HB 256-REPEAL STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS  8:32:45 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." [Version X was before the committee.] 8:33:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 7, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 3, Line 18 to Page 4, Line 14: The regulations adopted under AS 14.07.020(a)(2)(A)-(H) must be for the improvement of instruction. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT noted the attached justification for the amendment, which read [original punctuation provided]: JUSTIFICATION: The intent of this section is to incorporate cultural standards, intensive early learning, community involvement, etc. into regulations which are promulgated for the improvement of instruction, not to require the department to incorporate these goals into every potential regulation. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion. 8:33:16 AM ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, explained that Conceptual Amendment 7 would address a concern the department had with language on page 3, lines 19-22 of proposed Section 4. She skimmed over portions of the language, including stating the department shall ... study the conditions and needs of the public schools of the state, adopt or recommend plans, administer and evaluate grants to improve school performance awarded under AS 14.03.125, and adopt regulations for the improvement of the public schools. She explained the department's concern is that every regulation would be subject to all of the requirements listed beginning on page 3, line 23. Conceptual Amendment 7 would require that the regulations adopted under AS 14.07.020 (a)(2)(A)-(H) must be for the improvement of instruction and would not apply to every regulation that the department might have to promulgate. 8:34:46 AM The committee took an at-ease from 8:34 a.m. to 8:35 a.m. 8:35:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether Conceptual Amendment 7 summarizes the language from page 3, line 18 through page 4, line 14. MS. KREITZER answered no; and explained the language is not replaced. She highlighted that regulations adopted for the statutes included on page 3, line 18 to page 4, line 14 must be for the improvement of instruction. She clarified that language is not being replaced, but noted that all of the things that must be included in the regulations must be applicable to improvement of instruction. She directed members' attention to page 3 line 21 and read, "... adopt regulations for the improvement of the public schools; ...." She explained that the change is to reflect the goal is not for the improvement of public schools but is for the improvement of instruction. 8:36:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON acknowledged he is confused. He asked whether any language is being deleted. MS. KREITZER answered no. She explained that Conceptual Amendment 7 would clarify that regulations the department must promulgate, including cultural standards and intensive early learning, are regulations for the improvement of instruction and not simply for improvement of the public schools. 8:37:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON clarified that Conceptual Amendment 7 is conceptual to allow the drafter to craft the appropriate language and clarify the intent. MS. KREITZER answered that is correct. She stated that the sponsor wanted to avoid unintended consequences by inserting language on page 3, line 22: "improvement of instruction." 8:38:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for a description of other improvements of instruction. MS. KREITZER deferred to the department. 8:38:54 AM MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), stated that the concern with the language was all regulations would need to incorporate all the functions required under proposed Section 4. He provided an example, such that a regulation could change for a counselor's certificate or the cut score on WorkKeys. Thus if the cut score was changed the department would need to address all of items listed [in the subparagraphs in proposed Section 4 (a) (2)] in its regulation. He was concerned that every regulation that changed anything having to do with education would need to be a page long since it would necessitate that the department must incorporate all of the functions listed in proposed Section 4. He offered his belief that was not the intent of the language. 8:39:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to the justification portion of Conceptual Amendment 7, which she understood is included for the bill drafter. COMMISSIONER HANLEY deferred to the drafter of the bill. MS. KREITZER answered that is correct. 8:40:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 7. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 7 was adopted. 8:40:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 8, which read, as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 6, Line 10: DELETE [two] AND Insert three Page 6, Line 15: DELETE [third] AND Insert fourth REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion. 8:41:13 AM MS. KREITZER explained that Conceptual Amendment 8 pertains to the amount of time a school or district would need to demonstrate consecutive years of improvement. The department had concerns related to reducing the time from three to two consecutive years. Additionally, Conceptual Amendment 8 reinserts three years of consecutive improvement and allows the district to choose to receive restoration services for a fourth year. She pointed out a typo in the proposed CS will be corrected in the work draft. CHAIR DICK indicated that the department had expressed concern that the district must be doing well before it was released from any intervention. He offered his belief that the department is providing a tremendous service and he envisioned school districts would want to receive the benefit. He emphasized this change was important to the commissioner. 8:42:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what help would be provided to school districts. CHAIR DICK recapped that year one allows evaluation by an expert to evaluate the school district with respect to the criteria described, including a student's preparedness to learn. The first year a coach for the superintendent would be selected by the superintendent and the department. Additionally, another coach would be selected by the school board and the department. He stated that in year two the superintendent could select his or her own coach without the department's involvement in the decision. The school board may also choose its own coach without the department's assistance. He outlined that if no improvement occurs, in year three a team effort would ensue. 8:44:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to page 6, line 13, and asked whether the two consecutive years of improvement should also be changed to three years. MS. KREITZER answered yes. 8:44:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 8 on page 6, line 13 to change "two" to "three." There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 8 was adopted. 8:45:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the coaches in these sections are the one week per month coaches initially anticipated or if that has changed. CHAIR DICK answered that he has wrestled with the question, but ultimately decided the superintendent and the department or the school board and the department could make the decision. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to the funding for the coaches. MS. KREITZER answered that judging by the fiscal note it would be paid for by the department. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether Conceptual Amendment 8 would significantly alter the fiscal note. MS. KREITZER answered that a section in the bill, which has been deleted, represents a $67,000 change. She stated that the fiscal note would not be significantly changed. 8:46:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON wondered if the school districts could require the department to provide coaches for the superintendent for professional development and to the school board for a fourth year. He suggested it seems like it would be a unilateral decision by the school district, especially if the school district chose to have full-time coaches. He just wanted to ensure that this bill would essentially not allow the district to have an assistant superintendent, a school counselor, or administrator paid for by the state instead of the coaches intended under the bill. He offered his support for improvements, but he wanted to make sure the committee understands the complexities. Furthermore, the bill needs to determine whether the coaches will be the current coaches and define the funding support. However, he cautioned that a full- time coach living in a rural district would represent a very different financial obligation than a professional development coach who would fly in on occasion to a district. He expressed concern the bill may leave the definitions so broad that it is not possible to determine the funding. 8:49:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that since the plan is now a four-year versus a three-year plan so some dates and other adjustments will need to be changed in the bill. She asked whether HB 256 should be revised to ensure all sections reflect the change to the fourth year. MS. KREITZER answered that currently a school district can petition the department to continue restoration activities. This bill allows a school district the choice to select restoration services for the fourth year. She related her understanding from discussions with the commissioner that continuing for a fourth year would be a decision between the department and the specific school district. 8:50:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for clarification of what occurs in the fourth year if no improvement in the school district has occurred in the first three years. CHAIR DICK related his understanding that the team - the superintendent, school board member, the four coaches, and a representative from the EED and the Board of Education - will develop a plan in the third year that will be implemented and evaluated. He offered his belief that it would take three years before the team could evaluate whether the plan is having a positive impact on the school district. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT related his understanding the plan would start after coaching for three years. CHAIR DICK clarified that the restoration would entail coaches for two years, and in year three the plan is implemented by the superintendent. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT restated that the restoration would entail a three-year plan. He asked whether the team would then formulate another plan. He questioned why the plan would not be started in the first year or earlier on in the process. CHAIR DICK offered his belief the restoration plan will work. He elaborated that rural school districts are isolated and people are sometimes too close to the problem to identify it. He suggested minimal intervention may be all that is required, such as if a superintendent was coached for five days at the beginning of the year. However, coaching for potentially five days four times a year may be all that is necessary. He suggested such assistance would be beneficial for the superintendent and the school board. He stated his intent is not to micromanage superintendents. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT highlighted the gravity of the situation since children will be affected. Thus some follow through may be necessary to ensure the children are positively affected during this process. 8:54:03 AM CHAIR DICK asked Representative P. Wilson to clarify an earlier suggestion for evaluation. 8:54:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 8, line 27 to sub- paragraph (iv), which read: development of a three-year plan by the team  established under (ii) of this subparagraph to restore  the school; during the three-year plan, the team may  redirect funding in the district budget to improve  instruction; the superintendent shall implement the  plan developed by the team; each year, at the end of  the school year, the team shall evaluate and adjust  the plan as the team determines necessary;    REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested additional language be included if a fourth year will be considered. She explained that would be for the protection of the school and to give the department guidance. She highlighted that the committee has been very careful thus far and she supported adding additional language for clarification. 8:55:42 AM CHAIR DICK considered the plan as a five-year plan, including two years of coaching, and in the third year a team would be brought in to develop an additional two-year plan. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned the reason to wait two years, which seemed to be too long of a time period. CHAIR DICK answered in part, due to the fiscal impact and additionally, that under NCLB it would amount to five years prior to any action being taken. 8:56:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE offered his belief that the coaches may identify the problem and resolve the issues in the first two years so there wouldn't be any need to go into the three-year plan. He reiterated the trigger for the additional restoration only happens if the coaching fails. He directed attention to page 6, line 19, to Representative Pruitt's point, that during instrument landings pilots believe it is a good idea to have a "missed approach procedure," which has been addressed by having the department to cover the eventuality. 8:58:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 8. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 8, as amended, was adopted. 8:58:45 AM COMMISSIONER HANLEY directed attention to page 4, which excludes the ability to appoint a trustee. He reminded the committee that under Moore v. State of Alaska the court clarified the role and responsibility to provide oversight and support for school districts; however, a trustee was not indicated. He related the decision required the state to provide more direct support for schools that are chronically underperforming. He reported that numerous steps could be taken, but currently the department is providing coaches and some technical support, as well as a trustee in one school district. He surmised this may very well address what the judge ruled in terms of direct support. He offered his belief that this bill - which is different than what the department is currently doing - holds the state and the department accountable and requires accountability for the school districts, as well. 9:00:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to language on page 8, line 29, which pertain to the development of a three-year restoration plan. He explained that one option included in that plan is the team may redirect funding in the district budget to improve instruction. He asked whether that would provide the same ability as has been available to the trustee. Further, he asked whether the team would have the same power and authority that the trustee had held. COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered yes, although he noted the power has not been given to the trustee since the authority rests with EED. The department would need to come before the legislature prior to an intervention to redirect funds. He confirmed that the provision would not change the department's existing authority. 9:01:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the department is comfortable with the team make-up described in Version X of HB 256. He further asked whether it would satisfy the requirements under Moore v. State of Alaska. COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that he did not believe the authority changes; however, the make-up of the team is different and outside influence and vision could be helpful. He indicated that in the case of schools that had been underperforming for years, the ruling applies specifically to the school district that "has been unwilling or unable" to make the corrections on their own. He emphasized the importance of having an outside person since an internal team would struggle to see the conditions they currently face. He reiterated before funds are redirected it would be necessary to come to the legislature to seek reappropriation. 9:03:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON highlighted that currently many coaches are not teachers in schools, but come from the ranks of retired teachers. She pointed out that Amendment 9 would require the coaches be selected by the superintendent and the local school board and will be from districts designated as high performance districts by the department. CHAIR DICK remarked that two issues are being discussed. He related his understanding that Amendment 9 speaks to the coach for the school board and not the superintendent. COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he did not fully understand how a coach as currently defined, which would require extensive time, would be able to be pulled from a high-performing district so it is difficult to have those two jobs. He was unsure how that would work. The committee took an at-ease from 9:05 a.m. to 9:07 a.m. 9:07:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 9, which read, as follows [original punctuation provided]: One coach from a high performance school district shall be selected by the local school board; REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT noted the attached justification for the amendment, which read [original punctuation provided]: JUSTIFICATION: The coach selected by the local school board in year 2, will be from a district designated as a high performance district by the department under AS 14.03.123. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion. 9:08:09 AM MS. KREITZER clarified that Conceptual Amendment 9 relates to the second year of restoration activities. She referred to page 8, line 4, and stated that the coaches would be selected by the superintendent, plus one coach would be selected by the local school board would be a coach from a high performance school district. 9:08:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that the coaches don't normally come from the school district, but usually come from retired teaching staff or superintendents who are trained and contracted to do the service. She cautioned that Conceptual Amendment 9 changes the current selection process and would create an added expense since new coaches would need to be trained. She characterized this as a significant difference in cost especially as more schools become out of compliance. It represents an unfunded mandate, and the committee needs to decide how this should be handled. She emphasized the importance of identifying funding and questioned whether the legislature is willing to increase funding to that level. She related her understanding the current coaches would not be used, but would come from a high-performance school district. 9:10:30 AM CHAIR DICK referred to page 9, lines 3-4, which indicates the funding for restoration would be subject to appropriation by the legislature. A coach could be chosen at will, but the language indicates the person must be of quality and must have expertise. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned whether a district would have a coach available or if a person could be spared from regular duties to coach. CHAIR DICK related his understanding that the school board only meets four times per year for three or four days each session. He related a scenario in which school board "A" wants to draw a coach from school district "D" - noting that district "D" has an effective school board - so school board "A" would take one of the school board members from school district "D" as a coach to help the school district. 9:12:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the coaches would be taken from the state board [of Education] or another school board. CHAIR DICK answered that it would be from another school board. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that all school boards meet each month. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for the department's response. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON restated the question for the benefit of the commissioner. She related her understanding that coaches are not necessarily working in a school, but are contracted out by the department to work as coaches. COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the department hires coaches - as resources allow - so the EED does not have coaches standing by who are not working. The only ones currently employed have tasks around the state. He anticipated that this provision would require an additional coach, which is reflected by the fiscal note. He was unsure about the availability of high- performance school district coaches. He related his understanding that the department would hire another coach for the restoration school districts by choosing from the pool of current employees in high-performance districts. 9:14:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it seemed that the coaches would be elected members of a local school board from a high-performing school district. He was unsure whether voluntary members that have been elected by a local region - who understand the local region and constituents - could be pulled from a place, such as Anchorage, to go to a single-site rural district to coach the school board to improve its function. He asked for further clarification as to whether the parameters he laid out are correct. CHAIR DICK responded that was his intent as the sponsor. He remarked that Norm Wooten from Kodiak is a good example. He coaches many school boards throughout the state. He related his goal was to have someone comparable to Mr. Wooten in a high- performance school district assist other school boards to help improve their performance. He offered to dismiss it and move on if the coach concept is too complicated. 9:16:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON acknowledged this provision intends to use a school board member as a coach in other school districts and would not envision using a teacher from the high-performance school district. CHAIR DICK related a scenario in which a coaching circumstance could happen. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that Conceptual Amendment 9 should stipulate that since the amendment indicates "one coach from a high performance school district shall be selected by the local school board;" however she understands that is not the sponsor's intent. 9:17:46 AM CHAIR DICK suggested an amendment to Conceptual Amendment 9 might indicate, "one coach from a functioning school board of a high performance school district shall be selected by the local school board." The intent would be to have a quality coach from a school district that is doing well to help the school board in a school district that needs restoration. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered that what may not have been originally captured is the concept that the coach would be a member of the elected school board. He suggested including the language would be helpful. 9:19:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 9, to read, "One coach who is a school board member from a high performance school district shall be selected by the local school board." There being no objection Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 9 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 9. There being no further objection Conceptual Amendment 9, as amended, was adopted. 9:20:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to original Conceptual Amendment 9 and offered to identify the amendment since two amendments were on the table titled "Conceptual Amendment 9." Conceptual Amendment 9, just adopted read, as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 8, Line 4: One coach from a high performance school district shall be selected by the local school board; The amendment had attached justification, which read [original punctuation provided]: JUSTIFICATION: The coach selected by the local school board in year 2, will be from a district designated as a high performance district by the department under AS 14.03.123. 9:21:22 AM CHAIR DICK, after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 256. 9:21:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to report the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 256, labeled 27-LS1171\X, Luckhaupt/Mischel, 2/27/12, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, the CSHB 256(EDC) was reported from the House Education Standing Committee. 9:22:05 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:22 a.m. to 9:24 a.m.