BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-12 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 5
AUTHOR: Fuentes
AMENDED: August 24, 2012
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: August 29, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
NOTE: This bill was heard by this Committee on June 15, 2011
and was passed on a 6-0 vote. The Senate Rules Committee has
referred this bill to the Senate Education Committee pursuant
to Senate Rule 29.10.
SUBJECT : Teachers: teacher evaluations.
SUMMARY
This bill repeals and replaces various provisions of existing
law governing the evaluation of certificated employees and
beginning July 1, 2014, requires school districts to
implement a best practices teacher evaluation system, as
specified.
BACKGROUND
Existing law
The Stull Act expresses Legislative intent that school
districts and county governing boards establish a uniform
system of evaluation and assessment of certificated
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 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.
AB 5
Page 2
(Education Code � 44660 et. seq.)
In developing guidelines and procedures for evaluating
certificated personnel, governing boards are required to
avail themselves of the advice of the certificated
instructional personnel in the district's organization of
certificated personnel pursuant to collective bargaining
statutes. Districts may, by mutual agreement between the
exclusive representatives of the certificated employees,
include standards from the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS) or the California Standards for
the Teaching Profession (CSTP). (EC � 44661.5)
The Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) specifies
that the scope of collective bargaining includes matters
relating to wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment. The law defines conditions of
employment to include health and welfare benefits, leave,
transfer and reassignment policies, safety conditions of
employment, class size, procedures to be used for the
evaluation of employees, organizational security, and
procedures for processing grievances, the layoff of
probationary certificated employees, and alternative
compensation or benefits for employees adversely affected by
pension limitations as specified. (Government Code � 3540,
3543.2)
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 unsatisfactory rating are required
to participate in the Peer Assistance and Review Program if
their district offers such a program. (EC � 44664)
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 current law, PAR programs are to include multiple
AB 5
Page 3
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. (EC � 44505)
Federal requirements
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has established a
process by which states may request flexibility on behalf of
themselves, local educational agencies, and schools, by
applying for a waiver from certain requirements of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The waiver is intended
to provide educators and state and local leaders with
flexibility regarding specific requirements of NCLB
(principally, the requirement that all students be proficient
in math and reading by 2014 and won't have to identify
additional schools failing to meet targets) in exchange for
rigorous and comprehensive state-developed plans designed to
improve educational outcomes for all students, close
achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of
instruction.
Instructions provided by the DOE indicate that to receive the
flexibility, a state's educational agency and each local
educational agency must commit to develop, adopt, pilot and
implement, with the involvement of teachers and principals,
teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that:
(1) will be used for continual improvement of instruction;
(2) meaningfully differentiate performance using at least
three performance levels; (3) use multiple valid measures in
determining performance levels, including as a significant
factor, data on student growth for all students (including
English Learners and students with disabilities), and other
measures of professional practice (which may be gathered
through multiple formats and sources, such as observations
based on rigorous teacher performance standards, teacher
portfolios, and student and parent surveys); (4) evaluate
teachers and principals on a regular basis; (5) provide
clear, timely, and useful feedback, including feedback that
identifies needs and guides professional development; and (6)
will be used to inform personnel decisions.
The U.S. Department of Education has granted waivers to 33
states. In June 2012, California submitted a request to the
U.S. Department of Education to set aside specific
AB 5
Page 4
requirements of NCLB and requested that the DOE allow the
state to use its own accountability system to ensure that all
schools improve. California's request differs from those
filed by other states that agreed to several additional
federally required policies in exchange for the NCLB waiver.
To date, the DOE has not responded to the California's
request.
Court ruling
In November 2011, a group of parents filed a law suit on
behalf of their children, (Doe et. al. v Deasy et. al.)
asking the court to compel the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD), its superintendent, and its board of
education to comply with the Stull Act's requirement to
evaluate teachers and administrators based in part on student
performance. In July 2012, Superior Court Judge Chalfant
found that the LAUSD was not in compliance with the Stull Act
and was violating its mandatory duty under the Act to use
pupil progress in teacher and principal evaluations. The
Court ruled that LAUSD must modify its current evaluation
process to comply with the Stull Act requirement to
incorporate an assessment of the employee's performance as it
reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward the
District standards at each grade level in each area of study
and as it reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward
State adopted academic content standards as measured by State
adopted criterion referenced assessments, if applicable.
ANALYSIS
This bill recasts various provisions of the law governing the
evaluation of certificated employees. Specifically, this
bill:
1) Makes inoperative as of July 1, 2014, and repeals as of
January 1, 2015, the following Stull Act requirements:
a) Legislative intent that governing boards
establish a uniform system for evaluation and
assessment. (EC � 44660)
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
AB 5
Page 5
bargaining agreement. (EC � 44661)
c) The authorization that a school district may
include standards from the National Board of
Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) or the
California Standards for the Teaching Profession
(CSTP) in its evaluation and assessment guidelines.
(EC � 44661.5)
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. (EC � 44662)
2) 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.
3) Requires, beginning July 1, 2014, 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; 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.
4) Requires a BPTES to include but not be limited to the
following attributes:
a) Each teacher is evaluated on the degree to
which he or she accomplishes the following
AB 5
Page 6
objectives:
i) 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.
ii) Creates and maintains effective
environments for pupil learning, to the extent
that those environments are within the
teacher's control.
iii) 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.
iv) 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.
v) 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.
vi) 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
AB 5
Page 7
identified professional growth opportunities,
and use of meaningful self-assessment to
improve as a professional educator.
vii) Contributes to pupil academic growth
based on multiple measures. Requires multiple
measures to include state and local formative
and summative assessments in the grade levels
and subjects that these assessments are
administered and authorizes the inclusion of
other evidence such as classroom work, pupil
grades, classroom participation, presentations
and performances, and projects and portfolios.
States the intent of the Legislature that
assessments developed by a national consortium
and adopted by the SBE and used for BPTES,
meet statistical and psychometric standards.
Also requires:
a) Measures used for assessing
pupil academic growth to be valid for the
curriculum and pupil being taught and for
the purpose of teacher evaluation.
Prohibits the use of publishers' norms
established by standardized tests from
being included in the evaluation and
assessment of certificated employee
performance.
b) Measures used for assessing
certificated employees who directly
instruct English learner pupils in
acquiring English to include the degree
to which pupils acquire the English
language development standards adopted by
the State Board of Education as
specified.
c) Pupil data used for
purposes of teacher evaluation to be
confidential in the same manner as all
other elements of a teacher's personnel
file.
b) Multiple observations of instructional and
other professional practices conducted by
evaluators who have been appropriately trained and
AB 5
Page 8
calibrated to ensure consistency and who have
demonstrated competence in teaching evaluation.
i) Specifies that the multiple
observations may include but are not limited
to classroom observations, one-on-one
discussions, and review of classroom materials
and course of study, and requires observations
to be conducted using a uniform observational
tool that is appropriate to the teacher's
assignment.
ii) Requires observers to meet with the
teacher to discuss the purpose of the
observation prior to each formal observation
and meet with the teacher after each formal
observation to discuss recommendations as
necessary, with regard to areas of improvement
in the performance of the teacher.
c) Has at least three performance levels.
5) 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.
6) Requires, on or before May 1, 2013, 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
governing boards to disclose the provisions of the
evaluation system at a regularly scheduled public
hearing. Requires governing boards to seek public
comment by May 1 of each year prior to negotiations on
the BPTES.
7) Repeals and replaces, beginning July 1, 2014, the
requirement that school district governing boards
establish and define job responsibilities for
certificated non-instructional personnel, including, but
AB 5
Page 9
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.
8) 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, 2014, 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. Specifically, this bill
changes the frequency from at least every five
years to at least every three years, except as may
be provided in the locally negotiated BPTES.
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
AB 5
Page 10
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 (PAR) if the district has
such a program.
9) 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.
10) Authorizes the 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 BPTES for:
a) Model evaluation systems that may be used to
inform school districts' implementation of the
evaluation system.
b) Model processes for implementing observations
required pursuant to paragraph (2) of Section
44662.
c) Model processes for defining calibration for
the purposes of training evaluators.
d) Model processes for developing the observation
tool.
11) Commencing July 1, 2014, provides $60 million
appropriated pursuant to the Quality Education
Investment (QEIA) to school districts with QEIA eligible
schools to plan and implement a Best Practices Teacher
Evaluation System (BPTES), as specified. Requires
school districts to use the funds for planning and
implementation efforts at the eligible schoolsites,
including training evaluators to ensure calibration and
consistency and to development of the uniform
AB 5
Page 11
observation tool.
a) Specifies that funds provided to local
agencies shall first be used to offset any state
mandated reimbursable costs.
12) Adds the BPTES to the Mandate Block Grant and makes
other changes to conform to Budget Trailer Bill clean up
for the 2012-13 Budget Act.
13) Prohibits the State Board of Education (SBE) from
waiving BPTES requirements and the Quality Education
Investment Act of 2006.
14) 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.
15) Specifies that local agencies and school districts shall
be reimbursed for costs if the Commission on State
Mandates determines that the act contains costs mandated
by the state.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) 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 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 (CFTL) notes that
AB 5
Page 12
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."
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. 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 stated purpose of this bill is to
strengthen teacher quality by improving the state's
teacher evaluation requirements.
The 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
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."
This bill requires school districts, beginning July 2014, to
establish teacher evaluation systems that evaluate
teachers on the degree to which they follow specified
objectives (the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession), including how they contribute to pupil
academic growth. Under the provisions of the bill,
school districts would be required to assess a teacher's
contribution to pupil academic growth based on multiple
measures, including state and local formative and
summative assessment data. Proponents of AB 5 note that
the bill strengthens the state's existing evaluation
AB 5
Page 13
system by creating a policy framework that links student
achievement and teacher performance and could improve
the state's eligibility for a federal waiver of
provisions of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of
2001. Supporters also note that AB 5 provides districts
with flexibility to work with certificated employees and
parents to develop local evaluation systems that are
appropriate for and responsive to the local community
while clearly requiring the use of state and local
assessment data in evaluating a teacher's contribution
to pupil academic growth.
2) Summary of amendments since the Committee heard the bill
in June 2011 . At the time the Committee heard this bill
in June 2011, witness testimony raised a number of
issues including the timing of implementation, the need
to ensure that evaluators are appropriately trained and
calibrated, mandated costs, the role of parents in the
evaluation process, and the manner in which evaluations
would inform professional development. Amendments taken
in Committee addressed the training and calibration of
evaluators and a non-substantive technical amendment.
Since the Committee heard the bill in June 2011, two key
policy issues have emerged that have prompted recent
amendments to this bill: (1) the opportunity to apply
for a federal waiver of certain requirements of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), and (2) the
lawsuit filed regarding the evaluation of teachers in
the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The
author has amended the bill to address these issues and
provide for public comment in the local development of a
BPTES. Senate Appropriations Committee amendments
address fiscal costs and implementation timelines.
Specifically, these amendments:
a) Remove language tying implementation to paying
off the deficit factor and instead makes the
provisions effective July 1, 2014 and allocates a
total of $89 million in one-time unexpended CTA v.
Schwarzenegger Settlement Funds in 2013-14 fiscal
year to eligible Quality Education Investment Act
(QEIA) schools (schools ranked in the lowest two
deciles of the Academic Performance Index) as
follows:
i) $60 million to school districts with
AB 5
Page 14
QEIA cohort schools and QEIA eligible schools
to begin planning for implementation of the
Best Practices Teacher Evaluation System.
ii) $29 million allocated to school
districts with current QEIA schools to
implement the Common Core Standards in English
language arts and mathematics.
b) Require parent/community input. The bill
requires the governing board of a school district,
by May 2013, to hold a public hearing to seek input
on implementation of the BPTES and requires
districts to use this input in developing the new
evaluation system. Requires districts to seek this
input each time they negotiate changes to the
BPTES.
c) Require pupil academic growth to be a factor
in a teacher's evaluation and require pupil growth
to be determined based on multiple measures
including state and local formative and summative
assessments.
d) Specify that the act does not supersede or
invalidate a teacher evaluation system that has
been locally negotiated. The bill states where a
locally negotiated system is in effect, the
evaluation system will remain in effect until the
parties to the contract negotiate a successor
agreement.
e) Prohibit the BPTES and the QEIA program from
being waived by the SBE.
f) Replace the Stull Act with the BPTES in the
K-12 Mandate Block Grant, beginning July 1, 2014.
g) Authorize the SBE to develop non-regulatory
guidelines to assist school districts in
implementing the requirements of the Act.
3) Expands the scope of bargaining ? Current law enumerates
evaluation procedures as a mandatory subject of
collective bargaining. Critics contend that by
requiring the BPTES to be negotiated, AB 5 could have
the effect of requiring districts to bargain aspects of
AB 5
Page 15
the system, such as evaluation criteria, that could
significantly abridge the freedom of school districts to
exercise managerial prerogatives essential to the
achievement of their mission. Although some districts
currently bargain evaluation criteria with their local
unions, the Association of California School
Administrators notes that under current law, criteria
within the evaluation are not a mandatory subject of
bargaining. Additionally, opponents argue that while
the bill specifies the objectives by which teachers must
be evaluated, the criteria for determining whether those
objectives are indeed met would be subject to
negotiation, which could increase implementation time
and costs. On the other hand, proponents argue that the
involvement of teachers in the development of the BPTES
will help ensure that the system is fair and reflective
of the complexity of teaching and learning.
4) Reduces local control ? Opponents maintain that AB 5
reduces local control by eliminating the only
requirement in state law requiring the assessment of
student growth toward grade level expectations in
evaluations of teachers and administrators. Critics
argue that the elimination of this provision could
negatively impact the ability of a governing board to
hold teachers accountable for instruction required to
meet locally adopted standards of pupil achievement.
While school districts would no longer be required to
establish local standards, nothing in AB 5 precludes
governing boards from establishing local standards of
pupil achievement or from including in their local
evaluation system, criteria for holding teachers
accountable for student outcomes relative to those
locally adopted standards.
Additionally, some opponents have cautioned that the
requirement that "measures used for assessing pupil
academic growth be valid and reliable for the curriculum
and the pupil being taught as well as for the purpose of
evaluation" could create costly delays in implementation
if districts need to conduct validation studies before
using the assessments to gauge pupil growth in a
teacher's evaluation.
5) Meets federal waiver requirements ? As mended, AB 5
requires school districts to evaluate teachers on the
extent to which they contribute to pupil academic growth
AB 5
Page 16
based on multiple measures, including state and local
(formative and summative) assessments. Additionally,
the bill now requires local evaluation systems to
differentiate teacher performance using at least three
performance levels. Binary systems, in which teachers
receive either a "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory"
rating, will not comply with the provisions of this act.
Arguably, these changes could strengthen California's
position relative to its request for the federal NCLB
waiver. However, opponents have expressed concern that
the bill's requirements may not be sufficient to qualify
the state for the NCLB waiver because the bill does not
require data on student growth to be a "significant
factor" in a teacher's evaluation and does not address
the U.S. Department of Education's requirement that
evaluations be used to inform personnel decisions.
Under the provisions of this bill, local districts would
be able to determine the how much weight to assign to
the components of the evaluation system. The use of
performance evaluations to inform personnel decisions
will remain consistent with current law. It is unclear
whether these issues would threaten the ability of local
educational agencies to submit a competitive application
for any future waiver programs that may be made
available by the federal government.
6) Doe v Deasy. Despite recent amendments requiring school
districts to evaluate teachers using state and local
formative assessments, opponents have expressed concern
that AB 5 could circumvent the court judgment and writ
issued by the Los Angeles Superior court in this case
because the bill does not specifically require multiple
measures to include the progress of pupils toward
district standards of expected pupil achievement and
state adopted academic content standards.
7) Related and prior legislation .
SB 1292 (Liu) authorizes the evaluation of school principals
based on the California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders as well as evidence of pupil
academic growth, effective and comprehensive teacher
evaluations, culturally responsive instructional
strategies, the ability to analyze quality instructional
strategies and provide effective feedback, and effective
school management. This bill was passed by this
Committee on April 25, 2012 a 9-0 vote and is pending
AB 5
Page 17
before the Governor.
SB 257 (Liu, 2011) would have encouraged school districts to
include in its evaluation and assessment guidelines,
specific information relating to best teaching practices
in all subject areas and authorized a school district to
include additional criteria into the evaluation and
assessment of certificated employees for the purpose of
improving instruction. The bill limited pupil progress
data to no more than 25% of a teacher's evaluation.
This bill was passed by this Committee on a 9-0 vote and
was subsequently held in the Assembly Education
Committee at the request of the author.
SB 355 (Huff, 2011) would have authorized the evaluation and
assessment of certificated employees using a
multiple-measures evaluation system, authorized local
educational associations to assign, reassign, and
transfer teachers and administrators based on
effectiveness and subject matter needs without regard to
years of service, and authorized districts to deviate
from the order of seniority in terminating and
reappointing teachers, as specified. Required pupil
growth to be at least 30% of an employee's. This
measure failed passage in this Committee on May 11, 2011
a 3-2 vote.
SB 955 (Huff, 2010) would have made various changes to
statutes governing the layoff and dismissal of
certificated employees. This bill was heard and passed
by this Committee on a 5-4 vote and was subsequently
held by the Senate Rules Committee.
SUPPORT
Bennett Kayser, Board Member, Los Angeles Unified School
District
California Federation of Teachers
California Teachers Association
Californians for Justice
Parent Leadership Action Network Bay Area Plan
PICO California
Public Advocates
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson
The Campaign for Quality Education
AB 5
Page 18
United Teachers Los Angeles
OPPOSITION
Alliance for a Better Community
Association of California School Administrators
Bay Area Council
California Association of School Business Officials
California Association of Suburban Schools
California County Superintendents Educational Services
Association
California School Boards Association
California State PTA
Central Valley Education Coalition
Children Now
Democrats for Education Reform
Ed Voice
Educators 4 Excellence
El Dorado County Office of Education
Families in Schools
Great Oakland Public Schools
Green Dot Public Schools
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
Los Angeles County Office of Education Superintendent of
Schools, Arturo Delgado
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent John E.
Deasy
Parents Advocate League
Riverside County School Superintendents' Association
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, Kenneth M. Young
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 Schools Districts' Association
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Students First
Students Matter
Teach +Plus
The Education Trust West
United Way of Greater Los Angeles