MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session April 17, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Monday, April 17, 1995, Chairman William Z. Harrington, M.D. 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 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: Steve Mulvenon, Washoe County School District Allin Chandler, Clark County School District Jerry Connor, Nevada Association of School Administrators Nat Lommori, Lyon County School District Dave Howard, Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce Gloria Dopf, Nevada State Department of Education Mary Peterson, Nevada State Department of Education Chairman Harrington announced a subcommittee meeting on A.B. 290 would be held following the regular Education Committee meeting. The hearing was opened on Assembly Concurrent Resolution 14. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 14 - Encourages employers to allow leave without pay for employees to participate in school-related activities and provide procedure for school to contact parent at work in case of emergency involving child. Dr. Steve Mulvenon, Director of Communications, Washoe County School District, representing the Washoe County School District Board of Trustees, spoke in support of A.C.R. 14 from prepared remarks (Exhibit C). Dr. Mulvenon discussed the difficulties involved in attaining the goal of increased parental involvement. He explained the purpose of the resolution and the hope it would encourage employers to realize that getting their employees involved in school is good business. Dr. Mulvenon discussed N.R.S. 392.490 which makes it a misdemeanor for any employer to terminate or threaten to terminate an employee who attends a school conference called by an administrator and expressed the opinion that A.C.R 14 is a much more positive approach to this issue. Chairman Williams, discussing the misdemeanor legislation, stated the original intent was to ask employers to grant four hours of unpaid leave per child per year. He commended the efforts of Washoe County Schools and stated he felt this should be part of the statute. Mr. Williams asked Dr. Mulvenon how he felt about having the issue as a bill rather than a resolution. Dr. Mulvenon said originally the school district envisioned the issue as a bill. The Washoe County Board of Trustees felt uncomfortable putting it into statute and felt beginning with a resolution was more appropriate to start. Dr. Mulvenon stated it was very possible a bill would be requested in the next legislative session. Chairman Williams asked how the information would be transmitted to employers and parents if the resolution passed. Dr. Mulvenon explained one of the Board of Trustees' concerns involved initiating communication with the business community regarding the issue. Stating he serves on the Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce Education Committee, Dr. Mulvenon took the idea to the committee where it met with general approval. One strategy would be to work with the Chamber of Commerce to get the information out through their communication channels and newsletter. The school district also has a newsletter and regular communication to the business community. Washoe County also has a Partners in Education program and many supportive businesses are involved. Dr. Mulvenon felt monitoring the success to see if any increase in parental involvement occurs would be beneficial. Mr. Williams suggested a committee bill draft at a later time as a force to aid in resolution enforcement. Mr. David Howard, Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of A.C.R. 14. He stated the resolution would provide the opportunity for parents interested in their children to visit the schools. The Chamber of Commerce has a newsletter which goes to 2,300 businesses in the northern Nevada area and offered space for an article if the resolution passes. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, offered the support of the association on A.C.R. 14. Ms. Sherry Loncar, Nevada State Parent Teacher's Association (PTA), stated a resolution was passed during the last legislative session with similar attributes to A.C.R. 14. Nevada PTA strongly supported A.C.R. 14 and Ms. Loncar offered support if it were offered in bill form. She distributed a resolution copy to committee members for their consideration (Exhibit D). Ms. Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Nevada State Department of Education, testified in favor of A.C.R. 14 from prepared remarks (Exhibit E). She discussed accountability findings which indicated an increase in performance scores for students at all levels whose parents attended parent teacher conferences and participated in school activities. There was no opposition to A.C.R. 14. Chairman Harrington proposed two minor amendments to A.C.R. 14, which were distributed to the committee (Exhibit F). Assemblyman Batten asked if the proposal was to eliminate the words "and pride" from Line 2 and why. Chairman Harrington stated he felt the word "pride" carried a negative connotation. He preferred "self esteem" or "self respect". Mr. Batten, referring to the proposed change on Line 4, removing "has all but disappeared" and replacing it with "as a percentage of all families has decreased", asked for Dr. Harrington's clarification on the change. Dr. Harrington did not want to give the impression traditional families have completely disappeared. He stated they have decreased as a percentage of the total families but are not gone. Assemblyman de Braga inquired how Line 4 would read. Dr. Harrington said "the traditional family, as a percentage of all families has decreased, with the increase in working single parents and families where both families work...". Chairman Williams asked what was meant by a traditional family. He stated he would prefer taking the section out regarding "traditional family" unless someone could explain "traditional family". Mr. Williams felt every group of people in a home is a family, be it one woman and her son or a man and his daughter. Family success cannot be determined by framed, designated, predetermined terminology. Every family is traditional if they are working hard for positive goals and developing good citizens in the children. Anything that works for the creation for good products of society is a traditional family. Assemblyman Chowning agreed with Chairman Williams. She stated she supported the original parental leave legislation and would also support a bill to follow up the A.C.R. under discussion. She felt the A.C.R. was worded in a positive fashion with the exception of Lines 4 and 5. She felt the "traditional family" section muddied the resolution and adds a negative connotation. She recommended the removal of the section. Assemblyman Neighbors echoed the sentiments of Chairman Williams and Assemblyman Chowning. Assemblyman Stroth agreed with her colleagues. ASSEMBLYMAN STROTH MOVED TO AMEND A.C.R. 14 BY REMOVING LINES 4 AND 5 AND ADOPT. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. de Braga asked if the word "pride" was being eliminated in the motion. Chairman Harrington stated it was not part of the motion. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE MEMBERS PRESENT. Mr. H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, directed the committee's attention to the green work session document (Exhibit G). He explained a number of bills had been considered as pairs. The first two bills to come under consideration are as follows: ASSEMBLY BILL 368 - Revises provisions governing probationary period of administrators and teachers employed by county school districts. ASSEMBLY BILL 67 - Revises provisions governing probationary period of administrators and teachers employed by county school districts. Mr. Sturm explained the committee heard the testimony on the bills and the consensus of the education interest groups testifying was to recommend processing A.B. 368. Amendments agreed upon by all parties at the April 3, 1995, hearing are included as Attachment "A" of (Exhibit G), Page 2. Mr. Sturm discussed the two proposed amendments. He explained the committee withheld action at the April 3, 1995, meeting, pending the review of the amendments by Mr. Henry Etchemendy. He has reviewed them and found them to be satisfactory. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 368. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Assemblyman Bennett offered to present the bill on the floor. Mr. Sturm stated the committee could decide not to take action on A.B. 67 and hold it as a vehicle for later action or indefinitely postpone it. The committee decided to not take action on A.B. 67 and hold it. The next bill to be considered by the committee was Assembly Bill 158. ASSEMBLY BILL 158 - Requires free appropriate public education in compliance with federal law for pupils with disabilities who are excused from compulsory attendance. Mr. Sturm explained the committee had taken action on A.B. 158 on March 8, 1995. A minor amendment was agreed upon at the time and another amendment has been prepared by Dr. Harrington. The new proposed amendment appears on Page 3 of (Exhibit G). Dr. Harrington, referring to Line 8, discussed the certification of students in need of private education by one reputable physician. He felt two physicians' opinions would be more appropriate. Within the Nevada statutes "physician" can mean many different things, including chiropractors, and homeopathic physicians. Dr. Harrington felt a medical physician or a doctor of osteopathy would be more appropriate to provide the necessary certification. Assemblyman Bennett asked if, in Line 5, the word "attitude" was amended out. Chairman Harrington stated it had been. Assemblyman Chowning requested the input of Gloria Dopf, State Department of Education, regarding the proposed amendment. Ms. Gloria Dopf, Director of Special Education, Nevada State Department of Education, stated the wording proposed in the bill was a safeguard for students excused due to disabilities to have an entitlement to a free, appropriate public education. The focus of the Department of Education was on students having been excused already with the safeguard in place rather than the process of excusing as the new amendment speaks to. She stated, in relationship to the proposed amendment, it may be difficult in rural communities to access two physicians for physical or mental impairment determination. Agreeing it is a significant consideration, Ms. Dopf made the point it could pose great hardship for some families in rural areas where access to one physician may be difficult. She stated the bill with the proposed amendment would satisfy the needs for free, appropriate education for these students. Mrs. Chowning asked if hardship would be created if the family has no insurance. Ms. Dopf agreed it could. Mrs. Chowning asked Ms. Dopf's opinion about delineating the term physician to not include chiropractic or homeopathic physicians. Ms. Dopf stated the intent would be for someone qualified to make the determination of a mental or physical condition severe enough to warrant the student unable to attend school. Ms. Tripple, referring to the word "reputable" in the bill, suggested it be changed to "physician in good standing" or "licensed physician". Mr. Sturm informed Ms. Tripple the word "reputable" is existing language. Ms. Tripple asked if "licensed" could be substituted. Mr. Sturm said the meaning would be changed. Mrs. de Braga asked if "qualified" would be more appropriate. She also asked if the necessary evaluations are paid for with federal money. Ms. Dopf explained when a student has a physical or mental condition rendering them unable to participate in regular school, the examination and determination usually transpires on a private basis. This is not paid for with federal funds. Evaluations for disabilities are done through the school system but not necessarily the evaluation of mental or physical impairment. MRS. CHOWNING MOVED A.B. 158 BE AMENDED, CHANGING THE WORD "REPUTABLE" TO "QUALIFIED PHYSICIAN" AND INCORPORATE THE WORDS "DOES NOT INCLUDE A CHIROPRACTIC PHYSICIAN OR HOMEOPATHIC PHYSICIAN". THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. NEIGHBORS. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Stroth asked if A.B. 158 would go to Ways and Means. Chairman Harrington stated it would not automatically go to Ways and Means although a favorable fiscal impact was indicated. Assemblyman Manendo stated A.B. 158 had no fiscal impact. Chairman Harrington declared he would handle the bill on the floor. The committee discussed Senate Bill 87. SENATE BILL 87 - Revises circumstances under which minimum number of days of school per year may be reduced. Chairman Harrington delivered the report of the subcommittee on S.B. 87. He stated the bill was paired with Assembly Bill 6. ASSEMBLY BILL 6 - Authorizes 4-day school week under certain circumstances. Both bills deal with alternative scheduling. The recommendation of the subcommittee was to indefinitely postpone S.B. 87 and keep A.B. 6 as a vehicle for future use if needed. Assemblyman Neighbors stated some of his constituents expressed concerns regarding Lines 10 and 11 of S.B. 87. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 87. ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Chowning spoke against the motion because the purpose was to give local school districts flexibility in scheduling. Chairman Harrington explained the initial request was made by the Clark County School District so a five track, 166 day schedule could be implemented. They have opted to implement a five track, 170 day schedule. Flexibility exists in the current law going from 180 days to 170 days. Mr. Harrington stated he felt decreasing school days was not good policy. He distributed two articles for the committee's information (Exhibit H) and (Exhibit I). Mrs. de Braga stated the correspondence and calls received by her office object strongly to reducing the number of school days. She stated the intent of the originators of A.B. 6 is to reduce days, which S.B. 87 would allow. An extra day off from school for sports activities was desired, with no intent discussed of avoiding double sessions. If passed, districts could go to a four day week. Ms. Tripple reminded the committee when the concept was first discussed the idea was to change days to minutes. It seems the intent to give flexibility has been forgotten and everyone has gotten hung up on four day weeks. When the bill came from the Senate it seems to have missed the idea of changing days to minutes. Chairman Williams reminded the committee how local control in school districts is often discussed. The bill states school districts would have to apply to the Board of Trustees. A governing body would be involved to monitor all possibilities. Mr. Williams discussed Section 1, Line 10, suggesting dropping "or to provide time to allow pupils to engage in extra curricular or supplemental activities", thereby eliminating the possibility of the time being used for sports. It would offer flexibility to deal with scheduling and curriculum. He reminded the committee of the rapid growth being experienced in Nevada, especially Clark County School District. Mrs. Segerblom reminded the committee initial interest was in allowing districts the option of having year round school. She was in favor of adding minutes to the school day as well as dropping the section regarding extracurricular activities. Mrs. Chowning stated Clark County is considering 167 days and adding 35 minutes of instruction to the school day. She felt much explanation regarding intent would be required to the citizens. Mr. Manendo felt the committee needed to be careful about the message being sent. The wrong public policy in education could be detrimental to students. He expressed concern about cutting school days and the response of constituents. Mrs. Braunlin agreed with Mr. Manendo. She was concerned with the bill on first hearing due to problems in her district. She has received many calls indicating a higher comfort level in leaving Clark County with the flexibility they already have and not giving too much freedom in changing hours and days. Mrs. Segerblom indicated her dislike for double sessions. She indicated if it was not necessary to pass the bill for Clark County to engage in year round school, she was amenable to the motion of indefinitely postpone. Mr. Bennett concurred with Mrs. Segerblom and Mr. Williams. He discussed statewide tests showing less than one-tenth of one percentile difference in the scores between year round and nine month schools. Allowing maximum flexibility with citizen and school board approval gives sufficient safeguards against abuse. He suggested amending S.B. 87 to remove Lines 10 and 11. Chairman Williams reiterated his previous point. In passing S.B. 87, districts would not be allowed to change days. They still have to apply to school boards. He reminded the committee of the antiquated legislative schedule despite rapid state growth. He preferred to be able to tell his constituents the option of flexibility was there in order to avoid double sessions if they become warranted in districts. He preferred to have the option in place now so districts would not have to wait until the next legislative session to implement necessary changes due to growing populations. Chairman Harrington stated the passage of the bill would offer school districts tremendous flexibility including allowing rural counties to go to a four day school week and Clark County to go to a proposed 144 day school year. Clark County will implement year round school in the 1995-1996 school year. Mr. Batten reminded the committee the proposed changes would have to go before school boards which would have to deal with local citizen concerns. He supported the viewpoints of Mr. Williams and Mr. Bennett. Mr. Williams reminded the committee districts will have to apply to the local school boards for permission to alter schedules. The school boards will either give permission or not. Mrs. de Braga stated she felt two issues were involved. The original proposal was from White Pine County School District for the purpose of achieving a four day week with the fifth day available for traveling to sports activities. She stated she could support the bill to deal with the problems of Clark County, but not for the sports activity angle. Mrs. Segerblom stated she did not see any four day provision in the bill. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON S.B. 87 WITH MRS. BRAUNLIN, MRS. DE BRAGA, MR. MANENDO, MS. STROTH, AND CHAIRMAN HARRINGTON VOTING YES TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE. MR. BATTEN, MR. BENNETT, MRS. CHOWNING, MR. NEIGHBORS, MRS. SEGERBLOM, MS. TRIPPLE AND CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS VOTED NO TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE. THE MOTION FAILED. ******* CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 87 DELETING "OR TO PROVIDE TIME TO ALLOW PUPILS TO ENGAGE IN EXTRACURRICULAR OR SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITIES". ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Etchemendy stated the concern of his group were the words added on Line 10 follow the words "alternative scheduling". The desired deletion was "or to provide time to allow pupils to engage in extracurricular or supplemental activities". He felt this language was not conducive to the purposes of the bill. Mr. Williams informed the committee when the bill passed out of the Senate the language in question was not in the bill. Chairman Harrington reported the language was added by the Senate in a work session. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION WITH MR. BATTEN, MR. BENNETT, MRS. CHOWNING, MR. NEIGHBORS, MRS. SEGERBLOM, MS. TRIPPLE, AND CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS VOTING YES. MRS. BRAUNLIN, MRS. DE BRAGA, MR. MANENDO, MS. STROTH, AND CHAIRMAN HARRINGTON VOTED NO. THE MOTION CARRIED. A bill draft request was presented to the committee for committee introduction. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-652 - Revises provisions governing hiring, directing, assigning and transferring of unlicensed employees of school districts. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRO- DUCTION OF B.D.R. 34-652. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE B.D.R. WITH ASSEMBLY- MEN BRAUNLIN, CHOWNING, DE BRAGA, MANENDO, NEIGHBORS, SEGERBLOM, STROTH, TRIPLE, HARRINGTON AND WILLIAMS VOTING YES. ASSEMBLYMEN BATTEN AND BENNETT VOTED NO. THE MOTION FOR INTRODUCTION CARRIED. Chairman Williams asked the committee to consider Assembly Bill 283. ASSEMBLY BILL 283 - Requires school districts to submit annual report to superintendent of public instruction concerning recruitment of new teachers. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 283. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bennett asked about proposed amendments and triggers discussed in previous testimony and hearing. Mr. Williams stated he did not remember any proposed amendments or triggers. Mr. Manendo stated the committee discussed documents which would be made available to the public. Chairman Harrington recalled discussion on cost and time involved in preparing another report for the districts. Information received from Clark County School District indicated it would cost $5,000 per year to prepare the report. Ms. Tripple reminded the committee they were told most of the information was already being collected. Mr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Nevada State Department of Education, stated figures are collected annually from districts on new teachers, and teachers by ethnic background. Mr. Williams stated it was understood information was collected on the numbers. No information is available on recruiting plans. The bill requires the development of a plan to insure Nevada has the best teachers. Ms. Stroth recalled the personnel staff of school districts is responsible to their own district and board regarding recruiting. The money used for recruiting is provided by the district except in the case of one state funded program which is now defunct. Ms. Stroth stated she did not see any reason for personnel of school district to be reporting to the state board when the funding comes from the districts. District representatives testified an organized recruiting plan does not always exist due to the recruiting days held at colleges and other factors. She stated she would not be supporting the bill. Mr. Bennett stated similar information was obtained in affirmative action and EEOC reports, which also contain goals. He had previously suggested setting a trigger. If a district was within eighty-five percent of your goal, the report would not be required. He indicated he would not support the bill. Mr. Williams reminded the committee the intent of the bill was to report on the recruitment of new teachers. He explained this means all new teachers. Lines 12, 13 and 14 deal with minority teachers. He felt the discussion had been twisted to the EEOC, affirmative action and recruitment of minority teachers. Mr. Williams explained a plan developed to get good teachers regardless of ethnic background, will bring the best teachers to Nevada. He stressed the need for recruitment plans, regardless of changing dates and situations. The idea is to insure Nevada is competitive in a very competitive situation and to maximize the efforts to do so. Mr. Williams discussed the fiscal note. Ms. Stroth stated her opposition to the bill did not involve minority recruitment. She felt the bill was an unfunded mandate on districts. THE MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business, 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 April 17, 1995 Page