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programs as necessary to determine whether they meet current standards of quality and effectiveness; and d. Repeals outdated reporting requirements and a reference to a section of the Education Code that no longer exists; FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown COMMENTS: Background.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