(1)Existing law requires the governing board of each school district to establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study and to evaluate and assess certificated employee performance on a continuing basis as it reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward the established standards and, if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments, the instructional techniques and strategies used by the employee, the employees adherence to curricular objectives, and the establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment, within the scope of the employees responsibilities.

This bill would require the superintendent of a school district and a county superintendent of schools to make available to the public, and post on its Internet Web site, if it has one, specified information relating to the evaluation of teachers and principals. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1) Existing law required, on or before July 1, 2014, the governing boards of school districts and county boards of education to adopt a local control and accountability plan using a template adopted by the State Board of Education. Existing law requires the governing board of each school district and each county board of education to update its local control and accountability plan before July 1 of each year. Existing law requires an update to include, among other things, a listing and description of the expenditures for the fiscal year, as specified.

This bill would instead require that the annual update to a school districts local control and accountability plan include a listing and description of the expenditures at the school district level and by schoolsite for the fiscal year, as specified. The bill would also require that the annual update to a county board of educations local control and accountability plan include a listing and description of the expenditures at the county level and by schoolsite for the fiscal year, as specified. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law requires the governing board of each school district to establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study and to evaluate and assess certificated employee performance on a continuing basis as it reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward the established standards and, if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments, the instructional techniques and strategies used by the employee, the employees adherence to curricular objectives, and the establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment, within the scope of the employees responsibilities.

This bill would require the superintendent of a school district and a county superintendent of schools to make available to the public, and post on its Internet Web site, if it has one, specified information relating to the evaluation of teachers and principals. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1) Existing law required, on or before July 1, 2014, the governing boards of school districts and county boards of education to adopt a local control and accountability plan using a template adopted by the State Board of Education. Existing law requires the governing board of each school district and each county board of education to update its local control and accountability plan before July 1 of each year. Existing law requires an update to include, among other things, a listing and description of the expenditures for the fiscal year, as specified.

This bill would instead require that the annual update to a school districts local control and accountability plan include a listing and description of the expenditures at the school district level and by schoolsite for the fiscal year, as specified. The bill would also require that the annual update to a county board of educations local control and accountability plan include a listing and description of the expenditures at the county level and by schoolsite for the fiscal year, as specified. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law requires the governing board of each school district to establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study and to evaluate and assess certificated employee performance on a continuing basis as it reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward the established standards and, if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments, the instructional techniques and strategies used by the employee, the employees adherence to curricular objectives, and the establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment, within the scope of the employees responsibilities.

This bill would require the superintendent of a school district and a county superintendent of schools to make available to the public, and post on its Internet Web site, if it has one, specified information relating to the evaluation of teachers and principals. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 1099 (Olsen) - School accountability: teacher evaluations.

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

This bill requires each school district and county office of education to post information on its website, if it has one, its procedures for evaluating teachers and principals.

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown, potentially significant reimbursable state mandated costs in the high tens of thousands for school districts and county offices of education to post required information online. If the Commission on State Mandates determines the requirements of this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, this could put pressure to increase the K-12 Mandate Block Grant to reflect the inclusion of the new mandate. (Proposition 98)

• The California Department of Education has indicated that any costs associated with implementing this bill would be minor and absorbable.

• Potential increase in local costs related to litigation.

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

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 also establishes a discretionary a framework for a principal evaluation system. It authorizes a governing board of a school district to identify who will conduct the evaluation of each school principal. It also authorizes evaluators and principals to review school success and progress throughout the year and that the review should include goals that are defined by the school district.

It authorizes criteria for effective school principal evaluations to be based up on the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders. The standards are intended to identify a school administrator as being an educational leader who promotes the success of all students through leadership that fosters various related qualities. Finally, it authorizes a principal evaluation to includes several components such as: the academic growth of students, including local and state academic assessments; effective and comprehensive teacher evaluations; the ability to analyze quality instructional strategies; and meaningful self-assessment to improve a professional educator.

Proposed Law:

This bill requires a school district and a county superintendent of schools to make available to the public and post on their websites, if they have one, all of the following:

• An easily understandable explanation of how the evaluation of certificated teaching staff is conducted. This includes all blank evaluation forms; all procedures used for the evaluation of certificated teachers contained in the current collective bargaining agreement; how evaluations include the progress of students toward the locally adopted standards of expected student achievement; and if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state assessments.

• Whether or not the school district or county office of education has adopted an evaluation system for school principals and how it compares to the standards set forth in existing law that describe a discretionary framework for a principal evaluation system, as described in the Background section above.

Staff Comments:

This bill likely creates a new reimbursable state mandate for school districts and county offices of education to post required information on their websites. Costs will likely vary across the state depending on staff time and resources are allocated to meeting the requirements of this bill. The majority of the costs will likely be one-time in nature and absorbable to update information as it may change in future years.

Activities that could be deemed by the Commission on State Mandates to be reimbursable may include:

• Developing an easily understandable explanation of how certificated teaching staff evaluations are conducted.

• Extracting from collective bargaining agreements, procedures used for the evaluation of certificated teachers.

• Indicating how evaluations include the progress of students, as specified.

• Developing a comparison of principal evaluation systems that may be in place with the framework outlined in existing law.

If about half of school districts claim staff time of 3 hours to complete this work at a rate of $60 per hour, including benefits, costs to the state could run in the high tens of thousands.

This bill relates to a recent lawsuit filed against thirteen districts alleging that their collective bargaining agreements do not comply with state law requiring school districts to evaluate teachers based on, in part, the progress of their students toward local and state academic standards. To the extent required information is posted online and school districts are perceived to be out of compliance with current law, this could result in increased costs at the local level for litigation. The magnitude is unknown.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Carol Liu, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 1099

Subject: School accountability: local control and accountability plans: teacher evaluations

SUMMARY

This bill requires each school district and county office of education (COE) to post information on its Internet Web site, if it has one, regarding its procedures for evaluating teachers and principals. This bill also requires the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) of each school district and COE to contain a listing and description of specified expenditures at each school site.

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

4. The establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment within the scope of the employee’s responsibilities. (Education Code § 44660, et seq.)

Chapter 47, Statutes of 2013 (AB 97, Committee on Budget), and subsequent legislation created the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which consolidated most of the state’s categorical programs with general purpose revenue limit funding and would be phased in over the coming years. One of the main principles behind the LCFF is that English learners and low-income students require more attention and resources in the classroom than students who do not have these same challenges. By providing more services (and in turn, additional funding) to these student populations, it is widely believed that this will help close the achievement gap and help all students perform better.

In addition to the LCFF, the 2013 Budget established a new system for school accountability. Under the new system, school districts, county offices of education, and

charter schools are required to complete a local control and accountability plan (LCAP). The LCAP must include a district's annual goals in each of the following eight state priority areas:

1. Student achievement.

2. Student engagement.

3. Other student outcomes.

4. School climate.

5. Implementation of the Common Core State Standards.

6. Course access.

7. Basic services.

8. Parental involvement.

The plans must also include both district wide goals and goals for specific subgroups. Districts are required to consult with stakeholders on their plans and hold at least two public hearings before adopting or updating their LCAP. Additionally, existing law requires each LCAP to include, among other things:

1. A listing and description of district expenditures for the fiscal year implementing the specific actions included in the LCAP and the changes to the specific actions made pursuant to the annual update; and

2. A listing and description of district expenditures for the fiscal year that will serve the pupils who are in at least one of the following categories: eligible for free or reduced-price meals; foster youth; limited English proficient; or redesignated as English proficient.

According to the State Department of Education, regulations require school districts and county office of education (COEs) to specify, in both the LCAP and the annual update to the LCAP, which school sites each goal applies to, the scope of service for a particular action or services, the applicable student subgroups to be served by a goal, action, or service, and the estimated expenditures for each action and service.  School districts and COEs are also required to provide a description of how they are expending funds calculated on the basis of the number and concentration of low-income, foster youth, and English learner pupils.  If a school district or COE chooses to send LCFF funds to school sites to implement one or more of the actions and/or services described in the LCAP, those funds would be captured in the LCAP or annual update to the LCAP of the school district or COE.

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Requires each school district and COE to post on its Internet Web site, if it has one, all of the following:

1. An easily understandable explanation of how the evaluation of certificated teaching staff is conducted, including, but not limited to, all blank evaluation forms, all procedures to be used for the evaluation contained in the current collective bargaining agreement, how evaluations include the progress of pupils toward the locally adopted standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study, and if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments.

2. Whether or not the school district or county office of education (COE) has adopted an evaluation system for school principals, and how it compares to the standards set forth in law, as specified.

2. Requires the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) of each school district and COE to contain a listing and description of specified expenditures at each school site.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author's office, this bill empowers parents to more actively engage with schools and teachers by disclosing principal and teacher evaluation methods and school funding priorities. School districts are not required to demonstrate the evaluation method of its teachers or principals, the level of investment they make in the continuing education of teachers, or how their resources are divided between schools. The author’s office indicates that we can make our education system more effective by providing more information about how schools are measuring quality and spending their resources and that we cannot hold our teachers or principals responsible for the success or failure of schools if districts do not evaluate their performance and invest in their continuing education.

2. Arguments in support. StudentsFirst indicates that this bill “seeks to build on the principles of transparency and accountability that serve as the foundation for California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) by requiring additional transparency for schools, districts, and county offices of education." By requiring school districts and county offices of education to include annual updates about expenditures at the school site level will "shine a light on the extent to which districts are using LCFF dollars to truly provide additional resources to student populations according to their needs." In addition, the bill would lead to increased transparency regarding the quality of the teachers in our classrooms by requiring school districts to “make available to the public, and post on its Web site, information on the process and materials used to evaluate teachers and principals including how the school district incorporates measures of pupil progress towards local and state academic content standards in educator evaluations.” EdVoice indicates that by sharing publicly key information about how teachers and administrators are assessed, parents, teachers, and community members can better engage with district leadership in substantive conversations about how they assess and support their educators.

3. Arguments in opposition. The California Federation of Teachers (CFT) indicates that “the data required to be reported related to teacher evaluations distorts the

purpose and intent of educator evaluations. Effective teacher evaluation systems are designed to identify educator strengths and weaknesses and assist them in improving their practice throughout their careers. California Federation of Teachers (CFT) believes that requiring districts to describe all of the procedures to be used for the evaluation of certificated teachers contained in the current collective bargaining agreement, how evaluations include the progress of pupils towards the locally-adopted standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study and, if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments is totally unnecessary.”

The California Teachers Association indicates that this bill is an unnecessary duplication of existing federal mandates and also duplicates current expenditure disclosure requirements in the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) concerning reporting expenditures for professional development at the school site and county level.

4. LCAPs and school site expenditures. This bill requires the LCAP of each school district and COE to contain a listing and description of specified expenditures at each school site. However, AB 104 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 13, Statutes of 2015), the education trailer bill, contains the following provision: “It is the intent of the Legislature that when the local control funding formula is fully implemented pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 42238.03 of the Education Code, local educational agencies shall be required to report to the Superintendent of Public Instruction for compilation on the State Department of Education’s Internet Web site both of the following: (a) The amount of funds received on the basis of the number and concentration of unduplicated pupils in the current year and, to the extent available, prior fiscal years; and (b) The amount of local control funding formula funds expended on services for unduplicated pupils in the current year and, to the extent available, prior fiscal years commencing with the 2013–14 fiscal year.” Therefore, the bill’s provisions requiring school district and COE LCAPs to include school site expenditures appear to be unnecessary. For this reason, staff recommends that the bill be amended to delete these provisions.

5. Charter schools. The bill’s requirements regarding the posting of procedures for evaluating teachers and principals and for LCAPs to contain a listing and description of school site expenditures only apply to traditional public schools and not to charter schools. While the existing Stull Act only applies to traditional public schools, charter schools and their students, parents, teachers, and community could also benefit from the increased transparency this bill seeks to provide. For this reason, staff recommends that the bill be amended to apply to charter schools as well.

6. Fiscal impact. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill could result in unknown, likely minor, Proposition 98 General Fund state mandated reimbursable costs for school districts and county offices of education to compile school site expenditures data and teacher evaluation materials and post the

information online. Many districts are already compiling this data per existing statute and federal law. Additionally, actual costs will vary by district depending on the number of school sites and the complexity of the data submitted.

SUPPORT

Education Trust—West

EdVoice

StudentsFirst

OPPOSITION

California Federation of Teachers

California School Boards Association

California Teachers Association

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Carol Liu, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 1099

Subject: School accountability: local control and accountability plans: teacher evaluations

SUMMARY

This bill requires each school district and county office of education (COE) to post information on its Internet Web site, if it has one, regarding its procedures for evaluating teachers and principals. This bill also requires the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) of each school district and COE to contain a listing and description of specified expenditures at each school site.

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

4. The establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment within the scope of the employee’s responsibilities. (Education Code § 44660, et seq.)

Chapter 47, Statutes of 2013 (AB 97, Committee on Budget), and subsequent legislation created the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which consolidated most of the state’s categorical programs with general purpose revenue limit funding and would be phased in over the coming years. One of the main principles behind the LCFF is that English learners and low-income students require more attention and resources in the classroom than students who do not have these same challenges. By providing more services (and in turn, additional funding) to these student populations, it is widely believed that this will help close the achievement gap and help all students perform better.

In addition to the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), the 2013 Budget established a new system for school accountability. Under the new system, school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools are required to complete a local control and accountability plan (LCAP). The LCAP must include a district's annual goals in each of the following eight state priority areas:

1. Student achievement.

2. Student engagement.

3. Other student outcomes.

4. School climate.

5. Implementation of the Common Core State Standards.

6. Course access.

7. Basic services.

8. Parental involvement.

The plans must also include both district wide goals and goals for specific subgroups. Districts are required to consult with stakeholders on their plans and hold at least two public hearings before adopting or updating their LCAP. Additionally, existing law requires each LCAP to include, among other things:

1. A listing and description of district expenditures for the fiscal year implementing the specific actions included in the LCAP and the changes to the specific actions made pursuant to the annual update; and

2. A listing and description of district expenditures for the fiscal year that will serve the pupils who are in at least one of the following categories: eligible for free or reduced-price meals; foster youth; limited English proficient; or redesignated as English proficient.

According to the State Department of Education, regulations require school districts and county office of education (COEs) to specify, in both the LCAP and the annual update to the LCAP, which school sites each goal applies to, the scope of service for a particular action or services, the applicable student subgroups to be served by a goal, action, or service, and the estimated expenditures for each action and service.  School districts and COEs are also required to provide a description of how they are expending funds calculated on the basis of the number and concentration of low income, foster youth, and English learner pupils.  If a school district or COE chooses to send LCFF funds to school sites to implement one or more of the actions and/or services described in the LCAP, those funds would be captured in the LCAP or annual update to the LCAP of the school district or COE.

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Requires each school district and COE to post on its Internet Web site, if it has one, all of the following:

1. An easily understandable explanation of how the evaluation of certificated teaching staff is conducted, including, but not limited to, all blank evaluation forms, all procedures to be used for the evaluation contained in the current collective bargaining agreement, how evaluations include the progress of pupils toward the locally adopted standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study, and if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments.

2. Whether or not the school district or county office of education (COE) has adopted an evaluation system for school principals, and how it compares to the standards set forth in law, as specified.

2. Requires the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) of each school district and COE to contain a listing and description of specified expenditures at each school site.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author's office, this bill empowers parents to more actively engage with schools and teachers by disclosing principal and teacher evaluation methods and school funding priorities. School districts are not required to demonstrate the evaluation method of its teachers or principals, the level of investment they make in the continuing education of teachers, or how their resources are divided between schools. The author’s office indicates that we can make our education system more effective by providing more information about how schools are measuring quality and spending their resources and that we cannot hold our teachers or principals responsible for the success or failure of schools if districts do not evaluate their performance and invest in their continuing education.

2. Arguments in support. StudentsFirst indicates that this bill “seeks to build on the principles of transparency and accountability that serve as the foundation for California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) by requiring additional transparency for schools, districts, and county offices of education." By requiring school districts and county offices of education to include annual updates about expenditures at the school site level will "shine a light on the extent to which districts are using LCFF dollars to truly provide additional resources to student populations according to their needs." In addition, the bill would lead to increased transparency regarding the quality of the teachers in our classrooms by requiring school districts to “make available to the public, and post on its Web site, information on the process and materials used to evaluate teachers and principals including how the school district incorporates measures of pupil progress towards local and state academic content standards in educator evaluations.” EdVoice indicates that by sharing publicly key information about how teachers and administrators are assessed, parents, teachers, and community members can better engage with district leadership in substantive conversations about how they assess and support their educators.

3. Arguments in opposition. The California Federation of Teachers (CFT) indicates that “the data required to be reported related to teacher evaluations distorts the purpose and intent of educator evaluations. Effective teacher evaluation systems are designed to identify educator strengths and weaknesses and assist them in improving their practice throughout their careers. CFT believes that requiring districts to describe all of the procedures to be used for the evaluation of certificated teachers contained in the current collective bargaining agreement, how evaluations include the progress of pupils towards the locally-adopted standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study and, if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments is totally unnecessary.”

The California Teachers Association indicates that this bill is an unnecessary duplication of existing federal mandates and also duplicates current expenditure disclosure requirements in the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) concerning reporting expenditures for professional development at the school site and county level.

4. LCAPs and school site expenditures. This bill requires the LCAP of each school district and COE to contain a listing and description of specified expenditures at each school site. However, AB 104 (Committee on Budget), the proposed education trailer bill that was enrolled and sent to the Governor on June 19, 2015, contains the following provision: “It is the intent of the Legislature that when the local control funding formula is fully implemented pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 42238.03 of the Education Code, local educational agencies shall be required to report to the Superintendent of Public Instruction for compilation on the State Department of Education’s Internet Web site both of the following: (a) The amount of funds received on the basis of the number and concentration of unduplicated pupils in the current year and, to the extent available, prior fiscal years; and (b) The amount of local control funding formula funds expended on services for unduplicated pupils in the current year and, to the extent available, prior fiscal years commencing with the 2013–14 fiscal year.” Due to impending action on AB 104, the bill’s provisions requiring school district and COE LCAPs to include school site expenditures appear to be unnecessary. Therefore, staff recommends that the bill be amended to delete these provisions.

5. Charter schools. The bill’s requirements regarding the posting of procedures for evaluating teachers and principals and for LCAPs to contain a listing and description of school site expenditures only apply to traditional public schools and not to charter schools. While the existing Stull Act only applies to traditional public schools, charter schools and their students, parents, teachers, and community could also benefit from the increased transparency this bill seeks to provide. For this reason, staff recommends that the bill be amended to apply to charter schools as well.

6. Fiscal impact. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill could result in unknown, likely minor, Proposition 98 General Fund state mandated reimbursable costs for school districts and county offices of education to compile school site expenditures data and teacher evaluation materials and post the information online. Many districts are already compiling this data per existing statute and federal law. Additionally, actual costs will vary by district depending on the number of school sites and the complexity of the data submitted.

SUPPORT

EdVoice

StudentsFirst

OPPOSITION

California Federation of Teachers

California School Boards Association

California Teachers Association

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1099

Author:(Olsen)

As Amended Ver:May 6, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Requires each school district and county office of education (COE) to post information on its Internet Web site, if it has one, regarding its procedures for evaluating teachers and principals. Also requires the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) of each school district and county office of education to contain a listing and description of specified expenditures at each schoolsite.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires school districts to evaluate and assess certificated employee performance as it reasonable relates to:

   1. The progress of pupils toward performance standards;

   2. The instructional techniques and strategies used by the employee;

   3. The employee's adherence to curricular objectives; and

   4. The establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment within the scope of the employee's responsibilities.

2. Requires school districts and COEs to adopt and annually update an LCAP.

3. Requires the LCAP to include, among other things:

   1. A listing and description of district expenditures for the fiscal year implementing the specific actions included in the local control and accountability plan and the changes to the specific actions made pursuant to the annual update; and

   2. A listing and description of district expenditures for the fiscal year that will serve the pupils who are in at least one of the following categories:

      1. Eligible for free or reduced-price meals;

      2. Foster youth;

      3. Limited English proficient; or

      4. Redesignated as English proficient.

4. Requires the district expenditures to be classified using the California School Accounting Manual.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, unknown, likely minor, Proposition 98 (1988)/General Fund state mandated reimbursable costs for school districts and COEs to compile schoolsite expenditure data and teacher evaluation materials and post the information online. Many districts are already be compiling this data per existing state and federal law. Actual costs will vary by district depending on the number of school sites and the complexity of data submitted.

COMMENTS: Existing law requires LCAPs to contain a description of district and COE expenditures of the actions described in the LCAP to achieve the goals specified in the LCAP. This bill extends that requirement to schoolsite expenditures for each school within a district and COE. In addition, this bill requires each school district and COE to provide detailed information on its procedures for evaluation and how the evaluations include the progress of pupils toward the locally adopted standards of achievement.

According to the author's office, this bill provides more transparency in two areas – processes and procedures for teacher and principal evaluation and the expenditure of funds at each schoolsite to the specific actions described in LCAPs. This "can make our education system more effective by providing more information about how schools are measuring quality and spending their resources." In addition, the author's office argues that "we cannot hold our teachers or principals responsible for the success or failure of schools if districts do not evaluate their performance and invest in their continuing education."

Analysis Prepared by: Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0000520

Date of Hearing: May 20, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1099

Author:(Olsen) – As Amended Ver:May 6, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill requires each school district and county office of education (COE) to post information on its Internet Web site, if it has one, regarding its procedures for evaluating teachers and principals. Further, requires the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) of each school district and COE to contain a listing and description of specified expenditures at each schoolsite.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown, likely minor, Proposition 98/GF state mandated reimbursable costs for school districts and COEs to compile schoolsite expenditure data and teacher evaluation materials and post the information online. Many districts are already be compiling this data per existing state and federal law. Actual costs will vary by district depending on the number of school sites and the complexity of data submitted.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. Students First supports this bill to "build on the principles of transparency and accountability". First, requiring detailed disclosure of schoolsite spending will "shine a light on the extent to which districts are using LCFF dollars to truly provide additional resources to student populations according to their needs." Second, requiring public posting of the process and materials used for teacher and principal evaluation is important, because "information on teacher quality is essential for parents and families to truly understand the quality of the schools in their community."

2. Background. Each district and COE is required to develop an LCAP which serves as the spending plan that accompanies each local education agency budget. The LCAP describes the goals, actions, services, and expenditures to support positive student outcomes that address state and local priorities. The LCAP does not ask for details about specific actions or tasks; rather it focuses on strategic goals, progression of outcomes, and services and related expenditures based on local need.

According to California Department of Education (CDE), regulations require school districts and COEs to specify, in both the LCAP and the annual update to the LCAP, which school sites each goal applies to, the scope of service for a particular action or services, the applicable student subgroups to be served by a goal, action, or service, and the estimated expenditures for each action and service.  School districts and COEs are also required to provide a description of how they are expending funds calculated on the basis of the number and concentration of low income, foster youth, and English learner pupils.  If a school district or COE chooses to send LCFF funds to school sites to implement one or more of the actions and/or services described in the LCAP, those funds would be captured in the LCAP or annual update to the LCAP of the school district or COE.

3. Opposition. The California School Employees Association oppose this bill and state it is an unnecessary duplication of existing law. Specifically, they note federal law requires state agencies to collect information regarding the system used to evaluate the performance of teachers and principals, the overall performance evaluation rating for all teachers at the school, and the overall performance rating for principals districtwide.

Analysis Prepared by: Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1099

Author:(Olsen) – As Introduced Ver:February 27, 2015

SUBJECT: School accountability: local control and accountability plans: teacher evaluations

SUMMARY: Requires each school district and county office of education (COE) to post information on its Internet Web site, if it has one, regarding its procedures for evaluating teachers and principals. Also requires the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) of each school district and county office of education to contain a listing and description of specified expenditures at each schoolsite. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires each school district and county office of education (COE) to post the following on its Internet Web site, if it has one:

   1. An easily understandable explanation of how the evaluation of certificated teaching staff is conducted, including, but not limited to, all blank evaluation forms, all procedures to be used for the evaluation of certificated teachers contained in the current collective bargaining agreement, how evaluations include the progress of pupils toward the locally adopted standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study, and, if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments;

   2. Aggregate data on the number of certificated teachers at each schoolsite that receive satisfactory or unsatisfactory evaluations, unless the posting of this data would reveal personally identifiable information; and

   3. Whether or not the school district or county office of education has adopted an evaluation system for school principals, and how it compares to the standards set forth in Sections 44670 and 44671 of the Education Code.

2. Requires each school district and county office of education (COE) to include the following in its LCAP:

   1. A listing and description of the expenditures for the fiscal year implementing the specific actions included in the local control and accountability plan and the changes to the specific actions made pursuant to the annual update;

   2. A listing and description of expenditures for the fiscal year that will serve the pupils who are in at least one of the following categories:

      1. Eligible for free or reduced-price meals;

      2. Foster youth;

      3. Limited English proficient; or

      4. Redesignated as English proficient.

3. Requires the schoolsite expenditures to be classified using the California School Accounting Manual.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires school districts to evaluate and assess certificated employee performance as it reasonable relates to:

   1. The progress of pupils toward performance standards;

   2. The instructional techniques and strategies used by the employee;

   3. The employee's adherence to curricular objectives; and

   4. The establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment within the scope of the employee's responsibilities.

2. Requires school districts and COEs to adopt and annually update an LCAP.

3. Requires the LCAP to include, among other things:

   1. A listing and description of district expenditures for the fiscal year implementing the specific actions included in the local control and accountability plan and the changes to the specific actions made pursuant to the annual update; and

   2. A listing and description of district expenditures for the fiscal year that will serve the pupils who are in at least one of the following categories:

      1. Eligible for free or reduced-price meals;

      2. Foster youth;

      3. Limited English proficient; or

      4. Redesignated as English proficient.

4. Requires the district expenditures to be classified using the California School Accounting Manual.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Existing law requires LCAPs to contain a description of district and COE expenditures of the actions described in the LCAP to achieve the goals specified in the LCAP. This bill extends that requirement to schoolsite expenditures for each school within a district and COE. In addition, this bill requires each school district and COE to provide detailed on its procedures for evaluation, how the evaluations include the progress of pupils toward the locally adopted standards of achievement, and the number of teacher at each schoolsite who receive satisfactory or unsatisfactory ratings.

Need for the bill. According to the author's office, this bill provides more transparency in two areas—processes and procedures for teacher and principal evaluation and the expenditure of funds at each schoolsite to the specific actions described in LCAPs. This "can make our education system more effective by providing more information about how schools are measuring quality and spending their resources." In addition, the author's office argues that "we cannot hold our teachers or principals responsible for the success or failure of schools if districts do not evaluate their performance and invest in their continuing education."

Arguments in support. In its letter of support, Students First argues that this bill will "build on the principles of transparency and accountability" in two ways. First, by required detailed disclosure of schoolsite spending, this will "shine a light on the extent to which districts are using LCFF dollars to truly provide additional resources to student populations according to their needs." Second, requiring public posting of the process and materials used for teacher and principal evaluation is important, because "teachers are the single-most important in school factor influencing student achievement, [and] information on teacher quality is essential for parents and families to truly understand the quality of the schools in their community."

Arguments in opposition. Opponents argue that this bill is an unnecessary duplication of federal mandates, which require states to report the following:

• Information regarding the system used to evaluate the performance of teachers and principals;

• The overall performance evaluation rating for all teachers at each school; and

• The overall performance evaluation rating for all principals district-wide.

Charter schools. This bill does not apply to charter schools, which, according to data from the California Department of Education, enrolled about 514,000 pupils in 2013-14. This is about 8% of total public school K-12 enrollment in California. This is a significant number of public school pupils who would not benefit from the increased transparency required by this bill. As noted by Students First, "information on teacher quality is essential for parents and families to truly understand the quality of the schools in their community." The committee may wish to consider why the parents and families of charter school pupils should be denied the same level of transparency and accountability as the parents and families of non-charter school pupils.

Committee amendments. This bill requires aggregate data on the number of certificated teachers at each schoolsite that receive satisfactory or unsatisfactory evaluations to be posted on the Internet, unless the posting of this data would reveal personally identifiable information. This presumes that "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory" will continue to be categories. However, legislation is pending that would create more than two categories of teacher performance, and those labels may not be used in the future. In addition, any such information is likely to be inaccurate at any point in time, as teachers are reassigned to and from schools. Finally, it is impossible to assess the circumstances under which the posting of such data may reveal personally identifiable information, leading to a potential violation of confidentiality. For these reasons, staff recommends that the bill be amended to delete this provision.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Students First

Opposition

California Teachers Association

Analysis Prepared by: Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087