Spring ISD reviews House Bill 1605 instructional-materials process; trustees raise cost, state-control and equity concerns

SPRING, Texas — Spring ISD curriculum and academic leaders on Feb. 11 briefed the board on the district’s local review of instructional materials under House Bill 1605 and the timeline for choosing reading and mathematics materials.

Doctor Latracy Harris, introduced as assistant superintendent of academics, summarized HB 1605 and the state’s instructional-materials review. She told trustees the law creates a State Board of Education–approved materials track that can make districts eligible for $40 per student per year if the district selects materials on the approved list; she added the law restores funding opportunities and requires more transparency for parents about classroom materials. Harris also noted that open educational resource (OER) options exist and that one OER provider (reported in the meeting as Bluebonnet) qualified for additional printing funds under the state process.

Robin Carrier, director of secondary curriculum, described Spring ISD’s local review process: the district is using TEA rubrics plus locally developed layers to ensure resources meet Spring ISD students’ needs, including bilingual and special-education considerations. Staff said they are convening diverse stakeholder committees—teachers, principals, parents and students—and building an instructional-resource approval toolkit to standardize evaluations.

Administrators highlighted a tight state timeline: TEA was finalizing contracts in March 2025 and publishers’ materials were reviewed and re-submitted during late 2024; the district must act quickly to ensure materials, training and summer planning can occur if a state-approved publisher is selected.

Trustees focused on cost and alignment. Trustee Hodges asked for a comprehensive list of district purchases and contracts; administrators agreed to provide an exhaustive inventory of core and supplemental resources. Trustee Adams urged caution about choosing materials based only on state funding, saying, “I don't want us to be... I don't want us to run after the money.” Trustees discussed return-on-investment (ROI) analysis and budget implications: administrators noted prior ROI work estimated about $36 million for three core curriculum adoptions and that board members should expect cost comparisons, language/print availability and supplemental needs for bilingual or special-education students. Trustees also asked staff to evaluate national independent reviews of materials and to include fresh classroom perspectives from newer teachers in the review committees.

Staff said the TEA/State Board list is large (the TEA document runs hundreds of pages and lists full and partial providers) and that the local committee will prioritize full curricula available in the formats Spring ISD needs (English/Spanish, online/print). The district will bring recommendations to the board once local review committees complete their work and after weighing cost, equity and instructional fit.

No vote was taken; the presentation and discussion were informational. Trustees directed staff to provide the exhaustive list of current district curricular contracts and an ROI-style analysis to inform adoption decisions and the March timeline.