Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/03/1996 09:05 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 465 TEACHERS/ADMINISTRATORS/COLL. BARGAINING
Number 120
CHAIRMAN GREEN introduced HB 465 as the next order of business
before the committee. She informed the committee that she intended
to hear testimony today and hold HB 465 until Wednesday to consider
the many amendments to the bill. Chairman Green invited witnesses
to testify now or after the amendments were discussed.
SENATOR SALO felt that it would be helpful for those who wished to
testify to have the amendments briefly characterized as well as a
general overview. Senator Salo informed the committee that she had
amendments to offer.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that there has been indications that the
phrase "less than acceptable" is unsatisfactory. Therefore,
Amendment 1 was created which ties district standards to the
evaluation.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 1 be adopted.
SENATOR SALO objected. She pointed out that many of the amendments
head in different directions. Amendment 1 removes the ambiguous
language of "less than acceptable" and develops district
performance standards. Senator Salo hoped that the district
performance standards would be in line with the state performance
standards. Amendment 1 is not an acceptable approach because of
the removal of the competency standard. Senator Salo was unclear
as to the process the committee would follow. Would all the
amendments be moved first?
Number 200
SENATOR LEMAN believed that if this issue addressed in Amendment 1
is a recurring theme then taking the amendment up now could
eliminate some of the testimony on this issue. Senator Leman spoke
to Section 12 and the concerns of those who believe that school
districts will not be allowed to develop their own performance
standards; that was not his intention. Senator Leman emphasized
his support of local control for education.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that the amendment attempts to return the
formulation of the standards to the districts as well as
recognizing that there are Department of Education standards in
regulation. Those departmental standards should be the standard
under which no district goes. The district would choose the point
at which they bring or describe their standards. Chairman Green
emphasized the importance of local control.
SENATOR SALO stressed the importance of a person knowing upon what
performance standards they are being evaluated at the beginning.
Furthermore, prior evaluations are still important as the relate to
the standards during that time. Senator Salo informed the
committee that she would be offering an amendment with a delayed
effective date in order to ensure that the state standards are in
effect on July 1, 1997.
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed. She believed that the legislature should
encourage districts to develop this language which is what the
amendment attempts. Chairman Green intended for every district to
exceed the standards established in AS 14.20.149.
Number 260
SENATOR ELLIS noted that the state is establishing performance
standards for student performance. He asked if the state is also
working on performance standards for teachers as well. Senator
Ellis was interested in when those standards would be developed at
the state level. Senator Ellis asked if Chairman Green's comment
indicating that district standards should meet or exceed the
state's performance standards for teachers was in the bill or other
legislation.
CHAIRMAN GREEN believed that was implied.
SENATOR ELLIS restated his question; would school districts by
statute, once the state performance standards are in place, be
required to meet or exceed those standards for teachers and
students? Or is this a voluntary guideline?
KIMBERLY HOMME, Special Assistant in the Department of Education,
said that Senator Ellis was correct. Currently in regulation,
there are voluntary performance standards for students. Teacher
education standards have been adopted and are in regulation. Ms.
Homme pointed out that the teacher education standards are related
to teacher performance standards. She had not had a chance to
review the amendments. The district performance standards in the
other bill were based on the state standards and regulations.
Number 315
CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the amendment removes the "less than
acceptable" language. She referred to the reference to Section 12
on page 2 of Amendment 1.
SENATOR ELLIS surmised that the changes to Section 12 meant that
the districts would have to meet the state standards in regulation.
With enactment of this legislation, all districts would be required
to meet the state standards. CHAIRMAN GREEN said that was correct.
SENATOR SALO believed that Amendment 1 was an improvement over the
"less than acceptable" language. However, the amendment is not an
improvement over the current competency standard. Through the
judicial record and the current court system there is a definition
of incompetency. Senator Salo believed Amendment 1 to be middle
ground.
SENATOR SALO removed her objection.
SENATOR ELLIS inquired as to how the committee will proceed with
the amendments. He recommended that the amendments be reviewed
quickly and then public testimony could be taken. Senator Ellis
understood Senator Leman to say that he wanted to vote on Amendment
1 before public testimony was taken, but not necessarily all the
other amendments.
SENATOR LEMAN believed that the next amendment could also be
addressed now. He explained that he was trying to address areas
that had already received public comment in order to eliminate
duplicate comments.
SENATOR ELLIS said that it would be unfair to force votes on the
amendments by Chairman Green and then take public testimony and not
have votes on Senator Salo's amendments. He preferred that all the
amendments be explained and then public testimony taken.
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed.
SENATOR LEMAN clarified that he was referring to the consensus
amendments.
SENATOR MILLER did not believe that any of the amendments had
received a consensus.
SENATOR SALO said that if Senator Leman removed his motion, then
all of the amendments could be reviewed and the testimony could
reflect the amendments.
SENATOR LEMAN withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 1.
Number 368
CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that Amendment 2 relates to those who are
evaluated. Amendment 2 does not require that the evaluation of
acceptable or better to be in the current year. The evaluation of
acceptable or better could have been within five years. Chairman
Green believed this referred to a person teaching in an area other
than their degree.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to the intent of Amendment 2.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said the intent of Amendment 2 was that the
evaluation does not have to be in the current year. She read the
amendment as it would read in the bill on page 7, line 14.
SENATOR MILLER said it would place a time limit so that a teacher
who had received an evaluation 10 years ago and had not taught in
that subject in the last 10 years would remain qualified for that
position under this language. The amendment would place the
limitation that the teacher would have to have taught in that
position within the last five years or received an evaluation of
acceptable or better within the last five years.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the evaluation was not in the last five
years, could the teacher be laid off? SENATOR MILLER clarified
that the teacher would not be considered qualified for that
position.
Number 414
TOM WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Ivan, said that Senator
Miller's explanation was correct. The drafter suggested that there
should be a time limit. He noted that the amendment was before the
committee in order to generate discussion to determine whether
there should be a time limit or not.
SENATOR SALO asked if this gave the district more latitude in not
rehiring a teacher after that teacher has been laid off. TOM
WRIGHT explained that, if Amendment 2 were adopted, a teacher would
have to receive an acceptable or better evaluation, taught and
received an evaluation in the subject within five years in order
for the teacher to be considered qualified for that particular
subject.
SENATOR SALO asked if the language was "and" or "or". TOM WRIGHT
replied "and".
TOM WRIGHT clarified that this language refers to teachers who are
teaching outside of their endorsement.
SENATOR SALO said that Amendment 2 is a bad amendment. The problem
in Alaska, especially in rural Alaska, is that the area for which
a teacher is prepared is often much narrower than the need of the
school district for which they are hired. For example, a few years
ago the teacher of the year was a math teacher who was trained in
science. Senator Salo contended that even if that teacher returned
to science for the preceding five years, this teacher would still
be a wonderful teacher.
SENATOR MILLER said that the language is "or" and would take care
of Senator Salo's concerns.
SENATOR SALO specified the aforementioned situation in which the
teacher had an endorsement in science, but taught math for 10
years. Then the teacher is placed in English where she teaches for
five years. If the teacher is then laid off under one of these
provisions, she would not be qualified to be hired back in a
mathematics position.
SENATOR MILLER said that Senator Salo would be correct, under
Amendment 2, if more than five years had lapsed.
Number 474
SENATOR SALO felt that it would be dependent upon how much time
before the five years had been spent teaching that subject. There
is no seniority consideration in this bill. Senator Salo
recognized circumstances where Amendment 2 would be foolish for the
district.
CHAIRMAN GREEN invited Representative Ivan to the table. She
indicated that she and Senator Salo should get together and discuss
a new direction for how teachers are qualified to teach subjects.
SENATOR SALO pointed out that if this legislation were enacted with
the qualifiers on page 7, subsection (d) it would move towards
current practice rather than opening the doors for more innovative
practice.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that new Amendment 3 had been distributed.
Amendment 3 attempts to simplify the language on page 6, lines 3-9.
TOM WRIGHT explained that the language was so cumbersome, that he
talked with the drafter about simplifying and clarifying the
language without losing the intent of the language.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the substance was the same. CHAIRMAN GREEN
replied yes.
SENATOR SALO felt that the amendment did more than technical
clarification. Senator Salo asked if the amendment was suggested
by the drafter. TOM WRIGHT reiterated that he had requested that
the drafter clarify the language without losing the intent of the
original paragraph.
Number 516
SENATOR SALO inquired as to the intent of the original paragraph
and the ways in which the amendment makes it clearer. TOM WRIGHT
said that he would have to have it explained to him.
SENATOR LEMAN mentioned that Terry Cramer, the drafter, could
probably answer these questions. CHAIRMAN GREEN said that Ms.
Cramer's presence at the next meeting would be requested.
CHAIRMAN GREEN seemed to think that the locally adopted language
which was deleted should be reinserted. TOM WRIGHT said that goes
back to Amendment 1 which clarifies the evaluation criteria.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that there is no reason for the language to
be repetitive or circular. SENATOR SALO inquired as to how the
language was circular. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out the repetition
of the statute reference. Chairman Green was not sure that it was
necessary to place in statute to adopt the standards that are
already identified in statute. If the district has not adopted the
standards, then the district cannot nonretain a tenured teacher.
SENATOR ELLIS pointed out that there are no time limits for the
district to adopt standards, but no action can be taken against a
teacher until standards are adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the implementation date for these
standards is July 1, 1997.
SENATOR ELLIS summarized that all local school districts have to
adopt local performance standards in line with the state standards
by that date. He asked if the district could layoff teachers if
the district had not yet adopted the standards. CHAIRMAN GREEN
said that currently, districts do not layoff teachers they
nonretain teachers.
CHAIRMAN GREEN moved on to Amendment 4 by Senator Salo which says
that the bill would take effective July 1, 1997.
SENATOR SALO explained that Amendment 4 would ensure that the
standards referred to in the bill would be in place before the bill
takes effect. If the state standards will not be established until
1997, can one assume that the district standards which are based on
the state standards would be in place by that time as well.
Perhaps, hearing from the districts may help determine if that is
possible.
Senator Salo discussed Amendment 5. She said that tenure or the
lack there of could be a silencing factor for teachers. Amendment
5 would clarify that nothing in the bill would be interpreted to
limit a teacher's rights as a citizen or a teacher.
Number 576
SENATOR MILLER noted that freedom of speech and association are
constitutional rights. He expressed concern with academic freedom.
Could a teacher teach that two plus two equals five? Senator
Miller did not know what defined academic freedom.
SENATOR SALO was unsure as to whether academic freedom was defined
in statute, but that could be added. In general, academic freedom
means exercising one's professional judgement and usually applies
to grading.
SENATOR MILLER felt that if this was done a definition of academic
freedom would have to be established.
CHAIRMAN GREEN informed everyone that conversations with
Legislative Legal Services had determined that free speech rights
and freedom of association is protected under the constitution.
The term academic freedom is not defined in any body of law.
Legislative Legal Services advised against including that phrase.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to who advised that.
TAPE 96-28, SIDE B
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that the phrase would not move in the desired
direction. She did not know who advised the committee of that. If
specific language can be used in order to address Senator Salo's
intentions then that would be more appropriate. Chairman Green
said that she would not support Amendment 5.
SENATOR ELLIS and SENATOR SALO both expressed interest in who in
Legislative Legal Services had advised the committee. CHAIRMAN
GREEN said Terry Cramer pointed out that academic freedom was not
defined in a body of law. SENATOR SALO requested written testimony
from Terry Cramer on this matter.
TOM WRIGHT clarified that Ms. Cramer said that in the context of
the amendment, there is no definition for academic freedom.
SENATOR SALO asked if Chairman Green had problems with freedom of
speech rights and freedom of association.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that those were already provided for in the
constitution. SENATOR MILLER clarified that those are
constitutional rights, although the Alaska Supreme Court has
differed with regard to freedom of association.
Number 571
SENATOR SALO said that she would like that guarantee re-emphasized
which is done in many places in statute. The existence of tenure
is related to freedom of speech. In the Watson Blue v Seward case,
those two teachers were fired because they spoke out against
something the superintendent was doing that they thought was wrong.
The tenure statutes that are in place today resulted from that
case. Senator Salo emphasized that academic freedom, freedom of
association and free speech rights are inherent to this discussion
of tenure. From discussions with teachers and her experience as a
teacher, Senator Salo stressed that this is a problem.
SENATOR MILLER informed the committee that he would be offering
Amendment 6. He explained that the Anchorage and Fairbanks
districts approached him with the concern that the bill allows the
school board to be eliminated from the process of dismissing a
teacher. Amendment 6 would bring the bill closer to current law
which includes the school board in the process.
SENATOR SALO noted that the process of dismissing an incompetent
teacher is long and expensive process. She wondered why school
districts were afraid of third party review. The choice in the
bill to go directly to Superior Court and not spend time on
discovery twice would potentially save time and money. The only
difference between current practice and the bill is that a neutral
party is reviewing the case rather than the same party that
dismissed the person.
SENATOR MILLER did not know a valid reason to not involve the
school boards. The school boards are the elected body running the
district. In the larger districts, Senator Miller believed that
teachers would not have the concern that the school boards are out
to get someone. Therefore, the ability to advance to Superior
Court to review the record in order to determine if due process was
followed or not and if the Trial de Novo would be appropriate.
SENATOR SALO expressed interest in what a judicial review would
encompass. Senator Salo believed that a judicial review would
ensure that the person has been heard, not that the charges were
legitimate.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that one of the duties of the school
board is to be involved in dismissals as well as approvals for
hiring. Is there a point when the school district would be held
responsible for a process in which the district was not involved?
SENATOR SALO pointed out that the district would be involved in the
dismissal of a teacher because the school board would have to
approve that dismissal. The school board acts on all hirings,
resignations, and dismissals. If this is missing, Senator Salo
suggested that it be placed in the bill. She emphasized that the
district should not be fearful of a third party review.
Number 481
HOWARD TRICKEY, representing the Anchorage School District,
informed the committee that the Fairbanks School District had also
requested that he represent them today as well. With regards to
Senator Salo's interest in judicial review, Mr. Trickey explained
the process. Under the proposed amendment, if there is a hearing
before the school board the court's review of that hearing would
determine by the substantial evidence test if there was evidence to
support the school board's decision. The court can also review the
record to determine if the teacher was afforded a constitutional
due process hearing before the board. The court can grant a Trial
de Novo if that did not occur. Mr. Trickey clarified that the
court makes an independent review and decision that there was
substantial evidence before the school board to support the
decision. That meets the teacher's interest in due process in any
proceedings to nonretain a teacher for incompetency.
JOE JOSEPHSON, Legal Counsel for NEA-AK, pointed out that NEA-AK
has always sought a level forum in order to determine whether there
is cause for dismissal. That cannot be achieved under Amendment 6.
Under the amendment, a teacher is charged with grounds for
dismissal and a hearing on that matter is held. The school board
who approved the initial charge, makes the decision and then the
teacher has the right to appeal to the court for judicial review.
Mr. Josephson agreed that the court could determine if due process
was followed, but the court will affirm the school board's decision
if there is substantial evidence for sustaining that decision. The
court does not have the benefit of having a witness before it, the
court is only reviewing paper. Mr. Josephson emphasized that a
teacher can only prevail if the teacher can illustrate that there
was no substantial evidence to support the school board's decision.
If a clerk in the Division of Motor Vehicles is fired, that clerk
receives a level playing field: the State Personnel Board. That
clerk would go before a statewide board, not the agency that fired
the clerk. Mr. Josephson stated that a teacher would be second
class under Amendment 6.
Mr. Josephson thought that the argument was that school boards were
concerned that under the existing law the boards have to go through
a costly process twice. Teachers agreed to move from two
proceedings to one so long as a level playing field was maintained.
Under the amendment, that would not happen.
SENATOR MILLER requested a summary of the cases in the last 20
years that have advanced to Superior Court in order to illustrate
the record on those cases. Senator Miller believed that in the
majority of such cases, the court would uphold the district.
JOE JOSEPHSON agreed that under existing law with the Trial de Novo
option there is a level playing field. However, under the
amendment, the teacher only has the right to appeal.
SENATOR MILLER reiterated the desire to review the cases of the
last 20 years. He predicted that such a review would find that the
Superior Court has upheld the decisions of the school board in the
majority of the cases.
Number 397
CARL ROSE, Executive Director of the Alaska Association of School
Boards, informed the committee that he had submitted written
testimony, but noted that the numbers were two years old. He
believed that some seven cases were cited and the information was
discussing the cost of the Trial de Novo. Often insurance
companies will step in and not allow the case to move forward
because of the assumed cost. Mr. Rose said that the association
has long sought to remove the Trial de Novo. He informed the
committee that the school board does not act on every dismissal or
nonretention, that is the recommendation of the administrator.
SENATOR SALO interjected that the board acts on the recommendation
of the administrator.
CARL ROSE replied at an appeal process. He said that as a quasi
judicial body, an appeal process must be provided in a
nonretention. Mr. Rose felt it inaccurate to suggest that the
board acts beforehand and then sit in appeal. A recommendation is
made to the board and the board must weigh that recommendation and
the evidence provided at the local hearing. Mr. Rose suggested
that if one can prove that the board acted beforehand and then sat
in appeal, then due process rights were curtailed.
HOWARD TRICKEY informed the committee that he had represented
school districts in urban and rural Alaska for 20 years. In his
experience, school boards are well trained and aware of their
constitutional obligation to provide due process in the case of a
dismissal or nonretention. In Anchorage, the procedures for a due
process hearing are as follows: the board members are advised of
a possible recommendation and their constitutional obligation in
the matter, and then there are evidentiary proceedings. In the
past, a retired judge has been hired to preside over the
evidentiary proceedings. Mr. Trickey pointed out that in rural
Alaska the school board often employs an independent attorney to
conduct the evidentiary proceedings and ensure a fair process. Mr.
Trickey echoed the sentiment that it was wrong to assume that
teachers do not receive fair proceedings. He said that the school
boards he represents object to having two processes as is the case
under existing law. Furthermore, the school boards do not want to
be eliminated from the process either because that is the manner in
which the board applies their own standard.
JOE JOSEPHSON pointed out that the school board hires and pays for
the hearing officer when indicating that people tend to follow the
recommendations of the staff. The separation of power does not
exist at the school board level.
SENATOR SALO requested the number of school board hearings and the
number of those that have been upheld and those that have not been
upheld. Senator Salo thought that the notion that the board does
not know anything about the case they are about to hear is
farfetched. Fairness cannot be sacrificed for the sake of time and
money. With regard to Mr. Trickey's idea of a hearing officer,
Senator Salo believed that was discussed early on in this bill.
Senator Salo objected to Amendment 6 which eliminates a major
portion of the fairness in the bill and makes it more objectional
to the professionals in the field than before.
Number 297
SENATOR MILLER continued on with Amendment 7 which refers to the
employee improvement plan and shortens the specified time in order
for the plan to fall within the school year. CHAIRMAN GREEN
interjected that the amendment merely uses the standard teacher
work year. SENATOR MILLER pointed out that this concern was
brought forth by some of the school district who wanted to bring
the plan of improvement within the school year.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to how this amendment would work if the
teacher was given a plan of improvement on May 15th. SENATOR
MILLER explained that it would have to carry into the next year.
SENATOR SALO asked if the teacher would be removed around April or
how would this work? SENATOR MILLER said that the plan of
improvement cannot be more than 180 work days, but could certainly
be less than 180 work days although not less than 90 days.
SENATOR SALO expressed concern that the opposite effect would be
achieved under the amendment. She felt that there was a better way
in which to accomplish the goal of having the plan within the
school year by referring to the ensuing school year.
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director of NEA-AK, pointed out that
there are employees that are on 10-12 month contracts. When the
amendment was considered in the House, he assumed that it was to
consider the standard contract of nine months as well as including
those who had a 12 month contract. This would allow at least an
employment year for the teacher, no matter the contract length, to
correct the problem.
Number 251
LARRY WIGET, Director of Government Relations for the Anchorage
School District, clarified that the work day was specified in order
to address administrators who work beyond the normal nine months.
Changing the plan of improvement time to 90 work days would enable
the school district to complete the evaluation process in a single
school year. By law a tenured teacher must be notified by March
15th if the teacher will not be retained by the school district for
the next year. Also a tenured teacher placed on a plan of
improvement after the evaluation in October would not have to
complete the nine month process by the March 15th deadline, too
late to be dismissed for the coming school year if the teacher
fails to make improvements outlined in the plan. That would ensure
a full year of employment and extend the plan of improvement beyond
12 months.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that she could see both sides of the issue.
She continued with Amendment 8. Hearing no discussion, Chairman
Green announced that testimony would now be taken.
SENATOR SALO said that she would give the committee her amendments
later, since the amendments are not being moved and there are time
constraints. She hoped that the committee would hear from NEA at
some point.
A discussion ensued between Senator Salo and Chairman Green
regarding the procedure for taking testimony.
Number 205
JEAN KRAUSE, testifying from Fairbanks, asked if it was intended
for the teacher's performance standards to be adopted and remain in
place for a period of time or that the standards be subject to
frequent and radical change by the local school board during the
school year. Will the performance standards for teachers be
developed for all teachers and applied evenly or will the standards
be different for teachers in different levels, subjects and fields?
Furthermore, will the district be obligated to provide teachers
with the support, resources, and assistance to ensure that teachers
have a fair chance to meet the standards or improve their
performance? Ms. Krause noted that many teachers supply many of
the resources for the classroom from their own resources. Can an
illiterate board member participate in a dismissal proceeding?
Ms. Krause pointed out that performance standards for
administrators is not addressed in the bill. She asked if
administrative performance standards had been developed by the
state. Are these administrative performance standards intended to
be developed and adopted before the bill is implemented? Ms.
Krause informed the committee that she had asked the following
question in the House, but failed to receive an answer. If an
administrator is on a plan of improvement, can that administrator
evaluate teachers and place a teacher on a plan of improvement? In
Ms. Krause's opinion, the superintendent is an important part of
the educational process due to their ability to allocate resources
and make recommendations regarding hiring and firing. However,
there do not seem to be any performance standards for
superintendents. Are performance standards for superintendents
intended to be developed and if so, at the state or local level or
both? Will the same expectations be placed on superintendents as
are on teachers and administrators? In conclusion, Ms. Krause
inquired as to how local politics would be eliminated from
evaluation procedures of administrators and teachers. Ms. Krause
offered to fax her written testimony to the committee.
Number 150
VIRGINIA WALTERS, testifying from Kenai, stated that the evaluation
process is important to maintaining teacher quality in the schools.
The evaluation process should not be subject to whim or personal
subjectivity. Ms. Walters noted that the evaluation process
outlined in HB 465 poses many problems. Will the evaluation of
teachers become a popularity contest? She inquired as to what
would happen when a community member raises objection to a
teacher's performance, but the administrator has no objection to
the teacher's performance. Ms. Walters referred to page 4
subsection (h) which says that information provided for the school
district under the evaluation is not subject to public disclosure.
Will all teachers be treated equally? On page 3, subparagraph (6)
the language allows a teacher to be placed on a plan of improvement
while another can be dismissed immediately. Ms. Walters asked why
one teacher would be entitled to a plan of improvement while
another would not; is there any criteria for this? She inquired as
to who the school district is on page 4 of the bill. Why would the
principal who gave a negative evaluation to a teacher not determine
the plan of improvement? As a retired teacher and community
member, Ms. Walters was surprised that a superintendent of a
district would not be held to the same public evaluation process
and review of their performance as teachers and principles. She
suggested that line 32 on page 2 be reviewed.
JIM SIMEROTH, President of the Kenai Peninsula Education
Association, expressed concern with the reduction in staff
provisions of HB 465. He informed the committee that currently,
his district had nonretained 117 teachers although the district
intends to hire most if not all of those teachers back. Mr.
Simeroth speculated that the reason for so many nonretained
teachers is because it is a contract bargaining year. He believed
this to be totally inappropriate. Mr. Simeroth felt that HB 465
could possibly allow this situation to occur with any teacher which
would disrupt the school for the students. Therefore, he was
concerned with the layoff language which is not in the best
interest of the students.
Mr. Simeroth discussed a case in which a teacher was placed on a
needs improvement plan. The teacher was placed on the plan not
because she had a teaching deficit, but because she did not show
support and respect for the principal and his ideas on and off the
school campus 100 percent of the time. The needs improvement plan
said that the teacher should demonstrate support and enthusiasm for
activities suggested by others and the principal. Mr. Simeroth
indicated that such a situation would take away a teacher's freedom
of speech and academic freedom. Mr. Simeroth emphasized that this
could not be allowed to happen and disrupt the educational process
which HB 465 will achieve. Mr. Simeroth said that he had other
issues to discuss, but would stop since his time was up.
Number 043
VERGIE FRYREAR, testifying from Hoonah, requested that one of the
Hoonah board members be allowed to speak first.
JAQUELINE DICK, testifying from Hoonah, supported HB 465. She
noted that children today are beyond the basic education of the
past. Ms. Dick said that everyone expects higher education for
their children and quality teachers and teaching. More time is
needed for teachers to improve their teaching performance.
VERGIE FRYREAR believed that employee evaluations for teachers
should be completed in the current school year. Furthermore, the
teacher must receive a positive evaluation in the last five years
in the subject matter they are to teach at the secondary level.
TAPE 96-29, SIDE A
Ms. Fryrear agreed that administrators do need an evaluation. She
recognized the importance of allowing local districts to maintain
some control, but by adopting statewide standards everyone is bound
by a degree of similarity. With regard to tenure, Ms. Fryrear
could not believe that any teacher would be afraid to talk to a
legislator about an administrator. These are highly educated
people. Such a discussion loses sight of the reason tenure is even
being considered. Administrators and school boards need more time
to evaluate a teacher's performance before allowing tenure. Also
more time is necessary to offer assistance to the teacher before a
decision regarding nonretention is made. Ms. Fryrear believed that
the school board should be part of the process for the dismissal of
teachers. The Superior Court can determine whether the process is
followed correctly or not. She did not think that school districts
were afraid of cases going to Superior Court as previously
suggested. There is a good appeal process for teachers already in
place.
Number 041
Ms. Fryrear spoke to Amendment 7. She believed that it would be
difficult to place a time line on all improvements because teachers
are often required to complete a course as part of their plan of
improvement. Some of that control should be left to the district.
Ms. Fryrear believed that HB 465 would address some of the problems
education is experiencing. She urged the committee to support and
pass HB 465.
LUCY HOPE, President of the Mat-Su Education Association, expressed
frustration with the process pushing HB 465 through. She informed
the committee that CS HB 465, the version the House passed, was not
available in Mat-Su until 9:00 a.m. of the HESS hearing on Monday.
On Monday, 11 people waited to testify, each person's time was
limited to two minutes, and then six people had to leave without
having a chance to speak. Ms. Hope explained that many people
could not return today because they had taken their leave to be
present on Monday. She informed the committee that she had some of
their written testimony and would fax it to the committee. Ms.
Hope asked if the committee had received the testimony that had
been faxed.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that the committee had received several faxed
testimonies, but she had not yet reviewed them. The testimony
would be distributed.
LUCY HOPE addressed the layoff provisions of the bill. She
informed the committee that she had received official notice that
the Mat-Su School District plans to layoff 170 teachers. All of
those teachers are nontenured and face losing their job permanently
as well as losing their ability to make a living which could force
them to move. Ms. Hope pointed out that the Mat-Su school district
would qualify for the layoff provision every year as having
significant reductions in per-pupil expenditures due to the
decrease in revenue from one year to the next. The state funding
formula has been frozen since the early 1990s, the borough
contribution has shown a decrease each year in per-pupil funding
since 1990, and the certainty of less from the federal government
all contribute to this situation. Ms. Hope explained that all
these factors along with the growth in the area decrease the per-
pupil expenditure. Therefore, teachers in the Mat-Su who have
received tenure are subject to nonretention even though their
performance may be excellent. These layoffs create anxiety and low
morale which effects the children. Ms. Hope believed that the
trigger for the layoff of teachers should be more specific and
should be tied to the reduction in basic needs which is defined in
law. Tenured teachers should be assured that all nontenured
teachers would be laid off first and not merely given a notice of
nonretention as stated in HB 465.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Ms. Hope would prefer this to be tied to
basic need; was that in SB 217?
LUCY HOPE believed that was in SB 217. Ms. Hope continued by
suggesting that the layoff provision should be bargained at the
local level as is the case in Mat-Su. She pointed out that by
extending the time to receive tenure to three years would increase
the number of nontenured teachers by one-third. The Mat-Su
district would then have 220 teachers to layoff with the current
law. Ms. Hope asked if layoffs occur by statute and are
implemented incorrectly, what avenue would be available for the
teacher? She informed the committee that the Department of
Education's performance standards refer to a classroom teacher in
a public school. Is the department planning on adopting standards
for administrators before HB 465 would go into effect? Ms. Hope
urged the committee to hold the bill in order to bring everyone
effected together in order to address these concerns in a
meaningful way.
Number 152
BILL MUNROE, Classified Employee's Association and parent, pointed
out that evaluation procedures already exist and are being utilized
in the Mat-Su district. More evaluations could be productive
management tools if they were utilized for constructive criticism
for better teaching skills. Furthermore, layoff provisions already
exist that work. HB 465 does little to improve public education.
The mandatory student standards are necessary. Mr. Munroe said
that valuable programs had been cut because of flat funding which
has been eroded by 24 percent inflation since 1989. The committee
should consider HB 398. He referred to page 6, Section 10 when
asking if both paragraph (1) and (2) must be met or only one of the
two. He inquired as to the meaning of "comport" on page 8, line 9.
Mr. Munroe felt that HB 465 is too confusing and convoluted.
RICHARD KRAUSE, testifying from Palmer, believed that the current
evaluation system attempts to solve a problem. Under HB 465, the
evaluation system creates the threat of nonretention rather than
the administrator helping the teacher improve. That is not a very
healthy situation. HB 465 seems to create a great level of fear.
Mr. Krause did not see that the teacher has any input into the plan
of improvement which he indicated should be incorporated. The
layoff provisions in the bill seem rather loose. The bill should
outline how layoff would occur, especially in light of the
discussions regarding academic freedom.
CHAIRMAN GREEN informed those remaining to testify that the
committee had to leave for the Senator floor shortly and requested
that their comments be brief.
Number 249
ROB PFISTERER, President of the Anchorage Education Association,
opposed HB 465. He explained that tenure statutes were designed to
protect teachers from being fired indiscriminately. HB 465 intends
to weaken the individual's protection from indiscriminate action
from administrators and school boards. There are state's,
predominately Southern states, that have incorporated HB 465 into
their statute. When comparing those states' scores on standardized
tests to those states with strong tenure laws will illustrate the
impacts that decisions on HB 465 will have. HB 465 will demoralize
teachers throughout Alaska.
Mr. Pfisterer acknowledged that HB 465 has one redeeming feature,
the bill touches evaluations. Even so, the bill is not
acceptable. HB 465 is based on standards that have not yet been
determined. He pointed out that some school districts already have
standards in place; will a different system be mandated and will
the state determine what local communities have already worked on?
Mr. Pfisterer said that it has come to the point that parents and
students are evaluating the teacher. Therefore, will the teacher
be afforded the academic freedom to grade impartially? Evaluations
should be done on a professional basis. He noted that most aspects
of HB 465 are weighted heavily on the agenda of the school board.
Mr. Pfisterer discussed the various related legislations this year.
He posed the following questions for the committee to consider when
reviewing the combined effect of education related legislation:
would you advise people new to the profession to become a teacher
in Alaska, will this attract the best and brightest to the
profession, will students be better prepared for the future if
these legislations pass? HB 465 and other legislation are
counterproductive to improving education. With regard to comments
made on Monday regarding the attempt to meet the Governor's
requirements in HB 465, Mr. Pfisterer wondered why all these
amendments were being considered to try to reach where HB 398
already is. He suggested that HB 398 was a bill that many parties
agreed upon while HB 465 does not receive much agreement.
Number 312
CLARENCE BOLDEN, NEA-AK, said that he represented Kodiak and the
Aleutian Chain with Dillingham and Northwest Arctic. He informed
the committee that there was almost an uprising of citizens in the
Northwest Arctic last month. This impacted the school and the
tenured teachers. He wondered if changes made under HB 465 would
improve this situation or make it more volatile. The parents
literally attacked the teachers when they were confused about how
to get information through the school board. The school board has
reacted by decreasing the rights of the tenured teachers in this
district. Mr. Bolden suggested that the committee consider rural
situations where the school boards are not necessarily well versed
in how processes should go. Establishing standards for teachers
should include lots of parents and teachers in order to have a
usable standard.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that concluded those on-line to testify. She
said that Mr. Marshall would be heard first next Wednesday.
SENATOR SALO expressed frustration. When an issue has two distinct
sides, she expects to hear from the heads of the relevant
organizations in the beginning in order to frame the remaining
testimony.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|