BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1292
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1292 (Liu)
As Amended June 20, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :38-0
EDUCATION 7-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Gatto, Blumenfield, |
| |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, | |Bradford, |
| |Eng, Williams | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Davis, Fuentes, Hall, |
| | | |Hill, Cedillo, Mitchell, |
| | | |Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Grove, Wagner |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 that occur outside of
the regular intervals determined by the governing board 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:
SB 1292
Page 2
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;
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,
SB 1292
Page 3
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
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.
SB 1292
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, General Fund / Proposition 98 cost pressure, likely
between $5 million and $10 million, to school districts to
implement a principal evaluation system. According to the
California Department of Education, there are approximately
25,500 administrators in the state. This bill does not require
a principal evaluation system to be implemented and therefore,
it is not a state mandated reimbursable cost.
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 "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.
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. 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. Current law in California, 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
SB 1292
Page 5
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.
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
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.
SB 1292
Page 6
Related legislation: AB 5 (Fuentes), currently pending on the
Senate Floor, requires school districts to implement a best
practices teacher evaluation system by July 1, 2014.
Analysis Prepared by : Mark Murphy and Chelsea Kelley / ED. /
(916) 319-2087
FN: 0005084