Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/19/1996 02:09 PM HES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
 HB 465 - TEACHER EMPLOYMENT/PUB SCHL BARGAINING                          
                                                                              
 Number 0154                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that HB 465 would be discussed, an act               
 relating to employment of teachers and school administrators and to           
 public school collective bargaining.                                          
 Number 190                                                                    
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to adopt CSHB 465 ( ),                  
 version 9-LS1586\O, Cramer, dated March 18, 1996, as the working              
 document.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0233                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE objected for purposes of discussion and              
 said there had been many proposed amendments to HB 465.                       
                                                                               
 Number 0285                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said CSHB 465, version O, adopts amendments 4, 5, 7,           
 8, and 9.  He said Amendment 4, on page four, line two, deletes               
 "shall" and inserts "may" to make the language more permissive and            
 deals with the administrator's evaluation.  Amendment 5, page                 
 three, line nine, after "community members," deletes "peers" and              
 inserts "teachers".  He said Amendment 7, page three, line seven,             
 after "dismissal", inserts "under AS 14.20.170(a);" to add a                  
 statutory reference.  Amendment 8, page eight, line eight, inserts            
 "a teacher who has acquired tenure who is dismissed or non-retained           
 may waive the post-termination procedures set out in Section C and            
 within 60 days after receipt of notice of dismissal or non-                   
 retention file an action in the superior court", allowing direct              
 access to the superior court, rather than going through the                   
 procedure.                                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 0473                                                                   
                                                                               
 TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Aide to Representative Ivan, said Amendment           
 8 was modified by the sponsor, Representative Ivan, but retains the           
 same meaning.                                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 0487                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the intent of Amendment 8 is that a non-                  
 retained or a dismissed teacher can go directly to superior court             
 if they chose to do so.  He said Amendment 9, on page three, line             
 22, after "last", delete "no more than one year" and more clearly             
 define the year by inserting "no less than nine months, no more               
 than 12 months".                                                              
                                                                               
 Number 0541                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified that Amendment 9 involved the plan             
 for improvement.  He then withdrew his objection to the motion to             
 adopt CSHB 465 (HES), version O, as the working document.  Hearing            
 no other objection, CSHB 465 (HES), version O, was adopted as the             
 working draft by the House Standing Committee on Health, Education            
 and Social Services.                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 0566                                                                   
                                                                               
 VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, NEA-Alaska, Incorporated,                
 expressed his concerns regarding CSHB 465.  He said on page five,             
 line 13, regarding the stipulation, that failure to receive an                
 acceptable performance in the teacher evaluation system after the             
 implementation of a plan of improvement, would serve as a reason to           
 non-retain a tenured teacher.  He said this particular clause                 
 stipulates a process.  He said it is important to refer to the                
 established standards, especially in the evaluation section, as               
 being the professional performance standards adopted by the                   
 Department of Education (DOE).  He said those standards, or                   
 criteria, by which individuals who are teaching in the classroom,             
 are measured in accordance with the word incompetence.                        
                                                                               
 MR. MARSHALL said his organization does not have a problem with the           
 utilization of the evaluation procedure or a system to prove                  
 incompetence by showing that an individual is not performing at an            
 adequate level relative to the professional performance standards             
 adopted by the DOE.  He said a failure to execute a plan of                   
 improvement or not receiving an acceptable evaluation could be                
 applied to any number of principals in the state.  He said,                   
 "theoretically you could have, a person saying while I assume good            
 performance is 100 percent accountability 100 percent of the time."           
 He said there should be an acknowledged measure or criteria by                
 which teachers are judged.  He added that plans of improvement                
 should be developed in accordance with these standards.                       
                                                                               
 Number 0758                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that he was referring to standards that              
 the DOE developed and he then asked Mr. Marshall if that should be            
 used as a baseline.                                                           
                                                                               
 Number 0770                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. MARSHALL said either the DOE standards could be used, or the              
 deleted language of HB 465 which involves incompetency.  He said              
 competency will either be shown or not shown, reflected in the                
 evaluation system or the plan of improvement.  He said the plan of            
 improvement should deal with the issue of incompetency.  He said              
 language could be added on line 18, tying the incompetency standard           
 to the evaluation and plan of improvement.  He said his                       
 organization would like to see people removed for incompetency and            
 to do this the classroom must be monitored and evaluations must be            
 done.                                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 0820                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. MARSHALL said the other section of concern was the reduction in           
 force, on page five, line 27.  He said some work was done on this             
 same issue in HB 217 which had more specific requirement before a             
 reduction in force was allowed to happen.  He said HB 217 required            
 a 1 percent reduction in basic need.                                          
                                                                               
 Number 0867                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. MARSHALL said on line 31 and 32, page five, the reduction of              
 the work force requirement in CSHB 465 is a demonstrated                      
 significant reduction in per pupil expenditure, from one year to              
 the next.  He said this language is broader and more general than             
 the language in HB 217.                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 0896                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. MARSHALL said HB 217 established that non-tenured teachers                
 would be laid off, or non-retained first, followed by tenured                 
 teachers.  He said CSHB 465, on page six, line six, a notice of               
 non-retention to all non-tenured teachers has to be given and does            
 not say that you non-retain non-tenured teachers.  He said HB 217             
 referred to the primary and secondary program and tried to reduce             
 staff at those points.                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 0962                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. MARSHALL referred to page six, line two, and said the layoff              
 plan must identify academic or other programs which the district              
 intends to maintain.  He presented a scenario where the                       
 instrumental music program would be eliminated under the provisions           
 of CSHB 465.  He said there is no notification requirement that,              
 two years or one year prior to the elimination of the program,                
 teachers are notified and encouraged to get additional schooling so           
 that they can obtain an extra endorsement.  He said the                       
 notification process is a humane way to retain competent teachers,            
 even though it might not be the intent of CSHB 465.  He said there            
 should at least be the opportunity for individuals to have an                 
 opportunity to stay in the system.                                            
                                                                               
 Number 1041                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. MARSHALL complicated the scenario, referring to the                       
 instrumental teacher who has received his additional endorsement              
 allowing him to teach math.  He said CSHB 465 requires that the               
 teacher show experience in the subject area in secondary and                  
 elementary programs, but added that there is an "or" inclusion in             
 line 18.  He said he would hope that if teachers showed themselves            
 capable to teach one subject, they would be allowed to teach                  
 another subject.                                                              
                                                                               
 Number 1085                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. MARSHALL referred to Section D, line 10 to line 23, and said it           
 appears that CSHB 465 eliminates seniority.  He said there is an              
 elementary, middle school and a secondary set of teachers who can             
 be listed according to program or academic areas.  He said if a               
 school district moves to lay off staff, there is nothing in CSHB              
 465 to protect any tenured teacher from possible layoff.  He said             
 to subject all staff from possible layoff seems excessive,                    
 especially when you can limit the layoff based on a seniority list.           
 He said there is no requirement that non-tenured teachers be laid             
 off first, CSHB 465 exposes everyone to possible layoff.                      
                                                                               
 Number 1158                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. MARSHALL referred to another scenario where good teachers, who            
 the school district would want to retain if there were better                 
 economic circumstances, left the state of Alaska to teach in other            
 states.  He said the language in page six, line 32, would not allow           
 those teachers to be on the recall list.  He said he did know the             
 intent of CSHB 465, but felt that the term "state" on line 32                 
 should be eliminated.                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 1240                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. MARSHALL said the concerns his organization had regarding the             
 opportunity to appeal directly to the superior court have been                
 eliminated in language on page seven and on page eight.  He said,             
 in conclusion, districts might want to use the grievance process to           
 adjudicate a dismissal or a non-retention through binding                     
 arbitration.  He said that this scenario would not prevent lawyers            
 from being present on both sides, but it does give the option to              
 districts that might want to utilize arbitration.  He said the use            
 of arbitration could result in a quicker and less expensive way to            
 deal with a grievance issue.                                                  
                                                                               
 MR. MARSHALL said the provisions of HB 217 should be included in              
 CSHB 465, as the language is clearer and provides a larger degree             
 of security to those tenured teachers and does not expose them to             
 the possibility of layoff.                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 1354                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that makes two people who would wish to discuss           
 arbitration.  He added that utilizing arbitration would result in             
 the lost ability to strike in those districts.                                
                                                                               
 MR. MARSHALL said CSHB 465 is relative only to employment.                    
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony.  He asked Representative              
 Ivan and his staff, Tom Wright to join the committee in reviewing             
 the amendments.  He asked the committee members, in the future, to            
 submit amendments in writing to avoid confusion.                              
                                                                               
 Number 1414                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page five, line 15, and said there was             
 some confusion regarding the definition of "acceptable" and "least            
 acceptable" performance and added Mr. Marshall's reference to HB              
 217.  He asked Representative Ivan to address that concern.                   
                                                                               
 Number 1435                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said as a result of discussions with Mr.                  
 Marshall he is submitting amendments; Amendments 10, 11 and 12.  He           
 said, in regards to this particular section, Amendment 12 would               
 modify the language in CSHB 465 to address this concern.                      
                                                                               
 Number 1459                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if everyone had received Amendment 12.                   
                                                                               
 Number 1473                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WRIGHT said the language in Amendment 12 is similar, but not              
 the same as the language proposed by Mr. Marshall and Ms. Douglas.            
                                                                               
 Number 1486                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON requested that Mr. Marshall be asked            
 for his comments regarding the amendment.                                     
                                                                               
 Mr. Marshall joined Representative Ivan and Mr. Wright at the                 
 witness table.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 1515                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. MARSHALL said his organization had wanted professional                    
 performance standards to be set up in local school district                   
 evaluation procedures.                                                        
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Amendment 12 was acceptable.                         
                                                                               
 Number 1538                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether these performance standards             
 would be more stringent in regards to regulations and asked if the            
 standards would be in conflict with the provision located on page             
 two, lines 25 and 26.                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 1567                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WRIGHT said two proposed amendments, which are based in (b)(1),           
 are based on professional performance standards adopted by the                
 Department of Regulations.  He said the local school board has to             
 use that as a basis for any adopted standards.  He said it is a               
 decision of the local school board or if they want to exceed or               
 adopt the same standard as developed by the Department of                     
 Regulations.  He said the language incorporated in CSHB 465 was               
 requested by the local school districts.                                      
                                                                               
 Number 1587                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that the state standard is the minimum               
 standard, and the local school board can opt to make it more                  
 stringent but cannot decrease the standard.  He said the state                
 standard is addressed in regulations.                                         
                                                                               
 MR. WRIGHT said the regulation is in Alaska Administrative Code               
 04.200.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 1613                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to Section 3, regarding                      
 performance standards and asked if performance objectives were                
 defined in the plan of improvement included in this section.                  
                                                                               
 Number 1630                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WRIGHT said Section 14.20.149 outlines the evaluation                     
 procedures, known as the professional department standards, and               
 mentions the plan of improvement.  He said, instead of reciting one           
 specific portion or one subsection, it was left broad and all                 
 encompassing.                                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that it is universal                        
 (indiscernible) to that section.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 1665                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 12 to CSHB           
 465.                                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 1671                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a point of order and said the committee             
 needed to address Amendments 1,2,3 in that order first.  After                
 committee discussion regarding the point of order, Representative             
 Brice contended that these first proposed amendments would have               
 bearing on Amendment 12.                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 1691                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 12             
 to CSHB 465.                                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 1699                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page five, line 27, regarding the                  
 reduction in force, and said it wasn't a specific line reference,             
 but it addressed the whole notion of the reduction in force.  He              
 referred to the inclusion in HB 217 of a 1 percent reduction rather           
 then a significant and demonstrated reduction.  He asked                      
 Representative Ivan to comment on this concern.                               
                                                                               
 Number 1732                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said at this time he could not agree to the               
 proposed layoff language and said he preferred the language in CSHB           
 465.  He said quality standards must be included in the layoff and            
 rehire procedure.                                                             
                                                                               
 Number 1762                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page six, line six, and questioned the             
 intent of this language.  He asked whether all teachers should be             
 notified about possible non-retention.                                        
                                                                               
 Number 1788                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WRIGHT said the intent is that before a tenured teacher be                
 placed on layoff status a notice of non-retention has to be                   
 provided to non-tenured teachers, except when utilizing the quality           
 standards to evoke non-retention.                                             
                                                                               
 Number 1809                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. MARSHALL said the language in HB 217 states, "after the                   
 district has non-retained all non-tenured teachers," and added that           
 this language is very clear.                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 1819                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the language in CSHB 465 only refers to giving            
 notice of non-retention and does not say that the district non-               
 retain them before you go on to the tenured teacher.  He asked the            
 intent of the sponsor, whether it was to provide notice or non-               
 retain the teachers.  He said this question does not have to be               
 answered now, but could be addressed at a later date.                         
                                                                               
 Number 1843                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page six, line 32, where someone in the            
 state receives an option of being recalled while maintaining their            
 recall status, while they are currently working another job which             
 prevents them from breaking their current contract.  He restated              
 Mr. Marshall's concern that if the teacher is currently working in            
 another state, where they would have to break their contract to               
 come back to the state, if the language in CSHB 465 could                     
 incorporate these people as well.                                             
                                                                               
 Number 1880                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said the intent is to give everyone the full              
 opportunity to regain their former position.  He said the                     
 geographic logistics were not included, but said he would concur              
 that if someone was on layoff status they should not be limited by            
 geography.                                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 1896                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that even if laid off teachers were in               
 another state, they could still retain recall status.                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said new language could be added so that it               
 could read another part of the state or another district.                     
                                                                               
 Number 1906                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this geographic language change would be listed           
 as Amendment 13.                                                              
                                                                               
 Number 1925                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the committee would go through the amendment              
 process now that the questions had been addressed.                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB               
 465.                                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 1937                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected to the proposed Amendment 1.                         
                                                                               
 Number 1942                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said Amendment 1 reinserts the incompetency              
 standards that had previously existed within the statutes.  He said           
 the state has legally defined standards and he believed that                  
 Amendment 1 incorporated the language of proposed Amendment 12 with           
 the inclusion of the incompetency standards.                                  
                                                                               
 Number 1987                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he was against the proposed Amendment 1              
 because of the reversion to the original language.  He said this              
 language leaves the definition open and vague, and subject to                 
 litigation.  He said the costs of associated court cases is what              
 CSHB 465 is seeking to avoid.                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 2012                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said, as it is an issue of people's                      
 livelihoods, standards should be met.  He said the application of             
 a plan of improvement should be subject to a just cause test and              
 the plan of improvement should also meet this requirement.                    
                                                                               
 Number 2034                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it was important to note that the                
 proposed Amendment 1 incorporates both the language in CSHB 465 and           
 the language regarding a failure, after implementation of a plan of           
 improvement, to receive an evaluation of least acceptable                     
 performance under teacher evaluations.  She said Amendment 1 allows           
 two ways to improve a teacher's performance.  She asked for Mr.               
 Rose's input as the language in the proposed Amendment 1 is a                 
 standard which has been followed and it is wording that most people           
 understand.  She believed that the proposed Amendment 1 made the              
 language of CSHB 465 stronger.                                                
                                                                               
 Number 2070                                                                   
                                                                               
 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards,           
 said attempts have been made to remove the standard of                        
 incompetence, for a long time.  He said this standard is too low              
 and that the definition of incompetence is listed in Alaska case              
 law to such a stringent degree.  He said a teacher who ranks a two            
 on a scale of ten, with ten being excellence and a one being                  
 incompetent, would still be regarded as competent.  He said CSHB              
 465 addresses standards and acceptable performance.  He said the              
 issue of incompetence is so stringent that many administrators are            
 unable to use it to prove the competency or incompetency of                   
 individuals in the classroom.  He said the standards, adopted by              
 the Department's regulations, allow the local districts the                   
 opportunity to examine a criteria based evaluation "in concert"               
 with their community.  He said this would establish what teachers             
 are expected to teach and what parents can expect in the classroom.           
                                                                               
 Number 2138                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the proposed Amendment 1 makes the               
 language stronger because it gives the school district both                   
 options, either under the provision of incompetency or failure to             
 meet the criteria set up in the plan of improvement, and asked what           
 the objection was to providing this option in CSHB 465.                       
                                                                               
 Number 2161                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. ROSE said the school districts are trying to move to a criteria           
 based evaluation process in order to provide progressive education            
 and also to address the quality of education instruction in the               
 classroom.  He said school districts are trying to focus on                   
 performance and quality, but that they are dealing with                       
 protectionism.  He said this is a difficult transition to make if             
 the state is more concerned with the consequences than the efforts            
 to improve the quality of education.  He said the employees should            
 be protected, but lowering the education standards to protect those           
 employees causes concern.                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 2184                                                                   
                                                                               
 A roll call vote was taken on proposed Amendment 1 to CSHB 465.               
 Representatives Brice and Robinson voted yea.  Representatives G.             
 Davis, Rokeberg, Co-Chair Toohey and Co-Chair Bunde voted nay.                
 Amendment 1 failed to be adopted to in the House Standing Committee           
 on Health, Education and Social Services.                                     
                                                                               
 Number 2222                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt Amendment 2 to CSHB               
 465.                                                                          
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected to the proposed Amendment 2.                         
                                                                               
 Number 2277                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the proposed Amendment 2 changes the                
 language from an acceptable level to a satisfactory level, or less            
 than acceptable level to an incompetent level.  He said it re-                
 defines the definition of incompetence as the inability or the                
 unintentional or intentional failure to perform the teachers'                 
 customary duties in a satisfactory manner.  He said the proposed              
 Amendment 2 adds clarity to the concerns that were just raised                
 regarding incompetence.                                                       
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE mentioned the discussion concerning incompetency.              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said proposed Amendment 2 is a redefinition of           
 that standard.                                                                
                                                                               
 A roll call vote was taken on proposed Amendment 2 to CSHB 465.               
 Representatives Brice and Robinson voted yea.  Representatives G.             
 Davis, Rokeberg, Co-Chair Toohey and Co-Chair Bunde voted nay.                
 Amendment 2 failed to be adopted to in the House Standing Committee           
 on Health, Education and Social Services.                                     
                                                                               
 Number 2293                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt Amendment 3 to CSHB               
 465.                                                                          
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected to the proposed Amendment 3.                         
                                                                               
 Number 2302                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the proposed Amendment 3 states that the            
 evaluating administrator consult with the tenured teacher in                  
 setting clear, specific performance expectations to be included in            
 the plan of improvement.  He said a concern was raised that there             
 was no specific language of what these plans of improvement will              
 include.  He added that specific language must be included in                 
 statute to prevent situations where unobtainable standards were               
 established.  He said the proposed Amendment 3 would allow for a              
 working relationship between the administrators and employees to              
 occur.                                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 2347                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he found it difficult to imagine that a plan of           
 improvement would occur without including the teacher.                        
                                                                               
 TAPE 96-29, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 0000                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said Section 3 includes a requirement that                     
 observations and the establishment of criteria be found.  He added            
 that it appeared the intent was to include the teacher in                     
 developing the plan of improvement.  He asked the sponsor whether             
 the language of CSHB 465 needed to be clarified.                              
                                                                               
 Number 0073                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WRIGHT said his reading of the proposed Amendment 3 is that it            
 would require the administration to consult with each tenured                 
 teacher within that school district or within that specific school            
 to set up these specific expectations which would be included in              
 the plan of improvement.                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 0086                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that the language of proposed Amendment 3            
 states "with the" and would mean that if a plan of improvement were           
 needed, a specific teacher would be notified.                                 
                                                                               
 MR. WRIGHT said the issue of how a plan of improvement is going to            
 be implemented can be addressed at a local level.  He said there              
 was language in CSHB 465 which addressees ways in which the tenured           
 and non-tenured teachers performance can be improved.                         
                                                                               
 Number 0105                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said CSHB 465 clearly states "that's what will                
 happen."                                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 0110                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked the sponsor to point out specific               
 language where teachers are included in the plan of improvement.              
                                                                               
 Number 0115                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked the sponsor whether the intent of the plan of            
 improvement would include the teacher, whether it would be a "give            
 and take" situation.  He said the principal could ask for specific            
 changes and the teacher could respond to those changes.                       
                                                                               
 Number 0141                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested that the sponsor address his                
 question.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0150                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WRIGHT said the plan of improvement under page three, line 20,            
 must address ways in which the tenured teacher's performance can be           
 improved.  He said the language in CSHB 465 does not specifically             
 provide language such as that offered in the proposed Amendment 3.            
 He reiterated that this issue can be addressed at the local level             
 and concluded that setting clear, specific performance expectations           
 would be the question asked.                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 0171                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said CSHB 465 changes the whole standard              
 for non-retaining a teacher and added that the teacher should be              
 placed on notice regarding the establishment of a plan of                     
 improvement and what those expectations are.  He said the language            
 of the proposed Amendment 3 might not be exactly right, but there             
 is nothing in CSHB 465 that sets these goals.                                 
                                                                               
 Number 0205                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the issue is, in constructing the plan of                 
 improvement, whether or not the teacher is a part of that process.            
 He said a good management tool is to include someone in the                   
 discussion in order to get them to improve their performance.                 
                                                                               
 Number 0214                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said CSHB 465 incorporates broad and                  
 specific language and added that he supported the proposed                    
 Amendment 3.                                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 0225                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS said he supported flexibility at the                
 local level.  He referred to page two, line 14, which gives some              
 strong participation by the school board and therefore gives anyone           
 who participates in the system the opportunity to help develop the            
 plan of improvement.  He said, at the school board level, there is            
 the opportunity to develop the plan of improvement which should be            
 detailed in regards to the criteria that will be evaluated.                   
                                                                               
 Number 2136                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the proposed Amendment 3 says that as the                 
 principal develops the plan, they will do it in consultation with             
 the person who will ultimately implement the plan, the teacher.               
                                                                               
 Number 0271                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he believed that there were going to             
 be fundamental, minimal standards in the objectives set up, as                
 criteria, by the school board.  He assumed that each plan would be            
 modified to match the individual failings of a particular teacher             
 and this individual plan of improvement would not be mentioned in             
 the basic criteria.                                                           
                                                                               
 Number 0303                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said his reservation regards the fiscal note              
 which might be required by the proposed Amendment 3.  He said to              
 meet this criteria might require traveling between villages.  He              
 said he agreed that people, who are going to be put on a plan of              
 improvement, should be consulted.                                             
                                                                               
 Number 0334                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that if a plan of improvement is going           
 to be developed, the teacher should know about it and there is                
 nothing currently in CSHB 465 which specifies this requirement.  He           
 said the travel concerns could be avoided by using the telephone or           
 other methods than person-to-person consultation.                             
                                                                               
 Number 0357                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY withdrew her objection to Amendment 3.  Hearing no            
 further objection, Amendment 3 was incorporated into CSHB 465 by              
 the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social                  
 Services.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 2031                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 6 to CSHB            
 465.                                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 0402                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY objected to the proposed Amendment 6.                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her concern had to do with the absence           
 of language in CSHB 465.  She referred to Section 10, regarding               
 procedures upon notice of dismissal or non-retention.  She then               
 pointed out that, in some original language, it states that before            
 a teacher is dismissed or before a tenured teacher is non-retained.           
 She said the language regarding non-retained teachers is completely           
 absent from CSHB 465.  She also expressed concern over the absence            
 of language that the teacher must be given both oral and written              
 notification.  She asked the sponsor why the language, in both                
 cases, was eliminated.                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 0448                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WRIGHT said that Section 10, (a) refers to dismissals.  He                
 referred to subsection (b) and said it referred to non-retention.             
 He said some of the concern regards whether an impartial party                
 would review the teachers case which could be uncomfortable if it             
 was reviewed by the school board.  He said as a result of this                
 concern, language was inserted on page eight, line nine, to let the           
 teacher go directly to superior court.  He said, during discussions           
 with various parties, instead of having an oral notification it was           
 felt that written notification be given to avoid hearsay.  He said            
 it was felt that having the tapes of the meetings available would             
 be sufficient and avoid unnecessary expense.  He said a transcript            
 could then be done.                                                           
                                                                               
 Number 0505                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON withdrew Amendment 6 to CSHB 465.                     
                                                                               
 Number 0529                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 10 to CSHB           
 465, which clarified the one year period.  Hearing no objection               
 Amendment 10 was adopted to CSHB 465 by the House Standing                    
 Committee on Health, Education and Social Services.                           
                                                                               
 Number 0551                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 11, page             
 three, line 22, to CSHB 465.  Hearing no objection Amendment 11 was           
 adopted to CSHB 465 by the House Standing Committee on Health,                
 Education and Social Services.                                                
                                                                               
 Number 0564                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 12, page             
 three, line 22, to CSHB 465.                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 0570                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected to the proposed Amendment 12 and said           
 it referred to the standards as being those standards established             
 under (b)(1) of the section.  He asked if "(b)(1)" should be added            
 to the proposed Amendment 12 to avoid confusion.                              
                                                                               
 Number 0594                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, in his question to the sponsor of               
 CSHB 465, he was told that it was a universal reference to the                
 whole section.                                                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE withdrew his objection.  Hearing no further              
 objection Amendment 12 was adopted to CSHB 465 by the House                   
 Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services.                  
                                                                               
 Number 0599                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred back to Amendment 13 on page six, lines 31            
 and 32, and said it should read, "provide professional service to             
 another private or public educational program" deleting "in the               
 state".                                                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 13 to CSHB           
 465.  Hearing no objection Amendment 13 was adopted to CSHB 465 by            
 the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social                  
 Services.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0657                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said procedures upon notice of dismissal,                
 found in Section 10, there is a pre-termination hearing and that it           
 must comport with the minimum requirements of due process.  He                
 asked if the time between notification and pre-termination would be           
 immediate.  He mentioned a scenario where notification was given 30           
 minutes before the pre-termination meeting.                                   
                                                                               
 Number 0688                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this scenario would not be his interpretation             
 of CSHB 465.                                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 0696                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WRIGHT said, under those circumstances, the people involved               
 would go to court and that the court would most likely rule the               
 case in favor of the teacher in that it did not fit the                       
 requirements listed in CSHB 465.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 0704                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified that there is the understanding,               
 given the minimum requirements of due process, of the requirement             
 that a certain amount of preparation time be given.                           
                                                                               
 Number 0718                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page three, line eight, and               
 asked the appropriateness of having students in this process.  He             
 expressed concern over this provision and said he would be willing            
 to move Amendment 14.                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 0748                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said, regarding proposed Amendment 14, that the                
 student involvement in the process might only want to be limited to           
 secondary students as most elementary students love their teacher.            
 He shared the concern over the possibility of popularity contests.            
                                                                               
 Number 0762                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WRIGHT said there was no strong feeling regarding this issue,             
 either for or against.  He then mentioned that there are students             
 who sit on local school boards.                                               
                                                                               
 Number 0782                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said "they're community members too, I                
 would assume.  One of the reasons I wanted to bring this up was               
 that I think this particular word is being used as an axe against             
 the whole bill."  He made a motion to adopt Amendment 14 to CSHB              
 465.                                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 0799                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS objected to the proposed Amendment 14.              
 He said CSHB 465 provides an opportunity, the extent of which can             
 be left to the local school districts, to allow those students to             
 be part of the process.  He questioned, if this language was                  
 excluded from CSHB 465, whether it would eliminate students from              
 the process.                                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 0823                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the inclusion of "student" might                 
 prevent the passage of CSHB 465.                                              
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said students should be included in the process.              
                                                                               
 Number 0851                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she had no problem with the inclusion            
 of students in the process, but added that through community                  
 members and through parents most young people would get an                    
 opportunity to be included in the process.                                    
                                                                               
 A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 14.  Representatives                  
 Rokeberg, Brice and Bunde voted yea.  Representatives Robinson, G.            
 Davis and Toohey voted nay.  Amendment 14 failed to be adopted to             
 in the House Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social               
 Services.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0892                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY made a motion to move CSHB 465 as amended, with               
 individual recommendations and zero fiscal note.  Hearing no                  
 objection CSHB 465 was moved from the House Standing Committee on             
 Health, Education and Social Services.                                        

Document Name Date/Time Subjects