Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/06/1993 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 6, 1993
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair
Rep. Al Vezey
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Harley Olberg
Rep. Bettye Davis
Rep. Irene Nicholia
Rep. Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 84: "An Act implementing certain recommendations of
Alaska 2000 to improve the state's education
system; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD - NO ACTION TAKEN
HB 85: "An Act relating to the public school foundation
program; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD - NO ACTION TAKEN
WITNESS REGISTER
DUANE GUILEY, Director
Division of Education Finance and Support Services
Department of Education
801 W. 10th St., Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Phone: (907) 465-2891
Position statement: Answered questions on HB 85
ELL B. SORENSEN, President
Alaska Association of School Administrators
P.O. Box 153
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Phone: (907) 746-9200
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 85
DEB GERMANO
P.O. Box 1511
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: (907) 235-2583
Position statement: Declined to testify pending receipt
of CSHB 85
STEVE GIBSON
1622 Highland Dr.
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: (907) 235-6487
Position statement: Declined to testify pending receipt
of CSHB 85
DENNIS WETHERELL
P.O. Box 876862
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Phone: (907) 745-2007
Position statement: Declined to testify pending receipt
of CSHB 85
CLAUDIA WALTON
P.O. Box 221166
Anchorage, Alaska 99522
Phone: (907) 248-1323
Position statement: Testified in support of CCS program
FRANK GARRITY
P.O. Box 69
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Phone: (907) 852-5311
Position statement: Declined to testify pending receipt
of CSHB 85
RICHARD M. SWARNER
Executive Director, Business Management
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
44955 Ptarmigan Place
Soldotna, Alaska 99699
Phone: (907) 262-4056
Position statement: Declined to testify pending receipt
of CSHB 85
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President
National Education Association-Alaska
114 Second St.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-3090
Position statement: Questioned elements of HB 85
ALICIA KAY NEWMAN
Anchorage Education Association
1666 Cache Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Phone: (907) 563-3638 work
Phone: (907) 333-2721 home
Position statement: Testified on HB 85
CHRIS SCALLY
Anchorage Education Association
3605 S. Arctic #280
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: (907) 345-2582
Position statement: Testified on HB 85
JIM FISK
P.O. Box 2068
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: (907) 486-4428
Position statement: Testified in support of HB 84
RON FUHRER
150 S. Bragaw
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Phone: (907) 277-4581
Position statement: Testified on HB 85
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 84
SHORT TITLE: IMPLEMENT ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act implementing certain recommendations of
Alaska 2000 to improve the state's education system; and
providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 135 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 135 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/22/93 135 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 1/22/93
01/22/93 136 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/18/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/18/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/18/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/05/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 85
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC SCHOOL FOUNDATION PROGRAM
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act relating to the public school foundation
program; and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 138 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 138 (H) HES, FINANCE
01/22/93 138 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 1/22/93
01/22/93 138 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/18/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/18/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/23/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/23/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/22/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/25/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/25/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/01/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/05/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-58, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m., noted
members present, and announced the calendar.
HB 85: PUBLIC SCHOOL FOUNDATION PROGRAM
CHAIR BUNDE invited Rep. B. Davis to present her amendments
to HB 85.
Number 037
REP. B. DAVIS said that one of her concerns was with the
talented and gifted (TAG) program being removed from the
special education line. She said she had amendments to keep
it in. She stated the amendments would also reflect the
Department of Education's (DOE) effort to cap at 4.5 percent
the percentage of student populations which could be funded
under the TAG program. She noted that the cap would be
phased in over three years under her amendment, as opposed
to one year. She noted that testimony on the bill had shown
that some school districts had identified up to 17 percent
of their students as TAG, while the national average was
about 5 percent.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for copies of the amendment to be
distributed. Rep. B. Davis proceeded to distribute the
amendments.
Number 085
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the amendment already in the bill
packets was similar to the one she had just distributed.
REP. B. DAVIS said she was told by DOE that she had to have
her new amendment added to her CS version of the bill. She
said she had an amendment prepared for that reason. She
asked Duane Guiley to help her clarify the amendments. Rep.
Davis said, "What I have on the amendment is to phase it in
over a three-year period. And I have also the price index,
I mean the formula index, for the gifted program which I
didn't pass out. But it would be phased in over a three
year period, and the numbers would be 19, 16 and 12. It
would be capped at 12. It would stay there and it would be
in statute and not in regs. And that's the intention of my
amendment here. It's to leave it under the gifted, under
the special-ed, but allow it to be capped at the 4.5 level
that they suggested that it should be."
CHAIR BUNDE invited Mr. Guiley to testify.
Number 108
DUANE GUILEY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF EDUCATION FINANCE AND
SUPPORT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, addressed the
committee. He said, "Rep. Davis referred to the weighting
factor, the revenue weighting factor that's referenced in
the statute, the proposed statute is 0.012, as approved by
the board currently, which would be set through regulation.
Under the existing statute in current law the revenue
weighting factor for gifted and talented child is 0.025.
The representative is suggesting that we phase in the
reduction in the weighting factor over a three-year period.
The first weighting factor would be assigned in statute at
0.019 for each student. The second-year weighting factor of
0.016, and finally the target number of 0.012, which she's
suggesting that those weighting factors actually be
established in statute as opposed to allowing the department
the opportunity to set them through regulation, as House
Bill 85 currently states."
CHAIR BUNDE asked if Mr. Guiley had an official position on
the amendment.
Number 125
MR. GUILEY said that the commissioner of the DOE had
expressed the concern that phasing in the reduction of the
weighting factor would actually increase the fiscal note,
and he would prefer to phase in the increase in vocational
education program at the same time to result in a zero
fiscal note.
Number 138
REP. B. DAVIS said there were other ways to avoid taking
such a step with voc-ed funds. She said she would hate to
see voc-ed played against special-ed funds. She stated, "I
think because more school districts are now needing that
money there might be some other ways we could come up with
the money that is proposed from some other source, and I
have two other ideas. I think when we get ready to talk
about the price index, when we begin to discuss it in this
particular bill, 85, it does not necessarily address some of
the needs of the larger school districts and, I'm
particularly concerned about the one for Anchorage, but also
along with those others. And I discussed it with some
people and I found out if Anchorage was not left there, just
being grouped by itself, and was put into the grouping with
some of the other groups, that might be a way to solve some
of the Anchorage problems on their financial end of it. And
I also have another idea that I would be willing to bring
out if we consider to do that, because I think to make it a
wash there's a possible way we could do it to by bringing
in, increasing the four school districts that's now at the
35 percent bracket to the 50 percent. And I don't want to
put that out there yet until actually he has a chance to
discuss the price index. As we go through the price index
we might be able to figure out what we could do to help some
of the larger school districts with their financial burdens.
And then I would make my proposal."
REP. B. DAVIS said she did not mind hearing more testimony
before addressing her amendments.
Number 196
REP. TOOHEY MOVED adoption of the committee substitute (CS)
HB 85.
CHAIR BUNDE, hearing no objection, declared that the
committee had ADOPTED CSHB 85 as a working draft of the
bill.
Number 203
REP. B. DAVIS said that, while the committee had addressed
the TAG issue, she thought it would also address the Alaska
School Price Index (ASPI).
CHAIR BUNDE answered that the committee would get to that,
but was still discussing the TAG issue. He asked Rep. B.
Davis whether her CS addressed problems with some school
districts being overly generous in defining high percentages
of their student populations as TAG students.
Number 216
REP. B. DAVIS answered yes, because the CS would cap funding
regardless of the percentage of TAG students. It would be
up to the local school districts to fund TAG programs above
the level funded by the state. Districts with no TAG
students would be able to collect the money.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the committee had been heavily
lobbied by parents, as well as by teachers of the gifted
through their students. He asked if her proposal had drawn
a response from those interested parties.
Number 230
REP. B. DAVIS said she had spoken to people from various
school districts who had said they would like to see TAG
remain under special-ed.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if those people had agreed with the cap on
TAG funding.
Number 235
REP. B. DAVIS said that those school districts she had
spoken to had agreed with the cap.
Number 244
MR.GUILEY said the amendment would set a minimum rate in
statute, but not the actual rate. He said because HB 85
allows the DOE to set the revenue weighting factor thorough
regulation, it would be necessary for the DOE to suggest a
factor and observe a 60-day public comment period. He said
the state Board of Education had suggested a revenue
weighting factor of 0.012, while the bill said the revenue
weighting factor shall not be less than a certain amount.
Therefore, he said, the revenue weighting factor could be
higher than 0.012 after public hearings.
(Rep. Kott arrived at 3:25 p.m.)
Number 261
REP. TOOHEY said she hoped people would testify by
teleconference on the issue.
CHAIR BUNDE declared that he would not close public
testimony on the bill until those on teleconference had the
opportunity to testify. He then asked the committee to
consider the ASPI and invited the school price committee to
present a report.
Number 275
MR. GUILEY spoke on the ASPI. He referred to a four-page
document, entitled "Alaska School Price Index Committee." He
said the first two pages described the committee's
composition and activities. The third and fourth pages
contained the draft ASPI, as compared to the existing area
cost differential. He described the different columns on
the chart on page 3 and what they contained.
Number 311
MR. GUILEY said the DOE considered the document a draft
document, as there had been some changes not reviewed by the
ASPI committee. He said he intended to bring those changes
back to the ASPI committee for final review and discussion
before finalizing the index.
CHAIR BUNDE commented that it was a lot of information to
digest at one time.
Number 321
REP. VEZEY remarked that he was glad to see even a draft of
the ASPI. He commented that the draft ASPI, as laid out in
column, seemed to indicate an increase in the funding
formula for each school district.
MR. GUILEY answered that in most cases the index did rise.
Number 339
REP. VEZEY asked which column contained the most current
draft ASPI figures.
MR. GUILEY answered that the most current version was in
column I.
REP. VEZEY observed that it looked like there had been lots
of work done to arrive at numbers substantially similar to
the existing formula. He also asked why the state was
rewarding school districts in which the cost of educating
index was higher than the cost of living index in the same
areas. He suggested it might be more appropriate to
penalize such districts, instead of rewarding incompetence
and inefficiency.
Number 358
MR. GUILEY said the intent of grouping school districts was
to average over time the effect of existing negotiated labor
contracts. If they had awarded individual indexes to each
district, it would have been rewarding inefficient
operations, he said. But, he noted, the comparison of a
market-basket of educational expenses over several districts
smoothed out differences in contract costs. The ASPI was an
attempt to provide state revenue in accord with the cost of
providing education, not the cost of living, in the
district.
REP. VEZEY asked what were the components of the cost of
providing education, and why was it felt the state lacked
the control over them that allowed deviation from a base
cost rate?
Number 381
MR. GUILEY replied that many of the costs of education are
under a school district's control, but districts inherit
previously negotiated contracts and lack the power to
overturn those contracts and start over from zero. He said
some of the factors measured to derive the area cost
differential (ACD) are unrelated to the costs of education.
REP. VEZEY observed that the bill codified past contracts so
that they would become incorporated in statutes and serve as
the basis for all future negotiations.
MR. GUILEY said on the average, that was correct.
Number 396
REP. VEZEY related an anecdote illustrating the difficulty
of knowing when an action taken was the most effective
action, and said he was not sure whether the ASPI was the
right direction for the state to take.
Number 400
REP. OLBERG asked whether column I reflected the ASPI as it
existed at that time.
MR. GUILEY answered yes.
REP. OLBERG asked a clarifying question about the columns.
MR. GUILEY said the column identified as "Draft ASPI"
reflected a preliminary calculation of the ASPI, based on
preliminary information, and had been included to provide
those districts which had made calculations based on the
preliminary information with a basis for further
comparisons.
Number 421
REP. OLBERG asked, if the program were implemented, which
column would show what figure would apply to school
districts?
MR. GUILEY answered column Y, with a base factor calculated
at 1.0.
Number 427
General discussion of the chart and its contents followed,
with Mr. Guiley answering various clarifying questions from
committee members.
Number 451
REP. OLBERG noted that there was a 17 percent difference
between the weighting formulas for Tok and Delta Junction
school districts, and asked why the ACD was being changed.
MR. GUILEY said the ACD dated to 1983 and was based on
household, not educational costs. He said the ASPI was an
effort to update the funding formula and have it more
accurately reflect the costs of providing education. He
said the formula was developed by school district officials,
private auditors and others. He said that there was a need
to update the information used as a basis for state
educational funding.
Number 474
REP. TOOHEY asked if the salaries used in the market basket
were averaged across the state.
MR. GUILEY said that the ASPI assigned salaries 65 percent
of the weighting for the ASPI market basket. He stated the
salary element of the formula was calculated such that 50
percentage points were based on the salaries in the eight
school districts in the base, while another 15 percentage
points were based on the average of the average paid
salaries unique to that district.
Number 489
CHAIR BUNDE noted for those listening on teleconference that
the committee was discussing the ASPI element of CSHB 85
and that public testimony would soon begin.
REP. TOOHEY asked further questions concerning the variances
among teacher salaries.
MR. GUILEY said while there was up to 30 percent variance in
salaries for similarly qualified teachers around the state,
the most remote districts did not necessarily have the
highest teacher salaries.
Number 505
REP. B. DAVIS asked if Mr. Guiley had information on salary
ranges.
MR. GUILEY said that he had passed out salary schedules at
earlier committee meetings on the bill and he did have raw
data to support each of the elements in the ASPI.
Number 513
CHAIR BUNDE announced he had intended to move forward on
HB 85 in that meeting but, given the new information and CS
version presented to the committee, he would instead allow
discussion on the bill until 4 p.m. and then move on to
HB 84.
REP. VEZEY asked how the ASPI, if applied that day, would
affect the state foundation formula.
MR. GUILEY noted that the original bill carried a $12.4
million fiscal note, but that it was likely to reach $15
million over the current foundation formula cost with the
updated information.
Number 524
REP. VEZEY asked whether there had ever been an effort to
make the formula revenue-neutral.
MR. GUILEY answered that the ASPI committee, when formed,
had been given no direction to create a revenue-neutral
index, but one that accurately reflected the cost of
providing an education, and ignored the financial impact of
that index.
Number 528
REP. VEZEY observed that making the index revenue-neutral
would require cutting some funding from Anchorage, Fairbanks
and Juneau school districts.
MR. GUILEY said that the preliminary ASPI index showed that
many smaller school districts actually would see their index
decrease over time. He said HB 85 contained a hold-harmless
clause, which would for three years prevent any decrease in
funding on account of the index.
Number 541
REP. VEZEY observed that almost all school districts
received increases, and that education spending would
increase overall under the bill.
CHAIR BUNDE asked what effect the ASPI would have on the
$61,000 level for one educational funding unit.
Number 550
MR. GUILEY answered that the index would apply to all
instructional units, and that would be impossible to tie a
one point increase in the funding index with any specific
dollar amount.
Number 556
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether the hold-harmless clause would
cost the state an additional $15 million in education
funding.
MR. GUILEY answered that was correct.
Number 526
(Rep. G. Davis arrived at 3:47 p.m.)
REP. B. DAVIS noted that HB 85 eliminated the single-site
school district issue and the need for supplemental
appropriations for single-site school districts. She said
that helped HB 85 be a good deal for the state.
REP. OLBERG noted that the single-site school districts cost
about $2 million to $3 million per year. He said he would
like to see a district-by-district breakdown of the effects
of the ASPI's $15 million increase in state educational
funding.
Number 575
CHAIR BUNDE indicated a desire to hear public testimony,
after which the committee would consider an amendment to
HB 85 from Rep. Gary Davis.
Number 575
ELL B. SORENSEN, PRESIDENT, ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS (AASA), testified in Juneau in support of
HB 85. He said the ASPI reflected the actual cost of
providing education in a specific school district. He
stated he enjoyed working with the DOE and the
administration toward fair and equitable education funding.
He said it was obviously difficult to understand how
Anchorage would fit into the index. He stated that finding
out who would benefit most from the situation was almost
impossible. He noted that the AASA intended to keep working
with the DOE and help ferret out problems in the bill.
TAPE 93-58, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE said he assumed that Mr. Sorensen had not seen
CSHB 85, and invited him to obtain a copy.
Number 007
REP. TOOHEY asked Mr. Sorensen to comment on the ASPI.
CHAIR BUNDE invited him to submit his comments in writing.
MR. SORENSEN agreed to do so.
Number 020
DEB GERMANO testified from Homer in support of HB 85. She
asked if there was a CS for HB 85.
CHAIR BUNDE said there was, and offered to fax a copy to
her. He said it looked like there would be about one week
for members of the public to review the CS and then testify
on the bill.
MS. GERMANO said she would rather reserve her testimony, and
asked to be faxed a copy of the CS.
Number 048
STEVE GIBSON testified from Homer, saying he would also
reserve testimony until he had had a chance to study the CS
version of HB 85. He asked if the CS versions of HB 85 in
the state House and Senate were very similar.
CHAIR BUNDE answered no, they were different.
MR. GIBSON said it was a good idea to cap the number of
students that could be identified as TAG, but said it was
also good to stipulate the formation of TAG programs in each
school district.
Number 071
DENNIS WETHERELL, A PARENT OF A STUDENT IN THE CENTRALIZED
CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAM, testified from Wasilla and
asked to have a copy of CSHB 85 faxed to the Anchorage
Legislative Information Office.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the CS would address Mr. Wetherell's
concerns that TAG programs not be removed from the
special education category.
Number 080
MR. WETHERELL declined further testimony pending his study
of the CS.
Number 085
CLAUDIA WALTON, A PARENT WITH CHILDREN IN THE CENTRALIZED
CORRESPONDENCE STUDY (CCS) PROGRAM, testified from Anchorage
in support of HB 85, saying she did not have a copy of CSHB
85, and asked whether it addressed the CCS issue.
CHAIR BUNDE answered that elements of HB 85 dealing with CCS
had not been changed in the CSHB 85.
Number 098
MS. WALTON encouraged the committee members to support the
provisions of CSHB 85 as they pertained to CCS. She said
that while the program had never been recognized as more
than an elementary school program, it served 800 students,
many of them secondary students, and the program should be
recognized as a separate school. She also favored
increasing the formula funding of secondary students in CCS
to reflect the higher cost of serving the increasing number
of secondary school students in the program in the Anchorage
area.
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether CCS students counted as attending
their local school districts.
Number 131
MS. WALTON said it depended on the district. She said some
school districts, including the Anchorage School District,
purchase CCS materials for students enrolled in their own
schools.
CHAIR BUNDE said he was worried that students might be
counted twice for state funding.
Number 149
FRANK GARRITY testified from Barrow, declining to testify
pending receipt of CSHB 85, but saying he had heard that
HB 85 would severely impact the North Slope Borough School
District.
REP. B. DAVIS asked how the bill would affect the North
Slope Borough School District.
Number 155
MR. GARRITY responded that he could not answer the question,
but said some information faxed to him showed that the
district's cost differential would drop to 1.27 from 1.45
under the ASPI.
Number 176
REP. B. DAVIS said the only change from HB 85 contained in
the CSHB 85 was a phase-in of the TAG provisions and the
retention of TAG in the special-ed program. He said the
changes he had described had not yet been discussed by the
committee, which had just received the index information at
the meeting.
MR. GARRITY said he would therefore look forward to
testifying on the bill in the next week when the committee
addressed the index.
Number 192
RICHARD M. SWARNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR BUSINESS
MANAGEMENT, KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
testified from Kenai asking that a copy of CSHB 85 be faxed
to his district's office.
CHAIR BUNDE repeated that the committee was planning to take
no action on the bill that day. He invited Rep. Gary Davis
to present his amendment to HB 85, after which the committee
would discuss HB 84.
Number 199
REP. GARY DAVIS said that the changes that would be effected
by his amendment were already incorporated in the CS.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for further questions or discussion on
CSHB 85 in light of the committee's intention to return to
the bill the following week. Hearing none, he closed public
testimony on HB 85 and brought HB 84 to the table.
HB 84: IMPLEMENT ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS
Number 224
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION-
ALASKA (NEA-AK), testified in Juneau on HB 84. She noted
that HB 84 was a complex bill with serious impacts on Alaska
schools, and she expressed a desire to spend enough time on
each of the bill's sections. She noted her earlier
testimony on the school improvement grants and advisory
school boards. She referred to written testimony she had
provided on the establishment of tenure review committees
and said that if there were problems with teacher
evaluations, it would be better to improve the evaluation
process rather than add a new level of evaluation. She said
there were already administrative regulations on teacher
evaluations that might not be followed properly. She
questioned whether it was proper to consider creating new
charter schools when the existing schools had not received
their desired increase in funding. While she applauded the
idea of charter schools as a way to provide creative
education, she said she would prefer to make it available to
more than a few children.
Number 281
CHAIR BUNDE stated it was obvious that school administrators
were too occupied with other concerns to observe teachers in
class. He asked if tenure review committees could not
represent an extra resource for administrators in that
regard.
MS. DOUGLAS said the proposed tenure review committees did
not represent peer review, and existing administration
regulations provide for input from parents in teacher
evaluations.
Number 299
CHAIR BUNDE said he did not support evaluation
committees as constructed at that time, but a tenure or
evaluation committee might be a helpful additional
resources.
Number 307
ALICIA KAY NEWMAN, ANCHORAGE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
testified in Juneau on HB 84. She said the current tenure
system in Anchorage was fair and equitable when enforced,
and there was a general misconception that tenure freed
teachers from any performance standards. She noted that up
to five teachers had been fired from the district the
previous year. She said the Anchorage School District (ASD)
had many optional educational programs, and charter schools
might lack the guidelines for scope and sequence that the
other programs had. She expressed concern about funding the
extended school year.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the commissioner of DOE presented the
Alaska 2000 program as a starting point, not a finished
product.
Number 345
REP. TOOHEY said the public believed that the system of
tenure kept bad teachers in place regardless of their
performance. She also added she was unaware of the variety
of optional educational programs available in the ASD.
Number 356
CHRIS SCALLY, OF THE ANCHORAGE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
testified in Juneau on HB 84, saying it was a quick fix of
many educational problems and the state needed to fix
problems like leaking school roofs before getting into other
areas. She said an extended school year would be expensive.
She observed that there were ways to fire bad teachers and
there were ways for parents to be involved. She said the
ASD had plenty of optional education programs, but
establishing charter schools would raise problems with
transportation which the district was not ready to address.
Number 365
CHAIR BUNDE noted Ms. Scally's comments on parental
responsibility and discipline of school children and asked
if she had any suggestions concerning the issue.
MS. SCALLY answered that she taught students who were living
at a homeless shelter, and that as those students were
transients they not only disrupted the class, but frequently
presented severe disciplinary problems. She said she had
recommended to Rep. B. Davis that such children be appointed
a teacher who would meet with that student once a week,
regardless of where the student moved or what school he
attended, as a way to provide the student some educational
stability.
CHAIR BUNDE asked about teachers' roles in discipline.
MS. SCALLY answered that she did not want to be
administering physical discipline. She noted that the
Department of Family and Youth Services had last year
chastised nearly 900 teachers for yelling at students, and
that records of such reprimands were kept on school district
and police computers, creating a "Big Brother" type of
government oversight. She said even children perceive that
teachers are now left with little disciplinary authority and
take advantage of the situation by rebelliously taunting
teachers. She said the district had advised teachers not to
touch students at all, neither to encourage them nor to
break up their fights. She asked to see the situation
reevaluated. She said former state Sen. Jim Zawacki's
"knee-jerk" bill relating to school discipline started part
of the problem. While she said she wanted to identify
abused children, she did not want to be controlled by
children who have no desire to learn.
Number 459
CHAIR BUNDE recalled the story of a spoiled rich student who
told a teacher threatening discipline to call his lawyer.
(Rep. Vezey departed at 4:27 p.m.)
Number 462
STEVE GIBSON, A PARENT, testified from Homer in support of
HB 84. He said he favored part of the bill, especially the
tenure review committee provisions, as administrative
evaluation of teachers is often inadequate. He said firing
a teacher with tenure is a difficult, last-ditch process.
He said he favored delaying by a year or two the time at
which new teachers were evaluated for tenure, and said he
favored having a student of 16 or 17 years of age involved
in tenure review. Part of the problem is that parents and
students are out of the loop, he said. Even though they
might lack expertise, they could still contribute to the
process, he said. He also favored a longer school year,
though the bill contained no explanation of how the state
would pay for the longer term.
CHAIR BUNDE commented that the committee would certainly not
pass the bill out without a fiscal note.
Number 493
DEB GERMANO testified from Homer concerning HB 84. She said
she was concerned about the longer school year and about the
tenure review process. She said such a process was
important, but the review process might need to be expanded.
She said teachers should have to work for four years, not
two years, before becoming eligible for tenure.
Number 513
CHAIR BUNDE said many people agreed that two years was too
soon to grant tenure to a new teacher.
Number 516
JIM FISK testified from Kodiak in support of HB 85. He said
he favored a longer school year, and said the current tenure
process was not adequate, and he supported the idea of local
tenure review. He cited a list of concerns about education
and teacher performance, and said there was a need to try
something new.
Number 568
RON FUHRER testified from Anchorage on HB 85. He said the
education community welcomed meaningful improvements, but HB
84 was just change. He said that a longer school year might
not be a solution to educational problems, and noted that
the bill did not address how to pay the costs of the
extension, including teacher pay and benefits. He noted
that the state had no minimum attendance requirement, and
suggested that funding for the longer year could be based on
attendance. He also asked whether advisory boards would not
be redundant, given that schools already had Parent-Teacher
Associations. He stated that establishing another tenure
review board might prompt teachers to shop for the easiest
committee. He claimed that teachers have the longest
probationary period of any profession, including education,
student teaching and probation.
TAPE 93-59, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. FUHRER continued his testimony, saying that the idea of
charter schools was good, but existing schools would
possibly be cut to fund up to 40 new charter schools, and
there were many existing alternative educational programs
already offered.
Number 123
CHAIR BUNDE joked that he was sure that it would be possible
to eliminate the need for tenure review simply by improving
school administration. He said it was obvious that HB 84
would not move along during the first session of the 18th
Legislature. He said it would be an interesting project
during the interim.
Hearing no further requests to testify, Chair Bunde
ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:47 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|