BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1099
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Olsen |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 6, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date: July 1, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lenin Del Castillo |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: School accountability: local control and
accountability plans: teacher evaluations
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
principals. This bill also 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 school site.
BACKGROUND
Under existing law, the Stull Act expresses legislative intent
that school districts and county governing boards establish a
uniform system of evaluation and assessment of certificated
personnel. With the exception of certificated personnel who are
employed on an hourly basis to teach adult education classes,
the Stull Act requires school districts to evaluate and assess
teacher performance as it reasonably relates to:
1)Progress of pupils toward district-adopted and, if applicable,
state-adopted academic content standards as measured by
state-adopted criterion referenced tests;
2) Instructional techniques and strategies used by the employee;
AB 1099 (Olsen) Page 2
of ?
3)The employee's adherence to curricular objectives; and
4)The establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning
environment within the scope of the employee's
responsibilities. (Education Code § 44660, et seq.)
Chapter 47, Statutes of 2013 (AB 97, Committee on Budget), and
subsequent legislation created the Local Control Funding Formula
(LCFF), which consolidated most of the state's categorical
programs with general purpose revenue limit funding and would be
phased in over the coming years. One of the main principles
behind the LCFF is that English learners and low-income students
require more attention and resources in the classroom than
students who do not have these same challenges. By providing
more services (and in turn, additional funding) to these student
populations, it is widely believed that this will help close the
achievement gap and help all students perform better.
In addition to the LCFF, the 2013 Budget established a new
system for school accountability. Under the new system, school
districts, county offices of education, and
charter schools are required to complete a local control and
accountability plan (LCAP). The LCAP must include a district's
annual goals in each of the following eight state priority
areas:
1)Student achievement.
2)Student engagement.
3)Other student outcomes.
4)School climate.
5)Implementation of the Common Core State Standards.
6)Course access.
7)Basic services.
8)Parental involvement.
The plans must also include both district wide goals and goals
AB 1099 (Olsen) Page 3
of ?
for specific subgroups. Districts are required to consult with
stakeholders on their plans and hold at least two public
hearings before adopting or updating their LCAP. Additionally,
existing law requires each LCAP to include, among other things:
a) A listing and description of district expenditures for
the fiscal year implementing the specific actions included
in the LCAP and the changes to the specific actions made
pursuant to the annual update; and
b) A listing and description of district expenditures for
the fiscal year that will serve the pupils who are in at
least one of the following categories: eligible for free
or reduced-price meals; foster youth; limited English
proficient; or redesignated as English proficient.
According to the State Department of Education, regulations
require school districts and county office of education (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.
ANALYSIS
This bill:
1)Requires each school district and COE to post on its Internet
Web site, if it has one, all of the following:
AB 1099 (Olsen) Page 4
of ?
a) An easily understandable explanation of how the
evaluation of certificated teaching staff is conducted,
including, but not limited to, all blank evaluation forms,
all procedures to be used for the evaluation contained in
the current collective bargaining agreement, how
evaluations include the progress of pupils toward the
locally adopted standards of expected pupil achievement at
each grade level in each area of study, and if applicable,
the state adopted academic content standards as measured by
state adopted criterion referenced assessments.
b) Whether or not the school district or county office of
education (COE) has adopted an evaluation system for school
principals, and how it compares to the standards set forth
in law, as specified.
1)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 school site.
STAFF COMMENTS
1)Need for the bill. According to the author's office, this bill
empowers parents to more actively engage with schools and
teachers by disclosing principal and teacher evaluation
methods and school funding priorities. School districts are
not required to demonstrate the evaluation method of its
teachers or principals, the level of investment they make in
the continuing education of teachers, or how their resources
are divided between schools. The author's office indicates
that we can make our education system more effective by
providing more information about how schools are measuring
AB 1099 (Olsen) Page 5
of ?
quality and spending their resources and that we cannot hold
our teachers or principals responsible for the success or
failure of schools if districts do not evaluate their
performance and invest in their continuing education.
2)Arguments in support. StudentsFirst indicates that this bill
"seeks to build on the principles of transparency and
accountability that serve as the foundation for California's
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) by requiring additional
transparency for schools, districts, and county offices of
education." By requiring school districts and county offices
of education to include annual updates about expenditures at
the school site level 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." In addition, the bill would lead to increased
transparency regarding the quality of the teachers in our
classrooms by requiring school districts to "make available to
the public, and post on its Web site, information on the
process and materials used to evaluate teachers and principals
including how the school district incorporates measures of
pupil progress towards local and state academic content
standards in educator evaluations." EdVoice indicates that by
sharing publicly key information about how teachers and
administrators are assessed, parents, teachers, and community
members can better engage with district leadership in
substantive conversations about how they assess and support
their educators.
3)Arguments in opposition. The California Federation of Teachers
(CFT) indicates that "the data required to be reported related
to teacher evaluations distorts the
purpose and intent of educator evaluations. Effective
teacher evaluation systems are designed to identify educator
strengths and weaknesses and assist them in improving their
practice throughout their careers. California Federation of
Teachers (CFT) believes that requiring districts to describe
all of the procedures to be used for the evaluation of
certificated teachers contained in the current collective
bargaining agreement, how evaluations include the progress of
pupils towards the locally-adopted standards of expected pupil
achievement at each grade level in each area of study and, if
AB 1099 (Olsen) Page 6
of ?
applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as
measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments is
totally unnecessary."
The California Teachers Association indicates that this bill
is an unnecessary duplication of existing federal mandates and
also duplicates current expenditure disclosure requirements in
the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) concerning
reporting expenditures for professional development at the
school site and county level.
4)LCAPs and school site expenditures. This bill requires the LCAP
of each school district and COE to contain a listing and
description of specified expenditures at each school site.
However, AB 104 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 13, Statutes of
2015), the education trailer bill, contains the following
provision: "It is the intent of the Legislature that when the
local control funding formula is fully implemented pursuant to
subdivision (g) of Section 42238.03 of the Education Code,
local educational agencies shall be required to report to the
Superintendent of Public Instruction for compilation on the
State Department of Education's Internet Web site both of the
following: (a) The amount of funds received on the basis of
the number and concentration of unduplicated pupils in the
current year and, to the extent available, prior fiscal years;
and (b) The amount of local control funding formula funds
expended on services for unduplicated pupils in the current
year and, to the extent available, prior fiscal years
commencing with the 2013-14 fiscal year." Therefore, the
bill's provisions requiring school district and COE LCAPs to
include school site expenditures appear to be unnecessary.
For this reason, staff recommends that the bill be amended to
delete these provisions.
5)Charter schools. The bill's requirements regarding the posting
of procedures for evaluating teachers and principals and for
LCAPs to contain a listing and description of school site
expenditures only apply to traditional public schools and not
to charter schools. While the existing Stull Act only applies
to traditional public schools, charter schools and their
students, parents, teachers, and community could also benefit
from the increased transparency this bill seeks to provide.
For this reason, staff recommends that the bill be amended to
apply to charter schools as well.
AB 1099 (Olsen) Page 7
of ?
6)Fiscal impact. According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill could result in unknown, likely minor,
Proposition 98 General Fund state mandated reimbursable costs
for school districts and county offices of education to
compile school site expenditures data and teacher evaluation
materials and post the
information online. Many districts are already compiling this
data per existing statute and federal law. Additionally,
actual costs will vary by district depending on the number of
school sites and the complexity of the data submitted.
SUPPORT
Education Trust-West
EdVoice
StudentsFirst
OPPOSITION
California Federation of Teachers
California School Boards Association
California Teachers Association
-- END --