SAISD staff recommend adopting TEA‑approved Bluebonnet Learning materials; public raises constitutional and transparency concerns

San Angelo Independent School District staff recommended the district adopt Bluebonnet Learning—one of the Texas Education Agency’s state‑approved instructional materials—during a pre‑agenda meeting that included a detailed overview of House Bill 1605 and related funding entitlements.

Doctor Gomez, who presented the instructional materials overview, told trustees that House Bill 1605 expands the state’s role in instructional materials, requires a parent portal for district access to adopted materials, and provides additional entitlements for districts using state board approved materials. The presentation said districts that adopt state board approved materials may be eligible for an additional $40 per enrolled student per year (the state‑board‑approved instructional materials entitlement) and a $20 per enrolled student per year OER printing entitlement. The presenter also said state‑developed open educational resources would be subject to availability and printing funds do not carry over year to year.

Gomez described Bluebonnet Learning as aligned to TEKS, building from explicit phonics in K–3 through grade‑level reading and math, and including materials the presenter said were free from factual error and aligned with the ‘‘science of reading.’’ He told the board the district already uses digital versions of Amplify and Eureka under COVID emergency response access and that Bluebonnet would supply print‑ready, standards‑aligned materials. Gomez said the district had applied for a Strong Foundations (sometimes referred to as the LASSO) grant that supports implementation and professional learning; he said receipt of that grant requires districts to use Bluebonnet Learning as written and that the grant application was submitted in December and awards would be notified on February 20.

Public commenters raised objections focused on religion and transparency. Ginger Moore and Robert Hughes spoke during public comment in opposition to adopting Bluebonnet Learning; Hughes said inserting biblical content into daily instruction could raise Establishment Clause concerns and warned that litigation could cost far more than the $60 per student incentive one public commenter referenced. Karen Best and other public speakers raised academic performance concerns and said trustees may be asked to approve curriculum they had not yet reviewed in full.

Board members asked clarifying procedural questions: how the $40 and $20 entitlements work, whether the district must adopt Bluebonnet to receive the Strong Foundations grants, how parental review and opt‑outs would operate under HB 1605, and whether Bluebonnet’s scope would fit honors and accelerated pathways. Gomez said the parental access requirement in HB 1605 mandates that approved instructional materials be visible to parents online through a district portal and that parents retain the right to temporarily remove a child from a class or activity; districts must provide alternate assignments when parents exercise that option.

Gomez also stressed that the materials adopted by the State Board of Education are designed to align directly to TEKS and to require less teacher creation of lesson materials, and he said the district would seek state entitlements if a district‑level decision favored those materials. Gomez recommended the district adopt Bluebonnet Learning as a state board approved instructional material, but the board did not take a formal adoption vote that night; the recommendation will carry to the next regular meeting for further discussion.

Key clarifications from the presentation included: the state‑approved instructional materials entitlement ($40 per enrolled student per year) and a separate state developed OER printing entitlement ($20 per enrolled student per year) that is paid annually and does not carry forward; that state‑developed materials must meet TEKS coverage, be free from factual error, and provide supports for diverse learners; and that professional learning grants (Strong Foundations/LASSO) are separate awards that fund implementation supports but do not directly purchase materials.

The board scheduled continued discussion at the next regular meeting and administrators said they will provide additional sample materials and a list of alternative state‑approved options for trustees and the public to review before any final adoption vote.