Print đź–¨

The State Board of Education (SBOE) met on January 30 to take up a full agenda. A majority of the meeting was spent on the second reading and final adoption of proposed new 19 TAC Chapter 67 regarding the Instructional Materials for Review (IMRA) process. The following three agenda items focused on IMRA rubrics, the approval process, and the suitability rubric. The final items on the agenda were considered technical or routine measures, and as a result discussion on those items was shorter.

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.

 

Full Report

Opening Comments

  • Chair Aaron Kinsey – Thanks Chair Keven Ellis in his role as Chair & TEA Staff for smooth transition

 

Item 1. Instructional Materials Contracts; 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

  • Speaking against curriculum based on what I’ve seen, not seeing changes discussed to date
  • In the biology material primate evolution is out, but has
  • Big bang theory is my focus, not seeing anything mentioning intelligent design
  • Chair Kinsey – Is this germane to Chapter 67? State review & approval of instructional materials?
    • Harris – The process, but what about the materials?
  • Chair Kinsey – Those materials are for Proc 24, prior process, talking about new IMRA process & how this would fit in Chapter 67
    • Harris – When you review materials, please ensure the material you’ve discussed is there in the materials, because it’s not currently

 

Staff Presentation

Todd Davis, TEA Staff

Collin Dempsey, TEA Staff

  • Handing out summary of public comments for Chapter 67 & the proposed rules
  • Item is for the adoption of Chapter 67 instructional material review & approval as listed on the agenda
  • Comment period ran from December 29 through yesterday, January 29; received 9 written comments
  • Page 3 proposed rule changes: 3 publishers commented that in current reading of rule there wasn’t a posting exclusion for assessments and exams as in statute; added language to refer to this section in statute
  • Also heard feedback that “interoperable” was vague & publishers wanted more guidance on how publishers who make system interoperable with district LMS; changed this to refer to goal which is single sign-on capability
  • Added Subchapter A to give publishers who are not in compliance 60 days to come into compliance; if not in compliance after 60 days, agency would move to remove materials for not meeting publisher portal standard, unless it is due to lack of response from district or LMS partner
  • Evelyn Brooks, SBOE – Comments came in as late as yesterday?
    • TEA Staff – Yes, comments came in during the comment period, majority over the last weekend
  • Brooks – Which ones, when did we receive the list?
    • Staff – In the documents handed out last week noted that comments would be distributed today; only one comment, general note from parent, was received prior to this weekend
  • Brooks – Could we look at the different subsections as separate pieces? E.g. 5 action items?
  • Chair Kinsey – Currently on staff presentation questions, can move to divide the question when the main motion is on the floor
  • Will Hickman, SBOE – Excluding materials outlined on page 3, paragraph (c)(1), are we trying to capture (c)(1) and (c)(2) together?
    • Staff – Dual purpose, had public comment asking TEA to address not having teachers post their own materials to the portal; this covers both
  • Hickman – If there is no such LMS, required to have other places for access?
    • Staff – Publisher is required to allow access, LMS option is for districts already with an LMS to give parents one password; otherwise req is for publisher website
  • Hickman – On Page 4, (2)(b) the words “publishers” and “districts” should be with apostrophe “S”? Publisher should be apostrophe S, and districts should be plural with no apostrophe?
    • Staff – I believe that’s correct
  • Staci Childs, SBOE – “Unless failure to meet functionality” req, will this trigger another test for this at TEA?
    • Staff – It would, the remedy for someone not in compliance would be to come into compliance
  • Chair Kinsey – One of the topics last time was we don’t know full slate of LMS’s in the state
  • Keven Ellis, SBOE – Can you clarify what happens if there is no LMS at small district?
    • Staff – Responsibility for small district with no LMS would be to provide links to parents for public facing portals
    • Might look like parent
  • Ellis – Page 4, section b, this is how publisher would be required to interact with LMS or LMS would interact with publisher; if district has very unique LMS & publisher doesn’t meet those guidelines, would this come into play?
    • Staff – Yes, onus is on publisher even with “unicorn” LMS
  • Ellis – Concern that we’re requiring publishers to take care of this & with list maintenance; concerned small districts with “unicorns” won’t get served
  • Chair Kinsey – IF we bring it back to state board could have some left out because of lobbying that can occur with the board
  • Audrey Young, SBOE – Does TEA collect data on LMS? Do you plan on collecting it
    • Staff – Not a current data point we collect, don’t have authority to collect this
  • Tom Maynard, SBOE – What is written in red are the proposed changes to first reading document, so we need to make these amendments?
  • Chair Kinsey – Correct
  • LJ Franics, SBOE – I think last year when we started talking, requested a list of my districts without LMS’s, is this still available?
    • Staff – Can resend that; have list of district participating in grant program & can reshare; don’t have data on who doesn’t have one, only have who opted in
  • Francis – Just trying to ascertain which district might be left out
  • Francis – On page 3, if you could impact of 60 days deadline to come into compliance, is this in keeping with HB 1605?
    • Staff – Under HB 1605, SBOE has authority to set standards; my understanding is yes
    • This is a reaction from publisher comment
  • Francis – What was the actual comment, how did you arrive at 60 days?
    • Staff – Comment was around publishers maybe not knowing all the LMS’s in the district after sale of materials, hoping to provide remedy period so materials aren’t removed only because publishers are working on interoperability
    • 60 days is suggestion on staff’s end
    • Publishers submit a report on interoperability, lists for any district what LMS’s the publisher’s materials can work with; district can use this, but if it isn’t listed publishers would have 60 days to integrate
  • Rebecca Bell-Metereau, SBOE – Regarding teacher materials not on portals, where is this in rule?
    • Staff – On page 3 of proposed rules, 67.83, subsection (c)(1), excludes materials outlined in other parts of statute which reference teacher materials not being included
  • Bell-Metereau – So teachers have no control or input?
    • Staff – Rather that teachers will not be forced to publish their own materials, asked for by teacher’s association in the comment
  • Bell-Metereau – Good to hear that
  • Julie Pickren, SBOE – Legislative intent is to give transparency for parents, so while the 60 days is in place, you could be well into semester before you have access to materials; is there a way for ISDs who don’t have LMS, could we require them to post a link?
    • Staff – Yes, rules for districts fall outside of this chapter; this is for enforcement on publisher
    • Regardless of 60 days, publisher needs to make URLs available; this is not the correct chapter for ISD requirements
  • Chair Kinsey – Would be helpful to lay out how 60 days interacts with approval process, school year, etc.
    • Staff – If SBOE approves materials at November meeting, SBOE would work likely through Feb-March the following year, in line with purchasing decisions for the next school year; 60 days allows for publisher to come into compliance without interacting with school year
  • Pickren – But if ISD chooses to purchase in May, it doesn’t give time because they are required to have access 30 days ahead of school year; want to make sure parents have access prior to start
  • Pam Little, SBOE – What is the definition of “teacher materials,” tests, worksheets?
    • Staff – Well need to go back and reference Chapter 31, but can get that answer
  • Little – I see why we wouldn’t want tests on, but if teachers are creating materials parents need access
    • TEA Counsel – Law prohibits you from adopting standards requiring these materials to be submitted, however another section still requires access to these, just not in the parent portal
  • Ellis – In prior process, publishers knew about it and were writing materials; under new system, we aren’t going to telegraph to publishers about new process until adoption of the TEKS; how do we help publishers know & give them time to develop materials?
    • Staff – IMRA process is scheduled on TEKS revision schedule, depends on SBOE discussing long term TEKS revision plan
  • Ellis – Maybe my answer is we need to telegraph smaller revisions, etc. that may not call for new proc
  • Ellis – When TEA is developing OER are they held to same publisher standards?
    • Staff – Yes, except for very few cases where OER is exempt as in reviewer section
  • Ellis – Can you clarify that all of what we’re doing starts in 2025? Proc24 and previous do not fall under this?
    • Staff – Correct
  • Young – Would a paper copy be available of items to ISDs without internet and LMS?
    • Staff – Yes, this is already in statute, new rules are only req’d for digital
  • Hickman – 67.21, following up on Ellis’ questions, (b) is a proc, (c) is a TEA request; I don’t think we’re doing a proc now, but we have developed our first list of materials, if one of the materials this year fails there isn’t an auto opportunity for the material to apply again next year? Where does the TEA list come from?
    • Staff – Rubric development will be compounding, all of the same products will be eligible in the next year; is a growing list
    • Proc is a statement that TEKS have changed; this is the main difference
  • Hickman – But there is a limit of 200, 250 materials?
    • Staff – Correct, Item 3 talks about prioritization if we receive more than 200
  • Chair Kinsey – Believe limit is lower limit, TEA has to have capacity for 200
  • Hickman – But if we’re compounding it will come back to SBOE for approval
    • Staff – Correct, there is no ceiling currently
  • Hickman – If there is no digital copy, a paper copy or ISBN is provided?
    • Staff – Correct, example might be material that contains a trade book the publisher doesn’t have rights to publish online
  • Hickman – Every publisher has to provide a portal & if there is an LMS the portal needs to be interoperable; so you always need a direct publisher portal?
    • Staff – Correct, and this is the access staff verifies during IMRA process
  • Chair Kinsey – “Interoperable” is not used anymore
    • Staff – Correct, single sign on capability
  • Chair Kinsey – Specific word has been subject to many conversations on meaning; struck assuming amendment is passed
  • Hickman – Wasn’t trying to point out this, rather that a direct parent portal to publisher is always provided & if there is an LMS (c)(2) then applies
  • Brooks – 67.21, upon adoption of revised TEKS, SBOE determines if extent of revision creates need to remove materials; ELPS aren’t adopted yet?
    • Staff – ELPS is not in TEKS, correct
  • Brooks – So this doesn’t apply?
    • Staff – Thought we had standards here, but will check
  • Brooks – 67.21(b)(2), what is the process for the SBOE to remove materials from the list approved under Texas Ed Code? Solely responsibility of TEA?
    • Counsel – SBOE has the authority to establish a list and put materials on there, to remove it you would just need an item at a hearing and vote to remove
    • In proposed language, you have set a standard for when a publisher has violated standard & you’ve delegated authority to TEA to remove when reqs aren’t met
  • Brooks – So it’s the will of TEA?
    • Counsel – Would phrase it you have set standard for single sign on within 60 days, TEA then investigates
    • To get back on they could resubmit the following year, then would likely need to explain
  • Brooks – So you’re saying it takes a year to cycle out?
    • Counsel – If we remove, next opportunity to be added would be next review cycle, but SBOE could place agenda item to bring them back if it is the will of the SBOE
  • Brooks – Is there something in writing for process?
    • Staff – Not yet
  • Brooks – 67.21(b)(2), how does it work for publishers when TEKS are updated, revised, etc.? New process?
    • Staff – New process, different from proc system
  • Brooks – When we remove to amending process, you will be able to speak to standards and ELPS?
    • Staff – yes, looking for answer right now
  • Bell-Metereau – Referring back to HISD and what was happening with rote learning, constant testing; anything in this that would prevent this from happening?
  • Chair Kinsey – Would probably come into play in the quality rubric under Item 2
  • Bell-Metereau – So this is just about publisher materials?
    • Staff – For the parent portal section, yes
  • Bell-Metereau – So all of the HISD materials would be made available to parents?
    • Staff – Yes, in paper, but new parent portal only applies to new IMRA process
  • Chair Kinsey – Anything ISDs purchase outside of IMRA would not be subject to IMRA rules
  • Bell-Metereau – Need help understanding how issues in HISD happened?
  • Chair Kinsey – This is a proposed process that hasn’t been approved yet, but ISDs can still purchase outside of IMRA
  • Maynard – On page 4, as it relates to parent portal and removal from the list; if an ISD has purchased from the list, remembering they receive incentive to purchase from the list & there is a problem with the parent portal and the material is removed, do they lose the extra money?
    • Staff – Agree with point, getting money back would be next to impossible; something we can clarify between now and Friday re: remedying money
  • Maynard – Presumably would be a tech issue, how do they get back? Don’t want to put them back to start, compounds workload with limited bandwidth
    • Staff – Agree this is something we’ll need to solve
  • Maynard – Need a process & due process to get back, don’t see this in the language
    • Counsel – Removal from list is not to punish district as they qualified for the money at time of purchase; creates incentive to publish to comply because they will lose future sales otherwise
    • No additional contemplated process here for remedy if you’re pulled off; absent this the process would be the general process, e.g. SBOE needs it on the agenda & publisher materials would have already gone through quality, suitability, etc. process
  • Maynard – Just know how process at ISDs works, has to be a way to cure these things; does SBOE still have authority to levy fines?
    • Counsel – Yes, still have the authority to issue fines on publishers
  • Maynard – When looking at TEA’s authority to remove publisher material, this is the SBOE’s process to approve materials; not willing to surrender certain things to the Commissioner; also need to make sure there is adequate due diligence and due process, uncomfortable with language surrendering some of this to TEA
    • Staff – In agreement that this is SBOE’s process; intent was to expedite process to regain access as quickly as possible; happy to make recommendation to adjust
  • Maynard – Thinking about cadence of meetings, if we’re in a 60 day period, staff would also notify us within that time period, publisher would need to be announced for public hearing, etc.; think we could build in additional incentives
  • Maynard moves that SBOE approves for second reading & final adoption §§67.21, 67.23, 67.25, 67.81, and 67.83 & make finding that adoption is necessary & effective date will be 20 days after filing with Texas Register given 2/3rds vote in support
  • Young proposes amendment to 67.83(c)(1), adopting teacher material exclusion
  • Chair Kinsey – Main motion is to adopt the whole document as presented
  • Maynard PI – My understanding was main motion was for first reading, not the text in red?
  • Chair Kinsey – Correct
  • Young amends motion to adopt all the recommended amendments (red text)
  • Pickren – For single sign on, don’t students & teachers access materials via single sign on?
    • Staff – Only if ISD has purchased digital license and integrated this into an LMS
  • Pickren – For those without this, what is process for material access?
    • Staff – Varies can mean teachers signing on to different website
  • Pickren – How would we give parents the same access?
    • Staff – Under HB 1605 & guidelines, publisher is required to host website
  • Childs – Moves to amend 67.83(2)(b) that TEA shall notify SBOE if publishers materials don’t meet single sign on capability
  • Maynard – My concern is that amendment doesn’t go far enough; have an amendment that will take this a little bit further to make sure SBOE maintains control of the process
  • Childs – Would agree, how it is originally written doesn’t give us authority; amendment withdrawn
  • Childs PI – Is he able to amend my amendment?
    • Have a primary amendment for the red language from staff, Childs’ amendment is secondary, can’t have tertiary, so would need to withdraw to proceed; can represent later if necessary
  • Maynard moves to amend by striking “shall remove,” and insert “may recommend removal of” and “SBOE may remove publisher’s materials from the list;” added a lot to this & want to ensure this remains an SBOE process
  • Ellis – Supports; this is intended to hold publishers accountable for parent portal; this is the SBOE list & is our duty to maintain, also want to make sure small ISDs aren’t punished
  • Pickren – Is it your intent to give TEA option not to notify? Says “may”
  • Ellis – Modifies motion to change “may” to “shall” recommend
  • Childs – Will this be done on rolling basis, or do we need to specify time frame in which TEA shall recommend list for removal?
    • Ellis – Assume it would be at next available meeting
  • Brooks – SBOE members can also recommend removal of materials?
  • Chair Kinsey – This would be a separate process, SBOE can conduct full IMRA review
  • Brooks – IS this in place?
  • Chair Kinsey – Not until Friday
  • Maynard amendment passes (14-0)

  • Hickman – On 67.83(c), publisher hosting material parent portal has requirements, but don’t we want to say a publisher must host?
  • Staff proposed amendments with Maynard’s amendment adopted (13-0)
  • Maynard – Between now and Friday, just need to make sure if someone is removed from list ISDs are protected, don’t lose funds, etc.; also need to be clear about how publisher in violation of parent portal provision is reinstated without going back to the beginning of process
    • Staff – Can work on this
  • Hickman – On 67.83(c), I think we want to say a publisher must host parent portal?
    • Staff – Tried to address this in A, but open to cleaning up
    • Counsel – Statute imposes duty, but can modify
  • Hickman proposes amendment to say publisher must host portal
  • Ellis – Everything in IMRA needs to have a parent portal correct?
    • Staff – Yes
  • Brooks – This would be digital only, what about non-digital materials?
    • Staff – Publisher is required to provide info in other ways, paper copy req still applies
  • Hickman amendment adopted, no vote

  • Hickman – TEKS cut score discussion later?
    • Staff – Yes
  • Hickman – 67.21(c), TEA shall issue annual request for instructional materials, is this list developed elsewhere in the rules?
    • Staff – List of eligible materials for review is based on list of SBOE approved rubrics
    • As you approve more rubrics, more materials will become available; in control of SBOE to state if they have a rubric built or not
  • Hickman – Missing TEA bringing forth their own materials plus materials requested by majority vote of state board
    • Staff – This is in process after the call for materials where market is assessed
    • Request for materials is an all-call, then would apply prioritization and other protocols
  • Hickman – Read this differently, my point would be if next year SBOE wanted to do a welding class and add materials, I don’t see that included in rules
    • Staff – Hearing request to codify rubric development
    • Annual request is an all-call, then have opportunity to vote and add in April; this is in the process document, but not in the rules
  • Hickman – In process discussion and so next set of rules?
    • Staff – Yes
  • Brooks – What if there is outside material still needed?
    • Staff – to conduct quality review, need a rubric from SBOE, SBOE can approve a rubric, but need that prior to conducting a review; wouldn’t be a case where we could add a course that wasn’t in approved rubrics; up to SBOE to tell staff what to start next
  • Brooks – Doesn’t include CTE?
    • Staff – Will eventually, but currently no
    • List will only include materials SBOE directs staff to review, if directed to review welding class then staff will review
  • Brooks discusses the cycle, asks for clarification; what is the window for publishing companies to submit materials and have those approved
  • Chair Kinsey – At the November meeting, staff passed out a timeline book; will be revisiting this topic later in this meeting
  • Brooks – But it’s not all the time?
  • Chair Kinsey – Correct, there are cutoff dates in the proposed process
  • Brooks – And we will not go back to that topic until it comes up again?
  • Chair Kinsey – It is a yearly cycle; this comes to prioritization discussion as well, parameters still need to be set if resubmissions are above or below other materials, etc.
  • Brooks – Don’t see what the cut off is
  • Chair Kinsey – Only cutoffs within a year, will touch on this more in the process portion; Friday we will have an opportunity to come back as the state board to adjust
  • Main motion as amended approved (12-1)

 

Item 2. Consideration for Approval of Instructional Materials Review Quality Rubrics

  • ELA (English and Spanish), Spanish LA rubric, and K-12 Mathematic rubric,
    • Change memos have been provided to SBOE based on stakeholder feedback
  • Looking forward, pending approval, can move forward with model and field testing based on final score
  • Process for calculating final scores was reviewed in examples
  • Childs – question on supports for all learners, can activities be added
    • Staff – thinks that request is in alignment with intent
  • Maynard – do you anticipate further changes as result of field testing
    • Staff – the results would be about weighting and no false positives
    • Staff – plan report back to SBOE at April meeting
  • Hickman – will this work with revised TEKS…Ellis ask further expanding this scope of question
    • Staff – thinks there may be a suitability flag, quality flag, etc
  • Ellis – after first report would like to do a look back, how do they pick reviewers, is this right criteria, etc
  • Ellis – audience for report, will this be published
    • Staff – board has access to everything and will be publicly available as well
  • Kinsey – thinks after action discussion can be taken up when they discuss process
  • Ortega – wants to know how score will be weighted, is there a minimum
    • Staff – part of field testing, ultimately about overall what reviewer needs to look for in each section
    • Staff – will be learning about minimum in first cycle as cut scores to improve or reject materials
  • Kinsey – approving content and not scoring in this agenda item
  • Pickren – on memos of changes, wants to know where 3 queuing is located
    • Staff – phonics rule compliance
    • Staff – section 4 is where it would show up if it was an issue
  • Little – will this be published like resource review and will parents have access?
    • Staff – yes, it will be publicly available
  • Brooks – feels rushed in the process, serious decision
  • Brooks – would like a system by Friday, to know how they are successful
  • Brooks – did send a document to some staff and parliamentarian, submitted some amendments
  • Brooks – concerned on TEKS in process
    • Staff – Will use current ELPs until new one available
    • Staff – In future revisions board will have authority to call for materials if changes are significant enough to do so
    • Staff – under rules just adopted 67.25 subsection 1, required TEKS percentage as 100% threshold
    • Brooks – what if its partial or OER? What is percentage for those?
    • Staff – based on last SBOE discussion, will cross that bridge when they get there since they have so much tier one material to get through (Full subject tier one and partial subject tier one)
  • Brooks – concern with existing math TEKS, would want 100% alignment and wants to make amendments…asked staff how to get back to revisit math TEKS (concerned on section 5.5)
  • Kinsey – asked staff to jump in since there are so many questions
  • Staff – on every agenda is TEKS update item, that question can be asked on that agenda item tomorrow
  • Brooks – rubric they are voting on today, is today and not tomorrow
  • Brooks – 5.5 in mathematics process standards connections, what is ability to update those
  • Kinsey – amendments to motion come later in discussion
  • Hickman – confirms they are approving math quality but not putting math on request to publishers, there are other agenda items to look at math TEKS
    • Staff – agrees
  • Staff – looking at rubric that “determines quality” against current standards
  • Hickman – later can ask if they want to add math to TEKS
  • Ellis – important to focus on the TEKS in place now, looking at instructional material for what is in classroom now
  • Ellis – standards should be driving force, not instructional materials
  • Brooks and Ellis continue to discuss
  • Perez-Diaz – the other factor to consider, in attempting to manipulate instructional materials then could lose TEKS in STAAR testing
  • Francis – asked about math 5.5 again/concern on common core, wants to know what section of quality rubric is designed to test and why is it in there?
    • Staff – evaluates integration of process standards into math materials
    • Staff – has no reason to believe the standards adopted are common core
    • Bell-Metereau – fear with common core argument at this time misses staff avoiding anything that is forbidden
  • Little – motion to approve instructional materials review and approval process
  • Pickren – are memo changes included in the motion
    • Staff – memos are just evidence of process, not included in motion adopting rubrics
  • Maynard – it may 10-12 years before they revisit TEKS, but rubrics will be periodically reviewed more frequently
  • Hickman – thinks some too long but will rely on experts, also notes concern if they update TEKS could impact materials
    • Staff – school districts were expecting Proc 2026 for math materials, if not new ones adopted then districts would have trouble adopting materials
  • Kinsey – modeling will be done and brough back to April meeting, review groups will review over summer and after action discussion sometime around Sept-Nov meeting
  • Agenda Item #2 Motion Approved 10-1
  • Lunch break until 1:45p

 

Item 3. Consideration for Approval of Instructional Materials Review and Approval Process

  • HB 1605 Work Session Slides – June 2023 (PDF, explanation of IMRA review process and basis for discussion)
  • IMRA process is request for instructional materials, instructional materials review and then SBOE determination
  • Have already started working on rubrics, finalized rubrics mean next steps can proceed which include for submissions from publishers and then prioritizing if exceed over 200 materials to review
  • This is an inaugural cycle so working on a condensed timeline –
  • Staff question – How should agency prioritize review if they get more than 200 items? The following solution is proposed:
  • Staff will provide an executive summary report, a factual error report, a suitability flag report, and a public comment report to the SBOE at their meetings
  • IMRA reviewers will conduct four, district tasks as a part of review
    • Each review team will consist of 5 individual reviewers with 3, district roles
    • Writer on team will draft final report
  • IMRA reviewers will first complete a standards alignment
  • At any time during the review there is the opportunity to record a factual error, feedback, or a suitability flag (staff later shows illustrations of how this can be done) and then reviewer can proceed to voting
    • Suitability will not be voted on, they can submit as many flags as they want but will not be scoring
  • Overall time of the process – The entire process for standards alignment takes about 3 weeks (note there will be a suitability summary as shown in slide below); reviewers will work through the quality rubric with the materials open in a new window that will take about 2 ½ moths

 

SBOE Questions

  • Maynard – asked for clarification on reviewer qualifications, what is done is someone has agenda
    • Staff – ideal candidates are those with teaching experience, there are qualifications for reviewers, SBOE has ability to review list and strike names as well as add people at the start
    • Staff – they will be collecting candidates names but ultimately who is chosen is up to body
  • Kinsey – target on team is 5 reviewers, but minimum is 3
    • Staff – agree
  • Staff – multiple layers of team help with accountability
  • Pickren – is reviewer in charge of reading all of instructional material?
    • Staff – responsible for everything in light blue box, look first for standards alignment and quality review, suitability and factual error intent is to happen as review occurs throughout entire time
    • Staff – reviewer has access to full book, break out citation is just to help point them into area of TEKS citation
  • Pickren – are they required to read the entire book from cover to cover?
    • Staff – not at first for standards alignment, but they do need to read all for quality rubric
  • Brooks – what is time in person vs online for reviewers?
    • Staff – in person to do team building and go over process, then main time over the summer is online meetings weekly
    • Staff – the meetings can be posted online for public to watch if needed
  • Francis – who determines where to look for suitability?
    • Staff – publisher gives activity citations, and then job of review to say if they agree or not
  • Kinsey – prioritization will not be in rule, it’s a process now and then they will later put this in rule
  • Hardy – what is the pay for the reviewers?
    • Staff – set stipend amount based on subject area
  • Hickman – request link to application to be sent to members
  • Hickman – wants to know where is bottle neck potential? Could TEKS alignment be in step 16 when determining priority?
    • Staff – don’t know, may find they could take 500 next year
  • Ellis – is there clear language to explain decision is final where there is no action or rejected?
    • Staff – would be in later document, but to clarify they could come back next year
  • Pickren – can Commissioner report be left on website so trustees can reference it?
    • Staff – yes, similar to TRR, there will be a place for public to see review
  • Pickren – how does forward facing link stay up? When does it first come up?
    • Staff – open for public comment (see step 31 on pg 7) mid-May through September, same time as reviewers
  • Kinsey – asked about rejected materials?
    • Staff – that would be on SBOE site, all reports will be available for any items that completed the review process
  • Childs – asked for clarification on flagging process for suitability
    • Staff – can do in quality review after each component or during standards alignment
  • Childs – what is timeline for responses from publishers?
    • Staff – mirroring same process as TRR, and between September and November board meeting
  • Kinsey – is consensus required and where?
    • Staff – among reviewers for verifying factual errors, and TEKS alignment breakouts; it is not required for suitability
    • Staff – public and reviewers can provide feedback to board on suitability
  • Discussion continues on review adding TEKS coverage and quality
  • Hardy – could be bias in review, why not look at whole book for TEKS review?
    • Staff – publisher has most knowledge of product, reviewer can reject if they don’t think the item covered full citation
    • Staff – agree there is a focused view of TEKS alignment to start, but the reviewer will end up reading cover to cover
  • Hardy – concern of Safal focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion
    • Staff – agency will go back out to bid when contract expires, they have been using them for TEKS alignment
    • Hardy – finds looking for common core in suitability is disingenuous, while using the contractor who supports DEI
    • Bell-Metereau and Hardy discuss diversity, equity and inclusion
  • Kinsey – public comments on quality go to quality or public comment?
    • Staff – will try to order for public, public comment is separate and similar to rule review
  • Pickren – does Safal know they can not use DEI hiring practices?
    • Staff – standards are set in contracts
  • Motion to approve made by Maynard
  • Hickman – has amendment suggestions, step 37 on page 8, would like to amend to include rejected and approved materials list & on step 40 to include the ability to amend approve and rejected materials list
    • Hickman – says September meeting allows ability to reject materials but would also like to be able to approve and reject materials, then at November meeting if they think they made a mistake there is an opportunity to amend the list
    • Ellis – ask for clarification
    • Staff – intended everything to move on but only rejections in September meeting
    • Hickman – could approve or reject at September meeting to help give SBOE less materials to work on at November meeting
  • Francis and staff look at step 49, locking in changes in advance of meeting
  • Francis – concerned of amendment, it will be easy to tell what items are not high quality instructional items and items that cannot be approved; sees danger of publisher on approved list without giving adequate feedback
  • Pickren – does not support the amendment
  • Ellis – does this give publisher ability to say their product is supported but not those that missed it by just a bit
  • Continued conversation on this amendment by members
  • Maynard – people always dialed in more in November than in September
  • Hickman – modifies amendment, to say “pending revisions and corrections”
    • Clarifies that everything they do in September is a recommendation, idea is to condense what they are able to
    • Step 37 on page 8 (at September meeting), would like to amend to include rejected and approved materials list pending revisions and corrections & on Step 40 (at November meeting) to include the ability to amend approve and rejected materials list as needed
  • Little – not in favor of doing this, feels it will give some publishers an inside edge
  • Hickman amendments as amended fails (2-10)
  • Line 40 would change by adding a new item at the end of the list – amended, approved, rejected list from the September meeting as needed; November 2024 meeting
  • Amendment fails (2-10)
  • Hickman – Have another amendment in step 33 – would work sequentially; SBOE to reject materials with a low TEKS score
  • Hickman – If we wanted an opportunity to reject in mind with TEKS score, where would that be?
    • Staff – In 37
  • Hickman – But that would be after the review
    • Is an opportunity to engage the public in the review
  • Hickman – Standards Alignment Review is when?
    • Staff – Mid-May and end early-to-mid June
  • Hickman – Withdraw amendment
  • Brooks – Propose an amendment concerning IMRA rubrics number 3 – review weekly progress reports; may withdraw
  • Brooks – We are going to have a continuous backend way to review these?
    • Staff – Not for rubric development, refers to internal content experts
  • Brooks – Is this something TEA could provide?
    • Staff – Looking for progress on internal teams? What is goal?
  • Brooks – Idea is to understand when working groups are working
    • Staff – Some of that shows up in 6; parent groups are there
  • Brooks – Does not have to be weekly, but just want to be engaged
  • Brooks – Change amendment to receive ongoing progress report from subject area working groups; want transparency for these workgroups developing rubrics
  • Chair Kinsey – Intent for calendar invites to these meetings for SBOE members?
    • Brooks – Yes
    • Staff – Would be difficult
    • Brooks – Strike that section of my amendment
  • Pickren – SBOE dashboard to monitor this process
    • Staff – Not for rubrics, for team building review process
  • Pickren – Basically, Brooks is asking for an expansion on that process
    • Brooks – Yes
    • Staff – Are able to share drafts, is that okay
  • Bell-Metereau – How often are these progress reports going to happen? Is very vague
  • Amendment fails (2-10)
  • Brooks – Under rubrics, step 6, what is the process for this usually concerning content reviewers/advisors?
    • Staff – Is no precedence here, can do internal groups like we do for TRR;
  • Brooks – Offer another amendment concerning step 10 approve rubric under SBOE; strike “and” approve rubric and provide guidance to TEA for revisions
  • Chair Kinsey – Does not make sense with the way the language is written
  • Brooks – Withdraw amendment
  • Brooks – Propose another amendment to add market analysis to be provided to SBOE
  • Pickren – TEA directive is to conduct the market analysis; when would that be in our process?
    • Staff – TEA’s analysis of EMAT sales data and prioritizing the materials in the market share; will include this analysis in step 15
  • Pickren – Can we break out market analysis by district?
    • Staff – We could
  • Brooks – Do I have to agree to add that in my amendment?
  • Chair Kinsey – Pickren could add their own amendment if they would like, but do not need to have this included in the current amendment
  • Amendment adopted (7-2)
  • Brooks – Propose another amendment in the prioritization strategy in the following order; any materials required to be reviewed, materials related to recently revised TEKS, voluntary submissions, district submissions, first year, IMRA rubrics, OER, highest market share based on most recent TEKS
  • Hickman – Propose we split off the piece of the above proposed amendment – want to adopt the part of the amendment in which we review based on the most recent revised TEKS
  • Chair Kinsey – If there are no objections to that, we can split this
  • Francis – Why split?
  • Hickman – Like the idea that we focus on the most recently revised TEKS
  • Chair Kinsey – How do we define recently?
  • Hickman – Not the writer of the amendment
  • Ellis – Are we on a motion to split the question?
  • Chair Kinsey – Yes
  • Ellis – Propose a secondary amendment to the split amendment changing language to – language needs to be what the proclamation calls for and recently revised TEKS
  • Staff – Amendment now says prioritizing materials related to most recently revised TEKS and for which a proclamation was issued
  • Pickren – Is Brooks accepting this language? Different from her original intent
  • Chair Kinsey – Are on a secondary amendment
  • Hickman – Intent all these steps would apply to proclamations and instructional materials?
    • Staff – Would apply to both, yes
      • Ellis’ secondary amendment adopted (9-0)
    • Hickman’s split amendment adopted (9-0)
  • Hickman – Against Brooks’ amendment, should consider OER and market share before the others
  • Brooks’ amendment fails (2-10)
  • Brooks – Have an amendment concerning step 35, add – TEA to provide SBOE with provide preliminary reports from ESCs; where do preliminary reports go?
    • Staff – Send to regional service centers to check over and then provide the final report to the SBOE in step 37
  • Brooks – Withdraw amendment
  • Hickman – In step 37 would like to add TEA execute/present after-action review on IMRA rubrics, instructional material selection, IMRA reviewer selection, IMRA reviews; intent is most recent process
  • Chair Kinsey – Might consider adding language concerning the “current year cycle”
  • Hickman – Yes, add that language
  • Young – What does perform mean?
    • Hickman – To carry out
  • Francis – Is any of this included anywhere else where the SBOE
    • Staff – Will have dashboards available step 20
    • Staff – Do not believe there is dedicated on a step back hold on after action; this might be better placed in row 42 – so we can get all the way through the process
  • Francis – Propose to include all the things Hickman has said in these dashboard
    • Staff – Ongoing versus a reflection of what has already passed
  • Chair Kinsey – Dashboard is concerning the member selection process
  • Hickman – Thought is that we are going to continuously do this once we put it in place, thought about putting it in 40, but if we move it later for 42 are we already working on the next cycle
    • Staff – Will be a constant process, for example in April we will be providing SBOE with rubrics, could get this done, but would be a lot to crunch in a short time
  • Davis – Would be missing the last steps in the process
  • Chair Kinsey – Hickman is attempting to make two reviews
  • Char Kinsey – Is that correct Hickman?
  • Hickman – Happy to do so
  • Maynard – When we go into the next cycle, when do you expect the next cycle to start?
    • Staff – Cycle 25 request in late December; year one is on a truncated timeline, and year two expected to be more spread out
  • Maynard – Sounds like the amendment makes sense given that timeline; would need a review in November since we are starting again in December
  • Amendment passes (12-0)
  • Hickman – Propose another amendment same language from previous amendment in step 45
  • Amendment passes (13-0)
  • Francis – One thing missing is a timeline of this whole process; do not think this can be achieved now, but would like to get with staff on this
  • Chair Kinsey – Asks staff about a schedule
  • Staff – Today SBOE is approving milestones, and are adding to it; times will adapt; will work with you on an updated schedule for this; know step 37 is a part of the September meeting
  • Hickman – Could you have a year-by-year comparison of such a schedule?
    • Staff – Yes
  • IMRA process document as amended is adopted (12-0)

 

Item 4: Implementation of Instructional Materials Review Suitability Rubric

  • Chair Kinsey – Was presented at November meeting, expectation was to bring this back now as a second look; technically approved suitability rubric at the December meeting & coming back today to keep with Chair Ellis’ thoughts
    • Chair Kinsey – Passing out doc from staff with my thoughts; no content changed, but format has changed, Sec. 2 & Sec. 3 have been moved together
    • Understand more about how program comes together & how reviewers will interact with them
    • Discussed previously a transition to a flagging system & allow SBOE to review details, no unanimity req, and positive affirmation that doc has been reviewed
  • Francis moves to accept the proposed changes in the doc provided by Chair Kinsey as the IM review suitability rubric
  • Ellis PI – Are we starting with doc from Dec or amendment to make changes?
  • Chair Kinsey – Francis motion is the red doc, will then be the base document; already have an approved rubric
  • Brooks – So nothing in black can be amended?
  • Chair Kinsey – No, what is in black was what was approved at the Dec meeting; motion from Francis is to adopt amendments
  • Brooks – So new doc is just written differently?
  • Chair Kinsey – Formatting changes have been made in Secs. 2 & 3 to make it more readable for the public; Sec.1, paragraph 3 also has process changes
  • Brooks – Used to strikeouts to show what was before, but everything is new?
  • Chair Kinsey – Correct; the only content changes are on page 1
  • Chair Kinsey and Francis represent motion to make sure it is before SBOE for discussion
  • Francis – Motion laid out quite well; Secs. 2 & 3 are rearranged, words did not change; most important change is we’re asking for assistance from reviewers with flagging errors in IM that is required by rubric, law, etc. Or anything that is prohibited; also allows reviewer to flag without consensus, goes to SBOE upon flagging
  • Brooks – Alignment with public education’s constitutional goal language, where did this come from?
  • Chair Kinsey – Short answer is rubric we approved in December, but can get back to you
  • Childs – Are we married to flagging as the solution to this issue
  • Chair Kinsey – Conceptually, this was the way it was headed in discussions with a few members; if it was “meet/does not meet” any reviewer could cause a problem for the IM to be approved
  • Childs – Not married to idea because a lot of this is new & up to interpretation; e.g. if 3 reviewers flag 3 things, could interfere
  • Hickman – There is some blue language, were those all there in the Dec version?
  • Chair Kinsey – They were there, hyperlinks
  • Hickman – Would be interested to hear alternatives to flagging
  • Counsel responds to Member Brooks re: pub ed constitutional goal – Can be referencing TX Constitution on efficient system of public free schools
  • Brooks – Could open some arguments, e.g. which constitution, what provisions; would like to amend to point to TX Constitution and also Texas Ed Code
  • Chair Kinsey – Understand what you’re saying, language is not new since Dec
  • Hickman – Looking at 1 and 1.1, the actual flag would be 1.1 or 2.1
    • Staff – Correct, would require reviewer or member of public to drill down to Sec. 3 when flagging

 

Amendments

  • Ellis – Have 3 amendments, document is focused on unsuitability & flags should focus on things that are a problem
  • Ellis offers amendment to say material “does not contradict” preparing children for self-governance & not “contrary to” purposes outlined

  • Ellis – Have others in the same spirit; do feel these are formatting changes, just flipping the test
  • Pickren – In suitability rubric, we have reqs to teach things & guardrails; you don’t want to know if these things are in the materials?
  • Ellis – Very difficult to flag things that might not show up in every material, e.g. flagging these things in science
  • Pickren – Asking legal for interpretation, do the requirements under 28.002 cover all subjects
    • Counsel – Whole section covers the entire curriculum
  • Ellis – 28.002 applies to TEKS; if it isn’t in the IM they wouldn’t be approved under TEKS, not necessarily flagged under suitability
  • Pickren – Section says “instructional materials”
    • Counsel – Highlights new reqs to meet TEKS, hasn’t been to date to apply the reqs to every course in every grade
  • Pickren – There are things in here that may not pertain to every course, but law reqs inclusion in K-12 materials; have an amendment that includes both of the aspects
  • Pickren, Ellis, and TEA Counsel discuss origins of reqs in 2.1
  • Pickren – I like language to not allow contradictions, could we marry this into an “and?”
  • Ellis – Looking at what we are flagging for, language proposal might flag if it is contrary to items on the righthand column
  • Hickman – 2.1 is not the flag, 2.1.1 is the flag
  • Childs – I thought rubric was to be able to identify the most egregious errors in materials that wouldn’t be suitable for children?
  • Chair Kinsey – Would need to go to statute to see for definition
    • Counsel – Not defined in statute, responsibility to infer suitability is with SBOE
  • Chair Kinsey – No statutory definition & we haven’t agreed on a specific definition
  • Bell-Metereau – Would encourage SBOE to be as precise & clear as possible, and not venture into things beyond what is required
  • Ortega – Would agree with Childs, if there is an area to be flagged, perhaps also have comments that we then review
  • Ellis – Structure seems to indicate the guidance are the flaggable items; need to make sure it is clear to staff what we’re expecting them to flag
  • Chair Kinsey – I think there is a way to fix this by moving some language
  • Ellis – Would suggest them amending 2.1.1 instead of 2.1; might fix Pickren’s issue
  • Pickren – My understanding was indicators were flags and guidance was just guidance; can we get clarity
    • Counsel – System is built for flags to be on the left, but then providing guidance for why an item was flagged
    • Staff – Initial idea was flagging from left column, then further drill down from righthand side
    • Staff presents mockup suitability flag form
  • SBOE took a break between 5:45 and 6:23
  • Ellis withdraws amendment to make a different amendment
  • Ellis – We can get somewhere where I’m comfortable by creating a positive and negative indicator; Pickren will also have amendments; idea is to have a positive flag or a red flag
  • Ellis – If there is something we don’t want to see it receives a red negative flag, would also have a green positive flag to indicate when something desirable is in there; asking staff to create language for red negative and green positive indicators
  • Ellis moves to create 2 flags, negative red and positive green
  • Hickman POO – I thought we had the main motion with a suitability rubric & we’re now entertaining amendments
  • Chair Kinsey – I believe the amendment is to Sec. 1
  • Ellis – Amendment would be in Sec 1.3, trying to give staff authority to make conforming amendment for this concept; we would vote on this Friday
  • Pickren – Have been working to try and formalize this into a suitable amendment for the main motion
  • Hickman POO – Restating, I don’t think this is an amendment, think we can consider language when there is language to consider
  • SBOE took a break between 6:32 and 6:45
  • Chair Kinsey – Coming back to Hickman’s POO on Ellis’ amendment
  • Ellis and Hickman withdraw amendment and POO
  • Ellis – Created a theoretical amendment before, so now have created an actual amendment
  • Ellis offers new amendment with same concept, creating mechanism to allow for green flags
  • Hickman – Will be voting against this, 28.002 concepts are present in the TEKS, we have 100% TEKS coverage; unless legal says every class in K-12 requires the constitution for instance, I don’t think this is necessary; since the concepts are in the TEKS, the concepts would also need to be in the IM
  • Hickman – Will cause confusion, e.g. if a welding class doesn’t have a green flag, does it need one? Etc.
  • Hardy – Necessary to make teachers understand things like they don’t need to do constitution if it isn’t in the curriculum
  • Ellis – Would defer to staff, 28.002 says it needs to happen, up to staff & SBOE when and how; everyone wants those things in there, but complicated to implement; if the IM has it, it would have a green flag and we would be assured the content is in there; if welding doesn’t have a green flag that doesn’t mean it is rejected
  • Hardy – This is one of the problems with the anti-CRT bill, e.g. doing the constitution every day in every class wasn’t logical; really depends on if people are confused by this
  • Brooks – Rules are drafted for reviewers, so they’re involved with material they are reviewing & not all of these will apply to all IM; I don’t think this will negatively affect process
  • Ellis and Bell-Metereau further discuss, decided to add language “at lesson level” helps address
  • Language continues to be addressed and Ellis agrees to take out language that may imply each sentence
  • Ellis amendment adopted (11-2)

  • Pickren offers amendment to 2.11 that quotes statute

  • Appreciates Ellis Green Flag/Red Flag solution, but there are things they need to promote such as abstinence, this amendment causes reviewer to check at lesson level to determine if this is fulfilled
  • Ellis – 2.13 was envisioned as deleted with this passing
    • Staff- notes they can delete after this is amendment is addressed
  • Pickren Amendment passes (9-4)
  • Ellis amendment would allow for a negative flag it text is contrary to items they were supposed to have

  • Ellis amendment adopted
  • Ellis then goes back to blank to add language

  • Ellis – clarifies blank box from earlier is now filled in with this amendment to add 2.11 and 6.2
  • Bell-Metereu and Ellis continue to discuss what amendment will do, Ellis notes language addresses double negative concern
  • Little – makes motion, would like term instead of “sexual health” to sexual risk avoidance
    • Motion adopted
  • Little – amendment to add “to minors,” notes would be limited number of students not minors
  • Francis – does not see amendment as being necessary but it excludes older students
  • Young – can wording be changed to students instead of minors
  • Little – amends amendments to say “to students” in place of to minors
    • Roll call vote on amendment
    • Amendment passes 13-0

  • Maynard – moves to strike the words “child pornography” in 7.1 and add “pornographic”
    • Any pornography, child or otherwise should not be allowed
  • In response to questions on sentence structure, Kinsey noted if they want to address changes they can on Friday but clarifies this amendment is addressing only the strike and added language
  • Maynard amendment passes without objection

Final Vote

  • Hickman – notes there are 39 criteria with green and red flags, wants to know in after action review how this process worked for them
  • Main motion to approve passed 14-1

 

Item 5. Adoption of Rule Review of 19 TAC Chapter 66, State Adoption and Distribution of Instructional Materials, Subchapter A, General Provisions, Subchapter B, State Adoption of Instructional Materials, and Subchapter C, Local Operations

  • Staff – notes Chapter 66 related to previous proclamations and adoption cycles, keeps those in place for now
  • Francis – ask for clarification
    • Staff – not an action to make any changes, they looked at rule and opened public comments so recommendation at this time is to keep them in place with no changes
  • Hickman – are any amendments needed
    • Staff- they will eventually need to replace with IMRA as items expire, but not now
  • Brooks – some language is new, where are new parts? Some is relevant to 1605 and some is existing?
    • Staff – question is yes or no, do have reason for rules to exist and still have authority
  • Little makes motion to adopt
  • Motion adopted without objection

 

Item 6. Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 74, Curriculum Requirements, Subchapter B, Graduation Requirements, §74.12, Foundation High School Program, and §74.13, Endorsements

  • Staff – alignment in PE from ½ to 1 credit, technical change to CTE courses to update titles and career clusters, last change is to endorsements by removing outdated language (coherence sequence of courses and list all the programs of study)
  • Brooks – when was PE decision made?
    • Staff – when TEKS were revised in 2020, 1 full credit per course based on content
    • Brooks – would like to see language as written in code
    • Staff – this is opportunity for discussion or any direction
  • Hickman – coherence sequence language, is it similar to programs of study
    • Staff – programs of study are all a series of 4 courses
    • Staff – in process of framework of 1-4 pages identifying related IBCs
  • Brooks – would like to follow up and get more background on program of study
    • Staff – reminds her it is the slide deck sent to her two meetings ago, will resend that deck and link to website
    • Staff – SBOE does not have authority over programs but could make decision to not refer to program of study only with respect to endorsement
  • Maynard – would like to see slide deck on program of study go to all members

Agenda completed – Recess until 12:30 tomorrow