MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session January 25, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Wednesday, January 25, 1995, Vice-Chairman Gene W. Segerblom presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington, Chairman Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom, Vice Chairman Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Deanna Braunlin Mrs. Vonne Chowning Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Mark Manendo Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mrs. Jeannine Stroth COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Richard S. Jarvis, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada Jan Cahill, Superintendent, White Pine County School District Robin Williamson, Nevada Parent Teachers Association Keith Rheault, Nevada State Department of Education Dave Cook, Nevada State Parent Teachers Association and Carson City School District Barbara Clark, Nevada Parent Teachers Association Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards Greg Betts, representing Nevada Rural School Districts Denise Nowacki, Nevada Parent Teachers Association Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturer's Association Caroline Edwards, Clark County School District Lindsey Jydstrup, Nevada State Education Association Richard S. Jarvis, Chancellor of the University and Community College System of Nevada presented a planning report on the University and Community College System, (Exhibit C). The report was required by legislation and laid out the various mechanisms that the University and Community College System has in place to produce a planned system. Mr. Jarvis referred to a handout entitled "Presentation to 1995 Nevada Legislature, Assembly Committee on Education," (Exhibit D), to enable the committee to follow the points of his presentation easily. The mission of the University and Community College System was discussed as well as the themes of accountability, including planning, performance indicators, and management actions, making and meeting the demand of enrollment and needs, and new challenges and solutions to be met and made by the system. Mr. Jarvis disclosed that approximately 70.7% of Nevada ninth graders graduate from high school, which is within about a point of the national average. Graphs to aid in the understanding of high school graduation rates, college continuation rates, and opportunity for college in the U.S. in 1986, 1988, and 1992, were distributed to the committee, (Exhibit E). Concern by the University and Community College system was expressed in regard to student backlog. Many students either drop out or do not get started in college because of unavailability of classes, especially at the community college level. Technology needs of the University and Community College System were discussed by Mr. Jarvis. He noted how quickly the technological needs of students have grown, and how essential technology is to the challenges and solutions facing the system. Learning productivity of students was discussed, including getting students into college earlier, moving them through quicker, and getting them out into the working world faster. Partnering with K-12 in different ways was suggested. Issuing challenges to upper high school students, such as engaging in demanding courses that are credit worthy when the students reach college, was proposed. Establishing new relationships with business and industry to foster workforce development was broached. Identifying and responding to specific skill needs of employers, guaranteeing student acquisition of skills, and retraining of students whose skills are not proper for their jobs were addressed. Mr. Bennett noted that he often hears complaints from community college students that the credits earned in the community college system are not transferable into the university system, and inquired if Mr. Jarvis would agree that this problem needs to be rectified. Mr. Jarvis agreed community college credit transfer is sometimes a problem and is unacceptable. Dr. Harrington questioned the student backlog problem and requested figures for student application and student rejection. Mr. Jarvis was unable to provide the figures, but noted that when students are unable to get a class, they drift away and "stop out" or "drop out" for awhile, or just do not complete applications. In most cases the students are not getting the courses they need to get started and move forward. Failed attempts are not recorded. Dr. Harrington noted that perhaps these attempts need to be recorded in the future so it is known how many students are being turned away. Mr. Jarvis noted a discouragement factor sets in when students are turned away and it spreads to their peers and family. A number of campuses have not been striving for improvement in growth since their classes have been full and no more applicants were really needed. Students get in the habit of not thinking of themselves as college bound in high school when they see older sibling and friends being turned away or not being able to get needed classes. This happens more often at the community college level where class capacities are full. Mr. Neighbors noted he supports the good neighbor tuition policy. Mr. Manendo asked if all California students attending Nevada colleges are now paying more than Nevada students. Mr. Jarvis answered that they were always paying more than Nevada students but not much more. Mr. Manendo asked what change has been made. Mr. Jarvis replied that no change has been made for community college students because our rates for community colleges are higher than in California. Tuition rates for new students coming into University of Nevada- Reno and University of Nevada-Las Vegas will be accelerated to the rate of University of California-Davis within two or three years. This will require a 15% tuition increase this year and a higher proportion next year. Currently enrolled students will be exempt. Within three years the good neighbor rate will be equivalent to the California in-state rate, which still represents a modest discount from Nevada's out of state rate. The University system will have three rates, in state, good neighbor, and out of state. Mrs. Chowning thanked Mr. Jarvis for the planning report. She inquired how many students in our university system come from out of state and how many students leave and take their Nevada-taught skills out of state. Also, a wish list was requested from the university so business and education can work in partnership to better the university system. Mr. Jarvis indicated he would get the requested figures and would be delighted to produce a wish list. Mrs. DeBraga noted that there are problems in the rural areas between parent and satellite campuses in the University and Community College System. Discussion between satellite campuses and universities to give the satellites more input into regulations, budget control, and other major and minor issues would be appreciated. ASSEMBLY BILL 5 - Revises provisions governing term of employment of superintendent of schools of school district. The hearing on A.B. 5 was opened. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, explained that A.B. 5 is important to school districts in recruitment of superintendents. School districts like to recruit highly qualified candidates, and the current one year limit is a disincentive to that recruitment. It was suggested that the current law be amended as seen on the bill beginning on line 8 and continuing through the bracket after the word "employed" on line 12. It was requested that the provision limiting the employment of an out of state superintendent to an initial term of one year unless he or she has served as a licensed teacher or administrator in that district for two years be removed. Concerns for recent recruitment efforts in some districts were expressed. No district operations would be affected and education would not be affected. Mr. Etchemendy emphasized this bill would allow each district flexibility to negotiate the best contract they can with their successful candidate for whatever time period is appropriate for that district. Dr. Harrington noted that on line 12 of the bill it sounded as though when the superintendent is hired he or she can only serve for four years. The intent was that the initial term would be four years and if successful, the candidate could continue to work. Mr. Etchemendy responded that it was the other way. Once a satisfactory arrangement has been reached by the districts, a rolling contract ensues. A four year contract may be renewed as often as every year. Dr. Harrington suggested on line 12 it read "for an initial term not to exceed four years," so after a four year period the candidate may continue to work if acceptable to the candidate and the district. Mr. Etchemendy responded he felt there would be no problem with the suggestion. Mr. Neighbors inquired if there was support of all rural school districts. Mr. Etchemendy answered affirmatively. Mr. Bennett asked what districts have expressed concern regarding recruitment. Mr. Etchemendy responded that in a recent recruitment in Storey County at least one viable candidate dropped out of consideration because of the one year limitation. He also noted this is a state-wide concern and not just a rural concern. Mr. Greg Betts, speaking on behalf of the fifteen rural school districts, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Betts noted that Nevada is unique and probably the only state in the nation to have this kind of a closed contract approach for the initial hiring process of superintendents. He noted that much care has to be taken in recruitment to notify potential candidates of the current law. No school district would be required to give more than an initial one year contract if they did not wish to, but it would offer them much greater flexibility. As the law stands right now the only person who can get a four year contract is a teacher or administrator in that district who has been there for two years. A teacher with no administrative experience at all could get a four year contract and an administrator from another district or out of state with much administrative experience could only be hired initially for one year. In-state administrators wishing to transfer to another district face the same limitation. The hearing on A.B. 5 was closed. ASSEMBLY BILL 6 - Authorizes a 4-day school week under certain circumstances. The hearing on A.B. 6 was opened. Mr. Etchemendy explained that S.B. 87, which will be heard in Senate Human Resources Committee next Monday, is similar to A.B. 6. He stated that it treats the same subject in the same manner but has better language in one section and suggested that the Senate bill language be substituted for what is in the Assembly bill. Mr. Etchemendy explained that the purpose of the bill is to provide for alternative school schedules that will fit within the current 180 day mandated school schedule that is in effect in Nevada. If the current 180 days is strictly interpreted, not much flexibility in scheduling exists. One method of insuring school reform is to accommodate flexible scheduling. Referring to lines 6,7, and 8 of Section 1, Mr. Etchemendy explained that the Superintendent of Public Instruction may, upon application of a school district, authorize a reduction in the number of required school days in a particular district or a 12 month school program or a four day school week as long as the equivalent or greater number of minutes of teaching during the school year. No school time will be lost whatsoever, but allows flexibility in the school schedule. Mr. Etchemendy referred to a proposed amendment entitled "N.A.S.B. Proposed Restatement of Amendment to N.R.S 388.090, Section 2", (Exhibit F). It was explained that this is the exact language contained in S.B. 87. Mr. Etechemendy noted that this language is better because there are many alternative school schedules and the language in the Assembly bill is restrictive. To accomplish alternative scheduling, a program must be presented to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the program must be reviewed, local public input would be received and considered, approval from the state superintendent must be obtained, and 180 day equivalent in minutes must be assured. It was emphasized that no time is lost, the gain being an alternative schedule. Mr. Etchemendy asked that lines 5-10 of A.B. 6 be substituted with the language from S.B. 87. Dr. Harrington questioned the quality of minutes in an extended school day. He noted that making the school day longer isn't quite the same as a certain number of days. Fatigue factors come into consideration for both students and teachers. He expressed concerns about problems working two-parent households and single parents may encounter if this change is enacted. Dr. Harrington requested more information from the rural counties in regard to their need for this bill. Mr. Etchemendy responded that Dr. Betts and other rural county superintendents present could present more information. Mr. Betts stated that the idea of flexible scheduling has existed for quite some time. He agreed that a longer day is not necessarily a better day. Noting that the amendment presented by Mr. Etchemendy did not contain language pertaining to a four day week, Mr. Betts stated that he felt a four day week was not a probable utilization of the flexibility if it is granted. The students in rural districts lose a great deal of time in travel for extracurricular activities. Due to great travel distances students often miss every Friday for away games. Mr. Betts sees this bill as extending educational quality time that already exists because students will not be losing the travel time as they are now. Two motivations exist; reduce the amount of time that students are now losing in the rural counties traveling to extracurricular activities and to help Clark County and other districts that are involved in year-around scheduling and have unique needs and flexibility. He emphasized that the purpose of this was to improve the educational quality in this state, and recommended removing the four-day week portion of the bill. Several possible scheduling alternatives were suggested. Mr. Betts also emphasized that no school district had to use scheduling alternatives. The caveat is there can be no less time than is already required. Mr. Bennett requested performance data comparing nine month and twelve month schools. Mr. Manendo stated that teachers in his district did not respond positively to the suggestion of adding minutes to the school day. Concerns expressed were student attention span, and teacher preparation time. Mr. Manendo also expressed concern about child care issues, including costs, if a four day school week is adopted. Mr. Betts explained that if the bill was implemented there would be no shortened weeks. He clarified that A.B. 6 did not originate in Clark County but that S.B. 87 did. Mr. Betts stated again that the motivation in the rural counties for this bill was to get the students who spend so much time traveling to be in class closer to the required minimum instructional time in the state. It was also explained that what is being requested is to give school districts the flexibility to not need the 180 days as is now required but a comparable number of minutes in whatever schedule suits the needs of each district. Each local school board would decide on the usefulness of the scheduling issues individually. Mr. Betts cautioned that other issues are involved such as personnel, negotiated teacher contracts, and benefits. Mr. Manendo reiterated his concerns about student attention spans, with increased hours. Mr. Betts agreed longer hours would be necessary if a four day week schedule were adopted. He feels school boards would probably not adopt a four day week schedule due to the same concerns being expressed by the committee. Mrs. Segerblom reminded the committee that the four day week portion of the bill was taken out of S.B. 87. Mr. Etchemendy noted that the negotiated agreements with district personnel would be heavily involved before a school district could consider such a change. Input would be obtained from teachers, administrators, and the public. Mr. Neighbors noted that many students in rural areas already leave and arrive home in the dark, spending two hours or more on the bus. Mr. Etchemendy stated that some districts may not be interested in flexible scheduling for the exact reasons such as those expressed by Mr. Neighbors. He emphasized it would not be mandated for districts to participate. Mrs. Chowning felt this bill offers the chance to make public instruction more "user friendly" by allowing more flexibility to accommodate the students needs. She suggested removing the words "four day week" and replacing it with "alternative scheduling." A reminder was given about the uniqueness of Nevada and the need to speak to our unique needs. Mrs. Tripple stated she sees the bill as a local school district putting together a good package and having flexibility. Removal of the four day portion was recommended. Dr. Harrington explained that removal of the four day wording does not necessarily remove the possibility of a school district adopting a four day week when confronted with pressure from unions or other entities. Flexibility exists in the law as currently written. Districts may go to a year round school schedule and days can be adjusted up to ten days. The wording proposed offers the possibility of any form of scheduling including three day weeks or weekends. Mr. Jan Cahill, Superintendent of the White Pine County School District spoke in support of the bill. He explained that the primary reason this bill was brought before the school boards association was because numerous junior high, middle school, and high school students miss Fridays, and in some cases, Tuesdays. He reported that the shortest trip his students take is about 300 miles round trip. Students have to leave no later than 11:00 a.m. and as early as 6:00 a.m. Not mentioned previously is the fact that almost all extracurricular adults are classroom teachers. Those classroom teachers are also absent on the same days. Pronouncing his teaching staff and substitute teaching staff as excellent, Mr. Cahill explained there was no way for the substitute teachers to take the place of regular classroom teachers. When classroom teachers are out of the classroom, the educational quality is affected for all of the students. Most coaches coach throughout the year due to the size of the community and the availability of qualified coaching staff. The four day school day suggestion was intended to better utilize the four days when all students are present at the middle, junior or high schools, to better the educational quality during that time, and to provide for classroom activities on the fifth day for gifted and talented students and special needs students. Tutorial services could be provided for students requiring them. This was not designed necessarily as a K-12 program. Recognition of day care problems for younger students was noted. It is also possible for the schools to be opened for the fifth day for supervised tutorial programs, computer programs, athletic activities and a hot lunch program at a nominal cost, with a sliding scale depending on parental income. In the event a family was unable to afford the cost, the services would be provided at no charge. The idea would be to have the flexibility for those students who are potential dropouts to receive additional assistance on the fifth day, either full or half-day, in completing their homework assignments in any given week. A financial impact exists for the district. Transportation and fuel costs would be reduced. As much as sixty to sixty-five percent of substitute teacher costs currently come on Fridays. Many students currently take a day off, often Friday, to obtain medical or dental services out of the Ely area, as in Elko, Salt Lake City, or Las Vegas. Families often travel for shopping purposes as well, removing their students from school to accompany them on these forays. Reduction of missed educational time is anticipated. Mr. Cahill suggested if the flexibility is granted adjustments could be made for the younger students. Grades K-5, for example, could remain five days a week and grades 6 through 12 could have the flexibility to allow for the extremely important extracurricular activities. Approximately sixty percent of White Pine County High School students participate in some form of extracurricular activities. The district would like to see that number increase. The issue of negotiated contracts was addressed. Through collaboration and cooperation with the teacher's association in White Pine County, language that allows the school district flexibility to negotiate a change in hours with the teachers and support staff is included in the teacher's contract. The language allows the district to reopen that portion of the contract if this bill is passed and if the district so chooses. Mrs. DeBraga asked what increase in time of the school day was anticipated in White Pine County if a four day week were adopted. Mr. Cahill explained that if a straight K-12, four day school week were adopted, an hour and 13 minutes would be added to the school day. If a four and a half day school week were adopted, the extended time would amount to approximately 25 minutes. White Pine County High School is on a block schedule and some senior high school students are out of school at 11:35 a.m. This enables them to work to earn money for college, for family support, or to just enjoy being a kid. Mrs. DeBraga questioned the availability of transportation on Fridays, with the parents apparently being responsible for delivery and pickup of students. Mr. Cahill stated that if the demand was great enough for bus transportation, the school district would be happy to provide it. The idea is being explored to provide bus service for two-way transportation of Kindergartners. Currently Kindergartners are provided with one-way transportation since they attend school in half-day segments. Mr. Bennett thanked Mr. Cahill for his eloquent and informative presentation. Mr. Manendo sympathized with the rural counties needs. A "friendly" amendment was proposed to make this flexibility available in the rural counties. Dr. Harrington agreed with Mr. Manendo that amending the bill to apply to the rural counties, and possibly to apply only to students in grades six through twelve might be a viable alternative. Ms. Stroth asked for an estimate of hours being missed for extracurricular activities in a calendar school year. Mr. Cahill stated it would be possible for any given student to miss as many as 20 school days if they were involved in activities all school year, especially athletic activities. He noted that approximately one-fourth of the student body participates in band. Ms. Stroth inquired if it was proposed to add those 20 days on the end of the school year. Mr. Cahill explained that the number of hours in the day would be increased and added to the block scheduling in place at the high school level. He stated that the length of the day is not as long as it could be presently. The day would be increased by over an hour. Students not involved in extracurricular activities on Friday could attend school anyway and work in computer labs, vocational shop areas, or receive tutorial assistance. Mr. Cahill stated he believes all students would have a higher quality of education during the days when all students are attending school. Many students not involved in extracurricular activities currently look forward with delight to Fridays, anticipating them to be "easy" days. Ms. Stroth suggested duplicating whole daily schedules rather than "filling in the blanks that people miss" seemed an easier way to approach the problem. Dave Cook, representing Nevada PTA and a trustee of the Carson City School District, spoke in favor of the bill. Before any change could occur extensive hearings would be held involving parents, teachers, and the community at large. Mr. Cook encouraged the committee to take into consideration the unique educational needs of all communities as the communities identify them. New programs may be implemented in school districts to benefit at- risk students that require dramatically different structures and scheduling. The family structures, occupational situations and other circumstances of our society are changing and flexibility to meet local educational, business, and community needs through educational programs is needed. Ms. Caroline Edwards, representative from the Clark County School District asked that the bill be put in subcommittee to allow all parties to get together to create some language to bring back to the committee. Ms. Lindsey Jydstrup of the Nevada State Education Association concurred with Ms. Edwards suggestion to send the bill to subcommittee. Mr. Ray Bacon of the Nevada Manufacturer's Association spoke about the concerns of Nevada employers regarding the quality of education being received by students and prospective employees. Mr. Bacon suggested that a clear standard be set for the number of hours that have to be completed during the academic year and school districts be allowed the flexibility to decide how those hours are scheduled. If school districts vary from the standard 180 day schedule, additional hours have to be paid in compensation for the privilege of doing so. Dr. Harrington inquired how many hours Mr. Bacon would recommend be used as an exchange. Mr. Bacon noted that it seems it is thought that the school year can only be so long. Changing the school year calendar was suggested as an alternative. Mr. Bacon reminded the committee that our educational system was created when ours was an agricultural society. Mr. Bacon expressed concern about the issue of juvenile crime. An extra day a week available for high school students is extra time for the students to get into mischief. Adding a "privilege tax," such as 5% extra time affixed to the schedule for the privilege of an alternative schedule was suggested. Breaking the paradigms that have been agreed to for a hundred years is necessary because they are no longer working. Ms. Stroth inquired what number of hours is required in a school day. A member of the audience responded that 330 minutes per day are required at the secondary level and 300 minutes per day are required at the elementary level, times 180 days. Ms. Edwards stated that the actual school day is 6 hours and 11 minutes under teacher contract time. Mr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent of the Nevada State Department of Education stated during the 1993-1994 school year the State Board of Education convened a Secondary School Task Force and one of the main recommendations was that alternative scheduling be encouraged in the form of changing days to minutes. The department is in support of flexible scheduling. There is nothing that says the districts could not shorten the school days and lengthen the number of days being taught. Mr. Batten questioned if it would be necessary for the school districts to go back and renegotiate contracts with teachers if the school day was shortened and the school year was lengthened, and, if so, would a cost factor be involved. Mr. Rheault stated he was not familiar with all district contracts in the state but he assumed it would require renegotiation. Fiscal consideration was unknown. Hearings on A.B. 6 were closed. Mrs. Segerblom stated Dr. Harrington and Mr. Williams would appoint a committee to negotiate this issue. Bill Draft Request 808 was presented to the committee for committee introduction. MRS. DE BRAGA MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 808. MR. BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting was adjourned at 5:12 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara Prudic, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, Chairman Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Assembly Committee on Education January 25, 1995 Page