Legislature(1999 - 2000)
01/20/2000 03:10 PM House HES
| 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 Number 856 CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as CS For House Bill No. 253(HES),"An Act relating to a school disciplinary and safety program; and providing for an effective date." Number 0932 KATHI GILLESPIE, Member, Anchorage School District, Anchorage School Board, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She read the following testimony: The Anchorage School District through ASD Board policy, administrative enforcement and negotiated agreement with the Anchorage Education Association (AEA), the local teacher's union: Maintains community-based standards for school behavior; and, Protects and supports teachers who enforce standards of student behavior and safety in the classroom. The Anchorage School District's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities guides students in following standards of conduct that respect the rights of others and the rules of the school community. The Statement of Rights and Responsibilities constitutes School Board policy on matters pertaining to students' rights and responsibilities and outlines the consequences for violating the standards of student behavior and insures "Due Process," the opportunity for the student to: find out about the charges against him/her; to present his/her side of the story; and, be assured that the school will insist upon good reasons for imposing discipline. The consequences for violating the Standards of Student Behavior are decided by the teacher or the principal, and when possible, in collaboration with the parent, depending on the degree of seriousness of the violation and the consequences. Each case is reviewed and determined individually. The final discipline decision rests with the principal or other school administrator. As ASD Board policy, the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities was developed with teacher, administration, parent and public input and formally adopted at a publicly noticed regular ASD School Board meeting. Section 419 of the negotiated AEA teacher's contract, outlines the discipline procedure for students and clearly states that a teacher may exclude a student from the classroom for the class period or activity when the teacher judges the students' behavior to be disruptive to the instructional program. The contract further states that "if a teacher and the administrator concur that the learning environment has been severely disrupted by a student(s), the student(s) shall be suspended from the classroom." It also states under "G" that "the Safety Committee of each school shall develop and annually review a plan for providing emergency support to any teacher who calls for assistance when facing a potential danger from violence, either to students or to self." Section 420 of the AEA Agreement states that "no teacher shall be disciplined or deprived of an employment right or benefit without just cause." We understand the intent of the bill to insure community input into disciplinary procedures and to support teachers who enforce those standards and believe these issues are one of local control and are adequately addressed in ASD School Board Policy and through our negotiated agreement with the AEA. The Anchorage community and staff were given multiple opportunities to help develop the revisions to our current School Board Policy, Section 450, the Student Rights and Responsibilities. We do that on an annual basis. We believe our process works and does not need to be changed. We do, however, have some concerns about this particular bill that need to be addressed as it moves through the legislative process. For instance, Section 14.33.120 (3), line 11, page 2: Policies and procedures for authorizing a teacher to remove a student from the classroom for failure to follow the school behavior and safety standards is an administrative responsibility, not a decision for the teacher alone. Section 14.22.120(6), line 18, page 2 authorizing the use of "reasonable and appropriate nondeadly force to maintain classroom safety and discipline" raises liability questions. Section 14.33.130 (a), line 22-25, "a teacher...may not be terminated or otherwise punished for enforcement of an approved school disciplinary and safety program," precludes the school district administration and the School Board from exercising its authority in taking what it believes to be appropriate action in disciplining a teacher, or others if they fail to appropriately handle the student discipline situation. Finally, the issue of making it a class A misdemeanor for a member of the governing body of a school district who knowingly allows a teacher, or others to be terminated to punished in violation of Sec. 14.130(a) and indemnifying a teacher, or others from civil damage resulting from an act or omission arising out of enforcement of an approved school disciplinary and safety program raises for us both legal and ethical questions which need further clarification. In essence, the Anchorage School District understands the intent of the bill. We're all concerned about school safety, but we do believe that this particular bill raises the legal questions as well as potentially usurps school board and administrative authority and responsibility. We do believe the few instances this bill is designed to remedy are best left to the local school board to handle. As evidenced by our testimony, the Anchorage School District has done just that. Thank you for your interest and your time. Number 1185 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Gillespie if any of her concerns would be relieved if the fact that the school board would be a party to and have to approve such a plan. MS. GILLESPIE answered no that they currently have policy in place that is approved to go through public process. The issue for the Anchorage School District is criminalizing the elected school board members if that policy was not followed or if there was a charge that the policy wasn't followed; it wouldn't go through an administrative process and potentially they would be in front of a judge. Number 1221 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he is concerned her dialog was primarily on the various other issues than criminality, and he wonders if they can talk just about the fact that any discipline program would be approved by that very school board would negate the negative attitude for the other parts of the bill. MS. GILLESPIE believes that every school district should go through a public process and have a written policy on school discipline. It needs to be agreed to by the employees in the school district, the parents and the larger community. That is absolutely necessary. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN reiterated that her main concern is the legality issue. Number 1268 MS. GILLESPIE agreed her main concern is the legality issue. She is also concerned about the definition of "reasonable and appropriate nondeadly force." That could have a real broad interpretation, and she is concerned about that issue. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that might be an issue for the Judiciary Committee. CHAIRMAN DYSON indicated that there will be a referral to the Judiciary Committee. If the proposed CS moves out of this committee, it will get an almost immediate hearing in the Judiciary Committee. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Gillespie how the Anchorage School District goes about getting community and parental input on the behavior standards that are expected in school. MS. GILLESPIE answered that there is a process done annually where the school board sits down with the administration, principals and teachers of the elementary, middle and high schools who bring forth their concerns with the policy and how it is working. The board makes any potential changes necessary and puts it out for two public hearings. At that time the PTA [Parent-Teacher Association], the Minority Concerns Committee and the special education people are informed of the potential changes and are given the opportunity to read it ahead of time and make comments. After two public hearings, it is adopted by the school board. CHAIRMAN DYSON suggested that the PTA's also review this on an annual basis to give the school board input. He asked Ms. Gillespie why she objects to the use of "nondeadly force." Number 1429 MS. GILLESPIE related a situation in Louisiana that happened while her son was in elementary school where the teacher locked particular children (not her son) in the bathroom all day. Another time when the teacher was at her wit's end, she picked up the children by the hair and hit them with a ruler. Eleven children transferred out of that class. It took many years for her son get over that experience and be excited about going to school again. She understands that reasonable standards for safety have to be enforced. Giving a blank check to employees to treat children in ways that parents would be considered abusive if they treated the children that way in the home is not the answer. CHAIRMAN DYSON wondered how that relates to what they are talking about. MS. GILLESPIE asked if that teacher's behavior could not be described as reasonable and appropriate nondeadly force. When Ms. Gillespie reported the teacher's behavior to the principal, he had no problem with this kind of discipline. The principal's comment to her was, "This teacher opened the school with me, and I'm not going to do anything about it." What is reasonable force to one person is not necessarily reasonable force to another, particularly when the benchmark is nondeadly. It appears to her that any force up to nondeadly would be considered reasonable. She doesn't think that is a standard the parents and communities want to adopt in the schools. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Gillespie if a child is terrorizing and threatening the health and safety of another child, should the staff be able to intervene in a reasonable and appropriate way to save other children from being harmed. MS. GILLESPIE answered that they do that now. The teachers and security people are being trained now how to restrain students who are out of control until the police can come. These words in HB 253 say to her that in any classroom situation and for any reason the teacher can impose this level of force in order to maintain discipline. That is very different than if there is a child who is out of control and is a threat to others. This language is much broader than that. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Gillespie if ASD has language in their policy manual that they could substitute there. MS. GILLESPIE said they could get language to them, but if it was directly tied to if the child was a threat to himself or others, then a reasonable expectation would be that type of force would be used to protect either the child or the school at large. She believes to just make that a general policy for general classroom behavior is extending it too far. It is reasonable if the child is a threat. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked her if removing the word discipline would make it better. MS. GILLESPIE said she would like to see a reference to the child being a danger to himself or others. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked her what she would do if the child is not a threat to others but stands in the middle of the classroom and screams at the top of his lungs and refuses to leave or be quiet. He wondered if the staff should be able to use any physical means to remove the child. MS. GILLESPIE said according to the ASD negotiated agreement, the teacher can remove the child from the class. If the child makes a habit of doing this, the teacher and principal can then suspend the student. There would have to be a process for the student to have a behavior contract to come back into the school. She can't recall any incidents in the Anchorage schools where a student stood up and screamed in class and the staff wasn't able to deal with it. She is sure there have been incidents where a student had to be escorted out of the classroom, but that is not what the proposed CS says. It says that the teacher can use reasonable and appropriate nondeadly force so the limit is anything other than deadly force. CHAIRMAN DYSON noted that her testimony seemed to indicate to him that protecting teachers who enforce the pre-agreed standards and use the established disciplinary procedure somehow robs the school board or administration of their management prerogatives, referencing line 21, page 2. He believes she was getting at the idea that if a teacher enforced the wrong standards, or didn't follow the procedures, that the administration would not be able to correct that teachers professional conduct. MS. GILLESPIE replied it is assumed that the teachers would follow school board policy including the student rights and responsibilities. If teachers don't follow school board policy, then they are subject to the evaluation process. She is concerned that it is really not necessary because there is a process in place now to hold the teachers and the school board accountable after they adopt policy to follow that policy. CHAIRMAN DYSON said this is all aimed at protecting the teacher from retribution when he/she follows the rules. He asked her what she objected to. Number 1810 MS. GILLESPIE said she can't remember an incident where the Anchorage school board has disciplined a teacher for following school board policy. Normally what happens is there is disagreement about school board policy, and they try to work it out first administratively. If that doesn't work, there is a grievance process. The board is there to enforce school board policy, and they expect the employees to follow it. The employees would not be disciplined for doing that. CHAIRMAN DYSON commented they tried for a long time to figure out what would be the "or else" for a school board or administration that doesn't back up the teachers. They thought about trying to increase their vulnerability under civil law, but Legislative Legal and Research Services suggested the criminal sanctions. He asked Ms. Gillespie for a suggestion on the penalty for a school board or administration that exercises retribution against a staff member that does the right thing and follows the right procedure. MS. GILLESPIE indicated that was already outlined in law and the school board member can be recalled. If the community is not satisfied with the enforcement or development of school board policy, then the members will have to stand for election. It is the community's job to take care of a situation rather than criminalize the policy makers. CHAIRMAN DYSON noted the problem in several communities is the community doesn't appear to want to enforce reasonable standards, and teachers have been assaulted and treated disrespectfully to the detriment of the education process. He encouraged Ms. Gillespie to participate in the Judiciary Committee hearing. Number 2017 BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education & Early Development (EED) came forward to testify. He gave the following testimony: The Department continues to support an incremental approach to better ensuring that all Alaska's children are attending schools that have safe and respectful learning environments. This bill assists with that goal. I'd also like to note that the zero fiscal note that has been handed out just prior to your taking testimony is based on the notion that we believe that we are already collecting the information that's requested of the department through other grant requirements that we have from the federal level. So that specifically refers to Representative Whitaker's amendments on page 3, line 6 that had been proposed. That will not require extra effort on our part; we're already doing it for our drug safe schools grants so we believe that we are in good shape. The kinds of data that are being collected include prohibited behaviors such as fighting, drinking, battery, assault, breaking and entering, vandalism, things of that nature as well as weapon-related incidents. So again we believe that these data are being gathered and can be reported by school levels. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Johnson if the department also gets reports of sexual harassment. MR. JOHNSON answered yes. One of the things EED finds is how incidences are categorized and reported district by district. This needs continued definition. For example, one district will report zero suspensions for any reason and a smaller district might report a thousand suspensions. They will continue to work on the area of reporting. Number 2125 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Johnson if he supported Representative Whitaker's amendments. MR. JOHNSON answered yes. The amendments seem to make good sense and continue to follow their incremental approach to this. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Johnson how long he has been with EED. Number 2149 MR. JOHNSON answered he has been associated with the department the last four years. The first three were at Mt. Edgecumbe High School as Director/Superintendent. Last January he worked in EED in Juneau on a part-time basis as the director of teaching and learning, and in July he assumed the role of deputy commissioner. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Johnson where would be the most appropriate place for the buck to stop. MR. JOHNSON answered that EED would support the amendment that includes principals in the statute. He believes that superintendents are aligned with the school board. They are hired and retained by the school board, therefore they stand at that level with the school board. Number 2211 CHAIRMAN DYSON asked him how the use of force by the teachers and staff should be defined. MR. JOHNSON answered the use of force should be defined and not left to the discretion to each individual teacher, but he is not suggesting that it be defined in statute. It should be defined at the local level and people should receive the necessary training. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the terms reasonable and appropriate are reasonable and appropriate in the proposed CS. MR. JOHNSON replied that in the broadest sense, it says policies need to ensure that individuals are using reasonable and appropriate force to the situation. He assumes discussion will occur in the communities as to what that looks like. CHAIRMAN DYSON stated that the intention is that every district and/or school will be expected to define in its own policy and regulations what is reasonable and appropriate. He asked Mr. Johnson if the word nondeadly should be taken out. MR. JOHNSON answered he believes personally that reasonable and appropriate force conveys a message to him if he were charged with the responsibility of developing this either as a principal or superintendent. Deadly force is never used. TAPE 00-3, SIDE B Number 2321 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN referred to page 2, line 31 where it mandates reporting to a law enforcement agency if a school employee observes a crime being committed. He asked Mr. Johnson what type of potential crimes, like drinking beer, smoking cigarettes or physical violence, would constitute a misdemeanor and require school employees to report to law enforcement. MR. JOHNSON answered that drinking and smoking are clearly violations that most school districts now report and are required by law to report them. A law has been broken and most communities have a good working relationship with the law enforcement agencies. At Mt. Edgecumbe, staff were given authority to actually write those citations on the campus rather than taking the time of a law enforcement officer to respond to that level. It was a very systematic approach. In Sitka the staff had a good relationship with the magistrate who heard those issues. In regard to fighting, it seems to him, it is the degree and intensity of the fight that would cause a teacher or administrator to say this was so severe that it needs to be reported. There is a lot of slapping, pushing and those types of things that go on that are overlooked and dealt with through the rules and regulations established within the school environment. If it gets to a point that it would potentially bring serious harm to an individual, the staff would consider involving law enforcement. Even then charges may not be filed; it will be an instructive moment for the student to interact with the higher authority of law enforcement about how dangerous that kind of behavior can be. Reasonableness prevails in this regard. CHAIRMAN DYSON indicated that the opinion from Legislative Legal and Research Services is it is a crime if successful prosecution would result in jail time; it is a violation if it doesn't. That was the reason the drafters put crime in. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reminded the committee HB 253 is to protect teacher if there is criminal activity, not to go out and identify criminals. CHAIRMAN DYSON noted that the current culture tends to let things slide and the need is to get people's attention. Number 2056 RUSSELL BOWDRE testified via teleconference from Delta Junction. He agreed this is a good bill and all school districts need good solid guidelines. He read the following testimony: We have all been saddened by the terrible tragedies that have occurred in the schools across the nation. There are many hurting, troubled and just plain disruptive children in our school system. We have that in every school system. They have it in Anchorage too. Something must be done to identify and help them while protecting the teachers, their aides and other students. By establishing and enforcing behavioral guidelines we tell children what is acceptable behavior for our society, thereby training them for life. Strict enforcement of good rules and quick disciplinary action will help teach self-control to the students and the real truths of consequences for their actions. The schools should be an extension of the home: a safe, moral place for a child to spend so much of his time. There are many opportunities to influence a child for good and certainly the hours spent at school each day should be used to the utmost in this. And unfortunately, in today's "sue-happy" society there needs to be protection for those enforcing the rules. I hope you will support this bill. Number 1918 CHAIRMAN DYSON made a motion to strike the word nondeadly, on page 2, line 19. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked whether there was any objection. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1784 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which read: Page 2, line 5: after the word "program", before the period, add- "developed by the community with input from parents, teachers and other persons responsible for students" CHAIRMAN DYSON asked whether there was any objection. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 1753 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which read: Page 3, line 6: add new subsection which read: "School districts will report information related to the school disciplinary and safety program as required by the Department of Education & Early Development (EED) to include reporting of incidents of disruptive and violent student behavior. Procedures for reporting will be developed by EED." CHAIRMAN DYSON asked whether there was any objection. There being none, Amendment 3 was adopted. Number 1724 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER made motion to adopt Amendment 4, which read: Page 3, line 6: add new subsection, which reads: "The Department of Education & Early Development (EED) may provide schools with character development curriculum, behavior intervention strategies, and alternative programs and services that emphasize prevention, early intervention, and long term reduction of disruptive and violent behavior." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for discussion purposes. He asked if this is already happening, if it is now mandated and if it is necessary. CHAIRMAN DYSON answered no. They were asked to put it in to let school districts involved in this process know that there are resources available. He added that the National Education Association (NEA) will also offer experts to individual schools. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if it is necessary to put it in statute. CHAIRMAN DYSON answered no it is not necessary but asked Mr. Johnson for his comments. Number 1644 MR. JOHNSON agreed it is not necessary; it is part of the support service that EED provides. If it were excluded, EED would continue to perform that function using school boards, NEA and other organizations to get that job done. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if it is there, does it add anything that is not already available. MR. JOHNSON answered that he suspects it is there to communicate that there is support there; it is permissive whether or not they do that. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he was reluctant to put it in statute. Number 1584 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Whitaker and Dyson voted for the amendment. Representatives Green, Kemplen and Coghill voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 3-2. Number 1525 CHAIRMAN DYSON made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment, Amendment 5, "Page 2, lines 22 and 26, insert the word "principal" before the word "or". REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if excluding the principals on page 3 was for a reason or an oversight. He also asked if a problem is created by adding the word principal; would a counselor or others not specifically mentioned be excluded. Number 1387 DARROLL HARGRAVES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School Administrators, responded that the category of teachers includes counselors in state statute. Number 1344 CHAIRMAN DYSON amended his motion to include adding principal on page 3, lines 4 and 8. MS. GILLESPIE expressed her concern about where is the front line of management. If principals are included in line 8, she pointed out that the Anchorage School Board's firm understanding is the principal is the first line of management at the school level to enforce the policy. If principals are absolved from civil liability for not enforcing that policy, where does the line of management begin. Most school disciplinary issues are handled at the school level; the principal is the one in charge of enforcing policy. Number 1283 The committee took a brief at-ease. Number 1274 CHAIRMAN DYSON said ultimately those held responsible would be the school board and their executive officer, the superintendent. MS. GILLESPIE pointed out that she wouldn't include principal in this list. If there is a problem enforcing school board policy, to absolve the principal, who was probably the one who interpreted and enforced the policy, is very difficult. The school board or superintendent may or may not know of how the policy was enforced by that principal. To absolve the principal of the consequences is to not put the onus where it needs to be. CHAIRMAN DYSON said as he reads it, the principals are only protected here if they are not negligent or reckless or intentional in their misconduct. He suggested that the Judiciary Committee can deal with the legal issues. Number 1148 CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if there were any objections to Amendment 5 which adds "principal" in four places in HB 253. There being none, Amendment 5 was adopted. Number 1120 CHAIRMAN DYSON made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment, Amendment 6, on page 2, Section 14.33.120, add a subsection which read: "the governing body of a school may develop uniform school disciplinary and safety programs for all schools within a given population center if the behavior standards portion of the program are a product of a collaborative school and community effort. These community approved behavior standards will be clearly posted in the schools and at a minimum, must included basic requirements for respect and honesty." Number 1073 JOHN CYR, President, National Education Association (NEA)-Alaska, expressed concern that Amendment 6 would allow districts to have blanket policies for entire districts without involving local schools. Children don't go to districts; they go to schools. He would like to be ensured that each school has an opportunity to develop those policies that it sees fit and that those policies are then adopted by the local school board. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Cyr if "individual" was inserted so it read "collaborative individual school" would help. MR. CYR indicated that would be wonderful. CHAIRMAN DYSON amended the motion on Amendment 6 to include the word individual between collaborative and school and pluralize "effort." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked a question about all the schools in a district not having the exact policies. CHAIRMAN DYSON explained his intention is that a relatively homogeneous school district can have consistent standards across the district if it wants, but there could be varying standards between the schools. He intends that it would be the call of the school board if it wants to allow individual variation between schools. Number 0877 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards, pointed out that some of what is in Amendment 6 was adopted in Amendment 2. This amendment deals with uniformity, but Amendment 2 describes the involvement of the people who will be involved. Number 0376 CHAIRMAN DYSON withdrew Amendment 6. CHAIRMAN DYSON made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment, Amendment 7, which read: Page 2, Section 14.33.120 add a subsection which read: "A school disciplinary and safety program must be approved by the governing body of a school district." Page 2, Section 14.33.120 add a subsection which read: "Schools which do not adopt a school disciplinary and safety program as described may not be eligible for state funds." Number 0321 MS. GILLESPIE suggested that "school districts" instead of schools be used because it is the districts that receive state funds. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Beth Lape how that applies to the REAAs [Rural Education Attendance Area]. BETH LAPE, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Education & Early Development (EED), agreed that Ms. Gillespie is correct. School districts receive state funds, so it would be the districts that would not receive the funds. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if all schools in the state fall into some district. MS. LAPE indicated that all schools are in districts except for Mt. Edgecumbe and Alyeska Central School. Number 0143 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to add the word "district" to Amendment 7. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked whether there was any objection. There being none, Amendment 7 was adopted. Number 0071 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that on page 2, Section 14.22.120, it still says "each school shall" so it doesn't change the intent. It is still demanding a school's action. TAPE 00-4, SIDE A Number 0023 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to move CSHB 253, version 1-LS0599\1, Ford, 1/17/00, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 253(HES) moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|