Tx Bd of Ed: Science Adoption CANCELLED

David Bradley (R-The Faction, Beaumont) moves to postpone issuance of Proclamation 2012 (Science Adoption). This would be moving it off until the next meeting, as has been done since July of 2009.

Bob Craig (R-Lubbock) opposes this, because it amounts to taking no action. Wants Agency to investigate costs for supplemental products.

Bradley withdraws motion, and suggests another motion: Postpone Proclamation 2012 (Science Adoption) INDEFINITELY. Plans subsequent motion to ask Agency and Board to develop request for supplemental materials instead.

Mavis Knight (D-Dallas) wants to go ahead to hold Legislature responsible. Chair Lowe points out that samples would be due before any information about funding would be available, because the session wouldn't be over yet, and suggests this is not a good plan. Mavis reluctantly agrees.

Pat Hardy (R-Weatherford): most suitable would be if Legislature would consider postponing the end-of-course test for one year, given that students will not have the right materials available in time. This is the only way to not put anyone at a disadvantage. (Added advantage: postpone social studies test until new TEKS are in...) Chair Lowe points out that new science standards will be implemented in Fall of 2010 anyway.

Real, final vote comes Friday, but this is recommendation of whole Board: passes on a voice vote.

Bradley next moves that Agency issue a bid for supplemental materials for Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and IPC (the four high school science courses) to cover 3 years. Mavis Knight wants it to cover middle school (grades 6-8) as well. Don McLeroy (R-The Faction, Bryan) suggests expanding it to all grades, and then paring back when costs are considered.

Based on estimates (1/6 of the 6-year adoption cost for high school), Agency estimates a $17M per year cost for the supplementals. (They are already committed to $888M in language arts for this biennium.) Bradley points out that we don't know what the real cost will be, because the scope hasn't been set yet.

Unanimous amendment recommending a Friday vote on supplemental materials to cover 6-12. Bradley now turns to timelines. Staff recommends getting material into classes in Fall 2011. Proposed timeline has publishers submit bids in December 2010, and materials in March 2011. Review panels would meet in April to make recommendations. Options for adoption decision from Board at May 2011 board meetings. Board unanimously approves those recommendations for final votes on Friday.

Agency next asks for permission to try re-writing rules--the rules for full adoptions are not a good fit for supplementals. (May need to deep-six the rule that everything be hit three times, for example.)

Bradley brings up more issues: should supplements work with any book, should they be targeted at one book or another, or should they represent all TEKS? Barbara Cargill (R-The Faction, The Woodlands) wants customization per book, but Chair Lowe points out that if they do that, different publishers' supplements will be different (and maybe priced differently). "Can publishers submit a supplement to a competitor's product?" Bob Craig (R-Lubbock) asks.

After a lot of wandering around this point, McLeroy proposes that it be only about the new standards as summarized by the TEA, and NOT book-specific. Mercer points out this may be a good time to prototype a digital process. Recommendation to proceed this way is unanimous.