BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1060
AUTHOR: Liu
AMENDED: April 23, 2013
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: April 30, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lenin Del Castillo
SUBJECT : Professional growth.
SUMMARY
This bill would require a local education agency, when
offering professional development for teachers and other
employees involved in the direct instruction of pupils, to
consider high quality professional development that meets
specified criteria.
BACKGROUND
Current law authorizes the Professional Development Block
Grant, which supports professional development activities
allowed by the Staff Development Instructional Support,
Teaching as a Priority, and Intersegmental programs. These
activities include teacher recruitment and retention
incentives, staff development projects designed to improve
elementary teacher skills, and programs that promote
development of highly qualified teachers. While the Budget
Act of 2012 included $218.4 million for this block grant,
the funds are subject to categorical flexibility whereby
school districts may utilize the funds for any educational
purpose. With implementation of the new Local Control
Funding Formula (LCFF), professional development activities
are not specifically funded nor are they required under
existing law.
The LCFF, enacted as part of the 2013-14 Budget Act, is a
significant reform to the state's system of financing K-12
public schools. The LCFF replaces the prior system of
revenue limits and restricted funding for a multitude of
categorical programs with a funding formula that provides
base funding for the core educational needs of all students
and supplemental funding for the additional educational
SB 1060
Page 2
needs of low-income students, English learners, and foster
youth. Under the LCFF, there are limited spending
restrictions and local education agencies (LEAs) have
considerable flexibility to direct resources to best meet
their students' needs. Although LEAs have considerably
more flexibility in how they spend their resources under
LCFF compared to the previous funding system, the law
requires an LEA:
"...to increase or improve services for
unduplicated pupils [low-income students, English
learners, and foster youth] in proportion to the
increase in funds apportioned on the basis of the
number and concentration of unduplicated pupils
in the school district, county office of
education, or charter school."
Under the previous system, revenue limits provided local
education agencies (LEAs) with discretionary (unrestricted)
funding for general educational purposes, and categorical
program (restricted) funding was provided for specialized
purposes, with each program having unique allocation and
spending requirements. Revenue limits made up about
two-thirds of state funding for schools, while categorical
program funding made up the remaining one-third portion.
ANALYSIS
This bill:
1) Provides that if an LEA offers a program of
professional growth for teachers, administrators,
paraprofessional educators, or other classified
employees involved in the direct instruction of
pupils, the LEA shall consider high quality
professional development that meets specified
criteria, including:
a. Helps attract, grow, and retain effective
educators;
b. Is a part of every educator's experience
in order to accelerate instructional improvement
and support pupil achievement; and
c. Emphasizes the importance of meeting the
SB 1060
Page 3
needs of all pupils.
2) Provides that professional development activities
may also include collaboration time for teachers to
develop new instructional lessons or analyze pupil
data, mentoring projects for new teachers, or extra
support for teachers to improve practice.
3) Provides that appropriate professional development
may be part of a coherent plan that combines school
activities within the school, including, but not
limited to, lesson study or coteaching, and external
learning opportunities that meet certain criteria, as
specified.
4) Defines LEA as a school district, county office of
education, or charter school for purposes of this
bill.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . As a result of budget cuts
school districts have endured since 2009 and due to
categorical flexibility provisions that have been put
in place, funding for professional development
activities has been severely reduced and diverted to
fill other budget gaps. According to a 2012 report
from the Legislative Analyst, more than half of school
districts report that they have eliminated or
significantly reduced professional development offered
to teachers and principals, and one-third of districts
have reduced paid professional development days. As a
consequence, the continued professional training and
knowledge base that is needed for effective teaching
has suffered, negatively impacting not only educators,
but students as well. Even worse, the lack of
professional training may have persuaded some teachers
to leave the profession.
According to the author's office, with the
implementation of common core
standards and the upcoming roll out of the Smarter
Balanced Assessment
Consortium (SBAC) assessments in 2014-15, it is
imperative more now
than ever, that teachers, administrators, and
SB 1060
Page 4
paraprofessionals have the
necessary, up-to-date training to adequately prepare
students. This bill
would encourage the use of proven professional
training and best
practices for school districts when offering programs
of professional
growth for their teachers.
2) SBAC assessments and Common Core . California
joined the SBAC as a governing state in 2011, for the
purpose of developing assessments that are aligned to
the common core standards. California committed to
administering the SBAC assessments to pupils beginning
in the 2014-15 school year. The state is not currently
bound by statutes or fiscal requirements to fulfill
the commitments made to SBAC. However, the State has
adopted common core standards and as a result, has
updated curricular frameworks, professional
development modules, supplemental instructional
materials, and is working on the adoption of
instructional materials. School districts have been
required to provide instruction on the common core
standards for several years now and have spent
resources to do so. Further, the 2013 Budget Act
appropriated $1.25 billion for common core activities,
including professional development, instructional
materials, and instructional technology. At this
point, it is unclear how school districts have spent
these funds but there appears to be widespread
agreement in the education community that this amount
will not be sufficient to meet all needs to implement
the common core standards and successfully prepare
students.
SUPPORT
Education Trust-West
OPPOSITION
None on file.
SB 1060
Page 5