WOW, just in: TX SBOE Dem members' press release. 👀

"Until these concerns are fully addressed, we urge the [SBOE] to pause further action on the Social Studies TEKS Review."

I mean, there are a 1000 reasons why this revision should stop, but, gotta say, this is one of the more compelling ones.

Re: Don Frazier revelations: This is the only discussion of it I've seen, from April 5. There's a LOT in this post, but this seems to capture the core allegation, which is... quite a thing to see when you've been watching this as closely as I have. texassocialstudiesed.substack.com/p/who-is-sha...

I am very worn out and also have other work to do, so I can't make any promises about updates on the SBOE meeting today. Depending on what emerges out of the morass, it may be worth it for me to go back and watch video. Will keep y'all apprised.

Divided up threads to help with readability.

Literary Lists - Testimony. tbsky.app/profile/drwh...

Literary Lists - Discussion tbsky.app/profile/drwh...

SS TEKS - Testimony
tbsky.app/profile/drwh...

SS TEKS - Discussion (last section of the night) tbsky.app/profile/drwh...

Good morning, everyone. The Board will take up social studies standards again today. Here's yesterday's coverage. The details get fuzzier towards the end because I was so tired, sorry. I can't vouch for how coherent it is, since the Board adjourned around 1:20 AM CT. Threads below:

My review of the day: Some bright spots of hopeful and passionate democratic participation, but on the whole awful and deeply disturbing.

And we're adjourned just after 1:20 AM CT.

CAs will come back tomorrow (later today), but Leyva will be gone. Shame to lose her honesty. This whole thing is murky and ominous, and it was nice to get what felt like a real answer, given in a very scary room.

Hickman asking questions of CAs. You were listening today, do you have any further amendments based on what you heard in testimony?
They have nothing to offer, really. That's quite remarkable considering the variety of things we heard today.

Apologies, Clark is there. I didn't hear her. I assume she voted against.

So the content advisor draft has formally been adopted as an amendment. The CA draft is the base draft now.

Now voting on the amendment. Roll-call.
Reveles - No
Francis - Yes
MPD - No
Childs - No
Hickman - Yes
Pickren - Yes
Young - Yes
Ellis - Yes
Maynard -Yes
Hall - Yes
Clark - Absent
Little - Absent
Brooks - Abstain

Reveles - No
Francis - Present
MPD - No
Bell Metereau - Absent
Hickman - Abstain
Pickren - Yes
Young - Yes
Ellis - Yes
Maynard - Yes
Hall - Yes
Little - Absent
Clark - Absent
Brooks - Abstain

Well, that's quite a vote. 5-4, motion carries.

Ellis throwing up a point of inquiry. When will we get back to this tomorrow?
Kinsey: No earlier than 11.
Childs called for a roll call vote on the procedural vote.

Frazier's got a bit of a bad attitude tonight.

So now we're back to adopting the content advisor copy as the amendment. This will become the base document to for future amendments.

Hickman: Will the CAs be here after this vote?
Kinsey is not advised.

More procedural talk. It's all actually important, but it is way too late for me to try and translate it all.

Kinsey gives his long interpretation, even though Reveles was asking legal specifically.
Reveles: I don't think the consensus document meets the criteria for posting.
Hickman calls a point of order to return to the vote, so now they've suspended the rules.

Lawyer says it's within parameters. Reveles asking what specifically those parameters are. Are we supposed to put all content in one place, given that "this was in pieces everywhere" on the website? Does that meet our requirement for public notice?
Kinsey: "Yes."
Reveles: Legal?

Having to consult legal because "Open Meetings Act" was said. Too technical for me to follow. MPD is asking a very good question about whether this can be voted on if the public hasn't seen it. Really digging in.

Maynard asking for a consultation on parliamentary procedure to keep this from being drawn out. I think they want to vote to amend and then debate it. MPD is making sure she understands. I barely have a clue.

Frazier is trying to defend the change as something with an "people are unfair to people." We don't want to inject race into that. Childs isn't having it. "It's based on race. It's not arbitrary!"

Childs focusing on some statements and asking about how they to statements about slavery "not always being race-based" in a section on the Civil War. Childs showing some early morning vigor. She's in her zone, I think.

Reveles calls a point of order on Hall and stops him again. Most aggressive move we've seen going the opposite direction today.

Hall: There wasn't a final vote?
Leyva: No.
Hutchison: We had a "can we live with it" vote at the end (?).

That sounds like . . . not a consensus.

Hall asking Leyva for her individual recommendations. She said that she consistently did that.
Hall starting to ask about process, Reveles is calling point of orders on him because he's asking about process. Successfully derailed Hall, who is trying to ask a different question now.

MPD finally gets the question out. How did the documents evolve. Koons says, "Oh, there was only one 6-3 vote." Leyva says no, that's not true.

MPD saying she's been asking who was writing the TEKS. Point of orders all over. MPD fighting for her life to get to the bottom of this without being told she's asking about process not content. Really brutal shutdowns.

MPD gave Leyva the floor.

She's reporting a very different experience of the content advisors than has been portrayed. This wasn't run by consensus, and at one point the first document we worked on were Frazier's, not the Work Group B product.

So the board is supposed to vote on the content advisor draft with nothing but this "Oh, you know, we took out a little of this, a little of that" walkthrough? "Good enough for government work," I guess?