SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES

The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Vice Chairman Maurice Washington, at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, February 8, 1999, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman

Senator Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Mark Amodei

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator Michael Schneider

Senator Valerie Wiener

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman, (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator William J. Raggio, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 3

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Patricia Di Domenico, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Vice Chairman Washington identified Senate Bill (S.B.) 9, Senate Bill (S.B.) 50, and Senate Bill (S.B.) 51 as bills from the Legislative Committee on Education. He said the committee would hear testimony on these bills after a presentation by Mary L. Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education.

Ms. Peterson stated her presentation would give the committee a context for their discussions on public education during the legislative session. She said the demands that face public education today are rapid enrollment, increasing diversity of student population, high transiency rates, and higher expectancy of students based on S.B. 482 of the Sixty-ninth Session.

SENATE BILL 482 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION: Makes various changes governing education. (BDR 34-1783)

Ms. Peterson referenced three handouts: the Nevada Department of Education (Exhibit C), Research Bulletin (Exhibit D), and Nevada Public Schools, 1998-99 School Year (Exhibit E) as providing statistics on education, nature of enrollments, nature of teachers, special education, and information on all Nevada schools. Ms. Peterson identified growth as a key factor in education. She said student population has increased 93 percent from 1988 to 1999 and Clark County School District is the ninth largest in the country with over 200,000 students. In comparison Esmeralda County School District has 114 students.

Ms. Peterson referred to a graph on page 2 (Exhibit C) which showed the steady and rapid growth of enrollment from 1988 to 1999. She explained enrollment had increased an average of six to eight percent per year which is three to four times the national average. Ms. Peterson stated Washoe and Clark county school districts experienced 4.9 percent in growth and, for the first time in a decade, nine school districts declined in enrollment. She noted the minority population is increasing particularly the Hispanic growth rate which has increased 421 percent since 1988.

Ms. Peterson remarked Nevada ranks below the national average in regular math and science, as well as upper level math and science scores. She said there is a strong correlation between low social and economic status of students and low academic performance as indicated by participation in the free or reduced lunch services. Ms. Peterson indicated 10.7 percent of Nevada’s public school students participated in special education classes and English language learners (students whose English skills are not sufficient to receive and understand instruction), represented 9.9 percent.

Ms. Peterson stressed the transiency rate (when a student has not completed the school year in one school) is 39 percent statewide, with Clark County School District having the highest rate. Ms. Peterson indicated Nevada has one of the highest dropout rates in the nation and Hispanic, African American, and Native American students had the highest dropout rate in Nevada for 1996 and 1997. Ms. Peterson said reducing the dropout rate is one of the focuses of the Indian Education Consultant and Cultural Diversity Consultant funded by Assembly Bill (A.B.) 266 of the Sixty-ninth Session.

ASSEMBLY BILL 266 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION: Makes appropriations to department of education. (BDR S-1243)

Ms. Peterson said there was some good news. She indicated the October results showed fourth and eighth grade scores went up two percentiles in math since last fall; fourth grade science went up one percentile; and three percentiles in eighth grade; reading stayed the same and language scores were down. Ms. Peterson noted tenth grade results were down based on the old passing scores. She explained there is a new high school proficiency test with a higher passing score that senior students will be taking for the first time. Ms. Peterson indicated American College Testing and Standard Aptitude Test scores show a student’s readiness for college and Nevada students were above the national average in those scores, but college enrollment was 38 percent which is below the national average of 60 percent.

According to Ms. Peterson there were 18,000 licensed personnel employed by Nevada school districts last year, of those 11.7 percent were employed for the first time. She said 34.5 percent of personnel had earned degrees in Nevada and 31 percent held a Masters or higher degree, while the average years of experience of all licensed staff was 10.7 years. Ms. Peterson acknowledged the class size ratio was sixteen-to-one pupil-to-teacher ratio in grades one and two, and nineteen to one in grade three. She explained the class size ratio was reflective of the funding provided by the Legislature in 1997.

Ms. Peterson stated there are 452 public schools in Nevada. She said in accordance with S.B. 482 of the Sixty-ninth Session, schools were designated into three categories: "high achieving" schools, "adequate achievement" schools, and "inadequate achievement" schools. She concluded, 2 schools were designated as having high achievement and 23 schools had inadequate achievement.

Senator Wiener said the descriptor "inadequate" is causing concern and asked if there had been any dialog to change the descriptive term "inadequate" to "needs improvement?" Ms. Peterson replied school staff brought this concern to her attention and there is a proposed bill draft addressing this matter.

Vice Chairman Washington asked if there were factors other than transiency contributing to the dropout rate. Ms. Peterson explained students who drop out of school feel a lack of connection to their school and school is not relevant to them. Vice Chairman Washington asked if there were isolated areas within school districts where the dropout rate is highest. Ms. Peterson replied the dropout rate is reported in the accountability reports of the schools and the districts. She said Clark County has the highest dropout rate and there is a variation within the school districts. Vice Chairman Washington inquired whether the dropout trend was helped by the Remediation Funds targeted for the inadequate schools. Ms. Peterson answered, of the 23 schools listed with inadequate achievement, only one was a high school, the rest were elementary and middle schools.

Vice Chairman Washington referenced page 6 of Exhibit C and asked if the Department of Education is considering active recruitment measures to eliminate the teacher shortage and staffing problems. Ms. Peterson said Assembly Bill (A.B.) 47 is designed to have a statewide effort for recruitment and a student loan program for students who want to enter the teaching profession.

Vice Chairman Washington asked if A.B. 47 offered bonus packages to entice teachers to this state. Ms. Peterson said she was not aware of any sign-on bonus packages for teachers in any bills this legislative session.

Senator Wiener asked if there were ways to lower the student dropout rate. Ms. Peterson replied many students do not return to school after excessive absences or suspensions. Ms. Peterson said there are in-house suspension programs and creative ways to address these problems. She added school districts are finding solutions.

Vice Chairman Washington noted page 2 of Exhibit C and questioned the reason nine districts have a reduction in their enrollment rate. Ms. Peterson explained Elko County had a decline for the first time in over a decade because of the declining price of minerals in the mining industry. Vice Chairman Washington asked about the other districts. Ms. Peterson answered it varies by district but was primarily related to the decline in mining.

Senator William J. Raggio, Washoe County Senatorial District 3, testified S.B. 9, S.B. 50, and S.B. 51 were the result of an interim study by the Legislative Committee on Education. He said the committee received and reviewed recommendations from four regional workshops and the Superintendent of the White Pine School District. He explained the recommendations were, to address teacher recruitment and retention, including the use of sick leave for early retirement; adoption of policies to grant teachers full credit for years of out-of-state teaching experience; and, offering incentives to teachers who remain in high-risk schools.

Senator Raggio stated S.B. 9 offered incentives to teachers in high-risk schools by allowing teachers to receive 1 year of credit toward retirement for every 5 years of service, but no more than 5 years of service could be purchased. He noted S.B. 50 authorizes school districts’ board of trustees to establish a process to use accumulated sick leave for early retirement. Senator Raggio concluded S.B. 51 would provide full credit when calculating seniority on a salary scale for out-of-state teachers effective after July 1, 2000.

Senator Schneider asked if the committee addressed the issue of hiring newly graduated teachers who would be lower on the pay scale and the buy out of older teachers’ contracts. Senator Raggio replied the committee did not. He said this was practiced in the private sector to cut costs but emphasized the need to retain experienced, capable and qualified teachers in our schools. Senator Schneider questioned whether the committee addressed teacher burnout especially in high-risk schools. Senator Raggio answered no.

Vice Chairman Washington invited additional testimony on S.B. 9, S.B. 50, and S.B. 51.

Mary Goodman, Associate Superintendent, Lyon County School District, stated the district had concerns with the bills because they would impact small school districts financially. She addressed S.B. 9 by giving a cost analysis of $60,000 a year for one at risk. Ms. Goodman emphasized the figure would be compounded if a district had additional "at-risk" schools. She asked the committee to consider these concerns and requested financial assistance for small school districts.

Vice Chairman Washington referenced page 2, section 1, line 6 of S.B. 9 and asked if at least one of the schools met the criteria. Ms. Goodman replied in the affirmative. She pointed out all their schools were at-risk schools and not inadequate schools. Ms. Goodman said in their schools all the programs are working very well. Vice Chairman Washington recommended the school district submit a cost-out to the Senate Committee on Finance for their consideration.

Ms. Goodman stated S.B. 51 would impact the district financially because the Lyon County School District has been successful in recruiting many teachers from out of state. She said their programs attract many out-of-state teachers as they have vested pensions and are looking for a change. She expressed concern about the crediting of out-of-state teacher service when determining salaries. Vice Chairman Washington surmised it would be the option of the school district to determine if it would fit into their budgets. He said currently there is no fiscal note on local or state governments.

Ms. Goodman said S.B. 50 would be a financial burden if the school district did not have the option. She explained they currently have a sick leave policy paying $3,600 and the cost would be $9,000 if they revert to paying a year of sick leave. Vice Chairman Washington added he thought it was permissive language and left up to the discretion of the school district.

Dana K. Bilyeu, Operations Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), reading from prepared text (Exhibit F), stated their staff will be recommending PERS take a neutral position concerning S.B. 9. Ms. Bilyeu stated:

Ms. Bilyeu stated therefore PERS questions the necessity for such an amendment. She asserted a question of fairness or equity may be raised when you treat one group of employees different from their counterparts.

Ms. Bilyeu emphasized the staff would recommend that PERS oppose section 2 of S.B. 50 which amends the retirement act to provide purchase of service credit for certain individual members in addition to the 5 years already allowed by the act. She stated the language currently drafted in this section of the bill appears to expand the purchase of service credit provisions to allow for a sixth year of purchase for individuals who qualify within the school district. Ms. Bilyeu said PERS is a uniform program for all public employees and there is a current statutory limitation of a purchase of 5 years. Ms. Bilyeu stressed PERS would be neutral with respect to this bill if the language was amended to limit the purchase to 5 years and would oppose the legislation if modified beyond the 5 years. Vice Chairman Washington remarked it was the intent of the Legislative Committee on Education to keep within the 5 years.

Jeanne L. Botts, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Council Bureau, said she would talk with the attorney that staffed the committee and clarify the language so that it will reflect the committee’s intent. Vice Chairman Washington suggested an amendment be provided to the committee before the work session.

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), testified the association’s initial position is to oppose S.B. 9 because of their concerns. She said the way to deal with attracting and retaining teachers is by offering incentives. Ms. Cahill stated the bill does not spell out an incentive program other than the purchase of service credits. Ms. Cahill emphasized the bill would cause a fiscal impact on the school district which is not addressed through an appropriation from the state. She questioned how it would impact teacher incentive if a school were no longer categorized as at risk or inadequate.

Ms. Cahill remarked the problem of teachers leaving schools that are at risk or inadequate is because of burnout and may be corrected if class size, classroom environment, and teaching conditions were addressed, as well as by offering other incentives. Vice Chairman Washington emphasized having schools become high-achieving was our ultimate goal. He stated the association’s concerns would be duly noted.

Ms. Cahill said the association is in support of S.B. 50. She claimed S.B. 51 may be an impairment of contract because every school district has negotiated this in their contracts. She questioned if the Legislature could pass a bill to require arbitrary change of the contract language. According to Ms. Cahill, this bill could create a salary inequity between existing teachers and those entering the state. She said this could be avoided if a method to make them whole was implemented. Vice Chairman Washington said Nevada is competing with other states for teachers while maintaining its standards, accountability, and continuity.

Senator Mathews stated her background is in the educational system and has experienced salary parity problems. She cautioned the committee to carefully consider the question of parity when reviewing this bill.

Barbara Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teachers Association (PTA), testified the association concurred with the concept of recruiting and retaining teachers in high-risk schools but it has some concerns. She said a teacher’s training and qualifications should be investigated before incentive pay is given to ensure they are enhancing the educational environment of the at-risk students. Ms. Clark remarked the bill’s language addresses a teacher’s evaluation having to be satisfactory for the last 5 years of service; but she questioned the difference between service at a high-achieving school and a high-risk school; or how a new teacher’s qualifications would be addressed. Ms. Clark emphasized the association’s concerns are accountability issues and they would like to see clear criteria established. She stressed the fiscal and financial impact this bill will have on the school districts.

Mary Peterson read from a prepared text (Exhibit G) and provided handouts Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997 (Exhibit H) and Nevada Department of Education Finance and Accountability Team (Exhibit I) on S.B. 482 of the Sixty-ninth Session. She emphasized there is significant support for increased spending to ensure qualified teachers, especially on schools serving low-income and minority students, and to pay for extra time spent for professional development of teachers. She stated S.B. 9 is designed to ensure qualified teachers are hired especially in low-income and minority schools and therefore has a fiscal note. Ms. Peterson referred to a Fiscal Note (Exhibit J), prepared by the State Department of Education which projects expenses of $1.9 million. She said the department’s business plan and the bill draft request were similar to S.B. 9 except in the timing and actual implementation. Ms. Peterson explained in their BDR, teachers in low-performing schools could begin to accrue benefits in 5 years; S.B. 9 would allow benefits to begin in 1999 to 2000.

Referring to Exhibit E, Ms. Peterson explained inadequate schools have significantly more teachers who have taught less than 4 years compared to high-achieving schools and significantly fewer teachers who have taught more than 6 years. She said fewer teachers hold master’s degrees or higher in inadequate schools. Ms. Peterson noted S.B. 9 has a fiscal impact on local school districts but it also has the potential to positively impact the academic achievement of students. Ms. Peterson stated the State Department of Education is in support of S.B. 9, but has concerns that need to be addressed. She stated the department’s concerns are: what happens when a school no longer is designated as inadequate; teacher burnout; incentives for other licensed personnel; rewarding a whole school, not just individuals; and other forms of incentives. She concluded, it is imperative to put teachers with the greatest ability into schools with the greatest need. Vice Chairman Washington stated the department’s concerns would be duly noted for the Legislative Committee on Education.

Vice Chairman Washington stopped testimony and presented Bill Draft Request (BDR) 40-485.

Charles (Steve) Williams, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, applauded the goals of S.B. 9, S.B. 50, and S.B. 51 but noted they will have a fiscal impact on school districts. He said members of the district were present to answer any questions the committee may have about the fiscal impact of these bills. Vice Chairman Washington suggested a fiscal note be submitted to the Legislative Committee on Education for review.

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified on behalf of the association and the Superintendent of the White Pine County School District. Referring to page 2, line 1 of S.B. 50, Mr. Etchemendy said there is confusion as to the bill’s language being permissive or mandatory and would like this clarified. He stated the Nevada Association of School Boards will support S.B. 50 if the language is permissive but would oppose the bill if it were mandatory. Vice Chairman Washington pointed out the language "shall either prescribe by" on line 1, and "may either" on line 6 is permissive language. He stressed it was the intent of the Legislative Committee on Education to have permissive language in S.B. 9, S.B. 50, and S.B. 51.

Larry Spitler, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, testified on S.B. 9, S.B. 50, and S.B. 51 concurrently. He called attention to section 1 of S.B. 9 as a measure that does not change the scope of bargaining but does influence its scope. He suggested the mandatory aspects of the bill be changed to one of an advisory nature. Mr. Spitler said the effective date of the bill may impact teachers transferring to schools identified as having inadequate achievement the prior year and find the fall assessment of the school has changed to an improved category. He explained this might affect teachers with special expertise anticipating an incentive. Mr. Spitler questioned whether the district honored the transfer or cut the incentive. He said a change of status could occur even with the 65 percent of at-risk population. Mr. Spitler noted Section 4 of the bill could open avenues for grievances.

Mr. Spitler stated there is no need for S.B. 50 because a board of trustees may presently negotiate or prescribe by regulation payment of unused sick leave in the form of additional retirement credit for all employees. He said an analysis of the financial impact of this bill was necessary. Senator Wiener questioned the need for a cost analysis if Clark County has an early retirement system in place. Mr. Spitler responded Clark County incentives might not go to the level of S.B. 50 but applies to all employees.

Mr. Spitler acknowledged S.B. 51 as one solution to recruiting and hiring a sufficient number of teachers. He proposed allowing school districts, based upon their individualized personnel requirements, to develop an appropriate initial placement scale designed to attract teachers in the most needed areas. He emphasized the review and approval of teaching experience is the responsibility of each district and not the Commission on Professional Standards in Education. Mr. Spitler emphasized the Clark County School District did not oppose the concept but did oppose the solution offered by S.B. 51.

Vice Chairman Washington adjourned the meeting at 4:27 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Patricia Di Domenico,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman

DATE: