BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Dede Alpert, Chair
1999-2000 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1505
AUTHOR: Alarcon
AMENDED: April 13, 2000
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: May 10, 2000
URGENCY: Yes CONSULTANTS:Nancy Anton,
Lisa R.
Horwitch,
Diane Kirkham,
and Scott P.
Plotkin
SPECIAL NOTE
This bill was previously heard by the Senate Education
Committee on March 29, 2000. No vote was taken. The bill
has since been amended.
GENERAL SUMMARY
This bill, an urgency measure, makes numerous changes in
current law and creates new programs relative to the
recruitment of and incentives for teachers.
Because of the extensive nature of this measure, this
Analysis has been divided into nine parts, with a separate
analysis for each part of the nine distinct components of
the bill.
Part 1: State Teachers' Retirement System (STRS)
(Section 2 of the bill; pages 8-10)
SUMMARY - Part 1: STRS
This section of the bill eliminates the cap on the amount
that a retired teacher can earn as long as the retired
teacher (1) provides direct instruction in grades K-12 or
support services in training new teachers, and (2) retired
before January 1, 2000.
BACKGROUND - Part 1: STRS
SB 1505
Page 2
Current law imposes a cap on the earnings of a retired
teacher (currently $19,050). Once a retired teacher earns
more than the cap, the teacher retirement allowance under
the State Teachers' Retirement System is reduced on a
dollar for dollar basis for all earnings in excess of the
cap.
Beginning in 1997, the law allowed an exemption to the
earnings cap for teachers who return to a classroom
teaching as a result of programs to reduce class size. The
current law exemption is limited to those teachers who
retired before July 1, 1998.
ANALYSIS - Part 1: STRS
This section of the bill :
1) Eliminates the cap on the amount that a retired
teacher can earn as long as the retired teacher
provides direct instruction in grades K-12 or support
services in training new teachers, and retired before
January 1, 2000.
2) Sunsets this provision on July 1, 2005.
STAFF COMMENTS - Part 1: STRS
1) Rationale . Because this proposal may entice more
retired teachers back into the classroom, it can be
viewed as one more way to help fill California's need
for experienced teachers. The elimination of the
earnings cap is limited to those teachers that have
already retired and are returning to K-12 teaching or
specified teacher training.
2) LAO Recommendation . The Office of the Legislative
Analyst states: "We recommend that the Legislature
enact legislation adopting the Governor's proposal to
remove the statutory earnings limitations for current
retirees of the State Teachers' Retirement System in
order to induce retirees to reenter the teaching
workforce. We further recommend that the Legislature
expand coverage of this proposal to include retirees
returning to employment as principals and vice
principals."
SB 1505
Page 3
3) Review by the Public Employment and Retirement (P, E &
R) Committee? This proposal is an extension of the
recently enacted elimination of the earnings cap for
those retired teachers that returned to work as a
result of Class Size Reduction programs. Because the
basic policy issues were thoroughly reviewed in the
bills enacting those provisions, the P, E & R
Committee staff indicates that their Committee may not
need to hear this bill.
4) Applies only to teachers that have already retired .
Because this bill would lift the earnings limit only
for teachers that have already retired, it will not
create an enticement for teachers to retire and
"double dip". Could it nevertheless be a more
effective mechanism to entice teachers to stay longer
in the teaching profession than they otherwise would
if it were offered in some fashion to prospective
retirees? There are at least two bills pending that
would address this issue is different ways:
AB 1733 (Wildman): Increases the earnings limit to $36,000
for any STRS retirees returning to work in the
schools.
SB 2456 (Wright): Establishes the Deferred Option
Retirement Program within the State Teachers'
Retirement System.
If the Committee is interested in significantly expanding
this section in the bill, then the bill and/or issue
should be sent to the P E & R Committee.
Part 2: Teacher Intern Expansion (Intern)
(Section 3 of the bill; page 10)
SUMMARY - Part 2: Intern
This section of the bill increases from $1,500 to $2,500
per intern per year, the maximum amount of state funding
local school districts and county offices of education
(COE) may receive for operating a teacher intern program.
BACKGROUND - Part 2: Intern
SB 1505
Page 4
Existing law establishes the alternative certification
program, commonly known as the intern program. Under this
program, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC)
provides incentive grants to qualifying school districts or
COE's that operate intern programs.
Each school district or COE that receives a grant is
required to provide matching funds equal to 50% of the cost
of operating its' local intern program.
What are intern programs? Under current law, there are
essentially 3 ways to earn a teaching credential. These
are:
1) Traditional program . This type of program is offered
through an accredited university (public or private)
and is approved by the CTC. On a full-time basis this
program usually takes a year. This track is often
known as the "fifth-year." Approximately 15,000
individuals used this route in 1997.
2) Alternatives (2 Types):
a) University Intern Program (established in
1967). This "alternative" program, also approved
by the CTC, takes between one and two years to
complete. Participants are paid during this
time. Although established by a university it is
a collaborative effort between a university and a
school district(s). According to the CTC,
approximately 3,700 individuals used this route
in 1997.
b) District Intern Program (established in
1983). This "alternative" program, which does
not require CTC approval, also takes
approximately two years to complete and is
established and administered by a school
district. Participants are paid as they
participate in and complete a teacher preparation
program including support and assessment
throughout the two-year period. According to the
CTC, approximately 1,500 individuals used this
route in 1997.
SB 1505
Page 5
In addition to completing one of these programs, candidates
for a credential must also:
3) Have a BA degree from an accredited institution of
higher education.
4) Pass the California Basic Education Skills Test
(CBEST).
5) Demonstrate subject-matter knowledge.
ANALYSIS - Part 2: Intern
This section of the bill increases from $1,500 to $2,500
per intern per year, the maximum amount of state funding
local school districts and COE's may receive for operating
a teacher intern program.
STAFF COMMENTS - Part 2: Intern
1) Cost . The CTC estimates that the current cost of the
alternative program is $11 million annually. It is
further estimated that this bill would cost an
additional $20.8 million annually.
2) Quality vs. Quantity? Tremendous focus has been given
to the issue of "quality" as it concerns the current
teaching force in California. A recent study
conducted by SRI International and published by The
Center for The Future of Teaching and Learning states
that "more than 1 in every 10 classrooms in the state
are staffed by teachers who have not met the state's
minimum requirements." This translates into 20% of
California schools having more than 20% underqualified
teachers.
This statistic refers not only to the number of "teachers"
that serve on emergency permit but also those that
serve on waiver or intern certificates.
There is no current evidence to support the notion that
alternative certification routes are a "high quality"
approach to producing quality teachers. The SRI study
indicates that, "although internship programs might
train emergency teachers quite ably within a year or
two, for the duration of the internship, the students
in their classrooms are taught by someone who is
learning the craft as he or she goes." The
SB 1505
Page 6
alternative route provides a means by which a person
interested in teaching can get into the classroom
quicker. It does not, necessarily address the issue
of "quality."
Thus, is this an effective and efficient use of resources
to achieve and truly impact the issue of preparing
"quality" teachers? Would the
resources be better spent providing professional
development or increasing strategies for the
traditional certification route?
3) Evaluation? According to the study conducted by SRI
International, until 1997, state funding for all
internship programs was $2 million per year. In 1997
this was increased to $4.5 million (to help facilitate
class size reduction), and in 1999 annual funding was
increased to $11 million. In a review of California's
current policies, Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond, national
expert on teacher education, has found that "current
policies have also encouraged the proliferation of
programs and pathways that create a revolving door of
under-prepared teachers who enter and leave at rapid
rates." Current law does not provide for an
evaluation of the Alternative Certification program.
Before the state pursues an avenue to expand an
alternative certification route, would it not be
appropriate to evaluate the impact, quality, and
retention of this program prior to expanding it?
4) Similar bill . This Committee heard and passed AB 309
(Mazzoni) on June 23, 1999. AB 309 is similar to this
section of SB 1505 in that it also increases the cap
on state funding for the alternative certification
program from $1,500 to $2,500.
Part 3: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
Certification
Incentive Program (National Board)
(Sections 4 - 7 of the bill; Pages 10 - 14)
SUMMARY - Part 3: National Board
This section of the bill expands and makes technical
changes to the National Board for Professional Teaching
SB 1505
Page 7
Standards (NBPTS) Certification Incentive Program.
BACKGROUND - Part 3: National Board
Current law establishes the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards Certification Incentive Program (AB 858,
Davis; Chapter 331, 1998) administered by the State
Department of Education (SDE) in consultation with the
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC). Under this
program, one-time $10,000 merit awards are provided to
teachers who (a) are employed by school districts or
charter schools, (b) are assigned to teach in the public
schools, and (c) have attained certification from the
NBPTS.
The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
(NBPTS) is an independent, nonprofit organization founded
in 1987, governed by a 63-member board of directors, the
majority of whom are classroom teachers. Their mission is
to (a) establish high and rigorous standards for what
accomplished teachers should know and be able to do, (b)
develop and operate a national voluntary system to assess
and certify teachers who meet these standards, and (c)
advance related education reforms for the purpose of
improving student learning in American schools.
Currently there are approximately 5,000 teachers,
nationally, who have attained NBPTS certification, of which
approximately 440 are California teachers.
ANALYSIS - Part 3: National Board
This section of the bill expands and makes technical
changes to the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS) Certification Incentive Program.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires that in addition to the existing one-time
award of $10,000, any
teacher who has attained certification from NBPTS is
eligible to
receive an award of up to $20,000 if he or she agrees
to teach at a
low-performing school for at least four years.
Teaching service before July 1, 2000 may not be
counted towards satisfaction of this four-year
SB 1505
Page 8
commitment. The bill provides for both the $10,000
award and the $20,000 award to be made available, only
to the extent funds have been appropriated in the
annual Budget Act.
2) Requires the SDE to approve applications for the above
mentioned awards and apportion funds to the
appropriate school districts pursuant to each award
described in #1 above.
3) Requires that the $20,000 award be disbursed as annual
payments of $5,000 over a four-year period.
4) Requires the annual payments to be made per the
following:
a) Upon completion of the school year.
b) After a school district has certified the
SDE that the applicant is employed by the
district or a charter school operating under a
charter granted by that school district.
5) Amends current law from requiring districts to make
every effort to "strongly encouraging" school
districts to ensure that teachers are informed about
this program.
6) Defines Low-Performing School to mean a school in the
bottom half of all schools based on the Academic
Performance Index rankings.
7) Requires that the designation of low-performing school
be determined as of the date of the agreement with the
teacher, certified by the school district under #3
above.
8) Requires the CTC to adopt any rules and regulations it
deems necessary for (a) the enforcement of the
agreement made by the teacher to teach in a
low-performing school and (b) the recovery of any
funds it determines are owed to the state.
9) Authorizes the CTC to impose a civil penalty, not to
exceed $5,000 per year, on the recipient who is
determined by the CTC to have failed to fulfill his or
SB 1505
Page 9
her commitment to teach in a low-performing school.
STAFF COMMENTS - Part 3: National Board
1) Teacher Seniority-Is this a true incentive? Currently
a teacher working in a school district advances on the
salary schedule through years of experience and
degrees earned (academic degrees). A teacher with 7+
years on the salary schedule has seniority over those
teachers who are just beginning on the schedule.
Seniority typically provides for an increased salary
and allows a teacher to remain in a particular
assignment. An NBPTS certified teacher would
typically be a "veteran" teachers who has seniority in
their district. When a teacher transfers to a new
district, typically they lose "seniority." Thus, Is
$20,000 truly an incentive for a veteran NBPTS
certified teacher to change to a low-performing school
where he/she may lose? Will the $20,000 only serve to
keep a teacher, who changes districts, at the same
salary level they were at in their prior school?
Staff recommends that the bill be amended to provide
an incentive to those NBPTS teachers who transfer to a
low-performing school within their current district.
2) Solution? As a strategy to avoid the pitfalls
mentioned in #1, 2 & 3 above, it may be beneficial to
provide the $20,00 incentive as a block grant to the
district. As a condition for the district receiving
such funds, it could be required that the district
ensure that the NBPTS certified teachers remain in
their district and at the low-performing school
assigned. Additionally, rather than disburse the
funds in one-lump sum to the NBPTS teacher, the
district could provide $5,000 on an annual basis for
each of the four years the teacher remains at that
school. This strategy shifts the responsibility of
tracking from CTC to the district and eliminates the
need for any agency to act as a collections agent.
Staff recommends the bill be amended to provide for
such a block grant incentive.
3) Why change a current "requirement?" Current law
requires school districts to make every effort to
ensure that teachers employed by the district are
SB 1505
Page 10
informed about the program and can acquire the
necessary application and information materials. [E.C.
44395 (c)]
If the purpose of this incentive program is to truly pursue
NBPTS certification, it is unclear as to why the bill
would change this "requirement" to "strongly
encourage." Staff recommends clarification.
4) Is this the right target and strategy? Current law
provides for a $10,000 one-time bonus for teachers who
earn NBPTS certification. In addition, many districts
across the state offer incentives for their teachers
to pursue and earn NBPTS certification. For example,
LAUSD offers a 15% salary increase for those teachers
earning NBPTS certification. Nationally, the decision
on how to reward NBPTS teachers has been left to the
local level. Given this, it would seem appropriate
to allow the local level to decide how best to
motivate its' teachers.
5) Technical Amendments. Staff understands from the
author's office that with annual disbursement of
funds, it is not the intent to provide for further
tracking, collection or penalties. Staff recommends
the bill be amended to reflect this intent.
Further, the following non-substantive amendments are
needed. Staff recommends the following:
Page 11, Line 34, delete "make" insert "made"
Page 11, Line 35, after "year," insert "and"
Part 4: Teacher Recruitment Incentive Program (TRIP)
(Section 8 of the bill; Pages 14 - 17)
SUMMARY - Part 4: TRIP
This section of the bill establishes the Teacher
Recruitment Incentive Program (TRIP) to be administered by
the Sacramento County Office of Education.
BACKGROUND - Part 4: TRIP
Teacher Recruitment . Current law provides several avenues
SB 1505
Page 11
and programs to assist in the recruitment of teachers. The
most recent enactment's include:
1) The Teacher Recruitment Resource Centers (AB 1303,
Lempert: Chapter 1142, 1992) which collect and
maintain information regarding programs that encourage
or assist military personnel, upon retirement, to
enter the teaching profession.
2) The California School Paraprofessional Teacher
Training Program , initiated in 1990 (SB 1636, Roberti)
and most recently modified in 1997 (SB 353, Wildman),
is intended to encourage and recruit paraprofessional
employees to enroll in teacher training programs.
This program is administered by the Commission on
Teacher Credentialing (CTC).
3) The Science, Mathematics, and Technology Teacher
Pipeline Program (AB 266, Archie-Hudson: Chapter 1271,
1993) a program administered by the California
Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) and modeled
after "Project Pipeline," a successful model that has
been funded since 1989 under the federal Dwight D.
Eisenhower Professional Development State Grant
Program. These pipeline centers have served nearly
6,000 students since 1995. There are currently 4
centers that have received approximately
$30,000-40,000 in grants. These four pipeline
centers should not be confused with the two programs
operated by SCOE for Sacramento and Alameda counties.
4) The California Center on Teaching Careers (SB 824,
Greene: Chapter 864, 1997) to recruit qualified and
capable individuals into the teaching profession and
provides an allocation through the federal Goals 2000
funds to the California State University (CSU) to
support the specified activities of the center. This
program is also known as CalTeach, currently operating
out of two CSU campuses, CSU Sacramento and CSU Long
Beach. Note: An evaluation of this program is
currently pending and due to be delivered to the
Legislature by March 1, 2002
Preliminary Credential and "Clear" Credential. In order to
get into the classroom more quickly, credential candidates
SB 1505
Page 12
who have completed (a) approximately 90% of the course work
required in a traditional credential program, and (b) the
other basic requirements (BA, CBEST), have two choices.
They can either:
1) Receive a one-time "preliminary credential", which is
valid for five years. This allows the candidate (a) to
be hired and begin teaching even though all their
course work is not complete, and (b) five years to
finish any outstanding course work and, then, qualify
for a "clear" credential.
2) Complete all course requirements and field experience
and receive a professional "clear" credential. The
"clear" credential must be renewed
every five years, subject to 150 hours of professional
development to be completed prior to the renewal date.
Teacher Retention. Current law provides for the Beginning
Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) Program, administered
by the State Department of Education (SDE). This is an
optional program that provides professional support for
first and second-year teachers who are in need of
assistance in preparing for the realities of classroom
teaching. The Governor's Budget proposed $34.8 million for
BTSA in 1998-99, an increase of $16.9 million or 90%. In
the current year, BTSA served 5,420 first- and second-year
teachers. The Governor's 2000-01 Budget proposes an
additional $15.4 million for BTSA to (a) fully fund the
existing participants, (b) provide grants for an additional
3,500 first- and second-year beginning teachers, and (c)
to provide a COLA.
Thirty-Day Substitute Permit. Current law (Education Code
Section 44225), provides for the powers and duties of the
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC). Pursuant to
this statutory authority, the CTC has adopted regulations
(Section 80025 of the California Code of Regulations) that
provide for an Emergency 30-day Substitute Teaching Permit.
This permit allows a candidate who meets certain minimum
requirements to serve as a substitute in any classroom
(preschool through grade 12) although the individual may
not serve for more than 30 days for any one teacher during
the school year.
The requirements for a 30-day Substitute Teaching Permit
SB 1505
Page 13
include (1) have a BA from an accredited college or
university, (2) pass the California Basic Educational
Skills Test (CBEST), and (3) pass specified fingerprint
clearance requirements.
Note: Current law (regulations) allows a district to
request a "waiver" for the requirement to have a BA, to
pass CBEST, or both. In 1997-98 CTC reports that
approximately 1,800 30-Day Substitute credential waivers
were requested.
The CTC issued approximately 43,000 Emergency 30-day
Substitute Teaching Permits in 1997-98.
ANALYSIS - Part 4: TRIP
This section of the bill establishes the Teacher
Recruitment Incentive Program (TRIP) to be administered by
the Sacramento County Office of Education. Specifically,
this bill:
1) Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to
allocate funds appropriated for the purposes of this
program to the Sacramento County Office of Education
(SCOE).
2) Requires the SCOE to allocate funds for this program
as follows:
a) Award 6 competitive grants by January 1,
2001 to establish regional teacher recruitment
centers in the following manner:
i) 1 to serve Northern California
ii) 2 to serve Los Angeles
iii) 1 to serve the Central Valley
iv) 1 to serve Inland Empire
v) 1 to serve San Diego and Imperial
3) Defines the following terms to mean:
a) Low-Performing School - a school in the
bottom half of the Academic Performance Index
(API) rankings.
b) Recruitment Center - an entity operated by a
consortium that may include school districts,
SB 1505
Page 14
county offices of education, colleges,
universities, or other public education entities
in the region to be served.
4) Requires that the SCOE establish criteria by which the
grants will be awarded.
5) Requires that the criteria include, at minimum, all of
the following:
a) A plan for collaboration among consortium
members
b) A recruitment plan of highly effective
recruitment strategies
c) A focus on recruiting teachers to
low-performing schools, especially those with a
teaching staff that has more than 20 percent
emergency permit teachers.
6) Requires that the amount of the awards be:
a) Based on the number of teachers a regional
center commits to recruit.
b) No more than $700 per recruited teacher.
7) Requires that the SCOE determine:
a) The allocation of grants awards, and
b) Whether funds should be provided with:
i) a start-up grant and then a
reimbursement, or
ii) some other manner
8) Provides that in the event that the number of teachers
needed to be recruited would result in allocation of
funds exceeding the available funding, requires funds
to be allocated to the regional centers based on a
proration of the number of teachers needed so as not
to exceed available funding.
9) Requires SCOE to provide oversight and technical
assistance for the regional centers and perform the
following responsibilities:
SB 1505
Page 15
a) Provide advice to the CalTeach program
regarding the regional media campaign for
recruiting teachers.
b) Consult with the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CTC) on delivering technical
assistance in credentials counseling through the
regional teacher recruitment centers.
c) Develop, publish, and distribute a guide of
all available state-level incentives to attract
and retain teachers.
d) Report teacher placement data to the
following:
i) Appropriate fiscal and policy
committees of the Legislature
ii) Office of the Secretary for
Education
iii) Department of Finance
iv) Legislative Analyst's Office, and
v) Commission on Teacher
Credentialing
10) Requires the regional teacher recruitment centers to
perform the following duties:
a) Employ full-time recruiters to recruit
teachers and provide credential and career
counseling to prospective teachers.
b) Make available information on available
state-funded incentives to potential teachers.
c) Conduct college campus and community-based
information sessions on job opportunities in
teaching.
d) Provide outreach to potential teachers using
electronic, print, radio, and other forms of
advertising.
e) Screen and distribute applications of
prospective teachers to participating schools.
SB 1505
Page 16
f) Schedule interviews between prospective
teachers and school administrators.
g) Refer candidates to teacher preparation and
alternative certification programs.
h) Coordinate with the County Office of Fiscal
Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) on
the provision of technical assistance to school
districts in methods to streamline the hiring
process.
i) Report regional recruitment data to the SCOE
as specified in the grant award.
11) Encourages the following entities participating in
TRIP to include in their submitted plans a financial
commitment to teacher recruitment:
a) School districts
b) County offices of education
c) Colleges
d) Universities
e) Other public education entities
STAFF COMMENTS - Part 4: TRIP
1) Is SCOE the correct administering entity? It is
unclear why the Sacramento County Office of Education
is named as the administering entity. The bill
provides that the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) allocate the funds appropriated for this program
to SCOE. Since the program already appropriates the
funding through the CDE, why not leave the
administering responsibilities there. The CDE could
then establish criteria, review applicants and award
these grants in a similar fashion that they do with
all requests for proposals (RFP's). This would allow
the Sacramento County Office of Education to apply for
a grant as the regional center serving Northern
California. Currently, SCOE provides similar services
to schools and school districts in their county
through the project pipeline program-T.E.A.C.H.
(Teacher Education Alternative Certification and
Hiring). There are currently 9 participants in the
SB 1505
Page 17
Sacramento County pipeline program.
2) Funding for Administering this program? Currently
the bill provides for funds to be allocated to the
regional centers but no funding is earmarked for SCOE
to achieve the numerous responsibilities to which this
program charges. Is it the intent of the author to
provide additional funds for the purposes of
administering this program? Staff recommends
clarification.
3) Defining "Recruitment." In several places within this
section of the bill it is not clear as to the meaning
of "recruit" or "recruitment." For example, as part
of the regional recruitment centers duties, they are
required to "refer candidates to teacher preparation
and alternative certification programs." Further, the
centers are to "screen and distribute applications of
prospective teachers to participating schools." Is
the focus of "recruitment" to be on simply referring
and screening, or actual placement into programs and
schools? Staff recommends defining recruitment.
4) Defining "Teachers" and Consequences for Unmet
Commitments? The bill provides that:
?the amount of an award shall be based on the number of
teachers a regional teacher recruitment center commits
to recruit. (pg. 15, line 19)
Nowhere in the bill does it provide for consequences if
this "commitment" is not met. If funds are provided
to a regional center that "commits" to recruit 50
teachers, and it only recruits 20, will the regional
center be required to pay back the funds to the state
for the missing 30? If so, who will be responsible
for collecting these funds?
Further, this places focus back on the issue of defining
the term "recruitment" and also the term "teacher."
In this case, this portion of the bill clearly is
referring to the recruitment of "teachers." Not,
prospective candidates for teacher programs. Thus, is
this "commitment" for the actual placement of those
"teachers," or is there a different intent?
SB 1505
Page 18
Additionally, this portion of the bill uses the term
"recruit teachers." Are these to be fully credentialed
teachers or does this program intend to include
interns (district and university) and other
alternative certification holders as part of this pool
of recruits?
5) Unintended burden? The bill provides that the SCOE
determine the allocation of the grant award. It also
stipulates that, in the event there are more teachers
recruited than funds available, the grant award must
be prorated to ensure money for each center. The bill
limits funding to no more than $700 per recruited
teacher. If this number is reduced by a proration,
will it be sufficient to conduct the business of the
center? Does this put an added, unintended burden on
the SCOE to determine what the funding should be?
Would it not be better to begin with a fixed number of
recruits and revisit this issue on an annual basis to
determine whether to raise or lower that allocation?
Staff recommends this issue be clarified.
6) "Other Public Education Entities? " Under the
definition for a Regional Teacher Recruitment Center,
this section of the bill stipulates, "an entity
operated by a consortium that may include:
a) school districts
b) county offices of education
c) colleges
d) universities
e) or other public education entities in the
region to be served
It is unclear as to the meaning intended for "other
public education entities." Staff recommends
clarification.
7) "Encouraging Financial Commitment"-- Matching Funds?
The language of this bill provides that those
"entities participating in the Teacher Recruitment
Incentive Program are encouraged to include in their
submitted plans a financial commitment to teacher
recruitment." Currently, under The California Center
on Teaching Careers (SB 824, Greene: Chapter 864,
1997) a/k/a CalTeach, there is a requirement for
SB 1505
Page 19
matching funds. It is unclear as to whether or not
the intent of this
language is to provide a similar funding model. Staff
recommends clarification.
8) What is the intent? It is unclear as to whether these
efforts are intended to
replace activities that currently exist at the
district level for recruitment, or
are they intended to supplement? If the intent is to
supplement the district activities, would the
resources not be better spent providing districts,
directly, with those funds? Or at minimum, providing
districts with the resources to obtain an evaluation
of their recruitment efforts, and strategies for being
more effective. Does this just add another layer of
bureaucracy? Are county offices better equipped to
handle the problems that currently exist at those
districts having recruitment issues? Does this
address the real need and provide a solution to the
problem?
9) Evaluation and Sunset. This section of the bill does
not provide for an
evaluation or sunset of this program. As noted in the
background section of this analysis, there are
currently several programs that conduct recruitment
strategies statewide and it is still unclear as to
their effectiveness and impact. As an example,
current law provides for an evaluation of the CalTeach
program. This evaluation, to be conducted by the CTC
and LAO, is due to be reported to the Legislature on
or before March 1, 2002. At minimum, this evaluation
will begin to address some of the questions on
effectiveness of funds spent in the direction of
teacher recruitment campaigns. It is important to
note that CalTeach operates on two CSU campuses, where
the proposed regional recruitment centers will operate
statewide. Thus a more extensive and expansive
evaluation may be called for. Staff recommends that
an evaluation to determine the impact and
effectiveness of these regional centers be added and
the report due to the Legislature no later than
January 1, 2004. Further, staff recommends that a
sunset date of January 2005 be added.
SB 1505
Page 20
Part 5: TEACHING AS A PRIORITY PROGRAM (TAP)
(Section 9 of the bill; Pages 17 - 19)
SUMMARY -- Part 5: TAP
This section of the bill creates the Teacher As a Priority
Program (TAP), administered by the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CTC), to provide incentive grants to
low-performing schools which replace emergency permit
teachers with credentialed teachers, as specified.
BACKGROUND -- Part 5: TAP
Under current law, there are no programs which provide
direct incentive grants for schools, low-performing or
otherwise, to hire credentialed teachers in lieu of
emergency permit teachers.
ANALYSIS -- Part 5: TAP
This section of the bill :
1) Creates the Teacher as a Priority Program (TAP), to be
administered by the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CTC).
2) Provides that school districts and county offices of
education (COEs) may apply to participate in TAP on a
voluntary basis.
3) Provides for grant incentives for low-performing
schools within participating districts/COEs, as
follows:
a) For schools scoring in the bottom 30th of
the API (an API score of 1,2 or 3): A total of
$6,000 per credentialed and appropriately
assigned teacher hired who replaces an emergency
permit teacher as follows:
(i) $3,000 to be used by the teacher for one-time
classroom expenditures.
(ii) $3,000 to be used by the schoolsite for "a
SB 1505
Page 21
one-time purpose to increase the school's ability
to attract and retain teachers."
b) For schools scoring in the 40th and 50th
percentile of the API (an API score of 4 or 5):
A total of $4,000 per credentialed and
appropriately assigned teacher hired who replaces
an emergency permit teacher as follows:
(i) $2,000 to be used by the teacher for one-time
classroom expenditures.
(ii) $2,000 to be used by the schoolsite for "a
one-time purpose to increase the school's ability
to attract and retain teachers."
4) Provides that the grant incentives:
a) May not be used for teacher compensation.
b) Are available to emergency permit teachers
employed at an eligible site who earn a teaching
credential.
c) Are available to a credentialed teacher who
transfers from a non-low performing school to a
low-performing school.
d) Are not available to a credentialed teacher
who transfers from one low-performing school to
another low-performing school.
5) Requires participating school districts/COEs to
annually demonstrate an absolute one-to-one reduction
in the number of emergency permit teachers for each
new teacher hired.
6) Requires participating school districts/COEs to post
in the main office of the school or other publicly
accessible area the names of all teachers and the
credential each holds.
7) Establishes penalties for school districts/COEs which
fail to meet their target reduction in percentage of
emergency permit teachers employed. Specifically,
those failing to meet their targets would have their
SB 1505
Page 22
revenue limit reduced on a one-time basis by $4,000
for every emergency permit teacher in excess of the
target, not to exceed the amount of incentive received
for that period.
8) Requires the CTC to assess a school district's
progress towards meeting their targets and further
requires the State Controller, upon certification of
the CTC, to reduce the first principal apportionment
for those district's reported by CTC as having failed
to meet their targets.
STAFF COMMENTS -- Part 5: TAP
1) Potential Inequities. The TAP program provides
$2,000/$3,000 towards classroom materials for new
teachers coming to a site but, in so doing, overlooks
those appropriately credentialed teachers who are
already at the site. It rewards teachers who are
willing to transfer to a low-performing school, but
ignores those teachers who had already made this
commitment to the local site. A classroom with a new
teacher will have $2,000/$3,000 in new materials, but
the class next door, with a second-year teacher will
remain unendowed. Does this make sense? Why would a
veteran teacher want to remain at a low-performing
site and not, at a minimum, transfer out to a high
performing site - possibly even to later return and
receive the $2,000/$3,000 incentive?
Wouldn't it make more sense to provide the incentives to
any and all "appropriately credentialed teachers" who
are willing to commit to teach at a low-performing
school - whether or not they are new to the site? It
seems the incentives should be provided not only to
new teachers who agree to come, but also to teachers
who agree to remain at the site -- somewhat like a
program the military provides incentives in the form
of "Re-Up Bonuses" where experienced members of the
military are given "signing bonuses" or other
incentives if they agree to re-enlist. Staff
recommends that these potential inequities or options
for avoiding them be discussed.
2) Who's Materials Are They? Teacher's receiving the
$2,000/$3,000 individual incentive are required to
SB 1505
Page 23
spend it on their classroom. Should the teacher
transfer to another site in the future, do the
materials remain at the site or are they the property
of the teacher and follow the teacher? Staff
recommends that this be clarified.
3) Expand to Include Waiver Teachers? The TAP incentives
are available only if an emergency permit teacher is
replaced with a credentialed teacher. However, there
are other non-credentialed teachers besides "emergency
permit" teachers who are authorized to be employed as
classroom teachers but have as little or even less
preparation than emergency permit teachers, such as
waiver teachers, interns, and 30-day substitutes. It
does not appear to make sense to focus solely on
emergency permit teachers when there are other
non-credentialed personnel standing in for
credentialed teachers. Staff recommends that this be
addressed.
4) Incentive or Consolation Prize ? Why $2,000/$3,000?
It is unclear if a one-time grant of $2,000 is a
sufficient amount to induce a new teacher to select or
an existing teacher to transfer to a low-performing
school. Further, because the individual teacher
generating the grant has no obligation to remain at
the site, it is unclear if this program will simply
promote a revolving door whereby individuals accept a
grant for a one-year assignment and subsequently
transfer to a higher performing school. To the extent
that local collective bargaining agreements promote an
individual teacher's right, with increasing seniority,
to select their work site, it is unclear what the
effect of this program will be or how much control a
district will have to retain teachers at the site.
5) Make it a Pilot and Add an Evaluation . If it is
unclear what, if any, the effect of this newly created
and untried program might be. Given this, does it
make sense to establish it on a permanent basis across
the state? It may make more sense to test it on a
"pilot basis", evaluate it and then determine if it
should operate on a statewide basis. At a minimum,
staff recommends that the program be established on a
limited-term basis, with a sunset date and an
evaluation component prior to the program becoming
SB 1505
Page 24
permanent. Also, consideration should be given to
pilot testing the program first.
6) Teacher Compensation . The bill provides that the
grant incentives may not be used for teacher
compensation. It is unclear if the incentives may be
used for compensation of other non-teaching personnel
(e.g. tutors, hall monitors, classroom aides, etc.)
Staff recommends that this be clarified.
7) Unclear Penalties . The bill requires participating
districts/COEs to "demonstrate on an annual basis a
one-to-one reduction in the number of emergency permit
holders for each new teacher hired under the program."
The bill also prescribes penalties "per emergency
permit teacher in excess of the target"? It is
unclear what "the target" is and, combined with the
requirement for an annual one-to-one reduction in
emergency permit teachers, what would happen under the
following circumstances: If in a year subsequent to
receiving incentive payments:
a) A recently hired credentialed teacher leaves
and is replaced with an emergency permit teacher?
b) A recently hired credentialed teacher leaves
and is replaced with a waiver teacher? Replaced
with an intern?
c) The recently hired credentialed teacher
remains, but a veteran credentialed teacher
leaves and is replaced with an emergency permit
(or waiver) teacher?
Staff recommends that the actual way this program will
operate including potential penalties be
described and clarified.
8) How Determine Who is Replacing Who ? What happens if a
site has one emergency permit and one credentialed
teacher leave and hires two credentialed teachers?
How is it decided which credentialed teacher gets the
$2,000 or $3,000 classroom grant? Can it be split
between the two teachers? Staff recommends that this
be clarified.
SB 1505
Page 25
9) $4,000 Penalty . The bill provides for a revenue
reduction of $4,000 per emergency permit teacher "in
excess of the target." The bill, as recently amended,
however, provides certain schools (those scoring 1,2
or 3 on the API) with a total incentive grant of
$6,000. What is the author's intent here? Staff
recommends that this be clarified.
10) Post Assignment along with Credential? The bill
requires that schools in participating districts/COEs
post the names and credentials of its teachers.
Should this posting also include the grade-level or
subject the individual is teaching? If a high school
English teacher is teaching math, little is gained by
simply listing the English teacher's name and the fact
they have an English credential without knowing that,
in fact, they are assigned to teach math. Staff
recommends that this be addressed.
11) Technical Amendments . Staff recommends that the bill
be amended to, essentially, clarify that the $3,000
incentive is available to schools scoring an 1, 2 or 3
on the API and the $2,000 is available to school
scoring a 4 or 5 on the API.
Part 6: DELETE CAL GRANT T
(Sections 10, 11, 12 & 13 of the bill; Pages 19 - 22)
SUMMARY -- Part 6: Cal Grant T
These sections of the bill add a teaching requirement, as
specified, for recipients of a Cal Grant T award. The bill
also requires the Student Aid Commission to report,
annually, as specified.
BACKGROUND -- Part 6: Cal Grant T
Cal Grant T . Chapter 336, Statutes of 1998 (SB 2064,
O'Connell) created the Cal Grant T program, which is
administered by the Student Aid Commission (SAC). This
program provides a one-year grant to cover the costs of
tuition and fees for financially needy students attending a
state-approved teacher preparation program. Because the
cost of fees and tuition varies among different teacher
preparation programs, a Cal Grant T has three different
SB 1505
Page 26
values:
? It's worth $1,428 to a student at CSU.
? It's worth $3,429 to a student at UC.
? It's worth up to $9,420 to an independent college
student.
The eligibility requirements for the Cal Grant T programs
are the same as those for the Cal Grant A program.
Recipients must meet specified income limitations and, so
doing, are then ranked by "merit" - according to their GPA.
Current law provides that a minimum of 3,000 Cal Grants be
awarded each year.
In 1998-99, 99% of the 2,044 Cal Grant T recipients were
independent students with an average age of 30 and an
average income of $14,565.
5th-Year Cal Grant A & B .
Cal Grant A and B awards are provided to financially needy
college students. Under current law, these awards are
generally limited to a maximum of 4 years of full-time
equivalent undergraduate attendance. Since 1989, however,
students attending an institutionally prescribed 5-year
undergraduate program (e.g. architecture, engineering) are
eligible for an additional year, or a total equivalent of 5
years of awards. Similarly, recipients choosing to attend
an approved teacher preparation program are also eligible
an additional year, or a total of 5 years of awards.
ANALYSIS -- Part 6: Cal Grant T
These sections of the bill impose a "teaching requirement"
on recipients of a Cal Grant T award. Specifically, the
bill requires that Cal Grant T recipients teach for one
year in a low-performing school for each $2,000 of grant
award received, not to exceed a total of four years of
teaching. Cal Grant T recipients who fail to meet this
teaching obligation would be required to repay the Cal
Grant T awards.
The bill also requires the Student Aid Commission to
evaluate the Cal Grant T program from its inception, and to
SB 1505
Page 27
annually report specified information to the Governor and
the Legislature beginning July 1, 2001.
STAFF COMMENTS -- Part 6: Cal Grant T
1) Teaching Requirement: Sounds Good but is it
Equitable? The average cost of preparing a graduate
student at CSU is $7,900; at UC it's $16,000. The
state, in essence, provides a subsidy of $7,900 for
every CSU teacher preparation student and $16,000 for
every one at UC. Although this subsidy is
substantially more than the value of a Cal Grant,
there is no requirement for these students to teach.
Is it equitable to ask the neediest students, those
who qualify for need-based financial aid, to commit to
teaching - and in a restricted pool of schools - when
all other students attending public college also
receive a significant state subsidy and yet have no
teaching obligation?
2) Teaching Requirement: Sounds Good but is it Cost
Effective ? Based on experience with other financial
aid programs, it is very costly to administer programs
where funds are provided "up front" in exchange to
future behavior. If a work requirement is imposed for
Cal Grant T recipients, the administrative costs would
likely be significant. Each recipient would have to
be tracked for up to four years. Legal procedures
must be followed in efforts to locate, notify, take
legal action and/or attempt to collect from
individuals judged not have fulfilled their
requirement. Grey areas develop: what if they flunked
out of school, what if they fail to pass CBEST and
legally cannot teach, what if they can't get hired,
become ill, pregnant, work part-time, take time off or
move out of state? Is a teaching
requirement cost effective, especially when 46% of Cal
Grant T recipients receive the $1,428 award?
3) Stiffer Teacher Requirement than Under APLE . This
bill imposes a more stringent teaching requirement on
Cal Grant T recipients than is currently required of
APLE recipients. Does this make sense?
SB 1505
Page 28
Specifically, APLE recipients are required to teach up to
four years for a total of $11,000 in loan assumption
benefits; the proposed Cal Grant T teaching
requirement is four years for $8,000. For $5,000 in
benefits, an APLE recipient must teach 2 years, a Cal
Grant T recipient 3 years. For three years of
teaching, an APLE recipient earns $8,000 in benefits
but a Cal Grant T recipient would earn only $6,000.
Relatedly, APLE recipients may choose from a pool of
roughly 70% of the state's public school to fulfill
their teaching obligation. Cal Grant T recipients
would be limited to a smaller pool of 50% of the
schools.
Staff recommends that if there is to be teaching
requirement for Cal Grant T recipients, the
requirement should be no more stringent than what is
required of APLE recipients.
4) Double Teaching Requirement? Cal Grant T recipients
who are also APLE participants - 55% of Cal Grant T
recipients are also APLE recipients - already have a
four-year teaching obligation under the APLE program.
For these individuals, is it the author's intent that
these individuals teach for eight years, or does a
single year of teaching qualify under each program
separately? Staff recommends that this be addressed.
5) Relatively New Program . The Cal Grant T program is
relatively new - it is only in its second year of
operation. Participation statistics indicate that it
is being successful. However, if there is concern
that the program is not being cost effective, wouldn't
it make more sense to collect data, evaluate the
program and, pending the results, and then determine
whether to add a teaching obligation? Accordingly,
staff recommends that the program be continued in its
current form, or a teaching requirement be delayed,
until such an evaluation is conducted.
6) Student Aid Commission (SAC) Report. Under current
law, the SAC is required to provide a variety of
annual reports to the to the Legislature including the
(a) SAC annual report of all activities, (b) an annual
report on APLE, (c) an annual report on Graduate APLE
SB 1505
Page 29
and (d) the Grant Statistics report. Given these,
staff recommends that authorization be given to the
SAC to include the Cal Grant T report required by this
bill in one of these pre-existing annual reports and
that this information be provided beginning in 2001.
Part 7: Assumption Program of Loans for Education (APLE)
(Sections 14 - 24 of the bill, pages 23-33)
SUMMARY - Part 7: APLE
These sections of the bill increase from 5,500 to 6,500 the
number of APLE warrants awarded annually and otherwise make
a variety of changes to generally streamline and facilitate
the administration of the APLE program, as specified.
BACKGROUND - Part 7: APLE
The APLE program, established in 1983 and modified in 1985,
assumes loans of up to $11,000 for student who become
credentialed teachers and agree to teach for four years in
subject shortage areas, schools serving low-income pupils,
rural schools or schools with a high percentage of teachers
holding emergency permits. The $11,000 in loan assumption
benefits is earned as follows: $2,000 for the first year
of teaching; $3,000 for the second year; $3,000 the third
year and $3,000 for the fourth year. The APLE program is
administered by the Student Aid Commission (SAC).
The APLE program has expanded rapidly over the past 3
years, as indicated in the following chart:
Year Number of APLE Warrants
1997-98 (and prior years) 500
1998-99 4,500
1999-00 5,500
2000-01 (proposed) 6,500
ANALYSIS - Part 7: APLE
These sections of the bill make a variety of changes to the
APLE program. Specifically, these sections of the bill:
1) Increase from 5,550 to 6,500 the number of $11,000
loan assumption warrants to be awarded annually by the
SB 1505
Page 30
SAC.
2) Provide that students attending teacher preparation
programs on a half-time basis or more are eligible to
participate. Current law specifies that participants
must be enrolled in at least "10 semester units".
However, because "units" is not a standardized
measure, "10 semester units" may equate to half-time
enrollment at some colleges but at other colleges, it
equates to a higher level of enrollment up to
three-quarters time. Specifically stating "half-time"
would eliminate this unintended discrepancy between
colleges and is consistent with requirements of other
financial aid programs.
3) Delete a variety of statutory administrative
"set-asides" that the SAC is required to allocate in
distributing APLE warrants. Those eliminated include:
a) The requirement that (1) 60 percent of APLE
warrants be provided to participants who agree to
teach in subject shortage areas and (2) 40
percent be provided to participants who agree to
teach in low-income schools.
b) The requirement that within the 60/40 split,
a minimum of 2,000 awards be provided to
applicants who agree to obtain a credential in
math or science.
c) The requirement that within the 60/40 split
cited above, beginning in 2000-01 and annually
thereafter, a "proportional number of warrants"
be provided to applicants who agree to teach in a
rural school.
d) The requirement that 100 warrants be
provided to applicants who agree to teach to
teach in rural school districts. Instead, the
bill simply authorizes the SAC to provide up to
100 of these awards.
e) The requirement that notwithstanding the
60/40 split, beginning in 2000-01 and annually
thereafter, a number of warrants as determined
SB 1505
Page 31
and funded in the annual Budget Act be provided
to applicants who agree to teach in schools with
a high percentage of emergency permit teachers.
f) The requirement that 500 warrants annually
be awarded to out-of-state teachers, as
specified. Instead, the SAC would be authorized
to provide awards to eligible out-of-state
teachers.
g) The authorization for the SAC to provide 50
warrants annually to the "Pipeline Project".
Instead, the Pipeline Project would be allocated
warrants consistent with the participating higher
education institutions.
h) Other duplicate, conflicting and/or obsolete
allocation requirements.
4) Requires the SAC to expand its outreach and marketing
strategies to inform potential candidates about APLE.
This portion of the bill also requires the SAC to
enlist the advice and support of the California Center
for Teaching Profession, the University of California,
the California State University, the Association of
Independent California Colleges and Universities and
private employers and their associations throughout
the state.
5) Revises the information the SAC is required to report
annually to the Legislature to include the number of
warrants awarded to applicants who (a) pursue a
credential in a subject matter shortage area and (b)
agree to teach in schools with a high ratio of pupils
from low-income families and low-performing schools.
6) Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI), commencing January 31, 2000 and every January
1, thereafter, to furnish the SAC with a list of
low-performing schools. For purposes of the APLE
program, the bill defines low-performing schools to be
a school in the bottom half of the Academic
Performance Index (API).
STAFF COMMENTS - Part 7: APLE
SB 1505
Page 32
1) Legislative Analyst's Findings . In the Analysis of
the 2000-01 Budget Proposal, the Analyst recommends
that the Legislature narrow the eligibility criteria
so that APLE participants serve in the schools with
the greatest need. Under current law, and as proposed
in this bill, more that 70 percent of all public
elementary schools qualify for an APLE recipient.
2) Effect . Overall, the changes proposed by this portion
of the bill generally have the positive effect of
simplifying and making more rational the
administrative process of awarding APLE warrants.
3) Emergency Permits . Several parts of the APLE statute
reference a high percentage of "emergency permit"
teachers, including the requirement in current law for
the SPI to annually provide the SAC with a list of
schools with a high percentage of teachers holding
emergency permits. Staff recommends that high
percentage be specifically defined and clarify if
waiver permit teachers are also to be included.
4) Retroactive Date . Page 29, line 9 adds a new
requirement for the SPI to provide an annual list of
low-performing schools to the SAC commencing January
31, 2000. Since January 31, 2000 is already past,
should this date be revised?
5) Obsolete References . This portion of the bill
modifies an existing requirement for the SAC to
annually report on the number of warrants "awarded to
applicants" by certain types of categories. Since the
bill shifts the emphasis of the program from the
applicant to the participant, it appears that these
reporting requirements should be revised to show this
information by the number of warrants "redeemed by
participants" rather than "awarded to applicants".
Staff recommends that this be addressed.
6) Similar Bill Already Passed by this Committee . On
April 12, 2000, the Senate Education Committee heard
and passed (13-0 vote) SB 1330 (Alpert) which also
revises the APLE program. SB 1330 includes virtually
all of the changes proposed here by SB 1505. In
addition, SB 1330: (a) deletes obsolete reference, (b)
reorganizes the statute into a more orderly format,
SB 1505
Page 33
(c) clarifies qualifications for participating schools
in rural areas and (d) increases the amount of the
warrant for schools scoring a 1 or 2 on the API and
for math and science teachers. Given SB 1330's
broader scope, is this portion of SB 1505 needed?
Part 8: GOVERNOR'S TEACHING FELLOWSHIPS
(Section 25 of the bill; Pages 33-36)
SUMMARY - Part 8: Fellowships
This section of the bill creates the Governor's Teaching
Fellowships program. This program would provide 1,000
merit-based grants of $20,000 each to graduate students
who, upon becoming credentialed teachers, agree to teach at
a low-performing school for four years. The program would
be administered by the Chancellor's Office of the
California State University (CSU).
BACKGROUND - Part 8: Fellowships
Under current state statute, there is no specific
merit-based award for graduate students who agree to teach
in a low-performing school for four years.
However, under current law there are two different state
programs which provide financial assistance to needy pupils
who agree to become teachers. These are:
APLE. Under the APLE program, 5,000 loan assumption
warrants of $11,000 each are provided annually to
students agreeing to become credentialed teachers; 500
warrants are provided to out-of-state teachers. APLE
recipients are required to teach for four years in
either a subject shortage area or a low-income school.
Cal Grants. Under the Cal Grant T program,
financially needy students enrolled in a 5th year
approved teacher preparation program are eligible to
receive grant awards sufficient to cover the costs of
fees and tuition. Relatedly, Cal Grant A and Cal Grant
B undergraduate recipients are eligible to have their
Cal Grant award extended for a 5th year if they enroll
in an approved teacher preparation program. These Cal
Grant programs have no requirement to teach
SB 1505
Page 34
ANALYSIS - Part 8: Fellowships
This section of the bill establishes the Governor's
Teaching Fellowships program. Specifically, this section:
1) Provides that (a) in January 2001, 250 awards of
$20,000 each and (b) annually thereafter 1,000 awards
of $20,000 each be provided on a merit-only basis to
graduate students who upon becoming credentialed,
agree to teach at a low-performing school, as defined,
for four years.
2) Requires the Chancellor's Office of the CSU to
administer the program, including:
a) Develop the application process and conduct
the selection process, including determining the
criteria, as specified, for selecting
participants. At a minimum, these selection
criteria would include:
(i) Previous academic and employment record.
(ii) Demonstrated commitment to serve in a
low-performing school.
(iii) Faculty and employer evaluations.
(iv) Interviews.
(v) Letters of recommendation.
b) Establish broad and effective outreach.
c) Collaborate with the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CTC) to develop and implement a
participant monitoring system to ensure that
participants complete their four-year teaching
obligation. Participants that complete less than
four-years of teaching would be required to repay
$5,000 per year for each year not-taught and
would be subject to specified civil penalties.
3) Requires participants who complete less than
four-years of teaching to repay $5,000 per year for
SB 1505
Page 35
each year-not-taught. In addition, this section of
the bill also authorizes the CSU Chancellor to impose
civil penalties up to $5,000 per year-not-taught upon
participants who fail to teach for four years.
Proceeds from any penalties imposed would be deposited
in the General Fund.
4) Establishes a 12-member intersegmental review
committee, as specified, to recommend Fellowship
candidates to the CSU Chancellor's Office for
selection. Members of the review committee would
serve four-year terms and be individually appointed,
as specified by UC (3 members), CSU (6 members), and
the Association of Independent Colleges (3 members).
5) Provides that the CTC determine annually if
participants have fulfilled their obligation to teach
in a low-performing school and certify such
information to the CSU Chancellor's office.
STAFF COMMENTS - Part 8: Fellowships
1) Legislative Analyst's Findings . In their Analysis of
the 2000-01 Budget Proposal, the Analyst recommends
for a variety of reasons that the Legislature convert
the Teaching Fellowships Program into an "augmented
APLE"-type program and transfer the administrative
responsibilities from the CSU and the CTC to the
Student Aid Commission. Staff concurs.
2) Up Front Money: Been There, Done That . Although
providing a merit-based grant may be worthwhile in and
of itself, creating a program that provides the money
up-front and requires tracking participants, taking
collection actions and imposing civil penalties
results in an enormous administrative structure and
cost inefficiencies that challenge the very validity
of the basic program. In fact, it is estimated that
as much as 30 percent of the funds proposed for this
program in the Governor's Budget will be needed to
cover administrative costs (typically, administrative
costs are limited to not more than 5 percent of a
program's costs.)
As initially established, the APLE program provided grants
up-front in exchange for a multi-year teaching
SB 1505
Page 36
requirement. Experience there showed the folly of
such a system; consequently the program was revamped
many years ago to its present form where participants
receive their funds after each year of successful
participation - not before.
Even among existing federal and state financial aid loan
programs, significant costs and legal expertise are
required to track and ultimately undertake collection
activities from individuals who default on their
commitments. For these reasons, staff recommends that
the Teaching Fellowship program be restructured so
that the funds are not provided until the commitment
has been fulfilled. In so doing, it would probably
make sense both administratively, and from a cost
effectiveness perspective, to have the Student Aid
Commission administer this program; the CSU
Chancellor's Office could still select the
participants.
(Note: if the bill is amended to provide participants the
funds on an as-they-fulfill-their-service basis, staff
comments #3, 4, 5 are no longer relevant.)
3) CTC Tracks Participants . This program establishes the
CTC as the agency responsible for tracking
participants to ensure that they meet their four-year
teaching commitment. Does this make sense? CTC is
not set-up nor does it have data to identify and track
where individual credential holders are employed.
Giving them the ability to so do would duplicate the
existing capabilities of other state agencies (e.g.
STRS and FTB.) Perhaps it would make more sense to
have the State Teachers Retirement System or the
Franchise Tax Board provide this service, agencies
which are already able to track a teacher's employment
status. Staff recommends that this be discussed.
4) Repayment?with Interest? The program requires
participants who do not fulfill their teaching
commitment to repay $5,000 per year for each
year-not-taught. It is not clear if such individuals
would also be required to pay interest. Seeing as an
individual could have these funds for a good number of
years before repayment is undertaken, it may be
appropriate to include interest.
SB 1505
Page 37
5) Prosecutor and Judge ? This program (page 36, line 27)
authorizes the CSU Chancellor's office to impose civil
penalties on participants who fail to fulfill their
teaching obligation. This authority, however,
appears to substantially depart from established legal
due process protections. Typically, when there is an
alleged breech of contract, an entity may bring an
action to seek civil penalties, but it is the
responsibility of a judge or court to determine if the
breech occurred and to levy penalties, if any.
Accordingly, staff recommends that the bill be amended
to authorize the CSU to seek civil penalties, rather
than to impose them.
6) Intersegmental Review Committee . This program
establishes a rather elaborate and, consequently
cumbersome committee to recommend candidates from
which the CSU Chancellor will ultimately select the
participants. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the
segments which are designated to be on this review
committee simply send their nominations directly to
the CSU Chancellor?
7) Stacked Deck . The CSU Chancellor is charged with
selecting the participants from a pool of candidates
provided by the Intersegmental Review Committee. The
CSU Chancellor, however, appoints half - 6 of the 12 -
members of this review committee. Again, wouldn't it
make more sense to have each segment select its own
participants?
8) Four-Year Terms . The 12 members of the Intersegmental
Review Committee serve for four-year terms. Should
these terms be set-up on a staggered basis so that
there is not complete turn-over every four years? The
bill provides for the members of this committee to be
selected from specified constituencies - e.g. k-12
teacher and or school administrators. Is it intended
that these representatives be from public schools, or
either public or private?
9) Full-time Teaching Commitment ? The program requires
participants to teach for four-years. It is unclear
if this commitment can be fulfilled by teaching on a
less-than full-time basis. Similarly, it is unclear
SB 1505
Page 38
if students enrolled in a teacher-preparation program
on a less-than full-time basis are eligible to
participate. Staff recommends that this be clarified.
Part 9: Housing Downpayment Assistance (Housing)
(Section 26 of the bill; pages 36-40)
SUMMARY - Part 9: Housing
This section of the bill creates the Neighborhood Teachers
Program, providing homebuyer housing down payment
assistance of up to $10,000 for teachers working in
low-performing schools.
BACKGROUND - Part 9: Housing
Under current law, numerous programs exist to recruit and
retain teachers in the public schools. These programs
include grants, loans, forgivable loans, and other
incentives that are available both before and after
teachers have been trained and credentialed.
In addition, the mission of the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) is to help promote and expand
housing opportunities for all Californians. As part of
this mission, the department is responsible for
implementing and enforcing building standards. The
department also administers a variety of housing finance,
economic development, and rehabilitation programs. In
addition, the department provides policy advice and
statewide guidance on housing issues.
ANALYSIS - Part 9: Housing
This section of the bill creates the Neighborhood Teachers
Program, providing homebuyer housing down payment
assistance of up to $10,000 for teachers working in
low-performing schools.
The Governor's Budget proposes $50 million in one-time
spending for the creation of the California Teachers
Homebuyers Assistance Program, which is presumably the same
program as the Neighborhood Teachers Program proposed in
SB 1505
Page 39
this bill.
Specifically:
1) The bill implements the Neighborhood Teachers Program
to provide affordable homebuyer housing down payment
assistance. The Department of Housing and Community
Development is to contract with the California Housing
Finance Agency for the administration of the program.
Numerous administrative details are delineated in the
bill.
2) The program is designed to address problems with the
recruitment and retention of teachers in
low-performing schools.
3) Teachers working in low-performing schools would be
eligible for a maximum $10,000 loan towards the
purchase of a home.
a) "Low-performing school" is defined as a
public school in the bottom half of the Academic
Performance Index (API) rankings.
b) Down payment assistance is in the form of a
deferred-payment, low-interest subordinate
mortgage loan in the second lien position in a
term not to exceed the term of the first mortgage
loan.
4) A teacher may qualify for forgiveness of the loan,
provided certain conditions are met on a continuous
basis for five years:
a) The borrower shall continuously occupy the
residence being purchased as their principal
residence.
b) The borrower has been continuously employed
as a teacher, as specified.
5) According to the Legislative Analyst, the California
Housing Finance Agency intends to spend $2.5 million
of the $50 million appropriation in the proposed
Budget Act to cover administrative costs over the
course of the five-year loan period.
SB 1505
Page 40
STAFF COMMENTS - Part 9: Housing
1) Similar program proposed by State Treasurer . A
similar program of loan forgiveness/subsidy has been
proposed by State Treasurer Phil Angelides and
approved by the California Debt Limit Allocation
Committee (CDLAC), effective in June 2000. The CDLAC
proposal, which is now in the regulation-writing
phase, uses federal funds that are available for such
targeted home loan subsidies. Some of the features of
the two approaches are the same, with some
differences.
a) Administration . The administration of the
CDLAC program is tentatively planned for a more
local focus, either through school districts or
county offices of education. This bill proposes
that the
program proposed by the Governor be administered by
the California Housing Finance Agency.
b) Different Definition of low performing
school . The CDLAC proposal tentatively defines
low performing school as the bottom 30% of all
schools based on the most recent Academic
Performance Index (API). This bill focuses on
schools scoring below the 50th percentile on the
API. Thus, by definition, half of the schools
would be eligible sites for the housing
incentives in the program proposed by this bill.
Both proposals may be overly broad in their
definitions of low performing schools, and
therefore may not be properly targeted towards
the schools with the greatest demonstrated need
c) Eligibility beyond teachers ? The CDLAC
proposal includes teachers, principals, and
assistant principals as eligible for the housing
subsidy program. This bill restricts the program
to teachers.
2) No local discretion in selecting participants . There
is no differentiation accounted for in the
participants in the program in this bill. Any teacher
SB 1505
Page 41
would be eligible for the program on a first come,
first serve basis. As written, the program would not
distinguish between recently hired teachers purchasing
their first home and established veteran teachers at a
low performing school moving from an existing home
into a more expensive one. Because local schools
would have no input into the selection of recipients,
the program would fail to target those teachers who
are (a) most likely to require incentives to teach for
a low performing school or (b) most likely to help the
schools meet the educational needs of their pupils.
3) What about renters ? The Legislative Analyst notes
that the program makes no effort to retain and recruit
teachers who desire to rent their home. Since many
newer teachers may not be ready to make a home
purchase (and certainly may not have the resources or
eligibility to qualify for the first mortgage, anyway,
due to limited work experience, etc.) the program's
focus could miss an important segment of the
population.
4) What about recruitment of teachers in high cost areas ?
There is growing evidence that many schools in
high-cost regions of the state also have difficulty in
recruiting and retaining qualified teachers because
they cannot afford to live in those communities. It
would appear that the issue of recruitment and
retention, therefore, is not solely a low performing
school problem, and that a block grant approach to
granting resources to school districts to do what is
best for their circumstances (within certain
guidelines or parameters) would be a better approach,
rather than a "one size fits all" methodology.
5) Should the bill be referred to the Senate Housing and
Community Development Committee ? It may very well be
that the provisions of this bill relative to the
homebuyer's housing down payment assistance program
should be further reviewed by the appropriate standing
committee with jurisdiction in this area. The
Committee may wish to re-refer the bill to the Senate
Rules Committee for consideration of that possibility.
6) Funding . The Governor's Budget includes $50 million
to fund this program. The Senate Budget Subcommittee
SB 1505
Page 42
has heard and approved it.
GENERAL STAFF COMMENTS ON TOTAL BILL
1) Five New Programs . This bill creates on a permanent
basis five new programs, or components of programs,
targeted to "low-performing schools", as defined.
These are:
a) NBPTS. $20,000 bonus for National Board
Certified teachers who teach for four years in a
low-performing school.
b) TRIP. Five regional teacher recruitment
centers to recruit teachers for placement in
low-performing schools.
c) TAP. One-time incentive grants for teachers
and school sites where emergency permit teachers
at a low-performing school are replaced with a
credentialed teacher.
d) Fellowships. One-time $20,000 fellowship
grants to students who, once credentialed, commit
to teach for four years in a low-performing
school.
e) Housing Incentives. One-time $10,000
maximum housing assistance grant to purchase a
home for teachers who are teaching in a
low-performing school and do so for five
additional years.
2) Narrow the Target ? Current law establishes the Public
Schools Accountability Act-PSAA-(SB 1X, Alpert:
Chapter 3, 1999) providing several mechanisms and
programs by which California public schools are held
accountable for improved student achievement. The
Academic Performance Index (API), as part of the PSAA,
was designed to provide a ranking of all California
public schools. Approximately 6700 California public
schools have been ranked and divided into deciles (10
groupings). There are approximately 3350 public
schools that fall below the 50th percentile (the 5
lowest groupings) on the API. Additionally, the API
SB 1505
Page 43
is utilized as a tool for identifying schools that may
be eligible for the Immediate Intervention/
Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP)-a program
consisting of 430 public schools who rank in the
lowest 5 deciles of the API.
Each of the five programs identified in #1 above offer
benefits aimed at teachers in low-performing schools
and defines a low-performing school as "a school in
the bottom half of the Academic Performance Index
(API) rankings established pursuant to subdivision (a)
of Section 52056." In short, this bill focuses on
schools scoring below the 50th percentile on the API.
Thus, by definition, half of the schools in California
would be eligible sites for these programs.
Is this target overly broad? Are these programs targeted
towards the schools with the greatest demonstrated
need? One of the best studies of teacher recruitment
and retention problems in low performing schools -
issued by the Center for the Future of Teaching and
Learning - concluded that serious teacher recruitment
problems are concentrated in approximately 20% of the
state's schools. Staff recommends that consideration
be given either to (a) targeting these programs to
those schools scoring in the lowest 20th percentile or
(b) providing differential benefits with a
significantly larger, or enhanced benefit going to
schools scoring in the 20th percentile and a lessor
benefit going to schools scoring in the 30th - 50th
percentile.
3) Sunset Date/Evaluation Component . Each of the five
programs identified in #1 above, are established both
on a permanent basis and without any type of future
evaluation as to the program's effectiveness. Staff
recommends that these programs be established on a
limited-term basis, and then sunsetted pending the
results of a report on their effectiveness.
4) Retention vs. Recruitment? At a presentation for the
Teacher Education Summit of the California College and
University Presidents, Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond,
national expert on teacher education, provided
evidence that the problems in staffing California
schools are not the result of labor market shortages,
SB 1505
Page 44
but rather an inability to attract and retain the
teachers it prepares to the schools and districts
where they are most needed. In fact, Dr.
Darling-Hammond states "California actually has a
greater number of fully qualified teachers available
to teach than there are positions to be filled." If
this evidence is accurate, this would dictate that a
focus should be on efforts to retain and not
necessarily to recruit teachers. More specific,
should the state be looking for new strategies to
retain those teachers who currently are credentialed
(have a preliminary or professional clear credential)
but not, in fact, teaching?
In general, the proposals in this bill are targeted to
recruiting new teachers to low-performing school
sites, thereby overlooking credentialed teachers who
are already working at low-performing schools. Staff
recommends that, where feasible, the proposals
contained in this bill should be revised and broadened
to include teachers who are already at a
low-performing school and are willing to commit to
remain for the same period as a newly recruited
teacher (typically four years.)
5) Fully Credentialed . The bill interchangably uses both
the terms "credentialed" and "fully credentialed".
It is staff's understanding that, practically
speaking, there is no difference between the two and
use of the term "fully" simply confuses practitioners
as they wonder what a non-fully credentialed is.
Accordingly, staff recommends that the bill be amended
to delete the term "fully".
6) Funding . Funding for the proposals contained in SB
1505 are provided in various parts of the Governor's
Budget. Overall, the proposals in SB 1505 are
estimated to cost about $150 million annually.
SUPPORT
County Superintendents of Schools
Intel Corporation
Los Angeles County Office of Education
SB 1505
Page 45
OPPOSITION
None received