HB 253-SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY AND SAFETY PROGRAM  REPRESENTATIVE DYSON, sponsor of HB 253, gave the following testimony. Five years ago, he was working in a village in the Interior and asked the principal if many children in the school were victims of sexual abuse. The principal said of course, and told him she reported a young boy as a victim three years ago; now the boy is assaulting other children. She was not able to do anything about it because the last teacher who reported it was out of a job in six hours. Another upsetting incident occurred when a friend of his with a double Ph.D. in education visited a high school in Western Alaska and was stunned to hear students address teachers using the "f" word on the average of four times per hour. When she asked why the teachers put up with it, she was told the administration would not back them up and they were close to retirement. In yet another incident, a teacher turned a student over to the principal after the student terrorized a first period class with a mock handgun. The teacher protested when the student arrived at the second period class. Her car tires were slashed and the windows in her home were broken. She left town as the State Troopers could not guarantee her safety. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said when he began working on this issue, he was frustrated with districts and administrations that would not back up teachers who were doing the right thing. HB 253 asks school districts to go through some process to get input from the communities to determine a district policy regarding behavior and safety standards. He believes the Anchorage School District is doing an excellent job and needs to do nothing different except ask for input from the local PTAs. He believes the same is true of Fairbanks. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON explained that finally, HB 253 says that an administration or school board that penalizes a teacher who does the right thing in the right way could be found guilty of a violation. The bill originally set the penalty as a class B misdemeanor but after school boards and administrators protested, the penalty was reduced to a violation. He noted that Representative Kerttula suggested amending the bill so that before a school board could be charged, the school board would have to intentionally punish the teacher, rather than knowingly punish the teacher. He offered to answer questions. CHAIRMAN MILLER announced that Senator Pearce had arrived. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON added that his school district's only objection is having to go through the effort of soliciting input from individual schools. He believes that with the base of what the district has already done, that will be a minimal problem. CHAIRMAN MILLER took public testimony. Number 874 MS. DEE HUBBARD, an Anchorage resident, expressed her concerns as follows. First, the bill contains no due process for students so students have no recourse when a teacher is abusive. She has watched teachers goad students into misbehavior and then nail them. Standardization of policies is a good idea but Anchorage has a district policy on discipline, a school policy on discipline, and individual classroom teacher policies on discipline. Some freshmen said it took them about three to four months to learn all of the rules. She feels if standardization is the goal, the bill should specify that the district policy is the one to be adopted and followed. MS. HUBBARD asked whether a district can be penalized if it adopts a plan but does not implement it. She recounted that a Fairbanks school has a crime stoppers-type program. She knew a student who was the subject of a phone call report to that program. His car, locker and clothing were searched, as well as those of the two students he drove to school. He was accused of drug-related activities and asked her what to do. She suggested he listen to the tape but he was told the tape is erased every day. The phone call was made to crime stoppers as a retaliatory measure because this student had dated another student's girlfriend. No drugs were involved. She asked committee members to consider the students also. She noted that the PTA has not always had the answers. Number 1111 SENATOR ELTON thanked Ms. Hubbard for coming to Juneau to testify. He noted that the process established in HB 253 essentially codifies standards so it should be of benefit not only to teachers but also to students because they would know the rules from the start. He thought HB 253 may also be helpful to students because it may eliminate the ad hoc responses that Ms. Hubbard referred to. MS. HUBBARD agreed and said she was asking that if the discipline policy is going to be standardized, that the bill not allow classroom teachers or safety officers, etcetera, to add more to the policy. She has always maintained that in the Anchorage School District's Students Rights and Responsibilities document, the only right a student has is the right to breathe. Number 1218 MS. DEBBIE OSEANDER told committee members she has children in the Anchorage public school system, has been an active volunteer in that system for 15 years and is currently a school board member. She expressed the following concerns about HB 253. Her first priority is school safety and school discipline because teachers cannot teach effectively or improve student achievement unless both staff and students are totally secure in their environment. Currently, the system for maintaining that atmosphere is layered. The teacher has responsibilities but the teacher is backed by the administration in each school and the administration is backed at the district wide administrative level. Beyond that, the school board sets discipline policies that are further elaborated at each specific site. MS. OSEANDER agreed with Ms. Hubbard that HB 253 raises questions about due process. The layering system currently in place in the Anchorage School District allows others to look at a problem and offer a different perspective. It also allows a family who feels it has been unjustly treated to appeal to the next layer to express its concerns. The right to expel a child from the academic classroom is the most serious sanction available to schools. If a family feels unfairly treated, it needs to be able to appeal to the principal. If that is not satisfactory, the family needs the right to appeal to the administration and then to the school board, if necessary. The Anchorage school board regularly holds such hearings and routinely supports its teachers in maintaining the security of the buildings. MS. OSEANDER said the second area of concern is how HB 253 intersects with a district's ability to discipline a teacher if necessary and that the legislative body of a school district could be sanctioned for behavior that is many steps removed from that body's responsibilities. MS. KATHY GILLEPSIE, legislative co-chair of the Anchorage School Board, stated the Anchorage School Board cannot support HB 253 as written. The Board believes passage of this measure will make its job to implement a consistent disciplinary program in a fair and equitable manner throughout Anchorage schools difficult. She agrees with Ms. Oseander's testimony and she informed committee members that she provided committee members copies of proposed amendments to make the bill more acceptable. CHAIRMAN MILLER asked Ms. Gillespie to address the Anchorage School Board's proposed amendments. MS. GILLESPIE stated Amendment 1 is on page 1, line 13, and deletes the words "understand and accepted." She explained that to implement school discipline, the school board goes through a public process, takes into consideration staff input, and adopts a student's rights and responsibilities plan at a district wide level. Those rights and responsibilities apply to all students and can be changed to fit each school and classroom. The problem with the words "understand and accepted" is that the school board goes through a public process to adopt the school rules and notify the students of the rules. If the students break the rules, they are held accountable whether or not they understand and accept them. She noted if that language is retained in the bill, a student's lawyer will argue during an expulsion hearing that the student did not understand and accept the rules. MS. GILLESPIE said Amendment 2, on page 2 lines 13-14, would delete the phrase "by each school district." The school board has a process for putting forward district wide the community's standards for school discipline. Some Anchorage schools have a transient rate as high as 80 percent in any given year. It is critical that the rules be consistent throughout the school district. She pointed out that many of the students with the most severe discipline problems are the students who are transient within the Anchorage School District. Regarding the discussion about codifying rules, she believes this bill will have the opposite effect. It would require Anchorage's 87 schools to develop their own rules and make them fit the district's standard. Right now, the rules regarding the major issues in Anchorage are codified; they may differ in regard to such things as a teacher allowing students to chew gum in a classroom. MS. GILLESPIE described Amendment 3, on page 3, line 6, as addressing the Anchorage School Board's concern about being unable to punish a teacher for lawful enforcement of an approved school disciplinary and safety program. "Punished" is an ambiguous word. Sometimes teachers are forced to teach difficult students whom they do not want. She questioned whether a teacher could consider being assigned a difficult student to be punishment under HB 253. MS. GILLESPIE stated Amendment 4 is on page 3, lines 14 through 16, and deletes the phrase, "observes a student committing a crime shall report the crime to the local law enforcement agency". The Anchorage School District has a chain of command in which the teacher reports incidents to the principal and then either the teacher or the principal can call the police. The school board is ultimately responsible and liable for making sure that all crimes are dealt with so the chain of command is important. MS. GILLESPIE noted Amendment 5 is on page 3, lines 17 through 21, and addresses violations given to school board members if school board policy is upheld in classrooms. She noted Carl Rose will speak to this issue but she explained that the implications of this section of the bill are far reaching. The Anchorage School Board has no idea who will issue the violation and it does not know how school board members would appeal a violation. In addition, how can she, as one member, be held accountable and liable for a decision that she perhaps disagreed with that was made by other members of the body. MS. GILLESPIE noted Amendment 6, on page 3, line 29, would insert after "AS 14.33.120" the words, "as long as the employee is acting within the scope of assigned duties and responsibilities." She explained if a teacher is enforcing rules within his or her scope of responsibilities, that is fine, but if the teacher is now enforcing rules and policies outside the scope of the job, the school board would have concerns. In conclusion, MS. GILLESPIE said the good parts of this bill are already in state law. Other parts of the bill will make it much more difficult for the Anchorage School Board to enforce and maintain discipline in the Anchorage schools. She understands everyone supports school safety but she asked committee members to look at the unintended consequences of HB 253. She believes it will have the opposite effect of the sponsor's intent. Number 1780 SENATOR ELTON referred to Amendment 4 and told Ms. Gillespie that nothing in the bill prohibits the local school board from requiring that a chain of command be followed when reporting crimes. MS. GILLESPIE replied the school board could make staff accountable for doing both. When she spoke to Carol Comeau, the district superintendent, about this issue, Ms. Comeau interpreted it to mean a teacher would be required to report a crime to a law enforcement agency when the teacher observed it, which could be after school. Ms. Comeau's other concern was whether a teacher will be asked to testify if that teacher reports a crime. She repeated the Anchorage School District already has a process in place so, if a teacher feels that a crime has been committed in the classroom, the teacher can directly call the police. This bill broadens the scope of teachers' responsibilities. Number 1841 MR. CARL ROSE, Executive Director of the Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB), noted he submitted a written survey to the committee on April 13 that contained four points. First, under 4 AAC 07.010, school boards are required to do many of the things incorporated in HB 253. Second, regarding the issue of community involvement, AASB advocates for children to the degree that it established a community engagement project through its Building Assets program for the purpose of helping children get what they need to succeed. AASB already does many of these things, and more. The survey shows that many school districts are already in compliance with many of the provisions in HB 253. Regarding the penalty of a violation, AASB is concerned about termination. When HB 465 was debated several years ago, the evaluation process and the establishment of areas and plans of improvement were discussed. The idea was to improve the quality of education to address performance, accountability and fairness. If schools were not successful with the plan of improvement, termination would be expedient. Schools were given choices. A formal non- retention could occur in which the record would be used, or the teacher could file a grievance. In either case, the issue of termination would be expedient. MR. ROSE pointed out when he looks at the issue of termination in HB 253, if any teacher decided to discipline a child and was later targeted for termination, the teacher might consider the disciplinary action he or she took to be the reason for termination and it would be incumbent upon the school district to prove otherwise. Second, the word "punishment" is too ambiguous and could include a letter in one's personnel file. Third, the word "lawfully" should not be used in the bill because a teacher could be incompetent or engage in unethical behavior yet be acting legally. Fourth, regarding the issue of charging a member of a legislative body with a violation, principles have been established regarding immunity for public officials which this bill moves away from. The chilling effect of that provision could be that people will not want to volunteer for public service. In conclusion, he stated that high profile examples were used to demonstrate the need for this bill and he cannot validate that any of those incidents occurred. He said, however, the Hydaburg school board took stringent steps when it put a superintendent on administrative leave with pay pending an investigation. That superintendent is no longer employed by the Hydaburg school district demonstrating that the system righted itself. He noted he respectfully disagrees with the assertions made that school boards persecute their employees. MR. ROSE repeated that most provisions in the bill are already addressed through regulations and that school boards exceed in the areas of public engagement regarding safety, discipline, and community support of schools. HB 253 goes farther than necessary and may not reach its intended goal. Number 2087 MR. JOHN CYR, President of the National Education Association - Alaska (NEAA), said he is always amazed when he asks a legislator to introduce a bill that he believes is relatively simple and will make schools a better place and invite community discussion - only to hear an uproar. He pointed out that HB 253 does not allow abusive teachers to continue to be abusive; it does not allow corporal punishment; and it does not take power away from school boards to develop plans of improvement for teachers who are acting improperly. He noted, as Mr. Rose said, HB 465 created a process to implement teacher plans of improvement not only for disciplinary styles but for any inappropriate teacher classroom behavior. HB 253 does not allow teachers to expel students for no reason. MR. CYR asserted that HB 253 talks about the implementation of community based standards of school behavior. It asks school boards to put in place a process by which communities can come together and discuss the kind of discipline they want, how they want students to be treated, and how they want students to treat other children and adults in the school. NEAA believes that process is critical. While he appreciates the fact that the Anchorage School District has put that process into place, this bill is about the entire State and school districts throughout the State have problems with school discipline. Until communities are engaged in this discussion, school districts will have an overlay of rules enforced by some entity. HB 253 asks communities to have that discussion. MR. CYR maintained that HB 253 does not take power away from school boards. Section 14.33.120 of the bill says that each governing body shall adopt a written school disciplinary and safety program. The governing body refers to the school board. The bill then goes on to lay out some of the standards that should be included. During his 25 years as a classroom teacher in Alaska, he always assumed he had the right to remove a student if that student was causing a disruption in the learning of other children or if the student presented a safety problem. HB 253 puts that kind of action in writing for a community to review so that everyone understands how it should work. He believes that is positive. MR. CYR referred to Section 5 of HB 253 and read, "policies must comply with provisions of federal and state law including 20 USC 1400-1485, the Individual with Disabilities Act." He stated he sees nothing in the bill that removes due process for students; instead HB 253 clarifies it. If school boards create a process that sets up standards that remove the due process rights of students, the school boards will be challenged in a heartbeat. He said he is aware of case after case in which, for example, a school board member refused to allow his or her child to be disciplined because that child applied for a scholarship even though the child was drinking on the bus. He noted the effect of those incidents is more damaging to education than anything else. HB 253 looks at a way to preempt that and level the playing field so that the entire community understands the rules. MR. CYR said teachers who observe a crime are already expected to report a crime to the local law enforcement agency. Teachers have a duty to report child abuse. If the teacher reports to the principal and the principal takes no action, the teacher is charged. NEAA thinks people who work in schools should be expected to report crimes when they see them. That is part of what it means to be a citizen. Regarding Amendment 5, proposed by Ms. Gillespie, MR. CYR said the intent is not to punish a school board member for making a decision with the information at hand. But, if a member of a governing body improperly uses his or her office to harass, punish, or terminate anyone who works with children, he believes that member is guilty of a violation and that is what HB 253 tries to stop. TAPE 00-19, SIDE B  Number 600 MR. CYR repeated that NEAA supports HB 253. NEAA believes that although it is not the perfect discipline bill, it is a step in the right direction. SENATOR PETE KELLY said regarding Amendment 5 on page 3, the teacher who follows procedure and is then fired will have a lot more ammunition to go the civil route to get redress. If Section (c) is removed, the bill will still have its intended impact but it puts people on the line if they engage in any harassment. He noted that he plans to move to remove Section (c) on page 3 later in the meeting because he thinks the bill works without it. CHAIRMAN MILLER pointed out that Senator Wilken plans to offer an amendment that changes the word "knowingly" to "intentionally" which will set a different standard. Number 2323 SENATOR ELTON referred to Sec. 14.33.120 and remarked that it requires the governing body to adopt a written school disciplinary and safety program, yet it also requires that the standards be developed and periodically revised by each school and community members. He maintained that sets up dissidence for a larger district that has many schools. MR. CYR responded that the Mat-Su School District, which he is most familiar with, has a set of standards for discipline that have been adopted at the school board level. Those standards were distributed to each school and each school decided how to implement them in the school. He reads HB 253 in that way, rather than the school submitting its standards to the school board. SENATOR ELTON said he could make a case that in his community, the culture of a junior high school in one area may be much different than a junior high school elsewhere. He said he understands the issue of the governing body being an "umbrella" but HB 253 works bottom-up because it tells the governing body it must include standards developed at the local school level. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated that is an excellent point. He noted when he worked on the legislation he wanted large school districts within a geographically diverse area to be able to have different standards. Regarding dress codes, for example, some schools are concerned about gang colors while other schools are concerned about accommodating the dress of different religious groups. He wanted each school and community to be able to discuss those types of issues and submit their concerns to the governing body who could customize the standards. He wanted to ensure that the community's input was taken into account. SENATOR ELTON suggested that HB 253 should read, "Each governing body may adopt..." rather than "Each governing body shall adopt..." so that school boards can take local desires into account but are not required to. MR. CYR thought that Senator Elton's concern was valid in one aspect, but he believes that when the community of people involved in the local schools have the discussion about discipline, the discussion is more "real" and personal. He believes that is the key to student discipline. SENATOR ELTON expressed concern that the result will be that each community will have a bunch of different standards. He asked Mr. Cyr for his reaction to previous speakers who said that this bill imposes a burden on teachers that they may not want in regard to reporting crimes. MR. CYR answered if he saw a student with a case of beer in his pickup headed for a party, he would feel obligated to report that, as he would if he saw a student throw a rock through a store window. He said he would agree to specifying in the bill that the crime was committed on school property but he thinks we all have an obligation to report crimes because this bill is about making communities a better place. He doubts any teachers will object to reporting a crime if they see one. Number 1999 SENATOR KELLY said the bill requires teachers only to report, therefore it puts a burden on teachers that it does not put on anyone else. He believes teachers would report whether required to or not because of their training. MR. CYR responded that this bill was heard by the House Judiciary Committee which reviewed the legal aspects of the bill. He noted this bill refers to what goes on in schools. He repeated the bill could specify that the crime was committed in school. CHAIRMAN MILLER said he agrees that as citizens we all have the responsibility to report crimes if we see them being committed. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he intended the bill to apply to teachers reporting in the course of their duty and he believes that is implied in the title of the bill. He said he was concerned about a situation in which a teacher reported sexual abuse of a student to the principal several times but the principal never reported it to the authorities. MR. JOHN WALDRON, representing the Yakutat School District, thanked Representative Dyson for supporting school districts but noted he cannot support HB 253 for several reasons. First, teachers are already required by statute to report suspected sexual abuse to DFYS as well as to school administrators. Regarding disciplinary policies, he believes every school in Alaska already has such a policy. He thinks this bill will take that action away from the school boards. SB 36 required community involvement. Students will lose some of their due process rights if HB 253 passes because it allows teachers to remove students from the classroom without going to the administration. Teachers are not always consistent with their discipline policies from one day to the next. CHAIRMAN MILLER announced that with no further questions or testimony, public testimony was closed. He noted that Senator Wilken would not be offering Amendment 1. SENATOR KELLY moved to adopt Amendment 2 which would add the words, "in the course of duty" before the word "observes" on page 3, line 14. SENATOR PEARCE asked if Amendment 2 is a conceptual amendment in that the drafters might prefer to say, "in the course of their assigned duties." CHAIRMAN MILLER stated yes. SENATOR ELTON asked if Amendment 2 essentially defines the teachers' responsibilities by their duties rather than by where the crime occurs. SENATOR KELLY said it does. There being no objection, CHAIRMAN MILLER announced that Amendment 2 was adopted. SENATOR KELLY moved to adopt Amendment 3 which would delete subsection (c) on page 3, lines 17 through 21. SENATOR ELTON objected because he thought there should be some culpability for mistreating a teacher when, in the course of the teacher's duties, the teacher did something he or she was required to do. SENATOR WILKEN stated his school district is not particularly fond of HB 253 but it understands the bill is needed in some areas of the State. His school district asked him to replace the word "knowingly" with the word "intentionally" but he favors Senator Kelly's amendment because it removes the entire paragraph which is directed at a volunteer school board member. SENATOR KELLY repeated that a number of civil avenues are available to a teacher who was punished by the board for violating the statutes. SENATOR PEARCE asked Representative Dyson to address Amendment 3. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he agrees with Senator Elton because it is aimed at the intentional punishing of a teacher who did the right thing. Amendment 3 was adopted with Senators Kelly, Pearce, Wilken and Miller voting "yea," and Senator Elton voting "nay." SENATOR ELTON moved to adopt Amendment 4 which would replace the word "must" with the word "may" on page 2, line 10. He stated he is bothered by the fact that the bill institutes a system in which every school's concerns must be included in a district plan. He hopes that the process involves schools and students but he is bothered by the fact that the result of this bill will be that districts have a disparate number of plans. CHAIRMAN MILLER objected to Amendment 4 because in his district some of the community standards are different and he believes district policies need room for some variance. Number 1323 SENATOR ELTON said he agrees but he believes any good school board will take that into account. Amendment 4 failed with Senators Pearce, Wilken, Kelly and Miller voting "nay" and Senator Elton voting "yea." SENATOR PEARCE moved a conceptual amendment (Amendment 5) to allow all schools in a district to have just one plan if they are in the same community and if they choose to have one, but to also have plans written for each town if schools are in separate towns within a district. She stated in an area like the North Slope, each community might want their own plan, but on the other hand, Anchorage does not need 87 separate plans. CHAIRMAN MILLER said he understands the intent of Senator Pearce's amendment but in his community all of the Fairbanks school plans might coincide but the Two Rivers and Salcha schools might want their own plans but are not communities per se. He said he understands that a separate plan is not necessary for every school but he is not sure how to break it out. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said Senator Pearce could get at what she wants, which is what he intended, if, at the end of line 15, the colon was changed to a comma and the words, "and referred to the governing body for modification or standardization and/or approval" were added. That would allow the district to leave each plan as is or standardize them all. SENATOR WILKEN noted that Alaska used to have funding communities but they did not work so it now has attendance areas which could be used to differentiate interests within a school district. He noted in Chairman Miller's district, Salcha and Two Rivers is an attendance area, as is Fairbanks. He suggested striking the words on page 3, lines 13 and 14, "by each school in the district" and adding after the word "community" the words "each attendance area,". SENATOR PEARCE said she would accept that as a friendly amendment. There being no objection to Amendment 5 as conceptually stated by Senator Wilken, it was adopted. SENATOR PEARCE moved to adopt Amendment 6 which would strike the words "understood, accepted, and" on page 1, line 13. SENATOR ELTON objected and said he is not arguing with the intent of Amendment 6 but the word "upheld" presents the same problem because a lawyer could argue that the standard was not upheld by the student because the student violated it. SENATOR PEARCE restated Amendment 6 to strike "understood, accepted, and upheld" and insert "developed". There being no objection, CHAIRMAN MILLER announced Amendment 6 was adopted. SENATOR PEARCE asked Representative Dyson to comment on Ms. Gillespie's opposition to the phrase "or otherwise punished" on page 3, line 6. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded that the Anchorage School District is concerned that a teacher might be denied a promotion or transfer. MR. CYR added that the NEAA membership was concerned about harassment or being denied transfer rights. He said it is making the workplace untenable and six to seven teachers leave each year for that reason. SENATOR ELTON moved SCS CSSSHB 253(HES) from committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried.