Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/20/2002 08:08 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
February 20, 2002
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chair
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Joe Green
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Reggie Joule
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 408
"An Act relating to questionnaires and surveys administered in
the public schools."
- MOVED HB 408 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 416
"An Act relating to reemployment of and benefits for retired
teachers and principals who participated in retirement incentive
programs; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 408
SHORT TITLE:STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS
SPONSOR(S): EDUCATION
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/13/02 2233 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/02 2233 (H) EDU, HES
02/20/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 416
SHORT TITLE:REEMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED TEACHERS
SPONSOR(S): EDUCATION
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/13/02 2242 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/02 2242 (H) EDU, HES
02/20/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
RIC IANNOLINO, Chair
Youth on the Street
P.O. Box 21892
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 408.
KATHRYN ARLEN, Public Relations Liaison
Youth on the Street
127 South Franklin, Number 312
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 408.
DAVID MOORE, Ph.D., Associate Director
Safe and Drug-Free Schools
University of Washington College of Education
909 South 336th Street
Federal Way, Washington 98003
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 408, briefed members
on reliability and other issues related to active parental
consent; supported the committee's returning this decision to
local control.
CHRISTIE McINTIRE
American Lung Association
6420 East Northern Lights, Number 79
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 408 on behalf of
the American Lung Association, the Alaska Tobacco Control
Alliance, and Alaskans for Tobacco-Free Kids.
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Legislative Chair
Anchorage School District School Board
P.O. Box 196614
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6614
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 408.
JULIE McWILLIAMS, Education Specialist
Lower Kuskokwim School District
P.O. Box 305
Bethel, Alaska 99559
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 408.
BETH SHOBER, Health Education Specialist
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 408, answered
questions.
TERRI CAMPBELL, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 416 and
Amendment 1.
JANET PARKER, Retirement & Benefits Manager
Division of Retirement & Benefits
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110203
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0203
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to Amendment 1
to HB 416; indicated it would apply equally to all members of
the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS).
DARROLL HARGRAVES
Council of School Administrators
326 Fourth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on a proposed amendment to HB
416; suggested local control over salaries is best.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West Eleventh Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 416 and
Amendment 1; commented on another proposed amendment.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-8, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CON BUNDE called the House Special Committee on Education
meeting to order at 8:08 a.m. Representatives Bunde, Porter,
Wilson, Stevens, and Guess were present at the call to order.
Representative Green arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 408-STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS
Number 0160
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 408, "An Act relating to questionnaires and
surveys administered in the public schools."
[Elmer Lindstrom, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health and
Social Services, who had testified previously and was available
to answer questions, noted that online was Tammy Green,
Epidemiology Section, Division of Public Health, Department of
Health and Social Services, who has run the Youth Risk Behavior
Survey (YRBS) for the department.]
Number 0250
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER reported that Mr. Lindstrom had responded
to his questions via a memorandum that addressed how school
districts obtain active consent and where the breakdown occurs.
Representative Porter explained that unfortunately a high
percentage of parents don't get involved. He noted that based
on that fact and since the survey is anonymous, he will be
supporting the bill.
Number 0330
RIC IANNOLINO, Chair, Youth on the Street, explained that this
citizens group had conducted a survey with the McDowell Group in
1998. Homeless teens were interviewed for this survey. He
explained that homeless teens are different from [homeless]
adults. These homeless teens have homes, but the home
atmosphere is intolerable at times due to [substance abuse] and
dysfunctional behaviors. This, he noted, is what distinguishes
a homeless teen from a homeless adult.
MR. IANNOLINO reported that most of these homeless teens, to
their credit, attend school. Current law, however, precludes
[Youth on the Street] from conducting these interviews in the
schools, he said. He explained that the police were contacted
[for data], but he indicated that the police had little reported
[data] because parents don't report their children as missing.
MR. IANNOLINO reported that schools' experience has been that
parents don't look for their children when they are absent from
school; these parents are uninvolved. It is difficult to obtain
parental consent with this population of parents. He indicated
[Youth on the Street] will need a valid assessment tool in order
to seek funding from foundations and the federal government.
The McDowell Group has indicated a valid assessment tool
requires a large number of respondents; this is unavailable
under current law.
Number 0460
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if funding had been lost or would
be lost in the future due to the inability to conduct surveys.
MR. IANNOLINO replied, "We don't have accurate information on
the population, and of course, if you're going for a half-
million or a million-dollar grant, they're going to want a valid
tool."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS inquired, "Has that occurred yet?"
MR. IANNOLINO answered, "We could apply for a grant, but we
would never get it ... in a national competition." He added
that [the application would contain] no proof that such a
problem exists.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS queried, "Has there been an event in the
past where you have not been able to apply for a grant or get a
grant because of lack ... of statistics?"
MR. IANNOLINO said, "We can apply for grants. ... Anybody can
apply for a grant, but you don't get them if you don't have ...
valid statistics."
CHAIR BUNDE asked, "Have you applied and been refused?"
MR. IANNOLINO replied:
We've not applied yet. We don't have our [501(c)(3)]
at this point. We are sponsored by the Glory Hole, so
we can receive funding. ... Our group is one of the
groups that participated [in] reading the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation grants ... on
homelessness; they're funded, of course, by the ...
Mental Health Trust Fund. ... We really had to not
accept one of those grants on this basis specifically.
Number 0582
KATHRYN ARLEN, Public Relations Liaison, Youth on the Street,
thanked members for the opportunity to testify. She referenced
her written testimony submitted to the committee. She reported
that she does a lot of service work in the community, especially
at the Johnson Youth Center detention section. She offered her
concurrence with Mr. Iannolino's testimony. She pointed out
that the quality of data is vital to successfully obtain grant
funding.
MS. ARLEN turned members' attention to her concluding [written]
statement, offering that [the passage of HB 408] will lead to
more accurate, thorough, and pertinent data. This, in turn,
will contribute to better grant-writing aimed at creating and
promoting necessary, improved, and expanding services to all
young people, especially those at risk. She noted that "we"
can't really reach the young population because there is no
specific base from which to survey them. However, "the
grapevine" is an excellent source of information for [young
people]. Ms. Arlen commented that this proposal seems to
respect the rights of both parents and students; therefore, this
is a win-win situation. She expressed hope that through the
grapevine, more of the types of necessary information can be
obtained to develop a successful grant.
Number 0734
DAVID MOORE, Ph.D., Associate Director, Safe and Drug-Free
Schools (SDFS), University of Washington College of Education,
informed the committee that since the early 1990s [the
university] has done a variety of work with [Alaskan] school
districts by providing technical assistance, program evaluation,
and assistance with federal grants in Alaska.
DR. MOORE pointed out that the committee packet should include a
one-page summary of [his testimony]. Although the Office of
National Drug Control Policy pioneered active parental consent
[surveys] in the early 1990s, he told members, it has since
announced it isn't a valid way to measure what is occurring with
the youth population. That office found that surveys requiring
active parental consent underreport significant problems,
especially in regard to marijuana use and other risky, illegal
behaviors.
DR. MOORE said that furthermore, there is no way to really see
the value for the money being spent without [conducting] a valid
statewide measurement on a local level regarding substance-abuse
treatment, violence prevention and other such health behaviors.
The Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) is the best way to measure
community-to-community impact of the dollars being spent in
areas that attempt to improve health behaviors. "By way of this
process, you inadvertently give up your best quality control and
ability to measure value on behalf of the citizens," he
remarked.
DR. MOORE referred to the "definite loss of federal funds to
other states." He informed the committee that there was a
$500,000-a- year National Institutes of Health grant to increase
treatment funds to communities in need of additional substance-
abuse treatment funds. He said [SDFS] was told by the National
Institutes of Health that if an active parental consent form
were used, the score in the evaluation section of the grant
proposal would be substantially lower.
DR. MOORE indicated that it's difficult to draw a direct
correlation between the [lack of reliable data] and the failure
to receive grants; however, 15 to 30 points of every 100 points
in a grant is scored on the evaluation [section]. The people
conducting the grant review have clearly stated that using the
active parental consent model, because it is not valid, will
substantially reduce grant scores, he explained. For this
reason, an application for a $500,000-a-year grant was not even
submitted for an Alaskan [grantee].
Number 0947
DR. MOORE reported that similar debate has been conducted at the
federal level. He acknowledged that everyone involved desires
parental control and involvement. The recent federal education
bill [the No Child Left Behind Act] removed the active consent
provision in favor of passive consent for the sake of validity,
he explained. This federal Act directed local school districts
to communicate with parents before a survey is conducted and to
get parental involvement to establish the level of local control
that the community desires. He explained that in Delaware, 18
of 19 districts opted for passive consent; [the state] allowed
districts to have local control over this decision. He
expressed his appreciation for the ability to convey this
information to members. He said, "I would certainly support you
... simply turning this back over to local control and removing
a statewide mandate on active parental consent."
Number 1022
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Dr. Moore about his knowledge of the
types of internal reliability checks for validating anonymous
surveys.
DR. MOORE explained that both active and passive consent models
have similar types of internal reliability [measures]. These
determine reliability by administering questions about
nonexistent drugs, for example; students who are "faking bad"
will answer "yes" to using all kinds of drugs, indicating that
survey response is therefore invalid. Another type of
reliability measure is a response pattern that can be detected
from the larger [aggregate] reports using psychometric tests
which indicate if a student is trying to "fake good" or "fake
bad." He said the problem with validity is that the group of
students who fail to get active parental consent is
substantially different from the group of students who get
consent; thus the [survey results] are invalid, he concluded.
Number 1110
CHAIR BUNDE recounted a comment by a psychologist about the
Kinsey Report, which indicated in order for the [report's
findings] to generalize to the population at large, one would
have to question the number of people willing to volunteer
information about "some of these very bizarre things." He said,
"The reverse of that is, ... how do we take what is negative
behavior and consider that that can ... apply to the general
population?" He expressed his uncertainty that he would have -
as a teen - admitted to things that would get him in "hot
water."
DR. MOORE added, "Particularly if somebody [were] ... close
enough to you to see your paper when you're filling it out." He
agreed with Chair Bunde that a bit of underreporting takes
place. The underreporting stays the same from year to year;
therefore, a change in the trend line can be observed. He said,
"You're probably right: if you look at survey results, you can
figure that they're probably underreporting the risk behaviors.
But at least they're validly underreporting them."
Number 1190
CHAIR BUNDE asked if he had traveled from the University of
Washington to testify today.
DR. MOORE answered, "No. ... And it would be unfair for me to
tell you the people I'm working with ... because then it'd be
inferred that I represent them." He explained that he works
with communities to establish prevention-and-treatment networks
for kids using the local school district as a hub. He said,
"That's been my love for 20 years." Alaska is a state that
still has a sense of community at a local level in which the
results of work can be evidenced, he offered.
Number 1234
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN queried whether Washington has [passive
parental consent] for anonymous surveys.
DR. MOORE replied that Washington has local control. Washington
has a statewide survey similar to [the YRBS] for which it has
passive consent. Local school districts may invoke active
consent for other surveys.
Number 1275
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "As an old fuddy-duddy, [I've] read
some horror stories of school districts where young girls are
taught how to put on condoms, ... things like that." He asked
what assurance exists, either statewide or locally, that there
wouldn't be inappropriate, anonymous questions asked, if this
should pass.
DR. MOORE offered his understanding that Alaska's survey method
is similar to Washington's. The YRBS is administered by the
Department of Education and Early Development (EED). He
explained that legislators "definitely have their fingers in
that review process." He noted that most [legislators] have
been comfortable with the [survey that is administered], which
is why school districts tend to feel comfortable with this
survey. He indicated that for a survey without this level of
checks and balances, however, a district might want to invoke
active consent.
Number 1339
CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that local districts can choose active
or passive consent.
DR. MOORE added that the federal government has directed schools
to consider these surveys with parents to determine how they
will be conducted.
Number 1360
CHRISTIE McINTIRE, American Lung Association, explained that she
is also speaking on behalf of the Alaska Tobacco Control
Alliance and Alaskans for Tobacco-Free Kids. From the tobacco-
control community's perspective, active parental consent has
virtually shut down the ability to measure progress in teen
tobacco-use rates. This is because the state has not had a
statewide sample of statistical significance since 1995 from the
YRBS, she reported. Active parental consent has been sought,
but these attempts have proven unsuccessful. She said:
In Anchorage, we worked with the school district -
actually, gave them some extra funds ... for sending
out permission slips as well as phone-banking to try
to get these things back. And it just was not
successful. So I do feel that we've made attempts.
MS. McINTIRE added that other ways to get this data have been
researched with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) and the state. Telephone surveys have been considered,
but these [result in] skewed data; parental permission must be
gained to talk to the child, and the parent could be listening
to the conversation and therefore it would result in unreliable
data. She stated that an anonymous survey in the school is the
best way to gain this information. The YRBS is the national
standard for gathering youth data.
MS. McINTIRE explained that the [inability to gather reliable
data] is crippling the tobacco-control community as it continues
to build the tobacco-control program. The legislature is asking
for evidence that the program is working, but it cannot be
determined whether youth tobacco use is increasing or
decreasing. She said, "We want to be able to show you that our
program is working, and we'd like to be able to have the data to
do that." She thanked members for their time and offered her
appreciation for their support of HB 408.
Number 1482
CHAIR BUNDE observed that it is important to know if the youth
tobacco-use rate is declining.
Number 1490
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Legislative Chair, Anchorage School District
School Board, testified via teleconference. She referenced a
three-page statement and offered to fax it. She noted,
"Generally, we're supportive."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for a summary of her statement.
MS. OSSIANDER explained that the [Anchorage School District
(ASD)] has lost money from grants due the active-consent
requirement. The ASD has also worked with other agencies to
contact parents. The data collection for permission has been
cumbersome, she reported. [The board] has been following the
recent changes to federal law and believes that significant
protection for families exists in that legislation, she said.
She offered specific information on grants "that we feel we have
lost" and information on how the ASD has sought parental
permission before the surveys' administration.
CHAIR BUNDE thanked Ms. Ossiander for her participation.
Number 1596
JULIE McWILLIAMS, Education Specialist, Lower Kuskokwim School
District, testified via teleconference in support of HB 408.
She noted that the committee packet should include her written
testimony.
Number 1650
BETH SHOBER, Health Education Specialist, Teaching and Learning
Support, Department of Education and Early Development (EED),
said that she would defer her testimony and speak to some of the
questions she has heard. She first turned to Representative
Porter's question regarding the reliability of this survey. Ms.
Shober explained that the CDC created the YRBS and spent several
years performing reliability and validity studies on the test.
Over the past 10-12 years of the existence of this survey, [the
CDC] has become more adept at fine-tuning the test's reliability
and validity. She offered to provide the committee with the
report from the CDC.
MS. SHOBER then addressed Representative Green's earlier remarks
regarding the horror stories. She acknowledged that [EED] has
heard some of the same horror stories. These horror stories are
applicable statewide; that is, judgment isn't always the best
when it deals with health education curriculum in schools. She
pointed out that YRBS doesn't specify a curriculum for health
education, including prevention initiatives. However, the
survey does [specify] the behaviors in which the students are
engaging. Ms. Shober pointed out that the CDC also publishes
the School Health Education Profile, which surveys teachers and
administrators regarding what is actually being taught.
Therefore, the [two surveys] attempt to obtain balance between
what the teachers and principals are reporting as happening
academically with health education and what students are
reporting they are engaging in. Both the YRBS and the School
Health Education Profile surveys are published and administered
in Alaska.
MS. SHOBER continued with Representative Stevens' questions
regarding grants that weren't funded due to the lack of data.
Specifically, in the [Anchorage School District], the Safe
Schools/Healthy Students grant, which is a multimillion-dollar,
multiyear grant, wasn't funded due to the lack of accurate data
relevant to that district. This isn't only occurring in school
districts; different parts of the Department of Health & Social
Services use this data for alcohol- and tobacco-prevention
initiatives that complement what is done in the schools.
Therefore, the impacts of not having current data are far-
reaching.
Number 1831
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS inquired as to the difference between
passive and active parental [permission]. He furnished his view
that HB 408 doesn't allow local control.
MS. SHOBER explained that under the current legislation, a
school district must obtain active parental permission before
administering any anonymous survey. Therefore, every student
surveyed must have returned a slip from the parent stating that
it's permissible for his/her child to be surveyed. The
differences and the enormity of that task vary from district to
district.
MS. SHOBER noted that the current legislation includes a
provision that allows a parent to provide an annual signature
for permission. She explained that the hope is that the annual
permission could be obtained during registration in order to
avoid the additional burden of sending things to parents
throughout the year. However, not all parents register their
children, as was mentioned earlier. Under HB 408, it is
allowable for the school district to, in writing, inform the
community that a survey will be conducted. The district [shall]
offer review of the survey to parents as well as hear parental
concerns, Ms. Shober explained. Therefore, a parent would have
to inform [the school district] that he/she did not what his/her
child to participate in the survey, rather than the school
district having to receive permission for those who want their
child to participate in the survey.
CHAIR BUNDE said nothing in HB 408 would prevent a school
district from choosing to require active parental permission.
MS. SHOBER agreed, pointing out that passage of HB 408 doesn't
take away parents' authority to disallow their children to
participate in these surveys. Rather, HB 408 provides schools,
communities, and nonprofits the ability to determine what is
best for their community.
Number 2014
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN posed a situation in which a questionnaire
is administered in the Anchorage School District and the parents
of a child provide the school notice that their child is not to
participate in the questionnaire. He asked if there is a way
that this questionnaire could be administered such that this
child would not be "held out as being weird."
MS. SHOBER pointed out that students opt out of various programs
and courses all the time. Therefore, she didn't feel that there
would be any stigma.
CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that he has no problem with
passive [permission] for a survey.
Number 2150
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS moved to report HB 408 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 408 was reported from the
House Special Committee on Education.
HB 416-REEMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED TEACHERS
Number 2178
CHAIR BUNDE announced the final order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 416, "An Act relating to reemployment of and benefits for
retired teachers and principals who participated in retirement
incentive programs; and providing for an effective date." Chair
Bunde pointed out that the packet contains a bill analysis.
[This was the first hearing on HB 416, which was sponsored by
the House Special Committee on Education. However, there had
been considerable related committee discussion on January 30 and
February 6, prior to the bill's introduction.]
Number 2211
TERRI CAMPBELL, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), explained
that HB 416 allows teachers who have accepted the retirement
incentive program (RIP) to return to classroom duty. The
department seeks [committee adoption of] the proposed amendment
in committee packets [later adopted as Amendment 1]. She
informed members that it not only would allow teachers who've
accepted the RIP to return without penalties, but also would
include EED [teaching personnel].
MS. CAMPBELL conveyed EED's support for the original
legislation, which allows teachers to return to the classroom.
She said this allows administrators to extend opportunities to
teachers who have accepted the RIP; it provides another hiring
tool, especially in shortage areas such as special education.
Ms. Campbell added, "We would very much be supportive of
schools' being able to capitalize on educators' experience,
possibly having them mentor other teachers, because of their
extensive classroom experience, as well as utilize them for
looking at issues regarding teacher retention."
MS. CAMPBELL informed members that EED is interested in the
proposed amendment because of the three state-operated schools:
Mount Edgecumbe, Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) in
Seward, and Alyeska Central School. Those employees who work
directly with students are [included] with teachers "for
purposes of this conversation," she said, and EED is interested
in extending that capacity to the department as well.
Number 2321
CHAIR BUNDE moved to adopt Amendment 1 for discussion purposes.
Amendment 1 reads [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"Sec. 1. AS 14.20.135(a) is amended to read:
Sec. 14.20.135. Employment of retired
teachers because of shortages. (a) The Department of
Education and Early Development, a [A] school district
or regional educational attendance area that has or
anticipates having a shortage of teachers qualified to
teach in a particular discipline or specialty may, by
resolution, adopt a policy that permits the employment
of retired teachers who are qualified to teach in the
discipline or specialty in accordance with this
section. The policy must describe the circumstances
that constitute the shortage. If a shortage of
teachers exists as described in the policy, the
department, district or attendance area shall notify
the administrator of the teachers' retirement system
(AS 14.25) that it is hiring retired teachers under
this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 1, line 5
Following "(b)"
Delete "[A]"
Insert "The Department of Education and
Early Development, a"
Page 2, line 7
Following ", as amended by sec. 1"
Insert "and sec. 2"
Number 2336
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected, also for purposes of discussion.
CHAIR BUNDE requested clarification that [Amendment 1] would
allow the department to rehire teachers for the three specific
schools mentioned. He offered his understanding that it
wouldn't come into play as far as hiring someone to work for the
department in a nonteaching position.
MS. CAMPBELL answered:
We would be very interested in exploring that capacity
and are actually ... looking at ways and opportunities
to extend that ability throughout the department,
because we have in past years had quite a bit of
trouble hiring some hard-to-fill positions in our
education-specialist ranges as we have lost people to
retirements and the lure of state service becomes a
little less enticing.
But we do understand, through legal advice, et cetera,
that we may need to do that in other provisions.
We're looking at, at this point, if the opportunity
presented itself in this particular bill for us to
satisfy those needs in our state-operated schools,
that that would be a first step for us.
Number 2384
CHAIR BUNDE voiced concern that there are "little apples and
oranges here." He explained:
I think that logic and common sense said that rehired
teachers would, obviously, be rehired as beginning
teachers and at the lowest step. In these other
positions, you may need more flexibility. And so it
might be wise to address that as a separate vehicle,
because that would be the next question I'm going to
bring up to the committee, about the rehiring and
should we put some limitations there.
CHAIR BUNDE offered his understanding that Amendment 1 would
apply to EED's hiring of people to teach in the three schools
that the department administers.
TAPE 02-8, SIDE B
Number 2414
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS mentioned the ideal of allowing both
teachers and principals who have accepted the RIP to be rehired;
he requested confirmation that [Amendment 1] also includes a
teacher who'd retired under the RIP but whom [a district] wants
to hire as a principal.
MS. CAMPBELL said that is her understanding, but deferred to
[Division of] Retirements & Benefits experts.
Number 2357
JANET PARKER, Retirement & Benefits Manager, Division of
Retirement & Benefits, Department of Administration, answered
that this provision would allow that, as it would for any
teacher, "as long as they're coming in with the Teachers'
Retirement System [TRS]." Therefore, it applies to all members
equally.
CHAIR BUNDE suggested the "shortcut," then, is that teachers and
principals are in the same retirement system.
MS. PARKER affirmed that.
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that "actuarially" he couldn't imagine
there would be a problem. He asked whether there were further
questions of Ms. Parker, then thanked her.
Number 2304
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether there was further discussion of
Amendment 1. He then closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered that she believes it is a good
amendment, and that it would affect a school district in the
district she represents. [She restated the motion to adopt
Amendment 1.]
Number 2282
CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Green whether he maintained his
objection to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said no.
CHAIR BUNDE announced that without objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
Number 2282
CHAIR BUNDE explained a concern he had with the bill: no
provision prohibits having a "good old boy" or "good old girl"
network whereby someone could suggest that a teacher retire and
then rehire that person at the same salary; the result, in
effect, would be a nice raise.
CHAIR BUNDE, for the foregoing reasons, suggested the bill
should include a provision that says, "Anyone rehired under this
is rehired at the beginning salary or ... as a beginning
teacher."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated that was his own concern as well.
CHAIR BUNDE proposed that with concurrence of the committee, it
could be a conceptual amendment.
Number 2254
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER remarked:
To show you how naive I was, I thought that was a
given, one, that the school district would take
advantage of that, and ... two, that they didn't have
the ability to hire at anything but the beginning
step, with a couple of exceptions, in ... past
experience. But I think that's a very appropriate
[amendment], considering that anyone receiving this is
going to be receiving time-and-a-half pay forever.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN added, "Plus the bonus for retiring."
Number 2225
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS commented that there are two issues. The
first is local control; she said, however, "We're not consistent
in that." Second, a person in the private sector retires and
gets a pension; if that person then chooses to work for another
company, that person would still get market rate for his or her
skills, and it wouldn't matter that the person was receiving
retirement pay as well. She asked, "Why, in this situation, are
we discussing a forced situation of what the market rate should
be? Why aren't we letting the local control and the local
market decide how much that person is worth?"
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied:
The short answer is that when the local school
district pays 100 percent of their cost of doing
business, then they should make 100 percent of those
decisions. That isn't the case - nowhere close.
That's why we are making these decisions.
Number 2169
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said the answer regarding the local issue
was fine, but she doesn't understand why the legislature is
treating this group of professionals differently than they would
be treated in the private sector.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER answered, "Because it's public money."
CHAIR BUNDE recalled some "unfortunate experience" involving, to
his belief, the Adak school system; he suggested there should
have been criminal charges for how the public's money - state
money - was treated there.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked whether those experiences, then, were
affecting this case. "That's OK," she added. "I'm just trying
to get where this came from." She acknowledged that there are
times when she herself doesn't favor local control.
Number 2125
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS suggested keeping in mind that this deals
only with teachers who've accepted RIP - "people to whom we have
paid substantial amounts of money to go away." He said that is
what RIP was all about. Most teachers would get up to $2,000
extra [a year] in retirement benefits for a three-year early
retirement. The desire now is to find a way to bring these
teachers back without treating them exactly as if they had taken
a normal retirement.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS apologized, saying she'd thought it dealt
with any retired teacher.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS replied that he believes this just deals
with those who have taken early retirement, which has cost the
districts substantial money in order to get them out of those
high-paid positions; the idea was to hire people at lower pay.
To rehire those people at a high level would be totally opposite
what the principle was to begin with.
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that as Representative Porter said, common
sense probably would dictate that [rehiring teachers at high
pay] wouldn't happen. Chair Bunde recalled testimony from the
Anchorage district that "that is their policy; they have given
people, basically, early retirement bonuses, not a RIP, on the
state level, earning retirement bonuses, and then they rehire
them at beginning salaries, as you might guess common sense
would dictate." He concluded by saying there is always the
possibility of mischief; when dealing with public money, it is
best to err on the side of caution.
Number 2023
DARROLL HARGRAVES, Council of School Administrators, came
forward to testify, noting that Representative Stevens had
fairly well covered what he had to say. Mr. Hargraves conveyed
support for anything that puts teachers in the marketplace so
that schools can hire and use them. He agreed there should be
concern because these [RIP] teachers have entered retirement at
some cost to the state and the school districts. He suggested
that for this to be usable, however, "a strike for local control
is important here." He explained:
Many school districts will look at this and [not] have
the shortages that some other district does, and so
they will impose that requirement that they come back
at a low level on the salary schedule. We're seeing
that; that's happening with the other class of retired
teachers.
On the other hand, some of the places that might make
the biggest and best use of this might need the
incentive of bringing them in a little higher, within
the context of their own policies and negotiated
agreements and other controlling factors in the school
district. In fact, I can see some districts that
would bring some of these people back in at a higher
level in order to get them. These are places where
the teacher shortage is really critical.
So I would ... strike that blow for local control and
let that issue rest with the local school districts.
I think they can take care of it very nicely.
Number 1946
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS returned to an issue brought up earlier
regarding hiring somebody at a beginning teacher's salary; he
said it seems districts already have a lot of latitude because
beginning teachers receive different salaries, based on their
qualifications and how badly they may be needed, for example.
MR. HARGRAVES said that is correct. For example, a teacher who
has taught for more than fifteen years in one district may enter
another district with only two years' credit. "That district
survives very nicely because they have ... a better teacher pool
to choose from," he remarked. "On the other hand, there are
districts out there that will give eight or ten years of credit
because they're really pushing hard to try to get teachers to
come to them."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS expressed concern about the term
"beginning teacher" because of its broadness.
Number 1890
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded:
It was my understanding ... that there are a variety
of different, quote, starting salaries, probably for
each school district. ... What I think you guys are
addressing, and what I'm addressing, is that in that
particular school district, that teacher who comes
back from the RIP position should not be hired any
higher than that same person would have been hired had
he or she come in ... on their first day with whatever
credentials that they now possess.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked whether, then, no years of experience
would be credited but the person's education would be.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested it would be just as though the
person came from Oregon, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said it isn't that she disagrees, but is
trying to get it defined. She added, "Someone can come in, as
Mr. Hargraves said, ... with ten years of experience, and I
don't think that's the purpose of the amendment, is to go back
to that minimum. Is the minimum coming in, really, at ... the
low box of zero and a [bachelor of arts degree], or is it zero
years of experience and some more education?"
Number 1780
CHAIR BUNDE offered examples. To his understanding, he said, in
the Anchorage district a teacher who retired under RIP is
credited with no previous experience because of the district's
sufficient teacher pool. In Kotzebue, however, a person is
allowed to bring in perhaps eight or ten years' experience.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS clarified that Anchorage, in areas of
shortage, allows three [years' experience to be credited].
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that Anchorage itself has flexibility,
then, but in Kotzebue the person can receive the basic teacher's
salary plus eight or ten years of credit.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN added, "But not twenty."
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS agreed with the need, if there is an
amendment, to clarify what "beginning" means; otherwise, the
intent of the committee may not be reflected. "The whole reason
to have the amendment was to put some constraints on," she
added.
CHAIR BUNDE proposed holding the amendment, saying he and
Representative Guess would craft an amendment for the
committee's consideration at the next hearing.
Number 1750
MR. HARGRAVES reminded members that bringing teachers back under
this statute will save local school districts money because of
the costs of insurance and teacher retirement. "Wherever you
bring them in, they're cheaper than ... what they would have
been otherwise," he concluded.
Number 1736
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards, came forward to testify. He informed members that the
association supports both HB 416 and [Amendment 1]. He then
commented on the [second] proposed amendment. He emphasized
that the idea behind RIPs is to create savings, which is where
the committee is headed. He suggested it wouldn't be a bad idea
to ensure that savings are created; just saying "coming in at
the lowest level" may not provide [districts] the latitude they
need. He commented that the National Education Association
(NEA) may have a real concern about this.
MR. ROSE noted that many school districts negotiate salaries
when hiring retired teachers. Because this [proposed amendment]
relates to a RIP, he suggested it may be prudent to have a
provision that says, in essence, that if a district is hiring
back someone who took advantage of RIP, there must be an economy
at least observed there, "something to preface [those]
negotiations."
MR. ROSE pointed out that people who have already served in
their profession are being called upon to fill this gap, which
is indicative and symptomatic of another problem. He
acknowledged that he was asking for more money and then said,
"We're really struggling to get people into our schools." He
suggested it may be more difficult to attract new teachers to
Alaska than to bring retired people back; that is a problem, he
said, "one that we all have to face at some point in time."
MR. ROSE concluded by reiterating that districts want latitude
to bring back RIP teachers, but the whole idea behind the RIP
incentive was to create those economies. He suggested having an
overriding statement to that effect, which would affect local
negotiations, to his belief.
Number 1620
CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged that the number of people that
[districts] have attempted to rehire is small, but said that
nothing should keep the legislature from addressing an
additional tool.
Number 1580
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS recalled that at the university, people
had retired out of TRS as campus directors, in the Matanuska-
Susitna area, to his belief, and had returned under PERS [Public
Employees' Retirement System] as campus directors there.
Number 1552
CHAIR BUNDE indicated he was appointing a subcommittee to draft
an amendment before the next hearing; subcommittee members would
be himself, Representative Guess, and Representative Stevens.
[HB 416 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at
9:17 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|