BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 575
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
575 (O'Donnell) - As Amended May 13, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Education |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the governing board of each school district
and the governing body of each charter school to adopt and
implement a best practices teacher evaluation system (teacher
AB 575
Page 2
evaluation) and a school administrator evaluation system by July
1, 2018. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires, starting July 1, 2018, each school board, county
board of education, and governing body of each charter school,
to adopt and implement a best practices teacher evaluation.
Requires this evaluation system to be negotiated with the
local collective bargaining unit. If the certificated
employees do not have an exclusive bargaining representative,
the governing board or body shall adopt objective evaluation
and support components, as applicable.
2)Sets forth objectives by which each teacher shall be
evaluated; including, but not limited to, engagement and
support of pupils, use of differentiated instruction, use of
formative and summative pupil assessment information to inform
instruction and improve learning, use of collaborative
professional practices for improving instructional strategies,
participation in identified professional growth opportunities,
and use of meaningful self-assessment to improve as a
professional educator and contribute to pupil academic growth
based on multiple measures, as specified. Specifies pupil data
used for purposes of teacher evaluations shall be confidential
in the same manner as all other elements of a teacher's
personnel file.
3)Authorizes the use of multiple observations of instruction and
professional practices for teacher evaluation. Specifies these
observations shall be conducted by evaluators who have been
appropriately trained and calibrated to ensure consistency and
who have demonstrated competence in teacher evaluation, as
determined by the school district. Multiple observations may
include, but are not limited to, classroom observations
(scheduled or unscheduled), one-on-one discussions, and review
AB 575
Page 3
of classroom materials and course of study. Further, requires
observations to be conducted using a uniform evaluation tool
that is appropriate to the teacher's assignment and requires
the observer to discuss the purpose of the evaluation prior to
formal observation.
4)Requires the teacher evaluation to establish a minimum of
three levels for the evaluation of teacher performance.
5)Requires teacher evaluations at least once each school year
for probationary personnel; at least every other year for
personnel with permanent status; or, except as may be provided
in the best practices teacher evaluation system that is
negotiated with the local collective bargaining unit, at least
every three years for personnel with permanent status who have
been employed at least 10 years with the school district, and
are highly qualified under the federal No Child Left Behind
Act; requires the evaluator to conduct at least one informal
observation per year during a year when the certificated
employee does not receive a formal performance evaluation and
assessment.
6)Requires the teacher evaluation to include recommendations, if
necessary, as to areas of improvement, including actions
related to unsatisfactory performance. Any teacher with an
unsatisfactory performance evaluation shall be evaluated
annually until the employee achieves a positive evaluation or
the employee is separated from the school district or charter
school. Further, authorizes an employer to require the
employee to participate in a program designed to improve the
employee's performance.
AB 575
Page 4
7)Requires a certificated employee who receives an
unsatisfactory rating on an evaluation, to participate in the
California Peer Assistance and Review Program for Teachers, if
a school district or charter school participates in the
program.
8)Sets forth objectives by which an administrator shall be
evaluated; including, but not limited to, the success by which
the administrator facilitates development and implementation
of a vision for pupil learning, parent and community
communication, advocating and supporting a safe, nurturing
school culture that sustains a quality instructional program
conducive to pupil learning and staff professional growth,
providing ethical and professional leadership.
9)Specifies school administrators shall be held accountable for
the academic growth of pupils over time, based on multiple
measures, which may include pupil work as well as pupil and
school longitudinal data.
10)Requires the governing board of a school district to identify
who will conduct the evaluation of each school administrator,
as specified.
11)Authorizes the State Board of Education, in consultation with
the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), and
appropriate education stakeholder groups, to adopt
nonregulatory guidance to support the implementation of a best
practices teacher evaluation system by school districts,
county offices of education, and charter schools that may
AB 575
Page 5
include model evaluation system and processes.
12)Repeals the following portions of the Stull Act effective
July 1, 2018: legislative intent that governing boards
establish a uniform system for evaluation and assessment; the
requirement that the governing board shall, in developing and
adopting the guidelines, avail itself of the advice of the
certificated instructional personnel in the district as part
of a locally negotiated collective bargaining agreement; and,
the authorization for a school district, by mutual agreement
between the local bargaining unit and the district, to include
objective standards from the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards or the California Standards for the
Teaching Profession.
13)Sets forth a public hearing process to discuss and receive
public input relative to the negotiated teacher evaluation
system.
14)Specifies this bill does not supersede or invalidate a
teacher evaluation system that is locally negotiated and that
is in effect at the time this bill becomes operative. If a
locally negotiated teacher evaluation system is in effect at
the time this bill becomes operative, the teacher evaluation
system shall remain in effect until the parties to the
agreement negotiate a successor agreement. A memorandum of
understanding shall not extend the adoption of a locally
negotiated teacher evaluation system that is in effect at the
time this section becomes operative.
15)Prohibits a school district, COE or charter school from
AB 575
Page 6
seeking a waiver of the requirements the best practices
teacher evaluation system and the school administrator
evaluation system.
16)Adds the best practices teacher evaluation system to the
mandate block grant and specifies that it is the intent of the
Legislature to provide adequate resources to train evaluators,
continue robust beginning teacher induction programs, and
support struggling educators.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Proposition 98/GF state mandated reimbursable costs to school
districts and COEs, likely in excess of $60 million, to create
and implement teacher and administrator evaluation programs
starting July 1, 2018. According to the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, there are approximately 288,000 teachers in
California. New mandated costs include: annual evaluation
costs to increase evaluation frequency from once every five
years to once every three years (likely for more than 100,000
teachers); multiple observations of each teacher; collective
bargaining costs related to negotiating the new evaluation
system; training of educators who will be conducting the
evaluations and cost pressures to provide robust beginning
teacher induction programs and support to struggling
educators.
2)General Fund administrative costs of approximately $265,000 to
the California Department of Education, annually over two
years, to adopt non-regulatory guidance to support the
implementation of the evaluations.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. This bill replaces the existing teacher evaluation
AB 575
Page 7
system, known as the Stull Act, with a new teacher and
administrator evaluation system that requires specific
components, such as state and local formative and summative
assessment data and observations. According to the author,
the goal is to establish a fair, transparent, and
comprehensive teacher evaluation system accountable to pupils,
parents and teachers. California's 1,000 school districts
serve diverse pupil populations, employees, and communities.
What works in Los Angeles Unified School District does not
necessarily work in the Eureka City Unified School District.
This bill allows individual school districts the flexibility
to determine how components of the teacher and administrator
evaluation systems will be implemented to meet the needs of
their pupils, teachers, administrators, and parents.
Supporters of the bill, including Public Advocates, state the
bill strengthens the evaluation system and support full
compliance with California's teaching standards, which they
note are optional under existing law (Stull Act). They further
state this bill requires that any teacher evaluation system
must include certain elements that cannot be negotiated away
including: frequency of evaluations; classroom observations
from evaluators trained for the task; requiring districts to
receive and consider input from parents, students, and
community members into the development of the local evaluation
process; requiring evidence of teachers' contribution to
students' academic performance through multiple measures,
including summative and formative assessments; requiring that
teachers who are evaluated unsatisfactory participate in a
district's Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) program if it has
one; and requiring that teachers in charter schools also be
evaluated under the new best practices system.
2)K-12 Mandate Block Grant. This bill repeals the Stull Act and
replaces requirements with a more robust teacher evaluation
system. The bill also specifies these requirements will be
added to the K-12 mandate block grant.
AB 575
Page 8
The Stull Act mandate is currently included in the K-12
Education Block Grant. Prior to inclusion in the block grant,
statewide costs were approximately $17 million. Under the
block grant, a school district, charter school, or county
office of education may choose to receive a per-pupil
allocation to conduct existing K-12 mandated activities rather
than receive full payment under the existing claims process.
Local educational agencies could choose to file a claim with
the Commission on State Mandates to re-determine the existing
mandate or file a new mandate claim to consider new activities
required under this bill. If the CSM determines these
requirements impose a higher level of service, this could
place pressure on the Legislature to increase funding under
the K-12 Mandate Block Grant.
3)Opposition. A coalition of education management groups oppose
this bill because the bill would require the development of
teacher evaluation systems to be collectively bargained,
including the requirement to negotiate the performance
standards on which teachers will be evaluated. Currently, the
terms and conditions of employment - including evaluation
procedures - are subjects of bargaining. The opposition
believes school district governing boards should, however,
retain the sole right to determine the standards and criteria
for job performance. They are concerned that academic issues
would become inextricably linked with financial matters and
other employment conditions subject to bargaining.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
AB 575
Page 9
319-2081