BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-14 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 441
AUTHOR: Calderon
AMENDED: April 9, 2013
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 24, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lenin Del Castillo
SUBJECT : Teachers: teacher evaluations.
SUMMARY
This bill amends various provisions of existing law governing
the evaluation of certificated employees by requiring the
evaluations to use multiple measures, including a minimum of
four rating levels, increasing the frequency of evaluations
for teachers with 10 or more years of experience in a school
district from every five years to every three years, and
requiring school districts to avail itself to the input of
parents.
BACKGROUND
Under existing law, the Stull Act expresses legislative
intent that school districts and county governing boards
establish a uniform system of evaluation and assessment of
certificated personnel. With the exception of certificated
personnel who are employed on an hourly basis to teach adult
education classes, the Stull Act requires school districts to
evaluate and assess teacher performance as it reasonably
relates to:
1) Progress of pupils toward district-adopted and, if
applicable, state-adopted academic content standards as
measured by state-adopted criterion referenced tests;
2) Instructional techniques and strategies used by the
employee;
3) The employee's adherence to curricular objectives; and
SB 441
Page 2
4) The establishment and maintenance of a suitable
learning environment within the scope of the employee's
responsibilities.
(Education Code § 44660 et. seq.)
Existing law requires an evaluation and assessment of the
performance of each certificated employee to be made at least
once each school year for probationary personnel, at least
every other year for personnel with permanent status, and at
least every five years for permanent employees who have been
employed with the district at least 10 years and were rated
as meeting or exceeding standards in their previous
evaluation. Teachers who receive an unsatisfactory rating
may be required to participate in a program designed to
improve the employee's performance and to further pupil
achievement and the instructional objectives of the district.
However, if the district participates in the Peer Assistance
and Review (PAR) program, then the teachers who receive an
unsatisfactory rating are required to participate in that
program. (Education Code § 44664)
Existing law establishes the PAR program for teachers by
authorizing school districts and the exclusive representative
of the certificated employees to develop and implement the
program locally. The PAR programs are to include multiple
observations of a teacher during periods of classroom
instruction and sufficient staff development activities to
assist a teacher in improving his or her skills and
knowledge. The final evaluation of a teacher's participation
in the program is made available for placement in his or her
personnel file. (Education Code § 44505)
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has established a
process by which states may request flexibility on behalf of
themselves, local educational agencies, and schools, by
applying for a waiver from certain requirements of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The waiver is intended
to provide educators and state and local leaders with
flexibility regarding specific requirements of NCLB
(principally, the requirement that all students be proficient
in math and reading by 2014 and won't have to identify
additional schools failing to meet targets) in exchange for
rigorous and comprehensive state-developed plans designed to
improve educational outcomes for all students, close
achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of
instruction.
SB 441
Page 3
Instructions provided by the DOE indicate that to receive the
flexibility, a state's educational agency and each local
educational agency must commit to develop, adopt, pilot and
implement, with the involvement of teachers and principals,
teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that:
(1) will be used for continual improvement of instruction;
(2) meaningfully differentiate performance using at least
three performance levels; (3) use multiple valid measures in
determining performance levels, including as a significant
factor, data on student growth for all students (including
English Learners and students with disabilities), and other
measures of professional practice (which may be gathered
through multiple formats and sources, such as observations
based on rigorous teacher performance standards, teacher
portfolios, and student and parent surveys); (4) evaluate
teachers and principals on a regular basis; (5) provide
clear, timely, and useful feedback, including feedback that
identifies needs and guides professional development; and (6)
will be used to inform personnel decisions.
The DOE has granted waivers to over 30 states. In June 2012,
California submitted a request to set aside specific
requirements of the NCLB and requested that the DOE allow the
state to use its own accountability system to ensure that all
schools improve. California's request differs from those
filed by other states that agreed to several additional
federally required policies in exchange for the NCLB waiver.
The request was denied In December 2012.
Court ruling
In November 2011, a group of parents filed a law suit on
behalf of their children, (Doe et. al. v Deasy et. al.)
asking the court to compel the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD), its superintendent, and its board of
education to comply with the Stull Act's requirement to
evaluate teachers and administrators based in part on student
performance. In July 2012, Superior Court Judge Chalfant
found that the LAUSD was not in compliance with the Stull Act
and was violating its mandatory duty under the Act to use
pupil progress in teacher and principal evaluations. The
Court ruled that LAUSD must modify its current evaluation
process to comply with the Stull Act requirement to
incorporate an assessment of the employee's performance as it
reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward the
SB 441
Page 4
district standards at each grade level in each area of study
and as it reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward
State adopted academic content standards as measured by State
adopted criterion referenced assessments, if applicable.
LAUSD and UTLA Supplemental Agreement
In response to the requirements of the Doe v. Deasy court
order, LAUSD and United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) reached
an agreement on additional teacher evaluation guidelines as a
supplemental agreement to the existing collective bargaining
agreement (Article X of the District-UTLA Agreement). The
supplemental agreement was ratified by UTLA members in
January 2013, and changes the current evaluation process to
incorporate the consideration of data of pupil progress into
both the goal-setting planning sheets and in the final
evaluation. Specifically, LAUSD administrators must ensure
that a student performance data goal be incorporated into a
teacher's initial planning sheet and that both classroom
level and student outcome data and schoolwide Academic Growth
Over Time information be considered and used when determining
a teacher's overall performance in making a final evaluation.
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Requires the governing board of school districts to
avail itself of the advice of the parents of students,
including obtaining systematic and continuing input
through open feedback sessions, surveys, and specific
focus groups by subject matter and grade level as part
of the evaluation guidelines and procedures of
certificated staff.
2) Requires that the governing board of school districts
regularly evaluate and assess the performance of
certificated staff using multiple measures, including a
minimum of four rating levels. The governing board of a
school district shall define each rating level used.
3) Requires that the evaluation and assessment of the
performance of certificated staff be made at least every
three years for personnel who have been employed at
least 10 years with the school district, are highly
SB 441
Page 5
qualified, if those personnel occupy positions that are
required to be filled by a highly qualified professional
by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and
whose previous evaluation rated the employee as meeting
or exceeding standards.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill : According to the author's office,
the current teacher evaluations process under the Stull
Act has proved to be insufficient in the recognition of
high performing teachers and the identification of those
that could benefit from professional development. While
some districts incorporate student performance in their
evaluation systems, others do not, and in districts that
simply rate their employees as "meeting" or "not
meeting" expectations, teachers may not receive
sufficient feedback during the evaluation process to
understand how to improve their practice.
According to a 2010 report released by the National
Board Resource Center at Stanford University, "While
evaluation processes across the state vary widely, many
of them look very much the same as they did in 1971."
Comments from Accomplished California Teachers indicate
that current approaches to teacher evaluation results in
a system that teachers do not trust, that rarely offers
clear direction for improving practice, and often
charges school leaders to implement without preparation
or resources. A January 2011 report by the Center for
the Future of Teaching and Learning (CFTL) notes that
evaluations pay "scarce attention to student learning or
do not connect that learning to elements of teacher
content knowledge or instructional skills that could be
improved."
Several research studies document the correlation
between teacher quality and student achievement whereby
differential teacher effectiveness is a strong
determinant of differences in student learning, far
outweighing the effects of differences in class size and
heterogeneity. Studies have shown that students who are
assigned to several ineffective teachers in a row have
significantly lower achievement and gains in achievement
than those who are assigned to several highly effective
teachers.
SB 441
Page 6
The stated purpose of this bill is to strengthen teacher
quality by improving the state's teacher evaluation
system by providing the necessary clarity and direction
for a uniform evaluation framework that improves teacher
quality.
2) Expands the scope of bargaining ? Current law enumerates
evaluation procedures as a mandatory subject of
collective bargaining. Opponents of the bill contend
that this bill could have the effect of requiring
districts to bargain aspects of the system, such as
evaluation criteria, that could significantly abridge
the freedom of school districts to exercise managerial
prerogatives essential to the achievement of their
mission. Although some districts currently bargain
evaluation criteria with their local unions, the
Association of California School Administrators has
noted that under current law, criteria within the
evaluation are not a mandatory subject of bargaining.
3) Parent feedback ? This bill provides the ability for
parents of students to provide feedback as part of the
teacher evaluation process. Under current law, a school
district may dismiss a teacher based on performance
deemed to be unsatisfactory. Would it be appropriate
for teacher evaluations to incorporate potentially
subjective feedback from parents, especially when it
could lead to an unsatisfactory rating and ultimately a
teacher's dismissal? Additionally, to the extent that
evaluation criteria is subject to collective bargaining,
could this lead to the insertion of parents as a third
party into negotiations?
4) Meets federal waiver requirements ? SB 441 requires
local evaluation systems to differentiate teacher
performance using at least four performance levels.
Binary systems, in which teachers receive either a
"satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" rating, do not comply
with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB). Arguably, these changes could strengthen
California's position relative to its request for the
federal NCLB waiver. However, the bill's requirements
may not be sufficient to qualify the state for the NCLB
waiver because the bill does not require data on student
growth to be a "significant factor" in a teacher's
SB 441
Page 7
evaluation and does not address the U.S. Department of
Education's requirement that evaluations be used to
inform personnel decisions. It is unclear whether this
would threaten the ability of school districts to submit
a competitive application for any future waiver programs
that may be made available by the federal government.
5) Related and prior legislation .
SB 453 (Huff) authorizes the governing board of a school
district to evaluate and assess the performance of
certificated employees using a multiple-measures
evaluation system, authorizes school districts to make
specified employment decisions based on teacher
performance, and expands the reasons districts may
deviate from the order of seniority in terminating and
reappointing teachers, as specified. This bill is also
scheduled to be heard by this Committee on April 24,
2013.
SB 657 (Block) repeals the Stull Act and adds various
intent language and declarations regarding teacher
evaluations. This bill is pending before this
Committee.
AB 430 (Olson) amends various provisions of existing law
governing the evaluation of certificated employees, as
specified. This bill is pending before the Assembly
Education Committee.
SB 1292 (Liu), Chapter 435, Statutes of 2012, authorizes
the evaluation of school principals based on the
California Professional Standards for Educational
Leaders as well as evidence of pupil academic growth,
effective and comprehensive teacher evaluations,
culturally responsive instructional strategies, the
ability to analyze quality instructional strategies and
provide effective feedback, and effective school
management.
SB 355 (Huff, 2011) would have authorized the evaluation
and assessment of certificated employees using a
multiple-measures evaluation system, authorized local
educational associations to assign, reassign, and
transfer teachers and administrators based on
effectiveness and subject matter needs without regard to
SB 441
Page 8
years of service, and authorized districts to deviate
from the order of seniority in terminating and
reappointing teachers, as specified. This measure
failed passage in this Committee on May 2011.
SUPPORT
California Mayors (cities of Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San
Jose)
California United to Reform Education
EdVoice
Lanai Road Education Action Committee
Los Angeles Unified School District
Office of the Mayor of San Francisco
National Action Network Los Angeles
Orange County Business Council
Parent Partnership
Parent Revolution
Parents Advocate League
San Diego United Parents for Education
Simmons Group Inc.
Stand Up for Great Schools
Students First
Letters from various individuals
OPPOSITION
California Federation of Teachers
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
United Teachers Los Angeles