The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 3:00 p.m., on Wednesday, April 14, 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 Mark Amodei

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator Michael Schneider

Senator Valerie Wiener

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Bonnie L. Parnell, Carson City Assembly District No. 40

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Patricia Di Domenico, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 144 and introduced Assemblywoman Bonnie L. Parnell, Carson City Assembly District No. 40.

Assemblywoman Parnell testified that A.B. 144 amends the current statute to require each public school in Nevada to set aside time at the beginning of each school day to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States. Schools may also set aside appropriate time for additional patriotic exercises. She stated that the bill was drafted in response to constituents’ requests that were concerned about the lack of attention given to patriotism in our schools. Assemblywoman Parnell said A.B. 144 will strengthen the current statute which is vague, unstructured, and difficult to implement.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 144 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 332.

Assemblyman Bernard (Bernie) Anderson, Washoe County Assembly District No. 31, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit C) and summarized his experience in the teaching profession and the importance of trained administrators. He stressed that a good evaluator is a trained administrator who can point out problems because they are familiar with the students, the class profile, curriculum, and the department’s goals. Assemblyman Anderson noted that their objective is to make sure the students are hearing the material as prescribed and meeting the student’s needs. He emphasized that A.B. 332 is an important piece of legislation.

Chairman Rawson reopened the hearing and invited testimony on A.B. 144.

Lynn P. Chapman, Lobbyist, stated she was representing the American Legion Auxiliary, and described the lack of awareness and knowledge of our youth concerning the flag and patriotism.

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, voiced full support of A.B. 144.

Charles (Steve) Williams, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, stated Assembly Bill 144 clarifies the intent of the previous language in the statute. He said that Washoe County School District supported the bill.

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, averred support of A.B. 144 but said there might be a conflict with S.B. 445 that deletes this section of statute.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 144.

SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 144.

SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Chairman Rawson reopened the hearing on Assembly Bill 332.

Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, stated support of A.B. 332. He said there was no fiscal note attached to the bill. Mr. Bellister stated the bill tries to accomplish three things: one, it sets a mandate for administrators to spend time in the classroom; two, provides training for administrators; and three, sets a requirement that school districts adopt policies and provide for the implementation of assistance to teachers. He pointed out that the bill does not try to expand on Nevada Revised Statutes chapter 288 but it does build on what the current law provides. Mr. Bellister noted that Nevada Revised Statutes chapter 391 says the primary purpose of an evaluation is to provide a format for constructive assistance for teachers. He added, unfortunately the focus is on the documentation and not on the remediation and assistance that a teacher with deficiencies needs. Mr. Bellister referred to Exhibit D, a teacher evaluation cover sheet of a first year teacher with deficiencies. He noted that according to current law, constructive assistance must be provided to the teacher. Mr. Bellister called attention to pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit D and said that the deficiencies are marked but there is no definitive assistance provided by the administrator to help the teacher overcome performance deficiencies.

Mr. Bellister indicated that Exhibit E is a record of personnel notification where a conference was held to discuss and outline a program of special assistance for the teacher. According to Mr. Bellister, one would expect specific examples of assistance and recommendations for improvement but all that is outlined is a reiteration of the district’s goals. Mr. Bellister emphasized that there was no mention of what the teacher should do to overcome the deficiencies. He drew attention to page 2 of Exhibit E and the verbiage "… I am always there to assist you …" and said this puts the burden on the teacher to determine what they need to do to improve and takes it away from the administrator where the law currently places that responsibility.

Referring to Exhibit F, Mr. Bellister explained that this was an excerpt of an 11-page document of a teacher’s admonition. He remarked that the administrator‘s documentation of the teacher’s deficiencies was exceptional but there were no specific recommendations on to how to correct the deficiencies. Mr. Bellister noted page 3 of Exhibit F which states in part "… I expect to see satisfactory performance in the areas noted above within three weeks …" and "… I am available to assist you with your present difficulty …." He iterated that no specific assistance was offered, and the time allowed would include the start of spring break. Mr. Bellister defined A.B. 332 as requiring the school districts to adopt the policy that specifies how to implement the sections of the law that require school districts and administrators to provide assistance to teachers who have deficiencies. Mr. Bellister stated that in Clark County only 22-24 teachers were terminated out of 2000, and in Washoe County 3 teachers out of 300 were terminated.

Chairman Rawson asked if the teachers exemplified in the exhibits were terminated. Mr. Bellsiter replied that the teacher in Exhibit D was still in the classroom and has challenged the evaluation by invoking the grievance procedure. Chairman Rawson questioned whether the deficiencies noted were basic or essential skills that a teacher should learn in college. Mr. Bellinger responded the assumption is that a teacher learns the skills in the school of education but it is not fair to make that assumption. Chairman Rawson commented that a method to help a teacher with deficiencies would be to put an exemplary teacher with a teacher who needs help. Mr. Bellister replied that there is a proposed bill that addresses the mentor concept. Chairman Rawson asked if the districts had instituted any changes since the teachers in the exhibits were evaluated. Mr. Bellister replied that the law has not changed but the districts do examine their evaluation process to see if they are accomplishing their purpose. Chairman Rawson inquired whether there is a conflict between A.B. 322 and Senate Bill (S.B.) 22.

Mr. Bellister replied the first conflict would be A.B. 322 indicates at least 1 hour of observation time and the second, S.B. 22 has proposals on the length of the probationary period. Senator Washington asked for clarity of section 1 of Assembly Bill 332. In response to the question, Mr. Bellinger pointed out that the current statute provides for the creation of the evaluation policy and documents. A.B. 332 adds an additional requirement, that there be a written policy adopted which ensures that administrators provide assistance to teachers whose performances are deficient. Further discussion ensued clarifying the intent of the bill. Senator Washington questioned the impact of the evaluation on the individual employee’s contract of employment. Mr. Bellister replied that if the teacher did not overcome the deficiencies it would lead to termination.

Senator Amodei asked what percent of teachers were deficient or unsatisfactory in their teaching skills. Mr. Bellister replied that out of 2000 new teachers hired in Clark County approximately 20 were terminated; and in Washoe County out of 300-350 new teachers 2-3 were terminated; which equals 1 percent in each case. Senator Schneider pointed out that 1 percent is a low figure and stated that in the private sector that figure is 50 percent or more which is a substantial difference. Senator Schnieder asked how Nevada compared with the national figures of teachers that were terminated. Mr. Bellister responded that he did not know but would provide that information later. Senator Schneider queried whether these issues are negotiated in school district contracts and what the figures were nationally. Mr. Bellister replied that approximately 39 states have collective bargaining but discipline and discharge are a mandatory subject in negotiations. Mr. Bellister stressed that current law states administrators are to provide constructive assistance. He added that administration has the burden to provide that assistance but because it is not always happening, hence the need for the law to be changed.

Referring to Exhibit F, Senator Townsend asked how long this teacher was employed. Mr. Bellister replied that Exhibit F was an example of a post-probationary teacher. Senator Townsend queried whether in current law there was a specific amount of time designated to observe a teacher’s skills. Mr. Bellister responded there was no time specification. Senator Townsend asked if the evaluation could be challenged on the grounds that the administrator did not spend sufficient time in observing the teacher’s performance. Mr Bellister answered in the affirmative and explained in that specific case the teacher was given 3 weeks to correct all the deficiencies but was not provided constructive assistance. Senator Townsend commented that the admonitions mentioned in Exhibit F were of a serious nature and questioned why they were not observed during the teacher’s probationary period. Senator Townsend stated the system has failed if a teacher reaches this point. Mr. Bellister reiterated the importance of the administrator’s observance of a teacher’s performance and skills.

Senator Washington asked for clarity of page 1 of A.B. 332. Mr. Bellister replied that the purpose of the bill is simply to adopt a policy. Senator Washington asked who would be writing the policy. Mr. Bellister replied the school board of trustees would write the policy.

John Soderman, Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Services, Douglas County School District, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit G) opposing Assembly Bill 332. He stated that this legislation opens up new areas to grieve and litigate. Mr. Soderman said A.B. 332 is an unnecessary bill, because it does not address a clear problem, or serve the public; or the students of Nevada.

Mary Pierczynski, Associate Superintendent of Human Resources, Carson City School District, testified that a teacher spends 4-5 years in college studying and is not just thrown into the classroom. She said teachers must be held accountable. She emphasized that a certain level of expertise is expected of a new teacher. Ms. Pierczynski stressed that A.B. 332 will prolong the process of admonishment for a teacher who is in the wrong career. She urged the committee to vote against A.B. 332.

George Ann Rice, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources, Clark County School District, spoke in opposition to A.B. 332. Reading from prepared testimony (Exhibit H), Dr. Rice stated that accountability was a key focus of the Legislature and an important component of accountability is an effective teacher. She said that A.B. 332 would make it impossible to terminate the most ineffective teacher. Continuing, Dr. Rice indicated that only 1 percent of teachers was ineffective in the classroom and harmful to children, therefore this bill would protect that 1 percent.

Dr. Rice expounded on the recruitment efforts of the Clark County School District to find effective teachers and the probationary period of new teachers to evaluate their skills and ability to help children learn. She opined that A.B. 332 would impede the school districts ability to be accountable for student learning. Dr. Rice highlighted various parts of A.B. 332 to justify the school district’s position that A.B. 332 is an attempt to tie up the district in endless litigation diverting the focus away from student education. She explained that Clark County has a complete and continuous training program for administrators and presented the two programs (Exhibit I and Exhibit J).

Chairman Rawson asked how many administrators there were in the Clark County School District. Dr. Rice replied that there were approximately 760 licensed and unlicensed administrators. Chairman Rawson questioned if there was a minimum hiring grade point average for teachers and what was that average. Dr. Rice responded that the minimum grade point average is 2.5 and above, but higher in their subject area. Chairman Rawson queried what percentage of newly hired teachers had a masters degree or above. Dr. Rice replied that overall 50 percent had a master’s degree. Chairman Rawson asked what percentage of the teachers terminated had a master’s degree or above. Dr. Rice said she did not have that information. Chairman Rawson questioned if there was a correlation between lower grade points, lower degrees, lower experience and lower performing teachers.

Senator Washington referred to lines 17 through 29, on page 4 of A.B. 332 and asked if this was in effect in the Clark County School District. Dr. Rice answered in the affirmative and stated that every effort is made to improve the skills of the administrators to evaluate teachers. Senator Washington asked who grades the teacher’s evaluations. She replied that the evaluations are not graded but checked to ensure that the evaluations are being written properly. Dr. Rice concluded by saying that the school districts are making every effort to handle this issue, therefore it is not necessary for them to be strangled by terminology in order to comply with the law.

Lynn Sawyer, Personnel Services Coordinator, Personnel Division, Washoe County School District, referred to Post-Probationary Major Teacher Evaluation (Exhibit K), and noted that this evaluation was for a high school teacher who had been employed since 1988. She emphasized the number of observation dates that the assistant principal was in the teacher’s classroom. Ms. Sawyer stressed that when a teacher is having difficulty immediate action is taken to give assistance. She explained to the committee a 15-page teacher improvement plan which lists: the areas that need improvement; examples of correct procedure; length of time to improve; and a list of resources that are being provided to assist the teacher. Ms. Sawyer enumerated on the number of resources available to help a teacher such as: visits from staff trainers or master teachers; visits to other teachers’ classrooms; and available workshops to help with areas of deficiency. She concluded her remarks by saying that the Washoe County School District does not support A.B. 332 because it is an unnecessary bill.

Jane N. Moyle, Lobbyist, Nevada Rural School District Alliance, referred to prepared text (Exhibit L) and stated that in a response to a questionnaire only 4 probationary and 2 post-probationary teachers were not renewed for employment in the past three years for performance. She said A.B. 332 was designed to address problems that do not exist and is therefore not needed.

Carol A. Threats, Director of Teacher Recruiting, Clark County School District, testified that supervision and evaluation in the Clark County School District is not a one-shot effort and is not designed to be punitive in nature but it is a formative, ongoing process. She iterated that marginal teachers, first-year teachers, and post-probationary teachers are all given the necessary assistance to help them perform better in the classroom. Ms. Threats stressed that Assembly Bill 332 is not needed because the Clark County School District is already doing more to correct a teacher’s problems. She urged the committee to not vote in favor of the bill because A.B. 332 was not necessary.

P. Kay Carl, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Education, Clark County School District, voiced opposition to A.B. 332 because it would pose a severe problem for administrators supervising schools that have large at-risk student population and a large number of probationary teachers. She said that the stringent requirements of this bill would curtail their efforts to improve their schools. Chairman Rawson commented that the at-risk schools should have the best teachers. Dr. Carl replied that the problem is being addressed.

Leonard Paul, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education, Clark County School District, testifying as a parent stated that the 1 percent of inadequate teachers must be eliminated without additional litigation and additional time spent. Mr. Paul stated opposition to A.B. 332.

Lonnie F. Shields, Lobbyist, Washoe County Education Administrator Association, said he was speaking on behalf of the Nevada Association of School Administrators and the Washoe County Education Administration in opposition to A.B. 332. He submitted his written testimony for the record (Exhibit M).

Lucille Lusk stated the only purpose to put this kind of confusing detail into a law is to keep inadequate teachers in the classroom by setting up so many points of potential challenge. She declared that the law should be clear and easily understood by all, but this bill does not meet that criterion. Referring to line 41, on page 3 of A.B. 332, Ms. Lusk said that the Nevada Concerned Citizens supported the concept of requiring 1 hour of observation by an administrator and supported the additional requirement that is found in S.B. 22. Ms. Lusk pointed out the verbiage "… detailed description … " line 20, on page 4 of Assembly Bill 332 and questioned how much detail will be enough to avoid a grievance. She indicated that the language is unclear and it is impossible to assure against being challenged by grievances. Ms. Lusk urged the committee to vote against A.B. 332.

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, voiced the association’s opposition to A.B. 332.

Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators, and Clark County Association of School Administrators, stated for the record opposition to A.B. 332.

Allin Chandler, Executive Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators, and Kathy Harney, Legislative Coordinator, Clark County Association of School Administrators, requested their letter (Exhibit N) expressing opposition to A.B. 332 be entered into the record.

Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 4:26 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

by Cynthia Cook

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

DATE: