The Texas State Board of Education is poised to mandate the study of Bible stories and verses for over 5 million public school students, a move that simultaneously rewrites the state’s social studies curriculum to deemphasize global history and expand lessons on communism. This action, expected to pass Friday, represents a significant consolidation of ideological control over public education, shaping the worldview of future generations.
The proposed measure establishes Biblical children’s stories and Bible passages as required reading across K-12 education. Elementary students would encounter picture-book adaptations of stories like David and Goliath, while second-graders would learn “ROAR! – Daniel and the Lion’s Den.” Older students would be introduced to direct Bible passages, including “The Shepherd’s Psalm” from the Book of Psalms for sixth-grade students. These texts would be taught alongside religious writings from George Washington and poems by Langston Hughes and Robert Frost.
At the same meeting, the school board will vote on a rewrite of the state’s social studies curriculum. This revision focuses more heavily on Texas and US history, eliminating a sixth-grade “World Cultures” course and significantly expanding lessons on communism. The proposals, if passed, are slated to go into effect in 2030.
Supporters of the curriculum changes frame the Bible as an essential literary text necessary for students to understand Western history and the founding of the US. One policy group celebrated the initiative as the “final battle” in an effort to purge Texas schools of lessons on race and history that they claim divide students and criticize America’s founders. Susan Perez, founder of the Christian parent advocacy group Citizens for Education Reform, stated at a Monday school board meeting, “We don’t have to incorporate every religious belief in our history or in our literary works, because our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values.” Perez cited Christian references in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, which was signed in “the Year of Our Lord” 1787.
Who Pays
The imposition of this curriculum carries direct costs for students, parents, and educators. Opponents argue the mandatory reading list favors Christianity over other religions and violates the constitutionally protected separation between church and state. They also contend the teachings infringe on parents’ ability to lead their children’s religious education, particularly within non-Christian households. Kimmie Fink, a mother from an active-duty military family stationed in Texas, told the board, “I would like to believe that my children’s constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom rights will remain intact wherever we are stationed.” She added, “Is this not the case in Texas, a state that champions parents’ rights? In Texas, parents have the fundamental legal right to direct the moral and religious upbringing of their children without state interference. The proposed literary works trample on this right.”
Board member Tiffany Clark, a Christian and Democrat, vocally opposed the curriculum, noting that not all Christians share the same beliefs and that different denominations use varying Bible translations. The proposed curriculum mandates specific translations, including the King James Bible, widely used by Protestant and Evangelical churches but avoided by the Roman Catholic Church. Clark expressed fears that the emphasis on Christian texts would alienate children from other religious backgrounds and prevent their parents from solely shaping their religious education. Pew Research Center surveys from the third to fourth year indicate about a third of adults in Texas identify as non-Christian. While parents would have the option to opt their children out of some required teachings, Clark warned that missing lessons could negatively impact students’ test scores, as the texts could be included on standardized testing.
Rabbi Joshua Fixler with Congregation Emanu El in Houston highlighted the burden placed on teachers, who may be forced to teach religious texts they are not familiar or comfortable with. Rabbi Fixler stated, “This list is full of Christian texts that are inappropriate for public school classrooms. As a rabbi and a parent of Jewish kids, I think it is vital that this board make a distinction between teaching about religion and teaching religion. This list will force teachers to cross that line.” Antero Garcia, president of the National Council of Teachers of English, stated he is unaware of any other state with a similar mandated list, underscoring the unprecedented nature of this state-level ideological intervention.
The State's Role
This curriculum change is not an isolated event but part of a broader pattern of state action in Texas. In recent years, Texas leaders have systematically eliminated studies of racial and cultural diversity while expanding the state’s ability to introduce Christianity to students. In the third year, Texas became the first state to allow chaplains to counsel students. The following year, the state approved a measure offering more funding to schools that teach an optional Bible-infused elementary school curriculum. The state’s education code already requires K-12 schools to teach “religious literature, including the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament, and its impact on history and literature.”
Proponents, like former public school administrator Nancy Barker, argue the Biblical passages are for “literary and historical content rather than religious instruction.” Barker told the board, “The Bible references will provide students with the background knowledge you will need to understand the books, the speeches, poems and important documents that have shaped our civilization.” However, the structural reality is that the state apparatus is actively shaping historical narratives and cultural understanding to align with a specific religious and political agenda, suppressing alternative viewpoints and critical historical analysis. The option for parents to opt out, while presented as a concession, fails to address the fundamental issue of state-mandated religious content and its potential to disadvantage students in standardized testing, revealing the inadequacy of such liberal reforms in challenging the underlying ideological project.