Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/28/2016 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB298 | |
| HB305 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 298 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 305 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 357 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 28, 2016
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Jim Colver
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative David Talerico
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Liz Vazquez, Vice Chair
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lora Reinbold
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 298
"An Act relating to school districts; and relating to layoff
plans for tenured teachers."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 305(EDC)
"An Act relating to an exemption from the regulation of
postsecondary educational institutions."
- MOVED CSHB 305(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 357
"An Act relating to the Board of Education and Early
Development; and relating to the Board of Regents of the
University of Alaska."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 298
SHORT TITLE: LAYOFF OF TENURED TEACHERS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TILTON
02/05/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/05/16 (H) EDC
03/23/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/23/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/16 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
03/28/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 305
SHORT TITLE: EDUCATIONAL EXEMPTION FOR YOGA TRAINING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTIS
02/08/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/16 (H) EDC
03/28/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 298, as prime sponsor.
ANDY HOLLERMAN, President
Anchorage Teacher's Association (ATA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 298.
JESSE BJORKMAN, Teacher
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 298.
BARBARA CLARK, Teacher
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 298.
NORM WOOTEN, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
Juneau, Alaska
Testified in support of HB 298
POSITION STATEMENT:
RAY ARCHOLETA, Teacher
Kenai Peninsula Education Association (KPEA)
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 298.
MARK FRAAD, Teacher
Kenai Peninsula Education (KPEA)
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 298.
ERIK PIERSON, Representative
Matanuska-Susitna Education Association (MSEA)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 298.
PAMELA LLOYD, Teacher
Anchorage Education Association (AEA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 298.
DAVID BRIGHTON, Teacher
KPEA
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 298.
DIANE SHIBE, Teacher
Matanuska-Susitna School District
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 298.
DON GRAY, Teacher
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 298.
KEVIN SHIPLEY, Superintendent
Kake City School District
Kake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 298.
LISA PARADY, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators (ACSA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 298.
ROBIN GRAY, Superintendent
Yakutat School District
Yakutat, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 298.
DEENA PARAMO, Superintendent
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 298.
RON FUHRER, President
National Education Association (NEA) Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 298.
PATRICK MAYER, Superintendent
Wrangell Public Schools
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 298.
BYRON CHARLES
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 298.
BOB CRUMLEY, Superintendent
Chugach School District
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of 298.
KAREN GABORIK, Superintendent
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 298.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 305, as prime sponsor.
CHRYSTAL RANDOLPH, Staff
Representative Lynn Gattis
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the sectional analysis for HB 305,
on behalf of Representative Gattis, prime sponsor.
STEPHANIE BUTLER, Director of Operations
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on SB 305.
JODEE DIXON, Owner
The Yoga Path
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 305.
BARBARA DOBBERTHIEN, Executive Director
Yoga Alliance
Arlington, Virginia
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 305.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:32 AM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives Keller, Colver,
Spohnholz, Talerico, and Seaton were present at the call to
order. Representative Drummond arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 298-LAYOFF OF TENURED TEACHERS
8:05:10 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 298 "An Act relating to school districts; and
relating to layoff plans for tenured teachers."
8:05:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 298, Version 29-LS1372\W, as the working
document. There being no objection, Version W was before the
committee.
8:06:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON, Alaska State Legislature, explained
that the change in the proposed CS is represented in the title
change. She said that under AS 14.20.177, two triggers exist
which allow districts to layoff tenured teachers. The bill
retains the statutes pertaining to the protection of teacher
tenure and removes the layoff triggers to create an even playing
field.
CHAIR KELLER opened public testimony.
8:08:21 AM
ANDY HOLLERMAN, President, Anchorage Teacher's Association
(ATA), state opposition to HB 298, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I'm a 20 year educator with the Anchorage School
District, and for the past 4 years, president of the
AEA. In that capacity I've been involved in the
process of layoffs and involuntary displacements that
happen when there is a reduction in force in the
district. I've spent a lot of time on the phone with
my members to discuss the details they needed to
decide if they were going to stay in the profession or
find a district that could offer more security, or buy
a house, or truly commit themselves to the state.
I'm here to speak in opposition to HB 298. Our key
concern about the changes that are proposed in this
bill are that it introduces more uncertainty into the
professional lives of your educator staff. As is the
case with the fiscal problems we face, there's plenty
of uncertainty there already. There's a broad
assumption that teachers with tenure can be
unconcerned when cuts are being made to the classroom,
and I can tell you this is certainly not the case. A
few years back when Anchorage cut more than 50
positions, there many tenured and experienced
educators that were displaced - literally hundreds -
as well as many among those teachers that were laid
off. The system that's in place protects programs and
integrity of programs that are deemed more important
to principals and administration, and minimizes
disruptions to school staffs as much as possible, at
the expense of educators being more at risk.
While this isn't great for our members, it's good for
education and it's good for students. But backing
this up are a few provisions in the law about tenure
and this law that limits the times and conditions
under which we face reductions. It's not clear to me
what a superintendent gains, by being able to call for
a reduction in force when their budget isn't being cut
or their student numbers are not decreasing.
We have had a recruiting problem already. This change
will directly affect retention. Each time the
district goes through the process, the uncertainty
that is induced, even as we're conducting our classes,
is widespread. It absolutely has the effect of
causing educators to choose other professions or move
to more stable states. I've talked with former
educators in Anchorage as they were making this
decision.
I hope you'll look carefully at what this bill really
gains. It would appear some expediency perhaps. But
it offers some professional security to Alaskans
without much cost to you. I would suggest that the
Legislature needs to look carefully at anything they
can offer that's meaningful to your staff that doesn't
cost you much in the way of funds. Fairness and
reasonable protections matter a great deal in a
climate where money will be less and less of an
option. I would urge you not to pass this bill to
the floor.
8:13:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified how the layoff pool relates to
tenured teachers.
MR. HOLLERMAN responded that it's fairly complicated, but
teachers are displaced based on programs being cut in the
district as a whole, without regard to tenure or seniority. At
the end of a cutback cycle, a pool of displaced teachers exists
with a variety of qualifications. He said he has been teaching
middle school business education, although his actual field is
secondary science; a class that he hasn't taught for 18 years.
Should the program he teaches be cut, and there are no other
business education positions available, he said, even as a 20
year teach, he would be laid off rather than displacing a
tenured, or non-tenured, teacher in their existing position.
Teachers have had this type of action occur, and he provided
anecdotal situations of tenured teachers being place on
displacement status. The human resources staff are, at times,
taxed, by the details and complications of the current statutes.
8:16:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER described a theoretical scenario of a
politically motivated, activist teacher, and asked whether, due
to their actions in the district, their tenure may be
jeopardized.
MR. HOLLERMAN acknowledged that such a teacher may be displaced,
although a principal will not openly condemn a teachers
political actions. A tenured teacher would feel more secure in
such a situation.
8:18:31 AM
JESSE BJORKMAN, Teacher, stated opposition to HB 298,
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Teaching in a place as unique as Alaska is an
excellent example of why tenure laws are so important
to students, communities, and successful schools.
Many students do not have good advocates who fight for
them. Students need bold teachers to provide firm
guidance and grace. Students in the best schools
require teachers who teach controversial topics from
multiple points of view. Students in the most
successful schools require teachers that provide an
effective and exciting education without fear.
The tenure laws of Alaska provide our teachers with
confidence to be the best child advocates and
educators possible; without fear of unjust reprisal
from a school administrator.
Tenure does not mean that a teacher cannot be fired.
In fact, if a school needs to dismiss a tenured
teacher there is a straight forward process to follow
and it often happens quite quickly.
The current law simply means that there is a fair
process which must be followed. By striking this
process, kids will lose strong advocates who are bold
and exciting teachers.
In my own teaching practice, I educate kids about
topics that some may find objectionable. In this
Easter season I have the privilege to teach my 7th
grade students about the Hebrews and their celebration
of Passover in remembrance of the Israelites escape
from bondage. I also teach them about the Easter
story of Jesus' resurrection from the dead and what
Christ's passion and resurrection means to Christians
around the world.
Aside from exciting histories, some of my most
exciting lessons occur in outdoor education programs
where kids build fires, learn to hunt and trap, and
even butcher a beaver and eat it for lunch.
I am able to teach these stories and skills without
fear of reprisal and being dismissed without cause.
Tenure laws give me this security.
There are times when teachers need to disagree with
administration on issues involving policy, programs,
best practice, or how to respond to unique situations
that will have huge impacts on student's futures.
Being able to advocate for students without fear of
losing your livelihood is extremely important.
We should not expect teachers to bite their tongue or
hold their breath when the future of their students is
at stake. Teachers should not be scared to rock the
boat when poor policies are foisted upon kids.
Teachers must stand up and advocate for kids! No one
should be forced to sit quietly and agree politely
when our children's plight hangs in the balance
because a teacher feels that any contradiction might
cost them their job.
Tenure is very important for the future of strong
schools on the Kenai Peninsula and throughout Alaska!
Our kids deserve good, bold, effective, teachers who
are the best instructors and strongest advocates they
can be.
8:22:30 AM
BARBARA CLARK, Teacher, stated opposition to HB 298, and said
it's getting difficult to recommend to her student's that
entering the teaching profession is a good career choice. Given
the demands and uncertainty of the profession in today's
climate, committing to a teaching career is becoming less
attractive. As a professional, a teacher should be able to
become established in a community and contribute to the local
economy with pride. Student teaching interns, with a passion
for a fringe subject, must consider teaching the middle of the
road courses as the safe route to a stable career. Teachers
count on each other to properly prepare students for succeeding
levels, as they pass through the grades, she said, making the
hiring and retention of good teachers imperative. Additionally,
she opined, the due process system for cultivating good teachers
works. Administrators and principals should have the
flexibility to choose the best staff, by having a wide range of
options and offering attractive positions, which this bill does
not accomplish, she finished.
8:25:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER inquired what attracted her to a teaching
career.
MS. CLARK responded that it isn't about money, but an adequate
compensation and fair treatment is important. Her love of young
people and a passion for the subjects she teaches is what keeps
her in the classroom, she shared.
8:27:29 AM
NORM WOOTEN, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), Juneau, Alaska, testified in support of HB 298,
and said a good teacher in front of students is the most
important factor for increasing student achievement. Given the
dire fiscal situation of the state, it's critical for school
districts to have access to every possible tool available. The
bill is important for preservation of programs that best serve
the students. Flexibility will enable districts to continue to
work toward increasing student achievement.
8:28:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the bill doesn't indicate
that a dire financial situation is a requirement for not
retaining tenured teachers, student numbers need not be on a
decline, neither does the [base student allocation (BSA)] come
into question. The financial reasons don't appear to be a
consideration, in HB 298, and he asked for an explanation of the
dichotomy.
MR. WOOTEN said that the existing statute stipulates two
scenarios for reducing tenured staff: 1) school attendance is
decreasing, or 2) the basic need of a school district
experiences a reduction of three percent from the previous year.
Typically, the last in, is the first out, when reducing staff,
which relates to non-tenured teachers. The bill allows
protection of school programs, versus retaining tenured
teachers. Otherwise it's possible to end up with a staff of
tenured teachers who all share the same field of expertise, he
cautioned.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that HB 298 eliminates the two
triggers, but an explanation addressing the dire financial
justification was not addressed in the response, he lamented.
8:31:48 AM
RAY ARCHOLETA, Teacher, Kenai Peninsula Education Association
(KPEA), state opposition to HB 298, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am the proud parent of two school age children, both
whom are products of the Alaska public school system.
Each of them built rapport with numerous teachers.
This took time and dedication from each teacher and
could not have otherwise been possible without
consistent staff. This bill would open the door to
inconsistency.
I am a special education teacher of over 10 years. I
work with a select group of students many of whom come
from dysfunctional homes: some with one parent, some
adopted, some in transition. Why is this relevant to
HB 298? I state that these children are exactly like
my own - they need responsible, consistent, adults in
their lives. Beyond my children, often times this
population demonstrates attachment difficulties.
People come and go so frequently they don't know what
a healthy relationship looks like. Often, it is those
in positions such as mine who fulfill the role
teaching and modeling healthy relationships. Should a
bill such as HB 298 pass, all educators could
subjectively be part of a budget balancing act that
would interrupt, or worse, scar this fragile
population of students.
My 3rd and final point as to why I disapprove of HB
298. My spouse, who is also an educator, and I would
not have been able to settle into Homer, or any
Alaskan community if it had not been for the security
of our jobs. However, HB 298, if passed, would not
grant us a sense of stability.
For the sake of time, I conclude my testimony in
restating that HB 298 should not pass. This is based
on the best interest of students and their families,
as well as the best interests of the educational
communities. This bill could do more harm than good
and is unnecessary.
8:34:45 AM
MARK FRAAD, Teacher, Kenai Peninsula Education (KPEA), state
opposition to HB 298, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I am a teacher at Seward Elementary School. I am in
my 33rd year of teaching. I have taught for five
school districts in Alaska and at the American
International School in Israel. I have taught
everything from full time kindergarten to high school
science.
I stand in opposition to HB 298.
Tenure is a far different thing in small communities
like Seward. On the Kenai and in Seward we are
already having trouble attracting teachers and filling
positions. After all, times in Alaska are troubling;
there is no defined benefit and wages are stagnant.
Without tenure teachers will find it even less
attractive to invest in Alaska and buy a home. The
tenure system currently in place works and is
effective.
Alaska is unique and should not be modeled like the
Lower 48.
Parents in Seward know their teachers and take comfort
in knowing that in this ever changing world at least
there is security and consistency in their teachers
and their child's education.
