MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session June 7, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 2:30 p.m., on Wednesday, June 7, 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 Bob Coffin Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. Senator Bernice Mathews STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Shelley Berkley, Vice President, Government and Legal Affairs, Sands Hotel Ronald Taylor, Senior Management Analyst, Clark County Department of Building Thomas Skancke, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Convention/Visitors Authority Carolyne W. Edwards, Lobbyist, Legislative Liaison, Clark County School District Dr. Edward E. Goldman, Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Operations & Staff Relations, Clark County School District Bart Mangino, Past President, Clark County Association of School Administrators, Kay Samolovitch, Assistant Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators Lezlie Porter, Member, Alliance Looking at Education Reform Today Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards F. Gregory Betts, Lobbyist, Rural Alliance/College of Education Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Director, Legislative Affairs, Nevada State Education Association Elaine Lancaster, Lobbyist, President-Elect, Nevada State Education Association Lucille Lusk, President, Nevada Concerned Citizens Maxine Nietz, Concerned Citizen Rick Millsap, Lobbyist, President, Nevada State Education Association Ken Lange, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Education Association Sandy Coyle, Concerned Parent Jeanne Simons, Concerned Parent Cheri Johnson, Member, Douglas County School Board Randy Wallstrum, Trustee, Douglas County School Board Ricci Elkins, Executive Officer, Sierra Nevada Academy Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, State Department of Education Punam Mather, Lobbyist, Senior Vice President, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Barbara Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada PTA Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, People to Protect America, People Organized for the Next Generation Charlotte Brothwell, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Classified School Employees Association Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 477. SENATE BILL 477: Exempts convention halls from requirement of providing sufficient number of water closets and urinals to comply with uniform plumbing code. Shelley Berkley, Vice President, Government and Legal Affairs, Sands Hotel, testified from prepared text (Exhibit C), as follows: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senators, my name is Shelley Berkley. My address is 7432 Silver Palm Court, Las Vegas, Nevada. I am vice president of Government and Legal Affairs for the Sands Hotel. I am here today with Rick Heller, who is head of the Sands Expo Center. In case you may have any questions that I am unable to answer, he will be able to answer them. It is my pleasure being here with you today to testify on behalf of S.B. 477. I was somewhat surprised when I heard that I was trying to gut the potty parity law. Let me assure you that is clearly not my intention. With this piece of legislation, my intent is to develop a sensible way to provide enough toilet facilities for the convention center user, while creating a standard that is sensible and not overly burdensome. The genesis of this bill came after the Sands Expo Center built its original facility in compliance with the Uniform Plumbing Code. Once we opened the facility, it became apparent that many of our toilets were never used by the public. When we began plans for Phase II of the Expo Center, we were informed by the County Building Department that even though we can demonstrate that our toilet facilities were underutilized, we were bound by state law to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code. I have provided you all with a standard industry definition of a convention center (Exhibit D). According to the International Association of Auditorium Managers, the definition of an Exhibition Hall/Convention Center is a 'large room of contiguous flat floor space designed primarily for the presentation of exhibits associated with public or trade shows.' Public Shows are those shows that the public is invited to come and participate in. 'A facility that combines an exhibition space with a substantial number of smaller meeting spaces. The purpose of these buildings is to host trade shows, public shows, conventions, large food functions and other functions related to the convention industry.' Any arena that does more than this does not fit the definition of a true convention center and should not fit into the exemption. A convention center is a very unique building. It is, by and large, a giant empty warehouse with movable walls. It is utilized generally from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. A convention center is considered operating at maximum capacity when it is utilized one-third of the time. For each convention day, you have 1 day move in; 1 day move out. What we do is we create a city, we operate a city for a few days, and then we destroy the city, and then we start all over again. Facilities like the Sands Expo and the Las Vegas Convention Center are inherently different from sports arenas like Cashman Field and the Thomas and Mack Center, a facility that I know a great deal about. There are no innings, there are no quarters, during which time people rush to the toilet facilities. There is no seventh-inning stretch at a convention center. People use our facilities all day long, as the need arises. In order to demonstrate our point, we conducted a toilet use study (we have taken this very seriously) over several conventions that took place at the Expo Center, and I have provided you with the pertinent data (Exhibit E). The first show was the International Gaming Business Exposition, and each convention is identified by name, the date it took place, the number of attendees and the number of toilets available in the leased area. Our rest room attendants counted the number of visits to the rest room, so every time you walked in they clicked. We allowed for a 5-minute stay per user. Then we multiplied that times the number of toilets available. The result clearly shows that we had excess capacity based on peak-hour use. Our suggestion would be to adopt a local standard that would allow some flexibility; and our suggestion would be, since we have no intentions of gutting the Uniform Plumbing Code, we think it has important use in many different areas and in many situations. In this particular situation, the number of toilets in a convention center exhibit hall shall be no more than 70 percent of the number required by the Uniform Plumbing Code. This standard, coupled with the limiting definition of a convention center, will provide protection for the users and flexibility for the convention centers. I have spoken with the Las Vegas Convention Center, and they have authorized me to state that they agree with our position on this issue. One other item that you should be aware of, the cost in real numbers is staggering. As we joke about a toilet facility and how much it would cost, but for each toilet it costs us approximately $3,000 to install, and that is with the stall and the special tile and the plumbing and the fixture itself. In addition to that, there is a $780 sewer connection fee assessed for each toilet, each urinal and each sink. So we are talking about approximately $4,000 and up per facility. Finally, an issue near and dear to my heart is waste of water. I am a member of the Southern Nevada Coalition 2000. Our charge is to educate the public on water usage. Even when our toilets are not used, we still need to flush them to keep the valves from sticking. That is a terrible waste of hundreds of gallons of water for absolutely no reason. In my elected position, I helped to formulate policy and regulation. In my paying job, I have to live with the regulations that others formulate. This is an instance of a very good intention with a bad and wasteful result. We are not in favor of long lines, and we are certainly not promoting that. We are not in favor of eliminating the Uniform Plumbing Code. We wish to be classified in a category that makes sense for our particular business and work in the business that we are in, and I urge you to pass this piece of legislation. Now, that is more about toilets than you ever wanted to know. Senator Neal said if people have to go to the toilet, it is wrong to assume they all have to go at the same time. Ms. Berkley advised their statistics show and dramatically demonstrate that in their particular business, people do not tend to go at the same time. Ms. Berkley said she realizes the session is winding down, and the Sands Expo Center would appreciate all due consideration possible for this piece of legislation because if it has any chance of getting passed, it should be moved along. Ronald Taylor, Senior Management Analyst, Clark County Department of Building (CCDB), said his main purpose in testifying is just to express the building department's concerns about exempting convention halls from "potty parity." Two years ago, potty parity was adopted by the Legislature because there was a problem at convention halls, sports facilities and that sort of thing, where there were not enough water closets or urinals for the attendees, and potty parity was adopted to address that to ensure there would be enough. Chairman Rawson said he understands the wording in this bill does not get into that issue at all. In other words, the ratios established for men to women's facilities will still remain. Mr. Taylor replied, "That would be true in all other facilities. However, if this is adopted, it will exempt convention halls. What you are attempting to do is change the definition of a convention hall." Chairman Rawson said if the bill talks in terms of that exemption being 70 percent of the standard, that standard is still a ratio, so it will keep that ratio. The chairman said it is important to distinguish that potty parity was an issue of recognizing that it is not as convenient for women as for men to find adequate facilities. This will not change the ratio the Legislature established which said there had to be more facilities for women than for men. Mr. Taylor agreed, saying that it will not change that ratio, but it will reduce the total amount in convention halls. Senator Neal said the original law grew out of a situation that occurred at a sports event, and a lady attending one of the games got arrested for going into the men's rest room. The committee voted on the bill based on the fact that the application was to sporting events, and it did not arise out of convention centers. Convention centers were never the problem and as Ms. Berkley indicated, the conventions do not settle in one place, they move all the time. He said, "It is not like at half-time at a game where everyone rushes out to go to the toilet and come back in time to be seated for the rest of the game." Mr. Taylor said the building department's concern is that some convention centers do allow sporting events; maybe not basketball, but other sporting events. Senator Neal said the bill could be amended if they hold a sporting event. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Taylor if he had seen the definition of a convention center. Mr. Taylor replied in the affirmative. He said another of the department's concern is that other facilities will attempt to fall under this definition, even though they are not actually complying with it. Senator Augustine pointed out that on page 1, lines 22, 23 and 24, the bill sets forth other facilities that are included; that is, concert hall, community hall, sports arena, stadium and that sort of thing. She asked Mr. Taylor if CCDB was responsible for bringing in the original bill 10 years ago. Mr. Taylor said CCDB did not sponsor that bill. Mr. Taylor said the concern of CCDB is that it does pose a classification problem as far as potty parity is concerned. Thomas Skancke, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Convention/Visitors Authority (LVCVA), said the definition of a convention center is: "A large room of contiguous flat space designed primarily for presentation of exhibits associated with public or trade shows." Mr. Skancke advised LVCVA currently complies with all the current regulations, and they do support this legislation. Chairman Rawson indicated this is the definition given earlier, and Mr. Skancke said LVCVA just wants to go on record so there is no confusion. He said if LVCVA has sporting events, which they do not at the convention center; those are held at Cashman Field. Cashman Field would be exempt from this legislation and it would pertain strictly to the convention center. The hearing was closed on S.B. 477. SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 477. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 368. ASSEMBLY BILL 368: Revises provisions governing probationary period of administrators and teachers employed by county school districts. Carolyne W. Edwards, Lobbyist, Legislative Liaison, Clark County School District, appeared before the committee, along with Dr. Edward E. Goldman, who represents the superintendent of schools in his capacity as assistant superintendent, employer relations. Ms. Edwards gave a brief history and summary of A.B. 368, saying legislation is presented which is in agreement with most parts of the education coalition. This bill increases probation from 1 year to 2 years for teachers new to the state and newly appointed administrators. She said that is the basis of this bill; probation is extended from 1 to 2 years. She said if the teacher or the administrator does very well in their first year, they do not have a second year of probation. They have a note from the principal or their supervisor that says they do not need a second year. But for the teacher or administrator who has not shown exactly what the district would like to see insofar as teaching or administration skills are concerned, the district has the opportunity to look at their improvement in the second year. Ms. Edwards continued by saying at one time the coalition was in agreement on this bill, but today there will be some members of the Clark County Administrators Association in opposition. For that reason, the Nevada Administrators Association has had to step out of their support of this bill. Chairman Rawson asked about the issue in contention, and Ms. Edwards said they do not like the second year of probation for principals. Chairman Rawson asked if Clark County hires principals new to the system, or are they hired from the ranks of teachers. Dr. Edward E. Goldman, Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Operations & Staff Operations, Clark County School District (CCSD), replied that they do both. When principals are hired from outside the district, they are probationary. Dr. Goldman directed attention to section 7, saying, "An administrator who has completed his probationary period pursuant to subsection 5 and is thereafter promoted to the position of principal must serve an additional probationary period of 1 year in the position of principal...." CCSD has people who are appointed to administrative positions, such as an administrative specialist or a dean or even an assistant principal, and after completing 1 year in that position, they are post-probationary administrators. It is the opinion of CCSD that a principal is the one very crucial position in the community that is held accountable. Dr. Goldman continued by saying, just because somebody completed a probationary year as a dean or administrative specialist, it does not guarantee post- probationary status if that person assumes the principalship, which the most accountable and visible position in the district, especially at the elementary level where there is only one administrative person, for the most part, in the building, and that is the principal. A successful specialist or dean does not always make a successful principal. In that case, what CCSD is asking for is the opportunity, if that person appointed as principal is not capable, to be able to put them back to the position in which they had last been successful. Chairman Rawson asked if this probationary period essentially acts like a tenure, and Dr. Goldman answered affirmatively. The chairman asked what happens in the case of a teacher who does not pass the probationary period in the first year. Dr. Goldman responded, "They are removed from their position." Ms. Edwards advised there were two bills before the Legislature and both had the same message; one bill was brought by the Nevada Association of School Boards and CCSD brought the other bill. Both bills asked that the probationary period be extended, and these two bills have not been combined into A.B. 368. Ms. Edwards said the intent of CCSD in bringing this bill to the Legislature was to improve the performance of teachers and administrators. She advised except for the one issue, all members of employee groups have reached agreement. They feel this is a good reform bill which gives the opportunity for a longer period of time for improvement by teachers and administrators. Chairman Rawson asked if administrators feel they do not want to go back into the school as probationary administrators for a second year. Dr. Goldman said they have taken only one position, the principalship, where the person filling that position may be a post-probationary administrator and is promoted to principal, that person would be on probation again for 1 year. Senator Mathews asked if the salaries of teachers or principals on probation are frozen until they move off probation. Dr. Goldman said the salaries are not frozen. He said every position has a negotiated range, so even a probationary principal receives the same salary as a non- probationary principal. Senator Mathews asked Dr. Goldman his title, and he replied he was assistant superintendent for staff relations. Senator Mathews asked him how many years he was on probation when he went into administration, and he said 1 year. Senator Mathews remarked, "That is plenty." Senator Augustine directed attention to page 4, lines 14 through 16, on the probationary year of a principal and asked if that just covered a principal, or could it be a person who served as an elementary school principal in one school and then went on to a new position as a high school principal. She asked if that person is under probation. Dr. Goldman said that person would not be on probation because once a person has served a probationary period as principal and demonstrated satisfactory performance in that position, probation no longer applies. Senator Augustine asked if this is true as long as they serve as a principal. Dr. Goldman said, "Yes." Chairman Rawson asked if there is reciprocity between districts and the state. Dr. Goldman said the current law requires once a person is post-probationary in any part of Nevada, they are post-probationary, so in that respect the answer is yes. Senator Neal asked if the bill referred to administrators and principals. Dr. Goldman said only to principals. Senator Neal asked if when a person moves up to a principalship, who does the measurement of that individual? Dr. Goldman replied, "It is the area superintendent who supervises that school." Senator Neal asked if the area superintendent has a form to complete on the individual and a form that sets forth the standards to be met? Dr. Goldman said, "Yes, there is an evaluation form specifically for that position." Senator Neal said the area superintendent is obviously not on the site at all times, so what formula does he use to measure whether or not the principal has met the standards. Dr. Goldman said the area superintendent makes frequent visitations and reviews any complaints made, any concerns raised, anything that has to do with that particular school. The area superintendent also meets with the teachers and the principal at the school. Senator Neal asked if the evaluation is subjective or discretionary on the part of the area superintendent. Dr. Goldman replied, "To some degree, yes." Senator Neal asked if an area superintendent dislikes an educator, that person could get a bad rating? Dr. Goldman answered in the affirmative. Senator Neal pointed out what is being discussed is the education of children. Dr. Goldman said individuals do not get to be superintendents unless they have demonstrated years of competency before that. Senator Neal remarked that the CCSD has been in operation for quite some time, and asked if Dr. Goldman could tell the committee of the circumstances that brought this bill before them. Dr. Goldman said at the elementary level, CCSD only has deans; they do not have assistant principals. Simply out of necessity because of the rapid growth of that area, the number of schools that have been opened, resignations and retirement, there are persons who have been promoted out of the classroom into assistant principalships and into a principalship within a year to a year and a half. He said it is one thing if a person is an assistant principal and CCSD has been able to follow that individual's progress for 3 to 4 to 5 years, but this is not always possible. This is less so at the secondary level where the individual usually has to be a dean and then an assistant principal before assuming a principalship. Dr. Goldman continued by saying in the rural counties, individuals go straight from the classroom to a principalship because there are no assistant principals at the elementary level. He said haste, necessity and the number of positions available for individuals to occupy as assistant principals before they become principals are insufficient. Senator Neal asked if growth has subsided in the CCSD. Dr. Goldman said he did not think so. There will be a minimum of 12 principalships open next March, and principals are used to open the new schools. Senator Neal asked if when individuals are promoted to principalships and they do not meet what CCSD considers the standard, is this bill going to cure that situation if CCSD still has the growth problem? Dr. Goldman said the bill will certainly help. Most principals going directly to that position are successful, perhaps 90 percent. The other 10 percent not considered successful can be put back into subordinate roles again, which CCSD cannot do now. Ms. Edwards spoke to Senator Neal's question of having an area superintendent who dislikes a principal, saying that is covered in the bill. The principal may request a different supervisor for the second year of the probation. If there is a personality conflict, a different area supervisor can be requested. Ms. Edwards referred to Senator Mathew's question earlier when she asked Dr. Goldman how long he was on probation when appointed as an administrator, and he said 1 year. It is because of that probationary period, CCSD is trying to make some reforms and that is the reason for the 2-year probationary period. CCSD has not been satisfied with just the 1 year of probation. Senator Mathews asked if Dr. Goldman would have to go back and finish up the other year. Dr. Goldman said the probationary rule would only apply to the principalship, and if he were a principal, he would have to do so. Bart Mangino, Past President, Clark County Association of School Administrators (CCASA), said this is a professional association representing the administrators of CCSD. Mr. Mangino expressed the association's concerns regarding A.B. 368 in its current form. The understanding is this bill was initially a CCSD bill developed by the central office administrator, with no discussion or input from the administrators who will be required to implement the law under this bill. He said this bill was initially drafted to require all licensed educational employees serve a 2-year probationary period. Currently, the law provides a probationary employee not being given notice for reemployment as a post-probationary employee, may be offered a contract for a trial year, the second year of probation. In years past, CCSD established a procedure requiring any employee being placed on second-year probation must receive an evaluation rating of not satisfactory in the first year. This procedure is not required by law and was frequently implemented unfairly to the employees of CCSD. Mr. Mangino continued by saying, during discussions with the authors of this bill, the association was informed it was drafted to eliminate this unfairness. A.B. 368 was amended in the Assembly to allow 1-year probation. If all three evaluations in the first year received a satisfactory rating, in order to provide 2 years of probation the employee must be rated non-satisfactory in the first year. The non- satisfactory requirement is the very reason the initial bill draft was introduced. He said currently, an administrator in Nevada who receives a post-probationary status as a teacher is not required to be probationary when appointed to an administrative position. This bill will require a probationary period for administrators during the first administrative appointment. The association does not disagree with this change in the law. This change will increase the accountability for first-time administrators and, in fact, in 1993, CCASA attempted to negotiate similar language into their contract. Mr. Mangino referred to section 3, subsection 7, of the bill which requires that a post-probationary administrator must serve an additional 1 year of probation when appointed to the position of principal. Of the 50 positions or more that are administrative in CCSD, only the position of principal is targeted for additional probation. Before an administrator is appointed to the principal's position, a probationary period will have been served. In the CCSD, that could be a dean, an assistant principal and/or just an assistant principal. He said it is ironic that the positions higher than the principalship do not require an additional probationary period. CCASA does not believe this requirement is necessary. Mr. Mangino asked the committee not to support this bill. The language in the law that currently exists regarding a trial year is better and more fair than the proposed changes. However, if the committee prefers the new language, he urged the committee to delete the language contained in section 3, subsection 7, which requires the 1-year probation for administrators appointed to the position of principal. Chairman Rawson told Mr. Mangino this is the first time the committee has heard this issue, and his sense is that principal is a very special position. Principals are the first line with the parents, and he said it does not seem unreasonable that a principal go into a probationary period. The chairman asked: If a person has a long and distinguished career in the school district and has been a teacher, an administrator, and then that person is put back into this probationary period as a principal, if for some reason, and it could be fair or unfair, they are given an unsatisfactory rating, is their livelihood at stake; do they still have a job with the district? Their principalship is at stake, but their job is not at stake? Mr. Mangino said his understanding is that person would be returned to their last position where a satisfactory rating was received. Chairman Rawson asked if the fact a person had an unsatisfactory rating as a principal, can that be used as a basis to terminate that person, assuming there are no other major charges against them, only the fact that the person evaluating the principal did not feel that person was an appropriate principal? Mr. Mangino said he did not believe that could be used as a basis to terminate the individual. Senator Neal asked, "Do I understand correctly that the bill provides for two probationary periods; one, if the individual is a new employee or a post-probationary teacher, they have 2 years of probation and, two, if the individual goes to a principalship, he has an additional year and could actually serve 3 years in a probationary status?" Mr. Mangino replied affirmatively. Senator Washington directed attention to page 3, subsection 4, lines 36 through 39, and asked if an individual was on a probationary period and was evaluated three times and received a satisfactory rating, the second year can be waived? Mr. Mangino answered, "Yes, that is right." Senator Washington then referred to subsection 6, lines 5 through 8, basically stating the same thing again, that the second year can be waived if the probationary period is satisfactory? Mr. Mangino replied affirmatively. Kay Samolovitch, Assistant Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators (CCASA), drew attention to section 3, page 3, lines 35 through 42, which deals primarily with teachers and on page 4, specifically subsection 6, line 1, where it says "A new employee or a post-probationary teacher who is employed as an administrator shall be deemed to be a probationary employee for the purposes of this section and must serve a 2-year probationary period..." Ms. Samolovitch said if "must" is used, that makes it a mandatory 2-year probationary period for an administrator or post-probationary teacher when they are appointed to a principal position. Ms. Samolovitch continued by saying in the same section it says, "...a superintendent or his designee shall waive the second year of the administrative probationary period." She pointed out those two parts are contradictory, so there is a problem in subsection 6. Ms. Samolovitch said she would like to clarify what Senator Neal said; that is, in Clark County a post-probationary teacher when placed in an administrative position, such as a dean, does serve a probationary period. A person coming into the district from outside and who may have been a principal somewhere else and is placed into a dean or assistant principal's position serves a probationary period prior to becoming a principal. Elementary assistant principals serve a probationary period prior to their appointment as principal and in the rural counties, if a post- probationary teacher is appointed to a principal's position, that teacher would serve a probationary period as a principal. Ms. Samolovitch continued by saying the current law is satisfactory. CCASA does not have a problem with that law. CCASA has no problem with administrators serving probationary periods. CCASA does not feel it fair that this bill was originated as the result of a procedure used in CCSD. That procedure is any employee must be rated unsatisfactory by December 1 of their first probationary year, which would only be one-half of a year. CCASA feels that is not fair. The individual had to be rated unsatisfactory in order to get a second year of probation. She said that is not required by law, but it is required by CCSD. Ms. Samolovitch pointed out that CCASA does not feel this is a fair practice to target the principal position as the only position requiring this when individuals that supervise principals and make recommendations for principalships do not have that same requirement. Senator Lowden asked who supervises the supervisors. Ms. Samolovitch said the principal is responsible for any building administrator, whether it be a dean or assistant principal. The area superintendents supervise the principals. The assistant superintendents supervise the area superintendents over the elementary division, the alternative education division, and the secondary education division. She said other assistant superintendents supervise administrators in their division. Chairman Rawson pointed out that ultimately it comes back to the school board over the superintendents, and Ms. Samolovitch agreed. Senator Lowden said if this language is cleaned up to allow for a second year, as it is on page 3, there would be no problem. Ms. Samolovitch agreed and pointed out the language in subsection 6 needs to be cleaned up because it is contradictory, and then if the "principal" part is deleted, there will be no problem. Ms. Samolovitch reiterated, "If section 3, subsection 7, is deleted and the language in subsection 6 is cleaned up, the bill would be fine." Senator Washington said he missed part of a statement made earlier, and he would like to have it clarified. He asked if the intent of the bill was for CCSD, and Ms. Samolovitch agreed. He asked if other counties do something different when it comes to certifying or promoting superintendents and so forth, and Ms. Samolovitch said she did not know what the other counties do. She said she just found out the rural counties evidently promote right from teacher to principal, and a probationary period under those circumstances would be desirable. That would be the first administrative position, so a probationary period would be required. Senator Neal said the wording on page 4, subsection 7, and its reference to subsection 7 on page 3, seems to say any administrator who has completed the probationary period pursuant to section 5, and is thereafter promoted to the position of principal, must serve an additional probationary period of 1 year. He said it generally seems to say the person who has passed the probationary period 3 or 4 years ago who is now serving as a principal can have this standard placed upon them. It seems to him the language is crafted to target someone who is already serving as a principal and CCSD now wants to apply the probationary period to that person. Ms. Samolovitch said she does not believe that is the intent. Senator Neal said that is how the bill reads to him. Ms. Samolovitch said if so, she would be even more adamantly opposed to the bill. Ms. Edwards said she would like to try to clear up the confusion, saying in her own instance, prior to becoming a principal of an elementary school, she had filled other administrative positions. She said she worked in secondary curriculum and for 7 years was coordinator of language arts studies and received good evaluations there. After that, she went to work for the superintendent as assistant in that office. At that point, she had been an administrator for 8 years, but she really wanted to be a principal in an elementary school. To do so, she served as an assistant principal in an elementary school, and thereafter became principal, and she was evaluated for 1 year. Ms. Edwards said, in case she did not do a good job in that position, it would have been a good idea for her to have had a probationary period and to have had the second year of probation, if she needed it. If she had been struggling in her position of principal, her area superintendent might have said she was doing a good job, but felt she should have another year on probation. She does agree with Chairman Rawson that the position of principal is of prime importance because she was responsible for the safety of small children and other adults. She did not have that responsibility in her other positions. Ms. Edward continued, saying in the original language of the bill proposed by CCSD, all administrators were included, but in the negotiations they were dropped. Senator Neal asked Ms. Edwards if there is now a probationary period for administrators, and she answered affirmatively. Senator Neal then asked if the current bill provides for a probationary period for administrators, the real reason for this bill before the committee is some principal has passed the probationary period under A.B.368, and CCSD wants to put that person on an additional 1-year probationary status. The chairman agreed with Senator Neal, and asked Ms. Edwards if that is not what CCSD wanted the bill to say. She agreed, saying all CCSD wanted out of the bill is to require a year's probation for a principal. If that person should not do a good job as principal, they should have another year to see if they are going to be good. That is what CCSD wants it to say. Senator Neal said that is not what it says because you allowed the statute to retroactively apply to principals who have already served as principals and passed their 1-year probationary period. Senator Neal advised for a principal who has been in that position for 5 years, the area superintendent could say that principal now has to serve 1 year's probation. The chairman read subsection 7, as follows: An administrator who has completed his probationary period pursuant to subsection 5 and is thereafter promoted to the position of principal must serve an additional probationary period of 1 year in the position of principal. Ms. Edwards directed attention to lines 14 and 15, which says: An administrator who has completed his probationary period pursuant to subsection 5 and is thereafter promoted... Ms. Edwards said the important word is "thereafter," "is thereafter promoted to principal." CCSD believes it covers the situation. CCSD wants the principal to have this probationary period, even if they have already been an administrator even, for instance, for 12 years. The day the principal walks into the school where he has never been before as a principal, they start a probationary period. Senator Neal advised the bill's wording says "thereafter;" not immediately "thereafter," but thereafter. Ms. Edwards said she does not see the problem. Senator Neal suggested "subsequently" be used, and that might solve the problem. Ms. Edwards said CCSD has no intention of taking a good, strong principal and subjecting them to anything. This bill is for people brand new to the job of principal. Chairman Rawson pointed out page 4, lines 26 and 27, might clarify the situation, and the wording says this act does not apply to a probationary employee whose employment began before July 1, 1995. Senator Augustine said there might be a language discrepancy between page 3 and page 4, as discussed earlier. Page 3, line 35, reads: "If a probationary employee has received during the first school year of his probationary period three evaluations which state the employee's overall performance has been satisfactory...." Senator Augustine said line 3 on page 4 reads: "...must serve a 2-year probationary period." She asked if that means if a teacher receives three satisfactory evaluations, they will not be found satisfactory? Ms Edwards answered that the way the evaluations are currently done is that there are three observation periods in the first year of evaluation, and if the individual is found to be satisfactory, the individual has no further probation. This applies to teachers and principals. Senator Augustine pointed out it seems contradictory because in item 6, it says a new employee or post-probationary teacher must serve a 2-year probationary period. Ms. Edwards agreed. If the individual is not up to par, CCSD wants the opportunity to take a second look. Senator Augustine said again the two items are contradictory. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Edwards to look at the two points enumerated by Senator Augustine, and the committee will hear from Ms. Edwards once she has reviewed them. Senator Neal asked how many principalships CCSD is anticipating within the next couple of years. Ms. Edwards said this problem is the reason this bill is proposed. All over the state, new schools are opening, and there is a great demand for principals, perhaps up to 10 a year in Clark County. CCSD is pulling principals in as fast as they can get them, both from the outside and from the classroom. CCSD is trying to make sure they get the best by this legislation. Lezlie Porter, Member, Alliance Looking at Education Reform Today (ALERT), testified in support of A.B. 368, saying she feels the second probationary year can be valuable. From her own experience as a former trustee in Washoe County, they had principals who came up through the ranks to serve as a dean of students, and their experience as principals was very different. They were outstanding as dean of students, but being a principal is entirely different. They had some new challenges and struggles. Ms. Porter said anyone desirous of doing an excellent job would have that second year because everyone wants to be successful. Ms. Porter said she would like to take issue with parts of the statute as it stands. She said section 1, line 9, troubles her because the bill allows for only satisfactory and unsatisfactory evaluations. Ms. Porter continued by saying performance evaluations relate only to those two categories which exclude the possibility of excellence in teachers and administrators. She would recommend an amendment to that line to include excellent or outstanding or some other appropriate term. Looking at the educational research pass/fail grades given to students have been shown to diminish student effort and performance. She believes satisfactory/unsatisfactory evaluations do basically the same thing. This promotes mediocrity and does not promote excellence in those who educate our children. Ms. Porter said the second issue is section 2, line 32, when an individual is given 3 months for remediation because of a certain event. Time passes and this particular event does not reoccur, and the report is removed from their file. After the remedial period, the event occurs again. It is a matter of being good while on remedial period. Ms. Porter said she would like to see some mechanism that would pull out those having hills and valleys. Chairman Rawson asked if ALERT would like that issue taken away so it is not a consideration in any advancement or opportunities unless there is an infraction after the remedial period. Ms. Porter replied affirmatively. Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), said the association did have a bill, Assembly Bill (A.B.) 67, which was on the same topic. It was not crafted as well as A.B. 368, so he asked the co-chairman of the Assembly education committee to hold their bill until A.B. 368 came out, and it would be dealt with at that time. ASSEMBLY BILL 67: Revises provisions governing probationary period of administrators and teachers employed by county school district. Mr. Etchemendy advised A.B. 368 does not affect only Clark County, it affects Washoe County, all rural districts, and it is good policy for all of them. This is a good bill and a good process for the districts and their employees and primarily for the new teachers. Mr. Etchemendy directed attention to page 3 at lines 35 through 42, where there is a provision that if an employee during the first year receives three satisfactory evaluations, that person is entitled to be post-probationary, and the superintendent must make that a finding. It saves time, it rewards the good employee, and it helps the district and the people that have to do these evaluations. Mr. Etchemendy said getting into amendments on the bill this late in the session may result in the loss of this bill. Perhaps amendments could be discussed between sessions. Mr. Etchemendy said the association feels this is a good bill, and they support it. F. Gregory Betts, Lobbyist, Rural Alliance/College of Education, spoke in support of A.B. 368 and on behalf of the 15 rural school districts of Nevada. He said the rural superintendents are very comfortable with the language in A.B. 368, as amended. Mr. Betts pointed out the principalship is a critically important and unique position. One year of probation in that position, upon assuming those responsibilities for the first time, is very reasonable, and he urges support of this important piece of legislation. Senator Neal said in this whole process, the superintendent of schools would be one of the most important people. Mr. Etchemendy said, "In the rural districts, there is not a mid- level of superintendent, whose duties include washing the windows, sweeping the floors and doing whatever needs to be done, and he is supervisor of the whole thing." Senator Neal asked if the superintendent is put on probation. Mr. Betts said, "The superintendent is always on probation. They are on contract, and the board can let the contract run down or buy out the contract. There is no tenure for superintendents." Senator Neal pointed if he does not live up to the contract, the board would buy his contract out and send him on his way. Mr. Betts agreed. Senator Neal remarked that we are dealing with professionalism here; we are not dealing with laborers, we are dealing with professional people. When people are made to meet certain standards according to the evaluation system, that begins to affect the professionalism of the individual. He pointed out the area superintendent would have the discretion to make those evaluations. Mr. Betts said any evaluation by a competent evaluator is going to be discretionary because he will see strengths and weaknesses in a person. The evaluator is working from professional standards, but it is an individualized task, and it is no better than the evaluator. Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Director, Legislative Affairs, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated the association supports A.B. 368. There is no particular issue with the sections of concern by the Clark County School Administrators Association. NSEA's section of the bill is contained on page 3, and the association believes the language is an improvement over current practices provided in the statute. Currently, there is a 1-year probationary period. The bill would extend it to a second year if an area was identified that was considered unsatisfactory by the evaluating administrator. Currently under law, the decision to not employ someone in the second year of employment has to happen by February 15. At that point, only two evaluations have taken place, and the Assembly had concern that administrators did not really have adequate time to evaluate teachers before a decision had to be made as to whether or not that person could continue their employment. Ms. Cahill advised the law now says a teacher may be offered a trial year. It does not state they will get a trial year. At the present time, a teacher who goes into the classroom in the first year of employment as a probationary employee who runs into trouble and wants to improve, could find that at the end of 1 year they are completely out with no recourse. This bill gives that teacher an automatic second year of probation and time to improve and remediate. Ms. Cahill said Nevada is one of the few states remaining which has only a 1-year probationary period. The association feels the language is an improvement and supports this bill. Ms. Cahill advised that the recommendation brought to the committee by Ms. Porter is far beyond the scope of this bill. If the committee were to consider language relative to that admonition and make that recommendation, then the association would have to withdraw support of the bill. Senator Mathews asked if the written evaluation times should be changed because on February 15, the school districts notify those involved whether they are going to continue their employment. Ms. Cahill said that language is not changed. The date is still the same, and that language would only apply in the second year of probation. Senator Mathews remarked that at the community college, notification is made on March 15 if the teacher is on probation, and December 1 if the teacher is not going to be continued. Senator Lowden asked Ms. Cahill if she did not like the idea of excellent; to be able to evaluate as satisfactory, unsatisfactory or excellent. Ms. Cahill said it was her understanding that under the present law, satisfactory and unsatisfactory is for legal purposes when action is about to be taken to remove someone from a job, and the interpretation of whether it is excellent or good or fair is irrelevant in this case. She said she thinks a district can develop language that would allow for further delineation, but for a legal standard, satisfactory and unsatisfactory is what meets the legal test. Senator Lowden said she thought excellent was a good suggestion because if someone is that good, the evaluator should be able to say their performance is excellent. She said further, the committee can get a legal opinion on this matter. Ms. Cahill said it would be worth exploring with legal, and she believes the districts should move to have greater delineation. Further, she said, passage of this bill would make the administrators work harder to do those evaluations. There are situations now in some districts where they do not actually reach a conclusion on those first evaluations. The evaluator does not indicate satisfactory or unsatisfactory. They wait until the end of the year to make any kind of a determination. The intent is to make sure the teacher knows whether a satisfactory standard of performance is being reached. Elaine Lancaster, Lobbyist, President-Elect, Nevada State Education Association, said previously, instead of a checklist, they were allowed to make a narrative evaluation. In the narrative evaluation, the principal or the administrator had ample opportunity to indicate excellence in a lot of areas, or to indicate that performance is not so excellent in other areas. The association preferred it to be not in the statutory satisfactory/unsatisfactory. Clearly, there is a chance to indicate a performance rating of excellence in a classroom teacher. Senator Neal asked Ms. Lancaster if she is saying since the teachers would now have an extra year probationary period, the administrators should have the same thing. Ms. Lancaster responded by saying the association thinks that is a fair standard. Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), said she wants to express the parent and citizen point of view, which is strong support for this bill. She feels, as a concerned citizen, it is very important to have the opportunity to bring the best forward in educators and nurture them so our children are served by the best. She does not see the need to change the language in the bill, as she feels it is pretty clearly expressed. If the Legislative Counsel Bureau advisors feel there is a conflict, it should be easy to adjust the language. Ms. Lusk continued by pointing out the language on lines 14 and 15 on page 4, says: "An administrator who has completed his probationary period pursuant to subsection 5 and is thereafter promoted to the position of principal...," so you cannot be dealing with someone who is already a principal. It is only after they complete their probationary period and have been promoted to principal. Ms. Lusk continued, saying a lot of work and a lot of effort have gone into this bill to resolve many concerns. She feels those concerns have been revolved, and the bill is brought to the committee in a form which can pass through this committee and through the Senate. She pointed out there are many issues the committee will want to deal with in future sessions, and she urged the committee against attempting to introduce new concepts into A.B. 368 now because if that occurs, there will not be time for the bill to complete its course. The hearing was closed on A.B. 368. Senator Augustine said she does not have a problem with the bill, other than if there is conflicting language in section 3 and 4 and item 6 about the "must serve a 2-year probationary period" or the waiver after the first three evaluations. Chairman Rawson said he would rather work it out than delay the bill. Mr. Etchemendy said: Senator Rawson, I heard those comments earlier about some conflicts in the language. We do not feel there are any conflicts in the way the bill is drafted. In one section, new teacher employees are addressed; and in the other section, it addresses a new employee or a post-probationary teacher who is employed as an administrator. The association does not see a conflict in the language of the bill. Senator Augustine asked if a principal, also, would receive an evaluation. Mr. Etchemendy answered affirmatively, saying that is the only way it can be determined if the probationary year has been completed successfully. In most districts, the evaluation will be done by the superintendent. Senator Augustine asked if the principal receives three satisfactory evaluations, the probation can be waived. Mr. Etchemendy informed her the principal has just the 1 probationary year; that is all. Senator Augustine asked why the bill, line 6, says, "...must serve a 2-year probationary period." Mr. Etchemendy explained subsection 6, page 4, starting at line 1, refers to a new employee or post-probationary teacher who is employed as an administrator. In many districts, that administrator will be a principal. Senator Augustine said on one page it reads: "...must serve a 2- year probationary period," and on the other page says with three evaluations, no further probation is required. Senator Washington said he thinks subsection 4 means a teacher, and subsection 6 is for an administrator, and subsection 7 applies to a principal. Mr. Etchemendy agreed. Senator Neal asked Mr. Etchmendy if the word "designee" has a rank or status. Mr. Etchemendy says it does have a connotation of rank. For example, he said, a superintendent is not going to allow someone to step in and perform his duties as a designee unless that person is qualified to do so. Senator Neal said if the superintendent has the power to designate, he can designate the janitor. Mr. Etchemendy said he doubts that would happen. Senator Neal commented on page 4, line 6, it says he can select his designee. Mr. Etchemendy said the schools will have an established list of designees, and the designee would have to be the area superintendents or the assistant superintendents or whoever is on the list. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 368. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Rawson said the conflict mentioned is not serious enough for an opinion. Senator Lowden said, "If there is a little language discrepancy, it can be checked and it can be fixed on the floor. The intent is clear." Chairman Rawson directed staff to check this language conflict. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Chairman Rawson presented three bill draft requests (BDRs) for committee introduction. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 1-1844: Provide training and support for Court Appointed Special Advocates Program. SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 1-1844. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * BILL DRAFT REQUEST 39-909: Authorizes certification of mental health technicians employed by division of child and family services. SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 39-909. SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * BILL DRAFT REQUEST 38-846: Clarified division's authority to operate Medicaid Estate Recovery Program. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 38-846. The motion died for lack of a second. * * * * * Chairman Rawson advised a motion was needed to re-refer Senate Bill (S.B.) 33 to finance. When it was passed out of committee, that was the understanding, but there was no formal motion for the re-referral. SENATE BILL 33: Requires public schools to be accredited. SENATOR NEAL MOVED S.B. 33 BE RE-REFERRED TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * The hearing was opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 31. SENATE BILL 31: Authorizes formation and operation of charter schools in Nevada. Senator Lowden, chairman of the subcommittee on S.B. 31, testified the subcommittee conducted at least 10 hours of public hearing and numerous meetings with Jan Needham of the Legislative Counsel Bureau and other entities. Senator Lowden advised S.B. 31 is still not something everyone wants, but she believes it is a matter of language. Chairman Rawson asked Senator Lowden to give the committee a general summary of the bill. Senator Lowden briefly summarized the sections, as follows: Section 2 contains the goals of the charter school. It is a new and innovative way of educating Nevada's young people. Section 3 goes into the particulars on forming a charter school; that is, there is an application that has to go to the board of trustees of that school district, and this section sets forth the requirements for establishing a charter school. If the state board does not like the first application, a second application may be submitted. If that application is also rejected, there is a provision for appeal to the state board, and the state board will then act as mediator. Section 4 contains more of the rules and regulations for a charter school, including a financial plan. Section 4 was of importance to the subcommittee because if the school is unsuccessful, there should be funds sufficient to pay all bills. Section 5 reiterates more on formulation of a charter school, and the ultimate approval for the school. Section 6 sets forth the particulars of how the board of directors is formed; such as, members of the community and licensed full-time administrative employees of the school district. She advised the subcommittee used the wording "staff," but the bill drafters used "administrative employees" instead. This may call for some rewording. Section 7 sets forth the duties of the board of directors. Section 8 is very controversial and deals with who can enter the school and the criteria to enter a charter school. Section 9 has to do with the teachers and who may teach in the charter schools, their employment with the school district and how that is to be worked out. The administrator of a charter school is the equivalent of principal. Section 10 deals with the dissolution of a charter school. Section 11 contains more on the dissolution of a charter school. Section 12 gives regulations on the board of directors of a charter school, who they report to and how they report. Section 13 requires dissemination of information on charter schools to the public. Section 14 reiterates how much leeway the charter school has in negotiating contracts with teachers, staff and administrators and sets forth compliance necessary with state and federal rules and regulations. Section 15 describes rule-making ability, Section 16 explains financing and how to get it. Section 17 spells out how the per pupil money can be used. Section 18 spells out more on the essence of the charter school, what it can and cannot do. Section 19 spells out in plain language the meanings of department, public schools and state board. Section 20 sets forth the establishment of school zones. Section 21 spells out the curriculum for a charter and what is expected of the charter school. Section 22 would allow the charter school to hire staff, administrators and teachers who would not necessarily be licensed, but would be proficient in their respective areas. Section 22 enables the state to pay a person who is not licensed, but is proficient. Section 23 shows there will be a study prescribed by state law and core courses are involved. Chairman Rawson said the bill could become effective January 1, 1996. Senator Lowden concurred. Senator Mathews asked about the evaluation process in section 22, remarking that a great deal of testimony has been heard about probation periods for teachers, and now it is said in charter schools, they do not even have to be licensed. Senator Lowden said the teachers who teach non-core classes do not have to be licensed in a charter school. Chairman Rawson gave an example of an artist teaching art, saying that person would not have to be licensed in a charter school. Maxine Nietz, Concerned Citizen, testified in support of S.B. 31 and the concept of charter schools within the public system. She said during the last session of the Legislature, the committee passed a bill on site-based decision making in an attempt to involve parents and the community system in the governance of schools, and that bill is law now. However, the implementation of that program has not really happened throughout the state. Parents are still concerned about having input and being involved in the educational system. She believes the charter schools will be able to provide that. Ms. Nietz said site-based decision making has not been truly implemented in Nevada. She sees charter schools as a vehicle for parental involvement and to discuss some of the concerns of the national discussion on education reform. Senator Neal asked if charter schools are not a site-based decision-making concept. Ms. Nietz replied in the affirmative, but said it takes the concept further. Site-based does not actually form a separate board of directors. It operates with the principal, parents and teachers at the school. Senator Neal asked if there was to be a charter school in Carson City. Mrs. Nietz said she did not know, but there are many areas where subdivisions are being constructed and developers could be asked to provide a site or a building on a long-term lease basis. There is a possibility for a physical plant in this county. Senator Neal asked if she foresees a builder participating and building one of these schools. Mrs. Nietz said she is a member of the Carson City Regional Planning Commission, and they are working with the builders to address issues, such as where schools will be placed. Senator Coffin said he had some questions, the first being a definition of charter schools. Ms. Nietz directed attention to section 2 where the purposes and goals of charter schools are set forth. Senator Coffin asked if a charter school can be defined. Senator Washington directed attention to section 18. Senator Coffin said it does not define a charter school. Ms. Lusk said it is called a charter school because in general it is governed as defined by charter, similar in many ways to a city charter. Senator Coffin said it might be helpful if the definition became part of statute. He said he wants to know the difference between a private school and a charter school. Ms. Lusk asked if it would be appropriate to go through the first reprint and identify those areas where the amendment did not track the subcommittee action. Those are the areas of language differences. Senator Coffin said he still did not have a definition of a charter school. Ms. Lusk said: The difference between a private school and a charter school is that a charter school still works within the context of the public school system and must be nonsectarian, may not charge tuition, must be free to any student who wishes to attend, and it meets the basic criteria of a public school and is publicly funded. She said a charter school has more freedom of operation in order to bring out and develop the creativity of students, parents and teachers working together. In every sense of the word that truly defines a public school; it is a public school. Ms. Lusk said she was speaking from a neutral position. She said the concept of charter schools has been watched very carefully by NCC, wanting to be sure it did develop into something appropriate for students in Nevada. She has watched it carefully at every stage of the proceedings. When this amendment finally came out, there were several areas that did not track the specifics of the subcommittee action, and she said she would like to call those to the attention of the committee. Chairman Rawson explained that the amendment was difficult to track with the first bill and the amendment, and this first reprint is just to put it into a readable form. Ms. Lusk directed attention to section 6, page 3, lines 11 through 13, which does not track the subcommittee's action. It reads: "The board of directors must be comprised of not less than five members and may consist of: (a) Licensed, full-time administrative employees of the school." Ms. Lusk said that does not track. The subcommittee's action was to have it read: "staff members who are employed at the school," so it covers the full range of employees. Ms. Lusk pointed out line 19, page 3, should also read "staff members who are employed at the school." Again, Ms. Lusk noticed section 16, the method for disbursement of funds, saying the discussion in subcommittee recognized school districts do not transmit to schools in a lump sum all of the per pupil allocation. So the language cannot say at the same time and in the same manner. The intention of the subcommittee action seemed clearly to be that the school district, upon receipt of funds, would break out the portion of per pupil expenditure that would go to a school and transmit it directly to that school. She said this would be quite different from the method used for funding other public schools. Another area, Ms. Lusk said, that did not track entirely is section 14, the statement on line 30, page 5, which reads: "...charter schools are exempt from all state and local regulatory provisions...." There was discussion there would be exemption from laws related to teacher licensure, non-core curricula, and so forth. Ms. Lusk directed attention to section 18, page 6, item 4 on line 39, which reads: "Shall schedule and provide a minimum of 180 days of free school." Her understanding of the subcommittee's action was it should provide the same number of minutes of free school as required of other public schools, rather than a specific 180 days. She said section 22 deals with allowing charter schools to utilize some non-licensed teachers. It is her understanding non-licensed teachers could be utilized in the non-core curriculum, and that is not stated in the reprint, so there is not an assurance licensed teachers would be used in the core curriculum, nor is there assurance the charter schools would be able to hire, say, an artist to teach art and so forth. Chairman Rawson said he had one more Bill Draft Request (BDR) for committee introduction. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-2107: Authorizes optometrists to form certain business relationships with physicians. SENATOR COFFIN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 54-2107. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Discussion was resumed on S.B. 31. Rick Millsap, Lobbyist, President, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), testified against S.B. 31 from prepared text (Exhibit F). Ms. Lancaster said Mr. Millsap did not address two additional items of concern in S.B. 31. She said the first is the issue of transportation, and the second is evaluation. Regarding transportation, Ms. Lancaster questioned how children will get to a chartered school. She said the association could only assume children whose parents have the time and accessibility to a car at 7:45 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. will be able to attend. Ms. Lancaster questioned how educators and support personnel will be evaluated in a charter school. Because of the evaluation exemption clause under chapter 391 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) on education, evaluations will be left up to the board of directors. Ms. Lancaster indicated taxpayers deserve to know their children's teachers are accountable through an established mechanism. Ms. Lancaster advised these are the two additional reasons the association opposes S.B. 31. Ms. Lancaster also indicated the Washoe County School District, in conjunction with the Washoe County Teachers Association, wrote policy and implemented regulation after Senate Bill (S.B. 91) was passed in the Sixty- seventh Session of the Legislature. SENATE BILL 91: OF THE SIXTY- SEVENTH SESSION: Allows school-based decision making in public schools. Ms. Lancaster continued by saying Washoe County has six schools currently in site-based decision making and there are seven more applications pending. This includes elementary, middle and high schools. Given enough time, the process does work. They do have their site councils, and they have changed education of those particular sites considerably in Washoe County. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Lancaster if she expects site-based decision making to make a difference. Ms. Lancaster said she hopes so, and the association did the training for the site- based schools for the licensed personnel and for the administrators. Senator Augustine asked if either Mr. Millsap or Ms. Lancaster had read Goals 2000. Mr. Millsap answered affirmatively. Senator Augustine asked if he knew what Goals 2000 says about charter schools. Mr. Millsap answered affirmatively. Senator Augustine asked if he knew the Educate America Act allows states to use federal funds to promote charter schools. Mr. Millsap answered affirmatively. Senator Augustine said Mr. Millsap is obviously against charter schools, although she thought he was for Goals 2000. Mr. Millsap referred to Senator Coffin's earlier request for a definition of charter schools. He said there are many different definitions of charter schools as there are states. In some states, charter schools are allowed to be private, sectarian and all sorts of designations. The association is dealing with what is before them. What federal legislation envisioned, they are not really sure. Senator Augustine said Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, had provided her with Arizona's definition which was passed last year (Exhibit G), and she quoted: "Charter school" means a public school established by contract with a district governing board, the state board of education or the state board for charter schools pursuant to article 8 of this chapter to provide learning that will improve pupil achievement. Senator Augustine asked Mr. Millsap if he had seen the report to Congress from the United States general accounting office on charter schools. The federal government has already acted on charter schools. The report says: Two major pieces of federal educational legislation were passed in 1994, which include provisions on charter schools. The Improving America's Schools Act also specifies the conversion of the school to charter school status as a possible corrective action that a school district can require of a school that has been identified for school improvement. Senator Augustine continued by saying the bill may need fine tuning, but she believes Nevada is right in line with what is happening at the federal level with new, innovative school programs. Mr. Millsap responded by saying although most people would agree the federal level is the source of all wisdom, he does not necessarily agree. In all federal legislation, charter schools are very loosely defined. They do not get into detail about wiping out all employee contractual rights, nor do they address the issue of transportation. They do not address anything specific; the language is always broad. Senator Augustine said there are several other states now using charter schools. Mr. Millsap countered by saying he understands charter schools are being developed and used elsewhere, but the association does not think it is a good idea, and they do not believe they should be one of the lemmings going off a cliff. Mr. Millsap said the association thinks it is experimental, and believes the committee has made some interesting innovations with site-based decision making. Senator Augustine remarked that the teachers' union is very much in support of Goals 2000, so she is very much surprised Mr. Millsap is so adamantly opposed to something that in concept, he supports very much. Mr. Millsap said if a local school district did this on the state level, it would be very difficult. Senator Augustine spoke about core classes, and Mr. Millsap said, "They have been eliminated in the bill. Core classes are not defined in the bill. A curriculum and structure is found in regulation, but is waived under this bill." Senator Augustine replied, " Dr. Rheault, who helped us with drafting some of the language in the bill, stated there is certain criteria that must be met, especially at the high school level. They are not listed in statute." Mr. Millsap said, "They are listed in regulation, but eliminated in this bill." Senator Augustine said, "They should not be; that was not the intent." Chairman Rawson said he had not been in any of the subcommittee meetings and for that reason, he would like to get a general sense of what is going on. He wondered if there is any way the committee can work on the discrepancies, and asked Mr. Millsap if he is opposed to any charter school or opposed to the way the bill is written. Mr. Millsap answered, "The association is opposed to the concept; they are opposed to having totally inexperienced and unlicensed teachers in the classroom." Chairman Rawson said he heard Mr. Millsap just go through a whole series of objections, any of which can be dealt with by reasonable people. If the bargaining agreement was addressed to Mr. Millsap's satisfaction, then that issue would be of no concern anymore. The chairman asked Mr. Millsap if he objects to the concept. Mr. Millsap said, "By the very definition of what you have done, it will inherently create a discriminatory system, and that is only one of eight objections made. I would not have gone into the detail had I not been requested to do so on an item-by-item basis." Chairman Rawson said what he is trying to sort out is what effort Mr. Millsap wants to put into straightening something out. The subcommittee has worked very hard on this bill, and they may not want to change a single item, and he asked Mr. Millsap his ideas about reforming the bill. Mr. Millsap said given the objections the association has raised, he would not know where to start. He said the proponents of the bill will try to adopt or amend the bill based on the association's objections. Chairman Rawson remarked on Mr. Millsap's attributes as a teacher, and asked if he had considered as a teacher what he would do if given the ideal opportunity. What kind of a school would he create? Mr. Millsap said he had learned something in the last 8 years he did not understand when he was teaching, and that is who owns the schools. He always understood the kids owned the schools, but he did not realize how much the community owns the schools. For that reason, a single school is not just accountable to the teacher or the principal; it is not just accountable to the children at school, but to the taxpayers. He said he believes in a charter school, accountability is limited to the immediate family, and that is a disadvantage because part of the problems with public schools is the schools are the worst communicators of what is done in the classrooms and where the money goes. In site-based decision making, there is public accountability, but the decision making is done at the school level. He said that is the best of both worlds. Mr. Millsap continued by saying charter schools go one step further by isolating the funding, and removing it from accountability to the general public. An aura of distrust will be created by isolating schools and not answering to the public. Site-based decision making is one of the latest evolutions. Charter schools are a step backward because they isolate and segregate. Chairman Rawson asked, "When site-based decision making came out, was it presented by the teachers or the parents or where did it come from?" Mr. Millsap responded, "Everyone was involved; parents, teacher and legislators." Senator Washington said the committee was not trying to revolutionize all the school districts of the entire state and pointed out section 3, subsection 6, which basically states counties having less than 100,000 in population have only one school. Those counties having over 100,000 in population, would need two schools. The intent of the subcommittee was to try the concept of charter schools to see if it would work. They were not asking to do away with the public school system, but only to ascertain if it is a good idea that will work, and let us try it out. Senator Washington continued by saying Mr. Millsap had been asked to help the subcommittee in developing this concept. Senator Washington then expressed his dismay at Mr. Millsap's presentation in which he had picked apart certain sections of the bill. He said the subcommittee in general, and himself in particular, had asked Mr. Millsap for his help in creating something that would be suitable, and he did not do so. Senator Washington said some of the ideas presented by Mr. Millsap could be used; some of them could have been drafted into the bill had he cooperated with the committee. He said the committee members are not the experts, they are elected by the people to do a job and come up with legislation that will improve their communities. Addressing Mr. Millsap, Senator Washington pointed out that the committee had looked to him for help, but he has not given it. Senator Washington said schools are important to him and if there is an opportunity to better the education of children so they can walk out of the school and get a job and better themselves, that is what he is after, and he expected Mr. Millsap to help the committee, instead of coming to this meeting with his lengthy criticism of the concept of charter schools. Senator Washington said he is frustrated and upset by Mr. Millsap's criticism, advising charter schools represent only two schools out of the whole district. He said, "Maybe the concept will work; maybe it will not work, but it is an opportunity we are willing to try. If it does not work, we have lost a school, not the entire public school district." He does not agree with Mr. Millsap that the committee risks taxpayers' money, nor does he agree that the children are put in jeopardy. He said what the committee is trying to do is enhance and better the education for our children. Chairman Rawson said, "Reasonable people can agree to disagree." Mr. Millsap responded by saying if one school, one child is lost, he is not going to support the concept. He said the committee asked him to assist in the drafting of a bill he sincerely believes is unnecessary and discriminatory by the very nature of it. Senator Coffin said the concept of the bill should perhaps have been discussed earlier before the subcommittee spent a lot of time on it. He feels it boils down to one thing, and that is if the citizens want to have private schools funded with public money. Senator Coffin said that is the core issue. He said his definition of a charter school is a private school paid for by public money. Chairman Rawson said Magnet Schools are along the line of charter schools; for instance, Las Vegas School of Performing Arts. This is not a private school; it is paid for by public money, but it does not cater to all of the students in the district. He said there is some fundamental lack of communication on definitions, and the committee should discuss some of the objections that have been presented here. Senator Augustine said she believes a definition should be added for charter schools. The Arizona statute states that charter school means a public school established by a contract with a district governing board. She said as far as the qualifications Mr. Millsap alluded to, such as unqualified teachers, there are states that do not require a college education for teachers, for instance Florida. Ken Lange, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Education Association, said Florida requires at least a bachelor's degree, and there is an extensive post-qualifying period where the teacher has to go through 3 years of a beginning teacher program. Mr. Millsap noted he had meant to address the question of teacher qualification. No one wants unqualified teachers in the classroom. The way the bill is set up, the state licensing and screening process, which is a safeguard to proper qualifications, is being given up. Sandy Coyle, Concerned Parent, Douglas County, said it is not her intention to start a charter school in Douglas County, but she would like to see flexibility and a little more innovation in the public school system. She charter schools would be one way to accomplish that goal. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Coyle if she has been involved in the site-based decision making, and she replied in the affirmative, saying she testified during the last session for site-based decision making. She said she considers it her duty to come forward and speak on anything that will improve the educational system. Ms. Coyle addressed Mr. Millsap's comment about the state board overruling the local board. In the bill it says, "The state board may mediate between the local district and the applicant." Ms. Coyle pointed out the bill does not say the state board can overturn decisions made by the local board, so that was not a valid statement. Also, Ms. Coyle pointed out, section 7, page 3, subsection 1, reads: "Except for those courses required by specific statute..." This does not mean they can teach, for instance, boat building and that is it. The board of directors can add elective courses, which is very reasonable. Ms. Coyle said the subcommittee did give this matter a great deal of thought, they did use model charter school legislation, and everyone did their best to come up with a good bill. She asked for the committee's support. Jeanne Simons, Concerned Citizen, said last year in May, she asked the interim committee to consider charter schools, knowing it would be difficult to have everyone buy into the concept, but as a parent she felt there are many schools and many children being failed by the public school system. She believes it is time for some changes. She said she was very involved in site- based decision making within the Carson City school district, and there has not been one school in the district which has initiated site-based decision making. Ms. Simons said she was very disappointed by this and feels strongly there must be more parental and community involvement in our schools. She said she agrees with the Lusk amendments put before the committee today, supports this bill and asks the committee to support it. There should be other avenues for children to be educated, other than public schools. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Simons what she meant by her comments on site-based decision making. Ms. Simons replied there were approximately 33 educators, administrators, parents and community members who worked as a committee on site-based decision making for 9 months. Although none of the schools have adopted this concept, she is hoping it will be initiated in the Carson City school district. Chairman Rawson said one of the consequences of experimental programs is some of them work and some do not, and the result is not known until the program is tried. He said he is very much in favor of progress and this requires trying new things, but there is a consequence if a mistake is made and the children are the ones who suffer as a result. That is why charter schools were limited to a pilot program because the whole educational system cannot be dismantled in the hope that a better idea has been found. Ms. Simons agreed. Chairman Rawson pointed out that many questions have been asked today about charter schools which may be easily answered. On the other hand, there may be some real disagreement on certain points. He asked Ms. Simons if this situation lends itself to further study in her mind or is it ready to be voted on. Ms. Simons said she was in favor of some amendments, and did not know if there would be enough time this session. She said if he was asking her if she is willing to go with the concept of an interim committee, the answer is yes. Chairman Rawson said he was still trying to sort through the options available as the committee finishes its work in a short period of time. Ms. Coyle reminded the committee that a charter school is a school of choice. No teacher would be forced to teach there; they would know in advance what the employment conditions were, and no child would be forced to attend a charter school. The parents would make that decision. Senator Coffin said he thinks the school of choice for parents, students and teachers is the private school. He said he endorses them and wants them to prosper and wondered if Ms. Coyle really feels there is a difference between the charter school and the private school and the fundamental question of who pays the bills. Ms. Coyle said she thinks charter schools are vastly different from private schools because, among other things, private schools can be sectarian. Ms. Coyle advised she supports the public school system, but it is very inflexible, and she sees charter schools as a way to strengthen the public school system so parents are not opting out. She remarked that the public school system is in trouble, and ways must be considered to make them more flexible. She said, "Even the federal government is considering charter schools." Cheri Johnson, Member, Douglas County School Board (DCSB), submitted a position paper (Exhibit H) the DCSB passed on April 11, 1995. The board feels charter schools is an issue that could affect their district. Senator Washington said it would be only two schools in a county of 100,000. Douglas County has 7,000 students, so it could affect them. Ms. Johnson said the position paper shows what the DCSB would be willing to accept in a charter school bill. She said DCSB has many concerns about this bill and how it is drafted. Randy Wallstrum, Trustee, Douglas County School Board, reiterated that a charter school bill motion was passed by a 7-0 vote of the trustees. The DCSB is not opposed to the concept of charter schools. Mr. Wallstrum then read the nine conditions contained in Exhibit H. Mr. Wallstrum said a number of things in the bill conflict with the position of the board, and virtually all of them were addressed by Mr. Millsap. Chairman Rawson remarked that the statement reflects the position of the DCSB for participation in the charter school plan. Mr. Wallstrum agreed, but said there was one point not yet addressed and it is on page 5, section 14, subsection 1, having to do with employee contracts. Mr. Wallstrum pointed out that collective bargaining and tenure is legislatively imposed on public school districts. The fiscal responsibility by district is often punished by arbitrators when it goes to that point under the current system imposed on public schools. He said he does not know just how that will ultimately be resolved. Mr. Wallstrum said he hopes in the future this will be resolved by a statewide salary schedule, removing or modifying the current system on both the public schools and charter schools, if it ever comes to that. Senator Lowden addressed Mr. Wallstrum, saying every item in the DCSB position paper is in the bill. A school board member participated in the drafting of the bill, and it was purposely made open-ended for the individual districts to decide if they can live with the charter schools. The individual districts are the ultimate in saying yes or no. Senator Lowden said the sticking point for many people is the professional staff having state-required credentials. If a school wants, for example, an artist as an art teacher, why should that person not be paid. The charter school could be used as a vehicle to experiment with that situation. This is a pilot program to see how things work, but the districts are the ultimate in deciding whether or not the application thereof meets their goals and to decide whether or not they want a charter school. Mr. Wallstrum reiterated that there are so many things in the bill not clearly spelled out. For example, public education takes all comers; charter schools restrict who can attend. The charter school is going to be kind of like a public school, but it is not going to be a public school because by definition, a charter school cannot take all comers. Also there is a time- frame problem. The DCSB meets once a month and if the bill is submitted the day after their meeting, they are not going to make the time limit for approval. He feels there are many things to be ironed out in the bill as it now stands. Senator Washington said he upholds Senator Lowden's statement, and directed attention to page 2, line 3, which says the "...school district may approve any application by entering into a written agreement with the applicant to form a charter school within the district..." He said the district can set the ground rules. The subcommittee tried to make the bill as open-ended as possible by saying if someone wants a charter school, the district sets the criteria, if they meet the criteria, give them the opportunity. If they do not meet the criteria, deny the application. Mr. Wallstrum said it will then be appealed to the state. Senator Washington said the state is only a mediator in the appeal process. Chairman Rawson said he understood Mr. Wallstrum's point that the DCSB wants things spelled out more clearly in the bill. Ricci Elkins, Executive Officer, Sierra Nevada Academy, testified in favor of this bill. Ms. Elkins said she had testified before the committee on this issue on February 1, 1995, and had played a tape recording for the committee to provide testimony regarding her dyslexic son's special education. Ms. Elkins said Mr. Millsap's testimony referred to the kinds of schools that would be made available to people if they were charter schools. Ms. Elkins said: Sierra Nevada Academy was desperate for an alternative school, primarily for children with learning difficulties, but available to anyone who wanted to attend the school. In November, they had started the process of establishing an alternative school and in February, they learned about charter legislation, so they became interested in that idea. During the course of the subcommittee hearings, it became evident that they may not be able to get the legislation to go into effect this year, so they decided to open a private school. Two weeks ago, they decided not to do so, but to work for a year to try to get charter legislation and try to raise funds for a building. Ms. Elkins presented a brochure to the committee (Exhibit I) which was drawn up for the private school and to demonstrate what kind of facility is possible for those who want to have a charter school. Ms. Elkins pointed out there is a tuition structure in the brochure because this originally applied to private schools. Ms. Elkins said over the course of the several months, she has studied the issue of charter schools at length, talking with experts from all over the country. At her own expense, she visited charter schools in San Francisco, San Diego and San Carlos in California, and Milwaukee and has become knowledgeable on the subject of charter schools. Addressing Senator Coffin, Ms. Elkins said: The definition of charter schools is they are independent public schools that are guided by their charter. Each charter school can accommodate whatever fits the district. Most charter schools do not want to duplicate the efforts already being made by public schools, only to supplement the public school system. That is why charter schools are a benefit to the public school system. Ms. Elkins continued by saying that a very common practice in charter schools is a lottery process where they contract with an individual that is independent who accepts all the applications to a school and randomly selects the number of students for capacity in that particular charter school. Most do make an accommodation for founding parents who are defined as parents who donate more than 100 hours of time in the establishment of the school. Regarding the issue of private schools versus charter schools or private versus public schools, Ms. Elkins said probably the most central component is the accountability issue. Charter schools are accountable in two separate ways: they are accountable for the educational component of their charter with the school district, and they are accountable physically. Unlike traditional schools, if a charter school is failing financially, the school can be shut down. As a public school, charter schools are nondiscriminatory by federal law. They are also nonsectarian under federal law. That is what makes them public schools. They do not accept private money, they do not levy taxes, they are a part of the school district. The section regarding certified teachers for core curriculum was struck from the revision, and Ms. Elkins thought that should be looked at because they feel very strongly that core classes should be taught by certified teachers and non-core classes should be permitted to be taught by specialists, such as artisans and musicians. Ms. Elkins suggested the issue of the 30-day clause could be circumvented by establishing a deadline for applications. Regarding section 6, lines 13 to 19, they do want to make sure the teachers are included and the words "licensed, full-time administrative employees" are struck to include teachers and staff without licensure or certification attached to that to ensure that everybody who is employed has that capacity. Ms. Elkins said there are some charter schools being run by executive directors who have business management experience and they have educational administrative personnel that deal with the education issues, while they do the day-to-day plant things that need to be done to incorporate the independent nature of the school, whether it be payroll, accounts receivable, whatever they are. The executive director with a good business background duly elected or appointed by the board is who runs the school, so having a licensed administrator is not essential. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Elkins if in her study of these different schools she has run into any serious evaluations or academic studies of what is really accomplished by a charter school; are there any comparisons and have charter schools done any damage or have they done any good for the children. Ms. Elkins said preliminary studies that have been done show that charter schools, particularly for at-risk students, do very well and they accomplish their goals and are very successful, both financially and educationally. Charter schools not doing well have been cut out, reinforcing the idea that if a charter school is failing, it should be shut down. Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, President, Eagle Valley Forum, testified that charter schools can be good or bad, just like public schools or individual teachers. She was sorry to hear the negative input from the teachers' union, and she felt their issue was really one of control because they feel charter schools will lessen the political grip they have on educational institutions. She said their representative talked about the discrimination charter schools would create, and she feels the greatest discrimination right now is when a child in the public school does not learn to read and is not educated. Parents are frustrated and desperate for a system which will accommodate the needs of their children, and charter schools are just one possible way that can be accomplished. There seems to be fear to give an opportunity to those who are sincerely and honorably committed to providing a good education because it might jeopardize the political and financial control the teachers' union holds on our society, on our schools and on our elected officials. Ms. Hansen said when she sees children graduating from high school that cannot read, that cannot fill out an application, that cannot get a job, those are the lemmings we are sending over the cliff. She stated we are irresponsible if we do not do look for other alternatives that may work and show us a better way to teach our children. In America, the free enterprise system has worked precisely because it allows innovation, which the public schools do not allow. She said there are so many rules and regulations and so much control, there is no opportunity for creativity or innovation in the public schools, and that is why the children continue to fail. Ms. Hansen continued by saying the best people leave the public school system because their opportunity to do what they do best is stifled and destroyed by the controls in place. She said we need to have the courage to say we are not going to continue to accept the political intimidation of the teachers' union. The public schools are not meeting the needs of the children and there should be options available for our tax dollars to educate our children. She asked the committee's support of S.B. 31. Senator Coffin asked if he could be provided with the minutes of the subcommittee so he could look at some of the exhibits they used in modifying the bill. He said also he would like to see the list of charter schools and when they were created so he can see how this idea is working. Ms. Elkins said she would provide Senator Coffin with that information, saying charter schools have only been around for about 4« years. Currently, there are 12 states that have charter school laws, of which 10 have actual charter schools existing within them. Senator Augustine said there are 134 charter schools as of January 1995, according to the United States General Accounting Office. Senator Coffin said that is what he wants to see, the information on which the subcommittee based its decisions. Senator Coffin said he did not know why Nevada has not gone further with school-based decision making. The committee worked very hard on it last session. He said Ms. Elkins testified that only a few schools have implemented site-based decision making. He wonders why that experiment was not given a chance to work, and he said the expiration date should be extended to give it a chance, and the committee is now faced with considering charter schools. Ms. Elkins said in February she was contacted by the parent representative of the site-based decision making committee in Washoe County. She reported she was very frustrated with her position there because it was essentially a non-committee, and asked if Ms. Elkins would take the position, which she did. The school district sent her a packet containing information on what was being done on site-based decision making. There was very little information, no contact numbers, and there has been no contact from any members the committee, despite two phone calls to the Washoe County school district. Senator Coffin said perhaps the charter school issue has diverted attention from site-based decision making. Chairman Rawson said the committee might be able to contact the district and find out what is going on. Ms. Elkins said charter schools is more than just a fling. She said President Clinton and Goals 2000 are in favor of charter schools and the advantages they present. The hearing on S.B. 31 was interrupted to hold a hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 510. SENATE BILL 510: Exempts certain sanitation districts from provisions governing excavations or demolitions near subsurface installations. Chairman Rawson asked if this is the bill where one particular entity was trying to pull out of the association. He asked if this bill encompasses the idea of "one call before you dig." SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 510. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 303. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 303: Requires state board of education to adopt program to provide pupils with skills to make transition from school to work. Chairman Rawson said there is a proposed amendment to this bill. Senator Lowden said there were some concerns during a committee hearing on this bill, so a subcommittee was formed. This amendment was developed by the subcommittee, and Senator Lowden said she was in favor of the amendment because it forms a partnership between the parties which came forward to testify in favor of the bill, such as the state board, the chamber of commerce, the National Manufacturers Association and the like. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 303. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Washington referred to page 2, line 13 of A.B. 303, asking if the intent is to solidify the partnership with business and industry. Senator Lowden answered in the affirmative, adding they would be part of the State Department of Education's plan. Senator Washington said he has another amendment on A.B. 303, and directed attention to page 3, line 3, first word. He asked if the word "comment" could be change to "approved." Senator Coffin said it is late in the session to amend the bill, and since it is an Assembly bill, the committee would have to get concurrence in advance. Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association, said when this bill was going through on the Assembly side, the wording had been discussed with the maker of the bill, Assemblywoman Jan Evans, and Mrs. Evans did not have any trouble with the word "approval." The terminology was discussed, Mr. Bacon said, and they thought it would come out "approval," but bill drafting came out with the word "comment." Mr. Bacon said he did not feel Mrs. Evans would object. Ms. Lusk said she simply wanted to clarify her own position on this bill because she does not think the opposition concerns have been addressed. Ms. Lusk said she is a very strong supporter of vocational education and would like to see these funds go into vocational education and these partnerships. She said she does not feel money can be taken without strings attached, and she is very concerned about the federal strings that go with this bill. Senator Washington asked if he could finish his amendment, and said he is going to delete that wording. Ms. Lusk said she wants to be sure no one is misled; a consensus has not been reached. Ms. Lusk explained the amendment NCC offered was to eliminate the attachment of federal funds. Senator Washington directed attention to page 2, lines 23 and 24, where it reads "Applied Technology Education," saying he understands where it came from and the intent, but the application has been misused. "If we can delete that part of it," Senator Washington said, "I would not have a problem with the bill." Chairman Rawson said he does not understand everything in this section and asked if "Carl D. Perkins" is to be removed. Senator Washington said on page 2, lines 23 and 23, leave the part in where it says, "Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act." The chairman said, "Dr. Rheault had better help here." Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, State Department of Education, said the reason that wording is in the bill is a technical wording thing. The department just wanted to promote technology preparation, which is a program that articulates a secondary program. They could not list technology preparation in the bill because it was not a reference, so they used "Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act." Chairman Rawson said he thinks it would be a mistake to cut that out. Senator Mathews said she agreed. Chairman Rawson said the issue is Goals 2000, and it has raised the concern of a number people, and those people feel Goals 2000 will shape the administration of these funds. He said there are still issues in the finance committee's dealing with Goals 2000, and we can shape that. The chairman said he does understand the concerns. The chairman asked if there was anyone who objected to changing the word from "comment" to "approval." Mr. Rheault said Mr. Bacon is correct; it was turned in to the bill drafters as "approval", but it came back "comment", and the department just let it go. The chairman asked if there is any concern with the amendment that has been presented to the committee. Punam Mather, Lobbyist, Senior Vice President, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce (LVCC) testified LVCC has been supportive of occupational education over many years. She said she was surprised by some of the comments made here. The interest of LVCC has to do with the employability of students that emerge from the Clark County School District. LVCC has used A.B. 303 as a comprehensive, practical and realistic approach to developing a plan to address the needs of those students, and LVCC believes A.B. 303 to be a reliable vehicle. LVCC has also been dealing with the money committees because LVCC believes the Nevada taxpayers will place a priority on funding this bill. She said there is an opportunity to leverage Nevada's tax dollars by going to other sources to further enhance what LVCC is going to do. As business people, they would consider that a good option to evaluate. Ms. Mather said there is no desire to give away the program to the federal government or to accept federal dollars at such a high cost. Chairman Rawson advised the committee will ask LVCC to work with them to see that the program is not degraded. Senator Washington said he is not against the concept or the program of occupational education, and he believes it is a great program and definitely needed. He said he was afraid of the vehicle being used, and that concern can be addressed with the proposed amendments. He said he wanted to be sure the emphasis was on business and industry, rather than the Nevada State Board of Education or the school districts and the federal funds. Senator Washington said if this bill is just to go after federal funds, he will vote against the bill. Senator Augustine advised that was the concern of some of the members of the committee, but the intent of what this amendment will do is establish a permanent relationship between business, industry and the state board from the beginning to completion. She said it will serve as a check and balance on the program. Chairman Rawson said there has also been a sensitization to some issues here that the committee has not been exposed to or concerned about before. Senator Washington said he is now in agreement with the amendment and the wording of line 3. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * The hearing was reopened on S.B. 31. Mr. Etchemendy testified the board of directors of the NASB discussed this bill early in May, and they did adopt a position and a motion that they do oppose the charter schools bill, basically along the lines that the shared decision-making model should be allowed more time to work. He said secondly, this is public money that could go to a private educational institution, even though it is characterized as being a public system and, finally, the rules are different from other public schools. Mr. Etchemendy provided a letter to the committee from the Washoe County School District (Exhibit J) addressed to Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga which expressed opposition to charter schools. Senator Augustine said she thinks what has happened this legislative session on charter schools is that it is confused with a separate bill that sends money to private schools. That is the school voucher bill introduced by Assemblyman Harrington. She said everything she reads ties charter schools to the school voucher bill, and it is unfortunate both bills were introduced for the first time in this session. Senator Augustine said an effort should have been made to ensure that the school board members and the school districts knew what would be accomplished by S.B. 31 and that charter schools have nothing to do with school vouchers. However, she said, the Douglas County School Board voted unanimously to support charter schools. Mr. Etchemendy said he agreed with Senator Augustine and possibly there has been a misunderstanding between the two bills, but the decision of the NASB remains unchanged. Barbara Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada PTA (Parent-Teachers Association), said the association has taken no position pro or con on this bill since their only interest is the welfare of children, but they do have concerns about charter schools. She said the first concern was that charter schools would allow freedom and creativity without the constraints put on the district by public schools. Site-based decision making will allow all parties; that is, parents, teachers and administrators, to create the kind of environment where the majority of the children's needs are met. As with charter schools, site-based decision making will work only with the involvement of all parties. Ms. Clark said Nevada PTA encourages a chance to give site-based decision making an opportunity to work. Further, she said, Nevada PTA has concerns about discrimination of who can attend charter schools. In the public school system, a child at the age of 3 has to be accepted for special education, and she wonders if charter schools will be able to accept children at that age. Ms. Clark also brought up the concerns of who will pay for transportation and any lawsuits as the result of charter schools and the allocation of per pupil funding. Ms. Clark mentioned the education coalition supports Goals 2000, but does not like charter schools, and most of those against Goals 2000, support charter schools. Senator Coffin asked why school-based decision making has not progressed. Mr. Etchemendy answered, saying the bill adopted in the Sixty-seventh Session of the Legislature, Senate Bill (S.B.) 91, contained permissive language allowing school districts to adopt shared decision making. The second part was mandatory. If the districts make that decision, then the guidelines set forth in the bill must be followed, and there were some 10 specific conditions that had to be implemented. Prior to the introduction of S. B. 91 of the Sixty-seventh Session, the Washoe County School District was already in the process of adopting rules for shared decision making within that district, and they incorporated the conditions of S.B. 91 of the Sixty-seventh Session into their shared decision-making model. Mr. Etchemendy said it was his understanding WCSD made sure the conditions of S.B. 91 of the Sixty-seventh Session were incorporated in their model for shared decision making. Mr. Etchemendy continued his testimony by saying the only other district that has adopted the shared decision-making model and the rules under S.B. 91 of the Sixty-seventh Session is Carson City. Mr. Etchemendy said he has heard nothing from other districts regarding the adoption of shared decision making. Senator Coffin remarked that 18 months later, only 2 school districts have initiated any such program. At this point, the chairman advised that the committee had gone into a subcommittee status due to lack of a quorum. The chairman announced that full-committee status had once again been reached. Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, People to Protect America, People Organized for the Next Generation, testified the organizations she represents are very concerned about education for the future of all children. She said they feel S.B. 31 is an excellent way for our children to start getting acceptable education and S.B. 31 will open new horizons and opportunities for educating Nevada's children. She asked the committee to support S.B. 31. Ms. Lusk said she has been a long-time supporter of public schools. She said it is most important to have public schools because that is the only type of schooling most people can afford. She said she finds the emotional and irrational argument that if public schools are going to lose one child or one school, the risk cannot be taken. Children are lost and schools are lost, so that argument makes no sense and the persons using it appear to be saying they are for children and all the other people are not. Ms. Lusk asked if dialogue on S.B. 31 would continue for another day or two because she has a few ideas which she would like to run by the subcommittee to see if they think they are valid and, if so, to bring them before the committee. Chairman Rawson said no action will be taken on this bill for a day or two. He said the committee needs to listen to any additional input that comes in. The chairman said he sees some problems with the bill as it now stands and there are some options available which will be considered if some of the concerns are eliminated, even to the point of establishing a study committee. Ms. Lusk said from the beginning, charter schools have been considered a pilot project and perhaps what should be done is correct the bill to reflect the subcommittee intent. She said that will solve many of the problems. Subsequently, establish it as a small pilot project, perhaps with one school in the north and one in the south, at the same time forming a study committee that can keep in close touch with those schools. As a result, by the next session, the committee would know what was really needed to fine tune the program. The chairman said the committee should work with teachers in favor of charter schools, rather than opposed, and he is not willing to give up the points the subcommittee has worked so hard to develop, but he is willing to discuss it. Ms. Lusk concluded her remarks by saying if the experiment is going to be useful, it is must be allowed enough flexibility for that flexibility to be tried out. If it is going to be constricted to the point where nothing changes except the fact that there is a charter document, it would be futile. Senator Coffin said a great deal of time and effort went into site-based decision making during the last session, and perhaps a meeting should be held to determine why that legislation was not implemented by the districts to any degree. Chairman Rawson said that is reasonable, and suggested a question be directed to some of the districts right now and have them respond before the session ends. Senator Coffin said he thinks a meeting would be more appropriate where the answers would be on the record. Chairman Rawson agreed, saying he would also like to know why site-based decision making bogged down and if there are still problems with it and, if so, what those problems are. Senator Washington said he was not here last session, so he was not involved in site-based decision making and he has never heard about this, although he is very involved in his children's education. Senator Washington said he feels charter schools should stand on its own merits, and site-based decision making should stand on its own merits. He said we should look at them as two separate entities. Charlotte Brothwell, Executive Director, Nevada Classified School Employees Association (NCSEA), said her state board of directors has directed her to attend this hearing and register opposition to S.B. 31 as presently written. She referred to prior testimony of someone saying, "Teachers are not the only ones who can teach." She agreed with that statement, saying many of the classified school employees, although not teachers, do teach, such as teachers' aides, librarians and so forth. Chairman Rawson asked if the problem is the insecurity over the issue of employment, and Ms. Brothwell said that is probably the major part of it from her association. Also the problem of input, wanting to have a say, they want it to be staff and not just licensed administrators. She said the other point the association would suggest would be rather than experimenting with public funds and children, the concept of a grant program be considered where the people would put their program together prior to getting the funding. Senator Augustine said the classified school employees were originally not in opposition to S.B. 31 and she is curious to know when that shift took place. Ms. Brothwell said at the state board meetings during the last 2 years. Senator Augustine said the end of the session is very close and to bog S.B. 31 down with school district meetings and so forth seems futile. She suggested charter schools be put into an interim study committee and time given to develop a state policy statement on charter schools. Chairman Rawson said he had indicated he would not make a decision on this bill today. Senator Mathews said her thanks go to the subcommittee that worked so hard on this bill. Chairman Rawson said the subcommittee had done a tremendous amount of work. Ms. Elkins said in regard to the comment about reducing the number of schools involved in the pilot project, she said she has discussed this issues with charter schools already established regarding teacher certification of teachers and charter school budgets. Ms. Elkins said she tried to give pertinent information on charter schools to WCSD, but they did not want it. Senator Coffin requested Ms. Elkins supply him with the names of people she spoke with at WCSD, the dates she spoke with them, and the specifics of the information she offered to them. Ms. Elkins agreed to do so. Chairman Rawson remarked that Senator Coffin tends to be very specific about the information he wants. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ____________________________ ____ Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities June 7, 1995 Page