textbooks; adverse representation; prohibition
SB 1599 would amend Arizona’s textbook approval statutes for common schools and high schools. It keeps the existing framework requiring governing boards to approve courses, basic textbooks, and certain supplemental materials, while also preserving public-review procedures for textbook selection and public posting of school-library purchases made after January 1, 2023. The bill continues to require public meetings for textbook review committees, public access to proposed textbooks, and parent notification about review periods.
The main substantive change is a new prohibition on approving or selecting any textbook or other instructional material that contains matter reflecting adversely on persons based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The bill also retains the definition of “textbook” to include printed and digital instructional materials and related resources used in classroom instruction. In high schools, the bill continues to allow up to five prescribed textbooks per course and permits teachers to use one of those approved texts with governing board consent.
If enacted, SB 1599 would amend A.R.S. §§ 15-721 and 15-722 to add an explicit content-based restriction on instructional materials in Arizona common schools and high schools. School governing boards would be barred from approving or selecting materials deemed to reflect adversely on the listed protected characteristics, which could affect textbook adoption, supplemental reading lists, and other instructional content. The bill would also continue the existing transparency and notice requirements for textbook review and school-library purchase lists, with limited exemptions for schools lacking a full-time library media specialist or those with certain library agreements.
The bill’s caption and structure suggest a focus on restricting certain instructional content and increasing public visibility into school materials. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the text alone, the measure appears aligned with concerns about school curriculum oversight and content screening, but the available history does not show whether it was broadly supported or contested in committee.
The likely point of contention is the new prohibition on materials that “reflect adversely” on people based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Supporters would likely view this as a safeguard against discriminatory or harmful instructional content, while opponents may argue the language is broad, subjective, and could be used to remove or chill materials addressing identity, history, or discrimination. Another possible issue is the bill’s expanded public review and library-list posting requirements, which may raise privacy, administrative burden, and local control concerns for school districts.