Curriculum Choices Limited To Non-Existent

The state imposed Bluebonnet Learning curriculum was up for consideration at the San Angelo Independent School District’s Board of Trustees meeting last Tuesday. But there seemed to be little enthusiasm in the room for it. The Board ultimately tabled the vote until Trustee Bill Dendle could be present. The Board will vote on the curriculum on March 10, 2025. Nevertheless, Dr. Farrah Gomez, Deputy Superintendent and Chief Academic Officer gave a full presentation about the proposed curriculum to the Board. Trustees had the opportunity to ask questions and get clarification from Dr. Gomez and Superintendent Dr. Christopher Moran.

With Bluebonnet Learning, the State educational bureaucracy has offered school district a Hobson’s Choice of elementary curriculum. No real choice at all. Its impact on SAISD and the education of San Angelo’s children has far reaching impacts. While Dr. Gomez and the District staff tried to present the curriculum in a positive light, most of the public commenters and several Trustees seemed to be having none of it.

Overview Of The Process

Dr. Gomez’s presentation began by focusing on HB 1605 and the new process it created for approval of curriculum for use in public schools. At first she noted that the District and Board had been having discussions about this curriculum for a considerable period of time. The discussions about the K-5 curriculum began six months ago.

Dr. Gomez outlined that HB 1605 changed the criteria for approved curriculum. Now the criteria for approval of a district’s curriculum by the State Board of Education (SBOE) are:

• Coverage of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)
• Quality
• No three-cueing content in K–3 reading 
• Suitable for grade and subject  
• No obscene or harmful content, including compliance with the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), TEC, §28.0022, and Penal Code 43.22 
• Free from factual error  
• Physical and electronic specifications 
• Parent portal compliance 
• The financial impacts for schools are also considerable. In addition to the basic allotment the state provides for text books and technology, there is a $40 per student supplement for every student in the district if the district adopts one of the approved curriculum. If the district chooses a “state owned curriculum” the district will receive and extra $20 per student enrolled. The amount received is based on the total enrollment of the district, not just the enrollment for K-5.

Parent transparency is a key component of the new regime. Districts must provide a portal for parents to be able to review the materials their children will be learning.

Financial Incentives For State Owned Curriculum

The State owned textbook is probably the biggest change, and one Texas has never seen before. If the District were to adopt the stated owned curriculum, it stands to receive an additional $1.2 Million from the State. SAISD could choose another approved curriculum (other than the state owned Bluebonnet Learning), but it would receive only $1 Million in additional money. If the District approves any other curriculum (not a state owned or state approved curriculum), it would have to go through a lengthy approval process. The administration recommends the Board of Trustees adopt Bluebonnet Learning as the Districts K-5 curriculum

Board Trustee Dr. Kyle Mills observed that the District has few options. Board President Dr. Taylor Kingman echoed that sentiment. “Some of this is coming from the House Bill,” Kingman said. “You may not like option a or option b but you have to pick one of them.”

Materials Are “Crap”

Karen Best read from long passages of the first grade reader. She pointed out how poorly the passages were written and called them “crap.” Even to this reporter the readings were confusing and made no sense. Best said this was not learning and complained about all the pressure put on districts by the State to “accept this crap.”

The materials were not peer reviewed, Angela Bible, a teacher at SAISD, complained. All the materials were not even out yet. “The lessons were too scripted,” and took too much discretion away from the teacher. She was afraid SAISD could not absorb the lawsuits that were likely to follow. Bible advised waiting a year and see how this curriculum worked in practice before adopting it.

Gretchen Smith, also a teacher, found the materials to be America-centric and Christo-centric. Other than the religious complaints, she too found the materials too scripted and dependent on work sheets. There are also no suggestions for modifications for students with a disability or who are considered gifted and talented.

Complaints About Religion and Proselytizing Common

Shanna Payne, another teacher complained about the infusion of Biblical reading into the curriculum, including the creation story and the parable of the prodigal son. She said she did not want to be responsible for children’s religion education. As far as the academic side, she did not like the absence of children’s literature in the lessons. In her opinion the curriculum offered no way to foster a love of books and reading in children. She also did not believe the pacing of the lessons was sufficient to pass the STARR test.

Alexandra Luning, a parent, complained that the materials go far beyond just a knowledge of religion. It is too lecture based and spends too much time on the books of Genesis. The lesson on Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail is sanitized she claimed, “and its meaning stripped away”. Critical thinking has been sacrificed, she said.

Bree Berger spoke next. She is a military spouse. Her children are half Jewish. She did not believe that religion should be taught in public schools. “This is what private schools are for.” Berger said.

Jessie Ramon, an adult educator, said that he can’t get his hands on the curriculum, and neither could the Board. He requested that the Board not vote on a curriculum they have not been able to read in its entirety. He complained about the transparency of the process and called the State’s insistence that we vote on a curriculum we have not seen “outrageous.”

Comments In Favor Of The Curriculum

Ginger Moore was the only member of the public who spoke in favor of Bluebonnet Learning. She claimed to have testified in Austin in favor of the curriculum. What she liked about it was that it was all paper and pencil and there was no screen time on iPads and that it taught cursive handwriting. She supported the Judeo-Christian values taught in the curriculum. “These are the values we used to teach,” Moore said. (Note: “Judeo-Christian values” were never part of the official curriculum of Texas Public Schools. They also are not part of TEKS. So far as we can tell, the only Bible courses taught in Texas before HB 1605 were The Bible as Literature. This was an elective course offered only in high school.)

The Board will take Bluebonnet Learning up again at its next meeting on March 10, 2025 at 5:45 p.m. at the SAISD Administration Building 1621 University Drive San Angelo, Texas.