MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session May 15, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, May 15, 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: Assemblywoman Vonne S. Chowning STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Frank D. Meyers, Dean and Director of Teacher Education, College of Education, University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Myrna Matranga, President, Nevada Association of Teacher Education, University of Nevada, Reno Jane C. Rohrer, Director, Teacher Education Program, Sierra Nevada College (SNC) Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Director, Legislative Affairs, Nevada State Education Association Barbara Cegavske, Parent Gloria Dopf, Director, Special Education, State Department of Education Rick Millsap, Lobbyist, President, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) Lois Tarkanian, Ph.D., Clark County School District Douglas Byington, Lobbyist, Legislative Specialist, Nevada Association of School Administrators Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens David B. Linn, Special Programs Instructional Assistant, Clark County School District, and NSEA Legislative Advocate Sandi Coyle, Parent Sue Strand, Teacher, Clark County School District Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards Jeanne Simons, Parent Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 429, and told the audience that after the presentation by Assemblywoman Chowning the committee will hear testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 431 to accommodate those who have time restrictions, and will return to S.B. 429 thereafter. SENATE BILL 429: Requires certain educators to be instructed in the identification and instruction of the laws relating to persons with disabilities. (BDR 34-24) SENATE BILL 431: Makes various changes concerning education. (BDR 34-2021) Assemblywoman Vonne S. Chowning, Assembly District 28, told the committee her background is as a parent and educator, trying to help children. She said she was a secondary school teacher for many years teaching English, Spanish, French, and music. She stated, in her experience, many students were categorized detrimentally as a result of their perceived lack of attention. She explained most often this was a result of a language barrier, and because those students did not speak English proficiently, they were categorized as "slow" or "special ed[ucation]." She said, in one instance, a young man was highly gifted, but was not identified as such because he was very quiet. She contended this is a reflection of cultural background; Hispanic children are taught to be noncompetitive; and support their fellow students rather than compete with them. She told the committee that particular young man went on to become an engineer because someone had the education necessary to determine that he was gifted and talented. Mrs. Chowning said her own daughter attended a bilingual class in first grade and during her second year was traumatized by a teacher who was so against bilingual education that the teacher intimidated her daughter to the point where she withdrew into silence. She stated, after only 3 days in the classroom, an application was sent home with her daughter for her to enter into a special education program. Mrs. Chowning said if she had not been an educator herself and a very aggressive parent, her daughter may have been detrimentally stigmatized and categorized for the rest of her education career. She said she demanded that her daughter be tested outside of the school district, and it was determined that she did not belong in special education. She insisted her daughter went on to bloom under the tutelage of a different teacher, but said she wonders what the outcome might have been had she not intervened. She maintained the point is that this type of legislation which requires sensitivity training for all teachers will allow them to be the best that they can be, and without it, they may not be able to identify gifted and talented students, or recognize those with disabilities. She told the committee, although she does not know if mandating this type of training is the best way to accomplish it, she feels that often people will not comply without a mandate. Mrs. Chowning further pointed out if this type of training is not mandated, the school districts cannot apply for grants to assist in the payment for such a program. She reiterated the sensitivity training is essential. Vice Chairman Lowden told Mrs. Chowning perhaps this issue should be addressed at the college level, since teachers need to have the skills to recognize more than just this issue before the committee today, including abuse, neglect, etc. Mrs. Chowning said Vice Chairman Lowden is absolutely right, and as the makeup of the typical classrooms change, the curriculum at the college level for teacher training must also be adapted to current needs. She added those teachers who have completed their education must be afforded the opportunity to make up those types of classes which may not have been available when they went to college. Vice Chairman Lowden suggested that this may be a relevant topic for interim study where they can examine the total picture in terms of teacher requirements in recognizing special needs of students. Chairman Rawson suspended the hearing on S.B. 429 and opened the hearing on S.B. 431. Frank D. Meyers, Dean and Director of Teacher Education, College of Education, University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), told the committee they support S.B. 431. He said this bill was developed as a result of discussion in the last legislative session. He said, at that time the law only allowed UNR and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) to place interns as student teachers. He said the law has since been changed to include other 4-year institutions. Dean Meyers said they were requested to work out a bill regarding teacher preparation which would interface with educational reform and various standards, and this bill is the result of that project. He said as Nevada's population grows, more institutions are coming into the state to offer classes in programs where very little is known about those courses with regard to quality. Dean Meyers stated if the State Board of Education could meet with the institutions based in this state and develop standards which all institutions would be required to meet, it would result in higher quality teacher preparation. He suggested the state does not have sufficient guidelines for those who come in to teach weekend classes that qualify for continuing education credits, certification, or licensure. He said he is concerned that if the state does not have standards for teacher preparation, many of the teachers who attend those types of programs will, in turn, prepare future teachers, because they supervise students during field experiences and internships. He contended this is another push at reform of higher education to ensure that the state's teachers meet certain standards for teacher preparation. Senator Augustine asked Dean Meyers if he could address page 2, item 3: "The state board shall adopt regulations establishing fees for the review by the board of a course of study and training." Dean Meyers replied, Dr. Peterson could better address that issue. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Dean Meyers if the current programs for teacher education offer courses that prepare teachers to identify sexual or emotional abuse and disabilities. Dean Meyers told Vice Chairman Lowden UNR has, for the last 12 to 13 years, required a minimum of 12-14 credits in special education to satisfy that need. He said they do have a dual licensure program, which 50 percent of the elementary education majors attend, to allow them to attain a degree in both elementary and special education. He stated UNR also requires education majors to attend a course in educational psychology and introduction to counseling which also addresses those areas. He said many of the topics Vice Chairman Lowden asked about are covered in courses such as multicultural and social-cultural classes as well. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Dean Meyers if those classes are mandatory. Dean Meyers replied those classes are mandatory for undergraduate programs. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Dean Meyers if UNLV has the same requirements. Dean Meyers said he is not certain, although he knows they do have mandatory classes regarding special education. Chairman Rawson referred to a letter he received from Dale G. Anderson, Dean, College of Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) expressing his support of S.B. 431 (Exhibit C) where Dean Anderson also suggests an amendment. Chairman Rawson asked Dean Meyers if he has any comments about Dean Anderson's requested amendment. Myrna Matranga, President, Nevada Association of Teacher Education, University of Nevada, Reno, answered Chairman Rawson's question by explaining they formed an association which arrived at this proposed legislation in collaboration with UNLV, UNR and Sierra Nevada College. She asserted Dean Anderson's recommended amendment is consistent with their own. She said they met throughout last year and worked out an excellent professional identity, and said the committee will see their presence in attempting to further the cause of accountability and educational reform from the perspective of teacher preparation, which is a critical element of educational reform. She said they have become a viable entity and will be meeting regularly to work on concerns that may be raised. Ms. Matranga told the committee she is here today on behalf of their newly established Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. She said it is always wonderful to be able to represent a coalition of professionals who believe strongly in this bill, and in furthering the concept of accountability and teacher preparation. She stated there are dramatic differences between the institutions in Nevada, and those entities who may come in on the weekends to offer a course. She said that is why Dean Anderson sought to send forward his recommendation, and said their hope is that the committee will consider defining the term educational institutions in the state, which are referenced in section 2, line 10, to mean the institutions that are member institutions of the Nevada Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. She urged the committee to support S.B. 431, with the suggested amendment. Senator Neal asked Ms. Matranga to explain section 2, subsection 4, where it says, "...accredited by the National Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education, and those which are not so accredited." Ms. Matranga replied the language is designed to be inclusive so that all institutions in the state, whether nationally accredited or not, be approved by the State Board of Education. She stated, under the Commission on Postsecondary Education, an institution can simply be licensed and then provide training, but their association wants to go one step further to require program approval. Senator Neal said, as he looks at the language, it seems to him as if the [Nevada] Association of Colleges for Teacher Educations (NvACTE) would be promulgating regulations which would encompass all of the teacher education institutions both within Nevada and out-of-state. Senator Neal stated that these regulations would affect all of those institutions and is concerned that there would be no limit on the regulations which could come from this. He asked Ms. Matranga, "Does this mean you could adopt a regulation for the teachers to take a course in dog training?" Ms. Matranga responded: We are talking here about people who are preparing to be teachers, and it would be the program of study that would be examined within each college as they prepare. The issue of in service education and courses that would be required of teachers would be a secondary issue that might be addressed by the professional standards commission. In this instance, we would be looking at the program of preparation and the quality of that program as put forward by the colleges in the state. Senator Neal told Ms. Matranga he is trying to get at the range of those organizations that were not so accredited. He asked Ms. Matranga if those organizations have no accreditation at all or if they are just not accredited by the NvACTE. Chairman Rawson explained that Dr. Anderson has proposed specific language which would clarify that issue. Ms. Matranga told the committee the institution applying for accreditation bears the cost of bringing the committee to the campus, and it is their intent to establish or encourage a fee structure that would take care of the costs of the visiting committee to review a program that was applying for program approval. She said it would be contingent upon the nature and size of the program, and the fee structure would therefore vary. Senator Augustine asked Ms. Matranga if the fee only covers the cost of application. Ms. Matranga replied, at the present time, there are institutions offering programs in Nevada at no cost to those institutions other than what the Commission on Postsecondary education requires of them, but currently require no professional assessment. Dean Meyers stated the responsibility for payment of fees falls on the institution seeking approval of the state to offer courses, so there would be no cost to the state or institutions within the state. Senator Augustine told Dean Meyers the committee wants to make sure that those fees are not exorbitant. Dean Meyer suggested the fees would be set up to cover the actual expense of the process. Chairman Rawson asked Dean Meyers if the Commission on Postsecondary Education is currently dealing with any of those institutions. Ms. Matranga replied the Commission on Postsecondary Education currently licenses all post-secondary institutions, some of which are degree granting. She said it is her understanding that the commission would prefer not to deal with degree granting institutions that come into the state which have nontraditional programs. She suggested that this bill would offer the potential, through regulation, of cleaning some of that up. Senator Neal asked Dean Meyers if he will be involved with section 3 of the bill which states, "A school district may enter into an agreement with a branch of the University and Community College System of Nevada or an accredited post-secondary institution..." Dean Meyers told Senator Neal that, as he reads it, that section deals with placing students in those schools for additional training for part of their field experience in their internships. He said the Commission on Postsecondary Education would be involved with the schools in setting up the system. Senator Neal asked Dean Meyers if the bill provides enough time, since that section does not go into effect until July 1, 1997. Dean Meyers explained that they currently do that, and S.B. 429 would just provide for continuation. Senator Neal asked Dean Meyers why they would need an effective date if that is the case. Dean Meyers replied he believes this is based on the history of the bill from the last legislative session because that bill was going to sunset after a period of time to allow other institutions to participate in the field experiences. Senator Neal told Dean Meyers section 6 states that section 3 becomes effective on July 1, 1997, which says to him that no placement of students could take place until after that particular date. Ms. Matranga reiterated there was a sunset provision in the legislation... Senator Neal interrupted saying, "Yeah, I noticed that...I see that, that's been taken out, but now you've got an effective date." Ms. Matranga replied the effective date would basically remove the sunset provision and allow a continuation of current practice. Jane C. Rohrer, Director of Teacher Education, Sierra Nevada College (SNC), told the committee perhaps she can shed some light on this issue. She said when legislation was introduced in the last session it addressed this regulation which, at that time, stated only university system student teachers could student teach in Nevada schools. She said that regulation had been written a long time ago, and said the Sierra Nevada College Teacher Education program is only 6 years old, so this regulation seemed to preclude their having student teachers in Nevada schools. She said the attorney general reviewed the law and felt it may have said that and suggested the regulation should be addressed by the Legislature. She said, at that time, the sunset clause was added which said private institutions (which would include Sierra Nevada College) could have student teachers in Nevada school districts for the next 4 years, during which time the private and university system colleges should get together and discuss which standards should apply for teachers at whatever college or university they attend. She said that was the wellspring for the meeting of the statewide task force which involved not only Nevada colleges, but members of the state teachers' associations, school administrators' association, and the State Department of Education. She said they have given it extensive thought and presented the committee with letters of support for the plan from each of those organizations (Exhibit D) for standards that will apply to all of them. Mary Peterson, Ph.D., Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, read from prepared written text (Exhibit E) expressing the State Department of Education's support of S.B. 431. Chairman Rawson asked Dr. Peterson if she concurs with Dean Anderson's proposed amendment. Dr. Peterson replied the State Department of Education was under the impression because of the regulations that apply when writing bills, they could not use that reference because it was not a state governmental entity. She stated if specific reference can be included, the State Department of Education is fine with it. Senator Augustine asked Dr. Peterson if she would address the issue of fees. Dr. Peterson said when the State Department of Education discussed the establishment of fees, they decided the fees would cover the cost of bringing a team to the institution seeking approval. She said they would have to have an on-site review team look at the program and review documents, and the fees would cover the expenses of review on a periodic basis. Senator Augustine asked Dr. Peterson for a ballpark figure. Dr. Peterson said she would hesitate to give a ballpark figure. Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Director, Legislative Affairs, Nevada State Education Association, told the committee they participated in the statewide task force during the interim that dealt with this legislation, and wants to go on record in support of S.B. 431. Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 431 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 429. Barbara Cegavske, Parent, presented the committee with an extensive package of literature, collectively designated as Exhibit F, on file in the Research Library,which included her written testimony. Senator Neal asked Ms. Cegavske, regarding Public Law 94142 which deals with students with disabilities, if we are not running into conflict when making this particular proposal. Ms. Cegavske replied: To the contrary; we are running into conflict because we don't have teachers trained right now. We don't have people that are able to take care of the needs of this special education. Right now we are under, in Clark County, an OCR [Office of Civil Rights] complaint because we have not come in complete compliance, and probably Superintendent Mary Peterson can address more of that. Senator Neal said, then the question is: "What would we do then if we're not in compliance, then that simply says to me that the...public law probably has preempted whatever we can do on the state level here." Ms. Cegavske replied she does not know what Senator Neal is looking for. Senator Neal said: Well, if we've got Public Law [94142] that sets out what training...what is necessary to take care of the child's needs who has disabilities, and then we, in turn, would now pass another law when the federal government has preempted the field, and the federal government passes a law in any particular area... Ms. Cegavske interrupted saying, "This bill protects the individual with disabilities." Senator Neal said he understands what Ms. Cegavske proposes to do with this particular bill, but the question is simply: whether or not any action that the Legislature can take has been preempted by the federal government under the OCR complaint, and the Legislature can only build a conflict by passing a statute.... Ms. Cegavske responded, "No, no, no. What they are saying is that if there's children that...their needs are not being met, that is...the Office of Civil Rights protects the children's rights." Senator Neal said the Office of Civil Rights does not come in under our statutes; it comes in under federal law. Gloria Dopf, Director of Special Education, State Department of Education, told the committee under their jurisdiction, the laws that Senator Neal referenced are responsible for the implementation. She said Public Law 94142, as amended, is now called IDEA and sets out some requirements for the education for youngsters with disabilities in this state. She said, with regard specifically to training, the law does defer to the standard of training identified by the state to define someone as qualified to deal with those youngsters, so the federal government has not given Nevada a list of requirements for teachers in order to deal with disabled youngsters; rather, they say if the individual is qualified in the eyes of the state, then that individual is qualified to provide services to youngsters with disabilities within the state of Nevada. Relative to noncompliance, Ms. Dopf stated both the Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Special Education Programs monitor compliance with education programs for disabled youngsters. She said the relationship here is the presumption that if individuals have more training, it will be less likely that mistakes will be made causing noncompliance, and she thinks that is the relationship that Ms. Cegavske was trying to bring forth. She said it is not necessarily that the federal government is defining that the state has to adopt this law as such. Senator Neal asked Ms. Dopf if it is her testimony to this committee that the proposal that is contained in S.B. 429 has not been preempted by the federal government. Ms. Dopf answered in the affirmative. Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Director, Legislative Affairs, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), presented her prepared written testimony (Exhibit G) to the committee expressing NSEA's position on S.B. 429. Chairman Rawson told Ms. Cahill the committee has a bill that addresses the establishment of a philosophy which recognizes the importance of this issue. He said Ms. Cahill is elucidating specific technical details that make it difficult to accomplish that in reality, and asked her if she could offer any recommendations for amendments or proposed language that the committee could work with to accomplish that goal. Ms. Cahill replied: We do not have anything in writing. In concept, some of the things that we have talked about in the past...again, our concern about saying we are going to do this though training...even as an in service training, our concern is represented in Assembly Bill (A.B.) 577 that you have a copy of. It is one thing to say everybody go get this training when what you really need to do is say, 'We are going to make somebody give this training; make this training available,' whether it is the school district, whether it is through a series of seminars, or whatever, sponsored by the State Department [of Education], and that was one of the things that we had talked about, that in-service training could possibly do this, but don't mandate that every teacher go get the training, and then not mandate that somebody provide the training. ASSEMBLY BILL 577: Requires certain educational personnel to complete program for detection and reporting of abuse or neglect of children as condition for issuance or renewal of license endorsement. (BDR 34-1085) Chairman Rawson said the issue is that people want to stop child abuse so they want to force teachers to stop it. Ms. Cahill replied, tying that to licensure, certainly that gives a guarantee this requirement will be met, but she thinks there is a chance of putting a terrific burden on educators who are trying to relicense. Chairman Rawson said he read an article over the weekend which stated Nevada has one of the highest mandates in course requirements in the nation, and it appears to him the Legislature and interest groups have been able to be successful in this process in the past. Senator Augustine said she can see where A.B. 577 kind of goes to social abuse and expecting teachers to intercede, but pointed out S.B. 429 states there are current federal mandates that require students with disabilities to mainstream with the other kids. She said something should be done in the form of in- service training of teachers because teachers are being required to teach an ever increasing number of students with disabilities. Ms. Cahill replied the NSEA summer training program includes a segment on total inclusion, and they believe teachers should be trained in that area, and have no objection to that. She stated the problem is: "How it can be accomplished?" She said some teachers in rural areas have particular difficulty accessing the courses needed to meet licensing requirements. She said the courses necessary to meet the requirements set out in the bill are not even offered in the summer. Senator Augustine asked why it would not be appropriate for the individual districts to provide the in-service training on-site. Ms. Cahill replied NSEA feels the mandate should be on the provider of the training, and not the person who is required to have the training. She said the NSEA would support the concept if the provision of training is mandated. Senator Neal stated, as he looks at the language in the bill, it would require a mandate to teachers to have specialized knowledge in identification and instruction of persons with disabilities. He said since it talks about the regular classroom, if this bill passes, any teacher who does not complete this training cannot teach in a regular classroom, because Nevada law and the maxim for the creation of Nevada statutes is found in a Latin phrase which means that the expression of one thing excludes another, and to express this in these particular terms simply means a teacher who does not have that training cannot teach. There was some undecipherable dialog within the audience, to which Senator Neal responded: I am on [S.B.]429! No...if a person who holds a license that must be renewed or an applicant who [is] otherwise qualified does not meet the requirement established by section 1 of this act, a conditional license for 3 years would be issued pursuant to this pending fulfillment of that requirement. So, within 3 years,...the person has to meet the qualification. That is what I would understand it to say, but I'm not too sure whether or not we would want to move forward with the mandatory language that's written, you know, and just knock out all the teachers if we decided to go this way. Rick Millsap, Lobbyist, President, Nevada State Education Association, told the committee the question here is not whether this education is important or not; it is critical for every teacher to have this kind of training. He said the only question is: "How is that training accomplished?" He said the NSEA agrees the training is necessary, but is of the opinion it needs to be approached from another angle, that being either in- service training within each school district, or at the college level. Senator Augustine asked Mr. Millsap if teachers ever pay fees for in-service training. Mr. Millsap replied it is different in every district. Lois Tarkanian, Ph.D., Clark County School District, testified via teleconference from Las Vegas. She read her prepared written testimony (Exhibit H) to the committee, and urged them to support S.B. 429. Senator Neal asked Dr. Tarkanian if the passage of this bill would mean teachers who have deaf children in their class would have to learn sign language. Dr. Tarkanian responded saying not necessarily. She said it depends on the child and the situation. She said the deaf children have interpreters attend school with them to handle the signing. She said the children mentioned in her testimony who are deaf and are mainstreamed full-time do not sign; they are able to speak and use oral language. She said the classes they attend do not require a teacher to sign. Douglas Byington, Lobbyist, Legislative Specialist, Nevada Association of School Administrators (NASA), presented his written testimony (Exhibit I) to the chairman expressing their opposition to S.B. 429. He added there are over 14,000 licensed personnel in the state of Nevada who would be required to take this course before they are recertified which would impose a heavy burden. He said there are an additional 20,000 licensed people who are inactive who would have a difficult time assessing their transcripts to determine their qualifications. He told the committee the coalition who discussed this bill was attempting to determine how many teachers this would affect. Mr Byington stated Roger Means told the coalition the pool of teachers is now a puddle; in essence, the pool of teachers that can be drawn on is shrinking. Mr. Byington told the committee federal law does not address the qualifications of the teacher, but leaves it to the states to decide. He said it does say the person providing that service must be qualified. He stated, in the instance of inclusion or mainstreaming, it has been determined the student can survive and learn and progress in a regular classroom. Therefore, that regular teacher would not be required, under federal law, to be specially trained in that handicap. In most cases the students are not 100 percent mainstreamed. They need to go back to their special education teacher according to the individualized education plan (IEP) for 1 or 2 periods per day, and that teacher who provides special services must be so trained. Mr. Byington asked the committee where all of this will stop; how many more courses will be required. He said, as he interprets the bill, which says, "Anyone who is seeking a license, or renewing a license, to teach or a special license to teach, or to perform other educational functions..." to mean that everyone who is licensed by the state must comply with this from the superintendent right on down the line. He asked the committee when are these people going to be recognized as professionals, who can determine their own needs and shortcomings. He urged the committee to defeat S.B. 429. Senator Augustine asked Mr. Byington, rather than defeat this bill, what he would propose as an amendment to accomplish the training through in-service training or another means. Mr. Byington suggested professional development centers or in- service training would be a viable alternative to the requirement for college or university classes as the bill now requires. Senator Augustine further asked Mr. Byington if he has any time frame in mind for the completion of this type of training for 14,000-plus employees if it is approached from an in-service training perspective. Mr. Byington replied in-service training requires 15 hours of training per credit, so if 3 credits are required, it would be 45 hours, which would take a good deal of time to work through 14,000 people. He said the development of appropriate courses to accomplish the goal would also require some length of time. Senator Augustine asked Mr. Byington how many teachers could attend the class at any given time. She suggested, perhaps 100. Mr. Byington said he thinks 25 per class would be more appropriate. Senator Augustine stated it seems all sides agree the training is necessary since federal law requires mainstreaming; the real issue is how that can be accomplished. Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, told the committee she would add emphasis to Assemblywoman Chowning's testimony as to the necessity of this bill. She testified there are many classes currently required of teachers which are of far less value, in terms of dealing with students, than that proposed in S.B. 429. She insisted if S.B. 429 passes, the colleges and universities will develop the courses necessary to meet the demand for them. She pointed out that although the bill does specify college or university, there is no requirement the class be conducted on the college or university campus. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Lusk to address the issue of the number of hours required for a 3-credit class. He remarked the standard is 45 hours, and asked Ms. Lusk if she feels that is an appropriate number of hours, or if a lesser number of hours would be adequate. Ms. Lusk stated she is not specifically qualified to define the exact number of hours necessary to effect the training, and thinks the course development team would be the appropriate entity to determine the time necessary to complete the task of providing teachers with the tools necessary to identify children's special needs. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Lusk if she knows how long the colleges or universities have been providing this type of training for new teachers. Ms. Cegavske stated the University of Nevada Reno (UNR) has offered those classes for about 12 years, and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, has only offered them for the last couple of years. Chairman Rawson clarified that those actually in need of this training are those requiring recertification, or those who have not come up through our university system, and suggested the previously stated estimate of 14,000 people requiring this training may be substantially less. He asked if anyone in the audience had a realistic estimate of the number of people who will require that training. Ms. Cegavske replied they examined the time line, and stated many of the teachers have already taken their recertification; and, depending on what their degree is, it could be up to 9 years before they are required to take this course. She said, in their research in the individual school districts, the general consensus was that they were not going to be inundated, and added that is how they came up with the 3- year provision that the professional standards group has set up. She said there are a substantial number of teachers who have already had this type of training, so the actual number of teachers in the state of Nevada is not a clear indicator of the number who will require this training. Ms. Cegavske told the committee she wants to be sure that they are aware of the letter previously mentioned (Exhibit C) received by herself and Chairman Rawson from Dean Anderson stating that UNLV can provide the services if there is sufficient demand. David B. Linn, Special Programs Instructional Assistant, Clark County School District, and NSEA Legislative Advocate, told the committee he is a student at UNLV seeking a teaching degree with a double major in special and elementary education. He said he opposes this bill as written, for many of the reasons previously stated by Mr. Millsap. He stated his perspective is slightly different because he just completed a 2-unit course at UNLV which requires 30 hours of contact, six of which were spent on special education such as are called for in this bill. He said those already in the field will have difficulty finding time to get the additional training if the courses are limited to those provided at a college or university. Sandi Coyle, Douglas County Parent, testified she is in favor of this bill and read a letter from Deidre Hammon (Exhibit J) to the committee. Sue Strand, Teacher, Clark County School District, asserted this is not a new issue, but has been ongoing over many years. She said she believes this issue is more an employment issue than a licensure issue. She insisted, as an employer, the school districts should require this, but as a licensure issue, they should be licensed to teach. She said there was a pamphlet distributed to the committee that identifies 14 different things [that teachers should be able to identify in students] and she hopes it includes attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and attention deficit disorder (ADD). She emphasized only a medical doctor who is knowledgeable and has his background training in that field can identify those disorders according to law and district policy. She insisted a teacher, administrator, special education person, or superintendent of schools cannot do it! She said she thinks most teachers are able to identify a child who has a problem or a disability, but said other factors come into play. Ms. Strand explained the lengthy, finite process from teacher recommendation to special education placement. Ms. Strand emphasized that she resents the fact that somebody is going to tell her how to spend her own money! She said she knows that she has to be trained; she went to college to be trained; and has a master's degree; she goes back to school; she reads; and she talks to other people. She said she would like to see more roundtable discussions on education issues rather than something like this. She reiterated the discussion on the exceptional child goes back 20 years, and said she believes there should be more local control as to the requirements, so that the requirements reflect the needs of each district. Ms. Strand pointed out Dean Anderson may have good intentions, but surmised those course works will not come. She contends there are 2,500 people who apply for relicensing each year, and asked if that means they have to take a class even if they already had those classes. She said this bill does not preclude the teacher who has already met those requirements in other classes, and insisted it should be left to the teacher's judgment as to her needs as a professional. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Strand if teachers have to make special education referrals at the present time. Ms. Strand replied in the affirmative and added parents can also make a request. Chairman Rawson told Ms. Strand that this bill is addressing the fact that if teachers are going to make referrals, they should know something about it. Ms. Strand explained the lengthy, tedious process required for special education referral in her district. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Strand if, in her course work for her master's degree, she has taken classes which would meet the requirements under this bill. Ms. Strand replied she hopes so. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Strand if she is concerned that there may be teachers hired to work with her that do not have any understanding of the special education needs of students. Ms. Strand told Chairman Rawson that has happened. She said many teachers went to college in a time where society was not experiencing the difficulties it is today. She said, in her experience, teachers exchange ideas and share with each other as other professionals do, and thinks most teachers are professional enough to do what is required of them without being mandated to do so. Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), told the committee, the NASB approves of the concept of S.B. 429, but is concerned that the requirement for the training to be accomplished at a college or university lacks flexibility, and therefore they cannot support the bill. He said if the bill is amended to allow more flexibility in accomplishing the training, they could perhaps support it. He said they also see the potential for litigation. Jeanne Simons, Parent, presented Exhibit K to the committee which sets forth the Nevada PTA's position on full inclusion of students with special needs. Ms. Simons expressed her support for S.B. 429, and said she believes it also addresses the needs of the gifted and talented students as well as those with disabilities. Ms. Dopf, told the committee she is presently testifying on her own behalf, as a person who is interested in special education as well as the education of all students. She proposed an amendment under item C, where, in addition to the university course, it would say something like, "or in-service with a course of study approved by the board of education," similar to what the committee did in a previous bill relative to the course of study. Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 429. There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities May 15, 1995 Page