HB 256-REPEAL STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS  8:55:31 AM CHAIR DICK announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 256, "An Act repealing provisions relating to the power and duties of the Department of Education and Early Development to intervene in a school district to improve instructional practices." 8:55:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt a proposed committee substitute (CS) labeled 27-LS1117\X, Luckhaupt/Mischel, 2/27/12 as the working document. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion. 8:56:24 AM The committee took a brief at ease. 8:56:55 AM ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, explained the changes incorporated in Version X of HB 256. She referred to the first change on page 6, lines 12-15, which she said adds the language, " ... notwithstanding that a school or district has demonstrated two consecutive years of improvement, the district may, in its discretion, choose to receive restoration services for a third year." She explained that this language allows a school or district after two consecutive years of improvement to choose to maintain or continue restoration services. MS. KREITZER referred to page 6, line 30 through page 8, line 9, which was rewritten to reflect sponsor's intention of setting out year 1 and year 2 activities of the restoration. She explained that by August 15 in year one the district superintendent and Department of Education and Early Development's (EED) commissioner can select at least one independent expert. Additionally, the expert(s) will evaluate the school in the areas requested by September 15 of year one on implementation of the 1998 Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools. She related that by October 15 of year 1 the expert(s) are required to produce a written report and distribute it as well as post a summary on the Internet. MS. KREITZER stated that by November 15 of year 1 the superintendent and the department must select a qualified coach, and the local school board and the EED will select a qualified coach. These coaches will advise the district regarding the needs identified in the evaluation. She related that on June 1 of year 1 the district will provide to the department, parents, legislature and post on the Internet a summary of progress of these efforts and the observations and recommendations of the coaches. MS. KREITZER related that in year 2, not later than September 15, the superintendent and local school board are required to have a mandatory selection and hiring of two additional qualified coaches to advise the district. Additionally, by June 1, the district will provide to the department, parents, legislature and post on the Internet a summary of the progress of these efforts. MS. KREITZER referred to page 8, lines 10-11, and stated this was slightly rewritten. She then referred to page 8, lines 18- 21, which adds a member of the state Board of Education (BOE) and the four qualified coaches to the school improvement team selected under (A) and (B) of this paragraph, and one member of the local school board. She pointed out that concern was raised about having a legislative member on the team so the legislative member was deleted from the team. MS. KREITZER referred to page 8, lines 27-31 and page 9, lines 1-2. She related her understanding that there was concern about specifically what the team would be doing and how to ensure that some benefit comes out of that effort. Thus this provision adds a requirement that the school improvement team develop a three- year plan to restore the school. The team may redirect district funding to improve instruction. The superintendent must implement the team's plan. Finally, at the end of each school year, the team will evaluate and adjust the plan. She explained that this gets to the concern the committee had to ensure the separate components result in something more concrete and will provide continual checks and balances. MS. KREITZER referred to page 9, lines 3-4, which would add a new section requiring the department to request proposals from and provide grants - subject to appropriation - to schools or districts in restoration. She concluded that these are the changes to the proposed CS from Version E to Version X. 9:03:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related the coaches are provided from district funds. He inquired whether those are subject to legislative appropriation. He asked how the expenses will be covered. MS. KREITZER answered that it is implied that the department will pay for the coaches but it is not specified in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recommended clarifying how the coaches will be funded. 9:04:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no further objection, Version X was before the committee. 9:04:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 7, Line4: DELETE [student preparedness] Insert Preparedness of students to learn Page 8, Line26: DELETE [student wellnesss] Insert Preparedness of students to learn 9:04:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion. 9:05:11 AM MS. KREITZER explained Amendment 1. She referred to page 7, line 4, which she said goes to the areas that the independent expert would review. She explained that the bill drafter suggested the changes to better reflect the sponsor's intent. She explained that the same change is made on page 8, line 26 to student wellness, which was actually intended as the preparedness of students to learn. CHAIR DICK stated that his intention is to have the expert assess whether parents are sending students to school that are sleepy or are not ready to learn. 9:06:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 9:06:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 7, Lines 9-11: DELETE [1998 Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools, prepared by the Assembly of Alaska Native Educators;] Insert Alaska State Cultural Standards 9:07:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion. 9:07:11 AM MS. KREITZER explained Amendment 2. She stated that Amendment 2 corrects an error in the proposed CS, noting the bill drafter inadvertently inserted in the evaluation that experts shall evaluate the extent to which the districts have implemented the 1998 Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools, but it should have read the Alaska State Cultural Standards. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. 9:07:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Amendment 3, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 8, Line 5: Following "June 1, provide to the ..." Insert State Board of Education REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion. 9:08:06 AM MS. KREITZER explained Amendment 3. She referred to page 8, line 5, which relates to the second year report provided to the department, parents, and legislature on the summary of the progress of their efforts; however, the bill sponsor thought that at this point in time the state Board of Education should also receive a copy of that report to provide them with an update. 9:08:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted. 9:08:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 7, lines- 1-5, of sub- subparagraph (i), which read," ... selection by the  superintendent of the district and the commissioner of at least  one independent expert in the area of business services,...." She asked whether that language means the commissioner is going to provide an expert in business services, an expert on board governance, or will the commissioner pick out of this group one independent expert. 