TEA presents IMRA 2025 preliminary report; board presses agency on reviewer training, evidence visibility and appeals

Texas Education Agency staff briefed the State Board of Education on Sept. 9 with a detailed status report of the Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) cycle 2025 and fielded extensive member and public questions about implementation, evidence access, and appeals.

What the agency reported: Senior division director Colin Dempsey told the board the IMRA 2025 preliminary results cover 304 programs submitted by 34 unique publishers. TEA added “suitability” reviewers this cycle distinct from quality reviewers; reviewers flagged 420 total suitability prohibitions and 1,593 suitability “excellence” indicators. Staff also reported roughly 70 K–3 “3‑queuing” flags related to foundational reading practices, and noted that factual errors and phonics/phonics‑rule compliance would be verified prior to the board’s November vote.

Process and appeals: Dempsey explained the sequence: materials were called for in December 2024, the board required some products in January, TEA notified affected publishers Feb. 4, reviewers worked May–July and a preliminary report was issued in September. Unlike the prior cycle’s short appeals windows, this year TEA consolidated appeals into a larger window and allowed publishers to submit either pointer evidence or new content in response to reviewer flags. TEA said publisher responses and “publisher‑initiated changes” would be visible in the online reports, and that reevaluation of flagged items would occur before the November final vote.

Board concerns and public testimony: Several board members and public commenters said reviewers were unevenly trained on applicable state law and suitability standards. Member Pickering cited instances where reviewers flagged materials for legally required classroom practices (for example, lessons referencing the Pledge of Allegiance or other state requirements), and asked for better guidance so flags didn’t mischaracterize lawful content. Multiple public commenters and at least one appointed reviewer said they felt pressured to remove flags when publishers submitted textual responses; agency staff said the underlying documents and publisher responses were available in the digital report and committed to improving orientation and data visibility for reviewers and board members.

3‑queuing and phonics: Board members repeatedly asked about 3‑queuing—an item the legislature restricted for K–3 materials—and how TEA would ensure that any K–3 products containing 3‑queuing would be remediated before a November approval. TEA said 3‑queuing flags were routed for corrective action and would preclude approval if not fixed.

Legal and funding effects: Staff reminded the board that House Bill 100 alters the consequences for materials placed on the state’s rejected list, expanding restrictions on district purchases if a product is placed on that list before the next school year. That increased risk was a topic in public testimony and in member questions about whether publishers should be given a 45‑day cure window (also referenced in statute) before a rejected designation becomes final.

Bottom line: The meeting recorded both detailed agency data and substantive process questions for staff to resolve before the November vote. The board asked TEA to make publisher responses and any “publisher‑initiated changes” easier to find, to document appeals outcomes, and to return verified, recalibrated reports ahead of the final November action.