3 Reasons ISD Trustees should "Say No" to TEA's IMQE

What is the IMQE?  The Instructional Materials Quality Evaluation is TEA's expensive solution in search of a problem. The conflict? The IMQE is funded by taxpayer dollars which should be going to ISD's - so our local educators can determine which instructional materials are best for our children.  

Reason #1: Fiduciary duty
As elected officials, we have a fiduciary duty to ensure that the state is spending Texas taxpayer dollars in a manner that provides the best value to the state. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) has paid Safal Partners $3.26M for a one-year contract ending in August 2019. Safal subcontracted EdReports to produce quality evaluations or reviews.  EdReports has never reviewed Texas materials, they have always only worked on Common Core. 

• No reviews were published by the September 2018 deadline (as mandated by law).
• No reviews were published in time to be useful to districts for the K-8 ELAR adoption, and 
• Only 21 reviews will be published by May 2019, which is after districts have made their selection decisions.  

As elected officials, we also have a duty to invest taxpayers’ dollars in doing what is right for students, not in something no one really wants. 
The IMQE is also referred to as the "Portal" is NOT something school districts want, as evidenced by the struggle TEA had in getting districts to participate in the pilot.  Only 30 of 1,023 ISD's are participating in the IMQE Pilot. 

On November 13, 2018, the Urban Curriculum Council, representing 13 of the state’s largest districts sent a letter opposing this project. Three points of that letter: 

1. The IMQE is not a project that members of the UCC or others from the field have requested as something that meets the needs of the students in our districts; it is a project initiated by the Texas Education Agency;
2. The IMQE is not needed as the Texas State Board of Education TEKS alignment process appropriately and adequately supports school districts in reviewing instructional materials. *The TXSBOE process is also the means to public input via teacher workgroups and public hearings;
3. Once the TEKS alignment is determined by the TXSBOE process, districts use their own processes to make the best selection for their students. 

Each community has its own set of unique needs. The definition of High Quality in El Paso may not match the definition of High Quality in Lufkin. 


Reason #2: Using Common Core (EdReports and LA Believes) to review Texas instructional materials
It’s illegal for Texas to adopt the Common Core standards and it’s illegal for Texas schools to teach the Common Core standards. Safal’s contract states that existing EdReports’ reviews (which are exclusively Common Core) will be used on the reviews of Texas instructional materials.

Page 25 of 229 of TEA’s contract with Safal includes an "Updated Statement of Work" (revised as of July 3, 2018), which reiterates Safal’s proposal: 

Teacher review teams will use existing EdReports reviews to identify which evidence applies to the Texas rubric.
*Review the contract here: TEA Contract #3854, SAFAL Partners

It is illegal for Texas schools to teach the Common Core. Nevertheless, the TEA awarded this contract for quality reviews to an entity that told us they will use portions of its EdReports and Louisiana Believes’ existing reviews of Common Core materials for the Texas reviews.  

EdReports and Louisiana Believes’ reviews of Common Core materials are already available on public websites.  EdReports will cut and paste from their existing reviews to produce reviews of Texas materials. Why are Texas taxpayers paying millions of dollars for something we could get for free?


Reason #3: Why is Texas following Louisiana’s model?
TEA has stated that they are modeling the IMQE process after Louisiana’s process.

• According to Forbes July 2018 Report, Texas is ranked 36 in school quality. Louisiana is ranked 50;​
• U.S. News ranks Texas 33rd for our Prek-12 education system;  Louisiana is ranked 49th. 

Why would TEA want Texas to follow Louisiana's lead?