Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rep. Place seeks relief for districts to adopt 'substantially similar' lower‑cost curricula
Summary
House Bill 7140 would let school districts petition the Rhode Island Department of Education to approve curricula that are “substantially similar” to RIDE‑approved options, with the sponsor saying the current list creates monopoly pricing and an unfunded mandate.
Representative David Place introduced House Bill 7140 on Jan. 27, 2026, saying the current RIDE list of approved curricula effectively creates monopoly pricing and forces districts to pay higher costs. "If it's not on our list, it's not high enough quality," Place told the House Education Committee, and the bill would allow districts to petition RIDE to approve a substantially similar, lower‑cost curriculum after review.
Place said the proposal is not intended to lower standards but to provide districts and teachers with flexibility and fiscal relief, calling it a modest step to address what he described as an "unfunded mandate." He cited conversations with a Warwick school committee member and Burrillville officials who reported price increases after vendors were added to RIDE's approved list.
Andy Andrade of the Rhode Island Department of Education told the committee that RIDE already requires districts to select from a menu of five vetted curricula in English, math and science and that EdReports is used as an external reviewer. "What would happen if [a district] came to us and said...we think this is similar, high quality and would cost less?" Andrade said. "Our answer would be absolutely, but you need to find a qualified third party to vet it, and you're going to have to pay for it."
Committee members asked whether RIDE has internal capacity to vet curricula and how much third‑party reviews cost. Andrade said RIDE relies on external review and did not have a cost figure immediately available; he agreed to follow up with specifics. Representative Kislak and others noted an existing waiver and appeal process and asked whether the bill addresses implementation gaps or simply duplicates existing options.
The committee took testimony and questions and did not adopt final action on the substance of the bill during the hearing; at the start of the meeting the committee voted to hold the day's bills for further study, a procedural motion recorded before debate.
