State Board of Education adopts new instructional-materials review rules, orders reviewer split and process changes

The State Board of Education’s committee of the full board voted to adopt new rule text for 19 TAC chapter 67 on Jan. 28, approving procedures that put the agency’s Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) process into rule for the 2025 cycle.

The board’s action formalizes a multi-part review process developed and run by the Texas Education Agency (TEA), establishes separate reviewer roles for quality and suitability, and directs staff to improve publisher notice, appeals timing and member-facing reporting tools before the next review cycle.

Why this matters: the rule package implements the statutory IMRA framework adopted after House Bill 1605 and governs how publishers’ instructional materials are evaluated for alignment to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and other standards. The changes affect which materials districts may adopt and how publishers must document alignment and respond to reviewer findings.

Colin Dempsey, Director of District Operations, Technology, and Sustainability Supports at the Texas Education Agency, told the board the IMRA process has four parts — rubrics, material selection, reviewer selection and EMRA reviews — and that the part of the report before the committee covers the review work and reports that informed members’ November 2024 vote. “We kicked off officially with reviewers on 05/17/2024, and worked through the review process,” Dempsey said, describing the timeline and how publishers were allowed to respond when reviewers rejected alignment citations.

The agency told the board it used a 75% TEKS‑coverage threshold this cycle: publishers whose materials did not meet 75% of required student expectations on initial alignment were removed from further alignment work in order to conserve reviewer time. Publishers could submit up to eight citations when asked to supply more evidence on rejected student‑expectation breakouts. For quality‑rubric appeals, the agency limited publishers to requesting re‑review on up to three rubric “indicator” sections to constrain late, wholesale rewrites of submitted products.

Dempsey summarized recommendations the agency will pursue for MR Cycle 2025: give publishers a longer runway between rubric approval and material submission, lengthen windows for publisher responses (rather than continuous 24/7 availability during the summer), streamline appeals and re‑review timing, and provide clearer guidance about how board members will interpret rubric scores when voting.

Board members pressed staff on details. Member Clark asked for clarity about the “48‑hour” response clock; Dempsey said that clock starts when a reviewer team rejects all evidence for a specific student‑expectation breakout and that the agency recommends more time so publishers are not forced to respond during inconvenient hours. Member Brooks said the process “felt rushed” and asked for more time for board deliberation on review outcomes; Member Higman suggested shortening the 200‑page reports and showing deal‑breakers and score rollups on the first page of reports.

Costs and scale: Dempsey reported the agency paid roughly $1,480,000 in reviewer stipends to about 295 reviewers and spent approximately $6,000,000 on the development and maintenance of the web platform used for reviews; an additional $50,000 was reported for a subsequent verification reviewer round. The agency said 95 products were on the approved list following the November meeting.

Reviewer selection and roles: the adopted rules split reviewer roles into dedicated quality reviewers (who focus on TEKS alignment and the detailed quality rubric) and dedicated suitability reviewers (who focus on classroom suitability flags and contextual concerns). The rules create different selection paths: quality‑review applicants will be ranked by the agency/contractor and then provided to members for review and adjustment; suitability reviewers will be selected more like appointments, with members asked to supply ranked lists of candidates for panels. The board directed staff to develop clearer application language so parents and other community members without a workplace supervisor can apply and be considered for suitability review.

Public access, flags and reporting: the rules preserve an open public comment window and codify the handling of publisher responses and suitability flags. The agency will post written feedback, lists of alleged factual errors and suitability flags on the SBOE website after publishers have had an opportunity to respond, and TEA staff said they are researching a single “digital bookshelf” or repository to centralize access to materials under review. TEA said an open educational resources (OER) repository contract is being advertised and the agency expects it to be available for districts adopting certain OER products before the next school year.

Rules adoption and votes at a glance: - Motion to adopt proposed 19 TAC Chapter 67 (subchapter B and selected subchapter C sections) for second reading and final adoption; effective date set 20 days after filing in the Texas Register — approved, 12–0. - Amendment (Member Hickman) adding titled subsections to separate quality and suitability reviewer rules — approved (vote shown in meeting as 12 in favor). - Several board amendments changed eligibility wording, clarified applicant materials and selection procedures, and adjusted the no‑contact start date for reviewers to begin upon execution of reviewers’ contracts. Some other Board amendments failed in recorded roll calls (for example, one proposed change failed 3–7).

Discussion vs. decisions: the meeting record shows both policy direction and concrete decisions. The board formally adopted the chapter 67 rule package and multiple textual amendments in that motion. Separately, staff recorded discussion items and after‑action recommendations that the agency will implement administratively (for example, lengthening appeal windows and improving report layouts) and return to the board as part of the ongoing MR Cycle 2025 work.

What’s next: TEA and the board will implement the revised reviewer application and selection process ahead of the 2025 review kick‑off in May, refine member reporting and dashboards, and return in April with updates the board requested about the 75% TEKS cutoff and the appeals process. The rules adopted are intended to be in effect for the upcoming MR cycle once filed with the Texas Register.

Votes at a glance - Adoption of 19 TAC chapter 67 (sections listed on agenda): approved 12–0 (committee of the full board recorded 12 yes, 0 no). - Representative rule amendments (selected): Hickman amendment inserting explicit subsections for quality/suitability — approved 12 yes; other amendments succeeded or failed as recorded in the minutes (examples shown in transcript; some failed votes recorded 3 yes / 7 no). The board’s secretary will publish the official roll call in the adopted rule filing.

Ending: Board members and staff agreed to continue MR Cycle 2025 preparations and planned another update before April meetings; staff said they will return with revised rubrics, reporting prototypes and contract language to support a centralized reviewer and materials repository. Colin Dempsey and TEA staff will provide additional clarifying language on application fields and team formation and will share reviewer pulse surveys and after‑action summaries with board members.