Standards, Curriculum & Instruction — Part 3: Instruction

DISCLAIMER: This blog is the third in a series designed to educate and inform readers on the differences between standards, curriculum, and instruction. These blogs are not an endorsement of Common Core State Standards.

In our previous article we defined educational standards and curriculum. In this article we show the relationship between standards, curriculum and instruction. This beginning article on instruction will provide a general overview. In future articles we will explore specific approaches to instruction.

Standards are the expectations, or goals, that are established to drive student learning and mastery of content and grade levels. Curriculum is a method of ordering standards in concise tools for teachers to use to plan lessons and help inform teachers as they create their instruction. Curriculum is WHAT content the teacher delivers to students. Instruction is HOW teachers deliver that content.

Instruction is the method or way of teaching students. The standards, or goals, will never be achieved without a guaranteed viable curriculum. But, that is not enough. Without effective instruction, even the best curriculum cannot lead a student to success. Effective instruction is the most critical factor in student success.

There are a variety of instructional strategies that have been used by teachers to deliver content to students, making every students probability for success very dependent on the instructional approach in the classroom. Some teachers have stood before their students and lectured for hours and hours to deliver content with little or no student interaction (i.e., Lecture). Other teachers have repeated information over and over again (i.e., “Drill and Kill”), forcing students to memorize endless facts without explanation or discovery of their origin. And some teachers have passed out worksheets for students to complete while the teachers retreat to their desk (i.e., Teacher-Centered Instruction).

While many of us have experienced teachers who have used these types of instructional techniques educational researchers have discovered through peer reviewed research and study that these instructional techniques are NOT EFFECTIVE.

For example, many of us had to memorize the 50 state capitals during our time in school.  While this information stayed with some of us, many people have forgotten over time. Unless you are a geography teacher or a contestant on a game show, have you ever had a need in your life to know the 50 state capitals?

Or, would it have been more useful for you to understand why these capitals were chosen?  Maybe study the various forms of state government throughout the United States? Or perhaps to think critically about how they were built and the concepts around how they became central hubs for government?

Although you may have forgotten the factual parts of those questions, the real skills you would have acquired are the ability to think and process information related to those capitals, which are attributes that employers seek in the workplace.

Research in the area of instruction tells us that effective instruction includes a small group environment, working on projects that are designed to push students to think critically.  In addition, teachers serve as facilitators of student learning, guiding students through cross-curricular lessons and infusing technology into the instruction where necessary and appropriate.

The table below outlines several strategies, their characteristics, examples, and classroom effectiveness.

Category Characteristics Examples Effectiveness
Direct Instruction Teacher-directed, practice and drill Teacher lecture, demonstrations Effectiveness is limited to providing information, step by step skills, and basic knowledge construction.
Indirect Instruction Inquiry, induction, student-centered Reflective, discussion, problem-solving, guided inquiry Very effective for problem-solving, life-long learning, student motivation, comparing/contrasting, influence, predicting, summarizing, and analyzing.
Interactive Instruction Peer-learning, discussion, multiple solutions Socratic discussions, collaborative learning, debates Very effective for debates, brainstorming, and problem-solving
Experiential Learning Hands-on learning, active participation, analysis, application Project-based learning, problem -based learning, simulations, lab experiments, building models, surveys Most effective. Greatly increases understanding and retention compared to other strategies. Increases student motivation
Independent Study student-decision making, analysis, self-reliance Student centers, research projects, flipped learning, essays, computer assisted instruction, online instruction Very effective in developing student initiative, self-reliance, self-improvement, and lifelong learning.

Most educators agree that teachers should have enough autonomy to make the best instructional decisions for their classrooms. However, all teachers should be held accountable for implementing the curriculum and using classroom strategies that best meet the needs of their students. A skilled teacher will use a mix of each of these strategies when they are appropriate. For example, when given the TEKS standard:

1.6A The student is expected to: classify and sort regular and irregular two-dimensional shapes based on attributes using informal geometric language,

it would not make sense for a teacher to lecture on the differences between regular and irregular two-dimensional shapes. First grade students are not likely to retain information from a demonstration on an overhead projector describing the differences between regular and irregular two-dimensional shapes. It would be much more effective to provide the students with actual hands-on experience sorting the shapes and classifying the differences on their own, with teacher guidance.

Effective teachers analyze the standards and the curriculum to determine the best strategy for their students. Ineffective teachers stick to one approach and choose that approach based on the teacher’s needs rather than the needs of the students.

The reality in education is that the game has changed. The game changer is technology. Technology has created access to knowledge that our world has never seen. As such, students no longer have a need to regurgitate the capitals of the 50 states and they no longer need the teacher to drill and kill those capitals. Teachers are no longer the supreme keepers of the information; Google now has the stronghold on that. Facts are free and readily available.

However, what Google can’t do is help students facilitate, analyze, synthesize or process this knowledge. They need a teacher for that. They need a teacher who can take well-written standards, use a powerful curriculum tool, and plan research-based instruction to help facilitate a purposeful learning environment for students that will help them think critically about the information that is being delivered.

This is learning in the 21st century.  It’s not a conspiracy.

Standards, Curriculum & Instruction — Part 2: Curriculum

DISCLAIMER: This blog is the second in a series designed to educate and inform readers on the differences between standards, curriculum, and instruction. These blogs are not an endorsement of Common Core State Standards.

In our previous article we defined educational standards. In this article we show the relationship between standards and curriculum and why it is necessary for a school district to have curriculum to meet the educational standards. Consider the following:

  • Does it make sense to teach World War I before World War II?
  • Should a teacher conduct a lesson on area before showing her students what a square looks like?
  • How many different ways are there to teach multiplication? When should it be taught?

The three examples above are all expectations derived from our state standards that Texas students are required to learn. Educational standards, like the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), are goals. These goals inform educators and parents about the content and skills their students are to master in a given school year. Unfortunately, these goals don’t come with a plan. We want our students to know and understand concepts from World War II but much of that lesson will be lost if World War I wasn’t covered first.  It would be impossible to measure area unless we know what the square looks like. And multiplication can be taught in multiple ways for visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners.

Below, is a real example from the Texas standards (TEKS). Each of the four standards are exactly the same at the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th grade:

Screen Shot 2014-06-08 at 5.42.06 PM

Common sense would tell you that a teacher would not teach these concepts exactly the same at the third grade level as she would at the sixth grade level. But, teachers need a plan to know what should be mastered at the 3rd grade level to be prepare for the 4th grade level and so on. This is why school districts need curriculum. While standards are goals, curriculum is the plan to meet the goals. Curriculum is a detailed description of how students and teachers interact with specific content in a specific sequence over a school year to meet the educational standards. The execution of the curriculum, or plan, is the instruction.

