Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/01/2013 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB138 | |
| HJR1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 138-LAYOFF NOTICES FOR TENURED TEACHERS
8:02:12 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 138, "An Act extending the annual deadline by
which employers are required to deliver layoff or nonretention
notices to employees who are tenured teachers."
8:02:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SHELLEY HUGHES, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor, presented HB 138. She explained that HB 138 pertains
to a change in the nonretention date by which school districts
must notify tenured teachers of layoffs. Under existing law,
school districts are required to issue notices of nonretention
for tenured teachers by March 15 if a district believes it may
have to lay off a tenured teacher for the subsequent school
year. Currently, school districts issue nonretention notice,
known as "pink slips" at a time when the school districts
generally don't know the level of funding the districts will
receive from the legislature. In fact, the final funding is
unknown until after the end of the legislative session and the
governor's approval of the operating budget. This bill would
change the date of nonretention notices from March 15 to May 15.
This would result in less work and administrative costs to
school districts she said. Currently nonretention notice has
been issued based on estimates, and ironically they are issued
at a time when the school districts should be looking for
efficiencies. This bill could reduce the loss of good teachers
who may take other jobs after receiving "pink slips" even though
"pink slips" may ultimately be withdrawn by the school
districts.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES turned to the aspects that affect teachers
and may affect children's education. She said issuance of "pink
slips" may cause unnecessary tension between the teachers and
the school district's administration, as well as creating stress
for teachers and their families. She characterized the effect
of potentially losing one's job as being very unsettling. She
suggested the practice is disruptive for students since even the
best teachers could become distracted when they receive "pink
slips." She described observations from the experiences of
having had four children attend public schools. Some people may
express concern that this may adversely affect teachers since
job fairs are held in April; however, this bill would not
prevent teachers from attending job fairs. Additionally, she
pointed out other school district employees, whether non-tenured
teachers or classified employees, are not notified of potential
nonretention by March 15. Certainly, this bill could level the
playing field, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES summarized that HB 138 would address a
long-time issue, the "pink slip" issue, by moving the date of
issuance of notices of nonretention from March 15 to May 15,
which will give school districts the necessary time to make
important staffing decisions without causing undue stress and
harm to teachers, schools, and without disrupting the learning
environment for students.
8:07:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his understanding that non-tenured
teachers are the ones notified by "pink slips" since it is
unlikely enrollment would be reduced to the extent that it would
be necessary to layoff tenured teachers. He acknowledged that
this bill only addresses tenured teachers; however it doesn't
prevent school districts from notifying non-tenured teachers.
He asked for further clarification on whether this issue will
affect tenured teachers or if issuing "pink slips" to non-
tenured teachers has been more of an issue for school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES answered that HB 138 would only address
layoff notices to tenured teachers. She offered her belief that
by waiting until May 15 it is likely that the school districts
delay issuing "pink slips" to non-tenured teachers; however,
this bill would not prevent school districts from also issuing
layoff notices to non-tenured teachers.
8:08:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether HB 138 would allow school
districts to wait to issue "pink slips" to non-tenured teachers
or if the statute does not apply to them.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES answered the bill does not apply to non-
tenured teachers. She surmised that since the school districts
will not have a March 15 deadline to make staffing decisions, it
is not likely they will issue "pink slips" to non-tenured
teachers in March either.
8:09:26 AM
GINGER BLAISDELL, Staff, Representative Shelley Hughes, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, explained the
statute currently states that teachers who have acquired tenure
rights who will not be retained in the following school year
would be notified in writing by March 16. She explained non-
tenured teachers who will not be retained must be notified of
the layoff on or before the last day of the school year. Thus,
the non-tenured teachers could receive the layoff notice any day
prior to the last day of the school year.
8:10:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether there has been any
resistance to HB 138. She noted members' packets contain
letters of support from the North Slope Borough and the
Anchorage School District.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES answered that no opposition has been
voiced.
CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony on HB 138.
8:11:13 AM
KATHERINE GARDNER, Director, Human Resources and Labor
Relations, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District (MSBSD),
offered support for HB 138. She said that decisions regarding
staff retention are not taken lightly. In fact, the MSBSD
highly values the work and dedication of all its teachers who
serve students on a daily basis. It is largely for this reason
that the MSBSD is so supportive of HB 138. She said the current
statutes require that the MSBSD provide notice not only of "pink
slips" for layoffs, but also notice of nonretention for other
reasons. The deadline for giving notice to tenured teachers by
March 16 of each year has presented problems. As previously
mentioned, the school district's financial situation is not
known by March 16 since the legislature is in still in session
and the local funding is also unknown in mid-March.
MS. GARDNER said that the next year's school district budget is
built on assumptions, projections, and predictions. She said
that to make a final determination on staff expenses, which can
represent 80-90 percent of the total expenditures, without
knowing the revenue allocation is not good fiscal policy. On
the one hand, the MSBSD risks retaining a workforce that cannot
be sustained if revenues fall short of the estimates and on the
other hand, the MSBSD risks a potentially disruptive environment
could be created when layoff notices are provided as early as
March 16.
MS. GARDNER said that issuing the notices of nonretention or
reducing staff can be detrimental if made unnecessarily.
Unfortunately, the MSBSD must provide layoff notices two months
before the school year finishes regardless of whether the reason
is to reduce the workforce or is due to poor teacher
performance. Issuing the notices so early creates a delicate
problem for school administrators. She emphasized the MSBSD's
priority is to ensure a healthy, productive, and engaging
learning environment for each student and the potential effects
of discussing layoffs is problematic and not conducive to the
MSBSD's mission to provide a quality education. Finally, the
administrative burden of issuing layoff notices is significant.
A number of requirements must be followed even when teachers who
received "pink slip" in March are brought back from layoff
status in the fall. Thus the teachers and the school district
suffer, she said. She said she appreciated the committee's
consideration and concluded with her strong support for HB 138.
8:14:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for the MSBSD's policy on issuing
"pink slips" for non-tenured teachers.
MS. GARDNER said the MSBSD has had to issue notices to non-
tenured teachers; however, in the past two years the MSBSD has
not qualified to reduce its workforce per statute so the
district has not submitted layoff notices to any tenured
teachers. However, she noted some teachers have received
nonretention letters for other reasons.
8:15:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood the reason the MSBSD has not
issued "pink slips" to non-tenured teachers is due to the
population growth in the MSBSD.
MS. GARDNER answered that is correct. While the MSBSD has
issued some notices to non-tenured teachers due to budget
deficits, the school district has not had any reduction in
enrollment nor has the school district's basic need been reduced
by 3 percent, which are the only two criteria the MSBSD would
have to issue notices of layoff to tenured teachers.
8:16:46 AM
JOHN ALCANTRA, Lobbyist, National Education Association, Alaska
(NEA-Alaska), stated he provides government relations for the
13,000 NEA-Alaska members. Additionally, he is speaking as a
parent of four children in Palmer in the MSBSD. He said the
association has not taken an official position on HB 138 since
the bill was introduced after the NEA-Alaska January assembly
meeting. At the NEA assembly meeting, 400 delegates elected by
their peers reviewed approximately 200 new legislative business
items in about 48 hours at the assembly. He characterized the
assembly meeting as the "legislature on steroids." He applauded
the sponsor's efforts to improve the situation. He noted the
last day of school is May 23; however, several school districts,
including the Lower Kuskokwim School District and other rural
school districts complete their school year prior to the May
15th deadline in the bill, which may pose a potential problem
for some school districts. For example, a school district could
let out May 6 after offering teacher contracts, but something
could arise by May 15 that would affect their decision. While
he is not testifying in opposition to the bill since it makes
sense, he expressed concern that some school districts don't
know their budget situation by March 16. He recalled that of
the 8,500 to 9,000 teachers in the state, about 1,500 to 2,000
are non-tenured teachers. He surmised the date in HB 138 works
for urban districts, although he maintained his concern about
how it would affect rural school districts.
8:19:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her belief that HB 138 would not
prevent rural districts from issuing early notification, since
the bill requires notification by May 15 at the latest. Thus
the rural school districts would still have flexibility to apply
the policy within their district.
MR. ALCANTRA responded that this sets his mind at ease since is
familiar with Representative Drummond's school board experience.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she appreciated his comments,
noting the [nonretention] process is unpleasant.
8:20:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how many years it takes for
teachers to qualify for tenure.
MR. ALCANTRA answered that that teachers obtain tenure on the
first day of their fourth year of teaching. He suggested that
the number of non-tenured teachers is probably closer to 2,000.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how many tenured teachers are in
the state.
MR. ALCANTRA answered that the remaining workforce would be
tenured teachers, which would be about 6,500 teachers. He
restated that teachers reach tenure on the first day of their
fourth year of teaching.
8:21:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated the statute clearly states the
layoff notice date of May 15 or prior to that date so nothing
will preclude the school districts if [the school district lets
out earlier.]
8:22:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that teachers
received tenure after three years.
MR. ALCANTRA responded that teachers must start the first day of
the fourth year of teaching.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether a teacher who has worked
for three years could receive a "pink slip" [on the last day of
the school year].
MR. ALCANTRA answered yes. In further response to
Representative Wilson, Mr. Alcantra explained that the potential
of teachers receiving nonretention notices at the end of the
third year has been a major concern.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON understood the NEA "goes to bat" for
teachers. She asked for clarification on whether the NEA would
help a teacher who is given a "pink slip" on the last day of the
school year.
MR. ALCANTRA assured the committee that NEA-Alaska represents
all teachers. He reiterated that a teacher who has worked for
three years could receive a "pink slip" on the last day of the
school year.
8:24:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether expensive recruiting
efforts are attracting highly-qualified teachers.
MR. ALCANTRA recalled two years ago the recruitment cost
averaged about $12,000 per teacher, with about 700 teachers
recruited each year. He was unsure if that figure has changed,
but assumed it had gone up; however, using that rate if school
districts recruited 500 teachers it would cost $6 million costs.
He deferred to the school districts to answer whether
recruitment brings in better quality teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether the "pink slips" are based
on seniority or if the decisions are also based on skill levels.
MR. ALCANTRA said he did not believe the decisions were based
solely on seniority. Speaking as a parent, he added that has
observed that the MSBSC has documented that class sizes have
increased from 25.2 to 30.2 students per class. He stated that
the school districts need math, science, and special education
teachers so an elementary teacher would not be asked to teach
advanced math at Palmer High School.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked again for the criteria used for
issuance of nonretention "pink slips."
CHAIR GATTIS pointed out the NEA-Alaska does not issue "pink
slips"; instead, the school districts issue them.
8:28:27 AM
MS. GARDNER responded that the layoff or "pink slips" are issued
based on seniority. She elaborated that the layoff notices are
issued in order of seniority, largely due to the collective
bargaining agreement. She stated that aside ensuring minimum
qualifications the MSBSD does not review other criteria, such as
student test scores or recent evaluations that may indicate a
teacher's performance. She acknowledged that this is probably
not the best practice; however, the practice is objective, even
if it doesn't always mean the right teachers are retained in the
right areas. In fact, she did not believe it does this.
Additionally, some very significant restrictions in AS 14.21.77,
limit the school district in terms of considering non-tenured
teachers ahead of tenured teachers. In fact, the MSBSD would
need to layoff all non-tenured teachers prior to considering
nonretention of any tenured teacher, which may not benefit
student learning, she said.
8:30:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD expressed concern over the expenditures
for recruitment with subsequent layoff actions taking place.
She asked for the average number of layoffs issued each year.
She wondered if there might be a better practice than spending
$6 million in recruitment only to layoff other teachers.
MS. GARDNER answered that the figures quoted do not necessarily
represent what the MSBSD spends on retention since some layoffs
occur in areas with too many teacher. Much of the recruitment
effort is spent on special education teachers, occupational
therapists, and speech pathologists, which are areas that are
difficult to fill. Thus the layoff notices may occur in other
areas in which the school district has too many staff. She
reiterated there is a difference between where the MSBSD's
recruitment funds are being spent and where the layoffs are
happening.
8:32:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether teachers with three years
of experience who receive "pink slips" could apply their
experience towards tenure in a new school district or if they
will be required to begin again at ground zero.
MS. GARDNER responded that the track to tenure would begin again
in the new school district. However, when a teacher obtains
tenure, the experience is transferrable to a particular level.
From a school district's perspective, it is important that
tenure be handled in this manner since it would be an
administrative burden to the school districts to track non-
tenured time, she said.
8:34:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood all non-tenured teachers would
need to be laid off prior to a tenured teacher being laid-off.
However, he further understood it is possible to remove a
tenured teacher for cause.
MS. GARDNER answered that is correct.
CHAIR GATTIS, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 138.
8:35:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to report HB 138 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 138 was reported from the
House Education Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB 138 Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 138 |
| 02 HB 138 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 138 |
| 03 HB 138 Fiscal Note EED.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 138 |
| 04 HB 138 Support - ANC School Dist Feb 2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 138 |
| 05 HB 138 Support North Star Borough School Dist.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 15 HJR 1 Letters Opposition.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 16 HJR 1 Orgs Opposition.PDF |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 17 HJR 1 ACLU Oppose.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 18 HJR 1 Letter Babcock Support.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 19 HJR 1 Letter Druce Oppose.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 20 HJR 1 Letters Support.PDF |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 21 HJR 1 Sponsor Document - Anchorage Press.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 01 HJR 1-A Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 02 HJR 1 sponsor statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 03 HJR 1 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 2/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 05 HJR 1 Sponsor Background.pdf |
HEDC 2/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 06 HJR 1 Lemon v.pdf |
HEDC 2/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 07 HJR 1 Molly Hootch.pdf |
HEDC 2/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 08 HJR 1 SHELDON JACKSON v.pdf |
HEDC 2/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 09 HJR 1 ZELMAN V.pdf |
HEDC 2/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 10 HJR 1 Article Rethinking schools.pdf |
HEDC 2/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 11 HJR 1 Komer Legal Support.pdf |
HEDC 2/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 12 HJR 1 Support Chavous.pdf |
HEDC 2/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 13 HJR 1 NCAAP Oppose.pdf |
HEDC 2/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 14 HJR 1 Letter Veh Oppose.pdf |
HEDC 2/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |
| 22 HJR 1 Sponsor Document - Colorado.PDF |
HEDC 3/1/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 1 |