Texas Social Studies Standards: The Billion-Dollar Curriculum Rewrite | 10 AM and 12 PM Press Conference Tomorrow, Monday, June 22, 2026

Follow @SocialstudiesAdvocate on Instagram

 Friends,

Tomorrow begins an important week at the Texas State Board of Education that meets from the 22nd-26th.

There will be two press conferences tomorrow morning. 

The first on is the following at 10 AM sponsored by the Latino Texas Policy Center. The second at 12PM is sponsored by the Texas Freedom Network. TFN will have a horse-drawn funeral procession for the death of religious freedom in Texas. 

I somehow don't have a notice on the second one, but I spoke yesterday with Executive Director Felicia Martin who said that there will be one at the noon hour.

Both press conferences take place at the Barbara Jordan State Office Building | 1601 N. Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78711. If you're in mourning regarding the loss of religious freedom, wear black.

All should care deeply about this as what gets decided this week will be etched in stone for the next 10 years. Read the LTPC's full policy analysis HERE. 

LATINO TEXAS POLICY CENTER 

MEDIA KIT Texas State Board of Education Social Studies TEKS Vote June 26, 2026

MEDIA CONTACT 

Natalie A. Sanchez-Lopez, M.P.P. Executive Director & CEO Latino Texas Policy Center Phone: 361-510-1365 Email: natalie@latinotexaspolicycenter.com Website: www.latinotexaspolicycenter.com

MEDIA ADVISORY 

What: Press Conference on the Hidden Financial Costs of the Proposed Texas Social Studies TEKS Revisions 

When: Monday, June 22, 2026 @ 10AM 

Where: Barbara Jordan State Office Building | 1601 N. Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78711 

Who Will Speak: 

• Natalie Sánchez-Lopez, Executive Director & CEO, Latino Texas Policy Center • Gustavo Reveles, Texas State Board of Education, District 1 • Marisa Perez-Diaz, Texas State Board of Education, District 3 • Zeph Capo, President, Texas AFT • Julia Brookins, American Historical Association 

Why: The State Board of Education is scheduled to take a final vote on June 26, 2026 regarding proposed K–12 Social Studies TEKS revisions. A new independent policy analysis commissioned by the Latino Texas Policy Center estimates implementation costs ranging from $811 million to more than $1.65 billion statewide. 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE 

Headline: New Analysis Finds Proposed Texas Social Studies Standards Could Cost Between $811 Million and $1.65 Billion 

Key News Peg: 

The Texas Education Agency's fiscal note states the proposed TEKS revisions will result in "no additional costs to the state." A new independent analysis finds substantial implementation costs would instead be borne by local school districts, taxpayers, educators, museums, and cultural institutions. 

Why This Matters: 

The proposed standards represent the most significant restructuring of Texas social studies curriculum in more than a decade. 

Major proposed changes include: 

• Moving Texas History from 4th grade to 8th grade • Replacing portions of existing World Cultures content • Introducing a new chronological K–8 history sequence • Integrating Biblical content throughout elementary grades • Requiring new instructional materials statewide 

POLICY ANALYSIS - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The State Board of Education (SBOE) is undertaking a sweeping overhaul of social studies Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for all grades K–12. What will be the costs from the proposed changes? Latinos and allies rightly identify the cost as barriers to academic success and future adult opportunities – resulting from reductions in historical integrity and inclusivity (their contributions), and overall education quality. 

The Texas Education Agency (TEA), which claims no additional financial costs to the state, does not account for the full cascade of downstream implementation costs. Millions of unfunded education costs that will affect school districts, teacher preparation and historic sites and cultural institutions. 

Read full policy analysis HERE 

KEY FINDINGS 

Estimated Statewide Costs 

Instructional Materials: $314M–$479M 

District Curriculum Development: $135M–$430M 

Teacher Retraining: $73M–$154M 

Projected Social Studies $85M–$215M 

Bluebonnet Development: 

STAAR Assessment Redesign: $14M–$36M 

Historic Sites and Museums: $14M–$44M 

Teacher Attrition and Replacement: $38M–$77M 

Potential Litigation: $5M–$50M+ 

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $811 Million–$1.65 Billion+ 

TOP FIVE REPORTER ANGLES 

1. The Hidden Cost Story: TEA says implementation costs are effectively zero. Independent researchers estimate costs exceeding $1 billion. 

2. Texas History Leaves Elementary School:Texas History moves from 4th grade through 8th grade, potentially affecting student learning and cultural identity formation. 

3. Impact on Museums and Historic Sites: Organizations such as The Alamo and LBJ Library anticipate reduced visitation and costly program redesigns. 

4. Teacher Readiness: Approximately 77,000 social studies teachers would be expected to implement a framework for which no existing preparation pipeline currently exists. 

5. Church-State Questions: The integration of Biblical content raises constitutional questions that legal scholars warn could generate future litigation 

FAST FACTS 

★ 77,000 Texas social studies teachers affected 

★ More than 6.3 million students impacted 

★ 1,020 Texas school districts affected 

★ More than $103 million already spent on Bluebonnet Learning development 

★ More than 595 districts have adopted portions of Bluebonnet Learning 

★ Final SBOE adoption vote scheduled for June 26, 2026 

SUGGESTED INTERVIEW SOURCES 

Economic Impact on Texas & Latino Community Perspective 

Natalie Sanchez-Lopez Executive Director & CEO of the Latino Texas Policy Center 

Email: natalie@latinotexaspolicycenter.com | Ph. (361) 510-1365 

Policy and Fiscal Analysis: 

Christopher Carmona, PhD, Author of:The Hidden Financial Education Cost: Proposed Texas Social Studies TEKS Revisions 

Email: natalie@latinotexaspolicycenter.com | Ph. (956) 854-1717 

State Board of Education Perspectives 

Gustavo Reveles, Texas SBOE District 1 

Email: gustavo.reveles@sboe.texas.gov | Ph. (915) 256-3273 

Marisa Perez-Diaz, Texas SBOE District 3 

Email: marisa.perez@sboe.texas.gov | Ph. (512) 422-9019 

Teacher and Classroom Impact 

Zeph Capo, President, Texas American Federation of Teachers (Texas AFT) 

Email: zcapo@texasaft.org | Ph. (713) 670-4348 

Historical and Academic Analysis & Parent Perspective 

Julia Brookins, American Historical Association 

Email: jbrookins@historians.org | Ph. (773) 272-5209 

QUOTABLES 

"Before Texas commits to an untested curriculum restructuring, taxpayers deserve a complete and independent fiscal analysis." ~ Natalie Sanchez-Lopez 

"The state is telling Texans this overhaul is free. It is not. It simply moves the bill onto school districts, teachers, museums, and taxpayers." ~ Christopher Carmona, PhD 

KEY DATES 

June 22, 2026 SBOE Committee Hearing - Public Testimony 

June 22, 2026 @ 10:00 a.m. 

LTPC Press Conference @ Barbara Jordan Building 

June 26, 2026 State Board of Education - Final Adoption Vote 

ABOUT THE LATINO TEXAS POLICY CENTER 

The Latino Texas Policy Center is an independent, nonpartisan statewide policy organization dedicated to increasing Latino policymaking power through research, leadership development, coalition-building, and evidence-based policy solutions. LTPC focuses on education, economic mobility, civic participation, and long-term community wellbeing. 

www.latinotexaspolicycenter.com 

Read full policy analysis HERE 

What the Proposed Texas Middle School TEKS Leave Out About Indigenous Peoples, by The Social Studies Advocate

Friends,

I invite you to read this deeply concerning analysis published in The Social Studies Advocate on what the proposed Texas middle school social studies TEKS leave out about Indigenous peoples.

The piece documents serious omissions, biases, and erasures in the proposed grades 6–8 standards, including the absence of sustained attention to tribal sovereignty, the Doctrine of Discovery, boarding schools, allotment, the Indian Citizenship Act, the Indian Reorganization Act, the Indian Child Welfare Act, and the contemporary presence of Indigenous nations and communities in Texas. These are not minor gaps. They shape how generations of Texas students will understand land, history, law, citizenship, and the peoples who were here long before Texas existed.

The Texas State Board of Education is scheduled to meet June 22–26, 2026, and I understand that Texas Freedom Network and other organizations may be organizing public opposition to these omissions, biases, and erasures. I will keep you posted as the date draws nearer.

In the meantime, please read and share widely. Also consider following The Social Studies Advocate on Instagram. These proposed standards deserve careful public scrutiny before they become the law of Texas classrooms.

In solidarity,

Angela Valenzuela

What the Proposed Texas Middle School TEKS Leave Out About Indigenous Peoples

A review of the proposed grades 6–8 social studies standards reveals systematic gaps in the treatment of American Indian history

The Social Studies Advocate

Apr 20, 2026

When Texas school districts begin implementing the proposed 2026 social studies TEKS in the 2030–2031 school year, students across the state will receive their foundational understanding of Texas and American history in grades 6 through 8. What they learn in those three years, and what they don’t, will shape how they understand the land they live on, the government that serves them, and the people who were here long before the state existed.

The analysis below is based on critiques offered by Dr. Scott Langston, Ph.D., a religion scholar and Native American studies researcher who retired from Texas Christian University, where he served as the inaugural Native American Nations and Communities Liaison, reviewed a draft of the proposed middle school TEKS and produced a detailed written analysis. Langston is the author of Exodus through the Centuries (Wiley/Blackwell, 2006) and co-author of Being in Relation: Indigenous Peoples, the Land, and Texas Christian University, 1873–2023 (TCU Press, 2025). He has been quoted in the Dallas Morning News on the history of Indigenous peoples in North Texas, including on Mirabeau Lamar’s policy of “exterminating war” against Native nations. His analysis of the TEKS draft is thorough, specific, and grounded in Texas-specific historical scholarship.

After much debate at the SBOE meeting from April 7 to 10, and numerous amendments until early in the morning, the version that emerged from the most recent round of Work Group B revisions and SBOE amendments addresses essentially none of the concerns Langston raised. This piece summarizes his critique and compares it against what the current draft actually contains.

Moving Moccasins group brings Native American artists into schools and classrooms, https://austinpowwow.net/great-promise-dancers/

The Structural Problem: American Indians as Historical Rather Than Contemporary

The most fundamental concern is not about any individual omission. It is about the cumulative effect of how American Indian peoples appear, and disappear, across the grades 6–8 curriculum. We are specifically looking at grades 6-8 because this is when students will learn the bulk of U.S. and Texas history, from 1800 to modern day.

In the proposed standards, Indigenous peoples are present in the early grades as part of the westward expansion narrative, appear briefly during the Texas frontier period, and then largely vanish. There is no sustained treatment of American Indians through the 20th century and into the present. This is not a minor gap but a structural failure: it leaves students with the impression that Indigenous peoples belong to the past, frozen somewhere in the 19th century, rather than existing as contemporary peoples with ongoing legal relationships with the state and federal government.

This matters because those relationships did not end in the 1850s. Three federally recognized tribes and several non-recognized tribes reside in Texas today. The period from the late 19th to the early 21st century saw significant developments and shifts in U.S. American Indian policy, including, boarding schools, allotment of reservations (especially the Dawes Act of 1887), Indian Reorganization Act (1934), termination of federal relationships with tribes, federal Relocation program, Indian Adoption project, Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975), Indian Child Welfare Act (1978) and the challenge to it in Haaland v. Brackeen (2023), American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978), and McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020). This curriculum removes and excludes American Indians from U.S. history. It is a major gap in the curriculum.

These are not distant historical footnotes. They are active legal and political realities with direct Texas connections, and they appear nowhere in the proposed standards.

The Doctrine of Discovery: The Missing Foundation

The most significant omission is the Doctrine of Discovery, and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1823 opinion in Johnson v. M’Intosh. The Doctrine of Discovery was set out in a series of declarations by popes in the 15th century. Papal bulls provided religious authority for Christian empires to invade and subjugate non‐Christian lands, and impose Christianity on these populations. These papal bulls provided justification to European empires embarking on widescale colonial expansion.

The proposed standards explicitly emphasize the importance of strong property rights and the free enterprise system as core values. What Johnson v. M’Intosh establishes, however, is the legal foundation upon which American property rights rest, a foundation that, as the Court itself acknowledged, derived from European claims of discovery and explicitly did not recognize Indigenous peoples as owners of the land they had occupied for millennia.

In other words, students are being taught that strong property rights are a cornerstone of the American system, without being taught the legal history that defines whose property rights were recognized and whose were not. Students cannot fully understand American property law, westward expansion, or the free enterprise system without knowing it.

The Doctrine of Discovery does not appear in the current draft. Neither does Johnson v. M’Intosh.

Tribal Sovereignty: A Constitutional Relationship, Unnamed

Closely related is another structural omission: the proposed TEKS never establish that American Indian tribes hold the status of sovereign nations in a government-to-government relationship with the United States, a status grounded in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

Throughout the grades 6–8 standards, Indigenous peoples are referred to as “communities” or “tribes,” but never as “nations” with the legal standing that word implies. This has practical consequences for how students understand Texas history. When settlers moved into Mexican Texas, they were entering the territory of American Indian nations. When the Republic of Texas claimed land, it was asserting ownership over territory those nations had occupied for centuries. When Mirabeau Lamar pursued his policy of expulsion and extermination, he was conducting a war against sovereign peoples. None of this context is available to students if they have not been taught that tribes hold recognized national status under U.S. law.

The proposed TEKS do require students to compare the presidencies of Lamar and Sam Houston, “including views on annexation, American Indians, and Mexico.” But Lamar’s own words, “total extinction” and “total expulsion,” are not named. The standard as written does not require students to understand what Lamar’s policy actually entailed.
Major Omissions by Grade

Grade 6 (1800-1900)

The massive disruptions to Indigenous peoples caused by the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812, and Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act are not connected to their consequences for American Indian nations who were displaced into Texas, which then created the conditions for later conflicts during the Republic period. Students cannot understand why various non-indigenous tribes were present in Texas without this context.

Several experts raised flags over the wording of this SE: “explain how the Trail of Tears impacted tribal relations along the Northern border of Texas.” Despite the numerous amendments raised during the week of April 7, it remains unchanged. This language shifts the impact of Jackson’s policies from the impact of U.S. policies on indigenous nations, to tribal relations. Additionally, it omits the decision in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), which recognized Cherokee sovereignty and the unconstitutionality of state encroachment on tribal territory under federal treaties, a ruling that both Georgia and the Jackson administration refused to enforce, proceeding with removal regardless.

In the Civil War and Reconstruction unit, there is no mention of the participation of Indigenous peoples in the war, or of slavery’s distinct application to Indigenous peoples.

Most significantly, the standards covering the late 19th century, the closing of the frontier, the Gilded Age, contain no mention of boarding schools or forced allotment of reservation lands. This is inconceivable for any credible curriculum. The boarding school system, which operated from the 1870s through the mid-20th century, was one of the most deliberately destructive policies in American history toward Indigenous cultural survival. The Dawes Act of 1887 and the Supreme Court’s 1903 decision in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, which enabled the forced allotment of reservation lands over tribal objection, shaped the lives of Indigenous peoples for generations. The Dawes Act and boarding schools are taught in current U.S. history standards in 11th grade. Neither appears in the proposed standards, and it begs the question, why are these being removed?

Grade 7 (1900-2000)

Grade 7 covers the Progressive Era through the early 21st century. Among the many topics covered across more than a century of American history, there is not a single mention of American Indian peoples in the course introduction. The standards move from the 1890s to the present as though Indigenous peoples ceased to exist at the close of the frontier.

The specific omissions are extensive. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 is absent. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which restructured the relationship between the federal government and tribal governments and remains foundational to understanding tribal governance today, is absent. The Termination policy of the 1950s, which ended the federal relationship with some tribes and proved devastating, is absent.

The Indian Relocation Act of 1956 is absent, despite the fact that Dallas was designated as a federal relocation center, bringing thousands of American Indians to North Texas over several decades. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, and the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 are all absent.

The Grade 7 standards do include the American Indian Movement and the Wounded Knee Occupation in the Civil Rights era section. However, the inclusion is decontextualized without the broader Red Power movement, the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, or the legislative achievements of the 1970s that were the movement’s most significant outcomes.

Grade 8 (Capstone Texas History Course)

In Grade 8 the omissions carry particular weight because this is where students are expected to develop a comprehensive understanding of the state’s past.

The course introduction refers to “the earliest human presence” in Texas without naming American Indians specifically, a terminological choice that obscures the millennia-long Indigenous presence in the region. Similarly, the use of “prehistoric” to describe ancient Indigenous cultures carries connotations of primitiveness that “ancient” would not.

The Gault Site, one of the most significant archaeological sites in North America for understanding early human presence on the continent, is not mentioned. Caddo Mounds State Historical Site, a Texas State Historical Commission site that documents the sophisticated culture of the Caddo people, is not mentioned.

The Grade 8 standards do include coverage of conflicts between the Republic of Texas and American Indian groups, including Fort Parker, the Council House Fight, and the Battle of Neches. But the framing does not require students to understand these events as Indigenous peoples defending their homelands and legal standing as nations.

The standards covering the Civil Rights era in Texas contain no mention of American Indians. The Indian Relocation Act’s connection to Dallas is absent. The contemporary Texas section, which closes the course, does not address the three federally recognized tribes currently residing

in Texas, the ongoing legal and cultural work of non-federally recognized tribes, or the existence of American Indians as contemporary peoples with active civic and economic lives.

Why This Matters Beyond Representation

The proposed TEKS emphasize the free enterprise system, strong property rights, and the foundational importance of constitutional law. Students cannot fully understand any of these things without understanding the Doctrine of Discovery, Johnson v. M’Intosh, the federal Indian trust responsibility, and tribal sovereignty. These are not alternative or oppositional values. They are part of the same legal and constitutional framework the TEKS claim to be teaching.

A curriculum that teaches strong property rights without teaching the legal history of whose property rights were recognized, and whose were not, by design, is an incomplete curriculum. A curriculum that teaches the U.S. Constitution without teaching the government-to-government relationships it established with tribal nations is an incomplete curriculum. These are not ideological claims. They are observations about what the documents say.

What You Can Do

The proposed TEKS are still subject to revision before final adoption. We remain concerned about the undisclosed financial relationship between Content Advisor Don Frazier’s Texas Center at Schreiner University and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, including the $70,000 in TPPF funding to that center, and what it means for the independence of this revision process. The standards as proposed reflect a consistent ideological perspective that raises legitimate questions about whether Texan students are receiving history education or something closer to political formation.

If you want to weigh in on these standards, you can:

Contact the legislature and demand oversight into the process as a whole. It has been rushed and the input of stakeholders, including experts and educators, has been significantly curtailed while politically motivated interest groups have had an outsized influence. Specifically reach out to members of the Senate Education Committee and House Public Education Committee, James Talarico and Gina Hinojosa. Ask them to pause this process and conduct a review of the connection between TPPF and Don Frazier.

Contact all the SBOE representative directly. Write or call with specific concerns about the treatment of American Indian history in the proposed grades 6–8 standards.

The most up-to-date drafts from the April Board meeting will be posted at least 30 days before the next SBOE meeting June 22 (so by mid-May). Submit written public comment to the SBOE ahead of upcoming hearings. Specific, evidence-based comments citing the standards by section number carry the most weight.

Share this analysis with educators, school board members, and community members who may not be following the TEKS revision process closely.

The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills are not just a list of topics. They are a set of decisions about what Texas students are expected to know and be able to do. The decisions embedded in the current draft, including what has been left out, deserve careful public scrutiny before they become the law of Texas classrooms.

Thanks for reading! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

This analysis draws on Dr. Scott Langston’s written review of the proposed middle school TEKS and on the post-April 2026 draft of the proposed standards (Attachment II, Chapter 113, Subchapter B).

INVITATION to Texas SBOE MTG. THIS PM @ 7 PM on ZOOM RE: "Democrats seek to pause Texas’ social studies revamp over $70K grant from conservative think tank"

Friends,

At a moment when the future of public education in Texas is being actively shaped—and contested—I encourage you to tune in this evening at 7PM for an important Town Hall hosted by the Democratic members of the Texas State Board of Education.

This conversation centers on the proposed overhaul of the Social Studies TEKS standards, set for implementation in 2030—standards that will shape what over 5.5 million Texas students learn about history, democracy, and the world. Recent reporting raises serious questions about transparency, influence, and the integrity of the revision process, including a $70,000 grant from the Texas Public Policy Foundation to a university center led by a key adviser guiding these changes.

This is not simply about curriculum—it is about whose knowledge counts, how history is told, and whether public education will remain a space for critical inquiry or become further narrowed by ideological influence.

I strongly encourage you to read the article below in advance and come prepared to listen, learn, and engage.

Register here to attend: https://us05web.zoom.us/meeting/register/Lu49SiFeTGy3_UuBnzbVRw#/registration

These are decisions with long-term consequences. Your awareness—and your presence—matter.

With urgency and hope,

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Democrats seek to pause Texas’ social studies revamp over $70K grant from conservative think tank

The Texas Public Policy Foundation awarded the grant to Schreiner University’s Texas Center, which is led by a historian guiding the state in its social studies revision.

by Jaden Edison April 8, 2026, 3:36 p.m. Central

Marisa B. Perez-Diaz, the District 3 State Board of Education member, listens during public testimony on proposed revisions to the Social Studies Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards as the SBOE holds meetings at the Barbara Jordan State Office Building in Austin on April 7, 2026. Kaylee Greenlee for the Texas Tribune

Audio recording is automated for accessibility. Humans wrote and edited the story. See our AI policy, and give us feedback.

Democrats on the State Board of Education want to pause Texas’ overhaul of its social studies curriculum after finding out that the university department of a historian advising the group received a financial contribution from an influential conservative think tank.

In a letter provided to The Texas Tribune, Democrats raised concerns about a 2024 tax filing showing that the Texas Public Policy Foundation awarded $70,000 to the Texas Center at Schreiner University in Kerrville for the purposes of developing state learning standards, which outline what students should know before they graduate.

Donald Frazier, a Texas historian, is director of the Texas Center. Last year, State Board of Education members appointed him as one of nine expert advisers responsible for helping guide the state as it rewrites how public schools will teach social studies for years to come.

In the letter signed by all five Democrats on the board, members called for “a comprehensive and independent investigation” into the conditions of the $70,000 grant, agreements between Frazier and the conservative think tank and actions taken by Frazier during Texas’ social studies rewrite that may have influenced decisions.

“Given the scope and significance of this work, which impacts more than 5.5 million public school students across Texas, it is essential that the process remain transparent, objective, and free from undue influence,” the letter states.

“Board members have devoted significant time to hearing public testimony and reviewing extensive input from Texans across the state, many of whom have already expressed concern about the pace and transparency of this process,” the letter continues. “Proceeding without resolving these issues risks undermining public trust and calls into question the validity of any final decisions.”

In emails to the Tribune, Frazier defended the grant, saying his private university works with organizations from across the state. Frazier noted that as an adviser to the State Board of Education, he provides recommendations but that the board maintains final say on what students will be required to learn.

“Texas Public Policy hired us to discuss Texas ideas, which is what we do,” Frazier said. “Apparently, we are good enough at it that our time is valuable. The idea that I am some Great Oz figure with huge influence on this state board process, while flattering, is wishful thinking.”

“Clearly someone doesn’t like what I have to say, which is lamentable, but not surprising in today’s environment,” he added. “I’d love to visit with the aggravated folks one-on-one, or even face-to-face, but these accusers and insinuators have not reached out.”

Asked what he produced for the conservative organization, Frazier directed the Tribune to his department’s website, saying his passion is “demonstrating the connections between the world, US, and national story.”

The Texas Public Policy Foundation said in a statement, “This is obviously a delaying tactic by certain members of the SBOE.”

“They should focus on the quality and merits of the curriculum and ensure that Texas students are getting the best possible education,” said Brian Phillips, a spokesperson for the Austin-based conservative think tank.

Phillips did not immediately respond to follow-up questions about what Frazier’s team produced under the agreement.

The State Board of Education began last year to redesign Texas’ social studies standards. The board plans to vote on the standards this summer, with classroom implementation expected in 2030.

Up to this point, a Republican majority of the group has approved plans to center Texas and U.S. history in social studies while deemphasizing world cultures, world history and geography. The panel of nine advisers has helped guide the process, almost all of whom have no K-12 classroom experience in Texas and several of whom have ties to conservative activism.

Critics say the panel has assumed full control of Texas’ social studies rewrite and undermined teacher expertise, when in previous years, teachers have normally guided the process. Draft proposals of the social studies changes, critics argue, prioritize memorization over critical thinking and simplification over accuracy. They also say the current plan focuses heavily on Western civilization at the expense of other cultures, lacks historical perspective of people of color and prioritizes Christianity over other major world religions.

Frazier previously served as chair of Texas’ 1836 Project advisory committee — the state’s counter to The 1619 Project, a collection of essays from the New York Times that examined the foundational role slavery played in the forming of the U.S.

He was appointed a social studies adviser to the State Board of Education last year. Since then, he has become a vocal leader of the group, often one of the first to provide his thoughts and perspective in public meetings.

“I am pleased by the move toward a narrative approach to history, and an emphasis on Western Civilization as shaping the bedrock principles of our nation. I am glad to see an open discussion of Christianity as an influential force in shaping the American character,” Frazier recently wrote. “Other world religions are treated with respect in most cases, yet the single most important shaper of American culture is sometimes treated with trepidation. Mentioning Christianity is not proselytizing, but rather an admission of the reality of the history of the United States.”

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, meanwhile, holds significant influence in state politics, often hosting events with top Republican leaders, including Gov. Greg Abbott, and leading conservative policy debates at the Legislature. In the past year, the organization has been a strong advocate for a Texas-centric approach to social studies instruction.

During a September board meeting, Matthew McCormick, the organization’s education director, was asked directly by a board member if the group had any involvement in the development of the current social studies framework.

“TPPF was not involved,” McCormick responded.

On Tuesday, Democratic board member Marisa B. Pérez-Díaz asked Republican board chair Aaron Kinsey when the board could discuss the working relationship between Frazier and the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Several Republican board members objected to Pérez-Díaz asking questions about the connection, saying the board needed to instead focus on social studies content.

“One of the challenges with the question is she made an assertion that it was for a certain purpose — whatever she was talking about — some payment. I haven’t seen that,” Kinsey said of Pérez-Díaz’s inquiry. “I don’t know anything about any private contracts. I know about SBOE contracts; I know about my business contracts. I don’t know anything else, so I can’t tell you when I can advise on that, because I don’t have information on that. Nor do I anticipate giving information.”

Tom Maynard, one of two Republicans who appointed Frazier as an adviser on social studies standards — referred to as Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, or TEKS — called insinuations that Frazier engaged in wrongdoing “troubling.”

“I think the implication is that there’s some sort of quid pro quo,” Maynard said. “There’s no evidence, and it’s just a smear tactic, and I think it’s not productive. And I think we need to stay focused on what we’re doing here and move forward and get TEKS done and not play political games with this thing.”

Democrats, however, said they consider the process “too important to continue under a cloud of uncertainty.”

“We must ensure that any standards adopted by this board reflect the highest level of integrity,” their statement said, “and serve the best interests of all Texas students.”

Disclosure: New York Times, Schreiner University and Texas Public Policy Foundation have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Teaching Texas' 5.5 Million Children—While Avoiding Who They Are, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Teaching Texas' 5.5 Million Children—While Avoiding Who They Are

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

December 31, 2025

What is arguably already taking shape in Texas is an “avoidance curriculum”—one that seeks to evade the difficult truths of history by structuring out critical discourse, critical thought and, as a consequence, pedagogy itself. This reality begs a deeper question: Why do far-right conservatives exhibit such deep-seated shame about their own history—history that, in truth, belongs to all of us? And why must everyone else—most especially our public school children and youth—bear the consequences of this willful ignorance through a curriculum that avoids, rather than confronts, the complexities and painful truths of that history?

Reporting by Isaac Yu in the Austin American-Statesman on December 30 underscores a familiar and troubling pattern in Texas education policy: once again, communities of color and women risk being sidelined in the stories our children are taught to value. As the state undertakes a sweeping rewrite of its social studies standards—standards that will shape lesson plans, textbooks, and assessments for 5.5 million students—the process has become mired in political conflict over slavery, civil rights, Indigenous histories, and whose experiences are deemed central.

The rewrite is being steered primarily by the Texas State Board of Education, with support from the Texas Education Agency under Commissioner Mike Morath. Yet the advisory structure raises red flags: among nine content advisors, only one appears to have experience in Texas public schools, while several are conservative activists. Hence, not at all diverse. This imbalance matters because it produces predictable gaps, silences, and biases in what is included—and excluded—from the curriculum. Curriculum decisions are never neutral; they reflect values, power, and determinations about whose knowledge is considered legitimate.

Early signals from the new “comprehensive” framework suggest a narrowing of perspective—boosting Texas history while eliminating standalone world cultures courses and delaying sustained engagement with nonwhite histories until later grades. As Yu's story recounts, SBOE member Staci Childs poignantly asks, when do students who “look like me” get to see themselves in the curriculum?

Sadly, this shouldn't even be a question in the first place. That said, representation of women and people of color in the curriculum is the central question, especially considering Texas' rapidly changing demographics, as reported by the Texas Education Agency (2024).

Source: 2024 Annual Report - Student Demographics, Texas Education

Agency.

Of the roughly 5.5 million children enrolled in Texas public schools, the majority are students of color. According to the most recent enrollment data from the Texas Education Agency, Latina/o/x students make up just over half of the total population—about 53 percent, or approximately 2.9 million children. This makes Latina/o/x students not only the largest racial or ethnic group in Texas schools, but the "demographic center" of the system, if you will.

White students account for about 24 percent of public school enrollment, totaling roughly 1.3 million students. Black students represent about 13 percent, or approximately 720,000 children statewide. Asian students make up about 5 percent of enrollment, numbering roughly 275,000 students. Native American (American Indian/Alaska Native) students comprise less than 1 percent of the total—close to 55,000 children across the state.

In other words, nearly three out of every four students in Texas public schools are students of color. This demographic reality stands in sharp contrast to ongoing curriculum debates that risk narrowing historical representation, raising fundamental questions about whose histories, identities, and contributions are centered—and whose are deferred or diminished—in the education of Texas’ children.

Texas has time—final standards are slated for classrooms in 2030—but time alone will not ensure equity. Representation is not an add-on. It is foundational to civic understanding and belonging. If this rewrite proceeds without meaningful inclusion of scholars, teachers, and communities who reflect Texas’ full diversity, we risk entrenching an avoidance curriculum that tells far too many students that their histories—and by extension, their lives—do not actually matter in the story of our nation’s grand American narrative.

Texas is overhauling what students will learn in social studies and history. Here's what to know

By Isaac Yu,Staff WriterDec 30, 2025

People demonstrate Monday, Aug. 1, 2022, at the William B. Travis Building in Austin over the need for expansive and diverse social studies curriculum.William Luther, Staff Photographer / Staff photographer

A rewrite of Texas’ social studies curriculum is underway, with lawmakers, teachers and history enthusiasts at odds over exactly how to present the history of Texas and the United States to the state’s 5.5 million public school students. 

State education officials regularly review and revamp standards for all subjects. But the social studies rewrite in particular has become a thorny political process, with lawmakers clashing over the portrayal of slavery, civil rights, Indigenous people, the Alamo and other subjects. 

READ MORE: Texas SBOE backs far-right plan to deemphasize world history, cultures

The process will ultimately result in new state standards, known as Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, which form the basis of classroom teachers’ lesson plans, future textbook editions and the new iteration of the standardized STAAR test. 

Here’s what you need to know:

Who is writing the new curriculum?

The task of rewriting the curriculum is largely delegated to the 15-member State Board of Education, whose members are elected by voters. Currently, the board is made up of 10 Republicans and 5 Democrats. The Texas Education Agency, led by Commissioner Mike Morath, also provides assistance.

Teachers, educators, and members of the public from across Texas are also asked to provide input through several working groups convened by TEA, though those have yet to be formed.

READ MORE: Inside the 'power struggle' that led to former Alamo CEO Kate Rogers' ouster

State board members have also appointed nine content advisors to help guide the curriculum. They include several conservative Christian activists as well as the recently-ousted CEO of the Alamo Trust. Only one of the nine advisors appears to have experience working in a Texas public school.

Once the work groups form a draft curriculum, which is expected in January, the state board of education has a chance to amend and debate it before providing final sign-off in June. 

Why is Texas' social studies curriculum being overhauled now?

All state standards are reviewed by the State Board approximately every 15 to 20 years. The reviews can result in small or significant revisions.

The social studies standards were last scheduled to be reviewed in 2022. Working groups met over the course of nearly a year to draft the new state standards.

READ MORE: State board scraps new Texas social studies guidelines as critics decry ‘wokeness,’ LGBT themes

But once the drafts reached the state board, members began clashing over certain hot-button topics, with the most conservative members claiming the curriculum had been infused with “wokeness” and LGBT themes. 

Those tensions derailed the negotiations, and the board ultimately scrapped the drafts and voted to start fresh three years later. 

What changes are being made?

The state board has not yet released draft curriculum. But earlier this year, members agreed to a new framework that will determine which broad topics are introduced for grades 3-8. 

The new framework, known as the “comprehensive” model, introduces a novel chronological approach to history and signals that the process will result in drastically different new standards. The model, favored by conservatives on the board, boosts the proportion of Texas history, and removes standalone world cultures courses. Third grade will now begin with “birth of Western civilizations” and eighth grade will become a Texas history-only capstone course. 

Democrats on the board say the new framework reduces representation, will be more difficult for teachers to explain and delays lessons about nonwhite people to later grades.

“Looking at this storytelling thing, when do people that look like me, get to learn about themselves before the fifth grade?” said Staci Childs, D-Houston, pointing to herself and other Black or Hispanic members of the board. 

The standards are also being revised to align with recently-passed state law that requires students to be taught about the perils of communism.

The law says students must learn about "atrocities attributable to communist regimes," including the Cambodian genocide, guerilla movements in Latin America and the "oppression and suffering experienced by people living under communist regimes." The lessons must also touch on modern threats posed to the U.S. and its allies by communist regimes and ideologies. 

When will the new curriculum take effect?

The full standards will enter classrooms in the fall of 2030, according to the board’s most recently-approved timeline. They will apply to both traditional public and open-enrollment charter schools. 

The communism provisions, however, were written by lawmakers outside of the typical review cycle and will be incorporated during the 2026-2027 school year. 

Dec 30, 2025

Isaac Yu

ReporterOriginally from Garland, Texas, Isaac Yu is a politics reporter based in Austin. He previously wrote for the Texas Tribune, Wall Street Journal and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. He can be reached at isaac.yu@hearst.com.