MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session March 31, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 4:30 p.m., on Friday, March 31, 1995, Chairman Wendell P. Williams presiding in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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 Ms. 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 Ms. Jeannine Stroth STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Wanda Rosenbaum, All Parents United, Nevada Parent Coalition Dr. Maria Cardle, All Parents United, Nevada Parent Coalition Shirley Benner, All Parents United, Nevada Parent Coalition Leonora Hedrick, All Parents United, Nevada Parent Coalition Linda Zerfoss, All Parents United, Nevada Parent Coalition Kris Jensen, Concerned Citizens, All Parents United Marzette Lewis, All Parents United James Cardle Randy McKen Roy Manibusan, Marantha Academy Pat Bedsennoh Verlene Chiodioni Barbara Young Elaine Lancaster, Nevada State Education Association Terri Robertson, ESEA Mecque Armstrong, Clark County Teacher's Association, Nevada State Education Association Gary BeDunnah Dr. T. Lubin Iris Sally Earl Eves Brett Organ, Nevada Concerned Citizens Allin Chandler, Clark County Association of School Administrators Jerry Conner, Nevada Association of School Administrators Deloris Mattheus Becky Coleman Mary Ella Holloway, Clark County Classroom Teacher's Association Theresa K. Chan, Clark County Classroom Teacher's Association Peggy Rosch, Clark County Classroom Teacher's Association Robert M. Seals, Montessori School Shawn Mills-Garrison Toni McDonald Linda Peeples, Clark County Classroom Teacher's Association Ann Chapman, Clark County Classroom Teacher's Association Kay Padgham Sue Abbott Brian Dortree, Nevada Concerned Citizens Lori Lipman Brown Jamie Vertrees Debora Hjelm Knight Allen Will Richardson, The Meadows School Janette Kunkee Walter Lampley Brenda Duncan Renee Hain Floyd Mundt, Nevada State Education Association Jan Biggerstaff Renee Rampton Cynthia Hannasch Sandy Metcalf Carolyn Goodman, The Meadows School Patricia Brown, Unified Tenants Association Beatrice Turner Juanita Clark, All Parents United Christine Slotemaker LuAnn Day Cristine Kwasinski, New Horizens Academy Patricia Jimenez-Mounts Margaret Quem, League of Women Voters Cheryl Saivatzke Rouls Sharon Heflin, Clark County School District Ursula See, Clark County School District Kim Munford, Home schooled Teens of Las Vegas Carroll Mueller Sally A. Coldren Randi McKim Tracy Crookston Mark Thuet Drexel and Avis Neward Leonard Stout Janet Andrews Linda Gingres Anthony Snowden David B. Linn, ESEA Judith A. Linn, ESEA Victoria Cloutier Montessori Academy Connie Mormon Judy Chapman Marcia Garcia Scott Dickinson, Nevada Concerned Citizens, Nevada Association of Independent Business Linda Howard Sandra Noble Catherine T. Pollock Chuck Fletcher Mike Caryl Johnb Vettel Gayle Urey Leland Lay Mary Peterson, Nevada Department of Education Michael Donahue, Ormsby County Teacher's Association Gloria Williams, Nevada State Education Association Martha Framsted, Douglas County Teacher's Association Bill Framsted Eric S. Egan The hearing was opened on A.B. 340. Written testimony was submitted to the record by Charles A. Muth, Chairman, Clark County Republican Party (Exhibit C). ASSEMBLY BILL 340 - Authorizes certain private schools to obtain payments from county school districts for educating certain pupils. Assemblyman Harrington, sponsor of A.B. 340, discussed aspects of A.B. 340 and a series of exhibits distributed to the committee at a previous meeting. A summary of A.B. 340 (Exhibit D), was distributed as well as a question and answer summary (Exhibit E). Also distributed was a list of priority goals (Exhibit F), and some proposed amendments for A.B. 340 (Exhibit G), and some figures provided by the Clark County School District (Exhibit H). Chairman Williams asked Dr. Harrington to address proposed changes in the bill as he progressed through it in explanation. Dr. Harrington explained Section 1 is a preamble and contains the thoughts behind the bill and the desired outcome of the bill's passage. He felt Subsections 104 were relatively self explanatory. Subsection 5 is a statement encouraging various accrediting agencies to form to assist the oversight and accreditation of private schools. Subsection 6 states the intent and purpose encouraging the formation of general private schools but also specialty private schools to address the needs of disabled and at-risk students. Subsection 7, being a key point of the bill, allows private schools to be free to be innovative, different and provide a choice for parents other than the public system. Both systems can learn and progress from one another and through competition become better. Section 2 of A.B. 340 states Section 3 through 8 will accomplish the goals. Assemblyman Batten, referring to Section 1, Subsection 5, school accreditation, inquired if accreditation was only encouraged through a legislative act or if the individual private schools would be able to accredit themselves or if they would go before the Department of Education to insure accreditation standards are met. Dr. Harrington stated the schools must be certified by the Department of Education as being eligible and meeting the criteria set forth in the bill. Private educational accrediting institutions will be used as well. Mr. Batten, referring to the word "encourages" in Section 1, Subsection 6, asked if the accreditation would assure the special needs of disabled and at-risk students would be included. He felt the word "encourage" has many different meanings. He asked if the schools would be equally scrutinized. Dr. Harrington replied the schools would be certified by the State Department of Education. In Subsection 6, the word "encourages" refers to the encouragement of private entrepreneurs to start schools specifically providing for the disabled and at-risk students. Assemblyman de Braga asked if there would be a control of the curriculum in the private schools. Dr. Harrington, referring to (Exhibit D), explained the schools will need to meet the basic mandatory curriculum as contained in Subsection 1 of N.R.S. 394.130. They will be more flexible after meeting the basic standards in being able to specialize in other types of curriculum. Assemblyman Chowning, referring to Section 1, Line 23 of A.B. 340, asked how the goal of a safer and more appropriate environment will be guaranteed students. Also referring to Page 2, Line 13, Mrs. Chowning expressed concern about teachers paying themselves exorbitant salaries. Dr. Harrington, in answer to Mrs. Chowning's first question, responded, saying currently private schools are thought to be more safe, having fewer incidents of violence on their campuses. They are able to have and determine their own disciplinary codes, including uniforms and very strict disciplinary measures. Most of the private schools are likely to be small, very personal, with greater parental involvement, which will aid in disciplinary factors. Responding to Mrs. Chowning's second question, Dr. Harrington stated the schools will be given a certain amount of money based on their student enrollment. Those running the schools will determine the distribution of funds for rent, maintenance, supplies, salaries, etc. They will have freedom to do what is in the best interest of their school and students. For example, a specialty teacher may be offered a higher salary than one who does not possess specialty knowledge. Teachers with more training or special training may obtain higher salaries in this type of system. Mr. Batten asked what protections were in place if a child fails to perform adequately and does not fit into the "mold" of the system. Dr. Harrington responded by asking what is done with the child currently who does not fit into the public mold. By allowing choice, the child's parents can choose to go to another private school or back to the public system. They will be able to choose a school they feel is best able to meet their child's needs. Mr. Batten asked if private schools would reimburse public schools if a child moves from private to public school, or if the parents would have to make up the difference. Dr. Harrington stated payments are made on a quarterly basis to private schools. If a student switches from school to school, each school is paid proportionately. Mr. Batten felt the student would need extra money to get back into the public school system. He wondered where the money would come from. Dr. Harrington reminded Mr. Batten the students were not given the full amount of money up front nor was the private school given a lump sum payment at the beginning of the school year. Mr. Batten asked how reimbursement would occur if a child had nearly completed the school year in private school and transferred back to the public schools. Dr. Harrington noted an explanation in Section 6, Subsection 2, where it is indicated when a pupil switches, payment is made proportionately for the amount of time the pupil is in any given school. Mr. Batten stated the public school system would get half the money also so the child will be short going into the public school system because the funded amount per child is more for the public school system. Dr. Harrington noted public schools receive, from the state and their tax base, one hundred percent of the money spent on the child regardless of public or private placement. When the child is in private school, only seventy percent of funds received are sent to the private school, with the public system retaining thirty percent. When the child returns to the public system, the funding for the child is in place with no loss. Assemblyman Manendo asked what the actual amount of money paid per year, per child would be. Dr. Harrington, referring to (Exhibit E), stated the amount is $3,890. Mr. Manendo asked why parents who do not pay $3,900 in school taxes should get money for vouchers. Using senior citizens as an example, Mr. Manendo explained they do not have children in schools, yet they are still paying school tax monies. Dr. Harrington replied he thought the basis of public education was the cost being disbursed among all taxpayers, even though all taxpayers do not have children. What A.B. 340 will do is allow private schools to be publicly funded at a lesser level. The amount of money spent in the private system will be thirty percent less than what is spent on the public system. He reminded the committee the money does not go to the family. The children are enrolled in a private school which then gets paid with public funds for the education. Mr. Manendo asked how the rights of the children enrolled in schools that fail would be protected. Dr. Harrington noted the families would be free to send the children to any other private school they desire and they would be free to go back to the public system. The public school district will still be getting one hundred percent of allotted money, the funding will return to the public system and seventy percent will not have to be paid out. A bonding mechanism could be considered, as is in use in other businesses. Children enrolled in private schools do not drop off the public school count for apportionment. Mr. Manendo asked how the private schools would be accountable financially. Dr. Harrington noted seven accountability provisions are listed in the bill. Assemblyman Bennett asked about public school funding. He expressed his understanding that funding is based on a certain amount of pupils. He asked if additional funds are "kicked in" during the school year as growth occurs. Dr. Harrington explained current funding is provided under the Nevada Plan which means most monies come out of local taxes. In most counties, most of the monies are obtained from local funds, with the state guaranteeing the districts additional money per pupil. If local funds are insufficient, the state pays more money. Early in the school year a count is taken in all schools. The count is sent to the state and the state reimburses the school districts. Multiple count days are being proposed legislatively this session. Payments are made to school districts quarterly at this time. Assemblyman Neighbors explained most of the money from the distributive school account comes from a 2 1/4% sales tax. The money comes back to the school districts depending on the districts' local effort. Payments vary from county to county depending on business taxes paid. He asked how many schools statewide would qualify if the bill were put into effect immediately. Also, he asked if Dr. Harrington felt there would be a rush of schools established after the bill became law. Dr. Harrington explained there are currently four schools which would meet current criteria. The students currently enrolled in those schools would not be eligible for the program for two years. Dr. Harrington envisions small, private, neighborhood, community schools would be started with two or three grades. As each oldest grade is ready to progress, a new grade would be established. The Hebrew Academy in Las Vegas, Nevada, was used as an example. A slow, gradual startup of the program is anticipated. Mr. Neighbors asked if private schools would have to take anyone who walks in as the public schools do now. Dr. Harrington explained private schools will have the option of setting their own admission criteria. No discrimination will be allowed. Mr. Neighbors asked if the criteria would be determined by the Department of Education or by each school individually. Dr. Harrington explained the criteria would be set by each individual school. It is an area in which schools can innovate. Chairman Williams, referring to Page 5, Line 9 of A.B. 340, and then to Lines 22 and 23 of the same page, asked for clarification on discrimination and admission criteria. Dr. Harrington stated on an annual basis schools have to provide the State Department of Education with information proving they do not discriminate even though they have their own admission criteria. He explained admission criteria can be used. Race, gender or other discriminatory criteria cannot be used. Chairman Williams asked what criteria can be used. Dr. Harrington explained criteria such as interest and preparation for college oriented or vocationally oriented curriculum might be used. The school might be for disabled or at-risk students only. Chairman Williams voiced his opinion those would be specialty schools. For schools not specializing, Mr. Williams wondered if any student who showed up with a voucher would be admitted. Dr. Harrington stated anyone who wished their child to go to a school, would basically enroll their child in that particular school. Mr. Neighbors asked for clarification on the point of each school having its own entry criteria. Dr. Harrington stated each school could decide what kind of mission it wants to fulfill and will pick students who will best be able to take advantage of the mission statement of the school. Science or arts schools would only take students interested in those subjects. Assemblyman Segerblom asked if private school teachers would have to have the same qualifications as public school teachers. Dr. Harrington stated this is an area private schools are being allowed to innovate. They may require higher standards or different standards. A vocational school may have a master machinist, mechanic or carpenter teaching a course who does not have the same qualifications as required by the state. The checks and balances are the parents. If they do not like the education received by their children, or the teaching staff is not qualified, they will go elsewhere. In order to receive accreditation from various accrediting agencies the school will have to meet the accrediting standards. The market decides what is a worthwhile qualification and what is not. Mrs. Segerblom, referring to Page 2, Line 18, asked about the "what, where and how", noting many of those in favor of vouchers do not want the public schools teaching what, where and how. Dr. Harrington noted differences in the public and private system. Both systems have to be controlled. The public system is controlled from the top down. Elected officials hire superintendents and bureaucracy to set up approved regulations, which are enforced on teachers from the top down. The private system will have a little of in meeting certification and accreditation requirements. However, the private system is regulated from the bottom up. Parents and students will decide if the schools are meeting required needs. If not, parents and students will leave. Mr. Batten asked what would prevent private schools getting public money from coming before the assembly and asking for funding. What we would have is two school systems competing for the same dollar. This will be allowed because they are receiving public money. Dr. Harrington stated the money received by private schools will be linked absolutely to public school spending. Private schools can only get more money if they get it from the public schools. Eventually, lobbyists from the private system will encourage increasing public school funding so private schools can benefit from the increase. The public system will have powerful allies in the private sector encouraging more educational spending. Mr. Batten stated the situation would revert to the "haves" and the "have nots". The "have nots" will be in the public school system, the "haves" in the private school system. Two school systems will exist competing for the same dollar. Who will protect the poor, disadvantaged, and at-risk students? Dr. Harrington stated the private schools only get a certain percentage of what public schools are spending per pupil. For the average student, this amount is ninety percent. In any given school year, if the public school is spending $4,000 per student, the private school would get ninety percent of the $4,000. They cannot independently raise their money. It can be raised only as they encourage more money to be spent on the public system. A means test for eligibility exists. The wealthy cannot participate. Initially the earnings limit was set at $100,000, and probably the figure will be lowered, eliminating some of the upper middle class. Referring to the priority statement (Exhibit F), the varying priorities are listed. The most important priority is to give disadvantaged children a choice of schools which meets their needs. Sacrificing some of the middle class to accomplish this goal is acceptable in Dr. Harrington's view. Mr. Batten maintained a lot of the purported problems in public schools deal with the problems the public system is having dealing with at-risk students. He asked what assurances, other than it being in the bill it will not be allowed, that the private schools will resist taking only the strongest applicants and leaving the lower IQ students, low income students or disabled students out of the system. If the schools can set their own standards, the private schools will get the applications, will review the applications, and the parents will wish to protect their children from the same problems which currently exist in the public schools. These feelings could be the result of stereotyping. This could be the private schools admission policy and there is nothing the State Department of Education can do about it. Dr. Harrington stated several safeguards exist in A.B. 340 to prevent the concerns of Mr. Batten from happening. He reminded the committee the system is means tested, with the wealthy excluded. One of the best safeguards is every school has to accept the amount of money received from the local school districts as full payment. Families cannot be charged any more. The capped means test is another safeguard. A proposed amendment forces the private schools, within a reasonable area, to provide transportation. Discrimination is expressly forbidden in Section 7, Subsection 2, and in Section 4, Subsection 2. In Section 4, Subsection 2 (f), schools are forced to comply with all state and federal laws, including all anti- discrimination laws. Society will never permit those type of things to occur again. Dr. Harrington declared education in the past to be segregated in the public sector. In 1954 the court case of Brown vs. School District of Topeka, began desegregation. This does not mean public schools were inherently bad. A vigilant society was needed to make the changes. Mr. Batten expressed wonder at the creation of a color blind society. His concern again is about segregated school systems. The first choice school systems went into effect in Virginia because segregated schools were desired. He believes until a policy or group is instituted to monitor admission policies there is nothing to prevent the private school from taking only the strongest applicants leaving the public school system "in a mess". This, coupled with two separate school systems vying for the same dollars, does not seem to Mr. Batten to eliminate public school problems. He feels "we're building too many lifeboats and not repairing the ships we currently have in service". Dr. Harrington, referring to Mr. Batten's referral to the Virginia experience, reminded Mr. Batten the public schools had absolute segregation for over 100 years, and the maximum segregation in the private schools was less than five years in one county. Comparison of which system maintained segregation longer shows the public system to have done so. It is not an indictment of the public system nor does it have anything to do with what type of school. It has to do with safeguards in place and how society feels about the practices. The safeguards built into the bill are the same ones public schools currently enjoy. Both systems have to obey the same state and federal laws, including the anti-discrimination laws. Mrs. de Braga stated that regardless of intentions or safeguards in place, Section 8 of A.B. 340 allows for and encourages the establishment of an elitist, separatist, segregated system. Referring to Section 5, Subsection 3, she asked what constituted "proof satisfactory" and wondered if investigators would make sure pupils were going to a school and how it would be determined if a school existed. Dr. Harrington stated before the schools were eligible, they had to be certified by the State Department of Education. Determining pupil eligibility will be left to local school boards. He envisioned perhaps an income tax form showing adjusted gross income would be required. The only criteria for eligible students is living in the district and the family income level. Mrs. de Braga, referring to Section 3, Page 2, noted the bill discussed per capita cost of education means the total amount of money expended. She noted it seems far broader than just distributive school account. It could be all sources including local, federal, PTA contributions, and foundation dollars. Dr. Harrington, referring to (Exhibit H) provided by Clark County School District, noted the figures included are the unweighted dollars contained within the general fund and the special revenue fund expended per pupil. The total last year for Clark County was $4,433. This would be the base figure used to calculate how much will be sent to the private schools. This excludes debt service fund and food service fund. Ms. de Braga stated the formula was not in the bill. Dr. Harrington stated the amount was in the bill in Section 6 describing percentages for various categories of pupils for which schools are eligible. Possible amendments for Subsection 2 include the "unweighted" amount and "excluding food service fund". Mr. Manendo, referring to Page 5, Section 8, Subsection 2, stated schools are given an unrestricted authority in the establishment of their own curriculum, teaching methods, administration policies, etc. He asked how the taxpayers would obtain input into those items. Dr. Harrington reiterated all schools have to be certified by the State Department of Education. The monitorization of private schools is done by parents and students from below and not above. The taxpayers save by paying much less per pupil for pupils in private schools. Mr. Manendo, wishing for clarification, expressed concern regarding his previous question about the amount of money paid by taxpayers into the system. He wondered if the taxpayers would be comfortable with their money going into a private sector to educate children when common knowledge is more money in general is needed for public education. Dr. Harrington referred to (Exhibit E), question 1. The public is obligated to educate every student. The desire is to have the education be efficient, cost effective and of quality so the students graduate being motivated, skilled, and honest. The bill's finances allow this to happen less expensively in the private system. The thirty percent savings will stay in the public system and will actually provide more money per pupil. As an example, Dr. Harrington proposed the eventual number of 10,000 students in the private system. Using today's dollars, for each pupil in the private system the school district would spend $3,989.70. Had they stayed in the public system, the school district would pay $5,700 for each student. By allowing the students to go to the private system, the public system would save thirty percent on each one. For 10,000 students the total savings is more than $17,000,000 a year which will be available to spend in the public system. This raises the per capita spending for each child in the public system. Dr. Harrington called the situation a "win-win" financially for everyone. Mr. Manendo asked if there would be counselors and nurses in the private schools. Dr. Harrington stated private schools would not be obligated to have them. They could have them if they feel it is an effective use of the dollars received. Mr. Bennett, referring to Dr. Harrington's scenario of 10,000 students in the private system, noted there were only four schools currently eligible for the private system in Nevada. He inquired what the enrollment is in the four schools. Dr. Harrington replied the enrollment was currently 340 students who would be eligible based on the schools but not necessarily eligible because their family incomes are unknown. If the legislation were passed immediately, no one would be eligible because existing schools are ineligible for the first two years. The bill was crafted in this fashion so no immediate fiscal impact would occur. Chairman Williams noted if the bill passes, it would become effective July 1, 1995. Dr. Harrington explained the only students who would be eligible the first year would be those students who would enroll in a school which made itself eligible for the coming school year and the students would have to be in the public system and going into the private system. Mr. Batten asked Dr. Harrington if he agreed with the following items: equality of an education opportunity, curriculum innovation, site based management, and parental involvement in the schools. Dr. Harrington stated he agreed with the listed items. He noted he felt the public system would be encouraged to participate in those ideas. Mr. Batten replied these were things the public system was doing at the present time. He asked if greater autonomy created better students or do better students create more autonomous schools. Dr. Harrington stated he felt more autonomy allows to better individualize the program to meet the student needs. Mr. Batten replied, "welcome to our public school system." Dr. Harrington commented some reforms are beginning in the public school system. The intent of the bill is not to destroy the public system but to encourage the reforms to progress. Referring to the admission criteria component on Page 5, Line 23, Dr. Harrington indicated his willingness to remove it if it pleased the committee. Ms. Catherine Pollock, teacher, Carson City, Nevada, testified from Carson City via teleconference. She noted support of public schools with public money is nothing new. Referring to the Brown vs. Board of Education school desegregation decision Ms. Pollock discussed the voucher system in Virginia. She noted scholarship grants were enacted in Georgia to finance tuition of white students at segregated academies. She asked if guarantees existed so white supremists would not be given vouchers. Stating vouchers do not give parents choice, Ms. Pollock indicated they shifted taxpayer dollars to private schools. Ms. Pollock felt private schools were not open to all students, and would discriminate. Noting that legislative representatives and some of their constituents oppose mandatory kindergarten, sex education, AIDS education, and drug education, Ms. Pollock found it interesting the same people supported vouchers, charter schools, and site based decision making. Ms. Wanda Rosenbaum, All Parents United, spoke in support of A.B. 340. The mission of All Parents United is to make education a number one priority in Nevada. The members are also members of such groups as the Nevada Parent Coalition, Nevada Concerned Citizens, Unity in the Community, and PTA. The individuals appeared in support of parents' ability to choose where and how their children are educated. She spoke of the need for affordable alternative education programs in Nevada. Noting the needs of some children are being met in the public schools, Ms. Rosenbaum explained the public schools cannot meet the needs of all children. Those whose needs are not being met deserve the chance to develop and participate in alternatives. Educators would be given the opportunity to develop programs they see a need for. Dr. Maria Cardle, child psychologist, spoke in favor of A.B. 340. She discussed how difficult it is for teachers to understand the vastness of the types of difficulties children can have. She described children with common problems and how their needs vary, including children with no difficulties who are just overwhelmed by a large school setting. Five articles regarding school choice in Wisconsin were submitted for the record (Exhibit I). She explained how several other states are examining alternative choices in education. Mr. Manendo asked Dr. Cardle if she felt private schools would be able to deal with special education students adequately. Dr. Cardle stated she felt there were specialized groups of people to address the needs of special education children. Mr. Manendo expressed concern about not having counselors in private schools to aid students with problems. Dr. Cardle stated she felt most public schools did not have counselors to address students needs. She explained often the behavior of special needs students improves in smaller educational situations. Ms. Linda Zerfoss, secondary teacher, Clark County School District, spoke in favor of A.B. 340. She discussed the varied capability levels of her children and how they have done in public and private schools. Ms. Zerfoss stated the concept of public vs. private education should not become a battleground. The goal is to achieve equitable education for all children by offering them options in education. Discussing the premises on which the United States was founded, Ms. Zerfoss discussed the ways education was achieved historically. She expressed the opinion that "we are so locked into going to school we have forgotten to educate why we are going to school". Ms. Zerfoss discussed how parental impact and administrative concerns are equitable and how difficult it is for teachers to always be a child advocate. Mr. Mike Caryl, Douglas County School Board, stated how choice in education featured in his race for school board election. Mr. Caryl discussed his support for the choice program. Choice in education encourages parental involvement, allows for better response to individual needs and allows for better parental control over a child's education. Parents are ultimately responsible for children and deserve educational choice. Mr. Caryl discussed how the public education system could benefit from the establishment of more private schools. Mr. James Cardle, professor, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, spoke in favor of A.B. 340. He stated the concept is not unique, since such an environment exists at the post-secondary level. Discussing education in Nevada, Mr. Cardle stated there is a lack or reliable, comparative data. In looking at a data base at the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., Mr. Cardle found Nevada is one of six states that does not participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Many comparable educational statistics are acquired through this program. Mr. Cardle commented on the decreasing quality of students coming out of primary and secondary education systems in Nevada. He cited poor reading skills, inadequate math skills, lack of history and geography knowledge and lack of study skills as concerns. He discussed the attrition rate, which runs about eighty percent in the engineering department. He encouraged making the commitment to choice on the primary and secondary level as strong as it is on the post-secondary level. This would benefit students, faculty and staff. Mr. Cardle submitted an article entitled "Cruise Control" for the record (Exhibit J). Ms. Randi McKim, mother, described her autistic son and how his needs are not being met by the Clark County School District. She shared her feelings on the number of children whose needs could be better met in specialized environments. Ms. Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Nevada State Department of Education, said the State Board of Education had not discussed A.B. 340 or taken a position on it. She addressed Department of Education concerns in prepared remarks (Exhibit K). Dr. Harrington remarked on Ms. Peterson's discussion of the Carnegie Report. It stated wealthy people can supplement their voucher. He stated the bill specifically address the issue by saying schools cannot charge anything in addition to the amount received from local districts. Assemblyman de Braga asked how the funding provided in A.B. 340 could be supplemented to assist in payment for the highly specialized education required by students with severe special needs such as autism or are severely and profoundly handicapped. Ms. Peterson stated she believed there was a provision in A.B. 340 requiring special education students to receive one hundred percent of per capita costs from the school districts. She stated school districts would tell the committee the cost of education for children with severe special needs far exceeds reimbursement received. Dr. Harrington told Ms. Peterson about the proposed amendment for private schools to provide transportation for students within certain boundaries. Ms. Marzette Lewis spoke in support of A.B. 340. She stressed all are taxpayers. Explaining the uniqueness of her children and foster children, Ms. Lewis expressed the need for small, specialized schools. She reminded the committee, whether people were for or against A.B. 340, they were all in support of what is best for children. She expressed concern over the lack of support for parental involvement encountered in the public school system. Ms. Barbara Young, specialized teacher assistant, yielded her time for the committee to view a two minute video entitled "Vouchers, Myths and Realities" shown from Carson City. The video was not submitted for the record. Ms. Pat BeDunnah, President, Education Support Employees Association, spoke against A.B. 340 from prepared remarks (Exhibit L). Ms. Elaine Lancaster, Nevada State Education Association, spoke in opposition to A.B. 340 from prepared remarks (Exhibit M). She encouraged the committee to defeat A.B. 340. Dr. Harrington stated the groups referred to by Ms. Lancaster in her testimony had not reviewed the particulars of A.B. 340. He explained the voucher system proposed in California and other states is very different than what is proposed by A.B. 340. He asked the various groups to review the bill and its safeguards. The bill is similar to the Milwaukee program. Ms. BeDunnah remarked on the similarity to the Milwaukee program. Mr. Roy Manabusan, Headmaster, Marantha Academy, Las Vegas, Nevada, spoke in favor of A.B. 340. He stated his experience has been with children from "developing families". As an administrator, Mr. Manabusan came to share his experiences as headmaster. Expressing an interest in quality education for all, Mr. Manabusan noted students have special needs and teachers have special skills. The thing to do is match the two together. Addressing the issue of counselors and nurses in private school, Mr. Manabusan explained he does his best to fill these needs at his school. If students have severe counseling needs, help is found for them through community referrals and networking. Mr. Manabusan stated he has no problem working with the school district. He wished to debunk the myth of only "good kids" going to private schools. Six of Mr. Manabusan's best students returned to public schools recently for financial reasons. They went to magnet schools in the public sector. Discussing how overwhelmed parents are with the system, Mr. Manabusan noted their discomfort at approaching school district officials. This could be due to distrust of the system. Mr. Manabusan explained he spends a minimum of thirty minutes interviewing applicants to his school. If parents are not willing to participate in the program, the student will not be accepted into the school. Mr. Manendo asked if Mr. Manabusan was a certified counselor. Mr. Manabusan replied affirmatively. Mr. Manendo asked how referred counseling services were afforded by the students' families. Mr. Manabusan explained there are a number of agencies who have fees established on a sliding scale. Mr. Manendo asked Mr. Manabusan why he thought there were so few private schools in Clark County. Mr. Manabusan stated it is expensive. Mr. Manendo wondered why more were not opening to create competition to lower prices. Mr. Manabusan stated he sometimes uses payment in kind. If a plumber is needed and a parent of a student is a licensed plumber, he does the work which covers part of the student's tuition. Fund raisers are held also. Ms. Terri Robertson wanted the committee to know Nevada PTA is not a part of All Parent's United. Ms. Mecque Armstrong, teacher, Clark County, Nevada, expressed concerns on A.B. 340. Referring to Page 2, Section 1, Subsection 7, Ms. Armstrong stated the "unnecessary and burdensome state regulation" effects public school teachers tremendously. If disruptive students could be effectively dealt with, public schools might be more successful. She discussed class size. Smaller class size is important. If public school class sizes were addressed at all levels, students would receive more attention. Special education needs were discussed, especially the inclusion mandate. This is causing great problems in classrooms. Special education students, regular students, and gifted students all need special attention. They are not receiving the needed attention because we are "trying to mix this pot". She stated the belief the public education system provides a relatively equal opportunity for all students. Dr. Harrington agreed freeing the public system somewhat would help. By providing competition, the public schools will have to eliminate some areas restricting teaching. Dr. T. Lubin, Hebrew Academy, Las Vegas, Nevada, spoke in favor of A.B. 340. She discussed the economic levels of her students' families, noting the school is neither elitist nor sectarian. She wished to make the statement: "please give choice a chance". Noting forty percent of urban public school teachers send their children to private schools, Ms. Lubin explained the National Education Association spent $50,000,000 to prevent poor parents from being able to do likewise. Reports indicate the poor support the choice concept more strongly than the wealthy. Dr. Lubin discussed the Milwaukee project, using hypocrisy to describe the opposition to choice among high middle class and the wealthy. This hypocrisy is superseded by the large number of public school teachers in urban areas who oppose choice and send their children to private schools. Addressing the argument of whether choice will destroy public schools, Dr. Lubin stated this is not true. Good public schools will prosper. Competition will make good public schools better. Noting the life rule "excellence is impossible without competition" Dr. Lubin reminded the committee of the same battle fought in Detroit by car makers against foreign imports. Thanks to the competition from foreign auto makers, American auto makers make better cars than ever. The Economics, an English journal recently reported there is no relationship between the amount of government spending and excellence in American public education. Discussing schools in Kansas City, where great amounts of money have been spent on facilities, Dr. Lubin noted no improvement has been seen in six years in standardized test scores. The dropout rate has risen yearly and currently stands at sixty percent. Failure of public education rarely happens due to lack of money but occurs with the lack of ability of teachers to teach and inspire. In Baltimore, Maryland nine schools have been taken over by a private company. The schools were in poor repair, were dirty and drug infested. Today, students are happy to go there and many improvements have been made. Mr. Bennett asked how a school such as the Hebrew Academy could become eligible for the voucher program and declare themselves nonsectarian. Dr. Lubin stated the Hebrew Academy was nonsectarian based on Nevada state law. The law says sectarian schools are schools either governed by or affiliated with a religious institution. The Hebrew Academy is not. Mr. Bennett stated he was trying to figure out the number of schools eligible under A.B. 340. Dr. Lubin explained Gorman High School in Las Vegas is sectarian and exempt. The Hebrew Academy is licensed by the State of Nevada Department of Education and is nonsectarian and nonparochial. Dr. Harrington asked if the Hebrew Academy had much violence. Dr. Lubin stated students were suspended for one day for chewing gum in the classroom, for throwing anything during class time, for use of foul language in class, for doing homework assignments in class during class time, and for passing notes. The students have to be caught by a teacher. Nothing remotely close to violence exists. There are over 300 students in the school and the overhead is one administrator, one secretary and one accountant. Dr. Lubin noted there is a large range of ability levels in the students of the school. Students are tested before admission to be certain they do not have extreme learning deficits which the school could not provide for. Assemblyman Segerblom asked what the tuition is for the Hebrew Academy. Dr. Lubin said the tuition is $4,500 per school year per student. Mr. Manendo asked how transportation was set up in private schools. Dr. Lubin replied the students come in car pools. Mr. Manendo asked if the carpools were provided by parents. Dr. Lubin replied affirmatively. She said the parents take turns bringing the children. Mr. Manendo asked what happens if a family does not have a car. Dr. Lubin stated when transportation needs are expressed, the parent organization at the school is asked to look for a way to assist the family. Mr. Manendo asked Dr. Harrington if transportation within a certain radius had been addressed. He wished to discuss bus and driver safety. Dr. Harrington said transportation was addressed in the amendments. Mr. Manendo asked how transportation will be paid for. Dr. Harrington stated the private schools had to pay for transportation out of monies allotted by the school district. Mr. Manendo asked if state safety standards would have to be met. Dr. Lubin stated all schools must adhere to all state codes. Mr. Manendo asked if buses were inspected by the state. Dr. Harrington replied affirmatively. No one is exempted from any state law by A.B. 340. Ms. Patricia Brown, Unified Tenants Association, testified in favor of A.B. 340. She stated she was impressed by the idea of taking the monopoly of children's education out of the hands of one school district. Anytime parents are given a choice of where their child can be sent to be educated, it is one step in the right direction. She felt school districts have not improved because no one has been competing with them for money. Ms. Brown stated she felt the bill could be looked at as a viable way to change things or the state could look at building more prisons. Ms. Kristine Jensen, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated her group is in support of parental rights in education. She stated the issue is not a rich-poor one, but one of parental rights. Parents are frustrated by no choice in education. Mandates abound including children attending school and what they are taught. Concerns were expressed about counseling taking place without parental knowledge or consent, as well as curriculum concerns. In testimony it was expressed private schools cannot be equipped to teach all children. Ms. Jensen stated public schools are not equipped to teach all children either. Parents are crying out for help and the chance to choose for their children. Discussing educational funding, she noted all are required to pay property, sales, motor vehicle privilege taxes. About fifty-six percent of the state budget goes to subsidize one hundred per cent of public education. Funding students in private schools means using tax dollars for the purpose for which they are collected, which is to provide every child with a good education. She encouraged passage of A.B. 340. Ms. Juanita Clark, All Parents United, stated she hoped children's learning was the priority of the hearing as it is with A.B. 340. She believed the curriculum is failing in the public school system. It has become less specific and more fragmented. She stated the National Education Association is working to increase the number of teachers, to educate children with a wider range of ages (ages 2-20), to bring more topics to the curriculum, to have more students receiving higher grades, to have broader health and counseling services, and to increase funding from the taxpayers to cover all of the listed items. Ms. Clark stated each item listed steps up the pace of failure. Every time a child switches teachers, the child must adjust. Standards vary with teachers, as they accommodate the ages and ability levels of their students. Ms. Clark decried the lack of continuity, impersonal attitude, and lack of bonding. She commented on the recentering of Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores. Ms. Verlene Chiodioni stated she wished any schools, private or public, could answer the questions raised in testimony. She stated she did not know why parents would believe that simply by putting their child in a private school, all would change. A.B. 340 leads one to believe it will create, improve, produce and, as near as Ms. Chiodioni sees, "do everything but get us to heaven". She stated she did not understand how taking money out of public schools and putting it into private schools is supposed to improve public schools or improve moral and effectiveness of teachers. She wondered how smaller schools can offer more diversity than larger ones. Ms. Chioioni did not understand what stronger disciplinary measures a private school could take as opposed to a public school. This sets up a "swinging door". When parents are unhappy with public schools, they take their children to private schools. When private schools fail to meet the parents' high expectations, or the child misbehaves, the child is returned to public school, having missed what was taught while they were gone. Dr. Harrington stated freedom can make tremendous differences. Ms. Chiodioni stated she was not questioning freedom but asked if private schools will be founded to take care of students with severe needs. She felt false hope was being given to the parents of these children because the educational needs of those children cannot be met for the amount of money provided from school districts. Dr. Harrington stated the public schools have nothing to fear. He said the necessary schools will rise up and parents will choose them freely. Ms. Chiodioni stated parents may choose them freely until they get in and find out their expectations are not being met any better than by public schools. She said the problem is not an ailing school system, but an ailing society. Ms. Patricia Jimenez-Mounts testified in favor of A.B. 340. She discussed her daughter who has attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and her family situation. The daughter attends private school where the small class size and learning structure have been beneficial. She outlined how the family has been able to pay for private schooling as well as situations effecting her daughter. The family is unable to afford the private school tuition any more. Ms. Jiminez-Mounts asked the committee to reconsider Section 12 of A.B. 340. Dr. Harrington remarked he also did not like Section 12 of A.B. 340. Ms. Leonora Hedrick, Nevada Parent's Coalition, All Parent's United, spoke in support of A.B. 340. She spoke of the bill as a tool for the community, educators and parents to use to embrace to better educate children. Parents can shop for a suitable curriculum for their child, the teacher can choose the environment in which the child can excel and the community can look forward to new business and employment opportunities, as well as more tax revenue. She discussed items lacking in the Clark County School District. Ms. Hedrick said growth in Nevada is not paying for growth. She quoted Judy Witt, Clark County School Board trustee, "Nevada has the highest suicide rate, the second highest teenage pregnancy rate, and ranks in the top five highest drop out rate in the nation". Noting education needs to be a first priority in Nevada, she outlined problems faced by Nevada students and families. Mr. Earl Eves testified in favor of A.B. 340. He stated he did not wish to address the competency of the public school system or the abilities of union teachers. Concern was expressed about parents not having the right to choose how their children are educated. He asked how the committee had the exclusive right to take tax money and exclusively distribute it to the public schools. Mr. Eves discussed other parent's rights. He characterized A.B. 340 as being about parents taking back the right to decide about their children's education and ending the government monopoly in compulsory government run schools. He encouraged the committee to vote in favor of A.B. 340. He stated his children would never go to public school. Mr. Allin Chandler, Executive Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators, spoke from prepared remarks (Exhibit N). Mr. Jerry Connor, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Administrators, spoke in opposition to A.B. 340. He commended Dr. Harrington for being brave enough to broach this issue. He noted educators are not the only group opposed to voucher education. The Committee for Economic Development, an independent research and policy group, representing chief executive officers of over 250 large American corporations, stated in their publication Putting Learning First, Governing and Managing Schools for High Achievement they had "grave reservations about using scarce public resources which would otherwise be available to improve public education. Choice and competition are useful but we believe they can be employed most productively for a society within the public system. Public education is our society's basic instrument for conveying democratic principles to children for incorporating new immigrants into American society and for promoting racial, ethnic and cultural integration. We fear that private school choice would foster social fragmentation and weaken our democratic institution. If states are expected to be held accountable for student achievement it is unreasonable to give tax dollars to schools that are not required to meet the same standards. All schools receiving public money should be held accountable using appropriate assessments of student performance whether they are governed publicly or privately." Mr. Connor reminded the committee this was not school administrators speaking, but American business speaking. Willis Hawley, professor of Education Science at Vanderbilt University, said there are eight assumptions about choice, all of which are wrong but each is important to the argument. First is the quality of public schools has declined. He referred to the packet distributed by Mr. Chandler (Exhibit N) and a report by Sandia Laboratories. Second, private schools outperform public schools. A Texas study examined public and private school graduates found no difference between them. Third, private schools are more innovative. Fourth, the primary reason people choose private schools is evidence of the academic performance of the students in the schools. Fifth, there is a marketplace for education and the market for educational services or schooling would function very much like other good markets. Sixth, a rush of entrepreneurial activity into the market would happen. This has not happened in places where vouchers have been adopted. Seventh, the prices of private schools would not rise, which is an exception to the market principle idea. Eighth, given the opportunity and appropriate resources, people of different social classes will be equally effective consumers. These concerns add up to the idea that the outcome of such a system will be much less than promised and the cost very great. This is NOT a panacea. Dr. Harrington noted Mr. Chandler had stated choice existed in public schools with magnet schools, which is working out well. He asked if the choice in the public system was a good thing. Mr. Chandler stated he felt it was a good thing but was not sure he said it was working well. He thought we were in the beginning stages of a lot of magnet schools in Clark County and concerns have been expressed over students not being selected and a lottery system being used because sufficient seats were not available. The school district in Clark County is attempting to increase the number of magnet schools so this problem is addressed. Mr. Chandler asked for clarification on numbers. It was his understanding private school students would receive ninety percent for regular students, ninety-five percent for at risk students, and one hundred percent for special education students. He had heard the seventy percent figure during the course of the meeting and was confused. Dr. Harrington stated the ninety percent figure applies to the amount of money spent per pupil in the public schools not counting bond debt service or food service. In Clark County the figure is significantly less than what is actually spent on students. The figure in Clark County is $4,433. What the Clark County School District is actually spending per pupil, including debt service and food service is $5,700. The private school would only get $3,989.70, which is less than seventy percent of the $5,700. It is ninety percent of the $4,433. Ms. Shawnee Mills Garrison spoke in support of A.B. 340 from prepared remarks (Exhibit O). Chairman Williams stated regardless of what happens with A.B. 340 the committee members respect the right of their co-members to bring the bill to the committee. He explained this is not a battleground for education and this is a proposal Dr. Harrington and others believe is good for children. The committee members as colleagues of Dr. Harrington support him in the effort. It is hoped the best for Nevada's children comes out of the Nevada Legislature. This is NOT a fight between committee educational philosophies. Ms. Lori Lipman Brown spoke against A.B. 340, noting it is not illegal to read the Bible in the public schools. Ms. Lipman Brown teaches at a public magnet school where parents are involved and quality education is happening. One of the problems Ms. Lipman Brown had with A.B. 340 is public schools will not be able to turn away behavior disordered students and private schools will be able to do so. In the opinion of Ms. Lipman Brown and a lot of research, the most important factor in a child's educational success is how involved the parent gets with the child's education. If public schools had the right to turn away children whose parents will not get involved despite the efforts of teachers for them to do so, everyone would be excelling. Private schools have the opportunity to make parental involvement an admission criteria. Yet, the same accountability standards will be expected. Ms. Lipman-Brown discussed transportation, noting magnet schools take students from anywhere in Clark County. If this is not done for rural students in a choice bill, choice is not being given to those students. Free market competition was discussed. Different curriculum, different teacher licensure standards, no teacher accountability, admission criteria and financial subsidies in special education were discussed. Given all these different factors, the public schools are invited to compete as a free market. Free market does not involve giving one group one set of regulations and another group a set of another regulations. Written testimony was submitted for the record by Mr. Knight Allen (Exhibit P). Testimony was submitted for the record by Trish and Rory Riley (Exhibit Q). There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 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 31, 1995 Page