001Just as a reminder, this is the ESPback rulemaking process. For those who are tuning in online, welcome. We just did introductions and norms. Now we're getting into the meat of the call. Um uh and as a reminder, the goal of our EPS stakeholder group is to really um leverage this group of experts to gather input and feedback and actively collaborate on topics that are related to educator preparation, certification, enforcement, and educator support. Um that really can help inform um and refine policy recommendations um for the ESPback and for the broader work um that uh our team here leads at the TEA. Um so we've had three um meetings with this reconvened group um and are holding our fourth here today. We have one additional meeting um this calendar year in October after the September aspect
002meeting. Um but as we will share in some of our um in some of our item updates throughout this meeting today uh we also have a number of additional stakeholder opportunities between now and the end of the calendar year um to get additional input um as we work to implement legislation and other priorities of the board. Um just a few reminders around our meeting norms um for both our EPS stakeholders and our TEA staff as we work to um continue to refine and improve our communication processes and then um just to ground us in today's agenda. So today we're going to um kick off as we traditionally do by giving an a sort of an overview of what was discussed during the most recent ESP meeting. In July, the ESPC holds an annual work session
003and so we'll give both an update on the work session and the board meeting itself. Um we'll then spend a little bit of time actually talking through some of the content that was shared during the um ESPback work session specifically related to legislative implementation and then talk a little bit about um plans for September um ESPback and SBOE meeting um as we go forward. We'll then round out with some um updates around TTP um stakeholder engagement processes and continuing approval review redesign and then leave space for additional questions from um meeting participants. Um as we get started wanted to start first by giving some highlights on the July work session and board meeting. Um, first, uh, we really appreciate the privilege each year of getting to spend a full day with the board in a
004in a less formal, uh, work session setting where we, the board has an opportunity to really roll up their sleeves and, uh, really set some of their priorities and and discuss, uh, key areas for alignment as they go into um, the upcoming academic year. Um and during the work session, uh the board had an opportunity to really dig deeply into um a number of pieces of legislation that specifically impact the SPEC's work. Um in particular, they spent uh some some quality time. Someone told me it was four and a half hours. I felt like a blink of an an eye as we were in the midst of the discussion. Um but uh spent a good amount of time talking about House Bill 2, specifically articles two and three related to educator preparation and the educator
005bill of rights as as that is um a legislation that specifically uh charges the ESPback with action. Then also a number of bills related to educator conduct um including Senate Bill 571, House Bill 4623 and Senate Bill 12. Um and then we also u just naming here that house bill um 1178 um was also mentioned for the board around temporary certification for out of state educators. Um but we did not go deeply on that bill during the work session. Um this was really an opportunity for the board to ask questions and build shared context as we then uh move into this upcoming um academic year as we begin the rulem to implement these specific pieces of legislation. Um, Trisha, initial question on your end. >> Yeah, I just wanted to let you guys know that
006there are a whole bunch of heat that people who say that they're waiting. You can't get in. >> Huh? I don't see I've been monitoring the waiting room. >> It might be a different meeting invite. >> They might be in the old meeting invite. Let me do this. Um, can someone grab the um the link to the Zoom and put it in the chat here? Um, >> yeah, I'll put both. It's Cameron. I'll put the registration and the meeting link in this chat. >> Just give me a few minutes. >> Yeah, I think Ally um I think multiple folks have put it in the chat. So, um I think if Trisha if you wouldn't or whoever is in contact with folks wouldn't mind sharing. Apologies y'all. we had a um a team transition and so
007um we needed to update our invite links and so um we appreciate everyone um navigating with us. I was wondering why there were only 28 um folks in the meeting today. I was uh anticipating additional attendees. So uh looking forward to additional folks uh coming on board here in a second. I appreciate you naming that for us, Trisha. Um, so continuing to move on, uh, we, the board then during their board meeting, I think we, I can't, you know, I have to go back in the history books, but I think we may have set the record for the shortest actual board meeting um, in quite some time at least. um the board rounded out before u noon on uh on Friday just given the um kind of rounding out the rule making cycle um that
008we engaged in during the legislative session and know knowing um kind of the slate of new uh work that the board would pick up um coming out of legislative session but they did take action on a few key areas. Um they approved an additional slate of teacher residency programs. Um they adopted the repeal and the replacement of the chapter 235 um uh classroom stand classroom teacher standards as it relates to supplemental and special education areas. That was um again to implement house bill um oh my gosh all the h it's it's too many sessions ago 22 2256 I'm looking at Beth in my the bill that required us to implement a bilingual special education certificate. Um and so that will go on to the SBOE here um at their next meeting. Um the the board
009spent the the the bulk of their time uh digging into um chapter 229 uh specifically talking about up their annual updates to the ASEP accountability system um and then voted to move forward at proposal. Um, finally, the board had a uh took action, one additional piece of action to designate a temporary suspension committee um which Sarah will actually next talk a little bit more around what that process will entail. And then finally, they um received updates on um the TTP development process, which again we'll talk a little bit more about today, and then had an initial discussion around updates to chapter 231 personnel assignments. Um, I will pause before we transition into um a look at the legislative session. Again, we're going to go a little bit deeper into some of the content we shared
010during the work session. But pause here to see if there were any general questions from the group related to um maybe in particular topics from Friday's ESPback meeting. and welcome those who've uh joined us. Uh apologies again. I know there was a some confusion with the the calendar invite links um as we've had a transition on our team, but appreciate you all uh uh joining us. We've just gotten started. Uh so I just did a quick preview uh a quick review of the July aspect meeting content but now we're getting to the the the meat and potatoes of our uh time together today. Um then if there's no additional questions on um the July meeting then I am going to transition us um to talk a little bit about some of the content that we
011shared with the board um during the work session um specifically related to implementation of legislation that came out of this most recent sess session. Um we shared with the board uh during their work session and that we the the legislature was was busy this goound with um bills related to preparation, certification and enforcement. Um and there were five bills that were signed by the governor that require action on the part of the aspect. Um and uh during the work session we spent time going most um specifically into Senate Bill 571, Senate Bill 12, and then House Bill 2. I'm going to pass it over to Sarah who's going to talk a little bit more about um what we discussed as related to uh Senate Bill 571 and Senate Bill 12 and then I'll share a
012little bit about House Bill 2. Here you go Sarah. >> Good morning everyone. So these are the three bills that we discussed with the ESPC um related to educator misconduct at the work session. The big one for educator misconduct being SB571 um which kind of touches on all things educator misconduct and um employee misconduct and and really expands the do not hire registry to match aspect sanctions as well as capture individuals who are contractors of school districts. The next one was HB4623. This was just kind of an FYI to the aspect that this um new chapter provides that a public school that is grossly negligent or reckless in hiring, supervising or employing a school employee is liable for an act or omission committed by that employee um for failure to report or sexual misconduct. So
013the big highlight here is it basically creates a waiver of governmental immunity for individuals to sue school districts and allows for an award of damages and attorneys fees. Um, so those of those of you that work with school districts or governmental entities, right, it's it's always a big deal when uh the legislature creates a new waiver of governmental immunity for these entities to be sued. And then the last one being SB12. The majority of SB12 does not um touch on the ESPC because it mostly relates to parental rights and grievances, but it did create some definitions and specifically call out um ESP having sanctions as related to some of these ideas. And um so one of the big new scopes of work coming out of SB571 is temporary suspensions. Uh the ESPC now has the
014authority to temporarily suspend an educator pending a contested case hearing at SOA. So basically think of it as on the front end of the SOA process versus on the back end after it's gone through the full process and a PFD and come before the board to adopt. Um there are two types of temporary that are created in SB571. Arrest, which the statute clearly defines what the arrests are that trigger these provisions. So that's well um set out in statute. And the second one is continuing an imminent threat to public welfare. And ESPEC has full discretion to determine what continuing an imminent threat means in their rules, which is very common. Um this language is is very similar to other language found in other licensing agency statutes as well. And then we're going to walk through
015um the temporary suspension process. So ESPCA appoints a fivep person temporary suspension committee asterisk. They did that at the board meeting in July. So that has already been done. Um the agency will receive an arrest or an imminent threat complaint, right? And it will go to our educator investigations division just like any complaint would. An investigation will be completed by our educator investigations committee. And then if it meets the threshold um it will be it will be sent to an ESPEC committee meeting right with an agenda. It will be a public meeting just like any meeting of the ESPC. Um they can meet the statute provides they can meet in person or by phone. Um it they will hold a with notice meeting which means that it'll be posted as an open meeting. The person
016the respondent will be given notice of the open meeting and that their certificate will be considered for temporary suspension at the meeting. And then if staff meets their burden, the committee would issue a temporary suspension order and the person is also temporarily placed on the DNH, right? Because think of them as kind of concurrent now and lining up. So temporary placement on the DH and then it will get sent to SOA where SOA will hold a hearing within 17 days to determine if probable cause exist and then a final hearing on the merits will be held at 60 at 61 days. So that's that's a really fast turnaround time for SOA hearings um for those of you that are familiar with it. The only caveat here is if it's based on an arrest, the 61
017days does not kick in until there's been a final disposition in the criminal matter. So imminent threat hearings, it's 61 days from the 17 days always. There's no getting around that. And then um if it's an arrest, it's 61 days from the final disposition. And that that will be a normal full contested hearing as we're used to, as the ESPC is used to. And then it would um come back before the board as a PFD and it will be set on the next board agenda. And I think this is the timeline. So we're fast approaching September already. We plan to bring this as a discussion item from the ES for the ESPC in September. Hold stakeholder engagement meetings between September and October. Um the proposal we're aiming for December of 2025 with hopefully an adoption
018in February and then on to the SBOE in April of 2026. And I will pause here to see if anyone has any questions about any of the uh educator misconduct legislation. Okay, thank you all. >> Thanks Sarah. Um and there has uh been guidance that's already been shared with um LEAs related to some of this misconduct um guid some of this misconduct legislation and we'll continue um to if you monitor our 89th legislature web page there will be additional guidance that will be shared with eleas as we go forward. Um so now going to turn our attention to some of the content that we discussed with the ESPback um related to their role in implementation of House Bill 2, specifically how um House Bill 2 addresses and incentivizes quality preparation. Um, so I think just
019kind of a a headline, um, House Bill 2, Article 2 represents a pretty historic investment in teacher preparation in Texas and probably frankly nationally. Um, and when at full scale, um, this will look like over $400 million invested in teacher preparation and certification annually in the state of Texas. And that funding will be provided through a consistent source of funding uh via an an entitlement. Um so this is an entitlement that's offered through the foundation school program. It's called an aotment um that will be offered as consistent funding to districts and preparation programs that qualify. Um and in total it um makes an LEA eligible to fund up to 200 candidates, aspiring teachers, and mentors annually per district. uh really supporting building that that robust pipeline um and again with the the potential to impact
020our 5 million plus students in Texas and our over a thousand school districts. So exciting stuff. Um just to name as well that um in in implementing House Bill 2 um there was a real throughine if you look at in particular the uh preparing and retaining educators um preparing and retaining educators through partnership programs and a lotment you'll see a throughine of this reinforcement of partnership um and I think that's really reinforcing um because it's really mirrors uh priorities that are reflected in the effective preparation framework regarding P12 partnership and some of the core components in the effective district framework as it relates to building strong talent systems. Um so knowing we've got these um strong visions or foundations for success in the state. Um and House Bill 2 is an opportunity to really link
021these meaningfully together to create a a broader um ecosystem of talent in the state. Um and we know that uh central to a strategic talent strategy is ensuring that teachers are well supported and prepared. And we um have had discussions with this um group many times around you know some of the components that the research tells us really make the difference uh for teachers being wellprepared and effective. Um that really coming down to do teachers have opportunities for classroom practice before they are the teacher of record. Do they deeply know their content and are they well coached and supported um through throughout their preparation and into their novice teaching experience? Um and so as we uh look to the research um that really kind of underlines the foundation of um the new programs established within
022House Bill 2, Article 2. But we do recognize that in our current system u preparation can vary greatly as it relates to these core components. We know uh our current pathways vary by quality, vary by time, and there has not been up until now state funding to support them. But within HB2, it formally codifies multiple preparation routes into the classroom and defines um those that have pre-ervice practice and quality curriculum as ones that receive additional funding from the state. Um so in particular it defined in statute a residency preparation route, a traditional undergraduate preparation route and a new pre-ervice alternative certification preparation route while maintaining um alternative certification and also maintaining in some instances flexibility for districts through their district of innovation plan to hire uncertified teachers. Um, more broadly, uh, HB2 incentivizes this overarching
023talent system, um, by thinking not just about improving the quality of preparation, but also supporting recruitment of individuals into the profession and mentorship of these individuals once they are teachers of record and does this through the development of the prep programs and the prep a lotment. So the prep programs include five programs under the broader prep umbrella. It includes a grow your own partnership program, a set of three uh pre-ervice preparation programs that include residency, traditional, and alternative pres-ervice preparation, and a mentor program um component. It funds up to um 40 folks in each one of these categories annually with a nuance here that across the traditional and alternative it's a collective 80 that can be spread across um both of those uh programs and this there's new state funding that flows to both the
024LEA and the educator preparation program um where they are part of the process um to support strong implementation of these systems. Um and then one additional uh clarification is that for those f programs that are funded via prep, there's also additional requirements related to training and content. Um so it builds this strong ecosystem of recruitment, development, and support. Um that is coupled with uh the phase out of uncertified teacher hiring through district of innovation plans in core content subjects. um but also sets out a set of incentives to support um that transition as well. Um so when we think about building this strategic talent system that's really uh envisioned within House Bill 2 and we could see a future in which our new higher workforce um has substantial and quality preparation really flipping um the
025current reality in which uh the majority of our teachers are coming in uncertified to a reality in which the majority of our teachers are coming with quality pre-ervice preparation. and then really providing better choices and better experiences for our candidates. So, knowing in our current ecosystem in many instances our our candidates are enrolling in an an IICh um and balancing a full-time role and coursework um as they seek to complete a bachelor's degree. they might need to independently find a preparation program online and are in many cases seeking to enroll in the option that's the most cost-effective or fastest option. And then in many cases, our teachers currently are relying on their teaching team or kind of the um unofficial mentors in their buildings to provide guidance and support and in many cases they are
026funding this independently. The vision with prep is that ideally our candidates, our prospective educators are enrolled in an ICE that's partnered with a district where maybe they serve currently as a pair professional and they receive release time and early training in as they complete their coursework and work towards the required bachelor's degree uh credit hours to metriculate into a preparation program where they have opportunities for extended pres-ervice practice and quality training. and then once they become that teacher of record receive consistent coaching and support from a well-trained mentor. So really this is the the future vision that we hope to work to support um in partnership with the board and candidates receive funding throughout this process um in particular. So we spent some time with the board during the work session specifically talking about um
027what the board is charged to do to establish requirements for all preparation programs and additional prepar and additional requirements for preparation programs that are engaged in the prep aotment. Um and this really falls into three buckets. The board needs to define new preparation routes. They need to establish training requirements. and they need to codify an approach to review and approve preparation programs. Um, first to offer these new preparation routes and second on a continuing basis via a quality review. Again, these were the kind of key components they were charged with in statute. I'm going to talk through um some of these components. I would say as I as I talk through this, if folks have questions, please feel free. I'm kind of keeping my eye on the screen. There's a a lot of information here
028and so please feel free to interrupt me with questions and I'll try to pause at some um key intervals to to also um ask for um questions and and clarifications. Um first I think it's helpful to ground in the board's requirements within HB2. So it specifically requires the ESPC to set requirements for all teacher preparation programs across the state. and then in addition charges the ESPback with uh establishing additional requirements for those preparation programs that are engaging in a prepf funded preparation pathway. So throughout the deck you're going to see kind of things that are orange are all preparation programs across the state. The aspect will be charged with implementing um rules um and requirements for all prep pathways. And then places where you see green, those are specific additional requirements for preparation programs to
029that choose to engage in a prepf funded pathway. So let's start out uh first by uh looking at the new preparation routes. Um and again here grounding back in our the key research around classroom practice and mentorship and coaching. Um so specifically for all educator preparation programs, HB2 requires that um well first of all codifies in statute for the first time um the specific routes in educator preparation and defines specific requirements for them. So starting first in the in the the top row, it defines in statute a teacher residency preparation pathway that um pretty much largely mirrors the aspects current requirements with two additional clarifications. Um one, it limits asynchronous coursework um but does provide a pathway for the aspect to create parameters by which they would approve a program delivering asynchronous coursework. And then
030second, it applies um some content restrictions to align with content restrictions that apply to uh school systems across the state and defines specifically in statute that those that complete the residency pathway would earn the enhanced standard certification. Um second, it defines the traditional uh preparation pathway. Again, this largely mirrors the aspect's current requirements, but also layers on those same asynchronous coursework restrictions and content restrictions and defines that those candidates that go through a traditional pathway would move to a standard certificate. Third, it um codifies in statute the alternative preparation pathway, our current pathway. Um and this really mirrors the aspects requirements and applies just the content restrictions. So for clarity, the asynchronous coursework requirement does not apply to what I would call our existing alternative preparation pathway. In the statute though, it carves out a
031new pre-ervice alternative pathway. Um, and this uh this defines this new route which the ESPC will be charged with defining the parameters for um I think an example of what this could look like is something similar to the aspect's current intensive pre-ervice pathway. And for this pathway, it does limit the asynchronous coursework and applies the content restrictions. Um, in this instance, these candidates would go on a um distinct um intern certificate. It would be titled the intern with pre-ervice certificate and then metriculate to the standard. Whereas our intern would go from an intern certificate to the standard. Um so the we discussed with the board during the work session and that there's a kind of few key things that they will be engaged in over the course of their next few meetings as they kind
032of define these parameters in rule. Um first they need to define the requirements for a new pre-ervice alternative pathway. This is where we're really looking forward to engaging deeply with stakeholders on um what those parameters um should look and sound like. Um they are also charged. We also uh put to the board the opportunity to consider adjustments to the current alternative pathway given this new pre-ervice alternative route is now codified in statute. Are there areas where they might want to reconsider some of the current requirements given this new route coming on board? Um they also need to define the process by which they would approve the asynchronous delivery of coursework and um define and establish structures to verify that EP coursework complies with the content restrictions um that the bill outlines as well. I will
033pause there because we're going to kind of get next into the additional requirements for um prep funded pathways. Any additional any initial clarifying questions um that folks have? >> Jessica's Holly. >> Morning. >> Yeah, I wanted to ask about the second bullet under um consider adjustments to the current alternative pathway. Um, you know, I know there's language in the statute that kind of gets at this that's pretty broadly written and, um, I just wondered whether there was any I is is are these adjustments going to include anything about changing the uh, certification tests that these folks take or is the thought that they will continue to take the same test that everyone else takes. >> I I you know I think there's been an a number of discussions I think kind of over the course
034of the past year and beyond with with stakeholders around alternative certification. Are there certain flexibilities we should take into consideration around the length of the internship when an individual takes certain certification exams etc. And so I think that's where we'll really want to put some ideas in front of the board um and really hear from stakeholders around kind of, you know, where do we, you know, I think we've heard pretty clearly from the board to earn a standard certificate in Texas. We want that to have like a clear, you know, a clear and consistent bar for demonstration of success. But when and how you know someone works through their preparation to get and demonstrate that bar for success is something that we um you know I think the board has uh named that there could
035be some flexibility there and and particularly I'm thinking about um you know the fact that right now folks have to take both the content and the pedigogy test and I guess that's kind of where I'm going with this. Yep. >> Would that be something encompassed within this this consideration adjustment? >> I think you know we will uh kind of discuss with the board. I think I we have not heard a lot of appetite from the board on like shifting the certification exam requirements themselves. But I do think there potentially could be some appetite for and we'll have some discussions around when someone needs to complete those certification exams potentially. Got it. Great. Yes, I appreciate that. Thank you. >> No, absolutely. >> Hi, Jessica. This is Alexandra. I have a question as well. Please. Hello.
036Good morning. >> Um, has there been any discussion on kind of with all of these changes with HB2 and when it's going to be live with the existing 228 and the transition to the new rule set, especially from the old to the new, just the timing of everything all coming together. uh seems tough. >> Absolutely. No, you're it's like you're uh reading our TEA staff's minds as we've been thinking about uh you know uh recommendations to put uh before the board in September. And I think we'll want to really work in concert with with you know program faculty to really kind of understand you know what are the implications with with bringing 228 online. there's going to be some like rolling requirements and so we'll want to make sure that we are like very precise
037in our transition provision language with the board and so um you know because we know a lot of these requirements in new 228 are just coming online. The good news is there um are very limited uh components of new 228 that are like expressly contradicted by um by HB2. But I think there's some opportunities for additional flexibility. And so I think there's we'll kind of talk through those timeline challenges as we go forward too. >> Yeah. And especially with the August 31st, 2026 requirement to have everyone to the new rule set which for alternative programs means they need to be on the intern this fall. So it's a pretty immediate impact. >> Absolutely. No. So we will that's uh something that we will really engage in discussion with stakeholders around and kind of and really
038name that for the board as we uh work with them in September and then kind of really do a whole bunch of stakeholder engagement throughout the fall. >> Awesome. And then just one more um question. On one of the slides we had talked about the the different routes and on the kind of the alter with revised like very paired down requirements. Have there been discussions about the accountability framework? Because the accountability framework for residencies and then an even more paired down alsert program seems to that there would be some tweaks there to account for the different delivery models. >> You know, I think um we certainly again as we go forward with the board and they work to to implement these routes. Um I think you know they do have a statutory requirement related to
039their accountability framework. You know, I think that there there are questions I think that will naturally arise that we'll kind of engage with the board and stakeholders on. But thanks for raising that. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Excellent. Then um going to now layer on. So again, orange is all prep programs and then kind of within that there's additional requirements for those preparation programs that choose to engage in the prep aotment. So, one thing I should probably just name up front is that um if I'm a let's say a traditional preparation program and for some reason I do not want to engage in the prep aotment um I need to meet these requirements but I do not need to meet the requirements of um prep funded program. So only if you are actively engaged in
040the prep aotment um that that's when the additional requirements for that pathway kick in. Um and so within HB2, uh the three preparation pathways that require pre-ervice practice are eligible to partner with an LEA to establish a prep pre-ervice partnership program and pull down that prep aotment. Um so engaging in the uh rep pre-ervice partnership program that's defined in statute does require um the EP and LEA to provide high quality practice based preparation. Um, it requires the ed prep program to also embed high-quality state developed content including reading and mathmies and other prioritized content um by the agency and also requires training and certification of facilitators of that content. It requires the prep program to establish a formal partnership with an LEA and embed extensive practice into their um into their work within the school
041and then they would draw down prep ament funding that is tied to success of the candidate. This is kind of the overall set of requirements. I think if you're would see kind of the high quality practice-based preparation and extensive practice are kind of already embedded within the aspects uh framework for both residency and traditional preparation and again they need to define those components for the new pres-ervice alternative and the really kind of the lion share of the new requirements would be the formal partnerships with an LEA and the new um high quality state developed content. So aligned to these again additional requirements for prep funded pathways um this would require the ESPback to define these new partnerships um likely as a distinct pathway in rule. So thinking about you've got your prep residency pathway and
042you have your non-prep residency pathway. Um and so defining what that looks and sounds like is something that we're going to continue to work with the board through. We do think that there these likely need to be distinct pathways in the rule. Um and then in addition the the board would need to establish the new training requirements, new facilitator certification requirements, and also consider if there's any updates to coaching and support requirements that align with this new content. Um so clicking in specifically into the training content requirements and the preparation program approval processes now and again this is specifically for those programs that are engaged in prep um and uh some clarification on all programs again grounding in um the uh content knowledge um kind of factor related to best practice. Well, my animations are
043a little fun on this slide. Um, but as I named earlier, uh, programs that are engaged in a prepf funded pres-ervice pathway are required to embed this high-quality state developed content um, in their program. Um, and again clicking on the the action that the spec needs to take. So, under House Bill 2, generally the ESPC now has content oversight in a few key areas. First, as it relates to uh prep funded pathways, again, it requires reading and math academy completion. Here we would see this applied to EC6 and E EC3 um EC3 and EC6 core subjects pathways, but also provides funding to the preparation program u for completion of those um reading and mathmies. Second, it requires that the agency develop content for routes that are funded by the prep aotment and spec approval of
044those routes. So this establishes the agency the agency authority to develop additional instructional materials. Um requires that all funded EPS embed that content into their coursework that their faculty is trained and certified in delivery of the content and that um the vetting of that coursework would be integrated into the SPEC approval process to offer the pathway. Um third uh an additional content oversight that we've already discussed is um the uh aspect now as broader authority to review curriculum for compliance with content restrictions. And then lastly, it also defines um in the board's um in the board's authority to conduct continuing approval reviews that include a review of quality indicators and observation of practices which the SPEC is already um underway in doing in their continuing approval review redesign process. So this is kind of the
045big picture um as it relates to um the EP content development requirements. We discussed with the ESPC um the a process by which we would uh work through the development of a suite of content that would meet the requirements of House Bill 2 both reading and mathmies and um some initial proposed additional content developed by the agency. Um EP faculty and staff would then be trained on that. um content certified to redeliver the content and be provided ongoing support with implementation. And then um the board would also develop the structures by which they would uh review and approve preparation programs um to offer the prep funded pathways given these content requirements are connected to the prep program being approved to participate in prep. Um during the ASPEC meeting, we had a conversation with the board
046about um some required and then proposed content suite that's really grounded in the ESPEC's educator standards which as you all know we've been through a process of updating over the course of the past year. So the statute um specifically states that uh for prep funded pathways candidates need to complete reading and mathmies and that would be for um candidates in aligned certification categories. Um in addition again as I named earlier the statute also gives the the agency authority to develop additional instructional materials um for approval by the board. Um and so we named um some initial content that we've heard from uh stakeholders in the field could be beneficial uh to support other legislative requirements and support just kind of general needs in the field. Um so as you all know um uh we recently
047in the last legislative session there were requirements that all educator preparation programs um provide training for teacher candidates on use of the open education resources approved by the ESPC. um the educator standards were updated to align with those kind of foundational knowledge and skills. And we've been in the process of actually piloting with a number of preparation programs um some foundational content that could be used in educator preparation programs to meet the requirements um in law. And so uh here we've discussed with the ESPC the potential to develop an even broader set of content specific HQIM foundational skills courses that really equip um educators to be skillful users of blue bonnet learning our state OEER approved by the SBOE and other highquality instructional materials that have been approved by the SBOE. So I think um
048Dina I'm seeing your question in um in the chat here. I think this would be both uh thinking about training and support for for folks to be skillful users of Blue Bonnet um in those grade levels and subject areas where it's applicable, but also recognizing that the SBOE, you know, as we go into this next year, they're going to be reviewing and approving CTE high quality instructional materials, etc. So, ensuring that all teacher candidates have kind of that the content specific HQM foundational skill knowledge. Um and then uh lastly, we we know kind of a a consistent air throughine we heard uh frankly all the way back to the teacher vacancy task force. Um and we heard it um as we were discussing um updates to the educator standards was really that oftentimes uh discipline
049management, classroom management are a consistent area of challenge particularly for our novice teachers. Um and so also proposed to the aspect for their consideration um the the inclusion of some centralized content related to discipline management practices. And then uh finally reinforce that across this content suite um you know really grounding in the board's educator standards ensuring that um educators have knowledge and skills to address the needs of all student groups would be embedded across this content. um implement science of learning practices embedded throughout this content and then really kind of grounding in best practices in um training and preparation. So integrating intentional practice, structured coaching and evaluation. Thanks uh Stephen. I see your note on um the the including proactive training on crisis prevention. Um we will certainly be working with stakeholders as we move
050forward and get further direction from the board around what the content of this training would look and sound like. So looking forward to continued collaboration there. Excellent. I am going to pause here um before I transition on to talk about the um kind of the review and approval process. Um any initial questions? >> Yes. Again, this is Holly. Hey, >> hello again. Okay. So, my question is, is um is there going to be a point when the board will take a a vote or official action to adopt this content or adopt these? Well, I guess these requirements for purposes of and this is for programs in the prep aotment, right? >> Correct. This is just for programs in the prep aotment. they'd be required to um imple they are required to implement reading and mathmies
051and then other content uh um developed by the agency that's been approved by the board. >> Right. >> So, so will the board be making taking a formal vote on that or how does that approve what is that approval look? >> So, that would that would look like we are currently thinking that that will look like um >> within the board's chapter 228 requirements. they would include right in their curriculum components include specific requirements. Does that answer your question, Holly? >> Okay. Okay. Perfect. And then um the reading and I'm seeing the question in the chat around readingmies applying to four through eight um ELR um that is I think actually a question for the board um that we'll want to kind of circle back around on knowing that you know STR exam is required
052for EC6 and and therefore our 48 um through grade six so therefore applies to our 48 categories. I think we need to to norm with the board on like the broader applicability of readingmies. It's very explicit currently that it should because the readingmies go through grade three. It it definitely needs to be embedded within EC3 and EC6 and we'll discuss with the board about additional grade levels and subject areas. All right. And as a confirmation, the readingmies and the mathmies um apply to the prep a lotment programs only. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. So this only applies to um the residency, the traditional and the pre-ervice alternative that are engaged in the prep aotment. Thanks. Um so we do envision that the board will need to go through a process by which they um review and
053approve preparation programs to offer these new prepf funded routes um so that they can verify that the programs are implementing the content requirements and have those formal partnerships with eleas. Um and so as we move forward, we discussed with the ESPEC a process by which we would engage in potentially an prep interim approval. Um I'm going to use the analogous of the the teacher residency preparation route approval process that that many of you have been walking through over the course of the past few months. Um uh in that instance, those programs submit a plan um for how they plan on complying with the requirements in um code and then that is reviewed and approved by the board. And then in the board's rules, it requires that um that we go back and review programs for
054compliance uh with their plan uh after their first round of completers. We would see the the initial thought we proposed to the board, but again we will talk through this with them further in their rulemaking process was to do something similar here. um a a an interim approval. That would essentially be a desk review to verify program components and um that the necessary content requirements are integrated and then potentially a full approval that would happen um sometime afterward and could potentially be integrated into the continuing approval review process. But again, more here to work out with the board. But again that same cont concept of let's approve um the plan and then verify the implementation and then just to stamp also as I named earlier for all prep programs so all EPS um including those
055that are receiving the uh prep pres-ervice partnerships um now uh in statute in names that the board needs to engage in a continuing approval review process um but is required now to include components of a quality review and observation of practices into that continuing approval review process. I think the great news is that the aspect was already moving in this direction with their continuing approval review redesign and so just named for the board that we would bring back some updates for them on um that the pilots that we've been currently engaged in um and to continue moving that work forward. Um, I'm going to pause. There are any questions about um kind of the initial thoughts on program approval or continuing approval review redesign. Okay. Then um just kind of summarizing the aspects role in
056implementing House Bill 2. Again, we talked with the board about a rule making timeline um that included um codifying the EP content training requirements, defining the new um intern with pre-ervice certificate, establishing these new prep routes and updating requirements for all routes as appropriate. um defining this approval process for prep funded pathways and a broader uh development of the updated continuing approval review process. And then finally, um, we talked with the board about a provision that's specifically within article one of House Bill 2 that requires the ESPback to review um, and take action on the inclusion of national board certified teachers in the teacher incentive aotment system. So we talked with the board through a process by which um, they would go through reviewing them those materials and making a recommendation. Um in overall um
057we do as we name anticipate bringing a set of discussion items to the board in their during their September meeting to kind of kick off rulem in particular related to these uh first four columns. Um, I will say that uh we are likely to uh present these discussion items uh as like kind of conceptual uh decision points or themes rather than locking in uh content into specific draft rules at this point and would be looking forward to robust stakeholder engagement prior to bringing um any draft rule tax back at uh proposal in December. And again, we recognize that there's urgency in this timeline given um want to ensure that the field has ample opportunity to understand and plan for new requirements. But we also want to make sure that we're we are um integrating stakeholder
058feedback throughout the process. I'll also name that there is corresponding Commissioner of Education rules um that we are anticipating will um be effective in um spring that will specifically define the components that are under commissioner authority which I'll touch on next. Um and a few areas on here that we would anticipate bringing back in future rounds of rule making. I'll pause here before we move forward. Any additional questions? Jessica, I'm sorry to interrupt. This is Carrie with You Teach. I put my question in the chat, but I just want to make sure it's clear. So, as an example, if you teach wanted to do a traditional pathway through the prep program, but other also secondary programs did not want to. >> And we split it out that way or is it kind of all or
059nothing at an EP? That's a great question and I think one that we will want to like work with you all to to think through the implications on either side because that's been kind of a a consistent wondering that that we've had as well. So I think that's a that's kind of a decision point that I think um is within the board's statutory authority to determine. >> Okay, great. I would love to be helpful in that way. >> Absolutely. No, appreciate it. These are the type of uh questions that that we that I think like as we start to get under the hood of some of these requirements. We know that that's where there's kind of all of the nuances for folks to uh kind of continue to elevate and raise and for us to
060proactively plan for. Um I'm thinking back to kind of our 228 redesign work and folks saying but what about this specific uh use case and being able to plan uh trying to like proactively plan for for as much of that as we can on the front end. And I think to pick it back on Holly's comment, especially with some of the larger school districts since everyone has the same number of of spots, um, being able to account for the different delivery models if we want to offer the pre-ervice. What does that look like once they've exhausted the 40 slots for a large district? >> Absolutely. Excellent. So um speaking of kind of the prep aotment in and of itself um so kind of zooming out from the so the ESP has the specific authority related
061to defining the EPS that are eligible for partnerships in the prep aotment. Um but the commissioner of education has the broader authority around the five partnership programs um that are funded through the prep aotment. And so um each of these prep partnerships um include a specific range of funding and requirements for how the funding flows and how it is used. Um so starting in from the left hand side it defines a new grow your own partnership program. This requires an LEA to partner with an IICH and ED prep program um and to supports uh current district employees in completing bachelor's degrees and ultim ultimately metriculating into one of the prep pre-ervice partnerships. Um and so this provides between 8 and $12,000 per district employee um who is um completing their bachelor's degree. And I'll say
062across each one of these partnership programs, you'll see a sliding scale of funding. That sliding scale of funding um is informed by the same uh calculation around rural and highnee schools that informs the sliding scale funding within the teacher incentive aotment. Um so there the uh we will work on the rules to define a grow your own partnership program. district will qualify for up to 40 individuals a year. Um then there will be requirements for the LEAN ed prep program as it relates to the three pres-ervice partnership programs. Um the district would be eligible for up to 40 residents per year and up to 80 total traditional and alternative pre-ervice. the district can determine the distribution across um and for resident pres-ervice they can qualify um for up to almost $40,000 a year per teacher
063resident and for traditional alternative up to almost $22,000 a year per candidate. And then lastly, um the mentor program. Um a district can qualify for up to 40 individuals a year um with $3,000 per beginning teacher. Um and we'll continue to share more parameters and requirements for the mentorship and uh grow your own um programs as well and have some opportunities for additional stakeholder engagement there as we move forward over the course of the coming months. Um, we also uh know that that districts and EPS are going to need support to implement these new prepf funded pathways. And so, um, we also plan and HB2 funds via the teacher quality assistance supports within HB2 article 3 a set of enabling technical assistance. So this will look like um some technical assistance supports statewide for grow
064your own implementation um supports through our strategic staffing for teacher residency work um to stand up um staffing models that enable districts um to leverage their teacher residents and also provide additional sustainable sources of funding for those teacher residents. I think I saw Donna ask a question a while back around um the legislation funds says it um gives about $10,000 that goes towards the teacher residents salary but requires that the district pay that teacher resident at least $20,000 a year. So there is some uh concept of a district match. And so, um, a district could either use some of the additional aotment funding that they receive, um, to offset that additional cost or could potentially leverage our strategic staffing, uh, for residency support to leverage local district dollars to provide that match. Um, also under
065the pre-ervice partnerships, we would anticipate launching a set of uh, EP transformation grants here in the upcoming academic year. I think in particular for those preparation programs that may be interested in um designing models for the pres-ervice alternative pathway. And then finally um we are super excited. I know we've talked with this group a number of times um about the the Texas mentorship training that we are developing um and plan to roll out statewide uh beginning in 2627. Um and that training will uh both uh one will be required as a part of the uh mentor program under the mentor um program funding under prep. Um but we'll also include a pathway for district and school leaders to develop systems to support the implementation of strong mentoring across their campus and district. And then lastly,
066um the I would name that um we shared with the board our process by which um we would plan on supporting LEAs and their EP partners in applying for these components of prep. Um the prep aotment uh is not effective in law until the 2627 academic year. So that um gives during the 2526 academic year a runway for the ESPC to begin developing uh rules and for eleas to begin forming partnerships and to apply for the prep aotment and associated technical assistance. Um we plan on launching this application process via lasso. Lasso is an annual um LEA supports application system that the the agency runs every October um with um the application closing in December and awardes being notified in early spring. Um so that means that for um the lasso 4 will launch here
067in just a few months time in October of 2025 and and included in that lasso application will be um the grow your own residency and mentorship aotment components of prep. Um, we are going to start with just grow your own residency and mentorship because House Bill 2 um creates a carveout for residency programs to begin to engage in and draw down prep aotment dollars prior to implementing the new required content that's established in House Bill 2. So, um, again, if you are a preparation program that runs a teacher residency pathway or a prep program that supports local districts with a grow your own pathway, um, this is the opportunity to begin to have have conversations with them. Um, or if you're an LEA, um, begin to have conversations with your prep partners, um, because we
068will, uh, be opening soon the application for grow your own residency and mentorship components of prep. Also during the 2627 academic year, this would be the opportunity for eleas to begin to form partnerships with traditional and pres-ervice alternative programs. And in the 2627 academic year, um eleas would apply for the 2728 prep aotment, which would include all partnership programs. Um because by that time, um the traditional and pres-ervice alternative programs would have uh implemented the content and would have been approved by the board. Um so at a high level just stamping a few kind of putting all the pieces together related to timelines. Um just thinking through the end of this calendar year the board will we're currently tracking for the board to meet in September with a round of discussion items. thinking primarily chapters
069228 and 230 are kind of the the the big areas for updates to implement the components of um prep and uh we'll come back uh likely at proposal with that uh similar round of items in December tracking towards a spring effective date. In addition, we recognize that there's need for consistent guidance to be shared with the field um related to the various components of House Bill 2. Um again, as I named earlier, the um 89th Legislature uh TEA web page is a really great landing page for really uh communication that's being shared uh with the fields and also a good reference for um when you can expect to receive certain communication. Um and so we uh plan on launching guidance on some of the teacher certification requirements and incentives um here at the end of
070this month that will be through a um TAA and potential also a topic during the superintendent call um that's held monthly with superintendents across the state and then plan on launching uh towards the end of September a broader guidance to both eleas and EPS around um the prep programs and a velopment. Uh some of that content you all just got a preview on today, but we'd include more detailed um guidance around near-term next steps. We'd also anticipate that um being shared in a a TAA um potentially in the September superintendent call. And then we'd also um develop additional webinars to communicate to the field. And then um starting in October, that kicks off the formal lasso application window. Um and that includes a ton of structured um guidance resources and webinars and materials. So those
071will be socialized to both eleas and um to EPS that are interested in engaging as well. And then I'll name that throughout this process um stakeholder engagement if I haven't said it enough already is going to be key to supporting um effective and efficient implementation of this legislation. So one appreciate many of you who already joined some of our stakeholder calls um around some of the initial components of the prep aotment in June and July. Um and we will be um communicating in our follow-up email to uh this group additional opportunities for stakeholder engagement on both the um aspect uh rulemaking uh structures and the commissioner of education rulemaking structures here um shortly. So, we will be digging deep with folks uh throughout the remainder of this calendar year and beyond. I'll pause there. Um
072the any additional questions about um kind of the the aotment uh process and kind of the putting it all together kind of the communication timeline. I do see um Dr. Dr. Escobar, your question in the chat about like uh inclusion of reading and mathmies, how it will impact required pre-ervice hours. I think two things I would name here. Uh the the ESPC is required to develop rules that define what components of the reading and mathmies need to be provided in pre-ervice versus during the intern with pre-ervice certificate for the pre-ervice alternative pathway. So that's a rule making that the board will need to engage in. um likely in chapter 228 as they go forward. Um and then I would just also name overall um the you know we discussed with the board particularly for the
073prep funded pathways that would have these uh content requirements uh really thinking about how we balance the content with the kind of the 300 hours that are are the total number of coursework hours for our preparation program. So definitely more collaborative work to do there. >> Great. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Excellent. Well, um like I said y'all, there's a lot within House Bill 2 and that's just uh about an article and a dash more. Um so but exciting work ahead and again appreciative to this group in advance for your continued thought partnership as we um move forward. So, I feel like it's a little bit of a um like I already spoiled like the headline of the September SBOE and September aspect meeting uh in particular, but we're going to be uh rolling up our
074sleeves and talking through a set of discussion items to implement um the content that Sarah talked through. So, educator misconduct updates likely starting with set of discussion items for chapter 2 two uh 247 our code of ethics and then 249 our educator misconduct rules. And then um in addition, we plan on coming back um with a set of again conceptual discussion items around implementation of um PREP likely in the context of chapter 228 um and our EP requirements in chapter 230, our certification requirements, our initial uh considerations, but again are working with our board chair um and uh our board members to uh finalize an agenda. um given that we're um we've got a little bit more runway here before our agenda will be final. Um and then just as a um at the next
075SBOE meeting um which will be held in early September, it will actually be the the week before the ESPEC meeting. So they're back toback this goound. Um we will bring um the the ESP's adoption of the updated bilingual special education standards in chapter 2 235 to the board um for their review. questions about the um September SPOE and ESPC meetings before we transition. All right, y'all. Well, then gosh, I think folks are probably very sick of hearing my voice at this point, so I am going to turn it over um to Beth to to share some additional updates. >> Thanks, Jessica. Um good morning, everyone. You almost made it to Friday afternoon. Congratulations. Um I am just going to put out a call here related to the Texas test of educator proficiency. This is the
076performance assessment that is under development uh that is having content developed by our eight selected representatives from EPS across the state and they are now hard at work developing the content and the structure for this assessment. Um this is an opportunity for all of you to get involved as well. We have launched the application for the stakeholder advisory committee. Uh this is a committee that's going to be providing feedback on the assessment materials, some of the resources that we're putting out for implementation. Uh and we're looking for representation from educators across the state. So we're looking for uh diversity of region. We're looking for EP representatives. We're looking for LEA representatives, teacher orgs, um, anyone who can provide us meaningful feedback on this assessment. We would love for you to get involved. So, the application
077link is here. Um, or QR code is here. It's also in our EP newsletter. Uh, please apply, share it with your networks. I think um looking for expertise in fields that we may not already have. So looking at some of the content in art, music, PE. So all of these contents that we're going to need to assess in here. Uh so please do share this far and wide. The application is due back on September 15th. So you've got about five weeks to complete the application. I wouldn't wait. Uh put put some work into it. uh there's already been a lot of interest so we just look forward to hearing from you and if you have any questions Demarco is the point person but I'm also happy to answer questions okay um with >> oh that
078was me >> I will >> thank you >> then I think uh William is up next to talk a little bit more about contining approval review. >> Jessica, would you mind if I shared my screen instead? I switched some slides around. I'm as I want to do um I always questioning the flow of my slides. So, uh good morning everyone. I believe I'm one of the last updates. That's just quick five minute update is the only thing keeping me uh keeping you from uh your lunch and afternoon. Uh so I just wanted to provide some quick updates on the uh pilot of the redesign continuing approval review. Jessica teed me up very well u mentioning several times uh of the uh inclusion of those quality indicators um in uh HB2 legislation and how uh the
079SPEC and TEA are already hard at work at this uh redesign process. So, um, slides you've probably seen before are our key priorities for the redesign continuing approval review, um, to integrate quality components, um, into the review. Uh, go beyond that minimum compliance bar to give program substantive feedback on their program quality. Um our uh one of our other priorities of course is to engage stakeholders in the rubric um and that process. Um so that includes of course this group here but also our pilot programs as well as our group of Texas reviewers. So that's our third priority is to recruit and train reviewers from Texas eleas and EPS to be the ones who are going in and doing these on-site reviews. So, I want to take a minute just to ground us in uh
080in this qu word quality and why we keep going back to this word. Um we can say it so often it just kind of becomes a a buzz word. I feel like I've said the word quality um more times than ever in my life after moving into this role. So, I wanted to ground us in why quality. Um so this graph is something you have also probably seen before which is all about um the impact of our novice teachers on student growth. And the long and short of it is there is an urgency to improve uh the effectiveness of our novice teachers. As you can see from here, uh teachers in their uh kind of year zero from year five uh really do not have the same impact on student growth as uh their more
081uh as more experienced teachers. This is based on uh star data from 1819, but that um but that research uh both in the state and nationally um h has only continued. So, you know, we could look at this um and see, you know, yeah, that's a no-brainer, right? We we've always kind of uh known that the more experience you have, the more effective you can be with students. Um but our students don't necessarily have uh that luxury and that time um those five years for their teachers to become more effective, especially in the landscape that we have now. Um so, teachers with zero to five years of experience represent about 35% of the Texas workforce. That number has increased over the last few years. Um that zero to fiveyear number hasn't increased um a incredibly
082significantly. But what definitely has is the amount of students that are taught by teachers in their first year. So the number of Texas students taught by first year teachers has increased by almost 175,000 um after COVID and uh the great resignation. So, um, really more and more students are in this bucket of, uh, teachers that are just coming out of a preparation program or, as we've heard, uh, potentially not coming out of a preparation program at all. So when we talk about that word quality and raising that bar beyond minimum compliance um uh to really look at how our programs are preparing our teachers. Um this continuing approval review redesign is intended to support uh continuous improvement of EPS to develop those educators to become more effective for teach uh for our students as soon
083as they enter the classroom. Um, so really this is just part of uh of the ESPback's commitment to improving uh candidate experience and preparation uh which ultimately improves student outcomes. So, um, with that, uh, another graph that you've likely seen before is, uh, just this vision of where, um, we could be heading with this redesign of the continuing approval review to really support continuous improvement and go beyond uh, minimum compliance. So in this vision which as you can see in the many caveats at the bottom uh is a draft vision and is definitely undergoing further study, further clarification and further stakeholder feedback. Um an EP would receive their accreditation status. Um based on that status, they may be scheduled for continuing approval review more frequently um than than every five years based on that urgent
084need to improve quality. um the EP would complete that redesign continuing approval review. Then they'd have the potential either the option um or potential requirements to partner with a provider that could help them develop a plan to improve in those recommended areas, implement that action plan, and then we would again see that continuous improvement in their accreditation scores and status. Again, this is a graphic you have likely seen before. Um, but if you have uh questions or clarifications, feel free to ask them or put them in the chat. All right. Um, so just a few quick updates on where we are with the continuing approval, review, redesign. A lot happened over the summer and a lot is happening in the 2526 school year. So, one big thing that happened in the summer as we uh
085informed you all in June was a overhaul of our rubric. So our uh rubric for the continuing approval review for our first pilot uh we got to really test drive it with our pilots uh with our reviewers and get a lot of feedback uh both from those participants and from the broader field on how our rubric was supporting um that uh the effectiveness of our on-site quality review. Um so that overhaul included um a an alignment of the review areas to what uh Jessica has already uh shared with you all. um what research tells us is linked the most uh uh to candidate preparation and effectiveness and that is their training. So their coursework uh the quality of practice um both integrated in their coursework and their clinical experiences and the quality of support that
086they receive. So, um, this represents a very, uh, a kind of a narrowing down of the first version of our rubric from, uh, something around 40 indicators, uh, to just these, uh, 12 indicators that you see here. And, uh, we shared that in June. And then we invited some folks to a working group. Uh so in that working group they were able to see the full uh review uh or full review rubric in order to give us um some feedback on hey what is um maybe not making sense to us. What are some changes we could consider as well as okay so this is a rubric is mostly in its final draft form. What should we expect from programs and what clarity do we need to provide to them? Um so for those of you
087who are in that working group uh just wanted to give you an update on some uh changes we addressed. So there were some issues that got brought up around alignment to chapter 228 language around weeks versus hours um that uh uh the group definitely raised as being potentially confusing to program. So we worked to clarify um that. Um, additionally, there was uh some language there around uh alternate alternative certification programs with internships. It was really um kind of uh based in this intensive pre-ervice practice idea and this upcoming alternate uh or pre-ervice practice route uh for uh for internships. And um although that um is undergoing uh um we know that we need that to be clear for programs if it's going to be signaled or included in this draft of the review. And so
088we worked uh to do that and kind of uh provide this carveout for ACPs as we know that um most AP ACPs currently aren't offering that intensive pre-ervice. Um, we added some distinction to some areas that participants said were uh uh still repetitive and then uh we corrected any inconsistencies and typographical errors uh that our working group uh was uh able to point out. Super grateful for that. Additionally, they provided us insights on what programs um questions they may have as they see this rubric and are undergoing um this on-site review. And so we know there's continued work to be done on clarifying what does um how does this rubric connect to the idea of minimum compliance. Is there a score that can be assigned to minimum compliance versus uh raising the bar above minimum
089compliance? And we're going to work to answer uh those questions and provide clarity for our programs and for you all as uh the rubric is rolled out. Um, we also got a number of questions around how the rubric applied to programs outside of EC6. So, because our pilot um is um uh for our second pilot, it is actually only going to be to review EC6 programs. Um there were some questions on okay, is this eventually going to um apply to all programs? So, we got those questions and are going to take those into consideration and definitely want to provide greater context for the field on that. Um, so a couple of other updates is our Texas reviewer cohort. So, we mentioned how one of the priorities for the car redesign is to include reviewers from
090across Texas EPS and LEAs. Uh and so we're really excited about this next group that is coming for our training next week. Uh we are also excited that if you are attending that training um it just got moved to the hotel to our downtown hotel um uh due to an AC issue in the original venue. So um gives you a little more time uh to run around Town Lake before uh the training begins. So um we are excited about the makeup of this group which includes uh folks from EPS. Uh so uh that includes folks from ACPS um both ESC ACPs uh in district ACP community college ACPs as well as folks from our four-year colleges and universities. Um but as you can see it also includes folks whose main experience comes from LEAs. they
091are currently um in their first days of school likely coming to this training. Uh we're also really excited about representing folks throughout Texas. Uh so this map comparing uh all of our Texas EPS to where our trainees are coming from uh really shows the diversity uh of uh of who we are training to then go into these EPS so that we know that they represent the diversity of experience and perspective uh from Texas. And finally, we want to share who is participating in uh the pilot. In our last update, we shared kind of that we were looking to strike a really strong balance uh of uh of EPS in this next pilot. And so you can see there who has agreed to participate. We are so grateful for them. This includes both programs that are
092up for their uh were already up for review in 2526 as well as programs that said yes, we will. We're so excited to be a part of this that we will uh go a little early. So um thank you to these programs um especially if you are in uh in this Zoom room right now. So these programs um are going to be a big part of our stakeholder engagement um but it's not limited just to them. So, our first pilot programs um are currently or have completed their post-visit reflection. So, they're about a month or two out and they can actually sit down with TPI and and say, "Okay, we've had some chance to uh to reflect and this was really our experience." Um and we've uh been providing them updates as well because they're
093now part of uh of that pilot cohort family. Um stakeholders are going to get to continue to engage through ESPC. We hope to have some update items for ESPC in either the September or December uh 2025 meetings um if not both. And uh then you can be on the lookout for continuing engagement opportunities including reviewer opportunities. So uh if you completed that first interest form, don't worry, you are still on our list. Um but that uh those reviewer trainings will be ongoing. So, we will include those opportunities as well as other stakeholder engagement opportunities in this meeting as well as the EP newsletter. >> All right. So, Jessica, I can keep I think there's only two sharing. >> If you don't mind sharing, uh, that'd be great. >> Um, any additional questions for William before
094um open up to any just additional general questions? We didn't receive any additional um questions prior to the meeting, but I know there might be other things that are on folks minds. All right. Well, um again, really appreciate you all engaging with us today and uh look forward to lots of good rolling up our sleeves together um over the course of the coming months. um we have a a really um I think special opportunity in the state of Texas to really um kind of implement something that's a once in a generation type of infusion of supports and resources to building our teacher workforce in Texas. So we're incredibly excited, incredibly um honored to get to do this work alongside you all. So uh thank you so much. We u I see Marilyn put the link
095to our feedback survey in the chat. Again, we really appreciate y'all's feedback and it it really helps us inform um any refinements we take to this work. And just a plug again that we will be sharing in our follow-up emails some additional stakeholder engagement opportunities. Really appreciate seeing all spaces in those um Zoom or actual real rooms um over the course of the coming weeks and months. So, thanks everyone. Have a good uh rest of your day and good luck to everyone who's uh starting school um here in the coming weeks. Thanks, Don.