Thursday deadline for resolving teacher evaluation bill

The Senate Appropriations Committee has given Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes iii days to figure out how to pay for and, if possible, mollify critics of his bill to redesign instructor evaluations.

On Thursday, the committee, chaired by Autonomous Sen. Christine Kehoe of San Diego, volition decide whether AB 5 moves forward with an as-still imprecise price tag. Even critics who say the bill doesn't go far plenty – and they were out in force at the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Mon ­– admit that the bill would bring clarity and add substance to the vague, largely irrelevant current police known as the Stull Act. But in a year in which Gov. Jerry Brown has vowed to veto legislation costing more money, AB v would constitute an expensive new land mandate by imposing substantial additional requirements on school districts.

Fuentes, a Democrat from the San Fernando Valley, indicated Monday that he still needed to effigy out how to account for an additional $20 million to make the bill cost-neutral. Only that number assumes that the approximately $40 million that the land reimburses districts at present for aspects of the Stull Act and contract negotiations with teachers could be applied to the AB v mandate. That's probably overstated. The $xl million to $80 one thousand thousand cost of AB 5 that Fuentes cited is his own ballpark estimate. A fiscal analysis of the bill by Appropriations staff didn't give a precise figure, but did cite areas that would result in "substantial new reimbursable costs":

• More frequent evaluations: Instead of every five years under the Stull Act, experienced teachers with previously good reviews would exist evaluated every three years. Other teachers with tenure would be evaluated every other year; probationary teachers would be reviewed yearly – every bit under the current constabulary.
• Multiple observations of teachers along with meetings before and after each observation. The Stull Human action requires merely one ascertainment.
• Evaluator grooming. "A potentially substantial mandate" to train evaluators to ensure their standards for measuring performance are uniform.
• Commonage bargaining. Each commune would take to negotiate the criteria and procedures for the evaluations with the local teachers marriage, an expansion of the districts' current obligation.

Not mentioned would be the costs for professional development for teachers who received an unsatisfactory review, or extra training for teachers rated satisfactory who need to improve sure skills, reflecting the beak's goal of "continuous improvement for teachers," Fuentes said.

Districts would argue these would be reimbursable costs. The commission on country mandates would have to determine how much, if whatsoever.

Would passage make NCLB waiver likely?

Fuentes told the committee that AB 5 would "put California in a stronger position" to qualify for a waiver from the federal No Kid Left Behind law, equally the Elementary and Secondary Education Human activity is known. A waiver would potentially complimentary upward $354 million in Title I money that districts could use to pay for AB 5'southward mandates and teacher professional person development. Merely Arun Ramanathan, executive director of the Oakland-based educational activity nonprofit Education Trust-West and an evaluator of other states' waiver applications this year for the federal Section of Didactics, dismissed that merits. "AB v, as written, is so far from qualifying for a waiver that to say otherwise is inaccurate," he said.

The bill lacks primal accountability measures that the feds are demanding, including the use of objective data, such as standardized examination scores, to measure a teacher'due south impact on student academic growth, and a multi-tier rating system, beyond the current satisfactory/unsatisfactory categories, to recognize levels of excellence in teaching and degrees of needed improvement.

Several advancement groups calling for more than rigorous reforms – Education Trust-Westward, Public Advocates, and EdVoice – concur on these points.

StudentsFirst, a nonprofit formed by former Washington, D.C., schools superintendent Michelle Rhee, which turned out several dozen parents and teachers to the hearing, went farther and chosen explicitly for tying employment decisions to teacher evaluations.

Bhavini Bhakta, a StudentsFirst member and teacher from Arcadia, said that the state needs an evaluation organization to "ensure that corking teachers remain and aren't the first out the door due to seniority."

Bhavini Bhakta, a nine-year teacher from Arcadia who said she had been given layoff notices eight straight years, even though her students' exam scores were higher up boilerplate, testified, "We must implement a organization that links teacher staffing decisions to student performance. Information technology would exist fair, objective, and ensure that staffing decisions are made in the best interests of students."

No 1 gave unqualified support for the pecker. Just representatives of some of Sacramento'south heavy hitters  – California Teachers Clan, Clan of California School Administrators and California School Boards Clan – said they would support the bill if several unspecified amendments were added. In its current form, AB v would not take result until the state repays districts $9.ii billion for spending cuts and unpaid cost increases spelled out in Proposition 98. Only that repayment could take upward of seven years, which is why Fuentes is looking for ways to implement the new organization sooner at minimum expense.

To get more than reports similar this one, click here to sign up for EdSource'south no-toll daily email on latest developments in education.

mcgheeexpont.blogspot.com

Source: https://edsource.org/2012/thursday-deadline-for-resolving-teacher-evaluation-bill/19017