Existing law required the State Board of Education to adopt statewide academic content standards in the core curriculum areas of reading, writing, and mathematics, and requires the Academic Content Standards Commission to develop academic content standards in language arts and mathematics. Existing law also authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction to recommend, and for the state board to approve, modifications to the common core academic content standards in mathematics, as specified.

This bill would require the Superintendent, by January 1, 2017, to recommend to the state board a schedule for the regular update of academic content standards in all subjects for which standards have been adopted by the state board in accordance with specified procedures, including the establishment of academic content standards advisory committees for those purposes and the recommendation of proposed updates by those committees to the state board.

Existing law required the State Board of Education to adopt statewide academic content standards in the core curriculum areas of reading, writing, and mathematics, and requires the Academic Content Standards Commission to develop academic content standards in language arts and mathematics. Existing law also authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction to recommend, and for the state board to approve, modification modifications to the common core academic content standards in mathematics, as specified.

This bill would require the Superintendent, by January 1, 2017, to recommend to the state board a schedule for the regular update of academic content standards in all subjects for which standards have been adopted by the state board in accordance with specified procedures, including the establishment of academic content standards advisory committees for those purposes and the recommendation of proposed updates by those committees to the state board.

Existing law required the State Board of Education to adopt statewide academic content standards in the core curriculum areas of reading, writing, and mathematics, and requires the Academic Content Standards Commission to develop academic content standards in language arts and mathematics. Existing law also authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction to recommend, and for the state board to approve, modification to the common core academic content standards in mathematics, as specified.

This bill would require the Superintendent, by January 1, 2017, to recommend to the state board a schedule for the regular update of academic content standards in all subjects for which standards have been adopted by the state board in accordance with specified procedures, including the establishment of academic content standards advisory committees for those purposes and the recommendation of proposed updates by those committees to the state board.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Carol Liu, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 740

Subject: Academic content standards: update of adopted standards

SUMMARY

This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to recommend to the State Board of Education (SBE) a schedule for the regular update of academic content standards.

BACKGROUND

Academic content standards define the knowledge, concepts, and skills that students should acquire at each grade level. Curricular frameworks are the blueprint for implementing the standards, and include criteria by which instructional materials are evaluated.

Standards in several subject areas were adopted by the SBE beginning in the late 1990s. There is no statutory authority for the review or updating of standards. A schedule once existed for the review and update of frameworks and instructional materials in many subject areas, but those processes were suspended on July 28, 2009 due to budget constraints. Specific authority has since been provided to develop new standards in specific subjects (statutory authority was also provided to develop frameworks and instructional materials in some of these subjects).

The SBE has adopted, or is scheduled to adopt, the following standards:

1. The California Common Core Standards in English language arts and mathematics were adopted on August 2, 2010. (Education Code § 60605.8)
   
   

2. English language development standards that are aligned with the common core standards in English language arts in November 7, 2012. (Former EC § 60811.3)
   
   

3. A modification of the previously adopted common core standards in mathematics in January 2013. (EC § 60605.11)
   
   

4. Revised Career Technical Education Model Curriculum Standards on January 16, 2013. (EC § 51226)
   
   

5. The Next Generation Science Standards on September 4, 2013.

(Former EC § 60605.85)

6. English language development standards that are aligned with the common core standards in mathematics and science. Current law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to submit recommendations to the State Board of Education (SBE) by January 2015, and requires the SBE to adopt updated standards by August 1, 2015. However, according to the California Department of Education’s website, the panel of experts has just recently been convened, and it is anticipated that the SPI will provide recommendations to the SBE in July 2015; it is unclear if adoption by the SBE expected later than the statutory deadline of August 1, 2015. (EC § 60811.4)
   
   

7. The Instructional Quality Commission is required to consider developing and recommending to the SBE standards in computer science by July 31, 2019.

(EC § 60605.4)

ANALYSIS

This bill requires the SPI to recommend to the SBE a schedule for the regular update of academic content standards. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the SPI to recommend by January 1, 2017, to the SBE a schedule for the regular update of academic content standards in all subjects for which standards have been adopted by the SBE.
   
   

2. Requires the schedule to be aligned to the current eight-year cycle of updates to the curricular frameworks and adoptions of instructional materials.
   
   

3. Requires the SBE, when the academic content standards in a given subject area come up for review according to the schedule, to make a determination as to whether those standards require an update. The determination must be based upon the following considerations:
   
   

   1. The amount of time since the standards were adopted or last updated.
      
      

   2. Whether additional research conducted since the standards were adopted or last updated justifies updates to the standards.
      
      

   3. The potential impact on existing curriculum, instructional materials, and assessment systems based upon the standards.
      
      

4. Requires the SBE, if it determines that an update to the standards in a given subject is warranted, to convene an academic content standards advisory committee to recommend updates to the standards in that subject. This bill requires an academic content standards advisory committee to consist of 21 members, appointed as follows:
   
   

   1. Ten members appointed by the Governor.
      
      

   2. Four members appointed by the Senate Rules Committee.
      
      

   3. Four members appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
      
      

   4. Three members appointed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
      
      

5. Requires each academic content standards advisory committee to review the content standards established in its particular subject matter and prepare updates to the standards as the committee deems necessary. This bill requires the advisory committee, when making its recommendations, to consider both of the following criteria:
   
   

   1. The extent to which its proposed updates reflect current and confirmed research in the subject area under consideration.
      
      

   2. The impact that the proposed updates will have upon school districts and the existing curricula and assessments.
      
      

6. Requires an academic content standards advisory committee to conduct at least two, and no more than six, in-person meetings that are open to the public and include opportunities for public input. This bill authorizes an advisory committee to convene additional meetings by teleconference or the Internet subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
   
   

7. Requires an academic content standards advisory committee, upon updating the standards, to forward them to the State Board of Education (SBE), and requires the SBE to do either of the following within 120 days of receiving the updates:
   
   

   1. Adopt the proposed updates as proposed by the advisory committee.
      
      

   2. Reject the proposed updates as proposed by the advisory committee. This bill requires the SBE to provide a specific written explanation to the Superintendent, Governor and Legislature of the reasons why the proposed standards were rejected.
      
      

8. Requires the California Department of Education (CDE), before final updates to standards are prepared by an advisory committee, to post on its website the proposed updates for at least 60 days. This bill requires the CDE to include a link by which members of the public may submit comments on the proposed updates.
   
   

9. Provides that members of an academic content standards advisory committee are to serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority, serve without compensation (other than actual and necessary travel expenses and costs for substitute teachers), and requires that at least one-half of the members appointed by each of the appointing authorities be current public elementary or secondary classroom teachers who have a professional credential and meet the definition of “highly qualified” in federal law (No Child Left Behind). This bill requires the terms of the members of an academic content standards advisory committee to cease upon completing the review.
   
   

10. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop, and requires the State Board of Education to adopt, guidelines to implement the provisions of this bill.
    
    

11. Clarifies that nothing in this bill is to be construed to prohibit the consideration of national standards adopted by other states in making this determination.
    
    

12. States legislative intent that all of the following occur:
    
    

    1. The academic content standards advisory committees include representation from teachers of different grade level spans, including elementary, middle, and high school grades.
       
       

    2. A member of an academic content standards advisory committee possesses a thorough knowledge of the academic content standards in the content area and grade level span in which he or she is appointed.
       
       

    3. An academic content standards advisory committee membership reflects the diversity of the various ethnic groups, types of school districts, and regions in California.
       
       

13. States legislative intent that content standards be updated before the revision of curricular frameworks, and that framework revisions occur before the adoption of instructional materials.
    
    

14. States legislative findings and declarations relative to the need for a process for regular updating of the standards.
    
    

15. Provides that the convening of an academic content standards advisory committee is contingent upon the Legislature appropriating funds for that purpose in the annual Budget Act.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “Though academic content standards are an essential part of the California achievement and accountability systems, there is no process currently in place for the regular review and update of the standards. Some of California’s current standards, such as the history-social science standards, date back to 1998. Except for legislation, there is currently no process in place for the regular updating of academic content standards despite the fact that it is often necessary to make modifications to content standards given there are regular changes in disciplinary knowledge and academic research. The updating of content standards does not constitute a complete revision, but update where necessary to reflect new knowledge. The vast amount of legislation to update content standards has created an unpredictable process for school districts and teachers, making it challenging to plan for changes in curriculum.”
   
   

2. Existing standards. This bill requires the development and adoption of a schedule for the regular update of academic content standards in all subjects for which standards have been adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE). The most recent adoption (original or update) of content standards in each subject area, and date of adoption by the SBE, is as follows:
   
   

   1. Science, September 2013.
      
      

   2. Common core standards for Mathematics, adopted August 2010 and modified January 2013.
      
      

   3. Career Technical Education, January 2013.
      
      

   4. English language development, November 2012.
      
      

   5. Common core standards in English language arts, August 2010.
      
      

   6. World Language, January 2009.
      
      

   7. Health, March 2008.
      
      

   8. Physical Education, January 2005.
      
      

   9. Visual and Performing Arts, January 2001.
      
      

   10. History-Social Science, October 1998.

3. Role of the State Board of Education. There is no statutory authority for the regular review or updating of standards. Authority has been provided to develop new standards in specific subjects, such as the California common core standards in English language arts and mathematics. This bill establishes a framework for the regular review and update of standards that is generally consistent with the process utilized in the past for the initial adoption of standards, as well as the process for the adoption of the California common core standards (such as convening a panel of subject matter experts). However, this bill deviates from prior adoptions by not providing the option to the SBE to modify standards that have been presented to the SBE for adoption. In the past, the SBE was given authority to adoption, modify or reject proposed standards. This bill requires the SBE to either adopt or reject the proposed standards, but does not authorize the SBE to modify standards. This change ensures the development of, and any revisions to, the standards is left to the subject matter experts.
   
   

4. Technical amendments needed. On page 4, line 32, after “receipt” add “of the updated standards.” On page 5, line 1, strike “(g)” and insert “(k).”
   
   

5. Fiscal impact. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill would impose:
   
   

   1. Ongoing General Fund administrative costs of approximately $800,000 to develop a new Content Standards Unit within the California Department of Education. This bill directs the standards to be tied to the eight-year cycle for frameworks and adoptions. It is likely staff would need to work on more than one project each year, on an ongoing basis.

2. One-time costs of approximately $100,000 (General Fund/non-Proposition 98) to convene each Academic Content Standards Advisory Committee. There are currently ten subjects that could be updated.
   
   

3. The adoption of new content standards has a multiplier effect that leads to additional costs. Once new curriculum standards are adopted, frameworks aligned to those standards must be adopted (approximately $1.2 million General Fund/non-Proposition 98 per framework). An instructional materials adoption follows each framework revision (approximately $1.3 million General Fund/non-Proposition 98 per subject). These estimates do not include additional Proposition 98 costs, likely in the millions, for school districts to purchase instructional materials and provide professional development.
   
   

1. Related and prior legislation.
   
   RELATED LEGISLATION
   
   SB 725 (Hancock, 2015) requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt content standards in visual and performing arts by June 30, 2017. SB 725 is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Education Committee on July 15.
   
   AB 711 (Santiago, 2015) requires the SBE to adopt World Languages content standards that are in accordance with the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages by June 1, 2017. AB 711 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
   
   SB 652 (Allen, 2015) delays by one year, until January 31, 2017, the date by which the SBE is required to consider the adoption of a revised framework for science. SB 652 is pending on the Assembly Floor.
   
   AB 524 (Low, 2015) among other things, requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to develop curriculum standards for courses that incorporate a service learning component in order to satisfy state and local high school graduation requirements. AB 524 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
   
   PRIOR LEGISLATION
   
   SB 1057 (Corbett, 2014) required the SPI to recommended history-social science content standards to the SBE on or before March 30, 2018, and requires the SBE to adopt, reject, or modify the history-social science content standards by July 30, 2018. SB 1057 was vetoed by the Governor, whose veto message read:

I agree that providing up to date instructional guidance to educators for use in their classrooms is important. This is precisely why the State Board of Education is currently updating the history-social science framework which is on track to be adopted next spring. I am concerned that this bill may slow progress that is already underway, and does not include a role for the Instructional Quality Commission.

AB 1033 (Feuer, 2011) established a content standards review commission, if the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and the State Board of Education (SBE) jointly found a need to revise or modify the academic content standards. AB 1033 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 97 (Torlakson, 2010) established the Academic Content Standards Commission for Science and History-Social Science to review and update the standards. AB 97 was vetoed by the Governor, whose veto message read:

Given California's participation in the Common Core initiative and the anticipated reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, this bill is premature. This bill could create an unnecessary, duplicative process in the development of content standards and in the integration of those standards into the state's assessment system.

AB 1454 (Richardson, 2007) required the SPI to convene content standards review panels in English language arts and mathematics and repealed the authority of the SBE to modify proposed academic content standards. AB 1454 was held in this Committee.

AB 1100 (Mullin, 2005) authorized the SPI to appoint a content standards review panel in each subject area two years prior to the curriculum framework adoption for each subject area, and specifying that the panel review and revise the content standards. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 2744 (Goldberg, 2004) established a process for the updating of academic content standards by requiring the SPI to convene content standards review panels in each subject area and requiring the SBE to adopt or reject the recommendations of each panel. AB 2744 was vetoed by the Governor; staff is unable to locate the veto message.

AB 642 (Mullin, 2003) required the SPI to periodically review and update academic content standards for the SBE to adopt or reject. AB 642 was vetoed by the Governor; staff is unable to locate the veto message.

SB 1367 (Karnette, 2002) required the SBE to periodically review and update core curriculum content standards. SB 1367 was vetoed by the Governor; staff is unable to locate the veto message.

SUPPORT

Association of California School Administrators

Business for Math, Science and Related Technologies Education

California Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance

California Council for the Social Studies

California School Boards Association

California Teachers Association

Riverside County Superintendent of Schools

Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson

OPPOSITION

None received.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 740

Author:(Weber)

As Amended Ver:April 20, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), by January 1, 2017, to recommend to the State Board of Education (SBE) a schedule for the regular update of academic content standards. This bill authorizes the SBE to convene academic content standards advisory committees to update the standards, and requires that the SBE adopt or reject the updated standards. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires that by January 1, 2017, the SPI recommend to the SBE a schedule for the regular update of academic content standards in all subjects for which standards have been adopted. States the intent of the Legislature that content standards are updated before the revising of curriculum frameworks, and that curriculum framework revisions occur before the adoption of instructional materials.

2. Requires that the schedule be aligned to the current eight-year cycle of curriculum framework updates and instructional materials adoptions.

3. Requires that, when the academic content standards in a given subject area come up for review according to this schedule, the SBE make a determination as to whether those standards require an update. Requires that determination to be based upon:

1. The amount of time since the standards were adopted or last updated

2. Whether additional research conducted since the standards were adopted or last updated justifies updates to the standards

3. The potential impact on existing curriculum, instructional materials, and assessment systems based upon the standards

4. States that nothing in the section governing the determination shall be construed to prohibit the consideration of national standards adopted by other states in making this determination.

5. Requires that if the SBE determines that an update to the academic content standards in a given subject is warranted, it convene an academic content standards advisory committee to recommend updates to the content standards in that subject.

6. Requires such a committee to consist of 21 members who serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority, appointed as follows:

1. Ten members appointed by the Governor

2. Four members appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules

3. Four members appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly

4. Three members appointed by the SPI

7. Requires that not less than one-half of the members appointed by each of the appointing authorities be current public school elementary or secondary classroom teachers who have a credential under state law, and meet the definition of "highly qualified" under federal law.

8. States the intent of the Legislature that the advisory committees include representation from teachers of different grade level spans, that members possess a thorough knowledge of the academic content standards in the content area and grade level span in which they are appointed, and that the committee membership reflect the diversity of the various ethnic groups, types of school districts, and regions in California.

9. Requires each academic content standards advisory committee to review the content standards in its subject matter and prepare updates to the standards as the committee deems necessary.

10. Requires that, when making its recommendation, an academic content standards advisory committee consider the extent to which its proposed updates reflect current and confirmed research in the subject area under consideration, and the impact that the proposed updates will have upon school districts and existing curricula and assessments.

11. Requires that an academic content standards advisory committee conduct at least two, and no more than six, in-person meetings that are open to the public and include opportunities for public input. Requires that, upon completing this review, the terms of the members cease.

12. Requires that, upon updating the standards, an academic content standards advisory committee forward them to the SBE, which must do either of the following within 120 days of the receipt:

1. Adopt the proposed updates, or

2. Reject the proposed updates, in which case the SBE must provide a specific written explanation to the SPI, the Governor, and the Legislature of the reasons why the proposed standards were rejected

13. Requires that, prior to final action, the California Department of Education (CDE) post on its Web site the proposed updates for a minimum of 60 days. The CDE must include a link by which members of the public may submit comments on the proposed updates.

14. Requires that members of an academic content standards advisory committee serve without compensation, except for actual and necessary travel expenses and substitute costs.

15. Requires the SPI to develop, and the SBE to adopt, guidelines to implement this section.

16. States that the convening of an academic content standards advisory committee is contingent upon the Legislature appropriating funds for that purpose in the annual Budget Act.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires the SBE to adopt or reject content standards in language arts and mathematics and requires that at least 85% of those standards to be those developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative consortium.

2. Requires SPI to convene a group of science experts to recommend science content standards for adoption to the state board, utilizing the Next Generation Science Standards as the basis for their deliberations and recommendations to the state board. Requires the SBE to adopt, reject, or modify the standards. This section is now repealed.

3. Requires the SPI, in consultation with the SBE, to update, revise, and align the English Language Development (ELD) standards to the Common Core State Standards, and requires the SBE to adopt or reject those revised standards.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Ongoing General Fund administrative costs of approximately $800,000 to develop a new Content Standards Unit within the CDE. This bill directs the standards to be tied to the eight-year cycle for frameworks and adoptions. It is likely staff would be need to work on more than one project each year, on an ongoing basis.

2. One-time costs of approximately $100,000 (General Fund (GF)/non-98) to convene each Academic Content Standards Advisory Committee. There are currently ten subjects that could be updated.

3. The adoption of new content standards has a multiplier effect that leads to additional costs. Once new curriculum standards are adopted, frameworks aligned to those standards must be adopted (approximately $1.2 million GF/non-98 per framework). An instructional materials adoption follows each framework revision (approximately $1.3 million GF/non-98 per subject). These estimates do not include additional Proposition 98 costs, likely in the millions, for districts to purchase instructional materials and provide professional development.

COMMENTS:

Need for this bill. The author's office states,

Though academic content standards are an essential part of the California achievement and accountability systems, there is no process currently in place for the regular review and update of the standards. Some of California's current standards, such as the history-social science standards, date back to 1998. As a result, each time standards need to be updated, even if the updates are only minor, new legislation must be enacted.

Except for legislation, there is currently no process in place for the regular updating of academic content standards despite the fact that it is often necessary to make modifications to content standards given that there are regular changes in disciplinary knowledge and academic research. The updating of content standards does not constitute a complete revision, but an update where necessary to reflect new knowledge. Creating a rational and predictable process would help school districts plan for changes in curriculum.

Current schedule for framework adoption. Curriculum frameworks are revised and adopted on an eight-year cycle, and instructional materials adoptions take place after new frameworks are adopted. Standards adoptions generally precede the development of the frameworks. The next frameworks set for revision are as follows:

2016: History-Social Science (last revised 1998), Science (last revised 2013)

2018: Health (last revised 2008)

2019: World Languages (last revised 2009)

2020: Math (last revised 2010), Visual and Performing Arts (last revised 2001)

2021: Physical Education (last revised 2005)

2022: English Language Arts/English Language Development (last revised 2010/2012)

Analysis Prepared by: Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0000715

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 740

Author:(Weber) – As Amended Ver:April 20, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY: This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), by January 1, 2017, to recommend a schedule to the State Board of Education (SBE) for the regular update of academic content standards. Further, this bill authorizes the SBE to convene academic content standards advisory committees (advisory committees) to update the standards, and requires that the SBE adopt or reject the updated standards. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the schedule to update standards be aligned to the current eight-year cycle of curriculum framework updates and instructional materials adoptions. Further, expresses Legislative intent that the content standards be updated before revising curriculum frameworks and curriculum framework revision occur before adoption of instructional materials.

2. Requires the SBE to determine whether an update is required when the academic content standards in a given subject area come up for review. This determination shall be based upon: a) the amount of time since the standards were adopted or last updated; b) whether additional research conducted since the standards were adopted or last updated justifies updates to the standards; and c) the potential impact on existing curriculum, instructional materials, and assessment systems based upon the standards.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Annual General Fund administrative costs of approximately $800,000 to develop a new Content Standards Unit within the California Department of Education. The bill directs the standards to be tied to the eight-year cycle for frameworks and adoptions. It is likely staff would be need to work on more than one project each year, on an ongoing basis.

2. One-time costs of approximately $100,000 (GF/non-98) to convene each Academic Content Standards Advisory Committee. There are currently ten subjects that could be updated.

3. The adoption of new content standards has a multiplier effect that will lead to additional costs. Once new curriculum standards are adopted, frameworks aligned to those standards must be adopted. After frameworks are adopted, an instructional materials adoption follows. General Fund administrative costs for these activities average about $1 million each. In addition to these costs, local education agencies would incur additional Proposition 98/GF costs to purchase instructional materials and provide professional development.

SUMMARY Continued:

3. Requires the SBE to convene an academic content standards advisory committee (advisory committee) if the SBE determines that an update to the academic content standards in a given subject is warranted. This committee shall consist of 21 members, as follows: a) 10 members appointed by the Governor; b) four members appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules; c) four members appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly; and, three members appointed by the SPI. Requires members of an advisory committee to serve without compensation, except for actual and necessary travel expenses and substitute costs.

4. Requires that not less than one-half of the members appointed by each of the appointing authorities be current public school elementary or secondary classroom teachers who have a professional credential under state law, and meet the definition of “highly qualified” under federal law. Further expresses Legislative intent around subject matter expertise and reflect the diverse California population.

5. Requires each advisory committee to conduct at least two, and no more than six, in-person meetings that are open to the public and include opportunities for public input. Further specifies, upon completing this review, the terms of the members cease.

6. Requires each advisory committee to forward the updated standards to the SBE, who must adopt or reject the standards, as specified, within 120 days of the receipt.

7. Requires the California Department of Education (CDE), prior to final action by the advisory committee, to post proposed updates on its website for a minimum of 60 days. The CDE must include a link by which members of the public may submit comments on the proposed updates.

8. Requires the SPI to develop, and the SBE to adopt, guidelines to implement this section.

9. States that the convening of an academic content standards advisory committee is contingent upon the Legislature appropriating funds for that purpose in the annual Budget Act.

COMMENTS:

Purpose. Currently there is no process in place for the regular review and update of the academic content standards. Some of California's current standards, such as the history-social science standards, date back to 1998. As a result, each time standards need to be updated, even if the updates are only minor, new legislation must be enacted. According to the author, the vast amount of legislation to update content standards has created an unpredictable process for school districts and teachers, making it challenging to plan for changes in curriculum. This bill creates a rational and predictable process to help school districts plan for changes in curriculum.

Analysis Prepared by: Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 8, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 740

Author:(Weber) – As Introduced Ver:February 25, 2015

SUBJECT: Academic content standards: update of adopted standards

SUMMARY: Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), by January 1, 2017, to recommend to the State Board of Education (SBE) a schedule for the regular update of academic content standards. This bill authorizes the SBE to convene academic content standards advisory committees to update the standards, and requires that the SBE adopt or reject the updated standards. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires that by January 1, 2017, the SPI recommend to the state board a schedule for the regular update of academic content standards in all subjects for which standards have been adopted.

2. Requires that the schedule be aligned to the current eight-year cycle of curriculum framework updates and instructional materials adoptions.

3. Requires that, when the academic content standards in a given subject area come up for review according to this schedule, the SBE make a determination as to whether those standards require an update.

4. Requires that determination to be based upon:

1. the amount of time since the standards were adopted or last updated

2. whether additional research conducted since the standards were adopted or last updated justifies updates to the standards

3. the potential impact on existing curriculum, instructional materials, and assessment systems based upon the standards.

5. Requires that if the SBE determines that an update to the academic content standards in a given subject is warranted, it convene an academic content standards advisory committee to recommend updates to the content standards in that subject.

6. Requires such a committee to consist of 21 members who serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority, appointed as follows:

1. 10 members appointed by the Governor

2. 4 members appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules

3. 4 members appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly

4. 3 members appointed by the SPI

7. Requires that not less than one-half of the members appointed by each of the appointing authorities be current public school elementary or secondary classroom teachers who have a professional credential under state law, and meet the definition of “highly qualified” under federal law.

8. Requires each academic content standards advisory committee to review the content standards established in its particular subject matter and prepare updates to the standards as the committee deems necessary.

9. Requires that, when making its recommendation, an academic content standards advisory committee consider the extent to which its proposed updates reflect current and confirmed research in the subject area under consideration, and the impact that the proposed updates will have upon school districts and existing curricula and assessments.

10. Requires that an academic content standards advisory committee conduct at least two, and no more than six, in-person meetings that are open to the public and include opportunities for public input.

11. Requires that, upon completing this review, the terms of the members cease.

12. Requires that, upon updating the standards, an academic content standards advisory committee forward them to the SBE, which must do either of the following within 120 days of the receipt:

1. adopt the proposed updates, or

2. reject the proposed updates, in which case the SBE must provide a specific written explanation to the SPI, the Governor, and the Legislature of the reasons why the proposed standards were rejected

13. Requires that, prior to final action, the California Department of Education (CDE) post on its website the proposed updates for a minimum of 60 days. The CDE must include a link by which members of the public may submit comments on the proposed updates.

14. Requires that members of an academic content standards advisory committee serve without compensation, except for actual and necessary travel expenses and substitute costs.

15. Requires the SPI to develop, and the SBE to adopt, guidelines to implement this section.

16. States that the convening of an academic content standards advisory committee is contingent upon the Legislature appropriating funds for that purpose in the annual Budget Act.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires the SBE to adopt or reject content standards in language arts and mathematics and requires that at least 85% of those standards to be those developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative consortium.

2. Requires SPI to convene a group of science experts to recommend science content standards for adoption to the state board, utilizing the Next Generation Science Standards as the basis for their deliberations and recommendations to the state board. Requires the SBE to adopt, reject, or modify the standards. This section is now repealed.

3. Requires the SPI, in consultation with the SBE, to update, revise, and align the English Language Development (ELD) standards to the Common Core State Standards, and requires the SBE to adopt or reject those revised standards.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. The author’s office states, “Though academic content standards are an essential part of the California achievement and accountability systems, there is no process currently in place for the regular review and update of the standards. Some of California's current standards, such as the history-social science standards, date back to 1998. As a result, each time standards need to be updated, even if the updates are only minor, new legislation must be enacted.

All of the current standards were adopted through separate legislation passed in the 1990’s and 2000’s. Since 2010, new content standards have been adopted in mathematics and English language arts, ELD and science. There have also been many bills to update content standards that have failed. The vast amount of legislation to update content standards has created an unpredictable process for school districts and teachers, making it challenging to plan for changes in curriculum.

Except for legislation, there is currently no process in place for the regular updating of academic content standards despite the fact that it is often necessary to make modifications to content standards given that there are regular changes in disciplinary knowledge and academic research. The updating of content standards does not constitute a complete revision, but an update where necessary to reflect new knowledge. Creating a rational and predictable process would help school districts plan for changes in curriculum.”

Standards adoption dates by subject area. The most recent adoption (original or update) of content standards in each subject area is shown below.

1998: History-Social Science

2001: Visual and Performing Arts

2005: Physical Education

2008: Health Education

2009: World Languages

2010: English Language Arts

2010: Mathematics

2012: English Language Development

2013: Career Technical Education

2013: Science

Current schedule for framework adoption. Curriculum frameworks are revised and adopted on an eight-year cycle, and instructional materials adoptions take place after new frameworks are adopted. Standards adoptions generally precede the development of the frameworks. The next frameworks set for revision are as follows:

2016: History-Social Science, Science

2018: Health

2019: World Languages

2020: Math, Visual and Performing Arts

2021: Physical Education

2022: English Language Arts/English Language Development

Concern about implementation time and cost. The Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) writes, “We agree that having a predictable and routine schedule for updating the academic content standards is both reasonable and sound practice, but…ACSA members are concerned that if academic content standards are not provided sufficient implementation time before the next update, the state will not have valid data to make an informed decision as to the need for an update. On average, it takes school districts three years to fully implement standards changes, and if the state uses an eight year timeframe, we are concerned that the state will not have sufficient and reliable data on which to base its decision. We are also concerned about cost imposition on school districts if content updates happen without recognition of the time needed to update textbook and instructional materials, and the cost imposed on school districts for such purchases.”

Make allowances for revisions standards developed nationally. This bill requires that the determination of the need to update standards be based on several factors, including the “age” of the current standards. Not represented in that list is the case of an update of a set of standards created for national use. This is the subject of two other bills this Session (AB 711, Santiago and SB 725, Hancock) which seek to require the updating of standards following on revisions in nationally-developed standards in World Languages and Visual and Performing Arts, respectively. Staff recommends that the bill be amended to allow the SBE to take into consideration the revision of nationally-developed standards in determining whether an update is necessary.

State intent about the sequence of adoptions. While it is generally understood that the sequence of curriculum adoption proceeds from standards to frameworks to instructional materials, in one case the order was altered (History-Social Science) such that the framework revision proceeded prior to the adoption of new standards. In order to encourage the process to proceed from standards to frameworks to instructional materials, staff recommends the following statement of Legislative intent: “It is the intent of the Legislature that content standards in each subject area are updated prior to the revision of the curriculum framework in that area, and that the curriculum framework is adopted prior to the adoption of aligned instructional materials.”

Expertise, grade levels, and diversity on the advisory committees. The advisory committees created by this bill would need expertise in content as well as knowledge of content at different grade levels. It is also important that they reflect the diversity of the state. Staff recommends that the bill be amended to state the intent of the Legislature that the advisory committees include representation of different grade level spans (elementary, middle, and high school), that members possess a thorough knowledge of the academic content standards, and that committee membership reflect the diversity of the various ethnic groups, types of school districts, and regions in California.

Related legislation this session. AB 711 (Santiago), also being heard at this hearing, would require the SBE to adopt national content standards by June 1, 2017, which are in accordance with the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages, pursuant to the recommendations of the SPI. SB 725 (Hancock) requires the SBE, by June 30, 2017, to adopt, reject, or modify visual and performing arts standards submitted by the SPI.

Prior legislation. SB 1057 (Corbett) of the 2013-14 Session would have created a process to update the history-social science content standards. This bill was vetoed by the Governor, who expressed a concern that the Instructional Quality Commission did not have a role in the proposed revision process, among other issues.

AB 1033 (Feuer) of the 2011-12 Session would have established a content standards review commission, if the SPI and the SBE jointly found a need to revise or modify the academic content standards. The SBE could adopt or reject the recommendations. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 124 (Fuentes), Chapter 605, Statutes of 2011, requires the SPI, in consultation with the SBE, to convene a group of experts in English language instruction, curriculum, and assessment to align the English language development standards to English language arts content standards. The SBE could adopt, reject, or modify the recommendations.

SB 300 (Hancock), Chapter 624, Statutes of 2011, requires the SPI to convene a group of science experts to recommend science content standards which the SBE could adopt, reject, or modify.

AB 97 (Torlakson) of the 2009-10 Session would have established the Academic Content Standards Commission for Science and History-Social Science consisting of 21 appointed members to review and update the standards, and required the SBE to adopt or reject the recommendations of the commission. This bill was vetoed.

SB 1 X5 (Steinberg) Chapter 2, Statutes of 2010, requires the SBE to adopt or reject content standards in language arts and mathematics and requires that at least 85% of those standards to be those developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative consortium.

AB 1454 (Richardson) of the 2007-08 Session would have required the SPI to convene content standards review panels in English language arts and mathematics and required the SBE to adopt or reject the recommendations of the review panel. This bill was held in the Senate Education Committee.

AB 1100 (Mullin) of the 2005-06 Session would have authorized the SPI to appoint a content standards review panel in each subject area two years prior to the curriculum framework adoption for each subject area, and specifying that the panel review and revise the content standards. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 2744 (Goldberg) of the 2003-04 Session would have established a process for the updating of academic content standards by requiring the SPI to convene content standards review panels in each subject area and requiring the SBE to adopt or reject the recommendations of each panel. This bill was vetoed.

AB 642 (Mullin) of the 2003-04 Session would have required the SPI to periodically review and update academic content standards for the SBE to adopt or reject. This bill was vetoed.

SB 1367 (Karnette) of the 2001-02 Session would have required the SBE to periodically review and update core curriculum content standards. This bill was vetoed.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson (sponsor)

Association of California School Administrators (if amended)

California Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance

Riverside County Superintendent of Schools

1 individual

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087