California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 5 — Teachers: best practices teacher evaluation system.

Last action — Ordered to third reading.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or a county board of education, as specified, after a public hearing on the matter, to request the State Board of Education to waive all or part of any section of the Education Code or any regulation adopted by the state board that implements a provision of the Education Code that may be waived, except for specified provisions. This bill would include additional specified provisions of the Education Code, relating to teacher evaluation and the Quality Education Investment Act of 2006, that may not be waived. (2) Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that governing boards of school districts establish a uniform system of evaluation and assessment of the performance of all certificated personnel within each school district of the state. Existing law requires the governing board of each school district to establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study and to evaluate and assess certificated employee performance on a continuing basis as it reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward the established standards and, if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments, the instructional techniques and strategies used by the employee, the employee's adherence to curricular objectives, and the establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment, within the scope of the employee's responsibilities. This bill would provide that the provisions described above would become inoperative on July 1, 2014. The bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature regarding the nature of effective teachers and of the teaching profession. Commencing on July 1, 2014, the bill would require the governing board of each school district to adopt and implement a locally negotiated best practices teacher evaluation system, described as one in which each teacher is evaluated on a continuing basis on the degree to which he or she accomplishes specific objectives and multiple observations of instructional and other professional practices that are conducted by trained evaluators. The bill would authorize the state board, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and appropriate education stakeholder groups, to adopt nonregulatory guidance to support the implementation of a best practices teacher evaluation system by school districts, as specified. The bill would, on or before May 1, 2013, require the governing board of each school district, at a regularly scheduled public hearing, to seek comment on the development and implementation of the best practices teacher evaluation system, and, on or before May 1 of each year prior to local negotiations required by law, to seek comment on the best practices teacher evaluation system. The bill also would require the governing board of each school district to disclose the provisions of the best practices teaching evaluation system at a regularly scheduled public hearing. The bill would also require the governing board of each school district to establish and define job responsibilities for certificated, noninstructional employees and evaluate and assess their performance in relation to those responsibilities. The bill would provide that these provisions do not apply to certificated personnel who are employed on an hourly basis in adult education classes. The bill would require that funds appropriated pursuant to a provision of law for the 2013–14 fiscal year be distributed to school districts, as specified, for the purpose of implementing the best practices teacher evaluation system, and would require these school districts to use the funds, as specified. The bill would also provide that the provisions of the best practices teacher evaluation system do not supersede or invalidate a teacher evaluation system that is locally negotiated and that is in effect at the time the best practices teacher evaluation system becomes operative. (3) Existing law requires that an evaluation and assessment of the performance of a certificated employee be made on a continuing basis, as provided, including at least every 5 years for personnel with permanent status who have been employed at least 10 years with the school district, are highly qualified, as specified, and whose previous evaluation rated the employee as meeting or exceeding standards. This bill would require the evaluation and assessment of the above personnel at least every 3 years, except as locally negotiated and provided in the best practices teacher evaluation system. (4) The existing Quality Education Investment Act of 2006 effectuates the intent of the Legislature to implement the terms of the proposed settlement agreement of a specified legal action, to provide for the discharge of the minimum state educational funding requirement, to improve the quality of academic instruction and the level of pupil achievement in schools whose pupils have high levels of poverty and complex educational needs, to develop exemplary school district and school practices to create working conditions to attract and retain well-qualified teachers and administrators, and to focus school resources solely on instructional improvement and pupil services. The act requires county superintendents of schools to annually review participant schools and their data to determine compliance with the program requirements, including, among others, specified class size requirements. The act requires, among other things, $450,000,000 per fiscal year to be appropriated from the General Fund for specified purposes for each of the 2008–09, 2011–12, and 2014–15 fiscal years, inclusive, and requires those funds to be allocated, as specified, to Sections A and B of the State School Fund. A provision of the act appropriates $218,322,000 for the 2013–14 fiscal year, for allocation by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the Superintendent, as specified, from the General Fund. This bill would revise the class size requirement for kindergarten and grades 1 to 3, inclusive, to be no more than an average of 20 pupils per class in each grade level at each schoolsite, provided that any grade 1 to 3 classroom at that schoolsite has no more than 22 pupils. The bill would instead require $450,000,000 per fiscal year to be appropriated from the General Fund for specified purposes for each of the 2008–09 and 2011–12 fiscal years, and would, commencing with the 2013–14 fiscal year, appropriate $89,000,000 to the Superintendent, as specified, for purposes of the act. The bill would, commencing with the 2013–14 fiscal year and continuing annually thereafter, require the Superintendent to allocate, as specified, certain appropriated funds that are not allocated to schools with kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in a fiscal year due to program termination or otherwise, except funds allocated in the 2013–14 fiscal year for purposes of implementing the best practices teacher evaluation system. The bill also would instead appropriate $361,000,000 for the 2013–14 fiscal year, for allocation, as specified, from the General Fund, including $313,000,000 for transfer by the Controller to Section A of the State School Fund for allocation by the Superintendent. (5) Under the California Constitution, whenever the Legislature or a state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, including a school district and a community college district, the state is required to provide a subvention of funds to reimburse the local government, with specified exceptions. Existing law, commencing with the 2012–13 fiscal year, requires certain funds appropriated in the annual Budget Act for reimbursement of the cost of a new program or increased level of service of an existing program mandated by statute or executive order to be available as a block grant to school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education to support specified state-mandated local programs and permits those entities to elect to receive that block grant funding in lieu of claiming mandated costs pursuant to the state claims process. This bill would, as of July 1, 2014, add specified mandated programs, including the best practices teacher evaluation system, to the state-mandated local programs supported by the block grant funding. (6) By requiring school districts to perform additional duties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. (7) Funds appropriated by this bill would be applied toward the minimum funding requirements for school districts and community college districts imposed by Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Ordered to third reading.

