The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:55 p.m., on Monday, March 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. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Mark Manendo

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Williams announced A.B. 332 would not be heard and would be rescheduled per the request of the sponsors.

Chairman Williams opened the hearing with a presentation from the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN).

Dr. Richard Jarvis with the UCCSN presented the 4-year planning report (Exhibit C). The report entailed a 4-year running plan for the various educational institutions and gave an overview on the performance indicators and planning mechanisms that had been put in place to illustrate where UCCSN thought the system was going. He said the UCCSN had grown to an extraordinary degree and drew attention to page 18, which listed how the system had grown in enrollments since 1987-88 by a total of 76 percent. That growth had been strongest at the community colleges, which had grown by almost 124 percent. Both universities had grown by 51 percent. Within those growth figures, the graduate and professional enrollments had grown by 118 percent because the universities had expanded into needed areas for community and economic development. Dr. Jarvis was also pleased to report that the minority student enrollment had increased by 163 percent across the system, which was substantially faster than the overall rate of the population.

Dr. Jarvis drew attention to page 20 of the planning report, which showed Nevada lead the growth in the west from 1985 to 1995. The projected future enrollment growth was even greater. The chart on page 22 illustrated from 1996 to 2012 the size of the high school graduating class in the State of Nevada was projected to grow at a rate of 134 percent. No other state in the west came even close to that growth. He stated no other state would face the increase and demand that Nevada would face from increasing high school graduating classes. The enrollment had increased by over 19 percent, and no other public system in the United States had shown that kind of growth; the population had grown by even more than that amount in the 1990’s, a figure of some 23 percent. Therefore, 3.5 percent fewer Nevadans were presently being served than in the year 1991. The UCCSN was not keeping up with the population growth.

Dr. Jarvis stated the UCCSN was making progress on diversity and particularly in the last several years the enrollment in minority students increased by 42 percent, which had been a major goal of the Board of Regents.

He was also pleased to report that Nevada’s supported financial aid had gone up substantially during the 1990’s, which of course was essential for growth. Page 27 illustrated the growth since 1991 through the current biennium. He said Nevada had been making good progress, but had not maintained the rate of access during the 1990’s.

Dr. Jane Nichols with the UCCSN said they were not only concerned about education for students, but for research and service. She drew attention to page 32 of the 4-year planning report (Exhibit C). The growth rate of funded research was approximately 6.6 percent from 1994 to 1997. The UCCSN was proud of that increase, but it was a relatively flat increase and therefore the UCCSN was trying to increase the number of dollars that were flowing into research in Nevada. Research expenditures and economic development were being linked together, particularly in high technology industries as a critical emphasis for Nevada in the years to come. The UCCSN was working hard through relationships with the national laboratories to try to move Nevada in total research and development expenditures from 45^th position in the nation to a higher level.

Dr. Nichols said the UCCSN was also putting emphasis on the necessity of being part of the internet II collaboration. Internet II was the second stage of internet beyond the commodity internet, which would enable researchers to receive federal funding, to become connected to the rest of the world, to form research teams with universities from around the country, and to have virtual reality in conducting research. For example, if UCCSN could get the internet II connectivity from the three research institutions, University of Nevada at Reno (UNR), University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV), and Desert Research Institute (DRI), a scientist in Nevada could work on a piece of equipment that was in San Diego. That would be the future if UCCSN could get the internet II connectivity, for which UCCSN had received federal grants.

Dr. Nichols highlighted other statewide needs, one of which was the applied research initiative. She drew attention to page 33 of the previously mentioned Exhibit C. The applied research initiative was funded in the last biennium for $4 million and from that appropriation there had been 87 projects developed with the universities and DRI. Those projects included private entities and other partners to increase research and to expand the capacity to do research, particularly applied research that would yield products for Nevada and would yield jobs for Nevada.

Also, as part of meeting state needs UCCSN had put a great emphasis on teacher education and the importance of "stepping up to the plate" and meeting the tremendous need of growing schools in Nevada. The Regents initiative for teacher education would try to begin to meet the need for more teachers in Clark County School District. UCCSN was also working in the same way with health care. The health care study showed that although health care graduates had grown, there was still a long way to go to meet the health care needs in Nevada and to produce sufficient graduates to meet those needs.

Dr. Nichols said the distance education initiatives had continued over the last biennium and there was an increase of 160 percent. She said 11,150 Nevadans in some way engaged in distance education activities, which included high school students and teachers. The UCCSN was launching their first associate degree totally by distance education in the state for next fall. An outreach program that UCCSN was testing to get more people involved and interested in teaching was through a flyer that said, "Would you like to become a teacher in Nevada"(Exhibit D).

Dr. Nichols drew attention to the Access and Growth Planning Report (Exhibit E). One of the things that had been done, on the outreach side was the K through 16 collaboration for academic success. UCCSN had been working with the Department of Education, the schools, and the school districts to try to merge kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) and the higher education system to create academic success for all students. An agreement was reached on ways to do that better. UCCSN was working to align the teacher preparation standards with K-12 standards by trying to look into the future. Early testing in high schools was started to prevent placement of students in remedial courses. It needed to be determined why any recent high school graduate would end up in remedial courses. Courses had been placed in the high schools at reduced tuition rates to entice high school students into thinking about going to college. High schools were being placed on college campuses and high tech centers on high school campuses. She said a letter would be sent to all eighth grade students and parents promoting academic excellence as a path to success.

She highlighted page 4 of the previously mentioned Exhibit E. Every high school and every school district was surveyed. The primary purpose was to look at attitudes and plans for going to college. There was a 54 percent response rate, which was very good. Eighty-one percent of Nevada high school students said they planned to attend a community college or a university within 12 months after graduating, which was uniform across the state. Of those students who planned to attend college, 59 percent believed that it cost too much money to go to college. Forty percent said they had not received information on scholarships or financial aid. Sixty-three percent said they had not received any information on loans. Ninety-one percent described their high school curriculum as college preparatory and about 15 percent reported having taken no college entrance exams. Of the students who planned to attend a 4-year college or university, 43 percent had a grade point average of less than 2.5. Therefore, Dr. Nichols thought there must be some "disconnect" between what students thought it would take to go to college and what students had really been doing in high school. However, 73 percent believed a college education was necessary to get a good job and 61 percent said they made their decision in the eighth grade or earlier. For the 19 percent who said they were not planning on attending college, most of them planned on working, joining the military, or going to some kind of trade school. Only 9 percent of those said they planned to work in gaming, but the number was much higher than that of those who actually would end up working in that area. Of the students who did not plan on attending college, 69 percent said it cost too much money to go to college. All students of ethnic backgrounds expressed intentions to go to college. Nevada high school students said they wanted to go to college, yet they did not. Dr. Nichols said financial support and strong academic preparation at an early start might enable them to do so.

Dr. Jarvis reported on work in progress and how the UCCSN, the boards, and the presidents were looking into the future for the next several bienniums. He said with all the growth in Nevada, he thought it was easy to misjudge the size of the task that lay ahead. He drew attention to page 10 of the previously mentioned Exhibit E, which illustrated how many citizens per 1000 people in the population in a state attended college. The illustration showed that Nevada’s rate was 43 people attended college per every 1000 persons. Nevada was 13^th out of the 15 states illustrated on page 10. The average for the western states was about 50 people per 1000 population. That information was translated into the growth of the next decade; page 11 showed the kind of enrollment scenarios that were projected. If the enrollment rates were maintained, Nevada would grow from 82,666 students in the year 1998 to 122,666 students in the year 2010 across the university system.

Dr. Jarvis said one of the most critical transitions for students was the transition from high school to college because if there were a delay between high school and college, it would take longer and persistence rates were lower for students who took time off. That would become a very scary factor because, as page 12 showed, Nevada’s college continuation rate continued to be the lowest in the United States.

Dr. Jarvis said page 13 showed the enrollment scenario based on continuation rates. The goals were:

• "Increase the college continuation rate for Nevada high school graduates from 38.7 percent to at least 60 percent by the year 2010."

• "Nevada K-12 improves high school graduation rates by 5 percent by the year 2010."

• "UCCSN improves retention in state of Nevada high school graduates from 64 percent to 70 percent of those who enter college by the year 2010."

If the above goals were accomplished, the freshman class out of Nevada high schools would increase 300 percent in continuing from high school to college.

Dr. Jarvis said Nevada differed most from other states in what he called the bachelor degree "gap." There were fewer people in Nevada for whom the bachelors degree was their highest attainment. In 1997 the census bureau estimated that Nevada had approximately 10.1 percent of people 25 and older with bachelors degrees. The national average was 13.1 percent and the western average with young growing populations was 14 percent. Therefore, Nevada was not competitive with its neighboring states in the attainment of the bachelor degree. Dr. Jarvis then suggested diversifying and attracting other kinds of economic development of the state. He said the way to do that was shown on page 16 of Exhibit E, which showed where both universities were and where they needed to be. That page listed the research and doctoral universities in the west. Both UNR and UNLV were doctoral universities, which included a comprehensive array of baccalaureate programs. They offered everything that was typically available of the bachelor degree. They also offered graduate programs through the doctorate and a modest amount of sponsored research. He ranked the institutions by size and both of Nevada’s institutions were a little higher than average for their group and UNLV was one of the larger of the doctoral institutions in the west. The research I universities had approximately 75 percent undergraduates and were also bringing in an excess of $50 to $70 million per year of sponsored research. For many of the institutions, they brought in well in excess of $100 to $200 million a year. The entire total for Nevada was barely $100 million. The great public research universities that stimulated economic development in the western states were the research universities.

Dr. Jarvis listed the western states on page 17 of Exhibit E and ranked them simply by population. Nevada was in the middle with two doctoral institutions. Montana and North Dakota were the other two states in the west with doctoral institutions and no research institutions. He said Nevada was structured as a state as if it was serving roughly three-quarters of 1 million people, which was the population size of Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Alaska. Utah and New Mexico were the states of Nevada’s size, of which both had two research universities. He suggested to the members of the committee that one of the most crucial decisions needed to be made, which was a commitment to move the two universities from doctoral universities into research universities. He said Nevada was capable of supporting it because New Mexico supported those types of universities and was not a wealthy state. The two universities in New Mexico brought in excess of $200 million per year as sponsored grants and contracts.

Dr. Jarvis said in addition to growth and the research mission, Nevada would diversify more rapidly than any other state in the west. Page 18 of Exhibit E showed that Nevada would go from the mid 1990’s diversity of high school graduates of about 24 percent, substantially less than the average for the west, to a representation of 62 percent in the year 2012. While Nevada would grow and need the research capacity added to the universities, it also needed to provide an attractive, successful, and retentive situation for a rapidly diversifying population. Dr. Jarvis said, "How are we going to do this?" The answer was every way possible. It would take all of the measures listed on page 19, and much more.

Access and growth options for strategic planning:

1. "Build-out existing campuses and maximize space utilization."

2. "Maximize cost-effective applications of technology."

3. "Add branch campuses: University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV) and Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC)."

4. "Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN): High-tech centers and additional campuses."

5. "Add a new state college possibly in Henderson."

6. "Develop multi-institutional campuses in Redfield."

Dr. Jarvis said all of those kinds of structures and systems were probably going to be necessary if the UCCSN was going to double in size, increase its research capability, and handle such a rapidly changing population.

Mrs. Cegavske commended the UCCSN representatives on the high schools and colleges. She was able to see the Bonanza High School with the West Charleston campus, which had been very well received. One of her concerns were how the transition would be made, which was not just from high school to college. She said there was a transition for students from elementary to middle school and from middle to high school, and therefore asked if there were any suggestions not only to help with the entrance to college, but also kindergarten through high school. She also thanked Dr. Jarvis for the program that was established to enhance the millenium scholarship project.

Mrs. Cegavske informed the UCCSN representatives of the UNR students from the Black Student Organization who gave presentations to the committee. She said it was unfortunate no one from the universities attended that meeting because the students did a very good job in discussing the issues they had with the campus. She wondered how flexible and easy it would be for students to talk to the president or someone in administration because the students felt they could only talk to the president if he was addressing the students. She said the minutes of that meeting would be sent to Dr. Jarvis and wanted him to address the committee after reading the concerns of the students.

Chairman Williams said several committee members on that particular day expressed their concern because the agenda for the meeting was posted and no one from the university showed up to even listen to the student’s issues. He said the committee invited several student groups from around the state to come in and make presentations because many times the committee had heard presentations from the universities, but not from the students themselves. The committee felt it would be good to hear about campus life from students. The committee subsequently took two actions. One was to send a letter to the university expressing the committees concerns about the student’s issues. The committee also voted to send the minutes of that meeting to the Board of Regents. Chairman Williams said the report that Dr. Jarvis and Dr. Nichols presented talked about the numbers of increased minority students and how those numbers would continue to increase. He said there were some serious concerns of the students who made presentations about campus life, not all negative. They also talked about many good things that occurred on campus. He thought it was important that student’s ideas and realities be addressed.

Chairman Williams mentioned the proposed state college in Henderson and said there would be a hearing on that topic later in March. He knew of one reason it was proposed, which was due to the growth in Clark County. If that was true, he wondered if there had been any time spent on location, and if in fact Clark County was growing to the point that there was a need for another college. He asked if the growth patterns indicated Henderson would be the best location because there was a lot of growth in the northwest of Clark County and other places also. The appropriation would be $1 million for the Henderson site and what if Henderson was not the most appropriate site to address the growth.

Dr. Jarvis emphasized the UCCSN was not only looking at one site for the state college. He said one site would not solve the situation and therefore thought there were possibilities of not only branch campuses to existing institutions, but additional institutions as well. He emphasized the Board of Regents had not taken action on any of the options and said the process of the bill on the proposed college in Henderson was to some extent an independent one. He thought all of the solutions mentioned earlier would be needed to meet the growth in Clark County.

Chairman Williams asked if the UCCSN would not have a position on where the college should be located until the legislature funded the project.

Dr. Jarvis said his position was to try to get the options to the Board of Regents and direction from the board as to which action the UCCSN would need to pursue. He said it would be certainly helpful if there was funding from an outside source, but did not think there was a simple answer to the matter.

Mr. Brower thanked Dr. Jarvis and Dr. Nichols for their presentation because it was full of useful and interesting information. He drew attention to page 4 of the previously mentioned Exhibit E, which highlighted statistics of high school surveys. He wanted to make sure the demand was not being over estimated because it stated 81 percent of Nevada high school seniors and juniors indicated they planned to attend further education, but earlier it was pointed out that only 54 percent of students responded to the survey. Therefore, he felt it was not fair to say that 81 percent of all juniors and seniors planned to further their education.

Dr. Nichols said it depended on how much faith they had in sampling, even though it was sampling and a survey was intentionally given to every student. She said the obvious question was "are those who plan to go on more likely to fill out the questionnaire?" The UCCSN looked very carefully at the high schools and the characteristics of those students. They did not find anything that looked different by grade point average, ethnicity, age, high school, or by the region of the state. She said the UCCSN had a lot of confidence in the surveys, but agreed there was a possibility that students who had no interest in college might have thrown the survey away.

Dr. Jarvis said he found it to be an even more alarming situation because there was comfort from the thought that at least there was an understanding of the value and need for continuing education if the survey was viewed as a sample. The challenge had always been to determine why there was an appallingly low continuation rate and why were there less than 4 out of 10 high school graduates in Nevada who made a decision to continue their education. He said at least there was an awareness of college education. He realized there were concerns about its costs and said there needed to be a much better job done in getting information out on the availability of financial support. Certainly anything like the millenium scholarship and the financial aid growth was going to make a big difference. He said the financial aid growth was very recent. There was $11 or $12 million available for financial aid currently, but 5 years ago that was only $4 million. It had taken a while for that information to get out and for students to realize there was funding available.

Mrs. Angle thought of the transition made from college into industry and wondered if anyone had spoken to industries in Nevada about how the needs in colleges were being met to keep the brightest and best students in Nevada.

Dr. Nichols said there was a survey being conducted to determine where manpower needs existed in business and industry areas. She said there was a trend in the universities and community colleges in placing students into the workplace earlier as they went through the college or university so by the time they graduated they had their "foot in the door" for good jobs. The recruitment of Nevada students before recruitment of students from other states was obviously an important issue. The UCCSN wanted the colleges and universities to recruit from Nevada before anywhere else and therefore tried very hard to get the colleges and universities to do that. She also mentioned there were university placement programs for students who were majoring in philosophy and liberal arts.

Mrs. Angle’s other question had to do with the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) program where some of the brightest and best students went out of state, which she thought were mostly dentists. She wondered how to get those individuals back into Nevada because she knew that some students went out of state for school, received their degrees in dentistry, and did not come back to Nevada to practice.

Dr. Nichols said there was not a very good return rate from the WICHE professional programs and that issue was trying to be addressed. She said during the 1997 session, the legislature approved the dental residency program. Part of the reason that was requested was because the students who left the state to become dentists found they had a hard time coming back because of how expensive it was to start a dental practice. If students were not going to school in Nevada they did not have contacts with dentists within the state with which to partner and therefore stayed where they went to school. She said the dental residency program for students who wanted to go out of state was being started and suspected the committee would see similar programs to try to pull those individuals back into Nevada. There would also be more emphasis on creating healthcare programs in Nevada because that would be the only way to keep those individuals in state.

Dr. Jarvis said there was a request to establish a dental school at UNLV in their budget of 1999. He stated it was the responsibility of the state to provide many of those professional programs. He informed the committee that nationally, the government was withdrawing its support from graduate dental education and the states had to pick up that cost. He thought Nevada had reached a point where the UCCSN would be able to justify the reasons for a dental school.

Ms. Parnell said when she looked at the information from the high school survey she saw something that concerned her because 81 percent of students said they planned to further their education, but only 38 percent were actually going to college. Therefore, she asked how closely the UCCSN worked with the high school guidance departments.

Dr. Nichols understood that all of the representatives of the campuses had regular meetings with high school counselors to distribute information, to develop good relationships, to get information out to students about financial aid, and about what students had to do to be ready for the move to college. She said the UCCSN had developed extensive web pages, which outlined courses of study and information on financial assistance. Counselors and students were encouraged to use that tool.

Ms. Parnell said when her children were juniors and seniors in high school the guidance counselors walked them through the process. She believed if it had not been for those counselors, her children would not have gotten as far as they had especially when they both took out student loans. The more that relationship could be strengthened, the more likely the ratio of students who said they wanted to attend college and the students who actually attended college would increase.

Mr. Collins asked if a new college was a priority versus fulfilling the needs to existing campuses, for example, parking, classrooms, computers, libraries, and assisted studies. He said he was concerned that the UCCSN was "stretched out" with the law school and with the proposal for the dental school. He also asked how the foundations were progressing.

Dr. Jarvis said growth was going to continue and the demand would have to be met. He said the community college demand was growing, the baccalaureate level demand was growing, and even the graduate level demand was growing. There was a demand for graduate employment in almost all of the areas that were offered at the two universities in Nevada. He said their budget would try to balance those different things as best as possible. He thought certain areas in the planning report offered hope for meeting the demand, but also thought those ideas would generate more demand. For example, he thought there would be a great job in placing technology in the high schools. He thought internet instruction and web-based instruction would make business very different. He said the foundations were doing a great job and Nevada was one of the highest ranked states for private support of public institution.

Mr. Collins asked if there were a choice between the dental school and building the Henderson campus, which would be priority. To which, Dr. Jarvis said the UCCSN wanted both. Mr. Collins also asked if there was some kind of list which prioritized the choice between improving the infrastructure at UNLV and UNR versus building a new campus.

Dr. Jarvis the UCCSN’s budget request ranked all of those issues and he could get that list to the committee if necessary.

Mr. Collins understood that high school counselors prepared students not only for college entrance exams, but also helped them apply for scholarships and grants. He said more emphasis on those activities could help students who wanted to attend college. He also mentioned the meeting when the Black Student Organization did their presentations. Those students had concerns regarding lack of diversity and yet UNR had still been recruiting minority students. Mr. Collins said the curriculum needed to be suitable and enticing to ethnic students to make them want to stay in Nevada.

Chairman Williams asked if there were numbers on minority student enrollments versus minority student graduates. He knew the number of enrolled minority students was much different than the graduated minority students. Dr. Jarvis said he would get the information to the committee.

Mary Peterson with the Department of Education gave a brief overview of K-12 education. She said the legislature would be hearing many more proposals on how to improve and change public education. She hoped her presentation would give the committee a context for some of those requests and would share some of the unique features of the K-12 system.

She highlighted some of the features within Exhibit F. She said the demands on K-12 education were many and most of them were similar to those heard by the UCCSN’s earlier presentation. She said there was extremely rapid enrollment growth, increasing diversity in the K-12 population, high transiency, high drop out rates, and higher expectations for students. With the passage of the Nevada Education Reform Act the process had begun putting the higher standards into place.

She said Nevada had one of the fastest growing K-12 enrollments in the nation. From 1988 to 1999 there was a 93 percent increase in that population. Clark County School District was the ninth largest school district in the nation with over 200,000 students enrolled in the fall of 1999. At the same time there was a wide range in Nevada, with 17 school districts. She said there was a handout that listed all of the Nevada schools and their enrollment figures (Exhibit G). She also said there was a handout, which was a research bulletin that gave some statistics and background information on K-12 education (Exhibit H). She said an example of the wide range in Nevada was that one of the largest high schools was Green Valley High School, which had over 3500 students, and one the smallest high schools was Lund High School, which had 67 students.

The graph illustrated on page 2 of the earlier mentioned Exhibit F was intended to show the steady and dramatic growth that Nevada had in K-12 education since 1986. Nevada averaged 6 to 8 percent a year and that was four times the national average growth rate. Only Florida and Arizona had similar growth rates in K-12 population.

Page 3 of the exhibit showed that Washoe and Clark County were the two largest districts, which had continued to grow at a rapid rate and of course were the districts that drove the overall state enrollment. From 1998 to 1999 there was a statewide enrollment growth of 4.9 percent, but for the first time from October of 1997 to October of 1998, nine school districts declined in enrollment rates. The ethnic minority groups were the fastest growing populations within the K-12 enrollment, of which Hispanic students were growing at the most rapid rate of 421 percent since 1988.

She said course taking patterns were examined as they were good indicators of student achievement. The more difficult courses a student had taken the more likely that student would achieve and perform well on standardized achievement tests. Unfortunately, there was not the kind of enrollment in advanced courses as hoped, especially in math and science, which in the high school level was below the national average.

Page 4 of Exhibit F highlighted information regarding special populations, dropout, and transiency rates. She said another correlation was between low socio-economic status and student performance. Eligibility for free and reduced lunch was an indicator of the socio-economic status of a student, and one-third of the students were eligible for free and reduced lunch in the schools. When looking at the overall population, 10.7 percent of students were eligible for special education services and 9.9 percent of students were English language learners. She said transiency rates accounted for the movement in and out of schools. A student was counted as a transient when he/she had not completed the school year in one school. Nevada had a 39 percent transiency rate, which meant a teacher in a classroom with 25 students, between the beginning of the year and the end of the year, at least 10 faces in that classroom could be expected to change. From a teacher’s perspective, that would put a real strain on the system because the students needed to perform better. There were standards for what students should know and be able to do. There were higher standards, and yet there were classroom teachers who had experienced that kind of movement in and out of classrooms. There was a specific concern regarding the dropout rates, especially with Hispanic, African American, and American Indian students. The major focus of two positions, the cultural diversity position and an Indian education consultant position, existed to try to reduce the dropout rates in the minority student population.

Ms. Peterson drew attention to page 5 of the previously mentioned Exhibit F, which highlighted performance scores. When the TerraNova scores were compared from October of 1997 to October of 1998 statewide, Nevada fourth and eighth graders’ math and science scores were up. The reading scores stayed the same and the language scores went down slightly. The high school proficiency statistics did not reflect the new test with the higher passing score, but fall of 1998 the new high school proficiency exam was administered to juniors and seniors, in which over 50 percent of junior students failed the math portion of the test on their first try. Students had four more attempts to pass the test before they graduated from high school, but the concern with that percentage still existed. She said the National Assessment of Educational Progress was a national test that had been utilized in Nevada. The reading scores for fourth and eighth grade students were slightly below the national average, but on par with the western part of the country. Those scores indicated where attention needed to be focused and where improvements were needed. Ms. Peterson believed an increase in those scores should happen with the new standards passed.

Page 6 of Exhibit F highlighted college entrance scores and teachers/staff statistics. She said the American College Testing Assessment (ACT) and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) were designed to determine college readiness and Nevada’s performance was above the national average on both tests, but unfortunately the college attendance rate was far below the national average, which was a shared concern by the Department of Education.

In 1998, Nevada employed over 18,000 licensed personnel. There were 11.7 percent of those teachers who were new to Nevada and 34.5 percent of those teachers had higher degrees from either UNR or UNLV. She said 1 out of 3 of Nevada’s teachers had degrees beyond the bachelor degree. The average length of experience among Nevada teachers was 10.7 years. The ethnic mix of teachers did not reflect the ethnic mix of student population. There were far fewer minority teachers than students, which was a concern. The Department of Education wanted to make every effort possible to recruit minority teachers and keep them in the schools.

The final page of Exhibit F had a spreadsheet on class-size ratio. It showed class sizes in grades 1 and 2 were exactly at 16 to 1, which was what the legislature had funded. Grade 3 was 19 to 1, which also reflected the funding level approved by the 1997 legislature. But, when all of the statistics were put together, it was important to know how it impacted the classroom teacher. For example, Ms. Peterson had the opportunity to visit a first grade class with 16 students and 1 teacher, but 12 of those first graders did not have English as their native language. That 16 to 1 ratio was a benefit to that particular class because the teacher could give the extra attention they needed.

Ms. Peterson said the Department of Education called for designation into three categories. There were two schools in the high achieving category. On the other end of the scale, there were 23 schools that were designated as having inadequate performance. Ms. Peterson had the privilege to visit virtually every one of the schools, both inadequate and high achieving. She said all of them took the designation very seriously and those designated as inadequate had worked very hard over the last year to change that designation and improve their performance. April of 1999 there would be another announcement of the schools that would be in the inadequate category and she thought the new report would be good as she was able to look at the preliminary data, which showed far fewer schools in that category.

In conclusion, Ms. Peterson asked the committee to keep in mind the demand on the system when more K-12 legislation would be presented.

Those demands consisted of:

• "Very rapid enrollments."

• "Diverse populations."

• "Highly mobile and transient K-12 populations."

• "At the same time higher standards were in place to expect more of students at every grade level."

• "There would be a greater need for remediation with over 50 percent of students failing the high school proficiency exam on the first try. There would need to be more safety nets for those students."

• "It would need to be made sure that teachers possess the professional development and the technology needed in the classroom to support those higher standards."

Mrs. Cegavske said she asked for the eighth grade dropout rates at one of the first committee meetings, but had not received anything. She indicated she was still interested in the information and would like it on a continual basis for ongoing reference.

Ms. Peterson said at one time the Department of Education did collect that data, but was not sure if that still was happening. She said she would get back to her with that information.

Mrs. Cegavske thought that would give the committee a look at the "big picture." She knew teacher licensure was a big issue. She asked if the Department of Education was interested in the proposed Henderson College being a teacher college. She asked if there were benefits of classroom size reduction, not only in Nevada but nationally. She also mentioned a booklet by Judy Witt, who was a school board trustee in Clark County, which was called The Graduate Profile. She said it was an excellent two-part book for parents and teachers. She thought it was unfortunate that it was not known or used statewide. She thought the universities and community colleges should look at it and maybe enhance it or even partnership with it.

Ms. Peterson said the Commission of Professional Standards and Education set the licensing regulation for Nevada and she knew they were constantly revising and revisiting the licensing regulations. One major issue, which was being addressed, was the issue of renewal credit and what exactly a teacher should have to do in order to renew his/her license. She said there was a huge need for teacher colleges. Last fall, there were 2,000 new teachers hired in Nevada and about 1 of 4 teachers came from in state. She knew the districts in the northeast portion of Nevada were very anxious to hear about the Great Basin College efforts to put in place a teacher preparation program. All districts were having a huge challenge filling classrooms because of the teacher shortage. She said in order to get the maximum impact from class size reduction, it would have to be made sure that teachers had new strategies to teach in classrooms. It would not be enough to reduce pupil to teacher ratios because teachers also needed to be trained on how to teach differently.

Ms. Parnell said she was frightened by one of the numbers that said 321 schools out of the 452 had building deficiencies that negatively affected normal operations. She asked if that issue would be addressed in a bill for session of 1999.

Ms. Peterson said there would be several bills coming out of the A.B. 353 committee. She said the 1997 legislative session passed A.B. 353, which created a statewide commission on school construction design, maintenance, and repair. There was an assessment of 452 sites in Nevada, which caused approximately 16 recommendations.

Chairman Williams asked if the schools that Ms. Parnell mentioned were included in any of the handouts. Ms. Peterson said there was a separate report. She said those deficiencies could be something as serious as a health and safety concern or it could be something that reflected the school was not wired appropriately for internet access in every classroom. Therefore that number was probably a little deceptive because of the wide range of what were called "deficiencies."

Chairman Williams re-verified if there was a report, which listed the schools with deficiencies. To which Ms. Peterson said there was because every school had an assessment.

Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: