BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1099
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
1099 (Olsen) - As Amended May 6, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Education |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires each school district and county office of
education (COE) to post information on its Internet Web site, if
it has one, regarding its procedures for evaluating teachers and
AB 1099
Page 2
principals. Further, requires the local control and
accountability plan (LCAP) of each school district and COE to
contain a listing and description of specified expenditures at
each schoolsite.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Unknown, likely minor, Proposition 98/GF state mandated
reimbursable costs for school districts and COEs to compile
schoolsite expenditure data and teacher evaluation materials and
post the information online. Many districts are already be
compiling this data per existing state and federal law. Actual
costs will vary by district depending on the number of school
sites and the complexity of data submitted.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. Students First supports this bill to "build on the
principles of transparency and accountability". First,
requiring detailed disclosure of schoolsite spending will
"shine a light on the extent to which districts are using LCFF
dollars to truly provide additional resources to student
populations according to their needs." Second, requiring
public posting of the process and materials used for teacher
and principal evaluation is important, because "information on
teacher quality is essential for parents and families to truly
understand the quality of the schools in their community."
2)Background. Each district and COE is required to develop an
LCAP which serves as the spending plan that accompanies each
local education agency budget. The LCAP describes the goals,
actions, services, and expenditures to support positive
student outcomes that address state and local priorities. The
LCAP does not ask for details about specific actions or tasks;
AB 1099
Page 3
rather it focuses on strategic goals, progression of outcomes,
and services and related expenditures based on local need.
According to California Department of Education (CDE),
regulations require school districts and COEs to specify, in
both the LCAP and the annual update to the LCAP, which school
sites each goal applies to, the scope of service for a
particular action or services, the applicable student
subgroups to be served by a goal, action, or service, and the
estimated expenditures for each action and service. School
districts and COEs are also required to provide a description
of how they are expending funds calculated on the basis of the
number and concentration of low income, foster youth, and
English learner pupils. If a school district or COE chooses
to send LCFF funds to school sites to implement one or more of
the actions and/or services described in the LCAP, those funds
would be captured in the LCAP or annual update to the LCAP of
the school district or COE.
3)Opposition. The California School Employees Association oppose
this bill and state it is an unnecessary duplication of
existing law. Specifically, they note federal law requires
state agencies to collect information regarding the system
used to evaluate the performance of teachers and principals,
the overall performance evaluation rating for all teachers at
the school, and the overall performance rating for principals
districtwide.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 1099
Page 4