MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Finance

 

Seventy-second Session

March 10, 2003

 

 

The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:09 a.m., on Monday, March 10, 2003, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman

Senator Dean A. Rhoads

Senator Barbara K. Cegavske

Senator Sandra J. Tiffany

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Julie Walker, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Daniel G. Miles, Vice Chancellor, Finance and Administration, University and Community College System of Nevada

Nancy Cummings, Director, Washoe County Library

Ellen Fockler, Library Coordinator, Washoe County School District

Daniel L. Walters, Executive Director, Las Vegas-Clark County Library District

Millie Syring, Librarian, University of Nevada, Reno

Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District

Terry L. Hickman, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association

H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Carol M. Stonefield, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Ann Loring, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Association of School Boards

James L. Hager, Chairman, Nevada Association of School Superintendents

Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education

Lynn Vertner, Professor, Community College of Southern Nevada

Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association

 

 

Senator Raggio asked the staff for a status report. Gary Ghiggeri said he distributed a status report to the committee disclosing that there are 408 budgets in the Executive Budget. As of the end of this week, approximately 370 budgets assigned to staff will be reviewed. By one week from Friday, 405 of the 408 budgets will have been reviewed. The committee is scheduled to begin to start closing budgets on April 1.

 

Senator Raggio said a comment on Senate Bill (S.B.) 164 from Gary Olson would be included in the record (Exhibit C).

 

The hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 208 was opened by Senator Raggio.

 

SENATE BILL 208: Requires transfer of money from Fund for School Improvement to University and Community College System of Nevada to provide scholarships for students pursuing degrees in teaching. (BDR S‑1033)

 

Daniel G. Miles, Vice Chancellor, Finance and Administration, University and Community College System of Nevada, stated funds have been set aside since 1991 for teaching scholarships at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and S.B. 208 would reinstate those scholarship amounts and expand the program to include Great Basin College (GBC) and Nevada State College at Henderson (NSC). Mr. Miles submitted a proposed amendment to the bill which would extend the scholarships to both years of the coming biennium.

 

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Miles if $230,680 would be the amount for each year. Mr. Miles stated it would be the same amount for each year, and the bill only provides funding for 1 year as it currently appears in the bill.

 

Senator Raggio stated under the bill provisions for UNLV and UNR, no more than 45 scholarships would be provided. Mr. Miles stated that was old language, it had been deleted, and subsection 2 of the proposed amendment would allow funds to be allocated to those campuses for that purpose.

 

Senator Raggio asked what amount of money would be allocated for each of the institutions. Mr. Miles stated that the scholarships were $1400 annually per person. The bill as amended last session allowed 45 scholarships for each campus, but GBC and NSC would not rise to that level of scholarship. Senator Raggio asked whether the bill would be necessary with 86 percent of formula funding available. Mr. Miles answered that the 86 percent applies to funds for higher education as calculated through the formula. Student financial aid is not part of that formula, but has been a line item appropriation. When the Board of Regents approved fee increases for students for the next 2 years, the increases included taking out a part of that student fee to go to financial aid. Senator Raggio asked the source for the fund for school improvement. Mr. Miles responded that it was estate tax funded and was the same source of funding that the scholarships have traditionally originated. Senator Raggio asked if that amount would have to be deleted from the Distributive School Account (DSA), and Mr. Miles explained that in the past it was a transfer made from the fund for school improvement to the DSA, a portion of which was directed to this program.

 

Senator Raggio opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 185.

 

SENATE BILL 185:  Makes appropriation to Department of Education for allocation to Division of State Library and Archives of Department of Cultural Affairs for expenses relating to obtaining licenses that would allow school, public and academic libraries to access research databases and other on-line resources appropriate for pupils and students within this state. (BDR S-1093)

 

Senator Mathews, stated the bill would appropriate $500,000 from the General Fund to the Department of Education. The money would be allotted to the Division of State Library and Archives to pay the expenses incurred by the division in obtaining licenses that are needed to allow libraries to have access to research databases and online resources. Any amount of money left over, if not used by June 5, would revert to the General Fund.

 

Nancy Cummings, Director, Washoe County Library, and representative of the Nevada Library Association, stated the mission of 750 public school and academic libraries is to provide information access to all the users. Access to information is essential to improving literacy proficiency in the State of Nevada. It has a direct impact on a community’s quality of life. Unfortunately, Nevada ranks number 50 in the number of 18 to 24-year-olds without a high school diploma or general equivalency diploma (GED) and number 49 in the number of 16 to19-year-old drop-outs. It is now critical to make these resources available to all residents.

 

Senator Raggio asked how the bill is funded and what is available at the present time.

 

Ellen Fockler, Library Coordinator, Washoe County School District, stated the informational databases have been funded through the Legislature. At the present time, current, reliable information is available on the databases, such as information from magazines, newspapers, and other information that students would not have otherwise. It also includes databases on the states, encyclopedias, and current events. She stated $500,000 was funded from the Commission on Educational Technology with federal funding in the amount of $666,000 over a 2-year period added to that amount. There was State funding from the Division of State Library and Archives for $34,000 over a 2-year period, and local funding of $140,000 over a 2-year period. The total is $1,340,000 over a 2-year period of which $500,000 was provided by the Legislature.

 

Senator Raggio pointed out S.B. 191 included the identical provision in section 127.

 

Senator Rhoads asked how the money would be divided, and Mrs. Fockler stated that the Division of State Library and Archives goes through a process that makes it possible for the purchase of subscriptions to online databases Statewide. It is a single expenditure for each of the databases, and the savings are tremendous.

 

Senator Tiffany asked if there was a license fee for the Statewide subscription. Mrs. Fockler said there was, and added the major difference between finding information through an online database and finding information on the Web is that the Web is sometimes unreliable.

 

Mrs. Cummings stated public libraries keep statistics and they have grown yearly. People who are served at the library often do not have any other source available.

 

Senator Raggio stated Mrs. Fockler’s written testimony would be made part of the record (Exhibit D). Mrs. Fockler added from a school perspective, databases provide professional development opportunity for teachers as well as students.

 

Daniel L. Walters, Executive Director, Las Vegas-Clark County Library District, said he supported S.B. 185, and electronic online services represent the fastest growing segment of service to public library and school users. He said State-licensed databases make it possible to license the services at a lower cost than the libraries would bear individually. He said in the last year the State license will save Washoe and Clark Counties over $140,000 on just one of the databases. For purposes of research, including business, health, school, and education, it is crucial to have full-source material. This would include downloading graphs, newspapers, and journals otherwise unavailable. He stated Statewide databases made it possible for those in the public libraries to support the school libraries under difficult financial constraints, and made it possible for the students to have the same contents available in schools as they have in the public libraries.

 

Millie Syring, Librarian, University of Nevada, Reno, stated the academic libraries in the State benefit from the Statewide contract. Vendors can offer more benefits with a contract of this size. The databases in use are the ones by EBSCO Information Services and CQ Researcher (Exhibit E). These are good databases for all levels covering interdisciplinary topics and discounts are available because of this Statewide project. The rural population in the State would not have access to these databases without the contract and neither do the schools have funding for this array of databases. Without State funding in tandem with other sources of funding, libraries throughout the State would be disadvantaged.

 

Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, stated he supported the bill.

 

Terry L. Hickman, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, stated S.B. 185 helps to ensure that students are on safe, secure, and acceptable Web sites. He said he was in favor of the bill.

 

Senator Mathews entered into the record a letter from Joey Wachtveitl, supporting S.B. 185 (Exhibit F).

 

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 185 and opened the hearing on S.B. 191.

 

SENATE BILL 191:  Makes various changes governing education to facilitate implementation of federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (BDR 34‑635)

 

Senator Raggio said staff prepared information for the committee that would be discussed (Exhibit G. Original is on file at the Research Library.). To explain the information in Exhibit G, a PowerPoint presentation was given by staff during the hearing (Exhibit H).

 

H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said S.B. 191 is from the Interim Legislative Committee on Education and is in response to the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Mr. Sturm said there are a number of key principles of the NCLB specified in the bill. It calls for achievement of high-academic standards by all children, measurement of student academic progress and needs through assessment, and accountability for results in schools, districts, and the State. In the section, “Accountability System” (Exhibit G), a current accountability system is shown versus the accountability system that is in place under S.B. 191.

 

Other principles of NCLB call for high-quality standards for instructional personnel, parental knowledge, involvement, choices, and flexibility for states and school districts in the use of federal funds. Senate Bill 191 implements the requirements of the NCLB Act. States have specific mandates under the bill, but are provided with some flexibility in “how” to implement. The Nevada Education Reform Act (NERA) of 1997 laid groundwork for 80 percent of the NCLB. The NCLB provides for a number of sanctions, and provides for accountability at the State and district level. Because of the NCLB, modifications to NERA were required.

 

The guiding principles followed in constructing this bill were revisions designed to fit with the purpose of NERA. The revisions emphasize assisting schools and districts with school improvement to increase achievement and providing policy makers at all levels with information needed to make decisions. Mr. Sturm said S.B. 191 had six major components: revised accountability provisions; overhaul of educational improvement process; revised assessments; paraprofessional certification and highly qualified teachers; system for accountability information; and appropriations.

 

Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said S.B. 191, sections 4 and 5, designations based upon performance on the State’s Norm Referenced Test (NRT) would be extended to school districts and the State as a whole. To comply with the NCLB Act, S.B. 191 also adds the designation of schools, districts, and the State based upon adequate yearly progress (AYP). Prior to the enactment of the NCLB Act, AYP was only utilized to determine the status of Title I schools. Under sections 4 and 5 of the bill, there is a requirement that the State Board of Education define proficiency of schools, districts, and the State as measured by AYP. The AYP performance objectives must be established for all pupils and all subgroups of pupils. It must include performance on the specified tests and include graduation rates for high school students and attendance rates for elementary, middle, and junior high students. Performance on assessments for AYP purposes omits the fourth grade writing exam and the science test. The AYP determination is described under sections 6, 10, and 30. Based on all pupils being proficient in English and math at the end of a 12-year period, annual targets in English and math for each subpopulation of pupils will be established by the State Board of Education. Individual schools, school districts, and the State as a whole will be held accountable for reaching these AYP targets, which also apply to the subgroups.

 

Ms. Braun summarized the provisions of the bill by stating AYP will be determined by the State Board of Education and AYP must be met by all students in the State, including each subpopulation. Subpopulations include race, ethnicity, pupils with disabilities, economically disadvantaged, and the limited-English proficient students. A 95 percent participation rate on assessments must be met by each of the subpopulations. Graduation rates by high school students and attendance rate for elementary, middle, and junior high school students must also be considered in meeting adequate yearly progress.

 

Senator Raggio stated if school districts or charter schools fail to have 95 percent tested, and retesting is necessary, the cost of retesting would be paid by the school district or the charter school. Ms. Braun said if the 95 percent participation rate in the testing was not met, the school district or charter school would be automatically designated as demonstrating need for improvement.

 

Section 6 of the bill would require the State Board of Education to prepare an annual accountability report, due before August 1 of each year, for the State and for each district, including the items set forth in Exhibit G, tab “Section by Section Summary”, page 2. Under this section, the requirements for the accountability report are extended to the State level. This is not a requirement under the NCLB Act, but was included in S.B. 191 because a state can now be designated as demonstrating need for improvement. Based upon information reported in the accountability report, subsequent plans for the academic improvement of schools will be generated at each level.

 

Senate Bill 191, section 7, describes requirements for the State improvement plan, section 8 describes the district level improvement plans, and section 9 describes the school level improvement plans. Currently, improvement plans are required for schools and school districts only. Senate Bill 191 expands the requirements for improvement plans to the State and describes the content of improvement plans.

 

Ms. Braun referred to tab “Accountability Timeline” (Exhibit G) for the annual preparation of such reports and timing of implementation of the plans for improvement. She said school designations are covered in sections 13 and 14 of S.B. 191.

 

Senator Raggio stated it is useless to have an accountability report unless it is used as soon as possible to develop improvement plans for pupil achievement from the State board, the local school districts, and the schools. The required components of the plans for the three groups are similar in content; the exception is mentoring for teachers and other educational personnel including the school-level plans.

 

Ms. Braun said school designations are covered in sections 13 and 14 of S.B. 191. The bill retains the designation categories of schools included under NERA which are exemplary, high, adequate, and schools needing improvement. The primary change is now AYP performance, based upon performance on the criterion-referenced tests, is also built into the formula for designating schools. Under section 14, a school is designated as demonstrating need for improvement if it fails to make AYP or if more than 40 percent of the students score in the bottom quarter on all subjects tested on the augmented NRT. A school can also fail to meet AYP if 95 percent of any of the subgroups or all pupils fail to take the required examination. This is a requirement of the NCLB Act.

 

Senator Raggio stated there may be misunderstanding about the value, necessity, and utilization of Criterion-Referenced Tests (CRTs) and NRTs. Schools in which over 40 percent of pupils tested are at the 26^th percentile or under are designated as schools in need of improvement. The national norm must be kept in mind.

 

Ms. Braun said one major difference between the NCLB Act and S.B. 191 isunder S.B. 191, school improvement begins the first year the school is designated. Under the NCLB law, there are two consecutive designations before the actual school improvement process begins. She said section 15 of the bill notes that technical assistance is required to be provided starting the first year that a school is designated. Beginning in year 2 through year 3, in addition to technical assistance, school support teams are established and under sections 16 and 17 the membership and duties of the teams are described. Ms. Braun said section 17 also discussed the requirements for members of the school support teams. She stated for the first three times a school is designated as needing improvement, the school district is required to implement the school support team. In the fourth designation, the State Department of Education takes that responsibility. The duties of the support team appear in section 23 of the bill.

 

Mr. Sturm referred to a pictorial view of the improvement process as shown on the tab “Consequences for Low Performing Schools” (Exhibit G). He stated the chart gives an idea of which are Title I school required consequences and which are consequences for all schools. It is estimated that approximately 20 percent of the schools will eventually be impacted by these provisions. There are a number of schools Statewide that already fall under the school choice provision. Next year, if that school is again classified as a school needing improvement, it will move into the year 4 designation requiring supplemental services. Supplemental services include Sylvan Learning, tutoring, and those other sources on the approved list. After year 4, supplemental services are available and after that, corrective action is required. The school improvement processes are shown in the white areas of the chart and apply to all schools, including Title I schools. The sanction parts are defined by the grey areas in the chart.

 

Mr. Sturm discussed a school district’s consequences for failure to make AYP, covered in section 34 of S.B. 191. He summarized the consequences in Exhibit H, page 4, slides 19, 20, 21. There are a number of miscellaneous accountability provisions in the bill, sections 36, 37, 45, and 41, which were briefly explained by Mr. Sturm (Exhibit H, page 4, slide 22).

 

Carol M. Stonefield, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated sections 46 to 54 of S.B. 191 relate to charter schools. There are no State Board of Education sponsored charter schools in Nevada at this time. There are 13 charter schools operating with approximately 2600 students attending them. Ms. Stonefield noted that to bring the charter schools into compliance with the NCLB Act, section 53 provides that teachers in the core subjects must be highly qualified and licensed if they are middle school teachers. Paraprofessionals must be certified to provide instructional services or educational support services, as set out in section 46 of the bill. Sections 48 through 50 state existing prohibition against converting a public school into a charter school is amended to allow conversion for restructuring.

 

Mr. Sturm indicated there are a number of new requirements under the NCLB, and these are not specific to the bill at this point; however, State, district, and school level reports are required under the bill. A list of additional data collection and reporting items under NCLB were discussed by Mr. Sturm in Exhibit H, page 5, slide 25.

 

Mr. Sturm stated system demands were caused by that reporting. There is a need for understanding and involvement in school and district improvement processes, a need for sustaining those improvement initiatives, an increased need for sophisticated use of data for decisions, and increased need for additional data and information for resource allocation and tracking effectiveness. There is a concept in the federal NCLB Act that only programs that have scientific basis for effectiveness will be used, and that includes the curriculum level. There will be a need to track effectiveness at the student, district, and State levels for different programs. By reviewing Exhibit G, tab “Accountability Reporting Elements”, the types of items that must be collected at all three levels are listed.

 

Mr. Sturm said the NCLB Act requires different data warehouses of information for general groupings, individual student data, school and district data, and individual educator data. There is also a need for schools and districts to track financial resources down to the school site level. The tracking of financial resources also implies a need for being able to cross between the four databases and being able to determine the status of the pupil’s school and teacher. In S.B. 191, section 55, the accountability information system must have the capacity to report pupil achievement, disaggregate subgroups for those pupils, must include a unique identifier for each pupil, and have the capacity to provide for longitudinal comparisons. The system must also have the capacity to provide for analysis of that data.

 

Also in section 55, the superintendent must prescribe a uniform program for collection, maintenance, and transfer of data, he may prescribe standardized software, he must specify access authority and he may contract with the University and Community College System of Nevada for research purposes.

 

Ms. Braun covered the testing provisions, and stated the State currently requires 16 tests and requires participation in National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). The number of tests would increase to 17 under S.B. 191. The increase is due to the NCLB Act’s standards. The new testing requirements are included under section 67 of the bill. It specifies that the testing program would be administered in the fall and consists of a single test per grade that yields a NRT score and a CRT score for each of the specified grades and in the subject areas of English and mathematics. Writing tests will continue at Grades 4 and 8. Fall testing was explained by Ms. Braun. She referred to tab “Accountability Timeline” (Exhibit G) which shows the timeline for fall testing with augmented NRTs in section 67 of S.B. 191. Additional changes include deletion of testing exemptions, sections 66 and 69, and the addition of NAEP comparisons with Nevada assessments, section 68 of the bill. Ms. Braun discussed Sections 65, 68, and 79 in connection with changes in the testing provisions. Ms. Braun continued her presentation covering S.B. 191, Section 68, in connection with testing of students in English, and sections 84, 97, and 98 relating to paraprofessionals.

 

Ms. Stonefield continued the presentation on S.B. 191 with definitions of “Highly Qualified Teachers” relating to sections 96, 137, and 138. A summary of the sections are shown in Exhibit H, page 7, slides 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42. She indicated one of the new provisions in the bill for compliance with the NCLB Act is the requirement that a middle school license must be created and the middle school teacher must have the license by 2004. Section 86 states parents may request information on the qualifications of their child’s teachers and paraprofessionals. Title I schools and schools in need of improvement must notify parents if a child’s teacher is not highly qualified or is a long-term substitute. In schools in need of improvement, the percentage of experienced teachers must equal or exceed the percentage of experienced teachers in schools not in need of improvement.

 

Ms. Braun stated sections 102 and 103 of S.B. 191 allow the Statewide Coordinating Council for the Regional Professional Development Programs (RPDPs), as well as the RPDP governing boards’ authority to accept grants. In all circumstances, in the event that someone wants to include the RPDPs as part of a grant to receive federal money, preauthorization for involvement by the RPDPs is required. To parallel the NCLB Act, the RPDPs must provide high-quality services across the board.

 

Under section 108, Ms. Braun discussed the requirement of the State Board of Education to define persistently dangerous schools and develop regulations to govern school choice for students attending such schools. Additionally, this section requires the State to report on school safety to the public. Under section 110 of the bill, there is a requirement that local school districts implement drug and violence prevention programs of demonstrated effectiveness.

 

Senator Raggio clarified the term “persistently dangerous schools” as coming from a provision of 20 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 7912, a regulation adopted by the State Board under the bill. Mr. Sturm added that it is up to each state to define a persistently dangerous school. Senator Raggio stated a “right of choice” also applies under that provision and even though a school is not persistently dangerous, it also applies to a student who has been a victim of a violent crime at that school.

 

Ms. Braun said there were miscellanous provisions under S.B. 191. First, section 139 of the bill would require the Legislative Committee on Education to review new S.B. 191 regulations that were adopted by the State Board of Education. The committee would also recommend supplemental service providers to the Department of Education and the department would adopt supplemental service providers. The Legislative Committee on Education would review the effectiveness of the accountability program, the NCLB program, and in providing any contracting with any outside vendor to look at the State’s accountability system, and include any plans for improvement.

