The State Board of Education met on November 14 to discuss instructional materials offered under Proclamation 2024, adoption of certain instructional materials, the instructional materials review/approval process and suitability of instructional materials.

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer.

 

Item 1: Report from the Commissioner of Education Regarding Instructional Materials Offered for Adoption under Proclamation 2024

Proc 2023 List of Instructional Materials Eligible for Adoption

 

Public Comment

Terry Cassabus

  • Scientist have worked hundreds of years to develop scientific theories
  • We owe are kids the truth
  • Science textbooks need to include scientific theories

 

Jackie Besinger

  • We need to update our standards of what qualifies as a scientific theories

 

Mary Castle, Texas Values

  • Current material is unbalanced in how the world began
  • Houghton material has no relation to science
  • Vote no on McGraw Hill material
  • Votes yes on TPS material

 

Discussion:

  • Young – Do you have any specific materials that you want changed?
    • Cassabus – No, I just believe science should be included in science textbooks
  • Brooks – A lot of the controversy with the content is in the TEKs. What is the process to change this?
    • Ellis – Open up a new review and revision process
  • Brooks – What is a good recommendation or balance for TPS
    • Castle- The language they use now has a good balance; it doesn’t contradict other findings
  • Bell-Metereau – Does the educational material deal with issues of the fossil record, concepts of natural selection, and replication of experiments?
    • Cassabus – That is science, it should be in a science book

 

Robert Baumgartner, Geologist

  • I am here to advocate for the best science textbooks
  • Scientifically literate public is good for society and policy making

 

Ethan Gans

  • We need to climate change in education materials
  • Need to keep religion out of science books
  • This years record heat should be a great reason to teach climate change

 

Megan Fairbanks

  • Encourage policy makers to adopt textbooks that describe the world we are living in now
  • Climate change must stay in textbooks
  • The separation of church and state

 

Staff Presentation

Amy Phillips, Staff

  • Publisher will have to comply with manufacturing standards
  • Publisher must also follow accessibility standards
  • 3 sections of the report that I have included
    • List of instructional materials that are eligible for adoption, materials cover at least 50% of the TEKs
    • Base price list, we ask publishers for their base package cost per student and what could trigger a discount
    • Summary of Texas Resource Review score for K-8 science, biology, IPC, and chemistry

 

Discussion:

  • Pickren- I have yet to see a report on any part of the curriculum that could violate state law?
    • Phillips- We hired state review panelist to flag any concerns with state law, I recall one concern over suitability
  • Pickren – Did the publisher fix this?
    • Phillips- The publisher disagreed and that it followed the TEKs and the reviewers agreed
  • Francis-  Are these changes recommend by the just the publisher or the SRP as well?
    • Phillips- It can included changes requested by the SRP if the publisher accepted them
  • Francis- There are several comments from state review panelist that were rejected referring to state law, What process would be violated to follow state law?
    • Phillips – The panel accepted the content that they provided to cover the student expectation by removing the content the student expectation would not be covered
  • Francis – Who is the final authority on accepted content, the SRP, TEA, or the SBOE?
    • Phillips – We instructed publishers to respond to feedback and if they accepted they are required to make the change if they reject it they will need to require a rationale and it would be up to the SBOE to decide
  • Bell-Metereau- How many proposed changes are there?
    • Phillips- Over 35 pages of rejections
  • Hickman – This report of required corrections that’s like a contingency, before the books are put on the SBOE approves the list the changes have to be made.
    • Phillips- Correct, any changes made in the report of required corrections, report of required editorial changes and report of new content have to be included in the final product
  • Pickren- Does the SRP have veto or override authority over state law?
    • Phillips- No
  • Ellis – Anything approved or rejected today is still up for discussion on Friday
  • Hickman – I move that all publishers make corrections listed in proclamation 2024, report of required correction, report of new content, and report of editorial changes require that all publishers meet manufacturing standards and expectations, require that all electronic instructional material comply with the web content specialist guidelines and technical standards and place instructional materials submitted for adoption on the adopted list in proclamation 2024 list up for adoption
  • Ellis – Is there any will who wants to remove accelerated learning from the recommended list?
    • Brooks – remove accelerated learning biology
  • Pickren – On these curriculums who is in contract with publisher TEA or SBOE
    • Ellis – SBOE
  • Pickren – When these go to contracts who from the Texas Attorney General office is going to review the publisher ESG policies for compliance with Texas state law
    • Staff – I don’t believe these get reviewed by the attorney general, they just get issued and can be used by school districts
  • Brooks – I move to remove biology accelerated learning grade 8
  • Francis – move to remove accelerated learning all submissions
  • Francis – I cant in good conscious approve accelerated learning.
  • Hickman- This motion does not put these materials in a single Texas classroom nor prevent them from going into a Texas classroom. I will be voting against the motion
  • Little – I would remind the board with language arts adoption. 25% of districts go with materials without SBOE approval
  • Maynard – Can you provide specificity of what concerns he has?
  • Francis – The decision we make today is important because school districts trust our process of approved material, like a stamp of approval. My concerns are represented in the review panels comments. I don’t believe the publisher has worked with the review panel. My motion is based on the utility of this product
  • Bell-Metereau – I still don’t hear any specific reasons
  • Ellis -How did this publisher do on the education resource review?
    • Phillips – 100%
  • Pickren – What is implementation support report
    • Phillips- supports for educators that use the materials to instruct. Administrators judging the implementation of these materials.
    • Ellis – They had 51 of 52 points
  • Maynard- Can you speak to wanting to get rid of Biology grade 8?
    • Brooks – I would be willing to remove a few chapters or move to include people of faiths ideas on origin of life
  • Hickman – do we have the ability to make amendments to the textbooks or take out a chapter
    • Ellis- no we have an agenda item to approve materials to be on the adopted list
  • Hickman- We as a body can’t make changes or rejections
    • Phillips – the publishers were told
  • Pickren – I think accelerated learning does a disservice to our students because it doesn’t include other theories diminishing critical theory
  • Davis- Which resources are you referring to?
  • Pickren – It is a theme
  • Ortega – As teacher we don’t use only one book, educational resources are not the same as curriculum
  • Ellis – Roll call vote requested and granted
  • Ellis – Motion is to remove Accelerated learning from the adopted list
    • Motion does not carry
  • Brooks – I motion is grade 8 only from Accelerated learning
  • Young – Can you add an amendment to add 6th, 7th, and 8th grade biology
  • Brooks – yes
  • Ellis- motion now stands to add 6th , 7th, and 8th biology
  • Ellis – Motion to approve
    • Motion carries
  • Ellis – Any motion to remove argument driven inquiry?
  • Hardy – I would like to see it removed, one thing that is hard for schools to do is to match materials through grade and also the questions are hard to understand
  • Little- I would agree, it will confuse a lot of districts
  • Hardy –it is missing a lot of the content, it is not very rich
  • Francis – seems like low quality
  • Ellis All in favor in the motion of Ms. Hardy
    • Motion carries
  • Ellis – Anybody for Carolina’s Biological Supply Company for 6th,7th,and 8th?
  • Francis – Motion to remove all three products, all three of these do not meet threshold under TRR
  • Ellis All those in favor of Mr. Francis motion?
    • Motion carries
  • Pickren – I would like to make a motion to remove discovery education k-8
  • Ellis – Motion to remove Discovery Education K – 8
    • Motion carries
  • Ellis – Any motion to remove Great Minds Science K-5?
  • Pickren – I move to remove Great Minds K-5
    • Throughout great minds it encourages students to write a letter to elected official for policy change and that violates HB 3979
  • Ellis – For clarification HB3979 has been repealed by the passing of SB 3
  • Pickren –  SB 3 clearly says in section 5 that it is prohibited
  • Ellis – What does this product do that pertains to SB 3
  • Pickren – It instructs students to write letters to elected officials to enact policy change
  • Ellis – this motion will be postponed later
  • Ellis – Anyone oppose Green Ninja 6-8?
  • Hardy- Motion to remove Green Ninja 6-8?
    • It says to warn parents about extreme weather
  • Ellis – Motion to Remove Green Ninja 6-8
    • Motion carries
  • Ellis – Kiddom grade 6-8 Biology, Chemistry and physics
  • Hardy-  I motion to remove Kiddom
    • A lot of the lessons are not well stated in covering science
  • Hickman – I don’t think its appropriate to teach to Texas students
  • Ellis – Motion to remove
    • Motion carries
  • Ellis – Anyone for removing McGraw Hill?
  • Hardy – I motion to remove McGraw Hill Biology
    • Hardy – There were concerns brought up and we want them addressed by Friday, regarding the speaking of theories and only giving one
  • Ellis All those in favor of Ms. Hardy’s motion
    • Motion carries
  • Ellis- Does anyone oppose Myriad Sensors?
  • Ellis – Does anyone oppose Pasco?
  • Francis – Motion to remove Pasco chemistry and physics
    • Pasco did not score well of the Texas Education Review Panel
  • Davis – I support Pasco, they have different tools and activities for students
  • Kinsey – TRR scores Pasco very poorly
  • Hickman – I would like to call the question
  • Ellis – All those in favor in calling the question
    • The question has been called
  • Ellis – All those in favor of removing Pasco
    • Motion fails
  • Ellis – Anyone opposed to SASC
    • We will move on
  • Ellis – Is their motion to remove any of Savvas Learning Science
  • Pickren – I motion to remove Savvas 5th grade Science for English
    • The 5th grade curriculum is taking an anti-fossil fuel position and also pro solar and batteries. There nothing in the material that talks of negative consequences of mining for batteries
    • Pickren- it is factually inaccurate
  • Perez-Diaz- I am just trying to understand the motive behind the change? Where is the student centered decision making?
    • Pickren – It is factually inaccurate the way it is presented because it is not fact it is theory
  • Little – I motion to call the question
    • Question is called
  • Ellis – Motion to remove Savvas 5th grade science for English?
    • Motion fails
  • Francis – Motion to remove Savvas Biology
    • It discriminates the lab leak theories of COVID-19
  • Ellis – Motion to remove Savvas Biology
    • Motion Fails
  • Ellis – Any motion to remove School it Science 8th grade
    • Hearing none we will move on
  • Francis – I motion to remove School it
    • I cant in good context vote for this textbook it does not cover enough of the TEKs
  • Young – I support
  • Ellis – All those in favor of removing School it 8th grade Science
    • Motion carries
  • Ellis Any motions to remove Smart Biology?
  • Young – I motion to remove Smart Biology
    • It is low in TEKs coverage
  • Hickman – It is drafted for 11th and 12th graders and will be taught to most 9th graders
  • Ellis – All those in favor of Dr. Youngs motion to remove Smart Biology?
    • Motion carries
  • Ellis – Anyone oppose Studies Weekly Science K-5?
    • Hearing none we will move on
  • Ellis – Anyone oppose Summit K12 Holdings?
  • Francis – Motion to remove all Summit K12 holdings
    • It is a consistent theme in various areas where scored very low according to the TRR. It isn’t strong enough for Texas students
  • Ellis – All those in favor in removing all of Summit k-12 Holdings?
    • Motion carries
  • Anyone oppose TPS Publishing?
  • Kinsey – I motion to strike all of TPS Publishing
    • Very low scores on the TRR
  • Ellis – All those in favor of removing TPS Publishing
    • Motion Carries
  • Ellis – lets go back to EduSmart
  • Kinsey – I move to remove all of EduSmart
    • It is not suitable for Texas children, it also particularly paints oil and gas in negative light
  • Bell-Metereau – How do you want oil and gas portrayed in textbooks?
  • Kinsey – I believe there is a bias in the selection of photos chosen for oil and gas
  • Davis – What kind of positive images do you want for oil and gas
  • Kinsey – It is not a balanced approach
  • Little – I move to call the question
    • Question has been called
  • Ellis – Motion to remove all of EduSmart
    • Motion carries
  • Ellis – There was a Motion on Great Minds
  • Pickren – I would like to remove my motion
  • Ellis – Motion is withdrawn
  • Francis – Motion to strike BioZone instructional material
    • It is not rigorous as Texas students deserve. There were also negative comments on TRR
  • Ellis – All those in favor to remove BioZone instructional material
    • Motion fails

 

Social Studies

  • Ellis – Anyone opposed to Decker & Associates PFL instructional material?
    • Seeing none we will move on
  • Ellis – Anyone opposed to Goodheart-Willcox Personal Financial Literacy and Economics?
  • Kinsey – I move to strike Goodheart- Willcox Personal Financial Literacy and Economics
    • From feedback I have received there is an over emphasis on oil and gas/renewables and to much on climate change and not enough on financial literacy
  • Davis – Can you be a little more specific
  • Brooks- Is there no rubric to follow
    • Staff – There is no TRR rubric to follow for social studies courses or technology applications
  • Ellis – All those in favor to remove Goodheart-Willcox Personal Financial Literacy and Economics
    • Motion fails
  • Ellis – Anyone oppose McGraw Hill Personal Financial Literacy and Economics?
    • Hearing none we will move on
  • Ellis – Anyone oppose Ramsey Education Personal Financial Literacy and Economics?
    • Hearing none we will move on
  • Ellis – Anyone oppose Savvas Personal Financial Literacy and Economics?
  • Pickren – I motion to remove Savvas Personal Financial Literacy and Economics?
    • It relabels communism as a command economy and when teaching communism it also teaches it as a benevolent form of economic system.
  • Hardy – From an economics point of view command economy is the correct term when referring to communism
  • Pickren – It needs to reference communism so students are not confused. Students need to understand that a command economy is communism
  • Pickren – It teaches that the US economy is a blend of communism and free market economies. I do not believe the US economy is a blend.
  • Hardy – It should say a blend of socialist and capitalist economies. So that is a mistake?
  • Ellis – all those in favor of removing Savvas Personal Financial Literacy and Economics?
    • Motion carries
  • Ellis – Anyone oppose Curriculum Center for Family and Consumer Science Personal Financial Literacy and Economics?
    • Hearing none we will move on

 

Technology Applications

  • Ellis – Anyone oppose CED Multimedia 6-8th
    • Hearing none we will move on
  • Ellis – Anyone Oppose Coder Kids Inc K-8th?
  • Hickman- I motion to remove 6-8th
    • K-5th is good TEKs coverage but I am concerned of this low level of TEKs coverage 6-8th
  • Maynard – Do you think the issues on TEKs can be remedied between now and the end of the week?
  • Hickman – Writing 43% of a book by Friday I don’t think so
  • Ellis – All those in favor of removing Coder Kids 6-8th from the adopted list?
    • Motion carries (12-0)
  • Hickman – motion to remove Typing.com and seconded
    • Not covering sufficient number of TEKS
  • Ellis – Calls for vote
    • Motion carries (11-0)

 

Carrer Development

  • Hickman – move to remove medical assistance from Cengage
    • Only covers 55% of TEKS
  • Ellis – Calls for vote
    • Motion carries (12-0)
  • Maynard – confirms it is a Texas based company, so curious why one of the products was less than a 60% of the TEKS, motion to remove Computer Science I
  • Ellis – Calls for vote
    • Motion carries (13-0)
  • Francis – Motion to remove, Child Development, Child Development associate foundation and CD instructional practices some items not developmentally appropriate
    • Kinsey – babies referred to as fetuses, gender female not specified
    • Discussion with staff on CTE courses and who will be leading the courses and the field of study
    • Motion carries (7-4)
  • Pickren – Good Heart Willcox Child Development to be removed
    • Ch 4 has emphasis on family planning, and birth control including morning after pill
    • Long lesson on negative of parenting
    • Little – would rather reference to “pregnant woman” over “pregnant person”
  • Ellis – Question called, Calls for vote
    • Motion carries (8-2)
  • Brooks – Good Heart Willcox Human Growth and Development
    • Doesn’t not see it as family friendly
  • Ellis – Calls for vote
    • Motion carries (8-4)
  • Francis – Anatomy and Physiology moves to remove, TEKS percentage is low and not enough rigor
  • Ellis – Calls for vote
    • Motion carries (8-3)
  • Francis – motion to remove Learning.com Fundamentals of Computer Science, seeing 60% range
  • Ellis – Calls for vote
    • Motion carries (10-0)
  • Pickren – Savvas Anatomy, Physiology and Disease, teaches sexual orientation and gender identity and spiritual fitness suggest seeking out a psychologist and seeks out nuclear family is a western societal term
    • Little and other board members do not see this section
  • Ellis – postpones while Pickren looks up page numbers, Ellis did come back to it with no new information from Pickren, and calls for vote
    • Motion fails (0-7)
  • Francis – Curriculum for family and consumer sciences – Remove Child Development and Principles of Education and Training, believes low percentage of TEKS at 78% coverage
  • Ellis – Calls for vote
    • Motion carries (6-4)
  • Pickren – Health Science Theory Savvas, was the book earlier she meant to move to remove which includes language about sexual orientation and gender identity and spiritual fitness, nuclear family, etc
  • Ellis – Calls for vote
    • Motion carries (8-4)
  • Ellis calls for vote on main motion as amended
    • Motion carries (10-3)

 

 

 

Item 2: 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

  • Outlines rule review, the previous discussions fall under this section
  • Staff recommends to leave this section as is until materials expire under this section
  • Clarification is provided that this is not the time to make a motion to amend chapter 66, but to either decide it stands or to pull back later for amendments
  • Staff recommends Chapter 67 is for the new process, and 66 would stay in place until the recent proclamation expires

Item 3: Consideration of Instructional Materials Review and Approval Criteria and Instructional Materials Contract Terms and Conditions

 

Public Testimony

  • Testimony recommended integrity in rubric and high quality; and for decisions to be made quickly, one witness noted they implemented Amplify Texas
  • Francis – asked several questions including benefits on using Texas Resource Review (TRR), he did not get a response on this question
  • Texas 2036 pointed out HQIM was in Texas Constitution calling on public education to preserve liberty, which means content needs to be rigorous, argues need for every student to earn a family sustaining wage
  • Maynard – asked Texas 2036, Mary Lynn Pruneda details for what projects they are working on and who serves on board in order to have context to comments

 

TEA Staff Presentation

  • 1605/IMRA implementation timeline was revisited, culminating in Nov of 2024
  • Wil include definition, list of approved HQIM
  • Jan 2024 is a goal date to gain approval of criteria and process for IMRA
  • Overview of exhibits provides including criteria slide that will lead to definitions

 

Quality Review rubrics reviewed first

  • Starting next week – moving into focus groups
    • For next two weeks: RLA – Educators/ESC Specialists/Publishers and Math – Educators/ESC Specialists/Publishers
    • Nov 15- Dec 15 Public Comment
  • Dec 13th will provide a high level summary and proposed next steps
  • Dec 19th will share updated rubrics to SBOE
  • Jan 2024 approval of rubrics

 

Criteria Rubric

  • Instructional Materials are the materials students use to learn and practice and that teachers use to plan and teach
  • Design based on:
    • What educators say they need to effectively implement instructional materials
    • The evidence that exists about the best ways to teach each subject; and
    • The evidence that exists on the most effective ways for learning to occur
  • Two categories and sections under each of those:
    • Implementation quality (3 sections) is similar for all areas, are components for effective implementation present
    • Learning quality (5 sections) is unique to subject being reviewed, are component quality and aligned to research and will is support student reaching grade level proficiency
    • Each section has indicators and reviewer guidance, occasionally each section has a subsection
  • Provided an example of Reading/Language Arts with this rubric criteria
    • Implementation quality example – Intentional Instructional Designs, Progress Monitoring, Supports for All Learners,
    • Learning quality example – Phonics Rule Compliance, Foundational Skills, Knowledge Coherence, Test Quality and Complexity, and Evidenced Based Tasks and Responses
    • This is structure of all 4 reading/language arts with the exception of phonics for higher grades
  • Reviews will happen this summer, cap at 200
  • Reviewer training will begin as soon as this criteria approved in Jan
  • First Round will be K-5 ELA, K-6 Spanish ELA, K-12 Math
  • Every year they will be directed by SBOE on subjects, but they will review rubrics at that time, some things will need to stay the same but also be aware of continuous improvement
  • Brooks – later asked if there another chance to get feedback on how the process is working
    • Staff – again notes this first year they need to get a process down and then can work on continuous improvement in the following years
  • Maynard – thinks over time, people will create the IM to meet the process/criteria
  • Maynard – asked if plan is to expand IMA, that at some point to use IMA it needs to be used on material selected from IMRA
  • Staff – working on viability and effectiveness currently on rubric
  • Hickman – concerned how long it will take each reviewer with hundreds of pages of criteria and the SBOE reviewing all those comments

 

  • Provided an example of Math with this rubric criteria
    • Implementation quality example – Intentional Instructional Designs, Progress Monitoring, Supports for All Learners,
    • Learning quality example – Depth and Coherence of Key Concepts, Balance of Conceptual and Procedural Understanding, and Productive Struggle

Math TEKS questions

    • Hickman – concerned math TEKS is old and wants to know when those will be reviewed
      • Ellis – new materials will be reviewed through this process when they open up math TEKS
    • Brooks – when will math TEKS review come up
      • Ellis – 24-25

 

Timeline Reviewed Again

  • Starting next week – moving into focus groups
    • For next two weeks: RLA – Educators/ESC Specialists/Publishers and Math – Educators/ESC Specialists/Publishers
    • Nov 15- Dec 15 Public Comment
  • Dec 13th will provide a high level summary and proposed next steps
  • Dec 19th will share updated rubrics to SBOE
  • Jan 2024 approval of rubrics

 

Parent Portal

  • Parent portal is new from HB 1605
    • Provide to each parent of a student enrolled in a school district or open enrollment charter school access to instructional materials other than tests or exams, that are included in the portal and used by the district or school
    • Organize instructional material by unit and in the order in which the material is designed to be used
    • Be capable of being searched by key word
    • For instructional material not available in a digital format, contain sufficient information to allow a parent to locate a physical copy of material
  • Any material placed on the approved list will need to meet these standards as well
  • Hardy – I think they should add TEKs to the parent portal
  • Pickren – I would like to add progress monitoring to the portal
    • Staff – we can work on that
  • Francis – In your proposal are you saying parents would go to one website hosted by the school district?
    • Staff – Parents and teacher will be logging into one website
  • Staff – I encourage a light touch on these standards, it raises the bar for publisher which could become very burdensome
  • Francis – I would like data on what districts who don’t have an LMS system

 

Factual Errors

  • Proposed definition- a factual error shall be defined as a verified error of fact, grammatical error, or punctation error that would interfere with student learning
  • Does the board agree that this is an appropriate definition of factual errors as it relates to instructional materials?
  • Ellis – An example of a factual error would be 2+2=5?
    • Staff – Another would be pages being misnumbered, etc.
  • Childs – Aren’t there examples of more complicated errors to verify?
    • Staff – We look to the TEKS, questions about content are looking at state standards; we flag factual errors for review & SBOE would consider

 

IMRA Criteria – Physical & Electronic Specifications

  • Staff – We’re already doing these
  • Current process as part of Proc 2024, books are reviewed to see if the meet the Manufacturing Standards and Specifications for Textbooks (MSST)
  • Staff proposing to continue with this process, publishers submit coversheet attesting they are following MSST & if not penalty can be assessed
  • Accessibility Compliance Report
    • Staff – Currently requiring publishers submit digital version to NIMAC, allows publishers of braille, large print, and audio to access
    • Require every publisher to submit each printed material to that repository & prove before contract is signed
    • 3rd party review required for electronic media
    • Staff recommends maintain same process for review & approval moving forward
  • Little – Would it be possible to put in there that things that aren’t TX-specific editions be hosted on a TX specific website?
    • Staff – Will take that and figure out where we can apply it
  • Physical & Electronic Specifications
    • Publishers self-report attributes of their materials incl. form, access, tech standard compatibility, etc.
    • Staff recommending using the same process

 

IMRA Criteria – Standards Alignment Percentage

  • Currently materials cover 50% of TEKS, SBOE now has the ability to set that minimum percentage
  • Staff has proposed 100% TEKS coverage for foundation subject areas & enrichment subjects must cover 80% of TEKS
  • Staff rationale for the difference is due to lack of enrichment materials, much less TX-specific ones
  • Francis – I do like the revised proposal for 100% TEKS & ELPS coverage for foundation subejcts; what are these hard-to-find subjects?
    • Staff – One example was a course on diesel tech, had difficulty finding instructional materials
  • Francis – Majority of courses we approve are enrichment, personally not comfortable with 80%, still too low; is it that TEKS not representing real world scenarios? Do we miss key updates from the industry?
  • Ellis – We set the TEKS, instructional materials should follow what TEKS are approved; think what they’re saying is there may not even be a book written for the course, may be a diesel engine fixing book that doesn’t exactly fit TEKS
    • Staff – Correct, a book probably written generally for diesel repair across the board
    • Sometimes hear from CTE teachers that they are using materials designed for the industry, walk a fine line between wanting to encourage publishers to develop materials that may not have a huge market
  • Francis – I understand the process and how we get to TEKS, my contention is when we’re considering TEKS we also go to the industry & influences us to write TEKS; why aren’t our TEKS more reflective of what students should learn anyway?
    • Staff – Question of what drives what; your question is, if there is a national standard for diesel tech, why TEKS aren’t matching it; this is question we need to ask ourselves as we update TEKS; more than likely a process of continuous improvement
  • Ellis – We do go to industry, but that doesn’t mean a particular book is all-encompassing of what industry has asked for in the TEKS
    • Staff – Other piece is, when you’re talking about preparing materials, it’s not just high school; could be a scenario where series of courses cover what students receive in post-secondary
  • Kinsey – Beautiful thing about HB 1605 is that it’s all about economic incentives, seems like we could alter language to provide incentive, e.g. should cover 100%, but must cover 80%; could we get the history lesson of how we got to 50%
  • Little – This was SB 6 in 2011, restricted it by law
  • Kinsey – What was the logic behind it? Had something to do with supplemental materials
  • Hardy – At the time the legislature thought the digital process would be the end-all be-all, they were thinking you could get a 50% product, plus supplemental for 20%, 30%, etc. to equal 100%; they were also talking about how much easier & cheaper digital material would be, but ended up costing almost the same
  • Hardy – I like the idea of the 100% for foundation subjects, probably the only thing needing 80% would be CTE, might even go less as 80% is still kind of hard to come up with; expensive to print, cost is often not worth it for CTE courses; would like to see something about what constitutes 100%, break out standards for that, etc. so SBOE can determine what we want
  • Ellis – What is your thought on CTE needing to be 80%
    • Staff – Would have to get back to you
    • There are other courses where not all the standards would represent typical instructional materials, e.g. music courses with sheet music
  • Maynard – With courses like diesel mechanics, a lot of outlay, few teachers, etc.; question is if there is enough critical mass for these smaller courses
    • Staff – Good point, also need to think about beginning courses
  • Maynard – If you’re using industry stuff, it isn’t really written for students
    • Staff – And rightly so, exam students are working towards is industry certification
  • Maynard – Might be possible someone produces a national book; other thing I think is worth noting, we can also split out a piece of a subject, such as spelling books
    • Staff – Great point, this proposal would apply to full subject, can certainly set standards for partial or supplemental
    • Also should consider that IMRA process does allow for non-voluntary submissions
    • Will have instances where materials don’t quite fit, like reading, spelling, etc.; Proc was written to look at targeted materials
  • Hickman – Have mixed feelings, like what we did this morning with resource review, etc., but didn’t have a bar; do like idea that each ISD has to certify that they cover 100% of TEKS, but would argue for flexibility for each material
  • Ellis – Law does say we have to set minimum
    • Staff – Idea is that for full subject Tier 1, it would cover 100%, wouldn’t need supplemental, etc.
  • Hickman – Just wondering if there is a situation where there is a great spelling book, and a great reading book, each together would cover 100%
    • Staff – You could apply a different standard for that
  • Ellis – If it’s 3rd grade ELAR, should be written for that; is something like diesel mechanics a full-subject Tier 1?
    • Staff – Yes
  • Francis – Testimony earlier made great point that we should be incentivizing publisher to give us their best product; I like 80% now for CTE, but think we need differentiation as enrichment is a broad subject area; type of material submitted would determine if it is full subject Tier 1, e.g. if it meets criteria for TEKS it becomes that
  • Francis – If we’re inviting publishers to submit to us, we could say we’d accept full coverage, or partial for writing, etc. but shouldn’t lower standards, can’t accept 80% and call it full coverage
    • Staff – Can kick the can on some of this, first round of IMRA isn’t considering enrichment or CTE, only Tier 1 reading & math, then partial for phonics
  • Brooks – Reading & math will affect CTE, I do want to see 100% if it is required for graduation foundation, for regular CTE courses there should be flexibility for innovative courses
  • Ellis – Point is when we’re doing English there are 100k products for each grade, but CTE courses may sell a few thousand; publisher may not write a book for 100 students, but there may be a book out there
  • Hardy – There is no profit in smaller pieces; have never seen an adoption from a big publisher for something like ELAR that wasn’t all-inclusive
    • Staff – Because were’ not reviewing CTE or enrichment, could just focus this discussion on subject areas moving through IMRA, 2 foundational courses; can revisit when we review CTE or enrichment
  • Ellis – Not a fan of kicking can, would like to move forward with this plan, we still have exit strategy if needed
  • Pickren – Agree, if we separate two documents will get confusing
  • Hickman – If there is a high quality writing material covering 50%, would supplementary be covered under different rules?
    • Staff – Focusing on full subject, then tackle supplemental or partial as developed
  • Perez Diaz – Where would fine arts fall in this timeline/process for rubrics?
  • Ellis – 2026? 2024 for the current?
    • Staff – Will be returning to SBOE in Jan/April for next set of rubrics

 

Overview of Contracting

  • Staff – New statute from HB 1605, SBOE has new responsibility of ratifying T&Cs for publisher contracts; SBOE will hopefully approve materials on Friday, then TEA will execute $0 approved contracts with publishers, ISDs then requisition from EMAT using IMTA
  • Applies to all publishers according to code structure
  • Kinsey – On duration of contracts, 8+4 year extension?
    • Staff – 8 was based on 4-year Proc cycle which was struck, so need to determine
    • Staff proposing to keep it at 8, but open to other suggestions
  • Kinsey – Would it revert to extension automatically?
    • Staff – Acts as new contract, continue until they are no longer on approved list
  • Staff – Contract must require publisher to provide materials through term of contract
  • Under staff recs, recommending 8 year initial, but LEAs may execute purchase order for anywhere from 1 to 8 years
  • Ellis – Still have Procs under new law?
    • Staff – One reference to Procs, review is not on 4 year Proc cycle
  • Ellis – My understanding is there is evergreen review, but there is also a Proc if I’m doing math
    • Staff – Will need a rewrite as Proc language was struck
  • Hardy – Confused again, only good thing about not having Proc was not limiting it to 8 years; in a problem with Science currently as materials have been extended & price went up; another question is how price has gone up so much if it’s online
  • Hardy – Thought evergreen portion would be being able to go to system and seeing what else you might want, switching in the middle; not sure of purpose of constant review without this flexibility
    • Staff – TEA needs a contract to wire funds to publisher & need a time limit to be within state law
    • Price offered would last for term of contract
    • TEA Counsel – Evergreen process doesn’t mention ISDs, ISDs can stop purchasing whatever they want, but only available books were those that were approved in the year
    • Very flexible system, when you revise TEKS you may say that all previously approved materials are out & you may want to send out a new Proc
  • Hardy – If you have an 8 year contract are you required to purchase for 8 years?
    • TEA Counsel – Contract doesn’t require ISD to purchase book for 8 years
    • Staff – Purchase order is binding, so if an ISD signed up to purchase for 8 years they have to purchase for 8 years
    • TEA Counsel – But not because TEA requires ISDs to do this
  • Hardy – Is anyone held accountable if the purchase order is skipped?
    • Staff – Only if material fell out of adoption or was replaced
  • Hardy – So ISD is committed to 8 years
    • TEA Counsel – If they chose to be
  • Maynard – So pricing is only good for the 8? 4 year extension may have pricing bump; any data on how many districts actually change?
    • Staff – Have purchasing data going back to 2016, 2 years of data on exact products; majority sign an 8 year contract because of cost savings
  • Maynard – If we have a revision it is a de facto Proc; do we have capacity to review and process all these submissions, or do we need to maybe back timeline up a bit
    • Staff – Bill requires us to have enough capacity to review 200 sets of materials
    • Would want to start process much sooner to give us more runway as reviews are completed; inaugural one is on compressed timeline
    • Will start asking for suggestions for next rubrics in January, normal Proc is 18 months so ideally will get to that length of time
  • Maynard – Everyone will build material to fit system; publishers are adapting materials they already have; volume of purchasing mid-cycle?
    • Staff – Can research this
  • Maynard – One of the topics was lack of pressure because you can redo process next time, but you’ve already lost your window as people sign multi-year contracts
  • Hickman – Is this a license or purchase for materials? Do materials need to be returned?
    • TEA Counsel – Don’t know, depends on what they’ve brought to the market
  • Hickman – Could have a schedule, 1 year costs X, 8 years costs Y; does legal negotiate these terms?
    • Staff – Try to say take it or leave it, can see terms in Chapter 66 for the contract
  • Kinsey – If we have 8 year contract, ISD chooses 8 year purchase, but SBOE changes rubric, what happens?
    • Staff – Removes the material that doesn’t meet new rubric, disqualifies it from $40 or $20 additional allotments, ISDs could still use traditional allotments to purchase
    • Would be responsible of us to have full transparency to LEAs of what is in possible review in advance
  • Pickren – References written material; is this a contract between SBOE & publisher or ISDs and publisher?
    • Staff – That is a contract executed between TEA and publisher on behalf of SBOE & is basis for ISDs to requisition from
  • Pickren – What attorney representing SBOE advised this contract?
    • Staff – Can find out
  • Francis – Provides overview of additional allotment for materials under HB 1605; can’t be used yet because SBOE hasn’t adopted anything yet; T&Cs discussed by SBOE will also have to be adopted by each ISD, correct?
    • TEA Counsel – ISDS will purchase the materials through our contract, T&Cs will flow through the contract authorized by SBOE
  • Francis – If ISD decides to purchase non-approved textbooks, they have to adopt the HB 1605 T&Cs because it applies to all publishers?
    • Staff – Will need to check, believe the HB 1605 T&Cs only apply to these executed contracts
    • TEA Counsel – In the statute T&Cs apply to manufacturers, no longer have to go through SBOE so can do some research to advise you on how far the T&Cs can apply
  • Francis – How do we handle changes to materials after contract is enforced?
    • Staff – Changes submitted to Committee on Instruction, then submitted to full SBOE, outlined in Chapter 66.75 & 66.76
  • Francis – Currently have 8 year initial term, for 4 year extension do we entertain renegotiation of prices?
    • Staff – They submit a new list of official bids, not a negotiation because it’s a $0 contract; up to ISDs and market on whether materials are purchased
  • Franics – How is statute referenced in contract currently? How do publishers know reqs?
    • Staff – Before now only applied to publishers approved by SBOE, rules for contracting are listed in 66.72
    • Sentence that they should follow all applicable state law is in the contract; it is explicit
  • Francis – Would it be helpful if we could get a list of reqs & perhaps where we could go?
    • Staff – That is the goal of this discussion, if you have recommendations we can incorporate into draft
  • Brooks – How will you handle updates?
    • Staff – Separate from this contract, other rule provisions allow for changes that don’t drastically modify material
    • TEA Counsel – Will be emailing full contract to SBOE for review

 

Public Testimony

Kelsey Kling, Texas AFT

  • Highlights statements from Chair Ellis at TribFest on instructional materials; if you have only a few adoptable materials you have missed the mark; AFT hopes teachers will have several options to choose from
  • Also request all materials submitted for review are part of report specifying if materials meet requirements & if not why
  • Agree with idea that materials should be reviewed by the practitioners teaching the material
  • Also asking that materials continue to be reviewed as part of OMA; when review panels came to Austin to review TEKS, these meeting were conducted with public access, want this to be a similar process for material review

 

 

Item 4: Consideration of Instructional Materials Review and Approval Criteria and Instructional Materials Contract Terms and Conditions

 

Staff Presentation

  • Need to approve overall process in 2025
  • Not codifying it into a rule just yet, but does believe if there are any changes it would go back before the SBOE
  • They have covered rubric in last agenda and now moving into the IMRA Process
    • Request, review and SBOE determination

 

Requirements for Publishers to Submit

  • K-12 Math, K-5 ELA and Spanish is first cycle
  • Agency issues request, collects responses, evaluates responses, SBOE adds materials to list if majority wants to add it, publishers submit materials
  • Instructional materials review includes: verify materials compliance, evaluate standards alignment, review quality, review for obscene and/or prohibited content and suitability, review for factual errors, public comment and review
    • Also includes verity parent portal compliance, compile report on materials
  • SBOE Determination includes: agency submits written report and collects public comments, SBOE conducts public hearing, if needed: publishers submit intent for revisions and corrections, SBOE makes determination, if needed: publisher submits revised or corrected materials, If needed agency verifies and updates report, agency executes contract and agency makes materials available in EMAT
  • Hickman – asked where is SBOE review?
    • Staff – points to 3.2 of SBOE conducting public hearing
    • Hickman – believes SBOE would be appointing workgroup to review like they do for TEKS
    • Hickman – would like to jointly develop review panel, both SBOE and agency
  • Staff – TEA in consultation with SBOE and approval sets up the process, but TEA works on the review and it is all encompassing
    • Hickman – but the statute says SBOE does the review,
    • Ellis – confirms the part of process under suitability belongs to SBOE and it can be with the same people TEA has reviewing materials
    • Staff – when they get to the selection process of the reviewers, that may allow for the review that SBOE is proposing
  • Staff – Focus is on how to efficiently do this while the Board is satisfied with this; will either put them on an approved list, nebulous do nothing with them list, and a rejected list
  • Pickren – Concur with Hickman, have gotten instructional materials that teach “common core” and that communism is better than capitalism both which violate state law
  • Pickren – Now TEA wants to be the sole gatekeeper after putting forth these materials, confidence is very low in your ability; SBOE should have control over this panel
  • Hardy – Would like the opportunity to see the materials that have been reviewed and discuss them; should be set up to be done at one board meeting and voted on at the next
  • Staff – That is in place currently
  • Hardy – To only give 48 hours to correct materials, they need more time
  • Overviews IMRA full process timeline; agency review starts in May and timeline of adoption is in November 2024
  • Publishers need to include a complete description, correlation documents, required program components, price information, electronic access to materials in their submission packet
  • HB 1605 amended instructional material review; recommend a prioritization process if more than 200 submissions are received as follows
    • First, any materials required to be reviewed by SBOE
    • Open Education Resource materials
    • Higher market share based on most recent TEKS and allotment spend data
    • Voluntary publisher submissions
    • District submission
  • Perez – Diaz – Hesitant to put SBOE’s recommendations over others, recommend moving to priority 4
    • Reflects how statute was amended
  • Perez – Diaz – What calls for proclamations have received over 200 submissions?
    • Is not uncommon to get 200ish submissions
  • Perez – Diaz – How often has the SBOE been apart of making recommendations?
    • Never
  • Francis – State board training?
    • Will be an extensive training component for everyone
  • Hickman – How compare how many copies of OER versus market share?
    • Intent is there are already districts using the pilot materials, want to make sure they are in that review cycle so we could unlock more funding for school districts
  • Hickman – Which is the biggest market share?
    • Can send top three or four based on most recent data
  • Francis – $20 not for just printing the materials, includes OER?
    • Are two additional allotments in HB 1605, $40 allotment per child for materials on the approved list $20 allotment for OER materials put on this approved list
  • Francis – What is the definition of OER? Got feedback from my district that OER is just online instructional materials?
    • Resources in the public domain allows for free use, reuse, modification by other; includes a vast array of materials
  • Francis – What determines the sliding scale of “up to” $20?
    • Is a cap, a district is not entitled to the whole amount, only to what they spend
    • Is $20 per student enrolled in the district, will have more rulemaking on the allotments later
  • Kinsey – Can a district/publisher submit a review for something we do not have a quality rubric for yet?
    • Only eligible items are those with a quality rubric
  • Hickman – On picking this panel, could use a similar process to our TEKS review panel
  • Francis – My districts have been talking about veteran teachers and the like to submit instructional materials to be reviewed under this process and be compensated; how do we prevent prejudice
    • Would submit as private citizens or on behalf of the school district?
  • Francis – Did not think of it that way
    • If the district wanted to submit their own set of instructional materials, they could do so
    • Would be no guarantee of being compensated because it is a $0 contract; could recoup costs/purchase from themselves
  • Ellis – Adjourns and tells SBOE they will pick up the rest of item 4 the following day and item 5

 

Item 5: Discussion Suitability of Instructional Materials

  • Not taken up