BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1285
Page A
Date of Hearing: August 4, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1285 (Steinberg) - As Amended: August 2, 2010
Policy Committee: EducationVote:6-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires school districts to ensure the proportion of
classroom teachers at a school ranked in deciles one to three of
the Academic Performance Index (API) receiving layoff notices or
ultimately laid off due to a reduction in force (RIF) is not
greater than the proportion of classroom teachers receiving
layoff notices or laid off districtwide, as specified.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines "classroom teacher" as certificated employees: (a)
whose primary responsibility is to provide classroom
instruction or (b) who provide instructional support to
employees who provide classroom instruction, including
resource teachers, mentor teachers, content specialists,
instructional coaches, and special education teachers, as
specified.
2)Requires the decision proposed by the administrative law judge
(ALJ), as part of the March 15 certificated employee layoff
notice hearing, to include a determination of whether the
number of notices issued at the employee's schoolsite ranked
in deciles one to three of the API exceed the district average
as required under the RIF process.
3)Requires the statement of specific criteria used to determine
seniority as part of the RIF process to include data
supporting the determination of layoff notices issued for
employees assigned to schools ranked in deciles one to three
of the API.
4)Specifies that a school district may deviate from using
seniority to determine layoffs for the purposes of maintaining
SB 1285
Page B
or achieving compliance with constitutional requirements
related to equal protection laws, as it applies to pupils and
certificated employees.
FISCAL EFFECT
Potential GF/98 increased costs, of at least $4.5 million, to
school districts as a result of issuing more RIF notices. These
costs are associated with hiring additional substitute teachers
and conducting longer administrative hearings, as specified.
This estimate may increase or decrease depending on the size of
the school district and the increased number of layoff notices
issued as a result of implementing this bill.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Current law requires school districts to lay off
employees in the inverse of the order in which they were
employed. Districts may deviate from the order of seniority
if:
a) The district demonstrates a need to teach a specific
course or course of study, or to provide services
authorized by certain services credentials and the retained
individual has the specific experience or training required
to meet that need. For example, a school district may
determine that employees with a special education
credential are protected from the layoff process.
b) For purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance with
constitutional requirements related to equal protection of
the laws.
2)Purpose . According to the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 174 school districts and county offices of
education (COEs), 17% of the 1,000 districts and COES in
California, have been identified as in danger of meeting their
financial obligations for the next two years based on the
spring 2010 financial reporting period. This number represents
a 38% increase from the winter financial reporting period.
Many individuals attribute the increase in the number of
school districts and COEs having financial difficulty to the
reduction in GF/98 support and the loss of federal American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds to these agencies. These
SB 1285
Page C
two factors have caused districts and COEs to make significant
budget reductions. The majority of school district
expenditures, between 80% and 90%, are for personnel costs,
which has led to reductions in administrative, classified, and
certificated staff. For example, the SPI reports more than
20,000 classroom teachers received layoff notices in 2009-10.
According to the author, "An unprecedented budget shortfall
has forced school districts to release thousands of teachers
and other employees, with real consequences for children.
These consequences, however, are not felt equally by school.
In response to a lawsuit filed by civil rights attorneys, a
superior court judge recently enjoined the Los Angeles Unified
School District from laying off wildly disproportionate
numbers of teachers at three district middle schools. Because
the district allowed new teachers to aggregate in some of its
lowest-performing schools, and because state law generally
requires districts to lay off their least senior teachers
first, these three schools with mostly junior teachers faced
losses of as much as 60 percent of their faculty, compared to
15 percent or less at other district middle schools across
town. Other districts, including Sacramento City Unified, have
seen certain schools disproportionately impacted by layoffs."
3)Implementation issues . This bill requires school districts to
ensure the proportion of classroom teachers receiving layoff
notices or ultimately laid off at a school ranked in deciles
one to three of API is not greater than the proportion of
classroom teachers receiving layoff notices or laid off
districtwide. This bill would affect classroom teachers
employed at non-charter schools ranked in deciles one to three
of the API.<1>
The following table displays the schools ranked in deciles one
to three of the 2009 API.
--------------------------------------------------
| | Schools ranked |Total number of |
---------------------------
<1>Charter schools are not required to comply with statutes
regulating tenure, unless the charter school specifies that it
will comply with these statutes.
SB 1285
Page D
| |in deciles 1 to | schools in the |
| | 3 of the API. | statea |
|----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Non-Charter | 2,345 | 9,898 |
|Schools | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Charter Schools | 231b | 746 |
| | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Total | 2,576 |10,644 |
--------------------------------------------------
aNot all schools in the state receive an API score.
bThree charter schools are authorized by the State Board
of Education.
a) May cause school district to issue more layoff notices .
Several school districts have raised concerns this bill
would cause them to issue more layoff notices than they
normally would due to the requirement that teachers at
schools ranked in deciles one to three of the API cannot be
laid off in larger percentages than teachers at other
schools in the district (regardless of their seniority
status). Specifically, Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD) contends the number of layoff notices would
increase by approximately 40%. This increase is attributed
to the district's need to confirm it noticed enough
individuals to ensure the appropriate placement of teachers
with regard to the teacher credentialing requirements (see
below).
Under current law, school districts are required to conduct
an administrative hearing process, upon request, to ensure
layoff notices were issued to the appropriate teachers
based on their seniority and credential requirements. This
process requires an ALJ to determine if the school district
followed statute with regard to the RIF process. LAUSD and
other school districts contend their hearing process will
take longer due to the consequence of issuing more layoff
notices.
b) Exacerbates teacher credentialing issues . Existing law
requires classroom teachers to have a specific credential
to teach a subject, grade level, and often a specific pupil
population (i.e., special education). There are two main
types of teaching credentials: single subject credential
SB 1285
Page E
and multiple subject credential. A single subject teaching
credential authorizes an individual to teach the specific
subject (i.e, math, English, etc.) named on the credential
in departmentalized classes such as those in most middle
schools and high schools. A multiple subject teaching
credential authorizes an individual to teach in a
self-contained classroom, such as the classrooms in most
elementary schools.
When a school district conducts a RIF process, it must
ensure the teachers being laid off are replaced with other
appropriately credentialed teachers. For example, if an
elementary school teacher is laid off due to increases in
class size, he or she must be replaced with a teacher who
possesses a multiple subject credential. A school district
struggles with this requirement under the current RIF
process. This bill will further limit a school district's
pool of appropriately credentialed teachers to draw form to
replace teachers being laid off.
c) Small school districts . There are approximately 300
school districts (of the 1,000) in the state that are
considered small districts. These districts will likely
have a problem implementing this bill. For example,
several school districts with schools ranked in decile one
to three of the API have less than five schools in their
district. Of these schools two or more are ranked in
decile one to three. This measure would require the
district to ensure these schools did not receive a
disproportionate number of teacher layoffs compared to the
entire school district. This may be difficult to implement
if the pool of replacement teachers the district draws from
does not meet credential or other requirements.
Essentially, small school districts do not have a large
number of teachers to begin with and therefore, replacing
them due to layoffs may be difficult.
4)Will reforming the RIF process lead to more qualified teachers
instructing pupils in low performing schools ? The premise for
the bill is that pupils enrolled in the state's lowest
performing schools are disproportionately affected by the RIF
process because they are instructed by the state's least
experienced teachers. Statewide data supports this premise.
According to the Center for the Future of Teaching and
Learning (CFTL)'s 2009 policy brief entitled Equity and
SB 1285
Page F
Excellence in Education, "California 6th graders in the lowest
achievement quartile [of the API] are three times more likely
to have had an underprepared teacher during elementary school.
And the odds of them having more than one underprepared
teacher in their elementary years are ten times greater than
those of students in the highest achievement quartile [of the
API]." While this measure may lead to pupils in the state's
lowest performing schools being instructed by a more stable
teacher workforce, it will not lead to pupils being instructed
by more qualified or effective teachers.
In March 2010, The New Teacher Project released a policy brief
entitled A Smarter Teacher Layoff System: How Quality-Based
Layoffs Can Help Schools Keep Great Teachers in Tough Economic
Times. This brief argues the policy of "last hired, first
fired" in which newer teachers are laid off first before
veteran teachers system is both unfair and ineffective. The
policy brief also argues that a more quality-based layoff
process will "likely decrease the total number of teachers
affected by layoffs." Specifically, the New Teacher Project
states: "Even [an evaluation] system that gave credit to years
of experience without making seniority the sole factor would
result in greater diversity of experience and salary levels
among teachers in the layoff pool, reducing the total number
of layoffs required and thereby reducing the burden on the
remaining teachers and their students."
A June 2010 study released by the National Board Resource
Center (Stanford University) entitled: A Quality Teacher in
Every Classroom: Creating a Teacher Evaluation System that
Works for California argues state education policy should
focus on reform that builds on "the capacity of our teachers
to meet the challenges our schools face. The urgency of the
task of improving teacher quality makes it more important than
ever for us to attend to the knowledge and experience of
teachers themselves and not to succumb to quick-fix reforms
accompanied by one-time infusions of money."
Research has demonstrated that the quality of a pupil's
teacher is the single most important factor in whether or not
the pupil succeeds academically. A comprehensive and fair
evaluation system is the first step in ensuring all pupils are
instructed by a quality teacher. The National Board brief
states: "Two key elements to building a better teacher
evaluation system are, first, that it substantiates that the
SB 1285
Page G
quality of a teacher's work to meet the needs of [his or] her
students, and, second, that it helps a teacher understand what
[he or] she needs to do to improve, regardless of the level of
her experience."
The National Board policy brief argues that California has a
strong foundation in which a new teacher evaluation system can
be built upon. Specifically, the brief states: "We believe
that, rather than throwing away the work that was accomplished
at considerable cost and commitment of expertise, it makes
sense to use it to build a new system that will lead to a
comprehensive approach to teacher evaluation that promotes
professional learning throughout the teacher development
continuum."
A key issue is whether simply reforming the RIF process, as
proposed in this bill, will result in pupils in the state's
lowest performing schools being instructed by more qualified,
effective teachers.
5)Sharail Reed et. al. v. State of California and Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD) . In February 2010, the ACLU
filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of
eight middle school pupils enrolled in LAUSD against the state
and LAUSD. The complaint argues the pupils attending Gompers,
Liechty, and Markham middle schools have been denied "the
basic education opportunity guaranteed by the California
Constitution." Specifically, the ACLU states that over the
summer of 2009 these schools "lost half to two-thirds of their
teachers, and many of those positions remained unfilled at the
start of the school year." The complaint further contends
these schools suffered disproportionate teacher layoffs in
comparison to other schools in the district due to their high
concentrations of new teachers and the statutory requirement
that seniority be the factor that determines teacher layoffs.
For example, the complaint states: "50% of teachers at
Gompers, 57% of teachers at Markham, and 72% of teachers at
Liechty were laid off."
The plaintiffs further contend that administrators at these
middle schools recruited newer teachers "because they wanted
to work with the student populations (i.e., low
socio-economic, pupils of color, etc.) that served these
schools. The schools had successfully recruited a critical
mass of teachers committed to staying at the schools and
SB 1285
Page H
becoming the foundation for an experienced, effective teaching
corps." The complaint argues that a disproportionate loss of
teachers at these schoolsites affects the ability to implement
reform plans with the purpose of achieving higher academic
outcomes for students.
In May 2010, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William F.
Highberger granted an injunction in the case to preclude
teacher layoffs from occurring at Gompers, Liechty, and
Markham middle schools. Specifically, the court states: "[It]
has the power to override both statutory and contractual
rights to remedy the violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional
rights."
The judge concluded the RIFs conducted by LAUSD "have had and
will have a disparate negative impact on Plaintiffs' schools.
The disparities matter because the evidence shows there is a
distinct relationship between high teacher turnover and the
quality of educational opportunities afforded: high teacher
turnover devastates educational opportunity."
The injunction also discusses the court's awareness of the
statutory requirements related to the use of seniority to
determine teacher layoffs and the requirements of LAUSD's
collective bargaining agreement with its teachers. However,
the injunction states: "the Education Code expressly qualifies
these seniority rights, allowing deviations for pedagogical
needs and constitutional interests." The court further argues
that existing statute authorizes school districts to deviate
from using seniority in order to comply with constitutional
equal protection laws. The injunction states: "The plain
language of this statute clearly applies to a situation in
which layoffs would result in a violation of students' equal
protection rights."
The committee may wish to consider whether it is appropriate
to revise state statute that will affect a pending lawsuit
against the state and one school district.
6)Is current law sufficient to implement a RIF process that
deviates from seniority ? Opponents of this bill argue current
law allows school districts to skip teachers, regardless of
seniority, from being laid off if the district demonstrates
the following: a specific need to teach a specific course or
course of study, or to provide services authorized by certain
SB 1285
Page I
services credentials and the retained individual has the
specific experience or training required to meet that need.
Opponents of this measure cite the Bledsoe v. Biggs appellate
court decision (January 2009) as evidence that current law is
sufficient to skip less senior teachers in the RIF process.
In March 2007, Mr. Bledsoe was a certificated employee who
worked for the Biggs Unified School District (BUSD) for nine
years teaching English and social science to seventh and
eighth grade pupils. He received a layoff notice informing
him that his services would not be required for the 2007-08
school year. Specifically, BUSD's superintendent proposed a
RIF process that skipped two senior classroom teachers with
less experience than Mr. Bledsoe, who instructed pupils in a
community day school, which serve expelled students and other
high-risk youths.
Mr. Bledsoe, as afforded to him under statute, received an
administrative hearing to determine the accuracy of the
seniority list and "bumping" chart. Bumping refers to a
senior teacher moving into the position of a junior teacher.
The ALJ issued a proposed decision (the final decision is made
by the school district governing board pursuant to statute)
upholding the layoff notice to Mr. Bledsoe. Specifically, the
ALJ determined the following: "a community day school teacher
required specialized training and experience; [the two
teachers in question] possess necessary special training and
experience; the District has a special need to retain their
services, and Bledsoe lacks the special training and
experience necessary to teach at the community day school.
The District met its burden under [state statute] to allow it
to deviate from terminating certificated employees in strict
order of seniority so as to retain [the two community day
school teachers.]" BUSD adopted the ALJ's proposed decision
and Mr. Bledsoe was sent a final layoff notice.
Mr. Bledsoe and the Biggs Unified Teachers Association filed a
petition in court challenging his layoff on the grounds it was
illegal for BUSD to give notice to him and not the two less
senior community day school teachers without first assessing
Mr. Bledsoe's competence to teach at the community day school.
The trail court ruled in favor of the school district. Mr.
Bledsoe appealed the decision to the Third Court of Appeal in
California and this court determined "the trial court did not
err in concluding the District properly retained [the two
SB 1285
Page J
community day school teachers] even though Bledsoe had
seniority over them." The appellate court also concluded
evidence provided by the defendants "supports the finding that
Bledsoe does not possess the special training and experience
that [the two community day school teachers] possess."
Even though the court ruled in favor of BUSD's authority to
develop "skipping" criteria that retained less senior teachers
over a more senior teacher, school districts argue that
current law is not clear to make this determination with
confidence. Districts further contend it is not fiscally
prudent to develop "skipping" criteria based on the type of
school a teacher teaches at because more often than not the
teacher being skipped will file a complaint in court regarding
the district's determination. The majority of school
districts determine the risk of a legal challenge supersedes
the decision to develop this type of "skipping" criteria for
the RIF process.
7)Related legislation . SB 955 (Huff), pending in the Senate
Rules Committee, makes various changes to statutes governing
staffing notification deadlines, layoff and dismissal
procedures, and reemployment preferences pertaining to
certificated educators.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081