MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session May 8, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 3:00 p.m., on Monday, May 8, 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 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Dr. Steve Mulvenon, Director of Communications, Washoe County School District Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education Gloria P. Dopf, Director, Special Education Branch, State Department of Education Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, Nevada State Board of Chiropractic Examiners Marsha L. Berkbigler, Lobbyist, Nevada State Medical Association Michael de la Torre, Consultant, Second Language Acquisition Programs, State Department of Education Chairman Rawson requested committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 34-2004. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-2004: Creates interagency panel to make recommendations concerning placement of certain persons with disabilities into foster homes or residential facilities. Senator Augustine asked if there is another component to this BDR. Chairman Rawson explained this BDR is the result of an action taken in the joint finance and ways and means subcommittee to create an interagency panel to make recommendations for persons with disabilities being moved back to Nevada to make sure all the human resource considerations are met. SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-2004. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Chairman Rawson then opened the hearing on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 14, saying this is an Assembly Committee on Education introduction in the Assembly. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 14: Encourages employers to allow leave without pay for employees to participate in school-related activities and provide procedure for school to contact parent at work in case of emergency involving child. Dr. Steve Mulvenon, Director of Communications, Washoe County School District, stated he appears before the committee representing the Board of Trustees and speaking on their behalf, testified from prepared text (Exhibit C) in support of this bill. Chairman Rawson stated the existing Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 392.490 is the law at the present time, and asked Dr. Mulvenon if this resolution is simply a means of publicizing what the board would like to see as policy. Dr. Mulvenon answered there is little difference. The legislation as it now stands says if a school calls a parent and asks them to come to school for a conference to solve a problem or has a regularly scheduled parent conference, an employer cannot, within the law, deny them that opportunity. He said he is not sure if it gives employees the right to volunteer for school activities, such as sponsoring field trips and so forth, as it takes the activity out of the realm of administrator-initiated involvement and puts the ball in the parents' court. Chairman Rawson commented that at a time when Americans are really dealing with a world-class economy, there has to be some concern about productivity in the workplace and the ability of a business to be able to maintain its business. If everyone took advantage of the premise of this bill, we are talking about thousands of hours of paid time off, payment for which would be the employer's responsibility. Dr. Mulvenon said on a single-employee level, it is probably not a problem. With a major employer, and if all employees take advantage of this bill, there is a problem. On the other hand, he continued, from the standpoint of a parent who wants to be involved in the education of the child, and who wants to volunteer or be able to get to school to talk with the teacher or principal about a problem and who does not have the opportunity to do that on a regular basis, those kinds of concerns fester, and the employee probably spends a lot of time on the phone at work trying to resolve the problem. Further, Dr. Mulvenon said, the employer might be better off to give the employee a couple of hours off to go to school and take care of the problem and come back as a more productive employee. Senator Mathews commented in the case of a small business owner who has three or four employees and one employee takes advantage of the provisions of this bill, the other employees may see this as a way to get some time off. If this becomes law, the employer will have no option but to give parents the time off. Dr. Mulvenon said this is not a law, only a resolution, so it does not have the force of law, but simply expresses legislative will that this Assembly and Senate thinks that parent involvement in the schools and some time off is a good idea. This issue is addressed on line 20 of the resolution which says the employee would have to work this kind of a schedule out with the employer, and the employer will grant the request if able to work it out in the daily work schedule. Senator Mathews said she encourages parents to be involved with their children in academics and sports, but if something is put in writing, people are going to find ways to use it because it is in writing and it is policy. Employees think it is their right to get that time off because it is in writing. Senator Mathews suggested parent involvement in parent-teacher organizations would accomplish the same thing without employer involvement. Chairman Rawson said employee benefits, such as sick leave, are used just because they are there, and the chairman used as an example the fact that so many employees are absent on Fridays or Mondays. Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, testified in support of this resolution from prepared text (Exhibit D). Chairman Rawson said it is important to note in Ms. Peterson's testimony that this resolution is asking for unpaid leave of 4 hours. Senator Lowden said she was curious how the 4 hours was decided upon, rather than 2 or some other number. Dr. Mulvenon responded that it was an arbitrary decision, and the general thinking was that most parents could probably find a couple of hours each semester, 2 hours in the fall and 2 hours in the spring they could take away from work. Chairman Rawson remarked that Dr. Mulvenon was apparently expressing a strong sentiment that parents be involved with their children. Senator Augustine said the example cited of parent-teacher conferences would not be school related, and most parents make the time to attend these conferences. Ms. Peterson said she had simply stated the data the department has, and what the department looked at was the number of parents involved in parent-teacher conferences. Senator Augustine said she could understand that because if a student is doing poorly in school, the fear of the parent coming to school to see how the student is doing motivates the student to improve. Ms. Peterson said A.C.R. 14 goes beyond just participation in the conferences. Senator Mathews said she was not in opposition to this resolution, but she does have some real reservations. Senator Augustine asked Senator Mathews if she would like to work with her on an amendment which would include encouraging parents to go to school and work with their children, but eliminate some parts of the proposed resolution. Senator Mathews said she would be very happy to do that. Senator Lowden expressed said she would like to see a resolution which would encourage parents to participate more in school- related activities, but not necessarily involving the employer in the process. Chairman Rawson said this resolution will be brought up again at a later date so the amendments proposed by Senators Augustine and Mathews can be considered at that time. The hearing was then closed on A.C.R. 14 and opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 158. ASSEMBLY BILL 158: Requires free appropriate public education in compliance with federal law for pupils with disabilities who are excused from compulsory attendance. Gloria P. Dopf, Director, Special Education Branch, State Department of Education, testified in support of A.B. 158 from prepared text (Exhibit E) and gave the background on A.B. 158 to assist the committee in understanding the need for this kind of statutory amendment. Ms. Dopf concluded by saying after the introduction of this bill on the Assembly side, some modifications that were suggested are now incorporated in the bill dealing with some nomenclature changes, removing the words "or attitude" in line 5, which the department felt was appropriate. Section 3, which was the primary section of the guarantee, has not been changed. Chairman Rawson noted in section 2, the word "reputable" had been replaced with "qualified," and he found that acceptable. He asked if what the department is trying to get around is a physician who, through friendship or some other relationship, might help a family to classify a child a certain way, and this would require the classifying physician to be involved in that type of work. He asked if that covers the homeopathic or chiropractic physician, by simply putting in "within the scope"? Ms. Dopf responded, saying those particular words were not developed by the State Department of Education, but by another entity not concerned about the modification that had been made in the Assembly education committee of the qualifier regarding the chiropractic and homeopathic physicians. The department is in accord with that change. Ms. Dopf said the department's main concern is the classifying be done by someone who is reputable and qualified to make the determination of the mental or physical condition, and then that guarantee for free appropriate public education (FAPE) would be afforded those individuals, if they are also disabled under our state statutory structure. Chairman Rawson asked if this is related to inclusion. Ms. Dopf said not directly; it would be indirectly related in a sense that those youngsters would be entitled to continue to receive free appropriate public education. It would not require education to be done in a school environment, so in that way they would not necessarily be mandated to be forced back into the physical school environment if the very reason to excuse their attendance was that they could not participate in a school environment, but they would still be entitled to the basic educational services. The chairman said there are some severely handicapped children who are sent out of state because Nevada does not have programs for them, and asked if it would be possible to have a visiting professional go to various long-term care facilities and be involved in some type of program; would that meet the federal requirements if something like that were to be developed? Ms. Dopf said the way that would meet the federal requirements is if that was the program of the individualized educational plan (IEP) developed for that youngster or those individuals and determined to be the appropriate service delivery. If it was to be somebody providing the services on site at a particular public care facility, that would be acceptable. Chairman Rawson asked if there are hours prescribed by the federal guidelines, and Ms. Dopf answered negatively. The chairman then asked if an option is given now to have some type of at-home service or in-institution service that can see a number of different patients a day. Ms. Dopf advised that at the current time, the department does have within the attendance and the enrollment code the availability of a home and hospital service system to fulfill an IEP requirement. That is based upon the determination of the group that is knowledgeable about this youngster, including the parents, that this is the service this youngster needs. Senator Augustine asked why there was not a fiscal note, even though it is noted at both the local and state level. Ms. Dopf explained the reason it was determined that there was no fiscal note attached to this bill is because this practice of the availability of free appropriate public education to this very small cluster of youngsters. These youngsters would first come under a request through a physician to excuse them from attendance. Those eligible for special education are already receiving the benefits of a free appropriate public education from the school districts where they are intending to get that service. Ms. Dopf advised this was only put in to safeguard the federal funds because the federal government, in its review of our state plan, which includes all of the statutory and code components of the operation of this state for special education, felt it was not highlighted enough that these youngsters continue to be eligible for FAPE. Senator Coffin asked if this will open up additional expenditures for the districts. Ms. Dopf said the department does not believe this will open up any additional expenditures for the districts since this is just codifying something that is already required by federal law, but the federal government is very concerned about highlighting. This has caused the department to make a petition to the Legislature for this kind of wording. The opposite is very possible without getting the modifications made, since the department has only conditional approval of the department's plan for the current year. In reviewing the plan for fiscal year 1996, if the department does not show the Legislature acted in the direction that was suggested, the federal government could withhold in excess of $10 million of federal funds. Senator Coffin directed attention to a recent case where a child could not properly evacuate her body, the school district had to pay for surgery for this child. He asked if this bill would in any way affect that kind of case. Ms. Dopf said it was a Douglas County case involving a youngster, and she has read the appeal decision on it, and the decision does not require the district to do surgery. The decision requires the district to develop a plan in conjunction with the IEP that addresses the youngster's health needs so the youngster is not precluded from continuing to be able to be educated by virtue of this health need barrier. Ms. Dopf said under this particular statute, A.B. 158, would have enabled the youngster to be excused from attendance, and yet the district would still continue to serve that youngster in some form or fashion. In the particular case mentioned, the youngster was not looking to be excused from attendance. Senator Coffin said that is right, the parents were insistent the school district pay for medical procedures of some kind, but that has not been ordered? Ms. Dopf reiterated that the district has not been ordered to pay for medical procedures; the district has been ordered to develop a health plan with a continuum of services to enable the youngster to continue to stay in school. Senator Coffin said he was following up on Senator Augustine's question about a fiscal note. Senator Coffin said that particularly with Aid to Disabled Americans (ADA), as time goes on, things do develop that open up doors for compensation. If this is the case with A.B. 158, the committee needs to know that and budget for it. If the bill does not create any new expenses, that is fine. Ms. Dopf indicated the department has been in contact with the school districts regarding this bill and other impact entities that would be affected, and they have not identified a disagreement with the department's evaluation. Senator Lowden said she did not know what IEP means. Ms. Dopf explained that it is an acronym in federal law for individualized education plan and is part of federal and state requirement for every youngster with disabilities who is served through the school system to have an annual plan developed for their education. This plan is developed by a group of individuals that is dictated by federal and state law. The IEP must have a specific set of components, and in that plan is what the department wants to accomplish for that youngster that drives the decision-making for that youngster. That is, where the youngster's program is going to be located, neighborhood school, regular classroom with support or any other type of service system along the continuum. Senator Lowden asked who develops the plan; who would be someone qualified to develop that plan? Ms. Dopf answered the plan is developed through the school district at the school level, and it is developed by a member of the school district who is qualified to provide supervised special education. The child's teacher and the parents are invited to attend. The parents' participation is encouraged and alternatives to participation, if they cannot physically come, is encouraged in the law and is required in the law, such as teleconferencing, a home meeting and so forth. The district ultimately is responsible for the components of the plan and it becomes their proposal with the participation of the parents, but, ultimately, the district is putting together the package based upon the evaluation data that has been developed on that youngster and the youngster's history. If the parents do not agree to the proposal and they cannot come to an agreement, then there are procedural safeguards of due process attached to it to resolve the disagreement. Senator Lowden pointed out there is a person here who is a specialist with the State Department of Education and is someone who deals with a disability. Senator Lowden said she is very involved with a Variety School in Clark County, and the parents there are outraged at the number of other children who have been mainstreamed, and they think incorrectly so, and she agrees. She wondered, because Ms. Dopf said parents are involved, if there is a method whereby parents can disagree, and something can be resolved. These parents have ranted, raved, screamed, begged, prayed, done everything imaginable, and nothing has happened. Senator Lowden asked why so many of these children are being mainstreamed when parents truly believe it is wrong. What can be done about it? Chairman Rawson asked if the parents did not just have to file a due process. Ms. Dopf said the circumstances described by Senator Lowden are very complex. The issue of inclusion was raised earlier by Senator Rawson. She said inclusion is a movement of educating youngsters in a "least restrictive environment," and frequently this has been defined in certain people's minds to mean the youngster goes to the regular class regardless of the youngster's needs. The State Department of Education has recently put forth a technical assistance document on the issue of inclusion (Exhibit F), trying to synthesize all of the forces relating to that; such as, the legal issues, the moral issues, the teacher strategy-type issues, and put it together in a manageable format. Ms. Dopf continued, saying part of the issue Senator Lowden raised with Clark County is part of the mind-set about those who are making decisions, is that inclusion means all youngsters must be in a regular school. In that technical assistance document, it can be seen that is not the definition the department is utilizing or even that which is prescribed by the office of special education programs in the memorandum they provided as guidance. Ms. Dopf said youngsters can be educated in the regular schools, and that should be the first mind-set, rather than a separate facility, such as Variety. So what is seen is the push-pull of that kind of decision-making that is happening, not only at Variety School, but nationwide. Clark County does not want to make arbitrary decisions; they want to do what they are required to do by the federal law. There is another unique feature in that Clark County is under an Office of Civil Rights (OCR) review of their schools, specifically the special schools, so they are involved with a corrective action plan with OCR, which is a little bit different than just doing it for the sake of inclusion. Ms. Dopf continued, saying all of those forces are impacting Clark County School District and how they are looking toward programming for their youngsters. Her recommendation would be that the schools cannot make a change in a youngster's IEP without going through the IEP process, and the parents have the right to disagree through due process. If they disagree, there is a pendency, which means the program remains frozen until resolution. They also have a complaint process available to them through the State Department of Education, but all of the forces are trying to work very hard in Clark County to reconcile these issues. Senator Lowden asked if by going to the next level, Ms. Dopf means the affected parents go to the state to ask for help if the county does not help in a way the parents think is appropriate. Ms. Dopf said the department has a process in federal and state law whereby if an individual feels the law has been violated by an action of the district, then they can involve the department of education in a complaint investigation process. So it would not be based upon just stepping in, but stepping in based upon an allegation that the district has acted in an unlawful fashion in the actions they have taken, and that is a complaint resolution process; the other is the due process, which is individual student resolution. Senator Augustine referred to lines 16 through 19 where it says "...shall make available to the child a free appropriate public education in compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act..." and asked if that means in school or home school or does it cover both so if a child cannot attend school, the department provides a teacher to go out to the home. Ms. Dopf advised that the definition of how that youngster would be served is through the IEP process mentioned before. In this case, it would most likely not be at school because they are looking to be excused from attendance at the school. Senator Augustine referred to that part of the bill which says "...as that Act existed on July 1, 1995...." Is that also being revised at the federal level under ADA; is that why the committee is looking at a future date as opposed to something right now? Ms. Dopf replied that this is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), not ADA, but IDEA is under a reauthorization and is looking at being revised. There are hearings going on, but the department does not think the U.S. Senate will have hearings until the next school year. Part B, which is the general part of the entitlement, is a permanent authorization, so whatever happens in the reauthorization hearing on IDEA will not impact the continuation of the funds and the basic requirements of FAPE. Senator Augustine remarked that regardless of what the U.S. Senate does, this language will keep Nevada in compliance. Ms. Dopf said that is the direction from the Office of Special Education Programs. The areas that are up for modification would not impact the continuation of funds. Senator Augustine expressed concern about putting in a future date because IDEA is being revised, and the committee has no idea what it will look like on July 1. Ms. Dopf said there are no changes that are set for enactment as of July 1. The reason for July 1 was that was the time frame for the fiscal year 1996 plan, and the condition of continuation of funds for that year was having this modification in place by the beginning of the fiscal year. Senator Augustine asked what they are working on within the act? Ms. Dopf replied they are looking at several components of the funds that are discretionary for school programs, other than the entitlement program, which is part B. Under part C, there are several different types of programs and that whole set of appropriations is under discussion and will need to be finalized by October. Senator Augustine asked if this is one of the programs that they are looking at for the states to administer the funds, rather than the federal government. Ms. Dopf said this program was exempt from any block funding proposal or anything of that nature, even under the Goals 2000. It was exempt from having any of the requirements reduced as a basis of any kind of an attempt to program improvement or innovation because of the adherence to the rights this program provides for disabled youngsters. Those kind of guarantees have not at all been discussed or modified. How the youngsters are counted and those kinds of mechanics have been discussed as modifications, but the requirements of FAPE will not be reduced. Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, testified on behalf of Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Nevada State Chiropractic Association, saying she and Ms. Tyler are the ones who came up with this proposed amendment, which basically eliminates lines 11 and 12, and adds a specific sentence within the scope of practice. Ms. Berkley said when they talked with Dr. Harrington, his main concern was only qualified people, which in 99 percent of the cases with regard to children with disabilities are medical doctors, would be the ones who sign off on the approval of that plan. She felt paragraph 2 actually is associated with NRS 392.040, which gives everyone who can write any excuse for a child, such as a chiropractor or a nurse practitioner and so on, to sign off on the approval of the plan. Their suggestion to Dr. Harrington of adding the words "only those physicians within their scope of practice," would allow them to only deal with those specific kinds of instances, and the chances of them ever applying to section 3 were nil. Dr. Harrington agreed, and it was agreed by all contacted that these modifications would improve the bill. Marsha Berkbigler, Lobbyist, Nevada State Medical Association, said the concern the association has is that if the bill is unmodified, the only health care providers exempted from writing excuses for children from school are chiropractic and homeopathic physicians and, in fact, almost all other health care providers, too. She continued, saying if the goal of the legislation is to make it just physicians, a more narrow definition is required. The chairman asked if the association supports these amendments, and Ms. Berkbigler replied in the affirmative. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 158. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEAL AND WASHINGTON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * The hearing was closed on A.B. 158 and a work session was begun with Senate Bill (S.B.) 88. SENATE BILL 88: Requires school districts to establish programs providing bilingual education. The chairman advised there was a proposed amendment to S.B. 88 on page 4 of the work session documents (Exhibit G). Senator Augustine asked for copies of the way the bill is currently amended as she sees Exhibit G removing everything done in committee and putting back all of the same language except for revising some of the words. Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said that amendment was never processed because of concerns by the State Department of Education. Senator Augustine pointed out the committee did vote on the bill to amend and do pass, and she would like to see a copy of the bill with the committee's amendment to see what the committee actually did and what is being proposed now. Ms. Davis advised the districts were still in charge of putting together those programs, and it was changing "shall" to "may." Senator Augustine said the committee also deleted the entire section 3, lines 8 through 15. Ms. Davis said the amendment was drafted, it just was not brought down to the floor, and the reason for this is on page 2, Exhibit G, of the work session document. However a, b and c are the same in Amendment No. 200, Exhibit F, as they are in the proposed amendment. Senator Coffin said he believes the amendment does not only what Senator Augustine wanted when the bill was amended in committee, but also what the counties and the state department came up with after consultation with the Hispanic educators, and they are willing to concede the point here, which is that the definition needs modification. Chairman Rawson said yes, the committee redefined it loosely as to those programs which teach the English language to pupils. Originally, it was bilingual education. Senator Coffin said yes, it gives the department a chance to work it out. Senator Augustine said the original bill said "by school district" and this amendment says "the state board of education shall adopt regulations..." If the state board adopts the regulations, then once again it is still mandated into the districts, which means the costs go back to the district. Michael de la Torre, Consultant, Second Language Acquisition Programs, State Department of Education, addressed Senator Augustine and said the Amendment No. 200 would have read that "school districts may adopt." However, the amendment before you today reads that the state board of education "shall adopt." Mr. de la Torre continued, saying if lines 6 and 7 remained, it would read : "The state board of education shall provide guidelines...." and pointed out the state board is mandated to do that by federal law and regulations. Mr. de la Torre advised recently he and Ms. Peterson met with representatives from Clark County and came up with this version of S.B. 88, which they believe resolves everyone's concerns and still keeps everything within the law. He said he did the draft, so hopefully he can address some of the committee's concerns. When he read Amendment No. 200, he took the language verbatim: "... to establish a program to teach English language to..." and he pulled all that into the new amendment. Senator Augustine said this new amendment would change the language back so the state board of education is mandated to adopt the regulations. If the state board adopts the regulations, are they sent out to the districts with a mandate that they also comply. Senator Augustine referred to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), because they did a 1994 report that says: "Nevada taxpayers could face a 15-fold increase in bilingual education costs and an increase of 140 percent or more in the number of children forced into these programs," yet this bill claims there would be no effect on local government." Senator Augustine said if the state board is going to adopt the regulations, it means that every school district must comply, and that is where the big money comes in. Mr. de la Torre said it is already a regulation, and the state board of education is comprised of 11 member representatives of school districts, seven of which come from Clark County, so there are not 11 department employees that are going to foist regulations on any districts. Chairman Rawson said the concern is partly an issue of local control versus state control, and the other part is that it is mandating something here that is unfunded. He reiterated there is a federal regulation requiring this now. Mr. de la Torre said federal case law, Office for Civil Rights' (OCR) policy, and three districts are currently undergoing or have undergone OCR scrutiny; that is, Elko this year, Lyon County last year and Humboldt County the year before. Without exception, the recommendations are that the department provide guidelines for the districts' programs. The department is merely promulgating at the state level regulations that are being foisted on local school districts from the federal level. Senator Augustine advised the amendment says: "The state board of education shall adopt regulations which are necessary to carry out and administer a program...", reiterating "a program." Again, this means the department is going to control what the school districts are doing and adopt regulations with which all of them must comply. She said the way the original bill was written, it is "The board of trustees of each school district..." shall do a program. Senator Augustine said the way this language is, and from the information she has received and she will check again on this new proposed language, but it is going to a be a major fiscal cost for the state of Nevada. Chairman Rawson said the committee should request a fiscal note be submitted to staff to have them verify whether or not the proposed amendment would really affect Nevada. Senator Augustine said the estimate the department gave the committee the last time was $2 million. The chairman asked who gave the committee that estimate. Senator Augustine said it was Mr. de la Torre. Mr. de la Torre said that was because the department had a bill in for $2 million, but that money is for programs already in existence. There are currently 20,000 youngsters in second language programs in Nevada. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. de la Torre if he would explain why the department sees the need for this. Mr. de la Torre responded by saying it is to bring Nevada into compliance and consistency with federal regulations. Chairman Rawson asked the risk if Nevada is not in compliance. What would the federal government do to, say, Elko County or with the state. Mr. de la Torre replied that usually the OCR comes into the district to do an assessment of the school district. The district signs an agreement, which agreement will have a litany of things that need to be done. The first thing is that program consistency must be provided, which means the district must establish some guidelines, training must be given, and the district must develop specifics on how they evaluate their programs and so forth. What the department is trying to do is put this in regulation now so training and resources can be provided to the school districts. Chairman Rawson asked if this would prevent that kind of inspection of individual districts. Mr. de la Torre responded by saying yes and no, because it would be a different type of review since the department would be working with OCR in promulgating these regulations. Representatives of the department have already met with the superintendents' association and asked them to provide a representative from their districts to work with the department personnel. He said the state is just going to say we will come up with these 10 commandments for second language programs and mandate bilingual or whatever. Mr. de la Torre continued, saying there has been no court in the nation that has mandated a bilingual program, and he understands that is a concern of the committee. The department would not do that nor does he think the department has the authority to do that. Senator Lowden asked Mr. de la Torre if the department has any regulations now at local districts. Mr. de la Torre responded, saying the department is using some formats that were received from OCR. Senator Lowden asked if he thinks the department will have all the regulations before the committee leaves in June, and he responded in the negative. She then asked how long he thinks it will take. Mr. de la Torre said the department thought they would be working on them with the committees from the different districts in the late summer. Senator Lowden said she liked the original amendment and would like to see the regulations the department is going to adopt before she would support this new amendment. She said she preferred and voted for Amendment No. 200. Mr. de la Torre explained the legal issue this presents for the department is that it says "districts may" and it remains with lines 6 and 7, because nowhere in this Amendment No. 200 does it talk about removing them. So it would say "the districts may" and then on the initial draft, lines 6 and 7, it would say "The state board of education shall adopt regulations." The department finds that as an inconsistency which will buy them a lawsuit or review from OCR. The department feels this is just kind of litigious behavior in which they do not wish to become involved because there is an inconsistency. Senator Lowden said she understands what he is saying, but she does not agree. She said this is the first time she is seeing the department's amendment, and she would like more time to look at it and discuss it further. She said she does not agree with his assessment that the one amendment is not consistent with the other in that "the school district may adopt" and the department's "shall adopt." Chairman Rawson said the committee should try to resolve this inconsistency, and he does not have the concerns over the new language that have been expressed. Senator Lowden advised that Mr. de la Torre had provided some books to the committee, one being The Provision of an Equal Education Opportunity from December of 1993 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. On page 5 it talks about compliance issues and on page 6 it says, "Thus, school districts have the flexibility to decide on the education approach that best meets the needs of their language minority students." Senator Lowden stated federal law says the school districts have the flexibility to decide, and now the department wants to mandate it by the state board, so the department is not in compliance with federal government requirements. Mr. de la Torre responded by saying on March 22 when he appeared before the committee, he was asked the same question and his response remains the same. What that quote refers to is that school districts are left to the approach they will take in terms of a bilingual, sheltered, a developed bilingual or a transitional bilingual. There are a variety of methods, and that is what you have referred to, but what it does not refer to is the fact that districts must provide for their language needs. Senator Lowden said is says "...allow school districts broad discretion concerning how to ensure equal education opportunity for language minority students." She said it is in the book you gave us. Mr. de la Torre said that refers to the type of programs. Chairman Rawson noted the district has the discretion to offer it or not offer it; it is just the form in which it is offered the OCR is concerned with. Mr. de la Torre said Clark County, for example, has English as a Second Language (ESL) programs, and they have bilingual programs, but it is a county decision. Washoe County is just concluding a year-long task force where they are looking at bilingual education and most likely will have it in some of their schools next year. Senator Lowden advised she voted for the last amendment and was ready to vote for it on the floor. She said she has just been presented with a brand new amendment and would like to go over it; she would like to read it, and decipher it. She does not feel she should be pressured into voting for it right now. Senator Neal said it is always good to allow the education system to be able to engage in other languages. Senator Coffin said he does agree with Senator Lowden that the committee should take more time to look at the proposed amendment. The hearing was closed on S.B. 88, with Chairman Rawson indicating the committee would come back to the work document at the next scheduled meeting. The chairman said the committee has unfinished business on Senate Bill (S.B.) 87. SENATE BILL 87: Revises circumstances under which minimum number of days of school per year may be reduced. Chairman Rawson said this is the bill that would allow alternative scheduling, and the Assembly has passed an amendment that strikes some of the committee's language, and it simply inserts alternative scheduling. The chairman asked for the pleasure of the committee. Senator Augustine said the committee has received many calls and negative publicity on this bill since it was passed out of committee. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO NOT CONCUR ON THE AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 87. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Chairman Rawson asked Senator Augustine, Senator Mathews and Senator Washington to serve on the first conference committee on this bill. The discussion was closed on S.B. 87 and opened on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 16. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 16: Urges Congress to amend the Social Security Act to allow states to pay recipient of Medicaid who has a disability directly for certain services provided in the home of the recipient. The chairman said there seems to be a simple amendment to S.C.R. 16. Ms. Davis explained that when the committee first heard the bill, testimony was given that depending on the type of severity of a disabled person, consumers of personal services have varying ability to manage their own care. This amendment addresses the middle ground, and it urges Congress to amend the Federal Tax Code. Chairman Rawson said he would like to have the committee members spend some time with this work document, and it will be discussed again at the next scheduled meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, _______________________________ Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: _____________________________________ Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE: _______________________________ Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities May 8, 1995 Page