1. Teacher Employment Provisions In HB 2227: Impact and Implications for School Districts Chris Thomas, ASBA General Counsel AASBO Bi-Monthly Meeting, May 19, 2010

2. Last Year…  HB2011 (2009 Session)  Education Budget Reconciliation Bill; effective date of November 24, 2009  Contained provisions that had been discussed, debated and considered in the process  Putting policy issues into budget a common practice

3. HB2011 Provisions  15-536 and 15-538.01:  Removes dates for issuing contracts to teachers - - continuing and non-continuing  Districts can now choose their own date  15-539:  Reduces the amount of time suspended (w/o pay) or dismissed teachers have to request an appeal from 30 days to 10 days

4. HB2011 Provisions  15-539:  Shortens time allowed for teachers with inadequate performance to make improvement from 85 working days (17 instructional weeks, almost one ‐ half year of the academic year) to 60 working days (12 instructional weeks, still more than an academic quarter)

5. HB2011 Provisions  15-544:  Removes seniority recall rights of continuing teachers  Allows districts to RIF teachers without regard to seniority -- no more last in, first out  Allows for differential pay decreases without regard to seniority or having to apply to all teachers

6. HB2011 Provisions  15-502 (H):  “Notwithstanding any other law, a school district shall not adopt policies that provide employment retention priority for teachers based on tenure or seniority.”

7. HB2011 Provisions  15-504  “School district employment contracts shall not include compensated days for professional association activities.”

8. HB2011: Two Problems  First Problem: General effective date of November 24, 2009  Law cannot impair obligations of existing contracts; policies related to employment in place at time of contract signing deemed to be part of contract  Contracts signed already for year beginning July 1, 2009

9. HB2011: Two Problems  Second problem: Legal Uncertainty  Arizona Education Association files law suit making three claims; the strongest claims are on procedural grounds: the legislature erred when it passed provisions as part of a budget bill

10. Result: Many Districts Did Not Follow HB2011’s Provisions  Concern over too much uncertainty with impairment issue and AEA law suit  February ASBA survey showed 2/3 of districts either would not implement or were not sure they would implement

11. HB2227, 2010 Session  New provision: Cuts amount of time teacher have to return contract by half -- from 30 days to 15 days; also defines when the clock starts to run  Senate Committee of the Whole  All of HB2011 provisions grafted onto HB2227 along with a retroactivity clause; done to negate procedural issues in AEA law suit  Bill is quickly passed by House and transmitted to Governor who signed bill with general effective date

12. Two weeks ago: AEA drops law suit; judge signs order dissolving case; legal uncertainty no more!

13. What Districts Should Do Now  ALL of original HB2011 reforms are in place -- no impairment issues for FY2011; contracts and policies should reflect that  Can districts have a proxy for seniority?  No, but they can value overall teaching experience, highly qualified status and other non- seniority (time with the district) factors

14. What Districts Should Do Now  What about professional days prohibition?  Watch for AG Opinion coming soon: submitted for review opinion allows districts to pay for professional association days so long as professional association fully compensates district for cost

15. New Legislation: HB2521  Mandates at least 20% of a superintendents pay be performance pay.  “Performance” can either be:  25% determined based on the % of academic gain determined by ADE of pupils who are enrolled in the school district compared to the academic gain achieved by the highest ranking of the 50 largest school districts in Arizona (will be defined by ADE)  25% determined by the percentage of parents of pupils who are enrolled at the school district who assign a letter grade of “A” to the school on a survey of parental satisfaction with the school district  25% determined by the % of teachers who are employed at the school district who assign a letter grade of “A”to the school on a survey of teacher satisfaction with the school  25% determined by other criteria selected by the governing board.  Anything the local board says it is as long as they choose at a public meeting to choose a different measurement

16. HB2521  Also, has a general effective date. Contracts signed before the date do not have to have the performance provision in it.

17. Questions? Cthomas@azsba.org