BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1248
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 1248
(Chávez) - As Introduced February 27, 2015
SUBJECT: Teachers: permanent status
SUMMARY: Extends the probationary period for employees at
districts with more than 250 average daily attendance (ADA) to
three years and specifies instances where permanent status can
be taken away, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires that employees at school districts with more than 250
ADA to grant permanent employee status to employees who have
been employed for three consecutive years and who have
received three consecutive evaluation ratings of effective or
better, based on the criteria established by Assembly Bill
1078, and who are reelected for the next succeeding school
year.
2)Specifies a certificated employee shall lose permanent status
if he or she receives two consecutive evaluation ratings of
ineffective.
3)Specifies a certificated employee shall lose permanent status
if he or she receives four consecutive evaluation ratings of
minimally effective or a combination of minimally effective
AB 1248
Page 2
and ineffective.
4)Requires the school district to offer a professional growth or
remediation plan to a certificated employee who has received
an evaluation rating of ineffective or has received two
consecutive evaluation ratings of minimally effective.
5)Specifies this act shall become operative only if Assembly
Bill 1078 of the 2015-16 session is also enacted and takes
effect on or before January 1, 2016.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires every employee of a school district of any type or
class having an average daily attendance of 250 or more who,
after having been employed by the district for two complete
consecutive school years in a position or positions requiring
certification qualifications, is reelected for the next
succeeding school year to a position requiring certification
qualifications to, at the commencement of the succeeding
school year be classified as and become a permanent employee
of the district.
1)Requires every employee of a school district of any type or
class having an average daily attendance of 250 or more who,
after having been employed by the district for three complete
consecutive school years in a position or positions requiring
certification qualifications, is reelected for the next
succeeding school year to a position requiring certification
qualifications shall, at the commencement of the succeeding
AB 1248
Page 3
school year be classified as and become a permanent employee
of the district. Specifies this shall apply only to
probationary employees whose probationary period commenced
prior to the 1983-84 fiscal year.
2)Requires the governing board to notify the employee, on or
before March 15 of the employee's second complete consecutive
school year of employment by the district in a position or
positions requiring certification qualifications, of the
decision to reelect or not reelect the employee for the next
succeeding school year to the position. In the event that the
governing board does not give notice on or before March 15,
the employee shall be deemed reelected for the next succeeding
school year. This shall apply only to probationary employees
whose probationary period commenced during the 1983-84 fiscal
year or any fiscal year thereafter. (Education Code 44929.21)
FISCAL EFFECT: Legislative counsel has keyed this bill as a
state mandated local program.
COMMENTS: This bill changes the existing two year probationary
period to three years and specifies instances where a teacher
can lose permanent status based on negative performance
evaluations.
According to the author, current law mandates that teachers be
granted tenure after two years of teaching, and that they must
be notified by March 15th if they are to be dismissed. During a
recent school trial, there was extensive evidence presented,
that, "Given this statutorily mandated time frame, the Permanent
Employment Statute does not provide nearly enough time for an
informed decision to be made regarding the decision of tenure.
As a result, teachers are being reelected who would not have
AB 1248
Page 4
been, had more time been provided for the process." A majority
of studies indicate that a teacher's effectiveness tends to be
established by the fourth year of teaching, with effective
teachers remaining relatively effective and ineffective teachers
remaining relatively ineffective (Boyd, et al.). Yet, more than
80% of states currently grant tenure after three years or less,
and only 12 states have probationary periods longer than three
years. This is not enough time to allow teachers to demonstrate
their ability to be effective at helping students learn. Based
on the research, tenure should not be granted before a teacher
has been in the classroom for four years. For many tenure reform
advocates, the ideal probationary period would be five years
(National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010).
Vergara v. California: In 2012, nine students, including Beatriz
Vergara filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against
the State arguing their civil rights were being violated under
the equal protection clause of the California Constitution based
on the following three teacher laws:
1)Seniority and Layoffs - Basing layoffs on seniority status
also known as Last In, First Out (LIFO).
2)Permanent Status - Granting permanent status after two years
of employment.
3)Dismissal - The process for dismissing an ineffective
teacher.
In June 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a tentative
ruling in favor of the students on all three issues. The final
judgment detailing arguments supporting the ruling was issued in
August 2014. The Judge's ruling was stayed pending appeal, but
if upheld this decision would strike down these laws statewide.
The ruling was as follows:
1)Seniority and Lay-Offs - The Judge ruled that lay-offs based
solely on seniority are unconstitutional because the system
removes junior teachers who may be more effective, while
retaining senior teachers who may be ineffective. The Judge's
ruling didn't rely on the fact that districts can stray from
seniority under existing law.
AB 1248
Page 5
2)Permanent Status - The Judge ruled that both students and
teachers are unfairly and unnecessarily disadvantaged by the
permanent employment statutes. The Judge ruled that the
current two year probationary period is not a long enough
period of time to evaluate a new teacher.
3)Dismissal - The Judge ruled the current dismissal system to be
too complex, time consuming and expensive; and, ruled that the
current dismissal process for classified employees provides an
alternative process that protects due process rights.
In September 2014, Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris
filed an appeal of the decision. The California Teachers
Association (CTA) and the California Federation of Teachers
(CFT), formal interveners in the case, also filed an appeal of
the decision. The appeal is awaiting hearing at the appellate
court level and a decision is expected in the fall of 2015.
While lengthening the probationary period may address the
concerns raised in the Vergara case, this bill also uses
evaluation data to take away permanent status from an employee.
This will make these teachers at-will employees. Without a
consistent state-wide evaluation system, it is unclear how this
will be implemented at districts across the state. The committee
should consider whether a uniform teacher evaluation system
should first be implemented before requiring evaluation outcomes
to affect a teacher's permanent status.
What is "permanent employee" status? "Permanent employee"
status guarantees due process rights if a certificated employee
is dismissed. In the case of dismissal, "permanent employee"
status allows employees to request a hearing before a Commission
on Professional Competence to decide whether their dismissal was
appropriate. Further, a "permanent employee" has the right to
request a hearing during a reduction in force. This type of due
process is similar to the state civil service due process.
Probationary Period: According to the Legislative Analyst's
Office (LAO), the state has explored alternative probationary
periods in the past. Between 1959 and 1983, probationary
AB 1248
Page 6
teachers served three years before administrators had to make
the decision whether to grant permanent status. In 1983, the
state enacted major changes to state teacher policies, including
changes to tenure and dismissals. Specifically, the state
shortened the probationary period from three to two years.
However, the state also made it easier to dismiss probationary
teachers, removing certain due process rights.
In November 2005, a statewide initiative, Proposition 74, would
have extended the probationary period from two years to five
years. The measure also would have modified the process by
which school boards can dismiss a permanent teaching employee
who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance
evaluations. This measure was defeated by 55.2% of the voters.
In a 2005 presentation, the LAO reported the following
information about other state policies regarding K-12 teacher
probationary periods:
1)One Year Probationary Period - Three States
2)Two Year Probationary Period - Nine States including
California
3)Three Year Probationary Period - 33 States
4)Four Year Probationary Period - Four States
5)Five year Probationary Period - Two States
Certainly some states have shifted their policies in the past
decade, but this demonstrates a significant bell curve with the
vast majority of states having a 3 year probationary period for
K-12 teachers.
Supporters could argue that a longer probationary period would
allow administrators more time to evaluate new teachers before
making a permanent hiring decision and would allow new teachers
that are struggling more training and feedback to improve and
achieve success. In addition, under the current two year
probationary period which requires a decision by March in the
second year, administrators only truly have one and a half years
to decide whether to offer permanent status to probationary
teachers. Because some first year teachers need assistance to
become successful teachers, the two year probationary period may
AB 1248
Page 7
be too short a time to see significant progress. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that many administrators state that the
current two year probationary period is long enough to assess
the vast majority of beginning teachers, and that only in a few
cases, do administrators feel that additional time would be
helpful to make their decision about granting permanent status.
The committee should consider whether extending the probationary
period is necessary for district administrators to observe and
train new teachers, or whether the existing two year period is
sufficient. The committee should also consider whether
extending the probationary period to three years should also
contain a provision reinstating the due process rights for
probationary employees as they existed prior to 1983, when the
State last had a three year probationary period.
Teacher Recruitment: The California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing will soon report a staggering 70% decline in the
number of students enrolled in teacher preparation programs in
the last decade. There is also a sharp increase in hiring this
year (from 13,000 in 2014 to 17,000 in 2015) and a large
increase in emergency permits this past year. Further the ACT
test reports that only 5% of its test-takers report an interest
in becoming teachers. And those that are interested have lower
grade point averages than their peers. Not only is the teaching
profession attracting fewer people, it is becoming even less
attractive to the "best and brightest," the very people we
should be attracting. The committee should consider whether
extending the probationary status for beginning teachers will
further hamper the State's efforts to attract teachers to the
profession.
Concurrent Enactment: This bill specifies that this act shall
become operative only if Assembly Bill 1078 of the 2015-16
session is also enacted and takes effect on or before January 1,
2016.
AB 1248
Page 8
Arguments in Support: StudentsFirst supports the bill and
states, "Under current California law, school districts are
forced to make high-stakes decisions about permanent status
during a teacher's second year in the district, creating a
system that is unfair to both teachers and students. Studies
have consistently shown that teachers grow tremendously in their
practice in their first three years of teaching. California's
law forces school districts to offer permanent status to
teachers before the district has had much of an opportunity to
see how well that teacher will serve students over the course of
his or her career. This leads to potentially giving permanent
status to teachers who will not be effective teachers for
students in the district."
Arguments in Opposition: California Teachers Association opposes
the bill and states, "Administrators generally don't have time
or the training to conduct thorough and validated evaluations of
performance. Under this proposal, instead of going through a
for-cause dismissal hearing, a principal would only need to
determine that a teacher was not "effective." It is simply
unfair and invites the kind of insidious age discrimination to
permit a principal to dismiss a veteran teacher while affording
no due process. Under AB 1248, teacher dismissal decisions
could be motivated by cost, favoritism, retaliation, or even
personality compatibility."
Related Legislation: AB 1184 (Campos), which is pending in the
Assembly, would authorize San Jose Unified School District to
have an optional 3 year probationary period for selected
certificated employees.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
AB 1248
Page 9
Support
StudentsFirst
Opposition
California Federation of Teachers
California Teachers Association
Analysis Prepared by:Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087