Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/29/1995 03:10 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
WORK SESSION ON HB 217
March 29, 1995
3:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chairman
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Caren Robinson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Norman Rokeberg
WORK SESSION CALENDAR
HB 217:"An Act relating to teacher tenure, teacher layoff and
rehire rights, public access to information on public
school collective bargaining, and to the right of tenured
teachers to judicial review of decisions of non-retention
or dismissal; and relating to retirement for certain
employees of school districts, regional resource centers,
the state boarding school, and regional educational
attendance areas."
WITNESS REGISTER
Tom Wright, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Ivan Ivan
Room 503
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 217
Carl Rose
Association of Alaska School Boards
319 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 217
Claudia Douglas
National Education Association - Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 217
Shirley Holloway
Commissioner of Education
801 W 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-2800
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 217
Steve McPhetres
Alaska Council of School Administrators
326 4th Street, Number 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (909) 586-9702
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 217
Vernon Marshall
National Education Association - Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (909) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 217
Robert Gottstein
Alaska State Board of Education
630 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 300
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-1370
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 217
Ed Gilley
Adak Superintendent of Schools
Address Unavailable
Telephone: (907) 277-9498
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 217
Sheila Peterson
Department of Education
Special Assistant to the Commissioner
801 W 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-2800
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 217
Heather Flynn
918 "R" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 272-5392
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 217
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 217
SHORT TITLE: TEACHER EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS & RETIREMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 531 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 531 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
03/07/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/07/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/29/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-30, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the work session to order by asking
all participants to identify themselves when speaking for the ease
of the committee secretary. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Toohey, Bunde, Davis, Brice and Robinson.
Members absent were Representatives Vezey and Rokeberg.
Number 087
CO-CHAIR BUNDE then asked that all persons present introduce
themselves including all representatives, witnesses and observers.
Number 166
CO-CHAIR BUNDE requested that Representative Ivan's staff person,
Tom Wright, outline the framework of the meeting regarding HB 217,
including any title changes to it with the chance for input to
follow.
Number 200
TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant to REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN
offered that the title of HB 217 would have to be tightened up.
Representative Ivan felt as though it was too open. Mr. Wright
also referred to a hand-out received from Representative Hanley and
the Anchorage PTA (Parent Teacher Association) regarding the
negotiation process. Mr. Wright solicited suggestions for an
amendment which would outline public negotiations between employer
and employee.
Number 267
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked whether or not Representative Ivan had any
suggestions for a title change and Mr. Wright confirmed that Ivan
did want to wait until after the work session in order to help with
taking any direction one way or another.
Number 310
CO-CHAIR BUNDE recognized a new participant.
MARY ANN LITINGER with the State Board of Education introduced
herself.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE then asked for suggestions on how the work session
should be conducted.
Number 365
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE suggested that they go through the bill
section by section. It was so decided. Also Co-Chair Bunde
recognized another new participant, Mike Williams.
Number 427
CO-CHAIR BUNDE summarized Section 1 of the bill. Initially, he
pointed out that the original language in Section 1 deals with
raising tenure from two to five years. With that he offered up the
opportunity for discussion.
Number 444
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE suggested as background to this section, there
should be discussion about why tenure exists. Co-chair Bunde
agreed and asked that Mr. Wright state why he thought that tenure
should be increased from two to five years. He also asked that Mr.
Rose and Mr. Marshall outline the purposes of tenure. Mr. Wright
deferred to Mr. Rose as an AASB (Alaska Association of School
Boards) representative, since he felt as though both their
statements would probably be very similar.
Number 520
CARL ROSE, Association of Alaska School Boards, stated that the
AASB was not in favor of repealing tenure. He agreed that the
tenure laws, as they currently exist, are not manageable for school
districts, therefore, the bill should be amended. Two years is an
inadequate period of time to assess whether a young person entering
the teaching profession is given enough time to show satisfactory
improvement before a decision is made about their career. Mr. Rose
added that any amount of time in excess of two years is critical,
the more time a new teacher has on the job training and
professional in-service training improves their ability to perform
in the classroom. Mr. Rose agreed that five years for tenure is an
upper limit that the AASB would be comfortable with.
Number 679
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asserted that there was a lot of concern about
how much paperwork an administrator is required to submit in
conjunction with new teacher assessments, much less having two
years to process it and for them to get to the classrooms for
proper observations. Representative Brice suggested discussing
these extra burdens as part of the work session objectives. He
also noted that in years past two years for assessment would have
been adequate, but he could easily understand how with the increase
in paperwork, this turn around time is no longer adequate. He
asked what they could do on the state level to reduce that
paperwork?
Number 790
CO-CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that there are a lot of federal mandates
which limit how much the state can do in regards to this issue.
Representative Bunde reiterated the tenure issue as two fold:
first, the need to give the administrators more time to do their
job and second, the need to give more time to the teacher in order
to develop their expertise and meet the requirements of
certification and tenure.
Number 819
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE pointed out that these issues were fairly
complex and to hammer out a consensus in two hours seemed very
unlikely.
Number 843
CO-CHAIR BUNDE offered additional background information related to
some of these issues. He noted there had been a movement to change
teacher training to help enable more on the job experience before
they become full fledged teachers.
Number 872
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked how training differed from district to
district.
Number 885
CO-CHAIR BUNDE explained that training can vary from school to
school. For example, at the University of Southeast they
essentially have their new teacher candidates working as substitute
teachers. He further stated that he hoped this was a goal the
state could work towards as a kind of an apprentice year, which
would help to expand an on the job training concept required by
tenure.
Number 927
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON felt as though five years is too long
and wondered who determines how much training a teacher will get in
their first two years.
Number 950
MR. ROSE informed the committee that a lot of the training is
mandated. There is some latitude, but normally it's decided at the
local level and many times the types of service is dependent on the
type of curriculum being offered. Many times the training is
decided by the teaching staff.
Number 969
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON then addressed the issue of supervision.
Unfortunately, due to the changes of student numbers it seemed
supervision of teachers is lacking. She asked if there was
anything in the tenure law that spells out exactly how many times
a teacher should be evaluated before a decision is made on whether
or not they qualify for tenure?
Number 1009
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, National Education Association - Alaska,
offered to address this question. In regulation, a non-tenured
teacher is evaluated two times and there's a deadline as to when
those evaluations are suppose to take place. There is a lot of
control at each district's level relating to these procedures and
each district has their own evaluation tools. Tenured teachers are
evaluated each year.
Number 1040
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that it was her understanding teachers
are not getting the supervision or the evaluations on time required
by the tenure program. She asked if that perception is true or
false?
Number 1050
MS. DOUGLAS replied that there didn't seem to be a consistent
evaluation program in place. Typically, when an administrator
plans to visit a classroom, regardless of how the lesson turns out,
there doesn't seem to be any follow up. If there was a system in
place, when it came time to determine whether a teacher in question
after two years should qualify for tenure, then maybe a plan of
improvement could be implemented. Ms. Douglas alluded to the fact
that a lot of suggestions have been made over the years to improve
this procedure.
Number 1103
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON then asked if this would be an area that
needs a regulation.
Number 1115
CO-CHAIR BUNDE offered that in Anchorage there's a program called
"Focused," which allows that some teachers are given more focused
attention and evaluation, including tenured teachers. He wanted to
stipulate that administrators have a lot to do and it's difficult
for them to get into the classroom. The question then becomes if
they're too busy in two years, will they have time to evaluate
after three, four or five years. He seemed to think that the odds
are better with the more time that's allowed. Regardless of how
many evaluations are conducted, the number of times does not
guarantee quality, although a snap shot approach would definitely
not be indicative of how potentially qualified a teacher is.
Number 1173
SHIRLEY HOLLOWAY, Commissioner, Department of Education testified
that the department tries to differentiate between evaluation and
supervision in education. Evaluation is a process of determining
whether a person will continue with their job and supervision is a
process that's being used across the nation in schools to improve
teaching. She pointed out that sometimes programs for evaluations
and supervision are implemented by master teachers rather than
administrators, so it's not an issue of administrators falling
short, it's having a staff available and the funding to implement
a program.
Number 1220
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked what happens to a teacher who is not granted
tenure. Do they just go from school to school and what happens to
the emotional health of that teacher? Do they just give up and not
try again?
Number 1261
MR. ROSE responded by saying that, yes, some people have been hired
and not granted tenure. The question is why? Many times for some
school districts it becomes an issue of restricted revenue. Unless
a teacher has expertise in a certain area they may not be retained
because of the lack of funding. The latitude then becomes that of
a tenured teacher.
Number 1300
CO-CHAIR BUNDE reiterated the two reasons why someone would not be
granted tenure: One, because the lack of funding; and two, because
of incompetence.
Number 1312
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the rejection of tenure follows an
individual seeking employment.
Number 1340
STEVE MCPHETRES, Alaska Council of School Boards, noted that when
a person interviews for a position and their employment record
reflects a moving around every two years, then that does usually
raise a red flag. Because there are only 52 school districts in
Alaska, it is not uncommon just to get on the phone in order to
obtain specific information from a superintendent about an
individual. Mr. McPhetres did note that with the downsizing of
school funds, more school districts are referring non-tenured
teachers to possible vacancies in other school districts, as well
as taking advantage of active recruitments when a vacancy exists.
Number 1425
CO-CHAIR BUNDE wanted to stipulate that tenure is a valid idea and
the question was raised how tenure differed with the EEO (Equal
Employment Opportunity) incentives which are common in all work
places. Co-chair Bunde pointed out that Section 3 of HB 217 dealt
with the loss of tenure rights, but he thought it was reasonably
accepted that tenure is a valid principle in education. How long
do school systems in Alaska need to accomplish the purpose of
tenure and how long are teachers required to be probationary, a
period which allows them to prove their worthiness, but doesn't
unfairly penalize them?
Number 1511
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE pointed out that if they do extend tenure from
two years to five years, what are they doing for consistency in
evaluation for teachers who do bounce around from district to
district?
Number 1534
CO-CHAIR BUNDE cautioned that they didn't want to micro-manage too
much how a district decides to adopt their evaluation procedure.
Number 1546
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON also noted that sometimes a good teacher
doesn't get tenure. She understood that after two years it was
automatic that teachers qualify for tenure. Who determines who
gets tenure?
Number 1570
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked that the participants think about a reasonable
probationary period of time between the existing two years and the
requested five years to obtain tenure.
Number 1596
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS responded with the suggestion of four years
for tenure because after last year's debate, probation was set at
the first day of the fourth year and he said that maybe now they
should move it to the first day of the fifth year.
Number 1617
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY suggested five years for tenure. Having
worked in private enterprize, she didn't think that anyone could
train a person in two years and evaluate them fairly.
Number 1637
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON pointed out that not all people would need
training when hired by a school district. They might already have
been teaching school for a number of years before coming to Alaska.
Maybe some people who are fresh out of school might need more
supervision, training and evaluation than someone who has already
been tenured out of the state and someone who has a good record.
Number 1665
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS added that two years is hardly enough
time for a person to feel comfortable with their job, much less be
evaluated. He felt as though four years was a good generic time
frame on a bell curve.
Number 1714
MS. DOUGLAS prefaced her statement about probation by saying that
this bill was so encompassing, it addresses among other things the
quality of education and the desire to have the best teachers
teaching our kids. Is it about getting rid of tenured teachers in
light of limited finances?
Number 1743
CO-CHAIR BUNDE addressed Ms. Douglas' concerns by stating that the
bill is about giving school districts flexibility in light of less
money.
Number 1754
MS. DOUGLAS went on to add that the requirements for a new teacher
are becoming more strenuous in terms of the number of hours student
teachers are required to be in schools. This she supports. She
would even support a fifth year education program for people. If
it's a good program they would already have been in a classroom for
at least two years of training before they'd be in a classroom as
a new hire. After two years if it's someone that the district
wants to invest in, then a third year can be added as a probation
requirement with a year of improvement built in. Ms. Douglas
pointed out that if it's a question of funding, she had a problem
with that because a new teacher is hoping to establish themselves
as a part of a community. If they're bounced around from one place
to the next for a four year period and they move again, is it fair
to expect that person to go through another five years of
probation?
Number 1944
CO-CHAIR BUNDE made the point that a five year tenure could become
a vehicle for avoiding payment to a teacher who has acquired
experience and is at a higher pay scale. Theoretically, a person
could be fired before they'd met their tenure requirements and a
new hire could then be recruited. This would save money for the
district. While the teacher is in a probationary status it is much
easier to get rid of them, than if they were already tenured.
Number 1950
VERNON MARSHALL, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, ALASKA stated that
they were dealing with an economic issue when considering HB 217.
He's often said that this bill is an issue of economy rather than
an issue of professionalism. He suggested that maybe the issue is
more about funding education, rather than the debate of laying off
a teacher because of the economy. If schools had more money, the
issue of tenure becomes less of a problem in the future. There is
a need to fund programs regardless of tenure to meet the demands of
an ever changing classroom. Mr. Marshall also added that there
needs to be emphasis placed on preparation programs for new
teachers and that maybe a fifth year curriculum needs to be
addressed.
Number 2033
CO-CHAIR BUNDE reiterated that it's a given there won't be any
additional money slated for education in the foreseeable future and
that this bill will not take on teacher re-certification. Mr.
Bunde then asked for particular information such as, how many one
and two year teachers are let go in Alaska per year and how many
have been let go in the last five years. He asked if there was
any way to find out if a teacher's termination was due to lack of
finances.
Number 2063
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY again pointed out that this is not an issue of
teacher qualification, but is more about Alaska going into an
economic slump. She added that more fiscal control is needed in
order to pay for Alaska's schools, to have the best education for
the money available.
Number 2092
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked about standards for administrators as a
comparison when it comes to evaluating teacher performance for
tenure. What about administrators? He alluded to them as being no
better than cockroaches.
Number 2135
MR. MCPHETRES responded to Representative Brice's concerns. He
made some comments concerning liquidation of assets to accommodate
other districts to help make up for limited funding. He continued
to address the issue of tenure for administrators by pointing out
that if an administrator has a type A and B certificate, they are
subject to the tenure clause just as much as a teacher is. If an
administrator has only a type B certificate they have zero tenure,
which means they are more at risk than a teacher.
Number 2194
ROBERT GOTTSTEIN, Alaska State Board of Education, took issue with
the notion that the state of Alaska doesn't have enough money to
provide the best education for their children. He asked how they
could make education worthy enough, worth contributing to, so that
there are enough dollars to fund it. The use of the rationale that
oil revenues are declining does not necessarily mean that there are
no resources in the state to make sure all our children have an
opportunity for an adequate education. He made the point that we
need to make education worthy enough to get more funding.
Number 2253
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he felt that if this bill had been
created because of a lack in funding, the discussion about tenure
should be dismissed. If the bill was created to make up for a lack
of money, it could be perceived that the intent of the bill is to
break tenure to save money. Representative Davis agreed with the
suggestion that providing a good education is priority, rather than
looking at it from a money point of view. The legislature provides
money to school districts, but it doesn't have the authority to
tell the schools how to run their programs from a budget
perspective. He also addressed the issue of a new hire trying to
make tenure within a particular school district and seemed to be
cautioning against treating them any differently than a nurse or a
city manager trying to cement themselves in a community.
TAPE 95-30, SIDE B
Number 049
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated that he's received many faxes from school
districts throughout the state that say because money is becoming
increasingly short that everyone needs to be more flexible and
that's why they support HB 217. This is an indication that many
Alaskans see this bill as an economic issue. He also asked the
people present, whether or not a time period of three to five years
was an acceptable requirement for tenure. He pointed out that a
three to five year period allows the administrator more time to
make an assessment and allows the teacher more time to prove
themselves.
Number 129
MS. DOUGLAS accepted this conclusion as long as there would be
changes in the way evaluations are done. She also responded to
some of Representative Davis' comments regarding how teachers are
given a different status than other professionals when trying to
acquire tenure in a particular community, but she noted that if the
state of Alaska values it's children and if they want the very best
teachers, then they should provide more security for new hires who
move to a new community. Ms. Douglas felt as though the first
question people ask about in a perspective community is, "how good
are the schools?" She believed there is a correlation between
economics and good schools. She suggested that maybe this
constitutes creating a different standard when accessing turn over
of newly hired teachers as compared to other professionals. Ms.
Douglas summed up her comments by saying that the National
Education Association of Alaska had asked Mike Bradner to give his
historical perspective on tenure and that this statement was
included in their packet.
Number 260
MR. MARSHALL referred to a position which had already established
in regards to tenure some time back. It provided for evaluations
after the first and second year within a three time frame overall
for tenure. He felt as though there are career teachers who are
not "dead wood," and doing a great job. He added that these
tenured teachers can be valuable mentors to teachers in the first
and second year. He added that to set a limit on the amount of
years for tenure does not necessarily guarantee whether a teacher
is going to do a good job or not. He suggested that teachers
should be granted tenure after two years. If after the first year
or two of mentoring and after evaluations from administrators, if
a person needs a third year in order to achieve success then the
professional side has been served. On the economic side he
believed districts would continue to pink slip people in the first
and second year. Mr. Marshall also used the example of teachers in
the bush community who could theoretically move around from one
community to the next without becoming tenured. He believed there
is value though in fostering stability in the school force.
Number 510
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE added that the basic issue of educational
funding is that if the state of Alaska doesn't fund the schools,
then they won't have a bright future in Alaska. He said his
biggest concern about increasing tenure from two to five year is
that it could create a risk of fostering arbitrary personal
decisions about particular teachers.
Number 587
MS. HOLLOWAY asked how the state could possibly deal with the best
interest of children in the face of declining revenues, if in fact
that happens. She said that it's counterproductive to pit
different parts of the educational system against one another.
Principals and superintendents are teachers too and they have the
best interests of children at heart just as teachers do. She hoped
that everyone could keep their remarks to the topic at hand.
Number 630
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY made the point that everyone cares about the
children, but she feels as though someone needs to worry about the
teachers and the communities that are paying these bills. There
needs to be more input from the people who are paying for these
children services. She added that this is just part of a big
cycle.
Number 665
MS. HOLLOWAY clarified that it's not the principals or the
superintendents that are bad people. She pointed out that it's
allocation of money they're talking about and there shouldn't be
any name calling going on.
Number 781
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked that the committee move onto Section 3.
The perception from the general public is that tenure means a
lifetime, but there are ways for a teacher to loose it. He pointed
out that Section 4 indicates the traditional ways to loose tenure.
The new language proposed to this section reads, "A teacher on lay-
off status doesn't loose tenure rights during lay-off period."
This legislation attempts to secure tenure even if someone is laid
off. Co-chair Bunde said he was not comfortable with how this
section reads. Once again he used the example of a tenured teacher
being laid off because they would cost more to keep. He proposed
starting with lay-offs of people who don't have seniority. Under
this scenario a re-hire would have to be spelled out very clearly.
Number 935
MR. WRIGHT pointed out that the reason this language was left in
the regulation was because DOE was not sure how to address it
either.
Number 957
MR. ROSE pointed out that Sections 3 and 4 are in reverse. He
pointed out that if someone is a felon or if someone is immoral
decisive action can be taken, as well as, when someone is not
complying or incompetent. He further stated, that because of
declining enrollment, it's not fair to treat a professional as you
would a felon. Mr. Rose thought that it was appropriate to change
the law to establish three criteria areas when dealing with non-
retainment: Incompetence, substantial non-compliance and
immorality. Mr. Rose added that when program needs are assessed,
a department should promulgate regulations which deal with subject
area endorsements. He did point out that subject area endorsements
will be a problem in rural Alaska until a body of qualified talent
is established. Mr. Rose felt as though secondary endorsements
alone are too low of a standard to use for secondary instruction.
He used the example of when a district is faced with hiring back a
gym teacher to teach math just because they have seniority. The
bill was intended to address financial downturn in a fair way. He
noted that if a district has to lay people off they should
recognize re-hire rights and protect earned tenure rights. He
summed up his comments by stating that teachers should be re-hired
based on qualifications first and then by seniority.
Number 1125
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY agreed with Mr. Rose and felt as though his
approach as outlined would eliminate a lot of tenure problems. Her
primary concern with getting rid of tenure or elongating it is from
a financial perspective. When a tenured teacher is rehired, is the
district required to pay them their same wage?
Number 1176
MR. ROSE said he doesn't envision the bill as doing that. He
thinks that there is a threshold of what the citizens of Alaska
will tolerate.
Number 1192
CO-CHAIR BUNDE offered his perspective regarding this question. If
a tenured teacher is re-hired back into the school district, this
person should be paid the same wage as when they were laid-off.
Co-chair Bunde then recognized some new participants to the work
session, Ed Gilley, the superintendent of schools in Adak and also
Corky Caldwell who was a former commander in Adak.
Number 1283
MR. MARSHALL offered that the application of Section 4 hinges on
what is done in Section 5. He then proceeded to apply it to a
worse case scenario with the example of an in-place health teacher
within a district that decides they want to hire a math teacher
instead. In practice, the health teacher can be fired, regardless
of tenure. Mr. Marshall felt as though this section is far too
broad. He noted that if this bill was to pass and all the
provisions were applied, in essence, there would be no teacher
tenure. He added that under this scenario the teacher is not
insubordinate, nor immoral and not incompetent. He cautioned
against creating rules that can be arbitrarily applied.
Number 1419
CO-CHAIR BUNDE moved to item one, Section 5 (1), which dealt with
teacher lay-offs in lieu of decreased attendance or school revenue.
He asked if anyone would disagree with the premise that because of
decreased enrollment in schools, teachers should be laid off.
Number 1446
ED GILLEY, SUPERINTENDENT spoke to this issue. He had just laid
off some teachers and had let some students go too. Through
attrition some of the teachers took other jobs, but he stressed
that if a program is to be maintained, the quality of teachers
hinges on specialization in subjects.
Number 1557
MR. ROSE pointed out that it used to be that if enrollment was
down, revenue was lost and now the law is not clear on this point
anymore.
Number 1562
CO-CHAIR BUNDE threw out the following example, what if a school
had the same amount of students, but half the amount of money? Is
that justification for letting some teachers go?
Number 1589
MR. MARSHALL responded to this example by stating that he didn't
have any problem with the conditions as outlined in the previous
discussions, but what does declining revenue really mean? Is the
revenue budgeted or actual? Should teachers be laid off in advance
of budget cuts which are slated to take place in the next school
year?
Number 1622
CO-CHAIR BUNDE agreed that declining revenue would have to be
defined more, but at what point should teachers be laid off? How
much does the budget decline before lay offs take place?
Number 1710
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department
of Education responded to the language outlined in item (b) under
Section 5 of HB 217, where the department adopts regulations to
establish procedures for lay-off, length of time, etcetera. As far
of any of the details outlined in this section, Ms. Peterson said
the DOE (Department of Education) had not had a chance to analyze
it. The DOE had discussed before the state board how difficult the
task of deciding a fair amount of time to lay off teachers and
rehire would be. This section would probably be thrown in at the
very last and would have to be handled cautiously. Public input
would be necessary.
Number 1749
ED GILLEY, Adak Superintendent of Schools, said it was crucial to
keep teachers informed as to what changes would be taking place
under budget constraints for morale purposes. He gave a detailed
account as to how he handled budget cuts and lay offs in Adak when
he was forced to.
Number 1872
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE voiced his concern that too much focus is
given to teachers under budget constraints rather than looking at
other positions in a school district that might be affected.
Number 1945
MR. MARSHALL referred to Section 3, line 10 of HB 217 which deals
with tenure rights. His organization is concerned with what
defines a lay-off. If an interruption in service takes place with
a tenured teacher, as the bill reads now they might not be
considered a tenured teacher anymore.
Number 1999
MR. ROSE asked that the performance of school board members be
scrutinized more closely.
Number 2053
CO-CHAIR BUNDE moved to section six of HB 217 and asked if everyone
understood the definition of a de novo trial. Co-chair Bunde
outlined the precepts of such a trial and stated that the school
districts hate it. It costs a lot of money. Co-chair Bunde
offered the suggestion that in lieu of a de novo trial, maybe the
process of arbitration could be instituted, and if this was not
sufficient, then either party could take the case to court.
Number 2138
HEATHER FLYNN pointed out that usually a teacher uses a de novo
trial when they've been fired. How is a firing arbitrated?
Number 2168
CO-CHAIR BUNDE answered by saying that the teacher has some level
of appeal. If they're fired because of incompetency then that can
be disputed. Then Bunde used a worse case scenario where a school
board member is out to get a teacher for personal reasons and the
teacher is fired because of incompetency. Would this be a
situation where arbitration would be helpful?
TAPE 95-31, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON replied to this hypothetical situation.
She noted that if arbitration is looked at as a money saver, it's
not realistic. In the long run, if the parties go to court, there
are arbitration costs on top of trial costs.
Number 088
MR. ROSE clarified that in a de novo situation there are not really
two trials, the first session is a hearing with evidence introduced
and a hearing officer renders a decision. If the decision is not
favorable to the teacher, they have a right to go to superior
court. Under the de novo law the next hearing is like a new trial.
Anything established in the previous hearing cannot be referred to.
In the case of any other state employee in superior court, the
previous record is examined to see if their due process rights have
been abridged. The record in this instance can be reviewed. The
atmosphere and circumstances surrounding the non-retention in a de
novo situation has to be recreated. This increases the possibility
that the teacher will be re-instated at tremendous expense because
it's difficult to re-create the initial circumstances of a firing.
Sometimes a problem like this will not be resolved for four or five
years.
Number 380
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what percentage of non-retention
situations go to a de novo trial.
Number 390
MR MARSHALL responded by saying that in one small Alaska community
they spent $100,000. Thirty-six percent of that money had been
spent on NEA member defense. The bulk of their litigation was
spent on action of local unions against districts on labor issues.
A total of $36,000 was spent on member defense, which includes
hearings before school boards, costs for retaining an attorney or
on superior court litigation.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 487
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for additional feedback from all the
participants regarding HB 217 and adjourned the meeting at 4:48
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|