Yesterday, the Board began the amendment process on the key topics and subtopics provided by the nine content advisors. Procedurally, this document must be produced by consensus, but there was some dissent among the content advisors presentation on Wednesday about whether that was true.

While the Board was amending key topics and subtopics, grade by grade, very slowly, Perez-Diaz brought up that the key topics were just recommendations and nothing was binding about them. Kinsey countered and said that he doesn't know why they woulds pend this much time on it if it wasn't binding.

Perez-Diaz said in her 13 years as school board member, that has never been the way it was. Kinsey said that it doesn't matter how it's been, just how it is now "under board procedures."

Kinsey's read of the current procedures is not airtight here. The CAs were to provide recommendations. The language for what the board is supposed to do differs between the documents governing the TEKS review process.

Left is the 2018 process doc ("determines the scope" "direction to staff and work groups"). Right is the 40-step process created in 2023, passed after the last (failed) TEKS review. We're in 11B/11C. There's no clear language that makes the recommendations binding.

Kinsey is making an interpretation here about what "determine," "direction," and "scope" mean. What we will find out today is whether Board members can give flexibility to the work groups, or if Kinsey is going to rule that a "process" question and thus outside the scope of the meeting.

We're currently on the first, which is a list of resolutions. Literary lists is item 10 and social studies TEKS are item 11. It may be this afternoon before we get to them.

Some public testimony up top, but none of the people who signed up are present.

We were cooking - up to item 5 - but we're bogged down in a Brooks amendment about replacing a AP Business with Personal Finance with AP Microeconomics.

Went to make coffee, rushed back, and we're bogged down in item 6 on IMRA - instructional materials review and approval - process.

We're on item 10, which is the literary list. Current motion is to push back to April. Hall and Pickren pushing to get this through now. Reveles gave a list of books that he wanted on the list that would represent more authors.

Ellis speaking for delaying it. "I think it's going to be as impactful if not more so than Bluebonnet." If done right, can be "positive." In favor of a lot of the books, but it's "too robust" in terms of the time. Commissioner had two years to make it, "I had three weeks."

Ellis: I'm going to be more in favor of reducing a list to 50% [unclear exactly what the 50% is in relation to] and would appreciate help from other members to do that.

Brooks seconding Ellis, and "we need a third party on this. There are publishing companies who can meet this need." It's a "big job." Agrees with pushing to April, and wants to know what publishers have said about that the list. An expert would be helpful "in a situation like this."

Young: Agree with Ellis. "Given more time and spend a moment in the books as well as the opportunity to reach out to our constituents and other experts who are familiar with these titles would be beneficial for all of us."

Little: Agree with Ellis. "Way too much content, because my concern is if we went with that full list, where are our students going to have time to do responsive writing and analyze" and "critical thinking." Sees this as the purpose of education, "teach how to think, not what to think."

Clark: I asked for the survey and documentation that informed the creation of this list, and I didn't get it. I want that, and to push it back. Kinsey: "I'm advised by staff" that everyone was sent those emails.

Kinsey recognizes Ellis to call the question. Perez-Diaz is on Zoom and has had her hand up a long time. Kinsey said he's already called on Ellis. They vote on a motion to call the question, it fails. Kinsey then returns to Perez-Diaz.

Perez-Diaz: "Concerned with the rush nature of this process." "Postponing won't do any harm," "we have other priorities that need some more attention." The amount of materials on the list "far outweigh the letter of the law."

Hickman: This is our list, not the TEA's? Reveles: We sent our suggestions to the commissioner before it became our list. Brooks: We would have to have curriculum around this list? Francis: Needs more Hispanic authors, we need more guidance on how long it will take to implement.

Ellis speaking up for streamlining and not adding any more content. Pickren: Also a big fan of Earl Rudder. I think we're getting into writing TEKS. "We'll have plenty of opportunity. . . to edit TEKS. . . stick with continuity of the document that the experts delivered to us." Supporting Ellis.

Maynard moves to vote on Hickman's motion to add content and then the actual TEKS vote. Earl Rudder vote fails 3-9.

Voting on motion that came out of committee. Kinsey is refusing to read it. Not sure what they're talking about. The motion passes 11-0. NOW reading it. Kinsey very terse with Brooks for asking to reread it.

Oh, that was the motion to move this to the work groups. No discussion at all.

Muddy process gets muddier, but the only thing that seems sure is that Kinsey has exerted a lot of procedural control over this process and used it to silence members. This does not appear to be a healthy process that will result in what's best for 5.5 million students in Texas schools.

Hard to tell exactly what is going on because of the dug-in resistance to transparency. Guess I'll see you in April for the next SBOE meeting about social studies. Most of the work will be done between now and then, which will make the meeting very interesting.

Thanks for following along. If you appreciate the AHA's commitment to monitoring and reporting on social studies standards across the US (not just Texas!), we are a non-profit membership org. Anything you donate strengthens the work we do.

AND you can become a member! You don't have to be a historian to care about history.