MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session May 8, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Monday, May 8, 1995, Chairman Wendell P. Williams 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 GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Mr. John C. Carpenter, Assembly District 33 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mary Peterson, Nevada State Department of Education Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards Sherry Loncar, Nevada Parent Teacher's Association Harold Ridgeway, Elko County School District Dan Leck, Carson City School Board The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 494. ASSEMBLY BILL 494 - Revises provisions governing maximum allowable pupil- teacher ratio in kindergarten through grade 6. Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Assembly District 33, testified as prime sponsor of A.B. 494. He stated he felt class size reduction is too expensive and is not doing the job it should for the amount of money being spent. Mr. Carpenter stated A.B. 494 should be amended to consider the first and second grades and to not include other grades in class size reduction. He felt class size reduction in Kindergarten could already be attained depending on the needs of the pupils. This philosophy should be carried into first and second grades, according to Mr. Carpenter. The Governor's proposal is unrealistic because of the number of classrooms required to accomplish it. Mr. Carpenter stated he had spoken with many teachers who feel a ratio of 22-24:1 is optimum. This is the reason Mr. Carpenter chose 22 as the optimum class size. Expressing the feeling that we are "putting all our eggs in one basket", Mr. Carpenter reminded the committee of the origins of class size reduction. By putting so much money into class size reduction, it is not available for other programs. Mr. Carpenter also discussed night school, summer school and vocational education. In the implementation of A.B. 494, teacher layoffs would occur, possibly as many as 600. This number could be less due to attrition. At the end of this fiscal year $155,000,000 will have been spent on class size reduction. Carrying it into the third grade would add $112,000,000. Mr. Carpenter wondered if we were getting the appropriate benefit from spending that much money. He referred to class size reduction as a "good feel" program. Implementation of A.B. 494 would mean a savings of seventy-five classrooms. Savings the first year would be $26.9 million, the second year $28.6 million, with a total of approximately $54,000,000 over the biennium. Assemblyman Manendo stated the bill mandated class size reduction in grades 5 and 6 to 26:1, which is a reduction in many areas. Alternatively, it sounds as if the proposal is being made to "save a dollar". Mr. Manendo wondered if the sacrifice of the dollars was appropriate at the expense of the lowered class sizes in grades one and two. He wondered about the effectiveness of increasing class size in the lower grades and decreasing class size in the upper elementary grades. Mr. Carpenter said he felt it was unrealistic to do what the original bill called for unless there is a willingness to spend money for additional classrooms. He felt having grades one and two at sixteen to one was a good idea. However, when grades three through six have 28 to 30 students, the number in the classroom is too high. Mr. Carpenter suggested finding a balance for all students with the money available and the classrooms available. Mr. Carpenter discussed the concept of team teaching and how many teachers feel it does not work. It may be beneficial for teachers but not for the students. He stated he felt the ratio as it stands is too low in the event of an economic downturn. Assemblyman Segerblom agreed with Mr. Carpenter on the issue of team teaching. She felt the goal should still be a 16:1 ratio to encourage and enable students in learning to read. Mrs. Segerblom reminded the committee bond money is required to build classrooms and was not available through A.B. 494. She stated, if possible, reduction should take place through grade 12. Mr. Carpenter agreed. Unless the state is willing to put money into classrooms, the optimum goal will not be accomplished. Currently, districts are required to provide the classrooms. Chairman Harrington stated he liked the bill. Agreeing with Mrs. Segerblom about class size, he stated the teachers are mostly dealing with discipline. They are forced by sheer numbers to teach to the group and cannot go after students with problems. He suggested keeping the 26:1 ratio in, despite the expense. Dr. Harrington expressed the opinion the state is not getting the "bang for the buck" with the current class size reduction plan. He declared there is nothing more important than education that the state spends money on. Mr. Carpenter agreed. He felt the situation needed to be rethought and said perhaps the state needs to provide money for classrooms. If a survey was taken of teachers, Mr. Carpenter suggested most would prefer a 22:1 ratio as opposed to a 30:2 or 32:2 ratio. Unfortunately the resources to do this do not exist. Assemblyman Tripple agreed class size was important. She wondered if all eggs were being put into one basket by assuming all problems would be solved by having a "magical" ratio. Equal concern should be given to money being available to purchase good teaching/learning materials, support staff, and technology. She suggested including language stating a percentage of money would be spent on materials, and a percentage on teacher salaries. She felt the problem was being oversimplified. Mr. Carpenter agreed many felt class size reduction would be the "savior" of education and it has not been. Education is multi-faceted and there are many needs and areas to fund. He felt the balance had been lost. Assemblyman Bennett, referring to Page 1, Lines 7, 8 and 9, asked what the current ratios are. Mr. Carpenter stated a twenty-two minimum and twenty-four maximum in third