BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1246
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 19, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1246 (Brownley) - As Amended: January 4, 2012
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:6-4
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill makes the following revisions to the K-12
instructional materials (IM) adoption process:
1)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), and
authorizes school districts, to submit K-8 IM for review to
the State Board of Education (SBE) every eight years. Further
requires the SBE to adopt or reject submissions within six
months, as specified.
2)Requires the State Department of Education (SDE) to assess a
fee on a publisher or manufacturer submitting IM for review by
the SPI after the specified timeframe.
3)Requires the process for reviewing IM to involve review
committees, which shall include content experts and classroom
teachers, as specified. Authorizes IM to include print,
digital, and open-source materials.
4)Requires the SPI and school districts, when recommending IM,
to include reports of findings that include information
regarding alignment of academic content standards, program
organization, pupil assessments, and support for English
learners and pupils with disabilities.
5)Requires the governing board of a school district who
recommends IM to the SBE to ensure that a majority of a review
committee is composed of classroom teachers, as specified.
6)Requires the Instructional Quality Commission (IQC) to do the
following: (a) review reports of findings submitted by the SPI
AB 1246
Page 2
or a school district and IM, as necessary; (b) hear appeals at
the request of the SBE; and (c) give independent advice to the
SBE about whether IM meet the evaluation criteria, as
specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
On-going GF administrative costs to the SDE, likely between
$150,000 and $250,000, to review IM submitted by the SPI and
school districts and to conduct an appeal process. Actual costs
will depend on the number of IM submitted and the number of
appeals.
Due to the enactment of AB 2 X4 (Evans), Chapter 2, Statutes of
2009, the governor vetoed $705,000 (GF) from the 2009-10 Budget
Act for the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials
Commission (CDSMC), now the IQC, which conducts the majority of
the work associated with IM adoptions. Specifically, the
governor stated, "it is unnecessary for the CDSMC to continue to
advise the SBE on content frameworks and IM adoptions for the
next five years or until an agreed-upon process is
reestablished. This reduction removes funding for unnecessary
commission per diem and travel as well as funding for SDE
staff." As a result, if this bill was enacted, a portion or all
of this funding would need to be restored.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . Current law requires the SBE to adopt basic IM in
the core academic content areas (English language arts,
mathematics, history/social science, and science) every six
years for use in grades K-8. It is also required to adopt
statewide academically rigorous content standards in the core
curriculum areas. These content standards are implemented
through the curriculum frameworks, as adopted by SBE. The
adopted IM must be consistent with the criteria and standards
of quality prescribed in the adopted curriculum frameworks.
Also, the governing board of each school district maintaining
one or more high schools is authorized to adopt IM for use in
the high schools (grades 9-12) under its control.
In May 2007, the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) released a
report entitled: Reforming California's Instructional
AB 1246
Page 3
Materials Adoption Process. Specifically, the LAO recommended
"the state continue to involve expert panels, SDE, SBE,
publishers, other advocates, and the general public in the
framework development and adoption process but eliminate the
role of the Curriculum Commission. This would be consistent
with the process used in most adoption states, which either do
not have such commissions or do not involve them in adoption
decisions. Removing the commission from the adoption process,
however, would streamline the process
significantly-eliminating virtually all of the existing
redundancies."
According to the author, "In light of the existing suspension
of the IM adoption process, it may be timely to review and
revise the state adoption process. This bill makes structural
changes to the instructional materials adoption process to
streamline the process and give school districts the
opportunity to participate in the review of instructional
materials."
2)The IQC , formerly known as the CDSMC, is an 18-member advisory
board to SBE. Commissioners tend to be recognized authorities
in a specific subject matter, professors, curriculum experts,
K-12 teachers, or community members. The commission advises
SBE on the K-12 curriculum frameworks and K-8 IM. In doing
so, it serves as a kind of intermediary between the field
experts and SBE. The commission holds a public hearing on a
framework after the Subject Matter Committee hearing and
before the SBE hearing on the framework. It also holds a
public hearing on each submitted IM after content panel
members develop their evaluation report and before SBE holds a
hearing to adopt the materials.
This bill proposes to limit the IQC in their participation in
the IM review process. Currently, the IQC reviews all
submitted IM and makes recommendations to the SBE. Under this
bill, the IQC would only review materials upon request by the
SBE.
3)AB 2 X4 (Evans), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009 , specified that
LEAs are not required to purchase IM through the 2012-13 FY.
AB 1246
Page 4
Consistent with the non-purchasing requirement, Chapter 2 also
suspended the requirement for SBE to adopt IM or conduct other
procedures associated with adoption (i.e., adopting curriculum
frameworks) until the 2013-14 school year. SB 70 (Committee on
Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 7, Statutes of 2011,
extended this suspension until the 2014-15 FY. This bill does
not require LEAs to purchase IM.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081