Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/02/2000 01:41 PM House JUD
| 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 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that first on the agenda would be HOUSE BILL NO. 253, "An Act establishing a school disciplinary and safety program; and providing for an effective date." Before the committee was CSHB 253(HES). Number 0087 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, came forward to present the bill, noting that he had requested its referral to the current committee. He pointed out that students attending the hearing had taken this bill up as a project. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON explained that the bill was prompted by several incidents. First, a friend with a Ph.D. in education, while visiting an Alaskan school, had observed teachers being addressed with "the 'f' word" an average of 4.5 times an hour; when she asked why the teachers put up with it, the response was, "Well, the administration won't back us up if we do anything, and the job pays good, and not too long until retirement." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON next recalled that while working in a rural district, he had asked the principal about the existence of child sexual abuse problems, which the principal had confirmed. When asked what they were doing about it, however, the principal had replied, "We're doing absolutely nothing; the last teacher here that reported child sexual abuse was out of a job in five and a half hours." The principal had said that person was probably the best young teacher she'd ever had the privilege of supervising. Number 0250 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON also reported that last spring a woman had walked into a classroom to find the class being somewhat terrorized by a student with a replica handgun. She got the student out of class and to the principal, but the student was back in class the next period for her husband's class. Both teachers felt that was inappropriate. Subsequently, they were harassed. Their car was vandalized, and windows were broken in their house. After the state troopers told them they probably could not be safe if they stayed in the village, the teachers resigned and left. As it turns out, the student was related to a school board member. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said that prompted him to think about how to have community-backed behavior and safety standards in a school, and how to protect teachers against retribution when they enforce the agreed-upon behavior and safety standards and follow the agreed-upon disciplinary procedures. The bill requires each district to go through whatever process they are comfortable with to get community buy-in on behavior and safety standards, and to have a disciplinary procedure in place. It also makes it a crime for a teacher to be punished who has enforced those standards and used that procedure. Furthermore, it clarifies that a teacher can use reasonable and appropriate force, if necessary, to protect the safety in a classroom. Number 0431 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what "reasonable force" is intended to mean. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON suggested some people there could testify to that, then noted that "reasonable and appropriate" is defined in Alaska Statutes. This has nothing to do with punishing the perpetrator, he added, but only restraining one from harmful or criminal activity. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she really likes the bill. However, sometimes it is physically difficult to restrain someone, and people can get hurt. She proposed talking to Representative Dyson about it later, saying she wants to make it specific so as to avoid getting caught in a trap. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON pointed out that most school districts in Alaska train staff and teachers about what is appropriate and how to handle situations. Most junior high and secondary schools, in particular, have trained staff members that teachers and staff can call on to assist if, indeed, there is a threat to the safety of the staff and other students. Number 0553 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Dyson: When the school safety and disciplinary program is developed within a district by the individual schools, what do you foresee as the relationship between those schools and the umbrella district responsible for them? REPRESENTATIVE DYSON answered: We have been careful to not tell them what they've got to do. And in a cohesive school district, we anticipate and expect that safety and behavior standards will be consistent across the district. And it may be, in a large and scattered district, ... which has some very urban and very rural ones, that they might have slightly different behavior standards, and it might allow a little more casual atmosphere ... where there's [a] much different PTR (pupil-teacher ratio) and so on. But we expect it will be quite consistent across the district. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted that whatever the districts comes up with, they are required by this bill to send the Department of Education and Early Development (EED) a copy. Number 0649 CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to the forum to develop a policy for the safety and disciplinary program. He asked why the bill excludes a member from the Department of Public Safety (DPS), such as a village public safety officer (VPSO) or an Alaska State Trooper; noting that the bill deals later with "appropriate force," he suggested no one is better able to understand and apply the law. He expressed uncertainty about whether such a person would be brought in under "other members of the community," or whether the legislature should ensure that one of those individuals is present and taking part in the discussion. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated Chairman Kott's suggestion would be a wise choice, and it also may be wise to have an advisory person with legal training, particularly at the school district or school board level. However, the intention is not to prescribe that but to let the community go through whatever process they feel is appropriate. He noted that in his own community, Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) have been included, which he believes is appropriate. Number 0747 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG brought attention to the statutory reference for use of reasonable and appropriate force, AS 11.81.430(a)(2). He asked whether, from testimony or the sponsor's knowledge, this allows any type of discretionary corporal punishment if approved by the local school board and principal. He also asked how the sponsor interprets the existing statute. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied, "We have no intention that this have anything to do with punishment here at all. That clause, using reasonable force, is only to restrain an evil process, if somebody is threatening staff or other students ...." He said they had struggled in the House Health, Education and Social Services (HHES) Committee to figure out whether there are better words. They originally had "nondeadly" in there but had removed it at the request of one school board. Representative Dyson said part of his reason for wanting the bill to come to the current committee was to see if there is a better legal term. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON acknowledged that the disciplinary procedure arrived at by a district may include some appropriate punishment, although he said he'd be very surprised if it included corporal punishment. Rather, he'd expect alternative sanctions or, in a rare case, being expelled. In his own district, the school district is clear that when misbehavior rises to the level of breaking the law, they call the police. Although he certainly would endorse that, the bill leaves the disciplinary procedure up to the individual schools. Once the school district has chosen, however, the bill prevents retribution from the school district against the teacher who enforces those agreed-upon standards and uses the agreed-upon procedure. Number 0911 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that a provision in the bill says the plan is not effective until approved by the governing school district. She asked where the teeth are for enforcement once the plan actually comes into play. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he anticipates that it is the responsibility of the school board and it executive officer - the superintendent - to ensure that individual schools are backing up the policy and not allowing retribution against the teacher. He further anticipates that a teacher who is the victim of retribution would appeal to the superintendent and, failing that, would then call a district attorney or the police. He noted that the HHES Committee, after significant discussion, had decided the buck stops with the school board and its selected executive officer, the superintendent. The school board association has not come out against this bill, he advised the committee, although he detects a singular lack of enthusiasm. Number 1036 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voiced his understanding that each school can have nuances within the school board's guidelines, but there may be significant differences between districts. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON affirmed that, emphasizing that every school district's plan still must be approved by the ruling body in that district. Number 1086 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated concern about the possible effect of the training classes on potential teachers' willingness to enter the profession. She also expressed appreciation for the direction the sponsor is going on this issue, but said she was thinking of situations involving small women teachers and big students. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON pointed out that Representative Brice had put forth a comprehensive school safety bill the previous year, which contained lots of provisions for early diagnosis, intervention and alternate sanctions, "all the things that probably most of us would like to see in the best of all worlds." Unfortunately, it had picked up an enormous fiscal note. In contrast, the single purpose of the current bill is to protect teachers who are victims of retribution for doing what is hopefully the right thing. To his belief, most school districts have some program for training personnel. As he remembers, something in the bill also says the EED is available as a resource for consulting. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON pointed out that the National Education Association (NEA), which is already involved in training members in appropriate responses, is eager to do more in partnership with local schools and school districts. He concluded, "We didn't take care of all the things it would be nice to do, to make this work - partially financial reasons, partially to allow the local districts to do whatever they wanted, as long as they got the community to buy in on what was expected." Number 1234 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what happens if a school district doesn't do anything. She also asked whether this is purely voluntary. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied: Absolutely not. If they don't do the plan, the [EED] can withhold the state portion of their funding. And if they do do a plan, and then violate the law but with retribution against the teacher, the school board can, en masse, go to jail or can be fined up to $200,000. I would assume that either or both would get their attention. Number 1277 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked how many schools fall within the scope of the governing board within the Anchorage School District, for example, as it is the largest district in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON recalled that it is around 50, then stated, "But they've already done it. We have, in hand, their behavior standards. I would have liked to have had a little more formal process for getting the community involved, but it was reviewed by all the PTAs." He said they hand out a handbook to every student and parent regarding what is expected of behavior and safety standards. They also have a well-thought-out disciplinary procedure, step by step, for teachers and staff to follow; that involves review and so forth. From his perspective, that district already meets the bill's criteria. However, that is only half of it. The district must also back up its teachers and not be guilty of retribution against a teacher who happens to use those standards on a politically well-connected student. Number 1355 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was testimony in the HHES Committee from teachers or students about whether they believe this is a favorable approach. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said they had heard from parents, certainly, and teachers have been pretty excited about this. He requested that Chairman Kott invite the few students remaining at the hearing to testify. CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the committee would defer further questions of the sponsor in order to hear from students. Number 1438 CHRIS BISHOP, Student, Juneau-Douglas High School (JDHS), came forward to express concern about page 2, line 8 [of Version D, the original version of the bill], which didn't specify whether the suspension would be from a class or from the school. CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that the committee was addressing CSHB 253(HES), which is Version K. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted that Mr. Bishop was using Version D. He indicated changes already had been made because of the realization that suspension by teachers was inappropriate. He said the teacher has authority to take a student out of class, but the suspension can only happen at the principal or superintendent level. Number 1487 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Bishop's opinion of the bill. MR. BISHOP said he had been looking through [Version D] briefly, and his only disagreement related to his earlier point. He expounded on that, suggesting that having a teacher take disciplinary action may negate a bond with a student and result in the student having a grudge for the whole year; thus it would affect the learning environment and the learning style of a student in the classroom. Because discipline is one of the principal's responsibilities, he believes it is why so many people dislike the principal in a school. Number 1578 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether Mr. Bishop has ever had a teacher who he believed was handing out punishment when it wasn't fair. And if so, does Mr. Bishop believe this bill would give that teacher too much power? MR. BISHOP answered that as long as there is no physical aspect of the punishment, he doesn't see a problem with that. Number 1638 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she was pleased at having Mr. Bishop sit before the committee, but troubled by the statement that students don't like principals because they have the disciplinary power. She recalled that as a student, she saw principals as people to look up to. She asked why Mr. Bishop believes children have a different attitude today. MR. BISHOP said he thinks it has to do with high school being a time when students are a bit rebellious and "have a thing for authority." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES told Mr. Bishop she believes he has his thumb on the pulse of the problem. When going to school, she wasn't rebelling against authority but respected it; that was the way she was brought up, expecting to have her own authority as an adult. However, children today aren't necessarily told to respect authority, and may make their own authority in many ways and think for themselves. She indicated that is the crux of the issue and that there is a need for balance. Number 1757 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if Mr. Bishop believes it is good for the community to go through a process where parents and community members get to have input on the behavior standards that are acceptable in the school. MR. BISHOP said yes. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked how Mr. Bishop would react if a student were disruptive in a classroom and the teacher dealt with it, but then the principal didn't back up the teacher, and the student - because of political connections, for example - got away with things in the classroom that other students couldn't get away with. MR. BISHOP answered that it depends on the seriousness and the circumstances. Himself diagnosed with ADHD [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder], he has gone through school with an individual education plan (IEP), for example. He requested a definition of disruptive behavior. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON answered, "It seemed kind of self- explanatory, but it indeed keeps the other children from learning and the classroom process from going on." MR. BISHOP asked if he meant throwing pencils at other students, for example. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said running up and down the aisles, hitting other kids, or dumping a lunch pail over them, for instance. MR. BISHOP said that is elementary behavior, and in high school they don't do that. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded, "I can tell you of high schools in this state where sexual assaults are happening virtually every day, kids are being sexually harassed with inappropriate touching, and where kids are being assaulted in the restroom, and sometimes sexually assaulted. That gets past what happened in most of the elementary schools I was in." Number 1843 MR. BISHOP explained that he had moved a lot because his father was in the United States Coast Guard. As a whole, JDHS has one of the lowest violence rates he has seen. He believes adding layers of rules increases pressure on students, who build up a grudge and no longer want to go to school. Referring to Columbine High School in Colorado, where numerous students had been shot by two fellow students, Mr. Bishop said new policies at Columbine are such that students can't bring a nail file to school without having it be considered a weapon. He believes adding dress codes or anything similar just increases frustration. Already the school is overcrowded, and "the last thing you want to do is be dumping a lot of laws," he said, concluding that letting loose the leash just a little bit longer would increase peace in the school. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON concurred. He pointed out, however, that this bill only makes sure that teachers don't get punished for doing whatever the community has agreed to. Number 1918 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agreed that this legislation is primarily designed to provide backing to the teachers. She asked if Mr. Bishop thinks it is necessary, in order for teachers to be effective in a school, to have that backing of authority from above, whether it be from the principal, the school board or the community. She pointed out that the community would have gotten together, including the PTAs and parents, and agreed on this policy, on paper. MR. BISHOP indicated he concurred with having agreements, with the principal, for example. Number 2004 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Bishop the following: What verbal or other abuse should the teacher accept without taking any action? Is disrespectful behavior acceptable? Does the teacher have no authority to send a student to the principal's office, for example, for that? And does he believe that these are things that the teacher just needs to put up with these days? MR. BISHOP, answering the final question, said yes, he does. Acknowledging that students in his generation call teachers "the 'b' word," he suggested that if teachers lightened up and didn't take as much offense, there would be a less stressful school environment, "even though it may be offending to a teacher a little." In response to a further question by Representative James regarding whether he himself would like to be a teacher, Mr. Bishop said yes. CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Mr. Bishop for his testimony. Number 2116 JOSIE WRIGHT, Student, Juneau-Douglas High School, came forward, disagreeing that teachers should be called whatever students want. She indicated teachers give a piece of themselves, but when students mouth off to the teacher, the teacher may be discouraged. She said maybe she was brought up differently, living in a Catholic family. She believes everybody deserves respect, and that includes adults. If need be, teachers should have the right to discipline these kids. She stated, "Our generation is out of control, that's what I think. They think they can do whatever they want and they're all grown up at 14, whatever. And they're not." MS. WRIGHT referred to Version D, the original bill, recalling that it said something about students being put into a program if the student got into trouble with his or her parents or legal guardian. She asked what the plan for discipline would be if that student was age 18 or older, or emancipated. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said that is an excellent question, but really outside of this bill. He noted that an emancipated child doesn't need parental permission, and an emancipated child over age 18 doesn't have to be in school. If their behavior doesn't meet the school's standards, the administration and the faculty could say, "You want to stay here? You need to change your behavior." Number 2239 MS. WRIGHT recalled that the bill discussed the ability to review a student's records. She asked how that would help for students who are getting into trouble for the first time. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON explained the intention. If a child who has had brushes with the law or significant behavior problems in one school gets transferred to another school, the new school should have access to knowledge of the dangerous previous behavior. That way, the school can be prepared to deal with it and perhaps get the student some help. Number 2274 MS. WRIGHT offered that JDHS could be worse. However, she doesn't agree with how the teachers are treated, and she believes they should have a certain amount of authority. Furthermore, students should realize that. She explained, "We're here to learn, and they're giving us education, when they could be at a private school and they'd be getting respected ...." Ms. Wright said students already don't respect other students. She concluded, "So when it escalates to the teachers, then what are we going to do when ... they're full adults and they're out in the world? We're going to end up having a society that's totally just down the drain." Number 2301 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Wright, on a scale of 1 to 10, how safe she believes JDHS is from violence. MS. WRIGHT answered that they are pretty safe, perhaps a "9." There is fighting, but not so much because there are good mediation programs, which she is part of. The BASE [Behavioral and Academic Success in Education] program also helps. However, there will always be a little conflict, because not everybody gets along with everyone else. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Wright whether her friends are touched inappropriately or harassed. MS. WRIGHT said yes, there is a lot of that. She explained, "You can be walking down the hallway and someone will think it's just funny to go slap somebody's butt." She added, "I'm: 'I'll break your fingers,' but that's the way I see it. If someone wants to be touched, they want to be touched. But if they don't, don't touch them." Number 2380 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed in terms of respect and students today. He asked, however, if Ms. Wright believes there is a need for something like a student bill of rights against "dumb rules." MS. WRIGHT answered, "No. Personally, I think that adults have the right to make rules, and we should abide by them. ... If they've grown up and they've done everything, and they've been there, done that, they know what they're doing. They're not doing it just to be mean." Number 2404 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether Ms. Wright believes that people who don't like to exercise respect for others actually don't respect themselves. MS. WRIGHT said it depends on the situation. Some people are like that, but she believes it is more the mentality nowadays, wanting one's own way, now. Students seem to be trying to take an adult role when they aren't there yet. After Representative Green commended her for her answers, she attributed them to her grandmother's influence. CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Ms. Wright, also extending thanks to her teacher for bringing the students. He noted that Representatives Murkowski and Croft had joined the meeting some time ago. He then announced his intention of hearing testimony from people waiting on teleconference. TAPE 00-7, SIDE B Number 0009 KATHI GILLESPIE, Legislative Co-Chair, Anchorage School Board, Anchorage School District, specified that her testimony via teleconference from Anchorage was on behalf of both the district and the school board. Paraphrasing written testimony provided by fax following the hearing, she stated the following: While we believe the purpose of this bill is admirable, the Anchorage School District cannot support passage of this bill in its present form. We do have serious legal and procedural concerns about it. Schools have a pronounced interest in developing and enforcing school disciplinary policies. Courts and educations experts have repeatedly recognized that a strong instructional program is dependent upon effective student discipline. However, courts have also recognized that an indispensable element of effective student discipline is allowing school officials discretion in matters of student discipline. Frankly, the fertile adolescent mind makes it impossible for school officials to anticipate every possible action that disrupts the educational environment. Consequently, student conduct codes cannot be effective when they are forced to comport with specific legislative mandates. An example of this, in this particular bill, is the use of the term "understood" in HB 253, in the context of schools, that they must adopt community-based standards which are "understood by students, parents, teachers, school administrators, and the community." At present, students are only required to be on "notice" of school disciplinary regulations. The regulations are available to students, and they choose to ignore them. If they do, they cannot argue that they were unaware of the conduct in question, that it was prohibited. HB 253 changes that. The bill provides that schools must draft community-based standards which are "understood" by "students, parents, teachers, school administrators, and the community." The term "understood" carries a specific meaning that implies comprehension, discernment and mutual agreement. The Alaska Supreme Court has determined that words in statute will be interpreted in that form in which they occur in most common usage. In its common usage, the term "understood" implies comprehension, discernment and mutual agreement. It also implies a specific interpretation, as this is my understanding of the matter. Requiring student "understanding" is far beyond simply placing a student on "notice" of school rules. The student must comprehend and accept the school rule. Consequently, this will result in every student who faces discipline having a new first bite at overturning discipline by arguing that they did not "understand" the rule in question. Further, districts will be unable to discipline students for actions which are not specifically prohibited under the school disciplinary code, as one can scarcely "understand" a rule that is not specifically stated. While this may not sound unreasonable to grown adults accustomed to thinking [of prohibited] conduct in terms of criminal statute, it takes on a completely different meaning in schools. As I mentioned earlier, courts have recognized that schools cannot anticipate every action students will take which is disruptive or dangerous. The requirement that students "understand" all school rules would result in a very real consequence that students would escape punishment due to the fact that there was not a preexisting rule on the books. The use of "understood" is just one example. A similar case could be made for the terms "reasonable and appropriate force" and "maintaining school discipline." Advocates for students facing discipline will make much out of these legally ambiguous terms. Number 0147 Another problem with this bill is the mandatory criminal sanctions for school board members who allow a teacher to be disciplined for actions taken under this bill. As a general matter, the people of the state of Alaska expect efficient, unflinching leadership from their governmental officials, including school board members. As long as officials are acting in good faith, the public has a right to expect decisive leadership. This bill would stifle that leadership. An analogy can be drawn to the qualified tort immunity for public officials acting in their official capacity. The Alaska Supreme Court has declared that the only way the public can expect its officials to fulfill the requirements of their offices is if they have tort immunity for official actions as long as they are acting in good faith and in a nonmalicious manner. Otherwise, officials would be reasonably afraid to act, due to the specter of tort liability for their actions. HB 253 would take it even a step further. Under this bill, it does not matter whether school officials act in good faith. They would be guilty of criminal misconduct if they allow a teacher to receive adverse personnel action for disciplining a student under this bill. This becomes even more unfortunate given the language interpretation and judgment calls required by this bill. Under ... this bill, teachers may use "reasonable and appropriate force" to maintain ... "classroom discipline." Should a teacher use force on a student in the name of preserving classroom discipline, and the board later sanction the teacher for this action, the board has exposed itself to criminal liability. If a court later determines that the teacher's action could have been defensible under the bill, the board is guilty - not charged with, but guilty - of committing a crime. This bill could easily result in boards rubber- stamping teachers' disciplinary decisions, regardless of the [egregiousness] of the teacher's actions. Schools do need support from parents and community members in ensuring effective discipline. However, this bill is not the way to ensure that support. CHAIRMAN KOTT requested that Ms. Gillespie fax the committee a copy of her testimony. Number 0238 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that the Anchorage School District (ASD) has a disciplinary and school safety policy; every year they pass out the handbook to parents through the students. She asked whether the policy in place now is that much different from what Representative Dyson is trying to get to. MS. GILLESPIE said she believes it is a matter of who has the authority to develop and pass the policy. "We've been elected to represent the community," she explained. "The school board discusses, in house with the administration, what the concerns are as far as student safety. We listen to teachers and students. But ... it is ... ultimately our responsibility to decide on what the policy is." Ms. Gillespie indicated the district has an overall policy, interpreted differently in different schools. She would hate to "criminalize" school board members because of a difference in interpretation of the rules when a child moved from one junior high school to another, for example. She believes the bill is fraught with the potential for teachers, students and parents to take school districts to court. She continued: We already, I think, are doing a fair job in maintaining school discipline. That's our job. That's what we were elected to do. I believe that decisions are best made closest to where those decisions are implemented. Personally, I see no need for the criminalization of school board members in order to protect teachers. I'm also concerned about the influence that different groups might have over school policy. I'm also concerned about whether or not there's a due process for students and an appeal process for students [that] would be outside the court. ... As far as the Anchorage School District, we've spent enough time in court already. We don't need to have to defend school policy in every instance, in every school, in front of a judge. And I believe that this certainly would lend itself to that potential. Number 0358 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that elementary schools have different concerns and problems than secondary schools have. She asked whether it is accurate to say that individual schools in the ASD don't have input into the school discipline or safety policies set by the school board. MS. GILLESPIE replied at length: We have different levels of policies. We have our student rights and responsibilities, and that's kind of an overall umbrella of what the school rules are. And as I think you mentioned before, that is a document that is interpreted by different levels. We have a high school document, a middle school document, and an elementary document. ... We put out the elementary document because the kids would never understand the rules as they're written, ... almost in adult legal language for our high school students. And so that is a difference in interpretation there. So we have the overall student rights and responsibilities, but then we have very diverse school populations. We have the kids over at Polaris and Steller, who get up in the middle of a class and walk out and get a Coke, and the teachers have no problem with that; they come back in, they come and go as they please. We have other schools, like in Chugiak, ... where that is not acceptable behavior. So we have district rules, we have school rules, and in many teachers' classrooms, they come up with their own rules. If you talk to high school kids, they'll say, "I can chew gum in Mrs. Smith's class, but I can't chew gum in Mr. Jones's class." ... We need to have some flexibility here ... in our diverse student populations and how they interpret the rules. And if [we] are then going to be forced to defend ... the implementation of specific rules and standards of behavior, I just think it would be unwieldy. ... It's working now in our school district. There may be the unique situations in some other school districts. And from time to time, we have problems in the Anchorage School District. But there's a couple of ways to address those problems. There's a grievance process that union members have if they feel like they're not being upheld; and it's written in their contracts that we will uphold ... those school policies and school rules. There's also an appeal process that students and parents have, if they feel ... they weren't given due process at the school level. ... Criminalizing school board members for not enforcing rules that would have to be standardized for every school ... I think would be a step in the wrong direction. I don't believe, from my perspective, that this would lend itself to the ability for different schools to develop their own disciplinary procedures. If I'm going to be fined ... $200,000 and potentially taken to jail, those schools will all have the same rules. They will not have different rules, because there's no way that I can know, in 86 schools in the Anchorage School District, what the specific rules are for each school. I just think it would be an administrative nightmare, and I don't think it's necessary. Number 0513 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed interest in seeing not only Ms. Gillespie's testimony but also an outline of the ASD's current program, including the three different sets of rules. MS. GILLESPIE agreed to that. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the ASD has a student bill of rights or spells out what students can expect from the district, schools and teachers. MS. GILLESPIE restated that they annually adopt the student rights and responsibilities; the document says, essentially, "You have a right to due process, but these are the rules we expect you to follow." There isn't a specific student bill of rights. She added, "We expect the kids in the Anchorage School District to follow the rules that are set out by the district, by their school, and by their teachers in the classroom." Number 0599 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN requested clarification. On the one hand, Ms. Gillespie was suggesting there would be a problem in the students' understanding, and yet there is a set of rules that the ASD expects the students to abide by and understand. MS. GILLESPIE responded: The difference is that you're not criminalizing school board members for not enforcing rules at the district level, school level, and classroom level. We have kids, as you well know, that are very transient in the Anchorage School District. Some of these kids move around from school to school, ... maybe five or six different times. And it is very difficult for them to know what the particular classroom rules are. But we do have an overriding set of rules for the Anchorage School District; those are district rules. Each school has a little bit different interpretation of that. What I'm saying is that kids do have a hard time finding out what the rules are in a new teacher's classroom, in a new school, what the interpretation of the school culture is. The difference in this bill is that if a child who is transferring from school to school ... does not understand the rules, and a teacher ... makes some sort of an arbitrary decision that the child should be punished, there's no "wiggle room" for us to step in there and say, "This is a child who has special education issues. This is a child who has a different cultural background. This is a kid who doesn't speak English." The way this bill is written, if we don't enforce that specific rule, we could be sent to jail. We can be fined $200,000. We have to have flexibility in order to work with the different populations .... That's why those decisions are best made at the local level. That's why local patrol is so important to the Association of Alaska School Boards and to the Anchorage School Board. We feel like we're in the best place to make those decisions. If the community doesn't think we're upholding the safety standards that they want, they have every right to recall us or to vote us out at the next election. That's the proper place, I think, for those decisions to be made. Number 0716 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that the basic underlying premise of the bill, as he understands it, is that the school district will have the right to say whether any particular programs passes muster; he doesn't see a big problem of students and teachers not really understanding a particular school policy so long as it does so. He suggested the overriding fear of litigation may be influencing the concern about the students' understanding. He proposed laying aside concern about the former for now. MS. GILLESPIE responded: Who is responsible for the kids' behavior? And who should bear the consequences of the kids' bad behavior? The school board and the superintendent don't sit in every classroom in the district. If there is a discipline incident in a classroom in the district, we're not there when it happens. We're not there when the teacher ... makes the complaint to the principal. If the principal ... doesn't uphold the decision or somehow misinterprets what the policy is, ... it's not the principal who's sanctioned; it's the school board and the superintendent .... The accountability piece, I think, is being misplaced. It sounds like a good idea. And certainly we all support school safety. But the question is: Who is in the best [position] to make those rules and to enforce those rules? ... I don't think that criminalizing school board members and superintendents, who are not sitting there in the classroom in the district, is the way to approach this. Number 0836 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON called attention to subsection (c), found on page 3, lines 13 through 16, of CSHB 253(HES), which read: (c) If a member of the governing body of a school district knowingly allows a teacher, a teacher's assistant, a principal, or another person responsible for students to be terminated or punished in violation of (a) of this section, the member is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. He stated the intention, which he believes is clear, that the only reason a school board would be subject to sanctions under this is if they terminated or punished a teacher who had followed the pre-agreed behavior standards and disciplinary procedures. There is nothing here about the school board having responsibility for class discipline, he pointed out, only for approving the plan. The school board only gets in trouble if they inappropriately punish a teacher or don't back up the teacher here. MS. GILLESPIE said she doesn't believe she has any problem with "terminated" because the superintendent and the school board would approve that termination. The problem is how to interpret "punished." For example, a teacher puts a child out of the room for some supposed infraction of the rules, and the principal calls the parents and then sends the child back to the classroom. If the teacher doesn't want the child back in the classroom, or if there is a dispute over how to enforce a particular rule, how should "punished in violation" be interpreted? Is "punished" sending the student back to the room? Ms. Gillespie said she thinks it is too broad. Number 0914 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON expressed openness to having a better word. He then asked what Ms. Gillespie thinks about the school district that allowed and encouraged the community to vandalize the teachers' cars, threaten their lives, break the windows out of their house, and run them out of town. MS. GILLESPIE pointed out that it would be the same community developing the standards referenced in the bill. She suggested if students or community members act in that way, the police should get involved. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON restated the intention of having that community follow the standards they have set, whatever those are. Number 0967 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to implementation, noting that at least three different legal sections overlap. He brought attention to the criminal liability for disciplining a teacher who has complied with AS 14.33.130(a), which stated: A teacher, a teacher's assistant, a principal, or another person responsible for students may not be terminated or otherwise punished for enforcement of an approved school disciplinary and safety program, including behavior standards, adopted under AS 14.33.120. He suggested one of the most important things, as he understands the intent, is on page 2, lines 24 through 26, which stated: (6) policies authorizing a teacher, teacher's assistant, or other person responsible for students to use reasonable and appropriate force to maintain classroom safety and discipline as described under AS 11.81.430(a)(2). REPRESENTATIVE CROFT called AS 11.81.430 the general provision allowing force where necessary to keep order in a classroom. He suggested it comes down to adopting standards authorizing the use of force, and making it specific from a community perspective. Explaining that he was trying to get a handle on how it might be written, he told Representative Dyson: If we adopted, as a community standard, that a teacher shall attempt to keep order without force in a classroom but may forcibly restrain a disruptive student - something as general as that, and that's our community consensus - a lot of factual disputes could come out of that description. ... Was the student being disruptive? You've used force, but it could have been appropriate or inappropriate, under the standard, depending on whether they were actually disruptive. If they used force on a nondisruptive student, it wouldn't meet the standard. And my worry - and I guess I'd like you to address it - is ... who would determine that? If a court comes in and says, "We find that the student was not disruptive; therefore, they were not following the plan; therefore, they are no longer immune," I think, or, contrary, "They were following the plan, and when the school board disciplined them, they're now liable for a class A misdemeanor," depending on what? ... The school board would make a determination about whether ... what they did fit the policy. And ... if they're wrong on their public policy call as [to] whether this fit the facts or not, they could go to jail on it, right? CHAIRMAN KOTT requested that Representative Dyson and the drafter think about it but not respond at this point, in order to hear further testimony. Number 1176 FAY NIETO, PARENTS, Inc., testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying her organization is the training center for the State of Alaska, funded federally to provide support to parents and professionals who have children with special needs. She expressed appreciation for attention to this matter, acknowledging that violence does exist in the schools and there is a desire to protect all concerned. She asked, however, how this bill incorporates regulations finalized in 1997 for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). MS. NIETO pointed out that the IDEA has rather stringent language regarding implementation of discipline policies to ensure that if a child were, in fact, experiencing a behavior outburst, there would be a need to determine whether it was a manifestation of his or her disability. That regulation has particular language regarding the period of time that the child can be out of school. It also requires positive behavioral intervention to ameliorate the troubling behavior. Ms. Nieto pointed out that these children are included in regular classrooms. However, there are times when the general education teacher is unclear that the child is on an IEP. She asked again how the federal mandates of the IDEA are incorporated into the model in CSHB 253(HES). Number 1333 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded that he certainly is conscious of that. He assumes every school district developing behavior and safety standards, and a disciplinary procedure, rightly would consider special provisions for children with developmental disabilities and IEPs; he suggested most districts in the state, including his own, already do that well. This bill would come into play only if the district inappropriately disciplined a teacher who was following those procedures, which would take into account the IDEA. MS. NIETO pointed out that a recent study of states' abilities to implement provisions to ensure IDEA implementation generally showed a nationwide failure to implement it effectively. Alaska also is struggling with implementation, although helped by the state's strong department of education. She voiced concern about the effects of labeling students as troublemakers because of trouble with a particular teacher; she recommended considering where that information goes, so that a student attempting to improve behavior has an opportunity to do so without carrying a negative label throughout his or her school career. MS. NIETO explained that the IDEA calls for positive behavioral intervention plans developed by local education agencies, and for teachers to be trained to implement this. Noting that teacher training in Alaska is problematic, she nonetheless suggested using education to arm teachers with effective behavioral strategies for classroom use, so they don't have to resort to physical "take-downs," which can be dangerous even when conducted by trained personnel. She urged members to look at those items in the bill. MS. NIETO pointed out that the central office of PARENTS, Inc., is in Anchorage, and offices exist statewide in Dillingham, Fairbanks, Bethel and Juneau. She offered her agency's input in locations about which the sponsor is most concerned. Number 1720 CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Ms. Nieto and called upon Dr. O'Callaghan, whom he introduced as a family psychologist from Bethel, Connecticut, who has specialized for 35 years in the prevention and solution of child behavior problems. He said Dr. O'Callaghan consults with several school systems in Connecticut, and speaks regionally and nationally on his method of balanced parenting and school-based collaboration with families. His extensive writings include the book, "School-Based Collaboration with Families: Constructing Family-School-Agency Partnerships" [Jossey-Bass, 1993]. Number 1768 J. BRIEN O'CALLAGHAN, Ph.D., testified via teleconference from Bethel, Connecticut. He noted that Representative Dyson's office had originally contacted him through his web site, where he describes his methodology of preventing and solving child behavior problems. He pointed out that any statements he makes are within a broad context of, principally, how to prevent and solve the problems. The bill, as he reads it, is a very small part of that, focusing on protection of teachers trying to solve problems within their classrooms; he expressed support for that aspect of it. DR. O'CALLAGHAN explained that he would use a problem-solving format involving basic questions, which he uses whenever talking to someone dealing with child behavior problems. Is there a problem, despite everyone's best efforts? How serious is it, on a scale of 0 to 10? Is there a solution presently? What is the diagnosis of the behavior problem of students in schools and how schools are handling it? What is the cause? And what is the solution? Dr. O'Callaghan said HB 253 partially addresses it by trying to give more encouragement, authorization and empowerment to teachers to have some standards in the classrooms, and to implement them if there are repeated infractions from students. He lends support for that part of it. DR. O'CALLAGHAN emphasized that missing in almost all legislation nationally, and in procedures being put into school systems, is work with the parents of disruptive students. Mentioning publications of the education establishment, he said uniformly underemphasized or eliminated is training of teachers in how to talk to parents about their children and their children's behavior, and how to engage parents in a process of changing their own behavior at home. From his work over 35 years, he believes that clearly the main source of a child behavior problem in school is the home and parenting. Although he hears dozens of procedures identified by all kinds of safety organizations and experts, the one thing left out is, to him, the most important: how to deal with parents, and the training of teachers in how to do that. DR. O'CALLAGHAN specified that he supports the notion that if there is a problem, and if there is a lack of support from administrators for teachers' attempts to run an organized, safe and cooperative classroom, something should be done about it. He also expressed support for reducing litigation and avoiding unnecessary litigation. He said it really comes back to the question of whether the school boards are doing their job of supporting teachers who are trying to run safe classrooms, which is what he believes this bill mainly emphasizes. Number 2192 DR. O'CALLAGHAN listed what is missing in HB 253, in his view. First, there is no mention - at least in his copy of the bill, under disciplinary procedures or elsewhere - of the importance of teacher-student and teacher-parent communication skills as "preliminary procedures which are essential in avoiding premature suspension and physical interventions." Saying he understands that Representative Dyson had made reference to other documents and procedures that may be a matter of law, about which he himself isn't aware, he suggested perhaps those may address that concern. Second, there is no mention of parenting as the principal cause of student disruptive behavior. DR. O'CALLAGHAN noted that third, there is no mention of family and parent assessment and intervention as primary prevention and solution procedures for student disruptive behavior. Calling attention to AS 47.12.010(b), regarding the juvenile justice system, he noted that in those 14 points there is also no mention of the primary importance of family and parent assessment in preventing or solving student disruptive behavior problems. Fourth, there is no mention of teacher and all-school staff training in how to deal with disruptive students and their parents. He said he had heard many references in testimony that day, so this may be addressed elsewhere. MR. O'CALLAGHAN said fifth, the importance of training in the use of force is not stated; he noted that it had been mentioned by Representative Dyson and testifiers, and he suggested it also may be addressed elsewhere. Finally, he believes there needs to be a parenting-family expert at the core of any school implementation of this bill; in his view, there should be someone identified in any school district who is legitimately a parenting-family expert and who would help in implementing the terms of this bill. MR. O'CALLAGHAN concluded by voicing his overall concern that if parents are not sufficiently involved in disciplinary procedures, students either won't change quickly enough or won't change at all. Parents may turn on the school for unreasonable procedures, and the school may be afraid to make sufficiently strong standards for fear of parent revolt. TAPE 00-8, SIDE A CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Dr. O'Callaghan, then indicated the committee would take up HB 253 again after 4:30 p.m. that day. HB 253 - SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY AND SAFETY PROGRAM CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that in order to hear from a testifier online in Fairbanks, the committee would again take up HOUSE BILL NO. 253, "An Act establishing a school disciplinary and safety program; and providing for an effective date." Number 1348 JOHN REGITANO, Director of Planning, Family Centered Services of Alaska, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, noting that his nonprofit agency works almost exclusively with children under 18 years of age who have mental health disabilities, and their families. He addressed four main concerns with HB 253 in its present form. First, his agency works with school districts throughout the state, particularly in the Fairbanks and Delta Junction areas, on prevention and intervention to avoid violent situations. If the bill just said all school districts are required to have a plan in place, his agency would believe that to be a good measure. To his belief, the majority of Alaska's children now attending public schools are covered by school disciplinary plans, which work well for the most part. Developed by local communities, those are being applied fairly and are overseen by the appropriate boards and administrations. MR. REGITANO discussed the second concern. No wording in the bill addresses children with disabilities and the federal laws that apply to them - such as the IDEA, "504" plans and IEPs. The Fairbanks School District alone has approximately 2,200 children on "504" or IEP plans. Disciplinary procedures need to be well thought-out and included in any plans developed by a school district. Therefore, the bill needs to include wording regarding compliance with all applicable federal laws, as a safeguard, so that issue is brought into the thought process when these plans are developed. He mentioned the need for input from appropriate social service workers, special education teachers and parents of those children in the planning. MR. REGITANO said third, use of appropriate and reasonable force is applied to two issues here. Regarding safety, he believes it is appropriate and adds a level of comfort. However, as the bill now stands, it is also applied to discipline; he concurs with Ms. Gillespie that it is highly subjective, especially in a school setting. He expressed concern that discipline is in the eye of the beholder, and an argument could be made that it was linked somehow to safety. Although applying it to safety is fine, it doesn't work when discipline is also addressed in the bill. MR. REGITANO indicated his fourth point echoes Ms. Gillespie's testimony that it is impossible to define everything that could possibly occur in the school setting which would require appropriate or reasonable force. He concluded by saying although his agency likes the discussion on school safety and violence, they adamantly oppose the bill in its present form. Number 1564 CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Mr. Regitano. After asking whether anyone else wished to testify via teleconference or had a time constraint, he announced that he would reopen public testimony at the hearing on Monday, February 7. [HB 253 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|