BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 5 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 5 (Padilla) As Amended April 24, 2013 Majority vote SENATE VOTE :37-0 EDUCATION 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Buchanan, Olsen, Chávez, |Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow, | | |Gonzalez, Nazarian, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian | | |Weber, Williams | |Calderon, Campos, | | | | |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, | | | | |Hall, Holden, Linder, | | | | |Pan, Quirk, Wagner, Weber | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Authorizes each program of professional preparation for multiple or single subject teaching credentials to include not more than two years of, or the equivalent of two-fifths of a five-year program in, professional preparation. EXISTING LAW authorizes each program of professional preparation for multiple or single subject teaching credentials to include not more than one year of, or the equivalent of one-fifth of a five-year program in, professional preparation. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, potential General Fund increased costs, likely less than $75,000, to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) to review and approve two-year teacher preparation programs. This cost will likely be offset by fee revenue paid to the CTC by programs seeking approval. COMMENTS : This bill authorizes teacher preparation programs to increase their length of study from one year to two years. In the past decade, several new content requirements regarding teaching English Learners, student health and computer technology have been added to teacher preparation programs, thereby making it more difficult to complete the program in the one year statutory requirement. By increasing the length of teacher preparation programs, the author contends that teacher SB 5 Page 2 candidates could receive more in-depth instruction on strategies for teaching English Learners and other special needs students. Background on Teacher Preparation Program Content : According to the CTC, California law requires candidates to complete a professional preparation program and specifies that each program of professional preparation shall not include more than one year or the equivalent of one fifth of a five year program. Most candidates complete their teacher preparation after earning a bachelor's degree. The law also authorizes integrated (blended) programs of subject matter preparation and professional preparation. While the law specifies that such programs are not subject to the one year "cap," the CTC has interpreted the law governing blended programs differently over the years and has often applied the one-year cap to these programs. The content to prepare teachers to work with special needs students, health education and using technology in the classroom used to be part of the clear credential coursework but has now been embedded in the preliminary program. The content for an individual to understand how to teach English learners used to be an optional, additional program which resulted in an additional authorization. The Crosscultural, Language and Academic Development (CLAD) coursework to teach English learners was twelve semester units separate from the preliminary preparation program. Now the preparation to teach English learners is required to be incorporated in the preliminary preparation program. Summary of Additional Content Required to be Included in Preliminary Teacher Preparation Programs Since 1970 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Topic | Year |Education Code Reference | | |Added | | | | | | |--------------------------------+------+-------------------------| |Enhanced content in the |1998 |44259 (b) (4) | |teaching of reading | | | |--------------------------------+------+-------------------------| |Teaching English learners | 1999 |44259.5(a) | |--------------------------------+------+-------------------------| |Competency in the use of | 2000 |44259 (b)(7) | |computers | | | SB 5 Page 3 |--------------------------------+------+-------------------------| |Some health, mainstreaming | 2001 |44259 | |moved to preliminary program | | | |--------------------------------+------+-------------------------| |Additional theoretical content |2006 |44259 (c)(4) | |in health, mainstreaming, | | | |technology and teaching English | | | |learner instruction moved from | | | |Induction into initial | | | |preparation | | | |--------------------------------+------+-------------------------| |Teaching Performance Assessment |2008 |44259(b)(3) and 44320.2 | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- (Source: CTC) According to the author, since 1970, state law has restricted the length of a traditional teacher preparation program to one year. Over the past four decades more legislative requirements have been added to teacher preparation programs; for example, requirements to teach English learners and special need students. This has made it increasingly difficult to complete a program within the one-year timeframe and capped units. This also restricts a student teacher's ability to delve deeply into program requirements and fully develop the necessary skills. Two Year Cap versus Removing the Cap : The State Superintendent of Public Instruction's Task Force on Educator Excellence has recommended lifting the cap on credits for preparation in order to support preparation models that will provide candidates with more robust training, particularly to teach culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Lifting the cap would also enable programs to provide candidates with a longer period of supervised student teaching. No other state has a time restriction on the amount of time or units that comprise professional teacher preparation programs. The CTC also confirms that no other state in the nation has a time restriction on professional teacher preparation programs. According to the CTC, while some may express concern about a proliferation of unnecessary courses, the failure to have a unit cap in other states has not led to making programs longer or more burdensome. Rather, it has allowed more flexible management of the learning process for teacher education SB 5 Page 4 candidates. The Assembly should consider whether lifting the cap on the length of teacher preparation programs will make the programs more burdensome, or give greater flexibility to the programs and the credential candidates. Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0001537