  2. From committee: Return to Senate floor for consideration. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (August 29).

  3. From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on ED. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on ED.

  4. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.

  5. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  6. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  7. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  8. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 16).

  9. In committee: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  10. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  11. Measure version as amended on June 22 corrected.

  12. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  13. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 15).

  14. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on ED.

  15. Referred to Com. on ED.

  16. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  17. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 47. Noes 25. Page 1752.)

  18. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  19. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  20. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (May 27).

  21. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  22. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  23. Read second time and amended.

  24. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 2.) (March 30).

  25. Re-referred to Com. on ED.

  26. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended.

  27. Referred to Com. on ED.

  28. From printer. May be heard in committee January 6.

  29. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Fuentes · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 4 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Fuentes

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended.

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5200
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Kehoe — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Dutton — Nay
Price — Yea
Walters — Nay
Steinberg — Yea

Official roll call →

Be re-referred to the Committee on Rules.

Failed 2 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 2500
Total 2500
% of votes cast 29%71%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Kehoe — Nay
Dutton — Yea
Price — Nay
Steinberg — Nay
Walters — Yea
Alquist — Nay
Lieu — Nay

Official roll call →

Placed on Appropriations Suspense file.

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Lieu — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Price — Yea
Walters — Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6004
Total 6004
% of votes cast 60%0%0%40%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Hancock — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Runner — Not Voting
Simitian — Not Voting
Alquist — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Huff — Not Voting
Liu — Not Voting
Price — Yea
Vargas — Yea

Official roll call →

AB 5 FUENTES Assembly Third Reading

Passed 47 Yea · 25 Nay · 8 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 462308
Democratic 1000
Republican 0200
Total 472508
% of votes cast 59%31%0%10%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Hagman — Nay
Hall — Yea
Butler — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Allen — Yea
Hill — Yea
Portantino — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Huber — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Block — Yea
Carter — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Lara — Yea
Monning — Yea
Pan — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Campos — Yea
Gorell — Not Voting
Conway — Nay
Fong — Not Voting
Halderman — Nay
Donnelly — Nay
Jeffries — Nay
Alejo — Not Voting
Beall — Not Voting
Mendoza — Not Voting
Miller — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Norby — Nay
Silva — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Achadjian — Nay
Ammiano — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Hayashi — Yea
Knight — Nay
Logue — Nay
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Perea — Yea
Smyth — Nay
Valadao — Not Voting
Williams — Yea
Cook — Nay
Eng — Yea
Davis — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Garrick — Nay
Yamada — Not Voting
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 12 Yea · 0 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11005
Democratic 1000
Total 12005
% of votes cast 71%0%0%29%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Fuentes — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Campos — Yea
Hall — Yea
Lara — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Davis — Yea
Donnelly — Not Voting
Nielsen — Not Voting
Bradford — Yea
Harkey — Not Voting
Hill — Yea
Norby — Not Voting
Solorio — Yea
Wagner — Not Voting
Gatto — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

labor education
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 5 do?
(1) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or a county board of education, as specified, after a public hearing on the matter, to request the State Board of Education to waive all or part of any section of the Education Code or any regulation adopted by the state board that implements a provision of the Education Code that may be waived, except for specified provisions. This bill would include additional specified provisions of the Education Code, relating to teacher evaluation and the Quality Education Investment Act of 2006, that may not be waived. (2) Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that governing boards of school districts establish a uniform system of evaluation and assessment of the performance of all certificated personnel within each school district of the state. Existing law requires the governing board of each school district to establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study and to evaluate and assess certificated employee performance on a continuing basis as it reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward the established standards and, if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments, the instructional techniques and strategies used by the employee, the employee's adherence to curricular objectives, and the establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment, within the scope of the employee's responsibilities. This bill would provide that the provisions described above would become inoperative on July 1, 2014. The bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature regarding the nature of effective teachers and of the teaching profession. Commencing on July 1, 2014, the bill would require the governing board of each school district to adopt and implement a locally negotiated best practices teacher evaluation system, described as one in which each teacher is evaluated on a continuing basis on the degree to which he or she accomplishes specific objectives and multiple observations of instructional and other professional practices that are conducted by trained evaluators. The bill would authorize the state board, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and appropriate education stakeholder groups, to adopt nonregulatory guidance to support the implementation of a best practices teacher evaluation system by school districts, as specified. The bill would, on or before May 1, 2013, require the governing board of each school district, at a regularly scheduled public hearing, to seek comment on the development and implementation of the best practices teacher evaluation system, and, on or before May 1 of each year prior to local negotiations required by law, to seek comment on the best practices teacher evaluation system. The bill also would require the governing board of each school district to disclose the provisions of the best practices teaching evaluation system at a regularly scheduled public hearing. The bill would also require the governing board of each school district to establish and define job responsibilities for certificated, noninstructional employees and evaluate and assess their performance in relation to those responsibilities. The bill would provide that these provisions do not apply to certificated personnel who are employed on an hourly basis in adult education classes. The bill would require that funds appropriated pursuant to a provision of law for the 2013–14 fiscal year be distributed to school districts, as specified, for the purpose of implementing the best practices teacher evaluation system, and would require these school districts to use the funds, as specified. The bill would also provide that the provisions of the best practices teacher evaluation system do not supersede or invalidate a teacher evaluation system that is locally negotiated and that is in effect at the time the best practices teacher evaluation system becomes operative. (3) Existing law requires that an evaluation and assessment of the performance of a certificated employee be made on a continuing basis, as provided, including at least every 5 years for personnel with permanent status who have been employed at least 10 years with the school district, are highly qualified, as specified, and whose previous evaluation rated the employee as meeting or exceeding standards. This bill would require the evaluation and assessment of the above personnel at least every 3 years, except as locally negotiated and provided in the best practices teacher evaluation system. (4) The existing Quality Education Investment Act of 2006 effectuates the intent of the Legislature to implement the terms of the proposed settlement agreement of a specified legal action, to provide for the discharge of the minimum state educational funding requirement, to improve the quality of academic instruction and the level of pupil achievement in schools whose pupils have high levels of poverty and complex educational needs, to develop exemplary school district and school practices to create working conditions to attract and retain well-qualified teachers and administrators, and to focus school resources solely on instructional improvement and pupil services. The act requires county superintendents of schools to annually review participant schools and their data to determine compliance with the program requirements, including, among others, specified class size requirements. The act requires, among other things, $450,000,000 per fiscal year to be appropriated from the General Fund for specified purposes for each of the 2008–09, 2011–12, and 2014–15 fiscal years, inclusive, and requires those funds to be allocated, as specified, to Sections A and B of the State School Fund. A provision of the act appropriates $218,322,000 for the 2013–14 fiscal year, for allocation by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the Superintendent, as specified, from the General Fund. This bill would revise the class size requirement for kindergarten and grades 1 to 3, inclusive, to be no more than an average of 20 pupils per class in each grade level at each schoolsite, provided that any grade 1 to 3 classroom at that schoolsite has no more than 22 pupils. The bill would instead require $450,000,000 per fiscal year to be appropriated from the General Fund for specified purposes for each of the 2008–09 and 2011–12 fiscal years, and would, commencing with the 2013–14 fiscal year, appropriate $89,000,000 to the Superintendent, as specified, for purposes of the act. The bill would, commencing with the 2013–14 fiscal year and continuing annually thereafter, require the Superintendent to allocate, as specified, certain appropriated funds that are not allocated to schools with kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in a fiscal year due to program termination or otherwise, except funds allocated in the 2013–14 fiscal year for purposes of implementing the best practices teacher evaluation system. The bill also would instead appropriate $361,000,000 for the 2013–14 fiscal year, for allocation, as specified, from the General Fund, including $313,000,000 for transfer by the Controller to Section A of the State School Fund for allocation by the Superintendent. (5) Under the California Constitution, whenever the Legislature or a state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, including a school district and a community college district, the state is required to provide a subvention of funds to reimburse the local government, with specified exceptions. Existing law, commencing with the 2012–13 fiscal year, requires certain funds appropriated in the annual Budget Act for reimbursement of the cost of a new program or increased level of service of an existing program mandated by statute or executive order to be available as a block grant to school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education to support specified state-mandated local programs and permits those entities to elect to receive that block grant funding in lieu of claiming mandated costs pursuant to the state claims process. This bill would, as of July 1, 2014, add specified mandated programs, including the best practices teacher evaluation system, to the state-mandated local programs supported by the block grant funding. (6) By requiring school districts to perform additional duties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. (7) Funds appropriated by this bill would be applied toward the minimum funding requirements for school districts and community college districts imposed by Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution.
Who sponsors AB 5?
AB 5 is sponsored by Fuentes.
What is the current status of AB 5?
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 5?
Track AB 5 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 5

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 5

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →