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