BILL ANALYSIS
AB 97
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 97 (Torlakson) - As Amended: April 14, 2009
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:8-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) to convene an Academic Content and Performance Review
Panel (ACPRP), consisting of 13 members, for each of the
curriculum area content standards (i.e., English language arts
(ELA), mathematics, history/social science, science, physical
education, visual and performing arts, and foreign language)
adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE). This measure
further sunsets this provision on January 1, 2017.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires each ACPRP to review the appropriate content
standards and recommend changes to the SBE, as it deems
necessary. This measure also requires the ACPRPs to review
the content standards and performance standards approved by
the SBE to ensure that the standards: (a) reflect the
knowledge and skills necessary for California's workforce; (b)
are measurable and objective; (c) are comparable in rigor to
academic content and performance standards used in the school
systems of America's global economic competitors; (d) provide
the basis for statewide assessments; and (e) provide for grade
level continuity.
2)Requires each ACPRP, if it recommends revisions, to forward
the revisions to the SBE for public hearing and requires the
SBE to adopt or reject the revised content standards within
120 days of their receipt from the panel and at least two
years prior to the adoption of the curriculum frameworks. This
AB 97
Page 2
bill also requires the SBE, if it rejects the revisions, to
provide a written explanation and authorizes the ACPRP to
modify the recommendations for resubmission to the SBE, as
specified.
3)Requires ACPRP members to serve without compensation, except
for actual and necessary travel expenses. This measure also
specifies that these provisions shall not be implemented
unless an appropriation is provided specifically for this
purpose in the annual budget act or another statute.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time GF administrative costs to the State Department of
Education (SDE) of at least $1.5 million to establish an ACPRP
in each subject area. This assumes a cost of $210,000 per
panel in seven content areas, as specified in this measure.
2)The academic content standards are the basis for the state's
assessment and accountability systems and certain professional
development programs provided to teachers. To the extent that
these panels make revisions to the state's academic content
standards, there will be significant GF/98 cost pressure,
likely in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, to
change these systems and programs to reflect any revisions.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . In 1998, the SBE adopted academic content standards
in four major areas: ELA, mathematics, history/social science,
and science. These standards represent the foundation of
California's educational system. The state's assessments,
accountability system, textbooks, and professional development
programs are aligned to these content standards. Current law
also requires the SBE to adopt content standards and
curriculum frameworks in other content areas, including
AB 97
Page 3
physical education and CTE.
The Legislative Counsel opined that the SBE does not have the
authority, under current law, to revise or amend the content
standards after their adoption. In January 2007, former state
education secretary Gary Hart wrote in a Sacramento Bee
editorial that "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."
This bill requires the SPI to establish content review panels
for the purpose of reviewing the state content standards to
coincide with the review and adoption of statewide curriculum
frameworks and instructional materials.
2)Instructional materials (IM) and content standards . Current
law requires the SBE to adopt basic IM in the core academic
areas (ELA, science, mathematics, etc.) every six years and
other content areas every eight years other for use in grades
K-8. It is also required to adopt statewide academically
rigorous content standards in the core curriculum areas. These
content standards are implemented through the curriculum
frameworks, as adopted by SBE. The adopted IM must be
consistent with the criteria and standards of quality
prescribed in the adopted curriculum frameworks. Also, the
governing board of each school district maintaining one or
more high schools is authorized to adopt IM for use in the
high schools (grades 9-12) under its control.
3)The Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and
Performance Standards , which has expired, was charged with
developing statewide academic content and performance
standards in the core areas of reading, writing, mathematics,
history/social science, and science. The SBE is required to
adopt statewide curriculum standards, to review the existing
curriculum frameworks for conformity to those standards, and
to align the frameworks as necessary. There is no statutory
requirement that the standards, which form the basis of the
state's educational and assessment programs, be reviewed or
updated.
AB 97
Page 4
4)Previous legislation .
SB 1097 (Torlakson), which is similar to this measure, was
vetoed in September 2008, with the following message:
"The original academic content standards were adopted through
a public and inclusive process involving teachers, educators
and content experts from around the state. 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.
"Furthermore, while I would welcome participation by teachers,
the measure does not define "recent public classroom
experience" and thereby raises the possibility of controversy
regarding whether or not certain members of the panel are duly
authorized to participate.
"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."
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 97
Page 5