MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE on Education

 

Seventy-First Session

March 27, 2001

 

 

The Subcommittee meeting was called to order at 5:34 p.m., on Tuesday, March 27, 2001.  Chairwoman Debbie Smith 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.

 

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mrs.  Debbie Smith, Chairwoman

Mr.    Mark Manendo

Ms.   Kathy Von Tobel

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Mary Drake, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

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

Rose McKinney-James, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District

Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District

Frank Brusa, Nevada Association of School Administrators

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association

 

Chairwoman Smith noted for the record all members of the subcommittee were present.  She then opened the hearing on A.B. 297.

 

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

 

Rose Mc-Kinney-James, representing the Clark County School District (CCSD), began the testimony on AB. 297 by explaining that amendments to the bill proposed by Washoe County became the basis for some ongoing discussions between the Washoe County School District and the Clark County School District.  As a result of those discussions, additional language had been suggested that she would like to place on the record.  She stated there was concurrence on language.

 

Chairwoman Smith asked that the subcommittee move through each of the sections, discuss the proposals, and try to arrive at some conclusion on each.  Exhibit C was the proposed amendments by the Washoe County School District; Exhibit D was the proposed amendments by the Clark County School District.  Exhibit E was a handout from Washoe County School District of an article on teacher evaluations in the Washoe County School District.

 

Dotty Merrill, Legislative Representative for the Washoe County School District (WCSD), presented WCSD’s proposed amendments.  The first revision was with Section 5, Subsection 3(c) of A.B. 297, which deleted the language “at least one hour” and inserted “a minimum of a cumulative total of 60 minutes.”  The remainder of the sentence would read “during each evaluation period.”

 

Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), said the NSEA was proposing an additional change to Section 5, Subsection 3(c) and Subsection 5.  She stated the language “cumulative total of 60 minutes” did not address the NSEA’s concerns with what she referred to as “drive by evaluations,” where the administrator did not spend a significant period of time observing the teacher.  The NSEA recommended Section 5, Subsection 3(c), which dealt with probationary teachers be amended to include language that required one observation of not less than forty-five minutes as part of the cumulative total.  Section 5, Subsection 5, which dealt with postprobationary teachers, would be amended to require one observation of not less than thirty minutes as part of the cumulative total.  The cumulative totals would be sixty minutes, but there would be a record of a sustained observation for probationary teachers of forty-five minutes, and postprobationary teachers of at least thirty minutes.

 

Ms. Von Tobel asked if the reason for the cumulative total of 60 minutes was to allow an administrator to observe teachers at different points during the day teaching different subjects.

 

Ms. Tittle, representing the Clark County School District, explained the debate was centered on administrators having the flexibility to observe a teacher for a length of time that was appropriate to get an honest assessment of that teacher’s performance.  Time constraints with the administrator’s schedule also entered into it.  Clark County agreed there should be a point of time where a sustained observation was made.  Ms. Tittle stated they wanted the language to reflect something that allowed flexibility for administrators as well as allowing for quality evaluations.  Chairwoman Smith asked if WCSD agreed with Ms. Tittles’ concepts.  Dr. Merrill replied it did.

 

Dr. Merrill continued the testimony by presenting Washoe County’s proposed amendments.  The language in Section 5, Subsection 6(b) would be amended to read “include a description of the resources the school district will make available or the action the school district will take to assist the teacher in correcting any performance deficiencies reported in the evaluation.”  The CCSD proposed including the word “professional” in front of “resources,” and the WCSD supported that inclusion.

 

Chairwoman Smith asked for an explanation of the inclusion of the word “professional.”  Dr. Merrill explained they wanted the focus to be on professional resources and not financial resources.  They understood there might be a cost with professional resources; however, they wanted to clarify the professional aspect of it

 

Ms. Cahill asked how “professional resources” would be defined.  She said she understood Washoe County’s intent, and she felt NSEA could sign off on the language.  She emphasized, however, that that particular section of statute was subject to multiple grievances and lawsuits every year.  The inclusion of the new language could become problematic because there currently was not a definition of “professional resources”.

 

Chairwoman Smith said she had concerns about that area also, and wondered if the inclusions of “professional resources” might not bind the school districts to something that was not intended.  Ms. Cahill agreed that was also her concern.  Stating it as “resources of the district” broadened that to the extent the district might feel it was an undue burden on their part.  NSEA was, however, willing to go forward with the language.

 

Mr. Manendo asked for confirmation that there was not a definition of “professional resources” in statutes.  Ms. Cahill confirmed that, to her understanding, there was no definition.

 

Ms. Tittle asked if there was even a definition of “resources.”  She wanted to more clearly define what was intended in terms of the actions a school district would take to assist a teacher to correct deficiencies reported in an evaluation.  She emphasized it was all about professional performance and professional resources.  That was the intent of the term.

 

Dr. Merrill then continued with the other proposed amendments by Washoe County.  In Section 5, Subsection 7, line 7, they recommended the words “a reasonable effort must be made” be deleted, and instead insert “upon the request of a teacher, the school district must make a reasonable effort to make available professional resources to assist the teacher to correct those performance deficiencies reported in the evaluation of the teacher for which the teacher requests assistance.”

 

Chairwoman Smith asked if that language was compatible with both Washoe and Clark County School Districts.  Dr. Merrill stated it was agreeable to Washoe County.  Ms. Tittle said Clark County agreed in concept.  Clark County’s amendment suggestion read, “The district will make a reasonable effort…”  Ms. Tittle observed that when the language read “shall” or “will,” it conveyed more of an expectation for the school district; “must” took on a different interpretation.  They were, however, agreeable to that change.

 

Chairwoman Smith commented “shall” and “may” were the common language in bills.  She felt “shall” was more consistent with bill language.  Dr. Merrill said it was Washoe County’s intent that the section not read as being permissive, so they were agreeable to any language that communicated that intent.  Ms. Cahill said the NSEA was in agreement with the language also.  She had some concerns with the word “performance” placed in front of “deficiencies”; it could become an arguing point.  She felt, however, there were other areas of current language that dealt with deficiencies, so the language should not be a problem.

 

Ms. Tittle then reviewed the amendment proposals by the Clark County School District (Exhibit D).  In Section 6, Subsection 1(b), lines 25 and 26, Clark County School District had originally proposed two options for consideration.  They were withdrawing Option 1.  Within Option 2, they were requesting deletion of the language “deficiencies of the teacher and the action that is necessary to correct those deficiencies” and replacing it with “performance deficiencies of the teacher and of the performance behaviors which the teacher must successfully demonstrate.”  The amended language for Section 6, Subsection 1(b), would read, “The admonition must include a description of the performance deficiencies and of the performance behaviors which the teacher must successfully demonstrate.”

 

Chairwoman Smith said that language took into consideration Washoe County’s concerns about the performance behavior.  Dr. Merrill agreed with the wording presented by Clark County School District.  Ms. Cahill also concurred with the language in Option 2.

 

Mr. Manendo asked if the school district representatives could provide examples of “professional resources.”  He was concerned the LCB Legal Division might have problems with that language. 

 

Ms. Tittle responded that “professional resources” could include such things as offering teachers opportunities to observe in other teachers’ classrooms and providing substitute relief for teachers to do so; attending professional growth classes offered by the district or university; providing opportunities to attend district-sponsored professional development sessions during the work day; and providing books, materials, and equipment for the classrooms.

 

Dr. Merrill offered that one professional resource could be the benefit of a curriculum specialist in a particular field observing the teacher and then conferring about what was effective and what was not.  Another example of a professional resource could be providing a videotape of a demonstration lesson performed in the district, which demonstrated certain skills the teacher had not yet mastered.

 

Chairwoman Smith then asked if someone would contrast for her what the concerns would be if the word “professional” was not included with “resources.”  Ms. Tittle explained one concern would be that the district paid for attendance at a university class, or some assistance request not within the financial means of the district.  Chairwoman Smith noted the concern then seemed to be that a teacher rated as “deficient” could make any demand on the school district for assistance.  Ms. Tittle answered that was possible.

 

Chairwoman Smith said she was confused by the desire to insert the word “professional” to eliminate one possibility, such as a university class, when in fact that possibility could be used as a resource.  Ms. Tittle responded the school district could only suggest resources; it could not mandate all the resources when working on performance.  Chairwoman Smith said the word “resource” caused her problems because she could see that from a teacher’s perspective it implied obligations.

 

As a way of illustrating the issue, Dr. Merrill shared an experience she had as a high school administrator working with a teacher who had a number of classroom management issues with rampant skill deficiencies in that area.  The teacher said that if the school district would pay for him to be better dressed, his classroom management skills would improve.  Dr. Merrill said that was a resource, but it was not a professional resource the school district would provide to him.

 

Ms. Cahill offered that she felt part of the problem was focusing on language intended to be new language in that section of statute.  The current NRS language did not offer any corrective resources for the teachers; it only allowed that a school district make “a reasonable effort” to assist the employee to correct a problem.  The new proposed language would enhance what was already there.

 

Dr. Merrill concluded her testimony on A.B. 297 by clarifying that Washoe County had not addressed any of the money issues of the bill.  Those would be discussed when the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means heard the bill.

 

Frank Brusa, Nevada Association of School Administrators, stated the Association supported the amended version of A.B. 297.  He said he also spoke on behalf of the Washoe County School Administrators.  Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, said she had a concern with the new provisions in Section 4 that address the “design team.”  She said the new language did not include parents on the design team.  Nevada Concerned Citizens felt strongly that the design team should include all the stakeholders.  She suggested when the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means heard A.B. 297, the committee consider that inclusion.  Chairwoman Smith said she would make Assemblyman Anderson and the Committee Chairman aware of that request.  

 

Chairwoman Smith then closed the hearing on A.B. 297 and asked for a motion from the subcommittee.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOTIONED TO RECOMMEND AMEND      AND DO PASS ON A.B. 297 TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON     EDUCATION.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

********

 

There being no further business before the subcommittee, Chairwoman Smith adjourned the meeting at 6:07 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

           

Mary Drake

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

 

 

DATE: