Committee members received an overview of the agency’s process for reviewing, approving and sunsetting innovative courses and discussed potential procedural changes.

TEA staff told the committee there are 189 approved innovative courses, 62% of which are CTE, and explained that currently the rule allows entities other than school districts — including private providers and colleges — to submit innovative‑course applications. Staff described key application requirements (course description, pilot data, essential knowledge and skills, recommended materials, and training/cost information) and noted the board’s recent decision to require a Texas pilot before approval.

Members discussed whether the committee should have more formal opportunities to amend or provide structured feedback on course standards before final approval, how TEA posts applications for public review, and how to manage private entities’ submissions and commercial training elements. Staff said possible process changes include adding a discussion agenda item before any final vote so members and the public have time to review the complete application package and specified that TEA will post application materials online at discussion time if members want earlier public access.

Members also reviewed TEA’s new sunset mechanism for innovative courses and the agency’s strategy for systematically converting CTE innovative courses into TEKS‑based courses; staff said the conversion will continue in batches and that further detail would be available in September.

Why it matters: the committee is re‑evaluating the procedural elements of the innovative‑course review process to ensure transparency, manage private‑provider submissions, and reduce unused or obsolete courses through the sunset process.

Supporting details: staff noted that of current approvals, 73% were historically approved by the commissioner and 27% by the board, but that ongoing renewals will transition approval responsibility to the board. The committee requested written lists of private applicants and asked TEA to propose options for a two‑step (discussion then action) committee process and for earlier public posting of full application packages.