BILL ANALYSIS
AB 314
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 314 (Brownley) - As Amended: April 20, 2009
SUBJECT : Instructional materials
SUMMARY : Makes various changes to the state instructional
materials (IM) adoption process, and provides flexibility to
districts in the purchase of IM. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the list of state-approved instructional materials be
made available to school districts and be posted on the
California Department of Education's (CDE) Internet Web site
and requires the list includes information from the
assessments or reports of findings and recommendations from
the expert reviewers and evaluators of instructional
materials, as specified.
2)Deletes the requirements that the Curriculum Development and
Supplemental Materials Commission (Curriculum Commission):
a) Study and evaluate instructional materials, and
b) Recommend to the State Board of Education (SBE)
instructional materials for adoption.
3)Allows school districts that receive funds from the
Instructional Materials Funding Realignment (IMFR) program to
submit, as specified, names of individuals to be considered to
serve in the review and evaluation of IM submitted for
adoption for use in kindergarten and grades one to eight,
inclusive (K-8).
4)Specifies that school districts choosing to submit
recommendations of individuals shall ensure that at least one
of the individuals is a credentialed teacher and that all
individuals have experience with and expertise in the content
field under review and requires the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI) to verify that the individuals recommended
by school districts have expertise in the content field under
consideration.
5)Requires the SPI to conduct a random lottery to select
individuals to serve as instructional materials reviewers and
AB 314
Page 2
content review experts from the recommendations made by school
districts and requires the SPI to ensure:
a) The selected reviewers reflect the ethnic groups, types
of school districts and regions in California;
b) The selected reviewers have experience in providing
instruction to English language learners and pupils with
disabilities; and,
c) A majority of the reviewers are credentialed classroom
instructors.
6)Extends the IM purchasing requirement from 24 to 36 months
following an adoption.
7)Requires the SBE to hold a public meeting prior to the meeting
at which it is scheduled to adopt IM recommended by the
instructional materials reviewers and content review experts.
8)Requires the adoption of procedures to ensure that the SBE
considers price as one factor in the adoption of instructional
materials only after recommendations are submitted to the SBE
based on content standards alignment, approved evaluation
criteria, and quality.
9)Requires publishers to furnish instructional materials in an
electronic format at a price that is less than the price
charged for the printed version and exempts a small publisher,
as defined, from this requirement.
10)Requires the electronic versions of instructional materials
to contain at least the same content as the printed version
and allows for the materials to be copy-protected.
11)Requires publishers to provide any equipment or technology
associated with the use of instructional materials free of
charge to the same extent as they are provided to other states
or districts in the United States (U.S.).
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the SBE to adopt basic IM for use in K-8 and requires
the Curriculum Commission to perform several duties including
studying and evaluating IM and recommending to the SBE IM
which it approves for adoption.
AB 314
Page 3
2)Requires pupils be provided with standards-aligned textbooks
or basic IM by the beginning of the first school term that
commences no later than 24 months after those materials were
adopted by the SBE and authorizes SBE to grant school
districts additional time to meet this requirement if
specified criteria are met.
3)Provides that IM may be submitted for adoption not less than
two times every six years in the following subjects: language
arts, mathematics, science, social science, bilingual or
bicultural subjects, and not less than two times every eight
years in any other subject for which the SBE determines the
adoption of IM to be necessary or desirable.
4)Provides that upon making an adoption of basic IM, the SBE is
required to make available to listed publishers and
manufacturers and all school interests, a list of those IM by
subject and grade level.
5)Establishes the IMFR program administered by the SPI under
which school districts are apportioned funds to ensure that
each pupil is provided a standards-aligned textbook or basic
instructional materials, as adopted by the SBE or the local
governing board.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : The process for adopting IM for use in K-8 is long
and complex. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) released a
report in May 2007 titled, "Reforming California's Instructional
Materials Adoption Process," which found that the existing
adoption process is "a complex maze of activities."
The LAO finds that the current process involves many agencies
and groups, many of whom duplicate functions, thereby inflating
instructional material costs. The first step in the process is
the development or revision of curriculum frameworks and
evaluation criteria in the subject area of adoption. A
Curriculum Framework and Criteria Committee (CFCC) is selected
to draft the framework and present it to the Curriculum
Commission. The Curriculum Commission Subject Matter Committee
(SMC), which is separate from the CFCC, conducts a field review
process and makes necessary revisions before approving the
framework and criteria and before submitting this document to
the SBE for approval. The time involved for this process is
AB 314
Page 4
approximately 18 months. Upon adoption of the framework and
criteria publishers are invited to submit materials for adoption
and textbooks are required to be adopted by the SBE 30 months
after the approval of the framework and evaluation criteria.
The process for reviewing IM involves the selection of IM
reviewers and content experts who will review the materials for
standards alignment and content accuracy in conformity with the
framework and criteria. The Curriculum Commission, through an
application process, selects individuals to serve in the review
of the IM. Training is provided to the content experts and
reviewers in preparation for the review and subsequent
deliberation sessions. A report of findings is submitted by the
reviewers to the Curriculum Commission which may include a
recommendation for adoption, adoption with minor corrections and
edits, adoption for a narrower range of grade levels than
requested by the publisher, or rejection. The Curriculum
Commission simultaneously reviews all submitted programs and
once recommendations are submitted by the content experts and
reviewers, the Commission holds a public meeting prior to
submitting its recommendations to the SBE. Both the
recommendations from the Curriculum Commission and from and the
field reviewers are submitted to the SBE for final action. The
legal compliance review, also known as the "social content
review," is conducted simultaneously to the content review to
ensure that all instructional resources used in California
public schools are in compliance with the Education Code
requirements and guidelines adopted by CDE.
Streamlining the process : This bill seeks to remove the
Curriculum Commission from the IM adoption process, as
recommended by the LAO to streamline this complex process. The
Curriculum Commission will continue to exist and will be
primarily responsible for developing and revising curriculum
frameworks and criteria. This bill proposes to leave the IM
review process entirely up to the content experts, IM reviewers
and the SBE. The content experts and IM reviewers spend a
considerable amount of time reviewing the submitted materials
and conduct a lengthy and thorough session to deliberate and
make recommendations. This bill will simply remove one layer of
this complex process. The LAO asserts 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
AB 314
Page 5
materials costs."
Increase district participation and transparency : This bill
increases district participation in the state review process by
allowing districts that receive funds from the IMFR fund, to
submit names of eligible individuals that could be selected to
participate in the review of IM. The SPI would be responsible
for the selection of the experts and reviewers through a random
lottery selection process. The intent is to expand the pool of
candidates that could serve as content experts and IM reviewers
and ensure that those reviewers possess diverse viewpoints and
backgrounds. These experts would make their recommendations on
IM directly to the SBE.
After textbooks are adopted by the state, local educational
agencies (LEAs) have the authority and the responsibility to
conduct their own evaluation of IM and to adopt the materials
that best meet the needs of their students. The LAO report
suggests that districts are given virtually no information they
can use 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 this lack of information, this bill
requires that the report of findings from the content experts
and reviewers involved in the process along with specified
information is made available to districts and posted on CDE's
Internet Web site.
Flexibility in purchase of materials and cost consideration :
The LAO's report also states that California's separate six and
eight-year adoption cycles for seven academic subjects requires
the state to conduct review activities every year and results in
school districts having to buy new IM in at least one subject
conceivably every year. The SBE adopted history-social science
textbooks in 2005, science in 2006, mathematics in 2007 and
reading language arts in 2008. Districts have argued that it is
very difficult to keep up with all the textbook purchases that
have to be made almost every year as a result of the frequent
adoptions and the tight 24 month purchasing requirement.
Additionally, districts invest substantial time and effort in
training teachers on newly acquired instructional materials.
The process of training all teachers in a district could take up
to three years to complete, which means that school districts
AB 314
Page 6
only have one or two years to use the materials after fully
implementing these programs and training all its teachers. The
LAO points out that there is frustration in the field as result
of the frequency of the adoptions process which require
districts to "purchase 'new' materials just as their
professional development efforts seemed to be coming to fruition
and teachers were becoming expert in using the 'old' materials."
The escalation in textbook prices and reduced state funding
further exacerbates the problem. School districts currently
receive approximately $69.00 per student from the IMFR program
to purchase instructional materials. Arguments have been made
that the amount school districts receive for instructional
materials is not enough to cover the full cost of textbooks and
that often times this results in having to backfill with
unrestricted funds.
The SBE has been approving several waivers of the 24 month
purchasing provisions in the last few months, which indicates
that there is interest in extending the existing requirement to
36 months. Furthermore, as a result of recent budget action,
namely the enactment of SB 4 XXX (Ducheny), Chapter 12, Statutes
of 2009, districts are relieved from the 24 month purchasing
requirement, but this flexibility will sunset on July 1, 2010.
The result will be that districts will have an extra year to
purchase mathematics books that were adopted in 2007 but when
these provisions sunset, they could potentially end up having to
purchase two significantly large adoptions, math and reading
language/arts, by the beginning of the school term of 2010-2011.
This bill will permanently provide an additional year for
districts to purchase recently adopted IM. The extended time
period to purchase IM will also provide districts additional
time to pilot instructional materials and an additional year to
use existing materials without having the additional burden of
seeking a waiver through the SBE.
This bill also seeks to provide for the establishment of
procedures to ensure that the SBE considers price as one factor
in the adoption of IM but only after recommendations are
submitted to the SBE based on content standards alignment,
approved evaluation criteria, and quality. Requiring the SBE to
consider price as a factor in the adoption of instructional
materials may result in the adoption of instructional materials
that are less costly for districts.
AB 314
Page 7
Electronic versions of instructional materials : There is much
interest in incorporating technology into teaching and learning
and providing access to schools to new and emerging
technologies. In an effort to expand opportunities for
districts to incorporate technology, this bill seeks to expand
the availability of electronic versions of IM by requiring
publishers to make electronic versions of IM available to
districts at a price lower than the printed version, and allows
publishers to provide equipment or technology associated with
use of materials free of charge to the same extent that is
provided to any state or school district in the U.S.
School districts are authorized to use funds from the IMFR
program to purchase technology based materials, nevertheless
some arguments have been made that there is confusion in the
field as to whether a district can indeed use IMFR funds for
technology based or electronic versions of instructional
materials. The CDE's Website notes that Web-based or electronic
textbooks count as instructional materials, "But in order to
meet the definition of sufficient instructional materials
students need to have access to the materials both at school and
at home. This presumes that students with Web-based materials
have access to computers and the Internet in school and at home
and students with electronic textbooks have access to computers
in school and at home."
Committee amendment : The author wishes to add an amendment to
clarify in the code that technology-based instructional
materials are an allowable use of IMFR program funds.
This bill will afford flexibility to districts in the purchase
of IM and will help districts deal with some of the fiscal
pressures as result of the frequent adoption cycles, the rise in
costs of textbooks and the reduction in funds as result of the
fiscal problems facing the state. In addition, this bill
streamlines and increases transparency in the IM adoption
process to increase the number of IM options available to
districts.
Arguments in support : The Small School Districts' Association
writes, "AB 314 would provide school districts better
information for making purchasing decisions regarding
instructional materials. Additionally AB 314 would provide more
time for school districts to make these decisions. Current law
requires the purchasing decisions to be within 24 months or a
AB 314
Page 8
waiver can be requested. AB 314 would allow school districts up
to 36 months to make the purchasing decision."
Related legislation : AB 1398 (Blumenfield) changes the
definition of "technology-based materials," for purposes of the
instructional materials and testing part of the Education Code,
to include the electronic equipment required to make use of
those materials only if that equipment is to be used by pupils
and teachers as a learning resource. AB 1398 passed out of the
Assembly Education Committee on April 22, 2009.
Prior legislation : AB 2315 (Mullin) of 2008 makes various
changes to the instructional materials (IM) adoption process,
and provides flexibility and more information to districts in
the purchase of IM. AB 2315 was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger with the following message:
"The State Board of Education (SBE) recently addressed the issue
of greater transparency and clear timelines and procedures in
the instructional materials adoption process. Those SBE
regulations were intended to set forth the process by which the
SBE adopts curriculum frameworks, evaluation criteria, and
instructional materials. Moreover, I see no need to change the
process or the people involved in this important work. The SBE
should maintain the authority of selection and appointment of
instructional materials reviewers and content review experts."
AB 2468 (Brownley) Requires the SBE to adopt procedures
governing the adoption and purchase of instructional materials
used in kindergarten through eighth grade, including preventing
the consideration of costs in the early phases of the adoption
process and requiring the State Board to consider costs when
adopting instructional materials. AB 2468 was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger with the following message:
"I have vetoed similar legislation dealing with the cost of
instructional materials in prior years. Current law already
provides safeguards against California paying higher prices for
instructional materials than any other state or school district
in the entire country. Moreover, I continue to believe that
California should always focus on providing the highest quality
of educational materials for our students."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 314
Page 9
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Association of California School Administrators
San Diego County Office of Education
Santa Clara County Office of Education
Small School Districts' Association
Opposition
Association of American Publishers
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi?a / ED. / (916) 319-2087