The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:55 p.m., on Monday, February 8, 1999. Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Wendell Williams, Chairman

Mr. Tom Collins, Vice Chairman

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Mark Manendo

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District 9, stated A.B. 2 clarified portions of A.B. 376 from last session. She said the interim subcommittee supported the effort to get school districts in urban areas that use regional transportation, not only to focus on continued purchases of school buses, but also to allow districts to divert transportation dollars by encouraging students to use bus passes. The interim subcommittee members looked at negotiating or buying package deals for regional transportation, instead of just continually buying new school buses. The trustees could enter into an agreement and arrange for reduced rates for transporting students on public buses.

Ms. Giunchigliani said school districts should be able to negotiate rates for student bus passes, as they did in many other states that had regional transportation. It could be available to students and/or their parents.

Ms. Giunchigliani declared people in Clark County knew about the debate on the 2-mile rule, which stated, students who lived within 2 miles had to walk to school. She said it could sometimes be very dangerous. Some students lived just outside of the 2 miles and it could be difficult for the students to get to school.

Ms. Giunchigliani said Nevada never allowed school districts to use transportation monies in a different way. A.B. 2 would allow them to use transportation dollars and to negotiate student and/or parent discounted rates.

Mrs. Cegavske voiced her support of A.B. 2.

Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District CCSD, read from prepared text of Exhibit C. The district was in favor of A.B. 2 as long as the language was permissive. Chairman Williams responded text of the bill appeared to be permissive language.

Ms. Giunchigliani agreed it was permissive language. She remarked the issue was that it was time to negotiate rate packages on public transportation. She suggested the district might want to pilot the program in an area where it was needed and requested from parents. She reiterated A.B. 2 was permissive language.

Mr. Manendo exclaimed he thought A.B. 2 was an important piece of legislation. He also wanted to let the people know Ms. Giunchigliani worked very hard on the interim subcommittee and guided the rest of the committee members. He expressed student safety was the most important concern. For example, in his legislative district, the CCSD was trying to work something out so students would not have to cross Nellis Boulevard or so elementary school students would not have to cross a highway.

Mr. Manendo asked Chairman Williams if the committee could submit a letter of encouragement requesting the school districts implement the program if A.B. 2 passed. He realized it was permissive language, but a letter of support could possibly help.

Ms. Parnell asked who would carry the liability if an injury occurred on public transportation. Ms. Giunchigliani said she understood the individual would carry the liability. The district would do nothing more than negotiate a reduced rate. She explained the liability question did not come up because it would not be mandatory that school districts purchase reduced rate tickets.

Ms. Giunchigliani announced A.B. 2 would only apply to middle and high school students. It would not apply to elementary students because she felt the parents would not be comfortable. She reiterated there would be no liability on the school district and there would only be a negotiated rate.

Mr. Brower asked if Ms. Giunchigliani could see any difference, as far as liability, between the proposed program where the students would ride via a reduced rate and what existed now, which was use of the public bus.

Ms. Giunchigliani replied, "that is the same position and I think that is the cleanest and clearest way to deal with the matter." She said there was no liability brought on the district currently for any students who rode buses.

A.B. 2 would only give extra assistance to families who were purchasing or wanted to purchase bus tickets.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 2.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Williams asked Ms. Giunchigliani to present A.B. 47.

Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly district 9, commended the interim subcommittee on several in-depth committee meetings. She stated A.B. 47 was an opportunity for the committee to look into the teacher shortage that had arisen not only in Nevada, but also across the United States.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted several problems, which Nevada faced. For instance, school districts had not planned for replacement of teachers who were within 5 to 10 years of retirement. There were teacher shortages in "at risk" areas. School districts had not recruited teachers for outlying rural areas, which was very needed in our state. She also informed committee members Nevada had the highest number of people with master’s degrees and over 20 years of experience. That meant over 30 percent of the teacher population would be able to retire within the next 5 years.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how to acknowledge and encourage people to enter the teaching profession. She also asked how to help those who were currently in the profession and considered moving into an area of shortage or an "at risk" area. On a yearly basis the districts could determine where the teacher shortages were. The board of trustees could recognize where "at risk" areas existed.

Ms. Giunchigliani said there should be recruitment of high school teachers including those who were of diverse racial, ethnic and cultural background. She also stated there was a need for more recruitment of male teachers in elementary schools.

Ms. Giunchigliani testified school districts would be given $100,000 and would be able to allocate it subject to certain requirements. Repayment could not exceed $5,000 if the applicant taught full-time in a public school within a designated area of the state. Therefore, if they chose an "at risk" area designated by the local board of trustees, they could be forgiven up to that dollar amount. In addition, the department could reimburse up to $2,000 for those teachers who received an endorsement in a different area determined to be an "at risk" area.

Ms. Giunchigliani opined it bothered her teachers were working outside of their area of licensure and believed it should be something the committee took into consideration, because it gave an indication of teacher shortages in that area of expertise. The problem was school districts submitted exceptions for teachers working outside of their area of expertise and the results differed from what was reality. Ms. Giunchigliani explained, in her opinion, what exception meant. For example, in her department of the school district she worked at, there were teachers hired for special education teaching, but were placed in a self-contained, emotionally disturbed classroom, even though the individual was licensed and certified to teach in a resource room. She remarked those were two very different areas of expertise. Therefore, Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the committee take A.B. 47 into consideration for a work session.

Ms. Giunchigliani expressed there was no way all needs could be met because the university system could not and would not be prepared, whether it was now or in 10 years, to graduate the number of individuals needed. However, a long-term plan was extremely necessary.

Ms. Cegavske commended Ms. Giunchigliani on her approach to A.B. 47. She thought a better way for recruitment could be salary increases for teachers. Special education teachers were not paid adequately for their work and there was a differentiation in pay between those types of teachers and others. She was concerned if teachers were given money back, there was no guarantee of how long they would stay in Nevada and they could leave after all that money was spent. Ms. Cegavske stated she would much rather look into a salary increase. Merit increases were also another great way to compensate teachers. She thought the committee should go back to the "drawing board" to look at how salary increases could work instead of forgiving teachers for money spent toward their education.

Mr. Collins asked Ms. Giunchigliani if the tobacco tax settlement money being proposed for the millenium scholarship program could also be used for A.B. 47. Ms. Giunchigliani replied that would be a better use of those dollars while the issue was debated whether those funds should be used for anything except healthcare. It would be something for committee members to take into consideration.

Mr. Collins commented that Utah continued to pay terribly low salaries to educators and yet they stayed in that area because they had a strong family bond in the community, which Nevada did not have because of fast growth. He supported the issue of higher pay.

Ms. Giunchigliani expressed she would never argue more appropriate nor higher pay for teachers. She agreed with Ms. Cegavske on her idea. There could be differentials on how to deal with recruitment and retention of educators. She explained a variety of ways to achieve pay differential, for instance: extra-time, flex-time, staggered day schedules, flex scheduling, or incentives with retirement. She thought it was worthwhile to have a debate about why people had left the work field and why many special education teachers had moved to regular education classrooms.

Chairman Williams mentioned an article in the paper, which stated teachers should receive decent pay before merit pay. He proposed a teacher charter school for high school students who wanted to be teachers.

Mr. Brower asked for more detail on where those shortages existed and what was currently being done to rectify the situation.

Ms. Giunchigliani referenced (Exhibit D). She explained that was where the school districts reported exception areas. Sometimes school districts did not converse with teachers about whether or not they wanted to teach outside of their area of expertise. For example, a school district could have a math instructor teach current events or health. She said the school districts would not consider that outside your area of expertise and yet in reality it was. Those types of issues would not be reflected within Exhibit D. The local board of trustees would decide for its school district what an exception was, rather than it being dictated by either the state or the Board of Regents.

Mrs. de Braga agreed there was a shortage of teachers. On the other hand, the public insisted we raise standards for teachers, schools, and students. She asked if the interim subcommittee discussed whether teachers were properly trained to teach. Other than in highly specialized areas, they should be able to teach at a higher standard.

Ms. Giunchigliani replied there was minimal discussion. She asked if school districts would arbitrarily hire people who had never taught or had no teaching background. She explained that was happening in some areas.

Teachers already licensed were being held to a different standard. For example, they must have had certain educational backgrounds even though school districts hired teachers who had no teaching background or experience. Committee members would have to figure out what educational backgrounds educators needed to possess. Ms. Giunchigliani thought teachers needed a good liberal arts background, and specialization in their content area.

Ms. Giunchigliani claimed discipline was an area in which a teacher could get in trouble either as a first year teacher who went through college or as a person with a "reduced background." In her opinion the universities should give teachers better tools to be successful and to be able to properly discipline students.

Another concern was the content area and making sure the teachers either graduated from an accredited college or had a four-year or five-year degree. Ms. Giunchigliani felt teachers should have the strength, not just the passion for teaching.

Ms. de Braga stated the committee should decide if knowledge in a certain subject area was more important than the ability to teach. That brought up the question of what type of standards were being taught.

Mr. Collins acknowledged John Rhodes, City Councilman of North Las Vegas, who was present in the meeting.

Dr. Keith Rheault, represented the Department of Education, and supported the goals of A.B. 47. Dr. Rheault said he worked in the licensure area for the past four years and agreed that special education teachers were very needed. He noted some other areas of concern; for example, secondary math, secondary science, and particularly in physics. There were specialty teachers such as audiologists and psychologists who were hard to find. He explained Clark County had the only school district that ran bilingual programs and elementary bilingual teachers were also very hard to find. The Commission on Professional Standards, which set the licensure regulations, came up with an alternative route in an attempt to meet the need for elementary bilingual teachers. The alternative route was a program for individuals who had bachelor degrees in anything but education. Dr. Rheault elaborated it was a three-year program and the school districts had to agree to provide a mentor to the teachers for the term of the program. They had to take certain coursework before they were allowed into the classroom and after the three-year period with five successful evaluations, the school district would waive the student teaching requirement. The program had been fairly successful in recruiting teachers, but there was still a shortage in certain subject areas.

Dr. Rheault stated some concerns. The appropriations needed to be adequate to ensure it would be worth the effort to go through the development of regulations and to put the program into place. It would take department staff time to organize recruitment and provide informational brochures and information identified within A.B. 47. Also needed was staff time to set up the repayment program. The appropriation of $100,000 could cause a tremendous response to the program and if, for instance, 19 people requested $5,000, funding could be spent quickly.

Dr. Rheault said he received phone calls from new teachers moving to Nevada who wanted to know how to apply for the repayment program. He responded there was not a program in Nevada. Those people came from another state in which they had that type of loan repayment program for hard to fill areas. He commented on the exceptions report which showed teachers working out of their field. A correlation directory that was developed for each endorsement area determined the exceptions. The report also showed exactly what courses could be taught with that endorsement. The 1999 correlation directory had just come out and he would provide it for the committee (Exhibit E).

Dr. Rheault explained school districts required teachers in their first year of teaching to teach outside of their field whether they agreed or not and the maximum length one could teach in that exception area was 2 years. After 2 years teachers would either have to find an endorsement or be replaced.

Dr. Rheault said federal repayment programs for loans had certain definitions for shortage areas. He thought it would be a good idea to use the federal definitions for shortage areas within Nevada, whether A.B. 47 passed or not.

Mr. Collins asked if teachers who taught out of their field had 2 years to get certified in that field or they would be replaced. Dr. Rheault answered the statute stated they could teach out of their major or minor area of endorsement for up to 2 years.

Mr. Collins verified with Dr. Rheault if a teacher who did not meet an endorsement requirement could be replaced with someone who might not be qualified because there was no one available, even though that teacher now had experience in the non-endorsed area. Dr. Rheault stated it was possible for that to happen and the statute currently allowed it. Many times it involved scheduling and who was available with certain endorsements for a class. Mr. Collins said he thought that was foolish.

Chairman Williams told Dr. Rheault in reference to the appropriation, if the policy was sound, committee would gladly make a recommendation to Ways and Means Committee. He then asked Dr. Rheault if individuals in the future, who went through the normal process at the universities for teacher training, could have some type of waiver or delay for their student teaching.

Dr. Rheault stated the Department of Education did not anticipate that. The Commission for Professional Standards stated there was an initiative, which had five main focal points. One point was the authorization to use paid or unpaid internships in lieu of student teaching, but there was no way they would waive the student teaching. That was only for the alternative program, which was necessary for a special hard-to-fill area or an area that could not be filled at all.

Ms. Parnell asked for figures on how many teachers were currently teaching grades 7 through 12 outside their area of expertise. Dr. Rheault answered the Department of Education had figures on that and could provide them to Ms. Parnell.

Mrs. Cegavske asked how long federal loan programs were available. Dr. Rheault stated it had been a process as long as he could remember. There were so many different types of loan programs available. Sometimes teachers were accepted and their loans were forgiven through letters from the Department of Education, but it depended on what type of loan they had. The Department of Education could also write letters if someone was on the Title 1 or economically disadvantaged "at risk" schools list. The teachers in those schools were also available for federal loan repayment depending on the loan.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if there were any matching funds from the state required on those programs. Dr. Rheault stated there were no matching fund requirements from the state for federal programs.

Mrs. Cegavske asked how many teachers, within 1 year, had been helped with those programs. Dr. Rheault answered he could determine how many teachers were helped by adding the letters he had received.

Mrs. Cegavske requested a list of other states that used those federal programs, to which Dr. Rheault said he could provide a list.

Martha Tittle of the CCSD read from prepared text of Exhibit F and was in favor of A.B. 47.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if the education foundation would have funds to contribute to any of those programs. Ms. Tittle stated she was not able to answer that question, but could find out.

Chairman Williams asked Ms. Tittle to give the suggested change again. Ms. Tittle stated the recommendation was applicants be considered from states, such as Arizona, which had limits on the number of admissions in a college of education. She understood that in Arizona, they only allowed a certain number of applicants to be admitted to the colleges. Perhaps that would provide a pool of applicants for Nevada if there were some type of incentive for those students.

Dr. Jane Nichols, University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), appreciated the commission study on special education and student discipline, which brought A.B. 47 to the attention of committee. The UCCSN had been engaged at the system level with the Board of Regents in a study of teacher education mandated by the legislature. In the process, a number of key issues emerged. One key issue was the regents’ initiative in Clark County to determine how to produce better-educated teachers, while at the same time, overcoming tremendous pressure to produce more teachers. They were aware of the major problem facing Nevada as the fastest growing state and fastest growing kindergarten though grade 12 population.

Dr. Nichols stated A.B. 47 would enable UCCSN to provide an incentive for students to move into teaching. She thought the concept of people moving into the state was equally important and the school districts had clearly indicated to UCCSN how much they needed state help to recruit at a national level. She said incentives were in place across the country, such as money available to individuals to make a down payment on a home. Texas had a signing bonus in the areas of math and science.

Dr. Nichols remarked in order to meet the teacher shortage, the UCCSN had to develop a traditional 2-year baccalaureate degree, whether in a discipline area such as math and science or in elementary education.

Dr. Nichols indicated to meet the need of teachers, we should try to recruit more students through the community colleges. Community colleges were often the best recruiters of minority students or non-traditional families. She stated teachers who represented those types of groups and were willing and able to go into those rural areas were extremely needed. The best scenario happened at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), where they incorporated educational opportunities for biology majors, chemistry majors, mathematics majors, and identified areas of shortage to entice them to consider teaching as a career. She believed once school districts had a young person teach for 1 to 4 years, they would be hooked on teaching.

Dr. Nichols stated UCCSN had a big concern. Individuals not affected by the millenium scholarships would be those professionals who wanted to go into teaching, but who had families and responsibilities, which could prevent them from doing so financially.

Dr. Nichols stated loan forgiveness programs were the most effective ways to encourage individuals to go into teaching. UCCSN thought $100,000 was a very small amount of money to divide and if a freshman needed the money, UCCSN needed to be sure they could guarantee it for 4 years as the program started. In conclusion, UCCSN was anxious to see A.B. 47 passed.

Mrs. Cegavske asked what the school districts and colleges had done to make teaching a popular profession as far as advertising or something similar, because it had not been anything she had seen.

Dr. Nichols agreed and realized UCCSN would be making commitments it could not keep if recruitment was not accomplished. She explained UCCSN would launch some public relations campaigns and work within the school districts to create the Teacher-Cadet Corp. UCCSN was putting their regents’ award program money toward tutoring programs to interest college students in teaching as a profession.

Chairman Williams asked about teacher based charter schools and stated under Charter School Law it could be done with no restrictions. Dr. Nichols stated they had not talked about that, but commented it was an interesting idea.

Mrs. Angle wondered if UCCSN thought about some type of compensation for interns, since they paid for their credits and were not able to work because of their grueling schedule. She wondered if UCCSN had considered an incentive program for interns.

Dr. Nichols agreed the cost of internship was one of the biggest obstacles for people who were going into teaching. She explained there was a statute, which stated a person could not be in a classroom unless they were licensed. Many states had enabled some interns to be paid with substitute pay and provided some service to the school district while they also received good supervision. UCCSN would certainly not endorse any type of program where supervision was lacking. She thought that could be a program to provide some reimbursement for interns.

Mrs. Angle brought up the substitute pay and knew when someone was interning, even with a substitute certificate, it was required a substitute teacher be in the room. That seemed to be a duplication of effort, since those students who were interning ended up teaching a class with the substitute just sitting in to monitor them. She asked if UCCSN had thought about that type of compensation.

Dr. Nichols said they had thought of that type of compensation. Most students got their substitute license after 60 credits and 2 education courses, which was the requirement in Nevada. They could then begin to earn money on the side as substitutes. Once they got into the internships they found themselves with another substitute in order to be in the classroom. It was a dilemma, but not one that was under control of any colleges. Dr. Nichols believed it was under a Nevada Statute.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated some of the antiquated statutory restrictions had impacted the shortages. She thought the committee should look at those types of barriers that currently exist.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing with no action taken on A.B. 47.

Meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: