MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
May 5, 2003
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:52 p.m., on Monday, May 5, 2003. Vice Chairman William Horne 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. 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:
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dr. Craig Kadlub, Clark County School District
Bonnie Parnell, Nevada PTA
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education
Vice Chairman Horne:
We will call the meeting together as a subcommittee. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. [Roll was called.] Chairman Williams is marked excused. Please note that the remainder of the Committee, with the exception of Chairman Williams, will be marked present as they arrive. [Mr. Atkinson’s arrival increased the number of Committee members present, thus a quorem allowed the Committee to meet as a whole.]
We’re going to open the hearing on Senate Bill 34.
Senate Bill 34 (1st Reprint): Clarifies that pupil may be retained more than once in same grade under certain circumstances. (BDR 34-639)
Carol Stonefield, LCB Research Division, Committee Policy Analyst:
[Introduced herself.] I was one of the policy analysts with the Legislative Committee on Education. Senate Bill 34 had been requested by that particular committee, so I will present that on behalf of the committee. In that capacity, I will neither advocate nor oppose any of the provisions of Senate Bill 34, but I will simply try to explain the provisions of it to you.
Senate Bill 34 impacts the progress of children through the public schools. There are essentially two provisions in this bill. The first is early admittance to kindergarten; the second is retention of a pupil in the eighth grade. Section 1 relates to admittance to kindergarten. It contains NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] 392.040, which is Nevada’s compulsory school attendance law. This establishes the cutoff for admittance to kindergarten as September 30, and there is no appeal, as far as I know. A child must be five years of age on or before that date to be admitted to kindergarten and counted for apportionment.
Senate Bill 34 would make the following changes: A parent or guardian may request the admittance of a child who is not five years old by September 30, and the district may allow the child to enroll, if the school district determines that, first, the child is gifted, as defined by the State Board of Education, and, second, it would be in the best interests of the child to be enrolled in kindergarten. If the parents make this choice, they must pay any costs associated with determining if the child is gifted. If the child completes kindergarten, the child may be admitted to first grade and counted for apportionment followed by admittance to second grade.
[Ms. Stonefield continued.] The bill as filed requires the districts to admit these pupils. Fiscal estimates from the school districts indicated a substantial increase in the number of children in kindergarten. The amended bill, passed by the Senate, is permissive. A school district “may” allow the child to enroll. Because the school district may choose to admit these children, the costs associated with testing must be borne by the parents. It is assumed that there is no longer a fiscal impact.
Section 2 of the bill relates to the retention of a pupil in the eighth grade. NRS 392.125, which is in the bill, provides that no pupil may be retained more than one time in the same grade. That was passed in 1981. NRS 392.033 prohibits a board of trustees from promoting a pupil to high school if the pupil has not completed the credits required for promotion. That was passed by the Legislature in 1997. These two statutes would appear to conflict. Attorney General Opinion No. 1999-29 noted the conflict but resolved the issue by authorizing a school board to prohibit the promotion of the pupil to high school, even if that decision requires the retention of the pupil in the eighth grade more than one time.
The Attorney General noted that the provision in NRS 392.033, which was A.B. 376 of the Sixty-ninth Legislative Session, was the most recent statute, so it controls the earlier statute. It was thought that, in 1997, the year that NERA [National Educational Reform Act] was enacted, pupils who were promoted to high school without adequate preparation would struggle and eventually drop out or fail the High School Proficiency Exam. The Legislative Committee on Education received testimony suggesting that the conflict should be resolved, and Senate Bill 34 would provide a resolution to that. [The remainder of the Committee members arrived prior to the end of Ms. Stonefield’s presentation.]
Vice Chairman Horne:
Thank you, Ms. Stonefield. Are there any questions about Senate Bill 34? As I understand it, we basically have two parts. The first part deals with students whose birthdays fall outside the cutoff for entering kindergarten. It was amended to make it permissive, and also to show that they are gifted. The second portion was not allowing the promotion into high school.
Carol Stonefield:
Yes, Mr. Vice Chairman. It would appear that one provision of the NRS prohibits a school district from retaining a child in the same grade more than once, while another provision of the NRS requires that a child has to meet all of the credits required in order to be promoted to high school. This bill would resolve that conflict.
Vice Chairman Horne:
If there are no questions, we have Dr. Kadlub to testify for the Clark County School District.
Dr. Craig Kadlub, representing the Clark County School District:
[Introduced himself.] I discussed my comments with Dr. Dotty Merrill from the Washoe County School District, and she asked that I indicate that my testimony represents Washoe County School District’s position as well, since she is in another hearing.
To begin with, I’m thankful for and acknowledge some significant changes in the bill. We appreciate the permissive language and the fact that the cost of testing no longer rests with the school districts. However, we still have a few considerations. One is the potential need to increase the overall DSA (Distributive School Account). Nevada school districts serve a fairly predictable population, which consists of students from age five through graduation. Lowering the age threshold for enrollment in school increases the total number eligible to be served and would require the state to provide a per-pupil allocation for this new population of students.
Equity is another consideration. It is not illogical to suggest that students who will be admitted early, based on test results, are students who come from homes where parents are involved, and where there is enough money to pay for testing. Our feeling is those are not necessarily the children who need a “jump start” in school. Moreover, the premise of public education is to provide service for all children, not just for all children who qualify.
We also feel that the current age threshold is satisfactory. The present law draws a clear line, and it is helpful to have a specific age requirement in statute. As it is, we already deal with parents whose children’s birthdays are just a few days short of the cutoff date. Enacting this law would move the same debate from parents of the almost 5-year-olds to the parents of the almost 4½-year-olds, plus it would further complicate the issue by adding a qualifying examination for the almost 4½-year-olds.
The District’s position is, if we’re going to alter the parameters of the kindergarten program, it would be better to offer a full-day program to the kindergartners that we already have, rather than to increase the number of children we serve in half-day programs.
[Dr. Kadlub continued.] Finally, we feel there would be concern in terms of compounding the staffing and facility issues we already contend with. In closing, while we appreciate the amended version of S.B. 34, and we believe that it could be workable in our district, we remain concerned about the cost and equity implications. Therefore, we remain opposed.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Thank you, Mr. Kadlub. I had a question. Maybe you can answer this, because you say you’re dealing with almost 5-year-olds. It seems odd to me that if we have a child who missed the cutoff by five weeks, that child has to be gifted in order to join the ranks of the rest of the kindergarteners. I saw the fiscal note, and that seemed enormous. Are we really talking about that number of kids, that type of impact?
I understand the argument about where we draw the line. If we allow them, the next argument will be for 4½-year-old children. Clearly, a kid who is only two weeks, or a month, or even two months behind his peers, seems to be part of a group that would be so small as to create little impact on the school district. I don’t know why we can’t include them, and why the parents of those children have to jump through hoops that other parents wouldn’t have to.
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
In response to your first question, the numbers probably wouldn’t be that great, and, of course, the fiscal concern has been entirely mitigated since that cost goes to the parents for testing. Also, the district would be getting the per-pupil allocation for kids enrolling in kindergarten. The assumption is we would be funded to find staff and to ensure that the kids have a place to sit. In terms of numbers, we have about 20,000 students per grade level. If we backed enrollment up six months, 10,000 children could be potentially eligible for enrollment. If even half go through the exercise, we’re still talking about 5000 kids; a fourth would be 2500 kids. That may not seem like a lot, but that’s 2½ or 3 elementary schools full of kids that would require staffing and places to sit.
The larger question that remains with our district is this: Is there a cutoff line or not? You’re absolute right; there will probably be only a twelfth of that 20,000 population that fall within the month after our existing cutoff date. In effect, by allowing them in, you establish a new cutoff date. Then there’s another twelfth of the population that are within several weeks of that admission date. We feel it’s really valuable to us to have a “drop dead” date in the statutes. Either the kids make the time line and are enrolled, or they can enroll the succeeding year, or their parents can put them in a daycare or something that offers some schooling. We have concerns in term of staffing, space, and developing academically appropriate programs for a younger and younger population.
Vice Chairman Horne:
The “drop dead” date we’re dealing with now is September 30? That’s basically the start of the school year. Am I right?
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
If they reach the age threshold by the 30th of September, then they would enroll for the start of that school year. If they don’t reach the age threshold until after that, they have to wait until the next school year.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
As a parent of four children whose birthdays fell in varying times of the year, a child who is a little older has more maturity and will be more successful in school than a child who is, perhaps, the youngest kid in his or her class. This is just from experience.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I have two questions. First of all, how much is the cost for the testing? I agree that it does set up a different class of kids who would be able to apply here. They would be ones whose parents could afford to pay the cost; if the parents can’t afford to pay the cost, it sets up something I’m not comfortable with. We’re supposed to be offering free education, that’s what the definition of public education is. My second question is how much of the population of students now are gifted? That would be some sort of barometer for how many this would apply to.
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
Our original estimates for testing would have included staff time. The test itself is a relatively inexpensive document, but to have a professional there to administer and proctor the exam, and to send it back for scoring, adds to the cost. While the test may be $10 to $20 as a document, I’m not sure what a private psychologist or whomever a parent would go to for this assessment might charge. I really don’t know about the nonschool side of that expense.
As far as the gifted population, I believe that we probably have about 6000 kids in Clark County. I think there are about 6000 students in our gifted and talented program, out of about 255,000. Again, it would be a relatively small population.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
It says the parent or legal guardian shall pay any costs. What is that talking about? Is that talking about paying the costs of the test, plus paying for the staff time? Would this parent be able to have the staff time automatically given to them if they pay for it?
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
I don’t believe the District envisions assuming that responsibility. I believe that, the way we’re interpreting the bill, the parent would go to a professional outside of the school district to have their child tested. They would come back with the documentation saying that their child is eligible based on having met the criteria established by the State Department of Education.
Assemblywoman Angle:
Do you not do readiness testing for kindergarten now? I know when my son and daughter entered kindergarten, there were certain skills they had to have before they could be admitted, because we don’t have mandatory kindergartens. Is that true, or are we now doing mandatory kindergarten, and there are no administrative tests we do at that time?
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
I think there are readiness tests that we offer. However, I’m not aware that any child has ever been excluded from attending kindergarten based upon their performance on the exam. If they meet the age threshold and the parents want to enroll them, as far as I know, they are all enrolled.
Assemblywoman Angle:
With that readiness testing already in place, you do that, I assume, at the end of the year before they are enrolled for the next fall. When you do that testing, couldn’t you test these younger ones then, as well, and check for their readiness? You’re already administering it; would it be a burden, is that what you’re saying, to do the readiness testing for everyone?
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
Yes, Assemblywoman Angle. Originally, when we figured the fiscal note on this, we determined that we would, first of all, have staff available. As you know, the teacher contract doesn’t begin until before the start of the school year, so some people would have to have extended contracts. People would have to be trained to administer the tests. Those were our initial costs. I don’t believe we could do it at the same time as the other tests, at no additional cost, because it’s a different test, for a different population of students.
Assemblywoman Angle:
You’re envisioning that the test for these younger ones would be different than the readiness test that you give to every kindergarten student that’s entering school?
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
If the bill were to pass, I think what it says is that they would have to identify that the child has met or exceeded some criteria determining that they are gifted. I think that’s quite a bit different than the readiness test.
Assemblyman Andonov:
You mentioned that there are 6000 students already in the gifted and talented program. What is the criteria for becoming a member, and how do they become part of that program?
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
There is a qualifying test for that. Typically, I don’t believe that we have any children in the gifted and talented program in grade one. They have determined that, for whatever reason, second grade, age six or seven, is a more reliable age at which to determine a child’s academic capabilities.
Assemblyman Andonov:
Is that when someone starts in the program?
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
In our district it is. That runs only through elementary school. That’s not to say there aren’t gifted and talented kids in high school. It’s just that once they get up into the secondary programs, they have the honors programs, advanced placement, international baccalaureate, and various other accelerated offerings.
Assemblyman Andonov:
The way you determine whether they are gifted and talented is through a test that you administer as a school district?
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
Yes, and that’s done at the request of the parents. If the parents, the student’s grades, and the teachers all indicate that the child may have special talents or abilities, then the test is administered.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Did I hear this correctly? You just said you don’t have any gifted students in kindergarten or grade one, because you don’t believe the assessment is accurate until they are older. Yet, we want to set that standard for them to get in early. Is it unachievable? Are we setting the standards where you have to be gifted, but we’re going to find that you are not gifted because you can’t rely on the data?
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
That’s part of the reason we’re not supporting the bill. We do question that data. Obviously, by the time a child is in second grade, they can pretty much read, write, and figure their way through a test on their own. With a 4½-year-old, you may be dealing with a different issue. It’s not to say that you couldn’t identify a child at an early age, but gifted and talented programs are not like other special education programs for which the district receives funding. For example, we may get federal funding for kids who have emotional disabilities or whatever other special education classification there is. There is, however, no funding for gifted and talented programs. That’s another reason there isn’t an isolated program, to the extent that there are other special education programs.
Vice Chairman Horne:
I’d like to go back to my first question on the cutoff, to get some information. I’m looking at the Education Commission of the States, and their entrance age for kindergarten. In California, the age is 5 on or before December 2, Arizona is September 1, we are September 30, Utah is September 2, and they’re all over the place. Those are just some of the western states. We have December 31 in Rhode Island; Indiana has June 1; another has October 15. They’re all over the place; there doesn’t seem to be any standard.
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
I wouldn’t suggest that there’s anything magic about our cutoff date. It’s simply what it is; that’s what the Legislature identified. It is certainly at the Legislature’s discretion to change the date, but we feel that there should be a solid date we can all work around.
Assemblyman Mabey:
As I’ve listened to the testimony, I think of the children who have special needs. If they’re 3 years old, we’ll pick them up in a bus, and we’ll take them to school, and there they get the education they need. We’ll even drive them home. Whereas now, we have gifted students who may be able to go to kindergarten earlier than they need to, and we’re giving them a lot of resistance. It doesn’t seem fair.
When my daughters were in year-round school, there were different tracks. They needed a higher math class, but the principal wanted all the kids, even though they were on track 2, to take a track 3 class in the morning, so they would never get a vacation. I wrote to the principal and said, “This isn’t right.” Finally, they did get a math class for my daughter and about 20 other kids who were gifted students. I guess I’m just curious, Dr. Kadlub. We’ve provided special education for special needs kids, but we’re resistant to providing education for the gifted kids.
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
In response, I’d have to say we’re looking at two separate issues. One is the date at which the school district wants to become responsible for people’s children. Will that be done in an equitable manner? Will all people be eligible, or simply those who can afford to take the tests? Our feeling is, whatever the date is, it should be there for everybody.
With respect to the other issue on whether or not we’re providing ample services for gifted and talented students, I hope I speak for the district. I know I speak for myself when I say that I strongly agree with you. I think that’s one population that is underserved, and I can only go back to what I mentioned earlier, in terms of there not being any extraordinary allowance provided to serve that population. In the example you gave of the preschool special education kids, there is a small allowance and a federal mandate that we do that.
I think there is that distinction. I agree that I would like to see more done for the gifted population. I would also like to see it funded and implemented equitably. I think that encapsulates the District’s concerns on this issue. If you were to change the date, and funding became available, I think we’d probably support it.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Are there any other questions for Dr. Kadlub? Thank you. There was no one listed in favor of the bill. We have only one other person to speak. Ms. Parnell?
Bonnie Parnell, representing Nevada PTA:
[Introduced herself.] I was not going to testify, but I made a phone call to the Carson City School District. Carson City School District is parallel to the Clark County School District. Most of our gifted and talented children are recommended to the program by a teacher, or it’s requested by a parent, sometime during the second grade. They’re tested toward the end of the second grade, and they do not begin the program until their third grade year. That’s pretty common throughout the state.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Are there any other questions? Is there any testimony for or against S.B. 34? If not, we’ll close the hearing on S.B. 34, and we’ll open the hearing on S.B. 234. Dr. Kadlub, will you be testifying in favor of this bill for both the Washoe County and Clark County school districts?
Senate Bill 234 (1st Reprint): Requires Department of Education to conduct study of administrative due process hearings pursuant to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (BDR S-452)
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
This amended version so significantly changes the District’s original BDR [bill draft request] that it no longer embodies our original intent. We had two intentions, neither of which remain. The provisions now before you propose a study, and we have no objection to the study.
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education:
We can support the bill. I think that some of you know that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is going to be reauthorized; they’re discussing it this summer and fall. This is something that was going to be required anyway, so we can support it. We have received federal funding to do this, so there’s no state appropriation or fiscal cost to be attached to the bill. We can support it, and, if you pass it, that’s fine.
Vice Chairman Horne:
You said there was no fiscal cost?
Dr. Keith Rheault:
Regarding the fiscal cost, we have received federal funding to do exactly what this bill is asking. There wouldn’t be an additional fiscal cost.
Assemblyman Hardy:
If I understand correctly, you’re going to do this anyway, whether we pass this bill or not.
Dr. Keith Rheault:
That’s correct. We are required to do this as part of the reauthorization. It’s going to change some of the time lines, so whether we like it or not, we’re going to have to look at our state’s current requirements versus the new reauthorized requirements. We’re required to do public hearings and collect public input from all the districts and concerned citizens, so it’s something we would collect as part of the reauthorization, and it will do exactly what this bill is asking, without legislation.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Are there any other questions for Dr. Kadlub or Dr. Rheault? Thank you. Is there any other testimony in favor of Senate Bill 234? Is there any testimony in opposition? Mrs. Chowning?
Assemblywoman Chowning:
My question is about something on page 2. Would the study the Department of Education is going to do anyway include subsection 4, the recommendations for future legislation?
Dr. Keith Rheault:
The federal government doesn’t necessarily say that, but we can certainly provide our report that’s due this fall on our review to the federal government. We can easily make that available prior to September 4, 2004, if that’s the date you wanted it by.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
That would go the Legislative Committee on Education?
Dr. Keith Rheault:
I’m assuming that will be a hot topic anyway, as to what the federal government is going to ask us to do in the reauthorization. I would hope we periodically update, for the Legislative Committee, throughout the next biennium.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Are there any other questions? If there are no other questions, and no further testimony, we will close the hearing on Senate Bill 234. Both Senate Bill 34 and Senate Bill 234 will probably move to a work session. If there is no other business before the Education Committee, we are adjourned [at 4:27 p.m.].
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Victoria Thompson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman William Horne, Vice Chairman
DATE: