BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 499|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 499
Author: Liu (D) and De León (D)
Amended: 6/2/15
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-2, 4/22/15
AYES: Liu, Block, Hancock, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan
NOES: Runner, Vidak
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/28/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
SUBJECT: Teachers: best practices teacher evaluation system:
school administrator evaluation
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill repeals and replaces various provisions of
existing law governing the evaluation of certificated employees
and beginning July 1, 2018, requires school districts to
implement a best practices teacher evaluation system. This bill
also repeals and replaces provisions of existing law regarding
school administrator evaluations.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Authorizes the Stull Act which expresses legislative intent
that school districts and county governing boards establish a
uniform system of evaluation and assessment of certificated
SB 499
Page 2
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 specified, including
teacher performance as it reasonably relates to:
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.
2)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.
3)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 program is 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.
SB 499
Page 3
This bill recasts various provisions of the law governing the
evaluation of certificated employees. Specifically, this bill:
1) Makes inoperative as of July 1, 2018, and repeals as of
January 1, 2019, the following Stull Act requirements:
a) Legislative intent that governing boards establish a
uniform system for evaluation and assessment.
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.
c) The authorization that a school district may include
standards from the National Board of Professional Teaching
Standards or the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession (CSTP) in its evaluation and assessment
guidelines.
d) The requirement that the governing board of each school
district:
i) Establish standards of expected pupil achievement
at each grade level in each area of study, and
ii) 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.
1) 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.
SB 499
Page 4
2) Requires, beginning July 1, 2018, the governing board of
each school district to adopt and implement a best practices
teacher evaluation system (BPTES). Requires the BPTES to be
locally negotiated pursuant to the Educational Employment
Relations Act; and 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.
3) Requires a BPTES to include, but not be limited to,
specified attributes, including the evaluation of each
teacher based on the degree to which a teacher accomplishes
the following objectives:
a) 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.
b) Creates and maintains effective environments for pupil
learning, to the extent that those environments are within
the teacher's control.
c) 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.
d) 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.
e) Uses pupil assessment information to inform instruction
and to improve learning, evidence of which shall include,
but is not 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.
SB 499
Page 5
f) 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.
g) Contributes to pupil academic growth based on multiple
measures, as specified, including state and local
formative and summative assessments in the grade levels
and subjects that these assessments are administered as
well as classroom work, pupil grades, classroom
participation, presentations and performances, and
projects and portfolios as available and applicable for
the grade level and subject taught.
4) Requires that a BPTES include 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.
5) Requires that a BPTES has at least three performance levels.
6) 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 supervisory function,
as specified.
7) Provides that the BPTES shall not apply to certificated
employees who hold an administrative services credential.
8) Authorizes the State Board of Education (SBE), in
consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction
and appropriate education stakeholder groups, to adopt
non-regulatory guidance to support the implementation of the
SB 499
Page 6
BPTES, as specified.
9) Repeals and replaces, beginning July 1, 2018, 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.
10)Requires, on or before May 1, 2018, 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
implementation of a BPTES and use the comments received to
guide the development and implementation of the BPTES.
Requires other public hearing requirements for governing
boards, as specified.
11)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 a 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.
12)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.
b) Beginning July 1, 2018, 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.
SB 499
Page 7
Specifically, this bill changes the frequency from at
least every five years to at least every three years.
c) Maintains existing requirements for evaluations:
i) Requires the evaluation to include recommendations,
if necessary, as to areas of improvement.
ii) 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.
iii) 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.
13)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 employee's
performance.
14)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.
15)Repeals the existing provisions of law governing
administrator evaluations effective July 1, 2018, and
requires governing boards to establish a new system of
evaluation for school administrators to guide their growth
SB 499
Page 8
and performance with the purpose of supporting them as
instructional leaders in order to raise pupil achievement, as
specified.
16)Requires governing boards to identify who will conduct the
evaluation of each school administrator.
17)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.
18)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.
19)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.
20)Prohibits the SBE from waiving the best practices teacher
evaluation system requirements.
Comments
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 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
SB 499
Page 9
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."
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
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."
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, this bill contains the following
provisions to accomplish that objective:
1)Use of assessments. Requires both state and local formative
and summative assessments to be included in teacher
evaluations. Formative assessments are developed locally and
SB 499
Page 10
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.
2)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.
3)Categories for rating teachers. Increases the categories for
rating teachers from two to three.
4)Multiple measures. Requires pupil academic growth based on
multiple measures to be part of a teacher evaluation.
5)Professional Development. Requires an employing 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 PAR program in place,
they must refer teachers who receive an unsatisfactory review
to the PAR program for improvement.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill
creates unknown, but significant, costs for a new reimbursable
state mandate likely to be in the tens of millions annually.
Those costs will be partially offset by repealing law related to
an existing mandate. Additionally, there would be cost pressure
for the California Department of Education (CDE) to develop
non-regulatory guidance which CDE estimates to be $538,000
General Fund over a two-year period.
SB 499
Page 11
SUPPORT: (Verified6/1/15)
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Public Advocates
OPPOSITION: (Verified6/1/15)
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of School Business Officials
California Business Roundtable
California Chamber of Commerce
California County Superintendents Educational Services
Association
California Democrats for Education Reform
California School Boards Association
Children Now
Education Trust-West
Educators 4 Excellence
EdVoice
Families In 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
Prepared by:Lenin Del Castillo / ED. / (916) 651-4105
6/2/15 22:15:09
**** END ****
SB 499
Page 12