Texas has again initiated a new round of procuring open educational resources. The Texas Education Agency’s newly released RFQ 701-25-019, issued under House Bill 1605, requests qualifications from contractors to build, source, or improve PreK–12 Tier 1 Open Education Resources (OER). The RFQ outlines three primary pathways: sourcing existing high-quality content, developing custom-built Tier 1 materials, and supporting the continuous improvement of already developed OER. For many vendors, it represents both an opportunity and a significant inflection point for intellectual property strategy.
To understand the magnitude of this solicitation, it helps to recall what came before it. In 2024, TEA issued an earlier RFQ that opened the door to sourced, custom-built, and improvement work across PK–12. At that time, much of the publicly available content in Texas functioned more like supplemental pilots (particularly in secondary areas) rather than full, state-funded core programs. These efforts established the open-license framework and acclimated vendors to TEA expectations, while stopping short of displacing core curricula.
An additional piece of context is Bluebonnet Learning. Developed under HB 1605, Bluebonnet is a suite of state-authored, TEKS-aligned instructional materials that the state owns as OER and that must move through the State Board of Education’s Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) process, just like any other publisher’s product before districts adopt them. Beginning in 2025–26, SBOE-approved Bluebonnet programs are available for use and qualify for new HB 1605 entitlements: $40 per enrolled student per year for SBOE-approved instructional materials, plus an additional $20 per enrolled student specifically to offset the printing of state-developed, SBOE-approved OER. Digital files are free to download; print incurs real costs, and many districts procure print packages through approved vendors or Region 4 ESC, the primary provider of printed materials for approved materials listed on EMAT.
Public interest in transparency has followed Bluebonnet since launch. When educators and reporters asked who authored the curriculum, TEA did not name specific contributors. In some lesson-plan files, copyright lines appeared to reference a national publisher’s observation, based on visible attributions in certain materials, rather than any formal partnership announcement. That nuance matters: it suggests that while the state now functions as a publisher and steward of OER, components may reflect earlier publisher-developed design choices. The policy implication serves as a reminder that, in an evolving OER ecosystem, the terms “state-developed” and “privately sourced” can intersect in ways that warrant clear definitions going forward.
Against that backdrop, RFQ 701-25-019 marks a shift from pilots toward a broader Tier 1 vision. Contractors under Project 2 will design full, TEKS-aligned programs that the state will own outright as works-for-hire, with open licensing (e.g., CC BY) to enable reuse, modification, and redistribution. The design choice is straightforward: public dollars create public assets that remain available in perpetuity, for vendors, which invites careful modeling. Once content is released under a CC BY license, exclusivity is relinquished; those materials cannot later be converted into proprietary products or designated as a sole source.
A fair question circulating in the field is whether the RFQ operates only as a procurement vehicle or also as a procedural on-ramp that demonstrates due diligence for state-authored materials ahead of future IMRA cycles. IMRA, as created by HB 1605, applies the same review standards to all materials, including Bluebonnet which encompasses TEKS coverage, quality, suitability, statutory compliance, and demonstrated alignment with quality rubrics, with board approval required before adoption. RFQ 701-25-019’s emphasis on third-party review, stakeholder engagement, and rubric alignment aligns with these expectations. The most neutral reading is that TEA is building capacity, through vendors, and documentation, through processes. This approach simultaneously induces an approach that can expand supply while preserving public stewardship.
For vendors, the trade-offs are concrete. Participation brings visibility, credibility, and close alignment with state standards and review protocols, but it also means relinquishing residual rights in the produced materials. Companies whose valuations hinge on proprietary IP should model how open-license work affects enterprise value, investor perception, and future acquisition potential. Even vendors pursuing Project 1 (sourced content) should consider whether the licensing posture and modification rights contemplated under TEC §§31.07101–31.0711 could constrain future commercialization or create overlap with products they intend to sell elsewhere.
There are procurement consequences as well. Materials released as OER are, by definition, broadly accessible; districts may not treat them as sole-source. Firms that rely on exclusivity, closed platforms, or long-term subscription models should anticipate how openness affects eligibility in future solicitations. At the same time, service-forward providers’ implementation, professional learning, translation/transadaptation, accessibility, or fidelity monitoring may experience growth in districts that adopt public materials but still require robust support.
It’s also worth noting the emphasis on early learning. The current RFQ names PreK 3 and 4 (English and Spanish) as a near-term priority in the continuous improvement track, with additional subjects and grades to follow via regular reposting. That cadence signals an OER roadmap that evolves in manageable segments rather than a single, monolithic release useful for vendors planning staffing, Spanish transadaptation, accessibility, or QTI assessment pipelines.
Because this is a high-stakes decision space, vendors should engage counsel and finance partners before submitting. Contract Attachment B for this RFQ defines custom-built deliverables as works-for-hire and sets expectations around licensing, accessibility, security, and data handling. Legal review helps ensure the IP structure, indemnities, and data-security duties align with your operating model; financial analysis clarifies how open-license projects interact with revenue strategy and valuation.
Texas’s new RFQ reflects a broader national trend toward publicly funded, openly licensed curricula that pair equity and access with an emphasis on quality and suitability. A balanced response from vendors starts with clarity: know what you are giving, what you are gaining, and how openness reshapes your path to growth. Some organizations will leverage this to showcase excellence at scale; others will calibrate carefully to protect proprietary portfolios. Either approach can be defensible when grounded in facts, aligned to HB 1605 rules, and responsive to district needs.
