MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session April 19, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, April 19, 1995, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Kathy M. Augustine Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. Senator Bob Coffin Senator Bernice Mathews GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, State Department of Human Resources May Shelton, Director, Washoe County Social Services Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Department Phillip A. Galeoto, Lieutenant, Reno Police Department Stan R. Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Kathy Andrew, Concerned Parent Alaine Tackett, Concerned Parent Donald W. Winne, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General Carrie Britton, Concerned Parent Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education Patsy Cave, Concerned Parent Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Nevada Nurses Association Lezlie Porter, Member, Alliance Looking at Education Reform and Concerned Parent Dr. Joseph Anastasio, Director of Student Personnel Services, Washoe County School District Betty Barker, Program Coordinator, Counseling, Washoe County School District Don Simons, Concerned Parent Jerrie Marson, High School Counselor, Lyon County Daniel Masden, Licensed Psychologist and Sponsor of Senate Bill 341 Wanda Rosenbaum, All Parents United Rick Millsap, President, Nevada State Education Association Jeanne Simons, Concerned Parent Linda K. Hayes, Concerned Parent and Teacher Kristine Jensen, Chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens Vickie Peterson, Concerned Parent, Member, Nevada Concerned Citizens Susan Rose, Assistant Director, Child Assault Prevention Project Carolyn Nelson, Concerned Parent Juanita Cox, Chairman, People to Protect America Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women's Lobby & National Association of Social Workers Sherry Loncar, Legislative Representative, Nevada PTA Helen Foley, Lobbyist, Junior League of Las Vegas Sandy Coyle, Concerned Parent Robin Hollingshead, Concerned Parent Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum Lucille Lusk, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Concerned Citizens George L. Cotton, Affirmative Action Manager, Clark County Francis Gillings, Local Chairman, Honest U.S. History Jim Mikkelsen, Concerned Parent Harold Ridgway, Deputy Superintendent, Elko County School District Susan Balkenbush, Concerned Parent Janet Anderson, Executive Director, Nevada Christian Coalition Kress E. Cave, Concerned Parent Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards Deidre Hammon, Concerned Parent Shirley Perkins, Elementary School Counselor Ron St. Jean, Concerned Parent Chairman Rawson opened the meeting at 2:00 p.m. and noting the large number of people in attendance, asked for a show of hands of those who want to testify either pro or con on Senate Bill (S.B.) 341. The chairman thanked those in attendance for taking the interest and time to attend and assured them he would try to get to everyone who wants to testify. SENATE BILL 341: Prohibits eliciting of certain information from pupils without parental consent and requires school districts to provide certain records to parents. The chairman advised that a tally of votes (Exhibit C) from citizens on this bill, either by phone calls, letters or faxes, shows 96 for and 212 against. Chairman Rawson pointed out that these votes were unsolicited, since there had been no notice to citizens that votes would be taken on this bill. Senator Ann O'Connell testified in favor of S.B. 341, saying that passage of this bill would put into state law the same protection for the rights of children that are currently placed under federal law as a result of the Grassley Amendment to Goals 2000 (Exhibit D) and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (Exhibit E). Senator O'Connell continued by saying the reason the law is needed on a state level is that the federal law, or the Grassley Amendment as it is more commonly referred to, only covers federally funded education programs. Exhibit D, the Grassley Amendment, the senator said, refers to protection of pupils' rights. Goals 2000, deals with goals and standards set by the federal government to be followed by state and local education programs if they accept federal money. Since Nevada has already received $400,000 from the Goals 2000 program, Senator O'Connell feels it is important for Nevada to have the same protections for families for state and locally funded programs as Nevada does for federally funded education programs. Further, Senator O'Connell said, as of June 1991, she understands the United States Department of Education repealed a regulation which heretofore protected the rights of children from being involved in experimental programs without parental consent. Also, she understands, a child can be subjected to new, instructional methods, as well as psychological projects, which address very personal family business which is totally unrelated to school matters. Senator O'Connell said she believes that more than ever before, people want government out of their lives and especially out of their personal family lives. Hopefully, by the addition of the language in S.B. 341, parents would have a greater level of comfort regarding their involvement in what their children are being taught. She directed the committee's attention to page 1, line 17 of S.B. 341, where reference is made to chapter 49 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) (Exhibit F), specifically 49.290 and 49.291, stating when she requested the drafting of S.B. 341, she was not aware of NRS 49 and thought FERPA would be the protection for parents being able to obtain their children's records, as written in section 3. However, she said, if the committee feels that parents should be able to access their children's records without the permission of the child, it would be necessary that S.B. 341 be amended to include the reference to FERPA. The penalty mentioned in the bill, section 2, item 4, is necessary because without it, there is no enforcement. From the information she has received from teachers in the Carson City area, they have no knowledge of the federal law to which they are presently subjected. Senator Coffin asked if Senator O'Connell had given any thought to amendments or exceptions to S.B. 34l because he thought some aspects of the bill would be very difficult to enforce or might squelch good thinking or example in the classroom. Senator O'Connell replied that she agreed, and it is her understanding of what the law intends to do is to not have this a part of curriculum without the parents' consent. She feels it is important to realize the bill does not say a teacher cannot teach this or that; it says if you are getting into private areas, and this type curriculum, such as film strips, or something that is part of the regular academic day that the teacher is providing to the students, then the school must get parental consent for getting into those private areas. If it is a situation where the question comes from a young person during the conversation or debate that is going on in the schoolroom, then there is certainly nothing that prohibits the teacher from answering, but the teacher does not initiate the question. Senator Coffin remarked that ordinarily the teacher initiates the discussion and guides it. Senator O'Connell agreed this is correct in order for it to be applicable to S.B. 341. Senator Coffin pointed out the teacher has the opportunity to observe if a student is having a problem and can refer that student to a counselor. Now, if that student's father does not agree to the student being asked any questions about, say sexual behavior, wouldn't the parent have blocked the ability for the counselor to pursue something that is mandated by state law. Senator O'Connell said that would not be included in curriculum; that would be a one-on-one situation with the counselor. She pointed out the federal protections which prevail as long as the teacher has kept notes to jog his or her memory on the issues, that is not a problem; it is when something has been put into a school record or discussed with another member of staff and then the parent is refused the right to see that information. Senator O'Connell said further that if the committee determines the language of the bill is such that it says this, it was not the intent of the bill. She said the police departments have some concerns along those lines, and their representatives are present and will be testifying. Senator Neal noted the Grassley amendment exclusions compare to the exclusions in S.B. 341, with the exception of religious affiliation or beliefs. Senator O'Connell said that is correct, and asked Senator Neal if he had an opportunity to look at the page entitled "Protection of Pupil Rights" (Exhibit G). There is an exclusion of the word "orientation" in that paper, section 439 (a), item 3, that is not part of the Grassley amendment. It is an exclusion in S.B. 341, section 2, item (c), and is a combination of language taken from Utah's Pupils and Parents Bill of Rights and is possibly where that language was picked up. However, she said, it was my intention to include and leave that in S.B. 341. Senator Neal pointed out the exclusion on line 16 (g), where it says "relationship with another person, if the relationship is protected under a privilege recognized pursuant to chapter 49 of NRS." Senator O'Connell said if the committee wants to go with what is in the FERPA federal legislation, then FERPA will have to be referenced in the bill because it will be in conflict with NRS 49.290, which is different than what is in the bill. This gives counselor and student privilege, and it does not have an age for the student. Senator Neal said since you list NRS 49 in terms of its privilege, we talk about lawyer and client, accountants and clients and doctor and patient relationships. It talks about marriage and family, therapist and clients, social workers, other occupational privileges and then we get into the miscellaneous privileges dealing with husband and wife and we also talk about identifying informants, all under Chapter 49 of NRS. Senator Neal said the waiver of those privileges is the last part of that chapter and when the bill references that in the sense that you have, the bill is saying that no public school in the state may administer any psychological or psychiatric test or treatment or permit the questioning of pupils as a part of the school curriculum or any other school activity without the prior written consent of the pupil's parents or legal guardians with regard to specific information. He said further that specific information of relationship to another person, if the relationship is protected by a privilege recognized as so under chapter 49. Senator Neal said this indicates to him that all of the schools must now go get a copy of that particular chapter and they must teach the teachers about all of this; they must have all of this information available. If they do not, this is going to be a violation according to what is included in S.B. 341. Senator Neal asked Senator O'Connell what is it specifically that is in the school system that she feels should be protected by this particular language. Senator O'Connell replied that there is a roomful of people here who are going to be bringing up this type of information, but to clarify the intent, Pepper Sturm has identified some information for you that might help Senator Neal understand the purpose of this bill. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, advised Senator Neal he is right; section 2, item (g) of the bill, the chapter 49 privileges do cover all those professions he mentioned, including physician-client and attorney-client, not just the pupil-counselor relationship spelled out in NRS 49.290. Senator Neal asked if it would then be legal for a teacher to ask a child who went home sick whether or not he or she went to the doctor. Mr. Sturm said he does not know. Senator Neal commented that he was unsure of the purpose of the bill. Senator O'Connell remarked that it should become evident as testimony is given. The senator said her understanding from (g) forward of the bill, after talking with Jan Needham of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Legal Division, is that all of those rights are protected under the state's present statutes. Relationships with a doctor, an attorney and the like, are protected. If the state were to adopt the language from FERPA, it would supersede this language and these relationships would not be protected. John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, State Department of Human Resources, testified against S.B. 341 from prepared text (Exhibit H), saying he was doing so because of the chilling effects this bill would have on child abuse and neglect reports. Mr. Sarb pointed out that one in five of such reports come from the school district. Further, he stated, Senator O'Connell had mentioned child abuse reporting would not be included in the prohibitions that this bill calls for, and Mr. Sarb feels, as a practical matter, it is going to be a very fine line to walk. His fear is that it will not be walked by a great many school personnel and a great many school districts. As a legal matter, he feels the distinction drawn in section 2, about it being a school activity or part of the school curriculum, is obliterated in subsection 4, lines 14 through 16, "If there is administered in a public school any examination, test, treatment or questioning of a pupil for the purpose of revealing any information described in subsection 1..." and it goes on to explicate the penalties for doing that. That section, by making no reference whatsoever to school curriculum or school activity creates a real problem, even as a legal matter. Mr. Sarb said there are other problems. Two years ago, the Legislature passed a law requiring that child abuse and neglect education be part of the school curriculum. Before that time, it was part of the school curriculum in almost every school district in some fashion. Therefore, it would be a school activity or school curriculum, as covered under the first part of section 2, and it is out of those programs, designed and statutorily authorized, that his division sees a great many of these reports. Mr. Sarb continued by saying the bill will place a great many teachers and school personnel in fear of, if not in actual jeopardy of, losing their jobs and being fined if they talk with kids about things that the Division of Child and Family Services feels are very important to find out about. For example, if a teacher sees unusual bruises on a child's face and asks where they came from, the fact of the child answering might well violate sections 2(d) and (e) of this bill. Mr. Sarb said he is particularly concerned about sexual abuse, and a lot of reporting on that comes out of schools. Section 2c on sexual behavior, orientation or attitudes is going to keep a lot of those discussions from happening. Another concern of Mr. Sarb's is even if the report itself is protected, what happens when the teacher has that discussion with a child and it turns out information arguably covered under these prohibited sections comes to light in the course of that discussion, and the conclusion of the teacher is that the information is not reportable and the teacher does not make a report. Have they, in good faith, in attempting to discover whether or not a child was abused or neglected concluded the child has not been abused or neglected, but at the same time now violated this bill. These are matters of great concern to this division because if the long sought for cooperation of the schools in reporting child abuse is lost, the efforts of the division to protect children would suffer a real severe blow. Chairman Rawson asked if the division was concerned if a student has a sexual preference of abstinence or some other sexual behavior that is probably not the school's business, is the division concerned about that being determined and used in some way as a prejudice against the child. Mr. Sarb replied there is no question about that. In his professional capacity, he is the custodian of this kind of information on a great many people, and that information is protected and safeguarded by the division. The improper use of that information can be disastrous. There have been situations in schools where that kind of information was solicited and then used against that person or others. His testimony today is that he knows the kind of information the division gets from schools about child abuse and they know the importance of that and how devastating it would be if the division did not have that information. He is unaware of misuse of confidential information of this type by school authorities. Senator Washington asked regarding section 3 of S.B. 341, if a parent or guardian of a pupil came to the division and asked for confidential information, such as child abuse, would that be released to them? Mr. Sarb replied that the only thing the division would not release to the parent or guardian would be the source of the report. May Shelton, Director, Washoe County Social Services, testified that her agency is responsible for responding to and investigating reports of child abuse in Washoe County. Ms. Shelton advised she is in agreement with the testimony given by Mr. Sarb. She referred to Senator O'Connell's statement that this bill, if passed, would not affect how child abuse reports are made and how such reports are investigated, and she would like to see that clarified in the bill so that everybody understands. It would not impede any investigations because many of the reports, over 17 percent, are made by school personnel. It is very important the response to these reports is timely. Sometimes if the children do go back home, there could be further abuse. So the response must be made as quickly as possible when the report calls for her department to respond quickly. She continued by saying it could happen if school personnel are not allowed to ask questions to determine if the injury is of a non-accidental nature, her office could be flooded with reports because they would not be able to determine whether or not they should make these reports. About half of the reports they currently receive are investigated and about 30 percent of those investigations are substantiated. They do not want to screen out reports, but they would like valid reports to be made to them. Chairman Rawson said he feels the thrust of the bill deals with organized teaching activities where a person's values or religious beliefs could be discovered and then ridiculed or used against them, but added such things will be taken into account if the bill is processed. Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Department, stated his department has some concerns about S.B. 341 and would like to get some language into the bill which would give a law enforcement exception to indemnify and allow teachers to probe into suspected physical or sexual abuse on the part of any parent, sibling, friend, relative or any person. One of the prime sources of such information, particularly on the part of a parent or guardian, comes from delicate probing by a teacher. Mr. Cooper said the department does not want the personal lives of parents or guardians looked into regarding political affiliations, religious beliefs and that sort of thing. There is a tremendous amount of hidden abuse that occurs and law enforcement can only discover this though the delicate questioning by a teacher, a counselor or a school administrator. Mr. Cooper referred to language on lines 5 and 6 of the bill where it reads "... or other school activity..." which could be construed to include this delicate questioning by a teacher. Recess could be considered to be another school activity. Would the teacher be in trouble for questioning the student during recess about a statement made by another student that "Janie says her father has been touching her private parts," or that sort of thing. The department wants to make sure there is no confusion on the part of teachers, or any school personnel, that this could perhaps be construed as career threatening through a conviction for a misdemeanor. The three areas of principal concern to the sheriff's department are lines 12, 13 and 14, sexual behavior, behavior that is illegal, and critical appraisals of family members. Mr. Cooper pointed out that a child accusing someone of sexual abuse could be construed to be a critical appraisal of a family member. The department would like to ensure there is some sort of language, perhaps a statement of intent, that this does not apply to the sort of activity just described. Senator O'Connell interjected that this could be worked out. Phillip A. Galeoto, Lieutenant, Reno Police Department, testified that the concerns voiced by Mr. Sarb and Ms. Shelton specifically addressed the department's concerns. In addition, he would like to make sure that when the individual items are addressed, special programs, such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.), are very clearly and specifically kept out of this broad net cast by this bill. He said virtually every law enforcement officer and legal counsel he has spoken with interprets this bill as being the opposite of what was intended by the writer and supporters. Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified that he agrees with the statements by his colleagues, and would like to add that his department is working diligently with the school district police in Clark County and the school district as a whole in making schools safer. The department does not want to see a bill come out which would make it a haven for criminal activity simply because a teacher cannot report criminal activity. Kathy Andrew, Concerned Parent, testified she had just read the bill and feels there are strong arguments pro and con. She sees as the objective of this bill the reduction of government intrusion in our private lives. She feels the bill is very broad, and she sees some serious complications which need to be addressed. Ms. Andrew stated she agrees with the objective of using our schools for education, the purpose for which they were intended. She is against the bill as it is currently structured. Alaine Tackett, Concerned Parent, testified in favor of S.B. 341 from prepared text (Exhibit I). Ms. Tackett said she has a child who attends Reed High School. She submitted examples of question and answer sheets (Exhibit J) in a workbook called "Where Do I Begin?" which is being used in an "at risk" study skills class at that school. According to Ms. Tackett, this workbook has not been approved by the Washoe County School District or the State Department of Education. Senator Washington asked Ms. Tackett what grade her child is in at Reed High School. Ms. Tackett replied her son is in 10th grade. Regarding the pages from "Where Do I Begin," Senator Washington asked if it is being used at Reed High School. Ms. Tackett replied it was, as far as she knew. Senator Washington wanted to know how she obtained the pages submitted, and Ms. Tackett replied she had attended classes with her son and, after being denied a copy of "Where Do I Begin" by the teacher, she took a copy from the classroom because she felt the material was totally inappropriate for a study skills class. She was expecting the students to be learning how to take notes, learn how to study for a test, do outlines, write essays, a basic format necessary to improve skills. She did not expect it to be the questions contained in the booklet, "Where Do I Begin?" Senator Washington asked Ms. Tackett if she had seen the answers her son had marked on these papers. She replied her son had refused to fill out the papers. Senator Washington asked if the teacher had given her an explanation as to why this material was in a study skills class. She said no, and she has asked the teacher, the vice principal, Dr. Welch, the head of curriculum, and she is currently asking the state department why this material is in a study skills class. So far, she has not been able to get an answer. To her knowledge, every student in study skills class has this as part of their curriculum in this "at risk" classroom. The students in this class are at risk of failure because of absenteeism, and they need additional help and guidance in order for them to stay in school. Senator Neal asked Ms. Tackett if it is her testimony that a teacher can teach a child without having any understanding about that child's background. Ms. Tackett replied affirmatively. Senator Coffin asked Ms. Tackett if she feels she shares in the blame for any of her son's problems. Mrs. Tackett said, no, she has always been very supportive of her son. Senator Augustine said she was appalled at the type of questions in Exhibit I, and asked Ms. Tackett if Dr. Welch had responded in any way. Ms. Tackett advised Dr. Welch had provided her with Form 6161 to complete and file. She had supplied Dr. Welch with most of the information required by the form, but did not have some of the necessary information to finish it. It has never been provided to her. Chairman Rawson pointed out that what they are asking for by these questions is the student's attitude. Donald W. Winne, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, testified one of his clients in the Division of Child Dependent Services feels that the bill as written would interfere with the reporting of child abuse cases. He referred to FERPA act, and said this bill in some respects does mirror FERPA, but it goes further. He used the analogy of using a 16- ounce hammer to drive a spike. You do not need to get a sledgehammer to do it because you would hurt some fingers in the process. The fingers he is worrying about here is the reporting of child abuse. Mr. Winne said the key difference between the bill and FERPA is where it talks about psychological or psychiatric examination, test or treatment. FERPA says "in the analysis or survey." The bill goes one step further, noting line 5 which says "or permit the questioning." Mr. Winne said that is where the sledgehammer comes in. He suggests the language and intent of FERPA be followed and "or permit the questioning" be deleted from the bill in order to be able to make a planned curriculum. Mr. Winne referred to Ms. Tackett's testimony, saying these questionnaires were in connection with the curriculum established by the Washoe County School District. It was not some independent teacher seeing a bruise or having some questions about the appearance of a child coming to school with no socks or dirty clothes and just asking the student if everything is all right at home; are there problems the student wants to tell a teacher about? This is not a planned part of the curriculum. In Ms. Tackett's testimony, it is a part of the curriculum. Carrie Britton, Concerned Parent, testified from prepared text (Exhibit K). Senator Washington asked how her youngest child is doing in private school. Ms. Britton replied he is doing much better. He is no longer telling her that he hates her. He listens to her. She feels he knew he was not wanted in the public school and Ms. Britton, herself, had the feeling the teacher just did not want to deal with him, and that is why he was channeled into a counseling program without her knowledge. Ms. Britton said she and her husband do not oppose the programs in the public schools; they oppose the fact they were not notified nor was their consent obtained to put their child into a counseling program. Senator Neal asked Ms. Britton if she realized that under this bill the teacher could not say anything to her about her child. They would not be allowed to even ask any questions of the child about any problems they may be having. If the child demonstrates unusual behavior, it could very well result in some type of psychological examination of the child. Ms. Britton said she asked for reasons why she was not told; why were they not notified. She was told, for instance, it slipped their minds; they do not notify parents because the parents that abuse their children would not allow it and most parents just do not care. Senator Washington pointed out section 2 of the bill requires the prior written consent of the parent or guardian for all the tests, examinations or questions covered in section 2. He asked Ms. Britton if she was opposed to the programs in which they placed her son, or did she just want to be notified they were placing the child in a special program. Ms. Britton said she wanted the opportunity to make the choice for her child. She said she went to the State Board of Education and was told if she did not want her son in certain programs, that was her choice. Ms. Britton said she did not know that; no one advised her, so she was never able to make the choice. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Britton if she had been involved would she have decided against this course. Ms. Britton concurred, and said she did not like the feeling things were being done behind her back. Senator Washington asked Ms. Britton how her children were doing in private school and if something is going wrong there, do they contact you. Ms. Britton said there are times she is contacted by phone and a written report is received every day on their behavior and attitude. This makes it very easy to follow up and be involved in any of their problems. Senator Washington asked if she feels a part of the process now, and Ms. Britton replied in the affirmative. Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, testified from prepared text (Exhibit L) in opposition to S.B. 341. Ms. Peterson pointed out that FERPA applies to what can be put into a student's education record. She said we have the requirements of FERPA contained in Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) Chapter 385.700 to 385.780, so the concerns with FERPA are already addressed. Furthermore, Ms. Peterson testified, the Grassley Amendment applies to privacy rights of students and parents participating in federally funded programs. S.B. 341 goes far beyond student record issues, and the department does not believe that S.B. 341 is required by either the Grassley Amendment or FERPA. As written, S.B. 341 is also too vague for reasonable enforcement. For example, mental problems referred to in line 11, could be interpreted to refer to a student's intelligence, lower intelligence quotient (I.Q.) or deficient school achievement. Are mental retardation or other special education categories to be contained within such mental problems? Does this mean the schools can no longer assess or discuss students' low achievement in school? S.B. 341 would curtail the department's ability to offer services to academically at-risk children. Ms. Peterson added that critical appraisal of family members, referred to in line 14, again leaves much to question. She said while we all want a world where children are well cared for and functioning families, we know this is not reality. We know the rates of child abuse and neglect are on the rise and, in fact, the most recent report from Kids Count illustrates that Nevada has shown a consistent decline in conditions for children and families. Ms. Peterson stated routine student demographic information, usually collected as part of the student assessment program, would be curtailed, as would follow-up studies, dropout accounting, longitudinal studies and programs involving school readiness and early childhood populations. Ms. Peterson continued by testifying that S.B. 341 would create limiting difficulties for school psychologists. School counselors, again highly trained in addressing such issues, would be unable to offer or refer or work with parenting or step-parenting programs, domestic violence and suicide prevention efforts. Further, Ms. Peterson pointed out the requirements of S.B. 341 for parental notification every 5 months surpasses notification requirements presently stipulated in FERPA and NAC. This would, again, cause unreasonable and unnecessary burdens on school personnel. This bill appears to negate the professional credentials and expertise of school personnel who are trained in working with students and families in a public system of educational services. These professionals must work not only with our students, but together with families and communities. The department feels the existing system of using highly professional personnel and reliance upon the judgment and authority of local school boards affords reasonable and adequate protection against possible misuse of information. She said to deny the schools the capacity to learn and work with family factors comes at a time when policymakers are learning just how pervasive these same factors are on the performance of our children. Ms. Peterson concluded by saying S.B. 341 would serve to obscure the needs of children, all children, and the department feels it is unreasonable and unnecessary. Chairman Rawson said there will be a number of emotional stories today by people who feel there has been some abuse, and he asked Ms. Peterson if she was able to see some way to narrow the gap of abuse. Ms. Peterson agreed some of the anecdotes heard here already are very sad, but she does not think they require the passage of S.B. 341. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Peterson what parents should do if they are not informed and not given any satisfaction when they bring a complaint. Ms. Peterson replied that representatives from local school districts can probably best address this problem, but there are mechanisms in the local school district system. The chairman reiterated that the Grassley Amendment addresses federal programs. He asked Ms. Peterson if she feels that is something which can be lived with in general, and she answered in the affirmative. She added that the department needs to do a more thorough study of the implications of the Grassley Amendment, and the department can provide a briefing paper to the committee. Chairman Rawson asked if parents have notification annually now. Ms. Peterson answered in the affirmative and said this was required by FERPA, which has to do with the official student education record. The chairman pointed out there is official notice requiring that parents be notified of the education record once a year, but is there anything that would preclude a counselor contacting a parent sooner. He asked if there any reason if a parent or guardian came seeking information, they could not be given that information. Ms. Peterson said she did not believe so. Senator Neal asked Ms. Peterson if the Socratic method of teaching, which is still employed in many school districts, would be outlawed by this particular provision because the teacher could not question a student about his philosophy without being in violation of this law, even though the question itself tends to draw a discussion out of the student or tends to make them think about any given situation. Ms. Peterson indicated lines 4 and 5 of S.B. 341 specifically prohibits the questioning of pupils regarding any of these things, so it could significantly constrain what goes on in the classroom. Senator Neal remarked that this provision, then, have an effect on teaching itself. Ms. Peterson said she believes it would. Senator Augustine called attention to the third paragraph of Ms. Peterson's prepared text regarding Kids Count and the Nevada ranking, pointing out that Nevada has not been participating in the Kids Count and wondered how the statistics have been compiled on Nevada. Ms. Peterson said the department is asked to provide what statistics it does have to Kids Count. The statistics are based on the information provided to them. Senator Augustine pointed out that these figures, then, may not be accurate since they are only estimates. Senator Washington said about a year and a half ago, his youngest child said the teacher had asked what was the family's religious philosophy, what did we teach in church and at home. Because she was young, he disregarded what she had said and had not thought about it again until S.B. 341 came up. He asked if the teacher has the right to ask those types of questions. Ms. Peterson said probably our local school district people can best address that question. She does have some concerns, as well, but thinks it goes back to the original intent of this legislation. She explained that FERPA does not require this kind of legislation. The Grassley Amendment does not require this kind of legislation. Senator Neal gave an example of a child coming to school, and the child believes in snake charming and wants to give a demonstration. Undoubtedly, the teacher will have some concerns with this, even though it might be considered religious. Senator Washington pursued the questioning of his child and stated that the teacher made reference to creation science versus the science of evolution, which he feels is most offensive, and he said the next time the teacher asks his child such a question, you can be sure he is going to pay that teacher a visit. Patsy C. Cave, Concerned Parent, testified in favor of S.B. 341, saying she has four children, and several times they have asked the school not to counsel one of her children. She feels the children are confused by all the counseling and it causes turmoil in the home. When her sophomore requested help from the teachers, the teachers said they did not have time. The counselor says it is between the student and the teacher. The counselors are not telling the parents what is going on with the child; they feel it is none of their business. She is frustrated with the system because they do not listen to the parents as far as counseling and teaching. Ms. Cave cited an example of the teaching going on in the schools and pre-schools. Recently she picked up her 2-1/2-year- old from preschool, taking hold of her hand in the parking lot. The child pulled away from her and said, "Do not touch me; it is my hand." Children are learning from a very young age that this is my body; do not touch me. Where do the parents come in? What are the parents' rights? What is the state going to do when a child gets killed because of what that child has been taught in school? Chairman Rawson pointed out to Ms. Cave that she could select the preschool, and Ms. Cave said she was aware that she could. Ms. Cave also pointed out that when there is a discipline problem at school, they want the parents to come in and straighten it out. Parents are starting to feel their rights as parents are being taken away as far as trying to direct and nurture their children They are not being notified of problems, but when the child becomes a discipline problem at school, they want the parents to take care of it. The school infers the parents are not handling the discipline at home and, therefore, they are not good parents. Senator Neal asked Ms. Cave if she thinks the public school system has outlived its usefulness. Ms. Cave said when her teenager comes home from school telling her the teacher needs to go out to teach his track team before he can help her, yes, she does believe it has outlived its usefulness. The main focus in school is on athletics. Teachers do not have time for the average student. She would rather see her children in private school or taught at home. Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Nevada Nurses Association, presented a text from the association (Exhibit M) and using this as an outline, testified in opposition to S.B. 341, saying the nurses' association, particularly from the school nurse's standpoint, does have some concerns regarding the chilling effect the passage of this bill might have on communications between school nurses and their students. Ms. Tyler advised that the nurse is usually the first person involved in a one-on-one communication basis with students regarding nutritional needs, mental health concerns, possible need for financial assistance with regard to vision, dental or medical needs, the behavioral impact on a student's school performance, pregnancy, concerns about physical, sexual or emotional abuse. Because of this, the nurses do have concerns about the broad-reaching effects this legislation might have. They are also concerned about the conflict this bill might pose with current state law to report incidences or suspected incidences of abuse and how this law might affect that reporting. The nurses are also concerned about the restrictions within this bill and how it could affect their oath under the Nurses Practice Act with regard to their obligations. Senator Augustine asked if Ms. Tyler was referring to school nurses only and not those in a hospital setting. Ms. Tyler said the nurses' association as a whole does have some concerns about this bill, but the primary concern is how the bill would affect the school nurses on a daily basis. Lezlie Porter, Concerned Parent; Member, Alliance Looking at Education Reform, testified parents are expressing their main concern, which is lack of communication. Ms. Porter said her family has suffered the loss of one child and had shared their grief together and dealt with this as a family. However, a school counselor felt the two children then in school were not exhibiting appropriate signs of grief, so she took them separately into her office for counseling. Ms. Porter said she was not notified this counseling would take place and only became aware of it through her children. Ms. Porter pointed out this is the type of thing parents have concerns about; that is, nothing special, just day-to-day normal functioning where a parent's rights are infringed upon. Ms. Porter said she had served on the Washoe County School Board and had presented the board with a proposal similar to S.B. 341 in 1988 and again in 1991. The board did not feel FERPA and the Grassley Amendment were sufficient, and cited an example of a child coming home and asking her mother if the parents were getting a divorce. Evidently in group counseling at school, they talked about what happens when parents argue or fight. As a member of the board, she checked on this report to find the counselor had overstepped her bounds. This situation was rectified, but only after the fact when the damage had been done. She thought passage of S.B. 341 would avoid just such situations. Also, when visiting an elementary school, a gifted and talented classroom, and the classroom aide was concerned because the teacher was doing guided imagery in her class. There are specific regulations against guided imagery, and the teacher was either uninformed or chose to ignore the regulations. Without any sanctions, this type of teaching can go on unchecked. Ms. Porter submitted a list (Exhibit N) of Classroom Guidance Materials & Prevention Programs provided in Washoe County. In checking with parents of children who have the guidance program every year, none of them knew anything about it. Parents want to be notified. Parents cannot be truly involved if they are not informed, and she is asking for that. Parents need to know what programs are planned, and then be able to look at the program material. Ms. Porter then presented a letter (Exhibit O) from Linda Anderson which expressed her concern about her daughter being involved in a program about which she had no information and, secondly, that she did not receive all of her children's records when she requested them. Senator Neal asked Ms. Porter if children are educated for their families or if they are educated for society. Ms. Porter said society is made up of the fabric of families, and she believes children are educated for families. The purpose of education is academics, and that has a societal benefit. Dr. Joseph Anastasio, Director of Student Personnel Services, Washoe County School District (WCSD), testified he is a parent of a child who has problems in school, and he can clearly relate to some of the concerns expressed. However, he pointed out, only the dissatisfied parents are here, not those who are satisfied with the schools. Dr. Anastasio believes the proposed legislation is overkill; there are federal mandates which require the schools to do what can be done to protect parents' rights. He indicated WCSD is probably the most aware of a host of issues, not just child abuse, but medical issues, pregnancy issues, suicide issues and all the others. Dr. Anastasio said if WCSD did not have some flexibility to do things they need to do, it would be a very unsafe environment in the school system. He said penalizing the staff members who may ask a child a simple question like why are you crying, why did you hit Johnnie, why did you take that pencil, would result in a system of paranoia, and it would be difficult for teachers, counselors or administrators to do their jobs. At a time when we need to increase counseling, the bill would obviously result in a decrease of counseling. There are procedures in effect that meet the intent of the federal law under FERPA, the Hatch Act and the Grassley Amendment. If you want to put the federal wording into S.B. 341, it would be fine. The way the bill is written, it is overkill, and it is going to make educators petrified, and they will not be able to accomplish their primary mission. Chairman Rawson pointed out that because of the lack of communication between the districts and the parents, there is a barrier set up. Dr. Anastasio said he is a strong advocate of parents' rights, and he wants parents involved. It is not as one-sided as some parents say, and it is not as one-sided as some educators say. Chairman Rawson asked Dr. Anastasio if he could live with the Grassley Amendment for everything that goes on in school, and Dr. Anastasio said WCSD has no option since they are federally funded. He said the intent of S.B. 341 is fine, but it goes way too far. Betty Barker, Program Coordinator, Counseling, Washoe County School District, said she is concerned about lines 5 and 6 under section 2 when it adds the word "questioning" to the federal legislation, when it adds "school curriculum or other school activity" and especially "the purpose or the effect of which." She said if I asked a student, "Why are you crying?" and his answer is about an illegal behavior, I do not know what is going to happen. That is part of what makes teachers valuable in the classroom; they are human and they are part of the system, and if a child is upset, a teacher asks them why. Senator Washington asked if Ms. Barker would have any opposition to notifying or working with the parents prior to the counseling of a child. Dr. Anastasio answered that in crisis counseling, they do not always have the opportunity to notify the parents. He believes parents should be communicated with in a timely fashion after the crisis counseling. As far as classroom guidance, he believes WCSD should do a better job of communicating with parents on a regular basis, and parents should be contacted prior to any classroom guidance activity. At the present time, they contact the parents once a year. As far as ongoing counseling, they do get parental permission to do that. It is not a total lack of communication, but WCSD would like to do more of it. Senator Washington pointed out that probing into a family's makeup or how the family conducts their affairs should not be done. However, it stands to reason that crisis counseling must be done immediately, and it is not always possible to contact the parents in the particular situation. The problem arises when the teacher or counselor tries to probe into the child's behavior, family structure or religion. Dr. Anastasio mentioned WCSD has had unauthorized questionnaires go out from counselors, but this action was stopped as soon as it was discovered. Senator Washington asked if the bill was amended, would it be acceptable? Dr. Anastasio said the bill as written goes too deep. He feels if the wording in the federal legislation is used, the school districts will live with it, and he hopes the parents who have the concerns can live with it. Senator Lowden asked if teachers are now trained in detecting and reporting child abuse, sexual abuse or anything unusual. What is the education a counselor goes through in order to be able to detect that kind of behavior? Ms. Barker replied that in Washoe County, they spend a lot of time educating and giving refresher courses to the nurses and, in turn, the nurses go back and work with their staffs. In the child abuse reporting process in Washoe County, WCSD makes sure teachers and nurses are available to help. Senator Lowden asked if the counselors are the ones who go back after the training sessions to educate the teachers on how to detect unusual behavior. Dr. Anastasio said it is a trickle- down effect. Training sessions are conducted for the counselors, the nurses and the psychologists. They, in turn, communicate with the teachers. If they had more time, they could deal with other issues, such as inappropriate behavior in the classroom, parents who are upset, and a variety of areas. WCSD needs to do more work on staff development. Dr. Anastasio said that if WCSD requires too many more courses up front, more teachers would be lost at a time when more teachers are needed. Senator Lowden asked if the courses were mandatory for teachers to attend. Dr. Anastasio said it is not mandatory for teachers to attend as there is no formal instruction or grading. Senator Lowden remarked if that is true, the teachers actually have no education in these areas. Chairman Rawson said if the teachers have no education or training in the areas being discussed, they actually do not have the experience or judgment to work in these areas. Senator Augustine remarked Dr. Anastasio had said the bill was overkill with the federal legislation in place, but she wants to advise the state is allowed to be more stringent with their regulations than the federal regulations. Dr. Anastasio said he is aware of that fact, but he feels that many of the issues before this hearing can be addressed by implementing the federal legislation and making it state law so it can be for anything beyond federal funding. Dr. Anastasio also offered to assist in writing this legislation so it is clearer and does not impede WCSD from completing their primary mission. He advised that not all educators think their primary mission is to provide reading, writing and arithmetic. WCSD's primary mission is for the health and welfare of children, and he does not think S.B. 341 will allow that to happen. He feels S.B. 341, as written, is detrimental to the safety of children. Senator Neal asked Dr. Anastasio if he was in the psychological part of this counseling. Dr. Anastasio replied in the affirmative, adding he is director of student services in Washoe County and oversees psychological services, counseling services, special education, guidance suspensions and home schooling. Senator Neal asked how Dr. Anastasio would handle a student who had a belief that it is all right to kill someone. Dr. Anastasio said it would depend on the circumstances and whether or not this was a crisis and if the student was homicidal or suicidal at the moment. He has dealt with students like that, and the first thing he would do is involve the parents and ask them to take the necessary steps to ensure that everyone is safe. Dr. Anastasio said S.B. 341 would stop him from being able to deal with that kind of situation. Don Simons, Concerned Parent, testified in support of S.B. 341 and specifically direct or indirect questioning, such as when a teacher or another administrator or professional at a school asks a question of a student, such as why are you crying, why are you upset, and the student's response indicates either a mental or psychological problem. The staff would then be worried they would be subject to some sort of penalty, but that is not the case. The bill says a teacher must ask a question of that nature. Also, Mr. Simons said, the abuse issues which have been raised would be compromised under S.B. 341. Everyone wants to prevent child abuse, and there are many concerns about the reporting of abuse. Mr. Simons said there is a current statute which states that suspected abuse is to be reported within 24 hours and failure to report carries a penalty. S.B. 341 would not change that. Teachers assess the situation, make a determination, and if there is suspected abuse, then it is reported. Teachers who frequently are not trained, as was indicated earlier by Dr. Anastasio, are being asked to make a determination and a decision to report or not report the case to the proper authorities. Mr. Simons asked if we want teachers or abuse professions making that determination. Senator Washington asked Mr. Simons if he had the best interest of the children and the family at heart. Mr. Simon replied in the affirmative, and pointed out that the bill is primarily about notification. The parents have a right to notification under the current statute, and S.B. 341 would clarify the notification rights in these issues. It is his impression this is a gray area, and it should be clarified. Parents and families should be first. Senator Washington asked Mr. Simons if his child needed counseling, would he be willing to work with the counselor if he were notified. Mr. Simons said absolutely, with proper notification. Jerri Marson, High School Counselor, Lyon County, testified in opposition to S.B. 341, saying it is highly restrictive as far as counseling is concerned. Ms. Marson, said children really need someone with whom they can talk. If it were not for people in her position, many of the children she sees would not be emotionally secure. She has counseled high school students who are on drugs and alcohol, and pregnant students who have been unable to speak with their parents about their problems. Chairman Rawson said it is obvious different age groups are affected in different ways in that a 17-year-old should have the freedom to choose a counselor; whereas, a third grader would be assigned a counselor. Ms. Marson said she had previously been an elementary counselor, so she knows the aspects of both. She has been a counselor in California and overseas. She has seen some bad counseling, and she has seen some good counseling, but she believes her profession in the State of Nevada is the best that will be found. The chairman asked if she feels this bill is against counselors in particular. Ms. Marson said yes, she feels some of the bill is restrictive toward counseling situations. The chairman said many of the concerns expressed in this hearing have been with counselors and perhaps with teachers who have been practicing counseling. Daniel Masden, Licensed Psychologist, and sponsor of S.B. 341, testified from prepared text (Exhibit P) in support of the concept of S.B. 341 and in qualified support for the particulars of the bill. Mr. Masden said he has no problem with the schools taking responsibility to care for our children, but he sees a lot of games being played and parents are becoming concerned. He is not opposed to education, nor is he opposed to administrators and teachers taking responsibility and acting as responsible people. He said what he sees happening is a polarization and parents coming forward to say they need some help. Mr. Masden referred to earlier testimony, indicating there was not enough money to train people in some of these areas of concern. He suggested that rather than penalizing the individual, the school be penalized and this money be put in a special fund for training. Another suggestion made by Mr. Masden was holding the superintendent responsible. He said the intent of the bill as a whole is laudable, but some of the items need to be rethought. Senator Neal said testimony indicates schools do not address the parents' value systems, and he asked Mr. Masden how he would handle that issue. Mr. Masden replied he did not have an answer and would suggest more open communication and cooperation between parents and school staff, as opposed to the polarization and closed minds that exist. Wanda Rosenbaum, All Parents United (APU), testified from prepared text (Exhibit Q), and, further, she said APU has selected this as one of the bills as the focus for that organization. She said members get together during the legislative session to support bills they feel will affect reform and improve excellence in education. APU selected bills which would bring them together, such as parental rights, and APU members agree that parental rights have been consistently violated. Ms. Rosenbaum said APU supports parental rights because more and more, they are being taken away. She, personally, has had trouble getting school records for her child in special education. In regular classes, the children almost have to be labeled in order for parents to have the same rights under the law as for children in special education. APU is asking that these rights be extended to regular education children. APU has worked to get early childhood and student intervention programs in the schools so children do not fail first before being identified as having special needs. By getting them early and addressing their learning problems, they may not have special needs later. Mrs. Rosenbaum advised there were pilot programs in some of the schools in Las Vegas, but many were not bringing in the parents early on, which makes it impossible to work with the child on intervention strategies. Parents need to be involved, and that is why APU is in favor of S.B. 341. Very often parents raise legitimate concerns, and the bureaucracy so distorts these concerns that it makes them seem outlandish. Ms. Rosenbaum said she jokes about creating the neurotic parent, but the schools are doing a great job of this all over the state. The bottom line is there are some areas in education where parents need to be involved. However, Ms. Rosenbaum feels the bill needs clarification. She cannot imagine, in the case of suspected sexual or child abuse, this bill would inhibit professionals from reporting it to the proper authorities. She mentioned what she called the "wimpish" action where one of the school staff will ask the child questions, get answers, and talk about it with the neighbors, rather than reporting the abuse to the proper authorities. She feels that should be stopped. Rick Millsap, President, Nevada State Education Association, testified in opposition to S.B. 341 from prepared text (Exhibit R). Chairman Rawson said Mr. Millsap represents his profession well and if every person here were dealing with him, we would not have the anecdotal stories to deal with. Mr. Millsap said in every profession, the vast majority is doing a great job, and it is the minority that causes the problems. Jeanne Simons, Concerned Parent, testified in support of this bill for her children and all children in the state. The State of Nevada must comply with federal law or it will lose all federal dollars; the compliance must be greater or equal, it cannot be less. S.B. 341 essentially costs no money. Her description of parental involvement is communication and notification, and S.B. 341 provides this. The teachers are mandatory reporters. This bill will not stop them from reporting. School counselors are guidance and vocational counselors. Ms. Simons advised she filed a federal complaint with the Department of Education on October 10, 1994, (Exhibit S), because her son's educational records had been altered. She had been denied access to some of the records. And even though she complied with NRS and had her son write a note giving her permission, these records were destroyed, even though there was an outstanding request to review them. Ms. Simons reported the U.S. Department of Education is doing an investigation right now in regard to her allegations. Ms. Simons asked that children and parents be given the same privacy rights that educators and the educational system seem to have. Ms. Simons said the federal law is not being complied with and for that reason, she wants S.B. 341 to become law. Linda K. Hayes, Concerned Parent and Teacher, testified in support of S.B. 341. She and her husband take their children to counseling when there is a need to do so to help them deal with the stress of divorce and being part of a blended family. This family counselor is one who holds the same religious and moral values as she and her husband. In January of 1994, her daughter was sent to see the school counselor because she seemed to be angry and depressed. This had the potential of undermining the work the family counselor had accomplished. Ms. Hayes said she was not even aware there was a counselor at the school, let alone knowing children can be counseled at school without parental permission or notification. Later, she talked with the school counselor who admitted she had made a bad judgment call. The counselor knew nothing of the Hayes' family situation or the work being done with their children. Ms. Hayes stated in another conversation with the same counselor, the counselor admitted the bottom line is she is at the school to change behavior. Ms. Hayes asked who gave the counselor permission to change children's behavior. In October of 1994, Ms. Hayes and her husband delivered a copy of the model Hatch Amendment letter to the school principal and under the third paragraph it says: "Under the Hatch Amendment, I hereby request that my child not be involved in any school activities or materials listed unless I have first reviewed all the relevant materials and have given my written consent for their use." Ms. Hayes then read a letter (Exhibit T) from the principal, Alma G. Vining, Robert E. Lake Elementary School, who said said the letter does not cover any programs that are state or locally funded. If programs are state or locally funded, is she not to be notified and given permission to review these programs? She felt it should not matter where the funding comes from. Ms. Hayes continued by saying in January of this year, her husband found the teachers had never seen the letter Exhibit T. Her son and all fifth graders were shown a series of videos (Exhibit U) designed to change behavior. No parental permission was asked, and there was no opportunity for parent preview. She did have objection to some of the videos and the materials, but she did not have the opportunity to preview these materials or discuss this with her son. Also, Ms. Hays said, her husband told the principal and the superintendent they did not want their son to participate in a particular program which was against the values they hold, and the area superintendent told Mr. Hayes they did not have the right or the option to selectively withdraw their children from areas of the curriculum. There, again, under the Hatch Act, their rights were ignored. Ms. Hayes reported her sons are required to keep a personal journal in the classroom, and she sees this as a method of eliciting information about the home. For example, as a writing assignment, her fourth-grade son was asked what he did not like about his parents punishing him, what makes him angry with his family, who is someone in your family that really makes you angry. Ms. Hayes feels parents have the right to have their values upheld at school; they have a right to know what is going on in the classroom. Kristine Jensen, Chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), using a rough outline (Exhibit V), testified on behalf of the members of NCC in support of S.B. 341, saying they are concerned about the unauthorized counseling, questionnaires and examinations that are occurring in the classroom. NCC firmly supports the stand of family rights and privacy in the education of their children. Most importantly, the question is if the government is there to help families or to assume the role of autonomous decision-maker. Currently, the government is acting as an autonomous decision-maker as to whether or not that child should receive counseling by prying into their personal and private lives. Parents are frustrated as the result of learning after the fact of situations occurring which involve their children. She stated this involves a violation of family rights in direct disregard of parental wishes. To not involve the parents in the questioning, examinations and so forth, is also a direct violation. NCC wants to know who is to make the subjective determination as to who needs and who will receive the services. She said a teacher or a counselor lacks the full spectrum of knowledge about the child's history or the needs of the child that the parents who have cared for the child have gained through long experience. Individuals in the classroom lack complete information, make imperfect judgments and invade into their lives, doing possible damage. Ms. Jensen asked if they then replace the values, the traditions, the inhibitions that the children have received in the home. Can harm come about because the role of parent has been assumed without the parents' knowledge or consent. Ms. Jensen cited a program of particular concern (Exhibit W) in place in the school district and under step 2 of that program it says: "Have staff members suggest names of kids whom they know to be eligible" and "Get the administration to agree to allow a child to attend one session without parental permission..." and "We have found that a child's enthusiasm lessens parental wariness." Ms. Jensen said they are recruiting children into the programs without parental knowledge or consent. NCC is asking schools to obtain parental permission before children are involved in programs. All programs in the Clark County School District focus on parental rights and parental involvement in education, and parental involvement is the one of the highest indicators of student success. Ms. Jensen said when parents are cut out of the process by denying access, knowledge and consent on programs in which their children are involved smacks in the face of parental involvement. She stated another need for this bill is the protection of the Pupil Rights Amendment (P.R.A.) and the Grassley amendment which involve the schools' unresponsiveness to parents when they rely on these laws. Ms. Jensen said she had first-hand experience in that she had written a letter to the school requesting her children not be subject to programs or questioning without her prior consent and review of the programs. She received a letter in response saying these programs do not apply because they are not federally funded and they are not experimental and, so, the parents have no recourse. Also, she found an article in a school board magazine which gives instructions on how to refute parents' concerns when they write letters regarding the Hatch Amendment and how to fend off these types of concerns of parents. Ms. Jensen said the bottom line is that parents do not have any recourse. Ms. Jensen concluded by saying NCC does not see programs at risk; they see parental rights at risk, and they ask the committee's support of S.B. 341. Senator Lowden asked Ms. Jensen about the magazine that had the form letter to refute parents' rights, and Ms. Jensen replied it is the School Board Manual of April 1993. Vickie Peterson, Concerned Parent; Member, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), testified from prepared text (Exhibit X) in support of S.B. 341. Ms. Peterson further testified she had called the elementary school which her children attend to see if counseling sessions were taking place there, and it was confirmed they were. She then called the district to ask why these counseling sessions were taking place without her permission. She was told that if a child is not removed from the classroom, they can be taught whatever the teacher or the counselor decides to teach them. She then asked the school counselor for a copy of the topics (Exhibit Y) which he planned to address to these elementary children. Subsequently, she spoke with a counselor outside of the district who told her that in order to be effective in solving or coming up with solutions to the problems in Exhibit Y, the entire family must be involved, and the family cannot be involved if there is no permission or knowledge. Ms. Peterson gave a personal example of the damage occurring as a result of this unauthorized counseling. She explained her 5- year-old daughter began waking up with a nightmare about someone breaking into her bedroom and, after talking with the child, she found that unauthorized counseling in school sessions was being conducted about the safety of the children's homes and of their neighborhoods. Ms. Peterson said she then sat in on this particular class and picked up a sheet entitled "Safety Survey" (Exhibit Z), which was to be filled out by the children. One question that survey asks is: "What's happening in your neighborhood to cause unsafe feelings?" and another: "What's happening before/during/after school?" The children are then asked to rate their feelings on feeling safe on a scale of 1 to 10. Ms. Peterson referred to a "Personal Reinforcer Questionnaire" given to children (Exhibit AA), but which did not come from her children's school, admitting that question 7 really upset her. That question asks the name of the person who punishes the child most, how does that person punish the child, the effectiveness of the punishment, other punishments used, which punishment works best with the child. Question 24 asks the kind of person the child hates most. Ms. Peterson said as a parent, she only wants the best for her children, and firmly believes many of these programs are not in the best interest of the children. She asks why the educators, if they really believe these programs are in the best interests of the children, do they have a problem with parental consent or parental preview. Senator Augustine remarked that Ms. Peterson said the questionnaire did not come from the children's school, but wondered after the child has filled out this Personal Reinforcement Questionnaire, and particularly question 7, how does the teacher or counselor in use this information? Is that what is being done? Ms. Peterson said she did not know. Senator Augustine asked if this questionnaire came from the school counselor or the teacher. Ms. Peterson said she is not sure from whom it comes. Susan Rose, Assistant Director, Child Assault Prevention Project (CAPP), testified using an outline (Exhibit BB), and said CAPP is one of the programs being talked about today. CAPP is part of the second grade curriculum in the Washoe County School District. Representatives of CAPP go into the schools and talk about people who might try to take away the children's rights. They do role playing with the children to teach them how to say no in a bully situation and about tricks strangers use to get kids to go with them. CAPP got these from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The representatives talk with the children about injuries and that it is never okay for someone to inflict an injury on their bodies, and do role playing which is very benign, about bad touching by known and trusted people. Ms. Rose stated CAPP's concerns with this is in the reporting of child abuse. The CAPP representative tells children if someone is touching a private part of their bodies in a way they do not like, or leaving injuries on their bodies, it is important for them to tell someone they know and trust. In many cases, a child can go to its parents and tell them, but this is not always the case. Oftentimes, the child will go to its parents and tell them, and the parents may not believe them because they feel the person named by the child would never harm that child. Ms. Rose continued by saying she has three children who have gone through the school system in Nevada and does not share all the concerns that the parents who spoke previously have with the system. She does not have a problem with the schools or the school counselors giving her children these questionnaires. Ms. Rose believes it is good for children to talk about their feelings and does not believe the teachers go very far with this type of questioning. Ms. Rose continued her testimony, saying children are not forthcoming about abuse. That is the last thing they want to tell anybody, and CAPP realizes children will tell when asked by someone they know and trust. She said teachers today spend more time with our children than many of us who are mothers, especially working mothers and single mothers. Speaking for herself, Ms. Rose said if any of her children were being abused by anyone and did not feel they could come and tell her because they wanted to protect their parents, as children often do, she would want that child to feel free to go to the teacher or counselor to speak of what is happening. Ms. Rose stated CAPP feels this bill stifles a child's right to speak and be heard, and also feels this legislation would turn the clock back 30 or 40 years to the time when children had no one to talk with about their abuse. She said John Sarb, May Shelton, and the police from Reno and Las Vegas, have all talked to this issue. In conclusion, Ms. Rose addressed Senator Lowden, noting she was the chair of the legislative committee for M/CAPP team, and explained the team has a bill draft proposed for mandatory child abuse education for all educators with which they would really like some help and support. Senator Lowden asked Ms. Rose if she has a fiscal note on that bill, and Ms. Rose answered in the negative. Senator Lowden asked Ms. Rose if they have a problem with the programs they teach in school; do you have a parent come in and examine that program or even let a parent come in and watch while you are conducting that program? Ms. Rose advised if the parent wants to see the program, they are asked to come and watch the program in a class their child does not attend. CAPP does not require parental permission slips, but they are required for preschool programs. Senator Lowden asked if CAPP has a problem with permission slips for older children. Ms. Rose answered positively, and said the reason is that if the abuse is taking place within the family, then the family would be more likely to keep their children out of abuse prevention workshops This does happen in preschools. Senator Lowden asked if this would be a red flag to CAPP. Ms. Rose answered yes, and there is nothing CAPP can do about it. Chairman Rawson commented that no one wants to expose third graders to some of the horrors of life. Because the Legislature has taken steps for child abuse to be reported, the committee feels very strong about not tampering with that. Carolyn Nelson, Concerned Parent, testified she is one of the parents who requested to see a child's school file of a report or analysis of psychological and academic testing, and was told she could not have that information. She did receive a verbal report over the telephone, but not a hard copy. This refers to section 3 of S.B. 341. In another incident, she advised a third-grade teacher decided to psychoanalyze her child. The teacher had neither a degree nor permission to do so. One of her treatments for her daughter was to remove all pencils, pens, crayons, paper and so forth from her desk because the teacher had convinced herself that Ms. Nelson's daughter did not want to learn. Consequently, the daughter was denied recesses and did not have anything to do for an entire week, which Ms. Nelson categorized as abuse. The child was eventually removed from that classroom and put in another school. Juanita Cox, Chairman, People to Protect America; Member, People for the Next Generation; Concerned Parent, testified about a class called "Thinking Clearly" at Reed High School. The class is called by different names in other schools, but does the same damage. It attacks the lives, families, principles, ethics and everything we hold dear. Many children developed suicidal tendencies after attending those types of classes. Ms. Cox believes the schools in Nevada contribute to the suicide rate Ms. Cox feels S.B. 341 is desperately needed in Nevada schools so children are not at risk in our public schools. Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women's Lobby; National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter, testified that for years, the groups she represents have advocated an increase in school counselors and school social workers because each year more and more students come to school with serious personal problems. More children at younger ages are coming to school as troubled youngsters and because of this, they are unable to learn. They create disruptions in class and on the school grounds. At younger ages, they sometimes only need a person to talk to, a person who will listen. They come from troubled families. S.B. 341 would have a chilling effect on teachers relating to children in their classroom and also on identifying problems, particularly of child abuse, but also suicide, depression and substance abuse. Ms. Gang went on to say there is a book published by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) which contains their policy statements (Exhibit CC), and from which Ms. Gang read the sections on school dropouts, teen suicide and parental involvement. Shirley Loncar, Legislative Representative, Nevada Parent Teachers Association (Nevada PTA) testified from prepared text (Exhibit DD) in opposition to the proposed changes in S.B. 341, touching on the issues regarding children on which Nevada PTA has taken a stand, such as drug abuse prevention, counseling and psychological testing. Ms. Loncar then said she works in the Carson City School District in the learning disabled program. In her experience, she said, she has never seen a questionnaire like Exhibit AA, and it is not used in the Carson City curriculum. Responsibility, listening skills, reading skills and note-taking are stressed in the Carson City curriculum. Ms. Loncar said her son attended Fritsch Elementary School for 6 years, receiving nothing but wonderful, loving, attentive care. He graduated from that school receiving the Presidential Academic Fitness Award, which means his grade point average was in the top 15 percent or higher in the nation. She really considers her son just an average student, but feels his progress was because of the wonderful teachers, counselors and staff at that school. She just cannot imagine any of the stories heard here today taking place at Fritsch Elementary with the caring personnel and staff at that school. Ms. Loncar advised when FERPA was instated, she was called on a random poll of parents throughout Nevada and asked to go into her child's school and request his records with no advance notice and then report back on the outcome. She said she walked into the school unannounced and asked to see her son's records. Those records were presented to her, and the counselor was made accessible to her. There was absolutely no hesitation to give her the records, although she was not allowed to remove them from the school for fear of losing them or them getting into the wrong hands. Senator Washington asked Ms. Loncar if she represented the Nevada PTA and, if so, would she explain the makeup of that organization. Ms. Loncar said yes, she does represent the Nevada PTA. It is made up of parents, teachers, grandparents and community members. Senator Washington asked if she thought the people who had testified had made up the stories they told. M. Loncar said no, she is just telling her personal experience, especially at Fritsch. Those who testified certainly could have had the negative experiences narrated because not all teachers are perfect, not all counselors are perfect, but the Nevada PTA does not feel a state statute is needed to protect us from the very few and far between cases. Senator Augustine commented on the psychological testing Ms. Loncar had mentioned, saying Dr. Anastasio had testified the only psychological testing that requires parental consent is ongoing testing, so there is testing that is being done. Ms. Loncar said that is in Washoe County, and she is from Carson City, so that could be the difference. Prior parental consent is always obtained in Carson City. Helen Foley, Lobbyist, Junior League of Las Vegas (JL-NV), testified there are probably many amendments the committee will make to S.B. 341. JL-LV has been a research arm in many ways for women's and children's issues for the Legislature for the past 15 to 20 years. During the 1980's, JL-LV produced a book focused on Nevada's children, which will be reprinted and presented to the committee in the next week or so. She said that some of the statistics are no better now than they were 10 years ago when the book was first published. JL-LV believes any way children who are mentally or physically abused can be identified, we will assist in getting help for them. JL-LV is fearful this legislation, as currently written, will stifle any educator from being able to question a child with a black eye or some other obvious problem and asking that child if there is something an educator can do to help. Ms. Foley said she cannot believe there are any legislators who would want to close the door on questioning of this type and, certainly, JL-LV would like to make certain nothing is put into law which would prevent helping these children. Senator Washington observed that much testimony has been heard today. He wants to assure the participants that the committee will use common sense concerning the laws on child abuse or taking away a teacher or counselor's right to ask a child how he got a black eye or why he is crying. Ms. Foley remarked that many times there was legislation before JL-LV and sometimes discrepancies were pointed out, ramifications of the action JL-LV took were pointed out, and although it was not the intent to be harmful, some of the actions taken could inadvertently have been harmful. She said she knew the committee would be looking at this bill carefully so none of the actions taken will be harmful. Sandy Coyle, Concerned Parent, testified in support of S.B. 341, commenting that she is an advocate for children with disabilities. She stated that throughout rural Nevada, she continually sees violations of FERPA, as well as parents being denied records and records being destroyed. She said a big part of her job is teaching parents how to go about getting all the records on their children so they can be responsible parents and fulfill their obligations. Senator Coffin commented on Ms. Coyle's statement that she routinely sees records being destroyed. He asked not only Ms. Coyle, but every person testifying, that when they make such statements during their testimony, they give the time, location and dates of the incidents. Ms. Coyle said she would be happy to cite the schools, but would not be at liberty to give parents' names in public for the record. She would do so in private. She said Carlin Combined School is one school. She would, in private, be happy to give the parent's name who told her about her child being evaluated for special education services, and had the counselor say, "You do not want to do that," and showed her another child's file for comparison. Ms. Foley stated she had difficulty getting her child's school records from a Douglas County school, and was assisted by Senator O'Connell. Ms. Foley continued her testimony on child abuse and neglect, and she referred to Senator Lowden's remarks earlier about the fact that teachers do not receive training on detecting and reporting child abuse and neglect. Ms. Foley quoted statistics from the Department of Human Resources, Division of Child and Family Services, (Exhibit EE), on child abuse and neglect, showing by year and county, race, sex and type, the number of substantiated or unsubstantiated reports, and the ultimate disposition of these cases. Ms. Foley urged the committee to clarify child abuse and neglect reporting requirements in this bill, as well as obtaining of parental consent for participation of children in school programs. Mr. Millsap intervened to say unsubstantiated child abuse reports do not mean there was not child abuse; it means there was not evidence of child abuse. Francis Gillings, Local Chairman, Honest U.S. History, testified he is the natural father of three children and also has five adopted or foster children. Mr. Gillings expressed dissatisfaction with the school systems in Carson City and Douglas County. He feels they destroy family values and invade the personal lives of the family. He stated parents should have absolute authority over their children. He said that because one parent abuses children, this should not deny to other parents their rights and responsibilities to their children. Mr. Gillings expressed his concerns about surveys which call for a critical appraisal of family members and a system which denies expression of religious preference. Robin Hollingshead, Concerned Parent, testified from prepared text (Exhibit FF) in support of S.B. 341 because she feels this legislation is needed for reasons heard in previous testimony this day. Ms. Hollingshead concluded her testimony by presenting the committee with a copy of a Report to the National Education Goals Panel (Exhibit GG), voicing her disapproval of recommended data the federal government would like to be able to collect to monitor progress toward the national goals, such as birth weight and month of first prenatal care. She said if our local, state and federal government is intent on longitudinally tracking students from birth through preschool, kindergarten, first to 12th grade, postsecondary education and, finally, into the workplace, using data bases that uniquely identify each student and can be shared with numerous other entities, we owe it to our children to provide the ability to limit the extent and nature of the data collected. Again, she emphasized that the parents need to be involved. Senator Coffin said Ms. Hollingshead's remarks about tracking children is the result of legislative pressure to try to make schools accountable and to find out what works and what does not work. Ms. Hollingshead addressed Senator Coffin by saying her concerns lie in the methods of testing and what kind of information that will encompass. Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum (NEF), referred to a book entitled Child Abuse in the Classroom, which was handed to Senator Lowden by Ms. Hansen, and which contains the official transcripts of proceedings before the United States Department of Education held in 1984. Eagle Forum published this book, and Eagle Forum has been involved nationally in this issue, talking specifically about some of the anecdotal stories similar to what has been heard today about problems going on in the classroom, particularly violating parent and family rights. Ms. Hansen said this goes back even further to when the Hatch Amendment was passed; this bill was more commonly called the Protection of Pupil Rights. She said Eagle Forum was very much involved because even before that, these problems were developing. She pointed out that from the number of parents present today, there is obviously great concern about what is going on in the schools. Ms. Hansen referred to Mary Peterson's testimony, Exhibit L, about FERPA and the Grassley Amendment not requiring this kind of legislation. Ms. Hansen said the reason it is needed is precisely because FERPA and the Grassley Amendment apply only to those programs that are federally funded, so something is needed that offers protection at the state level. Parents presently have no way to solve these problems at the state level, so frustration ensues. It is true that S.B. 341 is a result of parental frustration. Ms. Hansen said she hopes this bill can be extended to programs of drug abuse in the schools. Under the Grassley Amendment, it is precisely extended to cover all programs funded through the federal government that involve drug-free school money, and most of the drug programs are required to comply with the Grassley Amendment, so they should also be required to comply at the state level. Ms. Hansen continued by saying that parents should be informed of school programs and permission for their children's participation should be received prior to the start of the programs. Ms. Hansen furnished the committee members with a copy of the Grassley Amendment and an explanatory article from the Education Reporter of April 1994 (Exhibit HH) when the Grassley Amendment was passed. She said the Grassley Amendment addresses most of the parental concerns heard here today and in many cases, this amendment covers more than S.B. 341, with the exception of religion, and NEF wants that added and privacy-invasive questionnaires discontinued. NEF believes the requirements of federal law should also be requirements of state law. Ms. Hansen concluded by remarking that schools are not responsible to the parents, and they need to be. Parents have a right to know what is going on in the schools and to participate in the decision-making process for their children. Senator Augustine asked if Senator O'Connell had been provided with a copy of the Grassley Amendment, and Ms. Hansen said Senator O'Connell told her that she had a copy. Senator Augustine expressed surprise and dismay that 4 hours has been spent discussing something that was signed into law a year ago which is almost verbatim with S.B. 341. She said the only thing not covered is the religious issue which Ms. Hansen mentioned earlier, and most of the items being discussed are already law. Ms. Hansen pointed out that these issues are a national concern, not just a Nevada concern, and that is the reason for the Grassley Amendment, and without a state response, it will only continue to get worse. Lucille Lusk, Legislative Liaison, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), testified that none of the programs addressed would be prevented in schools by this bill. All that would be required is parental notification and consent. Under that system, a satisfied parent would remain satisfied, and some of those parents with concerns would have an opportunity to discuss those concerns and some might become satisfied. Ms. Lusk said in listening to the testimony, it became clear to her there are only a couple of areas in the bill that are subjects of dissent. Ms. Lusk suggested a remedy for this would be to simply mirror the Grassley Amendment and FERPA and put those in state law so they apply to states in locally funded programs. The other way would be to change the word "questioning" to "questionnaires and surveys" so there would be no necessity to deal with one-on-one situations, which was not the intent of the sponsor. Also, she said, there is some concern over the severity of the penalty portion. There is very little question there needs to be some form of enforcement or penalty, but the severity, as the bill is written, is of possible concern. Ms. Lusk advised most everyone is trying to accomplish the same thing with S.B. 341, with only two or three exceptions, and NCC urges the committee to resolve the differences so the bill can be adopted. George L. Cotton, Affirmative Action Manager, Clark County, testified the Child Protection Services Division has one concern regarding S.B. 341, and they suggest the language be revised to specifically exclude activities related to the identification, reporting and investigation for child abuse and neglect. The chairman remarked a great deal of concern has been expressed about that very thing. Chairman Rawson thanked all those who took the time to participate. He advised he will work with staff to address any committee members' concerns, and then come back to the committee with recommendations. Jim Mikkelsen, Concerned Parent, wanted the committee to know that he is definitely in favor of S.B. 341, but, unfortunately, he was unable to stay to be heard. Harold P. Ridgway, Jr., Deputy Superintendent, Elko County School District, was unable to remain to give testimony against S.B. 341, but submitted his prepared text (Exhibit II) to be incorporated into the minutes. Janet Anderson, Executive Director, Nevada Christian Coalition, was not able to remain to give testimony. She has submitted a prepared text, which is identified as Exhibit JJ. Susan Balkenbush, Concerned Parent, was also not able to remain to give testimony, and her prepared text is Exhibit KK. Several other citizens had intended to give testimony, but because the meeting was long, they were unable to remain. Their names are shown under "Others Present" at the beginning of this transcript. The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _________________________ ______ Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: ______________________________________ Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE:________________________________ Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities April 19, 1995 Page