State education officials presented an updated process for selecting mathematics textbooks on Dec. 10 and described a revised rubric, new scoring categories and a compressed timeline intended to get new books into classrooms for the 2021–22 school year.

Deputy or staff lead Becky Boykin and curriculum staff described changes to the scoring process used by the state textbook committee: alignment to the Alabama course of study, alignment to NAEP practice standards, a written-materials “rigor and usability” score, and a digital-materials “coherence and usability” score. The committee also added a per-title average score and a short explanatory comment field to give districts clearer context beyond raw numeric scores.

Staff described a three-color recommendation system: "strong" (green), "moderate" (yellow) and "weak" (red). Books that score below a threshold would be recommended for rejection; those determinations would affect whether districts could use state funds to purchase a given title.

Curriculum staff acknowledged concerns raised earlier by board members and districts about timing. The department said it will post the board’s recommendations and the list of titles for 30 days before final board action, but legal rules governing textbook procurements mean the department cannot publish full review comments and numeric rubrics until after contracts are signed with publishers. Staff said they would "walk the process forward as quickly as possible" but cautioned that contracts are state-level procurements requiring multiple approvals, and that a short delay in caravans might be unavoidable.

Department staff said they will publish the committee’s quantitative scores (in color categories) when the list is posted and will distribute full numeric rubrics and publisher Q&A responses after contracts are executed. They also said they will use the mid‑week superintendent memo and other channels to inform districts about the process and timelines. Board members asked the department to explore statutory changes to allow earlier publication of rubric details in future cycles.

No adoption vote occurred at the work session; the committee’s recommendations were presented for board review and for a formal vote at a later meeting.