So kind of this idea of like it must constitute an actual real threat, not hypothetical. And so we're looking at using similar language from other agencies plus um calling out specific behaviors, right, that ESPC already has in their rules such as abuse, solicitation, romantic relationship, right? So imminent threat can be something that is a real danger, not ab not hypothetical, more than abstract or remote. Plus, it is always going to be abuse, solicitation, romantic relationship, um that kind of language. So the questions here are um does anyone have any thoughts on are there other behaviors that should be explicitly named? Um if so that's question number three in the tablet or Padlet I should say. Um and also if you'd like to
070discuss you can come off mute and we can have a conversation. Um and also want to note that these are situations where there has not been an arrest because if you have been arrested for an offense that's explicitly listed in 22A 203, you will be temporarily suspended under that statute. Just for a little bit of background context here, when we say temporary suspension, um this means that an individual's certificate is suspended um while uh the they are uh working their way through the contested case hearing process. So there are educators who have their certificate suspended by the ESPback for a certain period of time at the conclusion of the whole case processing. These are for those cases that are um so egregious that we need to remove this individual from the classroom while we work
071through the contested case hearing process. So I think uh to keep keep that in mind um as you're thinking through any additional recommendations for defining this. >> Yep, that is correct. Thanks, Jess. Um, okay. Yep. I'm seeing some good comments. Um, it could could it specifically include the grooming aspects from the previous slide? It could. Um, I think our recommendation to the board will be to include solicitation whole cloth um as part of a behavior that is always a continuing and imminent threat to public welfare. So if that is the case then the grooming definition would automatically be sucked into this rule um through through the addition of solicitation. Okay, thank you all. Appreciate the feedback. Um so our next steps begin stakeholder engagement in the survey that you'll get at the end of this
072meeting. If you um there will be a question if you would like to participate in stakeholder engagement for educator misconduct. I know as they said with the other rule chapters, right, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but what we think is kind of the most important things to highlight with you all, but there are a lot of other changes that will be implemented because of SB12 and um SB571 that will be discussed thoroughly in our stakeholder engagement sessions. So, if you would like to, you know, I'm sorry, if you would like to participate, please indicate so and we will definitely include you. And um our hope is we will bring chapters 247 and 249 back for discussion in December. hopefully um with the stakeholder engagement feedback to present to the board. >> Thanks
073Sarah. Um awesome. Well, now I am going to turn it over to William who will give some updates on the continuing approval review redesign. >> All right. Uh well, good to see you all today. Okay. So, we have been uh keeping this group updated on our continuing approval redesign and the continuing approval review pilot um in the past several meetings and um some of those uh updates were then also shared with the ESPC in September. And so, in order to not be super repetitive of some of those updates, we're going to focus on um the main updates that we were able to uh share with the ESP around our timeline. But I will give just a some quick I'm hearing some there's some struggles to hear me potentially I could >> we can hear you
074William that's good William >> lean in a little closer I do have a very you've ever seen me in person I have a very loud voice so I very rarely hear this uh so just going to run through uh the background for you all real quick so as you know uh TEA has been working on the ESPC director is for the implementation of the effective preparation framework and uh the main work that has been done there is for the redesign of the continuing approval review to provide feedback to EPS on quality uh for areas of strength um and areas of opportunity. Go to the next slide. So this is the timeline of where we are just to uh take you all back and we are in fall 2025. So we completed our first pilot in
075the spring of 2025. We spent a lot of the end of the spring and summer uh gathering their feedback, reviewing the lessons that we learned with our vendor and making some uh pretty big changes to our rubric. and we are excited to utilize that new rubric as well as some updates to our compliance check uh for those pilot programs in the fall and spring of 2025. Uh we have shouted out these programs before and we have shouted out our uh first pilots uh before but since we are focused um just on this upcoming uh pilot for uh this update just wanted to share who those uh second pilot participants are for those of you who'll be at CESO. We're going to celebrate everyone uh which is actually a lot because we had an early pilot
076is what we'll call it. Uh we're going to really celebrate everyone who has participated, but thank you to these programs uh who are currently working to prepare for their second pilot. Definitely see uh several of you in this room. So uh the main update that we wanted to provide today is as we are considering this major shift from a uh review focused on compliance to TAC to a review that really um works to provide feedback uh programs feedback on uh on quality. we uh had to make some considerations after the passing of HB2 and with um the many changes that we are really trying to learn from with our second pilot. Um so the first is uh alignment with rule updates. So in order for CAR to be a really clear process when it is
077fully redesigned and rolled out statewide, we want to make sure that that is reflected in rule and there's plenty of opportunity for stakeholder feedback um on rules specific to the redesign car. But as you all know, uh ESPC is currently engaged in very extensive rule making for uh um HB2 and the prep routes. Um and we really felt that we needed to um uh that rule making needed to precede the new rule making for CAR. Additionally, EPS are not ESP's not the only one engaged. EPS are very engaged in uh working through these new prep requirements and will continue to be. Um and therefore in 2627 we wanted to give some breathing room for EPS to uh make that a really primary area of focus. Um and additionally as you all received in past updates
078uh in this group and as we updated the ESPC we did make quite a few changes to our process into our rubric from the first to second pilot. We wanted to give ourselves plenty of time to learn uh from those changes. So the shift uh that we shared with ESPEC um in September is that we are going to uh uh plan for a statewide roll out of the redesign continuing approval review in uh year 2728 um and continue with the traditional review with some uh additional programs likely uh being targeted to uh pilot the redesign review before then uh but continue with the traditional review in 2627. seven. So a more detailed timeline of what that looks like, you can skip through the animations is uh that we are doing our second pilot and during
079this time we are also um uh doing some analysis and research on the some related uh directives around uh providing a list of approved providers and updating the commendations process. We'll be able to spend 2627 in our rulemaking process, make sure that the field is very aware of uh our process and our plans for the redesigned uh continuing approval review. Uh and all programs would then engage in that updated review that includes those quality components in 2728. So what we want to get from you all really quickly is now that we have this more expanded timeline and some breathing room, we there's a lot of questions that we want to explore and we want to make sure that when we're engaging stakeholders, we are asking the right questions as we think through the rules and
080process aligned to this redesign continuing approval review. So, what we have here is a list of questions that we feel are uh on the top of our minds and that we uh also think are likely on the top of mind for programs, but we want to just put those in front of you. Um get any feedback that you have on them and uh you can share that in the Padlet. So, just really quickly to go through those questions, we're thinking through that quality and compliance balance. So for our current pilot, we've uh adjusted quite a bit the compliance evidence uh that they have to submit in order to help them focus on submitting that quality evidence. Um but in doing that, we want to make sure that we're still maintaining a high bar for uh
081uh for compliance to TAC and confirming uh and verifying that. So what would that look like? Um there's also been uh a lot of talk about the rubric and its application to different programs. And so we want to hear from our altert programs uh from our um programs that might have their smaller um uh smaller certification routes um and uh how the rubric could definitely apply to any program that gets reviewed before we roll this out statewide. We also want to know what you need to know about the process. So we have a vendor TPIUS. What do uh what do we need them to share? What do we need to share from them that gives you insights um into the process that they have developed uh in partnership uh with us? Accountability. How should the
082car review and ASAP actually interact with each other? So that could include potentially um how the CAR review might help support um uh and provide accountability for programs uh with lowered accreditation statuses. Um all of those things that we're trying to explore. And then of course the Texas reviewer cohort um that's very much been in pilot phase. we have been able to train a good amount of Texas reviewers, but we also want to think about what is the long-term vision uh for that um and for uh your peers from EPS uh joining those reviews. So, if you have feedback on those questions uh feel free to and please pop them into the Padlet. I have one other quick update. If you can go to the next slide, Jessica, or if we have time for them
083to to look, but I think we may be trying to to push through for the rest of the updates. Okay, great. Um, so maybe then we can take like one minute to go back to those questions and any additions in the Padlet, things we should be considering. We're going to take these questions at CESOD as well, and your Padlet additions may uh may influence this the version of this slide at CESOD next week. Great. Seeing some curiosity about um what the review process actually looks like, methods, the advanced notice. I'm sure all the programs that are up for review in 2728 are going to be very curious to know uh when when they'll be prepared. All right. Um so Jessica if you want to move to the next slide. I want to just um remind
084everyone that this comes out of this broader set of uh ESPC priorities uh around the effective preparation framework and supporting EP continuous improvement. There is this element of a high element of accountability in the continuing approval review. Uh but we want to make sure that there is this balance between accountability and support as well. Um and so the car redesign is not all we're doing uh with the EPF. Uh we are also in the process if you want to go to the next slide of building an effective preparation framework uh uh library of aligned practices. So highlighted practices uh throughout the field strong examples uh of uh EPS that are implementing the essential actions and key practices from the EPF. So um this is not we do not yet have a link but just please
085keep an eye out in the EP newsletter. uh we are going to roll out a submission form for EPS that um want their practices or would love to see their practices shared and highlighted um that are aligned to the EPF. Uh so that incl could include examples, artifacts, templates, uh data sets, uh anything that you think that the field could learn from that your program is doing really well. Uh so this is just a quick plug uh to keep an eye out either in next week's or two weeks from now. um the EP newsletter will have a link to that submission form and uh we hope that this uh site will then be able to be rolled out after we collect those practices. Thanks, Jessica. >> Thanks, Liam. I'll turn it over to Beth now.
086>> All right. Good morning, everybody. Um just a quick update on another opportunity to provide some input on the TTP. So um this is an opportunity for this group to participate in the development and inform on the performance assessment. We're inviting folks from this group to provide feedback on policy and implementation resources related to the assessment. Uh rather than scheduling a separate meeting, we're going to invite folks in this meeting to basically stay after class uh and provide feedback in a in a brief session. You can indicate your interest on the survey following this meeting. Uh and we'll add it as an agenda item on an upcoming meeting once we're able to gauge interest. And then once we have some uh some real policy and implementation resources for you all to lean into. And that
087is all I have for you today. >> Thanks, Beth. >> Yep. >> Then I will turn it over to Marilyn. >> Thank you, ma'am. Um, happy Friday y'all. It's so nice to see everybody again. U, we always look forward to these meetings and I'm delighted to have an opportunity to talk a little bit about the EPS meeting structure and Cadence uh Jess is a fantastic slide whisperer and pacer. You all may remember we have we have come a long way. So, I can remember all the way back to July of 2024 when we had a a work session with the board dedicated to how we were going to transform this very group and try to do things differently and better in 2025. So, I I put this slide up here uh not in Glidden's paint
088color of the year for 2025. I maybe should have uh had some more exciting colors, but in all honesty, we had three major goals with this group this year. We wanted to make sure uh we broadened, if you will, the voices and the representation coming into this circle. Uh we wanted to have you all feel like these meetings were worthy of your time and that you were getting important things out of it and felt like this was really a two-way conversation and you had opportunity. And then it gave us a great opportunity to sort of revamp our website page which um as you know changed from EPSG to EPSC. We love a good E acronym when we can use one. And so uh based on a lot of feedback I think we've been able to
089come a long way and it's it's wonderful to have this meeting to pause and sort of celebrate some of those things. on the on the very next slide. Um I wanted to try to give maybe an overview since this is our last scheduled meeting for the year of exactly how far we have come. Uh we've spent in a legislative session year five meetings quality time together on top of everything else that's on people's plates. And I think we can't say enough about the fact that we have been able to rely on you all to come and to show up uh and to show out in cases uh with fantastic feedback uh thoughtful feedback, ideas, uh impactful things that have led as you see through these boxes uh to some really successful collaborations and work this
090year and an opportunity for us to sort of even move forward in the new coming year in 2020. 26 for even more things. Uh we've had you all tell us uh on the next slide Jess uh I think is going to be just I wanted to pause here from those surveys that I stalk you about each time in a meeting. I wanted to take from each one from the very first one uh through the last one a couple of high points that I think are important for us to pause for a moment and celebrate around. Uh, I will give a a a plug again on that second one. The little Padlet when we started introducing this and I was one of the older people on the team going, I'm gonna blow a Padlet up if
091I try to use it. That Padlet has has been it seems life-changing in some of these meetings. In a way, I appreciated the commenter at the time, the opportunity to be fully engaged in a meeting, but if I didn't want to really speak out, I still had a way to give meaningful feedback as you're reading these comments. Also, I think it was it was helpful and encouraging to us to see that other people saw the expanded voices coming to the table and more opportunity to engage with a lot of different perspectives and people who are all engaged in this work and wanting to do the right things for kids in education. uh a couple of opportunities that we'll take into 2026 based on your direct feedback also is just how we structure some of these
092meetings. And as we said at the beginning of the kickoff at 10:00, we always have a lot of important information that we want to bring forward, continuing to push the needle on the ways that we organize these meetings, the additional opportunities. Uh Beth said it well to kind of keep you after class when it makes sense to do so and kind of tap your fountains of wisdom while we're still hot on topics. Uh but going into also many of you have commented before about the opportunities maybe in the next year for some individual breakout sessions kind of break out come back. So, we just wanted to capture on this slide, we are listening and hear you and have things that we can continue to improve on going into the next year. The very last comment
093was a recent request that we were so grateful for and we were happy and excited about adding information in the EP newsletter about this meeting and we had some additional folks take us up on wanting to be registered to attend the sessions today. So, we're excited about continuing to expand the invitations and the opportunities to be with us in this very meeting. Jess, I think if we go ahead to the very next slide, I have I got to even use the Padlet. So, uh I I've got these questions uh in the leadoff spot here. Uh and would welcome the opportunity to get some of your feedback. you can come off uh mute and respond to some of these questions, but also would love it if you would take a few minutes and sort of maybe
094populate some things in the Padlet for us. We're hoping that you felt differently and better and positive about the work that we tried to put in this year uh for this EPS stakeholder meeting experience that if you remember in January I touted like a Vegas residency for an educational group but also we always understand uh this whole team works in a a mindset of of growth mindset and and continuous improvement. if there are things that we can still expand on, we're open to that and would welcome the feedback there. And then just going into 2026, we're going to be together again, going on tour five more times next year. Are there particular pieces of feedback you would like to order or offer rather about um the meeting structure and cadence in 2026? So, I'll quit
