SBOE recap: The consequence of elections

The State Board of Education (SBOE) met to consider their regular agenda last week, April 8-11. The most watched and impactful items were the K-12 literary lists and the first reading of K-12 Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for social studies. Much ado has been made about both items, and we are here to report that the outcome is as we have feared since the beginning of this process.

Literary Lists

When this item appeared for board action on the January agenda, much of the education community was in an uproar over both the length and content of the proposed lists-they were longer (much longer) than the law prescribed and centered the required reading around lists that were unnecessarily dated and unapologetically monolithic in representation, including several Bible passages and almost no diverse stories or authors of color. Aside from fervently opposing the makeup of the lists, the length alone sent up alarm bells about the time that would be required to teach these lists, leaving zero room for teacher autonomy or student choice.

An alternate list proposed by Member Will Hickman in January sought to address the length issue, but it was still too long according to stakeholders and did not sufficiently address concerns over the list's lack of diversity. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) conducted an informal comment period between the two regular meetings to gather feedback on the lists.

Texas AFT was among over one hundred testifiers on this item in April citing, among other things, that this would be a substantial strain on curriculum and professional development that could actually drive teachers out of the classroom. Our comments were echoed by other educator and content area organizations. The majority of testifiers spoke against the original TEA lists as being too long, too old, and too "white."

Another alternative list, introduced by Member Keven Ellis, further reduced the scope of the lists. The board voted to advance this version and a public comment period will be available prior to the June SBOE meeting.

Social Studies

The public hearing and subsequent discussion and amendment process for K-12 social studies was the stuff of state governance nightmares. Members worked until the early hours of the morning on at least two nights of the week, discussing the standards and offering dozens of amendments, very few of which improved the final product.

Texas AFT has been closely following the board's work throughout this "process," with intentional scare quotes as the entire trajectory of the work seems to have been started with a foregone conclusion in mind. While the standards writing has been glossed to appear to follow the contours of the board's published process, there is sufficient ambiguity in that document for the Chair and the agency to exert far more control over the outcome than has previously been allowed to occur; the results could not be more heartbreaking.

After content advisors recommended and the board adopted a narrow framework and scads of "recommended topics," (January 2026) the work group's well-intentioned edits were subverted by another round of feedback and "consensus" recommendations from the advisors that was presented at a special February meeting of the board. The board allowed for another work group to complete another set of narrow charges that again seemed to be manipulated by staff and the content advisors after the fact. It also came to light last week that one of the content advisors was contracted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) in 2024 apparently to begin the work of writing the TEKS before the SBOE officially began the process. Requests to address this concern in the boardroom were dismissed. This disregard for transparency and the expertise of teachers should cast doubt over the entire process.

The proposed TEKS that were presented to the board at this meeting were standards that intentionally sideline world history in favor of a much narrower consideration of Western civilization. This erases the many and meaningful contributions by dozens of other civilizations and cultures that contribute to our American and Texan identities, but the board, especially members Hall and Pickren, found that erasure was not enough and successfully offered several amendments that painted Islam in a particularly negative light. This procedural violence extended beyond the boardroom where Texas AFT staff witnessed some testifiers bullying young Muslim students.

Further, there were significant gaps in knowledge identified by social studies experts and historians. Given the undue haste of the process and the lack of pedagogical knowledge among the content advisors (only one had K-12 experience), it's no surprise that these gaps exist. The board's unwillingness to address these deficiencies will lead to adopted standards that are white-washed, of poor quality, and difficult to implement.

Texas AFT echoed similar concerns about this sea change in social studies instruction as well as the literary lists. These are not small adjustments that can be addressed during summer in-service; these changes will require significant resources at the district, in both time and dollars, to implement and will affect every teacher assigned to teach social studies, but especially elementary generalists and rural teachers who are often assigned to multiple grade levels and do not have local curriculum support.

News and social media were awash in coverage of the board's activities this week, but even after that level of visibility, they voted to move these deeply flawed standards to the next phase of public comment. It must be noted that all the Democrats on the board fought valiantly with the tools at their disposal to expose the underhanded tactics and protect the truth in the standards, but being in the minority, their efforts frequently failed.

Advocates are hard at work analyzing the outcome of the board's amendment process. We will alert Hotline readers when these standards are published for public comment so they can make their voices heard on the content standards.

Elections have consequences. And though the districts of the SBOE are as politically gerrymandered as others in the state, it does not mean that sustained advocacy from concerned parents and community members cannot have a positive impact on the policy making of this board.