How Texas’ Sweeping Curriculum Overhaul Is Already Changing the Market

What’s Being Reviewed

As part of its first call for instructional resources under HB 1605, the board of education requested submissions for the following subjects: K-5 ELA (Spanish language, also), K-3 Phonics and K-12 Math.

Similar to the previous process, panels of teachers, K-12 experts and community members are appointed by the board of education to review submitted products and provide feedback. Those stakeholders will submit a report to the state board in September, and the board will vote in November to approve its first set of products under the new law.

One of the key differences under the new process, Myers said, is that the review of instructional resources is “much more in-depth.” Products are not only being looked at for alignment to state standards — known as the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills or TEKS — but also for quality as determined by a new board of education rubric.

Also different: In the past, instructional materials had to meet 50 percent of Texas standards to be considered eligible for state board adoption. Now, those resources must meet 100 percent of state standards — if it’s a core curriculum product — to qualify for the state board adoption list.

What subjects can education publishers expect to come up during the board of education’s next call?

Nobody knows yet.

HB 1605 allows the state board to prioritize which subjects it wants to call for review, a major break from the previous system in which proclamations were set based on an adoption cycle.

Myers said that the board has discussed options for future review cycles at previous meetings, including supplemental or advanced math products and career and technology education curriculum. However, some board members seemed to prefer the idea of addressing core academic subjects first, she said.

“Hopefully we’ll get some decisions so publishers have a heads-up, and can prepare ahead of time,” said Myers. But “right now we don’t have a firm cycle for the review process.”

Message to Publishers: “You Had Better Be Ready”

Myers and Houston noted one subject that was part of the call received an usually low number of submissions, and several major education publishers did not submit products in another major subject.

A total of 18 companies submitted products for review in K-3 Phonics, the largest category.

For K-12 Math, a total of 10 companies submitted materials, a figure that Myers referred to as “healthy,” but smaller compared to the previous call for the same materials.

Of those 10 companies, it included a mix of familiar industry names — such as Curriculum Associates — and also some smaller publishers, Myers said. But three publishing heavyweights — HMH, McGraw Hill, and Savvas Learning — did not submit materials for K-12 math, “which is unusual in the Texas market,” Myers said.

And K-5 ELA only received two submissions: Savvas, and the Texas Education Agency’s state-developed curricula. Myers referred to the low turnout for K-5 ELA as “pretty unprecedented,” noting that in 2018 six or seven companies submitted materials for review.

Why did fewer companies submit materials for K-12 Math and K-5 ELA?

One possible reason: In the past, education companies might typically have 18 to 24 months lead time for product development around a call for new instructional materials. This time they had days to respond, said Houston.

The board of education made the call late on Feb. 23, a Friday afternoon, and materials had to be submitted by Monday, March 5, he said.

“The condensed timeline was a huge factor,” Houston said. The state wants “high-quality instructional materials, and to get high-quality instructional materials it’s going to take time and planning.”

What’s needed, he added, is “a roadmap for the industry to be able to say this is what we’re doing for our publishing plan, and the direction we want to go because we know this is where Texas plans to move forward.”

There’s an important lesson for education companies in all of this, Myers said:

“You had better be ready when that call comes out,” she said. “The publishers that submitted materials were ones that had products that were ready and met the Texas expectations.”

Changes in Buying Patterns

If an education company missed the short window to submit materials for the three subjects under review this year, they still have options.

As part of the new process, publishers can submit their materials to be reviewed for those three subjects next year, Houston said. Or even the year after that, as submissions can now happen on somewhat of a rolling basis after a call is made. “There is no timeline,” he said.

What does that mean for the market?

In the past, education companies could count on consistent district buying patterns in the first year of adoption, Houston said. Once the state board issued a proclamation for a subject, publishers could count on districts buying those products that year.

Not anymore, as the new law has potentially “fragmented” the market, Houston said.

Now, under HB 1605, districts might choose not to buy during the first year of an adoption cycle, and instead wait to see if different products become available in subsequent years.

“We have no idea how the districts … are going to be looking at this in a buying pattern going forward,” he said. “We’re all anxiously waiting and watching because we don’t know yet what districts may do.”

Under HB 1605, Texas is dedicating more money and resources to developing its own state-written curriculum, and, for the first time, is actively seeking state board approval of its own instructional materials.

If approved, the state’s curricula product would qualify for the $40 per-student incentive.

Those state-developed resources, produced by the Texas Education Agency, will be available to the more than 1,200 districts in the state, and will compete in the marketplace with traditional materials sold by education companies.

Myers called the state’s curriculum products a “wildcard” in the marketplace. As is the case in current law, school districts will still have the right to purchase materials off the state board-approved list, even though they will have incentives to buy from that list.

That creates something of a “bifurcated market, where there’s products with no incentives that districts are taking because they’re familiar with,” said Myers, “and then there’s going to be products potentially with the incentives that districts are taking because it’s cheaper for them.”

Revisions to Law Coming?

Houston said it’s likely the state legislature will adjust the law in some manner during its regular session that starts in January.

“It is so big and extensive, I can’t imagine that there won’t be some lessons learned over the past year and half.”

His advice for education companies: Learn as much as possible about the law, not just for internal strategy purposes but also for the sake of being more responsive to school districts.

“They’ve never gone through anything like this,” he said of school systems. Companies need to be “knowledgeable enough in the marketplace to explain to your school districts what’s going on, and how this is going to be different.”