Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
03/05/2012 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Nenana City School District | |
| HB256 | |
| HB272 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 272 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 330 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 256-REPEAL STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS
8:32:45 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 256, "An Act repealing provisions relating to the
power and duties of the Department of Education and Early
Development to intervene in a school district to improve
instructional practices." [Version X was before the committee.]
8:33:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 7,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, Line 18 to Page 4, Line 14:
The regulations adopted under AS
14.07.020(a)(2)(A)-(H) must be for the improvement of
instruction.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT noted the attached justification for the
amendment, which read [original punctuation provided]:
JUSTIFICATION:
The intent of this section is to incorporate
cultural standards, intensive early learning,
community involvement, etc. into regulations which are
promulgated for the improvement of instruction, not to
require the department to incorporate these goals into
every potential regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:33:16 AM
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, explained that Conceptual
Amendment 7 would address a concern the department had with
language on page 3, lines 19-22 of proposed Section 4. She
skimmed over portions of the language, including stating the
department shall ... study the conditions and needs of the
public schools of the state, adopt or recommend plans,
administer and evaluate grants to improve school performance
awarded under AS 14.03.125, and adopt regulations for the
improvement of the public schools. She explained the
department's concern is that every regulation would be subject
to all of the requirements listed beginning on page 3, line 23.
Conceptual Amendment 7 would require that the regulations
adopted under AS 14.07.020 (a)(2)(A)-(H) must be for the
improvement of instruction and would not apply to every
regulation that the department might have to promulgate.
8:34:46 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:34 a.m. to 8:35 a.m.
8:35:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether Conceptual Amendment 7
summarizes the language from page 3, line 18 through page 4,
line 14.
MS. KREITZER answered no; and explained the language is not
replaced. She highlighted that regulations adopted for the
statutes included on page 3, line 18 to page 4, line 14 must be
for the improvement of instruction. She clarified that language
is not being replaced, but noted that all of the things that
must be included in the regulations must be applicable to
improvement of instruction. She directed members' attention to
page 3 line 21 and read, "... adopt regulations for the
improvement of the public schools; ...." She explained that the
change is to reflect the goal is not for the improvement of
public schools but is for the improvement of instruction.
8:36:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON acknowledged he is confused. He asked
whether any language is being deleted.
MS. KREITZER answered no. She explained that Conceptual
Amendment 7 would clarify that regulations the department must
promulgate, including cultural standards and intensive early
learning, are regulations for the improvement of instruction and
not simply for improvement of the public schools.
8:37:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON clarified that Conceptual Amendment 7
is conceptual to allow the drafter to craft the appropriate
language and clarify the intent.
MS. KREITZER answered that is correct. She stated that the
sponsor wanted to avoid unintended consequences by inserting
language on page 3, line 22: "improvement of instruction."
8:38:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for a description of other
improvements of instruction.
MS. KREITZER deferred to the department.
8:38:54 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), stated that the concern with the language was
all regulations would need to incorporate all the functions
required under proposed Section 4. He provided an example, such
that a regulation could change for a counselor's certificate or
the cut score on WorkKeys. Thus if the cut score was changed
the department would need to address all of items listed [in the
subparagraphs in proposed Section 4 (a) (2)] in its regulation.
He was concerned that every regulation that changed anything
having to do with education would need to be a page long since
it would necessitate that the department must incorporate all of
the functions listed in proposed Section 4. He offered his
belief that was not the intent of the language.
8:39:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to the justification portion
of Conceptual Amendment 7, which she understood is included for
the bill drafter.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY deferred to the drafter of the bill.
MS. KREITZER answered that is correct.
8:40:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 7. There being no further objection, Conceptual
Amendment 7 was adopted.
8:40:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 8,
which read, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 6, Line 10:
DELETE
[two] AND
Insert three
Page 6, Line 15:
DELETE
[third] AND
Insert fourth
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:41:13 AM
MS. KREITZER explained that Conceptual Amendment 8 pertains to
the amount of time a school or district would need to
demonstrate consecutive years of improvement. The department
had concerns related to reducing the time from three to two
consecutive years. Additionally, Conceptual Amendment 8
reinserts three years of consecutive improvement and allows the
district to choose to receive restoration services for a fourth
year. She pointed out a typo in the proposed CS will be
corrected in the work draft.
CHAIR DICK indicated that the department had expressed concern
that the district must be doing well before it was released from
any intervention. He offered his belief that the department is
providing a tremendous service and he envisioned school
districts would want to receive the benefit. He emphasized this
change was important to the commissioner.
8:42:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what help would be provided to
school districts.
CHAIR DICK recapped that year one allows evaluation by an expert
to evaluate the school district with respect to the criteria
described, including a student's preparedness to learn. The
first year a coach for the superintendent would be selected by
the superintendent and the department. Additionally, another
coach would be selected by the school board and the department.
He stated that in year two the superintendent could select his
or her own coach without the department's involvement in the
decision. The school board may also choose its own coach
without the department's assistance. He outlined that if no
improvement occurs, in year three a team effort would ensue.
8:44:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to page 6, line 13, and asked
whether the two consecutive years of improvement should also be
changed to three years.
MS. KREITZER answered yes.
8:44:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 8 on page 6, line 13 to change "two" to
"three." There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 8 was adopted.
8:45:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the coaches in these
sections are the one week per month coaches initially
anticipated or if that has changed.
CHAIR DICK answered that he has wrestled with the question, but
ultimately decided the superintendent and the department or the
school board and the department could make the decision.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to the funding for the
coaches.
MS. KREITZER answered that judging by the fiscal note it would
be paid for by the department.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether Conceptual Amendment 8 would
significantly alter the fiscal note.
MS. KREITZER answered that a section in the bill, which has been
deleted, represents a $67,000 change. She stated that the
fiscal note would not be significantly changed.
8:46:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON wondered if the school districts could
require the department to provide coaches for the superintendent
for professional development and to the school board for a
fourth year. He suggested it seems like it would be a
unilateral decision by the school district, especially if the
school district chose to have full-time coaches. He just wanted
to ensure that this bill would essentially not allow the
district to have an assistant superintendent, a school
counselor, or administrator paid for by the state instead of the
coaches intended under the bill. He offered his support for
improvements, but he wanted to make sure the committee
understands the complexities. Furthermore, the bill needs to
determine whether the coaches will be the current coaches and
define the funding support. However, he cautioned that a full-
time coach living in a rural district would represent a very
different financial obligation than a professional development
coach who would fly in on occasion to a district. He expressed
concern the bill may leave the definitions so broad that it is
not possible to determine the funding.
8:49:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that since the plan is now
a four-year versus a three-year plan so some dates and other
adjustments will need to be changed in the bill. She asked
whether HB 256 should be revised to ensure all sections reflect
the change to the fourth year.
MS. KREITZER answered that currently a school district can
petition the department to continue restoration activities.
This bill allows a school district the choice to select
restoration services for the fourth year. She related her
understanding from discussions with the commissioner that
continuing for a fourth year would be a decision between the
department and the specific school district.
8:50:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for clarification of what occurs in
the fourth year if no improvement in the school district has
occurred in the first three years.
CHAIR DICK related his understanding that the team - the
superintendent, school board member, the four coaches, and a
representative from the EED and the Board of Education - will
develop a plan in the third year that will be implemented and
evaluated. He offered his belief that it would take three years
before the team could evaluate whether the plan is having a
positive impact on the school district.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT related his understanding the plan would
start after coaching for three years.
CHAIR DICK clarified that the restoration would entail coaches
for two years, and in year three the plan is implemented by the
superintendent.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT restated that the restoration would entail
a three-year plan. He asked whether the team would then
formulate another plan. He questioned why the plan would not be
started in the first year or earlier on in the process.
CHAIR DICK offered his belief the restoration plan will work.
He elaborated that rural school districts are isolated and
people are sometimes too close to the problem to identify it.
He suggested minimal intervention may be all that is required,
such as if a superintendent was coached for five days at the
beginning of the year. However, coaching for potentially five
days four times a year may be all that is necessary. He
suggested such assistance would be beneficial for the
superintendent and the school board. He stated his intent is
not to micromanage superintendents.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT highlighted the gravity of the situation
since children will be affected. Thus some follow through may
be necessary to ensure the children are positively affected
during this process.
8:54:03 AM
CHAIR DICK asked Representative P. Wilson to clarify an earlier
suggestion for evaluation.
8:54:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 8, line 27 to sub-
paragraph (iv), which read:
development of a three-year plan by the team
established under (ii) of this subparagraph to restore
the school; during the three-year plan, the team may
redirect funding in the district budget to improve
instruction; the superintendent shall implement the
plan developed by the team; each year, at the end of
the school year, the team shall evaluate and adjust
the plan as the team determines necessary;
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested additional language be
included if a fourth year will be considered. She explained
that would be for the protection of the school and to give the
department guidance. She highlighted that the committee has
been very careful thus far and she supported adding additional
language for clarification.
8:55:42 AM
CHAIR DICK considered the plan as a five-year plan, including
two years of coaching, and in the third year a team would be
brought in to develop an additional two-year plan.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned the reason to wait two
years, which seemed to be too long of a time period.
CHAIR DICK answered in part, due to the fiscal impact and
additionally, that under NCLB it would amount to five years
prior to any action being taken.
8:56:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE offered his belief that the coaches may
identify the problem and resolve the issues in the first two
years so there wouldn't be any need to go into the three-year
plan. He reiterated the trigger for the additional restoration
only happens if the coaching fails. He directed attention to
page 6, line 19, to Representative Pruitt's point, that during
instrument landings pilots believe it is a good idea to have a
"missed approach procedure," which has been addressed by having
the department to cover the eventuality.
8:58:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 8. There being no further objection, Conceptual
Amendment 8, as amended, was adopted.
8:58:45 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY directed attention to page 4, which excludes
the ability to appoint a trustee. He reminded the committee
that under Moore v. State of Alaska the court clarified the role
and responsibility to provide oversight and support for school
districts; however, a trustee was not indicated. He related the
decision required the state to provide more direct support for
schools that are chronically underperforming. He reported that
numerous steps could be taken, but currently the department is
providing coaches and some technical support, as well as a
trustee in one school district. He surmised this may very well
address what the judge ruled in terms of direct support. He
offered his belief that this bill - which is different than what
the department is currently doing - holds the state and the
department accountable and requires accountability for the
school districts, as well.
9:00:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to language on page 8,
line 29, which pertain to the development of a three-year
restoration plan. He explained that one option included in that
plan is the team may redirect funding in the district budget to
improve instruction. He asked whether that would provide the
same ability as has been available to the trustee. Further, he
asked whether the team would have the same power and authority
that the trustee had held.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered yes, although he noted the power
has not been given to the trustee since the authority rests with
EED. The department would need to come before the legislature
prior to an intervention to redirect funds. He confirmed that
the provision would not change the department's existing
authority.
9:01:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the department is
comfortable with the team make-up described in Version X of HB
256. He further asked whether it would satisfy the requirements
under Moore v. State of Alaska.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that he did not believe the
authority changes; however, the make-up of the team is different
and outside influence and vision could be helpful. He indicated
that in the case of schools that had been underperforming for
years, the ruling applies specifically to the school district
that "has been unwilling or unable" to make the corrections on
their own. He emphasized the importance of having an outside
person since an internal team would struggle to see the
conditions they currently face. He reiterated before funds are
redirected it would be necessary to come to the legislature to
seek reappropriation.
9:03:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON highlighted that currently many coaches
are not teachers in schools, but come from the ranks of retired
teachers. She pointed out that Amendment 9 would require the
coaches be selected by the superintendent and the local school
board and will be from districts designated as high performance
districts by the department.
CHAIR DICK remarked that two issues are being discussed. He
related his understanding that Amendment 9 speaks to the coach
for the school board and not the superintendent.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he did not fully understand how a coach
as currently defined, which would require extensive time, would
be able to be pulled from a high-performing district so it is
difficult to have those two jobs. He was unsure how that would
work.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:05 a.m. to 9:07 a.m.
9:07:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 9,
which read, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
One coach from a high performance school district
shall be selected by the local school board;
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT noted the attached justification for the
amendment, which read [original punctuation provided]:
JUSTIFICATION:
The coach selected by the local school board in year
2, will be from a district designated as a high
performance district by the department under AS
14.03.123.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:08:09 AM
MS. KREITZER clarified that Conceptual Amendment 9 relates to
the second year of restoration activities. She referred to page
8, line 4, and stated that the coaches would be selected by the
superintendent, plus one coach would be selected by the local
school board would be a coach from a high performance school
district.
9:08:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that the coaches don't
normally come from the school district, but usually come from
retired teaching staff or superintendents who are trained and
contracted to do the service. She cautioned that Conceptual
Amendment 9 changes the current selection process and would
create an added expense since new coaches would need to be
trained. She characterized this as a significant difference in
cost especially as more schools become out of compliance. It
represents an unfunded mandate, and the committee needs to
decide how this should be handled. She emphasized the
importance of identifying funding and questioned whether the
legislature is willing to increase funding to that level. She
related her understanding the current coaches would not be used,
but would come from a high-performance school district.
9:10:30 AM
CHAIR DICK referred to page 9, lines 3-4, which indicates the
funding for restoration would be subject to appropriation by the
legislature. A coach could be chosen at will, but the language
indicates the person must be of quality and must have expertise.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned whether a district would
have a coach available or if a person could be spared from
regular duties to coach.
CHAIR DICK related his understanding that the school board only
meets four times per year for three or four days each session.
He related a scenario in which school board "A" wants to draw a
coach from school district "D" - noting that district "D" has an
effective school board - so school board "A" would take one of
the school board members from school district "D" as a coach to
help the school district.
9:12:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the coaches would be
taken from the state board [of Education] or another school
board.
CHAIR DICK answered that it would be from another school board.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that all
school boards meet each month.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for the department's response.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON restated the question for the benefit
of the commissioner. She related her understanding that coaches
are not necessarily working in a school, but are contracted out
by the department to work as coaches.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the department hires coaches -
as resources allow - so the EED does not have coaches standing
by who are not working. The only ones currently employed have
tasks around the state. He anticipated that this provision
would require an additional coach, which is reflected by the
fiscal note. He was unsure about the availability of high-
performance school district coaches. He related his
understanding that the department would hire another coach for
the restoration school districts by choosing from the pool of
current employees in high-performance districts.
9:14:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it seemed that the coaches would be
elected members of a local school board from a high-performing
school district. He was unsure whether voluntary members that
have been elected by a local region - who understand the local
region and constituents - could be pulled from a place, such as
Anchorage, to go to a single-site rural district to coach the
school board to improve its function. He asked for further
clarification as to whether the parameters he laid out are
correct.
CHAIR DICK responded that was his intent as the sponsor. He
remarked that Norm Wooten from Kodiak is a good example. He
coaches many school boards throughout the state. He related his
goal was to have someone comparable to Mr. Wooten in a high-
performance school district assist other school boards to help
improve their performance. He offered to dismiss it and move on
if the coach concept is too complicated.
9:16:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON acknowledged this provision intends to
use a school board member as a coach in other school districts
and would not envision using a teacher from the high-performance
school district.
CHAIR DICK related a scenario in which a coaching circumstance
could happen.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that Conceptual Amendment 9
should stipulate that since the amendment indicates "one coach
from a high performance school district shall be selected by the
local school board;" however she understands that is not the
sponsor's intent.
9:17:46 AM
CHAIR DICK suggested an amendment to Conceptual Amendment 9
might indicate, "one coach from a functioning school board of a
high performance school district shall be selected by the local
school board." The intent would be to have a quality coach from
a school district that is doing well to help the school board in
a school district that needs restoration.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered that what may not have been
originally captured is the concept that the coach would be a
member of the elected school board. He suggested including the
language would be helpful.
9:19:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 9, to read, "One coach who is a school
board member from a high performance school district shall be
selected by the local school board." There being no objection
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 9 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 9. There being no further objection Conceptual
Amendment 9, as amended, was adopted.
9:20:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to original Conceptual Amendment
9 and offered to identify the amendment since two amendments
were on the table titled "Conceptual Amendment 9." Conceptual
Amendment 9, just adopted read, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 8, Line 4:
One coach from a high performance school district
shall be selected by the local school board;
The amendment had attached justification, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
JUSTIFICATION:
The coach selected by the local school board in year
2, will be from a district designated as a high
performance district by the department under AS
14.03.123.
9:21:22 AM
CHAIR DICK, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 256.
9:21:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 256, labeled 27-LS1171\X,
Luckhaupt/Mischel, 2/27/12, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, the CSHB 256(EDC) was reported from
the House Education Standing Committee.
9:22:05 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:22 a.m. to 9:24 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS to 2nd SS HB 272 Version T Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| CS for 2nd SSHB272 Version T.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| CS for 2nd SSHB272 Backup - Student loan rates.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| 2nd SS HB272-EED-ACPE-02-28-12.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| CS HB256 (EDC)-DOA-DAS-3-2-2012.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| CS HB256 Version X -EED-TLS-3-2-12.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| 2nd CS SS HB 272 Version R 03 02 12 Legal Memo.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| CS for 2nd SSHB272 Version R.pdf |
HEDC 3/5/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |