AB 575
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 575 O'Donnell & Atkins – As Amended April 7, 2015
SUBJECT: Teachers: best practices teacher evaluation system
SUMMARY: Requires 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. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires the best practices teacher evaluation system to be negotiated with the local
collective bargaining unit; and, specifies if the certificated employees of the school district do
not have an exclusive bargaining representative, the governing board of the school district
shall adopt objective evaluation and support components, as applicable.
2) Specifies that a best practices teacher evaluation system has the following attributes:
a) Each teacher is evaluated on the degree to which he or she accomplishes the following
objectives, which shall account for not less than 10 percent of the overall evaluation for
each teacher:
i) Engages and supports all students in learning, evidence of which may include, but is
not limited to, high expectations and active student engagement for each student;
ii) Creates and maintains effective environments for student learning;
iii) Understands and organizes subject matter for student learning, evidence of which
may include, but is not limited to, extensive subject matter, content standards, and
curriculum competence;
iv) Plans instruction and designs learning experiences for all students, evidence of which
may include, but is not limited to, use of differentiated instruction and practices based
on student progress and use of culturally responsive instruction, including, but not
limited to, incorporation of multicultural information and content into the delivery of
curriculum to eliminate the achievement gap;
v) Uses student assessment information to inform instruction and improve learning,
evidence of which shall include, but is not limited to, the use of formative and
summative assessments to adjust instructional practices to meet the needs of
individual students; and, specifies that for certificated employees who directly
instruct English learner pupils in acquiring English language fluency, the assessment
information shall include the results of the English language development test;
vi) Develops as a professional educator, evidence of which may include, but is not
limited to, consistent and positive relationships with students, parents, staff and
administrators, use of collaborative professional practices for improving instructional

 AB 575
Page 2
strategies, use of participation in identified professional growth opportunities, and use
of meaningful self-assessment to improve as a professional educator; and,
vii) Contributes to student academic growth based on multiple measures which include
state and local formative and summative assessments, and may include but are not
limited to, classroom work, local and, student grades, classroom participation, student
presentations and performance, and student projects and portfolios; specifies for
certificated employees who directly instruct English learner pupils in acquiring
English, measures shall include the degree to which pupils acquire the English
language development standards for the purpose of improving a pupil's English
proficiency; and, specifies that pupil data used for purposes of teacher evaluation
shall be confidential in the same manner as all other elements of a teacher's personnel
file.
b) Multiple observations of instructional and other professional practices conducted by
evaluators who have received appropriate training and calibration and who have
demonstrated competence in teacher evaluation, as determined by the school district.
i) Specifies that multiple observations may include, but are not limited to, classroom
observations, one-on-one discussions, and review of classroom materials and course
of study.
ii) Specifies the observations shall be conducted using a uniform tool for use in
observing the teacher for the purpose of conducting an evaluation.
iii) Specifies that prior to each observation, the observer shall meet with the teacher to
discuss the purpose of the observation and after each observation, the observer shall
meet with the teacher to discuss recommendations, as necessary, with regard to areas
of improvement in the performance of the teacher.
iv) Nothing shall prohibit evaluators from conducting unscheduled classroom visits.
c) A minimum of three performance levels for the evaluation of teacher performance.
3) Evaluations at least once each school year for probationary personnel; at least every other
year for personnel with permanent status; or, except as may be provided in the best practices
teacher evaluation system that is negotiated with the local collective bargaining unit, at least
every three years for personnel with permanent status who have been employed at least 10
years with the school district, and are highly qualified under the federal No Child Left
Behind Act; requires the evaluator to conduct at least one informal observation per year
during a year when the certificated employee does not receive a formal performance
evaluation and assessment.
a) Authorizes a locally negotiated evaluation process to designate certificated employees to
conduct, or participate in, evaluations of other certificated employees for the purposes of
determining needs for professional development or providing corrective advice for the
certificated employee being evaluated, as specified.

 AB 575
Page 3
b) Specifies a best practices teacher evaluation system shall not omit any of the attributes
specified.
4) Requires the evaluation to include recommendations, if necessary, as to areas of
improvement in the performance of the employee as follows:
a) If an employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory manner according to
the standards prescribed by the governing board of the school district or the governing
body of the charter school, the employing authority shall notify the employee in writing
of that fact and describe the unsatisfactory performance.
b) The employing authority shall thereafter confer with the employee making specific
recommendations as to areas of improvement in the employee’s performance and
endeavor to assist the employee in his or her performance.
c) If a permanent certificated employee has received an unsatisfactory evaluation, the
employing authority shall annually evaluate the employee until the employee achieves a
positive evaluation or is separated from the school district or charter school.
d) An evaluation that contains an unsatisfactory rating of an employee’s performance in the
area of teaching methods or instruction may include the requirement that the certificated
employee shall, as determined necessary by the employing authority, participate in a
program designed to improve appropriate areas of the employee’s performance and to
further pupil achievement and the instructional objectives of the employing authority.
e) If a school district or charter school participates in the California Peer Assistance and
Review Program for Teachers, a certificated employee of that school district or charter
school who receives an unsatisfactory rating on an evaluation shall participate in the
California Peer Assistance and Review Program for Teachers.
5) Specifies the administrator evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following
attributes:
a) Promoting the success of all pupils by facilitating the development and implementation of
a vision of pupil learning, including, but not limited to, communicating with parents,
pupils, and the community regarding the importance of a standards-based education and
high expectations for all pupils.
b) Advocating and supporting a safe, nurturing school culture that sustains a quality
instructional program conducive to pupil learning and staff professional growth,
including, but not limited to, all of the following:
i) Promoting equity, fairness, and respect among staff, pupils, and members of the
school community with acknowledgment of the role cultural attributes have in pupil
learning.
ii) Supporting professional development opportunities for staff that encourage
collaboration and effective instructional practice with the goal of improving outcomes
for all pupils.

 AB 575
Page 4
c) Ensuring the management, organization, and operation of a safe and successful learning
environment, as evidenced by the establishment of effective practices for personnel and
resource management, campus safety, and school climate, including, but not limited to,
supporting curricular and management leadership in all of these areas and successfully
implementing a best practices teacher evaluation system.
d) Collaborating with parents and the community to establish an inclusive school
environment, including, but not limited to, embracing and recognizing that diversity
strengthens a learning environment and promotes meaningful parent and community
engagement, for the development of the local control and accountability plan.
e) Providing ethical and professional leadership that fosters effective instructional practice
as evidenced by promoting quality teaching and instructional strategies and provides
relevant, effective feedback that leads to pupil learning. School administrators shall be
held accountable for the academic growth of pupils over time and academic growth shall
be based on multiple measures that may include pupil work as well as pupil and school
longitudinal data. Multiple measures shall include state and local formative and
summative assessments. For school administrators who supervise certificated staff that
directly instruct English learner pupils acquiring English, assessment information shall
include the results of assessments adopted pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with
Section 60810) of Part 33 of Division 4. Multiple measures may include, but are not
limited to, benchmark, end-of-chapter, end-of-course, advanced placement, international
baccalaureate, college entrance, or performance assessments. Pupil data used for
purposes of an administrator evaluation shall be confidential in the same manner as all
other elements of an administrator’s personnel file.
f) Providing professional leadership by understanding, responding, and influencing the
larger social, political, cultural and legal context with the goal of ensuring pupil success,
as evidenced by working in collaboration with the governing board of the school district,
bargaining units, and local school, school district, and community leaders.
6) Requires the governing board of a school district to identify who will conduct the evaluation
of each school administrator and specifies the following:
a) A school administrator shall be evaluated annually for the first and second year of
employment as a new administrator in a school district. The governing board of the
school district may determine the frequency at regular intervals of evaluations after this
period.
b) Additional evaluations that occur outside of the regular intervals determined by the
governing board of the school district shall be agreed upon between the evaluator and the
administrator.
c) Evaluators and administrators shall review school success and progress throughout the
year. This review should include goals that are defined by the school district, including,
but not limited to, the goals specified in the local control and accountability plan
approved by the governing board.

 AB 575
Page 5
7) Requires the following sections of the Stull Act to become inoperative July 1, 2018:
a) Legislative intent that governing boards establish a uniform system for evaluation and
assessment;
b) The requirement that the governing board shall, in developing and adopting the
guidelines, avail itself of the advice of the certificated instructional personnel in the
district as part of a locally negotiated collective bargaining agreement; and,
c) The authorization for a school district, by mutual agreement between the local bargaining
unit and the district, to include objective standards from the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards or the California Standards for the Teaching Profession.
8) Specifies that the teacher evaluation system and the administrator evaluation system cannot
be waived for a school district or county office of education by the State Board of Education
(SBE).
9) Authorizes the SBE, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and
appropriate education stakeholder groups, to adopt nonregularoy guidance to support the
implementation of a best practices teacher evaluation system.
10) Requires the following public hearings:
a) On or before May 1, 2016 or May 1 of the year that precedes the year in which an
existing collective bargaining contract will expire, whichever is later, the governing
board of a school district and the governing body of a charter school, at a regularly
scheduled public hearing, seek comment on the development and implementation of the
evaluation system.
b) On or before May 1 of each year before local negotiations, the governing board of a
school district and the governing body of a charter school, at a regularly scheduled public
hearing, seek comment on the evaluation system.
c) Both during and before the final agreement of local negotiations, the governing board of
each school district and the governing body of each charter school shall seek public
comment on the evaluation system.
d) If, by mutual agreement between a school district or charter school and the collective
bargaining unit, an intermediate mid-year agreement is reached regarding a best practices
teacher evaluation system, the negotiation timeline shall allow time for the governing
board of the school district or the governing body of the charter school to hold a public
hearing to seek comment on the evaluation system.
e) Consistent with Section 3547 of the Government Code and no more than 30 days after
the local negotiations, the governing board of each school district and the governing body
of each charter school shall disclose the provisions of the best practices teacher
evaluation system at a regularly scheduled public hearing.

 AB 575
Page 6
11) Specifies this bill does not supersede or invalidate a teacher evaluation system that is locally
negotiated and that is in effect at the time this bill becomes operative. If a locally negotiated
teacher evaluation system is in effect at the time this bill becomes operative, the teacher
evaluation system shall remain in effect until the parties to the agreement negotiate a
successor agreement. A memorandum of understanding shall not extend the adoption of a
locally negotiated teacher evaluation system that is in effect at the time this section becomes
operative.
12) Adds the best practices teacher evaluation system to the mandate block grant and specifies
that it is the intent of the Legislature to provide adequate resources to train evaluators,
continue robust beginning teacher induction programs, and support struggling educators.
13) Makes legislative findings and declarations that teaching is a professional endeavor, one in
which effective practice is driven by an understanding of knowledge in the field and a
commitment to all students and their families; excellent teaching requires knowledge, skills,
artistry, passion, and commitment; effective teachers integrate ethical concern for children
and society; extensive subject matter competence; thoughtfully selected pedagogical
practices; a depth of knowledge about their students, including knowledge of child and
adolescent development and learning; an understanding of their individual strengths,
interests, and needs; and, knowledge about their families and communities; effective teachers
share a common set of professional and ethical obligations that includes a profound and
fundamental commitment to the growth and success of the individual students within their
care as well as to the strengthening and continual revitalization of our democratic society;
certificated, non-instructional employees share the same deep commitment to children,
families and communities, and they provide essential support and services; and, the primary
purpose of an evaluation system is to ensure that teachers meet the highest professional
standards of effective teaching thereby resulting in high levels of student learning.
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
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

 AB 575
Page 7
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)
3) Establishes the Principal Evaluation System by authorizing the governing board of a school
district to identify who will conduct the evaluation of each school principal. Specifies a
school principal may be evaluated annually for the first and second year of employment as a
new principal in a school district. The governing board may determine the frequency at
regular intervals of evaluations after this period. Additional evaluations that occur outside of
the regular intervals determined by the governing board may be agreed upon between the
evaluator and the principal. Criteria for effective school principal evaluations may be based
upon the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders. Specifies a school
principal evaluation may include, but not be limited to, evidence of all of the following:
a) Academic growth of pupils based on multiple measures that may include pupil work as
well as pupil and school longitudinal data that demonstrates pupil academic growth over
time. Assessments used for this purpose must be valid and reliable and used for the
purposes intended and for the appropriate pupil populations. Local and state academic
assessments include, but are not limited to, state standardized assessments, formative,
summative, benchmark, end of chapter, end of course, advanced placement, international
baccalaureate, college entrance, and performance assessments. For career and technical
education, authentic performance assessment is a strong indicator of effective teaching
and learning.
b) Effective and comprehensive teacher evaluations, including, but not limited to, curricular
and management leadership, ongoing professional development, teacher-principal
teamwork, and professional learning communities.
c) Culturally responsive instructional strategies to address and eliminate the achievement
gap.
d) The ability to analyze quality instructional strategies and provide effective feedback that
leads to instructional improvement.
e) High expectations for all pupils and leadership to ensure active pupil engagement and
learning.
f) Collaborative professional practices for improving instructional strategies.
g) Effective school management, including personnel and resource management,
organizational leadership, sound fiscal practices, a safe campus environment, and
appropriate pupil behavior.

 AB 575
Page 8
h) Meaningful self-assessment to improve as a professional educator. Self-assessment may
include, but not be limited to, a self-assessment on state professional standards for
educational leaders and the identification of areas of strengths and areas for professional
growth to engage in activities to foster professional growth.
i) Consistent and effective relationships with pupils, parents, teachers, staff, and other
administrators. (EC 44670 & 44671)
FISCAL EFFECT: Legislative counsel has keyed this bill as a state mandated local program.
COMMENTS: This bill replaces the existing teacher evaluation system, known as the Stull Act,
with a new teacher and administrator evaluation system that requires specific components, such
as state and local formative and summative assessment data and observations. While existing
law requires school districts to collectively bargain many of these elements, this bill requires
these components to be included in a uniform educator evaluation system. According to the
author, the goal is to establish a fair, transparent, and comprehensive teacher evaluation system
accountable to pupils, parents and teachers. California's 1,000 school districts serve diverse
pupil populations, employees, and communities. What works in Los Angeles Unified School
District does not necessarily work in the Eureka City Unified School District. While this
measure does require specific components to be part of teacher evaluations, it allows individual
school districts the flexibility to determine how these elements will be implemented to meet the
needs of their pupils, teachers, administrators, and parents.
Research on the Current Teacher Evaluation System: According to the author, the state's
current teacher evaluation system is inconsistent, unclear, and does little to foster a culture of
continuous improvement for teachers. 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…In sharing their own
experiences with evaluations, Accomplished California Teachers members revealed some
common challenges: a system that teachers do not trust, that rarely offers clear direction for
improving practice and that often charges school leaders to implement without preparation or
resources."
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."
The Use of Assessments in Evaluation: This bill requires both state and local formative and
summative assessments to be included in educator evaluation. Formative assessments are
developed locally and are used by teachers to continually inform instruction in the classroom
throughout the school year. Summative assessments can be developed locally or state-wide and
assess a student's performance at a point in time. Summative assessments can include end of unit
quizzes, end of course tests, or standardized tests.

 AB 575
Page 9
Evaluation Frequency: This bill requires probationary teachers to be evaluated at least every
year and permanent teacher to be evaluated at least every other year; and, it reduces the
authorization for teachers with more than 10 years experience to be evaluated every five years,
and instead authorizes evaluation every three years. By reducing the five year evaluation cycle
to a three year evaluation cycle for experienced teachers, this bill will require experienced
teachers to be evaluated more frequently. It is unclear how many teachers are currently
evaluated every five years and thus it is unclear how this bill will affect administrator work load
to complete the increased number of evaluations.
Professional Development: This bill specifies that teachers who receive an unsatisfactory rating
on their evaluation, 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.
Charter Schools: This bill requires all public schools in the state to adopt the teacher and
administrator evaluation system, both traditional public schools and charter schools. According
to the author, implementation of a robust teacher evaluation system that allows teachers to
continuously improve is imperative for all schools. Charter schools teachers must not be left out
of this important opportunity.
Evaluation Weights: This bill specifies that the each of the seven attributes of the teacher
evaluation system shall contribute at least 10% to the overall evaluation of each teacher. This
means the remaining 30% can be allocated according to local negotiations. This bill does not
apply similar weights to the six attributes in the administrator evaluation. The committee may
wish to consider whether the administrator evaluation system should have similar weights or
whether the weights should be removed from the teacher evaluation system, so that both systems
are parallel.
Evaluation Funding: This bill specifies that is it the intent of the Legislature to provide
adequate resources to train evaluators, continue robust beginning teacher induction programs,
and support struggling educators. According to the author, appropriate funding is a key
component to achieving a high quality teacher and administrator evaluation system, as well as
necessary support programs for beginning teachers and struggling teachers.
Public Hearings: This bill requires public hearings before May 1st of the year proceeding local
negotiations, as well as public hearings should a mid-year agreement be reached. The public
hearing process will require a hearing before negotiations begin, during negotiations, prior to the
final vote on the evaluation system, as well as after the evaluation has been adopted. The intent
of these public hearings is to allow for parents to give input on the evaluation system each time it
is negotiated. It is unclear how much information is legally allowed to be shared publically
during the negotiation process. The committee should consider whether this mid-negotiation
hearing is appropriate.
Teacher & Administrator Evaluation Criteria: This bill establishes criteria for the teacher
evaluation system that are based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession and the
administrator evaluation system based on the California Professional Standards for Educational
Leaders. Some of the provisions that apply to the teacher evaluation system do not apply to the

 AB 575
Page 10
administrator evaluation system. The committee should consider whether to ensure the following
requirements apply to the administrator evaluation system in the same way as the teacher
evaluation system:
1) The public hearing requirements.
2) Clarify that the provisions of the administrator evaluation specified in statute cannot be
omitted.
3) Clarify that the administrator evaluation system applies to charter schools.
4) Clarify that the administrator evaluation system shall be operative July 1, 2018.
5) Add the administrator evaluation to the mandate block grant.
Other Credential Holders: This bill establishes new criteria for teacher evaluation and
administrator evaluation. The bill does not address the evaluation of non-teaching credentialed
employees such as school nurses, counselors and school psychologists. Existing law under the
Stull Act does not specify different evaluation criteria for non-teaching credentialed employees
compared to credentialed employees in the classroom. The committee may wish to consider
whether it is necessary to address the criteria used to evaluate non-teaching credentialed
employees in this bill.
Collective Bargaining Agreements: This bill requires the teacher and administrator evaluation
system to be collectively bargained, if the district or charter has a collective bargaining unit. The
specific provisions of this bill cannot be bargained out of the final evaluation system adopted by
a school district or charter school. The requirements in the bill must be included in the evaluation
system, they cannot be weakened or omitted from the evaluation system in any way. Recent
amendments specifically state that the provisions of the teacher evaluation system cannot be
omitted, and the committee should consider adding that language to the administrator evaluation
system as well.
Further, this bill clarifies that the teacher evaluation system does not supersede or invalidate a
teacher evaluation system that is locally negotiated and that is in effect at the time this bill
becomes operative. If a locally negotiated teacher evaluation system is in effect at the time this
bill becomes operative, the teacher evaluation system shall remain in effect until the parties to
the agreement negotiate a successor agreement. The bill further clarifies that a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) shall not extend the adoption of a locally negotiated teacher evaluation
system that is in effect at the time this bill becomes operative. In other words, if a collective
bargaining agreement ends, but is extended by an MOU, the existing teacher evaluation system
cannot remain in effect indefinitely during an MOU.
Arguments in Support: Public Advocates supports the bill and states, "In multiple ways AB 575
would strengthen the evaluation system and not just by requiring full compliance with California’s
teaching standards which are optional under the existing law (Stull Act). AB 575 requires that any
teacher evaluation system must include certain elements and cannot be negotiated away,
including:
Increasing the frequency of the most veteran educators’ evaluation from once every five
years to once every three years
Increasing the categories for rating teachers from two (simply satisfactory and
unsatisfactory) to three
Requiring that each element of the evaluation system account for at least 10% of the
overall evaluation
Requiring a series of classroom observations from evaluators trained for the task; and

 AB 575
Page 11
Requiring that districts receive and consider input from parents, students, and community
members into the development of the local evaluation process
Requiring evidence of teachers’ contribution to students’ academic performance through
multiple measures, including summative and formative assessments
Requiring that teachers who are evaluated unsatisfactory participate in a district’s Peer
Assistance and Review (PAR) program if it has one
Requiring that teachers in charter schools also be evaluated under the new best practices
system."
Arguments in Opposition: The Education Trust-West opposes the bill and states: "The
Education Trust – West opposes AB 575 because it would expand the scope of bargaining,
mandate the use of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP's) through a rigid
scheme, and eliminate waivers allowing districts to implement alternative, innovative teacher
evaluation systems….AB 575 would also mandate the use of the CSTP's according to a very
rigid scheme assigning 10 percent to each standard. The proposed scheme allows minimal
flexibility to emphasize one or more of the standards over the others, according to local needs,
and use them in combination with other measures such as parent and student surveys. This
would hamper the innovative efforts of school districts that are using frameworks not directly
tied to the CSTPs, and demonstrating improvement in teacher performance and student
learning."
Committee Amendments: Staff recommends the bill be amended as follows:
1) Make the following changes to the administrator evaluation system:
a) Clarify that the public hearing requirements apply to the administrator evaluation.
b) Clarify that the provisions of the administrator evaluation cannot be omitted.
c) Clarify that the administrator evaluation system applies to charter schools.
d) Specify that the existing permissive administrator evaluation system is repealed and the
new evaluation system is operative on July 1, 2018.
e) Add the administrator evaluation system to the mandate block grant.
2) Clarify that charter schools cannot seek a State Board of Education waiver.
3) In Section 44662 (c), change the code reference from the administrator services credential to
Government Code Section 3540.1 (m) and (g).
4) Rewrite 44664(a)(3)(B) to say: The evaluator shall conduct at least one unscheduled
observation per year during the year when the certificated employee does not receive a
formal performance evaluation and assessment.
5) Specify that county offices of education are required to implement the best practices teacher
and administrator evaluation program.
6) Clarify in 44664(c)(1) regarding certificated employees that receive an unsatisfactory rating
provide that this subdivision applies only to “permanent” certificated employees and provide
that for probationary certificated employees, an employing authority may elect to offer a
program designed to improve appropriate areas of the employee’s performance and to further
pupil achievement and the instructional objectives of the employing authority.
7) Clarify that EC Section 35161.5 applies to county offices of education and charters schools.
8) Technical amendment in EC Section 44662(a)(1)(G)(iii) to create a new subparagraph for the
sentence: “Pupil data used for purposes of teacher evaluation shall be confidential in the
same manner as all other elements of a teacher's personnel file."
Related Legislation: 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.

 AB 575
Page 12
AB 1078 (Olsen) 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
Public Advocates
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson
Opposition
Association of California School Administrators
CA Democrats for Education Reform
CalChamber
California Association of School Business Officials
California Association of Suburban Schools
California Charter School Association Advocates
California County Superintendent Educational Services Association
California School Boards Association
Central Valley Education Coalition
Children Now
Educators 4 Excellence- Los Angeles
EdVoice
Families in Schools
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
Los Angeles Unified School District
Orange County Office of Education
Parents Advocate League
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Small School Districts Association
Students Matter
StudentsFirst
Teach Plus
The Education Trust – West
Analysis Prepared by: Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087