MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF the

SENATE Committee on Finance

 

Seventy-First Session

March 12, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Financewas called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 8:10 a.m., on Monday, March 12, 2001, in Room 2134 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 William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr.

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, Washoe County Assembly District No. 30  

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst

Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District

Leonard D. Paul, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Education and Curriculum Division, Clark County School District 

Bill Hanlon, Coordinator, Southern Nevada Regional Professional Development Program, Clark County School District

George Ann Rice, Ed.D., J.D., Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Division, Clark County School District

Barbara Myers, Special Education Teacher, Churchill County

Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA)

Mark Shellinger, Superintendent, White Pine County School District

Gina Anderson, President, Nevada Home Schools, Inc., Las Vegas 

Patricia Broadbent, Interested Parent, Las Vegas

Sherry Cavender, Interested Parent, Las Vegas

Elizabeth Cavender, Interested Former Student

Sarah Lee Anderson, Interested Student 

Susan E. Scholley, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Barbara Clark, Nevada Parent Teachers Association

Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association

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

Lonnie F. Shields, Lobbyist, Washoe County Education Administrators Association

Dotty L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District

Larry Maloney, Fox River Learning, Inc.

Douglas C. Thunder, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative and Fiscal Services, Department of Education

Sharon Rogers, Member, Success by Six Statewide Coalition; Member, Nevada Association for the Education of Young Children

Roy Casey, Assistant Superintendent, Douglas County School District, Western Regional Development Program

Teresa Jordan, Associate Dean, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

 

 

Senator Raggio announced that former Fiscal Analyst Jeanne Botts, who had been ill for a long time, passed away on Friday, March 9, 2001.  He said, “Jeanne was revered by this committee, and was a very dedicated professional.  She probably knew more about K-12 education than anyone ever living.”  He said services are tentatively set for Thursday afternoon, and he suggested committee members and staff who wish to attend arrange their schedules accordingly.  He extended condolences to her family on behalf of the committee, and asked for a moment of silence to honor Ms. Botts’ memory and to keep her and her survivors in thought and prayer. 

 

Senator Raggio acknowledged a request by Senator Coffin for committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) R-1323.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1323:  Memorializes long-time lobbyist, John. W. Riggs, Sr.  (Later introduced as Senate Concurrent Resolution 22.)

 

            SENATOR COFFIN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BILL DRAFT REQUEST 1323.

 

            SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

* * * * *

 

Senator Jacobsen said he was informed over the weekend that the State Emergency Response Commission has no “home,” so he asked for introduction of a bill to include the commission under the Division of Environmental Protection. 

 

            SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF A BILL             DRAFT REQUEST TO PLACE THE STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE             COMMISSION UNDER THE AEGIS OF THE DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL             PROTECTION.

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 

 

* * * * *

Senator Rawson reported he had requested a draft of a bill with a similar provision, so he and Senator Raggio agreed the two bills should be coordinated to ensure they are not duplicative.

 

Senator Raggio asked for a progress report.  Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, drew attention to the March 21 status report.  He reported that at the end of the previous week approximately 61 percent of the budget had been reviewed, and by the end of the current week the committee will have reviewed 88 percent of the budget.  He noted the joint subcommittee has reviewed 18 of 90 capital improvement projects; 70 bills have been referred to the committee, of which 69 are still in the committee; 12 bills will be reviewed during the current week. 

 

Mr. Ghiggeri said the latest update on gaming revenues show collections for January and February were down 8.9 percent compared to the last fiscal year, and the year-to-date gaming collections are down 2.3 percent compared to growth of 5.9 percent projected by the Economic Forum in December.  He pointed out that a zero percent growth in percentage fees would result in a $33 million reduction in revenues this year, 1 percent growth would result in a $27 million reduction, or 2 percent growth would result in nearly a $22 million reduction in revenue from that source this fiscal year. 

 

Mr. Ghiggeri distributed copies of a memo (Exhibit C) received on Friday from Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration, that makes recommended modifications to The Executive Budget.  Mr. Ghiggeri noted he attached a table provided by the Budget Division, adding he has detail should any of the committee members wish to review it. 

 

Senator Raggio suggested Mr. Ghiggeri address major adjustments.  Mr. Ghiggeri said one major adjustment includes additions from the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) for items that were inadvertently omitted from the budget.  He indicated there are revisions to the “one-shot” appropriations for the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) to replace State Highway Funds by General Fund appropriations in the amount of nearly $400,000.  Also, he said, a couple of positions were recommended by the Governor for the Treasurer’s and Controller’s offices at a cost of approximately $90,000 in the first year of the biennium and $125,000 in the second year.  He said another change includes replacement of General Fund appropriations with tourism funding for conservation, parks, and cultural affairs resulting in a reduction of about $1.8 million in the first year and nearly $1.9 million in the second year. 

 

Senator Raggio observed the table shows a total amount of $472,000 in General Fund savings over the biennium, with the biggest adjustment in the Department of Cultural Affairs which will transfer in tourism funds.  Mr. Ghiggeri explained the second table indicates adjustments in other funds totaling $9 million. 

 

Senator Raggio commented the revenue figures for sales and use taxes have been bleak.  He asked when February figures would be available.  Mr. Ghiggeri answered they should be ready in a week.  Senator Raggio noted the figures indicate a decrease of nearly 1 percent in anticipated sales and use tax revenues, down from a projection of 5.9 percent.  He said 5.9 percent was anticipated from gaming through February, but the revenue percentages are at a minus figure. 

 

Senator Coffin acknowledged gaming tax numbers are often more difficult to understand than sales tax figures.  He asked whether wins have been greater than receipts and whether there have been collection problems.  He remarked southern Nevada casino revenues appear to be on the rise, and he surmised that means the rest of the state’s casino revenues are down more severely than average.  Mr. Ghiggeri responded that southern Nevada casino revenues are up, and statewide revenues are up 3.5 percent, but collections have been down.  He explained some is because of credit play, and some is due to a fee adjustment in which the fees have been prepaid but are later adjusted.  He reported the Economic Forum is scheduled to meet May 1. 

 

Senator Raggio interjected that over 70 bills have been referred to the finance committee, and hearings are ahead of schedule.  However, he said, additional meetings will commence on Friday, March 23, in the afternoon. 

 

Noting the large number of people wishing to testify on bills, Senator Raggio announced time would have to be limited, and he requested that remarks not be repetitive.  He opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 67.

 

SENATE BILL 67:  Makes appropriation to Clark County School District to conduct pilot program to carry out rotating block schedule in selected middle and high schools in Clark County. (BDR S-811)

 

Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Government and Community Relations Division, Clark County School District, introduced the assistant superintendent who presented the district’s testimony on block scheduling proposals.  

 

Leonard D. Paul, Assistant Superintendent, Secondary Education and Curriculum Division, Clark County School District, testified that the expectation of higher graduation rates has raised demand for lower dropout rates, improved test scores, and greater accountability.  He read from prepared testimony (Exhibit D) in which he noted there is a need to review methods used to deliver instruction.  He said graduation requirements leave little room for failure, and block scheduling should allow the district to lengthen the day from 6 periods of instruction to 8 periods of instruction, thus allowing more opportunity for students to make up credits. 

 

Mr. Paul listed the advantages of using a block schedule, including not only the opportunities cited above, but also the possibility for remediation, increased graduation rates, and expanded course offerings.  He explained an increase in staff of 11 percent will be necessary to implement block scheduling and maintain current teacher/student ratios.  He added it will require a possible 33 percent increase in textbook and instructional supplies to accommodate two more classes a day.  Also, more training will be needed for teachers and staff, he said. 

 

Mr. Paul said the first phase of the pilot program for block scheduling will be tested in six high schools, and phase two will be tried in six middle schools.  He reported the estimated cost is $4,560,930 per year.  He asserted, “If only 912 of the 12,000 credit-deficient students benefit from the participation in block scheduling and stay in school, the pilot is paid for.”

 

Senator Raggio asked how Mr. Paul figured the pilot program would be paid for.  Mr. Paul replied that those children will be in school receiving per pupil state funding.  Senator Raggio asked whether there is any other similar program in effect at the present time.  Mr. Paul responded there are varieties of the block process throughout the county, with one school offering a six-period block that he admitted is not working well.  He opined that program does not enhance the opportunity for students to earn additional credits.

 

In light of the present state financial situation, and with the increased costs proposed by S.B. 67, Senator Raggio suggested the Clark County School District revisit the proposal and determine what the minimum cost would be to accommodate the pilot and preserve the current teacher/student ratio.  Mr. Paul said the ratio in Clark County is now 31 to 1.  He said one alternative considered adding a seventh period to the school day, but that would shorten instruction time rather than increase it as would occur under the block scheduling program.  He suggested the teachers need the added time for adjustment because of the wide variety of students in the schools.

 

Mr. Paul indicated the cost would be $2.8 million in the first year if phase one is implemented and only high schools are included, and the largest increase would come in the second year.  Senator Raggio pointed out the plan provides for over $9 million for six high schools and six middle schools, but $9 million for a pilot project would only make a small dent in the problem.  He asked whether the schools listed are those that have the highest dropout potential in the district.  Mr. Paul replied two of the six have the highest dropout rates, and two schools were selected because they are brand new. 

 

Senator Raggio reiterated there are financial limitations, making the outlook unpromising.  He repeated his caution that the cost should be revisited and the proposal should be adjusted.  He said it is not likely that another $9 million will be found at this time. 

 

There being no further testimony on S.B. 67, Senator Raggio closed the hearing and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 69. 

 

SENATE BILL 69:  Requires increased salaries for teachers of mathematics, science and special education. (BDR 34-100)

 

Senator Raggio explained this bill was prompted by a request he made to the committee to recognize the difficulty in recruiting and retaining those who teach in critical areas.  He said S.B. 69 will provide an additional 5 percent salary for teachers in science, mathematics, and special education, provided that the teacher has a secondary license to teach with an endorsement in that specialized field and is, in fact, teaching in that field.  He commented that over the years of his legislative experience it has become very apparent there is grave concern that teachers assigned to mathematics and science do not have the level of proficiency necessary to be competitive with other countries’ teachers.  He noted there has been criticism that teachers have been assigned to these critical areas without proper preparation and the desired qualifications. 

 

Senator Raggio reiterated that the areas of science and mathematics are critically important if American students are going to compete, not only in the business world, but also across the world.  He noted U.S. students rank far down the line in mathematics and science compared to other nations.  He declared that this is not acceptable. 

 

Senator Raggio commented that the fiscal note showing approximately $16 million may be high, since the measure will not become effective until the second year of the biennium.  He suggested the fiscal note should be approximately half of what it indicates.  He added the bill provides that the state board will adopt regulations identifying endorsements in the fields of mathematics and science, and the increased salary will only be paid to persons who obtain a secondary license to teach in those fields and who have obtained the required endorsement.

 

Senator Raggio pointed out the bill also provides for a salary adjustment for those in the area of special education to provide classroom instruction to pupils with disabilities.  He noted that provision will also require the teacher have an endorsement and a license to teach in the specialized area.  He opined no other area in teaching requires the responsibility and dedication that is required in special education, which carries a high rate of burnout.  He commented teachers have told him the plan should provide incentive, and S.B. 69 should help alleviate some of the problems in attracting and retaining special education, science, and mathematics teachers.

 

Bill Hanlon, Coordinator, Southern Nevada Regional Professional Development Program, Clark County School District, clarified that he was not speaking on behalf of the Clark County School District or the Southern Nevada Regional Professional Development Program.  He explained he had held conversations with Senator Raggio regarding the proposal during the last legislative session.  He noted he had been a member of the State Board of Education at that time, but he could not verify whether or not the present board takes the same position. 

 

Mr. Hanlon agreed there is a shortage of mathematics and science teachers.  He said he has multiple endorsements, including secondary math and science, and drivers’ education.  He reiterated the need to recruit teachers for math and science, but noted those who teach in the middle schools, seventh, eighth, and ninth grades, are not required to have the secondary endorsement to teach math.  He said there are people in the alternative licensure program coming into the system, but even so there is a shortage, which he opined will continue to grow. 

 

Mr. Hanlon stated he receives calls every year from the business community asking him to send them mathematicians, and private enterprise is willing to pay them up to $40,000 to $60,000 to leave teaching to go into business.  He admitted he does not pass on the information because the teacher shortage is already too high.  He related he was recently contacted by a “head-hunter” who was seeking someone with a statistical background to start a job at a salary of $60,000.

 

Mr. Hanlon concurred S.B. 69 will help provide incentive, and he noted his only concern is that the program be financed from the state’s General Fund and not from the Distributive School Account (DSA).  He requested support for the program with the caveat that it be provided for areas of shortage identified by the state Department of Education, especially in math, science, special education, and English Language Learners (ELL) teachers, and that it be funded from the General Fund.

 

Senator Raggio indicated he has asked the staff to analyze the potential for including the program within the DSA.  He asked what is necessary to obtain a secondary license in special areas.  Mr. Hanlon replied the Professional Standards Commission raised the standards for teaching secondary education math, and the requirements are almost the same as those for a math degree.  He stated there are a couple of endorsements, one called math with calculus to teach algebra, which requires a 4-year degree.  He said those who take the alternative route to teach under licensure are required to go through 120 days of additional education, and the 16 people in the program last year only met the minimum.  He noted that this has posed some difficulty.  He explained he trained those people, and classroom management became an issue.  He pointed out knowing how to do the math and knowing how to teach it are not the same.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether anyone could give an estimate of how many persons teaching math and science could presently qualify under the requirement.  Mr. Hanlon responded the middle school numbers would be difficult to ascertain because teachers can teach under a K-8 license, so they are not required to have the secondary license in seventh and eighth grades.  Mr. Hanlon said there is an immediate shortage.  He noted the superintendent in Clark County wants all eighth graders to be taught algebra, but there are not enough certified middle school teachers to teach at that level under licensure standards.

 

George Ann Rice, Ed.D., J.D., Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Division, Clark County School District, offered support for S.B. 69.  She reported the Clark County School District is required to go outside the state to find 70 percent of its teachers because an insufficient number are produced from within the state. 

 

Dr. Rice stated the people at University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), have been available to the district if they have done well in student teaching, but in the last seven issues of the UNLV student newspaper, The Rebel Yell, California school districts have joined together to advertise for UNLV students.  She said the advertisements refer to a website in California, which offers great incentives.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether Dr. Rice has pointed out there is an income tax in California.  Dr. Rice responded Clark County plans to run advertising noting that “all that glitters is not in the Golden State.”  Senator Raggio suggested the ad also point out that Nevada pays for teachers’ retirement, unlike California, which does not.  Dr. Rice agreed, but noted that, in the meantime, Los Angeles is offering $39,000 to beginning teachers, and the website offers $20,000 to the top 250 candidates for living expenses and tuition for 1 year if students return to school to obtain teaching credentials.  She said Clark County attempted to join the website, but was not allowed to do so since the address was not in California. 

 

Dr. Rice asserted the district is facing difficulties that it has never before experienced, and she reiterated “whole-hearted” support for S.B. 69 or any portion of it. 

 

Barbara Myers, Special Education Teacher, Churchill County, pointed out she was not speaking as a member of the State Board of Education, which she is, but as a special education teacher.  She pointed out she came here from southern California less than 3 years ago after teaching there for 28 years. 

 

Ms. Myers noted S.B. 69 contains a “wiggle word” in Section 2, subsection 6, on page 4, line 11.  She quoted, “A school district may give the credit required . . . for previous teaching service earned in another state . . . .” [emphasis added].  She suggested the word “may” was added 2 years ago, and she opined many out‑of‑state teachers might move to Nevada if ‘’year-for-year” credit was a requirement, not a permissive “may.”  She said she had 5 years’ experience as a speech therapist, and took an $18,000 pay cut to move to Nevada from California. 

 

Ms. Myers noted Section 2, subsection 4 refers to special education in terms of providing “classroom instruction.”  She asked whether the intent of the bill is to cover speech therapists, occupational therapists, and physical therapists, three areas in which there are severe shortages.  If so, she said, the words “classroom instruction” will give “wiggle room” to districts to not provide the increases to areas with the highest needs. 

 

According to Ms. Myers, California offers health insurance that includes spouses and children up to the age of 25 at no additional cost.  She said in her present school district that would cost her over $450 per month.  She noted California also provides state disability insurance, which is not provided in her Nevada school district.  She reiterated her concern over the word “may” in subsection 6. 

 

Ms. Myers related that she came to Nevada before her time teaching in California was taken into account under the new Nevada statutes, so she was not given credit for her 28 years’ experience.  She said she recently sought employment closer to her home, but learned that, since she is now at step 7, local districts do not consider the quality and experience of teaching, and do not want to pay her accordingly, but prefer to hire new, inexperienced people right out of school.  She said the 5 percent may look good, but if the wording was changed from “may” to “must,” the districts might attract more experienced people from out of state. 

 

Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), related NSEA’s concern regarding S.B. 69.  She noted she has discussed some of the concerns with Senator Raggio, and wanted to put the NSEA stand on the record.  She said:

 

We believe that a way to address the shortage problem is to create incentives to get people into these teaching positions . . . such as signing bonuses, health insurance, interest-free mortgages, moving expenses, cell phones, things that, when people are looking to go into positions, these are the kinds of incentives that are offered in other states and other districts.

 

We think that it would be important to bring people into these positions, and provide those kinds of incentives, and I understand, also, that California has just recently adopted an exemption on personal income tax for people in the teaching profession.

 

Senator Raggio pointed out Nevada cannot do that because of the Constitution.

 

Ms. Cahill stated that NSEA believes that providing a salary increase based solely on the area of endorsement regarding subject area will create a morale problem for all other teachers.  She singled out elementary teachers, who provide basic support to send children on to proficiency in math and science, as among those who would have no way to qualify for the 5 percent increase in salary. 

 

Senator Raggio noted that has also been the union’s position on any suggestion regarding performance pay.  He pointed out NSEA has always contended such pay would cause a morale problem.  He asked why it is only a morale problem in the teaching profession when performance pay, hazardous pay, and specialized training are recognized by additional pay, whereas in other professions it appears to not cause a morale problem.

 

Ms. Cahill responded NSEA has expressed an interest in Senate Bill 168, which, she said, would move toward a system of tiered licensure that would allow recognition for teachers based on skills and knowledge.

 

SENATE BILL 168:  Establishes system of classification for licensure of teachers.  (BDR 34-737).

 

Ms. Cahill asserted S.B. 168 will establish the direction needed.  She claimed the discussion last session to provide incentives and give recognition to teachers who achieve national board certification was an important step in the right direction.  She said it acknowledges teachers for performance and skill, but under S.B. 69 there would be no analysis of actual teaching skills of math and science teachers to determine whether they have the knowledge that makes them superior to, or gives them an advantage over, other teachers.  She complained that under S.B. 69 they would all receive the same 5 percent advantage.

 

Ms. Cahill reiterated SNEA is interested in the incentive proposal from last session, but believes S.B. 69 would take teachers in the wrong direction from that, because the teachers would be given an increase in salary based solely on the fact they had achieved the endorsement.  She opined not all districts are experiencing the same kind of shortage that Clark County is facing.  She voiced understanding that Washoe County has a concern over special education teachers, but the county is not having the same shortage of math and science teachers that is plaguing Clark County.  She suggested S.B. 69 would provide incentive for people in other districts even though the shortage has not reached them.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the math and science teachers in districts to which she was referring have the additional credentials.  She was unable to say. 

 

Senator Raggio asked how Ms. Cahill would respond to the many comments made in the past 4 years to the Legislative Committee on Education about the fact that many teachers of math and science, not only in Nevada, but also nationwide, are not qualified to teach those subjects.  Ms. Cahill responded that it is a problem, and the licensure standards the Commission on Professional Standards has tried to put in place are an attempt to address the problem.  She noted Mr. Hanlon had indicated some teachers have been eliminated from teaching those subjects by raising the bar on ability.

 

Ms. Cahill stated it is critical to raise and maintain the standards, and to urge people to achieve the standards.  She said there are 24 teachers in the state with national board certification.  Senator Raggio asked whether anyone who puts forth the effort through time and dedication to achieve secondary licensing with the required endorsement should be entitled to additional compensation.  Ms. Cahill replied, “Senator, we respectfully disagree.”  She asserted many teachers might be able to achieve the endorsement, but their skills would not be analyzed as they would be for national board certification. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether Ms. Cahill was speaking for all the math and science teachers in the state.  She responded that she spoke to some math and science teachers who expressed a concern about the overall level of salaries for all teachers.  She pointed out a 5-percent increase in salary for math and science teachers in Clark County would still not be competitive compared to other states.  She called the 5-percent raise “a good gesture,” but opined it still would not be competitive.

 

Senator Raggio recalled a discussion during a joint subcommittee meeting regarding average teacher salaries in the state and average starting salaries.  He indicated they were considerably higher than normally indicated.  He questioned the actual amount of starting salaries.  Ms. Cahill offered to provide a copy of each contract from every district to show exact starting salaries.  She said in Clark County the 5‑percent increase would raise the starting salary to about $27,000.  She asserted it is not $29,000 as reported.

 

Senator Coffin recalled asking about incentives at a previous hearing on DSA.  He drew attention to an exhibit provided by Clark County School District (Exhibit E.) showing what several other states have been offering as incentives.  Referring to problems regarding compensation for state law enforcement employees who must deal with violent criminals or carry a gun, he warned that, “It becomes an endless parade of state employees . . . when you start to single out, and rightfully single out, some of these people for pay raises.”  He suggested that, if S.B. 69 should pass, the door will be opened for other teaching segments to present justifiable concerns. 

 

Ms. Cahill added that her experience in the classroom was in the field of remedial English, and she opined that the service provided by teachers in that field is also of great importance.  She stated, “I seriously believe that providing this particular differentiation in salary would create a problem, a shortage area down the road in fields like English, history, art, PE (physical education), music, other areas that are certainly fulfilling and enriching for our students.”

 

Senator Neal recalled hearing author Frank McCourt suggest that there is a lot of tension in the school system, and if one student is given an A and another a B, the two students essentially have been “assigned to an area of failure.”  Senator Neal asked whether the problems in education have reached the point that the state is apt to select a measure that will be satisfactory for the moment in the hope that it will cure a problem.  Ms. Cahill responded that resolution is an incredibly complex matter.  She asserted there is not one single solution. 

 

SENATE BILL 108:  Authorizes school districts and charter schools to provide programs of distance education. (BDR 34-834)

 

Senator Raggio invited Susan E. Scholley, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, to outline the bill.

 

Ms. Scholley explained S.B. 108 is the product of the interim Legislative Committee on Education.  She noted the Research Division prepared a background paper, Distance Education at the Elementary and Secondary School Levels (Exhibit F.  Original is on file in the Research Library.), which addresses distance education programs at both the federal and state levels, and which provides a brief discussion of Nevada models.  She said the paper outlines issues associated with distance education.

 

According to Ms. Scholley, the background paper does not attempt to cover the technical side of distance education, such as telecommunication networks or operating systems.  She drew attention to section 2, which she said provides a fair amount of detail on models in other states that have begun using distance education programs.  She noted the appendices also provide some straightforward question- and answer-type information on some of the statewide virtual schools.  She explained “virtual schools” refers to the idea that the schools are not brick and mortar buildings, but rather the image of a school is created through computer programs much like “virtual reality” that is used to describe video games or movies.

 

Ms. Scholley reported the issues surrounding distance education in Nevada were originally raised in the context of a charter school that wished to provide instruction via computers and the Internet.  She said White Pine County School District provided testimony to the interim committee seeking support for expansion of their Nova Center program, the district’s alternative high school, into a Nevada virtual high school program.  She said that the committee heard testimony on the impact the proposals might have on the Nevada plan for school financing, legal issues regarding per-pupil funding, the importance of maintaining the quality of education, and the integrity of the assessment and accountability systems. 

 

Ms. Scholley related members of the committee expressed a desire for further consideration of the issues, and the State Department of Education convened avirtual school task force to make recommendations, composed of school representatives, members of the department, charter school representatives, university staff, and a member of NSEA.  She said the committee submitted recommendations to the interim committee, which contemporaneously developed a proposal for distance education. 

 

Ms. Scholley noted the two proposals had much in common, including opportunities for school districts, charter schools, or consortia of school districts and charter schools to deliver instruction via distance education programs.  She said both committees proposed that an allowance be given for students to participate in distance education in other districts, and that the funding follow the student, subject to the approval of the student’s home school district.  She indicated the committees wanted assurances that distance education programs would meet or exceed state curriculum requirements, an understanding that students would be subject to state testing requirements, and adoption of regulations by the State Board of Education for the programs.

 

Ms. Scholley stated the primary differences between the two proposals were in regard to funding and regulatory structure, one being centralized, and the other decentralized.  She said the interim committee felt there is a need for additional discussion of the issue by the full Legislature.  She said that, as a result, Senate Bill 108 provides for the delivery of instruction through distance education programs by school districts, charter schools, or consortia of the two, with students subject to all state requirements for proficiency testing, curriculum, and all other statutory requirements.

 

Ms. Scholley said S.B. 108 provides that distance education programs or courses may be developed by commercial vendors, charter schools, school districts, higher education institutions, or the State Department of Education.  She said the courses and programs will require the approval of the department in accordance with regulations adopted by the State Board of Education.  She explained those regulations are required to ensure the programs will meet all state requirements, especially academic standards. 

 

Ms. Scholley said the bill provides that students enrolling in distance education may attend programs out of their resident school districts, and funding will follow the student, provided the home school district gives approval. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether that would be handled by agreement.  He also asked for clarification as to whether the per-pupil guarantee is in addition to or in place of funding, and how any excess money would be allocated.  He wanted to know whether distance education will cost more per student.  Ms. Scholley replied the bill provides that the per-pupil funding will follow the student.  She explained the cost of distance education is not in addition to the per-pupil funding. 

 

Senator Raggio interjected that last session there was testimony from Lincoln County that their cost-per-pupil was less than the guarantee, for example, in Clark County.  He interpreted S.B. 108 to mean that, should a Clark County student enroll in a virtual school in Lincoln County, and the cost for the virtual school student was less than the normal cost-per-student in Clark County, then the additional sum would go back to the Clark County School District.  Ms. Scholley replied that he was correct, and that if the student only enrolled in the virtual school part time, and the cost was lower for that portion, a proportionate share would be returned to the home school district.  She said if a student attends a distance education program full time, then the student receives either the per-pupil funding, or the actual cost of the distance education program, whichever is less.  She clarified there is no increase in the potential per-pupil funding for a student enrolled full time in a distance education program.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the home district would receive the extra funds if the cost for distance education is less.  Ms. Scholley said it would, and that it would be handled by agreement.  She added there is a requirement in the bill that agreements between providers and the participating school districts be very clear regarding the financial impact on all parties.  She said for pupils who attend a distance education program part time, perhaps a single class from another county, there would be a pro rata adjudication, which would all be spelled out in the agreement. 

 

Ms. Scholley drew attention to the last part of the bill, Sections 32 and 33.  She noted it provides that the 2002-2003 school year would be the first year for such programs to operate.  She said it sets a deadline for submittal of required regulations by the State Board of Education, and requires a review of the regulations by the interim Legislative Committee on Education prior to final adoption. 

 

Senator Neal asked whether distance learning includes only Nevada students, or whether it will also include students from outside the state.  Ms. Scholley replied it could include students from other states, and could apply, for example, to a student from Washoe County, sitting in his Washoe County school, or at home, and taking a class over the Internet from another county in the state or from a school outside of the state.  She stated the potential is very broad, so it could encompass any number of situations.  She noted the theme is that the teacher and student are geographically separated from one another during most of the teaching and learning.

 

Senator Neal asked how a district would be served by the program.  Ms. Scholley responded the advocates of distance education point to its ability to provide access to courses that the district may not be able to provide on its own.  As an example, she said one of the virtual schools is able to provide a course in oceanography.  Students can take courses for which school districts could not hire a teacher because of the small number of interested pupils.  She pointed out, “I am neither advocating nor opposing this legislation.”  She noted there are two sides to the issue, but one of the key ideas is to provide a greater range of options.

 

Senator Neal asked whether one should assume the district would have to approve the program.  Ms. Scholley answered that the bill is premised on the fact that the resident school district, because of the financial impact, would have to approve a student’s taking distance education courses.  Senator Neal interjected he meant whether the program itself would have to be approved by the home district.  Senator Raggio noted that in Section 18 the bill provides that the State Department of Education must approve the program, so even if the program is offered from another state, it would have to be approved by the Nevada department.  Ms. Scholley added that the school district could also withhold its approval for a student wanting to take a course from out of district if the course did not appear to be appropriate for the student.

 

Senator Coffin asked whether Ms. Scholley had prepared a pro and con analysis of the bill.  Ms. Scholley responded the background paper prepared by the Research Division (Exhibit F) should provide the pros and cons of distance education.  She noted there has been widespread acceptance of distance education at the post‑secondary level.  However, she said, S.B. 108 is focused on elementary and secondary levels, and there has been some controversy over dropping distance education down to those levels. 

 

Mark Shellinger, Superintendent, White Pine County School District, stated he was pleased to share a “success story” with the committee.  He showed a film clip from KLAS-TV in Las Vegas that had been broadcast recently.  The film depicted a student attending a virtual high school full time in order to practice skating 3 hours each day in order to participate in ice skating competitions.  The young man was able to take all of his courses, including history, biology, and algebra, on line, from any location, using his personal computer, and he has received high marks on all his studies.

 

The film ran an interview with teacher Robert Bischoff from Nevada Virtual High School (NVHS) in Ely, who pointed out the course is akin to personal tutoring in which extra time can be taken on a subject when the student requires additional help.  He said the teaching is one-on-one, and if a student needs or wants an additional 2 hours of math instruction, that is what he receives, and instruction is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  The television announcer noted the school is about to go international with students from such places as Hong Kong, Iraq, and Korea, and distance students have done well so far on proficiency examinations, and no one has ever failed an examination.

 

Students featured in the film expressed approval of the system, noting that they could work longer hours during some weeks or days so they could take time for other activities or trips. 

 

Mr. Shellinger called attention to a second film clip that focused on some of the issues addressed in S.B. 108.  The film noted the school programs can be adjusted for each child.  It showed a student from Las Vegas “attending” the virtual school in Ely who prefers to work at night, while his sister just graduated from the school.  The announcer said White Pine County runs the only totally on-the-Internet high school, and students in the county attend at no cost, but all others must pay $3,400 each year.  She reported the State Department of Education refuses to pay for students who do not live in White Pine County. 

 

The announcer stated the school may provide a windfall for the distressed county as a surge of enrollment comes in from out of state.  She noted White Pine County has suffered a depression because of the falling prices of copper, silver and gold, with resultant closure of many mines. 

 

Mr. Shellinger stated White Pine County School District has been offering virtual education for 3 years.  He said S.B. 108 is a response to a request made to the State Department of Education 2 years ago for legislation to help the law catch up with technology.  He offered support for the bill and said he was gratified because it offers state funding for NVHS students who live outside of White Pine County.  However, he said, there are three items of concern in the bill.

 

Mr. Shellinger said the bill, as currently drafted, requires parents to obtain permission from local school districts before students can be enrolled in NVHS.  He agreed that makes sense at the local school level, but argued that if a student is home-schooled, attends a private school, or is a dropout, the parent should have easy access to alternative education and should be able to enroll the student directly in NVHS.  He pointed out, if the local school district has not already been counting the student as part of its enrollment, there should be no need to obtain permission from that district to obtain funding.  He proposed amending S.B. 108 to allow home-schooled, privately-schooled, or dropout students to enroll directly in NVHS.

 

Senator Raggio interjected it is committee policy that any proposed amendments should be submitted in writing.

 

Mr. Shellinger said the second issue revolves around a change in language.  He stated there is concern that the bill would give the State Department of Education control over course offerings.  He pointed out that elected school boards in Nevada currently have that authority, and he noted elected school boards approve curriculum that meets or exceeds state standards for brick and mortar schools, so boards should have the same authority for virtual delivery.  He opined it is not in the best interest of students to take the authority away from an elected board, and it appears to be illogical to treat on-line schools differently from brick and mortar schools. 

 

Mr. Shellinger asserted the State Department of Education has been hostile toward on-line classes, so White Pine County School District believes the department, as it currently stands, would not deal with the issue fairly.  He requested that the bill be amended by deleting the necessity for department approval of on-line courses, and allowing that authority to remain with local school boards. 

 

Senator Raggio asked how assurance could be given that on-line schools meet state standards.  Mr. Shellinger replied it would be in the same way as a traditional school.  He said the department currently makes no review of traditional school districts in terms of what is going on at any specific school, whether in Las Vegas, Reno, or elsewhere in the state.  Instead, he said, the local school board develops courses that meet or exceed state standards.  He remarked it makes sense for the local boards to determine whether state standards are met in local schools.  He reiterated that the curriculum at Nevada Virtual High School exceeds state standards, and since the school can show that no student has ever failed a proficiency test, it puts the school in good stead.  He voiced particular pride because many of the NVHS students were dropouts, left the traditional school system, but came back to succeed.

 

Mr. Shellinger described the third issue as the most interesting.  He said it deals with seat time rather than competency.  He said “seat time” means that a student must be in a seat, and in front of a teacher, for a specified number of minutes or hours before being eligible to earn a credit.  On-line delivery, he said, does not do well with seat time, because it allows a student to progress at his or her own rate.  He noted traditional schools use seat time in a classroom to govern whether a credit can be issued, but on-line class credits are governed by competency.  He averred that makes more sense.  He proposed an amendment that would exempt on-line high schools from current seat-time requirements in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). 

 

Senator Neal inquired how many students from Nevada are currently being served.  Mr. Shellinger replied there are 53 students from outside of White Pine County, but from Nevada, who are enrolled at NVHS.  He reported their parents pay $340 per month, or $3,400 each year for the service even though they are Nevada residents.

 

Senator Neal asked how many are being served from out of state.  Mr. Shellinger said there were several ways to respond, because people are being served on different levels, for both supplemental courses and for full degree programs.  He said the number grows every day, as indicated by a conference he attended in Boston a few days earlier in which much interest in the program was made evident.  He said NVHS is different from virtual schools in other states because NVHS is the first school that offers a full degree program, and offers it across state boundaries.  He said the school currently serves students in other states, and at the beginning of April it will serve students in two other nations.

 

Senator Raggio asked what guarantee is offered that the diploma will be of value to a student seeking employment or higher education.  Mr. Shellinger responded that universities and colleges nearly always look at performance.  He said every student who has graduated from NVHS has been accepted in a program of higher education, most of them on scholarships.  He said one student obtained a full scholarship to the University of California at Berkley.  He noted the student must pass the Nevada proficiency examination, even if he lives outside of Nevada; he must pass the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or American College Test (ACT); and students are required to have a post-secondary plan in place that goes beyond high school graduation.  He noted every graduate is in post-secondary education, and many had dropped out of school and did not think they would have a chance to go on with their education.

 

Mr. Shellinger made his notes available for the record (Exhibit G).  He introduced parents of on-line children from Las Vegas who wished to explain why they selected on-line schooling and why they were offering support for virtual schools.

 

Gina Anderson, President, Nevada Home Schools, Inc., Las Vegas, indicated Nevada Home Schools, Inc., is the largest home-school support organization in Nevada.  She reported that she speaks daily to many families that are seeking alternatives in education.  She said most district programs target such specific groups that they eliminate the majority of students.  She stated NVHS has the unlimited potential to cater to the widest range of students for a variety of reasons.

 

Ms. Anderson noted students who are proficient in areas where knowledge is tested can go on to areas in which they need to study, working at their own rates.  She said if students need extra time or special help, they can take advantage of the one-on-one personal instruction offered by the virtual school.  She added there is an incomparable variety of classes offered on line, including challenging, upper-level classes that are not offered in many high schools.

 

Ms. Anderson opined all students who attend the Internet high school enjoy a safer learning environment and the convenience of attending school from home where they can focus on the subject matter.  She insisted the program has several positive points, many of which her family has enjoyed, including diversity, which is why she chose to enroll her daughter in high school on line. 

 

Ms. Anderson voiced her support for the three amendments, and she urged committee support.  She offered a packet of 143 letters from Clark County parents in support of the program. (Exhibit H.  Original is on file in the Research Library.)

 

Patricia Broadbent, Interested Parent, Las Vegas, explained that she enrolled her daughter who had been homebound for several years in Nevada Virtual High School because she has acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).  She said from first grade through ninth grade her daughter was often taught over the phone, although a teacher came in three times a week from kindergarten through fifth grade.  She pointed out her daughter had never been tested, and Ms. Broadbent never knew her daughter’s grade level.  She said when she decided to mainstream her daughter in the eighth grade, and enrolled her daughter in a middle school in Las Vegas, she requested that her daughter be tested to determine her proper grade level.  She related the only thing the school did was to enroll her in the school.

 

Ms. Broadbent said that during the first year, “She was not really learning, she was doing.”  Still, she said, the daughter was not tested and Ms. Broadbent still did not know her appropriate grade level.  According to Ms. Broadbent, an on-line school named Odyssey opened, and the daughter was tested and enrolled, but the school only provided education through eighth grade.  At that time Ms. Broadbent learned through Odyssey about NVHS in White Pine County.  She said her daughter is now attending ninth grade at the virtual school, and she is doing very well.  She related her daughter has schooling from 8 a.m. through 3 p.m., with an hour break.  Ms. Broadbent said at $350 she hopes her daughter will be well educated, and her daughter has been flourishing. 

 

Ms. Broadbent voiced her support for S.B. 108 with the three amendments proposed by Mr. Shellinger.  She stated, “I hope that this is something that she will be able to continue, because financially I will not be able to do it.”

 

Senator Mathews asked whether it was by Ms. Broadbent’s choice that her daughter did not attend public school, or whether the public school refused to accept her because she had AIDS.  Ms. Broadbent pointed out her daughter was born in 1984 and diagnosed with AIDS in 1987, and entered school in 1989.  She said her daughter was one of the first children to be human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive.  She said, “Was it a school choice?  Her teachers had a problem with teaching her.  Her kindergarten teacher.”

 

Senator Mathews told Ms. Broadbent she need not go further because it was disturbing.  Ms. Broadbent rejoined, “You are disturbed.  You can imagine how I feel.”

 

Sherry Cavender, who identified herself as an interested parent from Las Vegas, reported she has a son enrolled in NVHS, and a daughter who graduated.  She asserted the program gives children the freedom to learn at their own paces and in their own times.  She noted, “As always, with freedom comes responsibility.”  She added, “When you are given freedom to learn, then you must face what you do not know.”  She asserted when youngsters realize what they do not know, they begin to reach a higher level of maturity, and at that point almost any vehicle will lead to success.

 

Ms. Cavender said she supplements the program with outside tutoring and classes such as karate and art at Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN).  She asked the committee to consider competency over seat time.  She related that her son was enrolled in another program in which seat time was mandatory, and because he finished the program very quickly, he was required to watch television to make up the seat time.  Ms. Cavender declared the students are very motivated, and seat time is a waste of time. 

 

According to Ms. Cavender, every child with a long-term or ongoing illness should be enrolled in distance education, not be taught by telephone.  She called Nevada Virtual High School “a better way.”  She added NVHS may be the only answer for children who avoid school, and the program has the potential to restore dignity to those are who misdiagnosed as needing remedial education.  She reiterated her support for S.B. 108 with the proposed amendments.

 

Mr. Shellinger introduced Elizabeth Cavender and Sarah Lee Anderson.  He said Miss Cavender was the 57^th graduate from NVHS and both girls are now students at CCSN.

 

Elizabeth Cavender, who identified herself as an interested former student, testified that S.B. 108 is extremely important to her, and that she supports the amendments suggested by NVHS.  She noted each student learns and grasps concepts differently.  She said when she attended regular public schools she was slow and fell behind.  She explained she got impatient and lost her concentration because she knew she would not have sufficient class time.  She said when she switched to NVHS and was allowed to study at her own pace she enjoyed what she was learning and obtained a better understanding of the subject matter. 

 

Miss Cavender explained she decided to attend Nevada Virtual High School to be able to work in her own time and at her own pace.  She declared NVHS is much different from a brick and mortar school, and thus should be treated differently.  She said before she enrolled in NVHS she had a severe fear of taking tests, but she was forced to take tests frequently at NVHS and she has overcome her problem. 

 

Miss Cavender opined the State Department of Education should not control on-line courses.  She stated the courses she took were challenging and caused her to excel at a much higher level.  She described herself as “living proof that this program works.”  She reported she is “doing fantastic” in her second semester at CCSN. 

 

Sarah Lee Anderson, who identified herself as an interested student, testified in support of S.B. 108 and the three amendments.  She reported she lives in Clark County and has been a student at Nevada Virtual High School for the past 2 years.  She indicated she was previously home schooled, and started NVHS with no credits, but now she has 20 of the required 25 credits, and a grade point average (GPA) of 3.7, thus enabling her to take part in the millennium scholarship program. 

 

Miss Anderson noted she will graduate earlier than she would in regular public high school, and she has maintained the high GPA, which she attributes to NVHS.  She suggested that without NVHS she probably would have skipped high school and have had to enter college without a high school diploma.  She said she aspires to become a lawyer, and NVHS is helping her realize her goal.  She noted she has been a volunteer for the past 3 years as a juvenile justice peer counselor, and due to the flexibility of NVHS she has been able to take a part-time job at a Las Vegas law firm. 

 

Miss Anderson declared that what she likes most about NVHS is the ability to study at all hours.  She said she works from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., studies from 6:00 to midnight, and most students are not able to do that.  Also, she said, if she has a problem with a particular course, such as trigonometry, she can call and have someone explain it to her until she understands, no matter how long it takes. 

 

Miss Anderson stated the one-on-one education has helped her to progress faster in areas in which she is weak, and she values the opportunity to earn a high school diploma through the program. 

 

Mr. Shellinger introduced several guests attending the hearing, including members of the White Pine County School Board, the principal and former principal of Nevada Virtual High School, and teachers of the school.  He announced they would be happy to answer questions.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the one-on-one approach is available on all days and at all hours.  Mr. Shellinger responded NVHS offers 24-hour a day service for the courseware, and service 12 hours each day for on-line assistance from the teacher, from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m.  He noted the intention to expand as the school grows in order to provide on-line service from teachers around the clock. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether any of the guests wanted to add to the testimony.  There were none that did.  The chairman then asked for testimony from those in opposition. 

 

Barbara Clark, Nevada Parent Teachers Association (PTA), said the PTA is not really opposed to many provisions of S.B. 108, because many children need access to remediation courses, courses if they have long-term illnesses, or alternative courses that cannot be addressed by the public school system.  She explained the main concern is the diversion of public funds to families who have chosen to pull out of the system and who are currently being home schooled or attending private schools.  She stated, “We do not believe that public money should go towards paying for home school or private school education.” 

 

Ms. Clark asserted distance education students have chosen to opt out of the public education system, while 99 percent of students remain in the traditional school, facing both success and failure in the public education system.  She said the priority of public education funds should be for those children remaining in the system.  She added that children educated under the public system should have access to the distance education funds first to meet their needs. 

 

Senator Raggio pointed out that funds become available for a student who was home schooled or attended a private school who then enters a public school.  He noted those children are not penalized because they once attended a school other than a public school.  He said, “In essence, they would be coming into a public school system if we recognize virtual school.”  Thus, he said, he could not follow the argument by Ms. Clark.

 

Ms. Clark responded she agreed there is some validity to the argument voiced by the chairman.  However, she said:

 

 There is also a back-in door for allowing people that have opted out of the system, and been out of the system, because they do not like having their children in regular education, suffering the failures as well as the successes, to allow them the access, having their tuition paid for by the public taxpayer dollars.

 

Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), voiced opposition to S.B. 108.  He opined it appears to be wide open for open enrollment for distance education, and he said NSEA has several concerns about that.  He charged, “All that glitters is not gold as it applies to distance education as it is being applied, particularly in White Pine County.” 

 

Mr. Bellister declared NSEA has information that indicates students are passing courses, such as senior English, in 1 hour and 13 minutes.  He said if that is the issue of seat time versus competency, NSEA has severe concerns about the depth of the curriculum being provided through the program. 

 

Mr. Bellister asserted records indicate that students can take pretests to determine their competency in a particular area several times until they are able to pass the pretests, which allows them to proceed through the curriculum.  He explained the problem is that the pretests provide the answers, so a student who is adept in manipulating the system can go back and check previous pretests, then proceed.  He questioned the depth of learning that actually occurs under such circumstances. 

 

Mr. Bellister stated one pretest designed to teach sentence logic was taken twice for a total of 3 minutes in senior English.  He declared just 9 minutes were devoted to an argumentative essay.  He reiterated NSEA questions the process and results.  He added the system provides that only a grade of “B” is possible, thus providing students who can manipulate the system the opportunity to enjoy grade inflation.

 

Senator Raggio inquired whether Mr. Bellister was asserting that the only grade obtainable is a “B.”  Mr. Bellister replied that is his understanding that students in NVHS must obtain a “B” or better, that “Cs” are never given. 

 

Mr. Bellister expressed concern over the Odyssey Program, which is another distance education program available in Nevada.  He said the State Department of Education audit of the Odyssey Program last year showed that students were obtaining credit for social studies instruction because they played checkers for 30 minutes.  He charged they received credits for health education because they cleaned their own bathrooms for an hour.  He noted the Odyssey Program is rated as needing improvement.  He said teachers are often unavailable for help in the Odyssey Program, and they only meet with student for a minimum amount of time.

 

Mr. Bellister commented NSEA shares the concerns of the Nevada PTA regarding funding of the programs.  He drew attention to Section 7, subsection 4, on page 9 of S.B. 108.  He asserted it allows wide open funding for programs at private schools or home schools.  He recalled during the 1999 session of the Legislature there was a discussion about the public schools offering programs and assistance to private school and home school students when and if the private school or home school could not provide the class themselves.  He noted the paragraph on page 9 allows an opportunity for public schools to provide every service to private or home schools.  Because of that, he said, NSEA has concerns regarding some of the existing statutes, such as Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 387.

 

Senator Raggio opined that section on page 9 would entitle distance education schools to receive a pro rata share normally assigned to a student, but a home‑schooled student would not receive any balance of that amount.  Mr. Bellister agreed, saying he did not see any portion of the funding going to a private school or a home school.  He reiterated the funds would be allocated to a distance school only if the regular public school could not provide a specific program on its own. 

 

Mr. Bellister said NSEA has concerns regarding the lack of specified teacher contact time, qualifications of the instructor, or the accountability or regulation of the programs.  He suggested a greater amount of regulation is necessary. 

 

Mr. Bellister said NSEA could endorse the idea of distance education under limited circumstances.  As an example, he endorsed the education of a homebound student through distance education.  Another program he approved was the use of distance education for advanced placement (AP) classes, or programs to supplement existing curriculum.  He added it would be an opportunity for teacher-professional development, but should not be wide open in which schools of this nature would offer diplomas.  He reported the most recent analysis of distance education he has read showed that Florida is using the program for low-performing schools and AP programs.  He noted Florida is spending $6.8 million, whereas S.B. 108 does not indicate the fiscal impact to the state.  He said Utah offers distance education for students who want to finish early and to supplement the regular program, but Utah is appropriating just $140,000.  He said only New Mexico has an open enrollment program at a cost of approximately $1 million in distance education, similar to that proposed in the bill.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether NSEA has amendments to offer in the event the bill is processed.  Mr. Bellister responded NSEA would offer amendments if that occurs.  Senator Raggio suggested NSEA submit amendments before the bill is considered.

 

Senator Neal asked whether the bill includes provisions regarding distance education from outside of Nevada.  Mr. Bellister replied he did not see any reference to funding students from out of state.  He added he did not see any reference to the qualifications for instructors.

 

Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, State Department of Education, reported the State Board of Education has not taken an official position on S.B. 108.  However, he noted, in concept they feel there is a need for distance education.  He said from the standpoint of the State Department of Education, there is a need to amend the statutes regarding distance education statutes and regulations.  He pointed out the bill does not apply only to White Pine County, and there will be interest in having distance educational programs approved within the state. 

 

Dr. Rheault stated the department supports the bill’s cautious approach.  However, he said, the department opposes two of the amendments stated earlier in the morning.  He said there is opposition to removing the department from the process of approving criteria. 

 

Senator Raggio asked why, since the department does not participate in the approval of criteria for brick and mortar schools.  Dr. Rheault replied that in virtual schools the course is generally purchased “off the shelf.”  He suggested the key to academic approval would be whether a course covers all of the required academic content, and if it does not, he questioned how the material would be supplemented.  He said a full review has never been made of the curriculum offered by NovaNET, and the department has simply taken their word for it.  However, he said, if it is purchased “off the shelf” he would rather be cautious.  He opined it is different when a teacher is available to answer questions.

 

Dr. Rheault said the subject of seat time needs to be addressed, but he was not sure what approach should be taken to eliminate the competency base.  He reported a school had called earlier to ask whether a diploma from White Pine County School District should be accepted.  He explained the student had earned 19 credits in 8 months, including 4 for English, 3 for science, and 3 for math, all upper level courses.  He suggested the way the bill is worded, the state would reimburse on a percentage of time, so he was unclear as to how the stated case should be reimbursed. 

 

Dr. Rheault noted the Department of Education is not hostile to distance education.  He said the perceived hostility is because there is currently nothing in the statutes that allows the department to pay for it. 

 

Dr. Rheault opined there should be statewide standards.  He noted there are models available that specify teachers must be licensed in the subject.  He recalled providing a three-page set of criteria developed by the Southern Regional Education Board in a fiscal note.  He suggested that would be a good starting point.  He said the criteria would be compared to other standards within the state, teacher credentials, how students would get access, and testing. 

 

Senator Raggio suggested the department put together amendments.  Dr. Rheault agreed to do so.

 

Mr. Shellinger took umbrage at the NSEA reference to a single incident of cheating.  He noted that incident involved an on-line student at a traditional high school, and that it was not a NovaNET or NVHS student.  He said there were five students at White Pine High School who misused the system.  He pointed out cheating exists in any kind of setting, and it is part of the educational process.  He stated children must be taught the correct way. 

 

Mr. Shellinger said a good feature of the system is the ability to track every keystroke made by a student, so abuse by any student who uses the system can be printed out and the student can be confronted with it.  He said there is a safeguard built into the system, and once a week NVHS checks to make sure the student has done the right thing. 

 

Regarding out-of-state students, Mr. Shellinger said there is no proposal for Nevada to fund them.  He said there is an NVHS student in South Carolina whose parents pay for her education.  He added that the statement regarding 19 credits in 8 months was not accurate, but it is accurate that students can earn credits at a quick pace, because the system is competency based, rather than seat-time based.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether a student could pass senior English by studying only 1 hour and 15 minutes.  Mr. Shellinger answered that is not possible.  He explained the system is set up so students take a pretest to determine what they already know, similar to what a good teacher provides.  Then, he said, a course is set up for the student, and the student must pass a series of units with an 85 percent proficiency rate.  He said there is no grade inflation because students are tested based on what they actually know.  He reiterated there is no way to receive credit for a class unless one passes the content test at 85 percent or higher.  After that happens, he said, the teacher assigns a final project and then assesses it to determine competency.

 

Mr. Shellinger noted a number of teachers were present who wanted to share their views, but in the interest of time their views are represented in a letter (Exhibit I) written by Robert Bischoff, the teacher featured in the film presentation.

 

Ms. Scholley pointed out there is nothing in the bill that provides for the State of Nevada to pay tuition for out-of-state students. 

 

Mr. Coffin reported he received four e-mail letters from residents of White Pine County in opposition to S.B. 108.  He read the names of the correspondents: Dianne Wagers, Technology Teacher; Dan and Beverly Cornutt of Ely; Holly Wilson, retired teacher; and Susan Wetmore, White Pine County. The letters are attached as Exhibit J. 

 

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 108 and opened the hearing on S.B. 109. 

 

SENATE BILL 109:  Makes appropriations relating to education. (BDR S-838)

 

Indicating she was neither advocating nor opposing the bill, Ms. Scholley explained S.B. 109 is also a product of the interim Legislative Committee on Education.  She explained Section 1 relates to the Council to Establish Academic Standards.  She said the council approved an initiative at the September 2000 meeting to fund publicity for new academic standards and student assessments.  She pointed out that the cost for the consultant’s contract to run the program was deducted from the original request, and the interim committee approved a request by the State Department of Education to fund a permanent position within its budget to conduct such promotions.  She noted the State Department of Education representative would address the status of the position in the budget. 

 

Ms. Scholley said Section 1 provides for an appropriation of $212,500 to the State Department of Education for public engagement with parents regarding the new academic standards and proficiency tests.  She stated Section 2 relates to Senate Bill 466 of the Seventieth Session.

 

SENATE BILL 466 of the Seventieth Session:  Revises provisions governing education.  (BDR 34-1247)

 

Ms. Scholley said the 1999 bill contained an appropriation of $300,000 to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) for purchase of a financial analysis model to track expenditures of individual schools.  She said IFC selected Insight from Fox River Learning, Inc., to provide information to school districts, the Department of Education, the Budget Division of the State Department of Administration, and the Legislature.  She explained the purpose of Insight is to create a more cohesive structure for financial accountability, and to provide access to spending information at the school site level for policy makers. 

 

Senator Raggio commented the committee is well acquainted with Insight.  He asked whether S.B. 109 will continue the program, and how the amount of $276,217 cited in Section 2 was calculated.  Ms. Scholley said the program will continue, and the appropriation would best be addressed by a representative from Fox River Learning, Inc.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the position included in the budget will be sufficient to handle the situation in S.B. 109.  Dr. Rheault noted a public information officer had been requested, but the position is not recommended in The Executive Budget. 

 

Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, Washoe County Assembly District No. 30, stated she was representing the Council to Establish Academic Standards.  She testified the council has been working toward development of academic standards for 3.5 years and has participated in discussions regarding implementation of the standards and development of assessments related to standards.  She reported a final set of standards was approved by the council the previous week and forwarded to the State Board of Education.

 

Ms. Smith noted the council considered the issue of public engagement and the need to inform the general public about what students are being taught.  She provided copies of Public Agenda Online (Exhibit K), a report on the public perception of standards and assessments.  During the second year of work on standards, she said, a publication was produced that was well received, but there was insufficient funding to distribute it statewide to every parent and teacher.  She indicated a portion of the appropriation in S.B. 109 would allow the contractor to successfully inform the public and educators about the standards, assessments, and accountability measures.  Ms. Smith’s testimony is attached as Exhibit L.  

 

Ms. Clark reported the Nevada PTA supports funding for public engagement as provided in S.B. 109.  She declared understanding standards and accountability factors is very important to parents and allows them to participate in their children’s education.  She encouraged the education of parents.

 

Lonnie F. Shields, Lobbyist, Washoe County Education Administrators Association, offered testimony (Exhibit M) in support of S.B. 109.  He noted the association is in favor of both Section 1 and Section 2. 

 

Dotty L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, testified the Washoe County School District Board of Trustees supports S.B. 109.  She specifically noted support for the Insight program, which she indicated was developed by Jeanne Botts when Ms. Botts worked for the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Fiscal Analysis Division, and was further developed by Ms. Botts in her capacity as Washoe County School District Chief Financial Officer. 

 

Larry Maloney, Fox River Learning, Inc., presented a financial analysis (Exhibit N), which explains the services provided by Fox River Learning, Inc.  He explained S.B. 109 will fund continuation of the services provided under the past 2-year period, and it will provide for an expansion of services to include the 8 charter schools in the state, which have not been covered to date. 

 

Mr. Maloney reiterated not only will the funds provide for continuation of services, but also the funds will provide for additional services beyond what was originally requested in the contract.  He explained a question was raised by some districts on the cost of capital and how it was affecting the financial position of the districts. He said his company now provides two different sets of reports, one including all capital, and one that does not.  He said the proposal in S.B. 109 provides for the additional report including capital. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the proposal will have to go through a request for proposal (RFP) process.  Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, responded the language is written in the bill so that either the contract can be continued or an RFP process can be utilized. 

 

Mr. Maloney noted the appropriation includes budgeted materials as part of the financial analysis, which was not covered under the original contract.  He said the appropriation would be adequate for all the services.

 

Douglas C. Thunder, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative and Fiscal Services, Department of Education, said he had prepared remarks for the record (Exhibit O) and he would briefly go over them.  He stated that the program delineated in Section 2 is not needed.  He noted the state had launched an accountability program in the 1993 Session of the Legislature, and since that time accountability reports have been submitted annually for all public schools in the state.

 

Mr. Thunder explained that part of the accountability report has been a listing and defining of resources and expenditures.  He said the expenditure categories have been defined as instructional, administrative, building operations, staff support, and student support.  He said the Insight program also provides information on local schools, although the categories are somewhat different.  He said the department has accumulated about 8 years of information, and new information gathered by Insight presents a kind of roadblock. 

 

Mr. Thunder stated the information required to formulate budgets for the Distributive School Account is not available, and the reports that districts must submit to Insight create a tremendous addition to the district workloads at a time when they should be submitting their annual audit report information and reports required by NRS 387.303. 

 

Senator Raggio inquired whether that criticism was made by the districts.  Mr. Thunder replied that it was.  He declared virtually all the districts have indicated that the time requirement is grave at that time of year.  He added districts also indicate they have been unable to make use of the reports they have received because the reports did not provide useful information.

 

Senator Raggio recalled that one of the incentives to instituting the program was to get information faster.  He remembered a demonstration that impressed the committee with its ability to deliver information on short notice.  He noted there was lag time on receiving information through conventional means.  Mr. Thunder responded that he would have to verify the time between the collection and publication of information regarding accountability reports.  He said comparable data regarding statistics relating to schools from other states is not available for at least 1½ to 2 years after the fact, because it takes that long for the national organizations to get the information in, processed, and validated. 

 

Senator Raggio requested that Mr. Maloney, the representative of Fox River Learning, Inc., reply to the committee in written form as soon as possible, and furnish the Department of Education with a copy.

 

Senator Mathews asked where Fox River Learning, Inc., is located.  Mr. Maloney replied the home office is in Pennsylvania and there are individuals in several states, including Illinois, Minnesota, and Washington, D.C. 

 

SENATE BILL 140:  Revises provisions and makes appropriations regarding educational personnel. (BDR 34-347)

 

Senator Raggio noted S.B. 140 was drafted in response to a request from Clark County.  Dr. Rice spoke in support of the bill.  She said three revisions to the statutes encompassed in S.B. 140 deal with the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.  She said during the last session of the Legislature a bill was passed giving salary increases to teachers who earn certification from the board.  She reported 24 teachers earned the certification this year, another 40 are going through the process right now, and 81 have expressed interest in the process for next year. 

 

Dr. Rice stated Sections 1 and 2 of the bill that passed in the 1999 session provide that 5 percent must be added to the salary of every teacher who becomes so certified, but the teachers had to report to their district by September 15 if they passed the national board certification.  She said the board does not complete grading until December, so none of the teachers in Clark County have been able to qualify for the additional salary.  Therefore, she said, S.B. 140 requests that the date be moved to January 31, and it asks that those salaries be paid retroactively.

 

Senator Raggio commented Section 1, subsection 2(g) on page 2, provides for the boards of trustees to submit reports by February 15 to the superintendent indicating the number of teachers to whom the retroactive payments should be made.  He noted Section 2, subsection 2 on page 3, changes the date of reporting certification from September 15 to January 15.  Dr. Rice added that section also allows retroactive payment. 

 

Dr. Rice drew attention to Section 3, which requests that a General Fund appropriation be increased to support teachers who are enrolled in programs to earn certification.  She said last session the Legislature provided $10,000 each year of the biennium to support 10 teachers statewide, and S.B. 140 requests the sum be increased to $500,000 to allow the state to support 250 teachers over the 2-year period.  She added it will require all teachers to pay $300 each when they register, and if they continue through December when final fees are due, the state would pay $2,000 for each teacher. 

 

Senator Raggio asked how many teachers are likely to apply for the program.  Dr. Rice answered it is very likely that 250 teachers will apply over the period if they do not have to worry about the second payment of $2,000.  She said that in addition to 81 teachers in Clark County who have already expressed interest, the rural areas and Washoe County have had good response.

 

Dr. Rice opened the Clark County School District handout (Exhibit E) to page 2, which notes that 70 percent of Clark County teachers are recruited from other states.  She noted Section 4 and Section 5 of S.B. 140 seek help through incentives and local programs to resolve the recruitment problem.  She explained the number of licensed personnel in Clark County has increased from 4,369 employed in 1980 to 13,451 licensed personnel in September 2000.  She cited the present crisis in recruiting efforts.  Calling attention to recruiting efforts by other states depicted in Exhibit E, she noted Hawaii has appropriated $37 million for 370 special education teachers, a rate of $100,000 per teacher, including payments to recruiting firms. 

 

Dr. Rice asserted that recruitment by other states is affecting Nevada.  She said customarily, from November through February, Clark County interviews prospective teachers, which last year included 480, but this year the figure dropped to 324.  She said that a year ago, in March, 270 candidates were interviewed in person, but this year only 138 are scheduled, including telephone interviews. 

 

Dr. Rice added that universities are questioning what Clark County can offer their graduates.  She said the county goes to 32 states to recruit, but 4 trips have been reduced from 2 days to 1 day, and 4 trips have been cancelled due to lack of applicant interest. 

 

Dr. Rice stated S.B. 140 requests funding for “grow-your-own” programs, which she declared have been very successful.  Drawing attention to Section 4, she said:

 

That allows us to . . . take our own support staff, who have been taking classes for years to become teachers, and either to pay their tuition, their books, or to pull them out of their jobs and to have them go to school full time. 

 

Dr. Rice reported 60 support staff have completed 60 hours of core classes going to school full time under a special program developed by UNLV.  She said Clark County now has 60 special education teachers that it would not have had without the program.  She reiterated her request for support in S.B. 140, including funds for signing bonuses or stipends for high-need areas. 

 

Senator Raggio drew attention to Exhibit E, which specifies the requests presented in Section 4 and Section 5 of the bill.  Dr. Rice explained the county pared down requests in the bill to what probably would suffice for the time being.  Senator Raggio noted the stipend is limited to $1,500, which Dr. Rice explained would be used for moving allowances or stipends for teaching high-need areas.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether Clark County is the only school district experiencing difficulty recruiting teachers.  Dr. Rice responded she was not sure about Washoe County, but Humboldt County is reducing the teaching force by 16, and Clark County has arranged to go interview there and has agreed it will not hire away more than 16 teachers.  She said another arrangement has been made to conduct interviews to hire no more than the 4 teachers that Lander County must cut, and Pershing County is being watched as another source for some teachers.  She concluded most of the rural counties do not have the crisis regarding teachers.

 

Senator Raggio observed that several people in the audience appeared to be signaling that Washoe County is not experiencing the same difficulty as Clark County.  Dr. Rice interjected that Clark County is seeking 1,600 new teachers for the coming year.

 

Ms. Cahill voiced support for S.B. 140, especially in regard to changing the date for reporting national board certification, and the retroactive pay for those teachers. 

 

Senator Raggio inquired whether anyone in the audience would be unable to return another day to testify on Senate Bill 142 or Senate Bill 147, primarily impacting Washoe County.  He announced he would reschedule the hearings, but agreed to hear testimony from those who would be unable to return.

 

SENATE BILL 142:  Makes appropriation to Washoe County School District for creation of pilot program to expand kindergarten instruction at selected elementary schools. (BDR S-456)

 

SENATE BILL 147:  Makes appropriation to Washoe County School District for pilot program to increase educational opportunities for pupils enrolled in junior high schools, middle schools and high schools. (BDR S-457)

 

Sharon Rogers, Member, Success by Six Statewide Coalition; Member, Nevada Association for the Education of Young Children, spoke from written testimony (Exhibit P).  She reported the organizations she represents support S.B. 142.  She stated she was an early childhood education consultant with the Nevada Department of Education and with the Department of Human Resources for the past 20 years, and during those years she noticed many problems regarding appropriate kindergarten education.  She asserted public policy did not keep up as the culture changed.  She noted there are many kindergarten teachers who have 30 to 35 children in a class, and outstanding teachers are requesting transfers to first grade in which they may only have 15 or 16 children.

 

Ms. Rogers stated many parents of kindergartners seek child care near the school, which may not be of high quality.  She said many parents have had to spend their own funds for all-day, private kindergartens.  She acknowledged it would be very costly to provide longer days, smaller classes, better physical facilities, classroom assistance, two-way transportation, and age-appropriate curriculum for kindergarten.  However, she said,  “Washoe County School District is proposing a model that could set the stage for wide-spread kindergarten reform in a future legislative session.”

 

Ms. Rogers said support for S.B. 142 will focus attention on kindergarten quality.

 

Senator Raggio announced S.B. 142 and S.B. 147 would most likely be rescheduled for Friday, March 23.  He suggested those present wishing to testify on Senate Bill 148 discuss the measure among themselves while the committee attended floor session, after which he said the hearing would reconvene for 15 to 20 minutes.  So stating, at 10:52 a.m. he recessed the hearing until immediately following the floor session.

 

Senator Raggio called the meeting back to order at 12:01 p.m. 

 

SENATE BILL 148:  Makes various changes regarding educational personnel. (BDR 34-219)

 

Senator Raggio indicated S.B. 148 was requested on behalf of the Legislative Committee on Education.  He asked Ms. Scholley to present an overview.

 

Ms. Scholley testified S.B. 148 contains four primary components.  She said the bill will provide funds to continue a program to assist teachers studying for their National Board of Professional Teaching Standards certification, it changes the deadline for submitting evidence of certification, and it provides for retroactive pay.  She acknowledged the measure is very similar to S.B. 140.  She noted Sections 2, 6, 11, and 12 relate to professional teaching standards.

 

Ms. Scholley said the bill also relates to regional professional development programs, a continuation of a program established during the last legislative session.  She explained it provides for four regional programs, and it includes an evaluation component in Sections 8 and 9.  She noted the amounts of the appropriation are set forth in Section 8. 

 

Ms. Scholley said the third component, found in Section 10,  relates to provision for an additional day for professional development, requested by the Council to Establish Academic Standards, at a cost of $14.8 million to add one extra day to the school year.

 

Ms. Scholley reported the final component offers various amendments to the statutes to provide for flexibility in licensing to address teacher shortages.  She explained one of two subcomponents found in Section 4 would allow the state superintendent to license teachers from out of the country who are here on temporary visas.  Another subcomponent, she said, found in Section 2, provides for emergency exemption from specific licensure requirements for a period not to exceed 2 years, to be authorized by the state superintendent.

 

Senator Rawson said it should be possible to add one day to the school year at a cost of $5 million, rather than $14.8 million.  He asked for clarification.  Ms. Braun responded that she believed the fiscal note was developed by Doug Thunder of the State Department of Education.  Senator Raggio requested that Ms. Braun check with Mr. Thunder for clarification.

 

Roy J. Casey, Assistant Superintendent, Douglas County School District, Western Regional Professional Development Program, said he represented not only the western region, but also all four regions of the state listed in Section 8.  He offered strong support for S.B. 148, especially Section 8 calling for funding and continuation of regional programs.  He said he also represents other coordinators from the region and governance boards in endorsing professional development. 

 

Mr. Casey declared a recent report from LCB provides the first comprehensive evaluation of the regional professional development programs (PDP).  He explained the report identifies areas that need improvement.  He declared additional funding over the next 2 years should provide sufficient information to commence implementation of some of the recommendations. 

 

Mr. Casey asked for assurance the funding can be expedited, because there are activities scheduled to occur in the month of July, and staff is scheduled to continue with their services for those activities.  Senator Raggio asked which portion of the funding should be expedited.  Mr. Casey replied that he was referring to activities funded under Section 8. 

 

Senator Neal said Section 8 attracted his attention because it appears to take funds from the Distributive School Account.  He asked why that would be necessary, since it would be removed from other programs.  Mr. Casey acknowledged he was not certain, but he stated it was funded from the DSA after the last session of the Legislature when it was created as part of that budget.  He reiterated it is not currently an additional reduction of the DSA.

 

Dr. Rice endorsed Section 4, explaining it will not cost the state anything from the General Fund.  She noted Clark County is limited right now to hiring those teachers who are citizens or permanent resident aliens.  She explained the provision will allow the district to seek those who could come into the country under an H-1b visa, which allows temporary employment for professionals.  She said the county would have to obtain the H-1b visas, and employees could only stay for 6 years, but she opined 6 years would seem like “a lifetime” in the recruitment effort.  She said it would allow the district to recruit special education teachers from Canada, or bi-lingual speech pathologist, psychologist, and special education teachers from Mexico.  She said that would address the alien status of people who meet all of the other licensure requirements.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether Dr. Rice could estimate the number of teachers to be attracted on a temporary basis.  Dr. Rice responded Chicago was granted 50 H‑1b visas by the Department of Immigration and Naturalization in cooperation with the Department of Labor.  Senator Raggio asked whether it has been difficult to obtain those visas.  Dr. Rice replied areas that have been successful were able to obtain the visas through political connections, and Chicago has offered to show Clark County how to go through the process.  It has also been done in New York City, which has recruited math teachers from Austria, she said.  She added that, in North Dakota, Minot University focuses on special education teachers, but Clark County does not even go there to recruit any more because 80 to 90 percent of the students are from Canada.

 

Senator Neal asked whether recruiting teachers from foreign countries would result in improvement.  Dr. Rice responded that the improvement would come about from the district’s ability to use the foreign teachers in place of substitutes.  She said even though the district would like to find teachers who would stay for 20 years or more, the foreign teachers would only be able to stay for 6 years; thus the recruitment would not be “instead of” others, but would enable the district to employ fully qualified people when others cannot be found. 

 

Dr. Rice remarked the district is also seeking a change in the laws concerning the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) to enable recruitment of qualified retired teachers.  Senator Neal asked whether it would be inappropriate to classify the action as a stop-gap measure.  Dr. Rice replied that is exactly what it is.

 

Senator Mathews asked whether other English-speaking countries will be considered in addition to Canada.  Dr. Rice answered that her recruiting budget is a total of $164,000 including funds for advertising, and only the nearest countries will be contacted. 

 

Senator Mathews asked whether the district recruits from the 13 black colleges in the nation.  Dr. Rice responded that recruiters are sent to various campuses, and last year four people from placement offices from those colleges were brought to Las Vegas.  She explained the expenses were paid for deans from the college of education and the placement officers of those four colleges.  She said the district paid for another three student teachers from Florida A & M University to perform their student teaching in Clark County in the hope that would open doors, but not one came back as a full teacher because their families were in Florida. 

 

Senator O’Donnell noted the number of Hispanic persons in the country has increased by 35 million.  He asked what is being done to recruit Hispanic teachers who speak English.  Dr. Rice replied that part of the analysis of looking for teachers has included reviews of every college that has a certain percentage of Hispanics in their education departments.  Those colleges are targeted, she said, as venues to look for Hispanic candidates. 

 

Dr. Rice added the district uses an alternative route to licensure in which it combs the community to seek people who are bilingual who have college degrees, and through the alternative route they are brought into the classroom.  She stated that over 75 teachers have been brought in through that process.  She said a portion of the funds requested in S.B. 140 would be used to seek support staff members who are totally bilingual.  She reiterated the desire to recruit people from Mexico who already have the credentials in some hard-to-fill areas.

 

Dr. Rice said the limited budget prevents the district from going to as many colleges as it would otherwise, so the district has obtained the e-mail addresses of every college, placement office, and dean of education, and has sent them personalized messages informing them that Clark County is interested in recruiting their students.  She added presentations have been made via videoconferencing.

 

 

 

 

Teresa Jordan, Associate Dean, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, representative to the Southern Nevada Regional Professional Development Program, testified in support of Senate Bill 148.  She presented proposed amendments (Exhibit Q), which she described as technical in nature.  She endorsed the request for quick allocation of the funds to enable the school to provide summer programs already in place without disrupting the teaching allocations.

 

Senator Raggio stated he has asked staff to investigate the potential of using some of the funding set aside in The Executive Budget for professional development.  He indicated a portion of the funding might be accelerated, but he offered no guarantee. 

 

Dr. Rheault testified the Department of Education supports S.B. 148.  However, he said, he had one technical point to raise regarding Section 2.  He explained it would spell out exceptions to teachers.  He presented a copy of part of the NevadaAdministrative Code (NAC) (Exhibit R), which he explained has already been adopted by the Commission on Professional Standards.  He said it is virtually identical to what is being requested in the bill.  He pointed out the language can be found under  “Secondary Licenses: Exception.” 

 

Dr. Rheault said school districts currently can hire teachers who teach outside of their fields through regulation if there is a shortage.  He explained the only difference is that currently a teacher who objects to teaching out of his or her field will not be required to do so for more than one year.  He said the department maintains a list of teachers with secondary licenses teaching out of field every year; so, he opined, Section 2 may not be needed unless there is a feeling the regulations are not adequate. 

 

Dr. Rheault stated the appropriate section starts at NAC 391.146 and goes through NAC 391.158.  He added he supports recruiting foreign teachers for the state.  He said Canadians currently cannot get licenses, although they can get work permits.  He noted that for some reason Canadians cannot obtain permanent resident status.  He opined they are very well trained, yet they cannot be licensed in Nevada.  He said it has been necessary to reject several that are already living in Nevada.  He stated the bill would resolve the problem with respect to the Canadians.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether Dr. Rheault could respond to the issue in Section 8 that Senator Neal questioned regarding the authorized transfer of funds from the DSA.  Dr. Rheault replied that as far as he knew it was funded from the DSA account and later transferred to the four regions.

 

Mr. Hanlon interjected that the funding was a special allocation that went through the DSA last session.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator Raggio adjourned the hearing at 12:20 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Judy Jacobs

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

 

 

DATE: