The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, March 24, 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 Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman

Senator Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator Michael Schneider

Senator Valerie Wiener

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator Mark Amodei (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Cynthia Cook, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2, testified in support of S.B. 126. Senator Washington told of a third grader who was labeled as a disciplinary problem, because of disruptive behavior in the classroom. The teachers thought it was best to place the student in special education, when in fact the student did not have a learning disability. Instead of labeling a child as having a borderline attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), consistency and structure within the learning environment has proven to be helpful. Keeping a student in a normal classroom atmosphere also allows the special education budget to focus on severely disabled children. Some students with high intelligence and a low level of attention because of a lack of challenges have been placed in special education programs erroneously.

Senator Wiener wanted to know the current procedure to screen for special education. Senator Washington responded an individualized educational program (IEP) is required for all special education services.

Francis Gillings, Lobbyist, Washoe County Chairman, American Independent Party, stated support for S.B. 126. Mr. Gillings said educators lack the ability to recognize a brilliant student, and therefore the student becomes bored because of the constant repetition in public schools. Mr. Gillings added prison testers would tell you some of the brightest kids in America are in prisons. Senator Schneider requested some proof and hard statistics that educators are deficient in recognizing gifted students, and some students with the highest intelligence often end up in prison. Mr. Gillings responded he would be able to have some private school teachers testify how they have turned around children who could not make it in public schools.

Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, and Mary L. Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, spoke in favor of S.B. 126. Currently, extensive assessments with strict guidelines are in place to assure students are not placed in special education solely because of disciplinary problems. However, the bill will codify what should be policy.

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, stated the association favors S.B. 126. She drew attention to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 521, which will address discipline problems.

Senator Wiener inquired about the opportunity school process concerning the placement of students with discipline problems. Ms. Cahill explained the opportunity schools focus on secondary school students who are most at risk of dropping out and not completing their education. A need exists at the primary school level in order to discover problems at an earlier stage in the life of a student.

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified the association supports S.B. 126. Mr. Etchemendy expressed unease about wording in the bill which would allow the Superintendent of Public Instruction to revoke approval of the program if a pupil is placed in a program for pupils with disabilities, solely because the pupil is a disciplinary problem in school. He believes this could have an adverse effect on the entire program, and perhaps a financial penalty could be inserted instead of the revocation of approval. Chairman Rawson stated he understood Mr. Etchemendy’s concern.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 126 and opened the hearing on S.B. 345.

Douglas M. Byington, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators, testified the association supports S.B. 345.

George Ann Rice, Ed.D, J.D., Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Division, Clark County School District, explained the current law provides just two ratings for a probationary employee; satisfactory and not satisfactory. Evaluations are conducted no later than December 1, February 1, and April 1 of each school year. To be judged not satisfactory on December 1, could be extremely demoralizing, and would be a part of the permanent record of the employee. S.B. 345 will allow the administration the opportunity to give a rating of "not consistently satisfactory." Dr. Rice stated she would prefer the wording be "required skills and knowledge not consistently evident." This way, the supervisor would not be forced to declare prematurely a probationary employee is unsatisfactory at the beginning of his or her career. Currently, a uniform objective is the goal of the Legislature. Dr. Rice emphasized her approval of the section in S.B. 345, which extends from February 15 to March 15, the date when an administrator must notify an employee he or she may not be reemployed the following year. The additional month will allow the employee time to work on the deficiencies noted in the February 1 evaluation.

Chairman Rawson asked Dr. Rice if wording were more neutral, something on the order of "insufficient evidence to make a determination" would be acceptable. Dr. Rice said she would have no problem with that wording.

Senator Wiener asked if a new employee received one neutral and two satisfactory evaluations during their first year of employment, would a second year of probation still be required. Dr. Rice answered yes; all new employees are required to be on probation for 2 years. The second year is waived for certain exemplary employees under some circumstances. She mentioned a bill before the Legislature this session would increase the probationary period to 3 years.

Chairman Rawson pointed out S.B. 345 allows an employee to enter the second year of probation without being labeled in a negative way.

Daniel W. Fox, Superintendent, Pershing County School District, testified in support of S.B. 345. In answer to an inquiry by Chairman Rawson, Mr. Fox stated he does believe some teachers have been labeled as inadequate because of current time constraints regarding evaluations, and S.B. 345 would help to correct those situations.

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, expressed support of S.B. 345.

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, stated the reasons the association opposes S.B. 345. The association firmly believes a teacher needs to be told they are unsatisfactory. The sooner this happens, the sooner the teacher will be assisted by the administration as currently required. Additionally, by extending the date to March 15 to inform an employee he or she may not be reemployed for the second year of probation, time has been reduced for a teacher to improve before being told they will not be rehired. Ms. Cahill commented on A.B. 366, a bill the Nevada State Education Association supports, which would create a mentor program.

Ms. Cahill expressed that proponents of S.B. 345 speaking today have testified against the mentor-teacher program. S.B. 345 would remove the ability of a probationary employee to request a supplemental evaluation by another administrator if they received an unsatisfactory evaluation. The association believes this is a valuable tool, and should not be deleted.

Chairman Rawson asked proponents of S.B. 345 if the most important aspect of the bill is the change from February 15 to March 15 as the date administration must inform a probationary employee they may not be reemployed for a second year. He asked if there could be an agreement to compromise on the date change to March 1 and the language to allow a probationary employee to request a supplemental evaluation by another administrator to remain in the bill.

Dr. Rice responded under case law, the district must offer help and assistance to an employee until the final day of employment. The board is required to notify each probationary employee in writing on or before May 1 of his or her probationary period whether he or she is to be reemployed.

Dr. Rice added Clark County School District is not at all opposed to mentoring. Research indicates first-year teachers that have been in a mentoring program have a much better chance of being retained. However, the State Department of Education projects expenses for the bill as presented would have a $6 million impact by year 2002, with $1.8 million for Clark County. It is the unfunded mandate portion of the proposal that is unacceptable.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 345 for a future potential work session, and reopened the hearing on S.B. 126.

Senator Townsend asked if it would harm the bill if language concerning the penalty were deleted. Ms. Peterson said she does not believe striking the language would harm the bill. Senator Washington had no objection to such an amendment.

*****

Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cynthia Cook,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

DATE: