BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 97
AUTHOR: Torlakson
AMENDED: June 1, 2009
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: July 8, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
SUBJECT : Academic Content Standards
SUMMARY:
This bill repeals the authority of the State Board of
Education to modify proposed academic content standards prior
to their adoption and requires the Superintendent of Public
Instruction to convene Academic Content and Performance
Standards Review panels for the purpose of reviewing and
recommending changes to the academic content standards for
reading/language arts and mathematics.
BACKGROUND
Existing law, operative until July 1, 2011, and to be
repealed on January 1, 2012, requires the State Board of
Education (SBE) to adopt statewide academic content standards
pursuant to the recommendations of the Commission for the
Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards,
in core curriculum areas of reading, writing, and
mathematics, history/social science and science to serve as
the basis for assessing the academic achievement of
individual pupils and of schools, school districts, and the
California education system. Further, current law:
1) Permits the SBE to modify proposed content standards or
performance standards prior to adoption and allows the
SBE to adopt content and performance standards in
individual core curriculum areas as those standards are
submitted to the SBE.
2) Requires the SBE to adopt statewide performance
standards in the core curriculum areas of reading,
writing, mathematics, history/social science, and
science based on recommendations made by the
AB 97
Page 2
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and a
contractor or contractors.
Existing law declares that the content and performance
standards are models and are not subject to the
Administrative Procedures Act.
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Repeals the authority of the SBE to modify proposed
content standards or performance standards prior to
their adoption.
2) Requires the SPI to convene Academic Content and
Performance Standards Review (ACPSR) panels to review
the content and performance standards in
reading/language arts (RLA) and mathematics and requires
each 13-member ACPSR panel to consist of the following:
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 those 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 be credentialed teachers and have public
school classroom experience in the curriculum area
and in those grade levels for which they are
appointed.
d) One member appointed by the Senate Rules
Committee.
e) One member appointed by the Speaker of the
Assembly.
AB 97
Page 3
3) Specifies that members of each ACPSR panel are to serve
a two-year term without compensation (except for
reimbursement for travel expenses).
4) Requires the appointing authorities to consult with each
other in making appointments to ensure that panel
members have expertise in the academic subject under
review, are knowledgeable about urban and rural schools,
English learners, and special education, are from
different geographical areas of the state and reflect
the ethnic and gender diversity of California.
5) Requires each ACPSR panel to review the current content
standards and performance standards to ensure that the
standards are measurable and objective and meet other
specified criteria such as reflecting the knowledge and
skills necessary for California's workforce, provide the
basis for statewide assessments, and provide grade level
continuity.
6) Requires each ACPSR to recommend changes to the SBE as
necessary and requires the SBE to hold hearings on the
recommended changes to the
AB 97
Page 4
standards and adopt or reject the recommended changes to
the standards within 120 days of their receipt from a
review panel and at least two years prior to the
adoption of curriculum frameworks for the relevant
subject area.
7) Requires the SBE, in the event it rejects the
recommended changes, to provide a specific, written
explanation of the reasons why the recommended changes
were not adopted and provides that the review panel may
modify its recommendations and resubmit them to the SBE.
8) Specifies that the Academic Content and Performance
Standards Review Panel (ACPSR) process shall not be
implemented unless an appropriation is provided in the
Budget Act or another statute and specifies the
governing statute shall become inoperative on January 1,
2014 and is repealed on January 1, 2015 unless a later
statute enacted before January 1, 2015 deletes or
extends that date.
9) Requires, to the extent feasible, the SBE to ensure that
assessments are aligned with the state content and
performance standards adopted pursuant to the
recommendations of the Academic Content and Performance
Standards Review Panel.
10) Extends the operative and repeal dates for existing law
that governs the process for adopting new content areas
to January 1, 2017.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Background . AB 265 (Alpert) Chapter 975, Statutes of
1995, provided for the appointment of a Standards
Commission for the establishment of academic content
standards in the core areas of reading, writing (English
language arts), mathematics, history/social science, and
science. The English language arts standards that were
recommended by the Commission were adopted largely
intact by the SBE but the mathematics content standards
were substantially revised by the Board prior to
adoption, thereby raising questions about the efficacy
of the standards development process. The academic
content standards have not been revised since their
AB 97
Page 5
initial adoption. Subsequent legislation required the
SBE to adopt content standards in other areas, including
Visual and Performing Arts, Physical Education, and
foreign languages. There are currently academic content
standards in the following areas:
English language Arts, adopted December 1997
Mathematics, adopted December 1997
History-Social Science, adopted October 1998
Visual and Performing Arts, adopted January 2001
Physical Education Model Content Standards, adopted
January 2005
Career Technical Education, adopted May 2005
Health Education adopted March 2008
World Languages, adopted January 2009
2) Alignment . The academic content standards are the
foundation for the state's educational system.
Curriculum frameworks, teacher training, textbooks,
assessments, and the state's accountability and
intervention programs are aligned to the academic
content standards. The curriculum frameworks implement
the content standards, provide guidance for the
instruction of each content area and establish the
criteria for the adoption of instructional materials.
Current law calls for the review of curriculum
frameworks as part of the process of adopting
instructional materials every six years in core subject
areas and every eight years in other subjects.
3) Updating standards . A 2006 report by Education Week
found that out of the 49 states that have adopted
content standards, a majority of states (32) have a
regular timeline for revising those standards. While
the state provides for the periodic review of the
frameworks, it does not have a process for reviewing or
updating its academic content standards. It has been
argued that California has adopted world-class academic
content standards and a review process could result in
administrative activities that would yield no
improvement to the standards. Proponents of this
measure contend however, that periodic review of the
content standards would enable the state to reflect new
developments and research, changes in national policies,
or new approaches to pedagogical practice.
AB 97
Page 6
An earlier version of this bill included each of the
curriculum content areas. To reduce costs, the bill was
amended in the Assembly Appropriations Committee to
include only reading/language arts (RLA) and
mathematics. While an argument can be made that
updating the mathematics standards would enable the SBE
to consider how to strengthen algebra readiness and
revising the reading/language arts standards fits the
timeline for updating the RLA frameworks, it could also
be argued that focusing on the science standards could
enable the state to have greater leverage for federal
funds or programs (such as Race to the Top) or updating
the history-social science standards could allow
California to add groups/cultures not previously
addressed or address recent historical events.
Recognizing that the current fiscal climate and future
cost pressure essentially preclude considering a process
for reviewing all content standards, if only two content
areas can be selected at this time, which two make the
most sense?
4) Prior legislation . Previous legislative attempts to
authorize or establish a process for the periodic review
of the academic content standards have not been
successful. Two bills (AB 1454 (Richardson, 2007) and
AB 1100 (Mullin, 2005) were held in committee. The veto
messages for SB 1367 (Karnette, 2002), AB 642 (Mullin,
2003), and AB 2744 (Goldberg, 2004) stated that the SBE
had the authority to review and revise the content
standards as it deems necessary. Following the veto of
AB 2744, the Legislative Counsel was asked to review the
authority of the SBE to revise the academic content
standards after their adoption by the Board. In January
2005, the Legislative Counsel issued an opinion stating
that the SBE does not have the authority to revise the
standards under current law, noting that the authority
to revise the standards appears to end with their
adoption.
In vetoing SB 1097 (Torlakson, 2008), which was similar to
AB 97, Governor Schwarzenegger expressed concern about
deleting the authority of the SBE to modify any proposed
content standard prior to adoption and expressed concern
about diluting the role of the Governor to retain a
majority of appointments to the Standards Commission.
The veto message read:
AB 97
Page 7
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.
5) Fiscal impact . According to the Assembly
Appropriations Committee analysis, one-time General Fund
administrative costs to the California Department of
Education (CDE) of at least $420,000 to establish an
AB 97
Page 8
ACPSR panel in RLA and mathematics. Depending on the
magnitude of changes recommended, there could be
additional and potentially significant costs associated
with aligning state assessment programs and teacher
training to the revised standards.
SUPPORT
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
Association of California School Administrators
Business for Science, Math and Related Technologies Education
California County Boards of Education
California Federation of Teachers
California Language Teachers Association
California Mathematics Council
California School Boards Association
California School Library Association
California Science Teachers Association
California Teachers Association
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles County Office of Education
San Francisco Unified School District
OPPOSITION
None received.