Print đź–¨

The State Board of Education held a special meeting on December 13 to discuss the instructional materials review process and to discuss HB 900 88(R) library collection development standards. An archive of the meeting and the agenda can be found here.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on 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.

 

Item 1: Proposed New 19 TAC Chapter 67, State Review and Approval of Instructional Materials, Subchapter B, State Review and Approval, §67.21, Proclamations, Public Notice, and Requests for Instructional Materials for Review; §67.23, Requirements for Publisher Participation in Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA); and §67.25, Consideration and Approval of Instructional Materials by the State Board of Education, and Subchapter D, Duties of Publishers and Manufacturers, §67.81, Instructional Materials Contracts, and §67.83, Publisher Parent Portal

 

Public Testimony

Alexander Harris, Self

  • Against adoption of certain instructional materials that discuss the origin of the universe and primate evolution; notes concern after reading a recent instructional material
  • Brooks – Approved a list of instructional materials last meeting
    • Reviewing the updated materials, told it will take some time to get there; some of them had some content embedded; concerned about the use “intelligent design” and “creationism” interchangeably

 

Staff Presentation

TEA Staff

  • Have taken language/rules from chapter 66 that were effective previously
  • Have decision points for the SBOE to approve today; items relate to IMRA criteria and the review
  • Bell-Metereau – On investigations, it needs to include language so it says “shall determine”
  • Will go page by page as there is rule text on each page
  • Chair Ellis – Want to focus on decision points first, will get a main motion on the floor, and then we will go through amendments
  • Members discuss the order of the presentation and other
  • Hardy – Are calling for materials in general or in a specific subject area?
    • Staff – Aligned to quality rubrics that the SBOE approves annually; number of materials will grow year after year
  • Hardy – Will be up to the SBOE to decide what materials we want after the rubric is created?
    • Staff – Yes, today are focusing on K-5 reading language arts, phonics K-3, K-12 mathematics
  • Francis – How often do we review English Language Proficiency Standards Review? Why is it not considered here?
    • Staff – Responsibility is in our curriculum standards group; this board has asked for a work group to revise the ELPS; anticipating anything reviewed under existing ELPS would not be revised but anything new would be reviewed under new ELPS standards
  • Chair Ellis – Are currently revising them right now
  • Francis – Should that not be considered in the proclamation?
    • Staff – There typically are not separate materials for the ELPS
    • Chair Ellis – They fold into our current TEKS and current instructional materials
  • Francis – Is there a need to issue a proclamation because we are changing TEKS?
    • Staff – Is an annual call for any materials for the aligned rubrics in place; proclamation is just an indication to already approved publishers
  • Francis – Saying year over year review of materials is not considered a proclamation?
    • Chair Ellis – Correct
  • Kinsey – Suitability rubric included in this section?
    • Staff – Yes, that would be a good suggestion
  • Chair Ellis – Are only going to review those that have a quality rubric; addition of the suitability review would be belts and suspenders
  • Pickren – If we add the suitability rubric do the publishers still self-certify?
    • Staff – Will get to that later today; on page two
    • Staff – Publishers would not self-certify; review will be done by SBOE on materials and if there are suggestions to the publishers, that would be where the publishers would certify where those suggested changes would be
  • Chair Ellis – Publishers will not be self-reviewing; this is not the final adoption of this, that will be at a later hearing
  • Brooks – What is the schedule for the TEKS revision?
    • Chair Ellis – Have had that discussion, is an internal SBOE discussion; has been a little delay due to this IMRA process
  • Moving to the next section; requirements for publishers who want to participate in the annual review process; have pulled a lot of this section from old chapter 66
  • The rule points to the proclamation or the request for instructional materials as the governing document for this process; need SBOE to approve this process moving forward
  • Kinsey – Where is publisher defined?
    • Staff – In chapter 31 and in sections related to publishers and manufacturers
  • Kinsey – Want to make sure publisher does not encompass OER
    • Staff – Reads the definition of publisher; do not believe this would include TEA for OER products; is something we can ask legal team about
    • Chair Ellis – Need to make sure we look at that
  • Kinsey – What does “evidence of coverage” for the TEKS mean?
    • Similar to current breakout/coverage correlation documents
  • Kinsey – How does that map with the review process going on now; got feedback from the most recent proclamation that we are lacking context on those blurbs
    • Staff – Publishers will provide links in those citations that link to specific parts in the material
  • Brooks – Provide a document as far as evidence of each TEK and evidence of alignment to rubric indicators?
    • Staff – Will be addressed in item 2; will be through citations
  • Hardy – Heard use of the link is disconcerting as you are not getting the full context of the TEK; is disingenuous and would like to see a broader view of the TEK when reviewing
  • Francis – Added “alignment with quality rubric indicators” – why is suitability rubric not included?
    • Staff – Correlation document does not align with suitability rubric; are two separate things
  • Perez-Diaz – Are we having a separate conversation for what is included in a call for instructional materials review
    • Staff – Would be a separate conversation
  • Perez-Diaz – Once rubrics are in place is nothing to preclude us from bringing up TEKS every year; concerned about this
    • Not included in this chapter discussion; up to the body to determine TEKs reviews
  • Perez-Diaz – ELPS include Spanish-language materials?
    • Yes, if we have rubrics for those materials available; we are proposing those
  • Pickren – Are a number of publishers who do not follow state law; anything being done about this?
    • Staff – Have a blanket statement that publishers must follow state law
  • Pickren – Possible to add publishers agree to follow state law
    • Staff – Yes
  • Kinsey – Asks about the evidence process of TEKS standard review
    • Staff – Rubric states the need to hit student expectation multiple times and needs to increase in difficulty; which has been missing in previous rubrics
  • Kinsey – There is a chance we get a quality rubric next year that does not address that; would like to see if staff has any amendments to ensure that is there in the future
  • Chair Ellis – The quality rubrics will all be approved by us in the future
  • Kinsey – Is not my preferred method because you have to solve that problem multiple times
    • Staff – Would language requiring reviewers have full access to the rule, not just citations
    • Hardy – Yes
    • Staff – If we added language concerning coverage and proficiency
    • Hardy – Think it needs to be about providing full context
  • Hardy – How far in advance are the people on the reviewing team given the materials?
    • Staff – Have not established that yet; public and reviewers would have the same amount of time; right now thinking April of 2024
  • Maynard – Relating to suitability rubric, would it be useful to have a publisher to submit an affirmation they have reviewed the suitability rubric?
    • Staff – Would be up to this body if they want to codify that in these rules, or in the proclamation document
    • Maynard – Have instances where national publishers submit materials
    • Hardy – Agree we need to weed out materials that are not even close to what we are looking for
  • Brooks – Language that prevents an SBOE member from submitting materials?
    • Staff – Language does not include SBOE members
  • Pickren – Reviewed over 35k pages of test in the science review; reiterates language should be added that publishers must follow state laws
  • Next section concerning instructional materials standards; draft only defines TEKS percentage coverage for foundation subjects; could include non foundation subjects, up to the body
  • Hickman – TEKS coverage is a standalone not a part of either rubric?
    • Staff – Correct
  • Hickman – Parent portal is here?
    • Staff – Is an independent review, is already in statute and chapter 31; can add here if we want it
  • Hickman – Factual errors is a separate check by TEA?
    • Staff – Will be done by reviewers and the public, not the agency
  • Hickman – Physical specifications or contractual terms?
    • Physical specifications in check five and contractual terms in separate area of code; could add
  • Hickman – I have some suggestions for this section, but want to make sure we’re on the same page; will be looking at process in a few items, but drafting rules for it first; I’m suggesting reviewing quality, suitability, etc. in one process, not multiple reviewers doing multiple processes
    • Staff – Merely criteria that would allow material to be on the approved list & not the process
  • Maynard – In (a)(1) it talks about specific grade level & subject area, how is subject area defined?
    • Staff – Believe they are defined in Chapter 28, foundation & enrichment subjects listed out
  • Maynard – We split out spelling the last time we did this; does the language allow us to do this or do we need clarifying language?
    • Staff – My understanding is “partial subject” would cover those instances where specific subject areas are pulled out
  • Perez-Diaz – Would encourage SBOE to wait on establishing percentage coverage for the TEKS, would like to speak to enrichment area practitioners
  • Chair Ellis – Will have about a 2 year test round until we get to supplementals so we can see how this works
  • Bell-Metereau – Any part of this that addresses the suitability rubric?
    • Chair Ellis – Suitability is separate
    • Staff – Pointed to in (a)(6)
  • Kinsey – On the TEKS percentage, couldn’t we set it at 100% for full subject, and then a should/shall concept on partial?
    • Chair Ellis – My thought is that it needs to cover all the material, if it is partial it needs to cover all the partial subject
  • Kinsey – Trying to pick up CTE conversation we’ve had in the past, e.g. where you have a nationwide manual for some subjects
    • Chair Ellis – CTE is its own separate beast
    • Staff – Falls under enrichment, only thing in the rules before you is foundation subjects; wouldn’t include CTE at the moment
    • Chair Ellis – Can take this up at another time once we understand how process works
  • Brooks – You’re saying we will get back to what we believe the TEKS percentage should be for foundational courses?
    • Chair Ellis – We will on this item, but we’re still on the discussion part
  • Francis – In 67.25(a)(4), we have web content & accessibility guidelines, is the Child Internet Protection Act elsewhere?
    • Staff – CIPA is in item 6 at the moment, included in the reference
  • Francis – Would be good to have the name of it for readers; do you plan to have a link to the suitability or quality rubric if applicable?
    • Staff – Can get with rulemaking and web team, generally do hyperlink when we reference Education Code
  • Hardy – I like number 1 and the 100%, understand the partial 100% as well; seems like when you submit a book, it would need more direct reference
    • Chair Ellis – We will go through that when we come down to making amendments

 

67.81 Discussion

  • TEA Staff – Next two times will be under Subchapter D, duties of publishers and manufacturers
  • Provides overview of rules; SBOE has the option to set initial term of an IM contract; 8 years could lock in pricing for ISDs longer, ISDs could set any terms they want within that 8 years
  • Hardy – I would like for it to be as liberal as it can to make local district take responsibility
  • Chair Ellis – District can choose shorter term?
    • Staff – Yes, initial term is agreement between SBOE and publisher, ISDs could purchase for shorter time
  • Brooks – Could we discuss publisher being able to provide us with evidence that the IM is successful?
    • Staff – Can discuss, but would need to think about feasibility of measuring this; used as a point of info is possible
  • Chair Ellis – We have input on the way in, but not on the way out; I like the idea of having proof
  • Kinsey – Parties to the contract are?
    • Staff – It is a $0 contract between SBOE and Publisher, allows them to be in EMAT so ISDs can purchase
  • Kinsey – Do we have an agreement for TEA to represent us in this fashion?
    • Staff – Currently, we have standard T&Cs given by state and then additional T&Cs SBOE sets, then reviewed by TEA legal team, then signed by SBOE Chair and authorized by TEA Comm
  • Kinsey – Think we should think about delineation, separate entities involved
    • TEA Counsel – Correct, Education Commissioner, TEA, and SBOE are parties involved; no MOU between these entities, look to statute that sets up agency and SBOE
    • Under statute Commissioner has ability to hire & fire all staff; also has ability to act under the SBOE’s direction
  • Kinsey – So we delegate authority to him, then TEA attorneys are his attorneys & thus ours?
    • TEA Counsel – Correct, but these are your rules, so we can try and work it out if you have another idea
  • Maynard – We’ve been on this proclamation process, so presumably nearly all contracts are all on the same cycle; proc process is going away, but do have a practical process in that adoption will follow TEKS review; if you have someone coming in mid-cycle, is there a provision there?
    • Chair Ellis – Once we do new TEKS, everything is wiped clean
    • Staff – If TEKS were revised, if material need to be re-reviewed the publishers would come off IMRA
    • Chair Ellis – And SBOE decides when revision is significant enough?
    • Staff – Correct
  • Maynard – Explanation might need to be codified in some way
    • Chair Ellis – If material is approved in round 2 of IMRA, we would give the publisher an 8 year term and then a 4 year renewal, unlike previous proc process where everything was unadopted and then readopted
  • Hickman – Sounds like a master service agreement between publisher and SBOE, then the purchase order is between ISD and publisher, or between TEA and publisher?
    • Staff – Purchase order is between ISD and publisher, routes through TEA
  • Francis and Chair Ellis discuss how publishers could set lower price than the ceiling outlined in rule
  • Francis – Has TEA looked at publisher pricing, have we been getting the lowest price from locking in rate?
    • Staff – Advantage is volume discounts which are allowed, wouldn’t be a violation of Most Favored Nations Clause
  • Hardy – Anything that can help ISDs falling behind on materials after the 8 years?
    • Staff – Things are renewed without action, TEKS and materials contracts could be on their own timeline & wouldn’t run into issue of ISD running against the 8 year clock
  • Pickren – Contract is with TEA or SBOE?
    • Staff – Parties are SBOE and publisher
  • Pickren and Chair Ellis discuss the counsel involved in the deals

 

Page 5 Discussion – Publisher-Parent Portal

  • SBOE is setting standards for the parent portal required by IMRA
  • Currently the pathway for parents to review materials was to schedule an in-person review, this is remaining
  • Under HB 1605, materials approved by SBOE must also provide a digital pathway, either through developing a parent portal or working with ISD to construct parent portal
  • ISD is responsible for providing tool in LMS that tracks student performance, so this is not included in the rule text here; publishers cannot provide that in IMRA review check
  • Young – Under (c)(1), should we add language that this does not include test & exam language?
    • Staff – Yes, can add that
  • Young – Under (c)(2), requirement that publisher system is interoperable with ISD system seems circular
    • Staff – Standard in industry, but do hear concern that this would be difficult; can discuss with team
  • Hickman – Quality, suitably, and factual errors are done by review team; physical specifications done by TEA? Parent portal checked by TEA? Standards alignment percentage?
    • Staff – physical and parent portal is TEA, percentage is reviewer
  • Hickman and TEA Staff discuss striking reference to TEA doing these reviews and replacing with review panel
  • Hardy – If I’ve adopted a book from 3 publishers, how will these all operate together? Difficult for parents to access; is this the responsibility of local districts?
    • Staff – Yes, aggregate all parent publisher portals for parents to access
  • Hardy – Every publisher should be able to be incorporated into this?
    • Staff – Correct, this is in rule text for interoperability
  • Childs – Would it be possible to have parent side-by-side or parent lessons from publishers?
    • Staff – Parent supports are part of the quality rubric & part of materials reviewed; my understanding is yes that the publisher would have take home letters, module overviews, etc.
  • Pickren – On materials parents can access, could parents modify materials on IMRA? Could an ISD modify the product?
    • Staff – Will have to get back to you on that, might be able to but would be an IP discussion
  • Pickren – Publishers can’t post anything not approved by SBOE, if it is modified then parents wouldn’t be able to see what is taught in the classroom
    • Staff – Fair point, only want things on the portal SBOE approves; would agree that modification isn’t allowed
  • Little – Sen. Kolkhorst added an amendment that once materials had been approved by SBOE that they couldn’t be amended by the ISD; wouldn’t hurt to get legal to confirm
  • Francis – On rule text 67.83(c)(4), concerning that this is a requirement for the publisher but in HB 1605 it is on the ISD; next to impossible for publishers to keep up with different school calendars
    • Staff – Publisher-parent portal direct sign-on is required regardless of what ISD decides; if there is access through LMS
    • For the 30 days req, it is the ISD responsibility to make materials available & we’re trying to make clear it they should be available 30 days ahead of start of school regardless
  • Francis – My vision was publishers would have all materials subject to parent portal available on their website at all times, but might work better if ISDs LMS links to all the publishers the child has in their course descriptions
    • Staff – Yes, I think that is what the rule text states now; once material is approved it can’t be changed & would check off the 30 days box
  • Francis – Want to strike 30 days before & after and just require publisher to have materials on their website
    • Staff – We could do that with a motion
  • Chair Ellis – IS there a concern from publishers in keeping it up more than those days?
    • Staff – Concern is if publishers want to authenticate a parent, but could have them host everything at once
  • Chair Ellis – As this is first reading, could put that out there and publishers could raise concerns if they have them
  • Hickman – Does the publisher or ISD have to provide different portals for IMRA versus other materials purchased?
    • Staff – Will need to check, but do see point that it might require two different portals for IMRA and others; could change language to TX-focused instead of IMRA only
  • Hickman – Parents would want all materials parents use in one place, whether IMRA or not
    • Staff – My understanding is statute only allows us to make rules for IMRA moving forward
  • Chair Ellis – Would fall under grandfather clause for Proc 24 and others?
    • Staff – Correct
  • Maynard – Only applies to IMRA materials and no materials have been through IMRA yet
  • Maynard – needs to be some expectation of time to get things in place, but agrees there needs to be structure built for what is coming
    • Staff – Eventually all materials will have gone through the process
    • Staff – Rules can also be updated as needed
  • Maynard – 30 days access concern, if material has changed as applies to the student then access to parents need to happen in certain amount of time and there needs to be grace for the school in order to get it set up
    • Staff – Its responsibility of district to address that and not the publisher
  • Von Byer – SBOE has express authority to remove material from list if a publisher makes revisions without getting approval from the SBOE; there is also piloting criteria
  • Pickren – Ch 26 of Education Code says parents shall have rights to access all materials, not just IMRA
    • Chair Ellis – Parent portal is for IMRA approval, but parent has access to all materials
  • Pickren – Ch 26 of Education Code in parents rights, says parents shall have all rights to review tests administered, does that apply to IMRA?
    • Von Byer – reviews code that discusses test administered can be reviewed in person by parent, notes under b there are two clauses so instructional materials/teaching materials applies to portal and not an administered test
    • Pickren – argues the language she sees is different, wants test on parent portal and wants full transparency
  • Hardy – material that we currently have and new material can be on same portal?
    • Staff – districts can go above and beyond, but would have to modify D(1) if they want to do that
    • Staff – publisher is required to make portal interoperable
  • Kinsey – C(3) publisher is required to make portal compatible, what happens if a district changes their LMS?
    • Staff – Don’t have guardrails for that instance
  • Pickren – can language be added that materials conform to MSFT “as long as it does not conflict with state law”
    • Chair Ellis – they need to conform with state law regardless
    • Staff – not sure there are requirements they have that would conflict with state law
    • Pickren – sees content direction on their site
  • Maynard – Motion to approve New 19 TAC Chapter 67 and seconded
  • Chair Ellis – will move through section by section for amendments
  • Brooks – can revisions be added at next meeting?
    • Yes
  • Hickman – can they move to reconsider the vote
    • Staff – yes, at this meeting
  • Chair Ellis – 67.21 a & b, getting away from investigation
    • a language approved
    • b language approved on the first sentence
    • They will work on second part of language which also clarifies for publishers new to the market and bring back later for discussion

  • Motion and second on the following, approved

  • Language was added to include open resource materials

Section 67.23

  • Maynard adds 3
  • Pickren – discussion and question on what meaning of applicable
    • Chair Ellis – clarifies all state laws that apply, the statutes
  • Chair Ellis – says its SBOE determination if they comply so they want to add something that says to the best of the publisher knowledge, makes another amendment which is reflected below

  • Perez-Diaz – was concerned about the amendment offered by Kinsey was getting too close to methodology of teaching
    • Discussion ensued – staff says it reads that a lesson is required by the proclamation but it really is the TEKS and some members agreed
    • Final amendment approved

  • Hickman/Maynard motion passes

  • 6.25 A(6) Chair Ellis moves for the following language changes and Hardy seconds
    • If this is approved, then Brooks amendment would be out of order
    • Motion passes

  • Brooks offers language from Penal Code but it was out of order and not taken up

  • Hickman – capturing language they had talked about earlier; Hickman motioned and Maynard seconded

  • Staff noted TEKS covered percentage is separate from quality rubrics, but at some point will need to start developing CTE rubric which takes about 4-6 months and TEKS rulemaking takes around 3-6 which addresses coverage percentage
  • Maynard – concerned about TEKS percentage coverage regarding those materials that are single subject
  • Chair Ellis – don’t see a consensus so this will be brought back up around April

 

Section 67.81

  • Brooks motion to amend (e) to add req that instructional materials are effective for students & result in student success
    • Brooks – Want to do things that are successful, should use materials that are tested on some control group of students to show they are successful
  • Chair Ellis – Like the concept, can try to anticipate good material, but you only know at the end; my problem is how this is judged & how it interacts with district demographics
  • Chair Ellis – With IMRA we’re giving districts tools to pick from high quality instructional material; would have a hard time saying this
  • Bell-Metereau – Think language should be softened, not many studies that “prove” something is effective, but could have some evidence of effectiveness; high bar
  • Brooks – Could compromise on softer language; we don’t waste money on things that don’t lead to success, can point to IM that is successful regardless of demographics; this does exist, it is more time & resources but this would also raise the bar for expectations
  • Brooks – If IM comes out with no research, we’re basing this off confidence and our kids are the experiment
  • Chair Ellis – How would show or prove effectiveness? Also looked at this on if TEKS are effective
  • Francis – Like the proposed amendment; need to start using teachers that use this material, e.g. when contracts are renewed will have many who have used the material
  • Chair Ellis – I could envision how this works into a future IMRA review
  • Hardy – Could we not put the onus on publishing houses to show us how successful material is
  • Pickren – We do have new publishing companies in TX and the nation doing innovative things with IM; what would be the proof with these new companies?
  • Brooks – Like the path Bell-Metereau was on to soften language; I’ve looked at IM and can look at pre-tests and compare ongoing & post assessments; should have minimum of effort without influx of IM
  • Bell-Metereau – There can be thousands of studies on different interventions to improve student learning & even those are not conclusive; we just don’t have the research for proof of effectiveness, especially for new materials
  • Brooks motion to remove word “proof” and add “evidence”

  • Hardy – Would this be the responsibility of the publisher? Not adding work to the TEA?
  • Chair Ellis – Not against concept, concern is how this is evaluated; 100% get the concept, but will vote against
  • Francis – This section would come at the renewal stage, would be after 8 years
  • Chair Ellis – Sometimes, but in normal schedule renewals would come at TEKS review
  • Kinsey – Also don’t support the amendment, don’t have a clear view of how we’ll parse materials
  • Chair Ellis – Have spoken with someone at IBM and I think we’re very close to having something to filter out external factors like pandemic, demographics, etc.
  • Brooks – Will always have other factors, standing in support & time to hold publishers accountable; publishers know how to measure success & rules have nothing currently; our students are not the experiment & there should be some evidence to show IM is working
  • 3 in favor, 8 opposed

 

Section 67.83

  • Hickman motion to strike TEA and replace with “a review panel”

  • Francis – Confused as to what this does
  • Hickman – This was clarified with staff during discussion; will be talking about process later tonight, but my understanding is that TEA is not doing quality & suitability review, as well as looking for errors, but would be done by a review panel SBOE picks members for in concert with TEA
  • Kinsey – Is it a review panel or a review process?
  • Hickman – Pointing to people doing the review
  • Chair Ellis – Is it review panels?
  • Little – Agree with what you’ve done, but who determines the review panel?
  • Hickman – You’ll find out tonight, think the process we’ve been talking about is similar to TEKS review process
  • Members discuss panel versus TEA staff
  • Chair Ellis – SBOE would decide members, but it isn’t TEA staff doing the review, it is the panels; process discussion is later
    • TEA Staff – Can remove the people and still get the intent of which reviews apply to parent portals
  • Chair Ellis – I’m fine with this, it’s not TEA staff doing the review, process is later
  • Maynard – Intent is for parent portal to apply on to materials reviewed under IMRA?
    • TEA Staff – Yes, that is intent
  • Francis – Could we extend parent portal to other things under the bill?
    • TEA Staff – Limited by bill
  • Francis – Suggested language if we were to refer to review process?
    • TEA Staff – Version of what Maynard suggested
  • Pickren – Law says agency will conduct the review
    • TEA Staff – To get on list, publisher will meet standards of parent portal, will default likely to the SBOE
  • Pickren – Don’t want to impede process if someone is not in compliance, e.g. if parent makes complaint that portal is not in compliance TEA would be blocked from making more immediate changes
    • TEA Staff – Would suggest putting rulemaking for the appeal process to broader IMRA process rather than parent portal; this rule just covers criteria and not the process
  • Hickman – Supports the review panel language being included because it is not present elsewhere in the rules
  • Motion to amend language to remove review panel reference fails (4-5)
  • Motion to approve language as presented by Hickman passes (8-1)

 

Section 67.83

  • Brooks motion to allow parents to obtain physical materials when parents have financial restraints that could prevent them from purchasing a textbook

  • Chair Ellis – We have this where they can do this online
  • TEA Staff – If it is not a duty of a publisher or manufacturer it doesn’t belong here; parents already have right to check in and check out hard copy materials or view
  • Motion withdrawn

 

Section 67.21(b)

  • Chair Ellis goes back to previous language

  • Chair Ellis – Replaces second sentence of original document with this new section; clarifies that proclamation is notice to new product in the field and existing products

 

Section 67.25

  • Hickman motion to add reference that IM reviews are completed by a review panel

  • Pickren – So this couldn’t be IM already approved by SBOE, now have to go back to a review panel?
  • Hickman – The IM already approved will sit there, IMRA is a brand new category for materials that pass this process
  • Pickren – After challenge and need for removal, does it go to review panel or come back to SBOE?
    • TEA Staff – Don’t have that up yet, establishing process for getting things on the list
  • Chair Ellis – Would anything adopted here hamstring us in a future meeting?
    • TEA Staff – I don’t believe so; SBOE reviewing panel results wouldn’t hamstring us
    • These rules speak to approval, not removal
  •  Motion passes

Main motion as amended passes (9-1)

 

Item 2: Consideration for Approval for Instructional Materials Review Quality Rubrics

  • Staff walked through timeline and process including feedback
  • Over 350 responses as part of focus group
  • Making improvements for efficiency, clarity, and viability
  • Staff asked if there was any additional feedback they should be considering
    • Hickman – wants single page for quality and suitability, score sheet showing about 10-20 things actually scored
    • Brooks – perhaps the board can get an abbreviated version of the rubrics
    • Pickren – would like to see details about those who were in the focus group
    • Pickren – parents are not stakeholders, wants them to be involved in this process
  • Public comment open until Friday
  • Goal to approve at January 2024 meeting

 

Item 3: Consideration for Approval of Instructional Materials Review Suitability Rubrics

  • Chair Ellis – notes these are completely SBOE process and discusses his work on a draft
    • Desired focus is on content rather than format
    • Asking reviewers to flag if they see any of the indicators and then SBOE can review from there
  • Chair Ellis – reviews his changes
    • Section 1 is Common core prohibition – guidance reiterates that
    • Section 2 alignment with public education constitutional roles which includes
      • discussing positive aspects of U.S. but notes that doesn’t mean they can’t include other negative aspects
      • 9 total items from SB 3 now in statute
      • Not saying that educators can not talk about what happened in 1619 but that they cannot talk about the 1619 project
    • Section 3 Parental rights and responsibilities
    • Section 4 also comes from SB 3 that addresses political bias and forced political activity
    • Section 5 – discusses and defines obscene material, harmful, previously vulgar, sexually explicit and sexually relevant material are coming from current code
    • Section 6 -Promoting Sexual Health
      • PreK-3rd material prohibition of sexual education/health, not in TEKS
      • Must include abstinence language
      • Does not contradict state policy on unborn child
    • Section 7 – Compliance with Children’s Internet Protection Act
    • Maynard – asked about relationship from rubric to the rule, shared previous experience as a SBOE member and the process, wants to make sure material is age appropriate
      • Staff – it will be on its own stand alone document, but it will not be codified in rule so body can make changes quickly
      • Staff – combination of rubric helps with the question on if material is age appropriate
    • Bell – Metereau – abstinence only programs are potentially harmful, would like to address with legislature
      • Chair Ellis – Texas curriculum is not abstinence only
    • Hardy – appreciates draft from Ellis and the work that was done
    • Francis – Understands rubric would cover everything
      • Chair Ellis – confirms not classroom library, discussions is on TEKS materials
      • Chair Ellis – this will be used by SBOE on IMRA process
    • Kinsey – wants to address cross-curricular nature, etc. – supportive of draft from Ellis
    • Childs – had a question about section 2 on civil disorder regarding protest
      • Chair Ellis – peaceful protests he intended to be excluded, will work with Childs to add language that this refers to current activities and not historical ones
    • Davis – asked about materials developed through 1619 projects
      • Davis and Ellis plan to get together to add clarity if necessary in time for next meeting
    • Kinsey – adds language to 6.3 that the IM does describe abortion as a pregnancy option
      • Discussion among members continues
      • Hardy – says even if she is not supportive of abortion, you still need to discuss the issue
      • Ortega – sees discussion as political and should not be occurring
    • Friendly Amendment discussion motion from Hardy strikes the word describe and replaces it with promote or encourage
      • Motion passes 10-1
    • Amended language – The IM does not promote or encourage abortion as a pregnancy option
      • Motion passes 8-5
    • Childs/Brooks – question on Section 2.14, motion to add “Current activities that promote” & “this section does not prohibit the teaching of historical examples of demonstrations such as peaceful protests, or boycotting”
      • Motion passes 8-3
    • Bell-Metereau/Childs – motion to strike out “social strife”
      • Motion fails 5-8
    • Francis – wants to change a word from “used” to “practiced” regarding sexual activity, Ellis explains used is from statute directly so Francis withdraws his motion
    • Chair Ellis – Main motion to adopt language as amended for suitability
      • Motion passes 14-0

 

Item 4: Consideration for Approval of Instructional Materials Review and Approval Process

  • Staff says goal is to get alignment and then approval so they can start selecting reviewers
  • Hardy – I feel like when I get the document to choose people from that I don’t get enough information on them, I would like to see their interest on being on this committee
    • Staff- We have included contact to their supervisor, resume, and affiliation with professional associations and groups and in addition they will go through an interview and performance task that you will be informed of
  • Kinsey – On step 12 it says staff keeps an ongoing tally of characteristics for board group members selected. Is this going to be shared to the board
    • Staff – We do have on here that we will keep you informed on anyone from your district, what was put in here was what was taken from the TEKs working group
  • Kinsey – On page 3 step 16 the reference to prioritization process, have you started that?
    • Staff – We introduced it last meeting and we will have that in January flushed out
  • Hardy – Would the board members be able to know when these meetings place and attend them?
    • Staff – we still need to work on logistical details, we can come back to you in January. I hear your call for transparency
  • Hardy – I think there should be an increase in pay, if there was more money to be paid they will be more willing to sacrifice their summer
    • Staff – We have asked teachers this same question and we are still receiving feedback so we can answer this in January
  • Brooks – When we last talked about this you guys said you were hiring reviewers?
    • Staff – We are working with both volunteers and a third party contractor
  • Brooks – Will this information about contracted price and salary be shared?
    • Staff – Yes
  • Brooks – In part 1 I was thinking that when it comes to demographics there should be an order of importance and I would like to see a percentage of parents; on part 2 when you are posting the applications that I could get more support for website development.
    • Staff – We will look at experience first then the rest while also including parents
  • Young – I have a question about the percentage of applicants that are parents, I feel like we need to put a parental lens on this as well
    • Staff – often time they identify with both being a teacher and a parent, but just because they are a parent not in the classroom doesn’t mean they will get excluded\
  • Davis – Are you saying that you want parents with no expertise in education or parents that have an expertise?
    • Young – Parents with expertise
  • Davis – How would you select the best parent from that pool?
    • Young – it would go back to the application process and choose the parent with the best credentials
  • Pickren – On number 12 can you tell us why we have number 12?
    • Staff – It was to support building a dashboard to review applicants, if you do want it or don’t we can include it or review it
  • Kinsey – Can you tell me again who manages this?
    • The program is managed by TEA Staff but the decision on who participates is the board
  • Kinsey – you mentioned a company?
    • Safal, has historically helped us with resource review and we are still in contract with them
  • Kinsey – Are ESC involved in this?
    • Staff – We encourage them to help with recruitment
  • Hardy – I would suggest that applications be sent to organizations
    • Staff – We have historically sent it everywhere
  • Davis – I know with Safal there were disputes with TRR, can you be more specific with their role?
    • Staff – Safal role is to manage review teams, ensure reviews are completed on time; and its agency responsibility to make sure Safal is working towards the overall goal; their role is how we get it done they are the boots on the ground
  • Brooks – Can we as a board decide on what percentage of reviewers we want represented on this panel?
    • Staff – yes, we can amend it
  • Ellis – This was originally needed to be finished by Januarys meeting but it would better for staff if there was more time; we can also postpone it to our January meeting
  • Maynard – I move that the SBOE approve the process and procedure for the new instructional materials review and approval process
  • Staff – my recommendation would be to specify the motion to the review team process, so you can approve the entire process in January
  • Maynard – I move to amend the main motion by striking the word process and procedure and insert the word review team build process for the review and approval process
    • Amendment passes
  • Chair Ellis – confirms board is ready to start amending language
  • Maynard – made motion to narrowing focus to how to build the review teams which was adopted
  • Maynard – in section 4(a)(iii) he moves to trikes language that requires “four-year”
    • Motion passes
  • No amendments made to section 1,2, and 3
  • Brook – requested ability for SBOE members to see the applications
    • Staff – that would be covered in step 8
  • Brooks – under section 4, makes a motion to amend the language to reduce teacher classroom experience from 10 years to 5 years and wants 60% of reviewers to come from this section
    • Staff – suggests language to include “current” or “retired”
    • Hickman – adds “former”
    • Motion passes 11-1
  • Young – under section 4, struck language of “two” or “four year college” and add accredited “institution of higher education in Texas”
    • Motion carriers
    • Ortega – makes motion to strike “in Texas”
    • Motion fails to strike “in Texas” 2-8
    • Main motion passes
  • Hickman – under section 4 wants to add language to has at least a master degree…”or at least five years of professional experience”
    • Motion passes
  • Brooks – under section 5, add language that says “to TEA and the SBOE”
    • Motion passes
  • Brooks – under section 8, gets confirmation from staff all applications will be provided to SBOE members from applicants in their districts
  • Hickman – under section 9(d) strikes “demographics: multiple and different racial and ethnic groups and male and female”
    • Motion passes
  • Kinsey – under section 12, motion to add “a dashboard depiction of this data will be shared with the SBOE following selection, as well as completion, of the process”
    • Staff adds language to clarify adding criteria from 9a and cleans language
    • Language “Staff keeps an ongoing tally of characteristics of applicants and reviewers selected, including but not limited to the criteria in 9 1a-e. A dashboard depiction of this data for applicants and selected reviewers will be shared with the SBOE.”
    • Motion passes
  • Adoption of the document as amended –
    • Motion passes 10-0
  • Hardy – asked about ancillary products
    • Yes, since it is not just checking for TEKS but also suitability then ancillary products will need to be submitted as well
    • HB 1605 sets up calculation for amounts that districts can access

 

Item 5: Approval of Library Collection Development Standards in Compliance with House Bill 900

Public Comment:

Cameron Samuels, Katy ISD Student- Against

  • My school district faced many book removals
  • Because of so called sexually explicit material language used in HB 900
  • The politicization of education is unprecedented
  • Adopting standards that go beyond HB 900 is not a smart idea
  • Asks to adopt the standards as written
  • We should focused on education not censorship

 

Detavion Daniels, Fort Worth ISD Student- Against

  • HB 900 cast a shadow over the ability for a student to explore literature
  • HB 900 is a threat to education
  • We must prioritize access to school libraries
  • Its not amount regulations it is about capturing the essence of learning
  • Recommends voting for the standards as written

 

Lela Green Little, Parent- Against

  • These standards blindly block books that do not meet the standards
  • I am speaking against the approval these standards
  • The specific language in HB 900 is a “Frankenstein monster” of statutes put together
  • It grieves me to see SBOE considering these standards after a federal court ruled against a similar law
  • Higher courts will affirm this ruling

 

Summer Crow, Parent – For

  • I support the approval of these standards
  • I firmly believe that if these standards were in place two years ago librarians like myself would have had success selecting sexually explicit books from our library to remove
  • I like that the standards differentiates between content that is harmful to minors, sexually explicit content, obscene content and vulgar content
  • Content that is sexually explicit is prohibited no matter the pervasiveness
  • Obscene content is not protected by the first amendment
  • The Sexually explicit book in Empire of Storms is currently available to thousands of Texas students, it is listed as 14 and up
  • We must pass these guidelines to protect students

 

Questions for Panel:

  • Hardy – Where did you get the information about Texas being ranked 47 in education?
    • Daniels – Department of Education
  • Davis – What is the book about?
    • Crow – What bothers me about this book is that its predecessors include no sexual connotations

 

Mary Castle, Texas Values – For

  • Encourage the board to proceed approving standards for TSLAC so we can go along with the process
  • Pickren – Do you have any recommendations on what guidance should be?
    • Castle – Nothing specific but thew board should align with HB 900 as closely as possible

 

Francine Erickson, Teacher-For

  • From small towns to large books with sexually explicit content were given to schools without their knowledge
  • Schools should have been able to trust library book lists
  • TSLAC minimum collection development standards contain all of the requirements that are in HB 900
  • Please approve the standards

 

Jackie Besinger, Parent – For

  • We all agree that the SBOE intends the whole state to follow HB 900
  • I appreciate the efforts you are taking to hold our districts accountable

 

Discussion:

  • Maynard – I move that the State Board of Education approve the library development collection standards in compliance HB 900 as presented by TSLAC.
  • Maynard – To my understanding the only part of this bill that has been challenged legally is only related to the ratings? Is that accurate?
    • Staff – As a generalization that is correct
  • Maynard – If you don’t like our standards you don’t need to do business with us correct?
    • Staff – That is correct
  • Francis – We are looking at the document compiled and edited by staff after November 27, 2023?
    • Staff – We worked with SBOE representatives during the summer to workup a draft and consultation. To which we sent that to you and created another draft in our commission with the feedback from you all. What you see before you is a compiling of public comment, discussions with Dr. Young and Dr. Ellis and feedback.
  • Francis – Is it by chance that we are receiving this before the commission votes on it?
    • Staff – TSLAC is charged with adopting the standards but we can only adopt if you all approve
  • Pickren – Can you explain how we have sections that have nothing to do with HB 900 and sections that do not include HB 900
    • Staff – We wanted to stay very close to HB 900. Some things we didn’t include are enforced by saw so we didn’t have to repeat that. The heavy lifting was done in the Reading Act
  • Pickren – have you consulted with board of trustees and superintendents since public comment has closed?
    • Staff – This has been quick work, so we have had input from administrators
  • Pickren – Has anyone reached out to school districts that have already passed policy?
    • Staff- We didn’t hear anything back from other districts. I haven’t heard of conflicts between what districts are doing and what is being implemented
  • Francis – Do these standards extend to libraries that are public but are on school grounds?
    • Staff – it depends on the administration of that library
    • Francis – it is a case by case basis?
    • Staff – correct
  • Chair Ellis – We don’t have power to amend this document but we have the power to shoot this down or approve it. If we don’t approve this document we won’t follow the presented timeline.
  • Pickren – If we approve this tonight when it goes to them will there be any changes to this document?
    • Chair Ellis – No plans to make changes to this document, if they did change it they’d have to go through us
  • Hickman – I will be voting in favor of these TSLAC guidelines
  • Maynard – I motion to call the question
  • Chair Ellis – All those in favor of calling the question raise your hand, all opposed by the same sign
    • 10 in favor, 0 opposed
    • The question has been called
  • Chair Ellis – We now vote on that the State Board of Education approve the library development collection standards in compliance HB 900 as presented by TSLAC
    • 13 in favor, 1 opposed
    • Motion passes

 

Adjourned