BILL ANALYSIS Ķ SB 1200 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1200 (Hancock) As Amended August 20, 2012 Majority vote SENATE VOTE :26-13 EDUCATION 7-4 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Gatto, Blumenfield, | | |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, | |Bradford, Charles | | |Eng, Williams | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | | | |Fuentes, Hall, Hill, | | | | |Cedillo, Mitchell, | | | | |Solorio | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Norby, Grove, Halderman, |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, | | |Wagner | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to recommend and the State Board of Education (SBE) to approve, modifications to the common core academic content standards in mathematics adopted by the SBE. Specifically, this bill : 1)Requires the SBE, if it modifies the common core academic content standards in mathematics, to explain, in writing, to the Governor and the Legislature the reasons for modifying the standards, and requires the SPI's recommendations and the SBE's actions to assist schools in the implementation of the common core state standards. 2)Requires the SPI, in consultation with the SBE, to consult a group of experts in mathematics for purposes of developing recommendations pursuant to this bill and requires the SPI to ensure that the group of experts includes, but is not limited to, individuals who are teachers of mathematics and English language arts in elementary and secondary schools, schoolsite principals, administrators of school districts or county offices of education, and university professors, and requires that no less than one-half of the members of the group be currently employed public school teachers. SB 1200 Page 2 3)Provides that the SPI and the SBE shall hold a minimum of two public hearings pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act in order for the public to provide input on the modifications recommended. 4)Requires on or before March 30, 2013, the SPI to recommend modifications to the mathematics standards to the SBE, and the SBE to adopt, reject, or modify the recommendations by that same date. 5)Stipulates that the modifications to the common core academic content standards in mathematics shall ensure all of the following: a) The rigor of the state common core academic content standards in mathematics is maintained so that all high school graduates are prepared for college and careers, as specified in the common core academic content standards; b) All of the common core academic standards developed by the specified consortium or interstate collaboration are adopted; c) One set of standards is adopted at a grade level; d) The content standards for algebra I are based upon the common core standards for mathematics; e) Redundant mathematics standards are eliminated; f) The implementation of standards is improved; g) Any technical issues in the standards are resolved; and, h) The modifications amount to no more than 15% of the common core academic content standards. 6)Requires any modifications to the common core academic content standards in mathematics made pursuant to this bill be incorporated into the curriculum framework and evaluation criteria for mathematics for the purpose of adopting instructional materials in mathematics as provided and makes this part of the bill operative only if AB 1246 (Brownly) of the current legislative session is enacted. 7)Authorizes the SPI to recommend and the SBE to adopt the college SB 1200 Page 3 and career readiness (CCR) anchor standards developed by Common Core State Standards Initiative consortium and authorizes the SBE to take action to resolve any technical issues in the English language arts (ELA) common core state standards. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, General Fund administrative costs, likely between $50,000 and $150,000, to the California Department of Education to complete the requirements of this bill. Actual costs will depend on the amount of revisions to the common core standards the SPI recommends to the SBE. COMMENTS : This bill authorizes the SPI to make recommendations for and the SBE to approve modifications to the recently-adopted common core standards in ELA and mathematics. Current law does not provide for a process for periodically reviewing, updating, modifying or revising the academic content standards. Although the ELA and math standards were recently revised, the modification of these standards was accomplished through legislation that directed a one-time review for the adoption of the common core standards through a very specific process. The adoption 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 therefore was a one-time activity and only focused on ELA and math. Common core state standards: Legislation enacted for purposes of satisfying part of the criteria for the RTTT program, SB 1 X5 (Steinberg), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009-10, Fifth Extraordinary Session, established the Standards Commission to develop and recommend to the SBE academic content standards in ELA and mathematics by July 15, 2010. SB 1 X5 (Steinberg) required 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 and required the SBE to adopt or reject the recommended standards by August 2, 2010. Per the requirements of SB 1 X5 (Steinberg), the Standards Commission submitted its recommendations to the SBE to adopt the common core state standards with additional California-specific standards and these recommendations were adopted by the SBE on August 2, 2010. SB 1200 Page 4 The problem: The author argues that the adoption of the common core standards resulted in some challenges. As an example, the author notes that "California adopted two sets of grade 8 math standards: (1) the common core grade 8 standards and (2) a set that combined elements of the common core grade 8 and high school math standards with California's own algebra standards. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is based on the premise that all students in grades 1 through 8 are taught and assessed on the same set of standards." The author further states, "Several implementation issues arise by California adopting a different set of grade 8 math standards from other participating states. For example, instructional materials for use in California would need to be different from those used by other states- the unique additional standards may increase the costs of those materials for our local school districts. In addition, assessment consortia will be developing assessments aligned to the Common Core standards and not the variation adopted in California. This may result in issues with our algebra standards and curriculum not being aligned with our assessment and accountability system." Having two sets of grade eight math standards may result in misalignment with any common assessments that may be adopted in the future, and may also result in challenges in the practical implementation of having two different sets of standards and expectations for students in the same grade level. The difficulties with having two sets of standards are widely recognized. For example, SB 140 (Lowenthal), Chapter 623, Statutes of 2011, which requires the development of a list of supplemental instructional materials to bridge the gap between current instructional materials and the common core standards, specifically excludes materials for 8th grade mathematics. The second issue this bill seeks to resolve is to adopt the CCR anchor standards that complement the grade-specific common core content standards in ELA. The anchor standards were left out of the original adoption of the common core, even though the statute required the adoption of the common core standards in their entirety. It is uncertain as to why the anchor standards were not adopted. Some have argued that the Standards Commission worked under a very short timeline and did not have the time to consider the anchor standards. Revising the common core standards: An argument can be made that SB 1200 Page 5 giving the authority to the SPI and SBE to modify the common core standards may contradict prior legislative action and intent to ensure that the recommendations of the Standards Commission relative to the common core state standards would not be modified by the SBE. The Legislature crafted such language in SB 1 5X in response to previous SBE actions during the original adoption of the content standards in the 1990s, when the SBE substantially modified, and essentially re-wrote, the math standards developed and recommended by the original standards commission. This bill, however, provides for a very narrow review of the standards that is limited to the identified areas rather than authorizing a broad review of the common core standards. Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Aviņa / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0005107