Print đź–¨

The State Board of Education (SBOE) Committee of the Full Board met on April 9. The committee held a public hearing followed by a discussion on proposed rulemaking of 19 TAC Chapter 120, English Language Proficiency Standards. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) staff then proceeded to review and invite committee discussion on the removal of instructional materials from the list of approved and rejected instructional materials. The meeting concluded with a robust discussion on the instructional materials review and approval (IMRA) process along with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and IMRA rubric development schedule. An archive of this hearing can be found here.

 

For the last agenda item, extensive discussions focused on revising Math TEKS and developing the IMRA rubric to support advanced math pathways as encouraged by SB 2124, advocating for algebra in 8th grade. Public testimonies from district representatives highlighted the need for state-aligned, consistent guidelines across grades 6 through 8 to smooth the transition into algebra. The board debated the merits of targeted versus comprehensive TEKS reviews, with emphasis on aligning instructional materials and standards to avoid gaps in student preparedness across districts. Other discussions included the implementation of instructional materials for fine arts by 2026, adherence to revised Fine Arts TEKS, and enhancing Positive Character Traits Supplemental Materials.

 

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.

 

Item 1: Public Hearing on Proposed New 19 TAC Chapter 120, Other Essential Knowledge and Skills, Subchapter B, English Language Proficiency Standards

  • No testifiers, but items 1 and 2 are connected

 

Item 2: Discussion of Proposed New 19 TAC Chapter 120, Other Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, Subchapter B, English Language Proficiency Standards

  • Last summer, SBOE discussed a similar item
  • Draft recommendations were available to the board in mid-march and created numerous surveys to receive feedback; would classify these changes as significant
  • Based on feedback from US Department of Ed and other sources
  • Feedback relayed need for more proficiency levels and adjustments to the grade bands for the ELPS wanted more explicit connections to other subjects (math, readings, science, and social sciences)
  • Initial draft for the ELPS created and then writers convened with work group A; work group A biggest concern was the depth of the draft and it would be too overwhelming for teachers; group A liked the content connections to other subjects but thought proficiency level indicators veered too much into content of the subjects and not the ability to demonstrate their acquisition of language
  • Their revision included separating duplicates and creating a general section and streamlining the content areas and student expectations
  • Final work group will be brought back in may, must include final student expectations and a knowledge and skills statement and evaluate grade bands and ensure they are using common terminology
  • Expect only 1 final meeting of this work group
  • Evelyn Brooks- Not the first reading correct?
    • Correct, just discussion
  • Some of the domains removed; was the 5th domain reading?
    • No
  • Francis- could you provide an example of level descriptor changes?
    • Math might’ve said student has to solve world problems which is more appropriate for TEKS; changed because it does not demonstrate proficiency in language
  • What version would be available on ELPS website?
    • The draft is on the website and writers draft is also available 1
  • Hickman- How would teachers in the content areas use the ELPS?
    • Instructional materials are expected to address the ELPS and teachers are expected to understand and observer the standards
  • Is this for all teachers, or just teachers who are teaching kids who aren’t proficient in language?
    • For teachers instructing emerging bilingual students
  • Brooks- On page 2, section on writing expectations, suggests it should be more specific and list the specific parts of speech
  • For social studies, why the word communidad? Is this necessary?
    • Suggests she provides her feedback via writing
  • On page 2, expectations to using high frequency words, she suggests they provide meaning and context
    • Low frequency words are more complex vocabulary that students use less frequently
  • Why only 4 types of writing genres?
    • The work group determined the other types are in the TEKS, but they choose the ones most appropriate for learning English
  • Should students have to utilize pictures when writing in their first language and second? Would this allow them to learn more efficiently?
  • Page 5, the writing section on identifying parts of speech, should we raise the standards for language identification?
    • Staff will take into account these recommendations and consider them when the reconvene in May
  • Many different dialects and languages in state; the “such as” clause for cognates does not include these other languages
    • Clause doesn’t apply to romance languages, but the work group can definitely consider including other Asian languages
  • Marisa B. Perez-Diaz- Would argue the “such as” is important to define cognates

 

Item 3: Discussion of Proposed New 19 TAC Chapter 67, State Review and Approval of Instructional Materials, Subchapter B, State Review and Approval, §67.43, Lists of Approved and Rejected Instructional Materials

  • Staff- Proposing next set of rules and will return for rules first reading; they are clarification of rules outlined in HB 305
  • Brooks- Saw a document with rejecting and approved materials, how do we apply these new rules to them?
    • These rules will only apply to future instructional materials
  • Kinsey- No approved rule list now, so this rule is developing a list and setting those standards on what would remove a material from this list
  • What is the ruling for proclamations on the current list?
    • The state adopted bulletin is a separate list and the contracts for the current materials have already been signed
    • The next list is for upcoming instructional materials for review and that is where these rules will apply
  • If the TEKS change or the publisher changes materials without approval the rules now outline these are reasons for removal
  • If instructional materials are removed districts couldn’t buy these materials with state funds because they are no longer approved
  • If unapproved, publisher would be able to resubmit, and the board would decide if they would like to approve again
  • Tom Maynard- How do we know when these things are reported to the agency? How is it investigated? How do we ensure these standards are met?
    • HB 1605 allows them to collect a report on the materials acquired from publishers
  • In order to respond, complaint would have to come from school district or school board?
    • Typically, yes
  • Parents are frustrated; if a parent feels there is a problem with the materials how do they request a review?
    • Parents can submit a complaint because it is a local control issue; parents would have to appeal to school board and then board can consult the publisher
  • Staff- Parents could simply email TEA staff and it would then be investigated
  • Maynard- Need to create a system that is more welcoming of parent feedback; some TEA systems seem like they intentionally discourage parental engagement
    • Parent portal programs will allow parents to view materials; staff will definitely consider new ways to encourage parental engagement
  • Pam Little- Publishers should be penalized if they change materials without approval
    • That will be incorporated into the rules and already some rules exist that can fine publishers; will work to clarify these rules
  • Francis- Parental grievance process should be independent of the school board and appeal directly to TEA
  • Charles- Will publishing contracts be 4 years or 8 years?
    • Original contracts will be 8, and then reviewed at 8 for another 4 years
    • School board will be allowed to make their own contracts within parameters
  • If school is using item that is subscription based would they have to appeal to TEA?
    • They would need to ensure it meets the statues, but we will clarify this in the writing
  • Audrey Young- Grievance system is a broken system; must be brought to state level
  • Brooks- Still revising materials that were approved using prior proclamations?
    • Yes, process outlined in ch 66; clearly outlined process we aren’t changing
  • So, two options?
    • Yes, one will increase and other will decrease
  • Can we insert new language in ch 66 to outline penalties for publishers?
    • Yes
  • Julie Pickren- Parents frustrated with instruction approval list; superintendent certificate mandates they must comply with state laws, what happens when they recommend instructional materials that are illegal?
  • Funding mechanisms in D, only ties to additional funding?
    • No, districts have majority autonomy, but cannot spend on materials that have not been approved
  • In 31.023, states these rules apply to all commercially developed instructional materials; does it really apply to all?
    • Over time as reviews occur, it will eventually apply to all
  • Kinsey- Not all, only those who have applied to EMRA process
  • What would happen if SBOE makes a rule change? Rules don’t outline these provisions
    • It is currently not established in the rule text; we will work on that
  • Broad suitability requirements, so publishers would be judged according to these standards; would not want to force them to change rapidly and cause chaos
    • Kinsey- Understand, need to ensure clear process
  • Hickman- If book gets removed from approved list, can districts continue to use? They would just not receive $40 per student for instructional materials?
    • Questions not addressed
  • Are we only maintain an approved list and rejected list, no middle?
    • Yes, no middle list
  • Kinsey- What is current practice with proclamations?
    • Bought upfront; need to consider new rules concerning this process
  • Subscriptions standard terms?
    • Unsure
  • Francis- Ch 48, districts will start reoccurring these dollars?
    • Yes, they will receive this funding they just cannot utilize it yet until approved list is released
  • Could this number increase? Under what circumstances?
    • Legislature authorized to increase formula amount without changing statute
  • How is this funding different?
    • Traditional instructional materials and technology allotment, allotment per student for materials, attendance based funding, and OAR printing allotment
    • OAR printing allotment grants $20 per student; this funding would not roll-over like other funding mechanisms
  • How do they get the per student funding?
    • Will need to adopt approved materials
  • Kinsey- What’s the timeline for section g?
    • We can add a timeframe to clarify
  • Can we clarify timeline for local classroom reviews?
    • Different sections for publishers submitting for round of EMRA
  • Pickren- Why would we remove rejected version for approved version?
    • To use different ISBN; allows body to approve materials once changes are sufficient
  • Staff- Suggesting change to guarantee publishers aren’t circulating old version?
    • Pickren- Yes, it creates confusion
  • Staff- Can we remedy with current language or do we need rule changes?
    • Pickren- Would like rule changes
  • Kinsey- If we have TEKS revision, what happens between approval of that revision and completing next EMRA cycle?
    • Must determine if want to issue a proclamation and if they would want to remove items from instructional materials approved list
  • Kevin Ellis- If publisher wants their item to be removed, can they request removal?
    • Currently not outlined
  • Local districts can modify LAR?
    • To a degree, cannot make wholesale changes
  • Kinsey- Must clarify complaint process to ensure correct product is identified
    • Ellis- Yes
  • Brooks- How do we update and revise curriculum in this system?
    • Instruction materials are used to convey and revise; TEKS change these instructional materials
    • State dedicates distinction between methodology and curriculum; TEKS more designated towards methodology
  • Brooks – Local ISDs write their own curriculum? Do the two collide?
    • TEA Staff – What we are doing not approving high quality instructional materials so a district does not have to make their own curriculum; depends on structure
    • TEA Staff – Will identify the changes in districts’ behavior once you make those materials available
  • Hardy – We are not talking about taking curriculum writing power away from schools are we?
    • TEA Staff – No, are supports is up to district how to best implement
    • This is about marking materials as high quality; they would include a year-long scope and sequence
    • Will always be local control over how to implement these materials; now SBOE has more control over quality of materials
  • Hardy – Every company does this now in terms of enhancing materials; we want final say to be with the school district
  • TEA Staff – If anyone has suggested language for this, we are available

 

Item 4: Update on the Instructional Materials Review and Approval Process

TEA Staff

  • This will become a regular item at SBOE meetings
  • Provided this committee a report of the products on this list; had a couple publishers drop from our list of products
  • IMRA scoring; last meeting finalized quality rubric
  • Ran a trial with quality rubric and approach to scoring; goal was to get review done in 6-7 weeks; wanted to check for gaps in evidence guides; evaluated K-3 ELA and K-12 Math
  • The quality reviews took about the same time that was estimated; confident with 6-week timeline
  • Review outputs yielded information necessary to support final IMRA reports
  • Scoring weights seemed proportionate; some work needs to be done concerning guidance for reviewers
  • Kinsey – TRR results compared to IMRA results?
    • Chose a product that scored well and another in the middle of TRR; and it was able to identify the good one and the great one
  • Hardy – Have the ban on the 3 queuing; current?
    • Chose two products that did not have that in it, knew it would make them automatically fail
  • Hardy – Did we as a board decide we did not like the TRR because it was unfair to publishers
  • Little – Was unfair in terms of star ratings, but in terms of information is helpful
  • Hardy – Do not want to see any star ratings
  • Brooks – These reviewers were not hired?
    • Were subcontracted; held them to similar standards to the reviewers we would use in the summer
  • Brooks – Want more transparency on who we are recruiting; from what district, what percentage are teachers and payment
    • Will show you the dashboard and will go over that; those who we contracted with will not be used this summer
  • Childs – Scoring reliability?
    • This was more about clarity; ensuring things were weighted properly
  • Childs – Are they going to get percentages?
    • Will make things clear
  • Pickren – Market share analysis?
    • Will present that in a few minutes
  • Brooks – The list will come to the board – all publishers will still have access to the materials list
    • Will have a report for every product this November
  • Will provide a reviewer recruitment update
  • Will be updating reviewer dashboard ongoing; can filter by SBOE district and school district
  • Had over 400 applications; a lot were parents, majority were K-12 educators
  • Majority were K-3 ELA experts; missing some experts in math; was a large response
  • Are on step 8 of 13 on this reviewer recruitment process
  • Will score applicants on scale of 1-3 in terms of suitability; each board member will get a list of applicants from their SBOE district
  • Members can strike people from the list, adjust ratings, and will provide final list to staff after two weeks
  • After that next step will be training
  • Perez Diaz – 232 applicants were parents; do we have any more information on their experience
    • Dashboard has more information
  • Francis – Do we have the full 13 step process available?
    • Is on the website
  • Francis – When will we get this preliminary list?
    • Are wrapping up things for the starting list; will be either this or next week
  • Francis – When is training?
    • Weekend of May 17
  • Hardy – Did you give us phone numbers so we can contact their references?
    • Will share resumes with contact information
  • Perez Diaz – For educators leaving their districts for this; have an incentive tied to this?
    • Every reviewer will be paid a stipend and will be paid for training; will receive continuing education credits; will keep those on the list who cannot make the full list for next years review; will work with superintendents
  • Perez Diaz – Any supplemental like help with substitutes?
    • Have not historically provided that
  • Pickren – TEA will select the top candidates; what does that mean
    • Applicants will submit a performance task, more years of experience in education, being a parent ranks you higher on the list
    • Is a starting point for members; you are welcome to change that ranking
  • Pickren – After we provide the final list to TEA are assignments; how do we ensure our top picks are assigned by the TEA
    • You can rank them high; can tell us directly; it will mostly depend on demand for reviews
  • Perez Diaz – Are educators who are higher certified ranked higher
    • Certification and years of experience are accounted for
  • Brooks – Know we want a diverse group of reviewers including teachers and parents
  • Members discuss the method of ranking candidates and ensuring members have access to the reviewer dashboard
  • Need to ensure we are selecting the right instructional materials; are on steps 15 and 16
  • Board now is considering the list of materials that are up for review; are under the 200 material cap right now
  • Are reviewing full subject ELA materials, partial phonics, math K-12 full subject tier 1
  • 292 products initially requested to review; are now at 178 for the first IMRA cycle
  • No submissions for some advanced math courses provided in high school
  • Francis – Did we pull the enrollment for those classes that did not have submissions for?
    • Included enrollment numbers, do not have the numbers now; historically, these classes have lower than others; AQR is high
  • Have been building capacity for 200 product reviews in September/November; are under the capacity since we have 178; will not need to enact prioritizing protocol
  • Members can add materials to this list today, if max out 200, will need to kick some off the list; only have resources to do 200 reviews
  • In November will have the finalized list
  • Do have a market analysis concerning districts and their use of instructional materials who requested a review; did not present this data, but can provide it to the members
  • Brooks – Asks about when this will be available to everyone
    • Publishers have a deadline in May to submit data – after that
  • Brooks – What information did you collect that made you aware they were qualified?
    • Many did not submit for areas we were reviewing; some did not have the capacity to submit this year
  • Brooks and staff discuss the webinars provided to publishers on the IMRA process and what the IMRA report will look like
  • Pickren – Why is Saxon Math
    • Do not know specifically, did not reply; may not have
  • Pickren – Do not think this is a true market analysis; TASB has their recommended lists, ESCs are private corporations and have their own agreements with publishing companies
  • Pickren – HB 1605 made by-boards illegal? Negotiating group pricing is illegal; no longer collective pricing
    • It re-established fair pricing; not sure if it does what you are saying; a publisher cannot offer a cheaper price elsewhere than what they provide to us
    • This is a narrow analysis of what schools are currently using; is focused on LEAs
  • Pickren and staff discuss the student population weights added to the analysis
  • Pickren – A way to aggregate the data to include student performance and outcomes; for example could search of performance of Alba Mathemetics
    • Do not have those variables; could add to future analysis
  • Pickren – If you could specify which districts are using what; then we could cross reference with district performance
    • Can provide you data now that would help with that
  • Hardy – Favored nation status going away; thought every district had the same price?
    • That is still in statute; is a part of the instructional materials contract; could look at it there
  • Hardy – When the commission spoke to us, he said all books would cost the same regardless; do not know why anyone would have favored nation status
    • Publishers are to show us their cost/price breakdowns so districts can make their best
    • Can check with how the discounts are still allowable under the favored nations contract
  • Hardy – Thought that was going away
  • Hickman – Calculus is not listed under math; only doing those that have a regular TEKS course
    • Do not believe anyone submitted for that
    • AP classes are not specifically in this review; can add if there is the want
    • Are some sets of TEKS for AP classes in some instances
  • Pickren – Reiterates earlier question concerning by-boards; how are number of students using the instructional materials is being weighted by the by-boards
    • TEA Legal – HB 1605 did not change most favored nation parts of this; board adopted rules for certain discounts to be applied depending on amount
    • TEA Legal – If the board wants to revisit that rule, would be their decision
  • Hardy – Most favored nations is a burden to smaller schools; they have to pay a higher price; would be a good thing if everyone pays the same price; if we have the power, should look at that
    • TEA Legal – Will verify this discussion and get back to you
  • Pickren – Believe it was in HB 1605
    • TEA Legal – What you are referring to was already in law; reads from statute; if a school district wants to buy 500 books at that price, then every school can
  • Hardy – Seems like double-talk to me
  • Kinsey – Are veering off topic a little bit here
  • Hickman – OER is on this list; any concern about conflict with TEA OER running through this process?
    • Was by design so TEA OER did not have any special treatment; will not be reviewed by TEA, but will be reviewed by independent reviewers
  • Brooks – Most materials on here are digital, how many are printed?
    • Is a mix; when publishers submit final component list in May, will have better info
  • Brooks – Should we have a cap on digital instructional materials? Should have a balance between print versus textbooks?
    • Focus is instructional materials which focuses on digital process; if board wanted to prioritize print products, could do that next round
  • Brooks – When final report is presented; can we discuss if we want to weight this if there is an imbalance?
  • Kinsey – Are you trying to get to a ratio?
  • Brooks – Yes
  • Kinsey – Have not contemplated any ratio between digital products and textbooks; would be appropriate for you to bring up that discussion in November
  • Hardy – The decision on whether to do a digital/hardcopy is up to the local district; most every publisher who does a hard copy does a digital copy with some exceptions
  • Brooks – Did HB 1605 say all publishers needed a hard copy? Are OER materials digital only?
    • No; also no, OER with option of print/digital copy; is why there is a $20 entitlement for OERs
  • Brooks – OER under the jurisdiction of the SBOE?
    • Still under the SBOE’s jurisdiction
    • Is extra funding for OER materials
  • Kinsey – The extra $20 is for OERs in printed format for reimbursement
  • Brooks – Like Hickman’s idea of AP class materials be included in this; would have more oversight for materials used for those courses; could talk about this as a board in the future?
  • Kinsey – Nothing precludes us from doing that
    • Will need guidance since they may go above/beyond the TEKS; would need guidance and rulemaking on this; would need to establish new quality rubrics
  • Hickman – Asks about publisher submissions
    • Require publishers to send digital version so we do not house physical copies here; will need to be identical to their published version
  • Francis – Formally suggest segregation of data by SBOE district
  • Francis – Requiring at least a printed version of each submission
  • Francis – Benefit for OER?
    • Is an entitlement in HB 1605, $20 for any printed OER approved in the IMRA process; districts can draw down from that bucket
  • Francis – Why extra incentive for printed OER?
    • OER products are printed materials; not prioritizing print over digital; legislature made that decision; aim was for districts to implement the product with fidelity
  • Francis – Should think about this for the whole process, not just OER; we are working on rules right now, would be appropriate to look at that now
  • Little – OER is free to a district, but there is a cost to the state with the initial purchase and if the state edits/revises it
    • Yes
  • Little – Can access it online, but to get a printed copy, is a different way
    • Yes
  • Francis – Provision for assessment of fines; has the board ever used that?
    • Yes; was an instance where a publisher changed their mateirals without going through proper procedures
  • Francis – Want more details; when was this and how much fine was?
  • Little – Was in April 2020; was a workbook that was shown to the SBOE were different than the ones sent to districts
  • Kinsey – Will get staff to follow up on the amount of the fine and other details

 

Item 5: Update on Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) Rubric Development Schedule

Public Testimony

Ryan Castle, Mesquite ISD

  • Mic was off for the first portion of testimony
  • Should take a more targeted approach rather than a full TEKS review, should align with recent legislation on algebra in 8th grade

Martin Cardenas, Grand Prairie ISD

  • Should consider focused approach to math TEKS; many ISDs are working to align 6th and 7th grade math to work with changes to 8th grade algebra
  • Approach would be stronger with consistent state guidelines across districts

 

Question and answer of public testimony

  • Hardy – Could be a great approach for the math TEKS, talking about multiple pathways?
    • Castle – Yes, usually algebra is taken at 9th grade level, SB 2124 incentives 8th grade algebra, so many ISDs are pressured to align 6th and 7th; something a the SBOE level defining standards would help
    • A lot of confusion over which TEKS to prioritize in 6th and 7th
  • Hardy – Works better for math than any other subject area
  • Ellis – You see this condensing 3 into 2, or would something in 8th grade TEKS be in algebra 1?
    • Cardenas – Main thing is aligning TEKS along 6th, 7th, and 8th
    • Castle – Standards align well as there is a lot of overlap between 6th and 7th grade skills
  • Ellis – I really like the idea, sounds like this is feasible
  • Brooks – What evidence do you have to show that we have good math centers now?
    • Castle – Do not have all the data, anecdotally and qualitatively the standards in 2012 were written with the research in mind; would advocate for the current standards, large amount of time has been poured into those
    • Would be difficult to completely revise math standards while int eh middle of IMRA development
  • Brooks – Appreciate the viewpoint but disagree, kids cannot do the math & not prepared moving into 6th grade; only a certain percentage of students can go into an accelerated approach like this; tried this and saw gaps
    • Castle – Not a K-5 expert so do not know that I can speak specifically
    • Cardenas – Have spoken with other coordinators & spent a lot of time developing this approach
    • Castle – When we point back to IMRA process, need that combined with standards to drive achievement; need to allow IMRA to play out with standards we are familiar with & allow HQIMs to come in alongside
  • Brooks – Good standards is how we identify high-quality materials
  • Maynard – 2012 standards were a significant shift & started from zero; considering COVID, don’t really have a lot of reliable data on these standards; when you strip the process there isn’t much left so the concern is what kind of knowledge & skill gaps are created, could be gaps in run up to 6th grade
    • Castle – Our 6th graders are coming in ready to go, seeing high levels of achievement in advance course work
  • Maynard – Hearing that your advanced students are in really good shape; is the curriculum in the lower level taught exactly to standards or are there spots that make up for deficits
    • Cardenas – Cannot speak to preparedness across the state, but one of the things we are advocating for is aligning with SB 2124 and getting a certain percentage of students in advanced pathway
  • Maynard – Why are some students not prepared?
    • Castle – Lot of factors to consider, like the student’s story, teachers; feel like standards are doing an adequate job & not having to backfill
    • There is some scaffolding and backtracking, but not atypical & not indicative of deficiency in standards
    • Noticing that skills gaps are closing as we get further from the pandemic
    • Focus is quality standards, quality curriculum, and quality teachers
  • Hickman – Path is algebra, calculus, statistics?
    • Castle – In general yes
  • Hickman – So if you do not take algebra 1 by 8th grade you do not get too calculous
    • Castle – We have pathways in Mesquite ISD that still allow students to take calculus; have tools like summer bridge programs, etc.
  • Hickman – So you are asking for a normal 6, 7, 8, and then new TEKS for a combined 6&7, 7&8?
    • Castle – Yes, there could be a limit
  • Hickman – Process standards may be more elementary focused, is the idea there the teacher was supposed to teach the same problem 7 different ways? Heard that this is how it has been implemented, rather than having alternatives
    • Castle – Process standards apply to our content as well; would not characterize this as teaching the same problem 7 different ways, some processes fit certain problems better than others
    • Process standards are tools for how we want students to think mathematically
  • Hickman – Have you had teachers test on different methods?
    • Castle – Some questions are specific and ask for different methods; process standards ask which method makes the most sense or is most feasible
  • Francis – What would you say regarding process standards when there are clearly problems with how they are written? What would you say?
    • Cardenas – Skills that process standards give are skill we want students to have
  • Francis – One critique I have heard is students are learning how to do math in very convoluted ways; do you have a live example of how these are taught?
    • Cardenas – Might teach a certain method and then have the students justify the method used
    • Castle – Teaching differing methods is not the spirit behind process standards, goal is to have students be able to justify answers
  • Francis – I do not think the intention is to confuse students, but have seen evidence students are not operating at the level we expect; trying to find where these holes are
  • Francis – Are you combining 6th, 7th, and 8th TEKS, 6th and 7th?
    • Castle – Whether they are identified through SB 2124 or locally identified another way to enter advanced math pathways, condensing starts in 6th grade so they can move into the 9th grade course in their 8th grade year
  • Francis – Districts should have some guidance & should not be allowed to do this on their own; your testimony expressed interest in partial TEKS review, is this driven by your experience; what is driving this recommendation, I have never heard this before
    • Castle – Hope here today was to suggest that SBOE look at a currently unmet need for advanced math pathways while allowing IMRA to play itself out with current standards so we can get good data
  • Pickren – SB 2124 says top 40% of STAAR testing in 5th should go to accelerated math in 6th, leaving remainder of meets standards students; for Mesquite ISD meets standards students are at 60%, do you think 40% of those are ready for accelerated math?
    • Castle – Automatically enrolled 40% of 5th grade students from feeder schools, 6th grade outcomes are exceeding what we saw last school year in performance and participation; hoping this translates to STAAR
    • Yes, do believe 40% is ready to be successful
  • Pickren – Are you using Ims based on Singapore math?
    • Castle – We use locally created resources in Mesquite ISD, majority created in house by our teachers
  • Pickren – Data is showing you are probably moving in the right direction
    • Cardenas – Have adopted resources approved through the TRR process, McGraw Hill
  • Pickren – Do you think it would be beneficial to start with upper grades and develop them down to kindergarten?
    • Cardenas – Not sure, would love to follow up
    • Castle – Would love to follow up after doing some research
  • Pickren – Asks for examples of materials
  • Bell-Metereau – If we look at data from other countries, do not need to reinvent; many others wrap different topics together & you want to avoid rote learning & high-stakes testing; have examples from Europe, Estonia outperformed others as well
    • Castle – Integrated math is part of the standards K-8 currently; need an excellent balance between procedural fluency and ability to justify the answer
  • Bell-Metereau – Over reliance on high stakes testing is counter to this integrated math approach
  • Perez-Diaz – Wanted to emphasize that this testimony is more than opinion and is based on knowledge and experience; I have not heard anything negative about process standards from practitioners as it is not a cookie cutter approach
    • Cardenas – Agrees, justification portion is not easy & getting students to think about process is important, as is professional development and environment design
    • Castle – Important to get teachers what they need from a content knowledge perspective, seeing many without the math background knowledge to be successful
    • Takes 2-3 years of being in the same content area to become comfortable with material and deliver it to students
    • Process standards also help defray impact of AI tools giving students the answer
  • Perez-Diaz – Not hearing that standards are flawed, hearing that educators need to be supported because kids are doing very well with the standards
    • Castle – Agrees, important to have teachers understand connection between grades & staying the course with current standards will help that process
  • Little – Appreciates what you are doing with local control; one concern I have heard is from businesses that students aren’t prepared for jobs & wondering if you have input on that?
    • Castle – Good question, would like to get back to you; part of the reason I got involved in education to help students be successful
  • Hardy – Back everything you have said 100%; at the time this was done, math academies were talked about; key for kids to learn multiplication tables for them to be good with math later in life
  • Brooks – I understand meeting needs of students ready to move forward, can see an accelerated pathway forward, but this is not the majority; at a place now where correct answer are frowned upon, rote learning is needed for foundational skills; process standards slow down progress & need to look at this with a balanced approach
    • Castle – No disparaging correct answers, agree we need a balanced approach & an understanding of what a right answer means
    • Cardenas – Defintiely need a balanced approach & if we think of occupations, we want students to have, it is important to know the “why”

TEA Staff Presentation

  • Have some info related to engineering that will be at the end; had a request last meeting to present timelines if math standards review were to begin now, a question about reviewing fine arts, and a request to provide info on what CTE looks like in the short term
  • Chair Kinsey has also asked about capacity and how some pieces work together; TEKS and IMRA are highly interrelated, so must plan the two coherently to avoid unintended consequences
  • TEKS revision can take up to 6 years from revision up until implementation; HB 1605 gives us another avenue to think about quality in the classroom through instructional materials
  • Through IMRA, we can see quality improvements in up to 3 years
  • Year-to-year IMRA decisions are always based on whether or not there are TEKS for core subjects that are being revised; if yes, would result in proclamation year prior to implementation of new materials that declares we are making substantive changes to TEKS with new instructional materials; connects to IMRA because new instructional materials means we need to look at rubrics, so then do we need to make changes to rubric? If no (TEKS do not need to be revised for a particular subject), then we need to ask if a new rubric is necessary
  • 3 different categories of instructional material in HB 1605: full-subject tier 1(100% of TEKS covered & extensive teacher-student support to ensure mastery), partial tier 1 (subset of full TEKS for a particular subject area), and supplemental (supplement tier 1 instruction to enrich)
  • SBOE wants to prioritize the following grades/subjects in the coming years for instructional materials review: K-5 English RLA (full subject), K-5 Spanish RLA (full subject), and K-12 Math (full subject)
  • Recommendations are as follows: 2025 IMRA review for mass supplemental materials to complement tier 1 instructional materials; taking CTE IMRA reviews and batching them over the course of the next 3 years; 2026 IMRA go to batch 2, looking at K-12 Fine Arts and K-12 Positive Character Traits
  • Considering a near term focus on CTE: by 2030, 60% of Texas jobs are projected to require entry skills beyond a high school diploma, 42% of jobs will require middle-skills occupations; not for these middle skills; strong CTE programs incorporate a variety of work-based components validated by labor market information and employer input enabling students to earn industry-based credentials and licenses; 57 statewide (and 6 regional) programs of study in 14 career clusters, recently refreshed and will be implemented beginning with 2024-25 school year; new programs include mechanical and aerospace engineering, electrical engineering, civil engineering, real estate, etc.; takes a while for schools to implement these programs; have a need for a 35 new courses (currently have 117 CTE innovative courses), move forward on accelerated cycle to adopt new courses and innovative courses over the course of the next 36 months to be included in the 3 cycles of IMRA; new and innovative courses for programs of study can be addressed in 3 batches: CTE 2024 Adoption TEKS (for CTE Batch 1 IMRA 2025), CTE 2025 Adoption TEKS (for CTE Batch 2 IMRA 2026), and CTE 2025 Adoption TEKS (for CTE Batch 3 IMRA 2027)
  • CTE 2024 Adoption TEKS includes adoption of already approved TEKS-based courses in April 2024 and innovative courses in November 2024; CTE 2025 Adoption TEKS (for CTE Batch 2 IMRA 2026) includes adoption of first set of new TEKS-based courses needed; CTE 2025 Adoption TEKS (for CTE Batch 3 IMRA 2027) includes second set of new TEKS-based courses needed
  • Working on engineering courses and identifying work group members; working on fire science, manufacturing, health science courses, asking to consider either allowing TEA to contract either with an IHE or an ESC to help accelerate process
  • In November, SBOE signaled an inclination to pursue Option 3, enabling these courses to be included in IMRA 2026 with assistance of ESCs and/or IHEs to develop prelim drafts; TEA needs an answer
  • TEA has a few options for consideration of the recommendation of interagency contracts with 2 or 3 partners to address CTE 2025 TEKS needed for SY 2025-26: Collin College’s Fire Academy (to develop fire science courses), Texas State Technical College (for technical skills, like manufacturing and construction), and an ESC (with teams specifically dedicated to facilitate TEKS draft recommendations); need to be mindful that need courses for 2025-26, so above needs to be adopted by April 2025 to reasonably make them available to school districts
  • Timeline in place consists of the next 18 months
  • Approval would get all the discussed courses in place so students can have and take advantage of the courses and their high-quality instructional materials
  • Fine Arts time IMRA 2026; June 2025 IMRA rubrics approved, May-August 2026 IMRA reviews, November 2026 IMRA instructional materials approval, 2027-2028 school year IMRA instructional material implementation
  • Considerations regarding this timeline are that the Fine Arts TEKS were revised in 2015, Fine Arts 8 year + 4-year extension textbook contracts expire in 2027, and the proposed IMRA timeline assumes TEKS revisions are not initiated
  • Another opportunity in IMRA 2026 is Positive Character Traits Supplemental Materials
  • Rationale behind this: there are standards outlined by this board for positive character traits
  • Districts are attempting to produce their own or adopt materials already out there
  • As a previous practitioner, there is not high quality with positive character traits, and discerning whether the materials are quality or not is very hard
  • Elevating this up to 2026 provides this board with the opportunity to define quality materials in this subject; it is a great time to elevate this considering the other potential IMRA 2026
  • Two math opportunities regarding math, one thing being kept in mind is ensuring everything is in place for all students
  • Math needs one: establishment of TEKS to support the advanced middle school pathway for advanced students (SB 2124)
  • Students who take advanced mathematics courses persist in and complete higher education at higher rates
  • We need to ensure these pathways are easily accessible and available
  • SB 2124: to increase the number of students who complete advanced mathematics courses in high school
  • The law requires every district to implement an advanced math program
  • Involves identifying students with potential, and preparing students adequately for algebra one and so on
  • We have received a lot of questions regarding small districts’ ability to implement this course; some only have one math teacher, teaching all curriculums
  • In the absence of state action, these programs will look a lot different, varying by district
  • A lot of resources and time will be provided in creating standards, instructional materials, and systems
  • We think by escalating this to IMRA 2026, this board could call for materials, and we could tell districts how they could do this and what materials support and can be used in this program
  • A lot of districts need guidance and help in this process; we want to ensure every district has access to high-quality materials and standards
  • We have mathematics achievement academies in K-3 grades
  • The difference between math and reading academies is that the math academies are not mandated
  • When we developed the math academies, it was specifically to help instructors understand what the process standards intended and what they did not; yes, the right answer matters, and they appropriately provide this instruction
  • Legislature required us to conduct a study on math academies, which will be happening this year
  • We will contract with a third party where their job will be to evaluate, present, and compare teachers’ results of students with teachers in math academies versus not in math academies
  • As well as the students’ results
  • Todd- The work will make districts think about the elementary pathway for their advanced students
  • This will create multiple potentials
  • We tried to do this, but realized we did not have the authority to strategically combine and pare down TEKS
  • We were basically creating hodge-podges of 6-8th graders together, making it untenable for our teachers; we do not have the quality that this board can provide
  • Will save a lot of time and effort and clarity for other districts
  • Second math need: Approval of instructional materials for mathematics for IMRA 2025
  • Support accelerated learning, think of tutorials
  • Learning loss in mathematics still persists
  • We are not achieving the pre-COVID levels
  • The problem persists even higher in secondary schools, from middle to high school
  • We have legislation in place; HB4545
  • Mandates that students who are struggling receive additional material and support
  • Also mandates all conditions that need to be in place for students to be successful; a key point being effective instructional materials as a driver for this success
  • The legislation provides high impact tutoring for struggling students, and research shows that high-quality instructional materials and instructors are the top indicators for these students to get back on the path
  • They are interrelated
  • In the data provided from the study on variability of supplemental math curriculum, low-quality curriculum is found quite often with misalignment in TEKS, Tier I Instruction, proven pedagogy, student need differentiation, and budgeting
  • Need to make sure the products we provide can be adaptable to each student’s needs
  • Also, there are a lot of flashy supplemental materials, but we need proven material
  • We want to develop a quality rubric for supplemental math materials by using the incentive funds
  • Our timeline would have the board approve the IMRA rubric by June (2025), reviews of material between May and August (2026), and approve the materials by November (2026) for the 2027-2028 school year
  • Through these proposals, we are identifying and helping all students in mathematics, especially those struggling and exceeding expectations

Questions

  • Hickman- Do we need math reviewers, is it 200 new math materials, on top of the 200 already reviewed, say for this year
    • There is room for flexibility
    • There will be a larger number that will come next year
    • We need to make sure we have reviewers prepared for the specific subjects, as well for the overall review
    • As we get into further years, with reviews, we think we will receive over the 200-limit capacity we have a prioritization protocol in place if we feel we are exceeding capacity
  • Hickman – Say we want to do Fine Arts next year, will the two hundred be a collective number or specific to each different subject; 200 fine arts plus 200 math and so on
    • We are selecting subjects, as it compounds, that will not have that number of materials submitted
    • There is speculation here, but also an opportunity for flexibility
    • We will evaluate capacity yearly, and if necessary, implement the prioritization tool if we feel capacity is being exceeded
    • Tool will be implemented into both sets of subjects being reviewed
  • Chair Kinsey- 200 is the statutory floor
  • Hickman- I though I heard our colleague say that was the floor and the cap
    • I did say that, but meant it for this year
    • Do not want to speculate, but our floor will most likely move upwards
  • Hickman – I want to see the New Course Career College Exploration program/initiative, which was developed a few years ago, in IMRA as we develop it for CTE
  • Hickman – Are we using TSDC Collin College, are we essentially using those as a workgroup, that they would bring a draft and then subsequent readings of draft would happen
    • For this to work, they would be used as a workgroup
  • Hickman – Regarding 6-8th grade math, my understanding is that my 8th grade son will take 8th grade end-of-course
  • Hickman – So, if we have a combined 6-7 accelerated, would they take the 8th grade end of course at the end of 7th grade
    • Currently, districts are encouraging students to take the STARR that matches closest with the instructional material they have received, in that year
    • If you all decide to pursue the idea of creating thee accelerated TEKS, then we could work with student assessment colleagues to decide about what the best match is for STARR, and then provide the necessary guidance for districts
  • Hickman – How could Social Studies fit into this accelerated format
    • Staff – bringing back math, fine arts and CTE
    • Chair Kinsey- We did not tell them to retrieve any data, or investigate Social Studies, but rather just the three on the agenda today
  • Hickman – Can we discuss it today?
    • Kinsey- Yes, it is germane
  • Hardy- I think teacher academies are basic and fundamental
  • Hardy – HB2124 could constitute an argument that calls for these academies
  • Hardy – Is there were a way to do some math and science in the GTE programs to start finding these accelerated learners in elementary levels, further initiating the process
  • Hardy – Would it not be more advantageous for everyone to align the TEKS process with what the math process so we would have the TEKS and IMRA at the same time
    • We looked at the mapping of math TEKS timeline, and one of the challenges revolves around the period
    • If they take advantage of IMRA 2024 and implement materials right now, the time of implementation effectively is very short
    • Making the decisions, by districts, can be polarizing if we might have to do this whole process over again in 2-3 years
    • Another finding is that districts are primed for new materials right now
    • They want to unlock the incentives offered
    • The priority right now is to get math materials because of the learning loss
    • It would put districts in a position where they would not be employing the immediate opportunity to drive change, and quality if we did the TEKS and IMRA at the same time
    • Monica-Another thing we thought of is do they have the money to buy these materials right now, the must buy another set of new materials that adhere to a new set of standards
  • Hardy – Hearing K-5 does not really need much change, need to put TEKS first so that we write the TEKS, and the materials match them
    • Districts do not know this, and you will have to give very clear guidance to workgroups
    • Districts have been watching, and will be apprehensive about assuming the changes will be minimal
    • They will be in pause-mode
    • Our recommendation is based on getting the needs and support to students and teachers as quickly as possible
  • Ellis- What ESCs work in this space
    • ESC Houston region 4; we work with the hospitals as they have access to expert subject matter and subject matter experts through health
    • Collaborate with them when extra facilitation and a lot of similar work we do in our agency
    • Region 13 is similar in having teams focusing on content and teams regarding coordination and facilitation
  • Ellis – I assume if we go with either of these routes the reviewal and decision will come back to this board
  • Chair Kinsey- What does this timeline look like
    • So, this is a discussion item, no opportunity to act
    • We think Colin College is probably the one that is the most obvious
    • Our thought was to do all three, and then divide up the work
    • Will be helpful to receive the board’s feedback for us to work on potential items that will be acted on June
    • We are faced with a very short timeline with 2025 implementation
    • Any hard NOs on this presented information, it would be good to do
    • The same goes for interest in pursuing potential options
  • Chair- Would be helpful for issues to be presented in the next 15 minutes regarding the information presented
  • Brooks- The third option, courses to be developed in three small, separate batches
  • Brooks – I want the state board to have full control over those decisions, important to have the authority to do that
  • Brooks – Thinks this is totally repurposing education
  • Brooks – Highschoolers do not have time to decide between 100’s of courses, especially considering the rigor of the courses
  • Brooks – Process should not be rushed; experts at the top, with small workgroups under them, I like this process
  • Brooks – Another big problem is the absence of Social Studies materials, especially when Fine Arts is being proposed
  • Brooks – Standards are everything, the TEKS process should not be altered
  • Brooks – Wondering what part of this 55-page presentation is a part of the Texas Perkins 5 Plan
    • The Perkins Plan requires us to have programs of study
    • We have identified programs of study and courses such as business and industry that need courses that do not currently have any TEKS
    • We have thirty-five courses that we need, we would prefer those be developed as TEKs-based courses that go through the board’s process, and make these courses available to students by the fall of 2025
    • The one thing we can not do is add more time when there are students who need to complete the courses for their study
    • A point of reiteration; districts must implement these programs of study to receive their Perkins funding
    • If we do not make the courses of study available, they cannot implement meaning no funding
  • Brooks – What is the goal, to get the incentive to the money or to educate our children with a foundation of knowledge
    • The goal is to prepare students for college and career
  • Brooks – So, it is not to educate them?
    • To prepare them for college and career by educating them
  • Brooks – This is different; we are going to educate them by sending them into the workforce early?
  • Brooks – The methodology is different to say the least, because adequacy in writing, reading, arithmetic and courses of study prepares them for any situation in the workforce, in my opinion
  • Chair Kinsey- What were you referring to regarding yielding statutory authority
    • Brooks- I see TEKS being overshadowed by IMRA and CTE process
    • Brooks – My responsibility, and the board’s, is to provide exceptionally academic TEKS, don’t see the foundational courses here
  • Chair Kinsey- Staff was asked to come back with a plan for math, CTE and fine arts
  • Chair Kinsey- Nothing that has been presented has precluded TEKS for next year, or your duty has a board member
  • Chair Kinsey- Everything that has been presented was asked by the board to be presented
  • Brooks- So Mr. Chair, is this the meeting where we can decide on which TEKS to develop and when
  • Chair Kinsey- We can have a more robust discussion if the that is what the board wants
  • Brooks – is this the meeting to decide on which TEKS and when, didn’t feel like the information in front of them was what they had previously
    • The TEKS review portion, most of what we outlined was CTE work and what needs to get done
    • CTE has been operating on parallel track to other subject areas
    • Social Studies would be in the mix next year, we will still have to do CTE
    • The timeline laid out regarding the board’s actions on TEKS reviews for 2025 do not preclude whatever other subject area you all would like to pursue
    • The CTE was never intended to preclude your duty
  • Little- I agree with Member Brooks in that we should first have our academics in place, seen through K-8th grade foundations
  • Little – Is the Perkins Plan a federal plan, and that it states we must implement CTE courses?
    • We need to have programs of study in place
    • To have strong programs of study, we need to have TEKS based courses
    • For us to have TEKS based courses, we need you all to adopt TEKS
  • Little – Is there some way to get rigor into CTE courses such as ELAR concepts
    • They are already there in many of the courses, can be strengthened and put more focus on
  • Little – Do you feel the IMRA process has pushed the movement for the CTE courses
    • We saw an opportunity that we wanted to make sure we presented
    • We think the landscape looks different now, the element of supplemental
    • If there are products out there that could be considered supplemental that would support strong CTE and programs of study, you want students to have access to these materials
    • This is not something the board has done in the past, but could be of major benefit to the way districts instruction and programs
  • Brooks- Why so many CTE and innovative courses?
    • There are a lot of careers out there
  • Brooks – How does it apply to K-12 education, is it a goal you set?
    • No, not a goal we set
    • We are talking about high school; students who have already received these foundational concepts of speaking, reading, writing
    • Yes, they need to be able to continue to develop and enhance those fundamental skills, but also prepare them for success in post-secondary whether it be a community college, a four-year university, or an apprenticeship
  • Brooks – Can we keep the TEKS the way they are, while reducing CTE courses to reduce TEA workload while keeping the same goal in mind
    • Streamlining courses can be a conversation
    • We made a commitment to ISDs that we would be additive in our presentation
    • Todd-These courses are in response to workforce demands
    • Our response to this workforce demand is in tandem with our desire to highly educate the students of Texas
    • You have full control over instructional material adoption
  • Maynard- It used to be that students understood the instruction taught, but could not apply those skills acquired
  • Maynard – provides more background on vocational education and CTE and his experience as a teacher
  • Maynard – CTE lets students understand the relevance and the application of the core subjects, the CTE lets them lay foundations for careers and higher education and “recases and couches academic content in a different environment of application”
  • Maynard – in CTE in addition to preparing young people for careers, actually supporting all core courses
  • Hickman- If I wanted to add or remove a course, would I go to the Committee on Instruction
    • Monica- For CTE when career clusters appear, conversations revolving removal occur
    • What we really need are those thirty-five courses
    • There is no way to include those courses as they are not TEKS-based courses
    • Our idea is that the group that is going to create the new courses to investigate the removal of courses as well
    • We would need to do preparation and alert districts if the board did want to prune CTE courses
  • Hickman – Proc 2015, those materials expired in 2023 – Math 9-12, Fine Arts K-12, Social Studies K-12; have extended contracts through 2027, but in order to have material ready, we would have to do Fine Arts and Social Studies by IMRA 2026; suggest social studies and fine arts on the table; do not know if we need a TEKS rewrite, what do they require before IMRA 2026; starts with TEKS
    • Brooks – Suggest revision of Math TEKS K-5, streamline of fine arts
  • Bell-Metereau – Staff puts in so much effort to bring these materials together; all we need to do is lend some advice to see if these are good courses; number of innovative courses is a problem; Native American studies innovative course should have been part of social studies courses for decades; respect work of the staff and assess courses for their value
  • Little – I like Brooks’ suggestion of Math K-5 and streamline fine arts; social studies needs to be on our calendar, pushed it off for too long, concern is with materials going out of date; if we need to move CTE back to assess social studies, that is something we should do; need a framework determined for social studies before we can even create writing teams, etc.
    • Chairman Kinsey – need to have a lot of other discussions about direction before we jump into social studies; let’s push social studies to next year
  • Ellis – This board has had one hand in effectuating change, by revising TEKS; legislature has now given us another tool to effectuate change, instructional materials. What does this instructional material process show? Are the problems we are seeing with students a TEKS problem or an instructional materials problem? Or other factors? If it is not an instructional material problem, need to revise TEKS, or vice versa; we, as a board, have oversimplified the process; we should be running through instructional material process, and then assessing if it is a TEKS problem; need to have social studies on the calendar; again, let’s look at the instructional material process for math before we make a math revision
  • Francis – Today, we have heard about SB 2124 but have not discussed how it relates to SBOE. Staff, there is a provision in the bill for rulemaking. Has that process ended?
    • Staff – The public comment period ended 2 weeks ago; we are in the process of summarizing that public comment and adjusting; Will fill with Texas register in next week or two for final adoption
  • Francis – What does that rule look like?
    • Staff – Indicated in the rule that the 40% number on STAAR is statewide; rule also explicitly requires every district to have a local measure in additional to identifying 40% in order to maximize number of students who are potentially eligible to participate in program; rule identifies timelines around when parents need to be notified; rule also has guidance on what happen if student did not take 5th grade STAAR for various reasons
  • Francis – At what point did the agency determine that the state board would play a part in this? This is the first time we have talked about this.
    • Staff – We have all been behind. As we started rulemaking process 2 months ago for SB 2124, it is now surfacing with state board
  • Francis – In SB 2124, it gives express authority to commissioner for rulemaking authority. Does that preclude state board’s authority on TEKS?
    • Legal – For statutory construction, if there is a conflict, the more specific control over the more general; you all have generalized authority to adopt TEKS and set curriculum; however, you all must do whatever you can to provide meaning to all the statutes
  • Francis – My question is: does the state board have the authority to create TEKS for this specific subsection?
    • Legal – No, that is the domain of the commissioner
  • Francis – Do we have the authority to create a grade 6 accelerated math TEKS? Since it was not given to us in that piece of legislation
    • Legal – Under 28.002 is where your authority to create curriculum derives. Under that, could you create an advanced math course in grades 6 and 7? Yes, but does not give you authority to usurp requirement of 28.029, which requires certain students to be enrolled in advanced math course
  • Francis – Has the agency put any thought into what math excellence looks like and how do we get there?
    • Staff – Yes, many conversations; we believe that this initial IMRA 2024 review is an important piece of the puzzle; have identified places of improvement; there are some good materials out there; we have an IMRA K-12 rubric that we feel displays excellence and reflects prior concerns of the board
    • Francis – I would like to see evidence to see whether we do have a plan to excellence
  • Francis – Do your slides say the problem is acute in secondary education?
    • Staff – That is showing the learning loss gaps that are still persistent, and we have not reached pre-Covid status yet; we are not eradicating that gap as quickly as we need to; secondary includes grades 6-12
  • Francis – On page 46 of slides, am I to understand that this does not preclude that board from doing other things?
    • Staff – No; in terms of social studies, we know that social studies is coming; the date discussed for some time was 2025; TEKS review until implementation extends several years, which is why timeline takes a while
  • Francis – How does the supplemental math option assist students not necessarily in that 40% in advanced math?
    • Staff – These materials would be high quality, adaptive materials to support students in need
  • Francis – How do instructional materials solve the bigger issue of students struggling?
    • Staff – The quality of instructional materials are an issue, but we have the opportunity to define quality; we can address that through this process; supplemental materials are also for the top 40%, primary purpose is for tutorial but can accelerate these students as well
  • Francis – For the tutoring, maybe these materials can have a greater component for parents or caregivers to assist at home, if they cannot get it as school
    • Staff – I agree; we can bake that into the quality rubric
  • Pickren – In the IMRA process for math, parents do not understand the math their children are learning and cannot help them; that is not a TEKS issue, which is a methodology issue; has TEA decided a methodology?
    • Staff – Quality rubrics include methodology; have gone through a lengthy process of developing rubrics, soliciting feedback from board and rubrics approved by board in November; you all were informed
  • Pickren – We need to offer both approaches, Singapore and Classical.
  • Legal – Caution against use of methodology in debate, not authorized to amend it; use term instructional design
  • Pickren – in the instructional design, we need to consider classical along with Singapore, not just one; schools showing best performance are not using anything on staff list
  • Pickren – Secondly, majority ISDs are already offering Algebra 1 in 8th So, some ISDs are willing to help with this process. They are already doing it
  • Brooks – Using expert advisors, would they still go through review process?
    • Staff – We will still identify work groups. These are the individuals who will look at that work of work groups and drafts they create
  • Parliamentarian – said historical minutes state the SBOE will spend the next 2 years (until 2025) investigating the framework which had been adopted earlier on how social studies would be laid out in grades K-8; so any work beyond informing the framework would need further review (“parliamentarian axle winding”) and is not posted for action
  • Chairman Kinsey – have talked about CTE, social studies, math, and fine arts
    • CTE – we have already adopted a plan for CTE that we need to continually develop; (there are 450 is number of all CTE courses) since there is no desire to take up all 450 at once, they need to just move forward on the issue
    • Social studies -must investigate a framework to know what that looks like to prepare for TEKS revision starting in 2025;
    • Math – we talked about the IMRA process, advanced pathways; there are many people who have different problems with math; but no succinct description of the problem so suggests maybe they do not understand the problem, but there is one and need to figure out what that is and come back with a plan to come back and have some action
    • Fine arts, we need to figure out between now and next meeting if we have a fine arts problem; if so, we must need to figure out which process we will use to fix it, whether it is TEKS or IMRA; I plan to meet with the two members who discussed that today sometime between now and the next meeting;
    • Concluding remarks – it might feel frustrating that we may not have a consensus, diverse board, but we can value the work that staff has spent working on this for months