Legislature(1993 - 1994)
10/20/1993 01:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-70, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN BUNDE called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
noting the members in attendance. He informed members they
would be discussing HB 84.
Number 040
MS. JUDY NORTON, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, made brief
comments about each one of the sections. She felt
increasing the school year would make children more globally
competitive, and it may be one of the reasons for the
problems in that area. She said three months is just too
long to be off. The increased school year would be set up
as a slow process.
MS. NORTON commented on the establishment of advisory school
boards. As a parent and a teacher she thought it was
extremely important to have advisory school boards. Many
times in larger school districts parents felt they were lost
in the shuffle. She said it would be helpful if they were
able to be advisory or closer to their community.
In regards to establishment of a tenure review committee,
MS. NORTON felt it was at least a beginning. She stated
that people needed to be accountable and the establishment
of a tenure review committee would perhaps make some of the
less accountable educators more accountable.
MS. NORTON felt, in regards to establishment of a tenure
review committee, the voucher system and the report done by
the governor's council would be too difficult if not
impossible in this state. She said charter schools in the
rest of the nation were looked at and it seemed to be a way
to help Alaska's very diverse population be more in touch
with their educational community. Charter schools are
happening in the rest of the nation, and it would get the
parent involvement back that has been lacking in the last
twenty or so years. She encouraged the committee to look
closely at the charter schools. This legislation would not
allow anybody to surpass federal or state regulations and
requirements.
Number 080
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that one of the provisions
calling for charter schools calls for a maximum of forty of
charter. He inquired as to where those forty schools should
be established, across the state or in a particular area.
Number 805
MS. NORTON said if it was under the control of the local
district they were not going to allow forty charter schools
within their district. The limit was established because it
was a pilot program; if there were too many, assessment
would be difficult.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were teleconference people who
had questions. None being put forth, Chair Bunde asked in
regards to the longer year and the present $1 million figure
it costs a year to run Alaska's schools, where the money
would come from and how would the longer time period be
used.
MS. NORTON replied that students were not competitive with
others around the world, at least in mass. She said some
changes need to be made at the state level by extending the
year, or it would cost the taxpayer more than $1 million in
the long run.
Number 121
CHAIR BUNDE asked if Ms. Norton had any specific ideas of
what to do with an additional three days of school time.
MS. NORTON commented that she would like to see more time
spent with the students. If they were going to increase
that school day, she would not add anymore in-service days
to or on top of the school year. She state they cut into
the time with the students, and she knew parents get upset
because they don't understand why they are needed. She felt
that teachers had to have training for all of the things
they were asked to do, that was why in-service was
important. She felt it would be nice to allow each district
to decide how they wanted to implement the time. She felt
that some districts would just want to have a longer day.
Number 132
(Rep. Davis arrived at 1:15 p.m.)
CHAIR BUNDE commented that Ms. Norton hit on a topic of
concern to the rural areas, citing that they felt a longer
school year would disrupt the need to fish.
MS. NORTON further stated that she would like to see some
discussion of going to school longer days or on Saturdays.
That would be a creative way to make a longer school year.
Number 140
CHAIR BUNDE asked for more information about the proposed
advisory board and how they would interface with the current
Parent Teachers Association.
MS. NORTON thought that part of the PTA would be represented
on that board. Over the years the PTA had not had the
opportunity to advise as much as they would have liked to,
and this would give them a chance to have more input.
CHAIR BUNDE continued to question the role of the PTA and
the advisory board. He asked what an advisory board would
do that a PTA wouldn't do.
MS. NORTON stated that the advisory boards that she had
worked with were different than PTA's because they sat in on
interviews for teachers, they looked at curriculum, they
were the advisory to the principal in every decision at that
school. Not all advisory boards work to that extent, but
where she resided they did.
Number 162
CHAIR BUNDE commented that he thought he was correct in
saying the PTA didn't get involved in hiring. He asked
about tenure and the concerns of long term teachers and what
would be the reaction be to a five year tenure review.
MS. NORTON said teachers needed to be accountable. Teachers
needed to be proactive. She felt the NEA has to sit down
with DOE to try to work something out. The public
perception was that teachers were not doing anything.
Number 175
CHAIR BUNDE said a significant number of his constituents
had been in contact with him and a surprising number wanted
tenure totally eliminated. He felt there were checks and
balances, and we needed to find something that would please
the people that wanted it eliminated, but still provided
some job security in a rather volatile career.
In regards to charter schools, CHAIR BUNDE asked about
charter schools and the potential of a charter school
becoming a burden when parents leave the area.
MS. NORTON spoke about the optional schools being the
beginning of the charter school or choice concept. She said
none of them had gone away from lack of involvement.
MS. NORTON continued to say that optional schools were a
good example of what a charter school could be. There was
no history in her district of parents becoming uninvolved.
She felt Alaska had become so diverse that something had to
be done in education to make people feel more involved.
Number 218
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions or comments
for Ms. Norton. There were none.
Number 222
MR. RICHARD KRONSBERG, Board of Directors, NEA, presented
written testimony and supporting articles. (see Attachment
1)
Number 283
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified Mr. Kronsberg's statement. He
said, "If I hear you correctly, what you are submitting to
us is that we should increase the state's educational budget
versus the reallocation of resources. I would ask you if
you know how much of the state's fiscal resources that are
allocated toward education actually make it to the
classroom?" He stated that in other countries that Mr.
Kronsberg compared us to only 20% of educational dollars
were used for administration. He asked if there was any
comment on that.
Number 295
MR. KRONSBERG stated that his testimony did not specifically
deal with reallocation of resources, but he would be happy
for the opportunity to address that issue. Mr. Kronsberg
continued to say that the amount of educational dollars used
for administration varied tremendously throughout the state.
Some districts had tremendous fixed costs and overhead while
others had less. He felt it was a mistake when the
legislature removed the requirement of 55% of the allocated
amount be required to actually go into classrooms. He said
he would have thought that in addition to more resources,
the way they were applied needed to be examined. He didn't
think that HB 84 did that in any way, and that was one of
the reasons he was opposed to it.
Number 310
CHAIR BUNDE asked if anyone had any questions.
Number 318
MR. DALE DURRWACHTER, via teleconference from Fairbanks,
commented that he had retired from teaching youthfully
partly because of frustration with the declining quality of
education and a feeling that he was powerless to do
anything. The latter part of his service was on a committee
trying to develop an alternative school focused on cognitive
learning and less of the distractions that did not meet
favorably with administration. He supported most of what
was in HB 84 and took some time to focus on individual
portions.
MR. DURRWACHTER said he served on Alaska 2000, the same
committee as Judy Norton. He commented on the actual school
term. He stated he was the one that suggested the
lengthening of the term. He only had in mind ten days; the
State Board of Education added the rest. He noted all of
the nations that this country competes with have school
years right at what we're aiming for, 200 days. One of the
provisions in the bill that he had a problem with was Item
Number 1, where essentially there was an increase in the
school year of three days, but it was being allowed up to
ten of those to be taken as in-service days. He stated that
he wanted to return to 180 days of instruction and contact
time with children.
Regarding the advisory board, MR. DURRWACHTER felt that
every school should have one. He believed in parent
involvement, although it was not popular among the
profession to have parents closely involved.
MR. DURRWACHTER stated his opposition to tenure rights. He
believed tenure was important. He had seen teachers
harassed by different groups of individuals, and very
unfairly. On the same token, he felt the structure that was
there was a beginning. He had seen too many teachers given
tenure because the administrator did not do their job.
After two years they had to be given tenure or not. He felt
that with the current system that at the end of two years if
a teacher didn't receive tenure he/she would not have a job.
This program would allow the teacher to actually be employed
into the third year without tenure. He added two additions
he felt should be included in tenure rights. He said to be
really helpful, tenure must provide a standard. He was
never given any training in evaluating staff. That meant
that each principal arrived at a principalship on their own.
No one in the school district supervised the standard from
one building to another. The bill would provide a standard
that all principals must meet. Also, he wanted to see the
first year teacher's evaluation materials passed before this
committee. Because after all, development of the teacher is
important, not just a question of tenure.
Finally, in regards to the ten year window, MR. DURRWACHTER
expressed that the teachers needed some kind of a window.
He said life was not a consistent road, everyone has their
ups and downs, and he knew teachers that had threatened to
retire for four or five years, but they hadn't. If all
teachers knew that after ten years there was an open window
for consideration, things would be different.
On establishment of the charter schools, MR. DURRWACHTER
believed that the charter school had options that would
improve the entire school program. If language or science
was a focus, the graduates would have to assimilate into the
local junior high. The parents would demand that the
curriculum strengths continue. If students were coming out
of the school that was advanced in math and they went into a
junior high setting, parents would not allow those children
to sit there for a year or two spinning their wheels, they
would insist that the junior high curriculum be upgraded.
He added that we must focus on schools, and that he could
not accept charter schools that might fall into religious
issues.
MR. DURRWACHTER said there were teachers to be hired that
were being approved by the permanent advisory board, but the
school had to be in place and teachers had to be hired. He
inquired who was going to do it. He felt the cart was
before the horse.
Number 441
CHAIR BUNDE voiced a question about parental advisory groups
and it being a state mandate. He expressed concerns about
parents who would choose not to be involved.
Number 459
MR. DURRWACHTER responded by saying the real weakness of our
public schools was the failure of parent involvement.
Research by Chrysler had shown that schools would be
stronger with parents involved. He had not encountered a
complete lack of parental involvement. However, the state
had no regulations to guide teachers and principals to work
with parents.
CHAIR BUNDE said he could not argue with that, but he knew
that PTA's were often begging for involvement. Parents had
a lot of demands on their time. For schools and student
performance to improve, parental involvement was absolutely
prerequisite. He still questioned whether the state could
mandate that parental involvement.
Number 490
CHAIR BUNDE returned to Mr. Kronsberg to discuss educational
resources (money), citing that in Anchorage there was an
excellent example -- Fairview schools. He said when the
class size has been reduced, it was expensive, but it
worked. He asked where the money would come from. The
state was $100 million out of balance in its budget, and
even with an income tax it would not make up for lack of oil
revenue in the past. He stated he had constituents that
want their road paved more than they want their schools
fixed.
MR. KRONSBERG commented that he did not have a personal
problem with the longer year, but he felt the state needed
to look at lengthening the school year when there was no
requirement for attendance on a daily basis. He further
commented that students could pass through an entire year
and be promoted even if they had been absent every single
day.
Number 548
CHAIR BUNDE responded that an attendance requirement is a de
facto idea since the school district would not get funding
unless the students were there. Again, he asked Mr.
Kronsberg to respond to the idea of lengthening the actual
contact hours by putting in-service days on the end of the
school term rather than the middle of the school term so
that there were more contact hours.
Number 555
MR. KRONSBERG informed the committee that he did not have
any problem with that per se. He did think that one of the
areas that districts and the state needed to examine
carefully was staff development because it did not seem to
utilize what teachers know about the way adults learn. He
did not think the state could eliminate in-service and have
everyday be a student contact day.
Number 573
CHAIR BUNDE told Mr. Kronsberg that he had heard some
frustration from teachers about the type of in-services that
they had been attending. Many had stated the time would
have been much better spent preparing for teaching classes.
Number 590
MR. KRONSBERG thought that was more a reflection on the
quality of the in-service that was provided rather than the
teachers' desire to grow professionally.
Number 590
CHAIR BUNDE commented on tenure, stating there would be a
change in tenure because the general public was asking for
change. He said the current system did not seem to work
very well, citing that a principal could decide if and when
teachers would get a chance to visit the classroom, if a
teacher is worthy of tenure. Then 15-18 years down the road
people would be complaining about dead wood. He also
understood the other side of the coin, stating that teachers
would be involved in a popularity contest -- for five years
they would please the school board;, the school board might
change then throw them all out and start fresh. Also, if
there were to be a long time teacher that cost too much
money, that teacher could be fired. Chair Bunde understood
the need for academic freedom. In any case, the current
tenure system didn't seem to be working very well. He then
asked Mr. Kronsberg what he would think about a longer
period for evaluation before tenure would be granted than
reevaluation periodically through a teacher's career.
Number 618
MR. KRONSBERG answered that as soon as the initial granting
of tenure is tied to some objective evaluation, instead of,
"I have this sense that you're not doing your job," there
needed to be some evidence upon which initial decisions
would be made.
TAPE 93-70, SIDE B
(tape counter not reset)
MR. KRONSBERG opposed the seven year or ten year review for
tenure. He stated that most every teacher was a
professional and acted that way. He felt there were a lot
of misperceptions on the part of the public. He felt there
needed to be a dual focus in that area. Initially, he said,
the focus would be on a serious effort on determining
whether someone deserves tenure. He stated that if there
were those that were not meant to be teachers, and there
were those like that, they should be made aware of that and
sent on their way.
Number 667
CHAIR BUNDE asked for a reaction to a peer review process as
part of the tenure process.
Number 669
MR. KRONSBERG voiced the opposition of the association. He
said the association did not like to have roles
intermingled. He felt that colleagues should not evaluate
each other. He suggested some middle ground, saying that a
district, with proper procedural guidelines, could allow a
teacher to take part in evaluations of colleagues, but not
necessarily be the determinant. As long as the method
employed was not threatening he would not be opposed.
Number 684
CHAIR BUNDE thanked Mr. Kronsberg and asked for the next
person, Sheila Peterson.
Number 689
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to Commissioner Covey,
Department of Education (DOE), explained how HB 84 was
formed through the recommendations of ten committees for AK
2000. She responded to Chair Bunde's concern about the
possible lack of parental involvement in proposed charter
schools. Ms. Peterson noted a section of the bill that
would allow the commissioner to allow for an advisory board
to serve one or more schools upon the request of the school
district. Also, she reminded the committee that the
legislature appropriated $500,000 last session to the fund
for school improvement. The grants had not been received by
the school district, but would be received no later than
November 1, 1993. She continued to speak about the
importance of the funding with respect to allowing any
organization to come up with creative ideas on how to
improve instruction and the school's performance. She said
people had shown a lot of interest.
MS. PETERSON commented on HB 84, noting that the legislation
would allow some flexibility by raising the cap. She said
that system was at a cap of $50,000 per district. She also
said it had been a problem for larger districts. Many
teachers had very creative ideas, as well as the parents,
but the cap prevented any changes. The legislation would
allow the department, at their discretion, to look at all of
the grant requests and rank them according to their merit.
MS. PETERSON offered to answer any questions about the
legislation.
Number 730
CHAIR BUNDE thanked her for her testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS asked what the department had done
to look at HB 84 as far as changes, deletions or additions,
or whatever needed to be done to make the bill acceptable to
the House committee. She commented that the bill, in its
present form, was not going to go anywhere.
Number 743
MS. PETERSON stated that the department did not have any
suggested changes. However, she felt that she and the
department would like to work with the committee to work out
concerns.
Number 755
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if the DOE had received any
feedback from the states that had charter schools, about how
well they were working, and about what changes they have had
to make in their original bill. She asserted that some
states might have even abandoned the concept completely.
Number 763
MS. PETERSON stated that she had not contacted Minnesota
about changes. She noted that Minnesota's format for
charter schools was different from ours. She said HB 84
kept the charter school under the school district. In
Minnesota's it was outside the school district. However,
she stated she would obtain the information.
Number 770
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS asked for additional information
from Florida and other states that had charter schools.
Number 779
MS. PETERSON talked about legislation that had been before
the committee, noting that the department had been working
on HB 85, the foundation formula. She noted that committees
had been established to look at the Alaska School Price
Index. However, it had been a frustrating task. They had a
difficult time viewing it from a statesman's point of view.
Number 799
CHAIR BUNDE stated that one of his concerns was educational
fads. He commented that 20 years ago it was great to build
schools without walls; now the school district was putting
out a bid to build walls in those schools. He noted his
concern that charter schools might be an educational fad.
Number 812
MS. PETERSON commented that within HB 84 the longer school
year was spoken of as the educational equivalent of 180
days. That allowed for some creativity on the school
district's part.
Number 824
CHAIR BUNDE stated that with the diversity of the Alaskan
population it was vital that school districts have some
flexibility in meeting state mandated requirements. It was
also vital that the state not mandate requirements that the
state could not pay for, because municipalities had some
problems in that area. Chair Bunde continued by commenting
on the optional programs in Anchorage. He remarked that
they probably met the needs of the charter programs, and
that we might look at those programs to expand out to the
rest of the state if they were interested.
CHAIR BUNDE thanked Ms. Peterson and moved on to testimony
in Juneau.
Number 836
MS. MARY ASPER, Principal, Haines Elementary School,
communicated the problems Haines was having due to differing
philosophies in that public school system. She stated that
Haines had a Christian school that had taken approximately
40 students from the public school, and there was a group of
parents contemplating a more liberal optional program, which
would take even more children from the public school. Ms.
Asper's point was directed at the loss of students due to
the formation of schools outside of the public system,
especially in communities like Haines. She noted that
charter schools could help smaller communities with diverse
philosophies because it would allow for differing
philosophies under the umbrella of the public school system
without gutting that system.
Number 901
CHAIR BUNDE thanked her for her testimony and asked for more
questions from the committee.
Number 905
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS asked what the new schools were
providing that the public school system was not.
Number 907
MS. ASPER answered by giving her personal opinion. She felt
there was such strong philosophical opinions about what
should be happening in public schools and about what did
should be taught. If there were two polarized groups of
people with different desires, the school would try to take
a middle of the road approach. The end result, she felt,
was a valueless education.
Number 922
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS asked again what the schools were
providing.
Number 930
MS. ASPER said that conservative parents wanted harder
discipline and more structure, like an ABC school in
Anchorage. On the other hand, other people in Haines wanted
the antithesis of that. They wanted a program like the
optional schools in Anchorage. They wanted progressive
education, ungraded, teachers with the same kids for three
years, a wider range of experiences for children, a
bio-regional curriculum where kids would learn more about
the area they live in, and project based learning. She
stated that those approaches were being met by parents
selecting a teacher. This approach causes frustration
because the parent must go through the same teacher
selection process each year. Ms. Asper continued to say
that charter schools would give people in Haines the
philosophical choices they were looking for in the public
school system.
Number 952
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS stated that she believed our school
system could provide that without having charter schools.
It was being done in Anchorage. However, the two school
districts could not be compared, but she thought the problem
might be that Haines was trying to go through the middle
ground. Perhaps the needs of both sets of parents could be
met by providing the same types of things that they already
had in Anchorage. She didn't see why it couldn't work in a
smaller school system. On the other hand, if a private
school wanted to set up, she felt there was room for all.
She felt there was a need for both types of schools. If it
was a religious setting that they wanted, then they would
have to go outside the school system.
Number 971
MS. ASPER disagreed by saying she felt she was trying and
that Haines was getting farther from that. She stated that
Anchorage provided many more opportunities than a school
district that had 425 students. She felt it would be
difficult in smaller communities to do the kinds of choices
that were being discussed.
Number 975
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were resources for two charter
schools.
Number 986
MS. ASPER said she had hoped the amount of resources would
not change. It would just be the push that would allow
those groups of kids, if they so choose, to organize and
utilize that opportunity. She felt that they probably
would, and it would be like a school within a school that
would allow for differences.
Number 990
CHAIR BUNDE, concerned about diversity, wondered if
legislation was going to end up vulcanizing our schools to
the point that one person won't speak to another because
they are in another type of program.
MS. ASPER stated that if schools were working as the great
American melting pot, then they would be of much higher
quality than they were. Perhaps charter schools would be
the way to say that diversity was valued.
Number 014
CHAIR BUNDE voiced concern that the state was getting too
close to the student-teacher relationship. Chair Bunde
asked if there were any further questions. There were none.
Number 062
MS. MARY RUBADEAU, Assistant Superintendent, Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District, stated via teleconference that many
members of the school board testified last year on this
legislation, and instead of testifying again, asked if there
were any questions. She continued to say that she had
already gone on record as supporting certain sections of the
bill, and she had the greatest problem with the additional
days in the school term without corresponding funding.
Number 080
CHAIR BUNDE shared the same concerns about the longer school
year and how the days would be used. He asked what Ms.
Rubadeau's reaction would be to taking the in-service days
out of the current academic year and using the longer school
year for in-service.
MS. RUBADEAU referred to Mr. Kronsberg's testimony and
agreed with his comments on staff development. She
indicated that the Kenai schools had gone to a school based
staff development model. Local schools had developed goals
which drive staff development in-service programs. She
continued to say that the in-service programs had been much
more meaningful and the teachers found that placing
in-service days strategically throughout the year, like
holidays, when many students whose parents work for the
state or government are home, helped. It had been a benefit
to put them throughout the school year, because depending on
the goals, the teachers could carry the theme throughout the
year.
CHAIR BUNDE asked about the possibility of a tenure program
that mirrored the college tenure program. He said there was
a longer period of time with a number of reviews before
tenure was actually granted, then a revisiting of the tenure
process five to ten years into a teacher's career.
MS. RUBADEAU stated the school board of Kenai officially
went on record saying that they supported a longer tenure
period because it would be a benefit to the district. She
said that very often two years was really 18 months and it
didn't give them the length of time to counsel teachers or
work with ones that needed to make changes. As far as a
tenure review board was concerned, she stated that in
testimony last year it was considered an administrative
level issue, where the district really had worked over the
last four to five years with administrators to heighten
awareness and their evaluation supervision skills.
Number 115
CHAIR BUNDE clarified Ms. Rubadeau's statement asking if he
understood correctly that Kenai was not supportive of a peer
review process.
MS. RUBADEAU said, no; especially with all the different
students. She stated that anytime a review process
considers denying tenure, it would be a nonretention. Often
there is the need for high level confidentiality with regard
to those proceedings. She felt it would be inappropriate at
that point to involve a student voice at all.
Number 130
CHAIR BUNDE agreed about the student, but clarified that he
was asking about peer review. He explained, peer review
would be one elementary teacher evaluating the performance
of another elementary school teacher based on knowledge.
They would work with the teacher being reviewed and be
involved in numerous opportunities for observation. Chair
Bunde observed that the problem with the current tenure
system was the principal was often involved in many other
things and would not get into the classroom enough.
Number 136
MS. RUBADEAU agreed and restated that was why Kenai was
putting more emphasis on evaluation and supervision. She
mentioned that if a principal felt a teacher was having a
problem, a mentor teacher would be assigned to the
struggling teacher. She termed it a coaching system and
said that they do have a great deal of peer involvement; and
the administrator would then do the evaluation.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if a single person made the decision to
grant tenure or not to a person.
MS. RUBADEAU informed Chair Bunde that the school board made
the final decision of whether to grant tenure or not.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that, in reality, none of those people
ever observed that teacher in action. The recommendation of
that principal was basically the only information the school
board would have had.
MS. RUBADEAU agreed unless there were reservations included
in the recommendation. In that case there would be months
of observation and help from different staff members outside
of the central office. She continued to say that teachers
would have been very involved if it were a questionable
tenure review.
Number 173
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any other questions for Ms.
Rubadeau. There were none.
(CHAIRMAN BUNDE called a recess at 2:23 p.m. and reconvened
the meeting at 2:45 p.m.)
TAPE 93-71, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE asked John Cyr to testify.
Number 050
MR. JOHN CYR, Vice President, National Education Association
(NEA), Anchorage, stated that NEA AK continued to be
frustrated at the lack of actual involvement by those in the
profession. There seemed to be a conscious effort to
exclude those who work with children. There were only six
teachers on the original committee for AK 2000. He said the
NEA was a vested interest interested in and committed to the
improvement of schools and the improvement of the lives and
education of children. He said there were three major
pieces of legislation that had come from the AK 2000
movement. The first was the foundation program budget and
the school finance bill. He said the state board wanted to
mandate through Rural Educational Area Attendance (REAA)
regulation the requirement to contribute locally to their
districts. He felt the change in funding would dramatically
affect poor communities that had no tax base. He said NEA
AK supported the concept of local contribution based upon
the ability to pay and equity for all students in terms of
financial support. The question was how would this work in
REAA's with no tax base and no organized government to levy
and collect taxes. He said NEA AK supported vocational
education, but not at the expense of gifted and talented
programs nor the integrity of categorical programs.
Furthermore, the gifted and talented program cap would
penalize children by arbitrarily limiting state funds to
only 4.5% of the district students.
MR. CYR commented further on the minimum school community
size saying that the board had also recommended changing the
minimum school funding community size to ten students by
fiscal 1999. Without state funding, several organizable
groups of students would no longer have local schools and
the benefits of certified teachers in their home community.
He stated that no student should be deprived of a quality
education regardless of where he or she lived. The board
would establish the Alaska school price index as a
replacement for the current area cost differential in the
foundation formula. The price index was based on a
hypothetically weighted educational goods and services
market basket mix. NEA AK supported the concept of relating
costs of operating a school district in different parts of
the state to actual educational costs rather than market
basket items. Mr. Cyr said, however, that the foundation
unit would have to be fully funded and that the change in
differential should not be a method of shifting state
funding from some school district to others.
In regards to the capital improvement program, MR. CYR
stated that the NEA AK supported shared capital projects
based on a community's ability to pay. Again, the question
concerning the recommendation would be how REAA's with no
tax base and no organized government would be able to raise
their local share.
MR. CYR said that the area that had raised the most concern
-- proposed educational legislation and regulation change --
would increase school days. He further said that the state
board would increase the number of days in the school year
from the current 180 to 200 days by the year 2000. There
had been no significant discussion concerning why additional
days were added. Realistic consideration had not been given
to the increased cost that would be incurred with that
recommendation. After factoring in an annual inflation in
an 11% increase in actual operating costs, NEA AK estimated
this recommendation would cost at least $77,000,000.
MR. CYR commented on charter schools, saying that the board
would establish charter schools on application and approval
by local board and state board. He said NEA AK did not
support the recommendation on charter schools. Charter
schools had the potential to use public money for private
interest to circumvent the negotiated agreements and to
establish elite schools which do not value the inclusion of
students of all abilities and all ethnic, social and
economic backgrounds. The NEA asked what could happen in a
charter school that couldn't happen in a public school. He
said that the state need only look at the Anchorage School
District to look at different types and styles of public
education.
MR. CYR stated that on the topic of tenure the board would
amend current tenure law to establish a local tenure review
committee which would evaluate and make a recommendation
before a teacher would be granted tenure. He said NEA AK
supported the current teacher tenure law which protects
academic freedom, provides for termination for incompetence,
insubordination, or moral turpitude. He stated that the
proposed changes would have the potential for seriously
jeopardizing a fair and just evaluation of new teachers. He
said that personnel matters were confidential. He expressed
concern that the present recommendation may violate the
confidential employee/employer relationship under the
current law. Nearly every comment to date had stressed the
lack of evaluative procedure. He thought that perhaps what
the NEA AK should address is evaluation reform and not
tenure reform.
Finally, MR. CYR commented on mandatory advisory school
boards. He said the board would establish a mandatory
advisory school board in communities within a district of 50
or more permanent students. He said NEA AK supported
involvement of parents in the community. However, the NEA
did not believe involvement should be mandated by the state.
The purposes and expectations of advisory school boards were
vague. Mr. Cyr said that nobody had laid out any plan, or
talked about what would happen when their ideas conflicted
with local school boards, or when their proposals conflicted
with existing state law.
MR. CYR said that there were some AK 2000 recommendations
which promised vision and opportunities for Alaskan
students. However, without a commitment to fund these
recommendations, the NEA had little hope to see any
improvement. Mr. Cyr finished by saying class size,
multicultural and minority student concerns, and at- risk
students leave a definite void in the report.
Number 080
CHAIR BUNDE mentioned that he shared Mr. Cyr's concern that
not enough of the resident experts, the teachers from the
classroom, have had an opportunity to discuss the issues.
He stated that he had personally called every elementary
school in Anchorage and invited them to notify their
teachers and assured them he would stay as long as there
were any who wished to testify.
CHAIR BUNDE continued to talk about minimum school size
throughout the state. He stated that last year there were
21 schools in Alaska that had a school population of 12 or
fewer, and each school was very expensive. There were two
schools, one with a population of three and another with
four, that included the teacher's children as well. He felt
that it was coming to a point where the state could not
afford to do everything for everyone. There were choices
available, and with decreasing revenues, we needed to put
the money where it would do the most good for the majority
of people.
CHAIR BUNDE agreed by saying it would be a useful course as
we go through the process of hearings on the bill. Two
years seemed to be a short period of time to be evaluated
for a career decision that would affect the rest of one's
life. He asked Mr. Cyr his reaction to the two year
evaluation plan.
Number 123
MR. CYR said that in some of the districts of the state,
local administrators were mandated to make a certain number
of formal evaluations of nontenured teachers, as well as a
number of informal evaluations. Their function was to do
evaluations on nontenured teachers. Those teachers were
then put on a plan of improvement if they needed it or they
were encouraged or linked with a mentor teacher. The second
year, if those nontenure teachers hadn't met the goal in
their plan of improvement, they were again counseled and put
into other positions outside the school district. Given
that some districts had an active program with active
administrators observing and mentoring and counseling
nontenured teachers, he did not believe two years was too
short a time period. He suggested looking at how the
districts were proceeding with their evaluations.
Number 146
CHAIR BUNDE commented that some teachers got shorted when
the administrators had fires to put out elsewhere in the
building.
Number 150
MR. CYR stated that the focus of AK 2000 should be on
instruction. There was nothing in the bill that would make
instruction better.
Number 171
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS commented on tenure versus
evaluation. She stated that she saw it as a real problem.
She felt the time had come to sit down and review what was
being done for tenure rights for teachers. She felt that if
there was a problem in the district with tenure and all the
responsibility had been on the principal, that meant they
couldn't always get into the classroom to do an evaluation.
Then it would seem that the school district would want to
take on the responsibility to make the change. She felt
that perhaps it should be the responsibility of more people.
She said it should be more people at the district level or
it should be a district-wide team that would go along and do
the evaluation with the principal involved. She further
stated that was how it was done in Texas.
CHAIR BUNDE said it was a concern to his constituents.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS stated that she was misunderstood
and that it was a concern, but asked if they really
understood the problem.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that academic freedom was a side of the
tenure coin that he would defend very strongly. He didn't
want to get rid of tenure, but felt that some type of
revision of tenure was needed to keep the broad general
constituency. He mentioned his surprise when he discovered
only 35% of the Anchorage parents had children in the school
system. He said that if legislation did not reach the broad
group out there, and if it didn't have a vested interest,
there were going to be some problems in keeping what we had,
much less improving.
Number 219
MR. CYR requested a final comment on tenure. He said the
misunderstanding was what tenure really was and what it did.
Tenure, in this state, provided an employee with due process
rights. It gave an employee the right to review and the
right to be terminated for specific reasons. He continued
to say that throughout private industry, except in limited
circumstances, employees were protected by contracts and had
due process rights. The right to fair hearings, the right to
listen to and face their accusers, etc. That was what
tenure did and somehow there was a feeling that tenure gave
you a right to your job forever. He felt that to be untrue
and said the key is the process.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that a periodic review would put the
public more at ease. It was the occasional bad apple that
splashed on all, that was what the public used to evaluate
tenure.
Number 283
MR. ROB PFISTERER, President, Anchorage Education
Association, stated that most things he was addressing
related to the overall picture of AK 2000. He said the
vision of AK 2000 was to graduate a world class student, who
communicated effectively, thought logically and critically,
nurtured creative talents, possessed vocational and
technical skills, was a responsible citizen, committed to
health and fitness, sustained himself economically, and had
self-esteem. He felt these were all worthy goals for every
student, but he saw nothing in the AK 2000 documents that
addressed how to fund the world class education system. On
the contrary, he said legislation had continually cut
education budgets, in Anchorage especially. At a time when
Anchorage and other communities were groveling for
educational funding, AK 2000 brought to the forefront school
choice and charter schools. He felt the very name was
misleading and did not provide for world class education for
all Alaskans. Rather, it rewarded parents for removing
their children from public schools and placing them in
private or parent teacher created schools. What that meant
was that public funds, already scarce to our schools, would
be removed and given to nonpublic schools. He questioned
how that would improve schools. He said it was as though
the state, which pays no income tax, no sales tax, and no
school tax, was acting as though it was in an economic
crisis. He expressed the only crisis was one of priority.
He suggested that teachers in Anchorage had never been
afraid of allowing students to choose alternative schools,
citing SAVE I, SAVE II, Stellar High School, Chugach
optional, Northern Lights ABC, Central ABC, Birchwood ABC,
AVAIL, REACH, and many other schools. Yet, all these
schools had been created under existing statutes and
regulations.
MR. PFISTERER further stated that in each school, children
were taught by certified teachers who were evaluated by
trained administrators. He questioned why, under AK 2000,
the Department of Education (DOE) felt it necessary to
provide waivers to regulations for the aforementioned
schools. He said the DOE spoke from both sides of its
mouth. When teacher tenure and evaluations were being
addressed they adopted aggressive stances. They wanted
tenure review, longer time for acquisition, and a seven year
limit. When the DOE spoke of evaluation they wanted to
include parents, students, and administrators. He said he
would like to know what profession in this state was
evaluated in such a manner. He felt that only in education
did it seem that those outside the education system know
more than the professional educator.
MR. PFISTERER also thought it was highly irregular that the
DOE in AK 2000 was recommending stiffer certification
standards which the Anchorage Education Association (AEA)
supported while at the same time they were requesting
information from AEA about allowing people to enter the
profession with relaxed standards. In other words,
alternative certification. The AEA believed that students
needed and deserved to have teachers that had met quality
teacher standards. In the case of technology and teacher
training, he stated that the AEA had no objections to the AK
2000 recommendations. He did question how the technology
was to be provided without proper funding. Students needed
to be trained in the technology they would find in the
workplace. However, as school districts were placed in the
situation of having to cut $13-$15 million from budgets, as
Anchorage did this year, he wondered how they were to
provide this technology. He felt that it all came back to
adequately funding schools. It also came back to the fact
that Alaskans did not tax themselves for schools.
Number 375
CHAIR BUNDE asked for questions. There were none. Chair
Bunde commented that in Anchorage, the ABC schools and all
those in between may indeed serve the role that some people
envision as the role that charter schools will serve. He
asked if this was working in smaller districts and rural
districts.
Number 400
MR. PFISTERER said he was not certain. A school within a
school is another option available for different people who
would want different teaching methods for their children.
Number 434
CHAIR BUNDE commented that he understood the charter schools
as they were conceived. They would have to work within the
guidelines of state law and district requirements. It
appeared that one of the goals people had in mind for
charter schools was greater parental involvement. However,
the state could not mandate that involvement. A school's
success or failure would ultimately have to depend on
parental involvement.
Number 450
MR. PFISTERER said for a number of years people had this
concept that schools were going to solve all problems. He
felt people needed to start viewing the entire system of
education as a system that needed involvement from the
community level down. He felt that if, as parents, we did
not educate our children properly we would end up with
people who would have difficult times getting jobs and
living in society. They would be more prone to drugs and
dropping out of school due to low self-esteem.
Number 484
CHAIR BUNDE agreed that society as a whole is responsible
for the education of our children and that schools were now
filling a parental role. He felt the question was how to
get parents involved in the system.
Number 518
MR. PFISTERER commented that he believed that it was a major
problem that we continue to have in our society.
Alternative schools sometimes require a certain number of
volunteer hours on the part of the parents. He stated that
the parent would not have to be there, but they would have
to do something that would aid the class. It would tie into
their role in their child's education. He felt that if we
could not get parental involvement by voluntary measures, he
wasn't sure how to do it. And, he wasn't sure that
mandating involvement would be successful either.
Number 539
CHAIR BUNDE asked for other questions or comments? There
were none.
Number 544
MS. PAM CONRAD, President, Mat-Su Education Association,
stated that the largest area of concern was charter schools.
The provisions included exempted schools from textbook
programs, curriculum, and scheduling requirements. Local
school boards would provide charter schools with an annual
budget, and admission would be based on students within an
age group or a grade level, and students with special
affinities. She said that schools were not even funded at
the 1987 level and that the association was opposed to
diverting limited funds to charter schools. She stated that
in Mat-Su there were many portable classrooms in all
schools. Programs had been dropped and student population
had continued to increase. She said there was a shortage of
teaching supplies, textbooks, and even custodial supplies.
She cited walls that were crumbling, roofs that were
leaking, and that the DOE wanted to establish a separate
facility with accompanying staff and supplies. She wondered
where the money would come from. She said there was concern
that charter schools would use public dollars for private
interest, disregard negotiated agreements, and establish
elite schools. She felt charter schools would not stress
the value of every student. Charter or choice schools would
then become no choice for those students of differing
abilities, disadvantaged backgrounds, behavioral problems,
emotional and special needs, or special affinities. She
felt that there were many options in place already for
teachers and parents. She urged the legislature to fully
fund the school district budgets and provide means for every
Alaskan public school to become schools of choice.
Number 628
CHAIR BUNDE asked if Mat-Su had a zone-exemption program.
Number 639
MS. CONRAD replied that there were no optional schools at
that time. She said that people who preferred a certain
teacher, teaching method, philosophy, or grade level could
get waivers for their children to attend if they provided
transportation.
Number 659
CHAIR BUNDE commented that fully funding education was a
frustration for all. He said that as much as it was needed,
the state based our budget this year on $18 billion, and it
had decreased to $13 billion and was now up to $16 billion.
The state had a shortfall. The state also provided a
significant amount of construction money in the budget,
which in turn, legislators were beat up on for spending too
much money.
MS. CONRAD said, "We must keep the thought in mind that our
priority is to educate children. We must look at how our
funds are being spent. If educations is a priority,
education could be fully funded without devastating any
other program."
CHAIR BUNDE asked which welfare program she would like to
take the money from. He said the committee was not anti-
education, but the greatest good was trying to be gotten
from the available dollars.
MS. CONRAD reiterated that education could not be cut, it
needed to be more fully funded.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that there were 21 schools in the state
that had a student population of 12 or fewer students and
they cost well in excess of $100,000 per school to run. He
questioned what could be done to the teacher pupil ratio in
Mat-Su with that money.
MS. CONRAD agreed.
TAPE 93-71, SIDE B
(tape counter not reset)
Number 659
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented about Ms. Conrad's remark
regarding a mandate from the state to provide a public
education. He felt the dilemma was that a public
educational system is mandated. He questioned whether the
state should fully fund it, and cited that much of the money
was obtained through local contributions, and when one looks
at the budget, one would see the deficits. He felt that the
two number one programs for funding were education and
corrections.
MS. CONRAD said that charter schools are not the answer to
the budget problem, stating that the current funds would
spread even thinner. She felt that if what was being said
was true, then there would be no rationalization for charter
schools.
Number 660
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied that the legislature did not
control where the money was allocated, its entitlement, or
pass through grants. He said the legislature could not
control the number of students either. He questioned what
charter schools were actually going to cost the state. He
offered that if 50 students were taken out of public school
and put a charter program it would cost the same in the
charter program as it would in the public school system. He
questioned as to per student; would it be a smaller or
larger amount to educate that student? He said that the
state was also going to have to look at what product we
would want turned out. He felt that the level of spending
was not really the issue, it was the outcome from that
spending that was causing most of the alarm. He stated that
he would be glad to support a 10% education increase if it
would result in better SAT scores or better IOWA test
scores. He said if the performance wasn't there then the
10% would be taken away.
Number 696
MS. CONRAD asked Representative Kott to look at history,
citing that Mat-Su test scores had been going up 3-5% every
year and this year they were among the highest in the state.
She asked why something couldn't be constructed from what
was already there. She said to let the professionals do the
changing and building along with community input.
Number 706
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that the Alaska SAT scores were
above all the national averages by quite a bit. He asked
how the scores could continue to increase. He felt Ms.
Conrad had made some very good points. He said the question
was not whether the system was broken, it was how could it
be further enhanced.
Number 715
CHAIR BUNDE interjected by saying that the tenor of some of
the testimony was that the bill was the HESS Committee's
project. He told everyone to remember that it was a bill
from the administration. He felt a compromise was being
sought that would meet the needs of a broad based
population. Unfortunately, he said, there would be some at
both extremes that would not be happy. He questioned
whether the greatest good could be achieved. He expressed
that a charter school's greatest attribute was that of
parental and teacher involvement.
MS. CONRAD stated that parent involvement was not an
initiative with charter schools. She said that every school
that she had ever been in was always asking for parent
volunteers. She thought it was an ongoing part of
education. She said that we as citizens were a bedroom
community. Parents left at 6:30 a.m. and returned at 7:00
p.m. She said that they love their children dearly, but
they could not come in that often. She stated that
mandating involvement just would not work. She stated that
what was in place at that time was not perfect, but was
workable.
Number 749
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were further questions. There
were none.
Number 753
MR. VINCE BERRY, Director of Education Program Support,
Department of Education, stated that he wanted to answer
some of the questions that had arisen regarding the
improvement of instruction. He stated that AK 2000
answered the need for improvement of instruction. He said
it was a 38 piece plan for the improvement of instruction.
Only five pieces were legislative in nature. One that was
nonlegislative that had to do with the establishment of
standards was being developed by experts in each field.
People had been brought in from all over the state in order
to demonstrate what was happening in all of the districts.
Throughout the state of Alaska, he said that there were
about 118,000 students and about 465 schools. He felt the
standards being developed were supposed to capture the best
things happening at each school. The standards were
supposed to be world class. That meant that after 13 years
in school our students should have been prepared for further
education and training.
Number 965
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wished to have Mr. Berry clarify some
points. First, regarding HB 84, he asked if the legislative
requirements of AK 2000 were the recommendations of the full
committee.
Number 980
MR. BERRY clarified the point by saying that when AK 2000
started, the group that he was with was a mixed group of
Alaskans from everywhere and that nobody had any specific
axes to grind. The task was to come up with areas that
would be included in AK 2000 for the State Board of
Education to look at and get the word to the public. When
that was done, there was a paring down of the
recommendations by the state board. Then they sent the
reduced number of recommendations out and everybody cut
those down. The state board ended up with the 36-38
recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that in the bill there were the
topics of extending the school term, tenure, and various
other topics. He wanted to know why it wa specifically
those spots that were picked up verses the need to address
the change in technology that our students would be facing
in the future.
MR. BERRY answered that the issues in HB 84 were those that
needed the legislature's blessing.
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE believed that there might have been
some other issues that had been brought out and come through
AK 2000 recommendations that might have enjoyed the
legislative blessing as well, such as technology and perhaps
daycare, as well as other issues of that sort.
MR. BERRY said that committees had been formed for each of
those issues along the lines of what was happening with the
standards. He continued his reply by giving examples of
committee members' background and meeting times.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE thanked Mr. Berry for his answer.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for other questions or comments.
Number 115
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS asked if the committee could obtain
the information about the committee's right from the State
Board of Education.
Number 120
MR. BERRY said he would send the information. He added, if
the committee had any comments, he would appreciate it if
they would let him know.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for further questions. There were none.
He thanked Mr. Berry for his testimony.
Number 125
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE excused himself from the meeting at
4:10 p.m.
CHAIR BUNDE called an at-ease at 4:15 p.m. to give teachers
who might have just gotten out of school an opportunity to
arrive and testify.
CHAIR BUNDE reconvened the meeting at 4:30 p.m., closed the
testimony for those who already testified in Anchorage, and
stated he would wait for teachers until 5:00 p.m.
Number 196
SENATOR SALO commented that it was not fair to assume that
teachers were not showing up to testify because of lack of
interest in the issues.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that he had called 65 elementary schools,
and he felt that teachers would be there defending the
tenure issue, at the very least. He also told each school
that he would stay as long as necessary for them to finish
their duties at school and then come down to testify. He
did understand that there were demands on their time.
SENATOR SALO told the committee that the Senate had worked
long and hard on the companion bill and amended it in
several ways. She thought the teachers might not be
responding to the tenure issue because they rated tenure as
a very low priority on a recent questionnaire.
CHAIR BUNDE thanked Senator Salo for her testimony. He
continued to say that tenure may not be an important issue
within the educational community, but it was a big issue to
the public. Approximately 25% of the feed back from
Hillside constituents told Chair Bunde that they would like
to see tenure eliminated or seriously readjusted.
SENATOR SALO clarified that the survey for Alaska 2000 went
out to the general public. The committee process also
involved a wide range of people. Their focus was not
tenure.
CHAIR BUNDE told Senator Salo that he appreciated her point
of view. However, he felt that the information that he had
been getting was different. He was interested in talking to
the general teaching staff about the bill. The teachers did
not usually get to travel to Juneau during the session, and
they were the people that would have to implement the
changes. He said that the committee had heard much
testimony from the administration and some school districts,
but he was interested in hearing from the people that the
bill would affect directly.
TAPE 93-72, SIDE A
(tape counter not reset)
Number 253
MS. PETERSON responded to Senator Salo's comments on the
survey. Ms. Peterson clarified that the survey was one that
was taken prior to the action of the state board. In that
survey it was stated that tenure would be reviewed every
seven years. The people that answered the survey said
either, "no, they didn't like that suggestion, please
maintain status quo" or "no, I don't like the idea of
reviewing tenure every seven years, please eliminate tenure
all together." When the survey came out, tenure was at the
bottom or near the bottom as far as support. It wasn't that
they didn't want tenure reform, it appeared to be that they
did not like the idea of having the seven year review
process or they didn't want tenure all together. As the
survey came out it did not really show what the people who
responded and who reported in to the DOE actually felt on
that issue.
Number 269
SENATOR SALO asked Ms. Peterson for a copy of the actual
information. She said the survey results she had was not
the same as Ms. Peterson's information.
MS. SHEILA PETERSON said she would try to get that
information to her.
Number 277
CHAIR BUNDE asked Senator Salo if she would share her
perspective from the Senate side on the Alaska 2000 bill,
specifically, lengthening the school year and charter
schools.
Number 282
SENATOR SALO went through the major parts of the bill. In
regards to lengthening of the school year, she said the
issue was whether it would improve the quality of education
in Alaska or not. A longer school year was not going to
come free. It would be very costly. If parents were given
a choice they would probably want to deal with the issue of
class size instead. She thought that the part of the bill
regarding the length of the school year had been amended.
She stated that in regards to advisory boards that most
schools in Alaska had some sort of parent advisory board.
She thought the only change that was added was where a
parent advisory board did not already exist. If there was a
strong PTA structure in the school, that PTA group could
continue to function in that capacity without having to meet
the rigid structure that was in the original part of the
bill. She said there were several amendments added to the
part of the bill regarding charter schools, but it was not
totally eliminated. On tenure, she said the section of
tenure review was eliminated.
Number 335
CHAIR BUNDE asked for further comments or questions. There
were none. He then commented on the public image of teacher
tenure. He said that if a teacher got tenure, they could
never be fired. He stated that it was not true, but some
people did think that it was.
Number 350
SENATOR SALO asked to speak about one area of AK 2000 that
she forgot to talk about. She continued to speak about the
area added to the AK 2000 bill. She stated it was a strong
statement about the mission of public education. Senator
Salo felt that these additions changed the direction of the
legislation substantially.
Number 360
CHAIR BUNDE ended the meeting by saying that the committee
would look forward to receiving the DOE's version of the
bill, and that they would work together to come up with the
most workable solution to the challenge of improving
education in Alaska. Since there were no more people who
wished to testify, the committee recessed until 5:00 p.m.
CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|