BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 499
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Liu and De León |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 9, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date: April 22, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lenin Del Castillo |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Teachers: best practices teacher evaluation system:
school administrator ????..evaluation
SUMMARY
This bill repeals and replaces various provisions of existing
law governing the evaluation of certificated employees and
beginning July 1, 2016, requires school districts to implement a
best practices teacher evaluation system, as specified. This
bill also repeals and replaces provisions of existing law
regarding school administrator evaluations.
BACKGROUND
Stull Act
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;
SB 499 (Liu) 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.)
Existing law 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. However, 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)
Existing law 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)
Federal requirements
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has established a process
by which states may request flexibility on behalf of themselves,
local educational agencies, and schools, by applying for a
waiver from certain requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLB). The waiver is intended to provide educators and
state and local leaders with flexibility regarding specific
requirements of NCLB (principally, the requirement that all
students be proficient in math and reading by 2014 and won't
SB 499 (Liu) Page 3
of ?
have to identify additional schools failing to meet targets) in
exchange for rigorous and comprehensive state-developed plans
designed to improve educational outcomes for all students, close
achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of
instruction.
Instructions provided by the DOE indicate that to receive the
flexibility, a state's educational agency and each local
educational agency must commit to develop, adopt, pilot and
implement, with the involvement of teachers and principals,
teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that: (1)
will be used for continual improvement of instruction; (2)
meaningfully differentiate performance using at least three
performance levels; (3) use multiple valid measures in
determining performance levels, including as a significant
factor, data on student growth for all students (including
English Learners and students with disabilities), and other
measures of professional practice (which may be gathered through
multiple formats and sources, such as observations based on
rigorous teacher performance standards, teacher portfolios, and
student and parent surveys); (4) evaluate teachers and
principals on a regular basis; (5) provide clear, timely, and
useful feedback, including feedback that identifies needs and
guides professional development; and (6) will be used to inform
personnel decisions.
The DOE has granted waivers to over 30 states. In June 2012,
California submitted a request to set aside specific
requirements of the NCLB and requested that the DOE allow the
state to use its own accountability system to ensure that all
schools improve. California's request differs from those filed
by other states that agreed to several additional federally
required policies in exchange for the NCLB waiver. The request
was denied in December 2012.
ANALYSIS
This bill recasts various provisions of the law governing the
evaluation of certificated employees. Specifically, this bill:
1. Makes inoperative as of July 1, 2016, and repeals as of
January 1, 2017, the following Stull Act requirements:
A. Legislative intent that governing boards
SB 499 (Liu) Page 4
of ?
establish a uniform system for evaluation and
assessment. (EC § 44660)
B. The requirement that a governing board, in the
development and adoption of evaluation guidelines and
procedures avail itself of the advice of the
certificated instructional personnel in the district
as part of a locally negotiated collective bargaining
agreement. (EC § 44661)
C. The authorization that a school district may
include standards from the National Board of
Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) or the
California Standards for the Teaching Profession
(CSTP) in its evaluation and assessment guidelines.
(EC § 44661.5)
D. The requirement that the governing board of each
school district:
(1) Establish standards of expected pupil
achievement at each grade level in each area of
study, and
(2) Evaluate and assess certificated
employee performance as it reasonably relates to
the progress of pupils on those standards and
applicable state adopted content standards as
measured by state adopted criterion referenced
assessments and other specified criteria. (EC §
44662)
2. Makes findings and declarations regarding teaching, the
characteristics of effective teaching, and the importance
of teachers in influencing student academic success.
Declares that the primary purpose of an evaluation system
is to ensure that teachers meet the highest professional
standards of effective teaching, thereby resulting in
higher levels of pupil learning. Declares that the
attributes of the best practices teacher evaluation system
(BPTES) established pursuant to this bill are based on the
CSTP and that the system of evaluation for school
administrators is based on the California Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders, as specified.
SB 499 (Liu) Page 5
of ?
3. Requires, beginning July 1, 2016, the governing board of
each school district to adopt and implement a BPTES.
Requires the BPTES to be locally negotiated pursuant to the
Educational Employment Relations Act; specifies that if the
certificated employees of the school district do not have
an exclusive bargaining representative, the governing board
must adopt objective evaluation and support components, as
applicable.
4. Requires a BPTES to include but not be limited to the
following attributes:
A. Each teacher is evaluated on the degree to which
he or she accomplishes the following objectives:
(1) Engages and supports all pupils in
learning, evidence of which may include, but is
not limited to, evidence of high expectations and
active pupil engagement for each pupil.
(2) Creates and maintains effective
environments for pupil learning, to the extent
that those environments are within the teacher's
control.
(3) Understands and organizes subject
matter for pupil learning, evidence of which may
include, but is not limited to, extensive subject
matter, content standards, and curriculum
competence.
(4) Plans instruction and designs learning
experiences for pupils, evidence of which may
include use of differential instruction and
practices and use of culturally responsive
instruction, such as incorporation of
multicultural information and content into the
delivery of curriculum, to eliminate the
achievement gap.
(5) Uses pupil assessment information to
inform instruction and to improve learning,
evidence of which shall include, but is not
SB 499 (Liu) Page 6
of ?
limited to, use of formative and summative
assessments to adjust instructional practices to
meet the needs of individual pupils. For
certificated employees who directly instruct
English learner pupils in acquiring English
language fluency, the assessment information
shall include the results of the English language
development test.
(6) Develops as a professional educator,
evidence of which may include, but is not limited
to, consistent and positive relationships with
pupils, parents, staff, and administrators, use
of collaborative professional practices for
improving instructional strategies, participation
in identified professional growth opportunities,
and use of meaningful self-assessment to improve
as a professional educator.
(7) Contributes to pupil academic growth
based on multiple measures. Requires multiple
measures to include state and local formative and
summative assessments in the grade levels and
subjects that these assessments are administered
and authorizes the inclusion of other evidence
such as classroom work, pupil grades, classroom
participation, presentations and performances,
and projects and portfolios. States the intent
of the Legislature that assessments developed by
a national consortium and adopted by the State
Board of Education (SBE) and used for best
practices teacher evaluation system (BPTES), meet
statistical and psychometric standards. Also
requires:
(a) Measures used for assessing
certificated employees who directly instruct
English learner pupils in acquiring English
to
include the degree to which pupils acquire
the English language development standards
adopted by the State Board of Education as
SB 499 (Liu) Page 7
of ?
specified.
(b) Pupil data used for purposes
of teacher evaluation to be confidential in
the same manner as all other elements of a
teacher's personnel file.
B. Multiple observations of instructional and other
professional practices conducted by evaluators who
have been appropriately trained and calibrated to
ensure consistency and who have demonstrated
competence in teaching evaluation, as determined by
the school district.
(8) Specifies that the multiple
observations may include but are not limited to
classroom observations, one-on-one discussions,
and review of classroom materials and course of
study, and requires observations to be conducted
using a uniform observational tool that is
appropriate to the teacher's assignment.
(9) Requires observers to meet with the
teacher to discuss the purpose of the observation
prior to each formal observation and meet with
the teacher after each formal observation to
discuss recommendations as necessary, with regard
to areas of improvement in the performance of the
teacher.
(10) Provides that evaluators are not
prohibited from conducting unscheduled classroom
visits.
C. Has at least three performance levels.
5. Permits a locally negotiated evaluation process to
designate certificated employees to conduct, or participate
in, evaluations of other certificated employees for
purposes of determining needs for professional development
or providing corrective advice for the certificated
employee being evaluated; specifies that non-supervisory
certificated employees who conduct or participate in an
evaluation are not deemed to be exercising a management or
SB 499 (Liu) Page 8
of ?
supervisory function, as specified.
6. Provides that the best practices teacher evaluation system
(BPTES) shall not apply to certificated employees who hold
an administrative services credential.
7. Authorizes the State Board of Education, in consultation
with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and
appropriate education stakeholder groups, to adopt
non-regulatory guidance to support the implementation of
the BPTES for:
A. Model evaluation systems that may be used to
inform school districts' implementation of the
evaluation system.
B. Model processes for implementing observations.
C. Model processes for defining calibration for the
purposes of training evaluators.
D. Model processes for developing the observation
tool.
E. Model processes for determining and defining the
performance levels for the evaluation of teacher
performance.
8. Repeals and replaces, beginning July 1, 2016, the
requirement that school district governing boards establish
and define job responsibilities for certificated
non-instructional personnel, including, but not limited to,
supervisory and administrative personnel, whose
responsibilities cannot be evaluated appropriately under
the best practices teacher evaluation system; maintains the
current requirement that school districts evaluate and
assess the performance of non-instructional certificated
employees as it reasonably relates to the fulfillment of
those responsibilities.
9. Requires, on or before May 1, 2016, or May 1 of the year
that precedes the year in which an existing collective
bargaining contract will expire, whichever is later,
governing boards to seek comment on the development and
SB 499 (Liu) Page 9
of ?
implementation of a best practices teacher evaluation
system (BPTES) and use the comments received to guide the
development and implementation of the BPTES. Requires
governing boards to disclose the provisions of the
evaluation system at a regularly scheduled public hearing.
Requires governing boards to seek public comment by May 1
of each year prior to negotiations on the BPTES. Also
requires governing boards to seek public comment on the
BPTES both during local negotiations and before the final
agreement of local negotiations.
10. Provides that if, by mutual agreement between a school
district and the collective bargaining unit, an
intermediate mid-year agreement is reached regarding a
BPTES, the negotiation timeline shall allow time for the
governing board to hold a public hearing to seek comment.
11. Requires governing boards to disclose the provisions of the
BPTES at a regularly scheduled public hearing, as
specified.
12. Commencing July 1, 2016, provides an unspecified amount to
school districts for the purpose of implementing a BPTES,
as specified. Requires school districts to use the funds
for planning and implementation efforts at the eligible
school sites, including training evaluators to ensure
calibration and consistency and to development of the
uniform observation tool.
13. Specifies that where a locally negotiated evaluation system
is in effect, the evaluation system remains in effect until
the parties to the contract negotiate a successor
agreement. Provides that memorandum of understanding shall
not extend the adoption of a locally negotiated teacher
evaluation system that is in effect at the time this
requirement becomes operative.
14. Recasts requirements governing evaluation cycles for
certificated employees and unsatisfactory performance:
A. Maintains existing requirement that probationary
personnel be evaluated at least once each school year
and that personnel with permanent status be evaluated
at least every other year.
SB 499 (Liu) Page 10
of ?
B. Beginning July 1, 2016, changes the frequency of
evaluations for personnel with permanent status who
have been employed at least 10 years with a school
district who are highly qualified and who were rated
as meeting or exceeding standards at the previous
evaluation. Specifically, this bill changes the
frequency from at least every five years to at least
every three years.
C. Maintains existing requirements for evaluations:
(1) Requires the evaluation to include
recommendations, if necessary, as to areas of
improvement.
(2) Requires the employing authority to
notify an employee in writing if the employee is
not performing his or her duties in a
satisfactory manner and to describe the
unsatisfactory performance. Requires the
employing authority to confer with the employee
and make specific recommendations as to areas of
improvement, and requires an annual evaluation
until the employee achieves a positive evaluation
or is separated from the district.
(3) Specifies an employee evaluation that
contains an unsatisfactory rating of an
employee's performance may include a requirement
that the certificated employee participate in a
program designed to improve appropriate areas of
the employee's performance, as specified, and
requires any certificated employee who receives
an unsatisfactory rating on an evaluation to
participate in a Peer Assistance and Review
Program for Teachers if the district has such a
program.
15. Requires the employing authority, if an employee has
received an unsatisfactory evaluation, to provide
professional development based on the specific
recommendations as to areas of improvement in the
SB 499 (Liu) Page 11
of ?
employee's performance.
16. Maintains the existing requirement that hourly and
temporary hourly employees are excluded by the provisions
governing the teacher evaluation system, and provides that
substitute teachers may be excluded at the discretion of
the governing board.
17. Repeals the existing provisions of law governing
administrator evaluations effective January 1, 2016, and
requires governing boards to establish a new system of
evaluation for school administrators to guide their growth
and performance with the purpose of supporting them as
instructional leaders in order to raise pupil achievement.
Requires the evaluation system to include, but not be
limited to, all of the following attributes:
A. Promoting the success of all pupils by
facilitating the development and implementation of a
vision of pupil learning, as specified.
B. Advocating and supporting a safe, nurturing
school culture that sustains a quality instructional
program conducive to pupil learning and staff
professional growth, including, but not limited to:
(1) Promoting equity, fairness, and respect
among staff, pupils, and members of the school
community with acknowledgment of the role cultural
attributes have in pupil learning.
(2) Supporting professional development
opportunities for staff that encourage
collaboration and effective instructional practice
with the goal of improving outcomes for all
pupils.
C. Ensuring the management, organization, and
operation of a safe and successful learning
environment as evidenced by the establishment of
effective practices for personnel and resource
management, campus safety, and school climate,
including, but not limited to, supporting curricular
and management leadership in all of these areas and
SB 499 (Liu) Page 12
of ?
successfully implementing the best practice teacher
evaluation system proposed by this bill.
D. Collaborating with parents and the community to
establish an inclusive school environment, including,
but not limited to, embracing and recognizing that
diversity strengthens a learning environment and
promoting meaningful parent and community engagement
required for the development of the local control and
accountability plan, as specified.
E. Providing ethical and professional leadership
that fosters effective instructional practice as
evidenced by promoting quality teaching and
instructional strategies and providing relevant,
effective feedback that leads to student learning.
School administrators shall be held accountable for
the academic growth of students over time and academic
growth shall be based on multiple measures that may
include pupil work as well as pupil and school
longitudinal data.
(3) Multiple measures that include state
and local formative and summative assessments.
For school administrators who supervise
certificated staff that directly instruct English
learner pupils acquiring English, assessment
information shall include the results of
assessments adopted pursuant to Chapter 7
(commencing with Section 60810) of Part 33 of
Division 4.
(4) Multiple measures may also include, but
not be limited to, benchmark, end of chapter, end
of course, advanced placement, international
baccalaureate, and college entrance, and
performance assessments.
(5) Pupil data used for purposes of an
administrator evaluation shall be confidential in
the same manner as all other elements of an
administrator's personnel file.
F. Providing professional leadership by
SB 499 (Liu) Page 13
of ?
understanding, responding and influencing the larger
social, political, cultural and legal context with the
goal of ensuring student success as evidenced by
working in collaboration with the governing board,
bargaining units, and local school, district and
community leaders.
18. Requires governing boards to identify who will conduct the
evaluation of each school administrator.
19. Requires a school administrator to be evaluated annually
for the first and second year of employment as a new
administrator in a school district and allows the governing
board to determine the frequency at regular intervals of
evaluations after this period.
20. Provides that additional evaluations that occur outside of
the regular intervals determined by the governing board
shall be agreed upon between the evaluator and the
administrator.
21. Requires evaluators and administrators to review school
success and progress throughout the year. This review
should include goals that are defined by the school
district, including, but not limited, to the goals
specified in the local control and accountability plan
approved by the school district pursuant to Education Code
§ 52060.
22. Prohibits the State Board of Education (SBE) from waiving
the best practices teacher evaluation system requirements.
STAFF COMMENTS
1. Need for the bill. According to the author's office,
teacher evaluation under the Stull Act is too often
inconsistent, unclear, and does little to foster a culture
of continuous improvement for teachers. While some
districts do incorporate student performance in their
evaluation systems, others do not, and in districts that
simply rate their employees as "meeting" or "not meeting"
expectations, teachers may not receive sufficient feedback
during the evaluation process to understand how to improve
SB 499 (Liu) Page 14
of ?
their practice. 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."
This bill requires school districts, beginning July 2016, to
establish teacher evaluation systems that evaluate teachers
on the degree to which they follow specified objectives
(the California Standards for the Teaching Profession),
including how they contribute to pupil academic growth.
Under the provisions of the bill, school districts would be
required to assess a teacher's contribution to pupil
academic growth based on multiple measures, including state
and local formative and summative assessment data.
2. 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
SB 499 (Liu) Page 15
of ?
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 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."
3. Tools to evaluate teacher effectiveness. The stated
purpose of this bill is to strengthen teacher quality and
improve student outcomes by improving the state's teacher
evaluation requirements. Specifically, the bill contains
the following provisions:
A. Use of assessments: Requires both state and
local formative and summative assessments to be
included in teacher evaluations. Formative
assessments are developed locally and are used by
teachers to continually inform instruction in the
classroom throughout the school year. Summative
assessments can be developed locally or statewide,
including end of course tests or standardized tests,
and assess a student's performance at a point in time.
B. Evaluation frequency: Requires probationary
teachers to be evaluated at least every year and
permanent teachers to be evaluated at least every
other year, and also reduces the authorization for
teachers with more than 10 years of experience to be
evaluated from every five years, to every three years.
This will result in experienced teachers being
evaluated more frequently.
C. Categories for rating teachers. Increases the
categories for rating teachers from two to three.
D. Multiple measures. Requires pupil academic
growth based on multiple measures to be part of a
teacher evaluation.
E. Professional Development: Requires an employing
SB 499 (Liu) Page 16
of ?
authority to provide professional development based on
the specific recommendations as to areas of
improvement in a permanent teacher's performance, if
he or she has received an unsatisfactory evaluation.
This bill also specifies that teachers who receive an
unsatisfactory rating on their evaluation, if a school
district has a Peer Assistance and Review (PAR)
program in place, they must refer teachers who receive
an unsatisfactory review to the PAR program for
improvement.
4. Local bargaining. Existing law enumerates evaluation
procedures as a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.
By requiring the best practices teaching evaluation system
(BPTES) to be negotiated, some argue the bill could have
the effect of requiring districts to bargain aspects of the
system, such as evaluation criteria. While some districts
currently bargain evaluation criteria with their local
unions, it is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. While
the bill specifies the attributes by which teachers must be
evaluated, the criteria for determining whether those
objectives are indeed met would be subject to negotiation,
which could increase implementation time and costs. On the
other hand, the involvement of teachers in the development
of the BPTES will help ensure that the system is fair and
reflective of the complexity of teaching and learning and
also contribute to a more effective evaluation system.
This bill also clarifies that the BPTES does not supersede
or invalidate a teacher evaluation system that is locally
negotiated and that is in effect at the time this bill
becomes operative. If a locally negotiated teacher
evaluation system is in effect at the time this bill
becomes operative, the teacher evaluation system shall
remain in effect until the parties to the agreement
negotiate a successor agreement. The bill further
clarifies that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) shall
not extend the adoption of a locally negotiated teacher
evaluation system that is in effect at the time this bill
becomes operative.
5. Parent feedback. While permissive, this bill provides the
ability for school districts to consider the feedback of
parents of students as part of the teacher evaluation
SB 499 (Liu) Page 17
of ?
process. Under existing law, a school district may dismiss
a teacher based on performance deemed to be unsatisfactory.
Some argue that the use of parent surveys could provide an
additional tool in the teacher evaluation process and
should be required. However, would it be appropriate for
teacher evaluations to incorporate potentially subjective
feedback from parents, especially when it could lead to an
unsatisfactory rating and ultimately a teacher's dismissal?
6. Confidentiality of negotiations. This bill requires public
hearings before May 1st of the year preceding local
negotiations, as well as public hearings should a mid-year
agreement be reached. This process will also require a
hearing before negotiations begin, during negotiations, and
prior to the final vote on the evaluation system. The
intent of these public hearings is to allow for parents to
give input on the evaluation system each time it is
negotiated. However, it is unclear how much information is
legally allowed to be disclosed publicly during
negotiations. The Committee may wish to consider whether
this mid-negotiation hearing is appropriate.
7. How will the new evaluation systems be funded? According
to the author, appropriate funding is a key component to
achieving a high quality teacher and administrator
evaluation system, as well as necessary support programs
for beginning teachers and struggling teachers. The bill's
provisions would likely create a higher level of service
and result in state-reimbursable mandated activities,
imposing potentially significant costs on school districts.
Additionally, by increasing the frequency of evaluations
for teachers, this bill could affect the workload of school
administrators. However, it is unclear how many teachers
are currently evaluated every five years and thus it is
unclear how this bill will affect the ability of
administrators to complete the increased number of
evaluations. To address these issues, staff recommends the
following amendments:
A. Specify the intent of the Legislature to provide
adequate resources to train evaluators, continue
robust beginning teacher induction programs, and
support struggling educators.
SB 499 (Liu) Page 18
of ?
B. Remove SEC. 13 from the bill, which provides an
unspecified appropriation for purposes of implementing
the best practices teacher evaluation system (BPTES).
C. Add the BPTES and the system of evaluation for
school administrators to the state mandates block
grant pursuant to Government Code § 17581.6.
D. Shift the operative date of the BPTES to July 1,
2018 and make conforming date changes to the sections
proposed to be repealed.
8. Other Committee amendments. Staff recommends the bill also
be amended as follows:
A. Modify the administrator evaluation system to:
(1) Apply the public hearing requirements
of the BPTES to the administrator evaluations.
(2) Clarify that the provisions of the
administrator evaluation cannot be omitted.
(3) Specify that the existing administrator
evaluation system is repealed and the new
administrator evaluation system is operative on
July 1, 2018.
B. Remove the intent language included in
44662(a)(1)(G)(iii) and create a new subparagraph for
the sentence beginning with, "Pupil data?"
C. In Section 44662 (c), change the code reference
from the administrator services credential to
Government Code Section 3540.1 (m) and (g).
D. Add a new subdivision under 44664(a)(3) providing
that the evaluator shall conduct at least one
unscheduled observation per year during the year when
the certificated employee does not receive a formal
performance evaluation and assessment.
E. Clarify in 44664(c)(1) regarding certificated
employees that receive an unsatisfactory rating
SB 499 (Liu) Page 19
of ?
provide that this subdivision applies only to
"permanent" certificated employees and provide that
for probationary certificated employees, an employing
authority may elect to offer a program designed to
improve appropriate areas of the employee's
performance and to further pupil achievement and the
instructional objectives of the employing authority.
F. Specify that county offices of education are
required to implement the best practices teacher and
administrator evaluation program.
G. Clarify that Education Code § 35161.5 also
applies to county offices of education.
Staff also recommends that as the bill moves forward, the
author consider the implications the bill could have on
non-classroom certificated staff such as counselors,
nurses, and librarians, and whether there should be
specific standards or attributes that should apply to this
subset of certificated staff as part of the best practices
teacher evaluation system.
9. Related and prior legislation.
AB 575 (O'Donnell & Atkins), which is pending before the
Assembly Education Committee, would require school
districts to implement teacher and administrator evaluation
systems.
AB 1495 (Weber) from 2015, which is also pending before the
Assembly Education Committee, would make changes to the
certificated employee evaluation system, known as the Stull
Act.
AB 1078 (Olsen) would also make changes to the certificated
employee evaluation system. This measure is pending before
the Assembly Education Committee.
SB 441 (Calderon, 2013) proposed to amend various
provisions of existing law governing the evaluation of
SB 499 (Liu) Page 20
of ?
certificated employees by requiring the evaluations to use
multiple measures, including a minimum of four rating
levels, increasing the frequency of evaluations for
teachers with 10 or more years of experience in a school
district from every five years to every three years, and
requiring school districts to consider the findings of
sessions, surveys, and specific focus groups by subject
matter and grade level from parents of pupils. SB 441
failed passage in this Committee on May 1, 2013.
SB 453 (Huff) would have authorized the governing board of
a school district to evaluate and assess the performance of
certificated employees using a multiple-measures evaluation
system, authorized school districts to make specified
employment decisions based on teacher performance, and
expanded the reasons districts may deviate from the order
of seniority in terminating and reappointing teachers.
This bill failed passage in this Committee on April 24,
2013.
Chapter 435, Statutes of 2012, (SB 1292, Liu) authorized
the evaluation of school principals based on the California
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders as well as
evidence of pupil academic growth, effective and
comprehensive teacher evaluations, culturally responsive
instructional strategies, the ability to analyze quality
instructional strategies and provide effective feedback,
and effective school management.
AB 5 (Fuentes, 2012), similar to this bill, would have
repealed and replaced various provisions of existing law
governing the evaluation of certificated employees and
required school districts to implement a best practices
teacher evaluation system.
SUPPORT
Public Advocates
Superintendent of Public Instruction
OPPOSITION
Association of California School Administrators
SB 499 (Liu) Page 21
of ?
California Association of School Business Officials
California Association of Suburban Schools
California Chamber of Commerce
California County Superintendents Educational Services
Association
California Democrats for Education Reform
California School Boards Association
Central Valley Education Coalition
Children Now
Education Trust-West
Educators 4 Excellence
EdVoice
Families In Schools
Future Is Now Schools
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
Los Angeles Unified School District
Orange County Department of Education
Parents Advocate League
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Small School Districts' Association
Students Matter
StudentsFirst
Teach Plus
-- END --