SBOE AGENDA FOR JULY 1999 AND LETTER FROM RICHARD NEILL TO MIKE MOSES:
State Board of Education - Agenda - July 9 & 10 Dr. Therese Dozier, from the U.S. Dept. of Education will address teacher preparation on Thursday. The Board's Committee on Instruction will discuss the TAAS test. SBOE Chairman Jack Christie and Commissioner Moses have ignored repeated requests for the TAAS test to be a discussion item before the whole board. The Board will vote on whether to divest of Disney stock because of its production of offensive movies and music. SBEC (SBEC) Proposed Rules for Teacher Certification 1. In July the State Board of Education (SBOE) will consider new rules (developed by the SBEC) for teacher certification that specify: … requirements for classes of certificates, … period of validity, … requirements for renewal, … continuing education requirements, and … a process to identify courses and programs that fulfill continuing education requirements. Classes of certificates, which affect assignment of teachers, are by grade and subject. The proposed changes reflect the title of courses changed by the TEKS. The rules include certification for assignments, such as teaching math, science, history, English, etc. In addition these traditional subjects, other assignments include the following: … Disadvantaged, Teacher of Young Children, General; K, Grades 1-6-General, Grades 1-8-General, Early Childhood Education-PK-K, PK-5-General, and PK-6-General … Career Investigation (under vocational ed) - middle and high school certification … Skills for Living for middle and high school certification - this includes Vocational Home Economics, and Special Subject Home Economics. … Career Connections - middle and high school … Introduction to Transportation Service Careers - middle and high school In addition, the rules include a variety of vocational assignments for middle and high school (under Vocational Trades and Industry Certificates), such as bricklaying, meat cutting, major appliance repair, vocational plastics, barbering, truck driving, plant maintenance, upholstery/furniture repair, etc. 3. The proposed rules create two classes of teacher certificates: 1) The lifetime certificate, which teachers certified prior to Sept. 1, 1999 may retain 2) A 5-year renewable certificate Creating two classes of certificates raises a concern about discrimination. Will teachers who keep their lifetime certificates be considered less desirable? Will hiring practices favor teachers with the renewable certificates? 3. Requirements for renewing certificates To be eligible for certificate renewal, a teacher could not be in default on a guaranteed student loan ( unless repayment arrangements have been made) or be in arrears of child support. Although these are important issues, a teaching certificate certifies that a teacher is knowledgeable and competent to teach. Current laws address loan defaults and failure to pay child support. Using a process intended to certify competency for the purposes of enforcing other laws is questionable. 4. Continuing Education The proposed rules control who can provide continuing education, which is required for certificate renewal. SBOE Action: The SBOE has 90 days to reject the SBEC proposed rules. HEADS UP: The SBEC will consider new rules in August and September that would require teachers to obtain license teachers (rather than certificates). The license would be granted to teachers according to the age category of students they teach, beginning with the category of birth to age 3. These proposed rules will come before the SBOE in November at the earliest. Certification or licensing of teachers to teach babies raises red flags about intentions to expand the role of schools to provide daycare and to move in the direction of the government village.
In case you're wondering what started the media attention with the T.E.A., here is the letter I wrote to Commissioner Moses. The conservatives on the State Board of Education are not going to allow the bureaucrats in Austin to implement their liberal ideas without any accountability whatsoever. T.E.A. still thinks they can get away with it. Thanks for your support. Richard Neill State Board of Education, Dist. 11 *********************************************************** August 30, 1999 Commissioner Mike Moses Texas Education Agency 1701 North Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 Dear Commissioner Moses, Consistent with my past correspondence and discussions with you at State Board of Education meetings, I continue to observe efforts of the Texas Education Agency to bypass the board on vitally important issues, such as the TAAS. I have repeatedly expressed to you my desire to be thoroughly briefed on all topics relating to the TAAS, including many requests to have certain TAAS-related issues placed on the agenda for discussion and subsequent action. You have essentially ignored these requests, burying TAAS discussions in subcommittees and presenting veritable fluff, such as the expensive taxpayer funded movie prepared by you and the agency. On more than one occasion, I have inquired about the types of testing changes which would be necessitated by implementation of the TEKS. The only information provided were vague assurances that the TEKS were aligned with the TAAS and that very few changes, if any, would be needed. You can therefore well imagine my irritation at reading stories in the local papers about the TEA’s plan to retire the TAAS and replace it with a yet unnamed fourth generation test. I was also perplexed by the reported impetus for the new test: the TEKS. However, I was outraged to learn that for the past 18 months, the TEA has been expending taxpayer funds on an unauthorized project in which 50 TEA officials and countless state contractors were “quietly” developing and even field-testing questions for a “new” test—all without a word to the State Board of Education. (Maybe that accounts for staff unavailability when you impudently billed Finance Chairman Bob Offutt $14,000 for information critical to the administration of the Permanent School Fund.) And now that assessments must be “knowledge-“ and “skills- based” instead of “performance-based,” how much more money will taxpayers have to spend to bring the product of 18 months’ work into compliance with the new law? Aside from the obvious intent to divert attention from the flaw- riddled TAAS and to hide unauthorized activities, I can only conclude that over the past 18 months, if not longer, you and the agency deliberately: withheld requested information from the State Board of Education thereby circumventing the board’s authority over the statewide assessment program; developed new tests for the general student population in direct violation of the Texas Education Code, Sec. 39.023(a); and (3) squandered taxpayer funds on the unauthorized project. May I remind you that the State Board of Education is the elected body of officials responsible for establishing, creating and implementing the statewide assessment program, having broad rule-making authority in this regard (TEC Sections 7.102, 39.022 and 39.023). Furthermore, it is State Board members who are authorized to set the performance levels and administer the assessment instruments (TEC Sections 7.102©(5), 39.023© and 39.024(a)).
In order for the board to carry out these and other lawful duties, it is imperative that the Commissioner and agency cease and desist from impeding, hindering and/or obstructing the board’s role in these matters by timely responding to requests for information as mandated by TEC Sections 7.055(b)(3) and 7.102(b). In accordance therewith, I hereby request again that the Commissioner of Education, as executive secretary of the State Board of Education, immediately, thoroughly and continuously inform the board of any and all progress and/or actions made and/or contemplated to be made concerning the TAAS test, any proposed assessment instrument(s), replacement assessment instrument(s) and/or parts thereof, so that the board may consider and act toward maintaining the stability of the statewide assessment program. Members of the State Board of Education serve as representatives of the people of the state of Texas in this matter. I will no longer tolerate learning that decisions, which are rightfully and legally a vital part of my duties, have already been made by bureaucrats at the Texas Education Agency. Sincerely, Richard Neil