MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
April 9, 2003
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 4:07 p.m., on Wednesday, April 9, 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:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Assemblywoman, District No. 9
Mr. David Parks, Assemblyman, District No. 41
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:
Joyce Haldeman, Clark County School District
Doug Bache, Citizen
Dr. Walt Rulffes, Deputy Superintendent/CFO, Clark County School District
Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District
Dr. Dotty Merrill, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability & Assessment, Washoe County School District
Lynn Chapman, Northern Nevada Home School Association
Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum
David Perlman, Administrator for the Commission on Postsecondary Education
James W. “Jim” Penrose, Attorney, Nevada State Education Association
Laura Dancer, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, Washoe County School District
Rose McKinney-James, Clark County School District
Stephen Augspurger, Executive Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators
Jean Ann Berkich, Nevada Attorney General’s Office
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education
Steve George, Secretary of State’s Office and Coordinator for Bully-Free Task Force
Bonnie Parnell, Nevada Parent Teacher Association
Terri Peltier, State of Nevada Bully-Free Task Force
Rod Smith, State of Nevada Bully-Free Task Force
Gary Peck, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (ACLU)
Richard Ziser, Coalition for the Protection of Marriage
Tom Christensen, Citizen
Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association
Pamela Pence, Parent
Dr. Craig Kadlub, Clark County School District
Frank Brusa, Nevada Association of School Administrators and the Clark County School Administrators
Lonnie Shields, Washoe County Education Administrator Association
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Frank Schnorbus, President of Northern Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council
Irene Rushing, Northern Nevada Homeschool Director and member of Northern Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council
Carol Williams, Former Public School Teacher, Home Educator, and Chairman for Northern Nevada Homeschools
Kimberlie King-Patraw, Vice Chair, Nevada Homeschool Network
Gina Novelle-Merrell, Homeschool Parent, Melting Pot, and Business Owner
Pamela Pence, Homeschool Parent
Lloyd Farrar, Homeschool Parent, Lone Mountain Homeschool
Tim Hartman, Homeschool Parent, Grace Homeschool, Southern President, Nevada Home School Advisory Council
Dale Kleven, member of Southern Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council, SHARE Homeschool Group
Rick Bennett, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
John Cummings, Community College of Southern Nevada
I’d like to call the meeting to order, please. Madam Secretary, will you call the roll? [Roll was called.] Please mark Mr. Horne present; he’ll be arriving a little late. Assembly Bill 45 has been withdrawn. If there’s anyone here in reference to Assembly Bill 45, it will not be heard. We’ll now open the hearing on Assembly Bill 240.
Assembly Bill 240: Repeals prospective expiration of provisions that expand purposes for which board of trustees of county school district may issue general obligations. (BDR S-453)
Is anyone here on this bill? Ms. Haldeman?
Joyce Haldeman, representing Clark County School District:
[Introduced herself.] Assembly Bill 240 was proposed by the Clark County School District as a means to continue with our school reconstruction program. As you know, you have before you Assembly Bill 396, which has recently been expanded and would provide a way for us to reconstruct Rancho High School. I understand there are other amendments proposed for that bill that may make the reconstruction program go even further.
[Ms. Haldeman continued.] Assembly Bill 240 allows us to remove the “sunset” portion, which currently means that we could no longer use monies for school reconstruction. We would like you to consider removing that “sunset.” In addition to allowing us to reconstruct the schools as part of our program, A.B. 240 also allows us to use bond money for the purchase of certain types of buses that are fuel efficient and environmentally friendly.
I have in Clark County Dr. Walt Rulffes, who is the Deputy Director of Finance, and Ron Despenza, the Executive Director of Busing and Transportation. They can answer any questions related to this bill, if you have any.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions for Ms. Haldeman in reference to this bill? Thank you, Ms. Haldeman. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? Is there anyone in Las Vegas to testify on this bill?
Doug Bache, representing himself:
[Introduced himself.] I’m here speaking as the former Chairman of Government Affairs, because S.B. 554 of the 71st Legislative Session, the bill that allowed the school district to do this, came through the Assembly Government Affairs Committee. I was the one responsible for the amendment, putting in the two‑year sunset provision, along with a requirement that the school district provide a report on how that money was spent.
Since you don’t have the text of the original bill from last session before you, it’s hard for the Committee members, particularly those who did not serve last session, to know what was involved. What we did last session, with S.B. 554 of the 71st Legislative Session, by allowing the school district to spend the money on these items, was historic. It broke through an area that we would normally not use money from bonds for, particularly the furniture replacement and rolling stock, or school buses. I thought this was such a precedent-setting situation that we needed to carefully examine it.
Unfortunately, I have not seen the report from the school districts. I don’t know if they have provided one on how they spent the money over the last two years. What I would encourage you to do, instead of repealing the sunset provision, is to extend it for another four years, while requiring annual reports from the school districts on how they would spend this money. One of my concerns is, at the end of this bond issue, according to the newspapers, we’re going to be about five or six schools short of what was projected when the bond issue was extended.
[Mr. Bache continued.] The actions we took in the 1997 Legislature, where we gave additional money for school construction through the real estate transfer tax and the room tax, should have provided more than enough money to construct all the schools. I’m concerned that some of that has been used inappropriately or wasted on some of the school buses and furniture. I’ve seen, as an employee in the Clark County School District, replacement of furniture that was quite new. Some replacements were not necessarily needed. I don’t believe that the school district auctions off the old furniture, as they used to do at one time.
Another concern I have is a situation like the one that the White Pine County School District got themselves into in 1995, when the state had to bail them out. They had spent money from bond issues on operating expenses. I think the precedent we set last time is one we need to continue. Amending the bill to extend the sunset for four more years and requiring annual reports needs to be done. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Williams:
The indication that we’re getting from the Clark County School District is that they have no problem with the suggested amendment. If that is the case, Ms. Haldeman, maybe you should come back and go on record.
Joyce Haldeman:
The suggestions about an annual report and lifting the sunset for another four years are fine with us. I would also like to go on record that we do not use the bond money for operating funds of any kind. There have been some concerns about our furniture replacement program, however. We have taken a careful look, and Dr. Rulffes is in the audience to answer questions about that. We do sell the old furniture. We have very stringent guidelines that must be met before furniture is replaced. We’re making sure that we spend our bond money very carefully.
We also are concerned that, at the end of the bond issue, we’re going to have more students than we have built schools for. We will have met all the promises in the bond issue, but our growth continues. The fact that we’re going to need six or seven additional schools at the end of this bond issue points to the continued growth that we have. It’s one of the reasons we need to be careful about how we balance the use of this money so that we can build as many new schools as possible to meet the increased population. If there are any other questions, I’d be happy to answer them.
Dr. Walt Rulffes, Deputy Superintendent/CFO, Clark County School District:
[Introduced himself.] I’m available for questions. I would simply reiterate what Ms. Haldeman said. We support the continuation, and we have no problem at all with the provision that we make annual reports to the Legislature.
Chairman Williams:
Thank you, sir. Are there any questions from the Committee members, or any of Dr. Rulffes, Mr. Bache, or Ms. Haldeman? Is there anyone else here to testify on Assembly Bill 240? We’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 240, and we’ll open the hearing on Assembly Bill 411. Mrs. Angle?
Assembly Bill 411: Revises provisions governing literacy in public schools. (BDR 34-731)
Assemblywoman Angle, Assembly District No. 26:
[Introduced herself.] I appreciate your hearing this bill. A.B. 411 is a follow-up to a bill that I had last session, A.B. 405 of the 71st Legislative Session. As you know, my passion is reading and literacy. This bill is about the foundation for literacy in Nevada, and the need to provide support for reading grants. [Assemblywoman Angle brought prepared testimony (Exhibit C)].
I want to first thank Cindy Sharp and Joan Taylor, the Nevada Department of Education grant writers who have been instrumental in bringing in money. They secured the Reading Excellence Act grant in 2001 for $26,189,248, which is now in the second year of its grant. A federal representative is coming tomorrow to hold a press conference at Veterans Memorial Elementary School in Reno, to disclose whether the application for the Reading First grant has been approved; I think I can assure you that it has. It will amount to about $4 million this year, and $4 million the next year, and this is a 6-year grant.
Without Ms. Sharp’s and Ms. Taylor’s unending “pounding” on behalf of the Department of Education at the federal level, we probably wouldn’t have gotten this money. They are real troopers at writing these grants. I wanted to give them the foundation, in statute, to continue to apply for this money and to bring it into the state for reading. That’s the purpose for A.B. 411.
Reading First is the largest and most focused of the early reading initiatives that this country has ever undertaken. It’s the academic cornerstone of No Child Left Behind, and it recognizes the importance of both improving student achievement and implementing programs and strategies proven to be effective.
This bill is necessary because it provides definitions in the law for scientifically based reading research from the federal statutes, and it would provide statewide consistency for that definition; those definitions would be continued throughout every school district. It declares Nevada’s intent to assess the reading needs of our children and to participate in the NAEP test. The NAEP is the National Assessment of Educational Progress; it’s done every two years and is a part of the Reading First and No Child Left Behind requirements. It tells us how we’re doing nationally, how we line up, and how our students are achieving in reading and other subjects as compared to the national averages.
[Assemblywoman Angle continued.] A.B. 411 provides the foundation for all reading programs in Nevada. It clarifies Nevada’s intent to participate in federal programs if money is available, not in unfunded mandates. As a member of the school board in Nye County, we came up against this all the time. Federal programs would be mandated to us, but the funding was never available. We have the funding available now, in the form of grants, but I wanted to make it very clear to the state that we’re not going to do programs mandated by the federal government unless funding is there.
It also codifies, in law, the best practices for reading, which we are already using throughout the state. These practices formulate the basis for the grants we are receiving, so these things that are in A.B. 411 are to codify those things that are best practiced. Children are mistakenly labeled as disabled many times. The National Research Council says that 12 percent of public school children are identified as disabled and in need of special education; a disproportionately large number are minorities and boys. African-American students are 1.6 times more likely to be classified as emotionally disturbed, and more than twice as likely to be classified mentally retarded, as white students.
The most frequent referrals are for reading difficulties and behavior problems. I believe that reading difficulties cause behavior problems. If you can’t read, you don’t want people to think you’re dumb. You’d rather they thought you were naughty than dumb. I think that’s why we see those behavior problems.
In the year 2000, regarding the NAEP reading test for the fourth grade, 25 percent of white students, 63 percent of African-American students, and 58 percent of Hispanic students were unable to read at the basic level. The 1999 National Reading Panel’s conclusion was that phonics instruction, begun in kindergarten and first grade, is significantly more beneficial to all students than if it is delayed until the second grade. That’s the purpose of A.B. 411, because it’s essential for every child to read with proficiency by the end of third grade.
Within A.B. 411, you’ll see that it recommends—this is not mandated—that 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction be done every day. It also recommends that we train teachers to teach reading, that we do assessments to evaluate student progress in reading, and that we have the definitions of the scientifically based reading research components. The last part states that we participate in the NAEP test. If you’ll look at Section 2, you’ll see that the purpose is to teach children to read by the end of their third grade experience. Section 3 gives us the five essential components of scientifically based reading, which is systematic and explicit instruction. If you go on to the next page, there’s the definition of Phonemic Awareness, Component 1, which is to hear, identify, and manipulate individual sounds. This is why we read nursery rhymes to our children, so they hear how our language sounds, know what those sounds mean, and how they sound in spoken words.
[Assemblywoman Angle continued.] The Component 2 is Phonics; that’s the application of the predictable relationship between phonemes and graphemes, the sounds and the symbols, to recognize familiar words and decode unfamiliar ones. Component 3 is Fluency; it is how quickly and accurately you can decode. Component 4 is Vocabulary, which is listening, speaking, reading, and writing words needed to understand what is read. Component 5 is Comprehension, which is to recognize words and comprehend their meaning simultaneously as you read them.
I’d like to add a sixth component, Motivation. Once you learn to read, you will read for pleasure. I think that’s the ultimate desire of everyone who teaches reading, to know that the students will read for pleasure. I want you to pay close attention to the scientifically based reading research terms: the essential components of reading, the underlying structure of the English language, and the reasons why students have difficulty learning to read.
Finally, there is the assessment and measurement of student achievement and proficiency, and the methods and strategies used. The assessments are there within the bill. There are reading screening assessments, diagnostic reading assessments, and classroom-based instructional reading assessments, which you’ll see definitions thereof. There would also be the amendment that we would participate in. As you can see, throughout the bill it says, “Only to the extent money is available.”
Approximately 65 percent of the funds for the Reading First Act go to ongoing professional in-service and pre-service development, with 25 percent to technical assistance, and 10 percent to planning, administration, and reporting. These funds are reserved for activities based on the scientifically based reading research, with priority given to students in kindergarten through third grade, as well as at-risk schools. You might have noticed, in your books, that there were considerable fiscal notes, and I think that was because, when the bill drafters were looking at this bill, they weren’t seeing those portions I just pointed out to you.
[Assemblywoman Angle continued.] As the money becomes available, they will have to fund these things. But I wanted to send out the message, very clearly within our state, that we’re not looking for unfunded mandates anymore. I would encourage you, as an Education Committee, not to pass those on to the districts either. When we make policy, we don’t want to make policy that creates an unfunded situation for them.
I’d like you to know about two funds that I found that might be implemented here. There is $6 million in a fund for school improvement, and we, as a Legislature, could access this fund for reading. There’s also $4.5 million in the Nevada Literacy Improvement fund. I’d like you to know that there is $10 million out there already, if you’d like to access it, for some of the programs recommended in A.B. 411.
In your packet (Exhibit C), I gave you some fun things to look at. We have two types of readers, an objective reader and a subjective reader. I’ve given you tests to find out if you’re an objective or a subjective reader. An objective reader reads automatically and uses his phonetic skills. A subjective reader uses word identification within context, so you’ll see eye movement. They’ve done eye movement studies, which show that objective readers move steadily forward across the page, but subjective readers frequently regress and reread, or correct for wrong word guesses. That’s why these definitions are so important, and why I feel they should be consistent within every school district in our state.
There are some amendments that I’d like to bring to you. One is to put the National Assessment of Educational Progress within that assessment range. Then I would like to change the wording in Section 3, part 1, where it says, “shall,” make that “may.” This whole programming should be permissive. Then I’d also like to delete Section 7, subsection 2, lines 9, 10, and 11.
Chairman Williams:
Do you have those amendments, Mrs. Angle?
Assemblywoman Angle:
They’re in the back of your packet, on the last page of the PowerPoint presentation. In conclusion, passage of A.B. 411 will show the dedication of the Nevada State Legislature to excellent reading instruction, ensuring that no child would be left behind. I would be most happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions for Mrs. Angle? No, there are not. Karyn Wright, are you testifying on this bill?
Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District:
[Introduced herself.] The Clark County School District is currently in compliance with A.B. 405 of the 71st Legislative Session, as well as the proposed bill A.B. 411. We support A.B. 411 with the amended language.
Dr. Dotty Merrill, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability & Assessment, Washoe County School District:
With the amendments that have been provided by the bill maker, we too support Assembly Bill 411.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions from the Committee? Mrs. Chowning?
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Is Washoe County also in compliance, as Clark County School District is?
Dr. Dotty Merrill:
Yes, we are.
Chairman Williams:
Ms. Chapman, are you testifying on the bill? Ms. Hansen?
Lynn Chapman, representing Northern Nevada Home School Association:
[Introduced herself.] I’m a homeschool mom and a homeschool consultant here in the state of Nevada. I was thinking about literacy, and when my daughter was little, and I was teaching her to read. I wanted her to have a love of reading like her father and I have. I would read to her every single day; that was her highlight of the day. I would point to the words, and she learned the alphabet, and she started learning to “sight” read. I thought, maybe I should go into bigger words, and that type of thing.
Her aunt sent her magnetic letters, and my daughter wanted to learn how to spell. We had just learned that you have to have responsibility in life, and your responsibility in our home is to set the table before dinner. The first word that she wanted to learn to spell with her new magnetic letters was “responsibility.” I knew she was a real “go-getter.”
I’ve used the McGuffey Readers for my daughter for homeschooling, and I wish I’d had the New England Primer. In the forward of the New England Primer, it gives some information. The contents of this present edition, with the exception of the forward, are a camera-ready reproduction of the 1777 New England Primer. The New England Primer, introduced in Boston in 1690 by Benjamin Harris, was the first textbook printed in America. For 100 years after its introduction, the New England Primer was the beginning textbook for students. Until 1900, it continued to be a principal text in all types of American schools. The founders, as well as other Americans, learned to read from the New England Primer and the Bible.
[Lynn Chapman continued.] Originally, the New England Primer was a text for students beginning to read. Since there were no grade classifications in American schools until the nineteenth century, it was simply called a primer, which was a small elementary book for teaching children to read. It is the current equivalent of a first-grade text or reader; however, it is probably well above the reading and vocabulary level of today’s typical first-graders, which is a potent commentary on the difference between the education system of our founders, and that of today. I’m going to give this to the Committee Secretary to pass around so that you can read through. There are some very difficult words in it for a six-year-old child.
As a homeschool consultant, I come across people every day who have children who do not know how to read or have a lot of trouble reading; I’m talking about high school students as well. The first thing I do is to tell them to go back and teach their children phonics; they seem to do a lot better after they learn phonics. My daughter loves to read to this day. She has always been a very good reader, because I taught her phonics.
Janine Hansen, State President of Nevada Eagle Forum:
[Introduced herself.] Thank you for hearing A.B. 411; we enthusiastically support it. Eagle Forum has been promoting reading by phonics for many years. Our national president, Phyllis Schlafly, taught her six children to read at home. She has written two books on teaching phonics, and we have a program that goes into inner-city schools to help children learn to read who are not learning to read in the public schools. That is in the first article I handed you about the “Turbo Reader” (Exhibit D).
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when Americans were pitifully poor by today’s standards, we had nearly 100 percent literacy. Today, up to 50 percent of our children are illiterate or only semi-literate. Illiteracy is the result of failure to use phonics to teach children how to read, to teach them the sounds and syllables of the English language so that they can put them together like building blocks. In 1996, 40 of the nation’s top experts on language and reading from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and other Massachusetts universities, signed a joint letter blasting “whole language,” and blaming it for our serious decline in reading achievement. The letter argued that the mastery of phonics is fundamental to reading.
[Janine Hansen continued.] In a report from the California Reading Task Force, the conclusions were that “an organized, explicit skills program that includes phonemic awareness, which is sounds and words, phonics, and decoding skills to address the needs of the emergent reader” were essential. This is so important, because it affects us personally in our individual lives. After my daughter had gone to kindergarten, first, and second grades in the Washoe County schools, she couldn’t read. She is a very bright child. I pulled her out and taught her phonics, and she was eligible for the Millennium Scholarship. She went to Dominican College, and she’s doing very well, but, if she had never learned to read, she certainly wouldn’t have been able to accomplish those things.
One of the things I handed out to you was about Pam Barrett. She is a teacher at Tovashal Elementary School in Murrieta, California. Her students become avid readers by the end of the first grade with her immensely successful phonics instruction program. Armed with the skills necessary to decode progressively difficult words, her first graders can read paragraphs of context by early spring that include words such as “determined,” “ashamed,” and “particularly.” Our first graders, she says, are well on their way to becoming productive and informed citizens, thanks to the real successes they are achieving through the use of systematic phonics. In 1998, the California Board of Education approved new teaching guidelines for reading and math, including a return to phonics.
This article I’ve shared with you is from Parents Magazine, and it details why “whole language” has failed, and why we need to go back to phonics. It indicates that at least 15 state legislatures have passed pro-phonics legislation. The former state superintendent of the California schools led the way in developing the state’s whole language guidelines in the 1980s but has now become sharply critical of the elimination of phonics. If you don’t have an organized program to teach skills directly, you’re going to have a gap in your education.
The other article is from the Arizona Republic, from 1986. They put forth a 93‑page document called Illiteracy in America: Extent, Causes, and Suggested Solutions by the National Advisory Council on Adult Education. Since that time, it’s gotten progressively worse. In the reading section of the Council’s report, it states that the successful phonics method of reading instruction was used in many schools until 1930, when the Dick and Jane basal reading series was born. As far as research on the subject is concerned, 124 studies since 1911 have compared the “look-say” eclectic method—and now we have gone beyond that to “whole language”—with the “Phonics First” programs, and not one study found that “look-say” was superior.
[Janine Hansen continued.] We encourage you to pass this bill and help our children who desperately need to read. That will help them to have success in every part of their schooling. We enthusiastically support it, and we have supported it for a very long time in our work through Eagle Forum.
Chairman Williams:
Thank you, Ms. Hansen. Are there any questions from the Committee? There’s no one else signed up for Assembly Bill 411. We’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 411, and we’ll now open the hearing on Assembly Bill 505.
Assembly Bill 505: Revises provisions concerning background checks conducted on certain applicants for employment with private and certain other postsecondary educational institutions. (BDR 34-478)
David Perlman, Administrator for the Commission on Postsecondary Education:
[Introduced himself and spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit E).] I testify in support today of A.B. 505, a bill which will correct an issue raised by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, concerning the confidentiality of background investigations. In an April 11, 2002, letter, the Commission was notified that the FBI would no longer process background investigations for the Commission, absent a change to NRS 394.465, prohibiting the release of background investigation to private entities.
Currently, that statute contains a statement directing the Administrator to notify the applicant and the hiring institution of felony convictions. A.B. 505 removes the offending statement, meeting the criteria of confidentiality. Therefore, I strongly recommend the passage of A.B. 505, and we would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions for Mr. Perlman? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill, in support or in opposition of Assembly Bill 505? With that, we’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 505. The Chair will accept a motion on Assembly Bill 505.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 505.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Horne was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Williams:
Regarding Assembly Bill 240, the one that was heard today with the amendment by Mr. Bache that the school district agreed to. Is there a motion?
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 240.
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Horne was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Williams:
Let’s move on to Assembly Bill 354.
Assembly Bill 354: Revises provisions governing employees of a school district. (BDR 34-686)
James W. “Jim” Penrose, Attorney, representing the Nevada State Education Association:
I believe that Assemblywoman Giunchigliani had planned to be here for the presentation of this bill. [Assemblywoman Giunchigliani was summoned.]
Chris Giunchigliani, Assemblywoman, Assembly District No. 9:
[Introduced herself.] Basically, justice delayed is justice denied, and that is what this bill is attempting to get at. Unfortunately, it’s only a problem in Southern Nevada, and only with the Clark County School District, so I commend the other districts for making sure that people had their hearings within a timely manner. That is what this bill is attempting to address, to make sure that an individual who has been recommended for dismissal, suspension, or demotion will have a hearing within a timely manner. Unlicensed employees would have a 90-day period, because they’re treated differently in statute, and we’re recommending 120 days for the licensed personnel, which would be teachers and administrators.
I’ve not spoken with the Clark County School District to find out what their position is, but I have a file of expenses and costs for attorney fees, so I feel comfortable that they have the necessary staff to be able to do this. It’s a matter of priorities and making sure that the system works appropriately. That’s what Assembly Bill 354 is attempting to address. I’ll ask Mr. Penrose to walk through the technical changes and recommendations.
James Penrose, Attorney, Nevada State Education Association:
[Introduced himself.] As Ms. Giunchigliani indicated, there is currently a problem in the Clark County School District with getting cases involving the dismissal, demotion, or suspension of educational employees heard in a timely manner. Currently, for unlicensed employees of the district who are recommended for dismissal or are actually dismissed, we’re averaging upwards to a year to get those people a hearing. For teachers in the district, we are looking at, currently, between 12 to 18 months from the time a recommendation for dismissal is made, for that teacher to actually be accorded a hearing.
The significance of that is this; in the vast majority of these cases, an employee, who is dismissed or recommended for dismissal, loses his/her income from the moment that occurs. It places a very significant financial burden on a teacher or a support staff employee. It’s imperative that action be taken to assure that these people get a hearing in a timely manner. This has been an increasing problem due to the growth in Clark County. In years past, when I first started practicing in this area, more often than not, an employee who was dismissed during the school year would be afforded a hearing within the first two or three months of the following school year. Now, that is taking at least a year, and, in some cases, as long as 18 months or even longer.
What we primarily looked for in this bill are provisions that would expedite the hearing process, to make sure that occurs in a timely manner. That’s the nuts and bolts of the bill. The bill addresses other issues related to the dismissal process, and, if there are any of those provisions that you have questions about, I’d be happy to address those questions.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions for Mr. Penrose or Ms. Giunchigliani from the Committee? There are none.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to make it clear that this was a bill I requested on behalf of a dear friend with whom I got my master’s degree, who was caught up in this circumstance because of a personality problem. This is a special education teacher who just had her hearing this January, so she was out for almost a year.
When I started working on this, I contacted NSEA and asked for their assistance in the actual drafting and asked if I was on point, was that a problem? Apparently, it is enough of a problem that the Association in southern Nevada went to court recently in order to have a judge look at the issue of timeliness.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] I don’t think we want to commingle those issues. I think it’s very clear that our statute has been silent, and the practices in the other 16 counties work fine. Clark has at least 9, maybe 12, in‑house attorneys, as well as a firm on contract. Part of it is that they want an attorney present at the initial hearing, which is ridiculous. The unions do not have attorneys at any of their initial hearings.
I think it’s a matter of how they set their priorities to make sure that these hearings are held in a timely manner. If these people are found to warrant dismissal, they should be dismissed, but that should happen within a timely period. The other language is language that I requested to be added regarding litigation. I think it’s pretty clear.
Chairman Williams:
Mr. Bellister, you signed in on A.B. 354 to speak. No, you are not speaking? Is there anyone else in Carson City who signed in to speak on A.B. 354? Then we’ll go to Las Vegas.
Laura Dancer, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, Washoe County School District:
Washoe County does oppose this bill. I understand indications are that there isn’t a problem in the other counties, but this would impose time limits on the other counties in contradiction to our current collective bargaining agreements. The time frames specified in this bill are indicated to override the collective bargaining agreement. The penalties imposed for failing to meet the time frames are an automatic assumption that the employee was not at fault, giving reinstatement with back pay, and even some pay for the costs of job searching in the interim.
It is not just the employer who contributes to the delay. We have had situations where the employee’s representative has not been available or has not worked in a timely fashion to agree on an arbitrator. To find that it is the employer’s fault and the employer who must pay the price when the time frame is not met seems to be one-sided.
A couple of specific technical points in the language of the bill are of concern to Washoe County: In Section 4, there is a provision that three days’ advance notice of an investigation must be given to an employee who is the subject of a complaint. In certain complaints, the matter is so sensitive that we need to move quickly on it, for example, on a complaint of sexual harassment. We need to move quickly to make sure that there is no appearance that the victim of sexual harassment could continue to be harassed while we’re pursuing the investigation. We’d prefer to be able to move more quickly than a three-day waiting period.
[Laura Dancer continued.] In Section 8, the employer is required to give an admonition within seven days of learning that a violation of some work rule occurred. Admonitions are issued for misconduct, as well as performance problems. In the case of a poorly performing employee, that seven-day clock may be difficult to determine when it started. We believe the language would be difficult to interpret and apply. In summary, our concerns at Washoe County School District are the time frames, the compensation, and the notification requirements.
Rose McKinney-James, representing the Clark County School District:
Mr. Chairman, I have heard and appreciate the comments of the sponsor of the bill. Certainly, the Clark County School District would like to find itself in a situation where matters of this nature can be handled in the most timely way possible. The reality is, as we’ve indicated in prior testimony, that the Clark County School District is a very large organization. The comments that I’ve received from our legal counsel suggest there are a variety of provisions within this bill that go beyond the attempt to strike the appropriate balance. These provisions can, as has been indicated by our colleague from the Washoe County School District, result in additional problems for the District.
One of the problems indicated is the interference with the collective bargaining agreements. That is a significant issue for us. The deadlines in the bill appear to be thoroughly stringent. I can understand the need to expedite this process. In fact, representatives from the union approached me to discuss how we might find a way to address this. We have not had the opportunity to sit down and discuss it, because things have been busy.
We have a team of attorneys who are required to deal with these issues. They’ve indicated to me that, in order to meet the deadlines set forth in this bill, we would have to hire an additional four labor attorneys, and most of our attorneys are already scheduled five months out. The bill also would prohibit postponing the scheduling of hearings under even the most difficult of circumstances. The bill would interfere with the 20-day rule, changing it to a 7‑day rule. There are issues in A.B. 354 that, in our view, go beyond what is intended and would present a hardship for the district. We would ask you to consider this measure in that context, and we, unfortunately, have to oppose the bill.
Chairman Williams:
Do you think there’s a possibility that you can get with the people that you didn’t have time to get with during this session in the next hour or so?
Rose McKinney-James:
I would appreciate that opportunity. I don’t know the extent to which we can change some of the stringent things in this measure, but there is certainly a willingness to talk about it.
Chairman Williams:
Mr. Bellister, would you like to do that? In the meantime, we’ll hear other bills, and then we’ll come back and vote on this bill. Is there anyone else here to testify on this particular piece of legislation?
Stephen Augspurger, Executive Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators (CCASA):
CCASA’s belief regarding this bill is that the current collective bargaining agreements related to employee discipline, and the timelines related to employee discipline, are, in fact, working effectively. We are in opposition to this bill. Specifically, there is a concern with the provisions of the bill that require an administrator to give an employee a three-day notice when they’re conducting an investigation. Currently, they’re required to give a “day before” notice. This new language also, if they’re conducting an investigation, gives the employee the right to have a representative present during the investigation. The employee can make his own inquiries and conduct his own investigation. We believe that language is not necessary; again, we’re in opposition to this bill.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions for Mr. Augspurger? Is there anyone else in Las Vegas who would like to testify on this bill? Mr. Bache?
Doug Bache:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I signed in but didn’t mark to testify. After listening, I changed my mind. I do support A.B. 354. Hopefully, amendments could be worked out to take care of some of the technical problems. This last school year, I was a witness to a situation that led to a person involved in a termination. I found it rather abhorrent how things have turned out for this particular individual. I believe it started last October; it may not be resolved until this coming October or beyond. I believe there is an arbitration scheduled at some point in time.
Chairman Williams:
Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Bache? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on Assembly Bill 354? With that, we’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 354. We’ll give the parties a chance to talk, and we’ll vote on it soon. At this time, we’ll open the hearing on Assembly Bill 513.
Assembly Bill 513: Revises provisions governing provision of safe and respectful learning environment in public schools. (BDR 34-443)
Jean Ann Berkich, representing the Nevada Attorney General’s Office:
Several people are here to testify in favor of A.B. 513. They have agreed to keep their comments brief. We are here to discuss the merits of Assembly Bill 513, an act relating to education, requiring the Department of Education to prescribe a policy for public schools to provide a safe and respectful learning environment. I will briefly discuss the new language included in the bill.
Section 2 requires that the Department of Education, in consultation with the Board of Trustees of school districts, educational personnel, local associations, and organizations of parents, prescribe, by regulation, a policy for all school districts and public schools to provide a safe and respectful learning environment that is free of harassment and intimidation. This policy must include reporting requirements and a model program that will be used to train administrators, principals, and teachers on how to best facilitate a program that will adhere to the basic premise of providing a safe and respectful learning environment.
Section 3 requires the Board of Trustees for each school district to adopt the prescribed policy and to provide for training of all affected personnel. Section 4 speaks to the duty of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to compile reports for submission to the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Section 5 directs a school official to directly or indirectly stop someone from reporting or disclosing information concerning a violation of NRS 388.135. Section 6 makes it a violation to cause an action against a pupil, employee, or volunteer who reports a violation. Section 9 outlines how a school district must comply with the law and how it must disseminate information to students and parents regarding the law.
We have supplied you with a packet (Exhibit F) of information, and we will be happy to address your questions regarding any of the material. We have provided written testimony from Dr. Jack McLaughlin, Nevada Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Dr. Leonard Beckum, Director for the Center for Educational Equity at WestEd. Also included is an outline of our testimony, a report on potential liability of school districts, three publications produced by the Nevada Bully-Free For Me Task Force, and a study highlighting the educational advantages of a harassment-free learning environment. I would now like to introduce Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Nevada Department of Education.
Chairman Williams:
Dr. Rheault, are you familiar with the liability she mentioned?
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education:
That’s something I’m not familiar with.
Chairman Williams:
Before you start, Dr. Rheault, can you just briefly tell us about the liabilities?
Steve George, Secretary of State’s Office and Coordinator for Bully-Free Task Force:
I think Jean Ann can address any of the liability issues pretty well for you.
Jean Ann Berkich:
In your packet is a brochure that I was asked to create when Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa was in office. Basically, liability for bullying is becoming an increasingly worrisome issue for school districts across the United States. Parents are holding school districts civilly responsible for investigating and intervening in incidents of bullying. The courts are backing them up, holding those school districts and individual employees liable for failing to stop the bullying through education, intervention, and investigation. We have two cases that I am at liberty to discuss, if you care for me to expand on that.
Chairman Williams:
Yes, please.
Jean Ann Berkich:
Would you like to refer first to the Supreme Court case? [Chairman Williams indicated that this was acceptable.] The Supreme Court decision was in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education. Davis involved an action by a mother of a fifth-grade girl who had been sexually harassed by one of her male classmates. Such cases are commonly referred to as “student-on-student,” or “peer harassment.” The mother notified the school district, but no serious action was taken to prevent the boy from harassing her daughter. Finally, the mother filed a lawsuit against the school district for its failure to prevent the sexual harassment as required by Title IX. The court, in a 5 to 4 decision, ruled that, although the school district could be held liable on an agency theory for negligence, the school district was liable for deliberate indifference.
[Ms. Berkich continued.] The decision at Davis was an extension of the Court’s 1998 decision on Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, that a school district may be liable for damages under Title IX when it is deliberately indifferent to known acts of teacher/student harassment. Davis extended this theory of Title IX liability to cases of student-on-student harassment. The court, in a 5 to 4 decision, opted for the “actual knowledge” standard; that in order to recover monetary damages under the standard, the plaintiff must prove that he or she gave notice of the harassment to a proper school official, and that the official was deliberately indifferent to his or her complaints. An appropriate official, to paraphrase Justice Sandra O’Connor, is one who has sufficient authority to take corrective action on behalf of the school district.
I would like to refer to another case entitled Nabozny v. Podlesny. In this case, a gay student, Michael Nabozny, alleged that he had been tormented from seventh grade through eleventh grade. He finally dropped out of school after years of physical and verbal abuse. In one incident, he was mock-raped by 2 boys as 20 classmates watched and laughed. No action was taken against the perpetrators of the mock rape, and the female principal commented, “Boys will be boys.”
When the case was initially filed, the defendant sought dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief might be granted. The trial court agreed with the defendants, but on appeal to the Seventh Circuit, the court reversed, holding that there was enough evidence to support a claim of discrimination under Title IX and the 14th Amendment Equal Protection claim. When the case was remanded, the jury awarded Nabozny $900,000 in damages.
In our own backyard, Derek Henkle, a former high school student, sued high school administrators in Washoe County for failing to stop gay harassment. Derek Henkle signed a settlement agreement that will impact gay and lesbian students nationwide. As a result of the settlement, Derek Henkle will be paid $451,000 in damages.
Dr. Keith Rheault:
[Introduced himself.] I’m here to fully support the bill. As provided in the letter from Superintendent McLaughlin, the Department of Education has been a member of the Bully-Free Task Force since it was started in July 2001. We believe strongly that it’s important to get materials and training out to all the schools, and we fully support everything in the bill. I did prepare the fiscal note for this bill, but we’re willing to work with the Committee, if the fiscal note becomes a hang-up on passage of the bill. I think there was about a $9000 fiscal note.
[Keith Rheault continued.] We’d like to provide a manual or handbook to every school administrator that could provide examples of how to work on harassment and bullying, so that they can use it at the local school level to train their teachers or provide information. The biggest part of the fiscal note had to do with the actual training costs, and we can work on trying to secure other training funding, if that’s a hang-up. We’re here to support it, and we’re willing to work on either amending the fiscal costs, or working with the Legislature, to get this passed.
Chairman Williams:
In lieu of the fiscal note, you’re willing to do other things. Would you like to make a decision on that today, so we’ll know whether to send the bill to the Ways and Means Committee, if it passes from this Committee?
Dr. Keith Rheault:
We would be willing to get the requirements in law. I think, regarding the handbook, we can come up with funding. We were going to phase it in anyway.
Steve George, Secretary of State’s Office and Coordinator for the Bully-free Task Force:
I work for the Secretary of State, late of the Attorney General’s Office, where I was the person who coordinated the Bully-Free Task Force. I’ve given you my outline for what I’ll be speaking about today. [Exhibit F, presented by Jean Berkich.] I’d like to read quickly through that.
A new report finds bullying and teasing topping the list of children’s school troubles. The pain brought about by taunts and shunning at school appears to have played a role in recent fatal school shootings, evidence that this unrelieved stress may explode into tragedy. The report finds that more than two-thirds of school shooters said they felt persecuted or bullied by other students. The motive for the shootings was often revenge. That information is from a CNN news report given on March 8, 2001.
Bernie James, legal counsel for the National School Safety Center, advocating for Bully-free Schools, said, “Maintaining a safe and effective learning environment is part of the total strategy of achieving the educational mission.” That how important that was. And, finally, from Student Strategies to Avoid Harm at School:
Students who must think about avoiding harm at school are diverting energy that should be expended on learning. Improvement in student safety at school will enable American youth to redirect their concerns to schoolwork and student activities.
[Steve George continued.] The Bully-Free Task Force, and I’ve included in your information the task force membership, is a very wide, collaborative effort. We have the teacher’s association, the Nevada PTA, educators, parents, people from different levels of government, and several assemblymen and senators. They meet once every 2˝ months to talk about issues and to try to move forward. I’m very proud of what this task force has done in the short time we’ve been together. Our goals have been, from the beginning, the elimination of bullying and harassment in our schools and to provide the schools, parents, and students with information. Our ultimate goal is to change the mindset of society about the damaging effects of harassment and bullying. We’ve centered our attention more on younger kids and younger parents, trying to work with second-, third-, and fourth-graders to change that mindset.
Regarding what we have accomplished, we’ve created an action plan, a brochure, a parent tip sheet, and a student pledge. Those items are also included in your packet. We’ve created a Web site that is very informative. The brochure, parent tip sheet, and student pledge were sent out this past year to all Nevada second- through eighth-grade students. You’ll also notice that the material was paid for by the MGM, the Mirage, and the Nevada PTA. We have a history of acquiring private funding to help with this issue.
I did want to mention an accomplishment, since the task force has been together for approximately 1˝ years, regarding the number of phone calls that I have received at my office from parents who are completely flabbergasted and frustrated with trying to work through this issue with some schools. We have realized that many of the schools in our state are terrific on this issue already. Some, however, need to realize that there is a problem.
A parent called me from a local high school and said a teacher in the classroom, in front of the class, had called her daughter a dumb “b” and white trash. When he found out the girl was joining the service, he said, “We ought to just get you a shovel, and let you bury yourself now.” Those are the kinds of issues that parents are dealing with in schools where they are apparently not getting satisfaction.
President Bush’s No Child Left Behind program, which I know all of you are very familiar with, is a federally mandated program—we all love those words. The concept behind it creates safer schools, thereby improving the learning environment. The other component is to identify persistently dangerous schools that, under the law, would allow any student, not just the student being harassed or victimized, to attend another school in the district. That could have some wide repercussions.
[Steve George continued.] Regarding an improved learning environment, there was a study done in Orange County, California, that matched five sets of elementary and middle schools, basically the same types of schools. The language they used was kind of funny; in the control schools, which meant they didn’t have any programs, and they found a decreased commitment to learning by students. At the experimental schools, where they did put an anti-harassment program in place, and it was enforced, they found increased test scores. I know that’s something that the Assembly and the Senate looks at every year, how we can improve test scores. Students felt more connected to staff, students felt safer, and teachers’ attitudes towards their work environment improved.
Our short-range goals are to provide individual schools with a blueprint for implementing a successful, anti-harassment, anti-bullying program and to train more trainers. We’ll have people speaking that actually go to schools and train. Our biggest obstacles are getting individual schools to buy in, and that’s where this bill would be such an important element. Also, we’re working on securing federal and private grants to allow more of our trainers to go out and help other people.
In closing, here is a quote that I have from the National School Safety Center, “Bullying is the most enduring and underrated problem in American schools today.”
Assemblyman Mabey:
Don’t the school districts already do this?
Steve George:
As I said, many schools do have a program in place. They use different programs, and we have actually been going as a task force. We have not been mandating that this is the program. What we have found, from so many schools, from many parents and teachers who have called, is that the principal doesn’t believe we have any instances of bullying. The material that we sent to schools, especially in rural communities, would entice parents to call me and say, “I read that you guys sent this stuff out, and I researched it. They threw it all away when it came to the school.”
[Steve George continued.] The problem is not in the majority of schools; it is in the minority of schools that apparently refuse to see the issue. That’s why I think it’s important that something is done. In the long run, there’s going to be an incident somewhere in this state—we’ve come close to it—where people are going to shake their heads and say, “Man, how could that happen?”
Assemblyman Mabey:
On page 2, line 20, it says, “training in the appropriate methods to accept differing beliefs.” Should we be trained to accept a belief that is against what we believe? We may tolerate it, but to accept it?
Steve George:
I would say that the language could be amended. I agree with what you are saying; many times people mistake acceptance for tolerance, and vice versa. We’re working more with second, third, and fourth graders trying to promote tolerance, which is to accept that you’re a girl, I’m a boy, you’ve got dark hair, I’ve got blond hair, you’ve got a different skin color, and things like that. It doesn’t mean religious beliefs or whatever else. The language may be changed on this particular issue, but the issue is to teach kids to accept different people for who they are and what they are.
Assemblyman Mabey:
I appreciate that, but I have some real concerns. I’ve received many e-mails expressing concerns along those lines, too.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any other questions? In reference to any possible amendment, today is the last day for our Committee to hear Assembly bills. Any amendments need to be proposed today.
Jean Ann Berkich:
Am I incorrect in understanding that this bill has been given an exception, so that the bill has the ability to run until the end? That is what I believed to have come down on Tuesday.
Chairman Williams:
The bill has a fiscal note. If the bill passes from this Committee and goes to the Ways and Means Committee, the Ways and Means Committee is exempt from deadlines. My comments were with this bill or any bill today; if they are going to be amended and moved forward, the amendments have to be proposed today, because we’re taking votes on all the bills that we have today. Friday is the deadline for Assembly bills, and today is the last day that the Education Committee meets. We meet Mondays and Wednesdays, so we won’t meet any more this week; today is our day for “do or die” with bills.
[Chairman Williams continued.] If an amendment is proposed today, and you can get something in writing, that’s fine. I just wanted to remind you that today is our deadline. If you would like to address Mr. Mabey’s concern with an amendment, that’s what I’m making reference to, or any other concern with amendments that may be brought forward today.
Dr. Keith Rheault:
I believe Assemblyman Mabey’s request is in line with what was passed last session, in 2001, by Assemblyman Parks. They settled on the word “tolerance” rather than “acceptance,” and I think we can clear that up in the bill if that would be more acceptable.
Bonnie Parnell, representing Nevada PTA [Parent Teacher Association]:
I send apologies from Barbara Clarke. The state PTA president has been here this afternoon, but she did have to leave. She apologized for not being able to testify before you today. Before I begin, both as a member of the PTA and as an individual who served on the Bully-Free Task Force, I would like to compliment Steve George, Jean Ann Berkich, and the Education Committee’s work. They have done a tremendous amount of work in the last 1˝ years. They have been on the forefront, getting federal funds, getting grants, and getting the program under way.
The Nevada PTA strongly supports A.B. 513. As a member of the statewide Bully-Free Committee, parents and teachers alike share the concerns addressed by this bill. The PTA supports the requirements for the Department, in consultation with parent groups, among others, to prescribe, by regulation, a policy to provide a safe and respectful learning environment, free of harassment and intimidation. It further supports the training and accountability components of the bill, and Assemblyman Parks and I have been chatting about another possible amendment that I think would relieve Dr. Mabey’s concerns. The PTA offers its assistance whenever and wherever needed to accomplish this worthy goal of making our schools bully-free, safe, and a place where students can concentrate on academics, not on being frightened. Again, the PTA supports A.B. 513.
On a personal note, as a former teacher—I feel like I’m wearing all kinds of hats—there are a number of ways to relieve you of the fiscal note. I was talking to Steve and Jean Ann about the fact that teachers can get training that is totally cost-neutral. You have teachers’ meetings perhaps once every three or four weeks that are within the time frame of the school day. We have institute days, we have in-service training, and there are PTA meetings, as well as PTO (Parent Teacher Organization) meetings, and other parent group meetings
David Parks, Assemblyman, Assembly District No. 41:
[Introduced himself.] As I believe many of you remember from two years ago, I introduced Assembly Bill 459 of the 71st Legislative Session, which you passed, and it was enacted into law. Following passage of that bill, the Bully-Free Task Force was created. I think it got things going and worked well to bring the task force to the point it is today. I must commend those individuals who have worked very hard in their efforts. I’d also like to commend the Attorney General for requesting that this bill come forward. I would respectfully request that your Committee pass it. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer those.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions for Assemblyman Parks? Is someone working on those amendments? [It was indicated that the amendments were in progress.] Is there anyone else here to testify in favor of this bill?
Terri Peltier, member of and trainer for the State of Nevada Bully-Free Task Force:
[Introduced herself.] My partner, Rod Smith, and I go across the state of Nevada to do continual training on anti-bullying in schools, in school settings as well as in parents groups, and the concerns are increasing. During this past year, we did an average of 89 presentations, often 2˝ hours long, to different groups. The requests continue to come in. We see it as a growing concern among the educators that we work with, as well as the parent groups that we work with. We hear their concerns constantly, and it’s really become a passion for us.
We need to tell you a statistic; all of the kids who so far have perpetrated violent acts in schools by bringing a weapon to school had been the targets of bullies over time. When the Secret Service interviewed all the kids who are currently incarcerated, every one of those students identified the fact that they had been targeted by bullies over an extended period of time. This is something to consider. Bullying is not regular childhood behavior; it needs to be identified as serious in nature as it really is.
Rod Smith, with the State of Nevada Bully-Free Task Force:
[Introduced himself.] In 2001, the Nevada Youth Risk Behavior Survey was done, and the report had some interesting findings that I’d like to share with you today. Out of 7,827 middle school students who were surveyed, 30 percent of these students said they never, rarely, or only sometimes felt safe in schools. Out of 1,635 high school students surveyed, 30.5 percent said that they never, rarely, or only sometimes felt safe in schools. As my partner indicated earlier, we are a traveling show in terms of putting on bullying presentations. One thing that is very important is when there is a safe school climate and culture, the NEA (National Education Association) indicates that you can increase test scores by 10 to15 percent.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions for either of the witnesses? Thank you both very much. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this bill? Mr. Peck?
Gary Peck, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (ACLU):
I will be mercifully brief. The Chairman knows that we have been involved in and worked on these issues for a long time here in the state. My office regularly receives complaints from all sorts of students and parents about harassment. I don’t attribute the problem to ill will on the part of any one in our various school systems, but there clearly is a problem. I think this Committee and this Legislature would be well advised to pass this bill, and take on the responsibility of helping to make our schools safe for all of our children.
Dr. Dotty Merrill, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability & Assessment, Washoe County School District:
We want to go on record in support of Assembly Bill 513. We appreciate the inclusion of Section 10 in this bill. Section 10 gives us until July 1, 2004, to adopt the policy, and we believe that will allow us to budget for the training and professional development that will be necessary for full implementation. Had the date been 2003, we would not have the opportunity to do the budgeting that we think is important to make this successful. We are appreciative of that date.
Jean Ann Berkich:
We’re in the process of getting the amendment in writing to you, but we are willing to strike lines 20 through 22 on page 2.
Chairman Williams:
As soon as you get those in writing, let us know. Is there anyone else here to testify in favor of this bill? Is there anyone in Las Vegas to testify on A.B. 513? We’ll go to the opposition. Is there anyone in Carson City to testify against A.B. 513, or anyone in Las Vegas?
Richard Ziser, representing the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage:
I just want to make sure there’s an understanding that, during the campaign to pass Question 2, we found that Nevadans overwhelmingly objected to having their children taught to accept alternative lifestyles or differing belief systems in our schools. It was among one of the most serious complaints that we had; it showed up in our polling, and it was a concern of many people. I understand that they’re trying to work that out.
[Richard Ziser continued.] We still have concerns, depending on what terminology you’re going to use in there. This bill is really from last session; basically everything that’s back here in this session was amended out, with having this program taught to our kids in schools. We have seen examples from other states, specifically the state of West Virginia, where a very similar program was put into place. The materials that were used have now been pulled out of the schools because of the organizations that put those materials in place. Some of those materials were supplied by the NEA, and they were very objectionable. We need to make sure that the materials used aren’t going against the belief systems and the values of the parents and the children in our schools.
Chairman Williams:
Is there anyone else in Las Vegas who would like to testify on this bill?
Tom Christensen, parent representing himself:
I’d like to testify against the bill. I’m the father of seven children; three have graduated from the public schools, and four are currently attending public schools. I have one question with regard to the statistics that were given out. I imagine that 70 percent feel the schools are a safe place. I wonder what we are fixing here, and what we’re using our limited budget in education for, as opposed to education like reading, writing, mathematics, science, music, and sports. I think it’s a common-sense approach that I would take to this, and that is moral tolerance, empathy, and understanding are my responsibility with my children. It’s done more effectively by example in the home than by lecture or outside role models. I think children have to learn social skills, but they can’t be required to adopt someone else’s background, characteristics, or beliefs.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions from the Committee? Mr. Bellister, are you and Ms. Haldeman ready to come back on A.B. 354?
Al Bellister:
Mr. Chairman, I think you have another witness in Las Vegas on the previous bill.
Pamela Pence, mother of eleven, representing herself:
[Introduced herself.] My problems with this bill are that, as I read it, there are not clear definitions of terms, of what constitutes harassment or intimidation. I also had a question about the statistics, that those questioned who were involved in school shootings felt that they were a victim of this type of harassment or bullying. In my growing up years and throughout the years of my children growing up, I don’t know too many people who were not teased or bullied. I would be interested to know how many children who have been teased or bullied have not shot their classmates. That is kind of a “house of cards” statistic, in that respect.
Mostly I believe, like the previous speaker, that it is the primary responsibility of parents to teach children to be tolerant of others and live in peace with others. I think the school district’s responsibility is to educate children and to train the teachers to do a better job of teaching the basics to our children. Children who are educated well are self-governed well, and are self-disciplined.
Chairman Williams:
With that, we’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 513, and re-open the hearing on Assembly Bill 354.
Al Bellister, representing the Nevada State Education Association:
Per your request, the parties have met, and I think we have come to a “meeting of the minds.” I’ll let Mr. Penrose and Ms. McKinney-James explain the parameters of our understanding.
James Penrose:
I believe the only part of the bill that we’re going to able to come to an agreement on is the language that appears in Section 4, relating to investigations. We’re going to come up with some language, but, basically, all that’s intended is that a teacher who is the subject of a complaint by a parent or a student will receive a written notification from the administrator that an investigation is being conducted, and that the teacher or support staff employee is not to take any retaliatory action. This is so the employee is aware of the fact that a complaint has been made, and an investigation is ongoing, and will be substituted, as I understand it, for what appears in Section 4.
Other than that, I think the desire is to move the bill forward. Timeliness is the subject currently of a lawsuit in Clark County, involving the Clark County School District. The meeting has been scheduled for Friday of this week between the attorneys for the parties and their clients. It is hoped that some resolution will come out of that meeting which results in a solution that is satisfactory to everybody. It is going to be a relatively long-term process; that process may take a couple of weeks to resolve, if we are able to resolve it. I think the desire at this point is to move the bill if we can, with the one change that I discussed about the investigation.
Rose McKinney-James:
The meeting was productive. We were also able to talk with the sponsor of this bill and to outline some of our concerns. She asked us to develop language that might be used to amend the bill. She did indicate her desire to move the bill, but, if we are able to arrive at a mutually satisfactory result prior to the next deadline of April 22, she may be willing to move away from the bill altogether.
In fairness, we have had the opportunity to discuss these issues, and we are moving forward. The District believes we have been able to make important points in our discussion and arrive at a clarified position. We will not oppose the movement of the bill but want the record to be very clear that, based on ongoing discussions, we may well come back and ask that the bill be addressed from the floor. We appreciate the opportunity to come back and meet with you.
Chairman Williams:
Is the amendment ready?
Rose McKinney-James:
Mr. Chairman, the sponsor of the bill has asked that the language be drafted, and we will be working on it. It is not ready at this point, but we will be working on it as quickly as we can.
Chairman Williams:
Will it be ready before the end of the meeting tonight, or for the Floor session?
Al Bellister:
I do not believe the language will be ready tonight, but it will be ready for the Floor session. The parties have agreed that we have an understanding to move the bill as is, and we’re going to continue to work on it.
Chairman Williams:
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the Committee? The Chair will accept a motion on Assembly Bill 354. There’s no amendment. We’ll amend it on the floor.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 354.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Madam Secretary, will you call the roll? I’m sorry, is there a question on the motion?
Assemblyman McCleary:
What are we voting on?
Chairman Williams:
We’re voting on Assembly Bill 354.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I have Assembly Bill 354 in my hand. Was it amended?
Chairman Williams:
No, the parties agreed to move the bill as is, and they’re going to amend it on the Floor. We’re going to be doing a lot of voting here at different times tonight. Madam Secretary, call the roll. [Roll call vote was taken.] What is the vote, Madam Secretary? [The Committee Secretary indicated that the vote was 8 for the bill, and 4 against the bill.]
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. ANGLE, MR. HARDY, MR. MABEY, AND MR. McCLEARY VOTING NO.
Chairman Williams:
Do we have the amendment on A.B. 513? Not yet? It’s at the state printing office. Okay, we’ll open the hearing on Assembly Bill 511. Mr. Vice Chairman, will you chair the meeting on this bill, as I’m going to testify on it.
[At this point, the Chairman changed his mind and decided to open the hearing on Assembly Bill 264.]
Chairman Williams:
We’ll open the hearing on Assembly Bill 264. Ms. Giunchigliani?
Assembly Bill 264: Makes various changes governing education. (BDR 34-62)
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani:
I will point out that this bill is concurrently referred to Ways and Means, and I have not seen the fiscal note. Assembly Bill 264 is a comprehensive bill, which is attempting to look at schools as a whole. In other words, how are schools incorporated and worked with in our communities? Our teachers are getting older, and there is a teaching shortage. Fewer than 10 percent have 5 years or more of experience. Nationally, 60 percent of the work force retired by the year 2000. Many current teachers are considering leaving the profession. There is also a shortage of school administrators. Teachers have to provide more instruction due to federal and legislative mandates while we are still at 180 days of instructional time.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] Teachers’ working conditions are also the students’ learning conditions, and while salary is definitely an issue, so is treatment of the teachers as professionals. That’s why the bill recommends that the association negotiate with districts to establish a schedule that rewards for career ladder, mentoring, and skills-based pay, in addition to the traditional schedule. There would be a pool of dollars to pay for these negotiated agreements over the biennium. Some language was left out, and NSEA will present that language for me. It was my error in drafting.
This is a huge change, ladies and gentlemen, for the unions to agree to work out a secondary schedule that includes performance-based pay. I will say that, instead of the Legislature mandating performance-based pay, this bill treats teachers and their managers as equal partners, so that they can determine what would work best in their particular district. There’s an old adage that I use from time to time; change is exhilarating when it’s done by you, and frightening when it’s done to you.
The intent of that particular section is to say, “We have to change the way we do business. We can’t just continue to pay based on experience and college education. There needs to be some other ways to do that.” I believe that they will work that out. In fact, Douglas County just negotiated their first agreement to do this, so I believe that a partnership is there and available.
It’s difficult to get teachers to teach and stay at at-risk schools. I’ve always taught at at-risk schools, and I love the population of students there. That’s the one thing I miss about not teaching right now. Unfortunately, during a union problem, the school districts and the teachers were arguing over two issues. The districts wanted to freeze teachers at at-risk schools for three years and not let them transfer, and the association was going for salary increases. In my opinion, the arbitrators split the difference; they gave them the salary but gave the district the three-year freeze. While the intent was good on the part of the district, the result was horrible.
I think it’s sad, because, to get hired in many of the districts, at least in the southern part of the state, you take whatever job they give you. If you’re on that list, that is it. You get stuck with a school that just isn’t working; maybe it wasn’t the right age group of kids, maybe the teacher was not used to poverty schools and poverty kids with their issues and needs. Maybe their teaching techniques just didn’t fit in that niche, but they’re frozen now for three years.
Part of what A.B. 264 says is, if you teach at an at-risk school, we’ll give you extra retirement. You can earn additional retirement as an incentive, because, again, your teachers are closer to the ends of their careers. That, to me, would be more of an inducement, rather than punishing people and freezing them at a location where they are not happy. Unfortunately, they’re human beings, and it will not bode well for the children.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] I’ll walk through the section-by-section analysis that I’ve presented (Exhibit G). Section 2 allows the local government, private sector, and school district to enter into agreements to provide childcare on campus if space is available. Some of the schools are doing this; this is just empowering language. Section 3 allows that they may provide health care and other social services on campus. That is commonly referred to as co-location (Exhibit H). I did not copy them for the Committee, but I have samples of other states’ co-location and human resources guides that you may want to look through.
Sections 4 through 11 dealt with consolidating three school districts. I requested that these be deleted, and the concept apparently will be included in an interim study proposed in the Senate. Section 12 deals with charter schools.
A key component in A.B. 264, and what’s driving the fiscal note that you witnessed, is that we do not have enough time to teach what we need to teach. This bill proposes an extension of the school year for teachers, support personnel, administrators, and students of 5 days in the first year of the biennium, and 5 additional days in the second year of the biennium, for a total of 10 extra days over the biennium. That would actually move us from the 180-day school year that we’ve been at for the 24 years that I was in the school district. We’ve never changed, with all the additional mandates. If you want to have more instructional time, we need more days.
In addition to that, Section 14 requires a full day for kindergarten. I don’t believe the full day should be for at-risk schools; it should be for at-risk students and kindergarten students at that school, because that’s where the research shows benefits. However, we’re dealing with that in the budget, so I’m suggesting to take that language out of the bill.
Section 15 requires districts to establish a minimum number of magnet schools, or specialty schools, so the parents have more choice within their districts. Section 16 allows open attendance, so parents can choose the magnet schools or specialty schools. In my conversations with parents who learned that a particular school was actually teaching Spanish to the kids, they said they would love their kids to learn another language, but they currently don’t have open zoning. This is a policy change for discussion purposes.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] Section 17 clarifies the full funding, but that again would be deleted, and that’s on the third page of my suggested deletions. In Section 18, the school year is extended for the regular K-12 by an additional five days in 2004. One section deals with the charter schools’ lengthening of the day, the next section then parallels with the K-12 public schools, even though by our law, charter schools are public schools. Section 19 again gives the additional five days. Sections 20 and 21 clarify that elective course, which can be applied for high school credit, can also be taken through distance education.
Section 23 of A.B. 264 is a little different policy, but it requires that we do a pre-test and post-test. I come from a special education background, but I think parents and regular teachers should know what reading level their students are on so that they know how to instruct. What this suggests is that they issue a pre-test. The state Department of Education would approve the list of tests that would be acceptable. If they test below a fourth grade reading level, they would be considered illiterate. I picked that cutoff because, in the old days, we defined literacy as the readability of a newspaper, and that was approximately at fourth grade level. You could go higher; it was just a cutoff that I’m suggesting.
However, if a particular school scores at 50 percent or below, they will get special funding and training for the faculty on how to teach reading. Reading should not be taught in isolation, especially as you get into middle and high school. It should be part of the core curriculum. Every teacher should be available to expose the young men and women, as they’re teaching science, to prefixes and suffixes. Those are things that go with both English and reading, and this would let teachers think “beyond the box” of their specialty area.
Section 24 establishes the tests required by NRS 389.015 and 389.550, which are your standardized tests. I’m suggesting a pilot program to have the tests offered on Saturdays, again, to avoid the interruption of instructional time. There have been surveys done in this state for years about the issue of instructional time. The Chairman of this Committee has heard the other house argue in opposition, that we don’t lose a lot of time; we only lose a few hours. I will tell you that, as a teacher, if students come in and do a three-period test, you lose the rest of the kids for the rest of the day, and then you’ve lost the instructional time. They reverse the schedule the next day, and you’ve again lost the next half of the kids for that instructional time.
The idea is similar to what Japan does with what they claim is their longer school year. It’s because they include Saturdays, when they do their exams. It’s the thought of doing it a different way, and then having the organizations and districts bargain about who would monitor those tests. I think we heard testimony the other day that some districts are attempting this. It would offset some of their costs.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] Section 25 of A.B. 264 is drafting language. Section 26 asks the testing administration to put in accountability to track the hours and days spent on testing, so we have a true picture of how the classroom instruction is interrupted. Section 27 allows local boards to establish more than one high school elective credit for community service. For those of you who served with me, students helped write a law asking for the ability to earn high school elective credit for doing community service. We limited it to not more than one credit. This section would allow it to be expanded to an additional credit, if the school boards so chose. I think community service is a good thing because it teaches a young man or woman how to participate. We have a lot of kids who are volunteering and doing programs in their communities, and it would be nice for them to be able to have that count towards their elective credits.
Section 28 deals with testing on Saturdays, as does Section 29. Section 30 is another concept; it requires the readability or comprehension level of textbooks to be provided along with those textbooks. An issue has been that the State Board of Education adopts a textbook list, and the districts must then use books off that list. The problem is with the lack of choices. If the school has done its job, they know the readability level of the majority of the kids on their campus. If you have to buy or select a textbook that’s written at a tenth grade reading level, and the average student on your campus is reading at a fourth grade level, that book is basically unusable. This section would make people sensitive on how to select texts that are actually usable within the classroom.
Section 31 ties into the textbooks. Section 32 is drafting. Section 33 increases a teacher’s workday without students to eight hours. Our districts are all over the place as far as that is concerned, but I’m suggesting that it be a workday, not a day with students. If you add in the students, the cost definitely goes up, but even more importantly, you’re not getting any more instructional time. You’re simply getting another load of students. If your goal is for more instructional time, then you lengthen the school year.
Section 34 of A.B. 264 allows one extra day of leave without pay to visit a parent at home or at work with their permission, or meet with private industry to work on programs. I suggested deleting that to try to drive the cost down. A lot of teachers—I used to do home visits, especially when the parent requested it—are willing to do it, but it also eats into your work time. This was a suggestion to make sure that we encourage more partnerships.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] Section 35 specifies reporting for teachers outside of their area of licensure with an endorsement, including those we call “TOSAs,” or Teachers On Special Assignments, in the attempt to deal with people teaching in their actual area of licensure. The districts will take teachers out of the classroom to work on a special project. Unfortunately, a lot of the time the person substituting in that classroom isn’t licensed in that subject area. We need to know what’s going on, especially with No Child Left Behind. That section requires that you have highly qualified teachers in the classroom, and that those teachers are teaching within their area.
Section 36 allows districts to hire principals and vice principals, not with just a “school” degree, but with a degree in management. The concept is that our school facilities should be managed. You can have a team of people who work on the instructional side, because of a shortage of administrators, but I think it’s time that we reviewed how our schools work. Maybe someone with an MBA might, more appropriately, manage the facility, so that the teachers are free to teach and the support personnel are there to support.
Section 37 deals with the employees and the arbitration issue. Section 38 defines, for the purpose of having a student teacher to help train, that you must have at least five years of teaching experience. What was happening was that student teachers were being placed with first-year teachers. That’s inappropriate; a master teacher should be defined, at the very least. It used to be required that a master teacher had five years of teaching experience at a minimum, and that was being abused, in my opinion.
In talking with several student teachers, they felt that this would be helpful, as did one professor who handled student teachers in Clark County several years ago. Sometimes the personalities don’t match, and that student teacher has no real rights to transfer. This allows that professor to allow them to move to another school site with a different grade level or a different person. You want them to have the best learning experience as student teachers that they can.
Section 39 restricts a teacher from being assigned outside of their area of licensure for longer than one year, and requires that the teacher grants permission for that assignment. You can have someone come in and say, “I know you have been teaching kindergarten for 25 years, but you’re going to teach fifth grade now.” That happens. You also have people teaching math who have a minor in English, and administrations can get around not having to post them in the English area under an exception by assigning them to teach English for just two periods a day, in addition to the math. Therefore, they’re not counted as teaching outside of their area of expertise. That person really didn’t want to teach English, that wasn’t their expertise; math was. That’s the intent of this section of A.B. 264.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] Section 40 requires that previous teaching and administrative experience be counted when hired. I am reluctantly recommending deleting that section. I think this is one of the few professions where you actually are penalized for having experience. The districts are making the effort to move beyond just counting the second or fifth year of experience, and I think some of them are up to eight years of experience. It still is not just in my mind, but it is a huge fiscal note, so I am suggesting deleting that.
Section 41 concerns teachers who work at schools in need of improvement, and this is the discussion about the incentive. I’m suggesting teachers earn one-fifth of a year of retirement for each year that they stay at an at-risk school. That way, it’s more positive; it’s not punishing them, and, if they choose to stay at that school, then over a five-year period, they could actually have earned one full year of retirement. I think that’s a better incentive than giving them $1000, or mandating that they have to stay at a particular location.
Section 43 says an administrator who has an administrative background, not a teaching background, can evaluate. I suggested language to change that in the amendment. Section 45 is the open zoning concept that was addressed earlier. Section 46 is drafting language regarding transportation.
Section 47 changes my law from several years ago, where students in middle school could flunk every single class and still be promoted. What we came up with was to set a standard for passing from sixth to seventh grade, seventh to eighth grade, and eighth grade to high school. They could have done a credit structure or selected classes. They chose to go with the selection of classes, but the end result has been that we’re not preparing the kids for the credit structure as they get to high school. Then we began devaluing classes. In sixth grade, students only have to pass math and English, so they can flunk everything else. In seventh grade, they only have to pass three classes. They’re kids, and that’s the mentality that they came out with. What I’m suggesting is to ask the school boards to work with the State Board of Education to move to a credit structure, so that the structure is more tied to what they’re going to receive when they move on to high school.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] Section 48 will be deleted by eliminating the kindergarten issue, but there is one key component to maintain in that section. Currently, we have a developmental screening process for mandatory kindergarten, so that the exams are in place. This would allow for pre-tests and post-tests to occur, so that teachers know about the readiness levels of their kindergarten students.
Section 49 is regarding homeschooled students. It is my understanding that under NCLB (No Child Left Behind), states can require at least the Proficiency Exam or whatever national exam is taken, because we have to measure the students’ learning capacity. This is not an attempt to take over the homeschool issue; it is just that their young men and women are currently not taking the Proficiency Exam unless they re-enroll in a public school, from my understanding, and then take the exams on campus. Again, one of the gentlemen was quite right in pointing out that we should pay for them to take the test, if that’s the case. I’m totally in agreement on that part.
Section 50 of A.B. 264 changes the law again; it was making uniforms mandatory in the schools. We had tried that; we didn’t get it, so we changed it to “may.” Some schools have adopted it. Normally, I would oppose this from the civil libertarian side; however, I think it’s a discretionary income issue. What this called for was setting up a base where the kids could trade their uniforms-with-logos back in, and we would provide for a sliding fee scale. It does cut down on discipline problems. Is that 3 inches? How big are the straps? What is really see-through? You go through so much of that; it takes away from the instructional time. It’s already allowable; this suggests going to mandatory.
Sections 51 and 52 can be deleted. This Committee already processed a discipline bill, which was actually modeled after my language from last session. Sections 55 through 62 are student loan forgiveness programs. We have not taken the second step. A study was done, based on Assembly Bill 47 of the 70th Legislative Session that we passed, and the report came back in 2001, but we never set up the program to recruit young men and women, especially minorities, into the classroom. My proposal sets up the whole student loan forgiveness program. If you work in a certain area for a certain amount of time, they reduce a portion of the loan. If you work at an at-risk school for a certain portion of time, it is reduced accordingly. The only difference here, and Chancellor Nichols pointed it out to me, is that I had two different funding formulas. I don’t want to use the tobacco money; I would need to use either the school improvement money or find something else in the budget.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] Section 67 addresses the fact that we have a lot of students who take dual credit or early studies programs in high school while they’re at high school or on the campuses at the colleges. It’s very difficult for them to pay for the books. This pool of dollars is for the students in the dual credit program or early study program to pay for their textbooks, so they can participate. What is wonderful is many of these kids are actually getting out of high school, while, at the same time, meeting their electives by taking that course work. In some cases, with students who are at the community college and high school, we have kids who actually graduated with their high school diplomas and their A.A.s at the same time. They are self-motivated kids. That’s one of the budget cuts being looked at by the school district, which is unfortunate, because I think that’s a wonderful program for young men and women. It keeps them both in high school and moving towards a higher education degree.
Section 68 of A.B. 264 has the language I already addressed in my testimony about having district staffs and employees negotiate. The negotiations language was left out, and I think one area is to make sure that Douglas County would qualify, based on what they negotiated. Section 70 requires the starting salary of $30,000 for beginning teachers, so we’re actually doing attraction and retention. I’m suggesting deleting Section 71, and my amendments are noted on the next page. I’ll wrap up and see what questions there are, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your attention.
Assemblyman Horne:
I would like to know where you find the time to do all this. This is just one bill. Your explanation part is larger than most bills. I just want to say that I am watching you this session, and I admire the way you’re able to think “outside the box.” Whether I disagree or agree with you, it’s admirable, and I see that you work very hard at it, and it shows in your work product.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I guess I’m a better time manager than I thought. I think it comes from teaching. I individualize for every one of my students. In special education, you do anyway, but they are each individuals, so I have 5 programs, 10 discipline programs, and 14 lessons going all at one time. Many teachers do that. You don’t even realize what skills you develop over the years. I’ve attempted to put them to work here.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Ms. Giunchigliani, I have so many reservations about A.B. 264; I’m not going to be able to support it as it is. I want to state that there are a lot of things in this bill that I like, but there are too many things I don’t like and can’t support. I agree that Section 70 is the most important; I think that need to be addressed.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Sections 70 and 68 parallel each other. That is actually setting up the performance-based issue, and I think that is very important. Unfortunately, we have a 120-day limit. This bill has been out for 1˝ months, but it’s one of those difficult ones. I think we have to look at schools as a whole, and I think the longer school year is absolutely necessary. It’s my job to fight for the money in the Ways and Means Committee, but the money is there. You just reshuffle how the budget has been appropriated. We are not doing justice to our kids. We’ve given schools more and more to teach, and no time to do it in. I’m very flexible, but I do think there are important parts in the bill; again, half of the bill is recommended for deletion.
Assemblyman Horne:
Section 16 regards open attendance so parents can choose magnet schools and specialty schools. I know there was another section where you allowed for various schools to determine their numbers. I was wondering, would that create overcrowding in the more popular schools, or cause a higher level of competition that doesn’t exist today?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
My intent is the higher level of competition. I think the schools would still need to be able to say they have space available and then maybe create a waiting list. I think it would also encourage other specialties to occur, not just at the high school level, and not just at a handful of middle schools. There are elementary schools that have dynamic teachers who could sit down and work within their neighborhood. What are the needs of the kids that attend this particular school? Maybe you could craft a few specialty areas for them. I’m thinking out of the box again, more than anything else. I’m looking for more competition, but in a reasonable way.
I don’t support school choice, and I’ll put that on the record. I do think that choice within the confines of what we can offer to parents is different than just saying we’ll take your kids and give them tuition credits and so forth. I’m just trying to reshape that thought process. Clark County School District has done a good job with their magnet programs. I think the parents are very happy with it, but we don’t do enough. I think other districts would love to be able to participate. Maybe A.B. 264 would be an encouragement to move in that direction.
Assemblyman Horne:
You said that you were deleting the all-day kindergarten?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Yes, we will be making a recommendation in the K-12 Subcommittee for Ways and Means on that.
Assemblyman Mabey:
In Section 23 on testing, don’t they do that already? All my children go to public schools, and it seems like we go in the first of the year, after they’ve been tested, and sit down with the teacher and they say, “Little Johnny is reading at a certain level.”
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
They’re not tested consistently across the district. What I’m looking for is actual uniformity and consistency. What really triggered this was talking with parents who still believe, because their child is in the seventh grade, that it means their child is at the seventh grade reading level. If they’re in third grade, it means they’re on a third grade reading level. It was really to say, “Let’s sit down with parents.” Years ago, we looked at portfolios, which would give you a far better picture of what your child was like. They could have a seventh grade level on word identification, but still be reading at a second grade level. We at least ought to know, population-wise, where that general grouping of kids is, so that we are not “dumbing down.” I teach to the highest expectations that you can have. You still need to be able to gear your curriculum and your reading to that as you’re building those skills to moving up.
Assemblyman Mabey:
On the 190 days, I don’t know if I can go home this weekend, if I would go for something like that, with five kids in school. Do we really need 10 more days?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I personally think we do, but I’m more than negotiable on that part of it. If we even had five extra days over the biennium, there would be a huge increase as far as the amount of instructional time your children would be receiving. If you think about it, 180 days is not a lot; the students can miss up to 20 days, so you’re slowly whittling it down. With the amount of instructional standards we’ve added on, I’m not suggesting it for just teachers, it should be for students as well. It could be phased in two days over one year, then five by the next year, or something along those lines.
Assemblyman Mabey:
What do other states do, as far as the number of days that are required?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I haven’t reviewed that in quite some time, but we’re one of the shortest, if I recall from my old studies.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any other questions? Thank you, Ms. Giunchigliani. Is there anyone else to testify in favor of this bill? Mr. Bellister?
Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association:
We support many of the provisions of A.B. 264, like the longer day, and the longer year. Mr. Mabey, this has to be put into the context of the requirements at the federal level of No Child Left Behind. Some of the school improvement processes contained in No Child Left Behind are more of the corrective action provisions that No Child Left Behind talks about, such as longer days and a longer year for schools that are designated as in need of improvement. What’s missing at the federal level, and in the state, is the funding to accomplish that end. This bill is all about the need for a broader and stable tax base so that we can fund the programs necessary for public education.
Consistent with that thought is Section 70, the need to increase teacher base pay. If you look at teacher pay in Nevada, compared with teacher pay around the country, especially for comparably-sized school districts to Las Vegas in Clark County, you will see that teacher pay has not kept pace with similarly-sized school districts. I would like to focus your attention on Section 68, which Chris addressed, and that is something important to us as an organization. It is a different way of compensating public school employees.
We have always had the single salary schedule, and by that I mean teachers are compensated based on credits that they’ve earned past their bachelor’s degree or master’s degree, and they’re paid on the number of years of experience in the classroom. Section 68 gives us $5 million to pilot programs that compensate teachers for different things like skills, knowledge, and responsibility. We’re doing that already with national board certification, but what we’re not doing is giving teachers the opportunity to have a career ladder. Teachers should take those additional skills and knowledge and employ them with additional responsibilities, such as becoming a mentor teacher or a master teacher, or by operating demonstration classrooms, all of which we know help new teachers.
[Al Bellister continued.] We know that teachers are more likely to stay in the profession if they have been assigned a mentor. Regarding the market-based pay, you’ve heard a lot of discussion about the need to figure out a way to attract teachers to the profession who come to us with a background in math and science. Research seems to indicate that to attract the math and science candidates from the colleges to public education, versus a career in the private sector, those candidates say they’d like a salary increase of at least 25 percent to attract them to teaching. At this stage of the game, we don’t have that kind of funding. We are willing to explore incentives through the collective bargaining process to address that need, as well as the need to get veteran teachers to work at schools that had been designated as in-need-of-improvement, or are designated at-risk.
What we believe Ms. Giunchigliani omitted, and she concurs with that, is the whole idea of group incentive pay. The faculty can sit down and say, “We want to set a list of goals which we hope to accomplish,” whether it be less absenteeism, higher student achievement, and other goals. The faculty sits down and says, “This is what we want to address. We have a problem; we want to fix it.” This will allow us the opportunity to provide some funding to say, “Here’s the incentive to reach those goals.” It’s not Douglas County, if I may correct Chris, it’s actually Lyon County, where we bargained a provision into the contract.
Unfortunately, what is missing is money to pay for it. We think the Lyon County process, if we are successful, could cost about $500,000, which they don’t now have. We are looking to A.B. 264 to provide the funding to make that program work. Last but not least, Chris has indicated that she agrees all the enhanced compensation systems should be collectively bargained. We certainly believe in that, and this amendment (Exhibit I) is designed to address both the group incentive pay and the issue of collective bargaining. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Dr. Craig Kadlub, representing the Clark County School District:
As has been stated, there are a lot of very positive things in A.B. 264 for education. It also has been noted that they come with a pretty tremendous price tag. We certainly support these things, but with the caveat that the funding is available. Essentially, we agree with Section 1 through Section 13. The increased kindergarten in Section 14 is consistent with iNVest (Initial Voluntary Excellent Schools Taxation), and we believe that would improve student achievement. As to the mandate to establish magnet programs, we’re very comfortable with that, as has been noted.
[Dr. Kadlub continued.] However, we feel that may be a problem in some of the small districts where it mandates establishment of elementary, middle, and high schools, and some of the districts have very few students as it is. I’ll talk about open enrollment in a little bit when we get to Section 45. We agree with the provision to add five days to the school year. Again, that’s consistent with iNVest, and we think that would help improve student achievement. Regarding the provision in Section 23 requiring reading tests, we’re hoping that some of the testing provisions under S.B. 191 may accomplish that goal without duplicating the costs, because there would be, at least in our district, about a $3.5 million price tag for that section.
On items like weekend testing, again, if funded and supported by the community, we think that’s an important component, and we could certainly support that. We could report the annual testing time, the text selection, and so forth. The one provision in Section 33 that we’re concerned about is the one that would lengthen the teacher workday but not add a commensurate amount of time for pupil instruction. We believe that it would be important, if we lengthen the workday, to also lengthen the instructional day for students. I believe the sponsor said she was contemplating deletion of Section 34. We could certainly support that.
We disagree with the provision in Section 36 that would permit an administrator to not have a background in education. At this point, we feel that is inconsistent with the push for increased accountability in schools, to allow someone in as a school leader who has no educational background. We appreciate her deletion in relation to Section 36. On the provision in Section 40 that would allow us to give credit for past experience, we agree with deleting that provision. I skipped over Section 38. If I read that correctly, there was a portion of that that said a student teacher at no time could be alone in the classroom. We think that, at some time nearing the end of their student teaching experience, it’s absolutely imperative for a student teacher to spend time alone in a classroom.
As far as the transfer of student teachers, we feel that should be agreed upon by the teacher, the district, and the university. On the school choice option mentioned under Section 45 of A.B. 264, we do support giving choices to students to attend schools outside their zones, and I’d like to point out that in Clark County, there are 26,000 kids who are attending schools other than those that they are assigned to attend by virtue of their zoning. That does include students who are attending magnet programs; that’s in compliance with NCLB provisions. There are special education options, there are academic options, and, of course, there are the magnet schools. There are a lot of choices already available for students to participate in. However, Ms. Giunchigliani did indicate that one of the purposes of this provision was to reopen dialogue on how we can expand opportunities for students to attend schools other than those for which they are zoned. If the intent is to open dialogue, I would say that we’re certainly receptive to that idea.
[Dr. Kadlub continued.] Section 47, we believe, is consistent with iNVest. I question, however, the wording that a board “shall ensure” that students have an opportunity to attend summer school. I guess it would be something that students pay for. Would that be funded? We do believe that’s an important provision in the bill. Regarding Section 49, we would have to be opposed to testing homeschooled students for a couple of reasons. These are families who have opted out of the system, and whether or not they pass or fail, the information gleaned is going to be of marginal use to the district. At the same time, it would require that the district use other per-pupil allocations to support a testing process for homeschooled students.
Uniforms we could support if the community supports them. In Section 51 of A.B. 264, it establishes a discipline system; of course, we support that part of it. Our concern is that the teachers and the principals, when there’s an agreement that this is a discipline plan, have an obligation to uphold their end of the deal. I think if the principal fails, then, perhaps, if it is determined that an admonition is appropriate, that’s fine, as long as, on the other side of the coin, the rest of the staff abides by the agreed-to discipline plan. It seems reasonable that there would be a consequence for their lack of compliance as well.
Regarding the three-year rule that Ms. Giunchigliani mentioned in Clark County, we agree with the concept, but since it evolved through the collective bargaining agreement, we feel that remains the appropriate venue through which to address that. We certainly would be open to renegotiating that concept. In Section 68, we agree with Mr. Bellister’s amendment, and we think that’s a good idea. Finally, my last comment is in reference to Section 70. I appreciate Mr. McCleary’s comment on that regard. That’s also in iNVest, and we believe that’s an important component of this bill.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Regarding Section 50 and the uniforms, you said that you’re in favor? So many of the schools agreed to implement mandatory uniforms on their own. Wouldn’t it be best to let the schools have that option?
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
I did say that we’re in favor, as long as the community agrees with it. In essence, I think we’re saying the same thing.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
It says the board of trustees of each school district shall . . . You’re suggesting adding some language there?
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
Yes, we could support it, if the community has input into the decision.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
If a group of people came, which may be 10 or 20 people from the district, and said to the school district board of trustees that they were in favor of uniforms, then that would be sufficient for every single school to have to implement them?
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
I think it would definitely have to be done at the school level, so that each school community could decide whether or not they want uniforms.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
That’s where I think it should lie as well. I think it should be within that population, that community of each and every school.
Frank Brusa, representing the Nevada Association of School Administrators and the Clark County School Administrators:
As a point of reference, I would agree with Mr. McCleary. There are many good things in A.B. 264. There is a tremendous fiscal impact, and I don’t have the intelligence enough to figure out how much it costs. There are also some concerns that we, as school administrators, would like to bring up. Regarding the concept of a nonlicensed principal and assistant principal, in Section 36, we do have problems with that portion.
Let me give you a hypothetical example. At one time in my life I was principal of a middle school in Clark County. If I was nonlicensed, there could also have been a nonlicensed assistant principal at that time. On page 39, line 39 through 41, it says a nonlicensed principal or assistant does not do evaluations. Who would evaluate those people on my staff? That would be a concern that I would have. If I was nonlicensed and I had to license the assistant principal, the assistant principal might have to evaluate 60 teachers. We need to look at this and work out some of the problems.
Also, it takes longer than a year to learn the job of principal. Many of us were teachers; many of us were deans and assistant principals, had a training program, and then became principals. I would have a problem with a person coming in, in a matter of a year, and becoming a principal. As we said, there are many good concepts in this bill; but there are some that we disagree with.
Dr. Dotty Merrill:
As Dr. Craig Kadlub, on behalf of the Clark County School District, testified earlier, there are a number of worthy concepts presented in A.B. 264. However, the funding does not exist to bring into reality many of those concepts. I don’t want to review everything in the detail that Dr. Kadlub did, but I would like to focus for a few moments on several sections. First of all, we have a mix here of things that we support and things that we can’t support.
In Section 16, regarding the issue of open zoning and a student being allowed to attend a public school outside of his or her zone of attendance, in our district we already have a very liberal variance policy. We believe that, in the Washoe County School District, much like the testimony that Dr. Kadlub provided, we have a sizable number of students who are on variances. We have over 3,000 students this school year on variances from their zoned schools.
Section 23, page 20 of A.B. 264, focuses on pre-testing and post-testing. As the discussion earlier indicated, this is often happening in classrooms throughout the state. However, we believe that Senate Bill 191, when it emerges from that house, will include assessments that will accomplish this goal. If assessments are administered in the spring, that functions both as a summative assessment for that school year and a diagnostic assessment for the next school year. We believe that the goals of Section 23 will be accomplished by the assessment requirements included in Senate Bill 191.
On page 26 of the bill, in Section 26, regarding the average number of days and the number of hours per school day used to administer examinations, school districts, on an annual basis, are already reporting this information to the Department of Education. Because we’re already doing it, there may not be a statutory need to require it. Again, in Section 45, the issue of enrollment is addressed, and, again, we would oppose that, because we already have a very liberal policy in place.
Section 47 is very interesting to me. For 15 years of my career, I was a high school teacher of English, and I wondered, at times, what had been going on in the middle schools when students came in as freshmen to the high school. I’m sympathetic with the concept underlying the proposals in Section 47. However, in the Washoe County School District, middle school for us is only seventh and eighth grade, unlike in Clark County, where middle school is sixth, seventh, and eighth grade. For our students to earn those credits would be pretty close to impossible during the existing school days. We would certainly be willing to discuss this issue with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and, perhaps, because it is an important issue that would impact all school districts, and not all school districts could make 15 credits available, this could be discussed in the interim.
On page 60, in Section 68, we support subsection 6, as amended by Mr. Bellister, and we support the amendments that he provided on behalf of the NSEA. Section 70, as addressed by Assemblyman McCleary, we would love to be able to do. However, without funding, we don’t see that we can make it a reality. We certainly are sympathetic to the issue that is mentioned here.
Assemblyman McCleary:
If everything else were taken out, could you afford it?
Dr. Dotty Merrill:
If everything else were taken out, it would still cost us, in the first year of the biennium, $556,404, and, in the second year, $557,532.
Assemblyman McCleary:
My long-term concerns about this are that, if we don’t start paying our teachers a living wage, we’re going to get poor quality teachers and we’re going to lose the ones we have. We must retain the teachers we have. In Clark County, I know they have to recruit teachers. We have to start paying them a reasonable wage. I don’t know if we can afford not to.
Dr. Dottie Merrill:
If you look at the fiscal note for the Clark County School District for this section of the bill, it is much greater than our fiscal note, because of the number of teachers that they hire. In addition to our concern about the fiscal note, we’re also not quite sure how this would work for teachers who are already in the system who aren’t making $30,000 yet, when someone who just comes into the system begins at $30,000. We’re not sure how those pieces would work.
Assemblyman Mabey:
Dr. Merrill, regarding Section 36, how would you feel if someone like myself, a physician with an M.D. degree, or any other professional, could get a job teaching high school without a teaching certificate? If I can’t afford my malpractice premiums, maybe I’d like to be a schoolteacher. The way I understand it now, I’d have to go back to school and take a couple of years of college in order to get a teaching certificate, or degree, or whatever. Would that be something the school district would look favorably upon, if we could change the law that way?
Dr. Dotty Merrill:
I think the opinions are definitely divided, and our board has not taken a position here. I don’t know that I can address that particular question. We would certainly want your fingerprints to be submitted, however, sir.
Lonnie Shields, representing the Washoe County Education Administrator Association:
I wanted to go on record supporting what Mr. Brusa had to say. However, I thought the Committee might be interested in one thing that we have going on in Washoe County. Regarding the idea of putting an office manager or financial person in the school system, we’re in conversations with Ms. Dancer, the Human Resources Assistant Superintendent, about the possibility of looking at some of our larger schools and moving one of those persons into a pro-tech position. This would not require licensing, but it would maybe take the place of a Vice Principal in that position and redesign the duties across the board. We haven’t come to an agreement on that yet; I want to make that perfectly clear. We are in conversation and are willing to look at that.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any other questions? Is there anyone else to testify in Carson City on A.B. 264? Ms. Lusk?
Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens:
This bill contains numerous issues, and I’d like to briefly address several of them starting on page 3, the concept of establishing social services for pupils and other persons who reside in the district. We feel that would distract schools from their primary mission, create unnecessary controversy, and bring unknown adults into proximity to children, therefore creating a risk. On page 15, with regard to the requirement that each district establish magnet schools, we feel that creates inflexibility regarding the best place to use the resources, especially for smaller school districts. That certainly is no problem for the Clark County School District, who already had these, but for smaller districts, we feel it would be a concern.
I want to point out, in Section 16, on page 15, that, we do support this. It authorizes, it does not mandate, that local school boards provide for zone variances and possibly public school choice. On page 20, Section 23, we see problems with the language regarding pre-testing and post-testing. It appears to say that all pupils at fourth grade and above must be pre-tested and post-tested for reading every year, regardless of whether they did well in the previous year. It seems to create unnecessary testing, the way the language is written.
[Ms. Lusk continued.] On page 21, regarding the examinations on the weekends, I understood Ms. Giunchigliani to say that would be a pilot program. I don’t read the language to say that it would be a pilot program. I read it to say that the board of trustees of each school district shall establish a program to accomplish this. I would like to ask you to consider several items, if you consider moving ahead with something like that. Would those weekend days be counted in the days of school required? Consider the possibility that, on weekends, you might well have poor attendance, therefore requiring makeup testing during school time and the possibility that you might have increased inattention on the part of students who were required to come in on the weekend. Therefore, this could possibly result in poor test scores.
On page 31, I was a little unclear as to whether Ms. Giunchigliani intended that be deleted. Because I am unsure, I will briefly address it. It states that the textbooks must be based on the reading test, and it does not address whether that would be the average of the scores, the mean, the lowest score, or whether each student would require individual textbooks, according to this. I can’t help but believe that, with the removal of the actual testing, she probably intended to remove that language, but I was not sure.
On page 43, it does address public school choice. I have personally supported public school choice for a very long time. I learned, when I was on the school board, that when people got to choose, when they were granted a zone variance, they supported the school that they chose. People support what they choose; they tend to be resistant to that which they are forced into. On page 45, in Section 47, regarding establishing a credit system for the junior high and middle schools, that concept probably has great merit, but I’m very concerned about the language on lines 23 through 31 where it says that based on good attendance, the pupil can get not less than one half of the total credits reduced. That wording seems to say that if the pupil attends, they only have to earn half of the credits. We would have real concern with that.
On page 46, again, I was unsure what Ms. Giunchigliani’s intention was with regard to the full-day kindergarten, but lines 20 through 21 say that if a student is at risk, he must be admitted to kindergarten for a full school day, and not for part of a school day. That specifically says that a student who receives free or reduced-price lunches could not attend half-day kindergarten. We would see that as discriminatory. There are many people who are, in fact, eligible for free and reduced-price lunches who are not at risk academically. They do have economic problems, but are not at risk academically.
Finally, moving to page 61, the requirement for the starting salary at $30,000; I hadn’t noticed that when I first read the bill. Speaking solely for myself, I strongly support this. I have for a long time believed that it is a mistake to start the teachers at a very low salary, and funnel most of the money to the upper levels. This really needs attention.
[Ms. Lusk continued.] In summary, there are so many issues in this one bill that each needs serious attention to be handled correctly. What we would ask is that you break it apart, and handle each one as an individual issue that you choose to move forward with, so that each can have the attention it needs.
Frank Schnorbus, President of Northern Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council:
[Introduced himself and spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit K).] Our councils are appointed by, and advise, the State Board of Education on homeschooling matters. I’m also an officer in the statewide organization called the Nevada Homeschool Network. First, I need to point out that there’s actually specific language within the federal No Child Left Behind that exempts homeschoolers from standardized testing. I want to make that clear. If anyone has any questions, I can provide that language, because it’s in the federal law.
For those who don’t understand what makes homeschooling work, the effort to require mandatory testing for homeschoolers is perhaps an innocent attempt to make sure that all children are receiving an education in the state of Nevada. For those who don’t want homeschooling to succeed, this is a sure-fire way to decrease the effectiveness of homeschooling. Forcing a one-on-one teacher/student to stop and try to prepare for a mandated test, when the student isn’t ready, is neither helpful for the education of a child, nor does it produce meaningful results. Homeschoolers do use testing as a tool when the child is ready. Making tests mandatory is detrimental to homeschool children. Homeschoolers tailor the overall education to the child, and often this doesn’t follow a cookie-cutter grade-structured sequence. Mandated tests in these cases would yield meaningless results.
Currently, to test or not test homeschoolers is determined by regulations adopted by the State Board of Education. Homeschooling leaders across Nevada have been working very closely with the Board, and with the State Department of Education, to meet the concerns and the regulatory requirements that exist pertaining to homeschooling. We ask that this good working relationship not be tampered with, as we work on ways to keep homeschooling effective for those who choose, and to keep those who should not be homeschooled in either the public or charter schools. We ask that Section 49 of A.B. 264 be amended out, or if it’s not, we ask that you vote against the entire bill.
Lynn Chapman, Homeschool Consultant, representing Nevada Families:
We’re opposed to A.B. 264, which provides all-day kindergarten, childcare on school grounds, and health clinics for all sorts of people who are not students, and social services on school grounds. Aren’t we tight on classrooms? Screening tests, more school days, school uniforms, training for teachers, testing of homeschoolers, Saturday testing—show me the money. I remember doing testing for homeschoolers, and I believe the districts used to pay for all the testing of the homeschoolers. There weren’t very many homeschoolers at that time. There sure are now. Do you really think that the districts that are strapped for money want to pay for testing homeschoolers?
Also, what would testing for homeschoolers accomplish? To evaluate where my daughter is? If I’m teaching my daughter as a homeschooler, I know exactly what my daughter knows. I don’t need a standardized test, or a state test, or a national test to tell me what I already know. That would be a waste of money. To be fair, open zoning and distance education sounded pretty good, but those are the only things that I liked in this bill. At the end of the day, none of these programs are important if our children can’t read. Please oppose A.B. 264.
Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum:
I have several concerns about this bill, and I’ll try to move forward quickly. On page 2, Section 2, it talks about having child care on school property. I have concerns with this, in competing with private enterprise, and also because parents should not be depending on schools as their child care centers. On page 3, Section 3, it talks about school-based health clinics. This has been a problem all across the nation for many years, and continues to be a concern, not because we aren’t concerned about people’s health, but because often these become a problem with privacy. Personal information for the families is unprotected, and also some of these health clinics disburse, without parental consent and knowledge, contraceptives and abortion referrals. This has been the case all over the nation, and that continues to be a concern of ours that this might happen with these school-based health clinics.
Also, do we want to spread out what the schools can do to more than they are able to accomplish now? I was glad to see that the abolishment of the small school districts was taken out, because I think small school districts tend to be far more responsive to parents’ and children’s needs. I’m very concerned about the kindergarten; apparently that’s been removed, but I might just say that more is not better. I don’t know how many of you are familiar with Dr. Raymond Moore’s book, School Can Wait, but this talks about the fact that often children, especially younger children, are developmentally harmed and have other problems when they have too much schooling too soon. There are over 6,000 studies that were reviewed in this book, and I think it’s important for us not to push our little children too far.
[Ms. Hansen continued.] When you say every little child who has to get a free lunch is at risk, I think this really is a problem, because many of those children are not at risk. They might be financially at risk because of the amount of taxes that their parents have to pay, but other than that, they might not be at risk in terms of development or in what they can do in school. I think that’s a very inappropriate definition. My father came from a very poor background, and he certainly wasn’t at risk.
I have other concerns, such as the reading comprehension test. I think it’s very important to teach reading, but I see no mandate in here for teaching phonics. Are we going to spend more money to teach teachers the same failed methods? I think it’s a waste of money. If we’re going to teach them how to teach reading so children can succeed, which we all want them to do, I think that would be important. I find nothing in here to support the training of teachers to teach phonics. That concerns me; if you’re going to mandate money for teaching how to read, please teach them how to read by using phonics.
With regard to teaching reading comprehension from textbooks, I hope we aren’t going to end up “dumbing down” our students further than they are. Will we continue to have these textbooks to the lowest common denominator instead of providing children with a bit of a challenge? On page 43, it talks about public school choice. I have long been in favor of public school choice for many reasons. I think it’s best for the family and the child. They may have, as I did, problems as a single mother. My kids needed to go to a particular school because my parents took care of them and that made it better, so there are many reasons for school choice. I don’t support No Child Left Behind, because I think it’s a final federal takeover of education.
We have in here issues about developmental screening. Often the problem we have with developmental screening is, if there is as little as six months’ difference in age, the younger children may screen as developmentally delayed or having problems, when all that is needed is just a little time. We often push our little children too quickly. We appreciate your attention. The idea that the NSEA (Nevada State Education Association) is actually looking at some kind of performance-based and merit-based pay is a great idea, finally, after all these years. We’ve supported it, and we would like to see them explore that a little further. Thank you very much for your attention. We appreciate you opposing this bill if all these problems are not corrected. We call it the “Christmas Tree” bill.
Chairman Williams:
Thank you, Ms. Hansen. Are there questions for any of the three witnesses who just testified? Is there anyone else here to speak on this bill?
Irene Rushing, Northern Nevada Homeschool Director and member of Northern Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council:
I’m a homeschool mom, and I have taught third, fourth, fifth, eighth, and ninth grades at home to my children. I appreciate having the freedom to evaluate my child on a daily basis. A.B. 264 was presented without homeschoolers’ opinions, comments, or knowledge. I am very proud to say that I have the opportunity to continually review an area, which my children may struggle with. That is the freedom that homeschoolers have. I do not push my children along to the next level, or even to the next subject, without the reassurance that they have mastered that one area first.
We have proven that we are great educators, the best my children could ever have. I know where my children’s progress, strengths, and weaknesses are. Many do not have that opportunity. I am very satisfied knowing that we have the freedom to test our children or not. Making it mandatory is saying to me that I need assistance in directing my children’s education. I am pleased to say my children know that their parents have their best interests in mind and the freedom to direct their education. Please vote to eliminate the newly introduced language on Section 49 in A.B. 264. Thank you for allowing me to share my testimony.
Carol Williams, Former Public School Teacher, Home Educator, and Chairman for Northern Nevada Homeschools:
[Introduced herself, and spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit J).] Northern Nevada Homeschools is a nonprofit organization that supports and encourages home educators in northern Nevada. I might add, before I launch into my testimony about Section 49, that I’m also the wife of a public school teacher, and I applaud the efforts of Sections 68 and 70. I found out about A.B. 264 just one day after I had submitted April’s front-page article for our newsletter. That article addressed standardized achievement testing and expressed how thankful homeschoolers are, and should be, that we have the freedom and the choice to decide when, how, and why our children should be tested. It also gives information about what norm-referenced tests are, how the tests can be used to benefit a homeschool, and points to other resources in the newsletter where parents can find out how to access standardized achievement tests for use in their homeschool.
Imagine my surprise when, one day later, I realized that these freedoms were going to be called into question. The reaction to Section 49 of A.B. 264, among many homeschoolers, has been one of shock. It was not long ago that this requirement was removed. Mandating homeschoolers to take proficiency and/or achievement tests would create unnecessary bureaucracy, unnecessary expense, and unnecessary trauma to homeschool families. The research shows that homeschoolers thrive with little or no regulation, and the most remarkable research to me shows that even the education level and the income level of the parent has very little bearing on the student’s success. What is the determining factor? I believe it is the profound sense of responsibility that homeschool parents have for their children’s education, and the willingness to do whatever it takes.
[Ms. Williams continued.] For these reasons, homeschools have built-in accountability. Assessment occurs every moment of every day, in a way that is so natural it would make any public school teacher envious. Mastery is the key, not percentiles or passing scores. Because of the flexibility of homeschooling, skills and knowledge can be fully mastered before moving on to something new. While many homeschoolers may choose to use standardized tests as a tool for assessment, it should remain a choice and not a mandate. Please do not take away the freedoms that homeschoolers deserve, have rightly earned, and in no way abuse. Please remove the proposed addition of Section 49 from A.B. 264. Thank you for your consideration.
Irene Rushing:
May I make another comment? I left a newsletter from our organization (Exhibit J) for the Committee to review, if they’d like to become more familiar with just how wonderfully organized homeschooling has become in Nevada.
Chairman Williams:
Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? Is there anyone in Las Vegas to testify on A.B. 264?
Stephen Augspurger, Executive Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators (CCASA):
CCASA, along with others who have spoken tonight, agree that there are many fine proposals in this bill. We certainly are concerned, however, about the lack of funding for those proposals. I would direct my comments specifically to Section 36, and I would agree with those comments previously spoken about by Mr. Brusa regarding that section. As you know, that section contains the proposal that the Board of School Trustees be allowed to hire a principal or vice‑principal if that person held a master’s degree in business administration or public administration. Mr. Brusa pointed out the problem that would occur if that individual worked in a school by himself or with another administrator who was nonlicensed. The question was raised about who would be able to evaluate the teachers, because a nonlicensed administrator is forbidden to evaluate teachers.
[Mr. Augspurger continued.] A second concern with this proposal also exists. In our state right now, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) require an administrator, when first appointed to serve or to be a probationary administrator, no matter how long that person serves as an administrator. When they’re first appointed as principal, they then are required to serve an additional probationary year. The language in this proposal would circumvent that. If a principal or vice‑principal is hired with a degree in public administration, that person, once they’re appointed as a principal, would not be required to serve that required year of probation. What this language would create is disparate treatment between licensed administrators and nonlicensed administrators.
Kimberlie King-Patraw, Vice Chair, Nevada Homeschool Network:
[Introduced herself.] I am a homeschooling mom with seven children. By way of introduction, Nevada Homeschool Network exists to network homeschool groups and individuals to provide homeschooling information and to promote public awareness of homeschooling on a statewide level. Nevada Homeschool Network will remain involved and in communication with the Nevada State lawmakers in the Senate, the Assembly, and the State School Board. Since our formation in August 2002, Nevada Homeschool Network has worked diligently with the northern and the southern Homeschool Advisory Councils, homeschool support groups, and the State Board of Education to assist in the making of the laws and regulations to reasonably govern homeschoolers, and to create a homeschool-friendly environment in Nevada.
Mandatory testing would be a step backward in making Nevada a homeschool-friendly state. Nevada used to have mandatory testing for homeschoolers, and the state chose to do away with this requirement. It places a financial burden on the already stressed school district. Homeschool children were not found to be below proficiency levels. It places an undue burden on homeschoolers to conform to state educational standards, which they had already rejected by opting out of the system. Testing requirements also run the risk of driving homeschooling underground.
Homeschooled children are not educated in a cookie-cutter fashion. We file individual education plans for each of our children, each year, in compliance with the law. Unlike our public school counterparts, we do not advance our children until they have achieved subject mastery. Tests are available to parents to use as they see fit, to assess their children. Homeschool parents see, on a daily basis, how their children perform, and they can advance or remediate each child as is appropriate to the individual child. We believe that accountability is achieved by the open presence of homeschoolers in the community. We want to be visible and active in our communities, so that others can see first-hand the success of our children and the benefits of homeschooling, not for proficiency, but for excellence. Nevada Homeschool Network will remain active in the role of promoting more freedom and visibility for homeschoolers. The Nevada Homeschool Network would like to see Section 49 amended out of this bill.
Gina Novelle-Merrell, Homeschool Parent and Business Owner:
[Introduced herself.] I’m a business owner in the technology arena. I chose to homeschool for the simple reason that I needed my children to be educated with technology. My kids are highly educated in that area. I also oppose the homeschool testing, not because I don’t think my children need to be tested, because I will do that. What I oppose is the mandatory testing. Also, just to let you know, others have said how much more the homeschoolers have become organized. My company sponsors a teen newsletter, and I have 15 teens on this newsletter. Part of this newsletter is also training these children to become better readers and writers, and we have three mothers on our team who are published authors, including myself. I’m also opposed to Section 49.
Pamela Pence, Homeschool Mother of Eleven:
[Introduced herself.] I’m also opposed to the mandatory testing that is unfunded for homeschoolers. I especially oppose the language of approving our program of instruction. It is my understanding that I filed a notification of intent to homeschool, and that I have the prior right to determine my child’s education. I have been in the homeschooling community for 20 years, and I believe that during that time, homeschoolers have proved over and over that they have achieved educational goals above and beyond the average. They consistently outscore public school students in standardized tests. This is an objective that’s already been met and has already been proven. I believe our time would be better spent doing more learning instead of dealing with the testing process. Basically, everyone has already said everything that I can think of, so I second everything they said. I ask that you please eliminate this from this bill.
Lloyd Farrar, Homeschool Parent:
[Introduced himself.] Actually, my wife does everything. I have three children. One is at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR); she has been homeschooled her whole life. As a matter of fact, she qualified for the Millennium Scholarship and Presidential Scholarship at UNR. To correct something that was said at the very beginning by the Assemblywoman regarding proficiency, any homeschooler who wants to be able to obtain the Millennium Scholarship has to pass the state Proficiency Exam anyway. That is a mandatory requirement for the Millennium Scholarship.
I also served, during 1995 and 1996, on the Homeschool Advisory Board, the southern council. I was involved in the process of originally removing the language that required testing. The Homeschool Advisory Board, for those of you on the Committee who are not aware of it, is not just composed of homeschoolers. It’s composed of members of school districts, as well as other people at large. It was a process that was developed over almost two years’ time. We came up with the fact that this should not be part of the process, whether it was cost-related or the results of homeschoolers; the fact was that none of the surrounding states had requirements as restrictive as we did.
[Mr. Farrar continued.] Section 49 brings us backwards in what we’re trying to do in this state. If we are going to be the most progressive state, we need to provide the funds in the areas that they need to be provided. We don’t need to waste money on trying to test homeschoolers who consistently, through various instruments, have proven time and again that they are way above the averages, locally, statewide, and nationally. I urge you not to pass Assembly Bill 264, if this change to Section 49 is not made.
Tim Hartman, President of the Southern Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council:
I don’t want to reiterate a lot of things that have already been said, other than mandatory testing really destroys the homeschooling academic freedom that we enjoy today. That freedom came when the Department of Education, along with the legislators, decided that we did not need mandated testing. I understand that there are accountability issues, and, hopefully, we can work things out where we don’t get more restrictive due to accountability issues.
This restriction is very detrimental. As a result of the freedoms that we’ve had, we have seen a lot of homeschoolers come out from being “underground,” and be a part of their communities. The children are flourishing in these social settings and in their communities, and they are getting more active. If we make homeschooling more restrictive, I’m very concerned that these people will go back underground, and we won’t know who or where they are, or what they’re doing. I think less mandates encourage people to become more community-friendly, and help the rounding of the education of their children. Please, don’t support A.B. 264 with Section 49 in it.
Dale Kleven, member of Southern Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council:
I’d like to add my voice to the long list of those who have spoken out against Section 49 of this bill. I am a member of the local Las Vegas support group called Sharing Homes and Resources for Education, and I’m a father of three children who are homeschooled. I oppose the language in Section 49 of the proposed bill as being unfair to homeschooled children, as being unnecessary, and as a waste of state education funds.
Chairman Williams:
Thank you, sir. Are there any questions for the witness? Are there any others in Las Vegas to testify on A.B. 264? That’s it. With that, we’ll close the hearing on A.B. 264. We’ll go back to Assembly Bill 513. Do we have the amendment? We have the amendment (Exhibit L). Do we have a motion on the bill? Mrs. Chowning?
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 513 WITH THE AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE.
ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Mabey:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to let you know that I’ll be voting “No.”
Assemblywoman Angle:
I will be voting “No” as well. I want to remain consistent on my voting for unfunded mandates, and this is an unfunded mandate for the districts.
Assemblyman Horne:
I’m going to support this bill. I like this bill; I like the policy behind it. I think testimony and recent history has shown that this has become a problem in our school districts. The underlying tension that everyone was talking about concerned accepting beliefs that we don’t accept ourselves; then we changed that word to tolerate. Everyone was saying we’re talking about the bully at school picking on kids because they’re too fat, or whatever, but also we’re talking about other things; the kid who gets beaten up because he may have two mommies, or the kid who is teased and ridiculed because he comes from a single-parent family, and the rest of the neighborhood doesn’t.
In my case, it was the little skinny black kid who was smaller than most people in junior high school, who lived in an all-white neighborhood, and who got it there as well. I think this is a good step to show we’re going to start teaching our kids at a young age that, while your parents may teach you your life lessons that we particularly adopt or don’t adopt, that’s fine. But how you project that to others is important, and what we’re going to do is say that, while you may disagree with this person on how they look, or the lifestyle they have, it’s not okay to ridicule them in public. It’s not okay to hit them, to tease them in front of others, or to lower their self-esteem. We want to teach our kids that it’s okay to disagree with it, to object to it, but it’s not okay to do the other things that this bill addresses. That’s why I’m going to support this bill.
Assemblyman Hardy:
The intent of the bill is well-meant. I think the language of the bill needs further work on the protection of parents’ rights, mandatory or not mandatory. I would be supportive of the bill and reserve the right to change my vote depending on how I look at the model that I have heard alluded to but have not seen. I would like to review that, but in the interests of keeping this in a talking stage, I would like to go on the record that I will be voting for this, while reserving the right to change.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
One of the first bills that I ever cosponsored was the Chairman’s bill to enhance the penalty for school violence in and around school campuses, and anywhere that school students would go while part of a school project. I look at this bill as a prevention of violence. Schools need to be a place where children can attend in a learning environment without fear that they are going to be bullied. It’s time that we take a brave step and make that occur. I proudly support this legislation, and looking at Section 2, subsection 2, lines 20 through 22, as amended, it does take the difficult language out. I was very uncomfortable with that language as well. Without that language, this is a definite step in the right direction to prevent violence at our schools.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any other comments on the motion? Is there any further discussion on the motion? Madam Secretary, call the roll. [A roll call vote was taken.]
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. ANDONOV, MRS. ANGLE, AND MR. MABEY VOTING NO.
Chairman Williams:
Everybody has a document. We’re going to start with Assembly Bill 411, a bill we heard this evening, Mrs. Angle’s bill.
Assembly Bill 411: Revises provisions governing literacy in public schools. (BDR 34-731)
What is the desire of the Committee? Dr. Hardy?
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 411.
ASSEMBLYMAN MABEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any discussion on the motion?
Assemblywoman Chowning:
It’s been stated that the main school districts are already in compliance. As a member of the Academics Standards Council, I can tell you that this is already in our state standards. It has already been adopted and is in each and every one of our school districts. I was proud to be a part of that standards writing team; this language is already there, and therefore, I believe that this is not necessary.
Chairman Williams:
Mrs. Chowning, thank you. Are there any other remarks or comments on the motion? Mr. Geddes?
Assemblyman Geddes:
If the policies are already adopted, would this take those policies and make them statutes, so they couldn’t be changed?
Assemblywoman Angle:
Actually, it would put these definitions in statute, and it would make them consistent across the state. I think that is the importance of it. When we passed it in our last legislative session, we had that sense, but those definitions were never actually put into place. That’s what ties this into the federal reading foundation.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any other questions on the motion or on the bill? The amendment is in the back of Assemblywoman Angle’s PowerPoint pamphlet. Mr. Horne?
Assemblyman Horne:
I think I will abstain and reserve my vote for the Floor. I have a problem on page 2, with lines 3 through 10, which includes scientific standards that we would be setting in statute on how we’re going to teach reading; once you put it into statute, it takes away the flexibility to use other teaching methods that we may find later to be more beneficial. Yet, we’d have to come back here to change the way we teach it. To put it in statute, it makes it too rigid. I’m going to abstain. I wasn’t here for her presentation.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I want to say I helped my grandson with his homework, and he says “at, pat,” and he is already being taught with that phonics system, right now in Las Vegas, in first and second grade. I am in support of this bill.
Chairman Williams:
Thank you, Mrs. Chowning. Are there any other remarks on the motion? Madam Secretary, call the roll. [Roll call vote was taken.]
THE MOTION FAILED WITH MR. ANDONOV, MRS. ANGLE, MR. GEDDES, MR. HARDY, AND MR. MABEY IN FAVOR; MR. ATKINSON, MRS. CHOWNING, MRS. KOIVISTO, MR. MANENDO, MR. McCLEARY, AND MR. WILLIAMS AGAINST. (Mr. Horne abstained from the vote.)
Chairman Williams:
Let’s go to the work-study document. A.B. 179 was Ms. Giunchigliani’s bill. Ms. Stonefield?
Assembly Bill 179: Revises provisions governing education. (BDR 34-22)
Carol Stonefield, LCB Research Analyst:
[She spoke from Tab A, Work Session Document (Exhibit M)]. A.B. 179 had two original proposals. One was to repeal several committees, bureaus, commissions, and councils that were created a couple of years ago within the Legislature. It also would remove the requirement that students pass the High School Proficiency Examination in order to receive a high school diploma.
A Subcommittee met on this and made a recommendation that the Committee approve a motion to amend and do pass. The recommended amendment includes the following:
· Section 11 would be deleted from the bill. Section 11 relates to the Millennium Scholarship.
· Section 12 would be deleted, which is the repeal of the Legislative Committee on Education, the Legislative Bureau on Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation, the Commission on Academic Standards, and the Council on Educational Technology. Insert a provision that a student who fails the High School Proficiency Exam must be required to retake only that portion or portions that he or she failed.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I just wanted to be clear that we’re not getting rid of the examination. If you pass the two sections and fail one, you only have to take that third one again, right?
Carol Stonefield:
The students would still be required to take the examination; they would not be required to pass it in order to receive their diploma.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Mrs. Chowning, did you have some wording proposed for this? Weren’t we talking about this yesterday?
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I proposed an amendment for a tiered diploma, but evidently the subcommittee did not agree with that amendment.
Chairman Williams:
Did we get the Subcommittee’s report? Is this part of it? Okay, I guess we can ask the Chairperson of the Subcommittee to give us an overview on what happened, since they put the time and effort into this.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
Last night the Subcommittee on Assembly Bill 179 did meet. Our recommendations are on the last page of subsection A. After listening to additional testimony last night, these were the best we could come up with. We did believe what Carol Stonefield was saying on how this was drafted. We didn’t want to do away with the exam totally, so we put some provisions in there that will keep it but wouldn’t require a student to have to take it for graduation purposes. We took out Section 11, and a section of Section 12, at the request of Assemblywoman Giunchigliani. I know Mr. McCleary had another question, and I’ll try to answer it.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Mr. Atkinson, what is the test for, if we’re still keeping the test? You don’t have to take it to get a diploma. Right, sir?
Assemblyman Atkinson:
Students have to take it; they don’t have to pass it.
Chairman Williams:
Mr. Atkinson, do you want to proceed? Can you tell us about the deletion of Section 11 and 12? You’re recommending deleting Sections 11 and 12?
Carol Stonefield:
Section 11 has been deleted at the request of the sponsor. It relates to the Millennium Scholarship. Section 12 has also been deleted at the request of the sponsor, who indicated that she had requested at one time that Section 12 be placed in another bill.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
There was a point where the sponsor of the bill talked about separating Section 12 out and putting it into another bill. I think when it was brought to us last night, and probably still today, I was unclear on how that could happen, since we were past the bill deadline. I think that’s what happens with Section 12, that it totally comes out, but we were too late for any bill drafts. [Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated that this was correct.]
Assemblyman Geddes:
One of the reasons I wanted to be on this Subcommittee was, in looking at all the other bills that we have had here dealing with Proficiency Exams, college entrance exams, and the Millennium Scholarship, the one constant that we keep seeing is people failing math. I’ve mentioned before that I’m a math geek, and I’ll mention it again, but the math isn’t being taught at the levels that we expect for college entrance exams, and the levels that we set up for the Proficiency Exam.
Is that level of math necessary to get out of school and go on to your career if you’re not going on to college? I thought it was. I thought we used geometry every day, I thought we used fractions every day, and I thought those were important parts of the test. I can agree that it may not be needed to graduate and get out of school, but I think the Proficiency Exam has to be there. I think one of the reasons that it was put in place was to evaluate how well K-12 is preparing our kids for higher education and the real world. Based on the math scores I’m seeing, I don’t think they’re quite getting there.
Based on the intentions of the sponsor of the bill, and people who are in school, going to all the classes, taking all the tests, and they’re doing well, but they don’t test well on this Proficiency Exam, I can see the concern. That’s why we recommended it not be a requirement for graduation. We thought those tests should be administered, those scores should be out there, and we should use them as an important tool to address the problems in K-12 in educating to a certain level, specifically in math.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Does the bill completely gut the other languages? Was that discussed in the Subcommittee?
Assemblyman Geddes:
That’s a requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act. There’s nothing we can do on that.
Assemblyman Horne:
We believe that the exam basically has become an entrance exam for college. As Mr. Geddes said, you could have a student who was excelling in every category with the exception of math. These students were being precluded from applying to universities, or going into the military, while they still possessed all the skills and attributes to do so. We wanted to eliminate that and leave in provisions to allow them to test again, but only on the section which they had failed, because it was unfair, having taken the exam and having passed the other sections, to have to take those other sections again.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I wanted to add one point. A lot of the testimony centered on the math portion of the exam. In the discussion, there was to be an effort to look at the Proficiency Exam and the way it is structured in the math portion. You might be able to get feedback to the students who were failing, to give them an idea of what areas they were weak in. Beyond their score, they could receive guidance on what they needed to learn in order to pass that part of the Proficiency Exam.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
I’m wondering why we took out Section 12, deleting all these committees that deal with education, when one would be enough.
Chairman Williams:
There were no objections, and that was at the request of the sponsor.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
That’s exactly what I was going to say.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That was my whole point for bringing A.B. 179 forward; it would save the state over $1 million over the biennium. We weren’t sure how to deal with separating it into two bills with this short a time period. I agreed to take it out at this time, but again, that’s this Committee’s decision.
Assemblyman Andonov:
I just want to clarify one thing. Right now, if an individual meets all the requirements of high school classes, course work, and grades, but they don’t pass the Proficiency Exam, they get a high school diploma. If they do pass the Proficiency Exam, they get a diploma with an endorsement. There is an incentive to pass it; it does measure something, and it does signal to the business community that, if someone is applying for a job, they’ve met a higher standard.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Yes. That was the discussion that Mr. Geddes brought up, because we didn’t want a disincentive, so we wanted them to at least make the effort, to try their hardest. We also think by giving them the opportunity to retest on the section they failed, they may actually have better success at passing all three parts.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I don’t know what the feelings are from the Committee, but I would like to incorporate all those other Committees, if that’s agreeable with everybody, and get rid of them. We could save some money and streamline the process. I’d like to hear what you folks think.
Assemblyman Mabey:
I’m confused. If they don’t pass one part of the Proficiency Exam, they’re still going to get their diploma. What that diploma says is different than the one the students get who pass the Proficiency Exam?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Right. This calls for the State Board of Education to determine which endorsements will be listed on the standard diploma, and it would include, for example, “passed math proficiency, reading proficiency, English proficiency, took advanced honors classes.” I would have whatever specialty areas they wanted to recognize on that diploma, which the State Board of Education would determine. Unfortunately, on the diploma, all an employer looks at is do you have one or not, but at least the student who made the extra effort, and went the extra mile, could show, on their diploma, that they did extra things, and I think it is a better visualization. It might cause employers to count them a little more in an evaluation.
Assemblyman Mabey:
Where does it say that in the bill?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
On page 6, Section 4, lines 42, “The State Board shall adopt regulations to prescribe endorsements that may be applied to the standard high school diploma issued to the student,” and that is where they would, through a public hearing, determine which endorsements are added to the standard diploma.
Assemblyman Hardy:
We deleted Section 11 that has to do with the Millennium Scholarships. Can a person get a Millennium Scholarship by passing 2 out of 3 portions of the Proficiency Exam?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Currently, no, and that’s what I had complied with. I misspoke at the previous hearing, so, no, they could not.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Unless you pass all three Proficiency Exams, you are not eligible for the Millennium Scholarship, and that is the way it states in the bill.
ASSEMBLY HORNE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 179, WITH THE AMENDMENT FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any discussion on the motion? Madam Secretary, if you will. [A roll call vote was taken.]
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Williams:
We want to again thank the Subcommittee for their work on this, as they went a long way toward solving this issue. We’ll now move to Assembly Bill 251. Ms. Stonefield?
Assembly Bill 251: Makes various changes relating to treatment of pupils. (BDR 34-149)
Carol Stonefield:
[She spoke from Tab B, Work Session Document (Exhibit N)]. Assembly Bill 251 would prohibit school district employees from suggesting or requiring that pupils take psychotropic drugs as a condition of attendance. A school district employee may suggest that a pupil be evaluated by a physician as part of a determination of placement in certain special education programs. Proponents said that psychotropic drugs are on the Schedule 2, which includes cocaine and heroin. Parents are sometimes reported for educational neglect if they refuse to follow the school’s recommendation.
The drugs are related to deaths in children, and other diseases or disorders have similar symptoms. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder has never been proven to be a disease. Opponents said this bill is not necessary, that there’s never been a lawsuit in Nevada resulting from alleged coercion by a teacher or other school personnel. There are no amendments.
Chairman Williams:
There were no amendments, and the fiscal impact is none. Is there a motion?
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 251.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDONOV SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any discussion on the motion? Mr. Geddes?
Assemblyman Geddes:
I have a question for our doctors on the Committee. Once a student is referred to the physician, if the physician evaluates and determines that prescribing the psychotropic drug would help that student, they could do so at that point in time? Is that correct?
Assemblyman Hardy:
The way I read that, yes. The physician can prescribe, but the way I read the bill, the teacher would not be able to force the student to take the medicine that the physician prescribed. That would still be the purview of the parent. While I’m on this, I would like to say that, just because I made the motion and I’ll vote for this, it does not mean that I believe ADD doesn’t exist.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any other discussion on the motion? Madam Secretary? [Roll call vote was taken.]
THE MOTION FAILED WITH MR. ANDONOV, MRS. ANGLE, MR. GEDDES, MR. HARDY, MR. MABEY, AND MR. McCLEARY VOTING YES, AND MR. ATKINSON, MRS. CHOWNING, MR. HORNE, MRS. KOIVISTO, MR. MANENDO, AND CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS VOTING NO.
Chairman Williams:
Ms. Stonefield, we’ll move to A.B. 311.
Assembly Bill 311: Revises provisions governing homeschooled children. (BDR 34-966)
Carol Stonefield:
[She spoke from Tab C, Work Session Document (Exhibit O)]. This bill provides that homeschooled children may participate in interscholastic activities. It also requires school districts to expend certain money for homeschooled children who receive special education from the school districts. The proponents for the bill said their children had been denied participation in sports and other extra-curricular activities. They also said that their children had been denied special education services, for which their children are eligible under federal law.
Opponents said that students who participate in interscholastic activities are considered representatives of their school. If a homeschool child does not attend the school, he or she cannot be a representative of that school. There is a local government impact. With regard to proposed amendments, Washoe County School District had submitted amendments, and there was also an understanding that sponsors and some of the opponents would attempt to reach a consensus on certain amendments and bring the bill back tonight.
Chairman Williams:
I believe Assemblyman Hettrick and Assemblyman Knecht are bringing that information to us at this time.
Assemblyman Ron Knecht, representing Assembly District No. 40:
[Introduced himself.] We have held the negotiations, and they have been successful and borne fruit. Because I had to be in the Transportation Committee for part of it, Mr. Hettrick completed the negotiations, and he will present the amendments that have been agreed to.
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, representing Assembly District No. 39:
[Introduced himself.] We’re pleased to tell you that we have indeed struck language that all the parties agreed to, and we’ve not heard anything negative about it. Since we believe that it’s the agreed-to language, it may be easier for you to follow in the actual bill, where you can see what we struck, and what we added. I would comment, just for the Committee’s benefit, that we changed the wording to address the fiscal impact of the bill.
As we go through this (Exhibit P), if you go to page 2, you’ll see what we’ve done, and you’ll see the notes to the side. We’re not sure Section 2 is now needed, because it’s also in the back of the bill, and that would be a technical amendment. Section 3 would be amended out in its entirety. The new Section 3 would read, “A homeschool child must be allowed to participate in all the interscholastic activities and events pursuant to regulations as adopted by the Association established in accordance with NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) 386.420 to 386.470, inclusive.” That says that the NIAA (Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association) would establish the rules, and homeschool students would all abide by those rules. The intent is that those established rules are what would be followed by the school districts.
[Assemblyman Hettrick continued.] If you go down on page 3 toward the bottom, you’ll see that we changed a word; physical “condition” was changed to physical “examination.” Go to the next page because it carries through on former Section 4. Sections 5, 6, and 7 are stricken in their entireties. Section 8 is in, and that is all agreed-to language. Section 9 is either in, or it’s amended out, and we’ll have staff tell us what to do. The intent is to state that school districts cannot adopt more restrictive rules for homeschooled students, so it’s fair across the board for everyone.
Then we go to the former Section 10. The language you see there says that the Association intends to adopt things that would affect homeschooled children. They will consult with the north and south Homeschool Advisory Councils; that was agreed to. Page 6 is okay, in its entirety, the way it’s written. On page 7, we’re going to strike Section 12 altogether. Go to page 8; Section 13 is in with the caveat that when school districts count homeschooled students with disabilities for apportionment services, services shall be provided to those students by the school districts which counted them. If they don’t count them, they don’t have to provide service; if they do count them, then they get the money. The fiscal impact goes away.
We added to the language that you see with the arrow, “to the extent practicable.” The idea is that there is nothing here that says the school district must provide services at home or some other place. The school district can say the service is available, but it has to be available where they provide it, so you don’t send the teachers out to take services to students elsewhere.
Finally, on page 9, you can see the circled part. We said on the front page, where we had Section 2, that we weren’t sure we needed it, because it’s also in the back. It refers to the same sections, so we will leave it to drafting to do the technical amendments and make sure it’s all correct. At that point, the rest of the sections through 14 are effective as they are printed in the book.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions from the Committee for Mr. Hettrick or Mr. Knecht? Mr. Manendo?
Assemblyman Manendo:
It’s my understanding there’s a homeschooler that plays basketball at Western High School in Las Vegas. I was probably out for part of this, but why is this bill needed then, if they’re already doing it, Mr. Hettrick or Mr. Knecht?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Indeed, you are probably correct. [Mr. Manendo indicated that someone had e‑mailed that to him.] The problem is that not all the districts are doing it. What we are trying to do is achieve some standardization so the homeschoolers are treated equally across the state. This was the agreed-to language, including the Clark County and Washoe County School Districts, and I believe they represented the other school districts in agreeing to this language as being fair and equitable for all. I’m sure you’re right that the homeschooler is playing at Western. That’s not true in every school district across this state.
Assemblyman Manendo:
In Douglas County, somebody was denied?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Multiple students have been denied in Douglas County.
Assemblyman Manendo:
What was the reason?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
“Soup to nuts,” you name it. They’ve denied them for multiple reasons.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
I have a question for Mr. Knecht. I know that I signed onto this bill, and I was almost certain that this was not for Clark County. Now I’m hearing that it is.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I believe the explanation, at the time, was that this is consistent with Clark County School District’s existing practices. In other words, Clark County is already on board; this would not make any change in their existing practices. As Mr. Hettrick said a moment ago, it’s to standardize the statewide practice, which is essentially what Clark County School District uses right now.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
If I may, Mr. Chairman, Clark County School District negotiated with us to get this language in. I believe they’ll come up and tell you they agree with this language.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
Public school kids who participate in sports have to maintain a certain GPA [Grade Point Average] in order to maintain their eligibility. How do homeschooled kids maintain their eligibility? Do they test? We heard they don’t like to test, so I want to know how that’s done.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
The parent or the person responsible for their education—they can be going to a school, have a teacher or a private tutor, whatever—the person responsible for their education must attest to the fact that they are maintaining their grades, at grade level, at appropriate work level, and everything else just exactly the same as if they were in public school. Satisfactory progress is required. These are the exact same requirements, and it’s of the person who’s responsible for their education who verifies that, just as it is in a public school.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any other comments or questions for the two assemblymen? What is the pleasure of the Committee? I saw a hand go up somewhere in the front row. Mr. McCleary?
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 311.
ASSEMBLYMAN MABEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any discussion on the motion? Mr. Horne?
Assemblyman Horne:
I would like to say, on the record, as I said in the testimony before, that I have a problem with “be fair to us, let our kids play” and “leave us alone, we don’t want to test.” When it came right down to it, I don’t think, Mr. Hettrick, that it is the same. In our schools, there is an oversight to see that they’re taking exams and getting scored. I haven’t seen any evidence. I’ve heard testimony from parents saying that they see whether or not their children are succeeding, and, if not, the parents push them. The kids don’t make the choice to be homeschooled; the parent makes the choice for them to be homeschooled, and the only one who is being harmed by not allowing them to participate in sports is the student. With my reservations, I’m going to support this bill.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
Actually, Mr. Horne took the words out of my mouth. The testing aspect and the sports aspect are two separate issues. I certainly agree with Mr. Horne that the kids are the ones being penalized in this situation where parents are homeschooling, as that’s the parents’ choice. In normal cases, that is the parents’ choice, not necessarily the kid’s choice.
When we’re talking about the individuals who will be homeschooled, I had this conversation with Mr. Knecht before I signed on with this bill. It was important to me that, although they’re homeschooled, in 90 percent of the cases the parents are paying their taxes like everyone else, so the sports portion, in my opinion, was being taken care of. That’s why I signed on with this bill, and that’s why I’ll be voting for it today.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any comments on the motion? Madam Secretary? [Roll call vote was taken.]
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. CHOWNING VOTING NO. (Chairman Williams abstained from voting.)
Chairman Williams:
We’ll go on to Assembly Bill 345, that’s Speaker Perkins’ bill. Ms. Stonefield?
Assembly Bill 345: Requires libraries in public high schools to be open to general public. (BDR 34-1307)
Carol Stonefield:
[She spoke from Tab D, Work Session Document (Exhibit Q)]. This bill would require that the boards of trustees of local school districts ensure that high school libraries are open to the public on a year-round basis. Any member of the general public who holds a library card issued from a public library may use the school district library. Proponents argued that keeping existing school libraries open would be less expensive than building new ones. There were other statements made about eligibility for grant funding through No Child Left Behind, and the high school libraries are not open long enough after school so that students can complete assignments.
Opponents cited the cost of operations. These included staffing, lack of convenience, outside access for the general public, and the physical plant of schools, which is typically not designed to heat or cool a single room. The library collection that the school has is designed to meet the needs of a high school curriculum and not the reading interests of the general public, and the automation systems of school libraries are different than those of the general public libraries. There is a fiscal impact, which varies by school district. There were no proposed amendments.
Chairman Williams:
What is the pleasure of the Committee? Mr. McCleary?
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 345.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any discussion on the motion? Mr. McCleary.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I think this is heading in the right direction. We’re going to rebuild Rancho High School soon. Here’s something I envision; in the future, we could work with the library districts and actually build regional libraries wherever our high schools are. We could save money in the long run on services. I think this is the right thing to do. It’s going to be a transition that will take some time, I realize that, and I see some doubts. I think this is a good thing, and I think we should pioneer it.
Chairman Williams:
That’s what the Community College did on West Charleston in Las Vegas. They built the school next door to the library, but now the library folks are kicking the students out of the library over there. Mr. Geddes?
Assemblyman Geddes:
I truly love the intent of the bill, but I’m going to have to stay on the “no” side of this, based on the concerns that were brought by Ms. Gould in regard to the fiscal impact and the design of the schools. I think it would be a great thing in the Clark County School District redesign and in the new design of schools. This partnership could be looked at and the schools designed, which wouldn’t be as cost-prohibitive as it would be to expand it to all the current schools. At this time, I’m going to have to say “No” on this bill, but I love the intent, and I hope we design for it in the future.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
This is the Speaker’s bill, and I want to abstain, but something tells me that I need to take a position. I have to say that I totally agree with Mr. Geddes. I think that the concept of this is one of the best things we can do for our kids.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
With great trepidation, I have to speak against the motion. While the concept sounds wonderful, security is of great concern. When the general public can go in and out at their ease to the libraries where our students are, that is of great concern. At the beginning of the bill, it says that schools have to let the general public into the libraries; yet on page 3, it says that the Board of Trustees may not request reimbursement for the costs and expenses associated with the use of the library. Who loses? The school district loses, big time.
Assemblyman Manendo:
I don’t have a problem with libraries being built, as Mr. McCleary was talking about, if they had the land and the money to build a library next door and to utilize that. I don’t have a problem with that. I’m very concerned, as Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, that, maybe, we need to bring in some library districts and get them on record to find out why they’re kicking students and taxpayers out of public buildings. That is wrong, it is inappropriate, and I would like to see justification for that. I’m also very concerned, as Mrs. Chowning mentioned, about the safety issues in our public schools. I have to vote against the motion.
Chairman Williams:
Madam Secretary, will you call the roll? [Roll call vote was taken.]
THE MOTION FAILED WITH CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS AND ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY VOTING YES.
Assemblyman Manendo:
You know, one of the things we heard from the students during testimony is that the libraries on school campuses are not open as long as they should be. I don’t know if there’s something in this bill that we could save, because that would be a fiscal impact on the districts, as this bill would be, in general. That needs to be changed. If the kids can’t utilize the library during school hours, because they’re in class, and if the library closes an hour after school . . .
Chairman Williams:
Mr. Manendo, we no longer have a bill. You realize what you’ve done to the Speaker, and you have to clean it up yourself. You can’t reverse it now. You no longer have a bill.
Assemblyman Manendo:
The motion to pass failed; the bill is still alive in this Committee. Could we pass this without recommendation to Ways and Means?
Chairman Williams:
Is that a motion, Mr. Manendo?
Assemblyman Manendo:
It would be a motion to move Assembly Bill 345 without recommendation to the Ways and Means Committee so they could take a look at keeping the hours open a little longer in the school libraries for our students. That’s what we heard testimony on, and, Mr. Chairman, if you’re accepting that motion, I will make that motion to keep this bill alive, because I believe there should be further discussion on that matter.
Chairman Williams:
The motion is appropriate. Is there a second?
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO SEND A.B. 345 TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
The Chair does not accept that motion. Let’s go to A.B. 353. Ms. Stonefield?
Assembly Bill 353: Makes various changes to provisions regarding University and Community College System of Nevada and Board of Regents of University of Nevada. (BDR 34-76)
Carol Stonefield:
[She spoke from Tab E, Work Session document (Exhibit R)]. Assembly Bill 353 has essentially two parts. One part relates to the personally identifiable information of students, former students, employees, and former employees, as affected by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which is commonly known as FERPA. The other portion of the bill relates to the size of the Board of Regents and the length of term of the members of the Board. The proponents for the section on FERPA supported the bill, saying that students enrolled in institutions of the UCCSN (University and Community College System of Nevada) are receiving unsolicited credit card applications, and the institutions are profiting from the names of these students.
Opponents on that issue said that this portion of the bill is unnecessary, because the Board of Regents has taken control of the issue. They also pointed out that there are no FERPA rights for employees or former employees, or for former students. Under federal law, if a student opts out, a student opts out for life. The bill would negatively impact the alumni associations. Students who opt out will not be included in graduation publications, and the bill would be difficult for University fundraising.
[Ms. Stonefield continued.] On the other issue, the size of the Board of Regents and the structure of the Board of Regents, the proponents said that the term of office should be four years; members of the board should be able to learn the details of the operation of the institutions in that amount of time. The current size of 13 members was too large. The opponents on that issue said that reducing the size of the board is not necessary. A six-year term allows time for the new members to learn the system. Seven members, as is proposed in the bill, would be small by national standards, because the governing board must be large enough to accommodate a committee structure, and a larger number keeps a balance on the board.
There was a proposed amendment offered by Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor of the UCCSN system. There was a Subcommittee that met today; the Subcommittee recommended the following changes to the bill:
Chairman Williams:
Chairman of the Subcommittee, would you give us a report?
Assemblyman McCleary:
The members of the Subcommittee feel that these recommendations are reasonable. The reason for the 9-member board is that we think the Board is too big with 13 members. We feel 9 would put it in parity with the Board of Education, and that it was workable in terms of committees. Seven seemed a little small, so we compromised. I think this is a good proposal.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I like the bill, as we have amended it and proposed it to you here today, with the exception of the six-year term. I didn’t buy the argument when they made it to the full committee, and I didn’t buy the argument yesterday. I don’t understand how it takes three to four years for a regent to understand the complexity of the University System, when we get two months to understand the entire state and the University System. If they can’t be effective in the first two years, I’m not sure why we give them so much time to come up to speed on the system. I like the amendments, although I was pushing for four-year terms.
Chairman Williams:
Is there a motion on A.B. 353? Mr. Horne?
Assemblyman Horne:
I wanted to point out, on FERPA, I had raised a question on that, particularly the whole area of where the Legislature can provide direction to the Regents. They mentioned the King case, which basically stated that the Board is a separate entity that can, in matters of executive decisions, have autonomy. However, there is another case that says that is limiting, and the Legislature does have authority to direct, in particular, on policy issues, how the Regents should operate. When we mentioned in the Committee the opt in or opt out provisions, the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau provided the explanation that we didn’t have that authority. This was one of the reasons why we adopted the amendments as they are. I’m not convinced that information given to us by Legal was accurate.
Carol Stonefield:
If I may, it is not a matter of authority, but rather because, under FERPA, the U.S. Department of Education regards the provisions of FERPA as a floor. A state may provide greater protection than what is required under FERPA. A state would have the option of choosing not to release any directory information, as would an institution. The issue, with regard to prescribing forms within statutes and things like that, tends to cross over into the area where the Regents have typically administrated the institutions. If the Legislature chose to exercise its authority, it could do that.
Assemblyman Horne:
Thank you very much, Ms. Stonefield. What I was referring to was information that I had received on that latter case. The King case was in 1954; in 1981, there was a Board of Regents application in the Oakley case, which deals in the area I was talking about. Basically it said, “Such special legislation is clearly an encroachment upon the Board of Regents’ constitutional power to manage and control the university, subject to the right of the Legislature to prescribe duties and other well-recognized legislative rights.”
King, therefore, does not stand for the proposition that the Board of Regents is free from all legislative regulation; rather, it holds that the Legislature may not invade the constitutional power of the Board through legislation, which directly interferes with essential functions of the University. The question is whether or not these opt-out and opt-in provisions, particularly dealing with the credit cards, deal with an essential function of the University System. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Giunchigliani and Mr. Peck could clarify. I think it’s important to reflect on information we had in making the amendments, and the interpretation on what else might be out there, so we can make a clean decision on how we’re going to vote on this.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I’ll let Gary address it; then I’ll do backup.
Gary Peck, Executive Director, ACLU of Nevada:
I think it’s clear that this is an area dealing with a basic constitutional right of students, the right to privacy. The Legislature does have the authority to make law on this. I feel comfortable even representing to this Committee that I spoke with the Chancellor today in this building, and she agrees with that and does not take the position that the Legislature would be going beyond its authority if it chose to do this. In fairness, the Chancellor does not agree with our position with respect to what the Legislature should do as a matter of policy and law. The Legislature would have the authority to legislate in this area if it wanted to.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That is better information than what we had this morning, when the Subcommittee actually met. Part of the issue was who had jurisdiction, and this Legislature actually does have the jurisdiction to make a decision.
Chairman Williams:
At the hearing, Ms. Giunchigliani, if the Legislature didn’t, the University System would have made that very clear to us. They never mentioned that, and they would have said to get out of their business.
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 353 WITH AMENDMENTS FROM SUBCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any discussion on the motion?
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I agree with the first part, but I can’t agree on reducing the number of Regents to nine members. They just got extended, and it would cause a great deal of expense to redo the maps. I think it should stay as it is for a while. I object to the second part.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
I actually was going to hit on the Regents as well. Was there any discussion on why we’re decreasing the number, and how we would get there? They’re elected, and most of them are in term. Do they get phased out? Are certain districts going to get phased out? I agree with Assemblywoman Chowning that there’s going to be a huge cost associated with redoing the maps. They just spent a lot of money to do it. It’s counterproductive to me. We’re always talking about spending, and I think we just spent a lot of money to do this and have not given it the opportunity to work. I have some concerns about that.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
They would all have to stand for election in November. The cost is not an impact to us because our staff drew their lines last time during the redistricting, and they would draw the lines again. What I did not have done, based on the decision of the Committee, was to have the maps drawn yet. Basically, it would overlay with the State Board of Education lines. We didn’t have an outside person draw the Regents or the State Board of Education maps; they were done by our internal staff.
Assemblyman Mabey:
Could you give me research on how it was expanded in the first place to 13 Regents?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I’ll do my best. The Regents generally had been at nine. They were at 11 in the last census. Last session, part of the debate was to go smaller, and that was the consensus within both parties. The State Board of Education asked us to reduce their size. The Legislature voted to stay the same size and not decrease, despite the number. The Regents were the only ones who actually asked to increase. Then a political discourse occurred, and in the negotiations, one individual signed off to another individual to go ahead and increase, even though the Board was split by one vote on wanting to reduce the size to nine themselves. That’s the history in the last few years of what happened.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] I requested this bill that night for the next session. I also am dealing with the issue of the appointment, because the Governor would like to explore that concept as well. That will be taken up in another matter. This reduction is not to penalize in any way. I really think, and don’t laugh, that size does matter. I want them to be empowered and to work together. I think, as they’ve gotten larger and larger, they’ve become more politically contentious. I agreed with the Subcommittee; as I said in my initial hearing, I had people who wanted one, three, or even zero Regents. You do need a board that sets the policy, and I totally agree with that. We landed on nine, because we felt that was a flexible number. It went back to a reasonable working board where, hopefully, discourse and policy would be the focus of the Board, and not so much all the other political aspects that tended to come into it.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I wanted to add that there is precedent to reducing the Board. Going back through the years in research, back when Nevada was sued for the “one man, one vote” rule, the Board increased to nine. In the following census, in 1971, they did drop it back to seven. The reason I centered on nine was that I worked as a student member on the Board of Regents for two years. The Regents had nine members. They did all of their committees, had all the same functions that the current Board of 13 does, and I felt they were very effective. In watching the Regents from the time I was there, with the increase to 11 and 13, I cannot see an increase in effectiveness, so I was very comfortable with 9. They are my bosses; I need to disclose that.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Ditto.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any other discussion on the motion? Madam Secretary, call the roll. [Roll call vote was taken.]
THE MOTION PASSED WITH MR. ANDONOV, MRS. ANGLE, MRS. CHOWNING, AND MR. MABEY VOTING NO.
Chairman Williams:
We’re going to Assembly Bill 382, Ms. Leslie’s bill.
Assembly Bill 382: Requires Board of Regents of University of Nevada to establish Institute for Latino Research and Advocacy. (BDR 34-951)
Carol Stonefield:
[She spoke from Tab F, Work Session Document (Exhibit S)]. Proponents of this measure suggested that there is very little demographic data available on the Latino population in Nevada, and, more specifically, in the western United States. Frequently this information is missing from national databases. The Committee heard the testimony representing United States Senator Harry Reid’s support and we’re told that he would seek federal funds to enable the institute to be established. The University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) indicated support with the proposed amendments. Although the institute is not on the Board of Regents’ list of enhancements, if funding is provided, the Board would begin to establish the institute.
There was an amendment provided. In the bill, the amendment proposes to delete lines 4 and 5 and insert the new language that would actually change “shall” to “may.” “The Board of Regents may establish, at the University of Nevada, Reno, an Institute for Latino Research and Advocacy.” Delete subsection 2 of Section 5, which exempts the Board from the provisions of Chapter 396 of the NRS and Title 23 of the NRS, “When establishing policies and procedures with respect to the Institute.” Section 7, subsection 1, line 39, page 2, deletes “shall” and replaces with “may,” to provide that, “The Board may establish fiscal policies and procedures in connection with the operational activities of the Institute.” Delete subsection 2 of Section 7, which exempts the Board from Title 23 and Title 31 of the NRS or any other statute relating to public officers and employees, or public financial administration, with respect to receiving, investing, managing, dispersing, or accounting for any money or property of the institute.
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 382.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Discussion? Mr. Andonov.
Assemblyman Andonov:
I don’t know if this was mentioned in testimony, but, if this is a facility designed to do research and to provide advocacy for the Latino population, given that 70 percent of the population is in Clark County and southern Nevada, and a disproportionately large share of the Latino population is in Clark County, to me it would make sense that we would house this at UNLV, rather than UNR. I don’t recall any testimony addressing that. I was wondering if anybody could comment on that.
Assemblyman Horne:
I spoke with the sponsor, Ms. Leslie, and she said they didn’t have a problem making this statewide. She didn’t go as far as saying that it would be implemented at UNLV, but she said they didn’t have a problem with it being statewide. I would suggest that be at least statewide.
Assemblyman Andonov:
Being statewide, does that mean where you house the institution? Where do you house the facility? I think it would be conducive to the research and advocacy to have it where the population actually is.
Assemblyman Horne:
Why couldn’t you have two satellite facilities, with this program going on in both locations, and still accomplish the same thing? I don’t think it necessarily would be duplicative; I think they would work together. For instance, UNLV also aids the community college in southern Nevada, as well as UNR up north.
Assemblyman Hardy:
It sounds like it would be an appropriate thing for the nine Regents to decide where it should go.
Rick Bennett, representing the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV):
The universities have a number of centers and various programs on their campuses. They’re all considered statewide. There is tremendous collaboration and cooperation between the campuses and faculty, and so forth. I would be very concerned, frankly, if you chose to make the kind of amendment that you’re talking about as far as location. It really doesn’t matter where it’s located. The research that is done will apply statewide, and it will benefit statewide. I would feel uncomfortable making a change in the location in Ms. Leslie’s bill.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any other discussion on the motion?
Assemblyman Geddes:
I just want to reiterate that I would like to go with those comments. These centers are statewide, they will work statewide, and there is a lot of effort to get the data in and out statewide. The placement on the University of Nevada, Reno, campus, I think, is just the fact that this is a UNR group that has been working with the Senator and looking at this program. They’re ready to move forward and put it into place. I think they’ll agree with everybody that the intent is to do this statewide. They’re just ready to move on the University of Nevada, Reno, campus.
Chairman Williams:
Okay, Madam Secretary? [Roll call vote was taken.]
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Williams:
We’ll go on to Assembly Bill 407, Assemblyman Hardy’s bill.
Assembly Bill 407: Authorizes school districts to open public school libraries to general public. (BDR 34-1183)
Carol Stonefield:
[Under Tab G of Work Session documents (Exhibit T)]. Members of the Committee may recall that proponents and opponents on this bill were the same as the earlier library bill. The difference is that, in this bill, there’s a grant of permission to the Board of Trustees to open their high school libraries to the general public. They may enter into cooperative agreements with any public library governing board or authorities that they are near. Proponents cited that in Washoe County, the school district and the public libraries have successfully cooperated to establish a joint program. Opponents maintained that the legislation is not necessary, and the very fact that Washoe County Library and Washoe County School District already have such an agreement would support that, that’s their contention. There are no proposed amendments.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I wonder if the sponsor of the bill thought about deleting subsection 2 of Section 5, because that was the opposition, and that is still the same problem. The Board of Trustees still loses because they cannot request reimbursement for their costs and expenses.
Assemblyman Hardy:
By way of clarification, the bill actually allows public schools, not just high schools, to be open. The intent was a Local Library Literacy Program, or LLLP, to get the parents of children to go in and check out books and to read and enjoy them with their children. The theory would be to not charge people to come in and use the services. Clark County School District was in favor of that, without adding a cost to the patron. The theory would be to have the children come in and learn to check out books. This would be at their school, in their district. I would prefer not to have charges or fees attached to it, if I can.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
My notes specifically say that the school districts did not support this, because of the inability to be reimbursed for their costs.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I think that was the Speaker’s bill.
Chairman Williams:
Mr. McKinney-James? Go right ahead.
Rose McKinney-James, representing the Clark County School District:
To Mrs. Chowning, with respect to A.B. 407, the school district offered complete support for the bill. With respect to the prior bill that was heard, we were concerned about the last section of the bill, which did not allow for reimbursement.
Chairman Williams:
Is there a motion?
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 407.
ASSEMBLYMAN MABEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any discussion on the motion? Madam Secretary, please call the roll. [Roll call vote was taken].
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. HORNE VOTING NO.
Assemblyman Manendo:
Could we go back to Assembly Bill 345? I would like to try again. We have a couple of options. We could make a motion to send the bill to Ways and Means without a recommendation, or we can amend the bill to include extending the library hours. Mr. Chairman, I move to re-refer or send Assembly Bill 345 without recommendation to the Ways and Means Committee for further discussion.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO SEND A.B. 345 TO WAYS AND MEANS WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Discussion? Madam Secretary, please take a roll call vote. [Roll call vote was taken.]
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. ANGLE AND MR. MABEY VOTING NO.
Chairman Williams:
We’ll now go on to Assembly Bill 506.
Assembly Bill 506: Prescribes limit on number of administrators in certain large school districts. (BDR 34-1300)
Carol Stonefield:
[She spoke from Tab H, Work Session Document (Exhibit U)]. This bill limits the number of administrators in school districts of a certain size. The bill requires a ratio of administrators to pupils effective on or after July 1, 2005. The proponents said it is not the intention to take money away from the school districts with these mandated ratios. Rather, the districts are to redirect the savings to programs for students. That would include additional teachers, books, supplies, and extracurricular activities. The ratios should be part of the performance audit that is provided in Assembly Bill 162.
Opponents compared the data from the Council of Great City Schools. The Clark County School District presented a budget for administrations below that national average. Compared with other governmental entities, Clark County School District testified that the ratio of administrators to employees is low-range to mid-range. Several opponents said this was an issue of local control, and concern was expressed that ratios were developed without regard to the nature of the work of an employee. There were no proposed amendments, although there was a suggestion made that a study be conducted, with recommendations made to the school districts in regard to staffing.
Chairman Williams:
What is the pleasure of the Committee?
Assemblyman Mabey:
I met with the principal of my daughter’s school at Derfelt Elementary School; she had a lot of concerns about this. My feelings are that the administrators at the schools need to stay the way they are. The regional centers, the hierarchy, I don’t have any problems with reducing the number of administrators there. I really can’t support this, unless we differentiate between administrators in the school versus the regional offices.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I agree. I think it is worthy of a study, although I hope it is part of the audit that this Committee already passed. If not, it could be made a part of the audit.
Chairman Williams:
Anyone else? Okay, is there a motion on Assembly Bill 506? [No motion was made.] The bill dies for lack of a motion. We will move to Assembly Bill 507.
Assembly Bill 507: Revises provisions governing transferability of certain community college credits to university. (BDR 34-254)
Carol Stonefield:
[She spoke from Tab I, Work Session Document (Exhibit V)]. The proponents of the bill said this would ensure that credits earned in courses leading to an Associate of Applied Science degree would transfer to a university and count toward a major or minor. This would be particularly applicable to articulation with programs at Nevada State College. There were no opponents. There has been an amendment offered by the bill’s sponsor. It says to leave the language in as it is on lines 4 and 5, consider clarifying that an associate degree can include an Associate of Applied Science, and then insert “or state college” after university on lines 9, 13, and 15.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 507.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any discussion on the motion? Madam Secretary. [Roll call vote was taken.]
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Williams:
We will now go to Assembly Bill 512.
Assembly Bill 512: Prescribes requirements for privatization agreements between school districts and contractors for certain educational services. (BDR 34-840)
Carol Stonefield:
[She spoke from Tab J, Work Session Document (Exhibit W)]. A.B. 512 relates to privatization agreements between school district Boards of Trustees and private entities that would provide instructional services. This bill provides that the Board must given written notice to the residents of the school district and the bargaining agents of the employees. The notice must include a description of the services, reasons for the agreement, a cost benefit analysis, and the manner in which a copy of the agreement can be obtained. The Board cannot adopt a privatization agreement if it will result in a reduction in force with a loss of status or benefits for employees. The Board cannot adopt the agreement if the costs outweigh the benefits.
Under certain circumstances, the Board must submit its agreement to the Legislature or the Legislative Committee on Education for approval. The privatization agreement must include standards of academic achievement for pupils, payment of rent for the use of district facilities, and a statement that the district has no obligation to indemnify the contractor against any liability. The terms of the agreement cannot exceed three years. The Act applies to contracts entered into on or after the effective date of the Act. With respect to a contract existing at the passage of the Act, no money apportioned to a district, on or after that date, may be expended with a contract that does not meet the provisions of this bill.
Proponents said that A.B. 512 is necessary because it establishes a process of accountability and oversight. Six of seven Las Vegas schools contracted with Edison are on the list of “in need of improvement.” The Legislature can modify the terms of an existing contract if there is an overriding public interest. Opponents said that the bill inserts Legislative control into what is essentially a local function. Contract decisions are local matters.
Clark County School District testified that it had chosen those particular schools to contract with Edison because they were at-risk schools. They thought they would try something different with those schools. There was a proposed amendment from the Nevada State Education Association. If you recall, this bill was in work session earlier, and there was some discussion of interested parties drawing conclusions and reaching consensus on proposed amendments.
Al Bellister, representing Nevada State Education Association:
We met with the Clark County School District today, and I want to apologize that we didn’t meet until today. I’m not able to present to you amendments in written form, but I am pleased to inform the Committee that, during our meeting, we had overcome the objections of the District with the following changes.
We would amend, in Section 4 of the bill, adding back in “related to education.” That appears on lines 36 and 37. Our amendment deleted that; we are adding that back in. In Section 6 of the bill, on page 3, the timeline that appears on line 22, “120 days,” we have agreed to delete and rewrite it as “30 days.” On page 4, Section 9, regarding the threshold dollar amount that appears at line 30, we have agreed to delete that, and that $500,000 would come out, and $1 million would go in. That’s at line 30.
I apologize to the staff member who has to work on this amendment. As you recall, the District was concerned that we were infringing on the school board’s ability to enter into these contracts without this additional layer of legislative oversight. We have agreed to delete those sections of the bill that appear, I believe, primarily in Section 9. This would require the submission of the privatization agreement to the Legislature, or in the alternative, the Legislative Committee on Education. The provisions of the bill that require submission and subsequent approval are ones we have agreed to remove from the bill.
In Section 13, which appears on page 6, the District expressed concern that it may be difficult, if not impossible, to enter into agreements with the language that appears at line 26, “in its sole discretion,” so we would agree to delete that language. In Section 21, I had discussions with folks who represent some of the charter schools. In Section 21, page 9, we would agree to delete that language from the bill in its entirety.
Section 24 addresses a concern raised by Mr. Horne at the original meeting, and also expressed by the Clark County School District, which was that the bill may impair the existing contract in place between the District and Edison. That is not our intent; what we would suggest is that Section 24, subsection 2, be deleted in its entirety, because it’s not our intent to have any retroactive application of this bill to the existing contract between the District and Edison. We certainly would want the bill to have application to any new contracts after passage and approval, and at the time of renewal of any existing contracts. With that, we have been able to reach agreement.
Rose McKinney-James, representing Clark County School District:
I believe that Mr. Bellister has offered you a correct indication of our agreement. I would like to extend my thanks to him for his willingness to accept some of our recommended changes. I believe, in fact, that all of our suggestions have been addressed, and we are very pleased with that outcome. I appreciate Mr. Horne suggesting that we spend some time together, because I think that it has resulted in a better policy document. I would correct one point; we met yesterday and today. Other than that, we thank you for the opportunity to work on this measure, and we’re satisfied with the results.
Assemblyman Andonov:
On the very first amendment that you mentioned regarding Section 4, when you include the words, “related to education,” does that eliminate things like janitorial services, food services, and those types of things? Are those contracts included under this bill, or are they not?
Rose McKinney-James:
To the extent that we have contracts in place for those services, they are included.
Assemblyman Andonov:
I noticed in the legislation that it says it applies to school district employees. Is that correct?
Rose McKinney-James:
That is correct.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any other questions for Ms. James or Mr. Bellister? Yes, Mrs. Chowning?
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 512 WITH AMENDMENTS FROM MR. BELLISTER.
ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any discussion on the motion?
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Williams:
A.B. 511 is on the schedule; it’s my bill, and I wanted to wait until the end. Mr. Cummings, the advisor to the President of the Community College of Southern Nevada and a distinguished professor, also wanted to be here when all the other bills were heard. I got a note that he wanted to be aware of all the other educational items going on in the state, so we kept the bill until last. We’ll open the hearing on A.B. 511.
Assembly Bill 511: Makes appropriation to Board of Regents of University of Nevada for expenses directly related to implementing bachelor’s degree program at certain campuses of Community College of Southern Nevada in field of elementary and secondary education. (BDR S-1299)
Chairman Williams:
This bill is being referred to both the Education and the Ways and Means Committees. The bill is designed to set parameters for the future because of the teacher and health professional shortage. [Chairman Williams indicated to Vice Chairman Horne that the Vice Chairman would now take over the meeting.]
Assemblyman Wendell Williams, representing Assembly District 6:
[Introduced himself.] On A.B. 511, we’ve heard a number of times the problem we face with the shortage of teachers. Of course, we support the Nevada State College in their efforts to educate, promote, and build teachers. Even with Nevada State College and the great job that UNLV and UNR are doing, there still will be a shortage of teachers and people in the health field. We have the advantage of having, at the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN), the only person in Nevada who’s done this before, Dr. Remington, who’s President of CCSN. He started a program in Nevada, and he has a record of doing that. The Community College has the fastest-growing student population in the nation. Over the past ten years, the student population at the Community College has grown by 85 percent.
I think that we should continue to promote UNR and UNLV, as well as Nevada State College, but there will still be a need to look at other things in the future. This bill would allow the Community College to start to set into place a four‑year program, if, in fact, we find that the state needs another outlet to do so. We’re not looking at immediately going into this area, but with the fact that we acknowledge that the Community College has the personnel, the facilities, the resources, and the infrastructure to do so, it would behoove us to go ahead and put into place things that they would need to accomplish this down the road.
This particular bill would allow us to put it into place, because if things continue to move the way they’re going with the increasing need for teachers, I’d hate to wait until 2005 or 2007 to start looking at this particular situation. This would not mean that CCSN would immediately start to do it, but it would allow them the parameters, at least at the state level, to do so. With me is the Executive Special Assistant to the President of the Community College, Professor John Cummings, who will also remark on this. Again, we extend our apologies to Mr. Cummings for this late hour. He is not used to this, but we wanted him to be here for the finale.
John Cummings, representing the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN):
Our Chancellor, Dr. Nichols, and my boss, Dr. Ron Remington, have asked me to convey how pleased they are that you are willing to lend legislative weight to the Regents’ master plan for the University and Community College System of Nevada. The Regents, during Dr. Nichol’s tenure, have recognized the necessity for implementing some four-year programs at our community colleges. Dr. Romesburg of Nevada State College, and Dr. Remington of CCSN, have been meeting recently to ascertain how best to deliver these programs.
You are correct, Mr. Chairman, and the Chancellor concurs, that there exists a critical need in our state to graduate more teachers and health care workers to plug the shortage of professionals in these important areas. We know that the creation of Nevada State College, as you said yourself, will go a long way in addressing these needs, as will the creative efforts of Dr. Harter at UNLV. The Chancellor has also asked me to stress that she, along with our Regents, are committed to finding ways to provide more access to four-year degrees for the folks of southern Nevada. She knows we have long neglected to provide sufficient higher education opportunities for minorities and lower-income students. This Chancellor and the men of the women of the Board of Regents, no matter what their number today, wish to join you, Chairman Williams, and members of this Committee in rectifying, at this late hour, this problem. We do support this, sir.
Assemblyman Williams:
I felt that all the bills we passed today or didn’t pass, concerning education, all boil down to one thing in the classroom, which is the teacher. The fact is that the students and the teachers of this state are going to thank you for this.
John Cummings:
Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Are there any questions? Mr. Geddes.
Assemblyman Geddes:
You mentioned health; this is great for education, but I was wondering if there was consideration of putting the nursing program there as well.
Assemblyman Williams:
We’re looking at health services and education, which have the greatest need when it comes to professionals in that particular area, both nurses and teachers. The college is equipped to do both.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Are there any other questions? I didn’t hear anything about amendments. Should we entertain a motion?
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 511.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Are there any comments on the motion? Mr. Manendo?
Assemblyman Manendo:
Again, I disclose that I work at the Community College of Southern Nevada, but this bill will not affect me any differently than any other employee. I was going to make the motion.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Are there any other comments? All those in favor? Those opposed? Any abstentions?
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Vice Chairman Horne:
That concluded, we’ll close the hearing on A.B. 511. Does that conclude our business for the night? No, Mr. Bache in Las Vegas wishes to speak.
Doug Bache:
I was curious when A.B. 279 was going to be heard. That was a bill I requested, and you have not heard it yet.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
We called down there as well as sent a notice that the bill would not be heard this evening. I’m sorry if the people in the audience did not get that message, but we had sent that down.
Doug Bache:
Thank you, I would have appreciated it a few hours ago.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
We understand, we tried again, and we also faxed again about an hour ago. I’m sorry if you didn’t get the message.
Vice Chairman Horne:
I apologize, Mr. Bache. [He indicated that the Committee would return to A.B. 264.]
Assembly Bill 264: Makes various changes governing education. (BDR 34-62)
Vice Chairman Horne:
A.B. 264 is the omnibus education bill by our beloved Chris Giunchigliani. We’re going to try to move this tonight. Mr. McCleary?
Assemblyman McCleary:
Ms. Giunchigliani and I have discussed this, and there was a lot of controversy on some items. We came to an agreement on some items, if we could go through the sections. Would that be okay? We think we kept only the mutually acceptable parts. We’d like to amend this to keep Sections 12, 13, 18, 19, 41, 68, and 70. I feel these are the most pressing issues in this bill. Everything else would be deleted.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I think Mr. McCleary did an excellent job. The intent, in Sections 12, 13, 18, and 19, is to change the added calendar workdays down from 10 to 5, and that way I can argue that in the Ways and Means Committee. Part of this is to drive the debate as we deal with the K-12 funding. Section 68 was with the amendments that I noted in here, and with the amendments that Mr. Bellister recommended for the negotiations. Section 41 was going back to the one-fifth of a retirement credit for each year at an at-risk school, which would then help with the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) issue. One-fifth was finally decided upon. One-fourth was in the bill, but in my amendments it actually said to go back to the original language, which was one-fifth.
Assemblyman Geddes:
That helps out greatly. I still have a couple of concerns with the bill, but they could be addressed there. I’m fully supportive of the first five days, but I’ve somehow lost the intent of the second five days in the second year. My other concern was based on the career ladder, which is rather fuzzy in my mind.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Mr. McCleary is correct; the 10 days would not be there, it would just be 5 days over the biennium, instead of 5 and 5. Regarding the career ladder, a career ladder example that could be bargained would be that you have teachers on a campus for 20 years. They would become mentors, spending half of their day, instructing, the other half they would work with other teachers or do special assignments, or teach. They would be compensated for those additional duties. At least they’re not encouraged to leave the classroom, to go only into administration, which seems to be the only career ladder we have now.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Are there any other questions? Mr. Mabey.
Assemblyman Mabey:
I’m looking for that part about the uniforms. I actually would favor that. I know my colleague wouldn’t, but if there are any other feelings on that?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Section 50, and the current law, does allow the districts to do this. This had suggested that they go to a mandatory policy. I totally agree with the comments of Mrs. Chowning, whether it read “may” or “shall,” it should always be in consultation with the parents and the children at that particular school site.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Regarding the studies that look at extending the school year, do we have evidence that that helps in the high school years? It seems to me that we have evidence that looks at the grade schools, but I don’t know about the junior high and high school years.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I have not seen any studies for middle schools or high schools. My concern would be that, with the increased standards that were put into place . . . In order to get more instructional time, you lengthen the year, not just the day. The day actually gets you a longer period, but they can only add one more class. The same group of kids gets the same amount of instructional time, so it doesn’t expand it. The concept behind extending the day is to cover the materials.
You heard from the homeschool parents. They’re absolutely correct; I don’t think we should be doing all these tests. We should figure out two or three tests, and that’s all we should be doing. Let us teach to mastery, and not to tests. Unfortunately, we’re stuck in that. With the flexibility of working with the districts on extending the year, we can deal with instruction, and we could actually measure some changes. I’m not aware of any studies that have been done; I wish there were, because that would be helpful.
Assemblyman Hardy:
That’s where I would be looking, if we considered even the budget part of this, and we implemented it in the elementary school where I think you probably have data, especially in the K-3.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That’s a very good point. That could be part of the dialogue that I have when I get to the K-12 funding in Ways and Means regarding the days. Under No Child Left Behind, lengthening the day is required as one of the alternatives. Maybe that’s what we end up tying the days to, and start with elementary school, because that’s the key area. If you can get the kids properly prepared, then you won’t have the remediation that you need at the end of the scale. I would be happy to bring that discussion and dialogue to the funding part of it.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Are there any other questions for Ms. Giunchigliani? I would entertain a motion, but the Committee rules don’t allow for a vote to be taken without the express permission of the Chair. He is currently indisposed. [Chairman Williams indicated that Vice Chairman Horne had the required permission.] Having received that express permission at this time, I will entertain a motion.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 264.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Discussion? Mrs. Angle?
Assemblywoman Angle:
I’m going to vote “No” again, because of the unfunded mandate that’s still contained in this. I feel, in these budget-sensitive times, that we just don’t have extra revenue at the school district level to devote to these kinds of things. I would request that you also think of that when you vote.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I have made a commitment to the districts that I won’t support anything if I don’t find the funding in the money committee. The intent, and even working with the Executive Branch, is that there are extra dollars that could be reshifted that may not be agreed to, and that could be applied to some of this. I will make that commitment; my intent is not to pass an unfunded mandate.
Vice Chairman Horne:
This is to go on to Ways and Means. Mr. McCleary?
Assemblyman McCleary:
I just want to say, one more time, that we can’t afford not to take care of our teachers. We’re in a critical shortage here; we have to retain our quality teachers. What we’re paying them for going four years in college, they can start anywhere in the private sector for a lot more money. The teachers don’t get into this business for the money; they get into it because they have a passion for it. We need to give them the basics to survive. I don’t think we can afford not to do this.
Assemblyman Manendo:
I appreciate Chris Giunchigliani bringing forth this bill, and the work that was done. I want to support the motion.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Any other comments? Having none, I’ll pose the question. All those in favor of Assembly Bill 264—actually, we should probably do a roll call. Madam Secretary, one more time for the night. [Roll call vote was taken.]
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. ANGLE VOTING NO.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Having no other business before the Education Committee, we’re adjourned [at 9:44 p.m.].
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Victoria Thompson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
DATE: