BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 141
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Bonilla |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |July 9, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date July 15, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lenin Del Castillo |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Teacher credentialing: beginning teacher induction
programs
SUMMARY
This bill requires a local educational agency (LEA), including
charter schools, to provide an induction program for newly hired
teachers and also prohibits them from charging the teachers a
fee to participate in the induction program.
BACKGROUND
Existing law:
1)Requires a teacher to complete one of the following beginning
teacher induction programs in order to obtain a clear multiple
or single subject teaching credential:
a) A program of beginning teacher support and assessment
approved by the commission and the Superintendent, a
provision of the Marian Bergeson Beginning Teacher Support
and Assessment System.
b) An alternative program of beginning teacher induction
that is provided by one or more local educational agencies
and has been approved by the commission and the
Superintendent on the basis of initial review and periodic
evaluations of the program in relation to appropriate
AB 141 (Bonilla) Page 2
of ?
standards of credential program quality and effectiveness
that have been adopted by the commission, the
Superintendent, and the State Board.
c) An alternative program of beginning teacher induction
that is sponsored by a regionally accredited college or
university, in cooperation with one or more local school
districts, that addresses the individual professional needs
of beginning teachers and meets the commission's standards
of induction.
2)Specifies that if a candidate satisfies the requirements,
including completion of an accredited internship program of
professional preparation, and if that internship program
fulfills induction standards and is approved, the commission
shall determine that the candidate has fulfilled the induction
requirements.
3)Specifies that if an approved induction program is verified as
unavailable to a beginning teacher, or if the beginning
teacher is required under the federal No Child Left Behind Act
to complete subject matter coursework to be qualified for a
teaching assignment, the commission shall accept completion of
an approved clear credential program after completion of a
baccalaureate degree at a regionally accredited institution as
fulfilling the induction requirements.
ANALYSIS
This bill:
1)Makes various findings and declarations for the effectiveness
of induction programs for beginning teachers and their access
to these programs.
2)Provides that commencing with hiring for the 2016-17 school
year, and each school year thereafter, a school district,
county office of education, or charter school that hires a
AB 141 (Bonilla) Page 3
of ?
beginning teacher shall provide that beginning teacher with a
program of beginning teacher induction, unless the beginning
teacher meets specified requirements. Specifies that a
beginning teacher includes a teacher with a preliminary
multiple or single subject teaching credential, or a
preliminary education specialist credential.
3)Prohibits a local educational agency (LEA) or charter school
from charging a fee to a beginning teacher to participate in
the beginning teacher induction program or an alternative
program of beginning teacher induction.
STAFF COMMENTS
1)Need for the bill. According to the author's office, "nearly 12
percent of providers are charging teachers for induction.
Local education agencies are charging teachers as much as
$2,500 per year for the two year program, placing heavy
financial burdens on teachers just starting their careers.
Further adding to the program, some districts are ending their
induction programs, placing the burden of identifying,
accessing, and completing a quality induction program solely
on new teachers. A new teacher's inability to access an
induction program compromises that teacher's professional
growth and greatly reduces the chance that he or she will stay
in the profession."
2)Teacher induction. According to the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CTC), induction for new teachers in California
has evolved in significant ways over its 25 year history. The
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program was
established as a result of a pilot study conducted during 1988
to 1992 by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the
California Department of Education. This pilot study, known
as the California New Teacher Project demonstrated that the
state could increase beginning teacher retention, success and
effectiveness, by providing all new teachers with structured
mentoring and support. The Governor and the Legislature
established the BTSA Program as part of the 1992-93 Budget
Act. At that time, the program was a grant program designed
to support new teachers and was not a credential requirement
for teachers.
AB 141 (Bonilla) Page 4
of ?
From 1995 until 2009 BTSA Induction programs operated with
dedicated Proposition 98 funding based on a per-participating
teacher allocation (with a matching requirement by the LEA).
However, in February 2009, the State Budget provided LEAs with
categorical spending flexibility in exchange for program
funding reductions. LEAs were able to use funds from about 40
categorical programs, including the Teacher Credentialing
Block Grant for which the Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment (BTSA) program was a part of, for any educational
purpose. The program's matching requirement was also removed
but funding continued to be provided to local educational
agencies (LEAs) that sponsored an approved induction program.
Since the onset of the categorical funding flexibility
provisions, a number of approved induction programs have
become inactive or withdrawn. In terms of statewide program
equity, access and parity has been an issue regarding the
charging of beginning teachers to participate in an induction
program. The induction programs sponsored by colleges or
universities have always charged tuition. A few LEA-based
induction programs were approved by the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CTC) after 2009 and never received state
funding. These programs, sponsored by charter schools, have
always charged candidates. Another issue that appears to be
surfacing is that some programs are "capping" the number of
new teachers they will serve, resulting in inequities within a
district as some new teachers receive induction services and
others are faced with having to search and pay for induction
services outside of their district or teach, largely
unsupported, in a classroom for a year or more until they
reach the top of the program's waiting list.
3)Induction fees. The CTC conducted a survey of CTC-approved
induction programs and received 126 responses out of 165
programs. Of the survey respondents, 11.5 percent of LEA
sponsored induction programs reported that they charged fees
to induction participants in 2014-15. This equates to 2,063
participants who paid fees out of 17,907 total participants at
respondent LEAs. Respondents reported the per year fees range
from $390 to $3,350.
AB 141 (Bonilla) Page 5
of ?
4)Related budget activity. The 2015-16 Budget Act includes $490
million in Proposition 98 General Fund for activities that
promote educator quality and effectiveness. These funds may
be used for a menu of options, including beginning teacher and
administrator support and mentoring, and professional
development for struggling teachers. The 2015-16 Budget Act
also requires the CTC, by September 1, 2015, to evaluate any
burdens of existing induction requirements. It also requires
the CTC to provide funding recommendations, including state,
school district, and teacher candidate responsibilities for
induction, which could speak to the notion of prohibiting a
district from charging fees.
5)Induction options to obtain a Clear Teaching Credential.
Completion of an approved induction program is the primary
route to attaining a clear teaching credential. If a teacher
employed (employer is defined as a California public school,
any school that is sponsored by a private California K12
school, nonpublic, nonsectarian school or agency, charter
school, or a school operated under the direction of a
California state agency) does not have an induction program
available to them, then the teacher may enroll in a Clear
Credential Program. 6)Currently, there are 22 CTC-approved
Clear Credential programs operating in California (3 from
California State University system, 3 from the University of
California, and 16 private independent institutions).
7)Fiscal impact. According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, the bill would result in Proposition 98 General
Fund state mandated costs, potentially in the tens of
millions, for local educational agencies (LEAs) to provide
induction to beginning teachers. Currently, there are 165
induction programs that serve approximately 18,000 teachers.
A recent survey of 126 programs showed 11.5 percent of program
participants were charged fees ranging from $390 to $3,350.
On average, these fees total $5 million statewide. Actual
costs will depend on the size and types of claims districts
submit to the Commission on State Mandates. LEAs may file
cost claims even if they are currently fully funding induction
for beginning teachers.
The requirements of this bill also place pressure on the state
to provide a new dedicated funding source for induction
AB 141 (Bonilla) Page 6
of ?
programs. In prior years, the state dedicated funding for
induction that ranged from $87 million to $128 million.
SUPPORT
California Catholic Conference
California Communities United Institute
California Federation of Teachers
California State PTA
California STEM Learning Network
California Teachers Association
Common Sense Kids Action
Public Advocates
Santa Clara County Office of Education
Superintendent of Public Instruction
OPPOSITION
California School Boards Association
-- END --