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 15, 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 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 . According to the UC
and CSU, the primary purpose of the a-g subject
requirements is not to prepare students for specific
majors but to prepare them to undertake more advanced
study in the a-g subject areas and complete the sequence
of general education courses typically undertaken during
the first two years of college. Because of the
consistent pattern of course taking that the current a-g
pattern represents, UC contends that GPA in a-g courses
is a strong predictor of first year success in college.
The UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools
(BOARS), which is comprised of UC 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 complete 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.
SB 147
Page 4
Involve substantial reading and writing.
Include problems and laboratory work as
appropriate.
Show serious attention to analytical thinking
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. By essentially enabling any CTE course
to satisfy the general elective course requirement,
could this bill inadvertently relieve pressure for
schools to develop academically rigorous CTE courses
that could meet one of the core "a-e" requirements?
1) Jurisdiction . Historically, the CSU and the UC have
maintained jurisdiction over their admission policies
and procedures, including the establishment of
coursework required for admission, required tests, and
minimum grade point average standards. This bill gives
the State Board, instead of university faculty, the
authority to determine the standards for university
admission for CTE courses. In the future, could this
prerogative extend to other content areas such as math
or foreign language? Given that the CSU and UC are
concerned with how the rigor and content of high school
courses prepare students to do college level work,
shouldn't they be the ones to determine how courses
should be considered in the admission process?
2) Recognizing CTE coursework . According to the CDE, UC
approved nearly 900 CTE courses in 2008, with
approximately 25 percent of all CTE courses statewide
satisfying one of 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 course. Although the number of UC-approved CTE
courses has increased by 62 percent since 2005-06, the
author's office maintains that this bill is necessary
because too few industrial arts programs are approved to
satisfy the "a-g" requirements.
SB 147
Page 5
3) The 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.
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 satisfy the "g"
requirement 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 CTE courses to be recognized within the context
of an applicant's total portfolio of academic and
personal achievements. Given that UC and CSU have met
the requirements of SB 1543 and have increased the
number of approved CTE courses, is this bill a
reasonable solution to the problem?
4) Are there alternatives ? Notwithstanding the purpose of
the subject matter requirements and the merits of having
a common set of course requirements for both UC and CSU,
would it make sense for CSU to adopt separate criteria
for recognizing the value some CTE courses may have in
preparing a student for certain majors such as
construction management, industrial technology, or
industrial arts? For example, could the CSU establish
an "h" category that would enable students to be given
preferential consideration toward admission for
SB 147
Page 6
completing industrial arts courses that relate to or are
aligned with certain CSU majors or programs?
Alternatively, could the CSU develop specific policies
or criteria for recognizing high school CTE courses that
could be based on SBE standards and any additional
criteria that the faculty identify as necessary to
prepare students for certain majors?
5) 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.
6) Fiscal impact . Because the SBE does not review high
school courses to determine whether they meet 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. Because
it is unclear whether UC would choose to validate
courses relative to the SBE standards, it is likely that
CSU would bear the cost of implementing SB 147, with
additional but unknown costs to develop a process for
reviewing CTE courses using SBE standards.
SUPPORT
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
California Association of Regional Occupational Centers and
Programs
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
SB 147
Page 7
Association
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Federation of Teachers
California Fence Contractors' Association
California Industrial and Technology Education Association
California Manufacturers & Technology 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
Small School Districts Association
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
Various individuals
OPPOSITION
The California State University
The University of California