MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-Second Session

April 7, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 4:01 p.m., on Monday, April 7, 2003.  Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada and via simultaneous videoconference in Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Note:  These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style.  Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.  Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman

Mr. William Horne, Vice Chairman

Mr. Walter Andonov

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mr. Kelvin Atkinson

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mr. Jason Geddes

Mr. Joe Hardy

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Garn Mabey

Mr. Mark Manendo

Mr. Bob McCleary

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Maurice Washington, Clark County Senatorial District No. 2

Mr. Marcus Conklin, Assemblyman, District No. 37

Ms. Sheila Leslie, Assemblywoman, District No. 27

Mr. Ron Knecht, Assemblyman, District No. 40

Mr. Lynn Hettrick, Assemblyman, District No. 39

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Tya Mathis, Student, University of Nevada, Reno, and Intern to Chairman Williams

Stacey Ellmore, Senior Consultant, American College Testing

Jennifer Staats, Senior, Bishop Manogue High School, Reno

Ashley Rae Mathis, Senior, Cimarron Memorial High School, Las Vegas

Dr. Dr. Craig Kadlub, Clark County School District

Dr. Dotty Merrill, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability & Assessment, Washoe County School District

John Breeding, Ph.D., Psychologist, Austin, Texas, Director of Texans for Safe Education

Lynn Chapman, Nevada Families Education Foundation, Nevada Eagle Forum

Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum, Nevada Families Voters Guide, Nevada Families Education Foundation, Nevada Families Political Action Coalition

Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD, Neurologist, Child Neurologist, Fellow, American Academy of Neurology

Debbie Cahill, Director of Government Relations, Nevada State Education Association

Rose McKinney-James, Clark County School District

Sheila Moulton, President, Board of Trustees, Clark County School District

Dr. Agustin Orci, Deputy Superintendent of Instruction, Clark County School District

Mark Coleman, Principal, Silverado High School, Henderson

Frank Brusa, Nevada Association of School Administrators, Washoe County School Administrators

Stephen Augspurger, Executive Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators

Emma Sepulveda, Ph.D., Professor, University of Nevada, Reno

Laura Vargas, Community Development Coordinator, University of Nevada

Oscar Espinoza Parra, University of Nevada, Reno, Latino Alumni Chapter

Martha Rodriguez, Las Americas, University of Nevada, Reno

Mayra Dominguez, Private Citizen

Tom Stoneburner, Director, Alliance for Workers’ Rights

Mary Conelly, State Director, Office of United States Senator Harry Reid

Russell Rowe, Attorney, representing the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN)

Rosa Castro Harris, Member, Interim Administrative Faculty, University of Nevada, Reno

Mary Stolz, Homeschool Parent

Kimberlie King-Pashaw, Vice Chair, Nevada Homeschool Network

Tim Hartman, Homeschool Parent, Southern President, Nevada Home School Advisory Council

Frank Schnorbus, Northern President, Nevada Homeschool Advisory council

Doug Pearson, Homeschool Parent

Maika Dunbar-Alcalde, Ph.D., Carson Valley Christian High School, Homeschool Parent

Irene Rushing, Homeschool Parent, Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council, Northern Nevada

Gail Allen, Homeschool Parent

Therese Chipp, Homeschool Parent

Dr. Mary Pierczynski, Superintendent of Schools, Carson City School District

Karyn Wright, Legislative Advocate, Clark County School District

 

Chairman Williams:

I would like to call the meeting to order.  Madam Secretary, please call the roll.  [Roll was called.]  Please mark members present as they arrive.  We have an extensive agenda today.  We ask people to be considerate of other people who want to testify; make your comments as concise and brief as possible.  If you have a person who can represent the view of more than one person, we welcome that.  That is not an attempt to deter anybody from expressing himself or herself.  We have several members who are serving on and testifying in several committees at the same time today.  We will try to make sure we can accommodate all the bills if it is possible.  The first bill that we’ll hear today is Assembly Bill 510.

Assembly Bill 510:  Requires State Board of Education to prescribe course to prepare pupils for high school proficiency examination and college entrance examinations. (BDR 34-1239)

 

My intern, Tya Mathis, is presenting this bill. 

 

Tya Mathis, student, University of Nevada, Reno and Intern to Chairman Williams:

[Introduced herself.]  I will be talking about the need for an elective course that will better prepare students for the Nevada Proficiency Examination, as well as the ACT (American College Test) and the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test), which are standardized tests used as college entrance examinations.  Currently, in the state of Nevada, all students must pass the Proficiency Examination in order to receive a high school diploma.  I do not believe that this test should be the only factor that prohibits an individual from graduation and, perhaps, from higher education.

 

It is my belief that it is the state’s duty to offer every opportunity for students in Nevada to learn the material on which they are being tested.  All students learn at different rates, and some require different methods of teaching.  A.B. 510 will require school districts to offer an elective course that would assist students with the Proficiency Examination and better prepare them for college entrance exams.  This course would teach test-taking skills and focus on areas that the students are struggling with.  This course would, in fact, give students the extra attention that may be needed in a certain area of study.  It would also prepare them for future tests such as the ACT and the SAT.

 

A.B. 510 is a bill that, if passed, would give all students in Nevada every opportunity to be successful, not only in terms of earning a high school diploma, but in entering an institution of higher education.  This is the short PowerPoint presentation that I prepared (Exhibit C), and then we will have a guest speaker from ACT, and a few students.

 

The purpose or intent of this bill is to offer all students in Nevada an additional opportunity to be successful on the Proficiency Exam and on college entrance examinations.  The proposed course would focus on test-taking skills; it would also review the subjects that students need to focus on in order to be successful on those tests.  However, preparation for the Nevada Proficiency Exam and the ACT and SAT would remain the primary focuses. 

 

The cost of administering the High School Proficiency Examination is based upon five administrations of the exam, which occur in November, February, April, May, and over the summer.  The estimated cost is $29 per person.

 

The next few slides are the most recent results of the Proficiency Exam.  These are the results for Grade 12 in November 2000.  Only 40 percent of our students passed in the area of reading, only 23 percent passed in the area of math, and only 73 percent passed in the area of writing.  These are the results for Grade 12 in April 2002.  Fifty-three percent passed in the area of reading and 80 percent failed in the area of math at Grade 11.  Those results were not cumulative results over multiple testing.  Those were passing rates for only those test dates.  The February 2003 results are being edited by the Clark County School District Central Information Systems and should be available in a few weeks.  According to Carlos A. Garcia, Superintendent, Clark County School District, “We believe that all actions of a school district should lead to improved student achievement—our number one priority.” 

 

Finally, if this course is implemented, it will help with great student accomplishment, high school graduation, and will lead to success in higher education.

 

Stacey Ellmore, Senior Consultant, ACT:

[Introduced herself.]  I’m here on behalf of the ACT, the national not-for-profit organization best known for the ACT, a college admission test.  I’ve been asked to give an overview of strategies that could be included in the test preparation course being considered.

 

The packet of information in front of you (Exhibit D) highlights much of the information that I’m going to be speaking about this afternoon.  Test preparation is an important part of improving ACT scores, but the greater goal is to ensure that all students are ready for post-secondary education once they leave high school.  To understand test preparation strategies, it is important to know that the ACT is a curriculum-based achievement test.  It tests students on the kinds of things that they are doing in their high school classes that have been deemed necessary for academic success once they get into college.

 

In addition to measuring student achievement, the ACT is widely used around the country for guidance at the high school level, and it is used for advising and course placement at the collegiate level.  It gives campuses a very broad look at students’ educational goals, needs, and plans.  Because of that, ACT looks at test preparation in two very distinctive ways.

 

The first is a developmental approach.  The ACT is curriculum-based, so students start preparing for the test the minute they walk into the classroom.  Short-term strategies, however, will help students get comfortable with the content and format of the ACT and the way questions are worded.  The ACT assessment focuses on four academic areas:  English, math, reading, and the sciences.  These areas have been designated, not by ACT, but by high schools and colleges around the country.  All of the research indicates that if students are proficient in these four academic areas, they tend to be proficient in their other classes.  Also, you might note that ACT will be adding an optional writing test in the fall of 2004.

 

[Stacey Ellmore continued.]  As I just mentioned, the best preparation for the ACT begins in the classroom.  We have found, in all of the research, that when students take good and strong core courses, which include four years of English, three years of math, three years of the natural sciences, and three years of the social sciences, they tend to do better.  They not only do better on the ACT and have higher test scores, but they are also more likely to be academically successful in college, particularly when they learn the skills that are being taught in those classes.

 

To further link test preparation for the ACT to the long-term approach, ACT has developed ACT’s Educational Planning and Assessment System.  This program was developed to help students transition more easily into high school with the Explorer Test at the eighth and ninth grade levels.  Then, we do a mid-point review, and the preliminary ACT or the Plan Test is given to help students understand what’s going to happen to them in the next two years of high school.  We then continue with the ACT in the eleventh and twelfth grades.

 

Around the country, the challenge has been to get the information gleaned from assessments back into the classroom to improve student learning.  ACT has answered this challenge with the Standards for Transition descriptions of the skills that the students are demonstrating when they score in a particular score range on the ACT, and what they’re ready to learn next.  In your packet is a list of those specific skills.  In terms of test preparation, these are excellent resources for students, because it actually tells students what is going to be tested on the ACT.

 

You also might like to note that ACT Standards for Transition program is closely linked to the Nevada content standards.  I have provided you with the Executive Summary of that research and a CD is included (Exhibit D).  That research report was done last fall to look at how closely ACT’s programs match what is happening in the state, and it’s quite a close match.

 

As I mentioned, because of the core curriculum, we’re finding that students who do take the good, strong core courses tend to score better on the ACT than students who don’t.  This graph visually displays the national ACT scores of the high school class of 2002, with the scores of those graduates who took those recommended core courses on the top line, and the scores of those students who did not on the bottom line.  The average is in the middle.  We have found that if students are deficient in even one of those classes that I mentioned previously, their scores tend to go down on the ACT, not just in that one academic area, but also in all areas.

 

[Stacey Ellmore continued.]  The ACT is scored on a scale of 1 to 36.  The score difference this year between core and noncore class takers is a considerable 3 to 4 points.  That points out the importance of taking core courses, not only so students do well on the ACT, but also so they’ll learn the academic skills they need to be successful in high school and beyond.  I might point out, too, that the data shown here crosses gender lines, crosses ethnicity and race lines, crosses socio-economic groups, and crosses urban, suburban, and rural groups. 

 

I pulled this information out because I thought this might be interesting to you.  This is the Nevada Class of 2002 and the math scores earned.  We’re finding how score differentials on the ACT are tied to specific course-taking patterns.  Here, we’re looking at math specifically; these are the math scores of students who took less than three years of math during their high school years.  These are the scores of those who took Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Geometry, or other combinations of 3 years or 3½ years of math.  Then there are the scores of those students who took Algebra 1, Algebra 2, Geometry, Trigonometry, and Calculus.  I think this graph is very significant in terms of long-term test preparation.  As you look at that box to the left of the screen, the scores of the group of students who took fewer than three years of math scored a full eight points on the ACT lower than those who had four or more years of math, which are in the column all the way to the right.  Again, because the ACT is scored on a scale from 1 to 36, this is a dramatic and meaningful difference.

 

To talk a little bit about short-term test preparation, the short-term test preparation does have great value in helping students understand the content and format of college admissions tests, and it provides beneficial test-taking tips and strategies.  There are numerous for-profit test preparation companies, and some are better than others.  It is important that students and their parents are wise in looking at test preparation opportunities as some companies may charge students hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for this service.  ACT endorses only those test preparation programs designed and developed by ACT, as we’re the makers of the ACT.  These are excellent low-cost or no-cost tools available to help students do their best on the ACT.

 

ACT is committed to helping all students be ready for post-secondary success, whatever it is they decide to do after high school.  We talk about test preparation the minute students walk in the classroom door, and it continues in a systematic, well-thought-out process to ensure that students not only score at their optimal level, but they are learning the skills they need to be academically successful that have been identified as helping them to be ready for post-secondary education.

 

[Stacey Ellmore continued.]  The bottom line for us, with the students and with the ACT, is to be student-centered.  We want to focus on helping all students succeed.  ACT would be pleased to assist you in providing top-notch test preparation tools for your students.  I thought you might enjoy a little cartoon.  What’s the best way to get good at anything?  It is practice, lots of practice.  And, the same holds true for doing well on the ACT.  I would be happy to make myself available to answer questions about ACT and our related projects at any time.

 

Jennifer Staats, Senior, Bishop Manogue High School, Reno:

[Introduced herself.]  Last year, when I was a junior, I took the Proficiency Exam for the first time and found out later that it was the wrong test.  It was the 1994 edition, and my class was supposed to be the first class taking the new Proficiency Exam.  In the spring, I took the writing part of the exam and passed.  When I took the exam for a second time, it counted, but I did not pass the math exam.  I had taken this exam for the third time, but we were sent the wrong exam again.  It was a 1994 edition as well.  So I had to take the exam for the fourth time, and again I did not pass the math exam.

 

Because of the mix-up, it eliminated two opportunities to pass this exam.  I am in support of A.B. 510, because my parents have spent over $20,000 in the past four years to send me to Bishop Manogue High School to get a quality education.  According to my report card, I’ve averaged a 3.30 GPA (Grade Point Average) and have an average of a B+/A- average in math.  I have yet to pass the math section of this Proficiency Exam, and my parents are sending me outside of school for tutoring to help me pass this exam.

 

I feel as though I have learned more from my tutor in a few hours than I have all year in math.  I believe these courses will be beneficial, but it is also important to have the proper teachers to teach the course.  I have been accepted to UNR (University of Nevada, Reno) and have qualified for the Millennium Scholarship.  I’m very concerned that if I don’t pass the Proficiency Exam I will lose my letter of acceptance and the Millennium Scholarship.  My next test is Thursday, so please keep a positive thought for me. 

Ashley Rae Mathis, Senior, Cimarron Memorial High School, Las Vegas:

[Introduced herself.]  I would like to give my personal endorsement to Assembly Bill 510.  In the spring of 2002, I took the writing and math proficiency exams.  With no problems or difficulties, I was able to pass the writing portion of the test; however, math was a different story.  Although math is one of my most challenging subjects, it is also the one I put the most effort into.  Imagine my surprise to learn that, after taking four years of honors and advanced placement courses, I failed by one point.  A four-year varsity athlete, a community-service volunteer, and an involved 4.0 GPA student failed by one point.

 

Over the next several weeks, I took time to study the materials that I felt were necessary to achieve higher results.  When the next opportunity became available, I took the exam again and passed with flying colors.  I honestly believe that if a course had been offered, which solely focused on preparing students for this exam, the scores would be at their greatest height.  On April 7, 2003, I, Ashley Rae Mathis, testify to this bill as being a worthy enhancement that will aid students in the state of Nevada (Exhibit E).

 

Tya Mathis:

I just wanted to add amendments (Exhibit F) to A.B. 510.  The purpose of this piece of legislation is not to mandate to any school district which currently has high passing rates on the Proficiency Exam, that they budget for an additional course, but it is to encourage districts with lower passing rates to offer an elective course in high schools that would give students another opportunity to be successful when taking these examinations.  Therefore, to ensure that this bill is not negatively affecting any school district, I would like to propose the following amendments.

 

In Section 1, subsection 2, I would like to change the word “shall” to the word “may.”  It will then read, “The board of trustees of each school district may offer the course of study prescribed by the State Board of Education.”  In Section 2, subsection 8, change the entire paragraph to read as follows, “A course of study be recommended for pupils who will be taking college entrance examinations.”

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

In Section 1, it mentions both the High School Proficiency Test and college entrance exam.  Do we need both of these tests?

 

Tya Mathis:

Is your question asking if you need to prepare students for both of these tests?

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

Are both of these tests needed?  Would it be possible just to go to the ACT?  Could we do that, or am I missing something here?  Why do we need both tests?

 

Tya Mathis:

Do you mean the SAT and ACT, or the Proficiency Exam?

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

You have a High School Proficiency Exam that is required in Nevada, and now you’re proposing that we have this ACT?  Am I correct?

 

Tya Mathis:

The ACT is one of the college entrance examinations, along with the SAT, that students may take.  Depending on what college or university they want to go to, that institution may require them to take the ACT or the SAT.  The reason why Stacey was here in support of the bill is because the ACT is the test most closely related to the Proficiency Exam, as it tests the students’ knowledge over all four years of high school.  Does that answer your question?

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I think so.  It might be a different test, it might be the SAT, or both.  Maybe this is the wrong bill to talk about this issue, but we were talking about getting rid of the Proficiency Examination in another bill.  Would it be possible to use these college entrance examinations as our measurement of success in high school?

 

Stacey Ellmore:

The ACT was designed and developed as a readiness assessment for college.  From what I understand, the Proficiency Exam is to see where students are as they exit high school.  The ACT and the Proficiency Exam were developed and designed for two different purposes.  The ACT is a curriculum-based achievement test that has been designed and developed to closely link with what’s happening in those high school classrooms for students.

 

As I mentioned, we did a curriculum match between the Nevada State Standards and the ACT.  Actually, I have a large copy right here, and there’s an Executive Summary in your ACT packet to look at how closely the Proficiency Exam, or at least the standards, match with ACT’s programs; “Explore” in the eighth and ninth grade, “Plan” at the tenth grade, and the ACT at the eleventh and twelfth grades.  There is a very close match.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

That answers my question.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

I was looking at the amendment.  Regarding the fiscal impact that was on the bill originally, with your amendment, does that take all the fiscal impact off the counties?  Will we no longer be mandating something we are not funding?  Is that correct?

 

Chairman Williams:

That pretty much wipes out the fiscal note.  [Tya Mathis also indicated “yes.”] 

 

Assemblyman Mabey:

I have a couple of questions.  First, I’ll state that I have two daughters in high school, and one that will be in high school next year.  When I go home on the weekends, we’ve discussed this Proficiency Exam over and over.  When would you give this course, Ms. Mathis, when they’re freshmen?

 

Tya Mathis:

I want to offer the course starting in the sophomore year as an elective.  Students would have the opportunity to take it all four years, if they wanted to, but I don’t think anyone would actually take it until they discovered they weren’t successful on the Proficiency Test.  If they failed the Proficiency Test, or one portion of it, I think they would enroll in the course the next semester.  If they passed the Proficiency Test during April, but they were still enrolled in the class, that’s when they would begin focusing more on their college entrance exam, so the whole purpose of the class wouldn’t be wasted.

 

Assemblyman Mabey:

Do many of your teachers prepare you for the exams by wording their questions to prepare you for the Proficiency Test?

 

Jennifer Staats:

From going to school the past four years, they don’t.  Usually the teachers go over what is in the textbook that we get at school, and mostly the books don’t consist of what’s on the Proficiency Exam. 

 

Assemblyman Mabey:

Ms. Ellmore, when you brought up your presentation, you mentioned that those who took all those core classes did very well in the classes.  Ms. Staats, did you understand what Ms. Ellmore was saying?  When you take all those core classes, it makes it more likely that you’ll do well.  Did you take Geometry and all those other math classes?

Jennifer Staats:

Yes, I did, but it also depends on the teachers.  I’ve learned more from my tutor that I’ve had for a couple of hours, than I have this whole year in math class.  I think a lot of it has to do with the teachers who are teaching the math class.

 

Dr. Dr. Craig Kadlub, Clark County School District:

With the amendments proposed, we can certainly support A.B. 510.  I would also like to go on record as stating that, as a matter of information, we do have a class at every high school called Mathematics Applications, which is designed specifically for passage of the Proficiency Exam.  We have two other courses that are offered on an “as needed” basis, depending on how the student body scores.  Those courses are “Reading for Proficiency” and “Writing for Proficiency.”  In all cases, all high schools offer after-school tutorial programs funded by a variety of grants.  I wanted to assure you that opportunities for remediation do exist.

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill, Washoe County School District:

[Introduced herself.]  We certainly appreciate the maker of this bill working with us to propose amendments, which will completely remove the fiscal impact for school districts.  That was our primary concern.  Like Clark County School District, we have before school, after-school, and lunchtime activities available for students who need to address deficiencies revealed by the Proficiency Exam.  We also believe that the proposed language in Section 2, subsection h, will be very important in this brochure, because the brochures are mailed to all students throughout the state who are in grades 7 through 12.  When we begin in seventh grade to make students aware of the course of study recommended for them if they are planning to attend a college or university, we believe this can have a very positive impact on course-taking patterns.  Over the long haul, we will see a lot of improvement, both on the High School Proficiency Exam and on college entrance exams.

 

Chairman Williams:

So, with the amendments, you are pretty comfortable?

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill:

Very comfortable, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Chairman Williams:

Is there anyone else who would like to testify on Assembly Bill 510, either in favor of or in opposition to it? 

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

Are these classes that you say the school districts offer free to the students?

 

Chairman Williams:

Do you mean if this bill passes?

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

No, the ones that they are mentioning that they have in place right now.

 

Dr. Craig Kadlub:

Those classes are incorporated into the regular school day, so those are free to the students.  The after-school tutorials are free to the students as well.  For students who don’t take advantage of either of those opportunities, I believe they can pay for summer school remedial courses, and I believe the same is true for Washoe County School District.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

I wish that also could be free.  Remember when we passed this in the first place, it seems like a hundred years ago, we were promised that there would be funding for teacher training and remediation for students.  If we were promised that, then remediation should be at no cost.  We’ll keep hoping for that.

 

Assemblyman Andonov:

I have a question for Ashley Mathis.  If you add a new elective course, does it supplant any other courses that you are offering?  I guess another way of saying that is, if you’re a tenth-grader and you need to take this elective, do you have to drop something else?  Is there room in your schedule to take this course?

 

Ashley Mathis:

I believe so, because, especially as a senior, I have a shortened schedule as it is.  I do have time; I think we’re offered three elective classes in our sophomore year, and, as you proceed in high school, you go up in the number of electives offered.  Having that course would definitely be a lot easier, because even with the mathematical remediation course, you have to wait until you fail the Proficiency Test before you are put in there.  It is so much easier to be prepared the first time and get it over with.

 

Dr. Craig Kadlub:

As I pointed out and Tya Mathis correctly stated, if you take one elective in place of another, it cuts down the total number of electives available for you, but there is the after-school tutorial, and that one is free.  If you were to take the after-school tutorial, you wouldn’t have to sacrifice your other elective options.

 

Chairman Williams:

With the amendment proposed by Ms. Mathis, is the Clark County School District comfortable with the bill now?

 

Dr. Craig Kadlub:

Very much so, thank you.

 

Chairman Williams:

Is there anyone else who would like to testify on Assembly Bill 510?  With that, we’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 510.  The Chair will accept a motion. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 2, TO READ “MAY” AND TO SUBMIT AN ALTERNATIVE SENTENCE FOR THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH TO READ “A COURSE OF STUDY BE RECOMMENDED FOR PUPILS WHO WILL BE TAKING COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS” IN SECTION 2, SUBSECTION 8, AND DO PASS A.B. 510.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Horne was not present for the vote.)

 

Chairman Williams:

Congratulations, Ms. Mathis.

 

At this time, we’ll open the hearing on Assembly Bill 251.

 

Assembly Bill 251:  Makes various changes relating to treatment of pupils. (BDR 34-149)

 

We have the honorable Senator Washington with us.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

[Introduced herself.]  I’m here to present, with Senator Washington, A.B. 251.  I would like to take some testimony out of order.  I’m going to place a call to Psychologist John Breeding; he’s an expert in his field.  I’d like to hear his testimony first, because he is in Texas, and he’s leaving at 7:00 p.m.  I wanted you to have the opportunity to question him.

 

If you look at the packet on your desk (Exhibit G), A.B. 251 is an education policy relating to the use of psychotropic drugs by pupils in school.  This is a response to a nationwide addressing of this situation.  In your packet is a copy of H.R. 1170.  H.R. 1170 is the federal legislation, and as you can see by Section 2, as a condition of receiving funds under any program or activity administered by the Secretary of Education, each state shall develop and implement policies and procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance in Schedule 2, under Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act, as a condition of attending school or receiving services.

 

You may remember that we had a bill similar to this last session, A.B. 226 of the 71^st Legislative Session, and other states are going ahead with their own policies in response to this legislation.  It hasn’t passed at the federal level, but it has been introduced.  The conditions within this bill are that a school district employee or agent shall not suggest to a pupil, or to his parent or guardian, that he should take a psychotropic drug or require a pupil to take a psychotropic drug as a condition for attending class.  They may suggest evaluation for placement in special education.  The definition of a “psychotropic drug” is that it is a Schedule 2 Controlled Substance, and, under Schedule 2, other substances in that schedule are cocaine, heroin, and those kinds of drugs.  These drugs that are prescribed for schoolchildren are in Schedule 2.

 

Is Dr. Breeding on the phone?  I’ll move ahead here until we get him.  Other states have put this in place, as I said.  The Colorado State Board passed a resolution; the Georgia House passed a resolution; the Washington House passed a bill; Connecticut passed a bill; Hawaii passed a concurrent resolution; Minnesota passed a bill; North Carolina passed a bill; and the Texas Board of Education passed a resolution.  Tomorrow they’re going to be hearing this same bill in Texas, and that’s why Dr. Breeding isn’t here today in person.  He has to be back in Texas tomorrow morning to testify on that bill.  Utah passed a bill like this one, and the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, in 1999, passed a resolution concerning this.  

 

John Breeding, Ph.D., Psychologist, Austin, Texas, Director of Texans for Safe Education:

[Introduced himself.]  I’ve been invited by Assemblywoman Angle to testify on this bill today, so that’s the purpose of my call.  I’m unable to be there in person, because we’re having similar legislation heard in the Texas House of Representatives tomorrow.  I’m involved in that, and conditions were such that I couldn’t make it out to Nevada physically, but I’ll be happy to answer any questions.

 

What I’d like to do is to say a few words about the general context of why this type of bill is important; then, I will speak on the specific content of A.B. 251.  I, along with Texans for Safe Education, have a concern with the fact that psychiatry has been playing a bigger role in the schools over the past couple of decades.  What that means is that more and more children are being placed on psychiatric drugs in the schools.  We estimate that, currently, about 8 million school-aged children in the United States are on psychiatric drugs.  The majority of these are stimulant drugs like Ritalin and Adderall and are for students after a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder, but the whole class of adult psychiatric drugs is also being applied.  Also, more children are being placed on anti-depressants and anti-psychotic drugs.

 

[Dr. John Breeding continued by phone from Texas.]  This was a great concern of ours.  We worked specifically with a number of parents whose children died from the effects of these drugs.  We’re also seeing a pattern, which is that someone will take a parent aside and say, “We’re concerned about Johnny.  His kind of behavior looks like what we call Attention Deficit Disorder, and we recommend Ritalin, because it is applied to children, and you should see this doctor.”  When a parent resists or refuses, and says they’ve studied these diagnoses and are aware they are subjective, that there’s no objective criteria, and they don’t know if they trust their validity, but even more than that, they don’t really want their child to be on Ritalin and would like it handled in some other way, they’re threatened with a call to Child Protective Services under an accusation of medical neglect. 

 

This type of bill does not address Child Protective Services, but it does address the fact that schools are becoming the primary conduit for families and children in psychiatry.  In 1970, there were about 200,000 children on psychotropic drugs in the United States.  That was enough to cause a special hearing, and that’s when drugs like Ritalin were classified as controlled substances.  That’s why the Drug Enforcement Administration monitors these drugs for their high addictive potential.  What happened was, in spite of that, there has been about a 400 percent increase in the number of children on these drugs.  That’s our concern.

 

Let me talk specifically about this bill, and why I like it so much.  I think it’s important.  It really clarifies a lot of things.  First of all, it protects children and families from the process of schools being an immediate referral source and pressuring parents to diagnose school children for the purpose of giving them psychiatric drugs.  Second, it will protect school employees from liability.  We have a member on our Education Committee who’s a superintendent here.  He likes the bill because his teachers are being sued by parents or others who say they failed to make a recommendation, as it is harmful to the child.

 

This bill clarifies, specifically in Section 2 that “a school employee may suggest that a pupil be evaluated for determination of whether that pupil should be placed in a special program.”  Basically, you have your federal mandates in place, which are called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  These two laws say that, when a school employee has a concern that a child might have a disability that interferes either with school, under IDEA, or with their quality of life under Section 504, the schools must make a referral that triggers a local support team to figure out what’s going on with the child and find a way to make a recommendation and a decision by including the parents, and getting parental consent in this process.

 

[Dr. John Breeding continued his testimony by phone from Texas.]  This bill protects school employees from the liability that goes with making a recommendation or not making a recommendation, and it says that, if you see a problem . . .  [Dr. Breeding’s cell phone cut out here and audio was indistinguishable].  It also protects school systems from the consequences.  I don’t know what you’re seeing in Nevada, but what we’re seeing in Texas is that . . . [conversation inaudible again for several seconds]. 

 

On this bill, all it does is say, “Follow the federal mandate and follow the provisions that protect the students and protect the schools.  It’s just good policy.  It’s not about gagging teacher communication, it’s not about saying that teachers should not say, “We’re seeing such and such, and it’s up to you to decide what you want to do about it,” or “We’re seeing such and such, and we’re concerned enough about it that we’d like to refer to the Child Find process that includes you and your consent and/or involvement.”  That’s the way it should be handled.  That slows down the process, it takes teachers out of the role of prescribing medicine or making treatment recommendation, and it ensures that instructions are followed.  I think this is a win-win bill for everyone involved, and I like it a lot.

 

Chairman Williams:

Are there any questions for the doctor from the Committee?  [There were none.]

 

Senator Maurice Washington, representing Senatorial District No. 2:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on A.B. 251.  I just wanted to testify on this bill on behalf of experience.  Sometimes, when bills come before us, they may seem not very germane to the situation as we review the bill, but this bill was very personal to me.  Currently, my wife and I are raising our nephew, who is nine or ten years old.  When he was in kindergarten or the first grade, the teacher indicated that she thought he was suffering from ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) and observed that he was unable to retain information, sit in his seat, or participate in the class effectively.  After several conferences with my wife, they had almost persuaded her that we should administer psychotropic drugs to our nephew.

 

[Senator Washington continued.]  It was after several interviews with the teacher that they finally called me in, and, once I had interviewed the teacher, I was convinced that my nephew didn’t have a problem retaining information or paying attention in class.  He wasn’t challenged enough in his academic studies.  I suggested to them that they increase the level of his studies and give him something more difficult to challenge him, but they proceeded in their determination that we should administer these drugs to our nephew. 

 

After several conversations, I made a decision to actually pull my nephew out of that school and put him in another school.  Prior to pulling him, school officials had convinced my wife that he needed to see a doctor.  She took him to a pediatrician who basically prescribed a lesser amount of Ritalin for bed-wetting, without indicating to my wife what type of drug he was prescribing.  After several months on this drug, we noticed that our nephew had started to slow down in his activities to the point that he was going to bed a lot earlier, and he seemed a little lethargic, a little out of it.

 

At that time, my wife asked if I would attend one of his doctor visits with him.  After going to the doctor with her, I was inquisitive and asked the doctor exactly what was prescribed to our nephew.  Unbeknownst to my wife and myself, it was a derivative of Ritalin.  The doctor had not told us and had not given us the ingredients in the prescription; he had convinced my wife it was purely for bed-wetting.  At that point in time we could have taken it further and pressed charges because the doctor actually prescribed Ritalin under coercion and under false pretenses.  I suggested that we take him off Ritalin very quickly, which we did, and our nephew is doing very well.  His academics are up; he’s reading at a seventh-grade level; he’s doing very well in school; and my premonition has always been the same.

 

I’m not prescribing this for everybody, but he’s a little boy, and boys do “boy” things.  They throw rocks; they catch frogs; they climb trees; they fight; and they chase.  He’s a little boy.  To take him out of those activities that little boys do and prescribe psychotropic drugs is a misnomer.  Sometimes, I think we make excuses for not handling our parental duties.  We give way to prescriptions when in essence we are lazy.  We don’t want to be bothered, or it takes too much time.  So we took time, and we worked with our nephew, and he is doing a great job.  I would much rather see parents take the time with their children and work with them to let them be children, as opposed to drugging them prior to their adulthood.

Assemblyman Hardy:

Mrs. Angle, in Section 1, subparagraph 2, it says “a person who is an employee or agent of the school district may suggest the pupil be evaluated for determination whether the pupil should be placed in a special program pursuant to NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes).”  Is that limited to a special education program, or does that include allowing the school psychologist or some other profession to evaluate the person in the child’s entirety?  In other words, does this preclude the referral to the pediatrician?  Does it preclude the school employee from saying, “This is beyond me, and I would recommend you get other help.”

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

No, it does not.  It is my understanding that they are allowed to evaluate for special education, and they are also allowed to say, “You might want to take this up with your family physician.”  We want them to have access if the child has a problem.  We certainly don’t want, as Dr. Breeding said, to put the school in a situation where they can be sued for “playing physician.”  We want to have it very clearly stated that they are to do what they are supposed to do, which is to recommend for special education and those kinds of things.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

I think this bill protects children, protects the parents, and protects the school employee.  I’ll admit that I am a family doctor, and I have used medicines on kids, for kids, or for their parents, depending on how you look at it.  The reality is that there are children with problems who do better on medication, and usually that’s easy to see.  I apologize for my profession for what happened to you, sir [to Senator Washington].

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

In your packet, there is a write-up about a Michigan boy, Matthew Smith, who was 14.  He had a prescription for Ritalin and died of long-term use of that stimulant.  As his father testifies, Matthew’s death was because his school asked him to put this boy on the stimulant drug due to his diagnosis for ADHD.  Stephanie Hall was another child whose death was caused by Ritalin, as was the death of Shaina Louise Dunkle.  That’s the controversy.  More than 6 million children have been diagnosed with this disorder.  It doesn’t have any physical symptoms as far as being able to diagnose it from looking inside the brain.

 

We don’t have an independent, valid test for ADHD, and there is no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction.  I thought you might like to look at the criteria for ADHD in the packet labeled Exhibit G.  If you have six of these indicators, you are diagnosed with ADHD.  If you have six or more of these in a different section, you are ADHD.  I thought of myself in Committee:  “Often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes.  Often ‘on the go’ and acts ‘as if driven by a motor.’”  I could really identify here.

 

[Assemblywoman Angle continued.]  The treatment, of course, is to administer a stimulant drug, and the stimulant drug is the Schedule 2 stimulant, methylphenidate, which we know as Ritalin.  High doses of methylphenidate produce agitation, tremors, and euphoria—you’ll have to help me, Dr. Hardy—palpitations, hypertension, psychotic episodes, violent behavior, and bizarre mannerisms.  [Assemblywoman Angle quotes from material in Exhibit G.]  “Reports of sudden deaths of children and adolescents treated with psychotropic medications have raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of this therapy.”  One of the major complications of withdrawal from this drug is suicide, and, during this legislative session, we had discussions on the suicide rate here in Nevada, so it’s a big concern for all of us.

 

The statistics are that white male children, between 6 years of age and 18 years of age, and, this I thought was interesting, children whose families have insurance, are more likely to be on Ritalin.  Of course, regarding the statistics, medications have risen threefold since 1991.  Thirty percent of the children who have binocular vision, which prevents them from focusing, are diagnosed as ADHD.

 

A local talk show host in Washoe County did a talk show on this subject.  He spent 12 hours over 2 weeks in discussion on this.  He believes that Ritalin is a “gateway” drug, and that’s what he got from discussions with people.  It’s also one of those things that, when children are on it, they sell it.  They chop it up, they snort it, and they use it; it’s not something you want to have at school unless it’s absolutely necessary.  Some things that have been in the news are also in your packet.  One that I thought was fairly interesting was that the military does not enlist people who have been under psychiatric care or have taken medication for a host of conditions including Attention Deficit Disorder.  Therefore, it makes these children ineligible for military service.

 

In conclusion, I feel this is an appropriate bill for us; it sets a policy that has been talked about on the federal level in H.R. 1170.  Two of our Nevada school districts already have a policy like this; they are Carson City School District and Washoe County School District.  Two states have similar statutes.  I showed you a number of statutes, but this one more closely aligns with Connecticut and Illinois.  This bill allows classroom teachers to observe and record behavior, and they can consult with special education teachers and the school psychologist, but they are not qualified to make a diagnosis of the psychological state of their pupils.  Only a qualified physician should do that.  I ask you to pass A.B. 251, because I feel like it’s the best policy for our schools.  I have Dr. Fred Baughman, who’s an expert in this field.  He’s calling from California to testify.  I would like to have Dr. Baughman testify now, and that will conclude our presentation.

 

Chairman Williams:

Are there any questions from the Committee while we’re trying to get the phone line connected?  We have people who signed up to testify on the bill, so we’ll bring them up. 

 

Lynn Chapman, Nevada Families Education Foundation, Nevada Eagle Forum:

We are in support of A.B. 251.  Just to let you know, there are 50 other conditions that have many of the same symptoms as ADHD, such as food allergies, additives in foods, diabetes, hypoglycemia, lead poisoning, mercury poisoning, and the list goes on and on.  You could look at the blue sheet of paper; that’s the one I’m going to be reading an excerpt from (Exhibit H), from the Times Union, Albany, New York, Sunday, May 7, 2000, and written by Rick Karlin, staff writer.

 

Like thousands of children, 7-year-old Kyle Carroll takes Ritalin for a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.  Like thousands of parents, Michael and Jill Carroll worry about the drug’s side effects, including sleeplessness and loss of appetite.  But they keep their child on the medication, in part because they fear the child welfare workers will take him away if they don’t.  Earlier this year, administrators from the school district called Albany County Child Protective Services alleging child abuse when the Carrolls said they wanted to take Kyle off the drug.  As a result, the Carrolls are now on a statewide list of alleged child abusers, and they have been thrust into an Orwellian family court battle to clear their names and ensure their child isn’t removed from their home.

 

“The schools are now using child protective services to enforce their own desires and their own policies,” said David Lansner, a New York City lawyer.  Patricia Weathers of Millbrook, a suburb of Poughkeepsie, said that officials at the school district where her child went called police and child protective services when she took her nine-year-old son off medication earlier this year.  She said a drug cocktail including Ritalin, the anti-depressant Paxil, and Dexedrine, a stimulant like Ritalin, caused her boy to hallucinate.  “My son was a guinea pig,” she said, and she now sends her child to a private school.

 

[Lynn Chapman continues.]  Included in Exhibit H is an article by Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld written for the American Free Press, February 24, 2003, Section:  Whole Body Health, “America’s Kids Riddled With Ritalin.”

 

On March 21, 2000, 14-year-old Matthew Smith dropped dead of a heart attack while skateboarding.  The ninth grader had been on the drug, Ritalin, since the first grade.  Lawrence Smith, father of the youngster, had testified that he and his wife were forced by Michigan Social Services to put their child on Ritalin or be charged for neglecting their son’s educational and emotional needs.  “His last report card was his best,” says Lawrence.  “But it wasn’t worth it for us.  Putting him on Ritalin was the worst decision I’ve ever made.”

 

It has also been known since 1986 that methylphenidate, the generic term for Ritalin, causes shrinkage of the brain. A study that appeared in Psychology Research, Volume 17, 1986, stated, “The data in this study are suggestive of mild cerebral atrophy in young male adults who had a diagnosis of HK/MBD during childhood and received stimulant drug treatment for a period of time.” 

 

Another study published in Archives of General Psychology and Psychiatry, July 1996, found that subjects with ADHD had a 4.7 percent smaller total cerebral volume.  Apparently, these drugs constrict the flow of blood.  Despite these alarming findings, nearly 6 million children take Ritalin or one of a number of other stimulants in order to attend school.

 

The testimony of Peter R. Breggin, M.D., printed on yellow paper, is also part of Exhibit H.  Dr. Breggin testified on September 29, 2000, before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations the U.S. Congress, and the Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives.  He appeared that day as the Director of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, and also on his own behalf as a practicing psychiatrist and a parent. 

 

Parents throughout the country are being pressured and coerced by schools to give psychiatric drugs to their children.  Teachers, school psychologists, and administrators commonly make dire threats about their inability to teach children without medicating them.  They sometimes suggest that only medication can stave off the bleak future of delinquency and occupational failure.  They even call child protective services to investigate parents for child neglect, and they sometimes testify against parents in court.  Often, schools recommend particular physicians who favor the use of stimulant drugs to control behavior.

 

[Lynn Chapman continued.] 

 

Stimulant drugs, including methylphenidate and amphetamines, were first approved for the control of behavior in children during the mid 1950s….  Since the early 1990s, North America has turned to psychoactive drugs in unprecedented numbers for the control of children.  In 1995, the International Narcotics Control Board, an agency of the World Health Organization, deplored that 10 to 12 percent of all boys between the ages of 6 and 14, in the United States, had been diagnosed as having ADD and are being treated with methylphenidate, or Ritalin….  The United States uses approximately 90 percent of the world’s Ritalin.

 

It is important to note that the Drug Enforcement Administration and all other drug enforcement agencies worldwide classify methylphenidate and the amphetamines, Dexedrine and Adderall, in the same Schedule 2 category as methamphetamine, cocaine, and the most potent opiates and barbiturates.  A “Schedule 2” classification includes only those drugs with the very highest potential for addition and abuse.

 

On the green page (Exhibit H), a very interesting DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) report was given at the conclusion of the conference on Stimulant Use in the Treatment of ADHD, San Antonio, Texas, December 10 through December 12, 1996. 

 

Since 1990, prescriptions for methylphenidate have increased by 500 percent, while prescriptions for amphetamines for the same purpose have increased by 400 percent.  Now we see a situation in which from 7 to 10 percent of the nation’s boys are on the drugs at some point, as well as a rising percentage of girls.

 

If you think this can’t happen in the state of Nevada, it happens all the time.  As a homeschool consultant, I talk to hundreds of people, and I come across this all the time.  People are always saying that’s why they want to take their children out of school.  They’re being forced to put their children on medications that they don’t want their children on.  I made a really good friend by helping her.

 

Three years ago, my friend had a seven-year-old son.  She was a single mom, and she was told that, when her son came back to school after the Thanksgiving holiday, he would be put on Ritalin.  She kept saying, “No, I don’t want that to happen.”  The school nurse, the school counselor, and the school principal kept insisting that he would be put on Ritalin when he came back to school.  Hysterical, she called me, and we got together.  After sitting with her and her son for two hours talking about curriculum and helping her get started with homeschooling, I turned to her son, and said, “Are you having fun?”  He was the best little boy in the world, and I looked at his mom, and I said, “I don’t understand.  This is the child that they want to put on Ritalin?”  She said, “Yes.”  I said, “I’m more hyperactive than this child is.  Why would they want to put him on Ritalin?”  She said, “I don’t know, but they’re insisting.”

 

[Lynn Chapman continued.]  That’s why she took her son out of school, and he did not have to go on Ritalin.  Things like this happen all the time, so please support A.B. 251, because we really need the bill passed.

 

Janine Hansen, State President of Nevada Eagle Forum:

[Introduced herself.]  The Eagle Forum, nationally, has been one of the organizations leading the battle on this Ritalin issue.  I haven’t had the opportunity to be with you in this Committee before today, and I appreciate the opportunity now.  Earlier this year, I went to a conference where Dr. Jane Orient spoke.  She is the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.  She told a great story about Ritalin, and how she decided to give her speech on it.

 

Dr. Orient said when she was a little girl her cousins came over to visit.  They were there for about an hour.  After that, she went to her mother and said, “Mom, what’s the matter with them?”  Her mother said, “Well, they’re boys.” 

 

That’s often what happens with regards to Ritalin.  I grew up with four brothers, so I understand the difference between boys and girls.  Please look at the information from the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons I’ve given you (Exhibit I), because a lot of testimony has been given, and I’m not going to go over the same things.

 

On Page 5 of the green sheets (Exhibit I), it talks about Novartis, the company that manufactures Ritalin, is now being sued by parents who are represented by the same attorney who brought the lawsuits against tobacco.  Plaintiffs allege that Novartis planned, conspired, and colluded to create, develop, and promote the diagnosis of ADD and ADHD in a highly successful effort to increase the market for its drug, Ritalin.

 

On the salmon-colored sheet (Exhibit I), you’ll notice it’s a page on “Death From Ritalin,” it talks about the fact that, in Michigan, they are also considering legislation.  The little boy who lost his life earlier, Matthew, is on here, and you can see what his death certificate reads.  It says that death was caused from long-term use of Ritalin.  You’ll notice that these parents were forced by the district to have him on Ritalin.  On the next page, it talks about the fact that the DEA, which classified Ritalin as comparable to cocaine, has said this is one of the Top Ten most abused prescription drugs. 

 

In college, people are selling their prescriptions and/or trading them.  There’s a big market for Ritalin among college students.  That information is available on our national Web site for the Eagle Forum.  This also goes on to talk about other children who have died.  On the third page, I think it’s interesting, because it talks about the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) and how many parents are told this is a benign and mild substance and that it’s not associated with abuse or serious side effects.  The DEA feels that this is untrue.

 

In the last paragraph, it says, “Did you know that there are studies, such as the Berkeley Study, that contend that Ritalin and other stimulants further raise the risk of drug abuse?”  In May 1999, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal, written by Marilyn Chase, that quoted Nadine Lambert, a professor of education, who had followed almost 500 children for 26 years.  She argues that “exposure to Ritalin makes the brain more susceptible to the addictive power of cocaine and doubles the risk of abuse.”

 

My own sister-in-law’s brother was placed on Ritalin, and later ended up in prison for abusing drugs.  I think there are many stories we could find like that.  On the yellow sheet (Exhibit I), it tells the tragic story of Paul Johnston.  He was forced by the schools and his mother to be on Ritalin.  The story covers the period from the time he was a 5-year-old to a 13-year-old.  Paul ended up in a mental hospital.  He had gone through all kinds of psychotropic drugs, starting with Ritalin.  When they were trying to get him out of the mental hospital, the hospital wouldn’t let him out. 

 

They were finally able to get him out of the hospital, and Mrs. Johnston’s research led her to Dr. Peter Breggin of Maryland, the head of the Center of Study of Psychiatry and Psychology and the author of “Talking Back to Ritalin.”  He helped get her son out of the hospital, and he was able to get him off of the drugs, because these drugs had created a drug-induced psychosis.  Paul had a lot of ill effects from those drugs, but, thank goodness, he didn’t end up like some of the other children, dead from Ritalin.  When the Johnstons visited their son in the psychiatric hospital, most of his clothes had been stolen.  He was not allowed to wash or even to take a bath, and he had signs of abuse.  Still, it was very difficult for them to get their son out of there.

 

[Janine Hansen continued.]  I won’t go on, but the blue sheet shows you other people who have been abused by the system, including Neal Bush, President George W. Bush’s brother.  They tried to force Neal Bush’s son to be on Ritalin.  This tells the story about Connecticut doing something similar to what you’re trying to do here.  We encourage you to protect children, to protect parents, and to protect teachers.  I think this has been a long time coming.  I first discussed this bill back in 1991, when I supported a bill similar to this.  We’ve seen a lot of things happen since then.  From a few million children, we now have about 8 million children suffering abuse by forcing them to be on Ritalin.

 

I want to finish with one story.  My son was on a mission a few years ago, and he was sent home because he had a bleeding ulcer.  We went to the doctor, and the doctor’s diagnosis for him was that he was depressed.  I said any boy who is that ill, who can’t keep a tablespoon of food down, is going to be depressed.  He prescribed Paxil, which is one of these psychotropic drugs.  I said, “No, thank you, we’re out of here.  We’ll find another doctor.”  I took him to my own doctor, and he found three types of food poisoning:  salmonella, hepatitis A, and another genetically engineered food poisoning.  It took about six months for him to get better, and then he was fine.  He didn’t have to go on Paxil, a psychotropic drug.

 

If I had listened to the first doctor, my son wouldn’t ever have recovered from those illnesses, because the doctor would have covered up the problem instead of allowing that boy to get better from the real problem.  I think that many drugs are used in that way.  They never allow the parents to get to the real problem, whether it is food allergies or the fact that they happen to be a boy, and boys do those things. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Thank you both.  Any questions?  Is Dr. Baughman on the phone now?

 

Fred A. Baughman, Jr., MD, Neurologist, Child Neurologist, Fellow, American Academy of Neurology:

[Introduced himself.]  Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to tell you that, as you’ve already been told, in about every school district across the country, parents are being coerced and pressured by school personnel to have their children labeled and drugged psychiatrically.  I’m a neurologist and a pediatric neurologist.  I have described and discovered real diseases.  As dangerous, addictive, and sometimes lethal as these drugs are, the psychiatric fraud, which we seek to confront today, is that there is actually no such thing as a psychiatric disease.  Emotional and behavioral problems are encountered in medically and physically normal individuals.  Yet, psychiatry has sought, as a marketing ploy, to portray all psychiatric disorders as chemical imbalances of the brain, when, in fact, there are none whatsoever in which there is a proven physical or chemical abnormality of the brain.

 

[Dr. Baughman continued his testimony via a conference call.]  With the production of psychiatric drugs, commencing in the 1950s and 1960s, the psychiatric pharmaceutical cartel began calling all mental diseases “chemical imbalances.”  The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) grew from 112 such invented diseases in 1952, to 374 in 1994.  ADHD has been its prototypical biologically-based disease, never proven to be a disease.

 

It was in the 1970 Congressional hearings that psychiatrists first referred to hyperkinesis, also known as Attention Deficit Disorder, as a disease.  The first illusions of ADD/ADHD, as a disease, came with PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scanning research done by the National Institute of Mental Health, in 1990.  That remained the primary illusion that ADHD was a disease, through the first half of the 1990s, despite the fact that the research could never be replicated or validated.  Psychiatric research then turned to MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) and CT (Computed Tomography) brain scans in a study done in 1986.  Researchers at Ohio State University found brain shrinkage in 58 percent of young adults who had been treated ADHD patients as children.

 

Henry A. Nasrallah had the scientific honesty to state, “Since all of the patients had been treated with psychostimulants, that is Ritalin, Adderall, amphetamines, and the like, the brain atrophy may be the long-term adverse effect of the treatment.”  From 1986 through 1998, there were nine reports of MRI brain scan studies.  These were reviewed in the 1998 consensus conference held at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and at that conference, James Swanson, of the University of California, Irvine, and F. Xavier Castellanos, of the National Institute for Mental Health, said these investigations provided converging evidence that ADHD is characterized by reduced brain size, that is by brain atrophy.  But these authors uttered not a word about the fact that all of the ADHD subject groups had been treated.

 

I was an invited participant at the consensus conference, and I asked Dr. Swanson why he didn’t mention that virtually all of the subjects had been on chronic stimulant therapy, and this was the likely cause of the brain atrophy.  Swanson confessed that that was the case and promised the participants and those in attendance that they had every intention of performing studies on untreated ADHD subjects.

 

[Dr. Fred A. Baughman continued.]  The illusion of ADHD as a disease has been built on nothing but fraud, and, to the present day, there is no identified or identifiable abnormality in any individual called ADHD.  Rather, the diagnosis is a product of a pencil-paper behavior checklist filled out by parents and by schoolteachers, persons with no medical training whatsoever.  There has never been a demonstration of a physical abnormality to make it a disease.  They need at least the credible illusion of a disease in order to validate or have justification to apply medical treatment.  There is no disease, and so there is no justification for giving the dangerous, addictive, and sometimes lethal medications that you’ve been hearing about.

 

Between 1990 and the year 2000, the FDA’s (Food and Drug Administration) MedWatch program has had 200 voluntary physician reports of deaths due to methylphenidate, or Ritalin, alone.  You have heard of the death of Matthew Smith, who lived outside Detroit.  His parents, Kelly and Lawrence Smith, were coerced to keep Matthew on Ritalin, despite the fact that he was having chest pains.  He fell off his skateboard and died and had findings, at postmortem, that were indistinguishable from findings in chronic amphetamine addicts.  I have been consulted in over ten such death cases over the past ten years myself.  With that, I will gladly try to answer questions from the Committee.

 

[At this point, Assemblyman Manendo took over the meeting, as Chairman Williams had left the room, and Vice Chairman Horne had not yet arrived.]

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

Thank you very much.  We do have at least one question. 

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

Thank you, Dr. Baughman, for giving us your testimony, and I really appreciate your calling in today and allowing us the benefit of your expertise in your field.

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

Thank you very much.  Are there any questions from the Committee?  I see none.  Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Baughman.  Is there anyone else in support of Assembly Bill 251? 

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability and Assessment, Washoe County School District:

As Assemblywoman Angle indicated in her testimony, the Washoe County School District has an administrative regulation that is essentially the same as the requirements embodied in this bill, so we believe it is important enough that we have already adopted this language.  We are in support of the proposal as you’ve received it.

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

Are there any questions?  Is there anyone else in support of Assembly Bill 251 here in Carson City, or anyone in Las Vegas?  I’ll turn to the opposition.

 

Debbie Cahill, for the Nevada State Education Association:

I just confirmed with our Director of Legal Services, Mr. Dick Wilson, that in the last 20 years we have tracked legal cases for members we represent who are being sued.  We have never, in the state of Nevada, among our membership, had a lawsuit involving a teacher who was being sued because he or she was coercing or involved in any way in inappropriate recommendations for the use of Ritalin or other psychotropic drugs.  There simply have not been any lawsuits.  We are not convinced that this legislation is necessary.  By the way, for the school districts that have policies in place, it appears to be working.  If there aren’t policies in place, then apparently the professional nomenclature is addressing the situation.

 

We’d like to say, also, regarding H.R. 1170 that was referenced, which has just been introduced in Congress, that, despite attempts on the part of the cosponsors or the sponsor of the bill on March 6 and March 10, 2003, to urge members of the House of Representatives to sign on as cosponsors, of the 435 members of Congress, the bill has only 15 sponsors.  I don’t think it’s that much of a problem in terms of its application in the schools.  I don’t believe there is a serious issue of coercion, so we are opposed to the bill.

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

I appreciate your testimony.  Are there any questions from the Committee?  Thank you, Ms. Cahill.  Is there anyone else in opposition to Assembly Bill 251 here in Carson City or in Las Vegas?  Seeing no one, I will close the hearing on Assembly Bill 251 and open the hearing on Assembly Bill 506.

 

Assembly Bill 506:  Prescribes limit on number of administrators in certain large school districts. (BDR 34-1300)

 

Marcus Conklin, Assemblyman, Assembly District No. 37:

[Introduced himself.]  I’m going to be joined by Ms. Scholley of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff.  She’s been invaluable in gathering some of our statistics, and I wanted to make sure we gave you the best answers possible for the legislation.  I bring to you today Assembly Bill 506.  Before I get to my written remarks on A.B. 506, I’d like to take a moment to talk to you about the spirit of this bill.

 

[Assemblyman Conklin continued.]  Growing up in grade school and high school, I was involved in a great many programs:  sports, business programs, agriculture programs, and things of that nature.  As I reflect on my education, I realize what a tremendous impact they had on my life.  They taught me about camaraderie, teamwork, work ethic, how to lose and not cry about it, and things like that.  All of our important life experiences are involved with activities that aren’t happening in the classroom but outside of the classroom, but they are a part of the school experience.

 

I also recognize, out of my own experience, that my grades were always better when I was involved.  I only need to point to my grade point average (GPA) in the spring, when my sports had ended, versus the fall or winter months when I was playing water polo or swimming, and my grades were usually almost a full point better.  I point that out because I think that’s a common experience many of us share as adults, and it is one of the reasons I decided to bring this bill forward.

 

On Friday of last week, our Assembly had a choir on the floor, and I think all of us would agree it was one of the most beautiful and moving musical experiences that we have ever had.  It was incredible.  I wonder what happens to that program when we start making cuts, or when the school district’s next budget starts cutting funding for things such as music.  A lot of us have children, and they are involved, to some extent, in many of these activities, whether it’s football, basketball, swimming, band, and Future Business Leaders of America (FBLA).  Those programs are consistently on the chopping block when we talk about budgets.

 

That factor is complicated by the fact that our children have to share books in the classroom.  They can’t take their books home to study, to review for exams, or to read.  The books have to stay in school because they’re shared by several classes.  In many cases, our kids don’t have supplies, and when you look at that and reflect on the growth we have seen in both Washoe and Clark Counties, one has to wonder.  Is it truly inherent in this growth; is it the nature of growth, that more red tape and more bureaucracy are created for organizations?  Throughout my ten years in the business world, mostly with Fortune 500 companies, I can tell you that that is the case.  The bigger you grow, the less watchful you personally become of your money, and the more red tape and bureaucracy occur.

 

I think most of us would agree that programs are being cut.  The fact that some children may go without band when it’s the only thing they have that they are confident in, or some of our basketball players may go without a sports program, and some of our future business leaders will go without an FBLA, is not a comforting thought.  It’s such a traditional part of our school.  When I was a child, we took those activities for granted.

 

[Assemblyman Conklin continued.]  The spirit of A.B. 506 is that maybe it’s time we stopped cutting programs and to offer alternative items to be cut.  Let me begin by pointing out that Assembly Bill 506 is limited to our two largest school districts.  The bill sets a maximum student-to-administrator ratio for the Clark and Washoe County School Districts.  In Section 1, page 1, lines 3 through 5, the maximum limit in Clark County is set at no more than 1 administrator to 352 students.  Again, in Section 1, page 1, lines 7 through 10, the limit set in Washoe County is 1 administrator to 311 students.

 

The remainder of Section 1 lays out the reporting requirements associated with the ratio limits to permit the Legislature, or when the Legislature is not in session, the Legislative Committee on Education, to monitor compliance with this bill.  I’d like to clarify the term “administrator” as referred to in this bill at both the school and district levels because you may have questions, and you may hear testimony in opposition to the differences.

 

School level administrators include principals, assistant principals, deans, and personnel who are not teaching or working directly with students.  District level administrators include the superintendent, assistant or deputy superintendents, department heads, and similar administrative management positions.  Within this bill, because I have not defined the two separately, we have given the districts ample leeway to adjust their staffing between school sites, district offices, and anywhere in between. 

 

These proposed ratio limits were derived from a report published by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) entitled “Characteristics of the 100 Largest Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts in the United States.”  This report was for 2000-2001.  As many of you know, Clark County School District is the 6th largest school district in the country, and Washoe County School District is the 69^th largest in the country.  The ratios you see in Assembly Bill 506 represent the average student-to-administrator ratios of school districts similar in size to Clark and Washoe Counties.  Because these limitations represent the average ratios of similarly sized school districts, I believe they are both reasonable and attainable.

 

Based on information currently available through the Nevada Department of Education, I estimate that the Clark County School District currently has a ratio of approximately 320 students per administrator, and the Washoe County School District has an approximate ratio of 283 students per administrator.  If Assembly Bill 506 ratios were in place, based on current enrollment, Clark County School District would be limited to 650 administrators, and Washoe County School District would be limited to 180 administrators.  According to my best estimates, both districts would need to reduce administrative staffing to meet these limits.

 

[Assemblyman Conklin continued.]  As we move through this session and face the difficult question of new taxes and additional funding for education, I hope the districts will take a hard look at their administrative structures and work to become leaner and more efficient institutions.  You may hear, in opposition to this bill, that this is nothing more than micro-management.  That’s certainly one way of looking at it, but I will point two things out to you that we must make perfectly clear in our minds as we move forward with this piece of legislation.  First of all, it’s not micro-management when we set a student-to-teacher ratio; it’s about the education of our children.  It’s the same with this; when we set a student-to-administrator ratio, it’s about the education.  Maybe it is not a direct relationship, because they’re not teaching our children, but what they are doing is taking money out of the classroom and out of programs.  If that’s not hurting our children, I don’t know what is.

 

It is my hope that these limits will cause the school districts to reassess their staffing distributions and to make appropriate changes so our educational dollars will be spent where they are most needed.  I think we all agree that’s what is best for our children.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

I would like to know how you arrived at these ratios:  1 to 352 and 1 to 311.  I’ll wait for my second question.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

I’ll start with the number 352.  As I said, Clark County ranks sixth in the nation when considering the largest school districts.  We took the top ten school districts in size.  Out of that original top ten, we took two school districts, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.  The reason I took those schools was for the same reason that every other school district was exempt.  When you take Hawaii, you take Oahu, which is a large metropolitan area; you also take Maui, Kauai, and a variety of other very small districts.  As we know, from our own experience in rural counties, these numbers don’t make sense.

 

If you have only one school in White Pine County with 71 students, you can’t say they shouldn’t have a principal.  That doesn’t make any sense.  As we look at very small schools, the numbers look odd, and we have to sense, guess, and judge what’s going on.  So we deducted those two out of the ratio, because it didn’t make sense.  They had too much rural area, even though they were listed as a large district.

 

[Assemblyman Conklin continued.]  That leaves the following areas that we looked at:  New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dade County in Florida, Broward County in Florida, Houston, and Philadelphia, to compare with Clark County.  Clark County is built into the average.  We didn’t average down our own numbers, because our own number is 320, and the average is 352. 

 

We took those school districts, added the numbers all together, and created a simple average; that’s how we came to 352.  We did the same thing for Washoe County, and, just for your information, the school districts that we looked at were in Lee County, Florida; Atlanta, Georgia; San Antonio, Texas; Oakland California; Williamsburg, Virginia; East Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Fort Bend, Texas; Portland, Oregon; and Sacramento, California.  That average is 1 administrator per 311 students.  Again, at 1 administrator per 283 students, we weighted the average down.  I think our numbers are more than fair, in terms of how we look at it, and we’re trying to set a benchmark here that we can shoot for to save some of our programs.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

Of the administrators in Clark County School District and Washoe County School District, what is the average per pupil?

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

The average administrator-to-student ratio in Washoe County is 1 to 283, and these are 2000-2001 statistics.  Because it takes time to get these reported, it might actually be lower now.  I would anticipate that it is lower, considering what I’ve seen in the press and what everybody is complaining about.  In Clark County, that number is 1 to 320.  Does that answer your question?

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

Actually, you’re increasing the number of administrators that we would be able to have.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Right, and let me explain that.  If this bill passes and my numbers are absolutely correct, and I’m sure they have changed because we have had some time pass, there are about 227,000 students in the Clark County School District.  Right now, we have 1 administrator for every 320.  If we multiplied that out into the 227,000, you’d find that we have 66 administrators that are over and above what our ranking says we should be.  Does that make sense?  In other words, we’d be looking, over time, to phase out 66 administrative positions; that equates to approximately $5 million to $6 million.  It also equates to an additional 150 to 170 teacher positions, or books, or sports teams, or whatever else we may choose to spend the money on.

 

[Assemblyman Conklin continued.]  That brings up another point.  Nowhere in A.B. 506 have I asked to take money from the school district; that is not the purpose of this bill.  The purpose of this bill is to say, “We have a fiduciary responsibility that our money is hitting kids where it counts the most, which is in classrooms and programs.”  The purpose of this is to make sure that the money gets phased out of administration and moved into that realm.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

There has been discussion about breaking the Clark County School District up into a few smaller districts.  Since it’s based on the counties and the county size, would you have to adjust those ratios if that bill passed, or, do you think the ratios would still work if the Clark County School District was broken up into two or more districts?

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Just at a glance, if we broke our district up, I would have to say you would want to look at that based on the size of each individual district.  If we had Clark County School District North, for example, that would drastically change the size, and, again, I am drawing on my own business experience.  There are certain jobs in administration that take advantage of economies to scale, and I’ll give you an example.  If you have 10 employees, and you own your own business, you have a payroll person to do payroll.  Let’s say you pay that person $50,000 to do payroll.  It doesn’t matter whether you employ 10 people or 100 people; you still need that one payroll person. 

 

We have a huge advantage of bringing economies to scale with respect to these numbers, and, as it relates to this bill, I would say that we are better off to stay as a whole district and take advantage of those economies to scale than we are to split up, although there are some advantages to splitting up.

 

Assemblyman Mabey:

How is this going to be phased in, if the bill is passed?  How would the administrators be released?

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

There is a time frame on the bill.  This act becomes effective July 1, 2003, and the changes need to be made by July 1, 2005.  In other words, we’ve given the districts 2½ years.  The hope would be that administrators would be phased out through attrition, quite honestly.  We don’t want to start laying off.  There may be an occasional need to move somebody in administration back into the classroom to make sure that we meet these numbers.  I would say, though, that it would not be out of the realm of possibility to have an attrition rate of 10 percent over two years.  The total number of administrators is almost 800 in Clark County, and we’re talking about 66 changes, so you’re looking at less than 10 percent.  I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request.

 

Chairman Williams:

What would happen to these people?  You said they could go back to the classroom?

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

That would be my suggestion, but there is somebody here from NSEA (Nevada State Education Association) who may be able to answer what’s in the realm of possibility.  I’m certain our contract would allow for that type of movement, and it would help with the teacher shortage.  That’s our hope.  If there is anyone interested, Ms. Scholley did a terrific job of putting these numbers together for us, and, if you asked her or me, I would be more than happy to get you a copy.  Then you could review those numbers for yourself.

 

Chairman Williams:

We’ll go to the list of folks who signed in for Assembly Bill 506. 

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

That brought up one more question.  I know that there are some situations where an administrator is also a teacher.  Would that make him an administrator or a teacher?

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

I think, in those cases, they’d be listed as a teacher, because our definition clearly indicates that administrators do not have teaching responsibilities.  If you think that is something that needs to be adjusted, we’ll take a look at it.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

I’m looking at our school districts, and we have, in Clark County, a tremendous number of ELL (English Language Learner) students who have limited English proficiency, as well as a higher number of special education students coming in all of the time.  While it sounds easy to say they’re just administrators, the ones who facilitate, who try to provide for jobs for special education kids after high school, who handle all of the discipline problems, as well as the implementing of ELL, I just don’t see any breakout of which ones are considered more important.  Are they the ones that deal with discipline?  I wonder if, in your research, you found a priority in other areas of administrators.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

We did not do research by specific jobs, only by administrator and using the definition within NCES (Nevada Center for Education Statistics) of what an administrator was, both at the school level and the district level.  The bill is not designed to dictate which ones are more important; we don’t want to do that.  What we want to do is to spend the money wisely, and how you choose to do it is ultimately up to the district.  We don’t want to take that away.  Some may opt for a higher school-level administrator ratio, and a much lower district-level ratio.  I’ll give you an example.  Right now, our school administrator level is 2.9 percent.  That ranks seventh in the nation for the percentage of money spent at the school level.  Seventh is high, very high.  Our district money spent on administrators is considerably lower, because our district money is at 0.7 percent, which ranks us thirty-sixth in the nation.

 

When you combine those numbers, and again this is something that I feel passionately needs to be addressed, Washoe County spends a grand total of 3.5 percent, which ranks it, among the ten schools in its section, the third highest school.  If we want to reach the average per-pupil spending from the state, I think we should ask, in return, for a few other averages that get us where we need to be in our spending, particularly as it pertains to expenditures.  Clark County School District is in exactly the same boat.  When you add up Clark County totals, we’re at 3.7 percent, which, in the top ten schools, ranks us third.  So we’re still on the high end, not even close to the average in money spent.

 

I’m trying to answer your question and make a point at the same time.  I don’t know that we want to dictate about the English-as-a-Second-Language administrator.  Let the schools decide, based on funding, and what we’ve asked of them, where they think the most important programs are. 

 

Rose McKinney-James, representing the Clark County School District:

We have a number of individuals from Clark County School District who are participating in this hearing from Las Vegas, and I would like to ask them to come to the table at this time.  We have our School Board President, Sheila Moulton, the Deputy Superintendent of Instruction, Dr. Augie Orci, Mr. Mark Coleman, who is one of our high school principals, and there will be a few others.  I’d like to begin with some remarks from President Moulton.

 

Sheila Moulton, President, Board of Trustees, Clark County School District:

[Introduced herself.]  I am here to testify on A.B. 506.  As a fellow-elected official, who represents 200,000 voters throughout the east side of Clark County, I have investigated and monitored the issue of the number of administrators assigned to not only each school, but also the Central Office for CCSD (Clark County School District).  Through the National School Board Association and the Council of Great City Schools, which consist of the largest 60 school districts in the nation, I have found, generally, the rule of thumb for the percentage of costs attributed to administration is right around 4.7 percent.  When CCSD is compared to this percentile, we are below the national average. 

 

[Sheila Moulton continued.]  For the 2004 preliminary budget, Clark County School District has worked to have 84 cents of every dollar go directly to classroom instruction (Exhibit J).  This includes regular education, special education, libraries, security, transportation, and the school principal’s office.  Support for the classroom is 13 percent, in other words, and this includes technology, maintenance and custodial, and utilities.  Administration is 3 cents of every dollar, and it includes regional administration, human resources, teacher recruitment, and central administration.  That is a budget that totals $1.4 billion and will service approximately 265,000 students next year.  These figures were presented at four town hall meetings to include the public, and they were fairly well received.

 

It is an education for the public to realize that 87.8 percent of every dollar of the Clark County School District budget goes to salaries.  Education is a people-intensive endeavor, and administrators are a key to student achievement.  As the details of No Child Left Behind move forward, and the compiling, tracking, and reporting of data continue to grow in importance, accountability to the public increases.  I wanted to give you a quote from “Best Practices.”  It concerns the Houston School District, and it said, “The quality administrator should spend 65 to 75 percent of his/her time, on an average day in a Houston school, monitoring the instruction in the classroom.  This is in addition to time spent in the classroom by the assistant principal, the lead teacher, and the mentor teacher.”

 

Clark County School District is unique in the number of new teachers that begin in our schools each year.  The monitoring and mentoring is an all-important factor in providing quality professional development for our new teachers.  This work is done by qualified administrators assigned to school sites.  I would also like to address our regional administrators who service the five regions in Clark County.  This July, they will have been in existence for two years.  No additional administrators were provided for this organization.  In fact, in the organization, there was a loss of five administrators.  Now all administrators are working on K-12 educational issues.

 

Each of the five regions is larger than most of the 15,000 school districts nationwide.  In the four years I have been a Clark County School District Trustee, our student population has increased by over 45,000 students.  That is a little smaller than our smallest region; most of the regions average 50,000 students.  During that time, we have not added any more high-level administrators.  We have increased, proportionally, the school site administrators, using formulas driven by school population.  This means some elementary schools share assistant principals, and where they were on the “needs to improve” list, and it was recommended to have additional administrative assistance by a task force to help improve their ranking, a full-time assistant is sometimes recommended.  With our larger elementary school sites, we have a full-time assistant principal. 

 

[Sheila Moulton continued.]  This flexibility is all-important to meeting annual progress goals and the No Child Left Behind legislation.  The number of administrators and how they’re assigned needs to remain a local issue.  Please know that, as a Board of Trustees, we follow this issue and watch the number, and, particularly, the percentage of the budget spent on administrators, very closely. 

 

I did want to address a couple of things that were mentioned in the previous testimony about working to become leaner and more efficient.  Over the past three years, we’ve cut almost $90 million from the budget.  Many of those cuts have been administrative positions.  We’ve had some severe cuts, and they were cuts that could be made in our alternative education.  I’d also like to point out that our schools are sometimes extremely large. 

 

We have buildings and facilities that are built in our middle schools to house maybe 1,600 students, but often they get up to 2,000, or 2,100, or even 2,200, before a new school is provided, and that break-off point is again established.  If you have any questions, I’d be glad to provide additional information and answer those questions. 

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

I like the idea that you were presenting, that a percentage of your budget is spent on administration, rather than a certain number of administrators per pupil.  I wanted you to go over that more.  You said there was an average of 4.7 percent, and you were talking about the percentage that you spend on administration of your budget.  Could you retell those figures?

 

Sheila Moulton:

Yes.  They are coming from the National School Board Association and the Council of Great City Schools, which are the 60 largest school districts in the nation.  As the School Board of Trustees, we watch that percentage, and what we’ve found, as a rule of thumb, is that the cost attributed to administration, in most large districts, is about 4.7 percent.  When Clark County School District is compared to this percentile, we’re below the national average, and that’s what I gave you.  In next year’s budget, the 2004 budget, we’re scheduled to have 84 percent go directly to classroom instruction.  A portion of the school principal’s office is included, as well as support for classrooms, which includes technology, maintenance and custodial, and utilities.  It’s 13 percent of that 84 percent.  Then our administration costs are 3 percent, and that includes our regional, central, human resources, teacher recruitment, and, I believe, our finance office as well. 

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

So that principal’s administrative salary is included in the 84 percent that goes into the classroom, rather than the 3 percent that is outside of the classroom and administration?  Is that correct?  If that were correct, how much of that 84 percent would be the principal’s salary?

 

Sheila Moulton:

I don’t have that at the tip of my tongue; it is something we’d have to check.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

So the principal’s salary is included in the 84 percent? 

 

Sheila Moulton:

The principal’s is, yes. 

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

In that 84 percent, there’s also custodial?  Is that all teachers?

 

Sheila Moulton:

It’s regular education, special education, libraries, school security, student transportation, and the school principal’s office.  The support area includes technology, maintenance, custodial, and utilities.  What we identified in our budget as administration was our regional administration, our Human Resources and teacher recruitment people, and central administration.

 

Rose McKinney-James:

I would like to expand on this testimony, and move into another area.  During Mr. Conklin’s presentation, he did reference the portion of the bill that refers to a definition of an administrator.  But, for the Clark County School District, we divide that definition into three separate areas.  Administrators in our district include support staff, licensed personnel, teachers, and administrative personnel that include both licensed and nonlicensed, and this would be our business office, facilities, and areas of that nature.  I think it is very important to point out that we do not have a professional technical category, so a number of nonlicensed and professional individuals are lumped into the category of administration.  We have slightly different labeling than you may find in other districts.

 

I’d like to draw your attention to a document we have circulated that’s entitled “Administrator to Employee Ratios” (Exhibit K).  In order to provide some context, if you would move to the second page after the cover page, “Government Administration Ratios,” this document offers some important insight.  We have provided ratios for Suburban Entity, City Utility, Urban Entity, and Local University.  Look at those ratios and given the number of employees they began with, Suburban Entity had 1,525 employees, 188 in the category of administration, a ratio of 8.2 to 1.  Moving to the City Utility that has 1,200 employees, there were 150 administrators, and the ratio was 8 to 1.  Under the Urban Entity, which had 2,500 employees, 400 were administrators resulting in the ratio of 5.3 to 1.  Finally, within the local university area with 1,750 employees, there were 689 administrators with a ratio of 2.5 to 1.

 

Let’s look at a corporate comparison in an effort to provide some context.  In the corporate ratios, we’ve identified a local hospital with almost 3,000 employees, a local casino with 10,000 employees, a local utility with 3,200 employees, and a local credit union.  Again, if you look at the ratios, the local hospital had a ratio of 10 to 1, the local casino had a ratio of 6 to 1, the local utility had a ratio of 5 to 1, and the credit union had a ratio of 4 to 1.  On the final page of this document, you will find a comparison of district employees per administrator, and, in this instance, these are school districts.

 

I’d like to point out one fact to highlight a comment by Mr. Conklin, and that relates to the Hawaii School District.  It should be noted that the Hawaii School District is one single school district; it is not divided into the various islands.  These are school districts that represent the largest 11 school districts in the country.  It has already been indicated that Clark County is the sixth largest, and based on these ratios, you can see where we fall on a national basis, “smack dab” in the middle. 

 

In the Chicago Public Schools, the ratio is 18 to 1; Dallas Independent School District, 18 to 1; the state of Hawaii, 22 to 1; Houston Independent School District, 23 to 1.  I’ll skip ours, and go to the Los Angeles Unified School District, 31 to 1; the School District of Philadelphia, 33 to 1, and then, back to Clark County, 24 to 1.  Now that you have this context, I would like to turn to Dr. Orci, the Deputy Superintendent of Instruction for the Clark County School District, to provide further testimony on behalf of the school district.

 

Dr. Agustin Orci, Deputy Superintendent of Instruction, Clark County School District:

I’m speaking in opposition to A.B. 506.  As you all know, we run a huge business enterprise.  We are the largest employer in the state of Nevada with a total workforce of 23,017 employees; when you add substitutes and temporary workers, that figure jumps to 28,792.  In addition to the 664 principals, assistant principals, and deans operating 277 schools with 255,000 plus students, we employ a total of 284 nonschool-based administrators to handle the large volume of business functions necessary to operate the sixth largest school district in America.

 

These positions include payroll, accounting, purchasing, food service, transportation, school construction, maintenance and renovation, auditing, legal, federal monitoring of compliance issues, special education, risk management, human resources, recruiting, and the list goes on.  Based on the 2003-2004 preliminary budgets, this totals 948 administrators, when you combine the site-based and the nonsite-based administrators.

 

I’d like to discuss two charts (Exhibit L) to further clarify what we’re talking about.  The first chart is entitled “Full-Time Equivalent Employees General Fund.”  If you look at that chart, you’ll see three bar graphs.  The bar graph at the top represents 90 percent of employees who are full-time in the district, and you can see that it is about 19,157; 14,000 plus of those are teachers represented by the large section that is diagonal.  Right next to it, there’s a small section in very dark print that represents the 664 principals, assistant principals, and deans that I mentioned earlier.  These are the site-based administrators.

 

The middle bar shows how many employees are devoted to transportation, which is over 1,000, or about 6 percent of the total number of employees.  The last bar represents the region and central office locations, including support staff and police services and includes 931 employees, or about 4 percent of the total.  The section in the black print on the far left-hand side of that bottom bar represents the 284 nonsite-based administrators I mentioned earlier that deal with payroll, finance, legal, and those kinds of issues.

 

The second chart is one that Ms. Moulton referred to earlier.  This one is entitled “How the Dollar is Spent.”  If we look at the per-pupil expenditure, it will lay out percentages and dollar amounts for each of the three major areas.  If you look at the left-hand side of that chart, you will see a box entitled “School Instruction and School Services.”  This is the 84 percent devoted to regular education and special education that Ms. Moulton referred to.  That includes the principal’s office, which is also the assistant principal, the dean, and the support staff necessary to administer each of our 277 schools.

 

[Dr. Agustin Orci continued.]  The bottom portion of that box represents the support staff, technology, maintenance, and utilities, or 13 percent.  On the far right-hand side, you will see the administration, regions, human resources, and central office, totaling about 3 percent of the total dollars spent per pupil.  Those, hopefully, will give you a visual explanation in terms of what we’re trying to communicate here today.

 

How do these figures equate to ratios?  With our enrollment of 255,328, the current ratio of school-based administrators to students is 1 to 384, because I’m using 2003-2004 projected figures.  If you combine the 664 site-based and the 284 nonsite-based administrators, the ratio would be 1 to 269.3.  The passage of this bill would represent a loss of 223 site-based and/or business nonsite-based administrators.  Ladies and gentlemen, this would devastate our school district.  I doubt we would be able to operate with a loss as significant as that.

 

The current ratio of school-based administrators to students is 1 to 384.  The ratio of 23,017 employees to these same 948 administrators is 1 to 24.3.  It jumps to nearly 1 to 30 when adding substitutes and temporary employees.  Because of our need to operate all the business functions not related to instruction, payroll, accounting, and so forth, I would like to share two quick examples of ratios in facilities and in the business/finance areas.

 

In facilities, we have 34 administrators assigned to 944 support staff, representing a ratio of 1 to 27.  In the business and finance services area, we have 35 administrators to 2,520 employees, for a ratio of 1 to 72.  This gives you an overview of the numbers, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify on A.B. 506 before you.

 

Rose McKinney-James:

I’d like to turn to Mr. Mark Coleman, who is one of our high school principals; he, too, is in Las Vegas.

 

Mark Coleman, Principal of Silverado High School, Henderson:

[Introduced himself.]  I am here to speak in opposition of A.B. 506, and I ask you to bear with me, because I think I can provide my testimony in a matter of two or three minutes.  I need to jump around a little bit.  I sincerely appreciate the logic behind the development of this particular bill.  I’m a logical person.  What I’ve learned in life is, for as much logic as I’d like to see in life, sometimes things aren’t so logical.  I think this is one of those cases.

 

[Mark Coleman continued.]  There is already, in the district, a ratio that exists for how many students to administrators.  Whether we change that or not remains to be seen, and I would like to caution the Committee, before we get to a point where we start making changes.  There is a difference depending on which set of statistics you prefer to look at.  It could be as many as 66 administrators.  Here’s where it gets tricky.  I’m going to use a couple of examples, and then I’ll finish off my point.

 

The first example is that the high schools in Clark County are staffed at a ratio of 32 students per teacher.  That sounds great and sounds pretty logical.  The problem is that every high school ends up having classes and programs that aren’t going to have 32 students in a particular class.  I’ll give you an example.  If you have an AP (Advanced Placement) course, what do you do in a year when you only have 20 students who want AP physics?  Do you drop the course because you’re not at a ratio of 32 to 1, or do you carry the course, which then puts 12 students somewhere else in the building, jumping up someone else’s class size?

 

If you understand that thought, that actually is consistent throughout the school, when it comes to staffing.  I’m going to give you another staffing issue, and I’ll take it to administration in a minute.  Before I came out to Silverado, I was the principal of Indian Springs High School in Indian Springs, Nevada.  If you follow a normal ratio at Indian Springs, you first have to understand that during my last year, we had 125 high school students.  With 125 high school students, if we were staffed at 32 to 1, I’d only get three high school teachers to teach a full program for those high school students.  Obviously, you can’t run a full program with just three teachers and the five sections they teach.

 

My point is that the same thing holds true with administration, especially when you look at the needs identified earlier.  When you have special needs such as special education, ELL (English Language Learners), and a growing ELL population in the Clark County School District, and you look at some of the other issues that affect your overall needs, I would really caution the Committee not to move in the direction of having a particular ratio of students to administrators.  There would be too many cases where that ratio, and the logic behind it, just wouldn’t apply the way we would like.

 

I’ll give you another example, and then I can summarize my particular part of this presentation.  Let’s pretend we’re on count day for 2003, and we’re at a ratio of whatever that number is; let’s say it is 1 to 350.  The first 350 kids that come into the district go to Silverado High School, and Silverado gets an administrator.  The next 350 go to Silverado High School, and Silverado gets another administrator.  By the time we’re done, we’re at about 3100 students, and Silverado has 8 administrators.  At that ratio, there are no administrators allocated at the district level.  Who runs transportation?  Who supervises facilities?  All the administrators have been assigned to Silverado High School.  If we continue with that type of example, all the administrative positions would technically be determined by how many students come into our schools.

 

[Mark Coleman continued.]  Who fills that need at the district level?  That’s where the formula isn’t always going to work out.  Administrators often are looked at as people who do not have direct contact with students.  I have direct contact with students absolutely every day, almost every period.  I was in 12 classrooms today talking to students; I spent 1½ hours with a father who can’t get his son to come to school.

 

We could take some school administrators and pull them out of administration to fill those positions I was alluding to at the district level, and you’ve placed that much more of a demand on the school administrator who would not be able to have as much direct contact with students.  I now have to do more of that paperwork that needs to be done.  I won’t have the opportunity to do it after school, when you pull those administrators out of the buildings, because I have to deal with those administrative needs during the school day.

 

I’m a big believer that, if any of the Committee members were to stop by Silverado High School tomorrow, you would not find any student who does not know who his principal is and who doesn’t tell you that he sees me on a regular basis in those classrooms, having direct contact during instruction, having direct contact during the supervision of two lunches, and having direct contact in that five minutes when I may be the only person that some of those kids talk with. 

 

Rose McKinney-James:

We appreciate the opportunity to present our views.  I think we’ve tried to emphasize that this, in our view, is a matter of local control.  We have an elected board that is quite capable of making these decisions, and we’ve explained to you how we, in the district, define administrator, which is slightly different than what you might be accustomed to.  Dr. Orci has taken a look at A.B. 506 and indicated, from his perspective, that the loss of these administrators would, in fact, devastate the district.

 

Finally, you heard from someone who is on the grounds and in the school, and whose experience, I think, certainly adds to the opposition.  The bottom line is that we share those same concerns that Mr. Conklin referenced in his own childhood memories about what happens in a school.  We’d like to be able to provide those memories for other students.  To some degree, it has to do with the resources that are made available to the district, and that needs to be considered.  I’d like to turn the balance of the time over to other district representatives and educators who would like to share their views

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill, Washoe County School District:

[Introduced herself again and submitted prepared testimony (Exhibit M).]  First of all, I would remind you that NRS 386.350 is the statute in our state that provides general powers to boards of trustees.

 

Each board of trustees is hereby given such reasonable and necessary powers, not conflicting with the Constitution and the laws of the state of Nevada, may be requisite to attain the ends for which the public schools, excluding charter schools, are established, and to promote the welfare of school children, including the establishment and operation of schools and classes deemed necessary and desirable.

 

As far as our district is concerned, we are in agreement with the information you received from Clark County School District in that we have locally elected boards of trustees who are responsible for the assessment of the needs of the district, the available budget of the district, and how the needs and the available revenues are matched together.  In the past three fiscal years, in Washoe County School District, we have cut $13.8 million with cost reductions that included 139.7 staff positions.  This year, we are looking at $21.1 million in cost reductions, with an additional 258 staff positions to be cut.  In the first year of the major budget reductions, we experienced about a 15 percent decrease in our central district staff in order to preserve school district administrative positions.

 

There is a very unscientific perception that seems to be at work in a number of places.  According to the Educational Research Service, and I quote from their 2000 report, “The public perception of school administration is that it is a large bureaucracy diverting critical resources from instruction.”  This report asks the rhetorical question:  Can this perception be backed up with facts?  The same report indicates that good school management is recognized as essential for the development and operation of effective schools.  Further, assertive instructional leadership by the school principal is the key element common to effective schools.  Thirdly, school district administrative and professional staff members are important to support, augment, and coordinate school programs to meet the needs of today’s schools and students.

 

There is a body of scientifically based research that indicates the principal’s leadership is an essential element for effective schools.  Frequent classroom visits were described by the previous speaker from Las Vegas, with policies well-defined and communicated: high visibility and availability to staff, strong support for teaching staff, and the ability to communicate with the parents and the community.  We find, increasingly, that the pool of qualified candidates is not large, and candidates are not jumping at the chance to break into administration.  Largely, it is because this is perceived as one of the most demanding and thankless jobs in the educational community.

 

[Dr. Dotty Merrill continued.]  Local school districts are major enterprises performing important public functions with substantially fewer management personnel than are found in business and industry.  As the Clark County School District is the largest employer in Clark County, so is the Washoe County School District the largest employer in Washoe County.  I gave you some information about the ratio of employees to administrators as we’ve looked at them nationally.  In our school district, we have 1 administrator to every 23 employees.  In hospitals, the ratio is 1 to 12.2; in transportation, 1 to 8.6; in food products, 1 to 7.6; in manufacturing, 1 to 5.8, and in public administration at 1 to 3.3.  We believe we are using our resources to maximize the supervision we can provide.

 

In the Washoe County School District, we have an administrative salary schedule that is for licensed administrators and includes some other folks.  Deans are not administrators in our school district; deans are teachers, paid on the teachers’ salary schedule.  Program coordinators are paid as teachers, but on our administrator salary schedule, we also include school psychologists, which is different from other Nevada school districts.  We have a pro-technical salary schedule in the Washoe County School District.  On that salary schedule is the Director of Transportation, people in human resources, and others who are not licensed or certificated administrators.

 

When we look at the number of licensed administrators on the administrator salary schedule, we’re looking at 164.  When we look at including in that salary schedule school psychologists, it is my understanding that we get up to 180.  I’m not sure where the numbers came from.  What could have been the case is that, in looking at the administrator salary schedule, both the pro-technical and the administrators’ schedule were combined.

 

In either case, once we include the ratio of staff to administrators, as well as students to administrators, we have a very high ratio.  Again, as far as we are concerned, this is an issue of local control.  The boards of trustees take their responsibilities very seriously.  In the Washoe County School District, we have a very public budget review process; that process has been in place for the last five years.  In that process, everything is examined minutely.  We do not believe that this particular piece of legislation, A.B. 506, is going to benefit us in that process.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

Ms. Merrill, it doesn’t make much sense.  You said the deans are not considered administrators, but you determined that because of their pay scale.  It seems that, if they’re doing administrative work, regardless of the pay scale, they are administrators.  I remember when I was 19 years old and was made assistant manager of Arby’s.  While my pay did not reflect that I was a manager, I did all the work of a manager.  To say that I wasn’t a manager was ridiculous.  You’re saying that, just because deans are paid on a teacher’s schedule, they are not administrators?

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill:

I’m saying that it’s the most crucial thing about calculating anything, how the category is defined.  In our school district, the administrative category does not include deans, unlike in Clark County, so I don’t want to debate about the responsibility.  That’s just the negotiated agreement that has been reached in our district between the administrators and the teachers.  A dean is on the teacher’s salary schedule.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

That may not be the underlying numbers of who the administrators actually are, regardless of whom you categorize as administrators.  You may have those who are performing as administrators that you don’t categorize as administrators.

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill:

That’s possible.

 

Frank Brusa, Nevada Association of School Administrators, Washoe County School Administrators:

[Introduced himself.]  We believe decisions are best made at the lowest level by those most affected by the decision.  We support that concept of control.  We have elected school board members who are in the best position to make responsible decisions regarding their districts.  Clark County School District and Washoe County School District are the two largest employers in their respective counties.  As Clark County School District and Washoe County School District talked about their administrators, Clark County has 948 administrators and, of those, 284 are nonlicensed.  Of Washoe County’s 274 administrators, 93 are nonlicensed.  If you look at the supervisor to staff ratios of both districts, you will find that they would be better than the other public and private entities in Washoe and Clark Counties.

 

[Frank Brusa continued.]  You heard two bills earlier in March, A.B. 218 and A.B. 234, where you wanted to hold administrators’ feet to the fire to be more responsive to the needs of employees.  The present bill would cut administrators in both districts.  We question whether less is better in these circumstances.

 

Stephen Augspurger, Executive Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators:

[Introduced himself.]  As part of my current position, I was an employee and administrator for over 30 years in the Clark County School District.  During the last several weeks, I have testified before this Committee regarding several different bills.  Each time I speak, I walk away with the impression that there is, on the part of some Committee members, an attitude of disdain, maybe even disrespect, for the important role of school administrators.  Each time I appear before the Education Committee, I grow more concerned that there is the belief on the part of some that school administrators are not necessary, that school administrators are the enemy, and that school administrators are not truthful when providing testimony regarding the bills that are appearing before this Committee.

 

I would assure you that in every county across this great state, in spite of the fact that Nevada is 46^th in the nation in its funding of education, that there have been effective partnerships established, which have resulted in outstanding school programs.  These partnerships consist of many varied, but equally important, groups; teachers, secretaries, classroom aides, bus drivers, students, parents, and even school administrators comprise those groups.  I might point out that most administrators were classroom teachers before they embarked on a career in school administration.

 

A.B. 506 is currently before the Education Committee.  This bill limits the number of administrators in large school districts, namely Clark County School District and Washoe County School District.  If passed, this bill would result in the loss of nearly 250 administrators in the Clark County School District alone.  Each of these 250 administrators work every day performing the tasks necessary to support teachers and students.  Much of their work is the result of legislative mandates, from both the federal and state level.  Who will do this work if they are not there?

 

I am concerned that the ratios specified by this bill were developed without regard for the work that is required, for work that must be completed so that necessary services and support are provided to all who are part of the educational partnership that exists in every school.  I respectfully request your opposition to Assembly Bill 506. 

 

[Stephen Augspurger continued.]  I would suggest, as an alternative, that the Committee provide direction for districts to conduct an administrative study, an audit that would examine the number of administrative positions, how they are funded, and how they are selected.  This classification study could examine how critical the position is to the mission of the district and for the completion of required tasks.  Other factors could be examined and included in a report for the Legislature.  Only when an audit or classification study is completed should decisions be made about the number of administrators required.

 

Debbie Cahill:

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you that I’m extremely confused about testimony that I have heard on the bill, so I would like to preface my remarks with the comments that our support for this bill is completely consistent with a call for accountability that we brought to this Committee earlier in this session, which you approved unanimously, I believe.  It was then sent over to the Senate.  That was A.B. 162, which requires performance audits.  I believe that staffing ratios and management decisions of that nature would be a part of this audit.  We believe that the call for the ratios at this time would be appropriate and could be studied as part of this audit.  Then a report could come back. 

 

I’m confused by the testimony that I’ve heard, because on the one hand, we’ve heard from the district officials that they are way above the ratios, yet they’re also saying they are going to have to fire administrators because they have exceeded the ratio.  It’s like a tremendous shell game.  Are they administrators or not?  If they have people on the payroll in Washoe County who are deans, and they don’t count them as administrators because they’re actually teachers, where should we count them?  That’s the kind of thing we feel we need to look at, which is why we bring to you the request for the ratios.

 

I wanted to give you some figures from the Department of Education, which we’ve been taking into consideration in looking at our support for this bill.  The statewide average of administrators’ salaries and benefits, as a percentage of total expenditures of school districts, is 9.6 percent; Washoe County’s is 7.9 percent; Clark County’s is 10.2 percent.  They are above the statewide ratio on salaries and benefits for administrators.

 

In Clark County, there are 504 principals and assistant principals whose salaries average $75,190; there are 114 directors and supervisory personnel with an average salary of $74,281.  This information was taken directly from documentation provided to us by the Department of Education.  In Washoe County, there are 138 principals at an average of $66,879 and 27 supervisors at an average of $69,391.  Again, as Mr. Conklin pointed out to you in his testimony, we think it’s a matter of priorities.

 

[Debbie Cahill continued.]  While we do support local control, we also are calling for accountability, and a serious look at what is going on with the priorities established by the districts.  We believe our audit bill takes us a long way down that road, and we appreciate your support.  We think this ratio is important.  One comment that Mr. Conklin urged me to get in before I close my testimony is that the ratio in Los Angeles is 433 to 1.  We’re only asking for 352 to 1.  We do believe it is a matter of priorities, so we urge your support for A.B. 506.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

Ms. Cahill, we heard some different ideas about percentages of the budget spent for administration.  Rather than a pupil-administrator ratio, would you be willing to go to a percentage ratio?

 

Debbie Cahill:

I have not seen Clark County School District’s figures, and I have not had a chance to look at the information they provided, so I was confused by the numbers that were coming out.  I think it is important to look at the ratios.  You can do interesting things with percentages; again, whether you use a percentage or a ratio, it’s very important to note how you classify employees as to whether or not they’re administrators.  If you look at the pie chart provided by the Washoe County School District, they don’t include the principals’ office operations as a part of the cost of administration.  Is that percentage then deflated in the cost of administration?  It’s a bit of a shell game, and that’s why we are encouraging the audit. 

 

Chairman Williams:

With that, we’ll close the hearing on A.B. 506.  Ms. Leslie, we’ll now go Assembly Bill 382.

 

Assembly Bill 382: Requires Board of Regents of University of Nevada to establish Institute for Latino Research and Advocacy. (BDR 34- 951)

 

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Washoe County, District No. 27:

As the Chairman noted, A.B. 382 does require that the Board of Regents establish this new Institute at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR).  I’ve introduced this bill at the request of a group of foreign language professors and Latino students at UNR who invited me to a series of meetings last fall to discuss their proposal to create this Latino Institute.  I became persuaded that this should be a priority of our University System.  I should also note, for the record, that I am a graduate of the UNR foreign languages department; I hold a master’s degree. 

 

I would like to note that Latino enrollment at UNR and UNLV (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) has increased somewhat since 1995.  At that time, Latinos made up 8.2 percent of the total enrollment.  In 2001, the Latino enrollment at UNR and UNLV was 12.8 percent.  However, the percentage of Latino graduates from our Universities has remained quite low.  Latino University graduates in 1995 made up only 5.1 percent of the total University graduates.  By 2001, that number had risen only to 7.8 percent.

 

As a comparison, it’s estimated that Latinos in Nevada currently make up 18.6 percent of our population, and that’s projected to reach 20.3 percent by 2007.  Some estimates are much higher, given that 15 percent of the Latino population is under the age of six.  Clearly, Latinos will remain Nevada’s largest minority population for decades to come, and we need to do more to understand this phenomenon and to make sure we are recruiting and retaining Latino students in our University System.

 

I know we’ve worn out a lot of our people who were here to testify today, and I’m sure you’d rather hear from them than from me, so I’m going to cut my remarks short.  I want to note that the University has a representative here with some suggested amendments; I’ve reviewed those amendments, and they are okay.  They’re not great, but they’re acceptable.  I’ll let them talk about it.

 

We also want to hear from faculty and students, and from Senator Reid’s Chief of Staff, who has spent the whole afternoon waiting.  I’m so pleased that Mary Connelly was able to stay, because she’s going to tell you about a possible funding mechanism for this bill.  At this time, I would like to introduce my good friend, Dr. Emma Sepulveda, with whom I went to graduate school many years ago.  She is one of the leading Latino experts in our community, and I’d like to turn the presentation over to her.

 

Emma Sepulveda, Ph.D., Professor, UNR, representing herself:

My testimony today is in support of A.B. 382.  During the 1970s, I attended the University of Nevada, Reno, and was one of few Latinos there.  In those years, I knew only two Latino professors who taught there.  Actually, neither of them had tenure.  The Latino population in Reno during that time was only 3 percent.  I am now a professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, and I can proudly, but sadly, say that I am the only immigrant Latino woman in the history of the University of Nevada, Reno, to become a full professor.  There has not been an African American full professor in the history of the University of Nevada, Reno.

[Emma Sepulveda continued.]  Twenty-seven years have passed since my graduation, and Nevada is a much different place today.  The University of Nevada, Reno, needs to become a different place as well, by keeping up with the new demands of the changing population.  One of those new demands is to serve the community that it represents, and today a large segment of that population and that community is Latino, mainly a lot of them who have recently come to the United States.

 

The creation of a Latino Institute will work toward the advancement of the Latino community within the state of Nevada to research, advocate, and provide outreach in the areas of public policy and education.  The UNR Latino Institute will be an effective measure in working to build a sense of community among Latinos within the state of Nevada.  Establishing partnerships with the state of Nevada, Washoe County, Clark County, and the state’s rule of communities, the Institute will produce and disseminate research that will aid policymakers in their decision-making as it relates to the Latino population. 

 

Providing outreach to Latino youth, the Institute will offer leadership building and retention programming to encourage the potential for success.  Utilizing the talent of researchers through the symposium and research collaborative, the Institute can pursue significant social and academic contributions to the enhancement of the Latino community, both locally and nationally.

 

If our campus, throughout the years, has seen the need to have an Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, a Center for Basque Studies, a Center for Environmental Art and Humanities, the Grant Sawyer Center for Justice Studies, the Sanford Center for Aging, and even the Center for Holocaust, Genocide and Peace Studies, I strongly believe that the University of Nevada, Reno, is ready now for a Latino Research Institute.  We urge you to support A.B. 382. 

 

Laura Vargas, Community Development Coordinator, University of Nevada, Reno:

[Introduced herself and spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit N).]  I speak to you today as an individual who has worked on community issues within the state for over 20 years, most recently as the Interim Director for the Ethnic Student Resource Center located on the UNR campus.  I have worked with low-income first-generation students and have had first-hand knowledge about the lack of focus on issues impacting Latinos.  Building community begins when the community involved has access to the process, has the opportunity to provide input, and is invested in the outcome.  A lack of research capacity and the ability to disseminate pertinent information has, for too long, hindered the Latino community’s ability to create a common vision and work toward its implementation.

 

[Laura Vargas continued.]  It has been stated that the Latino community within the state of Nevada is the largest and fastest-growing ethnic population.  Although the Latino community is the fastest-growing population nationally and within the state of Nevada, there is a notable lack of research and advocacy on its behalf.  Much of this is due to the lack of a centralized location for the generation of information that can educate the grass roots community, as well as policymakers, on the needs of the Latino community.  Community-based organizations are limited in number and are charged with providing direct service activities; their nonprofit status limits funding and their ability to collect and disseminate data pertinent to the Latino community. 

 

Finally, there is a lack of concrete information on the impact of immigration on our state.  A strong indicator of the Latino’s potential to provide state leadership is represented in the number of young Latinos who seek higher education within the state.  The UCCSN (University and Community College System of Nevada) boasts about the attendance of Latino students enrolled in our Community Colleges and our two Universities; yet, even with increased enrollment, there are still many Latinos that face barriers in our K-12 system and in their home lives that never allow them to even consider the opportunity for higher education.

 

In September 2002, the U.S. President’s Advisory Commission on Education Excellence for Hispanic Americans report, titled, “The Road to a College Diploma, the Complex Reality of Raising Educational Achievement for Hispanics in the United States,” identified five strategy imperatives.  One of these imperatives was, “Asking What Works and For Whom.”  I quote directly from this strategic imperative:

 

Our research data was woefully insufficient concerning the impact of important characteristics such as nationality, legal status, and linguistic challenges on the academic success of Hispanic children.  We know far too little about which programs or strategies work best and for whom.  We need new research.

 

The UNR Latino Institute will be an effective measure in working to address this needed research.  In addition, the UNR Latino Institute will develop and continually cultivate collaborative relationships with on-campus and off-campus entities, programs, departments, colleges, and services that focus on Latino issues.  It will maintain working relationships with other Latino-based institutes, so information is shared on a national basis.  There are a number of existing models of institutes affiliated with universities that were developed with the intention of enhancing the quality of life for the Latino populations within their states.  These institutes have served as a valuable resource for policy makers, educators, social, and health services, and they have continued to benefit the states they are serving.

 

[Laura Vargas continued.]  Let us not remain blind to the potential of people who carry a share of this state’s burden, who contribute to its economy, and who have made this state their home.  Please support the establishment of the UNR Latino Institute for Advocacy and Education, Research and Policy by passing A.B. 382.  It is a healthy investment in this state and its people.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

In your bill, I don’t see a definition for Latino.  I think it might be important, because I know Hispanic and Latino, they’re all interchangeable, and I’m wondering if we might need to define just whom we are speaking about here.

 

Laura Vargas:

Obviously, Latinos like to be called Latinos, because the term “Hispanic” was determined by the government of the United States, when they were defining people for the welfare benefits.  We’re sensitive about that; we come from Latin America, and we like to be called Americans first, but Latinos second.  The most appropriate term is Latino for people who come from countries that speak Spanish in Latin America, Central America, and South America.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

That was the definition I was looking for.  So this would be studies for people who speak Spanish.

 

Laura Vargas:

Who come from Latin America, Central America, or South America.

 

Assemblywoman Leslie:

I understand the Committee has received copies of letters.  There are a lot of people who couldn’t come today, and there are some very eloquent letters (Exhibit O).  I hope you have a few minutes to review those.  Thank you.  We do have a few more witnesses, if you’ll allow us a bit more time.

 

Oscar Espinoza Parra, University of Nevada, Reno, Latino Alumni Chapter:

We are a recognized organization of the UNR Alumni Association.  As President, I’m here to support A.B. 382, the establishment of the UNR Latino Institute.  We strongly believe having a Latino Institute would address the needs of our students in our community.  As UNR alumni, we understand the importance of having an institute that would strengthen and promote our cultural heritage in the University.  As UNR alumni, we strongly believe the Institute will greatly improve the quality of the students’ educational experience by addressing student issues such as immigration, recruitment, college enrollment and completion, financial aid, scholarships, and academic and career counseling. 

 

[Oscar Parra continued.]  The Institute will provide leadership by having the University recognize the importance of providing culturally and linguistically sensitive materials to our communities.  The Latino Alumni Chapter strongly believes our graduating high school students are not being sought out by the University and are also not provided the necessary information about the resources and programs available to assist them to attend college.  We affirm this by our own experience and knowledge.

 

The Institute will develop and coordinate a recruitment plan and implement outreach activities to encourage the enrollment of undergraduate students of Latino background.  In addition, the Institute will plan and implement strategies to retain and graduate those who enroll.  The Institute will also be able to develop strong working relationships with Latino community organizations, families of prospective students, high school counselors with strong Latino presence, community college advisors, as well as UNR faculty, staff, students, and alumni, who have an interest in promoting the presence of Latino students on our campus.

 

We support A.B. 382, the establishment of the UNR Latino Institute.  If you have any questions regarding the Latino Chapter, or, if you would like to have more information about a student’s experiences attending UNR, I’m here to answer your questions.

 

Martha Rodriguez, Las Americas UNR:

We are a recognized organization of Latino students whose mission is to promote cultural awareness of the Latino community.  I am speaking today to offer this letter of support (Exhibit P) of A.B. 382, establishment of the UNR Latino Institute.  As a student currently attending UNR, having such an institute would allow me to strengthen my cultural awareness, as well as the cultural awareness of the University.  It would also allow all of us to access information about the Latino community and advocate for its betterment.  As a statewide Institute, it will allow us to coordinate efforts with southern Nevada on issues impacting our access to education, financial aid, and job-help programs.

 

The Latino community is the fastest-growing community, and we are often left out of the discussion about how decisions will impact us.  Please support A.B. 382, as it will be an investment, not only for our futures, but also for the future of the whole state of Nevada.  There were also members from our organization here earlier to show their support, but they needed to leave because of other commitments. 

 

Mayra Dominguez, Private Citizen:

This testimony is in support of A.B. 382 requiring the Board of Regents to establish an Institute for Latino Research and Advocacy at the University of Nevada.  As a Reno High School graduate and a former English as a Second Language student, I have noticed a lack of outreach efforts, leadership building, and retention programs for Latinos.  As a UNR alumnus and a current middle school teacher, I have personally experienced the lack of resources, demographics, methods, and strategies to help the struggles of English as a Second Language (ESL) student.

 

According to a U.S. Department of Education survey, fewer than 20 percent of teachers feel prepared to meet the needs of diverse students.  Not only would a Latino Institute better serve the current students, professors, and employees in such fields as education, human development, and family studies, it would attract a more diverse group of students and professors to the University.  Latinos are the largest and fastest-growing segment of the population in the Sierra Nevada.  The establishment of an institute that would research and address the needs of Latinos would be money well-invested in this state’s future. 

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

Since you have the organization at the University, do you have a definition of Latino?  I guess I’m just thinking this is going into law, it’s going to be forever and ever, and maybe we should define whom we’re going to speak to, whom this institute is going to be for.

 

Oscar Espinoza Parra, University of Nevada, Reno, Latino Alumni Chapter:

We concur with Dr. Emma Sepulveda that her Latino definition is something we relate to.  As Spanish-speaking people who come from Latin America, South America, and Central America, we feel this is an appropriate term.  The word “Hispanic” was given to us; it is something we did not accept, because it is not related to our culture, to our educational needs, to who we are as a people, and to our background.  It also does not define our complexities.  Because we are Native Americans and we are Spaniards, we are also very diverse in terms of our ethnic culture.  That’s why we feel that the Latino term is appropriate.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

When you start talking about directing resources to a certain group, you want to be kind of clear on who that is, and I didn’t see a definition on who that is.  It’s like you assume everybody is going to know who you mean, and I’m not sure that 20 years from now, we’ll all have that same assumption.  I guess that’s where my concern is.  I just want to make this very definite.

 

Tom Stoneburner, Director, Alliance for Workers’ Rights:

[Introduced himself.]  I’m here today in support of A.B. 382, a piece of legislation I feel is critical to the Alliance for Workers’ Rights advocacy for low‑income workers.  Every day, as the phone rings in our office, we become painfully aware of the critical lack of resources that the Institute could provide.

 

In 1999 the Alliance for Workers’ Rights started an effort to look into working conditions in the agricultural industry, which is largely Latino.  We found out we didn’t know how many workers there were in this industry or where they were, and we really knew very little about them.  There were no demographics and no information out there.  We find this time after time, as we advocate for low-income workers, that we really know very little about the largest and fastest-growing minority in the state.  The very resources that this Institute would bring to us are the kind of resources we need to do work in that area.  We strongly urge this bill move forward.

 

Mary Conelly, State Director for United States Senator Harry Reid:

[Introduced herself.]  I won’t go over the demographic information that has already been presented to you, but I think we can all agree that the demographic information is compelling.  We, like you, are frequently lobbied with regard to specific special interests, and, in our case, much of our information with regard to the Latino community and those issues comes from national lobbying groups.  We are frequently missing specific Nevada information. 

 

Senator Reid received presentations much like you are receiving now, and he saw a need for this, both in terms of the research that would be available to help us do some policy direction and also for advocacy in the areas of immigration, education, and health care.  Our University System, statewide, has a long history of establishing institutes similar to this, and we think the time is right for the Latino Institute.

 

The part you really want to hear about is money.  Senator Reid has agreed to look for federal funds to provide seed money to get the Institute going.  We’re not as far along in our budget process as you are, although I know some of you might disagree with that, but we are in the process of prioritizing what our request will be.  We’ll be looking for a directed appropriation or a directed grant to provide seed money to the University to get this started, but as you might suspect, we’d be looking for a commitment from the state as we go further along.

 

Russell Rowe, attorney for the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN):

The Chancellor does extend her apologies for not being able to be with you tonight.  She and the University System support this bill with the amendments that have been proposed (Exhibit Q).  We hope they are friendly amendments; we believe they are, and I hope you have a copy before you.  The first one would change the language of Section 2 to make the legislation permissive rather than mandatory.  The Board of Regents has not had the opportunity to review it, and with the budget issues, every dollar that’s in their budget has been earmarked by now.  Hopefully, funding will come through for this, and, if that occurs, then I certainly would want to support it.

 

The remaining changes are all administrative in nature; they deal with policies and procedures that the University System operates under.  I want to make sure that all the language in the legislation is consistent with those policies and procedures, both with their public employees, and, also, with the public administration of finances and things of that nature.  I would hope you’d accept these amendments; the University System supports the bill with these amendments.  I’d be happy to answer any questions.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

If it is a tight budget year, you are saying that this will not happen? 

 

Russell Rowe:

This program isn’t currently listed in the enhancements, so there isn’t any funding for this in the budget as proposed.  If that funding does come through from the Senator’s office, and, if the funding comes through from the state, the University System would certainly want to support something like this.

 

Mary Conelly:

I’d also like to address that.  In our efforts to acquire federal funds to get this started, it would certainly be a problem if we didn’t have support from the state and the University to go forward.  That is critical to us in order to provide federal funding to get it started.

 

Rosa Castro Harris, Interim Administrative Faculty at University of Nevada, Reno:

[Introduced herself.]  To answer Assemblywoman Angle’s question about how we define Latino, usually it’s defined as people who speak Spanish who are from Central America, South America, or Latin America.  I think the Institute wants to disseminate a little bit more about our identity; that’s not all that we are.

 

[Rosa Harris continued.]  My concern is with the children, both elementary and middle school.  I did my internship after I graduated with my master’s degree.  I saw a lack of dreams from parents working two and three jobs.  They didn’t have a lot of exposure to Latino people who were in graduate school or who were professionals, and, for me, that was a scary situation.  When they don’t know somebody, they get all excited about it.  They should know many more of us.  It worries me, too, about the lack of Latino students entering graduate school.  I was the only Latino female to graduate from the College of Education with a master’s degree in May 2002.  The only Latino professor who was there has gone now.  We have zero Latino professors right now at the University in the Counseling and Educational Psychology Departments.

 

Assemblyman Mabey:

I listened to three of you, and each time you said from South America and Central America, but you never said from Mexico, and you never said from Puerto Rico.  I’m curious, is there a difference?  Would they fit in with this also?  How about somebody who was born in Texas, and they’re Hispanic or Latino?

 

Rosa Castro Harris:

I think we’re trying to also look at descendants.  When you talk about Puerto Rico, I am Puerto Rican; we do consider ourselves Latino, and that’s why we say Latin America.  I would say that Mexico is part of Central America.

 

Assemblyman Mabey:

But not Spaniards; you won’t count those?

 

Rosa Castro Harris:

No, I refuse the term Spaniard, because we are putting aside our African heritage and our Indian heritage.

 

Assemblywoman Leslie:

I think this discussion about what is a Latino proves a point for the bill.  It is about heritage; it is about Latinos who live in the United States.  They may be second-generation or third-generation Latinos, or they may be first-generation; it’s not just for people who speak Spanish today.  I speak Spanish better than many Latinos; does that make me a Latino?  No.  My heritage is European.  I would urge the Committee’s support.  This is probably the most important bill I have here this session, and this discussion today has proven over and over to me how much we need to go forward with this Research Institute.  Gracias.

 

Chairman Williams:

Is that the final witness, Ms. Leslie?  With that, we’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 382.  We’ll take a break soon, but we’ll go ahead and open the hearing on Assembly Bill 311.  Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Knecht, we may have to stop for a few minutes, but we’ll start now. 

 

Assembly Bill 311:  Revises provisions governing homeschooled children. (BDR 34-966)

 

Assemblyman Ron Knecht, Capital District No. 40:

[Introduced himself.]  I am the chief author of this, or maybe the second author; Mr. Hettrick had the same idea.  We put them in separately, and in order to spare you two hearings, we combined the bills.  We’re here to jointly sponsor A.B. 311.  Essentially, A.B. 311 would allow homeschooled students to have the same opportunities for participation in sports and other extracurricular activities that public and private school students now have.  Right now, Nevada state law encourages school districts to give homeschooled students this access, but it doesn’t make it mandatory, and the practice of the districts is mixed in that regard.

 

I’ve distributed a summary (Exhibit R), section by section, in one page, in order to keep this short, of the entire contents of this bill as drafted.  We recognize, from talking with various parties, that there is some opposition, and we are prepared to make some changes.  What I would propose, in view of the hour and the need for breaks and such, is that I give you a short summary of this one page without going through every point.  Then Mr. Hettrick will make some remarks, and what we would propose is to have the proponents testify quickly, and then the opponents.  We will then take this to a negotiation session and bring back, by Wednesday, a revised, amended bill that all parties can agree to. 

 

In short, this bill provides access on a level playing field for homeschooled students.  There are various questions that come up, such as, would a student in a public school be able to move to homeschooled status, and then go to a different school in order to play on the winning team?  We have provisions in this bill that deal with problems like that.  There are questions about what policies the school districts have in place; this bill would require notice and a meeting to set those policies, and notice to all interested parties with an opportunity to appear. 

 

There is a question of how this applies to private schools.  In short, it would apply permissively, not be mandatory, to private schools in the same way it would to public schools.  Regarding questions about the role of the NIAA (Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association) in administering school sports, this would require that the NIAA cooperate with the state public policy on this matter.  All of those things are on this one page, and this would also apply to charter schools. 

 

[Assemblyman Knecht continued.]  Unless any of the Committee members have a question about those particulars, I’ll simply say that we tried to anticipate every problem.  We think we did anticipate every problem when the bill was drafted, but, as we know, there are some districts that are not comfortable with the bill as drafted.  Unless you want me to go over the details of Sections 1 through 14 further, I’ll turn this over to Mr. Hettrick, who can talk to you about the negotiation process, and then we can go to the other witnesses.

 

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Douglas County, District No. 39:

[Introduced himself.]  I’m going to be very brief.  We know that we’re going to have to get together and negotiate some of this.  Some people traveled a good distance to come here, and there are some, I believe, still in Clark County, who would like to testify as well, and we’d like to get them on the record, rather than take your time with us talking tonight.  What I would like to do is step back, let the folks come to the table, and let you hear both sides as quickly as they can do it.  Then let us put them together, and we’ll come back to you in a couple of days.

 

Chairman Williams:

I think that’s an excellent plan.  Do you have any people that you know have to speak tonight?

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

We’ve got some; I think we only have about seven or eight witnesses who want to speak, and we’ve asked them all to hold it to one page of testimony or less.

 

Chairman Williams:

We’ll start in Las Vegas.

 

Mary Stolz, Homeschool Parent:

[Introduced herself.]  I am a homeschool parent of five children, four of whom are homeschooled.  Three wanted to play high school sports; two were not able, and Emily was able to this previous season.  She played junior high basketball and is looking forward to high school basketball.

 

There are not many homeschoolers who want to play competitively and who are able to play competitively, but for those who can, being able to try out for and earn a place on a team is very important.  One question that has been raised is that homeschoolers on a team would harm the camaraderie on the team, because they do not participate at school.  I have two letters I’ve provided to northern Nevada (Exhibit S) to dispute this; one is from a parent of another student on Emily’s team, and one is from the coach, who had absolutely no problems.  I strongly urge you to support A.B. 311.

 

Kimberlie King-Pashaw, Vice Chair, Nevada Homeschool Network:

[Introduced herself.]  Nevada Homeschool Network provides networking and communication with homeschoolers.  We would like to say that we support this bill that is in front of you today.

 

Tim Hartman, Homeschool Parent, Southern President, Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council:

[Introduced himself.]  I support a homeschool group, and I serve the Department of Education in the capacity of President of the Southern Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council.  I’d like to state that I support this bill, as is, in particular the pro rata basis per student for special education.  This bill provides opportunities for homeschooled students to reach their potential.  It allows equal educational opportunities for every student, including homeschooled students, and it provides a partnership in education between the public school, the private school, and the homeschool communities.  I believe this bill is a bridge-building bill for the public students and the homeschooled students of Nevada. 

 

Frank Schnorbus, Northern President, Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council:

[Introduced himself.]  Tim is the Southern President.  We’re appointed by the Board of Education.  I’m also an officer in the Nevada Homeschool Network.  I want to thank you for taking the time on this, and we are trying to condense this presentation; we could go for a long time.  A lot of people have a lot to say on this bill, but I want to present this bill and ask you to look at this bill as being a fairness, equity-type bill for homeschoolers.  This is a situation where homeschoolers are allowed to play on public school teams right now, but it is implemented so differently from district to district that you may or may not get a chance to even try out.

 

If you’re from the state of Arizona and you play in the NIAA, you are guaranteed a right to play in Nevada, because, in Arizona, they are required to allow homeschoolers to play.  This is what we would like to have for Nevada.  Also, in the special education section that was alluded to, we just want to make it so that, if there are any funds received from a school district because that homeschooled child has been identified as eligible for special education services, those funds are expended on homeschooled children.  It’s not meant to cost the districts anything at any point, anywhere, not for the sports portion, and not for special education.  We do understand there is some opposition, and we are willing to try to work with the people involved. 

 

[Frank Schnorbus continued.]  I’ve got a handout (Exhibit T), which has this table on it; I want you to take a look at it.  This shows the number of homeschooled children in grades 9-12, and also grades K-8, and, then, gives the total number.  If you get down to the bottom, and this is according to the Department of Education, we have nearly 4,000 students who are homeschooled as of September 2002.  I believe it is closer now to 4500, almost 5000, in the state of Nevada.  You can see that in 1999, when we passed the academic portion where we were asking that homeschooled children be allowed to take academics on campus, there was a great concern that there would be this huge rush of homeschoolers taking academics.  The reality is that the total is minimal, and we don’t even have numbers on it.

 

In Washoe County School District, there are about seven homeschoolers in sports.  In sports right now, the last number I have from NIAA is that there are ten homeschooled children in the entire state of Nevada currently playing in sports.  On the second page, this is their set of NIAA rules that they were going to propose and pass last summer.  On the third page, the “Guidelines for Participation,” blossomed into, in one district, nearly 1½ pages of very restrictive rules.  This is what happens when the districts are doing this individually; we are asking that this be done on a statewide basis.  At this point, I’ll turn this over to Doug, and he can address a couple of other points.

 

Chairman Williams:

Did you say there were, to your knowledge, ten students playing sports now?

 

Frank Schnorbus:

The last number I heard was that there were ten homeschooled students in sports in Nevada, in the entire state.

 

Doug Pearson, Homeschool Father:

One of the objections I’ve heard to homeschoolers participating in high school athletics concerns the added cost to the different districts.  The implication is that including homeschoolers in athletics would force school districts to expend additional funds.  The reality is that there would be no increase in cost.  Whether you’re buying a football helmet for a homeschooled child or a public school child, it is still a football helmet, and it costs the same amount of money.

 

However, there is one important aspect of school finances I would like to address.  That is the fact that my wife and I do pay property taxes that go directly to the Washoe County School District.  My money is used to help with general operating expenses, as well as to pay off the debts from numerous school bonds.  I pay these taxes because the law mandates that I do, though I clearly recognize their importance to the well being of our community.  My children are denied access to programs that I pay for, because I have chosen to become intimately involved with and take responsibility for their education.

 

[Doug Pearson continued.]  I actually save the state money, year after year, by homeschooling my children.  If my children were to enter public school, they would cause larger class sizes and more debt for the state.  In return for saving the state money, my children are discriminated against by a close-minded system.  That is not thinking of what, in my opinion, is best for our state, but, rather, what seems to control and give more power to the state.  This is an issue of basic fairness and equality.  Are we going to continue to single out a group of students with one shared characteristic, that their parents care too much, and deny those students access to high school athletics? 

 

Currently, in Nevada, we allow several California schools and one Arizona school to participate in sports in our state.  Both California and Arizona allow home-schooled athletes to participate, so Nevada already allows home-schooled athletes to participate, as long as they do not live in our state.  When we all keep our “eyes on the prize,” which is our children, who are our future, whether homeschooled or publicly schooled, there can be no other conclusion.  Not allowing our homeschooled children to participate in high school athletics is an injustice.  I thank you for allowing me this time to address the Committee, and I urge you to support A.B. 311.

 

Maika Dunbar-Alcalde, Ph.D., Homeschool Parent:

[Introduced herself.]  We’re a homeschool family, and I’m here representing that family.  [She presented written testimony, Exhibit U.].  My oldest son is an athletically gifted 16-year-old who has been playing sports since he was 6 years old.  He was on the Olympic Development Program for soccer, and he also excelled in baseball.  He wanted to play soccer this fall, and the only way he could play was if he enrolled in public school, because he was not allowed to play as a homeschooler.

 

For one semester, he enrolled in public school, so he could play soccer.  He decided after that one semester that he would prefer to go back to being homeschooled, because he had already attended WNCC the previous year, and he felt he wasn’t being challenged.  He went back to WNCC for this semester, and then had been practicing with the baseball team, and he wanted to play baseball.  When he went to the tryouts, he was told that, because he was a homeschooler, he would not be allowed to try out, so he wasn’t allowed to play baseball.

 

[Maika Dunbar-Alcalde continued.]  I feel this is an injustice, because you have a child who is not only athletically gifted, but also academically gifted, and he is not being allowed to use the talents that he was given or even have the opportunity to get a scholarship due to his athletic ability, which he could get either in soccer or baseball, if he were given the opportunity.  We also pay taxes, and I feel that he should be allowed that opportunity like everybody else who would like to attempt that.  I think the purpose of education is to give the best possible education to each child that is available, and if you choose to do that through public education or homeschooling, that’s basically your choice.

 

The goal of people who are pro-education should be to give the best possible education to their child, and that is their choice.  It is my opinion that a child who is getting the best education, through public school or homeschooling, should have the equal opportunity to play sports.  If they have that ability, and if a child goes to try out, he should be considered the same and not be discriminated against just because he’s being homeschooled.

 

As I said before, we do pay taxes, and my husband and I have been extremely frustrated by this whole process.  The dean said on a vote of five to two that homeschoolers could play sports, and then when it came up to play sports, our son wasn’t allowed.  What we would like is fair and equal access to sports for our children.  That’s basically all we’re asking.  If they have the ability, and if they’re good enough to make it, they should be allowed to play.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

This is for anyone on the panel.  When I was first presented with A.B. 311, I had concerns, and I spoke with Mr. Hettrick and Mr. Knecht about it.  I was thinking that kids want to play sports; if they can play, they should be able to.  I remember when I played sports they had standards to meet.  If I didn’t make my grades, I couldn’t play.  Some say that homeschoolers aren’t held to the same standard.  When I weighed that, the homeschooled kids basically didn’t have that choice.  Their parents said, “You’re going to be schooled at home,” so I said I probably was going to vote for this bill.

 

However, now we have this other issue that I’m hearing from a lot of the same parents saying, “Don’t test our kids; leave us alone.”  I have this conundrum; it sounds like you say, “Don’t call us, we’ll call you.”  Can you tell me why I should distinguish between the two separately?  On the one hand, you say I should let the kids play sports, if they can play; on the other hand, you tell us to stay out of testing the kids, the very same tests the other kids have to take.  I have a problem with that.

Doug Pearson:

I can only speak for myself on this issue.  The reason my children are homeschooled is I believe they are getting a better education.  I think the fact that Stanford University accepts homeschooled children at a rate twice that of the per capita of publicly schooled children bears that out.  That certainly does not mean that every homeschooled child is going to be better academically, and that’s not what I’m trying to say.  The reason that I homeschool my children is because I care so much.  My children would never be allowed to do anything extracurricular if their grades were not above whatever the cut-off score would be for sports. 

 

When I was in high school and played sports, we had to have a “C” average.  I don’t know what the bar is set at now, but a “C” doesn’t cut it in my house.  You don’t get to do anything extra with a “C,” except study, and study hard.  I’m all for having my children up to the same grades or academic expectations; I want a level playing field. 

 

Assemblyman Horne:

That’s the testimony I heard, Sir; sorry to interrupt you.  At the same time, I’ve gotten e-mails that say, “Don’t test our kids,” from some of the same people who say, “Our kids should play sports.”  Can you see the mixed message I’m getting?

 

Doug Pearson:

Absolutely, but as far as the actual legislation, I’d like Frank to answer that.

 

Frank Schnorbus:

That’s actually a very good question, and the reason that it’s good is because it gives me an opportunity to explain, to a small degree, what homeschooling is about.  The testing issue will be coming up in another couple of days, and we hope to deal with it more thoroughly there.  Essentially, testing is a wonderful tool for a homeschool parent, a public school teacher, or anybody.  We need to test our children throughout.  The problem with homeschooling is that often the child is pulled from the public school because he is either lagging in a particular subject, or he is way ahead.  When you do a test, you often are trying to teach to that test. 

 

Teaching to a test is a very stressful thing; you can talk to any public school teacher or anyone who feels that his job is on the line if his class doesn’t do well.  Homeschool parents are no different.  What happens is, in a homeschool, you’re able to get away from that and get right down to actually teaching the kid and not worrying about the final test.  Of course, you’re always checking your children to find out where they are academically.

 

[Frank Schnorbus continued.]  I’m sorry there isn’t a better answer, but I can say that testing is actually the antithesis of trying to homeschool your children, and I tell you that from years of experience as a homeschool father.  My kids were also in public school and spent a little time in private school, too.  The lack of tests or the presence of a test, statistically, makes no difference in the homeschool setting.  They’ve shown that through research after research.  In fact, I think everyone here got a book last week showing some of Dr. Ray’s material, that it makes no difference as to what the final outcome of that student is.

 

We’re not trying to get out of doing anything in order to allow the children to play sports.  We’re actually trying to get the system to be fair, so that the kids can play, because as a lot of kids who have played sports know, that is a big deal.  If my kid can play sports, and if I can hold it over his head and say, “Look, Jack, if you don’t get your grades up, you’re off the team.  I’m turning your grades in to the coach.”  It makes a big difference, and homeschooled kids are no different than any other kids.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, it seemed tied together in the rationale. 

 

Chairman Williams:

I’m sure that, when the interested parties get together over the next 48 hours, there will be things discussed that will be brought back to the Committee on Wednesday.  I’m sure some of the concerns you’ve heard already, so you know the type of things to address for Wednesday.  Does that sound pretty accurate?  If there are other people who have concerns and input, be sure to get with the interested parties to make sure everybody’s input is included before Wednesday.  If there are additional people who want to go on record tonight, you can still do that; we’re not cutting anybody off.

 

Irene Rushing, Homeschool Parent, Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council, Northern Nevada Homeschool:

I coordinated a homeschool physical education (P.E.) class from preschool through high school for about a year, with the help of many local loyal homeschool volunteers in Reno.  My experiences when children first meet on the first day of P.E., as other children do on the first day of school, is that they’re shy and quiet and very observant of their surroundings.  By the end of the hour, they’re strategizing, team-playing, sweating, laughing, and acting just like “buds.”  Their strong attitude and team spirit is so obvious; they enjoy competing.  The class sizes vary from the minimum of 25 students to 50, and I love teaching.

 

[Irene Rushing continued.]  It was unfortunate that we couldn’t continue our structured class due to the limited space at the Neal Recreational Center.  A charter school needed the facility and could provide thousands of dollars more a month for the facility than what we could.  Homeschool kids are no different than other athletic children that sign up for a local league; they are no different in the wellness to the mind and body regarding physical education.

 

I would like to direct your attention to several testimonies given to us by other homeschool parents regarding their expenses when trying to obtain special educational services from Douglas County School District, Nevada.  In front of you is a copy of testimony from Denise Llewellyn (Exhibit V).  I’m sharing this testimony with you about her experience with assistance from the Douglas County School District.

 

My husband and I have homeschooled our children for 18 years, and during two of those years, we lived in Gardnerville, Nevada. 

 

In 2000, we contacted C. C. Meneley Elementary School for an evaluation and a possible IEP (Individualized Education Plan) for our son, age 9.  We knew he had learning difficulties, as he had attended public school in California for 4 months.  We had an IEP.  At this time, we had been homeschooling our son for 4 years.

 

The team that worked with our family for all the testing and evaluations was kind, supportive, and informative.  We filled the team in on our son’s past history:  physical abuse and as a newborn he suffered a skull fracture by his birth parents, his almost two year life in foster care, adoption with us when he was 2 years old, and his diagnosis and treatment of ADD . . .

 

In conclusion, the school psychologist . . . stated to me during a phone conversation that ‘due to the fact that Brandon is not enrolled in a public school and has severe academic discrepancies, he would qualify for help from the school without question.’

 

We sought out this evaluation with the intent of gaining some outside help from the school system as we had achieved while living in California.  To our surprise we received a phone call and a letter stating that no services were available to our son.  The reasoning went that a small amount of monies were allotted for assistance and that those monies went to those students who were enrolled in public school first and that if anything was left over it could be applied to home[schooled] students.  Of course there was no money ‘left over’ and there was never any assistance for our son.  We continued homeschooling while living in Douglas County. 

 

[Irene Rushing continued.]  You also have a copy of testimony from Lisa Shumway (Exhibit W) who moved to Churchill County from Washington State and had difficulties obtaining the services she needed for her son, who had been diagnosed with Sensory Integration Dysfunction.  Laura Farina, a homeschool parent, was told that her son could only receive speech therapy for his speech impediment if he were enrolled full-time in a preschool program.  I would like to share a quote from her testimony (Exhibit X):

 

From the start of our Child Find experience, I kept asking how we could continue to receive speech therapy while we were homeschooling.  I asked this question at Child Find.  I asked at the Homeschooling Office.  I asked the principal of the school, and I asked the speech therapist.  Each time the response was basically the same.  It appeared that no one knew how to handle such a request.

 

I would like to stress how homeschool families contribute to public school families.  Homeschool children contribute to public schools by preventing overgrowth of class sizes in public schools.  Homeschoolers allow public schools to commit less in resources such as books, utensils, computers, et cetera, because homeschoolers buy them on their own, in their own home.  I urge the Committee to support A.B. 311 to allow homeschoolers to have access to sports. 

 

Gail Allen, Homeschool Parent:

[Introduced herself.]  I live in Douglas County and our son Dick Sanders is in ninth grade.  You have a prepared statement (Exhibit Y) in front of you; you can follow along if you wish.  I’m going to condense it.

 

In the fall of 2001, we learned of the Homeschooling Cross Country Team, which was forming in Douglas County.  Dick began to run with his team, and he had a great time.  We only found out then that the homeschooling team was not able to compete at conference meets, only at invitationals.  In fact, we went to the zone meet and were told the kids would be allowed to run, but they would not be allowed to cross the finish line.  Our coach set up a separate finish line, so our children ran on the left and their children ran on the right, and the spectators are yelling, “They’re going the wrong way.”  We said we knew that. 

 

[Gail Allen continued.]  This bill would allow for homeschooled students, in an area where there are enough people, to have their own team.  That isn’t feasible in many of the rural counties, but we would like to have that option.  We found out in early August that the NIAA had changed its guidelines in June to allow homeschooled students to participate.  Thinking this was great, I contacted the school district and was told they were working on it.  This was in September.  They said they would hammer out all the details, and they would get back to us.  We were supposed to receive a letter.  We received nothing.

 

In October we went to the School Board during the open comment session, and said, “Do you know there’s been a change in the NIAA ruling?  Would you please consider it?”  In November, the School Board of Trustees heard it and decided they didn’t have enough information from the district to make a decision.  We came back again in December; at this point, Douglas County School District administration’s recommendation was flat-out denial.  They did not want any homeschoolers participating; in fact, they were quoted in the newspaper that they didn’t choose us, they didn’t owe us anything, and we were freeloaders.  In spite of that attitude, the Trustees voted to allow homeschoolers to participate, but in a limited way.

 

There are several inequities in Douglas County, and that’s where my experience is, so I’ll speak from that.  My son is allowed to participate in athletics, but he must be in a state-approved correspondence course.  There are five legal options to homeschool in the state of Nevada; taking correspondence courses is only one of them.  Option D is a correspondence course; Option C is when the parent qualifies for a teaching license, but that doesn’t qualify.  Option E is hiring a teacher, but that doesn’t qualify.  It has to be a correspondence course, period.  Section 9 of A.B. 311 specifically addresses this issue. 

 

I would like to address testing, because my son was expected to take a standardized test.  The homeschooled student is required to achieve a minimum composite score within the average or higher-than-average range.  Students attending the public school do not have to achieve any specific score whatsoever in order to participate in sports.  Our son took the Douglas County School District’s achievement level tests, and, when I asked what the cut-off score was that he needed to receive in order to pass the test, I was told by the coprincipal that she didn’t know.  They only determined the minimum score after he took the test.  I’m glad you found that as funny as I did.

 

Under the NIAA guidelines, and the Douglas County School District guidelines, the student in a public school who transfers schools is academically ineligible to participate in sports for the duration of that year.  For a homeschooled student, you not only have to sit out the duration of that year, but an additional year.  I find this not only inequitable, but also punitive.  It is definitely to punish you, if your child leaves the public school district.  Section 6 of A.B. 311 corrects this inequity. 

 

[Gail Allen continued.]  The NIAA and Douglas County School District guidelines assess a $100 per sport participation fee for any homeschooled student.  We have also been assessed a $25 testing fee to take the achievement level tests, a $100 participation fee, and, we have been informed there is a $200 uniform deposit for our son to run track.  No other student is required to pay any of these fees.  We went to the parents’ meeting; no one else has a uniform deposit.  Our son isn’t being issued a hurdle, so I don’t understand it. 

 

In addition to the restrictions and fees that I already mentioned, the sport in which the homeschool student may participate in Douglas County is limited to “space available.”  When I called to inquire about baseball, I was told there is no space available in any of the “cut” sports.  There are four sports available to my son:  cross-country, football, a no-cut sport in Douglas, track, and swimming.  If it requires a try-out, there is no space available; that has been predetermined.  Baseball, basketball, golf, tennis, skiing, softball, volleyball, soccer, and wrestling are all unavailable. 

 

I come before you today to ask you to do the right thing.  We pay our taxes, and we’re educating our son legally, according to the state laws of Nevada.  I’m not here to discuss politics or philosophy; this law will allow kids to participate fairly and equitably in athletics throughout the state of Nevada.  Please approve Assembly Bill 311. 

 

Chairman Williams:

We have six bills on the agenda, and we’re here now until 8:00 p.m.  On Wednesday, we’ll have eight or nine bills, and we have to come back with this one.  Mr. Hettrick said the comments would be one page, and if we don’t get to this bill on Wednesday after everything is worked out, don’t put us in the category with those school districts where there is no “space available.”  It was our understanding we were going to work this out and come back on Wednesday with a proposal.  If you want to hear this tonight, we’re not going to hear it Wednesday.  I would suggest you take Mr. Hettrick’s and Mr. Knecht’s suggestion to keep the comments to a minimum. 

 

Theresa Chipp, Homeschool Parent:

[Introduced herself.]  In that light, I think there isn’t anything I have to say that hasn’t been said.  I have a letter to read, but I think it reiterates what’s been said; it’s a great letter.  I believe you have it in front of you.  [No letter was received from Therese Chipp.]

 

Lynn Chapman, State Vice President of Nevada Eagle Forum, Homeschool Parent:

[Introduced herself.]  We already heard that dual enrollment was not going to work, but it is working.  My daughter is doing dual enrollment this year on the stipulation that she works hard, and her schoolwork has to meet my standards.  She does take a Japanese class; she’s done very well, and she’s at the top of the class.  Out of three classes, the teacher nominated five students for a scholarship, and my daughter was one who was nominated.  The only reason she doesn’t get to go to Japan is because of an immunization problem; my daughter cannot have a certain immunization, and therefore she can’t go.  But dual enrollment is working, and the kids do very well; they work very hard.  We do support A.B. 311, so please pass it.

 

Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum, Nevada Families Voter Guide, Nevada Families Education Foundation, Nevada Families P.A.C.:

[Introduced herself.]  I’ve been involved in the homeschool issue since the early 1980s trying to work things out with the state school board, local school boards, and the Legislature.  I started homeschooling my children in 1988; I homeschooled my son, who I pulled out of school because of problems, and then I gave him the option of whether he wanted to go to high school or not when he was 15.  He decided to stay with homeschooling, and then he accessed some of the things at Truckee Meadows.  I think he would have been delighted to be able to play baseball, but he wasn’t able to do that, because none of those options was available.

 

I also homeschooled my daughter; she decided to go into high school and was a cheerleader there.  She thoroughly enjoyed that social experience, but I think my son had a better education.  I will say that one thing I’ve heard all of these years is all the resistance to the change in allowing opportunities for homeschooling.  It has proved to be a tremendous success, as many of the studies show that homeschooled children do far better academically and in leadership.

 

My son is only 24.  He now owns his own business and is doing very well; he has a family and a new baby boy.  My daughter is qualified for the Millennium Scholarship and also went to Dominican University in California.  Now she is working and going to school.  It really is a success; I encourage you to be open-minded and open the opportunities, because it would be a lot better for all of our children, homeschooled and government-schooled.

 

Chairman Williams:

Thank you, Ms. Hansen.  Is there anyone else?  Dr. Merrill.

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill, Washoe County School District:

Sorry, Mr. Chairman, we thought you were asking for folks in support of the bill, and we were waiting for the invitation for the others, which would be us.  We had suggested friendly amendments (Exhibit Z), which we had earlier provided to the makers of A.B. 311.  This bill is about a lot more than athletics.  The fiscal note that we submitted indicates the projected impact the bill would have upon our school district with the many pieces that are unfunded.

 

We have tried to propose things that will remove the fiscal impact.  By point of clarification, NRS 392.070, subsection 3, provides that a student who receives instruction at home may participate in an extracurricular activity excluding sports.  In spite of that statutory language, the NIAA adopted Regulation 2070.180 that allows homeschooled students to participate with the approval of the local board of trustees.  The interesting dilemma is that the existing statute excludes participation in sports, whereas we have a state regulation from the Nevada Interscholastic Athletic Association that would allow this, in spite of the statute.

 

Our school district is proposing that the language be permissive, based upon the action of the local board of trustees.  We also have other amendments that would, as I said before, remove the fiscal impact of this bill.  There is no need, in the interest of time, to review all that.  We can support certain sections of the bill with the amendments; without the amendments, we are in a different position. 

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

I have a brief question, looking at the fiscal notes.  I’m seeing Carson City at $700 per biennium; Elko County School District, $0 per biennium; Clark County is $30,000 per biennium; and you’re $1.1 million.  Can you explain what is in your fiscal impact that’s not in theirs, why you think it’s going to have such an impact that the other counties and school districts don’t see?

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill:

The biggest impact, which I think you can see on the Excel spreadsheet, is the impact anticipated to provide services for students with disabilities who are homeschooled students.  I don’t know if you have it in your fiscal notes, but we did provide an Excel spreadsheet, and, for 2003-2004, the expenditure for students with disabilities was $523,800; then the next year, it would be $567,450, and upwards from there.  The bulk of this expense is the anticipated impact of providing support for students with disabilities.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

These parents are paying property taxes; they’re contributing money that we give to schools.  Why shouldn’t we allow their children to play sports?

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill:

The Board of Trustees of our school district spent about four hours the other night discussing this issue, and they decided that the decision should be at the local level.  That’s the view that I’m representing to you, based on their vote, that it should be the local trustees who make that decision.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

I’m trying to get to the rationale, and the rationale that the local board should make a decision isn’t much of a rationale.  I’m talking about parents paying “a set amount of dollars, like everybody else, for the school system.  I don’t understand.  If they’re paying, other than “we should decide” arbitrary.

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill:

We’re not talking about a recreational program; we’re talking about interscholastic activities and sports, and some of our trustees argue that interscholastic itself means “among schools.”  To represent a school should involve attendance at that school in order to participate in an interscholastic activity.  Using that rationale, we have some trustees who argue that homeschooled students should not be involved in interscholastic activities. 

 

Some of our trustees have suggested that, if a homeschool student were to take a class, as can be done under statute presently at a public school, and then participate in the athletics at that school, that student is involved as a representative of the school.  The issue for some of our trustees is a philosophical or conceptual issue; if the homeschooled student is not enrolled at that school, how can that student participate and represent the school in an interscholastic role?

 

Dr. Mary Pierczynski, Superintendent of Schools, Carson City School District:

The Carson City School District is in support of A.B. 311 with the amendments that have been proposed by the Washoe County School Board. 

 

Dr. Craig Kadlub, representing the Clark County School District:

We, too, support the amendments proposed by the Washoe County School District, and I don’t think we’re that far apart in our positions, speaking on behalf of Clark County and the opinions expressed here tonight.  I’m hopeful we can reach some resolution when we have the opportunity to meet together.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

I have a similar question to the one that I asked Dr. Merrill.  Your fiscal note for Clark County is significantly lower than Washoe County.  Did you not put in as much research as Washoe County?  I’m looking at the statistics that show 14 homeschooled students statewide, with 2 in Washoe County School District.  I can’t see how 2 students cost $1.1 million. 

 

Dr. Craig Kadlub:

I think Dr. Merrill indicated that they anticipated some special education costs.  We did not include special education costs in ours, because we do include the homeschooled students in our December 1 count.  Therefore, if we get federal funding for students that we count, we provide school services for those students.  As soon as I say we do that for all homeschooled students, someone will find an exception, but as a matter of practice, we do provide special education services for homeschooled students.  They have to come to their neighborhood school to receive those services, but we do that.

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill:

To follow up, excluding the cost we anticipated for special education services, and regarding the other aspects of the bill, including notification of the board of trustees meetings and maintenance of directory information, our expenditure was anticipated at $25,000 in the first year of the biennium, which I believe, is very close to the others.  Our research involves students with disabilities and the anticipated costs.  We do not currently include any homeschooled students in our December 1 count, so we would not be receiving any federal funding for them.  Therefore, we were anticipating this as a new cost to be provided.

 

Chairman Williams:

Is there anyone else to testify?  [The Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council provided other articles (Exhibit AA).]  We’ll close the hearing on A.B. 311.  We have to give these folks a break on the Committee, and we have one more bill to hear.  [There was a short break at this time.] 

 

We’ll call the Committee back together.  We have one bill left on the agenda, Assembly Bill 508. 

 

Assembly Bill 508:  Requires certain school districts to establish pilot program to provide instruction in foreign languages and culture in elementary schools. (BDR S-1217)

 

Tya Mathis, Student, University of Nevada, Reno, Intern to Chairman Williams:

[Introduced herself.]  I am here to present A.B. 508.  As an honors graduate of a Nevada high school in the year 2000, I was required to take at least two years of a foreign language.  At the time, this was also highly recommended for those students intent on pursuing higher education.  Now, as a junior at the University of Nevada, Reno, I am required to take two years of a foreign language to earn my political science degree.

 

The study of a foreign language has never been my favorite subject, but I believe it would be a beneficial subject to know.  On a daily basis, I observe students from various places who began learning the Spanish language at a much earlier age.  Needless to say, these individuals generally enjoy the language and tend to do much better than students like myself, who did not begin to study a foreign language until much later.  Without amendments, A.B. 508 would require the school districts in Nevada to offer a pilot program that would teach foreign languages at the elementary school level.  The pilot program would be optional for students and parents, and would be offered after the normal school day.

 

Learning any language can be a complex process, whether acquired at infancy, as a first language, or a second or third language later on in one’s life.  Teaching our children mandatory foreign languages and culture is essential and would prove to be beneficial to all of Nevada’s schools.  Here’s the presentation (Exhibit BB).

 

[Ms. Mathis quoted from NCPublicSchools.org.]

 

As boundaries between countries are being dissolved, the need for foreign language instruction has become a necessary component for linking with the rest of the world and for producing an enlightened citizenship able to function in today’s shrinking world. 

 

The intent is to offer elementary school students in Nevada an opportunity to become familiar with another language and culture.  The lessons learned would help them later on at the high school and college levels where foreign languages are currently mandated.  Through this program, we will not expect our children to become proficient in another language, but they will hopefully gain an appreciation for both that language and that culture, or language and culture in general.

 

When is the best time to start learning another language?  “When they are babies,” said Emilia Marks, an Ohio University Modern Language Professor.  “But, if not, as soon as possible.  Kindergarten, elementary school—when their brains want to learn.”  It is easier to learn a foreign language when you are younger, and it is imperative that we educate and prepare our children for a changing society.  This skill will add to the diversity as well as help them in future foreign language courses that are mandatory at both the high school and college levels.  In addition to the need for communication with the global world, the study of foreign language is needed to:

 

• Ensure economic competitiveness.
• To maintain national security.
• To teach tolerance and respect for others outside of the United             States.

 

What is currently taught in the United States?  There are four major types of foreign language programs available in elementary schools in the United States:

 

• FLES Programs [Foreign Language in the Elementary Schools]
• FLEX Programs [Foreign Language Experimentation]
• Immersion Programs
• Two-Way Immersion Programs

 

Currently in the United States and in Nevada, which I recently found out, we are offering FLES Programs.  Since making this presentation, I have been notified that FLES Programs are available within the Clark County School District; however, after gaining this knowledge, I still want the Committee to be aware of the importance of teaching both the language and the concurrent culture.  Therefore, I would like to make the following amendments to ensure that both language and culture become a crucial part of our elementary curriculum in Nevada.

 

I passed out amendments to A.B. 508 (Exhibit CC).  I would like to take out Section 1 and change Section 2 to say “The Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools shall adopt standards for the inclusion of certain cultures in existing social studies standards for pupils enrolled in Kindergarten through sixth grade, a course of study that will focus on various cultures represented in the United States.”  Then change Section 2 to say “on or before February 1, 2005, the council . . . shall submit the new standards developed pursuant to subsection 1 . . .”

 

Chairman Williams:

Regarding your amendment proposal for Section 2, will that eliminate the fiscal note?

 

Tya Mathis:

Yes.

Chairman Williams:

So, what you’re proposing is to take existing classes and incorporate this into . . .

 

Tya Mathis:

Existing social studies classes.

 

Chairman Williams:

That makes sense.  What’s the other part of your amendment?

 

Tya Mathis:

To take out Section 1.

 

Chairman Williams:

Are you changing the date?

 

Tya Mathis:

Yes, from 2004 to 2005.

 

Chairman Williams:

Are there any questions from the Committee? 

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

With the amendment, it no longer applies to foreign language?  You’re not going to be teaching foreign languages as such; it’s just going to be culture?  Is that right?

 

Tya Mathis:

In Clark County, they’re already using the FLES Program, and that is basically foreign language in the elementary schools.  That was the main focus of this piece of legislation.  I also wanted the culture to go along with the language.  The language is already being taught, so now it’s just to add the culture into the social studies.  I believe they’re teaching the Spanish FLES Program, but there are other foreign language FLES programs, also.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

You mentioned Clark County School District and Washoe County School District.  What about the rural districts?  Are they also involved in this?  I don’t see any population limitations, that’s why I’m asking.

 

Tya Mathis:

No, the rural counties weren’t involved.  They don’t have FLES Programs now.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

You’re going to amend this to make it only applicable to Washoe and Clark County School Districts?  Is that correct?

 

Tya Mathis:

Yes, the larger counties.

 

Chairman Williams:

There are different signals being given out behind me, Ms. Mathis.  We’ll see what they have to say.  Are there any others to testify on this bill?

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill:

We support this bill with the amendments that have been provided, but it was our understanding that your goal was statewide.  It was important for all students to have the cultural opportunities, not just in Washoe and Clark Counties.  Because the standards are statewide, it was our understanding that this particular addition to the standards would have a statewide impact.  If we were wrong, you need to let us know.  With that understanding, we support this amendment.

 

Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District:

[Introduced herself.]  I know I did sign in opposition of A.B. 508.  The reason being that it’s already been stated that we do have the FLES Program currently in Clark County, and the fiscal impact with adding French was why I was signed in opposition.  Currently, in the Clark County School District, we have available to every elementary school, a kindergarten foreign language program in the elementary schools, and a first through fifth grade program.  The kindergarten program is a 15-minute daily program, if that’s what the teacher decides to do.  The first through fifth grade program is a 30-minute program daily, and this is taught through video.  The program we have in the Clark County School District is a nationally recognized program that has been purchased by several school districts across the country.

 

The only change I would request to the amendment, because our elementary schools are configured K-5, is that we would appreciate a K-5 program, as our sixth grades are at the middle school level.  The K-5 elementary school requirement would fit better with the Clark County School District.

 

Chairman Williams:

Is the Clark County School District now amenable to the bill with the amended version?

Karyn Wright:

Absolutely, we are in support of the bill with the amendments.

 

Chairman Williams:

Did we clear up the question of the rural communities?  Is it when it’s applicable?  Is that the language we’re going to use now?

 

Tya Mathis:

I want it to be statewide.  I was under the impression, when Assemblywoman Angle asked her question, that it was the FLES Program, because those are only in Clark County right now.  But for the culture, I wanted it to be statewide in the social studies. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Is the suggestion by the Clark County School District going to be a part of the amendment?  Ms. Wright mentioned the K-5, as opposed to sixth graders.  Do you need to add that to the amendment, change the grade six to grade five?

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill:

Just to confirm, Mr. Chairman, the amendments wipe out the fiscal note that was submitted by our district to implement the program.

 

Chairman Williams:

Is there anyone else to testify? 

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

Even with the shell language, does that eliminate fiscal problems for the rural counties?  I was wondering if you could define certain cultures for me a little bit.  I’m not sure exactly where we’re aiming here, if it’s going to be permissive on that level as to which cultures are taught, or if you have something in mind specifically.

 

Tya Mathis:

Originally, when I did my research in other states when they teach the foreign language, I found they teach the culture along with the language.  For example, if they were teaching the Spanish language, then they would teach the Hispanic culture and the different things to go along with the Spanish culture, so the children would know where that actually came from.  Whatever languages we’re teaching, then the culture would go along with that.  If we were not actually teaching the language, then I would hope the school district would teach several different cultures.  In the amendment it says, “cultures found in the United States.”  With all of the various cultures found within the United States, it could be anything.

 

Chairman Williams:

It would be safe to say it’s inclusive of the different cultures that are comprised within the schools in Nevada. 

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

If our intent is to look at cultures that are Spanish, Latino, and French, then would we not want to look at the European culture, or the Latin American culture, something like that?  When we talk about cultures, is that going to be the hippie culture, the beatnik culture, the drug culture, or the microbiology culture?  Our intent sounds like we’re talking about people, and that could probably be reflected.  The theory, then, would be that when you go through grade school, at some point you’re going to be taking the language that allows you to mirror the culture you’ve been indoctrinated in or that you learned about.  I would think you would want to tie the two together.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

I think this is a fine amendment to this bill.  I like the bill; I understand what culture means to this bill, in this context.  I support it.

 

Chairman Williams:

The record should reflect that this bill is quite different than the original form that I saw today.  Ms. Mathis has spent quite a bit of time meeting with different interested parties, and we’re very glad to see that a compromise was reached.  I think she learned quite a bit about the legislative process today.  She did a very good job.  Are there any closing comments?  Do you want to introduce your father, Tya?

 

Tya Mathis:

That’s my dad in Las Vegas.

 

Chairman Williams:

With that, we’ll close the hearing on A.B. 508. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 508.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Williams:

Against my better judgment now, the individual whom I used to know that sits to my left is talking about a work session right now.  We’ll do as many as we can and get out of here. 

 

We’ll take up Assembly Bill 234.  This bill was proposed by Assemblyman Manendo.  There’s one amendment presented by the Clark County School District on Tab J of (Exhibit DD).

 

Assembly Bill 234:  Revises provisions governing school bus transportation. (BDR 34-811)

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

I would rather see the bill go back to its original form.

 

Chairman Williams:

Does that mean you’ll make a motion without the amendment?

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

Yes, it’s a motion to do pass, but I hate to make a motion on my own bill.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 234.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Mabey:

Do you mean just as written here?

 

Chairman Williams:

The motion was to do pass, as written, the bill in the original form, without the amendment that was presented by the Clark County School District.

 

Assemblyman Mabey:

I haven’t seen the amendment, but for example on Page 2, line 9, it says, “within 24 hours after a driver of the school bus removes the privilege of the pupil to ride a school bus.”  What happens if it’s a Friday afternoon?  You’re not going to meet until Monday.  I have a little bit of concern with that, personally. 

 

Chairman Williams:

I think the 24 hours would work within the school day.

Assemblyman Mabey:

What if it’s not a school day?  It says within 24 hours after a driver of the school bus removes the privilege of the pupil to ride a school bus.  So he tells him on Friday afternoon, and they’re not going to be back in school until Monday.

 

Chairman Williams:

It is understood it’s the working day.  If I went to your office on Friday, and you told me to take an aspirin and come back in 24 hours, you’re not going to be looking for me on Saturday; you’re looking for me on Monday.  There’s a motion on the floor to do pass.  Is there any other discussion on the motion?

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

I think there were legitimate concerns expressed as far as the way the process works, and who supervises bus drivers.  I think we need to work within the existing policies, because when we start to turn this around and make other people responsible, then the ones who are already responsible put duties on people that they are not ready to accept.  I don’t know how that works if you make a principal responsible for bus drivers when there’s a different access route to bus drivers.

 

I know in the rural areas it works fine, because principals do have some oversight over bus drivers.  They have oversight over everybody, it seems like.  I’m not sure how it works in the Clark County School District and the Washoe County School District, because they’re a little more tiered.  I have some concerns that we’re going to be meddling here a little bit.  I really like the idea of the bill, because I know there are problems on the buses with disruptive pupils.  I’d like to work through this and see if we can’t get something that really works here.

 

Chairman Williams:

If the motion fails, you can always submit a subsequent motion. 

 

Assemblyman Horne:

I think we addressed those concerns; I think it was said in the various testimonies that the current procedures were not working.  We had testimony from northern and southern Nevada stating as much.  That’s why I’m fine with the motion that’s on the table.

 

Chairman Williams:

Is there any more discussion? 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH MRS. ANGLE, MR. HARDY, AND MR. MABEY VOTING NO.  (Mrs. Chowning was not present for the vote.)

 

Let’s go to Assembly Bill 426.  The Speaker has a possible amendment on this.  It’s Tab M (Exhibit EE).

 

Assembly Bill 426:  Requires school districts to reimburse University and Community College System of Nevada for cost of required remedial education of certain graduates of high schools in district. (BDR 34-1200)

 

Is there a motion?

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO POSTPONE A.B. 426.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MCCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. ANDONOV AND MR. MABEY VOTING NO.  (Mrs. Chowning was not present for the vote.)

 

Chairman Williams:

We’re not sure; there are some questions about Ms. Giunchigliani’s bill and the library bill, so we’ll do those on Wednesday.  We’ll go to A.B. 509.  That’s the bill to close a school or building, Tab O (Exhibit FF). 

 

Assembly Bill 509:  Revises provisions governing review of decision of board of trustees to close or change use of particular school. (BDR 34-1294)

 

There is no fiscal impact, no opponents, and no proposed amendments.  That was Mr. Robison’s bill.  Is there a motion?

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 509.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mrs. Chowning was not present for the vote.)

 

Chairman Williams:

The last one in there is the bill privatizing contracts in the schools, A.B. 512 under Tab P of Exhibit GG. 

 

Assembly Bill 512:  Prescribes requirements for privatization agreements between school districts and contractors for certain educational services. (BDR 34-840)

 

Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst:

The NSEA (Nevada State Education Association) proposed an amendment; these were actually presented along with the bill the other day.  The first proposal in Section 4 would delete the words “related to education.”  The explanation is given that any employment within the school that is performed by someone who would have performed it otherwise is covered by this, rather than just “related to education.”  They wanted to clarify this, so there would not be confusion later.  The examples given are things like groundskeeper or food service people, so those people would be covered by this bill.  This relates to any kind of service that might be affected by a contract to privatize. 

 

Section 9 changes the “may” to “shall,” so that it requires the Board of Trustees shall submit a written request for approval of the agreement by the Legislature, or by the Legislative Committee on Education.  Section 21, by reference, includes NRS 386.560, which relates to charter schools, and governing contracts that charter schools have with local school boards or the UCCSN.  If Section 21 is added to the bill, then Section 23 is no longer necessary in the bill and would be deleted.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

I remember asking the two opposing interests whether or not there is a middle ground here, and they said there was.  I was wondering if they had come to any type of conclusion?

 

Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association:

We have arranged a meeting tomorrow with Rose McKinney-James, Ken Lang, and Al Bellister for that purpose, and I probably should have jumped up to tell you that right from the beginning.  Hopefully, by Wednesday, we can have some kind of conclusion.

 

Chairman Williams:

Regarding the other bills not heard tonight, we’ll hear them at the work session on Wednesday, so you’ll be back with a report, just like the homeschoolers.  Is there any other business? 

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

I had a concern; I don’t know if the rest of the Committee was paying attention earlier.  I briefly talked to you about it, and I know a couple of us are on the Subcommittee tomorrow for A.B. 179 that is dealing with the proficiency exams.  Today, we passed A.B. 510, which is a bill that seems to be in direct conflict with what we’re trying to do with Assembly Bill 179.  With your direction, tell us how to proceed on that.

 

Chairman Williams:

We’ll hold A.B. 510 in the Committee; even though it’s voted out, it is not really out until we turn a Committee report in to the desk downstairs.  You’re right; A.B. 510 goes along with business as usual, assisting students with the perception that things will remain the same.  The Subcommittee may come up with some different points of view that could affect it.  We’ll hold A.B. 510 in the Committee until the Subcommittee reports back to the Committee.

 

Is there any other business to come before the Committee?

 

Chairman Williams:

If there is no other business, we’re adjourned.  [The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.]

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

Victoria Thompson

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman

 

DATE: