Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/10/1996 09:08 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 001
CHAIRMAN GREEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:08 a.m. and introduced
HB 465 as the only order of business before the committee.
JOE JOSEPHSON, Legal Counsel for NEA-AK, said that the committee
was presented with the concept that if there is judicial review
there can be a de Novo proceeding before the Superior Court. Mr.
Josephson submitted that was incorrect. The Administrative
Procedures Act, AS 44.62, refers to the fact that a Superior Court
judge may call for a Trial de Novo. He emphasized that only
applies to appeals under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
There are many appeals to the Superior Court that do not fall under
the APA. Furthermore, Mr. Josephson felt that most lawyers would
agree it rare for a Superior Court judge to grant a Trial de Novo,
even under APA. He read the appellate rule for appeals which does
not offer recourse through a Trial de Novo for those appeals not
under the APA. The problem is that the Superior Court judge would
only be able to consider if there was an evidentiary basis for the
board's decision to nonretain or dismiss a teacher. The judge
cannot substitute his or her judgement for the ruling of the board.
Mr. Josephson pointed out that the Alaska Supreme Court has said
that boards do not have expertise in these matters.
Number 064
Mr. Josephson believed that Mr. Trickey was correct in that many
school boards do make the effort to ensure due process in the
administrative proceedings. However, having due process is not the
same as fairness. Due process is the minimum required by the
constitution for a proceeding to be valid. Fairness, from the
point of view of teachers, means that there should be a hearing
before a neutral party not implicated in the nonretention or
dismissal. Mr. Josephson believed that to be the problem with a
pending amendment which would eliminate the fairness.
SENATOR GREEN inquired as to who an employee in another agency
would first contact. JOE JOSEPHSON specified that the employee
could appeal to the State Personnel Board. If there was a
statewide personnel board for teachers which was not appointed by
school districts, then there would be an analogy for a fair
administrative hearing. Mr. Josephson did not believe that school
districts wanted that type of board.
Number 105
JOE JOSEPHSON acknowledged that everyone would like better
education, teachers, administrators, and students. The concept of
incompetence already exists and is a well known standard applicable
throughout the nation. Mr. Josephson left a text on teacher
discharge which discusses what incompetency means nationally with
the committee. He was concerned that the legislature would be
jettisoning the concept of incompetency and allow nonretention for
failure to meet a set of standards. Furthermore, a teacher could
be placed on a plan of improvement even when the teacher's
competency is not in question. Mr. Josephson believed that would
leave school districts the opportunity to cease employment of those
teachers whose competence is not in question. HB 465 does not say
that only an incompetent teacher can be placed under a plan of
improvement, any teacher can be placed under such a plan. In
conclusion, Mr. Josephson did not believe that there are many
incompetent teachers because by and large administrators do their
jobs with the tools already available. This is a nonproblem with
no supporting evidence; therefore, the legislature should move
slowly to overturn a standard that exists nationwide.
Number 165
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President of NEA-AK, appreciated the time given to
this issue. With regards to a comment in a previous meeting about
whether teaching 2+2=5 was considered academic freedom, Ms. Douglas
said that was incompetence and the teacher should be fired.
Academic freedom is a search for truth. Children should be allowed
to question, think, and make decisions based upon a variety of
information and curriculum established in that community. Ms.
Douglas informed the committee that teacher education standards
were established by the state board. These standards are what a
teacher should know after finishing a college program, however,
these standards are not based on what is done in the classroom.
Academic freedom is how one applies their education to their
students in the classroom. Students have different learning styles
and teachers have different teaching styles. Ms. Douglas urged the
committee not to confuse academic freedom and to review the
evaluation procedure and the deletion of the incompetence standard.
She left the committee some relevant information.
SENATOR SALO noted that many districts argue that the process is
expensive and long to terminate a teacher who should not be in the
classroom. How can that issue be addressed while maintaining
fairness? CLAUDIA DOUGLAS said that HB 465 does address the need
for an evaluation system that is actually in law. Decisions made
at the local level regarding all aspects of the evaluation system,
would allow the district to prove that the evaluations have been
fair and that due process has been followed which would eliminate
the need for lengthy court battles. Ms. Douglas said that often
the process has not been followed.
Number 249
SENATOR SALO pointed out that HB 465 has the option of an appeal
hearing at the district level or to go directly to Superior Court.
Some have characterized this option as being more cost and time
efficient; does NEA agree or are there other alternatives that
would be fair and more expeditious? CLAUDIA DOUGLAS emphasized
that part of NEA's responsibility as a bargaining agent is to
represent those people that are dismissed. Currently, a grievance
procedure is followed if there is a disciplinary action. If the
district and the teacher cannot agree at the end of the grievance
procedure, a third party is brought in to make a decision. Ms.
Douglas clarified that it is a binding arbitration in the grievance
process. Every district has a grievance procedure for disciplinary
action. NEA had agreed at one point to this option.
CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to the approval that option has met.
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS said that option met approval in the form of
HB 398, the compromise bill. Ms. Douglas informed the committee
that she was part of the task force that met over the summer.
There was an effort to bring people together that were not staff,
political organizations, or special interest groups. Ms. Douglas
emphasized that no legislators were on the task force. The intent
was to bring together a neutral group.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that much of the work from the task force has
manifested itself in HB 465.
Number 315
VERNON MARSHALL, NEA-AK, stated that HB 465 is designed to modify
existing tenure statutes in order to expose tenured teachers to
layoff and make it easier for administrators to get rid of tenured
teachers. HB 465 gives teachers three years of probation during
which the teacher can be nonretained by administrators for no
reason. With that three year window, Mr. Marshall expected
administrators to do a better job in preparing teachers for jobs.
Tenure is not portable. Theoretically, a teacher could work six
years in two districts and never receive tenure. Under such a
circumstance, a nonretained teacher would not be entitled to any
justification of nonretention during the first three years of work
in any employing school district regardless of the total year of
teaching experience for that teacher.
The nonretention of a teacher has been made easier for
administrators by the removal of incompetence as a cause for
nonretention. Mr. Marshall noted that the argument for the removal
of incompetence is that the standard is too low, and is too hard to
prove. Due to this allegation, he questioned the competence of
those responsible for evaluating and developing teachers. Mr.
Marshall emphasized that good standards do not fail, but the people
who execute those standards often fail. Mr. Marshall informed the
committee that he had asked himself the following questions: what
is the motive for passage of HB 465, what is not working? Mr.
Marshall identified the following as already occurring:
*No district has been identified as having lost revenue.
*Schools have evaluation, layoff and recall systems in place.
*Some administrators are working hard to evaluate their staff.
*Tenured teachers are being nonretained for incompetence.
*Teacher preparation institutions are improving in Alaska.
*Bargaining occurs within the eye of the public in many school
districts.
*Nontenured teachers are being nonretained during their first
and second years of employment.
*Progressive school districts have staff development plans.
*No school district has identified any teacher that the
district has been unable to nonretain for incompetence or
substantial noncompliance.
HB 465 allows school districts to eliminate academic and program
areas of the curriculum and layoff tenured teachers. It is clear
that if teachers are to survive in Alaska, especially in the bush,
teachers must be multiply certified or endorsed. The layoff
section ensures a three year recall which Mr. Marshall did not
believe was much of a benefit. No one has considered triggering a
RIP for employees; there is no incentive to keep experienced
teachers. HB 465 allows school districts to decide which teachers
to layoff by using performance evaluations. Under this bill, those
evaluations will have direct input from the public. The statute
specifies that it must be based on a classroom observation. If a
teacher is laid off because a performance evaluation, the teacher
would not have the right to appeal to the Superior Court. Since
evaluations take on new importance, will tenured teachers
compromise innovation, disciplinary standards, and utilization of
new techniques in order to please the principal or the public for
a good evaluation.
Mr. Marshall recalled President Clinton's quote which demanded
tougher standards for schools. Should one assume that the teacher
standards of 1994 to prepare students to teach will now be the
criteria for local school districts to develop standards for
evaluation? The President also emphasized the need for
assessments. The teacher education standards adopted through
regulation have no assessments. Mr. Marshall indicated concerns
with the notion that teacher preparation standards could be used to
establish evaluation criteria for all teachers. Are teacher
preparation standards suitable as measures of teacher performance
or should the task of developing performance standards be developed
by local school districts with assistance from the department? Mr.
Marshall indicated that the department should be afforded the
ability to develop assessments in order to measure teacher
education standards before being adopted.
In conclusion, Mr. Marshall emphasized the need to return
incompetence as a standard, the layoff section is too constraining.
Mr. Marshall wished the meeting was regarding more money for
schools, spending the money more wisely, and increasing the
accountability. The needs of children should be addressed. This
type of legislation tends to bash those who are trying to do good
jobs. The tenured teacher is being placed on the line for layoff
and no one else. Mr. Marshall opposed HB 465, but offered to work
with the committee to improve the bill in the aforementioned areas.
Number 463
SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to the number of tenured teachers who
were nonretained in 1995. VERNON MARSHALL said that would be
difficult to say for the 1995-1996 term because some teachers may
be going through the process now. In the 1994-1995 term, there
were about three teachers that requested hearings which resulted in
Superior Court action. Mr. Marshall informed the committee that
about 10 teachers per year resign in a district the size of
Anchorage. Mr. Marshall discussed a case that went to the Supreme
Court who ruled in favor of the teacher.
SENATOR LEMAN asked out of how many teachers were these statistics
taken. VERNON MARSHALL clarified that the 10 teachers that
resigned were in the Anchorage School District. Mr. Marshall
offered to do a survey on this issue. Mr. Marshall questioned the
hiring procedures of those in the bush.
SENATOR SALO acknowledged the host of amendments before the
committee. She questioned how should these amendments be
approached in order to make the bill more palatable to the teaching
force in Alaska.
VERNON MARSHALL pointed out that Alaska is a growing state that has
consistently ranked in the top 10 relative to the student growth.
He emphasized that Alaska's public schools are doing an excellent
job in graduating students. The public is generally concerned with
the large class sizes in public schools. There should be an effort
to reduce class sizes. Mr. Marshall did not know how class sizes
could be reduced while reducing the number of teachers. If the
layoff provision is applied, what incentive would the legislature
or local government have to fund the schools? Mr. Marshall
believed the layoff provision to be too directed on tenured
teachers, therefore, he suggested deleting the term tenure. He
believed that costs would shift under the layoff provision.
Number 559
RICK CROSS, Deputy Commissioner in the Department of Education,
informed the committee that he was present by request of
Commissioner Holloway after a consultation with the Governor's
office. Mr. Cross reiterated his previous testimony that the
Governor supports his bills, SB 204 and HB 398. He acknowledged
that Representative Ivan has had an open process involving many
people and improving HB 465. The major difference between the
Governor's bill and HB 465 is that the Governor's bill has more
local decision making. With regard to Amendment 6, all of the
discussions have attempted to address the duplicate, lengthy and
costly process of the current layoff and nonretention system. The
other principal discussed in this debate has been the notion that
teachers are entitled to fairness. Generally, fairness has meant
a complete independent review. Mr. Cross pointed out that the
Governor's bill and the current CS of HB 465 both pass those tests.
Whether or not Amendment 6 would pass both tests, depends upon who
you listen to.
TAPE 96-30, SIDE B
Mr. Cross concluded that Amendment 6 meets either one of the two
tests or neither of the two tests. Amendment 6 requires a full
school board hearing as well as a second process. If the court can
decide not to have a costly second process, then the amendment does
not meet the independent review test. Mr. Cross suggested those
two fundamental tests are not meet by Amendment 6.
SENATOR SALO asked Mr. Cross if he had a chance to review Amendment
14 because she was interested in the department's position on the
amendment. RICK CROSS said that it would not be appropriate to
speak on Amendment 14 since he had only received it this morning in
the hall.
Number 566
BETH BEHNER, Director of Personnel and Labor Relations in the
Fairbanks district, agreed with Mr. Cross regarding the districts'
desire to avoid duplicate process. Districts are overly cautious
when dismissing or nonretaining a tenured teacher. The current
bill does not preserve the local districts ability to have
oversight on dismissal and nonretention decisions because the
teacher has the option to go directly to court. The bill does
minimize the duplicate process. Ms. Behner said that her amendment
would suggest that the teacher would go before the board first and
then have a limited review by the court on the record unless the
teacher shows that due process has been denied. That would provide
a full independent review when necessary. Furthermore, this would
reduce the costs for districts. Ms. Behner opposed the option to
go directly to court because she believed that a teacher would see
the full value of using the cost issue as leverage against the
district to settle meritless cases. Ms. Behner assured the
committee that the Fairbanks School Board was intent on maintaining
their impartial and independent review status.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to how many dismissal cases of tenured
teachers did Fairbanks experience in the last year. BETH BEHNER
said that the Fairbanks district had about three such cases. Ms.
Behner commented that due to the cost prohibitive nature of this,
borderline cases of teacher incompetence are not taken up.
SENATOR SALO asked how many incompetent teachers is the Fairbanks'
district unable to terminate. BETH BEHNER did not know. There are
about 950 certificated employees. Teachers are no different than
other employees, there are good teachers and nonsatisfactory
teachers. If the current financial constraints were lifted, the
school district would probably process more nonretentions for
incompetence or under performing reasons.
SENATOR SALO noted that Ms. Behner was implying that the Fairbanks
district has many incompetent teachers. BETH BEHNER clarified that
she was saying that the district has several cases which should be
moved forward, but cannot because of financial constraints.
SENATOR SALO did not understand the district's fear in going to
court. The only difference in court is the neutrality of the
court. Senator Salo inquired as to why the district would be so
disadvantaged by going directly to court.
BETH BEHNER said that having a possibility of an original action in
Superior Court would give the teacher the right to join other
claims. There could be the potential of a jury trial which would
increase the cost. She noted that her amendment would limit a full
evidentiary hearing which is a very expensive process. Ms. Behner
agreed that teachers should have an impartial review, but a full
review is not always required. The teacher could be asked to
demonstrate that before the district is required to pay. She noted
that the teacher's union does not always fund the evidentiary part
of the trial, therefore, this is a district funding issue.
SENATOR SALO surmised that the teacher would face a disincentive
due to the cost of the process. BETH BEHNER agreed with that
assumption, but pointed out that the district is responsible for
funding all public education while the individual can make their
own decision as to whether it would be wise.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that the committee had a number of amendments
before them and that she intended to go through the amendments
today.
Number 491
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 1 be adopted. SENATOR ELLIS
objected.
CHAIRMAN GREEN addressed the calls for the local district to be
more involved with the formation of their standards. The district
would use this set of performance standards as the basis for their
own customized standards.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman, Miller, Ellis and
Salo voted "Yea". Therefore, Amendment 1 passed with unanimous
consent.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 2 be adopted. SENATOR ELLIS and
SENATOR SALO objected.
CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that Amendment 2 would allow teachers who
taught in an area outside of their certification or endorsement to
be recalled for a position in that area if they received a
satisfactory evaluation in the last five years.
SENATOR SALO referred to page 7, line 14 when asking if the
language was and/or. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the "or" is
not removed.
SENATOR SALO maintained her objection.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman, and Miller voted
"Yea" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay." Amendment 2 was
adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 3 be adopted.
SENATOR SALO objected. She believed that Amendment 1 eliminated
the need for Amendment 3.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said this would eliminate the double negatives.
This was for clarification and was not meant to change the intent
of the original language.
SENATOR SALO asked Chairman Green if it would be acceptable for the
School Board Association and NEA-AK to come to the table and
provide their interpretation of Amendment 3.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that she would like to come back to Amendment
3.
SENATOR LEMAN withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 3.
Number 410
SENATOR SALO explained that Amendment 4 would amend the effective
date which would postpone enactment of this law until the
performance standards are in place. Senator Salo was not sure that
it allowed enough time for the district standards to follow.
Senator Salo moved that Amendment 4 be adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN objected. Chairman Green moved an amendment to
Amendment 4 which would refer to "Sec. 4."
SENATOR SALO did not consider Chairman Green's amendment to
Amendment 4 to be a friendly amendment. Senator Salo emphasized
that the effective date clause in Amendment 4 is for the entire
bill.
CHAIRMAN GREEN withdrew her amendment to Amendment 4. She said
that she would not be supporting Amendment 4.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if Amendment 4 was necessary because the state
does not have the standards in place for school districts to use in
order to achieve what the bill wants.
SENATOR SALO understood that there are regulations in place for
teacher education standards for universities. The student
performance standards are being worked on and are to be followed
with teaching performance standards. The latter of the standards
is not ready. Furthermore, fair warning is necessary because of
the substantial changes in layoff and tenure under this bill.
Senator Salo said that she was not opposed to thinking about
Chairman Green's amendment.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that Amendment 4 could also be left to the end.
SENATOR SALO withdrew her motion to adopt Amendment 4.
SENATOR SALO moved that Amendment 5 be adopted. SENATOR MILLER
objected.
SENATOR SALO explained that Amendment 5 addresses the concern that
not having tenure would be bad for teachers, education, and
children. Amendment 5 would add a nondiscrimination clause which
Senator Salo hoped would protect free speech rights.
SENATOR LEMAN expressed concern with Amendment 5 in that it may
create some unintended consequences.
SENATOR SALO noted that she had given Chairman Green a definition
of academic freedom from Black's Law Dictionary. She recalled that
the definition referred to the standard of evil.
SENATOR LEMAN said that he would prefer a standard a bit higher
than evil.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Nay"
and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Yea." Amendment 5 failed to be
adopted.
Number 344
SENATOR MILLER moved that Amendment 6 be adopted. SENATOR SALO
objected.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Yea"
and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay". Amendment 6 was adopted.
SENATOR MILLER moved that Amendment 7 be adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN informed the committee that she had received
concerns regarding the minimum time. She suggested that the
language "90 work days and" be deleted leaving "not more than 180
work days" to be inserted on page 4, line 7. This is the portion
that pertains to teachers on a 180 day work contract. The second
portion of Amendment 7 would delete the following language, "90
work days and not more than 180 work days" and insert "not more
than 210 work days". This portion refers to supervisors,
principals and other staff who are on a longer contract period than
teachers.
SENATOR SALO objected.
CHAIRMAN GREEN viewed her amendment to Amendment 7 to be the least
obtrusive manner for everyone effected.
SENATOR SALO posed the following situation: a person on a plan of
improvement is not showing improvement and there is no minimum time
for improvement to be illustrated. What happens to that person?
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the "not more than 180 work days"
language which is retained in the amendment. Chairman Green said
that she did not have a problem with returning to the original
wording of Amendment 7, but the language she offered seemed to be
better, especially for the staff that are on a plan of improvement
for a very minor issue.
SENATOR ELLIS asked what would happen if a person had a significant
problem to be improved and there is not a reasonable amount of time
to improve. CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the person would have
180 work days from the implementation of the plan of improvement.
SENATOR SALO said that 180 work days would be a minimum.
Therefore, a person with a messy room would have 180 work days to
improve the situation.
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed and specified that the person would not have
to be on the plan for a semester.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to the difference. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed
out that the problem could be resolved and the plan of improvement
could be signed off accordingly. Therefore, on that issue the plan
of improvement would be completed. Chairman Green felt that what
she proposed was more equitable.
Number 251
JOE JOSEPHSON understood this to delete the minimum which
interprets into a shape up or ship out amendment. Under this, Mr.
Josephson felt that the principal could determine the time allotted
for the plan of improvement to be completed since there is no
statutory minimum. He felt that a minimum would provide a
reasonable time for the teacher to complete a plan of improvement.
SENATOR LEMAN suggested that language could be added allowing a
shorter time if the teacher and the school district agreed.
CHAIRMAN GREEN thought that would be fine.
SENATOR SALO felt that a mutually agreed upon time and a maximum
would be reasonable.
BETH BEHNER suggested that it would not be in the district's
interest to allow the teacher to insist on a minimum of 180 work
days. The district would want to establish a time frame that the
district considers reasonable which would fall between 90 and 180
work days.
SENATOR LEMAN clarified that he was trying to get to the less than
90 days with mutual agreement of both parties.
BETH BEHNER thought that would be fine if that were an option.
SENATOR LEMAN interjected that if the school district did not agree
then it would not be a mutual agreement. BETH BEHNER expressed the
need to avoid the teacher interpreting this so as to insist upon
180 days as a minimum.
SENATOR SALO suggested that the mistake in this approach is
relative to the nine or 12 months. She could foresee a problem if
a plan of improvement of 180 days was adopted in March which would
result in a mid-year situation.
CHAIRMAN GREEN believed that any way this is done there remains the
possibility of disruption. She said that she could withdraw her
amendment and come back to this. She emphasized that the "nine and
not more than 12 months" does not move in the desired direction.
Chairman Green withdrew her amendment to Amendment 7.
Number 158
SENATOR LEMAN suggested that Amendment 7 be changed so that page 4,
lines 16-17 inserts the following language, "90 work days and not
more than 210 work days unless shortened by mutual agreement".
Senator Leman's amendment to Amendment 7 would also insert "90 work
days and not more than 180 work days unless shortened by mutual
agreement" on page 4, line 7.
SENATOR MILLER felt that this language would guarantee that the
plan of improvement would last 180 days if both parties do not
agree. SENATOR LEMAN clarified that his amendment did not delete
the "90 work days" language.
SENATOR SALO agreed with Chairman Green that Senator Leman's
amendment to Amendment 7 was better.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that his amendment to Amendment 7 be adopted.
SENATOR SALO said that when the amendment is worked into the bill
that it should be very clear who the mutual agreement is between.
SENATOR LEMAN said that the drafter could clarify the language.
Number 114
TOM WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Ivan, suggested that the
language should specify "unless shortened by mutual agreement
between the evaluator and the teacher".
SENATOR SALO agreed with that language.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that in order to have consistent language it
should read as follows, "unless shortened by mutual agreement
between the evaluating administrator and the teacher".
SENATOR SALO asked if under this bill there would be anything to
prohibit a new plan of improvement being established at the end of
the 210 days. CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that would be a new plan of
improvement.
TOM WRIGHT suggested that the language change on page 4, lines 16-
17, the amendment to Amendment 7 should read "unless shortened by
mutual agreement between the evaluating administrator and the
administrator". Mr. Wright agreed with Chairman Green that one
plan of improvement could be worked through and then six months
later another plan of improvement could be established.
SENATOR SALO posed the following situation: at the end of the 210
days the district is not satisfied enough to sign off on the plan
of improvement, but the district does not want to dismiss the
teacher either. Can the district extend or continue the plan of
improvement or is the district obliged to dismiss the teacher?
TOM WRIGHT pointed out the "may" language.
In response to Senator Salo, CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the 210
days applied to those employees that are not on a typical 180 day
contract.
Without objection the amendment to Amendment 7 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that Amendment 7 was now before the committee.
SENATOR SALO objected.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Yea"
and Senators Salo and Ellis voted "Nay". Amendment 7 as amended
was adopted.
Number 037
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 8 be adopted. SENATOR ELLIS
objected.
CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that this amendment would address the
confusion regarding whether the language dealt with decreased
school attendance or decreased revenues from one school year to the
next. The amendment would allow for either to be the trigger.
SENATOR ELLIS surmised that to mean that would make it easier to
reduce force. Senator Ellis continued to opposed Amendment 8.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Yea"
and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay". Amendment 8 was adopted.
TAPE 96-31, SIDE A
SENATOR SALO did not move Amendment 9 at this time. She did move
that Amendment 10 be adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN objected.
SENATOR SALO explained that Amendment 10 would allow a district's
layoff procedures to be individually negotiated and crafted with
input from the teachers' groups and the district. Maintaining this
ability is very important.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Nay"
and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Yea". Amendment 10 failed to be
adopted.
Number 042
SENATOR SALO explained Amendment 11. She felt that the bill
afforded broader development in the evaluation tool. However, it
would be foolish to assume that the community's interest or the
student's interest is the same as the employee's interest.
Amendment 11 would provide for bargaining between the school board
and the employee's bargaining organization on an evaluation system
which includes professional performance standards. Amendment 1
recognized the importance of having district performance standards.
Amendment 11 would provide the process by which the performance
standards would be established. Senator Salo moved that Amendment
11 be adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN objected.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Nay"
and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Yea". Amendment 11 failed to be
adopted.
SENATOR MILLER moved that Amendment 12 be adopted. Amendment 12
would change the language to refer to a "tenured" administrator.
The language in Amendment 12 would provide consistent language for
a tenured administrator and a tenured teacher.
SENATOR SALO objected. She expressed concern with assigning a
failed administrator to teach. Often administrators should be
fired, but instead are placed in a classroom. SENATOR LEMAN
agreed.
SENATOR MILLER pointed out another side to that argument. There
probably are a number of good teachers that tried being an
administrator and did not work well. Should those people be fired
when they are good teachers? SENATOR SALO agreed with that
possibility.
CHAIRMAN GREEN believed this was dealt with in another part of
statute. Because an administrator is a class A certification, the
administrator is tenured. SENATOR SALO clarified that
administrators are tenured as teachers not administrators. There
in lies the problem with education in Alaska and nothing has been
done to address the problem.
Number 137
BETH BEHNER pointed out that the bill does not consistently refer
to administrators. These particular sections specifically refer to
administrators. If a teacher becomes tenured and then becomes an
administrator, the tenure would carry over. However, many
administrators are hired that do not have tenure in Alaska. Ms.
Behner would not want this to apply to nontenured administrators,
if the intent is not to apply it to tenured teachers. She informed
the committee that her district's current bargaining agreement with
principals specifies that the principal can be reassigned at any
time to a teaching position. Ms. Behner interpreted removing an
employment contract meant the equivalent of nonretention.
CHAIRMAN GREEN interjected that the amendment would still leave it
to the discretion of the district. BETH BEHNER agreed.
SENATOR SALO maintained her objection.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Yea"
and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay". Amendment 12 was adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 13 be adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that Amendment 13 regarding basic need was
developed from discussion at the last meeting and with Vernon
Marshall.
VERNON MARSHALL pointed out that this item was in the original
draft of SB 217 and does provide a specific trigger to initiate
layoff. Mr. Marshall felt that Amendment 13 would be preferable to
the "significant, demonstrated reduction in per-pupil expenditures"
language.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was objection to Amendment 13.
SENATOR LEMAN objected. He believed that this would be
approximately $8 million in the Anchorage school district. LARRY
WIGET, Anchorage School District, agreed. SENATOR LEMAN believed
that to be a lot money to reduce before this would take into
effect.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said this was only the basic need portion; would
that still be $8 million? LARRY WIGET clarified that the entire
Anchorage school district budget is about $349 million.
Number 194
SENATOR SALO said that this amendment speaks to the reduction in
force of tenured teachers. How many nontenured teachers does
Anchorage have? LARRY WIGET replied several hundred. SENATOR SALO
assumed that the Anchorage school district would oppose this
because the district would lose $8 million before being able to
layoff tenured teachers. LARRY WIGET said that the Anchorage
school district has not yet taken a position on this part.
SENATOR LEMAN maintained his objection.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Miller, Ellis and Salo voted
"Yea" and Senator Leman voted "Nay". Amendment 13 was adopted.
SENATOR SALO explained that Amendment 14 would insert incompetency
as a standard for nonretention of a tenured teacher. This would
establish a more quantifiable standard. In the legal sense at
least, incompetency is understood. Amendment 14 also moves some of
the language regarding the cause for nonretention of tenured
teachers to Section 4, the evaluation section. Senator Salo was
most bothered by the confusing nature of many parts of HB 465.
Amendment 14 attempts to clear up some of the confusion. Amendment
14 deletes Section 10 and inserts Section 15, the layoff status,
from HB 398. Senator Salo believed that Amendment 14 attempts to
insert some of the best work done by the task force.
CHAIRMAN GREEN objected to the adoption of Amendment 14.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Nay"
and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Yea". Amendment 14 failed to be
adopted.
Number 253
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 3 be adopted. He explained that
the amendment was a rewrite of the language in order to make the
language understandable.
TOM WRIGHT informed the committee that Representative Ivan had
requested clarification of this language. Mr. Wright said the
intent of the language is the same.
SENATOR SALO objected for the purposes of an amendment. She
offered the following amendment: line 10, after " has " insert "by
clear and convincing evidence".
SENATOR LEMAN objected.
SENATOR SALO changed her amendment to insert "by clear and
convincing evidence", after " demonstrates " on line 9.
SENATOR LEMAN maintained his objection. This would raise the
standard.
Upon a roll call vote on the amendment to Amendment 3, Senators
Green, Leman and Miller voted "Nay" and Senators Ellis and Salo
voted "Yea". The amendment to Amendment 3 failed to be adopted.
Upon a roll call on Amendment 3, Senators Green, Leman and Miller
voted "Yea" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay". Amendment 3
was adopted.
Number 287
SENATOR SALO moved that Amendment 4 be adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN
objected.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Nay"
and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Yea". Amendment 4 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it would be judicious to move the amendment
concerning the effective date in Section 4.
SENATOR SALO would like to have a CS in committee to review the
bill in total with all the adopted amendments.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 15 be adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that Amendment 15 would insert a new
section on page 9, after line 27 saying "Sec. applicability of
employee evaluation Section 4 of this act takes effect on July 1,
1997."
Without objection, Amendment 15 was adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN moved SCS CSHB 465(HES) be reported out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
notes.
SENATOR ELLIS and SENATOR SALO objected.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Green, Leman and Miller voted "Yea"
and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay". SCS CSHB 465(HES) was
reported out of committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|