Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/27/2013 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB162 | |
| HB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 162 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 162-TEACHER TENURE
8:07:48 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first business would be HOUSE
BILL NO. 162, "An Act relating to tenure of public school
teachers; and providing for an effective date.
8:08:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor, briefly explained HB 162. She said the bill would
change the [probationary] period for teachers seeking tenure
from three years to five years.
8:09:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 28-
LS0617\A.2, Wayne, 3/26/13, which read, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 1, lines 11 - 14:
Delete "If the teacher taught five [THREE] or more
years in the federal agency school and, at the time of
transfer, had a valid Alaska teaching certificate,
that teacher shall be placed on tenure in the
absorbing district."
Insert "[IF THE TEACHER TAUGHT THREE OR MORE YEARS IN
THE FEDERAL AGENCY SCHOOL AND, AT THE TIME OF
TRANSFER, HAD A VALID ALASKA TEACHING CERTIFICATE,
THAT TEACHER SHALL BE PLACED ON TENURE IN THE
ABSORBING DISTRICT.]"
Page 2, lines 1 - 17:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 14.20.147 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) A school district may immediately grant tenure in
the school district to a teacher who transfers to or
is absorbed into a school district under (a) of this
section if the teacher was employed as a teacher
continuously for three years in a school operated by a
federal agency and has a valid Alaska teaching
certificate. A school district shall immediately grant
tenure in the school district to a teacher who
transfers to or is absorbed into a school district
under (a) of this section if the teacher was employed
as a teacher continuously for four years in a school
operated by a federal agency and has a valid Alaska
teaching certificate.
* Sec. 3. AS 14.20.150(a) is amended to read:
(a) Except as provided in (c), [OR] (d), or (f) of
this section, a teacher acquires tenure rights in a
district when the teacher
(1) possesses a valid teaching certificate that
authorizes the teacher to be employed as a
certificated teacher or as an administrator under
regulations adopted by the department;
(2) has been employed as a teacher in the same
district continuously for four [THREE] full school
years;
(3) receives, in the fourth [THIRD] year of any four-
year [THREE-YEAR] period of continuous employment with
the district, an evaluation under the district's
evaluation system stating that the teacher's
performance meets the district performance standards;
and
(4) on or before October 15 of the school year,
(A) accepts a contract for employment as a teacher in
the district for a fifth [FOURTH] consecutive school
year; and
(B) performs a day of teaching services in the
district during that school year.
* Sec. 4. AS 14.20.150(e) is amended to read:
(e) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, a teacher
who has acquired tenure in a school district who moves
to a new school district acquires tenure in the new
school district on the first instructional day of the
fourth [THIRD] year of employment in the new school
district if
(1) the teacher otherwise meets the qualifications
for tenure set out in (a) of this section; and
(2) the break in service meets the requirements of
(d) of this section.
* Sec. 5. AS 14.20.150 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(f) A school district may, in the district's
discretion, grant a teacher tenure rights if the
teacher
(1) possesses a valid teaching certificate that
authorizes the teacher to be employed as a
certificated teacher or as an administrator under
regulations adopted by the department;
(2) has been employed as a teacher in the same
district continuously for three full school years;
(3) receives, in the third year of any three-year
period of continuous employment with the district, an
evaluation under the district's evaluation system
stating that the teacher's performance meets the
district performance standards; and
(4) on or before October 15 of the school year,
(A) accepts a contract for employment as a teacher in
the district for a fourth consecutive school year; and
(B) performs a day of teaching services in the
district during that school year."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 20:
Delete "Sections 1 and 2"
Insert "Sections 1 - 5"
Page 2, lines 21 - 22:
Delete "secs. 1 and 2"
Insert "secs. 1 - 5"
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Amendment 1 reflects
testimony given on the bill. A school district should be able
to offer excellent teachers an option to receive tenure after
three years of service rather than be restricted to the five
years named in the bill. He said the shorter [probationary
period] should be an incentive for teachers to perform well and
also minimize retaining ineffective teachers in schools. He
recapped Amendment 1, which does two things. First, it would
allow school districts to offer tenure to excellent teachers
after three full years of service. Second, it would allow
school districts to offer tenure to teachers after four full
years of teaching and after signing a contract for a fifth year
of teaching.
8:11:52 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:11 a.m. to 8:15 a.m.
8:15:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that proposed Sections 1 and 2
of Amendment 1 relate to federal certification and transfers.
He directed attention to page 1, line 21-23, and page 2, lines
1-14, of Amendment 1. He said the language in Section 3 would
modify the statute that allows teachers to receive tenure
following the fourth year, at the beginning of their fifth year
of teaching. Specifically, this provision would allow school
districts to offer tenure after three years, as is current
practice, but if the school district so desires, it could keep
some teachers on an improvement plan for an additional year. If
the school district decides to offer teachers tenure after four
years, the teachers would be eligible for tenure after they sign
a contract for the fifth year of teaching. In essence, the
effect would be to offer school districts an option to require
an additional year of teaching prior to granting tenure.
8:18:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that Sections 1 and 2 of
Amendment 1 could be eliminated given the lack of any federal
schools in the state. She asked for the reason to include this
language.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON clarified that proposed Section 1 of
Amendment 1 relates to federal agencies. She agreed that
proposed Section 2 would change the probationary requirement
prior to tenure from three years to five years.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to Section 2 of Amendment 1.
She pointed out this language also mentions federal agency.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered that the language is identical to
Section 1 of the original version of HB 162.
8:20:24 AM
DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, explained that AS
14.20.147 could be amended if there isn't any possibility of
transfers to federal agency schools. He offered that Amendment
1 could be amended on page 1, line 2, to read, "four or more
years" to be consistent with the rest of the Amendment 2, which
sets up a four-year probationary period for teachers prior to
achieving tenure.
8:21:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether any federal schools are
in Alaska.
MR. WAYNE responded that he did not know.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related her understanding from speaking
to Senator Coghill's staff, that Alaska no longer has any Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested deleting AS 14.20.147, which
refers to BIA schools to eliminate any statutory reference since
it seems confusing. In short, this would divide Amendment 1.
8:23:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON agreed that it would do so, but she
cautioned against deleting the statute without first confirming
the effect of removing the aforementioned statute with the
Department of Education and Early Development (EED).
8:24:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for clarification on Amendment 1.
She understood that current statutes grant teachers tenure after
three years [on the first day of the fourth year of teaching].
Amendment 1 would grant tenure after three years or allow the
school district to extend the [probationary period by] one year.
In instances in which probation is extended, teachers would
automatically obtain tenure after the fourth year of teaching
upon signing a contract for the fifth year of teaching.
MR. WAYNE answered yes. He said he believed that is correct.
8:24:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that the federal reference will
need to be cleared from the entire bill. She then asked the
sponsor to comment on Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained that HB 162 would require
teachers to teach for five years, plus teach the first day of
the sixth year to earn tenure. First, Amendment 1 would allow
school districts to consider tenure for teachers after three
years of employment; or second, to achieve tenure after teaching
four full years plus one day into the fifth year. She preferred
five years [of supervision], since she thinks the additional
time is important, but she expressed a willingness to accept the
committee's consensus. The Fairbanks North Star Borough School
District's (FNSBSD) teacher contracts provide caveats that offer
some protection for teachers. For instance, the FNSBSD cannot
dismiss teachers without cause. In summary, she said she
prefers the five-year probationary time frame.
8:27:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern that extending the
[supervision period] does two things. First, it would create a
limbo period for teachers, since many teachers won't buy a house
or establish roots in the community without job security.
Secondly, the necessity for good supervision is absent in the
bill, but the teacher evaluation component should not be
postponed. The additional year of supervision would provide
school districts some flexibility, yet to wait an additional two
years could mean that the decision to "fish or cut bait" will
not happen. Therefore, an ineffective teacher could easily
remain in a classroom. Certainly, four years should be
sufficient time for the school's administration to decide
whether a teacher is a good fit, and if the decision can't be
made within that period, the department isn't doing its job. In
summary, he expressed concern about extending the supervision
and decision-making process, which could simply be postponed
Therefore, the purpose of Amendment 1 is to give school
districts more flexibility by providing an additional year prior
earning tenure, but it does not diminish the teacher
[evaluation] process.
8:30:06 AM
KATHERINE GARDNER, Director, Human Resources and Labor
Relations, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District (MSBSD),
highlighted two ways tenure affects school districts. First,,
it allows school districts to consider a teacher's performance
and decide whether to continue employing the teacher by granting
tenure. Second, tenure also has also has a pretty significant
impact when considering layoffs. Since 80-90 percent of the
school district's budget is for staff costs, it could help the
MSBSD balance its budget if it had the flexibility to reduce
staff costs. In fact, tenured teachers can't be issued layoff
notices, yet the current tenured teachers may not be the best
fit for the district's program. However, the MSBSD must still
employ these teachers. In summary, tenure is more than just
considering a teacher's overall performance. She understood the
earlier concern that some school districts might postpone their
decisions [on evaluating teachers]; however, this would not be
the MSBSD's intention. Again, this bill would allow the
district an opportunity to evaluate the non-tenured teacher's
growth to ensure sustained growth prior to granting tenure since
granting tenure basically provides a position for life.
8:32:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked her to repeat her testimony since
the audio is garbled and he could not hear it.
MS. GARDNER summarized that the MSBSD advocates for a five-year
time line for tenure for two reasons. First, it would allow the
MSBSD an opportunity to remove a teacher for poor performance.
Second, it would also allow the MSBSD an opportunity to lay off
teachers during times of budget restrictions. Extending the
supervisory time to five years would allow the MSBSD additional
flexibility to achieve a balanced budget. The MSBSD's intention
would not be to allow ineffective teachers to remain in the
classroom longer, but will be to ensure teachers have made
progress, have shown growth, and are on track for tenure.
8:36:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her belief Amendment 1 makes
significant changes to the bill. She hoped that all school
districts would review Amendment 1 and the Department of
Education and Early Development (EED) would weigh in on the
proposed amendment.
CHAIR GATTIS suggested that the committee could continue to
review the amendments and the committee will take testimony from
at least one district.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON also asked to have the EED testify on
the amendment.
8:38:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON acknowledged that several approaches could
be taken. He then suggested continuing the discussion and
perhaps tabling Amendment 1, to allow the districts to provide
feedback.
8:39:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON recapped the MSBSD's testimony. She
offered her belief that Amendment 1, which extends supervision
3-5 years prior to granting teacher tenure, will accomplish two
things. First, it will allow school districts additional time
to evaluate teachers. Second, when funding issues arise,
Amendment 1 would also give the district more flexibility to
retain or dismiss teachers. She offered her belief the effect
of Amendment 1 will be to increase the size of the teacher pool.
Currently, the only way to dismiss tenured teacher is if there
is a drop in enrollment or a reduction in funding. Certainly,
school districts should have the ability to consider each
teacher and select the best one for the program and extending
teacher supervision from 3-4 years would provide some
flexibility to districts.
8:41:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he hoped to offer another amendment
that will work in conjunction with Amendment 1 to provide more
flexibility.
8:42:52 AM
DEENA PARAMO, Ed.D., Superintendent, Matanuska-Susitna Borough
School District (MSBSD), said this bill was requested by school
districts and superintendents to allow them flexibility in times
of staff reductions. Due to provisions in state statutes
regarding tenured teachers, the only way to reduce teaching
staff is if the basic need is reduced or if enrollment falls.
Frequently, those two provisions do not occur in the MSBSD.
Thus all tenured teachers must be kept; however, the courses
needed for students are not considered in the decision to retain
teachers. This bill would allow a larger pool of non-tenured
staff and would give the district additional flexibility for
retention decisions. Thus the effective teachers and specific
teachers needed for courses could also be considered. She
assured members that the MSB school district is interested in
evaluating teachers, but noted it is also important to observe a
teacher's effectiveness over a period of time. She offered her
belief that some teachers were offered tenure without being
evaluated fairly, but the impetus for this bill is to allow
school districts the ability to make the determination for the
best staffing for schools given a reduction in funding. She
clarified that the basic needs continues to increase.
8:45:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER understood a larger teacher pool would
give the school district additional flexibility to meet its
budget with funding constraints. He asked whether a teacher
without tenure is automatically considered to be a less
effective teacher than a tenured teacher. He clarified that a
teacher with two and a half years of experience could be doing
as good a job as someone who is a tenured teacher.
MS. PARAMO agreed. She said time does not necessarily create a
better teacher.
8:46:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for the percentage of new teacher
hires that the MSBSD makes each year.
MS. PARAMO estimated about 40 new teachers were hired this year;
however, the majority of these new hires were in special
education and other specialty areas. She clarified that the
MSBSD is not currently hiring many general education or
elementary teachers.
8:47:44 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), related that a number of school boards have been
in Juneau this week discussing issues and challenges. He
reported his involvement in 1995 in crafting changes to the
tenure law. That effort led to changes to the statutes, which
included removing trial de novo provisions which required a new
trial. Plans of improvement were also put into place to ensure
that teachers had an opportunity to improve instruction prior to
non-retention. Additionally, provisions allowed teachers a
hearing at the local level or proceed to arbitration. He stated
that the legislative process was lengthy and the first bill was
vetoed by the governor, but ultimately the effort led to passage
of revised teacher tenure.
MR. ROSE stated that the issue today is constraints on school
districts. His membership understands the strain on principals
in classrooms to document performance for non-retention is
extremely difficult. He said that the issue today is the
difficulty for oversight based on the requirements placed on
administrators as well as funding shortfalls. One issue has
been the need to meet requirements of highly qualified teachers.
He said the best qualified teachers tend to be put "on the
block" for non-retention. The five-year option would provide
school districts with some latitude and in fact, five years was
originally discussed during the 1995 revisions to teacher
tenure. This approach is supported by the school districts'
superintendents, primarily due to the additional pressure placed
on the system. These superintendents support the bill since it
will grant latitude to make decisions. He related difficulties
for recruitment exist, but under the bill, the school districts
would have larger pools. The problems school districts face
raise the issue of tenure itself. In closing, the AASB supports
the bill.
8:52:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification regarding layoff
considerations.
MR. ROSE offered his belief that the bill will allow flexibility
since the window for tenure is a five-year window instead of a
three-year window. He explained that the school districts
recruit the highest qualified teachers, but these teachers are
vulnerable during times of layoff since non-tenured teachers do
not have the protections that tenured teachers have.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether teachers in the first five
years of employment are the teachers "on the block" for
termination.
MR. ROSE clarified that some districts have shop teachers or
music teachers who are tenured teachers. However, teachers who
are recruited for math or science are often placed in layoff
status since they are non-tenured teachers. The non-tenured
teachers must be laid off prior to considering not-retaining
tenured teachers. Thus qualifications become secondary
considerations to tenure when school districts make decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the more recently recruited
teachers are the most qualified. He recalled him saying that
the best teachers are "on the block." He asked for further
clarification.
MR. ROSE said he was referring to the category of teachers as
highly qualified teachers who have been specifically recruited
for science or math, despite the fact that these teachers will
be cut first when funding issues arise. In response to a
question he said a band teacher would be most qualified for
music. However, the recruitment of "highly qualified teachers"
would be the ones he referred to earlier.
8:55:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether Amendment 1 is supported by
the AASB. Amendment 1 would allow tenure for highly qualified
teachers after three years. If the AASB did not specifically
discuss this aspect, he asked him to state his personal opinion.
MR. ROSE answered the AASB did not specifically address this.
He thought Amendment 1 made sense since it would allow the
school district an opportunity to offer tenure protection to
highly qualified teachers in three years. He offered his belief
that the AASB would support Amendment 1, but he refrained from
offering official support since the AASB has supported HB 162 as
introduced.
8:57:25 AM
RON FURHER, President, National Education Association, Alaska
(NEA-Alaska), said that 32 states have the exact same timeline
for tenure. In fact, the state is in an "attract and retain
mode" for the best quality teachers, while teachers are
considering career opportunities. Most teachers spend their
career in one state and sometimes one school district. For
instance, he has spent 32 years in the Anchorage School District
(ASD). The defined benefit plan has been reduced to a defined
contribution plan, which is one component a career teacher will
consider when deciding to take a job. Another consideration
will be the length of time to achieve stability through teacher
tenure. He stated that tenured teachers can be dismissed. He
asked whether the changes [in the bill] will improve the system
or if it will become another hurdle for teachers.
8:59:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether he supported Amendment 1.
MR. FURHER confirmed that he supports Amendment 1 over the
original bill.
8:59:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how long he has taught in the
district.
MR. FURHER answered that he has taught 32 years in Alaska and
four years in the Lower 48.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how many teachers are dismissed
once they are tenured.
MR. FURHER answered his knowledge would be limited to the ASD.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for a percentage of tenured
teachers.
MR. FURHER answered perhaps 5-10 percent, although he noted some
teachers are given an option to resign.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether 5-10 percent of tenured
teachers are laid off each year.
MR. FURHER responded that he is guessing at the number of
teachers who are laid off.
9:00:57 AM
[The committee treated the public testimony on HB 162 as being
closed.]
9:01:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to table Amendment 1 to allow
discussion on the next amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER objected. He said he would like a vote.
CHAIR GATTIS said the motion is to table Amendment 1.
9:03:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated the motion to table is to put the
motion aside for consideration at a later time.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification on whether the
next amendment would be discussed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said his intention to table Amendment 1 is
to offer Amendment 2.
9:03:32 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:03 a.m. to 9:06 a.m.
9:06:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew the motion to table Amendment 1.
There being no objection, the motion to table Amendment 1 was
withdrawn.
9:06:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew Amendment 1. There being no
objection, Amendment 1 was withdrawn.
9:06:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 28-
LS0617\A.3, Wayne, 3/26/13, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 2, following line 17:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 14.20 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 14.20.152. Tenure subject to review. After a
teacher acquires tenure under AS 14.20.147 or
14.20.150 or reacquires tenure under AS 14.20.150, the
tenure shall be reviewed by the school employing the
teacher at the end of each subsequent five-year period
of continuous employment. The school district may
terminate the tenure if, upon conclusion of the
review, the school district finds that during the
five-year review period
(1) the teacher did not meet the school
district's goals for student academic achievement for
two of the five years;
(2) the teacher's work performance did not
improve as required in a plan of improvement provided
under AS 14.20.149; or
(3) the teacher did not adequately assist
the school district with the implementation of a
school-wide change made by the school district to the
instructional model that is used by a school where the
teacher is employed.
* Sec. 4. AS 14.20.160 is amended to read:
Sec. 14.20.160. Loss of tenure rights. Tenure
rights are lost when the teacher's employment in the
district is interrupted or terminated or when tenure
is terminated under AS 14.20.152. However, a teacher
on layoff status does not lose tenure rights during
the period of layoff except as provided under
AS 14.20.177."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 20:
Delete "Sections 1 and 2"
Insert "Sections 1 - 4"
Page 2, lines 21 - 22:
Delete "secs. 1 and 2"
Insert "secs. 1 - 4"
9:06:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:06:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained Amendment 2, such that tenure
would be under review. Once a teacher acquired tenure, it could
be reviewed every five years. A school district could terminate
a tenure teacher if the school district determined the teacher
did not meet one of three criteria. First, if the teacher did
not meet the school district's goals for student achievement in
two of five years; Second, if the teacher's work performance did
not improve as required in a plan of improvement provided under
AS 14.20.149; or third, if the teacher did not adequately assist
the school district with the implementation of a school wide
change made by the school district to the instructional model
used where the teacher is employed.
9:08:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether Amendment 2 could stand
without Amendment 1.
MR. WAYNE answered yes.
9:08:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said Amendment 2 would allow flexibility
by adding three additional criteria. It would help ensure
tenured teachers continue to work on improvement and integration
of instructional models. It would help the school system move
forward and operate efficiently. Additionally, it would tie
teacher performance to student performance in two of the past
five years.
9:10:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to Amendment 2, lines 14-16,
which he suggested would help nudge teachers to embrace the
school's instructional model and if not, consequences would be
imposed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered yes.
9:11:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked for clarification on the existing
consequences for teachers whose work performance has not been
improving in a plan of improvement provided under AS 14.20.149.
9:12:26 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), said a school district could take steps to
address the deficiencies and move towards termination.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND clarified that currently a tenured
teacher could be terminated if their work performance did not
improve as required in a plan of improvement.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY concurred. He explained in instances in
which a teacher has been deemed non-compliant or unsatisfactory
on the teaching content standards and a plan of improvement is
instituted and improvement doesn't take place, the ability to
take further actions, including termination, currently exists.
9:13:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the bill would lengthen
the time for a teacher to have an opportunity for improvement.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the requirement to terminate
or implement corrections would be less stringent prior to a
teacher attaining tenure. Thus lengthening the time to acquire
tenure under the bill would make it is easier to terminate a
teacher or to impose corrections.
9:14:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if Amendment 2 would make it easier
to terminate a teacher who has already acquired tenure.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY deferred to the bill drafter.
9:15:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said Amendment 2 would make tenure
subject to review. She read lines 4-16, of Amendment 2, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
The school district may terminate the tenure if, upon
conclusion of the review, the school district finds
that during the five year review period
(1) the teacher did not meet the school district's
goals for student academic achievement for two of the
five years;
(2) the teacher's work performance did not improve as
required in a plan of improvement provided under AS
14.20.149; or
(3) the teacher did not adequately assist the school
district with the implementation of a school-wide
change made by the school district to the
instructional model that is used by a school where the
teacher is employed.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that if a teacher decided to
use iPads but one of the teachers refused it would fall under
paragraph (3) and would be a reason not to retain a teacher.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON then read lines 18-23 of Amendment 2,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Tenure rights are lost when the teacher's employment
in the district is interrupted or terminated or when
tenure is terminated under AS 14.20.152. However, a
teacher on layoff status does not lose tenure rights
during the period of layoff except as provided under
AS 14.20.177.
9:17:15 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY expressed concern about not having Amendment
2 before him. At first glance, it seemed to him that
unsatisfactory work performance or insubordination would be
reasons to reevaluate tenured teachers every five years.
9:18:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how a tenured teacher can lose
tenure for their transgressions. He asked whether other
circumstances currently exist for teachers to lose tenure.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the Professional Teaching
Practice Commission sets up criteria which could call for
immediate termination.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether other circumstances were
considered but not included. He further asked him to speak to
the three criteria in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said Amendment 2 does not delete the
current statute. He explained that the intent is to ensure
effective teachers, who advance education and have a willingness
to conform to instructional models required in a district. He
suggested that at times some teachers become set in their ways.
Amendment 2 was developed to ensure teachers remain up to date
in teaching practices and can help students to improve in 2-5
years.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER understood the state is currently
considering having student performance become an aspect of
teacher evaluation. He wondered if this would weaken the
protections of tenure.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the effect of Amendment 2 is to
ensure that tenured teachers are advancing in instructional
models and students are learning. This is not attempting to
weaken tenure, but to ensure teacher professional development
and student development continues.
9:22:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked the department how many tenured
teachers are terminated per year.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the determinations are at the local
level and the department does not retain those records.
9:24:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the sponsor supports
Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered yes; since it would give a
five year review of tenured teachers, which will work in
conjunction with the new evaluations being considered by the
Board of Education and will give superintendents another tool in
their toolbox.
9:25:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND questioned the need for Amendment 2.
She explained that if a plan of improvement is in place why the
other criteria in paragraphs (1) & (3) could also be included in
the plan of improvement. She further asked whether goals for
student academic achievement could be made part of a plan of
improvement as well as implementing a school-wide change.
9:26:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained that Amendment 2 would allow
a five-year evaluation for all teachers, which does not
currently occur, whereas the plan of correction is limited to
those not currently meeting the goals.
9:27:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed. He explained the intent of
Amendment 2 is to underscore the necessity for accountability
for teachers, including professional development, student
achievement, and implementing school-wide changes to
instructional models.
9:28:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered that Amendment 2 would allow
additional flexibility for districts to handle situations which
may be new to the profession, given the changing atmosphere of
the classroom. It provides a five-year review of teacher
performance, which may be helpful to schools.
9:30:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if Amendment 2 would require
additional administrative effort.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON offered her belief that it would not
create an additional burden.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected.
9:31:40 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:31 a.m. to 9:32 a.m.
9:32:43 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, P. Wilson,
Reinbold, LeDoux, Saddler, and Gattis voted in favor of the
adoption of Amendment 2. Representative Drummond voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 6-1.
9:33:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, which was
previously offered, labeled 28-LS0617\A.2, Wayne, 3/26/13, which
read, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, lines 11 - 14:
Delete "If the teacher taught five [THREE] or more
years in the federal agency school and, at the time of
transfer, had a valid Alaska teaching certificate,
that teacher shall be placed on tenure in the
absorbing district."
Insert "[IF THE TEACHER TAUGHT THREE OR MORE YEARS IN
THE FEDERAL AGENCY SCHOOL AND, AT THE TIME OF
TRANSFER, HAD A VALID ALASKA TEACHING CERTIFICATE,
THAT TEACHER SHALL BE PLACED ON TENURE IN THE
ABSORBING DISTRICT.]"
Page 2, lines 1 - 17:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 14.20.147 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) A school district may immediately grant tenure in
the school district to a teacher who transfers to or
is absorbed into a school district under (a) of this
section if the teacher was employed as a teacher
continuously for three years in a school operated by a
federal agency and has a valid Alaska teaching
certificate. A school district shall immediately grant
tenure in the school district to a teacher who
transfers to or is absorbed into a school district
under (a) of this section if the teacher was employed
as a teacher continuously for four years in a school
operated by a federal agency and has a valid Alaska
teaching certificate.
* Sec. 3. AS 14.20.150(a) is amended to read:
(a) Except as provided in (c), [OR] (d), or (f) of
this section, a teacher acquires tenure rights in a
district when the teacher
(1) possesses a valid teaching certificate that
authorizes the teacher to be employed as a
certificated teacher or as an administrator under
regulations adopted by the department;
(2) has been employed as a teacher in the same
district continuously for four [THREE] full school
years;
(3) receives, in the fourth [THIRD] year of any four-
year [THREE-YEAR] period of continuous employment with
the district, an evaluation under the district's
evaluation system stating that the teacher's
performance meets the district performance standards;
and
(4) on or before October 15 of the school year,
(A) accepts a contract for employment as a teacher in
the district for a fifth [FOURTH] consecutive school
year; and
(B) performs a day of teaching services in the
district during that school year.
* Sec. 4. AS 14.20.150(e) is amended to read:
(e) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, a teacher
who has acquired tenure in a school district who moves
to a new school district acquires tenure in the new
school district on the first instructional day of the
fourth [THIRD] year of employment in the new school
district if
(1) the teacher otherwise meets the qualifications
for tenure set out in (a) of this section; and
(2) the break in service meets the requirements of
(d) of this section.
* Sec. 5. AS 14.20.150 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(f) A school district may, in the district's
discretion, grant a teacher tenure rights if the
teacher
(1) possesses a valid teaching certificate that
authorizes the teacher to be employed as a
certificated teacher or as an administrator under
regulations adopted by the department;
(2) has been employed as a teacher in the same
district continuously for three full school years;
(3) receives, in the third year of any three-year
period of continuous employment with the district, an
evaluation under the district's evaluation system
stating that the teacher's performance meets the
district performance standards; and
(4) on or before October 15 of the school year,
(A) accepts a contract for employment as a teacher in
the district for a fourth consecutive school year; and
(B) performs a day of teaching services in the
district during that school year."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 20:
Delete "Sections 1 and 2"
Insert "Sections 1 - 5"
Page 2, lines 21 - 22:
Delete "secs. 1 and 2"
Insert "secs. 1 - 5"
9:33:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Amendment 1 works in
conjunction with Amendment 2. It would give the school
districts the flexibility to offer tenure at three years.
Additionally, it adds one additional year for tenure, whereas HB
162 would increase the probationary or supervisory period to
five years.
9:34:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her belief that school
districts could currently do this.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that statutes specify when tenure
is attained, but does not include an option to offer tenure for
other timeframes.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON disagreed. She said that a teacher
could be provided a longer contract to accomplish tenure.
9:35:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered support for Amendment 1 since it
offers flexibility to school districts. However, she offered
her belief that if this bill passes the school district can only
offer tenure on the first day of the 6th year.
9:36:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON maintained her objection.
9:36:48 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton and Drummond
voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1. Representatives
P. Wilson, LeDoux, Saddler, Reinbold, and Chair Gattis voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 2-5.
9:37:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report HB 162, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, the CSHB
162(EDC) was reported from the House Education Standing
Committee.
9:38:25 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:38 a.m. to 9:40 a.m.