MINUTES SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE APRIL 19, 1995 9:25 A.M. TAPES SFC-95, #36, Side 1 (000-575) SFC-95, #36, Side 2 (560-end) SFC-95, #38, Side 1 (000-275) CALL TO ORDER Senator Rick Halford, Co-chair, convened the meeting at approximately 9:25 a.m. PRESENT Co-chairs Halford and Frank along with Senators Phillips, Sharp, Donley, Rieger and Zharoff were present. Also Attending: Senator Salo; Carl Rose, Alaska School Board; Claudia Douglas, President, NEA; Stephen McPhetres, Alaska Council of Administrators, and Sheila Peterson, Department of Education. SUMMARY SENATE BILL NO. 132 "An Act relating to judicial review of decisions of school boards relating to nonretention or dismissal of teachers." Amendment #1 by Senator Rieger regarding career path, and Amendment #2 by Senator Halford concerning a summary of nego- tiations available to the public were ADOPTED for incorporation into a new version of CSSB 132 (FIN) Work Draft. The bill will be taken up at the next meeting. Co-chair Halford invited Carl Rose, Claudia Douglas, Stephen McPhetres and Sheila Peterson to join the committee. Senator Sharp MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft for CSSB 132 (FIN) by Cramer, version M, dated 4/13/95. No objection being heard it was ADOPTED. Co-chair Halford recapped the draft before the committee. The first section related to duty-free lunch. It was not the intent of the sponsor to repeal the entire section, therefore the stated time of 11:00 to l:00 was deleted. He stated that the second section is a transition section that deals with tenure on transferring from federal to state schools, containing the 2 year, 5 year language. The third section deals with teacher tenure and the 2 year, 5 year language. He suggested adding a section on evaluation in this area. There was not a previously adopted version by the members. Section 4 covers tenure rights during layoff status. Section 5 deletes the reduction in staff provision, as it will be picked up in layoff status versus non- retention. Section 6 is the layoff status section which came from Senator Sharp. Section 7 covers judicial review, which is an attempt to reach middle ground between trial de novo and a totally contained review by the school board. It does achieve the neutral third party aspects of another review. The remaining sections, 8 to 24 deal with retirement. Carl Rose, Executive Director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, testified that these issues have been long standing with the school board association to the degree that they are no longer resolutions. The issues of acquisition of tenure, latitude for fiscal shortfall, and de novo, have become belief statements of the association. He characterized the concerns of the school board since the bill has changed drastically from the original intention. In the decision-making realm, the school district is contained within the latitude provided through the constitution, statutes, regulations interpretations of the statutes by the courts in negotiated agreements, and without control of revenue source. He stated that the membership is responsible for the performance of schools. Unfortunately, the school board is not fiscally autonomous and funding is expected to come from the legislature as well as municipalities. He expressed his concerns with controlling revenue, and adequate levels of funding. He stated that more time is needed to provide professional development for new professionals in the area of in-service, supervision, and mentorships. Mr. Rose stated that 5 years was needed to make career determinations. In reference to layoff, this area is of great concern to the school board. The language suggested is to consider qualifications in the area of layoff and rehire prior to seniority. The issue to look at would be subject area endorsements. The language does not reflect subject area endorsements now. It is understood that it is a far reach from where the state is at right now, but it is a desired journey which needs to begin now. With subject area endorsement, the quality of instruction in the classroom improves. On the issue of de novo, the school board feels that all state employees have a right to a hearing. If they feel that their due process rights have been abridged, they have access to superior court. The same should hold true for the schools. It is very costly and difficult for a school district to recreate what has happened in the past. A new trial is inappropriate, we should have an opportunity through a hearing to establish a record and thereby allow the courts to review the record to see if the due process rights have been abridged. What the legislation now indicates is replacement of de novo trial with an advisory arbitration step. It is felt that it is duplicative and more costly, but the school board would prefer to take the advisory arbitration instead of the de novo because it is a new trial. Regarding duty-free lunch, the school board never intended to place that issue in this legislation. He said that the school board does not have a position on RIP (Retirement Incentive Program). Co-chair Halford said that he questioned the open-meetings provisions. The committee determined that it would be counterproductive and committed to coming up with language to be considered. He stated that the object is to have the initial offers be public because the pressure facing the public constituencies will force those offers to be as reasonable as possible as a starting point for negotiation. Mr. Rose responded that this is of concern to the public. He stated that he did not feel that the public wants negotiations held openly, but rather to know the issues before ratification and agreement. The first priority is full-funding and the second priority, among the teachers, is the ability to evaluate a marginal teacher for 5 years before a judgement is made. Senator Zharoff made reference to the list of a nationwide tenure survey. He pointed out that a number of states required 2 year tenure and only a couple have 5 year tenure requirements. He expressed concern in patterning Alaska after other states. In response to Senator Salo, Mr. Rose stated that the school board would not support a law that would direct school boards to hire only endorsed teachers. In large school districts, the issue of seniority is appropriate with those certified in the english and math departments. In rural areas, there is a need for multi-endorsed teachers or generalists. He indicated that it would be more appropriate to assess the percentage of time spent in the endorsed subject. Senator Salo suggested that policy makers need to think about what Mr. Rose stated in the context of layoffs. She stated that the layoff provisions in the bill are broad and offer an authority to layoff at random, and yet, one of the rationales given is the need for endorsed teachers. She said it was inconsistent expectations when on the initial employment, endorsed subject matter is not a consideration. There was considerable discussion regarding evaluations. Mr. Rose stated that under peer review, it was suggested there was need for language regarding supervision, mentoring, and professional development through in-service programs. He said, the superintendent designates three teachers for mentoring and professional development. Their charge would involve observation of new teachers, and making a report to the superintendent. An amendment was made to make the report available to nontenure teachers, at least for three of the first four years. The overview committee would observe and make reports annually to the superintendent three of the four years. Evaluation is not the only component. Supervision, mentoring, and professional development is also a valuable part of the developmental process. The issue then becomes, what is an appropriate tool? He stated that school districts feel the pressure of the suggestion that there is too much money in administration. In the context of a compromise, peer review is not objectionable. Concerns with peer review was based on the additional expense, confidentiality within that context, and then the actual logistics with which to facilitate the success of the program. He stated the most obvious concerns relate to cost and implementation. Claudia Douglas, President, NEA, highlighted those areas of the bill that was of concern. She stated that the duty-free lunch time has been amended, but still seems inappropriate to incorporate into this bill. Regarding the acquisition of tenure from two to five years, NEA and teachers in Alaska do not want to have marginal teachers in the classrooms. She stated that there is a need to support the principals, but that going to a 5 year tenure is not the answer. She stressed the need for a process of a peer review evaluation within the first two years. If the evaluation is not good, then there is no need to keep them for 3, 4, or 5 years. NEA would not agree to a 5 year tenure. NEA has submitted strong language requiring evaluation in the first couple of years. She noted the language relating to layoffs is vague. She questioned if teachers will have an opportunity to achieve endorsement or self-development? Could a teacher have an opportunity for at least a year to try to achieve certification? Unless outlined specifically, NEA would not be able to agree to that language. She stated that one of the concerns heard from school boards is that the time required and the lengthy process of going to de novo is not addressed. There was an amendment introduced in the House that would refer to current state law that would satisfy this issue. It does incorporate time limits, and arbitration hearings. There is a history of the success of the arbitration process that works with the existing law. NEA asks the committee to take that into consideration. NEA does not believe that retirement and incentive programs should be included in this bill. There is a bill that has been introduced regarding RIP. NEA supports that bill and not the RIP section in this legislation. Ms. Douglas stated that in the layoff provisions there is a need for a third party to give analysis of the financial and program needs. Senator Phillips suggested that the school board is elected to take care of these needs. He suggested that no matter what the committee suggested with the layoff, NEA would oppose it. Ms. Douglas stated that if there is a financial crisis in a district that is understandable, but as stated in the legislation, it refers to a reduction in revenue. NEA would like a system in place that would validate that it is necessary. Mr. Rose agreed that there should be a trigger for reduction. He stated that there is a disparity. Some school districts are up to 92-93% into overall personnel. If a standard percentage were given it would be a disservice to some school districts. He stated that school board members are elected and agreed to what their job is. He also stated that the public would be very upset if there were heavy layoffs with a bogus excuse of lack of funds. He warned that the school board must be on solid ground when it comes to laying off which has a direct effect on larger classrooms. Ms. Douglas stated that there is an amendment offered by Rep. Robinson which provides layoff language. She also stated that this provision could be supported by NEA if there was language putting a trigger into place. Senator Phillips stated there is difficulty in arriving at a trigger since the needs throughout the state are so drastically different. He stated that problems at the local level, involve the teachers, principals, school boards, parents and children. Further, the need for school board members should have flexibility in case of a declining revenue or declining enrollment. Co-chair Halford brought attention to an amendment regarding tenure extension based on evaluation. Some of the procedures may be beyond the cost component agreement of the school district, particularly small districts. However, the combination of tenure extension and evaluation is much different than what Mr. Rose brings forth, thereby providing a wide array of possibilities. Senator Salo commented that the layoff provision in the bill is a "one size fits all" provision. She cited the Anchorage school district has approximately 200 nontenure school teachers. If the school district, at that level of staffing, actually laid off those 200 nontenure teachers, class sizes would be well over 40. She said there is a crisis if you lay off all nontenure teachers, and then add to that, the tenure teachers. She stated this is creating a problem, not fixing it, and as policy makers, there are two interests with regard to layoff. One, make sure it is not misused as a dismissal procedure, when instead we ought to be relieving teachers for incompetence and immoral or insubordinate behavior which exists in law. The second concern, is to make sure that children are not in classes so large that learning is prohibited by the size of the class. Discussion was had regarding layoff. Rep. Robinson introduced language for a house bill that says, "an unanticipated financial exigency that interferes with the normal operations of the school district and that cannot be resolved through other reasonable and usual budgetary processes....." Discussion was had on the use of emergency. NEA-Alaska Survey of the States, reviewed what is being done throughout the 50 states with tenure. It reveals that 10 states currently have 2-year tenure. Ms. Douglas specified that language be provided for an evaluation process. There are instances when it is revealed in the first couple years that a teacher is deserving of tenure. In addressing the marginal teacher, if a system is in place which will give the school district an opportunity to work with the teacher for an extra year, NEA is willing to discuss it. This is a 30-year law that has endorsed the 2-year provision. Discussion was had on the evaluation and extension. Tenure was a strong topic of debate. Ms. Douglas stated that the process works as it is. There are many good teachers doing the best they can. They want to be evaluated, and they want good supervision. NEA is not trying to change the current process. Co-chair Halford stated there will be those who say the problem is evaluation, the other side will say the problem is time. He suggested the solution may be in both. Senator Salo asked what is broken and what is it that is trying to be fixed. She brought attention to the public opinion survey by Alaska 2000. Teacher tenure was the second to the last concern. She mentioned that other areas of major concern were: funding major maintenance, financial standards, standards and assessment, sharing capital costs, school costs, school taxes, law recommendations, and teacher training standards. The survey shows that these areas are considered far more important than tenure. Sheila Peterson, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of the Department of Education, testified that the State Board of Education at the last meeting considered many of these issues. Tenure changes, the layoff provision, and the de novo trial. The State Board of Education states, "The strongest concerns of the State Board of Education at this time is the threat of quality education in our state as a result of decreased funding." The board is placing attention, at the May meeting, on those issues. Issues in SB 132 will be taken up along with other critical issues, such as the foundation formula and involvement of parent and families in their children's education. In response to SB 132, the Administration does have some concerns. It does have a concern with the five year probationary period. Increasing the time to five years seems too long and too excessive. Perhaps a broader approach similar to what Senator Rieger is thinking up, a more supportive approach to acquire tenure, should be explored. The goal of everyone is to ensure that excellent teachers are teaching our children. Possibly a system that encourages senior teachers to work with new teachers, guiding them through the probationary period will ensure quality teaching. The Administration also has concerns with the layoff provision and how it is currently written. Laying off tenure teachers is something that no one wants. Not the school boards, not the teachers, and not the public. To decrease the numbers of teachers would mean to increase the class size to dramatically alter the district's program. Exactly when a layoff is going to occur should be carefully defined and narrowly focused so that all parties, including the public will know the procedures. These issues that are addressed in SB 132 have merit for discussion. The Commissioner of Education has begun to coordinate meetings between NEA, Association of Alaska School Board, and the Alaska Council of Administrators, working toward common ground. Senator Zharoff brought attention to the language referring to the trigger? Ms. Peterson commented that this is the concern of the Administration. The language is so broad that a small reduction in revenue could trigger layoff provisions. She suggested more guidance for the school districts for determination on layoffs. Co-chair Halford stated that the Administration's efforts to pull together key components of people to reach common ground is what is necessary in order to make this legislation clear. Stephen McPhetres, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School Administrators, testified that the Alaska Council has passed three resolutions this year in the professional association meeting. One is to support the attention of tenure from two to five years. ACA supports 5 years, on the basis that a teacher coming out of the university and going into their first year of teaching has much to learn. It seems inappropriate to have to go through the adjustment of the fist year of teaching and be evaluated for the conditions of reemployment. The Council feels it is more than they can handle. There is need for nurturing, mentoring and time is needed for determining their philosophy in teaching. The extension of tenure is important on behalf of a professional approach for a teacher to perform their duties in an acceptable manner. ACA also passed a resolution that supported the elimination of the de novo trial. It is an expensive adventure. It is a duplicate effort costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in school districts. The third resolution passed was in support of the RIP bill. Although they felt having a RIP portion in this bill makes it an awkward situation. He reminded the committee that with regard to the layoff provision, school boards and school districts go through a very extensive budgeting process. There are public hearings, public meetings, budgets are sent to local unions and to the community, and people come to the board meetings. He suggested that the depth which boards are currently using to balance budgets is very thorough and does follow a specific public process. When they get to a point where the budgets are simply not going to be able to meet the revenue, then there is a massive community meeting, the priorities are decided upon. He asked that as lay off provisions and drop in revenue is addressed, consider the credibility of the school board in the process of the budget building. Senator Sharp stated that he heard from just about everyone that a RIP bill is awkward. He stated that if there was going to be a RIP bill, this was the only place there would be one. There is not going to be a universal RIP bill. He stated that he considered this RIP bill to be a tool to local government to manage the best they know how. They don't have to do it, but at least it is an option. There is not going to continue to be more money for education from the state. He stated he was not in support of any RIP bill, but it is available as a tool if they want to use it. Senator Zharoff said that he hoped that this wasn't the only RIP bill that would come around because portions of the Administration's budget is predicated on a RIP bill. He offered an amendment. Discussion led from teacher lay off to the lack of layoff provisions with administrators. Administrators under current law, cannot have a contract from one to three years. Principals do not have tenure. They can be released. They have one year contracts. Discussion was had on Senator Zharoff's amendment. Mr. McPhetres explained that principals have single year contracts. Only superintendents have a multi-year contract for a maximum of three years. Co-chair Halford noted a multi-year contract increased the ability of larger districts to hire a new superintendent. Senator Zharoff contended all administrators should have the same limitations as teachers in the time of a crisis. Superintendents often have exorbitant salaries. There needs to be more give and take. What are administrators giving up? Mr. McPhetres reminded him that principals had no tenure and were very vulnerable. It was asked if principals had the option to take a teaching job if their position was being threatened. Mr. McPhetres said that option could be included in an administrator's contract. Senator Zharoff asked if a superintendent's contract could be rolled forward. After one year, have the contract extended for two more years, keeping within the required cap of three years. Mr. McPhetres said it was possible and noted it happened mostly in larger districts. Senator Rieger offered an amendment to "nudge" districts in the direction of establishing career paths for teachers with advancement based on teaching performance. Evaluation on the new career path may be performed by teacher or districts. He stated his concurs about promoting good teaching rather than educational background. Co-chair Halford stated that the amendment is permissive. He stated that a possible impact could happen once the categories are created, that it could change workloads, etc. Senator Phillips felt that this amendment fragments education. He stated that the teachers and the school district should be working together for one common goal -- the education of the student. Senator Salo said the amendment had huge effects. To add merit pay to SB 132 makes it ominous! She warned that merit pay had been tried in other states and could be costly. Senator Rieger said that he tied it to RIP in his mind. There are teachers at the high end of the pay school who are not worth as much as their pay represents, so that the school district would be better off to hire a new teacher at the beginning at the pay scale. That suggests that the present career advancement system has problems with it because there are teachers at the top of the pay scale who are underpaid because they are really, really good, and there are some who are overpaid. The two concepts go hand in hand. This is a way to make sure you do not require RIP's, that the people who are up there are there because they deserve it. They are the good teachers. This shows what the RIP program is trying to demonstrate, that the present career advancement must have some problems, that there is a need to eliminate highly paid teachers. Senator Salo responded that she was in favor of merit pay, but stressed, "who" gets to decide who is deserving of higher pay. Ms. Douglas said that she appreciated the intent of the effort to try to recognize those outstanding in the profession. She asked if advancement based on teaching performance is just another way to get tenure? She stated that there is a problem right now with administrators finding the time to do the evaluations, and with this proposal it would require more time to evaluate. She felt that there would be a problem with determining who would do the evaluation, what would the competition be, who is going to decide, and it will cost more money? Mr. Rose was asked for his input. He agreed with the concept. This does define what could be used in peer review. He was not sure what all the effects would be, but felt that it is a step in the right direction. The issue is trying to improve the quality of education. Mr. McPhetres stated that he looks favorably on the amendment. This is a professional step within the educational system. He mentioned that there are ways of evaluating a teacher or administrator by the use of evaluation by parents, their own peers, as well as others, in determining whether a teacher has achieved advanced status in teaching. This is a tremendous switch from the direction that we are currently in. It is not based on how good you are as a teacher. He felt that the amendment is good, but complex with the existing situation, it would have to have nurturing in order to make it work. But in all, he felt it was a wonderful idea. Ms. Peterson said the department would support teachers participating in evaluations, but questioned whether there was enough direction provided in the amendment to help districts create a career path based on teaching performance and additional money without DOE stepping in with additional regulations. She felt there may not be enough direction in the amendment to pull it off at the local level. The department may be in the position of having to write some additional guidance. Senator Rieger noted that the department did not need language in statute requiring the department to promulgate regulations. Ms. Peterson said that it was correct, but suggested it was helpful to have their wishes on record. Ms. Douglas mentioned that on the national level there is the National Standards Board. Alaska now has two nationally board certified teachers. The process is extensive in evaluation and peer review. She stated that a teacher must have taught for five years prior to the process. The School Board Association has been involved. She suggested offering this program as a professional incentive to teachers. There was continued discussion regarding new methods being tried elsewhere and affirmations regarding the need to compensate good teachers to keep them in the profession. Senator Phillips MOVED to adopt an Amendment to the Amendment. The language change was read. Senator Zharoff OBJECTED to the Amendment. The objection was not maintained. The Amendment to the Amendment was ADOPTED. Co-chair Halford MOVED to adopt the Amendment. Senator Zharoff OBJECTED, stating that it is too difficult to incorporate. He wants strict guidelines which the department could generate for evaluating teachers and possibly administrators for the entire school system within the state. Co-chair Halford said, the question is, the adoption of the Rieger Amendment as amended. Concern was expressed on how this would be implemented. It was determined that the effective date regarding this clause could be delayed to July 1, 1996. Senator Zharoff WITHDREW OBJECTIONS. Without objection the Amendment would be accompanied by a effective date section that applies July 1, 1996. In moving the date forward, would this have an effect in collective bargaining? Senator Phillips said, that this amendment relates to teaching performance and the Alaska 2000 Public Opinion Survey has performance standards as #2. By a show of hands, the amendment was ADOPTED. In favor were Senators Rieger, Sharp, Phillips and Halford. Opposed were Senators Donley and Zharoff. The Amendment will be added to the Work Draft. Senator Phillips MOVED to adopt the Halford Amendment. Senator Zharoff OBJECTED and WITHDREW. Senator Salo acknowledged the work the committee was doing to reach a compromise on this issue, but she felt this was worse from a teacher's perspective and from an employee's perspective than opening negotiations. The district would control the information as it is released. If there is one time in negotiations where both parties can look unreasonable, it is with their opening offers. She felt that the clause fixes a problem that does not exist. Senator Rieger asked if Senator Salo was referring to the sentence in the amendment which says, "the analysis of the effect of the proposal is something controlled by the school board"? She stated that was correct and that the first sentence is in practice now. Senator Rieger asked Mr. Rose if it was true, that the initial proposals in a bargaining situation are public documents? Mr. Rose responded that normally in the first meeting, ground rules are established. It can be decided at that time if it is open or closed. It does have to be by mutual agreement in many cases. Before decisions are made, the public likes to know what the issues are. Co-chair Halford AMENDED his amendment by crossing everything out after the first sentence and retained (b). Senator Phillips WITHDREW the original Amendment. Senator Phillips MOVED to adopt amendment #2. Without objection the Amendment was ADOPTED and added to the work draft CS. Items to be discussed before the committee included differences in the layoff provision, and the tenure provision. Senator Salo asked for clarification on the subject of the duty-free lunch. She stated that the waiver is working and doesn't want the time removed. Senator Zharoff asked that at the next meeting that there be discussions on the hearing process and the RIP section of the bill. Co-chair Halford recessed to follow the schedule of the operating budget.