California Proposition 74, Changes to Public School Teacher Employment Initiative (2005)
| California Proposition 74 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2005 | |
| Topic Education | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 74 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 8, 2005. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported extending the probationary period for newly hired teachers from two consecutive school years to five and changed the process for dismissing permanent teachers who had received two unsatisfactory performance evaluations. |
A "no" vote opposed extending the probationary period for newly hired teachers from two consecutive school years to five and changed the process for dismissing permanent teachers who had received two unsatisfactory performance evaluations. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 74 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Prozentualer Anteil | ||
| Yes | 3,516,071 | 44.82% | ||
|
|
4,329,025 | 55.18% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 74 would have changed the terms of employment for new public school teachers in California. Their initial probationary period would have been extended from two years to five years. The dismissal procedures for existing teachers also would have been made easier. Under Proposition 74, two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations would have constituted a level of unsatisfactory performance sufficient to dismiss permanent employees without having to additionally provide a mandatory 90-day period for the employee to improve his or her performance. A school board that wanted to dismiss an unsatisfactory teacher would also not have had to provide as much initial documentation identifying specific instances of unsatisfactory performance beyond the evaluations.[1]
Proposition 74 was one of four ballot measures on the 2005 ballot that Arnold Schwarzenegger included in his plan for the state. The other three were Proposition 75, Proposition 76 and Proposition 77. All four were defeated.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 74 was as follows:
| " | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| " |
• Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to fi ve complete consecutive school years. • Measure applies to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003–2004 fiscal year. • Modifies the process by which school boards can dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| " |
|
” |
Support
Yes on 74 led the campaign in support of Proposition 74.
Supporters
- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)[1]
- George Schultz, chair, Governor’s Council of Economic Advisors[1]
- Karla Jones, 2004 Educator of the Year, Orange County[1]
- Dr. Peter G. Mehas, superintendent, Fresno County Office of Education[1]
- Hugh Mooney, teacher, Galt Union High School District[1]
- Lillian Perry, teacher, Fontana Unified School District[1]
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 74 were signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), George Schultz, and Karla Jones:[1]
| " |
PROPOSITION 74 IS ONE OF THE BIPARTISAN REFORMS WE NEED TO GET CALIFORNIA BACK ON TRACK! Prop. 74 is Real Education Reform California schools used to be among the best in the nation. Unfortunately, we’ve gotten off track despite the fact that public school spending increased by $3 billion this year and represents almost 50% of our overall state budget. Instead of just throwing more of our hard-earned tax dollars at the problem, we need to get more money into the classroom and reward high-quality teachers instead of wasting money on problem teachers. Unfortunately, California is one of a handful of states with an outdated 'tenure' law that makes it almost impossible and extremely expensive to replace poor-performing teachers. According to the California Journal (05-01-99), one school district spent more than $100,000 in legal fees and ultimately paid a teacher $25,000 to resign. Another district spent eight years and more than $300,000 to dismiss an unfit teacher. Fighting the rules, regulations, and bureaucracy that protects unfit teachers squander money that should be going to the classroom! Today, even problem teachers are virtually guaranteed 'employment for life.' Prop. 74 Is About Making Sure Our Students Have the Best Possible Teachers:
deserve tenure. Principals have more time to evaluate teachers.
Unfortunately, Opponents of Prop. 74 Don’t Want Reform:
the reforms we need to get California back on track. Don’t Be Mislead by Their Deceitful Tactics. Classroom Teachers Say 'YES' on Prop. 74: 'I’ve been an elementary teacher for 17 years. Good teachers don’t need a guaranteed job for life. I want to be re-hired and promoted based on the job I do, not just how long I’ve been on the job. Yes on Prop. 74 will improve the quality of teachers and the quality of our schools.'- Susan Barkdoll, San Bernardino City Unified School District 'Most teachers are hardworking, care about their students, and go the extra mile. Regrettably, some teachers don’t. I’ve known teachers who are an embarrassment to the profession. Our children deserve better. They deserve teachers who will motivate and challenge them to achieve at their highest potential, and principals need the ability to remove non-performing teachers from the classroom.'-Jacqueline Watson, Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District 'YES' on Prop. 74—Make Sure Our Students Have the Best Possible Teachers![2] |
” |
Opposition
No on 74 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 74.
Opponents
- Barbara Kerry, then-president, California Teachers Association[1]
- Jack O'Connell, then the State Superintendent of Public Instruction[1]
- Nam Nguyen, a student teacher[1]
- Mary Bergan, then the president of the California Federation of Teachers[1]
- Monica Masino, president, Student CTA[1]
- Manuel "Manny" Hernandez, vice-president, Sacramento City Unified School District[1]
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 74 were signed by Barbara Kerry, then-president, California Teachers Association; Jack O'Connell, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction; and Nam Nguyen, a student teacher:[1]
| " |
PROPOSITION 74 IS DECEPTIVE, UNNECESSARY, AND UNFAIR. It won’t improve student achievement and it won’t help reform public education in any meaningful way. Furthermore, it will cost school districts tens of millions of dollars to implement. Proposition 74 doesn’t reduce class size or provide new textbooks, computers, or other urgently needed learning materials. It doesn’t improve teacher training or campus safety. Nor does it increase educational funding or fix one leaking school roof. PROPOSITION 74 IS DECEPTIVE BECAUSE IT MISLEADS PEOPLE ABOUT HOW TEACHER EMPLOYMENT REALLY WORKS. California teachers are not guaranteed a job for life, which means they don’t have tenure. All teachers receive after a two-year probationary period is the right to a hearing before they are dismissed. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 74. Existing state law already gives school districts the authority to dismiss teachers for unsatisfactory performance, unprofessional conduct, criminal acts, dishonesty, or other activities not appropriate to teaching—no matter how long a teacher has been on the job. PROPOSITION 74 IS UNFAIR TO TEACHERS BECAUSE IT TAKES AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO A HEARING BEFORE THEY ARE FIRED. We give criminals the right to due process, and our teachers deserve those fundamental rights, as well. Over the next 10 years, we will need 100,000 new teachers. Proposition 74 hurts our ability to recruit and retain quality teachers while doing absolutely nothing to improve either teacher performance or student achievement. Proposition 74 hurts young teachers most. It will discourage young people from entering the teaching profession at this critical time. THIS UNNECESSARY ANTI-TEACHER INITIATIVE WAS PUT ON THE BALLOT FOR ONLY ONE REASON—to punish teachers for speaking out against the governor’s poor record on education and criticizing him for breaking his promise to fully fund our schools. The governor says that Proposition 74 is needed. But university researchers say that they know of no evidence to support the claim that lengthening the teacher probation period improves teacher performance or student achievement. Good teaching comes from mentoring, training, and support—not from the kind of negative, punitive approach imposed by Proposition 74. VOTE NO ON 74. Proposition 74 is designed to divert attention away from the governor’s failure on education. California schools lost $3.1 billion when he broke his much-publicized promise to repay the money he took from the state’s education budget last year. Now he has a plan that budget experts and educators warn will cut educational funding by another $4 billion. Rather than punishing teachers, we should give them our thanks for making a huge difference in the lives of our children—and for speaking up for what California schools and the students need to be successful. PLEASE JOIN US IN VOTING 'NO' ON PROPOSITION 74.[2] |
” |
Background
Probationary periods in other states
The California Legislative Analyst's Office prepared this chart for the 2005 voter guide to illustrate teacher probationary periods in other states.
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2005, at least 373,816 valid signatures were required.
The petition drive for Proposition 74 was conducted jointly with the petition drives for Proposition 75, Proposition 76 and Proposition 77 by three different petition drive management companies.
The petition drive management companies involved were:
- National Petition Management. They were paid $4,610,441.40.
- Arno Political Consultants. They were paid $1,094,000.00
- Forde and Mollrich. They were paid $2,172,031.00.
Altogether, the three companies were paid $7,876,472.40. Dividing this across the four propositions involved means that approximately $1,969,118.10 was spent collecting signatures on the individual propositions in the Schwarzenegger package.[3]
See also
External links
- Official California Voter Guide
- Full text of Proposition 74
- Proposition 74 on the Smart Voter Guide
- Guide to Proposition 74 from the California Voter Foundation
- Summary of donors to and against 74 from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 74 from Follow The Money
- Official election results
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 University of California Hastings, "Voter Guide," accessed March 30, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Cal-Access, "Proposition 74," accessed March 30, 2021
