Estimated Time to Read: 9 minutes
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) released the 2025 Texas State Literacy Plan (TSLP) as a roadmap to boost literacy outcomes from early childhood through high school graduation. Backed by the federal Comprehensive Literacy State Development grant, the plan seeks to align instruction, assessments, and leadership around the “science of reading.” In practice, this means greater state involvement in pre-K guidelines, curriculum design, professional development, and even locally chosen instructional materials
While the goal of improving literacy is laudable, the plan raises fundamental questions about whether pouring more money into state-directed programs will deliver real results for Texas students, or whether it will primarily expand bureaucracy while limiting innovation and local flexibility.
Early Literacy and Family Engagement
The plan begins with an emphasis on early literacy. TEA stresses that parents are a child’s “first teacher” and that family engagement is essential to building readiness before kindergarten. The updated Texas Prekindergarten Guidelines, aligned with state academic standards, include specific domains for emergent literacy such as language development, oral communication, and early reading skills.
This recognition of parents as central to literacy development is a strength of the plan. However, the state’s approach leans heavily on compliance requirements that fundamentally reshape what “family engagement” means in practice.
What Compliance Looks Like
The TSLP requires school systems to create and implement formal Family Engagement Plans, each tailored to TEA’s requirements. These plans are not simply guiding documents but must include curriculum expectations, teacher qualifications, student progress monitoring, program evaluation processes, and detailed reporting to the state.
In essence, family engagement is not left to local creativity or community partnerships; it is transformed into a regulated function of public education, complete with state oversight. Parents are invited into the process, but only within pre-defined boundaries that TEA has set.
How Compliance Is Enforced
Compliance is enforced through multiple mechanisms:
- Data Reporting: Districts must report into the early childhood data system, showing how they monitor student progress and implement engagement plans.
- Statutory Mandates: Because the plan aligns with state law, districts that fall short can be cited in compliance reviews, and failure to meet benchmarks risks sanctions.
- ESC Oversight: Education Service Centers are responsible for supporting and monitoring compliance, adding another bureaucratic layer above local districts.
- Funding Tied to Compliance: Access to certain state and federal funds is conditional on having TEA-approved plans and demonstrating adherence to family engagement requirements.
Why This Matters for Liberty
Here lies the liberty principle concern: genuine family engagement becomes a matter of satisfying state mandates rather than fostering organic partnerships between parents and schools. Local educators are incentivized to design programs that check boxes on TEA’s list rather than meet the unique needs of their communities. Parents are turned from independent partners into passive participants in a state-directed model.
While compliance ensures uniformity, it risks creating a bureaucratic process that values paperwork over relationships. The result may be districts more concerned with producing family engagement reports for TEA than actually empowering families to take ownership of their children’s literacy journey.
Instructional Materials and the Push for State-Owned Resources
A centerpiece of the literacy plan is the adoption of “high-quality instructional materials” (HQIM). Following the passage of House Bill 1605 (88th Legislative Session, 2023), the state created the Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) process and invested heavily in Open Education Resources, branded as “Bluebonnet Learning”.
On paper, HQIM is meant to give every teacher access to well-researched, TEKS-aligned content. But in practice, the framework places immense power in the hands of the Texas Education Agency (TEA), which is responsible for developing and distributing these materials. While the State Board of Education (SBOE) still has final approval authority, the sheer scope of TEA-developed products makes the agency the de facto curriculum provider, reducing the real influence of locally elected school boards and, to some extent, the SBOE itself.
That distinction matters. The Texas Constitution entrusts the SBOE, an elected body directly accountable to the people, with reviewing and adopting instructional standards, and it leaves local school boards to decide what works best in their communities. When unelected bureaucrats at TEA drive content creation and tie large amounts of funding to state-developed resources, they bypass both layers of elected accountability.
From a liberty perspective, the danger is twofold. First, local communities lose flexibility to adopt materials that reflect their values and priorities. Second, centralized content developed by the agency risks reflecting bureaucratic or ideological preferences rather than the diverse needs of Texas families.
English Learners and Special Populations
The plan devotes significant space to Emergent Bilingual (EB) students, who now make up nearly a quarter of the Texas student population. TEA promotes Dual Language Immersion programs, expanded support for special education, and enhanced dyslexia services.
The effort to ensure literacy equity is commendable, but it comes with increasing compliance requirements for program design, professional development, and data reporting. Local educators often end up spending more time managing the logistics of compliance than innovating for student needs.
The liberty principle concern here is twofold: while state programs intend to standardize support for vulnerable students, they can inadvertently narrow flexibility for teachers and families, and when the programs are tied to large sums of state and federal funding, they reinforce dependency on centralized systems instead of allowing local solutions to flourish.
Assessments and Accountability
The redesigned STAAR exam is positioned at the heart of the literacy plan, along with alternate assessments and the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS).
While assessment data can be valuable, the overreliance on testing to drive instruction undermines both local control and teacher autonomy. Tests serve bureaucratic accountability more than student growth. Moreover, assessments often measure compliance with state expectations rather than true literacy.
This test-heavy approach raises liberty principle concerns: it reduces teachers to implementers of test-prep curricula, restricts innovation in the classroom, and places more power in the hands of centralized agencies instead of parents and educators.
Professional Development and Leadership Initiatives
The literacy plan mandates professional development programs like the Texas Reading Academies, Strong Foundations, Texas Instructional Leadership, and Texas Lesson Study.
The goal is to ensure consistency in applying the “science of reading.” But for teachers, it translates into mandatory year-long training, observation cycles, and compliance tracking. These initiatives may improve baseline instruction, but they also impose costs—financial costs on the state, and opportunity costs on teachers who must juggle these obligations alongside their daily classroom responsibilities.
The liberty concern here is clear: true professional growth flourishes when educators have autonomy to choose development paths that best fit their needs and their students. Instead, TEA’s one-size-fits-all approach risks demoralizing teachers and turning professional development into another compliance burden.
Concerns Over Cost-Effectiveness
The Texas State Literacy Plan is underwritten by federal grants and expanded state appropriations. The Strong Foundations program, IMRA entitlements, and OER development all funnel millions toward state-approved materials and training.
Texans have seen this story before. Despite decades of increased education funding, reading outcomes remain largely stagnant. Throwing more money at the system, particularly through centralized programs, has not produced transformative results.
The liberty principle critique is this: government centralization and spending growth rarely deliver sustainable progress. Lasting literacy gains will come not from new bureaucratic frameworks, but from empowering parents, trusting teachers, and allowing local districts to innovate.
Literacy, School Choice, and the Government Monopoly
The Texas State Literacy Plan is only one piece of a larger education puzzle. At the very same time this plan was rolled out, the Legislature approved a new Education Savings Account (ESA) program to give parents alternatives outside the government-run system.
At its best, school choice represents many liberty principles in action: empowering families to direct education dollars toward the setting that best fits their child. True ESAs encourage innovation, hold government schools accountable through competition, and break the monopoly that has for decades consumed ever-increasing amounts of taxpayer money while producing stagnant results.
Unfortunately, the ESA program passed in Texas was far from universal. It prioritized certain categories of students while deprioritizing many families who would most benefit. Worse, it was passed in conjunction with other legislation that continues to pour money into the very monopoly it is meant to challenge, an 8-to-1 ratio of new public school spending compared to ESA funding. Instead of creating a vibrant marketplace of educational options, it risks propping up the current system while only marginally opening doors for a few.
This ties directly back to the literacy plan, as both initiatives expand government spending and administration, but only one has the potential to introduce real innovation. A truly universal ESA program could spur fresh literacy solutions tailored to local communities, innovative charter or private providers, and parent-led initiatives. Instead, Texas doubled down on centralizing literacy under TEA while underfunding and over-regulating the very mechanism, school choice, that could force real change.
Final Takeaway
The 2025 Texas State Literacy Plan presents a sweeping, ambitious strategy to improve literacy across the state. It emphasizes early childhood development, parental involvement, professional development, and evidence-based instructional practices.
However, woven into the plan are deeper trends toward state consolidation, bureaucratic compliance, and significant new spending commitments. By reframing parental engagement into compliance plans, narrowing local control over curriculum, and tying professional growth to state-run training systems, the TSLP risks prioritizing bureaucracy over students.
Moreover, when paired with the Legislature’s flawed ESA program, a troubling pattern emerges. Texas has chosen to reinforce the monopoly first and only tentatively open the door to competition. Until school choice is truly universal and public education funding is restrained, both literacy reforms and school choice will remain limited in their ability to deliver transformative results.
Texans must ask: Will these plans truly build strong readers, or will they build a stronger bureaucracy? Literacy is too important to be confined to one-size-fits-all mandates. Real progress will come when families, educators, and communities, not distant agencies, are empowered to shape the educational journey.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
