Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/17/1993 01:32 PM 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 & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
February 17, 1993
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Steve Rieger, Chairman
Senator Bert Sharp, Vice Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Jim Duncan
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Judy Salo
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 61
"An Act implementing certain recommendations of Alaska 2000
to improve the state's education system; and providing for
an effective date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 61 - See HESS minutes dated 2/8/93 and 2/10/93.
WITNESS REGISTER
Sheila Peterson, Special Assistant
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 61.
Vince Barry, Director
Education Program Support
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 61.
Carl Rose, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 61.
Claudia Douglas, President
NEA-Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 61.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-12, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN RIEGER called the Senate Health,Education, and
Social Services Committee (HESS) to order at 1:32 p.m.
The only order of business to come before the committee was
SB 61 (IMPLEMENT ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS). Chairman
Rieger indicated that the committee would review the
legislation section by section.
SENATOR SALO referred to the first section relating to
flexibility in funding grants for school improvement and
said she would like an explanation as to why the words "to a
district located in the state" on page 3, line 1, was
deleted. The sentence would then read, "The fund shall be
used by the commissioner to make grants for the purpose of
improving public school performance." SHEILA PETERSON,
Special Assistant, Department of Education, said the wording
was deleted at the drafter's request as he felt it was
redundant when the word "public" was inserted. She
indicated the department wouldn't object to inserting the
wording back in the bill.
Senator Salo moved that the following amendment be adopted
as Amendment #1: Page 3, line 1, delete "[TO A DISTRICT
LOCATED IN THE STATE]." Insert "to a district located in
the state."
SENATOR LEMAN objected saying he didn't feel the amendment
was necessary. A hand count was taken as to who was in
favor of Amendment #1. Senators Ellis, Sharp, Salo, Miller,
and Rieger were in favor of the motion. Senator Leman was
against the motion. Senator Duncan wasn't present for the
vote.
Number 117
Senator Salo said she believes that the sections that deal
with flexibility in funding grants for school improvement
are very important and are good aspects of the bill. She
discussed survey results that were taken during the Alaska
2000 project.
SENATOR ELLIS said Section 1 states the purpose. He said in
previous years, he introduced legislation to set goals for
public education. The legislation passed the House almost
unanimously, but was opposed throughout the process by
Commissioner Covey and people of Alaska 2000. They asked
that the bill not be passed as they were doing the same
thing with Alaska 2000. Senator Ellis said they opposed his
legislation every step of the way and didn't do the same
thing as the bill did. He said he doesn't believe that SB
61 is an adequate statement of goals for the public
education system. Section 1 is inadequate and he said he
hopes to bring an amendment forward at a later date.
SENATOR RIEGER said the committee would discuss sections
which deal with increasing the school term. SENATOR SALO
explained she believes there are better ways to expend the
money which would be used for extending the school term.
She gave committee members a written amendment.
Senator Rieger pointed out to the committee that there is
written testimony submitted by the Association of Alaska
School Boards and NEA-Alaska.
Senator Salo referred to her amendment and said the basic
concept is to spend the money that it would cost to extend
the school year on increasing the instructional unit by $1
thousand. She moved that Amendment #2 be adopted:
Page 2, lines 3-28:
delete all material
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, after line 31:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 7. AS 14.17.056 is amended to read:
Sec. 14.17.056. instructional unit value. The
INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT VALUE IS $62,000 [$61,000]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, line 30:
Delete "12-19"
Insert "11-18"
Page 7, line 6:
Delete "13(e)"
Insert "12(3)"
Page 10, line 5:
Delete "12-19"
Insert "11-18"
Page 10, line 7:
Delete "12-19"
Insert "11-18"
Page 10, line 8:
Delete "12-19"
Insert "11-18"
Page 10, line 9:
Delete "12-19"
Insert "11-18"
Page 10, line 20:
Delete "12-19"
Insert "11-18"
Page 10, line 21:
Delete "23-25"
Insert "22, 23, and 24"
Page 10, line 25:
Delete "21"
Insert "20"
Page 10, line 26:
Delete "Sections 1 and 4-19"
Insert "Sections 1-18"
Page 10, line 27:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 10, line 28:
Delete "Section 20"
Insert "Section 19".
Number 248
SENATOR MILLER objected to the adoption of Amendment #2.
SENATOR ELLIS said the department has contended that the
legislation won't cost anything as there is a zero fiscal
note. He asked if it is theoretical money. SENATOR SALO
said there is a zero fiscal note but there is written
material saying the estimated cost to extend the school year
would be about $3 million per day. She said if she recalls
correctly, if the unit value is increased by $1 thousand, it
would be $35 to $50 million. If the school year were to be
increased by three days the cost would be over $10 million.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER asked what the fiscal affect would be per $1
thousand. MS. PETERSON said she believe it would be about
$12 million for each $1 thousand increment in the unit
value.
Senator Ellis asked if there is also flexibility of school
districts wanting to increase the hours of contact time
during the day to achieve their goal. Ms. Peterson
indicated the answer is "yes." She explained it has the
educational equivalent of 183 days. Senator Ellis referred
to the amendment and said he supports the increase in the
instructional unit value.
Number 299
SENATOR SHARP referred to Amendment #2 being extensive and
said he would have to vote against it unless he had more
time to review it.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER said he is under the impression the solution
to part of the puzzle is increased contact time. He said he
will be opposing Amendment #2.
SENATOR DUNCAN said he will support the amendment. He said
he is having a hard time understanding the argument of
increased contact time if it is not quality contact time.
SENATOR SALO referred to the urban schools and said most
people would agree that the biggest problem they probably
face is class size. A big problem in rural schools is
course offerings, not being able to offer a variety of
courses, and not having the number of instructors that are
trained in those courses. She said that is why she believes
that the instructional unit value is a quid pro quo for the
amount of time in school because the quality of education
versus the quantity is enhanced by the ability of the
district to offer smaller class size or better course
offerings. Senator Salo said the increased school year
section of the bill has tremendous opposition from parents,
particularly in the rural areas where going to fish camp is
a very important part of life and education.
Senator Salo said she would be happy to share with members a
different amendment with an entirely different concept
before the next meeting. CHAIRMAN RIEGER asked Senator Salo
if she wanted to withdraw Amendment #2. Senator Salo
indicated she did.
There was general discussion regard lengthening the school
year and contact time.
Number 425
Senator Salo moved that Amendment #3 be adopted. The
following is Amendment #3:
Page 2, lines 3-28:
Delete all material
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, after line 31: Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 7. AS 14.17.056 is amended to read: "Sec 14.17.056.
INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT VALUE. The instructional unit value is
$61,000, except that for a district that increases the
district's school term to not less than 183 days in session,
the instructional unit value is $62,000."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, line 30:
Delete "12-19"
Insert "11-18"
Page 7, line 6:
Delete "13(e)"
Insert "12(e)"
Page 10, line 5:
Delete "12-19"
Insert "11-18"
Page 10, line 7:
Delete "12-19"
Insert "11-18"
Page 10, line 8:
Delete "12-19"
Insert "11-18"
Page 10, line 9:
Delete "12-19"
Insert "11-18"
Page 10, line 20:
Delete "12-19"
Insert "11-18"
Page 10, line 21:
Delete "23-25"
Insert "22, 23, and 24"
Page 10, line 25:
Delete "21"
Insert "20"
Page 10, line 26:
Delete "Sections 1 and 4-19"
Insert "Sections 1-18"
Page 10, line 27:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 10, line 28:
Delete "Section 20"
Insert "Section 19".
Senator Salo explained that Amendment #3 would put a fiscal
note on the bill. Instead of having a mandated 183 day
school year, it would allow the districts to access the
increased unit amount if they go to 183 day school year.
She noted it does not continue to 200 days, it deals with
their incremental increase. Senator Salo requested the
committee members to review her amendment.
Senator Rieger said the amendment would be heard at the end
of the discussion on SB 61, so he would consider the
amendment not offered.
Number 464
SENATOR ELLIS referred to "in service days" and asked if
they should be considered in addition to the school days.
He asked if districts should be given the flexibility to
deal with that. Senator Salo said they can currently take
their in service time, up to ten days, out of student
contact time. She noted it is viewed as student contact
time by the department for the purpose of funding, etc. She
explained that some districts have longer teacher school
years. Some have accessed the full ten days and others
access rarely and not to the extent of the full ten days.
The next section the committee discussed was tenure.
SENATOR DUNCAN indicated concern that tenure is part of the
bill. He said he has not seen the justification or the need
to change tenure rights. Senator Duncan referred to SB 61
and moved to delete everything beginning on page 4, line 1
through page 6, line 28. He said his intent is to delete
the discussion regarding tenure. There were several
objections to Senator Duncan's motion.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER said he would like to hear brief testimony
from DOE, the Association of Alaska School Boards, and NEA-
Alaska.
VINCE BARRY, Director, Education Program Support, Department
of Education, said throughout Alaska 2000, the tenure issue
was divisive. One of the points that he found while looking
at the issue was that a vast majority of school teachers
thought the U.S. was doing an excellent job. About 94
percent of them don't have any problems. Mr. Barry said the
teachers themselves make the point that the retaining of
poor teachers has to do with the administration. The
administration falls short in terms of the valuative
process. Mr. Barry explained that the Alaska 2000 Committee
recommended local tenure review boards to improve the
process of teacher evaluation. The overall effect of the
proposal in the bill is accountability for management.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER said he seems to remember the complaint, by
the education administration, that the tenure award came too
fast. Actually, only after about one year of teaching a
decision could be made even though the statute says two
years. He asked when a school district has to make a
decision on tenure. Mr. Barry said the decision is made at
the signing of the third contract.
Number 564
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards, said he has submitted written testimony that
expresses the association's position. SB 61 is an attempt
to contribute to a higher standard of professional conduct
for performance in the classroom. He said he believes the
bill falls short of what it was intended to do. Mr. Rose
proposed that equal attention be paid to professional
preparation, supervision, and evaluation. He said the
tenure portion may entail some costs, but it will
demonstrate proficiency. He said it goes along way when you
are giving the system enough time to accurately evaluate so
that you can have success in the classroom. He noted that
any real reform which is going to take place will take place
in the classroom or it won't take place at all. A
suggestion is that some attention be paid to not only
instruction, but also to building level leadership
administration through supervision of evaluation. Mr. Rose
said the whole idea right now is that in most school
districts you actually have about eighteen months before you
make a decision whether you are going to retain or not
retain someone.
TAPE 93-12, SIDE A
Number 001
Mr. Rose said there has been some criticisms by teacher
groups where they don't agree with the evaluation process or
the time lines that are involved. He said the association
believes that there is great credibility in the issue of
licensure. He said he thinks that a document could be
created that licenses our professionals. By saying that
people aren't only certified, but they are also licensed
would go a long way with the public. He continued to
discuss how the tenure process currently works.
Mr. Rose said another concern identified by school boards
was personal files being handled in public, by people who
aren't elected and don't have any bounds to confidentiality.
He said it could be a legal concern. He said currently
there are four provisions for not retaining a tenure
teacher: 1. Incompetence 2. Immorality; 3. Substantial non
compliance; and 4. A reduction in student enrollment.
SENATOR SALO explained that tenure also gives protection on
freedom of speech. She said there was a court case out of
Seward in the 1970s where two teachers were fired for
writing a letter to the newspaper criticizing the
superintendent. That condition still exists in the state
for all nontenure teachers. There was general discussion
regarding tenure.
Number 119
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President, NEA-Alaska, said the section of
the bill relating to tenure really doesn't address the issue
of improving education. It is a section that speaks to how
to form a local review board. She said NEA-Alaska strongly
supports competent and professional evaluation practices.
Too often teacher evaluation procedures are done just
because the law demands it rather than as a way to guide
staff development and improve instructional quality.
Currently, teacher evaluations are little more than a
proforma administrative duty in some districts. It receives
minimal resources and occupies, often times, a low priority
on an administrator's agenda. NEA-Alaska has been asking
for better quality in evaluations for years, but SB 61 goes
in the wrong direction. Rather than a better professional
evaluation practice or a more rigorous effort on the part of
administrators, SB 61 appears to relieve those
administrators of their evaluation responsibility. It would
limit academic freedom.
Ms. Douglas referred to the local tenure review boards in
the legislation and said it doesn't set out any requirements
or criteria for the five to nine members of the review
committee. There is no provision for teachers or the
association to share in the appointment process. It is not
clear if the sixteen year old member is from that community.
She asked if tenure is going to become a popularity contest
or politicized. There is no requirement that the tenure
review committee will have any first hand knowledge of
actual working experience or observations of the teacher in
his/her classroom. There is no indication that the
committee members would be qualified professionally or by
experience to decide whether that teacher deserves tenure or
not. Ms. Douglas said the authority of the building
principal is confusing. She said NEA-Alaska has some
concerns about possible litigation. Denial of tenure could
be a reason for filing a claim against due process or equal
protection. There could be a claim against a committee
without any guidelines, criteria, or training. There would
be widely differing results from one district to another as
to what the criteria will be. She said it will be
expensive. Ms. Douglas referred to a report from Department
of Education in terms of the number of nontenure teachers
during the year 1991-1992. Statewide, there were over 1,000
nontenure teachers as opposed to 6,000 tenure teachers.
There is the potential of 500 people, every year, having to
go before a local tenure review committee. She said they
have great concern with the idea of the local tenure review
boards. Ms. Douglas said she thinks there should more
resources and time to make sure that teachers in classrooms
are excellent outstanding people. She noted she appreciates
the comments made by Mr. Rose regarding evaluations and
licensure.
Number 215
SENATOR SHARP asked what the requirements are for a teacher
to become certificated. Ms. Douglas explained that to
receive a "Type A Certificate," you would have to have come
through an accredited program. Senator Sharp asked if there
is a written exam qualifications prior to full tenure. Ms.
Douglas said there isn't in Alaska.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER indicated concern with the advisory board
appointing a student over sixteen and the publication of the
results. He said he could support an amended version of
Senator Duncan's amendment which would give the school
boards an extra year to train, mentor, and review teachers
before tenure is granted.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked if he was suggesting to change tenure
from two to three years and delete the review section which
would create the advisory boards or the local tenure review
committees. Chairman Rieger said "yes." Senator Duncan
said he wouldn't consider that a friendly amendment. He
said he would like a vote on his original amendment.
Number 301
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment #4. Senators
Rieger, Sharp, Leman, Miller voted "no" to the amendment.
Senators Duncan, Ellis, Salo voted "yes." So the amendment
failed.
Senator Duncan said he would like to offer another amendment
which speaks to some of the points brought up about a better
process or more evaluations during or prior to the period of
time that someone achieves tenure. He said it doesn't speak
to Chairman Rieger's concern about changing the tenure
requirement from two to three years as he doesn't think that
is necessary. He suggested that maybe there should be a
better evaluation process during the two years. He said he
has a proposed amendment which would delete everything in
the bill - page 4, line 1 through page 6, line 28. New bill
sections would be inserted which would require an evaluation
procedure. The one major change in addition to requiring
evaluation procedures, it requires the same evaluation for
not only teachers, but also administrators. He continued to
review the following Amendment #5:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "implementing certain recommendations of Alaska
2000 to improve"
Insert "improving"
Page 4, line 1 through page 6, line 28:
Delete all material
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 9. AS 14.20.130 is amended to read:
Sec. 14.20.130. EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHERS AND
ADMINISTRATORS. An employer may, after January 1,
issue contracts for the following school year to
employees regularly qualified in accordance with the
regulations of the department. The contract for a
superintendent who qualifies under AS 14.20.150(g) may
be for more than one school year but may not exceed
three consecutive school years.
* Sec. 10. AS 14.20.150 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(c) Until a teacher acquires tenure rights under
this section, the teacher is on probationary status.
While a teacher is on probationary status, the school
district shall evaluate the teacher's performance three
times each year. If teachers in a district are
represented by a bargaining organization, the school
district and the bargaining organization representing
teachers shall determine the evaluation process through
negotiation between the bargaining organization and the
district. If teachers in a district are not
represented by a bargaining organization, the
evaluation process shall be determined by negotiation
between the teachers and the district. For teachers,
the evaluation instrument shall be developed by a
committee, the majority of which shall be composed of
teachers who will be evaluated.
(d) A school district shall evaluate an
administrator's performance three times a year during
the first two years of an administrator's employment in
the district. For administrators, a committee of the
school board shall determine the evaluation instrument.
(e) If, in the evaluation process, the
performance of a teacher or administrator is found to
be deficient, the evaluator shall provide the teacher
or administrator with an individual improvement plan.
The plan must set out specific, objective goals that
the teacher or administrator must achieve in order to
secure a satisfactory evaluation.
(f) A school district shall provide training for
evaluators in the requirements of this section and in
the purposes and procedures of evaluation. A school
district shall establish in-service opportunities for
all teachers and administrators concerning the
evaluation system.
(g) An administrator who has completed two years
of satisfactory service is eligible to receive an
employment contract that lasts for more than one year.
(h) In this section,
(1) "administrator" includes a superintendent
of schools, principal of a school, and a person charged
with administrative responsibilities;
(2) "school district" includes a borough or
city school district and a regional educational
attendance area."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, line 30:
Delete "12 - 19"
Insert "11 - 18"
Page 7, line 6:
Delete "13(e)"
Insert "12(e)"
Page 10, line 5:
Delete "12 - 19"
Insert "11 - 18"
Page 10, line 7:
Delete "12 - 19"
Insert "11 - 18"
Page 10, line 8:
Delete "12 - 19"
Insert "11 - 18"
Page 10, line 9:
Delete "12 - 19"
Insert "11 - 18"
Page 10, line 20:
Delete "12 - 19"
Insert "11 - 18"
Page 10, line 21:
Delete "23 - 25"
Insert "22 - 24"
Page 10, line 25:
Delete "21"
Insert "20"
Page 10, line 26:
Delete "4 - 19"
Insert "4 - 18"
Page 10, line 28:
Delete "20"
Insert "19"
Number 357
Senator Duncan moved that Amendment #5 be adopted. There
were several objections to the amendment.
SENATOR SALO asked if a new superintendent in Alaska
wouldn't be issued a contract for more than one year at a
time until they have completed two years of satisfactory
service. They then could be issued a contract up to three
years at a time. Senator Duncan said she is correct. He
explained that after an administrator has completed two
years of satisfactory service, they would be eligible to
receive an employment contract that lasts for more than one
year. Sentor Duncan continued to discuss his feelings
regarding the need for an evaluation process for the
administrators.
Senator Salo said in most districts, for most nontenure
teachers two years is plenty of time to decide if they want
the person or if they don't. She said we take the risk of
people forcibly leaving the profession after two years
because they don't get tenure. Senator Salo explained that
she is very distressed that the tenure review committee is
included in the bill. She indicated that it wouldn't work
well and it has a whole different philosophy. A teacher
wouldn't lose their job by not getting tenure. The school
district could continue to employ the teacher. Currently,
if you don't receive tenure, you won't work for the district
anymore.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER explained the committee is scheduled to go
into a joint meeting with the House HESS Committee. He
requested that Amendment #5 remain in a pending status.
Chairman Rieger then adjourned the Senator HESS meeting at
3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|