ELA/ELD IM Follow-up Adoption FAQs

.

Introductory Information

1. What is a “follow-up adoption?”

   Follow-up adoptions are authorized by California Education Code (EC) Section 60227 .

   The California Code of Regulations, Title 5 (5 CCR), Section 9517.1 , details the process.

   5 CCR Section 9517.1, subsections (c) and (d) provide:

   (c) Instructional materials approved by the SBE in a follow-up adoption shall be added to the existing adoption list for that subject and remain on the list until the established expiration date for that list pursuant to Education Code section 60200.

   (d) Follow-up adoptions shall be based on the curriculum framework and evaluation criteria issued for the primary adoption. The following procedures for the adoption of instructional materials for the primary adoption, as set forth in [5 CCR] sections 9510, 9512, 9513, 9514, 9517, 9517.2, 9518, 9519, 9521, 9522, 9523, 9524 and 9525, are also applicable to follow-up adoptions.

2. When will the next primary English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) instructional materials adoption occur?

   A primary adoption for ELA/ELD instructional materials is not currently scheduled.

3. We did not participate in the 2015 English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) primary adoption; can we participate in this follow-up adoption?

   Yes. This process is open to new or updated programs and/or new grade levels.

4. We’re on the 2015 English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) adoption list; what does this follow-up adoption mean for remaining on the 2015 ELA/ELD adoption list?

   Any instructional materials adopted by the SBE as part of the 2026 follow-up adoption will be added to the existing list of SBE-adopted materials.

5. We’re on the 2015 English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) adoption list; can we—or should we—resubmit our program?

   No. All SBE-adopted programs will remain on the 2015 list. However, you may submit a revision of your 2015 SBE-adopted program.

6. If we submit a revision to our program on the 2015 English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) adoption list, will we still have to pay the participation fee?
   

   Yes; the participation fee is mandated by statute. (The fee is described below.)

7. We’re on the 2015 English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) adoption list, but we have an amended version of that program; can we submit this revision for the follow-up adoption and, if so, how will it affect the status of our original program?

   Yes, you may submit a new program, a revision, or additional grade levels to a currently adopted program. All materials adopted in the 2026 follow-up adoption will be added to the existing adoption list, per 5 CCR 9517.1(c). Existing programs will remain on the 2015 list.

8. We’re on the 2015 English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) adoption list for some grade levels; can we now participate to add grade levels to that 2015 SBE-adopted program?

   Yes. Note that materials submitted for the 2026 follow-up adoption will be evaluated independently of any previously approved materials.

9. Can a publisher/developer submit more than one program?

   Yes. There is no limit to the number of programs a publisher/developer may submit.

10. The California Department of Education English Language Arts/English Language Development (CDE ELA/ELD) web page description and Schedule of Significant Events for this follow-up adoption mention additional “guidance”; what will this guidance provide?

    As part of the 2025 Education Omnibus Budget Trailer Bill (Assembly Bill 121, Section 89 ) funding was provided for the development of guidance “to support the follow-up adoption and subsequent implementation of English Language Arts/English Language Development instructional materials” that “does all of the following:”
    
    

    1. (1) Evaluates and includes materials that focus on the teaching of specific skills and standards that are a subset of the entire English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework and clearly designate which standards they effectively address, enabling local educational agencies to adopt a set of materials that, in combination, address all of the state standards and components of the framework.
    2. (2) Is aligned to evidence-based means of teaching foundational reading skills, which shall include explicit and systematic instruction in print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, and fluency, attending to oral language development, vocabulary and background knowledge, and comprehension, including tiered supports for pupils with reading difficulties, English learners, and pupils with exceptional needs.
    3. (3) Conforms to all of the following:
       • (A) The English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework.
       • (B) Includes foundational skills, language development, content knowledge, meaning making, and effective expression.
       • (C) Incorporates media literacy content included in the English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework.
         

11. When will this additional guidance be available publicly?

    The State Board of Education (SBE) is scheduled to consider the guidance for approval at its November 5–6, 2025, meeting.

12. Do partial programs fall under this adoption process?

    Yes. Program types 4 and 5 are partial programs by definition; and for the 2026 English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) follow-up adoption, partial programs for program types 1, 2, and 3 may be considered. The guidance scheduled to be considered at the SBE’s November 2025 meeting is expected to further address parameters for partial program submissions.

13. Does the 2025 guidance replace or add to the 2014 criteria? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    The 2025 guidance builds upon and clarifies the 2014 English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD Framework). Where the 2025 guidance specifically appends or updates evaluation criteria from the Framework, the 2025 guidance will supersede the 2014 criteria.

14. For Program Type 4, the guidance adds grades 1–3. What does this mean for the grade level submission requirements? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    Publishers/developers may choose any grade level of a Program Type 4 submission, but the submission must include the required content for all prior grades. For example, for a grade three submission, the content must include all required content identified for grades 1–3; for a grade eight submission, the content must include all required content for grades 1–8. See the specific maps for Program Type 4 for specific required content.
    

15. What evaluation criteria must a partial program meet? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    The program type evaluation criteria maps include information about specific criterion that may be excluded from specific partial program types.

16. Does the fact that the State Board of Education (SBE) will consider adopting materials for transitional kindergarten (TK) mean that schools must now use such materials designed specifically for TK? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    No. California Education Code (EC) Section 48000 defines TK as “the first year of a two-year kindergarten program that uses a modified kindergarten curriculum that is age and developmentally appropriate.” While no state curriculum is mandated, pursuant to EC Section 48000(f) , the intent of the Legislature is that TK instruction be aligned to the California Preschool/Transitional Kindergarten - Learning Foundations (PTKLF) developed by the CDE. For more information on TK, please visit the CDE Universal Prekindergarten FAQs web page.

17. May a transitional kindergarten (TK) program be submitted under the English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) Follow-Up adoption if it explicitly addresses additional TK standards (for example, Math) alongside ELA/ELD? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    Yes. The required content may include content from other content areas; however, those pieces of content should not be cited unless also addressing the foundations included in the map. The map should drive the citations. Overall, reviewers will evaluate materials for the ELA/ELD required content, and any additional content should support language development and other foundational skills in ELA/ELD.

18. Is there an opportunity to submit a partial program for transitional kindergarten (TK)? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    No. The partial program option is available for kindergarten through grade eight English Language Arts/Literacy strands.

Evaluation Criteria

1. Can “instructional resources,” “student resources,” “materials,” and “teacher resources” include both print and online/digital components? And can you confirm that publishers/developers are not expected to cover 100 percent of category 1 items in print materials only?

   Publisher and developer programs, including both teacher and student materials, may include print, digital, a combination of the two, or one format exclusively. State law defines instructional materials to include all formats. There is no requirement regarding alignment to the evaluation criteria via print materials only.

2. Is it permissible that some of our program content is located online in open educational resources (OERs) that we do not own or specifically license?

   The evaluation criteria in chapter 12 of the ELA/ELD Framework provides specific guidance regarding OERs.

3. Recent State Board of Education (SBE) instructional materials adoptions for other subject areas have included a category 1 requirement for content based upon the Environmental Principles and Concepts (EP&Cs). Is such content required for this English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) Follow-Up Adoption?

   No. There are no references to the EP&Cs in the evaluation criteria.

4. Regarding Category 1, criterion 7, what constitutes "variation within linguistic groups?” (Added 14-Jan-2026)

   To better validate students’ knowledge, lived experiences, and promote comprehension, texts should aim to reflect realistic differences in sentence structure or word forms, different words for the same concept—perhaps even drawing on unique or situational vocabulary, or differences in how conversations are structured. The English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) Framework provides ample guidance, beginning in chapter 2's "Context for Learning" section, starting on p. 61 (through p. 94). Specific considerations can be found in Figure 2.10, which starts on p. 75.
   

5. Regarding Category 1, criterion 9, could you provide clarity around expectations to "provide materials that reflect students' varied languages and backgrounds?” (Added 14-Jan-2026)

   Materials should include examples of students’ own lived cultural and linguistic experiences, based on the local context (see authentic texts). There is no expectation that every student's experience will be represented in the materials. Additional guidance is outlined in the "Context for Learning" section, p. 61, in chapter 2 of the English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) Framework. The discussion continues with respect to considerations for English Language Development instruction, which begins on p. 104.
   

6. Are decodable texts required in English for Program 3: Biliteracy? Is this requirement tied to the designated English Language Development portion of Program 3? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

   Yes. A Program Type 3 submission would need appropriate decodables in each language. Sounding out Spanish words, for example, based on English phonemes doesn’t work and vice versa.
   

7. For Category 1, criterion 9g, does the organized independent reading program need to be embedded in the daily lessons (at a scheduled time)? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

   Chapter 2, page 57 of the English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) Framework articulates several ways teachers can plan an independent reading program, including recommending daily scheduled time for independent reading both in class and outside of class.
   
   The Guidance includes an additional recommendation for criterion 1.9 on page 44 that states, “Independent reading programs should include guidance for text selection that include both decodable and authentic texts based on student readiness indicators, incorporating both skill-building and engagement considerations as supported by current research on varied text experiences.”

8. Will publishers/developers need to submit the complete independent reading libraries? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

   No. While all other materials, including decodable texts, must be submitted for the review process, the materials specifically for the required independent reading library may be clearly identified in a submitted detailed list of library materials.

9. Regarding Category 1, criterion 9g, guidance, what is the intended definition of “authentic text”? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

   Based on the 2025 Guidance document, "authentic texts" are real literature and informational texts written for genuine purposes and audiences that incorporate natural language patterns and multiple linguistic varieties, as distinguished from decodable texts (which are specifically constructed for phonics practice). .

10. At what decodability does a book become a “decodable text?” (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    Chapter 3, page 160, of the English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) Framework defines decodable texts as having a high percentage of words that follow the alphabetic principle. Decodability of a text is based on the individual decoding skills for a student. See "The Alphabetic Principle: From Phonological Awareness to Reading Words" .

11. Do we need to include at least 15 pre-decodable books with rebuses? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    No. Current research does not support the specific numerical requirements in the 2014 criteria (e.g., 75–80% decodability, prescribed book counts, or word totals); instead, sufficiency should be determined by student progress monitoring and instructional needs.

12. Regarding Category 1, criterion 10 guidance, how frequent do progress monitoring checkpoints need to be? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    Progress monitoring should occur often enough to ensure the teacher can adjust instruction to meet the needs of all students. Progress monitoring checkpoints should correspond to the level of student need and intervention intensity. For intensive interventions (Tier 3), progress monitoring should be weekly. See National Center on Intensive Intervention website for more information.

13. Regarding Category 1, criterion 13, and a comprehensive language arts program in grades K–2, what guidelines are we drawing from? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    The 2025 Guidance to support the 2026 English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) follow-up adoption augments the 2014 evaluation criteria; where there is a perception of difference, the 2025 guidance supersedes the prior.

14. Regarding Category 1, criterion 13 guidance, what would be some examples of "decision points?” (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    Formative and summative assessments in the program can provide data that helps inform next steps, including opportunities for support, intervention, enrichment, advancement, etc.

15. Category 1, criterion 21, guidance emphasizes Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) , including Tier 3, within Program Types 1–3. The first part of Criterion 1.21 states, “Differentiated instruction should explicitly align with MTSS tier placement, providing (a) Tier 1 enhancements for students approaching benchmark; (b) Tier 2 targeted supports with entry and exit criteria; and (c) Tier 3 intensive intervention protocols.” Is the expectation that Tier 3 intervention would be included as part of or within Program Types 1–3 OR is an external Tier 3 solution that is submitted appropriate? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    All three tiers should be included within the basic program submission. For example, a local educational agency that purchases Program Type 1 should not also be required to purchase Program Type 4 for Tier 3 materials.

16. Category 1, criterion 23, guidance indicates that materials should include differentiation not only by English Language Development (ELD) proficiency level but, as appropriate, by English learner student typology. Where should this differentiation by typology live? Is it expected to be within Core English Language Arts (ELA)/Literacy instruction, or can it be provided within the Designated ELD components for Programs 2 and 3? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    The ELD Standards are by language level: Emerging (newcomers), Bridging, and Expanding. Those standards are prevalent in ELD-aligned program types (Program Types 2, 3, and 5).
    
    Both designated ELD and ELA with integrated ELD are “core” instruction and a component of Tier I instruction for all English learners. Criterion 1.23 relates to ELD instructional materials for Programs 2 and 3, which include both ELA/Literacy with integrated ELD and designated ELD; and Program 5, which is specialized designated ELD. As such, the 2025 guidance for 1.23 applies to both designated and integrated ELD instruction. Materials should support differentiation for student needs regardless of the instructional context (e.g., ELA instruction, designated ELD instruction, etc.), though the degree to which materials are differentiated vary according to the instructional goals and other contextual factors.
    

17. For Category 1, criterion 23c, regarding addressing differentiation of the Emerging, Expanding, and Bridging levels of English language proficiency, what does this differentiation look like in the materials? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    Materials should include scaffolds to support teachers in providing standards-aligned instruction to meet the needs of English learner students at different proficiency levels. The Guidance provides further clarification: Materials should include differentiation not only by English Language Development (ELD) proficiency level but, as appropriate, by English learner student typology (e.g., newcomer students at the Emerging level, long-term English learner students at the Expanding or Bridging levels, English learner students with special needs), and should provide supports and strategies for English learner students to fully participate in all instruction.

18. Category 1, criterion 24, says "optional materials may be provided”; what does this mean? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    This criterion applies to Program Type 2: Basic English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) and Program Type 3: Basic Biliteracy. Inclusion of the identified materials is not required but may be included in these program submissions to address the specific needs of newcomer students. Examples are provided in sub-criteria a−h.

19. Criterion 2.1 guidance says “Designated English Language Development (ELD) for Programs 2, 3, and 5 should directly connect to and support standards and content addressed in English Language Arts (ELA)/Literacy instruction.” Does this mean that we need to include the ELA/Literacy Standards in the Designated ELD materials, or does it mean that the themes/topics/content are aligned to the Basic ELA Program 1? If we need to include the ELA/Literacy Standards, do we need to meet 100 percent of the ELA/Literacy Standards in the Designated ELD materials? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    Submission requirements for Program Types 2 and 3 align with both the California Common Core State Stanards (CA CCCS) for ELA/Literacy and California English Language Development (CA ELD) Standards. Program Type 5: Specialized ELD must demonstrate coverage of those standards that are included on the standards maps based on Appendix 12-B: Matrix 2.
    

20. Do alternate testing formats only need to include students with dyslexia and/or dysgraphia, or do forms need to be provided to support all standard criteria on Individualized Education Programs (IEP) and 504 plans? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    Per the English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) Framework, alternate testing formats are for all students as appropriate.

21. How is “progress monitoring” defined? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    
    Progress monitoring is a multi-faceted approach to formative and summative assessment where student understanding is assessed frequently during instruction, as well as summative data analysis at the end of a lesson or unit. Throughout the guidance document, the term “progress monitoring” is used to indicate the embedded formative assessments that are checking for understanding as instruction occurs. Additionally, progress monitoring probes are the same as progress monitoring tools used to track a student's ongoing achievement relative to an intervention. See National Center on Intensive Intervention website for more information.

22. Regarding Category 3, criterion 5 guidance, are "student-friendly data-tracking tools" expected to be digital? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    There is no requirement that the tools must be digital.

23. Regarding Category 3, criterion 5, does the program need to support students to advocate for accommodations, or are we ensuring we can support them during assessment? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    This criterion is about making assessment data accessible and meaningful to students themselves so they can track their academic achievement and progress toward college/career readiness.

24. Regarding Category 4, criterion 2, what is the expectation for progress monitoring tools aligned with Individualized Education Programs (IEP) goals? Is there a set of goals that can be referred to? Also, how should a core program “coordinate special education services?” (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    Category 4, criterion 2, does not reference progress monitoring tools aligned with IEP goals, rather it states that instructional materials should include progress monitoring tools aligned with structured literacy intervention and systems for MTSS tracking. The goals outlined in an IEP reflect collaborative decisions made between families, students, and staff. The program’s progress monitoring tools should therefore include guidance for how to utilize the tools in alignment with or in support of goal setting—both in the IEP’s creation and monitoring, and throughout instruction. Additionally, the guidance for criterion 4.2 refers explicitly to MTSS, the Dyslexia Guidelines, and family notification protocols and engagement strategies must be included, consistent with EC Section 56329 requirements for informing parents about screening results and available interventions.

25. Category 4, criterion 3 guidance uses the term “special needs” but doesn't define it. Does the California Department of Education have a definition of special needs we can refer to? And is the expectation that the special needs be addressed along with and specifically for each typology of English learner? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    Please refer to the Chapter 9 of the 2014 English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) Framework which includes a section on students with disabilities. Additionally, Chapter 7 of the California Practitioners’ Guide for Educating English Learners with Disabilities, provides additional guidance.
    
    The expectation is that instructional materials should provide differentiation as appropriate to ensure all English learner students, including those who have disabilities, to participate in all instruction. While it is not expected that publishers anticipate and address the totality of students' learning needs according to typology and/or disability, publishers should ensure users of their materials have significant support for supporting their students' unique needs. For example, references may be made to Universal Design for Learning, which assists in providing access for all students based on their unique needs, or to educators' use of students' Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Section 504 plans, etc.

26. Category 4, criterion 7 guidance indicates that materials should provide differentiated enrichment for advanced learner students. Is this for content-area knowledge, literacy, or both? How should teachers assess content-area knowledge prior to compacting the curriculum? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    This criterion applies to both literacy and content-area knowledge, as the guidance mentions "mastery of grade-level standards" and "critical and creative thinking" opportunities across subjects. Teachers should use assessments that identify students who demonstrate mastery of grade-level standards in specific content areas to determine readiness for curriculum compacting.
    
    Differentiated enrichment can be provided as options or considerations without compacting content at the expense of all students or the curriculum. Teachers can use diagnostic assessment, pre-testing, formative checks for understanding, etc., and a variety of anecdotal evidence to better understand what students need, are capable of, and can benefit from.

27. Regarding Category 5, criterion 12 guidance, can you please explain the relationship between the original criterion and the 2025 guidance? The guidance calls for new content (exemplar texts) to support teacher modeling that would take place during instructional time. The original criterion calls for materials to support reading outside of class and suggestions for individualized reading goals. Is this a new requirement? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    More than suggesting reading material for students, the 2025 Guidance calls for teacher editions to suggest texts (considered exemplar) that align with language features, organizational structures, or literary elements being studied in the program. In that way, the suggestions more closely align outside reading with instruction happening in the classroom.

28. Regarding Category 5, criterion 19, is there a specific required set of languages, and what are they? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    While there is no specific requirement, the California Department of Education’s DataQuest reports (2024–25) the top six languages, in addition to English, spoken in California classrooms are Spanish; Castilian, Mandarin (Puonghua, Guoyu), Vietnamese, Russian, Persian (Farsi), and Arabic.

29. Regarding Category 5, criterion 21, the original criterion specified "two different grade levels of students." The 2025 guidance refers to "multiple grade levels within a single classroom." Does the new guidance refer to two grades, or more than two? What is the expectation? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    Based on the shift from "two different grade levels" to "multiple grade levels," the 2025 guidance expects materials to support differentiated instruction for two or more grade levels within a single classroom, providing flexibility for various multi-grade configurations rather than limiting them to exactly two grades.

30. Regarding Category 5, criterion 23, the 2014 criterion calls for "information for teachers." The 2025 guidance calls for "guidance for teaching media literacy skills." However, further on in the document, guidelines state, “Media literacy needs to be fully integrated and not just one-off lessons” (from Criterion D. Media Literacy p. 31), and “media literacy extends beyond digital sources.” The Material Guidelines state it needs to be sustained, follow a progression and include specifics like reverse-image searching and manipulation indicators, professional development and a “comprehensive teacher's guide.” Please clarify: Should this "guidance for teaching" be directed to teachers, or is the expectation that explicit lessons for "evaluating online information and recognizing misinformation" be provided? If the latter, at which grade levels? What is the criteria for full integration? And are students expected to be working from the web itself or is there a different expectation for protection of student safety? At present, the media literacy standards in the California Common Core State Standards (CA-CCSS) are limited to: SL.4.3: Identify the reasons and evidence a speaker or media source provides to support particular points. CA SL.5.3: Summarize the points a speaker or media source makes and explain how each claim is supported by reasons and evidence, and identify and analyze any logical fallacies. (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    Part I of the 2025 Guidance document includes information for local educational agencies considering and selecting materials. The information for publishers regarding media literacy content is included in the specific program type evaluation criteria map. Media literacy guidance for teaching should be directed at teachers and assessment tools should include methods of assessing student skills in media literacy. Media literacy is embedded in the California Common Core State Standards (CA CCSS) for English Language Arts (ELA)/Literacy and included in many standards. The additional guidance (e.g., integrated into English Language Arts lessons, explicitly taught, developmental progressions) are based on the CA CCSS and research best practices.
    
    Along with the consideration of standards mentioned, consider what kind of content would be needed in a program to fulfill part of Evaluation Criterion 2.1, “Assessment tools should provide rubrics for evaluating students' media literacy skills, including ability to analyze digital texts and assess source credibility.” As it is an evaluation criterion, it will apply to any grade level submitted.

31. Regarding Category 5, criterion 25, the 2014 criterion requires contrastive analysis charts for 1) English and five or more common world languages in California, and 2) English and the African American English (AAE) variety of English. Is that still the requirement or are additional contrastive analysis charts required in a core program submission (not a subset approach)? Are additional contrastive analysis charts required? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    No new charts are required.

32. For Category 5, criterion 25, what are the five (or more) languages to be included? Does African American English (AAE) factor in as one of the five most common or is that in addition to the others? (Added 14-Jan-2026)

    According to the California Department of Education’s Dataquest, the top six languages spoken by English Learners in California schools are as follows (for 2024–25): Spanish; Castillian (80.05%); Mandarin (Putonghua, Guoyu) (2.32%); Vietnamese (1.79%); Russian (1.45%); Persian (Farsi) (1.40%); Arabic (1.39%).

Process

1. What are the deadlines for participation in this adoption?

   Please see the SBE-adopted Schedule of Significant Events.

2. Is there any fee for participation?

   Yes. EC Section 60227 and 5 CCR Section 9517.1 require that state instructional materials adoptions be fully funded by publisher participation fees. The fee is $8,000 per grade level. The law and regulations do provide an opportunity for the SBE to consider a reduction in the fee for a designated small publisher. A small publisher is defined as an independently owned or operated publisher or manufacturer that is not dominant in its field of operation and that, together with its affiliates, has 100 or fewer employees and has average annual gross receipts of $10 million or less over the previous three years.

3. What are the requirements for display of submitted instructional materials during an adoption? What are the requirements for publishers/developers?

   Publishers/developers must post the student editions of their submitted programs on a website that is accessible to the public (5 CCR Section 9523). The publishers/developers shall send a URL to the CDE containing that link no later than the deadline for the distribution of instructional materials samples. The regulations state that the materials “posted on each publisher's website shall be identical to the hard copy version of the instructional materials submitted for adoption, except that copyrighted items that do not allow for posting online may be omitted and replaced by a description of the omitted item, and any online features that are absent from the hard copy version shall be identified.”
   
   In addition to the online display, publishers/developers must distribute hard copies/software copies or digital access keys for online materials to Learning Resource Display Centers (LRDCs) across the state (of which there are approximately 20). The CDE will provide a list of LRDCs as part of the sampling bulletin that will be distributed during the training of reviewers.

4. What exactly counts as “student materials” for the requirement that those materials be posted online for review?

   5 CCR Section 9523, states that publishers shall post “those instructional materials intended for student use” and provide the CDE with a URL to where those materials are available online. This requirement includes items such as student editions, consumable workbooks, and the like. An item that is primarily intended for the teacher or is not provided to the student as part of the normal course of instruction does not need to be posted. Similarly, answer keys and solution sets for student assessment materials do not need to be posted.

5. Can we have a password or other security feature on the student editions we post online?

   Publishers/developers may implement security features they deem necessary as long as they do not limit public access to the materials. If there is a password, there must be a process for members of the public to request that password and receive it in a timely manner.

6. How do we post our student materials online if they contain copyrighted images?

   Publishers/developers may either conceal or omit copyrighted images with a notation that the image is available in the print materials or include pages that have embedded watermarks. In addition, publishers/developers may note that materials are posted for review purposes only.

7. How long do our student materials need to be kept online?

   The materials must be kept online and accessible until the SBE takes action to adopt/not adopt instructional materials.

8. What funding is available to districts to purchase instructional materials?

   Districts may use Local Control Funding Formula funds or Proposition 20 lottery funds. For more information, please visit Funding for Instructional Materials web page.

Distribution of Samples

1. What materials do publishers/developers need to send by the materials sample due date, and to whom shall they send it?

   By the April–May 2026 training week, the CDE will email to each publisher and developer a program-specific delivery list in Microsoft Excel. To each person/entity on that delivery list (possibly up to 60 copies), the publisher/developer must send a complete copy of the program(s) identified. (Note that in cases where a publisher/developer plans to submit more than one program, different review panels may receive each program, but the CDE will advise publishers/developers of this fact in advance).

   Publishers/developers must send to each person/entity identified on the delivery list the following:

   • A complete copy of their program (identified by each component on the submission form). If the program is electronic in format, the publisher/developer has the option of sending online access instructions or the complete program pre-loaded on a device (iPad; Chromebook; laptop; etc.—which must be returned to the publisher/developer at the end of deliberations week).
     
     
   • One completed evaluation criteria map per program
     
     
   • Completed standards maps for each grade level of each program
     
     
   • The narrative program description (max six pages)
     
     
   • A complete inventory list
     
     

   The CDE will include the information above in a future bulletin to participating publishers/developers.

2. Do the student materials to be posted online by the materials delivery due date need to be in a printable format?

   No.

3. How many copies of samples must we provide?

   The CDE will advise publishers/developers of an approximate number of sample packages around the time of the reviewer training sessions, but publishers/developers should be prepared to provide up to 60 copies by the end of the process.

4. Do all materials (core and ancillary) need to be submitted by the materials delivery due date?

   Yes. All components of the complete program to be reviewed must be submitted by the specific due date. Any materials/content submitted after that date will not be reviewed nor considered as part of the program. This requirement is firm, and failure to provide all content has resulted in some programs failing review in past adoptions.

5. If our materials are incomplete at the deadline, may we submit them anyway and submit the complete materials when they are available?

   No. Publishers/developers will not be permitted to submit new content after submission deadline. The CDE will instruct reviewers to disregard any late submitted materials.

6. Will the materials publishers/developers send to the LRDCs stay at those locations for the life of the adoption?

   The CDE requests LRDCs display materials for two years following an SBE adoption. Following this two-year period, publishers/developers must collect any hardware associated with their program(s) if previously provided.

7. Will samples be required for every school/district or only at their request?

   The CDE will ask publishers/developers to deliver samples to SBE-approved reviewers, LRDCs, and select Instructional Quality Commission and SBE members. Publishers need not provide sample materials to schools.

8. Can we submit print materials in less than final form?

   Yes, within certain defined parameters. 5 CCR Section 9517 establishes the following parameters of acceptable “less-than-final” formats:
   

   • (j) Publishers shall submit all instructional materials in the same physical form that will be offered for purchase during the adoption period with the following exceptions:
     
     
     • (1) Audio recordings may be submitted in manuscript form.
       
       
     • (2) Artwork may appear in black and white that will ultimately appear in color in the instructional materials offered for purchase during the adoption period.
       
       
     • (3) Alternate formats as described in section 9528.
       
       
   • (k) Except as described in sections 9528 and 9529, publishers shall not change or modify instructional materials after the date specified in the Schedule of Significant Events for delivery of instructional materials to IMRs, CREs and LRDCs. Instructional materials changed or modified after this delivery date shall be disqualified from consideration in the adoption unless the changes or modifications are approved by the SBE.

9. When are final formats due?

   Final formats will be due 60 days following the CDE’s confirmation of the conclusion of the edits and corrections process (late winter 2027).