Texas Bills Explained

2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

← Back to bills and search results

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB100

HB100 restricts schools' purchase and use of instructional materials that the State Board of Education places on its rejected-materials list.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the purchase, adoption, and use of instructional materials by public schools.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Leo Wilson, Buckley, Dutton, Davis, Aicha, Plesa. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB100 restricts schools’ purchase and use of instructional materials that the State Board of Education places on its rejected-materials list. It also requires advance notice and a revision opportunity before the board adds material to that list. Although signed and legally effective June 20, 2025, the act applies beginning with the 2026–27 school year. It covers materials placed or maintained on the rejected list on or after that school year, so it does not automatically grandfather every material rejected earlier. Final law; official history.

The law makes four connected changes:

  • Instructional-materials and technology allotment funds cannot buy material on the rejected list, adding to existing restrictions on obscene or harmful content and certification requirements.
  • School districts cannot adopt or otherwise use instructional material on that list.
  • Districts and open-enrollment charter schools can adopt or use open educational resources only if they are not on the list. These resources are public-domain or openly licensed teaching and learning materials; being free or openly licensed does not exempt them.
  • Districts and open-enrollment charter schools cannot use local funds to purchase material on the list. Paying with local money does not avoid this restriction.

Final law, Sections 1 and 3–5; Education Code Chapter 31 definitions and framework.

Rejected is not the same as merely unapproved. The preexisting law directs the board to maintain an approved list and allows it to place unapproved materials on a separate rejected list. HB100 ties its new restrictions to actual inclusion on the rejected list; it does not say every material absent from the approved list is automatically prohibited. Nor does it identify individual books or products in the statute. Education Code Section 31.022; final law.

At least 45 days before the board intends to add a material to the rejected list, it must put the material on a proposed-rejection list and issue a proclamation requesting revision before the 45-day period ends. A revision opportunity is not a guarantee of approval. The statute concerns instructional materials, a defined category that includes print and digital classroom resources; it should not be treated as a complete statement of every school-library rule. Final law, Section 2; Chapter 31.

What changed along the way?

The filed bill already contained the central purchase/use restrictions, initially for the 2025–26 school year. The House committee reported that text without amendment. Two adopted floor amendments shaped the final law:

  • Buckley and Leo Wilson’s House amendment, April 15: added the 45-day proposed-rejection list and request for revision.
  • Middleton’s Senate amendment, May 27: delayed applicability to 2026–27 and specified that materials placed or maintained on the rejected list on or after that school year are covered.

Both changes appear in the enrolled text. The House concurred in the Senate amendment on May 29; there was no conference compromise. Filed text; House amendment; Senate amendment; amendment index; version index.

The final House concurrence vote was 112–28 with one present but not voting; the Senate vote was 27–4. Those votes supported immediate legal effect, but did not erase the separate 2026–27 application date. Enrolled certifications.

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Students and families may benefit when the state’s rejection decisions prevent use of unsuitable materials. Publishers receive advance notice and time to revise materials before rejection. Those are intended safeguards, not proof that every rejection improves learning or that every revision will succeed.

Districts lose the option of continuing to use rejected instructional material or buying it with local funds; affected charter-school purchases and open-resource use are also restricted. Schools already using a rejected product may need replacements and staff time to change instruction. Publishers face revision costs or lost sales, and teachers may have fewer options among rejected products.

The final fiscal note anticipates no significant state fiscal impact, assuming costs can be absorbed with existing resources. For local government, it specifically says districts currently using a rejected product must comply with the limitations; it does not quantify replacement costs or promise there will be none. This review explains the enacted framework, not the current status of every product on the board’s lists or every district’s compliance. Final fiscal note.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.