BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2290
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 2290
(Santiago) - As Amended March 29, 2016
SUBJECT: Pupil instruction: world languages
SUMMARY: Authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) to recommend to the State Board of Education (SBE)
modifications to the content standards in world languages, and
authorizes the SBE to adopt, reject, or modify the modified
standards by July 30, 2018. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes the SPI to recommend to the SBE modifications to
the foreign language academic content standards adopted by the
SBE.
2)Requires the SBE, on or before July 30, 2018, to adopt,
reject, or modify any modifications proposed by the SPI.
3)Requires that if the SBE modifies the foreign language
academic content standards, it explain, in writing, to the
Governor and the Legislature the reasons for modifying the
standards.
AB 2290
Page 2
4)Requires the SPI, in consultation with the SBE, to select a
group of experts in mathematics for purposes of assisting the
SPI in developing recommendations on the modifications.
5)Requires the SPI to ensure that the group of experts includes
both researchers and practitioners in the field of foreign
language education, representatives from higher education and
the K-12 educational system, and experts in alphabet-based and
nonalphabet-based languages and American Sign language.
6)Requires the SPI to hold a minimum of two public hearings in
order for the public to provide input on the modifications,
and requires the SBE to act on those recommendations at a
subsequent public meeting.
7)Requires the public meetings to be held pursuant to the
Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
8)Requires that, if the foreign language academic content
standards are modified, during the next revision of the
foreign language curriculum framework and evaluation criteria
the Instructional Quality Commission ensure that the
modifications are incorporated into the foreign language
curriculum framework and evaluation criteria for purposes of
adopting instructional materials.
EXISTING LAW:
AB 2290
Page 3
1)Requires the SBE to adopt content standards for teaching
foreign languages in grades K-12 by June 1, 2009.
2)Requires that these standards include all of the following:
a) a summary of the language goals which recognizes that
instruction may begin in elementary or secondary school
b) a description of individual language skills that should
be taught and attained at each level
c) course content that is aligned with findings from
research on second language acquisition and education
d) course content that is aligned with the admission
requirements for the California State University and the
University of California
3)Allows these content standards to be used by school districts
to develop foreign language programs and course assessments
but states that they are not mandatory
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
AB 2290
Page 4
COMMENTS:
Need for the bill. The author's office states: "World language
programs continue to expand in California and the current
language standards do not adequately reflect recent research
developments in learning a second language, especially in the
area of immersion education, which is the fastest growing world
language program in our state.
The current World Language Content Standards are not aligned
with the Common Core State Standards, the English Language
Development Standards, and the curriculum framework for world
languages. The existing World Language Content Standards do not
place emphasis on literacy development for heritage speakers of
world languages and in supporting learners with low literacy
skills both in English and another language.
Furthermore, the current standards do not link the study of
world languages with Career and Technical Education (CTE) and
workforce opportunities, which may impede students from
developing global competence and engagement in the 21st century
global workforce. In order for language and cultural programs to
be the most effective for K-12 students, World Language Content
Standards must be updated."
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
AB 2290
Page 5
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
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 precede the
development of the frameworks. The next frameworks set for
revision are as follows:
2016: History-Social Science, Science
2018: Health
AB 2290
Page 6
2019: World Languages
2020: Math, Visual and Performing Arts
2021: Physical Education
2022: English Language Arts/English Language Development
The author argues that the adoption of revised standards by July
30, 2018 would allow the framework revision scheduled for 2019
to be aligned, and even developed "in tandem," with the
standards, and that this may provide some cost savings to the
state. The Committee may also wish to consider that, while the
World Languages standards are not the most out-of-date set of
content standards, the standards should be updated before the
framework revision which is scheduled to occur in 2019.
World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages vs.
California's standards. The World-Readiness Standards for
Learning Languages are published by the American Council for the
Teaching of Foreign Languages. According to the author, while
the California standards are aligned conceptually with the
World-Readiness standards, the national standards incorporate
recent research findings on second language acquisition and
brain research, and have a greater focus on career readiness and
how learners learn can apply the world languages and cultures in
academic and professional settings. The new standards are also
aligned with the Common Core State Standards. Over 40 states
have adopted or aligned their state standards to the
AB 2290
Page 7
World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. While the
bill does not require it, modifications to the state's current
standards would likely align with key features of the
World-Readiness standards.
The most pressing need: standards-aligned instructional
materials. The state's current foreign language framework was
adopted in 2003, and instructional materials aligned to that
framework were adopted in 2003 (with a follow-up adoption in
2005). The current foreign language standards were adopted in
2009. Because of the suspension of the curriculum framework
revision process in 2009, the state never adopted a world
languages framework aligned to those standards. And because
state-adopted instructional materials are aligned to that
framework, there was no instructional materials adoption aligned
to the standards. As a result, the state-adopted instructional
materials in this content area are viewed as highly out-of-date,
making instruction in world languages challenging for teachers.
Unpredictable state curriculum updating process disadvantages
students and burdens teachers; comprehensive approach is needed.
During the standards movement in the 1990's, when the state
began adopting content standards in a number of subject areas,
no process was established in state law to allow for regular
revisions to these standards. In contrast, curriculum
frameworks - which are built on those standards - are updated on
an eight year cycle.
AB 2290
Page 8
But as curriculum and instruction have continued to evolve, it
has become clear that the regular updating of standards is a
necessary part of the state's curriculum-setting function. As
the list of bills below (under the comment "Related
legislation") illustrates, many legislative attempts at revising
content standards in different areas have failed, resulting in
an unpredictable system of curriculum revision for teachers and
students at the local level.
This problem has broad and deep consequences for teaching and
learning. It means that students' access to updated content
necessary for college and career readiness is limited; that
students are taught with instructional materials which are not
aligned to the assessments they must take; that teachers are
expected to teach with outdated instructional materials and must
use their own time and money to create and purchase appropriate
materials; and that teacher preparation programs must instruct
new teachers in outdated content and methods when superior
options are available.
A bill pending in the Senate, AB 740 (Weber), would establish a
process for the regular updating of content standards. Such a
comprehensive approach would create a predictable and rational
system of curriculum for local school districts.
Process similar to SB 1200 for revising math and science
AB 2290
Page 9
standards. The process proposed by this bill for the updating
of world languages standards is very similar to the one required
by SB 1200 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2012) for the revising of
standards in mathematics and science. In both of those content
areas, state standards were updated to align with national
standards (Common Core State Standards in mathematics, and the
Next Generation Science Standards). That bill authorized the
SPI to consult with a group of experts and to recommend revised
standards to the SBE. The SBE was authorized to adopt, reject,
or modify the standards, and was required to provide a written
explanation for any modifications.
Amendments needed. Staff recommends the following amendments to
meet the author's intent:
1. On page 2, line 12, delete "in mathematics."
2. On page 2, lines 14 delete all text after "this
section," through line 19.
3. Refer to the current standards as the World Language
Content Standards for California Public Schools adopted by
the state board in 2009 and make corresponding changes.
Related legislation: AB 711 (Santiago) of this Session would
have required the SBE, on or before September 1, 2017, to adopt
or reject national content standards for teaching foreign
AB 2290
Page 10
languages, pursuant to recommendations of the SPI. These
requirements would occur only if AB 740 (Weber) of this Session
were not enacted. If AB 740 were enacted, the bill would require
the SBE to appoint an advisory committee to recommend updated
national foreign language content standards. This bill was held
in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 740 (Webber) of this Session would require the SPI, by
January 1, 2017, to recommend to the SBE a schedule for the
regular update of academic content standards. This bill grants
the SBE the authority to convene academic content standards
advisory committees to update the standards, and requires that
the SBE adopt or reject them. This bill is pending in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 745 (Hancock) of this Session, as heard in this Committee,
would have required the SBE, by June 30, 2017, to adopt, reject,
or modify visual and performing arts standards submitted by the
SPI. This bill was amended to address a different topic.
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
AB 2290
Page 11
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
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
AB 2290
Page 12
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 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 2290
Page 13
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
California Language Teachers Association
Individuals
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by:Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087
AB 2290
Page 14