California committee backs rulemaking to clarify licensed educational psychologist experience requirements

The California Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS) Policy and Advocacy Committee on July 31 recommended that the full board initiate rulemaking to amend experience and supervision requirements for licensed educational psychologists (LEPs) if pending legislation (SB 775) becomes law.

The committee voted to recommend approval of proposed regulatory text and to direct staff, after enactment, to submit the package for administrative review and to proceed with the formal rulemaking process if there are no adverse comments. The motion carried on a recorded voice vote with committee members present voting yes.

The proposed regulatory changes are tied to SB 775 and are intended to remove ambiguity staff face when evaluating applicants’ experience. Staff described three primary clarifications that would appear in regulation once statute changes: (1) specify how to quantify “full time or equivalent” experience (confirming use of school terms/school years), (2) limit qualifying experience to no more than six years prior to application (the statute would set this and staff would reflect it in regs), and (3) define the required supervised experience “under the direction of an LEP” (including supervisor qualifications and prohibitions on certain personal/financial relationships).

Staff presented draft regulatory language that would permit some experience gained in private, parochial schools or through temporary employment agencies to qualify for the two-year full-time experience requirement, but only when a supervisor or authorized representative certifies under penalty of perjury that the applicant performed the “full range of duties” as defined by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. The committee discussion noted federal limits on services to parentally placed private-school students and the need for certification to verify comparable duties.

The draft regulations also would (a) require documentation standards so staff can verify claimed experience, (b) define supervision and require supervisors to hold an active, unrestricted California LEP license while supervising, and (c) require supervisors to be competent in the areas they supervise. Committee members discussed whether a required supervisor training should be added but decided to defer broader supervision-model changes to future meetings and workforce discussions.

Committee members emphasized the policy objective of increasing pathways to licensure while protecting the public by clarifying what counts as qualifying experience. Staff noted the regulatory package would be implemented only after statutory amendments in SB 775 take effect.

If the board approves the recommendation, staff will submit the proposed regulatory text to the Department of Consumer Affairs for review and, if there are no adverse comments, initiate the formal rulemaking and hearing process under Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 1856.

The committee did not change policy direction at the meeting; the vote was a recommendation to the full board to proceed with the rulemaking steps described above.