8:36:42 AM
ERIK PIERSON, Representative, Matanuska-Susitna Education
Association (MSEA), state opposition to HB 298, paraphrasing
from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
I teach 4th and 5th grade at Fronteras Spanish
Immersion School, a K-8 school in the Mat-Su Valley.
With that said, I'd like to say "thank you" many of
you for your support in our acquiring the funding for
our new school. Without such help from our elected
officials, who knows how long we'd remain in the
gravel pit we've been renting.
I made it through a three-year probationary period,
which came with feeling more secure in my role as an
educator. Now I've been looking at buying my first
home ever, right here in Alaska. Just this morning
they said on the radio that the Mat-Su Borough is now
the second largest populated area in the state - a
growing community that I would like to grow with. If
HB 298 were to pass, I'm not certain if I ought to own
a home if my sense of job security diminishes. I'm
very confident in my job, so much so that I've been
approached by parents telling me they'd love for me to
loop with their students to middle school. However
this bill doesn't translate well to my students if I'm
easily replaced by a teacher whose salary might be
less because of lack of experience or because I might
have a difference of opinion with my principal. We
need to maintain our qualified teachers and the fair
process.
I am passionate about teaching and getting students
fired up about learning. I would love to continue
doing so in what I deem to be the best state in the
union, despite the compensation I plan to earn upon
retirement. However, a bill that would allow
undefined "flexibility" to districts to layoff as they
see fit would prompt me to look at more hospitable
states. The lack of consistency would harm student
achievement, thus I oppose HB 298.
8:38:57 AM
PAMELA LLOYD, Teacher, Anchorage Education Association (AEA),
state opposition to HB 298, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am an occupational therapist of 34 years and have
worked with the Anchorage School District for 24
years. I have also worked for Providence Hospital, am
an adjunct professor Creighton University, and the
doctorate program at University of Alaska Anchorage
(UAA).
I am speaking against HB 298. Changing the language
and intent of the original bill will have an adverse
effect on attracting qualified educators.
Occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech
language pathologists, school psychologists, and
adaptive physical education teachers are a few of the
educators grouped under related services. We are all
very short staffed in Anchorage even with a small
retention bonus. My department needs to hire contract
people through outside agencies to meet our student
needs. I work with the special education population.
Like most students they need a stable school
environment where their teachers, therapists and
support staff remain stable. At one of my schools the
speech language pathologist has changed every year for
the past four years. This contract person will be
replaced by another. One of our contract occupational
therapists that I mentor would like to stay in
Anchorage but there is not the security of retirement
or a salary she can live with. HB 298 will add to the
list of reasons why qualified educators will not stay
in Alaska. That list also includes not having a
defined benefit retirement or the ability to collect
their full social security benefits from other states.
Tenure allows security for our students and educators.
8:40:45 AM
DAVID BRIGHTON, President, Kenia Peninsula Education Association
(KPEA), state opposition to HB 298, and said layoffs are
currently underway. The bill is not necessary to make the
appropriate staff adjustments and budgetary cuts, he opined. As
KPEA president, he reported that he is working closely with the
human resources department in the layoff process, which involves
mandatory, involuntary transfers of tenured teachers. The Kenai
district, once able to attract a plethora of teacher prospects,
is experiencing hiring difficulties. Certainly, teachers don't
teach for the money, but they may decide not to enter the
profession because of the lack of compensation. Tenure is a
clear benefit and included in a teacher's contract. The study
released by the Institute of Social and Economic Research
(ISER), in the fall 2015, valued teacher tenure at $16,000. It
reported that if tenure were to be cut, or harmed, in order to
attract the same level of teachers, a salary increase of $16,000
would need to be included as a benefit balance. Better
contracts attract better teachers, and better teachers provide a
better education to students, and that is paramount, he
finished.
8:43:36 AM
CHAIR KELLER clarified that the $16,000, increase would be per
teacher.
8:43:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked about the involuntary transfer
among staff, and how HB 298 would effect that process.
MR. BRIGHTON explained the pupil teacher ratio (PTR) is
reviewed, and when it's reduced, a full or halftime teaching
position may be identified for redundancy. If two halftime
positions exist they equal one fulltime position, but may be
located in two different facilities. A teacher could accept the
situation and it would be considered an involuntary transfer, as
it is not a departure from the original contract.
8:45:15 AM
DIANE SHIBE, Teacher, Matanuska-Susitna School District, state
opposition to HB 298, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
This bill destroys tenure. Please, don't be afraid of
tenure. The word "tenure" is grossly misunderstood by
many. Tenure simply means that a teacher has passed
his probationary period. A probationary period is
common in most professions. What's uncommon for
teachers is that our probationary period lasts three
years - much longer than most professions.
After we pass our probationary period, we then simply
have rights to the seven steps of just cause if we are
disciplined or dismissed. There's nothing mythical
about the process.
My concern about HB 298 is that the ramifications will
be widespread and are unknown. There remains too many
questions about the impact of this bill and the degree
to which it will disrupt schools.
Alaska's layoff statues have been in place for
decades, through good budget years and bad. What is
the difference now that makes this statute necessary?
What district with more students needs fewer teachers?
Where would the extra money go if not in the
classroom? Where are the studies that indicate this
bill will improve student outcome?
Please do not pass HB 298.
8:47:06 AM
DON GRAY, Teacher, state opposition to HB 298, and said that
given the brevity of time remaining in the legislative session,
time could be better spent by taking other fiscal actions to
improve state revenues, and he offered suggestions.
Additionally, he described the economic drivers that are of more
importance, for developing Alaska's economic stability. House
Bill 298, he predicted, will cause law suits and other
disruptions that will be of no benefit to the civic
responsibility that the legislature must address.
8:51:23 AM
KEVIN SHIPLEY, Superintendent, Kake City School District, stated
support for HB 298, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Our teachers are the districts greatest assets and
keeping them secure in their professional life is
important. While I firmly believe that there should
be robust protections to staff under statute in
regards to a Reduction in Force, I also feel that the
current law placing districts in a position where they
do not have the flexibility or tools needed to decide
what educational programs will be provided, to ensure
that we have qualified staff in those positions and in
these uncertain financial times it provides little
flexibility to be able to adjust to monetary concerns
outside of their control.
Even if this bill passes there are still appropriate
checks and balances and require each districts school
board to approve the RIF plan. While this bill
eliminates requirements on when a RIF could be
implemented, it does not eliminate the tenure system.
There are several scenarios' I can envision where a
district could lose significant revenue and not meet
the current conditions set out in statute. This bill
would allow those districts some flexibility when
those financial extengencies arise.
I agree with the sentiment of the educators that have
testified today, there are several things the
legislature could do to make the teaching profession
more appealing to prospective teachers, which would
not cost the state additional funds.
Two scenarios:
TRS/PERS bill being introduced today would reduce the
money available to districts but would not affect the
districts basic need. As our schools are already to a
reduced level
Money is cut after budget is set and districts cuts
occur that year and districts decide to keep teachers
and use.
8:52:54 AM
LISA PARADY, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ACSA), stated support for HB 298, paraphrasing
from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Whilst unable to attend, I still need to express
ACSA's support for HB 298, which would eliminate the
two statutory provisions required in order to access a
Reduction In Force (RIF) process. Those two
provisions currently are:
• School attendance in the district has decreased;
or
• The basic need of the school district determined
by AS 14.17.410(b)(1) decreases by 3% or more from the
previous year.
As Alaska's fiscal situation continues school
districts are going to need every available tool to
ensure we are to deliver a quality instructional
program to our students. This is not about devaluing
teachers. It is about ensuring we are able to place
the "right" teachers in front of students. We need to
have statues in place before the need exists so
districts are able to quickly move to serve students.
For example, in the proposed TRS/PERS bill, the
legislature is "being creative" to (a) not reduce
"basic need" while (b) changing the financial
situation/paradigm of the District. The PERS/TRS
approach to reducing net state revenue to the District
would not hit the very limited trigger of the current
statute even though in effect the legislature would be
using PERS/TRS to reduce state revenue to districts.
It should be noted that HB 298 does not eliminate the
robust protections currently in statute for teacher
seniority. By definition (as set out in the current
statute for RIF implementation), any teacher that is
RIF'd would be (a) a non-tenured teacher or (b) a
tenured teacher less senior to another tenured teacher
or (c) a tenured teacher who is not qualified (as set
out in the current statute) for any position in the
district.
Districts should not be asked to be responsible for
limited resources without the flexibility or tools to
(a) decide what educational programs will be provided
by the district and (b) place qualified staff in those
positions and (c) in times of limited resources, be
able to consider all of their staff in making these
decisions. As legislature asks Districts to do more
with less, it should enable them to make fundamental
staffing decisions.
Also note that there is a fundamental check on any RIF
plans, in that they have to be approved by the Board.
Thus the Board - as the reflection of the community -
decides that a RIF is needed in light of the
educational offerings and resources of the District.
As Alaska's fiscal challenge continues, there will be
more districts in this situation. The effect of the
current statute is to hit larger districts with
increased costs and program changes/cuts that leave a
District "warehousing" or maintaining unneeded or
unaffordable programs. It also leaves smaller
districts with a significant percentage of tenured
staff with insufficient room to make staffing
decisions with the only "moveable" parts being non-
tenured staff.
8:57:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked about schools nationwide, and if
this type of criteria is being applied to tenure, and whether it
has effected recruitment and retention of teachers.
MA. PARADY said Alaska may be unique, and she agreed to provide
further information.
8:58:23 AM
ROBIN GRAY, Superintendent, Yakutat School District, stated
support for HB 298, and said it will not change the process but
will allow more districts the ability to access the process.
She predicted that HB 298 will prove to be very helpful in the
smaller districts, such as Yakutat, where management of staff is
critical. Seniority protections to the tenured staff will
remain intact, and she said, tenured staff comprise the entire
faculty in Yakutat. The smaller districts have very little
adjustment room, when making staffing decisions. Invoking the
two existing trigger criteria negatively impacts students in the
classroom. The districts need as many options as possible, and
the loss of programs does not serve students. She urged passage
of HB 298.
9:00:27 AM
DR. DEENA PARAMO, Superintendent, Matanuska-Susitna Borough
School District, stated support for HB 298, and pointed out that
the bill addresses AS 14.20.177, reduction in force, while the
majority of the testimony provided speaks to AS 14.20.175, non-
retention. The bill isn't about saving money, she said, it's
about a reduction in force. Displacement and transfer of
teachers are not laid off and, thus, do not relate to reduction
in force. The bill is not about attraction, or recruitment of
teachers, it's about reduction in force. It's neither about
releasing non-tenured teachers who have administrative
disagreements, nor teacher evaluations. In fact, she stressed,
it's about putting the best teachers in front of students. She
opined that the bill will allow appropriate placement of
teachers and keep qualified teachers instructing the subjects
they are best suited to deliver. She addressed Representative
Seaton's previous question, and offered that expanding the
statute to allow a reduction in force under certain fiscal
situations, may be helpful. The local school boards need this
type of control to support administrators who must appropriately
place teachers during programmatic cut backs. She stressed the
importance for focusing on the reduction in force, as the bill
intends, versus the retention of tenured and non-tenured
teachers, which is not part of HB 298. The appropriate statute
needs to be understood, and the two, limiting triggers that are
under AS 14.20.177.
9:04:16 AM
RON FUHRER, President, National Education Association (NEA)
Alaska, state opposition to HB 298, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am here to testify against House Bill 298.
These are difficult fiscal times for the State of
Alaska and our school districts. Alaska's educators
understand this, and we know that layoffs are coming.
What we don't want to see is an upending of the layoff
procedures that have been in statute for decades,
which allow for local input and a collaborative
approach to making difficult decisions.
Layoffs are never easy - they impact teachers,
students, and communities. HB 298 would make an
already stressful layoff process more unpredictable,
more arbitrary, and ultimately lead to more
uncertainty for teachers, parents, students, and
administrators.
The bill also raises a number of questions - why are
school districts finding it necessary to lay off
teachers when student counts in some districts are
going up? Where does the additional funding go? How
will this bill effect Alaska's ESSA implementation?
What unintended consequences could result from the
passage of HB 298?
The rule we have operated under for decades is that
less experienced teachers should be laid off before
more experienced teachers. For the most part, this
keeps the highest qualified professionals in the
classroom working with students.
It also allows teachers, tenured and non-tenured
alike, some degree of certainty about where they can
spend their careers and raise their families. When our
members don't know if, or when, they might be laid off
from one school year to the next, we lose our best and
brightest to other states.
Is the current system perfect? No, and no layoff
system ever will be. But we remain committed to
working with superintendents and school boards at the
local level and their state organizations to
collaboratively find solutions to this question and
others that address the needs of students across
Alaska in a manner that is fair to our most qualified
and experienced educators.
Today you have heard from teachers from across Alaska
about their perspectives on this legislation, and
their own experiences with layoff procedures. As you
have seen, what makes sense in one community often
isn't the right fit for another. But, by addressing
these issues at the local level and working together,
we can continue to create a positive result for our
students.
9:07:04 AM
PATRICK MAYER, Superintendent, Wrangell Public Schools, stated
support for HB 298, and said the quality of teachers in the
district is evident in the consistently high test scores. He
echoed the sentiments of Dr. Paramo, regarding the need to focus
on the reduction in force process and the two triggers that are
stipulated in statute. The bill provides an additional tool for
prioritizing student needs and, if a reduction in force
situation occurs, ensuring that the experts in any field are
placed in the appropriate classroom. Smaller districts with
limited faculty have narrow margins and minimal wiggle room for
making staffing decisions, when the only movable parts are non-
tenured teachers.
9:09:01 AM
BYRON CHARLES testified on HB 298, and said young people are a
fount of technological wisdom. New tools are important to
understand, and require education and knowledge to implement.
We're talking about qualifications, he underscored, people who
are qualified to provide education for our younger generation.
As opposed to dwelling on layoffs and cutbacks, the focus should
be on the students, not the adults. He mentioned the Alaska
statehood act as a prime example of a tool that was afforded to
the state. The mechanics of yesterday are being retrained on
the new technology of today's engines. Taking up new tools
applies everywhere and it's important to consider
qualifications, he stressed. What can we offer that will
benefit the young people of the future generation, he finished.
9:12:30 AM
BOB CRUMLEY, Superintendent, Chugach School District, stated
support for HB 298, and predicted that the current practices at
Chugach will not be changed. However, if changes were afoot,
the bill will be helpful in ensuring the least disruption to
student programs. The bill will not erode the current
protections in place for tenured staff, he opined.
9:15:48 AM
KAREN GABORIK, Superintendent, Fairbanks North Star Borough
School District, stated support for HB 298, and said her
comments reflect the sentiments of the superintendents who have
previously testified, as well as Lisa Parady. The bill will
allow districts the necessary flexibility to implement
programmatic and staffing changes based on reasonable criteria
that respond to district, student, and community needs. The
local school boards will be empowered to make important choices
regarding reduction in force. The Fairbanks district is
currently projecting a growth cycle; however, that doesn't
exempt the need to scrutinize programs for possible cuts. Under
the current limiting, statutory, criteria, she said the district
cannot reduce tenured staff regardless of the financial state or
the resources that may not be sufficient to carry out current
programs. She described a possible scenario to illustrate her
point conjecturing how a tenured French instructor, lacking
other qualifications and skills would require being
"warehoused." Further, she reiterated that HB 298 addresses
reduction in force, versus the retention of tenured and non-
tenured teachers. The local school board would still be
required to approve a layoff plan, and a teacher's due process
is fully retained. Regarding redirection of funds, she said
operation costs vary from year to year and the formula
allocation doesn't always cover the increases.
9:21:01 AM
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony and announced HB 298 as
held over.
HB 305-EDUCATIONAL EXEMPTION FOR YOGA TRAINING
9:21:16 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 305, "An Act relating to yoga training programs;
and relating to an exemption from the regulation of
postsecondary educational institutions."
9:21:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 305, Version 29-LS1401\H, as the working
document. There being no objection Version H was before the
committee.
9:22:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HB 305, as prime sponsor, paraphrasing from a prepared statement
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
This bill may seem small or even trivial, but it is
indicative of a larger issue. As we work through
significant budget cuts, sometimes departments look to
offset the loss of those funds by finding other
sources of revenue. This is oftentimes done by
charging more for services or implementing fees on new
things. That's what this bill prevents, Mr. Chair. It
is ultimately about defending our fellow Alaskans from
an overreaching government. With this bill, we are
proposing sideboards for the regulatory powers of the
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education-also
known as ACPE. We need to prioritize smaller
government and we must do everything we can to ensure
that the government is helping Alaskans when they need
it, by getting out of their way when they don't. This
bill simply exempts programs done primarily for
enjoyment and not as a career.
9:23:41 AM
CHRYSTAL RANDOLPH, Staff, Representative Lynn Gattis, Alaska
State Legislature, provided the sectional analysis of the
proposed CS, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1:
AS 14.48.030 (a). Adds new lines.
Exemptions to the Regulations of Postsecondary
Institutions.
Exempts programs that are in a field that:
A. Does not require a professional or occupational
license under AS 08.
B. Provides training primarily for recreational
purposes; and
C. At the advanced training level, prepares program
graduates to teach or instruct in that field.
Section 2:
AS 14.48.030. Adds new subsection.
Exemptions to the Regulations of Postsecondary
Institutions.
Requires the educational programs or institutions that
are exempt under (a)(5) to provide students with
written notice, before enrollment, that the program or
institution is exempt from state authorization
requirements.
Section 3:
AS 14.48.030. Adds new paragraphs.
Exemptions to the Regulations of Postsecondary
Institutions.
Provides definitions to the terms "avocational,"
"recreational," and "vocational".
9:25:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER noted that the CS appears to keep
government overreach in check.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS concurred.
9:26:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that massage therapists are not
included, and surmised that such activity is governed under an
occupational licenses bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS confirmed the members understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked about advanced training levels for
teaching and whether it includes activities such as ski
instruction.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS deferred.
MS. RANDOLPH responded that the intent would not be inclusive of
enjoyment sports.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether ski instructors are
regulated under a commission.
MS. RANDOLPH responded no.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested information that clearly defines
the parameters of the bill.
9:29:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said no activities are being taken out of
regulation, and the intent is to protect other activities from
being included in existing regulation.
9:30:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER questioned whether the bill would result
in a cost savings to instructors who are seeking a license.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS answered that it eliminates any costs
associated with receiving a license, if one is not required.
9:31:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the bill removes any
requirements relating to current positions under purview of the
commission, pertaining to instructor training courses.
STEPHANIE BUTLER, Director of Operations, Postsecondary
Education Commission, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), answered that only the yoga programs would be
impacted by this change.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the commission is currently
regulating the yoga programs, and asked for an analysis of the
benefits/necessity for continuing the oversight.
MS. BUTLER responded that the commission is charged with
education consumer protection oversight and the staff analysis
indicates that no consumer protections will be jeopardized by
exempting the yoga programs via passage of the bill.
9:33:25 AM
JODEE DIXON, Owner, The Yoga Path, stated support for HB 305,
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
I have been practicing the art of yoga for 17 years.
Yoga is a lifestyle for the people who practice it. I
opened my studio here in Juneau one and a half years
ago. I've been instructing yoga for over 10 years.
Last year I had 5 people enrolled in my yoga teacher
training program, or as we call it YTT. This program
is advance yoga for people who want to expand their
yoga experience and possibly instruct yoga. After
completion of the program these individuals sometimes
teach a couple of yoga classes in exchange for studio
time or fill in for people like myself when I'm on
vacation or travelling for business.
Last year ACPE contacted me and informed me that I
needed to register with their agency because I was
offering a YTT that exceeded a 15 days or 120 hours
and upon completion I issued a certificate of
completion. The certificate I issue is only good for
one thing, to build a personal profile on the Yoga
Alliance Registry. ACPE informed me that I could
complete the training for the 5 people I had already
started, but if I want to continue offering YTT I
would need to complete their application and pay a
$2,500 fee. When I reviewed the application I
realized that I would have to purchase insurance above
the level that my insurance broker and I determined I
need. I determined I would need a minimum of 6 people
in my program just to break even, so I have
discontinued offering my YTT program at this time.
The State of Alaska does not regulate yoga studios or
people like me that teach yoga. I do not have to
possess a specialty license like massage therapist or
barbers. In fact, any one of you can open a yoga
studio and teach yoga without any formal training. We
have been told it we stopped calling our program a
yoga teacher training and stopped issuing certificates
of completion we would not be subjected to register
and pay the $2,500 fee to ACPE.
I am a member of the Yoga Alliance, a non-profit
membership trade association that represents yoga
teachers and yoga studios. Yoga Alliance has
established voluntary yoga industry standards for YTT
programs and maintains a registry of people who hav4e
completed YTT programs.
Please support the passage of HB 305.
9:36:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked what triggered the involvement of
the commission to contact her about regulatory compliance.
MA. DIXON responded that the statutory threshold of 120 hours
was exceeded. The standard yoga instructor certification
training requires 200 hours.
9:36:46 AM
BARBARA DOBBERTHIEN, Executive Director, Yoga Alliance, stated
support for HB 305, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Yoga Alliance is an international association
representing nearly 80,000 small businesses and
individuals in the yoga industry; 232 of those are in
Alaska.
As you know, the effect of HB 305 would be to clarify
that the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
(ACPE) institutional authorization process does not
apply to yoga teacher training programs (YTTs). This
clarification is important because institutional
authorization by ACPE is designed for programs that
provide "for attainment of educational, professional,
or vocational objectives." Alaska Stat. 14.48.210.
Since participants in YTT programs primarily attend
for recreational and avocational purposes, exempting
these programs from ACPE regulation is appropriate and
necessary to prevent undue burden on small yoga
studios.
9:38:03 AM
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony.
9:38:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER stated support for HB 305 and said it
would remove unnecessary regulation and increase access to yoga.
9:38:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to report the proposed CS for HB
305, Version 29-LS1401\H, with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection CSHB
305(EDC) was reported from the House Education Standing
Committee.
9:39:20 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:39 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB305 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| CSHB305 ver H.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| CSHB305 EDC Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| HB305 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| CSHB305 EDC Summary of Changes.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| HB305 ver A.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| HB305 Supporting Documents.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| HB305 Opposing Documents.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| HB305 Alaska Statutes on Regulation of Postsecondary Institutions.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| HB305 ACPE Application for Initial Authorization.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| HB305 National Trends on State Regulation of YTTS as Occupational Schools.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| HB305 History of Yoga Alliance.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 305 |
| HB357 ver. A.PDF |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/1/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 357 |
| HB357 Sponsors Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/1/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 357 |
| CSHB298 ver W.pdf |
HEDC 3/28/2016 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/1/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 298 |