A protester wearing a #RejectFinanceBill2024 shirt holds the Kenyan flag during a demonstration in Nairobi. Photo by MC G’Zay, Pexels.

Bible verses and stories will become required reading for more than 5 million K-12 public school students in Texas after the State Board of Education approved a statewide literary works list on June 26. The Republican-controlled board adopted the mandatory reading list in a 9-5 vote.

When the mandate takes effect, first-grade students will be required to read “Jonah and the Whale,” while fifth graders will study the story of Moses through chapters 3 and 14 of the Book of Exodus. Seventh graders will read Psalm 23 and the Beatitudes, and English II students will study 15 chapters from the Book of Job.

Psalm 23 and the Beatitudes will be read in the King James Version, while the selections from Exodus and the Book of Job will use the New International Reader’s Version. Other required readings include passages from the English Standard Version and the Jewish Publication Society’s 1917 Tanakh.

Religion in Texas Public Schools

On November 22, 2024, the Texas State Board of Education approved Bluebonnet Learning, a state-developed K-5 curriculum for English language arts and mathematics. The English language arts materials combine reading instruction with lessons drawn from history, science, art, and religion, including Bible stories and Christian references.

Republican state Rep. Brad Buckley introduced House Bill 1605 in 2023 to expand access to state-approved instructional materials, reduce the amount of time teachers spend creating lessons, and give parents greater access to classroom materials. The law directed the Texas Education Agency to develop state-owned textbooks for statewide use and submit them to the State Board of Education for approval. The agency later named those materials Bluebonnet Learning.

The State Board of Education approved the English language arts portion of Bluebonnet by an 8-7 vote, with all eight supporting votes coming from Republican members, while the four Democratic members and three Republicans opposed it.

Republican State Board of Education member Will Hickman defended the curriculum during the board’s debate by arguing that the biblical stories would build students’ cultural knowledge. “In my view, these stories are on the education side and are establishing cultural literacy,” Hickman said. “And there’s religious concepts like the Good Samaritan and the Golden Rule and Moses that all students should be exposed to,” he added.

Democratic State Board of Education members Staci Childs and Marisa Pérez-Díaz were among those who voted against the curriculum. Childs argued that the materials should not be approved until concerns about their factual accuracy and compliance with the Establishment Clause had been resolved, while Pérez-Díaz said she found value in portions of Bluebonnet but opposed what she viewed as its Christian bias. The three Republican members who voted against it raised separate concerns about whether the curriculum was age-appropriate, sufficiently focused on reading instruction, and likely to improve student achievement.

School districts are not required to use Bluebonnet, but those that adopt the state-approved curriculum may receive up to $60 per student, including additional funding to purchase printed copies of the Bluebonnet Learning materials. More than 300 districts and charter schools indicated that they would use the curriculum during the 2025-26 school year, representing about one-quarter of the state’s public school systems.

By February 2026, teachers and education officials had identified thousands of needed corrections across the Bluebonnet curriculum, including factual and grammatical errors, incorrect answer keys, formatting problems, and images with copyright or licensing concerns. The Texas Education Agency, which publishes Bluebonnet Learning, compiled the proposed revisions and submitted them to the State Board of Education for approval. The board approved the changes in an 8-6 vote.

Bluebonnet remains optional for school districts, while the Literary Works List will become part of the required state standards. Districts may decline to use the Bible-infused Bluebonnet lessons, but they will not be able to exclude the biblical selections included on the statewide reading list

On June 20, 2025, Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 10, requiring public elementary and secondary schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Senate Bill 10 was among more than 600 bills Abbott signed into law during the final days of the legislative session. After signing the legislation, Abbott said the measures would “safeguard the individual freedoms that our great state was founded on.”

Families from religious and nonreligious backgrounds challenged Senate Bill 10 in Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, arguing that the required Ten Commandments displays violated the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. On April 21, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld Senate Bill 10 in a 9-7 decision, although the plaintiffs said they planned to ask the Supreme Court to review the case.

The required reading list now joins Bluebonnet Learning and the Ten Commandments mandate as the third major Texas policy in recent years to place biblical material more directly into public school classrooms.

The Case for Biblical Literacy

The State Board of Education described the required reading list as part of an effort to increase literacy standards and connect the works students read with the historical events they study. In its announcement following the June 26 vote, the board said it had taken a “classical approach” by selecting enduring works that have influenced literature and history.

Republican State Board of Education member Brandon Hall defended the biblical selections more directly by pointing to their influence on American society. Hall argued that “understanding key biblical passages is really important to a complete education” because of their effect on “our culture, our laws, and our history as Texans and Americans.”

Nathan Irving, a pastor and father of eight from Myrtle Springs, Texas, made a similar argument before the State Board of Education, stating that the biblical selections would give students necessary context for understanding the country’s history and values. “This country and this state were founded upon a Christian worldview, and like it or not, it is true,” he said.

The Supreme Court addressed the academic study of scripture in School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, its 1963 decision striking down state-sponsored Bible readings and recitations of the Lord’s Prayer in public schools. In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that public schools could not require devotional Bible readings or recitations of the Lord’s Prayer, even when parents were allowed to excuse their children from participating.

The Court nevertheless acknowledged in its ruling that “the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities” and that an objective study of the Bible or religion could be conducted consistently with the First Amendment. It also noted that students could not meaningfully study many subjects in the humanities and social sciences without examining religion and its influence on civilization.

Whether Texas complies with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Schempp will depend on how the required passages are presented in the classroom—lessons focused on literary and historical analysis would align more closely with the study permitted by the Court, while readings used for devotional or moral instruction could raise constitutional concerns.

First Amendment Concerns

Rabbi Josh Fixler of Congregation Emanu El in Houston told the State Board of Education that the reading list would force teachers to cross the line between teaching about religion and teaching religion. “This list is a tool of proselytization that has no place in our public schools,” Fixler said.

Megan Boyden, a Christian mother from Denton, Texas, raised concerns about allowing the state to determine how scripture is presented to her children. “It is my right and responsibility to teach our family’s religion,” Boyden told the board. She questioned whether teachers might interpret biblical passages in ways that conflict with her family’s beliefs and asked how the requirements would affect non-Christian students.

Rabbi David Segal, policy counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, argued that the board was taking away the freedom of conscience and religious liberty of students, parents, and teachers. He also said the mandate centers evangelical Christian perspectives while excluding the histories and contributions of other religious communities.

The U.S. Department of Education’s February 2026 guidanceallows public schools to teach religious texts as literature and examine the role of religion in history. It also states that schools may not provide religious instruction, promote religious views in their official capacity, or favor one religion over another.

Texas’ mandate does not direct teachers to lead prayers or present the Bible as religious truth. The constitutional concern instead rests on the distinction between teaching about religion and providing religious instruction.Lessons focused on language, narrative structure, historical influence, and literary allusion would more closely resemble the academic study permitted in public schools. Lessons that encourage devotional interpretation or present biblical claims as fact would move closer to religious instruction.

Parents may request that their children be excused from readings that conflict with their religious or moral beliefs. The Literary Works List will also become part of the state’s English language arts standards, which may be used to develop standardized tests. Students who opt out could therefore still encounter questions based on the required material.

The experiences of students from non-Christian backgrounds have also become part of the debate. Critics argue that requiring biblical passages across multiple grade levels without comparable attention to other faiths could make Christianity appear more central to the state’s understanding of literature, history, and American identity. Supporters maintain that the selections reflect the Bible’s influence on Western literature rather than an effort to promote Christian belief.

Implementing the Reading Mandate

Elementary schools will begin using the required reading list during the 2030-31 school year, with middle and high school requirements introduced later under the state’s phased implementation plan. The delay gives school districts time to purchase the required texts, revise their English language arts curricula, and prepare teachers to present the biblical selections alongside the other works on the list.

School districts and charter schools will be responsible for purchasing the required materials without new funding dedicated specifically to the reading list. The Texas Association of School Boards raised concerns about those costs before the final vote and asked the board to make clear that districts would have no obligation to begin purchasing or teaching the works before the 2030-31 school year.

Teachers will be allowed to assign works beyond those selected by the state, but the required texts will become part of the English language arts standards followed by Texas public schools and open-enrollment charter schools. The biblical selections could also shape future instructional materials and assessments developed around those standards.

The way teachers present the passages will likely determine whether the mandate remains within the constitutional boundaries described by the Supreme Court and the Department of Education. Lessons focused on language, literary influence, and historical context would resemble the academic study of religion permitted in public schools, while devotional instruction or the promotion of religious belief could invite legal challenges.

Texas has placed scripture on a mandatory reading list, but the policy’s effect will not be clear until it reaches classrooms. Its implementation will show whether the state can require students to study biblical passages as literature without using public education to advance a particular faith.

Author Bio: Efrata Eshetu is a third-year undergraduate student at Middlebury College, where she majors in International Politics and Economics and minors in Global Health. Her academic interests center on African migration, women’s rights, and the intersection of religion and policymaking across the continent.