Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
02/13/2008 08:00 AM Senate SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB192 | |
| SB14 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HB 192 | |||
| = | SB 14 | ||
CSHB 192(HES)-LAYOFF/NONRETENTION OF TEACHERS
8:00:07 AM
CHAIR STEVENS announced consideration of CSHB 192(HES).
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN, sponsor of HB 192, said this bill
makes a simple change in existing law. Currently school
districts are required to notify tenured teachers by March 16 if
they might be laid off because the education funding hasn't
passed the legislature yet. Because education funding rarely
gets passed by March 16, many districts send out what they think
of as "pre-emptive pink slips."
In the 1990's when the budget was being cut, rafts of pink slips
were sent out in Anchorage. It's not quite as big a problem for
the larger communities now because teacher population is turning
over; teachers are younger and, therefore, non-tenured and the
law doesn't cover non-tenured teachers. However, any community
that has a relatively small teacher workforce and a high
percentage of tenured teachers will still have this problem.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said that unless the education funding
bill is passed by March 1, both tenured and non-tenured teachers
would receive notification at the same time at the end of the
school year [not March 16]. If education funding is out by March
1, then the March 16 notification date for tenured teachers
applies. He hoped this would relieve the need for these pre-
emptive pink slips.
He remembered in the 1990's how distribution of the pink slips
caused a great deal of angst among Anchorage teachers because
they were never really sure if they were going to be out of a
job or if this was just a notification the district was doing to
comply with state law. Teachers began leaving after that
happened three or four years in a row.
CHAIR STEVENS remembered having to pink slip a whole lot of
teachers in Kodiak too and it was a terrible situation because
they got jobs elsewhere and weren't available to be hired back.
He asked what this bill actually does for the teachers; finding
out that they are losing their jobs later in the year could be a
disadvantage.
8:04:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN replied that if the board actually intends
to terminate a teacher, the teacher is at a disadvantage in
terms of being able to find new employment; but it's a balancing
act. In his view, small school districts that depend heavily on
experienced teachers to teach more than one course are in
substantial danger of having those teachers get tired of
receiving those pink slips and walk off. He said he is
sponsoring the bill because he doesn't think the state should be
in the position of telling local government how to handle their
labor relations and it has caused a great deal of consternation
in his community. If teachers want the March 16 date, they can
negotiate it; nothing in this bill that would keep a school
district from doing this.
CHAIR STEVENS asked about the difference between giving pink
slips to tenured and non-tenured teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN replied that currently non-tenured
teachers don't have to be notified by March 16. Mr. Alcantra
could explain it better.
SENATOR HUGGINS said this bill takes them from March 16 to "date
uncertain" and school years end on different dates; and asked if
that would pose unintended consequences.
REPRESENTIVE DOOGAN replied that the reason it went to the end
of the school year is because the state's budgeting is
uncertain, which makes pegging a pink slip to an actual budget
is very difficult. He picked the end of the school year simply
because that is the date for non-tenured teachers in the
existing statute.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if this precludes districts from mailing
out pink slips to tenured teachers any time they choose.
REPRESENTIVE DOOGAN answered that is correct.
8:08:08 AM
JOHN ALCANTRA, Government Relations Director, The National
Education Association of Alaska (NEA-Alaska), opposed HB 192. He
said this idea is just as bad now as it was three years ago when
it was first introduced in the Senate. Currently tenured
teachers must be notified by March 16 if they are to be laid off
because then they will have time to attend job fairs, most often
held in April, to search for new employment. Furthermore, many
schools lock their staff in by having them sign individual
contracts prior to the end of the school year. Significant
penalties are attached to those contracts if teachers break them
anywhere close to the end of the school year.
This bill puts all the hardship on the teachers by requiring
them to notify their districts early of their intent to return
while allowing the districts the option of laying them off on
the last day of school - when major recruiting drives have
already been completed.
MR. ALCANTRA stated that Alaska should be doing everything in
its power to recruit and retain teachers. A 2006 Internet
Special Education Resources (ISER) report verified that about 75
percent of teachers are hired from outside Alaska. Studies also
show that 50 percent of teachers leave the profession after five
years. Alaska should not be in the business of making things
more difficult for teachers, he asserted; and while he's sure
the sponsor's heart is in the right place, this legislation
would be a step backwards.
He reflected that what seems to drive this legislation is that
school districts never know what their funding level will be by
March 16; but supporting the forward funding of education would
seem a more appropriate response. The important work done by the
Education Funding Task Force and the drive to fund education by
March 1 would seem to make this legislation superfluous.
CHAIR STEVENS asked Mr. Alcantra to clarify when a teacher has
to give notification to the district.
MR. ALCANTRA replied that it depends on the individual contract
signed to retain the teacher. Serious problems arise when
tenured teachers are laid off and there is excessive teacher
turnover. Four hundred teachers were hired in Anchorage just in
the last two school years. It is an earned right to have that
notification by March 16.
CHAIR STEVENS asked what normal notification for tenured
teachers is if the districts want them to continue.
MR. ALCANTRA replied that if the school chooses to retain a
teacher, a contract is signed before the end of the school year.
There is no specific date.
CHAIR STEVENS asked when the district has to notify the teacher,
since the teacher has to notify the district.
MR. ALCANTRA replied that statute sets no specific date. If the
teacher wishes to be retained for the following year, she or he
must go to the principal and work out a contract.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if the teacher has a window in which to
sign the contract.
MR. ALCANTRA replied that plenty of contracts, especially for
new teachers, are signed even after the school year has been
completed.
SENATOR DAVIS said she understands that he doesn't want to see
this bill passed, but asked if he is satisfied with the status
quo.
8:13:57 AM
MR. ALCANTRA replied a large number of teachers don't have
tenure in the Anchorage School District and throughout Alaska.
He does not want to see tenured teachers put in the same
situation as non-tenured teachers.
8:15:58 AM
SENATOR DAVIS asked him what he would suggest as a solution.
MR. ALCANTRA that NEA-Alaska has not talked about an alternative
date so he didn't have a good answer for her.
SENATOR HUGGINS said another factor that affects tenured
teachers is declining enrollment and asked if the provisions in
the bill would have any affect on that scenario.
8:17:15 AM
MR. ALCANTRA replied that as enrollment declines it will affect
teacher layoffs; but he didn't know how that would affect
individual districts.
SENATOR WILKEN opined that this is not a very good bill. He said
the public education fund that the legislature put in place
three years ago has over $1 billion in it and he couldn't
imagine they would have the political courage to spend that fund
and not replenish it; so they will always have that billion
dollars or so set aside when they return in January. There is no
reason they shouldn't be able to get an education bill out of
there if they just concentrate on education bills and don't let
them get "balled up" in PERS and TERS and revenue sharing. He
recalled in 2003 when the education bill sat for a month because
someone wanted a bulldozer in Rampart; so if they just keep
politics out of it and focus on what they campaign on as one of
their highest priorities, and they have the money in the bank,
th
there is no reason they can't have a March 15 education bill.
This bill removes one of the levers that will move the
legislature towards that; and the legislature needs the pressure
from teachers being somewhat at risk to let them know how
important it is that they have an education bill, have it free
of politics and have it passed early.
He said he can't support this bill; he agrees with Mr. Alcantra.
8:21:14 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), said the [March 16] date has created a "healthy
pressure" and this bill destabilizes the school districts.
Teachers understand economic conditions and can see when things
aren't looking good; they would be looking elsewhere even
without a layoff notice.
He said there was a time when AASB would have supported this
bill, but it was very reactionary at that time and concerned
with labor management issues. They have learned to live with
these dates he said and suggested the solution is to forward-
fund and give school districts an opportunity to plan early.
Another consequence for teachers is if they sign a contract and
break it, they must go before the Professional Teacher Practices
Commission and possibly lose their certificate. Even if they
find something better, they are already bound to the district
they have signed with.
CHAIR STEVENS asked Mr. Rose if "step-down funding" from loss of
student population has an impact on pink slips.
MR. ROSE answered the intent of the law was to allow tenured
teachers to be laid off because of student attrition. He
explained as school districts tried to reduce their workforce,
they found it necessary to maintain certain course offerings.
For example, if there is a non-tenured math or science teacher
and four or five tenured history or music teachers, the layoff
provisions allow a district to lay off a tenured teacher and
retain a non-tenured teacher based on qualifications. The Haines
and Hoonah school districts tried to do that a couple of years
ago; they were taken to court and lost, so people are reluctant
to go there.
SENATOR OLSON asked what the school boards' take is on this
bill.
MR. ROSE responded that some in his membership look upon tenure
as a real problem, but it's not the kind of problem that it used
to be. NEA-Alaska and AASB used to be on opposite sides of that
issue, but that has changed because now they both focus on
student achievement and hiring the most qualified teachers.
It is possible to discharge a tenured teacher, but it involves a
detailed evaluation process. Districts also work with teachers
now on plans to improve their abilities and quality of
instruction.
SENATOR OLSON said it sounds like there is a divergence of
opinion on this bill within the school boards.
MR. ROSE responded not as much as there used to be.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said this might not be a problem now
because the state has a lot of money which tends to dissolve
differences. However, there won't always be a lot of money in
the budget. He said this is not just a matter between the unions
and the school boards. Parents and students get caught up in
this as well. The pink slip policy that the state imposes on the
districts will cause problems in the future.
SENATOR WILKEN said this bill would work better in a year when
the legislature depletes the education fund and doesn't
replenish it. He said there will be a year's warning and time to
creep up on this issue in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said he would bet the issue of the school
budget will not be resolved by the trigger date.
CHAIR STEVENS said that CSHB 192(HES) would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|