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