At its lengthy September meeting, the State Board of Education received State Review Panel Feedback Reports on instructional materials submitted for the 2024 Instructional Materials Review and Adoption (IMRA) cycle. The SBOE also heard feedback on the first IMRA cycle, adopted rules for the IMRA process, and considered the timeline for future IMRA cycles. In addition, they determined a distribution rate for the Permanent School Fund, the source of funding for the Instructional Materials and Technology Allotment (IMTA).

IMRA Review Results

This summer, State Review Panels appointed by the SBOE evaluated products submitted by publishers for K-12 math, K-5 English Language Arts and Spanish Language Arts, and K-3 Phonics. Initially, 292 products were submitted, but only 142 products were reviewed. According to the Texas Education Agency staff, publishers dropped out of the process for many reasons, including the short timeline for the review and concerns about their ability to meet all the criteria on the rubrics. Publishers have the option to re-submit their materials next year, since the IMRA call for materials will take place annually.  State Review Panels evaluated products submitted for this year’s Cycle 2024 for alignment to TEKS, quality, suitability, and availability of a parent portal. State Review Panel Feedback Reports may be seen at this link.

During eight hours of public testimony on Tuesday, September 17, most comments were directed towards Bluebonnet Reading K-5, the TEA-developed Open Education Resource for literacy. Many commenters expressed concerns with the Biblical content of the program, questioning whether this content respected diverse faith backgrounds. Some commenters noted that faith instruction should be guided by parents in the home or at their place of worship. Others felt the content reflected the traditions and history of the United States. Commenters also had concerns about the format of the materials and the amount and cost of printing that schools would need to do in order for teachers to use the program, which is delivered online and relies upon printed student books and workbooks as well as other print materials. Some testifiers also questioned the efficacy of the instructional approach, the developmental appropriateness of content, and misalignment of social studies topics with Texas Social Studies TEKS. However, in the IMRA review process, the Bluebonnet Reading program was highly rated and met 100% of TEKS and ELPS.

Several other programs reviewed fell short in coverage of TEKS and ELPS, as the new IMRA process requires 100% alignment in order to be approved. A few products were flagged for references to Common Core standards and other concerns in the suitability review. In November, the SBOE will return to consider which products will be placed on their first SBOE-Approved list under this new process. At that point, districts will be able to access the additional allotments authorized by HB 1605 of $40/student for use of an SBOE approved program, plus an additional $20/student for printing if the district chooses a TEA OER Resource. These programs will be implemented the 25-26 school year. Districts may also choose to wait and review language arts and mathematics in a future year, since the new IMRA process is “evergreen” and publishers may submit in any year.

IMRA Process and Rules

Colin Dempsey, Division Director of District Operations, Technology, and Sustainability Supports with TEA presented an “After Action Report” recommending changes to the IMRA process after this first year of implementation. A primary recommendation was to extend the process: to provide more time for publishers to respond to calls for instructional materials; more time for testing rubrics before they are used for reviews; more time for reviewers to internalize and use the rubric; and more time for the SBOE members to review qualifications and appoint review committee members. For this first year, the SBOE acknowledged that the priority was to launch the process so districts could access additional funding, and the time cycle was extremely compressed. Other recommendations included streamlining the Suitability Rubric to make it easier for reviewers and the public to use, begin recruitment for reviewers earlier, and encourage publishers to submit more Spanish language materials. Rules were adopted authorizing the SBOE to approve, reject, or take no action on instructional materials submitted for IMRA. In order to be approved, products must meet 100% of TEKS and ELPS, must meet manufacturing and accessibility requirements, and must provide a portal for parents to review instructional materials used by their child. The programs must also meet the criteria for the quality review, although a final “cut score” for the quality rubric has not yet been established.

Future IMRA Cycles

The SBOE considered options presented by TEA for future IMRA cycles. TEKS revisions will impact future calls for instructional materials. TEKS development for Advanced Math is in progress, so a call for instructional materials may be issued once new TEKS are approved. Revisions to the English and Spanish language arts TEKS K-12 will take place due to the requirement in HB 1605 that the SBOE add vocabulary lists and recommended reading lists, so another IMRA cycle may take place sometime after this TEKS revision is completed. Also, new ELPS received final approval at this meeting and will become effective the 25-26 school year, which will impact both current and future IMRA cycles. Social studies TEKS will also be revised, with workgroups beginning in April 2025, and TEA is projecting that a social studies review cycle could take place in 2029. The SBOE also discussed calling for a review of supplemental math materials in 2025, given the need to increase student achievement in math. A draft rubric for supplemental mathematics has been posted on the SBOE website, with Feedback Focus groups starting October 2 for educators, ESC staff, publishers, parents, and the public. Sign up at this link.  (scroll down to Cycle 2025). At a future meeting, the SBOE may vote on a calendar that will provide districts with an IMRA review cycle, giving more transparency and predictability of the availability of instructional materials.

IMTA Funding

The SBOE held a preliminary vote to set the distribution rate for the Instructional Materials and Technology Allotment at 3.45%, which will generate $3.62 billion in revenue for the Available School Fund for the biennium. According to statute, 50% of that fund or approximately $1.8 billion may be appropriated by the legislature for the IMTA. This funding would become available September 1, 2025. Legislation provides that IMTA funding may be used for any instructional materials, on or off the SBOE approved list. An additional $40/student is allocated for SBOE-approved materials in a separate allotment, and another $20/student for printing costs for districts using TEA developed OER. The additional allotments are per STUDENT per YEAR, not PER SUBJECT AREA. Thus, the maximum that a district can get from the additional entitlements under HB 1605 is $60/student/year.

SBOE Reviews Public Input on K-5 Instructional Materials Ahead of Board Action | State Board of Education (texas.gov)

How is your district approaching the review of instructional materials this year? With the new IMRA process, we are interested to know how districts are approaching the review process compared to the way they have reviewed and adopted instructional materials in the past. Please take a moment to fill out our short survey. We appreciate your feedback!