MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-First Session

March 26, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 4:20 p.m., on Monday, March 26, 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

Mrs.                     Sharron Angle

Mrs.                     Barbara Cegavske

Mrs.                     Vonne Chowning

Mrs.                     Marcia de Braga

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Mrs.                     Ellen Koivisto

Mr.                     Mark Manendo

Mrs.                     Debbie Smith

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr.                     Tom Collins

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Mary Drake, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Debbie Cahill, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Education Association

Lucille Lusk, Representative, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Frank Brusa, Representative, Nevada Association of School Administrators

Dr. Dotty Merrill, Legislative Representative, Washoe County School District

George Ann Rice, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School District

Howard Haas, President, AH-HA Consulting Corporation

Alex Aitcheson, Director, AH-HA Consulting Corporation

Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research and Evaluative Services, Nevada Department of Education

Roy Casey, Assistant Superintendent, Douglas County School District

Dr. Skip Wenda, Southern Office Administrator and Teacher Licensure, Nevada Department of Education

Ines Bosworth, Senior Regional Director, Educational Testing Service

Helen Glenn, Lobbyist, Nevada Federation of Republican Women

Ben Blinn, taxpayer

Glen Adair, Principal, Carson High School

 

 

Before opening the hearing on A.B. 297, Chairman Williams said the presentation on youth violence would be heard after the hearing on A.B. 297.  He said was pleased to note Nevada was recently rated among the four most progressive states when it came to security and youth violence on campuses. 

 

 

Assembly Bill 297:  Makes various changes regarding public schools and educational personnel. (BDR 34-297)

 

 

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Assembly District 31, made the presentation on A.B. 297, which was the Quality Teaching Act.  Exhibit C was a written copy of his testimony.  He said the bill was more along the lines of a “housekeeping” matter, and was concurrently referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means because of the necessary appropriations. 

 

He began by stating discussions about teachers and teaching in Nevada had focused on the teacher shortage and increased salaries for teachers.  Fewer and fewer people, he said, were willing to enter into the profession.  Research indicated the single most important factor impacting student achievement was the quality of the teacher in the classroom with the student.  He emphasized increased salary alone would not address the needs of the professionals in the classroom; a comprehensive system of support must be implemented to ensure quality teaching.

 

Assemblyman Anderson explained A.B. 297 addressed the teacher support issue in three areas:  professional development, enhanced compensation, and evaluation of teaching performance.  Sections 1 through 3 of the bill added three days to the school year for professional development, and provided an enhancement to the Distributive School Account (DSA) to help pay for on-site and ongoing quality professional development at the district level.  He noted the professional development provisions in those sections were in addition to the professional development provided at the regional professional development centers as outlined in Sections 8 and 9 of A.B. 297.  Assemblyman Anderson said the cost to add three days to the school year was $45 million, and the enhancement to the DSA would be a cost to the state of approximately $6.4 million.

 

Assemblyman Anderson continued that Section 4 of A.B. 297 dealt with enhanced compensation for teachers.  Each district would establish a design team made up of administrators of the district and representatives of the recognized employee organizations.  The design team would be responsible for developing a program that would allow employees to earn an enhanced level of compensation by achieving outstanding development in his profession or employment.  He explained, rather than mandate to local school districts what their program or enhanced compensation should look like, the responsibility for developing a program would be placed in the hands of the district and the employee groups.  The bill required any program ultimately adopted be bargained under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS)288 so that the provisions would become part of the collective bargaining agreement.  Assemblyman Anderson said Section 10 of A.B. 297 provided for an appropriation to help pay the cost of enhanced compensation.

 

Assemblyman Anderson explained the third component of the bill dealt with the evaluation of teachers.  A.B. 332 of the Seventieth Session, approved by both the Assembly and the Senate but vetoed by the Governor, dealt with the problem of “drive by” evaluations of teachers by administrators.  A.B. 297 required an administrator to observe the performance of a teacher for a minimum of one hour prior to writing an evaluation.  Sections 5 through 7 of A.B. 297 brought back the same language of A.B. 332 of the Seventieth Session.  Assemblyman Anderson concluded his testimony by stating the proponents of A.B 297 were willing to work with the Governor to fix those concerns that caused him to veto the prior bill.

 

Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), testified in support of A.B. 297.  Ms. Cahill acknowledged NSEA was aware both the Clark County and Washoe County School Districts had concerns with some of the language in A.B. 297, although it was drafted to be identical with A.B. 322 of the Seventieth Session.  She noted NSEA had already begun the amendment discussions with the parties.  Ms. Cahill said she felt the legislation needed to move forward to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means; however, NSEA was willing to continue working informally with groups to bring amendments to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.

 

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), testified next on A.B. 297.  She said NCC had considerable concern with the portion in Section 4 addressing the design team because it did not involve parents and the community in the manner NCC felt it should.  She indicated there were portions of the bill NCC liked, and there were portions they did not like.  She cited as an example that it was a better provision to say that “upon request of a teacher, a reasonable effort must be made to assist the teacher to correct those deficiencies” than what was in current law.  She said NCC wanted to watch the amendments to A.B. 297 carefully as they developed.

 

The next speaker was Frank Brusa, representing the Nevada Association of School Administrators (NASA).  He said for the record, NASA supported A.B 297 with the amendments proposed for Section 5.

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill, Legislative Representative for the Washoe County School District (WCSD), testified next.  She drew the committee’s attention to Sections 5 and 6 of A.B. 297 and said she would provide suggestions for consideration in the way of amendments.  She said on page 5, Section 5, subsection 3(c), the bill language read “for at least 1 hour.”  WCSD proposed that subsection read, “a minimum of a cumulative total of 60 minutes during the evaluation period.”  WCSD also requested the same change in Section 5, subsection 5.  In Section 5, subsection 6(b), WCSD suggested the language change to read, “Include a description of the resources the district will make available or the action the district will take to assist the teacher in correcting any performance deficiencies reported in the evaluation.”  Dr. Merrill continued with the proposed amendments, directing the committee to page 6, Section 5, subsection 7.  In that subsection, WCSD asked that “a reasonable effort must be made” be struck, and proposed the new language read, “Upon the request of a teacher, the school district must make a reasonable effort to make available resources to assist the teacher to correct these performance deficiencies reported in the evaluation.”  Also on page 6, Section 6, subsection 1(b), the proposed language would read, “The admonition must include a description of the performance behaviors of the teacher and the action that is necessary to correct those deficiencies.”

 

Because of the amendment proposals, Chairman Williams said he would appoint a subcommittee consisting of Mrs. Smith, Ms. Von Tobel and Mr. Manendo to work with the interested parties on the amendments.  He asked that the subcommittee report back to the committee on April 4 for action. 

 

George Ann Rice, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Division, Clark County School District (CCSD), said the CCSD reviewed the amendments proposed by the Washoe County School District and agreed with them in concept.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 297.  He noted for all concerned the subcommittee would be meeting soon to work on the proposed changes.  He then asked Alex Aitcheson and Howard Haas with AH-HA Consulting Corporation to make the presentation on youth violence.  Mr. Aitcheson and Mr. Haas presented three exhibits to the committee:  a brochure entitled “Listen To Our Children!” (Exhibit D.  Original is on file in the Research Library.); a brochure entitled “Get Connected:  Prevent Violence” (Exhibit E); and a one-page handout from A.H.C.C. entitled “The Children’s Crusade:  Get Connected!” (Exhibit F).

 

Howard Haas began the presentation explaining he was a school principal for over fifteen years.  Approximately two years ago, shortly after the Columbine High shootings, he had an occasion to visit all the classrooms in his school to explain a new testing system.  He said one student in a class posed the question to him, “Could we all die here tomorrow?”  At that point, he continued, it became very clear to him that he, as a school principal, was not answering the questions the young people had; they were more concerned about their own safety.  He realized no one was asking the children why they were killing each other.  No one was listening to the youth.  He said he was also compelled to pose the question to himself that in this country it was possible a generation of children had actually become numb to violence. 

 

Mr. Haas said over one and one-half years ago he resigned his position as principal and formed a consulting firm.  He and his partner, Mr. Aitcheson, traveled around the country interviewing young people from the various socio-economic stratums asking them why they felt kids were killing kids.  From that experience, and based on the information they received from the children, he and Mr. Aitcheson began working with communities throughout California to share the results of those interviews with the children.

 

Mr. Aitcheson then continued the presentation explaining he was an educator for twenty-five years working with at-risk children.  He realized through his work that violence was not going to change in this society.  The Columbine High incident also made him realize there was much to do to address the issue of violence, and it would require going out every day and talking with the real source, which was the youth themselves.

 

In speaking with young people in this country, he and Mr. Haas found there were some common themes that they wanted to share with the committee.  The first matter of concern the children shared was their need for more attention and guidance from parents and other adults.  Mr. Aitcheson emphasized the reality of today had changed from the generation before.  Even when children had two parents, which was often not the case, both parents worked long days.  That made it critical for other adults to play an important role in a child’s life.  The second area of concern was the pressure to “fit in.”  The children said that was their greatest pressure, and other children then did everything possible to make it impossible for them to fit in.  Mr. Aitcheson said that hit upon the issue of respect; it was the adults who needed to teach children respect through teaching and guidance.

 

The third issue for today’s youth was the lack of things to do.  That was the common theme from the homeless children to the children of affluent parents.  Mr. Aitcheson said when children were asked to clarify that lack of activity, it was, again, in the areas where children would be involved with adults.  The children said the media did have an impact when that area was not being addressed; if they were not receiving guidance from adults, they would turn to the media.  The media was filling the void for children.  Mr. Aitcheson said the young people wanted to be a part of the solution; they needed to be involved more in the process of education to find solutions. 

 

Mr. Haas said they found over and over again there was a real problem in this country because everyone looked to the schools to solve the needs.  He pointed out the community of Columbine was, when examined, dysfunctional.  Schools were not talking to parents, law enforcement was not talking to the schools, and teachers were not talking to the administration.  He said if you followed the paper trail of every child who killed another child, those children had always fallen through the cracks.  Mr. Haas emphasized when you had communities that truly took responsibility for the young people, where there was open communication among the various agencies, and “territoriality” was eliminated, the children did not fall through the cracks.  The model communities in this country included the children as part of the solution.  He said he felt the killings in schools would not be taking place if each community was truly taking responsibility and empowering the young people.  The idea of youth violence in America was not new; it had been going on in the inner cities for years.  Where it had changed was the killings had hit the suburbs; now it had become an issue.  He said young white males were experiencing extraordinary rage.  He stressed the leaders of the communities needed to make the forward movement to stop the children from falling between the cracks.  It involved working collaboratively and getting away from “turf.”

 

Mr. Aitcheson commended the Nevada Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services for their work on resolutions addressing the issue of early prevention.  He said they found nationwide a new trend of bringing in counselors or social workers to the elementary level schools to address children’s life-need issues.  Most of the school counselors only addressed the academic needs because they were locked into numbers.  He emphasized the bottom line was the children were really asking for relationships with other adults.

 

Mr. Haas said he wanted to apprise the Committee on Education about what was going on in California.  As he and Mr. Aitcheson talked to the school principals in California, they were told over and over again by educators that they had such pressure on them get scores up since that was what generated the money, they did not have time to deal with the life-needs issues.  He said the students felt pressure from the teachers, who felt pressure from the administrators, who felt it from the superintendents, who felt it from the Governor.  Mr. Aitcheson concluded the presentation by cautioning the committee that educators needed to be careful what they wanted children to experience in school.  If it were only academics and accountability, this nation would continue seeing very “stressed out” young people.

 

Chairman Williams thanked Mr. Aitcheson and Mr. Haas for the presentation and said he looked forward to communicating with them in the future.  He said the entire committee was very concerned about the youth violence issue.

 

Chairman Williams then opened the hearing on A.B. 221.

 

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

 

Susan Scholley, Policy Analyst for the Assembly Committee on Education, presented A.B. 221Exhibit G was the written copy of her testimony.  She explained the bill came out of the Interim Legislative Committee on Education and had three components.  The first component was continuation of a remedial appropriation and program from last session.  The Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997 provided remediation funds for low performing schools.  The funds were used to purchase programs of remedial study that had proven successful in improving academic achievement in the subjects of reading, writing, math and science.

 

Mrs. Scholley explained schools designated as demonstrating “needing improvement” were eligible for funding.  During the 1999 Legislative Session, funding was expanded to include certain schools that met the criteria of having adequate achievement.  Mrs. Scholley said the Legislative Committee on Education noted the remedial funds were well spent by the schools that had applied for them, and there was substantial evidence the programs purchased by the schools played a significant role in improving pupil achievement levels.  She said A.B. 221 provided an appropriation for remedial education programs through funding an allocation from the Distributive School Account (DSA) to the Nevada Department of Education in the amount of $3.5 million for each of the fiscal years in the 2001-2003 biennium.  Those programs were approved by the department as being effective in improving pupil achievement in low performance schools.

 

Mrs. Scholley continued her discussion of the bill, explaining the second component of A.B. 221 was an extension of the existing program to include additional schools.  The Legislative Committee on Education expressed concerns that without state funding assistance, some schools that had successfully removed themselves from the “needs improvement” list might be forced to end the programs responsible for improving pupil achievement.  The committee indicated its willingness to provide additional funds for a transitional program.  A.B. 221, therefore, provided for an appropriation of $8,965,424 to the Nevada Department of Education in additional remediation funding to extend eligibility of schools that had previously been classified as needing improvement and had received state remediation funds in the past.  Schools must have low scores in at least one of the four subjects tested, must meet certain eligibility criteria, and after three years of funding, would need to use matching funds.

 

The third component of A.B. 221 was a continuation of existing programs targeted at individual student remediation.  During the 1999 Legislative Session, parents, educators, and others expressed concerns about individual student performance, especially with regard to student difficulties with the High School Proficiency Examination.  The 1999 Legislature authorized remediation funds for remedial education programs or tutoring for pupils needing additional instruction time to pass or reach a level considered proficient.  A.B. 221 provided for an appropriation through funding an allocation from the Distributive School Account of $1 million for each of the fiscal years for the biennium for continued state support of approved remedial education or tutoring programs.  Those programs were outside the school day for pupils at any grade level who needed additional instructional time to pass or reach a level considered proficient.

 

Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent with the Nevada Department of Education, spoke in support of the bill, but indicated he had a couple of informational points to bring up.  He noted in the Governor’s recommended budget there was $8,075,000 identified for remediation in fiscal year 2002, and $8,371,000 for remediation in fiscal year 2003.  He said the difference in the funding was that A.B. 221 recommended $7.9 million for low performing schools instead of the $7.75 million recommended in the Governor’s budget.  That was about $900,000 less in the recommended budget for low performing schools.  A.B. 221 also funded the $1 million per fiscal year for individual student remediation.  Dr. Rheault said the $7.9 million projected in A.B. 221 was estimated to serve 82 schools at an average of $98,000 per school.  The Governor’s recommended budget would serve about 72 schools; therefore, not all of the schools that had one out of four academic areas for remediation could be served with the amount recommended in the Governor’s budget.

 

Dr. Rheault said the other point he wanted to mention was the State Board of Education had a bill draft request in this legislative session specifically for remediation, which was very close to what was recommended in A.B. 221.  The only difference was the State Board of Education’s bill draft requested $1.9 million per year for individual remediation, whereas A.B. 221 requested $1 million.  The State Board of Education’s bill draft matched the amount for schools in need of improvement as proposed in A.B. 221, which was $7.9 million.  Dr. Rheault requested if A.B. 221 moved forward changes be made to how the money was distributed, particularly in regard to the Ninety Percent Rule.  There was also some cleanup language in the State Board of Education’s bill draft not included in A.B. 221.  Dr. Rheault again asked if A.B. 221 moved forward clarification language be included on how the money was distributed.  Chairman Williams asked Dr. Rheault if he felt comfortable with the amendments being presented to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.  Dr. Rheault indicated he was agreeable to that.

 

Roy Casey, Assistant Superintendent with the Douglas County School District (DCSD), spoke in support of A.B 221.  Mr. Casey provided the committee a list of DCSD programs funded with remediation funds (Exhibit H).  He wanted to speak specifically to Section 2 of A.B. 221, which addressed monies set aside for individual student performance.  Mr. Casey explained DCSD applied for funds two years ago, and was awarded approximately $50,000 for the first year of the biennium and approximately $66,000 for the second year.  The District targeted those funds to the academically at-risk students, not only at elementary, middle and high schools, but also in the content areas of reading and math.  He said the funds provided intensive programs to raise elementary school student reading levels, to allow middle school students to recover English and math credits, and to support high school students to pass the high school proficiency exam.

 

Mr. Casey then highlighted DCSD’s remediation programs.  He said over 150 elementary students attended reading camps throughout the District.  The camps provided specific learning opportunities for students; each student received an intensive 30 hours of concentrated reading instruction.  By utilizing the DCSD achievement level assessment tests, Mr. Casey said all the students gained at least one grade level in reading after the 30 hour reading instruction.  Mr. Casey continued that approximately 50 students at the secondary level attended the Saturday school programs participating in reading and math remediation.  He said the average growth for ninth grade students in reading and math was well over one grade level.  Also, of the students attending Saturday school programs for remediation of the high school proficiency exam, 60 percent passed the exam.

 

Mr. Casey then covered the summer school programs.  He indicated 95 percent of students recovered their English credit at the completion of summer school.  One hundred percent of the students attending summer school recovered their math credit.  Approximately 50 percent of high school students working in the area of math proficiency passed the math proficiency at the end of summer school.  Over 55 percent of students increased one grade level in the areas of reading, math and science.

 

Mr. Casey concluded by strongly urging the committee to continue funding the initiative.  He also encouraged the legislators to increase the remediation funds.  Although the DCSD did not have schools designated as needing improvement, Mr. Casey explained they had pockets of students needing remediation and the DCSD utilized the funds for the full intent.  He asked to double the fiscal number in Section 2 from $1 million to $2 million for each year of the biennium to help the pockets of individual students on their performance.

 

Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on A.B. 221.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOTIONED TO DO PASS A.B. 221.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mrs. Cegavske said it was her understanding there would be some amendments to A.B. 221.  She asked Chairman Williams if he would review what he believed those changes would be.  Chairman Williams said Dr. Rheault indicated he would present those to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means because there were differences in the fiscal requests.  Mrs. Cegavske asked for clarification that the changes were only fiscal changes; she wanted to be certain there were no other language changes.  She asked if there was an actual amendment prepared for the bill.

 

Dr. Rheault answered Mrs. Cegavske’s question by explaining he had a copy of the Nevada Department of Education’s (NDOE) bill draft request (Exhibit I) that the Department of Education had only received last Friday, and which he would provide to the committee.  He said NDOE was interested in clarifying how schools were designated as needing improvement if they did not test 90 percent or more of the eligible students.  He indicated that was the one area NDOE was interested in strengthening in the statutes, along with the request for the funds.

 

In view of that information, Chairman Williams asked Mr. Manendo to withdraw his motion, and Mrs. Koivisto to withdraw her second.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO WITHDREW HIS MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 221.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO WITHDREW HER SECOND.

 

He said the committee would look at the language in the bill draft provided by Dr. Rheault, and take action on A.B. 221 at a later date.  Chairman Williams then closed the hearing on A.B. 221 and opened the hearing on A.B. 142.  Chairman Williams explained A.B. 142 was heard at the March 19 Assembly Committee on Education meeting.  He explained there were individuals wishing to testify on the bill that did not have an opportunity on March 19 because of the 5:00 p.m. floor session in the Assembly.  He also indicated there were some new developments with the bill, and asked Mrs. Cegavske to review those developments.

 

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)

 

Mrs. Cegavske informed the committee after hearing the testimony on A.B. 142 at the March 19 meeting she corresponded with the president of Educational Testing Service (ETS), the company that administered the Praxis English Language Literature and Composition tests, and expressed her concerns over the testing issue.  She indicated the president of ETS was disturbed about some of the issues brought up at the meeting, and a representative of ETS, Ines Bosworth, was present at today’s meeting and would address any questions the committee had.  A letter from Ines Bosworth to Mr. Williams and Mrs. Cegavske was attached as Exhibit J.  Mrs. Cegavske also indicated there was information provided to the committee members outlining the examinations, with and without essays, used by other states.  She said there were at least twenty states with testing similar to Nevada and, of those states, only four or five did the essay exam.

 

Mrs. Cegavske said the concern with A.B. 142, as she understood it, was the particular analytical essay test portion (Praxis English Language Literature and Composition exam).  As a result, Mrs. Cegavske said she felt the committee should address the testing itself and look at that issue without having to go through the bill process.  She suggested sending a Letter of Intent to the Commission on Professional Standards in Teaching asking them to evaluate whether that type of testing should be required.

 

Chairman Williams noted there was an opinion that the one portion of the test, the essay portion, was the area of greatest concern.  He also said some parties felt the tests should be disbanded completely.

 

Dr. Skip Wenda, Nevada Department of Education, Administrator for the Southern Office in Teacher Licensing, said the Nevada Department of Education (NDOE) would support a Letter of Intent to have the Commission on Professional Standards in Teaching abolish the two particular tests on analytical essays; however, NDOE would request the bill continue through the process and allow the commission to establish an alternative assessment process because that would only address two of the essay tests.  Dr. Wenda provided the committee a copy of an Informational Bulletin on the Nevada Competency Testing Program (Exhibit K).  He said they still had individuals in other subject areas with similar problems.  Dr. Wenda related there was a music teacher in the Clark County School District who taught for twenty-five years, but could not pass the test because the terminology had changed over the years.  The teacher was subsequently rehired by the CCSD as a long-term substitute teacher in another school.  The school wished to continue the teacher’s employment, but the NDOE did not have an alternative means of assessment other than that test to demonstrate that individual was a good, high quality teacher.  Dr. Wenda said the NDOE would accept a Letter of Intent from the Committee on Education to eliminate the specific tests, but the NDOE would like the bill to address the alternative assessment in order to deal with the other subject areas in which individuals did not test well.

 

Ines Bosworth with the Educational Testing Service (ETS) then addressed the committee and expressed ETS’s concerns about the issues brought up on March 19 regarding the Praxis tests.  Ms. Bosworth said ETS acknowledged the frustrations felt by people who failed tests, as well as the frustration of those seeking to hire them.  She believed the ETS understood the state’s challenge in balancing the need for qualified teachers at a time of shortages while implementing high quality standards not only for students but teachers as well.

 

Ms. Bosworth said she would address the issues that fell under the ETS’s area of purview, which were the test costs, information materials, and the communication between ETS and test takers.  In regard to the passing scores, Ms. Bosworth said that was a state issue; every state sets its own passing scores.  In reviewing the test costs, Ms. Bosworth related the cost of the test was $105, not the $125 as stated earlier.  She said some people would argue that a multiple-choice test was not as good as an essay test.  She acknowledged the essay tests were expensive; ETS paid its test readers between $150 and $200 per day to read and score the tests.  ETS did try to keep the cost of the test contained, but other professional licensing tests cost a lot of money as well.  Ms. Bosworth said there was a fee waiver program for those who qualified for financial aid under the required criteria. 

 

Ms. Bosworth said in terms of the test purpose, she felt there was a lot of misconception about a test that did not predict a good teacher.  The intent of the test, and the intent of all licensing tests, she noted, was to look back at the preparation and determine whether the individual had a minimum level of knowledge needed to enter the profession; the test did not purport to identify who would or would not make a good teacher.

 

Ms. Bosworth continued, stating ETS tried to be responsive to test taker inquiries, as was evidenced by the response letter sent to Carson High School teacher Brandi Graham (Exhibit C of Committee on Education meeting of 3‑19‑01).  Ms. Bosworth said ETS regretted the typographical errors found in the letter, and as a result of that incident ETS had increased the editorial review of letters sent to all the candidates.  She said there were eleven states that used that particular Praxis test; the passing score for Nevada was 155.  Ms. Bosworth indicated three states had the same passing score, two states had a higher score, and six states had a lower score.  She noted no western states beside Oregon and California required the test.

 

Ms. Bosworth said while ETS did not give individualized information back with the test results, ETS did provide a lot of information about how to prepare for and take the test.  In fact, she observed, research conducted by ETS found that one-third of the students who came out of the test centers said they did not study for the test because they were unaware there was a publication available.  She said ETS was available to discuss dropping the test and adding a different test, if that was necessary.

 

Chairman Williams thanked Ms. Bosworth and ETS for their immediate response to the concerns.  Dr. Wenda added that on the English Language Literature and Composition essay test, 80 percent of individuals in Nevada who took the test passed it.  For the social studies test, only 64 percent passed that particular test.  Dr. Wenda emphasized if those test were eliminated, and no other method of assessment was used, it would be very difficult to explain to potential candidates that the legislators eliminated those two problem tests, when other tests, such as physical education movement and design, with 89 percent passing, or Spanish productive language skills, with 79 percent passing, remained.  Dr. Wenda restated he would like the committee to consider language in A.B. 142 allowing the Commission on Professional Standards in Teaching to develop an alternative means of assessment.

 

Mrs. Cegavske clarified what she was looking for in the Letter of Intent was having the Commission on Professional Standards in Teaching evaluate that test and possibly other tests.  The committee would not ask that the commission eliminate or waive any tests; the intent was to ask the commission to look at the testing and, based on information gathered, determine if it was the type of test to include in the State of Nevada.  She said the committee was not qualified to make that judgment; it needed to be evaluated by the commission.

 

Dr. Wenda reiterated the Department of Education would support the Letter of Intent to look at those two tests very carefully and determine if the test were appropriate, or if there was a better test.

 

Mrs. Cegavske thanked Ms. Bosworth and ETS for their quick response to the letter and the questions.  Chairman Williams added the committee also appreciated Dr. Wenda’s response and his willingness to work with the committee on the issue.

 

Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), said she wanted to address A.B. 142 as written.  She said, as written, the bill was a matter of great concern for NCC because it appeared it would not require teachers to demonstrate their knowledge.  Ms. Lusk felt, in particular, the test on school law in Nevada was an area in which all teachers needed a good understanding.  Ms. Lusk said when relating A.B. 142 to what was required of students, if a student repeatedly failed tests for a required class, the student would be remediated; the school district would never say the test did not matter.  Ms. Lusk continued, saying the alternative written into A.B. 142 for not passing the test was that the applicant provided clear and specific evidence of the applicant’s knowledge of and ability to teach each specific subject area the applicant proposed to teach. 

 

Ms. Lusk said the bill as written created a double standard and a sense of inconsistency.  NCC felt it important to maintain the recognition that teachers were in a unique position as examples for students.  In conclusion, Ms. Lusk said A.B. 142 should be viewed with an eye to recognizing the message sent if the tests were waived; the message would be that knowledge and skills did not matter.

 

Chairman Williams asked Dr. Wenda how the action the committee was moving toward affected the teachers who testified before the committee last week.  Dr. Wenda explained the process would be as follows:  The commission would review the request, staff would gather all appropriate data on the test and the Department of Education would do a presentation before the commission, the commission would then have the authority to say whether the tests were appropriate or needed to be revisited by a panel of teachers in that specific subject area, or the commission could suspend the tests.

 

Chairman Williams asked how that action would affect the teachers this particular year.  Dr. Wenda said commission action could take affect immediately upon adoption of the regulation.  The Department of Education would give the six-month administrative relief already provided for in the Nevada Administrative Code. 

 

Mrs. Chowning then addressed Ms. Lusk’s concerns.  She said at the meeting of March 19 when A.B. 142 was first heard, Dr. Wenda suggested changing the wording in Section 1, subsection 3, from “shall” to “may.”  Mrs. Chowning felt that would provide the difference so the waiver was not automatically given.  Mrs. Chowning continued she still felt there were exceptions that should be granted, and those exceptions would be for alternative means of assessments, such as videos of teachers teaching students, or portfolios and evaluations of teachers.

 

Mrs. Chowning said she appreciated ETS presenting to the committee.  She said, however, she still found it offensive that the teachers at Carson High School who testified at the March 19 hearing had to endure what they did, having such a lack of feedback related to why they failed their test and that they received a response letter from ETS filled with typographical errors.  Mrs. Chowning said she felt the teachers deserved an apology and a refund.  She asserted the means of subjective testing should be abolished and the committee should pass A.B. 221 and ask for a total review of the testing process.  Dr. Wenda said he would personally convey that message to the Commission on Professional Standards in Teaching.

 

Helen Glenn, Lobbyist for the Nevada Federation of Republican Women, spoke in favor of analytical essays.  Ms. Glenn explained she represented 1400 plus women in the Republican women’s clubs.  She said her membership was opposed to the deletion of the analytical essay exam and, therefore, opposed to the bill.  Her personal experience was college would have been impossible without the ability to judge between courses of action, pieces of literature, or ways to solve problems.  It was becoming increasingly obvious, she felt, that those skills were nearly lost to so many students.  Analytical essays were a way of organizing material.  When teachers did not teach analytical analysis, either oral or written, it was very hard for any student to learn the skills.  She requested the committee not completely eliminate the examinees’ need to keep trying to learn, and she commended the examinees that kept taking the test and finally made it.

 

Ms. Von Tobel pointed out that in fairness to the teachers who had come forward on March 19, they did not have the ability to research the materials in the test.  She said the teachers testifying last week had to write an essay without the possibility of researching, and individuals could not possibly memorize every single piece of literature.  That was, she felt, the problem with the test; there was no ability to research.

 

Ms. Glenn responded she agreed with Ms. Von Tobel, but she felt by the time someone had completed four years of college, they should be conversant with topics.  She said the teachers were tested in their chosen field; she believed a college graduate should be prepared to answer quite a few questions in their subject field.

 

Ms. Von Tobel said there were thousands of books, and unless someone had memorized all the books, they could not possibly have that knowledge.  She said she felt any of the teachers would do an excellent job comparing and contrasting for a research paper; however, she felt the way the test was administered was unfair.

 

Ines Bosworth with ETS said for the record the English Language Literature and Composition exam did provide the examinee with the two pieces of literature to compare and contrast.  The examinees were given excerpts from books or poems; they were not expected to have memorized the content.  They were expected to read the material while sitting there and make an analytical essay in terms of comparing and contrasting based on that material.

 

Ben Blinn, taxpayer, testified he taught twenty years in Nevada and wanted to make one point.  He said professional administrators needed some latitude besides that of a test in hiring teachers.  Some people did not test well, and those factors needed to be considered by providing means other than a subjective evaluation in a particular discipline.  He felt administrators needed latitude to hire teachers, particularly in the rural schools where it was more difficult to recruit teachers.

 

Glen Adair, Principal of Carson High School, emphasized A.B. 142 was not about eliminating testing; the discussion was about one phase of a multiple test.  The bill did not suggest doing away with the three primary content areas that all teachers were required to pass, that being the laws of Nevada, the Nevada Constitution, and the United States Constitution.  The bill’s intent was directed at one phase of multiple tests.

 

Chairman Williams then closed the hearing on A.B. 142.  He said Dr. Wenda indicated he would relate the hearing testimony to the Commission onProfessional Standards and Teaching.  Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 223.

 

 

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. (BAR 34-398)

 

Susan Scholley, Policy Analyst for the Committee on Education, explained A.B. 223 would permit the Commission on Professional Standards and Teaching to adopt regulations permitting the exemption from the licensing examinations for teachers with previous experience in teaching or other educational functions in other states.

 

Dr. Skip Wenda spoke in support of A.B. 223, saying the bill had the full support of the Commission on Professional Standards and Teaching.  Dr. Wenda indicated the commission would like the ability to hire teachers who had satisfied the testing requirements in another state that used similar tests as Nevada.  If the tests were equivalent, the teachers would not be required to take the tests required of Nevada graduates.  He said that had become a trend nationwide; the U.S. Department of Education was very interested in portability of licenses for teachers.  Dr. Wenda said 72 percent of Nevada’s teachers were from out of state.  Consequently, Nevada did not want to put up barriers for people to come here and teach.  If teachers demonstrated competence in another state’s program, it would transfer to Nevada.  Dr. Wenda stressed it would be a tremendous recruiting mechanism. 

 

Chairman Williams asked who would have the responsibility of monitoring the tests to assure there was at least a comparison to what Nevada required.  Dr. Wenda said the Commission on Professional Standards and Teaching would make the regulation upon recommendation by the Nevada Department of Education (NDOE).  The NDOE would provided assurances to the commission that a particular state’s exams tested the same domains as Nevada’s, and, therefore, the teacher was competent and qualified to teach in Nevada schools.

 

Mrs. Angle said she did not see language in the bill indicating similar testing; the bill only said, “will accept from another state.”  Dr. Wenda said the language in Section 1, subsection 3, stating, “provide an exemption from the examinations for teachers and other educational personnel” would mean a teacher would not be exempted outright from demonstrating competence; however, if a teacher had taken an examination in another state, the Department of Education could say the exam was the equivalent of Nevada’s examination.  He clarified it does not specifically state that in the bill; it would be accomplished through the Nevada Administrative Code through regulation.  Mrs. Angle commented that the committee then did not have the assurance through actual language in the statute; it would have to be accomplished through regulation.  She said other reciprocity agreements in Nevada required similar laws in the other states before allowing reciprocity.  She felt that same type of condition should be in this statute; she would prefer that it be spelled out.

 

Dr. Wenda said because every state set its own testing requirements, and because different companies provided testing requirements in different states, not all subjects were tested in a similar manner.  A.B. 223 would allow the Nevada Department of Education to look at the assessment systems in determining equivalency in the domains.  The term “testing” was not included because it would limit NDOE to the 38 states that actually did test, rather than those states moving toward performance-based assessments, as was Nevada.  That allowed NDOE to determine if teachers could do what they had been educated to do rather than determine if they had just been educated to do it.

 

Mrs. Cegavske commented this was a national concern.  She said the Education Commission of the States had information on that subject.  She noted Nevada had been trying over the past two years to address the reciprocity issue; however, that had not been accomplished in a bill.  She felt the language had to be specific.

 

Dr. Wenda said the National Directors of Teacher Certification and Teacher Education were discussing the very issue Mrs. Cegavske brought out.  He indicated issues such as pension portability, testing, and salary were being looked at in an effort to break down the walls between states.  He said the U.S. Department of Education and the President’s Education Plan were very interested in reciprocal types of agreements and supporting them.  Dr. Wenda said he felt there might be federal monies available out of this Congressional session to allow those agreements.

 

MR. MANENDO MOTIONED TO DO PASS A.B. 223 IF THERE WERE NO AMENDMENTS.

 

MRS. KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mrs. Angle said she had a problem with the reciprocity issue.  She felt language should be included that said to the affect, “similar to the requirements of Nevada’s examinations.” 

 

Mr. Gustavson said he had concerns that the current bill language would allow hiring teachers who did not meet Nevada’s high standards.

 

Mrs. Koivisto said the bill was introduced on behalf of the Commission on Professional Standards and Teaching, and that Section 2, subsection 2, stated, “If the commission adopts regulations providing such an exemption, the commission shall identify the examinations to which the exemption applies.”  She said that satisfied her.

 

Chairman Williams asked if there were any other discussions on the motion.  There was none.

 

THE MOTION PASSED.  (ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE AND ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON ABSTAINED.)

 

 

Mr. Manendo mentioned he received e-mail from a constituent trying to get into one of the magnet schools in Las Vegas.  That student’s scores were in the top level; however, the magnet schools worked on a lottery system, so the student was not able to enroll.  He asked if LCB Research would examine how that system worked and if there was anything the Legislature could do.  Chairman Williams said he also had two students trying to get into magnet schools, one of whom lived next door to the school and was also a “straight A” student.  Chairman Williams said he knew there were some allowances made for students living near the magnet school campuses.  He expressed concern there were more and more students with academic success not able to get into the schools.  Chairman Williams said he would ask the Clark County School District to send someone to the meeting on March 28 to address that issue.

 

Mrs. Cegavske said she received an e-mail from a constituent who had a child with a disability who did well with computers.  That student was in the lottery for the magnet school.  She asked if the magnet schools were required to take a percentage of minorities or special education students.  She also noted she received a response from Clark County School District (CCSD) addressing the questions posed by the Committee on Education on school bus ridership.  She would like the CCSD response to go on the record (Exhibit L).  She felt, however, some of the responses were inadequate and asked that Policy Analyst Susan Scholley reply back to CCSD requesting more detail.  Chairman Williams also said the committee still had not received information requested from CCSD’s Office of Diversity and Affirmative Action.  He asked Mrs. Scholley to address those issues with CCSD.

 

Chairman Williams announced Mrs. Smith would chair the subcommittee for A.B. 297.  There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 5:51 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Mary Drake

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

 

 

DATE: