BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1078
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 1078
(Olsen) - As Introduced February 27, 2015
SUBJECT: Teachers: evaluations
SUMMARY: Makes changes to the certificated employee evaluation
system, known as the Stull Act. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the State Board of Education (SBE), by July 1, 2016
to revise, update and adopt guidelines that school districts
may use in the development of teacher evaluation procedures;
and, requires the updated guidelines to include, but not
necessarily be limited to, a determination that a teacher's
overall performance is highly effective, effective, minimally
effective or ineffective.
2)Prohibits the SBE from granting any waiver request by a
governing board of a school district if the state board finds
the governing board of the school district to be out of
compliance with subdivision (a) or paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b) of Section 44662, or out of compliance with
the requirement to confer with a certificated employee making
specific recommendations as to areas of improvement in the
certificated employee's performance and endeavor to assist the
certificated employee in his or her performance.
AB 1078
Page 2
3)Encourages the governing board of a school district to use
peer observation and surveys of parents and students as part
of the evaluation and assessment guidelines or criteria for
certificated employees.
4)Requires all certificated employees to be evaluated annually,
which shall result in a determination of highly effective,
effective, minimally effective or ineffective.
5)Defines "unsatisfactory" to mean an evaluation that results in
a determination of ineffective or minimally effective; and,
defines "satisfactory" to mean an evaluation that results in a
determination of effective or highly effective.
6)Specifies to the extent that this bill conflicts with a
provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by
a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining
representative before January 1, 2016, pursuant to Chapter
10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1
of the Government Code, the changes made to by this bill shall
not apply to the school district until expiration or renewal
of that collective bargaining agreement.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes the Stull Act, enacted in 1971, which governs
certificated employee evaluations and requires school
districts to evaluate and assess teacher performance as it
reasonability relates to pupil performance on criterion
referenced tests, teacher technique and strategies, curricular
objectives, and the maintenance of a suitable learning
environment. Specifies that in the development and adoption
of evaluation guidelines and procedures, the governing board
AB 1078
Page 3
shall avail itself of the advice of the certificated
instructional personnel in the district's organization of
certificated personnel pursuant to collective bargaining
statutes. Specifies that a school district may, by mutual
agreement between the exclusive representative of the
certificated employees of the school district and the
governing board of the school district, include any objective
standards from the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards or any objective standards from the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession. Specifies that teacher
evaluations shall be made on a continuing basis 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 personnel with permanent status who have
been employed at least 10 years with the school district, are
highly qualified, if those personnel occupy positions that are
required to be filled by a highly qualified professional, and
whose previous evaluation rated the employee as meeting or
exceeding standards, if the evaluator and certificated
employee being evaluated agree. Specifies that an employee
who receives an unsatisfactory rating in the area of teaching
methods or instruction may be required to participate in a
program designed to improve appropriate areas of the
employee's performance; and, requires if a school district
participates in the Peer Assistance and Review Program for
Teachers (PAR), employees who receive an unsatisfactory rating
shall participate in PAR. (Education Code 44660 et. seq.)
2)Establishes the Peer Assistance and Review Program for
Teachers (PAR) by authorizing school districts and the
exclusive representative of the certificated employees to
develop and implement the program locally. Specifies that
assistance and review shall include multiple observations of a
teacher during periods of classroom instruction. Specifies
the program shall expect and strongly encourage a cooperative
relationship between the consulting teacher and the principal
with respect to the process of peer assistance and review.
Specifies the school district shall provide sufficient staff
development activities to assist a teacher to improve his or
AB 1078
Page 4
her teaching skills and knowledge. Specifies the final
evaluation of a teacher's participation in the program shall
be made available for placement in the personnel file of the
teacher receiving assistance. (Education Code 44505)
FISCAL EFFECT: Legislative counsel has keyed this bill a state
mandated local program.
COMMENTS: This bill makes changes to the certificated employee
evaluation system, known as the Stull Act.
According to the author, The Stull Act was passed in 1971 to
provide school districts with a timeline for teacher
evaluations, and to designate the importance of peer review and
student academic performance in such evaluations. However, the
Act lacks definition and guidelines, and school districts have
largely ignored its provisions. AB 1078 would improve teacher
evaluations by modernizing the Stull Act to develop meaningful
teacher evaluations that will help both teachers and students
continue on the path to success.
Operative Date: If enacted, this bill has as operative January
1, 2016, but the revised SBE guidance is not available until
July 1, 2016. The committee should consider whether the revised
SBE guidance should be published and distributed to school
districts before the operative date of the bill.
SBE Waivers: This bill prohibits all SBE waivers from being
granted if a school district does not do both of the following:
1)Establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each
grade level in each area of study.
2)Evaluate and assess certificated employee performance as it
reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward the
standards, the state adopted academic content standards as
AB 1078
Page 5
measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments.
Under this provision, it is unclear what the status of existing
SBE waivers would hold. Would the SBE waivers that have been
approved to date, be void?
Research on Evaluation: Several research studies detail the
essential principals and components of a strong teacher
evaluation system. The National Comprehensive Center for
Teacher Quality argues a strong evaluation system must: "involve
teachers and stakeholders in developing the system; use multiple
indicators; and give teachers opportunities to improve in the
areas in which they score poorly." Likewise, the New Teacher
Project states "evaluations should provide all teachers with
regular feedback that helps them grow as professionals, no
matter how long they have been in the classroom. The primary
purpose of evaluations should not be punitive. Good evaluations
identify excellent teachers and help teachers of all skill
levels understand how they can improve." This bill does not
implement multiple indicators for teacher evaluation.
According to StudentsFirst, "A growing body of research on
teacher evaluation measures and best practices from other states
across the country supports the use of standards-based
observation tools and objective measures of student growth for
evaluating teacher performance. However, AB 1078 does not
include requirements that districts utilize research-based
measures of teacher performance within locally adopted teacher
evaluation systems and provides no guidance for how each of
these measures should be weighted in the final rating."
Evaluation Frequency: This bill requires annual evaluation of
all certificated employees. Currently, permanent teachers are
evaluated at least every other year; and, teachers with more
AB 1078
Page 6
than 10 years of experience are authorized to be evaluated every
five years. This bill will require experienced teachers to be
evaluated more frequently. It is unclear how many teachers are
currently evaluated every other year versus every five years and
thus it is unclear how this bill will affect administrator work
load to complete the increased number of evaluations. It is
unclear whether our current administrative organization at
schools will allow for annual evaluations of every teacher. The
committee should consider whether this will be possible given
the fact that many schools have a single principal. If the
committee agrees that annual evaluation is appropriate, the
committee should further consider whether it will be possible
for principals to receive enough support from the district to
accomplish this starting year one.
Professional Development: This bill specifies that teachers who
receive an unsatisfactory rating on their evaluation (those
deemed ineffective and minimally effective), if a school
district has a PAR program in place, they must refer teachers
who receive an unsatisfactory review to the PAR program for
improvement. The bill does not specify the process if a teacher
continues to receive unsatisfactory evaluations after the PAR
program is complete. It is unclear whether school districts
should begin dismissal proceedings, or provide further
instructional support for the teacher.
Performance Bands: This bill requires the state prescribed
evaluation system to use four prescribed performance bands which
include: "highly effective," "effective," "minimally effective,"
and "ineffective." The committee should consider whether four
performance levels would be the appropriate number, and whether
the four levels specified in the bill are the most effective
performance level descriptors that should be used state-wide.
Parent and Student Surveys and Peer Observations: This bill
encourages the use of peer evaluations and surveys from parents
and pupils in certificated employee evaluations. The committee
should consider whether it is appropriate to include peer
observations, if those peers are not involved in appropriate
AB 1078
Page 7
training. The committee should also consider whether it is
appropriate to include surveys from parents and students in
certificated employee evaluations. The committee should consider
whether it is possible for a particularly "tough" teacher that
assigns robust homework to receive negative survey comments,
when they are a very effective teacher and how this would impact
the overall evaluation of that teacher. Likewise, if surveys
from parents and students included in a principal's evaluation,
comment on suspensions and expulsions, is that appropriate?
Charter Schools: This bill requires all traditional public
schools in the state to adopt the changes to the teacher
evaluation system, but the committee should note that the Stull
Act and the changes made in this bill do not apply to charter
schools. The committee should consider whether charter schools
teachers should be left out of this opportunity for annual
evaluations and support.
Related Legislation: AB 575 (O'Donnell & Atkins) from 2015,
which is pending in the Assembly, would require the governing
board of each school district and the governing body of each
charter school to adopt and implement a best practices teacher
and administrator evaluation system by July 1, 2018.
AB 1495 (Weber) from 2015, which is pending in the Assembly,
would make changes to the certificated employee evaluation
system, known as the Stull Act.
SB 499 (Liu & DeLeon) from 2015, which is pending in the Senate,
would require the governing board of each school district to
adopt and implement a best practices teacher and administrator
evaluation system by July 1, 2016.
AB 430 (Olsen) from 2013, which was held by the author in the
Assembly Education Committee, would have established the Teacher
Professional Growth Plan, as specified.
AB 1078
Page 8
AB 5 (Fuentes) from 2009, which was held by the author on the
Senate Floor, would have required the governing board of each
school district to adopt and implement a best practices teacher
evaluation system, as specified.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
CalChamber
EdVoice
Students Matter
Opposition
California Federation of Teachers
California Teachers Association
Analysis Prepared by:Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
AB 1078
Page 9