Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/01/1996 09:04 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
April 1, 1996
9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chairman
Senator Loren Leman, Vice-Chairman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Judy Salo
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 301
"An Act relating to postsecondary education."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 465(HES) am
"An Act relating to employment of teachers and school
administrators and to public school collective bargaining."
HOUSE BILL NO. 540 am
"An Act relating to health care data and registration of births."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 301 - See Senate Health, Education & Social Services minutes
dated 3/6/96 and 3/29/96.
HB 465 - No previous action to record.
HB 540 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mike Tibbles, Staff
Senator Green
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT:
Diane Barrans, Executive Director
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7109
POSITION STATEMENT:
Representative Ivan Ivan
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 465.
Carl Rose, Executive Director
Alaska Association of School Board
316 W 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1510
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 465.
Rick Cross, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education
801 W 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed SB 204, HB 398, and HB 465.
Steve McPhetres, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
326 4th Street, #404
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 465.
Marilyn Leahy, President
Valdez School Board
PO Box 689
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that HB 465 provides tools to better
education.
Ken Klunder, Mat-Su Teacher
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed concerns with HB 465.
Donald Evans, Superintendent
Southwest Region School District
PO Box 90
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 465.
Gayle Pierce
PO Box 58660
Fairbanks, Alaska 99711
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 465.
Tom Wright, Staff
Representative Ivan
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
Barbara Stek
6101 Eastwood Court
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that HB 465 will not improve education.
Pat Gakin
PO Box 871304
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that HB 465 will nullify tenure.
Steve Wright
Kenai Peninsula Education Support Association
PO Box 4645
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to listen to the
testimony of education employees.
John Holst
PO Box 179
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that provisions of HB 465 are important
to Sitka.
Bill Bjork, President
Fairbanks Education Association
PO Box 333
Ester, Alaska 99725
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to slow down the process
with HB 465.
Barbara Young
PO Box 772442
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged that HB 465 not be passed out of
committee.
Don Campbell
PO Box 871045
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 465.
Kathleen Wight-Murphy, First Grade Teacher
PO Box 876166
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 465.
Tom Hermon
PO Box 3645
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that HB 465 undermines teaching.
Marvin Faris
PO Box 6631
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed due process.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-26, SIDE A
SB 301 POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
Number 002
CHAIRMAN GREEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:04 a.m. and introduced
SB 301 as the first order of business before the committee. She
announced that she intended to take testimony, but anticipated some
time constraints. HB 465 will be before the committee again on
Wednesday. She invited any witness interested to submit written
testimony to the HESS committee. Chairman Green asked Mr. Tibbles
to review the changes made to SB 301 since the last meeting.
MIKE TIBBLES, Staff to Senator Green, directed the committee to
page 3 of the Ford draft F dated 3/29/96. Under Section 4, the
specified members were deleted and replaced with "The corporation
shall be the members of the commission." Under subsection (c), the
specific references to the schools were deleted and replaced with
generic language.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to what language was deleted in Section 4.
MIKE TIBBLES stated that the specific references to the members
were deleted and replaced with language saying that the members
will consist of the members of the Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education. Under another section of the bill the
members are specified.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to where the commissioners were addressed.
CHAIRMAN GREEN directed Senator Salo to page 17, Section 44; the
members of the corporation are specified in this section.
Number 078
MIKE TIBBLES noted a technical change on page 4, line 19 where
"program" was changed to "programs". At the request of the
Department of Law, subsection (b) was deleted because the
corporation already had the authority to obtain legal counsel. On
page 13, line 26 the existing language "subject to appropriation"
was retained. Mr. Tibbles reiterated that Section 44 specifies
what members are on the commission.
SENATOR MILLER moved that the CSSB 301 Ford version F dated 3/29/96
be adopted in lieu of the original bill for a working document.
Hearing no objection, Ford version F was adopted.
SENATOR SALO noted that this draft has substantive changes and
therefore, hoped that more time to review this draft would be
given.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that in some brief checks, this draft has not
met any objection. The bill, version C, that came before the
committee was worked on by the Department of Law, the Department of
Education, and the Commission on Postsecondary Education. The
changes in version F were those discussed in the last meeting.
Chairman Green said that legislators do want confirmation and the
bill has been set up accordingly. Chairman Green stated that she
would like to see the bill move out of committee today.
Number 139
SENATOR ELLIS asked if this bill retained legislators on the
Commission of Postsecondary Education. CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified
that the legislative members are only ex officio, non voting,
members as is the student member. This bill has aggressive
language that does not allow persons with special interests to be
appointed as a member.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if SB 301 retained the proposals in the EO.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that six or seven areas of the EO are
maintained in SB 301. This bill goes further than the EO by
repealing those federal laws that are no longer applicable or
required. The EO was used as the basis for the bill. Chairman
Green believed the main difference between the EO and the bill is
that the bill makes the legislature a part of the confirmation
process. She reiterated the changes pointed out by Mr. Tibbles
earlier. Chairman Green pointed out that the institutional
authorization remains with the commission. There are also some
clean-up items from SB 123. The bill provides that persons
involved with the corporation's institutions will sign an agreement
indicating their intention to provide a good product.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director of the Alaska Postsecondary
Education Commission, believed that the program participation
agreement is in existing language.
Number 206
SENATOR ELLIS inquired as to the fate of the WICHE and WAMI
programs under this bill.
CHAIRMAN GREEN referred Senator Ellis to page 2, line 21 where the
WAMI program falls under the University of Alaska and would be
controlled by the Board of Regents. Currently, there are two line
items in the budget concerning the WAMI program; one is in the
university budget and the other is in the Department of Education.
She noted that this was decided in the House.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the effect would be to eliminate the lines
in the budget. CHAIRMAN GREEN said that it would coordinate the
line items for WAMI. There would be no change to WICHE.
SENATOR SALO expressed concern that the bill allows two boards to
remain although, they are the same people. The legislative
confirmation of the members may or may not create problems with the
bond rating from the Bond Council. Senator Salo pointed out that
there has been a significant change in this draft by making the
members of the corporate board the members of the commission. She
wanted to be sure that this would not jeopardize the bond rating.
She wanted to have more time for that reason. Will this go to
Finance?
CHAIRMAN GREEN replied yes and agreed that concern could be passed
on to Finance. Chairman Green did not believe that anyone wanted
to negatively impact the bond rating. She believed that there was
a provision for the board to continue.
Number 259
SENATOR LEMAN moved that CSSB 301, Ford version F, be reported out
of committee with accompanying fiscal notes and individual
recommendations.
SENATOR ELLIS objected. He did not believe the committee had given
this bill adequate time.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that there had been a task force on this for
three weeks. SENATOR ELLIS asked if the task force consisted of
Senator Green, Representative Toohey, and Representative Bunde.
CHAIRMAN GREEN emphasized that the task force was open to anyone
interested. Chairman Green noted that the Department of Law, the
Department of Education, and the Commission on Postsecondary
Education participated. The Department of Law and the Commission
on Postsecondary Education came up with version C of the bill. The
following changes were made by Mr. Ford.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the Administration supported this version
moving out of the committee. CHAIRMAN GREEN did not know.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Miller, and Leman voted
"Yea" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay". Therefore,
CSSB 301(HES), version F, passed out of committee.
HB 465 TEACHERS/ADMINISTRATORS/COLL. BARGAINING
Number 283
CHAIRMAN GREEN introduced HB 465 as the next order of business
before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN, prime sponsor, read the following sponsor
statement:
I introduced House Bill 465 to promote quality, performance,
accountability and fairness in our educational system and the youth
it serves. This bill also gives our school districts a degree of
flexibility when dealing with increased costs associated with our
educational system.
Committee Substitute for House Bill 465 (HESS) amended would allow
school districts to layoff teachers who have acquired tenure
rights, but only if the school district finds it necessary to
reduce the number of teachers due to declining enrollment or
declining revenues and after all nontenured teachers are given
notice of nonretention. However, a school district may retain a
nontenured teacher and place a tenured teacher on layoff if there
is no tenured teacher in the district who is qualified to replace
the nontenured teacher.
The bill also increases tenure from two to three years and removes
the costly trial de novo portion of our statutes which allows a
school district employee who, if not satisfied with a district led
investigation, to go to the court system to begin an entirely new
trial. The district's investigation, most often, must be
recreated. The deletion of the trial de novo provides our
educators the same protections as provided to other state
employees. New procedures for appealing a decision to dismiss or
nonretain a tenured teacher are established in House Bill 465. The
record established during the various hearings will be available
for use if a suit is filed in superior court. A tenured teacher
may waive the school board hearing and appeal directly to superior
court.
An extensive evaluation system and an improvement of performance
plan is included in House Bill 465. The evaluation system can be
used for nonretention purposes. Should a tenured or nontenured
teacher receive a less than acceptable evaluation, a plan of
improvement would be implemented. If the district demonstrates the
teacher's performance does not meet professional performance
standards and objectives defined in the plan of improvement, the
teacher is subject to nonretention.
Sections 2 and 4 of House Bill 465 apply only to those teachers who
are hired after the bill is signed into law. The remaining
sections of the bill dealing with loss of tenure rights,
evaluations, layoff and rehire and elimination of trial de novo go
into effect after the bill is signed and will have an effect on all
teachers.
Representative Ivan pointed out that there is a sectional analysis
in the committee packet. He said that he would answer any
questions.
Number 342
SENATOR SALO inquired as to how Representative Ivan would
characterize HB 465 versus HB 217. REPRESENTATIVE IVAN believed
that HB 465 was about the same as HB 217. HB 465 attempts to
provide flexibility and the necessary tools to the school districts
in order to develop and staff educational plans. With regards to
the layoff provisions of the bill, Representative Ivan explained
that once a teacher is laid off that teacher is placed on stand by
for three years. This bill also involves public input.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the new CS incorporated the Governor's
concerns which were expressed when HB 217 was vetoed last year.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN believed that HB 465 addressed the Governor's
concerns. Representative Ivan noted that he was not invited to sit
in on the task force which reviewed HB 217 and the Governor's
concerns. However, last month Representative Ivan agreed to get
together with the task force as well as the public, NEA, PTAs, the
Association of School Boards, etc and discuss HB 465. That meeting
resulted in 16 proposed changes of which 13 were incorporated into
HB 465.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if HB 465 was amended in House HESS as well as
on the floor of the House. REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied yes.
Representative Ivan mentioned that NEA brought forth three
recommendations prior to the House HESS meeting; of those two were
accepted.
Number 403
CARL ROSE, Executive Director of the Association of Alaska School
Boards, informed the committee that he would forward some pertinent
information to the committee after the meeting. Mr. Rose quoted
the following comments made by President Clinton at the National
Governors' Association Education Summit on March 27, 1996.
"We need a candid assessment of what is right and what is wrong
with our educational system and what we need to do. Your focus on
standards, your focus on assessment, your focus on technology is
all to the good. We know that many of our schools do a very good
job, but some of them don't. We know that many of our teachers are
great, but some don't measure up. We know that many of our
communities are seizing the opportunities of the present and the
future, but too many aren't."
"I accept your premise; we can only do better with tougher
standards and better assessment, and you should set the standards.
I believe that is absolutely right. We'll support you however you
want. But they won't work unless you're going to really see
whether the standards are being met and unless there are
consequences to those who don't meet them. I think you have to
reward the good teachers and get more good people in teaching, and
that we have to facilitate the removal of those who aren't
performing."
"We need a system that doesn't look the other way if a teacher is
burned out or not performing up to standard. There ought to be a
fair process for removing teachers who aren't competent, but the
process also has to be much faster and far less costly than it is."
"I read the other day that in New York it can cost as much as
$200,000 to dismiss a teacher who is incompetent. In Glen Ellen,
Illinois, a school district spent $70,000 to dismiss a high school
math teacher who couldn't do basic algebra and let the students
sleep in class. That is wrong."
"We should do more to reward good teachers; we should have a system
that is fair to teachers, but moves much more expeditiously and
much more cheaply in holding teachers accountable."
"So states and school systems and teachers unions need to be
working together to make it tougher to get licensed and
recertified, easier and less costly to get teachers who can't teach
out of the classrooms, and clearly set rewards for teachers who are
performing, especially if they become board certified, or in some
defined way to prove themselves excellent."
Number 447
Mr. Rose presented the committee with a packet of information which
included a side-by-side comparison of HB 217 and HB 465. He
pointed out that when the Governor vetoed HB 217 he was critical of
a four year tenure requirement. The bill before the committee has
reduced the tenure requirement to three years. The Governor had
also noted that the quality of education was not addressed in the
evaluation process. The bill before the committee has an extensive
process. With regards to the layoff provisions of the bill, those
provisions provide a temporary measure for emergency downsizing due
to decreased enrollment or decreased funding of a school. The
layoff provisions are more permissive than nonretention. Mr. Rose
noted that judicial review was requested as a method of appeal, but
a compromise was placed in HB 465 which utilizes the language of HB
217 that allows direct access to the court. Mr. Rose also noted
that HB 465 does not have a RIP. He felt that this bill did meet
the veto message of the Governor. The packet of information Mr.
Rose gave the committee contained a list of all the amendments made
to the bill as well as a letter of support. Mr. Rose said that he
supported HB 465.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to where standards are addressed in
HB 465. CARL ROSE explained that the evaluation process is based
on standards adopted by the Board of Education. The evaluation
process is located in Section 4, page 3, line 6. Mr. Rose noted
that the "based on" language was used because there are teacher
certification standards as well as national teacher certification
standards that could be considered. In response to Senator Salo,
Mr. Rose said that those standards had been adopted by regulation.
SENATOR SALO asked where the rewards for good teachers are located
in the bill. CARL ROSE believed that teachers are currently
rewarded very well with the compensation pay. We are attempting to
address quality in the classroom through the evaluation process.
SENATOR SALO did not understand why Mr. Rose and his association
would not have stayed with HB 398, if they did want to address
quality in the classroom. The findings section of HB 398 focused
the same goals of HB 465 in a manner that might have had a chance
to improve the quality of schools. Senator Salo said that HB 465
is not focused on improving the quality of schools.
Number 512
SENATOR LEMAN pointed out that he has believed for years that
teachers should be paid according to performance, although there
has been resistance to that notion. He suggested that he and
Senator Salo could work together on addressing that. Senator Leman
did not believe that HB 465 addressed that concern.
SENATOR SALO believed that rewards were more than the level of pay
one receives, for instance, the level of respect received from
others and the level of academic and political freedom a teacher
receives are also rewards. Senator Salo said that it did not have
to be merit pay.
SENATOR LEMAN said that it could be one element. SENATOR SALO said
that if Senator Leman could do it fairly she would agree.
RICK CROSS, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Education,
noted that Governor Knowles had submitted HB 398 and SB 204 which
deal with the same subject as HB 465. Governor Knowles supports
his bills. Mr. Cross explained that HB 398 and SB 204 were the
result of the dialogues between persons effected by public
education in Alaska after the Governor vetoed HB 217. Mr. Cross
said that dialogue had been continued with this bill which has led
to some of the significant modifications encompassed in the bill
before the committee. Hopefully, this dialogue will continue.
When comparing SB 204 and HB 398 to HB 465, the evaluation process
in the Governor's bills has much local determination and is
standards based. HB 465 has a prescriptive evaluation process that
is well defined before the school board is allowed to work with its
constituents to develop a process. Mr. Cross said that a process
based on quality standards is desired. Any bill in this area
should attempt to improve the quality of teaching and ensure that
the teacher is performing up to the state standards. Therefore,
the "less than acceptable" language in HB 465 could be greatly
strengthened if tied to established standards. Mr. Cross
acknowledged that Representative Ivan had been open in working with
everyone and listening to all the concerns which have led to some
significant modifications; hopefully, that process will continue.
In conclusion, Governor Knowles supports SB 204 and HB 398 while
acknowledging the considerable process that has occurred with
HB 465.
Number 563
SENATOR MILLER noted that Mr. Cross was previously a
superintendent, when stating that there is a compromise with the
trial de novo issue; if a teacher can go before the school board
and if the case goes to court, then it would be a review of the
process or the teacher can choose to bypass the school board
process and go directly to Superior Court. Senator Miller asked
Mr. Cross if as a former superintendent, if he believed the
aforementioned compromise would work with the districts.
RICK CROSS informed everyone that not only was he a former
superintendent but also a former teacher. He felt that the ability
to bypass the school board and go directly to Superior Court to be
a very strong protection.
SENATOR SALO recalled that HB 217 had a means of independent review
that would be less expensive than Superior Court access. She asked
Mr. Cross if there was a way in which to provide a fair review of
a dismissal that also saves money and time. RICK CROSS said that
the key to that is the elimination of duplicate processes. Under
the old system, the school board hearing was misrepresented by
many. The school board hearing was a full hearing which required
cross examination by attorneys, full witness disclosure, and a
record.
TAPE 96-26, SIDE B
Mr. Cross said that the school board hearing had been characterized
as summary. In his experience, the school board hearings were
extensive and cost $100,000 plus. To have to duplicate that in the
Superior Court doubles the expense and jeopardizes the district's
ability to retain witnesses; testimony may occur over a five year
period. A process that eliminates the pyramiding would be critical
to reducing the time and cost associated with the procedures.
HB 465 provides for direct action in Superior Court which means a
complete hearing with all evidence; this would shorten the process
greatly. Should a teacher elect to go directly to Superior Court,
the school board would not be involved in the dismissal at all
which could be a concern to some. In response to Chairman Green,
Mr. Cross said that he would like to continue the dialogue.
Number 560
STEVE MCPHETRES, Executive Director of the Alaska Council of School
Administrators, supported HB 465. The development of HB 465 has
been a long process, but Representative Ivan has been open to
suggestions. For example, the original bill referred to "teacher
evaluation" but ACSA believed that administrators should be subject
to the evaluation process just as certified teachers and the
language now reflects that. Mr. McPhetres pointed out that
evaluations should be done in order to improve which HB 465
addresses. Evaluations are not done merely to get rid of people.
Mr. McPhetres said that he would be happy to be involved in any
further discussions on any amendments that come before the
committee.
SENATOR SALO was happy to hear Mr. McPhetres comment on
evaluations. She believed that evaluations under existing law
focus more on improving instruction because there is not such a
clear path to eliminate employment. With HB 465, there seems to be
a clearer, straighter evaluation path to get rid of people. Given
that change, would evaluations for the improvement of instruction
be able to be maintained? STEVE MCPHETRES believed that HB 465
strengthens the evaluation process by allowing input from the
general public to develop an evaluation criteria. Mr. McPhetres
noted that the check sheet is utilized now, although, this system
does not address the needs of society. Mr. McPhetres seemed to
think that an accountable process could be developed in order to
place some confidence back into the communities from the schools.
SENATOR SALO stated that most in the profession would agree that in
the past, even the check sheets have not been done or done without
observation. Senator Salo inquired as to how the bill could assure
that those observations and evaluations were done. STEVE MCPHETRES
said that HB 465 does assure that observations and evaluations are
done. The original legislation said that if the administrator was
not doing their job, the administrator would be subject to
dismissal. Mr. McPhetres informed everyone that ACSA suggested
that administrators be placed on the same playing field as
teachers; if an administrator is not doing their job, they should
be part of the plan of improvement. There is more accountability
in this bill than in any existing regulation. Mr. McPhetres noted
that workshops are already being set for evaluation training for
administrators across the state.
Number 504
SENATOR SALO pointed out that teachers would have to bring to light
that the administrator they worked under was not doing evaluations.
Therefore, there needs to be protections against repercussions of
reporting an administrator. STEVE MCPHETRES agreed. HB 465 holds
everyone to a higher level than in the past.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to the protection for the teacher who
reports his/her administrator. She believed that an administrator
would still be able to do a bad job due to the fear of reporting
the administrator, especially if the teacher is nontenured. As a
nontenured teacher, Senator Salo said that she would not report
that she had not been observed because she thought she would lose
her job.
STEVE MCPHETRES said that the due process is well laid out as to
what should be done. With HB 465, every school district will be
held more accountable to this process. The superintendent, the
principal, and the teachers will be subject to know the
requirements. The bill specifies that before an evaluation occurs,
there will be training for the administrator and the certified
person who is to be evaluated. The framework is established in
HB 465 so that everyone involved is held more accountable.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that HB 465 requires that the school
district observes the administrator. That administrator can be
placed on a plan of improvement.
MARILYN LEAHY, President of the Valdez School Board, viewed HB 465
as providing some important tools to increase the board's
accountability to the quality of education. The public access and
involvement would ensure due process. She was pleased with how
standards would established in the classroom. With regard to the
layoff procedures, Ms. Leahy envisioned layoff to be used in
extraordinary cases not in the daily management of a district. The
layoff procedure would serve as a safety net to preserve the
district and the children in the face of budget changes. Ms. Leahy
believed that layoff should be used when all other options had been
exhausted. Ms. Leahy believed that HB 465 would ultimately provide
a tool to improve the quality of education in school districts and
allow more accountability to the standards in education as well as
more financially accountable.
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that witnesses were now under a two minute
time limit due to the many people wanting to testify.
Number 432
KEN KLUNDER, a teacher from Mat-Su, returned to the previous
discussion of respect. Respect means that if a teacher has worked
in a district for a number of years, then the teacher has some
protection. This bill will not respect that in all cases. Under
HB 465, if a teacher is reported to be a bad teacher that teacher
would receive a hearing. However, if a teacher's program is
eliminated, the teacher would not be given a hearing nor does the
bill mention seniority. Therefore, the time that teacher spent
improving their skills is gone. Mr. Klunder acknowledged that the
bill provides three years of rehire possibilities, but who can wait
that long. Under HB 465, the elimination of a program can be done
very easily. Mr. Klunder said that should not be the case; program
elimination should not be done due to budget cuts. He asked when
Alaska would begin discussions about maintaining the budget and
eventually rebuilding. HB 465 will create an environment in which
a school board's personal agenda could be established very easily.
In the past, teachers had to be replaced which is expensive. Mr.
Klunder believed that if the elimination of programs was made more
difficult, then there would be a deeper search to determine a
course of action.
Mr. Klunder expressed concern with establishing the standards at
the state level; there is nothing mentioned about pedagogy in this
bill. The bill addressed maintenance issues and does not delve
into the heart of teaching, so he felt that these were low level
standards. Mr. Klunder suggested that the standards be established
at the local level; why allow the state to establish standards that
will never be changed? If the standards are established at the
district level, then those standards can evolve. Mr. Klunder
emphasized that he wanted an evaluation system that made him a
better teacher. If the desire is to fire the teacher, then another
process should be followed. Mr. Klunder recognized that there are
some positive areas to HB 465. In conclusion, Mr. Klunder stated
that it should not be too easy to cut a budget.
SENATOR LEMAN agreed with Mr. Klunder that the standards should be
established in the district. Senator Leman believed the bill was
permissive on that issue. With regards to Mr. Klunder's comment
about the lack of a hearing when a program is eliminated, Senator
Leman believed that the district's hearings on the budget and
programs are public. He suggested that the involvement should be
at the district's hearings.
KEN KLUNDER noted the difficulty for people to look at another
point of view. He pointed out that some excellent and progressive
programs have been eliminated.
Number 370
DONALD EVANS, Superintendent of the Southwest Region School
District, supported HB 465. As a teacher, a principal, and
currently a superintendent, Mr. Evans believed that HB 465 offered
a positive compromise approach to improve education. Mr. Evans
pointed out that HB 465 supports parental input to the education
process which is long overdue.
GAYLE PIERCE, testifying from Fairbanks, directed the committee to
paragraph (7) on page 3 which discusses providing information on
the performance of a teacher from sources other than the
administrator. The current regulation, Chapter 19 which addresses
evaluations, includes a provision that allows an administrator to
use sources other than the direct observation in the evaluation of
a teacher. Ms. Pierce emphasized that the current regulations also
recognize the teacher's right to know what these sources of
additional information are. She suggested that the knowledge of
the content and the source of that information continue to be as in
regulation. Is that provision in the bill?
CHAIRMAN GREEN deferred to Tom Wright.
TOM WRIGHT, staff to Representative Ivan, said that provision was
added on the House floor by Representative Brown. That provision
is on page 4, line 23 of the CSHB 465(HES) am.
GAYLE PIERCE referred to page 7, subsections (d) and (e) regarding
the layoff provisions which are commonly addressed in negotiated
agreements. She pointed out that the negotiated agreements are
different than in the bill because they are negotiated with regard
to local circumstances. She expressed concern with the meaning of
"this section may not be in conflict with the provisions of this
section." Currently, some contracts contain a two year recall
provision while other contracts specify more than three years.
Would the language in the bill mean that such contracts would be in
conflict with the bill?
CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that Sections 2 and 4 only apply to those
teachers who are employed after the bill is signed into law. The
remainder of the bill goes into effect after the bill is signed and
will effect all teachers. Chairman Green said that she could not
answer Ms. Pierce's question. She asked Ms. Pierce to repeat her
question.
GAYLE PIERCE reiterated that currently there are locally bargained
agreements that address the content and thrust of HB 465 in
subsections (d) and (e). What does it mean to be in conflict?
Would local agreements with different layoff provisions be in
conflict with HB 465?
CHAIRMAN GREEN replied no. She assumed that locally negotiated
contracts would not be in conflict with HB 465. She asked Ms.
Pierce if she had a layoff provision in her contract. GAYLE PIERCE
replied yes.
Number 286
SENATOR SALO pointed out that years are specified on page 7,
subsection (e). In her opinion, subsection (f) does state that
would be in conflict. This illustrates a larger problem with the
bill. HB 465 takes things out of the local arena and places them
in the state arena, in a state that is very diverse. Senator Salo
read this language to say that the collective bargaining agreements
with different specifications would be moot under this bill.
TOM WRIGHT noted that the three years specified on page 7 only
refers to the time a teacher is on layoff status. The language
does not refer to any agreement in effect at the time HB 465 is
signed.
SENATOR SALO emphasized that the bill would prevent further
agreements from negotiating the time for layoff status. Currently,
agreements regarding layoff status differs. According to
subsection (f), once the bill passes, negotiated agreements cannot
be different.
SENATOR LEMAN said that referred to new agreements.
SENATOR SALO noted that the language removes the ability to
negotiate that issue at the local level.
BARBARA STEK, testifying from Anchorage, said that she was
representing some teachers from Anchorage. Ms. Stek said that
HB 398 was a compromise bill that was developed and agreed upon by
many parties, however, HB 398 seems to have been held in committee
to die. This new document, HB 465, does not seem to meet the needs
of everyone. She informed the committee that Anchorage does not
use a check off system, but under this bill Anchorage may have to
use a system that is not as good as their current system.
Furthermore, the incompetency criteria for nonretention has been
deleted and the plans for improvement are vague.
Ms. Stek believed that HB 465 allowed the State Legislature to
under fund education. Under HB 465, school districts would be
allowed to layoff who they want, increase class sizes, and then
work can be done within budget constraints. Ms. Stek emphasized
that the legislature needs to find revenue in order to avoid the
layoff issue. There are other ways to improve education, HB 465
will not improve education.
Number 212
PAT GAKIN, testifying from Mat-Su, did not oppose three year
tenure, however HB 465 nullifies tenure since anyone can be laid
off or nonretained. HB 465 will not attract good teachers because
there is no job security due to the vague evaluation procedure.
Some teachers may feel threatened by some parents who will insist
on certain grades otherwise a bad evaluation of the teacher will
result. Ms. Gakin informed the committee that as a counselor she
is involved in reporting to the Division of Family and Youth
Services(DFYS). She expressed concern that parents may decide to
strike out against whomever they feel has reported to DFYS. Ms.
Gakin pointed out that there are four seats in Mat-Su who are
parents or community members or students who evaluate teachers.
Ms. Gakin expressed concern that good teachers will not be kept if
programs may be totally eliminated or contracted out to
noncertificated persons. Under this bill, the teacher education
standards would not have any control over noncertificated persons.
HB 465 takes away due process for teachers. Ms. Gakin informed the
committee that she had taught in Alaska for 18 years. She said
that she would not have come to Alaska if she did not believe that
Alaska was a good place to teach and she had valuable things to
offer. Ms. Gakin stressed that she would not have come to Alaska
now knowing there is no job security. Over half of the teachers in
Ms. Gakin's high school have masters degrees which mean that these
teachers have had more time in their specialized area. She
predicted that these teachers would not continue to go into
education, if they could be laid off at any time due to budget
constraints. When any decrease in funding can cause a teacher to
be nonretained or laid off, the best teachers may leave Alaska or
even the profession.
STEVE WRIGHT, Kenai Peninsula Educational Support Association, said
that the committee may wonder why a swing shift high school
custodian would be concerned about these bills. He informed the
committee that the Kenai Peninsula Education Association and the
Kenai Peninsula Educational Support Association are currently in
the middle of joint bargaining which is a first in Alaska. How
does teacher tenure effect support employees? Mr. Wright explained
that support employees work side-by-side with teachers during the
day and into the night. These proposed bills would have great
financial and emotional effect on teachers. He predicted that
employee morale, productivity, and financial stability would suffer
as a result of HB 465. What happens to teachers also happens to
the support staff. Mr. Wright urged the committee to pay attention
to the testimony from education employees.
Number 152
JOHN HOLST, testifying from Sitka, informed the committee that the
Sitka school district has been involved in the nonretention of a
teacher since 1990. He noted that this case has gone through three
trials and is returning to the Supreme Court. Mr. Holst believed
that HB 465 would assist in changing some of the processes that
have lead to this six-year-old unresolved situation. Mr. Holst
referred to a Newsweek article of a few years ago in which the
President of NEA said they would ensure that it would cost a
quarter of a million for any teacher that is dismissed or
nonretained.
Mr. Holst agreed that the check list type of evaluation was not
good. A formative evaluation system done locally would be
preferable; Sitka is in the process of doing that. He noted that
Sitka continues to lose enrollment due to the closure of the mill.
Therefore, the provisions in HB 465 are very important to Sitka.
Mr. Holst hoped that when HB 465 is passed on that the Tier 3 would
not be attached to the bill.
SENATOR SALO thought that current law provides the tools for layoff
due to decreased enrollment. JOHN HOLST said that Sitka's problem
is more complicated. Sitka is one of the two lowest per pupil
funded school districts in the state and it is also against the
cap. Sitka may have to layoff additional staff even if enrollment
remains steady.
BILL BJORK, President of the Fairbanks Education Association,
expressed concern with the process of HB 465 through the
legislature. If HB 465 could get enough attention, it would evolve
into the compromise legislation of HB 398 and SB 304. Mr. Bjork
believed that HB 465 could be amended sufficiently so that the
association could support it. HB 465 has been fast-tracked through
the House and is currently scheduled for only one committee hearing
in the Senate; this is troublesome. Mr. Bjork emphasized that it
is difficult for a teacher to participate in a hearing such as
this. He urged the committee to slow down the process with HB 465.
Mr. Bjork noted that current law says if there is a decrease in
enrollment which leads to a decrease in funding, then layoff of
tenured teachers could occur. On page 6, line 24 HB 465 says
"school attendance in the district has decreased". Mr. Bjork asked
if the prime sponsor intended to tie attendance to funding. How is
enrollment being intended on page 3, line 24.
TOM WRIGHT recalled that under current statutes a decrease in
enrollment would be cause for nonretention. Under HB 465, there
are two different categories that trigger layoff: "a significant,
demonstrated reduction in per-pupil expenditures due to a decrease
in revenue from one year to the next" and "school attendance in the
district has decreased".
BILL BJORK asked if that both criterias must be met or one or the
other of the criteria. TOM WRIGHT clarified that one or the other
of the criteria would have to be meet for layoffs. BILL BJORK
inquired as to the definition of "significant, demonstrated
reduction" on line 25 of page 6. TOM WRIGHT said that language was
taken from HB 398. This is the language suggested by the
reconstituted task force.
Number 020
SENATOR SALO expressed concern with the lack of a requirement for
the districts to decrease their administrative costs before laying
off teachers. She said that her district was concerned with this.
TOM WRIGHT acknowledged that that issue is not addressed in HB 465.
TAPE 96-27, SIDE A
BARBARA YOUNG, testifying from Anchorage, expressed concern with
the evaluation provisions for her daughter's teacher. She did not
feel qualified to evaluate her daughter's teacher. If Ms. Young is
lucky she can spend one day a year in her daughter's classroom.
Ms. Young did not believe she could evaluate her daughter's teacher
fairly or professionally. Currently, there are standards in place.
She urged the committee to allow the qualified people to do their
job. HB 465 would also allow a school district or administrator to
place anyone under a plan of improvement and nonretain anyone who
does not receive an acceptable performance evaluation. Who will
handle my daughter's class if her teacher is dismissed in the
middle of the year? Will class sizes be increased or will the
teacher be replaced with an inexperienced teacher? In either case
the students would lose. She urged the committee not to pass
HB 465 out of committee. In conclusion, Ms. Young said that she
would appreciate answers to her questions regarding class size.
DON CAMPBELL, testifying from Mat-Su, referred to Section 11 of
HB 465 when asking if there was a process to appeal an
administrative decision to layoff a tenured teacher due to
performance. CHAIRMAN GREEN said that there is a process. DON
CAMPBELL inquired as to the particulars of that process.
Number 068
TOM WRIGHT explained that if a tenured teacher is nonretained due
to an evaluation plan of performance, there are procedures in
Section 11 that would address that. Mr. Wright referred everyone
to Section 11, subsection (b) on line 16. DON CAMPBELL reiterated
his question regarding whether the teacher would have a process to
appeal the decision. CHAIRMAN GREEN directed Mr. Campbell to line
19 which allows the teacher to notify the employer that he/she is
requesting a hearing before the school board. That begins the
appeal process.
DON CAMPBELL asked if every other public employee, except teachers
and politically appointed employees, had the right to arbitrate
their dismissal. CHAIRMAN GREEN replied no. DON CAMPBELL said
that sounded discriminatory. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Campbell to
leave his phone number with the LIO so that she could get back to
him on those questions.
KATHLEEN WIGHT-MURPHY, testifying from Mat-Su, informed the
committee that she was a First Grade Teacher and that she had been
an educator for over 20 years. Ms. Murphy stressed her
overwhelming support of improving education in Alaska, but was
overwhelming opposed to HB 465. She agreed with a fair and
equitable evaluation procedure and noted that in her district there
are already such procedures in place. Tenured teachers can be
nonretained due to documented incompetence after a plan of
improvement has not been met. Principals need only be actively
involved in observations and follow through with procedures that
are already in place.
Ms. Murphy expressed concern with the mandatory state performance
standards. She thought it interesting that there are only
voluntary performance standards for students, leaving it to school
districts to cooperatively work with community members, parents,
and teachers to develop academic standards and guidelines. Ms.
Murphy also found it interesting that most legislators have ran on
political platforms that want less governmental control with
greater control to local government. Individual school districts
should be able to collaboratively establish teacher standards
appropriate for their specific communities. Ms. Murphy said that
she had never met a teacher that was not dedicated to this
profession. She expressed concern with how these standards would
be evaluated and who will determine if the teacher is meeting the
needs of her students. Ms. Murphy said that she had much more to
discuss and would send her written statement to all members of the
committee. She urged the committee to reconsider HB 465.
Number 166
TOM HERMON, testifying from Mat-Su, said that HB 465 would create
anxiety for teachers. Job security will no longer exist, even for
an outstanding educator. HB 465 does not improve the quality of
education. Mr. Hermon stated that education depends upon teachers
reaching out to students to motivate them to learn. If HB 465
passes, teachers will worry about themselves and be unable to reach
out to students. HB 465 undermines teaching and the profession.
CHAIRMAN GREEN called Lucy Hope as the next witness. Ms. Hope
yielded her time to the next person on the list.
MARVIN FARIS, testifying from Wasilla, thought that Senator Salo's
comments regarding due process were very insightful. He was
concerned with the issue as well, especially in Section 9 which
deals with nonretention. How is a teacher to receive due process
protection when he/she can be nonretained for failure to meet
performance objectives that are described in the individual plan of
improvement?
Number 206
CHAIRMAN GREEN believed that it had been thought out to the point
where changes had been identified and established in the plan of
improvement. MARVIN FARIS interjected that he understood that
completely. Mr. Faris reiterated his question regarding how the
due process issue fits into this. Will teachers be afforded due
process rights or will HB 465 aggregate those rights?
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that teachers would have the opportunity to
have an administrative hearing or go directly to court.
MARVIN FARIS suggested that Chairman Green review the bill a bit
more carefully. If state employees and others have due process
standards or cause for being nonretained or dismissed, teachers
should be afforded the same right. Constitutionally and
historically, due process has been a very important part of the
legal process in this country. HB 465 seems to take away those
rights.
TOM WRIGHT pointed out that the nonretention section is in Section
11, subsections (b) and (c). The employee can by-pass the school
board and go directly to Superior Court.
MARVIN FARIS inquired as to what would prevent a tenured teacher
from being arbitrarily found to have insufficient teaching
standards. How can these people be treated fairly?
SENATOR SALO said that Mr. Faris' last statement was at the core of
the concern with HB 465. The "less than acceptable" language is
fairly open and would depend on one's interpretation. Senator Salo
said that HB 465 does include due process, but the bill uses
language which is very broad.
MARVIN FARIS agreed with Senator Salo's thinking. He inquired as
to why the standard of incompetency was deleted as a standard for
the nonretention of a teacher. Why is this standard too hard to
prove?
Number 257
TOM WRIGHT said that this is an attempt to tie this to the
evaluation system. If a person does not perform up to the
standards after the plan of improvement, this would tie it into the
evaluation.
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that HB 465 would be taken up again
Wednesday.
SENATOR SALO said that tying the evaluation system to incompetence
is good. However, substituting the word incompetent with "less
than acceptable" creates the biggest problem for the bill. She
said that she would construct some amendments.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that Vernon Marshall and Willie Anderson would
be heard first on Wednesday. For those on teleconference who did
not get a chance to testify, please forward your written comments
to the committee. She asked everyone who testified to get their
written comments with specific suggestions to the committee.
There being no further business before the committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:57 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|