095talking for a minute and give you guys a chance if you would either continue populating the Padlet or if anyone wants to come off mute and give some feedback. This is the um safe circle in which we'd love to hear your melodic voices if you'd like to share something. >> And Marilyn, just a note that on the Padlet, it's the very lefth hand column. Um, so there's one question for each one of >> Thank you, boss. You're so good. I always have to kind of work on my dramatic pause game, but then I'm also um mindful of time. So, what I'm just going to say to folks is please you you see where this section is on the Padlet. If there are additional thoughts, we we'd welcome that feedback there. Um, but just in the
096interest of time, I know we have a couple of other topics too. I think I have a couple of other slides. I wanted to get this out in front of you all for sure. And you'll you'll see these dates again. We sort of followed much like we do with ESPC meetings and SBOE similar cadence of times. It's usually the second Friday uh in these months. So, I went ahead and populated these dates. You'll see them again. Um, but just to give you a preview of where we're trying to head in 2026. Um, last time you all were really good about if there was something happening that was going to take all of you away or problematic with an event. You know, we want to hear from you about that as well. But this gives you
097kind of like an early preview of uh meeting dates for 2026. And then just I think on my very last slide, I think it was just again that that pause for appreciation. You know, uh this world many times people don't take enough time to stop and say thank you. This team is really good about doing that. Uh we are grateful beyond measure for your continuous showing up for us and with us and the conversations and the the collaborations and just hope you you know how much we appreciate you and hopefully that you feel that appreciation, that level of respect uh for all that you do and continue to bring to the table uh and your partnership with us. I bet if I was well behaved, that might be it for me. So, I tried to
098behave myself today and be succinct, but thank you all for everything. I really appreciate it. >> Thank you, Marilyn. Um, and definitely just reinforcing Marilyn's gratitude um for uh the support that you all have provided over the course of the past year and all the input you've provided. It's really helped um inform um our work. Um so speaking of our work, uh we've got a SBOE meeting in November and the next SPEC meeting set for um in early December. Um on deck for SBOE, as I named at the beginning of um this meeting, the ESPC adopted one item at adoption during September, and that was chapter 229, their accountability rules. So, those rules will now go to the SBOE for review in November. Um, on the December ESPEC agenda, we're still working on finalizing that
099agenda with um the board chair. Um, but a few things of note. We do anticipate that being a two-day meeting in December um similar to our September meeting. Um given I think as y'all saw the the robust discussion the the board had around um a number of big pieces of policy those discussions I imagine will only be more robust um when we have rule texts for them to um review etc. Uh but you can anticipate as uh my team shared additional rounds of discussion on um HB2 related rule chapters. Uh so chapters 228, 227 and 230. Um and additional discussion on educator misconduct. Um so chapter 247 our code of ethics and uh 249 our um misconduct rules. Um and then we do anticipate bringing forward at adoption um the chapter 231 personnel assignment rules
100um that were proposed at the um last meeting. Um additional items on the agenda again we're still norming with the chair on um but we'll certainly keep uh stakeholders updated as we move forward. Um, with that, appreciate folks um, actively using our chat today and raising questions as they had them, but I did want to give pause. Y'all, there were a moment we thought we were going to be running way over time, but uh, folks were efficient with their with their time. So, we've got a good seven minutes left if there's any additional questions um that folks um had that we haven't had a chance to address for you throughout our time here. And I love the Marilyn love in the chat. All right. Well, uh, again, um, I just really appreciate everyone and appreciate
101y'all's use of the Padlet today. This is just a really solid jumping off point for us as we continue to refine um, these recommendations. Uh Sandra, I appreciate your note in the chat too. We look forward to um seeing many many of you at the CESO conference next week and looking forward to an additional engagement. We are doing our office hours again um this year at CESO. So if there's a specific programmatic question that you didn't get a chance to raise here, but you'd like to to chat with us on, we will be there um and doing office hours. Um and I know thank you um uh for asking about the uh meeting participant survey. We are going to put that in the chat. Thank you Marilyn. Um your uh feedback to us again as
102Marilyn um highlighted is really important to us as we uh look to continue to refine these practices into the new year. Um, and so any feedback you have for us on ways that we can make these, uh, meetings more effective or efficient is greatly appreciated. Um, with that, um, I will follow up if there's any additional postwork for this group, but otherwise just want to say thank you. Um, oh, says we need access to the form. We will Oh, thanks Marilyn. Yeah, we'll work on uh that access and send it to you as a followup. Um, all right. Well, then I appreciate everyone's time today and I hope everyone who's traveling to Seeso has safe travels and look forward to seeing everyone soon. Thanks.