MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session March 20, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Monday, March 20, 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: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Leonard Paul, Deputy Superintendent, Clark County School District Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards Keith Rheault, Assistant Superintendent, State Department of Education Greg Betts, representing Nevada Rural School Districts Chairman Harrington presented a Bill Draft Request for committee introduction. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-744 - Revises provisions governing probationary period of administrators and teachers employed by county school districts. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 34-744. ASSEMBLYMAN BRAUNLIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Harrington reminded the committee that the meeting on March 22, 1995, would probably be a long meeting. He also reminded the committee the March 29, 1995 meeting would be held in Las Vegas at 4:00 p.m. at the Grant Sawyer Office Building. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 6 and Senate Bill 87. ASSEMBLY BILL 6 - Authorizes 4-day school week under certain circumstances. SENATE BILL 87 - Revises circumstances under which minimum number of days of school per year may be reduced. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), explained A.B. 6 had been heard by the committee previously. At the time, Assemblyman Bennett offered a motion to amend certain wording in A.B. 6 to conform to the wording in S.B. 87 because it is felt the wording in S.B. 87 is more appropriate. Both bills are intended to provide flexibility within school districts to provide alternatives to the mandated 180 days of instruction currently required. A procedure would be provided wherein school districts could apply to the State Superintendent of the Department of Education for an alternative to the fixed 180 day schedule by offering an amended schedule. The important issue is the amended schedule would not reduce educational time. Any program offered for consideration by the State Superintendent would require at least the equivalent or greater number of minutes of instruction as would be taught in a 180 day schedule. Mr. Etchemendy distributed a sheet with a copy of S.B. 87 on the left side and a copy of S.B. 87, First Reprint, on the right side (Exhibit C). The right side copy contains highlighted language on lines ten and eleven, as follows: ..."or to provide time to allow pupils to engage in extracurricular or supplemental activities".... Mr. Etchemendy stated the language was not proposed by the sponsors nor was it discussed in the committee. He discussed possible problems with the new language. Referring to line 8 of S.B. 87, left side of (Exhibit C), Mr. Etchemendy stated a program for alternative scheduling was being requested. The important, new language is "or a program involving alternative scheduling". That wording is all that is required, according to Mr. Etchemendy. On the First Reprint, Line 10, "or to provide time to allow pupils to engage in extracurricular or supplemental activities..." has been added, much to the chagrin of the bills sponsors. Mr. Etchemendy explained alternative scheduling is not designed strictly for extracurricular activities, although it can be designed to accommodate them in rural districts where long travel is common. The language "...supplemental activities..." is quite broad, with no distinct definition. Concern was expressed by Mr. Etchemendy regarding the interpretation of the language in question. Referring to a news article from the Reno Gazette Journal on Page 2 of (Exhibit C), Mr. Etchemendy commented how unfavorably the language can be interpreted. Especially troubling is the portion of the article which states proposed legislation would allow the number of days students attend school in a year could be lowered by any amount. No mention is made of making up the time in equivalent or greater minutes. Mr. Etchemendy requested the committee to process the bill by amending out the language added by the Senate committee. Chairman Williams asked if the language was in the bill when it was voted out of the Senate committee. Mr. Etchemendy stated he was not present at the work session when any amendments might have been mentioned. None of the language in question was discussed at the hearing. Chairman Williams asked if S.B. 87 was amended on the floor. Mr. Etchemendy stated he did not know. Chairman Williams asked if a drafting error may have occurred. Mr. Etchemendy interpreted the situation as a drafting error. He believed it was an attempt to further define what was being asked for. The changes have confused the issue. Chairman Williams noted if a drafting error had occurred, perhaps it could be corrected to prevent a conference committee. He wondered if the committee could determine if the bill drafters had changed the language. Chairman Harrington stated he had a brief conference with Senator Rawson, and his understanding was the Senate intended the language to be contained in the bill. Assemblyman de Braga asked if current law allowed year round school. Mr. Etchemendy explained the State Superintendent, upon district request, will allow up to ten days flexibility for the establishment and maintenance of a twelve month school program. Ms. de Braga noted the way S.B. 87 was worded it allowed for a reduction in the minimum number of school days. Mr. Etchemendy agreed but reminded the committee instead of saying 180 school days, the equivalent or greater number of instructional minutes would be provided. Assemblyman Neighbors inquired what Mr. Etchemendy's suggestions were for removal of language in S.B. 87. Mr. Etchemendy referred to the First Reprint. The deletions requested are on Lines 10 and 11, highlighted in (Exhibit C). Assemblyman Segerblom asked if the bill was originated in the rural counties. Mr. Etchemendy explained A.B. 6 was the bill from the rural counties. Although the genesis was from the rural counties, it is useable by any school district. S.B. 87 originated from the Clark County School District. Ms. Segerblom asked if the number of minutes required in a school year would remain the same as is currently required. Mr. Etchemendy replied affirmatively. The provision for equal or greater number of minutes appears in both bills. Assemblyman Batten asked if participation in extracurricular or supplemental activities interfered with core classes. Mr. Etchemendy stated he has difficulty with the new language because so much confusion is added. The original intent is to not lose core subject time. Mr. Batten, referring to the First Reprint, wondered if extracurricular or supplemental activities could be substituted as a class to facilitate graduation. He wondered if that could take the place of a core class. Taking the language on its face, he asked for Mr. Etchemendy's opinion regarding other interpretations. Mr. Etchemendy explained the interpretation as Mr. Batten described it was indeed the problem, that being too much interpretation. Someone could definitely interpret the language as Mr. Batten had, but the school districts would not want to interpret it that way. Mr. Neighbors recalled A.B. 6 came from White Pine County. He inquired if other rural counties had contacted Mr. Etchemendy regarding this issue. Mr. Etchemendy explained A.B. 6 was requested in concert by the Nevada Association of School Boards and the Nevada Association of School Superintendents, who are involved in a joint legislative commission. Sixteen proposals were developed by these groups. Under the rules of the legislative commission, the commission itself was allowed to submit five proposals for bills. The other eleven proposals had to be submitted by individual school districts. The subcommittee chairman of the committee dealing with alternative scheduling is the White Pine County Superintendent. Consequently, White Pine County School District was asked to present the bill. The bill and its intent was discussed at the general membership meeting of the Association of School Boards in spring and fall, 1994, where it was unanimously adopted by those attending. Chairman Harrington, referring to A.B. 6, expressed concerns regarding the implementation of a four-day school week. He noted in S.B. 87 language in that regard has been removed. However, the potential remains for districts to implement a four-day week as an alternative schedule. Dr. Harrington asked if this was addressed in Senate testimony. Mr. Etchemendy agreed the wording regarding four-day weeks was poor in A.B. 6. The committee was reminded a change was recommended to agree with language in S.B. 87. It is, however, one type of alternative scheduling. In districts where extended travel is required for extracurricular activities, a four day week schedule meeting the appropriate minutes of the 180 day requirement is possible. The instructional time would have to be the same or greater in minutes. Dr. Harrington asked if Mr. Etchemendy would oppose an amendment stating the four day schedule could only be used in smaller counties, with larger counties being excluded. Mr. Etchemendy stated he felt there were representatives present from larger counties who were better qualified to answer. From the viewpoint of NASB, no objection would be raised. They would prefer the term "four day" not appear in the law, with scheduling being agreed upon between local districts and the State Superintendent. Mr. Leonard Paul, Assistant Superintendent, Secondary Education, Clark County School District, spoke in favor of S.B. 87. He explained the bill was brought from Clark County to deal with overcrowding and double sessions in Clark County schools. Five middle schools in Clark County are on double sessions because of the population of their school zones. The urgency in this bill is to aid in relief for those schools as well as deal with future alternative schedules as the growth increases in the county. Recently Mr. Paul discussed a proposed calendar with the Board of Trustees as an example of what could be done to eliminate double sessions and support what S.B. 87 does. He reiterated S.B. 87 shortens the number of days required but lengthens the number of minutes required in each school day, with total number of minutes being increased by the end of a school year. Various methods of handling the situation were discussed. Mr. Paul supported the exclusion of highlighted language in (Exhibit C). In discussion about the importance of minutes, time on task, time on instruction, and time for curriculum outlined for students, it is hard to support a concept of supplemental activities when such activities are undefined. Mr. Paul stated in the original language of the bill, alternative scheduling flexibility is offered to deal with overcrowded conditions and for rural situations as well as supporting the importance of instructional time and time on task for students. He reminded the committee the larger counties do have outlying schools. Travel has not been a problem up to this time, but it could occur in the future. Assemblyman Bennett stated he did not feel a population cap was a feasible solution to the four day week question. Mr. Paul agreed with Mr. Bennett. He thanked the committee for their understanding that the State Board of Education's intervention is desired in the alternative scheduling question. This provides checks and balances for consistency. The focus needs to be on equal minutes to the current 180 day requirement. Assemblyman Manendo asked if the bill addressed only high school. Mr. Paul replied the bill could address all grade levels. The major issues are in the middle school levels. Mr. Manendo asked where it was addressing elementary school students. Mr. Paul answered the activity area would lend itself to high school level. The alternative schedule could be used in any overcrowded school. Assemblyman Tripple asked if the bill was being programed only for athletics. Mr. Paul replied negatively. Ms. Tripple asked what other activities are being addressed other than athletics. Mr. Paul stated the bill's main focus deals with alternative schedules for schools in general. The language referring to supplemental activities needs to be removed because of the broadness of interpretation. Mr. Paul listed other activities students travel for including Varsity Quiz, choir, band, and debate. Chairman Harrington expressed continued concern regarding a four day school week because of the burden it puts on working and single parent families regarding day care. Chairman Harrington asked Mr. Paul if his recommendation was to indefinitely postpone A.B. 6, and pass S.B. 87, First Reprint, with the mentioned areas of Lines 10 and 11 deleted. Mr. Etchemendy asked for the processing of S.B. 87 with the deletion of mentioned language. If possible, it is requested that A.B. 6 be held, not knowing what might occur in conference committee or other upcoming legislation, for possible amendment at a later time. Ms. de Braga stated she felt there was no need for the bill in as broad a form as is being requested. The ability to use split sessions or twelve month school schedules currently exists. She felt the only reason to have the bill was to implement a four day week. Expressing her feeling regarding rural areas, Ms. de Braga stated she did not think the rurals were really in favor of the bill because extending school days means dealing with children who are not functioning at their best during those extended hours, thereby decreasing the quality of education. Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Nevada State Department of Education, spoke in support of the amendment changes previously mentioned from prepared remarks (Exhibit D). The Department of Education has been contacted by Esmeralda County regarding four day weeks. Kindergarten students currently ride the bus for one and one-half hours to attend a two and one-half hour Kindergarten session. Esmeralda County would like to explore the opportunity of adding thirty- five minutes per day for four days for the Kindergarten students. Three hours of bus riding would be saved. In regard to the necessity of the bill, Dr. Rheault explained it allows more flexibility. Currently districts are required to report school time in the form of days (180 days). The bill changes the time requirements from days to minutes. A task force put together by the State Board of Education in the fall of 1994 consisting of business, industry, teachers, administrators, and parents recommended the conversion of days into minutes for flexibility purposes. Currently a full day is counted if students are in school until 1:00 p.m. Minutes are more exacting, but provide more flexibility. Dr. Rheault emphasized no instructional time or days would be lost as has been publicized. The 180 day equivalent in the form of minutes will be required. Mr. Batten asked Dr. Rheault if the amount of minutes in a school day would change and if the number of days required would remain at 180. Dr. Rheault stated the number of days may not remain at 180. On year round scheduling 180 days cannot be fit in. The equivalent number of minutes would still be provided or increased. Mr. Batten questioned the need for the bill. He contended it seems the flexibility currently exists to make the needed changes. Mr. Paul attempted to clarify the situation. Clark County Schools had nothing to do with the language or content in A.B. 6. They are not interested in a four day week. Clark County is looking at a four track, 60-20 calendar for middle schools. This means schools would be in session 166 days with the school day extended by thirty minutes, increasing the total number of minutes in comparison to the 180 days by 130 minutes. The reason the 166 days are needed is to match the middle school calendar with the elementary year round calendars already in place. The elementaries are on a five track system. Clark County is having trouble running a five track system in secondary schools because of the curriculum offerings, electives, and other curriculum items. Not enough flexibility exists on the tracks because there are too few students on each track to offer enough courses. The four track calendar is being considered so more courses can be offered. The parents are upset because the elementary and middle schools have vacations at different times. The vacation times for students can be matched more easily with a 166 days calendar. Mr. Bennett asked how many minutes are in a school day based on the 180 days system. Dr. Rheault informed Mr. Bennett for secondary students the time is 330 minutes and for middle school and elementary students the time is 300 minutes. Mr. Bennett asked if this were a standard which could be referred back to at some future time. Dr. Rheault stated regulations are in place defining the length of a school day in the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) regulations. Mr. Batten asked if new contracts had to be negotiated with the teacher's union if a deviation in scheduling occurs. Mr. Paul stated it depends on how the contract reads in individual school districts. In Clark County the contract is for seven hours and eleven minutes. An additional thirty minutes could be negotiated into the contract. It does not involve a salary increase because the number of days would be taken away from the school year and added in minutes. A balance would be made in instruction minutes. Mr. Batten asked if a representative was present from Washoe County to express their point of view on S.B. 87. Mr. Paul indicated he had not communicated with Washoe County on S.B. 87. Dr. Rheault explained the Education Coalition meets every Monday and two members of the Washoe County School board are in attendance. He stated they have expressed similar concerns to those expressed in the testimony but support S.B. 87. Mr. Greg Betts, representing Nevada rural school districts, spoke in support of S.B. 87 with the suggested amendment. He recounted the confusion between the two bills and explained it was because two different purposes are driving the request for flexibility. The larger districts need flexibility for scheduling purposes and the rural districts hope to reduce the amount of time high school students lose instructional minutes. The reduction could be accomplished many ways. Local boards could decide to implement four day week programs. Mr. Betts felt this was unlikely. Noting disappointment of the media's interpretation of the bills as a lessening the emphasis on instructional time, Mr. Betts explained how the sponsors of the bills are trying to "keep sacred" the required number of instructional minutes which many rural students and staff are losing almost weekly. Assemblyman Stroth stated she felt what was being attempted was a change in the method of calculation from days to minutes of required instructional time. Mr. Betts agreed. Ms. Stroth noted the confusion comes from the description and summary of the S.B. 87. She suggested the summary and description be changed to say the method of calculation of required time to minutes for clarification. Mr. Batten asked Mr. Betts and Mr. Paul if S.B. 87, First Reprint, was agreeable except for highlighted portions on Lines 10 and 11. Mr. Betts and Mr. Paul expressed their agreement. Mr. Paul suggested Line 6 of the First Reprint, "authorize a reduction", be amended to read "authorize a change in the number of required school days". Ms. Stroth suggested altering the wording to indicate changing the calculation method from days to minutes, thereby offering more clarification. Ms. Tripple expressed concern about the number of required school days. She noted it seemed what was being addressed by print was not the prime objective of the bill's sponsors. She encouraged the removal of reference to number of days required if it was not the prime objective. Mr. Betts stated the number of days was being talked about. What is desired is for the required instructional time to be analyzed and computed on minutes rather than days. It is not desired to have less time in the classroom, but to have the flexibility to package the program in different ways. It is the days forcing the bill because currently the state requires 180 days and ten days can be waived under certain circumstances. If the requirement were in minutes, more flexibility in scheduling would be available. Chairman Harrington commented the plan is to go to 166 days, which is a decrease of fourteen days. Current law allows a decrease of ten days. The committee has to decide if 166 longer days are equivalent to 180 shorter days with equal minutes. Mr. Paul reminded the committee this was for situations like overcrowded conditions. Currently in the five double session middle schools in Clark County is a loss of 30-40 minutes of instruction daily in order for students to attend school 180 days. The first session of students would begin school at 5:00 a.m. and end at 12:00 p.m., with the second session starting at 1:00 p.m. and ending at 7:00 p.m. He explained in other schools the 180 days requirement would stand. Mr. Batten, referring to Line 3 of the First Reprint, suggested changing the word "shall" to "may". Mr. Paul stated he would not support the change because he did not want to take away from the initial paragraph supporting the 180 days requirement. The wish is to keep the 180 days norm in place, with alterations occurring under certain conditions with state board approval. Ms. Carolyne Edwards, legislative representative, Clark County School District, offered an example of tracking for the committee's information. Chairman Williams asked Ms. Edwards if she knew what happened in the Senate with the language change in S.B. 87. Ms. Edwards replied she did not know. Mr. Williams asked if the amendment was presented anywhere where the committee adopted it, either in committee or on the floor. Ms. Edwards noted the tracking record of S.B. 87 had been run and it showed the amendment appearing in work session. She explained those who worked on the bill and its language were not present at the work session and were not aware the amendment was added. Mr. Williams explained work sessions are actual documentation of activity occurring with legislation. He noted someone had to submit the amendment with the motion to adopt the amendment and a vote had to have been taken. Chairman Harrington suggested the committee obtain the minutes of the work session held by the Senate. Ms. de Braga stated with or without the language, the bill permits the same kind of scheduling, which is four day weeks or for some schools to have time off for extracurricular activities. Ms. Edwards reiterated on S.B. 87 there was no desire or intention to include four day school weeks into consideration. She spoke to Ms. de Braga's point of being able to generate a four day program as the law currently stands. To make such changes under current statute, application to the State Department of Education must be made for waivers. This involves a lengthy, unwieldy process on both the part of the State Department of Education and the school districts. Technically, under current statute, creative scheduling can be done. What the new language does is make it much easier with the State Department of Education's permission to initiate changes. What it stops is a very lengthy and unwieldy waiver procedure. She reminded the committee of the State Department of Education's willingness to have this law change enacted for easier flexibility. Ms. de Braga expressed her understanding. The intent has been pushed from the beginning by a school district desiring a four day week. She suggested narrowing the reasoning to deal with the overcrowding problems. Ms. Edwards noted the help of Ms. Stroth in delineating the summary language. She noted the proponents of S.B. 87 are in a difficult situation since colliding with A.B. 6, which contains the four day week idea, which was never a part of S.B. 87 at all. Chairman Harrington asked if the proponents of S.B. 87 would object to an amendment precluding them from going to a four day school week. Ms. Edwards stated there would be no objection to such an amendment. Assemblyman Manendo echoed his desire to see the minutes of the Senate work session. His concern with A.B. 6 involved the four day week. The hearing was closed on A.B. 6 and S.B. 87. Chairman Harrington put the bills into subcommittee with himself, Ms. Braunlin, Mr. Manendo and Ms. de Braga. A full report will be brought before the committee after the minutes of the Senate work session have been obtained. Assemblyman Neighbors asked why the bills couldn't be discussed in work session instead of being placed in subcommittee. Ms. Braunlin stated she felt this particular issue was vitally important to her district due to overcrowded conditions. She did not want to lose sight of what was of importance to and best for children and parents. Mr. Neighbors wondered why the specific issue of overcrowding problems and possible solutions was not introduced as a committee introduction. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara Prudic, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, Chairman Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Assembly Committee on Education March 20, 1995 Page