BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 250
AUTHOR: Brownley
AMENDED: June 29, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: July 6, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber
SUBJECT : Curricular frameworks, instructional materials,
and professional
development aligned to the common core academic
content standards.
SUMMARY
This bill establishes a process for the full implementation
of the common core academic content standards through the
development of curricular frameworks, instructional
materials, and professional development aligned with the
common core standards.
BACKGROUND
The State Board of Education (SBE) adopted common core
academic content standards in English language arts and
mathematics on August 2, 2010. The most recently adopted
curricular frameworks and instructional materials are not
fully aligned with the common core standards and the
process to update curricular frameworks and adopt
instructional materials has been suspended since July 2009
and is suspended until the 2015-16 school year. (Education
Code � 60200, 60200.7 and 60605.8)
The process to review and update frameworks includes the
initial drafting of the framework, review by a subject
matter committee, public review, revision of the draft,
presentation to the SBE, and a public hearing of, and
approval by, the SBE. This process typically takes 24
months.
Once the framework for a particular subject is adopted by
the SBE, the instructional material adoption process
begins, which includes submissions from publishers, review
AB 250
Page 2
by the Instructional Materials Advisory Reviewer and
Content Review Expert (both are appointed by the SBE),
Curriculum Commission hearings and SBE adoption. The
adoption process typically takes 30 months. (EC � 60200)
Article IX, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution
states "The State Board of Education shall adopt textbooks
for use in grades one through eight throughout the State,
to be furnished without cost as provided by statute."
Current law requires school districts to adopt
instructional materials for use in their high schools.
Only instructional materials of those publishers who comply
with specified requirements (basic academic and social
content reviews, and requirements for publishers) may be
locally adopted. (EC � 60400)
The state's existing professional development programs,
specifically the Mathematics and Reading Professional
Development Program and the Administrator Training Program,
are outdated and not aligned to the common core standards.
(EC � 44510 and � 99230)
ANALYSIS
This bill establishes a process for the full implementation
of the common core academic content standards through the
development of curricular frameworks, instructional
materials, and professional development aligned with the
common core standards. Specifically, this bill:
Frameworks
1) Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt
revised curriculum frameworks that are aligned to
California's common core academic content standards
for mathematics by May 30, 2013, and for English
language arts by May 30, 2014.
2) Requires SBE policies to ensure that the English
language arts frameworks for K-12 and instructional
materials for K-8 include the English language
development standards and strategies in math, science
and history-social science. This bill imposes the
AB 250
Page 3
same requirement as it applies to pupils with
disabilities but encompasses all subject areas.
3) Requires each frameworks to describe, to the extent
the SBE deems appropriate, the manner in which content
can be delivered to intentionally build specific
skills into and across each content area, including
creativity and innovation, critical thinking and
problem solving, communication, collaboration, and the
integration of content from one subject to another.
Evaluation criteria
1) Requires the SBE to adopt criteria for the evaluation
of instructional materials aligned to California's
common core academic content standards in mathematics
by May 30, 2013, and in English language arts by May
30, 2014.
2) Requires the criteria for the review of English
language arts instructional materials to include
directions to publishers to align both lessons and
teacher's editions with English language development
standards and incorporate strategies to address, at
every grade level, the needs of all English learners.
The review criteria for all other subject areas is to
include directions to publishers to incorporate
strategies for English learners that are consistent
with the English language development standards.
3) The review criteria for all subjects must also include
directions to publishers to incorporate instructional
strategies to address the needs of pupils with
disabilities in both sessions and teacher's editions
at every grade level.
Instructional materials
1) Requires SBE to adopt procedures for the review of
instructional materials submitted by the SPI and
school districts.
AB 250
Page 4
2) Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI), and authorizes school districts, to submit K-8
instructional materials to the SBE for review. The
currently-suspended process provided that the
Curriculum Commission reviews instructional materials
submitted to the state by publishers, for
recommendation to the State Board of Education (SBE)
for adoption. This bill removes that function from
the Curriculum Commission (renamed in this bill as the
Instructional Quality Advisory Committee) and instead
requires the SPI and authorizes school districts to
review instructional materials for recommendation to
the SBE for adoption.
3) Requires the California Department of Education (CDE)
to assess a fee on a publisher that submits
instructional materials to the SPI after the
submission timeframe established by the SBE, and
prohibits the amount of the fee from exceeding the
reasonable costs to the CDE to conduct the review.
4) Authorizes school districts to submit to the SBE
instructional materials that are developed by the
district or by publishers or manufacturers.
5) Authorizes publishers or manufacturers to submit
instructional materials to school districts or the
SPI.
6) Requires the process used by the SBE to review
instructional materials to involve review committees
that include, but are not limited to, volunteer
content experts and instructional materials reviewers
and must include a majority of classroom teachers from
a wide variety of affected grade levels and subject
areas.
7) Requires the rules and procedures used by the SBE for
adoption of instructional materials to be transparent
and consistently applicable regardless of format of
the instructional materials, including but not limited
to, print, digital, and open source materials.
8) Requires instructional materials submitted by the SPI
AB 250
Page 5
or school districts to the SBE for consideration of
adoption to:
a) Meet existing evaluation criteria (such as
meeting the academic content standards and
undergo an academic and social content review) or
any other criteria established by the SBE
necessary to meet its constitutional obligation
to adopt textbooks for use in grades 1-8.
b) Include reports of findings that include
information such as alignment of standards
(standards maps), pupil assessments and support
for teachers, English learners and pupils with
disabilities.
c) For school districts that recommend
materials to the SBE, ensure that a majority of
an instructional materials review committee be
comprised of classroom teachers who are assigned
to teach the grade in which the instructional
materials are to be used.
9) Requires the CDE to provide to school districts and
post on its website the list of adopted materials, as
well as the standards maps, assessment and supports
for teachers, English learners and pupils with
disabilities.
10) Repeals the existing (currently-suspended) schedule
for the adoption of instructional materials in
specific subject areas.
11) Changes the adoption cycle from every six years for
core subjects and eight years for other subject areas,
to every eight years for all subject areas.
Instructional Quality Advisory Committee
1) Changes the name of the Curriculum Commission to the
Instructional Quality Advisory Committee (advisory
committee), as the body that is currently required to:
a) Recommend curriculum frameworks to the SBE.
AB 250
Page 6
b) Develop criteria for the review of
instructional materials submitted to adoption.
c) Recommend to the SBE policies and activities
to assist in the use of the frameworks and model
curriculum.
2) Removes from this body the statutory responsibility
for reviewing instructional materials and making
recommendations for adoption to the SBE, and instead
requires the SPI, and authorizes school districts, to
review instructional materials and recommend materials
to the SBE for adoption. However, the advisory
committee may make recommendations to the SBE upon
request, as follows:
a) Review reports of finding (standards maps,
supports for teachers and pupils) submitted by
the SPI or school districts.
b) Review instructional materials.
c) Hear appeals.
d) Give independent advice to the SBE about
whether the materials meet the evaluation
criteria.
3) Requires the advisory committee to advise and make
recommendations to the SBE including but not limited
to, what policies and activities are needed to
implement California's common core standards and bring
the state's curricular frameworks, instructional
materials, professional development, pupil
assessments, and academic accountability systems into
alignment with the common core standards.
Professional development
1) Requires the SPI, in consultation with teachers,
district and county office of education curriculum
administrators, professional development training
AB 250
Page 7
experts and representatives from institutions of
higher education or other educational agencies and
organizations as deemed appropriate by the SPI, to
develop a system of professional development for
teachers and administrators that includes but is not
limited to, all of the following:
a) Model professional development modules for
teachers, principals and other school leaders.
b) Criteria to guide the development of the
modules. The criteria must be based on the
California Standards for the Teaching Profession,
and in consideration of the National Development
Council Standards for professional development.
c) The use of assessments and data to support
teaching and learning.
d) The modules are to deepen the understanding
of all of the following:
i) The common core academic content
standards.
ii) Frameworks.
iii) English language development
standards.
iv) Instructional strategies to
support all pupils, including English
learners, pupils with disabilities and
underperforming pupils.
v) Instructional strategies that
promote creativity, innovation, critical
thinking, problem solving, collaboration,
and communication skills in all academic
content areas.
vi) The use of instructional
technology.
vii) The integration of subject content
knowledge.
viii) Instructional leadership and
coaching.
ix) Professional development
opportunities for teachers, principals and
AB 250
Page 8
school leaders.
e) Modules, available through multiple delivery
methods, including school-based and web-based
delivery.
2) Specifies that consultation with teachers includes but
is not limited to credentialed employees selected from
a wide variety of affected grade levels and subject
areas and geographical areas.
STAR program
1) Extends the sunset date on the STAR program by one
year to July 1, 2014 (through the 2013-14 school
year).
2) Requires the SPI to develop recommendations for the
reauthorization of the state's assessment system,
specifically considering numerous elements such as
alignment with the common core standards, measuring
pupil growth over time, multiple measures of pupil
achievement, and diagnostic assessment for pupils in
grade 2. This bill requires the SPI to submit this
report to the Legislature by November 1, 2012.
3) Requires the SPI, in developing the recommendations
for a reauthorized assessment system, to consult with
all of the following:
a) The State Board of Education.
b) The Academic Performance Index advisory
committee.
c) Measurement experts from California's public
and private universities.
d) Experts in assessing pupils with
disabilities and English learners.
e) Teachers, administrators, and governing
board members.
AB 250
Page 9
f) Parents.
4) Adds the following definitions:
a) Formative assessment.
b) High-quality assessment.
c) Interim assessment.
Miscellaneous
1) This bill provides that its implementation is subject
to the appropriation of funding in the Budget Act or
other measure.
2) This bill makes several findings and declarations, and
states that it is the intent of the legislature that
curriculum instruction and an assessment system be
developed to implement the common core standards that
focuses on integrating 21st Century skills, and
promotes higher order thinking skills and
interdisciplinary approaches, among other things.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Purpose of the bill . According to the author, "The
common core state standards establish clear goals for
learning that will prepare pupils for success in
college and careers. The adoption of the common core
state standards will only have an impact on the
achievement of California's pupils if the state starts
a process to bring the curriculum, instruction and
assessment system into alignment with the common core
state standards."
2) Frameworks and evaluation criteria . The existing
process to review and update the curriculum framework
in one subject area typically takes 24 months. This
bill requires the SBE to adopt frameworks, and
criteria for the evaluation of instructional
materials, aligned to the common core standards in
mathematics by May 30, 2013 and in English language
arts by May 30, 2014. The existing process used to
review and adopt instructional materials in one
AB 250
Page 10
subject typically takes 30 months.
3) New roles for the review and recommendation of
instructional materials . This bill removes the
Curriculum Commission from having a role in the
process to review and recommend instructional
materials for adoption by the SBE. Instead, this bill
requires the SPI and authorizes school districts to
review instructional materials and submit
recommendations to the SBE for adoption. This bill
otherwise keeps the Curriculum Commission intact, with
a new name, with responsibility for reviewing and
revising frameworks and evaluation criteria. Removing
a state-level body from the instructional materials
adoption process could simplify and streamline this
process, and allows districts to have a larger role in
selecting instructional materials for use in their
schools.
This reduction in function of the Curriculum
Commission arguably diminishes the role of the SBE, as
the SBE appoints members to the Commission. This bill
does authorize the newly named Instructional Quality
Advisory Committee to review standards map,
instructional materials and hear appeals, but only
upon request of the SBE. It appears appropriate to
allow the SBE to determine if and when it is necessary
for further state-level review of materials rather
than require a potentially duplicative activity.
4) Locally reviewed instructional materials . The State
Board of Education (SBE) is required to adopt
instructional materials for grades K-8, and does so
based on recommendations of the Curriculum
Commission's review of materials. School districts
currently review and adopt instructional materials for
grades 9-12 but do not have the authority to adopt
their own choice of materials for K-8. This bill
increases districts participation in the selection of
instructional materials by expanding the authority of
school districts to review instructional materials to
all grades and allows districts
to recommend to the SBE those materials for adoption.
AB 250
Page 11
The responsibility to adopt instructional materials
for use in K-8 schools is retained by the SBE which
balances increased local control with state oversight.
5) Efforts already underway . The California Department
of Education (CDE) recently released to publishers an
invitation to publishers of state-adopted programs in
mathematics and language arts to submit supplemental
instructional materials that bridge the gap between
the publishers' existing materials and the common core
standards. According to this invitation, teachers and
content experts recruited by the SPI will review the
supplemental materials according to evaluation
criteria developed by the CDE. The CDE also stated it
will post on its website a list of the instructional
materials that are found to meet the criteria to
provide resources that can help school districts
transition to the common core standards. The CDE's
plans closely but don't exactly replicate the process
proposed by related legislation (see Comment #11).
6) Timeline for adoptions . This bill does not provide
timelines for the submission of instructional
materials by publishers to the SPI or districts, when
the SPI and districts must provide recommendations to
the SBE, or a date by which the SBE is to adopt
instructional materials. The author intends to allow
for "rolling adoptions" whereby the SBE may accept
recommendations for the adoption of instructional
materials, presumably in various subject areas, at any
time or within a timeframe if the SBE chooses to
establish parameters on the adoption process.
7) Other subjects . This bill deletes the current
statutory schedule for the adoption of materials in
various subject areas, and does not specifically
address frameworks or instructional materials in
subjects other than English language arts and
mathematics. This bill addresses the immediate need
for instructional materials and professional
development aligned with the common core which current
includes only English language arts and mathematics.
The development of common core standards in other
subject areas appears eminent; this bill positions the
AB 250
Page 12
state to implement those standards as well.
8) Professional development . California's common core
standards are generally similar to the state's prior
standards in mathematics and English language arts yet
some significant variations exist. For example, the
common core standards in English language arts have a
greater focus on text complexity, address reading and
writing across subject areas, and focus on writing
arguments and drawing evidence from sources. The
common core standards in mathematics include two
options for eighth grade (8th grade math and Algebra
I) and shift grade level for some skills.
The CDE's website includes a compilation of subject-matter
curriculum, including information about the common
core standards, organized by individual grade levels
(grades K-5). The CDE's website also includes a link
to a grade level curriculum webinar series. However,
professional development that is aligned to the common
core is not currently uniformly available on a
statewide basis, nor does the state make available to
schools model professional development programs or
components. In the past, the state has developed
professional development training modules (in
mathematics and reading, as well as training for
school administrators) that was used by county offices
of education, school districts and other groups to
provide training on specific elements of the academic
content standards. This bill requires the SPI to
develop similar professional development opportunities
that are aligned to the common core standards. The
goal is to design professional development that is
based on the standards, not tied to specific
instructional materials.
This bill does not provide a timeline by which the SPI is
to develop a system of professional development.
9) STAR program . The Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) Program requires pupils to be tested in English
language arts, mathematics, science and history-social
science at specific grade levels. The STAR Program
includes the California Standards Tests (CSTs), the
California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) and
AB 250
Page 13
the California Modified Assessment (CMA) administered
to certain pupils with disabilities, and a national
test in Spanish that is administered to Spanish
speaking English learners who have been in school in
the U.S. less than 12 months or who are receiving
instruction in Spanish.
This bill extends the operative date of the state's
assessment system by one year (through the 2013-14
school year) to provide policymakers with the
opportunity to examine national initiatives to develop
common core assessments, and give the state
flexibility to react to any changes that may result
from the eventual reauthorization of the federal
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In June 2011,
California became a governing member of the SMARTER
Balanced consortium of states working to develop
high-quality assessments based on the common core,
which commits the state to participate in the piloting
of new assessments as early as the 2014-15 school
year. The extension of the STAR program provides the
opportunity for the Legislature to consider all
assessment options before reinvesting in a statewide
assessment system.
This bill requires the SPI to submit a report including
recommendations for the reauthorization of a statewide
pupil assessment system to the Legislature by November
1, 2012. This bill extends the statewide assessment
system until July 1, 2014, to allow time for the
development of national common core assessments and
the potential reauthorization of related federal law.
The November 2012 deadline may not provide sufficient
time for the SPI to develop useful recommendations on
a new assessment system. The intent was to have
recommendations prepared for legislation in 2013, in
anticipation of the 2014 sunset on the STAR program.
It is staff's understanding that the author intends to
revisit this issue considering that California
recently became a governing state in one of the
consortia developing new common core assessments. One
option may be for the SPI to provide the Legislature
with information about the work on these consortia in
the development of new assessments.
AB 250
Page 14
10) Fiscal impact . According to the Assembly
Appropriations Committee, this bill would impose:
a) Annual General Fund administrative costs,
until 2014, likely between $200,000 and $500,000,
to the Instructional Quality Advisory Committee
to develop frameworks aligned to the common core
standards.
b) One-time General Fund administrative costs,
likely between $150,000 and $200,000, to CDE to
develop recommendations for the reauthorization
of the state's assessment program to integrate
the common core standards.
General Fund (Proposition 98) costs of at least $35
million, to extend the sunset of the Standardized
Testing and Reporting (STAR) program.
c) General Fund (Proposition 98) cost pressure,
likely in the low millions, to provide
professional development funding to school
districts to implement the common core standards,
as specified.
d) General Fund (Proposition 98) cost pressure,
at least in the tens to hundreds of millions, to
school districts to purchase instructional
materials aligned to the common core standards.
The 2011-12 Budget Act (SB 87, Ch. 33, June 30, 2011)
includes $3.5 million in federal funds to support
initial implementation of the common core standards,
including revising the English language development
standards for alignment with the common core standards
in English language arts, providing professional
development on common core standards, and establishing
a state-level process for approval of supplemental
instructional materials aligned to the common core
standards.
11) Related legislation . SB 140 (Lowenthal) establishes a
temporary streamlined process for the state-level
approval of supplemental instructional materials that
AB 250
Page 15
are aligned with the common core academic content
standards, and expands the authority of local school
boards to approve these supplemental materials to
include K-8 schools. SB 140 is scheduled to be heard
in the Assembly Education Committee on July 6, 2011.
AB 124 (Fuentes) establishes the English Language
Development (ELD) Standards Advisory Committee for the
purpose of aligning the ELD standards to the common
core standards in English language arts.
AB 124 passed this Committee on June 22, on an 8-1
vote, and is currently pending in the Senate Rules
Committee.
SB 740 (Hancock), among other things, eliminates the
requirement that pupils in the second grade be
assessed pursuant to the Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) Program. SB 740 is scheduled to be
heard in the Assembly Education Committee on July 6,
2011.
SB 402 (Correa) requires each curriculum framework to
describe how content can be delivered to intentionally
build specific skills into and across each content
area. SB 402 is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee on July 6, 2011.
SUPPORT
21st Century Coalition for California
California Association for Bilingual Education
California Council for the Social Studies
Californians Together
California School Boards Association
California State PTA
OPPOSITION
None on file.
AB 250
Page 16