The Context Behind Book Removals in Conroe ISD, Part 1
The Context Behind Book Removals in Conroe ISD, Part 1
A deep dive into how one large Texas school district reviews books, and why so many are being removed at once.
In January 2024, the Conroe ISD school district instructed teachers to send around 80 book titles to the warehouse for disposal, which totaled to about 2,600 copies from classroom collections.1 Those books no longer met Board policy requirements.
This shocked many people in the community, as these books included common favorites such as Brave New World, Beloved, The Bluest Eye, and many others. An uproar began both online and in the following School Board meeting. Those books had not gone through the formal reconsideration process, so these removals were unexpected and without the public transparency found with previous book removals.
What happened? Was the district or Board secretly removing books?
Before we get into the details of why these books were removed, we need to step back and understand how books are processed into and out of the school district. We will start with everyone’s favorite Board topic.
Policy
In November 2023, the Conroe ISD Board of Trustees updated its policies for books. Here is the summary:
Local Board Policies EFA and EFB have been revised to reflect changes requested by the Board of Trustees. Changes include adding the definition of “sexually explicit materials” to both policies, revising the appeal process to eliminate level 2, including an email notification to parents regarding library books checked out by their child, requiring parental permission for secondary students to access books included in classroom collections, and adding a provision specifically addressing instructional resources at the elementary and intermediate levels.
At first glance, this may read like the School Board is implementing more draconian policies on books or making them easier to remove. This is arguably true with the change in the reconsideration process. If someone in the school district submits a formal complaint about a book, it goes through a review process by district staff that includes parent and student volunteers. The Board’s recent change removes one level of that process, and it allows any Board member to challenge whichever decision is made (per book).
The book reconsideration process can be a long one, and it requires a determined complainant to see it all the way to a public Board meeting. There have been some people willing to go through that process, including those who will pay bounties to find books for challenge.
But that process is slow, public, and draining. In Conroe ISD, there have been 17 official book challenges, three of which made it to the Board since the process was created (as of Feb 2024). Challenges also focus on one book at a time when school libraries have hundreds of thousands of titles available.
Is there another way to challenge books? Perhaps one that is not as slow or public?
As someone who has been involved with small Boards like MUDs and HOAs for nearly 10 years, there is a constant need to inform people how things work. You cannot make big changes overnight. Boards are required to follow strict processes, and quick, blanket decisions that impact the community can be risky without enough thought and public input.
The reality is that School Boards, like other small government entities, must comply with State and Federal law. Many attempts to change policy are thwarted by bureaucracy, and for new Board members this can quickly extinguish the fire and brimstone that got them elected. Even Robert’s Rules can halt change momentum.
Yet, Boards do make changes, and those changes can include costly mistakes. Trustees can overreach, and they can implement policy without fully vetting the possible outcomes. This is especially relevant for books, as Boards are given the responsibility of deciding what goes into school libraries.
The previous major change on book policy for Conroe ISD was in August 2022, where they split its book policy into two separate categories and added language restricting “harmful” or “obscene” material based on guidance from the Texas Education Agency (TEA).
These changes were local to CISD. Policies are set per school district, which is a slow-moving process that requires constant handholding. This is why those wishing to remove books quickly changed their focus from local school districts to state legislatures. For Texas, it worked for the most part. See Texas HB-9002, also known as the Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources (READER) Act.
We will expand more on where the READER Act is having an impact, but the reality is that Boards create policy that is within the barriers laid out by law, and for books these barriers have increased (for better or worse).
If we wish to understand how books are reviewed, we first need to understand the internal process that is used within school districts. How were book reviews managed before parents had a formal process to challenge them?
After reading through Board policies and HB-900, I spoke with staff members within Conroe ISD, including the District Librarian, the Assistant Superintendent for Teaching & Learning, a librarian at an elementary campus, an English Language Arts teacher, and a former science & social studies teacher. We talked about the internal review processes and the differences between them.
Although much of what I am writing here is based on their responses, I am adding personal observations into this discussion.
This write-up is long. There is a TLDR at the bottom if you need it.
Internal Reviews
Librarians review their book collections constantly. It is part of their job and something they take great pride in. They bring in new books, index them, provide an organized system so those books can be found easily, and create a welcoming environment for all who come to find new adventures in literature (to name a few things).
Librarians must also remove books. Stories get old or not relevant. Certain books may stop getting circulated (i.e. not checked out by students), or as we have in the last decade, books caught in the fray of culture war. Thus, a process is performed to cycle out books as needed or as required within schools.
Mind you, not every school district is the same, even within Texas. Across the country you may find more simple or complex procedures. If you are outside Conroe ISD, I imagine it is similar, but you should review your own district policies.
The most important thing to know for most school districts in Texas is that there are generally two different internal review processes:
Instructional Materials
Library Materials
Policies for these both reach into classroom collections, as in what teachers have in their small class libraries (we’ll expand on this in a moment).
To summarize, there is a review process to manage which instructional materials educators can use, which includes more than just books (e.g. supplemental material, electronic resources), and there is a process to manage which books can be found in the school library.
This is what it means when you hear Board Policy EFA vs EFB. These are not acronyms that stand for something; they are simply the order in which the school district has its policies, following guidance from the TEA. We will breakdown EFA vs EFB.
EFA: Instructional Materials
K-12 teachers are required to educate students based on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Class lessons and curriculum are based on TEKS, and they use instructional materials during their lessons. Materials can include textbooks, fiction and non-fiction books, online resources, or other tools to somehow implant knowledge into kid’s brains.
Most of us do not appreciate the sheer volume of TEKS required from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Go click around the website for yourself to see. For instructional material, we must look to one TEKS in particular, which is the Health Education TEKS.
One challenge with deciding on instructional materials is that it must meet the grade level, or age appropriateness, that match with Health TEKS. For example, you would not want to require a book for a lesson that includes sexual intercourse or suicide to a student in a grade level where those Health TEKS have not yet been taught.
Thus, when internal book reviews are performed related to EFA and instructional materials, district staff look to see if those books are aligned with district policy, Health TEKS, and whichever other State laws or regulations must be followed.
Instructional materials are reviewed by the Teaching & Learning Curriculum Department. This is done as needed, which also includes what is allowed for classroom collections, which we should now discuss.
Classroom Collections
Teachers have books in their classrooms. These are part of their classroom library, which includes both instructional material (e.g., textbooks) and self-selected book options for students.
Some school districts link these little teacher libraries into the main library software system for the purpose of tracking books checked out from classrooms. My understanding is that this is not common, including within Conroe ISD. Therefore, classroom collections are managed separately from the library.
These classroom collections may include fiction or non-fiction material, such as a 5th grade Social Studies teacher having the I Survived series, or a high school teacher with AP Science textbooks. These collections are built by what is relevant to the grade and subjects taught.
As described to me by district staff, school libraries are the “buffet” of books. Classroom collections are the “guided menu” based on the subjects taught. Books in either can be the target of internal reviews and subsequently removed.
Also, classroom collections are managed by teachers, not librarians, but they are still bound by the same district policies. Teachers are provided extensive lists of books that are already approved, and they are required to remove books that are no longer permitted. The district also employs instructional coaches to assist teachers with book selections.
Similarly, many books other than textbooks could be sourced by teachers themselves, whether they are bought, donated, or hand-me-downs from other teachers. When these books are forced to be removed from classrooms, there is potential for teachers to lose out on money they spent personally. We will expand upon district-provided books in a moment.
Moving on, when internal reviews are made based on EFA policy, the decision may appear like this:
To recap on books used as instructional materials, these are reviewed as needed based on Board Policy EFA requirements and aligned with Health Education TEKS. When the policy was changed in November 2023, it added language regarding “sexually explicit materials” to both EFA and EFB. This essentially changed how the district must look at instructional materials.
Instructional Materials Allotment (IMA)
Texas provides school districts funding (i.e., allotments) for various purposes. There is funding for all kinds of things, from bilingual education, gifted and talented programs, special education, dyslexia support, early education, security, and many more. School districts often require a significant amount of budget to support these programs, and state funding can offset that cost considerably.
There is also an allotment for instructional materials (IMA). These funds can be used by school districts to purchase materials adopted by the State Board of Education (SBOE), which are done through Proclamations.
Long story short, the Conroe ISD Board, like all other school districts, can approve the adoption of instructional materials listed in Proclamations. Any money leftover can carry over to the next year or be spent on other “enrichment instructional materials” that align with TEKS. School Boards approve these all the time.
Proclamations typically target certain types of instructional materials. One year may focus on health textbooks, another year may be for math and science texts. Then you may see one for English Language Arts.
At some point in the last five years, Conroe ISD approved an allotment to purchase books based on an ELA focused Proclamation, and ELA teachers across the district were able to select which ones they wanted from a list with Pearson.
This added a ton of district-owned books into classroom collections, which some teachers lamented having to manage these as they filled space they did not have. They also had to unbox, label, and store these books on their own. There were likely over 100,000+ books added into teacher’s classroom collections across the district.
I wanted to add this information here as it will become relevant later.
Let’s move on to how school libraries review their books, as compared to instructional materials.
EFB: Library Materials
Library materials are reviewed by librarians, which includes shelves of books for students to self-select. Teachers may also request books from the library as part of a lesson, but for our purposes here we will keep it separate. Here is the introduction from the CISD Board EFB policy:
The District shall provide a wide range of library materials for students and faculty that support student achievement and present varying levels of difficulty, diversity of appeal, and a variety of points of view.
The Superintendent shall ensure that librarians and other designated professional staff select library materials in accordance with District policy and administrative procedures. The ultimate authority for reviewing and removing library materials lies with the Board.
Similar to instructional materials, librarians get together as needed, often on a recurring schedule, for internal reviews. This is where we see the differences in how these reviews are performed:
EFA (instructional material) is based on Health TEKS, as in what is age appropriate. These are more objective reviews.
EFB (library material) is based on literary merit, which may be more subjective reviews but still based on Board policy.
During regular internal reviews, librarians perform several tasks like running circulation reports, discuss book relevancy, publication date, availability, physical conditions of books, and make decisions based on what space they have in the library or warehouse. If you have classic American literature that has not been checked out for a long time, and you need the space for new books, this may be reason enough to remove the old for the new, regardless of its content.
The important note is that unless a library book is removed based on ‘not meeting EFB policy’, then that book could come back if it began circulating again. A book being removed from shelves during normal activity does not mean it has been “banned”.
Lastly, as it relates to reviews, a removal based on EFB will also trigger a removal from EFA, i.e., if library materials are found to not meet Board policy, then they automatically do not meet policy for instructional materials as part of classroom collections. This does not occur the other way around, as the requirements are slightly different between instruction and library materials.
Informal Reviews
We will now distinguish between internal reviews and informal reviews:
Internal reviews are the recurring reviews by district as part of normal activity.
Informal reviews are those requested by external parties, such as parents or residents within the district. Rather than submitting an official form via the school website, these are started with a simple email to the local school or district staff. This can be requested for both instructional materials or library materials.
To add further complexity to this, an informal review can be initiated by just about anyone within the school district, including Board Trustees. This assumes district or campus staff take the time to verify residency, which I highly doubt they have the time or capability to do. This means out-of-district individuals could possibly send complaints about instructional materials to force a review that must be completed within 10 days (based on EFA policy).
The important note for informal reviews is that even if reviews are requested from the outside, it is still up to district staff to complete the reviews. Librarians, or those managing instructional materials, are still making those decisions. It does remove the parent volunteers that assist with formal requests, but informal does not mean without process.
Recent Book Removals
Now that we know how schoolbooks are reviewed internally, whether informal or not, and we know about the Instructional Material Allotment, let’s look through the recent books that were removed and add more context. In the February 2024 CISD Board meeting, the Board voted in approval to dispose of over 2,600 books (total copies, not unique titles), which we learned were specifically related to informal review requests.
Remember, informal requests are from external parties and are not managed through a formal reconsideration process, which may mean they are not as well documented or public, but they still follow process. These are essentially started from people who email the district and say that certain books should be removed. The district then has 10 days to review and respond.
During the meeting, Trustee Stacey Chase brought up the very real concern that informal requests are not able to be challenged, at least not in a formal or transparent way. Her worry was that they were disposing of books that were still within a window that a challenge could take place, thus potentially wasting tax dollars and the Board squandering their fiduciary duty.
You can hear their discussion here:
If you listen to the end, the attorney mentions IMA funds (from allotment) were used to purchase most of the books in question for disposal, which is why they needed Board approval to sell, donate, recycle, or dispose of them - due to Texas requirements on disposal of books purchased with IMA money. She also mentions the need to remove these books as the district has no more room in the warehouse to store them.
For today’s discussion it is important to know where those 2,600 books came from. They came from the district using IMA funds, which means most were purchased as instructional materials (EFA Policy).
As we already learned, EFA Policy is based on age appropriateness, which now includes language for “sexually explicit material”.
Let’s move on to the books themselves.
There are three places to find Conroe ISD book lists for classroom collections and library reconsiderations:
Instructional Materials (Classroom Collections) Grades 7-12 (use tabs at top): Link
Library Books Reevaluated under EFB (by district librarians): Link
Books sent through Reconsideration Committee (see section labeled ‘Library Books Under Reconsideration’): Link
Putting this data together, I added some context for certain books not allowed for classroom collections:
As you can see, if books are removed from instructional materials in classroom collections, it does not mean those books are removed from libraries.
You can also see that even though books are not required to be removed from libraries, that they may have been removed anyways via normal library activity, by looking at how many copies are present.
Lastly, we looked at library internal reviews to understand how many books are removed based on EFB policy changes:
Here you can see where librarians reviewed books based on EFB policy, and whether based on those policies the books were removed or not. Almost all books that are added to internal review, based on EFB policy changes, are removed.
Unfortunately, since there is no data available for informal reviews (without performing an information request), we cannot see the percentage of informal reviews versus removals. Perhaps we’ll do that next.
Why were these books there to begin with?
I see this question a lot. I am not a librarian, so I do not have a qualified answer. We first have to distinguish between books used in instructional materials versus what is available for self-selection as library materials, which we reviewed above.
For both materials, my assumption is that those books had literary merit within the grade levels that they were allowed.
However, with the recent changes from the READER Act, and with CISD Board policy, these books are seemingly not allowed at all for any student in grades 7-12 (primary grade levels were already restricted). Any and all fictional sexual content, from kissing to coitus, may go to review and could be removed.
We could ask why the School Board did not update its policies years ago to include “sexually explicit material”, but remember that Boards do not make big changes overnight. Often, a good, conservative Board will wait until it gets direction from the State, whether through regulation or guidance, such as the recent READER Act. When a Board implements policy not based on existing State law or guidance, it risks becoming case law itself when the district is sued for something like violating First Amendment rights (as it relates to books).
Also, remember the instructional materials allotments?
It turns out that an issue occurred where publishers were substituting books in collections without notifying the district. For example, the district would approve “Collection 1” from a vendor, which would include 10 book titles. If the vendor could only fill the need for 8 titles, then 2 would be substituted with something else that was not vetted by the district.
This issue was later corrected, but those books then had to get cleaned up after they were discovered. A new process was implemented that required any substitutions to be reviewed beforehand.
This to me is where the district found issues, realizing that certain books were added for use as instructional materials when they should not have been. With the recent policy changes for “sexually explicit materials”, this was an opportunity to begin removing those books.
Transparency & Penal Code
My one complaint with how the school district is managing the review process is that they are not including the specific criteria for why a book is removed based on policy. For example, Brave New World was removed from classroom collections in January 2024 because it does not meet EFA Policy (instructional materials), but we do not know which part of EFA it did not meet.
Looking at the policy, it could include the following:
Instructional materials shall not include "harmful material" as defined by Penal Code 43.24(a)(2),"obscene" material as defined by Penal Code 43.21(a)(1), or "sexually explicit material" as defined by Education Code 33.021. In all cases, instructional materials shall be consistent with the requirements set out in Education Code Chapters 33 and 35.
Since Brave New World was only recently removed from instructional materials, we can assume this is related to “sexually explicit material”, so we can then go look at Education Code 33.021:
Sec. 33.021. LIBRARY STANDARDS. (a) In this section, "sexually explicit material" means any communication, language, or material, including a written description, illustration, photographic image, video image, or audio file, other than library material directly related to the curriculum required under Section 28.002(a), that describes, depicts, or portrays sexual conduct, as defined by Section 43.25, Penal Code, in a way that is patently offensive, as defined by Section 43.21, Penal Code.
Now let’s look at Texas Penal Code 43.25:
The primary complaint I am seeing from the community is a lack of transparency from the district, including those accusing Board Trustees of pushing informal reviews that are not escalated to public meetings. It is not knowing the “why” books are being removed or if they were removed based on district normal activity versus an informal request.
How can you challenge an informal review if you do not know which criteria the book did not meet? Someone wishing to challenge would have to first submit an information request to get the criteria, then a legal complaint to the district.
I believe it would be in the school district’s best interest, in order to save time from information requests, to include which part of EFA/EFB Policy a book does not meet. It does not need the specific Penal Code, but at least the category for why it was removed, whether it is “harmful”, “obscene”, or “sexually explicit.”
For example, going back to Brave New World, it could be recorded as the following on the district website:
It should also include the type of request, whether internal, informal, or through reconsideration committee (depending on list). I know this creates extra work on the people who manage this3, but I do believe there is a benefit for people knowing why a book was removed.
The Board may also want to consider a process for informally removed books to be “reverse challenged”, in that a district resident can make the case that a book holds literary merit and still meets Board policy.
Or…hear me out…we do away with informal reviews. Instead, we require any book challenge to go through the formal reconsideration process like it was meant to be.
Almost Done
READER Act
The READER Act was passed in Texas the Summer of 2023. It included two main components:
Requires the Texas State Library and Archives Commission to create a manual to outline material standards, which then get approved by the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE). As the SBOE chair is appointed by the Governor, the definition of inappropriate materials can be (arguably) influenced by whoever is in power.
Mandates that book vendors rate the content of their books that they sell to Texas schools, which must then pass a review by the Texas Education Agency (TEA). If TEA disagrees with their rating, they send it back for the vendor to change. If the vendor does not change the rating, the TEA can add that vendor’s books to a “do not buy” list.
Texas was quickly sued by book vendors over the READER Act, and the second component regarding book ratings was struck down. If you are like me and enjoy reading case text, give it a go.
To summarize, the court sided with the book vendors that the rating requirements violated their First Amendments rights, as the government would be compelling speech in forcing them to rate books based on TEA approval. If vendors did not align their “speech” with the government, they would face economic harm, which they were already experiencing in the form of lost sales while this case was litigated.
The first component regarding material standards remains. The library materials guidelines were created, which you can find at the TEA website. You will notice the recommended guidelines align closely with what Conroe ISD implemented.
Peer School Districts
A side note to consider, if you look at the other large school districts in Greater Houston, you will find similar policies but not similar book removals. I was able to pull data using their library systems across multiple districts. I focused on high schools only as some schools separate book access by specific grade rather than grade levels:
Even with similar policies, there is an obvious difference in what is being removed. I did not take the time to compare the processes for each ISD and whether they allowed informal reviews (maybe in Part 2).
Conroe ISD appears to be interpreting EFA/EFB policy differently than other school districts.
LGBTQ+
One note on school materials or books that may include LGBTQ+ content or characters, which could include topics on sexual orientation or gender identity. These books are often the primary targets by opponents, but we should note that there is currently nowhere in Conroe ISD policy, TEA guidelines, or Texas law regulating these books or authors specifically. Please correct me if I am wrong.
However, we can see where Texas policy could lead if we look to the latest news out of Florida:
In March 2022, DeSantis signed into law the Parental Rights in Education Act, also known as "Don't Say Gay." The new law stated that "classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3." The law was expanded last year [2023] to cover all grades.
These policies were focused on instructional materials, not libraries, yet librarians were still given training on what to do:
The training says that library books and instructional materials cannot cover "unsolicited theories that may lead to student indoctrination," which includes "sexual orientation or gender identity" as specified in the Parental Rights in Education Act. The school librarians were encouraged to "err on the side of caution" and were warned that making books prohibited by Florida law available to students could subject them to third-degree felony charges.
The primary thing I noted here was the “err on the side of caution” comment, which I would not rule out for Conroe ISD as it relates to sexually explicit material.
This is why informal reviews can have a big impact on which books remain, bringing legal risk mitigation into libraries. It is also why the district should be transparent on which type of review initiated the removal.
Bringing it Together / TLDR
Let’s recap:
Conroe ISD has the following book review processes governed by Board policy:
Instructional Materials (EFA) as part of classroom collections, which is determined by age appropriateness of materials and inappropriate material guidelines.
Library Materials (EFB), which also impacts classroom collections, is based on literary merit, but is still bound by inappropriate material guidelines.
Texas passed new laws that include language on “sexually explicit materials", which Conroe ISD adopted in its policies.
We are seeing more books removed from instructional materials and classroom collections based on CISD policy changes since 2022.
Conroe ISD policy allows for informal reviews to occur without the same public feedback that occurs in formal reconsideration requests.
Conroe ISD has received many books in recent years via Texas Instructional Material Allotment programs, which put thousands of books into teacher classroom collections. Certain book vendors substituted titles without district knowledge, which was later corrected. These books appear to be the bulk of the recent removal in February 2024.
Books removed from classroom collections does not mean they were removed from school libraries for student self-selection, due to the differences in policies.
Comparing to other school districts in Greater Houston, even with the same EFA/EFB policies, they are not removing the same books as Conroe ISD.
Conclusion: The Board could introduce further policy changes to address issues around transparency with informal reviews, or in my opinion, should remove the informal review process completely. Also, if not already implemented, any future books purchased through State funding (via IMA) should include mechanisms for verifying collections based on EFA/EFB.
Reflection
We should take a moment to recognize an important concept about removing books.
We are each the main character in our lives, doing our best to navigate the world. Books give us a way to temporarily step outside ourselves and enter as the main character in someone else’s life. It is how we begin to understand life events that we may never experience. Reading is one of the best ways to build empathy with those you may never interact with. Books can provide insight into an entire culture or connect you to something within yourself.
Books can also transfer you across time, providing context for how humans used to live or what spurred major changes across history. Learning the “why” something happened in the past can help understand the present and future.
Sometimes the why deals in difficult topics, including atrocities, genocide, slavery, suffrage, bodily autonomy, and plenty more.
These concepts may not imprint the seriousness of the subjects without providing the hard-to-read details. An author who writes about trauma in their youth, explaining physical abuse from family members, sexual abuse from partners, or an escape from gang violence or authoritarian regimes, are absolutely relevant in our modern world.
As the saying goes, we need society to understand history, so that we are not doomed to repeat it. We also need young adults to understand healthy concepts of human interactions. Books can do that.
I am not advocating for sexually explicit materials in schools, but we should recognize the value of books to convey meaning and understanding.
For any Board Trustees reading this, I hope you take to heart the potential consequences of continuing to increase restrictions on book selections.
Thanks for reading. See footnotes for Part 2 items.4
This count of removed books is in dispute, which may be hundreds or thousands of more books. We will look at this more in Part 2.
I know many argue that HB-900 was gutted after the last appeal, but if you read this entire post, you should see why the bill still changed things considerably. Also, give this TEA page a read.
Perhaps we should do our next write-up on how much it costs to perform book reviews ($30,000 per book?).
Part 2 Items: Verifying removed books count in Conroe ISD, confirm new reviews of previously approved books since Nov ‘23 EFA/EFB policy change, compare other school district’s policies versus books remove, review ‘reverse challenge’ process or potential for one, other items.