MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session January 30, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, January 30, 1995, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Kathy M. Augustine Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. Senator Bob Coffin Senator Bernice Mathews GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Dean A. Rhoads STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: George Ann Rice, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Division, Clark County School District Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education Debbie Cahill, Assistant Executive Director, Nevada State Education Association Leonard Paul, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School District Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Nevada Greg Betts, Representing Nevada Rural School Districts Ray Bacon, Executive Director, Nevada Manufacturers Association Lindsey Jydstrup, Deputy Executive Director, Nevada State Education Association Lucille Lusk, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Concerned Citizens Jeanne Simons, Concerned Citizen Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 89 at 1:30 p.m. SENATE BILL 89: Requires department of education to establish date for submission by school districts of information related to employment of licensed personnel. Dr. George Ann Rice, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Division, Clark County School District, testified in support of S.B. 89, stating it was submitted in order to give the State Department of Education the authority it needs to extend the due date for school districts to report their state coding projects, which are projects involving the licensure of teachers, comparing their licensure with their current assignments. The district is asking the state department be authorized to work with individual districts, consider their unique circumstances and to come to agree upon a date. This date could be later than November 15th and must be before December 15th. In Clark County there are 9,200 teachers and licensed personnel at 220 different locations. Projected growth in the current year is 6 percent. Teachers can have multiple assignments requiring different licensure, which necessitates a line-by-line audit before the project is given to the state department. Dr. Rice commented further that by this bill the district is requesting flexibility to allow the state department to work with the districts to extend that due date a few days, if necessary, or a few weeks, if necessary, but certainly not beyond December 31st. Chairman Rawson asked if at the present time the deadline is November, and if the district has found they are not able to meet this deadline? Dr. Rice replied the district has been making the deadline, but has been forced to take all of their resources and put them toward the state coding project. Chairman Rawson asked if there has been any feedback to the district from the state department regarding this change and is the department concerned about it? Dr. Rice commented that representatives from the department are present, and they can better address that question, but she understands as long as there is not a final date of December 31st, the department has the leeway to work with the district to give them a few days or a few weeks to complete the project. It is her understanding there is no opposition against giving the department the authority, not a mandate, to work with the district. Chairman Rawson asked if there was anyone present to speak in favor of this bill. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified the Nevada Association of School Boards supports this bill, but would like to offer a suggestion for technical improvement. Mr. Etchemendy referred to the bottom of page 1 at lines 24 and 25 where the language states, "The department of education, in consultation with the board of trustees of each school district..." The way the date is established at this time, the Department of Education consults with each school district, usually with the administration in a school district, when the district works on matters of this type. The Nevada Association of School Boards suggests the wording be changed from "...in consultation with the board of trustees of each school district... to "...with the superintendent of the county school districts...," or something like that. In practical application, this is the way it works. Chairman Rawson asked if there is some reason this language has been put in to include the trustees? Has someone been concerned that the trustees ought to know about this? Mr. Etchemendy replied he has not heard any discussion about that issue; it is just something put in by the bill drafter. There is other language in the statutes that has reference to "...the department in consultation with various bodies...; that is, the teachers' associations, the administrators' associations and the county school districts. The chairman acknowledged Senator Neal. Senator Neal asked what difference it makes when there is a date certain put into the statute anyway, and the date selected must not be later than December 31st of each year? Mr. Etchemendy replied the way the bill is drafted, it would give some leeway for the department and the districts to work together to determine what is an appropriate date; it may be before December 31st. Senator Neal further commented the bill, if passed, has a date certain and that is December 31st, and the school districts cannot go beyond that particular date, so the project has to be in by December 31st. Mr. Etchemendy agreed. Chairman Rawson asked if it was to the advantage of the department to have this figure earlier; is anything else based on having this information? Mr. Etchemendy replied if there was, he was not aware of it. Chairman Rawson asked if there was further testimony for or against this bill. Since none was forthcoming, the chairman closed the hearing on S.B. 89 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 58. SENATE BILL 58: Requires adoption of regulations for reciprocal licensure of educational personnel from other states. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education, read from prepared test (Exhibit A) setting forth the department's stand in support of this bill. Chairman Rawson asked that a fiscal note be prepared regarding the figures, and asked Mr. Rheault to repeat them. Mr. Rheault responded $2,500 this year, which the department will cover by reducing some operating expenses, but it will be $3,500 every year thereafter. Chairman Rawson indicated one of the problems with every one of the expenses that is not spelled out in the formula is that parents then come to the department and say, "My children do not have textbooks." Admittedly, $2,500 is not a big item, but the state is getting more sensitive about money. Debbie Cahill, Assistant Executive Director, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), testified in support of S.B. 58, stating the members of education coalition have decided in areas where the association has a large amount of agreement on a bill, a representative would come forward to go on record in support, and NSEA does support this bill. The association has the same concern about the fiscal note and since the legislature is going ahead with that, NSEA would like to see it funded and agreed they will meet the time line provided in this bill. Chairman Rawson asked if NSEA feels there will be adequate safeguards on the quality of the teachers coming into the state under a reciprocity agreement? Ms. Cahill replied yes, NSEA felt the safeguards would be adequate. Mr. Etchemendy remarked that he would not be able to add anything to Ms. Cahill's statement. Senator Augustine asked if the department could tell the committee what a teacher who is licensed in another state has to do to be licensed in Nevada and how much that will cost? Mr. Rheault answered the teacher from out-of-state would have to submit transcripts and all the required documents, plus the fingerprint requirement. The department's analyst would look through the transcripts to see in which area the teacher is requesting licensure. The department would advise the applicant teacher if all the requirements of this state had been met. If not, the applicant would be advised what else was needed. If the applicant had a certain number of years of experience, the department may waive some requirements expected of a new teacher coming in from out of state. If the applicant has not taken the competency testing, it would be placed on the license that these tests must be completed within 2 years. Mr. Rheault commented further this reciprocity agreement would eliminate a lot of work. As it stands now, the department analysts have to go through the transcripts line by line to see if the applicant has met certain course requirements. These requirements can be agreed to with each state cooperating in this reciprocity agreement. Senator Lowden asked if the department expects to get funds for the first year by cutting down on manpower; would not that be continuous? Mr. Rheault responded the first year the department will not be saving money through manpower. It will take between now and the end of the fiscal year to agree with all 40 states, so it may take more manpower this year. The savings will come through reduced printing costs and a few other operating expenses. Senator Lowden asked further if the department will not be saving money on manpower in the future. Mr. Rheault stated it will save on manpower, but at the present time, the department estimates they are short about 5« people in the licensure office. Senator Lowden further asked what it would cost the average teacher trying to get licensed, about $100; is that about right? Senator Augustine asked if the teacher would have to get a physical. Mr. Rheault advised there is a tuberculosis test requirement, but he is not sure how much that costs. It would be added to their costs; also fingerprint fees. If the applicant has not completed the competency testing requirements in another state, that is probably the biggest cost. Senator Augustine asked about states where requirements are much lower than in Nevada; for instance, Florida does not require a college education. Mr. Rheault responded the Nevada Commission on Professional Standards will have the opportunity to review the requirements of every state, and the department can have different requirements for Florida. The department does not have to accept reciprocity from any of the participating 40 states. The department can be selective or can have specific requirements for teachers. For example, for applicants from Florida, the department may accept them with conditions they do certain things. It will be spelled out for every state participating. Senator Augustine asked about the nine states not participating. Mr. Rheault did not know which states they were. The chairman acknowledged Senator Neal. Senator Neal asked if at the present time checks are done on the various teachers who come to this state to acquire a license to teach? Mr. Rheault asked if Senator Neal would clarify what he meant by "checks." Senator Neal asked if the department checks to see if the applicant has a college degree, if that degree is genuine and from a school that is known. Mr. Rheault assured the senator that the department did check. Senator Neal further asked why it is necessary for the department to check if the applicant has been qualified in a certain state when there is a reciprocity agreement with that state? Does it not cost money to check? Mr. Rheault replied that Nevada has to join the consortium or the compact, and the cost is included there just so the department can negotiate with the other 40 states. There is no cost associated with the documentation of qualifications. Senator Neal inquired regarding the language of the bill, starting with section 1, lines 2 through 9, "Except as otherwise provided in NRS 391.027, the commission shall"..."adopt regulations which provide for"..."the reciprocal licensure of educational personnel from other states." Are you saying the language as written gives the department the leeway to accept or reject various states? Mr. Rheault indicated the department interprets that language as giving them leeway to adopt regulations. It does not mean the department will be forced to accept reciprocity with Florida, for example. Senator Neal pursued questioning on this subject by stating that the bill, as written, line 8, says "adopt regulations that provide for the reciprocal licensure of educational personnel from other states." If that state has a reciprocal agreement with another state, then it seems Nevada would be obligated to accept that particular state. The chairman indicated that he sees that as a problem also. He suggested Nevada might want to consider to "allow but not require reciprocal licensure," unless there is a problem with that language. Mr. Rheault indicated that currently the commission is authorized to do reciprocal agreements. The existing language in the current regulation says ...may adopt regulations.regarding reciprocal licensure." In a way, this would force the commission to do some kind of regulatory piece with the reciprocity agreement. Chairman Rawson asked if the commission wanted or did not want permissive regulations and suggested something about the regulation needed clarification. Mr. Rheault replied he was reading the regulation as permissive; that regulations be adopted from other states. It does not say how many or which ones. The intent is to reciprocate with as many states as possible. Mr. Etchemendy indicated the Professional Standards Commission will work on these regulations and when they do that through their public hearing process, they will then insure during that process the regulation comes out properly stated to insure that reciprocity need not be accepted from those states which do not qualify. That would be contained in those regulations. Chairman Rawson indicated a legal opinion should be requested on this point, and the legal staff will be asked to indicate if there is a clarification needed. The chairman does not want to get into a situation in the future where the attorney general gives an opinion the commission has no right to refuse applicants that, in their opinion, are not properly trained. Senator Neal suggested in line 4, "may" be inserted between "which" and "provide." This should solve the problem. The regulations have to be adopted, but it would give the commission the option to include or exclude certain states. Chairman Rawson said he agreed with Senator Neal's suggestion, but wondered if that wording would water down the authority of the commission. It appears to the chairman that the commission really wants the ability to make decisions. Mr. Etchemendy interjected he did not feel the changed wording would water it down; it mandates the Professional Standards Commission to develop and adopt such regulations. It does not tell them what is going to be in those regulations. The Professional Standards Commission is now in the process of developing and adopting such regulations. Mr. Rheault stated the department would not have a problem with adding the "may," if that cleans up the bill. The chairman wanted clarification if that language is adopted, saying there has to be reciprocal licensure; it spells it out for the reciprocal licensure. If that is full-bore reciprocal, there may not be any chance to tone it down with regulation. This will clarify the bill, if there is no objection. The chairman then asked if there were questions or comments; none were received. He asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to or in favor of the bill. There being nothing further, the chairman closed the hearing on S.B. 58 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 59. SENATE BILL 59: Revises provisions governing disclosure of questions and answers contained in achievement and proficiency examinations. Mr. Rheault read from a prepared text (Exhibit D) indicating the department's support of this bill. Mr. Rheault further indicated the coalition of other education- related entities also supports the regulation change. Chairman Rawson indicated one of the concerns with releasing national board examinations or various other kinds of examinations is that there may be a creep in the basic scores because students become attuned to the types of questions, and there are only so many questions that can be developed. The chairman asked if there was any concern on that point. Mr. Rheault replied that with these regulations, the department really does not have access to, for example, CTBS, the California Battery of Tests. The primary benefit would be the state-generated questions and answers for the 11th and 12th grade proficiency examinations where the department generated their own questions. These tests have not been replaced in about 10 years. The department was proposing to revise that test, and it is just information to show what was used on past tests. It is a possibility if the tests are very similar in nature, it could cause a rise in test scores. Chairman Rawson commented that if the tests are not similar in nature, then the department would have people charging that the parameters are changed so radically the tests are no longer comparable. This does look like an issue. Senator Augustine asked if the test results would be published in any way, similar to the Law School Admission Test, Graduate Record Examination, anything like that? Mr. Rheault indicated consideration has not been given to that point as yet. It would probably be on an "as asked" basis. If there is a request by the public or by the school districts for those old test questions, the department makes them available. If there are no requests, they would not be distributed. The chairman commented this just raises the issue of teaching for the examinations; not teaching for the subjects. The chairman then asked if there were any further comments in opposition or in favor. None were received, and the hearing was closed on S.B. 59 and opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 87. SENATE BILL 87: Revises provisions governing minimum number of days of school per year. Leonard Paul, Assistant Superintendent, Secondary Division, Clark County School District, indicated the district sponsored the bill in order to allow for alternative scheduling choices, other than double sessions, for highly populated schools. Mr. Paul explained the bill provides for maximum instruction time when a school has to be on an alternative schedule. Each year, increasing numbers of schools must face alternative schedules as our population grows faster than the district can build schools. There currently are five middle schools on double sessions. Alternative schedules would allow for longer instructional sessions per day, if a schedule could be used that has fewer than the 180 days that the current law requires. Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Nevada, advised that during the 1993-94 school year, the State Board of Education convened a secondary school standards test for secondary schools in Nevada. One of the task force recommendations was to encourage alternative scheduling. Such scheduling could accommodate year-round schools, but it would also allow other forms of alternative scheduling. The department has established in regulation the minimum number of minutes per day for all levels in public schools. With S.B. 87, there would be no loss of instructional time for students because the number of minutes equivalent to 180 days must be provided. Therefore, the department supports S.B. 87 because of the flexibility it provides to the school districts and the insurance it gives the same amount of instructional time will be provided to all students. Senator Mathews asked how this would affect children in the rural areas because they are traditionally the ones who have overcrowding in schools and that kind of thing. Would that make a difference if the district starts cutting them to half days in the alternative scheduling? Ms. Peterson answered this still requires the same number of minutes be provided. It just allows the school districts more flexibility in how and when they will provides these minutes, but the same number of minutes of instruction must be provided to all students. Senator Lowden asked Ms. Peterson for an example of the flexibility. Ms. Peterson replied that a good example would be the smallest school district, Esmeralda County, which is very rural. The superintendent has a situation where many of his kindergarten students travel for 2 hours on the bus to attend 2« hours of kindergarten. The superintendent would like some flexibility in how to provide the same number of minutes of the kindergarten experience, but in a different way so that perhaps the students would not have to spend so much time traveling every week, but could get the same amount of instruction. Senator Lowden asked if conceivably they would go to school 3 days a week instead of 5? Ms. Peterson replied she had not heard anything about 3 days; she knows the superintendent is interested in possibly 4 days for his kindergarten students. Chairman Rawson asked if a teacher on the bus has been considered? Ms. Peterson said that was a good idea. The chairman asked if there was any reason this should not be opened up to experimentation and innovative ideas. If, for instance, there were schools close to a college campus and the district wanted to develop some articulation. The students might not be able to take their succession of classes exactly in line, but would be getting the required number of minutes; would that be seen as a problem? Ms. Peterson replied it would be no problem if the students were getting the minimum number or more of instructional minutes. Chairman Rawson asked if there are any groups that require time in the middle of the day for prayers or religious observation? Is that an issue in any of our bigger districts? Mr. Paul replied in the Clark County School District, in the highly populated areas, time is provided for either before or after school. Chairman Rawson remarked that as long as the costs are not being increased by making the schools stay open longer hours, there is no reason why some tremendous flexibility could not be built in. He asked Mr. Paul if this gives enough flexibility to really deal with all the issues that may come up in the next year or two? Mr. Paul stated that in order for a 3-track, year-round calendar to be used in order to provide increased seats in a school, one of the alternatives is a "concept 6" calendar, which is a 3-track calendar where the students are in session for 9 weeks and out for 4« weeks, depending on the flexibility of how the district mounts the calendar. The problem if the school day is elongated in order to provide the increased number of minutes that match the 180 days, the current law with the 180-day requirement does not allow for the 162 days that has to be used in order for that calendar to work. The reason there has to be a shortened number is so there is not a time when all the students are in the campus at the same time, because that defeats the flexibility of having the track. Currently, there is a traditional schedule or a double-session schedule, which is still the 180 days, but it shortens the instructional time. The approach is to have an appropriate amount of instruction time and not jeopardize the education of the children. Chairman Rawson asked if there are programs that would be stopped now by going to so many minutes or are things being done here that do not allow the proper number of minutes. The district would end up being restrictive by accident in this process? Mr. Paul responded by saying the department would get more flexibility and would not delete any current program. Senator Neal asked how many hours in a school day now; how many hours in 180 days? Apparently that was put into law for some reason. He stated we are talking about the equivalent of a 180-day school year and talking about going to a program that allows flexibility that would be the equivalent. How many hours in a school day? Ms. Peterson replied that in regulation, it is established for various grade levels. At the secondary level, for example, the department has to offer at least a minimum of 330 minutes per day of instructional time. Senator Neal asked if by proposing this language it will allow the district to establish or maintain a 12-month program, a program involving alternative scheduling. Does that give the district the flexibility to go into the west side and establish all those school on a 12-month system? This language is geared to a district, that is the purpose of this question. Mr. Paul responded the language would allow for a year-round calendar in the west side schools, if that was the approach needed to meet the population requirements at that particular school. Senator Neal pointed out that the language in the bill says "...180 days of free school in the districts." If the district adopts any particular system, then all schools put on the same system. Mr. Paul responded by saying he did not read that into the bill. He understood it to mean the Board of School Trustees could develop a proposed schedule for a program, depending on the need of that particular school. Senator Neal pointed out unless the language "within the district" is used, if a program is adopted for a school and it is put on a year-round schedule, then all schools must be put on that same schedule. Ms. Peterson agreed that if the wording needs to be changed for clarification, then that should be done. But the intent is to give school districts the option, not on a district-wide basis. Senator Neal drew attention to line 10 where it says "...the equivalent of a greater number of minutes of instruction than would be provided under a program consisting of 180 school days." Does that mean the department could take some schools within a particular district and have the students attend school 190 days in a particular school year? Mr. Paul responded the language is intended to be if the district lessens the number of days from the current regulation of 180. For example, if the district goes to 162, the district has to increase the minutes of instruction each day in order to compensate for the days which are subtracted. Senator Neal said he understood that, but what is being said in the old language, the equivalent of 180 days. The greater number would be beyond 180 days. It appears the department can now go to a particular corner of the district and put that school on a 190-day schedule or the equivalent minutes of a 190 days. Ms. Peterson directed attention to line 5 where it says, "The superintendent of public instruction may, upon application by a board of trustees, authorize a reduction in the number of required school days..." and advise the whole focus of this section is on a reduction in the number of days. If such a reduction occurs, it has to be guaranteed that the minimum number of minutes of instruction would be in place. Senator Neal pointed out that it goes on with a supposition, on line 9 following "scheduling,"which is the old language, it talks about a 12-month program, a program involving an alternative schedule, "if the Board of Trustees demonstrate the proposed schedule for the program provides for the equivalent or greater number..." and it goes on to recite the 180 days. Mr. Paul answered there is a difference between the 330 minutes and the total number of minutes that would be in a school day, if the number of minutes of a school day were multiplied times 180. The difference in there is accounted for in lunch time, passing time, teacher preparation time, and before and after school conferencing time. In order to put a school in the situation Senator Neal has suggested, it would be such an absolute increase there would be a violation of other issues related to contractual and other matters. It is not practical for that to happen. Senator Neal asked if the 180 days now being practiced within the school district does not necessarily include lunch time, break periods and things of that sort? It is all instructional time? Ms. Peterson replied that instructional time is defined in regulation, and it does exclude certain things like passing time in the high schools, and it excludes lunch time. Senator Neal asked further if the 180 days would be instructional time? Senator Augustine mentioned a lot of this type of thing is already being done in the Catholic schools, and it actually gives them a lot of flexibility. The same flexibility is put into play for different religious holidays and things of that sort, and it actually works quite well and should work as well in the public schools. Senator Coffin remarked all legislation simply addresses minimum days. It makes sense to convert hours to minutes just because you need to fractionalize, and minutes are easier to fractionalize. Ms. Peterson said it gives more flexibility. Senator Coffin asked if a district could, if it is contractually agreed to with its instructors, go to 200 days, if it had the money, if it chose to and if its constituencies agreed that was the best way for that school district to conduct its business and educate the children; they could go to 190 or 200 days, could they not? Ms. Peterson replied that conceivably, yes. Senator Coffin continued by saying that coming from a metropolitan area, he forgets about the problems of the rural districts. The 2« hours on a bus is unusual for Clark County, although there are some outlying areas. What is done for the children on these long bus rides?. Ms. Peterson answered that in the rural areas, it is the bus driver and the children. It is a lot of downtime for children, and that is why there is an interest by the superintendent in Esmeralda County and other rural districts to look at this as an option for greater flexibility. Senator Coffin asked if there were any innovative programs being considered in the state through the use of video tape and television screens within the bus to provide a learning experience as the children travel. Mr. Paul responded with one example in Clark County where students are bused from Sandy Valley all the way to Durango High School . There is a video camera set up on that bus so the students can take the humanities course requirement by video. A teacher has been contracted on an hourly rate at extra pay to grade the test. After the students have completed the tests, the teacher gives the material back and the students go into the next lesson. This has been a pilot program in Clark County for about a year and a half; and it has been successful. It is defined as distance learning. Senator Coffin remarked that it was commendable, and he asked of Ms. Peterson if anything was being done in the rural districts in this area. Ms. Peterson replied she was not aware of anything like that. Some of the rural superintendents have inquired into what the districts in other rural states are doing, such as Montana and Colorado, and there are some innovative projects based on this kind of flexibility going on in those states. There is a great deal of interest on the part of our rural superintendents. Senator Coffin said he would like to know if anything else is going on in any of the other districts because regardless of whether the time is cut down to 4 days of longer sessions with the kindergarten children, for example, there still is the 16 to 18 hours of travel time in the course of a week that could be filled. Through the chairman, he asked Ms. Peterson to respond if any of the districts are doing anything like Clark County. The chairman asked Ms. Peterson if she would let the committee know, and she agreed to do that. The chairman then asked for any other comments on this bill. Greg Betts, representing Nevada Rural School Districts, spoke in support of the bill testifying the bill has the support, also, of the education coalition, a group from various aspects of the education undertaking. The Nevada Rural School Districts would like to suggest in addition to the year-round interest mentioned by previous speakers regarding the flexibility that would be generated through this bill, many of the rural districts are interested for other reasons. Their primary interest is to take the minutes they now have to be sure that more and more students actually benefit from those minutes with quality instruction. Mr. Betts went on to say what happens in so many of the rural areas, and also in the metropolitan areas in those isolated schools where youngsters are on the bus for so long and usually on Friday, sometimes on Thursday, youngsters are losing an inordinate amount of time traveling to important extra-curricular activities. Many of these youngsters are losing much of Friday and, in addition to that, the coaches that go along are also the teachers at that school, and so the quality of education suffers for those that do not go. The rural superintendents and staffs are interested in the flexibility that would be created by S.B. 87 to look at some unique ways they can get the most out of the minutes they now have. There is general support for this bill. No district would need to use it if they did not feel that through its use, the quality of instruction in their district could be improved. Mr. Etchemendy testified he wanted to reinforce a statement made earlier that whatever plan the district comes up with is not done automatically; the district has to get approval of the state superintendent. Everything would be supervised as far as the state department is concerned, and anything that is done would be to insure that students are the recipients of a better educational program. The Nevada Association of School Boards is strongly in support of the bill. Ray Bacon, Executive Director, Nevada Manufacturers Association, stated the association supports the concept of S.B. 87 and would like to make a couple of suggestions for improvement of the bill. Mr. Bacon directed attention to line 6, and suggested the word "reduction" be changed to "change" and in line 10 and change "an equivalent or greater" to "a greater number of minutes of instruction." The association feels this will alleviate the concern expressed and will, if anything, improve the quality of education. The reason the association supports the general concept of the bill is the guidelines used would not fly if setting up schools today; the 9-month school year, the school day. For vocational high schools, a year-round school schedule may be set at 240 days a year so the students can work during the afternoon. If the wording in this bill is changed, there will be more flexibility. Also, the rural schools are talking about 4-day school schedules. That may be fine in the rural areas, but certainly in some of the higher crime areas, that is not exactly what anyone would agree to. The association suggests the schools need the flexibility, but does not believe the schools have to be fixed to a certain start and stop date. There is nothing that says schools have to start the last week in August and get out whenever. The rules are changing in all of our society as it gets into this technological age, and clearly, with a couple of minor changes, the association believes those issues can be handled quite effectively. The chairman asked if anyone else wanted to speak on the bill. There being no response, the hearing on S. B. 87 was closed A public opinion poll on S.B. 87, conducted by the legislative telephone message center, was marked as Exhibit E. Chairman Rawson then opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 34. SENATE BILL 34: Makes currently employed teachers ineligible for election or appointment to state board of education Senator Dean A. Rhoads testified S.B. 34 was originally requested by one of his constituents who has a long history of working in the educational field. Later, at a convention, he discussed this subject with many of his colleagues who are legislators in other states, and some of them said they do not even allow teachers on this board. Senator Rhoads further testified he has done research on this subject, and 18 states now prohibit teachers serving on this board, and four states limit the number of teachers that may serve. Currently, there are 11 members on our Board of Education, and five of them are school teachers. Senator Rhoads testified that this is a conflict of interest as they provide direction for the overall budget procedures and salaries. The Board of Education dictates policy in the educational programs and, particularly important, the Board of Education has regulatory control of the Commission on Professional Standards, which he feels is a direct conflict as the board has veto power on teachers' issues, personal problems and the like. A major conflict also is that the Board of Education makes comments on the distributive school counts. Senator Rhoads stated further, the states that have total restriction on whether teachers can serve are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia. These states completely restrict teachers from serving on the board.of education. Senator Rhoads went on to say if this bill is processed, it is his feeling it should be amended. The suggested wording for this amendment would be "any educational employee licensed to the provisions of Chapter 391 be included," which would broaden it some and would not allow administrators, counselors or the like to serve on the Board of Education. Chairman Rawson stated in looking at some of our other professions, those boards are set up so the members are predominantly from that profession; for instance, the Board of Medical Examiners. He asked if there was something that is different about this situation? Senator Rhoads responded by saying that is not an easy question to answer. For instance, so many of the boards like the doctors' board or the grazing board are more advisory in nature and do not set policy or react to individual situations. The Board of Education might establish policy on the punishment on some type of teacher matter and when there is a board that is dominated by its peers, that board is probably going to be more lenient than a board representing the taxpayers of the state. Chairman Rawson remarked that like the dairy commission, if there were no members representing the dairy industry, would that commission end up with all pro-consumer laws and destroy the dairy industry? Senator Rhoads said the dairy commission is made up of varied public interests, and he is not sure there is a dairyman on the commission. That commission is made up of an accountant and professional people. Senator Lowden asked if it was not up to the voters to decide whether or not they want a school teacher on the state board and are we limiting choices; are we limiting our own constituents' choices? Senator Rhoads responded that could happen, but it is of such concern that 22 other states decided it was so important it should be in statute and provided guidance to the voters that participation of teachers on the board of education should be limited. Senator Mathews stated other boards have their professionals on them and nursing is one of those. Senator Rhoads reiterated that many of those boards are only advisory in nature. Senator Mathews further stated the nursing board is a policy- making board. Senator Neal directed attention to the bill, page 2, line 7, which says, "No candidate for membership on the state board may be currently employed as a teacher in any of the public schools or private schools in this state." The word "may" is used. Who determined the permissibility of that? Senator Rhoads said evidently the bill drafter used "may" instead of "shall." The chairman said he did not see that as permissive. Senator Neal said yes, it is permissive, because if it says that "No candidate for membership on the state board may be currently employed..." It seems to suggest somebody can make that determination. So it is left up to various counties to make that determination. Is that the reason why they inserted "may" in there? Senator Rhoads said he would talk with the bill drafter about it. If the committee decides to process the bill, that word needs to be looked at. Senator Augustine directed attention to page 2, stating she wondered why there was inclusion of private school teachers in the bill since private schools do not receive any state funding, and the senator thinks this should be excluded. The chairman asked if there was any regulation passed that affects the private schools, stating he thought there was. Senator Rhoads thought they do control private schools and there will probably be testimony on that later. Senator Augustine stated the State Board of Education controls the curriculum, but private schools receive no funding. Senator Rhoads asked if policy of private schools has to be approved by the Board of Education. Senator Augustine said the number of days and that sort of thing, but going back to S.B. 87, the board is able to establish when school is started and when students are not in school, just as long as the minimum requirements are met. Schedules in the private schools are more flexible than in the public school system. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone was in opposition. Lindsey Jydstrup, Deputy Executive Director, Nevada State Education Association, testified in opposition to this legislation for two reasons. First, the association disagrees that there is a conflict of interest in a practicing teacher serving as a member of the State Board of Education. The state board neither sets, appropriates nor bargains salaries or benefits for teachers. It is true that the state board makes recommendations as to compensation. However, history has shown the legislature does not feel compelled to follow those recommendations. While it is true the state board does have veto powers over regulations promulgated by the Professional Standards Commission, if the board feels it would harm the education process, that veto power has never been exercised. To suggest that this is an inherent conflict of interest that should preclude the entire profession from public service on the board is simply not valid, The second reason NSEA opposes S.B. 34 is without an inherent conflict of interest, the association is of the opinion that the decision about who should represent a particular district on the State Board of Education should lie in the hands of the voters. At a time when the trend is to put more and more decisions in the hands of the voters through the initiative and referendum process, the association feels it hardly appropriate to tell the voters that they may not select their representative from one profession. Certainly, it should be left to the voters to chose the candidate they feel is best qualified to represent their interests. By passing the limitation in this bill, the association is of the opinion they would be sending a message to the voters that they do not trust their judgment and feel the necessity to save them from themselves. Ms. Jydstrup testified that the association urges the committee to vote no on this legislation. Ms. Peterson testified that at its regular board meeting on January 19th, the State Board of Education did take a position on S.B. 34, and that position is in opposition to S.B. 34. The chairman asked for further testimony in favor of the bill. Mr. Bacon pointed out as Senator Rhoads stated, the association sees a bigger difference in the State Board of Education than there is in the nursing board, the medical board and so forth. Most of the other commissions the state is regulating are fundamentally private sector industries. If a person looks at the nursing board, they will find some of those people are state employees; some of those people are not government employees. The vast majority of cases which the state is regulating are primarily private sector enterprises. That is the fundamental difference with the State Board of Education wherein there is a state regulating a state enterprise. Therefore, looking back to the foundings of the boards of education, back in the days of Horace Mann, it will be seen that the main reason a board of education was established at the local level and ultimately at the state level was to get community accountability for a public entity, which has a lot of merit. Senator Rhoads' bill is much less sweeping than the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 which prohibited nepotism. This is a relatively modest issue to try and focus the issue of public accountability, and the association is of the opinion it is a reasonable step and one that should, at least, be seriously considered. Senator Neal asked why in Mr. Bacon's judgment is public instruction a private enterprise? Mr. Bacon did not understand the question. Senator Neal said he understood Mr. Bacon to say the board was regulated by private enterprise. Mr. Bacon stated that would be in the case of a nursing board or medical board; not necessarily the state board. That is the issue. In the State Board of Education, theoretically, when it was originally started, a community board was regulating a government enterprise. What is seen in the medical boards and in the nursing boards and most of the other regulatory boards, whether they are advisory boards or policy-making boards, is an entity that is making regulations and restrictions over an industry which is primarily a private sector board. So there is the cross-check of the community or the public sector versus the private sector issue. In our State Board of Education, what we fundamentally have is government schools and a policy-making board, and if that board is dominated by government employees, you have government watching over government. What we are seeing more and more is the ire of the voters, and they do not like that. They do not feel government watches over itself very well. Senator Neal asked what makes teachers more government than any other employee. Mr. Bacon stated in most cases, teachers are all government employees at some level. Senator Neal asked if therefore they should not engage in any control, serve in any capacity that might be defined as public. Mr. Bacon said they can serve in many other capacities. Educators sit in the Legislature. Educators serve on the Professional Standards Committee where they are actually setting the specific standards for their profession, but the issue of community accountability is one of those things where the state has to raise a higher standard. Senator Neal asked if Mr. Bacon considered teaching a profession. Mr. Bacon responded that generally, yes, but as a profession, teachers have been less prone to housekeep their own ranks than some other professions. Mr. Etchemendy state he appears before the committee not in favor or not against S.B. 34 because his association does not have a position on it. He further stated the members of the State Board of Education are members of the Nevada Association of School Boards. Mr. Etchemendy advised that some of the points Senator Rhoads made may cause some conflicts if the majority of the state board members were licensed educational professionals. Mr. Etchemendy agreed the bill should be amended to include all of those who are licensed under Section 391, not just teachers. Chairman Rawson asked for further testimony in opposition or in support of the bill. Lucille Lusk, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated the Nevada Concerned Citizens' (NCC) board does have a position in favor of this bill, but has some concerns and questions as well. Most of the reasons they favor the bill have been well articulated by Senator Rhoads and Mr. Bacon. She raised the question as to why the state board has never exercised its veto power over the Professional Standards Commission, and asked if it could be because the teachers have such an incredible influence over the State Board of Education. If the committee does process the bill, NCC has a suggestion for amendment and directed attention to page 2 of S.B. 34, lines 7 through 9, where it states, "No candidate for membership on the state board may be currently employed..." The NCC feels the wording is a bit harsh. A person would have to resign their employment before they could be elected or appointed. NCC suggests the wording be changed to something like, "No individual may be seated on the state board who is currently employed as a teacher..." This would allow a person to make the decision to run without resigning their employment. If the individual is elected or appointed, then deal with that issue rather than having to do so beforehand. This just seems fair and reasonable. Chairman Rawson acknowledged Jeanne Simons. Jeanne Simons, Concerned Citizen, appeared in support of S.B. 34, stating she has three boys and two of them are in the Carson City School District. She is a nurse, and it is her opinion that nurses are good on boards and teachers are good on boards. She stated she has attended many of the state board meetings, she has supported many of the members, and it is her opinion they have tried to have a positive approach with most of the issues. There was a time when a conflict of interest came up regarding federal grant money. She suggested that as long as the committee was looking at the bill, it might be a good time to consider decreasing the number of teachers on the board. Senator Washington asked Senator Augustine who sits on the board in private schools, and she replied a Catholic brother in Reno is the superintendent of the board of education for Catholic schools. Senator Washington asked how the appointments are made to that board, and Senator Augustine advised they are made by the superintendent and are teachers and parents. Chairman Rawson asked for further testimony and there being none, the hearing was closed on S.B. 34. A pubic opinion poll on S.B. 34, conducted by the Legislative telephone message center, was marked as Exhibit G. The chairman advised that a bill draft had just been delivered to him from the Department of Human Resources, Division of Health, Bill Draft Resolution (BDR) 40- 850, and it makes various changes to provisions governing the planning for health care. Since it is an agency bill, we need a committee introduction. BDR 40-850: Repeals state health coordinating council. Senator Neal asked if it was the bill regarding managed care organization for Medicaid? Chairman Rawson answered no. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 40-850. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Chairman Rawson announced that a work session would be held on Friday, February 3rd at 1:30 p.m. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _______________________________ Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: ______________________________________ Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman Date:_________________________________ Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities January 30, 1995 Page