grade would cost about $6,000,000 this year and $7,000,000 next year. In grade four, it might cost a half million dollars each year. To make headway, class size reduction needs to be carried forward into the upper grades. Mr. Manendo noted how uncontrollable classrooms are with 30 or 35 students. He expressed fear to raise the ratios in the early grades because it aids in discipline as well as in other areas. He commended Mr. Carpenter for the idea of class size reduction in upper grades. Mr. Carpenter suggested piloting the idea of classroom ratios in a few schools. The progress of these schools could be compared to other schools that are not on the program. He encouraged being realistic in class size reduction due to the reluctance of voters to pass bond issues. Mr. Manendo asked if Mr. Carpenter would consider leaving Kindergarten, first and second grades as they are, leave third grade pending, and institute the reductions suggested in A.B. 494 for fourth, fifth and sixth grades as a friendly amendment. Mr. Carpenter stated he felt in order for savings to be accomplished some compromise would have to be made at the Kindergarten, first and second grade levels. Chairman Williams reminded the committee the bill was concurrently referred to Ways and Means and the money issues would be debated in that committee. The Education Committee's job was to set policy. Mr. Dan Leck, Board Member, Carson City School District, testified in favor of A.B. 494. He stated he was in favor of the concept of some of the classrooms being reduced in size. Many debates have been held as to the effectiveness of class size reduction in first and second grades. The primary study referred to how class size reduction occurred in Tennessee. Mr. Leck described the study and how he had contacted the authors. He stated he found, after discussions with the authors of the Tennessee study, how Nevada is lacking is some aspects. Class size reduction by hiring more teachers is only one of three aspects in education of children. The other is professional development of the teachers. When class size reduction was approved it was not anticipated that the majority of the classrooms would not be sixteen to one, but 30 or 32 to two. The professionals in Tennessee stated there has been no documentation showing any increased effectiveness at 30-32:2 ratio comparable to a 16:1 ratio. Mr. Leck noted in the appropriations for class size reductions no appropriation was made for teacher professional development on an annual basis. Also, no funding was set aside for the State Department of Education to monitor the effectiveness of class size reduction but also to determine how effective each school is. Mr. Leck discussed the Carson City School Districts' accountability reports on the CTBS exams have declined since the beginning of class size reduction. Mr. Leck conducted research on this issue and discovered comparison between districts is unfair. While districts use the same tests, no consideration is given to transient rates and which students are tested. In short, no test continuity statewide exists. Some districts test one hundred percent of their students and other districts test only a percentage of students. By picking which students are tested, an increase in test scores can be made. Mr. Leck stated he would like to have suggested ratios in every classroom. The reality is it will not happen due to facility problems. Bonds are not passed due to increased conservatism. He felt increased ratios may be acceptable to voters. Mr. Leck discussed priority schools which have been established in Texas. These schools have lower socio-economic students and have lower classroom ratios. Test scores have been shown to increase. In areas of higher socio-economic families, the classroom ratios are higher with the test scores still being acceptable. He encouraged a similar policy of flexibility for Nevada instead of mandating a specific classroom size. He reiterated the need for professional development in education. Mr. Leck described how the Carson City School Board recently voted on third grade class size reduction. They voted that the state fund third grade class size reduction but provide the caveat that school boards could use the money for other purposes if they could demonstrate a more effective use in the classroom than the third grade class size reduction. He encouraged the committee to let school boards, elected by their communities, decide the educational continuity for their students. Constraints placed on school boards make it very difficult for them to govern toward the needs of schools. Ms. Sherry Loncar, President, Nevada State Parent Teacher's Association (PTA), testified in opposition to A.B. 494. Ms. Loncar distributed the Nevada PTA resolution regarding class size reduction (Exhibit C). One of the concerns of Nevada PTA is Nevada has been ranked among the last of all states in educational quality indices by the United States Education secretary and ranked last in per pupil expenditures. She noted class size reduction is a step in the right direction and explained it would be a great injustice to the children of Nevada to reduce class size reduction. She reminded the committee the PTA's resolutions were written by Nevada parents and has been a foremost concern for two Legislative sessions. Ms. Loncar explained parents feel class size reduction is working and would like for it to be extended to third grade. Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, spoke against A.B. 494. She stated Nevada has been dealing with the impact of growth and the passage of class size reduction assisted in the overcrowded conditions in first and second grade classrooms statewide. She reminded the committee the debate in 1989 was not if class size reduction would be established, it was what ratio would be implemented. In research presented to the Legislature, it was confirmed the lower the ratio, the higher the levels of student achievement. The greatest gains were to be made in classes of under twenty to one. Ms. Cahill provided the research for the committee, the Meta-Analysis of Research on the Relationship of Class-size and Achievement by Gene V. Glass and Mary Lee Smith (Exhibit D). She explained it was the compilation of the results of over sixty different studies in class size reduction. In the analysis it was concluded class size and achievement are related and the major benefits from reduced class size are attained as size is reduced below twenty pupils. This is why the legislation passed in 1989 created a ratio of fifteen to one in grades one through three and at-risk Kindergartens. The feeling was if money was going to be invested in the program, the greatest return should be received for the investment. Another major report, the Tennessee Star Report (Exhibit E), concludes "Does reduced class size (1:15) make a difference? You bet! Especially in early primary grades and for potentially "at-risk" pupils. Reduced class sizes help students make greater gains both statistically and educationally. Research deals with studies done in almost laboratory conditions. Nevada is frustrated by test scores which are inconclusive or information not as clear cut as the results of studies done under controlled conditions. Ms. Loncar declared Nevada has not paid for a proper study. However, NSEA has no reason to believe the results would be any less conclusive than in every major study done to date. To fall back to the ratios proposed in A.B. 494 would be a disastrous departure from the commitment made in 1989. Ms. Cahill stated in first and second grades only thirty to forty percent of the classrooms are team taught. Most are taught by one teacher and sixteen students. Professional development is a concern. In 1989 the first appropriation was for teacher development but, due to team teaching situations, concentration has been on teaching teachers to team teach. Regarding teacher's aides, Ms. Cahill referred the committee to Page 16 of the Tennessee Star Report (Exhibit E), "Do teacher aides make a difference? Not enough to talk about...". Ms. Cahill stated NSEA and Partner's for a Strong Start encouraged the committee to vote no on A.B. 494. Mr. Bennett, referring to (Exhibit D), asked about the 15:1 ratio for at-risk kindergarten. He wanted to know why the state mandated 16:1 when the META study recommends 15:1 for at risk students. Ms. Cahill explained the Tennessee Star study (Exhibit E) stated the greatest gain was achieved by an average of 15:1. The greatest achievement was seen at this point as opposed to even a slightly larger class. The greatest gains were seen in those students considered to be at risk. Chairman Harrington discussed the science of the META analysis (Exhibit D) and the Tennessee Star Study. He noted the Tennessee Star Study had not been duplicated elsewhere. Usually decisions are not based on only one study. In comparing students in Nevada with students elsewhere, Dr. Harrington noted a larger number of children from dysfunctional homes and more transiency would be found in Nevada than elsewhere. He also noted none of the studies dealt with two teachers and more students as opposed to one teacher with less students. Ms. Cahill stated classrooms involving a teacher's aide was a very different dynamic than two fully licensed professionals working with the students. She agreed there had not been a major study on team teaching situations. Reports from teachers indicates that with either situation, the time is available to spend individually with students. She added it may be possible Nevada may have a larger number of students from dysfunctional families. This is even more reason why class size reduction is needed. Dr. Harrington expressed concerns regarding the placement of two teachers in a classroom and their ability to get along on a continued basis. Ms. Cahill stated the reason for the frustration with the numbers from test scores is increased by the transiency rate. The same groups of students who enter a classroom at the beginning of a school year is not the same group tested at the end of the year. This is also skewed by growth. Assemblyman Chowning stated all Nevada students deserve the best, lower class size, which enables them to receive more individual attention and a chance to flourish. She pointed out the state is never willing to put money toward Nevada's children, yet education has been proven over and over again to be preventive. No one says anything about putting the money in prisons. She felt the money should be in education instead. She asked if class size reduction could have been fully implemented in 1989, where would the state be today and where would class size reduction be. Ms. Cahill was unsure of the actual ratios, but agreed the ratios would have been much lower. Mrs. Segerblom stated she felt there could not be a better goal than to have a small class. Ms. Cahill also distributed a handout entitled "What Research Says About:" (Exhibit F) for the committee's consideration. Ms. Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Nevada State Department of Education, testified in opposition to A.B. 494 from prepared remarks (Exhibit G). She discussed reading and math scores of Nevada students who have attended classes of reduced size in the second grade. She also discussed space availability and stated class size reduction as originally approved by the 1989 Legislature is the number one priority of the State Board of Education. Ms. Peterson described the adoption of class size reduction in 1989 as sound public policy. She stated the current ratios are: Kindergarten: 23.5:1, Grades 1 and 2: 15.9:1, Grade 3: 26:1 and Grades 4 to 6: +26:1. Ms. Peterson, referring to dropouts, asserted intervention needed to occur not only at the high school level but prevention needed to occur at lower levels. She referred to class size reduction as a "flagship effort" in prevention strategies, giving young students the best possible start they can get. In a survey conducted by the State Board of Education, results showed the overwhelming majority of teachers supported class size reductions. They favor self contained settings but support class size reduction whether it is in team settings or self contained settings. She reiterated the importance of professional development for teachers. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, spoke in opposition to A.B. 494. He stated the position of his association was in support of class size reduction with two conditions. The conditions are as follows: (1) class size reduction be fully funded, which it is not currently and (2) at whatever level it is funded, the number go into the law so the public knows exactly what is being funded. Referring to the testimony of Mr. Leck, Mr. Etchemendy stated there are two or three other school districts in the state which have a similar or reasonably similar stance. He also agreed with the testimony of Ms. Peterson regarding the issue of a 22:1 ratio. This does not lend itself to a team teaching situation at all because it is not feasible to have 44 students in a classroom due to space, noise and other considerations. He recommended finding out the real needs and numbers in each district. Mr. Etchemendy noted the effective date of A.B. 494 is July 1, 1995. If the bill is enacted this date would not work due to the planning involved in a change of this magnitude. Employee contracts, rezoning and other issues would have to be considered. Assemblyman Neighbors asked if the current class sizes were in the law. Ms. Peterson replied it was not currently in law other than what is in class size reduction. Grades 4, 5 and 6 are not in law. Mr. Neighbors asked Mr. Etchemendy if the class size reduction applied to areas of rapid growth. Mr. Etchemendy replied Mr. Neighbors was correct. Many districts have to bring in modular classrooms to provide the classroom space. A variance provision exists in the law. To obtain a variance realistic efforts must be made to provide the facilities needed. Mr. Etchemendy discussed how bonds for permanent classroom space pass easier in some localities than in others. Chairman Harrington asked how much lead time would be needed to implement a program such as the one contained in A.B. 494. Mr. Etchemendy stated he would have to consult with district superintendents as to what a realistic time was. In his mind, it would have to be a year beyond wherever the effective date is set due especially to employee contracts. Chairman Harrington stated there is no limit to how large a classroom can be currently in law, other than in grades one and two. He asked Ms. Peterson if she would like to see a limit of some sort on other grades. Ms. Peterson stated she hesitated to respond to the question without discussing it with the state Board of Education. She thought whatever was put into place would have to have some fiscal analysis. Ms. Peterson stated she thought the state Board of Education would prefer to use the mechanisms currently in place to establish class sizes. Mr. Harold Ridgeway, Deputy Superintendent, Elko County School District, stated he was not testifying in favor or against A.B. 494. The Elko County School Board has not made a decision on the bill. A number of questions exist which need to be answered regarding the Elko County School District before a position can be taken. The numbers generated on classrooms from a state level often deal with a total district, that is, a total number of first graders or a total number of second graders. Elko County School District is scattered over 17,000 square miles and busing problems are involved. The number of needed classrooms must be determined and the district is in the process of doing so. Concerns also involve the number of teachers required if the bill goes into effect. Mr. Ridgeway agreed with Mr. Etchemendy's concerns regarding the effective date of the bill. He encouraged the committee to move the effective date to July 1, 1996, if the bill should move forward. The hearing was closed on A.B. 494. A bill draft request from Assemblyman Joan Lambert was brought before the committee for committee introduction. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-1085 - Requires certain educational personnel to complete program for detection and reporting of abuse or neglect of children as condition for issuance or renewal of license or endorsement. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 34-1085. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. Chairman Williams announced an amendment to Assembly Bill 368 had been agreed upon by the interested parties. ASSEMBLY BILL 368 - Revises provisions governing probationary period of administrators and teachers employed by county school districts. Currently A.B. 368 is on the Chief Clerk's desk awaiting Amendment 299. Another suggestion from NSEA regarding the amendment would be to bracket out Section 4, the beginning of the last sentence "if the Superintendent of schools or his designee execute such a waiver with regard to post probationary employee". NSEA felt the language should not be permissive in any way. Upon completion of three satisfactory evaluations the waiver for the second year must be executed for the post probationary employee and the rest of the sentence should read, "said employee is entitled to be a post probationary employee in the ensuing year of employment". Mr. Etchemendy stated his association agreed on the proposed amendments to A.B. 368. He asked the committee to process the bill in the proposed form. Chairman Williams stated if the amendment were processed, the prior action would have to be rescinded. Chairman Harrington stated he would prefer to see the most recent change in writing before voting on it. Chairman Williams stated he would authorize the amendment but would bring the final draft back to the committee for approval before it is adopted. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara Prudic, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, Chairman Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Assembly Committee on Education May 8, 1995 Page