Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/20/2000 01:20 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 Number 0046 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 253, "An Act establishing a school disciplinary and safety program; and providing for an effective date." He clarified that there was a new proposed committee substitute (CS), Version S, before the committee. Number 0057 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB 253, version 1-LS0559\S, Ford, 3/17/00, as the working document before the committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered and Version S was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, testified as sponsor of HB 253. He reviewed those portions of HB 253 that had been revised. Representative Dyson said three changes had been made, which he thinks make the bill better. The first change is on page 2, line 8 and following, which now very clearly specifies that each school is to go through the process of getting community input on behavior and safety standards. However, he said, it is the responsibility of the school board or the governing body to make the policy, and the board/governing body has the option of "totally homogenizing everything," or, in a big district, having some variation among the schools. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said the second change is on page 2, lines 25- 29. On that revision, the sponsor and staff had worked with many people from the disabilities community. Their concern was that the bill not inadvertently facilitate discrimination against children with disabilities. The third change, on page 3, line 22, addresses concern about how teachers conduct themselves. All it says is that they are going to do it consistent with existing standards of the Professional Teaching Practices Commission (PTPC). Number 0348 CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that on page 3, line 20, the penalty having to do with violations has been lessened. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON confirmed that the penalty had been reduced from a misdemeanor to a violation. Number 0364 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the new version of CSHB 253 had been reviewed by the Anchorage School District and the Alaska Association of School Administrators, and, if so, whether those groups had changed their opinion of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said the new version of HB 253 [Version S] has been provided to both groups but neither has responded to it. Those making the revisions have been working with those two groups and have addressed their concerns, he said, "but in 30-some years, I have never had the Anchorage School District agree with me about anything." Number 0428 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT raised the issue of reducing from a class A misdemeanor [the penalty for] the kind of conduct HB 253 was defining for the school board. He said he thought the committee had been moving in the direction of narrowing the scope of the crime and keeping it a misdemeanor. Now, he said, it appears they have reduced the penalty but kept the scope of the crime the same. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON concurred with that observation. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered why that was a better solution than the previous one. Number 0484 WES KELLER, Staff to Representative Dyson, Alaska State Legislature, said that the revision was the result of a compromise with the House Judiciary Committee. Number 0507 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he wanted to understand what goes on in a disciplinary hearing, especially relating to what was a misdemeanor and is now a violation. Page 3, subsection (c), says it is a violation if "the member of the governing body of a school district knowingly allows a teacher or others to be terminated or punished." If the school board member allows a teacher to be punished in violation of subsection (a), which says a teacher may not be punished for enforcing the standard, his question is: On legitimate disagreements, how is that dealt with under "knowingly"? He continued: If I'm a school board member and I think they have exceeded the disciplinary plan, the teacher obviously thinks they were enforcing the disciplinary plan; I vote to sanction them in some way, and later a court determines that the conduct of the teacher was appropriate. Did I commit a violation or did I have to know at the time that they were enforcing the plan, and know I was punishing them for that? Number 0610 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON explained: What we're after is knowingly using your position as a school board member or administration member to punish somebody who was doing the right thing. You knew that they were doing the right thing, you didn't like it, and you used your position to punish a teacher who was acting in conformance with the district standards and good professional conduct; you want to "jerk his chain" because you didn't like what he did. You have to know he was doing the right thing, and you have to knowingly go after punishing him for doing the right thing. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thinks it is important to have that on the record. It is difficult to write, so he appreciates the clarification. CHAIRMAN KOTT said that is his understanding as well of where this is heading. Number 0677 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the previous draft of HB 253 had said "felony." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT and CHAIRMAN KOTT clarified that it had referred to a class A misdemeanor. Number 0701 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said a class A misdemeanor is a typical occupational licensing penalty, which gives more grit and enforceability [than does a violation]. It seems like nowadays, the pocketbook is more important than some little slap on the hand. He asked, "Did you consider some type of treble damage civil action as opposed to this?" Number 0730 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said that was how he originally thought it should be done, "to hit them in the pocketbook." But he had not been successful in convincing legislative counsel of that; that was who had said it ought to be a misdemeanor, consistent with other licensing type, professional-conduct type violations. "And if there is a better way, I'm into it," Representative Dyson added. Number 0789 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would defer to the legal experts. He added that "it seems like the civil remedy is much broader and fuzzier, and the criminal remedy is going to be clearer." Number 0805 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON pointed out that if legal action were brought against a school administrator, the board probably would pay the money out of district funds, so it might be less daunting than the idea of spending time in jail, judging by the reaction of his own school board. Number 0875 CHAIRMAN KOTT emphasized that he did not want to go too far and make HB 253 an "attorney employment Act." If one were to go beyond the scope of a violation, there would be substantial opportunity for litigation to occur, not only on behalf of the affected or harmed teacher but on behalf of the district as well. "In a time of limited resources, if we can avoid that, we should probably make that attempt," he added. He noted that a violation carries with it a maximum fine of $300. Number 0930 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that a violation seems like a slap on the hand, a speeding ticket. But this [violation] would not preclude the teacher from bringing a civil action. Number 0984 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied: Even as demonstrably insensitive as I am, I can hang around a school for a couple of days and tell you whether the administration is backing up the teachers and whether the teachers feel confident they will be backed up when they enforce reasonable behavior and safety standards. That is always management's job: to back up the employees. Treat them like professionals, train them well, and have them doing the right things in the right way, and then back them up. When you don't, you have morale problems, and it gets difficult in the classroom. If the teachers know that when the right angry parent comes in, the administration is going to fold up like a tent in a windstorm and steal away, then the teachers are really going to struggle. We're trying to protect the teachers who do the right thing and follow the previously agreed-upon standards and do it in the right way, and I think it's worth doing. Number 1081 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she appreciated the sponsor's work on the bill. Then she said she assumed it would not apply to a teacher who enforced the discipline standards improperly, in a way inconsistent with PTPC policy. Number 1106 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said that was correct. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were other questions for the bill's sponsor or his staff. There were none. He noted that Representative James had joined the committee and Representative Dyson was excused to testify at a concurrent committee meeting. Number 1149 JOHN CYR, President, National Education Association - Alaska (NEA- AK), thanked Representative Dyson for sponsoring HB 253. He noted that it has been a long struggle. He applauded the work the committee has done on page 2 in allaying the fears of those who have children with special needs. However, he had questions about some of the changes on page 3. MR. CYR called attention to AS 14.33.130, subsection (c), where it used to say "misdemeanor" and now says "violation." Then a new subsection (d) has been added, he noted. What has been done, as he understands it, is to reduce the level to which a school board member can be charged, but on the other hand, to add a section in which teachers who may inconsistently do something [related to] discipline and safety can lose their license to teach, can lose their livelihood forever through the PTPC. That appeared to him to be inconsistent, "if we are building this to help teachers." MR. CYR told members he would be the first to admit that the way the system works now, everything that [teachers] do is governed by the PTPC. He elaborated: We have an ethical standard to uphold, and we do, and I want that. Certainly, every teacher ought to follow that. But does adding this language in subsection (d) take away those safeguards that we have under contract and in other places for fair evaluations? Can a school board member or administrator come in and say, "Well, we have this bill and I believe that you have not done this consistently, and so I'm sending your name in to PTPC," and bypass those systems that we already have in place? MR. CYR explained that he would like to see subsection (d) removed because he believes that it already is in place "for everything we do in the classroom." To put it in this bill at this time raises some questions in his mind about how that balances. Other than that concern, NEA-AK is very pleased. Number 1324 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he, too, is concerned that the administrators are now [under subsection (d)] being given an additional tool to come down hard on the teachers for not enforcing, and that there is not a little bit of discretion left to the teachers. On the other hand, he asked, aren't they now enforcing the safety and disciplinary programs that the schools are setting up? And if not, wouldn't there be some other remedy that could be taken against those teachers who for some reason decided not to enforce the disciplinary standards? Number 1360 MR. CYR replied, "Absolutely." Every teacher in every classroom falls under the PTPC, he said. "But basically, if I'm not enforcing classroom standards and I don't have discipline in my classroom, there is an obligation there for the administrator to come in to evaluate, to put me on a plan of improvement to make sure that those things happen." Mr. Cyr referred to past discussions about how the evaluation procedure works. He said it works exactly the same way in relation to discipline. That system is built in already, which is why he questions whether subsection (d) is needed. Number 1320 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether the tenure evaluation process includes mechanisms that address how well a teacher ensures that there are discipline and safety in the classroom. MR. CYR said yes. In every school district, there is a whole section on classroom discipline. That is one of the key pieces in deciding whether or not one ought to be teaching. That is already built into the system, he reiterated. Number 1461 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Cyr whether subsection (d) in effect "unravels" the whole concept because there could be conflict between how subsection (d) is interpreted and how a teacher may act. MR. CYR said he did not know. He stated: If I have the assurance of the drafters that this is not outside the current disciplinary program, that this works exactly the way it is negotiated in every contract, the rights and responsibilities that the law gives us now, I'm comfortable. But if it more than that, then I do have a problem. Number 1515 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he shared that concern. If it [subsection (d)] is actually being followed today, then why is it necessary to include it in the bill? He said he would discuss that with the bill's sponsor and staff. Number 1534 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the word "consistent" was problematic. He noted that there are no guidelines to define "consistent." Number 1542 MR. CYR explained that every district and state law allows school districts to evaluate professional staff in a consistent manner, and if they [staff] are found lacking, there are programs laid out in state law that say one will do this, then this, then this. At the end of that, whether one is tenured or not, one can be dismissed for noncompliance. That is the law and that is the way he believes it should be. If subsection (d) changes that in some fashion, then he has a major problem with it. If it doesn't, then he is happy with HB 253 [Version S]. Number 1590 MR. KELLER advised members that subsection (d) was included in response to a concern that a teacher could inappropriately apply the new program and then the superintendent or principal couldn't discipline the teacher who was acting inappropriately. Subsection (d) doesn't change anything. The intent is to keep everything tied in with what already exists, with professional teaching practices, rather than to add something new. Number 1619 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked why, then, if the intent is to tie HB 253 into the existing system, subsection (d) should be included, which would clutter up the statute. He said that unless there is another compelling reason to keep subsection (d), he would rather remove it. MR. KELLER replied that he is sure the sponsor would have no problem with deleting subsection (d). He explained that subsection (d) was included partly in response to the question that Chairman Kott had brought up regarding the narrowing of the violation by a superintendent or somebody who was trying to punish a teacher by tying HB 253 in with the PTPC standards. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she had two thoughts on the matter. First, she would delete subsection (d) because she doesn't really know what it means, and the lack of clarity may create confusion. She thinks the school disciplinary and safety program should be consistent with PTPC practices. She doesn't know how to make the two jibe because one concerns student behavior and the other concerns the teacher's. Second, she can envision a court having problems interpreting what "enforcement" is. A police officer, for instance, could be "enforcing" the law by conducting an illegal search but just wouldn't be properly enforcing it. It may be that that is where the language needs to [say] that it is proper enforcement under the standards, or that the standards are used when creating the list. In response to a question by Mr. Keller, she specified that she was using Version S and pointing out that there is nothing in subsection (a) on page 3 in terms of what enforcement itself is. Number 1735 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT observed, "If the best we can say about a provision is that we hope it does nothing - and if it does anything, we don't want it - it probably would be better to take it out." Number 1742 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she didn't see the problems that others were reading into subsection (d). To her, it does say how to enforce; it says "in a manner that is consistent with professional teaching standards adopted by the PTPC." Also, she thinks it is important to include subsection (d). She does not want this to be a second set of rules applied in some other way. She thinks subsection (d) ties HB 253 into the PTPC in a realistic way. Number 1788 MR. CYR addressed Representative James, saying that he and she agree exactly on what this says. His point is that teachers already are bound under the PTPC in everything they do in the classroom. The enforcement of this school disciplinary safety program is no different from any other program. Teachers must do it in a consistent, professional manner that meets that [PTPC] code, and he believe that is important. What he does not want to have happen - because it is in this law and not in another section of the statute - is to have those safeguards which are built into that other section not apply to this. He elaborated: We [the administrator and teacher] may have a difference of opinion on whether I'm enforcing it consistently with that, and I would like the ability to have a hearing and bring that to the school board and have that decided. If that's what this does, then I don't have a problem with it. But if it does something different, that's where I'm caught in a box on this one. I want to have happen exactly what you said, but I don't want to be outside that other statute that gives me not just the responsibility, but the rights that go with it. Number 1848 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that when the public reads a statute, if the statute doesn't specifically refer [the reader] somewhere else, the reader may never get there. She thinks subsection (d) makes it clear by referring to the other statute where it is more thoroughly delineated. Therefore, the public would not be missing that issue. Furthermore, she thinks it is important to have the public understand the statute, but she just does not see that this language in subsection (d) accomplishes that. She think it ties it in and refers [the reader to the related statute]. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further discussion. There being none, he asked Carl Rose to comment. Number 1906 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards, said the association previously had three areas of concern. First he noted, the association had been concerned about differentiating between policy at the board level and the safety program devised at each school site. House Bill 253 still requires a considerable amount of work, but he thinks it now delineates the difference between district policy and what that means in terms of legal status and the authority of local schools to put together a plan consistent with that. Number 1932 MR. ROSE said his second point was related to concern for due process, as had been discussed earlier. In AS 14.31.30, it says that a teacher or employee may not be terminated or otherwise punished for enforcement of the above approved school disciplinary and safety program. That initially had raised a question with the association about what recourse a school district would have to step in and investigate. Mr. Rose believes that is why subsection (d) was included. He doesn't know that it actually does what it was designed to do, but he believes it gives the administration or a parent who has a concern the opportunity to investigate, validate and take appropriate action. Number 1980 MR. ROSE said the third point of concern to the association had been "criminalizing" school board members, who are elected officials. He thinks the recommended change from a misdemeanor to a violation is appropriate. Mr. Rose then asked what HB 253 does, even in its amended form, that is not accomplished in Chapter 4 of the Alaska Administrative Code (4 AAC). He said he has concluded that the issue of school safety is critical enough to justify elevated concern. Although HB 253 is attempting to do that, he wonders if the bill succeeds in doing so. MR. ROSE pointed out that he sees some additional costs that will be placed on the school district [by HB 253], but who would be opposed to a school safety program? He said he appreciates the effort by the sponsor and staff to try to accommodate his group's concerns, and he thinks they have succeeded to some degree. He again asked what this does that isn't covered under 4 AAC. He answered that, frankly, he doesn't see much other than specificity. He does think that if a teacher's actions are not reviewable, in that the teacher may not be terminated for exercising his or her responsibilities under a school safety plan, then it is appropriate to include subsection (d). That ensures that the teacher can be held accountable. Mr. Rose concluded that progress has been made toward addressing the association's concerns, but he still does not know if HB 253 "is really going to get us where we need to go." Number 2070 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she wasn't sure she had understood Mr. Rose's comments. She thinks he agrees with the need to be absolutely sure that the teacher is not going to be "hatcheted" without going through the process currently in use. In that case, it is very important to tie together the safety and discipline issues addressed by HB 253 and the fact that it ought to be done in a manner consistent with the current system. She does not want HB 253 to "stand out there by itself" and to allow any damage to be done before pre-existing rights are claimed by a teacher. Subsection (d) ties HB 253 into the context of existing practice, saying that they are consistent. She asked Mr. Rose if that was what he had said. Number 2137 MR. ROSE said yes. If HB 253 is going to include subsection (a), which says an employee may not be terminated or otherwise punished for enforcement of the school disciplinary and safety program, then something needs to be said in subsection (d) that the employee shall enforce the approved school disciplinary program in a way that is consistent with the PTPC. The association's concern had been that if [an administrator] couldn't take corrective action that seemed necessary, then a teacher could act and a parent might not have any recourse. Also, at that time, HB 253 had referred to "criminalization": if an administrator questioned a teacher's enforcement, took corrective action, and later was found to have been wrong, that could have resulted in a class A misdemeanor. Number 2190 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked what happens now, in the absence of HB 253, if the PTPC's professional and ethical standards are not followed by a teacher. What is the recourse at this point other than tenure review or performance evaluation? Number 2227 MR. ROSE gave the example of an employee [teacher] taking action that is deemed to have been inappropriate. Under current law, the teacher's action would be investigated. If the investigation showed that the action had, indeed, been inappropriate, the result probably would be a letter to that effect going into the teacher's personnel file. If there is going to be a termination as a result of a teacher's behavior, that is a "big deal," he said. There already are processes for termination in existing law. Mr. Rose specified that his concern is that subsection (a), in the absence of subsection (d), could cause problems. If the school board can be sued, what can it do to ensure that if a parent comes and raises a question, the board can go in and revisit that issue? When he look at subsection (a) in the absence of (d), he does not know what his recourse is. Number 2298 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there currently is a school disciplinary and safety program that has been adopted by the PTPC. MR. ROSE said he doesn't think it is called a school disciplinary program; it is called a student rights handbook. CHAIRMAN KOTT surmised that the PTPC will have to adopt a disciplinary and safety policy in order to enforce it. Since the makeup of the commission consists of nine members, five of them teachers, would that not lend itself to some very generic or general considerations when the policy is adopted so there would be some discretion? MR. ROSE said he could not provide an answer on that. Number 2356 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if deleting subsection (d) and inserting (in line 6, after the word "students") the words, "shall enforce, but," would allay Mr. Rose's concern and still avoid the problem that Representative Dyson had brought up originally. As Representative Kerttula had pointed out, perhaps it should be in subsection (a) if it is going to be there. MR. ROSE said that would give direction to what the responsibilities are, if these people "shall enforce" a school disciplinary program. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that Representative Green and Mr. Rose were "going to exactly" her concern. Subsection (d) is leaning toward a definition of enforcement, but by not defining it right in that section [subsection (a)], one runs the risk of having things get really confusing, especially if this goes to court. She proposed having something in subsection (a) along the lines of "may not be terminated or otherwise punished for enforcement consistent with the professional teaching standards." She said her concern was that there are going to be two different systems that don't really work together, the professional teaching standards and school disciplinary plan. It might also be appropriate to revise subsection (a) to say, "each governing body shall adopt a written school disciplinary and safety program." REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said the safety and discipline programs need to be consistent with the professional teaching standards. One cannot have a standard that is out of alignment with professional teaching practices because then that is just "setting up" the teacher with two different sets of standards. "I think everybody wants to get to the same place," she added. "We want the teachers enforcing the standards, and if they properly enforce those standards, we don't want them to be punished. It's just [a matter of] what's the easiest way to be clear about that." Number 2455 MR. ROSE agreed. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said Representative Kerttula had just pointed out a huge problem: HB 253 is asking the school boards to write these policies. She asked whether that necessarily means, then, that the PTPC is going to have to ratify every school board policy. TAPE 00-33, SIDE B REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued: What is the intent here? The reason we have this bill before us is because there is a problem, a serious problem. It's called 'no discipline in schools.' The reason is that we really haven't addressed it [discipline] seriously, and the people who should address it are the school boards. Isn't that what we're trying to fix here, so that there is a system and the teachers if they do these things can't be held liable for doing something that might be inconsistent someplace else? Number 0031 MR. ROSE replied that setting policy is the responsibility of schools, and policies are in place across the state. The question is how they are administered. He thinks Representative Dyson's bill suggests that he would like to have the community involved in the discussion to determine the norms, so that the programs would reflect those norms. How they are administered throughout districts seems to be the problem. Mr. Rose said there is continuity in the majority of school districts. However, in some areas there appears to be a problem from time to time that HB 253 is trying to address. But he does not think the policy issue is where the problem is. Rather, he thinks the problem is in the administering, which ought to reflect the norms in the community. Number 0098 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if Mr. Rose was saying that there is no enforcement because there is no administrative enforcement of the policies that are already there. She asked: What does the PTPC say about this? What is its current position on teachers who don't administer the policies of the school district? MR. ROSE answered that he doesn't think the PTPC standards are relevant to the concerns being discussed. Number 0177 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that she doesn't think that it is possible to pass a piece of legislation that doesn't relate to the PTPC in some way, shape or form, "because aren't they the ones that have the final decision on whether or not teachers are punished?" MR. ROSE said he did not believe so. "I think the termination takes place at school district level," he added, "and whether you go after someone's certificate is where the PTPC comes in." Number 0198 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she had just looked up the responsibilities of the PTPC. According to statute, the PTPC is supposed to prepare regulations and to have responsibility over ethical and professional performance of the teacher; preparation for and continuance in professional services; and contractual obligations. "So it isn't a great fit," she observed. She suggested that rather than trying to make the two fit together, HB 253 could just say "lawful enforcement, which would clear it up for her. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if anyone else wished to testify on HB 253. There being no response, he declared that public testimony on HB 253 was closed. Number 0261 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA made a motion to adopt Amendment 1: On page 3 to delete subsection (d), lines 22-24, and in subsection (a) on line 6, before the word "enforcement," to insert "lawful." There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 0301 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES told the committee that she still is concerned that there is a standard being set and if a teacher enforces that standard, the teacher cannot be punished. But the bill does nothing if the teacher doesn't enforce that standard, she indicated, which was removed with subsection (d). CHAIRMAN KOTT recalled that the committee had heard from a testifier that there already are provisions being used to ensure that the standards, whatever they might be, are utilized and enforced in the classrooms. Number 0340 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expanded on Representative James' concern. He said HB 253 now includes a provision that says a teacher cannot be terminated for enforcing an approved program, but now it doesn't say that the teacher will [enforce]. He asked whether that means, by implication, that the teacher or teacher's assistant shall enforce the program. He further asked whether the title automatically ensures that there will be enforcement or whether HB 253 in any way contradicts other places in law that say "that they will enforce." CHAIRMAN KOTT said he thought it would be understood that teachers would lawfully enforce, as addressed in other areas. Number 0394 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she was still listening in her mind to Mr. Rose's testimony that they have policies but that it is an administrative problem, which HB 253 does nothing to fix. "We haven't done a thing if the teacher doesn't do it or chooses not to do it," she added. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Cyr to reiterate exactly what he had said about a teacher who did not want to enforce the safety or disciplinary program established by that particular board or school. For example, what are the consequences, what actions are available and what remedies can be taken against that teacher who fails to perform in accordance with the intended [policy]? Number 0461 MR. CYR answered that a classroom teacher has an obligation to put into place all of the policies that are set by the school board that have to do with the classroom, and discipline is a large piece of that. Lack of discipline is the most common reason for not retaining a probationary teacher, he said. If a teacher cannot maintain discipline, then the supervisor has an obligation to evaluate the situation, point out what is being done wrong, and indicate ways of correcting it. And at the end of a time specified by law, a teacher who has not made the appropriate corrections can be terminated. That can be done not only with a probationary teacher, but also with a tenured teacher. Mr. Cyr continued: I think Representative James raises an interesting point. What happens when there is a failure of the administration to basically do their job, when they are not evaluating, when they don't want to get into that? I don't know that this law addresses it. I think that most of the administrators like most of the teachers are trying to do a good job and trying to do the right thing. Are there problems out there? You bet. Are we working to fix them? Yes. Does this law address it? I don't think it addresses it anywhere. I don't think that was the intent of this law. Number 0575 CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that HB 253 does absolutely nothing that forces administrators to provide guidance or oversight to the teacher who is not following the practice of having discipline or safety in the classroom. That is not addressed in this bill. MR. CYR said HB 253 places a responsibility on school districts to have a discussion at the school level as to what is proper, what kind of discipline should be expected, what should be expected of children. That is going to place a lot of pressure within the community; with the administrator, once those decisions are made; and with the classroom teacher. Mr. Cyr said he believes that clears up some doubt around what should be expected in the classrooms. In that respect, he thinks the bill does something. He elaborated, "I think that conversation forces those people to become more responsible. At least this lays out those guidelines and parameters for the community to discuss. I think that's the important piece here." Number 0657 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he doesn't think the sponsor was trying to tackle every conceivable aspect of this. He stated: It [HB 253] tried to address the adoption of disciplinary and safety programs and making sure that teachers who follow them aren't going to be disciplined, and I think we've got it to a point where it does that. If there is more to be done, it can be done in other legislation or at other times. But I think we've gotten Representative Dyson's bill to more accurately reflect what Representative Dyson wanted to do. I'm not sure he wanted to tackle the area of forcing administrators to force teachers to do their job. I don't know that that was any part of the impetus of this legislation. CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed with that assessment. He noted that Representative Dyson, in his opening remarks, had identified the problems that he was trying to correct. Chairman Kott stated: In no way did I hear that he even insinuated that there might a problem with administrators not providing the right guidance to the teachers. We may be misguided in our understanding of what's going on there. But until I hear otherwise, I think the administrators are doing a fine job, and I haven't heard of any problems. And if there are problems, I guess, you're right, we can correct those in other pieces of legislation. Number 0732 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Keller what the intent of the sponsor is. CHAIRMAN KOTT further asked Mr. Keller what difference HB 253 might make in relation to 4 AAC. MR. KELLER answered the first question by saying: You hit it right on. Our intent in this bill has nothing to do with motivating administrators to administer school disciplinary programs; that was never part of it. And I'd like to reiterate the value of the discussion at the community level on what the standards are. That's always been a prime premise of the bill. It was our perception that there are a lot of schools out there that have not at the community level determined what the standards of behavior are in the classroom. MR. KELLER then addressed the second question, saying that if the regulations are already handling this, "we want to make sure that the statute is there behind it to make sure it stays there; so that's a valid point." CHAIRMAN KOTT remarked that he believes the committee had crafted a reasonable piece of legislation. Number 0824 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to move CSHB 253 [Version S], as amended, from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered and CSHB 253(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|