The State Board of Education (SBOE) began what proved to be a very long meeting on Tuesday, Sept.10, in Austin. The most anticipated item was the public hearing regarding proposed materials for the inaugural instructional materials and adoption (IMRA) process, but there were significant decisions made throughout the week.
Instructional Materials Controversy
Tuesday began with the public hearing. 103 people signed up to testify; of those, 57 registered against (with only 13 for) the agency-developed open education resources (OER) submitted for K-5 English language arts and reading. The primary themes of testimony against these resources were the infusion of Bible-related references in the curriculum that were inaccurate, unnecessary, and espoused a worldview not shared by most Texans (just the billionaire Christian Nationalists taking over our state government). Notably, several individuals and organizations spoke to the anti-Semitic undertones of these references.
While the board was taking testimony, the Texas Freedom Network held a press conference to share its opinions on House Bill 1605 and to highlight the importance of ensuring that Texas public schools do not become a place for religious teaching. Advocates like state Rep. James Talarico, who is pursuing his Master of Divinity degree at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, spoke out against the proposed curriculum, saying, “There’s a difference in preaching and teaching — and this curriculum is about preaching.”
Talarico called for continued advocacy in the next session. The Legislature must draw a line between the two or risk devaluing the separation of church and state and to preserve academic freedom and freedom from religion in our classrooms.
TEA and other publishers will have the opportunity to make requested adjustments to their materials between now and the next meeting in November when the SBOE will vote on which materials will be adopted by the state. As we continue monitoring this issue, it is important to remember that though there is a financial incentive to use these OER, but it is not required; districts will maintain control of what materials they choose to use in their classrooms.
There were several IMRA-related items throughout the week. Staff updated the board on the current adoption process (which includes the OER) and provided the completed reports for the materials under review. They also discussed the parameters for quality rubrics for the 2025 cycle to include math supplemental materials. Additionally, they approved for first reading an item to establish the minimum threshold for standards alignment for instructional materials for enrichment courses. This is an important consideration as they look to planning their subject area reviews. Spoiler: It will be a decade before the board can expect to adopt IMRA for the entire required curriculum.
Updates from TEA
Wednesday began with comments from TEA Commissioner Mike Morath. At the June meeting, he had updated the body on statewide STAAR results. At this meeting, his update included an announcement that the A-F ratings (based largely on STAAR scores) had once again been prevented from release by the courts. His comments on this topic centered around the “benefits” of accountability — that we have this system because students achieve at higher levels while in school and earn more over their lifetime than without these systems. Clearly, districts disagree, so we will once again wait for the legal system to make a decision.
Morath also gave an update on how the agency is handling complaints and investigations, noting the steep rise in the number of both over the last few years. Many of these are easily resolved or dismissed, but those actually requiring investigation are running up against TEA’s capacity to handle them in a timely fashion. He announced a new Parent Complaint Navigator to assist the public in determining if and how to file a complaint. He also took questions from members of the board.
Later that day, TEA staff previewed the agency’s legislative appropriations request (LAR). This is the document that lists all the items the agency will be requesting funds for in the next biennial budget. These are largely mandated and carry over from year to year, but TEA can also request what it calls exceptional items, which are special requests for additional funds not already appropriated. For the coming session, TEA will be seeking additional funding to:
- Handle in the influx of complaints and any necessary investigations associated with them
- Implement the recommendations of the Texas Commission on Special Education Funding (requires legislation)
- Improve teacher preparation and invest in the teacher pipeline (requires legislation)
- Invest in strategic compensation for educators (requires legislation); this likely means funding for the Teacher Incentive Allotment but could also mean incentives for mentors and staffing hard-to-fill positions such as bilingual education
What’s Next for the SBOE
The board also spent some quality time discussing the shape of the upcoming advanced math pathways designed to help students access Algebra I in grade 8. There was robust general conversation around mathematics in general — the history of its teaching in Texas and where it might go in the near future. Board members also made significant changes to an item related to the qualifications for school board training.
In the Committee on School Initiatives, staff updated members on the new process for “high-achieving” charters to apply for approval. Though the SBOE would still have final approval, this process would substitute an agency-led data review process for the capacity interviews that are a part of the existing new applicant process. Several members expressed concern over this omission. It is unclear how many existing operators might choose to use this new application option, but it does present a new battle front in the battle against privatization in our schools.
In the Committee on School Finance/Permanent School Fund (PSF) and PSF Corporation meeting, members discussed the performance of the PSF – a $53 billion endowment that supports public education in Texas – and approved a plan to directly contribute $600 million annually to the state’s Available School Fund (ASF) for the next two years. In addition to this direct contribution to the ASF from oil and gas royalty revenues generated on PSF lands managed by the GLO’s School Land Board (SLB), the SBOE will approve an additional distribution to the ASF from the PSF.
All Texas school districts and charter schools are entitled, under the Texas Constitution, to receive payments from the ASF via the Foundation School Program (FSP) for each eligible student enrolled. The ASF is primarily made up of earnings from the PSF, 25% of the state’s motor fuels tax, and transfers from the General Land Office (GLO), which manages millions of acres of state-owned land and mineral rights to generate revenue for public education.
Members also reviewed the impact of the PSF’s recent divestment from BlackRock, which Chairman Aaron Kinsey claimed was necessary to comply with the provisions of recently passed anti-environmental, social, and governance (ESG) legislation prohibiting state agencies and local subdivisions from doing business with banks and investment firms that “boycott” the oil and gas industry, and changes to the PSF’s process for handling proxy voting. The PSF has been more aggressive and political in its implementation of that anti-ESG legislation than other state agencies and seems to be moving in the direction of overcompliance by shifting its asset allocation and proxy voting strategies to apply to firms that consider other ESG factors (such as diversity and inclusion practices, gender equity policies, board diversity requirements, and human rights considerations) in the guise of fulfilling its fiduciary duty.
Chairman Kinsey cautioned the board that it may have to start the next meeting’s agenda on Monday, indicating the growing slate of work for the SBOE. He also noted that it will be the final meeting for two members: Dr. Melissa Ortega and Pat Hardy. Aicha Davis resigned her seat in July due to an unopposed run and victory for House District 109. We will continue to monitor the IMRA process and alert our readers of any action needed between now and the November meeting.