2005-2008 Timeline Revision of English Language Arts and Reading TEKS
January 2005: Educators learned during the TCTELA conference that the ELA TEKS would be “tweaked.” TEA indicated that professional organizations would not necessarily be involved since workgroup members would be recommended from the SBOE. July 2005: Educators received a listserv request for refinement suggestions for the ELA TEKS with an explanation of the process. October 2005: Educator work groups refined the TEKS, following the Texas Education Agency directive to “tweak” the TEKS, revising and aligning, not making major changes. February-April 2006: Surveys regarding the proposed changes were conducted. March 2006: TEA listserv announced survey deadlines. May 2006: SBOE was scheduled to review the K-5 TEKS. According to an email from Casey McCreary, TEA Director of Reading, on June 27, 2006, “The board was scheduled to discuss the K-5 TEKS at their May meeting. The board meeting in May ran very late and the members didn't feel there was enough time to appropriately discuss the work group's recommended refinements or the survey data. The board decided to schedule a special work day in June and asked to hear specific research experts (Reid Lyon, Barbara Foorman and Sandra Stotsky) address the TEKS in relation to content and structure.” Note: This was not a listserv communication; it was a response to a direct request for information because English teachers were hearing from publishers present at the meeting and from science educators who had been notified of a delay in their TEKS refinement process of the reworking of the ELA TEKS. **Please note a PowerPoint presentation made by Sarah Crippen and Casey McCreary to the Coalition of Reading and English Supervisors of Texas in October 2006 indicated the following: “In April the SBOE decided to contact particular experts regarding the content and format of the current ELA-reading TEKS.” June 2006: The SBOE heard the recommendations of three board-solicited consultants at a specially-called work session. At this meeting, “the board asked TEA staff to prepare draft timelines/plans for how best to proceed with the process while incorporating the expert recommendations” (McCreary). July 2006: Slated to discuss the K-5 TEKS (“The proposed amendments would refine and align Kindergarten-Grade 5 Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills
(TEKS) for English language arts and reading, Spanish language arts, and English as a Second Language” [SBOE Agenda]), the SBOE directed TEA staff to rework the TEKS for K-12 as recommended by the consultants who testified in June. August 2006: TEA listserv informed Texas educators that there would be no changes to the TEKS for the upcoming school year and announced that the SBOE directed TEA staff to complete an extensive revision of the TEKS. The directive included the elimination of the repetition of TEKS in multiple grade levels and the development of grade-level specific, measurable TEKS. October 2006: TEA staff presented information to the Coalition of Reading and English Supervisors in Texas. The SBOE directives were reported as follows: “Following the expert input, the SBOE directed TEA staff to: review California, Virginia and Massachusetts ELA-reading curriculum standards, determine which current student expectations are measurable, inventory the SEs included on TAKS tests, and develop grade-level specificity.” November 2006: Louisa Moats presented recommendations on spelling instruction to the SBOE. January 2007: Sarah Crippen provided an update to the Texas Council of Teachers of English Language Arts. A coalition of English language arts and reading professionals joined together to prepare guiding principles for the refinement/realignment of the TEKS. The coalition established a website: www.coe.unt.edu/northstar/teks_info.html. TCTELA members passed several resolutions related to the revisions. February 2007: TCTELA presented the organization’s resolutions to the SBOE, calling on the board to heed the recommendations of Texas educators and to broaden its consultant review panel to include experts recognized by state and national educational English and reading organizations. The SBOE heard the final presentation from its final outside consultant, William Labov, who provided research on the reading of African American and Hispanic students. February/March 2007: Work groups reconvened for three days in Austin for group meetings and three and one-half days via TETN to revise the TEKS according to the new SBOE directives. April-June 2007: Teacher work groups continued revisions via e-mail between the TETN dates. They were often given as little as 24 hours to provide feedback on the various strands. In addition, they were not able to see the comments provided by colleagues. July 2007: The coalition and teachers testified on the draft documents,
calling for additional time for work groups to meet, for a more transparent process, for input from professional organizations, and for a survey for educator input. SBOE delayed the first reading of the TEKS, scheduling a discussion item in September. August 2007: Along with educators from other English and reading organizations, TCTELA developed and submitted a draft of revisions with accompanying research to TEA and the SBOE. September 2007: While the revision of the ELA TEKS was not a discussion item as requested by SBOE member Bob Craig in July, the coalition testified during the discussion item devoted to designing a process for the revision of TEKS in other disciplines, again calling for a reconvening of the work groups, the surveying of educators, and the development of a transparent process. At this meeting, the SBOE cancelled a request for qualifications to hire a facilitator to finalize the TEKS, calling for a reposting with greater visibility after TEA’s Sharon Jackson said TEA staff could not complete the task. (The RFQ, which was capped at $85,000, was posted at www.tea.state.tx.us/tea/ProcOpp.html. TEA’s Lizette Reynolds explained that the facilitator would reconvene work groups and conduct “outreach” with teacher organizations and stakeholders. Please note that no “outreach” was conducted. November 2007: StandardsWork was awarded the $85,000 contract to facilitate the revision of the TEKS. November 26-30, 2007: StandardsWork conducted one-hour conference calls with work group members to solicit feedback on the process to date and input on future work. December 27, 2007: Work group members received revised drafts of the TEKS from StandardsWork to review in preparation for the January 4 and 5 work sessions. January 4 and 5, 2008: Elementary teachers met on January 4; secondary teachers met on January 5. Friday, January 11, 2008: Work group members received drafts of six strands (Informational Text, Listening and Speaking, Literary Text, Media, Research, and Vocabulary) that incorporated suggestions from the January work days. Feedback was due by 8 a.m. on Monday, January 14. Monday, January 14, 2008: Work group members received revised drafts of the final three strands: reading process, writing, and text comprehension. Comments were due by 5 p.m. on January 15. January 21, 2008: StandardsWork submitted revised TEKS to the Texas Education Agency and the State Board of Education.
January 24, 2008: SBOE member Pat Hardy sent the revisions to a member of the Coalition of English and Reading professionals, requesting a review by Texas educators and a presentation at the February 13 SBOE meeting. January 25-27, 2008: TCTELA members passed additional resolutions related to the TEKS revisions. February 13, 2008: The coalition and teachers testified in support of the proposed TEKS document (referred to by the SBOE as the StandardsWork document) with revisions suggested by the membership. (The StandardsWork document incorporated the work of the teacher work groups appointed by the SBOE, feedback from expert reviewers selected by the SBOE as well as feedback presented to TEA and the SBOE by the coalition of English and reading professionals.) TCTELA also called for an alignment of the proposed revisions to the standards set by the National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association. All those testifying opposed the substitute amendment introduced earlier in the week. The SBOE passed the following compromise motion: The Chair shall appoint a balanced subcommittee to work with agency staff. The subcommittee shall consider the "StandardsWork" document, (sic) and input from all interested parties including members of the existing work groups to complete the final standards document. This will include an expert review with experts chosen by the subcommittee. The facilitator will facilitate this content review team and be charged with writing the final document. The final document will include the college readiness standards per HB 1. The subcommittee will sign off on the final document. The Committee of the Full Board will review the final standards document. First reading will occur March 27, 2008, with final adoption May 22, 2008. (StandardsWork contract was extended at a cost of $65,000.) February 29, 2008: TEKS subcommittee selected five reviewers of the TEKS: David Chard, Barbara Foorman, Reid Lyon, Paige Furgerson, and Sandra Stotsky, excluding reviewers recommended by TCTELA and SBOE members Lawrence Allen, Mary Helen Berlanga, Pat Hardy, and Mavis Knight. When Lyon declined to participate, two reviewers were added: Alfred Tatum and Karen Avrit. No public school educators, secondary educators, Hispanic scholars, or consultants with expertise in writing were named to the review panel. March 14, 2008: Sue Pimentel of StandardsWork reviewed changes to the document along with expert comments. Don McLeroy agreed to send the draft to work group members and two additional reviewers—Judy Wallis and Dr. Escamilla. However, how and when these reviewers would contribute to the revisions was unclear. March 19, 2008: Subcommittee vote on the TEKS was delayed when the document was late. Representative Abel Herrero, District 34, urged the board to include a review and input from an individual with expertise in the Hispanic
culture and English language learners. Diane Patrick addressed the board as well. Mary Helen Berlanga charged Don McLeroy for misleading the public and fellow board members for failing to meet the compromise motion’s requirement to include work group members in completion of the final document.
March 26, 2008: Public Hearing March 27, 2008: First Reading March 28, 2008: First Reading and Approval April 18-May 18, 2008: Public Comment May 22-23, 2008: Second Reading and Final Adoption