Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as 2 segments of public postsecondary education in the state.

Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to assist all school districts to ensure that all public high school pupils have access to a core curriculum that meets the admission requirements of the University of California and the California State University. Existing law requests the University of California to assist school districts in developing, submitting, and maintaining courses certified by the University of California as meeting admission requirement criteria, as provided.

This bill would request the University of California to align the admission requirement criteria used in the review and certification of high school courses with the content standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the State Board of Education for the applicable subject area, as provided.

Existing law states legislative intent for the University of California and California State University governing boards, in determining the standards and criteria for undergraduate and graduate admissions, to develop processes that strive to be fair and easily understandable, consider using criteria allowing eligible students with uncontrollable course deficiencies to enroll, and consult broadly with Californias diverse communities, as provided.

This bill would state legislative intent for those governing boards, in determining the standards and criteria for undergraduate admissions, to develop the standards and criteria based on the content standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the state board for the applicable subject area and to consult with the state board before adopting or changing the standards and criteria for undergraduate admission.

Existing law requires the California State University, and requests the University of California, to establish a model uniform set of academic standards for high school courses for admission recognition and to develop and implement, by January 1, 2006, a process for high schools to obtain approval of courses meeting California State University and University of California admissions requirements, as provided. Existing law authorizes the faculty of the postsecondary segments to consult with elementary and secondary administrators and faculty when developing the model academic standards.

This bill instead would encourage faculty of the postsecondary segments to (1) consult with the state board and the Instructional Quality Commission in developing the model academic standards, and (2) strive to align the standards with the content standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the state board for the applicable subject area, as specified. The bill would require the California State University, and request the University of California, to develop and implement, on or before January 1, 2028, a revised process for local educational agencies to annually submit courses for review and certification as a course that satisfies the model academic standards, as specified.

Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as 2 segments of public postsecondary education in the state.

Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to assist all school districts to ensure that all public high school pupils have access to a core curriculum that meets the admission requirements of the University of California and the California State University. Existing law requests the University of California to assist school districts in developing, submitting, and maintaining courses certified by the University of California as meeting admission requirement criteria, as provided.

This bill would request the University of California to align that assistance the admission requirement criteria used in the review and certification of high school courses with the content standards and frameworks standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the State Board of Education for the applicable subject area, as provided.

Existing law states legislative intent for the University of California and California State University governing boards, in determining the standards and criteria for undergraduate and graduate admissions, to develop processes that strive to be fair and easily understandable, consider using criteria allowing eligible students with uncontrollable course deficiencies to enroll, and consult broadly with Californias diverse communities, as provided.

This bill would state legislative intent for those governing boards, in determining the standards and criteria for undergraduate admissions, to develop the standards and criteria based on the content standards and frameworks standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the state board for the applicable subject area and to consult with the state board before adopting or changing the standards and criteria for undergraduate admission.

Existing law requires the California State University, and requests the University of California, to establish a model uniform set of academic standards for high school courses for admission recognition and to develop and implement, by January 1, 2006, a process for high schools to obtain approval of courses meeting California State University and University of California admissions requirements, as provided. Existing law authorizes the faculty of the postsecondary segments to consult with elementary and secondary administrators and faculty when developing the model academic standards.

This bill instead would encourage faculty of the postsecondary segments to (1) consult with the state board and the Instructional Quality Commission in developing the model academic standards, and (2) strive to align the standards with elementary and secondary content standards and frameworks, the content standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the state board for the applicable subject area, as specified. The bill would require the California State University, and request the University of California, to develop and implement, on or before January 1, 2028, a revised process for high schools to gain approval of courses meeting the postsecondary segments admissions requirements, local educational agencies to annually submit courses for review and certification as a course that satisfies the model academic standards, as specified.

Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as 2 segments of public postsecondary education in the state.

Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to assist all school districts to ensure that all public high school pupils have access to a core curriculum that meets the admission requirements of the University of California and the California State University. Existing law requests the University of California to assist school districts in developing, submitting, and maintaining courses certified by the University of California as meeting admission requirement criteria, as provided.

This bill would request the University of California to align that assistance with the content standards and frameworks adopted by the State Board of Education for the applicable subject area, as provided.

Existing law states legislative intent for the University of California and California State University governing boards, in determining the standards and criteria for undergraduate and graduate admissions, to develop processes that strive to be fair and easily understandable, consider using criteria allowing eligible students with uncontrollable course deficiencies to enroll, and consult broadly with Californias diverse communities, as provided.

This bill would state legislative intent for those governing boards, in determining the standards and criteria for undergraduate admissions, to develop the standards and criteria based on the content standards and frameworks adopted by the state board for the applicable subject area and to consult with the state board before adopting or changing the standards and criteria for undergraduate admission.

Existing law requires the California State University, and requests the University of California, to establish a model uniform set of academic standards for high school courses for admission recognition and to develop and implement, by January 1, 2006, a process for high schools to obtain approval of courses meeting California State University and University of California admissions requirements, as provided. Existing law authorizes the faculty of the postsecondary segments to consult with elementary and secondary administrators and faculty when developing the model academic standards.

This bill instead would encourage faculty of the postsecondary segments to (1) consult with the state board and the Instructional Quality Commission in developing the model academic standards, and (2) strive to align the standards with elementary and secondary content standards and frameworks, as specified. The bill would require the California State University, and request the University of California, to develop and implement, on or before January 1, 2028, a revised process for high schools to gain approval of courses meeting the postsecondary segments admissions requirements, as specified.

Date of Hearing: May 14, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1217

Author:(Fong) – As Amended Ver:April 21, 2025

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requests the University of California (UC) to align the admission criteria used in the review and certification of high school courses with the content standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE) for the applicable subject area. The bill also updates the existing local educational agency (LEA) course certification process for California State University (CSU) and UC admissions, including a requirement that the approving entity provide a reason for a denial and suggest ways for the LEA to obtain future approval.

FISCAL EFFECT:

One-time General Fund costs of $250,000 for the UC to align its A-G course list with K-12 standards whenever admissions changes occur.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

During a Joint Assembly Education and Higher Education Committees oversight hearing in October 2024, we were surprised to learn that the UC does not base content review of high school courses on the content standards of K-12, but rather on their own internal metrics of whether a high school course prepares students for the UC quantitative reasoning requirement. If the UC wishes to continue to review courses for their content then the UC must determine if the courses meet the standards required by the State Board and not by the UC’s internal standards. AB 1217 would realign the review of A-G courses with the K-12 content standards.

1. Background. Disconnection between K-12 and Higher Education. While the SBE adopts curriculum of public schools in California, the UC Regents, specifically the UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS), set admissions criteria based on the preparation they believe necessary for academic success in their institutions. Therefore, LEAs must align their high school course offerings and content with the eligibility criteria of the UC to ensure students receive the required preparation to qualify for admission, even though only 8% of California public high school graduates will attend a UC campus. Some LEAs choose to align their high school graduation requirements with UC’s A-G requirements, meaning a student must meet UC admission criteria solely for high school graduation. Despite this interconnectedness, nothing in current law explicitly requires the K-12 and higher education systems to consult or collaborate on criteria for admissions. The SBE President, Linda Darling Hammond, in the aftermath of a decision occurring less than a week before the SBE’s adoption of the 2023 Mathematics Curriculum Framework, stated the following:

I want to be clear that these problems are not of BOARS making – nor of the efforts of the committed faculty members who have been involved in this process. We have inherited a fragmented and antiquated governance structure for education in California. There is no established mechanism to coordinate between and among higher education segments and K12, or to do so with business and labor with both an educational and an economic lens on what our curriculum should be to prepare students to succeed in this rapidly changing world. Nor is there an established mechanism for BOARS to coordinate with K12 colleagues, to hear from the public, or to hold open hearings or receive comment in the way that the legislature, State Board and other public bodies must do in making decisions.

Content used for A-G Course Approval. Since 1965, the UC has required high schools to submit high school courses for review and approval as A-G courses for purposes of meeting the admission requirements for the CSU and UC. The UC Enrollment Services Unit reviews and approves high school course as “A-G” and maintains a list of approved A-G courses.

According to the UC, course assessment includes using subject-specific rubrics against the content and skills guidelines for the subject. The High School Articulation (HSA) team also engages in periodic norming processes, which helps to facilitate timely review of submissions as well as consistent outcomes. Courses that are not approved after an initial submission are returned to the school with guidance on how to revise the course. Many course submissions are automatically approved for the purposes of a school’s A-G list. However, it is unclear to this committee which content the UC uses in these rubrics. It may be content standards approved by the SBE but also may be different standards the UC chooses.

This bill requests that the UC align its admission requirement criteria used in the review and certification of high school courses pursuant with the content standards, frameworks, and model curricula adopted by the SBE, among other requirements.

1. Related Legislation. AB 684 (Patel) of the current legislative session subjects meetings of the UC BOARS to the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act. AB 684 is pending on the suspense file in this committee.

AB 500 (Quirk - Silva) of the current legislative session establishes the procedures the California State Legislature intends for the UC Regents to undertake prior to a vote to determine a change in the undergraduate admissions criteria or standards for admission to the UC.

Analysis Prepared by: Aaron Heredia / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 30, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Al Muratsuchi, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1217 (

Author:Fong) – As Amended Ver:April 21, 2025

[This bill was double referred to the Committee on Higher Education and was heard on issues in its jurisdiction.]

SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: admissions standards and criteria

SUMMARY: States the intent of the Legislature regarding the evaluation of high school courses for purposes of meeting the admissions requirements of the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU). Specifically, this bill:

1. Requests the UC to align the admissions requirement criteria used in the review and certification of high school courses with the content standards, frameworks, and model curricula adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE) for the applicable subject area.
2. Adds to the procedures the Legislature intends for the UC and CSU to undertake when determining the standards and criteria for undergraduate programs. Declares that it is the intent of the Legislature for the UC and CSU to do the following, in addition to existing procedures:
   1. Develop the standards and criteria based on the content standards, frameworks, and model curricula adopted by the SBE for the subject area;
   2. Develop processes that strive to be fair and easily understandable; and,
   3. Consult with the SBE before adopting or changing the standards and criteria for admission, and broadly consult with California’s diverse ethnic and cultural communities.
3. Strongly encourages the faculty of the UC and CSU to work in consultation with the SBE (instead of specified parties) and strive to align the model academic standards with the content standards, frameworks, and model curricula adopted by the SBE.
4. Requires the CSU and requests the UC to, by January 1, 2028, develop a process whereby local education agencies (LEAs) may annually submit their courses, and whereby, by February 1 of each year, notify LEAs whether certification for the courses has been approved or denied. Requires, if an application is denied, the approving entity to provide a reason for the denial and suggest ways the high school can obtain future approval.
5. Removes language declaring the Legislature’s intent for the undergraduate admission standards to be aligned with the academic standards for high school courses, as specified.
6. Defines LEA to mean a school district, county office of education (COE), and a charter school.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the UC as a public trust to be administered by the Regents and grants the Regents full powers of organization and governance subject only to legislative control as necessary to ensure the security of funds, compliance with terms of its endowments, and the statutory requirements around competitive bidding and contracts, sales of property, and the purchase of materials, goods, and services (Article IX, Section (9) (a) of the California Constitution).
2. Establishes the CSU system, comprised of 23 campuses, and bestows upon the CSU Trustees, through the BOT, the power, duties, and functions with respect to the management, administration, and control of the CSU system. (Education Code (EC) 66606, 89000 et. seq.)
3. Stipulates no provision of the Donahue Higher Education Act shall apply to the UC unless the UC Regents adopts the provision. (EC 67400).
4. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to assist all school districts in offering a core curriculum that meets the admission requirements of the UC and CSU. The SPI will advise districts that include high schools about the importance of having a list of high school courses which are approved by the UC for admission (A-G course lists). States that it is the intent of the Legislature for every public high school to have a full program with courses that meet collegiate requirements and for the students to receive counseling on college-admission course offerings. States it is the intent of the Legislature for the primary and secondary education agencies, public higher education institutions, and independent higher education institutions to work together to ensure students have access to course that will enable them to attend college. Prohibits any policy or practice in any public elementary or secondary school from excluding or directing students away from programs that fully prepare a student for college (EC 66204(a)).
5. Requests the UC to assist each school district with a high school in order to ensure all the following occur:
   1. School districts understand how to submit courses to the UC to be reviewed and certified as meeting the undergraduate criteria for admissions;
   2. School districts have an internal process for developing and submitting courses for review and certification by the UC as meeting the undergraduate criteria for admissions; and,
   3. School districts maintain accurate lists of courses that are currently offered by high school and are certified by the UC as meeting the undergraduate criteria for admissions and ensure those lists are readily available to students, as described (EC 66204(b),(c)).
6. States it is the intent of the Legislature for the UC and CSU to enroll a student body that meets high academic standards and reflects the cultural, racial, geographic, economic, and social diversity of California. States the intention of the Legislature for the UC and CSU when determining the undergraduate and graduate admission standards and criteria for the systems to do the following:
   1. Develop processes which strive to be fair and are easily understandable;
   2. Consider the use of criteria and procedures that would allow students to enroll and when necessary, make up for course deficiencies beyond their control if the student is otherwise fully eligible and admissible to their chosen program of study;
   3. Consult broadly with California’s diverse ethnic and cultural communities. (EC 66205)
7. States it is the intent of the Legislature for the academic standards for a high school course to meet the model uniform set of standards for admission to the CSU and UC (A- G course criteria) should align with the standards developed by the Academic Content Standards Commission in 2010 and adopted by the SBE. Requires the CSU and requests the UC to do the following:
   1. Establish a model uniform set of standards for high school courses (A-G course criteria) for the purpose of determining eligibility for admission to undergraduate programs offered by the UC and CSU.
   2. When developing the A-G course criteria, the faculty of the CSU and UC may work in consultation with administrators and faculty from K-12 schools. Requires K-12 schools who are consulted to establish advisory boards with specified membership, including parents, classroom teachers in career technical education (CTE), business and industry representatives, to provide additional input.
   3. Develop and implement a process for approving high school courses meeting the A-G course criteria by January 1, 2006. Requests that the courses are approved by August 1 of each school year and a notification will be provided to the high school of the approval or denial of the course as meeting the A-G course criteria.
   4. Develop a procedure to evaluate a high school CTE course as meeting the A-G course criteria, as defined.
   5. Take into consideration any previous work conducted to approve a high school course as meeting the A-G course criteria.
   6. Develop guidelines for high school computer courses to be approved as meeting the A-G course criteria (EC 60605.8).
   7. Requires the Legislature to provide for the appointment or election of the State Board of Education (SBE), and requires it to adopt textbooks for grades one through eight. (Article IX, Sections 7 and 7.5 of the California Constitution)
   8. Establishes requirements for graduation from high school, including three courses in English, two courses in mathematics, two courses in science, three courses in social studies, one course in visual or performing arts or world languages or CTE, two courses in physical education, a one-semester course in ethnic studies, and a one semester course in personal financial education. (EC 51225.3)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. According to the author, “During a Joint Assembly Education and Higher Education Committees oversight hearing in October 2024, we were surprised to learn that the UC does not base content review of high school courses on the content standards of K-12, but rather on their own internal metrics of whether a high school course prepares students for the UC quantitative reasoning requirement.

This goes beyond simply having the appropriate course on a student’s transcript. What occurs when the UC and the K-12 State Board of Education disagree on the content criteria for a course?

There already exists a procedure by which the UC collaborates with K-12 and the State Board of Education in the development of K-12 content standards. While the authority over admission criteria for undergraduate admissions lies within the jurisdiction of the UC’s authority, the authority to determine the content standards for K-12 courses resides with the State Board of Education.

If the UC wishes to continue to review courses for their content then the UC must determine if the courses meet the standards required by the State Board and not by the UC’s internal standards. AB 1217 would realign the review of A-G courses with the K-12 content standards.”

Key provisions of this bill for K-12 education. This bill includes the following provisions which pertain to the K-12 education system:

1. Requests that the UC align the admission requirement criteria used in the review and certification of high school courses pursuant with the content standards, frameworks, and model curricula adopted by the SBE for the applicable subject area;
2. States the intent of the Legislature that, in determining the standards and criteria for undergraduate admissions to the University of California and the California State University, the governing boards of those systems:

• Develop the standards and criteria based on the content standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the SBE for the applicable subject area; and
• Consult with the SBE before adopting or changing the standards and criteria for admission.

1. Requires the CSU, and strongly encourages the UC, in establishing a model uniform set of academic standards for high school courses for purposes of recognition for admission to  work in consultation with the SBE and to strive to align the model academic standards with the content standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the SBE for the applicable subject areas.
2. Requires the CSU, and strongly encourages the UC, on or before January 1, 2028, to develop a system in which, when certification has been denied, the approving entity provides a reason for the denial and suggest ways the LEA can obtain future approval. 

“A fragmented and antiquated governance structure for education in California.” As noted above, the SBE is responsible for adopting the curriculum of the public schools in California. The UC Regents set admissions criteria based in part on the preparation they believe is necessary for academic success in their institutions.

While the K-12 system is responsible for implementing the California K-12 curriculum, school districts have little choice but to align their course secondary course offerings – and content - with the eligibility criteria of the UC. This is true even though only 8% of California public high school graduates will attend a UC campus. Some school districts even align their high school graduation requirements with UC’s A-G requirements, with the result that no student – college bound or not - is able to earn a high school diploma without meeting the UC’s requirements. The Committee may wish to consider that, when there is a conflict between the K-12 curriculum and the UC’s admissions criteria, the UC’s criteria will prevail.

In spite of the interconnected nature of these two systems, current law does not explicitly require the two systems to consult or collaborate on qualifications for admissions to the UC or CSU. At times, this disconnected relationship results in conflict and confusion.

At an October, 2024 joint hearing of the Assembly Education and Higher Education Committees regarding a recent change made by the UC BOARS to the Area C Mathematics admissions criteria, SBE President Linda Darling-Hammond testified that:

The acronym BOARS stands for the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, and while BOARS decisions are connected to UC admissions (as well as those of CSU since CSU agreed to abide by BOARS decisions), BOARS effectively has no relationship with K-12 schools. There is no governance or required consultative relationship with the K-12 system. [emphasis added]

BOARS is a unique committee. There is no other state in the nation that has a higher education body which prescribes and approves the content of specific courses for high schools, like the A-G courses. This set of courses must be met by all in-state applicants in order to be eligible for admission. (Ironically, out-of-state applicants to UC do not have to meet these requirements. Although they are asked to use the A-G requirements as a guide, there is no approved course list for them or their schools to follow.)

The SBE President described, as an illustration of this fragmented relationship, the disruption caused in the SBE’s of adoption of the 2023 Mathematics Curriculum Framework, after three years of development:

The State Board was informed only a few days before its meeting in July 2023 that BOARS had held a non-public meeting the Friday before our Wednesday meeting and wanted to request changes to the framework, which had been revised several times in response to extensive public commentary over 3 years. The Board staff reached out multiple times to try to get clarity on what had been decided in the Friday meeting, which was not public and did not have clearly recorded decisions, and received competing accounts from various people present at the meeting.

Our goal at that time was that the University’s decision be accurately represented in the vote on the framework. Finally, on the morning of the vote (July 12th), while in the process of considering the item, the Board’s staff was able to get a formal statement from the University… I read this statement - which was handed to me as we were deliberating for our vote - aloud to the board as we made in-the-moment changes to the text of the framework so that it could be as accurate as possible at the time of the vote.

At the hearing, both the SBE President and K-12 representatives spoke of poorly timed and inconsistent messaging from the UC on the Area C decision, resulting in, as described by the SBE President, “a rushed and confusing aftermath.” A representative of the Kern County Superintendent of Schools testified that the decision left school staff “scrambling to comply in the middle of summer when a majority of staff and students were on break:”

With master schedules set and students enrolled, many schools were under the impression they had to make quick decisions about their 2023-24 course offerings, leading to inconsistencies in how districts handled the changes. Some school sites rolled back data science courses entirely, while others sought temporary solutions, creating confusion for teachers, administrators, students, and families alike.

The SBE President characterized the broader governance problem as follows:

I want to be clear that these problems are not of BOARS making – nor of the efforts of the committed faculty members who have been involved in this process. We have inherited a fragmented and antiquated governance structure for education in California. There is no established mechanism to coordinate between and among higher education segments and K12, or to do so with business and labor with both an educational and an economic lens on what our curriculum should be to prepare students to succeed in this rapidly changing world. Nor is there an established mechanism for BOARS to coordinate with K12 colleagues, to hear from the public, or to hold open hearings or receive comment in the way that the legislature, State Board and other public bodies must do in making decisions. [emphasis added]

So, we find ourselves in a situation where important curriculum decisions about the types of courses to be offered to our high school students, and the specific content of those courses, are driven not by local governing boards, nor by the Legislature or the State Board of Education, but rather by a committee of professors that changes annually and which can change policies at any time with these rapid changes in membership. These professors, and those who review courses using their criteria, may be making the absolutely right decisions, but they do not have the benefit of the structured public engagements and drafting processes that include a wide range of experts, educators from K-12 and post-secondary institutions, and K-12 parents and students who help sensitize us to the realities of the work on the ground that needs to be considered when changes are made.

UC Regents and Academic Senate recognize need for consultation process with K-12. After this joint hearing, the Chairs of the Education and Higher Education Committees sent a letter to the UC Regents expressing concern over the effects of the Area C mathematics decision and the need for consultation between the UC and K-12 systems.

In February of this year, the UC Regents Chair and Vice Chair responded with a letter affirming their commitment to “greater collaboration between the University and its K-12 partners, as well as increased consultation between BOARS and the State Board of Education regarding admissions policy changes.” The letter also stated that the Regents have “requested that BOARS and University undergraduate admissions personnel review their consultation processes and present to the Regents a proposed new process for robust K-12 consultation as well as provide an opportunity for public comment on any changes to admissions policy or its implementation.”

On April 23, 2025, the Academic Senate voted to amend the Academic Senate Bylaws to include, in the duties of the UC BOARS, “The committee shall consult with representatives from the State Board of Education and K-12 subject matter specialists on proposed changes to course requirements for undergraduate admissions.” The Committee may wish to consider that the response of the UC Regents and the Academic Senate is consistent with this bill, and that this bill would establish a durable statement of Legislative intent that the systems consult on these issues of importance to both systems.

Which content is used in the approval of UC A-G courses? This bill requests that the UC align its admission requirement criteria used in the review and certification of high school courses pursuant with the content standards, frameworks, and model curricula adopted by the SBE, among other requirements.

Since 1965, the UC has required high schools to submit high school courses for review and approval as A-G courses for purposes of meeting the admission requirements for the CSU and UC. The UC Enrollment Services Unit reviews and approves high school course as “A-G” and maintains a list of approved A-G courses. A 2016 State Auditor report, College Readiness of California’s High School Students, described the process for approving high school course as A-G as follows:

1. All college preparatory courses must be certified by UC as A-G approved. Courses that are approved by UC meet both UC and CSU admission requirements. UC is the only state entity that certifies if a course is A-G approved. CSU adopted the same basic college preparatory curriculum (A-G course sequence) and relies on UC to approve the courses.
2. To certify a course, California high schools submit college preparatory courses in the seven A-G areas to the UC.
3. UC evaluates the course submissions based on criteria developed by the UC BOARS.
4. UC maintains an A-G list for each school and instructs schools to update the lists regularly. The A-G course lists for each school should include all courses available to students for the upcoming academic year that have been approved by the UC.

According to the UC, the courses that high school students take to fulfill A-G admissions requirements must be on their school’s A-G course list, and they are listed on UC’s A-G Course List Website. California high schools maintain their A-G course lists in the A-G Course Management Portal. Course lists are also used to populate the UC and CSU applications for undergraduate admission, so that students may select from pre-loaded courses instead of entering courses manually. Each school or district has a designated list manager who is the primary administrative A-G contact for their institution and who ensures that the course list is updated for the next academic year during the annual A-G course submission period, which runs from February through June of each year. Schools are encouraged to update their lists during the primary phase to ensure that approved courses are available in the UC application when it launches on August 1.

High schools and other local education agencies that serve students in grades 9–12 submit individual course outlines to UCOP for review. The High School Articulation team (HSA) reviews submissions on behalf of UC faculty. Each A-G course submission consists of basic course information and a course description. The course description provides information about what students learn and do in the course and helps the HSA team understand how the course fulfills A-G course policy and criteria. Each course description includes:

• Course overview: A brief summary of overarching content and goals of the course;
• Unit summaries and assignments: For every unit, a summary and at least one sample assignment; and
• Unit labs (only for area D science courses): For every unit, a description of a laboratory activity that involves inquiry, observation, analysis and write-up.  

According to the UC, courses are assessed using subject-specific rubrics against the content and skills guidelines for the subject. The HSA team also engages in periodic norming processes, which helps to facilitate timely review of submissions as well as consistent outcomes. Courses that are not approved after an initial submission are returned to the school via the A-G CMP with guidance on how to revise the course. Many course submissions are automatically approved for the purposes of a school’s A-G list.

In the 2024–25 submission period, 90% of courses submitted for A-G review were ultimately approved (not including auto approvals). The UC reports the following data for 2024–25 course submissions:

• Submitted for review: 6,307 
• Approved: 5,680 
• Not approved: 627 
• Auto-approved: 12,088 
• Total submissions (includes resubmissions of not approved courses): 18,395 

This process has become more efficient over time. The State Auditor’s report found that in the four years from 2012–13 through 2015–16, UC improved its process of approving college preparatory courses and increased the percentage of new courses it approved from 57% in 2012–13 to 90% in 2015–16. During that same period, UC also substantially lowered the average time it took to issue certification decisions from 50 days to 14 days. In addition, in 2015 UC changed the format for course submissions and the new format reduced the length of most course proposals it receives from 10 to 25 pages to about five pages.

As noted above, current law requires the CSU and requests the UC to establish a model uniform set of standards for high school courses for the purpose of determining eligibility for admission to undergraduate programs offered by the UC and CSU. The UC also reports, as noted above, that courses are assessed using subject-specific rubrics against the content and skills guidelines for the subject. However, the Committee may wish to consider that it is unclear which content is used in these rubrics. It could be the content standards approved by the SBE, or it could be different standards established by the UC. It is also unclear whether these rubrics are made available to school districts.

A companion bill to this measure, AB 500 (Quirk-Silva) of this Session states the intent of the Legislature that any proposed change by the UC to the conditions for undergraduate admissions, including a criteria used to review A-G courses become operational only after it has been discussed in a public meeting of the SBE, among other requirements.

What happens when the K-12 standards and UC’s standards conflict? As noted above, K-12 schools have little choice but to align their curricula with the admissions criteria of the UC. Failure to do so could render their students ineligible to apply to a four-year public university in California.

At the joint hearing, the SBE President testified about the consequences of a conflict between the standards of the two systems, raising as an example recent proposal to create a new Ethnic Studies course requirement:

The many public laws and regulations we have designed to ensure a coherent, transparent process with accountability can be rendered moot by this nonpublic process. For example, if, as BOARS has proposed recently, an entirely new subject area requirement is added as Area H (which would require for admissions and determine the content of Ethnic Studies courses), local high schools would have to make significant course, curriculum and professional development changes rapidly. If not, they would place their students in jeopardy of being ineligible for UC and CSU. And many districts require all of their students to meet these requirements in order to graduate. The A-G (or potentially A-H) course content requirements do not have to be consistent with policies adopted by the State Board of Education or the Legislature. This can wreak havoc on the complex and multifaceted course offerings and schedules in high schools.

Arguments in support. The Campaign for College Opportunity writes, “Recently, admissions decisions by the University of California (UC) Academic Senate’s Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) have been made without sufficient consideration of relevant data or equity implications. The recent shifts in UC’s Area C mathematics admissions requirements demonstrated the consequences of a fragmented decision-making process, where changes were made without sufficient consultation with K-12 leaders, the California State University (CSU), or the State Board of Education. By prioritizing precalculus and calculus, these changes create confusion among K-12 educators about their impact on UC and CSU admissions and make it more difficult for schools to guide students effectively.

AB 1217 affirms the need for greater coordination between the California State University (CSU), the University of California (UC), and the State Board of Education to ensure that the admissions process is better aligned with the state’s K-12 content standards and frameworks. By encouraging this alignment, the bill will help ensure that college admissions requirements reflect the diverse pathways students take to college and career readiness.

California has set ambitious college attainment goals to meet state workforce demands and ensure economic mobility for its students. A critical step in meeting these goals is ensuring that all students have equitable access to postsecondary education.”

Arguments in opposition. The Council of UC Faculty Associations writes, “The State of California, through Article IX, Section 9 of the California Constitution, has entrusted the Regents of the University of California with the responsibility of governing the university, including developing its admissions criteria. This system was designed to prevent the politicization of university admissions, ensuring academic integrity and institutional autonomy.

These bills undermine the independence granted to the University of California by imposing legislative mandates on its admissions process. As recent actions at the federal level demonstrate, politicizing the university risks harming the institution's credibility and excellence and sets a concerning precedent for future political interference in its governance.

Please reconsider these legislative efforts and instead respect the autonomy and governance structure established for the University of California. Preserving the integrity of our higher education system is crucial for maintaining its credibility and excellence.”

Related legislation. AB 684 (Patel) of the 2025-26 Session would subject meeting of the UC BOARS to the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act.

AB 500 (Quirk - Silva) of the 2025-26 Session would establish the procedures the California State Legislature intends for the UC Regents to undertake prior to a vote to determine a change in the undergraduate admissions criteria or standards for admission to the UC.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Campaign for College Opportunity
Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office
Los Angeles Unified School District

Oppose

Council of UC Faculty Associations

1 individual

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

Date of Hearing: April 30, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Al Muratsuchi, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1217 (

Author:Fong) – As Amended Ver:April 21, 2025

[This bill was double referred to the Committee on Higher Education and was heard on issues in its jurisdiction.]

SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: admissions standards and criteria

SUMMARY: States the intent of the Legislature regarding the evaluation of high school courses for purposes of meeting the admissions requirements of the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU). Specifically, this bill:

1. Requests the UC to align the admissions requirement criteria used in the review and certification of high school courses with the content standards, frameworks, and model curricula adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE) for the applicable subject area.
2. Adds to the procedures the Legislature intends for the UC and CSU to undertake when determining the standards and criteria for undergraduate programs. Declares that it is the intent of the Legislature for the UC and CSU to do the following, in addition to existing procedures:
   1. Develop the standards and criteria based on the content standards, frameworks, and model curricula adopted by the SBE for the subject area;
   2. Develop processes that strive to be fair and easily understandable; and,
   3. Consult with the SBE before adopting or changing the standards and criteria for admission, and broadly consult with California’s diverse ethnic and cultural communities.
3. Strongly encourages the faculty of the UC and CSU to work in consultation with the SBE (instead of specified parties) and strive to align the model academic standards with the content standards, frameworks, and model curricula adopted by the SBE.
4. Requires the CSU and requests the UC to, by January 1, 2028, develop a process whereby local education agencies (LEAs) may annually submit their courses, and whereby, by February 1 of each year, notify LEAs whether certification for the courses has been approved or denied. Requires, if an application is denied, the approving entity to provide a reason for the denial and suggest ways the high school can obtain future approval.
5. Removes language declaring the Legislature’s intent for the undergraduate admission standards to be aligned with the academic standards for high school courses, as specified.
6. Defines LEA to mean a school district, county office of education (COE), and a charter school.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the UC as a public trust to be administered by the Regents and grants the Regents full powers of organization and governance subject only to legislative control as necessary to ensure the security of funds, compliance with terms of its endowments, and the statutory requirements around competitive bidding and contracts, sales of property, and the purchase of materials, goods, and services (Article IX, Section (9) (a) of the California Constitution).
2. Establishes the CSU system, comprised of 23 campuses, and bestows upon the CSU Trustees, through the BOT, the power, duties, and functions with respect to the management, administration, and control of the CSU system. (Education Code (EC) 66606, 89000 et. seq.)
3. Stipulates no provision of the Donahue Higher Education Act shall apply to the UC unless the UC Regents adopts the provision. (EC 67400).
4. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to assist all school districts in offering a core curriculum that meets the admission requirements of the UC and CSU. The SPI will advise districts that include high schools about the importance of having a list of high school courses which are approved by the UC for admission (A-G course lists). States that it is the intent of the Legislature for every public high school to have a full program with courses that meet collegiate requirements and for the students to receive counseling on college-admission course offerings. States it is the intent of the Legislature for the primary and secondary education agencies, public higher education institutions, and independent higher education institutions to work together to ensure students have access to course that will enable them to attend college. Prohibits any policy or practice in any public elementary or secondary school from excluding or directing students away from programs that fully prepare a student for college (EC 66204(a)).
5. Requests the UC to assist each school district with a high school in order to ensure all the following occur:
   1. School districts understand how to submit courses to the UC to be reviewed and certified as meeting the undergraduate criteria for admissions;
   2. School districts have an internal process for developing and submitting courses for review and certification by the UC as meeting the undergraduate criteria for admissions; and,
   3. School districts maintain accurate lists of courses that are currently offered by high school and are certified by the UC as meeting the undergraduate criteria for admissions and ensure those lists are readily available to students, as described (EC 66204(b),(c)).
6. States it is the intent of the Legislature for the UC and CSU to enroll a student body that meets high academic standards and reflects the cultural, racial, geographic, economic, and social diversity of California. States the intention of the Legislature for the UC and CSU when determining the undergraduate and graduate admission standards and criteria for the systems to do the following:
   1. Develop processes which strive to be fair and are easily understandable;
   2. Consider the use of criteria and procedures that would allow students to enroll and when necessary, make up for course deficiencies beyond their control if the student is otherwise fully eligible and admissible to their chosen program of study;
   3. Consult broadly with California’s diverse ethnic and cultural communities. (EC 66205)
7. States it is the intent of the Legislature for the academic standards for a high school course to meet the model uniform set of standards for admission to the CSU and UC (A- G course criteria) should align with the standards developed by the Academic Content Standards Commission in 2010 and adopted by the SBE. Requires the CSU and requests the UC to do the following:
   1. Establish a model uniform set of standards for high school courses (A-G course criteria) for the purpose of determining eligibility for admission to undergraduate programs offered by the UC and CSU.
   2. When developing the A-G course criteria, the faculty of the CSU and UC may work in consultation with administrators and faculty from K-12 schools. Requires K-12 schools who are consulted to establish advisory boards with specified membership, including parents, classroom teachers in career technical education (CTE), business and industry representatives, to provide additional input.
   3. Develop and implement a process for approving high school courses meeting the A-G course criteria by January 1, 2006. Requests that the courses are approved by August 1 of each school year and a notification will be provided to the high school of the approval or denial of the course as meeting the A-G course criteria.
   4. Develop a procedure to evaluate a high school CTE course as meeting the A-G course criteria, as defined.
   5. Take into consideration any previous work conducted to approve a high school course as meeting the A-G course criteria.
   6. Develop guidelines for high school computer courses to be approved as meeting the A-G course criteria (EC 60605.8).
   7. Requires the Legislature to provide for the appointment or election of the State Board of Education (SBE), and requires it to adopt textbooks for grades one through eight. (Article IX, Sections 7 and 7.5 of the California Constitution)
   8. Establishes requirements for graduation from high school, including three courses in English, two courses in mathematics, two courses in science, three courses in social studies, one course in visual or performing arts or world languages or CTE, two courses in physical education, a one-semester course in ethnic studies, and a one semester course in personal financial education. (EC 51225.3)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. According to the author, “During a Joint Assembly Education and Higher Education Committees oversight hearing in October 2024, we were surprised to learn that the UC does not base content review of high school courses on the content standards of K-12, but rather on their own internal metrics of whether a high school course prepares students for the UC quantitative reasoning requirement.

This goes beyond simply having the appropriate course on a student’s transcript. What occurs when the UC and the K-12 State Board of Education disagree on the content criteria for a course?

There already exists a procedure by which the UC collaborates with K-12 and the State Board of Education in the development of K-12 content standards. While the authority over admission criteria for undergraduate admissions lies within the jurisdiction of the UC’s authority, the authority to determine the content standards for K-12 courses resides with the State Board of Education.

If the UC wishes to continue to review courses for their content then the UC must determine if the courses meet the standards required by the State Board and not by the UC’s internal standards. AB 1217 would realign the review of A-G courses with the K-12 content standards.”

Key provisions of this bill for K-12 education. This bill includes the following provisions which pertain to the K-12 education system:

1. Requests that the UC align the admission requirement criteria used in the review and certification of high school courses pursuant with the content standards, frameworks, and model curricula adopted by the SBE for the applicable subject area;
2. States the intent of the Legislature that, in determining the standards and criteria for undergraduate admissions to the University of California and the California State University, the governing boards of those systems:

• Develop the standards and criteria based on the content standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the SBE for the applicable subject area; and
• Consult with the SBE before adopting or changing the standards and criteria for admission.

1. Requires the CSU, and strongly encourages the UC, in establishing a model uniform set of academic standards for high school courses for purposes of recognition for admission to  work in consultation with the SBE and to strive to align the model academic standards with the content standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the SBE for the applicable subject areas.
2. Requires the CSU, and strongly encourages the UC, on or before January 1, 2028, to develop a system in which, when certification has been denied, the approving entity provides a reason for the denial and suggest ways the LEA can obtain future approval. 

“A fragmented and antiquated governance structure for education in California.” As noted above, the SBE is responsible for adopting the curriculum of the public schools in California. The UC Regents set admissions criteria based in part on the preparation they believe is necessary for academic success in their institutions.

While the K-12 system is responsible for implementing the California K-12 curriculum, school districts have little choice but to align their course secondary course offerings – and content - with the eligibility criteria of the UC. This is true even though only 8% of California public high school graduates will attend a UC campus. Some school districts even align their high school graduation requirements with UC’s A-G requirements, with the result that no student – college bound or not - is able to earn a high school diploma without meeting the UC’s requirements. The Committee may wish to consider that, when there is a conflict between the K-12 curriculum and the UC’s admissions criteria, the UC’s criteria will prevail.

In spite of the interconnected nature of these two systems, current law does not explicitly require the two systems to consult or collaborate on qualifications for admissions to the UC or CSU. At times, this disconnected relationship results in conflict and confusion.

At an October, 2024 joint hearing of the Assembly Education and Higher Education Committees regarding a recent change made by the UC BOARS to the Area C Mathematics admissions criteria, SBE President Linda Darling-Hammond testified that:

The acronym BOARS stands for the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, and while BOARS decisions are connected to UC admissions (as well as those of CSU since CSU agreed to abide by BOARS decisions), BOARS effectively has no relationship with K-12 schools. There is no governance or required consultative relationship with the K-12 system. [emphasis added]

BOARS is a unique committee. There is no other state in the nation that has a higher education body which prescribes and approves the content of specific courses for high schools, like the A-G courses. This set of courses must be met by all in-state applicants in order to be eligible for admission. (Ironically, out-of-state applicants to UC do not have to meet these requirements. Although they are asked to use the A-G requirements as a guide, there is no approved course list for them or their schools to follow.)

The SBE President described, as an illustration of this fragmented relationship, the disruption caused in the SBE’s of adoption of the 2023 Mathematics Curriculum Framework, after three years of development:

The State Board was informed only a few days before its meeting in July 2023 that BOARS had held a non-public meeting the Friday before our Wednesday meeting and wanted to request changes to the framework, which had been revised several times in response to extensive public commentary over 3 years. The Board staff reached out multiple times to try to get clarity on what had been decided in the Friday meeting, which was not public and did not have clearly recorded decisions, and received competing accounts from various people present at the meeting.

Our goal at that time was that the University’s decision be accurately represented in the vote on the framework. Finally, on the morning of the vote (July 12th), while in the process of considering the item, the Board’s staff was able to get a formal statement from the University… I read this statement - which was handed to me as we were deliberating for our vote - aloud to the board as we made in-the-moment changes to the text of the framework so that it could be as accurate as possible at the time of the vote.

At the hearing, both the SBE President and K-12 representatives spoke of poorly timed and inconsistent messaging from the UC on the Area C decision, resulting in, as described by the SBE President, “a rushed and confusing aftermath.” A representative of the Kern County Superintendent of Schools testified that the decision left school staff “scrambling to comply in the middle of summer when a majority of staff and students were on break:”

With master schedules set and students enrolled, many schools were under the impression they had to make quick decisions about their 2023-24 course offerings, leading to inconsistencies in how districts handled the changes. Some school sites rolled back data science courses entirely, while others sought temporary solutions, creating confusion for teachers, administrators, students, and families alike.

The SBE President characterized the broader governance problem as follows:

I want to be clear that these problems are not of BOARS making – nor of the efforts of the committed faculty members who have been involved in this process. We have inherited a fragmented and antiquated governance structure for education in California. There is no established mechanism to coordinate between and among higher education segments and K12, or to do so with business and labor with both an educational and an economic lens on what our curriculum should be to prepare students to succeed in this rapidly changing world. Nor is there an established mechanism for BOARS to coordinate with K12 colleagues, to hear from the public, or to hold open hearings or receive comment in the way that the legislature, State Board and other public bodies must do in making decisions. [emphasis added]

So, we find ourselves in a situation where important curriculum decisions about the types of courses to be offered to our high school students, and the specific content of those courses, are driven not by local governing boards, nor by the Legislature or the State Board of Education, but rather by a committee of professors that changes annually and which can change policies at any time with these rapid changes in membership. These professors, and those who review courses using their criteria, may be making the absolutely right decisions, but they do not have the benefit of the structured public engagements and drafting processes that include a wide range of experts, educators from K-12 and post-secondary institutions, and K-12 parents and students who help sensitize us to the realities of the work on the ground that needs to be considered when changes are made.

UC Regents and Academic Senate recognize need for consultation process with K-12. After this joint hearing, the Chairs of the Education and Higher Education Committees sent a letter to the UC Regents expressing concern over the effects of the Area C mathematics decision and the need for consultation between the UC and K-12 systems.

In February of this year, the UC Regents Chair and Vice Chair responded with a letter affirming their commitment to “greater collaboration between the University and its K-12 partners, as well as increased consultation between BOARS and the State Board of Education regarding admissions policy changes.” The letter also stated that the Regents have “requested that BOARS and University undergraduate admissions personnel review their consultation processes and present to the Regents a proposed new process for robust K-12 consultation as well as provide an opportunity for public comment on any changes to admissions policy or its implementation.”

On April 23, 2025, the Academic Senate voted to amend the Academic Senate Bylaws to include, in the duties of the UC BOARS, “The committee shall consult with representatives from the State Board of Education and K-12 subject matter specialists on proposed changes to course requirements for undergraduate admissions.” The Committee may wish to consider that the response of the UC Regents and the Academic Senate is consistent with this bill, and that this bill would establish a durable statement of Legislative intent that the systems consult on these issues of importance to both systems.

Which content is used in the approval of UC A-G courses? This bill requests that the UC align its admission requirement criteria used in the review and certification of high school courses pursuant with the content standards, frameworks, and model curricula adopted by the SBE, among other requirements.

Since 1965, the UC has required high schools to submit high school courses for review and approval as A-G courses for purposes of meeting the admission requirements for the CSU and UC. The UC Enrollment Services Unit reviews and approves high school course as “A-G” and maintains a list of approved A-G courses. A 2016 State Auditor report, College Readiness of California’s High School Students, described the process for approving high school course as A-G as follows:

1. All college preparatory courses must be certified by UC as A-G approved. Courses that are approved by UC meet both UC and CSU admission requirements. UC is the only state entity that certifies if a course is A-G approved. CSU adopted the same basic college preparatory curriculum (A-G course sequence) and relies on UC to approve the courses.
2. To certify a course, California high schools submit college preparatory courses in the seven A-G areas to the UC.
3. UC evaluates the course submissions based on criteria developed by the UC BOARS.
4. UC maintains an A-G list for each school and instructs schools to update the lists regularly. The A-G course lists for each school should include all courses available to students for the upcoming academic year that have been approved by the UC.

According to the UC, the courses that high school students take to fulfill A-G admissions requirements must be on their school’s A-G course list, and they are listed on UC’s A-G Course List Website. California high schools maintain their A-G course lists in the A-G Course Management Portal. Course lists are also used to populate the UC and CSU applications for undergraduate admission, so that students may select from pre-loaded courses instead of entering courses manually. Each school or district has a designated list manager who is the primary administrative A-G contact for their institution and who ensures that the course list is updated for the next academic year during the annual A-G course submission period, which runs from February through June of each year. Schools are encouraged to update their lists during the primary phase to ensure that approved courses are available in the UC application when it launches on August 1.

High schools and other local education agencies that serve students in grades 9–12 submit individual course outlines to UCOP for review. The High School Articulation team (HSA) reviews submissions on behalf of UC faculty. Each A-G course submission consists of basic course information and a course description. The course description provides information about what students learn and do in the course and helps the HSA team understand how the course fulfills A-G course policy and criteria. Each course description includes:

• Course overview: A brief summary of overarching content and goals of the course;
• Unit summaries and assignments: For every unit, a summary and at least one sample assignment; and
• Unit labs (only for area D science courses): For every unit, a description of a laboratory activity that involves inquiry, observation, analysis and write-up.  

According to the UC, courses are assessed using subject-specific rubrics against the content and skills guidelines for the subject. The HSA team also engages in periodic norming processes, which helps to facilitate timely review of submissions as well as consistent outcomes. Courses that are not approved after an initial submission are returned to the school via the A-G CMP with guidance on how to revise the course. Many course submissions are automatically approved for the purposes of a school’s A-G list.

In the 2024–25 submission period, 90% of courses submitted for A-G review were ultimately approved (not including auto approvals). The UC reports the following data for 2024–25 course submissions:

• Submitted for review: 6,307 
• Approved: 5,680 
• Not approved: 627 
• Auto-approved: 12,088 
• Total submissions (includes resubmissions of not approved courses): 18,395 

This process has become more efficient over time. The State Auditor’s report found that in the four years from 2012–13 through 2015–16, UC improved its process of approving college preparatory courses and increased the percentage of new courses it approved from 57% in 2012–13 to 90% in 2015–16. During that same period, UC also substantially lowered the average time it took to issue certification decisions from 50 days to 14 days. In addition, in 2015 UC changed the format for course submissions and the new format reduced the length of most course proposals it receives from 10 to 25 pages to about five pages.

As noted above, current law requires the CSU and requests the UC to establish a model uniform set of standards for high school courses for the purpose of determining eligibility for admission to undergraduate programs offered by the UC and CSU. The UC also reports, as noted above, that courses are assessed using subject-specific rubrics against the content and skills guidelines for the subject. However, the Committee may wish to consider that it is unclear which content is used in these rubrics. It could be the content standards approved by the SBE, or it could be different standards established by the UC. It is also unclear whether these rubrics are made available to school districts.

A companion bill to this measure, AB 500 (Quirk-Silva) of this Session states the intent of the Legislature that any proposed change by the UC to the conditions for undergraduate admissions, including a criteria used to review A-G courses become operational only after it has been discussed in a public meeting of the SBE, among other requirements.

What happens when the K-12 standards and UC’s standards conflict? As noted above, K-12 schools have little choice but to align their curricula with the admissions criteria of the UC. Failure to do so could render their students ineligible to apply to a four-year public university in California.

At the joint hearing, the SBE President testified about the consequences of a conflict between the standards of the two systems, raising as an example recent proposal to create a new Ethnic Studies course requirement:

The many public laws and regulations we have designed to ensure a coherent, transparent process with accountability can be rendered moot by this nonpublic process. For example, if, as BOARS has proposed recently, an entirely new subject area requirement is added as Area H (which would require for admissions and determine the content of Ethnic Studies courses), local high schools would have to make significant course, curriculum and professional development changes rapidly. If not, they would place their students in jeopardy of being ineligible for UC and CSU. And many districts require all of their students to meet these requirements in order to graduate. The A-G (or potentially A-H) course content requirements do not have to be consistent with policies adopted by the State Board of Education or the Legislature. This can wreak havoc on the complex and multifaceted course offerings and schedules in high schools.

Arguments in support. The Campaign for College Opportunity writes, “Recently, admissions decisions by the University of California (UC) Academic Senate’s Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) have been made without sufficient consideration of relevant data or equity implications. The recent shifts in UC’s Area C mathematics admissions requirements demonstrated the consequences of a fragmented decision-making process, where changes were made without sufficient consultation with K-12 leaders, the California State University (CSU), or the State Board of Education. By prioritizing precalculus and calculus, these changes create confusion among K-12 educators about their impact on UC and CSU admissions and make it more difficult for schools to guide students effectively.

AB 1217 affirms the need for greater coordination between the California State University (CSU), the University of California (UC), and the State Board of Education to ensure that the admissions process is better aligned with the state’s K-12 content standards and frameworks. By encouraging this alignment, the bill will help ensure that college admissions requirements reflect the diverse pathways students take to college and career readiness.

California has set ambitious college attainment goals to meet state workforce demands and ensure economic mobility for its students. A critical step in meeting these goals is ensuring that all students have equitable access to postsecondary education.”

Arguments in opposition. The Council of UC Faculty Associations writes, “The State of California, through Article IX, Section 9 of the California Constitution, has entrusted the Regents of the University of California with the responsibility of governing the university, including developing its admissions criteria. This system was designed to prevent the politicization of university admissions, ensuring academic integrity and institutional autonomy.

These bills undermine the independence granted to the University of California by imposing legislative mandates on its admissions process. As recent actions at the federal level demonstrate, politicizing the university risks harming the institution's credibility and excellence and sets a concerning precedent for future political interference in its governance.

Please reconsider these legislative efforts and instead respect the autonomy and governance structure established for the University of California. Preserving the integrity of our higher education system is crucial for maintaining its credibility and excellence.”

Related legislation. AB 684 (Patel) of the 2025-26 Session would subject meeting of the UC BOARS to the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act.

AB 500 (Quirk - Silva) of the 2025-26 Session would establish the procedures the California State Legislature intends for the UC Regents to undertake prior to a vote to determine a change in the undergraduate admissions criteria or standards for admission to the UC.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Campaign for College Opportunity
Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office
Los Angeles Unified School District

Oppose

Council of UC Faculty Associations

1 individual

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

Date of Hearing: April 8, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Mike Fong, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1217 (

Author:Fong) – As Introduced Ver:February 21, 2025

[Note: This bill is double referred to the Assembly Committee on Education, where the Committee will hear it as it relates to issues under its jurisdiction.]

SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: admissions standards and criteria

SUMMARY: Establishes the intention of the Legislature for how high school courses will be evaluated by the segments for content in order to determine if the course meets the admission requirements of the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU). Specifically, this bill:

1. Requests the UC to align all assistance provided to high schools on A-G course approval, with the content standards and frameworks adopted by the California State Board of Education (state board).
2. Adds to the procedures the Legislature intends for the UC and CSU to undertake when determining the standards and criteria for undergraduate programs, Declares it is the intent of the Legislature for the UC and CSU to do the following, in addition to existing procedures:
   1. Develop the standard and criteria based on the content standards and frameworks as adopted by the state board for the subject area;
   2. Develop processes that strive to be fair and easily understandable; and,
   3. Consult with the state board before adopting or changing the standards and criteria for admission and broadly consult with California’s diverse ethnic and cultural communities.
3. Preserves the original language for admissions to graduate programs.
4. Requires the CSU and requests the UC to do the following:
   1. Establish a set of academic standards for high school courses (undergraduate admission standards) for purposes of recognition for admission to the CSU and UC;
   2. Encourages the development of the undergraduate admission standards to be done in consultation with the state board and the Instructional Quality Commission (IQC); and,
   3. In creating the set of academic standards for high school courses, the segments are encouraged to strive to align the undergraduate admission standards with the K-12 content standards and frameworks, as defined.
   4. Develop, by January 1, 2028, a process for high school courses to be approved as meeting the undergraduate admission standards. The process will require the approving entity by February 1, to inform schools whether the courses have been approved as meeting the undergraduate admission standards for the coming academic year. If an application is denied the approving entity shall provide a reason for the denial and suggest ways the high school can obtain future approval.
5. Removes language declaring it is the Legislature’s intent for the undergraduate admission standards to be aligned with the academic standards for high school courses, as specified.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the UC as a public trust to be administered by the Regents and grants the Regents full powers of organization and governance subject only to legislative control as necessary to ensure the security of funds, compliance with terms of its endowments, and the statutory requirements around competitive bidding and contracts, sales of property, and the purchase of materials, goods, and services (Article IX, Section (9) (a) of the California Constitution).
2. Establishes the CSU system, comprised of 23 campuses, and bestows upon the CSU Trustees, through the BOT, the power, duties, and functions with respect to the management, administration, and control of the CSU system (Education Code (EDC) Sections 66606 and 89000 et. Seq.).
3. Stipulates no provision of the Donahue Higher Education Act shall apply to the UC unless the UC Regents adopts the provision (EDC Section 67400).
4. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to assist all school districts in offering a core curriculum that meets the admission requirements of the UC and CSU. The SPI will advise districts that include high schools about the importance of having a list of high school courses which are approved by the UC for admission (A-G course lists). States it is the intent of the Legislature for every public high school to have a full program with courses that meet collegiate requirements and for the students to receive counseling on college-admission course offerings. States it is the intent of the Legislature for the primary and secondary education agencies, public higher education institutions, and independent higher education institutions to work together to ensure students have access to course that will enable them to attend college. Prohibits any policy or practice in any public elementary or secondary school from excluding or directing students away from programs that fully prepare a student for college (EDC Section 66204, subdivision (a)).
5. Requests the UC to assist each school district with a high school in order to ensure all the following occur:
   1. School districts understand how to submit courses to the UC to be reviewed and certified as meeting the undergraduate criteria for admissions;
   2. School districts have an internal process for developing and submitting courses for review and certification by the UC as meeting the undergraduate criteria for admissions; and,
   3. School districts maintain accurate lists of courses that are currently offered by high school and are certified by the UC as meeting the undergraduate criteria for admissions and ensure those lists are readily available to students, as described (EDC Section 66204 subdivision (b) and (c)).
6. States it is the intent of the Legislature for the UC and CSU to enroll a student body that meets high academic standards and reflects the cultural, racial, geographic, economic, and social diversity of California. States the intention of the Legislature for the UC and CSU when determining the undergraduate and graduate admission standards and criteria for the systems to do the following:
   1. Develop processes which strive to be fair and are easily understandable;
   2. Consider the use of criteria and procedures that would allow students to enroll and when necessary, make up for course deficiencies beyond their control if the student is otherwise fully eligible and admissible to their chosen program of study;
   3. Consult broadly with California’s diverse ethnic and cultural communities (EDC Section 66205).
7. States it is the intention of the Legislature for the academic standards for a high school course to meet the model uniform set of standards for admission to the CSU and UC (A- G course criteria) should align with the standards developed by the Academic Content Standards Commission in 2010 and adopted by the state board. Requires the CSU and requests the UC to do the following:
   1. Establish a model uniform set of standards for high school courses (A-G course criteria) for the purpose of determining eligibility for admission to undergraduate programs offered by the UC and CSU.
   2. When developing the A-G course criteria, the faculty of the CSU and UC may work in consultation with administrators and faculty from K-12 schools. Requires K-12 schools who are consulted to establish advisory boards with specified membership, including parents, classroom teachers in career technical education, business and industry representatives, to provide additional input.
   3. Develop and implement a process for approving high school courses meeting the A-G course criteria by January 1, 2006. The courses will be approved by August 1 of each school year and a notification will be provided to the high school of the approval or denial of the course as meeting the A-G course criteria.
   4. Develop a procedure to evaluate a high school career education course as meeting the A-G course criteria, as defined.
   5. Take into consideration any previous work conducted to approve a high school course as meeting the A-G course criteria.
   6. Develop guidelines for high school computer courses to be approved as meeting the A-G course criteria (EDC Section 60605.8).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS: Author’s intent. As described by the author, “during a Joint Assembly Education and Higher Education Committees oversight hearing in October 2024, we were surprised to learn that the UC does not base content review of high school courses on the content standards of K-12, but rather on their own internal metrics of whether a high school course prepares students for the UC quantitative reasoning requirement. This goes beyond simply having the appropriate course on a student’s transcript. What occurs when the UC and the K-12 State Board of Education disagree on the content criteria for a course? There already exists a procedure by which the UC collaborates with K-12 and the State Board of Education in the development of K-12 content standards. While the authority over admission criteria for undergraduate admissions lies within the jurisdiction of the UC’s authority, the authority to determine the content standards for K-12 courses resides with the State Board of Education. If the UC wishes to continue to review courses for their content then the UC must determine if the courses meet the standards required by the State Board and not by the UC’s internal standards. AB 1217 would realign the review of A-G courses with the K-12 content standards.”

K-12 course standards and framework. Every year thousands of students apply to the CSU and UC with the hope of attending the university campus of their choice. However, the journey to higher education does not begin with the college application, but rather in the courses, a student elects to take in high school.

The Education Code Sections 51225.3 and 51224.5 set the minimum course requirements for a high school diploma:

1. Three courses in English (or three years);
2. Two courses in Mathematics, including at least one year in Algebra I (as required by EDC Section 51224.5);
3. Three courses of Social Science including U.S. history, world history, and at least one semester of economics;
4. One course in visual or performing arts, world language, or career technical education;
5. Two courses in physical education;
6. One semester of ethnic studies, beginning in the 2029-30 school year; and,
7. One semester of a stand-alone course in personal finance (beginning in the 2030-31 school year).

In addition to the courses delineated in the Education Code, a school board (comprised of locally elected members who oversee the schools contained within a K-12 district) may adopt additional course requirements for graduation. Regardless of the number of courses a student must take to receive a high school diploma, the California State Board of Education (SBE) and the Instructional Quality Commission determine the content standards for each course. In addition to content standards, the SBE and IQC also provide frameworks and model curriculum for K-12 school districts. Content standards are the “subjects or concepts” a student must understand after completing the course, the framework is the guidance issued to help educators design curriculum, and the curriculum is how the teacher will provide the student the content standard.

According to the California Department of Education (CDE), “curriculum frameworks provide guidance for the implementation of content standards adopted by the State Board of Education. The curriculum frameworks are developed by the Instructional Quality Commission, which also will review and recommend textbooks and other instructional material to be adopted by the State Board of Education.”^[1] The curriculum framework and “approved textbooks are a tool used by K-12 districts to develop curriculum (what is taught in the classroom) in order to meet the required standards.”¹

The cycle of developing content standards to in-classroom curriculum is a long and arduous process. At various points, content experts, including faculty from all three public higher education institutions, provide input and evaluate the content standards, frameworks, and model curriculum. Every course offered in high school has either course content requirements or a framework; which, provide guidance for the development of curriculum.

A separate set of course requirements exist beyond the high school diploma requirements for admission to the UC and CSU. While some of the courses required for admission are also required for a high school diploma, some courses are supplemental and are required to prepare a student for the academic rigor of college. Colloquially known as the A-G course requirements, the required courses are a bi-segmental agreement between the CSU and UC of the required high school courses for admission to the systems.

UC and CSU course requirements for admission. The CSU Board of Trustees oversees the CSU system and the UC Board of Regents (UC Regents) oversees the UC system. Each Board manages the admission process and content requirements for undergraduate admissions. Title 5 Regulations Section 40601 and 40753 lists the course requirements for admission to the CSU and Regent policy 2102 lists course requirements for admission to the UC. The required courses for admission to the two system are similar by design with a few notable exceptions. The following chart provides the A-G requirements or the required admission courses for both systems in accordance with their policy or regulation:

Source: University of California^[2] and California State University^[3]

EDC Section 66205 authorizes the CSU and the UC to establish the criteria for undergraduate and graduate admissions and EDC Section 66205.5 authorizes the CSU and the UC to develop a model set of academic standards for high school courses. The Legislature stipulated it was their intent for the required academic standards for admission to the CSU and UC to align with the content standards from the SBE and the IQC for the high school courses. Having above A-G courses on a student’s transcript is only one-part of the qualifying process for the CSU and UC. The course listed must be certified as an “A-G” course by the UC..

The A-G certified course list. Beginning in 1965, the UC has required high schools to submit high school courses for review and approval as A-G courses for purposes of meeting the admission requirements for the CSU and UC. The UC Enrollment Services Unit reviews and approves high school course as “A-G” and maintains a list of approved A-G courses.^[4] In a 2016 audit on how the State could better prepare high school students for college the California State Auditor explained the process for approving high school course as A-G:

1. All college preparatory courses must be certified by UC as A-G approved. Courses that are approved by UC meet both UC and CSU admission requirements. UC is the only state entity that certifies if a course is A-G approved. CSU adopted the same basic college preparatory curriculum (A-G course sequence) and relies on UC to approve the courses.
2. To certify a course, California high schools submit college preparatory courses in the seven A-G areas to the UC.
3. UC evaluates the course submissions based on criteria developed by the UC Board of Admission and School Relations (UC BOARS).
4. UC maintains an A-G list for each school and instructs schools to update the lists regularly. The A-G course lists for each school should include all courses available to students for the upcoming academic year that have been approved by the UC.^[5]

UC Board of Admission and School Relations (UC BOARS). As mentioned above, the UC Enrollment Services Unit assesses high school courses for content that meets the criteria set by UC BOARS.

UC BOARS is a sub-committee of the UC Systemwide Academic Senate. UC BOARS oversees all matters relating to the admission of undergraduate students. UC BOARS oversees all matters relating to the admission of undergraduate students. UC BOARS regulates the policies used in the admission process and directs efforts to improve the admission process.^[6] The membership of UC BOARS includes one faculty representative from each of the 10 UC campuses, two additional faculty acting as Chair and Vice Chair, and two student representatives. In addition to the members of the Committee, staff from the UC Office of the President attend the meetings and provide technical support.^[7] The primary objective of UC BOARS is to determine if the undergraduate admission criteria is representative of the academic requirements to succeed at the UC. If a majority of the membership of UC BOARS determines a change is required, UC BOARS will make a recommendation to the full assembly of the Academic Senate. If approved by the Academic Senate, the UC Regents will then approve the change in admission criteria at a public meeting of the board.

Additional authority granted to UC BOARS by the UC Academic Senate bylaws, includes the following:

“Require secondary schools in California whose graduates are to be admitted on a transcript to submit for approval a list of those courses certified by the school as fulfilling the subject requirements for admission. The committee shall review these courses annually.”^[8]

Committee staff note it is unclear when the transition occurred from having UC BOARS review courses annually for approval to the A-G list maintained by the UC Office of the President, but currently the responsibility of reviewing and approving courses lies with the Enrollment Services Unit in the UC Office of the President.

Joint Oversight Legislative Hearing on Area C changes. On July 07, 2023, UC BOARS unanimously voted to remove data science and statistics as a qualifying course to replace Algebra II on a high school student’s transcript. Algebra II is a required A-G course listed in the UC Regent policy. The decision to exclude data science and statistics as replacements for algebra II is directly contrary to the newly adopted Mathematics Framework published by the State Board of Education. The decision to remove data science and statistics as a suitable alternative to algebra II undermined years of work by the State Board of Education and the Instructional Quality Commission to improve data literacy and mathematical attainment in the K-12 system.

On October 10, 2024, the Chairs of the Assembly Committee on Education and the Assembly Committee on Higher Education hosted a joint oversight hearing to determine the scope of the unintended consequences of the UC BOARS decision to change the conditions for undergraduate admission. Dr. Deborah Swenson, the Chair of the UC BOARS, and the Executive Director of Undergraduate Admissions, Dr. Han Mi Yoon-Wu represented the UC during the hearing.

A key component of the hearing was learning the reasoning and justification for the reclassification of data science and statistics as inadequate substitutes for algebra II. Specifically, what criteria was examined by UC BOARS to determine the courses lacked adequate course content to be considered substitutes for algebra II. To provide an answer to the overarching questions, Dr. Deborah Swenson stated, “BOARS primarily consulted disciplinary experts who are data scientists” not K-12 content standards experts.⁹ When asked if K-12 experts were consulted, both UC representatives stated “not to their knowledge.”⁹ The justification for the change according to Dr. Swenson was because data science is an emerging field of study and the state does not have content standards nor a framework by which to justify the content for the curriculum.⁹ Therefore, it is impossible for the UC to say whether data science and statistics courses are suitable alternative for algebra II because K-12 does not have content standards for data science and the existing K-12 statistics standards do not have algebra II content.

Committee staff note that calculus is an UC approved alternative to algebra II and that the K-12 calculus standards do not have algebra II content.

The primary issue is UC BOARS compared high school data science courses to college data science courses and found the high school curriculum was lacking in content because the college-level data science requires a mastery of calculus principals. As stated by Dr. Swenson, “as faculty looked at data science at the high school level, they may have thought data science would look the way it does at the University, it was not the math instruction students need if they want to be a STEM major on campus.”⁹

By adopting a narrow version of what qualifies as an algebra II course, UC BOARS is essentially narrowing the field of qualified students for the UC instead of in their own words maintaining, “the goal of inclusivity.”^[9]

Arguments in support. As expressed by the Campaign for College Opportunity, “without a statewide mechanism for coordination on undergraduate admissions among K-12 and higher education leaders, decisions like these risk creating unnecessary barriers for student college access rather than expanding access to higher education. AB 1217 affirms the need for greater coordination between the California State University (CSU), the University of California (UC), and the State Board of Education to ensure that the admissions process is better aligned with the state’s K-12 content standards and frameworks. By encouraging this alignment, the bill will help ensure that college admissions requirements reflect the diverse pathways students take to college and career readiness.”

Committee comments. As stated above, UC BOARS felt the need to change UC admission policy because the SBE and IQC have not approved data science content standards. Specifically, Dr. Swenson stated, “you will not see BOARS weigh in on higher standards for English.”⁹ The implication being if there is an adopted K-12 standard or framework, UC BOARS will adopt similar criteria. However, UC BOARS has put forth a proposal to adopt new A-G subject matter: Area H – ethnic studies requirement and the proposed admission criteria for the subject matter does not align with the model curriculum adopted by the SBE. Furthermore, the UC’s proposed criteria does not align with the requirements stipulated in the Education Code for the ethnic studies graduation requirement. The UC has deliberated the inclusion of an ethnic studies admission requirement for four years and over those years, it is clear, the intention of the UC faculty is to offer an alternative more expansive ethnic studies course that would make the model curriculum from the SBE obsolete.

In December 2024, the UC Academic Senate was set to vote on the proposal for an Area H – ethnic studies requirement for admission. The background material provided with the action item stated the following: “because the state does not currently have college-prep ethnic studies curriculum standards in place (no such standards exist), UC’s proposed criteria would fill that important gap.” While there is no standards, there is a model curriculum and the requirements for the course listed in the Education Code. If the UC were to adopt additional criteria, it would mean high schools would have to re-adjust their ethnic studies courses to meet the UC admission standards for ethnic studies.

Committee staff note the UC Academic Senate chose to postpone the vote to the April 2025 meeting. The admission conditions change of adding an Area H does require a vote of the UC Regents and the UC Academic Senate prior to implementation.

AB 1217 (M. Fong) would codify the desire of the Legislature for the UC to evaluate high school courses for A-G, through the lens of K-12 academic content, framework, and model curriculum. AB 1217 (M. Fong) would request the UC to align their uniform model course requirements for admission with the K-12. AB 1217 (M. Fong) would also align the A-G course approval process to the K-12 academic calendar. By having, the courses submitted sooner in the year, K-12 districts would have time to adjust students’ schedules if a course is not A-G approved.

To align the measure with the intent of the Author, the Committee has suggested and the author has accepted the following amendments:

1. Amends Section 66204, subdivision (c) to read as follows:

The University of California is requested to align assistance provided pursuant to paragraphs (1) to (3) of subdivision (b) with the content standards and frameworks the admission requirement criteria used in the review and certification of high school courses pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b) with the content standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the state board for the applicable subject area.

1. Amends Section 66205, subdivision (a), paragraph (1), subparagraph (A) to read as follows:

(A) Develop the standards and criteria based on the content standards and frameworks standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the state board for the applicable subject area.

1. Amends Section 66205.5, subdivision (a), paragraph (1) to read as follows:

Establish a model uniform set of academic standards for high school courses, including career technical education courses pursuant to subdivision (i) of Section 51220, for the purposes of recognition for admission to the California State University and to the University of California, respectively. In developing the model academic standards, the faculty of the postsecondary segments are strongly encouraged to work in consultation with the state board and the Instructional Quality Commission and strive to align the model academic standards with the content standards and frameworks established under Article 2 (commencing with Section 60604) of Chapter 5 of Part 33 of Division 4 of Title 2. standards, frameworks, and model curriculum adopted by the state board for the applicable subject areas.

1. Amends Section 66205.5, subdivision (a), paragraph (2) to read as follows:

On or before January 1, 2028, develop and implement a speedy process whereby high schools may obtain approval of their courses to satisfy specified admissions requirements of the California State University and the University of California, respectively, on or before January 1, 2028. The approval process local educational agencies may annually submit their courses to the approving entity as satisfying the model academic standards established pursuant to subdivision (a). The approving entity shall, by February 1 of each year for the upcoming school year, notify applying schools local educational agencies whether the application for approval certification for their submitted courses has been approved or denied. If an application certification has been denied, the approving entity shall provide a reason for the denial and suggest ways the high school local educational agency can obtain future approval.

1. Adds subdivision (b) to Section 66205.5 to read as follows:

For purposes of this section, “local educational agency” means a school district, county office of education, or charter school serving pupils in grades 9 to 12, inclusive

Similar legislation.

AB 684 (Patel) of 2025, is scheduled to be heard in Assembly Higher Education Committee on April 08, 2025. The measure would subject UC BOARS to the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act.

AB 500 (Quirk - Silva) of 2025, is scheduled to be heard in Assembly Higher Education Committee on April 08, 2025. The measure establishes the procedures the California State Legislature intends for the UC Regents to undertake prior to a vote to determine a change in the undergraduate admissions criteria or standards for admission to the UC.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Campaign for College Opportunity

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Ellen Cesaretti-Monroy / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960

1. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/ ↑

2. https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/admission-requirements/freshman-requirements/subject-requirement-a-g.html ↑

3. https://www.calstate.edu/apply/freshman/getting_into_the_csu/pages/admission-requirements.aspx#hsReqScroll ↑

4. https://hs-articulation.ucop.edu/agcourselist ↑

5. https://information.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2016-114/introduction.html ↑

6. https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/committees/boars/index.html ↑

7. https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/rosters/committees.html?admin_task=committee_details&comm_name=boars ↑

8. https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/bylaws-regulations/bylaws/blpart2.html#bl145 ↑

9. https://ahed.assembly.ca.gov/media/3294 ↑