The Committee on Instruction met on June 22, 2023, to discuss amendments to the TEKS, amendments to curriculum requirements, innovative courses, and reports on credit by examination. A video archive of the meeting is available here.
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.
TEA Staff
- Repeal will remove 8 CTE courses to implement new TEKS courses
- None of these courses are going away, we are going with a repeal and replace
- The courses in question will not have name changes
- Brooks – Asks about the pharmacology course
- The pharmacology course name will stay the same, but that reference number will change
- Motion to move to final adoption carries (4-0)
TEA Staff
- You mentioned being interested in amending this rule, you will have the opportunity to discuss what you would like to amend
- We will come back in September with a proposal
- We have a process by which Ethnic studies courses can become part of TEKS after beginning as Innovative courses
- Ortega – Are we able to obtain information about the specific courses?
- Yes, they are often developed by school districts and we would have points of contact
- Young – We don’t have any rules that provide a Sunset rule for innovative courses. I would like to consider how to Sunset courses; there is no rule for the initial approval of time
- Young – On A2, regarding the commissioner of education, can we explain that?
- That language has been in place for a very long time, but you can revoke the authority of the Commissioner to approve Innovative courses
- If that is something that you would like to take on yourself, you have the authority, but it would be a fair amount of work.
- I think there would be a number of details to work out
- The reason that applicants seek approval is that it allows a district to award state elective credit
- Brooks – would it be reasonable to share responsibility with the commissioner?
- That feels like an administrative burden, I think we would need SBOE or commissioner approval, but not approval by both
- Brooks – what about veto power?
- I think that is something we could work through
- Young – How many of these courses come through from the commissioner?
- CTE does seem to have a good number
- Renewals also come into play, we may want to separate renewals from new approvals
- Staff will typically spend a lot of time editing the applications written, ensure that there is no duplication, recommending independent study instead of innovative course
- Young – how many go to the commissioner?
- Essentially what we have is that enrichment, foundation, and CTE innovative courses are commissioner approved and the others are SBOE approved
- Ortega – the more info we have the better, but I am OK with what the TEA staff chooses to share with us
- Young – is this something that we would still like to pass along to the commissioner?
- Ortega – no
- Little – I would rather the information come to us
- Young – I believe that A2 is something we would like to address, we would like to consider striking it
- Brooks – In 4C, is there a limit on how many years a school can pilot an innovation course?
- If a district teaches a course for local credit, the state does not approve it
- There are a number of state credits required, local credit does not count towards that
- Local credits do apply toward local credit
- Brooks – I would like to put a limit on the amount of time required for a successful pilot?
- I don’t understand what you are trying to achieve
- If you don’t want them to pilot for very long, they just won’t submit for innovative course approval
- The pilot program requirement is so that you can see if there is a need for the course
- There have been gaps in CTE programs and we have filled those gaps by starting out with innovative courses
- In the past, we have requested a district submit an application for an innovative course to fill the gap, and then we add it to the TEKS later
- We request that you would consider potentially allowing a process where a course necessary for a program of study can be approved due to necessity
- You could change the language to allow for a demonstrated need
- It is intended to fill gaps in the short term
Item 3: Consideration of Innovative Courses
TEA Staff
- Board will consider 2 courses: multilingual acculturation studies and navigating excellence
- 1st course for one credit designed to help new immigrants
- 2nd course focuses on the study and application of leadership behavior
- Multilingual acculturation studies
- Ortega – it seems that this course would benefit students, I have no problem with it
- Young – this would approve the course for anyone in the state
- Ortega – I think there are many areas in the state where this should be an option
- Little – what is the advantage to Plano if we approve this?
- Students who take this course will get state elective credit
- This will give students additional support and credit which will keep them on track
- Brooks – I disagree with the execution of this course and it overlaps with existing support, I believe that this credit will be most effectively used in a foundational course or in a different field. It would be different to meet all the cultural supports necessary
- Brooks – the focus is on global appreciation, I would like to see the focus on assimilation as it pertains to the US and the culture of this country
- Brooks – there is also a lot of alternative assessment
- Brooks – I would like to see something more academically driven
- Staff does make sure that any innovative course does not have an overlap
- It is distinct enough
- Brooks – but they also have counselors and career help
- Some of what you are describing may not be true everywhere
- Ortega – Why wouldn’t we want to offer more help to emergent bilingual students? This could benefit so many people in Texas
- Brooks – I believe the idea is a great one, I am looking at what is the most beneficial way for a student to spend the day. I believe that we are doing a good job. My only concern is the execution part. I am more comfortable with an objective driven method
- Brooks – could it be a half credit?
- It would be a full credit as it is currently written
- Ortega – we need to focus on language learning
- Brooks – the focus is not on America
- Brooks – one credit is a lot. Our scores are low now, what is most important is that our students focus on reading and writing. We need an academically focused course
- This doesn’t supplant any courses
- Young – is there not a coding specific coding for newcomers? Must all students in this course be coded as a newcomer?
- Yes
- Young – we lack a lot of support for newcomers in public school
- Brooks – the standards are an issue as well, some are alarming
- Brooks – on page 4, it says that all the lessons are different. This would be out of the control of the Board
- The standards are on page 6
- Brooks – 1C, I would like to remove explain campus code of conduct
- Brooks – 6G page 9; what is digital citizenship?
- Digital citizenship is how to act online
- Ortega – moves to approve course, motion carries 3-1 (Brooks opposing)
- Navigating excellence course
- Little – don’t we already have a lot of courses that do this?
- Young – yes we do
- Little – How many of these courses do we need to have? Let’s focus on one or two that are really good
- One of the focuses of this course is to 13 specific behaviors and the application of those behaviors
- Young – that is also offered for free through other outlets
- Young – I do not feel the need for an additional leadership course
- Ortega moves to deny course approval, motion carries 4-0
Item 4: Approval of Updates and Substitutions to Adopted Instructional Materials
TEA Staff
- Children’s Learning Institute (Circle), Learning A -Z, Savvas learning made requests
- Brooks – I need a little bit more time to go over the materials
- Little – I think with the Savvas material, we need to approve that today because that could cause a problem if we don’t
- There was some restructuring that was done with the Pre -K guidelines
- We have authority for structural materials, but not standards
- Some of the changes that we made were an unintended consequence that required publishers to change their books, but there was not a significant change in content
- Young – will there be a potential additional cost to the district?
- There is not supposed to be
- Changes that impact a print product could be an expense, but the goal was to make sure that there would not be a negative impact on districts
- Motion to approve Savvas request, motion carries 3-0
- Motion to approve Children’s Learning Institute request
- Brooks – the language was changed from teacher to adult as to who students accept direction from
- A lot of this is instruction to the teacher
- Young – we should recommend a such as to make it clear whom the students should engage with; we don’t want children speaking with adult strangers
- Motion carries 4-0
- Young – Member Brooks shared some concerns about A -Z learning materials
- Young – I would ask that we set these aside because we haven’t had sufficient time
TEA Staff
- UT ISD and Texas Tech ISD must submit 20% of their CBE for an audit
- The audit ensures alignment with the TEKS
- This offers us the opportunity to let you know that the audits are complete
- Ortega – What is the result of this audit?
- They will make adjustments
- This completes a 5-year cycle for the audit