MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session May 29, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Monday, May 29, 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 GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Mrs. Jan Evans, Assembly District 30 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: David L. Sanger, Nevada Division of Wildlife Douglas Byington, Nevada Association of School Administrators Mark Kimbrough, Nevada State Parks, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Pam Young, Advanced Technologies Academy Miriam Warren, Advanced Technologies Academy Eva Johnson, Advanced Technologies Academy Peggy John Betty Barker, Greater Nevada School Counselors Gary Waters, Member, Nevada State Board of Education Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association Janet Hay, Nevada Vocational Association Keith Rheault, Nevada State Department of Education The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 610. ASSEMBLY BILL 610 - Repeals certain provisions which require that instruction in certain subjects be provided in schools. Chairman Harrington explained A.B. 610. He referred to two documents distributed to the committee, Courses of Study Required by Statute-Nevada and Selected States (Exhibit C) and Reasons to Vote for A.B. 610 (Exhibit D). Dr. Harrington explained many were worried removing the technology portion of the bill would result in the discontinuance of technology courses. Noting the popularity of technological and vocational education courses, Dr. Harrington expressed the opinion the courses would probably not be discontinued. To allay the fears, however, he recommended amending the technology portion out of the bill. Dr. Harrington explained state mandates to local districts would be repealed as listed on Page 2 of the bill. It does not mean the courses would be eliminated, but the mandate would be removed and local districts and the State Department of Education would be free to require the courses if desired. Section 3, Page 1, indicates which courses are to be removed. The section involving technology, 389.170 will be amended out of the bill. The reasons for the bill include returning control of education to local school boards, to eliminate unfunded mandates, to eliminate unnecessary laws, to allow educators the freedom to keep and modify programs which are working well and to design programs for students with specific needs. Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), spoke in support of A.B. 610. She reminded the committee the discussion of mandates arose early in the session when A.B. 105 was discussed. A.B. 105 added another course to the list of those already mandated. Ms. Cahill explained NSEA is moving to take an official position, although no official action has been taken, to oppose additional mandates to the course of studies. Numerous additions have been made to the list over the past several legislative session. NSEA supports A.B. 610 because it would send a message expressing concern about the growing list of mandates. She qualified her testimony saying she had heard from others about various sections of the bill of the specific mandates to be removed. In concept, NSEA supports the bill and will be reluctant to support additions to the mandate list in the future. Assemblyman Chowning, referring to Page 2 of the bill, asked if the bill would repeal the mandate of patriotic exercises. Chairman Harrington replied it would. Mrs. Chowning noted she understood NSEA was in support of the concept but asked if NSEA was in support of not mandating patriotic exercises, technology, occupational guidance, environmental education and other items on the list. Ms. Cahill stated the only item causing specific concern for NSEA was the technology, which Chairman Harrington had agreed to amend out. NSEA believes if the mandate is removed on patriotic exercises it does not mean the pledge of allegiance will not be said daily. It takes away the mandate at the state level and leaves the decision to do so at the local school board level. Discussing mandates relating to environmental education, Ms. Cahill explained these types of courses have been incorporated into science classes and she did not feel the instruction was going to go away if the mandate was removed. Also she did not feel students would be harmed by having mandates removed at the state level if a local commitment to those items exists. Mrs. Chowning asked if NSEA was in agreement with having the mandate for occupational guidance and counseling removed. Ms. Cahill stated she did not believe there would be a problem with mandate removal. Assemblyman Segerblom asked how much time is spent on environmental subjects. Ms. Cahill stated environmental education is incorporated into the course of study at all levels. Many of the mandates have had to be accommodated by incorporation into existing classes. In some cases it is done unobtrusively and in other cases it has caused difficulties due to time constraints and the curriculum. Ms. Cahill stated she could not give Mrs. Segerblom an exact answer. Mrs. Segerblom expressed her support for teaching the students about the protection of the environment. Ms. Cahill agreed it was important. She stated she felt local school districts would continue the instruction if the mandates were removed. Mrs. Segerblom asked if there was any guarantee the instruction would continue. Ms. Cahill agreed there was no guarantee. Mrs. Chowning asked if NSEA was in favor of removing the mandate for instruction in physiology, hygiene and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). She reminded the committee their job was to set policy and mandates were set on certain topics because of their importance. Ms. Cahill agreed with Mrs. Chowning. She felt it was a question of whether the committee was comfortable setting policy for the state or leaving the decisions for local school boards to make. Ms. Cahill stated she felt school boards could decide on these issues legitimately. Assemblyman Bennett asked why the list of mandates to be deleted was so short. Chairman Harrington said he felt curriculum matters should be left up to the Department of Education and to local school districts. Adding one or more curriculum mandates per session is one of Dr. Harrington's intents. This is an attempt to allow the professional educators and local school boards to determine what is best for local needs. He hoped to eventually eliminate all curriculum mandates. Mr. Bennett informed the committee annual training was needed to maintain certification in CPR. Assemblyman Tripple said mandating often occurs because money is attached to the mandates. She felt if each mandate was examined historically, it would be found it was worth mandating each item to get the necessary money to begin the program. Assemblyman Manendo said he saw the need to "houseclean" some of the items. There is a movement between parents and educators to return to core basics. He counseled caution in considering mandate removal so students would not suffer. Assemblyman Jan Evans, Assembly District 30, requested the committee to carefully examine the issues regarding repealing the section on occupational guidance and counseling. It is felt this item is tied closely with technology. She reminded the committee A.B. 303 had been passed this morning regarding occupational education. Mrs. Evans hoped the outcome of A.B. 610 would not have an adverse effect on occupational education. Mr. David Sanger, Education Coordinator, Nevada Division of Wildlife, testified in opposition to A.B. 610. Mr. Sanger distributed "Color Nevada Wild" (Exhibit E) to the committee to aid in defining a program embraced by his agency. The program teaches environmental education emphasizing wildlife. Materials used in the program were discussed. The program, Project Wild, was discussed by Mr. Sanger. He noted environmental education is more than teaching about wildlife. It is about plants, animals, watersheds and many other aspects. Mr. Sanger discussed the resources used in the program as well as facilities such as the Oxbow Nature Study Area and aquatic education and noted Project Wild is taught nationwide. School programs, school visitations, teacher education, and nature interpretation were addressed. Mr. Sanger felt the elimination of N.R.S. 389.110, 389.120, 389.130 and 389.140, environmental education was wrong. He noted 3,221 teachers had been trained in the techniques of Project Wild. He discussed how environmental education reaches out to all students, especially high risk students and it is real learning about real life. Mr. Sanger stated environmental education is a basic subject which can be fit in with the core, basic curriculum as there is nothing more basic than the quality of air we breathe or water we drink. Mr. Sanger quoted from The Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold, "There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery and the other that heat comes from the furnace. To avoid the first danger one should plant a garden, preferably where there is no grocer to confuse the issue. To avoid the second he should lay a split of good oak on the andirons, preferably where there is no furnace, and let it warm his shins while a February blizzard tosses the trees outside." Many students are unaware of food and heat sources. Mr. Sanger reiterated his belief that environmental education is a basic subject. He stated removal of the mandate sends a message to students and citizens that environmental education is an "ice cream" subject, done to fill in time. Mr. Bennett asked if environmental education should be approached from the pure science aspect or the socioeconomic aspect. Mr. Sanger discussed how environmental education is far reaching. He discussed oil spills, water and air pollution. Mr. Sanger noted how Project Wild is interdisciplinary. It is not a specific science alone. Other programs, sponsored by the Western Region Environmental Education Council, are also available, Project Learning Tree and Project WET (Water Education for Teachers). Mrs. Segerblom inquired how many hours of environmental education are required. Mr. Sanger said no specific hour requirement was on the record. Teachers can earn one hour university or in-service credit by attending a sixteen hour Project Wild workshop. Chairman Williams agreed with Mr. Sanger's testimony. He discussed how the proponents of all subject areas involved could defend their case and the diversity of students and their interests. Nevada school curriculums are geared toward college bound students while only approximately twenty percent of those students are college bound. Mr. Williams indicated there should not be a debate on which items not to take out because there are many self serving interests. He discussed Nevada's Courses of Study (Exhibit C). He noted Nevada requires education in suicide prevention. The bill as a forerunner to this mandate was generated by an intern of Mrs. Chowning's in the 1993 session who lost three friends to teenage suicide. Mr. Williams encouraged letting the state superintendent do her job and help districts determine appropriate curriculum. He suggested building on mandated areas instead of handpicking items to be removed for personal preferences. Providing a variety of educational experiences is necessary to develop students as well rounded people. He recommended not teaching subjects as much as teaching children how to live, think, prosper and be self sufficient. Ms. Tripple asked Mr. Sanger if his department received funding from a certain source. Mr. Sanger stated seventy five percent of his position was paid with general fund money. Others employed in the program, the Oxbow interpreter, the aquatic education coordinator, twenty five percent of Mr. Sanger's time and two seasonal fishing instructors are funded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service federal money, matched by volunteer time. Ms. Tripple asked if the funds would be received if the course were not mandated. Mr. Sanger said he thought so if the volunteer force was maintained teaching fishing clinics, workshops and other programs. His concern is the message sent to teachers and constituents is that environmental education is no longer important. Mrs. Chowning was heartened suicide prevention was not removed from A.B. 610. The reason it was mandated is because kids are killing themselves with Nevada ranking number one in the nation in teen suicide. She noted permissive language was placed for school district implementation of the program. Upon examination of the statute regarding environmental education, the language is also permissive. She asked if teachers or districts had complained about too much time being taken up and if the mandate was removed, environmental issues would be addressed. Mr. Sanger said he did fear environmental issues would not be addressed if the mandate is removed. Regarding time issues, Mr. Sanger emphasized how interdisciplinary skills are encouraged in workshop programs to blend environmental education with traditional objectives and curriculum. Mr. Bennett asked how much of Mr. Sanger's time was spent in Clark County. Mr. Sanger stated a full time environmental education coordinator had been hired for Clark and Nye Counties. Mr. Bennett asked roughly what percent of Project Wild was spent in Clark County. Mr. Sanger stated he is a full time environmental education coordinator in Region 1 and Suzanne Sturtevent holds the same position in Region 3. Of the two full time employees, both parties spend 100% of their time in their respective regions. Mr. Sanger noted he works with Ms. Sturtevent in training facilitators and volunteers. Mr. Bennett asked what percent of students in Clark County have been able to take advantage of the Oxbow Park. Mr. Sanger stated none had due to distance. Chairman Harrington said he felt basic subjects do not need to be mandated. He agreed environmental science education was needed by all students. Every field of study is valuable and arguments could be made how none should be neglected. The question is who makes the decision of timing and quantity. Should the legislature do so based on the politics of the time or should it be left to local school boards and the Department of Education. He reminded the committee A.B. 610 does not eliminate any courses. Mr. Sanger said the interrelatedness of resources in environmental education in a general perspective is not a common subject in schools. His goal is to motivate teachers to incorporate environmental education in their curriculums. Chairman Williams noted each area in the state has educational opportunities for students living there. He maintained the argument for A.B. 610 is contradictory to what has been heard in the committee during the session. Comparisons to students and curriculums in other countries and recommendations for increased number of classes and school hours have been heard. Mr. Williams discussed how curriculum matters require much discussion between school boards, administrators, teachers, students and state educational personnel. He suggested investigating mandated subjects to see if there are some less productive than others. Mr. Sanger reiterated his belief in interdisciplinary instruction. Mr. Doug Byington, Nevada Association of School Administrators, explained those he represents have historically been in favor of not adding to educational mandates. A.B. 610 offers to eliminate mandates. Mr. Byington discussed the striking of patriotic observances. He noted how inappropriate it seemed to be discussing the issue on Memorial Day. If the American people were surveyed, Mr. Byington projected it would be found that a belief in America, its ideals and principles would be encouraged. Discussing Project Wild, he remarked the course is one of the most popular in service classes offered in Washoe County. Dr. Harrington announced a group from Las Vegas was in the audience for a presentation. Due to their scheduled departure time, the presentation was brought before the committee at this time. Ms. Miriam Warren and Ms. Eva Johnson, freshmen, Advanced Technologies Academy, Las Vegas, Nevada, presented a program for the committee's consideration. The program is a peer mentor ship program in which older kids help younger kids to curb the problems of gang membership and teen suicide. The goal is to pair younger, at risk students, with older students who have encountered and overcome the same obstacles. Copies of programs similar to the ones proposed were distributed to the committee (Exhibit F) and (Exhibit G). A rough outline of the proposed program was distributed (Exhibit H) and discussed. Mr. Bennett asked if it was the role of the educators, administrators, and state superintendent to monitor industry and the community to see in what fields future jobs are, and adjust curriculums and classes accordingly. He discussed the areas of environmental education and technology. Mr. Byington said school districts have an ominous challenge to attempt to predict the future and prepare students for it. He felt the primary purpose of schools was to provide the soundest education possible for students so as they move through the working world they can retrain themselves with the assistance of their employers. He agreed the educational system needed to be attuned to the needs of industry and business to aid in preparation of future workers. Chairman Harrington noted Mr. Byington had stated in earlier testimony opposition to the mandates when originally introduced. Now, when the mandates are entrenched, they are difficult to remove. He asked if future mandates will be opposed. Mr. Byington agreed. The reason the mandates were opposed previously is because room had to be found in the curriculum for them. The use of interdisciplinary methods has aided this process. He believed the courses in question would continue even if the mandate is removed. Mr. Mark Kimbrough, District Ranger, Nevada State Parks and representing the Nevada State Department of Natural Resources, testified in opposition to A.B. 610. He distributed a packet to committee members containing the following documents: The State of Environmental Education in Nevada 1993-94 (Exhibit I), Environmental Education Symposium (Exhibit J), Nevada Natural Resources Education Council (Exhibit K), and Environmental Education, A Resource Directory for Nevada (Exhibit L). The Nevada Resources Education Council is the only statewide environmental education organization statewide, and has a northern and southern chapter. He noted Nevada was one of the first states in the nation to pass an environmental education act in 1971. The law offered a foundation for state agencies to pool their resources with educators for environmental education. Grants are received for funding and having the law in place aids in receiving grants. Mr. Kimbrough discussed the importance of raising and educating a new generation of proper stewards for the planet. Working through the state education department offers state environmental departments the opportunity to reach all school districts, rural and urban. A goal of Nevada State Parks has been to get an environmental education coordinator in the state Education Department. It has been an uphill, nearly impossible task due to the fact there is no state science coordinator. Hopefully, a state science coordinator will be added with budgetary approval this legislative session. A nationwide movement is afoot to encourage states to mandate environmental education. He reiterated how the law mandating environmental education is the foundation for all these ideas and programs although no funding has ever been provided for it. A huge volunteer force exists statewide on environmental education. Chairman Williams asked if the foundation Mr. Kimbrough was referring to was the Nevada Natural Resource Education Council. Mr. Kimbrough explained the foundation he was referring to is the environmental education law. Chairman Williams asked about a nonprofit commission formed in 1986. When formed to develop and promote natural resource education in Nevada, Mr. Williams asked if it was the catalyst for developing and pursuing the state law. Mr. Kimbrough stated the law was written in 1971. Mr. Williams asked if members of the Nevada Natural Resources Education Council were paid. Mr. Kimbrough replied they were not. Mr. Williams asked if their work provided a benefit for young people. Mr. Kimbrough stated some of those participating were paid, like teachers and resource people. They meet privately and a definite benefit to the children exists. Mr. Williams noted how much discussion is held about being educated for jobs. The system has gotten away from teaching kids how to make a life with the whole focus on making a living. How to contribute to society, community and the world around us because we care and not because we get paid is not taught. He reiterated the importance of developing the whole child. He agreed with leaving the mandate to offer wider educational opportunities for children. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, spoke in support of A.B. 610. She spoke in support of the hearing process in the legislative committees as well as at local school boards and other elected bodies. Most mandates were originally the idea of one person. They were discussed thoroughly and considered by the bodies involved and became the product of a representative government. She reminded the committee how important the input process is and how it needs to be respected. Regarding A.B. 610, Ms. Lusk stated the issue is not what will be taught but who will decide what will be taught. She felt local school boards are closer to the parents, teachers and students and more able to adequately and correctly determine the priorities local school districts should address. Nevada Concerned Citizens feel the state should have a limited role in education consistent with the appropriate purpose of that level of government. Establishment of the minimum core of academics required statewide should be the mandate. A proper role of government is the protection of the legitimate rights and privacy of students and families. Mandates from too high a level of government are often opposed even when a particular curriculum is supported by a local school board. She reminded the committee state mandates are no different than federal mandates and discussed the varied needs on state and local levels. Freedom for local decisions and guaranteed conformity cannot coexist. A.B. 610 is seen as an effort to increase the freedom for local decision making and decrease guaranteed mandated conformity. Nevada Concerned Citizens would support including other items in A.B. 610. Assemblyman de Braga asked how a mandate from a local school board would be dealt with if the control were placed at a local level. Ms. Lusk said the local school district is where it happens so it is not a mandate "from above". Local school boards are the policy making bodies for their areas. Mrs. de Braga said it is not so much who is making the decision, or where it is made but what it is. Even on a local level if a decision was made regarding mandatory curriculum, the same problem exists. Mandates will ultimately be handed down. Ms. Lusk replied she believed the government closest to the people to be the best. At that level there is more interaction between the people and government. The government closest to the people does not always make the best decision, however. It is the most responsive to the parents, teachers and taxpayers because it hears from them on a regular basis. Referring to an earlier question in testimony regarding whether teachers have complained about mandates, Ms. Lusk said it has been her experience as a school board member hearing teachers voice displeasure with the mandates. They feel they have no recourse because the mandate occurs at state level. Ms. Betty Barker, Program Coordinator in Counseling, Washoe County School District, representing the Board of the Greater Nevada School Counseling Association, testified in opposition to A.B. 610. She thanked the committee for keeping the mandate on technology. A recommendation was made to eliminate N.R.S. 391.280, the course of study for occupational guidance and counseling, from the bill. Technology and career guidance work together to help students plan their future. This course of study has provided a strong framework for all of Nevada. It has been the impetus to articulate district counseling programs for large and small districts. National recognition has been received by the Douglas County School District's career guidance and counseling program as a result of the mandate. The current mandate has focused all the programs on the student's needs. The counseling and career guidance course of study is the foundation for the recently adopted Washoe County School District Occupational master plan. Extensive career guidance and exploration for all students sets the tone for the program. The district plan articulates with the Northern Nevada School to Work initiatives which support strong career awareness and exploration. The counseling and guidance course of study is the state mandate which gives a strong framework to articulate these programs at the local, state and national level. To eliminate the course of study now would undermine the strong foundation built to help Nevada students plan their futures. Mr. Gary Waters, member, Nevada State Board of Education, stated the board had not taken a position on the issues in A.B. 610 but could and may do so in the future. He spoke in opposition to A.B. 610, from prepared remarks (Exhibit M). Chairman Harrington asked if the state board in cooperation with the state superintendent of schools could set curricula for school districts. Mr. Waters stated it could be set in policy. Chairman Harrington asked if the mandate were removed, courses could be continued on as a requirement for local school districts. Mr. Waters said the problem is the state board does not set curriculum or program standards. They set generalized framework. Individual districts write their own curriculums. The course of study provides a centralized framework off which curriculum can be built. The state board does not write or mandate curriculum. Chairman Harrington said the board could do so if they desired. Core subject curriculums are mandated. Mr. Waters reminded the committee the program for occupational guidance and counseling had been there for some time. He expressed doubts about how it is enforced statewide and informed the committee the state superintendent had agreed to investigate how well it is enforced. Chairman Harrington held when mandates are made the state Board of Education enforces them. It also has the authority to make mandates without direction from the legislature. Mr. Waters said it is difficult for the state Board of Education to enforce a mandate with no legislative authority. Ms. Janet Hay, Public Policy Chairman for the Nevada Vocational Association, and Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Nevada State Department of Education, testified in opposition to A.B. 610. Ms. Hay thanked the committee for the amendment retaining the technology programs. She asked for the same consideration for occupational guidance and counseling. Dr. Rheault said the Department of Education's main concern with the bill is it appears subject areas were selectively chosen under the guise of mandate reform with little or no reasoning as to which were selected. If the intent were truly mandated curriculum reform, Dr. Rheault wondered why all programs were not included. He asked why the ones chosen had no input from those involved in the programs. Dr. Rheault explained the career and occupational guidance curriculum was approved in 1991 with strong support from business, industry, parents, and teachers. It became effective in September, 1992. He questioned the need to drop the mandate at the legislative level only to have the state Board of Education reinstate it when schools are already moving forward with the program. Dr. Rheault explained the course of study of career and guidance legitimizes the career guidance counselors within the state and sets uniform objectives for the program. Prior to 1992 these did not exist. It was agreed that most speakers were against mandates. He noted if mandates were not used, nothing would ever change in the state. It is the job of the Education Committee to use leadership in the direction of education statewide. At certain times leadership must emerge. Ms. Hay noted occupational teachers and counselors have worked hard to implement the program in school districts. Before implementation of the committee only college bound students got career education. Now all students are being reached. Without the mandate each district will be different and statewide quality will suffer. Within districts some schools may retain the program and some may not. Mr. Bennett suggested an interim study to see what could be cut. Dr. Rheault stated it would provide proper time to take a close look at mandated courses and return to the next legislative session with recommendations. He agreed some of the courses were unfunded mandates. The state provides guaranteed student funding and if courses are considered important they are being paid for through student funding. Mrs. Chowning noted how in other states curriculum changes and programs did not happen unless mandates required them. She said she saw A.B. 610 as a giant step backwards. If eliminated, the message is sent that policy makers do not feel it is important any longer. She asked if the guidance counseling would occur if not mandated. Ms. Hay said she did not think every district would do it at the same quality level as is being done presently. Mr. Eric Cooper, representing the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, noted the Chamber did not have a position on the bill. They have a strong interest in A.B. 303 and Mr. Cooper echoed Assemblywoman Evans' statement concerning the elimination of N.R.S. 398.180 having an effect on A.B. 303. The program in A.B. 303 was a major push of the Las Vegas and Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce. This will prepare the seventy percent of state students who do not go on to college for transition to the workplace. It is felt the program will be very successful. Chairman Williams wished to go on record recommending a review of existing mandates. He stated many things would not be taught in schools if they were not mandated. Mr. Williams submitted a letter for the record from Mr. Jerry Morlan regarding his opposition to repealing the mandate for technology and occupational career guidance and counseling (Exhibit N). Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, spoke on an amendment he proposed. On page 1, Line 20 of A.B. 610 a reference is made to N.R.S. 389.040 which provides for patriotic exercises. Mr. Etchemendy explained he had read in the newspaper that the language regarding patriotic exercises has been in statute since the early 1920's. He stated he had not researched the claim but knew the language had been in the current law since 1956 when the Peabody Plan was incorporated into the law. Mr. Etchemendy suggested amending the language in the bill regarding patriotic exercises. He submitted his suggestions to the record (Exhibit O). He noted the current text of the law requires at least one hour per week for patriotic exercises, and recommended the deletion of the text with his proposed language added. School districts do not currently allow an hour per week for patriotic exercises and this would bring the law and what is really happening into conformity. Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayer's Association, spoke in support of A.B. 610. The Nevada Taxpayer's Association supports the idea of attempting to get the curriculum back to basics and allowing local school boards to make decisions regarding what is needed in their districts. Ms. Tripple said the discussion held had treated the courses as subject matter areas. They are not. They are an environment in which one works and core subjects such as reading, writing and math can be learned through the courses. The courses may provide a more realistic setting for certain students. Ms. Tripple does not see the courses as taking away from the basics but as an environment in which the basics can be taught. The hearing was closed on A.B. 610. No action was taken on A.B. 610. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 609. ASSEMBLY BILL 609 - Exempts private schools from providing instruction in certain subjects. Chairman Harrington explained A.B. 609 eliminates legislated mandates to private schools. In current law religious schools are exempt from all mandates. Licensed, non-sectarian schools and public schools are required to follow the legislated mandates. A.B. 609 eliminates the mandates to both sectarian and nonsectarian private schools. Mr. Williams, referring to Subsection 3, Lines 20 and 21, "gives the private school any right to share in the public school's money appropriated for the support of public schools in this state." He asked if the two lines embody A.B. 340, the voucher school bill. Chairman Harrington referred to Line 14 which states, "nothing in this section" which precedes the language Mr. Williams discussed. Mr. Williams noted the original language was to secure uniform and standard work for pupils in private schools in the state, and instruction in the subjects required by law for pupils. He questioned the removal of uniformity. Chairman Harrington said all schools, both private and public, have to have standard curricula including English, math, and science which are dictated by the Department of Education. A.B. 609 removes nonsectarian private schools from having to follow legislative mandates. Mr. Williams asked if Bishop Gorman High School in Las Vegas had to follow legislative curriculum mandates. Chairman Harrington stated they did not. A school like Hebrew Academy in Las Vegas, being nonsectarian do have to follow the curriculum mandates. Mr. Williams asked if students at Bishop Gorman High School had to take the same classes required at Clark High School. Chairman Harrington replied it was the current law. He explained private secular schools are required to follow the basic curriculum but are not required to follow other legislative mandates such as sex education. Mr. Williams asked for clarification of the bill's purpose. Chairman Harrington stated it allowed nonsectarian private schools to also be exempt from legislative mandates. Mr. Williams asked who sets accreditation requirements for private schools. Chairman Harrington said the state school board has to accredit and license the schools. Mr. Williams asked why this measure was before the committee. Chairman Harrington said those involved in the private schools wished to be free of the mandates. Mr. Williams stated he would prefer to have input from those involved in private schools and from the state Education Department. Chairman Harrington offered to have private school representatives fax information to the committee for their consideration. Ms. Peggy John, Douglas County, expressed her concerns about mandates in public schools. She described concerns of teachers regarding mandates. Mrs. Chowning asked if the bill was referring to corporal punishment, noting it is mandated for corporal punishment not to occur. Mrs. Chowning stated she remembered from previous testimony sectarian schools are exempt from corporal punishment. She asked for clarification regarding mandate removal being for courses of instruction. Mrs. Chowning also wanted to know how many people would be effected by the bill. Chairman Harrington said it would be nonsectarian licensed schools. He said there are only four large private schools in Las Vegas. Assemblyman Braunlin stated it was her understanding the schools in question have to be accredited by a national association. Nevada is the only state nationwide requiring state licensing. She supported Mr. Williams' suggestion of more testimony from the schools involved and the Department of Education. She suggested rescheduling the bill. Mr. Williams agreed with Ms. Braunlin. Ms. Lusk suggested hearing the bill in Las Vegas since the request seems to have emanated from there. The hearing was closed on A.B. 609. No action was taken on A.B. 609. Chairman Harrington reminded the committee a work session would be held after the meeting on Wednesday, May 31, 1995. Mr. Williams reminded the committee a subcommittee hearing would be held on A.B. 290 and A.B. 291 on Wednesday, June 7, 1995. There being no further business to come before the committee the meeting was adjourned at 5:57 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 29, 1995 Page