Teachers, curriculum leaders and district coordinators who testified to a Texas State Board of Education ad hoc committee on mathematics this week urged the board to narrow the scope of secondary content, require clearer guidance and expand professional development so classroom time can emphasize deep understanding rather than rushed coverage.

Veteran classroom teachers and school leaders described a recurring pattern: large numbers of student expectations per course lead teachers to “teach to the page” rather than develop conceptual mastery. They told the committee that high school courses are often overloaded with discrete standards that limit time for modeling, guided practice and the spaced review needed for long‑term retention.

Laurie Zimmerman, a 38‑year mathematics teacher who has worked in grades 5–12, told board members that “true mastery of mathematical concepts does not happen without daily practice,” and urged curriculum design that preserves classroom time for deep work rather than early, heavy test drilling. Carolyn Heiss, a high‑school teacher and mentor with 22 years of experience, asked the committee to prioritize “depth over breadth” and to rewrite broad or vague expectations so new teachers can know how far to go on any single item.

Elementary and secondary teachers who testified—Nancy Chavira, Michelle DuBourne and others—said pacing is a real implementation constraint. They described situations where instructional materials are written for 150–180 days but many campuses have 130–142 days of available instruction once testing windows, early release and other events are counted. That mismatch, teachers said, forces premature “cuts” of instruction and narrows classroom practice.

A recurring testing complaint came from teachers who have shifted to online exams: students sometimes make copy or entry errors when questions include math notation or require complex response fields; one teacher reported her AP‑Calculus students had to relearn long division and correct transcription mistakes in an online format. Teachers said the online delivery and unfamiliar entry tools can depress test scores relative to what students demonstrate on paper.

District leaders emphasized system‑level fixes. Moises Cortez, a secondary math facilitator for a large Texas district, urged stronger vertical alignment and said some standards feel developmentally misaligned when introduced without prior grade‑level scaffolding. Kathy Covert, a district coordinator who served on earlier TEKS‑review workgroups, urged more precise student expectations and better TEKS guides so teachers know which the standards are essential and which are optional extensions.

Multiple witnesses asked the board to direct staff to publish clearer TEKS guidance and examples for each grade and course, embed process standards where they matter (rather than listing them only as front‑matter expectations), and expand job‑embedded professional learning that teaches teachers the math they must teach as well as the pedagogy. Several speakers urged a TEKS “guide to implementation” now under development by agency staff be completed and distributed widely.

Committee members invited teachers and district staff to submit written analyses of specific TEKS they recommend removing, moving, or clarifying; staff said a math TEKS guide is already in development and will be used to harmonize expectations across grades. No formal votes or rule changes were taken at the meeting; the committee is gathering testimony and technical input ahead of future recommendations.

For classroom teachers and district leaders, the immediate needs were practical: fewer, clearer standards; TEKS guidance tied to sample tasks and scoring; pacing that matches real instructional days; and sustained, content‑specific professional learning that prepares teachers to teach the mathematics they are being asked to cover.