Texas Social Studies TEKS Revision Field Guide

TEKS are state academic standards that provide benchmarks for student achievement in public elementary and secondary schools.

TEKS standards shape decisions at every level of education policy. The state uses social studies TEKS to structure standardized tests. School districts use the TEKS as frameworks for teacher training, professional development, curriculum assembly, instructional materials, and lesson planning. Many teachers use standards directly in their teaching. TEKS standards also guide expectations for parents, students, and the wider public. For more information on this form of education policy, consult the AHA’s Criteria for Standards in History/Social Studies/Social Sciences.

TEKS revision is a technical process, and each stage involves jargon that is  difficult to explain succinctly. Even SBOE members can find details difficult to parse. It is not necessary to understand all of the technical language in order to recognize the importance of academic standards for shaping public education.

The revision of the the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards for social studies has departed from both prior practice and elements of the SBOE’s approved revision process. Board members have exercised limited direct oversight while the revision has proceeded under compressed timelines and a highly constrained structure that has limited opportunities for substantive review and revision. As a result, the process has concentrated greater authority over curriculum design and classroom content selection within the TEA and under the direction of the Commissioner of Education.

A preliminary review of the draft considered at the April meeting identified hundreds of apparent errors, omissions, inconsistencies, and other issues, many of which remain in the framework being considered for adoption. To date, AHA staff closely monitoring the revision have raised concerns about historical accuracy, content balance, curricular overload, pedagogical feasibility, and procedural integrity. If implemented without substantial revision, these proposed TEKS would have significant consequences for Texas students, teachers, schools, and communities.

Timeline of Events: 

• September 2025: the SBOE voted to replace the existing social studies strands and course sequence with a radically restructured model, opting to “implement an experimental and untested approach that dramatically alters what Texas students will be expected to learn from kindergarten through Grade 8.”
• October 2025: the SBOE appointed nine Content Advisors to guide the revision process. The composition of this group reflected limited disciplinary breadth and professional qualifications, including only one active K–12 educator, while expertise in world history, economics, and geography are notably absent.
• November 2025: the Content Advisors presented “key topics” intended to anchor the new TEKS.
• December 2025: six of the nine Content Advisors voted, without formal board authorization, to begin drafting standards. While this effort was ultimately abandoned after advocates raised concerns, the episode prompted questions about whether advisors were acting beyond their designated role.
• February 2026: during the work group process, the SBOE Chair used his procedural power to curtail discussion and severely restrict input from key stakeholders. In February, candidates were given less than 72 hours to respond to the invitation to join Work Group A, which met just one week later. The SBOE convened a special meeting in late February that included a public hearing and board discussion, during public testimony raised substantial concerns about both the content and process of TEKS revision.
• March 2026: representatives of the TEA presented Work Group B with a similarly restrictive charge. Participants expressed concern that this structure limited the ability of educators and subject matter experts to address broader structural concerns in the TEKS framework.
• April 2026: despite the limited input from teachers and without a crosswalk between new and existing content, the SBOE voted to accept a draft of K-12 TEKS on first reading.
• June 2026: after many hours of public testimony and days of substantial amendments, the SBOE voted to adopt new K-8 social studies TEKS, postponing high school standards until the board's September meeting.
• September 2026: The SBOE made substantial amendments during their meeting, and voted to adopt new TEKS for all the remaining courses, including US History, World History, and World Geography.

How the Proposed TEKS depart from the existing framework: 

The new TEKS course sequence merges Texas, US, and world history into a single chronological narrative across grades 3–8 and pushes more advanced content into grades K–2. With clear emphasis on Texas exceptionalism, the revised framework sidelines inquiry, historical thinking skills, disciplinary concepts, and all other social studies fields. Grounded in explicit references to Western Civilization, questions remain about whether the revised TEKS framework will satisfy a statutory requirement for the curriculum to include world history.

Conflicts of Interest and Transparency Concerns 

Dr. Donald Frazier, one of nine official TEKS Content Advisors appointed in fall 2025, serves as the Director of the Texas Center at Schreiner University, a small academic initiative with just four staff members. According to publicly available 2024 tax filings, the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a conservative research institute invested in promoting right-wing policy proposals, awarded the Texas Center at Schreiner University a $70,000 grant for the “development of Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) Standards.” The SBOE has yet to resolve questions raised by several of its members about whether this payment, which predates both the formal launch of the TEKS review and Dr. Frazier’s subsequent appointment, should have been disclosed or addressed through additional transparency measures.

The existence of external funding does not by itself establish improper influence. However, the overlap between preexisting financial support for TEKS-related work and a formal advisory role highlights the importance of clear disclosure practices and conflict-of-interest safeguards to maintain public confidence in the integrity and independence of the standards revision process.

A persistent lack of transparency and the possibility that special interests have been given space to set the agenda undermines the integrity of the TEKS review process and may weaken trust in the state’s public schools for years to come.