Texas reports Bluebonnet Learning STAAR growth differences; questions remain about curriculum effects

TEA’s first-year report identifies 619 adopting school systems and small differences in STAAR growth. Its aggregate comparisons do not establish a causal effect.

Formative Spaces NewsroomOctober 5, 2026

Abstract navy, teal and gold geometric editorial illustration with the Formative Spaces monogram — Editorial illustration by Formative Spaces.

On September 30, 2026, the Texas Education Agency released first-year usage and outcomes data for Bluebonnet Learning, the state-developed open education resource curriculum. TEA identified 619 school systems that implemented at least one program in 2025-26. Its legislative report measures adoption through instructional-material orders placed before October 1, 2025, at volumes consistent with more than 75 percent of enrollment in the relevant grades.

In TEA’s comparison, adopting systems had larger year-over-year changes in the percentage of students meeting grade level on spring STAAR assessments than systems that did not adopt the materials. The difference was 0.6 percentage points in K-5 mathematics, 0.6 points in secondary mathematics and 0.2 points in K-5 reading language arts. These are differences in growth from spring 2025 to spring 2026, rather than absolute passing rates.

Adoption and funding

House Bill 1605, passed in 2023, required TEA to develop state-owned instructional materials subject to State Board of Education approval. TEA’s funding guidance describes $40 per student annually for board-approved materials and up to $20 per student for printing and shipping approved state-developed open education resources.

TEA’s legislative report gives a specific grade 2 reading language arts example: Bluebonnet printed materials cost nearly half as much as another leading approved program and approximately $500 less per classroom than the next lowest-priced approved option over four years. The September 30 release gives the reading difference as $498.48 and a grade 2 math comparison as $1,350.88 less over four years. Those examples do not establish the same savings in every grade or subject.

Systems that used pilot materials before adopting Bluebonnet showed larger comparative gains in TEA’s report: 2.6 percentage points in K-5 mathematics, 0.7 points in secondary mathematics and 0.7 points in K-5 reading language arts.

2.6 percentage pointsLarger gain in K-5 math among Bluebonnet districts that had used the pilot version, compared to non-adopters. [1]

Of the 72 school systems using at least one Bluebonnet program that earned an A rating in 2025-26, 26 had a rating below A the previous year, according to TEA.

Evidence and interpretation

TEA’s three-page legislative report provides aggregate year-over-year comparisons. It does not present subgroup breakdowns, a regression analysis controlling for differences between adopting and non-adopting districts, or statistical significance tests. The reported comparison therefore does not by itself establish that the curriculum caused the difference in growth.

Community Impact reported that Texas AFT President Zeph Capo questioned whether the small differences were statistically significant and whether they would persist beyond the first year. He suggested comparisons using the National Assessment of Educational Progress. His comments are a union leader’s interpretation of the results, rather than the outcome of an independent statistical evaluation.

Crossroads Today reported mixed local results at Cuero ISD, which adopted Bluebonnet mathematics in grades K-8. The share meeting grade level rose in eighth-grade math from 14 percent to 26 percent, while seventh-grade math fell from 30 percent to 17 percent and fourth-grade math fell from 49 percent to 41 percent. Those district results illustrate variation within the statewide average; they do not independently establish the curriculum’s effect.

Analysis

By the Formative Spaces Newsroom, written after the reporting above was filed.

The 0.6 percentage point difference is fewer than one additional student per grade.

TEA reports that Bluebonnet adopters' share of students meeting grade level grew 0.6 percentage points more than non-adopters in K-5 math. In a grade of 100 students, that is fewer than one additional child meeting grade level. The 0.2 point reading difference is one student per 500. These are differences in growth rates from spring 2025 to spring 2026, not absolute scores. TEA does not report whether these differences are statistically significant, so the report cannot separate a curriculum effect from random variation.

[1]

The districts that adopted early were likely already different.

TEA's comparison has no controls for prior achievement trends, district size, poverty, or demographics. Districts that used pilot materials before adoption showed 2.6 points more growth in K-5 math, which is consistent with reform-oriented districts being more likely to try new materials early rather than the materials themselves driving gains. Cuero ISD illustrates the variation the statewide average hides: eighth-grade math jumped from 14 to 26 percent meeting grade level while seventh grade fell from 30 to 17. Without controls, the small positive difference could reflect who adopted, not what they adopted. That is our read, not TEA's.

[1][5]

The funding structure rewards adoption whether or not a district thinks the materials are better.

Districts that adopt any SBOE-approved materials receive $40 per student on top of the $171.84 base allotment, and Bluebonnet adopters get an additional $20 for printing. The $40 carries over year to year if unspent, creating an accumulating incentive. Conroe ISD estimated reading materials would cost $2.1 million against $1.3 million in printing funds, meaning adoption could pull money from other resources. Spring Branch ISD declined after tracking early adopters and finding no convincing progress, but the financial pressure to pick something from the approved list compounds annually. That is our reading of the incentive structure.

[1][7]

Sources

Texas Education Agency. OER FY 2026 Legislative Report View
Texas Education Agency. TEA Releases Bluebonnet Learning First-Year Results View
Texas Legislature. 88(R) HB 1605 - Enrolled version - Bill Text View
Texas Education Agency. House Bill 1605 and IMRA View
Crossroads Today. Texas reports early successes for Bluebonnet Learning, though local results vary View
Community Impact. Schools using Bluebonnet curriculum saw slight STAAR gains View
Houston Chronicle. Fact check: Are Texas schools receiving funds to use Bible lessons? View