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: 8/24/12 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, beginning
July 2014,
to establish a best practices teacher evaluation, as
specified. This bill authorizes the State Board of
Education (SBE) to develop nonregulatory guidance to
develop best practice teacher evaluation models and
definitions to expedite the development of quality teacher
evaluation models in the state. This bill also requires
school districts to collectively bargain the implementation
of the evaluation. This bill requires a school district
CONTINUED
AB 5
Page
2
governing board to hold a public hearing to parent and
community input prior to local negotiations on the Best
Practices Teacher Evaluation System. This bill allocates
$89 million in the 2013-14 fiscal year to eligible Quality
Education Investment
Act (QEIA) schools (schools ranked in the lowest two
deciles of the Academic Performance Index (API), as
specified.) This bill, beginning July 2014, also replaces
the Stull Act in the K-12 Mandate Block Grant with
the Best Practices Teacher Evaluation.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/24/12: (1) require a best
practices teacher evaluation system to include but not be
limited to specified attributes; (2) require a teacher to
be evaluated on the degree to which he/she contributes to
pupil academic growth, based on multiple measures. Require
multiple measures to include state and local formative and
summative assessments in the grade levels and subjects that
the assessments are administered; (3) state the intent of
the Legislature that any assessments developed by a
national consortium and adopted by the SBE and used for
teacher evaluation meet statistical and psychometric
standards appropriate for that purpose; (4) require a
teacher evaluation system to have a minimum of three
performance levels for the evaluation of teacher
performance; (5) require governing boards to seek public
comment by May 1 of each year prior to negotiating changes
to their teacher evaluation systems; (6) authorize the SBE,
in consultation with the Superintendent of Public
Instruction and appropriate stakeholder groups, to adopt
non-regulatory guidance to support the implementation of
the best practices teacher evaluation system, as specified;
(7) require QEIA funds provided to school districts for the
purpose of QEIA to be used to support activities related to
the implementation of the teacher evaluation system and
specifies these funds shall first be used to offset any
state mandated reimbursable costs; (8) specify that,
beginning July 1, 2014, this article does not supersede or
invalidate a teacher evaluation system that is locally
negotiated. State where a locally negotiated evaluation
system is in effect, the evaluation system will remain in
effect until the parties to the contract negotiate a
successor agreement; and (9) resolve conflicts with the AB
1476 (Assembly Budget Committee), a Budget Trailer Bill.
AB 5
Page
3
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,
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
AB 5
Page
4
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 requires school districts, beginning July 2014,
to establish a best practices teacher evaluation, which
must include the following:
1. Evidence of effectiveness as measured using the CSTP.
2. A teacher's contribution to pupil academic growth based
on multiple measures. Requires state and local
formative and summative assessment data to be used.
3. The use of summative and formative data to inform
teaching practice.
4. At least three performance levels.
5. Multiple observations of teacher instruction and
professional practice conducted by trained evaluators.
This bill authorizes the SBE to develop nonregulatory
guidance to develop best practice teacher evaluation models
and definitions to expedite the development of quality
teacher evaluation models in the state.
This bill also requires school districts to collectively
bargain the implementation of the evaluation.
This bill requires a school district governing board to
hold a public hearing to parent and community input prior
AB 5
Page
5
to local negotiations on the Best Practices Teacher
Evaluation System.
This bill allocates $89 million in the 2013-14 fiscal year
to eligible QEIA schools (schools ranked in the lowest two
deciles of the API), as specified.
This bill, beginning July 2014, also replaces the Stull Act
in the K-12 Mandate Block Grant with the Best Practices
Teacher Evaluation.
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
AB 5
Page
6
evaluation system is valid and reliable for gauging teacher
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
AB 5
Page
7
educators. (Held in Assembly Rules Committee)
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 API 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 : (Verified 8/27/12)
Bay Area Parent Leadership Action Network
Bennet Kayser, Board Member, Los Angeles Unified School
District
Californians for Justice
Parent Leadership Action Network
Public Advocates
Unified School District
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/28/12)
Alliance for a Better Community
Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of Los Angeles
Association of California School Administrators
Bay Area Council
California Association of School Business Officials
California Association of Suburban Schools
California Business Roundtable
California County Superintendents Educational Services
Association
California Office to Reform Education
California School Boards Association
Central Valley Education Coalition
Children Now
Democrats for Education Reform
Education Trust-West
Educators for Excellence
EdVoice
El Dorado County Office of Education
Families in Schools
Great Oakland Public Schools
AB 5
Page
8
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Los Angeles Unified School District
Parent Revolution
Reading and Beyond
Riverside County Office of Education
Riverside County School Superintendents' Association
San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools
San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools
San Diego County Office of Education
San Francisco Unified School District
School Employers Association of California
Small School Districts' Association
Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Southern
California
Students First
Teach Plus
United Way of Greater Los Angeles
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,
AB 5
Page
9
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
charges school leaders to implement without preparation or
resources."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents states:
AB 5 would utilize $89 million in one-time funds from
the Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) for
implementation of the program's start-up costs. Because
not all school districts receive QEIA funds, the amount
available to districts that do not would be unlikely to
cover those implementation costs - which could include
the development and training of evaluators, as well as
collective bargaining of both the procedures and
criteria of the evaluation system - all of which would
become ongoing costs.
As noted above, school districts will face enormous
budget reductions - estimated at $5.4 billion - if
Proposition 30 is not approved in November. Failure of
the initiative would result in a per-ADA reduction of
$457, leaving districts struggling simply to maintain
and operate schools and provide a basic educational
program in a manner that allows them to meet the state's
goals for student achievement. Districts will be in no
position to implement a new reform of the evaluation
process of this magnitude, and for that reason we
believe the bill is premature.
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,
AB 5
Page
10
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 8/28/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****