Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/26/1994 03:00 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 AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
January 26, 1994
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair
Rep. Al Vezey
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Harley Olberg
Rep. Bettye Davis
Rep. Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Irene Nicholia (Excused)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 84: "An Act implementing certain recommendations of
Alaska 2000 to improve the state's education
system; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
WITNESS REGISTER
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Board
316 W. 11th
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-1083
Position Statement: Testified in favor of CSHB 84
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to
Commissioner Covey
Department of Education
801 10th St., Ste. 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-2803
Position Statement: Testified in favor of CSHB 84
JIM SIMEROTH, Teacher
Kenai Middle School
811 Auk St. #5
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Phone: (907) 283-4896
Position Statement: Testified on CSHB 84
STEVE MCPHETRES, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
326 4th St. #404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-9702
Position Statement: Testified in favor of CSHB 84
ALEXANDER MCFARLANE, President
Fairbanks Education Association
P.O. Box 70085
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Phone: (907) 457-4532
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to CSHB 84
SUE HALL, President
Alaska PTA
1630 Washington St.
Fairbanks, Alaska
Phone: (907) 479-5729
Position Statement: Testified on CSHB 84
WILLIE ANDERSON, Representative
National Education Association, Alaska
114 Second St.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-3090
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to CSHB 84
LARRY WIGET, Director
Government Relations/Legislative Liaison
Anchorage School District
4600 Debarr Rd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99508-3195
Position Statement: Testified on CSHB 84
JOHN CYR, President
National Education Association, Alaska
P.O. box 780
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Phone: (907) 373-5967
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to CSHB 84
LORRA KEENAN
11001 Totem Rd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Phone: (907) 346-2709
Position Statement: Testified on HB 84
LUCILLE HOWITT, Tenured Teacher
Anchorage School District
1716 Scenic Way Dr.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: (907) 277-1871
Position Statement: Testified on CSHB 84
ERNEST LINE
2645 Whispering Woods
Wasilla, Alaska 99645
Phone: (907) 376-6709
Position Statement: Testified on CSHB 84
MIKE WILEY, Member
Kenai Peninsula School Board
P.O. Box 618
Seward, Alaska 99664
Phone: (907) 224-5563
Position Statement: Testified on CSHB 84
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 84
SHORT TITLE: IMPLEMENT ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 135 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 135 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/22/93 135 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 1/22/93
01/22/93 136 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/18/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/18/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/18/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/05/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
01/26/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-03, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m., noted
members present and members absent. The only member not
present was Rep. Nicholia, who was excused. Chair Bunde
announced the calendar, and announced the meeting was being
teleconferenced to Anchorage, Cordova, Delta Junction,
Fairbanks, Kotzebue, Mat-Su, Seward, Soldotna and Tok.
HB 84 - IMPLEMENTATION ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS
Number 112
REP. TOOHEY asked all present to observe the art work that
was sent to the committee by Turnagain Elementary School in
Anchorage.
Number 145
CHAIR BUNDE brought to the floor HB 84 and asked for the
first witness.
Number 151
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards, felt he would be testifying inappropriately on HB 84
as he had signed up to testify for the committee substitute
(CS).
Number 170
CHAIR BUNDE apologized and clarified by asking Rep. Toohey
if she had a motion.
Number 174
REP. TOOHEY made a motion to accept CSHB 84 as a working
draft.
(Rep. Brice arrived at 3:17 p.m.)
Number 196
CHAIR BUNDE stated that the work draft was dated 1/20/94,
identification #8-GH1033/O. He asked Mr. Rose to continue.
Number 222
MR. ROSE testified in support of the work draft and shared
comments on the CS for HB 84. He expressed sadness at the
elimination of charter schools from the CS. He said the
portion on grants was supported by his association, but
there were concerns. He felt that organizing the PTAs and
school district boards together to form advisory boards for
individual schools was a good idea, unless it was a cost
item. Mr. Rose continued on, stating that the extension to
five years for acquiring tenure was favorable. The
application, as well as the acquisition process, would be
movement away from an "automatic tenure system." The longer
length of time could possibly save many careers. Mr. Rose
found that the advisory committee would actually be involved
in some evaluations. He felt that regulations as to what
role the committee would fulfill, what process they would
use, and what assistance they would receive would be
helpful. Mr. Rose suggested that the cost factor would
increase as there would be one advisory committee for small
districts and in large districts perhaps many.
Number 388
(CHAIR BUNDE noted that Rep. Bettye Davis arrived at 3:14
p.m. and Rep. Tom Brice at 3:17 p.m.)
CHAIR BUNDE addressed the cost factor that Carl Rose had
referred to by stating that there would be a cost to employ
a substitute teacher while teachers attended their advisory
duties, but he felt there wouldn't be a significant impact
on the district.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that there were oversights on his part
and subsequently some language was left out of the CS. He
moved to amend by putting the language back in and added
that Sheila Peterson had additional language to put back
into the working draft.
Number 475
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to Commissioner Covey,
Department of Education (DOE), testified from Juneau in
support of CSHB 84. Ms. Peterson began by expressing
disappointment that charter schools had been dropped in the
CS. She named California and Minnesota as leaders in
adopting charter schools and mentioned that eight more
states were considering legislation to allow for charter
schools and requested that the committee consider charter
schools at a later date. Ms. Peterson said the DOE was
pleased that tenure was being addressed and said the
proposal was an excellent start. She did suggest the
addition of a parent on the "tenure reform committee." She
felt the public should have a chance to participate in the
tenure process. She said she submitted a proposed amendment
regarding the fund for school improvement. She said
clarifications were needed to ensure a more equitable
approach in distribution. She said the clarification would
allow the $50,000 cap to apply to the applicant and not to
the district. She stated that currently the $50,000 cap was
per district. Ms. Peterson continued on to say that the
language inadvertently left out of the proposal dealt with
under subparagragh A. She asked the committee to consider
adding the language "including appropriations from the
earnings of the public school trust fund, AS 37.14.110".
She stated that the aforementioned language was in HB 84 but
it wasn't in the proposed amendment that she submitted.
Number 577
CHAIR BUNDE confirmed that the committee had a copy of the
proposed amendment and a copy of the CS 10033-A that
indicated Section 4. He then asked Ms. Peterson if her
amendment was in addition to Section 4.
Number 604
MS. PETERSON answered yes, and continued to say that the
amendment had four subsections that would rewrite the
language and allow for the applicant to have a $50,000 cap
and not the school district, but the applicant would have to
go through the school district to apply for the grant. The
restriction to three of the five years would apply to the
applicant and not the school district.
Number 620
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Peterson what specific occurrences
happened during the grant procedure that warranted the
amendment.
Number 626
MS. PETERSON stated that applications were ranked on merit,
and that Mat-Su and Anchorage could not be awarded grants
above the $50,000 cap, yet they ranked higher than other
school districts.
Number 647
CHAIR BUNDE said that, as he understood it, the various
schools within a district could apply up to a $50,000 cap.
Number 650
MS. PETERSON agreed and said that current law states that a
governing body, an advisory board, a non-profit
organization, or a teacher or principal employed by a public
school in the state, may apply for a grant. The $50,000 cap
would apply to the aforementioned applicants.
Number 660
CHAIR BUNDE clarified again by stating that rather than a
district receiving $50,000, several schools within the
district would be allowed to apply for the grant.
Number 665
MS. PETERSON agreed.
Number 672
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Peterson to give an example of a grant
that was applied for and was received.
Number 676
SHEILA PETERSON referred to a hand out (attachment 1) that
outlined 25 programs that had been awarded, citing the
Craig, Hydaburg and Klawock School districts that had joined
together to offer interactive, computer assisted classrooms.
Number 706
REP. VEZEY asked MS. Peterson if she helped draft the CS the
committee was working with.
Number 710
MS. PETERSON replied that she had worked on the proposed
amendments to the CS.
Number 715
REP. VEZEY asked if the DOE excluded for-profit
organizations from applying for the grant.
Number 729
MS. PETERSON said the decision of whether to allow for-
profit organizations to apply for grants would be best left
up to the legislature.
Number 740
REP. VEZEY stated that at the proper time he would like to
make a motion to amend the wording to include "a person."
Number 747
CHAIR BUNDE replied, saying that change was discussed last
year, and thanked Rep. Vezey for resuming the point.
Number 750
REP. B. DAVIS asked Ms. Peterson what the total amount spent
on grants was last year and how many school districts
received funds.
Number 755
MS. PETERSON stated that over $500,000 was granted to 16
school districts - 25 applicants.
Number 761
REP. B. DAVIS asked if the grant money came from the school
trust fund or the general fund.
Number 764
MS. PETERSON said it was a reappropriation by the
legislature from Pupil Transportation. Half the funds left
over from Pupil Transportation was reappropriated by Rep.
Larson and the other half was appropriated to the fund for
school improvement.
Number 783
REP. B. DAVIS asked for clarification, saying that there was
a school improvement fund and a school trust fund.
Number 784
MS. PETERSON answered yes.
REP. B. DAVIS asked Ms. Peterson what her intentions were
for the school trust fund.
Number 802
MS. PETERSON stated that the amendment would allow for a
portion of interest earnings from the public school trust
fund, which now totalled $6.8 million, to be used
for the grant program. She continued by saying that
currently the interest from the public school trust fund was
going to the foundation formula. She wanted the legislature
to know the fund was there and that it was to be used for
improving school performance.
Number 823
REP. B. DAVIS asked if $500,000 was the cap for the total
amount granted each year.
Number 826
MS. PETERSON said that would be favorable, but it would
depend on the appropriations by the legislature.
Number 829
REP. B. DAVIS clarified by stating that if there was no
money appropriated, there would be no grants.
Number 830
MS. PETERSON agreed. She said the current budget did not
include any funds for the grant program and applications
were sent out January 15, 1994, but the school districts
were told there were no funds to award grants.
Number 840
CHAIR BUNDE clarified by stating that the amendment was a
mechanism for distributing funds if and when they were
available.
Number 845
REP. G. DAVIS asked if the grants were direct proposals to
the DOE without any supporting resolutions from the school
districts.
Number 849
MS. PETERSON answered, no, and followed by saying the grants
must be signed off by the school superintendent. The DOE
wanted direct involvement and the encouragement of the
school districts.
Number 858
REP. B. DAVIS made a motion to move the amendment.
Number 875
REP. OLBERG objected to the motion for purposes of
discussion.
Number 878
CHAIR BUNDE asked for further discussion.
Number 879
REP. OLBERG stated that it was a curious time to be
developing new ways to give away money.
Number 881
CHAIR BUNDE said the committee was trying to tailor an
existing way to provide grants for schools.
Number 887
REP. OLBERG stated that it was "sort of new" and asked if it
had been done once before.
Number 888
MS. PETERSON said that was correct.
Number 893
REP. VEZEY said he would be interested to hear comments from
Chair Bunde.
Number 896
CHAIR BUNDE stated, again, that the amendment was a
mechanism for providing grants to individual schools when
the legislature chooses to fund the grants. He said it was
not his intention, in this "fiscal crisis," to recommend
that money be placed in the grant program at this time.
Number 908
REP. VEZEY said he was interested in Chair Bunde's comments
on the proposed amendment.
Number 912
CHAIR BUNDE expressed his support and accepted the proposed
amendment, saying the mechanism would be available to
distribute funds at a future time when funds were available.
Number 919
REP. VEZEY made a motion to amend the amendment.
Number 933
CHAIR BUNDE stated that for housekeeping purposes the
amendment needed to be adopted so it could be further
amended.
Number 940
REP. OLBERG clarified by saying that the committee should
adopt the amendment.
Number 949
CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll to be called to adopt the
amendment before the committee.
Rep. Toohey Yea
Rep. Bunde Yea
Rep. G. Davis Yea
Rep. Vezey Yea
Rep. Kott Yea
Rep. Olberg Nay
Rep. B. Davis Yea
Rep. Nicholia Excused
Rep. Brice Yea
Number 965
CHAIR BUNDE stated that the adoption was passed and the
amended CS was before the committee. He urged the committee
to continue on with further amendments for discussion.
Number 967
REP. VEZEY asked for clarification of the adopted amendment,
stating that as he understood it the committed had amended
the CS for HB 84 so that Section 2 would read as per the
amendment.
Number 996
CHAIR BUNDE, after some discussion, stated that Rep. Vezey
was correct.
Number 997
REP. VEZEY made a motion to amend Section 2 by deleting the
words "a governing body, district advisory board, or non-
profit organization," and replace them with "a person."
Number 004
REP. TOOHEY said for further clarification, that the words
"a teacher, a principal" might be added.
Number 006
REP. VEZEY indicated that his change did not go as far into
Section 2 as Rep. Toohey was indicating in her response.
Number 010
CHAIR BUNDE clarified, stating that the amended portion to
be accepted would be Section 2, subsection B. It would
read, "a person located in a state, or a person or a
principal employed by a public school in the state..." may
apply for a grant.
Number 018
REP. VEZEY said that was the intent, but it was not read
correctly.
Number 017
CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Vezey to read it correctly.
Number 018
REP. VEZEY replied, "...a person located in the state or a
teacher or a principal employed by a public school in the
state...may apply through a district for a grant of up to
$50,000 to improve public school performance by submitting
an application to the commissioner. The application must be
signed by the superintendent the district that agrees to
receive and administer the grant and be accountable for the
disbursement."
Number 029
CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Vezey to speak to his amendment.
Number 030
REP. VEZEY said he suggested the amendment because the
statutory definition of "person" is much broader than the
three organizations mentioned. He felt that the previous
language might exclude a resource that might be available.
Number 037
REP. TOOHEY asked if there were caps put on individual
grants relative to the total amount in the fund, questioning
with the example that if there were only $50,000 in the
account, would there only be $10,000 grants.
Number 049
MS. PETERSON said that a grant cannot receive more than
$50,000. If there was only $50,000 in the fund and ten
applications, the DOE would rank the applications according
to merit and disburse the money accordingly.
Number 061
REP. BRICE asked Rep. Vezey what the statutory definition of
"person" was and what type of definition he would intend to
use in the amendment.
Number 079
After some discussion, an at-ease was taken to ascertain the
statutory definition of "person."
TAPE 94-03, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting back to order and asked Rep.
Vezey to share the statutory definition of "person."
Number 010
REP. VEZEY read directly from the statute, Title 01.10.060,
Paragraph 8: "person includes a corporation, a company,
partnership, firm, association, organization, business
trust, or society, as well as a natural person." He stated
that he felt there was no entity that was not included in
the definition.
Number 040
REP. BRICE stated that the entities listed seem to be
outside the realm of public government and felt they may
refer to specific private organizations. He felt that other
public entities should be included.
Number 073
CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Vezey if his purpose would be
accomplished "if you added to a governing body...a district
advisory board, a non-profit organization, or a person."
Number 082
REP. VEZEY felt that it would not be contrary to the intent
of his motion, but perhaps it would be redundant.
Number 090
CHAIR BUNDE stated that he shared some of the concerns that
Rep. Brice had stating that the statutory definition seemed
to be in the commercial and private aspect. Chair Bunde
asked if his proposed amendment to Rep. Vezey's proposed
amendment would not defeat Rep. Vezey's purpose.
Number 111
REP. VEZEY said he wanted to withdraw his amendment and move
that Paragraph B in Section 2 be amended to read: "a
governing body, district advisory board, or a person located
in the state, or a teacher or principal employed by a public
school in the state may apply through a district..."
Number 143
CHAIR BUNDE stated that the definition of person includes
non-profit. He asked for further discussion on Rep. Vezey's
amendment. The amendment was adopted with no objections to
the motion. Chair Bunde asked for Ms. Peterson's response
on the newly amended CS.
Number 188
MS. PETERSON stated that the DOE was pleased with the
amendment.
Number 207
REP. TOOHEY questioned Ms. Peterson as to whether the DOE
would send out invitations to bid for the grants, knowing
that there were no funds.
Number 216
MS. PETERSON said that regulations state that on January 15
the DOE shall send out applications. The DOE honored that
regulation, sent out the applications, and made the school
districts aware that there were no available funds.
Number 234
REP. TOOHEY felt that there should be a little more "house
work" to avoid the cost of sending out grant requests when
there are no funds available.
Number 248
REP. G. DAVIS stated that, indeed, it would be a regulatory
issue.
Number 254
CHAIR BUNDE said, "we don't have to send the message: Yes,
we have no bananas."
Number 259
REP. VEZEY noted for clarity that the amendment has amended
the committee substitute in Section 2, and Section 3, and
has added two additional sections.
Number 276
CHAIR BUNDE stated that Rep. Vezey was correct. He then
asked for teleconference testimony.
Number 303
JIM SIMEROTH, Teacher, Kenai Middle School, testified via
teleconference from Kenai. He felt that the grant system
was inequitable, saying that grants often went to the more
"well-to-do" schools. He felt grants could be distributed
in another more equitable manner. He expressed his concern
about the tenure clause. Mr. Simeroth felt the present
tenure law was effective, and he opposed peer review. He
said that the peer review system was based on a university
system and he felt that the environment was vastly different
than that of a university. He also felt there would be
additional costs.
Number 419
CHAIR BUNDE said that Mr. Simeroth was in the minority as a
person who felt that the present tenure system was
effective.
Number 448
REP. G. DAVIS stated, in regards to Mr. Simeroth's concerns
about the grant system, that the local districts should
approve grants to make sure they are equitable. Rep. G.
Davis felt that the problem with tenure was public
perception.
Number 474
CHAIR BUNDE asked for further testimony.
Number 480
STEVE McPHETRES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of
School Administrators, testified in Juneau in support of
CSHB 84. He stated that the tenure proposal would allow for
creativity. In regards to the advisory school boards, he
said the council met with the state PTA and, as a whole,
they felt the proposal would encourage parental involvement.
The council was encouraged by the amendment for the
acquisition of tenure. He felt the five year tenure review
was a professional approach to the teaching profession by
allowing peer review. However, the principal should be a
strong part in the tenure review.
Number 552
CHAIR BUNDE asked if it was Mr. McPhetres' assumption that
principal participation in tenure review had been excluded
from the amendment.
Number 555
MR. McPHETRES stated that he assumed the amendment included
principal involvement.
Number 559
CHAIR BUNDE said that his intention was not only for
principal participation, but also a vice-principal who would
work in that capacity.
Number 574
REP. BRICE inquired if there would be one committee per
school.
Number 585
MR. McPHETRES responded to the question by saying building
sites in the larger school districts would have the tenure
review committees.
Number 599
REP. BRICE asked approximately how many teachers were
brought up for tenure review each year.
Number 602
MR. McPHETRES said it was difficult to respond to that
question.
Number 606
REP. BRICE asked approximately how much time it took
administrators to review a tenure application.
Number 611
MR. McPHETRES asserted that, at a minimum, the administrator
was in the classroom twice.
Number 618
REP. BRICE asked if it was approximately six to seven hours.
Number 620
CHAIR BUNDE interjected by saying that with all the other
demands on a principal, in actuality, that figure would
probably be closer to two or three hours, maximum.
Number 628
REP. BRICE clarified by saying two hours were for
observation along with two 30 minute conferences.
Number 630
CHAIR BUNDE said that it varied.
Number 638
REP. BRICE asked how long it would take to review a tenure
applicant under the proposed new system.
Number 659
CHAIR BUNDE stated that, as he envisioned it, if there were
five members on the tenure committee, each would observe the
applicant, therefore amounting to at least five hours twice
a year. Then there would be a few hours of thorough
discussion.
Number 677
MR. McPHETRES concurred with Chair Bunde's scenario. He
furthered by saying that the CS would impose additional time
requirements for members of the committee and the
administrator. Mr. McPhetres emphasized that there still
had to be due process of law.
Number 697
REP. BRICE asked how the time requirement would impact the
teacher.
Number 706
CHAIR BUNDE said the teacher participating on a tenure
committee, involved in the observation, would be relieved by
a substitute teacher. He did not anticipate additional
compensation to the teacher on the tenure review board, but
foresaw the expense of hiring a substitute.
Number 724
REP. BRICE said he would assume the burden of being on the
committee would be evenly delegated.
Number 732
CHAIR BUNDE stated that the members would be elected.
Number 736
MR. McPHETRES said he felt it was a two way dialogue. The
teacher would be going into the classroom not only to
observe, but also perhaps to learn and to share ideas.
Number 755
CHAIR BUNDE assured all those participating that HB 84 would
not be moved out of committee that day. He asked for
further testimony.
Number 766
ALEXANDER McFARLANE, President, Fairbanks Education
Association, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to the proposed CSHB 84 and specifically to the
section dealing with the acquisition of tenure. He felt the
CS would usurp the efforts of the Fairbanks school district,
who at that time was putting together a new plan for tenure
evaluation for the next school year. He felt the CS would
not help in the process of training or eliminating a
deficient teacher. He felt there was no criteria within the
CS for the committee to judge the teacher. Mr. McFarlane
asked what the role of the principal would be if non-tenure
teachers were being reviewed each year and tenured teachers
reviewed every five years. The bill did not offer the
freedom teachers required to teach.
Number 830
CHAIR BUNDE stated that the CS would mandate that a school
administrator (principal) be part of the tenure review
committee. He also indicated to the HESS Committee that in
their packets was an endorsement of the five year tenure
proposal.
Number 851
SUE HALL, President, Alaska Parent/Teacher Association,
stated via teleconference from Fairbanks that there were two
particular items that they found troublesome in the bill.
She felt that there did not have to be an advisory board for
parents to be involved. She felt the advisory school board
would be another level of bureaucracy. She further stated
that the role of the PTA would be changed in a negative way
by politicizing it. Ms. Hall felt that the proposal for
tenure would reduce the principal's role in school
accountability. She felt it would be costly in terms of
relief time to allow for evaluation. Ms. Hall encouraged
the committee to recognize the risk involved in the proposed
legislation.
Number 945
CHAIR BUNDE asked if Ms. Hall was testifying as a
representative of the Alaska PTA and if it was the PTA's
official position.
Number 948
MS. HALL stated that no position had been taken by the PTA,
but her comments were based on the PTA's legislative program
and were in line with positions taken previously.
Number 953
CHAIR BUNDE further asked if the Alaska PTA would be taking
a position.
Number 954
MS. HALL said a position would be taken on February 14.
Number 964
CHAIR BUNDE asked, if there was to be a separate parent
advisory board, how would she view that board's relationship
with the PTA, and would it seem competitive?
Number 970
MS. HALL said she felt the two could co-exist, but she felt
there would be a better way to go about it.
Number 986
CHAIR BUNDE requested Willie Anderson to come forward with
testimony.
Number 991
WILLIE ANDERSON, Representative, National Education
Association of Alaska (NEA-AK), stated from Juneau that NEA-
AK had major concerns as to the expense that would be
incurred by implementing the proposals. He felt that in the
short term few people would be impacted, but in the long
term, one-half of the teacher population would be subject to
review by the tenure committee. The time dedicated by the
teachers would "exponentially expand" and it would cost more
and more money each year to make the committee work. Mr.
Anderson felt that the new proposal left the tenure review
committee open for litigation if a teacher were granted
tenure by the committee and then denied by the advisory
board. He felt additional costs would be inevitable. He
asked Chair Bunde what would be the outcome regarding tenure
rights for teachers hired prior to July 1, 1994. He asked
if they would be subject to the new legislation. NEA-AK
felt the bill was lacking as there was no clear procedure
stating how to implement the proposal. He asked how the new
proposal would interface with existing legislation, stating
that the term "deficiency", used in the new proposal, is not
used in the current legislation.
TAPE 94-04, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE made the committee and witnesses aware of the
time constraint and asked for questions.
Number 037
LARRY WIGET, Director, Government Relations/Legislative
Liaison, Anchorage School District, stated via
teleconference from Anchorage that there should be a more
thorough analysis of the proposed legislation. In regards
to school advisory boards, he felt that the schools should
voluntarily participate in shared decision-making/site based
management, and further stated that the Anchorage school
district supported the establishment of site council with
the PTA remaining the most "viable parent organization." He
stated concerns "about the membership of the Local Tenure
Review Committees and whether by having included a majority
of tenured teachers currently employed in the district
creates a conflict of interest with NEA-Alaska which has a
legal obligation to fairly represent its members." The NEA-
AK did not support expiration after seven years of tenure.
Mr. Wiget said that a sound annual evaluation process that
would eliminate poor teachers from the classroom was needed.
He furthered stated that if change was sought, the NEA-AK
would prefer it be directed toward reducing the burden
imposed on districts which attempt to non-retain or dismiss
tenured teachers. Mr. Wiget expressed the NEA-AK's
intention to work with the legislature to seek further
solutions.
Number 224
JOHN CYR, President, National Education Association -
Alaska, stated via teleconference from Anchorage that NEA-AK
was opposed to CSHB 84. He stated that if a private
corporation or a "money-making concern" could siphon school
dollars from the school district under the proposed
amendment by Rep. Vezey, within the definition of "person,"
there would be problems. He said it would be too costly to
proceed with the proposed legislation for establishing a new
tenure review committee. He pointed out the enormous amount
of time and cost that would be spent on review committee
meetings in the large school districts and the cost for air
travel for rural communities. Mr. Cyr felt tenure
protection would be lost. He questioned the process, asking
if a teacher could apply who already gained tenure to a new
school district. He stated that the proposed legislation
would make the process secretive, political, and a
popularity contest.
Number 364
CHAIR BUNDE observed that there were varying opinions
regarding the effectiveness of the current tenure and stated
that there was considerable public interest in eliminating
tenure completely.
Number 384
LORRA KEENAN, Concerned Citizen, stated via Anchorage her
opinions on the original HB 84.
Number 417
CHAIR BUNDE told Mr. Keenan that her testimony did not
pertain to CSHB 84 or the discussions at hand. He continued
on with testimony from Anchorage.
Number 459
LUCILLE HOWITT, Tenured Teacher, Anchorage School District,
testified on behalf of herself via teleconference from
Anchorage. She felt that Anchorage currently had an
effective evaluation system involving principals and
teachers. She thought undue stress would be created by
having the public involved in the review process.
Number 477
CHAIR BUNDE stated that there was no provision in the CS to
have parents on a tenure review committee.
Number 491
MS. HOWITT continued on with other comments by saying that
taking a teacher out of the classroom would directly affect
the students' learning environment. She felt peer review
would be effective if it was non-threatening. She asked if,
under Sec. 14.20.153 (d), it would allow for public comment
on teachers applying for tenure.
Number 532
CHAIR BUNDE said that in that aspect her assumption was
correct.
Number 540
MS. HOWITT felt parent comments should be directed, in
private, with the principal regarding their child's needs
and which teacher would best meet the child's needs.
Number 557
CHAIR BUNDE asked for testimony from Mat-Su.
Number 566
ERNEST LINE, Concerned Citizen, questioned via
teleconference the performance standards of Alaska 2000.
Number 590
CHAIR BUNDE said that the HESS Committee was not involved in
that issue. He briefly outlined the proposal of CSHB 84.
Number 604
MR. LINE asked if the proposed bill was going to be a part
of Alaska 2000.
Number 607
CHAIR BUNDE answered no.
Number 610
MR. LINE suggested the committee watch the video, "Who
Controls the Children." He also suggested further analysis
of the proposed legislation and Alaska 2000. He further
commented on the grant program, asking if it was not the
purpose of the school district and school administrators to
improve school performance, and questioned the need for
additional grants.
Number 670
CHAIR BUNDE said it was necessary to fund specific projects
and that the grants would only be approved by the local
school board.
Number 683
MIKE WILEY, Member, Kenai Peninsula School Board, testified
on behalf of himself via teleconference from Kenai. He
expressed his concerns in regards to the advisory boards.
He suggested site council as a better decision-making
process. He felt that there needed to be changes in the
tenure process and he needed further time to look at the new
proposal.
Number 744
CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on CSHB 84, stating that
the bill would be carried over until the following Monday.
Seeing no further business from the committee, Chair Bunde
ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:52 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|