The State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) met in Austin on Feb. 13 for their first agenda of 2026. Last December we reported on their discussions regarding educator preparation programs and the impacts of House Bill 2 plus some educator discipline rules. This meeting was largely a continuation of these deliberations with mixed results.
Educator Preparation
Beginning with the 2026-27 school year, the preparing and retaining educators through the partnership program (PREP) allotment will fund five different pathways to help address teacher recruitment, preparation, and mentorship across the state. There are several impacted chapters of rules related to this implementation, but the discussion in December centered primarily on Chapter 228, which governs educator preparation programs.
After the December SBEC meeting, the agency held multiple feedback sessions on the Chapter 228 rules. Many positive changes were seen in the proposed draft thanks to the sustained advocacy of Texas AFT and its partners in the Texas Coalition for Educator Preparation (TCEP).
- More flexibility was added regarding residency candidates also seeking a disciplinary degree at an IHE.
- A previously proposed “fast start” option was modified into existing flexibilities for teachers entering a program that have already been teaching as part of a district of innovation exception.
- A more complete and cohesive definition of “late hire” candidates was established; and limits on these candidates were removed.
- Qualifications for asynchronous coursework were modified to more closely align with exiting practices so programs did not have to recertify their content.
There were many more positive changes and while advocates did not get everything that was asked for in the rules, the proposal generally moved in the direction of not establishing barriers to entry for the PREP allotment so that the funds established in HB 2 can be used for their intended purpose.
Related to this work, the Commissioner’s proposed rules for districts wishing to participate in the PREP allotment are currently open for public comment. Texas AFT will also be providing feedback on this aspect of HB 2 implementation.
Educator Discipline
Staff began the presentation of this item by introducing the new Inspector General for Education Misconduct, Levi Fuller. Previously the Chief of Staff for Rep. Andy Hopper and an Assistant Attorney General in the office of the Attorney General of Texas, the controversial appointee will oversee the enforcement of educator misconduct policies and processes within the agency.
Texas AFT attorneys as well as other testifiers spoke to the incompleteness of the definition of continuing and imminent threat as required in Senate Bill (SB) 571. Clarity is essential as this may trigger temporary suspensions of certificates by the SBEC before due process is applied. The temporary suspension committee of the SBEC has already suspended the certificates of 86 teachers under the new authority granted to them by SB 571.
Staff proposed a slightly narrower version of the Educator Code of Ethics provision that educator representatives found so alarming last meeting:
Standard 1.18. The educator shall not promote, advocate, or encourage, in a manner that is reasonably accessible or visible to students, illegal conduct:
(i) described by TEC, §22A.201(a); or
(ii) directly related to student behavior or school property.
Texas AFT provided comments that the definition was still overly broad and may impose on the free speech of educators. Staff also justified the inclusion of some SB 12 provisions, such as “comply[ing] with the restrictions on instruction regarding sexual orientation and gender identity” on the basis that there were no minimum sanctions yet articulated and they wanted to put educators “on notice.”
With regard to the mandatory reporting requirements in SB 571 related to inappropriate communication and appropriate boundaries, the definitions remained the same from the December discussion.
Staff noted that they received more reports last September than in all of FY 2025 (Sept.1 2024-Aug. 31, 2025). Importantly, one of the superintendents on the board confirmed that because of new shorter reporting window (48 hours) and the expansion of behaviors that must be reported: “if we even think it’s close, we’re reporting it.” This is exactly why Texas AFT opposed the law throughout the legislative process. Of course we want to keep students safe, it is our highest duty as educators but based on this dialogue in the boardroom, our fear that this law would lead to overreporting of incidents that have the potential to unjustly damage an educator’s reputation and career was validated. Not to mention this further bloats the already inflated bureaucracy at TEA to investigate reports that may turn out to be unfounded.
The rules were approved for first reading and public comment without the incorporation of any testifier feedback.