Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
03/02/2012 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: University of Alaska, Dr. Alex Hwu - Distance Education | |
| HB256 | |
| HB313 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 313 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 256-REPEAL STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS
8:55:31 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 256, "An Act repealing provisions relating to the
power and duties of the Department of Education and Early
Development to intervene in a school district to improve
instructional practices."
8:55:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt a proposed committee
substitute (CS) labeled 27-LS1117\X, Luckhaupt/Mischel, 2/27/12
as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:56:24 AM
The committee took a brief at ease.
8:56:55 AM
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, explained the changes
incorporated in Version X of HB 256. She referred to the first
change on page 6, lines 12-15, which she said adds the language,
" ... notwithstanding that a school or district has demonstrated
two consecutive years of improvement, the district may, in its
discretion, choose to receive restoration services for a third
year." She explained that this language allows a school or
district after two consecutive years of improvement to choose to
maintain or continue restoration services.
MS. KREITZER referred to page 6, line 30 through page 8, line 9,
which was rewritten to reflect sponsor's intention of setting
out year 1 and year 2 activities of the restoration. She
explained that by August 15 in year one the district
superintendent and Department of Education and Early
Development's (EED) commissioner can select at least one
independent expert. Additionally, the expert(s) will evaluate
the school in the areas requested by September 15 of year one on
implementation of the 1998 Alaska Standards for Culturally
Responsive Schools. She related that by October 15 of year 1
the expert(s) are required to produce a written report and
distribute it as well as post a summary on the Internet.
MS. KREITZER stated that by November 15 of year 1 the
superintendent and the department must select a qualified coach,
and the local school board and the EED will select a qualified
coach. These coaches will advise the district regarding the
needs identified in the evaluation. She related that on June 1
of year 1 the district will provide to the department, parents,
legislature and post on the Internet a summary of progress of
these efforts and the observations and recommendations of the
coaches.
MS. KREITZER related that in year 2, not later than September
15, the superintendent and local school board are required to
have a mandatory selection and hiring of two additional
qualified coaches to advise the district. Additionally, by June
1, the district will provide to the department, parents,
legislature and post on the Internet a summary of the progress
of these efforts.
MS. KREITZER referred to page 8, lines 10-11, and stated this
was slightly rewritten. She then referred to page 8, lines 18-
21, which adds a member of the state Board of Education (BOE)
and the four qualified coaches to the school improvement team
selected under (A) and (B) of this paragraph, and one member of
the local school board. She pointed out that concern was raised
about having a legislative member on the team so the legislative
member was deleted from the team.
MS. KREITZER referred to page 8, lines 27-31 and page 9, lines
1-2. She related her understanding that there was concern about
specifically what the team would be doing and how to ensure that
some benefit comes out of that effort. Thus this provision adds
a requirement that the school improvement team develop a three-
year plan to restore the school. The team may redirect district
funding to improve instruction. The superintendent must
implement the team's plan. Finally, at the end of each school
year, the team will evaluate and adjust the plan. She explained
that this gets to the concern the committee had to ensure the
separate components result in something more concrete and will
provide continual checks and balances.
MS. KREITZER referred to page 9, lines 3-4, which would add a
new section requiring the department to request proposals from
and provide grants - subject to appropriation - to schools or
districts in restoration. She concluded that these are the
changes to the proposed CS from Version E to Version X.
9:03:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related the coaches are provided from
district funds. He inquired whether those are subject to
legislative appropriation. He asked how the expenses will be
covered.
MS. KREITZER answered that it is implied that the department
will pay for the coaches but it is not specified in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recommended clarifying how the coaches
will be funded.
9:04:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version X was before the committee.
9:04:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 7, Line4:
DELETE
[student preparedness]
Insert
Preparedness of students to learn
Page 8, Line26:
DELETE
[student wellnesss]
Insert
Preparedness of students to learn
9:04:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:05:11 AM
MS. KREITZER explained Amendment 1. She referred to page 7,
line 4, which she said goes to the areas that the independent
expert would review. She explained that the bill drafter
suggested the changes to better reflect the sponsor's intent.
She explained that the same change is made on page 8, line 26 to
student wellness, which was actually intended as the
preparedness of students to learn.
CHAIR DICK stated that his intention is to have the expert
assess whether parents are sending students to school that are
sleepy or are not ready to learn.
9:06:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:06:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 7, Lines 9-11:
DELETE
[1998 Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive
Schools, prepared by the Assembly of Alaska Native
Educators;]
Insert
Alaska State Cultural Standards
9:07:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion.
9:07:11 AM
MS. KREITZER explained Amendment 2. She stated that Amendment 2
corrects an error in the proposed CS, noting the bill drafter
inadvertently inserted in the evaluation that experts shall
evaluate the extent to which the districts have implemented the
1998 Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools, but it
should have read the Alaska State Cultural Standards.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:07:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Amendment 3, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 8, Line 5:
Following "June 1, provide to the ..."
Insert
State Board of Education
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:08:06 AM
MS. KREITZER explained Amendment 3. She referred to page 8,
line 5, which relates to the second year report provided to the
department, parents, and legislature on the summary of the
progress of their efforts; however, the bill sponsor thought
that at this point in time the state Board of Education should
also receive a copy of that report to provide them with an
update.
9:08:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
9:08:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 7, lines- 1-5, of sub-
subparagraph (i), which read," ... selection by the
superintendent of the district and the commissioner of at least
one independent expert in the area of business services,...."
She asked whether that language means the commissioner is going
to provide an expert in business services, an expert on board
governance, or will the commissioner pick out of this group one
independent expert.
9:09:39 AM
CHAIR DICK answered that the intent of this provision is to have
the expert evaluate all of the specified areas. These address
the concerns for areas that a district may be deficient such as
the business office, the board, and other items outside the
curriculum. He understood the question is if an expert's
expertise is limited to one of those areas. He suggested it may
need clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed this sub-subparagraph needed
clarification for the intent and what the expert will handle.
She was unsure of the meaning of the term "human relations"
noting it could mean the relationships of the kids to the
teachers, the relationships of the board to the school, or the
relationship of the administration.
CHAIR DICK answered his intent was all of the above. He
certainly welcomed any clarifying thought.
9:11:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to line 2, and suggested after
expert, to delete "in" and insert "to evaluate" and on line 3
adding an "s" to area. The language would read, " ... the
district and the commissioner of at least one independent expert
to evaluate the areas of business services, board governance,
leadership...."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4.
On line 2 delete "in" and insert "to evaluate" and on line 3,
add an "s" to area. She said the language would read, "to
evaluate the areas of business services, board governance,
leadership, facilities...."
9:13:18 AM
CHAIR DICK said he would also be willing to include
administrative leadership since that would be the original
intent.
9:13:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt a reworded Conceptual
Amendment 4. She restated her motion for adopting Conceptual
Amendment 4. She stated that on line 2, delete "in" and insert
"to evaluate" and on line 3 add an "s" to "area" and after
"governance," add "administrative". There being no further
objection Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted.
9:14:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested defining human relations
since the term is very broad.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT offered his belief there may be a common
understanding of what the human relations is associated with,
which would mean the relations between the teachers, the
administrators, and the janitors. He related his understanding
that human relations would be under the umbrella of the typical
situation.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested leaving the term in the CS. He
related his understanding that it would be the selection by the
superintendent of the district, the commissioner, and that this
language would suffice and give them some latitude to decide.
9:16:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to have a future presentation by the
department as to how it will be integrated and facilitated.
9:16:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented that the changes may help
things since the district would have a clearer understanding of
what to expect with the independent expert(s) and the department
would have a better understanding of how to proceed. She
thought this would help the goal of collaboration to happen
automatically.
9:18:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked at what point would year one begin.
He offered his belief the bill added some provisions to be
proactive, but was unsure of when it takes place and under what
conditions.
9:18:34 AM
CHAIR DICK agreed he thought it was a little blurry, as well.
9:18:48 AM
MS. KREITZER referred to page 6, line 29, to subparagraph (B),
which read, "for the second school year after the designation of
a school as a low-performing school...."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he was unsure at what point this
provision would be applied, and whether it was during the
adequate yearly progress (AYP) or the first year that a school
misses the AYP. He was not certain if the low performance is
targeted for the year one to start action.
CHAIR DICK agreed, noting he had the same thought, but was
willing to allow the department to define.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified he would like the department to
explain the definition. He expressed concern that this could
affect the fiscal impact by implementing restoration activities
after the first year of low performance.
9:20:32 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), explained that the department is focused on
kids and wants to maintain the focus. He suggested HB 256
directs the department and districts when things are not going
well and kids are not performing well. He remarked that the
bill adds some positive aspects. He referred to page 2, line
14, which read "the number and percentage of, and the reasons
for," which he thought was a good thought. He added that having
exit surveys is a good idea, and one the department did a
voluntary survey, but received zero responses, in fact, in one
intervention district the teachers were instructed not to fill
it out. He was unsure how to implement this without making it
mandatory. He recalled Representative Seaton's concern was that
the contract would somehow need to be affected to make that
happen. He said that the department does want to do this. He
commented that one possibility would be to make phone calls, but
he has not had good results.
9:22:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether a requirement could be
incorporated into the future contracts of the teachers'
associations.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the other side of that is to
determine what empowers teachers to say, but both could provide
powerful data. He asked whether the requirement would be for
all districts and if districts could be encouraged to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON cautioned against interviewing every
teacher every year. They either stay or leave, but the
committee is interested in the reasons teachers leave. He
suggested the contract could contain a provision for an exit
survey provided by the department. He suggested this could be
done as a conceptual amendment.
9:24:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated it is difficult to get complete
honesty so the information is not always accurate on an exit
survey. She suggested that if the teacher leaves because the
principal is lousy and so indicates it may affect the next job
application as the teacher may get a poor recommendation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that it would need to be handled
by the department and not the district to segregate it from the
district and superintendent.
9:25:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI agreed with having the department
engaged to conduct exit surveys to provide more honest
responses. He likened it to the private sector in which a
person would not list a job, necessarily, if the boss didn't
like them.
9:26:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed and interjected that teachers might
feel free to express their concerns in the appropriate context.
He offered his belief that if he left a job and had a bad
experience he would probably [not] list it on future
applications since it is unlikely the employer would give him a
good recommendation. He thought it would give the teachers an
opportunity to voice their concerns and supported the exit
survey.
9:27:06 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY suggested that phone calls have been made
and some responses have been received. He stated that if
districts were in a restorative process, the district could
report the personnel who had left and the department could
follow-up in-house.
9:27:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested adding contact information.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the department has most of
those records.
9:28:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that the information be confined
to districts in restoration. He inquired as to whether it
should apply to all teachers departing the schools. He
suggested having a contractual agreement inserted for teachers
upon exit to avoid problems by early detection and proactivity.
CHAIR DICK expressed concern about the time left in the
legislative session.
9:29:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT suggested that the education committee
could put this forth. He favored having every district report
so the department has good information. In response to Chair
Dick, he agreed a committee bill would be a good idea.
9:30:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that the language requiring an
exit survey would be included in the information for reporting
to the legislature. He suggested doing a conceptual amendment
that teachers will fill out an exit interview by the EED.
9:30:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 2, line 14, which
read, "(8) the number and percentage of, and the reasons for,
turnover in certificated personnel and superintendents." She
added that (9) reads, "the number of teachers by district and by
school...." She inquired as to whether that captures all the
schools.
9:31:27 AM
CHAIR DICK stated (9) relates to teachers who are teaching
outside the teacher's area of endorsement. He suggested that
would encompass more.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that it would
apply to every school.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed Section 1 relates to the report
provided by the department, which covers all of the schools. He
related his understanding if the bill requires adding the
reasons for departing on an exit survey that he did not see a
provision in the bill to include the mechanism to do so unless
an amendment is made to require a provision in future contracts
that teachers must furnish the information when they depart.
9:32:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON thought he previously made a motion, but
offered to do it again. He made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 5, on page 2, line 15, to add that future district
contracts will be required to include a provision that teachers,
certified personnel, and superintendents will complete an exit
survey as designed by the Department of Education.
9:33:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said it may be duplicative since the
Fairbanks and Anchorage school districts already complete
surveys now.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether the Fairbanks and Anchorage
school districts use an outside vendor.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI answered that it is internal.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT offered his belief that using the
department would provide separation from the principal and
people within their school since the department could obtain
better information.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI agreed and fully advocates for the
change.
There being no further objection Conceptual Amendment 5 was
adopted.
CHAIR DICK recalled previous questions on funding.
9:35:03 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY referred to page 4, lines 19-20, which read
"(4), prescribe by regulation a minimum course of study for the
public schools that includes elective and career and vocational
courses in addition to the core curricula;...." He offered his
belief that this would alter the graduation requirements. He
explained that the regulation for a minimum course of study
determines what students need to graduate, which is currently 21
credits. The intent may not be to make that change, but the
language essentially increases it to 22-23 units from 21.
CHAIR DICK related his understanding that he worked with Charles
Wolforth on this language. He did not think this should be
included.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he appreciates the focus on career
technical education (CTE), but when it requires in addition to
the minimum course of study that language refers to the
graduation requirements. He suggested that may be a separate
topic not intended by the bill's sponsor.
CHAIR DICK asked Commissioner Hanley for a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY recalled a prior version of HB 256, in which
part of the focus would be to ensure that CTE courses are being
offered. He said he is resistant to change the graduation
requirements.
CHAIR DICK agreed.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY suggested that in the midst of the
evaluations and advisors that it should be included in their
focus to incorporate cultural standards so as to focus on CTE.
9:37:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested deleting "that includes" and
inserting "ensuring," which would help since the scholarship
program allows for college courses, but many students would
benefit from career and vocational courses. She offered her
belief this language would help make sure the process is
happening. She asked for committee input.
CHAIR DICK entertained suggestions for an amendment.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY cautioned against adding this to the minimum
course of study unless the intent is to ensure that every
student attends a CTE course. He pointed out that some students
want to take the AP courses and then move on to college and not
every student needs the CTE courses, but the opportunity should
be available.
9:39:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT suggested after "that" to insert "could,"
which would be loose but would not require it.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON disagreed that each student must take
the courses, but the flexible language makes certain it is
available.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related that Section 4 says the department
shall do a number of things, including in paragraph (4),
"prescribe by regulation a minimum course of study...." He
offered his belief that establishes the minimum graduation
requirements. He suggested that CTE be separated and not put
into the prescribed minimum requirement section.
CHAIR DICK suggested taking the issues of the department out of
committee for discussion between his office and the
commissioner.
9:41:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT suggested striking the language in
paragraph (4)," ... that includes elective and career and
vocational courses in addition to core curricula;...." He was
unsure he was willing to move out a bill to address one issue
and potentially create a whole different issue. He did not want
to see that kind of collateral damage.
9:41:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that the questions being
addressed are policy decisions and she asked for the committee
to remain involved in the process. She acknowledged that the
committee may want some things the commissioner does not want.
[HB 256 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB 256 Version X.pdf |
HEDC 3/2/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| CS HB 256 V. X AM 1.docx |
HEDC 3/2/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| CS HB 256 V. X AM 2.docx |
HEDC 3/2/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| CS HB 256 V. X AM 3.docx |
HEDC 3/2/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |