BILL ANALYSIS Ķ AB 1246 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 1246 (Brownley) As Amended January 23, 2012 Majority vote EDUCATION 6-4 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, | | |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, | |Bradford, Charles | | |Eng | |Calderon, Campos, | | | | |Chesbro, Gatto, Hall, | | | | |Hill, Ammiano, Mitchell, | | | | |Solorio | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Norby, Beth Gaines, |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, | | |Halderman, Wagner | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Revises the process for adopting instructional materials for use in kindergarten and grades 1-8, inclusive (K-8). Specifically, this bill : 1)Authorizes school districts and requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), instead of the Instructional Quality Commission (IQC), to recommend to the State Board of Education (SBE) instructional materials for review and adoption, and requires the following: a) Instructional materials recommended by the SPI or by a school district to meet existing criteria, as specified; b) Recommendations submitted from the SPI and school districts to include reports of findings that include information regarding alignment of standards, program organization, pupil assessments, teacher support, and support for English learners and pupils with disabilities; and, c) Instructional material review committees convened by a school district for the purpose of making recommendations to consist of a majority of classroom teachers serving pupils in the grade in which the instructional materials are to be used. AB 1246 Page 2 2)Makes the instructional materials adoption cycles eight years long for all content areas and authorizes the submission of materials on a continuous basis, but authorizes the California Department of Education (CDE) to assess a fee to a publisher to conduct a review if those materials are submitted after a timeframe specified by the SBE. 3)Authorizes publishers to submit materials to the SPI and to school districts and authorizes school districts to submit district developed or published materials to the SBE. 4)Provides that the process of reviewing instructional materials shall involve review committees that shall include, but shall not be limited to, volunteer content experts and reviewers that include a majority of classroom teachers. 5)Specifies that the rules and procedures for the adoption of instructional materials shall be transparent and consistently applicable regardless of the format of the instructional materials, which may include, but not be limited to, print, digital, and open-source instructional materials. 6)Deletes the requirement that the IQC review and recommend instructional materials for adoption, and instead, authorizes, at the request of the SBE, the IQC to review instructional materials reports of findings, hear appeals, and give independent advice to the SBE on instructional materials. 7)Specifies that the provisions in 6) above shall not be implemented unless funds are available in the Budget Act for the IQC. 8)Requires the SBE to hold a public hearing before adopting instructional materials for use in the elementary schools of the state. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, on-going General Fund administrative costs to the CDE, likely between $150,000 and $250,000, to review instructional materials submitted by the SPI and school districts and to conduct an appeals process. Actual costs will depend on the number of instructional materials submitted and the number of appeals. This bill prohibits CDE from implementing the new requirements associated with the IQC until funding is provided for these purposes. AB 1246 Page 3 COMMENTS : With the adoption of the common core academic content standards, the state must ensure all students have access to these recently adopted standards. AB 250 (Brownley), Chapter 608, Statutes of 2011, started a comprehensive process for implementing the common core standards, through the development of curriculum frameworks and model professional development modules. A prior version of AB 250 also sought to improve the instructional materials adoption process, but those provisions were amended out of the bill in the Senate, at the request of the Administration for further deliberation. This bill contains the provisions that were amended out of AB 250. This bill makes changes to streamline the instructional materials adoption process and give school districts the opportunity to participate in the review of instructional materials. The current adoption process has been suspended until the 2015-16 school year, thus no instructional material adoptions have taken place since the 2008 Reading Language Arts adoption. A temporary measure, SB 140 (Lowenthal), Chapter 623, Statutes of 2011, was enacted to ensure availability of supplemental instructional materials that are aligned to the common core academic content standards during the time of the adoption suspension. The author's intent is to have an improved process in place by the time the state restarts the adoption of instructional materials. Revising the K-8 instructional materials adoption process: The K-8 instructional materials adoption process has been criticized for being overly complex and not giving school districts enough flexibility and options for instructional materials. This bill modifies the role of the IQC, formerly the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission, in the instructional materials adoption process, and requires the SPI and allows school districts to submit recommendations to the SBE for the adoption of instructional materials, instead of the IQC. The IQC will continue to exist but will be primarily responsible for developing and revising curriculum frameworks and criteria, and will have a limited role in the adoption of instructional materials at the request of the SBE. This bill authorizes the SBE to request the IQC to review reports of findings prepared by the SPI or school districts and review instructional materials, as necessary. The IQC will also serve as an appeals panel when disputes emerge and in such cases, give independent advice to the SBE on whether instructional materials meet the required criteria. AB 1246 Page 4 The Legislative Analyst's Office notes in a 2007 report titled, "Reforming California's Instructional Materials Adoption Process," that removing the Curriculum Commission from the process "would constrain the state-level tendencies to override the evaluation decision of teachers and other experts. In so doing, it likely would increase the number of district options and reduce instructional materials costs." This bill will give school districts the opportunity to participate in the process of reviewing and adopting instructional materials and in turn would provide more flexibility and options for school districts. The intent of this provision is to provide for a process that is similar to the process used in the adoption of high school instructional materials, whereby local school districts review and adopt their own materials. However because the California Constitution requires the SBE to adopt instructional materials for use in K-8, this bill maintains the authority for the SBE to approve or reject instructional materials submitted by school districts. A public and transparent process: The existing process involves content experts and field reviewers that make recommendations based on the extensive reviews they conduct. The intent is to continue a similar open and public process that the SPI would coordinate. Together the SPI and school districts would have the opportunity to make recommendations that would in turn potentially result in a comprehensive list of state-adopted instructional materials that gives several program options for school districts to choose from. After textbooks are adopted by the SBE, school districts have to conduct their own evaluation of instructional materials and to select the materials that best meet the needs of their students. Districts are given virtually no information to compare the state-adopted materials when they conduct their own reviews. This results in school districts spending additional time and resources to duplicate, in many instances, the efforts of experts who have already reviewed materials at the state level. To address the lack of information and to increase transparency, this bill requires a report of findings from school districts or the SPI along with specified information be made available to districts and posted on CDE's Internet Web site. For purposes of transparency, this bill also requires the SBE to hold a public meeting prior to the adoption of instructional materials. Additionally, arguments have been made that the current adoption AB 1246 Page 5 process stifles rather than stimulates innovation, and that an ongoing or rolling process might provide opportunities to update materials more efficiently. To that end, this bill allows for the continuous submission of instructional materials, but would authorize the SBE to specify a timeframe during an eight year cycle during which the reviews would be conducted per existing practice of not charging a review fee, and after that specified timeframe, publishers would be assessed a fee to have their materials reviewed. This is similar to how follow-up adoptions were handled in the past. Given that no adoptions are taking place at the present moment, the timing for the changes proposed by this bill may be appropriate, and disruptions are not likely to occur as a result of this bill. Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Aviņa / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0003047