State board debates textbook law revisions, ELA bid process and literacy-task-force findings

Alabama State Board of Education members and department staff spent a large portion of their Jan. 19 work session reviewing proposed revisions to state textbook law and the department’s recent English-language-arts (ELA) bid process, including outcomes of the literacy task force review.

Board staff described the literacy task force’s k–3 review as a screening that used a “no red flags” threshold to identify materials closely aligned to the Alabama Literacy Act and the science-of-reading standards. That review produced two recommended K–3 programs; other vendors either withdrew or did not meet the stated nonnegotiables, staff said. The board’s textbook/ELA committee recommended materials for grades 4–12 that produced multiple vendor options, while the k–3 review left the board with a single recommended provider.

Why it matters: The board must weigh two competing goals—ensuring that lower-grade materials meet the state’s literacy standards and giving local school systems a practical set of vetted options. Several board members urged deeper vetting of K–3 materials and better public access to submitted materials; others said delays would leave districts without contract options for next school year.

Key points from the discussion - Literacy-task-force method: Staff described the task force’s rubric as a checklist; materials with any red flags were excluded. The final screen left two K–3 programs with no red flags and a larger set of options for grades 4–12. - Options for the board: Staff outlined three procedural paths: (1) adopt the committee’s recommendations for K–12 as presented, (2) adopt grades 4–12 now and table or rebid K–3, or (3) reject and rebid all materials. Board members discussed adopting 4–12 now and rebidding K–3 to obtain more submissions or more intensive vetting. - Reviewer compensation: Board members raised whether technical reviewers (local teachers, librarians, parents) should receive stipends beyond per diem; staff said the current administrative language authorizes per diem at state-employee rates and that the statute could be amended to authorize additional pay or an appropriation to reimburse districts for substitutes. - Transparency and public access: Board members and staff discussed posting titles and publisher access online; staff noted copyright limits on posting full copyrighted content but said publishers already provide online sample access for bidders and that bid packages require publisher-provided online access beginning at the time of bidding. - Local adoption and funding: Staff noted local districts may still adopt alternative materials through their local textbook committee, but warned that a material rejected by the state board may not be purchased with public funds if the board explicitly rejects it; staff encouraged clearer guidance and “best-practices” for local adoption to reduce confusion.

Quotes - "If you adopted the recommendations as you have them now, what does that mean for schools?" Jessica Sanders, department staff, asked, summarizing the procedural stakes. - "I am hugely protective of the lower grades. Anything that goes to the lower grades: vetted, vetted, vetted again," Board Member Tracy West said.

What the board is considering next Staff recommended adopting grades 4–12 materials at the Feb. meeting and continuing discussion on K–3. Several board members requested the full bid packet, the literacy-task-force tools, and the committee’s red-flag notes before voting. Staff also pledged to explore whether stipend language or substitute reimbursement could be authorized administratively or whether statutory language should be revised.

Provenance Topic introduction: "So at this time, if we would just look at the textbook law revisions and if there are comments or changes that you'd like to see in reference to the textbook law, at this time, we're open for discussion." (transcript excerpt) Topic finish: "So I think that, as a foundation, we should move forward with 4–12. We've had no questions raised about 4–12. Now... let's keep having a discussion about K–3." (transcript excerpt)

Ending The board left the item open for further work: staff will circulate the full bid packet and red-flag documentation, evaluate the legal and budgetary implications of reviewer stipends and substitute reimbursements, and prepare a clearer local-adoption guidance document for districts. The board plans to revisit the K–3 question at the next business meeting.