BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2069
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2069 (Carter) - As Amended: April 27, 2010
Policy Committee: EducationVote:9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill, commencing with the 2013-14 school year, establishes
a timeline for the adoption of instructional materials (IM).
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires IM adoptions to occur as follows: (a) history/social
science in 2013; (b) mathematics in 2014; (c) world languages
in 2015; (d) English language arts (ELA) in 2016; (e) health
in 2017; (f) science in 2017; and (f) visual and performing
arts in 2018.
2)Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt revised
curriculum and evaluation criteria for history/social science
IM no later than July 1, 2011.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)GF administrative costs, likely between $700,000 and $1.5
million, to the State Department of Education (SDE) to adopt
IM according to the timeline established in this bill.
Due to the enactment of AB 2 X4 (Evans), Chapter 2, Statutes
of 2009 (see below), the governor vetoed $705,000 (GF) for the
Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission
(CDSMC), which conducts the majority of the work associated
with IM adoptions. Specifically, the governor stated, "it is
unnecessary for the CDSMC to continue to advise the SBE on
content frameworks and IM adoptions for the next five years or
until an agreed-upon process is reestablished. This reduction
removes funding for unnecessary commission per diem and travel
as well as funding for SDE staff."
AB 2069
Page 2
2)Potential GF/98 cost pressure, likely in the tens of millions,
to provide local education agencies (LEAs) with funding under
the Instructional Materials Funding and Realignment Program
(IMFRP).
AB 2 X4 (Evans), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009, authorized LEAs to
utilize IMFRP funding for any education purpose it deems fit.
This authorization coupled with the suspension of the
requirement to purchase IM (see below) has lead LEAs to
redirect IM funding for other purposes. Also, many LEAs argue
current IMFRP funding levels do not fully cover the cost of
purchasing IM. With the enactment of Chapter 2, it is
possible that LEAs will need increased IMFRP funding in the
2013-14 fiscal year to mitigate the redirection of IM funding
during the budget flexibility period. The governor's January
proposed budget provides $332.5 million for IMFRP, including a
19.81% reduction.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Prior to the enactment of AB 2 X4 (Evans),
Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009 in July 2009 (see below), statute
required the SBE to adopt basic IM in the core academic
content areas (ELA, mathematics, history/social science, and
science) every six years for use in grades K-8. It also
established a schedule for the adoption of IM in other
subjects. Statute also required the SBE to adopt statewide
academically rigorous content standards in the core curriculum
areas. These content standards are implemented through the
curriculum frameworks, as adopted by SBE. The adopted IM must
be consistent with the criteria and standards of quality
prescribed in the adopted curriculum frameworks. The
development of curriculum frameworks is a multi-year process.
Also, the governing board of each school district maintaining
one or more high schools is authorized to adopt IM for use in
the high schools (grades 9-12) under its control.
AB 2 X4 (Evans), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009, specified that
LEAs are not required to purchase IM through the 2012-13
fiscal year. Consistent with the non-purchasing requirement,
Chapter 2 also suspended the requirement for SBE to adopt IM
or conduct other procedures associated with adoption (i.e.,
adopting curriculum frameworks) until the 2013-14 school year.
AB 2069
Page 3
2)Purpose . The Legislature and the governor agreed to a
moratorium on the purchase and adoption of IM due to the
state's severe fiscal crisis. Many, however, argue that not
updating IM is a disservice to education. For example,
various Sikh organizations do not feel the current state
history/social science textbooks portray their culture fairly
and worked with the SBE to revise the curriculum framework.
AB 2 X4 prevented the revised history/social science framework
from being adopted.
SB 1 X5 (Steinberg), Chapter 2, Statues of 2009-10 Fifth
Extraordinary Session, implemented various provisions to make
the state eligible for a federal Race To The Top grant,
including the adoption of common core standards in ELA and
mathematics. The adoption of these standards is required to
occur prior to August 2, 2010. If the state adopts common
core standards, curriculum frameworks need to be revised for
the adoption of new IM in ELA and mathematics. SB 1 X5 is
silent on a timeline for the adoption of revised IM.
Prior to the enactment of AB 2 X4, the next history/social
science curriculum framework was scheduled for adoption in May
2010, with IM for this subject to be adopted in 2011.
However, this timeline is no longer relevant and the next
adoption of this framework has not been determined.
This bill, commencing with the 2013-14 school year,
establishes a timeline for the adoption of IM, including
allowing the history/social science curriculum framework to be
adopted by July 1, 2011. The exception for history/social
science allows textbook publishers to meet the 2013 date for
adoption of subject matter IM. This measure, sponsored by the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, also honors the
legislative intent to not require LEAs to purchase IM prior to
the 2013-14 fiscal year.
3)Should the IM adoption process be revised ? Many individuals
argue that California's current adoption process for IM does
not provide enough options to school districts, particularly
for English language learner pupils and pupils with
disabilities. In recent years, several legislators have argued
that the SBE's policies and decisions about the adoption and
purchase of IM have hindered local districts' ability to
select the best materials for their students.
AB 2069
Page 4
In May 2007, the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) released a
report entitled: Reforming California's Instructional
Materials Adoption Process. Specifically, the LAO recommended
"the state continues to involve expert panels, SDE, SBE,
publishers, other advocates, and the general public in the
framework development and adoption process but eliminate the
role of the Curriculum Commission. This would be consistent
with the process used in most adoption states, which either do
not have such commissions or do not involve them in adoption
decisions. Removing the commission from the adoption process,
however, would streamline the process
significantly-eliminating virtually all of the existing
redundancies."
This bill establishes a timeline for the adoption of IM. It
does not revise the current adoption process. The committee
may wish to consider whether or not it is appropriate to
continue adopting IM in the same manner it has for the last
decade. Or is there an opportunity for the state to revise
this process to make it more effective and efficient?
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081