Curriculum framework and materials adoption in California: how networking provided insight into this process

 

The network, or structure constructed through relationships and joint activities by people sharing a common mission, has become an increasingly important means of exchange for facilitating change. Its greater significance in facilitating change in education has been associated with the revolution in information and communication technology, deregulation in government occurring in many countries, and global competition in offering education as a commodity. 

A consequence of the increasing importance of networks in education has been the appearance of a body of research literature examining this phenomenon. Although there is little agreement among researchers in this field in defining the attributes of networks, they do agree that participation based on high levels of trust, durable and mutually appreciated relationships, openness of information flows, and shared benefits are key factors in developing, maintaining and extending networks.

The purpose of this paper is to present a case study exploring how these factors may operate in a network involving exchanges between educators at the international level.  It examines a network arising during postgraduate studies in education I undertook between 1991 and 2004. The topic of these studies focused on the role of textbooks and other curriculum materials in the process of curriculum reform in the USA, UK and Australia.  The case study, reported in this paper, presents accounts of the techniques used to network with a textbook administrator in California about that state’s curriculum framework and materials adoption procedure, and the tribulations experienced in publishing an article on this topic. A statement on subsequent modifications made to the curriculum framework and materials adoption procedure arising from standards-based reform in California follows this account. The paper concludes by discussing the role of key factors in developing, maintaining and extending this network.

Methodology

In August 1992, I surveyed the 50 state education agencies in the USA by questionnaire with support from the Education Commission of the States and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. The purpose of the survey was to identify procedures used in the states to select textbooks and other curriculum resources.  Of the 30 state education agencies, which responded to the survey, 17 responses were received from state-level adoption states and 13 responses were received from local-level adoption states.  An analysis of the responses led to a decision to examine procedures in two state-level adoption states, California and Florida, and a local-level adoption state, Washington, in greater detail. 

Case study method was selected as the most appropriate approach to examine the decision making process involved in selecting materials in these three states.  The decision-making process incorporates a wide range of activities, such as, establishing a relationship to the curriculum, selecting and training committee members, determining sufficient time and funds, developing and applying selection criteria, conducting hearings with publishers and community members, adopting selected materials, and implementing adopted materials in classrooms.   In particular, case study method focuses on aspects of this process, provides a description of the phenomenon, illuminates the reader’s understanding of the phenomenon, and relies on discovering new relationships, concepts and understanding about the phenomenon through inductive reasoning.

Networks formed with textbook administrators in these states supported work in developing the case studies. Initially, networks developed following contacts made with officials during the survey. In general, the initial exchanges were of a transitory nature.  Subsequently, purposeful communications made with particular individuals, identified as possessing expertise in the adoption procedure, fostered these networks. Such exchanges, which developed with the textbook administrators participating in these three case studies, were of a more lasting nature and reflected key factors associated with networks.  However, these case studies were initiated at a time before information and communication technology was widely used in the education sector. Communications with textbook administrators, undertaken by written correspondence, sought a variety of documents or requested comments about draft statements for the case studies. Content analysis method was applied to examine historical documents, questionnaire returns, textbook adoption statutes, textbook administrators’ guides, training materials, lists of selection criteria, and adoption lists. Drafts for each case study were revised on the basis of comments and, in some cases, from additional information supplied by textbook administrators.  This paper was written in June 2008 by referring to the file containing a collection of letters recording communications with a textbook administrator in California between October 1992 and November 1994.

Curriculum Framework and Materials Adoption in California

In October 1992, the California Department of Education’s deputy superintendent for curriculum and instructional leadership returned the completed questionnaire together with policy documents referring to the recent history-social science adoption. It was suggested that I contact the director of the Office of Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources for further information on this topic.  A draft for the case study was written in March 1993 using responses from the questionnaire and information in the supporting documents. The draft was sent to Glen Thomas, the director of the Office of Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources in April 1993 for comments and additional information.  Responses about the draft and further documents were supplied by the respondent, and used to revise the draft before it was sent to him again in July 1993 for further information.  In addition to sending copies of California’s curriculum frameworks and reports of research studies on their implementation, Glen Thomas supplied an article outlining a procedure for dealing with challenges to selection decisions (Thomas, 1990).  These responses, and information in the documents, were used to produce a final draft for the case study in September 1993. The final draft was sent to the respondent with a suggestion to collaborate on revising the document to form a paper suitable for publication in a journal. 

Glen Thomas accepted this suggestion, and I revised the case study to produce this paper, which was sent to him in January 1994 for comments about minor details.  Following explanation and correction of these details, the paper was submitted to four journals specialising in curriculum research for review.  Whilst the paper was rejected by three of the journals, the other journal’s referees recommended further changes to increase the focus on policy issues.  In August 1994, I invited Glen Thomas to revise the paper in line with the referees’ comments.  In November 1994, he replied enclosing a plan for revising the paper and offering an intention to complete the revision in December 1994 or January 1995.  Unfortunately, he never found time to revise the paper, and this task was abandoned.  In 1995, I identified that the Pacific Circle Consortium’s journal, Pacific-Asian Education, may provide a suitable vehicle for publishing an article on this topic.  The journal’s editor confirmed this view in October 1995, and the paper was submitted in its existing form for review in January 1996. The outcome of the review was received in June 1996.  The referees recommended that the paper be reduced in length by focusing on the relationship between the curriculum framework and materials adoption procedure and the treatment of controversial issues in materials in California.  Following reduction and revision along these lines, the paper was submitted at the same time as editorship of the journal was transferred and a new refereeing process instituted.  Although these changes led to a delay in its review, the paper was accepted and published (Watt, 1996).

This article offers a comprehensive account on how aligning the adoption of materials to curriculum frameworks in California influence the content of materials and the treatment of controversial issues.  This alignment reinforces the practice of publishing companies coordinating the publication of materials to California’s adoption cycles in an attempt to increase sales and limit competition in a large market.  The article examines the role of the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission (Curriculum Commission) in overseeing an integrated process for developing curriculum frameworks and adopting materials for grades 1 to 8 on a rotation schedule over an eight-year cycle.  Initially, each subject matter committee appoints a curriculum framework and criteria committee to develop a draft curriculum framework, which the subject matter committee field reviews across California.  Following revision of the draft based on responses to the field review the Curriculum Commission holds a public hearing before approving the curriculum framework.  Then, the State Board holds a further public hearing before adopting the curriculum framework.  Following an invitation to publishers, the Legal Compliance Committee reviews submitted materials for compliance with social content requirements, and instructional resources evaluation panels evaluate the materials for educational content. The selected materials are approved by the Curriculum Commission and displayed in learning resources display centres prior to adoption by the State Board at a public hearing.  Local school districts use a set of guidelines to select materials from the state-adopted list, but may petition the State Board to use non-adopted materials.  These guidelines include procedures for local school districts to deal with challenges.  From the 1960s to the 1980s, the issues of evolution theory and creationism dominated controversy over content in materials in California.  In the 1990s, both conservative and radical groups initiated challenges to particular materials used in Californian schools.  Conservative religious groups opposed use of the reading series, Impressions, which provided whole language and multicultural approaches.  Radical activists representing minority groups opposed adoption of a particular social science series as racist and eurocentric.

Impact of standards-based reform in California

Subsequently, the advent of standards-based reform in California, at the time the case study was conducted, affected the curriculum framework and materials adoption procedure.  When California’s grade 4 students scored the lowest in the nation in reading in the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 1994, the state legislature reached a consensus to initiate standards-based reform by passing the California Assessment of Academic Achievement Act in 1995. The process of standards-based reform began in October 1995 when working groups commenced developing Challenge School Standards by referring to national standards, California’s curriculum frameworks, and school district frameworks. The California Assessment of Academic Achievement Act led to the formation of the 21-member Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards, which commenced overseeing the development of standards for the four core subjects over two rounds in October 1996. Committees formed for each subject reviewed the Challenge School Standards, Education Round Table Standards for High School Graduates, standards from other states, and international studies and standards.  Debate over whole language and phonics failed to emerge in developing the English-language arts standards, because a Reading Task Force had paved the way.  In an attempt to compromise between traditionalists and progressives, the Commission produced a consensus document, which led the State Board to commission a panel of mathematicians to revise the mathematics standards.  Two teams of consultants, which worked independently and represented different perspectives on the science standards, forced the Commission to take a more traditional stance, so that the State Board would not reject them.  The development of the history-social science standards encountered few problems, because the committee drew on the history-social science framework published in 1988, which was widely accepted by teachers.  The State Board adopted California Content Standards for English-language arts and mathematics in December 1997, and history-social science and science in October 1998.  Subsequently, the State Board adopted California Content Standards for visual and performing arts in January 2001 and physical education in January 2005.

At a further stage, the Curriculum Commission appointed curriculum framework and criteria committees to develop new curriculum frameworks aligned to the California Content Standards.  The committees developed drafts aligned to the standards, which were distributed to the educational community for field reviews across California.  The Curriculum Commission revised the drafts based on responses received at public hearings before presenting them to the State Board for further public hearings.  The State Board adopted new curriculum frameworks for reading-language arts and mathematics in December 1998, history-social science in October 2000, foreign language in May 2001, science in February 2002, health in March 2002, visual and performing arts in January 2004, and career and technical education in January 2007. The State Board adopted revised curriculum frameworks for mathematics in March 2005 and reading-language arts in April 2006.

Standards-based reform led to a range of initiatives to improve the alignment of materials to the California Content Standards.  The procedure for evaluating educational content of materials was modified by appointing two committees.  Instructional materials advisory panels undertake the functions of the instructional resources evaluation panels.  They are supported by content review panels consisting of scholars, who review the currency and accuracy of research in materials pertaining to their expertise.  In August 1998, the Schiff-Bustamante Standards-Based Instructional Materials Program (Assembly Bill 2041) provided one billion dollars over four years beginning in the 1998-1999 school year to fund the purchase of new materials aligned to the California Content Standards.  In August 1998, Assembly Bill 2519 established a fixed rotation schedule over a six-year cycle for adopting materials in the core subjects.  In August 2002, Assembly Bill 699 required publishers to submit standards maps for grades 9 to 12 to school districts prior to the purchase of new materials in the core subjects.  School districts are required to certify that the materials they adopt for grades 9 to 12 are aligned to the California Content Standards.  The Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program, enacted in Assembly Bill 1781 in September 2002, requires standards-aligned materials from the state-adopted list to be used by each local school district for the core subjects.

In May 2000, a coalition of civil rights’ groups sued the State of California claiming that a substantial number of students were denied fundamental rights to an education under the Californian Constitution by failing to give them the basic tools necessary for that education. Known as the Williams case after one of the student plaintiffs, the case was settled in the San Francisco Superior Court in August 2004.  In September 2004, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed five laws to implement the settlement. Senate Bill 550 and Assembly Bill 2727 established minimum standards regarding school facilities, teacher quality, curriculum materials and accountability standards to enforce these standards.  Assembly Bill 1550 set benchmarks for districts to reach this goal.  Assembly Bill 3001 encouraged placement of qualified teachers to reach this goal.  Senate Bill 6 provided funds to repair facilities. Senate Bill 550 requires that each student has a textbook or curriculum material for each subject in a suitable condition to use in class and to take home to complete required homework assignments.  Each local school board is required to conduct an annual public hearing and resolution on sufficiency, certify each student has been supplied with a standards-aligned textbook or curriculum material, and sign a statement of assurance in order to receive funds under the Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program.

Conclusion

It is apparent from the evidence presented in this case study that networking promoted high levels of trust, durable and mutually appreciated relationships, openness of information flows, and shared benefits for the participants.  These factors contributed to the participants forming a network based on a shared vision, in which new knowledge was exchanged and commitment developed in shared activities spread across geographical space between Australia and the USA.

Two activities appear to have led to a high level of trust being established between the participants.  First, administration of a questionnaire, which had been developed through referral to reference groups of educators and endorsed by two national organisations in the USA, established sufficient credibility with the respondent to initiate the network.  Second, the submission of successive drafts to develop an accurate account, describing the decision-making process involved in the curriculum framework and materials adoption procedure, increased the respondent’s trust. 

A durable and mutually appreciative relationship existed between the participants.   Evidence of its substance was reflected in the increasing use of complimentary language in correspondence, praise for the quality of the work, and willingness to continue and extend the collaboration. It is apparent, however, that the increasing commitment and time involved in these exchanges eventually overrode this durable and mutually appreciative relationship, and the network terminated before its work was completed.

From their commencement, communications with the respondent were characterised by openness of information flows. Transference of a considerable amount of information, sought on various aspects pertaining to this procedure, was expedited by requesting documents rather than engaging the respondent in providing time-consuming and detailed explanations.  Application of this approach in a consistent way for the duration of the network ensured the relevance and quality of the documents supplied by the respondent.

The perception by the participants of shared benefits was an important factor in maintaining and extending the network. As the number of communications increased, the participants became more aware of interests they shared in gaining better understandings of aspects relating to this phenomenon. Initially, such shared benefits arose from exchanging research findings on particular aspects. Later, collaboration on authoring an article on this topic for publication in a journal constituted a potential benefit both participants could share.

References

Thomas, G (1990). ‘Battles over books’. In Thrust for Educational Leadership, 20: 3, 26-28.
Watt, MG (1996). ‘Linking the development and implementation of curriculum frameworks with the selection of curriculum resources: a review of the process used in California’.  In Pacific-Asian Education, 8: 2, 28-41.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr Michael Watt taught in several secondary schools in Tasmania, Australia, and worked as an education officer in the Tasmania Department of Education.  He holds masters degrees in educational studies and education from the University of Tasmania and a doctorate in education from the University of Canberra.  He currently works as an education consultant.

 

Go to top of page     Go to online discussion