January 28, 2014
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9005, we have reviewed the
proposed statutory initiative related to performance evaluations,
layoffs, and dismissals of public school teachers (A.G. File No.
13-0058).
Background
Under current law, school districts must follow certain rules when
evaluating teachers, conducting teacher layoffs, and dismissing teachers
who are accused of serious offenses, as described below.
Teacher Evaluations
Regular Performance Evaluations Required for All
Teachers. Current law requires school districts to
evaluate teachers on a regular basis. Probationary teachers must be
evaluated at least once a year. Districts must evaluate permanent
teachers at least once every other year. (Teachers typically become
permanent after completing two years as a probationary teacher.)
Permanent teachers who have been employed at least ten years in a
district and who have met or exceeded standards on their most recent
performance reviews can be evaluated once every five years.
Evaluations Must Include Certain Elements.
State law requires each evaluation to assess teacher performance in the
following areas: (1) student progress on grade-level standards and state
assessments, (2) instructional techniques and strategies, (3) adherence
to curricular objectives, and (4) learning environment. Current law is
not specific regarding how performance in these four areas is to be
measured. Typically, details such as how many observations must be
conducted for each evaluation or how student progress will be measured
are collectively bargained between individual districts and teachers
unions.
State Law Requires Written Notice, Extra Support for
Teachers Rated Unsatisfactory. Each evaluation must
include recommendations, if necessary, for improvement. Districts must
advise teachers who receive an unsatisfactory rating how they can
improve and must evaluate them on an annual basis until they receive a
positive review. Districts also may require these teachers to
participate in a professional development program. Teachers who receive
satisfactory ratings typically also participate in professional
development activities, but state law does not require districts to
provide these opportunities for these teachers in response to the
evaluation process.
Teacher Layoffs
School Districts Must Lay Off Most Recent Hires First.
Current law describes three conditions under which school
districts can lay off teachers. These are: (1) if student enrollment
declines, (2) if a particular program or service is eliminated (which
usually is connected with budget reductions), or (3) if the state
changes requirements for what must be taught. (A layoff due to these
reasons is different from a dismissal for unsatisfactory performance or
misconduct.) State law requires districts to lay off teachers in order
of reverse seniority. That is, probationary teachers must be laid off
before permanent teachers, and permanent teachers who were most recently
hired must be laid off before more senior teachers.
Non-Seniority Criteria Can Be Used in Two Specified
Cases. In two cases, school districts can use criteria
other than seniority to determine which teachers are laid off. First,
districts can sidestep seniority order if they can demonstrate that a
junior teacher who would otherwise be laid off meets a high-priority
need for the district (for example, teaching students with special needs
or English learners). Second, districts can deviate from seniority order
“for purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance with constitutional
requirements related to equal protection of the laws.”
Teacher Dismissal
School Districts Must Grant Teachers Convicted of Serious
Offenses an Administrative Hearing, if Requested. Current
law requires that districts place teachers on immediate leave if they
are charged with the following offenses:
- Sex crimes including rape, prostitution, child molestation, and
child pornography.
- Drug crimes that involve the provision of certain drugs to
minors.
If a teacher is convicted of one of these crimes, the Commission on
Teacher Credentialing (CTC) revokes his or her credential (as described
below) and the school district initiates the dismissal process. Whenever
a district initiates dismissal proceedings, it must provide written
notice to the teacher and grant an associated administrative hearing if
one is requested by the teacher.
CTC Must Revoke Credentials for Certain Offenses.
In addition to requiring districts to place teachers on immediate leave
for certain serious offenses, state law also requires CTC to revoke a
teacher’s credentials if the charges are substantiated. (The CTC is
required to revoke credentials for the sex and drug crimes listed above
as well as certain serious felonies, such as murder.) Teachers can apply
for reinstatement of their credentials one year after revocation if they
can demonstrate that they have been rehabilitated from the conduct that
led to the revocation.
Proposal
The measure makes certain changes to state law in the areas of
teacher evaluations, layoffs, and dismissals.
Teacher Evaluations
Requires Annual Performance Evaluations, Except for
High-Performing Teachers. The measure would require each
district to develop a new evaluation system for rating teachers that
incorporates multiple elements (described below) and includes at least
four performance levels. In general, districts would be required to
evaluate and rate all teachers annually. With state approval, districts
would be able to conduct a more limited evaluation (one assessing fewer
performance elements) for high-performing teachers. Even these more
limited evaluations, however, would have to include an assessment of
student achievement growth. With state approval, districts also could
evaluate a teacher less than annually if he or she received one of the
top two ratings on the three most recent performance evaluations. At a
minimum, teachers would have to be evaluated once every three years.
Evaluations Would Have to Include Certain Elements.
Evaluations would incorporate an assessment of teacher
performance on several standards, including: pupil progress, curriculum
and planning, and family and community engagement. Districts would have
to measure these standards using the following:
- Student Achievement Growth. This would
be measured by change in individual students’ performance on state
assessments between two or more points in time. If student
achievement in a particular grade or subject is not measured by a
state standardized assessment, the district would have to use other
state-approved measures of student learning. At least one-third of
the teacher’s performance rating would have to be based on student
achievement growth.
- Classroom Performance. Employers would
have to conduct multiple classroom observations of teachers,
including announced and unannounced visits. Multiple individuals,
which could include principals, peers, or other qualified staff,
would have to observe the teacher in the classroom.
- Parent and Student Feedback. Parent
feedback would be used to evaluate teachers for all grades. Student
feedback also would be used for grades 9 through 12.
Professional Growth Plans and Support Required for All
Teachers. The measure would add a new requirement related
to teacher professional development. All teachers—regardless of their
performance ratings—would have to develop professional growth plans in
consultation with their supervisors that outlined goals and strategies
to improve their performance and better address student needs. Districts
would have to provide mentoring, support, and professional development
specific to the needs of every teacher.
Teacher Layoffs
Establishes Performance as Primary Basis for Teacher
Layoffs. The measure changes the criteria districts use to
determine which teachers to lay off. Except in specified circumstances,
school districts would be required to base teacher layoff decisions
solely on teacher performance ratings—using the new system described
above—rather than seniority. Generally, an average performance rating
for the past three years would be used. (The rating of newer teachers
would be based on one or two years, as applicable.) If a district
determined that two teachers had received the same performance rating,
the employer would have to consider the district’s specific needs when
determining layoff order. If two teachers could not be distinguished by
either performance or district needs, the district would then turn to
seniority, laying off the most recently hired teacher first. These
provisions would take precedence over all collective bargaining
agreements entered into after the measure takes effect.
Teacher Dismissals
No Hearing Would Be Required to Dismiss Teachers
Convicted of Serious Offenses. Unlike current law, school
districts no longer would have to provide an opportunity for a hearing
before dismissing teachers who are convicted of serious crimes. Crimes
triggering automatic dismissal would include the sex and drug crimes
that currently require an immediate leave of absence, as well as certain
other serious felonies.
Teachers Convicted of Certain Crimes Would Be Barred From
Ever Teaching in the State. In addition to automatic
dismissal from the district, a teacher convicted of one of these serious
crimes would have their California teaching credential permanently
revoked and would be permanently barred from teaching in any K-12 or
postsecondary school in the state. The measure therefore would eliminate
any option for reinstatement, even if a teacher with a conviction later
obtained a certificate of rehabilitation or pardon.
Fiscal Effects
The measure likely would lead to notable additional costs at the
school district level. Presumably, districts would pay for these costs
using state and local funds they otherwise would receive. The state also
would incur minor additional costs, as described below.
Teacher Evaluations
Significant District Costs to Conduct Teacher Evaluations
More Frequently. The largest district-level cost
associated with the measure would result from hiring additional staff to
conduct more frequent and more involved teacher evaluations. Costs would
be highest in the initial years, when every teacher would be evaluated
annually. Costs likely would decrease substantially several years after
the measure is implemented, when a significant number of veteran
teachers likely would be evaluated only once every three years.
- Initial Years. In the first three
years, every teacher would have to be evaluated annually, which is
approximately three- to four-times more frequently than current
practice. Each evaluation also would be more involved and therefore
take longer compared to current practice. Under the measure,
districts would need to: use multiple evaluators for classroom
visits, apply student achievement data more uniformly, develop and
implement a professional growth plan for each teacher, and collect
student and parent feedback. Depending on the frequency and
intensity of existing evaluation practices at the local level, the
statewide cost to districts of implementing the new system in the
initial years could range from several hundreds of millions of
dollars to over $1 billion annually.
- Subsequent Years. After the first
three years, districts likely would seek permission from the state
to evaluate high-performing teachers with less-intensive evaluations
and less frequently. To the extent this occurred, the annual
statewide cost to districts of implementing the new evaluation
system would drop to between one-third and one-half of costs during
the initial period.
Moderate District Costs to Develop and Manage New Teacher
Evaluation System. Creating and managing the teacher
evaluation system also would result in some one-time and ongoing costs
for districts, as described below.
- One-Time Costs. Districts likely would
need to hire additional administrators to develop the new teacher
evaluation system. Initial activities would include: developing an
evaluation rating scale, creating assessments for subjects not
tested by the state, creating valid models to measure student
achievement growth, and engaging in collective bargaining over the
design of particular evaluation systems. One-time statewide costs
for these activities likely would be in the tens of millions of
dollars to in excess of $100 million.
- Ongoing Costs. Even after their new
evaluation systems were established, districts likely would need to
retain some additional administrative staff to manage the systems.
Ongoing activities would include: refining assessments and other
elements of the evaluation system, submitting waivers to the
California Department of Education (CDE) requesting permission to
evaluate high-performing teachers with less intensive evaluations
and less frequently, and responding to a higher volume of grievances
filed by teachers related to the new evaluation system. Statewide
costs for these activities would be tens of millions of dollars
annually.
Small State Costs to Oversee Teacher Evaluation System.
The measure requires CDE to perform related activities
that would lead to some additional costs at the state level.
Specifically, CDE would have to annually review new district assessments
for subjects not tested by the state, review district waivers to conduct
less intensive and less frequent evaluations for certain teachers, and
undertake associated legal work. The costs of employing additional staff
to conduct these activities likely would be between $1 million and
$2 million annually.
Teacher Layoffs
Small Costs for More Involved Layoff Hearings,
Potentially Offset by Salary Savings. If the new teacher
evaluation system results in more challenges to teacher layoff decisions
or more involved layoff hearings, districts could incur additional legal
costs in certain years. Notable costs likely would materialize only in
the rare years that districts lay off large numbers of teachers,
typically during economic downturns when the state makes significant
reductions to school funding. In years with significant numbers of
layoffs, additional district costs could total several million dollars
statewide. This could be offset, however, by savings from districts’
ability to lay off lower performing (and higher paid) senior teachers
while maintaining higher performing (and lower paid) less-senior
teachers.
Teacher Dismissals
Negligible District Savings From Avoiding Dismissal
Hearings for Serious Offenses. Although districts no
longer would have to undertake the formal dismissal process for teachers
convicted of serious offenses, the savings associated with this
provision of the measure likely would be negligible. Only a few hundred
teachers in the state are dismissed for serious crimes each year. Of
these, very few challenge their dismissal after being convicted of a
serious felony. If such a hearing is requested and does take place, it
very likely is perfunctory and inexpensive.
Summary of Fiscal Effects
The measure would have the following major fiscal effects:
- Costs ranging from several hundreds of millions of dollars to
over $1 billion annually in the initial three years for school
districts to conduct more frequent and intensive teacher
evaluations, with annual costs dropping to between one-third and
one-half in subsequent years.
- One-time costs in the tens of millions of dollars to in excess
of $100 million for school districts to create new teacher
evaluation systems, with ongoing annual costs to manage the new
systems of tens of millions of dollars.
Return to Initiatives
Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page