MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-First Session

March 19, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Monday, March 19, 2001.  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

Ms.                     Bonnie Parnell, Vice Chairman

Ms.                     Sharron Angle

Mrs.                     Barbara Cegavske

Mrs.                     Vonne Chowning

Mr.                     Tom Collins

Mrs.                     Marcia de Braga

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Mrs.                     Ellen Koivisto

Mr.                     Mark Manendo

Ms.                     Debbie Smith

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Mary Drake, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Dr. Skip Wenda, Administrator, Nevada Department of Education (NDOE)

Glen Adair, Principal, Carson High School

Brandi Graham, English teacher, Carson High School

Joe Girdner, Social Studies teacher, Carson High School

 

Assembly Bill 142:  Requires superintendent of public instruction, in certain circumstances, to waive passing scores otherwise required on examinations for initial licensure of teachers and other educational personnel. (BDR 34-975)

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst, briefed the committee on A.B. 142, which required the Commission on Professional Standards and Teaching to adopt a procedure for processing requests from applicants for initial licensure, to waive the requirement to achieve a passing score on each of the examinations required for initial licensure provided that the applicant achieved the combined score within the specified passing range and that the applicant provided specific evidence of his knowledge of and the ability to teach the specific subject area he proposed to teach. 

 

Vice Chairwoman Parnell, representing Assembly District 40, testified in support of A.B. 142.  She spoke of three Carson High teachers, all in their third year and with exemplary evaluations from the principal.  They had been credentialed in other states, had taken the Praxis series exams in other states, came to Nevada and were required to repeat the entire expensive process.  Nevada was one of only four states that required the analytical essay portion.  One teacher sent Ms. Parnell a letter she had received following her exam (Exhibit C), stating she had scored below the passing score for the analytical essay portion, but gave no direction as to what course of action the teacher needed to pursue.  Ms. Parnell was very concerned about the subjectivity of the essay portion and the fact that it prevented good teachers from remaining in Nevada classrooms.  She reminded the committee of how much they had already heard regarding the recruitment and retention of teachers in Nevada.  Why would we want to randomly after three years and based on a subjective test tell good teachers that, though they were deemed to be excellent young teachers, since they scored a few points low on the analytical essay they could not continue to teach in Nevada?  A.B. 142 offered an option for teachers who did have other means to prove their teaching excellence to have an objective review of their status as an effective part of the teaching force.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning asked Assemblywoman Parnell to briefly tell the committee what the analytical essay test was and to whom it applied.  As a former foreign language teacher, Ms. Parnell told Ms. Chowning that she would be required to take the essay exam for foreign language before she could be certified in Nevada.  Ms. Parnell went on to say that the passing score differed substantially across the country.  The exam was for all secondary teachers in their subject area. 

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske wanted to know at what date the requirement for the tests began in Nevada and the rationale for the testing.  Dr. Wenda replied the teacher testing in Nevada began in 1989 with the establishment of the Commission on Professional Standards. 

 

Assemblywoman Parnell emphasized that Section 1 subsection 3 set up the appeals process for this to be waived upon the request of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.  Ms. Parnell read a few sentences of a letter received from Educational Testing Service (ETS) about Praxis exams.  It concerned her that ETS felt the Praxis series tests could “not measure test takers’ total knowledge of a subject or everything they know about teaching.”  The letter further stated that the scores could not predict the quality of a teacher.  Praxis could not give any feedback about the essay questions because, they claimed, these would be used on future tests.  This was all quite frustrating for these teachers. 

 

Glen Adair, Principal, Carson High School, told the committee that each of these tests cost $120 and each review cost $40.  In light of that, Mr. Adair suggested that Nevada should have a system in line with other state standards.  He supported A.B. 142, but suggested consideration of the “cut” scores and who the appeal process might involve. 

 

Brandy Graham, teacher at Carson High School, testified in support of A.B. 142, Ms. Graham had taken this test three times and received the same essay question each time.  She had spent a total of $375 just for the analytical essay portion.  The other two portions of the series cost her $185, plus $30 for the Nevada School, Nevada Constitution and U.S. Constitution exams.  Just to obtain her license in Nevada she had spent $590.  She had been licensed in Montana and Washington but none of the tests she took there carried over to Nevada so she was required to start at the very bottom.  Failure in this one subjective exam overrode college degrees from excellent universities, exam scores in other states and evaluations by administrators.  Qualified teachers were forced to seek employment elsewhere, which was what Ms. Graham was doing for the 2001-2002 school year. 

 

Chairman Williams asked for clarification:  Was the test actually graded by another teacher on the east coast?  Yes, Ms. Graham replied.  She called ETS about her test and was told that high school English teachers graded the exams and that was all she was told.

 

Joe Girdner, teacher at Carson High School and a native of Douglas County, attended a small private college in North Dakota.  He successfully made the Dean’s List on multiple occasions and graduated with a 3.5 GPA.  For the past three years he had enjoyed teaching; he believed he had the respect of his students and that he was a good teacher.  He had received high marks on all his teacher exams save the analytical essay portion, which he found to be very subjective.  Having failed it, he had been told he was incompetent to teach in the state of Nevada and his certification would expire in June 2001.  He had sought employment in California where he would not be required to take any costly exams.  As with Ms. Graham, Mr. Girdner told the committee that testing should not be discontinued nor should standards be lowered, but the analytical essay was “ridiculous.” 

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske was perplexed and concerned, she said.  She wished to know who made the decision to hire this testing firm and where the $120 went.  Mr. Girdner understood the money went directly to Praxis.  That teachers were required to send $120 was his concern as well.  If they missed the mark by one or two points, they were required to send the $120 again.  Ms. Cegavske felt the committee might need to address the choice of this company for testing, and analyze what it was NDOE wanted to test and how it would be tested. 

 

Dr. Skip Wenda offered that 36 states used one or more of the Praxis series tests.  The other major provider of tests was National Education Systems, used in Oregon and California.  Tests did not measure the potential quality of a teacher, he said.  However, they would show a teacher’s knowledge of content that was considered important in the subject area, and whether the teacher possessed a sound knowledge of pedagogical techniques.  Some people just did not test well.  A.B. 142 would establish a way for teachers to prove their worth despite the failure of an exam.  Dr. Wenda proposed two changes to the bill:  on page 2, line 6, change “shall” to “may”; and in Section 2, change effective date to “immediately.”

 

Assemblyman Collins argued that changing “shall” to “may” added another level of subjectivity.  He asked why have tests at all.  Dr. Wenda said when Nevada chose testing, it was felt that colleges were not producing high quality educators, even though they had 4.0 GPAs.  NDOE wanted a procedure for a teacher to demonstrate he was a good teacher; this would not be subjective because there would be criteria such as satisfactory evaluations, a portfolio of work or videotape, or another alternative means of assessment. 

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto understood Clark County had many substitute teachers, many of whom had only two years at the College of Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.  She took exception to teachers with those qualifications in the classrooms while eminently qualified people were prevented from teaching because of one subjective test.  How could that be justified?  Dr. Wenda replied that those substitute teachers were required to have sixty-two credits of accredited coursework plus six credits in education, and they could only be in the classroom for sixty days as a long-term sub, unless they applied for renewal. 

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel said she was a substitute teacher with more than the sixty-two credits but what really “floored” her was that NDOE expected her to take Nevada law.  When she explained to them she was in her third term as a Nevada legislator and requested an exemption from Nevada law, she was told “No.”  She also requested to know a little more about the rest of the test.  Perhaps this section could just be dropped.  Dr. Wenda addressed Ms. Von Tobel’s first comment by saying that the Commission on Professional Standards had no waiver authority, but A.B. 142 would permit it.  He further stated that teachers also had difficulty with the other portions of the Praxis exams. 

 

Assemblywoman Chowning thought the testing company should be fired for the appalling feedback it gave to test takers.  “It was not fair for our good teachers to be treated this way.”  Dr. Wenda reiterated that 36 states used this company and there was only one other company that did this testing and they used the same methods.  Ms. Chowning said that if there was a lack of good companies to test the teachers, they should not be tested.  Dr. Wenda stated that testing was their only option.  Eliminating the tests meant they could hire anyone and he would not know if they knew their content area or if they knew how to teach. 

 

Chairman Williams reminded him that Ms. Parnell made it clear that the intent was not to eliminate the test but to have an academically challenging alternative.  Ms. Parnell agreed; however, she had grave concerns about Education Testing System.  She felt until the broader issue of this company and testing in general was revisited, the next best move was to support A.B. 142, which allowed an option to the assessment. 

 

Assemblyman Collins questioned why testing was needed when every teacher applicant graduated from an accredited college.  If a journeyman lineman, trained and licensed in Nevada could go to another state and obtain a position without the expense of retesting, why could a teacher not do so?  Dr. Wenda responded that A.B. 223 dealt with that particular issue.

 

Chairman Williams announced that on Monday, March 26, 2001, discussion on these three bills would continue. 

 

Ms. Cegavske said, according to Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, this particular test was no longer being used.  She would verify before next Monday’s testimony. 

 

LeAnn Martin, a technology teacher at Carson High School, submitted written testimony (Exhibit D) in support of A.B. 142.

 

 Assembly Bill 221:  Authorizes expenditures from state distributive school account for certain remedial and tutoring programs. (BDR S-216)

 

Not heard.

 

 Assembly Bill 223:  Authorizes commission on professional standards in education to provide exemption for certain persons from examinations required for initial licensure of educational personnel. (BDR 34-398)

 

Not heard.

 

 

The Assembly was called back to the floor.  Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:56 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Mary Drake

Committee Secretary

 

 

 

 

Linda Lee Nary

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

 

 

DATE: