SENATE BILL NO. 285 "An Act relating to the power and duties of the Department of Education and Early Development for improving instructional practices in school districts; and providing for an effective date." Co-Chair Stedman addressed the intent to adopt the Committee Substitute, hear additional testimony, and move the bill out of Committee. Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT a committee substitute for SB 285, work draft 25-LS1522\K. Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion purposes. 9:23:13 AM Tim Lamkin, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, presented an overview of the Committee Substitute. He remarked that the changes establish criteria under which the department may intervene as necessary in a school district to improve instructional practices. The regulations must include (page 3, lines 15-25): (A)a notice provision that alerts the district of the deficiencies and the instructional practice changes proposed by the department; (B)an end date for departmental intervention after the district demonstrates three consecutive years of improvement consisting of not less than two percent increases in student proficiency on standards-based assessments in math, reading, and writing as provided in AS 14.03.123(f)(2)(A); and (C)a process for districts to petition the department for continuing or discontinuing the department's intervention. Mr. Lamkin mentioned an additional change on page 5, lines 1-3, that specifies the department to direct decisions to those with supervisory authority, not teachers. Page 5, line 6, in regard to withholding funds, has been changed to "redirect." Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, the work draft 25-LS1522\K was adopted. 9:26:04 AM Mr. Lamkin attributed this bill to the Moore vs. the State of Alaska case. The judge in that case determined that where schools were failing in math, reading, and writing the Legislature was failing its constitutional mandate to provide a meaningful opportunity to receive that education. The bill attempts to give the department further delegated authority to step in on behalf of the Legislature and provide guidance to those districts to meet their educational goals. Senator Elton thanked the bill sponsor who went out of his way to answer the previous concerns of the Committee. He asked Mr. Jeans if anything in this bill would allow the department to change a teacher's contract. 9:27:50 AM EDDY JEANS, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, replied that there is nothing in the bill that would allow the department to change a teacher's contract. The previously mentioned portion, page 5 lines 1-3, mentioned that this will only deal with supervisory personnel. Senator Olson questioned if there was adequate funding for the personnel who will intervene in the school districts. Mr. Jeans remarked that the intent is to redirect the instructional practices in reading, writing, and math to involve collaborative meetings with the teachers, using the state's online informative assessments, as well as leadership training in the school or district. The attached fiscal note provides for district coaches, not counselors. 9:29:58 AM Senator Olson asked for the department's plans for adding personnel when it is necessary for the intervention. Mr. Jeans replied that the department has not arrived at that level of intervention, but believed the department would work with the superintendent and the school board before making those decisions. Senator Thomas appreciated the additional information from the department. Co-Chair Stedman commented that this bill has been worked on by the department since the last committee meeting. 9:31:14 AM Senator Dyson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1: Page 4, after line 18, add new subparagraphs: (14) assure that all school board members (A) have adequate training defining the boards' Responsibilities, authority, and assistance resources: and (B) have ready access to legal, business, and accounting Consulting and guidance assistance. (15) assure that all school personnel and parents have access to Information about available education choices including, but not limited to (A) cyber schools; (B) home schools; (C) boarding schools; (D) charter schools; and (E) tutoring. (16) assure school personnel and parents know how to access the Choices set forth in (15) above. Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion purposes. Senator Dyson stressed the need for school boards to be empowered throughout the state. He remarked that school boards can often feel at the mercy of the school administration and may not understand their authority and responsibility. This amendment assures that school board members have the training to understand their responsibilities and authority. Senator Dyson believed in the importance of school boards having access to legal and accounting information. He specified that parents should know their choices and how to access them under No Child Left Behind. 9:35:32 AM Mr. Lamkin considered the amendment suggestions already on the books. He remarked that including these changes would broaden the intent of the bill. The intent is for the department to concentrate on the instructional practices in school districts. Mr. Jeans agreed that this bill was drafted very narrowly to address the issues raised in the Moore trial case. 9:37:12 AM Senator Olson asked Mr. Jeans if the department was in favor of this amendment. Mr. Jeans replied that the department was not in favor of this amendment. Senator Huggins inquired about the training the school board receives. 9:38:00 AM CARL ROSE, ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF ALASKA SCHOOL BOARDS, appreciated the concern of the amendment. He believed that the general population does not understand the function of the school or school boards. He stressed that school boards are elected but often work on a volunteer basis. Mr. Rose believed that Alaska school boards were well trained in their role to advocate for children in providing a quality education with the focus on student achievement through effective local governance. 9:40:25 AM Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Rose his opinion on the amendment. Mr. Rose believed that good training was already provided to the school boards. Senator Huggins proposed that training school boards were a larger issue than covered by this bill. The bill was only meant to deal with failing schools. Mr. Rose replied that school boards are trained but when school districts have been identified with problems, the association leadership and governance components would be happy to cooperate. Senator Elton considered the amendment a problem as it could be read that the legislature was trying to supplant the training role of the Association of School Boards and shifting the training to the Department of Education. He wondered if Mr. Rose might have the same concern. 9:42:43 AM Mr. Rose agreed it concerned him. He believed a large part of the association's responsibility is to fulfill the mission of training school boards. He thought the amendment could pass this role to the Department of Education. Senator Dyson agreed that most school board members are doing a good job, but questioned if they really understood their authority and training to confront a school administration who may not be doing a good job. He stressed that he wanted parents to have the training, information and tools to be in control of local education. Senator Dyson believed that some school boards are not doing their job and are often actively seduced by the school administration. 9:45:49 AM Senator Thomas referred to page 1, line 13, of the bill referring to "advisory and consultative services to all public school governing bodies and personnel." He believed this might answer some of the questions set forth in the amendment. Senator Huggins agreed with Senator Dyson about the suggestions reflected in the amendment, but believed all school boards should be involved, not just those in failing schools. 9:47:24 AM Senator Dyson believed it was clear in the amendment that it refers to all school boards. Co-Chair Stedman MAINTAINED his OBJECTION. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to ADOPT Amendment 1. IN FAVOR: Dyson OPPOSED: Stedman, Hoffman, Olson, Huggins, Elkins, Thomas The MOTION FAILED (1-6). Senator Dyson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2: Page 3, after line 11 add new subparagraph: (16) audit schools for compliance with AS 14.33.120,and provide a Report on the results to all parents of students in the respective schools. Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion purposes. 9:49:15 AM Senator Dyson reported that earlier legislation required every school to go through a process with parents giving them an opportunity to decide and direct the handling of school disciplinary and safety issues. The collaborative decisions would then become part of the school disciplinary and safety standard. Senator Dyson maintained that most schools ignore these decisions and very few are following the law. He wanted to make sure that parents know about this process. Senator Elton referenced a part of the bill - page 3, line 9 - that required the reporting of information regarding school disciplinary and safety programs. He commented that there was no need for this amendment. 9:51:43 AM Mr. Jeans answered that Senator Elton was correct that there is already a requirement for reporting the information to the department. The school boards are required to adopt a written school disciplinary and safety program and report any disciplinary action they took under their program to the Department of Education. Mr. Lamkin reiterated that this bill has been tightly drafted to address a particular situation and he does not think this amendment is relevant to the intent for the bill. 9:53:40 AM Senator Dyson requested an analysis from the department showing that parents have participated in the school's process for learning, disciplinary actions, or safety. Co-Chair Stedman requested the Department of Education look into Senator Dyson's questions and send the information to the Committee. Mr. Lamkin agreed to provide that information. Senator Dyson stressed that this amendment just calls for an audit and to make sure that parent's rights are protected under the law. Co-Chair Stedman MAINTAINED his OBJECTION. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to ADOPT Amendment 2. IN FAVOR: Dyson OPPOSED: Olsen, Thomas, Elton, Huggins, Stedman, Hoffman The MOTION FAILED (1-6). 9:55:58 AM Mr. Jeans referred to the fiscal note for $538,000 for the intervention between school districts and $25,000 for travel and supplies. AT EASE: 9:56:35 AM RECONVENED: 9:57:37 AM Co-Chair Stedman requested that Mr. Jeans explained the fiscal note to the operating budget. Mr. Jeans reported that in the department's operating budget there is a request in the House budget for $235,000 for school interventions, but it is not in the Senate operating budget. 9:58:40 AM NORMAN ECK, SUPERINTENDENT, NORTHWEST ARCTIC BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, testified in support of SB 285. He thanked the Committee for listening to the concerns voiced in his letter (March 7, 2008, copy on file). He recommended three additions to this bill for consideration: Page 3, Section 1, 16(C) "a process for districts to petition the department prior to the initiation, continuation, or discontinuation of a department intervention." The rationale will allow a district to appeal to the state board on the front end of intervention. Page 5, Section 2, 15(C) "School improvement grants shall be made available to the district or school under intervention when the district or school improvement plan requires additional service to support student achievement. Additional funds may be used for curricular materials and/or educational specialist (such as school psychologists, speech pathologist, community school liaisons, etc. as written in the district or school improvement plan)." The rationale is depending upon the size of district and/or schools in intervention, and number of students affected, this could be a grant ranging from $250,000 to $1,500,000 per district. For example, with 5 districts in intervention, these supplemental grants would total $5 to $6 million dollars, statewide total. Page 5, Section 2 15(D), "In districts where less than half the schools are the target of the intervention, the intervention should be focused on those schools, not the entire district." The rationale is, for example, if a large district such as Anchorage has several schools under intervention, the intervention activities should not disrupt the entire district or other well-performing schools in Anchorage. Mr. Eck thanked the Committee for their hard work and requested the above suggestions be adopted into the bill. 10:04:21 AM Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to REPORT CSSB 285(FIN) from Committee with individual recommendations, a Senate Finance Letter of Intent and an accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSSB 285(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation, a Senate Finance Letter of Intent, and an accompanying fiscal note by the Department of Education & Early Development. AT EASE: 10:05:46 AM RECONVENED: 1:09:52 PM