Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Continuing Approval Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TEA reports pilot results for redesigned continuing‑approval review; board to pilot expanded rubric in fall
Summary
TEA and its vendor TPI US reported results from a five‑program pilot of a redesigned continuing‑approval review that shifts from a compliance checklist to an on‑site quality inspection tied to the Effective Preparation Framework.
Agency staff and the vendor TPI US updated the board on a two‑pilot redesign of the continuing‑approval review for educator preparation programs. The redesign replaces a largely paper‑based compliance check with an on‑site, quality‑focused review aligned to the board’s Effective Preparation Framework.
William C., TEA’s director for educator preparation continuous improvement, summarized pilot 1 with five programs and said four of five pilot programs either agreed or strongly agreed the redesigned review produced prioritized improvement areas aligned to the framework. Pilots included on‑site observation of coursework, interviews with program faculty and partner districts, and deep dives into artifacts rather than only syllabus checklists.
Pilot feedback and changes: programs asked for more lead time and clearer framing about how the new review differs from the traditional compliance review. Review teams also found the first rubric too long and unwieldy (the team consolidated 39 indicators to a more workable set of prioritized review areas). TEA has trained roughly 40 reviewers with the vendor and plans additional reviewer training before pilot 2.
Pilot 2 and rollout timeline: TEA will run a larger second pilot (ten programs) chosen to represent program type, size, geography and accreditation status. Staff recommended a statewide rollout in 2027‑28 to allow time for further rule alignment, reviewer training, and to avoid overloading EPPs during the 2026‑27 year when many will be implementing HB2 prep requirements.
Board members stressed that the agency must clearly distinguish the compliance checks required by statute from the new quality indicators so programs know what documentation is required vs. what reviewers will probe on site. Members recommended formal opportunities for pilot programs to share lessons learned with future pilot cohorts and asked that reviewer teams include Texas educators and EPP leaders.
