BILL ANALYSIS
AB 97
Page A
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 97 (Torlakson)
As Amended June 1, 2009
Majority vote
EDUCATION 8-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Arambula, Buchanan, | |Calderon, Davis, Fuentes, |
| |Carter, Eng, Solorio, | |Hall, John A. Perez, |
| |Torlakson | |Price, Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Krekorian |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+---------------------------|
|Nays:|Nestande, Garrick, Miller |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes a process for the review and revision of
the reading/language arts and mathematics 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 reading/ language
arts and mathematics 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 SPI, or his or her designee;
c) Four members appointed by the SPI, three of whom shall
AB 97
Page B
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
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
AB 97
Page C
this bill in the annual Budget Act or another statute.
9)Makes this bill inoperative on January 1, 2014 and repeals
these provisions as of January 1, 2015.
10)Repeals the SBE's authority to revise any proposed academic
content standards prior to adoption.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, one-time General Fund administrative costs to the
California Department of Education (CDE) of at least $420,000 to
establish an ACPSR panel in reading language arts and
mathematics. This assumes a cost of $210,000 per panel in two
content areas, as specified in this measure.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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,
AB 97
Page E
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,
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 by Governor Schwarzenegger with the following
message:
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
AB 97
Page F
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi?a / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0001226