Parents and teachers urge board to reconsider Bluebonnet curriculum, cite age appropriateness and lack of teacher input

Dozens of parents and teachers urged the Conroe Independent School District Board of Trustees on March 18 to reconsider the district’s recent adoption of the Bluebonnet Learning English language arts curriculum, saying teachers were not given adequate opportunity to review materials and that some content is not age-appropriate.

The speakers’ concerns centered on three themes: insufficient teacher review before the board’s vote, reading passages and prompts they said are above grade level, and alleged religious content in selected texts.

Christina Smith, who identified herself as “a mom to four Conroe ISD special students who receive special education instruction,” said the Bluebonnet lessons offer too little small-group instruction for students with dyslexia and that “small group instruction has been crucial to my children’s success.” She added, “I can’t sit silently back and let my children’s education be an unproven pilot program.”

Melissa Martin, a fourth-grade Conroe ISD teacher of more than 25 years, questioned whether the material is grade-appropriate and cited particular examples. Reading aloud a fourth-grade writing prompt from the Bluebonnet unit “Innovations in Industry and Energy,” Martin said, “How many fourth graders will successfully respond to this prompt? 0, because the topic and vocabulary are not grade level appropriate.” She also called out a unit that uses Letters from Heaven, saying, “How many students should be forced to read a book with a religious slant? 0.”

Others echoed those concerns. A parent who said she could not find references in board members’ remarks online told trustees she used an AI tool to reproduce speeches supporting Bluebonnet and accused the board of not doing its homework before voting. Another parent referenced an online petition with more than 1,200 signatures asking the board to rescind or reconsider the adoption and said implementation cost estimates — which she cited as about $2 million — should give the board pause during a $12 million budget shortfall.

Several speakers also raised constitutional concerns about religion in instructional materials. One parent said, “Yes, it is a Bible-infused curriculum. There’s no denying that. It has a clear Christian slant,” and urged the board to consider First Amendment implications.

Teachers and parents repeatedly asked the board to reopen the review process and obtain teacher feedback before implementing Bluebonnet in classrooms. “We were told there were two to choose from, Bluebonnet and Savvas,” said a teacher who served on a preview committee. “It is insulting to make this committee and then decide days before what is best for our children without a single iota of our amazing teachers’ input.”

Board President Odenweiler read the public comment rules at the start of the public participation section and deferred discussion of agenda items to the points in the meeting when they appeared on the agenda; trustees did not take a formal vote on Bluebonnet at this meeting.

The public comment period lasted roughly 40 minutes, and speakers included parents, current and former teachers and other community members. Trustees did not respond with a formal action during the meeting; multiple speakers asked trustees to rescind or re-evaluate the adoption at a future meeting.

The board’s formal records show the Bluebonnet vote occurred at a prior meeting; at this session trustees received public testimony and recorded the speakers’ concerns for future consideration.

Looking ahead, several speakers urged trustees to reopen or extend the curriculum review process and to solicit direct feedback from classroom teachers and special education staff before the district begins classroom implementation.