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