MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
March 19, 2003
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:59 p.m., on Wednesday, March 19, 2003. Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada and via simultaneous videoconference in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
Mr. William Horne, Vice Chairman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Garn Mabey
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. Bob McCleary
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, District No. 25
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dr. Dotty Merrill, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability and Assessment, Washoe County School District
Sheila Ward, parent
Ray Bacon, Representative, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Dr. Mary Piercynski, Superintendent of Schools, Carson City School District
Ben Blinn, teacher and concerned citizen
Joyce Haldeman, Representative, Clark County School District
Lindsay Nunn, intern for Assemblywoman Gibbons
Nancy Kuhles, Speech Pathologist, and Secretary of the Nevada Speech and Hearing Association
Katherine Ross, Speech Pathologist, Washoe County School District
Rose McKinney-James, Representative, Clark County School District
Roll was called. Members would be marked present when they arrived. Chairman Williams noted that the meeting would be started with a continuation of Assembly Bill 179, the bill that was heard on Monday at the afternoon floor session.
Assembly Bill 179: Revises provisions governing education. (BDR 34-22)
Dottie Merrill spoke on behalf of the Washoe County School District and revealed that she was there to provide information. The first question she addressed related to the relationship with the High School Proficiency Examination, the items on that examination, and the curriculum taught in Nevada’s schools. She asserted that there was a definite alignment between the items on the High School Proficiency Exam and the homework problems that students received in math or English classes, because she had administered the exam over the years. She said the format was similar to what students saw in their classes every day.
The second question concerned testimony on what courses the student was required to take, particularly regarding the students’ preparation in math, and Dr. Merrill advised that the trustees for the Washoe County School District adopted requirements that students complete Algebra I and Geometry in order to receive graduation credits for math and to effectively prepare for the High School Proficiency Examination. She asserted that the results of those requirements were evident in the passing rate of the math portion of the proficiency test for the class of 2002, which was 95.8 percent. Regarding questions on passing rates for other content areas of the exam, in the Washoe County School District 99.9 percent of the students passed the reading exam, and the same percentage passed the writing exam.
The next question Dr. Merrill addressed was the issue of whether homeschooled students received a diploma. She hoped that Dr. Rheault would address that question on behalf of the Department of Education, but she illustrated that her experience was that some homeschool programs were structured so that students could receive a diploma, and those programs were recognized by the Department of Education; however, other programs, whether they were recognized or not, did not have a diploma option available. School districts did administer the High School Proficiency Exam to homeschooled students so that they would meet the qualifications for the Millennium Scholarship, which Dr. Merrill revealed happened frequently in her school district.
Dr. Merrill then detailed that the previous evening, the Board of Trustees for the Washoe County School District voted to oppose the section of A.B. 179 that did away with the requirement of the High School Proficiency Examination as a requirement for graduation. She said it was the Board’s contention that the diploma should indicate not only that the student earned the required graduation requirements, but that they passed all three sections of the exam. The Board also believed it was important for students who received the Millennium Scholarship to pass the High School Proficiency Exam. Dr. Merrill stated that the Board only opposed those two parts of the bill.
Chairman Williams requested questions from the Committee and recognized Mr. Andonov.
Assemblyman Andonov observed that Dr. Merrill had mentioned 94 students who did not pass the proficiency exam. He asked if she knew how many of those students did not meet the graduation requirements in terms of course work.
Dr. Merrill reported that the 94 students she mentioned did not pass the math test. Of those students, 18 did not have enough credits to graduate, and a number of those 94 students had excessive absences over the course of their senior year. Many of those students did not take math in their senior year, and their average Grade Point Average (GPA) in math was approximately 1.7 or 1.8.
Mr. Andonov asked Dr. Merrill to clarify if the problem was that those students were not meeting the graduation requirements, and she replied that the students were not prepared.
Assemblywoman Chowning queried Dr. Merrill if the percentages she quoted were of the entire school or only the senior class.
Dr. Merrill replied that those percentages reflected the senior class.
Mrs. Chowning questioned if any of the students who testified at the last hearing were from Washoe County.
Dr. Merrill responded that the young woman who testified in Carson City was from Reed High School in Sparks.
Mrs. Chowning reflected that the young woman was one of the 94 who did not pass the math, and yet she did not have excessive absences; she did have a high GPA; and she was prepared academically because she had taken all of the classes.
Dr. Merrill noted that the numbers and percentages she had given referred to the class of 2002, not the current class of 2003. The figures for 2003 would not be known until the last opportunity for seniors to participate in the testing, and there were still three more chances for seniors to take the test.
Mrs. Chowning elucidated that Clark County had said they would be willing to look at some alternative type of diploma and she wondered if Washoe County had considered that option, so that students who truly had completed all of their credits, had passed all their classes, and yet could not pass just one portion of the test, would have an option for another type of endorsement or diploma.
Dr. Merrill reflected that the trustees for the Washoe County School District would be interested in pursuing that kind of an option during an interim study, and she noted that they had offered to participate with the maker of A.B. 179 in an interim study or task force. She said that offer was still open.
Assemblyman Mabey contemplated that on March 17, 2003, the Education Committee heard testimony from a mother whose son had special needs and could not take the required classes to graduate from high school. Mr. Mabey expressed regret that, although the young man had worked hard throughout high school, he would be unable to graduate. He contended that the young man should receive some type of diploma for all his hard work, and he asked Dr. Merrill’s opinion.
Dr. Merrill pointed out that students with disabilities were governed by their Individual Education Plan (IEP) when it came to their graduation requirements. If it was the judgment of the IEP team that the student met the expectations of the IEP team, then the student was given another way to earn the math credit and could receive an adjusted diploma, which looked very much like a regular diploma.
Assemblyman Geddes questioned Dr. Merrill if she knew which school districts required geometry and which did not.
Dr. Merrill stated that she could not speak for the other school districts.
Assemblyman Horne asked Dr. Merrill if she thought it could be problematic that some school districts did not require geometry, but yet it was on the exam. He asked what year geometry was generally taken in high school, freshman, sophomore, or junior year.
Dr. Merrill dealt with the second question first, explaining that when students took geometry depended on when they took algebra. It was her understanding that in some school districts, algebra was offered to eighth grade students. If the student did not take algebra in the eighth grade, then they would take algebra in grade nine. Students would take geometry the next year after they took algebra. To answer Mr. Horne’s first question about geometry being on the test but not being a required class, she related that during the 2001 Legislature, A.B. 318 of the 71st Session was passed, and it required that all students receive a brochure about the High School Proficiency Examination with recommendations about courses they should take in order to be effectively prepared to pass that exam. She advised that it was the law that students in grades 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 received that brochure on an annual basis.
Assemblyman Horne asked if she meant that because those students were told that geometry would be on the exam, they should have taken geometry.
Dr. Merrill agreed, confirming that the students had the opportunity to know what courses were necessary, but some students and their families made other decisions.
Mr. Horne commented that one of the hardest parts of going to law school was not having to take an exam until the end of the semester, and then having to recall everything that was learned during that semester. He observed that it could be unfair to ask a high school student to recall something they learned a year or two before, which was something normally done at institutions of higher learning.
Dr. Merrill reflected that in her experience, students who took algebra and geometry and then took the proficiency test in the tenth grade took those courses very close to the time they took the proficiency test; those students who took algebra and geometry a year later would take the proficiency test their junior year, which was also close to the time they took the courses. If they did not pass as a junior, there were remedial opportunities available in each school district. She did not agree with the passage of time as Mr. Horne explained it.
Assemblyman Geddes asked if the students passed the test in their sophomore year, would they have to take the proficiency test again.
Dr. Merrill confirmed that once students passed the test, they did not have to take it again.
Mr. Geddes requested clarification, asking if there was one statewide proficiency test which required geometry, and if each school district determined whether geometry was a required class or not.
Dr. Merrill stated that Mr. Geddes was correct; state law indicated that there were three math credits required for graduation, and it was up to the school districts to specify what those three units would be.
Mr. Geddes inquired if geometry was required for the proficiency exam.
Dr. Merrill reported that the standards included the principles and concepts of geometry; because the standards included that, it was reflected in the exam.
Mr. Geddes reiterated that it was one statewide test, not developed in each district to meet the standards, and Dr. Merrill agreed.
Assemblyman Andonov remarked that Dr. Merrill addressed part of his question, but he was going to ask who developed the statewide proficiency exam, and how it was developed. He observed that in Dr. Merrill’s opening comments she mentioned that the Washoe County School District had a good preparatory curriculum for the exam, so he was curious who actually was involved with the development of the proficiency exam.
Dr. Merrill expressed her desire to have Keith Rheault or someone else from the Department of Education answer the question, but as she did not see them in the audience, she said the Committee would receive her explanation. She articulated that math teachers from around the state were called together by the Department of Education and were provided with training on item writing, which was something that showed the kind of focus needed in an item to verify that it was measuring the skill that was supposed to be measured. Those teachers then wrote items, and another group of teachers performed an item review process in order to verify that the items were aligned to the standards. A third group convened by the Department of Education was called a Bias Review Committee, and they went through the items seeking various kinds of unintended bias that may have been embodied in the items. After all that, the items were tried out on the students in a version of the test, and students were not graded on the results. Based on the results of the field test, the items were then placed into a version of the exam.
Chairman Williams requested questions for the witness concerning A.B. 179, but there were none.
Sheila Ward introduced herself as a citizen and as a parent. She described raising five children with the help of her husband and commented that her perspective was that of a stay-at-home mother. She appealed to the Committee to keep the requirements for the standard diploma, and also keep the proficiency test as a requirement for the Millennium Scholarship. She illustrated that as a parent, there were always children who complained that certain rules were unfair and who would push to have the rules changed; the only way to have children move forward was to teach them perseverance. She felt that parents had to use perseverance to raise their children; their children had to learn perseverance by accomplishing something that was difficult for them; and the Education Committee should persevere in keeping the standards. She said they also learned other qualities, such as courage, patience, and goal-setting, but she believed that perseverance was the most important. She quoted Walter Elliott, who said “Perseverance is not a long race; it is many short races, one after another,” as well as an unknown author who wrote, “When things go wrong, as they sometimes will, when the road you’re trudging seems all uphill, when care is pressing you down a bit, rest if you must, but don’t you quit.”
Mrs. Ward also perceived that there could be problems with the curriculum, social promotion, and cheating. She pointed out that the young woman who testified at the March 17 meeting about cheating was very brave, and she revealed that she had brought a survey with her that indicated that cheating was rampant in the classroom at a rate of 71 percent, with 45 percent cheating more than twice. She had heard from a student and a parent that they thought the proficiency tests were too easy; yet she received an e-mail from a friend whose child was having problems passing the math portion of the test, and her friend felt that it was a psychological problem. Her feeling was that not everyone could be successful at everything, but they could accomplish what was necessary by working hard and reassessing the problem if necessary.
Mrs. Ward’s last comments were in the form of a quote from a teacher at Carson High School. She quoted him as saying: “I agree that we should keep the proficiency exams. It is one of the few benchmarks that keep students and teachers accountable. Without the proficiency exam, teachers can be bullied into passing a student who does not deserve to pass. Special education students, for example, must also pass the exam if they want a regular standard diploma. Without the exam, many of them would simply coast through high school, leaning upon their IEPs and their parents to defend them, not to mention justifying their apathy. Simply put, I think the proficiency is essential.”
Chairman Williams solicited questions from the Committee and asked Mrs. Ward who she attributed her last quote to. She replied that she got it out of a book, and the author was anonymous.
Mrs. Chowning cited Mrs. Ward’s comments on reassessment and inquired what the reassessment possibilities were for a student who had obvious math disabilities. She described being on the Academic Standards Council and a part of education reform, and she believed strongly in all they had accomplished, but she was concerned about what kind of reassessment was possible when the student either received their diploma or they did not, and if they did not, they were considered a failure.
Mrs. Ward stated that the benchmarks should not be changed, but the school districts should work on math more in the earlier grades and possibly move math classes around in high school so the tests were taken closer to the end of those classes. She also believed that part of the problem was students for whom English was their second language, as there were many word problems in the math section.
Mrs. Chowning reflected that there were options for the special education students and the English Language Learner (ELL) students, so those could be grouped with the regular students. The only option for someone who failed the test eight times, as far as Mrs. Chowning could recognize, was to have the parents go to their school district and ask to have their child listed as a special education student. She emphasized that it was a very sad state of affairs.
Chairman Williams solicited questions; there were no questions, and he called Mr. Bacon to testify.
Ray Bacon, representing the Nevada Manufacturers Association, advised that they opposed A.B. 179 from several standpoints. He began with the math test and apprised that everything on the math test was known to man since the age of the Greeks and the Egyptians; algebra and geometry were not new subjects. Another point he brought up was the link between higher education and K-12 education, and he related that he and Chairman Williams were on the P‑16 Council last fall which attempted to connect the business community with representatives from K-12 and higher education. He hoped one thing that would come from that council over the next few years was a High School Proficiency Exam that would be accepted as a placement tool in higher education, which he felt would eliminate a lot of the remediation. It was his view that taxpayers were paying twice if students had to go through remediation, and he said the P-16 Council was attempting to deal with the system on that.
Mr. Bacon said his next point was his harshest. He reported that he routinely received complaints from employers that students graduated with diplomas from the state of Nevada and moved into the work place without the ability to do basic math and fundamental English. He never received complaints about a former student’s inability to do calculus or trigonometry; it was the basics such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and writing coherent sentences that employers expected those former students to be able to perform, and those employers were being disappointed.
The next issue that Mr. Bacon addressed was grade inflation. He observed that everyone was aware of grade inflation because students that graduated with a 3.5 GPA could not survive in the workplace. He hoped the P-16 Council would link the student’s performance to the ACT, SAT and proficiency tests, and he believed the only way to do that was to “pressure back” on the grade inflation. He related that Nevada was one of five states selected to be involved in the American Diploma Project, and a part of that project was to find out if the right standards had been set and how those standards compared with standards in other states. He asserted that, at present, Nevada’s standards looked good, but the academic standards had to be linked to the high school diploma project, because he had failed for 12 years to get legislation passed to have employers accept the high school diploma as critical for employment. He opined that a diploma in Nevada could mean the student was headed to an Ivy League school, or it could mean the pupil could barely read that diploma, and he emphasized that it was unacceptable.
Mr. Bacon feared that students would end up choosing from 200 to 300 different math courses and would be unaware of the courses that would give them the necessary academic standards. He felt that courses which did not meet the standards should be eliminated, and those which did meet the standards could possibly be consolidated with similar courses.
Mr. Bacon advised the Committee that S.B. 182 was introduced in the Senate and made changes in the way High School Proficiency Exams were taken and graded, which provided for the application of the tests electronically rather than manually. He believed that time was lost for immediate feedback with the manual system, and with the electronic system they would know the results a few minutes after the student completed the test. He reported that one product they were studying could link every test question to every academic standard; if a student failed the test, he or she would not only be provided with the results, but also with the standards that he or she failed to meet. He observed that one of the frustrations that the students had expressed was they did not know why they failed, and the school districts did not know either because there was not a good item analysis. If test results were available immediately, then remediation could begin while the memory was still fresh. It was his opinion that there were tools out there already to accomplish the solutions that A.B. 179 was created to do, but without destroying the monumental progress that had gone into revising the standards over the last seven or eight years.
Chairman Williams asked for questions from the Committee, and Assemblyman Horne related that he was displeased with Mr. Bacon’s comments on students taking classes just to improve their GPA. At the previous Committee meeting it was mentioned that there were students who were just not proficient in math; they would never use algebra in the business world, so they might take business math instead. He saw nothing wrong with following the courses that would lead to the students’ career aspirations, and he stated that it was unfair to suggest that the only reason they would take a less difficult class was to pad their GPA.
Mr. Bacon advised that in almost every business college he was aware of, statistics was required; calculus was required for statistics; and you could not take calculus unless you went through, at a minimum, algebra, geometry, and algebra II. He felt that every student attending the College of Education should have a strong math requirement, and he mused that philosophy was one of the few areas where a math background was not required.
Mr. Horne observed that an English teacher would also not need a strong math background and Mr. Bacon disagreed, stating that teachers needed a good comprehension of math in order to accomplish their grading or perform the statistical analyses required under HR1.
Mr. Horne noted that it would not be incomprehensible for students to steer away from geometry.
Mr. Bacon expressed his belief that there were only four or five geometry questions on the current test. A student could miss every geometry question on the test and still be able to pass.
Chairman Williams inquired if there were further questions for Mr. Bacon, but there were not.
Mary Piercynski introduced herself as the Superintendent of Schools for the Carson City School District, and she asserted that the district opposed A.B. 179. She explained that she was at the meeting to request consideration for local control over what the district considered was mandatory for their standard diploma. She established that the law mandated that students have 22½ credits to graduate, but she believed that local school boards should make the decision on proficiency testing as a requirement for graduation.
Chairman Williams asked for questions, and Assemblywoman Angle commented that local control was a very interesting concept and inquired if there was anyone in the country who allowed that.
Dr. Piercynski regretted that she was unable to furnish those statistics for Mrs. Angle, but she was fortunate that the districts had been allowed thus far to determine whether students walked in graduation if they had not passed the High School Proficiency Test. She expounded that some communities were proponents of the High School Proficiency Test and preferred local control, and she asked the Committee to consider that fact.
Mrs. Angle admitted to being partial toward local control, as she had been on a local school board, but she queried how the standard would be kept across the state if every district had a differing standard for the receipt of a diploma.
Dr. Piercynski admitted that it would be a challenge but asserted that providing a series of different diplomas would also be confusing.
Assemblyman Mabey asked Dr. Piercynski to turn to page 8, Section 6, of the bill, where it referenced students who did not speak English. He inquired if this were similar to language in the No Child Left Behind Act, and gave an example: if a student came from Mongolia, he would have to be tested in Mongolian.
Dr. Piercynski replied that they would not have to test that student in his or her native language. She cited 492 candidates for graduation last year at Carson High School; 488 of them walked in the ceremony because they passed the High School Proficiency Test or met the requirements of their adjusted diploma. Of those graduates, 18 were ELL students and were not proficient enough in English to transition out of their program, but they managed to pass the test because the Carson City School District had implemented programs to improve the students’ knowledge, and they had employed extensive remediation for those students.
Assemblyman Mabey inquired if A.B. 179 were passed, if the districts would be required to provide testing in the students’ native language.
Dr. Piercynski replied that the way she read the bill, if the student had been a resident for three years or less, the test would have to be provided in their native language. Spanish was not the only language; out of 24 non-English speaking students in Carson City, there were 6 different languages spoken. She believed there were 56 languages spoken in the Clark County School District.
Chairman Williams received a negative reply to his solicitation for questions, so he directed Ben Blinn to present his testimony.
Ben Blinn supported A.B. 179 and wished to direct the Committee’s attention in a different direction. He expressed his concern about the students’ emotional disappointment and the belief that they were failures in math. He related that he had taught at the prison, at the Nevada Youth Training Center, and at the Stewart Indian School. He was certified in special education, as well as elementary, high school and secondary education. He was also certified in science, mathematics, and physical education, among other things, and was the type of teacher preferred for the rural areas because he could teach more than one subject. He commented that he had heard the word “preparation” from one of the witnesses and that students were not being prepared for the proficiency tests. He believed the reason was that most teachers were not prepared to teach; students should be taught from the known to the unknown, and he used the example of teaching the meaning of the signs on the boys’ and girls’ bathrooms to non-English speaking students as their first lesson.
Mr. Blinn felt the students should be taught according to their goals, and he used Shaquille O’Neal, a prominent basketball player, to illustrate that Shaq did not need a college degree to make $2 million playing basketball; knowledge of geometry was not necessary in order to write a check; and a successful businessman who was not proficient in math would hire a bookkeeper to help his business be successful. He said businesses were more successful if they hired trained employees to compensate for the weakness in their company, and teachers were supposed to teach more than just geometry; they should also teach patriotism, honesty, integrity, and thrift.
Part of the problem, Mr. Blinn asserted, was that teachers were not paid enough to attract those who were skilled in the subject they were teaching. He then gave a quick trigonometry lesson with different methods of teaching he had learned, using everyday objects such as animal hides, as well as colloquial expressions, because he caught the mistakes or half-done jobs by teachers that might have been great English teachers but were assigned to teach math. He spoke of having to create an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for each of those students to correct their lack of knowledge due to poor teaching.
Mr. Blinn than remarked that the “white coat syndrome” might be an explanation for some students’ inability to pass the test. He explained that nothing good happened in a hospital; they gave you shots, took your blood, and people died there, which had the effect of raising the blood pressure of those who had to deal with medical professionals in “white coats.” He likened the proficiency test to a student “walking the plank” with his hands tied and said that when he tested a student, he wanted to make sure the student really understood the questions. He asked some mathematical questions which only a few on the Committee could answer even though they were all successful, and he asserted that students should be allowed to succeed by not placing stumbling blocks in their way. He believed that a teacher’s goal should be to create citizens who had confidence, self-esteem, and the courage to stand for their convictions, and that those qualities would lead to a student’s success.
To give an example of those qualities building a success story, Mr. Blinn told about Timothy Baley, who played the piano at the Sizzler in Carson City. Tim was autistic, and the only two things he could do was play piano and create artwork. However, Tim could play an incredible array of music, and Mr. Blinn determined that most successful people narrowed their scope to specialize in certain areas. He reiterated that you did not have to know calculus to be an artist or a musician, but you needed basic math for everyday life. In order to teach some students math, Mr. Blinn related that you had to change their thinking. He used the example of freshmen who came into his class believing that “pie are round,” and he had to convince those students that there was another way of thinking, that “pie are squared.” He again stressed that the true problem was teachers who did not know how to teach, and he wished they would “quit picking on the kids.”
Chairman Williams acknowledged that Mr. Blinn had enlightened the Committee, and he asked for questions.
Mr. Blinn hoped he did not overdo his presentation, but he was happy that he had caused the Committee members to be awake and alert. He proposed that tests be used to evaluate the teachers, instead of causing distress to the students, and he remarked that he could teach any child.
Joyce Haldeman, from the Clark County School District, stated she would try to be succinct. She revealed that A.B. 179 made educators a little schizophrenic because they did not believe in lowering the standards in any way; educators wished to set the standards high so the students would achieve as much as they possibly could. On the other hand, most educators and legislators had heard at least one heartbreaking story of motivated students who excelled through 13 years of education and barely missed passing the Proficiency Exam, thereby ruining their lives because they would have to become special education students or leave school with a Certificate of Attendance which would keep them from entering the military or following their career choices. She advised that those problems made it very difficult to create a “one size fits all” test for students with varying levels of skills. She conceded, however, that when the Proficiency Test was offered to students in the tenth grade, about half passed the test and she felt that some success was due more to natural aptitude than the educational system.
Ms. Haldeman then admitted that she was a former English teacher, and she was afraid to take the math portion of the High School Proficiency Exam because she feared she would fail, even though she had received passing marks in math when she was in school. She described the situation in her family as utilizing their strengths, as Mr. Blinn had talked about; her husband handled the checkbook, as he was good in math, and she checked the kids’ spelling on their school papers, as English was where her aptitude was focused. She felt that the proficiency tests were considered an indicator of success instead of an indicator of the achievement of standards, which was the reason the tests were instituted. She believed that the two goals had been confused, and the students were at risk of being unsuccessful because of a test that could be considered arbitrary; she had no evidence that a High School Proficiency Exam predicated success.
Ms. Haldeman then divulged that she had talked with Dr. Piercynski and Dr. Merrill about the subject of local control, and they came up with an idea of how local control would work in Clark County. The suggestion was to change the language in the Certificate of Attendance so that it meant more than a Certificate of Attendance under some circumstances. If the standard diploma indicated that the person met the credit requirements, passed all the required classes, and passed the High School Proficiency Exam, maybe it should be changed to an enhanced diploma or comprehensive diploma because it showed a comprehensive achievement. She asserted that if they had the ability to change the language of the Certificate of Attendance to a basic or credit diploma, then students who did not pass the Proficiency Exam could apply to the School Board of Trustees to receive the basic diploma. A screening committee could then look over the application to see what the students’ grades were, how their attendance was, how many times they attempted the Proficiency Exam, and if they took advantage of any of the remedial opportunities available to them.
Ms. Haldeman then revealed that last year, Clark County needed to hire 64 math teachers, and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, (UNLV), produced only two math teachers. She described the district as “scrambling” to find qualified educators who could prepare students for the exam that determined the rest of their lives. She did not, however, wish to see the basic diploma become the default; the comprehensive or standard diploma should still be the goal of every student. She reiterated, however, that under certain circumstances and after evaluation by a screening committee, the student could possibly be given an exit document that stated it was a “diploma,” because a Certificate of Attendance was not applicable, as the students did far more than simply attend school.
Ms. Haldeman then told the story of a high level administrator with the Clark County School District with a daughter who could not pass the math portion of the proficiency test, even though she scored in the high 90 percentile in the reading and writing portions of the test. She took the test five times, missing the passing score by a few points each time. Finally, because the parent was an administrator who knew what avenues were available, the parent hired a special educator to tutor his daughter every night for three weeks. The student took the test again and just barely passed.
Ms. Haldeman asked what a student whose parents did not know all the remedies would do; she and the administrator both agreed that the situation was not fair. She reflected that if they had local control in Clark County, they could work on changing the situation.
Ms. Haldeman stated that the Carson City School District and Washoe County School District might not want to revisit the diploma issue, but in Clark County there was a high influx of students who did not speak English as their first language, and also many transient students from outside Nevada, and the district would appreciate the ability to decide if a student who could not pass the Proficiency Exam was a candidate for a basic diploma so that they could get on with their lives and achieve their goals. She hoped that, instead of passing A.B. 179, there could be an interim study where school districts could get together and consider offering a tiered diploma that would only be given when extreme measures prevented the student from receiving the standard diploma.
Assemblyman Geddes revealed that he found the concept of students applying through the process for the basic diploma to be a very intriguing one. He wondered, however, why the Clark County School District did not require geometry for graduation from high school when the statewide Proficiency Exam had a geometry section.
Ms. Haldeman affirmed that the Clark County School District did not require geometry for graduation, although they did use counselors to guide them into taking the necessary classes. She advised that they had just changed the standards to require algebra, and the state only required taking three credits of math but did not specify which classes. She indicated that math classes were difficult, so some students would not take them if they did not have to.
Mr. Geddes agreed and stated that it seemed like there was a lack of connection there. He asked if options had been explored such as removing the geometry portion from the math Proficiency Exam, or basing the math portion of the test on the courses the students took.
Ms. Haldeman confirmed that those options had not been explored in Clark County, although she found them to be interesting. She feared that some in the Senate would consider those actions to be a lowering of the standards, but she felt that for students who were not interested in going on to college, some of the concepts were not necessary. However, she did not wish to address changing the standards.
Assemblywoman Chowning affirmed that she would hate to wait two years for an interim study as it would mean two more years of students who would be failing. She felt Ms. Haldeman possibly underestimated their Senate colleagues and proposed that the change Ms. Haldeman suggested be written as an amendment to A.B. 179 so the students could move forward instead of waiting for two years.
Ms. Haldeman explained that she did not mean to underestimate the Senate, but she believed they would be opposed to deleting the geometry requirements. She admitted that she had spoken with a few Senators on the concept and felt that they were open to that kind of approach. Her reason for requesting an interim study was to have the other school districts give their opinion, because unless the amendment indicated a great deal of local control, what worked for Clark County would not necessarily work for another county.
Chris Galyean, Counselor, Western High School, faxed in a letter of testimony (Exhibit C) but did not testify in person.
Chairman Williams asked if there was anyone else to testify on A.B. 179; there was no response, so he closed the hearing on Assembly Bill 179 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 268.
Assembly Bill 268: Requires increased salaries for certain speech pathologists employed by school districts. (BDR 34-660)
Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, representing Assembly District No. 25, stated A.B. 268 would increase salaries of nationally board certified speech-language pathologists employed as teachers of pupils with speech and language impairments in Nevada school districts. She noted that the Senate recognized the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards as an incentive for excellence in teaching by passing S.B. 46 of the 70th Session in June 1999. However, the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards published a statement which proclaimed that they would not pursue the establishment of a certification process for speech-language pathologists in the schools.
Mrs. Gibbons advised that speech-language pathologists who possessed the American Speech and Hearing Association Certificate of Clinical Competence worked collaboratively with teachers, school administrators and others to identify and remedy speech, language, and hearing disabilities. In addition, those teachers of pupils with speech and language impairments used the Nevada state standards as the basis for their students’ individualized education plan (IEP) goals and objectives. Speech-language pathologists worked collaboratively with general education and special education teachers to improve student performance, so students could achieve Nevada content standards at the appropriate grade level.
Those nationally board-certified speech-language pathologists were already a part of the public school system and were strong advocates for the highest educational achievement for the children that they served. Those highly qualified speech-language pathologists had a direct impact on curricular instruction and the content areas of language, English, arts, math and science, in order to enhance student performance on statewide testing. In addition, the No Child Left Behind Act and the Reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act defined a highly qualified teacher, and a board-certified speech-language pathologist was a highly qualified teacher. Board-certified speech pathologists had two years of graduate work in addition to an undergraduate degree. They also completed hundreds of hours of clinical experience, followed by another year of supervised clinical work. Speech-language pathologists serving in private practice earned, in a hospital setting, a salary which started at $50,000 per year; at the school district level, they earned $30,000 per year.
Assemblywoman Gibbons then read from a letter sent to her by Stephen McFarlane, Dean of the Medical School at the University of Nevada, Reno (Exhibit D, tab 1), which stated his unequivocal support of A.B. 268. A portion of Dr. McFarlane’s letter read:
Speech-language pathologists undergo a rigorous master’s degree program, accompanied by internships that ensure a grounding in both medical and school environments. Academic studies are followed by a one-year clinical fellowship during which speech language pathologists further hone their skills in child and adolescent linguistic cognitive function, assessing and treating language and speech deficits and increasing reading success. Speech language pathologists are also instrumental in teaching fellow professionals in regular and special education classrooms how to incorporate speech and language goals into lesson plans. Speech language pathologists are the experts that educators seek out when questions arise concerning how to implement an augmentative communication program, how to approach early reading intervention, and how to increase a child’s expressive communication so that he or she may be successful in the classroom.
Assemblywoman Gibbons then revealed that the subject was very important to her because she had been very close to Lindsay Nunn, her intern, for the past 12 to 15 years, and she had known Lindsay’s family since Lindsay was born with a hearing impairment. Mrs. Gibbons expounded that she could not imagine never hearing a mother’s voice, birds sing, or rainfall, but she described that as reality for Lindsay. Yet Lindsay was able to communicate through speech due to her training with speech-language pathologists. She asked that Lindsay be allowed to make a statement for the record, and she stated that two speech pathologists would speak after that. Mrs. Gibbons also submitted supplementary information in support of A.B. 268 (Exhibit E).
Assemblyman Manendo confirmed that the Committee recognized what a wonderful asset Lindsay was to the Legislature, and they appreciated her work and her service to the Legislature and to Mrs. Gibbons.
Lindsay Nunn stated that she was an intern for Mrs. Gibbons. She described being born with a hearing loss and asserted that she personally had benefited greatly by hard-working, dedicated speech-language pathologists whose work had enabled her to speak at the meeting. She urged the Education Committee to support A.B. 268.
Assemblywoman Gibbons wished to share comments from Nancy Kuhles and Katherine Ross before they spoke, and she related that they said Lindsay was remarkable, considering that she was completely deaf and could speak that well. Mrs. Gibbons felt fortunate that Lindsay had good people like Nancy and Katherine to help her speak
Nancy Kuhles described herself as a speech pathologist and secretary of the Nevada Speech and Hearing Association. She was at the meeting on behalf of the Nevada Speech and Hearing Association to support A.B. 268, and she spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit F) about the board certification process for the speech-language pathologist who was employed as a teacher of pupils with speech and language impairments, those who sought or currently held board certification through the American Speech and Hearing Association to obtain the Certificate of Clinical Competence. She conceded that they called the Certificate their “three Cs”. She then compared the certification process for teachers with that of speech-language pathologists.
Ms. Kuhles explained that speech-language pathologists working in the school districts who sought board certification from the American Speech and Hearing Association had to first complete a graduate program and receive a master’s degree in speech pathology. Teachers needed only a bachelor’s degree to seek national board certification from the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. Speech-language pathologists requesting certification had to pass two examinations, while teachers requesting certification had to pass just one exam. Speech-language pathologists took a national exam, which was an objective multiple-choice test developed and validated by the Educational Testing Service, and was required to be taken and passed within two years of completing a master’s program. If the test was not passed, the applicant could not pursue the certificate and would have to look for other alternatives.
Ms. Kuhles described the second examination as 36 weeks, or over 1400 hours, of a supervised clinical fellowship which included an examination conducted three times within those 36 weeks. The clinical fellowship candidate was required to be supervised by a clinical fellowship supervisor who also held a Certificate of Clinical Competence, in whatever setting was required, which could include a school setting.
The three examinations evaluated the clinical fellowship candidate in the areas of evaluation, treatment, management, and interaction; the clinical fellowship supervisor then recommended either approval or disapproval of the candidate’s performance. Upon approval, the candidate could obtain the Certificate of Clinical Competence; if it was disapproved, then there was another process for the candidate to go through. On the other hand, teachers requesting board certification completed a classroom-focused portfolio over approximately four months in addition to four 90-minute assessment-centered exercises.
Ms. Kuhles related that the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards offered certification in 24 areas, but certification for speech pathologists was not one of those areas, and the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards had no plans to develop a certification for speech pathologists in the future. The American Speech and Hearing Association had in place a certification process that was nationally recognized for speech pathologists. She reiterated that in 1999, the Legislature passed S.B. 46 of the 70th Session which recognized teachers who sought and maintained national certification issued by the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards; passage of A.B. 268 would provide an opportunity for those speech pathologists employed as teachers of students with speech and language impairments in Nevada to be recognized for pursuing and maintaining national certification issued by the American Speech and Hearing Association and the Nevada Board of Examiners. On the behalf of the Nevada Speech and Hearing Association, she thanked the Committee for their time and consideration, and she urged passage of A.B. 268.
Katherine Ross spoke next and identified herself as a speech-language pathologist who worked in the Washoe County School District as well as being the state education advocacy leader for the Nevada Speech and Hearing Association. She spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit G), and she stated that employees often went through the day doing their jobs without really considering how much knowledge the job entailed. She remarked that as she was preparing her testimony, she was reminded that speech-language pathologists were highly trained professionals who were held to a very high standard for training and for certification. She was proud of her knowledge and the fact that she made a difference to certain Nevada children and their families. She expressed her strong support for A.B. 268 which she believed recognized and rewarded the high level of training and excellence in speech-language pathologists employed as teachers of speech- and language-impaired pupils in Nevada public schools.
As a school-based speech-language pathologist, Ms. Ross described an educational model in which pupils’ individualized goals and objectives were developed specifically to support that pupil’s educational success using the Nevada state standards. Those standards were developed as a result of passage of S.B. 482 of the 69th Session in 1997 and they provided for a common curriculum that defined what pupils should have learned and how they should perform in a particular subject area for that grade level. She asserted that those standards were used by all regular and special education teachers for the purpose of curriculum and lesson planning, and those standards held all Nevada teachers accountable for teaching certain knowledge and skills, and held pupils accountable for learning those skills and acquiring the knowledge.
Ms. Ross detailed that speech-language pathologists interacted and collaborated with large numbers of people: administrators, education staff (up to 50 teachers), special educators, nurses, psychologists, physical and occupational therapists, as well as others. They frequently worked within the classroom to provide training to teachers so that goals could be carried out to benefit those particular students.
Ms. Ross described the school-based speech pathologist’s class as a caseload of students made up entirely of 55 or more pupils with speech or language impairments, as well as other special needs due to language disorders, possible mental retardation, developmental delay, and autism. She related that every day, speech pathologists worked with students who were hearing or vision impaired; who had learning and fluency disabilities; who suffered from traumatic brain injuries, attention disorders, social-emotional disorders, behavior disorders and more. Using the standards to create goals and objectives for such a diverse group of students was demanding and required a high level of training, creativity, and sensitivity, which Ms. Ross believed that speech-language pathologists possessed.
Ms. Ross concluded that the professional in a school setting who was most often consulted for special needs children was the speech-language pathologist, and she believed that those who possessed the Certificate of Clinical Competence deserved recognition for their training, excellence, and hard work. On behalf of Nevada’s school-based speech pathologists, she asked the Committee to support Assembly Bill 268 to provide the best quality teachers possible for Nevada’s students, and she thanked the Committee members for their hard work and personal sacrifice for the people of Nevada.
Vice Chairman Horne took over the meeting at that time and asked if there were any questions for Ms. Kuhles or Ms. Ross.
Assemblyman McCleary asked how many speech pathologists there were in Nevada and what percentage was already certified.
Ms. Kuhles inquired if Mr. McCleary wanted her to talk about the number in any setting; she stated that roughly 400 speech-language pathologists worked in private practice, and approximately 300 worked in a school setting.
Mr. McCleary clarified that his question concerned speech-language pathologists working in the school districts.
Ms. Kuhles divulged that statewide, approximately 300 worked in a school setting; about 187 of those employed in a school setting held the Certificate of Clinical Competence.
Vice Chairman Horne asked for questions and recognized Assemblyman Mabey.
Mr. Mabey revealed his concern that speech-language pathologists employed by the school districts might make less than those in private practice, but they also received benefits such as insurance and retirement, and those benefits had to be factored into the pay scale for a true assessment of what they were paid. He felt the difference in pay for those in the school districts versus those in private practice might be less if the benefits were counted.
Ms. Kuhles admitted that could be a concern, since speech-language pathologists in the Washoe County School District were employed on a teachers’ salary which provided an 18 percent retirement paid by the school district. She offered to find out the specific numbers for the Committee, but reminded the Committee that the salary increase was for the certification; Senate Bill 46 of the 70th Session recognized that increase for teachers.
Vice Chair Horne invited other questions from the Committee, and Assemblywoman Angle noted that Ms. Kuhles had mentioned the Senate’s bill which recognized certification for teachers and had based the percentage increase on attracting more qualified teachers to the profession in Nevada, and she asked if speech-language pathologists had the same argument.
Ms. Kuhles asserted that there was a critical shortage of speech pathologists, and the bill under consideration was a way of attracting and keeping speech pathologists within the state of Nevada. She reported that there were 12 speech-language pathologists graduating with a master’s degree from the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and they had already been offered positions by other states. She observed that there were 12 unfilled positions in the Clark County School District; 2 in the Washoe County School District; 2 in the Carson City School District; and 3 in the Lyon County School District. She described these vacancies as a critical shortage, and she stated that as speech-language pathologists retired, the situation would worsen. She believed that passage of A.B. 268 would help attract and keep speech-language pathologists in Nevada’s schools just as S.B. 46 of the 70th Session assisted with the teacher shortage.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asserted that it was a very important issue which Mrs. Angle brought up. In the situation with Ms. Nunn, her intern and constituent, there was a critical shortage of speech-language pathologists when Lindsay entered school. Her mother had three kids, and her father worked at UNR. Her mom had to move with her to San Francisco just to get her the help she needed, because the sooner she received the help, the better her speech could be. Mrs. Gibbons maintained that she did not want anyone else to go through what Lindsay’s family went through to get her help.
Assemblyman Andonov said his question tied into Assemblyman Mabey’s question. He reflected that he had heard there were 300 speech pathologists in the school districts, with possibly 187 that were qualified for certification. He inquired what the turnover was between those who left the school district to go work for the public sector; he did not understand if it was a recruiting problem in Nevada or if they left Nevada to work in other states.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asserted that it was a crisis, because the number one birth defect was deafness. She believed that it was more of a crisis than was currently recognized due to the number and types of disabilities that speech-language pathologists dealt with.
Ms. Kuhles forecasted that 10 percent of Nevada’s fast-growing student population would have some type of speech and language impairment, and speech-language pathologists provided services within the school starting with 3-year-olds. As the population grew, so would the need for more speech-language pathologists, which would only exacerbate the shortage. She was surprised when she attended their national association convention in Atlanta, Georgia, and found that Nevada was aggressively competing for speech-language pathologists with master’s degrees to move to Nevada. That had not been necessary previously.
Mr. Andonov asked if speech-language pathologists in Nevada were leaving to go into the private sector.
Ms. Kuhles did not know, but offered to find that information for Mr. Andonov.
Vice Chairman Horne solicited questions from the Committee and directed Ms. Kuhles to provide the requested information for the Committee members, thanking her for her efforts. He inquired if there was any other testimony for A.B. 268.
Rose McKinney-James, representing the Clark County School District, stated that her “x” was “on the line.” She said the bill was consistent with their desire to improve student achievement; however, they did not like the price tag. She revealed that all 17 superintendents had signed onto the iNVest Plan (Investing in Nevada’s Education, Students, and Teachers, a proposal from the Nevada Association of School Superintendents) and they felt strongly about the need to attract and retain a competent work force. She noted the provision in that plan which focused on areas where there was a high impact and special needs, and she had received comments from Georgeanne Rice, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, Clark County School District, that Nevada had been having difficulty over the last decade identifying individuals to accept the open positions. She asserted that they supported the 5 percent increase; Dr. Rice had stated she would like to give them more, because Nevada was losing speech-language pathologists due to low pay. Ms. McKinney-James referred to that area as “challenged” and felt the increase mirrored what was supported in the iNVest Plan, but she was obligated to reveal that the fiscal impact to the Clark County School District would be about $500,000, which was a concern.
Vice Chairman Horne asked for questions from the Committee, and since there were no questions, he closed the hearing on A.B. 268. He commented that a work session was scheduled, but as it was ten minutes until six, he decided to move that to the next meeting. He adjourned the meeting at 5:48 p.m.
Victoria Thompson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
DATE: