BILL ANALYSIS
AB 97
Page A
Date of Hearing: April 1, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 97 (Torlakson) - As Introduced: January 6, 2009
SUBJECT : School curriculum: content standards
SUMMARY : Establishes a process for the review and revision of
the state academic content standards. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
convene an Academic Content and Performance Standards Review
(ACPSR) Panel, consisting of 13 members, for each of the
curriculum area content standards adopted by the State Board
of Education (SBE).
2)Specifies that the members of each ACPSR panel shall serve a
two-year term at the pleasure of the appointing authority and
without compensation, except for reimbursement for actual and
necessary travel expenses, and requires each ACPSR panel to
consist of the following members:
a) Six members appointed by the Governor, four of whom
shall be credentialed teachers and have public school
classroom experience in the curriculum area and in the
grade levels for which they are appointed;
b) The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), or his
or her designee;
c) Four members appointed by the SPI, three of whom shall
be credentialed teachers and have public school classroom
experience in the curriculum area and in the grade levels
for which they are appointed;
d) One member appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules;
and
e) One member appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
3)Requires the appointing authorities to consult with each other
to ensure that each ACPSR panel consists of individuals with
expertise in the academic content or performance standards in
AB 97
Page B
various grade levels; individuals who are knowledgeable about
urban and rural schools, English learners, and special
education; individuals from different geographical areas of
the state and who reflect the ethnic and gender diversity of
California.
4)Provides that each ACPSR panel shall review the content
standards and performance standards established in its
particular curriculum area to ensure that the standards meet
all of the specified requirements and shall recommend changes
to the SBE as it may deem necessary.
5)States that if an ACPSR panel recommends changes to the
content or performance standards in its particular curriculum
area, it shall forward the recommended changes to the SBE.
6)Requires the SBE to hold hearings on the recommended changes
to the standards and adopt or reject the recommended changes
to the standards within 120 days of their receipt from an
ACPSR panel, and at least two years prior to the adoption of
curriculum frameworks for the relevant subject area. If the
recommended changes to the content or performance standards
submitted by an ACPSR panel are rejected, the SBE shall
provide a specific, written explanation of the reasons why the
submitted recommendations were not adopted.
7)Allows the ACPSR panel to modify the recommendations to
correct deficiencies identified by the SBE, and to resubmit
recommended changes for adoption by the SBE.
8)States that these provisions shall not be implemented unless
an appropriation is provided specifically for the purposes of
this bill in the annual Budget Act or another statute.
9)Repeals the provisions stated above as of January 1, 2017,
unless a statute enacted before January 1, 2017, deletes or
extends that date.
10)Repeals the SBE's authority to revise any proposed academic
content standards prior to adoption.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires the SBE to adopt statewide academic content standards
and performance standards in core curriculum areas, based on
AB 97
Page C
the recommendation of the Commission for the Establishment of
Academic Content and Performance Standards and the SPI.
2)Authorizes the SBE to modify any proposed content standard or
performance standard prior to its adoption.
3)Allows the SBE to adopt content and performance standards in
individual core curriculum areas as those standards are
submitted to the SBE.
4)States that because content and performance standards are
models, their adoption is not subject to the Administrative
Procedure Act.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : California's content standards specify the content
that students need to acquire at each grade level from
kindergarten to grade twelve and they are the foundation for the
accountability system, instructional materials and staff
development programs.
AB 265 (Alpert) Chapter 975, Statutes of 1995, provides for the
appointment of a Commission for the Establishment of Academic
Content and Performance Standards to make recommendations to the
SBE for the establishment of statewide academically rigorous
content standards in the core areas of reading, writing,
mathematics, history/social science, and science. The standards
in the core areas were adopted in 1997 and 1998 and they have
not been revised since their initial adoption.
The SBE has adopted content standards in the areas of
reading/language arts, math, history/social science, science,
visual and performing arts, career technical education, physical
education, health education, and most recently world languages.
The SBE is also required to adopt standards-aligned
instructional materials in the core areas of language arts,
reading, mathematics, science, social science and bilingual or
bicultural subjects at least once every six years, and at least
once every eight years in any other subject for which the SBE
determines the adoption of instructional materials to be
necessary or desirable. The adoption of instructional materials
is guided by curriculum frameworks and evaluation criteria that
are revised and adopted 30 months prior to the adoption of
instructional materials. These curriculum frameworks are
AB 97
Page D
revised and updated according to the six and eight year adoption
cycles, but since the standards remain the same, the changes to
the frameworks and consequently the adopted textbooks are
minimal.
In addition to the academic content standards, the SBE adopted
performance standards that are aligned to the content standards.
The California Standards Tests (CST) assess how well students
are meeting the adopted content standards relative to the
performance standards.
Past legislative attempts to revise the academic content
standards have been unsuccessful. Proponents of such
legislation have argued that the content standards should be
periodically reviewed and revised to reflect new developments
and research and that teachers should play a key role in that
process. Four previous bills to revise the content standards
have been consistently vetoed. Three of those bills were vetoed
claiming that the SBE had the authority to review and revise the
content standards as it deemed necessary.
However, a 2005 Legislative Counsel opinion states, "The State
Board of Education does not have the authority to revise or
amend the content standards required to be adopted by the board
after their adoption." It is the view of the Legislative
Counsel that the Legislature reserved for itself the power to
decide if, when, and the process by which the content standards
should be revised or amended.
A bill establishing a process for the revision of the content
standards reached the Governor's desk subsequent to the
Legislative Counsel opinion, SB 1097 (Torlakson) of 2008. SB
1097 was also vetoed. The veto message was based on the argument
that the bill would have diluted the authority of the Governor
and the SBE in the process of reviewing and revising the
standards.
The Governor's veto message specifically raises concerns
regarding the composition of the standards review panels and
mentions that the standards authorizing statute allowed the
Governor to have "a majority of appointments to the Standards
Commission." The composition of the ACPSR panels, as proposed
by this bill, creates a balance so that not one appointing
authority holds a majority of appointments but still grants the
Governor more appointments than any other appointing authority.
AB 97
Page E
The veto message further mentions that the bill "only allows the
Board to accept or reject proposed changes. The Board will not
have authority to make even minor correction's to the panel's
recommended changes." It shall be noted that this bill allows
the SBE to reject any of the recommendations of the ACPSR panel
and gives the panel the opportunity to modify the
recommendations to correct deficiencies identified by SBE. In
this manner, the SBE can ensure that any deficiencies it
identifies are corrected.
On January 5, 2006, Education Week released a report, "Quality
Counts: A Decade of Standards Based Education" which found that
out of the 49 states that have adopted content standards, 32
states have a regular timeline for revising those standards.
California is one of the few states that does not have a
timeline nor a process for revising its academic content
standards.
An editorial<1> by a former state secretary of education and
state senator, Gary Hart who was one of the pioneers of the
standards movement declared, "Any suggestion of changing the
standards has been viewed as heretical by many education
leaders. But as one of the architects of this system, I believe
the time is now right to take a fresh look at what we expect of
our children."
Suggested amendments : The bill requires each ACPSR panel to
review the content standards and performance standards to ensure
they meet specific requirements. One of those requirements
calls for the standards to be aligned to the curriculum
frameworks which are aligned to the existing standards. This
may limit the scope of the revision of the standards as the
revisions would be based on the existing frameworks. Staff
recommends the bill be amended to delete this requirement on
page 5, lines 32-33, inclusive. The bill also requires the
ACPSR panel to ensure that the content and performance standards
provide the basis for assessments for kindergarten and grades
1-12 in specified groupings. Staff recommends the bill be
amended to not specify grade levels and to delete the reference
to the grade level groupings. The section this bill amends
sunsets on July 1, 2011 along with the entire Standardized
---------------------------
<1> Hart, Gary. "Update the state's education standards; Much
has changed since the benchmarks for students were established."
Sacramento Bee. January 21, 2007.
AB 97
Page F
Testing and Reporting Program (STAR), but this bill extends the
sunset until January 1, 2017 for this section only. Considering
that there may be a potential reauthorization of the STAR
program in the near future and the contention related to the
grade level at which testing should begin, this bill should be
amended as follows:
Delete lines 1-8 on page 6 and instead insert:
(4) Provide the basis for statewide assessments.
The original content standards were not developed in a way that
provides for grade level continuity and as a result, the
existing content standards have no relationship across grade
levels. Staff recommends the bill be amended to require the
ACPSR panel to also review the content standards for grade level
continuity. Furthermore, the way the bill is drafted appears to
restrict the review of the content and performance standards to
the five specified components. The author may wish to give
flexibility to the ACPSR panels in the review rather than limit
it to the components specified in the bill. For example, the
ACPSR panel may wish to consider integration of the career
technical education (CTE) standards in core subject areas.
Staff recommends an amendment to subdivision (b) of Section
60605.4 to ensure that the ACPSR panels are not limited to the
five components listed within that subdivision.
This bill requires each ACPSR panel to consist of specified
individuals including "individuals with expertise in the
academic content or performance standards in various grade
levels." The requirement should be for the reviewers to possess
expertise in the content area that is under review instead of
limiting it to those with expertise in the existing content or
performance standards. Staff recommends the bill be amended as
follows: On page 5 lines 18-19 to delete "content or
performance standards in various grade levels." After
"academic" add: "subject matter under review."
The author states, "current law does not provide a mechanism by
which these standards, which serve as the backbone of
California's public education system, can be reviewed and
updated to reflect the most cutting edge knowledge and skills
appropriate in each of the subject areas."
Arguments in support : The California Federation of Teachers
writes, "The Federation supports this bill because we believe
AB 97
Page G
that a panel of experts who possess a thorough knowledge of an
academic subject are best suited to review and advise on
revision for subject content standards. We also believe these
experts should include professionals from the classroom."
The Business for Science, Math and Related Technologies
Education writes, "This process will enable revisions, as
necessary and appropriate to reflect the most rigorous and
advanced subject matter content. Not reviewing the current
content standards, does not allow schools to adapt to the
changing world, thus placing California students at a
disadvantage."
The California Science Teachers Association writes, "Although
our science standards may have been world class in 1998, they
aren't now and certainly won't be by 2018."
Prior legislation : SB 1367 (Karnette) of 2002, requires the
SBE, beginning in 2010, to provide for the periodic review of
the adopted statewide academically, rigorous core curriculum
content standards and other specified standards through regional
hearings.
AB 642 (Mullin) of 2003 requires the SPI to periodically review,
and the SBE to modify, the state's academic content and
performance standards, commencing in 2005.
AB 2744 (Goldberg) of 2004 establishes a process for periodic
review and revision of the state academic content standards.
The three bills above were vetoed with a similar veto message
stating that the SBE had the authority to review and revise the
content standards as it deems necessary and that California had
adopted world-class academic content standards as an essential
part of its school accountability system and a review process
was unnecessary and could result in administrative activities
that would yield no improvement to the academic content
standards.
AB 1100 (Mullin) of 2005 establishes a systematic procedure to
review and, if necessary, revise the state academic content
standards. AB 1100 was held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
AB 1454 (Richardson) of 2007 requires, beginning January 1,
AB 97
Page H
2011, the SPI to appoint a content standards review panel for
English language arts and mathematics two years prior to the
adoption of the curriculum framework for each subject area. AB
1454 was held in the Senate Education Committee.
SB 1097 (Torlakson) of 2008 establishes a process for the review
and revision of the state academic content standards to coincide
with the existing process for the revision of curriculum
frameworks and the adoption of instructional materials. SB 1097
was vetoed Schwarzenegger. The veto message read in part:
The authorizing statute provided that the Governor
retain a majority of appointments to the Standards
Commission, followed by the Superintendent and
leadership in the legislature and correctly held the
Governor ultimately accountable to ensure a balance of
expertise and stakeholders participated in such a
critical endeavor. This bill proposes to dilute the
role of the Governor.
SB 1097 also deletes a provision codified by the
original statute that explicitly authorized the State
Board of Education (Board) to modify any proposed
content standards prior to adoption. Instead, it
only allows the Board to accept or reject proposed
changes. The Board would not have authority to make
even minor corrections to the panel's recommended
changes.
I see no compelling reason to alter the balance
established by the original statute in determining the
composition of the commission that reviewed the
academic content, or the process that provided for
recommendations to the Board for consideration,
modification, and approval.
I cannot support the dilution of the authority of the
Governor or the State Board of Education.
California's content standards are too important to
allow for unnecessary ambiguity that could call into
question the very process of a historic review and
possible modification.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 97
Page I
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Business for Science, Math and Related Technologies Education
California Business Education Association
California County Boards of Education Legislative Committee
California Federation of Teachers
California Mathematics Council
California School Library Association
California Science Teachers Association
California State PTA
California Teachers Association
Los Angeles County Office of Education
San Francisco Unified School District
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi?a / ED. / (916) 319-2087