BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1292 Page A Date of Hearing: June 13, 2012 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Julia Brownley, Chair SB 1292 (Liu) - As Amended: May 2, 2012 SENATE VOTE : 38-0 SUBJECT : School employees: principals: evaluation. SUMMARY : Authorizes school districts to evaluate principals and establishes provisions to guide principal evaluation. Specifically, this bill : 1)Authorizes the governing board of a school district to evaluate a school principal annually for the first and second year of employment as a new principal in a school district and at regular intervals after this period. 2)Specifies that additional evaluations may be agreed upon between the evaluator and the principal and that the evaluator and principal may review school success and progress throughout the year. 3)Authorizes the criteria for principal evaluation to be based upon the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSELs) and explains that these standards identify a school administrator as being an educational leader who promotes the success of all pupils through leadership that fosters: a) A shared vision; b) Effective teaching and learning; c) Management and safety; d) Parent, family and community involvement; e) Professional and ethical leadership; and, f) Contextual awareness. 4)Authorizes a quality school principal evaluation to include evidence of: a) Academic growth of pupils based on multiple measures that may include pupil work as well as pupil and school longitudinal data that demonstrates pupil academic growth over time, as specified; SB 1292 Page B b) Effective and comprehensive teacher evaluations; c) Culturally responsive instructional strategies to eliminate the achievement gap; d) Ability to analyze quality instructional strategies and provide effective feedback that leads to instructional improvement; e) High expectations to ensure active pupil engagement and learning; f) Collaborative professional practices for improving instructional strategies; g) Effective school management including personnel and resource management, organizational leadership, sound fiscal practices, a safe campus environment and appropriate pupil behavior; h) Meaningful self-assessment to improve as a professional educator; and, i) Consistent and effective relationships with pupils, parents, teachers, staff, and other administrators. 5)Specifies that federal carryover funds received from Title I and Title II of the Federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and any other available state and federal funds may be used to implement this act. 6)Makes Legislative findings and declarations that: a) State and local educational agencies, not the federal government, should determine the process for implementing principal evaluations and determining what constitutes an effective principal; b) School district evaluators have the obligation to ensure that principals are evaluated fairly, consistently and effectively; c) Principal evaluation systems must consider the impact of the diversity of schools in regard to size, demographics and available resources; d) Principals should be provided with the resources needed to be truly effective; and, e) Policymakers must ensure there is a coherent and comprehensive system to support principal development and leadership. 7)Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature that: a) Governing boards of school districts establish a uniform SB 1292 Page C system of evaluation; b) Evaluations should reflect the complex responsibilities of a principal's daily work; c) Evaluations should differentiate how to accelerate success, address professional development needs, or, as necessary, intervene when there are persistent performance issues; and, d) Evaluators receive training for purposes of calibrating evaluations when funds become available. EXISTING LAW for certificated non-instructional employees in supervisory or administrative roles: 1)Requires the governing board of each school district to establish and define job responsibilities for certificated non-instructional personnel (supervisory and administrative) whose responsibilities cannot be evaluated appropriately under the general provisions for certificated employees in instructional roles. Requires that the performance of these non-instructional certificated employees be evaluated and assessed as it reasonably relates to the fulfillment of those responsibilities (Education Code (EC) Section 44662). 2)Requires, in the case of a certificated non-instructional employee who is employed on a 12-month basis, the evaluation and assessment made to be reduced to writing and for a copy to be transmitted to the employee no later than June 30th of the year in which the evaluation and assessment is made; provides the employee the right to initiate a written reaction or responses to the evaluation that will become a permanent attachment to the employee's personnel file; and, requires that a meeting between the employee and the evaluator to discuss the evaluation and assessment be held before July 30th of the year in which the evaluation and assessment takes place. (EC Section 44663). EXISTING LAW for certificated employees: 1)Establishes Legislative intent that governing boards establish a uniform system of evaluation and assessment of the performance of all certificated personnel within each school district. (EC Section 44660). 2)Specifies that in the development and adoption of guidelines and procedures for evaluation and assessment the governing SB 1292 Page D board must avail itself of the advice of the certificated instructional personnel in the district's organization of certificated personnel (EC Section 44661). 3)Specifies that when developing and adopting objective evaluation and assessment guidelines, 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, as long as they are consistent with the Stull Act, any objective standards from the: a) National Board for Professional Teaching Standards; or, b) California Standards for the Teaching Profession (EC Section 44661.5). 4)Provides that the governing board of each school district must evaluate and assess certificated employee performance as it reasonably relates to: a) The progress of pupils toward established standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level and in each area of study and state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments; b) The instructional techniques and strategies used by the employee; c) The employee's adherence to curricular objectives; and, d) The establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment, within the scope of the employee's responsibilities (EC Section 44662). 5)Provides that evaluation and assessment of certificated employees be made on a continue basis as follows: a) At least once each school year for probationary personnel b) At least every other year for personnel with permanent status. c) 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, and whose pervious evaluation rated the employee as meeting or exceeding the standards (EC Section 44664). SB 1292 Page E 6)Provides that if a certificated employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory manner according to the standards prescribed by the governing board, that the employing authority shall notify the employee in writing of that fact and describe the unsatisfactory performance. Requires the employing authority to make specific recommendations as to areas of improvement in the employee's performance and endeavor to assist the employee in his or her performance (EC Section 44664). FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal, however, the Assembly Appropriations Committee has requested to hear this bill. If this bill is passed by the Assembly Education Committee, it will be referred to the Committee on Appropriations to consider the fiscal implications. COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill is in response to the fact that "the Education Code simply states that a principal shall be evaluated but provides no direction as to what should be considered and why." The author further states that "many school districts have established their own principal evaluations but there are still many who do not make it a priority. SB 1292 is intended to provide a foundation to work from while providing the necessary flexibility to tailor an evaluation plan to the individual district's needs." National focus on principal evaluation: Recently, President Obama and the U.S. Department of Education have placed significant emphasis on the role that evaluation and assessment of certificated employees has in the nation's education system. Through national programs and competition such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race to the Top (RTTT), national pressure for states to implement effective principal evaluation systems has recently increased. Additionally, a state's ability to receive a waiver from the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 being contingent upon that state having a principal evaluation system in place further promotes the use of principal evaluation systems. According to a 2011 WestED publication, however, identifying strong principal evaluation systems or accessing substantive and comprehensive information about such systems is very SB 1292 Page F difficult.<1> Academic literature surrounding principal evaluation, the study notes, is limited and many promoted approaches are not research-based and have not been fully evaluated. Many questions therefore remain about the best practices of principal evaluations. A second 2011 WestED study identified six states, Delaware, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio and South Carolina who have several years of policy development and experience with implementing principal evaluation systems.<2> Nearly all of these states crafted standards for educational leaders that are closely aligned to the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium standards that were drafted in 2008. Many other states have only recently begun moving towards a more defined and thoroughly established principal evaluation system in an effort to conform to the RTTT competition or NCLB waiver requirements. Principal evaluation in California in accordance with the Stull Act: Existing law in California requires that all certificated employees be evaluated and assessed. The overwhelming majority of certificated employees are teachers who are not in administrative positions like principals. The Stull Act of 1971, however, requires that each non-instructional certificated employee, such as principals, be evaluated and assessed based on his or her performance as it relates to the specific responsibilities of the employee's job. Thus, while much of the Stull Act most directly focuses on certificated employees in teaching positions, there are provisions delineated for the evaluation and assessment of principals. Specifically, the Stull Act states that districts must establish and define job responsibilities for principals. The district must then evaluate and assess the principal's performance against these responsibilities. The Stull Act provides principals with the rights to a discussion about the evaluation and assessment after its completion and to write a reaction or response to the evaluation and assessment that can be included in the employee's personnel file. Current law in California, --------------------------- <1> Davis, S., Kearney, K., Sanders, N., Thomas, C., & Leon, R. (2011). The policies and practices of principal evaluation: A review of the literature. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. <2> Mattson Almanzán, H., Sanders, N., and Kearney, K. (2011). How Six States Are Implementing Principal Evaluation Systems. San Francisco: WestEd. SB 1292 Page G therefore, appears to already require principal evaluation and assessment, but not with the rigidity supported by current national programs. The specifics of principal evaluation and assessment are left to school districts to decide. The timing of principal evaluations is not clearly specified in current law. Further, no detailed guidelines on how to measure a principal's performance are provided. This bill begins to address both of these areas for principals by clarifying that districts can evaluate a principal during each of that individual's first two years of employment in the district and at a regular intervals thereafter and also by providing criteria that may be used to evaluate the employee's performance. Two evaluations in a principal's first two years and at regular intervals thereafter: This bill authorizes a governing board to evaluate a school principal on an annual basis for the first and second year of his or her employment as a new principal in a school district. It further authorizes the governing board to evaluate a school principal at regular intervals after this period. In current law, there is no clear guidance for the specific timing of principal evaluations. Conducting these evaluations would ideally provide necessary support for novice, developing and experienced principals as they develop and hone their abilities as administrators in the district. This change is intended to provide greater support to administrators. The bill also provides that additional evaluations outside of evaluations during the first two years and at regular intervals thereafter may be established for the principal upon agreement between the evaluator and the principal, but does not provide for these evaluations to take place. Staff recommends a technical amendment to clarify that additional evaluations outside of the regular interval decided by the governing board may be agreed upon by the evaluator and principal. California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSELs): This bill also provides that the criteria used for effective principal evaluations may be based on the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders. In 2001, representatives from the California School Leadership Academy at WestEd, the Association of California School Administrators, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the California Department of Education, and various California colleges and universities adapted the Interstate School Leaders Licensure SB 1292 Page H Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for School Leaders for California to establish the current set of six CPSELs. The CPSELs guide the practice of school administrators and inform preparation programs that lead to the administrative services credential. They highlight six broad standards that provide a framework of outstanding actions taken by educational leaders. Criteria for evaluation vs. what a quality evaluation may include: In addition to the CPSELs serving as the criteria for evaluation, this bill also states what a quality evaluation may include. This section highlights many specific occurrences at a school that indicate the presence of a strong education leader. For example, if there was evidence of culturally responsive instructional strategies to address and eliminate the achievement gap, this could be included and considered as part of a quality principal evaluation. This portion of the bill, however, may not include other components that successful principal evaluations might include. Staff recommends clarifying that these are examples of what evidence a principal evaluation could include by striking the word "quality" from part (b) of Section 44671. Permissive, but impactful: While this bill is permissive in nature, in affording permission to governing boards to evaluate and assess principals in their first two years and at regular intervals thereafter within the district, it provides districts with greater authority. Simply by authorizing the evaluation and assessment of principals, this bill makes a substantive change to current protocol. It also continues to provide for significant local flexibility that the author states as an intention of the bill. Arguments in Support: The Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) writes, "SB 1292 reflects the work that ACSA has undertaken to provide a 'best practices' principal evaluation template based on the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSELs). These Standards are very comprehensive and delineate all of the traits that an effective school leader should possess. We believe SB 1292 is comprehensive enough and still allows school districts to be free to choose who will evaluate their principal(s) and the frequency of those evaluations. ACSA recognizes that every student deserves an effective principal who ensures high levels of learning. And principals should be provided with the resources needed to be truly effective. SB 1292 will provide the SB 1292 Page I framework for principals to be supported in the very complex world that they work in." Related Legislation: SB 257 (Liu), currently pending in the Assembly Education Committee, encourages a school district to include in its evaluation and assessment guidelines specific information relating to current best teaching practices in all subject areas and authorizes a school district to include additional criteria into the evaluation and assessment of certificated employees. AB 5 (Fuentes), currently pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee, requires school districts to implement a best practices teacher evaluation system by July 1 of the first fiscal year following the year in which the deficit factor is reduced to zero. Prior Legislation: AB 2274 (Krekorian), from 2008, requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to adopt and implement a plan to measure the quality of administrators in public schools. This bill was held in the Assembly Education Committee. AB 96 (Feuer), from 2007, requires the California Department of Education (CDE), on or before January 1, 2009, to study and submit a report to the Legislature and the Governor on the effectiveness of the Administrator Training Program in training participants to serve as administrators of specified schools. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Association of California School Administrators (sponsor) California County Superintendents Educational Services Association California School Boards Association Opposition None on file. Analysis Prepared by : Mark Murphy and Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087