C-Scope 2.0

The Texas Education Agency’s “Texas Resource Review” (TRR), formerly known as the Instructional Materials Quality Review (IMQR), has received a great deal of criticism, and rightfully so. Here’s why:

1. Democracy. The TRR removes the public voice from Instructional Material reviews. The TRR does not, however, relinquish the taxpayer dollars. You may be asking yourself, “Where is the public input now?” The Texas State Board of Education requires all materials to be online and at your local Education Service Center. The TXSBOE also solicits public input from their respective districts as well as input via phone call, email, USPS, and fax, which is reviewed by all Members. We also hold public hearings. Anyone can listen via livestream, where anyone can attend in-person, or in the hearing room, and speak their piece. The Texas State Board of Education is the public’s access to public education.
2. Participation. Since the quality review process began in 2017, fewer than 3% of Texas ISD’s are participating in this costly experiment.  
3. Twice the effort, what's the result? Why should taxpayers bear the burden of costly reviews, twice? The easy answer is - they shouldn’t. So which one should the state use? That’s an easy answer, too, but, elected officials, ISD leadership, nor taxpayers get to decide. For now, you will fund both: one that ISDs prefer and one they do not. 
4. Ranking. One of the biggest criticisms of the TEA’s quality review continues to receive focuses on the ranking of materials. A handful of individuals selected by The New Teacher Project (with oversight from EdReports, contracted by SAFAL) were all set to give stars to materials based on a set of indicators.

Here is some critical information that taxpayers should know:

• The New Teacher Project has no experience reviewing instructional materials in Texas, or anywhere else. 
• EdReports has only worked on Common Core materials, which are illegal in Texas. EdReports uses its preexisting scorecards to grade Texas materials. In other words, EdReports is using a scorecard made for materials that are illegal in Texas.
• SAFAL has several contracts with TEA and several quality issues, which have resulted in reduced payments. 

5. More Stars = Better Quality. The issue then becomes the definition of quality. A textbook that received a high score (or more stars) is considered “high-quality.” However, Texas students have a wide range of needs. For example, a Dual Language academy may not find textbooks that do not support Language Learners or Biliteracy as high quality. Will the Board of Trustees at your ISD purchase books and technology which are best for their community? Or will they purchase what TEA says is good stuff?

6. The Law. “The commissioner by rule shall establish the procedure by which a publisher may submit instructional materials for inclusion in the web portal.” 
see: Texas Education Code Sec. 31.081 https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._educ._code_section_31.081

The web portal is the TRR (or the IMQE). The intent behind the law was to have a review of Open Educational Resources (OERs), which are freely accessible, openly licensed text, media, and other digital assets that are useful for teaching, learning, and assessing as well as for research purposes. 

However, the ambiguity in the statute and the lack of oversight of TEA has resulted in this:

"At the request of a single member of the Texas State Board of Education or 10% of ISD’s, a publisher must submit their materials to the Quality Review."

Please note that in no place in Texas statute does a single member of an elected body have this kind of power. Many of the TXSBOE Members stood against this TEA Rule. However, Commissioner Morath has the final say. 

The Texas State Board of Education nor the Texas Education Agency determines the best method to teach. Equally, neither should the TEA or the TXSBOE rank or score textbooks and technology. 

​It seems that TEA is placing itself on a path to accomplish what C-Scope could not. ​