How can “local control” states support district curriculum decisions? First of all, I don’t know a state leader that wouldn’t cite the importance of local leadership when it comes to curriculum, so the balance between state and district control applies nationwide.

But it’s hard to find a more interesting example of this balance than Texas, which has a long history of providing support to help districts identify and adopt high-quality instructional materials. So, how does Texas manage to incentivize action while maintaining district autonomy?

Historically, Texas’ State Board of Education (SBOE) conducted a proclamation process to call for new instructional materials for review and adoption in eight-year cycles The state has also provided money to districts to offset the cost of purchasing instructional materials, although districts can use the money for any materials, even those not approved by the SBOE.

A new state law that fully unrolls in the 2025-2026 school year streamlines the system. The new review and approval process is still driven by the SBOE but includes additional quality checks such as an expanded ban on literacy materials that use the three-cueing method. Districts still receive the original funds to offset the costs of any instructional materials, but the state now offers an additional entitlement ($40 per enrolled student annually) for districts that adopt approved materials. 

In addition to identifying and incentivizing the use of district-selected high-quality curriculum, the law required Texas to create its own set of materials called Bluebonnet Learning, which are published as free open education resources (OER). Like any other curriculum, the Bluebonnet Learning materials are subject to SBOE approval. So far, the SBOE has approved Bluebonnet resources for elementary ELA and elementary and secondary math. While Bluebonnet has received scrutiny from several perspectives, it is offered as one choice on the State Board-approved list, which includes over 75 programs from more than a dozen providers.

All of these updates to Texas’ curriculum supports were prompted in part by educators who shared frustration about how much time they spend developing their own materials. The new law includes a provision that teachers cannot be required to use planning time to create initial instructional materials unless outlined in a supplemental agreement. The goal is to make it easier for district leaders to adopt vetted, high-quality materials from the SBOE-approved list so that teachers will not need to spend valuable time starting from scratch.

Texas’s approach to informed local control benefits stakeholders at all levels of the system: Teachers spend less time searching for or attempting to create high-quality materials that meet state standards. Districts receive money to offset the cost of adopting and implementing new materials. The state benefits from having a better understanding of what materials are used in the classroom and the assurance that those materials meet state standards. Most importantly, more students are likely to access high-quality instruction.