BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 97|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 97
Author: Torlakson (D)
Amended: 8/20/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-2, 7/15/09
AYES: Romero, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Padilla, Simitian
NOES: Huff, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Maldonado
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 49-27, 6/3/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : School curriculum
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill establishes the Academic Content
Standards Commission for Science and History Social Science
(Commission) consisting of 21 appointed members, as
specified. This bill requires the state board, upon
recommendation of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI), to adopt a schedule for the Commission to review and
recommend revisions to the science and history-social
science curriculum area content standards, when funding
permits. This bill requires the state board to either
adopt or reject the academic content standards as proposed
by the Commission within 90 days of their receipt and also
requires the SPI and the state board to present specified
information to the Governor and appropriate policy and
fiscal committees of the Legislature.
CONTINUED
AB 97
Page
2
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/20/10 change the subject
matter areas to be reviewed due to the passage of SB 1
(Steinberg), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009-10 Fifth
Extraordinary Session, which relates to content standards
in English language arts and mathematics. The amendments
essentially mirror the process established pursuant to SB 1
but instead call for the review of standards in science and
history-social science.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, operative until July 1, 2011,
and to be repealed on January 1, 2014, requires the State
Board of Education to adopt statewide academic content
standards and performance standards, based on the
recommendation of the Commission for the Establishment of
Academic Content and Performance Standards and the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, respectively.
Existing law authorizes the state board to modify any
proposed content standard or performance standard prior to
its adoption.
This bill establishes the Academic Content Standards
Commission for Science and History-Social Science. The
Commission shall consist of 21 members, appointed as
follows:
Eleven members appointed by the Governor.
Five members appointed by the Senate Committee on
Rules.
Five members appointed by the Speaker of the
Assembly.
The bill provides that:
1. Members of the Commission shall serve at the pleasure of
the appointing authority.
2. Not less than half of the members appointed by each of
the appointing authorities pursuant to subdivision (a)
shall be current public school elementary or secondary
classroom teachers.
3. Upon recommendation of the Superintendent, the state
board shall adopt a schedule for the commission to
AB 97
Page
3
review and recommend revisions to the science and
history-social science curriculum area content
standards, when funding permits.
4. The Commission shall develop academic content standards
in science and history-social science. The standards
shall be internationally benchmarked and build toward
college and career readiness by the time of high school
graduation.
5. Pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, (Article
9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Division 3 of Title
2 of the Government Code), all meetings and hearings of
the commission shall be open and available to the
public.
The bill further provides within 90 days of receiving the
commission's proposed academic content standards, the state
board shall do either of the following:
1. Adopt the academic content standards as proposed by the
commission.
2. Reject the academic content standards as proposed by the
commission. If the state board rejects the standards it
shall provide a specific written explanation to the
Superintendent, the Governor, and the Legislature of the
reasons why the proposed standards were rejected.
The bill provides that the Superintendent and state board
shall present to the Governor and to the appropriate policy
and fiscal committees of the Legislature a schedule and
implementation plan for integrating the academic content
standards adopted pursuant to this section into the state
educational system.
Comments
History and overview . The academic content standards are
the foundation for the state's educational system. The
Curriculum frameworks (which guide instruction), teacher
training and professional development, textbooks, student
assessments, and the state's accountability and
intervention programs are aligned to the academic content
AB 97
Page
4
standards.
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. 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
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
Prior/Related legislation
AB 836 (Torlakson), which is scheduled to be heard by the
Senate Education Committee on July 15, 2009, establishes an
education technology task force for the purpose of making
recommendations to the SPI on technology literacy model
standards, developing a comprehensive statewide technology
plan, and requires the SBE to adopt technology literacy
model content standards by July 30, 2010.
Previous legislative attempts to authorize or establish a
process for the periodic review of the academic content
standards have been vetoed by more than one Governor. The
veto messages for SB 1367 (Karnette), of 2002, AB 642
(Mullin), of 2003, and AB 2744 (Goldberg), of 2004, stated
AB 97
Page
5
that the SBE had the authority to review and revise the
content standards as it deems necessary. However, 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.
This bill is similar to SB 1097 (Torlakson), of 2008, which
was passed by this Committee on a 6-0 vote, and was
subsequently vetoed. In his veto message, Governor
Schwarzenegger expressed concern about deleting the
authority of the SBE to modify proposed content standards
prior to adoption and expressed concern about diluting the
role of the Governor to retain a majority of appointments
to the body that would be reviewing the standards.
Specifically, the veto message read:
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.
AB 97
Page
6
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.
Given the similarity between this bill and AB 1097
(Torlakson), is it reasonable to expect a different outcome
for this bill?
The author's office 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."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/23/10)
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
AB 97
Page
7
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles County Office of Education
San Francisco Unified School District
The Sikh Coalition
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Blumenfield, Brownley,
Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer,
Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, John A.
Perez, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres,
Torrico, Bass
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Conway,
Cook, DeVore, Emmerson, Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines,
Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey, Jeffries, Knight,
Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Silva, Smyth,
Audra Strickland, Tran, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bill Berryhill, Block, Duvall, Yamada
DLW:RJG:do 8/23/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****