MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
February 17, 2003
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:52 p.m., on Monday, February 17, 2003. Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
Mr. William Horne, Vice Chairman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Garn Mabey
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. Bob McCleary
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst
Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada
Chairman Williams asked for roll to be called and it was determined that all Committee members were present. He then introduced Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), who attended the meeting to give a report on the University and Community College System of Nevada Master Plan.
Dr. Nichols introduced herself and briefly described her presentation “Building Nevada’s Future: A Master Plan for Higher Education in Nevada” (Exhibit C). She spoke on what was needed to be prepared for the future. They developed a plan through a process that involved:
Dr. Nichols estimated they had developed six or seven versions before they arrived at one that had the support, not only of the University and Community College community, but also of parents and business leaders. She pointed out that, within this plan, the goals placed emphasis on economic development in Nevada; diversity and the changing face of Nevada in relation to diversity; and K-12, or what was termed “P-16 partnerships”.
Dr. Nichols emphasized the goals and targets the Committee would hear about which would meet the needs of all Nevadans if achieved. She described certain principles that were followed in the preparation of this report, such as the limited state revenue Nevada had in order to support higher education, which she felt was evident with our tax structure and the population growth in this state, and the Millennium Scholarship.
Dr. Nichols asked the Committee to consider the pressures placed on the state by the Millennium Scholarship, which guaranteed that any student with a 3.0 grade point average or higher could go to college. The state had a 37 percent rate of high school students that went on to college and the fastest-growing population in the nation. All of this ensured budget problems. She believed the Millennium Scholarship was an extraordinary act of courage, but also guaranteed a burden on the state revenue structure. She saw a potential crisis in demand for educated young people and adults in the growth in state population and the need for a more educated workforce.
Dr. Nichols described the demand for educated workers, such as nurses, teachers, engineers, and those skilled in technology, being echoed by businesses in this state. She realized, in putting this plan together, that resources must be used cost-effectively and efficiently, and higher education institutions would need to work together collaboratively to achieve this plan.
Dr. Nichols remarked that, in many states, the principle for higher education was competition, which many thought was the best model for higher education. However, in a state with limited resources, it was decided that the competitive model was not affordable; a model was necessary which would encourage the collaboration of all our institutions and avoid duplication of programs for students.
Dr. Nichols asked that the Committee look at pages 17 and 18 of the Master Plan (Exhibit D), which differed from the printed version of the slide presentation. She wanted the members to have a sense of the setting in which the report was written. She began with option one, which was described as “capturing” more high school students to realize a 77 percent increase by the year 2011. This option would hold all programs constant with inflation growth, except those that were enrollment-driven. The cost for Nevada would then be scrutinized. She pointed out the state’s share of costs in the year 2011, just for enrollment growth, would be $769.4 million, as compared with $344.7 million in the year 2001. She stressed that if the pieces did not fall into place, option two or option three would be reviewed.
Option two would maintain the current level of participation according to Dr. Nichols, which was approximately a 42 percent college-going rate. At that level of participation, there would be a 26 percent increase in involvement by the year 2011. The state’s share of cost, in this scenario, would grow from $345.8 million to $565.1 million.
Dr. Nichols described option three as the worst-case scenario in which the state could not afford to have more students going to college and could not accommodate the growth in the state. The scenario of enrollment caps, which assumed no enrollment growth, through inflation only, would increase the cost for higher education by 2011 to $475.9 million dollars.
Dr. Nichols reiterated that the above options were the basis on which the master plan was written. She proceeded to define things that would have to be done to accomplish the plan.
Efficiency and effectiveness with existing resources were portrayed by Dr. Nichols as key ingredients of the plan. She reported on a “space” study being performed at the higher learning institutions which she said, in reality, was an efficiency study as it related to how efficiently students could be educated given the existing number of classrooms. For example, using a classroom that could accommodate 60 students for a 30-student class would not be efficient. Dr. Nichols then gave examples of what had to be done in order to improve use of existing resources.
She advised that students, as well as the state of Nevada, would have to provide increased and adequate support. Increases in tuition would provide some help. Adequate support was defined by a formula constructed by the Legislature and the community, and she felt support of that formula would be essential to accommodate future students.
Growth in federal funding was also essential, according to Dr. Nichols, and could be accomplished by striving harder for all types of grants to obtain a fair share of federal dollars.
Dr. Nichols also perceived that partnership with business was crucial. She reported that throughout the country, community colleges, state colleges, and universities were entering into more partnerships with businesses for technology transfer, resulting in patents, new products, business start-ups, and training of the work force.
Dr. Nichols then commented on the goals; the first goal was a prosperous economy. She explained that in education the top goal was usually a quality education; however, conversations with the community and the faculty brought out the realization that the future of Nevada was dependent on a prosperous economy, and that no state had a prosperous economy without a very strong role by higher education in building that economy.
Dr. Nichols informed the Committee that the first principal was that all Nevada students had access to the courses, degrees, training, and credentials for entering the work force of the twenty-first century.
Dr. Nichols advised that the second principal would be that the future economic success of Nevada depended on an educated, trained work force and an entrepreneurial environment supported by first-rate higher education. She related that various development authorities across the state were adamant that businesses could not be recruited to Nevada if Nevada’s students were not well educated. Goal number one in the Master Plan stated “through instruction, research, and service, higher education in Nevada would be an essential element in developing and sustaining a strong, dynamic, knowledge-based economy for Nevada.” As to the question of why a knowledge-based economy was necessary, Dr. Nichols asserted that all prosperous economies were knowledge-based and indicated “it is the coin of the realm”.
Dr. Nichols described moving to Nevada in 1983 when higher education was not so important in Nevada because there were good paying jobs where higher education was not needed: in mining, in ranching, and in gaming. She confirmed those fields now required far more formal education than in the past. She reiterated that Nevada was changing and the future of Nevada was dependent on a knowledge-based economy.
Dr. Nichols acknowledged that, to reach the intended goal, certain targets had to be set. The first target, she believed, was to develop and increase the educational program’s focus of Nevada higher learning institutions on critical shortages in identified fields. Nursing and teaching were obvious areas; other areas were veterinary technicians; medicine; allied health fields, which were developing critical needs; engineering and technology. The mission of higher education, she reasoned, was to increase the proportion and number of graduates in high-skilled fields who came from Nevada’s higher education institutions. She was concerned that, at present, Nevada was one of the highest importers in the country for jobs that required high skills; that situation would not attract business development.
Another target under goal number one, Dr. Nichols explained, was to increase research and development funds from the federal government and other sources. She divulged that, since 1996, Nevada’s research institutions, such as the Desert Research Institute, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), had doubled the federal dollars coming into Nevada, but she emphasized that more diligence was needed in those areas. She suggested targeting significant research resources to specific economic objectives, which could then be used to build a research infrastructure and an educational infrastructure for support. She reported constant conversation with the communities in which higher learning institutions were based and plans to increase and focus work force development in sectors with the highest potential for growth. She revealed that Nevada’s four community colleges put together a plan that outlined, in their geographic sectors of the state, the areas more likely to have work force needs, and actions those colleges would take to support the industries and the businesses in their parts of the state.
Dr. Nichols went on to the second goal, quality education. She believed high expectations and quality learning experiences helped students develop to their fullest potential. She described rigorous programs of study for Nevadans which, when they graduated, would provide a quality degree. She also felt accountability demanded that Nevada’s colleges and universities be measured by their successes, not by their endeavors. She then restated that, with goal number two, higher education would provide consistently excellent learning experiences for its students through instruction, research, and service.
Dr. Nichols addressed plans to differentiate the instructional and research missions of the institutions to eliminate unnecessary redundancy in order to meet targeted goals. She called attention to a new Health Sciences building for the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN) and many excellent allied health programs. Other community colleges in the state were sitting down with CCSN to discuss ways in which those programs might be delivered statewide to avoid repetition.
Dr. Nichols also reported on the development of effective measures of student learning outcomes and how Nevada’s institutions were working on assessment measures that would provide public accountability. She promised the results of Nevada institutions’ assessment measures would be published, and she confirmed UCCSN was working on measures of graduation rates, persistence rates, test scores, and licensure rates. She spoke of plans that would increase the number of rich learning experiences available to students through research collaboration with faculty and community service learning. She also revealed her hope that every Nevada student would engage in research and community service as part of his or her curriculum in higher education.
Dr. Nichols went on to the third goal, which she stated was opportunity for all. She reminded everyone that, for about 12 years, this was the first goal of the University and Community College System. She reassured the Committee that was no less a goal now, but its standing as goal number three revealed UCCSN’s sense of responsibility to the state for economic development and accountability. She answered her own question of what was essential for all students to be successful and complete a degree or credential if that was the goal, with the response that higher education would increase the overall participation of Nevadans enrolled in higher education at all levels of education, and in all ethnic groups.
Dr. Nichols also spoke of a major shift in the responsibility for education, from placing all responsibility on the student to making higher education responsible for the student’s outcome. She emphasized it was up to higher education not only to get students to college but, once there, to put programs in place such as tutoring and financial assistance, which ensured students would be successful if they chose to be successful. She felt there should be no difference in the success rate between private and public institutions.
Another target, Dr. Nichols declared, was to raise the percentage of Nevada’s high school graduates who continued their education, which she believed had gone from 37 percent to 49 percent or higher. She expounded that Nevada youth should have the same opportunities as youth from any other state. An increase in the percentage of students who completed their bachelor’s degree in six years was also a desire expressed by Dr. Nichols, and she reported the Millennium Scholarship, which had already caused incredible changes in the completion rate, also enabled many part-time students to become full-time students.
Dr. Nichols also disclosed plans that increased the percentage of students who completed associate degrees in three years and brought the participation in higher education by under-represented minority groups into parity with the white population.
Dr. Nichols determined the fourth goal to be an accessible education. She believed this was Nevada’s future; that life-long learning was a noble endeavor; and that providing these opportunities was necessary for a citizenry who constantly adapted to changing societal and economic conditions. She articulated that Nevada had many adults, the 63 percent who did not attend college right out of high school, who would be going back to college, and the higher learning institutions would need to prepare for these adults in other ways than the traditional.
A flexible and innovated delivery system designed to meet the educational needs of Nevadans was very important, according to Dr. Nichols. She declared we needed year-round courses, block courses, and weekend courses created, not to meet the convenience of faculty, but to meet the convenience of returning students. She added that higher education would provide programs and services that addressed the unique educational needs of a highly diverse and non-traditional population.
Dr. Nichols defined an obvious part of accessible education as distance education which she recognized as among the fastest-growing group of higher education courses. Distance education courses increased by 300 percent, she reported, and online courses were also growing rapidly and were most successful with adult students, those over age 21.
She addressed the targets in goal number four as:
Dr. Nichols commented on the financial aid aspect, remarking that when increased financial aid was approved, the Board of Regents decided to set aside half of the increase in tuition for financial assistance, in the present and into the future. She addressed those who might insist the money to support higher education come from the state General Fund to support higher education by stating that requests for funding had been made, but the money had not been there. It was decided that, if the tuition was to be increased by 8 percent, those who could not afford it should be taken care of; so for the next biennium, half of the tuition increase each year would be set aside for need-based financial aid.
Dr. Nichols explained goal number five as P-16 education. She believed that success in higher education was a joint endeavor that began in pre-kindergarten and continued to grade 16 and beyond, with seamless transitions and articulation throughout all levels of education. She elucidated that the goal was for higher education to increase its partnership with the public education system to provide the cooperative delivery of education from pre-kindergarten to college degrees. She asserted that barriers which prevented this would be examined, and that there was an obvious responsibility for teacher education that met the needs of students so that remedial education was unnecessary.
Dr. Nichols opined that beginning college at an earlier age, as many other states were doing, was a good option. She revealed this had already been accomplished through high schools on college campuses, colleges on high school campuses, and distance education offered in Nevada high schools for $15 per course. She stressed the importance of making students aware of what needed to be accomplished in high school in order for their success to be realized in college. She summarized a brochure, recently printed and distributed to all sixth-graders and eighth-graders in Nevada, which outlined what was needed every year in school to be ready for college, written for students and their parents in both English and Spanish. She strongly felt it should be automatic for high school students to continue on to college.
Dr. Nichols returned to the subject of the Millennium Scholarship, pointing out the most important aspect of the scholarship was the powerful message it sent to families who heretofore had not believed college was accessible for their children, but who now felt it was possible for their children and anyone else who worked hard to attend college in Nevada.
Dr. Nichols expressed the desire to increase the P-16 programs as targets that would provide seamless transitions, would result in student success in college, and would decrease the percentage of remedial courses necessary. She encouraged the use of existing testing, for example the SAT, ACT, and PSAT, to be used as markers for judging whether remedial courses would be necessary upon enrollment in college. She illustrated a major initiative to work with K-12 and to begin to get that message out in high school. Dr. Nichols also spoke of engagement in an American diploma project with five other states, which examined whether or not the Nevada High School Proficiency Exam might be used as a marker.
Dr. Nichols began to speak on goal number six, building quality of life, when Assemblyman Geddes posed a question. Mr. Geddes first revealed that he was employed by UNR, but the legal staff deemed his position insignificant, so he was free to ask questions. He relayed that at the last Board of Regents meeting there was a discussion on the percentage of students at the university level taking remedial courses, and they discussed moving those back to the community or state college. The universities were opposed to that move as they had already budgeted and provided for classroom space for those students.
Mr. Geddes asked if that was an accurate reflection of what occurred, and he requested Dr. Nichols’ response.
Dr. Nichols explained that the discussion at the Board of Regents meeting was actually about whether or not it was appropriate for remedial courses to be taught at the universities. As was appropriate for research universities, admission standards were raised at the universities, to 2.75 in 2006 and 3.0 in 2010, so the question was raised as to whether or not it was appropriate for universities to be teaching remedial courses. She remarked that the actual item on the agenda was to question, as a first step, if the state should fund remedial courses at the universities, which was projected in the funding formula until fiscal year 2005. The discussion by the board was the possibility of stopping state funding for remedial courses at the university in the fall of 2004.
Dr. Nichols pointed out this action had budgetary implications for the two universities of approximately $2 million for UNLV and $500,000 for UNR. She perceived that the two university presidents were not opposed to focusing remedial courses at the state college and at the community colleges; in fact, they were very supportive. She informed the Committee that the issue was on the agenda again for the Board meeting in March, and the Board could potentially make decisions about that action, both short-term and long-term. She observed that there were really two different questions: 1) Should the universities offer remedial courses 2) Should the state pay for remedial courses taught at the universities? She asked Mr. Geddes if that answered his question, and he replied to the affirmative.
Chairman Williams then asked if the council was addressing the issues Mr. Geddes raised: if they were working with high schools to be sure students knew which courses to take to be prepared to reach the required grade point average; and if they were taking steps to ensure there was no grade inflation in the high schools.
Dr. Nichols replied that there were rumors and anecdotes regarding the Millennium Scholarship, which were being carefully listened to, such as students avoiding college preparatory courses and taking easier courses in order to be eligible for the Millennium Scholarship, therefore making themselves less prepared to be successful in college. She spoke of the creation by the Board of Education and the Board of Regents, of the P-16 Council, that was examining a look at this issue and tracking data. She contended that, under the No Child Left Behind Act, data could be shared and the P-16 Council would have the ability to be able to track the course-taking patterns of the Millennium scholars to increase the probability of a successful college experience.
Dr. Nichols expounded that there might be both students who avoided difficult courses and possibly some grade inflation, but she felt it was limited and not representative of the majority of students. She also saw that students who did not take a mathematics course in the senior year of high school almost certainly needed remedial mathematics in college, which was stated in brochure to parents and students, and she affirmed that seniors also should enroll in writing and science courses in their senior year to prepare for college. She emphasized that higher education worked with professors, high school counselors, and parents so students would make the right choices; but there was still more work to be done.
Chairman Williams asked Dr. Nichols the reason for the increase of students taking remedial courses. He inquired if it was due to larger enrollments, or if the students were not understanding the material.
Dr. Nichols replied that a partial explanation was that they were capturing more students who might not have previously gone to college, and she expressed regret that she did not have the full answer.
Assemblyman Andonov queried the Chancellor as to whether there was any type of benchmark for the percentage of students who should have been in remedial classes. He also asked about what the Nevada percentage of remedial students was, compared to the University of California system and public university systems throughout the country.
Dr. Nichols responded that she had examined a national study of community colleges, and community college percentages were generally around 50 to 55 percent in remedial courses. She asserted we were not terribly different than the community college benchmark, but remarked that percentages in public universities varied widely according to entrance requirements. She also reminded the Committee that, particularly at community colleges, large numbers of students had returned after many years out of school, and those students would need remedial courses.
Assemblywoman Angle then disclosed that she had several questions. The first one dealt with an article in the morning’s paper about tuition, and Mrs. Angle asked if it was correct that we had the lowest tuition in the nation, next to Tennessee.
Dr. Nichols replied that was incorrect. She verified that the reference to Nevada being next to Tennessee was for a study done by the Rockefeller Foundation that looked at where states would be in ten years in relation to receiving adequate dollars to fund their programs, which was not related to tuition.
Dr. Nichols went on to explain that most western states had lower tuition and lower financial aid than eastern states, although there were exceptions such as Washington State’s financial aid, but Nevada was in line with other western states regarding tuition and fees.
Mrs. Angle then revealed that when she was a student at UNR, she had professors who would say “you may be here this semester, but the people on either side of you won’t be,” because California schools had such high entry level requirements that many California students came to Nevada and paid huge out-of-state tuition. She understood that was accepted because it was financially helpful for the schools, but asked if the disparity between in-state and out-of-state tuition was still in effect.
Dr. Nichols confirmed that Nevada’s out-of-state tuition was still quite high. She felt that was responsible public policy for Nevada, where the emphasis had been on educating Nevadans at the undergraduate level. She reported no cap on out-of-state students, but insisted the emphasis was on the in-state student.
Mrs. Angle then inquired about discussions she had heard regarding out-of-state students being given as much aid as was given in-state students.
Dr. Nichols agreed those discussions had been held, but clarified there was a difference in undergraduate and graduate aid. She certainly believed that it was critical to provide aid at the doctoral level, stating that we drew graduate students from all over the world.
Mrs. Angle concluded that her last question was why it took six years for an undergraduate degree, when she completed her undergraduate degree in four years while working 20 to 40 hours per week. She was concerned about the length of time students spent in school
Dr. Nichols concurred, saying it had been a data point in Nevada for a long time. It was her opinion that more students went to school part-time because they had to work or had other responsibilities. She contemplated that possibly a new culture was coming where students could go full-time and concentrate on college. She told Mrs. Angle that she was one of the exceptions, and while Dr. Nichols was proud of Mrs. Angle, there weren’t many students today who finished in four years. Dr. Nichols thought this number would increase.
Mrs. Angle replied that it was her culture; they all had intended to finish in four years.
Assemblyman Hardy inquired how many Millennium scholars were in remedial classes, and if this was due to “grade creep?”
Dr. Nichols regretted that, although the data had been run, she could not give the exact percentage. She promised Chairman Williams she would supply this information to the Committee and asserted it was not an insignificant percentage.
Assemblywoman Koivisto reported having this information and estimated the percentage was somewhere between 30 and 40 percent. She resolved to verify the information and report back to the Committee.
Assemblyman Horne addressed Dr. Nichols and remarked that he was a student who returned after many years. He asked what the numbers were for returning students in remedial classes and graduate programs.
Dr. Nichols replied that the average age in Nevada’s institutions was very high. In the universities the average age would be from 28 to 35 years old; in community colleges the average age would be in the 30s. Many returning students, she pointed out, started at community colleges and then transferred to the university. She stated that the percentage of returning students who ended up in remedial courses was higher than recent high school graduates, because they frequently had to brush up in math and English. She regretted not having the exact figures, but promised to obtain them.
Dr. Nichols then expounded on the difficulty of defining a returning student, which she defined as “students who entered the university at age 25 or above.” She had strong feelings, reinforced by her teaching experiences, that older students were better students and tended to go on to graduate or professional school.
Mr. Horne then requested of Dr. Nichols an estimate on the percentage of returning students who made up the total population in the university system.
Dr. Nichols responded that she did not have that information, but would acquire it for Mr. Horne.
Assemblywoman Chowning then shared her appreciation for all the outreach efforts that the university had done for many years. She remembered when the colleges came to the high schools and when high schools were first included on the college campuses. She wondered if that had made a difference, if the money was well spent, and if the percentages of students who went on to college had gone up.
Dr. Nichols verified that there were two models. One model was the high school on the college campus, which she suggested had been very successful, as those students had an 87 percent college going rate. She was less enthusiastic about the “high tech centers” on the high school campuses, stating that experiences with those were mixed and reflected the relationship with the high school principal and the community, as well as the community college’s decision on what went into that high-tech center.
Mrs. Chowning suggested this should be studied so that money was not spent inefficiently.
Dr. Nichols pointed out that there were no demands for high-tech centers in the budget requests.
Mrs. Chowning asked how many high tech centers there were.
Dr. Nichols replied that there were seven. She emphasized they would be successful, but acknowledged that they had not been proven to be the best college-recruitment tool as previously supposed.
Mrs. Chowning requested information on how many of the seven were successful. She felt that how many were successful had a bearing on how funding should be given.
Chairman Williams referred to the enrollment percentages in the presentation by Dr. Nichols and asked her about the percentage of students who obtained associate’s and bachelor’s degrees in this system.
Dr. Nichols responded that she did not have the information in that particular format. She disclosed that, for federal purposes, the students were tracked by 4-year, 5-year, and 6-year degrees, and there was a new measure employed for a type of productivity study that measured the percentage of graduates in relation to the total number of students. She promised to send this information to the Committee.
Dr. Nichols noted that the academic community had not been pleased with the persistence rates until the Millennium Scholarship recipients came along. She advised that the persistence rates for Millennium scholars were much higher; also, there was a difference in the community colleges in this state. She expressed concern that the number of degrees granted were not as high as expected in the community colleges, but felt that was starting to change with the advent of the Millennium Scholarship. She would get back to the Committee with the actual data.
Chairman Williams clarified that his question was not how long it took to obtain a degree, but that it was attained, and remarked that he would be interested in knowing those numbers. He then inquired if number six was the last one.
Dr. Nichols went on to the last goal which was building quality of life, which she commented was important, though the least “jazzy” of all the goals. She held the strong belief that higher education enriched the quality of life for Nevadans through benefits from:
Dr. Nichols reiterated the goal of higher education was to be instrumental in advancing society and enriching the lives of Nevada citizens, and Nevada’s higher learning institutions would be positioned as intellectual, cultural, and artistic centers, and as the marketplace for ideas. She envisioned a goal where all students would eventually become citizens involved in advancing civic, social, and cultural goals, and all students would have an opportunity to do some kind of service, to have experience in the community before they graduated. She believed that this would improve Nevada’s educational benefits grade on the national report card from a C minus to at least a B; the grade was based upon the voting rate, the charitable contributions rate, and all the quality of life indicators for the state that were affected by education.
Dr. Nichols went on to describe how to reach these six goals and asserted that measurable targets were being established for each goal. Accountability would be provided, as well as internal review processes for targets and development of strategy system-wide and by institutions.
Dr. Nichols remarked that she had been in Nevada long enough to know this Committee was always very interested in transfer. One of the greatest reforms and efficiencies on which a great deal of time had been spent was time to complete a degree. She said the best way to save money for the state of Nevada and for Nevada parents and families, was to make sure a degree was earned in 124 credits, with the exception of engineering. She described a policy by the board that required, if starting at a community college, finishing with the same number of credits as if starting at a university or state college. To accomplish this, there were over 300 faculty meetings across the state where what was termed a “common course numbering” system was worked out. She described this as a system in which students had a clear understanding of courses that were equivalent, and they could make appropriate choices. She also informed the Committee that on the Web there were “2+2’s”, which prescribed courses for an associate degree in two years, and for a bachelor’s degree within 2 years after an associate degree had been obtained, for every degree granted by the universities.
Dr. Nichols regretted that, though tremendous strides had been made in transfer, there would still be students who “fell through the cracks.” She advised the Committee that, if they knew of any student with transfer problems, they should have the student call Dr. Nichols. She stressed her total commitment to eliminating transfer problems within the system, and she invited any questions or comments.
Chairman Williams replied that he still heard of students who said they took classes at the college, and in some cases the same instructor at the college taught the classes at the university with the same textbooks, but the class would not transfer for their degrees, only as an elective or in other ways. He asked Dr. Nichols if this issue should be revisited.
Dr. Nichols specified that there was a Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) that prevented students from being required to repeat a course they had already taken in Nevada. She expressed her belief that the situations the Chairman described had all been tracked down but asked to be informed if there were still problems with the courses.
Chairman Williams asked what phone number could be given out. Dr. Nichols gave the phone number as (702) 889-8426 for Las Vegas.
Assemblyman Mabey inquired as to why we could not allocate funds from one department that was not so needed and transfer them to the nursing department, which would move funds into education’s budget to pay for more nurses.
Dr. Nichols replied that each institution was working diligently to reallocate resources to the departments that would meet state needs, but she regarded this as a slow process. As most of the faculty was tenured, she advised that vacancies were used for reallocation and some academic programs had been eliminated if they were not needed anymore. She remarked that the reallocation of positions within a university, community college or state college would be a difficult thing to do.
Concerning nursing, she reported that the Governor had recommended a budget for education based on 86 percent of the formula. If that funding was received, it would provide the capacity for new positions at most universities, and she said that she had promised to the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee that she would come back to look at ways in which the state would not pay additionally for new positions in nursing with a plan based upon the 86 percent figure recommended by the Governor. She also reminded the Committee that nursing was not the only field where reallocation would help; she was speaking about redirecting all resources into those areas most needed by the state.
Chairman Williams remarked that he had a chance to hear Dr. Nichols’ presentation to the Health Committee on the nursing shortage, and he realized then the university’s involvement in the nursing shortage crisis as it was described in Nevada. He reflected that there were those who were interested in moving to Nevada as nurses, and asked Dr. Nichols what she would suggest they do, and if the shortage was as dramatic as it appeared.
Dr. Nichols responded that tremendous numbers of nurses were already recruited from out of state, and they were welcomed in Nevada. She pointed out that all states were short of nurses, particularly the western and southwestern states, and that UCCSN could not provide all the nurses Nevada would need in the short-term, nor possibly in the long-term.
Mr. Hardy asked if there was an opportunity for faculty sharing if we had common course numbering, so that a faculty member who might be at an institution we would consider a state college could teach at UNLV.
Dr. Nichols acknowledged that the question of why state college faculty were not teaching at UNLV and CCSN, where the need was so great, was asked recently. She articulated that the decision was made when there was no planning year nor state dollars for the state college, before the doors actually opened, to let the eight key faculty members have a year for planning. It was not that they could not teach there, but rather the decision was made that time was needed to plan the curriculum. She reminded the Committee that they would all be teaching full loads next year, and she determined that the full-time equivalent (FTE) would rise to be comparable with the university and the community college.
Mrs. Angle requested returning to the point in the program where the Dr. spoke about partnering with business by supplying an educated work force. She asked Dr. Nichols if she had spoken with business about partnering as well as financial support of higher learning institutions.
Dr. Nichols affirmed that they had, with nursing as the most obvious example. She asserted that right now at every institution in Nevada’s system, hospitals were paying for faculty positions to recruit more nurses; at UNR, enrollment rose, which could not have been done without money from the hospitals. She also spoke of other areas of business where business was contributing in the community colleges and some of the vocational programs, and she expressed her desire for business to contribute more.
Chairman Williams requested clarification on whether hospitals were paying for positions and queried if there were scenarios where individuals worked as nurses and as instructors.
Dr. Nichols replied that she thought there was at least one joint position that was doing “half and half,” but most hospitals supplied the institutions with funds to hire a faculty member.
Chairman Williams asked for any other questions, and Mrs. Angle posed an additional question regarding a television expose on part-time and full-time professors. She advised that according to this program, part-time professors or Teaching Assistants (TAs) were teaching undergraduates, and the professors were not actually in the classroom with the undergraduates. She wondered how that was being balanced in Nevada’s system.
Dr. Nichols expressed pride in answering that question, exclaiming that Nevada performed better than almost any other place in the country. She described TAs as graduate students who taught undergraduates, and said TAs were funded to support graduate education and to support their teaching. She explained that part-time instructors were generally people in the community that were paid a small wage to teach a class. She reported that in the university, 64 percent of the undergraduate courses were taught by full-time instructors, and she felt that Nevada did better than the University of California system in providing professors for freshman and sophomore classes.
Chairman Williams then thanked the Chancellor on behalf of the Committee for the presentation. He mused that she gave a lot of information that would trigger thoughts and questions to be asked at her next visit, as he was sure she would be back with legislation. He then inquired if there was any other business; there was none so the meeting was adjourned at 5:13 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Victoria Thompson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
DATE: