Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Textbook Adoption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State textbook office outlines CTE adoption rubric, timeline; publishers to be considered after December vote
Summary
State textbook staff reviewed the adoption process, scoring rubric and timeline for Career and Technical Education materials, saying committee recommendations and board votes after December will determine public release and classroom use.
The Alabama State Department of Education’s textbook office reviewed its review and scoring process for Career and Technical Education (CTE) instructional materials during a State Board of Education work session.
Carolyn Jones, the state textbook coordinator, and Tracy Flowers described the multi‑step review: once the board approves course‑of‑study changes, publishers submit materials and a state textbook committee of nominated educators and postsecondary representatives evaluates them using a uniform rubric. Jones said that, following board practice, reviewed materials are confidential until after board approval.
The committee uses a tiered scoring approach, the presenters said: Tier 1 (90–100%) and Tier 2 (80–89%) are recommended for board approval; Tier 3 (79% and below) is recommended for rejection. The rubric has sections labeled “nonnegotiables,” alignment to Alabama standards (an addendum tied to the number of state standards), classroom application indicators and optional superior‑quality criteria. Reviewers assign values from 1 to 4 for indicators (4 = exceeds expectations) and convert raw points into percentages to determine the tier.
Jones listed the publishers that submitted bids for the current CTE review: Gengage, ICEB, Goodhart and Sabbath Learning Company LLC. She said the review process includes public input during the scheduled board vote (expected in December) and that publishers are asked to label materials as comprehensive or supplemental so committees apply the correct standard to the submission.
Jones warned that some materials submitted as supplemental cannot stand alone as a primary instructional resource: “If it doesn't meet the nonnegotiables, then, you know, that we don't want it,” she said. She described steps reviewers take, including contacting publishers for clarification when online materials lack clear evidence for indicators.
The textbook office noted that the board will receive committee appointments and scoring materials in coming weeks and that committee votes and recommendations will be compiled for presentation to the board at the December meeting. The office asked stakeholders who want to speak during the board public‑comment period to contact the textbook office in advance.
