BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 740
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 8, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 740
(Weber) - As Introduced February 25, 2015
SUBJECT: Academic content standards: update of adopted
standards
SUMMARY: Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI), by January 1, 2017, to recommend to the State Board of
Education (SBE) a schedule for the regular update of academic
content standards. This bill authorizes the SBE to convene
academic content standards advisory committees to update the
standards, and requires that the SBE adopt or reject the updated
standards. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires that by January 1, 2017, the SPI recommend to the
state board a schedule for the regular update of academic
content standards in all subjects for which standards have
been adopted.
2)Requires that the schedule be aligned to the current
eight-year cycle of curriculum framework updates and
instructional materials adoptions.
AB 740
Page 2
3)Requires that, when the academic content standards in a given
subject area come up for review according to this schedule,
the SBE make a determination as to whether those standards
require an update.
4)Requires that determination to be based upon:
a) the amount of time since the standards were adopted or
last updated
b) whether additional research conducted since the
standards were adopted or last updated justifies updates to
the standards
c) the potential impact on existing curriculum,
instructional materials, and assessment systems based upon
the standards.
1)Requires that if the SBE determines that an update to the
academic content standards in a given subject is warranted, it
convene an academic content standards advisory committee to
recommend updates to the content standards in that subject.
2)Requires such a committee to consist of 21 members who serve
at the pleasure of the appointing authority, appointed as
follows:
AB 740
Page 3
a) 10 members appointed by the Governor
b) 4 members appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules
c) 4 members appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly
d) 3 members appointed by the SPI
1)Requires that not less than one-half of the members appointed
by each of the appointing authorities be current public school
elementary or secondary classroom teachers who have a
professional credential under state law, and meet the
definition of "highly qualified" under federal law.
2)Requires each academic content standards advisory committee to
review the content standards established in its particular
subject matter and prepare updates to the standards as the
committee deems necessary.
3)Requires that, when making its recommendation, an academic
content standards advisory committee consider the extent to
which its proposed updates reflect current and confirmed
research in the subject area under consideration, and the
impact that the proposed updates will have upon school
districts and existing curricula and assessments.
AB 740
Page 4
4)Requires that an academic content standards advisory committee
conduct at least two, and no more than six, in-person meetings
that are open to the public and include opportunities for
public input.
5)Requires that, upon completing this review, the terms of the
members cease.
6)Requires that, upon updating the standards, an academic
content standards advisory committee forward them to the SBE,
which must do either of the following within 120 days of the
receipt:
a) adopt the proposed updates, or
b) reject the proposed updates, in which case the SBE must
provide a specific written explanation to the SPI, the
Governor, and the Legislature of the reasons why the
proposed standards were rejected
1)Requires that, prior to final action, the California
Department of Education (CDE) post on its website the proposed
updates for a minimum of 60 days. The CDE must include a link
by which members of the public may submit comments on the
proposed updates.
AB 740
Page 5
2)Requires that members of an academic content standards
advisory committee serve without compensation, except for
actual and necessary travel expenses and substitute costs.
3)Requires the SPI to develop, and the SBE to adopt, guidelines
to implement this section.
4)States that the convening of an academic content standards
advisory committee is contingent upon the Legislature
appropriating funds for that purpose in the annual Budget Act.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires the SBE to adopt or reject content standards in
language arts and mathematics and requires that at least 85%
of those standards to be those developed by the Common Core
State Standards Initiative consortium.
2)Requires SPI to convene a group of science experts to
recommend science content standards for adoption to the state
board, utilizing the Next Generation Science Standards as the
basis for their deliberations and recommendations to the state
board. Requires the SBE to adopt, reject, or modify the
standards. This section is now repealed.
3)Requires the SPI, in consultation with the SBE, to update,
revise, and align the English Language Development (ELD)
standards to the Common Core State Standards, and requires the
AB 740
Page 6
SBE to adopt or reject those revised standards.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
Need for the bill. The author's office states, "Though academic
content standards are an essential part of the California
achievement and accountability systems, there is no process
currently in place for the regular review and update of the
standards. Some of California's current standards, such as the
history-social science standards, date back to 1998. As a
result, each time standards need to be updated, even if the
updates are only minor, new legislation must be enacted.
All of the current standards were adopted through separate
legislation passed in the 1990's and 2000's. Since 2010, new
content standards have been adopted in mathematics and English
language arts, ELD and science. There have also been many bills
to update content standards that have failed. The vast amount of
legislation to update content standards has created an
unpredictable process for school districts and teachers, making
it challenging to plan for changes in curriculum.
Except for legislation, there is currently no process in place
for the regular updating of academic content standards despite
the fact that it is often necessary to make modifications to
content standards given that there are regular changes in
disciplinary knowledge and academic research. The updating of
content standards does not constitute a complete revision, but
an update where necessary to reflect new knowledge. Creating a
rational and predictable process would help school districts
plan for changes in curriculum."
AB 740
Page 7
Standards adoption dates by subject area. The most recent
adoption (original or update) of content standards in each
subject area is shown below.
1998: History-Social Science
2001: Visual and Performing Arts
2005: Physical Education
2008: Health Education
2009: World Languages
2010: English Language Arts
2010: Mathematics
2012: English Language Development
2013: Career Technical Education
2013: Science
AB 740
Page 8
Current schedule for framework adoption. Curriculum frameworks
are revised and adopted on an eight-year cycle, and
instructional materials adoptions take place after new
frameworks are adopted. Standards adoptions generally precede
the development of the frameworks. The next frameworks set for
revision are as follows:
2016: History-Social Science, Science
2018: Health
2019: World Languages
2020: Math, Visual and Performing Arts
2021: Physical Education
2022: English Language Arts/English Language Development
Concern about implementation time and cost. The Association of
California School Administrators (ACSA) writes, "We agree that
having a predictable and routine schedule for updating the
academic content standards is both reasonable and sound
practice, but?ACSA members are concerned that if academic
content standards are not provided sufficient implementation
time before the next update, the state will not have valid data
to make an informed decision as to the need for an update. On
average, it takes school districts three years to fully
implement standards changes, and if the state uses an eight year
AB 740
Page 9
timeframe, we are concerned that the state will not have
sufficient and reliable data on which to base its decision. We
are also concerned about cost imposition on school districts if
content updates happen without recognition of the time needed to
update textbook and instructional materials, and the cost
imposed on school districts for such purchases."
Make allowances for revisions standards developed nationally.
This bill requires that the determination of the need to update
standards be based on several factors, including the "age" of
the current standards. Not represented in that list is the case
of an update of a set of standards created for national use.
This is the subject of two other bills this Session (AB 711,
Santiago and SB 725, Hancock) which seek to require the updating
of standards following on revisions in nationally-developed
standards in World Languages and Visual and Performing Arts,
respectively. Staff recommends that the bill be amended to
allow the SBE to take into consideration the revision of
nationally-developed standards in determining whether an update
is necessary.
State intent about the sequence of adoptions. While it is
generally understood that the sequence of curriculum adoption
proceeds from standards to frameworks to instructional
materials, in one case the order was altered (History-Social
Science) such that the framework revision proceeded prior to the
adoption of new standards. In order to encourage the process to
proceed from standards to frameworks to instructional materials,
staff recommends the following statement of Legislative intent:
"It is the intent of the Legislature that content standards in
each subject area are updated prior to the revision of the
curriculum framework in that area, and that the curriculum
framework is adopted prior to the adoption of aligned
instructional materials."
Expertise, grade levels, and diversity on the advisory
AB 740
Page 10
committees. The advisory committees created by this bill would
need expertise in content as well as knowledge of content at
different grade levels. It is also important that they reflect
the diversity of the state. Staff recommends that the bill be
amended to state the intent of the Legislature that the advisory
committees include representation of different grade level spans
(elementary, middle, and high school), that members possess a
thorough knowledge of the academic content standards, and that
committee membership reflect the diversity of the various ethnic
groups, types of school districts, and regions in California.
Related legislation this session. AB 711 (Santiago), also being
heard at this hearing, would require the SBE to adopt national
content standards by June 1, 2017, which are in accordance with
the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages, pursuant
to the recommendations of the SPI. SB 725 (Hancock) requires
the SBE, by June 30, 2017, to adopt, reject, or modify visual
and performing arts standards submitted by the SPI.
Prior legislation. SB 1057 (Corbett) of the 2013-14 Session
would have created a process to update the history-social
science content standards. This bill was vetoed by the Governor,
who expressed a concern that the Instructional Quality
Commission did not have a role in the proposed revision process,
among other issues.
AB 1033 (Feuer) of the 2011-12 Session would have established a
content standards review commission, if the SPI and the SBE
jointly found a need to revise or modify the academic content
standards. The SBE could adopt or reject the recommendations.
This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 124 (Fuentes), Chapter 605, Statutes of 2011, requires the
SPI, in consultation with the SBE, to convene a group of experts
in English language instruction, curriculum, and assessment to
AB 740
Page 11
align the English language development standards to English
language arts content standards. The SBE could adopt, reject, or
modify the recommendations.
SB 300 (Hancock), Chapter 624, Statutes of 2011, requires the
SPI to convene a group of science experts to recommend science
content standards which the SBE could adopt, reject, or modify.
AB 97 (Torlakson) of the 2009-10 Session would have established
the Academic Content Standards Commission for Science and
History-Social Science consisting of 21 appointed members to
review and update the standards, and required the SBE to adopt
or reject the recommendations of the commission. This bill was
vetoed.
SB 1 X5 (Steinberg) Chapter 2, Statutes of 2010, requires the
SBE to adopt or reject content standards in language arts and
mathematics and requires that at least 85% of those standards to
be those developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative
consortium.
AB 1454 (Richardson) of the 2007-08 Session would have required
the SPI to convene content standards review panels in English
language arts and mathematics and required the SBE to adopt or
reject the recommendations of the review panel. This bill was
held in the Senate Education Committee.
AB 1100 (Mullin) of the 2005-06 Session would have authorized
the SPI to appoint a content standards review panel in each
subject area two years prior to the curriculum framework
adoption for each subject area, and specifying that the panel
review and revise the content standards. This bill was held in
the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 740
Page 12
AB 2744 (Goldberg) of the 2003-04 Session would have established
a process for the updating of academic content standards by
requiring the SPI to convene content standards review panels in
each subject area and requiring the SBE to adopt or reject the
recommendations of each panel. This bill was vetoed.
AB 642 (Mullin) of the 2003-04 Session would have required the
SPI to periodically review and update academic content standards
for the SBE to adopt or reject. This bill was vetoed.
SB 1367 (Karnette) of the 2001-02 Session would have required
the SBE to periodically review and update core curriculum
content standards. This bill was vetoed.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson (sponsor)
Association of California School Administrators (if amended)
California Association for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
1 individual
AB 740
Page 13
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087