������

The quality appeals process occurs in two distinct phases, each with a specific purpose and scope.  

• Phase 1 appeals focus on the accuracy and completeness of preliminary quality findings, allowing publishers to request technical corrections or identify evidence in the existing materials that may have been overlooked. New content cannot be provided during phase 1.  
• Phase 2 appeals provide publishers with an opportunity to submit new or revised content to address gaps in alignment to the quality rubric and improve scores where appropriate. 

Together, the quality appeals process phases ensure that review outcomes are accurate and fully reflect the submitted instructional materials. 

The report release and publisher submission dates* for each subject's quality rubric indicator can be found in the following table. 

Fine Arts

CTE

Supplemental Math

Supplemental RLA

Phonics

Math K–12

RLA 4–6

RLA K–3

*Dates are subject to change and will be communicated accordingly 

Phase 1 quality appeals are designed to ensure that preliminary quality findings accurately reflect both the instructional materials submitted and the evidence collected by review teams. During this phase, publishers review preliminary quality findings to identify technical corrections, inaccuracies, or omissions of existing evidence within their submitted materials. Publishers may also review Quality Rubric Correlations (QRC) responses to better understand reviewers’ reasoning and evidence gathering.

It is important to note that QRC responses provide insight into reviewers’ initial thinking but do not represent final scoring decisions. Accepted QRC examples may indicate alignment; however, they do not guarantee that all rubric expectations have been met. Review teams also gather additional evidence and engage in consensus discussions before assigning preliminary scores.

Phase 1 appeals are limited strictly to verifying the accuracy of reported information. Publishers may not introduce new or revised content during this phase, and all appeals must reference content that was already included in the original submission.

Allowable Appeal Types

• Technical Corrections are used to address factual inaccuracies within the report. These may include incorrect references, misidentified materials, typographical errors, or repeated inaccuracies. Technical corrections are limited to correcting the record and do not result in score changes.
• Omissions are used when publishers believe that relevant evidence demonstrating alignment to the rubric was not considered or included in the report. In these cases, publishers must point to specific existing content within their submitted materials, provide a clear rationale tied to rubric expectations, and include direct navigation guidance. Valid omissions may result in updates to the report and, in some cases, adjustments to scores.

Timeline and Requirements

Phase 1 appeals follow a structured but rolling timeline designed to ensure equitable review opportunities for all publishers. Preliminary reports are released beginning no sooner than June 29, 2026, and publishers are given a defined window to submit their responses based on the release schedule.

All appeals submitted during this phase must adhere to the following requirements:

• Reference only existing content from submitted materials
• Address report accuracy or completeness
• Include clear evidence, rationale, and navigation guidance
• Must be submitted by the specified deadlines 

• In the , navigate to the “Quality Scores/Details Dynamic” view, select the appropriate grade level/course to open the “Details” pane, then select the “Attachments” tab.  
• Open each attachment in the tab and review QRC responses for context alongside preliminary quality findings to understand reviewer reasoning and identify possible technical corrections, inaccuracies, or omissions in the preliminary findings.   
• Identify technical corrections and omissions in the working document PDF that includes the preliminary scores. 
• Gather supporting evidence for any omissions appeals, including rationale and clear navigation guidance. 
• Complete the . 
  • Choose the publisher name from the “Choose Publisher” dropdown menu. 
  • Choose the Phase 1 Quality Appeal Type (i.e., Specific technical correction or Omission). 
  • Copy and paste exact sentence(s) or phrase(s) from the appeal location(s) selected in the quality report.  
  • In the “Rationale” field, provide a brief but detailed explanation that justifies the technical corrections or omissions being appealed. This rationale should explain why changes should be made to this preliminary grade-level/course report.  
  • Click the Submit button. 

Phase 2 quality appeals are an opportunity for publishers to provide proposed new or revised content for reviewers to consider as evidence to improve quality scores.

Review teams will consider only new or revised content during Phase 2. Existing content from the pre-approval materials is not eligible for review in Phase 2; existing content should be addressed, if applicable, through Phase 1 technical corrections or omissions.

Eligibility

Phase 2 quality appeals are limited in scope. Publishers should confirm the number of appeal opportunities available for each program and grade level or course before preparing submissions.  

All programs, except RLA supplemental programs, may appeal up to 25% of the rubric indicators. Appeals must include proposed new or revised content, since existing content is not eligible for review in Phase 2. K–3 RLA products, including phonics, may also appeal all Section 4 Phonics Compliance indicators in addition to the 25%.

RLA supplemental programs may appeal up to 25% of the indicator guidance statements that apply to the program. For RLA supplemental programs, each indicator guidance statement that is appealed counts as one appeal opportunity.

Quality Review Appeal Opportunities

The following tables illustrate the maximum number of allowable appeal opportunities by rubric. Publishers may appeal up to 25% of total rubric indicators with proposed new or revised content. 

Full-subject and partial-subject RLA K–3 products can appeal the five, section 4 phonics indicators, in addition to up to 25% of total rubric indicators with proposed new or revised content. 

Quality Review Appeal Opportunities for Rubrics Debuting in IMRA Cycle 2026: 
Publishers may appeal up to 25% of total rubric indicators* with proposed new or revised content. 

* Indicator guidance statements for RLA supplemental programs 

Submission Process 

The Phase 2 submission window is August 3–14, 2026. During this window, publishers may submit proposed new or revised content for up to the allotted number of appeal opportunities via the . 

For most programs, appealing an indicator means publishers can appeal any or all the indicator guidance statements within that indicator. For example, if a publisher appeals indicator 1.1, it counts as one appeal opportunity whether the publisher appeals only 1.1a or 1.1a, 1.1b, and 1.1c. 

For RLA supplemental programs, the publisher selected which Learning Quality sections their materials address. In these programs, each indicator guidance statement counts as an opportunity for appeal. For example, if a publisher appeals 1.1a, 3.1b, and 4.1a, that counts as three appeal opportunities. The number of opportunities will be emailed to the publisher prior to submitting phase 2 appeals.  

For each grade level or course, publishers must complete one Phase 2 Appeals Excel template, found in ������ ShareFile. The completed template may include Phase 2 quality appeals and/or suitability excellence appeals, if applicable. Each completed Excel template for each grade level or course must be submitted separately through the Phase 2 Appeals Submission Form. 

Submissions must clearly identify the indicator or indicator guidance statement being appealed, include a brief rationale aligned to the applicable evidence guide or rubric expectations, and provide direct access and specific navigation to the proposed new or revised content.   

Key Requirements 

• Phase 2 submissions must include proposed new or revised content; existing content is not eligible for Phase 2 review. 
• Content may be provided by file upload or hyperlink. Word or PDF files are preferred for ease of review, but the Phase 2 Submission Form may accept other formats. 
• If content is hosted on a website or file-sharing platform, access should be set to allow anyone with the link to view. If login is required, publishers should provide reviewer login information in the template. It is helpful to keep the login the same as for your pre-approval materials (though not required). 
• Documents with comments should be avoided because comments may not always be viewable to reviewers. 
• Pre-approval materials must remain unchanged. Phase 2 submissions are samples of changes publishers would make to final materials if approved by the SBOE. 
• Quality review teams will review proposed new or revised content August 19–26, 2026. Publishers will receive responses to quality appeal submissions no sooner than August 28 on the Publisher Smartsheet Dashboard. 
• Any accepted new or revised content from Phase 2 quality appeals and, if applicable, suitability excellence appeals must be entered as publisher-initiated changes in the IMRA Review Dashboard by October 2, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. CDT. 

• Review eligibility and determine appeal opportunities. 
  • In the , review preliminary quality findings and the applicable quality rubric evidence guide to determine which indicators or indicator guidance statements should be appealed. 
  • Confirm the number of allowable appeal opportunities for the program, grade level, or course. 
• Develop proposed new or revised content. 
  • Develop proposed new or revised content aligned to the rubric expectations. Multiple examples may be submitted for each appealed indicator guidance statement. 
  • Ensure the new or revised content is clearly labeled and easy for reviewers to navigate. 
• Complete the Phase 2 Appeals Excel Template located in . 
  • Complete one Phase 2 Appeals Excel Template for each grade level or course. Include program information, Phase 2 quality appeals, and suitability excellence appeals, if applicable.  
  • For each appeal row, include the indicator, indicator guidance statement for appeal, appeal rationale, submission method, direct link if applicable, specific location within the new content, and any alternate login information needed for reviewers. 
• Name templates and new content files clearly. 
  • Name each completed template with the abbreviated program name (including “Span” if it is the Spanish version of the program), an underscore, and then the grade level or course level (example: enVisionSpan_Gr2 and ExplorationsinArt_Gr4). 
  • If uploading new content documents, name each file with Program Name, an underscore, grade or course level, an underscore, and then the appealed indicator guidance number. For example, enVisionSpan_Gr2_1.2a and ExplorationsinArt_Gr4_5.1b 
• Submit the completed Phase 2 appeal in the . The form will be available beginning August 3, 2026. 
  • Select your Publisher name. 
  • Select the Program Name (specific grade level or course). 
  • If you selected “Attached to Form Submission,” upload the corresponding file or files. You may submit files with new or revised content if you are unable to host them on a file-sharing site.  
  • Click Submit. 
  • Submit each completed Excel template as a separate submission using the Phase 2 Appeals Submission Form by August 14, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. CDT. 
• Complete the required follow-up after review. 
  • After review, enter any accepted new or revised content from Phase 2 quality appeals as publisher-initiated changes in the IMRA Review Dashboard by October 2, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. CDT. 

During the suitability appeals process, publishers have multiple opportunities to respond to reviewers’ findings and strengthen their submissions before the results are finalized. Publishers must respond to noncompliance flags on a rolling basis during the review window. The first flags will be released no earlier than June 9, 2026, and most remaining flags will be released by July 27, 2026, as initial review is completed. However, some flags may be submitted during other appeals processes in August. 

Publishers must accept or reject each Section 1 flag. When publishers accept a Section 1 flag, the response must include a proposal for how publishers will change, create, or remove the content. If removing content, publishers should ensure it has not been used as evidence in either standards alignment or quality review. This is a change publishers agree to make in the final materials, if approved by the SBOE in November. All changes proposed in publisher responses need to be reported in the as a publisher-initiated change. 

When rejecting a suitability flag, publishers should include a rationale for rejecting the flag that explains why the content does not violate the suitability rubric indicator.

All reported instances of three-cueing in the materials require acceptance or rejection and a publisher response. When publishers accept a three-cueing flag, the response must include a proposal for how publishers will change, create, or remove the content. If removing content, publishers should ensure it has not been used as evidence in either standards alignment or quality review. This is a change publishers agree to make in the final materials, if approved by the SBOE in November. All changes mentioned in the response must be reported in the IMRA Review Dashboard as publisher-initiated changes.

When rejecting a suitability flag, publishers should include rationale for rejecting the flag that explains why the content is not an example of three-cueing.
 

Section 2 flags require acceptance as an acknowledgment, but do not require a publisher response, as these record compliance with the suitability rubric. Remember, that all programs, with the exception of supplemental mathematics, must contain examples of suitability excellence to be eligible for approval by the SBOE.

Suitability Excellence Appeals

For programs where Section 2 (suitability excellence flags) are required but not achieved, publishers may propose new or revised content during the August appeals window for suitability review teams to consider. The absence of Suitability Excellence flags for materials submitted for anything other than supplemental mathematics results in materials being ineligible for approval by the SBOE. Publishers participating in suitability excellence appeals due to a lack of excellence flags, are encouraged to provide multiple examples of new or revised content that aligns with excellence indicator expectations in the suitability rubric.
 

• Review all Section 1 and three-cueing flags released in the by July 27, 2026, and respond accepting or rejecting the flags by August 14, 2026. Respond with the proposed change when accepting or the rationale if rejecting the flag.
• Review all Section 2 flags released in the by July 27, 2026, and acknowledge acceptance of the flags by August 14, 2026. These flags do not require a response.
• Provide proposed new or revised content during the suitability excellence appeal phase if the program has absence of excellence flags. The form and template for submission will be available on the for submission August 3–14, 2026.
• Contact the publisher liaison by submitting an ticket if you have questions about the reviewers' feedback.

New content may be created and submitted for any of the following reasons:

• Standards Alignment: The program does not achieve 100% TEKS or ELPS coverage during the initial review but does achieve at least 75% TEKS or ELPS coverage
• Quality Review: The program does not earn the maximum number of points for one or more quality rubric indicator guidance statements
• Suitability Review: The program is found to violate Section 1 of the suitability rubric or does not earn any Section 2 suitability excellence flags during the initial review
• Stakeholder Feedback: Reviewers, SBOE members, and/or members of the public submits feedback and the publisher proposes to make a change that includes new content

New content must be submitted twice—once for reviewers during appeals and again in a format that can be shared with the public once appeals are complete and publishers know which new content submissions were accepted by reviewers.

1. New content must be submitted according to the applicable appeals schedule for consideration by IMRA reviewers.
2. New content that was accepted by reviewers and any additional, new content publishers wish to propose adding to the final product, must be submitted for public review by 5:00 p.m. on August 14, 2026. 

A publisher may participate in show-cause appeals if their product meets either of the following conditions after the final standards-alignment review: 

• Products with scores between 65% and 74.99% after the initial review
• Products with scores between 90% and 99.99% after standards alignment appeals

After formally requesting the meeting, ������ IMRA Staff will contact the publisher to schedule the meeting. Publishers are welcome to invite any stakeholders that understand the product and the content submitted in the process. Publishers will need to notify ������ of how many stakeholders were invited to the meeting, and if any of the stakeholders are legal counsel.  

Show-cause appeals meetings are held virtually. The meetings are presided over by ������ staff from the Standards and Program and District Operations, Technology, and Sustainability divisions. ������ staff will provide publishers with additional information and updates about the proceedings. 

During the meeting, publishers will present the following for each citation being appealed:

• The exact language of the breakout aligned to
• The content cited as evidence of alignment
• Whether the content was intended to satisfy a narrative or activity requirement
• The reasons for rejection supplied by the review team
• Rationale for why the citation(s) should have been accepted

This is not a forum to introduce new content, to cite a new location within the existing materials, or raise concerns about specific reviewers, the review cycle, or ������ staff. Instead, the purpose of the meeting is to justify how the originally submitted content aligns to the applicable standards.  

Sample Agenda: 

• 5 minutes for procedures.
• 5 minutes for introductions. 
• 20–50 minutes on content presentations from the publisher (time varies and is dependent upon the number of appeals).
• ������ staff deliberation. 

After the Hearing

Evidence submitted will be reviewed by staff to determine whether the material meets the requirements for approval eligibility.

Publishers will be notified of the outcome and any next steps within five business days.

Submit formal requests through the .

• Requests for products with scores between 65% and 74.99% after the initial review are due July 24, 2026, 5:00 p.m. CDT.
• Requests for products with scores between 90% and 99.99% after standards alignment appeals are due August 14, 2026, 5:00 p.m. CDT.

Be sure to include the following information in your request: 

• Product title
• ISBN
• Subject area
• Grade level