BILL ANALYSIS �
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 Avi�a / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0003047