PART 1. TEXAS STATE LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES COMMISSION
CHAPTER 4. SCHOOL LIBRARY PROGRAMS
SUBCHAPTER A. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
The Texas State Library and Archives Commission (commission) adopts new §4.2, School Library Programs: Collection Development Standards. The new section is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the October 27, 2023, issue of the Texas Register (48 TexReg 6291) and will be republished.
EXPLANATION OF ADOPTED NEW SECTIONS. The new section establishes collection development standards a school district must adhere to in developing or implementing the district's library collection development policies. The new rule is adopted to implement House Bill 900, 88th R.S. (2023) (HB 900), which amended Education Code, §33.021, to require the commission, with approval by majority vote of the State Board of Education (SBOE), to adopt these standards by January 1, 2024. The SBOE approved the standards at their December 13, 2023, meeting.
New §4.2(a) requires each public school district board of trustees or governing body to approve and institute a collection development policy that describes the processes and standards by which a school library acquires, maintains, and withdraws materials.
New §4.2(b) provides that school library collections should include a range of materials that are age appropriate and suitable to the campus and students the school library serves, offering guidance on the overall goals of a school library's collection. Under this guidance, a collection should enrich and support the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) while taking into consideration students' varied interests, maturity levels, abilities, and learning styles; foster growth in factual knowledge, literary appreciation, aesthetic values, and societal standards; encourage the enjoyment of reading, foster high-level thinking skills, support personal learning, and encourage discussion based on rational analysis; and represent the ethnic, religious, and cultural groups of the state and their contribution to Texas, the nation, and the world.
New §4.2(c) enumerates multiple requirements for a school library collection development policy, including the requirements stated in HB 900.
New §4.2(d) defines "evaluation of materials" to include consideration of the factors proposed to guide library collections generally in subsection (b), which includes that the materials are age appropriate and suitable to the campus and students the library serves, local priorities and school district standards, and at least two additional factors, such as recommendations from parents, guardians, and local community members; consultation with educators and library staff; an extensive review of the text; the context of a work; or authoritative reviews.
New §4.2(e) provides that a reconsideration process should ensure that any parent or legal guardian of a student enrolled in the district or current school district employee may request the reconsideration of a specific item in their school district's library catalog. The rule further requires that a reconsideration process establish a uniform procedure an individual must follow when filing a request. The process should also include a reasonable timeframe for the review and final decision and establish a uniform process for the treatment of any library material undergoing reconsideration by a committee charged with review of the item in its entirety. The process should include a review and appeal process and provide that if an item has gone through the reconsideration process and remains in the collection, the school district may not be required to reconsider an item within two calendar years of final decision. For example, if a final decision on an item under reconsideration is made on March 1, 2025, the school district could not be required to reconsider the item again until March 2, 2027.
New §4.2(f) encourages a school district to ensure a State Board for Educator Certification certified professional librarian or other dedicated professional library staff trained on proper collection development standards is responsible for the selection and acquisition of library materials.
New §4.2(g) requires a school district to develop collection assessment and evaluation procedures to periodically appraise the quality of library materials in the school library to ensure the library's goals, objectives, and information needs are serving its school community.
New §4.2(h) recommends school districts review their collection development policies at least every three years, a practice that will ensure the policy remains up-to-date and consistent with current district priorities.
New §4.2(i) allows school districts to add procedures to the minimum requirements to satisfy local needs so long as the added procedures do not conflict with the minimum requirements.
Lastly, new §4.2(j) provides that school districts are responsible for ensuring their school libraries implement and adhere to these collection development standards. The commission has no enforcement authority with respect to school libraries.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS. The Commission received 26 comments during the comment period on the proposed rule as discussed below.
COMMENT. The Commission received multiple comments expressing support for the proposed rule. The Lewisville Independent School District (LISD) provided comment in support of the following components of the proposed collection development standards:
Section 4.2(i), which establishes the standards as a minimum ensuring districts maintain local control;
Section 4.2(c)(7)A), which recognizes that parents are the primary decision-makers regarding their individual student's access to library materials;
Section 4.2(d), which includes multiple sources for selection aids in having a high-quality library collection; and
Section 4.2(e), which limits the reconsideration process to a parent or legal guardian of students within the district.
The Children's Defense Fund - Texas (CDF-Texas) provided comment largely in support of the proposed standards, commending the Commission's efforts to balance compliance with the law with healthy respect for local districts, individual needs, and community input. Specifically, CDF-Texas expressed support for the following three elements of the standards: allowing school districts to use their discretion to craft local policies that meet the unique needs of their students; prioritizing district parents, students, and employees in the reconsideration process; and recognizing the value of professional reviews in guiding library collection and acquisition decisions.
The Texas Library Association (TLA) submitted a comment supporting the standards, noting they will provide guidance and a strong foundation upon which school districts can build policies that support the educational needs of Texas students.
Five individuals also provided general comments of support regarding the proposed rule, with one commenter requesting the standards be approved as written, one commenter noting we have a moral duty to protect children from sexually explicit material, one commenter expressing they were happy the new standards included references to Texas law, one individual thanking the Commission for §4.2(c)(7) and expressing hope the adopted rules can be enforced for the children's sake, and one individual providing information regarding personal experience to demonstrate support of the collection development standards.
RESPONSE. The Commission appreciates the comments in support of the proposed rule.
COMMENT. Two individuals provided comment regarding the economic impact of the proposed rule. One individual commented that the statements in the preamble noting no anticipated economic costs to persons required to comply with the proposed new section and no adverse economic impact on small businesses, micro-businesses, or rural communities are incorrect. The commenter noted that school staff will have to write policies incorporating this policy into their own policies and librarians will have to develop new procedures for handling material labeled "sexually relevant," move library materials to accommodate a special shelf area and develop processes for tracking these changes across all the vendors they utilize. The commenter also noted a huge cost to booksellers. The other individual commented on the fiscal impact of HB 900, noting the costs involved in local committee meetings, librarians reviewing state laws and contested materials, bookseller ratings of materials and determining process for access, and policy reviews every two years.
RESPONSE. The Commission disagrees that the proposed rule would have an economic impact on persons required to comply with the rule or on small businesses, micro-businesses, or rural communities. The Commission notes that any potential economic impact and costs to schools described in the comments are not a result of the Commission's rule regarding collection development standards. Rather, any potential costs result from the statute (Education Code, §33.021) requiring school districts to adhere to the standards and explicitly specifying content for inclusion in the standards. Similarly, the requirement for different treatment of library materials rated as sexually relevant is required by Education Code, §35.005 (Parental Consent Required for Use of Certain Library Materials) and merely restated in the rule as required by Education Code, §33.021. Finally, the requirement for ratings by vendors is not a result of the Commission's rule. That requirement is specified in Education Code, §35.002 (Ratings Required).
COMMENT. One individual commented that the rule should require challenges to be submitted individually, as long lists of books for reconsideration prevent the process from occurring in a timely manner.
RESPONSE. The Commission appreciates the comment. Section 4.2(i) authorizes school districts to add procedures to the minimum requirements to satisfy local needs so long as the added procedures do not conflict with the minimum requirements. School districts are encouraged to create a reconsideration process that meets the individual school district's needs, which could include a requirement that requests for reconsideration be submitted individually. The Commission declines to make this change in the rule, however, as individual school districts have varying capacities for managing reconsideration requests.
COMMENT. LISD requested the Commission add superintendent or superintendent designee to §4.2(e)(3) to ensure district administration can support campuses through the reconsideration process.
RESPONSE. The Commission agrees with the comment and replaces "campus administrator" with "superintendent or superintendent designee" to ease the administrative burden on school districts and ensure campuses have flexibility.
COMMENT. One individual commented that §4.2(e) should require a complainant to read the entire book, encourage an informal meeting with a librarian and/or administrator, and require that the book in question be reviewed in its entirety.
RESPONSE. The Commission appreciates the comment. Section 4.2(i) authorizes school districts to add procedures to the minimum requirements to satisfy local needs so long as the added procedures do not conflict with the minimum requirements. While a school district may stipulate this requirement in its individual reconsideration policy, the Commission declines to make this change in the rule and concludes this decision is best left to school districts. The Commission does, however, confirm that a review committee must read an item under reconsideration in its entirety, and has made a clarifying change on adoption in §4.2(e)(4) in response to comments.
COMMENT. TLA and one individual commented on the inclusion of "authority" in §4.2(e)(4). TLA noted that the reference to an authority is vague and that it is important that those charged with the review of a library book reflect the community of the school it serves rather than an individual or group of individuals who do not know the campus. The individual commented that the reference to a committee or authority is unclear, asking how such a committee would be formed and whether it would vary from year to year.
RESPONSE. The Commission agrees that further clarification is needed, and amends §4.2(e)(4) to delete "authority" and clarify that a district "should convene a review committee in accordance with criteria established by the district to ensure a thorough and fair process."
COMMENT. CDF-Texas and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) both commented that books should remain available while under review and reconsideration. SEAT further commented that all books currently on school library shelves already go through an extensive review by qualified educators and librarians.
RESPONSE. The Commission notes that this issue was discussed during the November 3, 2023, Commission meeting and the Commission ultimately decided to allow local districts to assess their own needs and comfort level with potential risks involved in removing books from the shelves rather than mandate uniform treatment of books statewide. The Commission declines to make this recommended change.
COMMENT. TLA and two individuals commented that a book undergoing reconsideration should be reviewed in its entirety. TLA further noted that to make an informed decision about material being reconsidered, it is important for the review committee to read the material in its entirety and not rely on a summary, excerpts of text, or a contextual review as such information does not provide an adequate understanding of the material.
RESPONSE. The Commission agrees with this comment and notes this was the intent of the proposed provision. For clarity, the Commission will make the suggested change in §4.2(e)(4).
COMMENT. TLA, LISD, and three individuals commented that the time frame within which a book may not be reconsidered after it has gone through the reconsideration process should be extended (ranging from three to five years), as reconsideration processes require significant time and resources. LISD commented that reconsideration of materials requires eight to ten hours of work by a district committee, so allowing for reconsideration of a single title every year would create an undue burden on the district. An individual expressed concern about opportunities in the rule for abuse that could clog library and school district time and resources, specifically noting that the one-year provision related to reconsideration would result in an inefficient use of a school's resources.
RESPONSE. The Commission agrees that a one-year time frame for a subsequent reconsideration of an item that has gone through the reconsideration process and remained in the collection could result in an inefficient use of school district resources. However, rather than mandate a minimum timeframe, the Commission is modifying the language of §4.2(e)(7) to provide that if an item has gone through the reconsideration process and remains in the collection, a school district may not be required to reconsider an item within two calendar years of final decision. The Commission believes this change provides districts with additional flexibility to manage reconsideration requests, appropriately and effectively consider items in the school library collection, and make efficient use of school district resources.
COMMENT. SEAT requested that a line be included in §4.2(c)(7)(F) explicitly recommending schools communicate with parents regarding books being removed from their child's library, informing families of newly created gaps in their student's literary options in the interest of transparency to parents.
RESPONSE. The Commission appreciates the comment and encourages school districts to communicate with parents regarding the school library collection and reconsideration process but declines to add the suggested language mandating this specific communication statewide. The Commission also notes that school districts are subject to the Public Information Act and this information could be obtained on request. A school district that receives numerous requests for this type of information may well decide to make this information available to parents regularly.
COMMENT. TLA and five individuals provided comment suggesting the time period specified for policy review in §4.2(h) be extended (ranging from three to five years), citing the significant time and cost involved in policy reviews and updates and implementation of new policies, which may require new processes and additional training.
RESPONSE. The Commission agrees that the minimum time period for policy review should be extended from at least every two years to at least every three years. The Commission also notes that the rule only requires a policy update if the update is necessary.
COMMENT. LISD and four individuals provided comment expressing concern over inclusion of classroom libraries in the collection development standards. One individual noted that classroom libraries are not governed by school libraries or school librarians. One individual similarly noted that school librarians are not in charge of classroom libraries nor are they responsible for what a teacher chooses to have on their shelves. Another individual expressed concern over the additional time that would be required of librarians to ensure compliance with all books in every teacher's classroom, which would take away from student instruction. LISD noted that the inclusion of classroom libraries in the standards creates an undue burden on classroom teachers to catalog and maintain collections. LISD recommended that classroom libraries have their own standards that consider the context of a classroom, a classroom teacher's job responsibilities, and resources available to classroom teachers to meet standards.
RESPONSE. While the Commission does not disagree that this requirement could place an additional burden on public school librarians, the Commission notes that this portion of the rule is a required element of HB 900, specifically Education Code, §33.021(d)(2)(C). Therefore, the Commission is required by law to include this element in the collection development rule and declines to make the requested change. The Commission will, however, change the rule language to mirror the statute to ensure no statutory intent is lost by changing "apply to" to "be required for."
COMMENT. One individual requested flexibility within the school district book purchasing process by allowing school librarians to purchase "unrated" books provided the books have been reviewed and sanctioned by reputable outside sources and extending the deadline for the bookstores to create and agree on their rating system.
RESPONSE. The Commission notes that this comment addresses matters outside the scope of proposed §4.2. However, the Commission points out that the collection development standards apply to a library's entire collection, not just books that have been rated by library material vendors. The Commission anticipates that most books sold by library material vendors will appropriately have "no rating."
COMMENT. TLA requested that §4.2(f) be modified to add that professional library staff must have successfully completed a collection development course.
RESPONSE. While the Commission agrees with this comment, the Commission notes that the intent of the language as proposed was to provide that if a school district does not have a professional librarian certified by the State Board for Educator Certification on staff, they should ensure the person responsible for the selection and acquisition of library materials is a professional library staff member who has received training on school library collection development. Because the language as proposed is substantially similar to the language recommended by TLA with added flexibility regarding training, the Commission declines to make the requested change.
COMMENT. TLA and one individual requested the addition of "maturity level" to §4.2(b)(1). TLA noted that it is important that materials selected for the library collection take into consideration the varied maturity levels of the students served. The individual noted that this addition would allow for readers to have access to books that will challenge them if they have a high reading level, noting this is especially important for students at the upper range of elementary, middle school, and high school.
RESPONSE. The Commission agrees with the comment and has made the change. The Commission notes that libraries support Gifted and Talented programs, and that it is important for library resources to support all levels of curriculum.
COMMENT. TLA and one individual requested the addition of "critical" before "thinking skills" in §4.2(b)(3). TLA noted that critical thinking is a higher order skill that goes beyond basic thinking skills of observation of facts and memorization. The individual noted that critical thinking is a very important component of the TEKS.
RESPONSE. The Commission agrees with the comment but added "high-level" instead of "critical" for clarity.
COMMENT. TLA requested the addition of the word "school" before "community" to clarify the school library serves the school community - its students, teachers, parents, and other school stakeholders.
RESPONSE. The Commission agrees with the comment and has made the suggested change.
COMMENT. LISD commented that school districts could benefit from additional clarification and definition of harmful material, pervasively vulgar, educationally unsuitable, and obscene content as used in §4.2(c)(7)(B) and (C).
RESPONSE. The Commission declines to expand on the definitions of "harmful material," "pervasively vulgar," "educationally unsuitable," and "obscene content" in rule, as such terms are either already defined in statute or case law or could be subject to differing definitions depending on specific circumstances. School districts are advised to consult with their district's legal counsel or the TEA for assistance with compliance.
COMMENT. One individual suggested that §4.2(c)(7) be divided into two sections, stating that several items under subsection (c)(7) are not about any legal requirement at any level of government. The individual suggested adding subsection (c)(8) listing the items that are not about legal compliance.
RESPONSE. The Commission notes that everything listed under §4.2(c)(7) stems from Education Code, §33.021 as amended by HB 900. See Educ. Code §33.021(d) (requiring that the standards adopted by the Commission
"must . . . include a collection development policy that: (A) prohibits the possession, acquisition, and purchase of: (i) harmful material, as defined by §43.24, Penal Code; (ii) library material rated sexually explicit material by the selling library material vendor; or (iii) library material that is pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable as referenced in Pico v. Board of Education, 457 U.S. 853 (1982); (B) recognizes that obscene content is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; (C) is required for all library materials available for use or display, including material contained in school libraries, classroom libraries, and online catalogs; (D) recognizes that parents are the primary decisionmakers regarding a student's access to library material; (E) encourages schools to provide library catalog transparency; (F) recommends schools communicate effectively with parents regarding collection development; and (G) prohibits the removal of material based solely on the: (i) ideas contained in the material; or (ii) personal background of: (a) the author of the material; or (b) characters in the material.").
Because this information is required by Education Code, §33.021, the Commission declines to make this change.
COMMENT. LISD provided comment regarding §4.2(c)(5), pointing out that vendors have not yet rated books, limiting a district's ability to comply. Two individuals also suggested deleting §4.2(c)(5), noting the terminology is unclear, currently in litigation, and in conflict with state law.
RESPONSE. The Commission notes that HB 900 established a deadline of April 1, 2024, for library material vendors to rate books. If the collection development standards are effective prior to books being rated by vendors, then the portion of the collection development standards regarding books rated by vendors would be inapplicable. The Commission also notes that the lawsuit challenging HB 900 is currently on appeal. If the law changes in the future in such a way as to impact the Commission's rule, the statute would prevail. Furthermore, the Commission would amend its rule to be consistent with the law. Therefore, the Commission declines to make a change based on these comments.
COMMENT. One individual requested the addition of provisions that address how to enforce the new guidelines, accountability for school districts who do not remove applicable books, and checks and balances on school librarians who do not remove applicable books or who continue to purchase obscene and sexually explicit books. The commenter also asked what the deadline is for districts to develop and implement a new policy related to these standards and what is the deadline for school district library book publishers to adhere to each new district policy.
RESPONSE. The Commission notes that it has no enforcement authority over school districts or school district employees, including librarians. Section 4.2(j) of the proposed rule explicitly notes that school districts are responsible for ensuring their school libraries implement and adhere to these collection development standards. The Commission would expect the districts to communicate expectations related to enforcement and deadlines. In addition, the Commission notes that HB 900 granted the Texas Education Agency (TEA) broad rulemaking authority related to Education Code, Chapter 35, Regulation of Certain Library Materials, so such concerns could be further addressed by TEA.
COMMENT. One individual noted that the "societal standards" referenced in §4.2(b)(2) is vague.
RESPONSE. The Commission notes that "societal standards" is a common term used to refer to standards of acceptable behavior or "social norms."
COMMENT. One individual requested changing §4.2(c)(4) to "Are appropriate for the reading levels and understanding of students," as current language implies censorship if young readers access a 4th grade book.
RESPONSE. The Commission disagrees that the proposed language implies censorship and also points to §4.2(b), which should be read in conjunction with §4.2(c). The Commission declines to make this change.
COMMENT. Two individuals provided comments related to input of the community on a library's collection development. One individual noted that community members should have limited influence on a school library's collection development, citing the statement in §4.2(c)(7)(F)(iii), and noted that a school library is not a public library and therefore does not serve the community at large. The other individual commented that the proposal for library collection selection should be limited to students, parents, guardians, and teachers, and that the local community should not have a say in what books can and cannot be read in a school library.
RESPONSE. The Commission appreciates the concern. While the rule directs districts to allow students, parents, educators, and community members the opportunity to provide feedback on library materials and services, the district may determine how best to integrate feedback, in whatever form the district requests, into its library services and collections. The Commission declines to make a change.
COMMENT. One individual commented that she does not want vendors, who may not understand a community's particular needs, having the final say in what her children can and cannot read, and that parents can have conversations with their children about what is or is not sexually relevant.
RESPONSE. The Commission appreciates the comment but notes this comment addresses a matter outside the scope of the Commission's rulemaking authority.
COMMENT. One individual provided comments in opposition to HB 900, stating it takes responsibility away from parents and caregivers and places the onus on book sellers and vendors. The individual notes that parents and caregivers have an important role to play in what their children read, noting that if a book a child brings home does not align with the family's ideals, the book should be returned and the parent/caregiver should discuss with the child why the book was not a good fit for their family.
RESPONSE. The Commission appreciates the comment but notes this comment addresses a matter outside the scope of the Commission's rulemaking authority.
COMMENT. CDF-Texas recommended the rule explicitly affirm the right of students to read freely by adding a clause in §4.2(c) that recognizes students as important decision makers in their own rights.
RESPONSE. The Commission agrees that students are important decision makers in shaping their educational experience and will underscore this point by amending §4.2(b)(3) to read "Encourage the enjoyment of reading to foster thinking skills, support personal learning, and encourage discussion based on rational analysis."
COMMENT. SEAT requested the addition of the statement "Recognize that students are the primary stakeholders regarding their access to library material" to §4.2(c)(7), noting that such a statement emphasizes that while HB 900's statement about parents being the primary decision makers still stands, the state recognizes that students and students' futures will be directly affected by the new standards. Similarly, one individual commented that students should be involved in book challenges by being allowed to voice their opinions about what is best for their reading as an appropriate representation of their age group, especially in secondary school.
RESPONSE. The Commission agrees that students' perspectives should be considered. Students are included stakeholders in §4.2(c)(7)(F)(iii) in providing feedback on library collections and services. Districts may include students in their reconsideration processes but given the potential rigor, time commitments, and other potential conflicts for participation in a reconsideration process, districts are best suited to determine the appropriate level of student involvement. While the Commission agrees with the point, the Commission declines to make any additional change.
COMMENT. One individual asked for Commission support of the removal of all text and images that are sexually explicit or refer to human biological facts as non-factual and any statements that this nation is a racist nation, regarding white supremacy, or that are not historically proven facts of matter.
RESPONSE. The Commission underscores that sexually explicit material in public school libraries is prohibited by HB 900. The other topics addressed by this comment do not relate to the proposed rule.
COMMENT. One individual commented that HB 900 is "wrong-headed," "vague," and "misleading," and that the Commission's amendment of the Education Code while the law is on appeal is an effort to be complicit with the draconian law.
RESPONSE. The Commission notes that the portion of HB 900 that requires the Commission to adopt collection development standards has not been enjoined. The Commission is still required to adopt the collection development standards by January 1, 2024.
COMMENT. One individual commented that a policy is needed to purge school district libraries that promote promiscuity, homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism.
RESPONSE. The Commission notes that the proposed rule adheres to the parameters of HB 900.
COMMENT. The Commission was copied on an email from an individual to two SBOE members regarding specific books she wants removed from a specific library.
RESPONSE. As this comment is unrelated to the rule, no Commission response is necessary.
COMMENT. One individual commented that they are very against adult content or pornographic books in Texas libraries.
RESPONSE. The Commission agrees that books in public school libraries should be age-appropriate and focused on the needs of the students the library serves.
COMMENT. One individual commented that the statement "parents are the primary decision makers regarding their student's access to library material" should not be part of the collection development policy.
RESPONSE. The Commission notes that this statement is required in the standards as mandated by Education Code, §33.021(d)(2)(D). The Commission declines to make this change.
The commission received three comments after the comment period closed but notes the substance of these comments was very similar to other comments received during the comment period.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY. The new section is adopted under Education Code, §33.021, which requires the commission to adopt standards for school library collection development that a school district shall adhere to in developing or implementing the district's library collection development policies.
§4.2.School Library Programs: Collection Development Standards.
(a) Each Texas public school district board or governing body must approve and institute a collection development policy that describes the processes and standards by which a school library acquires, maintains, and withdraws materials.
(b) A school library collection should include materials that are age appropriate and suitable to the campus and students it serves and include a range of materials. A school library collection should:
(1) Enrich and support the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and curriculum established by Education Code, §28.002 (relating to Required Curriculum), while taking into consideration students' varied interests, maturity levels, abilities, and learning styles;
(2) Foster growth in factual knowledge, literary appreciation, aesthetic values, and societal standards;
(3) Encourage the enjoyment of reading, foster high-level thinking skills, support personal learning, and encourage discussion based on rational analysis; and
(4) Represent the ethnic, religious, and cultural groups of the state and their contribution to Texas, the nation, and the world.
(c) A school library collection development policy must:
(1) Describe the purpose and collection development goals;
(2) Designate the responsibility for collection development;
(3) Establish procedures for the evaluation, selection, acquisition, reconsideration, and deselection of materials;
(4) Consider the distinct age groups, grade levels, and possible access to materials by all students within a campus;
(5) Include a process to determine and administer student access to material rated by library material vendors as "sexually relevant" as defined by Education Code, §35.001 consistent with any policies adopted by the Texas Education Agency and local school board requirements;
(6) Include an access plan that, at a minimum, allows efficient parental access to the school district's library and online library catalog; and
(7) Comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Specifically, a collection development policy must:
(A) Recognize that parents are the primary decision makers regarding their student's access to library material;
(B) Prohibit the possession, acquisition, and purchase of harmful material, as defined by Penal Code, §43.24, library material rated sexually explicit material by the selling library material vendor under Education Code, §35.002, or library material that is pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable as referenced in Pico v. Board of Education, 457 U.S. 853 (1982);
(C) Recognize that obscene content is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
(D) Be required for all library materials available for use or display, including material contained in school libraries, classroom libraries, and online catalogs;
(E) Ensure schools provide library catalog transparency, including, but not limited to:
(i) Online catalogs that are publicly available; and
(ii) Information about titles and how and where material can be accessed;
(F) Recommend schools communicate effectively with parents regarding collection development, including, but not limited to:
(i) Access to district/campus policies relating to school libraries;
(ii) Consistent access to library resources; and
(iii) Opportunities for students, parents, educators, and community members to provide feedback on library materials and services; and
(G) Prohibit the removal of material based solely on the ideas contained in the material or the personal background of the author of the material or characters in the material.
(d) Evaluation of materials as referenced in this section includes a consideration of the factors described in subsection (b) of this section, consideration of local priorities and school district standards, and at least two of the following:
(1) Consideration of recommendations from parents, guardians, and local community members;
(2) Consultation with the school district's educators and library staff and/or consultation with library staff of similarly situated school districts and their collections and collection development policies;
(3) An extensive review of the text of item;
(4) The context of a work, including consideration of the contextual characteristics, overall fit within existing school library collection, and potential support of the school curriculum; or
(5) Consideration of authoritative reviews of the items from sources such as professional journals in library science, recognized professional education or content journals with book reviews, national and state award recognition lists, library science field experts, and highly acclaimed author and literacy expert recommendations.
(e) A reconsideration process as referenced in this section should ensure that any parent or legal guardian of a student currently enrolled in the school district or employee of the school district may request the reconsideration of a specific item in their school district's library catalog. A reconsideration process should:
(1) Establish a uniform procedure an individual must follow when filing a request;
(2) Require a school district to include a form to request a reconsideration of an item on the school's public internet website if the school has a public internet website or ensure the form is publicly available at a school district administrative office;
(3) Require that the completed request for reconsideration form be distributed to the superintendent or superintendent designee, school librarian, and school district board of trustees or governing body at the time of submission;
(4) Include a reasonable timeframe, approved by the school board, for the review and final decision by a committee charged with the review of the item in its entirety. A district should convene a review committee in accordance with criteria established by the district to ensure a thorough and fair process. A reasonable timeframe should take into account:
(A) The time necessary to convene a committee to meet and review the item;
(B) Flexibility that may be necessary depending on the number of pending reconsideration requests; and
(C) Other factors relevant to a fair and consistent process, including informing the requester on the progress of the review in a timely fashion;
(5) Establish a uniform process approved by the school district board of trustees or governing body for the treatment of any library material undergoing reconsideration;
(6) Include a review and appeal process approved by the school district board of trustees or governing body; and
(7) Provide that if an item has gone through the reconsideration process and remains in the collection, a school district may not be required to reconsider an item within two calendar years of the final decision.
(f) School districts should ensure a professional librarian certified by the State Board for Educator Certification or other dedicated professional library staff trained on proper collection development standards is responsible for the selection and acquisition of library materials.
(g) A school district must develop collection assessment and evaluation procedures to periodically appraise the quality of library materials in the school library to ensure the library's goals, objectives, and information needs are serving its school community and should stipulate the means to weed or update the collection.
(h) A school district's collection development policy should be reviewed at least every three years and updated as necessary.
(i) School districts may add procedures to these minimum requirements to satisfy local needs so long as the added procedures do not conflict with these minimum requirements.
(j) School districts are responsible for ensuring their school libraries implement and adhere to these collection development standards.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on December 14, 2023.
TRD-202304735
Sarah Swanson
General Counsel
Texas State Library Archives Commission
Effective date: January 3, 2024
Proposal publication date: October 27, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5460