BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 5
Page A
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 5 (Fuentes) - As Amended: April 4, 2011
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:8-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill, commencing with the 2012-13 school year, establishes
the Evaluation and Support System for Certificated Employees,
which delineates minimum components for a teacher evaluation
system and repeals the current evaluation system, the Stull Act,
on July 1, 2012. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the governing board of a school district to develop
the evaluation system via the collective bargaining process
and include the following components:
a) Evidence of effectiveness as compared to the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession.
b) Evidence of effectiveness in teaching the academic
content standards and the Common Core standards, as
measured by more than one year of summative and formative
assessment data, including locally developed assessments
and assessments under the Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program.
c) Evidence of effectiveness in teaching the English
Language Development Standards for a certificated employee
who directly instructs English language learner pupils in
acquiring English, as measured by more than one year of
summative and formative assessment data, including locally
developed assessments and the California English Language
Development Test, as specified.
d) Multiple observations of teacher instruction conducted
by trained administrators and peers.
2)Authorizes the school district governing board to adopt
additional components to the evaluation system, provided it is
AB 5
Page B
done via the collective bargaining process. This measure also
requires probationary employees to be evaluated at least once
every school year and permanent employees to be evaluated at
least every other year.
3)Requires certificated employees who perform in an
unsatisfactory manner, as defined by the school district via
the collective bargaining agreement, to participate for one
year in an instructional support program, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Beginning with the 2012-13 fiscal year (FY), GF/98 state
mandated reimbursable costs, likely between $25 million and
$30 million, to school districts to conduct evaluations
pursuant to this measure. The annual cost for the Stull Act,
the current certificated employee evaluation system, is
approximately $19 million. According to the Center for the
Future of Teaching in Learning, there are approximately
300,000 teachers in California. Of this number, 18,164 are
first or second year teachers (i.e., probationary).
2)Beginning with the 2013-14 FY, GF/98 state reimbursable
mandated costs, likely between $42 million and $84 million, to
provide teachers deemed "unsatisfactory," pursuant to an
evaluation, with support in a district developed program, as
specified.
3)GF/98 state reimbursable mandated costs, likely between $2
million and $4 million, to school districts to provide
training to personnel to conduct evaluations, as specified.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . Several research studies document the correlation
between teacher quality and student achievement.
Specifically, research indicates "differential teacher
effectiveness is a strong determinant of differences in
student learning, far outweighing the effects of differences
in class size and heterogenity. Students who are assigned to
several ineffective teachers in a row have significantly lower
achievement and gains in achievement than those who are
AB 5
Page C
assigned to several highly effective teachers."<1>
The author argues the state's current teacher evaluation
system is inconsistent, unclear, and does little to foster a
culture of continuous improvement for teachers. According to
a 2010 report released by the National Board Resource Center
at Stanford University,<2> "While evaluation processes across
the state vary widely, many of them look very much the same as
they did in 1971?In sharing their own experiences with
evaluations, Accomplished California Teachers members revealed
some common challenges: a system that teachers do not trust,
that rarely offers clear direction for improving practice and
that often charges school leaders to implement without
preparation or resources."
According to the author, "For over a year, the state and the
nation have engaged in a conversation regarding teacher
effectiveness. The media has framed this conversation as a
discussion between 'good versus bad' teachers and how school
districts should lay off the bad ones. I don't agree with the
fundamental premise of this characterization. We must change
the conversation to be a discussion of policies to support all
teachers in their ability to be effective, regardless if they
are new or a veteran. We also need to create a rigorous, data
driven system that utilizes data to inform effective
instructional practices in the classroom. This bill details
the foundation for a comprehensive teacher evaluation system
and establishes a mechanism for the continuous improvement of
teachers."
2)Existing law establishes the Stull Act, enacted in 1971, which
governs certificated employee evaluations. Specifically, the
Stull Act requires school districts to evaluate and assess
teacher performance as it reasonability relates to pupil
performance on criterion referenced tests, teacher technique
and strategies, curricular objectives, and the maintenance of
a suitable learning environment.
---------------------------
<1> Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State
Policy Evidence; Linda Darling-Hammond, Education Policy
Analysis (January 2000)
<2> A Quality Teacher in Every Classroom: Creating a Teacher
Evaluation System that Works for California, Accomplished
California Teachers (ACT), National Board Resource Center,
Stanford University (June 2010).
AB 5
Page D
Under the Stull Act, school districts are authorized, by
mutual agreement with their collective bargaining
representative, to include the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards, California Standards for the Teaching
Profession, or any other objective standards, in the
evaluation.
3)Differences between existing law and this bill . Existing law
authorizes school districts to collectively bargain teacher
performance via the evaluation process as it reasonability
relates to pupil performance on criterion-referenced tests,
teacher technique and strategies, curricular objectives, and
the maintenance of a suitable learning environment.
This bill requires specific components related to these areas
to be included in the teacher evaluation. For example, it
requires the evaluation to measure a teacher's effectiveness
as it relates to the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession and the state's academic content standards, as
measured by pupil assessment data. At the same time, it
allows individual school districts the flexibility to
determine how these elements will be weighed within the
evaluation and implemented to meet the needs of their pupils,
teachers, administrators, and parents.
4)Opposition . Several school employee associations, including
the California Teachers Association (CTA), the California
Federation of Teachers, and the United Teachers Los Angeles,
have expressed opposition to the requirement that pupil
assessment data (in particular STAR program data) be a
component of the teacher evaluation system. These
organizations argue the STAR assessments were not designed to
measure student performance over time and as such, are not
valid and reliable. According to CTA, "standardized tests can
validly assess only a limited range of student learning.
Therefore, they should be only an adjunct or supplement to
information obtained through school-and classroom-based
assessment conducted by teachers for the purpose of supporting
and strengthening instruction as well as for summarizing and
evaluating student learning."
5)Unpaid K-12 mandates . According to the Legislative Analyst's
Office, the state owes approximately $3.4 billion in K-12
mandate costs for prior years. Prior to the 2010 Budget Act,
the state deferred mandate payments for several years,
AB 5
Page E
including the Stull Act mandate, with the promise of making
the payments to school districts in future years. As a result,
districts did not received payment for annual services they
were required to conduct.
SB 90 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 7,
Statutes of 2011 allocated $80 million GF/98 to school
districts for annual K-12 mandate costs; the state, however,
still owes school districts for the prior year costs.
6)Related legislation .
a) AB 48 (John Perez), pending in the Assembly Education
Committee, establishes a best practice teacher evaluation,
as specified.
b) SB 257 (Liu), pending on the Senate Floor, encourages a
school district to include in its evaluation and assessment
guidelines specific information relating to current best
teaching practices in all subject areas and authorizes a
school district to include additional criteria into the
evaluation and assessment of certificated employees.
c) SB 355 (Huff), pending in the Senate Education
Committee, makes various changes to statutes governing the
evaluation of certificated employees and in how teacher
effectiveness may be considered in employment decisions.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081