MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session March 13, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Monday, March 13, 1995, Chairman Wendell P. Williams presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington, Chairman Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom, Vice Chairman Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Deanna Braunlin Mrs. Vonne Chowning Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Mark Manendo Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mrs. Jeannine Stroth COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Ms. Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21 Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Jan Biggerstaff, State of Nevada Board of Education Rick Millsap, Nevada State Education Association Nancy Wall, League of Women Voters Sherry Schroeder, American Association of University Women Carolyne Edwards, Clark County School District Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Shirley M. Perkins, Professional Standards Commission The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 290. ASSEMBLY BILL 290 - Requires adoption of regulations specifying course work required for renewal by teacher of endorsement in field of specialization Assemblyman Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21, introduced Mr. Bill Hanlon, Las Vegas, Nevada, State Education Board Member, and math teacher, and Ms. Carolyne Edwards, Clark County School District. Assemblyman Tiffany spoke of the significance of education. A.B. 290 requires teachers doing their five year license renewal process to complete three semester hours of college education courses related to their field of credentials. Most teachers do this, but some do not. A.B. 290 makes it mandatory for teachers renewing their credentials to take classes in the subject matter they are teaching. The desire is for all teachers to have proper academic backgrounds, especially when upgrading skills and knowledge. Ms. Tiffany noted A.B. 290 is the least expensive and most effective method of improving classroom education to improve the preparedness of the classroom teacher. Referring to Line 17 of the bill, Ms. Tiffany explained three hours of class work are required in a teacher's field of specialization. Currently teachers are required to complete six credit hours for recertification, but it is not specified the hours be in their field of specialization within a five year period. A.B. 290 requires teachers to take half of the credits currently required in their specialized field. On Lines 19-24 potential problems are addressed. Such problems may include program access by rural teachers, or alternative choices for teachers who have maximized courses in their specialized area. Noting she is co-chairman of the Commerce Committee, Ms. Tiffany explained how credentialing and recredentialing of professional licenses and continuing education are often discussed. Since teachers are professionals, education should be no different in taking continuing education classes in specified teaching areas. Mr. Bill Hanlon testified in favor of A.B. 290. He explained educational research suggests student achievement and the product produced by the public schools are highly impacted by teacher and time on task. Implementation of "best practices" were encouraged to expose Nevada students to the best trained, most highly qualified teachers. In 1990 the Council of Chief State School Officers issued a report indicating that of all states recording, Nevada ranked lowest in terms of teacher standards. Research done by the National Council of Teacher's of Mathematics indicates students of teachers receiving training in mathematics consistently outperform students of teachers without that training. It was reiterated the purpose of A.B. 290 which proposes three of six credits required for license renewal be in the field in which the licensee is teaching. The bill requires teachers to stay current and qualified. Mr. Hanlon discussed licensure procedures, using math as an example. He noted there is a licensure hierarchy. Person "A" may have a math degree and then take education classes for teaching certification. Person "B" may have an education degree with an emphasis on math. The amount of math required for Person "B" is much less than for Person "A". Person "C" may have a degree in a certain field, like physical education, and be unable to obtain employment in the field. Person "C" may take three or four courses in another field, such as math, and obtain a license to teach math. Person "C", in Mr. Hanlon's opinion, is the least prepared. The concern is Person "C" may never, during the course of his or her career, have to take another math course to renew their license. Mr. Hanlon felt this scenario was fraudulent to the students. The need for exposure to current, updated information by teachers was expressed. Assemblyman Segerblom asked for clarification as to whether someone could teach science with three hours. Mr. Hanlon replied science could be taught with three or four classes. He noted there are currently sixty-nine teachers in Nevada teaching on a provisionary or emergency license in the mathematical sciences who may not have that many hours in math. Assemblyman Batten inquired what Mr. Hanlon does. Mr. Hanlon stated he is coordinator for the Clark County School District Math- Science Institute, he teaches math part-time at the University of Nevada - Las Vegas, he has a television show, he is on the State Board of Education, he writes a math column weekly and he writes a commentary column weekly in the newspapers. Ms. Carolyne Edwards, legislative representative Clark County School District, stated the Clark County School District supports A.B. 290. She noted many teachers in her school are supportive of updating their skills with current information. Chairman Williams asked if the viewpoint expressed by Ms. Edwards was her own or that of the Clark County School District. Ms. Edwards stated it was the viewpoint of the Clark County School District. Assemblyman Bennett requested numbers on the sixty-nine math teachers mentioned by Mr. Hanlon. He asked how many students are affected. Mr. Hanlon stated he believed most of them are in Clark and Washoe Counties. Assemblyman de Braga asked for a grammar correction on Line 17. Mr. Rick Millsap, President of the Nevada State Education Association spoke in opposition to A.B. 290 from prepared text, (Exhibit C). Current Nevada licensure requirements were reviewed. Mr. Millsap discussed how A.B. 290 takes away two critical areas of need from the licensure process. It reduces the ability of Nevada to attract teachers in critical need areas from their own ranks, and makes the pursuit of an advanced degree more expensive and less attractive. He noted it is important for teachers to be able to exercise professional judgment in class selection to improve themselves as educators. Concern was expressed over bureaucratic problems which may be encountered by teachers. Mr. Millsap indicated a watchdog mechanism is already in place to take care of teachers who do not take classes to recertify in their areas of expertise. Yearly evaluation procedures by administrators in each school deal with professional improvement and deficiencies. Also, licensing requirements can be addressed in contracts between districts and local teacher associations. Assemblyman Bennett asked if teachers were able to contest their evaluations. Mr. Millsap stated teachers were able to contact their local teacher's association, which could meet with the teacher and the administrator. Also heads of administration could be a level of appeal. He noted it does not necessarily mean an appeal is overturned just because it is appealed. If documentation of a deficiency exists, and an improvement opportunity has been provided, the teacher will be required to improve professionally. To be sure this is done is the responsibility of the administrator. Assemblyman Segerblom commented she found it unbelievable a teacher seeking licensure renewal only had to take six credits in five years. Mr. Millsap stated he felt A.B. 290 would not effect most teachers. For those in pursuit of advanced degrees, and the much needed special education, math and science teachers, incentive is removed. Ms. Shirley Perkins, President of the Professional Standards Commission on Education spoke in opposition to A.B. 290. She stated it is not necessary to create a statute for these requirements. Phrases in the bill such as "for good cause" are vague, as well as "may allow renewal of endorsement upon the completion of three semester hours...". Many interpretations can be construed from the proposed language. She noted the type of request contained in the bill falls under the auspices of the Professional Standards Commission, which was created to make administrative changes. Concern was expressed about one problem being dealt with and others created by the solution to the first. Chairman Williams asked Ms. Perkins if she felt this was something the commission should be addressing. Ms. Perkins replied affirmatively. Chairman Williams asked if this proposal had come before the commission. Ms. Perkins replied it had not in the form presented here, to her knowledge. Chairman Williams asked if it had been presented in any other form. Ms. Perkins replied it had not, to her knowledge. Assemblyman Batten asked if the issues concerning the commission were addressed, the commission would support the bill. Ms. Perkins stated the bill would create more problems than it would cure. Assemblyman Batten reiterated his point which was this could be accomplished by the commission if the commission chose to do so. Ms. Perkins explained it has not been presented to the commission. Assemblyman Batten explained this would ensure whether the commission wants to deal with the issue or not, it would be done. Ms. Perkins felt many problems would be created. Chairman Harrington asked if Ms. Perkins was a member of the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA). Ms. Perkins replied affirmatively. She stated she is also a Washoe County School District counselor. Chairman Harrington asked if Ms. Perkins was one of the five members appointed to the commission by the NSEA. Ms. Perkins replied she is the counselor representative. Chairman Harrington asked if Mr. Millsap nominated Ms. Perkins. Ms. Perkins replied her nomination probably came from Greater Northern Nevada School Counselor Association. Assemblyman Neighbors asked what administrative problems Ms. Perkins saw with A.B. 290. Ms. Perkins discussed fragmented legislation, program review, bill language, and interference with the authority of the commission. Assemblyman Bennett asked if the committee could be supplied with the current math recommendations. Ms. Perkins replied affirmatively. Chairman Williams asked if the commission has ever dealt with this subject matter. Ms. Perkins replied "not specifically, not that I recall". Chairman Williams asked if the commission had ever been asked to implement a policy which is parallel to A.B. 290. Ms. Perkins answered "not that I'm aware of." Chairman Williams stated he wished to find out if the commission had been asked to address the same requests in A.B. 290. He felt the information would be vital to the committee. Assemblyman Braunlin referred to Lines 8 and 9 of A.B. 290 which refers to identifying fields of specialization. She asked for clarification as to whether it was middle and high school teachers teaching single subjects. Ms. Perkins stated she felt it also fit special education. Assemblyman Braunlin asked if it would also include a license for Kindergarten through grade six. Ms. Perkins said she presumed so. Assemblyman Stroth asked if the commission had written policy addressing continuing education requirements, and if so, if the commission could be provided with those requirements regarding renewal of licenses. Ms. Perkins stated the commission does have written policy regarding continuing education requirements and those would be provided for the committee. Ms. Perkins discussed the issue, including reading from the Nevada Revised Statutes. Assemblyman Chowning asked what courses would be acceptable to a foreign language teacher under A.B. 290. Also she felt the committee should know how many teachers have taken classes outside their field and what the classes have been. Classes helpful to teachers, such as psychology, would not fall under many teachers' specialization area. Mr. Hanlon stated he has spoken on numerous occasions and to numerous members of the Professional Standards Commission on exactly this item. He also stated he addressed the Professional Standards Commission approximately one and one-half years ago regarding this issue and he was told "it wasn't gonna happen". In addressing Assemblyman Chowning's concerns regarding "good cause" for not taking classes in a specialty area, this phraseology was used for geographic reasons and for those teachers who have, in terms of utility, taken all the classes beneficial to the students. For those teachers it may be more appropriate to take other class work. It also allows local districts to determine what is in the best interest of the students. He noted the bill is not punitive; it is to provide best practices. Chairman Williams asked if that could apply to any teacher. Mr. Hanlon agreed it could if the teacher was deemed competent in their fields. Assemblyman Chowning commented she had a problem with an administrator making the judgment on what class the teacher is approved to take. She stated she would feel more comfortable with the decision being in the hands of someone other than the principal or administrator. Mr. Hanlon stated principals are in charge of instruction at individual schools, being responsible to their districts and to the state. Mr. Hanlon queried, "who better than someone at the local level who is, in fact, a supervisor to make that determination with the teacher." He explained the teacher would go to the principal and make their wishes in class work known, then the principal would approve or disapprove the request. Assemblyman Chowning explained the bill says "the principal may allow renewal with the approval of the superintendent..." so the principal is put in the judgmental position. Assemblyman Bennett asked for Mr. Hanlon to provide evidence he had appeared before the Professional Standards Commission and the proof of Nevada's low ranking Mr. Hanlon referred to in earlier testimony. Mr. Hanlon agreed to provide the evidence. Chairman Williams requested more information on the commission's response "it's just not gonna happen", i.e., the minutes showing the commission's response. Mr. Hanlon explained there was no public response of the commission. The responses were individual. Mr. Chuck Fletcher, Fernley High School music teacher, and member of the Professional Standards Commission explained it was the collective memory of the three commissioners present Mr. Hanlon spoke at a public comments section and not in an agendized portion of a commission meeting. The reason his request was unanswered is because it is already happening. He felt as much as 98 percent of teachers are already doing as the bill asks. He noted complaints are often heard concerning the unavailability of vocational courses, special education courses, and music courses. Mr. Fletcher discussed earlier assertions the bill would assure student achievement and teacher's communication abilities. Removing opportunities for teachers to address cooperative education or other such areas, limits the expansion of teachers' skills. Mr. Fletcher stated, "education is a bigger subject area than the three credit hours in your subject area would seem to put into effect." Chairman Williams asked if any of the information in A.B. 290 had been requested as an agenda item at the Public Standards Commission. Mr. Fletcher replied, "not to my knowledge, no." Assemblyman Batten asked Mr. Hanlon if A.B. 290 was flexible to cover a variety of different situations for teachers. Mr. Hanlon replied he felt the bill was extremely flexible, giving the teacher the opportunity to choose courses pertinent to their work after maximum subject area courses had been covered. Chairman Williams asked if Mr. Hanlon feared administrative abuse or favoritism resulting from the bill. Mr. Hanlon stated unfairness always exists. He felt not passing A.B. 290 limits student achievement. Assemblyman Bennett asked who sets the agenda for the Professional Standards Commission. Ms. Perkins stated she and Dr. Rheault of the state Education Department set the agenda. She insisted getting on the agenda is no problem. Assemblyman Bennett asked how many requests are received for agenda items by the commission and how long it takes for a request to be put on the agenda. Ms. Perkins replied it takes six weeks to two months, as the commission meets approximately every two months. Ms. Elaine Lancaster, teacher and representative of the Nevada State Education Association, noted she had an evaluation approximately ten years ago in which her principal explained she need to review and improve her math skills. She took math classes and did improve her skills. She explained she would find it awkward to go to an administrator and ask permission to get her license and she does not feel that is what professional and public education is about. Concern was expressed regarding the awkwardness of teachers having to get permission from a principal, the superintendent, and the Board of Education in order to continue their educations and pursue licensure renewal.. She stated the process involved "way too many hoops" for a professional educator to deal with to obtain licensure. Mr. Fletcher asked how the people in the licensure offices would know the principal approved a teacher taking classes outside their specialty area. Mr. Hanlon stated the school district would send a "note" to the State Department of Education to place on the teacher's record stating what classes were to be taken. He felt this would lighten the load on the State Education Department. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, spoke as an individual regarding A.B. 290. She raised several questions already pointed out in previous testimony. The hearing was closed on A.B. 290. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 291. ASSEMBLY BILL 291 - Authorizes issuance of conditional license to teach to person with college degree. Assemblyman Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21, referred to a handout legislators were given on the floor and noted how much good information it contained (Exhibit D). She emphasized the importance of education and quality of education. It was explained A.B. 291 authorizes the superintendent of public instruction to issue a conditional license to teachers who have a Bachelor's degree or higher as long as they have completed fifteen semester hours for teacher education (pedagogy) and allows them five years to complete the state mandatory requirements. Ms. Tiffany reported Nevada ranks forty-eighth in the country in the number of students taking advanced classes. Fewer than sixty percent of our high school math teachers have degrees in the subject. There are many talented, well trained people in the community the school systems can draw upon to fill in the gap. Ms. Tiffany contends that a licensee with a specific degree in a subject matter is more pertinent than a teacher with just a general education degree trying to teach in a specialized area. Referring to A.B. 291, Lines 4-20, Ms. Tiffany reminded the committee the candidate for licensure has to have a Bachelor's degree or higher. It is stated in Line 9 "that a need has to exist for the issuance of a conditional license to teach in a subject area...". She noted the conditional licensure applies to secondary education only and in specialized areas only. Ms. Tiffany felt alternative licensing could do much for reinvigorating the public schools and bringing in teachers with actual experience in how various disciplines are applied in the real world. Chairman Williams stated he is finding a contradiction between A.B. 290 and A.B. 291 to some degree. We are asking to allow someone who has expertise in a specialized area to be licensed conditionally, even though they do not meet state licensing requirements. Then, we are considering not allowing teachers who teach in specialty areas to take classes to help them teach and better communicate with students who may have special economic, ethnic, and social problems. Taking a full six credits for recertification in areas allowing the teacher to elevate and broaden his/her ability to educate the students would have a greater impact taking three in a specialty area and three in other areas. Chairman Williams expressed his feeling there is a contradiction between the philosophies of the two bills. Assemblyman Tiffany reiterated the licensing was being requested for secondary levels and for high need courses. Mr. Hanlon stated in both bills the desire is to have teachers teach in their specialized area, i.e., math teachers to teach math and science teachers to teach science. A balance between pedagogy with actual teaching is desired. In A.B. 291 the shortage of math, science, special education and bi-lingual teachers is addressed. Taking people with content knowledge and having them take a "balance" in the pedagogy classes and bring them in as teachers offers a method to deal with teacher shortages and the need for teachers to fill slots in expanded curriculums. Both bills call for competence in the area of instruction. Assemblyman Braunlin asked Ms. Tiffany if the shortages of teachers occurred in high school. Assemblyman Tiffany stated at present the shortages occur in math, science, special education and bi-lingual education. However, the need could shift to other areas. Ms. Carolyne Edwards stated the Clark County School District supports A.B. 291. She explained two members of their cabinet, previously against the bill, visited other states, New Mexico and California, with forms of alternative licensure. Those people came back in favor of the concept. She noted Clark County has a high need for specialized teachers in areas other than math and science. The magnet school concept in Clark County is being broadened with expanded curriculums and having the ability to bring in people best qualified would be beneficial to these programs. Ms. Edwards expressed understanding of Chairman Williams' feelings of conflict between the two bills. She stated Clark County sees the difference between keeping their teachers current and well instructed in the latest ideas and trends in their subject areas, and the ability and privilege to seek teachers who have the knowledge to teach in rare areas. Assemblyman Batten commended Ms. Tiffany on A.B. 290 and A.B. 291. Mr. Batten recounted he has had the experience of being highly qualified to teach a class and yet was unable to because he does not hold a teaching certificate. Chairman Harrington also commended Ms. Tiffany on the bills. He stated he felt A.B. 291 could be particularly important to the rural areas where access might be had to engineers, scientists, etc. Chairman Harrington inquired if any input had been received from the rural districts. Mr. Hanlon stated the boards of rural districts were not addressed but he did speak to individuals in various districts. The general feeling was it could be of benefit to them. Assemblyman Bennett commented he felt A.B. 291 was excellent. He noted layoffs are expected at the Nevada Test Site and many talented personnel could be utilized and be an asset to the state of Nevada. Assemblyman de Braga stated she sees an opposition between A.B. 290 and A.B. 291. Given a choice between a person who knows the subject matter and the person who knows how to teach, the preference should be with the person who knows how to teach. Mr. Hanlon stated the best case scenario is a person who can do both. Ms. Jan Biggerstaff, past member, Clark County School Board, currently member of the State Board of Education testified in favor of A.B. 291. She is not representing the State Board of Education in this testimony. Ms. Biggerstaff feels we have a window of opportunity to bring "brainpower" into the schools if immediate action is taken. She encouraged the committee to vote in favor of A.B. 291. Mr. Hanlon explained both bills came about as an education standards committee in southern Nevada. Concerns expressed by Mr. Hanlon regarding A.B. 290 are similarly expressed regarding A.B. 291. He wished to clarify licensure is not a synonym for competence. He also explained it was not being proposed to let people with no knowledge of children into the classroom. The bill allows qualified people to complete classes in educational pedagogy, do their student teaching "on the job" with a supervisory mentor. These people would not be required to jeopardize themselves financially by taking one to two years off in a mid career job change to go to school full time. He noted attracting outside people to education would be as beneficial to existing staff as to the students due to the richness of practical experiences with the subject matter and the changing technology. Assemblyman Segerblom noted the bill said conditionally licensed teachers have five years to complete the necessary class work. Mr. Hanlon stated the five years was put in because that is when the people would go back for regular licensure renewal. If the committee felt more comfortable with a different time limit, Mr. Hanlon stated he could be flexible. Chairman Williams asked how it would be determined if conditional licensees could deliver their expertise to the students. Mr. Hanlon explained educational pedagogy would occur first, then the conditional licensee would be in a mentorship program, very much like the student teacher program. The program would be under the auspices of the school district rather than the university. He reiterated balance is being sought with both bills. The desire is for people to know and understand their fields as well as the ability to convey their knowledge. Mr. Rick Millsap, representing NSEA, testified in opposition to A.B. 291. He commented on inconsistencies between A.B. 290 and A.B. 291. Understanding was expressed for the desire to encourage people from other professions to enter education as a second career. The position of NSEA is the bill does so at the expense of standards for teachers. Noting teaching is a separate and distinct skill, Mr. Millsap expressed the opinion that knowing a subject does not mean you can teach it. Language of the bill was questioned. He noted considerable progress has been made to streamline the process for candidates currently in other fields wishing to teach. Ways have been found by both the University of Nevada-Reno and the University of Nevada-Las Vegas to streamline the process. One major complaint frequently heard from the candidates is not concerning the course work but the student teaching requirements. He encouraged the committee to vote in opposition to A.B. 291. Assemblyman Bennett and Mr. Hanlon engaged in extended conversation regarding Mr. Hanlon's testimony. Assemblyman Batten commented on teachers and their teaching abilities. He noted he felt experience and life skills are vital to teaching ability. Mr. Millsap felt the issues of initial licensure and performance needed to be separated. In A.B. 290 if performance was "not up to snuff", it is the administrative responsibility. In A.B. 291 "what kind of hoops you have to jump through" to get into the profession is being discussed. Mr. Millsap stated "no matter how many hoops you create, nothing except proper administrative review guarantees you've got a good teacher." He felt the reduction of requirements in A.B. 291 was too brief. Assemblyman Batten asked if Mr. Millsap would prefer to have an administrator interview the prospective candidate. Mr. Millsap explained he was agreeing with Chairman Williams as to the contradictory nature between A.B. 290 and A.B. 291. The hearing was closed on A.B. 291. Chairman Williams reminded Ms. Perkins and Mr. Hanlon for information for the committee previously requested during testimony. Chairman Harrington requested the committee to approve requests for the following bill draft requests for committee introduction (Exhibit E). The requests are as follows: 1. Clarifies that legislative curriculum mandates are for public schools. 2. Eliminates certain unfunded curriculum mandates to schools. 3. Revises provisions governing membership of commission on professional standards in education. IT WAS MOVED BY ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED BILL DRAFT REQUESTS. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Chairman Williams declared A.B. 290 and A.B. 291 would be held until a later time until the requested information was received. Assemblyman Batten inquired if Chairman Williams would accept a motion on A.B. 291. Chairman Williams replied negatively. He then declared A.B. 290 and A.B. 291 would be placed in a subcommittee chaired by himself. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara Prudic, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, Chairman Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Assembly Committee on Education March 13, 1995 Page