February 2015 Committee on School Initiatives Item 3
Review of Proposed New 19 TAC Chapter 228, Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs, §228.70, Complaints and Investigations Procedures
February 13, 2015
COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL INITIATVES: ACTION
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: ACTION
SUMMARY: This item provides the State Board of Education (SBOE) an opportunity to review the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) rule action that would establish new 19 TAC Chapter 228, Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs, §228.70, Complaints and Investigations Procedures. As part of its report to the 83rd Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2013, the Sunset Advisory Commission recommended a management action that adopts procedures for educator preparation program (EPP) complaints that outline all phases of the EPP complaint process, as well as track and analyze complaint data. The proposed new rule would establish procedures for filing a complaint against an EPP, impose specific responsibilities on an EPP regarding complaints, and establish the consequences if an EPP is found to be in violation of SBEC rules and/or Texas Education Code (TEC), Chapter 21.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY: The statutory authority for proposed new 19 TAC §228.70 is the TEC, §§21.031, 21.041(b)(1), 21.045, and 21.049(a).
EFFECTIVE DATE: The proposed effective date of proposed new 19 TAC §228.70 would be March 22, 2015.
PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: None.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND SIGNIFICANT ISSUES: The SBEC rules in 19 TAC Chapter 228 establish requirements for EPPs. Complaints regarding EPPs have been lodged with the Texas Education Agency (TEA), and the TEA has generally engaged in an informal mediating process between the individual and the EPP. As part of its report to the 83rd Texas Legislature (2013), the Sunset Advisory Commission recommended that the complaint procedures should be updated to better account for tracking and resolution.
At the August 2014 meeting, TEA staff presented for discussion an outline of a comprehensive complaint process. Following the August 2014 SBEC meeting, discussions were held during a stakeholder meeting with the Educator Preparation Advisory Committee on August 22, 2014, and with other stakeholders at meetings in September and October 2014. Following the October 2014 SBEC meeting, additional stakeholder meetings were held in November and December 2014.
Proposed new 19 TAC §228.70, shown in Attachment II, would establish the procedures for filing a complaint against an EPP. The new complaints procedure proposed would:
• direct EPPs to establish grievance procedures to attempt to solve the issue(s) at the EPP level first and, if unable to do so, to provide individuals access to complaint submission instructions either by directing the candidate to the relevant portion of the TEA website or by providing written instructions;
• require EPPs to comply with an investigation by TEA staff and authorize a presumption of non-compliance with the allegation(s) if the EPP fails to cooperate with an investigation; and
• authorize TEA staff to incorporate a determination of non-compliance into the review for the accreditation or continuing approval determination of an EPP.
Since published as proposed, the SBEC approved the following changes in response to public comment and feedback from TEA staff and SBEC legal counsel.
Language in subsection (a) would be added to broaden the list of eligible persons who could file a complaint about an EPP to include an EPP graduate and an employee or former employee of an EPP. Language was also added to clarify that a complaint must be submitted in accordance with the procedures for filing a complaint.
Language in subsection (b)(1) would be added to clarify that EPPs would be required to resolve complaints in a timely manner and that an EPP is not responsible for forwarding a complaint to TEA staff. Also for clarification, grievance was changed to complaint.
Language in subsection (b)(2) would be added to clarify that an EPP is required to post information regarding how to file a complaint under the EPP's complaint policy on its website.
Language in subsection (b)(3) would be added to clarify that an EPP is required to post notification regarding how to file a complaint with TEA in all of its physical locations that are used by employees and candidates. Language would also be added to clarify that a complaint must be submitted in accordance with the procedures for filing a complaint.
Language in subsection (b)(4) would be added to clarify that an EPP is required to provide information in writing upon request regarding how to file a complaint under an EPP's complaint policy. Language was also added to clarify that a complaint must be submitted in accordance with the procedures for filing a complaint.
Language in subsection (c)(2)(C) would be added to clarify that TEA does not have jurisdiction over complaints related to contractual arrangements with an EPP, commercial issues, obtaining a higher grade or credit for training, or seeking reinstatement to an EPP.
Language in subsection (c)(2)(D) would be added to clarify that TEA staff would determine whether a complainant knew or should have known about the events giving rise to a complaint more than two years before the earliest date the complainant filed a complaint with either TEA staff or the EPP.
Subsection (c)(2)(E) would be reworded to clarify that a complainant should exhaust all applicable complaint and appeal procedures at the EPP level first and that TEA staff may delay an investigation until the process at the EPP level is complete. If a complainant is not able to file a complaint at the EPP level, TEA staff may investigate the complaint. In addition, if a complaint is so severe TEA staff cannot allow any delay, TEA staff will not wait for the complainant to exhaust administrative remedies at the EPP level before commencing an investigation.
Language in subsection (c)(3)(D) would be reworded to remove vague language and to clarify that an EPP's failure to comply may be treated as a violation of SBEC rules and of TEC, Chapter 21, which may result in having any violation in the original complaint being deemed admitted.
Language in subsection (c)(4)(A) would be added to clarify that if TEA staff finds that a violation occurred as a result of a complaint investigation, TEA staff will notify the EPP with the specific statute and/or rule that was alleged to have been violated.
Subsection (c)(4)(C) would be added to clarify that if TEA staff finds that no violation has occurred after investigating a complaint, the complaint will be closed and TEA staff will notify both parties in writing. Proposed subsections (c)(4)(C) and (E) would be relettered accordingly.
Language in relettered subsection (c)(4)(D) would be removed and incorporated into subsection (c)(4)(D)(iv) so that additional complaint resolution procedures could be added to the process before a recommendation that SBEC impose sanctions is made by TEA staff.
Subsections (c)(4)(D)(i)-(iii) would be added to clarify the complaint resolution procedures that would occur if TEA staff finds that an EPP has violated SBEC rules and/or TEC, Chapter 21 statutes.
Subsection (c)(4)(D)(iv) would be added to clarify that if an EPP does not comply with an agreed or proposed resolution within the timelines set out in the resolution, TEA staff will make a recommendation that the SBEC impose sanctions that may affect the EPP's accreditation status and/or continuing approval status.
Proposed subsection (c)(4)(D) would be renumbered as (c)(4)(D)(v) so that an EPP retains the opportunity to request an informal review of a proposed recommendation for sanctions.
Proposed subsection (c)(4)(E) would be removed because an additional opportunity to come into compliance is not included in the conditions and procedures set out in 19 TAC §229.7, Informal Review of Texas Education Agency Recommendations.
References to Public Law 110-315, Sections 205-208, in subsection (c)(3)(D), (c)(4)(C), and (c)(4)(E) would not be included in the adopted rule because the rule without the references would adequately address EPP accountability.
SBOE Review of Proposed SBEC Rules
Under the TEC, §21.042, the SBEC must submit a written copy of each rule it proposes to adopt to the SBOE for review. The SBOE may reject the proposed rule by a vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the SBOE present and voting, but may not modify a rule. The rule takes effect as a rule of the SBEC if the SBOE fails to review the rule contained in this item by March 5, 2015, which is the 90th day after the date the SBOE first received this proposed rule.
FISCAL IMPACT: The TEA staff has determined that there is no additional fiscal impact on state and local governments and there are no additional costs to persons or entities required to comply with the proposed rule action. In addition, there is no direct adverse economic impact for small businesses and microbusinesses; therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis, specified in Texas Government Code, §2006.002, is required.
PUBLIC AND STUDENT BENEFIT: The public and student benefit anticipated as a result of the proposed rule action would be increased accountability for EPPs on the preparation of candidates.
PROCEDURAL AND REPORTING IMPLICATIONS: The TEA staff has determined that there would be a minimal increase in the procedural and reporting implications for EPPs because the proposal is similar to the TEA's current complaint process.
LOCALLY MAINTAINED PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS: The TEA staff has determined that there would be a minimal increase in the locally maintained paperwork requirements for EPPs because the proposal is similar to the TEA's current complaint process.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the SBEC rulemaking process, a summary of comments received by the SBEC on its proposed rule will be shared with the SBOE under separate cover prior to this SBOE meeting.
ALTERNATIVES: None.
OTHER COMMENTS AND RELATED ISSUES: None.
MOTION TO BE CONSIDERED: The State Board of Education:
Take no action on proposed new 19 TAC Chapter 228, Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs, §228.70, Complaints and Investigations Procedures.
Staff Members Responsible:
Ryan Franklin, Associate Commissioner
Educator Leadership and Quality
Tim Miller, Director
Educator Preparation Programs
Attachments:
I. Statutory Citations (PDF, 18KB)
II. Text of Proposed New 19 TAC Chapter 228, Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs, §228.70, Complaints and Investigations Procedures (PDF, 32KB)