Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
04/24/2007 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB192 | |
| SJR3 | |
| HB4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 192-LAYOFF/NONRETENTION OF TEACHERS 3:04:56 PM CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 192, "An Act relating to notification to teachers of layoff or nonretention." 3:06:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, presented HB 192 paraphrasing from the sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Alaska Statute currently requires school districts to inform tenured teachers they will be laid off or not retained for the following school year by March 16, while teachers who have not acquired tenure must be notified by the final day of the school term. HB 192 changes the notification date for layoff or nonretention of tenured teachers from March 16 to the final day of the school term, the same notification deadline mandated for non-tenured teachers. The reason for this change is school districts do not know what their budget for the following school year will be by the middle of March. While school districts can project or make reasonable guesses, they do not know with certainty what the state's contribution to education is going to be until the end of the legislative session. In the face of inadequate information, it is unreasonable to require school districts to send pink slips to tenured teachers in the middle of March simply because they are uncertain if they will have adequate funds to retain the teachers by the time the legislature has passed an education funding budget. REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN further explained that the law handles teachers in two groups: tenured and nontenured. Tenure is attained by three years of teaching in the same district with good evaluations. Alaska law requires that a tenured teacher be informed of nonretention by the sixteenth of March and a nontenured teacher must be notified at the end of the school year. Thus this early in the year, when funding can not be guaranteed, districts will send layoff notices. Although layoff priorities determine that nontenured teachers are laid off first, some districts must layoff tenured teachers in March. Although there has been discussion about forward funding education, Representative Doogan pointed out that in a typical year, such as 2007, education funding is not settled and school districts do not know what the coming budget will provide for; teachers are left in limbo not knowing what the coming year will hold for them. This legislation will change the nonretention date for tenured teachers from the fifteenth of March to the end of the school year. This will prevent a school district from losing teachers whom it intends to rehire when the budget is final. He concluded that this problem is due to an antiquated statue that no longer meets the budget calendar. 3:11:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referred to a constituent, who has taught in rural and urban Alaska for 20 years, who requested that the law should not be changed. The constituent stated that the existing law is best for all parties. REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN responded that, if the state forward funded education, a school district would know before the fifteenth of March whether it has funds to retain its tenured teachers; the situation now is a guessing game. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN relayed that a principal from his district stated that, although teachers may not like the bill, administrators would due to the increased time allowed for negotiation. He opined that the bill puts teachers and administrators on opposite sides. 3:13:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES opined that the existing law is not working. This bill intends to improve the situation of highly qualified and competent teachers who wish to continue in their positions. He provided a scenario of why this does not work for teachers who have received a pink slip and are wondering where they will be working in the fall. He fully described the process for layoff and reinstatement as a difficult and cumbersome process. Good teachers can be lost to other districts and states during the three months of upheaval. Representative Roses said that he has an amendment to offer. REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN stated that the intent of this bill is not to estrange teachers and administrators. It is simply recognizing that school districts and some tenured teachers are put in a difficult position by the March deadline. 3:17:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether tenured teachers have been spoken to about this bill. He pointed out that job fairs for teachers are scheduled in April and one of the reasons for the pink slips to go out in March is to allow the teachers to avail themselves of the April job fairs. REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN responded that he has heard the concerns that laid off teachers may miss attending the job fairs. However, the more common problem is that school districts have been forced to layoff tenured teachers, whom they wish to retain, because of the budget uncertainty. 3:19:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to Representative Roses' statement that more often than not, most teachers who get laid off get hired back. She asked whether it was known how often teachers are not hired back. REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said he did not have a definitive answer. He added that the Anchorage School District makes every attempt to hire teachers back and he estimated that it lost between 10 percent and 20 percent of those who were laid off. 3:21:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES recalled his experience as president of the Anchorage Education Association (AEA). When other states were having budget problems the AEA would successfully recruit teachers with expertise in areas of extreme critical needs from those areas. The out-of-state districts were then left with a critical shortage when their budgets were finalized. 3:22:46 PM CHAIR WILSON commented that a school with a falling enrollment is placed in a critical situation. Additionally, there is an inequity between tenured and nontenured teachers. 3:23:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA reported that one of her constituents felt that the bill will make layoffs at the end of the school year easier for the administration. She said she was unclear as to that procedure and expressed her hope that questions will be cleared up. Further, Representative Cissna wondered whether teachers who are going to be laid off have received prior warning, and if the Department of Education and Early Development tracked the layoff procedure. 3:25:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his understanding that most of the pink slips are to nontenured teachers; this is a general practice and perhaps a political ploy to increase funding. He stated that all this bill will do is to put tenured and nontenured teachers in the same position. REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN observed that it is a general rule to layoff all of the nontenured teachers prior to the tenured teachers. The intent of this bill is to help school districts that are the most negatively impacted by the existing law because they are smaller and have a higher portion of tenured teachers. 3:27:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH observed that this is a political process and that pink slips are sometimes issued inappropriately. She stated her support for having the teachers wait to the end of the school year, as well as her support for forward funding of the education budget so that teachers will know they will be returning to their classrooms. Representative Fairclough said she had received notices from four or five citizens against this bill. However, the bill will set up standard and equitable means to issue layoff notices, if necessary, and to offset the current political process that has been used more frequently in the last five years. 3:30:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN requested information on the labor union agreements that support teachers through the layoff process. REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN expressed his understanding that the teacher's unions attempt to equalize negotiations in school districts across the board. However, negotiations depend on the size of the district, its growth, its financial situation, and its stability. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether there is a one-size-fits-all fix. He also asked whether school districts have considered adjusting the timeline for starting the budget process. 3:32:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES opined that school districts may play politics to degree; however, the reality is that layoff notification must be given to teachers if the budget process is not final. If a tenured teacher is not laid off, he or she must be employed to avoid possible arbitration. In addition, he pointed out that the only layoffs affected by this bill will be those that take place due to the lack of a final funding bill for education. 3:34:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES then offered Amendment 1. He explained that the intent of the amendment is to directly tie the deadline of the layoff notices to whether the legislature has approved school funding on or prior to the first of March of a given year. 3:35:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH objected for discussion purposes. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether the existing law would not change if the legislature passes the educational funding bill prior to the first of March. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES remarked: That's true except, that if you're laying someone off based on the fact that there is no funding, and if it is on March second, they're not going to be able to go around that quickly and get it processed they're going to have to justify as to why they are laying that person off if the budget [has] been passed. So the only way it would affect it would be if, by the time you got later on to the end of the school year and there was no budget, at that point, then it would be issued. 3:36:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN warned that that is the issue. This bill could be used as a tool administratively to give teachers what they do not want. CHAIR WILSON advised that a tenured teacher can not be laid off without due process. 3:37:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that House Bill 20 in the 24th Alaska State Legislature made an effort to forward fund the school budget. He provided background on this prior legislation. He observed that the intent of HB 192 bill can be supported, but there is disagreement from school districts and teachers about moving the pink slip to the last day of school. He expressed his concern that the education funding bill will never pass both houses by the first of March, thus the bill effectively states that tenured teachers will be receiving layoff notification at the end of the school year. CHAIR WILSON opined that forward funding is possible. 3:40:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH added that forward funding, either through an education endowment or by overcoming the hurdle of supplemental requests, will solve the problem. She withdrew her objection to the amendment. 3:40:43 PM Hearing no further objection Amendment 1 was adopted. 3:41:05 PM KATHLEEN TODD, Member, Valdez School Board, explained how the pink slips are distributed in the Valdez School District. She encouraged the committee to think of all of the teachers whose jobs are on the line. Last year there were seven tenured teachers worried about their jobs until the fifteenth of March. Unfortunately, under this bill, they will have to wait until the end of the year. Under this bill, tenure has its rewards in a large district but not in a small district. Ms. Todd pointed out that that is a reason for teachers to leave rural areas and work in the larger districts. Her school board must re-work its budget three times a year to comply with the law. She encouraged the committee to move the session dates earlier in the year or forward fund education. 3:45:09 PM LYDIA GARCIA, Executive Director, National Education Association-Alaska (NEA-Alaska), stated NEA-Alaska's opposition to HB 192, which is identical to SB 156 presented two years ago by Senator Ben Stevens. She paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: I'm certain it will come as no surprise to this committee that NEA-Alaska opposes House Bill 192. This legislation is identical to the legislation introduced by Senator Ben Stevens (SB 156) two years ago. The idea is to erode tenure rights is just as bad now as it was two years ago when this committee did not hear the legislation. Currently tenured teachers must be notified by March 15th if they are to be laid off. This is an important benefit earned by teachers when they begin their fourth year of teaching with the same district. When tenured teachers are notified by March 15th, they have appropriate time to attend job fairs (held most often in April) and time to search for new employment. Furthermore, many schools lock in their staff by having them sign individual contract months prior to the end of school. Significant penalties (thousands of dollars) are attached to those contracts if the teachers break them anywhere close to the end of the year. What this bill does is put all the hardship on the teachers by requiring them early on to notify their district of their intent to return, but allowing the districts the option of laying off teachers on the last day of school. By this time major recruiting drives have already been completed. HB 192 appears to be a solution looking for a problem. Alaska should be doing everything in its power to recruit and retain quality teachers to Alaska. A report published in 2006 by the institute of Social and Economic Research verifies that about 70% of teachers are hired from outside Alaska. Studies also show that 50% of the teaching force leaves the profession after five years. Alaska should not be in the business of making things more difficult for teachers. Part of what seems to drive this type of legislation is that school districts never know what their funding level will be by March 15th. NEA-Alaska supports efforts to forward fund education and to get as much financial information to districts as soon as possible. This is a matter of dignity and respect for our Teachers who have earned this last benefit of a Tenured System, which has suffered erosion. Please reconsider the passing of this bill. I oppose HB 192 on behalf of all NEA-Alaska members. 3:50:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether NEA-Alaska would still oppose HB 192 if the recruiting fairs and job fairs were scheduled later in the year. MS. GARCIA offered her experience that the month of April is a standard for job fairs across the nation. 3:51:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES informed the committee that the majority of job fairs are held to coordinate with college graduation; not to accommodate the currently employed. 3:51:53 PM CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB), stated AASB's opposition to HB 192 and provided historical information and updates on the tenure process. He stressed that the legislature and school districts have a difficult time identifying resources early in the year. The unintended consequence of moving [the fifteenth of March] date is the loss of staff who will not be signing contracts for the next year. He agreed with the previous speaker that that forward funding will solve the problem. He reminded the committee that the tenure law looked at quality, performance, accountability, and fairness, and that tenure is not portable in the state. By moving this date around the issues of fairness to and uncertainty for employees comes into play. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked Mr. Rose to identify the section in the legislation that prevents school districts from offering contracts. MR. ROSE said that the lack of notification by the fifteenth of March opens up the opportunity for staff to look for other work. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH further asked how changing the date is different from the current process of the school district estimating its budget and issuing pink slips. MR. ROSE replied that, once you move past the nontenured teachers, the tenured teachers have protections that may lead to consequences. 3:56:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked Mr. Rose for his opinion of Amendment 1. Representative Roses stated that [Representative Roses] is a strong advocate for tenure and has protected the rights of teachers in the past. He recalled regretful personal experiences in which pink slip notices have been issued. He assured the committee that he would have no part in jeopardizing tenure for teachers and this [bill and amendment] is an attempt to prevent the issuance of pink slip notices solely because school districts are waiting on the legislature for its decision on funding education. 3:58:02 PM MR. ROSE opined that there are three options: move the date, fund early, or Amendment 1. Ideally, identifying funds early is the best option, but this amendment moves [the state] closer. 3:58:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN observed that there is not an easy fix and forward funding for education is not a reality. He asked Mr. Rose whether this bill will put further stress on school districts due to the shorter legislative session. MR. ROSE warned that the 90-day session may create a need to extend the first session or to work through the interim to be ready in February of the second year. Interim committee processes may be the reality of the 90-day session; transparency will be a casualty. He also speculated that future resources will come from the earnings reserve of the Alaska Permanent Fund. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN noted that the 90-day session also requires the governor to pass a budget within 15 days of adjournment. 4:01:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved HB 192, Version 25-LS0720\A.1 as amended [with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes]. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said that his objection was based on the testimony of the knowledgeable parties. 4:02:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the notification at the end of the school year is very problematic for tenured teachers. He stated his opposition to the bill. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated her strong belief that the need to take care of the school budget should be a priority and not a political hold-out. There is a conflict in that this bill takes care of one problem but does hold unintended consequences. 4:05:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH recalled that a witness pointed out that the committee has three choices and each choice has consequences. She noted that she has supported an education endowment for the past ten years. Furthermore, forward funding, or an educational endowment, will not occur in the next year due to deadlocks over supplemental requests. She opined that this bill, as amended, stops the premature issuances of pink slips and stated her support for the bill. Representative Fairclough cited the saving of time and money by the larger school districts as the basis for supporting the bill. 4:07:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed her conflict on the bill. However, the status quo causes the loss of good teachers and she stated her support for the bill. 4:08:55 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Roses, Fairclough, Cissna, Gardner, and Wilson voted in favor of HB 192. Representatives Neuman and Seaton voted against it. Therefore, HB 192 was reported out of the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|