The Committee on Education was called to order at 4:00 p.m., on Wednesday, March 17, 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:

Assemblywoman Merle Berman, Assembly District 2

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Assembly District 31

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Williams opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 180.

Assemblywoman Merle Berman, Assembly District 2, introduced A.B. 180. She presented the committee a handout of newspaper clippings which addressed the issue of weapons in various schools (Exhibit C). Assemblywoman Berman said

A.B. 180 was a common sense approach to the problem of weapons on school grounds, at school functions, and in student’s vehicles. A.B. 180 applied to public schools, of which charter schools were a part. Pupils with weapons were immediately removed from the classroom and within 72 hours were reported to police who, with probable cause, would send the child for evaluation and forward a report to the appropriate peace officials.

Assemblywoman Berman explained the reference in A.B. 180 to dangerous weapons included blackjacks, billie clubs, sand bags, brass knuckles, knives, and guns. The penalty for being caught with such weapons in school called for a possible court sentence, an evaluation by a psychiatrist or psychologist, and possible suspension of one’s driver’s license until the age of 21.

There were 80 incidents of guns being brought to Nevada campuses in 1998. According to statistics, 13 percent of students were aware of people who carried guns to school. Because of incidents in Carson City schools, the Carson City School District was considering random gun checks.

Jared Tatro, Student Body President, Carson City High School, spoke in support of A.B. 180. Mr. Tatro said he was asked by a dean of the school to testify about the incident of a gun in Carson High School. A meeting was held on the issue of random searches in school. Nothing was settled in that meeting because the feeling was to let things die down after the incident. Mr. Tatro said he found in talking with fellow students the majority of them felt that if gun searches were necessary they should be performed. They felt, however, that those searches were not warranted. Mr. Tatro stated during his time at school there were probably 6 students of which he knew who had brought weapons to school; however, he acknowledged as a student council member, he was probably left out of the loop with regard to that kind of behavior.

Mr. Tatro voiced his concern with the passage in A.B. 180 which related to the school principal having discretion over whether a student should be allowed to carry a gun. He did not feel safe knowing a student could carry a gun. He did not think guns should be allowed on campus for any reason. He did like the part of A.B. 180 that dealt with punishments. He felt that losing a license until the age of 21 was a good idea. If a person took a gun to school, he or she should not be allowed the privilege of driving, or even to attend the school again. Even though a student might indicate remorse one could not believe it.

Assemblywoman Berman told the committee she was aware of a procedural conflict notice with A.B. 180, and should the bill pass out of committee, the Legislative Counsel Bureau would handle that conflict.

One problem brought to Assemblywoman Berman’s attention was that detention facilities were overcrowded. The electronic monitoring program was created to alleviate the problem. Assemblywoman Berman understood a new facility was being built which, by the time it was completed, would also be overcrowded. However, she did not feel children who exhibited such behavior should be placed under house detention and returned to a place from which they had already left with a gun. Assemblywoman Berman reminded the committee a child under such circumstances could well use a weapon against the parent or schoolmates again.

Assemblywoman de Braga asked Ms. Berman under what circumstances an administrator would give a student permission to carry a weapon on school property. Ms. Berman explained the statute pertained only to antique guns which would be brought for show-and-tell, not to any other circumstance.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked why students were bringing weapons to school. Mr. Tatro responded some students brought guns because they felt threatened, or they thought it was "cool."

Assemblywoman Cegavske said in the past Clark County had tried to pass legislation prohibiting weapons. One issue raised at that time concerned students in rural areas who carried guns for hunting after school. She asked if that issue was addressed in A.B. 180. Assemblywoman Berman responded recently people from California had begun to send children who had problems with gangs to relatives in rural Nevada because they felt it was a safe environment. Unfortunately, the children went into rural schools, became gang leaders with guns, and behaved as they had in the big city schools. Therefore, Assemblywoman Berman did not support rural children being allowed to have weapons on school grounds.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if A.B. 180 proposed to repeal legislation which allowed children in rural areas to bring weapons to school. Ms. Berman said that was her intent. Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if schools in Nevada posted signs stating it was illegal to bring guns to schools. Ms. Berman responded the schools in Clark County placed signs in the halls which asked students to report violent behavior. She did not know if signs specifically prohibiting guns on school property were posted. Mr. Tatro said he had not seen signs until recently. At the beginning of each school year students were told they could not have weapons on school grounds. He said there was not enough publication in school on the issue.

Chairman Williams asked why children who brought guns to school for hunting after school needed them at school. Mr. Tatro explained the children sometimes hunted before school and did not want to drive home to drop off their guns.

Assemblywoman de Braga commented it was absurd to allow children to bring guns to school for hunting and suggested if such a law existed it needed to be rescinded immediately. Chairman Williams agreed. Assemblyman Manendo said he needed clarification of the law in question. Assemblywoman Koivisto said she had visited Albert Edwards Elementary School. The fourth grade children in that school said they did not want guns in their schools. They wanted kids who brought guns to school thrown in jail and serious penalties for the kids who "did bad things."

Assemblyman Gustavson commented he agreed there was a problem with guns in school; however, he believed A.B. 180 was a violation of the right of an individual to hunt before or after school. Possible legitimate reasons to bring a gun to school might include a gun safety course. Many states allowed that possibility. Assemblywoman Berman said there were no gun safety courses being offered in schools.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked if there was a section allowing immediate notification of a parent if children were detained for such an offense and if parents were present during a psychological evaluation. Ms. Berman said the parents would be notified if a child was detained, but she believed parents were not allowed in an evaluation setting.

Assemblyman Collins asked if the existing laws were being changed or if the treatment of those caught with guns was the main intent of A.B. 180. He said such groups as the Junior Eagle Association, the National Rifle Association, and the Nevada State Rifle Association met sometimes on school grounds after school hours. Assemblywoman Berman said those groups were not at issue.

Assemblywoman Angle agreed A.B. 180 was an important issue. She said having sat on a rural school board she knew they had done everything possible to keep guns out of school. The school board even suspended for "look-alike" weapons. She asked if the same penalties would apply. Assemblywoman Berman said the bill did not address "look-alike" weapons.

Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, explained his group was encouraged by the type of legislation embodied in A.B. 180. He pointed out there were procedural matters in the bill with which the juvenile authorities and law enforcement agencies were concerned. Mr. Graham expressed a desire to work with the committee to make the bill procedurally correct.

Gemma Greene, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, representing Nevada District Attorney’s Association, concurred with Mr. Graham. She had concerns with the language "filing a complaint with the district attorney alleging that the child is delinquent" on page 7, section 6, line 28 of A.B. 180. Ms. Greene had spoken with juvenile authorities regarding that matter. She pointed out to the committee currently when a child was taken into custody and transported to Whittenberg Hall in Reno, they had the option to either handle it informally or to notify the district attorney if they wanted a more formal adjudication. A.B. 180 appeared to remove that option and make it mandatory that in every case a complaint would be filed with the district attorney. For the record, Ms. Greene continued, the district attorney did not hold court on weekends or holidays, so the references in the bill of the 72-hour process would dramatically affect their office.

Stan Olson, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, echoed Mr. Graham and Ms. Greene in support of A.B. 180.

Debbie Cahill, Representative, Nevada State Education Association, said her organization represented 20,000 teachers, school bus drivers, and other employees in the schools who had a strong vested interest in A.B. 180. She believed the number of gun incidences was under-reported. The organization supported A.B. 180 as a deterrent for students who might think of bringing a weapon to school.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if there was anything in the state statutes or school rules allowing any employee to carry weapons. Ms. Cahill responded the rules varied from area to area regarding school police but she had no knowledge of any other statute.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked what a bus driver would do if a weapon was on the bus. Ms. Cahill said bus drivers were required to report any incidents. She had not heard of any incidents on buses.

Steve Williams, Representative, Washoe County School District, interjected specific to Washoe County schools the school police did not carry weapons, so he did not believe any other employee would be so allowed.

Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), testified in support of A.B. 180. He said the school boards throughout the state were interested in safety in their schools and would do whatever they could to insure that safety. He did not feel there was much change other than procedurally in the bill. There was language in the current statute which enabled a principal of a school to give written permission to bring a weapon on school grounds for certain reasons. Those reasons were very limited. A few years ago the NASB asked for that provision to be put in place and also that the school board of trustees would adopt the policy by which the principal could give permission in order to control it.

Chairman Williams said many students transferred from other districts and since the rules differed from place to place, he wondered how that would affect lack of knowledge of a student who might be subject to the differences in policies within the counties. Mr. Etchemendy responded students knew quite soon after transfer what the rules were in their new schools.

Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District (CCSD), said the CCSD supported A.B. 180. The CCSD had quite extensive policies and regulations in place prohibiting weapons in schools and she could find no reason for a provision to allow guns at school.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked Ms. Tittle if there were signs around the schools prohibiting weapons or if the school district would object to having those signs at the entrance to the schools. Ms. Tittle said she knew of no signs but saw no problem with having them put into place. She continued if a weapon was found on a bus, the driver would confiscate the weapon instantly and notify transportation security by two-way radio which would respond immediately.

Chairman Williams appointed a subcommittee chaired by Assemblyman Manendo and comprised of Assemblywoman Parnell and Assemblyman Brower to work with people who expressed an interest in revising the bill to make it procedurally correct. Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 180 and opened the hearing on A.B. 332.

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Assembly District 31, presented A.B. 332. He told the committee as a teacher he considered evaluation to be the key to good instruction. He said he had been a teacher in the Washoe County school district since 1971 and had a Bachelor of Science degree. He took courses at the graduate level and had taught at the junior high school level. He taught U.S. history, world history, seventh and eighth grade science, and ninth grade earth science. He had a minor in science and a k-12 endorsement which allowed him to operate within the library/school certification system. For the past 20 years, he taught 11^th grade U.S. history and 12th grade American government in one form or another. He served on several textbook adoption committees and other policy committees in the school district where he was employed. He was actively involved the National Education Association and served on the board of directors on the local, state and national levels.

In his first 7 years of teaching, Mr. Anderson continued, he would not know what his classroom assignment was until August of most school years. It was not unusual even on the first day of school to be moved and have one’s classroom assignment changed. He said he would not change his profession for any other in the world and did not think his experiences as a teacher were any different than other professionals in his field.

Teachers needed more than mastery of the subject matter to be successful in their classrooms. They needed to be able to communicate with their kids. A good evaluator was not someone who dropped by for a few minutes but was a trained administrator who could point out the problems in a teacher’s presentation. Good evaluators knew the students and the profile of the classroom and were familiar with departmental goals and subject matter. They were in place to ensure students were being taught according to the curriculum.

Mr. Anderson continued he had seen strong veteran teachers and new enthusiastic teachers weakened due to negative evaluations. A.B. 332 was an attempt to reach some of the key points in an honest evaluation of teachers and their ability to reach their children.

Al Bellister, Director of Research, Nevada State Education Association, spoke in support of A.B. 332. He told the committee currently Nevada Revised Statute 391, the Professional Practices Act, stated the primary purpose of evaluation was to provide for constructive assistance for teachers. Evaluation policies were developed in consultation with representatives of the teachers associations in each of the 17 counties in Nevada.

When necessary, evaluations were to contain recommendations for improvement and offer reasonable efforts to assist teachers to correct deficiencies when they occurred. Unfortunately, said Mr. Bellister, the assistance and recommendations for improvement were often lacking. A.B. 332 set out to accomplish improvements to current law. School boards should adopt policies to ensure compliance with the requirements to provide assistance with identified deficiencies in a teacher’s performance. It was the practice of too many administrators to focus only on documentation of deficiencies and not help the teacher overcome those deficiencies.

Mr. Bellister handed out sample documents (Exhibit D) representative of 1999 teacher evaluations from Washoe and Clark County schools. He spoke of the lack of assistance in the evaluations presented. Even more serious, said Mr. Bellister, was the lack of adherence to the admonition section of NRS 391.313 requirement that reasonable assistance be provided to help the teacher to overcome deficiencies. The focus of the documents he provided was on what the teacher did wrong, not on what help could be offered for improvement. In one document the teacher was given 3 weeks to improve. However, spring break fell into the dates listed for improvement bringing the time down to 2 weeks. There was a blanket statement that the administrator "was available to help" but where, asked Mr. Bellister, was that administrator and where was the help.

A.B. 332 was intended to make sure the administrators offered specific goals to help teachers improve their performance and to provide training for administrators on how to evaluate and provide assistance to teachers. Section 3 of A.B. 332 addressed a specific amount of time administrators would be mandated to spend in classroom observation of teachers.

Mr. Bellister said Nevada hired over 2,000 teachers every year. Some were brand new teachers who needed assistance to become good teachers.

Chairman Williams asked what happened when teachers had not been evaluated throughout the school year. Mr. Bellister stated the law required probationary teachers receive three evaluations during the year. Post-probationary teachers were supposed to be evaluated at least once yearly. Sometimes an administrator only popped into the room for a moment which did no good at all.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if consultation, training, and evaluation were the main points of the bill. She queried if the evaluations had anything to do with the teachers being paid. Mr. Bellister replied evaluations were directly related to paychecks; if the evaluations were bad the teacher did not have a job. It was therefore critical for the teachers to have the opportunity to overcome deficiencies.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if the teachers associations had discussed the problems presented with administrators from the school districts. Mr. Bellister replied he personally had no discussion with any school district about A.B. 332 prior to introduction.

Assemblyman Gustavson commented line 4 of the bill stated "a reasonable effort must be made to assist a teacher to correct any deficiencies reported in the evaluation of the teacher." He asked what would happen if administration just decided a teacher was not right for the job. Mr. Bellister replied current law stated the primary purpose of the evaluation process in every county was constructive assistance. Consistent with that was the statement in line 4 of the bill.

Assemblywoman Angle asked how many teachers A.B. 332 would affect . She understood after 1 year a teacher was tenured and wondered how many had been evaluated out in the probationary year, and how many after that year. Mr. Bellister responded every teacher in the state would be affected. There was a possibility of a 2-year probation if the overall evaluation was unsatisfactory in the first year. He did not have a specific number of terminations, but that did not minimize the importance of the bill.

Assemblywoman Angle said the associations had strong bargaining powers and asked if the matters in A.B. 332 could not be better addressed in that manner rather than in statute. Mr. Bellister agreed it could be handled that way but he felt there should be a statewide policy statement which required a uniform standard and uniform consequences.

Assemblyman Collins noticed the evaluation sheet for a first-year teacher asked questions which did not apply to instruction. He wondered how the school districts could be made to focus on improving the teachers’ skills. He asked if the Nevada State Education Association had out-of-classroom programs to assist teachers. Mr. Bellister replied section I of A.B. 332 asked the school boards to adopt policies in consultation with the teachers associations to comply with the provisions about providing assistance to teachers. Local affiliates might provide outside training for teachers but Nevada State Education Association itself did not.

Assemblyman Manendo said at-risk schools had many first-year teachers. Because of the population boom in southern Nevada there were many classes in portable classrooms away from the main body of the school buildings. He noticed that separation seemed to frustrate many first-year teachers. They wanted evaluations and enjoyed visits from principals and administrators. Many teachers had expressed support of A.B. 332 .

Lonnie Shields, Legislative Representative, Washoe County Education Administrator’s Association, addressed the committee on A.B. 332. He explained there were parts of the bill the association could support such as training of administrators in the area of evaluation and while there might be a cost factor involved with that training he felt it would be money well spent.

There was some question of the need to change some of the language in A.B. 332 which presently required reasonable efforts to assist the teachers in danger of being dismissed. If a reasonable effort was already being made it did not seem necessary to write a detailed report of actions being considered. In Washoe County, continued Mr. Shields, there was a requirement to observe a probationary teacher in a classroom situation three times during each of three evaluation periods. In addition a preconference with the teacher was required before observation. A postconference with the teacher was also held to discuss the observation.

A postprobationary teacher was observed in a 3-year cycle; for 2 years the teacher was on a minor evaluation schedule and major evaluations were conducted three times during the third year.

Assemblywoman de Braga asked what harm there was in reinforcing the language of the law. Mr. Shields said he did not believe there was harm in the letter of admonition portion of the bill but felt too much detail could be counterproductive in a teacher’s personnel file.

Assemblyman Collins asked what consideration was given to teachers who were placed outside their main area of training. Mr. Shields responded the state and local districts were moving toward the requirement of teachers to teach only within their field but if a teacher was outside his or her field the mentoring process would be much stronger.

Edward Goldman, Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Operations and Staff Relations, Clark County School District, said no one had ever discussed with the school district any proposals to amend A.B. 332 and he felt such a discussion should take place. A lot of things in the bill could be addressed through the negotiating process.

Dr. Goldman expressed his concern that while teachers were being mentored and instructed the children were not being taught. Technicalities were what concerned him.

Teachers were provided books and videos to deal with specific problems. Dr. Goldman detailed other steps administrators already took with teachers such as modeling and providing special assistance teams but noted those steps did not ensure success.

During the past 2 years out of 2,000 teachers 22 had been let go. When teachers were given too many specific actions with which they complied, whether it improved their skills or not, doors could be open to court action if they were replaced because they just could not do the job.

With respect to training administrators, Dr. Goldman said administrators were already trained in an internship which included Nevada school law classes before a license was issued.

Chairman Williams pointed out testimony had been heard in other committees with regard to bringing retired teachers back into the system. He said it was very difficult to bring teachers to Nevada and he felt because it was such a competitive recruitment perhaps if those 22 teachers mentioned had been provided more help there would be a cost saving.

Dr. Goldman agreed and made reference to a teacher he was assisting above requirements because the young man tried so hard. The willingness to offer assistance was not the problem; technicalities were what concerned him.

Assemblywoman Koivisto expressed the feeling that when a teacher asked for help and was told to read a book or watch a video that was not helping. Administrators had to be held accountable for offering real assistance to teachers. Dr. Goldman responded the help did not end with an instruction to read a book or watch a video. Teachers met with administrators to help implement suggestions such as those for more effective teaching.

Assemblyman Collins asked how many administrators were removed in the past year. He wondered what steps were taken when administrators did not do their jobs. Dr. Goldman responded 3 to 5 administrators were removed. When administrators did not perform they were disciplined.

Assemblyman Manendo asked the average cost to recruit a teacher in Clark County. Dr. Goldman said the only cost was in sending recruiters out which was probably about $100,000 a year. Assemblyman Manendo asked exactly what improvement could be expected in a 2-week period. Dr. Goldman agreed nothing could be done in 2 weeks. It took a long time to help teachers in a mentoring situation or when bringing in specialists in areas of deficiencies. Assemblyman Manendo asked if meetings or continued instruction for teachers took place on school time. Dr. Goldman replied observation and meetings took place on school time and other things were done on the teacher’s time.

Assemblywoman Angle asked if it would help to extend the probationary period to 2 years with tenure at the end of that time. Dr. Goldman said good teachers were going to be good regardless of the length of probation. Poor teachers should not have another year to perform poorly. Assemblywoman Angle asked what it cost to train and evaluate teachers. Dr. Goldman responded there would be no cost if it was all done in-house. There would be costs if it was necessary to bring people in to train administrators or for overtime hours for teachers.

Assemblywoman Cegavske said one problem was poor communication between staff and administration. She would rather see administration address the associations and school districts in an effort to work together than create more legislation without that step. She wanted the school districts to provide the committee with training requirements for administrators and information regarding probationary periods and expectations for teachers.

Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District (CCSD), stated CCSD wanted to work with the teachers associations to resolve the issues in question.

Randy Wallstrum, President of School Board, Douglas County School District, said he had been on the school board for 9 years. From the perspective of the board the first part of A.B. 332 referred also to administrators and seemed to add another problem to the attempts to weed out bad teachers. During probation it was possible to evaluate and not renew contracts. Once past that period if an administrator decided to fight dismissal it could cost the school district approximately $50,000 for the 3 court appearances required to uphold termination. Assemblyman Collins asked if Mr. Wallstrum thought the $50,000 cost to get rid of a bad administrator was worth it, to which Mr. Wallstrum replied he would much rather spend the money to get rid of a bad administrator than keep one for 20 years.

Mary Goodman, Associate Superintendent Human Resources, Lyon County School District, said Lyon County school administrators worked closely with teachers to assist and evaluate them. Teachers submitted reports on their training and were observed during application of what they learned. She felt a law was already in place to ensure assistance and did not see reason for additional verbiage as in A.B. 332.

Mary Pierczinski, Assistant Superintendent Human Resources, Carson City School District, said she did not feel more legislation was necessary. Once a person was postprobationary it was already very difficult to terminate them. Employees in Carson City School District were well protected and well trained. She knew A.B. 332 was designed to protect and teach the teachers but the children also had rights and A.B. 332 made it more cumbersome to help people who should not be in the profession of teaching.

Ms. Goodman added that the reference to classroom observation should be broadened. Special education teachers went through an elaborate federally mandated process and might do well in the classroom, but there were other problems. There was a need to address direct observation of the teacher in the performance of responsibilities relative to instruction.

Chairman Williams said the sponsor of A.B. 332 recommended 1 hour of observation as opposed to the 3 hours that was in law.

Assemblywoman Parnell said the exhibit submitted by Mr. Bellister did not fulfill the necessary obligations of assistance. She asked what happened to a principal who did not perform. Ms. Pierczinski responded a process was in place for evaluation of administrators as well as teachers.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked for a list of what was offered to teachers and also a list of what teachers felt they needed in the way of help. Chairman Williams said there was not a lot of time to bring those requests forward.

Assemblyman Collins said lines 7 to 10, page 5 seemed to be a problem. It appeared the admonition process contained a lot of points. He asked which points was a problem for the school districts. Ms. Goodman replied all points would be included in any admonition given. Assemblyman Collins asked if the points on admonition were already in statute. Ms. Goodman said the current law was in NRS 391.313(1a).

Assemblyman Collins said the issues for amendment in the bill were line 41 on page 3 to change 3 hours to 1 hour and line 14 on page 4 to change 2 hours to 1 hour. He did not have a problem with those points. He wanted clarification on whether there was anything in current law addressing those points.

Mr. Bellister said current law provided the reason for an admonition must be brought to the attention of the employee. A.B. 332 stated there must be reasonable effort to assist the employee to correct the problem.

Ms. Pierczinski said that was already covered in NRS. Forms were different throughout the state. If administrators were not completing forms properly there should be meetings to work out the problems. She did not feel more legislation was the answer.

Assemblywoman de Braga commented she heard nothing in testimony to disagree with what A.B. 332 proposed. She heard a lot of comments that the points were already in law. She thought A.B. 332 addressed accountability from administrators. She felt an amendment of hours as suggested by Mr. Bellister was in order.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 332.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO.

MOTION PASSED.

ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE, CEGAVSKE, AND GUSTAVSON VOTED NAY.

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Lois McDonald,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: