SB 5085 and SB 5175. Why These Bills? Why Now?

Video Update

Listen as a Podcast

Listen Now

Read the Script

For 51 years, AWSP has supported principals and assistant principals (the individuals) and the principalship (the profession) in the education of each and every student. We exist to support principals as a means to the same goal we all have in K-12 education:
for all of our students to have hope. Today, we find ourselves in one of the most challenging spots in the history of our association, specifically regarding the two “principal bills”, Senate Bills 5085 and 5175. 

It seems like the winds are shifting on these bills by the hour, but there’s been one constant: we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. Many of our principals and assistant principals across the state want us to keep pushing for 5085
to pass in its original form. On the other hand, we have some districts, superintendents, partners, and school boards in opposition and with varying levels of frustration. AWSP is one of the strongest principals’ associations in the country,
and our strong partnership and relationships with our districts is the driving force behind that. We know that nothing happens in a school without trust and relationships, so we’ve engaged with our partners on a path forward. {If you want to
go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together}

I want to be clear. Our state has phenomenal superintendents and districts who are exemplary in their support of their principals, from strong relationships and partnerships, robust contracts, clear and defined due process protocols, and provide as
much support as possible coupled with reasonable expectations. And over the last few years, we’ve heard more and more appreciation, compassion, and support for our principals and assistant principals. We’re not the only voice in the
room saying we need to do more to support our principals, but we don’t need the educational equivalent of thoughts and prayers; we need policies and change. We have many options for how to move forward, but doing nothing is not one of them.
Let’s talk briefly about why I’m sitting here talking to this camera, and you’re wherever you are, watching or listening to me. 

Let’s Talk About The Bills

When Senate Bill 5085 was introduced, these were the key components straight from the Senate’s Bill Report:

1. Remove statutory limitations on the scope of collective bargaining for bargaining units containing only supervisors, or principals and assistant principals, or both.

2. Require the citation of specific evaluation criteria when transferring a principal or an assistant principal to a subordinate certificated position.

3. Require that years of administrator experience count towards total years in future positions when a principal or assistant principal is transferred to a non-administrative, subordinate position.

4. Apply employment provisions relating to principals to assistant principals as well.

5. Specify that in addition to whether an applicant has ever been placed on administrative leave, a school district employment application may not include a question asking whether the applicant has ever been on a plan of improvement, has ever
   been under an investigation, or has ever resigned in lieu of termination.

6. Require evaluators of principals and assistant principals to receive training in evaluation procedures.

As we record on February 22nd, the current version of the bill is now different. The fifth bullet point was removed before it passed out of the Senate Education committee. The intent behind that section was to protect principals, who are often put
on administrative leave at the drop of a hat for an investigation or grievance, only to be cleared of all wrongdoing. Those questions on a job application are typically used to screen out applicants. We feel the better option is to learn more
about the candidates during interviews and reference checks. It’s better for the candidates, and that process can prevent districts from missing out on a great hire. 

The first bullet point of the bill has been the most controversial. Some superintendents were concerned that if principals and assistant principals were allowed to bargain more than just salary and the number of contract days, it would create another
labor group that could create contentious relationships. After meeting with partners, including WASA, we asked for this section of the bill to be removed. There is a striking amendment that has been introduced to do just that. 

This same amendment also introduces a salary floor for school administrators relative to a district’s teacher salary schedule. It states the lowest paid assistant principal should make 5% more than the highest paid teacher. For principals, the
gap should be 15%. Given the typical contract for principals and assistant principals includes 20% more working days, we can’t imagine there are many districts who aren’t already meeting this requirement when comparing base salaries.
Unfortunately, the current fiscal note on the bill estimates the potential costs of bargaining working conditions, which should be struck from the bill. We don’t know the extra costs of adding a salary floor. 

SB 5085 was never intended to be an unfunded mandate or to have a fiscal component. It’s a first step towards making it easier to recruit, retain, and sustain our school leaders.

The other bill, SB 5175, simply ALLOWS districts to offer a three-year contract. Principal positions, especially at the high school level, are getting harder and harder to fill. The ability to offer or accept a three-year contract is one possible
incentive to help reduce principal turnover. It can also provide the support a principal needs to dismantle systems that are bad for kids. We know change takes time, so we need our principals making decisions with a long-term vision and a plan,
not simply leading to have a job the following year. 

As for the concern about buyouts? There are many ways to write a contract to give principals and assistant principals a little more protection and security while protecting the district’s ability to move on from cases of misconduct or mismanagement. 

Why We’re Here

Over the past few decades, the expectations for the role of the principal have changed. Principals are no longer just expected to manage the school but also to be the instructional leader, crisis manager, social worker, etc. Many principals report
the job has grown more complex post-Covid. And if we want strong students filled with hope, we need strong schools to create them. Strong schools don’t exist without strong principals or assistant principals. 

Every job in k-12 plays an important role in our students’ success, but systematically, it makes sense to invest in principal leadership. Why? Listen to what The Wallace Foundation has to say.

…based on research since 2000, the impact of an effective principal has likely been understated, with impacts being both greater and broader than previously believed: greater in the impact on student achievement and broader in affecting other important
outcomes, including teacher satisfaction and retention (especially among high-performing teachers), student attendance, and reductions in exclusionary discipline.

Can we just break that down for a minute? A greater impact on student achievement, so a direct impact on learning. And a broader impact on other important outcomes, like how they call out better teacher satisfaction and retention. We cannot create
more equitable outcomes for students without a focus on attendance and reductions in exclusionary discipline. Just like our School Leader Paradigm, the principal directly affects the school’s culture, systems, and learning outcomes.

The Wallace Foundation also said:

An effective principal’