Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/22/2013 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB162 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 162 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 2013
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lynn Gattis, Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harriet Drummond
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 162
"An Act relating to tenure of public school teachers; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 151
"An Act establishing a public school and school district grading
system for purposes of improving accountability and
transparency; providing for Alaska strategic educators in public
schools; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL POSTPONED TO 3/25/13
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 162
SHORT TITLE: TEACHER TENURE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) T.WILSON
03/11/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/11/13 (H) EDC
03/22/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 162, as sponsor.
KATHERINE GARDNER, Director
Human Resources and Labor Relations
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District (MSBSD)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 162.
DEENA PARAMO, Ed.D
Superintendent
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District (MSBSD)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified.
TAMMY SMITH, Director
Fairbanks Education Association (FEA)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 162.
JOE BOYLE
Region VII Director
Matanuska-Susitna Education Association (MSEA)
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 162.
ANDY HOLLEMAN, President
Anchorage Education Association (AEA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 162.
LADAWN DRUCE
President
Kenai Peninsula Education Association (KPEA)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 162.
DAVE JONES, Assistant Superintendent
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District (KPBSD)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 162.
DAVID NEES
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 162.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:08 AM
CHAIR LYNN GATTIS called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives LeDoux, Reinbold,
Seaton, Wilson, and Gattis were present at the call to order.
Representatives Saddler and Drummond arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 162-TEACHER TENURE
8:04:32 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first only order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 162, "An Act relating to tenure of
public school teachers; and providing for an effective date."
8:04:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature,
presented HB 162. She offered to provide a brief history of
teacher tenure. Years ago universities hired faculty but when a
faculty member grew in his/her profession and became a valued
teacher with a good income the professor was terminated so the
university could hire someone at a lower salary. The terminated
faculty member would be back in the job market and essentially
need to start over. The professional organization for
university professors advocated for a new process to protect
professors. If professors proved to be good teachers or
researchers, their works were published in journals, and they
met certain other standards, these professors could be evaluated
after seven years. If these faculty members met all of the
university's standards they were awarded tenure with the
security that tenure provides; however those not meeting the
standards were terminated and could seek employment elsewhere.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON indicated that today most universities,
including the University of Alaska (UA), maintain teacher tenure
practices. Thus an instructor, an assistant professor,
associate professor, or full professor can obtain tenure after
seven years of employment. A decision is subsequently made to
either grant tenure or terminate the professor. However, tenure
has evolved over time [to include school teachers, not just
university professors]. While tenure doesn't guarantee lifetime
employment, it does make firing tenured teachers a difficult and
costly process: one that involves the union, school board, the
principal, the judicial system, and thousands of dollars in
legal fees. She said in most states a tenured teacher can't be
dismissed unless charges have been filed and months of
evaluations, hearings, and appeals have occurred. Meanwhile,
school districts must pay thousands of dollars for paid leave
and to hire substitute teachers. She offered her belief that
the current system to dismiss tenured teachers is slow and
cumbersome.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON reported that on July 24, 2009,
President Obama announced as part of [American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)], the "Race to the Top
Assessment (RTTA)" program, which made available $4.35 billion
in grants to states. She explained that the RTTA program
includes requirements to adopt policies that take into account
student achievement when evaluating teachers and developing
plans to remove ineffective teachers - tenured and non-tenured.
She reported that Alaska did not receive any funds, but many
states made significant changes to the process.
8:07:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained that HB 162 does not tie
evaluations to teachers since the state Board of Education is
currently working on that part of the system. Across the
country, people recognize the current education structure is not
working and having the sole basis for retaining teachers on the
length of service is not likely the best approach to ensure the
best teachers are in the classrooms. In fact, most states grant
tenure after three years, which means teachers have not had the
opportunities to demonstrate their skills or ineptness.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON referred to a November 21, 2008 study
conducted by the University of Washington (UW) Center on
Reinventing Public Education, which found the first two or three
years of teaching does not predict post-tenure performance.
Further, teacher tenure may benefit teachers, but it does
nothing to promote the education of children. The result is
that teacher tenure requires schools to make long-term spending
commitments but prevents school districts from being flexible.
8:08:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON advised that teacher employment
contracts generally lack provisions for declining enrollment and
economic turmoil. In fact, Alaska's statutes provide numerous
steps that must be taken to terminate tenured teachers,
including terminating non-tenured teachers, even if the non-
tenured teachers are highly skilled. This legislation, HB 162,
addresses teacher tenure by increasing the probation period from
three to five years to achieve tenure. This change is in
response to the importance of the quality of teacher
instruction. More specifically, under the bill the probationary
period for teacher tenure would require teachers to work for
five years in the same school district. This would ensure that
a new teacher has the opportunity to realize his/her full
potential and become an effective teacher. She emphasized the
importance of having the most effective teachers in the
classrooms to provide the best possible education for students.
Successful teachers help shape and create successful students.
Effective teachers are what students need and deserve and this
bill will bring Alaska one step further in achieving the goal to
assure a high-performing quality teacher in every classroom.
8:09:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for further clarification on the
necessity to retain tenured teachers for a specific position
over those categorized as highly-qualified teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related a scenario in which the Base
Student Allocation (BSA) is not increased. School districts
must make cuts by removing all non-tenured teachers first unless
the school district is able to prove that no one else can fit
the very specific instructor needed. To summarize, school
districts must base their decisions not on retaining teachers
best qualified for the position, but on the length of time these
teachers have taught in the school.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that the bill would probably
give school districts more flexibility to move teachers where
needed.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that HB 162 is limited to the
length of time it takes for teachers to achieve tenure, but it
does not address previously tenured teachers. She acknowledged
that most states have taken this one step further by also
considering teacher evaluations when determining whether
teachers can retain tenure. Again, this bill does not address
previously tenured teachers; however, the aforementioned RTTA
program seems to be the direction the federal government has
taken to ensure better qualified teachers are in the classrooms.
8:11:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the reason that Alaska did not
participate in the federal RTTA funding program.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that Alaska does not currently
have in place a stringent evaluation process to evaluate teacher
tenure that 11 other states adopted. In those states, teachers
are evaluated on the outcome of student achievement testing.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX understood HB 162 doesn't cover the
evaluation aspect.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that this bill would be the
first step [to improve the quality of teaching in classrooms.]
Currently, it would burden the state Board of Education (BOE) to
make significant changes at this time. She reiterated that the
BOE is currently working on establishing new evaluation
processes for teachers. For this reason, HB 162 takes an
incremental approach by allowing the BOE to finish its work and
to allow school districts time to incorporate any changes the
BOE makes.
8:13:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether teachers will decide not to
apply for jobs in states with longer tenure qualifications
versus those with three year limits. Accordingly, teachers
attending job fairs could be affected by the changes to tenure.
He asked whether any data is available on this.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that the majority of the
changes occurred in 2011 and data is not readily available.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification on whether the
states opting for RTTA [found improvements] as compared to those
not opting for the RTTA funding. He further asked whether any
unintended consequences may happen under the bill with the
proposed changes to teacher tenure.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that she introduced the bill
at the request of many superintendents who expressed the need
for more time to evaluate teachers in order to obtain better
results [in the classroom]. In other words, the request for the
bill stems from the school districts who desire more evaluation
time.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON cautioned that the state already has
difficulties attracting teachers to relocate to Alaska. He
expressed concern about the effect this bill will have on
teacher recruitment, especially without knowing the effect the
increased time to obtain tenure will have on recruitment.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON offered her belief that recruitment
decisions are not based solely on tenure. She emphasized her
belief that teachers do not decide whether to teach in Alaska
based solely on one reason, but base their decisions on other
factors, including salaries and working conditions. The
legislature has asked school districts to better prepare
Alaska's students. She has solicited suggestions on how to make
those improvements and introduced HB 162 based on feedback from
superintendents. She surmised that having an ineffective
teacher for one year could adversely affect students for at
least a year. Perhaps students who experience poor quality
teachers for several years may never catch up.
8:17:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for an estimate on the number of
teachers in Alaska who do not qualify for tenure after their
three-year probationary period.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered she didn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested the department might be able to
answer that question. He asked whether there any records
identify the number of tenured teachers in Alaska who have been
dismissed.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related her research on this topic
began with the Juneau School District (JSD). However, the JSD
could not recall any instance of having dismissed a tenured
teacher. Other school districts reported it was easier to
essentially [pay the teacher's contract] rather than to dismiss
the teacher. Additionally, tenure is portable, which means
tenured teachers only need to teach two years to retain tenure
in their new district. She was unsure whether accurate numbers
could be compiled on tenure since teachers make decisions to
leave based on a variety of reasons. She remarked that the UA
graduates about 200 teachers, but the districts hire about 800
additional teachers each year. In any event, it might be
difficult to ascertain the number of tenured teachers who leave
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for further clarification on tenure
portability. He asked whether teaching for two years to acquire
tenure in a new school district is a statewide provision.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON acknowledged it is defined in statute.
8:19:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked for the number of teachers who
left prior to obtaining tenure status once the state changed its
retirement system to a 401 (k) [defined contribution pension
plan].
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said she was unsure.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND commented it would be helpful to have
additional data.
8:20:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked which states require more than three
years to attain teacher tenure.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON directed attention to members' packets
to the state-by-state breakout of tenure information [entitled
"Teaching Quality"]. She reported that some states have not
changed the length of time necessary to achieve teacher tenure;
however, some states have tied student evaluations to achieving
tenure.
8:21:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether Alaska has had difficulty in
attracting and retaining teachers in both urban and rural areas.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that HB 162 focused on
addressing how to retain the best teachers in the classroom.
Granted, rural communities have experienced more difficulty in
retaining teachers. However, very few teachers earn tenure in
the Bush since many relocate to urban Alaska communities,
probably due to isolation issues, she said. Again, this bill
was initiated to address concern expressed by some
superintendents who indicated they must evaluate the
effectiveness of teachers for tenure earlier than they would
like to do so.
8:23:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON theorized about being a superintendent
evaluating a teacher and surmised that school districts that
were uncertain about teachers would likely not retain the
teachers. She asked whether any other industry has tenure
programs.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON was not aware of any; however she
offered her belief that many union positions have protections
for employees.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related in her experience, good
teachers are not concerned about tenure, but teachers who are
aware they are not the best teachers may be worried about being
retained. Overall, she thought Alaskan teachers are doing a
good job, but some may be using outdated lesson plans. She
expressed support for HB 162.
8:26:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed with the previous speaker that some
tenured teachers may not upgrade lesson plans or keep current
with technology. He recalled some discussions about opening up
tenure every five years to ensure tenured teachers are effective
teachers. He asked whether the bill incorporates measures such
as revisiting tenure every five years.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered no.
8:28:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how this bill will interface with
the scoring of student performance to teacher evaluations.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that teachers are evaluated
from the time they are hired and the evaluation process is the
same for tenured and non-tenured teachers. Currently teachers
can be offered tenure at the beginning of the fourth year. This
bill would make teacher tenure available the first day of the
sixth year. She characterized this change as a method to allow
teachers a greater learning curve, which is especially important
given that teachers often receive new students to teach each
year. She recalled her own student teaching evaluation. In
summary, this bill will allow teachers more time to become
effective and alleviate some "new hire" pressures that beginning
teachers may feel.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how teacher's salaries affect
tenure.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON offered her belief that teachers decide
to become teachers because they want to teach, not because of
competitive salaries. She said, "I'm a firm believer that we
pay too much for people up on top - in the administration area -
and we put the most pressure on our teachers who at the end of
the day - at least the way I felt - had the least freedom. And
if they had let me do what I felt I had been taught to do
through my four years at the university, I could be a much more
effective teacher." She maintained most teachers are not
motivated by salaries, but teach because they want to change the
world.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for an estimate on the length of
the average teaching career in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered about five years.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND remarked that answer surprises her.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on how long the
average teacher teaches in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON suggested the five years is the average
length of time a teacher stays in a school district. She was
unsure of the length of time teachers remain in Alaska due to
tenure portability. She offered her belief that the Bush
districts skew the length of time teacher remain in a single
school district. In further response to a question, she said
she was unsure of the average statewide teacher career in
Alaska.
8:34:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled that the average time employees
spent in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) is 9 1/2
years and the average for teachers in the Teachers Retirement
System (TRS) is just over 11 years. He then asked about the
tenure duration and evaluation processes. He understood every
principal in the Anchorage school district is required to spend
extended observation time in the classroom each week as part of
teachers' evaluations. He expressed concern, under the bill,
about lengthening the time for tenure expecting an outcome and
result of better teachers, without also incorporating an
evaluation component to improve classroom teaching. He
understood this bill doesn't address teacher evaluations, but he
wondered if some consideration should be made.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON clarified that the intent of the bill
is to allow more time for teachers to become visibly effective.
She suggested that the evaluation component will be addressed by
the committee at a later date. She surmised some teachers are
not retained by school districts because they did not have an
opportunity to demonstrate their potential effectiveness over
time. Consequently, this bill would allow teachers more time to
[gain skills] and become effective teachers. Many states have
increased the time to achieve teacher tenure and have added
provisions to revisit tenure every five years in order to
reevaluate teacher effectiveness; however, Alaska is not at that
point yet.
CHAIR GATTIS interjected that some school districts would like
to testify on the bill and may be able to provide answers to
some of the questions members have posed.
8:39:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether school districts that
currently have low-level evaluations would institute ongoing
evaluations [during the additional two-year period prior to
tenure]. He expressed concern that some school districts
wouldn't worry about conducting teacher evaluations for teachers
who have not been very effective until the end of the five-year
period.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON pointed out the governor is in the
process of implementing a new evaluation system that would tie
student achievement to teacher evaluation. Currently these
issues are being handled by individual school districts, but the
state [BOE] and administration have been working on a statewide
approach.
8:40:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER commented that knowledge of an individual
teacher's performance will percolate [into the community].
Further, teachers might appreciate the extra couple of years to
[increase] the narrow timeframe in which they will be judged.
For instance, he said he'd rather be judged on his performance
during his fourth and fifth year than on his first three years
of teaching.
8:41:36 AM
KATHERINE GARDNER, Director, Human Resources and Labor
Relations, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District (MSBSD),
spoke in support of HB 162. She said that teacher tenure
provides certificated teachers with significant increases in job
security. Not only are school districts limited in the reasons
they can limit or not retain teachers to three narrow reasons
established in statute, but the MSBSD's ability to lay off a
tenured teacher is relatively impossible. In fact, the two
criteria that must be met to consider layoff for tenured
teachers are tied to a reduction in the level of funding or an
overall reduction in enrollment. She said these restrictions
truly inhibit the MSBSD's ability to effectively balance its
limited resources to provide programs the school district would
like to offer to ensure the best education for its students.
MS. GARDNER offered her belief the three year period is not
sufficient time to effectively evaluate teacher performance,
especially since at the end of the period [when teachers achieve
tenure] they are extended major protections. She reported that
the MSBSD has found that many of their teachers have been with
the district for 20 years or longer. Therefore, the MSBSD would
appreciate extending the period by two years, which will allow
the district an opportunity to ensure that the teachers who are
retained are exhibiting the skills the district desires.
MS. GARDNER suggested the purpose of the evaluation is to
determine that the teachers have become good teachers and not to
conclude that they have the "potential" to become good teachers.
She said the MSBSD wants to identify specific teachers as the
ones who will work effectively for the MSBSD. She offered to
answer questions she heard raised. With respect to waiting to
delay timely evaluations, she responded that the MSBSD would
have no interest in doing so. The department's potential
changes regarding teacher evaluations will place considerable
emphasis on the evaluation process and the review of student
data. Therefore, the school district will not have an
opportunity to put off conducting teacher evaluations. Instead,
the MSBSD will look at evaluations and teacher performance at
each step in the process. Extending tenure to teachers after
five years will allow the MSBSD to evaluate teachers on their
demonstrated skills and examine whether students are achieving
at a level the MSBSD expects. Actually, the initial three-year
teaching period is a period during which teachers are still
learning their craft and refining their skills. The MSBSD would
like to ensure teachers have had the opportunities refine their
skills before any decisions are made about future employment.
MS. GARDNER reported that the MSBSD has placed considerable
emphasis on having principals conduct classroom visits. She
agreed it is difficult for principals since many Matanuska-
Susitna schools are large schools. Hence, the additional two
years would allow principals sufficient time to sufficiently
observe all classrooms. When the MSBSD has concerns about a
teacher's performance, the district's default is not to retain
the teacher who is not exhibiting minimum skills [since the
district is far more likely to let these teachers go]. Further,
the additional two years prior to achieving tenure would also
benefit teachers. With respect to the question of reconsidering
tenure every five years, the MSBSD would be willing to comment
on revisiting tenure if a specific provision to do so was added
to the bill. However, speaking from her own experience, she has
not found teacher tenure as a topic broached during teacher
recruitment. Therefore, she did not think this bill would
adversely affect the hiring process. In conclusion, the MSBSD
is very supportive of increasing the length of time from three
to five years to attain teacher tenure.
8:47:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the change from three to
five years to obtain teacher tenure will have the effect of
allowing a non-effective teacher to remain in the classroom
longer. He recalled earlier testimony that the state is
currently implementing a new teacher evaluation program.
MS. GARDNER responded that the proposed changes in teacher
evaluations are fully supported in the MSBSD district since it
will give the school district an opportunity to consider student
data as part of every teacher's evaluation, which is supported
at the state level. In fact, the MSBSD is currently working to
fully implement these changes. Further, when the MSBSD has
concerns about teachers they don't delay until the third year to
remove them; instead, the school district attempts to do this as
soon as possible. Accordingly, if a teacher is not performing
after the first year he/she will not be offered a contract
renewal. In fact, the changes from three to five years under
the bill will not affect the MSBSD's current practices.
Actually, the MSBSD exceeds the EED's regulations in terms of
frequency of teacher evaluations and the number of principal
observations in the classroom. The board adopted this policy
when the previous model was implemented approximately 12 years
ago. The advantage of the additional two years to observe
teachers' performances is to ensure that the skills exhibited
are sustainable ones. Subsequently, the MSBSD will evaluate not
only in the 6th year, but in the 10th year and the 20th year to
ensure the teacher's skills continue to be exhibited and
adequately grow over time. In doing so, this ensures that
teachers are providing a better education each year to all of
the school district's students.
8:51:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX acknowledged that the bill does not
abolish tenure. However, she asked for an estimate of how many
teachers the MSBSD would not retain absent teacher tenure.
MS. GARDNER responded that would be difficult to quantify.
Actually, without tenure wouldn't mean the district would try to
dismiss more teachers; instead, it would simply allow the
district to evaluate the staff levels and programs based on
other criteria. Thus it would allow the MSBSD to consider the
best teachers to fill positions in the classrooms and to hire
them. Currently, the school district must consider tenure and
seniority for teacher positions. She characterized the
situation of not having to consider tenure as one that would
give the school district infinite flexibility to obtain the best
teachers. Currently, the MSBSD has encountered times when a
teacher has difficulties and the MSBSD must address these
issues. She acknowledged that tenure makes solving these issues
more difficult, although the district will continue to address
any issues given the legal constraints that exist. In short,
she offered her belief that not having tenure would give the
MSBSD considerable flexibility on an annual basis.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that the bill does not abolish
tenure, but extends the length of time for teachers to obtain
tenure. She remarked she has grappled to understand the overall
effect this bill will have on teachers. She understood that
totally abolishing tenure wouldn't really affect the number of
teachers fired, but would give the district more flexibility.
She was unsure whether the MSBSD could really determine the
effects of tenure.
MS. GARDNER agreed it is a difficult question to answer or to
pin down. Certainly, whether teachers are tenured versus non-
tenured affects decisions on whether the teachers can be
retained or dismissed. The law provides three specific reasons
to dismiss tenured teachers. First, teachers can be dismissed
for substantial non-compliance with rules or laws. Second,
teachers can be dismissed for incompetence, which can only be
determined after a lengthy and burdensome plan for improvement.
Third, teachers can be dismissed for committing a crime
involving moral turpitude. She offered her belief that if
tenure did not exist the school district would have more
flexibility to identify and remove ineffective classroom
teachers. Granted, tenure is not just about added flexibility;
however, given the current restrictions, the MSBSD does the best
job possible. Certainly some teachers might not continue their
employment if teacher tenure did not exist.
MS. GARDNER described the changes under the bill as being two-
fold. First, if the current tenured teachers had had an
additional two year review, they may not have earned tenure.
Second, as the MSBSD faces deficits, the MSBSD would have a
larger number of non-tenured staff, which would give the
district greater flexibility in terms of layoffs. Currently,
the MSBSD cannot issue notices of non-retention "pink slips" to
tenured teachers. However, if the number of non-tenured
teachers increased, it would give the MSBSD increased
flexibility and help to ensure the district could "live within"
its means.
8:58:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the number of tenured teachers
who were dismissed for any of the three aforementioned reasons.
MS. GARDNER answered there have been less than 10 teachers
dismissed in the 8 years she has been at the MSBSD.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how many teachers the MSBSD employs
who are not offered tenure in their fourth year of teaching.
MS. GARDNER answered that approximately 15-20 teachers are not
offered tenure each year. In further response to a question,
Ms. Gardner answered that this number represents about one
percent of the MSBSD's teachers.
8:59:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX understood about one percent of the
teachers are not offered tenure. She asked for an estimate of
the number of teachers that might be offered tenure [under the
bill].
MS. GARDNER calculated that the 15 teachers annually represents
about 1 percent of the teaching core, but about 6-10 percent of
the non-tenured teaching staff. The district currently has
about 1,200 teachers of which about 200-300 are non-tenured
teachers. She estimated that under the bill, it bring the
number of teachers not offered tenure to 2-5 percent, but it
might also increase the number of layoffs that could be
initiated. She concluded that it is difficult to predict the
overall effect of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her belief that the bill may not
result in better teachers for the students in the classroom but
it might result in more of an economic question.
DEENA PARAMO, Ed.D, Superintendent, Matanuska-Susitna Borough
School District (MSBSD), said she has previously supervised
teachers on a day-to-day basis and conducted evaluations. One
thing that complicates teacher evaluations is that new teachers
often move to different [schools within the district] or teach
different classes. Certainly, she agreed teacher performance
and evaluations are important. Naturally, the school district
cares about what teacher performance in the classroom and wants
better teachers since better teachers result in better schools
with better results. However, flux exists since teachers move
between schools, administrators frequently change, which makes
teacher evaluations more difficult. Consequently, three years
prior to tenure isn't enough time to allow teachers to improve
or to demonstrate consistent effectiveness. In fact, she
doesn't want to observe "spurts of excellent teaching" that
correspond to times when she is in the classroom. Instead, she
wants to observe consistent effectiveness over time, when she
evaluates teachers. She reported that the MSBSD publishes its
data before the assembly. She said, "We're not afraid of the
data. We look at the data. We want our teachers to know we
want effective teachers, but sometimes the way the system is set
up, by law, we can't do our jobs effectively. And so, it is
about flexibility, to be able to pick the best teachers for
kids."
9:03:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it seems as though not offering
teacher tenure in years four and five might mean the district
will retain ineffective teachers in the classroom for the
additional probation time. Although it sounds as though the
MSBSD currently requires more supervision in the classroom, this
hasn't been the case statewide. He wanted to be sure the
committee considers any potential downside to the bill.
DR. PARAMO acknowledged the point as being an excellent one. In
actual practice, teachers are more likely to receive tenure in
three years and subsequently, the districts cannot remove them.
The process to remove tenured teachers is difficult, she said.
Thus, the effect of tenure means school districts retain
teachers longer than they ever intended. She offered her belief
that more ineffective teachers are retained under the current
teacher tenure provisions. It's even more likely Bush school
districts will be "stuck with someone" who should have been
dismissed since travel for rural administrators is limited and
expensive, often requiring plane flights. In conclusion, she
guaranteed that most of the complaints about poor teacher
performance stems from fellow teachers and not from the
administrators.
9:06:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX admitted she is even more confused after
hearing this testimony. On the one hand she heard the bill
would be better for teachers because if school districts have
doubts about teachers, the non-tenured teachers are not
retained. On the other hand she heard the bill would be better
for students since school districts have hired some ineffective
teachers after the three year probationary period. She wondered
whether some school districts that retained ineffective teachers
have done so because they don't have the "moxie" to dismiss
them. She had difficulty understanding why a school district
would give any teacher tenure after three years if the teacher
has shown signs of incompetence.
9:08:09 AM
MS. GARDNER offered to clarify the circumstances surrounding
teacher tenure. First, she offered her belief that three years
is not a very long review period and while she did not find five
years to be the "[be all] end all" that extending the teacher
evaluation by two years would provide school districts with
additional information to base their decision on whether to
retain a teacher. In instances in which a teacher shows growth
or improvement, the school district will likely grant the
teacher tenure after three years, anticipating the growth will
continue. However, if the anticipated growth doesn't
materialize or continue after the fourth year and tenure has
been met, virtually nothing can be done to dismiss the teacher.
She predicted the aforementioned teacher, once tenure is
achieved, will stay in the district for a considerable time, if
not the rest of their career. Granted, these teachers may
perform at a minimum level; however these teachers really aren't
providing the best teaching, nor are they performing at the
level the school district would like to see. Unfortunately,
growth and competence are elusive traits to prove. She
questioned the three year threshold that must be met as being
inadequate in her view. Granted, any teacher who is obviously
not effective in the first three years will have been dealt with
early on; however, it is teachers exhibiting "waxing
performance" that cause problems. Hence, having an additional
two years to review teacher performance would give the district
more time to evaluate consistency in the teacher's overall
growth and performance. In response to a question, she answered
that the MSBSD has 54 lead principals and some assistant
principals.
9:10:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON acknowledged it takes time to evaluate
teacher performance. Additionally, it takes a good principal to
ensure an effective, fair evaluation. Further, she acknowledged
it's difficult to give a bad evaluation and is much simpler and
easier to look at the positive aspects of the teacher being
evaluated. She commended the BOE's efforts to improve the
evaluation process. While each school district may have a
different valuation process, it is the also school's
responsibility to help teachers improve their performance even
though it isn't a simple process. She expressed strong support
for the bill. Further, she noted the sponsor of HB 162 has been
a teacher so she better understands the process. She offered
her belief this bill will help schools gain better teachers and
better outcomes for students.
9:13:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON clarified that the teacher evaluation
includes standardized test scores, although the scores may lag
up to a year. She agreed with earlier testimony that teacher
classrooms may change or teachers may transfer between schools,
which can compound what the teacher can accomplish [and the
evaluation process]. She concluded that this bill is not about
keeping ineffective teachers longer, but will allow teachers
more time to prove themselves.
9:15:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND recalled the comment that the fellow
teachers are the ones who most often are aware of effectiveness
in other teachers' classrooms. She asked whether the MSBSD
currently has a mentoring program in place.
DR. PARAMO described the extensive mentorship that exists in the
MSBSD and also participates in the statewide mentorship the
legislature sponsors. Additionally, the UA received a federal
[RTTA] grant, which will span five years. She pointed out some
administrator limitations. Some principals may briefly visit 75
classrooms in a school building. However it is the teachers in
the adjacent classrooms who have daily access. These teachers
may observe rowdy behavior or may observe some classroom
instruction, which is the reason that other teachers notice
teacher imperfections. She concluded that raising the standards
can help and teachers holding each other accountable can also
help since administrators can't be everywhere.
9:18:10 AM
TAMMY SMITH, Director, Fairbanks Education Association (FEA),
spoke in opposition to HB 162. She said she represents 1,000
teachers in Fairbanks. First, teacher tenure does not give
teachers the right to work forever, but allows teachers to teach
without fear of unjust attacks. Second, teacher tenure allows
teachers to be removed if they don't meet the professional
standards set out. Third, administrators should be observing,
documenting, and helping teachers develop. This process should
allow teachers to improve or be removed if they still cannot
meet professional standards. In fact, some teachers are
dismissed, but it isn't necessarily publicized. She was glad to
hear that principals have been in classrooms to help teachers
develop their professionalism. Finally, processes exist to
remove ineffective teachers, she said.
MS. SMITH commended the school system in Alaska. She offered
her belief that the state has worked to improve the teacher
evaluation system. She questioned increasing the probationary
time to qualify for tenure to five years, since it doesn't
necessarily promote quality teachers. Instead, she found the
bill to be a disincentive for hiring new teachers, especially
given shortages of special education, science, and math (STEM)
teachers. Mentoring programs are developing and support a
strong teaching profession in the state. She questioned whether
school districts would be doing their jobs by allowing
ineffective teachers to remain in a classroom for up to five
years [under the bill]. She concurred that administrators need
to ensure that tenured teachers are using current lesson plans
and the latest technology.
9:23:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked specifically on what grounds a
tenured teacher should be dismissed.
MS. SMITH responded that it's difficult to identify a specific
reason since there are a variety of reasons to dismiss teachers,
especially if they are not using appropriate instructional
practices or do not meet the standards and regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER how many tenured teachers have been
dismissed during the time she has served as the director of the
FEA.
MS. SMITH declined to provide a specific number, but said that
in the past two years "some" teachers have been dismissed. She
stated some new teachers have expressed concern about the
effective date of the bill and how the bill will affect them.
9:25:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked to confirm that some tenured
teachers have been fired.
MS. SMITH cautiously agreed that between 1 and 10 teachers have
been dismissed.
9:26:41 AM
JOE BOYLE, Region VII Director, Matanuska-Susitna Education
Association (MSEA), described what a teacher can expect when
working in Alaska. He read from a prepared statement, as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Good morning. My name is Joe Boyle. I'm the
President of the Mat-Su Education Association, a
classroom teacher for almost 30 years, and I'm opposed
to HB 162.
On average more than 1,100 teachers are hired in
Alaska every year, 70 percent of them from the Lower
48. If HB 162 passes, then before those new teachers
make the long and expensive trip up here, they should
be told of the Alaska three-strike rule for teachers:
Strike One: There is no defined benefit pension. You
will not earn Social Security benefits. The benefits
you earned in the Lower 48 will be reduced each year
you work in Alaska. If you are lucky and the stock
market is kind, you may have enough money for a very
modest retirement after 40 years or more, as long as
you are 65 and Medicaid is still available.
Strike Two: You can expect your salary and benefits,
in real, inflation-corrected dollars, to decrease on a
regular basis. Twenty years ago a beginning teacher
in the Mat-Su Borough School District earned about
$3,000 more than you will. He or she also received
100 percent paid health insurance, and after 20 years
could retire at a modest 40 percent of his or her last
salary.
Strike Three: For five years, you'll have no job
protection. If an administrator needs to make room
for a friend or family member, you're gone. If you
ask too many questions at a staff meeting, you're
done. If you don't donate to the right charity or
"volunteer" for enough extra duty work, see you later.
Without tenure, a teacher can be non-retained for any
reason deemed adequate. That's the law. No questions
asked. Tenure for public school teachers is not a
lifetime job guarantee. It only grants a teacher's
due process rights. If an administrator wants to fire
me, all he or she has to prove is that I am a bad
teacher or a bad person. If an administrator can't
recognize a bad teacher or a bad person in the three
years it takes to earn tenure now, or prove it after
the teacher earns tenure, then it's not tenure problem
or a teacher problem you have. It's something else.
Thank you for taking my testimony.
9:28:44 AM
ANDY HOLLEMAN, President, Anchorage Education Association (AEA),
stated he represents approximately 3,500 certificated teachers.
He said, "I appreciate the opportunity to sort of give you the
view from the other end of the telescope on this whole issue."
First, comparing K-12 tenure to university tenure is simply
inappropriate since the protections and the job description are
not the same. He characterized the difference between K-12
teacher tenure and university tenure as "two different animals."
He suggested it would be helpful to rebrand K-12 teacher tenure.
Non-tenured simply means these teachers are probationary
employees. He offered his belief that a probationary status of
three years is a long time. Non-tenured teachers can simply be
told they will not be retained for the following year. The idea
that any non-tenured teacher would be shifted out of position
and be replaced with a not highly-qualified teacher is not true.
It would not be allowed. A tenured teacher conceivably could be
dismissed while a non-tenured teacher with a highly-qualified
status for the position would stay in place. He related the
evaluation process, such that teachers can be subject to a
focused evaluation every year. He said the standard used for
teachers who are not considered proficient is that the teachers
can be placed on a pathway for termination. In fact, he has
frequently seen this happen in Anchorage. He's seen it happen
in buildings where he has worked, as a board member, and as
President of the AEA. He clarified he is not referring to gross
incompetence or people committing crimes, but teachers simply
not performing up to the standards in the classroom.
MR. HOLLEMAN described the remedial process for a teacher, under
a competent principal, which is to place the teacher on an
improvement plan. If the teacher does not subsequently
demonstrate he/she is meeting the standard, the teacher can be
terminated. Typically, the school district will offer teachers
facing termination an opportunity to resign. He emphasized that
this is not a trivial process. While he did not wish to suggest
that school districts have an easy time terminating tenured
teachers, it is not as onerous as represented here today. He
offered his belief that this bill would be punitive to
employees. Currently, increased scrutiny happens in the third
year since principals recognize this as the final opportunity to
decide to fire someone without necessitating a detailed
evaluation. He characterized the three-year evaluation for
tenure as fair and one in which an administrator considers the
arc the teacher has been on. However, if the teacher obtains
tenure and his/her performance does not meet the standards that
a principal expects, then the teacher can be terminated. He
urged members to consider this bill from an employee's
standpoint and to consider what being a non-tenured teacher
means. Granted, some teachers move around so much it is
difficult for a principal to adequately evaluate them. However,
such practices may be unfair to the teacher and may suggest a
more stable employment is needed. Naturally, such situations
are not likely good for the students either. He concluded by
stating that AEA opposes HB 162 since the AEA views the bill as
punitive and he does not see an "upside" for employees. He
hoped members will vote it down.
9:33:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked how many tenured teachers have
been dismissed in the Anchorage area in the last five years.
MR. HOLLEMAN said that as previously mentioned, teachers can be
offered an opportunity to resign. While the departure is
clearly a termination, due to the resignation, it can be
difficult to assess the definitive number of terminations. He
acknowledged that in terms of gross negligence, some
terminations have happened. He estimated at least one
termination happens per year with two to three terminations
occurring in some years.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether these figures refer to
tenured teachers who are terminated.
MR. HOLLEMAN answered that is correct.
9:34:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled from his teaching experience that
some tenured teachers do get to a point of "marking time." He
recalled that one consideration has been to reopen the tenure
process every five years to ensure that teachers are responding
effectively to evaluations. He asked for the AEA's position on
reviewing teacher tenure every five years.
MR. HOLLEMAN answered that he viewed reviewing teacher tenure
every five years as a gift to underperforming teachers.
Currently, principals can notify tenured teachers the district
has concerns place the teachers under evaluation processes that
involve interactions between the principals and the teachers on
lesson plans and direct observations in the classroom. The
principals can document specifically the standards that are not
being met. Subsequently, the principals allow the teachers an
opportunity to demonstrate that they are meeting the standards
or additional training or course work has been taken to remedy
any shortcomings. If these teachers are not able to do so, the
teachers can be terminated at the end of the year. He
emphasized underperforming teachers should not be allowed to
wait five years. Instead, the principals should address
underperformers in the current year. He offered his belief that
there is strong support among the teachers to usher ineffective
teachers out of the school districts. He suggested that some
life experiences can affect teacher performances at some point
in a 25-30 year career. Unfortunately, the school districts
don't have a means to sideline teachers who are experiencing any
major life crisis, such as divorces or deaths. After all,
teachers can't just say they need a couple of months off.
Overall, he agreed there isn't any excuse for teachers to not
perform their jobs over the course of a year. Instead of
opening up teacher tenure every five years, principals could opt
to conduct "focused evaluations" in any year.
9:38:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for written documentation on the
percentage of tenured teachers over the last ten years who have
been fired. She clarified she is not interested in specific
names, but just a generic accounting. She surmised it is
probably less than one percent of the teachers. She suggested
any instances in which teachers were allowed to resign also be
documented.
MR. HOLLEMAN responded that the list of resignations he
previously referred to was taken from his experiences. In
instances in which school districts would offer an opportunity
for teachers to resign, the resignations would be categorized as
resignations and not terminations. He acknowledged he has
previously tried to quantify terminations of tenured teachers,
but was not able to do so. However, certainly teachers are
terminated for low performance. During the three year "weeding
out period," he estimated the number of teachers is likely a
steady figure ranging from 20-30 teachers not retained per year.
Again, he indicated he did not believe he could document the
figures.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD maintained her request. She expressed
an interest in obtaining "hard data" and not anecdotal
information. She offered her belief this information should be
public information. Granted, many people in her district love
the schools; however, some teachers are not meeting standards
and her constituents keep asking her how low-performing teachers
can be terminated She suggested that "weeding out" a few more
teachers would elevate the overall system. Naturally, this is
not about pay and benefits, but is about meeting standards, she
said.
CHAIR GATTIS stated Representative Reinbold could share the data
with the committee.
9:42:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related a scenario in which a teacher
resigns instead of being fired. She asked whether the teacher
could change districts without the incoming community being made
aware of the problems the teacher encountered.
MR. HOLLEMAN said in the ASD a box is on the form that indicates
whether someone is eligible to be rehired. He suggested that if
human resources had fired someone due to incompetence, the
school district would check the box. He understood that the
personnel office could not provide confidential details, but the
box being checked would certainly be a red flag. At the same
time, he stated that he has seen teachers resign because the
position was not a good fit for them. In those instances,
teachers may move to different schools or might leave the
district. Certainly, he supported the changes in those
instances. A variety of positions exist yet there is a wide
range of skills is necessary so a teacher might not do well in
one position, but could perform well in another position.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said theoretically the resignation could
be part of a settlement agreement and a means to avoid
litigation. She surmised that the box might not get checked and
the teacher might move to another school district without anyone
knowing that the teacher resigned under pressure.
MR. HOLLEMAN agreed it is possible. While he has not personally
observed any cases close to litigation; he has experienced some
egregious cases, in which a teacher has been arrested or did
something outrageous. Certainly, those teachers are removed
quickly and decisively and actions are also taken against their
teaching certificates. He agreed these decisions are judgment
calls made by the human resources department. By all means, the
school district feels a responsibility not to recommend teachers
who are not up to the task. However, sometimes personality
conflicts arise and the teacher moving on doesn't necessarily
need to be branded. Again, school districts need to consider
cases individually; however, the idea that some districts are
paying people to leave rather than go through the process "kind
of boggles" him. He said he would consider that personally to
be a misuse of public funds, although he has not seen this occur
in Anchorage.
9:47:20 AM
LADAWN DRUCE, President, Kenai Peninsula Education Association
(KPEA), spoke in opposition to HB 162. She said the KPEA
represents 670 certificated staff on the Kenai Peninsula. She
paraphrased from a prepared statement, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
I agree with the bill's sponsor that we need to ensure
our most effective teachers remain in our classrooms
to provide the best possible education for our
students.
Having said this, I would like to read the state
statute which addresses non-retention [AS] 14.20.175
"A teacher who has not acquired tenure rights is
subject to non-retention for the school year following
the expiration of the teacher's contract for any cause
that the employer determines to be adequate."
Funding issues aside the statute allows for the
dismissal of a teacher even if they are doing a good
job. It is very subjective. Teachers are often non-
retained simply because they were not "a good fit."
They may have been good teachers and had excellent
evaluations, but were still non-retained.
When you combine this bill with no defined benefits in
retirement for Tier III teachers and 5 years of no job
security we will not be able to attract and retain the
best and brightest to Alaska.
Principals doing their jobs, the district following
the process and appropriately mentoring new or
struggling teachers, ensures high performing quality
teachers in every classroom. This does take time and
effort.
I have been President for five years and the Rights
Chair for twelve years. There has not been a year that
our district has not asked a tenured teacher to resign
in lieu of non-retention and in some years there have
been several for failure to successfully complete a
plan for improvement. No, I do not know the exact
numbers to date. To address Representative LeDoux's
question earlier, it is my understanding that many
districts on their application ask the question, "Did
you resign in lieu of being non-retained?" It is
simply untrue that you cannot remove an ineffective
teacher. Tenure is not lifetime job security.
I am one of nine members selected by Commissioner
Hanley to serve on the Advisory Committee for Teacher
Evaluation. This committee will be advising the
department on the appropriate implementation of the
new regulations. At our first meeting earlier this
month we looked at the Measures of Effective Teaching
study. The study concludes that multiple observations,
multiple observers, and student surveys are the best
measures of effective teachers.
MS. DRUCE agreed that the best teachers need to be in the
classrooms, but she did not agree that adding two additional
years to obtain teacher tenure is the answer.
9:51:09 AM
DAVE JONES, Assistant Superintendent, Kenai Peninsula Borough
School District (KPBSD), spoke in support of HB 162. He offered
to be brief since many points have been covered. First, in
terms of budget reductions, many of the district's cuts are made
from the non-tenured teaching staff. The change from three to
five years to reach tenure will mean the non-tenured pool would
also be increased. In doing so, it will allow the KPBSD to
select better staff to serve students - with the right teachers
in the right places. Second, increasing the probationary time
frame from three to five years for teacher tenure would give the
school district a longer period of time to work to improve
teacher performance. Actually, the KPBSD has experienced
challenges when some teachers approach the end of their three
year period, prior to obtaining tenure. While some of these
teachers have improved and shown promise, the school district
knows that once the teacher receives tenure, they will receive
additional protections. Thus, the school district must
carefully view this final window. Due to the restrictions
imposed by tenure, it is more likely the KPBSD will not retain
some teachers. One reason the KPBSD also supports increasing
the probationary period for teachers to five years is to allow
teachers who have demonstrated signs of effective teaching to
continue to teach.
9:54:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern about delaying any
decision to dismiss a teacher beyond the three-year probationary
period. He contemplated that a two-year extension time seems
excessive, but one year seems more plausible. He asked whether
reviewing tenure every five years should also be considered. He
further asked whether one additional year of probation would
suffice.
MR. JONES said he preferred to have the two-year timeframe to
further evaluate teachers prior to them receiving tenure. In
terms of revisiting tenured teachers every five years, the KPBSD
would be interesting in doing so, particularly if it gave the
school district another tool to address non-effective teaching.
9:56:48 AM
DAVID NEES stated there is a difference between tenure for
university professors and tenure for public school teachers. He
offered a brief history of tenure, which was to protect academic
freedom so a university couldn't terminate a professor for
speaking his/her opinion. However, tenure came to the public
education system and in his experience one of the biggest
problems he recalled was teacher turnover in his school since
the school district would not give teachers tenure at the end of
three years. In fact, this was since it was less expensive for
them to hire new teachers. Keep in mind, the intent of the bill
is to have better teachers teaching students and to retain the
best ones. One way to do so is to make tenure optional by
removing "shall" and instead using the language "may". In doing
so, teacher tenure could be offered to excellent teachers as
early as three years and as late as five.
MR. NEES also suggested that a committee should select teachers
for tenure rather than a principal. When a principal makes
these decisions, they lack input from the rest of the staff. In
fact, the university system uses a similar process. Typically,
a committee grants tenure, but the professor knows he/she is on
a tenure track with the ability to attain tenure. He supported
the teacher tenure process being closer to the college standard,
especially since teacher tenure is not guaranteed at the
university level. In doing so, this will meet the goals of the
bill since school districts could retain the best teachers in as
early as three years, but teachers will know within five years
whether they attain tenure. On the whole, it should alleviate
the basic problem of teacher tenure, which is that teachers
automatically receive tenure on the first day of the fourth
year. Thus removing the "shall", "acquires", and "receives"
makes it optional. The aforementioned language makes it
difficult for school districts [to make beneficial decisions on
staff] since they are required to offer teachers tenure.
Instead, by incorporating the changes, the bill could be viewed
as an opportunity for school districts to promote teachers. In
closing, he offered his belief that teacher tenure should be
difficult to attain and be a reward for excellent performance.
10:01:05 AM
CHAIR GATTIS, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 162.
10:01:15 AM
[HB 162 was held over.]
10:01:40 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:01 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB 162 Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/27/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| 02 HB 162 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/27/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| 03 HB 162 Fiscal Note EED-TLS-3-14-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/27/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| 04 HB 162 Support Doc - The Next American 10-23-2012.pdf |
HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/27/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| 05 HB 162 Support Doc-Pro & Con ProCon.org-updated 02-05-2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/27/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| 06 HB 162 Support Doc-Teacher Tenure ProCon.org-Updated 02-05-2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/27/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| 07 HB 162 Support Doc-Teaching Quality Teacher Tenure 09-2011.pdf |
HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/27/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| 08 HB 162 Support Doc-Time Mag. Artical Nov. 2008.pdf |
HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/27/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| 01 HB 151 Sponsor Statement v. A.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 02 HB 151 v. A Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 03 HB 151 Sectional v. A.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 04 HB 151 Fiscal Note v. A - EED-TLS-3-8-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 05 CS HB 151 ver. O.PDF |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 06 HB 151 Information Packet.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 07 CSHB 151 Fiscal Note - EED-TLS-3-14-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 08 HB 151 Letter Support - Alaska Policy Forum.pdf |
HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 09 HB 151 Letter Support - Von Imhof ASD.pdf |
HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |