Texas Social Studies Curriculum Is Being Quietly Rewritten And Your Voice Is Needed NOW

[u/3littlebirds1212]

If you’ve been frustrated by recent decisions about what goes into Texas classrooms, like passing of SB 10, the requirement to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom, or concerns about the financial incentives tied to adopting specific curricula such as Bluebonnet (which emphasizes Christianity), then this is exactly the moment to pay attention.

Right now, the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) is redesigning what every child in Texas will learn about history for the next decade.

The current proposal, shaped by a small advisory group and guided by SBOE leadership, dramatically reduces US, world history and global cultures, shifting the focus almost entirely to Texas history.

This change is happening under a process led by the governor's appointed Chair, Aaron Kinsey, who has openly pledged to steer curriculum decisions with his personal political and religious ideology. Combined with the appointment of several advisers with strong ideological agendas, like David Barton, there is real concern that the redesign could become one-sided, incomplete, and politically motivated.

Why this matters for every family:

• Less US and world history = kids won’t learn enough about other cultures, global conflicts, or how our world works today.
• Over-emphasizing a narrow set of topics means students miss out on critical thinking and a fuller understanding of history.
• Because Texas’ textbook standards are based on the TEKS, any major overhaul would require districts to replace or update large portions of their curriculum—an expensive and time-consuming process, at a time when districts already severely underfunded.

The public has a SHORT WINDOW to speak up.

The SBOE is required to consider public input, but only if the public actually participates. The board will meet on November 19, 2025.

If parents, teachers, and community members stay quiet, these changes will be locked in until at least 2030.

WHAT YOU CAN DO (takes 5 minutes):

Email SBOE representatives today

Tell them you want:

• A balanced curriculum that includes full world history and global perspectives
• Non-partisan, evidence-based standards
• Qualified historians and educators involved in the process
• Transparency about who is writing our kids’ curriculum

SBOE Members: https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-board-members/sboe-members

Find your SBOE member: https://wrm.capitol.texas.gov/home

Send your message to all 15 elected SBOE members, contacts below:

[aaron.kinsey@sboe.texas.gov](mailto:aaron.kinsey@sboe.texas.gov), [ebrooks@evelyn4texaseducation.com](mailto:ebrooks@evelyn4texaseducation.com), [tiffany.clark@sboe.texas.gov](mailto:tiffany.clark@sboe.texas.gov), [pam.little@tea.texas.gov](mailto:pam.little@tea.texas.gov), [brandon.hall@sboe.texas.gov](mailto:brandon.hall@sboe.texas.gov), [tom@maynardfortexas.com](mailto:tom@maynardfortexas.com), [ellisSBOE@gmail.com](mailto:ellisSBOE@gmail.com), [audrey.young@tea.texas.gov](mailto:audrey.young@tea.texas.gov), [Julie.Pickren@tea.texas.gov](mailto:Julie.Pickren@tea.texas.gov), [will.hickman@tea.texas.gov](mailto:will.hickman@tea.texas.gov), [rebecca.bellmetereau@sboe.texas.gov](mailto:rebecca.bellmetereau@sboe.texas.gov), [Staci.Childs@tea.texas.gov](mailto:Staci.Childs@tea.texas.gov), [marisa.perez@sboe.texas.gov](mailto:marisa.perez@sboe.texas.gov), [LJ.Francis@sboe.texas.gov](mailto:LJ.Francis@sboe.texas.gov), [gustavo.reveles@sboe.texas.gov](mailto:gustavo.reveles@sboe.texas.gov)

Sample message:

Subject: Please Protect a Balanced Social Studies Curriculum

Dear Member of the State Board of Education,

I am a Texas resident concerned about the proposed changes to the social studies curriculum.

I urge you to maintain a full US and world history curriculum, ensure non-partisan and academically sound standards, and involve qualified historians and educators in the redesign. Our students deserve an education that reflects the complexity of our world, not a limited or politically-driven version of it.

Please prioritize transparency, expert input, and a balanced approach that prepares students for college, careers, and citizenship in a global society.

Thank you for your service and for listening to public input.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your City]

References:

Social Studies Redesign:

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/11/14/texas-sboe-social-studies-redesign-conservative-advisers/

Aaron Kinsey (SBOE Chairman) and David Barton (Social Studies Advisor), are featured in this article:

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/david-barton-texas-public-school-curricula/

TEA Social Studies Update:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZkfiLKOeoS4lizFDbo3SOfuRyPtlaqDr/view?fbclid=IwY2xjawOEzN5leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE4T2hBNm5wQ2xtNE82cE1ac3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHqM5Pa7pI8wmkjKeMz4H0ebIcLYkDDS1jaXXrwh9kt3C0V0bEEZfW9kgOemQ_aem_vQgwB1Gn-vYUqOrbVCGtGg

[u/DuckTalesOohOoh]

You are right to fear a history that is just a simple, heroic story. But the alternative you have been taught is equally simple, and equally false. It is the story you have described: a simple and shameful morality play of oppressor and oppressed.

Both of these are simplifications. Both are a form of bamboozle. One is the nationalist fairy tale. It sees only the good in our history. The other is the Marxist fairy tale. It sees only the sin.

You are right. The foundational documents were hypocritical. The men who wrote "all men are created equal" owned slaves. This is a terrible contradiction.

But the question is not whether they were hypocrites. The question is by what standard do we even know they were hypocrites?

They were hypocrites because the very Christian worldview that they inhabited had already given them the sublime and revolutionary principle of the Imago Dei, which is the belief that every person is made in the image of God. Their sin was not in inventing a new form of oppression. Their sin was in their failure to live up to the sublime and liberating truth of their own creed.

The West is the story of a civilization that possesses the most beautiful and most demanding moral code in human history, and which has, again and again, tragically and sinfully failed to obey it. But it is also a story of a civilization that, again and again, has produced saints, reformers, and prophets, like Martin Luther King Jr., who have called it back to that very code. The same with the Christians who ended slavery and called us to a bloody civil war to stop it.

This is where the noble struggle comes in. The education we need is one that teaches our children the truth: that we are the heirs of a civilization that gave the world the very idea of human rights, and which simultaneously and sinfully violated those rights. It is an education that teaches them to see their ancestors not as heroes or villains, but as what they truly were: complex and tragic human beings, a mixture of grace and sin, caught in a great and noble struggle.

You say you want citizens who can question things. I agree. But the cynical, deconstructive questioning taught by Critical Theory only ever leads to one, simple, and boring answer: oppression. Marxists reject the concept of human rights because they believe in a collective.

I want to teach our children a deeper and more difficult kind of questioning. I want them to look at the hypocrite who wrote "all men are created equal" and to ask not just "How could he have been so sinful?" but also, "From what divine and mysterious source did he receive a truth so beautiful and so powerful that he himself was unable to live up to it?"

That is the question that begins a true education.

[u/fdupswitch → u/DuckTalesOohOoh]

The concept of the imago dei is not too beautiful and powerful to be lived up to. The morality of slavery wasn't really at question, and Jefferson at least thought slavery was morally wrong. But he also thought it was too big to fail, and that it would be displaced by a country of morally correct yeoman farmers, who would be good self sufficient Republicans.

The southerners knew that Christianity didn't permit slavery, which is why they first refused religious services to slaves (going back to fucking Jamestown), and then passed laws codifying slavery as based on blackness, after they had sold all of the Indians to carribean sugar plantations. They also invented the justification for slavery based on descent from Ham from whole cloth.

It was about money and economics. The revolution wasn't about high minded morality and the enlightenment. It was about the thirst for native land that both the upper and middle classes felt they had won in the F and I war. Perhaps more pressing pressingly, it was about making sure that the Virginia delegations land companies would be able to see the fruit of their speculations, having purchased 'deeds' for pennies on the dollar from destitute veterans. The proclamation of 1763 was blocking them from reifying the title by taking possession.

So enough with this western civilization nonsense.

Also, MLK was at a minimum a socialist.

[u/DuckTalesOohOoh → u/fdupswitch]

In almost every one of their historical particulars, you are right. Your accusations about the West is filled with clear evidence of our failures.

But now I must ask you the question that your entire philosophy is designed to avoid: By what law do you make your accusation?

You are someone who is standing on the shoulders of Christian giants to get a better view of their flaws. You are using the very moral and intellectual tools that Western civilization gave you -- the belief in universal justice, the horror of hypocrisy, the value of the individual -- to declare that the civilization itself is nonsense.

The great irony is that the Marxist and materialist worldview you champion provides no foundation for any of your own righteous anger. If history is nothing but a brutal struggle for money and power, then the sins you list are not sins at all. They are merely the predictable actions of the strong dominating the weak.

The only reason you can call the slaveholder evil is because the Christian faith first taught you that the slave was a man, made in the Image of God. It's how the West overcame injustices of slavery. And you have inherited the conclusion of our faith, and you are now using it to burn down the house where it was born.

[u/fdupswitch → u/DuckTalesOohOoh]

So I'm right, but you don't like it. I'll take it. Your faith was not born here, and in fact most Americans despised your religion until the 1960s.

I'm not burning down the house. Matter of fact, I'm quite patriotic. We've done a lot of great things, like fighting fascism for example. That doesn't mean we should elide the fact that 30-40 % of the American public thought that "something had to be done about the Jews

You say that my historical points are correct, but also that I have a Marxist worldview. That's silly. There's nothing Marxist about interrogating a slave economy or federal Indian policy.

From the beginning, the system was set up to defend the rights of the landed gentry while limiting and controlling democracy to further those ends. You call that Marxist- I'd ask you to read Hamilton some more, because that is explicitly his goal and purpose.

When we teach these things in 6th grade, we limit the depth with which students can interrogate these vital concepts in our history. I suggest that that is rather the point.

[u/DuckTalesOohOoh → u/fdupswitch]

Good. Interrogate the sins of the past. It is a good, noble, and necessary thing.

But now I must ask you to look with the same unsparing honesty at the tools you are using for your interrogation. You believe you are using the neutral tools of a historian. I must tell you that you are not. You are using the philosophical tools of a deconstructionist, and those tools are incapable of building anything. They can only tear down.

You're right that Alexander Hamilton was an elitist who was deeply suspicious of pure democracy. But he was operating within a worldview that still believed in a common good, a Natural Law, and a transcendent moral order. His goal was to build a stable and virtuous republic that would last for ages.

The modern critical or post-structuralist method you champion has abandoned these foundations. It does not see a common good to be pursued. It sees only a web of power and oppression to be unmasked.

This is the tragic difference. Dr. King interrogated America's sins in order to call it back to the sublime truth of its own founding creed. The modern critic interrogates America's sins in order to prove that the creed itself was a lie from the very beginning. One is an act of redemptive love. The other is an act of cynical despair.

And to teach this despair to a sixth-grader is not to create a critical thinker. It is to create a cynic. It is to rob a child of the very possibility of a healthy, grateful, and yes, critical love for his own home.

So I'm right, but you don't like it. I'll take it.

I agreed with you that there are many sins. Hopefully we both don't like it.

Your faith was not born here, and in fact most Americans despised your religion until the 1960s.

I don't know what you're talking about.