Texas HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD Summary Notes/Minutes History Field of Study Advisory Committee Meeting 1200 East Anderson Lane, Board Room Austin, Texas January 7, 2019, 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM
The webcast of this meetings is available at the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3bQTwOiwog
1. Call to order Allen Michie called the meeting to order at 10:00 AM.
The following committee members were present:
Kimberlee Ball, Lone Star College-North Harris (recording secretary) Jacob Blosser, Texas Woman's University (committee co-chair) Melissa Esmacher, El Paso Community College Michael Faubion, The University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley Kenneth Grubb, Wharton County Community College Barbara Hahn, Texas Tech University Andrew Milson, The University of Texas at Arlington Patricia Ovesny, College of the Mainland Ryan Pettengill, Dallas County Community College District-Mountain View College Lisa Ramos, Alamo Community College-San Antonio College (committee co-chair) Ben Wright, The University of Texas at Dallas
The following committee members were absent:
Jason Fabianke, Alamo CC--St. Philip's College Thomas Greene, TAMU-San Antonio Peter Moore, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Beverly Rowe, Texarkana College Matthew Stith, The University of Texas at Tyler Leland Turner, Midwestern State University Christina A. Wilbur, Lamar State College-Port Arthur
Coordinating Board Staff present: Allen Michie, Program Director Rex Peebles, Assistant Commissioner for Academic Quality and Workforce
Page 1 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019
2. Consideration of meeting notes for the March 29, 2018 meeting
The minutes of the History Field of Study (FOS) Advisory Committee meeting on March 29, 2018, and the minutes of the Teaching Track Subcommittee meeting on November 2, 2018, were both approved.
3. Discussion of recommendations from the Teaching Track Subcommittee for the proposed History Field of Study
Discussion started on the Social Studies Composite FOS. Ramos stated that the subcommittee decided it did not have the expertise to determine a Social Studies composite FOS, and they focused instead on History grades 7-12. Blosser made a motion that the following statement be passed along to the Multidisciplinary Studies FOS Advisory Committee at their upcoming meeting: “This body recommends that the Multidisciplinary FOS committee consider the Social Studies composite in their deliberations and that they use the courses available in the Lower- Division Academic Course Guide Manual (ACGM).” The motion passed.
Blosser introduced a document he prepared comparing the previous FOS curriculum and the curriculum proposed by the Teaching Track subcommittee, highlighting the key differences.
Discussion began on Texas History (HIST 2301). Ramos said that subcommittee discussed how Texas History is not mandatory in the Teaching Track even though Texas History is 20 percent of the certification exam.
Hahn and Faubion said that Texas History is being covered, just at the upper-division level. Grubb pointed out that by state law, students can substitute Texas history for US History. Ramos said that she has taught the exact same course at both levels, and institutions will accept the lower-division course as an equivalent. Faubion said that when the course is taught at the upper-division level, scores go up on the certification exams in Texas History. Esmacher said that the University of Texas at El Paso will not take the lower-division course as the equivalent of the upper-division course. Michie said that the FOS is the complete set of lower- division requirements, so if a receiving institution does not offer Texas History at the upper division, then a transfer student could be going into the certification exam without having taken Texas History if it is not in the FOS.
Milson pointed out that it is not the committee’s purpose to determine what students need for the certification exam, but instead to discuss the courses that will be guaranteed to transfer from community colleges.
Osveny said that students will take as much as they can at the colleges to save money, so Texas History needs to be in the FOS. University of Houston campuses will not take the lower- division course as the equivalent of the upper-division course.
Wright expressed concerns about FOS in general and said that they cause institutions to risk accreditation. There are substantial differences between lower- and upper-division courses, so the committee needs to be careful if it decides to require institutions to accept the substitution. In addition, Wright said that his institution wishes the FOS to be as small as possible. Michie said there are pros and cons to having too few or too many semester credit hours (SCH) in a
Page 2 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019
FOS. It must be the complete set of lower-division requirements, but on the other hand, a large FOS asks institutions to carve deep into upper-division requirements to keep the degree within 120 SCH. Blosser agreed that the FOS needs to stay limited for the academic side, but he is comfortable with a slightly larger FOS for the Teaching Track.
Ramos asked Hahn to clarify the accreditation issue. Hahn read from a letter from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) on the issue of faculty governance and control of the curriculum. He said that the committee is neither broadly representative nor responsive.
Rex Peebles commented on the SACSCOC letter and response. He said that the Commissioner of Higher Education sent a response letter to SACSCOC. Wright said that the Coordinating Board’s response was incomplete. Peebles responded that work similar to FOS has been done in other states, but those states typically have only one university System. There are 61 Systems in Texas, including community college districts. Texas has a 100+ year history of everyone doing what they want to do, with curriculum decisions being made by individual professors or departments. FOS represent a cultural change in how to do business that has not been done in Texas before. The Coordinating Board is careful to ensure that FOS committees are made up of representative faculty. History is something that all community colleges and universities teach, so a committee of 87 people isn’t feasible. FOS always go out for public comment, so everyone has an opportunity to give input. This kind of work guaranteeing transfer has been going on for dozens of years in transfer compacts and articulation agreements, but now it is just being done at the state-wide level. Peebles said that the response letter from SASCOC indicated no concerns about FOS committees not being representative or not having the authority to determine lower-division curricula for transfer.
On the issue of lower-division vs. upper-division Texas History courses, Peebles said that lower- division Texas History was originally put in the ACGM so it could substitute for American History in the core curriculum. African American and Mexican American History could be used to substitute for American History in the core as well. There are instances where a similar course is offered at both the upper and lower division. The crucial issue for FOS is where does a course really belong, and this is a decision the experts in the disciplines need to talk about. Students may end up taking the same subject matter more than once at different levels.
Blosser made a motion that Texas History be added to the Teaching Track. Blosser added that this was the single biggest issue in the public comments.
In discussion, Esmacher said that we need to be clear that if the committee adds this, institutions are not forced to bump their upper-division courses down to the lower division.
Hahn said that the motion should be passed because of the public interest in the topic, and because removing Texas History is damaging to the public perception of our institutions.
Milson opposed the motion, saying that it is bad for students attending a community college because they would lose an elective and have to duplicate course content if they go to an institution that offers Texas History only at the upper division or as part of a two-course sequence. Ramos and Esmacher replied that upper-division Texas History courses could be adjusted to be more specialized in individual time periods, theme, or group.
Blosser called the question, and the motion carried 8 to 4.
Page 3 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019
Blosser said that he felt a need to reaffirm a commitment to including World Civilization I and II and the Teaching Track. He made a motion to retain the two courses, and the motion passed 11-0.
Blosser read from the minutes of the Teaching Track subcommittee meeting about the issue of allowing a choice between either US History or Mexican American History. Some argued that aspects of colonial US History are left out in Mexican American history and these are needed for the certification exam, and some argued that students are not precluded from taking other Mexican American, African American, or ethnic studies courses.
Ramos argued for the inclusion of Mexican American History in the Teaching Track, stating that she went through all of the domains and subset competencies of the certification exams, and most of them are covered in Mexican American History. The Mexican American History cannot be expected to cover everything on the exam because it doesn’t have to—if students take Mexican American History, they will also take additional US History courses at the upper division. Ramos distributed a letter from faculty at South Texas College, The University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley, and other institutions giving reasons for including Mexican American History (see Appendix A).
Blosser said that he agrees with the value of Mexican American History, but the FOS is to provide a baseline of knowledge to prepare students for taking the certification exam, and Mexican American History would leave gaps, particularly in colonial American history. There are fewer gaps between US History and the exam than between Mexican American History and the exam.
Ramos responded that it is true that Mexican American History does not cover all US History topics, but it does cover much of American History and World History as well. The State Board of Education recently passed a rule that Mexican American History can be taught at high schools, so Texas will need to train students to teach those courses by 2020. High school offerings of the course will not grow if the Mexican American History course is not promoted. Ramos gave the example of San Antonio, where 63 percent of the population is Latino. Students come in with no idea of the impact of their culture on the US, and they develop a desire to teach Mexican American History in the high schools. The “or” protects that small population.
Faubion proposed a third option: using US History I as the first half of a requirement, then giving a choice between Mexican American History and US History II for the second half of the requirement.
Hahn said that he is having trouble with the word “colonial.” Esmacher said that academics is moving global, but the traditional certification exam is still very Anglocentric and Eurocentric about colonialism. Blosser said that he struggles between the Eurocentric emphasis of the exam and the global emphasis of his own teaching. He said that the emphasis should be on which course provides the most complete view of US History.
Blosser said that there will no lack of upper-division courses in Mexican American History. Esmacher replied that US History is very fragmented at the upper division, and students will not get the same breadth of preparation for the exam without US History I and II.
Page 4 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019
Wright asked why the committee is not including African American History. Blosser said that it is a one-semester course and does not match the two halves of the “or”.
Esmacher said there are problems with the course description in the ACGM. Michie responded that the committee recommended in November that the ACGM committee reconsider the description.
Faubion asked if it would be possible to move the “or” option to the Academic track. Blosser said yes, but there needs to be parity between the General Academic and the Teaching tracks.
Blosser said that the level of emphasis placed on colonial history in the certification exam is huge, and it would be pragmatic for the FOS to cover as many bases as possible. Blosser said he would prefer that the essential exam content provided at the lower division rather than leave it for upper-division courses that students may not take.
Stith said that requirements for History teachers in other states require a perspective other than US, so what is gained in one place is sometimes lost in another.
Blosser made a motion that the Teaching Track include Texas History, US History I, US History II, World Civilization I, and World Civilization II. There is no option for taking Mexican American History. The motion passed 7-3.
Blosser thanked committee members for their thoughtful discussion, and he promised that the issue of Mexican American History in the FOS would be taken up again when the FOS is reviewed in five years.
Blosser brought up the issue of parity between the Academic Track and the Teaching Track. He said the committee could eliminate Western Civilization and instead require World Civilization. He proposed for discussion that the committee remove Western Civilization from the academic track and keep both Mexican American and African American History as options.
Hahn said that there are institutions that rely on Western Civilization. Grubb said that the course covers the struggle between Islamic and Western culture. Esmacher replied that this is also covered in World Civilization, but Grubb said that it is covered to a lesser extent.
Blosser made a motion that the committee affirm the Academic Track as it was originally proposed. The motion passed unanimously.
4. Discussion of public comments on the proposed History Field of Study
One recommendation was to create an ACGM course in Historical Methods and add it to the academic track. Grubb pointed out that it would be a problem to add more SCH to the FOS. Blosser said the course could be added to the ACGM first and then considered for the FOS. Hahn said that Historical Methods were moving toward the lower-division level.
Blosser noted that all of the public comments were addressed during the course of the day’s discussion.
Page 5 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019
5. Consideration of authorization of Co-Chairs to approve the meeting notes, make non-substantive edits to documents, and conduct assorted committee business relating to Board approval
There was a motion to authorize the co-chairs to conduct non-substantive committee business. The motion was approved unanimously.
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 1:30.
Final proposed FOS:
History: Academic Track
Course Title Course Number SCH United States History I HIST 1301 3
United States History II HIST 1302 3 Choose two of the following History courses: • HIST 2301: Texas History • HIST 2311: Western Civilization I • HIST 2312: Western Civilization II • HIST 2321: World Civilizations I • HIST 2322: World Civilizations II 6 • HIST 2327: Mexican American History I (to the United States-Mexico War Era) • HIST 2328: Mexican American History II (from the United States-Mexico War Era) • HIST 2381 African American History
TOTAL 12
Page 6 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019
History: Teacher Certification Track
Course Title Course Number SCH United States History I HIST 1301 3
United States History II HIST 1302 3
Texas History HIST 2301 3
World Civilizations I HIST 2321 3
World Civilizations II HIST 2322 3
TOTAL 15
Page 7 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019
Appendix A Letter of Support for Mexican American History in the Teaching Track
Date: December 31, 2018
To: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Field of Study Advisory Committee-History
From: Trinidad Gonzales, History Instructor, South Texas College Juan Carmona, History Instructor, South Texas College/Donna High School Christopher Carmona, Assistant Professor for Mexican American Studies, UTRGV
Subject: Consideration of Mexican American History 2327 and 2328 For History and Social Studies Composite degrees. 7-12
The inclusion of Mexican American history courses 2327 and 2328 for the History and Social Studies Composite degrees, 7-12 is vitally important for the development of future junior high and high school history and social studies educators. One of the current rational to reject the inclusion of these courses within the degree pathway is that the courses do not prepare students for the Texas Educator Certification Examination Program Exam for History and Social Studies 7-12 because these courses do not impart content knowledge related to United States history. This rational is incorrect for three primary reasons.
First, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board's Academic Course Guide Manual descriptions. periodization, and learning outcomes for the Mexican American History 2327 and 2328 courses are compatible and overlap with United States History 1301 and 1302. Hence, why the former courses can substitute for the U.S. history six-hour credit requirement. Both the skills and content required to begin a student's training for taking the certification exams for History and Social Studies 7-12 can begin with either set of the above history courses. The emphasis here is the beginning of the student training because these courses are not meant to be test preparation courses in themselves.
Second, introductory courses engage students in learning the skills sets, content and habit of mind that historians utilize in understanding the past. Through the completion of a degree a student will develop the breadth of knowledge that will allow for preparation for taking the certification exam. Indeed, the TEA's Study Tips: Preparing for a Texas Educator Certification Exam states: "If it has been longer than a few months since you've studied your content area, make a concerted effort to prepare." Relying on an introductory course as test preparation is incorrect.
Third, introductory United States history courses in general are still taught from an East Coast-English colonial bias. If the certification exam was solely based on United States history taught from this angle, then maybe the rational to reject Mexican American history within the pathway would be logical.
Page 8 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019
However, the domains or content areas for the certification exam are broken into these percentages: World History (15), U.S. History (20), Texas History (13). Geography, Culture and the Behavioral and Social Sciences (13), Government and Citizenship (13i. Economics and Science. Technology and Society (13), and Social Studies Foundations, Skills, Research and Instruction (13). While calls for the globalization of U.S. history content have been made, in practice that has not occurred. However, Mexican American history learning outcomes reflect this globalization of content that will help provide greater content breadth for students to utilize in preparing for the certification exam. Learning outcomes for Mexican American history courses provide content breadth for World History, U.S. History, and Texas History.
A final reason for the inclusion of Mexican American history within the History and Social Studies Composite degrees, 7-12, centers on the need to prepare educators to be able to teach the new Ethnic Studies: Mexican American Studies high school course. While most departments offer a variety of U.S. history-centered courses, there is usually only one Mexican American history course offered, if any. The limited number of such course offerings within the state acts as a structural restraint for future educators wishing to prepare to teach the new Mexican American Studies course. By allowing the option of Mexican American history within the History and Social Studies Composite, 7-12, degree pathways, students will have the ability to teach this new high school course. By rejecting the inclusion of the Mexican American history courses as an option within the History degree pathways, the THECB FOS Committee will create a restraint for the expansion of this new course.
The following faculty support the inclusion of Mexican American History 2327 and 2328 within the History and Social Studies Composite 7-12 degree pathways.
Omar Valerio Jimenez Associate Professor Department of Historv UT-San Antonio
Cassie Rincones Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities Lone Star College
John Mckiernan-Gonzalez Associate Professor Department of History Texas State History
Cinthya M. Saavedra Associate Professor/ Academic Director of Mexican American Studies Program UT-Rio Grande Valley
Lilliana Patricia Saldana Associate Professor of Mexican American Studies UT-San Antonio
Page 9 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019
George Diaz Assistant Professor Department of History UT-Rio Grande Valley
Greg Pulte Ph.D Candidate Department of Educational Leadership and Policy UT-Austin
David Robles Ph.D graduate UT-El Paso/ Visiting Instructor American Ethnic Studies Kansas State University
Amado Balderas Tijerina Mexican American Studies and AP World Studies instructor Johnny Economedes High School
Orlando Lara Associate Director for Comparative Race and Ethnic Studies Texas Christian University
Jessica Pliley Associate Professor Department of History Texas State University
Nora Cantu McMillian History Professor-Retired San Antonio College
Guadalupe San Miguel Jr. Full Professor Department of History University of Houston
Tony Diaz Director lntercultural Initiatives Lone Star College-North Harris
Emilio Zamora Full Professor Department of History UT-Austin
Marci McMahon Associate Professor Literature and Cultural Studies UT-Rio Grande Valley
Page 10 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019
Patricia Garcia Lecture Department of English UT-Austin
John Moran Gonzalez Full Professor Department of English
Samantha Rodriguez Professor Department of History Houston Community College
Angela Valenzuela Full Professor Department of Education Policy and Planning UT-Austin
Val Ann Martinez Assistant Professor of History Humanities and Social Sciences Department Our Lady of the Lake
Karla A. Lara Ph.D graduate student Department of History University of Houston
David Bowles Assistant Professor Department of Literatures and Cultural Studies UT-Rio Grande Valley
Margie Longoria Librarian Mission High School
Felipe Hinojosa Associate Professor Department of History Texas A&M University
Tiffany Gonzalez Ph.D. Candidate Department of History Texas A&M University
Norma E. Cantu Full Professor Norine R. and T. Frank l'vlurchison Endo ved Professor in Humanities Trinity University
Carlos Cantu Lecturer Department of History South Texas College
Page 11 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019
Mark Saad Saka Professor Department of History Sul Ross State University
Page 12 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019