BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 147
AUTHOR: DeSaulnier
INTRODUCED: February 12, 2009
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 1, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
SUBJECT : University Admission Requirements: Career
Technical Education.
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Trustees of the California State
University and strongly urges the Regents of the University
of California to recognize, beginning January 1, 2014, the
completion of all career technical education courses that
meet standards adopted by the State Board of Education.
BACKGROUND
The State Board of Education (SBE) adopted Model Curriculum
Standards for Career Technical Education (CTE) in May 2005
and adopted the curriculum frameworks for those standards in
January 2007. The standards are organized in 15 industry
sectors of interrelated occupations and broad industries.
The standards identify 58 different career pathways and the
academic and technical courses required for each pathway.
The California State University (CSU) and the University of
California (UC) have established common high school
coursework requirements for undergraduate admissions.
Students who take courses that meet these minimum subject
area requirements and who meet other specified criteria are
eligible to apply and be considered for admission to campuses
within these institutions. The following pattern of
coursework is commonly referred to as the "a-g" requirements:
a. 2 years of history/social science
b. 4 years of college preparatory English or
language instruction
c. 3 years of college preparatory mathematics
d. 2 years of laboratory science
SB 147
Page 2
e. 2 years of the same language other than
English
f. 1 year visual and performing art
g. 1 year college preparatory electives
Existing law (SB 1543, Alarcon, Chapter 669, Statutes of
2006) requires the CSU and requests the UC to adopt model
uniform academic standards for CTE that satisfy the
completion of general elective ("g") course requirements for
the purposes of admission. SB 1543 specified if the model
academic standards were not adopted
SB 147
Page 3
by July 1, 2008, the Trustees of the CSU would have been
required and the Regents of the UC would have been requested
to recognize the completion of all high school courses that
meet the CTE standards adopted by the SBE as satisfying the
completion of the general elective course requirement. The
CSU and UC satisfied the requirements of SB 1543 in spring
2008.
ANALYSIS
This bill requires the CSU and strongly urges the UC,
beginning January 1, 2014, to recognize all CTE courses that
meet the CTE Model Curriculum Standards adopted by the SBE as
satisfying the general elective course requirement for
university admission.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) The a-g subject area requirements . The completion of
the a-g course sequence signals admissions officers and
university faculty that a student has attained a body of
knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary to
undertake more advanced study and successfully complete
the foundation and breadth courses required for a
bachelor's degree.
The UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools
(BOARS), which is comprised of university faculty,
reviews and determines which high school courses meet
the a-g approval criteria. The CSU accepts courses
certified by BOARS as meeting the "a-g" requirements,
thus enabling students to meet the same course taking
sequence whether they choose to apply for admission to
UC or CSU.
Students may satisfy the general elective requirement one of
two ways: Completion of an additional UC-approved "a-f"
course or completion of a course that has been
specifically approved for the "g" elective. In
reviewing courses submitted for a-g approval, BOARS
looks for courses that:
Are academically challenging.
Involve substantial reading and writing.
Include problems and laboratory work as
appropriate.
Show serious attention to analytical thinking
SB 147
Page 4
and factual content.
Develop students' oral and listening skills.
This bill would result in two different sets of
standards for general elective courses: 1) the BOARS
criteria for non CTE courses and, 2) the SBE standards
for CTE courses. Does this make sense?
1) Meeting SB 1543 requirements . This bill appears to
impose the SB 1543 sanctions despite the fact that the
CSU and UC satisfied the requirements of that
legislation before the deadline and schools have worked
with the new guidelines for less than a year. Is this
reasonable?
SB 147
Page 5
The BOARS adopted guidelines in March 2008 that provide
detailed subject-specific guidance and information for
school administrators and teachers seeking UC approval
for CTE courses that combine rigorous academic
instruction with demanding technical curriculum and
field-based learning. The CSU Admission Advisory
Council adopted the guidelines in spring 2008. Under
these guidelines, CTE courses may be approved if they:
a) Provide high-quality challenging curricula that
use and advance concepts in the "a-f" subject areas;
b) Integrate academic knowledge with technical and
occupational knowledge; and
c) Include tasks that are rich in opportunities to
develop knowledge of tools, processes and materials;
to engage in problem-solving and decision-making;
and to explain what one is doing and why.
Additionally, the UC has added space on its admission
application for students to list non "a-g" courses, thus
allowing any CTE course to be recognized within the
context of an applicant's total portfolio of academic
and personal achievements.
2) Jurisdiction . Historically, the CSU and the UC have had
jurisdiction over their admission policies and
procedures, including the establishment of coursework
required for entry to a campus or major program,
required tests, and minimum grade point average
standards. By requiring the CSU to accept CTE courses
that meet standards adopted by the State Board of
Education, this bill gives the SBE, instead of
university faculty, the practical authority to dictate
the standards for university admission requirements for
CTE courses. Does this make sense? Could this logic
extend in the future to other content areas for which
the SBE has established standards such as math or
foreign languages? Given that the CSU and UC are
concerned with how the rigor and content of high school
courses prepare students for taking and succeeding in
academic courses in their institutions, shouldn't they
be the ones to determine how high school courses should
be considered in the admission process?
SB 147
Page 6
3) Recognizing CTE coursework . According to the CDE,
approximately 25 percent of all CTE courses statewide
satisfy the "a-g" requirements. Of the 6,509
UC-approved CTE courses offered statewide in 2008-09,
most met either the visual and performing arts ("f")
requirement (50.6%) or the general elective ("g")
requirement (32.4%). Approximately 17 percent of
UC-approved CTE courses satisfy one of the "a-e"
requirements, thus allowing students to substitute a CTE
course for a core academic subject, such as a laboratory
science. Although the number of UC-approved CTE courses
has increased by 62 percent since 2005-06, the author's
office maintains that SB 147 is necessary because too
few industrial arts programs are approved to satisfy the
"a-g" requirements. Yet by essentially enabling all CTE
courses
SB 147
Page 7
to satisfy the general elective course requirement,
could this bill serve to relieve pressure for schools to
develop academically rigorous CTE courses that meet one
of the core "a-e" requirements?
Notwithstanding the merits of having a common set of
course requirements for both UC and CSU, would it make
sense for CSU to have different standards, perhaps
outside the a-g requirements, for recognizing certain
CTE courses? For example, could the CSU establish an
"h" category that would enable students to be given
preferential consideration toward admission for
completing industrial arts courses that relate to or are
aligned with certain CSU majors or programs?
To enable the Legislature to better understand the
nature of progress that has been made and determine the
appropriate means of recognizing CTE in the university
admission process, the Committee may wish to consider
the following amendments:
a) Remove the requirement to recognize CTE courses
that meet standards adopted by the SBE, and
b) Require the CSU and the UC to provide a
status report to the Legislature by October 1,
2010, on the recognition of CTE coursework for
university admission, focusing specifically on how
the UC ensures consistency in the BOARS process,
technical assistance provided to school districts
to enable more CTE courses to meet the a-g
requirements, how CTE courses are recognized under
UC's new admission policies, and alternative ways,
including the creation of a new subject area
category, to recognize CTE courses that are heavily
weighted in building technical skills or that do
not correspond to majors offered by UC or CSU.
4) Prior legislation . This bill is identical to AB 1586
(DeSaulnier) which was heard by this Committee on June
26, 2008 and failed passage on a 3-6 vote. AB 876
(Davis, Chapter 650, Statutes of 2008), which was passed
unanimously by this Committee, required the CSU and
requested the UC to take specific actions with respect
to assisting in the development of CTE courses and
recognizing CTE courses in admission criteria and
procedures.
SB 147
Page 8
5) Fiscal impact . Because the SBE does not review high
school courses to determine whether they meet the state
standards, there is no list of standards-aligned CTE
courses available to guide students or the UC and CSU.
Last year the UC estimated costs of approximately
$350,000 to implement AB 1586, including one-time costs
to review the estimated 20,000 CTE courses that could
meet State Board Standards and additional one-time costs
associated with providing technical assistance to
schools and making changes to UC's online resource
program. The UC estimated costs in excess of $150,000
annually to review and process new CTE courses.
SB 147
Page 9
The CSU and public schools would likely incur additional
costs. Although the bill requirements would not take
effect until 2014, UC indicates implementation would
need to begin in 2010 in order to enable students to
make informed choices as they begin high school.
SUPPORT
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
California Association of Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning
Contractors' Association
California Automotive Business Coalition
California Business Education Association
California Chapter of the American Fence Contractors
Association
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Federation of Teachers
California Fence Contractors' Association
California Industrial and Technology Education Association
California School Employees Association, AFL-CIO
California Space Authority
California Teachers Association
Engineering Contractors Association
Flasher/Barricade Association
Los Angeles Unified School District
Marin Builders' Association
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
Various individuals
OPPOSITION
The California State University