Sign up for TPR Today, Texas Public Radio's newsletter that brings our top stories to your inbox each morning.
A new mandate from the Texas Education Agency says teacher preparation programs at both public and private colleges must promise to follow the state’s K-12 anti-DEI law under penalty of perjury.
The promise comes with the apparent weight of a legal document. The form obtained by Texas Public Radio required the signature of the leadership of every Educator Preparation Program in the state by September 1, including their full name, birthdate and address.
By signing the form, the leaders pledge that their staff will comply with a three-page list of limitations on discussions about race, gender and history. The list is derived from two laws limiting classroom instruction at the K-12 level: the so-called “anti-CRT” law passed in 2021 and Senate Bill 12 in 2025, which has been described as both a “parental rights” law and an anti-DEI or “Don’t Say Gay” law.
Key provisions in the form include a ban on discussion of the 1619 Project, a series by The New York Times Magazine marking the 400th anniversary of the beginning of slavery in America, and an edict that slavery and racism can only be described as a “deviation from” American values.
Although the laws limiting course topics are intended for K-12 schools, the Texas Education Agency form stated that Educator Preparation Programs are required to comply “in the same manner as if the program were a school district.”
TEA told Educator Preparation Programs they would need to sign the form in July, stating that compliance was required starting in July 2025 and that, this year, a new agency rule required program leaders to sign an “attestation document” promising compliance.
Texas currently has 119 Educator Preparation Programs. They are certified by TEA as the authority overseeing teacher certification in the state. That authority gives TEA some oversight, even with programs located at private institutions.
TPR confirmed with a staff member at Trinity University in San Antonio that their Educator Preparation Program had received the form and were required to sign, despite being a private university that had elected not to receive state funding for teacher certification.
Multiple faculty members at the University of Texas at San Antonio expressed concerns about the mandate for their Educator Preparation Program.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to protect their jobs, the faculty said they were worried about the possible legal ramifications of signing such a pledge, the limitations the document puts on their academic freedom, and the potential harm such restrictions could inflict on students.
Although the dean is the one required to sign TEA’s form, the faculty members said UTSA and other programs were giving staff a version of the form for them to sign too.
“Typically, faculty in higher education have more latitude to talk about complex topics and complex ideas that are that are meant for adult populations, like the ones that we serve,” said a representative of UTSA’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors. “If we want to be able to prepare competent, qualified, critically thinking future teachers, then we need to have that latitude. And what this document does is it essentially constrains us to be able to engage in those conversations.”
The representative also expressed concern that the requirement for objectivity in the form is vague and could lead to self-censorship.
“It says objectively and in a manner free of political bias, but there is no definition for that,” they said. “It makes it incredibly difficult for our professors to be able to engage in these complex ideas around teaching and learning that we know has you know a lot of historical events and legal cases that might need to be discussed.”
“What this is targeted for is to ensure almost kind of like a whitewashing of teaching and learning,” they added.
“My concern is that we're going to turn classroom spaces that should be for curiosity and wonder and joy (into) sites of suspicion and sites where educators aren't trusted as pedagogical content experts,” another faculty member said. “At the end of the day, the ones most harmed by that are our students. K-12, higher ed, our students are impacted by that, and their learning opportunities are impacted.”
Both faculty members also expressed concern that signing the form could add to their legal liability if a student files a complaint—but that not signing the form could put them at risk of losing their jobs.
The UTSA chapter of the American Association of University Professors also drafted a list of their own concerns about the attestation document. The UTSA AAUP said the form limits their academic freedom, the objectivity requirement for discussing controversial topics is vague and will create a chilling effect, and that the ban on discussing the 1619 Project "restricts engagement with scholarship."
TPR sent a detailed list of questions about this mandate to both TEA and UTSA two days before publication, including questions about the legal ramifications and possible consequences for noncompliance. TEA spokesperson Jake Kobersky and TEA’s media relations team did not respond to the request for comment. UTSA officials acknowledged the request but did not provide a response before the deadline.
