Implementing Senate Bill 6
©Robert H. Leos, Ph.D.
Robert Leos Consulting, Austin, Texas
Purpose of the Study
 To document processes school districts used to plan and
implement changes resulting from SB 6.
 To provide an avenue for textbook coordinators (now
instructional materials coordinators) to describe effective
planning practices, express concerns, make recommendations
for improvement.
Study commissioned by the Association of American Publishers
with support from the Textbook Coordinators’ Association of Texas
(now IMCAT)
Pre-SB 6 Era
 State Textbook Funds
The SB 6 Era
 Instructional Materials
Fund (IMF)
 Technology Allotment
(per-ADA)
 Instructional Materials
Allotment (IMA)
The Old to the New
Pre-SB 6 Era
 Conforming (100% of
TEKS) “textbooks”
 Nonconforming (50-99%
of TEKS) “textbooks”
The SB 6 Era
 One list of adopted
“instructional
materials”
 50% TEKS coverage
required for adoption
The Old to the New
Old to the New
Pre-SB 6 Era
SB 6 Era
State funds generally
limited to SBOE-adopted
materials
Districts now have
expanded options for using
state IM funds
State ownership
District ownership
Methodology
 Three focus groups with IM coordinators (Dec. 2011)
 Transcription and analysis of responses across three focus
groups
 Online survey with IM coordinators (N = 109)
 Report: “Challenges of Change: Implementing Senate Bill
6.” Available at www.texascurriculum.org
Focus Group and Survey Topics
 How aware were textbook coordinators of proposed
changes during and after the legislative session?
What were the primary sources of information?
How did school districts disseminate information
about SB 6 to staff in order to begin the planning
processes?
Was the information from the Texas Education
Agency (TEA) and other sources about SB 6
beneficial?
Focus Group and Survey Topics
 Who were the stakeholders involved in planning
expenditures from the IMA?
 Were there any difficulties with the requisitions
and disbursement processes?
 To what extent did STAAR influence the school
districts’ decisions related to expenditures from
the IMA?
Study Topics (continued)
Will school districts spend all of their 2011-12
Instructional Materials Allotments?
 Other issues, concerns, and recommendations
(focus groups and survey).
Descriptions of planning and implementation
practices (survey respondents).
Findings
What did we learn?
A Major Change
In years past, we ordered so much because we
could. When they said, “It’s your money now,” we
said, “Whoa!” Now, we consider how we used the
materials in prior years and whether we will need
them in the future.
Focus Group Participant
Knowledge of SB 6
•
74% of survey respondents indicated that they had a
basic understanding of the new legislation when
the school year 2011-12 began.
• 15% had a thorough understanding of SB 6 and were
prepared for implementation when the 2011-12
school year began.
• Only about 10% of respondents did not understand
the IMA when the school year began.
Information Sources
Survey Question: What were the information sources
that helped you learn about SB 6?
TCAT
39.4%
TEA
30.0%
ESCs
13.1%
School administrators
8.0%
Media (radio, web, etc.)
5.2%
Other
4.3%
How did school districts disseminate information
about SB 6?
Meetings with
Principals
Meetings with dept.
leaders
32.2%
32.2%
Staff meetings
No information
disseminated
19.1%
10.9%
Within-district Communication
Survey Question: How helpful was the information you
received from your administration about SB 6?
I have not received
information from my
administration.
26.6%
It has been very helpful.
22.9%
It has been somewhat
helpful.
34.8%
It has not been helpful.
12.8%
Excerpt from “Challenges”
A superintendent from a school district
represented in Group 3 began actively
informing staff about the proposed
changes using the district’s website,
email, and school district newsletter.
Excerpt from “Challenges”
The second superintendent was very
“proactive” during the legislative session,
having taken several trips to Austin to
speak with legislators about funding.
Excerpt from “Challenges”
A participant from Group 2 and another
from Group 3 described how their
superintendents took an active role in
monitoring the legislative session and
keeping staff informed. One
superintendent posted comments on the
district’s website about legislative
activity.
Attitudes about TETN Sessions
They were
somewhat helpful.
46.7%
They were very
helpful.
42.2%
The TETNs were very beneficial. That is how our central
office staff, superintendent, and everyone learned.
Focus Group Participant
Quality of Information From TEA
and Other Sources
Generally, all survey and focus group
participants were positive about the
information that TEA and TCAT provided
within a limited amount of time.
TCAT played a prominent role in
disseminating information about impending
legislation.
Following passage of SB 6,
TEA issued guidelines
encouraging school districts
to use a team approach to
planning for expenditures
from the IMA.
Team Approach to Planning
Business
office
IM
Coordinator
Supt. Office
Curriculum
Principals
Technology
Teachers
Team Approach to Planning (TEA)
Business
office
IM
Coordinator
Supt. office
Curriculum
Principals
Teachers
Technology
IMA Expenditures
•
60% indicated that their school districts would
have a balance in their IMA accounts at the end
of the 2011-12 school year.
•
25% expect a fund balance at the end of the
2012-2013 school year.
•
70% used, or expect to use, their IMA to buy
software and technological equipment.
Influence of STAAR on IMA
Expenditures
STAAR did not
influence our
decisions.
STAAR was a minor
factor in our
decisions.
STAAR was a major
factor in our
decisions.
4.5%
21.1%
48.6%
Requisitions and Disbursements
•
Very few problems with the
requisitions process.
•
Most problems were with the new
disbursement process.
•
Survey included space for
recommendations.
Effective Planning and Implementation
Practices
•
Use an IMA team or IMA Oversight Committee
(IMAOC) for planning expenditures.
•
Hold regular meetings to make decisions and
review proposals submitted.
•
Use a checklist for proper completion of the
disbursement requests.
Recommendations
•
Develop a process to exchange, sell, or donate
surplus instructional materials and out-ofadoption materials.
•
Develop training materials, decision-making
models and clear guidelines.
•
Develop clear definitions, policies, and rules that
spell out eligible and non-eligible IMA
expenditures.
Limitations of the IMA for Small
Districts
 “A participant expressed frustration that
small districts would most likely continue
using traditional textbooks because of the
cost of purchasing and maintaining
electronic devices.”
Excerpt from The Challenges of Change
Observations
The role of the textbook (instructional
materials) coordinator has expanded greatly.
Planning for expenditures from the IMA is
critical.
Stakeholder involvement in planning ranged
from involvement of all key players to limited
involvement by two or three.
Observations
The Instructional Materials Coordinators’
Association of Texas (IMCAT) plays a very
important role in disseminating information
and training coordinators.
Very few parents were involved in planning for
instructional materials and technology.
More Observations
More stakeholders are involved in
planning expenditures for instructional
materials and other eligible purchases
using the IMA.
And . . .
More Observations
TEKS coverage in non-adopted
instructional materials will become
an important issue.
And . . .
MORE FLEXIBILITY =
MORE ACCOUNTABILITY
RESOURCES
 Full Report is at www.texascurriculum.org.
 SBOE Rules: TEA website, “Education Laws and Rules.”
 Commissioner’s Rules: TEA website, “Education Laws
and Rules (not final).”
 TASB Training, August 10, 2012. Registration
www.instructional.tasb.org.
 TEA website: www.tea.state.tx.us.
robertleos@austin.rr.com
(512) 914-5998 Telephone
(512) 892-1781 Fax
www.robertleos.com
Questions?
I think school districts have a greater
appreciation for textbook
coordinators—what we do and how
we do it.
Focus Group Participant