District leaders are navigating new instructional materials requirements, expanded funding pathways, revised approval processes, and changing procurement considerations under House Bill 1605. For curriculum teams, business offices, instructional materials coordinators, and superintendents, understanding how these systems fit together has become increasingly important.

Several terms frequently appear in these conversations: EMAT, IMTA, IMRA, the $40 SBOE-Approved Instructional Materials Entitlement, and the $20 State-Developed OER Entitlement.

Although often discussed together, these terms serve different functions within Texas’s instructional materials landscape.

Understanding those distinctions can support stronger planning, clearer purchasing decisions, and more informed conversations across curriculum, finance, and procurement teams.

At a high level, Texas instructional materials funding involves three interconnected components.

EMAT is the state’s ordering and transaction platform.

IMTA is the long-standing instructional materials funding allotment districts use to support instructional materials, technology, and certain related expenditures.

House Bill 1605 added two new annual entitlements that operate alongside IMTA:

• the $40 SBOE-Approved Instructional Materials Entitlement
• the $20 State-Developed OER Entitlement

All three funding pathways are administered through EMAT.

That structure matters because each component addresses a different aspect of instructional materials purchasing, including ordering, funding eligibility, approval status, and procurement pathway.

EMAT, the Electronic Materials and Textbooks system, is the mechanism Texas districts use to order instructional materials and access instructional materials funding pathways.

The platform supports two primary transaction types:

That gives districts room to think strategically about how supplemental and intervention materials support broader literacy priorities such as:

• Requisitions, which facilitate direct orders for eligible instructional materials through the state system.
• Disbursements, which allow districts to access available funds for purchases made independently.

This distinction carries practical implications under HB 1605.

The new entitlement funding streams are accessed through EMAT requisitions, not disbursements. Eligibility, ordering pathway, and the funding source therefore become connected considerations when districts evaluate instructional materials purchases.

For district teams, understanding the transaction pathway is often an important first step in determining how a purchase will be funded and processed.

The Instructional Materials and Technology Allotment, or IMTA, remains the foundational instructional materials funding mechanism for Texas districts. Unlike the newer entitlement structures introduced under HB 1605, IMTA provides broader purchasing flexibility.

Depending on statutory requirements and district purchasing procedures, IMTA may support expenditures related to:

• instructional materials
• supplemental instructional materials
• technology used directly in student learning
• select software, systems, and technology services
• certain technical support positions permitted under rule

That flexibility makes IMTA a central consideration for many district purchasing decisions.

Because districts often evaluate curriculum resources, supplemental supports, technology tools, and implementation needs simultaneously, IMTA frequently remains central to instructional materials planning discussions.

One of the most significant funding changes introduced through House Bill 1605 is the $40 SBOE-Approved Instructional Materials Entitlement. Districts receive an annual allocation of $40 per enrolled student to support purchases of qualifying instructional materials.

Several operational details shape how the entitlement functions in practice.

The entitlement:

• applies to qualifying IMRA-approved instructional materials
• carries forward if unused
• is allocated per enrolled student rather than by content area
• operates separately from traditional IMTA funding

These distinctions matter for district planning. The entitlement does not function as a replacement for IMTA. Rather, it introduces an additional funding layer tied to a specific approval framework and procurement pathway.

As a result, instructional materials approval status may influence not only program evaluation considerations, but also funding availability and purchasing strategy.

HB 1605 also established the $20 State-Developed OER Entitlement, which supports printing and shipping costs associated with qualifying state-developed instructional materials, including Bluebonnet Learning resources.

Two requirements are particularly important for district teams.

• First, the entitlement does not carry forward. Unused funds are forfeited at the close of the applicable fiscal year.
• Second, districts adopting qualifying OER materials must maintain an OER Transition Plan before placing applicable orders through EMAT.

These requirements introduce additional operational considerations related to planning, adoption timing, and implementation readiness.

A common point of confusion within Texas instructional materials conversations is the role of IMRA.

IMRA is not a funding source. It is the instructional materials review and approval process established under House Bill 1605.

The process evaluates instructional materials against state criteria related to quality, suitability, standards alignment, accessibility, and additional requirements established through rule.

IMRA reviews multiple categories of instructional materials, including:

• full-subject Tier 1 materials
• partial-subject Tier 1 materials
• supplemental materials

For district leaders, category designation can provide important context regarding a program’s intended instructional role. Understanding whether a program is reviewed as a full-subject, partial-subject, or supplemental solution may help support stronger alignment between instructional priorities, implementation planning, and purchasing decisions.

Under HB 1605, Texas instructional materials funding conversations increasingly intersect with broader district planning considerations.

District teams are often weighing questions such as:

• Which funding pathway applies to this purchase?
• Does approval status affect available funding options?
• Which transaction pathway is required within EMAT?
• How does this purchase align with instructional priorities, implementation capacity, and budget planning?

Understanding how EMAT, IMTA, IMRA, and the new entitlement structures connect can help districts approach these decisions with greater clarity.

The funding conversation is not simply about identifying available dollars. It is about understanding how instructional materials approval, procurement processes, funding eligibility, and district priorities interact within an evolving Texas policy environment.