Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Curriculum Hqim topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel weighs bill to identify and subsidize high‑quality instructional materials
Summary
Lawmakers heard House Bill 462, which would have the Office of Public Instruction and Board of Public Education identify high‑quality instructional materials and help districts acquire them at reduced cost.
HELENA — The House Education Committee took testimony on House Bill 462, a measure from Representative David Beatty to create a process for identifying and supporting adoption of high‑quality instructional materials (HQIM) when the Board of Public Education adopts content and performance standards.
Beatty said the bill would embed curriculum review and cost estimates into the standards adoption process so districts and negotiators understand the cost and professional development needed for implementation. "This afternoon, I bring you House Bill 4 62, which defines a process by which high quality instructional materials, or sometimes referred to as high quality curriculum, are identified when the Board of Public Education adopts content and standards," Beatty said in his opening.
State Superintendent Susie Hedalen testified in support and emphasized the optional nature of the program. "This bill, House Bill 4 62, provides an opportunity for schools who choose to engage in this process to make sure that we have high quality instructional materials," Hedalen said. She told lawmakers the office can help districts vet materials and noted existing examples, including literacy grants that require research‑based curricula.
External experts and advocates, including Ashley Berner of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy, spoke about evidence that sequenced, knowledge‑building curricula can narrow achievement gaps and accelerate learning. "The body of research indicating that high quality, rigorous curriculum closes achievement gaps between low income and wealthier students, and it accelerates learning for all students," Berner said.
Multiple witnesses, including Rob Watson of the Coalition of Advocates for Montana's Public Schools, urged clearer language on how outside experts would be selected and suggested allowing materials that "align with or could be adapted to align with" state standards so promising packages are not excluded for imperfect fit.
The hearing record includes discussion of proposed appropriations. Members asked whether an appropriation would fund materials, professional development, or both. Sponsor Beatty described a plan discussed in testimony to make available multiple vetted curriculum options and to use purchasing scale and procurement to lower district costs; he referenced a $3,000,000 figure for K‑8 acquisitions and additional funds discussed for high school support during committee questioning.
Committee members asked about procurement, how a nonprofit subject‑matter expert would be chosen and whether the process would preserve local control. The sponsor said local districts would retain authority to adopt curricula and that the OPI and the Board would make recommendations; the external nonprofit would be an adjunct expert to help vet materials and negotiate pricing.
No committee vote was recorded at the hearing. The committee closed public testimony and the hearing concluded.
