This article was originally published in The Classroom Teacher Spring 2026 issue.
There is comfort in mastering the curriculum for your subject and grade level: lessons flow more easily, planning takes care of itself, and you can focus on refining your teaching practice. Iterating on how to deliver the same curriculum year after year allows you to bring your best to the classroom and benefits students, too. But changes to the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) often cause a curriculum upheaval and force you to make significant edits to your tried-and-true lesson plans.
The State Board of Education periodically reviews TEKS in every subject to address concerns from teachers, parents and the public, or to make any adjustments it sees fit. At times, new state laws require the SBOE to implement specific changes to the TEKS. Recently, the Texas Legislature has been active in shaping content standards and access to the instructional materials used to teach them.
In 2023, House Bill 1605 set in motion a seismic shift in how school districts approach acquiring instructional materials. Intended to reduce the amount of time teachers spend planning lessons by providing a list of state-approved high-quality instructional materials (HQIM), the bill resulted in implementation of the state-created Bluebonnet Learning materials in hundreds of school districts in Texas, with more likely to adopt the materials in the coming years. Purported to align with state standards, the materials have been criticized for the quality of lesson plans they include and for numerous factual inaccuracies. Earlier this year, the SBOE approved over 4,000 edits to Bluebonnet Learning materials requested by the Texas Education Agency to fix errors.
Included in many of the K-5 English Language Arts and Reading materials are stories from the Christian Bible. When the SBOE met to debate what materials would make the cut for the first crop of HQIM in November 2024, hundreds of people appeared at the meeting to testify both for and against including biblical passages, with most speaking against. Board members who supported including the passages spoke of their desire for a common cultural understanding for all students, while those not supporting it said that it could open the door to proselytization in public schools. Those concerns were mostly dismissed because school districts still have the choice of whether to use Bluebonnet Learning or not, although there is a monetary incentive for schools to do so. After hours of debate, the Board narrowly approved the materials.
One provision of HB 1605 received much less fanfare than HQIM: a requirement for the SBOE to create a list of at least one required literary work for each grade level, as well as a list of required vocabulary. In 2026, after creating the process through which HQIM are approved, the SBOE began working on developing the list of literary works.
TEA conducted a survey of Texas teachers to get an idea of what should be required for students to read, then presented an initial draft of almost 300 literary works to the SBOE. This draft would have required between 17 and 34 literary works per grade level and, much like Bluebonnet Learning, included Bible stories and passages throughout. The length of the proposed list, the inclusion of Bible passages, and the difficulty of specific works on the list drew significant public interest when the list was first debated before the Board in January.
Those who spoke on the length of the list warned that requiring so many literary works would leave little time for teachers to assign much else in class and would prevent students from selecting materials relevant to their interests. Several of the works on the high school list, such as The Odyssey and Divine Comedy, are exceptionally long and would take months to properly teach. One person who testified also mentioned that the lists will be adopted as part of the TEKS, opening the door to the contents of those works appearing on state assessments.
TCTA testified before the SBOE, asking it to significantly reduce the number of literary works on the list to allow teachers adequate planning time to teach those works and allow local flexibility in selecting materials for students. TCTA also requested that certain particularly lengthy works have excerpts specified instead of simply listing the work in its entirety. In response to the latter concern, the Board specified excerpts of a handful of literary works to make them more manageable and stated that only the listed excerpts would potentially appear on state assessments.
The most controversial aspect of the list of required literary works is the inclusion of Bible passages in almost every grade level. While similar concerns about Bluebonnet Learning were dismissed because the materials would not be required of every school district, the included passages would be required for every student in Texas to learn.
Over 100 people appeared at an April meeting to testify, with many echoing the same concerns as those voiced when Bluebonnet was approved. Some parents asked that they be allowed to opt their children out of receiving instruction on the Bible in the classroom, preferring that they or their church communities be the sole providers of religious instruction. Others wanted no instruction on religious texts in public schools at all, citing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Those who supported including Bible passages expressed a desire for a shared cultural experience among public school students and wanted the curriculum to underscore what they see as the Christian foundation of the United States. State Rep. Mark Dorazio (R-San Antonio) attended the meeting to testify in support of including Bible passages.
In a preliminary hearing on the list of required literary works, Board Member Will Hickman (R-Houston) offered his own version of the list, which contained around half as many works as TEA’s and specified excerpts of particularly lengthy literary works instead of requiring the entire thing. While his list still included Bible passages, the drastically reduced number of works put some fears to rest.
At the most recent meeting on the matter in April, Board Member Keven Ellis (R-Lufkin) offered yet another version of the reading list, his slightly shorter than Hickman’s, but with Bible passages still included. (At the time of publication, Ellis’s version of the reading list was not publicly available, but TCTA will share it online once we receive it.)
The Ellis list received preliminary approval in a party-line vote and is set for a final vote in June. If adopted, the reading list will take effect in the 2030-31 school year.
In 2022, the SBOE narrowly voted to delay adopting major changes to the social studies curriculum, punting the issue to 2025 to allow time for more feedback from the public. According to detractors of those proposed changes, the proposal drafted by work groups of teachers, academics and other stakeholders shifted the focus of the curriculum too far away from American and Texas history.
Supporters lauded the inclusion of Asian and Native American studies courses for making the social studies curriculum more inclusive of the cultural groups that live in the United States.
Last year, the SBOE began the process of assembling new work groups to advise it on updating the social studies curriculum, but with one major change: content advisors — individuals selected by SBOE members for their content expertise — were given significantly more influence in the process than in previous iterations.
Of the content advisors selected, only one has experience as a K-12 classroom teacher. Several of the content advisors are outspoken conservative academics, drawing criticism from teachers that the advisors’ content knowledge has taken a backseat to their desire to rewrite the social studies curriculum based on political influences. In one case, Democrats on the SBOE questioned the propriety of a $70,000 contribution from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, to The Texas Center at Schriener University, headed by one of the content advisors, Dr. Donald Frazier. These concerns were dismissed by SBOE Chairman Aaron Kinsey (R-Midland), but Democrats vowed to press the issue in the future.
The content advisors moderated the work groups’ meetings and distilled their conversations into reports for the SBOE. Some members of the work groups complained that very few of their suggestions made it into the final reports, seeing those reports as a vehicle for the advisors’ ideological goals rather than a genuine reflection of the work groups’ suggestions. The reports were the starting point for the SBOE’s discussion.
During each occasion the SBOE met to discuss the social studies curriculum, several of the content advisors were available to answer any historical questions that SBOE members had about the existing TEKS or the proposed changes. They were typically only invited to comment when SBOE members disagreed about whether a proposed change was factual or not. When given the opportunity, some of the content advisors would opine about how they thought the standards should read and make direct suggestions.
On the same day the reading lists were debated in April, the SBOE also heard testimony on the proposed changes to the social studies curriculum. Much like before, over 100 people testified, with a slight majority against the proposal.
Opponents spoke about the disproportionate focus on Texas history over United States and world history, as well as the cursory treatment given to most topics, describing the proposed curriculum as “a mile wide and an inch deep.” State Sen. Bob Hall (R-Rockwall) accused certain interest groups of trying to normalize Sharia law, a body of religious law based on the Quran, in the social studies curriculum for the purpose of its wider adoption in Texas. His comments drew criticism from a handful of SBOE members.
Members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations testified against the proposed standards’ predominantly negative portrayal of Islam. SBOE Member Brandon Hall (R-Aledo) petitioned Kinsey to disallow CAIR from testifying because Gov. Greg Abbott declared the group a foreign terrorist organization in November, a designation against which the group is pushing back in court. When CAIR was allowed to testify, Hall left the room in protest.
TCTA testified on the proposed social studies changes, asking that the standards be made more concise to allow teachers enough instructional time to give each topic appropriate attention in their scope and sequence.
After public testimony concluded, SBOE members began deliberations on the individual standards in each grade level, line by line. Starting with kindergarten, they worked late into the night on three separate days, even going as late as 3:30 a.m. to finish their work in advance of the final vote on April 10. In some cases, SBOE members debated the inclusion of a single word in the standards for more than half an hour.
SBOE members passed a handful of last-minute changes to the proposal at the final meeting of the week and, despite challenges from Democrats about the process through which the content advisors were selected and concerns about their financial ties, the social studies curriculum changes were approved and will advance to a final adoption hearing in June. If adopted, these standards will take effect beginning in the 2030-31 school year.
With so many curriculum edits in the pipeline, it is natural to experience anxiety about how your instructional practice will change. It can feel like those who decide what students will learn rarely listen to the professionals who teach them.
Typically, the SBOE’s meetings are during the week, making it difficult for educators to participate without taking time off work and traveling to Austin. The next SBOE meeting is scheduled for June 22-26. Make plans to appear before the SBOE to have your voice heard and shape the standards that you will teach in the classroom.
Copyright© 2026 Texas Classroom Teachers Association® The Educated Choice® All rights reserved.