BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-14 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 453
AUTHOR: Huff
AMENDED: April 17, 2013
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 24, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lenin Del Castillo
SUBJECT : Teachers: teacher evaluations.
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes the governing board of a school
district to evaluate and assess the performance of
certificated employees using a multiple-measures evaluation
system, authorizes school districts to make specified
employment decisions based on teacher performance, and
expands the reasons districts may deviate from the order of
seniority in terminating and reappointing teachers, as
specified.
BACKGROUND
Under existing law, the Stull Act expresses legislative
intent that school districts and county governing boards
establish a uniform system of evaluation and assessment of
certificated personnel. With the exception of certificated
personnel who are employed on an hourly basis to teach
adult education classes, the Stull Act requires school
districts to evaluate and assess teacher performance as it
reasonably relates to:
1) Progress of pupils toward district-adopted and, if
applicable, state-adopted academic content standards
as measured by state-adopted criterion referenced
tests;
2) Instructional techniques and strategies used by the
employee;
3) The employee's adherence to curricular objectives; and
SB 453
Page 2
4) The establishment and maintenance of a suitable
learning environment within the scope of the
employee's responsibilities.
(Education Code � 44660 et. seq.)
The Stull Act also prohibits the use of publishers' norms
established by standardized tests in the evaluation and
assessment of certificated employee performance.
(Education Code � 44662)
Existing law requires an evaluation and assessment of the
performance of each certificated employee to be made 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 permanent employees who
have been employed with the district at least 10 years and
were rated as meeting or exceeding standards in their
previous evaluation. Teachers who receive an
unsatisfactory rating may be required to participate in a
program designed to improve the employee's performance and
to further pupil achievement and the instructional
objectives of the district. However, if the district
participates in the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR)
program, then the teachers who receive an unsatisfactory
rating are required to participate in that program.
(Education Code � 44664)
Existing law exempts certificated personnel who are
employed on an hourly basis in adult education classes from
Article 11 of Part 25, Chapter 3, of the Education Code
concerning the evaluation and assessment of performance of
certificated employees. (Education Code � 44660)
Existing law requires school districts undergoing layoffs
to terminate certificated employees in the inverse order in
which they were employed. Current law permits districts to
deviate from the order of seniority if:
1) The district demonstrates a specific need to teach
a specific course or course of study, or to provide
services authorized by certain services credentials
and the retained individual has the specific
experience or training required to meet that need, or
2) For purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance
with constitutional requirements related to equal
protection of the laws.
SB 453
Page 3
(Education Code � 44955)
When a district is undergoing a layoff, existing law
requires the governing board to assign and reassign
teachers according to their seniority and qualifications.
A teacher must pass a subject matter competency test prior
to being assigned to teach a subject he or she has not
previously taught and for which he or she doesn't have the
appropriate background or teaching credential. (Education
Code � 44955)
Existing law specifies that for a period of 39 months from
the date of termination, a permanent teacher, who in the
meantime has not turned 65, has preferential rights to
reappointment and substitute service in order of seniority.
Existing law provides probationary employees preferred
rights for a period of 24 months.
(Education Code � 44955, � 44956, and � 44957)
Existing law specifies that a teacher has the right to
refuse to submit to any evaluation or survey conducted by
the school district concerning personal values, attitudes,
and beliefs, sexual orientation, political affiliations or
opinions, or critical appraisals of other individuals with
whom the teacher has a family relationship.
(Education Code � 49091.24)
Existing law expresses the intent of the Legislature that
the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) Advisory
Committee consider various ways to measure performance
levels of cohort growth in which each pupil, subgroup,
school, and school district make at least one year's
academic growth in one year's time and whether that growth
is sufficient to reach a performance level of proficient
within the timeframes specified in the state's approved
accountability plan required pursuant to the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. It further requires any measure
of annual academic achievement growth by cohort approved
for inclusion in the Academic Performance Index or adopted
through a state plan pursuant to the federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act as a requirement of receiving or
allocating federal funds to utilize a growth model in the
public domain that is not proprietary, be able to be
replicated by an independent statistician, and be able to
be fully and accurately explained in a document made
available to the public. (Education Code � 52052.6)
SB 453
Page 4
Federal requirements
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has established a
process by which states may request flexibility on behalf
of themselves, local educational agencies, and schools, by
applying for a waiver from certain requirements of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The waiver is
intended to provide educators and state and local leaders
with flexibility regarding specific requirements of NCLB
(principally, the requirement that all students be
proficient in math and reading by 2014 and won't have to
identify additional schools failing to meet targets) in
exchange for rigorous and comprehensive state-developed
plans designed to improve educational outcomes for all
students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and
improve the quality of instruction.
Instructions provided by the DOE indicate that to receive
the flexibility, a state's educational agency and each
local educational agency must commit to develop, adopt,
pilot and implement, with the involvement of teachers and
principals, teacher and principal evaluation and support
systems that: (1) will be used for continual improvement
of instruction; (2) meaningfully differentiate performance
using at least three performance levels; (3) use multiple
valid measures in determining performance levels, including
as a significant factor, data on student growth for all
students (including English Learners and students with
disabilities), and other measures of professional practice
(which may be gathered through multiple formats and
sources, such as observations based on rigorous teacher
performance standards, teacher portfolios, and student and
parent surveys); (4) evaluate teachers and principals on a
regular basis; (5) provide clear, timely, and useful
feedback, including feedback that identifies needs and
guides professional development; and (6) will be used to
inform personnel decisions.
The DOE has granted waivers to over 30 states. In June
2012, California submitted a request to set aside specific
requirements of the NCLB and requested that the DOE allow
the state to use its own accountability system to
ensure that all schools improve. California's request
differs from those filed by other states that agreed to
SB 453
Page 5
several additional federally required policies in exchange
for the NCLB waiver. The request was denied In December
2012.
Court ruling
In November 2011, a group of parents filed a law suit on
behalf of their children, (Doe et. al. v Deasy et. al.)
asking the court to compel the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD), its superintendent, and its board of
education to comply with the Stull Act's requirement to
evaluate teachers and administrators based in part on
student performance. In July 2012, Superior Court Judge
Chalfant found that the LAUSD was not in compliance with
the Stull Act and was violating its mandatory duty under
the Act to use pupil progress in teacher and principal
evaluations. The Court ruled that Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD) must modify its current evaluation
process to comply with the Stull Act requirement to
incorporate an assessment of the employee's performance as
it reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward the
District standards at each grade level in each area of
study and as it reasonably relates to the progress of
pupils toward State adopted academic content standards as
measured by State adopted criterion referenced assessments,
if applicable.
LAUSD and UTLA Supplemental Agreement
In response to the requirements of the Doe v. Deasy court
order, LAUSD and United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) reached
an agreement on additional teacher evaluation guidelines as
a supplemental agreement to the existing collective
bargaining agreement (Article X of the District-UTLA
Agreement). The supplemental agreement was ratified by
UTLA members in January 2013, and changes the current
evaluation process to incorporate the consideration of data
of pupil progress into both the goal-setting planning
sheets and in the final evaluation. Specifically, LAUSD
administrators must ensure that a student performance data
goal be incorporated into a teacher's initial planning
sheet and that both classroom level and student outcome
data and schoolwide Academic Growth Over Time information
be considered and used when determining a teacher's overall
performance in making a final evaluation.
ANALYSIS
SB 453
Page 6
This bill :
1) Repeals the Stull Act's legislative intent that school
districts and county governing boards establish a
uniform system of evaluation and assessment of
certificated personnel as of July 1, 2015.
2) By the 2015-16 school year, requires the governing
board of a school district to establish a uniform
system of evaluation and assessment of the performance
of all certificated employees and fully implement the
system by the 2016-17 school year. The evaluation
system shall meet the following criteria:
a) The system shall define a rigorous,
transparent, and fair multiple-measures
evaluation system and involve the development and
adoption by the governing board of objective
evaluation and assessment guidelines.
b) All certificated employees of the school
district are subject to the system of evaluation
and assessment, except for employees who are
employed on an hourly basis in adult education
classes.
c) Specifies that "multiple-measures evaluation
system" is a teacher evaluation system that uses
multiple research-validated approaches to
measuring effectiveness, as specified. Requires
the evaluation system to include a quantitative
pupil academic achievement growth component that
constitutes at least 30 percent of the overall
teacher effectiveness measure. School districts
may use other measures of student performance in
subjects for which quantitative measures of
student growth are not available.
3) Specifies that the system of evaluation applies to the
county superintendent of schools and the employees of
schools conducted or maintained by the county
superintendent of schools.
4) Requires the development and implementation of the
evaluation system to be subject to annual compliance
audits, as specified, commencing with the 2015-16
SB 453
Page 7
fiscal year.
5) Provides that the bill does not limit the governing
board of a school district to develop and adopt
additional evaluation and assessment guidelines or
criteria.
6) Allows the governing board of a school district's
determination on the order of termination to include
distinctions based upon performance evaluations.
7) Specifies that notwithstanding any other law, a school
district, county office of education or charter school
may assign, reassign, and transfer teachers and
administrators based on effectiveness and subject
matter needs without regard to years of service.
8) Deletes the requirement that school districts make
assignments and reassignments in a manner that
employees shall be retained to render service which
their seniority and qualifications entitle them to
render.
9) Deletes the requirement that an employee must pass a
subject matter competency test prior to being assigned
or reassigned to teach a subject they have not
previously taught or have the appropriate background
or teaching credential.
10) Specifies that a district may deviate from the order
of seniority for purposes of maintaining or achieving
compliance with constitutional requirements related to
equal protection of the laws as it applies to pupils.
11) Adds provisions to existing law authorizing a district
to deviate from the order of seniority in the layoff
and reappointment of certificated employees:
a) Specifies a district may deviate from the
order of seniority on the basis of performance
evaluations provided that the district has
implemented an evaluation and assessment process
as provided in this bill and employees with
superior evaluations are retained over those with
inferior evaluations.
SB 453
Page 8
b) Specifies a district may deviate from the
order of seniority on the basis that the employee
is assigned to a school site that has been
selected by the governing board for exemption
from certificated reductions in force, based upon
the needs of the educational program.
12) Prohibits a district that deviates from the order of
seniority for purposes of terminating an employee,
from taking into consideration whether an employee has
exercised collective bargaining and grievance rights;
prohibits a school district from deviating from the
order of seniority if the employee has 18 months or
less from his or her date of retirement or is on
medical leave.
13) Authorizes a district to deviate from the order of
seniority in reappointing or offering substitute
service to a certificated employee who has been laid
off for any of the following reasons:
a) The school district demonstrates a specific
need for personnel to teach a specific course or
course of study or to provide services authorized
by a services credential, as specified.
b) For purposes of maintaining or achieving
compliance with constitutional requirements
related to equal protection of the laws as it
applies to pupils.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill : The state's fiscal crisis has
required most school districts to make difficult
budget adjustments, including reductions to their
teaching workforce. According to the author's office,
the state's current "seniority first" system limits
the flexibility of school districts to make staffing
decisions that are in the best interest of schools and
the students they serve. Layoffs must abide by the
rule of "Last In, First Out" in which certificated
teachers must be released in the inverse of the order
in which they were hired; assignments, reassignments,
and transfers are determined on the basis of
seniority; and substitute jobs and vacancies must be
SB 453
Page 9
offered first to laid-off teachers who have the most
seniority, all without regard to the effectiveness of
the teacher or the needs of the students. Many argue
that these policies disproportionately affect students
attending low-achieving schools and schools in
low-income, high-poverty communities, not only because
these schools tend to have an overconcentration of
low-seniority teachers, but also because teachers with
more seniority tend to transfer to higher performing
schools. SB 453 modifies the seniority first system
by authorizing school districts to implement a
multiple-measures evaluation system and by authorizing
districts that choose to implement the prescribed
system to consider an employee's performance when
making layoff and reappointment decisions.
2) Evaluation and assessment system . Many teachers and
administrators note that evaluation procedures in most
districts do not help teachers or schools focus on
improving practice. A recent policy brief from the
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning (CFTL)
noted that teacher evaluation is typically a
compliance-oriented process that provides little
substantive support to teachers and is an ineffective
mechanism for strengthening teacher quality. The CFTL
noted specific components of an improved evaluation
system would include making teacher evaluation
multi-dimensional, including student performance
assessment and outcome measures; strengthening
training that principals and others receive to conduct
evaluations; increasing the amount of time principals
or others have allotted for conducting evaluations;
and linking evaluation feedback to professional
development opportunities to strengthen practice.
This bill authorizes school districts to evaluate and
assess the performance of all certificated employees
using a multiple-measures evaluation system that
includes quantitative pupil academic achievement
growth that would be at least 30% of the overall
measure of effectiveness. Could this result in a
patchwork of assessments that may or may not be
consistent across districts? Is the proposed
evaluation system too prescriptive for some districts,
particularly those that are using an evaluation system
that meets their local needs?
SB 453
Page 10
Since all certificated employees in a district would be
subject to the evaluation system, how would pupil
academic growth be measured for teachers who do not
have direct instructional responsibilities (such as
mentor teachers or an assistant superintendent of
curriculum) or who teach pupils or subjects that are
not tested, such as kindergarten teachers or career
technical education teachers? Given that the state's
accountability system and related assessments may
evolve to be aligned with the common core standards
and a reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, would it make sense to wait and develop a teacher
evaluation system that is aligned with those
initiatives?
3) Use of assessments in evaluation . In addition to
authorizing school districts that implement the
prescribed evaluation system to consider a teacher's
performance in making layoff and reappointment
decisions, it appears this bill authorizes school
districts, county offices of education, and charter
schools to assign, reassign, and transfer teachers and
administrators based on effectiveness and subject
matter needs without regard to service, whether or not
the district first adopts the assessment system
prescribed by this bill.
Given the "high stakes" decisions that could be made on the
basis of performance, it will be critical for
governing boards to ensure that their evaluation
systems are fair, valid, and reliable. Each component
of the system would need to be a valid and reliable
measure of teacher effectiveness in order to ensure
that a satisfactory rating in one school within the
district is equal to a satisfactory rating in another
school. Such a ranking system should involve
significant and on-going training of evaluators and
could require costly validation studies to ensure that
any student assessments used for purposes of the
evaluation system are valid and reliable.
It is unclear whether teachers who are referred to the Peer
Assistance and Review program as a result of their
evaluation would have the opportunity to improve their
practice before a district could use the evaluation in
making employment decisions.
SB 453
Page 11
4) Related and prior legislation .
SB 441 (Calderon) amends various provisions of
existing law governing the evaluation of certificated
employees by requiring the evaluations to use multiple
measures, including a minimum of four rating levels,
increasing the frequency of evaluations for teachers
with 10 or more years of experience in a school
district from every five years to every three years,
and requiring school districts to avail itself to the
input of parents. This bill is also scheduled to be
heard in this Committee on April 24, 2013.
SB 657 (Block) repeals the Stull Act and adds various
intent language and declarations regarding teacher
evaluations. This bill is pending before this
Committee.
SB 1292 (Liu), Chapter 435, Statutes of 2012,
authorized the evaluation of school principals based
on the California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders as well as evidence of pupil
academic growth, effective and comprehensive teacher
evaluations, culturally responsive instructional
strategies, the ability to analyze quality
instructional strategies and provide effective
feedback, and effective school management.
SB 355 (Huff, 2011) similar to this bill, would have
authorized the evaluation and assessment of
certificated employees using a multiple-measures
evaluation system, authorized districts to assign,
reassign, and transfer teachers and administrators
based on effectiveness and subject matter needs
without regard to years of service, and authorized
districts to deviate from the order of seniority in
terminating and reappointing teachers, as specified.
This measure failed passage in this Committee on May
11, 2011, on a 3-2 vote.
SUPPORT
California Chamber of Commerce
California School Boards Association
Congress of Racial Equality of California
Democrats for Education Reform
SB 453
Page 12
Fullerton Chamber of Commerce
Voice for Our Kids
OPPOSITION
California Federation of Teachers
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
Public Advocates
Service Employees International Union