RFP SchoolWatch IMRA 2026 Series – February 3 Edition
By February, the chaos of Form B uploads, ISBN checks, and last-minute component edits gives way to a calm that is most certainly earned. As previously mentioned in IMRA Blog #10, there is a slight lull in January as well. These ebbs and flows in the adoption cycle are a welcome moment to breathe for publishers, but they do not last long. Anyone who has lived through a Texas adoption knows this pause is deceptive. The Public Comment Season is the point where compliance diligence meets the reality of public opinion.
Beginning in May 2026, every program that survives the first rounds of review will move into the public portal, where educators, parents, and community advocates can open the duplicate files TEA reviewers have studied for months. From that moment on, every line, image, and reference sits in plain sight. The months that follow, May through July 2026, form the most transparent stretch of the entire IMRA cycle, one that measures not only program quality and organizational temperament.
A Shift from Submission to Conversation
The public comment period exists to test program readiness, suitability flags, and standards alignment. The “Public” is also a broad term that can include other publishing companies, educators, members of regional service centers, the general public (such as parents), and other stakeholders. Public commenters leave remarks via an online form, which requires them to indicate certain identifying factors, such as their community membership type. Their comments then appear directly beside the listed materials—questions about instructional design, concerns about representation, and requests for clarity all surface here.
For publishers, this is a dialogue to manage, given that each comment is an opportunity to refine, clarify, or reaffirm decisions made months earlier. Inside the IMRA Publisher Dashboard, publishers can respond by uploading documentation, providing a rationale, or confirming that revisions have already been implemented. Every response is date-stamped, forming a public record of responsiveness that will follow the program through final review.
Preparing Before the First Comment Arrives
Publishers that handle this phase well do so long before May by revisiting every internal document, the standards-alignment matrices, suitability rubrics, and accessibility reports. This methodology ensures that what the public will see is identical to what was submitted. Discrepancies, such as shifted pagination or updated graphics, can trigger confusion, lead to a high volume of public comments with negative implications, and require more work for the team.
Teams should map their response architecture in advance so that Someone monitors incoming notifications daily, another drafts replies, and a third verifies accuracy and tone before anything posts.
Specific topics almost always invite discussion: cultural representation, reading-level clarity, accessibility of visuals, and the balance between skill practice and comprehension. Preparing measured explanations for these recurring themes allows teams to respond quickly without defensiveness. The best responses are grounded in pedagogy and evidence, not emotion. However, this is reactive. Strategic publishers audit themselves ahead of this process, exceeding the highest level of due diligence.
Why TEA Office Hours Matter More Than Ever
Between now and July, one of the most valuable resources is TEA’s Office Hour sessions. These open calls, often informal and conversational, carry a level of detail rarely captured in written guidance. Portal updates, file-naming clarifications, and subtle procedural reminders, many of which prevent submission errors, are shared first in these meetings.
Publishers who attend every session consistently demonstrate fewer procedural missteps later. TEA cannot tell anyone what to decide, but it can explain how the process works and where common pitfalls occur. The agency’s intent is clear: to help publishers succeed because successful publishers mean better instructional materials for Texas students.
Attending these sessions also fosters a sense of community in what can otherwise feel isolating. Hearing how others interpret new guidance or manage the same questions provides perspective and confidence. A single clarification offered on one of these calls can save a team weeks of unnecessary revision. In total transparency, most teams leave these meetings saying, Thank goodness we know about that new deadline they mentioned only on that call, and How are we going to complete the new requirement they just dropped on us?
Responding with Clarity and Care
When the public comments begin to appear, each one should be treated as a request for understanding, not a challenge to authority. The tone and pacing of a publisher’s replies often carry more weight than the volume of documentation attached.
A clear response generally falls into one of three categories. Some comments call for evidence, such as a page reference, a screenshot, or a lesson sample that verifies alignment. Others invite justification in the form of a brief explanation of instructional design decisions or the research that underpins them. And some require correction through a concise acknowledgment of an oversight, followed by proof that it has been resolved.
What This Period Ultimately Reveals
Public comment season exposes whether an organization is agile, transparent, and disciplined under scrutiny. The process rewards humility and the willingness to clarify rather than defend, to correct rather than conceal.
When TEA compiles its final review summaries, these small acts of professionalism are visible. Reviewers remember who communicated clearly, who kept their files current, and who treated the public as a legitimate partner in the work.
Staying Connected Beyond the Portal
As summer progresses and the State Board of Education prepares for its public meetings, the context around each program shifts again. The conversations that shape final recommendations increasingly take place in Austin board chambers, in committee discussions, and through livestreams that broadcast them statewide.
For publishers, attending or livestreaming every SBOE meeting is not optional; it is essential. The board’s discussions often illuminate subtle expectations or priorities that never appear in official documents. A single remark about instructional design, accessibility, or student engagement can signal the direction of future decisions. Those who follow these meetings in real time can anticipate questions before they are asked in writing.
Presence is awareness. Watching how board members engage with presenters and how TEA staff frame updates gives publishers insight into tone, timing, and emphasis. In Texas, perception and preparation often determine the same outcome.
In a system that values transparency, the publishers who remain attentive, adaptive, and visible are the ones who will not only reach adoption but set the new standard for what readiness in Texas truly means.
