HB1605 and the New Era of Curriculum in Texas

In just a few years, Texas has moved from pandemic-era ESSER investments to a new curriculum adoption landscape shaped by House Bill 1605 (HB1605) and the Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) process. District leaders are navigating faster adoption cycles, new funding parameters, and heightened expectations for alignment and implementation.

To better understand how these shifts are playing out on the ground—particularly for multilingual learners—we spoke with Grace Delgado of the English Learner Success Forum (ELSF). In this Q&A, she shares how districts are adapting, where momentum is building, and what it will take to turn strong materials into strong outcomes.

CEMD: Texas has seen significant shifts—from ESSER funding for high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) in 2021 to the passage of HB1605 in 2023, which introduced a new curriculum adoption process. In your work with district leaders across the state through ELSF, how are you seeing them adapt to these changes?

Grace Delgado: District leaders have shown remarkable adaptability while managing significant complexity. The move from ESSER-funded materials to HB1605 requirements has pushed many to rethink how they define, select, and implement high-quality instructional materials (HQIM). Across Texas, there’s a stronger focus on alignment and coherence—ensuring materials meet IMRA expectations, support multilingual learners, and align with both TEKS and ELPS. Leaders are also fostering more cross-department collaboration, recognizing that true implementation success depends on shared ownership.

CEMD: Our data show a clear trend toward more recent adoptions:

• From 2022–23 to 2023–24, districts with 2021 copyright materials nearly doubled
• In 2023–24, 46% of districts reported materials with a 2022 copyright
• 68% reported 2025 materials in 2024–25
• That number jumps to 85% of districts reporting materials copyrighted 2025 in 2025–26

Given this acceleration, are districts benefiting—and what’s next in year three of IMRA?

Explore the Trends: Click the school year tabs above the chart to see how Texas districts’ curriculum adoption patterns have shifted over time.

GD: Yes, districts are seeing real benefits. HB1605’s funding and structure have enabled them to adopt more current, aligned, and high-quality materials without relying solely on local budgets. This has accelerated adoption cycles—as your data show—and helped close post-pandemic instructional gaps by allowing districts to track the impact of materials through accountability data. But adoption alone doesn’t guarantee impact.

As we enter the third year of IMRA, the focus is shifting from adoption to deep implementation. Districts recognize that selecting the right materials is only the beginning—now the emphasis is on professional learning, multilingual scaffolds, and ensuring HQIM reaches every student. There’s also growing attention to cross-subject coherence, supporting language development in all content areas. HB1605 has laid the foundation for sustainable systems, but lasting success depends on building the capacity of every teacher to use these materials effectively.

CEMD: Beyond new and updated features, are materials aligning with what district leaders are prioritizing—particularly TEKS and ELPS alignment? You’ve also highlighted coherence as a key focus; how are districts building implementation processes that support it over the long term?

GD: Through the IMRA quality review, Texas is ensuring materials align with TEKS and ELPS, but districts still need resources that serve all students—across bilingual, dual language, and Emergent bilingual students in English-only programs. Publishers are under pressure to create lessons with clearer standards alignment, stronger skill progressions, and more explicit supports for emergent bilingual learners.

Coherence has also become a major priority. Districts know that new materials alone won’t fix fragmentation, so leaders are focusing on designing sustainable systems, such as:

• Common instructional frameworks with shared expectations for lesson structure and academic discourse,
• Aligned scope and sequence documents across bilingual, dual language, and mainstream classrooms,
• Ongoing, curriculum-based professional learning, rather than one-and-done training,
• And data-to-instruction routines, where teachers learn how to use embedded assessments to guide small-group instruction and targeted language supports.

Coherence is no longer seen as a curriculum feature, but as an implementation mindset—ensuring every student experiences materials with consistency and fidelity, regardless of program model.

Data shows districts are adopting newer materials more frequently because they’re more aligned, digital-friendly, and responsive to student needs. Still, leaders recognize gaps remain—particularly in scaffolds and Spanish-language materials, which too often mirror English versions rather than being authentically designed. While adoption cycles are speeding up, the ultimate goal remains clear: materials that are not just new, but intentionally built for multilingual learners from the start.

CEMD: I appreciate how you’ve connected coherence, implementation, and systems. Education seems to be moving away from a “whack-a-mole” approach—not just in instructional materials, but across MTSS, professional development, and assessment. With curriculum at the center of this shift, how are districts finding materials that meet their specific needs and populations? And with HB100 adding new funding parameters, are they still able to conduct adoption processes that truly align with their instructional vision?

GD: Districts are becoming far more strategic in how they approach curriculum adoption. Rather than simply purchasing products, leaders are seeking materials that meet the specific needs of their student populations. Many are building structured review processes that include teacher input, pilot periods, and alignment checks to TEKS and ELPS.

HB1605 and HB100 have introduced both opportunities and challenges. The supplemental funding tied to board-approved materials expands access to resources, but it can also narrow choices and add documentation requirements. Some districts are prioritizing materials that meet funding criteria, even when those options don’t fully address the needs of emergent bilingual students.

Still, many are conducting robust adoptions—reviewing materials through multiple lenses and engaging curriculum and special populations teams together to strengthen coherence. The biggest shift is mindset: districts are no longer selecting materials for compliance, but for impact. They’re seeking curricula that build content knowledge, develop language, and provide meaningful scaffolds for all learners. Organizations like ELSF play a key role by offering the tools and evidence districts need to choose materials that align with their instructional vision and serve multilingual students effectively, even within new funding constraints.

CEMD: A clear theme here is the growing focus on the student experience. Districts are moving beyond asking whether curriculum works for the average student to whether it works for all students. In closing, what guidance would you offer districts still making that shift—from viewing curriculum as a “box to check” to seeing it as a lever for improving outcomes and experiences for every learner?
GD: For districts still making that shift, a few key principles stand out:

• Re-center on the student experience. Curriculum isn’t just a compliance task—it’s the daily learning experience of students. When districts evaluate materials through the lens of access, cultural and linguistic relevance, and evidence-based scaffolding, they make choices that directly improve outcomes.
• Use adoption as a lever for access. HB1605, IMRA, and newer funding models have expanded opportunities to adopt stronger materials, but “new” alone isn’t enough. The goal is coherence—materials that are TEKS-aligned, ELPS-integrated, and intentionally designed for emergent bilingual learners, not retrofitted after the fact.
• Build for implementation, not just selection. Strong systems for professional learning, coaching, and progress monitoring ensure curriculum isn’t a one-time purchase but a sustained strategy for instructional quality.
• Balance data with lived experience. While adoption trends show progress, leaders recognize that scaffolds and language supports still fall short. That awareness is driving more thoughtful evaluation of how materials address real classroom barriers.

Curriculum is one of the most powerful levers districts control. When adoption decisions center access, coherence, and multilingual learners from the start, curriculum becomes more than a requirement—it becomes a catalyst for better outcomes.