At the 11th hour, the author of the bill to rewrite the teacher evaluation law has offered compromises intended to placate opponents and to qualify the land for a waiver from the No Child Left Behind constabulary. The latter may work, but probably non the sometime.

Photo courtesy of Cybrarian77

Photo courtesy of Cybrarian77

Fundamental amendments to AB 5 that Assembymember Felipe Fuentes released Thursday (see link below in "Going Deeper" for the amendments) don't announced to take softened the opposition of organizations representing school administrators, school boards, and some student advocacy groups. They say the biggest problem with the nib remains: It makes every aspect of evaluations subject to negotiations with teachers unions, eroding power that districts assert they have had to unilaterally set the criteria and standards for evaluations. "EdVoice still strongly opposes AB v," Nib Lucia, president and CEO of the Sacramento nonprofit wrote in a argument Th nighttime.

Information technology's premature to say whether passage of AB five would clear the path to a much desired NCLB waiver that'south already been granted to 33 states. A waiver would freeze penalties against low-performing districts and loosen restrictions on $350 1000000 of California'south Title I money for low-income districts. But several of Fuentes' changes answer direct to requirements that U.S. Secretarial assistant of Pedagogy Arne Duncan and the Section of Education had set for a wavier. These include:

  • The requirement that districts prefer at least iii functioning levels. The current law, the Stull Act, has only two: Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory. The adding of a third, such as Excellent, could enable districts to reward the best teachers and shield them from layoffs and bumping rights.
  • The mandatory use of land standardized test scores every bit one of several factors that measure out a teacher's contribution toward pupil bookish growth. The Stull Act had required this but AB 5 until now had proposed that the use of land exam scores be optional in evaluations. The feds, in listing requirements for a waiver, want test scores to exist a "significant" component in measuring educatee growth. AB v does not include that word; each district and spousal relationship would determine how much weight to give test scores, as well as factors such equally pupil portfolios and presentations.

The California Teachers Association had taken the position that the California Standards Tests were not designed for teacher evaluations and therefore were inappropriate, and that the new Common Core assessments, developed past the Smarter Balanced Consortium of states, would have to be studied as to their suitability. However, among the new amendments, AB 5 would declare those assessments perfectly valid: "It is the intent of the Legislature that whatever assessments developed by a national consortium and adopted past the State Lath and used for the purposes of this section encounter statistical and psychometric standards appropriate for this use."

  • The creation of model teacher evaluation systems past the State Board of Educational activity for possible adoption by districts. The idea behind it is that the models would provide guidance that could eliminate protracted deliberations on difficult problems similar establishing guidelines for teacher observations and developing consistency in training administrators on conducting evaluations.

Sue Burr, executive managing director of the State Board, said terminal week that federal education officials had suggested the Board adopt these models as role of a waiver awarding. In May, the State Board submitted a NCLB waiver application that ignored the requirements for teacher evaluations and other conditions. The land has even so to hear back from Duncan, and he has non publicly commented on it. Instead, he has announced plans to invite districts in states without a waiver to submit their own waiver proposals. If AB 5 passes and Gov. Jerry Brown signs information technology, the State Board is expected to file another waiver – one that conforms with the Section'south rules. The Board would have to approve the waiver at its Sept. 12 board meeting to meet the federal deadline.

Objections remain

AB five would found an evaluation system based on best teaching practices equally divers past the California Standards for the Pedagogy Profession. All sides hold this would be a pregnant step forrard. And advancement groups like EdVoice and Education Trust-Due west had called for some of the latest amendments that Fuentes agreed to. But they, the Clan of California School Administrators, and the California School Boards Clan are expected to keep to oppose the bill for ane or both of the post-obit reasons:

High costs of a new mandate. The state already reimburses districts about $eighteen one thousand thousand each year to cover reimbursement for negotiations under the Stull Act. AB 5 would broaden who would be evaluated and how often, along with adding costs from principal training and the expense of several teacher observations. This year, these costs volition be included in a block grant of $28 per student covering teacher evaluations and other education mandates. Districts know that the new evaluation organization volition exist expensive – how much isn't articulate – and are worried that the governor and Legislature won't increase the block grant, leaving them holding the purse when AB 5 takes upshot on July i, 2014.

Fuentes is proposing to shift $60 million next year from a program for improving the everyman-performing schools, QEIA, to prepare those schools for the new evaluation system. Other schools and districts would not accept any i-time startup money for the new organisation.

Subjecting all aspects of evaluations to collective bargaining. The Stull Act requires schoolhouse boards of every district to constitute standards of expected student achievement at each form level in every area of study and to evaluate teachers based on students' progress in coming together the standards. AB 5 would repeal this section of the law. In its place would be recommendations for best practices that would have to be negotiated between the district and the local teachers union. In a argument, Lucia of EdVoice said, "AB five eliminates the but provision in the state Education Code giving local districts control over standards. In doing so, information technology now opens the door to crave districts to bargain over form level standard expectations of pupils in each area of study at each course level, since grade level expectations are the anchors for gauging progress of pupil learning and student learning must be assessed … in the job performance evaluations of teachers."

Whether school boards have the unilateral power nether the Stull Human action to make up one's mind the factors behind an evaluation and how much weight to give them has not been tested in court. Los Angeles Unified is pushing its authority in creating a voluntary pilot program for teachers at the same information technology is negotiating with United Teachers Los Angeles to implement information technology. An attorney for the district has written a cursory laying out the commune's dominance. The CTA has issued a rebuttal (which I have not seen).

The union argues the primary goal of an evaluation organization should be to guide teachers to perform better. That requires trust, which tin can't exist congenital by imposing a system on teachers. Negotiations prevent bad systems, such as the disproportionate use of standardized test scores to judge teachers.

Districts argue that they should have the power to set the criteria on which teacher performance will exist determined. Otherwise, at that place will be a weak organization of expectations.

Fuentes is expected to innovate the amendments on Fri. The bill is expected to return to the Senate Instruction Committee early side by side week for a public hearing.

To get more reports like this one, click hither to sign up for EdSource's no-price daily email on latest developments in education.