Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
03/14/2012 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Superintendent Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District | |
| HB256 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 256-REPEAL STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS
8:41:27 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the final 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."
8:42:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to rescind the motion to move the
CSHB 256, labeled 27-LS1171\X, Luckhaupt/Mischel, 2/27/12
[Version X] from the House Education Standing Committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, Version X was before the committee.
8:43:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to rescind the adoption of the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 256, labeled 27-
LS1171\X, Luckhaupt/Mischel, 2/27/12. There being no objection,
the motion to rescind adoption of the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 256, Version X, was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 256, labeled 27-LS1171\U, Mischel,
3/12/12, as the work draft.
8:43:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:44:12 AM
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, explained that a proposed
CS for Version T was sent out previously. She explained that
Version T contained all of the amendments made to Version X.
She then presented the first change in Version U, on page 3,
line 22, which would amend the duties of the department. She
explained that rather than use the language "regulations
adopted", this section was changed to refer to the plans the
department adopts or recommends. The bill would provide an
opportunity for public school and district administrators to
participate so any plans must include the elements (a)-(h) -
which has not been substantially changed - except subsection (g)
on page 4 has been rewritten for clarity. Portions of the
subsections from her prepared statement, read, as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
1. Page 3: Line 22 - Amends Duties of the
Department:
a. Rather than "regulations adopted", this section
was changed to the plans the Department adopts or
recommends.
b. The Department provides notice and an opportunity
for public school and district administrators to
participate in the crafting of plans and other studies
and evaluations related to the improvement of public
schools.
c. Any plan the Department adopts or recommends for
public schools must include the items A-H, which have
not changed.
d. The plans also must comply with federal and state
law and the Superior Court's findings dated Feb. 4,
2009.
e. The plans must provide for training and technical
support; regular monitoring, evaluation and
modification of improvement efforts tailored to the
strengths and weaknesses of the school; availability
of courses and remedial programs necessary for all
students attending a low-performing school to meet
state standards for graduation in the expected
timeframe. (AS 14.07.030(14) Page 9.)
MS. KREITZER explained the next change on page 4, lines 8-11,
which was rewritten for clarity; however, the intent has not
changed.
MS. KREITZER explained the next change, on page 4, lines 16-17,
which added language so the department will, "(3) employ
qualified personnel who shall provide advisory and consultative
services to all public school governing bodies and personnel."
This language was reformatted so it was not one long paragraph.
The services must comply with AS 14.07.030(14) and may not
include the use or employment of a trustee.
MS. KREITZER explained the next change on page 6, lines 26[-29],
to change "if" to "when" a school is designated low performing.
This change was made for clarity and the language will read,
"(19) engage in a process of collaborative support to restore
and improve school performance if a school is designated as low
performing ...," She offered that this rewrites the
collaborative process to provide additional clarity and
streamline the language. Additionally, she pointed out that for
the first school year designation as a low-performing school the
word "by" is added so it would read, "(i) by August 15 of each
year, selection by the superintendent of the district and the
commissioner ...." This change would make it clear that one
independent expert would evaluate the areas listed at the top of
page 7 of Version U.
MS. KREITZER explained the next change to that subsection is on
page 7, lines 5-6, to limit the visit by the expert to, "not
more than seven days to conduct the evaluation; ...."
Additionally, on page 7, in November - after the report is
written by the expert - sub-subparagraph (iii) of Version U
would read as follows: "...the coaches may advise the district
for not more than 20 days in total for each school year for
which they are hired;" which means that if one coach is more
helpful and more needed the coach can assist for 15 days; the
other coach can be there for five days, but they need not both
be present for ten days.
8:48:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification of the term
"advise the district" and whether that means time on the ground
or does it include other forms of contact.
MS. KREITZER suggested the sponsor may wish to further clarify,
but she related her understanding from talking to legislative
legal staff that the intent is to limit the time on the ground
to 20 days.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested the intent be confirmed by the
sponsor.
CHAIR DICK confirmed this would be time spent on the ground. He
acknowledged that phone calls and e-mails would occur, but it
seemed like any more would be "in the way" and any less than
that would be inadequate.
8:49:53 AM
MS. KREITZER referred to the bottom of page 7, which relates to
the second year, to the mandatory selection and hiring of two
additional qualified coaches. She pointed out the final word on
line 31 is changed to "after" and on page 8, begins with, "input
from the Association of Alaska School Boards;." She explained
in year two, when two additional qualified coaches are selected
to advise the district, that one coach shall be selected by the
superintendent and one coach shall be selected by the local
school board. She elaborated that discussion was held about the
best way to assist the local school board. She stated that
initially, the language read, "a school board member from a
high-performance school district." She related that input from
the Association of Alaska School Boards would be helpful so the
language was changed to reflect their recommendations. She
reiterated that these two coaches would advise the district for
not more than 20 days in total for each school year in which
they are hired.
8:51:53 AM
MS. KREITZER referred to the next change on page 8, lines 24-25.
This language would not change the meaning of what the school
improvement team can look at, but would include the Alaska State
Cultural Standards and preparedness of students to learn.
MS. KREITZER referred to the next change on page 9, following
line 1, which would delete proposed Section 5 that would have
required the department to request proposals from and provide
grants subject to appropriation to schools or districts in
restoration. It seemed to clutter the bill a bit so it was
removed and the department agrees with this change.
MS. KREITZER referred to the next change on page 9, lines 3-4,
which deletes the language "NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION
OF THIS TITLE INTERVENE IN," which was discussed with the
legislative legal staff. The interpretation was since language
is specific in proposed Section 6 - with respect to the
redirection of public school funding - it was deemed that the
language is confusing and inconsistent with the language in
proposed Section 6.
MS. KREITZER referred to the next change on page 9, lines 9-11,
which would delete the language that the department should
direct its employees who exercise supervisory authority over
instruction practices in the district or in a specified school.
The reason for this change is that the new collaborative process
has been set out for the department to follow.
MS. KREITZER referred to the next change on page 9, lines 14-16,
which would add clarifying language under subparagraph (B) to
direct the use of appropriations under this title for
distribution to a district as necessary under AS
14.07.020(a)(19). She pointed out the aforementioned statute
relates to the new school improvement team process. Thus the
school improvement team is involved with the commissioner, the
Board of Education representative, and the coaches in
recommending how funding ought to be redirected, if necessary.
8:53:20 AM
MS. KREITZER referred to page 10, which would delete the former
Section 7 that amended the powers of the department. She
suggested members may recollect the department may employ
coaches if the school or district agrees to the coach and the
terms of the contract. She referred to page 10 lines 13-16,
which would add a requirement that teacher contracts must
require a teacher leaving employment to complete the
department's exit survey.
8:54:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether proposed Section 8 would
apply to all teachers across the state or only to those in
intervention schools.
MS. KREITZER answered the exit survey provision would apply to
all teachers.
8:54:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted the different teams indicated. She
offered her belief that this represents a different approach
with substantial changes. She acknowledged that she sees value
with the changes; however she questioned the ability to review
how these changes will affect outcomes and whether it will
result in an evaluative tool.
MS. KREITZER answered that the evaluative tool is the
involvement by the local communities. She did not think that
was explicit in Senate Bill 285 [related to the power and duties
of the Department of Education and Early Development for
improving instructional practices in school districts] that
passed the legislature in 2008. It was not explicit in the
department's current regulations or statutes. It is important
to note that one provision cites that any regulations the
department undertakes in some areas for improvement of schools
must be consistent with the Moore v. State of Alaska. Having
said that, rather than trying to create an evaluative tool, the
process itself will help inform those involved on how well it is
working.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA suggested if there is a sense of the
committee to put it on public record that there will be an
evaluative process.
MS. KREITZER related her understanding that what she has
observed has been a reaction to Senate Bill 285. She offered
her belief that what happened is the school districts came
forward and said, "This isn't working for us and we want
something to change." However, the legislative process provides
a very public process and an ability to make change. She
pointed out that she has read and reread the minutes of Senate
Bill 285 and there were many assurances that it was not going to
be a takeover of the school district. Furthermore, there were
many assurances that the department would implement changes on a
school basis, but not on a district-wide basis; however, the
testimony indicates that is not what happened - at least in one
school district. This political process and the process set out
in HB 256 allow for an ongoing evaluation rather than to wait
five years for the outcome. Thus there will be more evaluation
along the way.
8:58:29 AM
CHAIR DICK interjected that the department is being relieved of
some responsibility - with the participants being broadened out
- so the focus isn't on the department to perform, but making
the districts perform. One of the most important components is
the Board of Education's (BOE) participant on the team that will
report to the BOE.
8:59:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that some evaluative tools are
in the bill, including the teacher exit surveys and
superintendents evaluating the departments; however, the
evaluative tool is the determination on whether the districts
and schools are low performing or whether they improve and are
no longer considered low-performing schools. He offered one
problem with the current intervention is that some schools are
not improving to become adequate-performing schools. He
acknowledged that this bill creates a process which is more
collaborative, but the evaluation will be whether students
learn. He described the process as a multi-year process. He
reiterated that the evaluative tool will be whether the students
are low performing. He suggested this represents the evaluative
tool Representative Cissna wants.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA remarked that one big problem is that
Alaska lives in different "worlds" with diverse schools since
schools range from village schools to urban schools. Some
schools are not set up for the commercial life that exists in
the urban setting and no one will be able to make it happen.
The people survive by totally different standards. A crisis in
a rural village would be something that the committee would view
as a disaster. She pointed out students learn different skill
sets. She didn't notice any provision in the bill the ability
for the district to identify the differences in some communities
that will result in different outcomes. She said, "Ketchikan is
going to look like Ketchikan." The community is relatively
close to Seattle and can get into the world market quickly.
Some people in remote villages in the Bush choose to live in
their communities for totally different reasons. She
characterized this as similar to the homestead parents - who
chose to home school. She offered her belief that schools ought
to reflect this.
9:02:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern that he is hearing
Representative Cissna's willingness to tolerate low-performing
schools. He related that the committee is looking at low-
performing schools. He questioned whether he heard correctly
that some schools are just going to be low performing and the
state doesn't need to address them. He acknowledged that
parents have the option to home school or use distance learning,
but the state must maintain specific standards and students must
meet the performance standards. He expressed concern over the
comments such as that some schools will be low and he wanted the
record to reflect that the committee is not saying that schools
don't need to perform.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA responded she wanted to clarify that she
is discussing that performance should be high - that every
single student has freedom to go to one of the Alaska public
schools and get the ability to grow to their highest potential;
however, she wished to acknowledge that differs from place to
place.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version U was before the committee.
9:05:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI stated he reviewed the process that HB
256 has undergone and the ensuing transformation of the bill,
ranging from the original bill that would essentially repeal
Senate Bill 285 to one that has changed significantly. The
refinements have proven helpful; however, he questioned whether
the bill will result in the outcomes the committee wants for
schools. He was unsure how the bill would impact teachers on
the ground, the coaches, and the school districts. He expressed
some hesitation with the bill.
9:06:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the department would address
the proposed CS, Version U.
9:07:11 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development (EED), provided overall remarks on behalf of
the department. He stated that the commissioner reviewed an
earlier draft and did not identify any other areas of
consternation. He detailed concerns with Version U, noting this
version removes some of the authority the department had, in
particular, over non-teachers - instructional leaders within
schools in districts. He described this language as the
department's authority and ability to remove someone from a role
of instructional leadership. He offered his belief that this
provision would remove a tool for the department. Additionally,
another concern exists with the department's inability to
appoint a trustee. He expressed concern about the 20-day rule,
which may be limiting since some circumstances may require other
numbers of days.
9:09:16 AM
CHAIR DICK related that the intent of the 20-day rule was to
help the department formulate a meaningful fiscal note. He
referred to page 9, lines 9-11, which basically provides the
definition of a trustee. The language was removed, as follows,
"(A) [EMPLOYEES IDENTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT TO EXERCISE
SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN THE
DISTRICT OR IN A SPECIFIED SCHOOL;]." This bill would create a
team that will share joint responsibility. The team would have
the authority to go in and say, "This is the plan." He
reiterated that the language specified on page 9, lines 9-11 was
essentially the definition of a trustee.
MR. MORSE answered that was not how the department interpreted
the specific language. Further, it was not the case when Senate
Bill 285 was put in place. The department understands that
language to mean that if the department identified a principal
in a school or someone at central office who is responsible for
improvement in instructional practices in the district had been
impeding progress, that the department could remove the person -
the district could reassign the person - noting that authority
was in Senate Bill 285. He emphasized the department has never
exercised this tool, but that has been the department's
interpretation.
CHAIR DICK suggested a willingness to entertain an amendment for
the next committee to clarify this point would be acceptable.
9:11:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how a tenured teacher would be
handled.
MR. MORSE answered that this language would not relate to
teachers since the language specifically refers to someone in a
leadership role in a supervisory capacity. He said the
provision would refer to a principal or a central office
employee. However, he advised that principals do earn tenure
rights. He stated that the principal or other staff can be
removed; however, the district cannot relieve the person. Thus
in practicality if the district does remove the person - noting
the person may not be a good administrator, but may have been a
phenomenal teacher - the district could place the person in a
classroom or non-supervisory capacity, or explore non-renewal
options.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON answered that a contract exists and the
pay would continue at the higher level.
MR. MORSE agreed. He suggested that the department may make a
recommendation for this to occur in the next calendar year;
however, this has never happened. He admitted he is just
speculating as to the options.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that his remarks reinforce
the reason to delete the language. She reiterated that
replacing the person, while still paying the person who was
removed could cause problems. She agreed it could be worked out
the next year; however she reiterated that she recognizes some
problems could arise.
9:15:25 AM
CHAIR DICK suggested that obviously if there was moral turpitude
involved the district could release the person.
9:15:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 256, labeled 27-LS1171\U, Mischel,
3/12/12, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, the
CSHB 256(EDC) was reported from the House Education Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS HB 256 Version U 031212.pdf |
HEDC 3/14/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| CS HB 256 Differences Between Versions T and U.pdf |
HEDC 3/14/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| CS HB 256 Sectional Analysis Version U.pdf |
HEDC 3/14/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |