BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2401
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 2401
(O'Donnell) - As Amended March 30, 2016
SUBJECT: Teachers: California Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment System
SUMMARY: Reestablishes state funding for the Beginning Teacher
Support and Assessment (BTSA) System and modifies existing
program requirements. Specifically, this bill:
1) Makes findings and declarations regarding the value of
BTSA in improving the retention and effectiveness of
beginning teachers.
2) Appropriates an unspecified amount from the General Fund
to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and the
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) to provide grants
for BTSA participants.
3) Expresses the intent of the Legislature that funding for
BTSA be provided each year in the annual Budget Act.
4) Revises existing BTSA statutes as follows:
AB 2401
Page 2
a. Repeals provisions related to supplemental
grants for program clusters and consultants;
b. Replaces the requirement than an annual
cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for BTSA grants be
based on the revenue limit COLA and instead requires
the COLA to be based on the amount provided in the
annual Budget Act for this purpose;
c. Requires the CTC to review induction programs
as necessary to determine whether they meet current
standards of quality and effectiveness; and
d. Repeals outdated reporting requirements and a
reference to a section of the Education Code that no
longer exists;
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
Background. BTSA was established in 1992 by SB 1442 (Bergeson),
Chapter 1245, Statutes of 1992, following the success of the
California New Teacher Project (CNTP). The CNTP was a pilot
project during the years 1988 to 1922 to assess the impact of a
structured, high quality induction program on new teacher
effectiveness and retention. The project consisted of 37 local
programs and more than 3,000 beginning teachers. The principle
components were individualized mentoring support, curriculum and
instruction workshops, and teacher self-assessment. Independent
evaluations of the pilot program documented its effectiveness,
leading to the enactment of SB 1442 and the creation of BTSA.
AB 2401
Page 3
The statutory objectives of BTSA are to do the following:
Provide an effective transition into the teaching career
for first-year and second-year teachers in California.
Improve the educational performance of pupils through
improved training, information, and assistance for new
teachers.
Enable beginning teachers to be effective in teaching
pupils who are culturally, linguistically, and academically
diverse
Ensure the professional success and retention of new
teachers.
Ensure that a support provider provides intensive
individualized support and assistance to each participating
beginning teacher.
Improve the rigor and consistency of individual teacher
performance assessments and the usefulness of assessment
results to teachers and decision makers.
Establish an effective, coherent system of performance
assessments that are based on the California Standards for
the Teaching Profession adopted by the commission.
Examine alternative ways in which the general public and
AB 2401
Page 4
the educational profession may be assured that new teachers
who remain in teaching have attained acceptable levels of
professional competence.
Ensure that an individual induction plan is in place for
each participating beginning teacher and is based on an
ongoing assessment of the development of the beginning
teacher.
Ensure continuous program improvement through ongoing
research, development, and evaluation.
BTSA participants are teemed with a mentor teacher, or "support
provider," who serves in an advisory role with the beginning
teacher and is not part of the district's employment process
with respect to hiring or retention decisions. The separation
of education support from the employment process allows
beginning teachers to freely share information and receive
assistance from the support provider in a way that facilitates
more effective guidance and assistance.
Most BTSA programs are operated by local education agencies
(LEAs) or consortia of LEAs. Of the 156 approved programs, 152
are offered by LEAs/consortia and the remaining four are
university based.
Teacher retention. One of the objectives of BTSA is to increase
teacher retention. This is an especially important concern for
California at the present time because of the teacher shortage.
There are two primary contributors to the shortage: a decline
in the number of students entering teacher preparation programs
and a high attrition rate among existing teachers. Of these two
factors, addressing the attrition rate is the one that is more
amenable to policy intervention and the one that can have the
AB 2401
Page 5
most immediate impact.
Studies show that, nationally, between 30% and 50% of teachers
leave the profession within the first five years. In
California, the California State Teachers Retirement System
reports that 40% of beginning teachers fail to vest in the
system after 5 years. By contrast, data provided by the CTC
show that the five-year retention rate among BTSA participants
is 80% and 90%, depending on the year reviewed.
Teacher effectiveness. The other primary objective of BTSA is
to improve teacher effectiveness. Findings from the CNTP pilot
student found that program participants, when compared to other
new teachers:
More consistently used instructional practices that
improve student achievement;
Use more complex and challenging instructional
activities; and
Used a wider range of instructional materials.
These outcomes have continued to be observed among BTSA
participants. In addition, BTSA has been shown to help
beginning teachers to be more effective in teaching students who
are culturally, linguistically, and academically diverse.
Funding history. State funding for BTSA grew from $4.9 million
(serving 1,700 participants) in 1992-93 to a high of $128.7
million (serving 30,118 participants) in 2007-08. After its
peak in 2007-08, BTSA funding was reduced as part of
AB 2401
Page 6
recession-related budget cuts and then eliminated in 2013-14
with the enactment of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).
BTSA is a matching grant program. Statutorily, the state
provides $3,000 per participant, but with a COLA this amount
grew to more than $4,000 per participant in 2008-09. School
districts are required to contribute at least $2,000 per
participant. However, these provisions no longer apply since
dedicated funding for BTSA has been discontinued.
Current status. Funding for BTSA has been rolled into the LCFF.
As a result, the statutory requirements governing BTSA,
including the $2,000 local contribution, no longer apply.
However, successful completion of a CTC-approved induction
program is a requirement for a teacher to earn a clear
credential, if a program is available. If a program is not
available, then a teacher must complete a university Clear
Credential program that has been approved by the CTC. These
have been referred to as "light" induction program because they
provide less intense mentoring, support, and guidance.
In the absence of dedicated funding, at least 13 district
induction programs have ceased operation in the last few years.
Other programs charge beginning teachers a fee for induction.
The CTC reports that, in 2014-15, 11.5% of participating
teachers paid a fee ranging from $390 to $3,350 for their
induction. This can be a burden to teachers who are at the
bottom of the salary schedule and often have student loan debt
and could discourage entry into the profession. In addition,
the CTC reports that the lack of dedicated funding has resulted
in the erosion of state-level and regional-level infrastructure
that supports the program. Also, the Educator Excellence Task
Force, which was convened by Superintendent of Public
Instruction Tom Torlakson, concluded in its 2012 report that
BTSA has been negatively affected by budget cuts and there is an
uneven quality of programs across the state. If these trends
AB 2401
Page 7
continue, the effectiveness of BTSA as a means of both
increasing retention and improving teacher quality can
substantially decline.
Principle of subsidiarity. The LCFF rests on the principle of
subsidiarity by giving LEAs more control over the allocation of
resources. The theory is that LEAs will establish budget
priorities based on locally-perceived needs and conditions.
Accordingly, LEAs can be expected to prioritize spending on
those programs and services that produce a local benefit and to
give highest priority to those expenditures that result in the
greatest local benefit. On the other hand, LEAs cannot be
expected to prioritize expenditures whose benefits are largely
external.
There is no doubt that individual LEAs can benefit from a strong
induction program that improves the quality of its teachers and
reduces the need to recruit new teachers due to high attrition.
At the local level, however, the perceived cost-benefit of
investing in induction may be less than that of alternative
expenditures, leading to reduced support for BTSA. There is
evidence of this in a 2012 report from the Legislative Analyst's
Office, which found that, when LEAs had discretion over the use
of BTSA dollars, more than half shifted funding to other
programs.
In addition, the LCFF assumes that the impact of LEA budget
decisions is strictly local. However, this is not the case with
LEAs that are members of a BTSA consortium. In those cases, all
members of the consortium are affected by the budget actions of
a single member.
Meanwhile, the need to retain and improve the effectiveness of
teachers is a high state priority. Because teacher preparation
programs in our public universities are heavily subsidized by
AB 2401
Page 8
the state, there is a further interest in capturing the benefits
of that investment through improved teacher retention. For
these reasons, re-establishing dedicated state funding for BTSA
may be justified, even though it is not entirely consistent with
the concept of the LCFF.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
California Federation of Teachers
Children Now
Public Advocates
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson
Opposition
None received
AB 2401
Page 9
Analysis Prepared by:Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087