Board of Governors
Fred W. Alvarez, Chair
Jones Day
Alina Ball
UC Hastings College of the Law
Lee McEnany Caraher
Double Forte PR and Marketing
Barbara J. Chisholm
Altshuler Berzon LLP
Martin R. Glick
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Dolores Jimenez
Kaiser Permanente
Leo P. Martinez
UC Hastings College of the Law
Anita D. Stearns Mayo
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Robert H. Olson
Squire Patton Boggs (retired)
Rohit K. Singla
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP

Staff
Guillermo Mayer
President & CEO
John T. Affeldt
Richard A. Marcantonio
Managing Attorneys
Isabel Alegría
Director of Communication
Liz Guillen
Director of Legislative
& Community Affairs
Deborah Harris
Director of Development
Sumi Paik
Director of Finance &
Administration
Samuel Tepperman-Gelfant
Deputy Managing Attorney
Angelica K. Jongco
David Zisser
Senior Staff Attorneys
Rigel S. Massaro
Chelsea Tu
Staff Attorneys
Michelle Pariset
Policy Advocate
Anne Bellows
Attorney & Equal Justice Works
Fellow
Paulina Almanza
Law Fellow
Patty Leal
Finance Manager
Will Roscoe
Grants Manager
Duc Luu
Senior Communications Associate
Ayşe Gürsöz
Digital Communications Associate
Tia Nguyen
Policy & Administrative Coordinator
Madelyn Wargowski
Development & Administrative
Assistant

June 30, 2017
Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Brent Malicote, Director, Professional Learning Support Division
Barbara Murchison, State Lead, ESSA State Plan Office
California Department of Education
1430 N. Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: California’s Plan to Ensure Equitable Access to
Excellent Educators Pursuant to the Every Student Succeeds
Act
Dear Superintendent Torlakson, Director Malicote and State Lead
Murchison:
We support the California Department of Education’s (CDE)
development of a robust plan under the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) to describe:
“how low-income and minority children…are not served at
disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or
inexperienced teachers, and the measures the State
educational agency will use to evaluate and publicly report on
the progress of the State educational agency with respect to
such description…” ESSA Sec. 1111(g)(1)(B).
We urge CDE to draft an Educator Equity Plan (EEP) aligned with
The California Way, that represents a contract with California’s
students, particularly its high-need students, and addresses teacher
recruitment, quality, and retention in this time of severe teacher
shortage. The EEP is our unique opportunity to convene stakeholders
and address the most important factor in every Californian’s K-12
education: their access to excellent educators.
For years, Public Advocates has fought for high-need students in
California to have access to excellent educators. As co-lead counsel in
Williams v. California, we sought to ensure that all students, particularly
English learners (ELs), were taught by qualified teachers, with the
training necessary for ELs to access the curriculum while
simultaneously learning English. We are a founding member of the
Coalition for Teaching Quality (CTQ), made up of over 100 local, state
and national organizations representing civil rights, disability, parent,

 student, and community groups. At the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC)
and the California Legislature, Public Advocates has long pushed for the state to report data
critical to informing sound teacher quality policies. When the California Legislature has taken up
the issue of teacher evaluation, Public Advocates has advocated for robust, multiple measures
evaluation systems for California’s educators. As our state has faced a daunting teacher shortage,
we have advocated to the Legislature and CTC to maintain high standards for teacher preparation
and for the state to take the measures necessary to attract and retain teachers, particularly to our
highest-need schools. Our partnership w/ grassroots groups representing low-income
communities, people of color and immigrants informs our work around students’ access to
excellent educators.
Below we outline the critical components to California’s Plan to Ensure Equitable Access to
Excellent Educators and provide our recommendations.
1. ROBUST STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
We appreciate participating in three of the EEP stakeholder events CDE hosted in 2016 and
2017, and found these to be in-depth (half-day) discussions with diverse stakeholders on a
variety of issues affecting teacher recruitment, quality and retention.
We also appreciate that CDE and SBE collaborated with us and other member organizations of
the LCFF Equity Coalition and The California Endowment to host input sessions on the ESSA
state plan specifically to gather input from parents and others in grassroots community
organizations— those most directly affected by the education policy decisions included in the
plan. In alignment with the SBE principles for developing the ESSA state plan, we worked
together to build understanding of how the accountability goals in the draft ESSA plan can be
integrated into California’s new accountability and support system and to treat these sessions as
opportunities to empower parents and community members to serve as local ambassadors for our
new multiple measures accountability system. We look forward to continuing this collaboration
as the state begins to implement California’s integrated accountability system. Our comments in
this letter reinforce many of the comments about teacher turnover, qualifications and
professional development that were made by parents at these sessions which will be submitted
separately.
2. CLEAR DEFINITIONS OF “INEFFECTIVE,” “OUT-OF-FIELD,” “INEXPERIENCED,”
“UNDERQUALIFIED,” AND “INTERN” TEACHERS
To determine “how low-income and minority children…are not served at disproportionate rates
by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers,” California must first define these terms.
In doing so, we recommend that CDE use the same guiding principles for developing the ESSA
state plan as those adopted by the SBE, to create a single, coherent system led by the state’s
system and focused on rigorous standards and equity.
We suggest aligning our definitions to the “Principles to Ensure Student Access to Fully
Prepared and Effective Teachers” adopted by the Coalition for Teaching Quality (CTQ), which
are supported by over 100 national, state and local organizations, including the National
Education Association, multiple disability rights groups, and multiple California stakeholders.

2

 a. “Ineffective” teacher
The CTQ’s Principles logically suggest distinct definitions of “effective” teachers for
entering teachers versus for experienced teachers, recognizing that new teachers can only
be judged on their preparation and placement, while experienced teachers can and must
be assessed based on their performance. The CTQ recommends that for “[e]ntering
teachers (whose classroom performance cannot be fully evaluated for some time), we
recommend that, in addition to full preparation, effectiveness be evaluated by passing a
robust, field-specific teacher performance assessment that validly and reliably measures
whether a teacher can successfully teach diverse students in the classroom.” California
has a teacher performance assessment (TPA) aligned to the California Standards
for the Teaching Profession (CSTP’s), and so we agree with the California Teachers
Association that an entering teacher should be considered effective if he is fully
credentialed and appropriately assigned to teach according to their credential. See
Cal. Educ. Code Sec. 44258.9 and Sec. 52060(d)(1). A new teacher would only be
“ineffective” if she were teaching without a full credential or not appropriately assigned
to teach according to her credential.
Even if a teacher possesses an appropriate credential, that does not mean he or she is
necessarily effective in improving student achievement, engaging students in learning,
and helping children thrive in school. For experienced teachers, we recommend that
CDE draw upon multiple measures of students’ access to effective teaching. This can
include whether or not students have access to teachers who are fully credentialed and
appropriately assigned. However, we recommend the state work to include additional
evidence-based measures as soon as practicable, such as teacher turnover, teacher
attendance, and teacher survey data that measure teachers’ opportunities to collaborate
and engage in professional learning, and the level of support provided by principals.
Given California’s lack of a robust statewide multiple measures teacher evaluation
system, teacher evaluation results would be inappropriate for inclusion in the
definition now. 1 When the Legislature takes up the issue of teacher evaluation, Public
Advocates looks forward to engaging in that conversation.
The CTQ and the clear majority of teacher evaluation research,2 in addition to
California’s own Greatness by Design,3 agree that teacher evaluations should be based on
Under the Stull Act, teacher evaluations are largely implemented as compliance activities, so that “time-strapped
principals focus attention on building up documentation to dismiss the small percentage – often between 2 and 5
percent – of teachers they rate unsatisfactory.” Fensterwald, John, School boards and administrators oppose teacher
evaluation bills, EdSource, Apr. 28, 2015, available at https://edsource.org/2015/teacher-evaluation-bills-face-stiffresistance/78911. The Act does not require districts provide support for teachers with poor reviews, so that it does
not contribute to the improvement of instruction. National Board Resource Center, A Quality Teacher in Every
Classroom: Creating a Teacher Evaluation System that Works for California, Stanford University, 2010, at v,
available at https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/quality-teacher-every-classroom-evaluationsystem-works-california.pdf. It does not incorporate criteria such as the instruction of English learners or the use of
technology in the classroom, and only evaluates veteran teachers every ten years. Under the Stull Act, evaluations
are not conducted by trained evaluators, they are not evidence based, and they do not incorporate multiple measures
of teacher effectiveness. Id.
2
See e.g. The New Teacher Project, Teacher Evaluation 2.0, Oct. 2010, available at
http://tntp.org/assets/documents/Teacher-Evaluation-Oct10F.pdf.
1

3

 multiple measures of teacher effectiveness, link to individualized professional growth
opportunities to strengthen teacher quality, and be supported by trained evaluators with
the time and resources to evaluate and support a diverse teacher workforce. This system
should include indicators sensitive to the effective instruction for the various student
groups and yield data on teacher effectiveness using at least three, and ideally four,
categories of performance (i.e. not just “satisfactory” and “unsatisfactory”). Further, we
urge the state to monitor access to effective teachers, by performance evaluation
category. Finally, as both a practical and a political matter, it makes sense to ensure such
evaluation systems are locally accepted by the local community, including the school
board, teachers, parents, students, and community members. As an initial step, the
Department could commit to highlighting and studying the districts in California
that have taken initiative to reform their evaluation systems, such as Long Beach,
San Jose, Poway, and San Juan.4
b. “Out-of-Field” teachers
The draft ESSA states plan defines “out-of-field” teachers as misassigned teachers. This
represents a substantive change from the 2015 and 2016 EEPs, which defined “out-offield” teachers as those on a limited assignment permit—a change for which the draft
ESSA plan provides no explanation. Public Advocates recommends defining “out-offield” teachers as teachers who have not yet demonstrated subject matter competency in
the field they are teaching. This would include teachers on Limited Assignment Permits,
but also underprepared teachers on PIPs, STSPs, and waivers.
c. “Inexperienced” teacher
Public Advocates suggests California maintain its definition of “inexperienced” teacher
as a teacher with two or fewer years of teaching experience. The “underprepared”
definition meaning less than fulfilling the state standards for preparation, i.e., less than
fully credentialed, is consistent with the conditions of basic learning standards as to
teachers set forth in LCFF and LCAPs around Priority one.
d. Other California Categories: “Unqualified” and “Intern” teachers
Public Advocates supports maintaining the categories of “unqualified” and “intern”
teachers as articulated in the current EEP. Taken together, these categories identify the
extent to which low-income students and students of color are taught by teachers who
have not yet met the state standards for preparation, i.e. they are less than fully
credentialed, and is consistent with the basic conditions of learning standards set forth in
LCFF and LCAPs around Priority 1.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson’s Task Force on Educator Excellence, Greatness by
Design: Supporting Outstanding Teaching to Sustain a Golden State, Sept. 2012, at 17, available at
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/documents/greatnessfinal.pdf.
4
See supra note 1, School boards and administrators oppose teacher evaluation bills; Fensterwald, John, Districts,
unions innovate to evaluate teachers, Apr. 13, 2016 available at https://edsource.org/2016/districts-unions-innovateto-evaluate-teachers-stull-act/562703.
3

4

 3. IDENTIFICATION OF EQUITY GAPS, ROOT CAUSES AND CALIFORNIA’S PLAN TO
ELIMINATE THESE GAPS DURING A WORSENING TEACHER SHORTAGE
While we certainly knew of California’s teacher shortage when the SBE adopted the 2015 State
Plan to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators,5 the teacher shortage has
substantially worsened in the past two years:
• Issuance of substandard credentials, permits and waivers increased by more than half
between 2013-14 and 2015-16 (from 6,077 to 10,200).6 Approximately 75% of districts
reported having a shortage of qualified teachers for the 2016-17 school year.7 More than
half (55%) of those districts hired teachers with substandard credentials.8
• There are particular shortages of math, science and special education teachers. In the past
two years (from 2013-2014 to 2015-2016): 9
o Substandard permits issued to math teachers increased by 59%,
o Substandard permits issued to science teachers increased by 54%, and
o Substandard permits issued to new special education teachers increased by 16%,
so that in 2015-16 nearly two thirds—64%-- of new special education teachers
held substandard permits.
What’s worse, these shortages disproportionately impact low-income, English learner, and
minority students:10
•
•
•

Teachers in high-minority schools are nearly three times as likely to be teaching on an
emergency-style credential than teachers in low-minority schools.
Teachers with substandard credentials in high-poverty schools are twice as common as in
low-poverty schools.
83% of districts serving the most ELs report having shortages, whereas 64% of districts
with the fewest ELs report having shortages.

If California hopes to address the shortage, and particularly the disproportionate impact that it is
having on our state’s highest-need students, we urge the Department to draft an EEP that builds
on our plan from 2015, including the following information and analysis:
a. Using the definitions above and the most recently available data, the EEP
must identify equity gaps in student access to excellent educators.

Lynn Beck and Nikolas Howard, California’s teacher shortage is becoming a crisis, Mar. 2015, Sacramento Bee,
available at http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article15380525.html (“As a report by the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing recently noted, in 2013 there were fewer than 20,000 students enrolled in
teacher preparation programs, less than half the number in 2008.”)
6
See Carver-Thomas, D. and Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Addressing California’s Growing Teacher Shortage:
2017 Update, at 4. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
7
See Podolsky, A. and Sutcher, L. California Teacher Shortages: A Persistent Problem, at 1. Nov. 2016. Palo Alto,
CA: Learning Policy Institute.
8
Id.
9
See supra note 6, at 7-8, 10.
10
Id. at 12.
5

5

 b. The EEP should integrate stakeholder feedback and recent research to explain the
likely root causes of identified gaps
c. The EEP must set forth California’s plan to eliminate identified equity gaps.
This plan should include strategies to support schools and districts:
i. Teacher recruitment, particularly into shortage areas and high-need schools.
We note that it is the State—not just CDE—that is ultimately responsible for
delivering basic educational equality. We encourage the EEP to identify a proactive legislative strategy to attract, support and retain fully prepared and
effective educators in all schools. When California faced its last major teacher
shortage, at the time Public Advocates filed Williams v. California, the state
was able to attract and keep large numbers of new teachers through successful
programs like the APLE loan forgiveness program, the Governor’s Teaching
Fellowships, the CalT grants, and others.11 Public Advocates looks forward to
collaborating with the Legislature and the Administration to address this most
critical aspect of basic educational equality.
ii. Universal access to induction and ongoing professional development, as
proven strategies to increase teacher retention and effectiveness. According to
a 2015 CTC report, there are still many districts charging teachers for
induction, or failing to provide induction to their first-year teachers.12 Further,
for any professional development programs that the state supports, the
program should consider the development needs of its early learning teachers
as well. There are few funds that support the professional development in the
early learning space, and the needs to improve quality of instruction in these
areas are significant. For example, professional development could support
better alignment and coordination of preschool/transitional Kindergarten
instruction with K-3, and improve supports for dual language learners in the
early learning space.
iii. Underprepared, including intern teachers, particularly those teaching highneed students at increasing rates during our teacher shortage.
iv. Investments in teacher retention should be made to support California’s
continued implementation of state standards. Because these funds are limited,
the state should focus on investing them in areas of the greatest need and
shortage areas. For example, the state currently faces teacher shortages in
special education, bilingual education, STEM and career technical education.

See Linda Darling-Hammond, Roberta Furger, Patrick Shields, and Leib Sutcher, Addressing California’s
Emerging Teacher Shortage: An Analysis of Sources and Solutions, at 32 (Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute,
2016). This report can be found at www. learningpolicyinstitute.org/addressing-ca-teacher-shortage.
12
Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Report on New Teacher Induction, Sept. 2015, at 9-10, available at
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/new-teacher-induction-2015.pdf. Additional data from CTC on file with author: of the
LEA’s that chose to respond to the voluntary survey, 10 reported not serving all eligible teachers. Of those, 8
estimated that they did not serve approximately 183 eligible teachers during the 2014-2015 school year.
11

6

 d. Describe the measures California will use to annually evaluate and publicly
report on its progress toward eliminating equity gaps, including through:
i.

LEA and school level reporting. The draft plan states that it will annually track
statewide data on equitable access to ineffective, out-of-field, and inexperienced
teachers, and it will annually report on the state’s progress toward eliminating
teacher equity gaps at a statewide level. We support these beginning steps and
suggest they be reinforced by tracking this data at the school and district level so
that stakeholders can see which schools and districts have equity gaps.

ii.

Strengthening LCFF Priority #1. The draft plan also states that LEAs with selfidentified gaps will use their LCAPs to address these equity issues, but does not
elaborate. We recommend that the plan align with the state’s accountability
system and commit to strengthening LCFF Priority #1, which includes students’
access to properly assigned and fully-credentialed teachers by bringing in
additional data on ineffective, out-of-field and inexperienced teachers, and use all
that data to identify LEAs for support and technical assistance.
The current Priority #1 “met/not met” standard focuses solely on teacher
misassignments. California can more closely integrate federal educator equity
requirements with its state LCFF priorities by including this additional data within
Priority #1 on the Dashboard. Further, it can include additional data that illustrates
students’ access to effective teaching, such as teacher turnover rates, teacher
absences, and teacher survey data. This data should be used as part of the state
system for identifying districts in need of assistance. This will ensure that LCFF
technical assistance and district LCAPs more substantially focus on quality
teaching, which is a prerequisite to school improvement.

iii.

Statewide implementation of teacher surveys, such as WestEd’s California
School Staff Survey,13 to better inform our policies around teacher working
conditions and retention.

***
CDE prides itself on developing and implementing sound education policy, strongly rooted in
education research as applied to the unique circumstances of California’s diverse students. “The
California Way” is supported by strategic priority areas, including “Teaching and Leading
Excellence.”14 The steps outlined in that priority area are consistent with the recommendations
above. As stated above, the EEP is California’s opportunity to engage stakeholders and ensure
our Blueprint for Great Schools is being implemented for all students.

Which, among other things, “[a]ssesses both student learning and staff working conditions (K-12), providing data
to address the problem of teacher recruitment and retention,” http://csss.wested.org/.
14
See http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/bp/bp2strategic.asp#teaching.
13

7

 We hope CDE considers this feedback in the draft plan it submits to the SBE in September 2017,
and we remain available to collaborate with CDE and SBE to create a plan that genuinely
promises to attract and retain high-quality teachers for every California classroom.
Sincerely,

Liz Guillen
Director of Legislative and Community Affairs
Public Advocates Inc.
lguillen@publicadvocates.org
(916) 803-5596
Cc:

Members of the California State Board of Education
Karen Stapf Walters, Executive Director, California State Board of Education
Judy Cias, Chief Counsel, California State Board of Education
Dave Sapp, Deputy Policy Director and Assistant Legal Counsel, California State Board of
Education
Glen Price, Chief Deputy Superintendents of Public Instruction, California Department of
Education
Debra Brown, Director, Governmental Affairs Division, California Department of Education
Joy Kessel, Consultant, Every Student Succeeds Act Office, California Department of Education
Jannelle Kubinec, Director of National, State and Special Projects, WestEd
Jeff Bell, Program Budget Manager, Department of Finance

8