1. Home

IMRA Process Overview

The Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) process is structured into five, clearly defined phases, each designed to guide publishers through specific procedural requirements and decision points. Phase 0, which occurs before an IMRA cycle begins, explains the development and approval of the quality rubrics used throughout the IMRA cycle. 

The following information provides an overview of the IMRA process, from start to finish. 

Phase 0: IMRA Rubrics

TEA collaborates with the State Board of Education (SBOE) to determine the subject areas and grade bands for which rubrics will be developed. TEA engages with multiple stakeholders, including Texas parents, educators, education service center (ESC) staff, and publishers, to create draft rubrics. TEA presents the draft rubrics to the SBOE for feedback, makes revisions, and presents the rubrics at a later meeting for approval.

All selected instructional materials will be assessed and scored using the applicable IMRA quality rubric for the program category and type. The following links are to the SBOE-approved rubrics that will be used to assess materials by IMRA reviewers for IMRA Cycle 2026, as of January 2026. The K–3 English language arts and reading (ELAR) and Spanish language arts and reading (SLAR) rubrics include phonics components to ensure alignments with foundational literacy instruction.

The rubrics are divided into two categories: implementation quality and learning quality.  

  • The implementation quality category is designed to measure the extent to which the materials support effective implementation, including intentional instructional design, progress monitoring, and support for all learners.  
  • The learning quality category is unique for each rubric and measures the extent to which materials include high-quality elements that are aligned with research on the best ways to teach the subject and support students in reaching grade-level proficiency on the standards. 

Phase 1: Publisher Application

For each annual IMRA cycle, TEA issues a request for instructional materials (RFIM). The RFIM is a public, open request for publishers to submit their programs for consideration and review. The RFIM includes the subject areas and grade level(s) or course(s) that are eligible for that review cycle, publisher requirements for participation and approval, and a timeline for application to the process.  If the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are revised for a subject and grade level or course for which there are IMRA-approved instructional materials, the SBOE will issue a proclamation requesting the revision of approved instructional materials.

Publishers apply to participate in the IMRA process, providing basic program information, required assurances, and initial documentation to confirm eligibility. Response submissions will be due in phases according to the review Anticipated Schedule of Events in the RFIM.

Publishers must provide the following information in the IMRA Cycle 2026 RFIM Response Form A: Publisher Business Information.* Each publisher will submit only one Response Form.  Following the completion of Response Form A, a link to Form B: Publisher Program Submission will be sent to the publisher’s point of contact. Each grade-level program requires a separate Form B submission.  

*The deadline for Response Form A was Friday, October 31, 2025, at 11:59 p.m. CDT. Access to the form has been deactivated.

Withdrawal Deadline

Publishers have until January 16, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. CST to voluntarily withdraw from the review process. This deadline marks the final opportunity for publishers to opt out without having their materials reviewed or publicly reported.

After this date, withdrawal is no longer permitted. If a publisher chooses not to engage in the review cycle after the deadline, their submitted instructional materials will still be reviewed by TEA and IMRA reviewers. These materials may be placed on the List of Approved Instructional Materials or the List of Rejected Instructional Materials, depending on the outcome of the review. The results will be made publicly available and may impact the publisher’s future participation and ability to sell materials in Texas (TEC §31.0211(f)(2) and TEC §31.024).

This policy ensures transparency and accountability in the IMRA process and allows TEA to maintain a consistent review schedule and resource allocation. Publishers are strongly encouraged to make a final decision about participation before the withdrawal deadline to avoid unintended consequences.

Note: If the SBOE votes to include a program in the review, the publisher must participate—even if a withdrawal request was submitted.

Phase 2: Selection of Instructional Materials 

Once the application deadline has closed and the publisher withdrawal window has passed, TEA provides the SBOE with a market share analysis that identifies the most purchased materials for each subject and grade band and the list of voluntary submissions. The SBOE, by majority vote, may require instructional materials to be reviewed in the current IMRA cycle. Additionally, TEA may require instructional materials to be reviewed if Texas schools purchase those materials using their instructional materials and technology allotment funds.  

If the list of instructional materials to be reviewed exceeds TEA’s review capacity, TEA will reduce the number of materials on the list using the following 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, including:
  6. First year for IMRA rubric in a subject/grade level
  7. Materials related to recently revised TEKS.  
  8. District submissions.

TEA notifies publishers selected for review and begins the onboarding process. 

Phase 3: Instructional Materials Review

Each program selected for review in the IMRA Cycle 2026 will be subject to the following reviews:

All materials submitted for consideration must be free from factual errors. Errors are defined as a word, phrase, reference, or sentence with information that can be indisputably disproven, including grammatical errors.

Publishers must conduct a complete and thorough editorial review of instructional materials submissions to identify and correct factual errors prior to submitting their materials in response to this solicitation.  

IMRA reviewers will review the materials for accuracy and report any additional identified factual errors. Publishers must submit proposed corrections for each reported error or may contest the error by providing evidence and justification.

TEA will provide error reports to the SBOE before they vote to approve or reject materials. Publishers must agree to correct all errors as a condition of approval by the SBOE. 

Residents of the State of Texas are encouraged to review materials under consideration for approval and may submit feedback during the official public comment period, May 1–August 31, 2026.  

TEA will provide all comments received during the public comment period to publishers, and publishers will have the opportunity to respond. Publishers may propose changes in response to public comments. TEA will provide the SBOE with a report of all public comments and publisher responses according to the anticipated schedule of events. 

All selected instructional material programs will be assessed and scored using the appropriate IMRA quality rubric for the program category and type. Below are links to the finalized, approved rubrics that will be used to assess materials by IMRA reviewers for IMRA Cycle 2026.  

To facilitate the quality review, publishers will have the opportunity to demonstrate alignment, if applicable, using a correlations template supplied by TEA. Reviewers will evaluate the extent to which the instructional materials align with the applicable rubric and will collect evidence to support each rating.  

IMRA reviewers may supply publishers with feedback while conducting their review. TEA will provide publishers with all IMRA reviewer feedback, and publishers must either respond with a proposed change or a justification for not proposing a change.

TEA will provide feedback reports, along with the publishers’ responses, to the SBOE before they vote to approve or reject materials. Publishers must agree to make all required changes as a condition of approval.  

The minimum requirement for standards alignment varies depending on the classification of the materials, as outlined:

  • Full-subject, tier-one materials for K–12 English mathematics and K–5 English Language Arts and Reading (ELAR) must cover 100% of the TEKS and ELPS for the intended subject and grade level or course in the student and teacher materials.
  • Full-subject, tier-one materials for K–12 Spanish mathematics, K–5 Spanish Language Arts and Reading (SLAR), 6–12 Career and Technical Education (CTE), and K–12 fine arts must cover 100% of the TEKS for the intended subject and grade level or course in the student and teacher materials.
  • Partial-subject, tier-one materials for K–3 English and Spanish phonics materials must cover 100% of the applicable TEKS.
  • Supplemental program submissions for K–12 mathematics and K–5 ELAR and SLAR must cover 100% of the TEKS the publisher self-identifies as addressed in their response to the RFIM. For RLA programs, TEA provides a TEKS crosswalk to support alignment with the Quality Rubric indicators.

Publishers must provide evidence of standards alignment in the IMRA Review Dashboard. Reviewers will evaluate the publisher-supplied correlations and accept or reject the publishers’ citations.  

The SBOE adopted a suitability rubric to evaluate whether each program submission is suitable for the subject and grade level for which the material is intended. IMRA reviewers and the public will record instances of non-compliance with suitability indicators.  

The rubric is broken into two sections:

  • Section 1 of the rubric outlines the suitability prohibitions. A flag in this section by reviewers or the public indicates that the program potentially contains prohibited content. If a flag is submitted, publishers must respond to the flag and may provide new content or propose content edits to address the issue. All programs in the IMRA review must comply with Section 1 of the suitability rubric.  
  • Section 2 of the suitability rubric outlines suitability excellence indicators. All programs, other than supplemental mathematics, are required to include positive evidence of compliance with this section. Reviewers will record instances of compliance with suitability excellence indicators 2.1.1, promoting American patriotism, Texas History, and the free enterprise system, understanding the importance of patriotism and democratic principles of our state and national heritage, including the founding documents of the United States; and, if applicable, 6.2, human sexuality instruction.

To facilitate the suitability review, publishers must supply evidence of alignment, if applicable, with indicators 2.1.1 and 6.2 using a correlations template supplied by TEA. 

Phase 4: Appeals and Approvals

Appeals

The IMRA appeals process is designed to give publishers multiple opportunities to respond to reviewer findings, reviewer and public comments, and errors to strengthen their instructional material submissions before results are finalized.  

Appeals differ slightly across the different types of reviews but follow a consistent approach: publishers may correct errors, provide overlooked evidence, and/or submit new or revised content within designated windows. 

Reviewers will evaluate the extent to which the instructional materials align to the applicable quality rubric and collect evidence to support each rating. As initial ratings are released, publishers are provided the opportunity to appeal elements of the quality review.  

Quality review appeals occur in two stages. During Stage One, publishers respond to IMRA reviewer findings and submit technical corrections and/or omissions for reviewer consideration, including identifying existing instructional materials content that meets rubric requirements that may have been overlooked. The first stage of the appeals process occurs on a rolling basis as portions of the initial quality review are completed, and there is no limit to the number of Stage One appeals that may be submitted.

Stage Two of the quality appeals process occurs at the conclusion of the review, at which point publishers are offered an additional opportunity to appeal reviewer scores by providing new or revised content to potentially improve scores for a percentage of quality indicators. Publishers may submit appeals for up to 25% of the quality rubric indicators. Publishers of K–3 reading language arts and phonics materials may also submit appeals for any indicator in section 4 of the quality rubric to ensure compliance with phonics rule and law. 

At the start of the review, publishers provide evidence of standards alignment (i.e., correlations) for reviewers to evaluate and accept or reject the publishers’ citations.  

After the initial review, the teams pause the standards-alignment review to allow publishers time to respond to reviewer feedback. During this time, publishers scoring between 75–99.9% in TEKS and/or ELPS (if applicable) may submit new citations and/or revised content to address rejections and improve their initial standards-alignment scores. This step is designed to give publishers a meaningful opportunity to strengthen their submissions before the review results are finalized.  

Publishers who do not achieve at least 75% TEKS coverage during the initial review are not eligible to submit standards alignment appeals. 

Show-Cause Hearing

Publishers that are not satisfied with their standards-alignment percentage and meet eligibility may request a show-cause hearing to appeal the reviewers’ findings. To meet eligibility, publishers must have a score between 65–74.99% or 90–99.99%. This hearing provides publishers with the opportunity to present evidence that illustrates the reviewers’ determinations are inaccurate. Publishers may not present any new evidence of alignment during a show-cause hearing. 

While reviewers document Section 1 noncompliance suitability flags, publishers respond to noncompliance flags on a rolling basis during the review window. 

For programs where Section 2 suitability excellence flags are required but not achieved, publishers may submit new content during the August appeals window for suitability review teams to consider. 

There is no limit to the number of suitability appeals a publisher may submit. 

Approvals

Once the instructional materials review phase and any appeals have concluded, the IMRA reports are finalized. During the November meeting, the SBOE will vote to approve or reject the reviewed instructional materials. If materials are neither approved nor rejected, no further action is taken.

Phase 5: Post-Approval Submissions

Final Submission of Approved Materials

Following approval by the SBOE, publishers must submit a finalized version of their instructional materials by March 22, 2027. This version must include all required corrections, editorial changes, and new content. The submission must meet the following format requirements:

  • Digital Materials:
    • Must be provided in accessible formats, including validated NIMAS files and fully functional digital platforms with active access credentials. All hyperlinks must be operational, and content must be organized for intuitive navigation. If a component cannot be digitized due to licensing restrictions (e.g., trade books), it must still be accounted for in the component list and marked as print-only.
  • Print Materials:
    • Must meet TEA manufacturing standards, including durability, legibility, and accessibility features. Publishers must submit physical copies to designated producers to support the production of accessible instructional materials.
  • Affirmations:
    • Publishers must submit signed affirmations confirming that all required changes have been implemented and that both digital and print materials meet all specified standards.

Post Approval Requirements 

Accessibility

Accessibility is a critical component of post-approval submissions. Publishers must ensure that all student-facing materials, both print and digital, are available in accessible formats.

  • Print Materials:
    • Publisher must submit NIMAS files to TEA and NIMAC, along with a screenshot from NIMAC Validation Wizard confirming validation. Materials must also be provided to designated producers for braille, audio, and large-print formats.
  • Digital Materials:
    • Any student or teacher components offered in a digital format must comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA and Section 508 standards. Publishers must contract with a reputable third party to conduct an accessibility audit, produce an accessibility compliance report, and submit the required coversheet to TEA. All identified issues must be before the materials will be added to EMAT and made available for purchase.

Failure to meet these requirements may result in removal from the List of Approved Instructional Materials and EMAT.

Confirmation of Changes

Between April and August 2027, TEA will conduct a confirmation of changes review. This review verifies that all revisions required by the SBOE have been properly implemented in the final version of the instructional materials. Publishers must provide documentation showing where each change is located.

Ongoing Access 

Publishers are required to maintain full electronic access for TEA and each of the 20 ESCs to every component and artifact, including assessments and answer keys, of the approved instructional materials program for the entire duration of the contract. This includes providing updated access credentials, as needed, and notifying TEA of any changes. TEA will conduct periodic access checks, and failure to maintain access may result in removal from the approved list and EMAT. 

Post-approval materials must be accessible to the public and school systems. Members of the public may view materials by appointment at an ESC or through TEA’s District Operations, Technology, and Sustainability Supports Division in Austin. If a Texas school system requests a review of an approved program, publishers must provide a complete electronic version for review and may also provide print copies at no cost. If the materials must be returned, publishers must supply a shipping label and return deadline.

Parent Portal Requirements

The term “parent portal” in law refers broadly to an agreement between an IMRA-approved publisher and local school systems about how families will be granted access if the local school system adopts IMRA-approved materials. Publishers must provide parents of students in a purchasing district with access to those materials in the manner requested by the district. This may include hosting materials on the publisher’s website, integrating them into the district’s learning management system (LMS), or another method specified by the district.

Regardless of the delivery method, access must:

  • Exclude tests and exams.
  • Present materials organized by unit and in instructional sequence.
  • Allow keyword search for digital materials.
  • Include sufficient information for locating physical copies when materials are not digital.

Publishers may require passwords or user verification but cannot impose restrictions that conflict with fair use under copyright law. Compliance with district requests and transparency requirements will be verified by TEA under 19 TAC §67.83 and TEC §31.154.

  Print
Related Content

Publisher Office Hours 

TEA hosts weekly office hours every Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. CT for publishers interested in participating in IMRA Cycle 2026. During office hours, TEA staff provide training, share information, and answer publishers’ questions. Publishers are encouraged to attend office hours, which are hosted on Zoom.