RFP SchoolWatch IMRA 2026 Guidance Series
In the Texas IMRA (Instructional Materials Review and Approval) 2026 cycle, readiness is measured through timing, organizational structure, instructional material efficacy, and components. Texas IMRA is a process that merges compliance, quality, and suitability into a single standard of excellence.
The readiness question, ‘Am I ready to respond?‘ requires an honest assessment not only of what is complete but also of what remains untested within an organization’s system of review. Organizations must have the right systems in place to meet the consistently moving target of the Texas IMRA process.
The IMRA framework expects publishers to demonstrate mastery across multiple domains: quality, factual accuracy, accessibility, and suitability. The Texas Education Agency’s Request for Instructional Materials establishes that publishers must show both content alignment and operational readiness, with evidence that materials meet the TEKS, adhere to accessibility law, and are free from factual error. In many cases, the difference between readiness and near readiness is not the content itself, but the supporting systems that teams use to document, cross-check, and respond under pressure.
TEA’s role is to manage the review process, including evaluating materials for intentional and explicit instructional design, assessment consistency, and the inclusion of progress monitoring systems that align with student growth. A publisher ready to respond has already mapped every rubric element to tangible evidence within their materials. That evidence must be easily locatable, cross-referenced, and accessible to reviewers.
The quality rubrics approved by the State Board of Education provide the most precise roadmap for readiness. TEA verifies compliance with these rubrics by carefully reviewing all submitted materials during the IMRA process. The SBOE conducts a final review, voting to approve or reject publishers’ programs during a final meeting at the end of the review cycle.
Readiness also requires awareness of the suitability standards outlined by the SBOE. These criteria move beyond instruction to the values embedded within the content, ensuring that materials align with Texas Education Code §31.022(a) and uphold the constitutional goals of public education, including patriotism, free enterprise, and respect for the law. A program that is accurate but fails to anticipate potential suitability concerns may be found incomplete. The TEA expects materials to be both instructionally sound and culturally aligned, a distinction that underscores the comprehensive nature of readiness.
As teams approach submission deadlines, readiness extends to their operational structure. Every department, product development, editorial, adoption, compliance, and accessibility must function as a single unit. The readiness stage is not about final edits but about synchronization. Publishers must confirm that Form A data matches company records, that accessibility files are validated and correctly labeled, and that all versions of instructional components are consistent across platforms. It is imperative to note that, in addition to TEA, the publisher’s materials are posted for public review and comment throughout a designated time period during the IMRA process. Public reviewers include educators, parents, community stakeholders, and ultimately any member of the public. They can comment on the materials. These comments can range from factual errors to misalignment with TEKs and suitability flags.
To support these efforts, RFP SchoolWatch has developed the following Readiness Checklist for Publishers, designed to help organizations assess both their current standing and long-term preparedness.
IMRA 2026 Readiness Checklist
Program and Content Readiness
- Have all teacher, student, and assessment materials been finalized and verified for factual accuracy and TEKS coverage?
- Does every standard cited in correlations lead reviewers directly to the instructional evidence within the program?
- Has an independent content review been completed to identify potential suitability or factual concerns?
Accessibility and Compliance Readiness
- Are digital materials compliant with WCAG 2.1 AA standards, and are NIMAS files validated and uploaded for NIMAC certification?
- Has a third-party accessibility audit been conducted, and is a final report ready for submission?
- Do all visuals, charts, and diagrams contain alt-text and language accessible to screen readers?
Rubric Alignment and Quality Assurance
- Have instructional routines been checked? One example is the SBOE’s ELAR and Phonics Quality Rubric, which promotes explicit and systematic design.
- Are formative, summative, and diagnostic assessments aligned to the TEKS and clearly defined within documentation?
- Do progress monitoring tools provide clear guidance for responding to assessment results and adjusting instruction?
Suitability and Cultural Review
- Have all program components been reviewed using the SBOE’s Suitability Rubric to ensure alignment with Texas’s constitutional goals of public education?
- Are illustrations and texts free from bias, balanced in representation, and reflective of cultural and geographic diversity?
- Have all references to religion, violence, social media, or mature topics been screened for compliance with the state’s “Protecting Children’s Innocence” standards?
Organizational and Process Readiness
- Has Form A been finalized with accurate company information and correct contact details?
- Is there a documented internal review chain for Form B, confirming that at least two qualified team members have reviewed each component?
- Is the Register of Contact tracking system established and active to document interactions with SBOE members or TEA staff?
Communication and Documentation
- Is there a centralized, version-controlled repository for all IMRA-related files and correspondence?
- Are all templates and submission documents formatted to TEA specifications?
- Are internal communication protocols clear for addressing reviewer questions, public comments, and SBOE feedback?
What if you aren’t ready?
For many publishers, a candid review of this checklist reveals that the answer to one or more questions is “not yet.” This realization can feel discouraging, especially given the pace and visibility of the Texas market. Yet, deciding not to submit during a cycle can be one of the most strategic decisions a company makes.
A publisher should consider deferring participation when the foundational elements of readiness alignment, accessibility, and completeness cannot be met without compromising accuracy or quality. If content development is still in progress, if accessibility files are incomplete, or if instructional sequences have not been validated through pilot testing, entering the cycle may create more risk than reward. Once materials are submitted, they enter the public record, and feedback, whether favorable or not, becomes part of your company’s long-term reputation with the TEA and SBOE. A rushed submission can result in public flagging, necessitate corrections, or lead to removal from the list of approved instructional materials.
Choosing to pass on the current IMRA cycle does not mean stepping away from Texas; it means stepping back long enough to build a foundation strong enough to succeed in the next one. Publishers who adopt this approach should utilize the time between cycles intentionally to refine, align, and document their processes. This approach includes conducting comprehensive accessibility reviews, aligning each component with the state’s quality rubrics, ensuring cultural and factual accuracy across all texts, and establishing internal systems that can scale with the organization’s growth.
During the interim, companies can also strengthen relationships with districts and educators by offering pilot programs, professional learning opportunities, and open demonstrations of their evolving materials. These activities not only generate data and feedback for future submissions but also build trust within the Texas education community.
For many organizations, the work done in a non-submission year often leads to a far stronger, more credible entry in the subsequent adoption cycle. The goal is not simply to submit on time but to submit once and to submit well, with materials that are compliant and contribute to the best student achievement, above all else.
Whether a publisher chooses to move forward this year or prepare for the next cycle, the measure of success remains the same: a complete, accurate, and accessible program that reflects both Texas standards and the organization’s commitment to educational quality.
