From the Associated Administrators Los Angeles (AALA) Weekly
Update for June 8, 2015 :: http://bit.ly/1EYHhWd
●● NOTE:
- The Association of California School Administrators (ASCA) was established in 1971. ACSA is the largest umbrella organization for school leaders in the nation, serving more than 14,500 school leaders.
- The Associated Administrators of Los Angeles (AALA) was formed in 1981 when elementary, secondary, supervisory and adult administrators joined forces to form a single association to represent all middle managers in the Los Angeles Unified School District. During the first ten years membership in AALA was voluntary. In 1991 AALA became the exclusive bargaining unit representing all certificated middle managers except confidential and personal service contract senior staff.
- · ACSA is a statewide advocacy organization; AALA is a collective bargaining unit in LAUSD. The two are not affiliated, though many LAUSD administrators are members of both.
June 4, 2015 :: ACSA, the Association of California School
Administrators, has taken a position of opposing AB 575 (Senator Carol Liu-D)
and SB 499 (Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell-D) which are scheduled to be heard on
the Senate or Assembly Floor no later than Friday, June 5. The identical bills
are likely to be merged and will repeal the existing Stull Act of 1971 and
establish a best practices teacher and school administrator evaluation system
by July 1, 2018, that requires specific components, such as state and local
formative and summative assessment data and observations. The new system would
have to be negotiated with the local collective bargaining unit. The bills are
a response by lawmakers to recent court rulings and public pressure to include
student test scores in the evaluation process. While ACSA is strongly opposed
to the legislation, neither CTA nor CFT have taken a position.
Under the bills, the teachers’ evaluation system would be
based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession and would include
seven objectives on which they will be rated. The section of AB 575 that
applies to administrators says that the evaluation system must be based on the
California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders and includes these
provisions for evaluation:
·
the success by which the administrator
facilitates development and implementation of a vision for pupil learning,
parent and community communication, advocating and supporting a safe, nurturing
school culture that sustains a quality instructional program conducive to pupil
learning and staff professional growth, providing ethical and professional
leadership.
·
·
the academic growth of pupils over time, based
on multiple measures, which may include pupil work as well as pupil and school
longitudinal data.
·
Requires the governing board of a school
district to identify who will conduct the evaluation of each school
administrator, as specified.
The bill also includes the provision that …certain elements
…cannot be negotiated away including: frequency of evaluations; classroom
observations from evaluators trained for the task; requiring districts to
receive and consider input from parents, students, and community members into
the development of the local evaluation process; requiring evidence of
teachers’ contribution to students’ academic performance through multiple
measures, including summative and formative assessments; requiring that
teachers who are evaluated unsatisfactory participate in a district’s Peer Assistance
and Review (PAR) program if it has one; and requiring that teachers in charter
schools also be evaluated under the new best practices system.
Based on the above analysis of the bill provided by the
Appropriations Committee, AB 575 seems to be a bill that administrators and
teachers would support. We, at AALA, are disappointed that ACSA, an
organization which represents school administrators, would advocate removing
evaluations from the negotiating table and permit individual school districts
to implement whatever type of evaluative system it desires. ACSA members have
been sent an email encouraging them to send letters of opposition to their
state representatives saying this legislation will harm students and that
standards of acceptable performance should be determined by the governing board
rather than as a result of the give and take of collective bargaining.
AALA maintains that the
evaluation system should remain a negotiated item as it has been for the last
few decades and does not support the position that ACSA has taken. Why would we
not want to have a say in the process by which we are evaluated? Why would we
give up that right? We encourage any AALA member who also belongs to ACSA to
give serious thought before acceding to ACSA’s request to notify your state
representatives of your opposition to these bills.
_____________________
●● smf’s 2¢:
AB 575 passed in the assembly on Thursday and is currently in the senate
pending assignment to committee. Similarly SB499 has passed the senate and has
been sent to the senate
_____________________
Most Recent Bill Analysis: 06/03/15- ASSEMBLY FLOOR
ANALYSIS
Analysis Prepared by: Chelsea Kelley / ED. / Full
analysis
COMMENTS: This
bill replaces the existing teacher evaluation system, known as the Stull Act,
with a new teacher and administrator evaluation system that requires specific
components, such as state and local formative and summative assessment data and
observations. While existing law requires school districts to collectively
bargain many of these elements, this bill requires these components to be
included in a uniform educator evaluation system. According to the author, the
goal is to establish a fair, transparent, and comprehensive teacher evaluation
system accountable to pupils, parents and teachers. California's 1,000 school
districts serve diverse pupil populations, employees, and communities. What
works in Los Angeles Unified School District does not necessarily work in the
Eureka City Unified School District. While this measure does require specific
components to be part of teacher and administrator evaluations, it allows
individual school districts the flexibility to determine how these elements
will be implemented to meet the needs of their pupils, teachers,
administrators, and parents.
Research on the
Current Teacher Evaluation System: According to the author, the state's
current teacher evaluation system is inconsistent, unclear, and does little to
foster a culture of continuous improvement for teachers. 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… In sharing their own experiences
with evaluations, Accomplished California Teachers members revealed some common
challenges: a system that teachers do not trust, that rarely offers clear
direction for improving practice and that often charges school leaders to
implement without preparation or resources."
Several research studies detail the essential principals
and components of a strong teacher evaluation system. The National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality argues 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."
The Use of
Assessments in Evaluation: This bill requires both state and local
formative and summative assessments to be included in educator evaluation.
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 state-wide and assess a
student's performance at a point in time. Summative assessments can include end
of unit quizzes, end of course tests, or standardized tests.
Evaluation
Frequency: This bill requires probationary teachers to be evaluated at
least every year and permanent teacher to be evaluated at least every other
year; and, it reduces the authorization for teachers with more than 10 years
experience to be evaluated every five years, and instead authorizes evaluation
every three years. By reducing the five-year evaluation cycle to a three-year
evaluation cycle for experienced teachers, this bill will require experienced
teachers to be evaluated more frequently. It is unclear how many teachers are
currently evaluated every five years and thus it is unclear how this bill will
affect administrator work load to complete the increased number of evaluations.
Professional
Development: This bill 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. This bill does not specify the process if a
teacher continues to receive unsatisfactory evaluations after the PAR program
is complete. It is unclear whether school districts should begin dismissal
proceedings, or provide further instructional support for the teacher.
Evaluation
Funding: This bill specifies that is it the intent of the Legislature to
provide adequate resources to train evaluators, continue robust beginning
teacher induction programs, and support struggling educators. According to the
author, appropriate funding is a key component to achieving a high quality
teacher and administrator evaluation system, as well as necessary support
programs for beginning teachers and struggling teachers.
Public Hearings:
This bill requires public hearings before May 1st of the year proceeding local
negotiations, as well as public hearings should a mid-year agreement be reached.
The public hearing process will require a hearing before negotiations begin,
during negotiations, prior to the final vote on the evaluation system, as well
as after the evaluation has been adopted. The intent of these public hearings
is to allow for parents to give input on the evaluation system each time it is
negotiated. It is unclear how much information is legally allowed to be shared
publically during the negotiation process. The Legislature should consider
whether this mid-negotiation hearing is appropriate.
Collective
Bargaining Agreements: This bill requires the teacher evaluation system to
be collectively bargained, if the district or COE has a collective bargaining
unit. The specific provisions of this bill cannot be bargained out of the final
evaluation system adopted by a school district or COE. The requirements in this
bill must be included in the evaluation system, they cannot be weakened or
omitted from the evaluation system in any way.
Further, this bill clarifies that the teacher evaluation
system does not supersede or invalidate a teacher evaluation system that is
locally negotiated and that is in effect at the time this bill becomes
operative. If a locally negotiated teacher evaluation system is in effect at
the time this bill becomes operative, the teacher evaluation system shall
remain in effect until the parties to the agreement negotiate a successor
agreement. This bill further clarifies that a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
shall not extend the adoption of a locally negotiated teacher evaluation system
that is in effect at the time this bill becomes operative. In other words, if a
collective bargaining agreement ends, but is extended by an MOU, the existing
teacher evaluation system cannot remain in effect indefinitely during an MOU.
Arguments in
Support: Public Advocates supports this bill and states, "In multiple
ways AB 575 would strengthen the evaluation system and not just by requiring
full compliance with California's teaching standards which are optional under
the existing law (Stull Act). AB 575 requires that any teacher evaluation
system must include certain elements and cannot be negotiated away, including:
1) Increasing the frequency of the most veteran
educators' evaluation from once every five years to once every three years,
2) Increasing the categories for rating teachers from two
(simply satisfactory and unsatisfactory) to three,
3) Requiring a series of classroom observations from
evaluators trained for the task; and
4) Requiring that districts receive and consider input
from parents, students, and community members into the development of the local
evaluation process,
5) Requiring evidence of teachers' contribution to
students' academic performance through multiple measures, including summative
and formative assessments,
6) Requiring that teachers who are evaluated
unsatisfactory participate in a district's Peer Assistance and Review (PAR)
program if it has one."
Arguments in
Opposition: The Education Trust-West opposes this bill and states:
"The Education Trust – West opposes AB 575 because it would expand the
scope of bargaining, mandate the use of the California Standards for the
Teaching Profession (CSTP's) through a rigid scheme, and eliminate waivers
allowing districts to implement alternative, innovative teacher evaluation
systems… The proposed scheme allows minimal flexibility to emphasize one or
more of the standards over the others, according to local needs, and use them
in combination with other measures such as parent and student surveys. This would
hamper the innovative efforts of school districts that are using frameworks not
directly tied to the CSTPs, and demonstrating improvement in teacher
performance and student learning."
No comments:
Post a Comment