Purpose. This paper examines the political and policy context surrounding the evolution of California's statewide curriculum as it relates specifically to language arts, math, and science frameworks in the last decade. This period of reform is recounted from the perspective of a wide range of state officials, experts and researchers whose opinions formed the basis for this study.

Overview. California's curriculum policy in the 1980's was largely shaped by State Superintendent Bill Honig. Honig was one of the first state leaders in the country to develop a curriculum-driven, systemic reform strategy which was comprised of three distinct components: a progressive curricular framework, a professional development strategy to assist teachers in achieving the goals of the curricular framework, and an aligned performance-based assessment system to determine the success of achieving those goals. Despite some progress made toward realizing this coherent vision, California students' poor performance in the early 90's on the NAEP exams caused an uproar that left a drastically changed playing field, players, and rules for shaping California curriculum policy. In the aftermath, the development of state curriculum policy fell into the hands of newly elected officials. Partly due to concerns about the California Department of Education's prior role in developing questionable curriculum policy, the legislature created a separate commission to develop new statewide standards and assessments.

Language Arts Frameworks. First adopted in 1987, the "whole language" approach of California's language arts framework was considered state-of-the-art. This new approach, embracing literature-based language art instruction, de-emphasized traditional drill and practice and phonetically-based instruction. When the 1992 NAEP reading proficiency scores ranked California near the bottom of all states, the whole language framework was closely scrutinized. Similarly, poor language arts performance on California's own performance-based California Learning Assessment System (CLAS) exams further prompted the creation of a state-department language art task force and eventually state legislation elevating the importance of phonetically-based instruction.

Mathematics Frameworks. California mathematics frameworks, previously considered exemplars for the rest of the country, also came under attack due to poor student performance on national and state tests. Placing the emphasis on cooperative learning and problem solving, the frameworks failed to stress the importance of basic computational skills. Recent student scores on both CLAS exams and the NAEP rank California again near the bottom of all states. Similar to that of the language arts, a Superintendent's Task Force has attempted to reevaluate and refine the mathematics frameworks. Although not embraced by everyone, the Task Force's 1996 Advisory recommendations promoted a balanced approach to teaching mathematics that includes basic skills, concept applications, and problem solving.

Science Frameworks. At the time this study was written, science frameworks have avoided much of the controversies surrounding both the language arts and mathematics frameworks. Adopted in 1990, the science frameworks advocated the notion of scientific literacy for all students and the use of practical, real-life applications. Encouraging depth of coverage over breadth of coverage, the framework is organized around six categories: energy, evolution, patterns of change, scale and structure, stability and systems, and interactions. Although recently reapproved by the board, proponents of the science frameworks remain wary of the potential "guilt-by-association" effect as the language arts and mathematics frameworks continue being under public and legislative scrutiny.

Legislative Actions. This study also details how the state responded legislatively to poor student performances under the early frameworks. A series of education bills were enacted to control and affect curricular change. This precedent-setting move stressed a "back-to-basics" curriculum. Specifically, the ABC Bills, passed in October of 1995, states that the state board of education require instructional materials in reading and mathematics to be based on fundamental skills (including explicit phonics and basic computational skills). Additionally, the ABC Bills require the state board to adopt instructional materials for all applicable grade levels that are consistent with the state framework and incorporate principals of instruction that reflect current and confirmed research.

Further curriculum reform came in the way of AB 265, which sought to align statewide standards and create an assessment system reflective of those standards. Toward that end, AB 265 reconfigures the decisionmaking hierarchy in curriculum policymaking into distinct groups. Together, these groups (the state board, Curriculum Commission and other CDE agencies and units, Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards, and the Pupil Assessment Panel) are supposed to shape a new direction for curriculum based on performance and content standards and create a new state assessment system that accurately measure students knowledge of those standards.

Assessment Systems. Implementing a cost-effective, reliable, and valid statewide assessment system tied to standards has been an elusive goal for California. In the early 1970's the California Assessment Program (CAP) utilized a multiple choice format and matrix sampling design to measure the effectiveness of schools and districts. The test's usefulness, however, came into question as the test could not provide individual student scores and failed to be an effective instructional guidance tool for teachers since it was not well aligned with the state's frameworks. Funding for CAP ceased in 1990.

CLAS represented another ambitious assessment endeavor for the CDE. Begun in 1991, this test included traditional and non-traditional testing formats and methods. Inevitably, the combined pressures of this complex, if not contradictory, set of purposes for the test, the short development time frame mandated by policymakers, and limited financial resources contributed, say some state officials, to its demise and Governor Wilson's 1994 veto of reauthorization funds.

Currently underway, the Pupil Testing Incentive Program, which was established as part of AB 265, is considered to be a more conservative approach to assessment than CLAS. Phase one of the program creates an interim testing program with a five dollar per student incentive for districts. The selection criteria for approved tests are reliability and comparability. Phase two will occur after the Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards develops standards. At that time, the law authorizes that testing will occur over the course of several years in core subject matter areas in grades 4, 5, 8, and 10.

Professional Development. One final aspect of California curriculum policy this report evaluates is professional development. Teacher networks have been one of the state's traditional primary professional development strategies. Subject Matter Projects (SMPs) were instituted in the 80's to train teachers in new curriculum and provide peer-support networks whereby trained teachers become leaders who in turn take on a mentoring role in their respective schools. The popularity and potential effectiveness of SMPs became greater after the passage of bill SB 1883 which sought to remove district influence and encourage site-based collegiality and self-inquiry. Complementary to SB 1883, were SB 813 and SB 1274 (passed in 1983 and 1988 respectively). These bills were aimed at empowering teachers with the authority, skill, and knowledge to become instructional leaders and decision makers in school restructuring and reform.

Further professional development for mathematics and science teachers came in 1991 with a $10 million SSI grant, creating the California Advocacy for Mathematics and Science (CAMS). This initiative had four major components: 1) a public engagement initiative; 2) a Mathematics Renaissance initiative, a network aimed at replacing traditional computation and drill curriculum with new framework-based lesson units for middle schools; 3) the California Science Implementation Network (CSIN); and 4) a research and evaluation component.

Overall, CAMS has been found to be an effective vehicle for professional development, promoting, among other things, teacher discourse and critical inquiry about how best to teach science concepts contained in the frameworks. However, uncertain federal funding, the recent backlash to the philosophical underpinnings of some frameworks, and the downsizing and reorganization of the CDE whereby no one is left to champion the cause has left CAMS in a state of flux. Its long-term economic future remains unclear.

Political Context. Political changes have splintered state leadership and policy direction. No single entity or state leader is in charge of mandating, developing, and carrying out California curriculum reform. This continued political and leadership volatility has reshuffled the locus of control for curriculum policy among the state board, governor, legislature, the CDE and, now, the newly-created commission. As of the end of 1996, the CDE continued to struggle to retain it's authority, while the state board continued to gain in political power.

Conclusion. While the cause and effect relationship between NAEP scores and the state's curricular reforms is still a matter of debate, this controversy called into question a decade-long worth of reforms. Also in question is the professional legitimacy of the CDE and other state educational leaders who, according to critics, led the state in an ultra-constructivist direction. Staff cutbacks in the CDE have further hindered its leadership, and the elected state superintendent of public instruction is now just one of a growing number of influential actors at the state level influencing the direction of education policy. Today, the pendulum seems to be swinging back to the middle, embracing a more balanced set of curricular concepts. This redirection, in turn, has raised concerns among others that the state may be once again overreacting by implementing a too pro-basics agenda that may lead to other unintended consequences. Whether the state's new curriculum guidelines with renewed attention to balance will actually contribute to better outcome on NAEP and other yet-to-be-determined measures remains uncertain.