Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/07/1995 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 AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 7, 1995
3:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HB 168: "An Act relating to temporary permits for certain
optometrists."
HEARD AND HELD
HB 182: "An Act allowing a dentist to delegate certain duties
to a dental assistant."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 217: "An Act relating to employment of teachers."
HEARD AND HELD
* HB 215: "An Act relating to suspension of a student from a
public school."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HJR 17: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to education.
FAILED TO PASS OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. ROY BOX, Optometrist
Eyewear Center Southeast
9309 Glacier Highway, Suite A102
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-3175
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 168.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce
9th Floor, State Office Building
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2534
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information for HB 168.
SAM KITO, Lobbyist
Representing the Alaska Dental Society
227 4th Street
Juneau, AK 99081
Telephone: (907) 586-6253
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 182.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN
Room 503, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 217.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 W. 11th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217.
SHEILA PETERSEN, Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 217.
STEVE McPHETRES, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
364 4th Street, Suite 404
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9702
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 217.
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President
National Education Association, Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 217, in support of HB 215,
and against HJR 17.
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
National Education Association, Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information for HB 217.
DUANE GUILEY, Director of School Finance
Department of Education
Goldbelt Building
801 W. 10th Street, Second Floor
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-8679
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 17.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 168
SHORT TITLE: PERMITS FOR NONRESIDENT OPTOMETRISTS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/08/95 273 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/08/95 273 (H) HES, L&C
03/07/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 182
SHORT TITLE: DELEGATION OF DUTIES TO DENTAL ASSISTANTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) TOOHEY,Nicholia
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/15/95 369 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/15/95 370 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/02/95 (H) HES AT 02:30 PM CAPITOL 106
03/02/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/04/95 (H) HES AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/07/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 217
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF TEACHERS
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
BILL: HB 215
SHORT TITLE: GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OF STUDENTS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 530 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 530 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
03/07/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HJR 17
SHORT TITLE: CONTROL & FUNDING OF PUB & PVT SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/19/95 81 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/19/95 81 (H) HES, JUD
02/28/95 (H) HES AT 03:30 PM CAPITOL 124
02/28/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/07/95 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-15, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY called the meeting of the House HESS
standing committee to order at 3:10 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Rokeberg and
Robinson. Co-Chair Toohey announced that a quorum was present to
conduct business and read the calendar.
HHES - 03/07/95
HB 168 - PERMITS FOR NONRESIDENT OPTOMETRISTS
Number 070
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said HB 168 was introduced by the House HESS
Committee at the request of the Alaska Optometrists Association.
This bill is very similar to Section 3 of HB 507, which passed the
House last year with 39 "yeas" and one "absent." The bill was
awaiting calendaring in the Senate Rules Committee when the session
ended.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY explained that the passage of this bill would allow
for a locum tenens permit to be issued to a nonresident optometrist
for the purpose of assisting or substituting for an optometrist
license under AS 08.72.
Number 124
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY continued that Alaska has many solo practitioners
in remote and semi-remote areas of the state. If the practitioner
becomes injured, seriously ill or must leave temporarily, he or she
presently must close down the clinic. This can be a hardship to
patients, especially if the time away extends for several months.
Also, this bill would allow for outside specialists in sub-normal
visual therapy, etc., to be scheduled to assist local doctors with
specialty care where this specialty care does not now exist.
Number 182
DR. ROY BOX, optometrist, said the problem lies in the fact that
there are only 50 optometrists practicing in the state of Alaska.
Some of them are in locations which are difficult to service. If
optometrists had the ability to do what physicians and dentists can
now do, it would make it much easier to maintain an even practice
flow when an optometrist is forced to leave town for any reason.
These permits are not an uncommon idea in the provision of health
care. This is just an addition to the privileges provided in the
Alaska Optometric Act.
Number 263
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing
(DOL), Department of Commerce, said the department is taking a
neutral position on this bill and has submitted a zero fiscal note
because it thinks it can absorb the costs of issuing these
licenses. Ms. Reardon did want to bring one issue to the attention
of the HESS Committee members. The Alaska statute permits Alaska
licensed optometrists to prescribe drugs if they have received an
additional certification. Some of the states from which the locum
tenens optometrists will be coming may also have a prescribing
provision for their optometrists.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS joined the meeting at 3:15 p.m.
MS. REARDON continued that there was a question of whether these
temporary optometrists should be able to prescribe drugs in Alaska
if they have received training comparable to the Alaska
requirements.
Number 340
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked what Ms. Reardon's recommendation would be to
resolve this dilemma.
MS. REARDON thought that language could be added which said if a
person has received training comparable to the requirements of
Alaska statute they may be granted the temporary right to prescribe
drugs in Alaska. She offered to work on this language if it was
the wish of the HESS Committee members.
DR. BOX said there are now 41 states that license optometrists to
prescribe drugs, and 5 more laws are pending. New Zealand and
Australia were included in this bill because their laws are similar
to Alaska's. In New Zealand, Dr. Box believes optometrists have
the right to prescribe drugs, whereas in Australia they do not have
those privileges.
DR. BOX thinks that this could be handled in the board regulations
that are written for the bill. He does not think that a person who
is not licensed to prescribe drugs in his or her home area should
be allowed that privilege in Alaska.
Number 430
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG asked if this could be solved with
a simple amendment to the effect that a person's training has to
meet similar standards of Alaska optometrists.
DR. BOX said currently, there are three classes of optometric
licenses in Alaska. There are optometrists who are not licensed to
use any drugs in their practice. There are those who are licensed
only to use diagnostic drugs, so they may dilate pupils, etc.
Finally, there are licenses to treat eye disease. Those
classifications are going to slowly but surely go away because all
new licensees must have a full education. These classifications
were not grandfathered in when these laws were amended.
DR. BOX expects that in five years, there will not be any
optometrists practicing in Alaska that do not have a full
therapeutic license. At this point, however, these classifications
complicate things.
Number 500
CO-CHAIR BUNDE thought language could be crafted concerning
reciprocity, and stipulating that privileges must be similar to
those allowed in the temporary optometrist's home state. However,
Co-Chair Bunde would prefer it if Dr. Box and Ms. Reardon could
bring this language back to the HESS Committee members at the next
meeting.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Dr. Box and Ms. Reardon would work
together on this task.
Number 558
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was looking at the days of excused absence
allowed for in HB 168. The bill allows for a maximum of 180
consecutive days of excused absence. He asked if there are
situations in which there is educational programming that may go on
for an entire school year, perhaps for nine months. He asked if
the bill would be restrictive in this respect.
DR. BOX said he did not think this would be a problem, and that 180
days would cover educational programs.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was concerned about the length of time used
for post-graduate studies.
DR. BOX said most post-graduate education courses offered are, at
a maximum, two months long.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY announced that the bill was being held.
HHES - 03/07/95
HB 182 - DELEGATION OF DUTIES TO DENTAL ASSISTANTS
Number 647
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that following the subcommittee meeting on HB
182 which took place on Saturday, March 4, she would ask the HESS
Committee to pass out this bill as amended. The subcommittee
contends that the authority to license or otherwise regulate dental
assistants already rests with the Board of Dental Examiners. Co-
Chair Toohey hopes that after HB 182 becomes law, the board will
work with the affected groups to come up with some guidelines or
regulations that satisfy everyone.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that the subcommittee found that the Board of
Dental Examiners does have regulating powers and it, not the
legislature, should be regulating those under its control. On page
121 of the regulations, number 11 states that the dental board has
the authority to issue permits or certificates to license dentists,
dental hygienists and dental assistants who meet standards
determined by the board for specific procedures that require
specific education and training.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that is where the subcommittee made its
determination.
Number 755
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she would like the bill to pass as amended,
and then the board should be directed to come up with its
recommendations as to implementation.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked to clarify what was occurring. First, Co-
Chair Toohey would like to amend HB 182 for federal dentists.
Then, if the bill passes, it would be the will of the HESS
Committee members that the dental board promulgate regulations that
would or would not allow the application of sealants, etc., by
dental assistants, as they see fit. This is an enabling kind of
bill, the bill is not a mandate.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said it was discovered from conversations with
dental clinics that there is a stack of Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) regulations in clinics that dental
assistants are obliged to read, follow and sign off on. Indeed,
they have an incredible amount of training.
Number 844
CO-CHAIR BUNDE moved that HB 182 be adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that as Co-Chair Toohey mentioned, if
the proper board has the power to make these regulatory changes,
why is this statute being passed?
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY answered that the bill allows federal dentists who
practice under the Indian Health Service (IHS) to delegate
authorities to dental assistants.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the word "or" was being removed
from Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the amendment had not yet been adopted, and
moved that Amendment 1 be adopted so that discussion may begin.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked for discussion.
Number 910
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said Amendment 1 spoke of an assistant to
a licensed dentist under that statute, or a federal dentist.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE continued "...or a dentist licensed under the Alaska
statute which regards the IHS."
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that Amendment 1 had been adopted at last
week's meeting. A Committee Substitute (CS) for HB 182 was now
being used.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the intention of the bill is to
just exempt the federal dentists.
Number 963
SAM KITO, Lobbyist, representing the Alaska Dental Society, said
the language in the statute is neither permissive or restrictive in
the sense that the language is not present. But rather than have
the legislature, through statute, mandate that these dental
assistants must be licensed to perform the duties in question, the
language says, "This section does not prohibit a dental assistant
from applying these agents."
MR. KITO said that allows, with specificity, that the board can or
cannot make that determination as they see fit under the law. It
is not being said through statute that the board must do something.
The board will make its determinations. But because what dental
assistants can or cannot do is not specifically addressed under
statute, the board can make a determination either way.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what would occur if the board did not
want dental assistants to perform specific duties.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY answered that such decisions are up to the board.
MR. KITO said that the statute does not say dental assistants or
the board cannot do anything. It is up to the board to make those
decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said this does not give the dental
assistants, without the proper regulatory framework, permission to
proceed.
MR. KITO said the board oversees whether dentists want or do not
want to delegate these duties.
Number 1035
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said the opinion from the board concerning its
authority to grant licenses and permits was given in 1988. This
authority has been known by the dental community for quite awhile,
and the repercussions have been tossed about for the last seven
years. Therefore, Co-Chair Toohey feels that HB 182 and the
contentions with dental assistant competency is being placed where
it belongs.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS thought the amendment was adding to the
bill, when in fact it is deleting exemptions.
Number 1082
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that both he and Representative Davis were at
another committee meeting when the amendment was adopted. The only
action now necessary is to vote on CSHB 182(HES). He moved that
the bill, as amended, move from the HESS Committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and the bill was passed
from committee.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY passed the gavel to Co-Chair Bunde for the
remainder of the meeting.
Number 1123
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that Representative Davis joined the
meeting at 3:15 p.m., and Representative Brice joined the meeting
at 3:25 p.m.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it was not his intention to move HB 215, HB 217
or HJR 17 out of the committee today. These hearings are for
discussion only.
HHES - 03/07/95
HB 217 - EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF TEACHERS
Number 1178
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he introduced this bill to allow school
districts some flexibility to deal with rising enrollments and
increased costs associated with the educational system. Should the
legislature decide not to increase educational funding, policy
questions, such as the one proposed in HB 217, need to be
addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said this bill would allow school districts to
layoff teachers who have acquired tenure rights, but only if the
school district finds it necessary to reduce the number of teachers
due to declining enrollment, declining revenues, or to better meet
the academic program needs of the district.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said the bill also increases tenure from two to
five years, and removes the costly trial de novo portion of Alaska
statute. Trial de novo allows a school district employee who is
not satisfied with the district investigation of his or her
release, to go to the court system and begin an entirely new trial.
Number 1253
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN continued the district investigation most often
must be recreated. This bill would eliminate the de novo portion
if the school district investigation has met standards acceptable
to the court. The deletion of the trial de novo allows educators
the same protections as provided to other state employees.
Number 1312
CARL ROSE, Executive Director of the Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), said that as many are aware, some of the issues
contained in the bill have been a concern of the AASB for some
time. Probably, these issues have been focused on more this year
because of the legislature's concern to decrease spending and the
appropriation for education in this state.
MR. ROSE asked to comment on specific portions of the bill. He
said there are some things the AASB is asking for, and he would
like to share some philosophical comments with the HESS Committee
members, as well as the information the AASB has gathered.
MR. ROSE based his discussion of the bill on fairness. When the
acquisition of tenure is studied, the issue is one of fairness, not
necessarily to the school district or the profession, but to the
new teacher that is entering the profession. Tenure is achieved
after two years of employment.
MR. ROSE said new teachers have invested time and effort to get an
education, and under a two-year scenario, the administration will
only have about 18 months to decide whether this person is beyond
the standard in which it wants to invest tenure. If there is a
question whether this young teacher is suitable to be in the
classroom as exemplified by behavior and character; and there is a
question of whether the administration wants to invest in the
lifetime employment of this person; the person should probably not
receive tenure.
MR. ROSE said unfortunately, that is what many school districts are
doing. If the administration is not completely sure, it is not
going to extend this probationary period. Mr. Rose thinks it is
very unfair for a person who invests at least four years in an
education to not have the opportunity to be successful and get the
kind of professional development and experience needed.
Number 1406
MR. ROSE continued that is why the issue of tenure and extension
has been raised, and the AASB is asking for five years. This has
been a standard for some time as a resolution. The issue is open
for negotiation, but more time is needed. He understands that the
concern will rise about what will be done with the additional time.
Will better evaluation processes be provided? The AASB would love
to work on that. Unfortunately, the AASB is under the same
constraints from the legislature. The first thing they hear about
is administration excess.
MR. ROSE added that the administration performs the evaluation.
When administration is reduced, the AASB is facing the dilemma once
again. What can be done with the additional time can be discussed.
Options are to invest it in evaluation or observation and the
provision of professional development through inservice training to
improve the quality of instruction. This is what the AASB desires,
and it is open to discussion on these topics.
Number 1450
MR. ROSE talked about layoffs. He said because there is a lack of
funding, it is not the intent to teach more kids with less
teachers. More teachers are needed. Unfortunately, the money is
a problem. In many school districts, schools cannot keep the staff
they currently have without more money. Some of the school
districts, under the requirements of tenure, do not have the
latitude to lay off some of the tenure staff. There is no
reduction in enrollment, but there is a reduction in revenue.
MR. ROSE reminded the HESS Committee members that under current
law, there are four reasons why a tenure teacher can be
nonretained: Incompetence, substantial noncompliance with statutes
and regulations, immorality, and enrollment decline.
MR. ROSE explained that HB 217 proposes to add fairness to this
equation. It would essentially say that the first three areas of
noncompliance, incompetence and immorality are professional and
performance standards that should be evaluated. But nonenrollment
and revenue decline are economic circumstances. No one should be
nonretained, as would be done with a felon, because of economic
problems. Instead, a layoff provision should be created within
statute that addresses that economic shortfall.
MR. ROSE continued by saying the bill directs the Department of
Education (DOE) to promulgate regulations that will protect tenure
teacher rights on layoff status. These regulations would also
invoke a rehire provision so laid-off teachers are protected. It
is open for debate whether these layoff provisions will have a time
limit. The promulgation of these regulations should address this.
Number 1535
MR. ROSE thinks the issue is really one of fairness. The three
issues of nonretention should remain as a performance standard.
The two issues that are economic should be moved to layoff status
so it gives school districts the ability to address their economic
shortfalls.
MR. ROSE concluded by discussing the de novo issue. Documentation
could be found in the HESS Committee members' bill packets. This
documentation is from last year. De novo trials occurred in five
school districts in seven cases. The total cost to those districts
(and some of those cases are not yet resolved) is $721,000. This
is a very costly situation.
MR. ROSE explained that under state law, if you are a tenured
teacher, you have a right to judicial review if you are
nonretained. Normally, if you are nonretained, a hearing is held
within three to six months. The school district's attorney and the
defendant's attorney will call witnesses and make a case. The case
will be delivered to a hearing officer and the teacher will be
adjudicated. If the outcome of that hearing is not in favor of the
teacher, the teacher has a right to a trial de novo in superior
court. This means a new trial.
Number 1620
MR. ROSE said that normally that trial takes place in three to four
years. A new trial means that anything put on the record during
the hearing is not admissible in the new trial. This is a new
trial. Attorneys must find people who may have graduated or moved,
three to four years later. Another issue is the judge may not be
educated on what is going on in the school districts. A hearing
officer normally has some idea of the operations of school
districts.
MR. ROSE said basically, what happens is this: Three to four years
later, the record must be recreated and the school board's case for
nonretention must be substantiated. If the atmosphere under which
the nonretention occurred cannot be recreated, and the decision is
overturned, the teacher is normally paid for the years that he or
she was not working. The teacher is then placed back into the
classroom, never to be reprimanded again for fear of harassment
charges.
MR. ROSE assured the HESS Committee members that this is a very
real situation. He allowed that these are the worst-case
scenarios, but these things are crippling the school districts.
The AASB is asking people to understand what the trial de novo
does. Tenured teachers receive this privilege when no other state
employee does. State employees go through the hearing process.
They have a right to appeal to a superior court. The superior
court reviews the record of the agency's hearing and decides
whether the state employee's due process rights have been abridged.
If not, the case stands. They do not get a new trial.
Number 1681
MR. ROSE provided the committee with an example. Currently, O.J.
Simpson is being tried for murder. A record is being established
right now. Should he be convicted and want to appeal to a higher
court, he would never be able to ask for a new hearing where none
of the record was admissible for the court's review. The
principles of jurisprudence would never allow this.
MR. ROSE said currently, the system allows a disgruntled tenured
teacher to have a trial de novo. This is very costly. In
addition, there is often a failure on the part of the district to
recreate the same atmosphere four years later. Finally, the
district has already "shown its hand" during the hearing process.
The defendant knows the evidence against him or her. He or she now
has the opportunity to defend him or herself three or four years
later because the school district cannot alter the record. The
school district is bound by the record and cannot introduce new
information.
MR. ROSE stressed that this situation is very restrictive. He did
not know if the HESS Committee members were aware of this.
However, people involved in schools are scared to nonretain a
tenured teacher for fear of this situation. The issue is really
one of quality instruction in the classroom.
MR. ROSE said the AASB has been trying to have the de novo issue
addressed for many years. Currently, it is in a bill that has been
before the legislators for the last two sessions. The AASB is
trying to address things that need to be in place so the quality of
education can be improved.
Number 1780
MR. ROSE made one last point under the layoff provision. There is
a point in the bill that speaks about program need. Currently,
certificated employees of the state are endorsed by either
elementary or secondary endorsements. Legally, if a person has an
elementary or secondary endorsement, he or she is legally deemed an
appropriate classroom instructor. The question for instruction
purposes needs to be whether elementary and secondary endorsements
are more appropriate than subject area endorsements.
MR. ROSE said the AASB supports subject area endorsements. It
would like to see HB 217 shown to the DOE. It wants the DOE to
promulgate regulations and put together a system that recognizes
subject area endorsements rather than just elementary and
secondary. The reason is that the AASB believes the best form of
instruction in the future will lay with subject area endorsements.
Based on multiple endorsements, a person provides him or herself
with job security.
MR. ROSE said right now, elementary and secondary endorsements are
not high enough standards to address instruction in the classroom.
The AASB would like to see that changed. That portion of HB 217 is
misunderstood.
MR. ROSE said the issue of program need cannot be addressed with
the passage of this bill. School districts need to have this
program, however. It takes time to develop the recommendations and
the framework that establishes certification standards for
endorsements. If these things can be accomplished in a period of
two to three years, Mr. Rose can foresee subject area endorsements
being part of the layoff provision. As it stands right now, it
will not work.
Number 1821
MR. ROSE said the AASB has been talking to the DOE for some time.
The layoff provision has not yet been addressed. Mr. Rose thinks
until the DOE is directed by legislation to develop those
provisions, the DOE will not move.
Number 1833
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if a tenured teacher who had been laid off
would be the first hired under the provisions of HB 217 when
funding or enrollment increases.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he could not fully answer that question.
But his feeling was that if a position opened, he did not see why
a laid-off teacher would not be brought back into the system if he
or she was a competent teacher, and if he or she knew the people
and the district. He suspects such a teacher would be the school
district's first preference.
MR. ROSE envisions that tenure would not be lost under this layoff
provision. Seniority status would not be lost. Hopefully, by the
time a layoff provision comes through, the AASB will be able to
establish subject endorsements. If a position came open, the
district would check its rehire list. A teacher who had multiple
endorsements and seniority would presumably receive that position.
Number 1900
MR. ROSE said the issue is really with subject endorsements.
Seniority will prevail in any layoff/rehire situation. The AASB
wants to protect tenure and seniority rights. It does not want to
nonretain anyone. The ability to hire off the layoff list should
be based on endorsements.
Number 1914
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if historically, tenure rights were
placed to protect free speech for professors and institutions of
learning. There was a substantial threat to the academic integrity
of professors and teachers that could be compromised.
MR. ROSE said Representative Rokeberg was correct. The issues of
academic freedom and the protection of that freedom is one of the
reasons for tenure.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was a free speech problem
occurring in kindergartens in Alaska.
MR. ROSE said he supposed the HESS Committee members will hear
testimony that suggests that. Mr. Rose does not view this freedom
of speech issue as a problem. He does see some very restrictive
statutes that do not provide the AASB with the opportunity to
function the way it would like.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE suggested there are problems with threats
against freedom of speech. For instance, he knows of an Alaskan
state senator who asked that certain teachers be removed because
students were writing letters which were in opposition to the
senator's views. Things like this still happen.
Number 1995
MR. ROSE said HB 217 is addressing the acquisition of teachers,
layoff, and de novo. It is not asking for the repeal of tenure.
He recognizes that tenure is an important part of the status quo in
education. What this bill is trying to do is accommodate tenure
and still be able to manage the school district.
Number 2010
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he recently spoke with some of his former
principals. These principals said they never had any problem
finding out which teachers were good or bad, because they made the
effort to visit the classrooms. They asked questions and performed
the appropriate evaluations. This was never a problem for them.
Representative Brice asked why principals now cannot do their job
and evaluate these people in a timely manner, whereas principals 10
and 20 years ago could perform these tasks. He said that perhaps
this issue needs to be addressed.
MR. ROSE replied he would not speak for principals. He knows that
the cost of administration is high. Former Juneau Mayor and
Superintendent Bill Overstreet was very concerned about how much
administration was required today. He said that when he was a
superintendent, he and three other administrators ran the entire
district. Mr. Rose submitted to the HESS Committee members that 25
years ago, there were not as many mandates in place as there are
today.
MR. ROSE said that schools are under siege, not only from unfunded
mandates, but from tremendous mandates that must be met. Most of
these mandates require the AASB to comply or else funding will be
lost. The penalties are the same whether the noncompliance is a
small or large issue.
MR. ROSE continued that there is a tremendous responsibility for
administration. The workload is quite large. The ability to
observe classrooms is hindered somewhat. Mr. Rose will not say it
cannot be done, but there are other priorities in the school
district now. But for the most part, this observation is not a
problem until nonretainment is attempted. This is a very costly
problem. The system is very cut and dry concerning what can and
cannot be done once tenure has been granted.
Number 2102
MR. ROSE said the unfairness comes when a young teacher is never
given the opportunity to show what they can do before a verdict on
tenure is given. Normally, the verdict is to nonretain unless the
administration is absolutely sure that this new teacher possesses
the ability to be successful. Mr. Rose thinks it is unfair to
expect that in 16 to 18 months of performance. And not all of that
performance takes place in the classroom.
Number 2122
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this bill would impact urban and
rural areas of Alaska differently.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said villages are very far removed, and there
are many rules, regulations, statutes and laws that must be
followed. In addition, English is the second language in many of
these areas. When village advisory school boards meet, they find
the statutes that govern tenure laws or education are complicated.
When village or regional school boards try to develop an
educational plan, there is a large fear of the unknown rules,
regulations and statutes. They fear liability through the
necessary removal of teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN believes this legislation will give some
flexibility and assurances to everyone concerned--parents,
children, the community, teachers and administrators--that the
state is trying to develop a flexible environment. The environment
must be flexible in the face of declining revenues and enrollment
which affect the rights of tenured teachers.
Number 2200
CO-CHAIR BUNDE understood that first and second year teachers can
be fired essentially at the whim of the school board.
MR. ROSE disagreed, and said that many of the same standards used
for tenured teachers have to be followed for the nonretainment of
a first or second year instructor. However, these individuals do
not have to be provided with a hearing. The teachers do have due
process rights, however.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the bottom line is that if the school board
decides not to retain a first or second year instructor, they are
gone. He asked if there were numbers on how many first and second
year teachers are not retained.
MR. ROSE said he did not have exact numbers, but the number has
grown considerably in the last five to ten years.
Number 2235
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked how many districts and people were involved in
the de novo trials.
MR. ROSE answered that documentation is in the bill packets. The
de novo trials spoken of involve seven cases in five school
districts. He reminded HESS Committee members that some of those
trials are still unresolved, and those are not the only
nonretention cases that are presently occurring. These are only
happening in the five school districts that the AASB contacted.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked about the history of the de novo trial. The
privilege is different from that of other state employees. Co-
Chair Bunde wondered why there originally was a difference.
MR. ROSE did not know. It has been a part of tenure law since the
inception of tenure. The only concern of the AASB is that it and
the school districts are political subdivisions of the state. If
they were recognized, like other state agencies, those hearings
would be a matter of the record. The rules have changed when it
comes to tenure.
TAPE 95-15, SIDE B
Number 024
SHEILA PETERSEN, Special assistant to the Commissioner of
Education, DOE, said all of the areas addressed in HB 217 have been
issues for many years. Much of the public testimony that was taken
during a recent Alaska 2000 initiative dealt with tenure and tenure
rights. Comments were heard from both sides, for and against
change of tenure.
MS. PETERSEN said that many felt two years was too short. As Mr.
Rose indicated, it was felt that additional time was needed to make
that judgement. HESS Committee members may be aware that last year
the DOE did propose to change tenure determinations to include some
parental and public involvement. It is still a concern that the
public, who owns the educational system, presently has no mechanism
to become involved in the process of acquiring tenure.
Number 109
MS. PETERSEN said it is important that these issues be discussed
and that everyone have their opinions and concerns expressed. As
Mr. Rose and Representative Ivan indicated, HB 217 allows layoff
status for tenured teachers. The DOE is charged with promulgating
these regulations that will set procedures for this layoff process.
If HB 217 is passed, the DOE would approach this writing of
regulations very cautiously. The State Board of Education (SBE)
would seek input from all sources on how to write these procedures.
MS. PETERSEN said the SBE would encourage educational
organizations, the general public, parents and students to let the
DOE and the SBE know how these regulations should be written. HB
217 does represent a change from the status quo. This change needs
to be looked at and analyzed very thoroughly. However, sometimes
change is necessary.
MS. PETERSEN said the Governor's and the DOE's paramount concern
with education is the funding. They would like to see the
legislature appropriate full funding for education, so the
education available to students is excellent. However, if full
funding is not available, the DOE feels that the school districts
need to have all the tools and options available to them to make
the right choices. Maybe the changes in HB 217 will be in the
right direction.
MS. PETERSEN remembered that Co-Chair Bunde said he did not plan on
passing the bill today. If there is a group set aside to work on
the legislation, the DOE would be very interested in offering
support and suggestions.
Number 281
CO-CHAIR BUNDE thanked Ms. Petersen and the DOE for that offer, and
promised that an invitation will be extended. He asked if the DOE
would still support a tenure review committee that incorporated
public members.
MS. PETERSEN responded that there is a new state board, and a new
commissioner that is starting work on Monday, March 13. Therefore,
a formal position has not been taken. However, the board and the
commissioner are leaning toward increased parent involvement. They
have not looked at having a peer review committee for tenure or
having parent input, but they would like to extend the tenure
option to include the input of parents.
Number 340
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Ms. Petersen could give a history of the de
novo issue and why it exists in the first place.
MS. PETERSEN apologized and said she could not. She just heard the
comments of Mr. Rose, but exactly why it was established that way,
she does not know. She also mentioned that the DOE does not
maintain statistics on the number of teachers that have or have not
acquired tenure.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the restraints in the teaching system came
about because of the union representation. She asked why there are
such restraints with the teaching profession. If a person goes to
school and gets a law or nursing degree, he or she does not receive
such privileges as this. She asked who has done this to the state
and to the teachers.
Number 421
MS. PETERSEN said she could only hazard a guess that at the
beginning, education was seen as a place to experiment and espouse
views that might be contrary to the establishment. Possibly,
tenure grew up because of that. Educators wanted some protection
to assure that teachers would feel comfortable enough to buck
society and the establishment for the betterment and growth of
their students and for personal growth.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE observed that tenure is mostly based on academic
freedom rather than job security. However, one leads to the other.
Depending on the individual, one portion is more important than the
other.
MS. PETERSEN said that as far as reduction of attendance, she can
only presume that when that was put into statute, there was a
feeling that if there was a reduction in revenue, there would also
be a reduction in attendance. It may have been assumed that both
issues were being addressed at the time when "reduction of
attendance" was being written. It may not have been projected that
there would be increased enrollment but decreased revenue.
Number 540
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Ms. Petersen to speculate on what would
happen if the curriculum for all first through eighth grade
students in the state was the same. She asked if the problem would
then be eliminated. She asked if a standardized curriculum would
eliminate the fear that educators are teaching children ridiculous
things.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said there are districts where an educator might
feel that teaching HIV/AIDS would result in his or her being fired.
He does not think the state wants to mandate one curricula for all
districts.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said there are different factions with different
opinions about what should be taught in schools.
Number 633
MS. PETERSEN explained that our system of education is strongly
controlled at the local level, not at the state level. With that
local control, the curriculum is decided locally as well. That is
a cornerstone of Alaska's education system.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said if a teacher is hired by a school district to
represent the feelings of that district and the community, then the
teacher should also be fired for not teaching what that district
deems fit. She asked Ms. Petersen if that was correct.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Co-Chair Toohey what would happen if the
district wanted the teacher to teach that the moon is made of green
cheese.
MS. PETERSEN explained that under current statutes, if a teacher
has tenure, as Mr. Rose indicated, there are four reasons they can
be fired. Prior to acquiring tenure, a teacher can be fired for
other reasons. That has been established through state guidelines.
Number 695
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Petersen if she has any idea how
many certified yet unemployed teachers there are in the state of
Alaska.
MS. PETERSEN said she did not have exact figures, but the numbers
are very substantial. She could get the exact number, and there
are many certified teachers employed in other professions or who
have chosen not to teach. It is also possible that many teachers
are unemployed. There is a large pool from which to draw certified
teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that therefore, there was no
shortage of teachers.
MS. PETERSEN said there may be shortages in certain areas of the
state, and in certain areas of expertise.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY joined the meeting at 4:10 p.m.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE interjected that when Wasilla wanted to open a new
school they needed 30 teachers. They had 3,000 applicants. In
many places in rural Alaska, they still must recruit teachers from
the Lower 48 because they cannot find teachers who live in Alaska
that may want to work in the rural areas.
Number 800
STEVE McPHETRES, Executive Director of the Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ACSA), said he would like to be testifying for full
funding for education. He truly believes that the short-funding of
education will be far more devastating than what HB 217 allows.
However, he hopes the arena will soon be created so he can testify
on that.
MR. McPHETRES said that his organization has, over the years,
passed resolutions wishing for the extension of tenure to three to
five years. In response to the questions of the HESS Committee
members concerning the length of time needed for observation, when
Bill Overstreet was superintendent of the Juneau schools, the
district had very few students. Since then, the enrollment numbers
have doubled, tripled and quadrupled. The need for administration
has compounded.
Number 865
MR. McPHETRES graduated from Juneau Douglas High School (JDHS) with
63 other students in his class. Now, JDHS graduating classes
number 300 students. The education profession has become more
complex. If one looks at the teacher training colleges, the
preparation of teachers, the philosophies and the research, one
looks at teachers who are very well prepared and seated in
education philosophies for individual children, and also founded in
sound research.
MR. McPHETRES said a few years ago, that research was not available
to education students. Now, people talk about how the brain works,
how the right and left sides of the brain interact, and all the
things that scientific research has proven. Young people now have
more technical knowledge than education students of the past.
MR. McPHETRES said there is a time of adjustment for new teachers
when they enter a classroom. The first year of teaching is
probably the most unique experience a person could have. He has
experienced it several times, and his daughter experienced it this
last year. Her experience was like a roller coaster. She often
called her father in tears, or she would call him with the news
that something had worked in the classroom. The first year
requires time for a person to become seated in their philosophy and
the direction they want to take within the school.
Number 950
MR. McPHETRES said it is really unfair to pile the pressure of the
possibility of tenure on that new teacher in the first year. The
teacher is already nervous. They are taking all their
philosophies, knowledge and experience into the classroom and
presenting it to 28 little children who have no idea about the
level of education this individual has.
MR. McPHETRES would like to see a mentoring program set up, in
which a new teacher works with an older, more experienced teacher.
In addition, tenure should be extended so there is more time to
review performance and development. This would be in the best
interest of the kids and the schools, and a stronger person will
come out of the evaluative process.
MR. McPHETRES said there are times when some people slip through
the cracks, but for the most part, he believes there are some
extremely fine administrators in the state that are doing their
job. They are in the classroom at every opportunity. It is
difficult, with all the regulations and parents and outside issues,
to fill the new roles. This does take time away from observation.
Number 1020
MR. McPHETRES said that members of his organization have talked at
conferences and meetings to principals and assistant principals.
This is an issue and the ACSA will continue to move it forward.
The ACSA will continue to raise these issues at the Capitol. The
ACSA does support the extension of tenure.
MR. McPHETRES commented on the removal of a tenured teacher due to
financial issues. He said that is an issue the ACSA has also
supported over the years, particularly as districts have
experienced decreasing enrollments. School districts across the
state have reduced budgets for the last eight years. In some
arenas and in the press it has been said it is time for education
to "take a hit."
MR. McPHETRES stressed education HAS been taking hits, but the hits
have been local or statewide for at least the last eight years. It
is getting to a point now where all that is left are tenured
teachers and administrators. It is a matter of "where do we go
from here." Staff cannot be reduced. The schools are not losing
enrollment, they are gaining enrollment. Therefore, the ACSA
supports and would like to further discuss revenue shortfalls to
release tenured employees.
Number 1090
MR. McPHETRES said the ACSA is in an arena of discussion as far as
subject certification. In the last several years, the issue of
subject versus level certification has been an issue approached by
a certification process task force between the ACSA and the DOE.
Mr. McPhetres says that for the ACSA, the area of level
certification is still more attractive. As the state looks at
staff reduction and combining disciplines and training particularly
in small schools, flexibility is needed to put people into areas
that need to be covered at that time.
MR. McPHETRES said a teacher who is teaching grades one through
four must have multiple disciplines. In high school, a person may
be teaching social studies, science and maybe a math course. This
issue needs to be looked at more cautiously.
Number 1148
MR. McPHETRES concluded by hoping that the legislature would fully
fund education.
Number 1158
CO-CHAIR BUNDE summarized Mr. McPhetres' testimony. The ACSA
supports an expansion of the review period, although they are not
in opposition to the concept of tenure. Co-Chair Bunde asked if
Mr. McPhetres has any knowledge of the history of the de novo
trial, and why it exists.
MR. McPHETRES did not.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Mr. McPhetres knew how many first and
second year teachers are not retained.
MR. McPHETRES did not have those figures.
Number 1197
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was any way to get that information.
Mr. McPhetres said yes, and said he would get that information for
Co-Chair Toohey. Co-Chair Toohey also asked if Mr. McPhetres would
object to having tenured teachers who have been laid off be first
hired back.
MR. McPHETRES said that was usually standard practice in school
districts. They all have policies that do allow for layoff
provisions. These policies cover re-hire. These issues are
usually already in existence in school policy.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if those issues were in law, and Mr. McPhetres
said no, they were not laid down in law. They are in policy.
Number 1226
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG drew comparisons between Mr. McPhetres'
description of a first year teacher and that chaotic experience,
and the experience of a first year representative. He also
facetiously asked if a legislator deserves tenure after two years.
MR. McPHETRES said a legislator serves at the pleasure of the
public.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG also asked what Mr. McPhetres meant by
"full funding."
MR. McPHETRES said ideally, full funding is a minimum of a $63,000
instructional unit value.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if that would be an increase in full
funding.
MR. McPHETRES said actually, that would allow for full funding,
because it gets the schools past the inflation-proofing, and what
districts would have this year or next year.
Number 1300
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that everyone has a different
definition of full funding.
MR. McPHETRES said that all the money will go to a very worthwhile
cause, which is children.
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked if there has ever been a
situation in which the teachers, parents, administrators and the
school board have created a task force to discuss these issues. It
seems like these issues are always the responsibility of the
legislature.
MR. McPHETRES said unfortunately, a lot of this is done through
negotiation processes. He recently attended a community meeting
where there were a lot of parents. The administration and the
school board were also there. Unfortunately, there were not
enough teachers present. Many of the issues spoken of today were
discussed. This did not happen, however, on a statewide level.
MR. McPHETRES does believe that these issues can be classified as
negotiable and non-negotiable through labor relations.
Number 1361
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON summarized that therefore, nothing has ever
happened on a statewide level where experts have met. Mr.
McPhetres indicated that such meetings have happened.
Number 1385
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President of the National Education Association
(NEA) Alaska, said she does not yet have a written response to this
bill. She will prepare something and present it to the HESS
Committee members. She said the bill does many things in terms of
employment issues for teachers.
MS. DOUGLAS said NEA does support tenure for teachers. NEA feels
that tenure protects academic freedom in the community, it gives
teachers an opportunity to impact knowledge and critical thinking
skills to children, it protects schools from becoming a place where
the spoils of bureaucracy are dumped, and it protects schools and
teachers from assaults by political pressure groups. There are
many more reasons to support tenure, and they will be included in
her prepared statement.
MS. DOUGLAS said in the last few years, when bills have been
introduced regarding Alaska 2000, there have been a few
opportunities for school boards, NEA Alaska, principals and the DOE
to meet and talk about increasing the tenure probationary period
from two to three years. This was worked on for a couple of years.
She felt that if the probationary period was extended by a third
year, there would be some guarantees on evaluations and procedures
for new teachers.
Number 1450
MS. DOUGLAS said unfortunately, there was no resolution concerning
what would happen during that extra probationary year. She has a
statement from rural educators that she will include in her report
to the HESS Committee members. The rural educators feel that one
of the reasons they have been very interested in keeping a two-year
tenure in rural Alaska is to increase stability in the schools and
the communities and to ensure that teachers will be allowed to stay
in a community long enough to develop an appreciation and awareness
of local culture. In many cases, that requires a minimum of two
years. Ms. Douglas does not feel that someone can move into a
small community and understand the culture immediately.
Number 1481
MS. DOUGLAS said that increasingly, Alaska Native students and
college graduates are being offered a wide range of career
opportunities. To attract them to teaching, they must be offered
some sort of security and an opportunity to be in a system where
job security exists. Native teachers need to have access to
positions anywhere in the state, and they need to be protected from
discriminatory personnel practices.
MS. DOUGLAS had many questions about the section of the bill
regarding layoff procedures. She asked how many nontenured
teachers are laid off every year, and if that number was increasing
significantly over the years. She is also concerned about the
statement in the bill that reads, "...to better the academic
program needs of the district." She wants to know exactly what
that statement means, and what the parameters of that would be in
the local school district. Does that mean keeping the hockey coach
because he is able to teach history as opposed to a kindergarten
class?
Number 1537
MS. DOUGLAS had questions about how long layoff provisions for
tenured teachers would last. In other words, would there be a time
limit set for the layoff period? In addition, would the first
person on the layoff list be the first person hired again?
MS. DOUGLAS asked who would verify claims of decreasing revenue.
She asked if there was going to be an agency that would verify
these claims. Right now, Ms. Douglas does not think there are any
bills that have been or are going to be introduced that are
decreasing the dollars to schools this year, or for next year.
Currently, she understands that there are no decreases in revenue.
She understands that the school districts are being held harmless.
She asked what "decrease in revenue" means, if it means a decrease
in the amount of money that is allotted per pupil. Ms. Douglas
said the bill evokes many issues and questions.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Ms. Douglas had a knowledge of the history
of the de novo trial.
Number 1590
MS. DOUGLAS said she did not know. But she would like to prepare
a statement concerning HB 217. She would like to work with school
boards. She understands there is a need in the state and there are
demands for change. But tenure has been something that has allowed
teachers to enter a classroom or community with a sense of openness
and academic freedom. However, it is not a lifetime guarantee of
employment. The people of Alaska do not want incompetent teachers
in the schools. What is needed are people who care about kids.
Number 1610
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how Ms. Douglas could say that it is not a
lifetime guaranteed position.
MS. DOUGLAS said it is not easy to fire a tenured teacher. In the
first two years, however, the school districts can nonretain a
nontenured teacher for just about any reason, unless something
different has been negotiated in the teacher's contract. According
to state law, there is no requirement for keeping those nontenured
teachers.
MS. DOUGLAS responded to Co-Chair Toohey's earlier question. If
the teacher is teaching something the school board does not approve
of, often school boards change through elections. Then, what the
teacher is teaching may be considered acceptable. Or, an
administration may have hired someone they thought was wonderful,
and new people arrive on the school board and the teacher may be
laid off. She or he now has a different philosophy from that of
the school board. That is not the intent of the bill, and that is
not why teachers should be laid off.
MS. DOUGLAS said if someone is incompetent, or if they are not
following district laws or the written laws of the superintendent,
a teacher can be laid off or nonretained.
Number 1666
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director of NEA Alaska, was asked by Co-
Chair Bunde to speak briefly on de novo or prepare a short written
statement on this subject.
MR. MARSHALL explained the entire tenure law must be put into a
context of time. The courts and the profession are determining a
lot about the tenure law through the court process. Mr. Marshall
said he would address three items in the tenure law: Failure to
follow the rules, incompetence and immorality. Case law is
developing definitions of immorality and incompetence. To change
the de novo trial now would, in a sense, sidetrack that process.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that a working group was being formed, and he
wanted to work with the state school board, the new school board
and the new superintendent to craft a bill that makes everyone
happy. Co-Chair Bunde wanted to know why Alaska has a de novo
trial for teachers when other state employees do not have this
privilege.
Number 1736
MR. MARSHALL said to keep in mind the three reasons he mentioned
for nonretainment. Both incompetence and immorality, if they are
proven, could lead to the revocation of a teacher's certificate.
Alaska has a Professional Teaching and Practices Commission (PTPC)
that functions to revoke licenses at the end of this process. So
the teacher who spends a minimum of four years preparing for a
certificate has a likelihood that their certificate will be
revoked.
MR. MARSHALL said because the whole process can result in the
revocation of a license, the question is, can a person get a fair,
unbiased hearing before a school board. Mr. Marshall said there
were many issues also involved in school board elections. To
resolve this issue, the de novo trial was introduced as a method to
deal with this. The court would then bring the nonretention
situation to a judge. The opportunity to present facts is
provided.
MR. MARSHALL said if the principal of the district charges a
teacher with incompetence, a teacher will try to bring in
professionals who can appear before an impartial judge to outline
where the teacher is competent or incompetent. The de novo trial
offers the opportunity for the facts of the case to be heard before
an impartial judge. The case is decided based on the facts that
are presented by the school district and the defense for the
teacher.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE left the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Number 1833
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that time will be needed for a work group to
meet and exchange ideas on this bill. He closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN commented that he would like to expand the
title of the bill to tighten it up. He is looking into a title
change.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE agreed that the title of the bill is quite broad.
He said that the bill would be studied by a subcommittee, to which
he will belong. He asked the DOE, the State Board of Education,
NEA Alaska, the school board representative, the representative
from the school administration and any other interested parties to
meet on the issues of the bill.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE still does not know why de novo is in place for
tenured teachers only, and not other state workers. He knows what
it does, but he does not know why it is there.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if Co-Chair Bunde was going to be the
only member in his subcommittee of one. He said he was going to
chair a subcommittee of one. She also asked if anyone who was
interested could join the subcommittee. Co-Chair Bunde said
everyone was welcome, and he wanted to make sure the invitation was
available to all members of the education community.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE recalled that he was a member of a two-year task
force on rewriting the teacher certification. It drew in people
from all aspects of education. He assured Representative Robinson
that there has been group discussion to solve wide-reaching
education problems.
HHES - 03/07/95
HB 215 - GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OF STUDENTS
Number 1933
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this bill is sponsored by the HESS Committee.
He said the bill was a housekeeping measure. Currently, statutory
language says a student can be suspended for being involved in
threatening behavior toward other students that affect the welfare,
safety and morals of other students. However, a loophole says that
other pupils have to be present to witness this behavior before the
child can be suspended. This bill will stipulate that if this
behavior that is hostile to the welfare, safety or morals of other
pupils occurs in the classroom where there is a teacher,
administrator or other school staff, there is cause for suspension.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said a really bizarre example of the consequences of
this loophole could be if a student threatened a principal with a
baseball bat and other students were not present, the student could
not be suspended.
Number 1995
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if a situation has occurred that
prompted HB 215.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the bill came to him by request. The request
noted that there is a loophole in which a student can exhibit
threatening behavior and not be subject to the law if there are not
students present. Co-Chair Bunde then asked for public testimony
on the bill.
MS. DOUGLAS presented a very short position paper to the HESS
Committee members. Earlier this year, there was a report of a
student that had been in a situation with the principal and had
threatened the principal with a weapon. Because no other students
were present, the school district was not able to suspend the
child. This has happened in a few other situations. This is a
glitch in the suspension law, and this is why HB 215 has been
introduced.
Number 2042
CO-CHAIR BUNDE added that he personally knows of teacher's aides
who have been harassed and abused. He feels these individuals
should fall under the purview of the law as well.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the situation appears to simply be a
glitch. As society evolves, he feels that many bills will be the
resolution of glitches in statutes. He requested that the HESS
Committee members move HB 215 from committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections, and the bill was
passed.
TAPE 95-16, SIDE A
Number 000
HHES - 03/07/95
HJR 17 - CONTROL & FUNDING OF PUB & PVT SCHOOLS
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY, sponsor of the resolution, said the
resolution was very simple. It deletes the last two sentences of
Article 7, Section 1, of the Alaska Constitution. The effect would
be to delete the restrictions on public funding to private schools
or to sectarian control schools. This would expand the scope of
options and authority available to the legislature in terms of
providing educational services to the students of Alaska.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for public testimony of HJR 17.
MS. DOUGLAS said that NEA Alaska is opposed to this deletion from
Section 1 of the State of Alaska Constitution. She needs to have
more information as to why this section is being deleted at this
time. At a time when diminishing funds and revenue loss is a
constant concern, this resolution seems like an opportunity to open
up public money for use by private schools and private situations.
However, right now money is not available to fund public schools.
MS. DOUGLAS said this resolution opens up a whole area that the
State of Alaska, as well as the United States Constitution has
tried to stay away from. This area is giving people the
opportunity to send their children to a private school to teach
their own belief system while using public dollars. Ms. Douglas
does not believe that public dollars should be used for these
programs. Therefore, at this time NEA Alaska opposes HJR 17.
Number 209
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was any other testimony on HJR 17.
There being none, public testimony was closed. Co-Chair Bunde
assured Ms. Douglas that he also has some concerns about the
separation of church and state regarding this funding.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the Kenai Peninsula Borough was involved
in the denial of a request to extend a school bus route.
Representative Davis tried to recall the situation. He remembered
that a district was asked to provide transportation to students of
a private school. That, in itself, was not a problem since the
children were located along the school bus route.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that in discussions with the school
district, there were several other ramifications that came up
should that busing be allowed. Representative Davis is concerned
about those ramifications, and he apologized for not having read
the sponsor statement and preparing a detailed statement. He does
know that some rather complex and expensive complications were
anticipated should the busing be allowed. Representative Davis did
know that there was a cost factor involved in such decisions.
Number 338
CO-CHAIR BUNDE understands that current state law allows private
school students to be picked up and transported on public school
buses as long as the bus does not go out of its way. The students
must be dropped off en route to the ultimate destination of the
bus.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE surmised that the reason the resolution was created
was the Fairbanks school district was running an entire separate
bus route to pick up private school students. That was disallowed
by the courts.
DUANE GUILEY, Director of School Finance, DOE, said the routes were
upheld by the Fairbanks court. That is the primary issue here.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said therefore, Fairbanks can run a separate route
for anther $500,000. He asked why the resolution was introduced if
this was the case.
Number 440
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative Vezey if the Fairbanks
judge upheld the right for the district to bus private school
students, was anyone presently appealing the case and could the
case reach the Alaska State Supreme Court for resolution without
HJR 17.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said in 1993 or 1994, the attorney general
made an Attorney General's Opinion that the state could not pay for
the busing of students to private schools. There is, on record, a
supreme court decision substantiating the Attorney General's
Opinion. The district court in Fairbanks ruled in favor of Monroe
High School in Monroe High School v. the State of Alaska. The
state decided not to appeal. Therefore, the appropriations are
still allowed. There is no question, however, that the supreme
court decision on the books does not allow this sort of expenditure
of public funds.
Number 524
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it would be better to simply leave
the Fairbanks situation alone and isolated in Fairbanks.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that would be a policy call that can be
discussed later. Co-Chair Bunde said this is a very basic question
concerning church, state and public funds. The Chair would rather
have Representative Rokeberg and Vezey sort out this issue among
themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there were not some other
discussions in the course of the last 12 months in the state about
the ability of students attending religiously affiliated schools to
attend public schools for certain science classes, etc. He asked
if HJR 17 would also have an impact on that issue. He also asked
Representative Vezey if HJR 17 would allow the legislature to fund
fully religious schools if it was the pleasure of the legislature
to do so.
Number 618
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said HJR 17 does not mandate anything. It
takes away a constitutional prohibition. With that prohibition
gone, responsibility is given to the legislature and the Governor
concerning how state funds are spent on education.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE was sure the $500,000 for transporting private
school students in Fairbanks could be found in the capital budget
Fairbanks is currently requesting for a new high school.
Number 676
CO-CHAIR BUNDE has some very serious questions about the
constitutionality of HJR 17. He announced that it was the will of
the Chair that the committee vote on the bill. He asked for the
will of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY motioned that HJR 17 be moved from the HESS
Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE objected, and a roll call vote was taken. Voting
"yes" on the passage were Representatives Vezey and Rokeberg.
Voting "no" were Representatives Davis, Robinson, Toohey and Bunde.
HJR 17 failed to pass the House HESS Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|