Even though they included a section for “student achievement,” it’s safe to say that particular section was a work in progress.

“There was literally just a few weeks to get it implemented, and we had to implement it according to the courts,” said LAUSD instructional director Brian Lucas. “We had to start something now, so we did.”

This year’s set of evaluations are the last of the old Stull evaluations. Next year, they’ll be replaced by a new system that Lucas is calling the Teacher Growth and Developments Cycles.

The new system offers a far more specific set of criteria for a principal to evaluate a teacher with during classroom observations.

“It’s very detailed and specific to what’s happening in the classroom,” said Lucas. “Before, observations could be  generic — for example, they could write, ‘good job.’ Now it’s detail based, fact based.”

Teachers will be evaluated under the new system starting in 2013-2014, but training for principals will start over the summer.

Results of the California Standardized Tests aren’t available yet, so the student achievement section on this year’s evaluations will rest on what sounds like a rather squishy metric — what Lucas calls a ‘data objective’ agreed to by the principal and the teacher. That’s almost sure to change by the end of next year.

“We need to fully flesh out what this is going to look like, what data points are going to be used,” said Lucas. “And the state testing is changing substantially for next year.”

Previous posts: Revamp Teacher Evaluation Plan, Says LA Times; Union Tells Teachers How to Protest Evaluations; Teachers & Principals Question Deasy Teacher Evaluation Plan

But UTLA President Warren Fletcher says that the guidelines may violate the underlying agreement, which was ratified by UTLA on January 19th and approved by the School Board on Tuesday.

Under the new guidelines from LAUSD, assessment of student progress will account for up to 30% of a teacher’s total evaluation, comprised both of individual test scores and school-wide Academic Growth Over Time (or AGT). The majority of each teacher’s evaluation would be made up through “observed classroom performance and other similar factors,” according to a district press release.

The underlying agreement allowed pupil progress to account for up to 50% of a teacher’s evaluation, and barred the use of individual AGT — but it did not specify an overall figure for the combined individual and schoolwide achievement factors

UTLA President Warren Fletcher tells the LA Times that the 30% figure may violate the binding agreement that the union and district came to in December:  “During negotiations, Deasy had proposed a 30% figure and the union had rejected it. Deasy then pulled the fixed-percentage idea off the table, which allowed the two sides to come to an agreement, Fletcher said.”

According to a report from the National Council on Teacher Quality, 30 states require that teacher evaluations include some measure of student achievement. Many of these states, such as Colorado, Louisiana and Ohio, say that achievement must count for 50% of the teacher evaluations, although that is often divided into various methodologies, some of which are school-wide. New York teacher evaluations use 40%; Michigan is ramping up to 50% over the next three years.

“This is progress, no doubt about it,” said Ryan Smith, Director of Education Programs and Policy for United Way in an e-mail. “Thirty percent is a reasonable number. Hopefully now the district and union can devote their attention to strengthening the support system, so that teachers are getting what they need to be the best educators they can be.”

*Update: Reached by phone, Superintendent John Deasy explained to LA School Report why he settled on 30%:

“It’s not trivial, and it’s not insignificant. It is not a majority number. A lot of research has indicated that around a third is the appropriate rate.”

Deasy added that he thought 50% was too high a figure. He also said that the evaluations would allow room for a principal’s “professional judgement.”

When asked to respond to UTLA President Warren Fletcher’s comments that the hard 30% guideline may violate the agreement they made, Deasy replied:

“I have taken the appropriate responsibility so people can operate around here… You need to give a guideline, or else people can’t operate. I’ve interpreted it within the spirit and the letter of the contract.”

Previous posts: Reaction Roundup: Teacher Evaluation Agreement, Implementing the Teacher Evaluation Deal, Union Warns Against Rejecting Teacher Evaluation Deal

UTLA President Warren Fletcher

Last week, classroom teachers voted overwhelmingly to approve a new system of evaluations, which include data from California Standardized Tests.

Sixty-six percent of UTLA’s rank and file members (11,185 teachers) voted yes, according to a UTLA press release (read full statement here).

The vote marks the end of a saga that began In November 2011, and the beginning of difficult phase in which the district must develop and implement the new plan. Superintendent John Deasy has a good deal of latitude in figuring out the specifics of the new evaluations. Of especial interest is just how much weight test scores will have.

Previous posts: Union Warns Against Rejecting Teacher Evaluation Deal, Teachers Set to Vote on Evaluation, Voices Urge “No” Vote On Evaluation, Next Steps to Finalize Teacher Deal (For more coverage, see: LA Times, Daily News, KPCC, Ed Source)

UTLA President Warren Fletcher

While union president Warren Fletcher has claimed victory on a recent court-ordered tentative agreement on teacher evaluations, a closer look might leave rank-and-file teachers scratching their heads.

UTLA has consistently opposed any use of student test scores in teacher evaluations in the past. So it was unexpected when the union leadership signed off on using raw standardized test scores such as the California Standards Tests (CST) — a single test measure that UTLA has denounced for years.

Scott Witlin, an attorney who represented parents in the Doe v. Deasy lawsuit that compelled the district and union to reach the agreement, called UTLA’s acceptance of CST scores “ironic.”

“For years, the teachers union complained that individual test scores were insufficient because they didn’t account for other factors,” Witlin said.

The union’s decision to back an agreement using the CST over a more comprehensive student performance measurement that considers a host of socio-economic factors, called Academic Growth Over Time (AGT), has perplexed some UTLA-watchers.

Some LAUSD teachers have already taken issue with UTLA’s flip-flop on test scores.  Using CST scores “would distort or falsely attribute student performance to teachers,” David Cohen wrote on the Accomplished California Teachers blog

Academic Growth Over Time (AGT), a metric launched last year by LAUSD, takes into account numerous factors when measuring progress, including English language acquisition, single-parent households, and ethnicity, and is generally thought to be a more balanced tool to measure progress.

Larry Sand at Union Watch speculates that without AGT there is little accountability and, “way too much wiggle room.” (read it here).

UTLA membership: what will they do?

On Friday, LAUSD and UTLA finally came to tentative agreement on a new way to evaluate teachers, just days before the court-imposed December 4 deadline in Doe v. Deasy.

The initial responses were generally positive, including from the plaintiffs. “Assuming that everyone behaves in good faith, I think we’ve achieved what we’ve set out to do,” says the attorney for the unnamed plaintiffs, Scot Witlin.

So what’s next for the agreement?  There’s quite a bit more that has to happen, including a couple of steps that could trip things up.

Tomorrow, the school board will, in a closed session, vote on whether or not to approve the agreement (and they are expected to approve).

Also tomorrow, the district will file a “return,” which essentially says the steps they’ve taken to satisfy the court order.

Then the union will vote whether or not to sign off. First the House of Representatives will vote on a recommendation, and then the entire membership will vote. According to the Daily News, that vote will take place in January.

At some point along the way, LAUSD will have to determine just how much of a teacher’s evaluation will derive from test scores, a number that this EdWeek blog post notes has not been specified in the agreement and has been subject of intense disagreements and negotiations in other districts.

This whole thing could unravel if the UTLA membership doesn’t like the deal.”We’d have to consider options if they don’t,” says Witlin. “Let’s hope it doesn’t get there.”

Board Members Monica Garcia and Tamar Galatzan will also introduce a resolution calling on state legislators to change “the lengthy, expensive [teacher] dismissal process required by state law,” which is a response to the legislature’s failure to pass SB 1530.

Supt. John Deasy

A tentative but potentially historic agreement was reached late Friday, November 30 between LAUSD and UTLA that will define how teachers are evaluated in the second largest school district in country. The agreement includes the use of individual student test scores as a part of the review process – a measurement that has been championed by Superintendent John Deasy and consistently opposed by the teachers union.

According to a press release issued by LAUSD, “Measures of student achievement are not the primary or controlling factor, but they are significant, and beginning immediately, will be incorporated.” The court-ordered negotiation, which started in July, recently gained urgency as it faced the December 4 deadline.

To read LAUSD’s full press release, click here.

Update: LAUSD’s big concession to UTLA is one that would please board member Steve Zimmer – the district will not use individual Academic Growth of Time scores in teacher evaluations; it will use only school-wide AGT scores.

“We are pleased to announce the agreement rejects the use of individual AGT (Academic Growth Over Time) scores as part of a teacher’s final evaluation,” said UTLA President Warren Fletcher in a press release. “This is significant because these scores have been found to be an unreliable method of measuring a teacher’s effectiveness.” (Read the full press release here.)

Evaluations will, however, use raw scores from students’ California Standards Tests (CST), arguably as tough a measure. It’s unclear how much weight the CSTs will carry in the mix, although the LA Times is reporting that it will be less than 50%. The evaluations will use a panoply of other metrics, including ‘robust’ classroom observation, A-G course enrollment, graduation rates, dropout rates, Advanced Placement course enrollment, and California High School Exit Exam passage rates.

The Daily News has posted an outline of the agreement.

Previous posts: Teacher Talks: What Happens If They Can’t Agree?, Mediator Named in Deadlock Over Teacher Evaluations, Conflicting Reports On Evaluation Negotiations

“I’m not a betting or predictive kind of guy, but I would, if I had to be forced to do that, I would see that taking place in the next four days – before it’s necessary,” Deasy told reporters at a press conference this morning.

“I have a pen in my pocket at all times to sign a tentative agreement with UTLA that would comply with the Stull Act and use measures of student achievement as a factor in evaluating teachers,” said Deasy. “I don’t have that at the moment and am late to that meeting.”

No word yet on what the elements of the deal will be, how the plaintiffs will respond, or whether UTLA is feeling equally optimistic.

Previous posts: Teacher Talks: What Happens If They Can’t Agree?, Top District Lawyer Talks Lawsuits, Unilateral Action,

Neither side is saying how the negotiations are going – other than, well, “they’re going.” That sounds good, but the district and the union haven’t been getting along lately on things like the Race to the Top application, and LAUSD recently called for mediation because there had been an impasse in negotiations.

So what happens if the negotiations bog down and the sides can’t come to an agreement within the judge’s timeline? We asked a couple of experts to weigh in and they came up with three possible scenarios: a fine or other finding against the district, permission to implement a new plan unilaterally without the union’s approval, or the use of some sort of outside third party to handle things.

Last year, seven anonymous parents sued LAUSD over non-enforcement of the Stull Act, a 1971 law that says teacher evaluations must include some measure of pupil progress (See: Outing the Lemon Teachers at LAUSD).

If the two sides can’t agree on a plan by December 4th, plaintiffs’ attorney Scott Witlin says the judge could let the district develop an evaluation system unilaterally.

“It would be within his powers to do it,” says Witlin.

That’s exactly what LAUSD lawyer David Holmquist was saying in a recent LA School Report interview: “If we need to go through fact-finding and, unfortunately, if we have to unilaterally impose [a new evaluation process] in order to comply with the judge’s order, then so be it.”

Not surprisingly, the union doesn’t want things to go that way. “UTLA continues to reject individual teacher-level VAM [value-added measure] scores,” reads a short piece in the November issue of UTLA’s newspaper. “Talks lately have included the potential use of a schoolwide AGT score in place of an individual AGT score.”

Or, alternately, the judge “could hold the district in contempt,” says Witlin. “He could fine the district.”

Political science professor David Menefee-Libey of Pomona College says that there’s a third possibility: the judge could appoint a third party to design an evaluation system.

“If a court tells a governmental body to do something and they defy the court, there comes a point where the only remedy left to the court may be to establish a parallel governing body,” he says.

As an example, Menefee-Libey cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to  health care inside the California prison system in the hands of a receivership.

Previous posts: Top District Lawyer Talks Lawsuits, Unilateral Action, Mediator Named in Deadlock Over Teacher Evaluations, UTLA Calls Mediation Request “Premature”, Concerns About Teacher Talks, LAUSD-UTLA Headed to Mediation

David Holmquist

Not many people would recognize David Holmquist, general counsel for the LA Unified School District (pictured below). But Holmquist serves as an important role, overseeing all labor negotiations, and representing the district in over 1,000 lawsuits  – including attempts by LAUSD to recover overpayment from 600 employees and dismiss more than 120 teachers.

We spoke last Wednesday in his office on the 24th floor of LAUSD headquarters about what actions LAUSD is preparing to take unilaterally if the teacher evaluation negotiations with UTLA remain unresolved, the recent LA Times lawsuit, his role in the Ramon Cortines sexual assault allegations, the ongoing legal fallout from the Miramonte scandal, and LAUSD’s version of the infamous New York City “rubber rooms” where teachers are housed while investigations against them are pending.

LA School Report: What exactly do you do?

David Holmquist:  I serve the Board of Education and also the Superintendent. We provide advice to all district employees that need it. Probably the number one issue that comes up at the schools is, someone shows up with a piece of paper and they tell the principal, “I wanna take Johnny out of class and this document allows me to do so.” And so the school will call us and say, “What’s up with this? Do I release the child into this person’s custody?” We get kind of a lot of questions about that. And we have about 1,000 lawsuits at any given time that we are either a plaintiff or defendant in.

LASR: A thousand lawsuits — that’s so many. What is the typical lawsuit?

DH: I would say in probably about 65 percent of them, we are the plaintiff and we are actually going after former employees, retirees and others on overpayments. They were, as a result of some computer problems and payroll problems we’ve had over the years, overpaid.

The next largest group is the teacher dismissals, where our board has voted to initiate a dismissal process for teachers. And so we have to go through a rather protracted process in order to actually terminate their employment.

LASR: About how many teachers right now are in that process?

DH: About 120 are in that process now.

LASR: And all those teachers are still getting paid by the district?

DH: I would say about 60 percent of the 120 are unpaid. And that has been a change, an interpretation that our office has done in terms of the actual charges being brought. In the past, we have typically interpreted the charges as being such that a teacher does in fact need to be on paid status.

LASR: Is there an LA equivalent of the “rubber room” from New York City?

DH: It’s not exactly equivalent, but yes, we have places where we keep housed employees. They are at each of the local district offices, and then we have one centrally. Some employees, actually an increasingly large number are housed at home.

LASR: How many teachers are like that?

DH: We have 278 on the list, of which 120 of those are in the dismissal process. We have about 150 more on top of that in various stages of that dismissal process. The majority of those are in that situation because law enforcement is still conducting the investigations. There also may be charges filed with the district attorney’s office, and we don’t want to compromise a criminal investigation.

LASR: What can you tell me about the negotiations with UTLA over the Doe v. Deasy lawsuit?

DH: I think you probably know that we’ve gone to impasse. It was about two weeks ago. So we’ve had one session with the mediator, and another one is scheduled.

It’s our view that we’re not required to collectively bargain this agreement. But in the interest of trying to come up with something that teachers and the teachers union can live with, we have been engaged in conversations with them.

LASR: What is your sense of how these negotiations are going? Are the two sides coming closer together?

DH: Well we’re certainly closer than we were when we started. I am optimistic that an agreement will be reached, but if we need to go through fact-finding and, unfortunately, if we have to unilaterally impose [a new evaluation process] in order to comply with the judge’s order, then so be it.

LASR: So in the event that the negotiations don’t work and you guys just write your own plan, do you have that plan written already?

DH: Oh yes. We’ve given them an offer of how we would do this, and we’ve certainly gone back and forth. And we, in good faith, have moved off our original position in order to get something that we think makes sense for students and also complies with the judge’s order. And if we have to go to unilateral implementation – hopefully not, but if we do, then we’ll be prepared to execute that.

LASR: The LA Times is suing you guys. Is the dispute over the names, is that what it is? They have the data and they want the names?

DH: That’s pretty much it. And so we feel that, given the Doe vs. Deasy litigation, that this is not something that we can properly turn over to the LA Times.

LASR: I don’t understand why Doe vs. Deasy has anything to do with it.

DH: It’s part of ongoing litigation, and more than that, I really can’t say.

LASR: Are you guys saying it’s a privacy issue?

DH: Certainly had we negotiated with UTLA that this information was in fact part of an employee’s evaluation, then the line would be very clear that we would not turn it over. And we are currently negotiating over that very issue with UTLA.

LASR: So in that respect, you would assume that UTLA wouldn’t want you to turn over the names to the LA Times.

DH: You would of course have to talk to them, but I would well imagine that they would want to respect their members’ privacy. Certainly UTLA has been invited to participate in this litigation if they wanted to express a view that the court should consider. To date, they have not. But they might be wise to do so.

LASR: What is going on with Miramonte?

DH: Well, we are slowly but surely trying to resolve these claims in a way that will help to restore some confidence in the community. We’ve set up a mediation process that we think respects what the community needs, what the students need. I can’t talk a lot about that right now.

LASR: You’re saying that you hope to reach a settlement.

DH: Right. We got just short of 200 claims and lawsuits that were filed against us. The majority of them are claims. I think we have 3 lawsuits and the rest are all claims.

LASR: I wanted to talk about the Scot Graham lawsuit. He’s made some allegations, one of which involves you personally, that you told him, “Why don’t you just forget about this,” or something like that. Do you want to comment on that?

DH: Actually I do. I will tell you that I met with Scot Graham. It was part of my investigation that caused me to speak to Mr. Graham, not because he came to me independently. He begged me not to divulge any of this information. He said he would withdraw his complaint – he never filed a complaint.  And our policy says we will respect the confidentially of those who come forward, and we don’t bring things forward that would compromise their confidentiality.

So I did what our policy requires and what I thought was the right thing to do under the circumstances. I’m glad that you’re asking me about that, because that hasn’t been out there yet.

LASR: Just to reiterate, you did not tell him to forget about his accusations against Cortines?

DH: He told me he wanted to forget about it. He told me that he was seeing a therapist and he had spoken to his husband, and that everything was OK, and he did not want to pursue this. He told me it was a private matter between he and his friend [former LAUSD Superintendent] Ray Cortines.

LASR: Did you think that was odd at the time?

DH: No, I believed him. I had no reason not to believe him. I don’t know what circumstances changed for him, that caused him to change his mind, but that was what he told me.

Edited and condensed for clarity

Previous posts: Concerns About Teacher Talks, LAUSD & UTLA: Headed To Mediation, Cortines Suit Raises Board Questions

The October 19th issue of the United Teacher states that, “the union continues to push back against LAUSD’s proposal to link a percentage of a teacher’s evaluation to his or her individual Academic Growth Over Time score. AGT is LAUSD’s version of VAM, or value- added model, which research studies show to be an inaccurate and unstable measure of teacher effectiveness.”

The two sides have been deadlocked despite pressure to meet a court-ordered deadline of December 4, 2012. LAUSD last month declared an impasse and requested mediation, which union head Warren Fletcher called “premature.”

At the heart of the dispute is how to implement a recent ruling in the Doe v. Deasy case, which requires that student test scores be included as a factor in teacher evaluations. That ruling was based on a lawsuit against LAUSD brought about by a group of parents who claim the district is not complying with the Stull Act, a 1971 law that requires student progress be used in performance evaluations of teachers.

But the teachers union has rejected the use of any testing data as part of the evaluation process, especially the measurement favored by LAUSD Superintendent Deasy, called Academic Growth Over Time (AGT). The union is under increasing pressure after AALA, the union representing principals and administrators, agreed last month to use AGT as a component in principal evaluations.

Scott Witlin, a lawyer who represented parents in the suit, says the Stull Act requires two factors to be measured when evaluating teachers: “First, you have to account for the academic progress of pupils towards the standards of the local district, and second, when applicable, you account for the progress of pupils according to California standards tests.”

LAUSD and UTLA have until December 4 to come to an agreement. If they don’t, according to Witlin, the judge could hold UTLA or LAUSD in contempt. “The date wasn’t picked out of a hat – all parties agreed they could get the job done by then.”

Related posts: LAUSD-UTLA Headed to Mediation, UTLA Calls Mediation Request “Premature”

The “impasse” declaration was filed more than a couple of weeks ago, according to LAUSD Chief Labor and Employment Counsel Alex Molina, although he declined to provide a specific date or comment on how the process was going. “The mediator is not allowing parties to speak about mediation process,” said Molina.

According to an inside source who did not wish to be named, the move is “a leverage decision [on the part of LAUSD]. It makes UTLA look like foot-draggers.” However, Molina describes the move as perfectly normal: “The court had ordered that parties partake in such a process if necessary to reach agreement.”

Previous posts: Week-Long Disappearing Act for Zimmer Resolution, Concerns About Teacher Talks, Teacher Evaluation Debate Deadline.

Left to right: Scott Witlin, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and Ed Voice’s Bill Lucia; Press conference after Doe v. Deasy decision

On Monday, representatives from LAUSD and UTLA met again to discuss teacher evaluations — the 15th session since July 11, when a judge ordered the two sides to develop a new system for evaluating teachers and principals that includes some measure of pupil progress.

Superintendent John Deasy told Teresa Watanabe of the LA Times, “I am anticipating a breakthrough with teachers, and I would say very soon.” (see: Slim chance for teachers strike in L.A., officials say)

But others aren’t so sure. UTLA president Warren Fletcher has repeatedly said that he opposes any use of student test scores in teacher evaluations. And it’s unclear how much progress has been made in the negotiations, from which the Doe v. Deasy plaintiffs have been excluded.

The process may not have gotten off to a quick start, according to Doe v. Deasy attorney Scott Witlin. “I got the impression that the district hadn’t given a proposal to UTLA until a few weeks ago,” Witlin told me. “I don’t know if UTLA has given proposal to district.”

The district and the administrators’ union reached a tentative agreement on how principals are evaluated, but the agreement “does not specify how much the student achievement data should count in the evaluations, saying it will be ‘limited’ and not the ‘sole, or primary, or controlling factor,'” according to Watanabe of the LA Times, (see: L.A. Unified, union OK system of evaluating principals)

A dispute over the exact weight that student test scores have in teacher evaluations is at the very heart of the teacher’s strike in Chicago.

In what may be a surprise to some, Witlin hasn’t been in on any of the negotiations. Neither have his clients, the six anonymous parents who sued the LAUSD over noncompliance with the Stull Act. (see: Outing lemon teachers at LAUSD)

“My clients are parents who, as always, are shut out of the process,” said Witlin.

The district and the union has until December 4th to reach an agreement. Otherwise, the judge could impose some kind of process on them.

LAUSD Supt. John Deasy, via KPCC

So what’s the update? LAUSD has made a proposal, according to the Daily News’ Barbara Jones, who reports that the AALA is “hopeful progress will continue in negotiations.” (LAUSD proposes new teacher-evaluation system). EdVoice CEO Bill Lucia is also optimistic, and says that the district has met with union leaders 20 times over the last two months.

However, UTLA had no comment. Neither, for that matter, did the Superintendent. And KPCC’s Tami Abdollah spoke with plaintiff attorney Scott Witlin, who says he was “surprised by how few times the unions had met with the district.” (No agreement yet for LAUSD and its unions on teacher evals). Lucia and Witlin are on the same side of the lawsuit, so either they have different information, or one of them is using some sort of a negotiating tactic (or one of the news accounts is inaccurate).

The latest word from EdSource is that AB 5 is being revised slightly to try and mollify opponents and also to help make the state eligible for a No Child Left Behind waiver (see: Fuentes agrees to compromises on AB 5: Are they enough?). If approved, the amended bill could go back to the State Senate education committee early next week. But it’s not clear that’s going to happen without further changes. Romero, EdVoice and other education reformers are still strongly opposed to the law — as is LAUSD’s John Deasy.

What is AB 5? Why do ed reform groups, not to mention Deasy, hate it so much? And what is Fuentes offering to change?

The back story goes all the way back to the 1971 Stull Act, which mandates that teachers (and other accredited employees) in California be evaluated by objective criteria, including pupil progress. In almost every interpretation, that boils down to one thing: test scores.

Flash forward to 2011, when a group of anonymous parents and students teamed up with Ed Voice to sue LAUSD on the grounds that it was not enforcing the Stull Act, since it wasn’t using pupil progress to evaluate teachers or principals. The suit was called Doe v. Deasy, the irony being that the named defendant, Superintendent John Deasy, actually agreed with the plaintiffs. A judge recently ruled that the district was in fact not adhering to the Stull Act, and he ordered LAUSD and the unions to come up with a new evaluation system that would satisfy the law by December 4.

Which brings us to AB 5. Sponsored by Fuentes, the bill would essentially re-write the Stull Act. The “pupil progress” section would be obliterated, replaced with what the bill calls a “best practices teacher evaluation system.” The bill goes on to list the many attributes “best practices” would include, but the short of it is that teachers would be evaluated on what they do in the classrooms, as opposed to how their students perform.

“This is a bill that was ghostwritten by the CTA,” says Gloria Romero, former State Senate Majority Leader (and now head of California Democrats for Education Reform). “If enacted the way it is, it will set us back 40 years, in terms of teacher evaluations. It needs to be rewritten or abandoned.”

(CTA has not yet responded to my request for comment.)

On Wednesday, Ed Voice took out a full-page ad in the LA Times blasting Fuentes’ proposal: “AB 5 guts objective accountability of adult job performance in schools just as voters are being asked to invest more in education.” A number of other ed reform groups are lobbying against the bill, including Educators 4 Excellence, Students First and Alliance for a Better Community.

When I spoke with Superintendent Deasy last week, he said he found the timing of the Fuentes bill, coming so soon after the judge’s order in Doe v. Deasy, “unusual.” He also expressed dismay that the bill is funded by $89 million out of the Quality Education Investment Act, or QEIA, which provides money to low-income, low performing schools in order lower class size. That bill was the product of heavy lobbying from, yes, the CTA.

“CTA, which is like this very powerful organization, have spent every ounce of their capital making sure nothing happens to QEIA,” said Deasy. “This bill takes away QEIA funds – this is how AB 5 is being funded. I find that perplexing. I don’t understand it.”

“All sides of the issues agree that the QEIA funds are important and not something we should be cutting,” says Evan Stone, co-founder and co-CEO of Educators 4 Excellence.

According to a document sent to us by Ed Voice, the QEIA cuts would weigh heavily on LAUSD. District schools stand to lose a total of $30 million if AB 5 passes. Bell Senior High, for example, would lose $1.1 million, while John Adams Middle School would lose $300,00.

SI&A has helpful links to the Fuentes proposal and the recent changes he’s offered (see: Student scores at heart of new teacher ratings nationally).  The Senate has until August 31, the last day of the legislative session, to do something about AB 5.

“Everybody is on pins and needles,” says Romero. “This is the time of the year when, basically, the legislature is on call, so they can meet at any time.”  She’s not sure what’s gonna happen, but she knows one thing: “Sausage-making is taking place.”