BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
SB 300
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 300 (Hancock)
As Amended August 26, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :25-15
EDUCATION 7-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Eng, Williams | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby, Beth Gaines, |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| |Morrell | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt
revised science content standards, as specified. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Requires the SBE to adopt science content standards pursuant
to the following:
a) The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) in
consultation with the SBE shall convene a group of science
experts that, include but is not limited to, individuals
who are elementary and secondary science teachers,
school-site principals, school district or county office of
education administrators, and university professors;
b) The SPI and the group of science experts shall recommend
to the SBE science content standards for adoption and shall
utilize the Next Generation Science Standards as the basis
for the deliberations and recommendations to the SBE;
c) The SPI shall hold a minimum of two public meetings
pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act for the
public to provide input on the science content standards
that would be recommended;
SB 300
Page 2
d) The SPI shall present the recommended science standards
to the SBE on or before March 30, 2013; and,
e) The SBE shall adopt, reject, or modify the science
standards recommended by the SPI on or before July 30,
2013, and shall provide written reasons for any
modifications in a public meeting, and adopt those
modifications at a subsequent public meeting held no later
than July 30, 2013.
2)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 science content standards adopted pursuant to this bill
into the state educational system.
3)Repeals the provisions of this bill on July 1, 2014.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, General Fund administrative costs to the California
Department of Education (CDE), of approximately $100,000, to
convene science experts, as specified.
COMMENTS : California's content standards specify the content
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)History-social science 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.
SB 300
Page 3
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
since initial adoption and there is no process in current law
for periodically reviewing those standards.
This bill allows for the revision of the academic content
standards in science by authorizing the SPI to convene a group
of science experts and make recommendations to the SBE on a set
of revised science content standards.
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, and they do not require pupils to learn
about environmental issues or 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. This bill gives the SPI and
the SBE the authority to revise the science standards through
the involvement of a group of experts and public meetings.
National efforts to develop common science standards are
currently under way. 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" (NGSS). 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 scientists, education and policy
experts. The second step will involve states in leading the
development of rigorous and internationally-benchmarked science
SB 300
Page 4
standards that will be available for states to adopt. The
intent is for the NGSS developed in this process to create a
foundation for states looking to revise their standards. This
bill requires the NGSS to be the basis for the deliberations and
recommendations to the SBE for revising California's science
standards.
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Aviņa / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0002225