Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/19/1995 09:25 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
APRIL 19, 1995
9:25 A.M.
TAPES
SFC-95, #36, Side 1 (000-575)
SFC-95, #36, Side 2 (560-end)
SFC-95, #38, Side 1 (000-275)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:25 a.m.
PRESENT
Co-chairs Halford and Frank along with Senators Phillips,
Sharp, Donley, Rieger and Zharoff were present.
Also Attending: Senator Salo; Carl Rose, Alaska School
Board; Claudia Douglas, President, NEA; Stephen McPhetres,
Alaska Council of Administrators, and Sheila Peterson,
Department of Education.
SUMMARY
SENATE BILL NO. 132
"An Act relating to judicial review of decisions of
school boards relating to nonretention or dismissal of
teachers."
Amendment #1 by Senator Rieger regarding career path,
and Amendment #2 by Senator Halford concerning a
summary of nego- tiations available to the public were
ADOPTED for incorporation into a new version
of CSSB 132 (FIN) Work Draft. The bill will be
taken up at the next meeting.
Co-chair Halford invited Carl Rose, Claudia Douglas, Stephen
McPhetres and Sheila Peterson to join the committee.
Senator Sharp MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft for CSSB 132 (FIN)
by Cramer, version M, dated 4/13/95. No objection being
heard it was ADOPTED.
Co-chair Halford recapped the draft before the committee.
The first section related to duty-free lunch. It was not the
intent of the sponsor to repeal the entire section,
therefore the stated time of 11:00 to l:00 was deleted. He
stated that the second section is a transition section that
deals with tenure on transferring from federal to state
schools, containing the 2 year, 5 year language. The third
section deals with teacher tenure and the 2 year, 5 year
language. He suggested adding a section on evaluation in
this area. There was not a previously adopted version by
the members. Section 4 covers tenure rights during layoff
status. Section 5 deletes the reduction in staff provision,
as it will be picked up in layoff status versus non-
retention. Section 6 is the layoff status section which
came from Senator Sharp. Section 7 covers judicial review,
which is an attempt to reach middle ground between trial de
novo and a totally contained review by the school board. It
does achieve the neutral third party aspects of another
review. The remaining sections, 8 to 24 deal with
retirement.
Carl Rose, Executive Director of the Association of Alaska
School Boards, testified that these issues have been long
standing with the school board association to the degree
that they are no longer resolutions. The issues of
acquisition of tenure, latitude for fiscal shortfall, and de
novo, have become belief statements of the association. He
characterized the concerns of the school board since the
bill has changed drastically from the original intention.
In the decision-making realm, the school district is
contained within the latitude provided through the
constitution, statutes, regulations interpretations of the
statutes by the courts in negotiated agreements, and without
control of revenue source. He stated that the membership is
responsible for the performance of schools. Unfortunately,
the school board is not fiscally autonomous and funding is
expected to come from the legislature as well as
municipalities. He expressed his concerns with controlling
revenue, and adequate levels of funding. He stated that
more time is needed to provide professional development for
new professionals in the area of in-service, supervision,
and mentorships. Mr. Rose stated that 5 years was needed to
make career determinations. In reference to layoff, this
area is of great concern to the school board. The language
suggested is to consider qualifications in the area of
layoff and rehire prior to seniority. The issue to look at
would be subject area endorsements. The language does not
reflect subject area endorsements now. It is understood
that it is a far reach from where the state is at right now,
but it is a desired journey which needs to begin now. With
subject area endorsement, the quality of instruction in the
classroom improves. On the issue of de novo, the school
board feels that all state employees have a right to a
hearing. If they feel that their due process rights have
been abridged, they have access to superior court. The same
should hold true for the schools. It is very costly and
difficult for a school district to recreate what has
happened in the past. A new trial is inappropriate, we
should have an opportunity through a hearing to establish a
record and thereby allow the courts to review the record to
see if the due process rights have been abridged. What the
legislation now indicates is replacement of de novo trial
with an advisory arbitration step. It is felt that it is
duplicative and more costly, but the school board would
prefer to take the advisory arbitration instead of the de
novo because it is a new trial. Regarding duty-free lunch,
the school board never intended to place that issue in this
legislation. He said that the school board does not have a
position on RIP (Retirement Incentive Program).
Co-chair Halford said that he questioned the open-meetings
provisions. The committee determined that it would be
counterproductive and committed to coming up with language
to be considered. He stated that the object is to have the
initial offers be public because the pressure facing the
public constituencies will force those offers to be as
reasonable as possible as a starting point for negotiation.
Mr. Rose responded that this is of concern to the public.
He stated that he did not feel that the public wants
negotiations held openly, but rather to know the issues
before ratification and agreement. The first priority is
full-funding and the second priority, among the teachers, is
the ability to evaluate a marginal teacher for 5 years
before a judgement is made.
Senator Zharoff made reference to the list of a nationwide
tenure survey. He pointed out that a number of states
required 2 year tenure and only a couple have 5 year tenure
requirements. He expressed concern in patterning Alaska
after other states.
In response to Senator Salo, Mr. Rose stated that the school
board would not support a law that would direct school
boards to hire only endorsed teachers. In large school
districts, the issue of seniority is appropriate with those
certified in the english and math departments. In rural
areas, there is a need for multi-endorsed teachers or
generalists. He indicated that it would be more appropriate
to assess the percentage of time spent in the endorsed
subject.
Senator Salo suggested that policy makers need to think
about what Mr. Rose stated in the context of layoffs. She
stated that the layoff provisions in the bill are broad and
offer an authority to layoff at random, and yet, one of the
rationales given is the need for endorsed teachers. She
said it was inconsistent expectations when on the initial
employment, endorsed subject matter is not a consideration.
There was considerable discussion regarding evaluations.
Mr. Rose stated that under peer review, it was suggested
there was need for language regarding supervision,
mentoring, and professional development through in-service
programs. He said, the superintendent designates three
teachers for mentoring and professional development. Their
charge would involve observation of new teachers, and making
a report to the superintendent. An amendment was made to
make the report available to nontenure teachers, at least
for three of the first four years. The overview committee
would observe and make reports annually to the
superintendent three of the four years. Evaluation is not
the only component. Supervision, mentoring, and
professional development is also a valuable part of the
developmental process. The issue then becomes, what is an
appropriate tool? He stated that school districts feel the
pressure of the suggestion that there is too much money in
administration. In the context of a compromise, peer review
is not objectionable. Concerns with peer review was based on
the additional expense, confidentiality within that context,
and then the actual logistics with which to facilitate the
success of the program. He stated the most obvious concerns
relate to cost and implementation.
Claudia Douglas, President, NEA, highlighted those areas of
the bill that was of concern. She stated that the duty-free
lunch time has been amended, but still seems inappropriate
to incorporate into this bill. Regarding the acquisition of
tenure from two to five years, NEA and teachers in Alaska do
not want to have marginal teachers in the classrooms. She
stated that there is a need to support the principals, but
that going to a 5 year tenure is not the answer. She
stressed the need for a process of a peer review evaluation
within the first two years. If the evaluation is not good,
then there is no need to keep them for 3, 4, or 5 years.
NEA would not agree to a 5 year tenure. NEA has submitted
strong language requiring evaluation in the first couple of
years. She noted the language relating to layoffs is vague.
She questioned if teachers will have an opportunity to
achieve endorsement or self-development? Could a teacher
have an opportunity for at least a year to try to achieve
certification? Unless outlined specifically, NEA would not
be able to agree to that language. She stated that one of
the concerns heard from school boards is that the time
required and the lengthy process of going to de novo is not
addressed. There was an amendment introduced in the House
that would refer to current state law that would satisfy
this issue. It does incorporate time limits, and arbitration
hearings. There is a history of the success of the
arbitration process that works with the existing law. NEA
asks the committee to take that into consideration. NEA
does not believe that retirement and incentive programs
should be included in this bill. There is a bill that has
been introduced regarding RIP. NEA supports that bill and
not the RIP section in this legislation.
Ms. Douglas stated that in the layoff provisions there is a
need for a third party to give analysis of the financial and
program needs. Senator Phillips suggested that the school
board is elected to take care of these needs. He suggested
that no matter what the committee suggested with the layoff,
NEA would oppose it. Ms. Douglas stated that if there is a
financial crisis in a district that is understandable, but
as stated in the legislation, it refers to a reduction in
revenue. NEA would like a system in place that would
validate that it is necessary.
Mr. Rose agreed that there should be a trigger for
reduction. He stated that there is a disparity. Some
school districts are up to 92-93% into overall personnel. If
a standard percentage were given it would be a disservice to
some school districts. He stated that school board members
are elected and agreed to what their job is. He also stated
that the public would be very upset if there were heavy
layoffs with a bogus excuse of lack of funds. He warned
that the school board must be on solid ground when it comes
to laying off which has a direct effect on larger
classrooms. Ms. Douglas stated that there is an amendment
offered by Rep. Robinson which provides layoff language.
She also stated that this provision could be supported by
NEA if there was language putting a trigger into place.
Senator Phillips stated there is difficulty in arriving at a
trigger since the needs throughout the state are so
drastically different. He stated that problems at the local
level, involve the teachers, principals, school boards,
parents and children. Further, the need for school board
members should have flexibility in case of a declining
revenue or declining enrollment.
Co-chair Halford brought attention to an amendment regarding
tenure extension based on evaluation. Some of the
procedures may be beyond the cost component agreement of the
school district, particularly small districts. However, the
combination of tenure extension and evaluation is much
different than what Mr. Rose brings forth, thereby providing
a wide array of possibilities.
Senator Salo commented that the layoff provision in the bill
is a "one size fits all" provision. She cited the Anchorage
school district has approximately 200 nontenure school
teachers. If the school district, at that level of
staffing, actually laid off those 200 nontenure teachers,
class sizes would be well over 40. She said there is a
crisis if you lay off all nontenure teachers, and then add
to that, the tenure teachers. She stated this is creating a
problem, not fixing it, and as policy makers, there are two
interests with regard to layoff. One, make sure it is not
misused as a dismissal procedure, when instead we ought to
be relieving teachers for incompetence and immoral or
insubordinate behavior which exists in law. The second
concern, is to make sure that children are not in classes so
large that learning is prohibited by the size of the class.
Discussion was had regarding layoff. Rep. Robinson
introduced language for a house bill that says, "an
unanticipated financial exigency that interferes with the
normal operations of the school district and that cannot be
resolved through other reasonable and usual budgetary
processes....." Discussion was had on the use of emergency.
NEA-Alaska Survey of the States, reviewed what is being done
throughout the 50 states with tenure. It reveals that 10
states currently have 2-year tenure. Ms. Douglas specified
that language be provided for an evaluation process. There
are instances when it is revealed in the first couple years
that a teacher is deserving of tenure. In addressing the
marginal teacher, if a system is in place which will give
the school district an opportunity to work with the teacher
for an extra year, NEA is willing to discuss it. This is a
30-year law that has endorsed the 2-year provision.
Discussion was had on the evaluation and extension.
Tenure was a strong topic of debate. Ms. Douglas stated
that the process works as it is. There are many good
teachers doing the best they can. They want to be
evaluated, and they want good supervision. NEA is not trying
to change the current process. Co-chair Halford stated there
will be those who say the problem is evaluation, the other
side will say the problem is time. He suggested the
solution may be in both.
Senator Salo asked what is broken and what is it that is
trying to be fixed. She brought attention to the public
opinion survey by Alaska 2000. Teacher tenure was the
second to the last concern. She mentioned that other areas
of major concern were: funding major maintenance, financial
standards, standards and assessment, sharing capital costs,
school costs, school taxes, law recommendations, and teacher
training standards. The survey shows that these areas are
considered far more important than tenure.
Sheila Peterson, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of
the Department of Education, testified that the State Board
of Education at the last meeting considered many of these
issues. Tenure changes, the layoff provision, and the de
novo trial. The State Board of Education states, "The
strongest concerns of the State Board of Education at this
time is the threat of quality education in our state as a
result of decreased funding." The board is placing
attention, at the May meeting, on those issues. Issues in
SB 132 will be taken up along with other critical issues,
such as the foundation formula and involvement of parent and
families in their children's education. In response to SB
132, the Administration does have some concerns. It does
have a concern with the five year probationary period.
Increasing the time to five years seems too long and too
excessive. Perhaps a broader approach similar to what
Senator Rieger is thinking up, a more supportive approach to
acquire tenure, should be explored. The goal of everyone is
to ensure that excellent teachers are teaching our children.
Possibly a system that encourages senior teachers to work
with new teachers, guiding them through the probationary
period will ensure quality teaching. The Administration also
has concerns with the layoff provision and how it is
currently written. Laying off tenure teachers is something
that no one wants. Not the school boards, not the teachers,
and not the public. To decrease the numbers of teachers
would mean to increase the class size to dramatically alter
the district's program. Exactly when a layoff is going to
occur should be carefully defined and narrowly focused so
that all parties, including the public will know the
procedures. These issues that are addressed in SB 132 have
merit for discussion. The Commissioner of Education has
begun to coordinate meetings between NEA, Association of
Alaska School Board, and the Alaska Council of
Administrators, working toward common ground.
Senator Zharoff brought attention to the language referring
to the trigger? Ms. Peterson commented that this is the
concern of the Administration. The language is so broad
that a small reduction in revenue could trigger layoff
provisions. She suggested more guidance for the school
districts for determination on layoffs.
Co-chair Halford stated that the Administration's efforts to
pull together key components of people to reach common
ground is what is necessary in order to make this
legislation clear.
Stephen McPhetres, Executive Director, Alaska Council of
School Administrators, testified that the Alaska Council has
passed three resolutions this year in the professional
association meeting. One is to support the attention of
tenure from two to five years. ACA supports 5 years, on the
basis that a teacher coming out of the university and going
into their first year of teaching has much to learn. It
seems inappropriate to have to go through the adjustment of
the fist year of teaching and be evaluated for the
conditions of reemployment. The Council feels it is more
than they can handle. There is need for nurturing,
mentoring and time is needed for determining their
philosophy in teaching. The extension of tenure is
important on behalf of a professional approach for a teacher
to perform their duties in an acceptable manner. ACA also
passed a resolution that supported the elimination of the de
novo trial. It is an expensive adventure. It is a
duplicate effort costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in
school districts. The third resolution passed was in
support of the RIP bill. Although they felt having a RIP
portion in this bill makes it an awkward situation. He
reminded the committee that with regard to the layoff
provision, school boards and school districts go through a
very extensive budgeting process. There are public
hearings, public meetings, budgets are sent to local unions
and to the community, and people come to the board meetings.
He suggested that the depth which boards are currently using
to balance budgets is very thorough and does follow a
specific public process. When they get to a point where the
budgets are simply not going to be able to meet the revenue,
then there is a massive community meeting, the priorities
are decided upon. He asked that as lay off provisions and
drop in revenue is addressed, consider the credibility of
the school board in the process of the budget building.
Senator Sharp stated that he heard from just about everyone
that a RIP bill is awkward. He stated that if there was
going to be a RIP bill, this was the only place there would
be one. There is not going to be a universal RIP bill. He
stated that he considered this RIP bill to be a tool to
local government to manage the best they know how. They
don't have to do it, but at least it is an option. There is
not going to continue to be more money for education from
the state. He stated he was not in support of any RIP bill,
but it is available as a tool if they want to use it.
Senator Zharoff said that he hoped that this wasn't the only
RIP bill that would come around because portions of the
Administration's budget is predicated on a RIP bill. He
offered an amendment. Discussion led from teacher lay off
to the lack of layoff provisions with administrators.
Administrators under current law, cannot have a contract
from one to three years. Principals do not have tenure.
They can be released. They have one year contracts.
Discussion was had on Senator Zharoff's amendment. Mr.
McPhetres explained that principals have single year
contracts. Only superintendents have a multi-year contract
for a maximum of three years. Co-chair Halford noted a
multi-year contract increased the ability of larger
districts to hire a new superintendent. Senator Zharoff
contended all administrators should have the same
limitations as teachers in the time of a crisis.
Superintendents often have exorbitant salaries. There needs
to be more give and take. What are administrators giving
up? Mr. McPhetres reminded him that principals had no
tenure and were very vulnerable. It was asked if principals
had the option to take a teaching job if their position was
being threatened. Mr. McPhetres said that option could be
included in an administrator's contract. Senator Zharoff
asked if a superintendent's contract could be rolled
forward. After one year, have the contract extended for two
more years, keeping within the required cap of three years.
Mr. McPhetres said it was possible and noted it happened
mostly in larger districts.
Senator Rieger offered an amendment to "nudge" districts in
the direction of establishing career paths for teachers with
advancement based on teaching performance. Evaluation on
the new career path may be performed by teacher or
districts. He stated his concurs about promoting good
teaching rather than educational background. Co-chair
Halford stated that the amendment is permissive. He stated
that a possible impact could happen once the categories are
created, that it could change workloads, etc. Senator
Phillips felt that this amendment fragments education. He
stated that the teachers and the school district should be
working together for one common goal -- the education of the
student.
Senator Salo said the amendment had huge effects. To add
merit pay to SB 132 makes it ominous! She warned that merit
pay had been tried in other states and could be costly.
Senator Rieger said that he tied it to RIP in his mind.
There are teachers at the high end of the pay school who are
not worth as much as their pay represents, so that the
school district would be better off to hire a new teacher at
the beginning at the pay scale. That suggests that the
present career advancement system has problems with it
because there are teachers at the top of the pay scale who
are underpaid because they are really, really good, and
there are some who are overpaid. The two concepts go hand
in hand. This is a way to make sure you do not require
RIP's, that the people who are up there are there because
they deserve it. They are the good teachers. This shows
what the RIP program is trying to demonstrate, that the
present career advancement must have some problems, that
there is a need to eliminate highly paid teachers.
Senator Salo responded that she was in favor of merit pay,
but stressed, "who" gets to decide who is deserving of
higher pay.
Ms. Douglas said that she appreciated the intent of the
effort to try to recognize those outstanding in the
profession. She asked if advancement based on teaching
performance is just another way to get tenure? She stated
that there is a problem right now with administrators
finding the time to do the evaluations, and with this
proposal it would require more time to evaluate. She felt
that there would be a problem with determining who would do
the evaluation, what would the competition be, who is going
to decide, and it will cost more money?
Mr. Rose was asked for his input. He agreed with the
concept. This does define what could be used in peer review.
He was not sure what all the effects would be, but felt that
it is a step in the right direction. The issue is trying to
improve the quality of education.
Mr. McPhetres stated that he looks favorably on the
amendment. This is a professional step within the
educational system. He mentioned that there are ways of
evaluating a teacher or administrator by the use of
evaluation by parents, their own peers, as well as others,
in determining whether a teacher has achieved advanced
status in teaching. This is a tremendous switch from the
direction that we are currently in. It is not based on how
good you are as a teacher. He felt that the amendment is
good, but complex with the existing situation, it would have
to have nurturing in order to make it work. But in all, he
felt it was a wonderful idea.
Ms. Peterson said the department would support teachers
participating in evaluations, but questioned whether there
was enough direction provided in the amendment to help
districts create a career path based on teaching performance
and additional money without DOE stepping in with additional
regulations. She felt there may not be enough direction in
the amendment to pull it off at the local level. The
department may be in the position of having to write some
additional guidance. Senator Rieger noted that the
department did not need language in statute requiring the
department to promulgate regulations. Ms. Peterson said
that it was correct, but suggested it was helpful to have
their wishes on record.
Ms. Douglas mentioned that on the national level there is
the National Standards Board. Alaska now has two nationally
board certified teachers. The process is extensive in
evaluation and peer review. She stated that a teacher must
have taught for five years prior to the process. The School
Board Association has been involved. She suggested offering
this program as a professional incentive to teachers. There
was continued discussion regarding new methods being tried
elsewhere and affirmations regarding the need to compensate
good teachers to keep them in the profession.
Senator Phillips MOVED to adopt an Amendment to the
Amendment. The language change was read. Senator Zharoff
OBJECTED to the Amendment. The objection was not
maintained. The Amendment to the Amendment was ADOPTED.
Co-chair Halford MOVED to adopt the Amendment. Senator
Zharoff OBJECTED, stating that it is too difficult to
incorporate. He wants strict guidelines which the
department could generate for evaluating teachers and
possibly administrators for the entire school system within
the state. Co-chair Halford said, the question is, the
adoption of the Rieger Amendment as amended. Concern was
expressed on how this would be implemented. It was
determined that the effective date regarding this clause
could be delayed to July 1, 1996. Senator Zharoff WITHDREW
OBJECTIONS. Without objection the Amendment would be
accompanied by a effective date section that applies July 1,
1996. In moving the date forward, would this have an effect
in collective bargaining? Senator Phillips said, that this
amendment relates to teaching performance and the Alaska
2000 Public Opinion Survey has performance standards as #2.
By a show of hands, the amendment was ADOPTED. In favor
were Senators Rieger, Sharp, Phillips and Halford. Opposed
were Senators Donley and Zharoff. The Amendment will be
added to the Work Draft. Senator Phillips MOVED to adopt
the Halford Amendment. Senator Zharoff OBJECTED and
WITHDREW.
Senator Salo acknowledged the work the committee was doing
to reach a compromise on this issue, but she felt this was
worse from a teacher's perspective and from an employee's
perspective than opening negotiations. The district would
control the information as it is released. If there is one
time in negotiations where both parties can look
unreasonable, it is with their opening offers. She felt
that the clause fixes a problem that does not exist.
Senator Rieger asked if Senator Salo was referring to the
sentence in the amendment which says, "the analysis of the
effect of the proposal is something controlled by the school
board"? She stated that was correct and that the first
sentence is in practice now. Senator Rieger asked Mr. Rose
if it was true, that the initial proposals in a bargaining
situation are public documents? Mr. Rose responded that
normally in the first meeting, ground rules are established.
It can be decided at that time if it is open or closed. It
does have to be by mutual agreement in many cases. Before
decisions are made, the public likes to know what the issues
are. Co-chair Halford AMENDED his amendment by crossing
everything out after the first sentence and retained (b).
Senator Phillips WITHDREW the original Amendment. Senator
Phillips MOVED to adopt amendment #2. Without objection the
Amendment was ADOPTED and added to the work draft CS.
Items to be discussed before the committee included
differences in the layoff provision, and the tenure
provision.
Senator Salo asked for clarification on the subject of the
duty-free lunch. She stated that the waiver is working and
doesn't want the time removed. Senator Zharoff asked that at
the next meeting that there be discussions on the hearing
process and the RIP section of the bill.
Co-chair Halford recessed to follow the schedule of the
operating budget.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|