BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 300
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 22, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 300 (Hancock) - As Amended: May 31, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 25-15
SUBJECT : Pupil instruction: instructional materials: content
standards
SUMMARY : Authorizes the State Board of Education (SBE) to
adopt the framework and evaluation criteria for instructional
materials in history-social science (H/SS) by June 30, 2012, and
requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to make
recommendations to revise the academic content standards in
science. Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes the SPI to:
a) Complete the public review process of the draft version
of the curriculum framework and evaluation criteria for
instructional materials in H/SS that was approved for
public review on July 17, 2009, by the Curriculum
Development and Supplemental Materials Commission
(Curriculum Commission);
b) Modify that framework and criteria based upon public
comment; and,
c) Submit the revised H/SS curriculum framework and
evaluation criteria for instructional materials to the SBE
for approval.
2)Requires the SBE to consider the adoption of a revised H/SS
curriculum framework and evaluation criteria for instructional
materials by June 30, 2012.
3)Requires the SPI to:
a) Review the statewide science academic content standards
and identify the standards that are in need of updating;
b) Modify, revise, or delete any of these standards in
order to reflect current and confirmed research, as judged
by scientific experts and teachers;
c) Present, on or before January 1, 2013, the recommended
academic content standards to the SBE.
SB 300
Page 2
4)Requires, on or before June 30, 2013, the SBE to do either of
the following:
a) Adopt the academic content standards as proposed by the
SPI; or,
b) Reject the academic content standards as proposed by the
SPI, in which case, it shall provide a specific written
explanation to the SPI, the Governor, and the Legislature
of the reasons why the proposed standards were rejected.
5)Requires the SPI and the SBE to 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 bill
into the state educational system.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the SBE to adopt statewide academic content standards
in the core curriculum areas of reading, writing, and
mathematics, no later than January 1, 1998, and in H/SS and
science not later than November 1, 1998, based on the
recommendation of the Commission for the Establishment of
Academic Content and Performance Standards.
2)Requires the SBE to adopt statewide performance standards in
reading, writing, mathematics, H/SS and science based on
recommendations made by the SPI.
3)Establishes the Academic Content Standards Commission
(Standards Commission), as specified, to develop academic
content standards in language arts and mathematics and present
recommended academic content standards to the SBE by July 15,
2010. Requires that at least 85% of these standards be the
common core academic standards developed by the Common Core
State Standards Initiative consortium sponsored by the
National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief
State School Officers (CCSSO) or any associated or related
interstate collaboration to jointly develop common
high-quality standards or assessments aligned with the common
set of standards, and requires the SBE to adopt or reject the
recommended standards by August 2, 2010.
4)Requires, if the standards in #5 above are rejected, the SBE
SB 300
Page 3
to provide a specific written explanation to the SPI, the
Governor, and the Legislature of the reasons why the proposed
standards were rejected.
5)Requires the SPI and the SBE to present to the Governor and to
the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the
Legislature a schedule and implementation plan for integrating
the revised language arts and math academic content standards
into the state educational system.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, $70,000 in General Fund Costs (GF) to revise the
standards and significant GF cost pressure to update frameworks
and accountability tools, beginning in 2015-16.
COMMENTS : California's content standards specify the content
that students need to acquire at each grade level from
kindergarten to grade twelve (K-12) and they are the foundation
for the accountability system, instructional materials and staff
development programs. The SBE adopted content standards in the
areas of:
1. Reading/language arts (RLA) and math in 1997;
2. H/SS and science in 1998;
3. English language development in 1999;
4. Visual and performing arts in 2001;
5. Career technical education in 2005;
6. Physical education in 2005;
7. Health education in 2008; and,
8. Foreign languages, also known as world languages, in
2009.
Additionally, the SBE adopted the common core state standards in
language arts and math and the model school library standards in
2010. While the RLA and math standards were recently revised,
the standards in all other subject areas have not been revised
and there is no process in place for reviewing those standards.
This bill authorizes the SBE to approve a revised framework and
evaluation criteria for H/SS by June 30, 2012. A second part of
this bill allows for the modification of the academic content
standards in science by authorizing the SPI to make
recommendations to revise, delete or modify any of the science
standards and requiring the SBE to approve or reject those
recommendations.
SB 300
Page 4
Background on budget action relative to curriculum frameworks
and instructional materials : Due to the fiscal challenges of
the state, the current framework development and instructional
materials adoption activities have been suspended. AB 2 X4
Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009-10, Fourth Extraordinary Session
suspends the requirement for the SBE to conduct any of the
activities related to the adoption of instructional materials
for use in K-8 through the 2012-13 fiscal year, and for the
2008-09 to the 2012-13 fiscal years, inclusive, local
educational agencies are not required to purchase newly adopted
instructional materials within 24 months of adoption by the SBE.
As part of the 2011 budget process, SB 70 (Committee on Budget
and Fiscal Review), Chapter 7, Statutes of 2011, extended the
provisions of SB 2 X4 for two additional years, hence the
framework development and instructional materials adoption
processes are suspended until the 2015-16 fiscal year.
Updated H/SS curriculum framework : The Curriculum Development
and Supplemental Materials Commission (Curriculum Commission)
had begun the process of updating the H/SS framework for the
2011 H/SS primary adoption prior to the enactment of AB 2 X4
Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009-10, Fourth Extraordinary Session.
On July 17, 2009, the Curriculum Commission approved the draft
update of the H/SS framework for field review, but due to the
budget action, the field review was suspended. The California
Department of Education (CDE) also suspended work related to the
revision of frameworks for science, health, and mathematics.
Concerns were expressed by many groups and individuals regarding
the suspension of the framework revision and adoption process,
particularly the H/SS framework given that it was close to
completion. Many argued that the work on the H/SS framework
should be completed even without an immediate instructional
materials adoption, as the framework, itself, provides updated
content and pedagogical strategies for teachers to help their
students acquire updated and relevant knowledge and skills.
This bill requires the SBE to adopt a revised curriculum and
evaluation criteria for instructional materials in H/SS no later
than June 30, 2012.
Revision of the science content standards : Current law does not
provide for a process for periodically reviewing, updating,
modifying or revising the academic content standards. Although
the RLA and math standards were recently modified, the
modification of these standards was accomplished through
SB 300
Page 5
legislation that directed a one-time review for the adoption of
the common core standards in RLA and math through a very
specific process. The review of these standards was driven by
California's attempt to compete for a federal Race to the Top
(RTTT) program grant in 2009-2010 and thus the review was
limited to RLA and mathematics.
Proponents of legislation seeking to revise the standards have
argued that the content standards should be periodically
reviewed and revised to reflect rapidly unfolding developments
and research. The author points out that the state's current
science standards do not include any mention of biotechnologies
or nanotechnologies, or a requirement that students learn about
environmental issues, or even that Pluto is no longer considered
a planet.
Many argue that a periodic process for reviewing and revising
the academic content standards should be adopted to ensure the
content standards are current and relevant. It has also been
argued that given the importance of these standards, teachers
and curriculum experts should have a role in such a process and
that any process to revise or modify the standards should be
public and transparent. As currently drafted, this bill gives
the SPI and the SBE sole authority to make modifications to the
science standards without an open and public process. However
the bill does require the standards to "reflect current and
confirmed research, as judged by scientific experts and
teachers." However, the bill does not specify how the "judging"
experts and teachers will be selected. Previous legislative
efforts to revise the content standards have required the
establishment of expert committees or commissions to review the
standards and make recommendations to the SBE. Previous
legislation, namely SB 1 X5 (Steinberg), Chapter 2, Statutes of
2009-10, Fifth Extraordinary Session, which gave the SBE the
authority to adopt the RLA and math common core standards, did
so through the establishment of the Standards Commission,
comprised of a majority of teachers.
This Committee may wish to consider whether the approach taken
by this bill to modify the content standards by only involving
the SPI and the SBE is the appropriate approach or whether the
bill should include an open and public process in the revision
of the science content standards. Staff recommends an amendment
to establish a process for the appointment of a standards review
commission, comprised of a majority of teachers, to make
SB 300
Page 6
recommendations to revise the science standards and to require
the meetings of the commission to be open to the public, as
follows:
1)On page 4 strike lines 34-38, inclusive, and insert:
60605.85 (a) The Academic Content Standards Commission for
Science is hereby established. The commission shall consist of
13 members, to be appointed as follows:
(1)Four members appointed by the Governor.
(2)Three members appointed by the Senate Committee on
Rules.
(3)Three members appointed by the Speaker of the
Assembly.
(4)Three members appointed by the Superintendent.
(b) Members of the commission shall serve at the pleasure of the
appointing authority.
(c) 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.
(d) Pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9
(commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of
Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code), each meeting or
hearing of the commission shall be open and available to the
public.
(e) The commission established pursuant to subdivision (a) may
make recommendations to the state board to modify, revise, and
update the science content standards adopted pursuant to Section
60605.
2)On page 4 line 39 strike "teachers." and insert "(f)"
Common science standards ? It is possible that common standards
in science will be developed and available for adoption by
states. According to information provided by the author, the
National Research Council, Achieve, the American Association for
the Advancement of Science and the National Science Teachers
Association have embarked on a two-step process to develop the
"Next Generation Science Standards." The first step is the
development of the "Conceptual Framework for Science Education"
which will identify the science all K-12 students should know.
The development of this framework involves a committee of
SB 300
Page 7
scientists, education and policy experts. The second step will
involve states in leading the development of rigorous and
internationally-benchmarked science standards that will be
available for states to adopt. It will be up to individual
states to adopt these standards.
Content standards revision legislative history : With the
exception of, the aforementioned, SB 1 X5 (Steinberg), previous
legislative attempts to revise the academic content standards
have been unsuccessful. In the last nine years, at least seven
other bills have been introduced trying to establish a process
for the revision of the academic content standards, four of
which were vetoed by two former governors and three of which did
not reach the governor's desk. Three of the four vetoed bills
were vetoed claiming that the SBE had the authority to review
and revise the content standards as it deemed necessary.
However, in 2005 the Legislative Counsel opined that the SBE did
not have the authority to revise or amend the content standards
after their initial adoption. Additionally, the Legislative
Counsel stated that the Legislature had 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, but it 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 raised concerns regarding the composition
of the standards review panels established in SB 1097. A bill
that was substantially similar to this bill, AB 97 (Torlakson)
of 2010, established the Academic Content Standards Commission
for Science and H/SS consisting of 21 appointed members. AB 97
was also vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger arguing that the bill
was premature given California's participation in the Common
Core initiative.
The author states, "California should lead the nation in science
education and science exploration. Instead we have standards
that still have Pluto as a planet and fail to mention
biotechnology, nanotechnology, warp speed computers, Wi-Fi, DNA
and do not reflect new information about human development, how
the mind works or information gained from scans of the heart,
brain or organs."
SB 300
Page 8
Related legislation : SB 1033 (Feuer) provides for the
establishment of a standards review commission if the SPI and
the SBE jointly determine that there is a need to revise or
modify existing standards and authorizes a narrow revision to
the recently adopted common core state standards, as specified.
AB 1033 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Previous legislation: SB 1 X5 (Steinberg), Chapter 2, Statutes
of 2009-10, Fifth Extraordinary Session, proposes comprehensive
changes to the Education Code (EC) consistent with the federal
RTTT program, and addresses the four RTTT policy reform areas of
standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction,
great teachers and leaders and turning around the
lowest-achieving schools. Establishes the Standards Commission
to develop academic content standards in RLA and mathematics and
present recommended academic content standards to the SBE by
July 15, 2010 and requires the SBE to adopt or reject the
recommended standards by August 2, 2010.
AB 97 (Torlakson) of 2010, substantially similar to this bill,
established the Academic Content Standards Commission for
Science and H/SS (Commission) consisting of 21 appointed
members, as specified. AB 97 was vetoed by then Governor
Schwarzenegger with the following veto message:
"Given California's participation in the Common Core initiative
and the anticipated reauthorization of the federal Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, this bill is premature. This bill
could create an unnecessary, duplicative process in the
development of content standards and in the integration of those
standards into the state's assessment system."
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 then Governor Schwarzenegger. The veto message
read in part:
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
SB 300
Page 9
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.
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.
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 2744 (Goldberg) of 2004 establishes a process for periodic
review and revision of the state academic content standards. 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. SB 1367 (Karnette)
of 2002, requires the SBE, beginning in 2010, to provide for the
periodic review of the adopted statewide core curriculum content
standards and other specified standards through regional
hearings. AB 2744, AB 642 and SB 1367 were vetoed with similar
veto messages stating that these bills were unnecessary as the
SBE had the authority to review and revise the content standards
as deemed necessary.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
SB 300
Page 10
Business for Science, Math and Related Technologies Education
California Council for the Social Studies
California Federation of Teachers
California Science Teachers Association
Greater San Diego Council for the Social Studies
Jamul-Dulzura Union School District
Korea Academy for Educators
Sikh Council of Central California
Sikh Temple Sacramento
Individuals
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi�a / ED. / (916) 319-2087