BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Tom Torlakson, Chairman
1415 (Brownley)
Hearing Date: 08/30/07 Amended: 07/05/07
Consultant: Dan Troy Policy Vote: ED 8-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 1415 would require the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CTC), on or before January 1, 2009, to adopt a
data evaluation system capable of assessing the effectiveness of
accredited programs that prepare educators for the
administrative services credential, as specified.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Fund
CTC No/Minor costs
Special*
CSU $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
General
UC $320 $320 $320
General
*CTC's operational costs are supported by fees.
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.
Current law authorizes the CTC to issue credentials for school
services positions, including administrators, and to develop an
accreditation framework for programs that provide preparation
for these service credentials. Typically, individuals will
complete an accredited program of professional preparation in
administrative services to receive their credential, or,
alternatively, will complete a one-year internship in a
CTC-approved supervised training program.
This bill would require the CTC, by January 1, 2009, to adopt a
data evaluation system that can assess the effectiveness of
programs that prepare educators for the administrative services
credential. The bill further specifies that program
effectiveness shall be assessed on multiple measures including:
1) The ability to prepare candidates who improve pupil
learning.
2) Program completion rates.
3) Placement of program graduates in administrative
positions.
4) Employment retention rates of program graduates.
The CTC would be required to convene a stakeholder group,
including representatives from postsecondary institutions,
teachers, administrators, district personnel, and others to
recommend appropriate ways to assess the measures specified in
the bill and to
-1-
Page 2
AB 1415 (Brownley)
explore other outcome measures.
According to the bill's sponsor, this bill is an effort to
address concerns raised in a 2005 report that concluded that
education administration programs (nationwide) were ineffective.
More specifically, the report contended that programs lack
appropriate curricula, have low admissions and graduation
standards, and have weak faculties and inadequate clinical
instruction, among other shortcomings.
In order to address these inadequacies, the CTC has taken steps
toward revamping its accreditation framework. In 2006, the CTC
revised the accreditation system by turning a periodic
input-oriented review (once every six years) into an ongoing,
standards-based, data-driven review based on accountability that
would regularly assess information over a seven-year period.
The revised system would require programs to collect certain
data and submit information on a biennial basis. The bill's
sponsor suggests that this bill is consistent with the CTC's
revised process.
Staff notes that the specifications in the bill, particularly
the provision relating to assessing a program's impact on pupil
outcomes, may prove problematic and costly. While few would
dispute that the ultimate role for many administrators is to
improve pupil outcomes, staff notes that not every individual
seeking an administrative services credential will obtain an
administrative position that has responsibility over a school or
district's academic programs. Also, establishing factors that
clearly link a credential preparation program to later pupil
outcomes may be elusive given all the other and likely more
significant elements that affect student achievement. Is the
benefit worth the expense?
Further, while the sponsor suggests that appropriate data
elements should be accessible through CALPADS, the Department of
Education has expressed reluctance to share pupil longitudinal
data due to concerns over pupil privacy rights relating to the
Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Therefore,
gathering meaningful data may be difficult and expensive.
Both the California State University (CSU) and the University of
California (UC) have indicated that this bill will result in
costs of approximately $80,000 to $100,000 for each campus
program, primarily due to data collection, analysis, and
preparing required reports. As UC operates 4 programs and CSU
operates 23 programs, total costs for the segments could be $2.3
million annually and perhaps more if a lack of access to CALPADS
requires each campus to collect pupil outcome data on its own.
Staff recommends amending the bill to specify that CTC will be
responsible for the data collection and analysis of any
indicators relating to pupil learning. This would clarify the
expected scope of the process and reduce costs of carrying it
out.