MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session February 22, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Wednesday, February 22, 1995, Chairman William Z. Harrington presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington, Chairman Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom, Vice Chairman 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: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Co-Speaker, Nevada State Assembly Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, Assembly District 13 Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: John W. Riggs, Sr., Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association Rick Millsap, Nevada State Education Association Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards Steve Helsley, National Rifle Association Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Greg Betts, Nevada Rural School Districts Zachary M. Triggs Roger Means, Washoe County School District The hearing was opened on Assembly Concurrent Resolution 1. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1 - Encourages Department of Education and civic and community service organizations to implement Eddie Eagle Elementary Gun Safety Education program. Joseph E. Dini, Jr., Co-speaker, Nevada State Assembly presented ACR 1 for the consideration of the Education Committee. The purpose of ACR 1 is to encourage the Nevada State Department of Education, as well as appropriate civic groups to utilize the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle Gun Safety program. He introduced Mr. Steve Helsley of the National Rifle Association and explained Mr. Helsley had delivered sample copies of the safety program to committee members in the past few days. A copy of the program is (Exhibit C). Since 1988, the Eddie Eagle program has reached over 6.6 million school children from pre-kindergarten through sixth grade via 150 law enforcement agencies in 1500 schools, in all fifty states, Canada and Puerto Rico. The message of the program was defined. It was noted the program is value free. Mr. Dini explained the first set of materials requested by schools and/or law enforcement agencies is free, with additional materials being supplied by the National Rifle Association (NRA) at cost. Endorsements for the program have been received from the Police Athletic League and the American Legion. The program won the National Safety Council's highest honor for community service in 1994. Speaker Dini noted few children in Nevada have been injured or killed by firearms, but with a growing urban population, fewer children will receive early firearms training from their parents. He expressed a belief the Eddie Eagle program should become an integral part of the education program so maximum firearm safety can be ensured for young children. A letter from Les Smith, Hunter Education Coordinator, Nevada Division of Wildlife, was submitted by Speaker Dini for the record in support of ACR 1 (Exhibit D). Assemblyman Batten asked if there was a fiscal note attached to ACR 1. Mr. Steve Helsley, NRA, responded it was his belief this was to encourage the use of the program if a school district or police department so chooses. He noted expenditures for additional program packets for the students, after the initial order, would be approximately $1.00 per student. Assemblyman Batten inquired if the course would be taught in the classroom. Mr. Helsley explained ACR 1 encouraged the use of the program and is not a mandate. Mr. John Riggs, representing the Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association, declared the association to be one hundred percent behind the program. Numerous articles have been read about the programs success and the enthusiastic response received from educators. Assemblyman Segerblom asked if each child participating would receive one of the packets distributed to the committee for their review. Mr. Helsley replied affirmatively. Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, spoke in favor of ACR 1, and noted the association's appreciation of a resolution to encourage use of the program with outside sources of funding. The hearing was closed on ACR 1. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN MOVED TO ADOPT ACR 1. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION THE MOTION WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Assemblyman Chowning noted many children have been killed because they have accidentally found a gun and had it discharge. Due to the irresponsible actions of the adults in their lives, the guns are often found by children. Firearms are found in schools and places where children are. Responsible use of guns should be taught so irresponsible loss of life will be curtailed. Assemblyman Chowning stated she is very proud to be co sponsor of this measure. Assemblyman Segerblom noted Assemblymen de Braga and Neighbors were in a Natural Resources hearing and would like to be part of the vote on ACR 1. Chairman Harrington noted the committee could rescind the vote on ACR 1 and revote when Assemblymen de Braga and Neighbors arrived. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 124. ASSEMBLY BILL 124 - Revises provisions governing program for accountability of school districts. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, spoke in favor of A.B. 124. He reminded the committee the school accountability law was enacted in 1993. One of the law's requirements was the Department of Education would work with educators, lawyers, parents, and others, statewide, to format the accountability reports. This was done and a handbook outlining reporting procedures was developed. The reports sent to the State Department of Education were compiled into a report for the Legislature as required by law. Included in the report was a statement speaking to the excellent quality of reports received from school districts statewide. All the reports were prepared and submitted by the districts with no outside funding; each district funded their own report preparation. Mr. Etchemendy noted state school districts support the accountability report. As a tool it assists the districts in giving its citizens viable and responsible statistics about how the local educational system is working. The Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB) recommended three amendments designed to provide meaningful information to the public. Current law requires comparison of pupil achievement for each school in the district "at each age and grade level", Page 1, Line 12 of A.B. 124. Mr. Etchemendy explained the word "age" has no meaning because, for example, it can be said an eight year old should be in third grade or a ten year old should be in fifth grade. However, this is not always true because a ten year old may be in third grade, depending on circumstances or younger children may be in higher grades if they are advanced students. The important reported statistic, on which records are kept and on which students are tested, is the grade level and not the age. It is felt by NASB the word "age" confuses the issue and the recommendation was made to delete it from the law. The second amendment to A.B. 124 suggested by NASB is on Page 1, Lines 20 and 21. The law requires the total expenditure per pupil to be set forth individually for each source of funding for each school in the district and the district as a whole. The handbook developed for accountability report preparation directs a report be completed upon and showing the funds received from each funding source to the school district. Four major funding sources exist and these are reported in a pie chart. The funding revenue comes into the school districts and not to each individual school. The law requires the report show what the expenditures are in various categories such as instruction, administration, etc. for the district as a whole and also for each school site. It does not prove anything to say, for example, 42% of instruction comes from source A, B, or C at any school. NASB recommended the phrase "set forth individually from each source of funding" be deleted because it does not apply on a site basis level. To make sure this is clear, on Page 2, Line 3, NASB proposes the inclusion of the language "Each source of funding for the school district" be added, since this is what is currently being done. This would simply state the way reporting is currently being handled. The third amendment suggested by NASB, is located on Page 2, Lines 25-27. The law states the district shall submit a report to the State Board of Education including a description of what the district had done to correct deficiencies identified in the report pursuant to Paragraph (a), Line 23. Mr. Etchemendy explained there have been some varying interpretations of this portion of the law. Some feel the deficiencies being reported deal with the report itself and reporting process. Others are addressing the deficiencies at each school site. Since the varied interpretations exist, NASB is asking for deletion of the language which says "correct deficiencies identified in the report submitted pursuant to Paragraph (a)" and substitute "that each district shall report on programs to improve its educational programs". The intent is to report the improvements to the district's educational programs based upon the data contained in the reports. These efforts may or may not apply to individual school sites, but if they do, a special notation for the site would exist in the report. An explanation would be given on how the school programs would relate to the district's educational improvement programs. Assemblyman Bennett, referring to the third proposed amendment on Page 2, Lines 25-27, noted as a government contractor that deficiency has a definite meaning, that is, an audit has been performed and a wrong has been identified. When a government contractor is notified of a deficiency he is required by law to answer the particular deficiency with a plan of correction. Assemblyman Bennett noted this deletion would "water down the report". Mr. Etchemendy explained the report was not being "watered down". It was felt if deficiencies exist in the educational program identified on a district or site level, efforts should be made to improve those programs and correct the deficiency. The corrections and improvements should be made on a district wide level because more than one school site may be affected. The reporting will be done on a district wide level on how the educational programs will be improved. The improvements may be on a site level, but probably on a district wide level affecting certain sites. Those sites can report on how the district plan for deficiency correction is being carried out. Assemblyman Bennett noted he felt if a deficiency has been noted it warrants a specific response to each specific deficiency. Other programs could be implemented with a specific deficiency being ignored and an overall improvement noted. Yet, the specific deficiency is not being addressed. Mr. Etchemendy explained the intent of the amendments was not to get around the issue raised by Assemblyman Bennett. The intent is to address the deficiencies. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, spoke in favor of A.B. 124. She expressed the opinion that the changes involved were minor and clarifying. Ms. Lusk commented on Assemblyman Bennett's questions to Mr. Etchemendy. The report is a self report and is not an audit. Specific deficiencies are not identified. Ms. Lusk felt the language contained in the bill was not pertinent to that type of report. Deficiencies could be identified and responded to in a true educational audit, but A.B. 124 is not such an audit. She expressed concern with the language "correct deficiencies identified" when an audit is not being discussed because the implication exists that deficiencies will be identified. Ms. Lusk felt the language "improve educational its educational programs..." is equally strong. As long as a self report is being discussed, Ms. Lusk felt its inclusion was just as viable as the current language. Assemblyman Bennett noted a government trend, MQAP, Management Quality Assurance Program where the audits are first generated internally with opportunity given for correction of self discovered problems before Federal intervention occurs. He felt by keeping the wording as it currently exists it will prevent future high level interference. Ms. Lusk reiterated she felt the method being discussed was not an audit method. Mr. Greg Betts, speaking for the rural school districts, expressed support for A.B. 124. The hearing was closed on A.B. 124. The committee began a work session. A work session sheet prepared by H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst was distributed to committee members. (Exhibit E). A discussion was held on the work session since Assemblymen Neighbors and De Braga were not present at the time. Assemblymen Neighbors and De Braga arrived. All members of the committee were present at this time. CHAIRMAN HARRINGTON MOVED TO RESCIND THE VOTE ON ACR 1. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO ADOPT ACR 1. ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE COMMITTEE. Chairman Harrington brought A.B. 123 before the committee work session for discussion. The bill deals with expulsion of a pupil from school for possession of a firearm. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 123. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. Assemblyman Bennett noted A.B. 123 has across the board support and is a needed bill. Assemblyman Chowning thanked the Department of Education for a requested report regarding how many students had been expelled because of firearm possession. In Clark County alone 43-45 students were expelled last year. She noted this is a growing problem and responsible use of a firearm should be taught. A trained juvenile could use a firearm for hunting. No place exists for a firearm on a school campus. The very least expectation is that schools should be safe and not exposed to firearms. She noted her support for the bill. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE FULL COMMITTEE. Chairman Harrington noted A.B. 65 was not back from subcommittee and would be addressed at a future work session. Discussion was opened on A.B. 105 which requires the State Board of Education to provide instruction relating to crimes. A copy of the curriculum proposed by Assemblyman Dennis Nolan was distributed to the committee. (Exhibit F). ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 105. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Assemblyman Nolan made a statement on A.B. 105. He noted no opposing testimony was taken on A.B. 105 in Las Vegas. He addressed concerns about the creation of an unfunded mandate and the creation of an additional curriculum to what already exists. He reinforced the idea of the language in the bill being crafted by working with the Nevada State Education Association and the Clark County School District to make sure no unfunded mandate was created. The curriculum is subjective and is left up to individual school districts to craft. The curriculum can be included within any social studies course. Social studies was chosen because the curriculum is a mandatory class for graduation and because it could be accommodated there. Mr. Nolan expressed his concern about children getting the "three R's" in school. The fiscal note was addressed, $3,000, increasing to $20,000 if full staff training was involved. He felt most school districts would not do this. The idea behind the bill was with the increase in juvenile crime, how do we expect the laws to be a deterrent if juveniles are unaware of what the laws are. Assemblyman Neighbors expressed a dislike for a mandate. He noted he would be more comfortable with the word "may" in Line 3 instead of the word "shall". Assemblyman Nolan said he felt the change suggested by Assemblyman Neighbors would change the intent of the bill. He felt the way the bill is written allows school districts to create a one session or six or eight sessions curriculum if they desire. Assemblyman Neighbors noted the school boards are elected by the people and he is uncomfortable handing down mandates. Assemblyman Tripple expressed concern with mandating to school districts. She stated she liked the intent, topic and timeliness of the bill. A wish that this bill was presented as an Assembly Concurrent Resolution was noted by Assemblyman Tripple. Assemblyman Batten says he does not believe the bill is a mandate because it states "a school board shall by regulation". He feels if the school board is going to include the program in an existing course of study for social studies instruction it has to be done by regulation. That is the regulation set forth by including it in the course of social studies. Once it is inclusive, it is not a mandate. He inquired about the fiscal impact. Assemblyman Nolan replied there may be zero fiscal impact if the school district elected to use the assistance of the District Attorney's Association, who volunteered to develop the curriculum working with school districts. Also Common Agenda, a video production group, along with Families of Murder Victims have video productions available to cover one portion of the course. Extensive education of educators would not necessarily be required. If a school district feels the program is quite valuable, they might choose to spend considerably more on the curriculum. Assemblyman Batten asked if civic leaders, attorneys, and citizens were being involved. Assemblyman Nolan noted teachers can use any community resources available to put the program into effect. THE MOTION PASSED. ASSEMBLYMEN NEIGHBORS AND BRAUNLIN CAST DISSENTING VOTES. Discussion was opened on A.B. 4. H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst directed the committees' attention to (Exhibit F), the work session document. It provided information regarding proposed amendments to A.B. 4. An amendment proposed by the bill's author, Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, to clarify school districts only need to adopt standards and rules regarding community service credits if they decide to offer such a credit. The question arose during discussions that districts were mandated to adopt the standards. He noted the document on page 2 of (Exhibit F) was prepared by the Legal Division to address those concerns. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani stated she supports the suggested amendment. She felt it clarified the committees' discussion regarding the permissiveness of the bill. It was pointed out the bill was narrowly drawn so it would first focus on the alternative education programs and hoped in two years it would be made available to all students. She expressed hope it would be shown the program can work by making kids more involved as true citizens within their communities. The reminder was given that the students were the genesis of the bill. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 4. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. Assemblyman Stroth questioned if Assemblywoman Giunchigliani saw any problem in the difference between academic and elective credit being specified in the bill. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded she could include a record of intent to specify in the floor speech. She does not feel it will be a problem but would be happy to clarify in her statement so it is noted in the record. Assemblyman Stroth said she would feel more comfortable with that and thanked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani. Mr. Sturm pointed out Page 3 of the work session document (Exhibit F) contains the other four proposed amendments made by various people testifying. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT DISSENTING. Assemblyman Bennett noted he felt a maximum number of elective credits on A.B. 4 should be specified and that is the reason for his dissenting vote. Discussion was opened on A.B. 112. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED A.B. 112 BE INDEFINITELY POSTPONED. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH CHAIRMAN HARRINGTON VOTING NO. Chairman Harrington wished to amend A.B. 112 to increase private school, business and parental participation on the Commission. Assemblyman Neighbors stated for the record regarding A.B. 105 he had no problem with the concept but had problems with some of the language. Discussion was opened on A.B. 124. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 124. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. BATTEN. Assemblyman Bennett noted Assemblymen Neighbors and de Braga were not present for the testimony on A.B. 124 and he would like to see the work session postponed until they could be brought up to date. Assemblymen Neighbors and de Braga indicated they had no problem voting on A.B. 124 in this work session. Assemblyman Bennett proposed an amendment on Page 2. Chairman Williams noted a motion was already on the floor regarding A.B. 124. THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT VOTING NO. Assemblyman Bennett stated for the record he did not agree with deleting "deficiencies" in A.B. 124. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara Prudic, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, Chairman Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Assembly Committee on Education February 22, 1995 Page