The Florida Senate

BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT

(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)

Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Education Pre-K - 12 Committee

BILL: CS/SB 6
INTRODUCER: Education Pre-K Committee, Senator Thrasher, and others
SUBJECT: Education Personnel
DATE: March 11, 2010 REVISED:

ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION

1. deMarsh-Mathues Matthews ED Fav/CS
2. WPSC
3.
4.
5.
6.

I. Summary:

The bill is a comprehensive education personnel initiative that provides for:

Contracts with Classroom Teachers

Revises the contractual requirements for classroom teachers hired beginning July 1,
2010, including the eligibility, duration, and requirements for probationary contracts
and annual contracts;

Performance and Differentiated-Pay

Provides that greater than 50 percent of each instructional personnel and school-based
administrator’s pay would be based on student learning gains and provides that the
remainder would be based on the performance appraisal;
Provides for differentiated pay based on high-priority locations, critical teacher
shortage areas, or additional academic responsibilities with continued awards
contingent upon student learning gains;
Provides for a salary schedule for beginning teachers that is in effect for the first year
that the teacher provides instruction in a Florida K-12 classroom;
Prohibits districts from using time-served or degrees-held in setting pay schedules;
Provides that non-instructional personnel would be paid on the basis of performance;

Performance Appraisals
Revises the current educator and school-based administrator personnel assessment
system, establishes an appraisal system, and revises the appraisal procedures and
criteria for instructional, administrative, and supervisory personnel, including the
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 2

requirement that beginning teachers be reviewed at least twice in the first year of
teaching;

End-of-Course Assessments
Requires districts to develop or acquire valid and reliable end-of-course assessments
for grade levels and subjects not assessed on the FCAT, exams for a College Board
Advanced Placement (AP) course, International Baccalaureate (IB) program,
Advanced International Certificate of Education (AICE) program, or industry-
approved exams to earn national industry certification;
Establishes district-wide implementation of assessments in 2013-2014;
Provides that the district school-superintendent is responsible for the security of
assessments and must certify the integrity of the exam process;
Requires the Commissioner of Education (commissioner) to identify methods to
support districts in the development or acquisition of assessments, including item
banks;
Requires the commissioner to review district assessments on a sample basis for
compliance;

Professional Certification
Requires a certified teacher from another state to demonstrate subject area mastery by
the conclusion of the first semester of teaching;
Requires temporary certificate holders to pass a subject area test within the first year
of the temporary certificate with some extenuating exceptions;
Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to review the subject area exam and
reading instruction rigor;
Allows the SBE to adopt rules for accepting college credit recommended by the
American Council on Education (ACE);
Provides an acceptable means of demonstrating mastery of professional competency
by Teach for America graduates who complete a professional training program and
pass a professional competency exam;
Removes the provision for automatic renewal of National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards certificateholders, beginning in 2014;
Ties renewal to effective or highly effective performance, as determined under the
performance appraisal;
Prohibits the assignment of a beginning teacher to teach reading, science, or
mathematics if the teacher is not certified in reading, science, or mathematics;
Revises the composition of the Education Practices Commission;
Allows the Department of Education (DOE) access to child abuse records for the
investigation or prosecution of educator misconduct;

School District and Charter School Accountability

Requires charter schools and academically high-performing school districts to comply
with the requirements for end-of-course assessments, salary schedules, and contracts;
Provides a penalty for charter schools that fail to comply with the requirements;
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 3

Requires the commissioner to review evidence of a district’s compliance with the

assessment and salary schedule requirements and the Auditor General to determine
compliance with classroom teacher contract requirements;
Requires an ad valorem tax penalty for districts that violate the law on professional
service contracts, assessments, or performance pay;
Requires an additional required local effort to generate revenue that is equal to five
percent of the district’s salaries for instructional and school-based administrators;
Requires the commissioner to withhold state funds in the Florida Education Finance
Program (FEFP) for the fiscal year in which the levy occurred;
Provides that the revenue generated by the levy may only be used to compensate for
the loss of state funds;

State-Approved Educator Preparation Programs

Eliminates the admissions waiver for up to 10 percent of students admitted to the
program;
Requires continued approval of programs contingent upon learning gains, as
measured by state assessments;
Revises the requirements for pre-service field experiences for student teachers;
Requires Educator Preparation Institute (EPI) participants to have evidence of
eligibility for a temporary certificate and to complete field experiences, mastery of
general knowledge, and subject area testing prior to completion of the program;
Requires EPI instructors to meet same requirements as instructors in traditional
teacher preparation programs; and
Requires the DOE to submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature on the
effectiveness of state-approved teacher preparation programs; and
Requires the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability
(OPPAGA) to review the current standards for the continued approval of teacher
preparation programs and make recommendations to the Legislature.

This bill substantially amends sections 39.202, 200.065, 447.403, 1002.33, 1003.52, 1003.621,
1004.04, 1004.85, 1009.40, 1009.94, 1011.69, 1012.05, 1012.07, 1012.22, 1012.33, 1012.34,
1012.42, 1012.56, 1012.585, 1012.79, and 1012.795; creates sections 1008.222, 1011.626,
1012.335; and repeals sections 1003.62, 1003.63, 1004.04(11) and (12), 1009.54, 1009.57,
1009.58, 1009.59, 1012.225, 1012.2251, 1012.52, and 1012.72 of the Florida Statutes.

II. Present Situation:

Teacher Quality and Effectiveness

Federal law established requirements that all teachers of core academic subjects be “highly
qualified.”1 This means teachers must generally have a bachelor’s degree, be fully certified, and
demonstrate their knowledge of the subjects they teach.2 According to the U.S. DOE, most
teachers have been designated as highly qualified under the federal law, but teachers in high-

1
20 U.S.C. sections 6319(a)(1) and 7801(23). In order to receive funding under Part A of Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), states must comply with its
requirements.
2
Id.
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 4

poverty schools had less experience and were less likely to have a degree in the subject that they
teach.3

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provides $4.3 billion for the
Race to the Top Fund, a competitive grant program designed to encourage and reward states that
are implementing significant education reforms across four education areas: implementing
standards and assessments, improving teacher effectiveness and achieving equity in teacher
distribution, improving the collection and use of data, and supporting struggling schools.4

To receive funds, a state must provide assurance that it will improve teacher effectiveness and
comply with the requirements that school programs and targeted assistance schools provide
instruction by highly qualified teachers, that poor and minority students are not taught at higher
rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers, and that it will
evaluate and publicly report progress with respect to these requirements.5 The criteria include the
extent to which a state differentiates the effectiveness of teachers and principals and uses this
information for decisions on evaluation, compensation, promotion, termination, and tenure.6
Under the criteria, teacher and principal effectiveness would be judged in significant part by
student growth.7

Private sector support for improving teacher effectiveness includes recent funding provided by
the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.8 In November 2009, Hillsborough County Public Schools
was awarded a $100 million grant from the foundation for seven years to support effective
teaching and raise student achievement.9

Distribution of Effective Teachers

In 2009, the Florida Legislature enacted legislation to address the quality of teachers assigned to
the lowest performing schools.10 School districts may not assign a higher percentage than the
school district average of temporarily certified teachers, teachers in need of improvement, or out-
of-field teachers to these schools. A school district must certify to the commissioner that it has
assigned teachers equitably and the commissioner must notify the SBE if a school district is not
in compliance. The SBE may then exercise its power to enforce school district compliance.11

3
State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume VII—Teacher Quality Under NCLB: Final Report,
U.S. DOE, 2009. See [Link] ’
4
ARRA, Public Law 111-5, section 14005(d)(2),(3),(4), and (5). See also section 14006 which provides for incentive grants
to states that have made significant progress in meeting the objectives in paragraphs (2),(3),(4), and (5) of section 14005(d).
5
20 U.S.C. section 6311(b)(8)(C).
6
Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 221, Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria, November 18, 2009, and Supplemental Information, Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 17, January 27, 2010. See
[Link] The U.S. DOE proposes the use of $4 billion for
this initiative and a potential for $350 million to support the development of assessments by a consortia of states.
7
Id.
8
Empowering Effective Teachers: Strategies for Implementing Reforms, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, February 2010,
See [Link]
9
See [Link]
10
ch. 2009-144, L.O.F., amended s. 1012.2315, F.S. Prior to this change, the provision only applied to schools designated as
“D” or “F” schools. Low performing schools are defined in s. 1008.33, F.S.
11
s. 1008.32, F.S.
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 5

For the 2007-2008 school year, the DOE reviewed data to determine whether districts are
succeeding in ensuring that children in schools that earned a grade of “D” or “F,” which were
above the district’s average in minority population or level of poverty, were not taught at higher
rates by first year teachers, teachers holding a temporary certificate, or out-of-field teachers.12
The data shows that high need schools have higher percentages of teachers who are
inexperienced, hold a temporary certificate, or are out-of-field, contrary to statutory requirements
that teachers with more experience are assigned to high need schools.13

District School Boards

School boards are assigned certain duties related to school personnel, including designating
positions to be filled, prescribing the qualifications for those positions, and providing for the
appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees.14

Contracts for Instructional Personnel

Section 1012.33, F.S., states that instructional employees hired on or after July 1, 1984, are
classified for a term of three years as probationary employees, with an extension to four years if
the district school board and the employee have agreed in writing.15

For instructional staff newly employed after June 30, 1997, the initial annual contract includes a
97-day period during which the employee’s contract may be terminated without cause or the
employee may resign without breach of contract.16 All contracts must contain provisions for
dismissal during the term of the contract only for just cause. Just cause includes immorality,
misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or being
convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt,
any crime involving moral turpitude, as defined in SBE rule.17

Following the probationary period, the employee may receive a professional service contract,
provided he or she is recommended by the district school superintendent for such contract. This
would also require that the individual be reappointed by the district school board based on
successful performance of duties and demonstration of professional competence.

Section 1012.33(3)(e), F.S., currently stipulates that a professional service contract must be
renewed each year unless the district school superintendent charges the employee with
unsatisfactory performance and notifies the employee of performance deficiencies.

Section 1012.33(3)(g), F.S., states that as of July 1, 2001, for each employee who enters into a
written contract, school districts must, for purposes of pay, recognize and accept each year of

12
DOE, Assignment of Teachers and Paraprofessionals Under Differentiated Accountability for Title I and Non-Title I
Schools for the 2007-2008 School Year, September 4, 2009. See [Link]
5457/[Link] .
13
s. 1012.2315, F.S. (2008). See also 20 U.S.C. s. 6311(b)(8)(C).
14
s. 1001.42(5), F.S.
15
Each year of service is pursuant to an annual contract. The 3-year probation must be completed in the same school district
during a period of time not in excess of five successive years, except for leave duly authorized and granted. An employee’s
annual contract is not required to be renewed during the probationary period of service.
16
s. 1012.33(1)(a)4., F.S.
17
s. 1012.33(1)(a), F.S., and Rule 6B-4.009, F.A.C.
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 6

public, full-time teaching service earned in Florida and for which the employee received a
satisfactory performance evaluation.

Performance and Differentiated Pay

Current law provides for the compensation and salary schedules of public school personnel and
includes provisions by which the district school board must abide in the determination and
development of the salary schedule.18 Furthermore, each district school board is required to
adopt a salary schedule with differentiated pay for both school-based administrators and
instructional personnel. The adopted salary schedule is subject to negotiation and must allow
school administrators and instructional personnel to receive differentiated pay based upon a
number of district-determined factors, including, but not limited to, additional responsibilities,
school demographics, level of job performance difficulties, and critical shortage areas.19 The
DOE does not currently review school district salary schedules.

Under Florida’s Merit Award Program (MAP), a voluntary performance pay program for
instructional personnel and school-based administrators, school districts must designate
outstanding performers to receive a merit-based pay supplement of at least five percent, but no
more than ten percent of the district’s average teacher’s salary.20 School districts determine
eligibility for the supplement based upon student academic proficiency, learning gains, or both as
measured by statewide standardized assessments and local district-determined assessments, as
well as other performance factors. At least 60 percent of the overall personnel evaluation must
relate to student performance and up to 40 percent must relate to professional practices.

Performance Appraisals
In Florida, the assessment of instructional personnel and school-based administrators is currently
based on the performance of students assigned to their classroom as well as other educational
practices.21 The Florida Educator Accomplished Practices were adopted by SBE rule in 1998.22
While the practices are currently referenced in several sections of law pertaining to teacher
preparation programs and merit pay,23 there is no reference to them in the provision of law
related to the annual performance appraisal of instructional personnel.24 Similarly, current rule
establishes the Florida Principal Leadership Standards,25 which are referenced in the law related
to professional development.26 The standards are not referenced in the performance appraisal for
school-based administrators.27 The current array of statutory citations makes it difficult to
identify and monitor expectations for teacher and principal performance.

18
s. 1012.22(1)(c), F.S.
19
Id.
20
s. 1012.225, F.S. Charter schools may participate in the program.
21
ss. 1012.225(3)(e) and 1012.34(3)(a), F.S. Other criteria include the ability to maintain appropriate discipline, knowledge
of subject matter, ability to plan and deliver instruction, the use of technology in the classroom, ability to evaluate
instructional needs, ability to establish and maintain a positive collaborative relationship with students’ families, and other
professional competencies, responsibilities, and requirements established by the SBE and district school board policy.
22
Rule 6A-5.065, F.A.C.
23
ss. 1004.04, 1004.85, 1012.225, and 1012.56, F.S.
24
s. 1012.34, F.S.
25
Rule 6A-5.080, F.A.C.
26
s. 1012.986, F.S.
27
s. 1012.34, F.S.
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 7

Professional Certification
There are two types of state educator certificates: the temporary certificate and the professional
certificate.28 The temporary certificate is valid for three years and is nonrenewable. A
professional certificate is valid for five years, is renewable, and required for teachers who wish
to continue teaching in public classrooms. Certification requirements for school-based
administrators are specified by the State Board of Education.29 The requirements for renewing a
certificate, including professional development, are specified in law.30

Teacher Preparation
The SBE is required to maintain a system for the development and approval of teacher
preparation programs that allows postsecondary teacher preparation institutions to employ a
variety of innovative teacher preparation practices while being held accountable for producing
graduates with the competencies and skills necessary to achieve the state’s education goals. 31

Florida provides several pathways to meet professional teacher certification requirements,

including traditional teacher preparation programs provided by universities and colleges for
individuals seeking a degree.32 The EPIs and school district alternative certification programs
provide individuals who already have baccalaureate degrees with professional training on the
competencies needed for professional certification.33

The DOE reviews and approves educator preparation programs in Florida, including public and
private colleges and universities.34 The DOE recently provided each postsecondary institution
and district that offers a teacher preparation program with student achievement data for 2008-
2009 that is tied to the identity of each classroom teacher who completed their program in 2007-
2008 and who taught each course in reading/language arts and math in grades 4 through 10 in
public schools during the 2008-2009 school year.35 For the first time, the postsecondary
institutions and districts have the opportunity to review and analyze the impact of their program
completers on student learning. The DOE expects each institution and district, as a condition of
continued teacher preparation program approval, to demonstrate that the data is used to improve
the program and the performance of individuals who complete the program.

28
s. 1012.56, F.S. Districts issue certificates to adjunct teachers, pursuant to s. 1012.57, F.S.
29
Section 1012.55(1), F.S., requires the SBE to designate the certification requirements for all school-based personnel. These
requirements are specified in SBE rule and the DOE Course Code Directory and Instructional Personnel Assignments 2009-
2010, adopted by reference in Rule 6A-1.09441, F.A.C. See [Link]
[Link].
30
s. 1012.585, F.S.
31
s. 1004.04, F.S.
32
Id.
33
ss. 1004.85 and 1012.56(8), F.S. Individuals can also qualify for a teaching certificate without participating in a formal
teacher preparation program by documenting that they have met all requirements for a professional certificate.
34
s. 1004.04, F.S., Rules 6A-4.003 and 6A-5.066, F.A.C., and Initial and Continued Approval Standard Guidelines, DOE,
May 2009. Programs are approved for seven years.
35
Correspondence with DOE, March 5, 2010, on file with the committee. See also Teacher Quality, Issue Brief 2010-313,
Florida Senate, October 2009, available at
[Link]
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 8

End-of-Course Assessments
Current law allows end-of-course assessments to be administered for a subject in addition to the
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), which measures a student's content knowledge
and skills in reading, writing, science, and mathematics. These assessments may be used as long
as they are rigorous, statewide, standardized, aligned to the core curricular content established in
the Sunshine State Standards, and developed or approved by the DOE.36 The commissioner may
select one or more nationally developed comprehensive examinations, which may include
examinations for a College Board Advanced Placement (AP) course, International Baccalaureate
(IB) program, Advanced International Certificate of Education (AICE) program, or industry-
approved examinations to earn national industry certifications as defined in s. 1003.492, F.S., for
use as end of course assessments.37

School District Funding

The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) is the primary mechanism for funding the
operating costs of Florida school districts. School districts receive their financial support from
state sources, local sources, including the required local effort portion of the FEFP, and federal
sources.38 Funds for state support to school districts are provided primarily by legislative
appropriations. The major portion of state support is distributed through the FEFP.39

Local revenue for school support is derived almost entirely from property taxes levied by
Florida’s 67 counties,40 each of which constitutes a school district.41 Each school board
participating in the state allocation of funds for the current operation of schools must levy the
millage set for its required local effort from property taxes.42 Each district’s share of the state
total required local effort is determined by a statutory procedure that is initiated by certification
of the property tax valuations of each district by the Department of Revenue.43

Current law establishes three categories of school millage rates which must be set by a district
school board and are not subject to a public referendum.44 School board adoption of millage
levies is governed by the advertising, notice, and public meeting requirements in law. 45

Other Provisions
High Performing School Districts
Section 1003.621, F.S., recognizes certain school districts that earn a district grade of “A” for
two consecutive years, have no district-operated “F” schools, comply with all class size
requirements, and have no material weaknesses or instances of material noncompliance in an
annual financial audit. The reward for high-performance is an exemption from certain laws and
rules as specified in s. 1003.621(2), F.S. The designation is for a 3-year period as long as the
school district continues to meet certain criteria.
36
s. 1008.22(3)(c), F.S.
37
Id.
38
DOE, Funding for Florida School Districts, Statistical Report, 2009-2010. See [Link]
39
Id.
40
Id.
41
Art. IX, s. 4, of the State Constitution.
42
s. 1011.71(1), F.S.
43
s. 1011.62(4), F.S.
44
s. 200.001(3), F.S.
45
s. 200.065, F.S.
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 9

Academic Performance-Based Charter School Districts46

In 1999, the law authorized the SBE to enter into a performance contract with up to six school
districts to establish them as pilot charter school districts to be exempt from statutes and
administrative rules if the district agreed to meet specific performance goals.47 The law was
subsequently amended to allow for the designation of “academic performance-based charter
school districts” and grandfather the original four pilot programs (Palm Beach, Hillsborough,
Orange, and Volusia) until July 1, 2010. 48

Deregulated Public Schools

Section 1003.63, F.S., allows the following school districts to participate in a pilot program for
deregulated public schools until the end of the 2003-2004 school year: Citrus, Lee, Leon, Palm
Beach, Pinellas, Seminole, and Walton. Schools in these districts could be given deregulated
status and be exempt from all statutes in the School Code, with some exceptions.

Charter Schools
Florida law specifies that all charter schools are considered public schools.49 The schools are
exempt from certain laws and rules, as specified in s. 1002.33(16), F.S. Charter schools are
formed through the creation of a new school or the conversion of an existing public school.50A
charter, or the written contractual agreement between the sponsor and applicant, establishes the
terms and conditions of operation.51

American Council on Education (ACE)

Currently, courses completed and evaluated to establish college credit by the American Council
on Education cannot be accepted for educator certification purposes, unless accepted as transfer
credit and shown on an official transcript by an accredited institution. This is an additional and
usually significant expense to an applicant.52

Records of the Department of Children and Families (DCF)

The DOE, as the licensing body for professional educators, investigates and prosecutes educators
who engage in criminal or ethical misconduct; however, the DOE is not currently granted
statutory authority to access DCF information regarding an educator who may have committed
an act of abuse or neglect.53 Without clarity in the law, the DCF does not provide information to
the DOE for use in investigating and prosecuting educators.

46
s. 1003.62, F.S.
47
Section 228.058, F.S., was created by ch. 99-374, L.O.F.
48
ch. 2003-391, L.O.F., and ch. 2007-234, L.O.F.
49
s. 1002.33(1), F.S.
50
Id.
51
s. 1002.33(6)(i), F.S.
52
DOE correspondence, March 6, 2010, on file with the committee.
53
s. 39.202(2) F.S. During an investigation regarding educator misconduct, occasions arise when an educator has been
investigated through the DCF for an allegation of abuse or neglect. This investigation by the DCF may be related to the same
incident that the DOE is investigating, or may be historical information pertinent to the pending case.
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 10

III. Effect of Proposed Changes:

Contracts with Classroom Teachers

Classroom teachers hired in a Florida school district on or after July 1, 2010, would be employed
under the revised probationary and annual contracts. In effect, professional service contracts
would not be given to any classroom teacher hired on or after July 1, 2010. This gives school
districts greater flexibility in meeting student instructional needs by retaining effective teachers
and removing poor performing teachers more quickly and cost-effectively.

Probationary Contracts
Beginning July 1, 2010, each new classroom teacher would be hired under a probationary
contract. The probationary contract may not extend beyond one year. A classroom teacher may
be dismissed without cause or may resign from the contractual position without violating the
contract. The probationary contract would lengthen from 97 days to one school year the
timeframe under which either the school district or the staff member may terminate the
agreement to teach without creating a breach of the contract.

Annual Contracts
Upon successful completion of the probationary contract, a classroom teacher would be eligible
to receive an annual contract. The contract may not exceed one year in duration and the school
board can choose to renew or not renew without cause. A classroom teacher may receive four
annual contracts if the teacher:

Holds a professional certificate as prescribed by s. 1012.56, F.S., and SBE rules; and
Is recommended by the superintendent for the contract and approved by the district
school board.

An annual contract may only be granted for the sixth year of teaching and thereafter to a state-
certified classroom teacher who was approved by the school board for a contract and whose
performance is rated effective or highly effective in at least two of the preceding three years by
the performance appraisal, based on objective student learning gains and Florida’s Educator
Accomplished Practices.

In effect, the school district would make the determination whether to renew an annual contract
in its discretion, rather than the contract automatically renewing.

A classroom teacher with an annual contract may be suspended or dismissed at any time for just
cause, which includes poor performance, as demonstrated by a lack of student learning gains. If
charges against a teacher are not sustained, he or she would be immediately reinstated with back
pay.

Performance and Differentiated-Pay

Under the bill, greater than 50 percent of the pay for instructional personnel and school-based
administrators would be based on student learning gains. The remainder would be based on the
performance appraisal. Non-instructional personnel would be paid on the basis of performance.
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 11

Districts may not use time-served or degrees-held in setting pay schedules. Instead, student
outcomes would have a potentially significant effect on compensation. Effective teachers would
be paid more, while those that are unsatisfactory or in need of improvement would be paid less.
The State Board of Education would define student learning gains in rule.

Beginning teachers, teachers with valid professional certificates from another state, and teachers
with a Florida professional certificate who have been out of the classroom in the last five years
would be subject to a district-created salary schedule for the first year that they provide
instruction in a Florida K-12 classroom. However, these teachers would be subject to the same
salary schedule as other teachers after the first year.

The bill provides for differentiated pay based on assignment to a high-priority location, teaching
in a critical teacher shortage area, or the assignment of additional academic responsibilities.
Continued differentiated pay, however, is contingent upon student learning gains. This provision
allows districts to attract and compensate classroom teachers in high-need areas, such as STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), who will better prepare students to
graduate ready to meet the demands of the global economy.

Performance Appraisal System

The DOE would approve the district’s appraisal instruments and appraisal system for
instructional personnel and school-based administrators. The bill also adds components to
monitor the use of the system and evaluate the system’s effectiveness in improving instruction
and student learning. Beginning teachers, teachers with valid professional certificates from
another state, and teachers with a Florida professional certificate who have been out of the
classroom in the last five years would be evaluated at least twice in the first year of teaching.
Appraisals of instructional personnel and school-based administrators would include parent and
teacher input.

Components of appraisal systems described in the bill are divided into two parts: performance of
students and instructional practice or leadership (for instructional or administrative personnel,
respectively). The revision of instructional practice components and instructional leadership
components in the bill refers specifically to the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices and the
Florida Principal Leadership Standards. The appraisal system must differentiate among four
levels: highly effective, effective, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory. The commissioner
would be required to consult with classroom teachers and performance pay experts on
developing the performance levels for the appraisal systems.

The bill provides for a transition in the appraisal process until 2014-2015 when learning gains
can be determined for end-of-course assessments. In effect, the bill restores current law with one
exception. Current law requires an appraisal to be primarily based on student performance. 54
Under the bill, primarily means more than 50 percent of an individual’s appraisal.

Beginning in 2014-2015, more than 50 percent of a classroom teacher’s performance would be

based on learning gains of students assigned to the teacher. For other instructional personnel and
school-based administrators, more than 50 percent of their performance must be based on the

54
s. 1012.34(3), F.S.
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 12

learning gains of students assigned to the school. Student learning gain thresholds would be set
in State Board of Education rule. Personnel may not be rated as effective or highly effective if
students fail to demonstrate learning gains. If an individual receives a poor performance rating,
he or she may request a review by the superintendent.

Professional Certification and Recruitment

The bill adds requirements related to subject area mastery and an option for satisfying mastery of
professional preparation and education competency for instructional personnel. The bill also
revises the requirements for the renewal of a professional certificate and restricts the assignment
of beginning teachers who are not certified in certain subject areas.

A certified teacher from another state would be required to demonstrate subject area mastery by
the end of his or her first semester of teaching. The DOE notes that this provision would affect
Florida’s reciprocity with other states.55 Currently and for the last five years, 20 to 25 percent of
individuals receiving their initial Florida educator’s certificate were certified by presenting a
valid standard certificate from another state. According to the DOE, an individual with this
credential would have to apply for a Florida temporary certificate and then reapply for a
professional certificate after having taken and passed the Florida subject area test. The DOE
notes that this individual would incur costs associated with the new requirement and districts
could lose a source of teachers if the individual chose not to come to Florida for this reason. If
the same number of out-of-state certificateholders continues to enter the state and seek
certification in Florida, the DOE estimates that the department’s workload would at least
double.56

Additionally, the DOE indicated that it is unclear as to how the department would monitor, for
certification purposes, whether subject knowledge was demonstrated by an out-of-state teacher
during the first semester of employment.

Temporary certificateholders must pass the subject area exam within the first year of
employment under the temporary certificate, with some extenuating exceptions, such as an
applicant’s serious illness or injury.

The State Board of Education would review the subject area exam and the rigor of reading
instruction required for certification. For purpose of certification, the State Board of Education
may adopt rules to accept college credit recommended by the ACE, as posted on its official
transcript.57

The bill provides an acceptable means of demonstrating mastery of professional competency by

Teach for America graduates who complete a professional training program and pass a
professional competency exam.58

55
DOE analysis of SB 6, March 7, 2010, on file with the committee.
56
Id.
57
See ACE Transcript Services, available at
[Link] .
58
Teach for America is a national corps of college graduates who commit to teach for two years in urban and rural public
schools. See [Link] .
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 13

Beginning with the 2014-2015 school year, an individual must meet new requirements for
renewal of a professional certificate. An applicant must provide evidence that he or she received
a performance appraisal rating of effective or highly effective in four of the last five years of
certification. According to the DOE, there are currently 263,976 individuals who hold a valid
Florida professional certificate.59 Of these certificateholders, 74,222 (28 percent) are not
employed in Florida public schools and would need a comparable means of demonstrating the
effectiveness required to renew their certificates.

After July 1, 2014, an individual with certification from the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards would no longer have his or her state professional certificate automatically
renewed. The applicant would be required to meet all renewal requirements.

A provision is added to prohibit the assignment of a beginning teacher to teach reading, science,
or mathematics if the teacher is not certified in reading, science, or mathematics.

The composition of the Education Practices Commission (EPC) would be revised to add three
teachers, but would not increase the number of commission members. Additionally, the bill
would provide clear guidance to DCF to allow the DOE access to records related to child abuse
and neglect by an educator. These provisions would support DOE in determining if an educator
should be subject to EPC disciplinary action.

Lastly, the DOE and school districts are authorized to sponsor virtual job fairs to recruit potential
teachers. An individual attending a job fair would no longer be subject to the $20 registration fee
authorized in statute.

State-Approved Educator Preparation Programs

As a condition of continued approval, traditional teacher preparation programs, EPIs, and
alternative certification programs must provide evidence that the students of their graduates
made learning gains, as measured by state assessments.

Traditional Teacher Preparation Programs

The bill eliminates the admissions waiver for up to 10 percent of students admitted to a
traditional teacher program.

Traditional teacher preparation programs are required to report the percentage of graduates
whose public school students achieved learning gains on statewide assessments. The bill is silent
on the manner in which graduates of the teacher preparation program are to be reported if they
do not teach a subject or grade assessed under the statewide assessment program. Institutions
offering training in school readiness related professions are required to report the percentage of
their graduates who obtain teaching employment within the first year of graduation.

Pre-service field experiences for student teachers must be based on the skills of instructors or
supervisors who have documented evidence of sustained student learning gains. Preservice
programs would be required to provide students with continuous participation in supervised
classroom settings.

59
DOE analysis of SB 6, March 7, 2010, on file with the committee.
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 14

For a graduate who fails to demonstrate student learning gains two years immediately following
graduation or initial certification, his or her teacher preparation program would be required to
provide additional training by the program at no expense to the educator or employer.

EPI Alternative Certification Programs

The bill requires participants to provide evidence of eligibility for a temporary certificate,
complete field experiences, and demonstrate mastery of general knowledge, and subject area
testing prior to completion of the program. An EPI alternative certification program must submit
to the DOE a review of learning gains of the students taught by program completers. Continued
approval of the program would be contingent upon this review and student learning gains. EPI
alternative certification program instructors would have to meet the same requirements as
instructors in traditional teacher preparation programs.

Review of Funding
The bill incorporates OPPAGA’s recommendations for measuring the effectiveness of teacher
preparation programs.60 The DOE would issue a report by December 1, 2011, on the
effectiveness of state-approved teacher preparation programs. The review would include
alternative certification programs offered through EPIs and Florida school districts. In a separate
report, OPPAGA would review the current standards for the continued approval of teacher
preparation programs and make recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2012.

End-of-Course Assessments
The bill requires districts to develop or acquire valid and reliable end-of-course assessments for
subject areas and grade levels that are not assessed by the FCAT or AP, IB, AICE, or national
industry certification exams. Under the bill, district-wide implementation of the assessments
would occur in 2013-2014. Each district school-superintendent would be responsible for the
security of the assessments and would certify the integrity of the exam process. It is grounds for
removal of the superintendent, if his or her certification is invalid.61

The commissioner would identify methods to support school districts in the development or
acquisition of assessments, including item banks. For compliance, the commissioner would
review district assessments on a sample basis.

School District Accountability

The bill requires the commissioner to review a sample of assessments from multiple districts,
beginning with the 2013-2014 fiscal year and to review salary schedules, beginning with the
2014-2015 fiscal year. All school districts must provide the commissioner with their adopted
salary schedules and supporting evidence. Compliance with classroom teacher contract
requirements would be determined by the Auditor General, based on a sample of contracts
reviewed during a district’s financial audit.
The bill provides an ad valorem tax penalty for districts that violate the requirements in law for
professional service contracts, assessments, and performance pay. Each school board

60
Production of Teachers Who Remain in the Classroom Varies by Preparation Program, OPPAGA, Report 09-28, June
2009.
61
Article IV, s. 7, of the State Constitution.
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 15

participating in the state allocation of funds for the operation of schools must levy a nonvoted
additional millage for its required local effort from property taxes. The additional effort would be
certified and levied at the same time as the required local effort.

Under the bill, the commissioner would withhold an amount equal to the revenue generated by
the levy from the districts share of state funds in the FEFP for the fiscal year in which the levy
occurred. The revenue generated by the levy may only be used to compensate for the loss of state
funds.

The bill requires charter schools and high-performing school districts to comply with the
requirements for salary schedules and assessments and with the prohibition for professional
service contracts. Charter schools would be subject to the pay schedule requirements beginning
in 2014-2015, and the assessment requirements in 2013-2014. The commissioner would monitor
a sample of charter schools for compliance.

The bill also requires the following:

DOE must report performance appraisal information for all instructional and school-
based administrative personnel by category, by school, and by district to the Governor
and the Legislature;
Charter school governing boards must certify to the commissioner that the schools
meet the requirements for assessments, salary schedules, and contracts; and
A sample of charter schools must submit evidence of compliance to the
commissioner.

Repealed Provisions
The bill repeals the following: the deregulated public schools pilot programs; academic
performance-based charter school districts (Hillsborough, Volusia, Orange, and Palm Beach); the
Preteacher and Teacher Education Pilot Programs; the Teacher Education Pilot Programs for
High-Achieving Students; the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Program; the
Merit Award Program; the Critical Teacher Shortage Program; the Florida Teacher Scholarship
and Forgivable Loan Program; the Critical Teacher Shortage Tuition Reimbursement Program;
and the Critical Teacher Shortage Student Loan Forgiveness Program.

Other Potential Implications:

Initiatives at the state and national level are increasingly linking evaluations, performance pay,
and employment decisions for effective teachers and principals with student achievement. The
provisions of the bill could enable meaningful decision-making for performance evaluations and
compensation and provide incentives for educators to remain focused on the learning gains of
their students.

IV. Constitutional Issues:

A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:

None.
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 16

B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:

None.

C. Trust Funds Restrictions:

None.

D. Other Constitutional Issues:

Collective Bargaining
Provisions in the bill which require criteria to be used in the adoption of public classroom
teacher and school-based administrator salary schedules may be challenged as violative
of art. I, sec. 6, of the state constitution.62 This constitutional provision classifies
collective bargaining as a fundamental right. As such, attempts to impose a blanket ban
on the ability of a specific group of public employees to collectively bargain have been
subject to strict scrutiny analysis and struck down by the courts in several cases.63 In the
absence of outright bans on collective bargaining, courts have upheld as legitimate, and
even warranted, certain restrictions on employer-employee negotiations.

Section 447.309(1), F.S., specifies that mandatory subjects for collective bargaining
encompass wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of public employees.
Case law authorizes the public employer to unilaterally control one of these areas only
where it can be considered a managerial prerogative,64 or a fundamental policy decision
relating to the primary mission of the employer.65 In other words, a court may uphold as a
managerial prerogative subject matter that constitutes broad policy or public management
of governmental functions.66

Where an item is found to be both a managerial prerogative and a term or condition of

employment (i.e., essential to the functioning of an enterprise and a condition of
employment), the court will apply a balancing test to determine which characteristic takes
precedence.67 Therefore, if the employer’s legitimate assertion of a managerial

62
Although the Legislature is not the public employer for classroom teachers and school-based administrators, it is important
to note that much of the case law on this issue involves disputes between a public employer and an affected employee,
collectively as an employer and as a union.
63
See, e.g., Chiles v. State Employees Attorneys Guild, 734 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 1999), in which the court invalidated a statute
that prevented attorneys who were state employees from engaging in collective bargaining. See also Coastal Florida Police
Benevolent Association v. Williams, 838 So.2d 543 (Fla. 2003), in which the court reached a similar holding where deputy
sheriffs were excluded from collective bargaining.
64
School District of Martin County v. Public Employees Relations Commission, 15 So.3d 42 (4th DCA 2009).
65
51 C.J.S. Labor Relations s. 209.
66
The court of appeals in New York determined that the setting of classroom teacher to student ratio, i.e. class size, failed to
constitute a term or condition of employment even with its undisputed impact on teacher workload. In so doing, the court
categorized class size as an “educational policy.” West Irondequoit Teachers Association v. Helsby, 315 N.E.2d 775 (1974).
67
Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Miami, 609 So.2d 31, 34 (Fla. 1992); “No Florida case has adequately discussed the
analysis to be utilized in determining whether a subject must be collectively bargained when that subject both directly relates
to employment security or conditions of employment and also directly relates to the functioning of an enterprise.... Where, as
here…a subject…is arguably both a managerial prerogative and a “term or condition of employment,” we hold that a
balancing test should apply to determine which characteristic predominates.”
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 17

prerogative or public policy outweighs an employee’s interest in wages, hours, and

conditions of employment, the restriction is typically upheld.

Several cases in Florida have addressed the constitutionality of statutes authorizing

bonuses for high-performing teachers. In United Teachers of Dade v. Dade County
School Board, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a statute providing for teacher bonuses
based on high-performance. In addition to finding that annual awards do not constitute a
wage, the court held that the relevant sections of law “…reflect a legislative policy
decision…which contemplates encouraging superior instructors to continue teaching in
Florida’s public schools.” In so doing, the court continued, the element of educational
policy is appropriately balanced against the effect the subject has on teacher
employment.68 In a First District Court of Appeals case, the court reviewed a program
which provided economic incentives for teachers pursuant to a scheme designed to
increase student performance. In finding that there was no abridgment of collective
bargaining, the court noted that participation was voluntary and locally-negotiated.69

In two respects, the statutes challenged in these cases and the provision of the bill
markedly differ. Pursuant to the bill, participation is mandatory and the subject at issue,
pay, is delivered through salary, rather than a bonus. However, it is critical to note that at
the time the Florida courts decided these cases, art. IX, sec. 1, of the state constitution,
required only that adequate provision be made by law for a “uniform system of free
public schools.” A 1998 amendment to the constitution expanded the role of the
Legislature in characterizing as a “paramount duty of the state” the provision in law of
statewide “high-quality” public education, and deeming the education of children a
“fundamental value of the people.”70 As such, a court deciding today may afford
additional weight to the recently-added amendment which imposes a significant mandate
on the Legislature.

In considering case law on collective bargaining, the determination of pay has been
considered a subject of collective bargaining. However, this bill does not directly
legislate pay, but rather sets overall parameters to be applied in negotiation proceedings,
i.e., rewarding high-performing teachers based on student gains. Moreover, the state
constitution squarely designates the Legislature, in its capacity to enact laws, as the
provider of high-quality public education. In fulfillment of this role, the Legislature is
conferring statutory guidance to the local school districts to use in pay negotiations. If a
balancing test is imposed, in recognition of the considerable constitutional mandate on
the Legislature, a court may conclude that legislative provision of quality instruction
takes precedence over requiring all aspects of teacher pay to be bargained.

68
500 So.2d 508, 511 (Fla. 1986).
69
Florida Teaching Profession-National Education Association v. Turlington, 490 So.2d 142, 143, 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
70
art. IX, sec. 1(a), of the state constitution, provides, in part: “The education of children is a fundamental value of the people
of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all
children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high
quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education….” The words that are italicized
represent language proposed by the Constitution Revision Commission and adopted by Florida voters on November 3, 1998.
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 18

Millage
The provision requiring millage to be imposed in the event that local districts have failed
to meet statutory requirements may possibly be challenged pursuant to the constitutional
ban on state ad valorem taxes.

Section 1., Article VII, of the State Constitution, provides, in part:

(a) No tax shall be levied except in pursuance of law. No state ad

valorem taxes shall be levied upon real estate….

The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted this language as providing a constitutional
separation between tax revenues available for state use and those allotted to local
government.71

Courts have cited art. VII, sec. 1., of the state constitution, as a constitutional prohibition
on the levy of ad valorem tax on real property for state purposes. Likewise, the
Legislature is precluded from requiring local ad valorem taxes to fund essentially state
functions, thereby circumventing the constitutional prohibition. Therefore, laws that
mandate ad valorem to support the funding of state government are constitutionally
suspect.72

In the court case that established this rule against circumvention, the Florida Supreme
Court upheld a law that provides for local support of junior colleges through the levy of
ad valorem taxation, even given that the junior colleges are not subject to local control. 73
In so doing, the court held that:

Junior colleges also serve a distinctly local function….One of the

major reasons for establishing a junior college is to bring this level of
education within commuting distance of large numbers of students
who could not otherwise attend college…..Ad valorem taxes levied by
school districts for support of such institutions are local taxes levied
for local purposes.74

The Florida Supreme Court also reviewed a challenge of a statute which created a local
basin as a subdistrict of a water management district, and authorized the water
management district to levy taxes to support the basin. In analyzing the constitutionality
of the law, the court opined that the “determinative question is whether the ad valorem
tax receipts are used to further a local purpose.”75 In so holding, the court stated that the
fact that water conservation and control are state functions is not dispositive, when, as
here, water preservation is also critically important to the local area.

71
Alachua County v. Adams, 702 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1997).
72
Id.
73
Board of Public Instruction of Brevard County v. State Treasurer, 231 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1970).
74
Id. at 4.
75
St. Johns River Water Management District v. Deseret Ranches of Florida, Inc., 421 So.2d 1067, 1070 (Fla. 1982).
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 19

The court additionally upheld a mental health plan provided in statute that required local
government to match state funds for community mental health services, on the grounds
that the Legislature is authorized to enact legislation that requires the expenditure of local
funds to support programs at the local level.76 In this case, the statute required a match
on a three-to-one basis. “The legislature has decided, therefore, that local governments
must bear a share of the cost of mental health services.”77

Clearly, the levy of ad valorem to fund classroom teacher and school-based administrator
salaries will fund a local purpose. As such, a court will, in all likelihood, uphold this
provision.

V. Fiscal Impact Statement:

A. Tax/Fee Issues:

The bill requires school districts that fail to comply with the requirements for salary
schedules, assessments, and contracts to levy an additional ad valorem millage equal to
five percent of the salaries of instructional personnel and school-based administrators.

B. Private Sector Impact:

For applicants for certification, there may be a cost savings associated with the ACE
provision. Currently, an applicant must have the credit accepted by an institution as
transfer credit. If he or she has not enrolled in the course, the applicant may incur a cost.

C. Government Sector Impact:

The fiscal impact of this bill is indeterminate.

There will be costs associated with the following:

Developing and modifying the system to assess student learning gains;
Developing and revising the teacher and school-based administrator’s appraisal
system to include student learning gains;
Developing a system of teacher compensation to include student performance, as
measured by student learning gains, and differentiated responsibilities, such as
assignment to a school in a high priority area or teaching in a critical shortage
area;
Revising teacher contracts to assist in making personnel decisions; and
Training personnel to implement the revised systems.

For the learning gains and performance appraisal system, there will be additional school
district and charter school costs for development and acquisition of valid and reliable
local end-of-course assessments for which there are no state exams. These costs will vary
among the many different courses for which end-of-course exams will be developed and

76
Sandegren v. State, 397 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1981), citing Board of Public Instruction of Brevard County, 231 So.2d 1 (Fla.
1970).
77
Id. at 659.
BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 20

will vary widely among the districts. Costs will include efforts for coordination,
standardization, and test security. The DOE notes that district funds for end-of-course
exams may be supplemented if the department is successful in receiving a Race to the
Top grant award and if the district participates in the grant.78

It is not anticipated that the bill revises the total funds for teacher and administrator
compensation but rather, it provides a means by which compensation can be based on
performance.

The bill requires a review of state teacher preparation programs, including education
preparation institute alternative certification programs, school district certification
programs, and colleges of education programs. The emphasis will be placed on student
learning gains associated with a program’s graduates, which will provide accountability
and may affect funding for individual programs, depending on the performance of their
graduates.

The DOE and the Auditor General may have additional costs to implement a number of
the provisions of the bill. Support for these activities may be provided in the future if the
department is successful in receiving a Race to the Top grant award; however, it should
be noted that there will be an additional cost to the DOE to determine charter school
compliance and to review the validity of school district end-of-course exams.

The bill creates s. 1011.626, F.S., District Millage Accountability Adjustment. The
commissioner will determine school district compliance with the provisions of the bill,
i.e., salary schedules that include performance-based and differentiated compensation for
instructional personnel and school-based administrators; implementation of local end-of-
course exams; and revisions to teacher contracts as required by the bill. For those districts
that do not comply with these criteria, the commissioner will calculate the dollar amount
and an equivalent ad valorem millage for five percent of the salaries of instructional
personnel and school-based administrators. The district will then be required to provide a
notice of proposed tax increase which lists the violations and the resulting additional
required local effort funds and the millage levy that will be assessed from local taxpayers.

Practically, the notice of proposed tax increase would take place at the time of the school
district budget adoption process in July or August and would be effective for the fiscal
year following non-compliance. The millage would be in addition to the Required Local
Effort millage as the last step in the determination of the Required Local Effort
calculation of the FEFP and will be subtracted from the total FEFP funds so that state
funds will be reduced in an equal amount.

In addition, the bill proposes a five percent fine for charter schools that fail to do not
comply with the bill’s provisions. The fine may not be paid from funds appropriated by
the Legislature.

78
DOE analysis of SB 6, March 7, 2010, on file with the committee. The DOE has applied for Race to the Top funds. See
[Link]
 BILL: CS/SB 6 Page 21

Using salary information from the 2008-2009 Annual Financial Report and the forecasted
2010-2011 tax roll, if a district does not comply with the requirements of this bill, on
average, the additional millage assessment would be approximately equal to .4 mills.
However, the millage will differ considerably among the districts because of the wide
variation in property values.

The bill repeals the Excellent Teaching Program which was funded with $46.9 million
federal stimulus funds in 2009-2010; the Merit Award Program which was funded in the
FEFP for $20 million in 2009-2010; and the Critical Teacher Shortage Program, the
Florida Teacher Scholarship and Forgivable Loan Program, the Critical Teacher Shortage
Tuition Reimbursement Program, and the Critical Teacher Shortage Student Loan
Forgiveness Program for a total $2.5 million appropriation from General Revenue in
2009-2010.

VI. Technical Deficiencies:

None.

VII. Related Issues:

None.

VIII. Additional Information:

A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Substantial Changes:

(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)

CS by Education Pre-K – 12 Committee on March 10, 2010:

The committee substitute:
Requires a classroom teacher, hired on or after July 1, 2010, to earn an appraisal
performance rating of effective or highly effective in at least two of the preceding
three years to receive an annual contract for the 6th year of teaching;
Requires a certificate-holder seeking renewal of the certificate to earn a
performance appraisal rating of effective or highly effective in four of the
preceding five years of certification;
Restores current law for performance appraisals until 2014-2015, and clarifies
that appraisals must be primarily based (i.e., more than 50 percent) on student
performance;
Provides an acceptable means of demonstrating mastery of professional
competency by Teach for America graduates who complete a professional
training program and pass a professional competency exam; and
Provides a severability clause.
B. Amendments:

None.

This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.