Education employment.
Summary
(1) Existing law requires that, when a reduction in the number of certificated employees employed by a school district is authorized for specified reasons, the layoffs occur in order of employee seniority. Existing law provides certain exceptions to this requirement, including an exception for purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance with constitutional requirements related to equal protection of the laws. Existing law requires, for 39 months from the date of termination, that any employee who in the meantime has not attained 65 years of age have the preferred right to reappointment, in the order of original employment, as specified. Existing law provides certain exceptions to this requirement, including an exception for purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance with constitutional requirements related to equal protection of the laws. This bill would provide that this exception relates to both pupils and certificated employees. The bill would require that, when classroom teachers, as defined, are subject to notice and layoffs pursuant to these provisions, that the proportion of classroom teachers terminated at schools in deciles 1 to 3, inclusive, of the Academic Performance Index in any given year as part of a reduction in the number of employees pursuant to these provisions be no greater than the proportion of classroom teachers noticed and, when applicable, terminated, respectively, in the school district as a whole. (2) Existing law requires, when a reduction in the number of certificated employees employed by a school district is authorized for specified reasons, the notice of the termination of the services of an employee in the subsequent school year be given by the governing board to the employee, in a prescribed manner, before May 15. Existing law requires the superintendent of the district, prior to March 15 and before an employee is given the described notice, to give written notice to the governing board and the employee that it has been recommended that the notice be given to the employee, and stating the reasons therefor. Existing law authorizes an employee who is given this notice to request a hearing to determine if there is cause for not reemploying him or her for the ensuing year. Existing law requires that an administrative law judge conduct this hearing, and issue a proposed decision to the governing board containing certain findings of fact and a determination as to the sufficiency of cause for the termination. This bill would require that this determination also include a determination as to whether the notices of termination issued at schools in deciles 1 to 3, inclusive, of the Academic Performance Index violate the aforementioned limit on terminations of classroom teachers.
Bill status
failed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Aug 2010
Senate Passage
Jun 2009
Assembly Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 27, 2009
Last action Nov 30, 2010
Floor votes · Senate Jun 3, 2009
How they voted
36–0
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 38
Jun 3, 2009
D
Democratic24
91% Yea
R
Republican14
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
41
Key actions
5
Committee
8
Amendments
1
Aug 31, 2010
Committee
Set, second hearing. Failed passage in committee.
lower
Aug 23, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. On APPR. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.
lower
Jul 15, 2009
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on July 15.)
lower
Jul 15, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.)
lower
Jul 7, 2009
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on July 7.)
lower
Jul 7, 2009
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 3, 2009
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (36-0-2)
senate
Jun 2, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Jun 1, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 0. Page 1074.)
upper
Apr 28, 2009
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 676.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Feb 27, 2009
Introduced
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Darrell Steinberg
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 691
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 691. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline