Texas Social Studies TEKS Revision Field Guide

At this stage in the process, the SBOE is still making fundamental decisions about how to conduct the TEKS revision, as well as the content and skills to emphasize in the newly revised standards. When developing your testimony, you might consider articulating some of the following points:

The integrity of the TEKS revision process must be protected. 

• The TEKS belong to all Texans, and should reflect input balanced across all SBOE districts and a range of varied perspectives. The TEKS Review Administrative Procedures (updated 2023) clarify that work groups must include representation from all SBOE members. The SBOE will soon begin assembling TEKS work groups for social studies, as outlined in the SBOE-approved TEKS Review Work Group Build Process (2023).
• TEKS work groups provide a forum for key stakeholders to participate in decisions about what students will be expected to learn. Texas Education Code § 28.002 (c) specifies that the SBOE creates TEKS “with the direct participation of educators, parents, business and industry representatives, and employers.” The SBOE-approved TEKS Review Process (2018) clarifies that TEKS work groups include representatives of each of these groups in order to satisfy statutory requirements.
• It is imperative that the SBOE follow both the spirit and the letter of the law to preserve the educational quality and public legitimacy of the revised TEKS.
• The social studies TEKS must prioritize student learning over any ideological agenda. Some Texans have voiced concerns over the controversial views of individual Content Advisors. The TEKS revision process is designed to ensure balance and compromise—both of which are essential to preserving the integrity of the social studies standards.

Honest history and historical thinking are essential knowledge and skills for students preparing to enter the 21st-century workforce.

• Students deserve an honest, accurate, and full account of both US and world history. Anything less than this fails to meet the SBOE’s stated goal for this TEKS revision to “ensure that the standards are rigorous, reflect current topics and up-to-date research, and address the essential knowledge and skills at the appropriate grade levels.” The TEKS revision process is an opportunity for scholars, educators, and supporters of honest history to emphasize how evidenced-based scholarship might inform the content of K–12 social studies courses across Texas.
• The 3 x 5 x 1 sequence approved in September apportions 100% of course content in grades K–8 to a blend, from most coverage to least, of Texas, US, and world history. Nevertheless, this unusual new framework significantly reduces coverage of US and world history in the standards. The SBOE revised sequence eliminates five current courses: two standalone courses in US history (grades 5 and 8), two standalone courses in Texas history (grades 4 and 7), and a course in world geography (grade 6), running counter to legal requirements for the social studies curriculum.
• The new strands (subjects selected for emphasis across grade levels) are incompatible with the SBOE’s 3 x 5 x 1 course sequence. The SBOE has elected to eliminate or combine existing strands in citizenship, culture, and science, technology, and society in favor of creating a sequence with no time explicitly assigned to coverage of government, economics, civics, and geography. Texas law requires the inclusion of these subjects in social studies TEKS, and pushing them to the margins threatens to severely undermine the quality of history instruction.
• Will students, parents, and families recognize a sequence that includes no courses in US history, world history, Texas history, geography, civics, or government? Is it fair to assume that all of these subjects will be adequately addressed, if some are absent from the course sequence?

The new scope and sequence will almost certainly make TEKS standards harder to implement and less useful to teachers.

• The SBOE has adopted a course sequence designed around an untested, experimental approach, raising serious questions about implementation. No Texas teacher will have trained to teach courses with “a layered and chronological approach connecting world, US, and Texas history;” no district has curricular materials for the 3 x 5 x 1 model; no undergraduate teacher training program is preparing future teachers to teach courses structured in this way.
• Educators and researchers agree that there is substantial room for improvement in history education, especially for younger learners (K–2). The SBOE has embraced a radical change in social studies instruction, but no steps taken thus far address the main complaint about current elementary social studies in Texas—the absence of dedicated instructional time. On the contrary, the disruptive 3 x 5 x 1 sequence will likely lead principals to further deprioritize social studies, as costs far outweigh potential benefits.
• Implementing these standards effectively would require a massive investment of money and resources in teacher preparation and retraining, professional development, textbooks, and curricular materials without evidence that any of these changes would benefit students, families, and communities. Districts will struggle to find curricular materials designed to support student learning along these lines. Who will foot the bill?