BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2826|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 2826
Author: Weber (D), et al.
Amended: 6/14/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/29/16
AYES: Liu, Block, Hancock, Huff, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan,
Vidak
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 68-0, 5/27/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Teachers: evaluation and assessment
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill specifies additional measures of pupil
progress, instructional techniques and strategies, and adherence
to curricular objectives that school districts may use for
purposes of teacher evaluation.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Establishes the Stull Act which expresses legislative intent
that school districts and county governing boards establish a
uniform system of evaluation and assessment of certificated
personnel.
2)Requires school districts, with the exception of certificated
personnel who are employed on an hourly basis to teach adult
education classes, to evaluate and assess teacher performance
as it reasonably relates to:
AB 2826
Page 2
a) Progress of pupils toward district-adopted and, if
applicable, state-adopted academic content standards as
measured by state-adopted criterion referenced tests;
b) Instructional techniques and strategies used by the
employee;
c) The employee's adherence to curricular objectives; and
d) The establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning
environment within the scope of the employee's
responsibilities. (Education Code § 44660, et seq.)
3)Requires an evaluation and assessment of the performance of
each certificated employee to be made at least once each
school year for probationary personnel, at least every other
year for personnel with permanent status, and at least every
five years for permanent employees who have been employed with
the district at least 10 years and were rated as meeting or
exceeding standards in their previous evaluation. Teachers
who receive an unsatisfactory rating may be required to
participate in a program designed to improve the employee's
performance and to further pupil achievement and the
instructional objectives of the district.
4)Provides that if the district participates in the Peer
Assistance and Review (PAR) program, then the teachers who
receive an unsatisfactory rating are required to participate
in that program. (Education Code § 44664)
5)Establishes the PAR program for teachers by authorizing school
districts and the exclusive representative of the certificated
employees to develop and implement the program locally. The
PAR programs are to include multiple observations of a teacher
during periods of classroom instruction and sufficient staff
development activities to assist a teacher in improving his or
her skills and knowledge. The final evaluation of a teacher's
participation in the program is made available for placement
in his or her personnel file. (Education Code § 44505)
This bill:
AB 2826
Page 3
1)Provides that, for purposes of teacher evaluation, the
following phrases may include, but not be limited to, the
following:
a) "Progress of pupils," in addition to local and state
criterion-referenced evidence, as specified, may include
the following multiple measures:
i) Formative or summative criterion-referenced
assessments measuring progress of pupils towards local
or state-adopted academic content standards;
ii) School district, school, or department-developed
assessments;
iii) Curriculum-based and end-of-course assessments;
iv) Pretest and posttest data;
v) Interim, periodic, benchmark, and formative
assessments;
vi) English language proficiency assessments;
vii) Assessments measuring progress in an
individualized education program;
viii) Advanced placement, International Baccalaureate,
and college preparedness examinations;
ix) A-G coursework completion;
AB 2826
Page 4
x) Industry-recognized career technical education
assessments and program completion;
xi) Portfolios of pupils' work, projects, and
performances redacted of personally identifiable pupil
information;
xii) Surveys from parents, if approved in advance by
the certificated employee;
xiii) Surveys from pupils, if approved in advance by
the certificated employee;
xiv) Written reports from classroom observations; and
xv) Progress on outcomes described in the local
control and accountability plan.
b) "Instructional techniques and strategies" may include
the following:
i) Engaging and supporting all pupils in learning;
ii) Planning instruction and designing learning
experiences for all pupils; and
iii) Using pupil assessment information to inform
instruction and improve learning.
AB 2826
Page 5
c) "Adherence to curricular objectives" may include:
i) Understanding and organizing subject matter for
pupil learning; and
ii) Developing as a professional educator.
2)Provides that the Legislature encourages school districts to
utilize these options for purposes of teacher evaluation.
3)Provides that these provisions shall not be construed as to
require the State Board of Education to revise the guidelines
developed pursuant to existing law.
4)Provides that these provisions shall not be construed as in
any way limiting the authority of school district governing
boards to develop and adopt additional evaluation and
assessment guidelines or criteria or to limit the rights of
certificated employees or their exclusive representative to
bargain procedures to be used for the evaluation of employees
or other terms and conditions of employment pursuant.
Comments
Need for the bill. According to the author, "although
California law has required the consideration of actual pupil
progress in the evaluation and assessment of certificated staff
job performance for over four decades, school district personnel
continue to struggle with what measures of pupil progress are
appropriate especially with the lack of state tests in specific
grade levels or content areas. As a result of this confusion, a
majority of California's largest school districts do not comply
with the law and fail to include any actual data from state or
local measures or observations of actual pupil progress in the
performance evaluations of certificated staff."
AB 2826
Page 6
Improvements to the Stull Act. The terms, "progress of pupils,"
"instructional techniques and strategies," and "the
establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning
environment" are not defined in statute, but the Stull Act gives
school districts broad authority to "develop and adopt
additional evaluation and assessment guidelines or criteria."
This bill is intended to provide clarity to the Stull Act by
specifying criteria that may be used by a governing board within
its existing authority to define and measure these terms. This
bill also includes an expansive set of evidence for student
achievement that recognizes the differences in outcome measures
for various disciplines and pedagogy beyond statewide
assessments, including, but not limited to, student portfolios,
surveys, classroom observation, department assessments, Advanced
Placement examinations, and English-language proficiency
assessments. Further, this bill encourages the use of all the
elements of the interrelated domains of teaching practice from
the California Standards of the Teaching Profession, which
represent consensus on the developmental, holistic view of
effective teaching.
Current research. Several studies document the correlation
between teacher quality and student achievement. According to
information provided by the author, research indicates
differential teacher effectiveness is a strong determinant of
differences in student learning, far outweighing the effects of
differences in class size and heterogeneity. Studies have shown
that students who are assigned to several ineffective teachers
in a row have significantly lower achievement and gains in
achievement than those who are assigned to several highly
effective teachers.
The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning has
recommended making teacher evaluation multi-dimensional,
strengthening the training of those who conduct evaluations, and
tying evaluation results directly to substantive feedback to
teachers. The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality
suggests a strong evaluation system must "involve teachers and
stakeholders in developing the system; use multiple indicators;
and give teachers opportunities to improve in the areas in which
they score poorly." Likewise, the New Teacher Project states
"evaluations should provide all teachers with regular feedback
AB 2826
Page 7
that helps them grow as professionals, no matter how long they
have been in the classroom. The primary purpose of evaluations
should not be punitive. Good evaluations identify excellent
teachers and help teachers of all skill levels understand how
they can improve."
According to a 2010 report released by the National Board
Resource Center at Stanford University, "While evaluation
processes across the state vary widely, many of them look very
much the same as they did in 1971?" Comments from Accomplished
California Teachers indicate that current approaches to teacher
evaluation results in a system that teachers do not trust, that
rarely offers clear direction for improving practice, and often
charges school leaders to implement without preparation or
resources. A January 2011 report by the Center for the Future
of Teaching and Learning notes that evaluations pay "scarce
attention to student learning or do not connect that learning to
elements of teacher content knowledge or instructional skills
that could be improved."
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified7/5/16)
California State PTA
Children Now
EdVoice
Students Matter
OPPOSITION: (Verified7/5/16)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 68-0, 5/27/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker,
Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Campos,
AB 2826
Page 8
Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,
Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia,
Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Harper, Roger
Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey,
Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes,
McCarty, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk,
Ridley-Thomas, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Ting,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Brough, Brown, Chiu, Dodd, Cristina Garcia,
Grove, Hadley, Medina, Melendez, O'Donnell, Rodriguez,
Thurmond
Prepared by:Lenin DelCastillo / ED. / (916) 651-4105
7/29/16 10:50:11
**** END ****