House Bill 1605 FAQs

Q: What is the Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) process required by House Bill (HB) 1605? 

A: The State Board of Education (SBOE) has approved the Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) criteria and process. The process outlines how instructional materials are reviewed. The SBOE has final authority on approvals, the process, and the criteria used. TEA assists by assembling teams of teachers and other curriculum experts to conduct reviews and provide recommendations to the SBOE. 

Texas Education Code (TEC), §31.022, and §31.023 identify several aspects of instructional material that must be included as part of the IMRA criteria. This includes: 

• Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) coverage 
• Quality 
• No three-cueing content in K–3 reading 
• Suitable for grade and subject  
• No obscene or harmful content, including compliance with the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), TEC, §28.0022, and Penal Code 43.22 
• Free from factual error  
• Physical and electronic specifications 
• Parent portal compliance 

Other statutes of relevance to instructional material and the IMRA criteria include TEC, §§29.907, 29.9071, and 29.9072.   

Q: Who is reviewing materials in the IMRA process?

A: The SBOE had the final approval of the reviewers for the new IMRA process. The board approved the reviewer recruitment, reviewer application, and reviewer training processes. Each product is reviewed by a reviewer team consisting of approved teachers and other curriculum experts to review and give recommendations to the SBOE.

Q: Are districts required to use materials adopted by the SBOE under the new IMRA process? 

A: No, instructional materials decisions are inherently local in Texas (Texas Education Code 31.0211). HB 1605 did not change this. School systems retain the responsibility under state law to ensure TEKS are covered in ways deemed most appropriate by the local school system. SBOE-approved HQIM are optional for school systems and may be considered for use based on a district's local context. TEC, §31.0251 specifically states “except as otherwise provided, the agency may not require a school district to adopt or otherwise use instructional material” adopted by the SBOE.

Q: How do districts access the new allotments in HB 1605?  

A: Instructional materials accounts managed via EMAT have previously held balances for each school system from the Instructional Materials and Technology Allotment (IMTA). Starting in December 2024, EMAT will be updated to reflect additional balances provided by two new entitlements created by House Bill (HB) 1605:  

• SBOE-Approved Instructional Materials Entitlement (TEC, §48.307)  
• State-Developed Open Education Resource Instructional   
• Materials Entitlement (TEC, §48.308) 

School systems may only use the new entitlements to order materials that have been approved by the SBOE via the IMRA process. Materials adopted by the SBOE under prior law do not count as approved under the IMRA process. After new instructional materials are approved, districts will eventually be able to place orders and access the new entitlements. 

Note: The SBOE-Approved Materials Allotment (TEC, §48.307) funds carry over each fiscal year, beginning September 1, 2023. Therefore, in November 2024, a school system will have two years’ worth of SBOE-Approved Instructional Materials Entitlement funds available for purchases. However, the State-Developed Open Education Resource Instructional Materials Entitlement (TEC, §48.308) does not carry over. 

Q: Which instructional materials can a district purchase with the traditional IMTA and the new allotments in HB 1605?

A: Actions by the SBOE to approve or reject materials in the IMRA process do not impact the allowable uses of a district’s traditional IMTA funds. HB 1605 amends the statute to state, “instructional materials, regardless of whether the instructional materials are on the list of approved instructional materials maintained by the SBOE under Section 31.022” (HB 1605, Section 18).

The only new restriction on IMTA spending by a district is TEC, §31.0211(f), which states: “Funds allotted under this section may not be used to purchase instructional material that contains obscene or harmful content or would otherwise cause the school district to which the funds were allotted to be unable to submit the certification required under TEC, §31.1011(a)(1)(B).”

TEC, §31.1011(a)(1)(B) references protections from obscene or harmful content as necessary for compliance with the CIPA (Pub. L. No. 106-554), TEC, §28.0022, §43.22 of the Texas Penal Code, and any other law or regulation that protects students from obscene or harmful content.

In contrast, the new allotments for $40 and $20 are restricted to only materials that have been reviewed and approved by the SBOE in the new IMRA process. 

Q: Who will be part of the reviewing committee for the IMRA process?

A: IMRA reviewers are appointed by SBOE members and compensated for their time and expertise. The qualification requirements of IMRA reviewers were shared in a To The Administrator Addressed  (TAA) on February 15, 2024.

Q: How should LEAs determine the length of future contracts for instructional materials without a consistent review cycle?

A: The review and approval of instructional materials will occur annually. Once a set of instructional materials is approved, it will remain on the approved list until removed due to a change in the underlying TEKS or by a majority vote of the SBOE. Rules for the initial contract period for approved instructional materials resulting from the IMRA process are defined in 19 TAC §67.81, Instructional Materials Contracts.

Districts are not required to purchase approved IMRA products; however, only materials reviewed and approved by the SBOE in future IMRA processes will qualify for new funding.

Q: Will the IMRA process happen to all instructional materials, including materials for Advanced Placement (AP) courses?

A: The IMRA process will include reviews of full-subject, partial-subject, and supplemental instructional materials for all subjects, courses, and grade levels for the TEKS. This currently applies to those courses and subjects in the required curriculum as defined by TAC 19 Chapter 74.

Q: How will career and technical (CTE) IMRA review rubrics be handled? Will rubrics for CTE be added annually, or will they be overlooked? Is there a schedule for what the SBOE will review regarding TEKS coverage? It has been published that the first subject they will address is ELAR, but what should be done for other subjects with expiring contracts? 

A: While the SBOE has indicated that the first round of the IMRA process will include K–5 reading language arts and K–12 mathematics, they have not yet specified which subjects and courses will be included in future review cycles. Part of TEA's recommendation to the SBOE at the September 2023 board meeting, when it considered the materials to review in this first cycle, included an analysis of the state contracts that are first to expire.

Those contracts were part of Proclamation 2014 and included science (grades K–12), mathematics (grades K–8), and technology applications (grades K–12). The SBOE discussed the next batch of instructional materials to be incorporated into the review process in the January 2024 and April 2024 SBOE meetings. These will be materials approved for use in the 2026–27 school year. TEA will also likely recommend that the SBOE consider addressing the materials from Proclamation 2015, given the pending expiration of those contracts. Proclamation 2015 addressed high school mathematics, social studies (grades K–12), and fine arts (grades K–12).

Q: What type of materials will be eligible for SBOE review and approval?

A: HB 1605, 88R expanded the definition of instructional material in Chapter 31 of the TEC, §31.002. “Instructional material” means content that conveys the essential knowledge and skills of a subject in the public-school curriculum through a medium or a combination of media for conveying information to a student.

The term includes material used by a teacher, such as a lesson plan, answer key, grading rubric, or unit plan; material used by a principal or campus instructional leader to support instruction; and material used by a student, including a book, supplementary materials, a combination of a book, workbook, and supplementary materials, computer software, magnetic media, DVD, CD-ROM, computer courseware, online services, or an electronic medium, or other means of conveying information to the student or otherwise contributing to the learning process through electronic means, including OER instructional material.

The IMRA process includes reviews of full-subject, partial-subject, and supplemental instructional materials for all subjects/courses and grade levels for the TEKS. This currently applies to those courses/subjects in the required curriculum as defined by TAC 19 Chapter 74.

Q: When will certain subjects be reviewed in the IMRA process?

A: Review the list of proposed content areas for the first IMRA Review Cycle in the presentation to the SBOE on November 13, 2023. While the SBOE has not yet indicated which subjects and courses will be included in future review cycles, part of the staff recommendation to the SBOE at the September 2023 meeting, when it considered the materials to review in this first cycle, included an analysis of the state contracts that are first to expire.

Those contracts were part of Proclamation 2014 and included science, grades K–12, mathematics, grades K–8, and technology applications, grades K–12. The SBOE discussed the next batch of instructional materials to be incorporated into the review process during the April 2024 meetings. These will be materials approved in time for use in the 2026–27 school year.

Q: When is the IMRA process happening with the SBOE, and for which subjects and grades?

A: The first cycle of IMRA kicks off summer of 2024 with a final vote by the SBOE on materials in November 2024. The new entitlements will not be available until after the November vote. Therefore, the new funding will likely be applied to materials purchases for implementation in the 2025–26 school year.

IMRA Cycle 24 includes full-subject, tier-one instructional materials for K–5 English and Spanish language arts and reading, and K–12 mathematics, as well as partial-subject, tier-one instructional materials for K–3 English and Spanish phonics.

The final list of publishers and products for this IMRA cycle is now posted here: IMRA Cycle 2024 - Instructional Materials Under Consideration for Review (PDF).

At the April 2024 SBOE meeting, TEA recommended the inclusion of CTE courses and math supplemental products for IMRA Cycle 25. However, the board deferred deciding on materials for future cycles.

Q: How should LEAs determine the length of science instructional materials contracts if there is a possibility of review with the new IMRA process? 

A: The SBOE has indicated it will not be reviewing science materials as part of IMRA in years one and two (through 2025); however, it is plausible that the SBOE will review materials in the next 36–48 months. For this reason, LEAs should consider a shorter initial term for any materials purchased as part of Proclamation 2024.

Locking into an eight-year agreement could prevent a district from taking advantage of available funds should the SBOE decide to include K–8 science materials in a future IMRA cycle in the next four years.

Q: Will new allotment funding sources (OER-and-SBOE-approved) be available for science instructional materials soon? 

A: The new entitlements under HB 1605 will only be available for materials reviewed and approved by the SBOE in the IMRA process. Science has not been considered for the upcoming 2024 or 2025 cycles.

Q: If a publisher decided to bypass Proclamation 2024 and instead submit through the IMRA process, are there criteria left out of IMRA that it can avoid, such as accessibility requirements that ensure that students and teachers with vision issues have access to resources? 

A: Accessibility requirements remain a part of the new IMRA process.

Q: How do the requirements differ between the former Proclamation process and new IMRA process? 

A: TEC, §31.022, and §31.023 identify several aspects of instructional material that must be included as part of the IMRA Criteria. This includes:

• TEKS coverage
• Quality
• No three-cueing content in K–3 reading
• Suitable for grade and subject
• No obscene or harmful content, including compliance with CIPA

TEC, §28.0022, and Penal Code 43.22:

• Free from factual error
• Physical and electronic specifications
• Parent portal compliance

Other statutes of relevance to instructional material and the IMRA Criteria include TEC, §§29.907, 29.9071, and 29.9072. Of these criteria, only the TEKS coverage was included in the Proclamation review of materials. Elements of the proposed quality rubrics were reviewed as part of the Texas Resource Review process.

Q: Does the $20 allotment apply to any material that is offered digitally by a publisher? 

A: No. The $20 allotment is only applicable to the printing of the state OER instructional materials that are reviewed by the IMRA process and placed on the approved list of instructional materials.

Q: If certain materials do not meet the IMRA suitability rubric, when is compliance required?

A: School systems retain the responsibility under state law to ensure TEKS are covered in ways deemed most appropriate by the local school system. School systems may continue to use any instructional materials or technology allowed by statute.

The suitability rubric only applies to instructional materials reviewed through the IMRA process. If a material is placed on the list of rejected instructional materials by the SBOE following a review, a school district may continue to use that instructional material, but they will not be able to use the additional funding in HB 1605 towards the purchase of those materials.

Q: What instructional materials will be prioritized in IMRA Cycle 25? 

A: The SBOE plans to prioritize only math supplemental and a subset of CTE courses in IMRA Cycle 25.

Q: Who can submit materials for review by the SBOE?

A: Any entity may submit its materials for review as part of IMRA. Additionally, the following groups may recommend review materials: the SBOE, school districts, and publishers.

The full list of eligible entities and materials that may be considered is outlined in TEC, §31.023.

Q: What are the qualifications of the SBOE? Does TEA review and provide findings to SBOE?

A: The SBOE is an elected body. They will use data and reports from the IMRA reviewers to inform their decisions. IMRA reviewers were selected by SBOE members using the following criteria and process.

Q: How do you define what is considered “high-quality”?

A: HQIM are curricular resources that: 

• Ensure full coverage of TEKS
• Are aligned to evidence-based best practices in the relevant content areas of RLA, math, science, and social studies
• Support all learners, including students with disabilities, English learners, and students identified as gifted and talented
• Enable frequent progress monitoring through embedded and aligned assessments
• Include implementation support for teachers
• Provide teacher and student-facing lesson-level materials

Q: Can you share the link to the approved HQIM list?

A: The list of HQIM approved by the SBOE will be available after the November 2024 meeting.

Q: How does this bill impact the current IMTA?  

A: HB 1605 does not change the current IMTA process or structure. The IMTA was restored in HB 1, 88th Texas Legislature, to traditional levels (roughly $1 billion per biennium).

School system IMTA account allocations have already been made based on HB 1, as detailed in the June 2023 correspondence. HB 1605 establishes two new Foundation School Program (FSP) entitlements for SBOE-approved instructional materials, in addition to the IMTA. These new FSP funds will be managed in each district’s IMTA account.

Q: What is the average cost of a textbook? 

A: Pricing varies by the grade and subject of the instructional material. Pricing is also dependent on the suite of components bundled by a publisher for purchase, which could include components such as digital licenses, trade books, workbooks, and teacher guides. Current prices for adopted instructional materials can be found on EMAT.

Q: How many instructional materials are currently adopted by the SBOE?  

A: Log into EMAT to access the list of instructional materials adopted by the SBOE.

Q: Do currently adopted products qualify for the new instructional materials allotments provided in HB 1605?

A: None of the instructional materials from previous proclamations, including those adopted under Proclamation 2024, qualify as allowable purchases under the new FSP formula funds of $40 per student and $20 per student. However, they continue to qualify as allowable purchases with IMTA funds. To qualify for the new formula allotments, materials must be reviewed and approved by the SBOE in the new IMRA process outlined in HB 1605.

Q: In recent legislation, three-cueing was repealed. What is three-cueing? 

A: Three-cueing is a method of reading instruction for the identification of words by which a student is encouraged to draw on context and sentence structure to read words without sounding them out or using a phonics-based approach.

Materials can be considered as using three-cueing when teacher prompts include statements like “Does it look right?”, “Does it sound right?”, and “Does it make sense?”.

Similarly, materials may encourage students to skip a word and come back to it, hunt for more familiar words, look at pictures for clues, try a word that makes sense, or use other strategies that downplay the need to decode the specific written word. For example, instructional materials that include predictive text stems (as opposed to decodable readers) often incorporate prohibited three-cueing. A school district or open-enrollment charter school may not include any instruction that incorporates three-cueing in K–3 English language arts/reading.

Q: Will the K–12 Proclamation 2024 for Science K–12 remain intact, per the grandfathering language in HB 1605?

A: Yes. Proclamation 2024, which includes K–12 science instructional materials, among others, will continue as planned with materials being approved in the fall of 2023 and available for implementation in the 2024–25 school year. 

Previous Webinars and Work Sessions

• House Bill 1605 Implementation Information Session for Publishers was held on Tuesday, August 1, 2023. A copy of the presentation and the webinar recording are available on the TEA web site. 

Q: When does TEA anticipate publishing a formal cycle of annual curriculum areas for TEKS review so publishers can best plan and develop Texas curriculum resources?

A: The review of instructional materials in particular content areas and grade levels are dependent upon the approval of an aligned set of rubrics by the SBOE. The SBOE will share their prioritization of rubrics with TEA, as the final rubrics and review process must be approved by the SBOE. Once a particular grade level and subject rubric is developed, it is anticipated that a review and approval process will occur in that grade level and subject each year thereafter. This means that as the TEKS are changed, new instructional materials reviews will be conducted. However, publishers that do not submit on that timeline can also submit materials in subsequent years.

Q: How does the bill impact the TEKS review and revision process?  

A: The bill requires a new vocabulary and book list addendum to the reading language arts (RLA) standards. TEC, §28.002, §4(c), notes that the SBOE “shall specify a list of required vocabulary and at least one literary work to be taught in each grade level.” TEC, §28.002, §5(c), additionally noted the SBOE “shall initiate the process of specifying an initial list of vocabulary and literary works” no later than February 1, 2024, by requesting recommendations from the agency. Beyond the required RLA addendum, HB 1605 allows the SBOE to determine if or when to revise TEKS in any content area.

Q: What changes from HB 1605 give the SBOE more flexibility in the schedule of revising TEKS? 

A: Previously, the SBOE was required to issue an instructional materials proclamation every eight years in foundation curriculum subjects to sign new contracts with publishers. This often resulted in the SBOE revising TEKS on timelines to align with the eight-year cycle for the adoption of instructional materials in the foundation curriculum subjects. The eight-year cycle has been repealed in §31.022(b).

Under HB 1605, the SBOE can review new instructional materials for a subject each year, even if TEKS aren’t changed (§31.023(a)). When TEKS are changed, the SBOE must proclaim instructional materials and adopt materials by December 1 of the year before the TEKS take effect (§31.022(c)§1(c) and §31.023(a)(1)(d)).

Q: Can a current pilot district continue using the COVID Emergency Release (CER) version?  

A: Yes, districts may continue to use the CER pilot instructional materials in classrooms if they have been approved for use by the local board or governing body. Hard copy instructional materials related to these CER versions will be available for purchase from the partner publisher. However, funding from the new HB 1605 entitlements will not be an approved source of funding for these materials.  

Q: How will the new requirements of phonics instruction be mirrored in university courses?

A: HB 1605, 88R, 2023, amended TEC, §21.044, Educator Preparation, by adding subsection (H), which states: “An educator preparation program may not include instruction on the use of instructional materials that incorporate the method of three-cueing, as defined by §28.0062(a-1), into foundational skills reading instruction.”

Q: How will content areas be selected for review if decoupled from TEKS reviews on an 8-year review cycle?

A: For a set of instructional materials to be reviewed in the IMRA process, there must first be an aligned quality rubric. The SBOE advises TEA staff on the creation of aligned quality rubrics. As rubrics are created and approved, instructional materials aligned to those rubrics will be eligible for IMRA.

Currently, the SBOE has not indicated a cadence or sequence for those rubrics; however, it has indicated it will first address the foundation curriculum before moving on to the enrichment curriculum.

Q: Will the TEKS be affected by the upcoming IMRA process?

A: No, the TEKS will NOT be impacted by the IMRA process. The revision of the TEKS is a separate process from the review and approval of instructional materials.

Q: How is the IMRA process different from the TEKS Certification process?

A: The TEKS Certification process is an annual certification by school districts and open-enrollment charter schools that, for each subject in the required curriculum under TEC, §28.002 (excluding physical education) and each grade level, the district or school has provided each student with instructional materials that cover all elements of the essential knowledge and skills adopted by the SBOE for that subject and grade level.

Additionally, in providing instructional materials, the district or school must protect students from obscene or harmful content to comply with:

(i) the CIPA (Pub. L. No. 106-554);

(ii) TEC, §28.0022;

(iii) §43.22, Penal Code; and

(iv) any other law or regulation that protects students from obscene or harmful content.

Furthermore, school districts and open-enrollment charter schools must certify that they used money allocated under the instructional materials and technology allotment (IMTA) only for purposes allowed under TEC, §31.0211. The IMRA process involves the annual review and approval of instructional materials by the SBOE. Instructional materials approved by the SBOE and placed on the list of approved instructional materials must not include content that would violate TEC, §31.1011(a)(1)(B) and prevent a school district or open-enrollment charter school from completing their annual TEKS Certification.

Q: Will materials that are already adopted go through the IMRA process?

A: Yes, all materials will need to go through the IMRA process and ultimately be approved by the SBOE to qualify for the new entitlements laid out in HB 1605. However, districts may purchase any materials, regardless of the SBOE’s review, using their traditional IMTA.

Q: When do districts need to meet parent portal requirements (e.g., when the curriculum must be posted for the public)? Also, if the materials being used are copyrighted, what is the guidance for the district?

A: TEC, §26.006. Access To Teaching Materials outlines a parent's right to access all teaching materials, instructional materials, and other teaching aids used in the classroom. HB 1605 added the requirement that parents have access to a publisher parent portal solely for materials that are approved by the SBOE in the new IMRA process. This portal is the responsibility of the publisher to host, and the publisher is only required to grant access to the parents of districts who purchase the materials.

Publishers also have the responsibility to work with districts to integrate the portal into learning management systems (LMS) with a single sign-on for parents. This should avoid copyright issues, however, 19 TAC, §67.83. Publisher Parent Portal clarifies the responsibilities of a publisher for the portal and expands on the requirements outlined in TEC, §31.154. Instructional Materials Parent Portal.

If material is included on the "list of approved materials" by the SBOE in November 2024 and subsequently purchased by a district, the district will collaborate with the publisher to make the product available via its LMS to parents at least 30 days before the start of the school year. Under this scenario, this would be around July 2025.

This requirement, however, applies exclusively to materials reviewed and approved by the SBOE under IMRA. No other materials are subject to this provision. Nonetheless, the district may still be required to provide LMS access to parents under the existing statute TEC, §26.006(e).

Q: What additional funds might LEAs have access to for print materials?

A: LEAs might have access to IMTA funds, local fund balance, and possible grant funds if applicable.

Q: Are we prohibited from using the grade 6–8 Reading and Writing Units of Study because they are based on Common Core State Standards and explicitly reference the CCS in some places?

A: Information outlining the restrictions on Common Core can be found in TEC, Chapter 28. The SBOE has opted to include this standard in their suitability rubric for the review of instructional materials under the IMRA process. However, this statute does not prevent a district from purchasing instructional materials that refer to Common Core State Standards using their traditional Instructional Materials and Technology Allotment (IMTA) funds.

The ban on three-cueing practices applies to reading standards for kindergarten–grade 3 (TEC, §28.0062. Reading Standards for Kindergarten through Third Grade). You can also reference the restrictions in 19 TAC Chapter 74, Subchapter CC, Commissioner’s Rules Concerning Reading Practices.

Q: Can the materials be used for the 2024–2025 school year if supplemented to cover any missing TEKS and other instructional components? For example, if the materials do not cover 100% of the TEKS, would the district need to identify the missing TEKS and provide additional lessons and resources for teachers to address those TEKS?

A: That is correct. The annual certification of provision of instructional materials (TEKS Survey) affirms that the district has procured enough instructional materials to cover all elements of the essential knowledge and skills in the required curriculum for all students. When considering if enough instructional materials have been procured, a district may consider the following sources (§31.1011(b)):

• Instructional materials adopted by the SBOE
• Instructional materials developed, purchased, or otherwise acquired by the school district or open-enrollment charter school
• OER instructional materials and other electronic instructional materials included in the repository under Section 31.0722

Q: Can the grade 6–8 Reading and Writing Units of Study be used for the 2024–25 school year, with new grade 6–8 ELAR instructional materials from the SBOE-approved list adopted during the 2024–25 school year for implementation in the 2025–26 school year? If so, would this qualify for the additional funding of $40 per student, or would it be necessary to wait until the grade 6–8 ELAR goes through the new IMRA process and the SBOE publishes a list of approved materials?

A: To qualify for the new funding, instructional materials need to be reviewed and approved by the SBOE through the IMRA process. Materials for 6–12 ELAR are not scheduled to be reviewed for at least the next two years, as the SBOE considers updates to the ELAR TEKS with the addition of a required vocabulary list and required literary works list.

Therefore, any materials purchased in the near term will require the use of traditional IMTA funds. With those funds, districts can requisition any materials adopted by the SBOE in a prior Proclamation, or they may request a disbursement of their funding to purchase from any publisher, regardless of the material’s adoption status by the SBOE. In the example, the district opted to purchase a material not on the Current Adoption Bulletin and therefore requested a disbursement of funds from IMTA to cover the cost.

Q: What support will TEA provide to districts for materials approved in previous adoptions, where licenses remain within the previous adoption cycle schedule, considering the specific requirements of HB 1605?

A: LEAs are bound by the contracts signed during previous adoption cycles. Moving forward, the rules for the initial contract period for approved instructional materials resulting from the IMRA process are defined in 19 TAC §67.81, Instructional Materials Contracts. While districts are not required to purchase approved IMRA products, only materials reviewed and approved by the SBOE in future IMRA processes will qualify for new funding.

Q: Does this mean the newly adopted science materials will not be considered HQIM?

A: Correct. Instructional materials from Proclamation 2024 were not part of the new IMRA process and will not be included on the HQIM list by the SBOE. Details on the 2024 Proclamation were shared in a TAA published on September 21, 2023.

Q: The three-cueing system was initially associated with HB 3 and phonics materials and resources. However, it now appears to be generalized to all grade 3 materials beyond phonics. Is this interpretation correct?

A: Yes, three-cueing was clarified in statute with the passage of HB 1605 §28.0062, Reading Standards for Kindergarten Through Third Grade.

Q: When will districts have access to IMTA funds?

A: An initial deposit of $40 per child enrolled in the district was made for all districts on September 1, 2023. The next deposit will occur on September 1, 2024, at the start of the state’s fiscal year. Since the SBOE will vote in November 2024, both deposits will be available when the list is approved, totaling $80 in the account. Each year, on September 1, an additional $40 per child enrolled will be added. Any unspent funds will carry forward to the next fiscal year.

Q: If the district uses the SBOE-approved math materials but not the ELAR ones, how will this decision impact the additional $40 funding per child?

A: The additional funding is $40 per student per year, regardless of content area. This $40 per student can be used to purchase an SBOE-approved math offering, while other local funds can be allocated for purchasing other instructional materials.

Q: Is the additional funding allocated per student per content area? For example, if a district uses both the Math OER and ELAR OER for K–5, is each student allotted $60 per course?

A: The additional allotment provided by HB 1605 is $40 per student per year. It is not per content.

Q: If we are already using Eureka Math, will we also be considered for the allotment carryover?

A: Since the Eureka Math TEKS edition is not undergoing the IMRA 2024 review process, it will not be eligible for additional funding. An LEA would need to adopt Texas OER Edition 1 K–5 Math materials (assuming they are approved by the SBOE) to qualify for the additional funding.

Q: Upon reviewing the RLA materials, it was observed that the topics of the texts are related to science or social studies but are not aligned to grade level. Why are the texts not aligned to grade level?

A: The Texas OER K–5 RLA product is designed to incorporate knowledge from other subject areas but does not currently satisfy full coverage of the TEKS in those areas. Therefore, dedicated classroom time is still required for the instruction of other foundational subjects.

The legislature, through HB 1605, has mandated that the agency design an “integrated” K–5 OER product to achieve this goal. However, the development of this product is several years away, as the SBOE must first address any TEKS changes in the core subject areas.

Q: Can a district use the $20 to purchase a copy machine to print OER?

A: No, the new allotments for $40- and $20- per student enrolled may not be used for supplies or capital outlay.

Q: Can the $40 only be used on an approved product from the IMRA list?

A: Correct. Funding is restricted to approved ISBNs and bundles. The OER print allotment ($20 per enrolled child) cannot be applied to any components available in digital format, as the digital materials will be provided at no charge.

Q: When HB 1605 was introduced, one of the tiers included implementation as an allowable expenditure. Is this eligible for funding?

A: Aligned professional development for approved products is not an allowable expense under the new $40- and $20-per-student allotments. It is, however, an allowable expense under the traditional IMTA. Additionally, the legislature has appropriated grant funding to support implementation through separate grants to LEAs.

Q: If a product is reviewed and approved, and it includes digital resources, can an LEA use the $40 allotment to purchase it?

A: Publishers submitted their products for the Cycle 24 review, listing each component and indicating the format as digital only, print, or both digital and print.

LEAs may apply funding to approved products regardless of the format offered by the publisher. Texas OER products will be available in both print and digital formats; however, digital materials will be free of charge and hosted on the Texas OER Repository. Printed components will require the use of the dedicated $40- and $20-per-student allotments.

Q: Scenario: An LEA adopts an approved HQIM product for math. Can the district draw a total of $80 banked ($40 from the 2023–24 school year and $40 from the 2024–25 school year)?

A: Yes. The $40-per-student enrollment formula is $40 multiplied by the “total student enrollment for the district” and equals the “total allotment.” This amount is deposited in the LEA’s IMTA account every September 1 at the start of the fiscal year. The first deposit was made on September 1, 2023, and the next will be made on September 1, 2024.

By the time the SBOE votes on the first-approved products in November 2024, each LEA will have accumulated the equivalent of two deposits, or $80 multiplied by the “total student enrollment for the district.”

On September 1, 2025, LEAs will receive another deposit of $40 multiplied by the “total student enrollment for the district.” Any unexpended funds will be carried forward to the next fiscal year. This funding is not currently visible to any LEAs and will not be visible in EMAT until after the SBOE vote in November 2024.

Q: What can we expect from the book/word list? Will it be required to teach all texts from the list?

A: HB 1605 amended Chapter 28 of TEC to state: “In adopting essential knowledge and skills for English language arts under Subsection (a)(1)(A), the State Board of Education shall specify a list of required vocabulary and at least one literary work to be taught in each grade level.

The vocabulary specified by the board must support the essential knowledge and skills adopted for other courses offered under the foundation curriculum under Subsection (a)(1).” The SBOE may select more than one text to include on the list of required literary works but will likely create a list of several options from which to choose. 

Q: Can instructional materials include three-cueing?

A: Instruction cannot include three-cueing as defined by TEC §28.0062, amended by HB 1605.

Q: For districts that received Strong Start Implementation LASO funds, will there be future support if they transition to OER materials?

A: Yes. HB 1605 included a requirement and funding to support OER transition planning and implementation. See the reference in Chapter 31 of TEC, §31.0752.

Q: Do districts that choose to retain their own district-developed curriculum need to submit it for approval?

A: Submission of a district-created curriculum is not required. Districts may use any materials, provided they can certify that the materials meet the requirements outlined in TEC and ratified in the annual TEKS Certification survey.

Q: Is there an intention to eventually phase out IMTA funding once IMRA is fully operational?

A: The IMTA is set by the legislature and not the agency biennially.

Q: What criteria determine that a resource results in “no action”?

A: A product receiving “no action” from the SBOE indicates that it was neither approved nor rejected by the board. Consequently, the product cannot be purchased using the new $40 or $20 per child allotments. However, LEAs may purchase the product using traditional IMTA funds or other local funds

Q: It sounds like adoption cycles are changing. How will IMTA allocations be adjusted? What impact will this have on subjects like social studies?

A: The SBOE discussed the need for a long-term TEKS revision and IMRA cycle plans at the June 2024 meeting. It requested TEA staff to return to the September 2024 meeting with a long-term plan to help establish the cadence of materials reviews and TEKS revisions in the post-HB 1605 landscape, where the 8- and 12-year cycles for Proclamations no longer exist. Part of that discussion includes the revision of the social studies TEKS.

Q: If an OER is adopted, which is free, can the $40 HQIM funds and the $20 OER funds be used to cover print costs? Alternatively, are print costs for OER expected to be lower?

A: The $20 allotment applies only to hardcopy print materials that are part of the OER products approved by the SBOE in the new IMRA process. This funding can be combined with the $40 allotment for all SBOE-approved materials to maximize a district’s purchasing power for physical hardcopy materials.

Q: Is it necessary to adopt HQIM for all content and levels to utilize the added funds?

A: No, it is only necessary to locally adopt a particular product to access the funding for that product.

Q: The RLA OER for K–5 represents a shift in literacy instruction for many districts, particularly those implementing a balanced literacy model. In addition to research shared through the Texas Reading Academies, will TEA release training or guidance to help districts foster buy-in from teachers and administrators?

A: The Strong Foundations Planning and Strong Foundations Implementation programs, which are part of the LASO grant offering contain these supports.

Q: Do districts receive both the allotment and the incentive?

A: Yes, LEAs will have three buckets of funding: the traditional IMTA, the $40 per child HQIM allotment, and the $20 per child OER print allotment. Depending on the materials selected for procurement, different sources of funds can be applied.

Q: Is the allotment subject-specific? For example, if a district adopts both IMRA-approved math and RLA products, will they receive a different allotment than a district adopting only IMRA-approved math? How will this apply to the addition of future non-RLA, non-math subjects?

A: The allotments are a block amount for all materials. There is not a separate allotment for individual subjects or courses.

Q: Are there any proposed prekindergarten materials in development?

A: Per HB 1605, prekindergarten OER instructional materials will be developed. A timeline for development has not been finalized. HB 1605 calls for the agency to develop pre-k OER in subject areas related to RLA and mathematics.

Q: What are steps taken to ensure that all materials are accessible to the range of learners? (Described videos, alt text on images, braille, large print, etc.)

A: All materials submitted to the IMRA process are required to have accessible formats available at the same time as other formats. Materials approved by SBOE will have braille, large print, and audio formats available for all students and teachers. When materials are made available in our new Texas OER Repository, they will also meet WCAG standards for online accessibility.

Q: Can public school districts and public charter schools receive an updated biennial IMTA report, which includes an additional column indicating the “Available $40 IMRA Funds” for the current biennium? Additionally, can they receive an annual report indicating any IMRA funds rolled forward?

A: Yes, reporting for current IMTA allotments and future allotments stemming from HB 1605 will be available to all districts in the EMAT system once the method of financing and measurement of enrollment is confirmed with the Legislative Budget Board. We anticipate having the updated reports, with the new funding indicated in a separate column on EMAT accounts, by Spring 2024. Following this update, districts will have an on-demand view of their new funding.

Q: Will public school districts and public charter schools receive training on preparing IMTA (410) ledgers for auditing purposes before the IMRA Funds ($40/$20) become available?  

A: Yes, additional guidance will be provided. Please check the HB 1605 Webinar webpage for updated information.  

Q: What are local classroom reviews?

A: HB 1605 establishes a local school systems instructional materials review process under TEC, §31.0252. Local classroom reviews must accomplish two things:

• Report how consistently instructional materials used in the classroom are those adopted by the school or school system.
• Report how consistently assignments issued to students are on grade level.

The details of how local classroom reviews are conducted must be established under standards developed by TEA, and the SBOE must specifically approve the rubric used to determine whether assignments are on grade level. The grade-level rubric used is likely to be like the portion of the IMRA criteria used to evaluate assignments found within SBOE-approved instructional materials.

Once the review standards are developed and the on-grade-level rubric is approved, TEA will conduct a training and approval process to designate vendors, including service centers, as authorized providers of these local classroom reviews. Once authorized providers are approved, local classroom reviews can begin to be conducted by school systems, with grant funds provided by TEA to cover some or all their costs, depending on demand. Local classroom reviews will likely begin during the 2024–25 school year.

Q: How can parents request a local classroom review?

A: Local classroom reviews can be ordered by school systems. They can also be requested by parents. 

Of note: Until the standards are developed by TEA, the rubric is approved by the SBOE, and the vendors are approved by TEA, neither school systems nor parents can request these reviews. These steps are anticipated to be completed so that reviews can begin during the 2024–25 school year.

TEC, §26.0061 establishes two different avenues for parents to request a local classroom review:

Individual Parent Request

The parent of an individual child can request a review of their own child’s classroom(s). In these situations, the law describes a process where, if a school system receives a parent's request for a review, the school system should first work with the parent to ensure the parent has had a chance to review all the instructional materials offered in the classroom.

This can include walking the parent through materials made available via a new Instructional Materials Parent Portal and can include providing physical copies of materials for the parent to review in person at the school, or if feasible, to take home. It can include facilitating meetings between the parent and the teacher(s) to discuss classroom assignments and instructional materials. If the parent still wants a local classroom review conducted after these opportunities to directly review and discuss the materials, the school system must have a process to consider that parent's request. 

In the event the school system administrators do not want to conduct a local classroom review, the district must have a process for the parent to appeal those administrative decisions to the school board. Regardless of the situation, a school system is not required to conduct a local classroom review in an individual classroom more than once a school year.

Petition 

A petition signed by parents of at least 25 percent of students at a school can request a review for all or a portion of the classrooms of a school.  

In the event administrators do not want to conduct the local classroom reviews requested by the petition, the school board must consider and affirmatively vote to veto the request. If the petition reaches 50 percent, reviews must be conducted. Regardless of the situation, a school system is not required to conduct a local classroom review in an individual classroom more than once per school year.

The SBOE may establish rules governing parental requests for a local instructional material review. 

More details will be provided as the rules and standards are developed.

Q: Will the parent portal need to meet accessibility requirements?

A: Parent portal requirements must be set by the SBOE per the language in HB 1605. The SBOE will likely require the portals to meet WCAG accessibility requirements to ensure access for all parents.

Q: Will local classroom reviews impact allowable funding sources for instructional materials purchased by LEAs?

A: Local classroom reviews intend to allow local school districts to determine the degree to which the instructional materials used by a teacher in a foundation curriculum course under TEC, §28.002(a)(1) both correspond with the instructional materials adopted by the school district or district campus; and meets the level of rigor of the essential knowledge and skills adopted under TEC, §28.002 for the grade level in which it is being used. This should not have an impact on the allowable use of IMTA funding.

Q: What additional protections are provided as a part of the bill? 

A: Teachers are given employment protections in the bill. If a teacher uses materials adopted by the SBOE IMRA process, they cannot face disciplinary action for using the materials with fidelity.

This bill also protects teacher time in two ways:

• Teachers cannot be required to use bi-weekly planning time to create initial instructional materials unless there is a supplemental duty agreement with the teacher (TEC, §21.4045).
• For school systems that have adopted instructional materials that include detailed lesson plans, teachers are not required to turn in weekly lesson plans (TEC, §11.164).

Q: Are administrators allowed to meet with teachers during the planning and preparation period for Professional Learning Community (PLC) meetings, data meetings, or other meetings that do not require the teacher to produce or create documents?

A: A classroom teacher, defined in TEC, §5.001, is an educator who teaches an average of four hours a day and is entitled to 450 minutes every two weeks for planning and preparation in blocks of not less than 45 minutes. Educators who teach less than an average of four hours a day are not entitled to a planning and preparation period under TEC, §21.404. The planning and preparation period is typically 45 minutes daily or 90 minutes every other day. If the district provides more than 450 minutes of planning and preparation time in two weeks, the excess time could be allocated to meetings. However, the district may not require attendance at meetings for a minimum of 450 minutes. A Commissioner's decision on that issue is Chaffin v. Los Fresnos I.S.D., Docket No.128-R10-1290 (November 4, 1991).

Q: HB 1605 includes requirements for initial lesson plan design, stating that districts cannot require classroom teachers to use their lesson planning time for initial lesson plan design for the foundation curriculum. Is this applicable to LOTE teachers, as they are listed under “Enrichment” in Section 28.002?

A: The new statute generally restricts districts from requiring specific classroom teachers to perform duties related to initial lesson plan design and instructional materials selection during their planning and preparation time if these duties are not already outlined in the contracts of other teachers in the same subject or grade level unless included in a supplemental agreement. If such an agreement is reached, it must explicitly state the duties to be performed that are unrelated to providing instruction.

As noted in the question, this requirement only applies to foundation curriculum courses outlined in TEC, §28.002.