Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/29/2000 10:10 AM House 253
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 253 - SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY AND SAFETY PROGRAM CO-CHAIR DYSON announced that before the committee today is HOUSE BILL NO. 253, "An Act relating to a school disciplinary and safety program; and providing for an effective date." He also announced that the committee had been granted limited powers of free conference. He then turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Miller. CO-CHAIR MILLER requested that Representative Croft come forward. Number 0038 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that there have discussions in regard to accommodating the difference between schools and attendance areas. He summarized that [the discussions had indicated] that it should be a uniform policy across an attendance area, but with input and periodic review from each school. This would focus on the language on page 2, lines 13-15. CO-CHAIR DYSON clarified that he didn't want to "saddle" the individual school areas with developing [standards for student behavior and safety], although he wanted them to have review and input. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT surmised then that the desire is to have the individual school areas in on both the development and review. CO-CHAIR DYSON specified his desire [for the individual school areas] to have input on the development and periodic review. Number 0160 CO-CHAIR MILLER suggested inserting another sentence after the language, "developed and periodically reviewed, with the collaboration of the members". This sentence could read, "The plans developed by each attendance area must also be reviewed by each individual school." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT questioned whether it [the standards for student behavior and safety] is developed by the governing body of the school board or by the attendance area. If it is developed by the attendance area, he inquired as to the body of the attendance area which would do this. He pointed out that the school has a superintendent and the governing body has a board. He, then, asked if in the intermediary anyone does this. CO-CHAIR DYSON indicated no, not to his knowledge. CO-CHAIR MILLER suggested the following language, "developed and periodically reviewed with the collaboration of each school within an attendance area". SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to who at each school would do this. He surmised that Co-Chair Dyson is trying to get at parents, teachers, and other responsible people perhaps from each school in the attendance area. Senator Leman believes that a second sentence would be appropriate. CO-CHAIR MILLER, in response to Representative Croft, confirmed that the committee has limited powers of free conference. Therefore, language can be structured so long as it remains germane. Number 0303 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested rewriting the entire sentence because it seems that two concepts are being married. He clarified, "What we really mean is: the governing body does it, it needs to be uniform across an attendance area and it needs to have the input of the schools." Those seem to be three different ideas that speak to three different levels, in one sentence. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN interjected that [on page 2, line 13, after "be",] "developed by the governing body" could be inserted. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Co-Chair Dyson if, with the language "developed and periodically revised with the collaboration of", one would understand that it is done by the governing body and [the language] merely specifies who is allowed input. He said, "It's really 'developed and periodically reviewed with the collaboration of each school', but a new phrase that says, 'They shall be uniform across attendance areas.'" CO-CHAIR DYSON related his understanding, then, that on page 2, line 14, the language "attendance area" would be replaced with "school" and then continue with the language, "including parents, teachers, and other persons responsible for the students at a school". He, then, indicated that the following new sentence could be inserted, "The standards for behavior and safety will be consistent across attendance areas." Co-Chair Dyson clarified that he was working from the Senate version, SCS CSHB 253(HES) am S. He further indicated that the language, "each attendance area" could be replaced with "each school" and then a new phrase could be inserted such as, "Standards will be consistent for each attendance area." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if he was missing part of the Senate's concern or is the notion of uniformity... Number 0505 CO-CHAIR MILLER explained that part of the Senate's concern was that it may be too much work for each individual school to develop these plans. Therefore, it would be more appropriate for an entire attendance area to develop a plan. However, he indicated that the Senate wanted, as he believes Co-Chair Dyson desires, each individual school to review these plans. SENATOR ELTON recalled the concern in the Senate Health, Education & Social Services Committee [Senate HES] to be that it would be difficult for the district to consolidate all the individual plans in order to have something uniform enough [across the district]. CO-CHAIR MILLER suggested on page 2, line 14, after the word "members", insert "from each school within an attendance area". He explained the need to utilize language that would gather everyone from each school in an attendance area to develop a plan for the attendance area while providing the ability for each school to periodically review [that plan]. Number 0608 WES KELLER, Staff to Representative Dyson, Alaska State Legislature, said that Senator Elton accurately described what happened [in Senate HES]. However, there seems to be a misconception because this [language] refers to the behavioral standards not the plan. The plan is put together by the governing body and the variable is the standard of behavior that is established by each school. CO-CHAIR DYSON indicated agreement with Mr. Keller. He pointed out that the disciplinary policy is developed districtwide, which is not changed. He specified, "All we're wanting is that the schools to have input on the behavior and safety standards by school." He surmised that the major concern from the districts is the amount of work, although he indicated that any changes [in the behavioral standards] between attendance areas would be relatively minuscule. The desire is to allow some variation with the behavior and safety standards within an attendance area while the disciplinary policy should be districtwide. SENATOR ELTON agreed and clarified that was the struggle: to not have a series of mini-plans. The desire was to reach a district plan and "attendance area" seemed to be a compromise. He suggested that perhaps the language is being viewed in too discrete a manner and perhaps lines 8-10, on page 2, also need to be remembered. If that is taken into consideration, he indicated that only lines 14 and 15 would be necessary because lines 8-10 say that it will be a district-governing body plan. Number 0832 CO-CHAIR DYSON agreed that "they" can have input into the plan and the plan is clearly done at the district level. However, the standards are discussed on page 2, beginning with line 11. The desire is for each school to have input in the development of the standards. Co-Chair Dyson stated that the development of common standards in an attendance area is acceptable. He restated Representative Croft's suggestion to on page 2, the end of line 15, insert "The standards will be consistent for each attendance area." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that Anchorage is one attendance area and thus an individual school could not have a different [behavioral and safety standard]. He noted that changing the language such that [Anchorage's situation could be remedied] would return to the discussion regarding the school versus the attendance area. Representative Croft felt that Senator Miller's distinction between 20 schools developing a plan that has to be brought together or 20 schools at the table to develop a plan to be appropriate because one results in chaos while the other works. He inquired as to why paragraph (1) would allow different standards in different attendance areas, but there cannot be different standards in regard to paragraphs (2) and (3). He pointed out that [the schools] in a district must have identical policies for paragraphs (2)-(5), some of which seem to relate to paragraph (1). He explained "In other words, I have different attendance area standards of behavior, but identical standards of what is a dangerous student across a district." CO-CHAIR DYSON stated that perhaps the word "standards" on page 2, line 16, should be replaced with the word "policy." He related his belief that [paragraph (2)] should be in the disciplinary policy for the district. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT surmised then, in regard to line 18, that there can be different standards of behavior and safety, but once those are violated there must be identical standards. CO-CHAIR DYSON agreed that there [can be] a different disciplinary standard. MR. KELLER noted that Carl Rose has done much work on that as the School Board Association has done much work with the terms "policies" and "procedures." He related his understanding that policies and procedures can be developed such that it incorporates different behaviors and specific standards. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN emphasized that the aforementioned was one of the major thrusts behind this legislation. He explained that as long as it fell within the policies and procedures of the school district it was alright; that had to be approved before the year [began]. CO-CHAIR DYSON indicated agreement. He reiterated that the word "standards" on line 16, page 2, is slightly confusing because it is the disciplinary policy that is being discussed at that point not the behavior standards. Number 1084 MIKE FORD, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, said that he preferred "policy" because it is a policy regarding when a teacher can act and is not really a behavioral standard. The two terms are easily confused because paragraph (1) discusses standards of behavior and paragraph (2) uses the word "standards", although "policy" would probably be more accurate. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT related his understanding that "the program" is what the governing body does and "standards" are what the community has. He requested that Co-Chair Dyson define the terms. CO-CHAIR DYSON said that he believes that each district should, does and wants to have standard disciplinary procedures and policies. In his view, that should be districtwide. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT surmised, then, that Co-Chair Dyson was meaning that the words "procedures," "policies" and "programs" are synonymous. MR. FORD remarked that the word "program" has been of some concern as it seems to give a little more latitude to the governing body. He indicated that may be appropriate because there may be things not on the list that they want to do. Therefore, the use of the word "program" meant that "bells and whistles" could be added, if so desired. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if the words "procedures," "policies" and "programs" are considered the same, "similar enough that they're used in the same way as distinct from 'standards'?" Number 1215 SENATOR LEMAN pointed out that [on page 2] the word "standards" appears on lines 22 and 27. Therefore, whatever the decision perhaps an omnibus change would be appropriate. MR. FORD said that one of the questions is in regard to the difference between a "standard" and a "policy?" Often a "standard" is a "policy" and vice versa. Therefore, he didn't believe that [the use of either word] would make any difference in some instances. However, if the intent is to have a different meaning [for each word, then it would make a difference]. CO-CHAIR MILLER remarked that the discussion seems to be going a little afar as the original discussion was in regard to who should have the input. MR. FORD commented that the "real essence" is in regard to how to divide the workload, specifically in regard to what schools and districts should be required to do. He noted that he has heard a lot in regard to the district being overburdened if schools are allowed to come up with their own plan because the district would be left to reconcile all the individual plans. Although striking a balance may not be easy, he liked the notion of having the schools collaborate in the development. He surmised that allowing the schools to have input should allow some individuality in the program. The language could specify that there could be differences or it could require that they be consistent. Number 1331 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT proposed that [on page 2,] lines 13 and 14 be changed such that it would read as follows: "standards required under this paragraph must be uniform for each attendance area developed and periodically reviewed with the collaboration of members of each school, parents, ...". CO-CHAIR MILLER indicated that [language] places each individual school within the attendance area in the development of the plan. SENATOR LEMAN returned to the issue of consistency across an attendance area. In his current opinion, the committee may not want to require [consistency across an attendance area] because some school may want to have a slightly different policy. He noted his agreement with not burdening the school with developing this. However, he indicated the need to allow an addendum that would say in addition to [the districtwide standards] one would have to follow some [additional rules]. He expressed his hesitancy with forcing a uniformity across an attendance area. CO-CHAIR DYSON inquired as to the thoughts on inserting the language, "The district may have consistency across attendance area." SENATOR LEMAN said he didn't mind it. CO-CHAIR MILLER indicated, then, that the district would have the choice as to whether it wanted to have the consistency across the attendance area. SENATOR ELTON remarked that he didn't believe anything in the language prohibits a district from doing that. SENATOR LEMAN said that he didn't disagree with Senator Elton's assessment in regards to the current language. However, he expressed the need to take care when requiring it in any new language. Number 1468 MR. FORD said if the concern is the desire to be consistent between schools while allowing for variation, then the language could relay that standards could be consistent in either the district or the attendance area, except as allowed by the district. Such language would allow variations to be installed if approved by the district. In response to Co-Chair Miller, Mr. Ford clarified that the language would read as follows: "Standards required under this paragraph must be consistent in the district, but with the approval of the district you could allow for exceptions to that consistency." SENATOR ELTON specified that the exception could be for a school or an attendance area. MR. FORD agreed. He believes [that language] allows one to balance the uniformity provision with the exceptions. CO-CHAIR DYSON stated that he wanted to leave the district in control, and furthermore he didn't want to "give" on the issue of requiring input from each school. He informed the committee that [in his district] there are so called "ABC schools," which are back to basics schools that may have more stringent dress codes, et cetera. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT returned to Senator Elton's point that such schools can already do that. He inquired as to what was in the language that tied the district's hands before. MR. FORD related his belief that this all flows from the idea of consistency and how one desires to apply it. He acknowledged that, at this point, the desire is not to require consistency across schools and/or areas. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained, "We thought we did for a while and now we decided we don't or I'm going to add language that confirms that we're not. But I'm saying we could just go back to when we didn't." CO-CHAIR MILLER agreed that it may not preclude the district from requiring whatever they want. However, adding language to that effect provides more comfort to the Senate. Number 1627 CO-CHAIR DYSON asked, then, if a new sentence could be added at the end of line 15, on page 2. The sentence would read: "Each individual school will participate in the development and periodic review of the standards." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he believes it would be easier to delete the reference to "attendance area" and replace it with the word "school" and then insert the following: "The school district may make the procedure uniform across the district attendance areas or schools as they choose." CO-CHAIR DYSON said that would work for him. MR. KELLER pointed out that it leaves out the requirement for each school to be involved in developing the discipline standards. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT clarified that the committee is addressing paragraph (1) on page 2. CO-CHAIR MILLER specified that page 2, lines 14-15, would read: "with the collaboration of members of each school, parents, teachers, and other persons responsible for the students at a school". He asked Representative Croft to provide the committee with a rough idea of the proposed sentence to follow the language on page 2, line 15. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT informed the committee that the sentence would read: "The district may choose to apply the standards across the district attendance area or for each school as they choose." MR. FORD offered the following language: "Standards applicable to each school must be consistent in each district, except as approved by the governing body." CO-CHAIR MILLER suggested that Mr. Ford's language be amended by inserting "or attendance area" after the word "district". Therefore, the flexibility is evident. MR. KELLER pointed out that now [the language] says that each school board must do this with collaboration, which is different than saying each school will do this. Therefore, he questioned who would take the initiative. CO-CHAIR MILLER said he believes the language now makes it the responsibility of each school and then the district melds them together. He pointed out that "they" may decide that there needs to be a standard district within an attendance area and thus each school would be approached when a nearby school has different standards. Number 1782 CO-CHAIR DYSON noted that he has a slight preference for Representative Croft's language versus Mr. Ford's language. He explained that Representative Croft's language said that "the district may homogenize them by school, attendance area or district." However, Mr. Ford's language has a slightly different emphasis, which is based on a standard with exceptions. MR. FORD stated his belief that districts would probably prefer a consistency requirement as it would make their work load easier and then they would deal with the exceptions. SENATOR ELTON indicated that he preferred Mr. Ford's approach because it specifies that consistency is the first goal, while recognizing that there may be circumstances in attendance areas or in different schools. CO-CHAIR DYSON agreed with Senator Elton's comments. However, he said, "I would have said our goal here is the community gets to have input, ..., the teachers, the parents and the community gets to have input." Therefore, when the teacher enforces the pre- agreed upon standards he/she will be backed up because the community has had input. Co-Chair Dyson emphasized that his first goal is the community's input not the consistency, although consistency will happen through the process and would be the choice of the governing body. SENATOR ELTON pointed out that paragraph (1) on page 2 outlines just what Co-Chair Dyson refers to, the input from the different communities. Number 1887 MR. FORD read his suggested language again, which read as follows: "Standards applicable to each school must be consistent within the district or attendance area, except as approved by the governing body." Mr. Ford understood Co-Chair Dyson to be suggesting that [each school] "may be consistent." SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to why "must" would be desired. He echoed earlier comments that much of this discussion is regarding workload. He expressed the need to have something that is easily developed because, frankly, most schools aren't going to spend a lot of time at each school to develop this. Therefore, Senator Leman preferred flexibility. MR. FORD stated that his concern with using "may" is that it implies that it may not be, which is where "we" were. CO-CHAIR MILLER clarified, then, that the committee would basically adopt the House's [paragraph (1) on page 2], except changing the word "revised" to "reviewed" and thus the language would read: "with the collaboration of members of each school, parents, teachers, and other persons responsible for the students at a school" and then Mr. Ford's suggested language would be inserted. However, the issue regarding "shall" or "may" remains. The word "may" allows flexibility for a district that doesn't want to adopt standards. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that every school district would probably have to take some action on this. Therefore, both his sentence and Mr. Ford's sentence maintain local control with a slightly different emphasis. He then turned to Senator Leman's point regarding the amount of work "we" want the schools to do, which one can't get around with technical drafting or word play because part of the desire is for there to be some work done "on the ground." He said, "Forcing them to have a conversation is what they're not doing enough of now and that we want to force them to do." Number 2050 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if it is voluntary under the "may" language. He posed a situation in which one [school] has some bad [students] that it wants to handle differently and thus [the school] should be prepared to show why it should be different. Therefore, he asked why should [another school] be forced to do the same. SENATOR ELTON agreed and said that there is no way to enforce individual schools or parents to be part of this. He noted that in his community there are site counsels, some of which are active and others that are not. It seems that the largest piece of work will be the initial development and the reviews will be relatively simple. Senator Elton applauded one of the purposes of the bill in that the language, as it is now written, is forcing a discussion. CO-CHAIR DYSON commented that Co-Chair Miller's language arrives at exactly the place "we" want to go while allowing community input and the district the power to "massage" it. Co-Chair Dyson noted his preference for the word "may". Number 2134 MR. FORD interjected that he had a further suggestion, which he read as follows: "The governing body may require standards developed under this paragraph be consistent for all schools in an attendance area or a district." CO-CHAIR MILLER remarked that he believes that arrives at where "we" want to go. Co-Chair Miller announced that [Mr. Ford's language] takes care of Sec. [Alaska Statute] 14.33.120(1). MR. KELLER pointed out the other area of concern, which can be found on page 1, line 13, of SCS CSHB 253(HES) am S. He explained that the House version used the words, "understood, accepted, and upheld" while the Senate version used the word "developed". CO-CHAIR MILLER recalled much Senate debate on that point. He also recalled that language change was due to Senator Elton's amendment. He noted that he had recently received a letter from Larry [Wiget], Anchorage School District. The district police in Anchorage still have concern regarding the House language. The fear is that [the language] could provide a heyday to an active practitioner of the law. He inquired as to the definitions of "accepted" and "understood." MR. KELLER acknowledged that [difficulty], but pointed out that this language is under the purpose which describes the goals of an Act. He said that broader terms are used when describing the goals of an Act. Mr. Keller noted that he too has spoken with Mr. Wiget, who said that if assurance can be obtained regarding that is not what is being done, then "they are with us, verbally." Number 2224 SENATOR ELTON said he understood that. However, if the House language is used, then it would seem that a huge loophole is being created. For example, if a student is disciplined, would it be a defense to say that he/she didn't understand or accept [the standard]. He questioned why one would give a person a defense. CO-CHAIR MILLER remarked that the Senate's language, "developed," is more inclusive and doesn't provide a loophole. SENATOR ELTON said that the word that really was of concern in the House language is "upheld." MR. KELLER indicated agreement that the Senate's language, "developed," does cover it. SENATOR LEMAN pointed out the need to change the word "relating" to "related" throughout the body of the bill. He acknowledged that the title of the bill also includes the word "relating"; however, its use is directed by the constitution. CO-CHAIR MILLER announced that [Mr. Ford] would draft a [Conference Committee Substitute] and pass it around to all the committee members. Number 2332 CO-CHAIR DYSON moved that the committee adopt the [forthcoming] Conference Committee [Substitute] and report. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|