9:09:39 AM CHAIR DICK answered that the intent of this provision is to have the expert evaluate all of the specified areas. These address the concerns for areas that a district may be deficient such as the business office, the board, and other items outside the curriculum. He understood the question is if an expert's expertise is limited to one of those areas. He suggested it may need clarification. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed this sub-subparagraph needed clarification for the intent and what the expert will handle. She was unsure of the meaning of the term "human relations" noting it could mean the relationships of the kids to the teachers, the relationships of the board to the school, or the relationship of the administration. CHAIR DICK answered his intent was all of the above. He certainly welcomed any clarifying thought. 9:11:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to line 2, and suggested after expert, to delete "in" and insert "to evaluate" and on line 3 adding an "s" to area. The language would read, " ... the district and the commissioner of at least one independent expert to evaluate the areas of business services, board governance, leadership...." REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4. On line 2 delete "in" and insert "to evaluate" and on line 3, add an "s" to area. She said the language would read, "to evaluate the areas of business services, board governance, leadership, facilities...." 9:13:18 AM CHAIR DICK said he would also be willing to include administrative leadership since that would be the original intent. 9:13:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt a reworded Conceptual Amendment 4. She restated her motion for adopting Conceptual Amendment 4. She stated that on line 2, delete "in" and insert "to evaluate" and on line 3 add an "s" to "area" and after "governance," add "administrative". There being no further objection Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted. 9:14:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested defining human relations since the term is very broad. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT offered his belief there may be a common understanding of what the human relations is associated with, which would mean the relations between the teachers, the administrators, and the janitors. He related his understanding that human relations would be under the umbrella of the typical situation. REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested leaving the term in the CS. He related his understanding that it would be the selection by the superintendent of the district, the commissioner, and that this language would suffice and give them some latitude to decide. 9:16:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to have a future presentation by the department as to how it will be integrated and facilitated. 9:16:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented that the changes may help things since the district would have a clearer understanding of what to expect with the independent expert(s) and the department would have a better understanding of how to proceed. She thought this would help the goal of collaboration to happen automatically. 9:18:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked at what point would year one begin. He offered his belief the bill added some provisions to be proactive, but was unsure of when it takes place and under what conditions. 9:18:34 AM CHAIR DICK agreed he thought it was a little blurry, as well. 9:18:48 AM MS. KREITZER referred to page 6, line 29, to subparagraph (B), which read, "for the second school year after the designation of a school as a low-performing school...." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he was unsure at what point this provision would be applied, and whether it was during the adequate yearly progress (AYP) or the first year that a school misses the AYP. He was not certain if the low performance is targeted for the year one to start action. CHAIR DICK agreed, noting he had the same thought, but was willing to allow the department to define. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified he would like the department to explain the definition. He expressed concern that this could affect the fiscal impact by implementing restoration activities after the first year of low performance. 9:20:32 AM MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), explained that the department is focused on kids and wants to maintain the focus. He suggested HB 256 directs the department and districts when things are not going well and kids are not performing well. He remarked that the bill adds some positive aspects. He referred to page 2, line 14, which read "the number and percentage of, and the reasons for," which he thought was a good thought. He added that having exit surveys is a good idea, and one the department did a voluntary survey, but received zero responses, in fact, in one intervention district the teachers were instructed not to fill it out. He was unsure how to implement this without making it mandatory. He recalled Representative Seaton's concern was that the contract would somehow need to be affected to make that happen. He said that the department does want to do this. He commented that one possibility would be to make phone calls, but he has not had good results. 9:22:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether a requirement could be incorporated into the future contracts of the teachers' associations. COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the other side of that is to determine what empowers teachers to say, but both could provide powerful data. He asked whether the requirement would be for all districts and if districts could be encouraged to do so. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON cautioned against interviewing every teacher every year. They either stay or leave, but the committee is interested in the reasons teachers leave. He suggested the contract could contain a provision for an exit survey provided by the department. He suggested this could be done as a conceptual amendment. 9:24:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated it is difficult to get complete honesty so the information is not always accurate on an exit survey. She suggested that if the teacher leaves because the principal is lousy and so indicates it may affect the next job application as the teacher may get a poor recommendation. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that it would need to be handled by the department and not the district to segregate it from the district and superintendent. 9:25:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI agreed with having the department engaged to conduct exit surveys to provide more honest responses. He likened it to the private sector in which a person would not list a job, necessarily, if the boss didn't like them. 9:26:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed and interjected that teachers might feel free to express their concerns in the appropriate context. He offered his belief that if he left a job and had a bad experience he would probably [not] list it on future applications since it is unlikely the employer would give him a good recommendation. He thought it would give the teachers an opportunity to voice their concerns and supported the exit survey. 9:27:06 AM COMMISSIONER HANLEY suggested that phone calls have been made and some responses have been received. He stated that if districts were in a restorative process, the district could report the personnel who had left and the department could follow-up in-house. 9:27:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested adding contact information. COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the department has most of those records. 9:28:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that the information be confined to districts in restoration. He inquired as to whether it should apply to all teachers departing the schools. He suggested having a contractual agreement inserted for teachers upon exit to avoid problems by early detection and proactivity. CHAIR DICK expressed concern about the time left in the legislative session. 9:29:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT suggested that the education committee could put this forth. He favored having every district report so the department has good information. In response to Chair Dick, he agreed a committee bill would be a good idea. 9:30:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that the language requiring an exit survey would be included in the information for reporting to the legislature. He suggested doing a conceptual amendment that teachers will fill out an exit interview by the EED. 9:30:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 2, line 14, which read, "(8) the number and percentage of, and the reasons for, turnover in certificated personnel and superintendents." She added that (9) reads, "the number of teachers by district and by school...." She inquired as to whether that captures all the schools. 9:31:27 AM CHAIR DICK stated (9) relates to teachers who are teaching outside the teacher's area of endorsement. He suggested that would encompass more. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that it would apply to every school. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed Section 1 relates to the report provided by the department, which covers all of the schools. He related his understanding if the bill requires adding the reasons for departing on an exit survey that he did not see a provision in the bill to include the mechanism to do so unless an amendment is made to require a provision in future contracts that teachers must furnish the information when they depart. 9:32:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON thought he previously made a motion, but offered to do it again. He made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 5, on page 2, line 15, to add that future district contracts will be required to include a provision that teachers, certified personnel, and superintendents will complete an exit survey as designed by the Department of Education. 9:33:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said it may be duplicative since the Fairbanks and Anchorage school districts already complete surveys now. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether the Fairbanks and Anchorage school districts use an outside vendor. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI answered that it is internal. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT offered his belief that using the department would provide separation from the principal and people within their school since the department could obtain better information. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI agreed and fully advocates for the change. There being no further objection Conceptual Amendment 5 was adopted. CHAIR DICK recalled previous questions on funding. 9:35:03 AM COMMISSIONER HANLEY referred to page 4, lines 19-20, which read "(4), prescribe by regulation a minimum course of study for the public schools that includes elective and career and vocational  courses in addition to the core curricula;...." He offered his belief that this would alter the graduation requirements. He explained that the regulation for a minimum course of study determines what students need to graduate, which is currently 21 credits. The intent may not be to make that change, but the language essentially increases it to 22-23 units from 21. CHAIR DICK related his understanding that he worked with Charles Wolforth on this language. He did not think this should be included. COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he appreciates the focus on career technical education (CTE), but when it requires in addition to the minimum course of study that language refers to the graduation requirements. He suggested that may be a separate topic not intended by the bill's sponsor. CHAIR DICK asked Commissioner Hanley for a recommendation. COMMISSIONER HANLEY recalled a prior version of HB 256, in which part of the focus would be to ensure that CTE courses are being offered. He said he is resistant to change the graduation requirements. CHAIR DICK agreed. COMMISSIONER HANLEY suggested that in the midst of the evaluations and advisors that it should be included in their focus to incorporate cultural standards so as to focus on CTE. 9:37:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested deleting "that includes" and inserting "ensuring," which would help since the scholarship program allows for college courses, but many students would benefit from career and vocational courses. She offered her belief this language would help make sure the process is happening. She asked for committee input. CHAIR DICK entertained suggestions for an amendment. COMMISSIONER HANLEY cautioned against adding this to the minimum course of study unless the intent is to ensure that every student attends a CTE course. He pointed out that some students want to take the AP courses and then move on to college and not every student needs the CTE courses, but the opportunity should be available. 9:39:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT suggested after "that" to insert "could," which would be loose but would not require it. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON disagreed that each student must take the courses, but the flexible language makes certain it is available. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related that Section 4 says the department shall do a number of things, including in paragraph (4), "prescribe by regulation a minimum course of study...." He offered his belief that establishes the minimum graduation requirements. He suggested that CTE be separated and not put into the prescribed minimum requirement section. CHAIR DICK suggested taking the issues of the department out of committee for discussion between his office and the commissioner. 9:41:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT suggested striking the language in paragraph (4)," ... that includes elective and career and  vocational courses in addition to core curricula;...." He was unsure he was willing to move out a bill to address one issue and potentially create a whole different issue. He did not want to see that kind of collateral damage. 9:41:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that the questions being addressed are policy decisions and she asked for the committee to remain involved in the process. She acknowledged that the committee may want some things the commissioner does not want. [HB 256 was held over.]