Texas’ 2025 curriculum adoption cycle is underway — only the second opportunity to date for education publishers to navigate a new review process in one of the biggest K-12 marketplaces in the country.
It’s arguably never been more important for education companies selling instructional resources in Texas to get their products on the state-approved list of materials.
At the same time, the Texas market for academic resources — long renowned for its size and national influence — has potentially never before been this unpredictable.
That’s due to the state completely overhauling its adoption process for instructional materials, as part of a sweeping state law passed in 2023.
Last year was the first cycle in which Texas’ state board of education approved instructional materials using the new process, which is called Instructional Materials Review and Approval (or IMRA). Texas issued its final list of approved materials two weeks later than originally scheduled in 2024, a delay state officials attributed to working through a revamped adoption cycle.
Last year’s cycle provided publishers with an initial test run for how to get their materials on the state adoption list under Texas’ reworked system.
However, the IMRA process continues to evolve quickly.
For education companies that means “a lot of uncertainty exists,” said Kate Kuhlmann, a lobbyist who represents education publishers for Austin-based HillCo Partners.
“Publishers are used to a much more predictable landscape in Texas.” she said. “They don’t necessarily know exactly how to navigate everything at the moment because it’s changing.”
The same law — House Bill 1605 — that revamped Texas’ instructional materials adoption process has the potential to shift the marketplace in several big ways: Districts can qualify for new monetary incentives if they select resources off the state-approved list, giving cash-strapped school systems another reason to focus on the list of approved vendors.
And the law directs Texas’ state education agency to create materials that will compete with publishers in some subjects and grades. Several Texas products were approved for the state’s list last year, which means any district that adopts those state-developed resources will also receive a $40-per student bonus (plus an extra $20 per student for printing the state’s OER materials).
For the 2025 adoption cycle, the state board of education issued a call for the following materials: supplemental mathematics, for grades K-12.
As part of a new so-called “evergreen” submission process, publishers also had the chance to submit materials for all subjects that were under review last year — English/language arts, grades K-6; Spanish language arts, grades K-6; phonics, grades K-3; and mathematics (full subject), grades K-12.
Some of the industry’s biggest names — McGraw Hill, Renaissance Learning, Discovery Education and HMH — have submitted materials for review in Texas this go-round.
In all, state officials received almost 650 submissions from 48 unique publishers, including a new batch of Texas-developed materials, for the 2025 cycle. Of those, 500 were deemed eligible for review.
The only problem: That number far exceeds the roughly 200 to 250 curriculum products the state’s education agency has the capacity to review annually.
It set off an unexpected last-minute scramble among publishers at a week-long series of state board of education meetings in late January to make sure their products were among the ones being set for review this year, and not shelved until 2026.
Here are six things education companies need to know about the new curriculum marketplace in Texas for this year’s adoption cycle, and beyond.
1. Having an In-State Market Footprint Has Become Much More Important
For education companies that want to work in Texas, having an established presence in the state is likely to become increasingly important, given the rules for reviewing materials that are coming into focus.
The state’s announcement that submissions far exceeded capacity for annual review came as a surprise to publishers. Of the 500 eligible products, state officials determined at the week-long series of meetings in January that 256 products from 30 unique publishers would make the cut for review this year.
How did the state decide on that number? In part by using a market share analysis of instructional materials being used by Texas school districts. Curriculum products with higher market share were given priority.
State board of education members also selected academic resources to be added to the review list based on their individual preferences.
And then, in February, the Texas Education Agency announced, with no explanation, that the total number of products to be reviewed was being expanded from 256 to 314. A total of 36 publishers will now have their products reviewed this cycle.
Steve Houston, an education publishing consultant for STRIVE Public Policy Resources in Austin, said the process of figuring out which materials were getting reviewed this year seemed to lack “rhyme and reason” at times.
There is a huge finger on the scale encouraging districts to the buy the state’s materials.
Jeff Livingston, CEO, Ed Solutions
“More than anything else, companies that didn’t have relationships with the TEA or a state board” seemed to be at a disadvantage, he said.
Kuhlmann, the lobbyist from HillCo Partners added, “as a publisher you pretty much had to have someone fighting for your products or you maybe weren’t going to get on the list.”
The bottom line: Companies need to have some established users in the state, even through a pilot program, and need to develop relationships with state officials and districts who can advocate for their product.
2. The Entire Process Is Still Taking Shape
Dealing with new, and often unexpected, variables in Texas’ curriculum marketplace are going to be one constant that publishers can rely on for the foreseeable future.
The state board of education is still adopting rules governing the IMRA process, and is in constant discussion with staff from the TEA about how to continue fine-tuning it.
As a result, and for the foreseeable future, curriculum adoption in Texas remains in flux.
