BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 97|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 97
Author: Torlakson (D)
Amended: 8/19/09 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-2, 7/15/09
AYES: Romero, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Padilla, Simitian
NOES: Huff, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Maldonado
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 49-27, 6/3/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : School curriculum
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires the Superintendent of Public
Instruction to convene Academic Content and Performance
Standards Review panels for the purpose of reviewing and
recommending changes to the academic content standards for
English language arts and mathematics and repeals the
authority of the State Board of Education to modify
proposed standards prior to their adoption.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, operative until July 1, 2011,
and to be repealed on January 1, 2012, requires the State
Board of Education (SBE) to adopt statewide academic
content standards pursuant to the recommendations of the
Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and
Performance Standards, in core curriculum areas of reading,
CONTINUED
AB 97
Page
2
writing, and mathematics, history/social science and
science to serve as the basis for assessing the academic
achievement of individual pupils and of schools, school
districts, and the California education system. Further,
current law:
1. Permits the SBE to modify proposed content standards or
performance standards prior to adoption and allow the
SBE to adopt content and performance standards in
individual core curriculum areas as those standards are
submitted to the SBE.
2. Requires the SBE to adopt statewide performance
standards in the core curriculum areas of reading,
writing, mathematics, history/social science, and
science based on recommendations made by the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and a
contractor or contractors.
Existing law declares that the content and performance
standards are models and are not subject to the
Administrative Procedures Act.
This bill:
1. Repeals the authority of the SBE to modify proposed
content standards or performance standards prior to
their adoption.
2. Requires the SPI to convene Academic Content and
Performance Standards Review (ACPSR) panels to review
the content and performance standards in English
language arts and mathematics and requires each
13-member ACPSR panel to consist of the following:
A. Six members appointed by the Governor, at least
four of whom shall be credentialed teachers in the
curriculum area and in those grade levels for which
they are appointed. Who are at least five of all
previous seven years, have taught in California
public school classrooms.
B. The SPI or his or her designee.
AB 97
Page
3
C. Four members appointed by the Superintendent, at
least three of whom shall be credentialed teachers
and have public school classroom experience who, in
at least five of the previous seven years, have
taught in California public school classrooms in
the curriculum area and in those grade levels for
which they are appointed.
D. One member appointed by the Senate Rules
Committee.
E. One member appointed by the Speaker of the
Assembly.
3. Specifies that members of each ACPSR panel are to serve
a two-year term without compensation (except for
reimbursement for travel expenses).
4. Requires the appointing authorities to consult with each
other in making appointments to ensure that panel
members have expertise in the academic subject under
review, are knowledgeable about urban and rural schools,
English learners, and special education, are from
different geographical areas of the state and reflect
the ethnic and gender diversity of California.
5. Requires each ACPSR panel to review the current content
standards and performance standards to ensure that the
standards are measurable and objective and meet other
specified criteria such as reflecting the knowledge and
skills necessary for California's workforce, provide the
basis for statewide assessments, and provide for
continuity in content between grade levels.
6. Requires each ACPSR to recommend changes to the SBE as
necessary and requires the SBE to hold hearings on the
recommended changes to the standards and adopt or reject
the recommended changes to the standards within 120 days
of their receipt from a review panel and at least two
years prior to the adoption of curriculum frameworks for
the relevant subject area.
7. Requires the SBE, in the event it rejects the
recommended changes, to provide a specific, written
AB 97
Page
4
explanation of the reasons why the recommended changes
were not adopted and provides that the review panel may
modify its recommendations and resubmit them to the SBE.
8. Specifies that the ACPSR process shall not be
implemented unless an appropriation is provided in the
Budget Act or another statute and specifies the
governing statute shall become inoperative on January 1,
2014 and is repealed on January 1, 2015 unless a later
statute enacted before January 1, 2015 deletes or
extends that date.
9. Requires, to the extent feasible, the SBE to ensure that
assessments are aligned with the state content and
performance standards adopted pursuant to the
recommendations of the Academic Content and Performance
Standards Review Panel.
10.Extends the operative and repeal dates for existing law
that governs the process for adopting new content areas
to January 1, 2017.
11.Provides that upon recommendation of the Superintendent,
the state board shall adopt a schedule for reviewing the
science and history social science curriculum area
content standards so they can be reviewed when funding
permits, as specified. The bill will not be implemented
unless an appropriation is specifically enacted for the
purposes of the bill.
Comments
History and overview . The academic content standards are
the foundation for the state's educational system. The
Curriculum frameworks (which guide instruction), teacher
training and professional development, textbooks, student
assessments, and the state's accountability and
intervention programs are aligned to the academic content
standards.
AB 265 (Alpert) Chapter 975, Statutes of 1995, provided for
the appointment of a Standards Commission for the
establishment of academic content standards in the core
areas of reading, writing (English language arts),
AB 97
Page
5
mathematics, history/social science, and science. The
English language arts standards that were recommended by
the Commission were adopted largely intact by the SBE but
the mathematics content standards were substantially
revised by the Board prior to adoption, thereby raising
questions about the efficacy of the standards development
process. Subsequent legislation required the SBE to adopt
content standards in other areas, including Visual and
Performing Arts, Physical Education, and foreign languages.
There are currently academic content standards in the
following areas:
English language Arts, adopted December 1997
Mathematics, adopted December 1997
History-Social Science, adopted October 1998
Science, adopted October 1998
Visual and Performing Arts, adopted January 2001
Physical Education Model Content Standards, adopted January
2005
Career Technical Education, adopted May 2005
Health Education adopted March 2008
World Languages, adopted January 2009
Prior/Related legislation
AB 836 (Torlakson), which is scheduled to be heard by the
Senate Education Committee on July 15, 2009, establishes an
education technology task force for the purpose of making
recommendations to the SPI on technology literacy model
standards, developing a comprehensive statewide technology
plan, and requires the SBE to adopt technology literacy
model content standards by July 30, 2010.
Previous legislative attempts to authorize or establish a
process for the periodic review of the academic content
standards have been vetoed by more than one Governor. The
veto messages for SB 1367 (Karnette), of 2002, AB 642
(Mullin), of 2003, and AB 2744 (Goldberg), of 2004, stated
that the SBE had the authority to review and revise the
content standards as it deems necessary. However, in
January 2005, the Legislative Counsel issued an opinion
stating that the SBE does not have the authority to revise
the standards under current law, noting that the authority
to revise the standards appears to end with their adoption.
AB 97
Page
6
This bill is similar to SB 1097 (Torlakson), of 2008, which
was passed by this Committee on a 6-0 vote, and was
subsequently vetoed. In his veto message, Governor
Schwarzenegger expressed concern about deleting the
authority of the SBE to modify proposed content standards
prior to adoption and expressed concern about diluting the
role of the Governor to retain a majority of appointments
to the body that would be reviewing the standards.
Specifically, the veto message read:
The original academic content standards were adopted
through a public and inclusive process involving
teachers, educators and content experts from around the
state. The authorizing statute provided that the
Governor retain a majority of appointments to the
Standards Commission, followed by the Superintendent
and leadership in the legislature and correctly held
the Governor ultimately accountable to ensure a balance
of expertise and stakeholders participated in such a
critical endeavor. This bill proposes to dilute the
role of the Governor.
SB 1097 also deletes a provision codified by the
original statute that explicitly authorized the State
Board of Education (Board) to modify any proposed
content standards prior to adoption. Instead, it only
allows the Board to accept or reject proposed changes.
The Board would not have authority to make even minor
corrections to the panel's recommended changes.
I see no compelling reason to alter the balance
established by the original statute in determining the
composition of the commission that reviewed the
academic content, or the process that provided for
recommendations to the Board for consideration,
modification, and approval.
Furthermore, while I would welcome participation by
teachers, the measure does not define "recent public
classroom experience" and thereby raises the
possibility of controversy regarding whether or not
certain members of the panel are duly authorized to
AB 97
Page
7
participate.
I cannot support the dilution of the authority of the
Governor or the State Board of Education. California's
content standards are too important to allow for
unnecessary ambiguity that could call into question the
very process of a historic review and possible
modification.
Given the similarity between this bill and AB 1097
(Torlakson), is it reasonable to expect a different outcome
for this bill?
The author's office states, "current law does not provide a
mechanism by which these standards, which serve as the
backbone of California's public education system, can be
reviewed and updated to reflect the most cutting edge
knowledge and skills appropriate in each of the subject
areas."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/8/09)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
Association of California School Administrators
Business for Science, Math and Related Technologies
Education
California County Boards of Education
California Federation of Teachers
California Language Teachers Association
California Mathematics Council
California School Boards Association
California School Library Association
California Science Teachers Association
California Teachers Association
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles County Office of Education
San Francisco Unified School District
The Sikh Coalition
AB 97
Page
8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Blumenfield, Brownley,
Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer,
Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, John A.
Perez, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres,
Torrico, Bass
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Conway,
Cook, DeVore, Emmerson, Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines,
Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey, Jeffries, Knight,
Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Silva, Smyth,
Audra Strickland, Tran, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bill Berryhill, Block, Duvall, Yamada
DLW:do 9/8/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****