BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 740
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Weber |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 20, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date July 15, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lynn Lorber |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Academic content standards: update of adopted
standards
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to
recommend to the State Board of Education (SBE) a schedule for
the regular update of academic content standards.
BACKGROUND
Academic content standards define the knowledge, concepts, and
skills that students should acquire at each grade level.
Curricular frameworks are the blueprint for implementing the
standards, and include criteria by which instructional materials
are evaluated.
Standards in several subject areas were adopted by the SBE
beginning in the late 1990s. There is no statutory authority
for the review or updating of standards. A schedule once
existed for the review and update of frameworks and
instructional materials in many subject areas, but those
processes were suspended on July 28, 2009 due to budget
constraints. Specific authority has since been provided to
develop new standards in specific subjects (statutory authority
was also provided to develop frameworks and instructional
materials in some of these subjects).
The SBE has adopted, or is scheduled to adopt, the following
standards:
AB 740 (Weber) Page 2
of ?
1)The California Common Core Standards in English language arts
and mathematics were adopted on August 2, 2010. (Education
Code § 60605.8)
2)English language development standards that are aligned with
the common core standards in English language arts in November
7, 2012. (Former EC § 60811.3)
3)A modification of the previously adopted common core standards
in mathematics in January 2013. (EC § 60605.11)
4)Revised Career Technical Education Model Curriculum Standards
on January 16, 2013. (EC § 51226)
5)The Next Generation Science Standards on September 4, 2013.
(Former EC § 60605.85)
6)English language development standards that are aligned with
the common core standards in mathematics and science. Current
law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
submit recommendations to the State Board of Education (SBE)
by January 2015, and requires the SBE to adopt updated
standards by August 1, 2015. However, according to the
California Department of Education's website, the panel of
experts has just recently been convened, and it is anticipated
that the SPI will provide recommendations to the SBE in July
2015; it is unclear if adoption by the SBE expected later than
the statutory deadline of August 1, 2015. (EC § 60811.4)
7)The Instructional Quality Commission is required to consider
developing and recommending to the SBE standards in computer
science by July 31, 2019.
(EC § 60605.4)
ANALYSIS
This bill requires the SPI to recommend to the SBE a schedule
for the regular update of academic content standards.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the SPI to recommend by January 1, 2017, to the SBE a
schedule for the regular update of academic content standards
in all subjects for which standards have been adopted by the
AB 740 (Weber) Page 3
of ?
SBE.
2)Requires the schedule to be aligned to the current eight-year
cycle of updates to the curricular frameworks and adoptions of
instructional materials.
3)Requires the SBE, when the academic content standards in a given
subject area come up for review according to the schedule, to
make a determination as to whether those standards require an
update. The determination must be based upon the following
considerations:
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.
4)Requires the SBE, if it determines that an update to the
standards in a given subject is warranted, to convene an
academic content standards advisory committee to recommend
updates to the standards in that subject. This bill requires
an academic content standards advisory committee to consist of
21 members, appointed as follows:
a) Ten members appointed by the Governor.
b) Four members appointed by the Senate Rules
Committee.
c) Four members appointed by the Speaker of the
Assembly.
d) Three members appointed by the Superintendent of
Public Instruction.
5)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
AB 740 (Weber) Page 4
of ?
committee deems necessary. This bill requires the advisory
committee, when making its recommendations, to consider both
of the following criteria:
a) The extent to which its proposed updates reflect
current and confirmed research in the subject area under
consideration.
b) The impact that the proposed updates will have
upon school districts and the existing curricula and
assessments.
6)Requires an academic content standards advisory committee to
conduct at least two, and no more than six, in-person meetings
that are open to the public and include opportunities for
public input. This bill authorizes an advisory committee to
convene additional meetings by teleconference or the Internet
subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
7)Requires an academic content standards advisory committee, upon
updating the standards, to forward them to the State Board of
Education (SBE), and requires the SBE to do either of the
following within 120 days of receiving the updates:
a) Adopt the proposed updates as proposed by the
advisory committee.
b) Reject the proposed updates as proposed by the
advisory committee. This bill requires the SBE to provide
a specific written explanation to the Superintendent,
Governor and Legislature of the reasons why the proposed
standards were rejected.
8)Requires the California Department of Education (CDE), before
final updates to standards are prepared by an advisory
committee, to post on its website the proposed updates for at
least 60 days. This bill requires the CDE to include a link
by which members of the public may submit comments on the
proposed updates.
9)Provides that members of an academic content standards advisory
committee are to serve at the pleasure of the appointing
authority, serve without compensation (other than actual and
necessary travel expenses and costs for substitute teachers),
AB 740 (Weber) Page 5
of ?
and requires that at least one-half of the members appointed
by each of the appointing authorities be current public
elementary or secondary classroom teachers who have a
professional credential and meet the definition of "highly
qualified" in federal law (No Child Left Behind). This bill
requires the terms of the members of an academic content
standards advisory committee to cease upon completing the
review.
10)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop,
and requires the State Board of Education to adopt, guidelines
to implement the provisions of this bill.
11)Clarifies that nothing in this bill is to be construed to
prohibit the consideration of national standards adopted by
other states in making this determination.
12)States legislative intent that all of the following occur:
a) The academic content standards advisory
committees include representation from teachers of
different grade level spans, including elementary, middle,
and high school grades.
b) A member of an academic content standards
advisory committee possesses a thorough knowledge of the
academic content standards in the content area and grade
level span in which he or she is appointed.
c) An academic content standards advisory committee
membership reflects the diversity of the various ethnic
groups, types of school districts, and regions in
California.
13)States legislative intent that content standards be updated
before the revision of curricular frameworks, and that
framework revisions occur before the adoption of instructional
materials.
14)States legislative findings and declarations relative to the
need for a process for regular updating of the standards.
15)Provides that the convening of an academic content standards
advisory committee is contingent upon the Legislature
AB 740 (Weber) Page 6
of ?
appropriating funds for that purpose in the annual Budget Act.
STAFF COMMENTS
1)Need for the bill. According to the author, "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.
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 there are regular changes in
disciplinary knowledge and academic research. The updating of
content standards does not constitute a complete revision, but
update where necessary to reflect new knowledge. 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."
2)Existing standards. This bill requires the development and
adoption of a schedule for the regular update of academic
content standards in all subjects for which standards have
been adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE). The most
recent adoption (original or update) of content standards in
each subject area, and date of adoption by the SBE, is as
follows:
a) Science, September 2013.
b) Common core standards for Mathematics, adopted August 2010
and modified January 2013.
c) Career Technical Education, January 2013.
d) English language development, November 2012.
e) Common core standards in English language arts, August
2010.
f) World Language, January 2009.
g) Health, March 2008.
AB 740 (Weber) Page 7
of ?
h) Physical Education, January 2005.
i) Visual and Performing Arts, January 2001.
j) History-Social Science, October 1998.
3)Role of the State Board of Education. There is no statutory
authority for the regular review or updating of standards.
Authority has been provided to develop new standards in
specific subjects, such as the California common core
standards in English language arts and mathematics. This bill
establishes a framework for the regular review and update of
standards that is generally consistent with the process
utilized in the past for the initial adoption of standards, as
well as the process for the adoption of the California common
core standards (such as convening a panel of subject matter
experts). However, this bill deviates from prior adoptions by
not providing the option to the SBE to modify standards that
have been presented to the SBE for adoption. In the past, the
SBE was given authority to adoption, modify or reject proposed
standards. This bill requires the SBE to either adopt or
reject the proposed standards, but does not authorize the SBE
to modify standards. This change ensures the development of,
and any revisions to, the standards is left to the subject
matter experts.
4)Technical amendments needed. On page 4, line 32, after "receipt"
add "of the updated standards." On page 5, line 1, strike
"(g)" and insert "(k)."
5)Fiscal impact. According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill would impose:
a) Ongoing General Fund administrative costs of approximately
$800,000 to develop a new Content Standards Unit within the
California Department of Education. This bill directs the
standards to be tied to the eight-year cycle for frameworks
and adoptions. It is likely staff would need to work on
more than one project each year, on an ongoing basis.
b) One-time costs of approximately $100,000 (General
Fund/non-Proposition 98) to convene each Academic Content
AB 740 (Weber) Page 8
of ?
Standards Advisory Committee. There are currently ten
subjects that could be updated.
c) The adoption of new content standards has a multiplier
effect that leads to additional costs. Once new curriculum
standards are adopted, frameworks aligned to those
standards must be adopted (approximately $1.2 million
General Fund/non-Proposition 98 per framework). An
instructional materials adoption follows each framework
revision (approximately $1.3 million General
Fund/non-Proposition 98 per subject). These estimates do
not include additional Proposition 98 costs, likely in the
millions, for school districts to purchase instructional
materials and provide professional development.
6)Related and prior legislation.
RELATED LEGISLATION
SB 725 (Hancock, 2015) requires the State Board of Education (SBE)
to adopt content standards in visual and performing arts by
June 30, 2017. SB 725 is scheduled to be heard by the
Assembly Education Committee on July 15.
AB 711 (Santiago, 2015) requires the SBE to adopt World Languages
content standards that are in accordance with the
World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages by June 1,
2017. AB 711 was held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
SB 652 (Allen, 2015) delays by one year, until January 31, 2017,
the date by which the SBE is required to consider the adoption
of a revised framework for science. SB 652 is pending on the
Assembly Floor.
AB 524 (Low, 2015) among other things, requires the Superintendent
of Public Instruction (SPI) to develop curriculum standards
for courses that incorporate a service learning component in
order to satisfy state and local high school graduation
requirements. AB 524 was held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
PRIOR LEGISLATION
AB 740 (Weber) Page 9
of ?
SB 1057 (Corbett, 2014) required the SPI to recommended
history-social science content standards to the SBE on or
before March 30, 2018, and requires the SBE to adopt, reject,
or modify the history-social science content standards by July
30, 2018. SB 1057 was vetoed by the Governor, whose veto
message read:
I agree that providing up to date instructional
guidance to educators for use in their classrooms
is important. This is precisely why the State
Board of Education is currently updating the
history-social science framework which is on
track to be adopted next spring. I am concerned
that this bill may slow progress that is already
underway, and does not include a role for the
Instructional Quality Commission.
AB 1033 (Feuer, 2011) established a content standards
review commission, if the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI) and the State Board of Education (SBE)
jointly found a need to revise or modify the academic
content standards. AB 1033 was held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
AB 97 (Torlakson, 2010) established the Academic Content
Standards Commission for Science and History-Social Science
to review and update the standards. 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.
AB 1454 (Richardson, 2007) required the SPI to convene
content standards review panels in English language arts
and mathematics and repealed the authority of the SBE to
modify proposed academic content standards. AB 1454 was
held in this Committee.
AB 740 (Weber) Page 10
of ?
AB 1100 (Mullin, 2005) 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 2744 (Goldberg, 2004) 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. AB 2744 was vetoed by the
Governor; staff is unable to locate the veto message.
AB 642 (Mullin, 2003) required the SPI to periodically
review and update academic content standards for the SBE to
adopt or reject. AB 642 was vetoed by the Governor; staff
is unable to locate the veto message.
SB 1367 (Karnette, 2002) required the SBE to periodically
review and update core curriculum content standards. SB
1367 was vetoed by the Governor; staff is unable to locate
the veto message.
SUPPORT
Association of California School Administrators
Business for Math, Science and Related Technologies Education
California Association for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance
California Council for the Social Studies
California School Boards Association
California Teachers Association
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --
AB 740 (Weber) Page 11
of ?