TEA: IMRA Office Hours – February 29, 2024

Print 🖨

The Texas Education Agency hosted an online webinar to present information & cover questions on the new IMRA process under HB 1605.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer.

Question & Answer

Amie Phillips, TEA – Will discuss previous IMRA process to the proposed IMRA process
IMRA Staff: Cassandara Pignato, Janet Warren, Sarah Macha, and Have one open IMRA position
Current call includes
- English and Spanish language arts and reading, kindergarten-grade 5
- English and Spanish phonics, kindergarten-grade 3
- Math, kindergarten-grade 12
Review will be in several parts; alignment to TEKS and ELPS, applicable IMRA quality rubric, presence of reviews absent of prohibited content, accuracy of content
Resources due 3/4/2024, TEA will notify publishers of selection on 3/8, 3/25 preliminary correlations due, 4/9 SBOE meets and may select additional IM, 5/6 final correlations, component list, and product access due
The SBOE approved quality IMRA rubrics for K-3 and 4-8 English language arts and reading, K-3 and 4-6 Spanish language arts and reading, and K-12 mathematics and approved an IMRA suitability rubric at the January-February meeting
These rubrics will be used to evaluate instructional materials submissions for the inaugural IMRA review cycle
5/7 in person standards alignment meeting
6/10 quality review begins
6/25 1^st public hearing and IMRA update with the SBOE
9/10 2^nd public hearing and IMRA reports provided to SBOE
11/19 final SBOE vote
Q – For the preliminary correlations, will you provide a template?
- Yes; TEA staff will provide guidance and instructions on how to submit these
Publishers cannot withdraw after submitting a response to the RFIM
Any components not available digitally, must be provided to reviewers in print
Materials must meet 100% of the TEKS and applicable ELPS
Re-reviews will not be an option during standards alignment
Publishers will receive quality reports in batches for review and can flag errors and omissions on a rolling basis; new content may be submitted for up to three indicators once the final report is received
Will not be able to do appeals with providing new content until the end of the process
The SBOE may approve, reject or, or take no action on each submission
TEA will conduct annual IMRA reviews for any subject with approved IMRA quality rubrics
Have upcoming webinars in March – Correlations training, RLA Rubric Deep Dive, Math Rubric Deep Dive, IMRA Office Hours
April – Suitability Deep Dive, among other office hours
Q – For Preliminary Correlations: do we submit via Publisher Portal or email? What is the timeline to hear back from TEA with feedback?
- TEA Staff – Submit correlations in the publisher dashboard; same as Proclamation 2024
- Plan to provide all feedback by the end of April; final correlations are due May 6
Q – Is the Publisher Portal an application that requires a fee?
- TEA Staff – Is a free application; will set up as soon as we know who is participating
Q – Submit English phonics only?
- TEA Staff – No requirements concerning; if offering only English and not Spanish, many districts will not consider your product
Q – For phonics programs, how do we determine what are the eligible ELPS?
- TEA Staff – Do not require ELPS in phonics
Q – When are 3rd party accessibility reports due & what should be evaluated in this report? Does the digital teacher site and the parent portal need to be part of the evaluation, or just the teacher site?
- TEA Staff – Request for instructional materials document has these dates in it
- Required to contract with third party vendor who will audit your materials
- Is a cover sheet they must fill out and a list of minimum tested components
Q – Accessibility report?
- TEA Staff – Student/teacher materials need to meet accessibility guidelines; parent portal rules are not fully fleshed out yet aside from one section; will have more info on this in April
Q – When will bid sheets be due?
- Is in the RFIM sheet
Q – May 6 deliverable – will there be an updated list of contacts for the 20 ESCs? Are correlations and components submitted via the Publisher Portal? For the Report on Interoperability and Ease of Use, is that submitted via Publisher Portal?
- TEA Staff – Yes, will provide and correlations will be submitted through the publisher portal; will identify in the portal and will provide a component list
Q – Is there a suggested list of 3rd party reviewers for WCAG that TEA prefers we use? And when on the timeline does this report need to be made available to TEA?
- TEA Staff – No, but do have a list we can provide of vendors that other publishers use; is 3/24/2025
- When submitting final version also submitting proof of passing checks
Q – Can TEA provide a tracking system with the SRP evidence and the Publisher’s feedback; this could be a numbering system that is automatically generated with each SRP paragraph; the tracking system will ensure that: 1. SRP accounts for every publisher response; (publisher responses are not ignored) 2. SRP updates correctly reflect Publisher’s factual changes
- TEA Staff – Can bring that request to our vendor and discuss that at our next meeting
Q – Can you confirm that if a program gets approved via IMRA, it will remain on the IMRA approved list for 8 years unless there is a revision to the relevant TEKS/Quality rubric or the publisher chooses to submit an updated version?
- TEA Staff – Yes, will be offering 8-year contracts to anyone approved under IMRA
Is the following IMRA prioritization protocol in order of importance or are bullets 1-6 equal? IMRA Prioritization Protocol:
1) Any materials required to be reviewed by the SBOE,
2) Materials related to the most recently revised TEKS for which a Proclamation was issued,
3) Open Education Resource (OER) Instructional materials,
4) Highest market share based on the most recent TEKS certification and allotment spend data,
5) Voluntary publisher submissions:
a) First year for IMRA rubric in a subject/grade level,
b) Materials related to recently-revised TEKS,
6) District submissions
Q – Does the keyword search feature need to be operational by May 9? Can this requirement be met via PDF submission or does it need to be in all versions (including digital components)?
- TEA Staff – May 6 is the deadline; how you do this is up to you; SBOE guidance says each component on its own needs to be searchable by keyword
Q – If a program is put on the IMRA approved list, are publishers required to offer that program in TX for 8 years?
- TEA Staff – Yes; would be contractually obligated as were publishers under the previous process; exception is if you go out of business
Q – I read somewhere about a marketing component that shouldn’t be on the curriculum anywhere; our website that the curriculum is housed on has links to things such as “Live PD,” “Additional Decodable Texts,” etc. which are available for additional purchase. Is this considered marketing and would it need to be fully removed?
- TEA Staff – You may not include any marketing materials or anything that would not come with a regular purchase; if there are add-ons, reviewers should not have access to them
Q – Is there a quality rubric document for Phonics-only programs?
- TEA Staff – No; currently identifying a subset of indicators for phonics; hope to have that released next week
Q – I may have missed this, but does this submission only include K-5 instructional materials and not 6-8 or 9-12?
- TEA Staff – Depends on what subject
TEA Staff – Concerning google docs, that is what reviewers use to collaborate and collect evidence during their quality review, a different version is used by publishers, and they use the editing tool to highlight issues
Q – If you are a currently adopted program that gets rejected via the IMRA review, are those program bids removed from EMAT and no longer approved for regular IMTA funds?
- TEA Staff – Need to consult with legal; is possible one could be removed from the previously approved list if SBOE decides for us to review what is already on the approved list; cannot tell districts how to use their funds
Q – Materials could be removed from the approved list, but a district could still purchase them?
- TEA Staff – Yes
Q – If you remove one, would they review everything on that current list?
- TEA Staff – Is possible the SBOE is going to tell us in April that we need to review everything on the current list
- Next year we will be exercising different responsibilities granted to the TEA; will be able to review anything districts use their funds on
Q – Where on the timeline does the implementation of machine readable TEKS need to be ready to go?
- TEA Staff – 3/24/2025
Q – If curricular content does not change but user interface is updated/changed – does it trigger a resubmission process?
- TEA Staff – Do not anticipate significant changes; however, there will need to be a tipping point, if enough content has been changed, not sure if the material still has the same quality score
Q – Will there be a request to submission for ELAR for secondary grades in the future?
- TEA Staff – Assume yes, but that decision is with the SBOE; they will discuss IMRA overall at the April meeting
Q – We have concerns about not knowing all of the requirements around the Parent Portal before our binding RFIM response is due. Can you please advise?
- TEA Staff – Expectation is publishers will be able to post their materials somewhere compatible with districts’ learning management system; details of that is between publisher/districts
- If there are issues with incompatibility; removal is the ultimate consequence
Q – In 11/13/23 IMRA presentation on TEA website, slide 14 states the Publisher Submission Packet should include “Course Descriptions” and “Pricing Information.” I cannot see this mentioned in the IMRA Timeline and Milestone section starting on page 14. Are these deliverables required?
- TEA Staff – Do not need that right now, but will later in the process
Q – Does NIMAS Technical specification need to be fulfilled by submission on the 4th?
- TEA Staff – No; due later in the process when you have a clearer picture of what your final product will look like
Q – Did I mishear something yesterday about guidance around specific ELPS that are not closely aligned with something like math content?
- TEA Staff – Talked about ELPS and math breakouts yesterday
- Staff is currently reviewing required ELPS for Math and English Language Arts and Reading
- Are focused on foundation studies in English
- What we have flagged as necessary is still in alignment
- Will not see changes in ELPs language, but will determine what components of ELPs is still applicable
Revisited math breakouts used in 2014-2015
Q – Statistics breakouts from 2017 – will those be evaluated?
- TEA Staff – Looking through all of them; to look for any necessary updates
Q – A way when the reviewer is looking through the material, can reach out to publisher to ask for more information before they do critiques?
- Reviewers/publishers are not allowed to talk unless a conversation is facilitated by TEA; any time a meeting is facilitated, it is at the request of the reviewer
- If a review team is struggling, TEA will reach out on their behalf
- Component list is the best upfront way to show how to navigate through materials
- Is why we have the process of sending quality reports in batches
Q – Further training meetings, like correlation meeting, open to the public?
- TEA Staff – We need to think logistics on that
Q – Files will be shared by the publisher public
- TEA Staff – Assume your materials are covered by copyright; has been a requirement for years
Q – Phonics application, option to apply for just one region –
- TEA Staff – No
Q – Does NIMAS Technical specification need to be fulfilled by submission on the 4th?
- They happen later in the process, in February 2025
Q – Will we have access to the recordings of the office hours calls?
- TEA Staff – Will have
Q – What is the criteria for the selection process for responses submitted on march 4
- TEA Staff – As long as they align with what we are calling for, you will be selected
- Have a prioritization list SBOE approved if there is an overwhelming response:
- 1) Any materials required to be reviewed by the SBOE,
- 2) Materials related to the most recently revised TEKS for which a Proclamation was issued,
- 3) Open Education Resource (OER) Instructional materials,
- 4) Highest market share based on the most recent TEKS certification and allotment spend data,
- 5) Voluntary publisher submissions:

a) First year for IMRA rubric in a subject/grade level,
b) Materials related to recently-revised TEKS,

6) District submissions

Q – For the digital assessment, can the publisher use a digital company that the publisher has partnered with to provide the assessments?
- TEA Staff – Assessments part of the material you will sell or the accessibility audit?
Q – Digital company offers other digital assessment tools that can be used for other things?
- TEA Staff – Is tricky; whatever you submit as part of your program has to be on EMAT; when you partner with someone are counting on them to be an approved provider in Texas
- Is a gamble that they would also keep their prices the same for 8 years, but is a personal business decision; they would need to also pass the accessibility audit

Closing Remarks

Responses due Monday by the end of the day
Not holding any more office hours before that due date, but will communicate dates of future webinars

Resources Provided