Skip to content
Printer-friendly version
Letter Head: Jack O'Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Phone number 916-319-0800

Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission

An advisory body to the California State Board of Education

Final Minutes of Meeting: February 20, 2007
(Approved on May 17, 2007)
Report of Action
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Curriculum Commissioners Present
Curriculum Commissioners Present via Teleconference
Mary-Alicia McRae, Chair Patricia Dixon (Departed 3:25 p.m.)
Connie Tate, Vice Chair Lucy Medina (Departed 3:25 p.m.)
Wendy Levine Richard Wagoner (Departed 1:00 p.m.)
Glee Johnson  
Dr. Charles Munger, Jr.  
Dr. RoseMary Parga Duran  
Becky Sullivan  
José Velasquez  
Curriculum Commissioners Absent:


John Brooks
Katherine Crawford
Michael Matsuda
Dr. Armida Ornelas
Kevin Wooldridge
Hon. Gene Mullin, Member of the Assembly
Hon. Jack Scott, Member of the Senate

Public:

Cheryl Wierwille, Glencoe McGraw-Hill
Shannon, UCLA

  1. Full Curriculum Commission
    1. Called to Order: 11:10 a.m. by Commission Chair McRae.
    2. Salute to the flag led by Commissioner Johnson.
    3. Overview of the Agenda
      Chair McRae reported on a change to the agenda. Under “Other Matters,” History-Social Science SMC Chair Matsuda requested to have a meeting of the SMC in March or April to prepare for the May Commission meeting agenda item of updating the History-Social Science Framework.
    4. Report of the Chair
      Chair McRae reported that she attended the SBE retreat on February 15, 2007. The SBE received important information on how standards came into being, the role of frameworks and instructional materials, and the necessity of assessment and accountability. The SBE heard from former Executive Directors of the SBE, a former CFIR Director, and a former Board member. All speakers stressed the coherence of the current system and the necessity of maintaining its current foundation. In addition, Chair McRae announced that the Curriculum Commission has a new legislative member, Gene Mullin, Chair of the Assembly Education Committee.
    5. Executive Director’s Report
      Thomas Adams reported that the Reading Language Arts Framework is now available for sale. CDE Press already has a preorder of 6,800 copies. He also reported that the Curriculum and Instruction Leadership Conference will be on February 21-23, 2007 in Pacific Grove. The conference is sponsored by the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association. The conference will focus on strategies for closing the achievement gap. In addition, the conference will feature the new Reading Language Arts Framework in preparation for the 2008 Reading Language Arts/English Language Development Primary Adoption.
    6. Mathematics Adoption (Information/Action)
      1. Content Review Panel (CRP) Applications
        The Commission discussed and then voted on the CRP applications received (for Cohort 3). Commissioner Levine moved to approve CRP applicants numbered 509, 515, 516 and 517. Commissioner Tate seconded the motion. There was no discussion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion was approved by a vote of the members present (10-0-1). One commissioner abstained from voting.
      2. Recruitment of additional CRPs
        The Commission discussed the need for 10 -15 more CRPs for the Mathematics Adoption. Commissioner Velasquez moved to empower the Chair of the Mathematics SMC and the Chair of the Commission to review and recommend to the SBE for appointment any additional CRP applications on behalf of the entire Commission. Commissioner Levine seconded the motion. There was no discussion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of the members present (10-0).
      3. Additional Facilitators
        The Commission discussed the need for facilitators to work with the 20-26 panels for the Mathematics Adoption. Commissioner Levine moved to empower the Chair of the Mathematics SMC and the Chair of the Commission to review and recommend to the SBE for appointment former Commissioners, who are not affiliated with a publisher, to serve as facilitators for the Mathematics Adoption, on behalf of the entire Commission. Commissioner Velasquez seconded the motion. There was no discussion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of the members present (10-0).
    7. Reading Language Arts/English Language Development Adoption (Information/Action)
      1. Report from State Board of Education
      2. Applications template for the 2008 Instructional Materials Advisory Panel (IMAP) and Content Review Panel (CRP)

        Chair McRae reported that the 2008 Reading/Language Arts/English Language Development (RLA/ELD) IMAP and CRP Application Templates the Commission approved in November 2006 was not discussed at the SBE February retreat as was anticipated. The SBE is scheduled to take action on this item at their March 7-8, 2007 meeting. Chair McRae noted that at the January Curriculum Commission meeting, the Commission received this item back with a SBE staff memorandum. Chair McRae asked the Commission to consider those changes suggested in the SBE staff memorandum. Before any further discussion, the Commission had to vote to reopen this item.

        Commissioner Tate moved to reopen the RLA/ELD IMAP and CRP application templates. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion. There was a discussion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion was approved by a vote of the members present (7-2-1). Commissioner Levine abstained from voting.

        With the large task of reviewing the Title 5 Regulations, the Commission then voted to table the discussion on the RLA/ELD IMAP and CRP application templates until later in the day.

        Commissioner Levine moved to table the discussion on the RLA/ELD IMAP and CRP application templates until later today. Commissioner Velasquez seconded the motion. There was a discussion. A roll call vote was taken. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the members present (10-0).

        The Commission continued their discussion. The most substantive suggestion that was discussed and agreed upon was the reference to a CRP. In other subject areas (i.e. history-social science, mathematics, science), a CRP is usually a scholar with a doctorate in the subject area. In Reading/Language Arts, there are no Ph.D. programs in reading, writing, speaking, or listening - the four areas that encompass Reading/Language Arts. Therefore, requiring a doctorate is not feasible in Reading/Language Arts. The suggested change in the language to the CRP application template is “an educator with extensive knowledge of Reading/Language Arts with an advanced degree in a related field.”

        The Commission expressed support for four of the five suggested changes reflected in the SBE staff memorandum. The fifth change could not be fully addressed by the Commission because they lost their quorum. As a result, the Commission could not take formal action on the SBE suggested changes.
    8. Proposed California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Sections 9510-9530 (Information/Action)
      The Curriculum Commission discussed the proposed Amendments to Title 5, California Code of Regulations Regarding Instructional Materials. The Commission did not take any formal actions on this matter. With a quorum present, the Curriculum Commission reached consensus on five of the proposed amended sections: 9510, 9511, 9512, 9513, and 9514.
      1. §9510. Definitions
        1. Page 2, lines 4-12: The Commission suggested removing the term “rewrites”. The continuum between “edits and corrections” and “rewrites” is very long. A discussion by SBE is needed.
        2. Page 2, lines 4-12: The Commission suggested adding language to strengthen and define edits and corrections. Delete lines 25-30 on page 2, the section that deals with “rewrites”.
        3. Page 2, line 6: The Commission was not comfortable with use of “minimal”. The issue is content, or effect, not quantity.
        4. Page 2, line 15: The Commission requested that the checking of Education Code citations for standards in content areas besides the core areas and include content standards beyond the four core areas.
      2. §9511. Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee Composition and Membership Qualifications
        1. Page 3, line 20: The Commission recommended dropping the reference to “20” members. By not setting a maximum, it gives more flexibility to address differences in content areas.
        2. Page 3, lines 24 & 25: The Commission recommended that you roll these items together (d & e). “(d) CFCC members shall have subject matter expertise and professional knowledge and experience with standards-based educational programs and practices. A majority of CFCC members, at the time of appointment, shall be classroom teachers, or mentor teachers, currently assigned to teach kindergarten or grades 1-12.”
        3. Page 3, line 28: leave “f” as is.
      3. §9512. Appointment of Instructional Materials Reviewers and Content Review Experts
        1. Page 4, line 13: The Commission recommended to change “grades 1-8” to “K-12”. High school teachers need to be involved in the process.
        2. Page 4, lines 16-19: The definition of CREs is excessively restrictive. It does not allow for the differences in the various subject matter areas, e.g. Reading/Language Arts and Visual and Performing Arts.
      4. §9513. Application Process for Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee Members, Instructional Materials Reviewers and Content Review Experts
        1. Page 4, following line 31: The Commission recommended inserting “Depending on the subject area, the Curriculum Commission develops applications for each adoption and they are approved by the SBE.”
      5. §9514. Prohibited Communications
        1. Page 5: Keep a, b, and d: (Note Commissioner Levine wanted to strike a).
        2. Delete C: Commissioner Velasquez indicated that a protocol as an alternative to C might be developed, such as having Commissioners disclose that they met with a specific publisher, only name and date, not content of meeting.
          After the loss of the quorum, the remaining Commissioners continued their discussion of the other sections: 9515, 9516, 9517, 9518, 9519, 9521, 9524, 9525, 9527, 9528, and 9530. The following are the meeting notes from their discussion indicating some of the concerns and comments made by individual Commissioners concerning the proposed Amendments to Title 5, California Code of Regulations Regarding Instructional Materials.
      6. §9515. Display of Curriculum Frameworks and Evaluation Criteria for Public Inspection and Comment
        1. Page 6, lines 21-27:  Commissioner McRae commented that we need a full LRDC in the middle of the state. Currently there is only one “adoption only” located in Monterey County
          Commissioner Levine: Change “not later than 10 days prior...” to “not later than 14 days prior…” This would allow earlier notice of the comments to the Curriculum Commissioners.
      7. §9516. Public Hearings Held by the Curriculum Commission and the SBE Regarding Curriculum Frameworks and Evaluation Criteria
        1. Page  7 lines 22-27:  Commissioner McRae recommends holding a public hearing 10 days prior to the Curriculum Commission action on recommending a Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria to the State Board of Education
      8. §9517. Procedures for Submitting Instructional Materials for Adoption
        1. Page 11, line 7:  Commissioner Levine would like “less than final” clarified. In Visual and Performing Arts, allowing artwork to be submitted in black and white
          when the planned final print is in color could be problematic. Suggest deleting this allowance of black and white prints.
      9. §9518. Social Content Standards for All Instructional Materials Adoptions
        No comments or concerns.
      10. §9519. Instructional Materials Review Panels and Report of Findings
        1. Page 15, lines 27-28:  Commissioner Levine:  There should be room for publishers to interact with the panel members other than just during the current public comment times. This should be a dialogue, unlike the current public comment. This practice would help reviewers by providing information about the program at critical times. The Commissioners present at the meeting suggest at least two times per day, with a prescribed number of minutes. Insert “Twice daily” dialogues between line 27 and 28.
          Commissioner Velasquez: This could become an equity issue if there were not established guidelines. We would need a protocol to insure equal access. If a time for dialogue is established, time for deliberations would need to be extended.
        2. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern about the melding of roles of the CREs and IMRs. Commissioner Sullivan commented that CRE are part of the panels rather than serving in a more restrictive role.
        3. Commissioner Johnson stated that if the IMR/CRE did not reach consensus, this should be recorded in the Report of Findings for that program. This provides additional information to the State Board when they consider materials for adoption.
        4. Commissioner Munger commented that shifting the legal and social compliance citations review to the IMR/CRE would require additional time and could overwhelm the panels in their focus on the content. Executive Secretary Thomas Adams pointed out that some issues are only uncovered with a careful in-depth review of all the written content. The IMR/CRE review every aspect of the program, while the legal and social compliances reviewers concentrate on only one aspect of the materials.
      11. §9520. Written Statements to the Curriculum Commission Regarding Instructional Materials and Curriculum Frameworks Submitted for Adoption
        No comments or concerns.
      12. §9521. Written Comments Regarding Content of Instructional Materials
        1. Page 16, line 22-23, and line 32-33:  Commissioner McRae recommends that page 16, line 23 be amended to read “not later than 20 days prior to the date set for review . . .”., page 6, line 33 be amended to read “No later than seven days prior to the first day of deliberations, …”
      13. §9522. Presentation of Public Testimony
        No comments or concerns.
      14. §9523. Display of Instructional Materials for Public Inspection
        Commissioner McRae noted the lack of LRDCs in the central portion of the state.
      15. §9524. Public Hearings Held by the Curriculum Commission and the State Board of Education Regarding Instructional Materials
        1. Page 18, lines 25-29:  Commissioner Sullivan commented that with the additional meeting held between deliberations and the usual Commission meeting will allow for Commissioners to review materials. The additional meeting would not require a quorum because no action would be taken.
          Commissioner McRae:  The use of the phrase “Not more than 30 days” (lines 24 and 32) is confusing. Clarify 30 day timeline for the two meetings.
        2. Page 19, lines 3-7:  Commissioners Levine, Munger, and McRae commented that the Commission should do a separate report entitled “Commission Recommendation” rather than striking out and writing over the IMR/CRE report. Both reports should go to the SBE.
      16. §9525. Post Adoption Edits and Corrections Procedures
        1. Page 19, lines 21-24:  Commissioner Munger recommended a re-write of item C (lines 21-24) He felt that the Commissioners, rather than staff, should deal with the final edits and corrections with publishers.
      17. §9527. Free or Gratis Items
        1. A general discussion about the role of the State Board and the California Department of Education’s role in the monitoring of gratis offerings by publishers took place. Executive Director Tom Adams commented that the Bureau of Audits has required that publishers provide information on their gratis lists on-line. He also noted that under existing law, gratis items must be instructional materials, not equipment.
        2. Page 20, line 9:  This should include County offices of Education, Charter Schools, generally any Local Education Agency (LEA).
      18. §9528. Alternate Formats of Adopted Instructional Materials
        1. Page 21, line d:  Commissioner McRae commented that the phrase “equal or lower than the adopted instructional material” may be problematic for Spanish editions.
          Possibly state alternate formats should be “not more than 10%” above the adopted instructional materials prices.
      19. §9529. New Editions of Adopted Instructional Materials
        No comments or concerns.
      20. §9530. School District Ordering of Instructional Materials
        1. Page 24, line 24:  This should include all LEAs, not just school districts.
    9. Other Matters/Public Comment: With the loss of a quorum, the Curriculum Commission was not able to approve a meeting date for the History-Social Science SMC meeting in March or April.

      Chair McRae adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Download Free Readers