MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
April 28, 2003
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:56 p.m., on Monday, April 28, 2003. Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Andrew List, Nevada Association of Counties
Dr. Dotty Merrill, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability and Assessment, Washoe County School District
Mrs. Gene Segerblom, former legislator, representing herself
Dr. Craig Kadlub, Clark County School District
Dr. Sue DeFrancesco, Principal, Bonanza High School, Las Vegas
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Betty Sabo, Principal, Green Valley High School
Bonnie Parnell, Nevada PTA
Chairman Williams:
Good afternoon. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. [Roll was called.] Please mark members present as they arrive. We have two bills on the agenda today, Senate Bill 150 and Senate Bill 253. We’ll open the hearing to consider Senate Bill 150.
Senate Bill 150: Authorizes school district to sell or lease certain real property for less than appraised value under certain circumstances. (BDR 34-323)
As Mr. List comes up, we have two former vice chairs of this Committee in the audience. We’re so honored to have both of them on the same day: Ms. Bonnie Parnell and Mrs. Gene Segerblom.
Andrew List, representing the Nevada Association of Counties:
[Introduced himself and spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit C).] S.B. 150 addresses a situation that came to light via White Pine County. Apparently, in White Point County, there’s an abandoned school building that the school district and the county both wish to sell to save taxpayer dollars. It’s also a matter of public health and safety. There have been several offers to buy this piece of property, but such offers could not be accepted by the county and the school district, because, pursuant to NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] 393.240, the sale of school district property is prohibited if the offer is below the appraised value.
[Mr. List continues.] Senate Bill 150 would allow the school district and the county to sell the piece of property at a price that is below the appraised value, if the appraised value is not received in the bidding process. Currently, White Pine County and the school district have spent approximately $20,000 in operating funds per year to take care of this vacant facility. This is expected to increase this next year to approximately $60,000, because a new K-12 facility has been built in Lund, leaving another facility vacant. The money is spent to provide minimal maintenance; in other words, the water and the power are kept on. Money is also spent on police and public safety to patrol the area.
In terms of public safety, that’s the larger issue here. On a regular basis this facility has been a target for vandals. The White Pine County facility has been broken into several times, and people patrolling the area have found evidence of paper torches inside the boarded-up building. Certainly, if the building catches on fire, the occupants at the time would be trapped inside. Also, there has been evidence that juveniles have been entering the facility and using drugs and alcohol within the building. The interiors and exteriors have been spray-painted with graffiti, and the windows, light fixtures, and other items have been broken. Also, abandoned facilities can contain asbestos, mold, bacteria, and other materials that can become airborne and adversely affect a person’s health.
The way that S.B. 150 would work is, if a bid equal to or greater than the appraised value is not received, then the notice to put the building up for sale would be put on the district’s agenda again. The district would take additional bids, and this would occur three separate times. If, on the third time, they didn’t receive a bid equal to or greater than the appraised value, the building could be sold for whatever bid they had received or would receive in the future. This is different than the way counties operate right now. Counties can sell buildings at below the appraised value in an auction process. This bill isn’t anything different than what’s done at a county level already.
S.B. 150, we believe, would save taxpayer dollars and would also be beneficial to the health and public safety of the people in White Pine County. It would also benefit any other county that has an abandoned school building. I was also informed today that this could affect a school building in Nye County, in the Tonopah area, so there’s a second building that could be subject to these particular regulations. An issue that came up on the Senate side is what happens if the building is sold, and the buyer doesn’t do anything with it; in other words, it still just sits there and is a public safety and health threat. I was informed that, in White Pine County, they would do one of two things.
[Mr. List continues] First, they would use current existing nuisance abatement laws to take care of that building. Secondly, they could write something into the sale of contract that, if it didn’t revert to a building that was being used, or it wasn’t demolished in a particular time frame, the property would revert back to White Pine County’s ownership. They could try to sell it again. We would appreciate prompt and favorable consideration of the bill. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Assemblyman Horne:
What is to prevent purposeful underbidding? If you have this bill that passes, people will know that school districts can accept bids below “market value.” What’s to prevent prospective buyers from not coming to the table in good faith?
Andrew List:
I think the free market would take care of that. If there’s a building up for bid, there’s a noticing process contained within the bill. It would go to the highest bidder. Somebody may underbid, but, if the building is worth anything at all, hopefully there would be a higher bid. The idea here is to unload the building at the highest possible bid, and it would have to go through this process three separate times if the bids were all below market value. If there’s somebody out there looking for some cheap land in White Pine County with a dilapidated building on it, and they underbid intentionally, they would have to do this three separate times. It would have to be on an agenda three separate times. I think that other interested buyers would be watching that same property, and it should go to the highest bidder. I think that marketing process would get the highest possible dollar amount.
Assemblyman Horne:
You’re not moving it now, under current procedures, because somebody just doesn’t want to pay market value for it? Yet they know the school district can’t sell it for less. If we pass S.B. 150 now, they say, okay… I’m missing the point. How this is going to solve the problem, other than bringing people to the table to say they’re going to pay less?
Andrew List:
The idea is exactly that. The idea is to unload the property for less than the appraised value to put it back on the tax rolls and to put it back into good use. If you can’t put it to good use, then completely demolish the building so the land can be put to another use. The idea is to get it out of public hands and to prevent it from becoming a public safety hazard.
Assemblyman Horne:
Could you elaborate on the savings to the taxpayers? Where are we losing money on these properties?
Andrew List:
The way I understand it, in White Pine County, the money is being used to pay for water, for power, to keep the building boarded up, because it keeps being broken into, and to patrol the area. Those costs could reach, in this next year, approximately $60,000. That’s from White Pine County; the gentlemen I received this information from is a county commissioner and also the fiscal officer of the White Pine County School District.
Assemblyman Horne:
The utilities at these abandoned properties are still on, still active? If so, why?
Andrew List:
I think that’s the way White Pine County and a lot of different counties maintain their vacant facilities, to keep very minimal power and utilities on. I’m not sure why, I just think that’s the way they’re doing things. I could certainly find out for you, though. The cost savings would be approximately $60,000 next year, which is the cost of one teacher.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I remember a session, or two, or three ago, when Assemblywoman Marcia De Braga brought a bill forward regarding, I believe, White Pine School District, to make it easier to sell properties that the school district owned. I was wondering if, perhaps, that was the $5000 or less value? It gave the board more flexibility in making decisions regarding the sale of properties. Then an independent appraisal does not have to be secured. I guess you’re saying, on this abandoned property, that the market value still does have a higher value than $5000.
Andrew List:
Yes, with this particular piece of property, it does. I’m not sure what the market value of the property is, and I’m not sure what the appraised value is, but it is greater than $5000. I’m not sure if this $5000 exception to the rule was the bill presented by Mrs. De Braga a couple of sessions ago, but I can certainly find out for you. This piece of property is worth more than $5000, or White Pine County School District would take advantage of that exception.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I would appreciate that, because it all sounds familiar, and I’m wondering if the bill didn’t pass, or what happened. I can see that you need this flexibility; I’m just wondering if all of the school districts in the state need this flexibility. Do Clark County and Washoe County School Districts feel this would help them?
Andrew List:
This bill came before the Nevada Association of Counties Board of Directors, and board members from all 17 counties voted affirmatively to make this one of our bill draft requests. Those commissioners that sit on our Board of Directors did support this bill, so I believe they think it is a good piece of legislation. It would benefit them in some way, certainly with the growth of population in Washoe and Clark counties. There are going to be vacant facilities along the way, as we move up to newer and better school facilities. Whether or not those can be sold above, at, or below appraised value, at this point, I don’t know. Certainly, somewhere along the line, I would hope they would need this law; it is foreseeable that they would.
Assemblyman Manendo:
I was curious about the posting procedures, and how the public would be informed about the availability of the properties. Is that how they normally do it?
Andrew List:
Yes, that’s the way they normally do it. I believe it’s in Section 2 of the bill; they set the time and the place by resolution.
Assemblyman Horne:
Let’s say you have properties valued at $100,000, and you go through the process of noticing. You hold an auction, and the highest bid is $90,000. That sale could be approved at $90,000, upon the approval of the Board of Education, taking those steps, instead of going from “Jump Street” knowing that we will accept bids under fair market value.
Andrew List:
I believe that’s similar to the process used right now by the counties. They only have to have one auction for any piece of property. They don’t need to go through the process three separate times.
Assemblyman Horne:
Now they can’t accept the offer that’s below the appraised value.
Andrew List:
We’re talking about two separate things. In one instance, we’re talking about county property; in this instance, we’re talking about school district property. School district property, real property, cannot be sold below the appraised value. County real property can be sold below the appraised value at an auction. It just needs to be noticed that there is going to be an auction for such property, and the highest bidder gets the property the first time around. They wanted to stick with the closed, sealed bidding process, which is why we had it drafted that way, rather than the auction process.
It’s intentionally different than what is done with county real property. This is a little different, because it has to go through the process three separate times without receiving appraised value to allow for acceptance of the highest bid. Certainly, if you’re talking about safety, underbidding, and notice to the public, there is more safety and more notice to the public in this bill than what’s currently going on with county auctions.
Assemblyman Manendo:
Do you know what the cost would be to tear down the Ely school?
Andrew List:
The cost to tear down the White Pine County School District property is what they deemed prohibitive. It has asbestos; it needs asbestos abatement procedures. It would cost more to bulldoze that building, to tear it down properly, than it would be to maintain it. The cost is prohibitive to that school district.
Assemblyman Manendo:
So we’re not sure…
Andrew List:
We’re not sure exactly what the cost is.
Dr. Dotty Merrill, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability and Assessment, Washoe County School District:
[Introduced herself.] I’m here to support Senate Bill 150 on behalf of the Board of Trustees and our Superintendent. We have not had this happen in our district, but according to our Plant Facilities people, there might be an occasion where we’ve received property and hoped to build a school on it, and there is a problem with the property. We might have to sell it at below the appraised value in order to get someone who could even use it.
I think the bill that Assemblywoman Chowning was referring to is the bill Mrs. De Braga brought forward about the sale of student houses. I believe that was in the 2001 session (A.B. 28 of the Seventy-first Legislative Session). What that enabled school districts to do is to use a realtor to sell student-built houses. In the past, some school districts have had difficulty selling those houses below the appraised value, but with the use of a realtor and the language that was adopted for that specific purpose, school districts were able to do that. Sometimes the houses were so big that the appraised value was prohibitive.
Mrs. Gene Segerblom, former legislator, representing herself:
You know, I had that cultural affairs bill to restore historic places. If we’re talking about that old schoolhouse on the main street in Ely, that would be terrible. Somebody, possibly the school district, could get money from my bill and restore that. Maybe somebody in the city could use it, either the county or the city people. The Boulder Dam Hotel got over $900,000 to restore that hotel from my bill. It’s going to go on until 2014. That’s a beautiful building, that schoolhouse. I asked Mr. List, but he wasn’t sure that’s what it was. We must preserve the historic places in this state. Everybody in Las Vegas knocks them down. Let’s restore this beautiful historic building in White Pine County, on the main street near the hotel in Ely. I can’t vote for this bill, but thank you.
Chairman Williams:
Thank you, Mrs. Segerblom. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? With that, we’ll close the hearing on Senate Bill 150, and go to Senate Bill 253. Is there any proponent for this? Clark County School District?
Senate Bill 253 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing school attendance required to obtain credit or to be promoted to next higher grade. (BDR 34-788)
Dr. Craig Kadlub, representing the Clark County School District:
This bill is jointly sponsored by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Senator Cegavske. In the absence of both of those people, I will make a couple of points and give some background information. Then I’d like to turn it over to Dr. Sue DeFrancesco, principal of Bonanza High School in Las Vegas. The background information on this is that, about a year ago in our district, we surveyed staff at all levels. There are over 25,000 employees in the Clark County School District. We had about 4,000 responses, 3,000 of which came from teachers.
Without fail, each of the employee groups who responded identified attendance as one of the most difficult issues to deal with, and they basically said that they’re not getting a return for the effort that they’re putting into this. Isn’t there someway we can streamline the attendance process? That was consistent with principals, teachers, and support staff. I believe, with the help of Senator Cegavske and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, this bill will address the concerns of those staff members at no cost. I will turn it over at this point to Dr. Sue DeFrancesco in Las Vegas for technical information.
Dr. Sue DeFrancesco, Principal, Bonanza High School, Las Vegas:
As part of the background, NRS 385.365 of the Nevada Education Reform Act (NERA) actually requires that, in order for a school to be designated as demonstrating adequate achievement, the average daily attendance of pupils who are enrolled must be at 90 percent. The language of NRS 392.122 allows, in Section 1, school boards to prescribe a minimum number of days that a pupil who is enrolled must be in attendance to be promoted to the next higher grade. This seems, at face value, to support the concept that local districts and schools can set limits on the number of absences a student may have before their promotion or earning of credit is in jeopardy.
However, as current language reads, Section 1(a) requires that any absences due to physical or mental inability to attend school are actually credited toward days of attendance. What has happened is schools are between a “rock and a hard place,” because, if students provide a note to affirm that they are physically or mentally unable to attend school, they can accrue as many absences as they wish. We’re being asked to achieve, in terms of NERA, a 90 percent attendance rate, and, yet, students can accrue unlimited numbers of absences as long as their parents sign off with a note, or in some schools, there is a procedure for a phone call process to legitimize those absences.
Another difficulty is in another portion of language in NAC (Nevada Administrative Code) 387.185. Attendance is actually defined as the presence of a pupil at school, on a day in which school is in session. You can only be counted as in attendance if you are actually in school, or at a school-sponsored activity. We’re accountable, as a school, for our average daily attendance; we like to hit the 90 percent mark or higher. Students themselves, as individuals, are not held to the same 90 percent minimum expectation for their promotion, or for earning course credit.
If you look at my own high school, at the absences we had during the second semester of last year, they average nearly 9 absences per student. Kids are already at what is the limit of that 10 percent ratio of possible days to attend. As a district, when our attendance policy limited the number to 10 absences each semester, our average daily attendance increased over the 3-year period it was in effect; it increased 2.1 percent in the district as a whole. What is more dramatic is that the number of students who exceeded 10 absences was significantly diminished, and that rate went from 60 percent of students having over 10 absences in the 1997-1998 school year to 42.8 percent of the students exceeding those absences in 1999-2000.
[Dr. DeFrancesco continues.] We understand that we have to be sensitive to students who have chronic, intermittent, or routine childhood illnesses, and we also have to be sensitive to the complex issues, which face our children as they become adolescents. If students are physically or mentally unable to attend school, and they are able to complete the coursework, we don’t seek to jeopardize their promotion or earning of credit.
We are concerned, now, that there is no limit, even though it could be provided, according to current code language, for boards to set a limit. We are concerned that students may have unlimited numbers of absences, as long as they bring a note. More essential is our concern that, at the same time, we are asked to assist all students in meeting the higher standards and improved achievement, not only one school and one classroom at a time, but also one student at a time. We are somewhat limited in our efforts to say attendance is important. We cannot teach the students, if they are not present in the classroom. We can’t monitor their daily growth and progress, if we are only seeing assignments submitted as makeup work, which imperfectly approximates the classroom experience.
We think the amended language that was included after the Senate committee hearing allows for local districts to enact a policy to set limits that they believe are reasonable, and I suggest that a 90 percent attendance limit should be a number to be considered when we’re looking at numbers of absences individual students could accrue before we consider their promotion or earning of credits as being in jeopardy. The language includes a parent process for appeal, and I think that’s critical. All we’re asking is that parents come to the school and interact on the basis of why the student accrued those number of absences, in excess of whatever the local school board sets as a limit.
Therefore, a student in good academic standing should not lose the credit or be retained just because the number of absences might have exceeded the limit. We would also determine if they had completed current coursework, which is included in this amended draft. We would appreciate that you consider this language and approve it, so that we may reinforce for our students the importance of attending school, which we have seen commensurate and correlated with their success academically.
Assemblywoman Angle:
You say 90 percent attendance; my question is that I thought our attendance days were 180 days, so 90 percent would be less than 18 days, is that not correct? Yet you have 10 days; can you explain how you came up with 10 days?
Dr. DeFrancesco:
The 10 days was something our local school board set as a limit prior to the Attorney General’s opinion that said we could not limit the numbers of days of absence. NERA recommends 90 percent as a way for schools to demonstrate adequate achievement, so there’s a window that boards would have to deal with. What do they think is legitimate for numbers of absences? I’m not suggesting one number or another; that’s for a local board to determine. All I’m doing is making the point that 90 percent is what we’re held to as a school unit, to be deemed adequate, according to the Nevada Education Reform Act. Somehow, that 90 percent figure should translate into the 180 days that we ask students to attend school.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I don’t know if it appears this way to anyone else, but it appears to me that the language was taken out in Section 1, and put right back in with the amendment. I’ve read this over and over, and the only thing that is in the new language is the addition of the parent. We took away the “physically or mentally unable to attend school,” and we put it right back in on the next page. We took away “only if he’s completed the coursework,” and put it right back in. This makes no sense at all to me. Somebody tell me what I’m missing, please.
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Assemblywoman, District No. 9:
[Introduced herself.] I’m co-sponsor of this bill with Senator Cegavske. Actually, I’ll ask Lucille Lusk to discuss the amendment, because she worked with Senator Cegavske on that part, and I was not able to get into that discussion.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
Do you have before you “Analysis of S.B. 253” (Exhibit D)? If not, it’s coming. I’d like to run through how we envision this working, and first state that our purpose is to get the pendulum to stop in the middle, so that we don’t get carried away in either direction. We don’t say that kids can be absent anytime they want to be absent, for any reason whatsoever. By the same token, we don’t want to become so authoritarian that legitimate reasons for absences are not considered.
How we envision this working is that the school board sets the minimum number of days of attendance for credit or promotion purposes. That’s in current law, but it’s not always done. By setting that, it defines the maximum number of absences that are generally permissible. Prearranged absences, up to 10 in a year, are credited to the required number of days of attendance if coursework is completed. That is pursuant to current law, and that would remain.
[Ms. Lusk continues.] Under Section C, when a pupil receives the maximum number of non-prearranged absences, the school district may, at that point, review it for the possible denying of credit or promotion to the next higher grade. When the parents are informed of that, the pupil and the parent(s) or guardian may request a review of the absences. In that review, wherein the principal or their designee sits down with the parents and the student to go over the information, if evidence is provided that the absences were indeed legitimate due to a chronic illness, or a series of illnesses, and the parent affirms that, those absences are not counted against the student. The student continues along their educational path.
If, however, it is discovered in that review that those notes were written by the student and not by the parent, or there is some other non-legitimate reason for those absences, then responsibility is brought to bear against that student, and they can, at that point, be denied the credit or promotion. Logic argues that the school, at this point, would prefer to work with the student and get them back on track. If the student can’t be brought back on track, it is reasonable that, at some point, responsibility should lie with the individual student.
If indeed the review takes place, and the parent is unsatisfied with the outcome, the parent still has the ability to appeal a denial of credit or promotion to the Board of School Trustees, where, in my personal opinion, the final decision should properly lie. That explains how we anticipate that it would work. Obviously, it’s a policy decision for this Committee and the entire Legislature to make.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Ms. Lusk outlined what we were trying to get to in this legislation. When I first passed the law to deal with attendance and tried to get that pendulum in the middle, an amendment was put on that said any note that a parent wrote, or supposedly wrote, had to be accepted. There were abuses over a period of time; mom always wrote the note when the child was truly sick, but dad’s signature appeared on a note when the kid was actually ditching. You would not know that.
I went to homes. If my kids did not show up in class, I’d be on the phone to them or go to their houses. I’d drop in, and they hated that. They’d say, “Ms. G’s going to come find you,” and I did. I would inform the parent, “I came to your house, and Johnny wasn’t sick, but he sent this note to school.” The parent would say, “You’re right.” I don’t want to nail them; I want to be able to teach them. I can’t teach them if they’re not on campus.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continues.] What we were trying to deal with here is that this law applies to all levels. The credit issue was a concern when I wrote the other law that said that you can’t flunk everything in middle school and still be promoted to high school. You have to have standards here. That’s where I had the language regarding promotion. We didn’t add the language regarding credit, because it also applies to a student in high school. Ms. Lusk is absolutely right; you can do prearranged absences. If a parent wants to take a family on a vacation, or they go to Close Up in Washington, D.C., they can prearrange that. As long as that student makes up the work when the teacher assigns it by doing the work before, after, or during the trip. When they turn the work in, they shouldn’t be counted as having been absent. That already is maintained and is not affected by this legislation.
I think Ms. Lusk is right. We wanted to try to get that balance back, but also to have the parents able to come in and talk, because they do not always know what their sons and daughters are doing. They’re smart enough to pull the card out of the mailbox, or in some cases there are calls that are made about absences. The kids know the system. The parents aren’t always informed, and this is one way to bring the parent back into part of the process.
[Chairman Williams turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Horne at this time.]
Vice Chair Horne:
Did that answer your question, Mrs. Chowning?
Assemblywoman Chowning:
It does, partially. The sad thing seems to be that this review process is not put into place until there’s been a drastic decision made. The pupil is denied credit, or denied promotion, to the next higher grade. Then a request is made for a review of the denial. It’s unfortunate, and I think this is a backwards process. There should be a review before that drastic decision is made.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Most of the districts have put into place a very cumbersome system, but it still works. We have a “red alert.” If a kid is absent for three days, and I haven’t seen them, I call or go find them. You have to document, in writing, that the child has not been in your particular class. Then we would verify whether it was all six or seven class periods, or only one. Everything is documented. There is a parental notice that’s sent home as soon as you hit the third, fifth, and then seventh absence. That’s separate from the postcard that goes home. We’re responsible, at least as classroom teachers. Part of the school board policy in Clark County was that we had to personally notify, or make a phone call, and document whether or not we were able to reach that parent to let them know their child was already at the third unexcused absence. Now you’re bringing in the credit and promotion issue, and it forces everybody to the table, so to speak, unless they’ve changed it since I was there.
Dr. Craig Kadlub, Clark County School District:
I would add that some schools have electronic devices for calling homes and notifying parents of students’ absences, and there’s the report card that parents get which indicates the total number of student absences. There are a variety of ways in which parents are notified long before the 9th, 10th, or whatever the threshold of absence is. If I could, I’d like to ask Dr. DeFrancesco to expound upon that, if she feels it’s necessary. I, too, want to make sure all your questions are answered; I think they’re good questions.
Dr. DeFrancesco:
There’s an extensive process involved with attendance at the high school level, class by class. In the elementary and middle levels, it may take a little different form, but we have a district-wide system which notifies parents. We have individual school systems, which notify parents of absences, and we also have that in our regulation. I believe other aspects relating to attendance in law also require that interaction with parents at some point in time. We do have quite a bit of communication prior to this very severe potential consequence of losing credit or not being promoted.
The process of not being promoted is also well defined, both for academic reasons and the fact that attendance is so vitally linked to the academic success, particularly in elementary school. This would not be the first time a parent would have information on attendance, when it is so severe. Nonetheless, we want to make sure we have that interaction, and that we make a plan to go forward, if it is deemed possible to salvage that student, his credit, or his potential for being promoted to the next grade.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
You’re allowed 10 prearranged absences per year; is that in addition to the 18 absences?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Yes, 10, or depending on what else the school board may have established. The 10 prearranged absences do not count as absences as long as the student makes up the work, and they prearranged the absence. That’s separate from when you bring a note if you’re home ill. The Clark County School Board chose 10 days originally. I think what Dr. DeFrancesco is saying is that some places have gone to a 90 percent standard; NERA has, too. I would hope that, if you chose to go in that direction, you make sure you’re capturing students. If you tell somebody that, out of a 180-day school year, they can miss 20 days of school, that’s a lot of instructional time that you’re losing.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
So, it’s 10 instead of 18.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
In Clark County, yes. I think most of the districts have a system. I think what Dr. DeFrancesco was talking about is what the 90 percent would be, which Mrs. Angle brought up.
Assemblyman Mabey:
I’m still a little confused. Let’s say my daughter Alicia is ill, and she gets a note from her mother, or her father who’s a doctor; will that count?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That would add up to the 10 days, excused or unexcused. Actually, “approved” or “unapproved” is the correct terminology. That’s the current requirement, plus you can have 10 approved days separate from those, which will never count towards that 10, as long as you do the makeup work.
Assemblyman Mabey:
In other words, if Alicia is ill 11 times, and I’ve written a note every time, we’ll still have to do this.
Ms. Lusk:
Yes, that would be correct. That would be the point at which the review would be triggered. If you go in and say that she has actually been ill, that’s the end of that review. You may, of course, want to have further discussion to make sure she’s still keeping up with her work.
Assemblyman Mabey:
Then how would you do it on a semester class that you just take for half of the year? How does that work?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I think for semester and year-round classes, we had 10 days per semester, but maybe Dr. DeFrancesco could clarify that. I’m sorry, but having been gone for a few months, I have forgotten. I would also point out that the teacher is required to record it as a plus if we receive a note or a phone call, or if we made the call and confirmed with the parent. Then I would send a note down to the office so they knew I’d already tracked the kid down. If there’s a negative sign there, maybe one of the notes didn’t get to all the teachers. That’s a perfect way for you to be able to say, “I had a note, and Ms. So-and-So’s class didn’t happen to get the note to sign off.” That is the way you fix that error. There are mistakes, and we want to err on the side of the child.
Dr. DeFrancesco:
The previous policy that we had in effect, prior to the Attorney General’s opinion, was an absence limit of 10 per semester, with a combination of excused or unexcused. On the 11th absence, teachers from the individual class where they accrued 11 absences would notify the dean’s office, and we would send a notice of denial of credit, at least at the high school level, for that course or courses where they exceeded the number of absences. We would convene a conference and review, if there was evidence that the student never got the note, for example, to their third period teacher, and that was where they reached the 11th absence. Then we would correct the record. The student’s attendance is restored, and the student continues to remain in that class earning credit so they can get their half-credit for that individual course work.
Because of the Attorney General’s opinion, which was based on Section A in S.B. 253, we could no longer set a limit. We couldn’t count any absences for which a note was presented, and that’s where we’ve asked for Section A to be stricken. We can go back to setting a limit and proceeding with that conversation and the review of attendance with those students and parents. Did that answer your question?
Assemblywoman Chowning:
A follow-up with Dr. Mabey’s illustration: what I heard was different than the way the bill reads. Everyone says if there are 11 absences, there would be a review. This bill says there will not be a review until there is a drastic decision. The pupil has to be denied credit or promotion; then there will be a review. It’s a darn shame that, if Alicia is absent 11 times, and all 11 are absolutely valid, there is no review process. There’s no review process put in place until the drastic decision is made. What people are saying is not what the bill is saying. I think that’s a real shame, because there are absolutely valid reasons when someone is physically or mentally unable to continue to work. This seems to me to be set up for more students to drop out of school, instead of less. That’s certainly not our goal.
Ms. Lusk:
The review that is set up here is intended to be a protective review, not the first or only review. If withholding of credit or promotion is being contemplated, a review has to be held. The district must make the opportunity available for a review with the parents. I’m only going to state for myself here, because others will have to say what they prefer, but I certainly have no objection to a required review earlier. I would not want to lose the absolutely required review at the point that credit or promotion is going to be considered to be lost, even if there’s been an earlier review. At that point, that’s a protective review.
[Ms. Lusk continues.] I also would like to mention that there is not a requirement that the district deny credit or promotion, if they’re satisfied that the absences were legitimate. My grandson had scarlet fever. The schools did not want him there; they knew he had scarlet fever, and there would have been no reason whatsoever to initiate a lack of promotion or a review.
Vice Chair Horne:
That’s what I’ve been hearing in the testimony. The current practice is that, when these absences start accruing, there is some oversight and an opportunity to consult with students and parents. At this juncture it becomes mandatory, before any affirmative action takes place on denying promotion or credit for the class.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That’s absolutely correct. There are four contacts done, at least at the middle school level. In fact, before I left, once we flagged a kid that had been missing for three days, the dean would put them on an Attendance RPC [Required Parent Conference]. They weren’t kicked out of school, but a notice went home for the Required Parent Conference, so they could talk to those parents and tell them that their child had been missing. If the child is truly ill, sometimes “homebound” schooling may be needed. In the case of Ms. Lusk’s nephew with scarlet fever, not only do you not want them at school, they’re going to be out for longer than a week or two.
There are other programs that could be provided to a student, but as a parent, you don’t even know what to ask for. I think the steps are all there; I agree with Ms. Lusk that this is a “red flag,” at the worst time. You didn’t look at the report card, you didn’t look at the review, you didn’t look at the RPC, and you didn’t respond to the three phone calls that were made. We’re required to make the calls and initiate, but you didn’t respond. Your kid is now at risk of losing credit or of being promoted; you need to sit down with us and tell us what’s going on here.
Believe me, they’ve got the steps in place, at least in the southern part of the state. I’m sure most of the other districts do as well. The smaller districts don’t have that great a problem; they know the families. It’s a little easier, when you’re in a smaller town, to know what’s happening and what assistance can be provided.
Vice Chair Horne:
Thank you, Ms. Giunchigliani. Mr. Hardy?
Assemblyman Hardy:
If you have the bill before you, on page 2, Section 2, line 5, “the pupil and his parent or legal guardian may request a review of the denial of credit or promotion.” The way I read that, if we’re going to talk about language, the review is generated by the parent, the guardian, or the pupil. It is not a mandatory review. I don’t read that as mandatory; I read that as “at the request of the parent, the pupil, and/or the legal guardian.”
Ms. Lusk:
Mr. Hardy is technically correct. The request is to be made by the parent, but upon such a request, on line 7, the principal of the school shall review. So the review is mandatory, if the parent requests it, but it is not necessarily mandatory if no one requests it. Ms. Giunchigliani and I were discussing whether you might prefer it to say, on line 3, “if consideration is being given to the pupil.” Obviously this is very rough language. Maybe what we’re after is “upon consideration.” If you prefer, because at that point it’s actually under consideration, you could require a review, regardless of the parent request.
Ms. Sabo, Principal, Green Valley High School:
Excuse me. [Introduced herself] May I…
Vice Chair Horne:
I haven’t forgotten you, Ms. Sabo.
Ms. Sabo:
Okay, I’ll sit quietly.
Assemblyman Hardy:
That makes sense to me, if we’re talking about language the way it is now. It could be improved. The very student that’s creative enough to figure out how to write names and notes and to collect notification out of the mailbox, could probably get this done so that the parent doesn’t know until the end of the year that his child didn’t pass. I would almost like to see it; I hate to use the words “mandatory review,” but there ought to be a principal or a dean who has a conversation with the parent. The very child who has figured out how to bypass the system can bypass the notice that says, “Do you want to request a review?”
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Not necessarily, because I think young men and women have learned how to work a system, no matter what. All I would argue is, at some point, the parent needs to be responsible, and we can’t just grant that away. I don’t want to make more paperwork for the schools. We gave the kids a contract at the beginning of the year, and they had to bring it back signed. At least, I had verification, or at least our school had verification. If the child was in jeopardy of not being promoted, they had to bring it back signed; then the parent could review it. Is there something in place or is that something we happen to be doing in our school that we could modify to accommodate some of your concerns?
Vice Chair Horne:
Perhaps we could make these modifications, Ms. Giunchigliani, if you could come up with a draft amendment for our next work session. We could consider it at that time. We have Principal Sabo waiting patiently. Do you have any input? I’m sure you do.
Ms. Sabo:
I support the language as it is written. After listening to many of the questions that were asked, I would like to assure everyone present that no student is denied credit or promotion without a great deal of information provided to the home in numerous ways. Attendance contracts are a tradition in many schools, including Green Valley High School, so that parents are aware of what the process is. With a combination of efforts from the individual teachers and individual departments, as well as school-wide, there is a lot of information going home regarding students and their attendance.
We also have academic records that are sent home. In point of fact, a student will not be prevented from graduating unless we have had certified letters go home. There’s information already in place. I would also like to note that, if we use the 10 days, not counting the 10th day as prearranged, for example, Clark County School District did have that in place. As the principal of Green Valley High School, there were never any reviews brought to me where any parent felt they had not been treated fairly regarding their student and attendance.
I have an actual instance where we do provide a lot of review, and when you have the parents come in to talk about attendance, most often we’re willing to provide another day, or two, or three, even if they can’t justify all the absences. I think it was Chris Giunchigliani who talked about getting everybody to the table, and it really helped. We have students with 20, 30, 40, 50, even 60 absences, and they are still having no consequence, because notes are written that we have to accept. I think we are definitely doing a disservice to those students, especially when we say our schools are to teach citizenship and being a good worker. I think we’re failing when these kinds of absences can accrue.
Assemblyman Manendo:
What if parents are unable to attend meetings at all, because of work schedules? What happens in a case like that?
Ms. Sabo:
We have phone conferences. We will make any arrangements necessary to meet with parents. We set different hours, come in early, stay late, and we do phone conferences. Should that be the case, we can accommodate that.
Assemblyman Manendo:
Are there any conflicts at all with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? I don’t know if you can answer that, or if we need someone from the school district.
Ms. Sabo:
I’m not completely familiar with all the language of No Child Left Behind, having only gotten through about a third of it so far, but I can tell you that part of it does expect that we are going to require students to be there to learn. I don’t believe there’s a conflict at all. We could have the experts in the different school districts double check that, but No Child Left Behind means that we are getting kids to school as well; that is my understanding. I also want to say that the schools all have rewards and incentives for good attendance. It sounds like we’re just talking about poor attendance here. We try to reward students for attendance, not only for the knowledge they’re gaining, but in many other ways. If we can get them to school, I think that will be in line with No Child Left Behind.
Vice Chair Horne:
Are there any other questions? Dr. Merrill?
Dr. Merrill:
In March 2003, our Board of Trustees voted unanimously to support the concept as it’s embodied in Senate Bill 253. We certainly agree with the concerns regarding attendance that have been communicated to you by the two principals from the Clark County School District and others. At that time, we supported a friendly amendment regarding an appeals process, and we believe that appeals process is now included in amended Section 1, subsection 2, which has received so much discussion this evening.
I’d like to reinforce what was stated earlier by the Clark County School District. In Washoe County, we do not wait until the issue has exploded to non-promotion or not issuing credit for a class. There are many opportunities through the process that our trustees have adopted. When parents are informed about absences, parents come to school to discuss those absences, and there is a concerted and collaborative effort put into place for the student’s attendance to improve and for the student to assume ownership of both absences and attendance. We also believe that, although there might be a need to change the language as Assemblyman Hardy has proposed in lines 3 and 4, it would certainly be onerous, if not something more extreme than that, to require that every time credit is to be denied, a conference must occur. Having been a high school administrator myself for eight years, I think nothing would happen for a high school administrator except to hold those conferences, if this were mandatory.
Ms. Lusk:
I wanted to answer the question about NCLB, No Child Left Behind. That is a 10 percent standard, so this is not in conflict but is supporting it. After further discussion with Ms. Giunchigliani, for the Committee’s consideration, we might consider, when a pupil is under consideration for denial of credit or denial of promotion, that the parent must be informed and advised of their rights and procedures to request a review.
Vice Chair Horne:
If there is no more testimony for S.B. 253, I’ll move to the opposition.
Ms. Parnell?
Bonnie Parnell, representing Nevada PTA (Parent Teacher Association):
I’d prefer to call it neutrality, Mr. Vice Chairman. This is a tough one. I don’t know that there are many issues which have such a fine line between being a teacher and needing those kids in the classroom so you can teach them, and on the other hand, the rights of the parents in determining if and when a child should not be attending school. I make my remarks with great respect for both sides of this argument.
The PTA actually supports the current NRS 392.122 and feels that what is does is to create a balance of parental discretion and responsibility with the school policy that is currently in existence. When we look at the changes made in S.B. 253, there is concern on the part of the PTA that, especially in the deletion of the mental and physical, you’re also taking the “or” out at the end of that. What that does is, unless anything over 10 days is prearranged—“prearranged” might be the field trip, the Close Up trip, or a family-planned vacation—that in itself eliminates illness. Anytime we have one day after the 10 that is not prearranged, we’re looking at having to go through this process. The word “prearranged” becomes the word that’s cumbersome.
[Bonnie Parnell continues.] The other part that I think is difficult is that limits are set on excused as well as unexcused absences, so we’re tending to clump the excused absences in with the unexcused, even though, as Assemblywoman Giunchigliani references, the note might have been written by the person’s best friend. We also have the other issue of truancy, when you’re looking at absences. For those reasons, the PTA is in support of the current language. I have faith that you all will come to an agreement that would best serve the students and the teachers, and will allow the parents their input.
Vice Chair Horne:
Are there any questions for Ms. Parnell? Thank you very much. Is there any other testimony for S.B. 253? If not, we’ll close the hearing on S.B. 253. If Assemblywoman Giunchigliani can work on the amendment, we would appreciate that. Is there any other business before the Committee? If not, we stand adjourned [at 5:04 p.m.].
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Victoria Thompson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
DATE: