The Committee of the Full Board held a work session on Sept. 8, 2025, to review proposals for the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) framework, course sequences and organizing strands for K–8 social studies. The session reviewed multiple strand and course‑sequence models, survey and focus‑group results, and legal and timetable constraints introduced by Senate Bill 24 (the so‑called anti‑communism statute). No final framework was adopted; the board signaled it will continue deliberations and may post framework options for action at an upcoming meeting.

The session opened with a summary of the agency’s TEKS review process and the statutory deadline imposed by Senate Bill 24. TEA staff told the board the agency has a multi‑step (40‑step) TEKS revision process and that SB24 requires review and revision of social studies TEKS by July 31, 2026. Staff also summarized survey and focus‑group outreach: 491 written survey responses were received and regional content‑expert focus groups were convened.

Why it matters: The board writes the content standards that structure social studies instruction statewide. Those standards drive curriculum, instructional materials adoptions and, indirectly, what students learn. SB24 added a statutory requirement to adopt standards that address certain content related to communist regimes; the board must finish a TEKS cycle that satisfies the new law by mid‑2026 while also responding to broader concerns raised by educators and the public.

Options presented
Staff and the ad hoc committee presented four broad strand proposals and multiple course‑sequence models. Examples summarized in the meeting material included: A) status‑quo strands (history, geography, government, economics, citizenship, culture, science/technology/society, and social‑studies skills); B) a consolidated set (history — Texas/US/world, government & civics, economics, geography, culture/religion, technology/innovation); C) a time‑banded “3‑5‑1” or similar chronological model (K–2 foundational; grades 3–7 grouped by successive time bands, with an eighth‑grade capstone); and D) models that emphasized standalone Texas history at elementary grades with US history and world culture integrated later. Board members also offered a proposal (added on the record as a later option) that emphasizes civic knowledge and a strong, repeated Texas/US historical focus across grades.

Survey and focus‑group takeaways
Staff highlighted several recurring themes from outreach: respondents wanted clearer priorities (many said current TEKS are “an inch deep and a mile wide”), repeated exposure to essential content across grades, and a stronger treatment of U.S. and Texas history in early grades in order to build background knowledge and literacy. Focus groups suggested multiple organizing approaches — either by strand (topics to be covered each grade) or by time‑period/topic units with strands checked across units — and urged that social‑studies skills be integrated in ways that support disciplinary thinking.

Statutory and legal constraints
General Counsel Von Beyer briefed the board on SB24’s effect. SB24 adds content mandates for social‑studies essential knowledge and skills beginning in grade 4 through grade 12 and specifies coverage related to communist regimes and associated concepts; staff reminded the board that compliance—alongside other statutory mandates (Texas history, founding documents, civics, etc.)—must factor into any TEKS redesign. Board members asked agency counsel whether particular phrasing used in proposals would meet the statute; counsel said the statute requires inclusion of certain material but the board still retains discretion in how TEKS are written to satisfy that requirement.

Debate and points of emphasis
Board members split on how to structure K–8 instruction. Arguments in favor of a chronological, spiraled approach (3‑5‑1) cited cognitive‑science research supporting repeated exposure and the state reading results in other states (staff cited Louisiana’s recent approaches to integrate social studies for elementary reading gains). Advocates for a stand‑alone Texas history at elementary grades argued early, repeated Texas content builds state identity and is easily lost if spread thinly across other units. Several members asked for stronger guardrails (for example, suggested minimum percentage focuses such as “at least 80%” of a grade’s content dedicated to the identified emphasis) to ensure Texas and U.S. history receive sustained attention.

Assessment and implementation implications
Board members discussed how any framework would interact with current testing. Texas law requires an eighth‑grade social‑studies assessment; staff said the EOC and accountability design would follow the adopted TEKS and that the board may use readiness versus supporting standards to guide assessment focus. Several members asked whether the eighth‑grade test must be limited to TEKS written for grade 8 only; staff said they would seek additional legal clarification and noted that federal and state testing rules have different scopes and influences.

Next steps and process guidance
No framework vote was taken at the workshop. Staff distributed the agency’s TEKS review and revision process and asked board members to nominate content advisors: TEA’s guidance requires that a content advisor have a bachelor’s degree, demonstrated expertise in the subject area, and teaching or professional experience in the field. The board chair said he will post an item at an upcoming meeting so the board can decide which framework to pursue and whether to convene small work groups; staff emphasized the compressed timeline to meet the SB24 deadline and suggested convening smaller, expedited work groups where appropriate.

Ending note: the board will continue deliberations at the next board meeting and expects to return with more detailed recommendations on strand selection, core sequence, and the content‑advisor process. Staff will also provide a mapping of how survey responses related to each strand proposal and will supply additional legal analysis, as requested, on the assessment scope and statutory interpretations.