TCTA secures SBEC changes to disciplinary rules

The State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) voted to approve proposed revisions to its disciplinary rules at its Dec. 6, 2024, meeting. Those rules govern the circumstances under which an educator may be subject to sanctions and also outline the procedures the SBEC must follow when investigating and potentially imposing a sanction on an educator’s certification. 

The SBEC staff conducted stakeholder meetings prior to drafting rules to present to the SBEC for discussion. TCTA participated in those stakeholder meetings and testified before the board when it discussed the proposed revisions. The approved rule language incorporates some of the suggestions TCTA raised at that time. 

TCTA presented more written testimony Dec. 6 that was considered by SBEC, saying that we appreciate the opportunity to provide input to board staff at the initial stages of the rule drafting process. However, we do have some concerns with some of the remaining proposals. Our testimony and SBEC's response are outlined below:

Notice to educators of proposed disciplinary action

The proposed revisions seek to eliminate current requirements to serve educators with notice of proposed actions to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them via certified mail. 

TCTA informed the board at its September board meeting that the proposed revisions related to service of pleadings and notice violate provisions of the Texas Government Code that specifically require a state agency to give notice by personal service or by registered or certified mail when it intends to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a license holder. In response to TCTA’s input, the proposed rules presented to the board in December were revised to confirm that the required notices must be sent via certified mail. 

Additionally, at TCTA’s urging, the proposed rules now specify that, if SBEC staff is aware that an educator is represented by an attorney, SBEC staff will email a copy of certain notices to that attorney. TCTA appreciates inclusion of this suggestion, as TCTA members have access to an attorney for representation before SBEC and therefore this proposed revision in particular will help ensure that TCTA members have adequate notice of and ability to respond to proposed disciplinary actions before sanctions are imposed. 

Grooming

The proposed language related to grooming would modify the definition of “solicitation of a romantic relationship” that is currently found in the SBEC’s rules. TCTA’s concerns are that certain specified behaviors are defined as evidence of grooming, despite the fact that they can be appropriate during the performance of a teacher’s duties, and sometimes are even required. 

For example, the approved rule states that “meeting behind closed doors with the student without another adult present” constitutes prima facie evidence of grooming conduct. However, homebound teachers routinely meet with students on a one-on-one basis in a student’s home, often with no other adult present in the room. Additionally, in the campus setting, TEA has specifically directed school districts as part of its required school safety action steps to ensure that all exterior doors remain closed and locked. This mandate applies to doors on portable classrooms and does not make an exception for situations in which one-on-one instruction, pull-outs or tutoring is taking place. 

The rule amendments would also subject an educator to sanctions for actions such as providing meals or gifts to students. TCTA is concerned that this language would discourage teachers from reaching out to at-risk students by providing snacks in their classrooms for students who would otherwise go hungry or providing school supplies or sometimes even clothing to children who are in need. The language requires that such compassionate outreach be considered evidence of grooming.

In response to TCTA’s concerns, the language initially presented to the board was revised prior to its December meeting and now requires that these grooming behaviors be considered in context and within the totality of the circumstances. This language was added as a safeguard to protect educators who engage in legitimate, appropriate behavior. Additionally, the description of these behaviors was changed from “may constitute prima facie evidence” to “constitute evidence,” which likely increases the burden of proof for TEA to pursue sanctions against an educator.

Contract Abandonment

The proposed revisions related to contract abandonment would require that resignations due to a significant health condition be accompanied by documentation confirming the health condition and that the educator disclose the significant health condition as part of the resignation process with the district. TCTA generally does not object to an educator presenting supporting medical documentation when requesting resignation from a district due to a significant medical condition. This requirement is consistent with statutes that confer protections on an employee due to illness, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). 

However, TCTA has concerns with the creation of a new requirement that the educator apply for medical leave, if eligible, before resigning. The basis for the objection to this proposal is that it does not clarify whether or not the educator has good cause to resign under this provision if the educator applies for medical leave and the request is denied. It also does not provide adequate relief to an educator who may be eligible for medical leave but would not benefit from it because they do not have a reasonable expectation that they will ever be able to return to the classroom due to the progression of a degenerative and ultimately terminal illness, such as Parkinson’s or late-stage cancer.

TCTA requested that a requirement that an educator request medical leave prior to resigning for medical reasons be removed from the proposed rule language. After a lengthy discussion, SBEC members removed language requiring educators to apply for medical leave prior to resigning, leaving only a requirement that the educator provide documentation from a licensed medical provider of the serious illness or health condition. 

SBEC members also included new language that a reduction of one month in suspension time will be given for each mitigating factor established if an educator abandons a contract without good cause. Previously, there was no such requirement that a specific amount of time be removed from the sanction per mitigating factor. These factors could be considered as a whole and some amount of time could be removed from the sanction, potentially even mitigating it down to not issuing a sanction at all.

Testing

The proposed revisions would impose a minimum sanction of a one-year suspension for serious testing violations. Although this sanction would only be imposed for testing violations that are defined as “serious testing violations” by TEA, TCTA was concerned that some of those serious testing violations do not warrant a mandatory one year suspension unless they are committed with an intent to manipulate the results of the test. In response to TCTA’s concerns, the language requiring that an intent to manipulate the test results be proven in order to suspend an educator for a year remains in the version of the rules that has been approved by SBEC. 

The proposed rules above do not become final until they have been finally adopted by the State Board for Educator Certification and approved by the State Board of Education. TCTA will continue to work with the SBEC and its staff to ensure that the proposed rules balance the need to impose sanctions on educators who subject students to harm with adequate protections for teachers who wish to develop a compassionate and nurturing learning environment.

For more coverage of SBEC's December meeting, click here.