MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session April 3, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Monday, April 3, 1995, Chairman William Z. Harrington, M.D. 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 Ms. Patricia A. Tripple, Vice Chairman 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 EXCUSED: Mr. Thomas Batten STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Doug Byington, Nevada Association of School Administrators Suzie Carrillo, Criminal Information Repository Don Hataway, State of Nevada Budget Department George Ann Rice, Clark County School District Dianne Hanson, Clark County School District Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association Janna Zedaka, R.E. Tobler Parent Teacher's Association Patricia O'Gara, R.E. Tobler Parent Teacher's Association Chairman Harrington announced the meeting on Wednesday, April 5, 1995, would be canceled. He stated Senate Joint Resolution 4, scheduled to be heard on April 5, 1995, would be rescheduled for a later time. Also scheduled for April 5, 1995, was A.B. 340. A.B. 340 will not be heard again but will be placed into subcommittee with Chairman Harrington, Assemblyman Braunlin, and Assemblyman Manendo as subcommittee members. A subcommittee meeting will be held in the future on A.B. 290 and A.B. 291, chaired by Chairman Williams. Chairman Williams announced he was waiting for more information from the licensure commission in regard to A.B. 290 and A.B. 291 before a subcommittee meeting would be held. Subcommittee members are Chairman Williams, Assemblyman Chowning and Assemblyman Batten. Chairman Harrington announced committee chairmen had met with the Speakers to discuss the standing rules of the committees and to decide how committee members present and not present would be treated. The recommendation was to amend the standing rules to reflect those decisions. He referred the committee to Item 9, Page 2 of the standing rules (Exhibit C). Item 9 was amended to read as follows: "The Secretary of the Committee shall call the roll at the beginning of each meeting, noting members present or excused. Absences excused will be so recorded. On roll call votes members not present will be marked not present." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED THE STANDING RULES OF THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE BE ADOPTED AS AMENDED. ASSEMBLYMAN STROTH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Assemblyman Chowning asked if the section of Item 9 of the standing rules regarding roll call votes meant it would be at the discretion of the chairman whether a roll call vote would be heard or not. Chairman Harrington explained when a roll call vote was taken, if a committee member was not present, he or she would be marked not present. If, during the course of a meeting, no votes are taken, nothing will be stated as to the member being not present. If the absence is excused, it will be so noted. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 67 and Assembly Bill 368. ASSEMBLY BILL 67 - Revises provisions governing probationary period of administrators and teachers employed by county districts. ASSEMBLY BILL 368 - Revises provisions governing probationary period of administrators and teachers employed by county school districts. Chairman Harrington stated A.B. 67 and A.B. 368 were paired because they deal with similar provisions of the law. Carolyne Edwards, Clark County School District, stated a group would be working with the committee in regard to the two bills. She suggested the group would like to have one vehicle instead of two. Rather than giving the committee anything on A.B. 67, the group would be working on A.B. 368, with all involved agreeing A.B. 368 was the preferred vehicle. She asked for the committee's agreement. Chairman Harrington expressed the committee's agreement. Mr. Doug Byington, Nevada Association of School Administrators, reminded the committee A.B. 67 had been postponed to be heard with A.B. 368 at the request of Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards due to preferential language contained in A.B. 368. Two amendments were proposed to A.B. 368 from the Nevada State Education Association (Exhibit D) and the Clark County School District (Exhibit E). He proposed the representatives of the Clark County School District present their amendment first. Dr. George Ann Rice, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Division, Clark County School District testified on A.B. 368. She explained each year for the past five years Clark County School District has hired over nine hundred fifty licensed personnel. It appears the growth requiring this level of hiring will continue. The newly hired employees come from all over the country. They are veterans with many years of experience as well as recent college graduates. Everything possible is done to hire the best possible teachers. A new staff development program has been established in Clark County, piloted in twenty-five elementary schools and six secondary schools, in which "new hires" work their first year of employment. This is to insure they have the basic, essential skills identified in the standards established under N.R.S 391.3125. This is done in a positive atmosphere of people working together for the teacher's professional growth and development. The program helps identify problem areas and to work with those who need help in essential skills and to provide necessary assistance. The program includes a mentor pilot program. Next year the district will begin to work with master teachers who are shepherding student teachers from the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. Currently in order to insure legal due process is provided, it is necessary to declare the "new hires" unsatisfactory in December and February at the latest, if there is any doubt at all as to their being able to demonstrate the necessary basic competency skills by years' end. As soon as the documentation process has begun, and the teacher is notified the work is unsatisfactory, the atmosphere of working together for growth has been changed to one of confrontation. A.B. 368 offers the chance to work with teachers who have shown growth potential and who the district believes will be able to meet the standards with more time and help without branding them as unsatisfactory or failures as early as December 1. It still provides those the district knows will not or cannot meet the standards can be non-renewed in one year. In addition, the provision exists for the district to waive the second year probation for a new employee who has demonstrated all of the competencies set forth in the district standards. The bill also carries the same provisions for administrators. Dr. Rice asked for the committee's support for A.B. 368. Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), explained she had spoken to most of the committee members earlier in the session regarding her concerns on A.B. 67. It extended the probationary period for new teachers by one year and was a flat one year extension regardless of the circumstances. She stated with the amendment presented by NSEA (Exhibit D), proposed new language in Section 3, Subsection 4, beginning on Line 33, it has been agreed by those involved the changes would be beneficial for new teachers and the administrators. NSEA encourages adoption of the amendment and passage of the bill. Mr. Byington explained to make it perfectly clear administrators are included in the change, he suggested the change described in (Exhibit E). Administrators could start out with a two year probationary period. If they do a good job the superintendent could waive the second year of the probationary period and move into post probationary status. If promoted into another administrative position, they incur a one year probationary period. Assemblyman Segerblom asked when teachers are first notified of problems. Dr. Rice explained the dates would not be changed. The December 1, February 1 and April 1 dates would be adhered to. There would not be a necessity on December 1 to make the decision as to whether a teacher is unsatisfactory. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the teachers would be told they are being watched and evaluated. Dr. Rice stated the administrators and other personnel would work with the teachers in question as well as all new teachers. Some are able to demonstrate all of the competencies earlier than others. There was no testimony against A.B. 67 or A.B. 368. Assemblyman Neighbors inquired if a motion was in order on A.B. 368 and A.B. 67. Assemblyman Bennett stated he would feel more comfortable with passing the A.B. 368 with the endorsement of Mr. Etchemendy on the proposed amendments. Chairman Harrington stated the committee would wait to hear from Mr. Etchemendy regarding the amendments and the bills would be considered at a subsequent work session. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 296. ASSEMBLY BILL 296 - Revises provisions governing distribution of fees collected for issuance or renewal of licenses for teachers and other educational personnel. Mr. Don Hathaway, Nevada State Budget Division testified on A.B. 296. He apologized for not have a representative before the committee when the bill was previously scheduled on the agenda. He appreciated the timely rescheduling of the bill because part of it relates to the implementation of the executive budget. Two parts exist to the proposal. One deals with departmental procedures and the other deals with where funds are placed in the budget for fees collected for teacher licensing. Referring to Line 8, Mr. Hathaway explained part of the fee a new teacher pays to the teacher licensing and the Professional Standards Commission is for fingerprint investigation. The current law requires funds collected be deposited into the Department of Education and they transfer the funds by journal voucher to the Department of Motor Vehicles (D.M.V.) who does the fingerprint investigation. In 1994 funds were directly deposited to D.M.V., which eliminated paperwork, but it was discovered the procedure was contrary to law. The change on Line 8 would allow the deposit of the specified funds directly to D.M.V. Mr. Hathaway described this change as a time saver and a paper saver. The second thing relates to the handout distributed to the committee (Exhibit F) entitled "Teacher Licensing Summary of Fee Information". Increases are recommended in the teacher licensing program for additional staff. Problems in both southern and northern Nevada exist in the processing of teacher applications in a timely fashion. Additional professional and clerical staff are recommended in the budget. The Governor felt teachers and fees generated from teachers should be part of the support structure to support the budgetary increases. Currently all fees collected, except the previously discussed fingerprint fees, are deposited directly to the general fund. A line item in the general fund budget denotes teacher certification fees. In lieu of the funds going to the general fund, it was proposed they go to the specific teacher licensing account. On the bottom half of the worksheet (Exhibit F), the Professional Standards Commission and the licensing of teachers are one of thirty-three professional licensing boards the state has created, some of which are listed on the sheet. The teacher licensure board licenses the largest number of people. All boards, except professional licensing are self supporting from fees collected against the professions they are licensing. The proposal is the budget be supported roughly seventy percent with teacher licensing fees and thirty percent by general fund monies at the same rate Fiscal Year 1994 figures were collected. Lines 10 and 11 would change the depository from the state general fund to the credit of the teacher licensing budget in the Department of Education. Mr. Bennett, referring to the proposed changes in Line 8, asked if clarification and wording should be added to say "for background check" to avoid future confusion. Mr. Hathaway responded he thought the whole sentence together related specifically to the fingerprint portion. There was no testimony opposing A.B. 296. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 296. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Mrs. Chowning offered to handle the bill on the floor. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ___________________________ Barbara Prudic, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, Chairman Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Assembly Committee on Education April 3, 1995 Page