BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 740 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 740 (Weber) As Amended April 20, 2015 Majority vote ------------------------------------------------------------------- |Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------| |Education |7-0 |O'Donnell, Chávez, | | | | |Kim, McCarty, | | | | |Santiago, Thurmond, | | | | |Weber | | | | | | | |----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------| |Appropriations |13-4 |Gomez, Bonta, |Bigelow, Gallagher, | | | |Calderon, Chang, |Jones, Wagner | | | |Daly, Eggman, | | | | |Eduardo Garcia, | | | | |Gordon, Holden, | | | | |Quirk, Rendon, | | | | |Weber, Wood | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), by January 1, 2017, to recommend to the State Board of Education (SBE) a schedule for the regular update of academic content AB 740 Page 2 standards. This bill authorizes the SBE to convene academic content standards advisory committees to update the standards, and requires that the SBE adopt or reject the updated standards. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires that by January 1, 2017, the SPI recommend to the SBE a schedule for the regular update of academic content standards in all subjects for which standards have been adopted. States the intent of the Legislature that content standards are updated before the revising of curriculum frameworks, and that curriculum framework revisions occur before the adoption of instructional materials. 2)Requires that the schedule be aligned to the current eight-year cycle of curriculum framework updates and instructional materials adoptions. 3)Requires that, when the academic content standards in a given subject area come up for review according to this schedule, the SBE make a determination as to whether those standards require an update. Requires that determination to be based upon: a) The amount of time since the standards were adopted or last updated b) Whether additional research conducted since the standards were adopted or last updated justifies updates to the standards c) The potential impact on existing curriculum, instructional materials, and assessment systems based upon the standards AB 740 Page 3 1)States that nothing in the section governing the determination shall be construed to prohibit the consideration of national standards adopted by other states in making this determination. 2)Requires that if the SBE determines that an update to the academic content standards in a given subject is warranted, it convene an academic content standards advisory committee to recommend updates to the content standards in that subject. 3)Requires such a committee to consist of 21 members who serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority, appointed as follows: a) Ten members appointed by the Governor b) Four members appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules c) Four members appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly d) Three members appointed by the SPI 1)Requires that not less than one-half of the members appointed by each of the appointing authorities be current public school elementary or secondary classroom teachers who have a credential under state law, and meet the definition of "highly qualified" under federal law. 2)States the intent of the Legislature that the advisory committees include representation from teachers of different grade level spans, that members possess a thorough knowledge of the academic content standards in the content area and grade level span in which they are appointed, and that the committee AB 740 Page 4 membership reflect the diversity of the various ethnic groups, types of school districts, and regions in California. 3)Requires each academic content standards advisory committee to review the content standards in its subject matter and prepare updates to the standards as the committee deems necessary. 4)Requires that, when making its recommendation, an academic content standards advisory committee consider the extent to which its proposed updates reflect current and confirmed research in the subject area under consideration, and the impact that the proposed updates will have upon school districts and existing curricula and assessments. 5)Requires that an academic content standards advisory committee conduct at least two, and no more than six, in-person meetings that are open to the public and include opportunities for public input. Requires that, upon completing this review, the terms of the members cease. 6)Requires that, upon updating the standards, an academic content standards advisory committee forward them to the SBE, which must do either of the following within 120 days of the receipt: a) Adopt the proposed updates, or b) Reject the proposed updates, in which case the SBE must provide a specific written explanation to the SPI, the Governor, and the Legislature of the reasons why the proposed standards were rejected 1)Requires that, prior to final action, the California Department AB 740 Page 5 of Education (CDE) post on its Web site the proposed updates for a minimum of 60 days. The CDE must include a link by which members of the public may submit comments on the proposed updates. 2)Requires that members of an academic content standards advisory committee serve without compensation, except for actual and necessary travel expenses and substitute costs. 3)Requires the SPI to develop, and the SBE to adopt, guidelines to implement this section. 4)States that the convening of an academic content standards advisory committee is contingent upon the Legislature appropriating funds for that purpose in the annual Budget Act. EXISTING LAW: 1)Requires the SBE to adopt or reject content standards in language arts and mathematics and requires that at least 85% of those standards to be those developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative consortium. 2)Requires SPI to convene a group of science experts to recommend science content standards for adoption to the state board, utilizing the Next Generation Science Standards as the basis for their deliberations and recommendations to the state board. Requires the SBE to adopt, reject, or modify the standards. This section is now repealed. 3)Requires the SPI, in consultation with the SBE, to update, revise, and align the English Language Development (ELD) AB 740 Page 6 standards to the Common Core State Standards, and requires the SBE to adopt or reject those revised standards. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: 1)Ongoing General Fund administrative costs of approximately $800,000 to develop a new Content Standards Unit within the CDE. This bill directs the standards to be tied to the eight-year cycle for frameworks and adoptions. It is likely staff would be need to work on more than one project each year, on an ongoing basis. 2)One-time costs of approximately $100,000 (General Fund (GF)/non-98) to convene each Academic Content Standards Advisory Committee. There are currently ten subjects that could be updated. 3)The adoption of new content standards has a multiplier effect that leads to additional costs. Once new curriculum standards are adopted, frameworks aligned to those standards must be adopted (approximately $1.2 million GF/non-98 per framework). An instructional materials adoption follows each framework revision (approximately $1.3 million GF/non-98 per subject). These estimates do not include additional Proposition 98 costs, likely in the millions, for districts to purchase instructional materials and provide professional development. COMMENTS: Need for this bill. The author's office states, AB 740 Page 7 Though academic content standards are an essential part of the California achievement and accountability systems, there is no process currently in place for the regular review and update of the standards. Some of California's current standards, such as the history-social science standards, date back to 1998. As a result, each time standards need to be updated, even if the updates are only minor, new legislation must be enacted. Except for legislation, there is currently no process in place for the regular updating of academic content standards despite the fact that it is often necessary to make modifications to content standards given that there are regular changes in disciplinary knowledge and academic research. The updating of content standards does not constitute a complete revision, but an update where necessary to reflect new knowledge. Creating a rational and predictable process would help school districts plan for changes in curriculum. Current schedule for framework adoption. Curriculum frameworks are revised and adopted on an eight-year cycle, and instructional materials adoptions take place after new frameworks are adopted. Standards adoptions generally precede the development of the frameworks. The next frameworks set for revision are as follows: 2016: History-Social Science (last revised 1998), Science (last revised 2013) 2018: Health (last revised 2008) 2019: World Languages (last revised 2009) 2020: Math (last revised 2010), Visual and Performing Arts (last revised 2001) AB 740 Page 8 2021: Physical Education (last revised 2005) 2022: English Language Arts/English Language Development (last revised 2010/2012) Analysis Prepared by: Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0000715