Year two is when the real gaps in new instructional materials show up. In year one, teachers and leaders learn the pacing, routines, and rigor. By year two, what's left is specific: the standards students still miss, the units teachers keep patching, and the supplements that drift back in. Districts that find those gaps standard by standard can fill them with materials their curriculum team approves.
Texas has a lot of districts in that second year right now. In 2025–26, 619 districts implemented at least one of the three Bluebonnet Learning programs district-wide (TEA, Sept 30, 2026). Facts here are current as of October 2026.
What did year one look like?
TEA released first-year results for Bluebonnet Learning on September 30, 2026. On average, districts using it saw a slightly better year-over-year change in the share of students meeting grade level on STAAR than districts that didn't. TEA's report to the Legislature gives the size of that difference (TEA, OER FY 2026 Legislative Report):
| Program | Better than non-Bluebonnet districts | For districts that also used the pilot version the year before |
|---|---|---|
| K–5 Math | 0.6 percentage points | 2.6 percentage points |
| Secondary Math | 0.6 percentage points | 0.7 percentage points |
| K–5 RLA | 0.2 percentage points | 0.7 percentage points |
TEA counted a district as implementing when its orders covered more than 75% of enrollment in the relevant grades, placed before October 1, 2025. It also reported that 72 districts using Bluebonnet earned an "A" in 2025–26, including 26 that had a lower rating the year before.
Two things stand out. First, TEA calls the results "an encouraging sign of early progress," and they are modest. TEA also says plainly why year one is hard: implementing high-quality materials "requires teachers and school leaders to adjust to new pacing, practices, and rigor" (TEA).
Second, districts with a year of experience on the pilot version saw larger differences. That doesn't prove experience caused the gains. It does fit what most curriculum leaders already believe: the second year with a program is where the work starts to pay off, if the district uses the first year's evidence.
Why does year two feel different from year one?
Year one is about learning the program. Year two is about what the program doesn't do for your students.
National research shows how this plays out. RAND's American Instructional Resources Survey found that teachers using a new material reported spending an additional 30 minutes a week on planning than peers who weren't. Between 40% and 50% of teachers use a new material in any given year (RAND, 2025).
RAND also found that nearly all teachers modify their materials. Teachers who find the required materials too challenging for their students are more likely to use a single material and substantially modify it. On average, teachers regularly use two curriculum materials and five supplemental ones.
Put those together and you get the year-two pattern. The extra planning time from year one doesn't disappear. It moves into patching. A unit runs long, so a teacher trims a lesson. A standard feels thin, so a familiar worksheet comes back. None of it is written down in one place.
Where do the gaps show up in year two?
Nvitis sorts gaps in adopted materials into four classes: no routine, no materials, inaccessible materials, or a weak or incomplete routine. In year two, look for them in four places.
1. Pacing. HB 1605 says a district can't penalize a teacher for not following the recommended pacing when the teacher decides students need more or less time (TEC §28.0027(b), HB 1605). That's a good protection. It also means pacing will drift. When the same lessons get cut in classroom after classroom, that pattern points to a gap.
2. What teachers add or change. For districts using the state's OER funding, TEA's required OER transition plan covers "clear guidance for acceptable teacher modifications" and "public posting if materials have been modified" (TEA, HB 1605 FAQs). If you don't know what was modified, you can't post it or learn from it.
3. Supplements that pull in a different direction. This matters most in K–3 reading (see the next section).
4. Standards students still miss. Spring results by standard show where students struggled. The question for year two is whether the gap is in the materials, in how much time the lessons got, or in the routine around them.
What should K–3 reading teams check in year two?
In K–3 reading, Texas law and TEA guidance give specific things to check. A TEA superintendent briefing says students receive "Systematic, Explicit Direct Instruction in Phonics in Kinder through Grade 3" (TEA, Dec 2024).
Texas law is specific on one point. HB 1605 bars any instruction that incorporates three-cueing in a district's K–3 phonics curriculum. Three-cueing is a method in which a student is encouraged "to draw on context and sentence structure to read words without sounding the words out" (TEC §28.0062(a-1), HB 1605).
TEA's FAQ lists what to watch for: teacher prompts like "Does it look right?", "Does it sound right?" and "Does it make sense?", and materials that encourage students to "look at pictures for clues" or "skip a word and come back to it" (TEA, HB 1605 FAQs).
The year-two risk is that older supplements and prompt cards that teach students to guess words from pictures or context come back into classrooms without anyone checking them against the adopted program's approach to foundational skills or the law. Your supplemental list is the place to look.
What this means for your district
Run a short year-two review this fall, before winter break. Keep it to one subject and one grade band at a time.
Evidence
- Pull spring results by standard for the grades where you adopted new materials.
- Mark the standards where students struggled in more than one campus.
Materials
- For each of those standards, find the lessons in the adopted program that teach it. Note whether they are complete, missing, or hard to use.
- Ask teachers which lessons they cut, stretch, or replace. Compare across campuses.
- List the supplements in use. Flag any that cover the same standards as the adopted program, and any that don't fit its approach.
- In K–3 reading, check supplements and prompts against TEA's three-cueing guidance.
Decisions
- For each gap, decide: change the pacing, add a routine, or fill it with approved material.
- Write down acceptable modifications so teachers aren't guessing, and post modified materials where your plan requires it.
- Send feedback on Bluebonnet lessons through TEA's feedback process. TEA says it uses teacher feedback to improve the materials.
Teachers
- Don't ask teachers to build missing materials on protected planning time. HB 1605 bars requiring it without a supplemental agreement (TEC §21.4045).
Where Nvitis fits
Nvitis Education works alongside the program you adopted. It doesn't replace it.
Our Gap Analysis is designed to line up each required standard with the materials teachers can use and with your exam and performance reports, then rank the gaps by what to fix first. Overlap Analysis shows where your supplements cover the same standards as the adopted program, so you can see what you may be paying for twice. Companion Materials drafts what's missing, built from the program you already use, and your curriculum team reviews it before anyone uses it.
Year one taught your teachers the program. Year two can teach you what it needs.
FAQ
How many Texas districts adopted Bluebonnet Learning? TEA reports that 619 districts implemented at least one of the three Bluebonnet Learning programs district-wide in 2025–26. TEA counted districts whose orders covered more than 75% of enrollment in the relevant grades.
Did Bluebonnet districts do better on STAAR in year one? On average, slightly. TEA reported year-over-year changes 0.6 percentage points better in K–5 and secondary math and 0.2 points better in K–5 reading than in non-Bluebonnet districts. Districts that had used the pilot version the year before saw larger differences.
What does TEA say about Bluebonnet's K–3 foundational skills? TEA says Bluebonnet's K–3 foundational skills include systematic, explicit phonics instruction.
Can teachers change the pacing of adopted materials? Yes. Under HB 1605, a district can't penalize a teacher for not following recommended pacing when the teacher decides students need more or less time.
Why do teachers modify adopted materials? RAND found that nearly all teachers modify their materials. Teachers who find required materials too challenging for their students are more likely to modify them substantially.
See where your year-two gaps are
Bring one subject and one grade band. We'll show you where the standards, the materials, and the evidence line up and where they don't.
Sources
- Texas Education Agency. "TEA Releases Bluebonnet Learning First-Year Results," Sept 30, 2026. https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/newsroom/tea-releases-bluebonnet-learning-first-year-results
- Texas Education Agency. Open Education Resources (OER) Fiscal Year 2026 Legislative Report. https://tea2.tea.texas.gov/data-reports/legislative-reports/oer-fy26-legislative-report.pdf
- Doan, S., et al. Teachers' Use of Instructional Materials from 2019–2024. RAND, 2025. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA134-30.html
- Texas Legislature. HB 1605, 88th Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, enrolled version (TEC §§21.4045, 28.0027, 28.0062). https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01605F.HTM
- Texas Education Agency. "House Bill 1605 FAQs" (last updated Feb 25, 2025). https://tea.texas.gov/curriculum-and-instruction/instructional-materials/house-bill-1605/house-bill-1605-faqs
- Texas Education Agency. "Bluebonnet Learning Frequently Asked Questions." https://tea.texas.gov/curriculum-and-instruction/instructional-materials/house-bill-1605/oer-imra-faqs-6.pdf
- Texas Education Agency. "High-Quality Instructional Materials and School Supports Provided by House Bill 1605," Superintendent Call, December 2024. https://tea.texas.gov/educators/superintendents/imra-and-bluebonnet-updates-0.pdf