The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:50 p.m., on Monday, March 15, 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

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:

Sheila Leslie, Assembly District 27

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 366.

Debbie Cahill representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) provided her prepared testimony in writing (Exhibit C). She said A.B. 366 was a very critical piece of legislation for education reform. The Nevada Education Reform Act passed in the 1997 Legislative Session focused on setting new academic standards and assessments, accountability of schools, and technology. She said the NSEA considered that to be phase one of education reform. It was time to pay attention to phase two, a major part of which was professional development. Her testimony stated the time had come to put teachers and teaching at the top of the nations’ education reform agenda because teachers needed help, guidance, and support.

Ms. Cahill said A.B. 366 would set some standards statewide for mentor programs while giving school districts and employee associations the opportunity to tailor their mentor programs to suit their local needs. She explicated some sections of the bill. An excerpt of the sections she explained were:

• Section 2, subsection 1 provided for teacher input into the selection of mentors in a district.

• Subsection 2, clarified teachers who came into a district from out-of-state as probationary employees would not have to be assigned a mentor if he/she had achieved post-secondary status prior to coming to the district.

• Subsection 3 allowed for a probationary teacher to discontinue an assignment of his/her mentor or would be assigned to another mentor if the administrator agreed.

• Subsection 4 itemized the duties of a mentor.

• Subsection 5 detailed what a mentor should not be expected to do such as complete the official evaluation of a teacher.

• Subsection 6 set forth requirements of a mentor program.

• Subsection 7 provided for confidentiality of written communications between the probationary teacher and the mentor. It should be clear the work of the mentor in providing support to the new teacher must be nonthreatening in order to be successful.

• Subsection 8 provided protection from liability for mentors. There should be some statutory protection and clarification of mentors’ status in interacting with probationary teachers.

• Subsection 9 allowed for agreements to be reached in contract to evaluate or modify mentor programs as long as the agreement reached did not conflict with section 2.

• Section 3 created professional development committees in each district whose members were appointed with the consultation of the association.

• Section 5, subsection 4 would clarify the relationship between the mentor and the principal.

Leslie Fritz representing the NSEA said at least two school districts in Nevada had shown support for the need to provide extensive support and training for new teachers. Washoe County and Carson City both established formal mentoring programs for new teachers. Both of those programs were funded by federal grant money.

Ms. Fritz gave a detailed explanation regarding mentoring programs which both Washoe County and Carson City currently had in place.

Washoe County:

In 1997 and 1998 Washoe County provided 22 mentors in a district that hired practically 350 new teachers. As she understood it, Washoe County sought out teachers willing to volunteer time and be trained as mentors. Depending on where those teachers taught they were matched with new teachers. The mentor teachers participated in a 15-hour training session. Both mentors and new teachers were required to attend at least two workshops per year and in order to attend they were provided with release time by the district. The mentors received a $200 per year stipend and offered the opportunity to earn college credit upon completion of the mentor training. The number of hours a mentor would spend with a new teacher varied from mentor to mentor. There was nothing stipulated for the number of hours required to spend with a new teacher and was often left up to the mentor and the new teacher to determine. Often times, the time for mentors and new teachers to work together was taken out of prep-times and there was an effort made to match the prep-time of the mentor teachers with that of the new teacher. Often times they would work together after school. During 1997-98, Washoe County provided 3 days of buy-out time for mentors and new teachers to attend training and work together. Washoe County currently had somewhere between 350 to 400 new teachers and 44 of those were matched with a mentor.

Carson City:

Carson City currently had approximately 22 mentors. She said the goal of the county was to provide at least one mentor per site. At the high school there were additional mentors provided because of the large number of faculty members. There were also additional mentors provided for special education teachers both at elementary and middle school levels. All 68 new hires were currently working with a mentor. New teachers were asked to attend 4 days of training. Mentors were bought out for 1 day of training and one half of 1 day of observation time. There was also 1 day dedicated beyond the contract year to work with new teachers. Mentor teachers received a $500 per year stipend. They were required to document the time spent on mentoring duties but were not given any requirements in terms of the number of hours they were to spend with new teachers. There were also great variations in the time spent between mentors and new teachers.

Ms. Fritz said there were not any current statistics on retention rates for new teachers assigned to mentors. Anecdotal evidence showed teachers leaving districts were those who worked with a mentor with whom they spent very little time with and sometimes indicated they were not sure they had a formal mentor to work with.

Ms. Fritz said the NSEA applauded mentoring programs because those school districts had shown their commitment in providing support to new teachers and they understood the need to give training and assistance to help new teachers. She believed with A.B. 366 there would be a foundation provided and consistency brought to teacher mentoring throughout Nevada.

She said the amount of time spent by teachers needed to be addressed. By adding additional responsibility to a mentor teacher without adequate compensation or release time, the concern was the risk of burning out the very best teachers.

Contract language needed to clarify that mentors would not take part in the evaluation process. She said Carson City had done that in their negotiated agreement, but Washoe County had not.

Ms. Fritz said the language in the bill would give districts the opportunity to bargain with local associations to clarify the amount of time and specific duties of the mentor teachers. It would clarify the process for selecting mentors. She reiterated it was extremely important the mentor teachers had support of all teachers in the district by formally involving teachers in the selection process. It would bolster the respect and accountability of mentor teachers and most importantly with their peers. She said the NSEA believed by making mentoring a formal and required process for all districts in Nevada, it would become part of the institution of public education.

Elaine Lancaster representing the NSEA was a first grade teacher on a leave of absence. She had a mentor 30 years ago and was a mentor in the job she served as a first grade teacher. She became a mentor because the students graduating from the university needed help in such simple things as bulletin boards, classroom management, how to juggle the schedules of conferences, and how to deal with parents by saying the right thing, which were not taught at the university. Those were the interplay kinds of things learned once teaching in a classroom.

She indicated the importance of professional development and mentoring programs within the NSEA and the American Federation of Teachers. Both associations held a joint nationwide conference in September of 1998, which addressed the issue before the committee. There was a pacific regional conference recently completed in Irvine, California, and many sessions there were also geared around the best practices of mentoring programs.

She said every district would have a different plan and a different way to accomplish mentoring programs and thought the legislation before the committee would allow districts to do that within their own confines. She said there were many ways to look at a mentoring program. It could be done before and after the school year began or with release time for the mentoring teacher. In conclusion, she urged the committee to consider A.B. 366.

Mrs. Angle asked how the issue in the bill related to student teaching. She thought the student teaching program was a mentoring program and therefore wanted a correlation between the two.

Ms. Lancaster said student teaching gave the "first taste" of what it would be like to be in a classroom with a group of students. The student teacher would have the luxury of a critic teacher being in the room for a good portion of the time. The student teacher would only be allowed to have the class for perhaps 4 to 5 weeks on their own. She said there was a vast difference in a class where a master teacher defined the rules and established the day to day routine; therefore the room would already be set up for a student teacher. Those were the types of mentoring activities she had helped new teachers with, by helping them do it themselves in their own classroom from day one. She said the first 6 weeks of a new school year was very difficult because the classroom management would need to be in clear definition for students.

Mrs. Koivisto asked how previous nonprobationary teaching experience would relate to substitute teachers.

Ms. Cahill replied substitute teachers were not in classrooms on a full-time basis. Therefore, there was a different standard of expectation for what would happen in the classroom. New teachers moving into Nevada could be coming from a state with probationary teacher status but would not necessarily need a mentor if they had successful teaching experience in another state.

Mrs. Koivisto understood college students who were in a teacher education program could work as substitute teachers and asked if they would be precluded from the mentoring program and probationary status.

Ms. Cahill replied they should not be precluded from having a mentor and thought it was a different practice that should be addressed as a separate subject. She reiterated the bill would not preclude them from being assigned a mentor.

Mr. Brower said his wife who was a public school teacher was lucky enough to have a mentor during her first year of teaching because she would have been lost without the help. He asked why a state law was needed to address the issue. He understood and agreed with the reasons why mentoring was good, but was not convinced it should not just be a matter of district or school policy as opposed to another section of state statutes.

Mr. Collins thought it was because teachers were licensed statewide and therefore trying to be uniform from district to district.

Ms. Cahill said the NSEA thought the bill would bring some standardization and protection for mentor teachers, which may need to be clarified in statute. As employees of a school district and also functioning as a mentor, those individuals would be entering into a different relationship with their colleagues. She believed some school districts actually had policies to address that issue. There could be situations arise such as an employment situation would develop and the mentor teacher would be looking for some protection, which would be provided by the bill.

Mr. Gustavson was concerned the bill would make mentoring mandatory. He understood there was a shortage in quality teachers but was wondering how it would be possible to furnish and supply mentor teachers needed for mentoring programs.

Ms. Cahill was not sure she could answer the question regarding finding enough teachers to work as mentors. She thought the committee would hear testimony from at least one district that would raise that same concern. The NSEA thought mentors were currently doing it for practically no compensation or no sufficient buy out time, which was a factor in their decision in whether or not they wanted to become a mentor. Therefore, by ensuring mentors would have sufficient time to do the job and be compensated for their extra work, it would help encourage teachers to become mentors.

Ms. Lancaster thought by getting mentors with new teachers who were moving into Nevada, the problem of having to hire 30 percent more teachers who left the field because they did not receive any mentoring help would not exist. She thought there were qualified teachers who could mentor new teachers. The goal was to keep the new teachers from leaving the field.

Mr. Collins opined it was beyond the bill’s scope as far as how to hire teachers. He said the bill’s intent was to try to retain the teachers once they were hired.

Dr. Keith Rheault, representing the Department of Education, was in support of A.B. 366. He spoke on behalf of the Commission on Professional Standards and Education. He said the commission had a past bill draft that requested a model mentor teacher program in which 500 new teachers would be provided a mentor. He said that program had a business plan which addressed fiscal concern, but he did not see a fiscal note with the bill before the committee. The main point of the model mentor teacher program the commission developed was buying some release time either before, during, or after school. The fiscal note for the program was calculated to address the entire state need.

Dr. Rheault said mentor teacher programs worked. It should insure teachers would be retained and would be more productive in their first year of teaching. That was why first year mentor teacher programs in the long-run would save a lot of money; teachers would stay in the field longer with more experience. He informed the committee of many studies that had been conducted, which showed mentor programs were effective. One study to which he referred stated that beginning teachers who received mentoring focused on student learning much sooner and became more effective as teachers. They learned from guided practice rather than trial and error, and also they left the teaching field at a much lower rate.

In conclusion, he thought Nevada needed a mentor teacher program. He said over half of the other states either partially funded or fully funded first year teacher mentor programs. Nevada was currently one of the states that had not set up any formal program on a statewide basis. Therefore, the Department of Education fully supported the mentoring piece of the bill, but was concerned there was a fiscal issue not yet addressed.

Steve Williams, representing Washoe County School District (WCSD), testified in favor of mentoring because it was a good way for teachers to learn. WCSD was also concerned with the cost of the programs. For example, in Washoe County in 1998 there were 460 new teachers hired. Substitutes had to be hired for the mentors who were taken out of class, which was a cost of approximately $78,000 for the substitute pay. That did not include any stipend for mentors, as the bill included a stipend. For every $100 that the stipend represented, it would be another $46,000 for the county. Mr. Williams said it could easily cost anywhere from $124,000 to $170,000 in cost with no current funding. Therefore, WCSD agreed with mentoring programs but thought there needed to be a fiscal note and an understanding from where the money would come.

Mr. Brower asked for clarification of Mr. Williams’ assumption regarding the mentoring program. He asked if it would necessitate mentors being out of their classrooms. He did not understand that to be part of the bill.

Mr. Williams understood mentors would be assigned to probationary teachers. He did not understand how else it would occur other than taking them out of the classroom.

Ms. Cahill explained the bill would require teachers to be compensated with release time from other duties as necessary. She said the bill did not specify or dictate to districts how that would be accomplished. The NSEA thought it was critical for a mentor to be in a classroom with a new teacher while that teacher was performing his/her duties. She said Carson City had a buy out time of 1 day per year, which would satisfy the requirements of the bill, although the NSEA did not think that would be the best situation for a mentor program.

Mr. Brower assumed it might defeat the purpose of the mentoring program to some extent to leave students who had an experienced teacher every day with a substitute teacher while their experienced teacher was elsewhere. He said it would not be a great concern if it were not anticipated to happen too often.

Ms. Cahill reiterated it would depend on the district and the way the program was set up. She said there were programs where mentors were bought out full-time and did nothing but mentor, but that necessitated hiring people full-time to replace them in the classroom. She said the NSEA was certainly very sensitive to the impact it would have if students were left with substitutes for extended amounts of time.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if there was a current bill that was examining retired teachers being able to return to schools and perform some duties and would continue receiving their retirement plus salary.

Mr. Collins said there was a bill addressing that issue. A district could choose a person as a mentor who could fulfill a substitute position on a part-time basis rather then being pulled out of class once a week. Therefore, a full-time teacher would be in the classroom all of the time. The mentor might be the one that helped new teachers and substitutes when needed, which would be ultimate use of employees.

Dr. George Ann Rice, representing the Clark County School District (CCSD), started by saying the CCSD thought mentoring was very important and would make a difference to a first year teacher. However, there was also a model mentoring and induction program in place in Clark County which was recognized nationally. The model, recognized for the recruiting of new teachers, was supported by the Pugh Trust, the John and Sarah Marshall Trust, the Dewitt Wallace Reader’s Digest Trust, and cited in a book which recognized the top ten induction programs in the country. Therefore, CCSD was totally in favor of mentoring.

Dr. Rice informed the committee for the 1998-99 school year CCSD hired 2040 licensed personnel, of those 790 were new classroom teachers who had no previous experience. The induction program in Clark County would begin with those individuals the moment they accepted their offer. The teachers would be pulled out of their classroom and replaced with a substitute once a month to examine things such as classroom management. She said CCSD had tried ways of having a mentor for every new teacher, but the large numbers could not be handled. Currently one person from each elementary school, there were over 150 elementary schools, volunteered to be facilitators of mentoring. Training was being provided for those individuals so they could return to the schools to work with new teachers in their own school.

When a new teacher was offered a position they had access to Nevada’s academic standards, whether they were new to the profession or an experienced teacher new to the state. It was very important those individuals learned the standards because two-thirds of new teachers in CCSD were hired from outside of Nevada.

Dr. Rice provided written testimony, which listed examples of serious problems with the bill (Exhibit D).

The following were excerpts of those serious problems:

Section 2.4.(a). required a teacher who was assigned to serve as a mentor shall regularly consult, observe, and otherwise assist the probationary teacher. Assuming the bill before the legislature that required 3 years of probation did not pass, there would be 1 year of probation for new teachers. Even if mentors met with probationary teachers only 2 times per month, it would cost almost $1.8 million just for Clark County, which was a great concern.

Section 2.6.(b). required the mentor to be released from other duties necessary to provide assistance, which meant the students of that mentor teacher would be without their regular teacher and would not receive the continuity they need. If substitutes had to be provided it would cost $80 per day per substitute.

Section 2.4 would give the mentor the responsibility of assisting the probationary teacher, which was the legal responsibility of the administrator. School administrators who were experienced teachers had to take graduate level courses in supervision before they were allowed to work with teachers in those same areas. If A.B. 366 passed, it would be expected for mentor teachers to do the very same thing and would not require mentor teachers to share information with the administrator. Therefore, the administrator who had the legal responsibility for being in the class and evaluating the teacher could give the probationary teacher conflicting information from what the mentor teacher had given.

In conclusion, Dr. Rice said mentoring was a very positive thing, but different counties had different needs. She said Clark County was currently doing a good job with induction, mentoring needed to be funded ,but leave how the program would be arranged to the individual counties who best knew how their new teachers could benefit.

Henry Etchemendy, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards, referenced page 2, lines 40 through 43 of the bill, which spoke to the nonliability of mentor teachers involved in a mentoring program. He said that portion seemed to be very wide open the way it was written. If a mentor teacher’s thesis caused problems, then certainly they should not be exempt from liability, which he thought needed to be considered.

He said by reading lines 1 through 6 of page 3 of the bill, he understood it gave the possibility of adding another topic to mandatory bargaining, which was contained in NRS 288.150. He said it would be a very easy fix if the word "should" be inserted at the beginning of line 1 and the word "may" at the beginning of line 3 be deleted and the following word "provide" made plural. It would fix the intent and would not have the possibility of adding another topic.

Doug Byington, representing the Nevada Association of School Administrators, spoke in opposition of A.B. 366. He thought mentoring and any assistance given to new teachers was good, but he wondered if it was necessary to put it into statute. He also thought the committee needed to take a second look at the bill because of the fiscal concern not yet addressed.

Vice Chairman Collins closed the hearing on A.B. 366 with no action taken. He opened the hearing on A.B. 382.

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, representing District 27, said she was aware of peer mediation and conflict resolution techniques as a model to address school violence for many years. The idea for the bill was generated by the Nevada Institute for Children. They were conducting a study, which she thought was very interesting because it dealt with the level of school violence in Nevada. She said the Nevada Institute for Children was a new program based at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, which was designed to research children’s issues and propose public policy. She researched peer mediation on the internet and found there were 38,000 matches just at the elementary school level. She said peer mediation was a very popular program and was a proven area of intervention.

Ms. Leslie said the problem in Nevada was the peer mediation efforts were very fragmented and highly dependent upon individual teachers. The biggest problem was school staff had ultimately paid for it out of their own pockets, which was why she felt the bill was important.

A.B. 382 asked for an appropriation of $50,000, which was to help teachers who were currently paying for some of the existing programs and to keep the program running at some sort of level. She suggested an amendment on page 2 because it was not her intention to only fund programs that had been established. Line 6 stated, "for the award of grants to schools that have established programs". She suggested to change it to, "for the award of grants to establish or expand programs" because she wanted to see the money available through a competitive grant process to schools that already had those programs in place or wanted to start them.

Due to time constraints, Vice Chairman Collins asked if those signed in to testify on A.B. 382 would agree in having their names put into record stating they were in support of the bill.

Those in favor of A.B. 382 who did not have the opportunity to testify in favor of the bill were as follows:

1. Nile Carson representing the Reno Police Department;

2. Dr. Keith Rheault representing the Department of Education;

3. Susan Mayes representing the Washoe County School District.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE, BROWER, CEGAVSKE, AND GUSTAVSON VOTED NAY).

**********

There being no further business before the committee, Vice Chairman Collins adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: