Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/27/1999 10:10 AM 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
March 27, 1999
10:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Co-Chair
Representative John Coghill, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Joe Green
Representative Carl Morgan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Allen Kemplen
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 85
"An Act relating to licensure and professional discipline of
members of the teaching profession and providing for related
penalties; relating to grounds for dismissal of a teacher; relating
to the Professional Teaching Practices Commission; relating to
limited immunity for procedures under the Educator Ethics Act;
making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 85 OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 129
"An Act excluding school principals from collectively bargaining
under the Public Employment Relations Act."
- MOVED HB 129 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 11(FIN)
Urging the Congress of the United States to provide federal
education funds as a block grant to the state.
- MOVED CSSJR 11(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 85
SHORT TITLE: TEACHERS' LICENSES, DISCIPLINE & ETHICS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/10/99 186 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/10/99 186 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
2/10/99 186 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
2/10/99 186 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
3/04/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/04/99 (H)
3/27/99 (H) HES AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 129
SHORT TITLE: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING; PRINCIPALS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) OGAN, Kohring
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/05/99 368 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/05/99 368 (H) HES, L&C
3/27/99 (H) HES AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SJR 11
SHORT TITLE: EDUCATION BLOCK GRANTS
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/24/99 351 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/24/99 351 (S) FIN
3/11/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/11/99 (S) MOVED CS (FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/11/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/11/99 474 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 1NR SAME TITLE
3/11/99 474 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,
GREEN,
3/11/99 474 (S) PETE KELLY; NR: ADAMS
3/12/99 493 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.FIN)
3/13/99 (S) RLS AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/13/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/15/99 544 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/15/99
3/15/99 545 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/15/99 545 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
3/15/99 545 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
3/15/99 545 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR 11(FIN)
3/15/99 545 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
3/15/99 546 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
3/16/99 571 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
3/16/99 572 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/17/99 488 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/17/99 489 (H) HES, FINANCE
3/27/99 (H) HES AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
SANNA GREEN, Executive Director
Professional Teaching Practices Commission (PTPC)
344 West Third Avenue, Suite 127
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-6579
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 85.
TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General
Fair Business Practices Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-5225
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 85.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3878
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 129.
TODD HESS, Principal
Baxter Elementary School
3206 West 64th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 243-8974
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 129.
ANDRE' LAYRAL, Principal
North Pole Middle School
President
Alaska Association of Secondary School Principals
720 Cardinal Court
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-0973
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 129.
KEITH TATON, Principal
Central Middle School of Science
4814 Malibu Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 243-8818
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 129.
DON CHICARELL, Principal
Iditarod Elementary School
P.O. Box 873443
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-5371
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 129.
TIMOTHY DORAN, Principal
Denali Elementary School
512 Windsor Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 452-2456
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 129.
SOPHIA MASEWICZ, Principal
Romig Middle School
President
Anchorage Principals Association
2001 Shore Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 344-3269
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 129.
ERIC HENDERSON, Principal
Wasilla Middle School
President
Mat-Su Principals Association
P.O. Box 2501
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 376-7311
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 129.
KYRA AIZSTRAUTS, Principal
University Park Elementary School
P.O. Box 233
Ester, Alaska 99725
Telephone: (907) 476-3035
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 129.
MICHAEL GRAHAM, Assistant Principal
East Anchorage High School
Assistant Principal At-Large
Alaska Association of Secondary School Principals, (AASSP)
Assistant Principal Representative
Anchorage Principals Association
4831 Ridge Top Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 337-9913
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 129.
CAROL KANE, Executive Director
Alaska Association of Secondary School Principals (AASSP)
P.O. Box 2889
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 746-9300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 129.
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
National Education Association Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 9980
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 129.
LEWIS SEARS, Principal
Bartlett High School
13030 Admiralty Place
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 345-3367
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 129.
FRED GIDDINGS, Principal
Bayshore Elementary School
11500 Bayshore Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 349-1514
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 129.
MARY JOHNSTONE, Principal,
Susitna Elementary School
President
Alaska Association of Elementary School Principals
7500 Tyone Court
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 337-1583
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 129.
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 508
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3892
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SJR 11.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-26, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Dyson, Coghill,
Whitaker, Green and Morgan.
HB 85 - TEACHERS' LICENSES, DISCIPLINE & ETHICS
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL announced the first order of business as House
Bill No. 85, "An Act relating to licensure and professional
discipline of members of the teaching profession and providing for
related penalties; relating to grounds for dismissal of a teacher;
relating to the Professional Teaching Practices Commission;
relating to limited immunity for procedures under the Educator
Ethics Act; making conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0215
SANNA GREEN, Executive Director, Professional Teaching Practices
Commission (PTPC), testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
She said the PTPC asks that this bill be passed because it
strengthens and facilitates the commission's actions and more
accurately reflects what they actually do. They have had increased
duties dealing with denial and background checks. Teresa Williams
has helped them codify their policies and regulations.
Number 0290
TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General, Fair Business
Practices Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She referred the
committee to the sectional analysis attached to the bill. First of
all, the State Board of Education asked that the name of the
teacher's certificate be changed to license, so that necessitated
a number of changes.
MS. WILLIAMS referred to Section 2 of HB 85. Currently the power
of the PTPC and the Department of Education (DOE) to obtain a
criminal history background check is obscure in the statute. This
would make it clear that the DOE has this power and would expand
the power to include a person who was found not guilty by reason of
insanity. Clearly, this is a necessary check to obtain on a person
who wants to teach in the school.
Number 0430
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to page 2, Section 2 (c) and asked if
someone could be removed if they were to have been found to be a
problem during their tenure.
MS. WILLIAMS said actually Section 2 only discusses the information
that the DOE will have to review to determine whether or there are
problems; whether action is taken, based on that information, would
be under Section 3 and later in the bill under discipline. Section
2 just gives the DOE the power to obtain information in order to
make an inquiry whether this person is fit to be a teacher.
MS. WILLIAMS said the governor's office forwarded over the
amendments and is requesting that they be offered as a committee
substitute. In answer to Representative Green's question, she
pointed out on the amendment, page 2, line 17, there will be a
substitution to subsection (c) to specify exactly when a criminal
background check will be requested at time of renewal.
Number 0609
MS. WILLIAMS said Section 3 is new because there is no provision in
statute that states when a teacher license will be denied. They
have compiled different provisions that would warrant denial and
put together a list of bases for denial. There will be permissive
basis for denial which include if a person lies about their
criminal history; if a person has surrendered a teacher certificate
in another state and is under investigation there; or if their
certificate was revoked or suspended in other jurisdictions.
MS. WILLIAMS noted that Section 3 subsection (c) allows the DOE to
suspend processing of an application for a license if a person has
an unresolved criminal proceeding or a disciplinary proceeding in
another state. Section 3, subsection (d) is new and allows for
conditional licensing. If a person had problems in another state
or has limitations this would allow a person to be licensed but
only conditionally.
Number 0754
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said he assumes that Ms. Williams has
checked to be sure they are in compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) in Section 3 subsection (d) (1) which states
"The applicant is physically or mentally incapably of performing
some, but not all, of the functions of the teaching profession;"
MS. WILLIAMS said it would conform with the ADA because a person
who might not be appropriate for a full license could get a
certificate recognizing those physical limitations, so that they
could accommodate that person.
Number 0811
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER wondered if she had verified this; that it
was not solely her opinion.
MS. WILLIAMS said she has discussed this other people in her office
and clearly any enforcement of this provision would need to promote
the ADA rather than in any way infringe the ADA.
Number 0839
MS. WILLIAMS said Section 3, subsection (e) provides for
restrictions on re-applications. This includes a problem which
some of the other occupational licenses have had where a person is
denied a license, and then the next day they reapply. This would
put a restriction on reapplication and set standards for what would
need to be done at the time of reapplication.
Number 0876
MS. WILLIAMS said that Section 3 subsection (f) provides a
statutory provision for what happens and what the process would be
if the DOE denied a license; subsection (g) creates a statutory
provision that clarifies that full reporting of final decisions on
denying a license is required.
Number 0910
MS. WILLIAMS said Section 4 makes the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) applicable to review of denial. Section 5 deals with teacher
discipline by a school district; instead of duplicating the
language, there will be a cross reference.
Number 0962
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if Section 5 limits the ability of the
board to deal with a teacher on the basis of incompetency.
MS. WILLIAMS said that is still in there; grounds for discipline,
listed under 14.20.372, does include competency.
Number 0986
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked how the board ascertains or evaluates
incompetency.
MS. WILLIAMS said that is a difficult proposition to prove at the
state level. They would rely upon the expertise of the district to
determine whether a person is incompetent and put together the
record showing incompetency. It would probably have been a
discipline proceeding or termination proceeding at a district
level, and then the PTPC would need to align that record to put
together its own case. These are tricky and expensive cases to put
together.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if there have been cases in recent history
of teachers being decertified for incompetency.
MS. WILLIAMS said incompetency has been listed as a ground, but
they have not had a license revocation on the sole ground of
incompetency.
Number 1067
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the term "moral turpitude" is defined in
law or in state code.
MS. WILLIAMS said "moral turpitude" is used in a number of places
in state statutes. It is a term that is fairly ambiguous. The
PTPC recently adopted regulations that specified crimes of moral
turpitude, as have the Department of Corrections and the Division
of Elections. The term "moral turpitude" means it would be a crime
even if there weren't a statute that said it was a crime. It is
something that society historically has said was wrong in itself.
Number 1124
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL referred to the said proposed regulations in 20
AAC 10.050 defining moral turpitude which lists about 28 things.
MS. WILLIAMS said those were just adopted by the PTPC and go into
effect April 5, 1999.
Number 1144
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if HB 85 strengthens the board's ability to
deal with a teacher on the basis of moral turpitude.
MS. WILLIAMS said it doesn't change it; it keeps the same level of
authority.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the amendments change that at all.
MS. WILLIAMS said no.
Number 1173
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked why the amendments were late in getting
processed.
Number 1188
MS. WILLIAMS apologized for the lateness; there was confusion
between her office and the governor's office about who was going to
get them down to the committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if somebody will speak to and defend the
board's draft as drafted, and why they didn't have the
modifications that the amendments speak to.
Number 1225
MS. WILLIAMS said the bill as drafted was circulated to the Alaska
Association of School Administrators, the National Education
Association and other teaching groups. Those groups made comments
and then the PTPC went through the comments and made some changes.
She commented on a question about the language on page 5 of HB 85,
lines 17-18, which deletes the term as "as defined by the
commission in regulation." Because the commission already has the
overall power to define terms by regulation, it wasn't necessary to
reiterate that here.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the PTPC has had a chance to look at
these proposed amendments.
MS. WILLIAMS said the PTPC met Monday and agreed with the
amendments.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if there was something formal from them
saying that they endorse these amendments.
MS. WILLIAMS answered that the minutes of the meeting were
available.
MS. WILLIAMS explained that Section 6, Grounds for discipline was
formerly AS 14.20.030. Incompetency is still a grounds for
discipline under Section 6, subsection (1). The definition for
immorality in subsection (2) is the same definition currently in
law. Section 6, subsection (3) and subsection (4) are the same. In
subsection (5), they moved a regulatory provision to statute. In
subsection (6), breach of contract is further explained by cross
referencing the regulatory provisions.
Number 1428
MS. WILLIAMS said Section 6 subsection (7) provides for discipline
if a person has been disciplined in another state; subsection (8)
surrender of a license in another state; subsection (9) failure to
comply with a condition or limitation placed on a license. Section
6, subsection (b) is a provision that was put in by the legislature
about five years ago and strengthened in the last session. They
are changing it here because under the current language there was
a suggestion that there would have to be an accusation at a
hearing, even though this revocation should be automatic. They
redrafted the language to clarify that this revocation would be
automatic upon receipt of a judgement of conviction. The other
part added here is if a person has had a license revoked as result
of such a conviction, that person may not be employed as a member
of the teaching profession, regardless of whether that employment
requires a license. For example, counselors are not required to
have a license, but they are members of the teaching profession.
MS. WILLIAMS said Section 6 (c) makes it clear that judgment of
conviction is conclusive evidence and includes a plea of nolo
contendre; subsection (d) says in order to prove reciprocal
discipline, all they need is the document from the other agency.
Section 14.20.375, Disciplinary actions are clarified here. The
commissioner has always had authority to revoke a license,
subsection (a) makes it clear.
MS. WILLIAMS mentioned they changed the named of the PTPC to the
Educator Ethics Commission because it makes it clear about what
they are and is easier to say.
Number 1559
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON commented that he appreciates the desire to
eliminate the tongue twister. He wondered if ethics seems to
preclude them dealing with competency.
MS. WILLIAMS said she didn't think so. Clearly the statute gives
authority to the issue of incompetency.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON respectfully disagreed. As a layman, he doesn't
think ethics denotes competency, but it sure is easier to say.
MS. WILLIAMS said the title of the commission may not state all the
functions of the commission, but the commission, under the bill and
current law, clearly has the authority to deal with the issue of
incompetency.
Number 1603
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said he thought competency might include ethics,
but he is not sure ethics includes competency.
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL said in the amendments the changing of the word
chapter to section, it seems to him to limit within only the scope
of that particular section rather than the overall chapter, and he
asked what was the intent.
MS. WILLIAMS said it was really a matter of fine tuning the
language to be clearer.
Number 1647
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL said there was some disagreement with that, but
for the record, it looks like it narrows the scope, but it also
seems to confuse how any particular section might be applied
throughout the whole chapter.
MS. WILLIAMS said they tried to consolidate this particular section
all under grounds for disciplinary action. For that reason they
thought it should be here. If it is not here, then they have a
problem. She added that the committee could come up with another
appropriate name for the commission if they wished.
MS. WILLIAMS referred to page 7 of HB 85 and said they used the
occupational licensing board for a model in this section.
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL asked for clarification on the amendment, page
8, following line 17, which states:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(E) At the teacher's request, the commission or the
commissioner shall stay the proceedings on an accusation
under this section if the teacher has requested a hearing
before the school board or invoked grievance procedures
under AS 14.20.180 from a dismissal or nonretention
decision based on the same allegations as those made in
the accusation. A stay under this subsection does not
preclude the commission from summarily suspending a
license under (d) of this section. The proceedings on an
accusation are stayed until a final decision on the
nonretention or dismissal is reached under AS 14.20.180.
The commission or commissioner shall give deference to,
but is not bound by, a final decision under AS 14.20.180.
The commission or commissioner shall state good cause for
rejecting a finding of fact made in a final decision
under AS 14.20.180. the commission or commissioner may
supplement the record with additional evidence on whether
there are grounds for discipline under AS 14.20.372 and
what discipline may be appropriate under his section."
MS. WILLIAMS said this is an important section. This provision
would parallel current practice to a large extent. The action
would be stayed pending the conclusion of the school district
matter. If the commission or commissioner were to reject the
finding of fact made by the other body it would state good cause
for rejecting finding of fact. The commission or the commissioner
would have the power to supplement the record with additional
evidence.
Number 1851
MS. WILLIAMS continued that in subsection (c) under disciplinary
actions, they made it clear that a teacher may not surrender a
license without approval of the commission. People are anxious to
surrender a license to somehow avoid a record when there are
serious allegations. In subsection (d), she said the DOE has never
had the power to summarily suspend a license, and certainly that is
an important deficiency that needs to be remedied. The language
parallels the language of the occupational licensing statutes.
Subsection (e) is existing law.
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL asked for clarification on the amendment, page
7, line 7.
MS. WILLIAMS said this was a change made by the Department of Law
which makes it clearer.
Number 1949
MS. WILLIAMS continued with subsection (f) which is existing law,
but they added the power to impose a civil fine; subsection (g) is
something that is already done, but this will clearly place it in
statute. Section 14.20.378 is new and provides for reinstatement
after suspension or revocation.
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL asked if it would be one year from revocation.
MS. WILLIAMS said in the current law under APA, if a license is
suspended or revoked, a person can apply for reinstatement after a
year. This would change it so they couldn't apply until five
years.
MS. WILLIAMS said the rest of this section deals with the whole
procedures on reinstatement. Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 had
technical changes or were simplified and clarified. Section 12
subsection (b) is new so the commission can adopt the hearing
officer's proposed findings of fact in their entirety and increase
or change the proposed disciplinary action.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if that can go in the other direction as
well.
MS. WILLIAMS answered yes, they can decrease as well. That is
already provided in the APA.
Number 2171
MS. WILLIAMS said Section 13 is new providing for confidentiality
of the investigative file. Subsection (b) deals with
confidentiality with reference to minors and how to handle that
during a meeting.
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL said it was his understanding that this is
broader than has been used.
MS. WILLIAMS said this is the way the commission has been
operating, so it would be nice to have the provision.
Number 2194
MS. WILLIAMS said Section 14.20.478, Limitation of liability is
new; Section 15 is new; this issue of forged certificates has come
up twice in the last year. There is no current power to do
anything other than looking through the criminal code and finding
something that can be utilized. This section provides similar
criminal penalties for persons who work as a teacher without a
license.
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL noticed they are inserting one of the
amendments here.
Number 2246
MS. WILLIAMS said that is to clarify because there was a concern
that this was making licensed teachers subject to criminal
penalties.
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL said this section is dealing with teachers who
may have lied about that. He asked if this should reflect that in
saying who should be licensed.
MS. WILLIAMS said yes it does say that here.
MS. WILLIAMS said the other changes in the rest of the sections are
all technical changes.
Number 2306
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL commented that it is his understanding that
these amendments were something that was brought forward from the
governor's office.
MS. WILLIAMS said yes, the governor's office had requested that
these amendments be adopted by the committee, and the commission
has looked at these and ratified that these are appropriate
amendments.
TAPE 99-26, SIDE B
Number 2327
MS. GREEN said that the commission has gone through this bill and
the amendments, and they have approved them. They find them
important, and they codified a lot of the things. Some of the
things they need to have in statute, and this clarified a lot of
those things scattered throughout policies and regulations.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked what further referrals this bill has and
found out it goes on to the Judiciary Committee.
Number 2217
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON made a motion to move HB 85 from the committee
with individual recommendations. There being no objection, HB 85
moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services
Committee without the amendments.
HB 129 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING; PRINCIPALS
Number 2207
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL announced the next order of business as House
Bill No. 129, "An Act excluding school principals from collectively
bargaining under the Public Employment Relations Act."
Number 2174
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
presented HB 129. He said it adds principals to AS 23.40.256 along
with superintendents, thus making collective bargaining unavailable
to both groups of administrators. The purpose of HB 129 is to keep
principals clear of collective agreements. He feels that
principals should serve as part of the management team of
co-administrators; as one principal commented "not to make but
enforce policy."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that boards are an extension of the
public; superintendents are an extension of the board and
principals are an extension of the superintendent. This bill was
introduced to help keep this chain of administration clear and
unbroken. He compared the relationship of superintendent and
principals to that of the governor and commissioners, and he asked
would the governor have them serve at the pleasure of the governor
or have them be part of the collective bargaining process. The
school board should set the policy; the school board hires the
superintendent to carry out that policy; and principals simply need
to be part of that management team.
Number 2077
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN read a letter of testimony from Dr. Robert A.
Lehman, Superintendent, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District,
dated March 24, 1999, which states:
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on House Bill
129. I am sorry that due to a prior commitment, I am
unable to deliver my comments in person. I appreciate
Representative Ogan reading this into the record on my
behalf. I would like to recognize Scott Ogan for the
foresight and awareness that led to his introduction of
this bill, which would eliminate the unionization of
school principals.
To be candid, when I first reviewed this legislation I
had mixed feelings about it. This bill proposes a change
in the way that we do business as educators. As both an
experienced superintendent and trainer of school
administrators, I felt an obligation to consider how this
legislation would affect the children of Alaska. Several
hours of contemplating this and discussing it with
colleagues failed to generate one single reason that the
unionization of principals in any way enhances student
achievement.
In order to validate my findings, I surveyed professional
research on principal unionization. I found that the
elimination of principal unions and tenure is a national
issue. Within the past few years several states,
including Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina,
Wisconsin and Oregon have eliminated the unionization of
school leaders. New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania
are moving in this direction. Is it coincidental that
these are some of the same states that have made the most
progress in moving toward standards based instruction and
accountability? According to the National Association of
Secondary School Principals, only in 16 states, Alaska
included, do principals receive tenure or equivalent
rights to a continuing contract.
Why is the concept of collective bargaining for
principals on the endangered species list? There are
several reasons to eliminate unionization at this level.
The first has to do with the core of the principal's job.
Let's make no bones about the fact that schools fail
primarily because of poor teaching. Textbooks may be
outdated or in short supply, teachers may be underpaid,
classes may be too large and parents may even be
neglectful, but new books, affluent teachers, smaller
classes and attentive parents alone do not insure
students learning. We seem to have lost sight of the
main reason for principals. They exist not to maintain
the status quo, but rather to lead the development of an
effective learning relationship between teachers and
students. Principals must be empowered to produce
results in this realm and then be held accountable for
those results.
Another reason that principals should be released from
the constraints of unions has to do with the amount of
authority delegated to them. They should have a great
deal of authority. They need the freedom to organize
their schools in a way that makes the best use of
available resources for students. It is up to us as
superintendents to foster the growth of principals and to
determine how much power to delegate to each at any given
time. Principals will end up with real authority and
respect from the staff and community if they earn it
through their actions. They cannot command it based on
a union agreement, which by its nature has a ceiling
defined by the limitations of the least qualified
members. Rather than bargain collectively, they should
actively be set free to compete to the ultimate benefit
of excellence in schooling.
Additionally, most districts employ a management team
operation. This provides a structure for administrators
to participate in management planning under the
leadership of the superintendent. The elimination of
unions will allow principals to be included in the team
and to help shape the formulation of policy.
Educational policy has to do with the specific things
that make quality education happen. School boards set
policy in terms of goals and purposes. They approve
specific policies drawn by the administrative team. In
this process, the first hand experience and perspective
of principals is essential to the making of sound
policies. Good policy is designed from diverse
viewpoints, independent thinking, and objectivity. It
also considered the minority viewpoint. Unions foster
single points of view.
The most compelling reason that principals should stay
out of unions is the fact that principals are management.
Success should be measured based on how well the job is
done in comparison to others in similar roles.
We want principals to continue to have a great influence
on school systems in Alaska. We need to empower
principals who unashamedly do the job better than anybody
else and who want a reward system based on performance.
These things are the bane and peril of unions. They also
have little attraction for principals who are interested
only in keeping the lid on and avoiding change.
The passage of this bill will be a landmark in your
efforts to stop the decline of our system and enable us
to improve the quality of instruction. As Sitting Bull
said, "It is time to put our minds together and see what
we can do for our children." The children of Alaska
deserve no less.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he would like to associate himself
entirely with those comments.
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL said he finds that a very refreshing, honest
appraisal showing clear delineation between management and
teachers.
Number 1836
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN read another letter from the Association of
Alaska School Boards which states:
Collective Bargaining for Principals. The Association of
Alaska School Boards supports House Bill 129, which
exempts principals from collective bargaining under the
Public Employee Relations Act as Class (a)(3) employees
with the unlimited right to strike.
This bill helps clarify that as educational leaders,
principals are part of the management team. School
boards do not believe it is appropriate to be negotiating
with their front line people who articulate the district
vision and mission within our communities and help
implement strategies for effective public education.
We need to empower our principals to act as leaders, and
let them take the risks necessary to organize their
schools using available resources in a way that best
promotes student achievement. Ties to unions can
sometimes hinder that progress.
AASB believes that treating principals as management,
while maintaining student contact, classroom instruction,
and evaluating teachers, allows them to help shape the
formulation of policy in a more meaningful way. Good
policy is designed from diverse viewpoints. Let's give
principals one more reason to think outside the box, to
do whatever it takes to help improve student performance
in the least restrictive environment.
Number 1716
TODD HESS, Principal, Baxter Elementary School, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He is not in favor of HB 129. He
has worked in the education field for over 24 years. One thing he
has not seen from his perspective was what the sponsor has
characterized unionization of principals; he has seen the process
of collective bargaining which provides a structure to the process
that has worked very effectively for the public school systems in
Alaska. It lays out expectations, ground rules and individual
(indisc). He does agree that the principals are representatives of
the superintendent and school board, and they do follow and
implement district policy.
Number 1645
ANDRE' LAYRAL, President, Alaska Association of Secondary School
Principals, Principal, North Pole Middle School, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks. He has completed his 25th year as
an educator in Alaska; the past 22 years have been in Fairbanks.
He has been a principal the past seven years at North Pole Middle
School. This bill adds principals to AS 23.40.250 (6) along with
superintendents which makes collective bargaining unavailable to
both groups of administrators. He stated that currently,
superintendents are hired and supervised by elected bodies, and
therefore they are not collective.
MR. LAYRAL established under AS 23.40.070 (1), it recognizes the
right of public employees to organize for the purpose of collective
bargaining. Under the same statute, it requires "public employers
to negotiate with and enter into written agreements with employee
organizations on matters of wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment;" Principals are employed by the district
so HB 129 fails to recognize this statute. The purpose of HB 129
is to keep principals clear of collective bargaining agreements,
and in effect negating their status of public employees and will
violate Alaska statute. Under the same statute, it states "public
employees have been granted the right to share in the
decision-making process affecting wages and working conditions,
they have become more responsive and better able to exchange ideas
and information on operations with their administrators."
MR. LAYRAL said currently, school principals are subordinates who
are evaluated by the superintendent and are not involved in joint
decision making and are not part of a district office staff;
rather, they lead and manage schools which are part of the
district. Under HB 129, principals would lose this voice in
determining their conditions of work paving the way for arbitrary
reassignment, removal from their positions without just cause and
would have no formal means of appeal of grievances in termination
nor representation.
MR. LAYRAL pointed out that the role of principal is a complex one.
Not unlike superintendents, they operate in politically charged
environments while focusing on student learning, school safety and
bridging their community expectations for school and district
goals, while building partnerships to sustain their efforts at
achieving quality in Alaska. Whereas, a lack of job security
ability has a voice and working conditions and no means of
appealing decisions which affect their employment will further
restrict the ability of school districts to recruit and retain
qualified school principals and a market which predicts severe
shortages of principals in the United States. Principals have been
educational leaders during these frequent changes in
superintendents, and they deserve credit for providing the
necessary stability in district schools. The stability of schools
in Alaska often calls on longevity and commitment of dedicated
principals when there is high turnover of superintendents in
Alaska. Nationally, superintendents turn over about every three
years.
MR. LAYRAL concluded that it is so plainly obvious to him that the
impact of this bill will dramatically affect the quality of
education in Alaska that he is surprised that the sponsor cannot
see it as well. He hopes the committee will. He pointed out that
the timing of this bill is a distraction from their ability to
focus on the more serious educational issues before the state
following the passage of SB 36, and this causes him to question the
motives behind sponsoring such a divisive bill at this time.
Number 1441
KEITH TATON, Principal, Central Middle School of Science, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage. He has been in education for 31
years; 16 years have been in Alaska. He has served eight years on
Alaska Board of Principals and now serves on the National
Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). In his 16
years in the Anchorage School District, he has worked under several
superintendents. There has been much better superintendent
stability in Anchorage than in many districts across the state.
The national average for a superintendent across this country is
2.2 years. The number of years for principals in districts far
exceeds that. Part of the reason is collective bargaining. There
is a severe shortage of principals in this country, and here in
Alaska the problem will only be compounded if principals lose their
right to collective bargaining. Times have changed. Salaries in
Alaska no longer lead the nation. In fact, salaries for principals
in the post populated parts of the state, Kenai, Matanuska-Susitna
and Anchorage aren't even ranked close to the top when compared to
other districts. They should be looking for ways to encourage
principals to come and stay in Alaska, not create ways to drive
them off.
MR. TATON reported that according to NASSP, 70 percent of the
principals in the United States are now eligible for retirement or
will be in the next three years. He asked where are the principals
going to come from to fill the jobs in Alaska. The principal
provides stability to the district of this state. The principals
really do what is best for children, and they do it everyday. He
asked if they want turnover of principals like the turnover of
superintendents. He is sure the communities do not want that.
They want stability in their schools.
MR. TATON asked how will they implement standards if there is a
constant turnover of principals. "I can assure you that if you do
away with collective bargaining in this state, you will see
turnover in the principal ranks like you have never seen before.
Why are superintendents given multi year contracts? It is because
they are change agents that sometimes make decisions that in the
short term are not popular. We must look at ways of encouraging
principals not discouraging principals."
MR. TATON said he called the NASSP office yesterday, and they felt
there is not one state in the United States that does not provide
collective bargaining for principals. Alaska would be the only one
if this passed. He has talked to principals across the state, and
he has yet to find one principal in favor of this bill. "Do not be
misled, in closing let me clearly state that I oppose HB 129.
Collective bargaining works; has worked well for school districts
in Alaska and across the nation and should be in place to attract
and maintain good principals dedicated to providing quality
education for our students."
Number 1282
DON CHICARELL, Principal, Iditarod Elementary School, Professional
Rights and Responsibilities Chairperson representing Mat-Su
Principals Association, Member, Executive Board, Alaska Association
of Elementary School Principals, testified via teleconference from
the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Legislative Information Office
(LIO). He commented that there is not any money saving features in
this bill. He said if they use Dr. Lehman as a resource, in a
speech he gave last week at the Wasilla Chamber of Commerce, he
informed the public that "when you remove principals from
collective bargaining the salaries and benefits for them increase,
as they did with other administrators out of collective
bargaining." This is going to cost more money for the state in the
future.
MR. CHICARELL also added that to remove principals from collective
bargaining and the protections that principals have if they
advocate for their school community in order to keep administering
quality schools, who will be left to advocate for the school
communities. He said the bottom line of this bill is it can be
considered really a method of regulating principals' loyalty for
the top down mandate instead of having school community educators
advocate for the needs of those schools. If principals are removed
from collective bargaining, the protection they have to be able to
provide open, honest, critical analysis of the decisions that are
made throughout the state will also be removed. "If you believe
Dr. Lehman's information presented in his letter, then why haven't
the principals in Mat-Su been supported in working outside the box?
Those words sound good but he's leaving here and we're left to
maintain quality schools without him."
Number 1175
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Mr. Chicarell was the gentleman
involved in a grievance that was arbitrated recently.
MR. CHICARELL answered that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if it was a binding arbitration.
MR. CHICARELL said that's right.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said they ruled in your [Mr. Chicarell's]
favor.
MR. CHICARELL said that's correct. He added it was because the
administration used the evaluation procedure as a way of
retribution for principals speaking out in an open, honest fashion.
Number 1142
TIMOTHY DORAN, Principal, Denali Elementary School, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks. He has 18 years of educational
experience in Alaska. He is opposed to HB 129 on several fronts.
It arbitrarily removes a group of public employees from collective
bargaining and employment rights; this is unlike superintendents
who are sole members of their unit. Principals are building
administrators who are not district office administrators, and
therefore have a distinctly different role than the other excluded
persons under this bill. Principals represent significant
consistency in carrying out the educational efforts of the state
and local district. As such, they should be assured of a
consistency in their employment conditions.
MR. DORAN went on to say collective bargaining by principal
associations has a solid history of being beneficial to districts,
principles and education; included under that are teachers,
students and parents which should not be tossed aside in this
regard. This bill raises major questions regarding good faith
bargaining efforts on the part of both school districts and
principal associations which include current negotiating plans and
expectations of continuing collective bargaining under current
contract and establishing understanding.
MR. DORAN addressed two sponsor statements. The sponsor statement
suggests that principals should be excluded if they "not make, but
enforce policy." He pointed out that this is the same expectation
of all school district employees, public employees including
teachers in the classroom. They all share in the same
responsibilities, and principals should not be singled out as a
group in this regard. Further, the sponsor statement states that
"Principals should serve as part of a management team of
co-administrators." The fact is that principals are not
district-level decision makers; they are significantly different
than the superintendent and are merely advisory in influencing
school district policy set by the board and district administrative
regulations set by the superintendent. Therefore this assumption
by the sponsor is not reflective of the role of principals and
based on this, it underscores the fact that this bill should not
become law.
MR. DORAN concluded that the comments read earlier from Dr. Lehman
and the AASB have several good points; none of which are hindered
or ruled out by collective bargaining. They simply need to be
implemented. He strongly opposes this bill as being disruptive to
a proven process of addressing employment concerns, disruptive to
a process which provides stability in educational efforts and has
raised as many questions regarding current contract negotiations
and employment rights which this amendment to state statute has not
in any way addressed. He urged the committee to please defeat this
bill.
Number 0971
SOPHIA MASEWICZ, President, Anchorage Principals Association,
Principal, Romig Middle School, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. She has been a teacher and administrator in Anchorage
for the last 22 years. She is a representative of 119 association
members, which is the largest organization representing principals
in this state. She spoke against HB 129. She e-mailed 119
principals regarding the feedback on this bill and talked with a
number of principals on this issue, and none were supportive of
this bill. This bill would essentially eliminate a critical
component of the checks and balance system in education.
MS. MASEWICZ commented that principals are in a unique position
compared to superintendents, central administrations and board
members. They are on the front line of daily operation of the
schools. They are the instructional leaders, the managers, the
problem solvers, and the mediators in situations concerning
parents, teachers and central administration. They are also in the
position of protecting the rights of others because they have a
bird's-eye view and perspective of the situation. Because
principals have been able to collective bargain and negotiate
concerns in their contracts, that affects their ability to
effectively manage and be the instructional leaders in their
schools. They have protected the rights of children and parents;
they have been able to make decisions in the best interests of
those they truly serve.
MS. MASEWICZ said she has been in arbitrations involving teachers
which the issues often would drastically change principals'
abilities to make decisions that would be in the best interest of
students. She thinks this bill would be very detrimental to the
welfare of students and parents, and although they are an
association, their purpose and ethics would cause them to make
decisions in the best interest.
MS. MASEWICZ concluded that for the many reasons that principals
separated from NEA over 30 years ago, those similar reasons are the
ones they should not be aligned today with superintendents, and she
strongly urged the committee not to support this bill.
Number 0797
ERIC HENDERSON, Principal, Wasilla Middle School, President, Mat-Su
Principals Association, testified via teleconference from Mat-Su
LIO. He said the Mat-Su Principals Association opposes HB 129. He
quoted a couple of Representative Ogan's statements made on March
5 in a press release when this bill was introduced. "The public,
our superintendent and our school boards need a balance between
those who are representing collectively and those who are
responsible for the day-to-day management. Parents tell me school
principals are collectively working their own will outside of
district policy. That disturbs me."
MR. HENDERSON said if that is indeed the case, and Representative
Ogan has been getting a lot of complaints, they are baffled why he
hasn't reported those to the superintendent and the school board.
This is a citizen's responsibility if principals are acting outside
the school district policy, those principals need to be reported
and action needs to be taken. Actions that can be taken with
principals include the PTPC; superintendents can reprimand
principals with those regards; and the fact that principals are
tenured as a teacher and not as a principal, they have one year
contracts, is also another method in which superintendents can
remove principals who are not abiding by district policy.
MR. HENDERSON said that collective bargaining offers principals the
protection to do their job. This bill would take away that
protection and place principals in a position to respond to the
political whims of the superintendent, the school board and
legislators. In his tenure of 20 years in the Mat-Su they have
gone through eight superintendents. Each of those administrators
have been involved in political turmoil, and yet the schools have
managed to function and provide a quality education program in
spite of that political turmoil. If principals had to respond to
that political turmoil over the years, he doesn't think they would
have the stable education system they have now.
Number 0640
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded that he has addressed concerns to the
school board, to the superintendent, to the borough assembly
without satisfactory results. In fact, he got a letter from a
school board member on her attorney stationary threatening him with
litigation.
Number 0592
KYRA AIZSTRAUTS, Principal, University Park Elementary School,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She has been in
education for 14 years and an administrator for four years. She
spoke in opposition to HB 129. As a principal, she believes she
works as a public employee under the superintendent's direction.
She believes there is a very clear chain of command and principals
do not need to be eliminated from a bargaining unit; the chain of
command would still be very clear. She reiterated her colleagues'
previous comments in Mat-Su that they are truly under one year
contracts, and that there is no tenure for administrators in this
state; they are tenured by certified staff as a teacher. She
stated that the stability they provide is because they are a
strong, dedicated group of professionals. She has been an
administrator for four years under three superintendents. She
asked the committee to please reconsider passing this house bill
out of committee.
Number 0471
MICHAEL GRAHAM, Assistant Principal, East Anchorage High School,
Assistant Principal At-Large, Alaska Association of Secondary
School Principals, (AASSP), Assistant Principal Representative,
Anchorage Principals Association. He has been an administrator in
Anchorage for the past five years. He spoke against HB 129. He
noted that most secondary and some elementary principals begin
their administrative duties as assistant principals. Assistant
principals do an incredible number of tasks to ensure that schools
maintain a safe educational atmosphere. Students, parents,
teachers, counselors, coaches, public agencies and community
members work together and connect with staff and students in
schools. As both teacher and administrator, he always considered
himself to be a public employee. If collective bargaining is taken
away from the administrators, they will be on their own to bargain
individual contracts. This would be divisive and damaging in the
district where they need to work closely together.
MR. GRAHAM said newly appointed assistant principals largely do not
hold the leverage or standing, and possibly not the experience
necessary, to bargain their own contract. "This is disturbing
because I fear that the loss of collective bargaining has kept the
membership support and fairness it provides will openly be a
barrier to attracting top educators to the profession." He loves
his job and thinks he is good at it, but he doesn't know if he
would have left the collective bargaining contract he had as a
teacher if it meant setting out on his own with little protection.
He is a public employee not an entrepreneur. Alaska needs to
attract top educators to provide the educational leadership
necessary for implementing state standards and providing the best
education possible for the students. On behalf of himself and the
other assistant principals in Anchorage, who will at some point
probably continue on as principals, he urged the committee to stop
HB 129 and keep it from moving forward.
Number 0322
CAROL KANE, Executive Director, Alaska Association of Secondary
School Principals (AASSP), testified via teleconference from the
Mat-Su LIO. The AASSP represents 235 administrative professionals
throughout Alaska. The board of directors of AASSP is opposed to
HB 129 as it is currently written. She quoted Dr. Gerald Terazi
(PH), Executive Director, National Association of Secondary School
Principals (NASSP), as printed in the recent Newsleader, March 19,
1999 issue. She read:
Education in America, public education in particular, is
at a critical crossroads. There is a growing frustration
and concern regarding quality of our public schools. It
is against this backdrop that the drama of school reform
is being played out in our nation's schoolhouses. I
envision this as an opportune time for NASSP to ensure
that the voice of the principals is heard and respected
in various policy forums driving the engines of full
reform. ...
The need for greater, more intensive involvement takes on
added significance and education environment where
school-based accountability, state takeover of schools,
reconstitution of schools and vouchers to private and
parochial schools, are among the many issues taking
center stage in the school reform debate. There must
emerge a recognition that it is the principal of a school
who is the instructional leader, the agents of change and
the manager and facilitator of teaching and learning
process.
... It is the principal who is the main architect of the
instructional program serving as a leader, facilitator,
manager staff and resources in the demanding and complex
mission of ensuring equity and excellence for all
children.
MS. KANE said in legislation where this has been admitted in other
states, they are now promoting that due process rights for
administrators and hearing processes be included in legislation and
therefore they are clearly against HB 129 and urged the committee
to ask them for help in anyway to negate this bill.
TAPE 99-27, SIDE A
Number 0029
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, National Education Association
(NEA)-Alaska, came forward to testify. He said the NEA-Alaska
submitted a written statement in opposition to HB 129. The NEA-
Alaska does not represent principals, but they have a great deal of
concern about the bill. Once the right to bargain is eliminated,
it might as well be said they are eliminating collective bargaining
agreements relative to principals. They feel that the agreements
that do exist in school districts provide a standard of employment,
provide a standard of treatment and they do provide a standard of
security. "They are in writing; they work for management; they
work against management; they work for labor; they work against
labor." Removing the power that is prescribed under the collective
bargaining agreement, and they do feel the right to bargain does in
a sense level that playing field relative to management and labor.
MR. MARSHALL said he feels in this case that principals are labor.
They like to call them managers, but they are in the worst of all
worlds as indicated in the testimony. They are at-will employees
under a single year contract. Once that contract expires, for the
most part, they have no rights whatsoever unless those rights are
prescribed in the collective bargaining agreement. There is also
a shift of power from the collective bargaining agreement, and
power abhors a vacuum; it is going to be consumed by someone. That
someone is very likely to be the superintendent and the board of
education. There are relationships relative to superintendents and
boards of education. Their question is "'should a principal, in a
sense, be constrained by the whims and wishes of a superintendent?'
and we've seen too many instances where ... I think we need a good
nepotism law in Alaska, which we don't have, and hiring friends and
relatives, we've seen that activity relative to teachers." The
committee has their statement, and the NEA-Alaska opposes the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Marshall how collective bargaining
enhances student achievement.
Number 0239
MR. MARSHALL said he liked what Sitting Bull had to say: "It is
time that we put our minds together and do what we can for
children." Mr. Marshall thinks this is a classic case of a
divisive action that is occurring when they ought to be talking
about discipline, class size, how they're going to do a better job
of educating children. He stated:
Now, how does this help kids? I think any time that you
have an opportunity to reduce to writing basically the
relationship that would exist between management and
labor I think that does help kids. I think another thing
that helps children is the fact that principals are
looking at the operation of school systems. They are on
the line with teachers and those principals should be
given the opportunity to go in there and talk about
schedules and bargain those arrangements.
I think, unfortunately, collective bargaining is a little
weak. We don't get in there and talk about bargaining
curriculum, bargaining the length of the day, bargaining
opportunities to deal with discipline. You know, bargain
some of those critical issues that occur in the
classroom. We would accept more.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if Mr. Marshall had just said that the
bargaining unit ought to bargain the curriculum.
MR. MARSHALL said "I think that's--yeah, definitely within the
purview, I think it is critical to a school. I mean you've got
teachers and principals that are working together and they see the
needs of those children. They see the needs that you have
stipulated relative to state standards."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said "he has made the points for the bill."
LEWIS SEARS, Principal, Bartlett High School, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He spoke in opposition of HB 129
because he thinks it is essentially a step in the wrong direction.
He has been a principal and educator in Anchorage since 1971. He
has enjoyed a unique privilege of being able to work with local
legislators, superintendents, school boards, the public
(indisc--tearing paper) along with staff and making sure that they
move continuously toward quality education. Along with that, they
have had the opportunity to gain administrators directly from the
teacher ranks in a way to that would ensure their safety and
improve their working conditions, if they take on the challenge as
public school administrator.
MR. SEARS said he believes HB 129 hurts education overall; he
doesn't know what the thought process was that went in to bringing
this bill forward, but as he reads it, he would say it is not good
for Alaska. It is certainly not good for him as he tries to
encourage teachers to move into the administrative ranks and carry
out the wishes and desires of parents, school boards, the general
public as it relates to their business associates and those people
who really care about education and the quality of life, as they
move toward improving the standards in education, not only in
Alaska but nationwide. He urged the committee to let HB 129 die in
committee.
FRED GIDDINGS, Principal, Bayshore Elementary, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He has been in education as teacher
and principal for 21 years; he has been in Alaska nearly 40 years.
He is opposed to HB 129. He is a line administrator, and what that
means to him is the policies that come out of school boards and
superintendents' offices are enforced by him on the front line with
students, parents and teachers. It is absolutely critical in the
formation of these policies that he has voice at the table and an
opportunity to express his opinion before that policy becomes
final.
MR. GIDDINGS said ultimately, he and other principals are going to
be the ones that go forward to their neighborhoods and explain that
policy. He believes that healthy organizations thrive when there
are diverse opinions. He certainly understands the chain of
command; he is a line administrator and the superintendent and the
school board are his boss. He will work the policies that they
have, but it is absolutely essential, before that policy happens,
that he gets a chance to say how that will impact the children in
his neighborhood. If at his school, he were to decide that there
was not going to be a student, teacher or parent voice at the
table, then his school would not be as dynamic, and the policies
would not be particularly effective. It would be him saying this
is what he wants to do, and he doesn't want to hear any diverse
opinions. That is not how dynamics in organizations thrive. He is
absolutely opposed to HB 129. He doesn't think it is good for
kids, teachers or parents.
Number 0690
MARY JOHNSTONE, Principal, Susitna Elementary School, President,
Alaska Association of Elementary School Principals, testified via
teleconference via Anchorage. She stated:
The executive board of the Alaska Association of
Elementary School Principals opposes HB 129 for the
following reasons. First of all, the bill is written in
such broad language and encompasses sweeping changes that
delete collective bargaining for principals, it mentioned
nothing of how, when, and if principals will be
recognized as professional employees of the district.
Will principals become at-will employees and be handed
down policy from the superintendent to be carried out in
their schools? What rights will principals be given?
What happens to the value of participatory relationships
and principal-liaison building between the school
district and school community, or will information only
flow in one direction?
Even though superintendents are not covered under the
PERA [Public Employees Relations Act], they come into the
state and into new districts and perform under legal,
binding contracts that clearly represent negotiated
benefits and salaries with local school boards. Singling
out professional school principals who are covered under
PERA and have the right to collective bargaining as
public employees, would be taking away the opportunity
for them to bargain for working conditions, salary and
benefits that superintendents now enjoy. Shouldn't we
offer the same for principals?
Research studies show that 50 percent of today's
principals will retire by the year 2002. Presently there
is a great shortage of qualified candidates for principal
vacancies in the United States, including Alaska. Two
million teachers will be needed in the next decade to
serve the growing enrollment and a record number of
vacancies as the first baby boomers retire. (indisc)
three simplifications for school leaders and districts in
terms of identifying and encouraging teachers and other
administrators who have potential to become effective
principals.
Why the shortage of qualified candidates? Research
suggests that long hours, too much stress, too little pay
are some of the top reasons why the candidate pool has
shrunk. Attracting and keeping great principals and
encouraging teachers to aspire to become administrative
candidates in light of new standards, assessment and
graduation requirements and now opposition to collective
bargaining (indisc--paper rustling) even further the
recruitment of retention of the principals for the state
of Alaska.
HB 129 is perpendicular to the trends of leadership for
21st century schools. Finally I'd like to end with a
quote from Larry Dethat (PH), Leadership and Effective
Schools. "People follow effective leaders because they
share the leader's dreams, not because they are afraid of
what would happen to them if they do not follow."
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL closed public testimony.
Number 0931
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said with all due respect to Vernon Marshall,
he thinks it clarifies the need for the bill. Mr. Marshall had
stated that principals are labor, and Representative Ogan thinks
they are at a juncture to decide whether principals are labor or
management. Another testifier talked about singling out
professional principals, and Representative Ogan responded to that
question:
Well, professionals to me are management. We're
professionals and the people who work for us are
professionals; they don't have a union and a collective
bargaining agreement; they serve at our pleasure. And as
a manager, and I've been a manager and an owner of a
business for a number of years, I need to be able to
manage my employees the way I need to manage them. I
need to be able to hire and fire at will.
There was a talk about shift of power. Mr. Marshall said
a shift of power to the superintendent and the board of
education. That is exactly my point. The board of
education should set the policy and have the power. The
superintendent doesn't set the policy; he simply carries
out the policy set by the school boards. The principals
need to be subordinate to that. Under the collective
bargaining process they can't be. There was talk about
the average time for a superintendent is 2.2 years. If
you can't manage your team, I think it seriously inhibits
their ability to stay anywhere very long. I know I
certainly wouldn't want to take the job if my management
team had thumbed their nose at me; I couldn't even give
them an evaluation. Right or wrong, the superintendent
needs to be able to evaluate his employees.
And if it's the perception of the superintendent that
the employee is not doing a good job, that's his role.
To me, to have an evaluation go to arbitration is
ludicrous. If the superintendent is being vindictive
with somebody for a political agenda, the school board's
responsibility is to recognize that and get rid of the
superintendent. We have a situation in our district
where the principal association have voted a no
confidence vote for our superintendent. It's not their
business or their policy to thumb their noses at the
superintendent. It is the school board's. If the school
board doesn't have confidence in him, they should get rid
of him. I feel pretty strongly about the bill as you can
tell but I think there's probably few things we can
do--this bill is probably one of the greatest things we
can do to give the power back to the people. People
elect the school board, and the school board represents
the people.
Right now, the way we're structured with collective
bargaining for principals, the principals don't have to
be subordinate at all to the school district, to the
administration's policies. The idea of collective
bargaining for curriculum and length of days and those
kind of things, whoa, anyway that is all I have to say.
Number 1129
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL said he intends to move the bill out because
their purview is education policy; it will go on to the Labor and
Commerce Committee. To him it is a good policy that the
accountability of the school principals be under the elected
official which is more closely related to the people; there is more
direct accountability there. Once they begin to bargain with a
teachers' union, for example, there becomes an allegiance that goes
beyond, and he thinks it is a little harder to reach. He
recommends that they move this bill along.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER commented that he has no objection to this
bill moving from this committee, but he does have some questions
that will have to be answered before he can support it on the
floor.
The committee took an at-ease from 12:02 p.m. to 12:04 p.m.
Number 1267
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON made a motion to move HB 129 from the committee
with individual recommendations. There being no objection, HB 129
moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee.
SJR 11-EDUCATION BLOCK GRANTS
Number 1299
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL announced the next order of business as CSSJR
11 CS for Senate Joint Resolution No. 11(FIN), Urging the Congress
of the United States to provide federal education funds as a block
grant to the state.
Number 1299
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said SJR 11
is sponsored by the Senate Finance Committee. He said the people
who have chaired the education budget subcommittees have realized
it is almost impossible to streamline the federal funding for
education programs. Over the last several years, there has been a
movement in Congress to do something similar to what has been done
with welfare, and that is to provide states with block grants, and
let all the states restructure the programs more efficiently. That
legislation passed the U.S. House in the last Congress but didn't
quite make it through the Senate; it is once again before the
Congress, and SJR 11 calls on Congress to pass that legislation and
to provide block grants for education to the states.
Number 1406
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON made a motion to move CSSJR 11(FIN) with
individual recommendations. There being no objection, CSSJR 11
moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1422
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 12:08 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|