Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/20/1999 03:05 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 98 - TEACHER TENURE Number 130 CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the first order of business as Senate Bill No. 98, "An Act relating to teacher tenure." Number 0142 JEANETTE JEAN, Legislative Administrative Assistant for Senator Lyda Green, came forward to present the sponsor statement for SB 98. In 1996, HB 465 was passed pertaining to acquisition of tenure rights, and it created somewhat of a problem with making tenure portable. As it turns out, sometimes districts are not hiring people who would be good teachers in their districts. Because of their ability to carry their tenure from another district in Alaska, teachers are not being hired under the current law, because the districts only have from as late as October 15 to March, when letters of intent of hire have to go out. That is not enough time for evaluation, for development of a plan, and for the teacher to meet the guidelines set in that plan of improvement. MS. JEAN reported that statistics on a survey done by the Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB) show that barely over 10 percent of teachers hired last year were teachers with tenure. According to what they hear from the districts, that is largely due to those teachers having tenure already. It ties the hand of the district having such a little bit of time to evaluate and meet any deficiencies. This legislation takes away the portability of tenure. Tenure goes back to a three-year-time period so that if the teacher is hired on the fourth year, he would have tenure with the new district. If they have a break in service and go back to the same district, it is only a year to wait for tenure. That is reasonable because the district knows the teacher. Number 0376 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wanted to be sure that this only affects the tenure issue. MS. JEANS answered that it only addresses the tenure portability. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON commented that he wondered if the reason the districts were not hiring the tenured teachers was because they have too many years of service, and their salary schedule is higher. MS. JEANS answered that that is possible, but that would also include tenure which gets them that higher salary. She is sure that is a factor. Number 0462 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB), came forward to testify. When they looked at tenure in the entire context of improving the quality of education back in 1996, they think they came up with a pretty comprehensive bill. However, on the floor of the Senate, they included an amendment that included the portability of tenure. Very little time was taken to see how this would impact the system, and he believes their survey shows that the portability of tenure is a hindrance to teachers wanting to move into urban areas. There is a large turnover in rural Alaska, and this issue of tenure portability is a hindrance for them because there is only one year to evaluate them in the new school. MR. ROSE noted that as they dealt with HB 465, they wanted to give as much time and provide some fairness so they said that teachers hired on or before October 15, would be treated as a full year's experience. October 15 coupled with March 15, which is when teachers have to be notified, leaves less than six months. The decision to grant tenure has to be made in that short time. The reality is that before school districts take the time to try to compress this time line, they will simply say, "If this person has tenure, and we're unsure, then perhaps we will look elsewhere." It is having an impact on teachers. The opportunity for teachers to be employed is being restricted. MR. ROSE referred the committee to the survey in their packet which shows only about 11 percent of the hires over the last two years have had tenure. These numbers exclude Anchorage, which in the last three years has hired 1,100 teachers, and less than 2 percent of those people had portability. If that is factored in to 523 respondents, it drops that number of 11 percent down below 5 percent. He doesn't believe that teachers are being served by this provision and urged the committee to support SB 98. Number 0644 MR. ROSE clarified the record on a letter he sent. He inadvertently put down that they had to notify tenured and non-tenured teachers by March 16. That is not true; they don't have to notify non-tenured teachers. They do have to notify tenured teachers by March 16. Number 0671 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE understands that administrators will have to be "on their toes" with a new teacher, but he believes that after three or four years, the amount of time is less for the building administrator to evaluate whether the teacher is competent. He asked why the building administrator would need another three years for an experienced teacher; it seems he could make that determination in a much shorter length of time. Number 0783 MR. ROSE indicated that Representative Brice raised an important issue. In many cases, fine teachers get recruited, and the issue of portability is not a concern in those cases, but it is when they don't know the people they are hiring. Because of the diversity in the state, the time spent in one school district successfully does not necessarily give them an indication of the level of success in another. A teaching experience in a larger school district is very different than in a rural school district. To assume that a positive evaluation in one school district translates to another doesn't follow. The question has to be whether the administrator is prepared to take that risk; to take that amount of time to ensure that this teacher is qualified. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that it is the building administrator's job to take the time and that risk. He also believes that the administrators do know who they are hiring; that is why they are hiring them. Number 0880 MR. ROSE noted that four years ago no one asked if a teacher had tenure in the previous community, but now they ask, and as a result of that, he believes it is restricting the ability of teachers to get hired. There is a teacher shortage, and they want the ability to be able to hire people. Number 0917 CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if there is any pressure on districts to be less than candid in a reference to another district. MR. ROSE agreed that is a delicate area. "Suffice it to say, you find a number of good references on paper with a tag line 'If you have any concerns, please call me.' At that time they may divulge more information. I think what happens when we go out--in fact when this portability issue first came up, there was a tag line that came along that says, 'If portability is going to be allowed to happen, can we have access to the personnel files?' because that was a real issue." That creates other concerns. If they are going to hire someone with tenure, and they are looking for positive references, they want to be able to see exactly what their background has been. That is a cloudy area. The issue of portability because of the conflict that comes with it is a deterrent in terms of giving a teacher an opportunity to be hired in another district. It is a difficult area to get a positive response that is honest because of legal aspects that could come into play on a bad reference. Number 1081 JOHN CYR, President, National Education Association (NEA) Alaska, came forward to testify. He has given the committee quite a bit of material and their position statement. Previous testimony said HB 465 doesn't allow administrators long enough to look at employees. It is standard now for districts to ask whether or not people mind having their personnel file released. He suggested that people have a look at the personnel files and see the person's evaluation. MR. CYR referred to AS 14.20.149 which covers school board's evaluation system for teachers and administrators and noted there are statewide performance standards in Alaska, and the evaluation procedures are standardized. MR. CYR pointed out that if someone has four or five years of experience and attempts to transfer to another district, that district really has from the date of hire until the end of that school year to evaluate the teacher. Teachers are not tenured that first year. They can do two or more formal evaluations, they can do informal evaluations, and they can get a good look. If administrators aren't taking that look, then he submits that they are not doing their job. They are being paid to evaluate personnel. Before HB 465, there were three criteria used to let someone go: Moral turpitude, substantial non-compliance, and incompetency as defined by case law. To dismiss a teacher under incompetency is hard. That is gone. MR. CYR believes the reason tenured teachers are not changing districts is economic. Some districts like Juneau, Anchorage and Matanuska-Susitna have no steps. To move into Anchorage with four or five year's experience, could cost a teacher $15,000 to $20,000. Very few tenured teachers are willing to do that. Number 1333 MR. CYR suggested that if it is true that one year isn't enough, then go back to what it was. They get tenure at the beginning of the third year whether they change districts or not. As an aside, he referred to copies of the agreements of other government contracts, and pointed out that the longest probationary period any of them have is one year. Teachers have the longest probationary period of any public employee. He asked the committee to at least be fair here. Number 1417 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if teachers ever get glowing recommendations just to get rid of them. Number 1468 MR. CYR said if administrators are giving glowing recommendations to people who are leaving, he doesn't know if it is the case, and he hasn't seen it. One of NEA's job is the duty of fair representation, and they sometimes represent people where there is some question as to their ability. In those cases, if they just resign and move on, they don't have a glowing recommendation; they have a clean file which basically says "This person worked here." He believes that with 1,500 to 2,000 people at the job fair in Anchorage looking for jobs, people are hiring the cream of the crop. They don't need to take a chance. He doesn't know of a tenured teacher who has come from one district with a good recommendation and good evaluation who has been unsuccessful. He isn't saying it hasn't happened, but he can't think of one. They are doing a much better job policing their ranks. It is much better since HB 465 was enacted. Number 1630 The Committee took an at-ease from 3:34 p.m. to 3:35 p.m. to offer a moment of silence to remember those involved in the tragic shooting at a high school in Colorado. Number 1697 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment to reduce tenure from three to two years. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked him what line it would be on. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated that it would be a new Section 2. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Jean how the sponsor, Senator Green, would respond to that amendment. Number 1820 MS. JEAN noted that it is important to have the very best working with our children, so it doesn't seem valid to compare teachers with other public employees. She believes that the district and the teacher need the three years for tenure, and that being granted at the end of the third year or the beginning of the fourth year. She doesn't believe that Senator Green would see this as a friendly amendment. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Rose how the AASB would see this amendment. Number 1907 MR. ROSE stated that the issue of extending tenure three years was hotly debated in 1996, but he thought they were dealing with the issue of portability. The issue of portability has been reduced to one year, in fact, less than one year, depending on when the hire takes place. They look at the issue of portability as being highly restrictive in terms of allowing a teacher to have an opportunity to seek employment outside their own district. In the context of portability, he believes that three years is not part of the discussion. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE responded that portability was discussed in HB 465 as well. He suggested the title of the bill includes teacher tenure so there is not any type of limitation that they are discussing here. This way it would be the same for new teachers as well as tenured teachers moving along. Number 2015 CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL objected to the amendment. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Brice and Kemplen voted for the amendment. Representatives Whitaker, Green, Coghill and Dyson voted against it. Therefore, the conceptual amendment failed by a vote of 4-2. Number 2024 CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL made a motion to move SB 98 from the committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. Number 2033 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected. Number 2055 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Brice and Kemplen voted against moving the bill. Representatives Whitaker, Green, Coghill and Dyson voted for it. Therefore, SB 98 moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|