BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 300|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 300
Author: Hancock (D)
Amended: 8/26/11
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 7-3, 5/4/11
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Simitian,
Vargas
NOES: Runner, Blakeslee, Huff
NO VOTE RECORDED: Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-3, 5/26/11
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Emmerson, Runner
SENATE FLOOR : 25-15, 6/1/11
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Corbett, Correa, De León,
DeSaulnier, Evans, Hancock, Hernandez, Kehoe, Leno, Lieu,
Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price,
Rubio, Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Wolk, Wright, Yee
NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Cannella, Dutton,
Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines, Harman, Huff, La Malfa, Runner,
Strickland, Walters, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-26, 8/31/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Academic Content Standards: Science
SOURCE : Author
CONTINUED
SB 300
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill allows for the revision of 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.
Assembly Amendments narrow the scope of the bill to allow
for the SBE to adopt revised science content standards.
ANALYSIS : Existing law requires the State Board of
Education (SBE) to adopt statewide academically rigorous
content standards in reading, writing and mathematics by
January 1, 1998, and standards in history-social science
and science by November 1, 1998. Existing law authorizes
the SBE to modify any proposed content standard or
performance standard prior to its adoption.
Existing law does not require the standards to be reviewed
or revised.
SBX5 1 (Steinberg), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2010, Fifth
Extraordinary Session, among other things, established a
21-member Academic Content Standards Commission for the
purpose of developing academic content standards in
language arts and mathematics that are at least 85 percent
the same as the common core standards being developed by
the Common Core State Standards Initiative. As required by
SBX5 1, the Commission reported its recommendations to the
SBE by July 15, 2010, and the SBE adopted the standards on
August 2, 2010.
This bill requires the SBE to adopt revised science content
standards, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
1.Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, in
consultation with the SBE, to 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.
2.Requires the SPI and the group of science experts to
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.
CONTINUED
SB 300
Page
3
3.Requires the SPI to hold a minimum of two public meeting
pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act for the
public to provide input on the science content standards
that are to be recommended.
4.Requires the SPI to present the recommended science
standards to the SBE on or before March 30, 2013.
5.Requires the SBE to adopt, reject, or modify the science
standards recommended by the SPI on or before July 30,
2013, provide written reasons for any modifications in a
public meeting, adopt those modifications at a subsequent
public meeting held no later than July 30, 2013.
6.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.
7.Repeals the provisions of this bill on July 1, 2 014.
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.
Additionally, the SBE adopted the common core state
standards in language and arts math and the model school
library standards in 2010. While the RLA and math
standards were recently revised, the standards in all other
CONTINUED
SB 300
Page
4
subject areas have not been revised since initial adoption
and there is no process in current law for periodically
reviewing these 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 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.
Related Legislation/Prior Legislation
CONTINUED
SB 300
Page
5
AB 1033 (Feuer), 2011-12 Session, provides for the
establishment of a standards review commission if the SPI
to recommend to the SBE jointly determine that there is a
need to revise or modify existing standards. (Held under
submission in Assembly Appropriations Committee)
AB 97 (Torlakson), 2009-2010 Session, was nearly identical
to this bill. Passed the Senate with a vote of 22-10 on
August 30, 2010. AB 97 was vetoed by the Governor, whose
veto message read:
"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."
There have been several unsuccessful attempts to authorize
or establish a process to review and revise academic
content standards. Veto messages for SB 1097 (Torlakson),
2007-2008 Session, AB 2744 (Goldberg), 2003-04 Session, AB
642 (Mullin), 2003-04 Session, and SB 1367 (Karnette),
2001-2002 Session, cite the Governor's concern over a
diminished role for the SBE in modifying any revised
standards. Other prior attempts include AB 1454
(Richardson), 2006-07 Session, which died in the Senate
Education Committee, and AB 1100 (Mullin), 2005-2006
Session, which was held on the Assembly Appropriations
Committee's suspense file.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, General
Fund administrative costs to the California Department of
Education of approximately $100,000.
SUPPORT : (Per Assembly Education Committee analysis of
5/31/11 - unable to verify)
Business for Science, Math and Related Technologies
CONTINUED
SB 300
Page
6
Education
California Association of Professional Scientists
California Council for the Social Studies
California federation of Teachers
California Science Teachers Association
Greater San Diego Council for the Social Studies
Jamal-Dulzura Unified School District
Korea Academy for Educators
Sikh Council of Central California
Sikh Temple Sacramento
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"The current academic content standards for science and
history-social science were developed in 1998, fully 13
years ago. 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. California students will continue to lose ground
in science and history-social science unless required
through legislation, we provide them with the most current,
updated standards which form the foundation of their
education in core subject."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-26, 8/31/11
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes,
Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hernández,
Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Knight, Lara, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Perea, V.
Manuel Pérez, Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Fletcher, Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman,
Harkey, Jeffries, Jones, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell,
Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao,
Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Furutani, Gorell
CPM:cm 8/31/11 Senate Floor Analyses
CONTINUED
SB 300
Page
7
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED