BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-12 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 355
AUTHOR: Huff
AMENDED: May 4, 2011
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: May 11, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
SUBJECT : Education employment: Certificated employees.
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes the governing board of a school district
to evaluate and assess the performance of certificated
employees using a multiple-measures evaluation system,
authorizes school districts to make specified employment
decisions based on teacher performance, and expands the
reasons districts may deviate from the order of seniority in
terminating and reappointing teachers, as specified.
BACKGROUND
Existing law, the Stull Act, requires school districts to
evaluate and assess teacher performance as it reasonably
relates to the following:
1) The progress of pupils toward district-adopted
standards of pupil achievement and pupil performance on
criterion referenced tests.
2) Instructional techniques and strategies used by the
employee.
3) The employee's adherence to curricular objectives.
4) The establishment and maintenance of a suitable
learning environment within the scope of the employee's
responsibilities.
The Stull Act also prohibits the use of publishers' norms
established by standardized tests in the evaluation and
assessment of certificated employee performance. (EC �
44662)
SB 355
Page 2
Existing law specifies that an employee who receives an
unsatisfactory rating in the area of teaching methods or
instruction 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
employing authority. Teachers who receive an unsatisfactory
rating on an evaluation are required to participate in the
Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Program if their district
offers such a program.
(EC � 44664)
Existing law exempts certificated personnel who are employed
on an hourly basis in adult education classes from Article 11
of Part 25, Chapter 3, of the Education Code concerning the
evaluation and assessment of performance of certificated
employees. (EC � 44660)
Existing law requires school districts undergoing layoffs to
terminate certificated employees in the inverse order in
which they were employed. Current law permits districts to
deviate from the order of seniority if:
1) The district demonstrates a specific need to teach a
specific course or course of study, or to provide
services authorized by certain services credentials and
the retained individual has the specific experience or
training required to meet that need, or
2) For purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance
with constitutional requirements related to equal
protection of the laws. (EC � 44955)
When a district is undergoing a layoff, existing law requires
the governing board to assign and reassign teachers according
to their seniority and qualifications. A teacher must pass a
subject matter competency test prior to being assigned to
teach a subject he or she has not previously taught and for
which he or she doesn't have the appropriate background or
teaching credential. (EC � 44955)
Existing law specifies that for a period of 39 months from
the date of termination, a permanent teacher, who in the
meantime has not turned 65, has preferential rights to
reappointment and substitute service in order of seniority.
Existing law provides probationary employees preferred rights
for a period of 24 months.
(EC � 44955, � 44956, and � 44957)
SB 355
Page 3
Existing law specifies that a teacher has the right to refuse
to submit to any evaluation or survey conducted by the school
district concerning personal values, attitudes, and beliefs,
sexual orientation, political affiliations or opinions, or
critical appraisals of other individuals with whom the
teacher has a family relationship.
(EC � 49091.24)
Existing law expresses the intent of the Legislature that the
Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) Advisory Committee
consider various ways to measure performance levels of cohort
growth in which each pupil, subgroup, school, and school
district make at least one year's academic growth in one
year's time and whether that growth is sufficient to reach a
performance level of proficient within the timeframes
specified in the state's approved accountability plan
required pursuant to the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA). It further requires any measure of annual
academic achievement growth by cohort approved for inclusion
in the Academic Performance Index (API) or adopted through a
state plan pursuant to the federal Elementary and Secondary
Education Act as a requirement of receiving or allocating
federal funds to utilize a growth model in the public domain
that is not proprietary, be able to be replicated by an
independent statistician, and be able to be fully and
accurately explained in a document made available to the
public. (EC � 52052.6)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Authorizes the governing board of a school district to
additionally evaluate and assess the performance of all
certificated employees pursuant to a system of
evaluation established by the district that meets all of
the following criteria:
a) The system shall define a rigorous,
transparent, and fair multiple-measures evaluation
system for both teachers and principals and shall
involve the development and adoption by the
governing board of objective evaluation and
assessment guidelines.
SB 355
Page 4
b) All certificated employees of the school
district are subject to the system of evaluation
and assessment, except for employees who are
employed on an hourly basis in adult education
classes.
c) Specifies that "multiple-measures evaluation
system" is a teacher and principal evaluation
system that uses multiple research-validated
approaches to measuring effectiveness, including
the measures specified in this section. Requires
the evaluation system to include a quantitative
pupil academic achievement growth component that
constitutes at least 30 percent of the overall
teacher and principal effectiveness measure.
2) Specifies that the system of evaluation applies to the
county superintendent of schools and the employees of
schools conducted or maintained by the county
superintendent of schools.
3) Specifies that notwithstanding any other law, a school
district, county office of education or charter school
may assign, reassign, and transfer teachers and
administrators based on effectiveness and subject matter
needs without regard to years of service.
4) Deletes the requirement that school districts make
assignments and reassignments in a manner that employees
shall be retained to render service which their
seniority and qualifications entitle them to render.
5) Deletes the requirement that an employee must pass a
subject matter competency test prior to being assigned
or reassigned to teach a subject they have not
previously taught or have the appropriate background or
teaching credential.
6) Specifies that a district may deviate from the order of
seniority for purposes of maintaining or achieving
compliance with constitutional requirements related to
equal protection of the laws as it applies to pupils.
7) Adds provisions to existing law authorizing a district
to deviate from the order of seniority in the layoff and
reappointment of certificated employees:
SB 355
Page 5
a) Specifies a district may deviate from the
order of seniority on the basis of performance
evaluations provided that the district has
implemented an evaluation and assessment process as
provided in this bill and employees with superior
evaluations are retained over those with inferior
evaluations.
b) Specifies a district may deviate from the
order of seniority on the basis that the employee
is assigned to a school site that has been selected
by the governing board for exemption from
certificated reductions in force, based upon the
needs of the educational program.
8) Prohibits a district that deviates from the order of
seniority for purposes of terminating an employee, from
taking into consideration whether an employee has
exercised collective bargaining and grievance rights;
prohibits a school district from deviating from the
order of seniority if the employee has 18 months or less
from his or her date of retirement or is on medical
leave.
9) Authorizes a district to deviate from the order of
seniority in reappointing or offering substitute service
to a certificated employee who has been laid off for any
of the following reasons:
a) The school district demonstrates a specific
need for personnel to teach a specific course or
course of study or to provide services authorized
by a services credential, as specified.
b) For purposes of maintaining or achieving
compliance with constitutional requirements related
to equal protection of the laws as it applies to
pupils.
c) On the basis of performance evaluations if the
district has implemented an evaluation and
assessment process as specified and if employees
with superior evaluations are offered the
opportunity for substitute service over those with
inferior evaluations.
SB 355
Page 6
10) Makes other technical and non-substantive changes.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill : The state's fiscal crisis has
required most school districts to make difficult budget
adjustments, including reductions to their teaching
workforce. According to the author's office, the
state's current "seniority first" system limits the
flexibility of school districts to make staffing
decisions that are in the best interest of schools and
the students they serve. Layoffs must abide by the rule
of "Last In, First Out" in which certificated teachers
must be released in the inverse of the order in which
they were hired; assignments, reassignments, and
transfers are determined on the basis of seniority; and
substitute jobs and vacancies must be offered first to
laid-off teachers who have the most seniority, all
without regard to the effectiveness of the teacher or
the needs of the students. Many argue that these
policies disproportionately affect students attending
low-achieving schools and schools in low-income,
high-poverty communities, not only because these schools
tend to have an overconcentration of low-seniority
teachers, but also because teachers with more seniority
tend to transfer to higher performing schools. SB 355
modifies the seniority first system by authorizing
school districts to implement a multiple-measures
evaluation system and by authorizing districts that
choose to implement the prescribed system to consider an
employee's performance when making layoff and
reappointment decisions.
2) Evaluation and assessment system . Many teachers and
administrators note that evaluation procedures in most
districts help neither teachers nor schools focus on
improving practice. A recent policy brief from the
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning (CFTL)
noted that teacher evaluation is typically a
compliance-oriented process that provides little
substantive support to teachers and is an ineffective
mechanism for strengthening teacher quality. The CFTL
noted specific components of an improved evaluation
system would include making teacher evaluation
multi-dimensional, including student performance
assessment and outcome measures; strengthening training
that principals and others receive to conduct
SB 355
Page 7
evaluations; increasing the amount of time principals or
others have allotted for conducting evaluations; and
linking evaluation feedback to professional development
opportunities to strengthen practice.
This bill authorizes school districts and county offices of
education to evaluate and assess the performance of all
certificated employees using a multiple-measures
evaluation system that includes quantitative pupil
academic achievement growth would be at least 30% of the
overall measure of effectiveness. As the state does not
currently have statewide assessments that measure annual
growth, districts would presumably need to develop their
own. Could this result in a patchwork of assessments
that may or may not be a consistent across districts?
Is the proposed evaluation system too prescriptive for
some districts, particularly those that are using an
evaluation system that meets their local needs?
Since all certificated employees in a district would be
subject to the evaluation system, how would pupil
academic growth be measured in teachers who do not have
direct instructional responsibilities (such as a mentor
teachers or an assistant superintendent of curriculum)
or who teach pupils or subjects that are not tested,
such as kindergarten teachers or CTE teachers? Given
that the state's accountability system and related
assessments may evolve to be aligned with the common
core standards initiative and a reauthorized Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) would it make sense
to wait and develop a teacher evaluation system that is
aligned with those initiatives?
3) Use of assessments in evaluation . In addition to
authorizing school districts that implement the
prescribed evaluation system to consider a teacher's
performance in making layoff and reappointment
decisions, it appears this bill authorizes school
districts, county offices of education, and charter
schools to assign, reassign, and transfer teachers and
administrators based on effectiveness and subject matter
needs without regard to service, whether or not the
district first adopts the assessment system prescribed
by this bill.
Given the "high stakes" decisions that could be made on the
SB 355
Page 8
basis of performance, it will be critical for governing
boards to ensure that their evaluation systems are fair,
valid, and reliable. Each component of the system would
need to be a valid and reliable measure of teacher
effectiveness in order to ensure that a satisfactory
rating in one school within the district is equal to a
satisfactory rating in another school. Such a ranking
system should involve significant and on-going training
of evaluators and could require costly validation
studies to ensure that any student assessments used for
purposes of the evaluation system are valid and
reliable.
It is unclear whether teachers who are referred to the Peer
Assistance and Review program as a result of their
evaluation would have the opportunity to improve their
practice before a district could use the evaluation in
making employment decisions.
4) Equal protection clause ? Current law authorizes a
school district to deviate from the order of seniority
for purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance with
constitutional requirements related to equal protection
of the laws. This bill narrows that provision by
specifying only to the extent it applies to pupils. In
issuing the preliminary injunction order in Reed v. Los
Angeles Unified School District, Judge William F.
Highberger noted that the plain language of this statute
"clearly applies to a situation in which layoffs would
result in a violation of students' equal protection
rights." Notwithstanding this finding, could narrowing
this provision reduce equal protections that may apply
to teachers in the layoff process? Given the court's
ruling, is it necessary to amend this provision of law?
5) Related and prior legislation .
SB 257 (Liu) 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. This bill was passed by this
Committee on April 27, 2011 on a 9-0 vote.
SB 355
Page 9
AB 5 (Fuentes) commencing with the 2012-13 school year,
requires school districts by mutual agreement with the
local bargaining unit, to develop a teacher evaluation
system that includes evidence of teaching effectiveness
as compared to the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession, evidence of effectiveness as measured by
assessment data, including assessments under the
Standardized Testing and Reporting program, evidence of
effectiveness in teaching the English Language
Development Standards, as specified, and multiple
observations of teacher instruction by trained
administrators and peers. This measure passed the
Assembly Education Committee on an 8-2 vote and is
pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 48 (John Perez) specifies that the procedures to be used
for evaluation of certificated employees shall be
subject to specified provisions of law regarding the
scope of representation by the exclusive representative
of certificated employees and requires governing boards
to consult with the exclusive representative of
certificated employees with respect to all other matters
related to the evaluation. This measure was passed by
the Assembly Education Committee on a 7-3 vote and is
pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 1034 (Gatto) eliminates the age limit of 65 years and
temporarily eliminates, until July 1, 2015, the
39-month limitation for employees terminated commencing
with the 2007-08 school year. This measure is pending
in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 1372 (Norby) authorizes evaluation and assessment of
certificated employees to include the use of publishers'
norms established by standardized tests and would
additionally require publisher of the Standardized
Testing and Reporting System to provide the test results
for each class and the name of the teacher who provided
instruction for that class to the CDE and would require
the CDE to post this information in the Internet as
specified. This measure is pending in the Assembly
Education Committee.
SB 266 (Dutton) deletes a current provision in law that
requires a laid-off teacher who substitute teachers for
any 21 days or more out of 60 schooldays to be
compensated at their former per diem rate of pay. This
SB 355
Page 10
measure is scheduled to be heard by this Committee on
May 11, 2011.
SB 955 (Huff, 2010) would have made various changes to
statutes governing staffing notification deadlines,
layoff and dismissal procedures, and reemployment
preferences pertaining to certificated educators. This
bill was heard and passed by this Committee on a 5-4
vote and was subsequently held by the Senate Rules
Committee.
SB 1655 (Scott, Chapter 518 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.
This measure was passed by this Committee on an 11-0
vote.
SUPPORT
Brea Chamber of Commerce
California Chamber of Commerce
Clovis Unified School District
Congress of Racial Equality of California
Lompoc Unified School District Superintendent of Schools
Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Newhall School District
Orange County Department of Education
Palmdale School District
Parent Revolution
Small School Districts' Association
Letters from Individuals
OPPOSITION
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
California Association of Psychiatric Technicians
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California Professional Firefighters
California Teachers Association
Letter from an individual
SB 355
Page 11