SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478

SB 499

THIRD READING
Bill No:
Author:
Amended:
Vote:

SB 499
Liu (D) and De León (D)
6/2/15
21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-2, 4/22/15
AYES: Liu, Block, Hancock, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan
NOES: Runner, Vidak
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/28/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
SUBJECT: Teachers: best practices teacher evaluation system: school
administrator evaluation
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill repeals and replaces various provisions of existing law
governing the evaluation of certificated employees and beginning July 1, 2018,
requires school districts to implement a best practices teacher evaluation system.
This bill also repeals and replaces provisions of existing law regarding school
administrator evaluations.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Authorizes the Stull Act which 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

 SB 499
Page 2
performance, as specified, including teacher performance as it reasonably
relates to:
a) Progress of pupils toward district-adopted and, if applicable, state-adopted
academic content standards as measured by state-adopted criterion
referenced tests;
b) Instructional techniques and strategies used by the employee;
c) The employee’s adherence to curricular objectives; and
d) The establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment
within the scope of the employee’s responsibilities.
2) Requires an evaluation and assessment of the performance of each certificated
employee to be made 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 permanent employees who have been employed with the district
at least 10 years and were rated as meeting or exceeding standards in their
previous evaluation. Teachers who receive an unsatisfactory rating may be
required to participate in a program designed to improve the employee’s
performance and to further pupil achievement and the instructional objectives
of the district. However, if the district participates in the Peer Assistance and
Review (PAR) program, then the teachers who receive an unsatisfactory rating
are required to participate in that program.
3)

Establishes the PAR program for teachers by authorizing school
districts and the exclusive representative of the certificated employees to
develop and implement the program locally. The PAR program is to include
multiple observations of a teacher during periods of classroom instruction and
sufficient staff development activities to assist a teacher in improving his or her
skills and knowledge. The final evaluation of a teacher’s participation in the
program is made available for placement in his or her personnel file.

This bill recasts various provisions of the law governing the evaluation of
certificated employees. Specifically, this bill:
1) Makes inoperative as of July 1, 2018, and repeals as of January 1, 2019, the
following Stull Act requirements:

 SB 499
Page 3
a) Legislative intent that governing boards establish a uniform system for
evaluation and assessment.
b) The requirement that a governing board, in the development and adoption of
evaluation guidelines and procedures avail itself of the advice of the
certificated instructional personnel in the district as part of a locally
negotiated collective bargaining agreement.
c) The authorization that a school district may include standards from the
National Board of Professional Teaching Standards or the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) in its evaluation and
assessment guidelines.
d) The requirement that the governing board of each school district:
i)

Establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level
in each area of study, and

ii) Evaluate and assess certificated employee performance as it reasonably
relates to the progress of pupils on those standards and applicable state
adopted content standards as measured by state adopted criterion
referenced assessments and other specified criteria.
2) Makes findings and declarations regarding teaching, the characteristics of
effective teaching, and the importance of teachers in influencing student
academic success. Declares that the primary purpose of an evaluation system
is to ensure that teachers meet the highest professional standards of effective
teaching, thereby resulting in higher levels of pupil learning.
3) Requires, beginning July 1, 2018, the governing board of each school district
to adopt and implement a best practices teacher evaluation system (BPTES).
Requires the BPTES to be locally negotiated pursuant to the Educational
Employment Relations Act; and specifies that if the certificated employees of
the school district do not have an exclusive bargaining representative, the
governing board must adopt objective evaluation and support components, as
applicable.
4) Requires a BPTES to include, but not be limited to, specified attributes,
including the evaluation of each teacher based on the degree to which a teacher
accomplishes the following objectives:

 SB 499
Page 4
a) Engages and supports all pupils in learning, evidence of which may
include, but is not limited to, evidence of high expectations and active
pupil engagement for each pupil.
b) Creates and maintains effective environments for pupil learning, to the
extent that those environments are within the teacher’s control.
c) Understands and organizes subject matter for pupil learning, evidence of
which may include, but is not limited to, extensive subject matter, content
standards, and curriculum competence.
d) Plans instruction and designs learning experiences for pupils, evidence of
which may include use of differential instruction and practices and use of
culturally responsive instruction, such as incorporation of multicultural
information and content into the delivery of curriculum, to eliminate the
achievement gap.
e) Uses pupil assessment information to inform instruction and to improve
learning, evidence of which shall include, but is not limited to, use of
formative and summative assessments to adjust instructional practices to
meet the needs of individual pupils. 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.
f) Develops as a professional educator, evidence of which may include, but is
not limited to, consistent and positive relationships with pupils, parents,
staff, and administrators, use of collaborative professional practices for
improving instructional strategies, participation in identified professional
growth opportunities, and use of meaningful self-assessment to improve as
a professional educator.
g) Contributes to pupil academic growth based on multiple measures, as
specified, including state and local formative and summative assessments
in the grade levels and subjects that these assessments are administered as
well as classroom work, pupil grades, classroom participation,
presentations and performances, and projects and portfolios as available
and applicable for the grade level and subject taught.

 SB 499
Page 5
5) Requires that a BPTES include multiple observations of instructional and other
professional practices conducted by evaluators who have been appropriately
trained and calibrated to ensure consistency and who have demonstrated
competence in teaching evaluation, as determined by the school district.
6) Requires that a BPTES has at least three performance levels.
7) Permits a locally negotiated evaluation process to designate certificated
employees to conduct, or participate in, evaluations of other certificated
employees for purposes of determining needs for professional development or
providing corrective advice for the certificated employee being evaluated;
specifies that non-supervisory certificated employees who conduct or
participate in an evaluation are not deemed to be exercising a management or
supervisory function, as specified.
8) Provides that the BPTES shall not apply to certificated employees who hold an
administrative services credential.
9) Authorizes the State Board of Education (SBE), in consultation with the
Superintendent of Public Instruction and appropriate education stakeholder
groups, to adopt non-regulatory guidance to support the implementation of the
BPTES, as specified.
10) Repeals and replaces, beginning July 1, 2018, the requirement that school
district governing boards establish and define job responsibilities for
certificated non-instructional personnel, including, but not limited to,
supervisory and administrative personnel, whose responsibilities cannot be
evaluated appropriately under the best practices teacher evaluation system;
maintains the current requirement that school districts evaluate and assess the
performance of non-instructional certificated employees as it reasonably relates
to the fulfillment of those responsibilities.
11) Requires, on or before May 1, 2018, or May 1 of the year that precedes the
year in which an existing collective bargaining contract will expire, whichever
is later, governing boards to seek comment on the development and
implementation of a BPTES and use the comments received to guide the
development and implementation of the BPTES. Requires other public hearing
requirements for governing boards, as specified.

 SB 499
Page 6
12) Specifies that where a locally negotiated evaluation system is in effect, the
evaluation system remains in effect until the parties to the contract negotiate a
successor agreement. Provides that a memorandum of understanding shall not
extend the adoption of a locally negotiated teacher evaluation system that is in
effect at the time this requirement becomes operative.
13) Recasts requirements governing evaluation cycles for certificated employees
and unsatisfactory performance:
a) Maintains existing requirement that probationary personnel be evaluated at
least once each school year and that personnel with permanent status be
evaluated at least every other year.
b) Beginning July 1, 2018, changes the frequency of evaluations for personnel
with permanent status who have been employed at least 10 years with a
school district who are highly qualified and who were rated as meeting or
exceeding standards at the previous evaluation. Specifically, this bill
changes the frequency from at least every five years to at least every three
years.
c) Maintains existing requirements for evaluations:
i)

Requires the evaluation to include recommendations, if necessary, as
to areas of improvement.

ii) Requires the employing authority to notify an employee in writing if
the employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory
manner and to describe the unsatisfactory performance. Requires the
employing authority to confer with the employee and make specific
recommendations as to areas of improvement, and requires an annual
evaluation until the employee achieves a positive evaluation or is
separated from the district.
iii) Specifies an employee evaluation that contains an unsatisfactory rating
of an employee’s performance may include a requirement that the
certificated employee participate in a program designed to improve
appropriate areas of the employee’s performance, as specified, and
requires any certificated employee who receives an unsatisfactory
rating on an evaluation to participate in a Peer Assistance and Review
Program for Teachers if the district has such a program.

 SB 499
Page 7
14) Requires the employing authority, if an employee has received an
unsatisfactory evaluation, to provide professional development based on the
specific recommendations as to areas of improvement in the employee’s
performance.
15) Maintains the existing requirement that hourly and temporary hourly
employees are excluded by the provisions governing the teacher evaluation
system, and provides that substitute teachers may be excluded at the discretion
of the governing board.
16) Repeals the existing provisions of law governing administrator evaluations
effective July 1, 2018, and requires governing boards to establish a new system
of evaluation for school administrators to guide their growth and performance
with the purpose of supporting them as instructional leaders in order to raise
pupil achievement, as specified.
17) Requires governing boards to identify who will conduct the evaluation of each
school administrator.
18) Requires a school administrator to be evaluated annually for the first and
second year of employment as a new administrator in a school district and
allows the governing board to determine the frequency at regular intervals of
evaluations after this period.
19) Provides that additional evaluations that occur outside of the regular intervals
determined by the governing board shall be agreed upon between the evaluator
and the administrator.
20) Requires evaluators and administrators to 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 school district pursuant to
Education Code § 52060.
21) Prohibits the SBE from waiving the best practices teacher evaluation system
requirements.
Comments

 SB 499
Page 8
Need for the bill. According to the author’s office, teacher evaluation under the
Stull Act is too often inconsistent, unclear, and does little to foster a culture of
continuous improvement for teachers. While some districts do incorporate student
performance in their evaluation systems, others do not, and in districts that simply
rate their employees as “meeting” or “not meeting” expectations, teachers may not
receive sufficient feedback during the evaluation process to understand how to
improve their practice. 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…”
Comments from Accomplished California Teachers indicate that current
approaches to teacher evaluation results in a system that teachers do not trust, that
rarely offers clear direction for improving practice, and often charges school
leaders to implement without preparation or resources. A January 2011 report by
the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning notes that evaluations pay
“scarce attention to student learning or do not connect that learning to elements of
teacher content knowledge or instructional skills that could be improved.”
Current research. Several studies document the correlation between teacher
quality and student achievement. According to information provided by the
author, research indicates differential teacher effectiveness is a strong determinant
of differences in student learning, far outweighing the effects of differences in
class size and heterogeneity. Studies have shown that students who are assigned to
several ineffective teachers in a row have significantly lower achievement and
gains in achievement than those who are assigned to several highly effective
teachers.
The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning has recommended making
teacher evaluation multi-dimensional, strengthening the training of those who
conduct evaluations and tying evaluation results directly to substantive feedback to
teachers. The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality suggests 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.”

 SB 499
Page 9
Tools to evaluate teacher effectiveness. The stated purpose of this bill is to
strengthen teacher quality and improve student outcomes by improving the state’s
teacher evaluation requirements. Specifically, this bill contains the following
provisions to accomplish that objective:
1) Use of assessments. Requires both state and local formative and summative
assessments to be included in teacher evaluations. 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 statewide, including end of course tests or standardized
tests, and assess a student's performance at a point in time.
2) Evaluation frequency. Requires probationary teachers to be evaluated at least
every year and permanent teachers to be evaluated at least every other year, and
also reduces the authorization for teachers with more than 10 years of
experience to be evaluated from every five years, to every three years. This
will result in experienced teachers being evaluated more frequently.
3) Categories for rating teachers. Increases the categories for rating teachers from
two to three.
4) Multiple measures. Requires pupil academic growth based on multiple
measures to be part of a teacher evaluation.
5) Professional Development. Requires an employing authority to provide
professional development based on the specific recommendations as to areas of
improvement in a permanent teacher’s performance, if he or she has received an
unsatisfactory evaluation. This bill also 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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No

Fiscal Com.: Yes

Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill creates unknown, but
significant, costs for a new reimbursable state mandate likely to be in the tens of
millions annually. Those costs will be partially offset by repealing law related to
an existing mandate. Additionally, there would be cost pressure for the California
Department of Education (CDE) to develop non-regulatory guidance which CDE
estimates to be $538,000 General Fund over a two-year period.

 SB 499
Page 10
SUPPORT: (Verified 6/1/15)
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Public Advocates
OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/1/15)
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of School Business Officials
California Business Roundtable
California Chamber of Commerce
California County Superintendents Educational Services Association
California Democrats for Education Reform
California School Boards Association
Children Now
Education Trust—West
Educators 4 Excellence
EdVoice
Families In Schools
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
Los Angeles Unified School District
Orange County Department of Education
Parents Advocate League
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Small School Districts Association
Students Matter
StudentsFirst
Teach Plus
Prepared by: Lenin Del Castillo / ED. / (916) 651-4105
6/2/15 22:15:09
**** END ****