Thoughts on the 2026 Texas Literary Works List
The State of Texas just adopted a new policy where they are going to require specific texts ("literary works" as they call them) to be taught in all grade levels from Kindergarten through 12th grade. This is causing quite the backlash because there are biblical texts on this list. And, yes, requiring—requiring—teachers to teach passages from the Bible is problematic given the constitution that is supposed to protect the separation between church and state. There are ways to avoid saying that teaching things from the Bible has anything to do with the state mandating religion, and I think because it is not explicitly saying to teach religion, there are going to be some ways that teachers can subvert this.
There are more egregious ideas at play here when you are requiring teachers to teach an entire list of specific literary works. It limits the ability of teachers to choose texts that are going to be relevant for their students. And, the response from lawmakers will be that this list does not prohibit what other books teachers choose to teach, but what it does do is narrow that window in which other things can be taught. Again, there are going to be ways that this can all be flaunted...
So the egregious idea is that this is on a logic of eventually having a required curriculum that does not allow any deviations. We have seen this with requirements for students in phonics programs in some of the elementary levels. Teachers are given a scripted curriculum and they are told, "Here, teach this. You need to do everything." And then they become an implementer of state- or district-mandated curriculum. There is no local control when it becomes a state-mandated curriculum. So, this is the funny thing about this, not so much funny but the deeply ironic, the individual rights, keep the government out of my schools branch of Republicanism has now approved a government mandated program of reading.
The next step is for them to release a list of banned books, which they have already tried to do in some shape or fashion with Matt Kraus's list that was released in 2021. So, they'll revive that, and you better believe that this list will heavily feature LGBTQ and people of color authors. The problematic white authors will get a pass because they always do in these matters of censorship, so as long as those white authors are conservative and capitalistic enough in their writings (e.g., Ayn Rand). And after that list of banned books in conjunction with the list of required lists, well then, the state will think, why not just save teachers the time and give them an exclusive list of this is what you teach and only teach. Now you have a state-mandated exclusive curriculum for teaching books. We might as well burn the rest of the library, right?
What's in the Adopted List
I come from the world of High School, so I am going to look at what the High School section says in the literary works list that they adopted. I am looking at ATTACHMENT III, Text of Proposed New 19 TAC, Chapter 110. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for English Language Arts and Reading, Subchapter C. High School, §110.70. Literary Works Lists, High School, Adopted 2026.
They specify in §110.70 (b) "The literary works included in the figures in subsection (f)(1)-(4) of this sections shall be included in instruction at or before the designated grade level. Each required literary work shall be read in its entirety unless otherwise indicated in the figures in subsection (f)(1)-(4) of this section."
So, they do mandate that "at or before the designated grade level. Each required literary work shall be read in its entirety." So let us keep note of this detail because there are some things you can do with this. The before the designated grade level is important to this discussion of ways to subvert what is going on here.
In §110.70 (c) they indicate, "The literary works required by this section represent the minimum literary works to be read by students in that grade. Additional literary works to be used in instruction may be selected at the local level. When making local selections of additional literary works for instruction in English language arts and reading, school districts and charter schools should prioritize texts with content that reinforces required student expectations of knowledge from other subjects, including social studies."
So, here's the part that says this is not an exclusive list, yet. I am willing to put money on the idea that, unless the Republicans lose their majority on the school board, there will be an exclusive list of a required minimum and a list of approved books that teachers can choose from to supplement in the next ten years.
In §110.70 (e) they talk about the text sets that they have created, but they do indicate "This approach to grouping is recommended as an option to consider for instruction but is not required." Still, all the texts that are listed are required, but you can subvert how a text is received based on other texts that you put it in conjunction with. A subversive teacher can group the problematic texts with condemnations of that required text, and then the reading of the problematic text can be turned into a reading with a lens activity where the student needs to critique the text.
In §110.70 (h) there are ways for a parent to remove their child: "In accordance with TEC, §26.010, a parent retains the right to temporarily remove the parent's child from instruction in a required literary work that conflicts with the parent's religious or moral beliefs if the parent presents or delivers to the teacher of the parent's child a written statement authorizing the removal of the child from the instruction." This part of the law can be actively told to parents in schools where this type of requirement will not be taken well. Teachers should be upfront with the required texts that the state is requiring and ensure that parents know that they can just "present...to the teacher of the parent's child a written statement authorizing the removal of the child from this instruction." Now, with sufficient collective action from like-minded parents, you can create quite the debacle if you can gather a group of parents who want their children removed from any Bible passages or from Margaret Thatcher's Eulogy of Ronald Reagan. It is hard to prove a moral belief. And I would encourage parents to go with the route of presenting the letter so there is not a record retained by the schools.
The Printed Version Recommendation
Another thing that caught my eye in this is their recommendation "that students read from printed versions of required literary works as opposed to digital copies on digital devices" (§110.70 (d)). There are numerous benefits to actually reading a physical, printed version of a text that you can learn more about from books like Proust and the Squid by Maryanne Wolf. However, if a school is going to make this happen, the district needs to be prepared to spend a substantial amount of money, including buying the three different translations of the Bible that are spread throughout the requirements.
Seriously, three different translations of the Bible. They want schools to buy entire Bibles to read, in some cases, 22 verses from the Bible. There is a major difference in being handed a printed page or two with a story from the Bible to talk about in how we might see some of those ideas represented in a larger text. For example, they require both the "Parable of the Prodigal Son" from the Book of Luke, Chapter 15, verses 11–32, and Great Expectations to be read at or before Grade 9, English I.
To be given the required ISBN book that the state requires to turn to two pages of the Bible is very different than being given a single sheet of paper with the Parable on it. One has the child making use of the Bible and holding it in his or her hands to flip through and look at all the other parts of the Bible while turning to the specific section. It is consistently and repeatedly putting a Bible in their hands while at school. So, what the state wants is for students to be opening a Bible on their desk every single school year from Grade 4 through Grade 12—and not just one specific version of the Bible but from three different translations throughout their school years. They start with the New International Reader's Version (ISBN 978-0310445906) in grade 4, stick with it in grade 5, switch to the English Standard Version (ISBN 979-8874903398) in grade 6, change again to the King James Version (ISBN 978-0718097905) in grades 7 and 8, and then go back to the ESV in grade 9, back to the NIRV in grades 10 and 11, and finish off their high school experience with the ESV again in grade 12.
To return to the example of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the teacher is "recommended" to have a copy of the ESV for all students to read from. This is what is being thunked down on the students' desks that day:
That is the specific one that the state recommends schools buy. All to flip through the text until they find the "Parable of the Prodigal Son" which, in its entirety, is as follows:
The Parable of the Prodigal Son
11 And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. 14 And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything.
17 “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ 20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. 23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.
25 “Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’”
I would really want no business teaching this because I would have to approach it like a work of fiction from where I am. I would treat the people in this story as characters, and I would ask students to consider the theme that the author is trying to get across. Really, what this would do is just open a whole new problem of some teachers teaching it as dogmatic truth, others having no idea what to do with it, some teaching it as fiction and trying to contextualize it, and others working to subvert it and use it as a way to point out the hypocrisy of religion.
On its face, the above Parable is an instruction to be thankful for when someone who has strayed returns back to the accepted path. The father thought he lost his son, so he celebrated the return. But what if we took the perspective of the older son as the correct view and the father and younger son as the incorrect view? You can interpret this parable, which in the perspective of the Bible is supposed to be celebrating someone's return to God, as a condemnation of this viewpoint. The younger son has again found a way to manipulate the good grace of the father; the father is gullible and will again be duped by the younger son, and the older son is entirely correct to condemn his father for celebrating the younger son. Perhaps, instead, the lesson from this parable can be, "go out and do whatever the hell you want to do for a few years because your parents will just be glad that you come home if you live such a reckless life that they think you're dead." And perhaps the other message they will get is, "there's no point to working hard and being dutiful because no one will ever recognize you for that." It's clear the state does not want this interpretation, but they are playing with fire when they start to require biblical passages be taught in ELAR classrooms because the ELAR classroom, at least for now, is supposed to teach students the skills for interpreting fiction and non-fiction, not theology or biblical studies.
So, it is a risky endeavor for the state to require this, and it will surely be challenged by the ACLU, but based on the state's pursuit of the display of the Ten Commandments, they will not back down from this. I, for one, would not want to be put in the position of having to discuss biblical texts with students. That should be in the realm of the family and the church. Seeing a biblical allusion and explaining why the author put that allusion in there is much different than dealing with the Bible as a text of study itself.
Ways to Resist
Luckily, there is some room to breathe in the current conception of the bill that will give resistant educators a chance to find ways to avoid more problematic texts. §110.70 (b) has the requirement laid out: "The literary works included in the figures in subsection (f)(1)-(4) of this sections shall be included in instruction at or before the designated grade level. Each required literary work shall be read in its entirety unless otherwise indicated in the figures in subsection (f)(1)-(4) of this section." The operative phrases are the ambiguous "included in instruction," the flexible "at or before the designated grade level," and the direct "shall be read in its entirety." Reading these three phrases, there are some ways that a reluctant educator could avoid really considering the implications of some of these texts.
As I pointed out earlier, in §110.70 (h) there are ways for a parent to remove their child: "In accordance with TEC, §26.010, a parent retains the right to temporarily remove the parent's child from instruction in a required literary work that conflicts with the parent's religious or moral beliefs if the parent presents or delivers to the teacher of the parent's child a written statement authorizing the removal of the child from the instruction." This creates another avenue for resistance in a district that is openly hostile to the bill. So, based on the receptiveness of your district to this bill, you can either have closed-door resistance or open-door resistance. That is, a quiet subversion of expectations that does not draw attention to your resistance because the district would be hostile to any outward resistance; or, you can be in coalition with parents and administrators in an openly resistant way that draws attention to the negative aspects of this.
Closed-Door Resistance — Acts of Subversion
I want to start with the "at or before the designated grade level" directive. This is the easiest one to allow an educator just to skip over dealing with some of these books. Schools can require the troublesome readings for students to complete over the summer. They can just say, "you shall read each of these texts in its entirety," here's where to find them. And students might read them, but like most summer reading projects, they will not read them. When they return from the summer, you can say, "okay, go ahead and turn-and-talk to your neighbor and tell them what you thought of the books you read." Done. The literary work was included in instruction at or before the designated grade level, and you required the students to read them in their entirety. Perfect. You have met the demands of the state, and you can move forward with the books you want to teach.
Maybe you do not want to dedicate any of your class time to teaching these books. So, just require all of the texts to be read over the summer. On the first day back, put together a basic slideshow presentation that talks about the themes of each of the books and then you can be done with all of them and return to your regularly scheduled curriculum. It does not have to be incorporated into your year. You are within the bounds of the bill by having them read it before they enter the grade level.
Okay, but maybe your district gives you a more stringent demand, and they say that you must teach them during the school year. Okay, no problem, be up front with your students. Make it a posted assignment in whatever LMS your school makes you use that they need to read the entirety of the text by a certain deadline. Then have a quiz that you do together as a class that does not impact their grades negatively. Just be upfront with your students that the state and the district are requiring you to teach these certain books, and that this is how you are going to get through it. If the group of students are more inclined to resistance to these books, you can be more direct in why you are just breezing over them. Again, these "literary works" do not have to consume your curriculum.
Open-Door Resistance — Acts of Protest
Maybe you are lucky enough to find yourself in a district that does not want to implement this bill to fidelity... This gives you more choices. Obviously, you could still, and should still implement the subversive forms of resistance as explained above, but you could also implement more direct forms of protest. There could always be an outright refusal, but let's say you want to stay within the bounds of the bill, that's where "a parent retains the right to temporarily remove the parent's child from instruction in a required literary work that conflicts with the parent's religious or moral beliefs if the parent presents or delivers to the teacher...a written statement authorizing the removal of the child from the instruction." It goes on to say that "the school district...is encouraged, but not required, to provide an alternative graded assignment or local assessment that is based on an alternative literary work provided for the student who was removed from instruction."
There are a few degrees to which this removal from instruction could be implemented. Obviously, the first is as is the letter of the law: a parent could object to their child being taught the Bible or other text for religious or moral reasons. Now, it looks like the issue of assessment over that material is a bit more ambiguous, but they can still remove their child from the instruction, but not necessarily the test. How one is supposed to take a test over instruction they were removed from is a question for another day... So, an individual can remove their child, and the district may or may not assign an alternative literary work.
Now, let us imagine that we are in a district that is openly against the bill and some of its requirements. They can write up a choice of which text to study. They can put forward a document that explains that the state is requiring them to teach aspects of the Bible or other texts that do not culturally align with the population of the school, and, in that document, they can explain why the school would rather not broach the subject. For instance, they could say, "We believe that matters concerning religion should be left to the family, and for that reason, we would like to give you the choice to opt-out of your child receiving instruction on the Bible at public school. For all students who choose to opt-out, an alternative text that is not based on a religious text will be assigned." They could go further and encourage a 100% refusal of the text, where, if all students are removed from instruction, the text is no longer taught.
If a school district wanted to be particularly audacious, they could include this form in registration paperwork and just have students opt out from receiving this instruction at the outset of enrollment at the school. This would effectively circumvent the bill and remove the teaching of Biblical material as a required curriculum. If they are less inclined for this, they could focus on the aspect that the state, in its framing of the texts, considers the Bible a literary work. Thus, the excerpts of the Bible should be taught as a literary work, treating the characters as fictional and subject to literary interpretation with varying themes based on different analytical lenses.
A teacher against the teaching of theology in schools could be upfront and say that they are going to have students interpret the biblical passages from a specific literary theory that does not treat the Bible as sacred, and that if a parent does not want their child to be exposed to a secular reading of the Bible then they could opt them out of the instruction and be given a passage that expresses a similar thematic message.
Of course, districts and educators can always be outright resistant and refuse to teach it. If enough teachers did this, could they all be fired? What teeth are there to this actual law? Lots to consider here.
What Next?
There are so many things to consider about this bill: what is its actual purpose, what does it hope to accomplish, how do they expect to enforce this, what will the wider public's reaction be, how will teachers respond, and how will district's respond? These are just some initial questions to consider.
If you're an educator in Texas, I feel for you. This is a hard position for the faithful and the secular alike. I am glad that I am not currently put in this position because it seems like it can only result in a lose-lose situation for all involved.
I challenge you to consider what you want for your students and for your children as we think through what a required reading list implies for the future of education. This idea leaves out even considering that the Bible is part of the required reading. This logic is a troubling and concerning one. If the state is going to put out a mandated list of literary works, then what is stopping them from adopting a list of banned literary works? That will be the next step if there is not resistance to this first step. Texas has been working to inject religious and political ideological control into the public schools for a while now, which directly flaunts the principles of this country. Choices of what a school does should and always should be a matter of local control.
I left Texas about a year ago for a host of reasons, but among them was a growing concern with the stance the government was taking against teachers and education at large. There are still opportunities to change the direction the state is heading in, but it requires the people to act and vote for changes that respect and honor the professionalism of educators and the cultures of local communities.
Comments
Post a Comment