MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session May 31, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Wednesday, May 31, 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: Senator William J. Raggio, District 3 Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Assembly District 33 Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, Assembly District 24 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Sherry Loncar, Nevada Parent Teacher's Association Mary Peterson, Superintendent, Nevada Department of Education Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum Sherri Lakin, Taxpayer's Education Alliance Dave Cook, American Cancer Society Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Heidi Sakelarios, Nevada Health Division Judith Wright, Nevada Health Division Robinette Bacon, Nevada Department of Education Sheila Ward, Carson/Douglas Christian Coalition Jean Baecher Brown, Nevada Department of Education Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards Elena Lopez-Bowlan, Governor's Maternal/Child Advisory Board Juanita Cox The hearing was opened on Senate Bill 386. SENATE BILL 386 - Makes various changes concerning program of accountability of public schools and statewide achievement and proficiency testing of pupils. Senator William J. Raggio, District 3, directed the committee's attention to the first reprint of S.B. 386. The measure was processed in the Senate Finance Committee where all pending accountability bills were considered. S.B. 386 is an attempt to address all concerns in one measure. The bill was supported with no opposition. When the accountability program was instituted it was done as part of the class size reduction action. The current law contains a sunset provision which is removed in S.B. 386 and continues the system of accountability in public schools. Section 1, Line 9, of S.B. 386, provides the date, on or before March 31, the report must be made. Section 1, Line 13, specifies the report will contain the test results for grades 4, 8 and 11. The reports will be based on the results of the examinations administered as required by statute. Page 1, Section 1 and Subsection 2, designates the contents of the school by school report. Items have been added and deleted, most at the request of the Department of Education or school associations. On Page 2, Lines 4-5, setting forth the sources of funding individually for each school, was removed as the concern was for funding sources for districts as a whole. On Line 8, Subsection G, truancy was added as part of the reportable information. On Lines 9 and 10 graduation rates have been removed and dropout rates added. There was concurrence by all parties that the dropout rate was more meaningful information. Lines 16 through 22 come from other proposed bills including incidence of violence, Subsection J, records of suspension and expulsion, Subsection K, transiency rate, Subsection L, and each source of school district funding, Subsection M. Referring to Section 4, Senator Raggio stated language had been added regarding the scoring of tests will be by a single, private entity contracted by the state Board of Education. The entity reports the results. This will aid in consistency in all districts. Examinations in grades 4 and 8 are required for achievement and proficiency in reading, writing and mathematics. These are to be norm referenced tests. Senator Raggio noted there is nothing in the law currently or planned to prevent districts from testing otherwise using criteria testing in other grades. In the reported grades norm referenced testing is required. The appropriation in the bill is in Section 6. This replaces the Governor's appropriation, Senate Bill 203, which provided an initial appropriation to carry out accountability in the amount of $479,000. The amount of $670,000 is the initial amount plus the additional amount required for scoring and equating new and old tests. The Governor's cost was to provide for obtaining the new testing. This relieves school districts of the financial obligation of new testing. He indicated suggestions had been received to extend testing to second grade to measure some effect of class size reduction. This would cost approximately $306,000 more. Senator Raggio had no objection to it being extended to second grade. Ms. Jeanne Botts, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated the bills the Senate Finance Committee incorporated into their amendments to S.B. 386 include A.B. 124, A.B. 196, A.B. 197 and S.B. 27 from the S.C.R. 52 interim study, in addition to the Governor's Senate Bill 203, providing the funding for test replacement. Existing tests have been used for some time and it was the Governor's recommendation that replacement tests be paid for by the state and not by individual districts. The Senate Finance Committee increased the appropriation to provide for centralized scoring, reporting and a study to equate the new tests with the old tests. Ms. Botts referred the committee to a handout outlining this information (Exhibit C) and breaking down the costs. Referring to S.B. 386, Page 1, Line 13, Item B, Ms. Botts stated the Department of Education's bill, A.B. 197 requested the change made. In the past school by school accountability reports require a report of pupil achievement at each age and grade level. Other bills suggested removing age because students are grouped by grade level and not age. The only exams given statewide are those mandated at grades 4, 8 and 11. In the instructions for school by school accountability report, the Department of Education has guided districts by requiring data to be reported on the three required tests. Other test results can be included if schools desire. Reporting at every grade level was considered to be too ponderous and the data would not be comparable with other districts. Page 1, Line 20, Item C, requires the reporting of pupil/teacher ratio in Kindergarten and each grade level in elementary school. For secondary schools an average class size would be reported for each required course of study. Often at the secondary level students are grouped by classes and not by grade level. On Page 2, Line 22, Item M, regarding expenditure per pupil breakdown by funding sources, Ms. Botts explained all funding goes to the district's general fund and breaking it back out per school was difficult. A total expenditure per pupil will still be reported but sources of funds will be reported on a district level. An additional report on truancy has been added. The reporting of the number of students advanced from year to year was removed. The graduation rate, which tracks the number of students who enter at ninth grade and leave at twelfth is difficult in Nevada due to high growth and transiency. The graduation rate was removed and the drop out rate was included. Records of incidents involving weapons or violence for each school was included. The transiency rate has been reported in the past but is now included in the law. On Page 3, Line 13, regarding proficiency exams in grades 4 and 8, Ms. Botts explained the exams were not given statewide at the same time. Some counties test in October and some in April. S.B. 386 requires the tests be given at the same time. The time would be prescribed by the State Board of Education. On Lines 28 and 29 the requirement for reading and math tests in grades 4 and would be norm referenced tests (standardized achievement tests). In Section 3 it is prescribed the exams would be scored by a single entity and reported. The centralized scoring would be deferred for one year due to the time frame required to purchase new exams and get organized. The new exams would not be administered in the 1995- 1996 school year but would be administered in 1996-1997. The date for this is designated on Page 5, Line 45. Page 4, Line 37, removes the sunset on the requirement school districts report on a school by school basis. Page 5, Lines 29- 33, requested by the State Education Department, exams can be released for use by teachers and students. Appropriation language is on Page 5 as well as transitory language putting everything into effect. Senator Raggio stated accountability was one of the most meaningful items adopted in the educational history of the state. He felt accountability reports were illuminating and helpful to educators and citizens. Report statistics have been widely publicized statewide. Chairman Harrington agreed with Senator Raggio. Assemblyman Segerblom asked if an amendment had been suggested for second grade testing. Senator Raggio said he did not suggest it but had indicated the suggestion had been made. It would add $300,000 to the appropriation. The ongoing discussion on class size reduction could be aided by additional data. Assemblyman Chowning discussed the additions to the bill and the good which has been derived from the accountability reports. She noted it had also been detrimental to some schools in her district. Results have been published in newspapers and often parents are upset by what they read. Mrs. Chowning stated there are critical items which are difficult or impossible to measure and are not included in accountability reporting. Items such as hunger and family problems cannot be measured but have a major effect on learning. She complimented the inclusion of transiency rates, incidents of violence, and dropout rates. Including numbers on limited English proficiency students was suggested. Senator Raggio said he thought the limited English students were already being reported. Also school lunch programs were being included. Mrs. Chowning discussed differences in equipment at schools, referring not to equipment provided by districts but the equipment acquired from or paid for by outside sources. Mrs. Chowning felt students in schools with more up to date equipment would score higher on tests than students in schools who did not have similar equipment. This is another item which is difficult to measure but impacts learning and test scores. Senator Raggio said there is a limit to what can be included in the report. The mandate is for information to be reported which is felt to be crucial. Senator Raggio discussed schools not having adequate equipment. Funding through the formula is provided for the purpose of maintaining adequate equipment in schools. School districts claim money is available for equipment. He reminded the committee funding is a shared responsibility of both state and local districts. Mrs. Chowning hoped districts would include non-English proficient students and equipment differences in reports. Assemblyman Bennett complimented all interested parties for working together to bring the accountability issues into agreement. Senator Raggio echoed Mr. Bennett's comments. Chairman Harrington commented Page 2, Line 23, allows other information to be included in reports at the discretion of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Chairman Williams wanted to know what was expected after the collected information was analyzed and distributed to the community. He hoped more parental and community involvement would be initiated. Concern was expressed regarding the deletion of advancements. He saw publication of advancement statistics as a positive to balance the negatives of truancy, violence incidents and transiency. He discussed the differences between equal and equity in schools. Senator Raggio stated he felt accountability reporting accomplished the goal of generating active participation. He discussed the exclusion of graduation rates and the replacement of those rates with dropout and transiency rates. Support was offered for the inclusion of graduation rates. Mr. Williams stated he hoped all factors affecting students were considered. He discussed a bill passed several sessions ago regarding students who perform a physical or violent act against a teacher or employee. Teachers are to be informed when new students arrive if the student has been expelled for a physical or violent act. Unfortunately this is not being done in all schools. Therefore not all reports are equal and valid. Senator Raggio agreed with Mr. Williams. Mr. Bennett reminded the committee of testimony received regarding removing graduation rate statistics and adding dropout rates. With the high growth rate in Nevada and in some school districts graduation rates in some areas are being seen in excess of 100%. The dropout rate was added at the recommendation of the Department of Education. Ms. Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Nevada State Department of Education, testified from prepared remarks (Exhibit D) regarding accountability. The state Department of Education supports the revisions in S.B. 386. For clarification, Ms. Peterson stated the Department of Education recommended graduation rates be replaced with dropout rates. Regarding advancement rates, Ms. Peterson said when district reports were analyzed and compiled its advancement rates from one grade to the next are relatively consistent after grade one. The advancement rate turned out to be a meaningless statistic. Its deletion was recommended. Assemblyman Stroth asked if the Department of Education kept statistics on the entry date in the Nevada school system of dropouts. Ms. Peterson said there was no mechanism in place enabling the department to know when those students entered the Nevada system. She noted the "Smart System" proposed in S.B. 405 would enable the department to track those statistics. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, expressed support for S.B. 386. Ms. Sherri Lakin, Taxpayer's Education Alliance, noted she was in favor of accountability but against the bill. Her concerns regard state participation if the federal Goals 2000 program is followed. The certification in Goals 2000 for Nevada requires the proposed accountability. She asked Nevada not marry itself to federal programs without acute study. Referring to the Smart Plan, she noted implementation may infringe on privacy and parents rights. She disclosed the Department of Education had informed her individual student information would be included in the system and parents' would not be allowed to receive the reports. The hearing was closed on S.B. 386. The hearing was opened on Assembly Concurrent Resolution 36. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 36 - Expresses support for Nevada's Comprehensive School Health Program. Mr. Dave Cook, President, Carson City area wide Parent Teacher's Association (PTA), spoke on behalf of Sherry Loncar, state president, PTA. Also, Mr. Cook represented the American Cancer Society. He reminded the committee represents 30,000 families statewide. A legislative goal of PTA was to support and endorse comprehensive school health education. He noted parents statewide are anxious to see the program expanded and continued. Speaking as the Comprehensive School Health Education Director for the Carson City unit of the American Cancer Society, Mr. Cook spoke on behalf of Lonnie Harris, the Northern Nevada Executive Director. He referred the committee to (Exhibit E), Page 4, which discussed the rationale for the American Cancer Society being involved in comprehensive school health education. Mr. Cook discussed cancer prevention and its integration into the comprehensive school health education. Support was expressed for the continuation and expansion of the comprehensive school health education program. Also submitted for the record was a youth Risk Behavior Survey, Executive Summary, from the Nevada Department of Education (Exhibit F) and Leading Causes of Mortality and Morbidity in Nevada (Exhibit G). Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, Assembly District 34, stated she asked for A.C.R. 36 at the request of Yvonne Shaw of the State Board of Education. In discussing health for children, it is difficult not to include schools. Ms. Freeman discussed Family Focus Centers and how they could be integrated to educate children as to their health and how to take care of themselves. Much discussion is held on funding for Medicare and Medicaid. If these services were provided for children in school, in the long term healthier students and population would evolve. She offered her support of A.C.R. 36. Mr. Bennett asked what the basis was for Lines 2 and 3 of A.C.R. 36. Mrs. Freeman explained Nevada's lifestyle is not healthy. Nevada has the highest percentage of lung cancer deaths, alcoholism, and teenage suicide. Mr. Bennett asked if there was an American Medical Society compilation of the information. He asked for hard evidence. Mrs. Freeman indicated the information may be available from the state Department of Education. Ms. Luanna Rich, Public Health Education and Information Officer, Nevada State Health Division, offered to provide the information requested by Mr. Bennett. The information cited is compiled by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials in their annual report entitled "Public Health Report Card" and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in its ranking of states from information through the disease reporting surveillance system. Also information came from the Northwestern National Life Insurance Health Report Card on health rankings of the states and the American Association of Retired Persons on their health rankings of the states. Mr. Bennett asked if the information applied to children or adults. Ms. Rich said all the citations had age breakdowns in the various health indicators. Several health indicators examined for ranking of states for children where Nevada ranks highest are reported. Many health indicators examined in adults are for conditions which begin in childhood. Mr. Bennett stated the resolution would be stronger if specifics were cited. Mrs. Segerblom expressed support for the A.C.R. 36. Ms. Peterson submitted a letter from Liliam Hickey, President, Nevada State Board of Education for the committee's consideration (Exhibit H). It describes the action taken by the state board on May 18, 1995, voting to support A.C.R. 36. It supports one of the board's seven main goals, to ensure the health and safety of Nevada public school students. Ms. Peterson also offered testimony in support of A.C.R 36 from prepared remarks (Exhibit I). Ms. Peterson discussed the attachments to (Exhibit I) which were a definition of a comprehensive school health program, a diagram of what a comprehensive school health program would look like and a definition of each component. Legislative support is imperative for Nevada to receive additional federal funding to support comprehensive school health. Ms. Robinette Bacon, Nevada Department of Education, addressed Mr. Bennett's question regarding citation of specific statistics. Ms. Bacon discussed the problems of the statewide steering committee in doing so. The committee has been meeting for several months, collecting data supporting the protection of the students' health and welfare. So far data has resulted in a draft of the comprehensive school health education facts sheet. The six morbidity and mortality categories for adolescents were examined. These are behaviors resulting in intentional and unintentional injuries. With statistics for Nevada only, the data is two pages long. The second category is tobacco use. Thirty four percent of Nevadans are smokers; the highest percentage in the United States. Many adolescents use smokeless tobacco and engage in tobacco use. In the 1993 Youth Risk Behavior Survey it was found that a substantial number of students had smoked cigarettes on twenty or more of the thirty days preceding the survey. Thirty percent of students indicated smoking regularly. Nevada ranks highest among chronic drinking problems. Sexual behaviors resulting in HIV infection, other sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies, and teen pregnancy rates are high. Nevada ranks among the fastest growing states in high cholesterol levels. Findings from the Know Your Body program, a comprehensive program grades K-6, tie their results to reducing serum cholesterol among youth. The emphasis of A.C.R. 36 is to aid youth in developing healthy behaviors and habits at an early age. Ms. Bacon discussed youth physical activity levels. Sixty eight percent of surveyed high school students said they exercise and engage in sports. Ms. Bacon touched on poverty, health insurance coverage, child abuse and neglect, and violence issues. She encouraged the committee to consider the cost of prevention programs versus the cost of intervention programs. Mr. Bennett noted the resolution has no real specifics. He asked who was to be reached with the resolution. He felt specifics would aid in the general understanding of the resolution. Ms. Bacon explained there are programs, such as the Know Your Body program, which have been proven to make a difference in schools. An attempt is being made statewide for implementation of these programs. Youth learn to develop healthy habits. They learn to care for themselves through responsible decision making and healthy behavioral choices. A statewide vision is needed so all involved understand and work from the same comprehensive school health program. Mr. Bennett noted he saw the plan as aiding the next generation through education and not as the proverbial "quick fix". Ms. Bacon felt the resolution was aimed at the community at large. The health of the citizens of Nevada is everyone's concern. Ms. Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified she had spent much time attempting to get a copy of the Comprehensive School Health Plan. She expressed concern about no one knowing exactly what the plan is. Although she agreed with many of the "whereas" clauses, Ms. Hansen outlined her concerns of A.C.R. 36. She discussed proposed family focus centers in schools, expressing her belief schools should not become a center for social welfare. Many of the problems proposed to be addressed by schools should be addressed by other organizations or the home. Ms. Hansen was concerned health clinics will be implemented in schools. These result in controversial issues requiring parental involvement and consent and jeopardize family privacy in areas such as counseling and psychological testing. Ms. Hansen objected to the lack of assurance in A.C.R. 36 that family privacy and consent would be respected. Also, Ms. Hansen indicated she felt the bill was a thinly veiled attempt at instituting school health clinics. Ms. Hansen questioned the reasoning for A.C.R. 36 and saw it as more government . Referring to Line 26, it was noted the language was taken out of Goals 2000. She questioned how the proposed services would be provided unless the services would be taken into homes to assess family lives and practices before students entered schools. Ms. Hansen compared the resolution and similar language in the Goals 2000 literature. She discussed how clinics provide family planning services without parental consent. She encouraged the committee to ask for more specific clarification of the goals in A.C.R. 36, and to vote no on the issue. Mrs. Segerblom reminded Ms. Hansen not all children have wonderful, caring parents and help is needed for the less fortunate child. Ms. Hansen agreed healthy habits needed to be taught. Her concern is often government thinks it can resolve problems but often has bad results. She used welfare as an example. Ms. Hansen also said she did not think the schools could take on another responsibility and succeed. She suggested a private sector approach. Mr. Williams commented it was unfair to generalize all welfare recipients. Many people have received public assistance and have gone on to become educated and removed themselves from that system. He reiterated a prior statement and belief regarding the definition of family. Just because a father is not in the home does not mean those living in the home are not a family. Ms. Hansen agreed there were many success stories and hastened to say she had no intention of deprecating the individuals on welfare. Many are sincere about trying to improve their lives. Conversely, she felt it was the problem of government thinking it could resolve the problems of individuals. Ms. Sherri Lakin, Taxpayer's Education Alliance, agreed with Ms. Hansen's testimony. She asked how school districts or other local entities could implement programs and spend money based on such subjective goals as those written in A.C.R. 36. She described the goals as vague. She also wondered who would make the decision in determining who was "less fortunate". Many families do require help but Ms. Lakin felt schools were not the place for help to emanate from. She asked how schools will determine if all children are healthy. Referring to Line 2, preventable diseases, Ms. Lakin discussed the difficulty in determining the preventability of some diseases. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, explained she, too, had tried for several days to obtain a copy of the Comprehensive School Health Plan. She described confusion at the state Department of Education regarding the plan. No one seemed to know what the Comprehensive School Health Plan was. A copy of the full health curriculum was provided, which was not what was requested. She noted how there are things in the resolution which are unrelated to the health curriculum and expressed her confusion. Upon arrival at the committee meeting, Ms. Lusk was distraught to find the Comprehensive School Health Plan distributed to the committee in (Exhibit I). She explained the Comprehensive School Health Plan is an exact match to the resolution. Lines 17 through 20 list the exact same words and order as the plan. Ms. Lusk declared it was clear the document existed and was upset over her inability to acquire a copy prior to the committee meeting. Agreeing with many of the "whereas" clauses in the resolution, Ms. Lusk described problems in Lines 10 through 11. These lines state "Health and wellness are responsibilities shared among individuals, families, communities, local government and the state." Ms. Lusk was unsure if this statement is true and reminded the committee the current legislature is considering several bills and studies dealing with determining appropriate responsibility levels for government. Also, Ms. Lusk noted the "Resolved" does not follow. It is very general support without details for goals with "incredible philosophical underpinnings". Discussing Line 26, she thought it clear schools were unable to be sure children came to school healthy and ready to learn. It would require intervention at birth or before to accomplish. Regarding Lines 29 and 30, Ms. Lusk contended the language to be a "grandiose goal for a health program" which did not follow from the "whereas" clauses. Ms. Lusk urged the committee not to pass A.C.R. 36 or any other bill or resolution without careful attention to details, without all materials available in advance to the committee and the public. Policy, cost issues and tax increase implications can be dealt with in specific bills where the details are present and all interested parties can participate in the debate. Ms. Lusk offered her assistance on possible amendments. She described resolutions as a statement of policy by the representative body of the people of the state of Nevada and how their seriousness must not be misconstrued, especially when necessary to leverage funds. Ms. Judith Wright, Bureau Chief, Family Health Services Bureau, Nevada State Health Division, testified from prepared remarks (Exhibit J) in support of A.C.R. 36. Chairman Harrington stated before the resolution came up no one had ever heard of Nevada's Comprehensive Health Plan. He asked what the origins of the program are. Ms. Wright replied the Comprehensive School Health Program was started through the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. They started looking at ways to address what is happening to youth nationwide, searching for ways to turn around current problems. Training was provided to states on what could be encompassed in a Comprehensive School Health Program. One thing emphasized is input in the program is a community decision. Much funding in the past has been categorical, focusing on specific issues. Collaborative planning is being used now to address issues. Only a few states have not received the training, including Nevada. Chairman Harrington asked if it was a new program, initiated in October, 1994. Ms. Wright explained no program has been developed. The purpose is to ask for support to start exploring what could be in the program with the goals expressed in the resolution tied to the program. Mr. Bennett asked if federal funds were being pursued. Ms. Wright stated it was always beneficial to have legislative support. Mr. Bennett, referring to (Exhibit I), Page 7, Number 8, asked how any monies received would be spent. Ms. Wright hoped it would be at the discretion of the local community. Communities would decide how it would be spent by addressing their own needs. Mr. Bennett asked if Ms. Wright felt legislative oversight was needed for spending the money. He expressed accountability concerns. Mrs. Chowning asked if Ms. Wright was directly involved in the drafting of the resolution. Ms. Wright said she had preliminary involvement. Mrs. Chowning felt many of the issues discussed by Ms. Wright were important for inclusion in the resolution such as suicide and pregnancy. Discussing the goals, Ms. Chowning asked if changing the goals would be detrimental. Ms. Wright stated she felt a vision was needed. If the vision was not for healthy children entering school to be at their best for learning, nothing would be accomplished. She noted good health for children begins with good prenatal care. Mrs. Chowning again asked Ms. Wrights' opinion on changing the goals. Ms. Wright stated she would have to see the changes. Ms. Elena Lopez-Bolan, Governor's Maternal and Child Health Advisory Board, urged support for A.C.R. 36 from prepared testimony (Exhibit K). Ms. Sheila Ward, Chapter Chairman, Carson/Douglas Christian Coalition, testified in opposition to A.C.R. 36. She felt the resolution would promote school based health clinics. The clinics are expensive. According to Ms. Ward, school based clinics are defined to provide family planning. She expressed concerns about keeping out abortion referrals and contraceptives from the clinics. Ms. Ward discussed federal funding and mandates. She described Goals 2000 as oppressive, offensive and terrible which would ruin schools and remove all local control. Ms. Ward urged the committee to vote no on the resolution. Chairman Harrington placed A.C.R. 36 in subcommittee with himself as chairman and Assemblymen Segerblom, Chowning and Bennett as members. He stated work would be done with proponents of the resolution to construct more reasonable, specific goals and definition. The hearing was closed on A.C.R. 36. A work session was opened and a work session document was distributed (Exhibit L). Chairman Williams announced Assemblyman Carpenter had amendments he wished to bring to the committee regarding Assembly Bill 494. He stated he would be in favor of rescinding the action taken on the bill so Mr. Carpenter could bring forth his amendments. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO RESCIND THE MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE ASSEMBLY BILL 494. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLY BILL 494 - Revises provisions governing maximum allowable pupil teacher ratio in kindergarten through grade 6. Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Assembly District 33, told the committee he had received many calls and letters since the original hearing of A.B. 494 in support of the concept. He did not realize the concerns regarding class size reduction, especially team teaching. The information received by Mr. Carpenter indicates flexibility is needed in class size funding. Also, classes of 32:2 do not work, according to those involved. Mr. Carpenter said the funding should not be cut. School districts need the flexibility to say class sizes can be approximately 22:1 in first and second grades. If the districts did decide to use that ratio, the money saved could be used on other educational programs. Mr. Carpenter read a letter he received from a teacher in Las Vegas regarding the issue. Mr. Carpenter distributed his proposed amendments to A.B. 494 to the committee (Exhibit M). Mr. Bennett asked if the proposed amendment dealt with only grades one and two and if Mr. Carpenter intended to delete other grade levels. Mr. Carpenter felt the committee should discuss the issue. Chairman Harrington asked to have further discussion on A.B. 494 put off until the end of the work session. The committee considered S.B. 386. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED DO PASS AND REREFER TO WAYS AND MEANS ON S.B. 386. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Chowning requested information from the Department of Education regarding at risk schools and their equipment difficulties and students with limited English proficiency. She requested assurance these items be included in the report as much as possible. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. The committee considered Senate Bill 85. SENATE BILL 85 - Revises provisions governing suspension or expulsion of pupil who possesses dangerous weapon or firearm. Chairman Harrington reminded the committee they found S.B. 85 and the language in A.B. 123 acceptable. A.B. 123 is currently in Judiciary Committee with no action being taken. The bill, in one form or another is needed by districts to capture necessary federal dollars. Chairman Harrington felt it prudent to process S.B. 85 to assure the federal money is received and gun laws in schools are stringent. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 85. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. The committee considered Assembly Bill 617. ASSEMBLY BILL 617 - Requires school districts to report to legislature on adequacy of supply of textbooks. Assemblyman Manendo discussed the proposed amendments to A.B. 617 found on Page 3 of the work session document (Exhibit L). Regarding Section 2, Mr. Manendo asked Mr. Sturm if "and to the 69th legislative session" needed to be added to the last sentence. He wanted to be sure the report goes back to everyone. Mr. Sturm stated the amendment changes the date of the report to April 1, 1996, and the legislature will not be in session at that time. He felt having the report submitted to the legislative commission was included because of the date change. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 617. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Chowning felt the purpose of the bill was drastically weakened by changing the date. She felt the period of time to get the information back was hurried and the information would not come back to the legislature. She felt the legislative level was where most attention would be given to the matter. Mr. Manendo also expressed concern about the time constraints and his desire to have the information returned to the 69th session. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO RESCIND HIS PREVIOUS MOTION. ASSEMBLYMAN BRAUNLIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ******** Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Sturm to assist in including standard language required in other reports and the appropriate date so the report would come back to the next legislative session. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 617 WITH THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED ON PAGE 3 OF (EXHIBIT L) AND THE LANGUAGE SUGGESTED BY MRS. CHOWNING. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. The committee considered Assembly Bill 612. ASSEMBLY BILL 612 - Creates program to train unschooled young people in building trades. Chairman Harrington announced Assemblyman Arberry had submitted information to the committee regarding the bill but it was not confirmed exactly what he wanted done. Ms. Carol Jackson, Director, Nevada State Department of Employment Training and Rehabilitation, explained she and Assemblyman Arberry had worked together in changing some of the language. The proposed amendment is on Pages 4-6 of (Exhibit L). Chairman Harrington expressed concern regarding Page 1, Lines 10 and 11, of the bill where requirements stipulating who possible recipients are, how they cannot be in school, and have not graduated. There has been an attempt to address these concerns in Sections 12 and 13. In Section 13 it is stated youth have to agree to sign up for courses again. It sounds mutually exclusive; the youth are not to attend school to qualify but are required to do so when in the program. This, in a sense, makes them ineligible for the program. He recommended removing "does not attend any school and has not graduated or received an equivalency...". This would still allow the same age group youth, those not required to attend school, to be part of the program. This would not require youth to drop out of school to be eligible in the program. Chairman Harrington stated his understanding the intent was not for that to happen, but he was trying to avoid the technicalities of the rule. Ms. Jackson said it was her understanding from discussions with Mr. Arberry the bill is for individuals who had dropped out of school. The school to work legislation is set up so students in school who want skills can get them. This is also the intent of legislation proposed by President Clinton. This bill specifically addresses individuals between the ages of 16 and 25 who have dropped out. The intent was for those youth to learn a skill and obtain a GED. Chairman Harrington asked if students lacking only a few courses obtained their GED relatively rapidly would be disqualified from continuing in the program. Ms. Jackson said she did not think so. The purpose is to aid the youth in learning a trade. Mr. Bennett stated he believed it was a violation of federal law for a sixteen year old to be working in a dangerous occupation like construction. He thought the minimum age was 18. Chairman Harrington suggested the issue could be readdressed if it is found young people are dropping out of school to get into the program. Ms. Jackson confirmed there is a provision for the manager of the program to report back to the Interim Finance Committee of the Nevada Legislature on a regular basis with updates. Assemblyman Braunlin, referring to the amendment, Section 3, Line 2, suggested removing "does not attend any school, is not required to attend a public school" and start it at "has not graduated from high school or received a certificate...". Ms. Jackson felt either way would be acceptable. She could not speak to Mr. Arberry's intent. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO AMEND, DO PASS AND REREFER TO WAYS AND MEANS ON A.B. 612 WITH CONSIDERATION OF ASSEMBLYMAN BRAUNLIN'S SUGGESTIONS AND THE AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Chairman Harrington announced Assemblyman Lambert asked the committee to consider a bill to clarify the responsibilities within the Department of Education as to who should be involved in situations as have occurred in White Pine County. She requested the committee use the jacket of a bill being indefinitely postponed or killed to put in her amendment and return it for committee consideration. Chairman Harrington suggested using A.B. 196, which was an accountability bill. ASSEMBLY BILL 196 - Transfers certain duties of deputy superintendent for administrative and fiscal services to superintendent of public instruction. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED A.B. 196 BE AMENDED AND REREFERED TO THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:35 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 31, 1995 Page