MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-First Session
March 5, 2001
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, March 5, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Valerie Wiener
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Cynthia Cook, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dottie L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Ed Gobel, Lobbyist, Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations
John L. Wagner, Lobbyist, Nevada Republican Assembly
Hugh Richins, Concerned Citizen
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Linda West Meyers, Concerned Citizen
Juanita Clark, Concerned Citizen
Raymond Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
George Ann Rice, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Division, Clark County School District
Frank Brusa, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators
Laura Dancer, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Division, Washoe County School District
Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education
Ricci Elkins, Lobbyist, Alliance for Children’s Educational Excellence
SENATE BILL 165: Makes various changes regarding education. (BDR 34-218)
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
Senate Bill (S.B.)165 includes five major recommendations by the interim Legislative Committee on Education. The chairman of the interim committee, Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, requested that I prepare a summary of the recommendations (Exhibit C). The bill includes five major categories. These topics include the accountability panel reports for schools needing improvement, adult and alternative education, the “hold harmless” clause of the Nevada Plan for School Finance, test administration deadlines, and courses of study in American history and government. All findings and recommendations of the panel must be made with the goal of improving student achievement. Adult and alternative education includes several recommendations of the task force, including certain technical, clean-up provisions. Currently, districts experiencing significant enrollment declines have a 1-year hold harmless provision that authorizes districts to base the guaranteed level of funding for the current year upon the previous year’s enrollment. The bill recommends 1 extra year for the hold harmless provision. Technical changes were requested by the Nevada Department of Education regarding certain statewide proficiency examinations. The Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools asked that statues be further revised to align current core subject requirements with the state academic standards.
Chairman Rawson:
There are some proposed amendments. Do you want to review those?
Mr. Sturm:
Senator William J. Raggio has submitted proposed technical amendments for consideration (Exhibit D). The proposed amendments include the removal of eligibility for remediation funds for schools deemed to be needing improvement solely by reason of poor attendance, and also to include teacher professional development efforts in school and district accountability reports.
Senator Wiener:
How does the remediation process work?
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
Schools that are designated in need of improvement, based upon low academic achievement, are eligible under current law for state funding to purchase state approved remediation. There is a list of programs available, and schools select from the list. State funding is available to implement the programs.
Senator Wiener:
I notice there is a provision for parental involvement in section 3 of the bill. Does this address the concerns of other legislation previously heard by this committee?
Mr. Sturm:
Not as fully as the proposed bill, but it does provide that the panel report include some information on parental involvement.
Senator Wiener:
Would that be a general level of participation of the school community or would it be more specific to each parent?
Ms. Braun:
I believe this provision was put in based upon Nevada’s accountability program. Parental participation at parent-teacher conferences is one of the areas to be reported on.
Senator Wiener:
In section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (a) of the bill, the age is changed from 16 to 17. Yet section 4, subsection 2, paragraph (b) states, “Is at least 16 years of age but less than 17 years of age.” Would you please explain the difference?
Mr. Sturm:
I will have to check with bill drafting on this, and will get to the committee with the answer.
Dottie L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District:
I would like to offer a suggestion in section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (d), subparagraph (5). It states the panel shall set forth the duties of each person who is responsible for carrying out the revisions. It would be appropriate for the panel to work with the local school district to do this.
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education:
We support all of the programs identified in the bill, sections 4 through 15. We do have concerns about sections 1 through 3. In our staff review, we believe a lot of the requirements already exist in the reports submitted by the schools. For example, section 3 of the bill identifies reports required to provide information. That information is provided in the school accountability reports for each of the schools. The panel, as a separate document, looked at that and we feel spelling it out again is redundant. If the committee has never seen a final report, we would be glad to provide it to the committee, so you can see the information included.
We have had inquiries asking why are we recommending dropping history and government. That is not the intent, this request is really a clean-up. The bill spells out what the students must know in history and government.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
We are not precisely opposed to S.B. 165. There are some good things in this bill. Page 12 of the bill, concerning American history and government, is of grave concern to us. The bill changes the requirements for a full year of American history and government. The bill also deletes specific attention to the Constitution or American institutions and ideals. There is no assurance how much of these will be taught, and there is no assurance that any of these things will be addressed in elementary school at all. The term, “social studies,” is a bit of a problem; it does not specify anything. American government and history could get completely lost.
The other area of concern is on page 6 which deals with the General Educational Development (GED). The change here gives local control for ages 16 and 17, and puts it with the state board for age 17 and above. It makes no sense. If there is going to be a government entity involved, it should be consistent. We would prefer the decision to rest with the parent.
Chairman Rawson:
There was a discussion last session about adding the Federalist Papers. In your comments about the Constitution and so forth, you would allow for that?
Ms. Lusk:
Certainly.
Ed Gobel, Lobbyist, Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations:
The organization is in favor of this bill. We have submitted an amendment to suggest the following: in section 9, on page 12, line 16 after Constitution of the United States, insert the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the essence of the Federalist Papers. Section 10, on page 12, line 26 we would like the bill to read “The instruction required by this section must include the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the essence of the Federalist Papers as a part of a course in social studies.”
Chairman Rawson:
We have your suggested amendment and will consider it in work session.
John L. Wagner, Lobbyist, Nevada Republican Assembly:
We are concerned about sections 9 and 10 of the bill. Mr. Gobel expressed our concerns.
Hugh Richins, Concerned Citizen:
As a veteran of World War II, I originally opposed S.B. 165 because it is too general. I believe it is important we know all we can about American history and the Constitution. With the suggested changes, I can support the bill.
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum:
We are concerned about page 4. Are the teachers actually teaching, or are substitutes being used too many times? Are these excuses for failures rather than remedies for success? We also have the same concerns as Mr. Gobel concerning sections 9 and 10.
Chairman Rawson:
We will ask that rather than go over the concerns, you would just express your support of the suggested changes.
Linda West Meyers, Concerned Citizen:
We must educate our children about the blessings of liberty. New citizens of our country need to be taught our way of life. I support the bill with the amendment suggested by Mr. Gobel. I request consideration be given to adding an additional credit for graduation requirements for the study of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers.
Juanita Clark, Concerned Citizen:
I support the amendment by Mr. Gobel, and concur with Ms. Lusk regarding elementary school education for American history. The term, “social studies,” is a meaningless phrase. I have a concern about page 12, line 15, and the phrase “essentials of the Constitution of the United States.” This can be open for misinterpretation, and the Constitution should be taught, not just the essentials. The same line should include the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the essence of the Federalist Papers.
Chairman Rawson:
We will schedule S.B. 165 for work session, and I would like to remind those here there is a bill coming that will appropriate $40,000 for the teaching of some of these papers. We will open the hearing on S.B. 168.
SENATE BILL 168: Establishes system of classification for licensure of teachers. (BDR 34-737)
Chairman Rawson:
For more than a decade, we have been looking at strengthening education. There has been $572 million spent to date, and the changes have not been dramatic. Few things are more important than education, and good teachers matter. When we talk about putting significant money into education, the debate often comes back to paying teachers more. If we put $200 million into education, 90 percent of it goes into salaries; but we do not get any reform or change for this. There are a few things we can accomplish. For example, $100 million could add 20 days to the school year. For $185 million, we could add 2 hours to the school day. For $200 million, we could develop a system of teacher enhancement. This establishes multiple career paths with advancement within and between positions. It assures the high quality of teachers through criteria for licensing: general teacher, mentor teacher, and master teacher. The program furthers the process started by the formation of the Professional Standards in Education in 1987, and continues the work of the Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997. According to studies cited by the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, The Education Trust, The Milken Foundation, and others, teacher quality is the single most important factor in improving teacher performance. Teaching does not command the respect it really deserves.
The critical issues faced by all states are how to attract, train, and retain qualified teachers. Nationally, we will need 2.45 million new teachers by the end of the decade, but we will be 900,00 (or one-third) short. It is almost universal among the states that the lowest paid school administrators earn more than the highest paid teachers, so teachers must leave the profession to earn better salaries. Yet, at the same time, research shows us that every dollar spent improving teacher quality results in greater student achievement, significantly more than money spent on any other education resource.
Teacher compensation has not changed in the past 50 years. It is based on years of service and educational attainment. Average starting salaries are lower than comparable college graduates, and other professions typically earn 75 percent more than teachers.
Follow the handbook (Exhibit E) on page 3, which shows teachers make a profound difference. Pages 4 and 5 present graphics showing relationships between effective teachers and student scores.
Basically, this plan is a work in process, and I am going to require the committee to help develop this. Certainly we want input from the public sector and the education sector. The structure, as planned to date, would be as follows: associate teacher, an initial licensed employee; general or post-probationary teacher; mentor teacher (20 percent or less of teachers employed); and master teacher (10 percent or less of teachers employed). Post-probationary teachers licensed prior to July 1, 2002, would deemed to be general teachers. The salary schedule is tied to the designation of the teacher.
There are some mentor teachers presently, and there will be no attempt to take back what has been achieved. Basically, this addresses an antiquated compensation system. There are steps within every rank. The long-term goal would be to have a number of states join in this, and we would have a portability of credentials. For now there would be portability within the state. I would like to stress there has to be objective criteria for this. The driving force is the implication we will have teachers of a higher quality. S.B. 168 creates a situation where there is a natural professional growth. New teachers could be assigned to mentor teachers. Master teachers could be set aside as teacher developers and trainers. When we finally decide if this bill should move, then we can develop an accurate fiscal note. There is no question if the bill is to proceed, it will have to go to the finance committee.
I return to the idea we will inevitably give teachers raises, if not this year, the next year or the following year. We cannot go any significant time without raises. We should all keep in mind what will we be buying for those raises. The goodwill of the teachers is important, but would it not be better to spend the money where we can make a change in the system?
Senator Wiener:
Could a person apply for both mentor and master at the same time?
Chairman Rawson:
I do not see anything to preclude that. A teacher could possibly skip to a higher position.
Senator Washington:
If a teacher moves in from out of state and has credentials to be mentor or master, would they have to go through the same qualifications to receive that salary benefit?
Chairman Rawson:
We can hire in the higher range presently, but a teacher must go through a probationary period. If the credentials look great, there needs to be a way to deal with potential problems with a probationary period. The Commission on Professional Standards in Education can determine these issues.
Senator Washington:
What policies can we, as a committee, set to aid this legislation?
Chairman Rawson:
I think the better it is defined, the more realistic the fiscal note will be. This is more than a skeleton bill, but it does not have all the leaves on it yet. If we can define it, it will be helpful. I have not yet addressed the issue of what standards ought to be. We may want to give some direction to the Commission on Professional Standards in Education. Some of the issues need to be developed on a local level, but there needs to be enough standardization so that if a teacher transfers from one county to another, the classification will follow.
Senator Washington:
If time does not permit working out these issues, would you be agreeable to working through them during the interim with the Legislative Committee on Education?
Chairman Rawson:
There is no question that if this turns out to be too big to simply throw over to the Commission on Professional Standards in Education, it can studied during the interim. We are starting here with the concept.
Senator Townsend:
You put a lot of work into this, and there is value in the generation of dialogue. With the growth, particularly in Southern Nevada, in overall population, we should consider people who have come to our state who could be interested in working 1, 2, or 3 hours per day. They may possess degrees from other states. Also, the issue of persons with certain technical experience who have come to our state, there might be opportunities here also, using this program. This just generates so much potential. It might be worth noting, if this is not triggered at a time when the money is available, it will give the parties time to work on this.
Chairman Rawson:
We set policy all the time when we really do not have the money to implement it. I would not want to see us getting into a situation where the funding is not there to create a policy. If we were to really embark on this, I think a timetable needs to be set and there will be a time when it is funded. We may have to turn it over to the districts and the state boards, and have a report before the final fiscal notes are determined. One thing is sure, whether this session or next, there will be raises that will spend the same amount of money, and we have to ask ourselves, “What will we get for that money?”
Raymond Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association:
The association supports the concept of the bill, with serious reservations about the details. We are still a couple of years away from our standards being fully implemented and this may be premature. Nevada is not yet prepared to create these new levels. Those who are not effective mentors need an exit strategy to return to a normal position. A definition of what is expected is needed, so there is no conflict between mentor and administrators. We suggest this bill be turned into a specific task for the interim education committee to handle or to delegate to a special committee to form recommendations, so that we have a defined program and complete bill ready for the 2003 Legislative Session.
Senator Washington:
In the Tennessee project (Tennessee STAR Class-Size Study), did they implement their standards and accountability at the same time they were looking at teacher classification?
Mr. Bacon:
My recollection is they did Knox County first, and then Chattanooga County. The first through fifth grade testing in five subjects was in place for at least 1 year. The methodology was rather complex, in that the new students and transfer students are not included. We do not have the capability to help our teachers in that manner.
Senator Washington:
We have also instituted the regional teacher training centers. Would that not be a place to study statistics that would be helpful?
Mr. Bacon:
Absolutely. We may wind up with some schools in the “needs improvement” category where we do not have any master or mentor teachers. If you are going to embark upon this program, we probably need to include a criterion that assigns mentors and master teachers to those areas most in need help.
Senator Washington:
That is a policy change which can be done. I am just trying to pull out the anecdotal information that you are requesting without expanding the timeline 2 or 3 years while we are awaiting the data.
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
We support S.B. 168, linking pay to skills and knowledge. This provides a positive impact on student achievement. Currently the system does not reward talented teachers, and this bill will provide an incentive for them to remain in teaching and make our state more competitive. We believe there should be more involvement of all the stakeholders, including those at the local level. We recommend there be adequate and ongoing funding for this measure.
Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
The district supports S.B. 168, and we agree with the testimony of Mr. Bellister.
Dr. George Ann Rice, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Division, Clark County School District:
I speak in support of S.B. 168. The district believes this bill will be a tremendous help in recruiting and retention efforts. In Clark County, our schools have unprecedented growth. In September of 1980, we employed 4369 licensed personnel. In 1990 the figure was 6487. In September of 2000, our licensed employees totaled 13,451. We are now experiencing a crisis in our recruiting efforts that we have never encountered before. Reasons for this include our salaries, which are no longer competitive, lack of incentives, and the nationwide teacher shortage. Last year we were able to hire a total of 2300 licensed personnel, and 2090 for the current year. In November, we schedule mass interviews. There were 480 applicants last year, and 324 this year. We interview every day in our office starting in March and have added phone interviews. We have reduced our career fair participation from 80 to 36 because of poor results. At fairs, we sit next to competitors who are now offering much better packages. This year, Louisiana State University issued a questionnaire about the incentives we have to offer. We answered no or none to all the questions. We have shortened our out-of-state recruitment trips to four trips for lack of applicant interest. Retirements and resignations continue to affect the shortage. We support this bill, which rewards effective teachers. We believe it will help in our efforts to recruit, hire, and retain the best teachers.
Frank Brusa, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators:
We support the restructuring of teacher pay in the state, and will work to help in any way possible.
Ms. Merrill:
The board of trustees, Washoe County School District, has taken no position on this bill, because of the unfunded mandate.
Laura Dancer, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Division, Washoe County School District:
Senate Bill 168 creates numerous opportunities to retain teachers. It allows experienced and skilled teachers to use their talents in a new way, and provides a challenge for those desiring to stay in teaching, rather than going into administration. The structure for pay is one that creates a bit of discrepancy with that of our administrators, and this may have a chilling affect on attracting administrators.
Chairman rawson:
That is not explained well in the bill, but I see each level as being the average, and so you have a spread at each level.
Ms. Dancer:
That will alleviate some of the concerns we have had. We would like to work with the committee on teacher quality and teacher retention.
Chairman Rawson:
In general terms, how many teachers are hired in Washoe County, and how many does the university in Reno graduate each year?
Ms. Dancer:
Five hundred teachers were hired this year, and we generally bring in 60 percent of our teachers from the university.
Chairman Rawson:
I think we face different problems in different parts of the state. I was just curious how much we need to increase the level in the north in order to meet all of your needs.
Senator Wiener:
Is it correct that 70 percent of our teachers in Clark County come from out of state because we cannot meet the demand, whereas in Washoe County 60 percent of the teachers are locally educated?
Ms. Rice:
Correct.
Chairman Rawson:
Did you use the figure, 1700, that you will hire this year?
Ms. Rice:
We are estimating that beginning in September, we will need between 1500 and 1700 new teachers.
Senator Mathews:
If you are looking at teachers moving laterally, and not having to go into administration, would that not address the equity position? If you are rewarding them where they are, it should be equal to what an administrator makes.
Chairman Rawson:
Good point, and some teachers may prefer the administrative track, and that is fine.
Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education:
The state board is supportive of this bill, and whatever we can do to help in this effort, you may count on us.
Ricci Elkins, Lobbyist, Alliance for Children’s Educational Excellence:
Senate Bill 168 has great potential. We are concerned about sections 6 and 7. It is important that charter schools have some fiduciary control, and the way the bill reads, teachers in charter schools would be excluded. We would like the committee to consider a way to provide options for the teachers in charter schools.
Chairman Rawson:
In drafting the bill, we did not want to cause problems for the charter schools. This is something that could be addressed by the standards commission.
Ms. Lusk:
Speaking on behalf of myself, I believe it is important that taxpayers and parents are considered in the decision making process. If the professional standards commission is the body to consider this, there should be open hearings.
Chairman Rawson:
I am going to close hearings on S.B. 168, and proceed with committee introductions of nine bill draft requests (BDRs).
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-200: Makes various changes concerning responses to certain crises involving violence on school property, at school activities or on school buses. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 289.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-182: Creates public corporation to establish and operate program of services for medically indigent population of Clark County. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 290.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 18-1231: Makes various changes relating to emergency management. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 306.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-198: Urges and encourages various persons, organizations, agencies, governmental entities and educational institutions to take certain actions to promote school safety and reduce juvenile violence. (Later introduced as Senate Concurrent Resolution 18.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-199: Makes various changes concerning reporting and investigation of certain violent or sexual offenses committed on school property, on school buses or at school activities. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 291.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-382: Makes various changes regarding charter schools. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 292.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-816: Makes appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety to create a centralized database for dental records within Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 293.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-1161: Revises provisions governing calculation of basic support. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 294.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-263: Makes various changes regarding public schools and pupils. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 305.)
SENATOR SCHNEIDER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 34-200, BDR S-182, BDR 18-1231, BDR R-198, BDR 34-199, BDR 34-382, BDR S-816, BDR 34-1161, and BDR 34-263.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson:
The meeting is adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cynthia Cook,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: