The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Monday, March 1, 1999. Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 4100 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

Ms. 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:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Assembly District 11

Assemblyman Richard Perkins, Assembly District 23

Senator William J. Raggio, Senatorial District 3

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on the bill and explained the measure would be an extension of law currently in place.

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, representing Assembly District 11, reiterated it was currently illegal for students to carry pagers or cellular phones at school, unless authorization was granted through current procedure. Mr. Bache said he had confiscated such devices as a school teacher pursuant to NRS 392.500. He stated none of the parents contacted had ever followed the procedure outlined in statute to allow the student to carry the device. The bill before the committee set up a penalty for improper use of those devices for first, second, and third offenses, including forfeiture of the device. He said he was unhappy with the way the bill had been drafted because the new bill changed the offense from a misdemeanor and gave power to the school district to set a policy. Mr. Bache would rather see the offense remain a misdemeanor.

Mrs. Cegavske said she understood why Mr. Bache introduced the bill and agreed a problem was present in schools. She asked if there would be a fiscal note to the school districts because someone would have to collect the fees associated with the bill. Mrs. Cegavske said other laws recently passed had prompted school districts to ask for more money to handle new fees of that nature.

Mr. Bache replied that was not his intent. He did not want to send the bill back for a redraft. He felt the school police would be the appropriate agency to handle citations and the juvenile justice system would be responsible for collection of fees, not the school districts.

Mrs. Cegavske asked about headphones and compact disc players as a problem in schools and if that bill would apply to those devices as well.

Mr. Bache responded those devices were also a nuisance, however, the original concern was students using pagers and cellular phones to engage in illegal activities. Devices such as video games, compact disc players, and radios would not be involved in illegal activities.

Mr. Manendo asked if any other fines were currently imposed by the school districts. He said the fines specified in the new bill could be collected in the same manner, thereby avoiding a fiscal note.

Mr. Bache said he was not aware of any, but persons at the hearing representing school districts may be able to answer the question. He reiterated the intent was to have those fees handled by the judicial system in juvenile justice courts.

Mrs. Angle asked if forfeiture of the device was a last resort penalization or choice among many penalties available to schools. Mr. Bache said the device would be forfeited on all offenses. The subsequent offenses would have increased fines. Mrs. Angle said parents should be brought into the process. She asked if parental notification was included in the bill. Mr. Bache responded the devices were already illegal, and under current law school districts were notifying parents of the penalties incurred under statute.

Mr. Brower asked if there were a compelling state interest to ban the devices under NRS. He wondered why the state was becoming involved in the issue. Mr. Bache said he was not the original sponsor of the bill passed in 1993 making pagers and cellular phones illegal. He responded the original bill was sponsored by Assemblyman Arberry. Mr. Bache reiterated the concern was the illegal use of those devices on campus, primarily in high schools. He referred to drug sales as a possible use for those devices. He suggested Mr. Brower review the minutes of the committee that heard the original bill in the 67^th Session.

Martha Tittle, a lobbyist representing the Clark County School District, said the district supported A.B. 307 in its original intent. She appreciated the designation of penalties under the new bill. The main concern of the district was school personnel handling the collection of penalties, rather than school police. The district supported parental notification in confiscation of a device. Ms. Tittle suggested school districts develop procedures for collecting the penalties, rather than have those procedures outlined in statute.

Chairman Williams asked what means the school district had used to notify parents and students of the illegality of the devices.

Ms. Tittle responded elementary and secondary divisions had indicated in student guidelines the devices were not to be brought to school. She said individual schools communicated the information to parents. Schools had individual procedures for consequences. She did not have information on current consequences imposed by each school.

Chairman Williams stated current law allowed students to possess the items on campus if they received authorization from the site administrator. He asked how many students took advantage of the authorization in the Clark County School District. Ms. Tittle replied she did not have the statistics available.

Chairman Williams commented students currently had a way to carry the devices by authorization from the school. If students were willing to get the authorization, he wondered if the bill was necessary.

Mrs. Cegavske said as a parent of students in Clark County School District, she frequently received reminders the devices were not allowed.

Mrs. de Braga stated she was present at the hearings for the original bill making pagers and cellular phones illegal during the 67^th Session. She said a number of Virginia City High School students were members of the town’s volunteer fire department. Thus, the pagers were important to those students and the provision had been included in the statute to allow use of the device with consent of school administrators.

Mr. Manendo asked Ms. Tittle what fines were currently imposed on students for bringing the devices to school. Ms. Tittle replied she was not aware of any fines.

Chairman Williams wondered if the schools made students and parents aware it was possible to get a waiver to carry the devices.

Nicholas Christensen, a student of the Las Vegas Academy, felt the penalties imposed by the proposed legislation were too stringent, and the bill would cause more problems than it would solve. According to Mr. Christensen, the primary use of pagers on school grounds was to communicate with parents. Most students had their pagers set on a vibrate-only mode during school hours. The communication occurring between students and parents via pagers did not constitute a disruption. Proponents of the bill argued parents did not need pagers to communicate with their children, since they could leave a message with the school office. At Mr. Christensen’s school, the Las Vegas Academy, a publication was distributed to parents and teachers every year stating the school’s policy. He cited page 34 of the handbook, where the school administrator stated, "No telephone messages will be delivered to students. If an emergency situation arises, parents may feel free to come to the school to see their student." The proposed legislation would fine parents for attempting to communicate with their children.

Mr. Christensen conceded the policy may be changed. However, even if the policy was changed to allow parents to leave messages, he argued delivery of the message would cause a great disruption to the classroom setting. To get a message to the student, the message could be brought to the classroom by a runner from the school’s office. The teacher would have to interrupt the class to deliver the message to the student, and the student may cause additional disruption to the class by asking for permission to return a phone call. The other option would be for the student to go to the school’s office to receive the message. That would require the teacher to sign the student out of class, as well as requiring the student to leave the class for several minutes and interrupt the classroom further upon his return. The student could be summoned to receive the message between classes. The student would run the risk of being late to his next class because retrieval of the message would require a trip to the office.

Mr. Christensen also addressed the use of cellular telephones in relation to the proposed legislation. He said students were given the phones by their parents so they could be contacted in the event of an emergency. He said his father had given him a cellular phone in case he was ever in a traffic accident. He also said he had never heard a cellular phone ring during class. Mr. Christensen felt the bill could be amended to make a winning situation for everyone. Pagers set on vibrate mode did no harm to the classroom setting, nor did cellular telephones turned off. He suggested the bill be amended to apply only if the device caused an audible disruption to the classroom. Such an amendment would add teeth to the law, and at the same time avoid punishing responsible students. He also said an amended bill would save school administrators from conducting search and destroy missions for those devices, because their illegal use would be obvious.

Jennifer Andrews, a student of the Las Vegas Academy, asked the circumstances necessary to receive a waiver for the legal use of a cellular phone or pager under current statute. She also wanted to know to whom the waiver would be available. Additionally, Ms. Andrews asked where the revenue provided by the fees imposed would go. She asked who would be responsible for confiscating the devices. She argued no personnel would be available under current school staffing to collect the devices from students.

Chairman Williams said language in existing statute was vague regarding who would be able to receive a waiver and under what circumstances the waiver would be issued. Current law was also highly subjective. He stated the school district representative who testified earlier had been unable to provide answers to those questions. He assured Ms. Andrews the committee would review all the issues she brought forward before deciding on the bill.

Jonathan C. Rathmann, a student of the Las Vegas Academy, expressed his concerns with the bill and current law outlined in NRS 392.500. He stated current school policies and statutes were already in place to govern the use of pagers and cellular phones. He argued the bill was irrelevant because the penalties for illegal use of those devices in school were already in place. Many students concealed the devices at school and avoided current policies and laws against their use. He said the law, if passed, would not be able to deter crime or violence in Nevada schools. Mr. Rathmann said minors and adults alike used electronic devices to engage in illegal activities. He speculated only 10 percent of Nevada’s students used pagers and cellular phones for that purpose. Mr. Rathmann stated the increasing complexities of the family situation, including single parent families and families with two working parents, necessitated the use of those devices. Passage of the bill would hinder their communication. He said pagers and cellular phones both had the capability to store messages, so parents could receive a return phone call at an appropriate time. He also stated cellular phones provided students with the capability to call for emergency help or leave messages in case of a change in scheduling. He opined 80 percent of schools in the Las Vegas area were built in lower class neighborhoods, which tended to have more crime. Mr. Rathmann said the effort and money spent to implement the program could be better used elsewhere, especially to motivate students to graduate and seek post-secondary education. He stated the development of magnet schools like the Las Vegas Academy allowed students to pursue an education without the fear of gang violence, drugs, and other criminal activities in school.

Mr. Manendo commented a constituent had emailed him suggesting more money should be spent on textbooks, supplies, and teacher salaries. He asked how many students used pagers or cellular phones at school.

Mr. Rathmann replied he did not have a number available. He speculated half the students at his grade level used cellular phones or pagers. Mr. Manendo asked if all those students had waivers. Mr. Rathmann replied the waiver option was not presented to students at the Las Vegas Academy in the school’s handbook. He had only been advised that day waivers were an option. Mr. Manendo said the students must be using them illegally, if they had not received waivers. Mr. Rathmann agreed, but qualified the statement by saying parents had given the devices to the students.

Mr. Manendo asked how often the devices made a nuisance in the classroom. Mr. Rathmann said he had never heard one during class.

Mr. Christensen reiterated he had never seen anything in the Las Vegas Academy’s student handbook stating students could obtain a waiver for the use of electronic devices.

Chairman Williams said that point had been made earlier. He asked Mr. Christensen to submit his proposed amendment to the committee.

Jennifer Yonesawa, a parent from Clark County School District, had a daughter at the Las Vegas Academy and a daughter at another school in Las Vegas. She said her one of her daughters estimated as many as 70 percent of students carried cellular phones or pagers. After she found out the intent of the legislation was prohibit the use of those devices because they were being used in illegal activities, she felt it was discriminatory because juveniles were being singled out and prohibited in using them. She pointed out the use of cellular phones in illegal activities for other groups in society had not been targeted. Ms. Yonesawa stated she felt fines should be imposed for other items used in illegal activities, such as guns or knives. She could not find in policy or statute fines for those types of items. She asked for statistics from Mr. Bache and other proponents of the bill showing how often the use of electronic devices during class was actually a disturbance. Ms. Yonesawa stated her daughters had agreed with the statements made by Mr. Christensen and Mr. Rathmann. Neither of them had ever heard a pager or cellular phone during class. Ms. Yonesawa proposed amending line 5 to read "inclusive who, while on school grounds, is in possession of a beeper or portable telephone or any similar electronic device designed to page or contact the person which creates an audible disturbance."

Helen Foley, a lobbyist for AllTel, said it was currently illegal for students to use cellular phones or pagers on campus. She acknowledged it was possible for students to receive a waiver, approved by the principal or other school administrator. She said many different situations arose necessitating the waiver. Ms. Foley supported Mr. Bache’s attempt to bring the responsibility for implementation of the law back to the school district board of trustees. School boards were the best forum for implementing policies such as the one addressed by the bill. Ms. Foley did not support the bill because it outlined specific civil penalties. She felt the board of trustees could impose appropriate fines.

Tom Skancke, a lobbyist for AT & T Wireless Services, stated he and his organization were in full agreement with Ms. Foley’s statement. He asked what would happen to the devices after confiscation by school authorities. Mr. Skancke was concerned because the devices were expensive. In a family emergency situation, a parent may not be able to petition for authorization. He said most of the companies with which he worked complied with local laws concerning the use of portable electronic devices. Mr. Skancke worked with local law enforcement under court order to reduce the effects of the devices in illegal activities. He supported the intent of the bill and wanted to work with the bill’s sponsor to work out possible concerns.

Chairman Williams asked if any of this equipment was rented. Mr. Skancke said no phones or pagers were rented or leased. A service contract had to be signed before a customer could leave the store with the equipment.

Mr. Collins asked why Mr. Skancke was concerned about where the phone would be after it was confiscated by the school authority. He also asked what Mr. Skancke recommended as an alternative to forfeiture.

Ms. Foley replied the bill did not give any latitude to the school district to give the phone back to the student. She reiterated both AllTel and AT & T dealt with the Las Vegas Police Department to deter crime connected with cellular phones.

Mr. Skancke responded the device would not be returned to AT & T because it was sold to the customer. He was concerned about the cost of the devices and suggested language be included allowing the school district to return the phone to a responsible adult.

Ms. Foley felt it was appropriate for school districts to make the decision. She said the classroom should not be interrupted with ringing phones and beeping pagers. Teachers needed to have peace and quiet. However, the responsibility was with the school districts and waivers should be issued to students who displayed a need for the device.

Mrs. Cegavske recommended a partnership between the phone companies and the school district. She suggested a note explaining the district’s policy be given to a parent when a device was purchased by a phone company.

Lucille Lusk, founder of Nevada Concerned Citizens, acknowledged the students who testified from Las Vegas and their observation of the broader ramifications of the bill, especially those who had no intent on criminal behavior. Ms. Lusk said the bill covered students in kindergarten through grade 12. She read from the bill, "the school district shall adopt and enforce measures which must include civil penalties of money fines." She asked if a monetary fine was the most appropriate way to deal with a kindergarten infraction. She urged the committee to note the bill did not allow flexibility. Ms. Lusk was concerned the device would not be returned to the parent. She asked what would happen if a younger child took the device to school without the permission of the parents.

Elaine Lancaster, President of the Nevada State Education Association, said she did not have statistical data on the use of portable electronic devices in schools. However, she stated the use of those devices was a problem in Nevada’s schools. She said the law passed in the 67^th Session making the use of the devices illegal was not being followed. Ms. Lancaster said she would be happy to work with Mr. Bache to find a solution to the problem.

Mrs. de Braga said she was appalled the Las Vegas Academy refused to give emergency messages to students and was more concerned with the ramifications of that policy than with the students’ disregard for current law.

Ms. Lancaster agreed with Mrs. de Braga and said she would do some checking on different policies.

Mr. Collins thought pagers set on vibrate mode caused just as big a disruption as pagers emitting audible sound because it caused the student to jump out of their chair.

Ms. Lancaster said no one had ever brought up that point with her before.

Mr. Gustavson asked how many telephone lines came into the school where Ms. Lancaster taught first grade. Ms. Lancaster replied there were four lines. Mr. Gustavson asked for the name of the school in which Ms. Lancaster taught. Ms. Lancaster said she taught at Hidden Valley Elementary School. The school was attended by approximately 500 students.

Mr. Gustavson said the schools in his district only had two phone lines. He said teachers from those schools had complained it sometimes took 2 to 4 hours to get through to the school.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if any restrictions were in place prohibiting teachers or other school administrators from carrying pagers or cellular phones.

Ms. Lancaster responded there were no policies in place, to her knowledge. She suggested Ms. Tittle could better answer the question.

Doug Byington, lobbyist for the Nevada Association of School Administrators, said the argument concerning portable electronic devices in schools was reminiscent of the argument made concerning guns in schools. Mr. Byington was concerned about the aspect of fines as a penalty. He asked what would happen if the student refused to pay the fine. He also asked if forfeiture was legal. Mr. Byington understood forfeiture as a complete giving up, without the possibility of return. He said the collection of fines was a burden on the schools and school districts.

Mr. Collins asked if guns, adult magazines, and other forfeited items were given to the school district.

Mr. Byington said in some cases the parents could come and pick up the items. He stated those items were confiscated, not forfeited.

Michael Swartzer, a student from Bonanza High School in Las Vegas, expressed concerns with the bill. Mr. Swartzer said communication was a new technology in society and it could not be limited. Communication was a fundamental right. The only way to limit communication would be to show it was detrimental to society. He said there was no evidence showing that was the case. Many people at the hearing used pagers and cellular phones, but they were probably not involved in illegal activities. Mr. Swartzer reiterated the need for parents to be able to contact students in case of an emergency. He stated school offices were overwhelmed and not always available to take and deliver messages to students. He was previously unaware a waiver was available to students.

Mrs. de Braga asked if Mr. Swartzer was aware he was breaking the law by using a device without a waiver. Mr. Swartzer thought he was breaking school policy. Mrs. de Braga asked why he would break school policy. Mr. Swartzer replied it was his parents decision, because they needed to contact him to provide transportation for his sister.

Mr. Manendo asked how often Mr. Swartzer utilized his pager at school during the course of a week. Mr. Swartzer responded once or twice a week, and the pager was always on vibrate mode. Mr. Manendo asked if Mr. Swartzer’s parents were the only ones who contacted him on his pager. He wanted to clarify none of Mr. Swartzer’s friends used the pager to contact him. Mr. Swartzer said it was usually only his parents using the pager.

Chairman Williams said school districts needed to do a better job of informing students it was possible to receive a waiver for the devices. He said the committee would like to review the amendments proposed by the students in Las Vegas and make a decision on the bill by Wednesday of the following week. He appointed a subcommittee chaired by Mr. Brower. The other members of the subcommittee would be Ms. Parnell and Mr. Manendo.

Assemblyman Perkins, representing Assembly District 23, introduced the bill. He explained he was a police officer in his home district, and the line between local law enforcement and school officers was occasionally blurred. Mr. Perkins said a number of school-type functions occurred where school police felt they did not have authority. The aim of the bill was to respond to those instances. He pointed to section 1, line 11, expanding jurisdiction of school police to include the school zone. On page 2, section 3, the bill allowed school police officers to have authority over truancy.

Mrs. Cegavske said she knew the school police and local police occasionally had overlapping jurisdictions. She was concerned the school police would not have enough resources to protect the actual school facility as well as the neighboring area. She wanted to know how far the jurisdiction of the school police would expand.

Mr. Perkins stated the school districts themselves designated what was inside the school zone. He also said all police departments prioritized their jurisdictions, including school police. The first priority would have to be the safety of people on campus. Enforcement in other areas of the zone would be on a "time-available" basis. Mr. Perkins said public safety would be provided first to those who had an imminent threat.

Mrs. Koivisto asked what training was required of school police officers.

Mr. Perkins replied school district police officers went through a category one academy, just like other law enforcement officers. He said they were full-fledged police officers. The only limitations on their authority were outlined in NRS 371.275, limiting their jurisdiction.

Ms. Parnell said the peak time for congregation of students and the peak time for traffic occurred during the same time of day. She was concerned about taking school police away from student issues to deal with traffic problems.

Mr. Perkins responded as the law currently existed, school police officers did not have the authority to go across the street from the school, to the areas outside campus where students congregated. He clarified the bill did not give jurisdiction to school police in that area. Mr. Perkins said the aim of the legislation was to give jurisdiction to school police over any school-generated activity. Law enforcement officers working in the school districts should be able to enforce laws and take action for public safety.

Ms. Parnell asked if the bill would allow school police to deal with congregations of students occurring immediately off-campus.

Mr. Perkins said the existing language of the bill specified jurisdiction covered school property, buildings and facilities. In the added language, school police would not have jurisdiction across the street from the school or on private property. Mr. Perkins suggested an amendment may be appropriate to allow school police that jurisdiction.

Mr. Collins commented university police were allowed to pursue activity off-campus. He noted there were two different definitions in the bill for "school zone." One definition followed school zone signage, while the other specified the streets adjacent to the school. Mr. Collins understood if an incident began within the jurisdiction, school police could pursue it.

Mr. Perkins said a separate statute existed for fresh pursuit activity.

Andy Anderson, President of the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, was attending the hearing to represent Clark County school police. He supported the bill as currently written. Mr. Anderson said existing law had created problems in relation to jurisdictional lines. He felt jurisdiction of police officers should be limited by the agency served by the officers. In that case, limiting school police to school district property and school zones was appropriate.

Mr. Gustavson asked Mr. Anderson about the original intent for starting a school police program.

Mr. Anderson stated the primary function of school police, when the program began, was to check the school at night for break-ins. Since that time, the authority had been expanded due to the need for law enforcement in the schools. Mr. Anderson speculated the authority of school police was increased to present levels in 1989. Prior to that time, the school police worked strictly as security guards. Eventually, there was a need for police officers to have a presence in the schools intermingling with students. Local police departments were not able to provide that service, so school security became school police.

Mr. Gustavson asked if a line should be drawn on the jurisdiction of the school police, or if they should be able to enforce the law anywhere.

Mr. Anderson said there was a need for jurisdictional lines for the school police, just like any other law enforcement agency. He stated needs for law enforcement were constantly changing, moving from traffic enforcement to gang prevention. He did not want to see the police limited.

Mrs. Angle was concerned about the safety of school police officers. She asked if school police were armed and what would happen in a confrontation with another armed individual.

Mr. Anderson replied Clark County school police officers were armed. He could not answer if school police were armed in other counties.

Tommy Burns, Chief of Police for the City of Henderson, was representing the Southern Nevada Police Chiefs of Police. Mr. Burns supported the bill. He clarified school police officers had the same training and resources as any other police officer, but were limited in jurisdiction. Mr. Burns commented the ability for local police to enforce traffic laws in school zones diminished as new schools were built. One of the goals of the organization was to have streets adjacent to the school zone included in the bill.

Lt. Stan Olsen, of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, said the department was in support of the bill. He wanted to clarify the desire to have streets adjacent to the school included in the jurisdiction of school police. He further stated the bill would have no effect on the expansion of plain-clothes operations nor expansion in the use of drug dogs.

Mrs. Cegavske said open campuses caused a lot of students to leave school for lunch and hurry to return. That caused numerous accidents resulting in casualties. She asked if those types of accidents would be something involving school police.

Mr. Burns replied accident jurisdiction would remain with local law enforcement. The traffic enforcement given to the school police would include only the streets directly around the school.

Mr. Gustavson commented traffic stops made by school police officers not carrying a weapon would be unsafe.

Mr. Burns said school police officers not wearing a firearm should not be driving squad cars or making traffic stops.

Mrs. Angle referred to her previous question. The bill did not specify under what category school police officers were trained or if the police officers were authorized to carry firearms.

Mr. Burns responded the statute did not specify what type of officer the school police were. The school districts made that decision. He said a school police officer who was post-certified had the same training as a regular police officer. He stated the aim of the bill was not to mandate the school police to perform traffic stops but to allow school police to do so when necessary.

Chairman Williams asked if marshals could write traffic tickets. Mr. Olsen replied the city attorney of Las Vegas had opined marshals could write tickets.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if more training needed to be provided for school police, especially traffic training.

Mr. Burns responded all officers trained at an academy had traffic enforcement training already. He suggested the training required for school police be specified in statute.

Captain Jim Nadeau of the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office felt it should be clear not all school police within the state carried weapons.

Lucille Lusk, founder of Nevada Concerned Citizens, expressed her concern with the expansion of powers of school police officers. She said it created conflicting jurisdictions. Ms. Lusk also said the new responsibilities would not be high priorities for the school police. She asked who would have a high priority over the jurisdiction of the new areas. If local law enforcement felt the school zone was being handled by school police but school police did not have time for the school zone, no one would be enforcing that jurisdiction. She called the committee’s attention to page 2 of the bill, pointing out it did more than give jurisdiction to school police over zone enforcement. The bill also made school police officers responsible for writing citations related to truancy, as well as giving the power to take students into custody. She stated the bill was more far-reaching than the simple enforcement of school speed zones.

Mr. Collins said the language discussed by Ms. Lusk was existing language. The new language added school police officers to the list of those able to arrest students for clarification. He also said school police were in attendance at all school functions, including functions after school hours like football games.

Ms. Lusk understood section 3 was a change in existing language. However, she pointed out only local law enforcement could currently issue citations, and that power was now being given to school police.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 61.

• BDR 34-1327 – Makes various changes relating to training, licensing and professional development of teachers (A.B. 366).

Senator Bill Raggio, representing Senate District 3, appeared before the committee in the capacity of Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Education. He stated the resolution was a recommendation of that committee. A number of hearings had been held as to the importance of quality teachers in the classroom. The resolution urged the Commission on Professional Standards in Education to raise the passing score for the teacher competency tests administered to license teachers in the state. In the fall of 1998, 31 states and the District of Columbia used tests for teacher licensure prepared by the Educational Testing Service. Those included the PRAXIS tests, developed to examine different content areas. Most states made use of subject assessments in elementary education including English language, literature, composition, math, biology, general science, and social studies. The pre-professional skills test (PPST) was a test of basic skills, utilized as a screening device to determine if teachers had mastered basic skills. The test established minimum competency and thus minimum standards. Various states using PRAXIS had established qualifying scores on each of the exams required for licensure. In Nevada, the passing rate was set at the 12^th percentile for reading and mathematics and the 15^th percentile for writing. Ten states had higher passing scores for reading than Nevada. Thirteen had higher passing scores for math. Four had higher passing scores for writing. Senator Raggio submitted a chart outlining those statistics (Exhibit C). States that required higher scores for students also required higher passing rates for teachers. There was a great disparity between those states and Nevada. Senator Raggio said a teacher’s score on the licensure exam accounted for 43 percent of the scores their students received on achievement exams. He also said teacher qualifications counted for 90 percent of a student’s reading and mathematics scores across high and low scoring schools. Therefore a direct link existed between teachers’ scores and students’ scores. The members of the Legislative Committee on Education endorsed the need to raise the minimum passing score for Nevada’s teachers qualifying examinations. The Commission on Professional Standards in Education was advised to review the actions of the other states in that regard, under the resolution. The recommendations of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future were to be considered, along with the recommendations of the National Board of Teaching Standards.

Mr. Collins commented on Nevada’s teacher shortage and the lack of funding to attract quality teachers. He said teachers taught subjects where they were not qualified.

Senator Raggio said a number of incentives were built into the recommendations of the Legislative Committee on Education. Those teachers who achieved certification on the national test might be entitled to pay increases. In addition, teachers from other states who had achieved higher standards would be given higher seniority in Nevada. Senator Raggio said Nevada could not match bonuses paid by states like Massachusetts, who paid up to $25,000.

Ms. Parnell asked about the percentiles in the chart submitted by Senator Raggio. She wondered how the passing score was determined.

Senator Raggio answered the possible percentile range for the test was 150 to 190.

Jeanne Botts of the Fiscal Analysis Division submitted a handout showing the percent of questions answered correctly (Exhibit D).

Ms. Parnell commented it was easier to understand the problem using a percentage of correct answers, rather than the percentile.

Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent of the Department of Education, explained the PPST percentile represented the skills score, which was not a good measure of competency. Dr. Rheault provided a copy of the Nevada Competency Testing Program for Educational Personnel (Exhibit E). This report outlined scores, percentages, and percentiles for all the specialized tests given for licensure.

Mrs. Cegavske commented all areas of educational testing improvement needed to be covered. She said several bills were coming out of both houses to ensure improvement in teacher competency.

Senator Raggio suggested the committee be given all the recommendations of the Legislative Committee on Education to see how the bills and resolutions presented fit together.

Dr. Rheault testified on behalf of the Commission on Educational Standards in support of the resolution. He discussed line 3 of page 2, which outlined the requirements needed for putting together a panel to determine minimum test scores. The cut score was evaluated according to the method outlined in the Nevada Competency Testing Program for Educational Personnel report
(Exhibit E). Additionally, the commission annually reviewed all the tests. Four test scores were raised in 1993. He suggested substitute teachers be required to pass the PPST exam at the same level as fully licensed teachers.

Mrs. Chowning commented the Legislative Committee on Education was in the pursuit of improving education. She asked Dr. Rheault if the increased test scores would pose a problem in recruiting new teachers.

Dr. Rheault replied he did not anticipate it being a problem. However, teachers who could not pass the test were given a non-renewable license. That may hurt recruiting efforts. Substitutes may have to be in place while teachers were waiting for a return of test scores.

Chairman Williams indicated it was not his intention to take a motion on
S C.R. 2.

Janine Hansen, President of Nevada Families Eagle Forum, expressed her support for the resolution. She said students surveyed who were not high achievers said their teachers did not know the subject they were trying to teach and students were not challenged.

Debbie Cahill, lobbyist for the Nevada State Education Association, stated her organization did not have an objection to the resolution. Ms. Cahill appreciated the resolution form of the legislation and recognition of the jurisdiction of the Commission on Professional Standards in Education.

The Assembly Committee on Education was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Kelly Gregory,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: