BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 5|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 5
Author: Fuentes (D)
Amended: 8/21/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/15/11
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Blakeslee, Hancock, Price,
Vargas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Huff, Liu, Simitian, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 8/16/12
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Dutton
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-25, 6/1/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Teachers: teacher evaluations
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires school districts to implement
a best practices teacher evaluation system, as specified,
by July 1, 2014. This bill also, commencing July 1, 2014,
$60,000,000 of funding appropriated, as specified, for the
2013-14 fiscal year shall be distributed to school
districts with eligible schools identified, as specified,
in the same fiscal year no later than December 1, 2013, for
the purpose of implementing the best practices teacher
evaluation system established, as specified. The amount
appropriated by this section shall be distributed based on
CONTINUED
AB 5
Page
2
the number of staff employed by a recipient school
district. School districts shall use the funds to plan for
the implementation of the best practices teacher evaluation
system, including, but not limited to, both of the
following: (1) train evaluators to ensure calibration and
consistency in conducting observations as specified, and
(2) develop the uniform observation tool used in
observations as specified.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the Stull Act, expresses
legislative intent that governing boards of school
districts establish a uniform system of evaluation and
assessment of certificated personnel within each school
district, including schools conducted or maintained by
county superintendents of education and requires school
districts to evaluate and assess teacher performance as it
reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward
district-adopted standards of pupil achievement and pupil
performance on criterion referenced tests; instructional
techniques and strategies used by the employee; the
employee's adherence to curricular objectives; and the
establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning
environment within the scope of the employee's
responsibilities. The Stull Act does not apply to
certificated personnel who are employed on an hourly basis
in adult education classes.
In developing guidelines and procedures for evaluating
certificated personnel, existing law requires governing
boards to avail themselves of the advice of the
certificated instructional personnel in the district's
organization of certificated personnel pursuant to
collective bargaining statutes. A school district may, by
mutual agreement between the exclusive representatives of
the certificated employees of the district, include any
objective standards from the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) or any objective
standards from the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession (CSTP).
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,
CONTINUED
AB 5
Page
3
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. Employees 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. Teachers who receive an
unsatisfactory rating are required to participate in the
Peer Assistance and Review Program if their district offers
such a program.
Existing law establishes the Peer Assistance and Review
Program for Teachers (PAR) by authorizing school districts
and the exclusive representative of the certificated
employees to develop and implement the program locally.
Under existing law, 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/her skills and knowledge.
The final evaluation of a teacher's participation in the
program is made available for placement in his/her
personnel file.
This bill:
1. Includes additional provisions of the Education Code,
relating to teacher evaluation and the Quality Education
Investment Act of 2006, that may not be waived.
2. Provides that the provisions described above would
become inoperative on July 1 , 2014. This bill states
findings and declarations of the Legislature regarding
the nature of effective teachers and of the teaching
profession. Commencing on July 1 , 2014, this bill
requires the governing board of each school district to
adopt and implement a locally negotiated best practices
teacher evaluation system, described as one in which
each teacher is evaluated on a continuing basis on the
degree to which he or she accomplishes specific
objectives and multiple observations of instructional
and other professional practices are conducted by
trained evaluators. This bill, on or before May 1,
2013, requires the governing board of each school
CONTINUED
AB 5
Page
4
district, at a regularly scheduled public hearing, to
seek comment on the development and implementation of
the best practices teacher evaluation system, and to
disclose the provisions of the best practices teaching
evaluation system at a regularly scheduled public
hearing. This bill also requires the governing board of
each school district to establish and define job
responsibilities for certificated, noninstructional
employees and evaluate and assess their performance in
relation to those responsibilities. This bill provides
that these provisions do not apply to certificated
personnel who are employed on an hourly basis in adult
education classes.
3. Requires that funds appropriated pursuant to a provision
of law for the 2013-14 fiscal year be distributed to
school districts, as specified, for the purpose of
implementing the best practices teacher evaluation
system, and requires these school districts to use the
funds, as specified.
4. Requires the evaluation and assessment of the above
personnel at least every three years, except as locally
negotiated and provided in the best practices teacher
evaluation system.
5. Revises the class size requirement for kindergarten and
grades 1 to 3, inclusive, to be no more than an average
of 20 pupils per class in each grade level at each
schoolsite, provided that any grade 1 to 3 classroom at
that schoolsite has no more than 22 pupils. This bill
instead requires $450,000,000 per fiscal year to be
appropriated from the General Fund for specified
purposes for each of the 2008-09 and 2011-12 fiscal
years, and would, commencing with the 2013-14 fiscal
year, appropriate $228,170,000 to the Superintendent, as
specified, for purposes of the act. This bill,
commencing with the 2013-14 fiscal year and continuing
annually thereafter, requires the Superintendent to
allocate, as specified, certain appropriated funds that
are not allocated to schools with kindergarten or grades
1 to 12, inclusive, in a fiscal year due to program
termination or otherwise, except funds allocated in the
2013-14 fiscal year for purposes of implementing the
CONTINUED
AB 5
Page
5
best practices teacher evaluation system. This bill
also appropriates $221,830,000 for the 2013-14 fiscal
year, for allocation by the Chancellor of the California
Community Colleges and the Superintendent, as specified,
from the General Fund.
6. Includes, as of July 1, 2014, the best practices teacher
evaluation system to be among the state-mandated local
programs supported by the block grant funding.
Comments
This bill addresses the need for a more meaningful
evaluation system. The Center for the Future of Teaching
and Learning (CFTL) 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 argues 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."
Training and calibration of evaluators . Performance
evaluations play a critical role in human resource
management for most organizations. They provide a basis
for helping employees and employers identify professional
growth opportunities and establishing performance
objectives. Although school districts often adopt common
evaluation forms and rubrics, teachers often complain that
evaluators may not be consistent in their use of those
forms, raising questions of fairness and equity across
schools within the district. As pressure increases to
improve teacher quality, it will be critical for governing
boards to ensure that each component of a multiple measures
evaluation system is valid and reliable for gauging teacher
CONTINUED
AB 5
Page
6
effectiveness. This bill requires the observation of
instructional and other professional practices to be
conducted by evaluators who have received appropriate
training and have demonstrated competence in evaluating
teaching. To ensure that a satisfactory rating in one
school within the district is equal to a satisfactory
rating in another school, districts should also ensure that
evaluators are calibrated and demonstrate inter-rater
reliability.
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 257 (Liu), Session of 2011-12, encourages school
districts 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 for the
purpose of improving instruction. For districts that
include additional criteria into their evaluation systems,
the bill limits pupil progress data to no more than 25% of
a teacher's evaluation. Passed the Senate with a vote of
39-0 on June 1, 2011.
SB 355 (Huff), Session of 2011-12, authorizes the governing
board of a school district to evaluate and assess the
performance of certificated employees using a
multiple-measures evaluation system, authorizes a school
district, county office of education, or charter school to
assign, reassign, and transfer teachers and administrators
based on effectiveness and subject matter needs without
regard to years of service, and expands the reasons
districts may deviate from the order of seniority in
terminating and reappointing teachers, as specified.
Requires a school district evaluation system adopted
pursuant to SB 355 to include a quantitative pupil academic
growth component of at least 30% of the evaluation.
(Failed passage in Senate Education Committee)
SB 955 (Huff), Session of 2009-10, would have made various
changes to statutes governing staffing notification
deadlines, layoff and dismissal procedures, and
reemployment preferences pertaining to certificated
educators. (Held in Assembly Rules Committee)
CONTINUED
AB 5
Page
7
SB 1655 (Scott), Chapter 518, Statutes of 2006, prohibits a
school district from transferring a teacher who requests to
be transferred to a school that is ranked in deciles 1 to 3
inclusive, on the Academic Performance Index if the
principal of the school refuses to accept the transfer.
Passed the Senate with a vote of 33-1 on May 30, 2006.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Unable to verify at time of writing)
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Several research 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. 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 author's office notes that the state's current teacher
evaluation system is inconsistent, unclear, and does little
to foster a culture of continuous improvement for teachers.
Several studies have noted that California's current
approach to teacher evaluation serves neither schools nor
teachers well. A January 2011 report by the CFTL 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." 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
indicates 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
CONTINUED
AB 5
Page
8
charges school leaders to implement without preparation or
resources."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-25, 6/1/11
AYES: Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon,
Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng,
Feuer, Fletcher, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto,
Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber,
Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mitchell,
Monning, Pan, Perea, Portantino, Skinner, Solorio,
Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey,
Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell,
Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Beall, Fong, Gorell, Mendoza, V.
Manuel P�rez, Valadao, Yamada
PQ:k 8/22/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED