2017HISTORY–SOCIAL SCIENCE ADOPTION

INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY COMMISSION

ADVISORY REPORT

Submitted to the State Board of Education

October 2017

Page 1 of 261

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction

Adoption Process

Instructional Quality Commission Recommendations

Basic Grade-Level Programs

Discovery Education, Discovery Education Social Science Techbook, Grades Six through Eight

First Choice Educational Publishing, E Pluribus Unum: The American Pursuit of Liberty, Growth, and Equality, 1750-1900, Grade Eight

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, HMH Kids Discover California Social Studies, Kindergarten through Grade Six

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, Social Studies for California, Grades Six through Eight

McGraw-Hill School Education, Impact: California Social Studies, Kindergarten through Grade Five

McGraw-Hill School Education, Impact: California Social Studies, Grades Six through Eight

National Geographic Learning, National Geographic World History, Grades Six through Eight

Pearson Scott Foresman and Prentice Hall, California History-Social Science myWorld Interactive, Kindergarten through Grade Five

Pearson Scott Foresman and Prentice Hall, California History-Social Science: myWorld Interactive, Grades Six through Eight

Studies Weekly, California Studies Weekly – Social Studies, Kindergarten through Grade Six

Teachers’ Curriculum Institute, Social Studies Alive! California Series, Kindergarten through Grade Five

Teachers’ Curriculum Institute, History Alive! California Series, Grades Six through Eight

Appendix A: Criteria for Evaluating Instructional Materials: Kindergarten through Grade Eight

Appendix B: Learning Resources Display Centers (LRDCs)

Page 1 of 261

Introduction

The previous state adoption of kindergarten through grade eight (K–8) instructional materials in history–social science took place in 2005. The California Department of Education (CDE) had already begun preparations for the next adoption, scheduled for 2011, when a moratorium on curriculum framework development and instructional materials adoptions was put in place in late July 2009 thorough the passage of Assembly Bill X4 2. That bill added Section 60200.7 to the Education Code (EC), which suspended all State Board of Education (SBE) actions related to those activities untilJuly 1, 2013. That suspension was extended for two more years by Senate Bill 70, signed in March 2011.

In the meantime, California was moving forward with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English language arts and mathematics. Due to the suspension, the implementation of those standards had to be authorized through specific legislation that allowed for exceptions to the suspension for the development of curriculum frameworks and the adoption of instructional materials that were aligned to the CCSS.

Even though the suspension ended on July 1, 2015, the impact it has had on the regular adoption of curriculum frameworks and instructional materials will be felt for years to come. The History–Social Science Framework, which had been approved for its first field review by the then-Curriculum Commission when the suspension took effect, was delayed until 2014 when Senate Bill 1540 allowed work on it to resume. The framework, which contains the criteria for the evaluation of K–8 instructional materials, was not finished and approved by the SBE until July 2016.

Work on the adoption was further complicated by funding challenges. When the Curriculum Commission was reconstituted as the Instructional Quality Commission (IQC) in 2012, its regular budget that had been cut as part of the suspension was never reinstated by the Legislature. This has meant that the IQC’s work on curriculum framework development and instructional materials adoptions has had to be funded each year on an ad hoc basis. Also significant is the trend toward funding adoptions through the collection of fees from participating publishers. This adoption was the third statewide adoption that was supported by publisher fees.

This adoption, the first in twelve years, is significant in a number of ways. While the California academic content standards in history–social science have not changed, the new curriculum framework includes significant revisions and new content that has had a profound effect upon the instructional materials developed by publishers. Furthermore, this adoption reflects the significance of the adoption of the CCSS in English language arts, especially the literacy standards for history/social studies. The instructional shifts in the CCSS are not just limited to English language arts teachers, and the new History–Social Science Framework includes an emphasis on the collaborative aspects of literacy and skill development that will have an impact on how history–social science is taught going forward. The framework also includes a particular emphasis on the contributions of diverse groups to the development of California and the United States, and preparing students for their role as active citizens in our democracy by promoting civic engagement and civic participation.

The new framework also includes the criteria for evaluating kindergarten through grade eight instructional materials (see Appendix A of this document for the full criteria). The criteria serve as the evaluation instrument for determining whether instructional materials align to the content standards, curriculum framework, and the other requirements established by the SBE. The adopted evaluation criteria require that instructional materials that are submitted cover at least one full-year course of study.Supplemental instructional materials were not reviewed as part of this adoption.

The criteria for the evaluation of history–social science instructional materials for kindergarten through grade eight are organized into five categories:

  1. History–Social Science Content/Alignment with the Standards. Instructional materials include content as specified in the Education Code, the History–Social Science Content Standards, and the History–Social Science Framework. Programs must meet all standards for the submitted grade levelsin full to be eligible for adoption.
  2. Program Organization. Instructional materials support instruction and learning of the standards and include such features as the organization and design of the program.
  3. Assessment. Instructional materials include assessments for measuring what students know and are able to do and provide guidance for teachers on how to use assessment results to guide instruction.
  4. Universal Access. Instructional materials provide access to the standards-based curriculum for all students, including students eligible for special education, English learners, and students whose achievement is either below or above that typical of the class or grade level.
  5. Instructional Planning and Support. Information and materials contain a clear road map for teachers to follow when planning instruction and are designed to help teachers provide effective standards-based instruction.

Materials that fail to meet the criteria in Category 1: History–Social Science Content/Alignment with the Standards will not be considered suitable for adoption. All criteria statements in Category 1 that are appropriate for the grade levels submitted must be met for a program to be adopted. In addition, programs must have strengths in each of categories 2 through 5 to be suitable for adoption.

The SBE approved standards and evaluation criteria maps were developed by the CDE to help publishers identify where their instructional materials were aligned with the content standards and the evaluation criteria. Publishers completed the maps with citations to their programs and submitted them with their sample materials. The SBE appointed Instructional Materials Reviewers (IMRs) and Content Review Experts (CREs) who used the maps to evaluate a program’s alignment with the content standards and evaluation criteria.

Adoption Process

ADOPTION TIMELINE

As recommended by the IQC, the SBEadopted the Schedule of Significant Events for the 2017History–Social Science Adoption on July 14, 2016. The last adoption of history–social science instructional materials took place in 2005. Initial briefings of publishers on the process for the adoption took place on July 28, 2016, and September 23, 2016. The July 28 briefing was a webinar that provided an overview of the California adoption process, while the September 23 briefing focused on the content of the new History–Social Science Framework.

PUBLISHERS INVITATION TO SUBMIT MEETING

A Publishers Invitation to Submit (ITS) meeting was held on January 18, 2017. Publishers were invited to attend the ITS meeting to learn about the process and procedures for submitting K–8 instructional materials for the 2017History–Social Science Adoption. Each publisher received a digital copy of the Publishers Invitation to Submit Instructional Materials for California’s 2017History–Social ScienceInstructional Materials Adoption, a document that contains all of the information necessary for a publisher to know how to effectively participate in the adoption process.Technical information was provided at the meeting, including the schedule of significant events,the publisher’s responsibilities for participating in the adoption,a review of the adoption process,an overview of the content standards, curriculum framework,and the evaluation criteria,a description of the social content requirements in the Education Code, and the logistics of the submission process.

PUBLISHER FEES

Pursuant to EC Section 60212, and in accordance with theCalifornia Code of Regulations, Title 5 (5 CCR), Section 9517.3, this adoption was financed through fees paid by participating publishers. The fee was set at $5,000 per program per grade level submitted.

The legislation also included the provision that, upon the request of a small publisher or smallmanufacturer, the SBE may reduce the fee for participation inthe adoption.EC Section 60211 states that a "small publisher" and "smallmanufacturer" mean an independently owned or operated publisher ormanufacturer that is not dominant in its field of operation and that,together with its affiliates, has 100 or fewer employees, and hasaverage annual gross receipts of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) orless over the previous three years.Three publishers submitted requests for small publisher fee reduction, but only one, First Choice Educational Publishing, went on to submit instructional materials for consideration.

REVIEWER APPOINTMENT AND TRAINING

The SBE appointed IMRs and CREs at its meeting on January 11, 2017. Based on the recommendations of the IQC, the SBE appointed a total of 99IMRs and 21CREs.The CREs and IMRswere divided into10 review panels that were assigned one or moreprograms to review.

The IMRs included classroom teachers who teach students in kindergarten or grades 1–12, have a “professional” credential under California law, and who have experience with, and expertise in, standards-based-educational programs and practices in the content field under consideration. 5 CCR requires that a majority of the IMRs be classroom teachers at the time of appointment. Some of the IMRs had experience in providing instruction to English Learners, and in providing instruction to students with disabilities. For the 2017History–Social Science Adoption, CREs were required to have a doctoral degree in history or a related field of social science.

The IQC and the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division (CFIRD) staff trained reviewers at the Doubletree Hilton in Sacramento on April 25–28, 2017,to prepare them for their independent review and subsequent deliberations. The training materials were reviewed and approved by the IQC at its meeting on November 17–18, 2016, and by the SBE at its meeting on January 11, 2017. The training included sessions on the content standards, curriculum framework, evaluation criteria, social contentrequirements, and the adoption process. Publishers made formal presentations on their programs on the final day of the training and answered reviewer questions.

The training was conducted in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Various publisher representatives and interested members of the public attended the training. Each day, at a pre-determined time, the training was paused to provide an opportunity for public comment.

IMR/CRE REVIEW, DELIBERATIONS, AND REPORT OF FINDINGS

After training was completed, the IMRs and CREs received complete sets of instructional materials for the programsthey were assigned to review and evaluate according to the evaluation criteria. The IMRs and CREs conducted their independent reviews of the submittedinstructional materials during May through early July.

The reviewers met in their assigned review panels at the Doubletree Hilton in Sacramento for deliberations held on July 25–28, 2017. The IMRs and CREsdiscussed the individual notes and citations they had developed while performing their independent reviews. A member of the IQC or another facilitator approved by the SBE was assigned to facilitate each panel. CFIRD staff provided support to the panels. During deliberations, publishers were provided a formal publisher response time to address three to five questions on each of their respective programs posed by the panel members. Publishers received these questions in advance and could provide written as well as verbal responses.

The IMRs and CREs worked collaboratively during deliberations to produce a Report of Findingsfor each program. The reports include findings for each category of the criteria and exemplary (not exhaustive) citations to support those findings.

All 12 of the programs submitted by publishers for consideration were recommended by the IMR/CRE panelsfor adoption, with some recommendations contingent upon satisfactory completion of specified edits and corrections and/or social content citations.

Edits and corrections are defined as inexact language, imprecise definitions, mistaken notations, mislabeling, misspellings, and grammatical errors. Edits and corrections do not include rewrites, including revisions of sections, chapters, or entire pages, or adding new content to a program. Rewrites are not allowed during the adoption process(5 CCR sections 9510(h) and (r), and 9519(f) through (g)).The review panels also provided citations for social content violations when those were found in the programs.

The panel deliberations were conducted in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Various publisher representatives and interested members of the public attended the deliberations. At least twice each day, the deliberations process included an opportunity for public comment.

PUBLIC COMMENT AND REVIEW

Instructional materials submitted for adoption were displayed for public review and comment, beginning May 12, 2017, at 10 Learning Resource Display Centers (LRDCs) throughout the state (see Appendix B). In addition, publishers were required to submit a URL indicating where copies of student materials were available for public access online (5 CCR Section 9523(b)) during the adoption process. Pursuant to 5 CCR Section 9521, any comments on the submitted instructional materials received by July 10, 2017,were forwarded to the review panels for their consideration. Over a thousand pages of comments were received by the above deadline and were forwarded to the review panels. Those comments and comments received after that date were forwarded to the IQC and will be sent to the SBE as well prior to its action on the adoption in November 2017.

The IQC hosted a meeting to take public comment on the 2017History–Social Science Adoption on August 17, 2017, in Sacramento. Publisher representatives and members of the public attended and submitted comments to the IQC for consideration. All members of the IQC were not present at that meeting, but all members received copies of comments that were submitted in writing.

Prior to making its recommendations to the SBE, the IQC held two additional public hearings, one during the History–Social Science Subject Matter Committee (HSS SMC)meeting on September 27, 2017, and one during the full IQC meeting on September 28, 2017. Public comment was received by the IQC both in writing and in testimony at the public hearings. All public comments received by the IQCwill be forwarded to the SBE for its November 2017 agenda item on the 2017History–Social Science Adoption.The SBE will hold a final public hearing atthat meeting prior to taking action on the IQC’s recommendations.

INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY COMMISSION REVIEW AND DELIBERATIONS

IQC members also had the option of receiving sets of all submitted programs, selected programs, or just student and teacher editions. On September 27–28, 2017, the members of the IQC considered the recommendations from the IMR/CRE review panels, public comments, and reports from individual Commissionersto determine whether each program satisfied or did not satisfy the SBE-adopted evaluation criteria for this adoption.

On September 27, 2017, the HSS SMC held a public hearing and discussed indepth the IMR/CREReport of Findings for each program. The HSS SMC heard testimony from more than 140 members of the public before taking action to recommend programs to the full IQC.

The 12 programs submitted by publishers received individual motions and votes. Each motion was stated in the affirmative in each case. A majority vote from the HSSSMC was required for any program to be recommended to the full IQC for adoption. The HSS SMC recommended 11 of the 12 programs that had been recommended by the review panels. The HSS SMC did not recommend the programKids Discover California Social Studies (kindergarten through grade six) by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. In its recommendation to the full Commission the HSS SMC made numerous changes to the list of edits and corrections and social content citations issued by the review panels, including the addition of edits taken from the public comment submitted for the adoption.