April 15, 2015 The Honorable Carol Liu Chair, Senate Education Committee State Capitol, Room 2083 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: SB 499 -- as amended April 9, 2015 – Oppose Dear Chair Liu: On behalf of the EdVoice Board of Directors, I write to express opposition to Senate Bill 499. EdVoice acknowledges the invitation to participate in meetings with your staff and their openness to listen to various concerns we raised with the introduced version of the bill. Nevertheless, on balance, EdVoice is respectfully opposed to the amended bill as it is currently drafted. A key element of accountability in public schools is the requirement for every school district to evaluate and assess the job performance of all certificated personnel. The Stull Act requires districts to establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study, and to evaluate and assess all certificated school employees’ job performance as it reasonably relates to minimum mandatory multiple measures, the first of which is pupil progress. The Court in Doe v. Deasy (enforcing the Stull Act in LAUSD) and an extensive EdVoice Institute study released in January 2015 demonstrate the reality that in evaluations of certificated staff adults are too willing to ignore student progress and struggling staff, and thereby fail to provide mandatory assistance to employees so they can improve and better support the learning of students. Legalizes the widespread bad practice of ignoring student progress. We recognize there has been an attempt to limit the timeframe that current illegal teacher evaluation rubrics continue to be used by school districts. However, as drafted, SB 499 not only makes current unlawful rubrics legitimate, the bill incentivizes districts to maintain illegal rubrics in perpetuity. There is no new enforcement mechanism to address widespread noncompliance with current law’s or SB 499’s common sense requirement to include pupil progress as one of multiple measures to gauge employee performance. Language relating to MOUs retains the loophole to ignore pupil progress. Combined with a prohibition on SBE waivers, districts have greater incentive to maintain an unlawful evaluation system, or locally preferred system that is in effect just prior to the operative date of the new provisions of the bill. Districts which must negotiate can simply agree to enter into future CBAs excluding changes to the then current system’s design and allowing the district to ignore current law and SB 499. 1107 NINTH STREET, SUITE 680, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 T: 916.448.3868 F: 916.448.5620 WWW.EDVOICE.ORG Hon. Carol Liu April 15, 2015 Page 2 Weakens accountability for actual student progress. The elimination of a local school boards' authority to connect standards of pupil progress with standards of satisfactory employee performance results in the abridgement of elected boards’ exclusive authority to establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study—the detailed goals for the primary mission of a public school district—and the standard of satisfactory job performance. This is necessary to identify struggling staff, provide them mandatory help, and administer fair and mandatory due process when holding employees accountable for their performance. Elected boards would no longer have exclusive authority to set standards when it comes to employees' job performance as it intersects with the district's mission. Instead, based on the ebb and flow of collective bargaining outcomes, accountability for adult professional achievement and job performance could be strengthened or weakened by mandatory negotiation. Standards of satisfactory employee performance and final job performance rating levels would be influenced by employees in the scope of bargaining and could vary regardless of whether or not standards of expected pupil achievement or actual pupil progress had changed. We recognize that amendments restore the repeal of a critical provision of current law that we identified but without necessary cross references, the bill in print still significantly weakens basic accountability in California public schools. Increases likelihood of disputes necessitating PERB intervention. SB 499 also introduces two new terms of art: “attributes” and “objectives,” which are conflated in the language of the bill itself and the amendment to address our stated concern about the likely continued omission of any reasonable consideration student progress. There is no clear indication that the prohibition of omitting an “attribute” applies to any specific subsidiary specific “objective.” The addition of more state-mandated features in current law combined with the ambiguity of what is minimally required with no additional oversight or enforcement mechanism invites endless disputes in front of PERB. In addition, under current law evaluation “procedures” are a mandatory subject of bargaining under the Government Code, while substantive mandatory Education Code components of the uniform evaluation system are not permitted to be omitted. The expansion of the scope of bargaining would allow parties to declare impasse over more issues, including but not limited to categories (attributes or objectives) of review, expected level of satisfactory performance, rating level judgment, calibration, recommendations for improvement and mandatory assistance. Unintended consequences? It is not clear how or if districts will be able to comply or reasonably and appropriately evaluate all certificated employees. By separating teacher and administrator mandatory evaluation provisions in law, the bill overlooks hundreds, if not thousands, of certificated employees in California public schools holding both administrative and instructional credentials who have significant and even predominantly instructional duties. 1107 NINTH STREET, SUITE 680, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 T: 916.448.3868 F: 916.448.5620 WWW.EDVOICE.ORG Hon. Carol Liu April 15, 2015 Page 3 In addressing the issue of teachers with over 10 years seniority status in the district and establishing a new default frequency of evaluation, as drafted the bill permits negotiations to supersede the new three year cycle and make it once again five years, 10 years or possibly never again. In authorizing specified certificated peer review evaluation, the measure nullifies the effect of any finding of need and undermines the requirement to provide help and professional development. As drafted, in such a case, the bill prevents a struggling employee’s subsequent performance response from being considered for specified commendation or otherwise mandatory corrective or adverse action, thereby again limiting the ability of struggling staff to receive assistance that would otherwise be a mandatory obligation of the district. Establishing new mandates on every aspect of the system of evaluation for every school district and school site in California in a manner that constitutes a significant departure from current practice with a stated intent of establishing substantive additional mandatory requirements post-1974, creates significant one-time and ongoing new General Fund reimbursable state-mandated costs to school districts at a time when projections indicated that districts will still not be fully funded under LCFF or restored to their 2008 level of funding. The immediate challenge relating to evaluation is to appropriately support all elements of a comprehensive balanced system and achieve at least minimum basic compliance. The bill in print falls short in addressing these real challenges. Meaningful oversight, and providing a structure and resources to train evaluators to identify and help struggling staff are the most pressing issues, particularly when there appear to be significant additional resources on the near-term horizon. A wholescale change to a new, state-mandated, cookie-cutter "best practices" structure that does not exist in any large district in California or any other large school district or state in the nation is contrary to the direction the state has moved in the overhaul of school finance and more local control. And benefits from a “best practices” system to students and struggling teachers and principals are dubious if key provisions of the law are not funded or systemically ignored. If you have any questions regarding our position or would like further clarification on our concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact me directly. Respectfully, Bill Lucia President, EdVoice Cc: Members, Senate Education Committee 1107 NINTH STREET, SUITE 680, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 T: 916.448.3868 F: 916.448.5620 WWW.EDVOICE.ORG