The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, April 26, 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 Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Mark Amodei

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator Michael Schneider

Senator Valerie Wiener

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko County Assembly District No. 33

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Patricia Di Domenico, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Director, Government Relations, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), read from prepared testimony (Exhibit C) and provided the committee with information on mentor programs (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.). Ms. Cahill stated that the teaching profession has become increasingly isolated. Teachers who are experiencing difficulty do not have anywhere to turn for help and the workplace culture does not encourage them to acknowledge weaknesses in their teaching skills. She gave statistics revealing that teachers leave the profession after only a few years. Ms. Cahill stressed the need for teachers to receive help, guidance, and support from master teachers, who can spend time with them in the classroom, hence, the need for A.B. 366.

Ms. Cahill explained that pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit C are descriptions of the subsections of A.B. 366 that establish a statewide program for mentor teachers. She noted that the bill originally required that mentor teachers receive additional compensation and it provided buy out time for them to be in the classroom, but that section of the bill has been amended to be permissive in nature. Ms. Cahill emphasized that A.B. 366 establishes regulations in statute, which are critical to ensure the long-term success of mentor programs in Nevada. She said A.B. 366 mandates that every new probationary teacher (no teaching experience) would be provided a mentor. Ms. Cahill pointed out one objection that will be raised is the non-compensation of the mentors. She stated that compensation and buy out time is of concern to the members of NSEA but she opined that the members would volunteer for the mentor program.

Senator Mathews asked what is a master teacher. Ms. Cahill replied that a teacher employed as a mentor would be considered a master teacher, but there is no definition in the law. Referring to page 1, lines 7 and 8 of A.B. 366 and the verbiage"… at least 5 years of successful teaching experience …." Senator Townsend asked if 7 years would not be a better period of time. Ms. Cahill responded that 5 years is a common period of time in other states that have mentor programs; but, depending on the availability of mentors, 7 years might be one of the factors to consider. Senator Townsend suggested that during the selection process the most experienced teachers should be teamed with the teachers who need help. Ms. Cahill replied that in A.B. 366 there is a provision that the selection of a mentor is done in consultation with the bargaining agent.

Mary L. Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, voiced support of a mentoring program. She said a "Business Plan" (Exhibit E) accompanied a bill draft request that was submitted to the Governor’s office to institute a mentoring program; but, because of the cost factor, it was not forwarded to the Legislature. She explained that the plan provides for 500 mentor teachers in the state, release time, and training. Ms. Peterson called attention to page 10 of Exhibit E and noted the fiscal note was significant. She said the plan was provided to the committee’s consideration as another model of a mentoring program.

Senator Townsend questioned whether there was a conflict between the verbiage on lines 13 through 16 of page 2, and lines 29 through 31 on page 4, of A.B. 366.

Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, replied that the interpretation of the language might cause problems. He opined that the verbiage on lines 13 through 16 on page 2 was proposed to address the issue that occurred with California’s mentoring program that turned into an evaluator program. Mr. Sturm noted that the verbiage on lines 29 through 31 on page 4 say a mentor "shall consult" with the administrator concerning the probationary teacher’s performance.

George Ann Rice, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources, Clark County School District, spoke in opposition to A.B. 366. She highlighted three main points: one, mentoring is not an appropriate matter for legislation; two, Clark County has a model program in place; and three, A.B. 366 will undermine the Clark County program. Dr. Rice pointed out that mentoring is a matter for professional educators in each district to consider in light of their own special circumstances. She stressed that the Legislature has passed stringent accountability requirements, and A.B. 366 would take away some important means from the districts to meet these accountability requirements. Dr. Rice stated that Clark County has in place a model comprehensive mentoring program that has received national recognition.

Dr. Rice referred to "Findings from Recruiting New Teachers’" (Exhibit F) as a nationwide study of induction mentoring efforts by the nonprofit organization Recruiting New Teachers’ Inc. The organization sent out two questionnaires to school districts, that came to their attention, and visited the school districts with outstanding programs. She emphasized that Clark County was recognized as one of the ten best in the country. Dr. Rice called attention to "New Teacher Relocation Guide" (Exhibit G. Original is on file in the Research Library.) and explained that before a new teacher signs a contract he/she is sent this brochure and given two contacts from the community to answer questions. She expounded on the tools and helpful assistance given to new teachers as exemplified in "Making a Difference Together" (Exhibit H. Original is on file in the Research Library.). Dr. Rice referred to a book called Great Beginnings (Exhibit I. Original is on file in the Research Library.) which has been developed and distributed to each new teacher.

Dr. Rice pointed out flaws in A.B. 366 emphasizing areas in which there were potential problems such as: a mentor has not been trained; releasing a mentor from their teaching duties; mentors being assigned not mutually selected; and the release of a mentor’s liability. Summarizing Dr. Rice reiterated that mentoring was not a proper subject for legislation and A.B. 366 has many flaws and is filled with provisions that are counter to the latest research.

Karyn Wright, Director, Teacher Training and Staff Development, Human Resources, Clark County School District, stated the new teacher program was her primary responsibility and would answer questions. Chairman Rawson commented that Dr. Rice gave an in-depth presentation and asked the committee if there were any questions. Hearing none, Chairman Rawson called for the next witness.

Charles (Steve) Williams, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, voiced opposition to A.B. 366 and concurred with the testimony presented by the Clark

County School District. He stressed the financial impact A.B. 366 would cause and the implications on the students by removing their teacher from the classroom to be a mentor.

Chairman Rawson inquired whether all the new teachers in Clark County were being mentored. Ms. Wright answered in the affirmative and replied that the mentoring program in Clark County was voluntary. Chairman Rawson asked if the mentors received any compensation. Ms. Wright replied that there was no compensation except if they were participants in the "alternative route to licensure program;" then they receive $20 an hour for a maximum of 2 hours a week. She said that mentor facilitators are given ongoing training. Ms. Wright referred to page 7 of "Making a Difference Day" (Exhibit H. Original is on file at the Research Library.) explaining that the Teachers Encouraging and Mentoring (TEAM) program is discussed with the facilitators. This program provides a mentoring environment in which new teachers feel comfortable going to several mentors, instead of just one.

John Soderman, Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Services, Douglas County School District, voiced opposition to A.B. 366, but supported a mentoring program. He acknowledged mentoring as an important responsibility of school districts for probationary and post-probationary teachers, but A.B. 366 focuses only on probationary teachers. Mr. Soderman claimed that A.B. 366 was unclear, unnecessary, and not funded. He noted that Douglas County has had a staff development center for 18 years, where probationary teachers are taught everything from lesson planning to discipline. Mr. Soderman pointed out that every new teacher has had 4 to 5 years of college experience; practical application lessons in classrooms prior to a 10 to 12 week student teaching experience at which time they receive feedback on a daily basis. In addition they receive 8 or more visits from a university supervisor. Continuing, Mr. Soderman noted that current law requires that during their first year of teaching every probationary teacher receives three evaluations; and, in addition, Douglas County requires three observations. According to Mr. Soderman there are already many opportunities for teachers to receive mentoring in the state law. He stated that only 1 percent of teachers do not pass probation. Mr. Soderman stressed that A.B. 366 is not funded and the idea of using volunteers is optimistic. Commenting further he said that the bill does not explain if a probationary teacher is held accountable for following the mentor’s recommendations. Mr. Soderman indicated that in A.B. 366 the role of the mentor in the probationary teacher’s evaluation process is unclear and contradictory.

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated that the Nevada Concerned Citizens had qualms regarding A.B. 366. She stressed the question "Does every district have enough experienced teachers to assign one to each probationary teacher, with the significant amount of time involved in the kinds of assignments described in this bill and still have time to teach the kids?" Ms. Lusk stated it is expected that a licensed teacher should be able to perform the job for which they were hired, and it is unreasonable to argue that a professional person has the right to begin a job and not be able to perform the job adequately. She expressed concern regarding taking the most experienced teachers away from teaching children and using the experienced teachers to perform teacher training tasks.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 366 and opened the hearing on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 37.

Sandra Douglass, Legislative Intern, representing Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Clark County Assembly District No. 6, and currently a junior at the University of Nevada, Reno, testified on behalf of Assembly Concurrent Resolution 37. She stated that the genesis for the resolution came from concerned students with issues relating to the lack of curriculum about black history courses for the last three semesters, the funding for the Ethnic Student Resource Center, and the funding for multicultural and diversity activities.

Robert E. Dickens, Lobbyist, Ph.D., Director, Office of Governmental Affairs, University of Nevada, Reno, averred support of A.C.R. 37. He explained that the university has made progress in providing the courses that satisfy the core Curriculum’s Diversity and Capstone requirements. Dr. Dickens stated the university has strong administrative and instructional commitment amongst the deans and the faculty in achieving the goal of hiring a diverse faculty. He opined that the school’s weakest area is in student services, which is a resource issue. Dr. Dickens pointed out that the Millenium Scholarships might attract minorities to the university. Dr. Dickens requested the memorandum dated April 27, 1999 (Exhibit J) be entered into the record.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.C.R 37 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 3.

Gloria Dopf, Team Leader, Educational Equity, State Department of Education, testified that the State Department of Education neither supports, nor opposes A.B. 3. The bill would require the State Department of Education to prescribe a form for the Individualized Education Programs (IEP), which is required to be developed and revised annually for all students in special education programs. She stated that the federal and state laws prescribe minimum contents of the IEP as well as team membership review requirements. Ms. Dopf said that the form used for the IEP is at the discretion of the school district. She indicated that the department was asked to prepare a fiscal note, but no additional state funds would be required for the development of the IEP format or the discs. Ms. Dopf commented that service would be provided through federal administrative dollars. However, the department contemplated constructing a template that would be available to the school districts and did not contemplate utilizing an individualized IEP form, that was computer generated, per student when the department submitted the fiscal note. Ms. Dopf suggested that there be flexibility in the form due to individual district needs.

Chairman Rawson asked if cost was a factor. Ms. Dopf replied that training the districts in the utilization of the forms would increase the cost factor and added that cost would be significant, especially in a district such as Clark County.

Charlene A. Green, Assistant Superintendent, Student Support Services Division, Clark County School District, stated that A.B. 3 would require the State Department of Education to develop a single format for IEPs that would be used throughout the state for students with disabilities. She noted three ways the bill would impact local school districts: one, confidentiality, as it relates to transferring computer diskettes containing confidential student information; two, what is considered to be a legal record of the IEP; and three, to what extent is the school district’s obligation to develop a form to satisfy requirements of legal agreements. She acknowledged the need to reduce paperwork while complying with the legal requirements to address the needs of students. Ms. Green stated that a recent survey of 150 teachers, administrators and related service providers was conducted to determine if the current form was effective. She noted that out of 976 respondents; 10 percent stated that it needed complete revision; 36 percent felt that it needs some refinement; and 54 percent felt that it was excellent.

Donna Mendoza Mitchell, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Clark County School District, testified that there are both state and federal laws which prescribe the rights for students with disabilities. There currently is no single mandated form for documenting the individual education plans for students with disabilities. She stated that the district‘s concern is that A.B. 3 is drafted to mandate only one form for all school districts within the state. Ms. Mitchell said that the bill does not permit the school districts to deviate from the prescribed IEP form to be developed by the state. She explained that the IEP form illustrates and provides information to the various federal monitoring agencies which show that the district’s IEP process complies with the federal mandates. Ms. Mitchell pointed out that the IEP form provides the district an avenue to monitor staff compliance with state and federal special education laws, and provides assurance to parents and students that their individual needs are being properly addressed. She stressed that A.B. 3 in the current form will not provide flexibility to school districts and urged the committee to modify the current bill to permit school districts the ability to modify the form as needed.

Chairman Rawson suspended the hearing on A.B. 3 and introduced Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko County Assembly District No. 33 testifying on Assembly Concurrent Resolution 25.

Assemblyman Carpenter commented that Legislature sets educational standards, but teachers and administrators on the local level need to be involved to fine tune the standards. Senator Wiener referred to line 13 on page 2 of A.C.R. 25, and asked how would that be accomplished with a small district. Mr. Carpenter opined that the school districts should be ranked based on individual achievements. He said a formula would need to be devised to show comparisons among the school districts.

Chairman Rawson asked if there was additional testimony on A.C.R. 25.

There being no further testimony, Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Patricia Di Domenico,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

DATE: