BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1292
Page A
Date of Hearing: June 13, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 1292 (Liu) - As Amended: May 2, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 38-0
SUBJECT : School employees: principals: evaluation.
SUMMARY : Authorizes school districts to evaluate principals
and establishes provisions to guide principal evaluation.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes the governing board of a school district to
evaluate a school principal annually for the first and second
year of employment as a new principal in a school district and
at regular intervals after this period.
2)Specifies that additional evaluations may be agreed upon
between the evaluator and the principal and that the evaluator
and principal may review school success and progress
throughout the year.
3)Authorizes the criteria for principal evaluation to be based
upon the California Professional Standards for Educational
Leaders (CPSELs) and explains that these standards identify a
school administrator as being an educational leader who
promotes the success of all pupils through leadership that
fosters:
a) A shared vision;
b) Effective teaching and learning;
c) Management and safety;
d) Parent, family and community involvement;
e) Professional and ethical leadership; and,
f) Contextual awareness.
4)Authorizes a quality school principal evaluation to include
evidence of:
a) Academic growth of pupils based on multiple measures
that may include pupil work as well as pupil and school
longitudinal data that demonstrates pupil academic growth
over time, as specified;
SB 1292
Page B
b) Effective and comprehensive teacher evaluations;
c) Culturally responsive instructional strategies to
eliminate the achievement gap;
d) Ability to analyze quality instructional strategies and
provide effective feedback that leads to instructional
improvement;
e) High expectations to ensure active pupil engagement and
learning;
f) Collaborative professional practices for improving
instructional strategies;
g) Effective school management including personnel and
resource management, organizational leadership, sound
fiscal practices, a safe campus environment and appropriate
pupil behavior;
h) Meaningful self-assessment to improve as a professional
educator; and,
i) Consistent and effective relationships with pupils,
parents, teachers, staff, and other administrators.
5)Specifies that federal carryover funds received from Title I
and Title II of the Federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
and any other available state and federal funds may be used to
implement this act.
6)Makes Legislative findings and declarations that:
a) State and local educational agencies, not the federal
government, should determine the process for implementing
principal evaluations and determining what constitutes an
effective principal;
b) School district evaluators have the obligation to ensure
that principals are evaluated fairly, consistently and
effectively;
c) Principal evaluation systems must consider the impact of
the diversity of schools in regard to size, demographics
and available resources;
d) Principals should be provided with the resources needed
to be truly effective; and,
e) Policymakers must ensure there is a coherent and
comprehensive system to support principal development and
leadership.
7)Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature that:
a) Governing boards of school districts establish a uniform
SB 1292
Page C
system of evaluation;
b) Evaluations should reflect the complex responsibilities
of a principal's daily work;
c) Evaluations should differentiate how to accelerate
success, address professional development needs, or, as
necessary, intervene when there are persistent performance
issues; and,
d) Evaluators receive training for purposes of calibrating
evaluations when funds become available.
EXISTING LAW for certificated non-instructional employees in
supervisory or administrative roles:
1)Requires the governing board of each school district to
establish and define job responsibilities for certificated
non-instructional personnel (supervisory and administrative)
whose responsibilities cannot be evaluated appropriately under
the general provisions for certificated employees in
instructional roles. Requires that the performance of these
non-instructional certificated employees be evaluated and
assessed as it reasonably relates to the fulfillment of those
responsibilities (Education Code (EC) Section 44662).
2)Requires, in the case of a certificated non-instructional
employee who is employed on a 12-month basis, the evaluation
and assessment made to be reduced to writing and for a copy to
be transmitted to the employee no later than June 30th of the
year in which the evaluation and assessment is made; provides
the employee the right to initiate a written reaction or
responses to the evaluation that will become a permanent
attachment to the employee's personnel file; and, requires
that a meeting between the employee and the evaluator to
discuss the evaluation and assessment be held before July 30th
of the year in which the evaluation and assessment takes
place. (EC Section 44663).
EXISTING LAW for certificated employees:
1)Establishes Legislative intent that governing boards establish
a uniform system of evaluation and assessment of the
performance of all certificated personnel within each school
district. (EC Section 44660).
2)Specifies that in the development and adoption of guidelines
and procedures for evaluation and assessment the governing
SB 1292
Page D
board must avail itself of the advice of the certificated
instructional personnel in the district's organization of
certificated personnel (EC Section 44661).
3)Specifies that when developing and adopting objective
evaluation and assessment guidelines, a school district may,
by mutual agreement between the exclusive representative of
the certificated employees of the school district and the
governing board of the school district, include, as long as
they are consistent with the Stull Act, any objective
standards from the:
a) National Board for Professional Teaching Standards; or,
b) California Standards for the Teaching Profession (EC
Section 44661.5).
4)Provides that the governing board of each school district must
evaluate and assess certificated employee performance as it
reasonably relates to:
a) The progress of pupils toward established standards of
expected pupil achievement at each grade level and in each
area of study and state adopted academic content standards
as measured by state adopted criterion referenced
assessments;
b) The 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 (EC Section 44662).
5)Provides that evaluation and assessment of certificated
employees be made on a continue basis as follows:
a) At least once each school year for probationary
personnel
b) At least every other year for personnel with permanent
status.
c) At least every five years for personnel with permanent
status who have been employed at least 10 years with the
school district, are highly qualified, and whose pervious
evaluation rated the employee as meeting or exceeding the
standards (EC Section 44664).
SB 1292
Page E
6)Provides that if a certificated employee is not performing his
or her duties in a satisfactory manner according to the
standards prescribed by the governing board, that the
employing authority shall notify the employee in writing of
that fact and describe the unsatisfactory performance.
Requires the employing authority to make specific
recommendations as to areas of improvement in the employee's
performance and endeavor to assist the employee in his or her
performance (EC Section 44664).
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal, however, the
Assembly Appropriations Committee has requested to hear this
bill. If this bill is passed by the Assembly Education
Committee, it will be referred to the Committee on
Appropriations to consider the fiscal implications.
COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill is in response to
the fact that "the Education Code simply states that a principal
shall be evaluated but provides no direction as to what should
be considered and why." The author further states that "many
school districts have established their own principal
evaluations but there are still many who do not make it a
priority. SB 1292 is intended to provide a foundation to work
from while providing the necessary flexibility to tailor an
evaluation plan to the individual district's needs."
National focus on principal evaluation: Recently, President
Obama and the U.S. Department of Education have placed
significant emphasis on the role that evaluation and assessment
of certificated employees has in the nation's education system.
Through national programs and competition such as No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) and Race to the Top (RTTT), national pressure for
states to implement effective principal evaluation systems has
recently increased. Additionally, a state's ability to receive a
waiver from the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 being
contingent upon that state having a principal evaluation system
in place further promotes the use of principal evaluation
systems.
According to a 2011 WestED publication, however, identifying
strong principal evaluation systems or accessing substantive and
comprehensive information about such systems is very
SB 1292
Page F
difficult.<1> Academic literature surrounding principal
evaluation, the study notes, is limited and many promoted
approaches are not research-based and have not been fully
evaluated. Many questions therefore remain about the best
practices of principal evaluations. A second 2011 WestED study
identified six states, Delaware, Iowa, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Ohio and South Carolina who have several years of
policy development and experience with implementing principal
evaluation systems.<2> Nearly all of these states crafted
standards for educational leaders that are closely aligned to
the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium standards
that were drafted in 2008.
Many other states have only recently begun moving towards a more
defined and thoroughly established principal evaluation system
in an effort to conform to the RTTT competition or NCLB waiver
requirements.
Principal evaluation in California in accordance with the Stull
Act: Existing law in California requires that all certificated
employees be evaluated and assessed. The overwhelming majority
of certificated employees are teachers who are not in
administrative positions like principals. The Stull Act of 1971,
however, requires that each non-instructional certificated
employee, such as principals, be evaluated and assessed based on
his or her performance as it relates to the specific
responsibilities of the employee's job. Thus, while much of the
Stull Act most directly focuses on certificated employees in
teaching positions, there are provisions delineated for the
evaluation and assessment of principals.
Specifically, the Stull Act states that districts must establish
and define job responsibilities for principals. The district
must then evaluate and assess the principal's performance
against these responsibilities. The Stull Act provides
principals with the rights to a discussion about the evaluation
and assessment after its completion and to write a reaction or
response to the evaluation and assessment that can be included
in the employee's personnel file. Current law in California,
---------------------------
<1> Davis, S., Kearney, K., Sanders, N., Thomas, C., & Leon, R.
(2011). The policies and practices of principal evaluation: A
review of the literature. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
<2> Mattson Almanz�n, H., Sanders, N., and Kearney, K. (2011).
How Six States Are Implementing Principal Evaluation Systems.
San Francisco: WestEd.
SB 1292
Page G
therefore, appears to already require principal evaluation and
assessment, but not with the rigidity supported by current
national programs.
The specifics of principal evaluation and assessment are left to
school districts to decide. The timing of principal evaluations
is not clearly specified in current law. Further, no detailed
guidelines on how to measure a principal's performance are
provided. This bill begins to address both of these areas for
principals by clarifying that districts can evaluate a principal
during each of that individual's first two years of employment
in the district and at a regular intervals thereafter and also
by providing criteria that may be used to evaluate the
employee's performance.
Two evaluations in a principal's first two years and at regular
intervals thereafter: This bill authorizes a governing board to
evaluate a school principal on an annual basis for the first and
second year of his or her employment as a new principal in a
school district. It further authorizes the governing board to
evaluate a school principal at regular intervals after this
period. In current law, there is no clear guidance for the
specific timing of principal evaluations. Conducting these
evaluations would ideally provide necessary support for novice,
developing and experienced principals as they develop and hone
their abilities as administrators in the district. This change
is intended to provide greater support to administrators. The
bill also provides that additional evaluations outside of
evaluations during the first two years and at regular intervals
thereafter may be established for the principal upon agreement
between the evaluator and the principal, but does not provide
for these evaluations to take place. Staff recommends a
technical amendment to clarify that additional evaluations
outside of the regular interval decided by the governing board
may be agreed upon by the evaluator and principal.
California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders
(CPSELs): This bill also provides that the criteria used for
effective principal evaluations may be based on the California
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders. In 2001,
representatives from the California School Leadership Academy at
WestEd, the Association of California School Administrators, the
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the California
Department of Education, and various California colleges and
universities adapted the Interstate School Leaders Licensure
SB 1292
Page H
Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for School Leaders for California
to establish the current set of six CPSELs. The CPSELs guide the
practice of school administrators and inform preparation
programs that lead to the administrative services credential.
They highlight six broad standards that provide a framework of
outstanding actions taken by educational leaders.
Criteria for evaluation vs. what a quality evaluation may
include: In addition to the CPSELs serving as the criteria for
evaluation, this bill also states what a quality evaluation may
include. This section highlights many specific occurrences at a
school that indicate the presence of a strong education leader.
For example, if there was evidence of culturally responsive
instructional strategies to address and eliminate the
achievement gap, this could be included and considered as part
of a quality principal evaluation. This portion of the bill,
however, may not include other components that successful
principal evaluations might include. Staff recommends clarifying
that these are examples of what evidence a principal evaluation
could include by striking the word "quality" from part (b) of
Section 44671.
Permissive, but impactful: While this bill is permissive in
nature, in affording permission to governing boards to evaluate
and assess principals in their first two years and at regular
intervals thereafter within the district, it provides districts
with greater authority. Simply by authorizing the evaluation and
assessment of principals, this bill makes a substantive change
to current protocol. It also continues to provide for
significant local flexibility that the author states as an
intention of the bill.
Arguments in Support: The Association of California School
Administrators (ACSA) writes, "SB 1292 reflects the work that
ACSA has undertaken to provide a 'best practices' principal
evaluation template based on the California Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSELs). These Standards are
very comprehensive and delineate all of the traits that an
effective school leader should possess. We believe SB 1292 is
comprehensive enough and still allows school districts to be
free to choose who will evaluate their principal(s) and the
frequency of those evaluations. ACSA recognizes that every
student deserves an effective principal who ensures high levels
of learning. And principals should be provided with the
resources needed to be truly effective. SB 1292 will provide the
SB 1292
Page I
framework for principals to be supported in the very complex
world that they work in."
Related Legislation: SB 257 (Liu), currently pending in the
Assembly Education Committee, 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.
AB 5 (Fuentes), currently pending in the Senate Appropriations
Committee, requires school districts to implement a best
practices teacher evaluation system by July 1 of the first
fiscal year following the year in which the deficit factor is
reduced to zero.
Prior Legislation: AB 2274 (Krekorian), from 2008, requires the
Superintendent of Public Instruction to adopt and implement a
plan to measure the quality of administrators in public schools.
This bill was held in the Assembly Education Committee.
AB 96 (Feuer), from 2007, requires the California Department of
Education (CDE), on or before January 1, 2009, to study and
submit a report to the Legislature and the Governor on the
effectiveness of the Administrator Training Program in training
participants to serve as administrators of specified schools.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of California School Administrators (sponsor)
California County Superintendents Educational Services
Association
California School Boards Association
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Mark Murphy and Chelsea Kelley / ED. /
(916) 319-2087