“The big nuts and bolts are there,” Kuhlmann said of the new system, “but it’s still being perfected.”
Eve Myers, a Texas-based education publishing consultant with STRIVE Public Policy, said Texas’ new adoption process continues to develop in ways she’s never seen before in any state curriculum marketplace.
Even the state education agency, she said, is “struggling to find answers” on occasion because “the processes are all unprecedented and subject to change.”
3. More Than Ever, Content-Providers Will Need to Make Quick Decisions About Submitting Materials
One of the big changes in Texas’ new adoption process was eliminating the annual, scheduled proclamation in favor of an open submission process. In the past, publishers were given around 18 months of notice for what subject and grades would be part of the state board of education’s next call for materials.
Not anymore.
For each of the first two IMRA adoption cycles, publishers were given several weeks to prepare their materials for submission after the state board put out its call. And each time over the last two years the call was made before a holiday break.
Myers, the consultant from STRIVE Public Policy, recommends that companies planning to submit for future adoption cycle closely follow the process this year to see how it works.
And Kuhlmann advises that education companies get involved in whatever manner possible, whether it’s attending state board of education meetings or taking advantage of TEA resources online that are designed to guide publishers through the adoption cycle.
4. State-Created Materials Are Already Influencing the Market
Instructional materials developed by the TEA for English language arts, grades K-5, phonics, grades K-3, and mathematics, grades K-12, were adopted by the state board of education last year. Those materials — all open educational resources — are already available for districts in Texas to use.
And those state-developed academic resources already appear to be making a dent in the marketplace.
At the state board of education’s meetings, the TEA presented snippets of its market share analysis used to determine which publishers’ products would get reviewed this year.
That analysis showed that Texas’ instructional materials for ELA K-5, and math K-8 are already among the most used products across districts statewide for the 2024-2025 school year.
Jeff Livingston, CEO of EdSolutions, and a former McGraw-Hill executive, said he would not be surprised if the Texas-developed materials end up capturing up to 50 percent of the market in some core subjects like math.
“There is a huge finger on the scale encouraging districts to the buy the state’s materials,” he said.
5. Districts Could Be Required to Buy Exclusively Off the State-Approved List
Several bills introduced during the current session of the Texas Legislature have the potential to impact the state’s curriculum marketplace, and the ability of school districts to purchase materials that are not on the state-approved list.
Since 2011, Texas districts have been given permission to purchase materials off the state board’s instructional materials adoption list. The omnibus measure from 2023 that overhauled the state’s adoption system did not change the system of local control.
One proposal introduced this year — House Bill 1444 — is seeking to end that. Under the measure, districts would be barred from using a dedicated pot of money from the state (the Instructional Materials and Technology Allotment) to purchase academic resources that don’t receive approval from the state board of education.
And House Bill 1358 would limit a district’s options in selecting instructional materials by forbidding school systems from purchasing products that have been placed on the state’s “rejected” list.
Texas places some academic resources that fail to win the state board of education’s approval on a “rejected” list. But not all.
Last year, only 15 academic resources from four publishers were put on the “rejected” list. Many other products that failed to receive state board approval were not flagged with the “rejected” label.
6. It Will Take Guesswork to Determine Districts’ Appetite for Buying Materials in Different Subjects
Because of the new rolling submission process — in which publishers can submit materials any year for subjects and grades from a previous call — the state’s capacity to review materials is expected to be tested, year after year.
In the past, Texas built its proclamation cycles around projected capacity to review materials, preventing a situation where the state received a deluge that it couldn’t handle.
But under the current system, education companies need to be smart about what materials they’re submitting and when they’re doing so, said Kuhlmann. If a cycle is “oversaturated” with submissions, publishers might not get their materials reviewed that year, she said.
Join Us for EdWeek Market Brief’s Virtual Forum
Join our virtual forum June 10 & 11, 2025, to hear directly from school district leaders and industry peers about important trends playing out in the sector—and the support school systems need from education companies.
And Myers, a consultant from STRIVE Public Policy, said she expects there to be a continued overflow of submissions every year, in particular as more subjects and grades — like career and technical education materials, which can include hundreds of courses — are added to future calls for review.
Myers predicts that the new open submission process will likely not just affect the state’s ability to keep pace with the volume of materials turned in for review, but is also likely going to shift buying patterns among districts.
In the past, publishers had assurance that most districts were in the market to buy materials for subjects and grades reviewed as part of the state board’s call for resources that year. That’s not the case now, and Myers said purchasing of materials is likely to be fragmented across the state, making it harder for publishers to size up the market and estimate potential revenue.
“We’re hearing informally from districts that a lot of them are going to take a look at the materials that were approved, but many are not necessarily going to buy this year,” Myers said.