Tx Bd of Ed Play-by-play: Pushing out Science, and More...

After David Bradley (R-The Faction, Beaumont), carefully counts noses to be sure there's a quorum, Chair Lowe gavels a start at 1:15. No update on lawsuit over denial of charter school application, so there's no executive session. First up: Graduation requirement for PE: should it be satisfied by certain Career and Technology Education classes (firefighter academy, etc.) for the next year as a grandfather-clause issue. Vote on Friday, but doesn't seem to be any opposition.

Discussion of Proclamation 2012 Science adoption up next. Science Teacher's Association urges moving forward, pointing out that 6 physics topics are moved from grade 8 to grade 6, and that chemistry and physics have been overhauled to be more calculation-based. In addition, End-of-Course testing is coming for biology, chemistry, and physics in Spring of 2012. Questions from Board members indicate interest in splitting it K-5 one year and 6-12 another.

Agency staff presents these points: Proclamation 2012 (which would be implemented in Fall of 2012) is already a year behind schedule because of other delays, given publishers less than a year to complete materials. In May 2011, the Legislature would appropriate the money, and at this point, there's no telling how much or little they'd give.

Proclamation could be delayed a year to become Proclamation 2013, and it would delay the costs into the following biennium's spending. Or it could be split. Only high school science next year would be $122M, added to the $880M for language arts this year, would add up to $1B for the legislature to provide at a time in which state shortfall is expected to be $15B or more. (Last adoption of $800M only floated with $360M of stimulus money...)

Or the Board could ask for a supplemental adoption of materials to help prepare for the high school End-of-Course tests (possibly online material that goes beyond the scope of the textbook). Predictable questions arose from the Board about access issues to online items. (Rumbling that this is an unfunded mandate on the districts...)

The Board is afraid that supplemental materials will be of insufficient quality. "They'd be also produced under short notice," Pat Hardy, R-Weatherford, points out. She stakes out the position that the Board should just go for the grades 9 through 11 adoption.

Bradley insists that an adoption of $1B will not make it through the Legislature. (I hate to agree with him, but he's right...) He argues that some other option of supplemental materials needs to be done. By comparing what changed in the TEKS (only 2+ pages for biology), he's suggesting it's really a small amount of material that has changed. Barbara Cargill (R-The Faction, The Woodlands) says that a lot of the changes are actually content that is in the books after all. (In Texas, publishers can always have MORE than the requirements, they just can't have LESS.)

Staff also mentions the idea of handling this as a subscription for one year as done electronically--$16.8M per year for entire state, instead of paying up-front for $100M for a $80 textbook for everybody to be covered.

Ken Mercer (R-The Faction, San Antonio) asks why the Board pushes forward with testing when the books don't match them. Staff points out that funding issues since 2003 have messed up the cycle enough that the adoption and tests have not been aligned.

Cynthia Dunbar (R-The Faction, Richmond) wants the Agency to figure out how much of the new TEKS are covered by each of the currently-adopted materials, and what it would cost the Agency to build something in-house. The Agency's representative gently points out that they don't make instructional materials, so they can't do the latter...

Geraldine "Tincy" Miller (R-North Dallas) likes the outside-of-the-box thinking of the agency making their own. The Agency's representative points out that things like that would be contracted out and not in-house. (They only have two full-time science people on staff at the Agency.) She points out that the Permanent School Fund raises enough money to pay for it, but the Legislature decides whether or not to fund the adoption. She points out that in 2005, the Legislature declined to fund the adoption entirely. "It's like we are being forced into going electronic, without regard for quality, because it's cheaper."

Chair Lowe sums up consensus: the Proclamation cannot be issued, but must be delayed, because of funding. Board wants to supplement curriculum to make sure students are prepared for how biology, chemistry, and physics have changed. She personally wants the Board to handle this (rather than punting to the Commissioner for his newly-minted process).