BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1200
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1200 (Hancock)
As Amended August 20, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :26-13
EDUCATION 7-4 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Gatto, Blumenfield, |
| |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Eng, Williams | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Fuentes, Hall, Hill, |
| | | |Cedillo, Mitchell, |
| | | |Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby, Grove, Halderman, |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| |Wagner | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI)
to recommend and the State Board of Education (SBE) to approve,
modifications to the common core academic content standards in
mathematics adopted by the SBE. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the SBE, if it modifies the common core academic content
standards in mathematics, to explain, in writing, to the Governor
and the Legislature the reasons for modifying the standards, and
requires the SPI's recommendations and the SBE's actions to assist
schools in the implementation of the common core state standards.
2)Requires the SPI, in consultation with the SBE, to consult a group
of experts in mathematics for purposes of developing
recommendations pursuant to this bill and requires the SPI to
ensure that the group of experts includes, but is not limited to,
individuals who are teachers of mathematics and English language
arts in elementary and secondary schools, schoolsite principals,
administrators of school districts or county offices of education,
and university professors, and requires that no less than one-half
of the members of the group be currently employed public school
teachers.
SB 1200
Page 2
3)Provides that the SPI and the SBE shall hold a minimum of two
public hearings pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act in
order for the public to provide input on the modifications
recommended.
4)Requires on or before March 30, 2013, the SPI to recommend
modifications to the mathematics standards to the SBE, and the SBE
to adopt, reject, or modify the recommendations by that same date.
5)Stipulates that the modifications to the common core academic
content standards in mathematics shall ensure all of the
following:
a) The rigor of the state common core academic content
standards in mathematics is maintained so that all high school
graduates are prepared for college and careers, as specified in
the common core academic content standards;
b) All of the common core academic standards developed by the
specified consortium or interstate collaboration are adopted;
c) One set of standards is adopted at a grade level;
d) The content standards for algebra I are based upon the
common core standards for mathematics;
e) Redundant mathematics standards are eliminated;
f) The implementation of standards is improved;
g) Any technical issues in the standards are resolved; and,
h) The modifications amount to no more than 15% of the common
core academic content standards.
6)Requires any modifications to the common core academic content
standards in mathematics made pursuant to this bill be
incorporated into the curriculum framework and evaluation criteria
for mathematics for the purpose of adopting instructional
materials in mathematics as provided and makes this part of the
bill operative only if AB 1246 (Brownly) of the current
legislative session is enacted.
7)Authorizes the SPI to recommend and the SBE to adopt the college
SB 1200
Page 3
and career readiness (CCR) anchor standards developed by Common
Core State Standards Initiative consortium and authorizes the SBE
to take action to resolve any technical issues in the English
language arts (ELA) common core state standards.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,
General Fund administrative costs, likely between $50,000 and
$150,000, to the California Department of Education to complete the
requirements of this bill. Actual costs will depend on the amount of
revisions to the common core standards the SPI recommends to the
SBE.
COMMENTS : This bill authorizes the SPI to make recommendations for
and the SBE to approve modifications to the recently-adopted common
core standards in ELA and mathematics.
Current law does not provide for a process for periodically
reviewing, updating, modifying or revising the academic content
standards. Although the ELA and math standards were recently
revised, the modification of these standards was accomplished
through legislation that directed a one-time review for the adoption
of the common core standards through a very specific process. The
adoption of these standards was driven by California's attempt to
compete for a federal Race to the Top (RTTT) program grant in
2009-2010, and therefore was a one-time activity and only focused on
ELA and math.
Common core state standards: Legislation enacted for purposes of
satisfying part of the criteria for the RTTT program, SB 1 X5
(Steinberg), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009-10, Fifth Extraordinary
Session, established the Standards Commission to develop and
recommend to the SBE academic content standards in ELA and
mathematics by July 15, 2010. SB 1 X5 (Steinberg) required that at
least 85% of these standards be the common core academic standards
developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative consortium
sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) or any associated or
related interstate collaboration and required the SBE to adopt or
reject the recommended standards by August 2, 2010. Per the
requirements of SB 1 X5 (Steinberg), the Standards Commission
submitted its recommendations to the SBE to adopt the common core
state standards with additional California-specific standards and
these recommendations were adopted by the SBE on August 2, 2010.
SB 1200
Page 4
The problem: The author argues that the adoption of the common core
standards resulted in some challenges. As an example, the author
notes that "California adopted two sets of grade 8 math standards:
(1) the common core grade 8 standards and (2) a set that combined
elements of the common core grade 8 and high school math standards
with California's own algebra standards. The Elementary and
Secondary Education Act is based on the premise that all students in
grades 1 through 8 are taught and assessed on the same set of
standards."
The author further states, "Several implementation issues arise by
California adopting a different set of grade 8 math standards from
other participating states. For example, instructional materials
for use in California would need to be different from those used by
other states- the unique additional standards may increase the costs
of those materials for our local school districts. In addition,
assessment consortia will be developing assessments aligned to the
Common Core standards and not the variation adopted in California.
This may result in issues with our algebra standards and curriculum
not being aligned with our assessment and accountability system."
Having two sets of grade eight math standards may result in
misalignment with any common assessments that may be adopted in the
future, and may also result in challenges in the practical
implementation of having two different sets of standards and
expectations for students in the same grade level. The difficulties
with having two sets of standards are widely recognized. For
example, SB 140 (Lowenthal), Chapter 623, Statutes of 2011, which
requires the development of a list of supplemental instructional
materials to bridge the gap between current instructional materials
and the common core standards, specifically excludes materials for
8th grade mathematics.
The second issue this bill seeks to resolve is to adopt the CCR
anchor standards that complement the grade-specific common core
content standards in ELA. The anchor standards were left out of the
original adoption of the common core, even though the statute
required the adoption of the common core standards in their
entirety. It is uncertain as to why the anchor standards were not
adopted. Some have argued that the Standards Commission worked
under a very short timeline and did not have the time to consider
the anchor standards.
Revising the common core standards: An argument can be made that
SB 1200
Page 5
giving the authority to the SPI and SBE to modify the common core
standards may contradict prior legislative action and intent to
ensure that the recommendations of the Standards Commission relative
to the common core state standards would not be modified by the SBE.
The Legislature crafted such language in SB 1 5X in response to
previous SBE actions during the original adoption of the content
standards in the 1990s, when the SBE substantially modified, and
essentially re-wrote, the math standards developed and recommended
by the original standards commission. This bill, however, provides
for a very narrow review of the standards that is limited to the
identified areas rather than authorizing a broad review of the
common core standards.
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi�a / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0005107