BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 300 Page 1 Date of Hearing: July 13, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair SB 300 (Hancock) - As Amended: June 28, 2011 Policy Committee: Education Vote:7-3 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to consider, by June 30, 2012, the adoption of a revised curriculum framework and evaluation criteria for instructional materials (IM) in history/social science and establishes an Academic Content Standards Commission for science (science commission) to make recommendations to the SBE to modify, revise, and update the science content standards, as specified. Specifically, this bill: 1)Authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to complete the public review process for the draft history/social science curriculum framework and evaluation criteria that was previously approved for public review on July 17, 2009, and submit the revised framework and criteria to the SBE for approval. 2)Requires the science commission to have nine members appointed by the governor (3); the Senate Rules Committee (2); the Speaker of the Assembly (2); and the SPI (2) and to serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority, as specified. 3)Requires the science commission to make recommendations, on or before January 1, 2013, to the SBE to modify, revise, and update the science content standards, as specified. 4)Requires the SBE, on or before June 30, 2013, to either: a) Adopt the science content standards as provided by the science commission, or b) Reject the science content standards proposed by the science commission. Further requires the SBE to provide a SB 300 Page 2 specific written explanation to the SPI, the governor, and the Legislature of the reasons it rejected the content standards, as specified. 5)Requires the SPI and the SBE to present to the governor and the appropriate legislative policy/fiscal committees a schedule and implementation plan for integrating the science content standards into the educational system. FISCAL EFFECT 1)One-time GF administrative costs to the State Department of Education (SDE), likely between $145,000 and $150,000, to complete the history/social science curriculum framework and evaluation criteria, as specified. Due to the enactment of AB 2 X4 (Evans), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009, the governor vetoed $705,000 (GF) from the 2009-10 Budget Act for the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission (CDSMC), which conducts the majority of the work associated with IM adoptions. Specifically, the governor stated, "it is unnecessary for the CDSMC to continue to advise the SBE on content frameworks and IM adoptions for the next five years or until an agreed-upon process is reestablished. This reduction removes funding for unnecessary commission per diem and travel as well as funding for SDE staff." 2)Potential GF/98 cost pressure, likely in the low millions, to provide local education agencies (LEAs) with funding under the Instructional Materials Funding and Realignment Program (IMFRP) to purchase history/social science IM. AB 2 X4 (Evans), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009, authorized LEAs to utilize IMFRP funding for any education purpose it deems fit. This authorization coupled with the suspension of the requirement to purchase IM has lead LEAs to redirect IM funding for other purposes. Also, many LEAs argue current IMFRP funding levels do not fully cover the cost of purchasing IM. With the enactment of Chapter 2, it is possible that LEAs will need increased IMFRP funding in 2013-14 to mitigate the redirection of IM funding during the budget flexibility SB 300 Page 3 period. 3)GF administrative costs to the SDE, likely between $120,000 and $200,000, to establish the science commission, as specified. COMMENTS 1)Background . In 1998, the SBE adopted academic content standards in four major areas: English language arts, 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 physical education and arts. Prior to the enactment of AB 2 X4 in July 2009, statute required the SBE to adopt basic IM in the core academic content areas (ELA, mathematics, history/social science, and science) every six years for use in grades K-8. It also established a schedule for the adoption of IM in other subjects. Statute also required the SBE 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. The development of curriculum frameworks is a multi-year process. 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. AB 2 X4 specified that LEAs are not required to purchase IM through 2012-13. Consistent with the non-purchasing requirement, the bill also suspended the requirement for SBE to adopt IM or conduct other procedures associated with adoption (i.e., adopting curriculum frameworks) until the 2013-14 school years. 2)Purpose . The Legislature and the governor agreed to a moratorium on the purchase and adoption of IM due to the SB 300 Page 4 state's severe fiscal crisis. Many argue however, that not updating IM is a disservice to education. For example, various Sikh organizations do not feel the current state history/social science textbooks portray their culture fairly and worked with the SBE to revise the curriculum framework. AB 2 X4 prevented the revised history/social science framework from being adopted. Prior to the enactment of AB 2 X4, the next history/social science curriculum framework was scheduled for adoption in May 2010, with IM for this subject to be adopted in 2011. However, this timeline is no longer relevant and the next adoption of this framework has not been determined. According to the author, "Ever-changing historical trends, economic shifts, cultural exchange, and demographics have created a greater need than ever before for understanding the foundational ideas and philosophy of our country and the world, yet our outdated history-social science standards would suggest that no historically important events have occurred since 1998." Also, 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 a science commission to make recommendations to the SBE to modify, revise, and update the science content standards, as specified. The author argues "The state's current science standards do not include mention of biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, or even that Pluto is no longer considered a planet. Although it is widely acknowledged that California has the 8th largest economy in the world and must develop scientifically and technologically literate citizens to maintain an edge in the world economy, our students do not have access to the most current, cutting-edge scientific information." This bill requires the SBE to adopt a history/social science SB 300 Page 5 curriculum framework and establishes the science commission for the purpose of updating the science content standards. 3)Related legislation . a) AB 124 (Fuentes), pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee, establishes the English Language Development (ELD) Standards Advisory Committee for the purpose of aligning the ELD standards to the Common Core English Language Arts standards adopted by the SBE in August 2010. b) AB 250 (Brownley), pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee, establishes a process for the full implementation of the common core academic content standards through the development of curricular frameworks, instructional materials, and professional development aligned with the common core standards. Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916) 319-2081