Standards are typically written in a plain, straightforward language and are designed to simply state a student expectation of learning. However, the standard does not explain HOW to teach the student expectation or WHAT materials to use to allow the student to demonstrate mastery on the standard. Standards are goals and do not specify curriculum, textbooks, workbooks, or lesson plans, all of these things are at the discretion of the district. It is good that the districts have this discretion. They each have different needs and require the ability to determine which curriculum would best meet those needs.

Research has shown that one of the most effective tools in successful schools is a guaranteed, viable curriculum. A guaranteed and viable curriculum is one that guarantees equal opportunity for learning for all students and adequate time for teachers to teach content and for students to learn it. District curriculum is a large body of work and it takes trained educators to ensure the that a curriculum is guaranteed and viable. Educators who write curriculum must be familiar with the state standards, understand the conceptual development of subject matter over several grade spans, and have adequate time to plan and write the curriculum.  Often, the process includes master teachers who meet over the summertime, evaluate the current curriculum, suggest changes based on data, and then train colleagues on the new curriculum when school begins. Unfortunately, many of the districts in Texas do not have the resources to write their own curriculum.

Another struggle for school districts in Texas is the ever changing nature of our standards. Every time the TEKS are changed, districts have to rewrite their curriculum. The same is true for the timing of the state assessments (STAAR/EOC). The assessments are the means for the state to determine if students have met the goals (standards). For a curriculum to be guaranteed and viable, a district has to have a curriculum (plan) to make sure all of the content and skills are mastered at the time of assessment. Everytime the date of an assessment changes, the district has to update the curriculum to ensure there is adequate time for teachers to teach content and for students to learn it. In other words, curriculum is a very necessary,  never ending process and expense for school districts.

What are these districts to do? Some districts have joined together to write curriculum. Some use the curriculum of larger districts that have the resources to write their own curriculum. Many have purchased curriculum for their districts. There are several curricula available for schools in Texas. One very popular curriculum is the TEKS Resource System (TRS) curriculum, formerly known as CSCOPE. Once plagued by controversy over a few lessons created for instruction (not curriculum), the TRS is now just a curriculum built to be guaranteed and viable for Texas school districts.

There are other curricula used in Texas schools. For example, if a student is in an Advanced Placement course, the instructor is required to use the AP curriculum. When Texas was one of the largest consumers of national curriculum, publishing companies used to write curriculum to meet the Texas standards. However, with the adoption of the Common Core standards in 43 states, we are no longer a top priority for these publishing companies. Therefore, most the curriculum published is aligned with the Common Core. Publishing companies haven’t forgotten the Lone Star state. They now retrofit the curricula written for Common Core to meet the TEKS. As a result, much of what we see in Texas, created at a national level, will be considered aligned with the Common Core.

The national organizations who write these curriculum follow a process to develop their content. The writers collect and analyze standards from all 50 states and attempt to align similar standards found in each state.  It is common to find standards in some states that are not found in others.

All of this begs the question: How do we ensure that our districts are not using Common Core standards? The answer has already been given. The goal for all of our educators in Texas is to meet the standards given to us by the state of Texas, the TEKS. The plan is to have a curriculum that is guaranteed and viable to meet this goal. Teachers will execute this plan with high quality instruction based on their curriculum.

Since a variety of instructional materials are frequently used by teachers to meet their standards, one could expect to see a worksheet, lesson plan, workbook, or instructional guide with the words “Common Core Aligned” printed on the material; especially since 41 states (40 as of Thursday, June 5, as Oklahoma has dropped CCSS) have adopted CCSS and Internet resources with a “Common Core” label are easily found. This simply means that the curriculum writer who developed that content went through a process of aligning similar standards from a particular state with the Common Core Standards.

In fact, if a district has adopted a national curriculum to meet the state standards, teachers may have to use instructional materials that are “aligned” with the Common Core. Consider this, humans share 92% of their DNA with mice. But, mice and humans look nothing alike. The TEKS share 68% of their standards with Common Core. The curriculum and instruction in Texas classrooms will look nothing like Common Core, or we won’t meet our goal. In part three of our series, we will examine classroom instruction and the variety of instructional techniques teachers can use to process both standards and curriculum.

Ten Things Texas Students Need for the 21st Century Classroom

Our world, our nation, and our state are a changing at a rapid rate.  As the world changes, the goals and methods of public education must change as well to prepare students for the requirements they’ll face in the 21st century. We can no longer rely on outdated practices, technology, and approaches.

Our future is dependent on producing students who can think critically, collaborate, and produce project and systems driven assignments. We have talented students in our schools, and it’s time to give them the tools they need to be the next generation of great leaders. So what does Texas’ public education system need to keep up with the needs of educating a changing workforce?

1)   Update the cost of education
Simple fact: The state of Texas has not updated the cost of education since 1991.  We are currently funding schools using a complicated funding formula based on data that is more than 22 years old – from a time when a gallon of gas cost $1.12, a pound of bacon cost $1.95, and Internet usage reached a whopping one million users. Fortunately, the ruling from the most recent school finance law suit will likely require the state legislature to update the Cost of Education Index (CEI), which will create a new baseline for funding.  The adequacy and equity will hopefully come later.

2)   Funding
Once the state of Texas updates the CEI, the need for adequate and equitable funding for Texas schools will be paramount. Texas is the second most populous state in the US with a growing population of students.  Among these students are immigrants, students whose first language is not English, students in poverty, and students with special academic needs.  These are aspects of our schools that are costly and desperately need attention by the state.  Funding our schools is complicated and will require strong leadership in the next couple of years to see it through.  This important need and constitutional requirement cannot be ignored and is a critical for the future our state.

3)   Reduce the class size
After $5.4 billion was cuts from Texas school funding by the Texas legislature in 2011, many school districts adjusted by reducing teachers and raising the numbers of students in classrooms.  School districts across the state asked for record numbers of waivers from the Texas Education Agency to increase class sizes beyond the required 22:1 in grades K-4.  As the 83rd legislature returns some (but not all of the lost) funding to schools, it will be imperative for school districts to work to reduce the student to teacher ratio. Students are easier to mange, instruct, and are more engaged in smaller classrooms.  This is also a similar argument used by charter school advocates to promote more charter schools across the state.  Again, with adequate and equitable funding, manageable class sizes – for all grade levels – is essential.

4)   Technology
How quickly do things change?  Five years ago, Twitter, Facebook, and iPads were not found in any classroom in America; now they are essential.  The methods by which we need to educate students have to change and that will happen through technology.  Many students today are coming to school as “digital natives,” having experienced a wide range of technology but are not being allowed to use that experience in the classroom environment for a variety of reasons (lack of funding, equipment, training, ideology, etc.) Nonetheless, technology is here to stay and will continue to change through the life of our students. In addition, the education research related to instructional technology is conclusive that it has a significant place in our schools and in our students’ learning.

5)   College Readiness
Many of the jobs that will be available to high school graduates in 15 to 20 years will more than likely require a college degree.  This is a simple fact. More jobs are requiring students with prerequisite knowledge that can only be attainted through higher education in a two-year or four-year setting.  In addition, our students will be in significant competition with students from India, China, Japan, and Western Europe for the top jobs in engineering, science, math, and technology.  Our students will need to be critical thinkers, creators, evaluators, and more than likely need to speak more than one language –not French, German, or Italian – but Farsi, Hindi, Mandarin, or Spanish.

As such, it will be essential that we provide challenging instruction for students, promote them to take upper academic courses, and have better advising for them to promote careers that best support their individual skill sets.  As we work to differentiate their instruction through their lives, we may also need to differentiate their career choices when they are ready for the “real world.”  This means helping to make our kids “college ready” and “ready for college.”

6)   Best practices
In every profession, people maintain their skills through professional development and practice.  Education is no different.  There are countless conferences, staff development sessions, and other learning opportunities that education professionals attend—year round—to maintain required certifications and improve their craft.  This is commonplace in education. However, professional development has been cut in recent years due to the school finance crisis.  There have been less opportunities for educators to travel for staff development sessions or for districts to bring staff developers into their district.  Training is being compromised and students will ultimately feel the impact.

As such, it is increasingly important that educators are using the best practices research has to offer in our profession. We have a multitude of research to support the best instructional (Marzano, Danielson), discipline (Sprick), classroom management (Danielson, Jones, Emmer), and curriculum (English, Resnick, Stenhouse) and educators needs to employ these strategies early and often in our classrooms.  We are at a time when parents and politicians are expecting the best from our schools; we need to offer them the best.

7)   Support programs for students in poverty
Federal sequestration has hurt our poorest schools by cutting funding to low socioeconomic schools.  In addition, the poverty rate among children in Texas is significant at 25%,presenting a clear need for quality programs for students in poverty.  Texas schools will need more social workers, food programs, tutoring opportunities, and increased personnel to help teach, support, and grow our students.  Research tells us that students in poverty come to our schools with learning gaps, family problems, and a culture of low expectations. In addition, education has a habit of placing teachers with alternative certifications or limited experiences in our highest need schools. These schools, students, and teachers need our help and support to meet the expectations of state testing, college readiness, and the public.

8)   Deeper understanding of our changing population
Our state is changing.  Texas’ Hispanic population is growing, we have more children, we have more Spanish speakers, and we have more poor people than ever before.  However, our legislature is primarily made up of white men with private school educations from affluent areas of Texas.  This dichotomy in ideology and lack of understanding of our changing population cannot continue. Ultimately, it will hurt our schools. Our state must understand and adapt to our changing population by implementing training, funding, and supporting the educational system that will ready the next generation of Texas’ workforce.

9)   Instructional differentiation
We can no longer teach like we did 50, 25, 10, or even five years ago.  Technology has changed much of this need, but so has a significant amount of quality research dedicated to instruction.  In addition, our students are not “one size fits all”; meaning that one type of instructional technique is not going to work for every student.  We have a variety of students with various learning needs.  Special education students often need very different instructional techniques as gifted students do.  The same can be said for Hispanic students and white students.  The method of delivery must be adapted to meet the needs of the students.

Texas teachers will need help in learning various instructional techniques and be provided training on how technology can enhance and improve the learning experience of our students.  In many school districts, teachers are turning to Twitter chat sessions and Pinterest to work with educators nationwide to learn ways to improve instruction in the classroom.

There are many different ways to teach a single concept and teachers need to employ as many ways as possible.

10) Early childhood education
I want to make a bold suggestion that would be a significant paradigm shift in education:  it’s time to change the first grade. No longer should first grade be for six year olds.  First grade should begin at three years old.  The education gap is a significant challenge for our schools, as educators cannot control the level to which students are prepared before they enter school.

Many parents have the time, resources, and interest in providing their children various opportunities to prepare them for school before they begin and many parents do not have these resources or desire. It’s time that Texas schools take the lead and begin to close that gap by providing high quality instruction for children as young as three years old.

Many students begin kindergarten without having learned their alphabet, numbers, colors, or shapes when these concepts could be captured earlier in life. In addition, the very young brain is a sponge that soaks everything it can when it is in tune with the environment.  We can teach our young children two languages at once, provide opportunities to experience their environment through local travel, give them opportunity to interact with other children, adults, and various types of technology.  These learning experiences will close the education gap that so many of our students in poverty encounter and set our students up for fruitful adult lives.

Standards, Curriculum & Instruction – Part 1: Standards

DISCLAIMER: This blog is the first in a series designed to educate and inform readers on the differences between standards, curriculum, and instruction. These blogs are not an endorsement of Common Core State Standards.

What are Standards?

We all have standards. There are personal standards, moral standards, national and community standards, standards of living, standard measurement, even military and gold standards. All of these standards establish a baseline within the respective area that we as a society collectively accept.

Simply put:
· A mile will be 5,280 feet no matter where you drive.
· A dollar is accepted all over the United States.
· Running water and indoor plumbing are requirements.

While our personal standards may be different, (i.e. Lexus vs. Toyota, Motel 6 vs. Omni Hotels, McDonald’s vs. In ‘n Out Burger) our community standards are mutually agreed upon through a social contract. This includes our educational standards.

What are the TEKS?

By the year 2000 every state had some form of education standards in place for their public schools. Education standards are the learning goals for what students should know and be able to do at each grade level in each subject. These standards help educators ensure students have the knowledge and skills they need to be successful. Each state decides differently on which standards they would adopt for their public schools. And, it is important to note that each state still has the right to make these decisions.

In Texas, the education standards are referred to as the TEKS or Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. The TEKS were developed and implemented September 1998 in response to the growing technology needs of the state. The TEKS was originally “mandated only for foundation subjects such as math, English language arts, science, and social studies. Since September 2003, TEKS-compatible instruction is now required in both Foundation and Enrichment subject areas”.

