BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 300
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 13, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 300 (Hancock) - As Amended: June 28, 2011
Policy Committee: Education Vote:7-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to
consider, by June 30, 2012, the adoption of a revised curriculum
framework and evaluation criteria for instructional materials
(IM) in history/social science and establishes an Academic
Content Standards Commission for science (science commission) to
make recommendations to the SBE to modify, revise, and update
the science content standards, as specified. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
complete the public review process for the draft
history/social science curriculum framework and evaluation
criteria that was previously approved for public review on
July 17, 2009, and submit the revised framework and criteria
to the SBE for approval.
2)Requires the science commission to have nine members appointed
by the governor (3); the Senate Rules Committee (2); the
Speaker of the Assembly (2); and the SPI (2) and to serve at
the pleasure of the appointing authority, as specified.
3)Requires the science commission to make recommendations, on or
before January 1, 2013, to the SBE to modify, revise, and
update the science content standards, as specified.
4)Requires the SBE, on or before June 30, 2013, to either:
a) Adopt the science content standards as provided by the
science commission, or
b) Reject the science content standards proposed by the
science commission. Further requires the SBE to provide a
SB 300
Page 2
specific written explanation to the SPI, the governor, and
the Legislature of the reasons it rejected the content
standards, as specified.
5)Requires the SPI and the SBE to present to the governor and
the appropriate legislative policy/fiscal committees a
schedule and implementation plan for integrating the science
content standards into the educational system.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time GF administrative costs to the State Department of
Education (SDE), likely between $145,000 and $150,000, to
complete the history/social science curriculum framework and
evaluation criteria, as specified.
Due to the enactment of AB 2 X4 (Evans), Chapter 2, Statutes
of 2009, the governor vetoed $705,000 (GF) from the 2009-10
Budget Act 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."
2)Potential GF/98 cost pressure, likely in the low millions, to
provide local education agencies (LEAs) with funding under the
Instructional Materials Funding and Realignment Program
(IMFRP) to purchase history/social science IM.
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 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 2013-14 to mitigate the
redirection of IM funding during the budget flexibility
SB 300
Page 3
period.
3)GF administrative costs to the SDE, likely between $120,000
and $200,000, to establish the science commission, as
specified.
COMMENTS
1)Background . In 1998, the SBE adopted academic content
standards in four major areas: English language arts,
mathematics, history/social science, and science. These
standards represent the foundation of California's educational
system. The state's assessments, accountability system,
textbooks, and professional development programs are aligned
to these content standards. Current law also requires the SBE
to adopt content standards and curriculum frameworks in other
content areas, including physical education and arts.
Prior to the enactment of AB 2 X4 in July 2009, 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 specified that LEAs are not required to purchase IM
through 2012-13. Consistent with the non-purchasing
requirement, the bill 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 years.
2)Purpose . The Legislature and the governor agreed to a
moratorium on the purchase and adoption of IM due to the
SB 300
Page 4
state's severe fiscal crisis. Many argue however, 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.
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.
According to the author, "Ever-changing historical trends,
economic shifts, cultural exchange, and demographics have
created a greater need than ever before for understanding the
foundational ideas and philosophy of our country and the
world, yet our outdated history-social science standards would
suggest that no historically important events have occurred
since 1998."
Also, the Legislative Counsel opined that the SBE does not
have the authority, under current law, to revise or amend the
content standards after their adoption. In January 2007,
former state education secretary Gary Hart wrote in a
Sacramento Bee editorial that "any suggestion of changing the
standards has been viewed as heretical by many education
leaders. But as one of the architects of this system, I
believe the time is now right to take a fresh look at what we
expect of our children." This bill requires the SPI to
establish a science commission to make recommendations to the
SBE to modify, revise, and update the science content
standards, as specified.
The author argues "The state's current science standards do
not include mention of biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, or
even that Pluto is no longer considered a planet. Although it
is widely acknowledged that California has the 8th largest
economy in the world and must develop scientifically and
technologically literate citizens to maintain an edge in the
world economy, our students do not have access to the most
current, cutting-edge scientific information."
This bill requires the SBE to adopt a history/social science
SB 300
Page 5
curriculum framework and establishes the science commission
for the purpose of updating the science content standards.
3)Related legislation .
a) AB 124 (Fuentes), pending in the Senate Appropriations
Committee, establishes the English Language Development
(ELD) Standards Advisory Committee for the purpose of
aligning the ELD standards to the Common Core English
Language Arts standards adopted by the SBE in August 2010.
b) AB 250 (Brownley), pending in the Senate Appropriations
Committee, 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081