“Is TEA Bribing ISDs to Use Bluebonnet Learning?” and Other Questions Answered
Bluebonnet Learning has been in the news a lot lately. It seems that the push back from community stakeholders regarding religion in the Bluebonnet Learning K-5 Reading Language Arts curriculum has piqued interest in Bluebonnet Learning, HB 1605, the Texas State Board of Education, and the Texas Education Agency. We’ll answer your questions with more information than you probably wanted. Why? When it comes to Bluebonnet Learning, you have to know a lot to be truly informed.
Where did Bluebonnet Learning come from?
As of November 2024, the Texas State Board of Education has approved 100 high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) from various publishers for Reading Language Arts and Math for Grades K-5—and Math only for Grades 6–8 and Algebra I. These materials emerged from the Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) process, authorized under House Bill 1605.
The bill followed recommendations from the Texas Teacher Vacancy Task Force, which called for more funding, professional learning, and access to HQIM to ease pressure on the profession. Among its provisions, HB 1605 mandated that the State Board of Education annually review and approve a list of “high-quality instructional materials.” In November 2024, the board approved its first batch.
All approved materials had to meet specific requirements, such as the removal of three-cueing in K–3 reading. Three-cueing teaches students to use context clues to identify unknown words rather than sounding them out—an approach Texas lawmakers no longer support. The law also prohibited obscene or harmful content, as defined by the Texas Penal Code. While not a historical issue, legislators wanted to proactively prevent such content in classrooms. The law also required a public-facing portal so parents could access what their children are being taught.
The bill also authorized the state to develop its own open educational curriculum and allocated funding for districts that adopt it. The TEA has branded this initiative “Bluebonnet Learning.”
What Are Bluebonnet Learning Materials?
Bluebonnet Learning materials are free, state-owned educational resources for Texas classrooms. They currently include RLA for grades K–5 and Math for grades K–8 and Algebra I. These materials were developed from existing curricula by major publishers and aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)—the learning standards all teachers must cover and which are tested annually on STAAR.
About 90% of the RLA content came from Amplify, a New York-based publisher, and was acquired during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of this content now includes religious stories and references that were not in the original versions, sparking controversy.
The Bluebonnet Math materials, however, are widely respected. Grades K–5 come from Great Minds, and Grades 6–8 and Algebra I from Carnegie Learning. These do not include religious content and are considered some of the best math curricula in the country.
What Financial Incentives Do Texas Districts Receive to Use Bluebonnet Learning?
Each biennium, districts receive Instructional Materials and Technology Allotment (IMTA) funds. In 2025, the base amount is $171.84 per student—intended to last two years.
HB 1605 provides additional funding under specific conditions:
- $40 per student: For selecting any SBOE-approved HQIM (including Bluebonnet), districts receive a bonus Instructional Materials Entitlement based on enrollment.
- $20 per student: Districts selecting Bluebonnet specifically receive this additional Open Education Resource (OER) Entitlement, but it applies only to Bluebonnet Learning printed materials.
Districts that choose non-approved instructional materials must use their base IMTA funds, with no access to these additional entitlements. TEA cannot currently mandate the use of specific materials—local choice remains in place.
A Real-World Example: Conroe ISD
Conroe ISD, with 73,000 students, adopted Bluebonnet Learning RLA and Math in February 2025.
Here’s the monies they received by doing so:
- $2.9M in SBOE-approved HQIM funds
- $2.9M in rollover HQIM funds from 2023–2024
- $1.4M from the $20 OER Entitlement
- $12.5M in base IMTA funding for the biennium
Total additional value gained through Bluebonnet adoption: $7.2M.
Conroe ISD, like any Texas district, can only use the $7.2M on Bluebonnet Learning and/or other SBOE-approved curriculum materials. The funds cannot be used for anything else.
Do Districts Receive Extra Funds Exclusively for Bluebonnet Learning?
Yes. The $20 OER Entitlement is only available to districts that select Bluebonnet Learning materials. It must be used for printed Bluebonnet Learning materials ordered through EMAT and cannot be redirected.
Are Districts Being Bribed to Use Bluebonnet Learning?
It might look that way in 2025—but context matters. The additional funds available this year include unspent 2023–2024 allocations that rolled over, and there are currently very few approved HQIM options on which to spend the money.
As more subjects and grade levels get approved, the funding will not stretch as far. Unless the Legislature increases appropriations, districts will likely have to rely on their biennial Instructional Materials and Technology Allotment (IMTA) and other sources to cover Bluebonnet Learning for all grades and subjects by 2030.
BB Math Elem. Grades | Student Workbooks, Teacher Edition and Required Activity Packs | Cost to ISD AFTER $20 per Student Subsidy | Cost to ISD AFTER $40 Bonus Applied |
K | 61.87 | 41.87 | -1.87 |
1 | 44.92 | 24.92 | +15.08 |
2 | 65.29 | 45.29 | -5.29 |
3 | 55.50 | 35.50 | +4.50 |
4 | 67.66 | 47.66 | -7.66 |
5 | 49.21 | 29.21 | +10.79 |
A cost table for Bluebonnet Math at the elementary level shows that the $20 subsidy doesn’t fully cover printed material costs. In many cases, districts must dip into their $40 bonus just to fund math. When you consider that Bluebonnet Learning may eventually be approved in all four core subjects and at all grade levels, these early incentives will cover only a portion of the future expense.
So yes—for now—it appears districts are getting extra money for choosing Bluebonnet Learning. But those dollars won’t stretch nearly as far in future years.
Does State Funding Carry Over?
Unused biennial IMTA funds roll over each year.
The $40 SBOE HQIM bonus rolls over.
The $20 Bluebonnet print subsidy does not—it’s “use it or lose it.”
Because the SBOE didn’t approve materials until late 2024, no one could use the money. Therefore 2023–2024’s HQIM funds rolled over to 2025, giving districts double the typical funding.
As the TEA schedule is packed with IMRA cycles for many years to come, it’s unlikely there will ever be another year like FY 2024.
Are There Additional Requirements to Receive Bluebonnet Learning Funding?
To receive Bluebonnet funds, a district’s Board of Trustees must adopt a formal transition plan. The TEA has published a sample Transition Plan for Crofton ISD that many districts are using for guidance.
That said, in 2025, orders for Bluebonnet workbooks can be placed without a formal plan to reduce administrative burdens during the rollout year.
What Are Texans Saying?
The Bluebonnet RLA materials have sparked criticism—primarily because of the inclusion of biblical stories. TEA insists they are not promoting religious ideology, but the controversy remains.
In contrast, Bluebonnet Math is widely praised. While some educators are resistant to printed workbooks in a digital age, private companies are stepping up to fill that gap. Classwork.com offers a digital Bluebonnet Math Companion, and Carnegie Learning provides an adaptive platform aligned to its printed middle school curriculum.
Conclusion
So, are Texas schools being bribed to use Bluebonnet Learning? That depends on your perspective. In 2025, with limited SBOE-approved options and two years’ worth of funding rolled over, the extra dollars look significant—and they are. But they’re also temporary. As more subjects and grades are added to the approved list, those dollars will be stretched thin, and districts will find themselves responsible for a much larger share of the costs.
For now, Bluebonnet Learning offers a cost-effective path for districts looking to maximize state funding while meeting instructional material mandates. The controversy around the RLA materials deserves attention and community input. But in math, at least, the quality is hard to argue with—and support from the private sector, including platforms like Classwork.com, is helping districts implement Bluebonnet in modern, flexible ways that better serve today’s students.
In the long run, districts will have to weigh local values, instructional quality, and fiscal responsibility—just like they always have. The incentives may be new, but the decision-making process remains as local, and as critical, as ever.
