BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 559
AUTHOR: Huff
AMENDED: January 8, 2014
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: January 15, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lenin Del Castillo
SUBJECT : School districts: Certificated staff.
SUMMARY
This bill makes various changes to statutes governing staffing
notification deadlines pertaining to layoffs for permanent and
probationary certificated employees.
BACKGROUND
Existing law provides that a probationary employee becomes a
permanent employee after completing two consecutive school years
in a position requiring certification. School districts must
notify probationary employees of a decision to elect or
non-elect for permanent status by March 15th of the employee's
second consecutive year of employment by the district. During
the period of probation, an employee may be dismissed without
cause. (Education Code § 44929.21)
Existing law requires school districts to provide preliminary
notification to a permanent employee that his or her services
will not be required for the ensuing year no later than March
15th and provide final notification of termination of his or her
services by May 15th.
Existing law allows permanent employees that receive a
preliminary layoff notice to request a hearing to determine if
there is cause for not reemploying him or her for the ensuing
year. The hearing shall be conducted by an administrative law
judge who shall prepare a proposed decision, containing findings
of fact and a determination as to whether the charges sustained
by the evidence are related to the welfare of the schools and
students. Copies of the proposed decision, which is not binding
on the governing board, shall be submitted to the governing
board and to the employee on or before
SB 559
Page 2
May 7th. (Education Code § 44949)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Changes the deadline by which the governing board of a
school district must notify probationary employees with a
notice to non-elect for permanent status from March 15 to
May 15 of the employee's second consecutive year of
employment by the district.
2) Changes the deadline by which the governing board of a
school district must notify certificated employees with
preliminary notification of a layoff from March 15 to May
15.
3) Changes the deadline by which copies of an administrative
law judge's proposed decision regarding a certificated
employee's cause for layoff must be submitted to the
governing board of a school district from May 7 to June 7.
4) Changes the deadline by which the governing board of school
district must notify certificated employees with final
notification of a layoff from May 15 to June 15.
5) Provides that the public school employer and the exclusive
representative shall, upon request of the public school
employer, meet and negotiate regarding changes to the
preliminary and final notification deadlines for issuing
layoff notices.
6) Makes various legislative findings and declarations.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Report on the Teacher Layoff Process . The Legislative
Analyst Office (LAO) released A Review of the Teacher
Layoff Process in California in March 2012. The report
indicates that one of the most significant problems with
the existing layoff process is the notification time line
and how disconnected it is from both the state budget cycle
and the availability of critical local information.
Because of this, the number of teachers that are initially
noticed typically far exceeds the number of teachers that
SB 559
Page 3
are actually laid off for the following school year. In
the report, the LAO recommends changing the time line to
June 1 for preliminary notices and to August 1 for final
notices to better align the layoff deadlines with the state
budget process, resulting in fewer notifications
unnecessarily issued by school districts because they would
have better fiscal information on which to base their
determinations. Additionally, this would reduce the time
and cost that school districts invest in the layoff
notification process.
2) Need for the bill . According to the author's office, the
bill would help relieve the impacts that the current
notification requirements create for teachers each year.
The primary source of revenue for school districts is the
state budget which isn't finalized until June of each year.
School districts have no idea what their budget will look
like on March 15 when they are required to issue
preliminary layoff notices. As indicated above, school
districts will overestimate and send layoff notices to
teachers that will likely not be laid off which causes
anxiety for them as well as uneasiness for the general
public. This can lead to months of unnecessary stress on
the teachers and their families and cause disruption in the
classroom. When school districts have a better idea of
what the state budget will look like in June, a majority of
the layoff notices are often rescinded. According to the
author's office, by moving the deadlines, this bill would
allow school districts to make more accurate decisions on
how many layoff notices should go out.
3) Notification dates . This bill requires teachers to receive
preliminary layoff notices by May 15th and final
notification by June 15th. Given that the final
notification deadline may be after the last school day for
many districts, could the June 15 deadline unfairly
disadvantage a teacher from getting a job with another
district? Would he or she have reasonable opportunity to
look for a new position? Additionally, if the preliminary
notice deadline is moved to May 15th and the last day for
an administrative law judge's proposed decision regarding
an employee's cause for layoff to be submitted is moved to
June 7, would three weeks be sufficient for an employee to
request a hearing and for the Office of Administrative
Hearings to conduct these hearings?
SB 559
Page 4
This bill also extends the timeframe for which districts
much decide to notify probationary employees of a decision
to elect or non-elect for permanent status by two months.
During this period of probation, an employee may be
dismissed without cause.
4) Preference for substitute teaching . Anecdotal evidence
suggests the preferences and compensation requirements
given to laid off teachers who substitute teach offset at
least some of the savings a district may otherwise realize
from a reduction in force. At least one district has
indicated that of the amount it anticipated saving as a
result of teacher layoffs, it only saved a small portion of
that amount because the district had to pay those teachers
their old wage when they served as substitutes for more
than 21 days. To the extent that local bargaining
agreements do not address preferences for substitute
teaching, this bill could provide districts with needed
flexibility. At the same time, it can be argued that
current law safeguards teachers from districts that may
layoff more highly compensated employees only to turn
around and rehire them as substitutes at a lower rate of
pay.
5) Technical amendments needed . This bill contains
unintentional drafting errors that undo changes recently
enacted by SB 546 (Wright), Chapter 90, Statutes of 2013,
which renamed the documents that are required during layoff
proceedings for school district employees.
6) Related and prior legislation .
SB 955 (Huff, 2010) among other provisions, proposed to
repeal the March 15 deadline to issue preliminary layoff
notices. This bill passed this Committee but eventually
died in Senate Rules.
SUPPORT
None on file.
OPPOSITION
California Teachers Association
SB 559
Page 5