Rep. Mack Shirley, R-Rexburg, asked Luna aide Jason Hancock about suggestions yesterday from an ag teacher from Parma, who called for several changes in a procedure outlined in the bill that Shirley said were certainly "reasonable." Hancock said he didn't hear that portion of yesterday's testimony.

Rep. Brian Cronin, D-Boise, asked how the changes like going from two teacher evaluations to one would improve student achievement. "I don't understand why we're going backwards," he said. "This plan is supposedly about creating more effective teachers. And yet we're doing less evaluating." He also questioned how parent input would be factored into teacher evaluations, and said at his children's school, a handful of parents are very involved in the school and the rest aren't. Hancock responded that he's just the "technician," not the "salesman" for the plan; his role is just to explain what's in the bill. The single evaluation would have two parts, he said, so, "I really don't see it as a step back." On parent input, he said, "We really didn't get prescriptive on how districts would do that. ... We'll leave that up to the locals to decide."

Rep. Pete Nielsen, R-Mountain Home, said he was concerned about constitutionality and due process questions with the bill, based on testimony he heard yesterday, so he went to the Attorney General's office this morning and spoke with an attorney. "He assured me that we're OK, but he's going to have a written decision on paper to me. He said he couldn't get it done today," Nielsen said, but it should arrive before any vote in the full House on the bill.

Rep. Donna Pence, D-Gooding, questioned how the bill can say that certain teachers are on two-year, rolling contracts, yet they can be dismissed one year in without any compensation for the second year. Hancock responded, "It is the one exception to that. ... It is written into the law. It will be included in the contract." Rep. Rich Wills, R-Glenns Ferry, raised a similar concern. "To me there's very limited security in a two-year rolling contract," he said, since the bill allows school boards to lay off teachers at any time as part of a reduction in force, regardless of any contracts. Hancock said, "As I said, it is the one exception. If a district has lost students, they lose funding."