The History of the Graduation Requirement Mandate
Posted: Thursday, March 1st, 2012
by Carolyn Holcroft
To truly understand the context behind the current dialog and debate regarding the proposed graduation requirement mandate elimination, we have to go back to 1979. That year California voters passed Proposition 4, thus requiring the State of California to reimburse local governments (including schools) for any increased costs resulting from new programs or higher levels of service required by state law, technically labeled a “mandate.” (This was ultimately codified in Government Code section 17561.) Right now there are 51 mandates on the books for which the state must reimburse schools.
This background helps inform the current situation because a mandate was effectively created when California Education Code section 51225.3 (a)(1)(C) was added by Chapter 498, Statutes of 1983. Prior to 1986, California high school students were required to complete only one high school science course in order to graduate. However, §51225.3 increased the minimum requirement to two science courses – one in physical science and one in biological science. The Commission on State Mandates (CSM) subsequently identified this new requirement as a mandate in November, 1986, and then in March 1988, they adopted the “Parameters and Guidelines,” which formally established the mandate and defined which costs associated with the additional science requirement were eligible for reimbursement.
When the mandate was originally imposed, the costs associated with requiring an additional science course were predicted to be reasonably within the state’s financial resources. This changed, though, when the San Diego Unified School District finally won a law suit against the CSM in 2004. The case was Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS0140 and had begun years earlier in the 1980s. The SDUSD (and several other schools) had filed reimbursement claims in which they included salary costs incurred from staffing the additional science course. However, the state asserted such expenditures were excluded because the cost of staffing the second science course could be offset by cancelling other “elective” courses – that is, the additional science course could be offered in lieu of, rather than in addition to, other non-core curricular offerings. After years of legal battle the court finally concluded in 2004 that the language in 51225.3 only required a second science course and did not mandate the elimination of any other curriculum in lieu of the second science course requirement.
The second major occurrence leading to the current crisis was a 2008 court decision in the case, “California School Boards Association (CSBA) vs. State of California.” The troubles precipitating this suit began in 2002 when the California Legislature began the practice of appropriating $1,000 for each K-12 mandate and “deferring” payment of the remaining balances, asserting that this met the legal obligation for reimbursement at least temporarily, and that the balances would be paid at some future (unspecified) time. In 2007, CSBA sued the state for the remaining monies and requested the court prohibit the state from continuing their practice of deferral. On December 4, 2008, a San Diego Superior Court judge ruled that the practice of deferral is unconstitutional and this decision was subsequently upheld on appeal in a legal opinion dated February 9, 2011. However, the court did not order the state to cough up the rest of the money it owed, estimated at the time to be approximately $900 million for all underfunded mandates, stating that this would be a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
In light of the 2004 and 2007 court decisions, the CSM was obliged to amend the parameters and guidelines for the additional science class mandate. Amended parameters and guidelines were initially adopted in November 2008, but then “corrected” parameters and guidelines were issued in December 2008, and it is this document that outlines the current rules for mandate-related reimbursement. These amended versions changed and clarified the way that school districts can claim increased costs associated with the additional science class, such as teaching salary costs and acquisition of space, equipment, and supplies. It’s especially important to note that the most recently adopted parameters and guidelines amendment is effective back to January 1, 2005 – that is, school districts can submit adjusted reimbursement claims retroactive all the way back to January 2005. The State Controller’s Office (SCO) just released the “Claiming Instructions” for the amended claims parameters in July 2011 and not surprisingly, school districts are submitting revised claims for additional costs not allowed under the original parameters and guidelines, and these are predicted to lead to a tremendous increase in cost to the state. At this point the mandate requiring a second science class is estimated to be one of the top two most expensive mandates the state must fund, perhaps exceeding $200 million.
Coming back to the present day…it is rumored that Governor Brown’s office is looking to modify that statute, as recommended in the LAO report, to maintain the requirement of two years of science to graduate from high school without it being a reimbursable mandate. Additionally, the Department of Finance still has litigation pending against the Commission on State Mandates (Sacramento Superior Court Case # 34-2010-80000529-CU-WM-GDS, Department 31) regarding the guidelines the CSM adopted in 2008. This case is currently scheduled for hearing on June 1.
CSTA will continue to pursue this issue and keep the membership informed of new developments.
Posted: Wednesday, July 13th, 2016
by Lisa Hegdahl
On June 30th, the California Science Teachers Association (CSTA) said, “Goodbye, and Thank You” to five of its dedicated Board members. On July 1st, we said, “Hello, and Welcome” to the five newly elected. It is my pleasure to tell you about these outstanding professionals.
Outgoing Board Members
In her role as Region 2 Director, Minda Berbeco raised the bar in terms of outreach. Minda also co-chaired, and will continue to co-chair, the Publications Committee. As president, I have some leeway in my due dates for my monthly President’s Message for the CSTA on-line Journal, California Classroom Science. Minda is very patient with me when my messages do not come in right on time. Recently, Minda, and her employer the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), graciously opened their office on a Saturday to host the CSTA Board of Directors meeting.
Minda was CSTA Region 2 Director and served faithfully on the:
- Publications Committee (Co-Chair – a job she will continue)
- Membership/Marketing/Preservice Committee
Posted: Friday, June 24th, 2016
by Jessica Sawko
The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) could use the help of a few good science teachers that know a thing or two about the California NGSS. There are currently two test development groups that they are specifically seeking science teachers for. If you are interesting in helping to shape how California prepares its future teachers to take on NGSS, this is an excellent opportunity. The CTC is recruiting teachers to pilot and review test items for the CSET and for Content Expert Panel members for the redevelopment of the California Teaching Performance Assessment (CalTPA). Please consider these opportunities and apply today – the recruitment window closes soon, don’t delay! To apply and for more information visit http://www.carecruit.nesinc.com/.
Posted: Tuesday, June 21st, 2016
ACT NOW! Offer expires June 26, 2016. Flinn has partnered with the National Science Education Leadership Association (NSELA) to promote a limited-time offer for those interested in attending the Summer Leadership Institute this month.
Call for Free NSELA Membership and Save $225 on Your Registration! The National Science Education Leadership Association is offering this exclusive opportunity to attend its annual Summer Leadership Institute, June 28 – July 1, at the Marriott Mission Valley Hotel in San Diego, California. Learn More…
Posted: Tuesday, June 21st, 2016
As California embraces new ways of teaching and learning, teachers want more opportunities to connect with and learn from their peers. Teachers are the experts when it comes to the California Standards – no one knows more about what’s working in the classroom and where more support is needed. Yet, too often, teachers are told what they need to learn, rather than asked what would benefit them the most.
On July 29, all California teachers are invited to attend the second annual Better Together: California Teachers Summit, a unique day of learning led by teachers, for teachers. The summit will bring together teachers at nearly 40 locations across the state to share ideas, join a teacher network, and learn effective strategies for implementing the new California Standards in their classrooms. The program will feature keynote addresses by education leaders, TED-style EdTalks presented by local teachers, and Edcamp discussions on timely topics such as the California Standards in English/Language Arts and Math and the Next Generation Science Standards. Teachers will walk away with access to new resources and concrete tools that are already working in classrooms across the state. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU), the California State University (CSU), and New Teacher Center (NTC) are partnering to organize this gathering. Learn More…
Posted: Monday, June 20th, 2016
by Minda Berbeco
A few years ago, I was at a teacher conference in Atlanta representing my organization, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). I was chatting with a teacher and mentioned how I was going to be giving a talk shortly on climate change education, and the teacher to my surprise said to me, “well I teach chemistry, so that’s not related to me.”
That was a bit of a head-scratcher for me, and I’m sure that notion would be a surprise to every atmospheric chemist who works directly on climate change, or even the many oceanographers, terrestrial and aquatic biogeochemists and even soil scientists who work with climate change every day.
On retrospect though, I think I understand what he was getting at. Climate change isn’t in the chemistry science standards for any state. They aren’t in the life sciences standards for most states either. In fact, until recently if it was anywhere at all, it’d be in earth science or environmental science – which is often an elective at many schools. And yet, from a study that NCSE completed this past year in collaboration with researchers at Penn State, we know that over 50% of chemistry teachers are teaching climate change nationally and over 85% of biology teachers are doing it too! Learn More…