AB 1078
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 1078 (Olsen) – As Introduced February 27, 2015
SUBJECT: Teachers: evaluations
SUMMARY: Makes changes to the certificated employee evaluation system, known as the Stull
Act. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires the State Board of Education (SBE), by July 1, 2016 to revise, update and adopt
guidelines that school districts may use in the development of teacher evaluation procedures;
and, requires the updated guidelines to include, but not necessarily be limited to, a
determination that a teacher's overall performance is highly effective, effective, minimally
effective or ineffective.
2) Prohibits the SBE from granting any waiver request by a governing board of a school district
if the state board finds the governing board of the school district to be out of compliance with
subdivision (a) or paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 44662, or out of compliance
with the requirement to confer with a certificated employee making specific
recommendations as to areas of improvement in the certificated employee’s performance and
endeavor to assist the certificated employee in his or her performance.
3) Encourages the governing board of a school district to use peer observation and surveys of
parents and students as part of the evaluation and assessment guidelines or criteria for
certificated employees.
4) Requires all certificated employees to be evaluated annually, which shall result in a
determination of highly effective, effective, minimally effective or ineffective.
5) Defines "unsatisfactory" to mean an evaluation that results in a determination of ineffective
or minimally effective; and, defines "satisfactory" to mean an evaluation that results in a
determination of effective or highly effective.
6) Specifies to the extent that this bill conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining
agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining
representative before January 1, 2016, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section
3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the changes made to by this bill shall
not apply to the school district until expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining
agreement.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Establishes the Stull Act, enacted in 1971, which governs certificated employee evaluations
and requires school districts to evaluate and assess teacher performance as it reasonability
relates to pupil performance on criterion referenced tests, teacher technique and strategies,
curricular objectives, and the maintenance of a suitable learning environment. Specifies that
in the development and adoption of evaluation guidelines and procedures, the governing
board shall avail itself of the advice of the certificated instructional personnel in the district's
AB 1078
Page 2
organization of certificated personnel pursuant to collective bargaining statutes. Specifies
that a school district may, by mutual agreement between the exclusive representative of the
certificated employees of the school district and the governing board of the school district,
include any objective standards from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
or any objective standards from the California Standards for the Teaching Profession.
Specifies that teacher evaluations shall be made on a continuing basis 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 personnel with permanent status who have
been employed at least 10 years with the school district, are highly qualified, if those
personnel occupy positions that are required to be filled by a highly qualified professional,
and whose previous evaluation rated the employee as meeting or exceeding standards, if the
evaluator and certificated employee being evaluated agree. Specifies that an employee who
receives an unsatisfactory rating in the area of teaching methods or instruction may be
required to participate in a program designed to improve appropriate areas of the employee's
performance; and, requires if a school district participates in the Peer Assistance and Review
Program for Teachers (PAR), employees who receive an unsatisfactory rating shall
participate in PAR. (Education Code 44660 et. seq.)
2) Establishes the Peer Assistance and Review Program for Teachers (PAR) by authorizing
school districts and the exclusive representative of the certificated employees to develop and
implement the program locally. Specifies that assistance and review shall include multiple
observations of a teacher during periods of classroom instruction. Specifies the program
shall expect and strongly encourage a cooperative relationship between the consulting
teacher and the principal with respect to the process of peer assistance and review. Specifies
the school district shall provide sufficient staff development activities to assist a teacher to
improve his or her teaching skills and knowledge. Specifies the final evaluation of a
teacher's participation in the program shall be made available for placement in the personnel
file of the teacher receiving assistance. (Education Code 44505)
FISCAL EFFECT: Legislative counsel has keyed this bill a state mandated local program.
COMMENTS: This bill makes changes to the certificated employee evaluation system, known
as the Stull Act.
According to the author, The Stull Act was passed in 1971 to provide school districts with a
timeline for teacher evaluations, and to designate the importance of peer review and student
academic performance in such evaluations. However, the Act lacks definition and guidelines,
and school districts have largely ignored its provisions. AB 1078 would improve teacher
evaluations by modernizing the Stull Act to develop meaningful teacher evaluations that will
help both teachers and students continue on the path to success.
Operative Date: If enacted, this bill has as operative January 1, 2016, but the revised SBE
guidance is not available until July 1, 2016. The committee should consider whether the revised
SBE guidance should be published and distributed to school districts before the operative date of
the bill.
SBE Waivers: This bill prohibits all SBE waivers from being granted if a school district does not
do both of the following:
1) Establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study.
AB 1078
Page 3
2) Evaluate and assess certificated employee performance as it reasonably relates to the
progress of pupils toward the standards, the state adopted academic content standards as
measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments.
Under this provision, it is unclear what the status of existing SBE waivers would hold. Would the
SBE waivers that have been approved to date, be void?
Research on Evaluation: Several research studies detail the essential principals and components
of a strong teacher evaluation system. The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality
argues a strong evaluation system must: "involve teachers and stakeholders in developing the
system; use multiple indicators; and give teachers opportunities to improve in the areas in which
they score poorly." Likewise, the New Teacher Project states "evaluations should provide all
teachers with regular feedback that helps them grow as professionals, no matter how long they
have been in the classroom. The primary purpose of evaluations should not be punitive. Good
evaluations identify excellent teachers and help teachers of all skill levels understand how they
can improve." This bill does not implement multiple indicators for teacher evaluation.
According to StudentsFirst, "A growing body of research on teacher evaluation measures and
best practices from other states across the country supports the use of standards-based
observation tools and objective measures of student growth for evaluating teacher performance.
However, AB 1078 does not include requirements that districts utilize research-based measures
of teacher performance within locally adopted teacher evaluation systems and provides no
guidance for how each of these measures should be weighted in the final rating."
Evaluation Frequency: This bill requires annual evaluation of all certificated employees.
Currently, permanent teachers are evaluated at least every other year; and, teachers with more
than 10 years of experience are authorized to be evaluated every five years. This bill will require
experienced teachers to be evaluated more frequently. It is unclear how many teachers are
currently evaluated every other year versus every five years and thus it is unclear how this bill
will affect administrator work load to complete the increased number of evaluations. It is
unclear whether our current administrative organization at schools will allow for annual
evaluations of every teacher. The committee should consider whether this will be possible given
the fact that many schools have a single principal. If the committee agrees that annual evaluation
is appropriate, the committee should further consider whether it will be possible for principals to
receive enough support from the district to accomplish this starting year one.
Professional Development: This bill specifies that teachers who receive an unsatisfactory rating
on their evaluation (those deemed ineffective and minimally effective), if a school district has a
PAR program in place, they must refer teachers who receive an unsatisfactory review to the PAR
program for improvement. The bill does not specify the process if a teacher continues to receive
unsatisfactory evaluations after the PAR program is complete. It is unclear whether school
districts should begin dismissal proceedings, or provide further instructional support for the
teacher.
Performance Bands: This bill requires the state prescribed evaluation system to use four
prescribed performance bands which include: "highly effective," "effective," "minimally
effective," and "ineffective." The committee should consider whether four performance levels
would be the appropriate number, and whether the four levels specified in the bill are the most
effective performance level descriptors that should be used state-wide.
AB 1078
Page 4
Parent and Student Surveys and Peer Observations: This bill encourages the use of peer
evaluations and surveys from parents and pupils in certificated employee evaluations. The
committee should consider whether it is appropriate to include peer observations, if those peers
are not involved in appropriate training. The committee should also consider whether it is
appropriate to include surveys from parents and students in certificated employee evaluations.
The committee should consider whether it is possible for a particularly "tough" teacher that
assigns robust homework to receive negative survey comments, when they are a very effective
teacher and how this would impact the overall evaluation of that teacher. Likewise, if surveys
from parents and students included in a principal's evaluation, comment on suspensions and
expulsions, is that appropriate?
Charter Schools: This bill requires all traditional public schools in the state to adopt the changes
to the teacher evaluation system, but the committee should note that the Stull Act and the
changes made in this bill do not apply to charter schools. The committee should consider
whether charter schools teachers should be left out of this opportunity for annual evaluations and
support.
Related Legislation: AB 575 (O'Donnell & Atkins) from 2015, which is pending in the
Assembly, would require the governing board of each school district and the governing body of
each charter school to adopt and implement a best practices teacher and administrator evaluation
system by July 1, 2018.
AB 1495 (Weber) from 2015, which is pending in the Assembly, would make changes to the
certificated employee evaluation system, known as the Stull Act.
SB 499 (Liu & DeLeon) from 2015, which is pending in the Senate, would require the governing
board of each school district to adopt and implement a best practices teacher and administrator
evaluation system by July 1, 2016.
AB 430 (Olsen) from 2013, which was held by the author in the Assembly Education
Committee, would have established the Teacher Professional Growth Plan, as specified.
AB 5 (Fuentes) from 2009, which was held by the author on the Senate Floor, would have
required the governing board of each school district to adopt and implement a best practices
teacher evaluation system, as specified.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
CalChamber
EdVoice
Students Matter
Opposition
California Federation of Teachers
California Teachers Association
Analysis Prepared by: Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087