BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 5
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 5 (Padilla)
As Amended April 24, 2013
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :37-0
EDUCATION 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Buchanan, Olsen, Ch�vez, |Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow, |
| |Gonzalez, Nazarian, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| |Weber, Williams | |Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, |
| | | |Hall, Holden, Linder, |
| | | |Pan, Quirk, Wagner, Weber |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Authorizes each program of professional preparation
for multiple or single subject teaching credentials to include
not more than two years of, or the equivalent of two-fifths of a
five-year program in, professional preparation.
EXISTING LAW authorizes each program of professional preparation
for multiple or single subject teaching credentials to include
not more than one year of, or the equivalent of one-fifth of a
five-year program in, professional preparation.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, potential General Fund increased costs, likely less
than $75,000, to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC)
to review and approve two-year teacher preparation programs.
This cost will likely be offset by fee revenue paid to the CTC
by programs seeking approval.
COMMENTS : This bill authorizes teacher preparation programs to
increase their length of study from one year to two years. In
the past decade, several new content requirements regarding
teaching English Learners, student health and computer
technology have been added to teacher preparation programs,
thereby making it more difficult to complete the program in the
one year statutory requirement. By increasing the length of
teacher preparation programs, the author contends that teacher
SB 5
Page 2
candidates could receive more in-depth instruction on strategies
for teaching English Learners and other special needs students.
Background on Teacher Preparation Program Content : According to
the CTC, California law requires candidates to complete a
professional preparation program and specifies that each program
of professional preparation shall not include more than one year
or the equivalent of one fifth of a five year program. Most
candidates complete their teacher preparation after earning a
bachelor's degree. The law also authorizes integrated (blended)
programs of subject matter preparation and professional
preparation. While the law specifies that such programs are not
subject to the one year "cap," the CTC has interpreted the law
governing blended programs differently over the years and has
often applied the one-year cap to these programs. The content
to prepare teachers to work with special needs students, health
education and using technology in the classroom used to be part
of the clear credential coursework but has now been embedded in
the preliminary program. The content for an individual to
understand how to teach English learners used to be an optional,
additional program which resulted in an additional
authorization. The Crosscultural, Language and Academic
Development (CLAD) coursework to teach English learners was
twelve semester units separate from the preliminary preparation
program. Now the preparation to teach English learners is
required to be incorporated in the preliminary preparation
program.
Summary of Additional Content Required to be Included in
Preliminary Teacher Preparation Programs Since 1970
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Topic | Year |Education Code Reference |
| |Added | |
| | | |
|--------------------------------+------+-------------------------|
|Enhanced content in the |1998 |44259 (b) (4) |
|teaching of reading | | |
|--------------------------------+------+-------------------------|
|Teaching English learners | 1999 |44259.5(a) |
|--------------------------------+------+-------------------------|
|Competency in the use of | 2000 |44259 (b)(7) |
|computers | | |
SB 5
Page 3
|--------------------------------+------+-------------------------|
|Some health, mainstreaming | 2001 |44259 |
|moved to preliminary program | | |
|--------------------------------+------+-------------------------|
|Additional theoretical content |2006 |44259 (c)(4) |
|in health, mainstreaming, | | |
|technology and teaching English | | |
|learner instruction moved from | | |
|Induction into initial | | |
|preparation | | |
|--------------------------------+------+-------------------------|
|Teaching Performance Assessment |2008 |44259(b)(3) and 44320.2 |
| | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(Source: CTC)
According to the author, since 1970, state law has restricted
the length of a traditional teacher preparation program to one
year. Over the past four decades more legislative requirements
have been added to teacher preparation programs; for example,
requirements to teach English learners and special need
students. This has made it increasingly difficult to complete a
program within the one-year timeframe and capped units. This
also restricts a student teacher's ability to delve deeply into
program requirements and fully develop the necessary skills.
Two Year Cap versus Removing the Cap : The State Superintendent
of Public Instruction's Task Force on Educator Excellence has
recommended lifting the cap on credits for preparation in order
to support preparation models that will provide candidates with
more robust training, particularly to teach culturally and
linguistically diverse learners. Lifting the cap would also
enable programs to provide candidates with a longer period of
supervised student teaching. No other state has a time
restriction on the amount of time or units that comprise
professional teacher preparation programs.
The CTC also confirms that no other state in the nation has a
time restriction on professional teacher preparation programs.
According to the CTC, while some may express concern about a
proliferation of unnecessary courses, the failure to have a unit
cap in other states has not led to making programs longer or
more burdensome. Rather, it has allowed more flexible
management of the learning process for teacher education
SB 5
Page 4
candidates. The Assembly should consider whether lifting the
cap on the length of teacher preparation programs will make the
programs more burdensome, or give greater flexibility to the
programs and the credential candidates.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0001537