TEKS REvisions

1^st Hearing of ELA/SLA Standards on Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Message from Pat Hardy:

I know this seems like a belated request, but this is the best time to contact board members to support my motion for the teachers’ recommended revisions to the experts’ draft of ELA TEKS. Here’s how the teachers’ recommendations were developed:

We began with the experts' document that received in December and posted on the TEA website. This is most important. This is not a separate document from that of the experts. The experts' document was the starting point and basis for this document.  

The final product reflects collaboration among individuals and organizations including the following:

• The original writing teams appointed by the board members
• Writing team subgroup called back by the TEA to check if the TEKS could be covered in a school year (whose work has been overlooked as far as I can tell)
• The eight ELAR organizations: CREST (Coalition of English and Reading Supervisors of Texas), TCTELA  (Texas Council of Teachers of English Language Arts), TALE (Texas Association for Literacy Education), TABE (Texas Association of Bilingual Education), TAIR (Texas Association for the Improvement of Reading), NWPT (National Writing Project of Texas), Texas ASCD (Texas Association of Curriculum Development), and TASA (Texas Association of School Administrators)
• The Higher Education Coordinating Board’s Report
• Victoria Young’s Report (on behalf of TCTELA)

Your help is needed to encourage SBOE members to vote for the teachers’ recommendations. The analysis and suggestions were developed by eight state organizations to improve the experts’ draft. (CREST (Coalition of English and Reading Supervisors of Texas), TCTELA (Texas Council of Teachers of English Language Arts), TALE (Texas Association for Literacy Education), TABE (Texas Association of Bilingual Education), TAIR (Texas Association for the Improvement of Reading), NWPT (National Writing Project of Texas), Texas ASCD (Texas Association of Curriculum Development), TASA (Texas Association of School Administrators). Additional suggestions were also integrated from reports by the Higher Education Coordinating Board and Victoria Young representing TCTELA.

Please send a succinct email and/or phone message in your own words to board members (see contact information below) stating your support for the teachers’ versus the experts’ version. The experts’ standards are posted on the TEA website (here) but are also presented in this document with  the teachers’ version highlighted in blue.

There will be a public hearing on Tuesday, January 31 with a preliminary vote on February 1, 2017, and a final vote for 1^st hearing on Friday, February 3, 2017. Pat Hardy will make a motion at the SBOE meeting on Wednesday for acceptance of the teacher’s annotation to the experts’ draft. Please compare both versions and share your support for the teachers’ recommendations before Tuesday. The version receiving the vote will be posted on the Texas Register for public commentary for 30 days. Second reading and final adoption will be April 18-21, 2017. You may sign up to present by 5:00 p.m., and you may watch webcasts of SBOE meetings (here).

Send an email to your SBOE representative and cc these two TEA email addresses: sboesupport@tea.texas.gov and to renee.jackson@tea.texas.gov. The first email will send your response to all board members; the second address will go to Renee Jackson at TEA who will keep a count of emails received regarding TEKS revisions. Her contact numbers are: SBOE office (512) 463-9007 and fax (512) 936-4319. Here’s the link to find your SBOE representative: (here).

Your brief response needs to be sent soon before the 1^st hearing to let board members know you support the teachers’ annotations to the experts’ draft.

Thanks so much for sharing your voice in behalf of teachers and students in Texas.

Pat Hardy

District	Name	Area	Phone	Email
1	Georgina Perez	El Paso and Southwest TX	915-261-8663	GeorginaPerezSBOE@gmail.com
2	Ruben Cortez	Corpus to Rio Grande Valley	956-639-9171	Rubencortezfortexas@gmail.com
3	Marisa Perez	San Antonio	512-422-9019	marisa@arisabperez.com
4	Lawrence Allen	Houston	713-203-1355	Lallen1@houstonisd.org
5	Ken Mercer	San Antonio	512-463-9007	kbamercer@sbcglobal.net
6	Donna Bahorich	Houston	832-303-9091	donna.bahorich@tea.texas.gov
7	David Bradley	Galveston-Beaumont	409-835-3808	sboesupport@tea.texas.gov
8	Barbara Cargill	North of Houston	512-463-9007	sboecargill@sbcglobal.net
9	Keven Ellis	Behind the Pine Curtain	512-710-7915	EllisSBOE@gmail.com
10	Tom Maynard	Austin	512-763-2801	tom@maynardfortexas.com
11	Pat Hardy	Fort Worth	817-598-2968	phardy@weatherfordisd.com
12	Tincy Miller	Dallas/Plano	214-522-1610	Tincymiller35@gmail.com
13	Erika Beltran	Dallas-FW	650-269-8544	ms.erika.beltran@gmail.com
14	Sue Melton	Central TX/Denton	254-749-0415	Smelton51@gmail.com
15	Marty Rowley	Panhandle	806-374-4600	marty@martyrowley.com

Explanation of the Teachers’ Annotations

Today I present the English Language Arts and Reading Texas Knowledge and Skills document begun by the teacher writing teams and further refined by five “experts” chosen by the State Board of Education. During the past year the teachers, the leaders of the nine literacy organizations (CREST, TCTELA, TABE, TALE, TASA, ASCD, TAIR, Texas Writing Project and TABE) worked together with many web-based meetings. The five “experts” met over the course of the last five months both in person and on webinars, and finally the literacy organizations met to align the document both vertically and horizontally across the K-12 grade levels. Additional feedback from the TCTELA forum under Victoria Young, Regions 4 and 6, Fort Bend County, Barbara Cargill, Collaborative for Children, and Chairperson Donna Bahorich are included.

Even though the “experts” met several times, there was still not enough time for the final development of full alignment and final checks for developmentally appropriate standards. We greatly appreciate the four pages of careful suggestions from Victoria Young as well as the contributions from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and the bilingual community. Presented here is the most recent copy from the work of the writing committee and the five “experts” who further aligned and refined the ELAR document. Below each cell is carefully crafted wording suggested by the nine professional organizations and Victoria Young who further refine both wording and alignment. Outlined below are suggestions that explain this well-crafted document.

The Introduction remains generally consistent with the change of eight to seven strands that currently exist: Foundational Skills, Comprehension, Response, Multi Genres, Author’s Purpose and Craft, Composition and Speaking, and Inquiry and Research. The introduction outlines the philosophical thinking for standards in today’s English language art and reading classroom, with a heavy emphasis upon thinking. The introduction explains the structure of the seven strands and how it parallels and augments the teaching and learning of the language arts. Furthermore, there is explicit attention paid to the English Language Learner (ELL), and to culture and the historical context of language and literature.

Strand One, Foundational Skills sets the stage for the importance of self-selected texts and oral language as the foundation of the language arts followed by the skills involved in learning to identify words, vocabulary development, fluency, and collaborate in the learning of the language arts.

•     Self-selected text is placed at the beginning as per a request from nine members of the SBO.

•     Summarization is deleted because it is covered under comprehension.

•     Oral language is refined.            

•     Fluency wording is more carefully aligned.

Stand Two, Comprehension has very few suggested changes.

•     The word “revise” is added to the reading process.

•     The words “Self to Self, Self to Text and Self to Word” are added to the section on making connections because that is the language teachers and students know and use.

•     Other changes to strand two only help make the wording of the experts’ draft more concise and accurate.

Strand Three, Response adds very few changes with only a few language changes for conciseness and accuracy. These few changes in this area address the THECB comments to have thinking stressed across the genres and processes.

Strand Four, Multi Genres adds the words “American, British and World literature” to the Knowledge and Skills statement becauseK-12 teachers draw from many resources, rather than listing possible genres which limit possibilities. Broad categories (story, drama and poetry) are preferable.

•     The words “cultural and historical” are added.

•     Multimodal is re-introduced as per requests from nine members of the SBOE because this is what students are reading today from many types of reading modes.

•     Literary nonfiction is added to the Information section.

Strand Five, Author’s Purpose and Craft re-introduces the word “purpose” because purpose drives the reason for writing and reading, speaking, listening, and thinking.

•     Teachers request that literary devices not be introduced until 3rd or 4th grades.

•     There are over 160 rhetorical and literary devices used in literature, so teachers suggest that “such as” be used and no specific device required at particular grade levels. The readings dictate the literary devices to be studied and used in writing with mentor texts.

Strand Six, Composition and Presentation includes few changes.

•     As per the THECB some consolidation is made in the grammar section.

•     Presentation is placed back into the knowledge and skills because the same expectations are required for both composition and presentation.

•     Changes in this section are only for clarity.

•     Spelling is also entered here from K-12 with “adult assistance” in K-1. The encoding process is spelled out in the Foundation Strand One.

Strand Seven, Inquiry and Research includes only slight changes to align and clarify so that vocabulary is consistent across the grades.

Key Points about Teachers’ Annotations for Improvement

to the December Experts’ Draft

• The framework of the seven strands allow local school districts flexibility for local curriculum design by integrating student expectations from any or all strands into units of study to meet specific needs of students.

• It is important to develop curriculum from an aligned document since skills are recursive and progressive, with no need to repeat specifics across grades.

• Some rows are combined to keep topics on the same lines and to group items so that they span the grade levels (editing for semicolon use collapsed into punctuating with semicolons).

• Some suggestions to move rows are made to show developmental progression of skills.

• Skills are higher order as a result of verb changes (using “analyze” rather than “identify” and “revise” rather than “correct”) and more rigorous as a result of moving skills to lower grades where appropriate (starting complex sentences in fourth grade rather than sixth grade).

• Phrasing is clearer (“text to text” rather than “ideas found in other texts”).

• Phrasing provides greater flexibility in teacher choice of texts and materials (using “such as” rather than “including,” or in some standards, removing examples altogether).

• Terms are clarified (“informational text” defined as literary nonfiction, historical, scientific, and technical; “information” defined as “viewed, heard or read”).
• Terms are consistent (using “thesis” in K-12 rather than confusion with grade band-specific “main idea”/”controlling idea”/”thesis”).
• Terms are holistic, encompassing a range of elements (using the term “personal connections”; using the term “features” to encompass print, graphic, and digital features).

• A knowledge and skills statement and additional expectations for collaboration omitted by the experts are added to Strand 1 (1.6) to situate the student expectations in a context.

• Skills are clearer as a result of removing redundancy (“work productively with others” rather than “work collaboratively with others”).
• The Multi Genres strand’s knowledge and skills statement addresses the need for diverse texts and includes American, British, and world authors because they are studied not only in literary texts but also in informational and argumentative texts at all grade levels instead of designated for specific grades in high school.

• The Multiple Genres strand is preceded by expectation (A) focusing on how forms and structures are the same and different within and across genres. The subcommittee charged with determining if the TEKS could be reasonably taught in one year suggests that (A) be struck from the proposed standards. If Multiple Genres (A) remains, students would not be able to master the proposed standard in a year.

• The Multi Genres strand integrates the two separate sub strands for literary elements and literary genre in the experts’ draft into sub strand (B) literary texts. Because of this reorganization, the numbering of recommended sub strands out-of-order will be corrected before publication.

• Text forms and structures are also addressed in the student expectations in Multiple Genres (B-literary, C-informative, D-argumentative, and E-multimodal) K-12 and in Author’s Purpose and Craft (B) for K-12.

• Multimodal texts (omitted in the experts’ draft) is added to Strand 4 (E) in acknowledgment of how texts combine modes and ways in which modern texts have changed and will continue to change.