BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 5
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 16, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 5 (Fuentes) - As Amended: March 8, 2011
SUBJECT : Certificated school employees: performance
evaluation.
SUMMARY : Requires school districts, by mutual agreement with
the local bargaining unit, to implement a teacher evaluation
system by July 1, 2012, as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the governing board of a school district, by July 1,
2012, to adopt and implement a fair, transparent, and rigorous
evaluation system for certificated employees based on a
uniform standard, to improve instruction for all pupils in the
school district and provide meaningful and continuous support
to certificated employees.
2)Requires the governing board, by mutual agreement with the
exclusive bargaining representative of the certificated
employees in the school district, in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of
Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to include all
of the following procedures and components in the evaluation
system established for certificated employees, including
additional components, if adopted:
a) Evidence of the effectiveness of the employee as
compared to the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession.
b) Evidence of the effectiveness of the employee in
teaching the state academic content standards or the common
core standards in English language arts and mathematics, as
applicable. Specifies evidence of effectiveness for
purposes of this paragraph shall include, but not be
limited to, evidence of pupil progress toward the standards
specified in this paragraph as measured by all of the
following:
i) More than one year of data from the state adopted
criterion referenced assessments.
ii) More than one year of data from any locally
AB 5
Page 2
developed pupil assessment that is valid and reliable and
adopted by the governing board of the school district.
iii) Data from formative assessments as determined by the
governing board of a school district to evaluate a
certificated employee pursuant to this section.
c) Evidence of the effectiveness of a certificated
employee, who directly instructs English learner pupils in
acquiring English, in teaching the English language
development standards, for the purpose of improving a
pupil's English proficiency. Specifies evidence of
effectiveness for purposes of this paragraph shall include
evidence of pupil progress toward the standards as measured
by all of the following assessments:
i) More than one year of data from the state adopted
assessment for English language proficiency.
ii) More than one year of data from any locally
developed pupil assessment that is valid and reliable and
adopted by the governing board of the school district.
iii) Data from formative assessments as determined by the
governing board of a school district to evaluate a
certificated employee pursuant to this section.
d) Multiple observations of the certificated employee in an
instructional setting, by trained administrators and peers
using a uniform tool for use in observing. Specifies prior
to each observation, the observer shall meet with the
certificated employee to discuss the purpose of the
observation; and, after each observation, the observer
shall meet with the permanent certificated employee to
discuss recommendations, as necessary, with regard to areas
of improvement in the performance of the employee.
3)Defines formative assessment as assessment questions, tools,
and processes that are embedded in instruction and used by
teachers and pupils to provide timely feedback for purposes of
adjusting instruction to improve learning.
4)Requires the governing board of a school district, for the
purposes of evaluating certificated employees who provide
instruction to pupils in courses whose progress toward the
standards cannot be measured by utilizing assessment data, to
determine an alternative method to measure pupil progress
toward the standards.
5)Requires the evaluation of the performance of each
AB 5
Page 3
certificated employee to be made on a continuing basis at
least once every school year for probationary employees; and,
at least every other year for permanent employees.
6)Requires the evaluation of a permanent employee to include
recommendations, if necessary, as to areas of improvement in
the performance of the permanent employee; specifies if a
permanent employee is performing his or her duties in an
unsatisfactory manner, the employing authority shall notify
the permanent employee in writing of that assessment and
describe the manner in which the performance of the permanent
employee is unsatisfactory; and, requires, after the employee
receives the written assessment, the employing authority to
confer with the employee, making specific recommendations as
to areas of improvement in the employee's performance and
endeavor to assist the employee in his or her performance.
7)Requires a permanent certificated employee who is deemed to be
performing in an unsatisfactory manner at the end of his or
her evaluation process to participate for one year in an
instructional support program for certificated employees
adopted by the governing board of the school district for the
purpose of improving the performance of the employee; and,
requires the governing board of a school district to define
the term "performing in an unsatisfactory manner" for purposes
of this section by mutual agreement with the exclusive
bargaining representative of the certificated employees of the
district.
8)Deletes the article known as the Stull Act on July 1, 2012,
and repeals the article on January 1, 2013.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes the Stull Act, enacted in 1971, which governs
certificated employee evaluations and requires school
districts to evaluate and assess teacher performance as it
reasonability relates to pupil performance on criterion
referenced tests, teacher technique and strategies, curricular
objectives, and the maintenance of a suitable learning
environment. Specifies that in the development and adoption
of evaluation guidelines and procedures, the governing board
shall avail itself of the advice of the certificated
instructional personnel in the district's organization of
certificated personnel pursuant to collective bargaining
AB 5
Page 4
statutes. Specifies that a school district may, by mutual
agreement between the exclusive representative of the
certificated employees of the school district and the
governing board of the school district, include any objective
standards from the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards or any objective standards from the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession. Specifies that teacher
evaluations shall be made on a continuing basis at least once
each school year for probationary personnel; at least every
other year for personnel with permanent status; and, at least
every five years for personnel with permanent status who have
been employed at least 10 years with the school district, are
highly qualified, if those personnel occupy positions that are
required to be filled by a highly qualified professional, and
whose previous evaluation rated the employee as meeting or
exceeding standards, if the evaluator and certificated
employee being evaluated agree. Specifies that an employee
who receives an unsatisfactory rating in the area of teaching
methods or instruction may be required to participate in a
program designed to improve appropriate areas of the
employee's performance; and, requires if a school district
participates in the Peer Assistance and Review Program for
Teachers (PAR), employees who receive an unsatisfactory rating
shall participate in PAR. (Education Code 44660 et. seq.)
2)Establishes the Peer Assistance and Review Program for
Teachers (PAR) by authorizing school districts and the
exclusive representative of the certificated employees to
develop and implement the program locally. Specifies that
assistance and review shall include multiple observations of a
teacher during periods of classroom instruction. Specifies
the program shall expect and strongly encourage a cooperative
relationship between the consulting teacher and the principal
with respect to the process of peer assistance and review.
Specifies the school district shall provide sufficient staff
development activities to assist a teacher to improve his or
her teaching skills and knowledge. Specifies the final
evaluation of a teacher's participation in the program shall
be made available for placement in the personnel file of the
teacher receiving assistance. (Education Code 44505)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill replaces the existing teacher evaluation
system, known as the Stull Act, with a new teacher evaluation
AB 5
Page 5
system that requires specific components, such as multi-year
formative and summative assessment data and observations. While
existing law authorizes school districts to collectively bargain
many of these elements, this bill requires these components to
be included in a uniform teacher evaluation system. According
to the author, the goal is to establish a fair, transparent, and
comprehensive teacher evaluation system accountable to pupils,
parents and teachers. California's 1,000 school districts serve
diverse pupil populations, employees, and communities. What
works in Los Angeles Unified School District does not
necessarily work in the Eureka City Unified School District.
While this measure does require specific components to be part
of teacher evaluations, it allows individual school districts
the flexibility to determine how these elements will be
implemented to meet the needs of their pupils, teachers,
administrators, and parents.
Research on the Current Teacher Evaluation System : According to
the author, the state's current teacher evaluation system is
inconsistent, unclear, and does little to foster a culture of
continuous improvement for teachers. According to a 2010 report
released by the National Board Resource Center at Stanford
University, "While evaluation processes across the state vary
widely, many of them look very much the same as they did in
1971?In sharing their own experiences with evaluations,
Accomplished California Teachers members revealed some common
challenges: a system that teachers do not trust, that rarely
offers clear direction for improving practice and that often
charges school leaders to implement without preparation or
resources."
Several research studies detail the essential principals and
components of a strong teacher evaluation system. The National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality argues a strong
evaluation system must: "involve teachers and stakeholders in
developing the system; use multiple indicators; and give
teachers opportunities to improve in the areas in which they
score poorly." Likewise, the New Teacher Project states
"evaluations should provide all teachers with regular feedback
that helps them grow as professionals, no matter how long they
have been in the classroom. The primary purpose of evaluations
should not be punitive. Good evaluations identify excellent
teachers and help teachers of all skill levels understand how
they can improve."
AB 5
Page 6
The Use of Assessments in Evaluation : This bill requires annual
Standardized Testing and Reporting program (STAR) data to be
used to evaluate teachers. While STAR tests provide information
about student performance at a point in time, the tests do not
provide information about performance over time. In fact, STAR
assessments were not developed to be used to assess performance
over time, and were not developed to be vertically aligned
across grade levels. With this in mind, the committee should
consider whether it is appropriate to use STAR test results as
part of teacher evaluations, and whether this data will truly
inform administrators about a teacher's performance over time.
This bill requires both formative and summative assessments to
be included in teacher evaluation. Formative assessments are
developed locally and are used by teachers to continually inform
instruction in the classroom throughout the school year.
Summative assessments can be developed locally or state-wide and
assess a student's performance at a point in time. Summative
assessments can include end of unit quizzes, end of course
tests, or standardized tests. Since these assessments are used
for disparate purposes, the committee should consider whether it
is appropriate to use them in teacher evaluations.
Evaluation Frequency : This bill requires probationary teachers
to be evaluated at least every year and permanent teacher to be
evaluated at least every other year; and, it eliminates the
authorization for teachers with more than 10 years experience to
be evaluated every five years. By eliminating the five year
evaluation cycle for experienced teachers, this bill will
require experienced teachers to be evaluated more frequently.
It is unclear how many teachers are currently evaluated every
five years and thus it is unclear how this bill will affect
administrator work load to complete the increased number of
evaluations.
Probationary versus Permanent Teacher Evaluations : This bill
requires both probationary and permanent teachers to be
evaluated; however, the bill only requires permanent teachers to
receive written feedback on their evaluation. It is unclear
whether all districts currently provide feedback to probationary
employees during their evaluation, however, some districts do
provide this feedback. One could argue that providing feedback
to probationary employees is an essential part of their
continuous improvement. Staff recommends the bill be amended so
that probationary teachers receive feedback after their
AB 5
Page 7
evaluation, to help improve their instructional techniques.
Professional Development : This bill specifies that teachers who
receive an unsatisfactory rating on their evaluation shall
receive one year of instructional support. The bill does not,
however, specify how such instructional support shall be
provided. Existing law specifies that if a school district has
a PAR program in place, they must refer teachers who receive an
unsatisfactory review to the PAR program for improvement;
however, the bill does not include this same requirement. The
bill also does not specify the process if a teacher continues to
receive unsatisfactory evaluations after the year of
instructional support is complete. It is unclear whether school
districts should begin dismissal proceedings, or provide further
instructional support for the teacher. The committee should
consider whether this bill should further clarify these issues.
Arguments in Support : Public Advocates supports the bill and
states, "Public Advocates has participated in the stakeholder
meetings that Assembly Member Fuentes has held as he developed
AB 5 up to this point. We applaud his courage in introducing
legislation that incorporates multiple measures of both student
learning and teaching practice in evaluating whether teachers
are effective. We have confidence in his commitment to address
the following concerns and look forward to continuing our
participation in the development of the bill:
1)The voices of parents and students are crucial for defining
the path to educational success in their community, and these
constituencies should be included in the process with teachers
and administrators to reach consensus on the best evaluation
plan to meet the needs of the school and its students.
2)All six domains of the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession should be included as components of the teacher
evaluation system."
Arguments in Opposition : The California Federation of Teachers
opposes the bill and states, "CFT opposes the mandatory use of
test data in teacher evaluation. The tests were not designed
for this purpose nor is there evidence that they are reliable
measures of teacher performance. STAR provides reliable and
valid data for informing instruction and providing feedback for
statewide policymakers. While the data may be valid and
reliable for student use, it has not been proven to be valid or
reliable for employee evaluation purposes. Indeed credible
research warns against utilizing student test data for high
AB 5
Page 8
stakes decisions for teachers because:
Not all course subjects are tested, therefore data does
not exist for all teachers
Students are not assigned randomly
Scores can be affected by variances such as high
turnover or class size"
Committee Amendments : Staff recommends the following
amendments:
1)Require probationary teachers to receive feedback from the
evaluation, to help improve their instructional techniques.
2)A technical amendment to correct a drafting error.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Public Advocates
Opposition
California Federation of Teachers
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087