ELA/ELD Adoption IQC Advisory Report - Instructional Materials (CA Dept of Education)

Page 1 of 149

2015ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT ADOPTION

INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY COMMISSION

ADVISORY REPORT

Submitted to the State Board of Education

September 2015

Page 1 of 149

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction

Adoption Process

Instructional Quality Commission Recommendations

Basic Grade-Level Programs

Amplify Education, Inc., Core Knowledge Language Arts, K–5

Amplify Education, Inc., Amplify ELA: CA Editionand Amplify ELD: CA Edition, 6–8

Benchmark Education, Benchmark Advance, K–6

Benchmark Education, Benchmark Adelante, K–6

EMC Publishing, Mirrors & Windows Connecting with Literature, 6–8

McGraw-Hill School Education, Reading Wonders, K–6

McGraw-Hill School Education, StudySync, 6–8

McGraw-Hill School Education, Lectura Maravillas, K–6

McGraw-Hill School Education, Flex Literacy, 4–8

National Geographic/Cengage Learning, Reaching for Reading, K–6

National Geographic/Cengage Learning, Inside, 4–8

Pearson Education, Inc., p.a. Scott Foresman and Prentice Hall, CA Pearson System of Courses, K–8

Pearson Education Inc., p.a. Scott Foresman and Prentice Hall, CA Pearson iLit, 4–8

Pearson Education, Inc., p.a. Scott Foresman and Prentice Hall, CA Pearson iLit ELL, 4–8

HMH Intervention Solutions (formerly Scholastic, Inc.) California Read 180 Universal System, 4–8

HMH Intervention Solutions (formerly Scholastic, Inc.), California English 3D Course A and Course B System, 4–8

The College Board-Springboard, SpringBoard ELA, Grade 6

The College Board-Springboard, SpringBoard ELA, Grades 7–8

The College Board-Springboard, SpringBoard ELA/ELD, Grade 6

The College Board-Springboard, SpringBoard ELA/ELD, 7–8

Voyager Sopris Learning, Language! Live California, 4–8

Appendix A: Criteria for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Kindergarten through Grade Eight

Types of Programs

Category 1: English Language Arts and English Language Development Content/Alignment with the Standards

Category 2: Program Organization

Criteria Category 3: Assessment

Category 4: Universal Access

Category 5: Instructional Planning and Teacher Support

Guidance for Instructional Materials for Grades Nine Through Twelve

Appendix B: Learning Resources Display Centers (LRDCs)

Introduction

In August 2010, the State Board of Education (SBE) adopted the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (CCSS). In September 2012the SBE then adopted the California English Language Development Standards. In March 2013, the SBE acted to approve modifications to the adopted CCSS.

Assembly Bill X4 2 (Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009-10 Fourth Extraordinary Session) signed on July 28, 2009, suspended the process and procedures for adopting instructional materials, including framework revisions, until the 2013-14 school year. Senate Bill 70 (Chapter 7 of the Statutes of 2011) extended that suspension until the 2015-16 school year.

Subsequently, Education Code (EC) Section 60207 required the SBE to adopt an English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) curriculum framework and evaluation criteria for the adoption of ELA/ELD instructional materials in July 2014. EC Section 60211 authorized the SBE to adopt instructional materials for kindergarten and grades one to eight (K–8), inclusive, that are aligned to California Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy) and the California English Language Development Standards (CA ELD Standards) in November 2015.

The CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy are comprised of three main sections: a comprehensive English language arts/literacy K–5 section and two content area-specific sections for grades 6–12 (one for English language arts and one for literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects). For this adoption of English language arts instructional materials, reference to the CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy includes only the K–5 English language arts/literacy and the 6–8 English language arts standards (CA CCSS for ELA).

The criteria serve as the evaluation instrument for determining whether instructional materials align to the content standards and the other requirements of the SBE. The adopted evaluation criteria require that instructional materials be submitted in one of fiveprogram types: Program 1 Basic ELA, Program 2 Basic ELA/ELD, Program 3 Basic Biliteracy, Program 4 Intensive Intervention ELA, and Program 5 Specialized ELD (see page 113 of this document for details from the full criteria).Supplemental instructional materials were not reviewed as part of this adoption.

The criteria for the evaluation of English language arts and English language development instructional resources for kindergarten through grade eight are organized into five categories:

English Language Arts and English Language Development Content/Alignment with the Standards. Instructional materials include content as specified in the CA CCSS for ELA and the CA ELD Standards, as appropriate for the program type. Programs must meet all identified standards fully for the appropriate program type to be eligible for adoption.
Program Organization. Instructional materials support instruction and learning of the standards and include such features as the organization and design of the programs and standards; chapter, unit, and lesson overviews; and glossaries.
Assessment. Instructional materials include assessments for measuring what students know and are able to do and provide guidance for teachers on how to use assessment results to guide instruction.
Universal Access. Instructional materials provide access to the standards-based curriculum for all students, including English learners, students with disabilities, advanced learners, students below grade level in any strands of English language arts, and students who speak African American English (AAE).
Instructional Planning and Teacher Support. Information and materials contain a clear road map for teachers to follow when planning instruction and are designed to help teachers provide effective standards-based instruction.

Materials that fail to meet the criteria in Category 1: English Language Arts and English Language Development Content/Alignment with the Standards will not be considered suitable for adoption. All criteria statements in Category 1 that are appropriate for that program type must be met for a program to be adopted. The criteria for Category 1 must be met in the core materials or via the primary means of instruction, rather than in ancillary components. In addition, programs must have strengths in each of categories 2 through 5 to be suitable for adoption.

The SBE approved standards and evaluation criteria maps for the five program types were developed by the California Department of Education (CDE) to help publishers identify where their instructional materials were aligned with the content standards and the evaluation criteria. Publishers completed the maps and submitted them with their programs. The SBE appointed Instructional Materials Reviewers (IMRs) and Content Review Experts (CREs) who used the maps to evaluate a program’s alignment with the content standards and evaluation criteria.

Adoption Process

ADOPTION TIMELINE

As recommended by the Instructional Quality Commission (IQC), the SBEadopted the Schedule of Significant Events (Timeline)for the 2015ELA/ELD Adoption on November 14, 2014, which provided for a return to a more normal timeframe for an adoption. The last adoption for ELA/ELD instructional materials took place in 2008.

PUBLISHERS INVITATION TO SUBMIT MEETING

A Publishers Invitation to Submit (ITS) meeting was held on January 28, 2015. Publishers were invited to attend the ITS meeting to learn about the process and procedures for submitting K–8 instructional materials for the 2015ELA/ELD Adoption. Each publisher received a digital copy of the Publishers Invitation to Submit: 2015ELA/ELD Adoption, a document that contains all of the information necessary for a publisher to know how to effectively participate in the adoption process.Technical information was provided at the meeting, including an outline of the schedule of significant events,the publisher’s responsibilities for participating in the adoption,a review of the adoption process,an overview of the content standardsand the evaluation criteria, and the logistics of the submission process.

PUBLISHER FEES

Pursuant to EC Section 60211, and in accordance with Title 5, California Code of

Regulations (5 CCR), Section 9517.3, this adoption was financed through fees paid by participating publishers. The fee was set at $5,000 per program per grade level submitted.

The legislation also included the provision that, upon the request of a small publisher or smallmanufacturer, the SBE may reduce the fee for participation inthe adoption.EC Section 60211 states that a "small publisher" and "smallmanufacturer" mean an independently owned or operated publisher ormanufacturer that is not dominant in its field of operation and that,together with its affiliates, has 100 or fewer employees, and hasaverage annual gross receipts of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) orless over the previous three years.For this adoption, no publishers submitted requests for small publisher fee reduction.

REVIEWER APPOINTMENT AND TRAINING

The SBE appointed IMRs and CREs over the course of two meetings. At its meeting on November 14, 2014, based on the recommendations of the IQC, the SBE appointed a total of 72IMRs and 54CREs.And again, based on the recommendations of the IQC, the SBE appointed an additional 101IMRs and 46CREsat its meeting on January 15, 2015. The CREs and IMRswere divided into19 review panels that were assigned one or morebasic grade-level or intervention programs to review.

The IMRs included classroom teachers who teach students in kindergarten or grades 1–12 and have a “professional” credential under California law, and meet the definition of “highly qualified” under federal law, and who have experience with, and expertise in, standards-based-educational programs and practices in the content field under consideration. Some of the IMRs have experience in providing instruction to English Learners, and in providing instruction to students with disabilities.

For the 2015 ELA/ELD Adoption, the CREs possessed a master’s degree or higher and 5 or more years of experience with, and expertise in, standards-based educational programs and practices, or a doctoral degree and expertise in research on how reading skills are acquired.

The IQC and the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division (CFIRD) staff trained reviewers in two sessions (the first on April 14–17, 2015, and the second on April 28–May 1, 2015)to prepare them for the 2015ELA/ELD Adoptionindependent review and subsequent deliberations. The training materials were reviewed and approved by the IQC at its meeting on November 20, 2014, and by the SBE at its meeting on January 14, 2015. The training included sessions on the evaluation criteria, social contentrequirements, and the adoption process. Publishers made formal presentations on their programs on the final day of the training and answered reviewer questions.

The training was conducted in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Various publisher representatives and interested members of the public attended the training. Each day, at a pre-determined time, the training was paused to provide an opportunity for public comment.

IMR/CRE REVIEW, DELIBERATIONS, AND REPORT OF FINDINGS

After training was completed, the IMRs and CREs received complete sets of instructional materials for the programsthey were assigned to review and evaluate according to the evaluation criteria. The IMRs and CREs conducted their independent reviews of the ELA/ELDinstructional materials during May through early July.

The reviewers met in their assigned review panels in Los Angeles for deliberations held in two session (the first on July 13–17, 2015, and the second on July 28–31, 2015. The IMRs and CREsdiscussed the individual notes and citations they had developed while performing their independent reviews. A member of the IQC or another facilitator approved by the SBE was assigned to facilitate each panel. CFIRD staff provided support to the panels. During deliberations, publishers were provided a formal publisher response time to address three to five questions on each of their respective programs posed by the panel members. Publishers received these questions in advance and could provide written as well as verbal responses.

The IMRs and CREs worked collaboratively during deliberations to produce a Report of Findingsfor each program. The reports include findings for each category of the criteria and citations that are exemplary (not exhaustive) to support those findings.

A total of 28 ELA/ELD programs were submitted by the submission deadline of March 17, 2015 (19 basic grade-level programs, and 9 intervention programs); however, one intervention program was withdrawn before training began. Of the 27 submitted programs, 25 programswere recommended by the IMR/CRE panelsfor adoption, with some recommendations contingent upon satisfactory completion of specified edits and corrections.

Edits and corrections are defined as inexact language, imprecise definitions, mistaken notations, mislabeling, misspellings, and grammatical errors. Edits and corrections do not include complete revision or rewriting of chapters or programs, or adding new content to a program. Changes such as this are not allowed during the adoption process from publishers and members of the public (California Code of Regulations, Title 5 (5 CCR), sections 9510(h) and (r), and 9519(f) through (g)).The review panels also provided citations for social content violations when those were found in the programs.

The panel deliberations were conducted in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Various publisher representatives and interested members of the public attended the deliberations. At least twice each day, the deliberations process included an opportunity for public comment.

PUBLIC COMMENT AND REVIEW

Instructional materials submitted for adoption were displayed for public review and comment, beginning July 5, 2013, at 14 Learning Resource Display Centers (LRDCs) throughout the state (see Appendix B). In addition, publishers were required to submit a URL indicating where copies of student materials were available for public access online (5 CCR Section 9523(b)) during the adoption process. Pursuant to 5 CCR Section 9521, any comments on the submitted instructional materials by August 27, 2013, would have been forwarded to the review panels for their consideration, but no such comments were received. Comments received after that date were forwarded to the IQC and will be sent to the SBE as well prior to its action on the adoption in January 2014.

The IQC hosted a meeting to take public comment on the 2015ELA/ELD Adoption on August 20, 2015, in Sacramento. Several publishers attended and submitted comments to the IQC for consideration. All members of the IQC were not present at that meeting, but all members received copies of those comments.

In addition, prior to making its recommendations to the SBE, the IQC held two additional public hearings, one during the ELA/ELD Subject Matter Committee (SMC)meeting on September 24, 2015, and one during the full IQC meeting on September 25, 2015. Public comment was received by the IQC both in writing and in testimony at the public hearings. All public comments received by the IQC will be forwarded to the SBE for its November 2015 agenda item on the 2015ELA/ELD Adoption.The SBE will hold a final public hearing atthat meeting prior to taking action on the IQC’s recommendations.

INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY COMMISSION REVIEW AND DELIBERATIONS

IQC members also had the option of receiving sets of all submitted programs, selected programs, or just student and teacher editions. On September 24-25, 2015, the members of the IQC considered the recommendations from the IMR/CRE review panels, public comments, and reports from individual Commissionersto determine whether each program satisfied or did not satisfy the SBE-adopted evaluation criteria for this adoption. The criteria include a requirement that the instructional materials provide comprehensive teaching of the content standards required for the type of program (basic grade-level or intervention).

On September 24, 2015, the ELA/ELD SMC held a public hearing and discussed indepth the IMR/CREReport of Findings for each program. After considering public comment, the ELA/ELD SMC removed the Grade 6 programs from The College Board–Springboard’s SpringBoard ELA (Program 1, 6–8) and SpringBoard ELA/ELD (Program 2, 6–8) from the Consent List in order to engage in a thorough discussion of the issues raised in the public comment.

The discussion centered on the assertion that the materials for both Grade 6 Programs (Program Types 1 and 2) did not meet Category 1, Criterion 22d, called for in the 2015 ELA/ELD Adoption Criteria for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Kindergarten Through Grade Eight (Evaluation Criteria), which was counter to the consensus achieved by the review panel. After further discussion and consideration of evidence supplied by the publisher during public comment, the ELA/ELD SMC concluded that the Grade 6 materials in both Program 1 and Program 2 did not fully address Category 1, Criterion 22d.

The ELA/ELDSMC placed some programs on a consent list of programs that had been recommended without dissent or critical public comment. The SMC recommended all programs on the consent list inone motion and vote. The remaining programs (those not on a consent list) received individual motions and votes. Each motion was stated in the affirmative in each case. A majority vote from the ELA/ELDSMC was required for any program to be recommended to the full IQC for adoption.

On September 25, 2015, after taking public comment, the full IQC also engaged in an extended discussion of the ELA/ELD SMC’s recommendation on the two Grade 6 programs (in light of the issue raised in the public comment) before it took action to recommend the programs to the State Board of Education. The full Commission explored the discrepancy between the evidence in the review panel’s Report of Findings (which supported the panel’s findings that the programs did meet Category 1, Criterion 22d) versus the public comment (from a member of the same panel) that asserted that it did not. The in-depth discussion included consideration of additional evidence supplied by the publisher during public comment. The full Commission concurred with the recommendation of the ELA/ELD SMC regarding Category 1, Criterion 22d, but the full Commission’s discussion revealed a second compelling issue that needed to be addressed by the publisher: in the opinion of a number of Commissioners, the Grade 6 materials in both programs also did not fully address Category 1, Criterion 22b. The publisher representatives were given additional opportunities, in two separate public comment sessions, to address the two issues raised and to supply additional evidence to the full Commission that would clear up the apparent shortcomings. After hearing testimony from the publisher representatives, and after a substantial amount of discussion with them, the Commission Chair called for a vote on the recommendations.