The Texas Instructional Materials Review and Approval process has entered the most demanding stage. At this point, publishers have access to the Publisher Dashboard, where program components are uploaded, and the first correlation requirements are completed. The dashboard is the foundation for a series of intensive stages that determine whether a program will continue to the next round.
The first significant milestone arrives with Form B and its required attachments, due on December 12, 2025. For publishers submitting multiple programs, each program must have its own submission. Form B represents far more than a formality. It marks the beginning of a more rigorous and structured series of steps that define the remainder of the IMRA process. It is also the point where publishers must honestly assess their readiness. If there are gaps in evidence supporting the program’s methodology, the deadline to withdraw is January 16, 2026. TEA will remove publishers unable to meet the first-round requirements on February 4, 2026.
From Components to Correlations
After submitting Form B, the next critical step is completing the Components List, also known as the navigation guide. This Excel workbook contains two sheets: one lists TEA-required components, and the other requires publishers to record the ISBNs for every program element. The TEA list should not be interpreted as optional. Each required item must exist or be created, carry its own ISBN, and be configured so it can be entered into EMAT as a separately sold material. Once this list is approved, it triggers pre-approval for access to instructional materials, allowing TEA, local education agencies, the public, and the State Board of Education to review the materials.
Publishers who remain in the process move into the standards-alignment and quality-rubric correlation phases. These workbooks require detailed responses for each indicator connected to the program’s submitted components. Each entry must reference the exact place where the evidence appears and show how the program aligns to both the intent and language of TEA’s guidance. Correlations should include specific examples that show how the program’s design promotes rigor, accessibility, and support for all learners. TEA requires at least two examples for each indicator to demonstrate alignment. Consider the Components List as the software and the Correlations as the API. Each system not only needs to talk to one another, but they also need to speak the same language.
Understanding the Rubrics
Two rubrics shape this stage of the process: the Quality Rubric and the Suitability Rubric. While the State Board of Education has not defined a minimum overall quality score for approval, any K–3 English or Spanish language arts or phonics submission must receive one hundred percent of the available points in Section 4 of the Quality Rubric to show compliance with phonics laws and rules.
The Suitability Rubric determines whether a program is appropriate for its intended grade and subject. Except for supplemental mathematics, all programs must demonstrate alignment to Section 2, Suitability Excellence Requirements. The goal of the Instructional Material Suitability Rubric is to guide the materials to be suitable for the subject and grade level per Texas Education Code (TEC) Sec. 31.022(a).
Once the review teams complete their analysis, TEA issues scoring reports. Publishers can then appeal any section of the evaluation and provide additional documentation or evidence to support their position. This stage is collaborative and often involves communication among instructional designers, curriculum leads, and compliance teams to verify the integrity of submitted materials.
The process unfolds in a steady sequence: the Components List submission, completion of the standards-alignment and quality-rubric workbooks, scoring, appeals, and TEA review of the additional evidence.
Evidence from the 2024 IMRA cycle shows that programs progressing through each stage with strength treated the process as an integrated reflection of their program. These publishers maintained careful organization, version control, and consistent tracking systems. They established cross-departmental routines in which instructional, editorial, and project management teams met regularly to verify evidence and reconcile language across grades and languages. Their correlations were exact, their examples specific, and their communication with TEA both proactive and professional. This document contains the complete list of IMRA 2024 SBOE-approved materials.
Programs such as the 2024 Just Right Reader submissions demonstrated that alignment is achieved not only through high-quality instructional design but also through meticulous documentation and clearly articulated evidence that directly connect to each TEKS expectation. The strength of those submissions was found in their coherence. Each grade level, each language edition, and each component of assessment and instruction was tied back to the same academic rationale and methodical review process.
The Point
The final stages of IMRA are less about endurance and more about clarity. Each requirement asks publishers to examine how their programs are built, how instruction is sequenced, and how evidence supports the outcomes they claim to achieve. The process reveals both the materials’ structure and the organization behind them.
As teams prepare correlations, manage appeals, and finalize documentation, the work begins to resemble a narrative of learning rather than a set of tasks. The most successful submissions tell a complete story without leaving reviewers asking questions by creating responses that connect design, research, and measurable results into a cohesive picture of student learning. Each workbook, each alignment table, and each reference point contributes to that story.
By the time final reviews are complete, what remains is a record of how carefully a publisher has listened to the state’s expectations and how thoroughly it has responded. The path is exacting, but it is also clarifying. For those who approach it with consistency and precision, IMRA 2026 will not only test the integrity of their materials but will also define how they are seen in the larger conversation about quality and readiness in Texas education.
Publisher Readiness Guide: Staying on Course Through IMRA 2026
Each stage of the IMRA process builds upon the last, and the ability to move forward depends on careful attention to every milestone. The checklist below is not intended as a list of tasks to mark off quickly, but as a framework for managing time, evidence, and communication across your team.
Form B and Attachments: Due December 12, 2025
This submission establishes your formal entry into the adoption. Review each field in Form B with precision, ensuring that the instructional model, grade coverage, and contact details align with the version of your materials submitted to TEA. Confirm that attachments are in the formats requested and that each program is represented individually if multiple products are being submitted.
Withdrawal Deadline: January 16, 2026
This date offers a final opportunity for programs to withdraw without penalty. If evidence gaps remain or organizational readiness is uncertain, use this period to evaluate whether the documentation and capacity are in place to sustain the upcoming stages.
Initial TEA Review and Elimination: February 4, 2026
Programs that do not meet the initial submission standards will be removed from the process at this point. Teams that remain should be prepared for a shift from procedural preparation to deep content alignment.
Components List Submission
The Components List, often called the navigation guide, serves as the anchor for every subsequent phase. Each component must have an ISBN and be able to be entered into EMAT as a standalone item. Cross-check that each title, guide, and assessment referenced in your internal documentation appears here and matches the version reviewed internally. Once approved, TEA and the public will gain access to this record of your materials.
Standards Alignment and Quality Rubric Correlations
These workbooks are the analytical core of the IMRA review. Each indicator must be addressed with direct references and specific examples that demonstrate how the program supports the corresponding TEKS expectation. The strongest submissions read as clear explanations of instructional intent rather than fragmented lists of features.
Suitability Rubric Preparation
Ensure that your materials align with the constitutional goals of Texas public education and that all grade-level appropriateness criteria are met. If the content includes human development topics, verify compliance with Category 6 on sexual risk avoidance. Early internal review of these sections prevents later appeals.
Scoring and Appeals
When TEA issues scoring reports, review them as diagnostic documents. Every low-scoring area should prompt a structured internal discussion that leads to new or clarified evidence. Appeals are not rebuttals; they are extensions of your documentation that help reviewers understand the depth of your materials.
Cross-Departmental Review and Communication
Maintain a consistent meeting rhythm between curriculum, design, and project management leads. Store all submissions and updates in version-controlled drives. Document every clarification received from TEA, as those notes often become the evidence base for future appeals.