The TEKS were written and reviewed by teachers, professors, administrators, community members, businesses, and approved by the State Board of Education. They are regularly reviewed and revised to meet the growing demands of student learning in the state of Texas.

All textbooks, curriculum, lesson plans, and classroom instructional techniques found in classrooms in the state of Texas are based on the TEKS. These are some of the tools that classroom teachers use to process the complicated and bland TEKS into rigorous instruction.

First, lets talk about education standards.

What is Common Core?

In 2009 several (48) states got together to develop the Common Core State Standards. Please note that this was not initiated by the federal government, but by governors and state commissioners of education of their own volition. The United States Constitution does not establish a national standard or authority for education, rather leaving the institution up to each state to create and manage. This includes funding, standards, certification, and management.

Source: Closing the Expectations Gap 2013 annual Report on the Alignment of State K–12 Policies and Practice with the Demands of College and Careers

The establishment of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in 2009 is an attempt by members of the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and state school chiefs and governors to recognize the value of consistent, real-world learning goals. These groups launched the effort “to ensure all students, regardless of where they live, are graduating high school prepared for college, career, and life.” In short, the CCSS were designed to create standards for proficiency in the United States that defined the expectations for each high school graduate.

The creation process for the CCSS included examining standards that were in use in each state as well as international standards with the purpose of addressing student expectations for elementary school through high school.

Because CCSS were developed with input from standards that were being used by some states in 2009, there is some consistency between some CCSS and the standards in states that did not adopt Common Core. This includes Texas. As such, it would not be uncommon to find similar educational standards between each state.

For example, Texas has a set of kindergarten standards required specifically for students in that grade level while 11 U.S. states have no standards for kindergarten.*

What is the impact of the Common Core Standards on Texas?

The CCSS have no impact in regard to standards in Texas. It is important to understand that the CCSS are just standards — not curriculum, not instruction, and not instructional materials. Texas has its own standards, and our standards (TEKS) cannot be replaced by CCSS without a legislated change. Having said that, you may see other elements ALIGNED with the CCSS in Texas. All of these would likely be instructional materials. Please read the article Is there Common Core in Texas? Yes, but not in the way you might think for more information on why you may see these materials.

Contrary to popular belief, standards are the most transparent element we have in education. They are written and approved by each state through a legislative process. They are available online and in writing at all times. They cannot be changed without state approval. They cannot be adopted without legislative approval.

Here is a table to help you understand each element in education, the accountability associated with the element, the possible impact from CCSS, and the level of transparency.

Screen Shot 2014-06-01 at 9.38.42 AM


Screen Shot 2014-06-01 at 9.38.52 AM

Education standards are important – whether they are TEKS, CCSS, or something else. These are the fundamental goals that serve as the building blocks to all other elements of our education system. When you hear that someone is concerned about “Common Core in Texas,” ask them to clarify their concern with the understanding of what standards truly are. It may be that their true concern is about curriculum, instruction, or instructional materials. And these may represent very legitimate concerns. But it is important to understand exactly what standards are – and are not – before we can achieve meaningful dialogue about how these common goals impact curriculum and instruction.

The next post in our series will address curriculum. What is it? How does it differ from standards and instruction? What are common types we see in Texas schools?

*Prior to adoption of the Common Core State Standards which are only written for math and English Language Arts

Everything I Need to Know about Texas Politics I Learned in School Board Elections

I once heard the only people who run for school boards are those who want to ban a book from the school library or fire the football coach after a losing season. I tried to dismiss this cynical anecdote, as I know many current and recently elected school board trustees who have strong, sincere desires to support public education. Yet, after Texas’ school board elections this month, I have found a kernel of truth to the notion of agenda-driven school board candidates.

I participated in and watched many school board races closely, and what I witnessed was the very heart of local Texas politics. I learned a lot. What I learned was sometimes ugly, sometimes shocking; but in the end, it was rather inspiring. Here’s what I saw:

1. Radicals have their eyes on your schools.

Public education regularly comes under attack – often in an effort to increase privatization, allowing the private sector to further tap into the lucrative education market. Other times, the attacks are purely ideological. This was seen in various Texas school board elections in 2014 with many candidates statewide espousing fringe ideologies and working to push extreme agendas into public schools.

There was the bartender/open carry activist candidate in Mansfield ISD who sought to arm school teachers. Then there was the Magnolia ISD conspiracy theorist blogger who has spent years harping paranoid warnings about the United Nations taking over schools and that Texas public schools are indoctrinating students with Marxist agendas. There was also the Northwest ISD candidate who feared extreme Muslims were launching a “social jihad” through school textbooks.

And there were various candidates statewide who ran opposing Common Core State Standards in districts including Crowley, Katy, Northwest, Magnolia, and other areas. Crusading against Common Core had the potential to be a strong platform if Texas was one of the 44 states that had actually adopted Common Core State Standards. (For more about Common Core in Texas, please see this explanation.)

Along with opposing Common Core State Standards, these candidates often opposed other positive educational advancements and innovations they erroneously branded “Common Core” but that most people embrace, such as college and career readiness; Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) education; digital learning; project-based learning; and 21st century learning skills.  Their reasons for opposing such innovations range from claims of student indoctrination in various –isms (Marxism, communism, Nazism, collectivism, … you get the point) to radical conspiracy theories about the United Nations and Sharia Law. While the rationales varied, few were grounded in reality or fact.

2. Radicals don’t like it when you call them radicals.

As I quickly learned when I spoke against radicalism at my local school board meeting earlier this year, radicals don’t like to be called radicals. When their fringe viewpoints are called out as baseless and extreme or when they are presented with facts or research from experts in the field, they typically decry “bully tactics” in attempts to “marginalize” their views or “vilify” them. It seems to be their universal response to reality.

Sadly, they have no idea how extreme their viewpoints are because they live in radical vacuums where fringe ideas are bounced within echo chambers of extremism. Their sources of mis-information are blogs masquerading as news and propaganda laid out by fellow extremists citing other radicals as sources. Inside their closed loops of information, propaganda becomes fact and realities become a nefarious plot by the “establishment.” And they have no idea how far their viewpoints have strayed beyond their community mores because they instead live in extremist-focused realities in which their fringe views propagate.

Interestingly, there is a Common Core standard that can address this very problem that allows this type of radical thought to flourish. In its literacy standard for eighth graders, Common Core State Standard W.8.1.B requires that students be able to “support claim(s) with logical reasoning and relevant evidence, using accurate, credible sources and demonstrating an understanding of the topic or text.” This is one Common Core standard Texas would be wise to embrace.

3. Local politics is as ugly as it gets.

There was name calling. There was back biting. There were shots fired against the education levels of some candidates and the political leanings of others. Tea party candidate forums asked school board candidates about their stands on gay marriage and abortion. One candidate was accused of being on food stamps. In short, school board races seem to represent the worst in local politics.

Perhaps one of the most outrageous examples of ugly local politics was the Magnolia ISD twitter fight heard around Texas.  In a textbook example of what not to do in a school board campaign, radical blogger/CSCOPE conspiracy theorist and candidate Ginger Russell picked a social media fight with the entire student body and faculty of the local high school by mocking their school motto. As a general rule, never pick a fight with a community of snarky teens, dedicated teachers, and determined PTA moms. That is a fight you’ll never win – and Ginger Russell didn’t.

What she did succeed in doing was rallying the community who stood up to attacks against their school, principal, and district. The Magnolia community refused to allow their schools and students to be branded and assailed by radicals for political gain. They got out the vote with the largest turnout in their school board election history – 3,595 voters cast ballots in a race that typically only draws around 900. Magnolia ISD voters (including many newly eligible high school student voters) sent the message that they value and support their school district while soundly defeating radicalism. Ginger Russell and her extreme message only garnered 28% of the vote and sent her opponent Kristi Baker to a landslide victory.

4. In the end, Texans care more about their schools than politics.

In many of its 2014 school board races, Texas (yes, Texas!) firmly ignored its radical base and overwhelmingly rejected fringe candidates. And those candidates were defeated by wide margins – some garnering as little as 11% of the vote and very few earning more than 30%. Texas rejected these radical activists and instead cast votes for retired teachers, ministers, small business owners, physicians, and even PTA moms committed to supporting and strengthening public schools instead of tearing them down in the name of politics.

As for the radicals – they’ll be back. Sadly it doesn’t seem they learned a lot from their experiences, laying blame for their losses with everyone but themselves. The reasons cited for their overwhelming losses include (choose any/all of the excuses below):

  • Battleground Texas’ stealth involvement in these non-partisan races,
  • the “education establishment” was against them,
  • teachers organized against them,
  • the  PTA opposed them,
  • they were bullied/vilified/marginalized.

So many excuses, yet the radicals have failed to notice the obvious – that their losses were because of their message. A message of divisiveness and negativity, which was rejected by Texans.

What the radicals didn’t understand is that these elections weren’t about keeping Texas red or turning her blue. They weren’t about Common Core. They weren’t about liberal indoctrination or the United Nations or even Obama. They were about schools. They were about Texas communities protecting their schools from extremists trying to make a political statement. They were about Texans not willing to see their schools forced to move backward decades educationally because of the paranoia and political ideology of the extreme minority.

In these elections that most deeply impact our communities, it became clear that Texans care about their neighborhood schools and aren’t willing to risk them on the political whims of extremism. Voters sent a clear message to radicals trying to take over their school boards – don’t mess with Texas public schools.

PTA Mom Looks at Political Extremism – Coming Soon to a School Board Meeting Near You

by PTA Mom

Everything is bigger in Texas. And sometimes that even includes political extremism. As often portrayed by the likes of Jon Stewart, The Onion, and late-night comedians, Texas is often known as much for its incendiary political proclivities as it is for its barbecue and oil fields.

But when political extremism crosses the threshold of the schoolhouse door, it ceases to become one of Texas’ quirky endearments and instead becomes a problem that burdens and distracts public schools. Look no further than the Texas School Board of Education (SBOE) for near legendary examples of ideological paralysis and political agenda pushing that has not only made for embarrassing national headlines, but has even been the subject of film documentaries. And as the SBOE has demonstrated, students suffer when extreme politics enter education. Unfortunately, that’s what’s happening in my town. And it may well be on its way to a school board meeting near you, too.

What’s the furor all about this time? Common Core. As explained here, Common Core is the set of national educational standards adopted by 45 states. In theory, Common Core standards were a good idea – ensure that students learn the minimum standards for success regardless of where they’re located in the country. Of course, adoption of these standards came with all of the fine print, attached strings, and red tape that one would expect from the federal government. As you can imagine, controversy quickly followed the Common Core rollout, particularly as many states struggle with rocky implementations, over-reliance on standardized testing, and other controversies.

So why do so few Texas parents know about the Common Core standards that have wreaked havoc in schools around the nation? Because Texas is not a Common Core state! Texas maintains its own standards (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills or TEKS), which exceed Common Core standards. Further, Texas TEKS are more comprehensive, including science and social studies; whereas Common Core only focuses on mathematics and English language arts. With no benefit to moving to lesser standards, Texas chose to reject Common Core. And to further make a political point as only Texas can, in 2013 its state legislature passed legislation making the use or adoption of Common Core illegal in the state.

Then what has caused the Common Core ballyhoo to come to a state that actually outlawed its use? Politics of extremism. This political extremism has encouraged the spread of radical conspiracy theories including Common Core sneaking into Texas’ schools to “indoctrinate” our students into rejecting American exceptionalism and embracing Islam and Sharia law, among other things.  While there are many well-reasoned and very legitimate complaints against Common Core, these fringe views are not among them.

This is the same extremism that led a Texas political party in 2012 to oppose critical thinking in its party’s education platform. And it’s the same extremism that led to the 2013 witch hunt of Texas’ educator-developed curriculum tool, CSCOPE, because of allegations that it was anti-American and promoted Marxism and Islam. (By the way, an independent review of all of CSCOPE’s lessons just last month indicated that these allegations were false. The SBOE launched an independent review team of 140 volunteers that included parents, educators, and business people tasked with reviewing CSCOPE lessons for bias and errors. Fewer than 10 found evidence of the claimed political and religious bias that led the state legislature to force Texas schools to abandon the educator tool in favor of more expensive in-house curriculum development.)

With the slaying of CSCOPE in 2013, political opportunists have now focused their attention to Common Core as the next boogeyman on their hit list. These radicals are known throughout the state for trying to push their political agendas into our schools – they include former educators promoting junk-science views of education that have little basis in actual educational theory. They include activists who actually make money by booking speaking gigs and “consulting” on how to spread radical views. It even includes a homeschooler and zealot shrieking blog-based warnings about the United Nations transforming Texas education, the dangers of “progressive educators,” and fears about everything from technology to project based learning to “social engineering” eliminating “a traditional education where ‘absolute truth’ and American Exceptionalism is taught.”

These radicals are located from Waco to Argyle to Magnolia; they do not reside in my community. But that didn’t stop them from spreading Common Core paranoia to my child’s school district. A small group of parents in my community has been deceived by these interlopers’ campaign of confusion, leading some parents to believe our school district was sneaking Common Core into our schools through the “back door.”

Their efforts led parents to believe that classroom lessons about the Pillars of Islam are examples of Common Core. (In reality, this lesson would likely not fall under Common Core’s language arts or mathematics standards, but instead could be a social studies requirement of Texas TEKS strand 17B requiring students be able to “describe major world religions, including animism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism, and their spatial distribution.”) They’ve also accused my local school district of using Common Core materials like SAT preparation texts that indicate alignment with Common Core as a marketing tagline on the book cover. (Please note the difference between alignment with and use of Common Core standards to replace TEKS.)

These attack groups have even encouraged parents to find elements of Common Core in 21st century learning programs that encourage collaboration, problem solving, and innovation. They see Common Core in college and career readiness requirements. They seem Common Core in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education tools. Reminiscent of the movie The Sixth Sense, they see Common Core standards – they’re everywhere.

Many will ignore their efforts as fringe Texas politics at its finest. Some suggest it’s best to ignore extremists, which may very well be true. But when extremism threatens educational opportunities for Texas students, it can no longer be ignored. In my district, these fringe elements worked to hinder the district’s vision to implement 21st century learning into our schools since, through their lens of paranoia, it’s just another sneaky name for Common Core.

So what is a parent to do when the politics of extremism lands before their district’s school board? I’m proud to say parents in my district spoke up. (You can see a copy of my statement to the school board here.) They worked to educate their neighbors. They talked about what Common Core is (and isn’t) at PTA meetings. They reviewed the facts. They discussed concerns with experts – actual educators and administrators. They arrived at their own conclusions without the influence of political opportunists and agenda pushers. And most importantly – they served as vocal advocates for their children and community.

Texas public schools face so many challenges – over testing, under funding, and fighting off a state legislature that, according to a recent legislative report card, generally does not have its best interests at heart. The last problem schools should be focused on is defending against political extremism. Our schools and students deserve better. I’m proud to be part of a district and community of parents that recognized and fought extremism on behalf of their children.

I hope you will put up the same fight when extremism comes to your district. And it will.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are prepared in the author’s personal capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, any other organization with which the author is affiliated.

Common Core Controversy – What does it Really Mean to Texas?

ccss2_360_363What is Common Core?
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are designed to provide a clear goal of shared learning standards for students in grades K-12. The standards were written by educators and various education advocacy groups with the goal to create a set of distinct standards that “promote equity by ensuring all students, no matter where they live, are well prepared with the skills and knowledge necessary to collaborate and compete with their peers in the United States and abroad” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).

Many educators and public officials agree in theory that having consistent standards across the nation is a positive step towards equity in education and enhances the U.S position in global competition.  The concept is simple:  a first grade student in Colorado will be held to the exact same learning standard as a first grade student in Maine. If a first grade student is expected to know that 2+2=4 by first grade, the standard would be consistent for all students regardless of their geographic location.

History of Common Core
In 2009 the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers set out to develop national standards to “establish consistent education standards across the states as well as ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter two- or four-year college programs or enter the workforce.”

With this goal in mind, the coalition, which included educators from across the country and was led with funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Pearson Publishing, and other organizations, developed and released state standards for English Language Arts and Math.  (Standards for science are currently being developed by another organization and are not tied to CCSS. Social Studies standards have not been written under the CCSS Initiative.)

The standards were benchmarked with international data related to college and career readiness to ensure that American students are held to high expectations for college and career readiness to ensure a competitive position on a global level.

States were then able to adopt the standards through their state education agencies. Forty-five states, the District of Columbia, and three U.S. Territories adopted the standards.  Texas, Virginia, Minnesota*, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and Nebraska chose to adopt or keep their own state standards (Minnesota adopted ELA standards, but not mathematics at its state standards for math were considered higher).

What’s wrong with Common Core?
For all of its admirable theoretical intent, the roll-out of CCSS has been shaky at best. Keep in mind, CCSS is only the standards to which the states are to educate students. Each state still has autonomy and authority to create their own curriculum to teach the common standards, train their teachers on CCSS, and fund and implement related testing.

As CCSS has rolled out, the pace, training, and materials for the standards have been inconsistent among the states. National Education Association president Dennis Van Roekel said that some states had “completely botched” implementation of the Common Core standards, “Seven of ten teachers believe that implementation of the standards is going poorly in their schools,” he wrote in a letter to members.

For many states, old education standards were immediately eliminated in favor of CCSS without proper implementation or training for teachers.  Some educators have asked for more time to plan and practice good lessons, receive high-quality training, and observe and collaborate with colleagues. There have also been requests for more financial resources to make sure classrooms are equipped with the required technology and that students have access to updated Common Core-aligned textbooks.

Some critics have further cited that the standards are unrealistic for certain grade levels. Diane Ravitch, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education under George W. Bush cautioned “the standards have never been field-tested and that no one knows whether they will improve education.”

Testing Controversies
However, the most significant discrepancy related to CCSS has been how states will test the standards. States who accepted Race to the Top funding are required to measure results with standardized testing. In 2014, many states are pilot-testing their assessments.

Two testing consortiums were created by the Department of Education, Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). Both consortiums focused on creating computer-based assessments with a promise to give educators and students information. CCSS-adopting states were able to join either consortium to develop pilot assessments designed for CCSS.  Many states opted for this federal assistance to defray the cost of developing their own assessments.

Despite the comprehensive nature of the new tests and the promised ability to analyze a student’s ability to think and measure student growth, there has been significant concern about testing from several states. The new tests are given over time instead of administered in a single day.  Some states have reported struggles with accommodating the necessary technology to give the exams, while teachers and parents have shared frustrations with dedicating too much teaching time to a “one-size-fits all” exam. In addition, the cost of the exams averages between $22.50 to $29.50 per student.

The first pilot tests for CCSS are expected to rollout next month. However, some states, including Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Utah, have chosen to pull out of their respective testing consortiums in favor of creating their own tests or using another state created assessment.

With many grassroots efforts nationwide to alleviate over-reliance on testing, the emphasis on testing associated with CCSS has led to additional controversy. Further, several states including New York and Maryland have chosen to tie state teacher evaluations to CCSS testing leading to complaints from educator groups and parents alike. Because of these controversies, some states have issued delays in the evaluations until the CCSS are fully implemented or have offered waivers to school districts that were slow to rollout the standards.

What about Texas?
Texas was one of only five states that did not choose to adopt CCSS. Instead, Texas chose to retain its Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards. While there will naturally be some similar elements and cross-over between TEKS and Common Core standards, according to a recent report by Education Week, TEKS meet or exceed CCSS in the areas of mathematics and English language arts. To further demonstrate their independence from CCSS, HB 462 made use of Common Core related materials or developing assessments based on Common Core illegal beginning in 2014.

But being one of the few national standard outliers will present unique challenges to Texas. Previously Texas had been a powerful player in the textbook industry due to the size of the state and the state’s financial guarantee to purchase textbooks for all students. However, with 45 states now under a common standards umbrella, the educational publishing industry may lack the incentive to readily develop materials targeted to Texas as they have in the past. This will likely lead to the appearance of materials and texts now marketed to Common Core states in Texas, particularly for less profitable adoptions and supplemental materials.

A further and important complication for Texas is the College Board’s alignment of Advanced Placement (AP) math and English courses, SAT, and ACT to Common Core Standards. Does this mean that teachers across the state of Texas potentially violate HB 462 when preparing their students for their AP exams? Does this mean that school districts are in violation of HB 462 every time they allow the PSAT, SAT, or ACT to be administered to their students? Or would Texas prefer to declare full independence from these Common Core-aligned examinations, leaving its students at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to their counterparts across the nation? Even with its rejection of Common Core, the complications the standards have created remain, even in Texas.

Despite the various controversies that surround the Common Core State Standards, it is clear the standards are poised to have a significant impact on K-12 learning.  With backing from the Department of Education, high-level testing and education companies, philanthropic organizations, the textbook industry, College Board, and a variety of government agencies, CCSS will have a place in the 21st century classroom for years to come. It is yet to be seen whether that will be a positive impact or not.  But the question remains, when the dust settles: where will Texas be?

It’s Report Card Day for Texas Legislators … and It’s Ugly

gradesBy PTA Mom

Like many states, Texas loves grading its education system. The state has spent years slapping labels on public schools for standardized test results. We’ve labeled schools everything from “unacceptable” to “exemplary,” and next year we’ll even have a new A-F rating system used to brand our schools. Today, Texas Kids Can’t Wait turned the tables and labeled Texas’ state legislators by grading their support of public education in their first bi-annual legislative report card.

Texas Kids Can’t Wait is a statewide public education advocacy group founded by Democrats and Republicans to encourage equity, excellence, and adequacy for Texas’ students. The grassroots group works to educate citizens about challenges facing their schools and encourages legislative action to strengthen public education in Texas. After generations of school funding lawsuits, more than a decade of over-testing, and subversive attempts to undermine public schools through privatization efforts, Texas Kids Can’t Wait recognizes that Texas’ children don’t have the time to wait for legislators to find the political courage and will to finally do right by their schools. You can find more information about Texas Kids Can’t Wait here.

Using the same labels once used to grade public schools, (exemplary, recognized, acceptable, and unacceptable) the report card examines votes on 22 key bills from the last legislative session to identify each legislator’s support of public education issues. A team of researchers at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor evaluated voting records related to funding, privatization, various school voucher schemes, accountability and assessment, charter school expansion, and other education issues.

And the results? Let’s just say some of your elected representatives need to spend some time in summer school. According to Dr. Bonnie Lesley, co-founder of Texas Kids Can’t Wait, “What we saw in all these bills was a strong attack by about one-third of the legislators in the House and about one-fourth of the Senate on the vast majority of Texas’s five million public school students, on local control, on local school boards and educators, and on the whole concept of the common good.”

Here are some breakdowns of the ratings:

  • Unacceptable ratings were earned by 34% of House Representatives and 23% of Senators.
  • Positive ratings of Exemplary and Recognized were earned by 28% of House Representatives and 32% of Senators.
  • Senator Dan Patrick, Chair of the Senate Education Committee and current candidate for Lieutenant Governor, received the lowest ranking of any legislator in either chamber.
  • The strongest ranking in either chamber was earned by Senator Jose Rodriguez.
  • Representative Jimmie Don Aycock and Speaker Joe Straus received accolades for strong leadership in support of public education in the 83rd session.

How did your elected representative do? See the chart at the end of this blog.

So, what can you do with this data?

  • If you’re unhappy with your representative’s grade, ask them to explain why they didn’t make public education a priority last session. Encourage them to support public education issues in the future. You can find your state representative here.
  • If your representative’s grade doesn’t indicate a strong record for public education, re-consider your support or vote.
  • Seek and support pro-public education legislators. Thank them for their commitment to our schools.
  • Let legislators know that public education issues drive your voting decisions. (Education is one of the top issues facing the state according to polling data of Texans.)
  • Learn and share the names of the legislators who earned Unacceptable ratings. These are the politicians that seek to undermine public schools as demonstrated by their abysmal voting records. Let them know you will fight their attacks on the public education system that serves five million Texas children and employs 400,000 Texas teachers.
  • Be vocal in support of public education issues and legislation.
  • Above all — VOTE! Don’t miss a primary or general election. Texas’ students are counting on you.

There was a time, not so long ago, when it was expected that elected officials would support education. It was viewed as an important commitment to our future; vital to economic development. But times have changed, and today many for-profit and special interests have sought to undermine public education through a variety of legislative attacks. The outcome of those efforts is evident in this report card.

That’s why it has never been more critical to carefully evaluate legislators to ensure those who earn your vote will represent the interests of our children, our schools, and our teachers. Legislators without the foresight to see the disastrous impact a struggling public education system will have on Texas’ long-term economic future are not serving Texas’ interests. Legislators who ignore chronic over-testing and under-funding are not worthy of your support. It’s high time they’re sent home with a clear message that Texans demand better.

It’s time to support an education system worthy of a state like Texas. And it’s time to elect legislators committed to delivering it.

Texas Kids Can’t Wait Bi-Annual Legislative Report Card

House of Representatives – 83rd Legislative Session  

Representatives are listed alphabetically. For a listing based on ratings within each category as well as an understanding of the methodology used, please visit here.

Ratings Legislators
(7 of 150 representatives)
Collier, Nicole (District 95)
Farias, Joe (District 118)
Herrero, Abel (District 34)
Martinez Fischer, Trey (District 116)
Munoz, Jr., Sergio (District 36)
Pitts, Jim (District 10)
Reynolds, Ron (District 27)
(35 of 150 representatives)
Allen, Alma (District 131)
Alonzo, Roberto (District 104)
Ashby, Trent (District 57)
Aycock, Jimmie Don (District 54)
Burnam, Lon (District 90)
Callegari, Bill (District 132)
Canales, Terry (District 40)
Cortez, Philip (District 117)
Dukes, Dawnna (District 46)
Farrar, Jessica (District 148)
Giddings, Helen (District 109)
Gonzalez, Mary (District 75)
Gutierrez, Roland (District 119)
Howard, Donna (District 48)
Huberty, Dan (District 127)
Longoria, Oscar (District 35)
Martinez, Armando (District 39)
McClendon, Ruth Jones (District 120)
Miles, Borris (District 146)
Moody, Joe (District 78)
Nevarez, Poncho (District 74)
Oliveira, Rene (District 37)
Patrick, Diane (District 94)
Perez, Mary Ann (District 144)
Phillips, Larry (District 62)
Price, Four (District 87)
Rodriguez, Eddie (District 51)
Rodriguez, Justin (District 125)
Rose, Toni (District 110)
Sheffield, J. D.  (District 59)
Straus, Joe (District 121, Speaker)
Thompson, Senfronia (District 141)
Turner, Sylvester (District 129)
Vo, Hubert (District 149)
Walle, Armando (District 140)
(57 of 150 representatives)
Alvarado, Carol (District 145)
Anderson, Charles (District 56)
Bonnen, Dennis (District 25)
Coleman, Garnet (District 147)
Cook, Byron (District 8)
Crownover, Myra (District 64)
Darby, Drew (District 72)
Davis, Sarah (District 124)
Davis, Yvonne (District 111)
Deshotel, Joe (District 22)
Dutton, Jr., Harold (District 142)
Eiland, Craig (District 23)
Farney, Marsha (District 20)
Frullo, John (District 84)
Geren, Charlie (District 99)
Gonzales, Larry (District 52)
Gonzalez, Naomi (District 76)
Guerra, Bobby (District 41)
Guillen, Ryan (District 31)
Harless, Patricia (District 126)
Hernandez, Ana (District 143)
Hunter, Todd (District 32)
Johnson, Eric (District 100)
Kacal, Kyle (District 12)
Keffer, James (District 60)
King, Ken (District 88)
King, Susan (District 71)
King, Tracy (District 80)
Kleinschmidt, Tim (District 17)
Kuempel, John (District 44)
Larson, Lyle (District 122)
Lewis, Tryon (District 81)
Lozano, J. M. (District 43)
Marquez, Marisa (District 77)
Menendez, Jose (District 124)
Miller, Doug (District 73)
Murphy, Jim (District 133)
Naishtat, Elliott (District 49)
Orr, Rob (District 58)
Otto, John (District 18)
Paddie, Chris (District 9)
Perry, Charles (District 83)
Pickett, Joe (District 79)
Raney, John (District 14)
Ratliff, Bennett (District 115)
Raymond, Richard (District 42)
Sheffield, Ralph (District 55)
Smith, Wayne (District 128)
Stephenson, Phil (District 85)
Strama, Mark (District 50)
Turner, Chris (District 101)
Villalba, Jason (District 114)
Villarreal, Mike (District 123)
White, James (District 19)
Workman, Paul (District 47)
Wu, Gene (District 137)
Zerwas, John (District 28)
(51 of 150 representatives)
Anchia, Rafael (District 103)
Bell, Cecil(District 3)
Bohac, Dwayne (District 138)
Bonnen, Greg (District 24)
Branch, Dan (District 108)
Burkett, Cindy (District 113)
Button, Angie Chen (District 112)
Capriglione, Giovanni (District 98)
Carter, Stefani (District 102)
Clardy, Travis (District 11)
Craddick, Tom (District 82)
Creighton, Brandon (District 16)
Dale, Tony (District 136)
Davis, John E. (District 129)
Elkins, Gary (District 135)
Fallon, Pat (District 106)
Fletcher, Allen (District 130)
Flynn, Dan (District 2)
Frank, James (District 69)
Goldman, Craig (District 97)
Gooden, Lance (District 4)
Harper-Brown, Linda (District 105)
Hilderbran, Harvey (District 53)
Hughes, Bryan (District 5)
Issac, Jason (District 45)
King, Phil (District 61)
Klick, Stephanie (District 91)
Kolkhorst, Lois (District 13)
Krause, Matt (District 93)
Laubenberg, Jodie (District 89)
Lavender, George (District 1)
Leach, Jeff (District 67)
Lucio III, Eddie (District 38)
Miller, Rick (District 26)
Morrison, Geanie W. (District 30)
Parker, Tan (District 63)
Riddle, Debbie (District 150)
Ritter, Allan (District 21)
Sanford, Scott (District 70)
Schaefer, Matt (District 6)
Sheets, Kenneth (District 107)
Simmons, Ron (District 65)
Simpson, David (District 7)
Smithee, John (District 86)
Springer, Drew (District 68)
Stickland, Jonathan (District 92)
Taylor, Van (District 66)
Thompson, Ed (District 29)
Toth, Steve (District 15)
Turner, Scott (District 33)
Zedler, Bill (District 96)

Senate – 83rd Legislative Session

Senators are listed alphabetically. For a listing based on ratings within each category as well as an understanding of the methodology used, please visit here. 

Ratings Legislators
(2 of 31 senators)
Garcia, Sylvia (District 6)
Rodriguez, Jose (District 29)
(9 of 31 senators)
Deuell, Bob (District 2)
Davis, Wendy (District 10)
Ellis, Rodney (District 13)
Nichols, Robert (District 3)
Seliger, Kel (District 31)
Uresti, Carlos (District 19)
Watson, Kirk (District 14)
Williams, Tommy (District 4)
Zaffirini, Judith (District 21)
(13 of 31 senators)
Carona, John (District 16)
Duncan, Robert (District 28)
Eltife, Kevin (District 1)
Estes, Craig (District 30)
Fraser, Tony (District 24)
Hancock, Kelly (District 9)
Hinojosa, Juan “Chuy” (District 20)
Huffman, Joan (District 17)
Lucio, Eddie (District 27)
Nelson, Jane (District 12)
Schwertner, Charles (District 5)
Van de Putte, Leticia (District 26)
Whitmire, John (District 15)
(7of 31 senators)
Birdwell, Brian (District 22)
Campbell, Donna (District 25)
Hegar, Glenn (District 18)
Paxton, Ken (District 8)
Patrick, Dan (District 7)
Taylor, Larry (District 11)
West, Royce (District 23)
Dewhurst, David (Lt. Governor)


1 2 3 9