HB 138-LAYOFF NOTICES FOR TENURED TEACHERS  8:02:12 AM CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 138, "An Act extending the annual deadline by which employers are required to deliver layoff or nonretention notices to employees who are tenured teachers." 8:02:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE SHELLEY HUGHES, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor, presented HB 138. She explained that HB 138 pertains to a change in the nonretention date by which school districts must notify tenured teachers of layoffs. Under existing law, school districts are required to issue notices of nonretention for tenured teachers by March 15 if a district believes it may have to lay off a tenured teacher for the subsequent school year. Currently, school districts issue nonretention notice, known as "pink slips" at a time when the school districts generally don't know the level of funding the districts will receive from the legislature. In fact, the final funding is unknown until after the end of the legislative session and the governor's approval of the operating budget. This bill would change the date of nonretention notices from March 15 to May 15. This would result in less work and administrative costs to school districts she said. Currently nonretention notice has been issued based on estimates, and ironically they are issued at a time when the school districts should be looking for efficiencies. This bill could reduce the loss of good teachers who may take other jobs after receiving "pink slips" even though "pink slips" may ultimately be withdrawn by the school districts. REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES turned to the aspects that affect teachers and may affect children's education. She said issuance of "pink slips" may cause unnecessary tension between the teachers and the school district's administration, as well as creating stress for teachers and their families. She characterized the effect of potentially losing one's job as being very unsettling. She suggested the practice is disruptive for students since even the best teachers could become distracted when they receive "pink slips." She described observations from the experiences of having had four children attend public schools. Some people may express concern that this may adversely affect teachers since job fairs are held in April; however, this bill would not prevent teachers from attending job fairs. Additionally, she pointed out other school district employees, whether non-tenured teachers or classified employees, are not notified of potential nonretention by March 15. Certainly, this bill could level the playing field, she said. REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES summarized that HB 138 would address a long-time issue, the "pink slip" issue, by moving the date of issuance of notices of nonretention from March 15 to May 15, which will give school districts the necessary time to make important staffing decisions without causing undue stress and harm to teachers, schools, and without disrupting the learning environment for students. 8:07:04 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his understanding that non-tenured teachers are the ones notified by "pink slips" since it is unlikely enrollment would be reduced to the extent that it would be necessary to layoff tenured teachers. He acknowledged that this bill only addresses tenured teachers; however it doesn't prevent school districts from notifying non-tenured teachers. He asked for further clarification on whether this issue will affect tenured teachers or if issuing "pink slips" to non- tenured teachers has been more of an issue for school districts. REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES answered that HB 138 would only address layoff notices to tenured teachers. She offered her belief that by waiting until May 15 it is likely that the school districts delay issuing "pink slips" to non-tenured teachers; however, this bill would not prevent school districts from also issuing layoff notices to non-tenured teachers. 8:08:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether HB 138 would allow school districts to wait to issue "pink slips" to non-tenured teachers or if the statute does not apply to them. REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES answered the bill does not apply to non- tenured teachers. She surmised that since the school districts will not have a March 15 deadline to make staffing decisions, it is not likely they will issue "pink slips" to non-tenured teachers in March either. 8:09:26 AM GINGER BLAISDELL, Staff, Representative Shelley Hughes, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, explained the statute currently states that teachers who have acquired tenure rights who will not be retained in the following school year would be notified in writing by March 16. She explained non- tenured teachers who will not be retained must be notified of the layoff on or before the last day of the school year. Thus, the non-tenured teachers could receive the layoff notice any day prior to the last day of the school year. 8:10:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether there has been any resistance to HB 138. She noted members' packets contain letters of support from the North Slope Borough and the Anchorage School District. REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES answered that no opposition has been voiced. CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony on HB 138. 8:11:13 AM KATHERINE GARDNER, Director, Human Resources and Labor Relations, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District (MSBSD), offered support for HB 138. She said that decisions regarding staff retention are not taken lightly. In fact, the MSBSD highly values the work and dedication of all its teachers who serve students on a daily basis. It is largely for this reason that the MSBSD is so supportive of HB 138. She said the current statutes require that the MSBSD provide notice not only of "pink slips" for layoffs, but also notice of nonretention for other reasons. The deadline for giving notice to tenured teachers by March 16 of each year has presented problems. As previously mentioned, the school district's financial situation is not known by March 16 since the legislature is in still in session and the local funding is also unknown in mid-March. MS. GARDNER said that the next year's school district budget is built on assumptions, projections, and predictions. She said that to make a final determination on staff expenses, which can represent 80-90 percent of the total expenditures, without knowing the revenue allocation is not good fiscal policy. On the one hand, the MSBSD risks retaining a workforce that cannot be sustained if revenues fall short of the estimates and on the other hand, the MSBSD risks a potentially disruptive environment could be created when layoff notices are provided as early as March 16. MS. GARDNER said that issuing the notices of nonretention or reducing staff can be detrimental if made unnecessarily. Unfortunately, the MSBSD must provide layoff notices two months before the school year finishes regardless of whether the reason is to reduce the workforce or is due to poor teacher performance. Issuing the notices so early creates a delicate problem for school administrators. She emphasized the MSBSD's priority is to ensure a healthy, productive, and engaging learning environment for each student and the potential effects of discussing layoffs is problematic and not conducive to the MSBSD's mission to provide a quality education. Finally, the administrative burden of issuing layoff notices is significant. A number of requirements must be followed even when teachers who received "pink slip" in March are brought back from layoff status in the fall. Thus the teachers and the school district suffer, she said. She said she appreciated the committee's consideration and concluded with her strong support for HB 138. 8:14:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for the MSBSD's policy on issuing "pink slips" for non-tenured teachers. MS. GARDNER said the MSBSD has had to issue notices to non- tenured teachers; however, in the past two years the MSBSD has not qualified to reduce its workforce per statute so the district has not submitted layoff notices to any tenured teachers. However, she noted some teachers have received nonretention letters for other reasons. 8:15:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood the reason the MSBSD has not issued "pink slips" to non-tenured teachers is due to the population growth in the MSBSD. MS. GARDNER answered that is correct. While the MSBSD has issued some notices to non-tenured teachers due to budget deficits, the school district has not had any reduction in enrollment nor has the school district's basic need been reduced by 3 percent, which are the only two criteria the MSBSD would have to issue notices of layoff to tenured teachers. 8:16:46 AM JOHN ALCANTRA, Lobbyist, National Education Association, Alaska (NEA-Alaska), stated he provides government relations for the 13,000 NEA-Alaska members. Additionally, he is speaking as a parent of four children in Palmer in the MSBSD. He said the association has not taken an official position on HB 138 since the bill was introduced after the NEA-Alaska January assembly meeting. At the NEA assembly meeting, 400 delegates elected by their peers reviewed approximately 200 new legislative business items in about 48 hours at the assembly. He characterized the assembly meeting as the "legislature on steroids." He applauded the sponsor's efforts to improve the situation. He noted the last day of school is May 23; however, several school districts, including the Lower Kuskokwim School District and other rural school districts complete their school year prior to the May 15th deadline in the bill, which may pose a potential problem for some school districts. For example, a school district could let out May 6 after offering teacher contracts, but something could arise by May 15 that would affect their decision. While he is not testifying in opposition to the bill since it makes sense, he expressed concern that some school districts don't know their budget situation by March 16. He recalled that of the 8,500 to 9,000 teachers in the state, about 1,500 to 2,000 are non-tenured teachers. He surmised the date in HB 138 works for urban districts, although he maintained his concern about how it would affect rural school districts. 8:19:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her belief that HB 138 would not prevent rural districts from issuing early notification, since the bill requires notification by May 15 at the latest. Thus the rural school districts would still have flexibility to apply the policy within their district. MR. ALCANTRA responded that this sets his mind at ease since is familiar with Representative Drummond's school board experience. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she appreciated his comments, noting the [nonretention] process is unpleasant. 8:20:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how many years it takes for teachers to qualify for tenure. MR. ALCANTRA answered that that teachers obtain tenure on the first day of their fourth year of teaching. He suggested that the number of non-tenured teachers is probably closer to 2,000. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how many tenured teachers are in the state. MR. ALCANTRA answered that the remaining workforce would be tenured teachers, which would be about 6,500 teachers. He restated that teachers reach tenure on the first day of their fourth year of teaching. 8:21:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated the statute clearly states the layoff notice date of May 15 or prior to that date so nothing will preclude the school districts if [the school district lets out earlier.] 8:22:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that teachers received tenure after three years. MR. ALCANTRA responded that teachers must start the first day of the fourth year of teaching. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether a teacher who has worked for three years could receive a "pink slip" [on the last day of the school year]. MR. ALCANTRA answered yes. In further response to Representative Wilson, Mr. Alcantra explained that the potential of teachers receiving nonretention notices at the end of the third year has been a major concern. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON understood the NEA "goes to bat" for teachers. She asked for clarification on whether the NEA would help a teacher who is given a "pink slip" on the last day of the school year. MR. ALCANTRA assured the committee that NEA-Alaska represents all teachers. He reiterated that a teacher who has worked for three years could receive a "pink slip" on the last day of the school year. 8:24:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether expensive recruiting efforts are attracting highly-qualified teachers. MR. ALCANTRA recalled two years ago the recruitment cost averaged about $12,000 per teacher, with about 700 teachers recruited each year. He was unsure if that figure has changed, but assumed it had gone up; however, using that rate if school districts recruited 500 teachers it would cost $6 million costs. He deferred to the school districts to answer whether recruitment brings in better quality teachers. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether the "pink slips" are based on seniority or if the decisions are also based on skill levels. MR. ALCANTRA said he did not believe the decisions were based solely on seniority. Speaking as a parent, he added that has observed that the MSBSC has documented that class sizes have increased from 25.2 to 30.2 students per class. He stated that the school districts need math, science, and special education teachers so an elementary teacher would not be asked to teach advanced math at Palmer High School. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked again for the criteria used for issuance of nonretention "pink slips." CHAIR GATTIS pointed out the NEA-Alaska does not issue "pink slips"; instead, the school districts issue them. 8:28:27 AM MS. GARDNER responded that the layoff or "pink slips" are issued based on seniority. She elaborated that the layoff notices are issued in order of seniority, largely due to the collective bargaining agreement. She stated that aside ensuring minimum qualifications the MSBSD does not review other criteria, such as student test scores or recent evaluations that may indicate a teacher's performance. She acknowledged that this is probably not the best practice; however, the practice is objective, even if it doesn't always mean the right teachers are retained in the right areas. In fact, she did not believe it does this. Additionally, some very significant restrictions in AS 14.21.77, limit the school district in terms of considering non-tenured teachers ahead of tenured teachers. In fact, the MSBSD would need to layoff all non-tenured teachers prior to considering nonretention of any tenured teacher, which may not benefit student learning, she said. 8:30:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD expressed concern over the expenditures for recruitment with subsequent layoff actions taking place. She asked for the average number of layoffs issued each year. She wondered if there might be a better practice than spending $6 million in recruitment only to layoff other teachers. MS. GARDNER answered that the figures quoted do not necessarily represent what the MSBSD spends on retention since some layoffs occur in areas with too many teacher. Much of the recruitment effort is spent on special education teachers, occupational therapists, and speech pathologists, which are areas that are difficult to fill. Thus the layoff notices may occur in other areas in which the school district has too many staff. She reiterated there is a difference between where the MSBSD's recruitment funds are being spent and where the layoffs are happening. 8:32:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether teachers with three years of experience who receive "pink slips" could apply their experience towards tenure in a new school district or if they will be required to begin again at ground zero. MS. GARDNER responded that the track to tenure would begin again in the new school district. However, when a teacher obtains tenure, the experience is transferrable to a particular level. From a school district's perspective, it is important that tenure be handled in this manner since it would be an administrative burden to the school districts to track non- tenured time, she said. 8:34:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood all non-tenured teachers would need to be laid off prior to a tenured teacher being laid-off. However, he further understood it is possible to remove a tenured teacher for cause. MS. GARDNER answered that is correct. CHAIR GATTIS, after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 138. 8:35:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to report HB 138 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 138 was reported from the House Education Standing Committee.