Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/08/1994 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
February 8, 1994
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
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Rep. Eldon Mulder
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 359: "An Act making special appropriations to the
Department of Education for construction or
upgrade of schools on military installations; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
*HJR 47: Relating to schools on military installations.
HEARD AND HELD
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
*HB 391: "An Act authorizing disclosure of information to a
prospective out-of-home care provider about a
minor who has a history of inflicting personal
injury or property damage or committing acts that,
if committed by an adult, would have been
felonies."
POSTPONED BY PRIME SPONSOR
WITNESS REGISTER
CAPTAIN DENNIS PORTER
Legislative Liaison
Alaskan Command
United States Air Force
1700 7th St., Unit B
Elmendorf AFB, Alaska 99506
Phone: (907) 552-3210
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 359
and HJR 47
DUANE GUILEY, Director
Division of School Finance
Department of Education
801 W. 10th St., Ste. 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Phone: (907) 465-8679
Position Statement: Testified in support of HJR 47 and
in opposition to HB 359
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOE RALSTON
Commander, Alaskan Command
United States Air Force
5800 G St.
Elmendorf AFB, Alaska 99506
Phone: (907) 552-2100
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 359
and HJR 47
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President
National Education Association/Alaska
114 Second St.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-3090
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to CSHB 84
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 W. 11th
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-1083
Position Statement: Testified on CSHB 84
TERRY CRAMER, Attorney
Division of Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward St., Ste. 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Phone: (907) 465-2450
Position Statement: Answered legal questions on CSHB 84 and
a proposed amendment
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 359
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: CONSTRUCT/UPGRADE ON-BASE SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER BY REQUEST OF MILITARY
SCHOOLS TASK FORCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/11/94 2032 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/94 2032 (H) HES, FINANCE
02/08/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HJR 47
SHORT TITLE: FUNDS TO UPGRADE MILITARY BASE SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER BY REQUEST OF MILITARY
SCHOOLS TASK FORCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/11/94 2031 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/94 2031 (H) HES, FINANCE
02/08/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 84
SHORT TITLE: IMPLEMENT ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
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
04/06/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
01/26/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/26/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
01/31/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/31/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/04/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/08/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 391
SHORT TITLE: NOTICE TO OUT-OF-HOME CARE PROVIDERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/21/94 2125 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/21/94 2125 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
02/08/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-10, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. and
announced the calendar. He stated that HB 391 had been
postponed by request of the sponsor. Chair Bunde asked for
a roll call and then asked for testimony on HB 359.
HB 359 - APPROPRIATION: CONSTRUCT/UPGRADE ON-BASE SCHOOLS
Number 103
REP. ELDON MULDER, Prime Sponsor of HB 359, stated that last
session a task force was created upon recommendations by
General Ralston which addressed the problems of on-base
military schools. He stated that the existing condition of
a base school would highly affect the evaluation and overall
recommendations by the Base Realignment and Closure
Commission.
REP. MULDER stated that HJR 47 is a resolution requesting
that on-base schools be expeditiously transferred to the
local school districts, and HB 359 is the appropriation bill
which would fund $26 million, or half of the upgrades
necessary.
REP. MULDER stated there is no funding mechanism available
to school districts and local communities to invest in on-
base schools as they cannot bond for the schools because
they do not own them. He also said that because of federal
entities involved in the oversight of the facilities, the
situation is even more complex.
REP. MULDER urged that the base schools be transferred to
local school districts as quickly as possible. He stated
that to accomplish that there must be reparations done to
the facilities. Rep. Mulder said it was the recommendation
of the task force to have both the state and federal
government fund the improvements necessary for the
facilities involved.
Number 234
CAPTAIN DENNIS PORTER, Legislative Liaison for the Military
Schools Task Force, presented a slide show to the committee
that summarized the findings and recommendations of the task
force. He stated that the on-base schools are owned by the
U.S. Department of Education (U.S. DOE) and the land is
owned by the U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. DOD). It is
the local school district's responsibility for construction.
CAPT. PORTER said that the above arrangement caused inherent
problems, citing the question of who would make repairs. He
noted that there was little or no funding for reparations of
on-base schools.
CAPT. PORTER stated that the local school districts have a
$25,000 cap per year for repairs. Any costs over that is
the responsibility of the state. He also said that some
major maintenance issues are the responsibility of the U.S.
DOE and cited that the U.S. DOD is prohibited by law to
spend any operational maintenance dollars on school repairs.
CAPT. PORTER stated that there were schools that had been
upgraded by the U.S. DOE and later transferred to local
school districts, and previously there had been a joint
venture by the U.S. DOD and the State of Alaska that funded
repairs of three on-base schools. There are nine remaining
schools in need of funding for repairs. He noted that 50%
of the students at Ben Eielson Junior/Senior High School
come from off-base and the majority of on-base schools are
attended by off-base students.
CAPT. PORTER told the committee that the cost to upgrade and
repair the schools in the Anchorage bowl area was estimated
to be over $27 million. He said the total deficit for all
schools was approximately $52 million. The Americans with
Disabilities Act, which ensures handicap access to all
public buildings and the upgrades for fire and health and
life safety codes, was responsible for increasing the
estimated amount of funding originally projected in 1990.
CAPT. PORTER stated that ownership would be transferred
after the schools were upgraded and repaired.
Number 491
REP. TOOHEY asked if there would be any tax deferrals or any
type of savings if the schools are transferred.
Number 500
CAPT. PORTER said that the because of state statutes, local
school districts cannot bond for the on-base schools. He
went on to say that the task force has utilized a cohesive
united approach to market the proposal. They felt it was
important to increase awareness for everyone by involving
parents through volunteerism.
CAPT. PORTER felt it was unrealistic to get $26 million
dollars each from the government and the state, although he
was confident that at least $10 million could be obtained
from the federal government this year. Also, the U.S. DOE
may also come forth with some funding, he said.
CAPT. PORTER distributed photos to the committee of a
classroom at Aurora Elementary School. The picture shows
two support beams in the middle of the room, obviously
obstructing children's view. He stated that there were 70
such support structures placed throughout the school as a
result of warnings from engineers that the roof could
collapse at anytime if there was more than two inches of
snow fall.
Number 612
REP. B. DAVIS asked if Ursa Major was recently transferred
to the local school district and where the money came from
to enable the transfer.
Number 619
CAPT. PORTER answered that the U.S. DOE funded the transfer
for $4.9 million.
Number 623
REP. B. DAVIS asked if the upgrades had been done.
Number 624
CAPT. PORTER said that the upgrades would occur over the
next few years.
Number 636
CHAIR BUNDE introduced Duane Guiley to testify on HB 359 and
HJR 47.
HJR 47 - FUNDS TO UPGRADE MILITARY BASE SCHOOLS
Number 641
DUANE GUILEY, Director, Division of School Finance,
Department of Education, testified in support of HJR 47. He
felt the resolution continued to bring to the forefront the
problems associated with transferring on-base schools and
the costs involved. However, he did state that the
Department of Education (DOE) did not support HB 359 in that
the bill calls for a direct appropriation of 50% of state
share matched with 50% federal share for projects that have
not been evaluated or ranked in the school construction
priority process. He said the highest priority project for
on-base schools is a replacement facility for Taylor and
Pennell Elementary Schools on Eielson Air Force Base. The
school district has applied for the transfer and received
$600,000 last year for a planning grant. A capital project
construction grant has been applied for by the school
district this year. Mr. Guiley said the school has been
evaluated and ranked, on a relative basis compared to state-
wide need, as number 33 on the school construction list. He
stated that an appropriation of $241 million would be needed
to fund the construction needs that are ranked ahead of
Eielson. Therefore, Mr. Guiley reiterated that the DOE does
not support the proposed bill as written. He recommended
that the projects be submitted through "the normal capital
projects process as the Fairbanks North Star Borough has
already done."
Number 694
REP. TOOHEY asked what the status of the schools would be if
indeed Ft. Richardson did eventually close.
Number 701
CAPT. PORTER answered that the schools would be turned over
to the local military and/or the state.
Number 719
REP. G. DAVIS asked Mr. Guiley about the planning grants
given to the North Star Borough.
Number 728
MR. GUILEY said the North Star Borough School District has
one of the best six-year capital improvement project
planning processes. He continued on to describe the process
involved in the planning process.
Number 749
REP. G. DAVIS said he didn't want to see any planning grants
duplicate some of the information within the task force
recommendations and proposed legislation.
Number 757
MR. GUILEY said the initial planning that Capt. Porter had
mentioned was related to the upgrade of Taylor and Pennell.
The district determined in their review that it would be in
their best interest to build a new facility, then they could
relinquish control of the two existing facilities and turn
them back to the federal government.
Number 773
REP. KOTT asked, as a variable, how important schools are in
determining whether or not a military base should be closed.
Number 785
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOE RALSTON, Commander, Alaskan Command,
(senior ranking military member in Alaska) United States Air
Force, responded by saying that the Base Realignment and
Closure Commission uses many variables when they evaluate a
military base. They look at the location, training areas,
housing and schools, among other factors. He said he could
not forecast what the commission will do, but they will look
carefully at on-base schools. If there are schools that
have roofs that are about to collapse and other serious
states of disrepair, those conditions have a bearing on
their decision when they compare that base with another that
perhaps has better schools on it.
Number 818
REP. B. DAVIS told Mr. Guiley that she felt the North Star
Borough situation was different from the situations being
addressed within the proposed legislation. She said the
nine schools still belong to the U.S. DOD and the capital
grant process would not apply because the local school
district would only allow the transfer if the upgrades had
already been made.
Number 869
MR. GUILEY said that his reference to the guidelines were
referring to the capital projects funding process that is in
existence for schools statewide. He said it would be the
choice of the local school district of whether or not to
take title to the proposed buildings. The only way the
federal government would provide more money for the
buildings would be if the district agreed to take title.
Number 928
REP. B. DAVIS asked what type of proposal would satisfy the
DOE.
Number 934
MR. GUILEY suggested that the projects be applied for, be
evaluated and placed on a prioritized list, and recognized
on a statewide basis. He said the current list this year
totals approximately $660 million of school construction
statewide, citing that was just the first year of a six-year
plan. He said the total for the six-year plan is over $2
billion of outstanding, unfunded capital improvement project
requests. He asked that the applications be developed for
the schools in the proposed legislation.
Number 959
REP. B. DAVIS asserted that if that procedure were to be
followed, the schools could be on the list "forever." She
stated again that it was not reasonable to expect the nine
schools to follow the same procedure.
Number 977
REP. VEZEY asked how Alaskan standards compare to standards
nationwide.
Number 995
CAPT. PORTER stated that there are a number of schools in
the same situation throughout the United States. He said
"our schools probably fare somewhere in the middle-range of
this. However, I can only take and look at Anchorage school
districts, and if you were to rank the majority of the
schools that we are talking about, they are in the Anchorage
bowl area. And, if you take a look at what they've
done...they've had an HSI study a few years ago (1992) and
they took a look at all the schools, and all of our schools
rank in their top ten worst schools that they have. And, I
think that makes a statement, in itself, if you only apply
that. And, they have the most schools of any school
district in the state of Alaska, 72 or so, 55 of them being
elementary."
REP. VEZEY asked in what years the schools were built.
CAPT. PORTER replied 1952-1960.
REP. VEZEY said "the schools that we're comparing them with
in Anchorage were all built in (the) 60's and mostly in the
late 70's and beyond."
Number 027
CAPT. PORTER agreed, but felt the schools being discussed
did not have the programmed upgrades and normal maintenance
that the other schools had.
Number 032
REP. VEZEY said he could think of very few schools in the
state that are over 30 years old, and the ones that did come
to mind were on military bases.
Number 043
CAPT. PORTER stated that "the number of schools that were
this age... there is less than 10% of the schools that are
in the state of Alaska...through that information we
gathered at the task force level to find out exactly where
we're sitting. Again, I'm not so worried about the age of
the school as I am the programmed maintenance and upgrades
that we've had over the years."
Number 053
REP. VEZEY said that "a lot of those program upgrades and
whatnot is due to the fact that the legislature has adopted
new building standards which makes these older buildings
obsolete."
Number 056
CAPT. PORTER agreed that there had been a number of statutes
addressing that issue. He felt that the main problem was,
"who's responsible for it?" He said there is no capital
improvement for on-base schools because the districts don't
own them.
Number 070
REP. TOOHEY asked, "is this unique to the United States...
this snafu?"
Number 073
CAPT. PORTER said it was not.
Number 088
REP. G. DAVIS related the concern that all legislators have
for their school district, hypothetically asking why his
district hadn't been given priority. He reminded Capt.
Porter that all legislators were facing the same problems
and crisis situation in the state with educational
facilities.
Number 109
REP. MULDER restated that the situation was unique in that
the school districts would not take over the on-base schools
until they are brought up to code, and there was no funding
mechanism in place to enable a transfer. He stated that
school districts in other states were undertaking the
financial responsibility of upgrading the schools and
maintaining their military establishments because they
realized the importance of military bases to their economy.
Number 141
CHAIR BUNDE thanked everyone for their testimony and
instructed the committee to take a brief at-ease.
TAPE 94-10, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE reconvened the meeting at 3:45 p.m. and stated
that Rep. Kott arrived at 3:04 p.m. Chair Bunde brought
HB 84 to the table for discussion.
HB 84 - IMPLEMENT ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS
Chair Bunde stated that the committee would be working from
version U of CSHB 84.
Number 055
(See Attachment 1 for Ms. Douglas' prepared statement.)
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President, National Education
Association/Alaska (NEA/AK), testified in opposition to
HB 84. She stated that some believe that tenure is
synonymous with lifetime employment, but she felt it was
untrue. It was her belief that the current tenure process
protects teachers' academic freedom and protects schools
from the spoils of bureaucracy. She said the current tenure
system continued to encourage effective teaching and at the
same time allowed for dismissal and nonrenewal on the
grounds of incompetence, immorality, or failure to comply
with school system regulations.
MS. DOUGLAS continued by saying that administrators are
trained to evaluate and coordinate various resources to
develop staff, but there are situations where the
administrators do not have the time to address all the needs
of others. She stated that weakening tenure would not help
administrators do better jobs. She also felt that "creating
tenure review committees cannot do this because of lack of
money, authority, time, and staff needed to insure a
successful staff development and evaluation program.
Schools are burdened with too many mandates from the local,
state and federal levels. Both the teachers and
administrators are expected to do more, but are allocated
nothing to accomplish the expectations." She felt the
proposal would create new bureaucracy to complicate the
evaluation process.
MS. DOUGLAS expressed concern, stating that by removing
teachers from already overcrowded classrooms to serve on
tenure review committees would be costly and would add to
the overcrowding problem. She questioned as to whether
school districts would be expected to fund the tenure review
committee, meetings, in-service training, etc. She also
felt that a two-tier tenure system would be confusing and
divisive and that litigation could be expected, perhaps
resulting in the rise of insurance premiums for the school
district.
MS. DOUGLAS stated that the problem is not tenure and the
public did not believe it to be a problem either, referring
to results from a study last year by the DOE. She felt that
the system for preparing teachers for the classroom must be
improved, that the process used to select teachers for
employment should be reviewed, and that the procedure used
to evaluate and develop teachers must become a vehicle to
empower teachers.
Number 275
CHAIR BUNDE expressed his intention to end up with
legislation that will serve Alaska teachers in the very best
way possible.
Number 291
REP. G. DAVIS stated that public perception seemed to be an
issue that the committee was dealing with. He said perhaps
the public did not see the additional work that has been put
on teachers and administrators. He asked Ms. Douglas if she
felt that was why the common citizen does not have a grasp
of all their duties and that perhaps all the public can see
and address is tenure.
Number 324
MS. DOUGLAS agreed and said that the public, for the most
part, did not understand the demands on both administration
and teachers and they tend to personalize tenure if they
have had a bad experience with one teacher. She felt that
the problem that has given tenure a bad name was that it
protected a number of "bad" teachers.
Number 376
CHAIR BUNDE stated for the record that he was a very strong
supporter of tenure and that he wanted tenure strengthened,
not eliminated.
CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged Terry Cramer from Legislative Legal
Services and offered her expertise to anyone with questions
with legal terminology.
Number 452
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), testified in favor of CSHB 84. He stated
that he was unsure of the appropriateness of the legislation
towards Alaska 2000 regarding issues of the actual delivery
system in education, of governance at state and local levels
(who's responsible for what?), and of the funding of
education in the future. He felt that these were the
critical issues that needed to be discussed.
MR. ROSE said that he was concerned that the PTA did not
want to be involved in the advisory board process. He
stated that the parents viewed education as a very political
process and they did not want to be involved in the politics
of education. He felt there needed to be systemic change
that would address the politics involved that keeps the PTA
away from participating.
MR. ROSE expressed concerns about tenure. He wanted to
speak to the standards set for tenure. He listed the four
reasons that allow administration to nonretain,
incompetence, immorality, substantial noncompliance, and
reduction in enrollment. Under that scenario, he said that
he appreciated the language of "deficient performance." He
felt that incompetence was more than sufficient reason to
remove a teacher, but if the scale were incompetence and
excellence, he asked what would be done about substandard or
average or below average performance. He asserted that
students deserve better. Mr. Rose referred to Terry Cramer
when he asked what the language "deficient performance"
meant as compared to incompetent.
MR. ROSE stated that the inclusion of committees and public
access within the proposal indicates change and a
considerable amount of money. He indicated that the system,
so far, has evolved through the process of "oil money" and
in the future the school districts cannot depend on that
revenue. He stated that the issue of permanent fund dollars
being set aside to fund education and perpetuity does two
things: it isolates education as a high priority, and
relieves the strain on the general fund for the rest of
government.
MR. ROSE said these issues are crucial and no one seems to
be addressing them.
Number 663
CHAIR BUNDE reminded Mr. Rose that the committee substitute
(CS) was a distillation of Governor Hickel's bill. He said
that he chose the word "deficiency," intending it to be a
community standard suggesting local flexibility. However,
at this point, Chair Bunde said he was considering changing
"deficiency" to "incompetency" because incompetence is
defined in statute.
Number 710
MR. ROSE felt that the current definition of "incompetence"
is inadequate and would not ensure quality in classrooms.
He urged Chair Bunde to retain the standard of "deficiency."
Number 739
CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on HB 84. He said that
he wanted to amend version U of CSHB 84 to remove Section 1,
citing that the CS was "no longer the Alaska 2000 bill that
began a year ago. It is a fraction and has become (I will
still maintain it is) an attempt to implement some of the
Alaska 2000 requests that came originally from the
governor." He opened to the committee for discussion the
topic of "incompetence" versus "deficient."
Number 769
REP. VEZEY said that deficiency is not a high enough
standard, citing that mediocre or substandard should be
grounds for dismissal. "If your goal is excellence, you
have to set high standards and mediocrity may not be good
enough to meet that standard."
Number 796
CHAIR BUNDE said he understood Rep. Vezey's point.
Number 802
REP. TOOHEY made a motion to delete Section 1 of CSHB 84.
CHAIR BUNDE, hearing no objection, stated that Section 1,
was deleted. He then asked Terry Cramer for the statutory
definition of incompetence.
Number 810
TERRY CRAMER, Attorney, Legislative Counsel, Legislative
Affairs Agency, stated that she had drafted the tenure
section of CSHB 84. She listed the reasons, from statute,
that a teacher may be nonretained. AS 14.20.175 in statutes
reads as follows: "incompetency...which is defined as the
inability or the unintentional or intentional failure to
perform the teacher's customary teaching duties in a
satisfactory manner."
Number 833
CHAIR BUNDE said that was below average performance. The
enforcement of the definition, he said, lies within the
interpretation of the school administration.
Number 843
REP. OLBERG shared his solution to the tenure problem. He
said that teachers should be graded numerically on
performance by a single form used statewide. A teacher
would be retained for a 51 or above and would be nonretained
at 50 and below. He stated that a definition could not be
agreed upon for incompetent or substandard. He continued to
say that he has undergone performance reviews that were
subjective evaluations with a number attached to it.
Number 875
CHAIR BUNDE responded that he would not want to use the same
form to evaluate a special education teacher for the
handicapped and an advanced honors English teacher.
Number 883
REP. OLBERG said he felt that the subject taught made no
difference, the standard should be the same for all
teachers.
Number 909
REP. VEZEY felt that whatever standard is proposed could be
litigated and said what was needed was the authority of an
administrator to build a competent faculty.
Number 929
REP. OLBERG said, "aren't we saying now, if you are not
incompetent, you are eligible for tenure?"
Number 934
CHAIR BUNDE agreed.
Number 935
REP. B. DAVIS said what was just read was the process used
to have a teacher removed, not to guarantee tenure. She
also gave an example of how she thought tenure could cause
problems. She said that perhaps in a small district that
has just a few teachers there might rise an occasion where
they want to hire on a teacher that has all the
qualifications that is required for a position that has been
filled for sometime. She said that if there is no just
cause, the teacher could not be replaced. Rep. B. Davis
continued on to say that of the eight years she served on
the school board committee, not one parent came to the
school board meeting or talked to her personally about
tenure or its removal.
Number 012
CHAIR BUNDE stated that it was his feeling that it would be
impossible to come up with a form that could grade every
teacher in every different school district in the state. He
further stated that to be judged by a "jury of your peers"
would be a more fair process than to be judged by one person
that may have a personal conflict with the teacher being
evaluated.
Number 068
REP. B. DAVIS related to Chair Bunde that the problem facing
the teachers is that they are not trained administrators and
have not been trained to evaluate. She also stated that the
process could be done by choice at the local level and not
be a mandate from the state. She then asked if the school
districts would buffer the cost for substitute teachers or
would the money be appropriated along with the bill.
Number 081
CHAIR BUNDE said that over a year's time the evaluating
committee would observe for approximately an hour. He said
teachers can recognize excellence in teaching and can
recognize incompetence.
Number 099
REP. B. DAVIS recommended that Chair Bunde read the copy of
a letter sent to the committee from the Anchorage School
District.
Number 109
REP. G. DAVIS said the committee should include the
principal.
TAPE 94-11, SIDE A
Number 000
REP. G. DAVIS made the committee aware that copies of his
proposed amendments were in their bill packets.
(See Attachment 2 for the copy of the proposed amendment.)
Number 007
CHAIR BUNDE asked if everyone in the audience had a copy.
REP. B. DAVIS made a motion to move the amendment.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that the amendment had been moved and it
was up for discussion.
REP. G. DAVIS summarized the intent of the amendment.
Page 4, line 16: He felt by reducing the size of the
committee that cost would decrease and it would also better
address the smaller school districts.
Page 4, line 17: Rep. G. Davis said it was a housekeeping
measure to reflect the aforementioned change.
Number 088
CHAIR BUNDE, in regards to inserting "regular" after "The"
on page 4, line 26, said he was unclear as to its intent.
Number 101
MS. CRAMER said that she chose to insert that in the draft
to ensure it was clear that the members she was speaking of
were the appointed members, not members that are added
school by school.
Number 115
REP. G. DAVIS stated that the following change on page 4,
line 26, addressed the makeup of the committee to include
the principal and a tenured teacher from the same school
that the teacher being evaluated works in.
Page 4, lines 27-28: Rep. G. Davis said this section deals
with the quorum issue in regards to the change in size of
the committee.
Page 5, line 1: Rep. G. Davis asserted that the amendment
deletes a paragraph that contains the public meeting
section.
Number 194
MS. CRAMER stated that it deletes the sentence that reads,
"the committee shall meet at a time and place that will
encourage public participation."
Number 198
REP. G. DAVIS expressed concern, stating that the process
should not be held open to the public and further stated
that it related to the Open Meetings Act as far as the
legalities of what needs to be made public and what does not
need to be made public.
Page 6, line 6: Rep. G. Davis said that the change also
related to the public meetings section.
Number 247
MS. CRAMER reiterated that it related to public meetings
requirements and public records.
Number 257
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Cramer, "on that last amendment, on
page 6, line 6... if the local school board disapproves
tenure for a teacher, a local board shall set out in writing
the reasons for disapproval. Is this what you're talking
about? It was my purpose there that the teacher would
receive written notification."
Number 271
MR. CRAMER said that the particular sentence he read would
remain and that the line taken out was "the meeting is
closed and documents remain private."
Number 281
REP. G. DAVIS continued on by saying that on page 6, lines
14-15, he would suggest to delete "The tenure review
committee for a school shall review the performance of each
tenured teacher every five years." He said that the
deletion would relate to the cost of the activities of the
committee. He felt that there need only be one review after
five years. He stated that the intent was to eliminate the
extended process and cost of the committee.
REP. G. DAVIS stated that from page 6, line 15 and on, the
term "committee" had been deleted and "reviewer" had been
inserted. He said there was concern over the word
"reviewer."
Number 355
MS. CRAMER interjected by saying that "the policy choice is
up to you...what the amendment does now is to leave to a
school board to identify who it is that the reviewer would
be. If you, as a legislative body, want to say it's the
school administrator, we should say so."
Number 361
CHAIR BUNDE stated that the amendments would be discussed
and voted on individually. He started with the first
proposal that would change the committee to five members.
Number 384
MS. CRAMER said that what she drafted was "three (members),
who are the generic ones and then from a school there is a
principal and a teacher. So, there would be for each tenure
review five people - the three ongoing members and the two
ad hoc members."
CHAIR BUNDE said he thought the thrust was to reduce the
number of members rather than have three roving members and
then a member from the school. He felt whatever the intent
was, he did not look favorably upon it.
Number 412
REP. G. DAVIS conveyed that his intent was to reduce the
overall size to a minimum of three but no more than five.
MS. CRAMER said that could be done, but the language, as
written, did not accomplish that.
Number 421
CHAIR BUNDE stressed that his original intent was to have a
majority of teachers and a representative of the school
board and a principal. He felt that to have three people,
one teacher, one principal, and one school board member,
would be to outvote the school teacher and would cause him
grave concern.
Number 441
REP. G. DAVIS said he did not propose to override a teacher
or any member. He felt that Chair Bunde's scenario placed
the teachers on the committee in a majority position and he
did not agree with that.
Number 457
CHAIR BUNDE said that with a majority of members as
teachers, a situation of intimidation or influence from the
principal would be less likely to exist.
Number 481
REP. BRICE referred the proposed change to page 4, line 17,
and stated that Chair Bunde's concerns were being addressed
by the very language of the proposed change, citing that
teachers still are the majority of the committee.
Number 525
CHAIR BUNDE felt that there were problems with that section
of the amendment, stating that perhaps the drafter and the
amender had different goals in mind.
Number 546
REP. VEZEY commented that nine members was an unworkable
number for a working committee and that eleven was
unreasonable. He felt seven to be maximum and five to be
the better number of members.
(Due to surrounding noise the question asked by Rep. Vezey
was inaudible.)
Number 563
CHAIR BUNDE said that he was open to discussion on that
point. He further stated that he agreed that nine members
was too many. He asked that the particular portion of the
amendment that addressed the size of the committee be
withdrawn and rewritten because the intention was not clear.
Number 609
REP. G. DAVIS agreed that nine was too many, but he
preferred his own wording of that section.
Number 613
REP. BRICE questioned how the wording would impact small,
single-site school districts. He added that he agreed with
Rep. G. Davis' intent.
Number 641
MR. ROSE commented that "the role of the school board member
is that of a policy maker not unlike a legislator, they're
legislators of their district. And, I think to include them
on a tenure committee is to move them into the executive
function. And, I don't think that that's what the design
is. I appreciate what you're trying to get to, but these
elected officials are responsible for all facets of the
educational system."
REP. BRICE agreed with Mr. Rose.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that tenure evaluation for smaller
schools would be costlier to evaluate because someone from a
neighboring school would have to take part.
Number 676
REP. BRICE interjected by asking about a one school district
and how the tenure process would work there.
Number 680
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Rose how the bill would impact single-
site schools with three teachers.
Number 682
MR. ROSE answered by saying that it would place
disproportionate value with decision-making.
Number 700
CHAIR BUNDE said that he thought there were no single-site
schools with less than five teachers.
Number 706
MR. ROSE said that there were such schools. He also added
that the issue of an administrator and a teacher or the
requirement for oversight for a committee in a small site
would be difficult to accomplish.
Number 722
REP. BRICE asked what the impact would be on the small
school if the committee was increased from three to five
members.
Number 726
MR. ROSE said that in most rural districts, perhaps a
district-wide committee would be more suitable.
Number 751
REP. VEZEY said that he supported changes that would
indicate a committee of three to five members with the
majority being tenured teachers and the minority being
appointed by the school board.
Number 777
CHAIR BUNDE reminded Rep. Vezey of Rep. G. Davis' intent to
have a school administrator on the committee and stated that
he agreed with that point. He said in order to make the
numbers work, school administrators needed to be on the
committee and not school board representatives.
Number 789
REP. VEZEY said that in the original bill there was no
mention of a school board member being on the committee,
citing that it said "...the school board will appoint the
members of the committee..."
Number 804
CHAIR BUNDE said that would be the route he would follow.
He further stated that the proposal suggests three to five
members to make the committee less cumbersome. He said he
was not going to ask for a vote on the proposed amendment,
but he and Rep. G. Davis would further discuss the amendment
to clean up the language.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that he wanted to continue discussions on
the issue of further review after tenure has been granted.
He said that his original intent was that after five years
of tenured teaching, the teacher would be reevaluated (still
maintaining tenure until found incompetent). He said there
had been previous discussion that there might be a less
threatening way to accomplish that. He reiterated that it
was a small number of teachers that "burn out" after a
period of time. He said the confidence in the teaching
profession would be strengthened by a reevaluation after
tenure is granted.
Number 882
REP. G. DAVIS said it was public perception that viewed
tenure as a safeguard from being fired.
CHAIR BUNDE thanked all those present.
Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR BUNDE
ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|