Texas’ ‘Bible-Infused’ Public School Curriculum Raises Church-State Questions

Introduction

Our nation and its public schools are more religiously diverse than ever before in U.S. history. While Christianity is still the majority religion (62%), its population share has declined. Around one-third of Americans are now either non-Christians (7%) or religiously unaffiliated (29%). Moreover, the Christian population — already quite disparate at the time of the nation’s founding — now consists of myriad denominations and nondenominational communities that differ among themselves over theology, morality, politics, and other issues.^[1]

Given that public schools are called to serve this increasingly varied community, education policy should — as I have written elsewhere — “ensure equal educational opportunity for all students regardless of creed by promoting curricula that include balanced and accurate instruction about major religions and do not seek to weaken church-state separation or promote one religion over others.”^[2]

Despite America’s diversified religious make-up, beginning this year Texas public school districts will have to decide whether to adopt a new Reading and Language Arts (RLA) curriculum for kindergarten through 5th grade (K-5), a curriculum that is anything but diverse in its religious coverage.^[3] Scholars and journalists nationwide have called attention to the Bible-infused character of what the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has named the “Bluebonnet Learning RLA” curriculum.^[4] The moniker “Bible-infused” is certainly accurate, given that the curriculum:

• Requires kindergarteners to read from and discuss Genesis creation and flood stories.
• Includes an activity requiring students to identify the order in which God created various beings.
• Devotes extensive coverage to the biblical story of Queen Esther, portraying it as historical, though many scholars interpret it as a fictional or symbolic narrative.
• Teaches third graders that Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles and was literally resurrected from the dead.
• Requires fifth graders to read a lengthy passage from the Christian Gospel of Matthew about the Last Supper.
• Covers Judaism almost exclusively in the context of its biblical period and makes only brief mentions of Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.
• Implies, when taken as a whole, that Christianity is more important than any other religious tradition.

A Sea Change in Educational Policy

The state’s adoption of the Bluebonnet RLA curriculum marks a sea change not only in educational policy but also in church-state relations in Texas public schools. For decades, religious content in Texas public schools (as well as nationally) has largely been restricted to middle and high school social studies courses, though it sometimes was referenced in English language arts, music, and AP art history courses. More substantial Bible content has traditionally only been found in elective high school level Bible courses offered in some school districts.^[5]

What is novel about the Bluebonnet RLA curriculum is that, in those districts that adopt it, one religious community’s sacred text — the Bible — becomes a major component in what Texas students as young as 5 years old and as old as 12 are required to study in the public schools. In addition, they would study the Bible largely in the absence of texts and teachings from other religions that make up contemporary society in Texas and nationally.

A Political Victory for Christian Nationalists

The state’s adoption of the Bluebonnet RLA curriculum marks a substantial victory for Christian conservatives and Christian nationalists (who seek to give privileged status to conservative Christianity in education, law, and public policy).^[6] For decades, these religiopolitical factions have been advocating that the Bible be elevated to a place of primacy in public schools — to “put the Bible back in classrooms,” to quote outspokenly Christian nationalist Oklahoma education secretary Ryan Walters, who in 2024 unilaterally mandated that teachers in his state teach the Bible.^[7] Indeed, the adoption of this curriculum in Texas comes as part of a broader national challenge to church-state separation in public education — a movement marked by legislative efforts mandating that students read the Bible and the prominent display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms.^[8]

Texas state Senator Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston) spoke for many like-minded lawmakers earlier this year, when he introduced a bill mandating that public schools provide a period of prayer and Bible reading, saying, “Our schools are not God-free zones. … We are a state and nation built on ‘In God We Trust.’ … There is no such thing as ‘separation of church and state’ in our Constitution.”^[9]

National Implications of Christian Bias

As this paper will show, adopting the Bible-infused Bluebonnet RLA curriculum in Texas raises significant concerns for the nation’s long tradition of church-state separation.^[10] This development may have far-reaching implications for Texas students, parents, teachers, and taxpayers — and could also affect the vitality of religion across the U.S.

Given these impacts, this paper addresses the following questions:

• What is the Bluebonnet RLA curriculum, how was it developed, and how did it take on its Bible-infused character?
• In what sense does its adoption mark a sea change in education policy in Texas?
• How have supporters and critics responded to the curriculum?
• Was the adoption of this curriculum a mistake?
• What are the broader implications of this curriculum for Texas and nationally?

Before turning to these questions, it is helpful to offer some context — specifically, background on the history of Bible use in U.S. public schools.

View the full paper (PDF).

Author’s Note

Please note that my criticism of the presentation of Christianity and religion in the Bluebonnet RLA curriculum should not be mistaken for criticism of either Christianity or religion. I am myself a Christian (Episcopalian), and I have devoted much of my life, personal as well as academic, to Christian theological reflection as well as the study of religion and individual denominations. In addition, the views expressed in this research paper are my own views and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy or those of Texas Christian University.

Notes

^[1] Gregory A. Smith et al., “Decline of Christianity in the U.S. Has Slowed, May Have Leveled Off,” Pew Research Center, February 26, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/decline-of-christianity-in-the-us-has-slowed-may-have-leveled-off/.

^[2] David R. Brockman, “Keep Religious Diversity in Public Education,” Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, September 23, 2024, https://doi.org/10.25613/9qye-rm24.

^[3] Texas Education Agency, “Bluebonnet Learning K–5 Reading Language Arts, Edition 1,” accessed June 11, 2025, https://tea.texas.gov/academics/instructional-materials/tea-available-materials/bluebonnet-learning-k-5-english-language-arts-and-reading.

^[4] Pooja Salhotra and Robert Downen, “Texas Education Leaders Unveil Bible-Infused Elementary School Curriculum,” Texas Tribune, May 30, 2024, https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/30/texas-public-schools-religion-curriculum/; Linda Jacobson, “Bible-Infused Curriculum Sparks Texas-Sized Controversy Over Christianity in the Classroom,” The 74, June 7, 2024, https://www.the74million.org/article/bible-infused-curriculum-sparks-texas-sized-controversy-over-christianity-in-the-classroom/; Jaden Edison, “State Board of Education Fields Concerns About Christian Bias in Proposed K–12 Curriculum,” Texas Tribune, June 27, 2024, https://www.texastribune.org/2024/06/27/texas-sboe-bible-k12-school-curriculum/.

^[5] Mark A. Chancey, private communication to author, March 26, 2025. For a more detailed study of Bible coverage in the K–12 curriculum nationwide, see Mark A. Chancey, “The Bible and the Curriculum of American Public Schools (K–12) in the Twenty-First Century,” in The Bible in the American Experience, edited by David Shefferman and Claudia Setzer (SBL Press, 2020). For more information on religion content in the social studies curriculum, see David R. Brockman, “Religious Imbalance in the Texas Social Studies Curriculum: Analysis and Recommendations,” Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, October 21, 2016, https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/religious-imbalance-texas-social-studies-curriculum. For information about Bible electives in Texas, see Mark A. Chancey, “Sectarian Elements in Public School Bible Courses: Lessons from the Lone Star State,” Journal of Church and State 49, no. 4 (2007): 719–742, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/49.4.719.

^[6] Andrew L. Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry, Taking America Back For God: Christian Nationalism in the United States (Oxford University Press, 2020). According to Whitehead and Perry, Christian nationalism contends that America has been and always should be “Christian,” with “Christian” defined as more than merely religious and including assumptions of nativism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and heteronormativity, along with divine sanction for authoritarian control and militarism. In addition, a recent report on Christian nationalism by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) measures adherence to this ideology according to levels of agreement with five statements: “The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation; U.S. laws should be based on Christian values; If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore; Being Christian is an important part of being truly American;” and “God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society” (Public Religion Research Institute, “A Christian Nation? Understanding the Threat of Christian Nationalism to American Democracy and Culture,” February 8, 2023, https://www.prri.org/research/a-christian-nation-understanding-the-threat-of-christian-nationalism-to-american-democracy-and-culture/).

^[7] Ruth Graham, “Bible Teaching in Every Classroom? In Oklahoma, Few Signs It’s Happening,” New York Times, August 22, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/us/ryan-walters-oklahoma-bible-mandate-disputes.html.

^[8] For a survey of such legislation in Texas and other states, see Erik Ortiz, “Texas Bills Would Allow Ten Commandments and Bible Reading in Public Schools,” NBC News, February 11, 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/texas-bills-allow-ten-commandments-bible-reading-public-schools-rcna191641.

^[9] Pavan Acharya and Robert Downen, “In Quest to Infuse More Religion Into Texas Schools, Advocates Say Courts Are Now On Their Side,” Texas Tribune, February 12, 2025, https://www.texastribune.org/2025/02/12/texas-ten-commandments-school-prayer/.

^[10] The author of this paper defines separation of church and state as a constitutional principle summarizing the Constitution’s approach to religion and to religion-state relations, especially as embodied in the no religious test clause of Article VI as well as the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. As the late Ron Flowers of Texas Christian University noted in a 2004 article, separation of church and state means that the government has no say in what a religion teaches or how it is practiced, with the proviso that religious practice may not harm the public welfare. It also means that every person in this country is free to practice his or her religion “[but] that one may not use the state as an instrument to practice that religion. And that means that all Americans … are entitled to not have the government or any agent of government impose religion upon them” (Ron Flowers, “Church-State Separation — It's Nothing to Sneeze At,” Church & State 57, no. 5 [2004]). The author of this paper recognizes, however, that the term is an essentially contested one. In her entry on separation of church and state in The Oxford Companion to American Politics, Melissa Rogers writes that the phrase is most commonly used to refer to the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase in 1802, and the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently adopted it. Rogers goes on to note that church-state separation is a well-known phrase with a rich history in American public life. Part of that history, however, has been a vigorous debate about the meaning of the phrase. (Melissa Rogers, “Church and State, Separation of,” in The Oxford Companion to American Politics 2, edited by David Coates [Oxford University Press, 2012]).

This publication was produced on behalf of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Wherever feasible, the material was reviewed by external experts prior to its release. Any errors are the responsibility of the author(s) alone.

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author(s) and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.