MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
March 7, 2003
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 4:04 p.m., on Friday, March 7, 2003. Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer Building, Las Vegas, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference 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. Mark Manendo
Mr. Bob McCleary
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Garn Mabey (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary
Mary Garcia, Committee Secretary, Taxation Committee
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mary Ella Holloway, President, Clark County Education Association
Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District
Darlene Schottle, Area Superintendent, Washoe County School District
Ralph Cadwallader, Executive Director of the Nevada Association of School Administrators
Steven Augspurger, Executive Director of the Clark County Association of School Administrators
Lonnie Shields, Advocate, Washoe County Education Administrators Association
Terry Hickman, High School Counselor and President of the Nevada State Education Association
Ken Morgan, Special Education Teacher and Teachers’ Advocate, Clark County School District
The Chairman apologized for the delay, explaining there was difficulty with the equipment in the Grant Sawyer building, and the meeting would be recorded in Carson City.
Roll was called and all members of the Committee were present, with the exception of Mr. Mabey who was excused to attend to patients.
Chairman Williams began the meeting by remarking that there were many family members to introduce, and he asked Assemblyman Manendo to commence with the introduction of his family members.
Mr. Manendo presented his mother, Marie Manendo; his sister, Christine Turner; and his two “wonderful, adorable, beautiful” nephews, Logan and Perry Turner, explaining that Logan was in the second grade at Tomiyasu Elementary School, and Perry was in preschool.
Chairman Williams inquired about the gentlemen “in the suit” at the back.
Mr. Manendo presented that gentleman as the distinguished Mr. Andelohr, Committee Manager of the Assembly Government Affairs Committee, who lived in Assembly District 18, as did Mr. Manendo’s family.
Chairman Williams then asked the Committee Secretary if she would like to introduce her sister and family.
Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary, thanked the Chairman and presented her sister, Virginia Waller, and the beautiful grandkids she was raising: Faithie on the left; little James T. in the middle, and Carly on the right. She explained that the gentleman in the red sweater sitting with her sister was her husband, Randy Thompson.
Chairman Williams then suggested that Assemblyman Atkinson introduce his daughter.
Mr. Atkinson remarked that he would introduce his daughter, Hayley Atkinson, once again. He explained that she had been on track break and was returning home from Carson City, where she had watched her father at work all week.
After all introductions were completed, Chairman Williams opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 218.
Assembly Bill 218: Revises provisions governing temporary alternative placement of disruptive pupils. (BDR 34-1276)
Chairman Williams established that the bill was brought to him during the interim and introduced as a Committee introduction. The testimony given at that time to the Committee on Education was in reference to a former bill, A.B. 521 of the 70th Legislative Session, which called for a school-wide discipline plan. It was expected that the plan would be developed with the cooperation of the administration and the staff. However, while there was testimony that many schools had this plan in place, there was also testimony from many teachers who worked at schools where the plan had not been prepared. He commented that there were probably an equal number of those in favor of the bill as there were those who opposed it, so he would adhere to the entries on the guest list, beginning with Mary Ella Holloway.
Assemblywoman Angle exclaimed to the Chairman that those in Carson City could not hear the testimony. The Chairman requested that Ms. Holloway turn on her mike.
Mary Ella Holloway explained that she was a middle school teacher who currently served as President of the Clark County Education Association, and read from prepared testimony (Exhibit C). She prefaced her remarks by stating that she believed the vast majority of Clark County administrators were dedicated professionals who cared about the students and staff, took their responsibilities seriously, and complied with district regulations and Nevada statutes. However, she believed that A.B. 521 did not have compliance in all schools.
Ms. Holloway related that during the 70th Legislative Session in 1999, the Nevada State Education Association worked very hard and succeeded in garnering support for A.B. 521. They felt that A.B. 521, as a student discipline bill, gave teachers the authority they needed to refer disruptive pupils out of the classroom and ensure that they would not come right back into the classroom through the “never-ending revolving door in the principal’s office.” She explained that under A.B. 521, each school was required to put in place a plan of progressive discipline, which had to be followed before the teachers could exercise their authority under the bill. Once all requirements had been met, if the student’s disruptive behavior was creating a situation that deterred learning in the classroom, the teacher could invoke A.B. 521, which was a clear signal from the teacher that the situation had become untenable, and help was needed.
Ms. Holloway elucidated that the first thing that was to happen under the law was that the student would be given a temporary assignment isolating him from other students until a conference with the student’s parents could be held. Once the conference was completed, if the problem was not resolved, the teacher received authority under A.B. 521 to have the student removed from the classroom. If the principal disagreed, a committee of school employees reviewed the matter and made a full determination of what course of action to take. The committee could overrule the teacher and have the student returned to the classroom or move the student to a different classroom, and under A.B. 521, they could also suspend or even expel the student.
Ms. Holloway expounded that A.B. 521 was intended to give teachers the authority to deal with severe discipline problems and get help from the system. When it was originally passed, the Nevada State Education Association worked with its membership to ensure the law was implemented properly, and immediately ran into roadblocks from administrators who said they would not comply. The Nevada State Education Association trained its staff to assist teachers in dealing with A.B. 521 implementation problems; and even though it was now 2003, they constantly heard from teachers that the principals were refusing to allow A.B. 521 referrals or to deal with violations of the law.
Ms. Holloway detailed that, in the spring of 2002, the Nevada State Education Association conducted a survey containing four questions that related to the development and implementation of A.B. 521. The results were as follows:
1) The administration, with teacher involvement, had developed a school-wide discipline plan for our work site. Yes – 70 percent; no – 30 percent.
2) The administration had developed, with staff, procedures for the removal of students with habitual discipline problems according to the law A.B. 521. Yes – 66 percent; no – 34 percent.
3) The administration had developed a process to handle habitually truant students according to the law A.B. 521. Yes – 71 percent; no – 29 percent.
4) The administration had established an A.B. 521 Appeals Committee and it was operational. Yes – 56 percent; no – 44 percent.
Ms. Holloway stated that A.B. 218 put administrators on notice that they could not disregard the law even if they did not believe the law was important. Because there were administrators who failed to develop and implement the provisions outlined under A.B. 521, the Nevada State Education Association supported A.B. 218.
Chairman Williams asked for questions from the Committee and inquired if the discipline plans were public information, and if it were possible to obtain copies.
Ms. Holloway responded that she thought copies of the plans should be accessible.
Chairman Williams then solicited if the plans were for all schools, from kindergarten through grade 12, to which Ms. Holloway responded that they were.
Chairman Williams asked if there were any other questions.
Mrs. Chowning inquired: 1) How many people participated in the survey? 2) How many schools had not developed a plan, and was that the majority of the schools? 3) Who disciplined principals, and what were the consequences to those principals for non-compliance?
Ms. Holloway replied that she could not answer some of the questions, because the results were the sum total of all schools and not differentiated among the schools. She also did not have the number of teachers who responded.
Mrs. Chowning asked how many schools had implemented the plan, which Ms. Holloway said she could not answer.
Ms. Holloway responded that she could not answer that question either.
Mrs. Chowning asked if Ms. Holloway could provide information for the Committee on who disciplined the principals.
Ms. Holloway replied that she was not in charge of disciplining principals, so she could not comply.
Chairman Williams solicited other questions from the Committee. There were no other questions, and he addressed Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative from the Clark County School District and suggested that Ms. Wright might have the answers to Mrs. Chowning’s questions.
Karyn Wright introduced herself and directed her answer to Mrs. Chowning. She said that principals were supervised by their immediate supervisor; she illustrated that the current configuration of the district included five regional superintendents, with assistant superintendents as their direct subordinates. She stated that the principals were supervised by the assistant superintendents.
Mrs. Chowning thanked Ms. Wright but wondered, if the principals had not developed a plan, why there had been no action taken from the assistant superintendent who was the principal’s supervisor.
Ms. Wright regretted that she could not provide the answer, but she did not supervise principals at the schools.
Chairman Williams asked Assemblywoman Chowning if she had any other questions, and he queried Ms. Wright as to who the Committee would contact to receive the answers to Mrs. Chowning’s questions.
Ms. Wright indicated that she could acquire the information and would bring it to the Committee.
Chairman Williams then inquired if the Committee could access copies of the discipline plans that all the schools were required to have.
Ms. Wright asked the Chairman if he was requesting that information from her or from Ms. Holloway.
Chairman Williams replied that he felt the school districts would be the proper agencies from whom to request the information, and Ms. Wright concurred.
Chairman Williams then solicited other questions from the Committee, inquiring of Assemblywoman Angle if there were any questions from northern Nevada.
Mrs. Angle responded that although there were no questions from the other members, she did have a question of her own. She wanted to know if the problems were specifically with the Clark County School District, or if there were any information or surveys indicating similar problems in northern Nevada.
Chairman Williams asked Mrs. Angle to clarify if she was asking if this was a statewide problem or just in Clark County.
Mrs. Angle agreed that was her question; she commented that it sounded as if the surveys were only taken in Clark County and were not regional.
Chairman Williams interjected that they had just received an answer from Ms. Holloway that was not audible, and he requested that the record reflect the survey was only taken in Clark County.
Mrs. Angle thanked the Chairman.
Chairman Williams then asked Ms. Wright if she had testimony to present and if she would like to present the testimony at that point.
Ms. Wright responded affirmatively and introduced herself, remarking that the Clark County School District supported the involvement of parents, teachers, and administrators in developing and implementing a plan for progressive discipline of students and the on-site review of disciplinary decisions. She explained that Clark County School District Regulation No. 5141 provided the procedures for student discipline on school sites. She added that as a result of the passage of A.B. 521 of the 70th Legislative Session, all administrators were provided training regarding requirements for the development of a school-wide progressive discipline plan.
Ms. Wright emphasized that those requirements were established in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). She believed that the current requirements addressed the classroom teachers’ authority and procedure for temporarily removing disruptive students from the classroom and the required administrative actions that were to be taken following the removal of a student from that classroom. She commented that there were also references to student supervision and discipline including temporary removal of disruptive students from the classroom contained in the administrative handbook for each of the five regions.
Ms. Wright felt that there were already adequate disciplinary means under NRS 391 and the collectively bargained agreements to ensure compliance. She noted that the Clark County School District did not support the language in Section 1, subsection 4, because they did not support withholding compensation of principals for disciplinary reasons; nor did they believe that teachers should determine disciplinary measures for their supervisors. She believed that portion of the bill was in violation of the collectively bargained agreement on progressive discipline of administrators. She maintained that the district did understand the importance of student cooperation with teachers in the classroom in order to maintain an environment conducive to learning. She expressed the willingness of the district to work with the Committee to amend the language and to provide ongoing training for all administrators, which she felt would ensure that current requirements were consistently communicated.
Chairman Williams asked for questions from the Committee and recognized Assemblyman Andonov.
Mr. Andonov noted that Ms. Wright had mentioned the guidelines and training that principals received prior to establishing a discipline plan. He inquired if there were a standardized plan or set of guidelines that each principal received in order to tailor their plan to the individual school situation.
Ms. Wright indicated that the district provided training for administrators regarding A.B. 521, and that training could be appropriately administered at each site.
Mr. Andonov expounded that the training should ensure that every principal in every school should have a plan in place, which Ms. Wright agreed was correct.
Chairman Williams then acknowledged Assemblyman Horne, who articulated to Ms. Wright that what she proposed in her presentation was not a remedy to the problem presented at the meeting, which was non-compliance. She had proposed more training but stated that they had already received training.
Ms. Wright affirmed that Mr. Horne was correct and that the Clark County School District felt that passage of A.B. 521 required principals to be in compliance with the law.
Mr. Horne asked Ms. Wright to explain what the district would propose to encourage compliance, other than retraining.
Ms. Wright responded that additional training was what the district would recommend, which could assist with compliance.
Chairman Williams commented that, to receive answers for the previous questions, particularly Mr. Horne’s, it would be necessary for the Committee to acquire a copy of each of the school’s plans and when they were implemented; he felt that was the only way to understand the level of compliance. He asked for other questions and recognized Assemblyman Atkinson.
Mr. Atkinson remarked that Ms. Wright had stated the principals followed the progressive discipline set up by collective bargaining, and it was his experience that hierarchies were not normally covered by those contracts. He asked if school principals were covered by the collective bargaining agreement.
Ms. Wright confirmed that principals had an agreement which was collectively bargained.
Chairman Williams thanked Ms. Wright and asked for other questions, indicating there would be testimony in Carson City by someone who had to leave by 4:30, so she would be next.
Darlene Schottle, area superintendent, Washoe County School District, spoke from a prepared script (Exhibit D), and indicated she spoke on behalf of the district. She commented that NRS 392 required that each principal, in collaboration with teachers and parents, establish a progressive discipline plan. She asserted that the district supported the law and followed the mandate of the statute. After a plan was crafted and agreed upon at the school site, it was submitted to the area superintendent of the school district. If a plan was not submitted, the principal was immediately contacted by the appropriate area superintendent. In Ms. Schottle’s experience, there were only a “handful” of times when the plan was not submitted on time because the school team could not come to an agreement about the progressive consequences for students as a result of destructive behavior. She also revealed that there were occasions where the school team had sought consequences that were not allowable and in line with the requirements of laws governing students with disabilities; however, resolution was eventually achieved with support and facilitation from the area superintendent.
Ms. Schottle ascertained that the Washoe County School District supported the new language of Section 1, subsections 2 and 3, as they were already doing what was contained in those sections. They did not support the provisions of Section 1, subsection 4, as read on the second page of the bill. It was their view that such a practice as that proposed in subsection 4 was not necessary in the Washoe County School District, and at a time when it was important that school teams worked together, that practice would generate division and dissension. She felt that there were procedures already in place such as NRS 391 that addressed non-compliance issues, and the language in the bill seemed an excessively punitive way to deal with a principal’s failure to complete or implement a progressive discipline plan.
Chairman Williams thanked Ms. Schottle and asked for questions from the Committee, indicating that Mrs. Angle wished to speak.
Mrs. Angle asked if they were able to do a study in Washoe County similar to the study done in Clark County.
Ms. Schottle responded that to her knowledge, their teacher’s association had not completed that type of survey, and there had been no implementation of such a survey.
Mrs. Angle then asked whether Ms. Schottle had heard any complaints from teachers in her area indicating that a survey should be completed.
Ms. Schottle maintained that despite numerous efforts to provide and receive feedback, there had never been any indication that non-compliance of A.B. 521 was an area of concern at a school site.
Mrs. Angle presented a final question concerning non-compliance in the rural school districts. She noted that there had been no representation at the meeting from those districts and asked if this was because they did not have non-compliance issues.
Ms. Schottle answered that she had no personal knowledge of the rural districts.
Mrs. Angle thanked Ms. Schottle, and when asked by the Chairman if there were any other questions for Ms. Schottle, she responded that there were none in Carson City.
Chairman Williams then introduced Ralph Cadwallader as the next in line to testify, indicating that Mr. Augspurger, who would speak after Mr. Cadwallader, could also be seated at the witness table with Mr. Cadwallader.
Ralph Cadwallader stated that he was the Executive Director of the Nevada Association of School Administrators, a statewide organization, and he read from prepared testimony (Exhibit E). He noted that as an educator for the past 38 years, he had been an assistant principal; principal of two high schools in Las Vegas; associate superintendent in charge of all the high schools and middle schools. Most importantly, he was a classroom teacher. In fact, he had taught English and Math at Garside Junior High, where Mr. Williams had also taught. He said research had indicated that among the most important correlates of an effective school was the need to have a safe and orderly environment, which required the continuous joint effort of the entire school staff, teachers, administrators, and support staff, with involvement and support from the school’s community. He felt that A.B. 218 took the attention away from that need, from the state’s budget crisis, and from the No Child Left Behind Act, along with the Nevada counterpart S.B. 191.
Mr. Cadwallader reaffirmed that A.B. 218 was not needed, and he said that there were three problems inherent in A.B. 218:
1) It required that the compensation of principals be withheld if the school’s discipline plan was not appropriately implemented. Mr. Cadwallader believed this was a problem because it was redundant, as current law and district policies allowed school boards to institute progressive discipline on any employees, including principals, who failed to comply with the laws or policies. The responsibility to discipline lay with the supervisors of the principals. He described the accountability chain as starting with the school board to the superintendent, and the superintendent to the regional superintendents and assistant regional superintendents, in the case of Clark County.
2) Mr. Cadwallader insisted that the bill was precedent-setting, and he stated that it allowed the teachers to vote on whether or not a principal was paid. He went on to describe different situations where employees would never be allowed to vote on whether management was paid or not, and emphasized that the decision should be made by the supervisor, with the supervisor held accountable.
3) Mr. Cadwallader asserted that the bill placed the sole responsibility for implementing the school’s discipline plan upon the principal. He felt this was a problem because school discipline required a collaborative effort of the entire school staff and community. He felt that if the principals were penalized financially, so should the teachers be similarly penalized. He wished to emphasize that he did not believe in the financial penalties; instead, he recommended that the bill “go away,” and instead energy be focused on solving the state’s financial crisis, appropriately funded education and the implementation of “No Child Left Behind,” so learning in the classroom could improve.
Chairman Williams inquired if there were any questions. There were none and he thanked Mr. Cadwallader.
The next speaker was Steven Augspurger, Executive Director of the Clark County Association of School Administrators.
Mr. Augspurger was at the meeting on behalf of the administrators of the Clark County School District to express concerns regarding Assembly Bill 218. He read from prepared testimony (Exhibit F), indicating that A.B. 521 of the 70th Legislative Session in 1999 caused legislative action to be taken that required the development of a school discipline plan, which he asserted ensured that school discipline remained a partnership among teachers, parents, and school administrators. He felt that teachers were expected to maintain classroom discipline by following appropriate plans, and administrators were expected to provide support to assist teachers by maintaining an appropriate learning environment in the classroom.
Mr. Augspurger acknowledged that there could be differences of opinion on the best course of action to take regarding a student disciplinary situation, but he insisted that there were remedies in existence for resolving that type of issue. In the Clark County School District for instance, there was an existing regulation that gave every employee the opportunity to appeal a decision made by their supervisor. If a concern was brought forward relating to the school discipline plan, the principal’s supervisor was mandated to investigate that concern and, based on the findings, take appropriate action, which would likely be to apply the steps of progressive discipline found in the negotiated agreement between the Clark County Association of School Administrators and the Clark County School District.
Mr. Augspurger reiterated that the Clark County Association of School Administrators believed that it was inappropriate for a vote to be taken to determine if salary of a principal was to be withheld, but they did feel that principals should be held accountable for implementing district procedures in state law, and that school administrators must be held accountable by their supervisors, but that had already been provided for. He asked that the Committee not pass A.B. 218.
Chairman Williams solicited questions from the Committee, and Assemblywoman Chowning signaled her wish to speak.
Mrs. Chowning thanked the Chairman and readdressed her original question, which was how many principals and schools had not developed the plan as required. She articulated that NRS 391.3127 addressed definite steps to take for non-compliance, relating that one step was a written evaluation each year from an administrator which would reveal the principals and schools that were not in compliance. She strongly emphasized the need to know the answer to those questions.
Chairman Williams invited other questions. He indicated that the Committee had requested copies of the plans, and when they were dated, and that would show who had turned them in and who had not; the Committee had already requested them from the school district. He then recognized Assemblywoman Koivisto.
Mrs. Koivisto asked how many principals had been disciplined for non-compliance, affirming that information would help.
Mr. Augspurger did not have a specific number of principals who were disciplined for non-compliance under A.B. 521, but remarked that their contract was a “living document” that was actively used to supervise and discipline principals; if a principal had not followed the appropriate requirements, then disciplinary action could be taken.
Mrs. Koivisto repeated that her question was if disciplinary action had been taken, and in how many cases.
Mr. Augspurger stated that he was not privy to action taken with principals if they had not contacted him for assistance. He admitted that he assumed every school had a plan because it was required by law, but that plan could be complicated by everything from simple disagreements to different criteria for the discipline of special education students, which addressed the student’s specific disability in relation to the type of discipline allowed.
Chairman Williams inquired if there were other questions, and Assemblywoman Angle indicated that Assemblyman Hardy had a question.
Mr. Hardy thanked the Chairman and asked Mr. Augspurger if it was one rogue principal under discussion or 20 per district. He advised that he needed to know what numbers were being discussed, as he could not get a “feel” for the size of the problem; maybe none had been disciplined, but that did not state how many were “turned in.”
Mr. Augspurger replied that he had no direct knowledge that any principal had not complied with the state statute.
Mr. Cadwallader also regretted that he did not have direct knowledge, commenting that the supervisors would be better able to answer the question.
Mr. Hardy asked if there were supervisors available to ask that question, and he expressed concern that a new law was being created to solve a problem that was as yet undefined.
Mr. Cadwallader’s reply was not audible, so Chairman Williams indicated that the answer was that Mr. Cadwallader did not know, and he repeated that the information would be requested from the school district. He asked for questions and commented that he believed there were three or four people in Carson City who wished to testify.
Lonnie Shields, representing the Washoe County Education Administrators Association, brought prepared testimony (Exhibit G). He started his presentation by saying that A.B. 218 woke up the administrators, as all the associations were at the meeting. He agreed that he did not doubt there were problems; he insisted that when dealing with large numbers of students, teachers, and administrators, there would be some misunderstandings. He questioned whether it was such an ongoing statewide problem that it had to be addressed with the severity demanded in the bill.
Mr. Shields revealed that in Washoe County there were 84 schools, 3,745 teachers, and 267 administrators; he noted that the number of problems presented did not reflect a wide disregard for the law and believed that individual problems were being handed at a local level. He asserted that, as advocate for the administrators in Washoe County, he had not been contacted by any principals for help, and no complaints had been filed. He felt that if there had been a major problem, he would have been notified. He also expressed his dismay at having staff vote on a principal’s discipline; he felt this caused nothing but polarization between staff and administration and reiterated that it was best handled at the local level.
Mr. Shields disclosed that every year in Washoe County each principal had to contact their area superintendent to let them know the progressive discipline plan was in place, which he determined was further ammunition against passage of the bill. In summary, he asked that if the “worst case scenario” happened and A.B. 218 became law, he would like to offer an amendment to change the date required for submission of the plan to December 1 from October 1; he explained that the beginning of school was a hectic time, particularly for new teachers and principals, and they would not have sufficient time to prepare and implement a plan.
Chairman Williams solicited questions. He then indicated that Assemblywoman
Angle would speak.
Mrs. Angle asked Mr. Shields if the problem was regional, rather than statewide.
Mr. Shields advised that he could not answer that, because he was unfamiliar with the Clark County situation.
Mrs. Angle suggested that it was not a problem in the north or rural areas, as far as Mr. Shields was aware.
Mr. Shields replied that, in his opinion and as far as he knew, it was not a major problem.
Mrs. Angle asked if this were found to be a problem only in Clark County, would he desire exemption from the bill.
Mr. Shields remarked that exempting this bill itself would solve the problem.
Chairman Williams thanked Mr. Shields and asked if anyone had questions.
Richard Stokes introduced himself as an associate superintendent with the Carson City School District. He asserted that the Carson City School District opposed A.B. 218, and expressed his feeling that having an impact on someone’s salary should not be a first step when using progressive discipline.
Chairman Williams solicited questions and thanked Mr. Stokes.
Assemblywoman Angle inquired if Mr. Stokes, as a representative of a rural school district, had been presented with complaints of non-compliance or a completed survey.
Mr. Stokes replied that he had not heard of any problems relating to the issue in Carson City.
Chairman Williams called for further questions, asking if there was anyone else in Carson City who wished to testify.
Assemblywoman Angle responded that there was no one else in Carson City who wished to testify.
Terry Hickman was the next witness in Las Vegas and identified himself as a high school counselor and President of the Nevada State Education Association. He wished to offer comments on why he supported A.B. 218, explaining that the problem was not the absence of a progressive discipline system in writing; the problem was that the system was not being implemented. He felt that the reason the problem seemed regional was that the majority of students in the state of Nevada lived in Clark County, but he assured the Committee that they had reports and concerns from affiliates throughout the state.
Mr. Hickman believed that discipline should not only be in writing but also followed through, and he stated that A.B. 521 was a great and important milestone for education, because it recognized that every student had a right to a quality public education, and that there were times when some students needed to work on their behavior in a way that did not distract other students. He emphasized that A.B. 521 was implemented only after numerous remedies by the teacher, principal, and others involved were exhausted; the problem was when the teacher was unsupported by the principal, because the teacher might have no other resources.
Mr. Hickman reinforced his opinion that the vast majority of principals and schools were dedicated to the implementation of A.B. 521, but he was concerned about how to help those in schools where A.B. 521 was not taken seriously, and that was why he supported A.B. 218.
Chairman Williams called for questions, and he addressed Assemblyman Andonov.
Mr. Andonov commented that Mr. Hickman had mentioned that a teacher would not feel comfortable going to a regional superintendent for a grievance or remedy, and asked what other recourse a teacher would have.
Mr. Hickman suggested that they could seek assistance from their local association, and revealed that the reason the state association had knowledge of the problem was because they were contacted by the local organizations. He also suggested publication of the discipline plans so that everyone concerned had the ability to be kept informed.
Chairman Williams remarked that it was a good suggestion, and he queried if there were other questions.
Assemblywoman Angle informed the Chairman that Assemblyman Geddes had a question.
Mr. Geddes asked Mr. Hickman if teachers who were not a member of the union were still able to contact union representatives, or if there was another route they would take.
Mr. Hickman stated that those who were not members of the association would take a different route.
Mr. Geddes quizzed Mr. Hickman as to what that route would be.
Mr. Hickman humorously asserted that was one of the reasons teachers should be members of the association.
Chairman Williams inquired if Mr. Geddes had any further questions.
Mr. Geddes responded negatively, unless someone in the audience could respond to his question.
Mr. Hickman clarified that the only support he knew of was for that teacher to go through the local association. If the teacher were not a member, he or she would only be able to deal with the principal.
Mr. Geddes asked if there was anything precluding them from contacting the district superintendent.
Mr. Hickman replied that they could definitely do that if they chose.
Chairman Williams thanked Mr. Hickman and recognized Assemblywoman Angle.
Mrs. Angle wondered if the Committee could be provided with any record of complaints from northern Nevada and if Mr. Hickman had any evidence that it was a statewide problem.
Mr. Hickman responded that due to confidentiality concerns, he could not release any names of those who complained and their results, but he assured Mrs. Angle that there were concerns on a statewide basis. He repeated that it was definitely not just a Las Vegas issue.
Mrs. Angle asked again about documentation.
Mr. Hickman replied that they had not done a statewide survey, as there was no funding.
Mrs. Angle contended that it would not be necessary to go that far; she would appreciate something that would show the Committee how many cases his association had heard from per district.
Mr. Hickman retorted that all he could provide was the numbers they had so far. He further explained that, to be fair, it would be necessary to review all information over the last four years since A.B. 521 was passed.
Assemblywoman Angle thanked Mr. Hickman and stated that she would like that information.
Chairman Williams solicited questions from the Committee or witnesses, and he called Ken Morgan to speak.
Ken Morgan, Teachers’ Advocate and Special Education Teacher, Clark County School District, addressed the Committee, remarked that he saw some perplexed looks, and indicated that his name was legally changed as of February 28, 2003. He said that as a classroom teacher in the Clark County School District, he had over 27 years of classroom teaching experience, all in special education. He added that he was also a teachers’ advocate, explaining that he advocated for teachers when they were in trouble, which meant that he had heard teachers vent their frustrations on many occasions.
Mr. Morgan commented that he was amazed, with all the educational experience in those who testified, that if he were to give the testimony as a reading question on the Nevada High School Proficiency Examination, everyone who had testified would have failed the question. He articulated that nowhere in A.B. 218 did it state that the teachers’ vote would suspend pay from the administrator; it read that they either received an extension or they did not; it had nothing to do with pay, and the wording of the bill was very exact. He agreed with Assemblyman Horne’s comments that the issue was not having a plan, but compliance with the plan.
Mr. Morgan contended that to remove pay from an administrator was no more severe than to have a teacher suspended for a day without pay, which in his opinion was an unusually harsh and cruel punishment. He noted that they did have a progressive discipline plan, which he believed in, and he also believed that 95 percent of the administrators in the state worked very hard to provide leadership to the school they represented; it was those administrators that were not in compliance who were in need of progressive discipline. He also countered that progressive discipline was a problem for special education students, explaining that the only problem was if the behavior was associated with the child’s primary handicap; for instance, if a child with learning disabilities struck another child, that action had nothing to do with the disability and could be handled under A.B. 521.
Mr. Morgan went on to clarify that the administrators had not heard complaints due to teachers’ intense fear of reprisals, which he described as starting off as mild and steadily growing harsher. He said that the teachers felt powerless, and due to reprisals, the teachers would not file complaints. He countered the suggestion to push the deadline in A.B. 218 back to December 1, 2003, explaining that by December 1, half of the year would have gone by without a behavior plan, and probationary teachers would have had one complete evaluation which included classroom management. If the principal had not given the teachers the model for progressive discipline, then those teachers could have been given an unsatisfactory evaluation for reasons they had no control over and no guidance on.
Mr. Morgan then related that he had two stories to tell, both involving A.B. 521. In the first story, the school in question had an A.B. 521 discipline procedure in place for the last four years, but the problem was non-compliance. At the beginning of October, the teacher had problems with two students; attempted home contacts by phone were not fruitful, as the parents were never available. The teacher even tried to make a home visit to talk with the parents, to no avail. There were dean’s referrals and RPCs (Required Parent Conferences), but they expired and the students were allowed back into the classroom without the parent conferences. One day the students were too rowdy and the teacher made a referral, with “A.B. 521” clearly marked on the referral form, and gave the form to the dean’s office. The form should have gone to the assistant principal, but instead the dean routed that referral to the counselor. The counselor recognized that the students were “special needs” students and routed that referral to the special education teacher/facilitator, who in turn saw it as a discipline problem and routed it back to the dean. Two weeks later, the teacher asked the dean’s office what happened to the A.B. 521 referral, because those students were still in the classroom; the teacher had not been trained well enough to know that the pupil should have been sent to the dean’s office the very next day. The teacher also contacted the supervisor after two weeks, but by the end of October, no hearing and no parent conference had yet been held; however, the students’ schedules were changed and a resolution was brought about. The resolution took one month and clearly violated the procedures of the law.
Mr. Morgan advised that the next story was much worse, describing it as a tale of terror and woe. He commented that Assemblyman Geddes would be interested in the story, as it came from a non-association member; he would not relate the whole story, just the part concerned with A.B. 521.
Mr. Morgan described a teacher who was assaulted in the classroom by a student, who began throwing objects such as crayons and small pieces of wood, hitting the teacher in the head several times. The teacher tried to call the student’s home and made referrals, but the student continued to be returned to the classroom. The teacher came to Mr. Morgan, who asked her if she marked a big “X” and circled it on the A.B. 521 form. She wrote a new referral the next day and made it very clear. The principal received the referral and a tale of the persecution of the classroom teacher began, which involved racist statements and persecution. The teacher became ill, and her hair began to fall out.
Mr. Morgan described her as a dedicated teacher and exclaimed that she became ill from having to face every day the rogue student who assaulted her. Her illness grew worse from watching that student assault other students, because he was never disciplined. He advised that he had documentation with him to prove the incidents, although the names had been taken out.
Mr. Morgan suggested that there could be a fantastic plan which could satisfy all students’ needs, but if the plan was not implemented, it was useless. He described the only recourse some teachers had was to go over their principal’s head, stating it was “not pretty” when it happened, due to reprisals. He suggested one change to the bill, however; having two alternates instead of one, as one of the teachers selected might be the teacher invoking the progressive discipline plan. He reiterated his support for A.B. 218, expounding that if a loss in pay would force administrators to comply with the law, that was no different than a teacher being suspended for a day without pay. He then offered to respond to any questions.
Chairman Williams asked for questions from the Committee and inquired if there was anyone else to testify either in Las Vegas or Carson City. There was no response, so he closed the hearing on Assembly Bill 218. He then asked Assemblywoman Chowning if she had the last introduction to make at the meeting.
Mrs. Chowning confirmed that it was her honor to introduce someone very special to her who had come into the back of the room; that was her husband, Elmer, and she expressed her pleasure to have him there, saying that he had been her husband since 1969 and was the only husband she had ever had. She described him as her great supporter and a wonderful champion of education as well, and thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to introduce her husband.
Chairman Williams said she was welcome, indicating jokingly
that she was married before he was born.
He asked for other comments or business to come
before the Committee, and there was none.
He then adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Victoria Thompson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
DATE: