The State Board of Education met on August 30th to take up a full agenda, including discussion of proposed social studies TEKS standards, curriculum requirements, implementation of science TEKS, and instructional materials. The full agenda and video archive can be found here. This report covers the SBOE members discussions on the agenda items and does not include public comment discussions.
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of 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.
Opening Comments
- Seems like many meant to sign up for Social Studies TEKS, but signed up for another item; will be able to speak on social studies
Item 1. Update on Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) Review
- Typically provide you with updates on review & revision process; posted as an action item so any additional direction from SBOE could happen during this item
- Convened Workgroup F to ask whether structure and framework of drafts was appropriate, whether current structure was appropriate, or something in between
- Workgroup F agreed unanimously that framework being worked on by other workgroups was the right one
- Asked Workgroup F to look at existing drafts for K-8, no work has been done on high school topics since the last meeting
- Latest draft for K-8 reflects some feedback, incl. 1) “In God We Trust” in Grade 1, 2) K theme adjustment to reflect communities and bring in some standards form K-3, 3) decrease world history expectations in K-2 to emphasize TX & US, 4) added more civics in, 5) economic building blocks to prepare for later grades
- For 3-5, 1) pre-history content was significantly reduced, hunters & gatherers content was removed to limit scope, 2) added language to intro to explain how standards were set up, 3) made language across 3-5 more consistent
- Also looked at TX history for all grade levels, looked at identified gaps
- Also looked at using examples from TX instead of other states
- “Celebrate Freedom” language is reflected in the draft, has not gone anywhere
- Explanations for intent for each grade level K-8 are present
- Pam Little, SBOE – Was there someone with an expertise in civics on this Workgroup?
- Made up of previous workgroup members, many social studies supervisors and coordinators
- Also invited 3 content advisors who have ISD experience, one spoke to feedback about civics
- Last time draft was published, Workgroup B included social studies practices languages, but wasn’t included in workgroup D; now included
- Little – Have had emails from civics experts, felt that a lot of the things that are labeled civics may not be civics
Â
Public Comment – over 3hrs
Discussion on Agenda Item
- Ellis – can discuss paths to go down to get to a first reading, path one is a continuation of where we are. Another option is a concept of certain requirements under SB 3 being added to TEKS or hybrid of both paths.
- Hardy – asked about a typo and wants a correction to be made about a Houstonian.
- Hickman – would like to improve existing TEKS and use some of workgroup F’s work
- Little – needs to get solid advice on where to move this, get advice from parents and educators
- Little – concerned not enough time, would like to delay and do math first
- Little – have only heard from a few educators that support the framework, need to hear from parents and educators
- Hickman – would like to pick a framework and put it out there and hear from Texans
- Staff said they need clarity on what SBOE wants to see at each grade level and as a starting point
- Davis – What directives has SBOE given that was not clear and that the workgroup did not accomplish?
- Little – thought first drafts were not what she wanted, thought SBOE directed the workgroup to investigate a different framework
- Ellis – did ask workgroup to explore and continued the framework, question should be if they want the workgroup to explore or does SBOE want to direct the way it should be
- Staff – did not think there needed to be an alternative
- Davis – also does not recall the workgroups being told to do something different
- Ellis – if the workgroup had another version to present it but the work produced was on what the group thought was the right direction
- Little – expects them to reduce the world history
- Davis – can’t it be reduced during amendments? If it can’t then original ask was not reasonable.
- Maynard – recalls history and controversy last time about mathematics revision, need to find a path forward where they can dig deeper but also need to meet SB 3 mandates in the meantime
- Ellis – blame also falls on him, expectations were not clear
- Ellis – tells workgroups the work was not in vain, will figure out how to move forward from here
- Hardy – will also take blame, work on SS later to give it more time and add SB 3 requirements now
- Ellis – originally had math before social studies, could take up math now
- Perez-Diaz – board is responsible for the situation today, if we don’t complete the process by end of year will create resentment and stifle desire to serve as volunteers
- Perez- Diaz – points out workgroup was comprised of teachers, additional board meetings can be called to addressed and wants to know who Hickman consulted with on an enhanced framework
- Perez – Diaz – concern about scaffolding, would offer as standards are rolled out do so by year (6th and then 7th and then 8th), push implementation by 1-2 years which allows time for practitioners to get professional development
- Allen – Agrees with comments from Perez-Diaz, when bring in 5 new SBOE members would need 2 years to take on social studies
- Allen – notes this conversation has occurred every time, SBOE gets bombarded with political agendas, need to trust the process and believes they can finish by the end of the year
- Allen – don’t throw five members who have been working on this since the beginning, “we want to finish the task”
- Bell-Metereau – impressed with the work of the workgroup, can find a compromise on language that alienated people, does not support throwing out all the work
- Perez – no objections to framework that was originally proposed, not following process again is problematic, not opposed to more Christianity, American Exceptionalism, just want all kids to have opportunity and good governance means compromise
- Perez- Idea of delaying is unacceptable, the job can get done
- Johnson – thinks we can do better, first need to do it right and not in a hurry, need to review harmful omissions and need to weed out CRT
- Melton-Malone – would love to leave with SS finished, but does not feel it is a quality document at this point
- Robinson – agree with Little, Melton-Malone, Maynard
- Davis – asked Johnson if taking out people of color and LGBTQ would make it acceptable
- Johnson – no, Davis and Johnson continue discussion and Davis feels there were some racists statements made during the day
- Ellis – clarifies challenges is bigger picture that needs work than things that could be fixed by amendments
- Young and Ellis discuss charge, social studies was put on cycle before SB 3 and SB 3 is still a requirement now that we are here
- Young – should back up and focus on what SB 3 requires
- Hardy – the revisions they are discussing is a major change, they have worked on the framework for 5 months and that is not reflective of the time it needs
- Little – motion proceed to only add requirements of SB 3 to SS and move ahead with math, in the meantime appoint a committee to do study on framework
- Staff – concern with math in the motion
- Ellis – committee formed to go through could be done in a few ways so concerned on a quick decision
- Little – pull downs motion
- Little – move to proceed with only adding requirements of SB 3, spend next couple of years working on the SS framework with stakeholders (incl parents) …added 2025 as year SS would be take up
- Hickman – will vote against motion, would like to move forward with something today and does not want to punt this issue
- Ellis – two parallel drafts could move forward at the same time
- Hickman – in favor of making SB 3 required changes and doing it by the deadline, but wants to pick a framework and get it out there
- Maynard – do have to make a decision eventually, don’t have to do it right now
- Ellis – calls to divides the motion (7 in favor- motion fails)
- Little’s motion stands – discussion continues
- Cortez – wants to know what research for two years looks like, points out it’s a waste of money and time to kick down the work until 2025
- Little – does not feel comfortable with the framework, would like to get a consensus from educators, wants to know what is the best framework
- Perez – quitting is not acceptable
- Ellis – voting on this motion does not require giving up, another motion could be made
- Perez-Diaz – asked for motion to be restated, thought discussion today was on content and not framework, if content is the issue they can address it in first reading
- Perez – Diaz – nothing stops them from working on amendments like last time
- Staff needs clarification, especially regarding SB 3 changes in civics and literacy
- Ellis – asked staff to look at SB 3 and what is needed to meet the requirements
- Discussion continues including staff ability to get a workgroup together, points out challenges in staffing and may struggle with getting a workgroup in place within a certain period of time, virtual also poses challenges
- Perez – Diaz – asked staff if workgroup work could be used to see if that is the process to abide by SB 3
- Staff would like ability to address to the extent that works in current standards, notes the framework was about specifics and got rid of such as and including statements so they would need to address that difference and says it would be helpful to have latitude to use work already done by workgroups
- Perez-Diaz – would clarify use part of workgroup draft for development of student expectations that meet SB 3 requirements
- Ellis – Sept 27 would be last day for first reading assuming special called meeting for second reading
- New Motion draft (attributed to Little) – The staff will bring to the next SBOE meeting, a draft that only adds missing SB 3 requirements and the SBOE will spend the next couple of years, until 2025, investigating to inform the framework; and give staff the latitude to use draft student expectations from the work groups as a starting point in adding student expectations that meet SB 3 requirements.
- Ellis – if goal is to continue down path toward resolution can still make another motion but this motion gets us to at least SB 3
- The motion carries 7-2 (2 were Hickman and Cortez)
- Short break
- Ellis – two questions, what to do with plan outline recommended by Hickman & what to do with ethic studies
- Hickman – motion to send proposed framework to the committee as a starting point
- Ellis – not asking staff to convene workgroups and continue working? This is about the future group that will study?
- Hickman – yes
- Discussion on possible wording of motion
- Final Motion language – The SBOE will use the proposed framework presented by Mr. Hickman as a starting point in future considerations of revisions to the K-8 social studies TEKS (graphic included)
- Perez-Diaz objected
- Voted called
- Motion carries 8-5
- Hardy – motion that current ethnic studies can go forward, make no changes to Mexican American and African American studies & would like to see Native American and Asian American make an application for innovative course during upcoming cycle
- Native American can be ready for fall of 2023
- Discussion on ethnic studies motion continues
- Davis – wants to know how this would impact those who currently have a pilot study occurring, doesn’t want Grand Prairie ISD to have to keep going back and forth, wants to solidify what they are being told
- Staff – would be asking them to resubmit the application, there was a need for significant revisions to the last application
- Staff – clarifies is they went through TEKS review process their course would not have been submitted until 2025, now going through the innovative process they can be up in 2023
- Staff – Still have time to solicit materials for these courses in Proclamation 2025
- Motion on ethnic studies passes 12 -1
- Hickman and Ellis discuss previous workgroup drafts, Hickman wanted to know about workgroup C
- Clarification provided that the previous motion went to all grades, social studies
- Bell-Metereau – where does this leave the work of workgroup F? Felt there were fixes that could have been done to address objections
- Staff – at the very least is that Hickman intended them to pick up some of that work as the starting point, the “best of” work should be included as a starting point
- Ellis – felt it was clear that it wasn’t the vague request in email, but it was the framework that was the concern
- Bell-Metereau – didn’t get complaints on the framework, it was other issues
Â
Item 2. Discussion of 19 TAC Chapter 74, Curriculum Requirements, Subchapter C, Other Provisions, §74.33, Additional Requirements for Social Studies Classes for Grades 3 – 12/ “Celebrate Freedom Week”
- Staff – September 17th is the week as “Celebrate Freedom Week” and SBOE established requirements for grades 3-12
- Staff – The item is for the board to discuss if they would like any changes that are in addition to the statute
- Ellis – clarifies any discussion on the item is about the rule for requirements of celebration, not about the actual TEKS
- 4 public testifiers in support of “Celebration Freedom Week”
- Davis – confirms they are deciding if they want to add additional language, not trying to take it away
- Davis and Ellis confirm they are not talking about removing it
- David would like to add language about voter registration into schools
- Ellis can discuss but it would not be part of the rule discussion
- Maynard – are there supplemental things being done like posters, etc
- Ellis – thinks that question falls outside of the agenda item, but staff will follow up and get something back to Maynard
- Hickman – wanted specifics on how it is handled, confirmed it was already in the TEKS
- Staff says no, Ellis says it would be at the discretion of the district
- Ellis closed item 2 seeing no further discussion
Item 3. Proposed Amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 112, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science, Subchapter C, High School, §112.41, Implementation of Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science, High School, Adopted 2020
- The proposed amendment would update the rule to move the implementation year for the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for Biology, Chemistry, Integrated Physics and Chemistry, and Physics to the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year to align with the instructional materials timeline.
- Maynard – Makes the motion for first reading and filing authorization, it was seconded
- Motion passes 11-0
Item 4 was moved to the following day.