 

Ms. Braun stated in sections 127 and 129, a total of $10 million would be appropriated to continue educational technology in the State. Of the $10 million, $50 thousand would be used to continue the evaluation of the program, which parallels the same appropriation approved in S.B. No. 427 of the 71st Session. Under section 130 of the bill, there is an appropriation for $705,000, for a pilot program for experienced staff at low-performing schools to receive bonuses. Under the bill, there would be four schools chosen in the State. Fifty exemplary teachers at the school would each receive a bonus of $3000; up to eight unlicensed instructional support employees would each receive a bonus of $1000; the experienced principal at the school would receive a bonus of $6000; and one experienced vice principal at the school would receive a bonus of $6000. Section 131 provides an appropriation of $287,427 to continue the In$ite Financial Accountability System, which provides the information down to the school level.

 

Mr. Sturm stated the transitory provisions are pertinent only if the current accountability system is affected. Sections 132, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138, and 139 of the bill define the transitory provisions. He said the effective dates are covered in the index of the bill.

 

Senator Cegavske asked if the bill addresses eighth grade drop-outs. Mr. Sturm said there was nothing specific in the bill, however, with the Statewide Management of Automated Record Transfer (SMART) system coming online at the end of the month, individual students will be tracked. He could not say if the eighth to ninth grades would be part of the tracking, but in the ninth grade, drop-outs would be tracked.

 

Senator Cegavske asked if the reports from the Education Commission of the States (ECS) and National Council of State Legislators (NCSL) were available, and Mr. Sturm said copies would be made available to the committee. Senator Cegavske asked whether persons fast-tracked in Clark County to become paraprofessionals or teachers are going to be required to do more because of the NCLB legislation that will be enacted. Mr. Sturm replied the State Board of Education and the Commission on Professional Standards in Education are looking at the requirements for licensing. He stated Senator Raggio sent out letters of intent to the University and Community College System of Nevada groups and others noting the new requirements and asking that they become ready to do the additional training needed to help both paraprofessionals and teachers meet these requirements. He said middle school areas had been alerted as well. The review and adoption of the appropriate regulations are key in the question.

 

Senator Cegavske inquired whether middle school personnel would have the same guidelines, that is until 2007, to be qualified as the NCLB indicated for the regular classroom personnel. Ms. Stonefield stated all teachers must be highly qualified to meet those requirements by the end of the 2005-06 school years. New hires in middle school will have to be licensed by July 1, 2004, and the others have a transitional period to meet the requirements. Senator Raggio added that the U.S House of Representatives H.R. I Bill, as it applies to Title I schools, makes no exceptions for failure to have those qualifications.

 

Senator Mathews asked who would pay for tutoring by Sylvan Learning Centers. Mr. Sturm answered that it was included in Title I funds that are sent to the State.

 

Senator Tiffany asked who set the $10 million funding for educational technology. Mr. Sturm answered the $10 million was a redraft of S.B. 427 of the 71st Session. Senator Tiffany asked if the Executive Budget contained bonuses for teachers at high risk schools or who taught in fields that are difficult to fill, such as math and science. Ms. Braun replied there is a recommended stipend program in the Governor’s budget under budget account 2610 of the Distributive School Account (DSA) for both high impact positions and at-risk positions, and that particular program provides a certain stipend amount for teachers in at-risk programs and high impact positions. The program as recommended in S.B. 191 is a pilot program and the bonuses are different from those recommended in the Governor’s budget. Senator Tiffany asked if there was a requirement for use of the $705,000. Ms. Braun said under section 130, there is $25,000 available for an evaluation of the program. Senator Tiffany asked if there were any benefits by entering the pilot program. Ms. Braun stated outcomes would have to be established by the evaluator of the program who would conduct the evaluation based upon these outcomes, so certainly there would be benefits from this program that would be established prior to the evaluation. Senator Tiffany asked if the $287,000 for the financial analysis program was for the In$ite program. Ms. Braun said it was the cost to continue the In$ite program through the next biennium.

 

Senator Rawson asked how many instruction days are used for testing, and Mr. Sturm said the current loss is measured not in days, but in hours. Mr. Sturm stated he would get copies of the information for the committee. Senator Rawson said e-mails he and others received expressed concern that there seemed to be less time for instruction. He said he would like to review the cost to add time to the school year for testing.

 

Senator Raggio asked how many tests are currently required. Ms. Braun replied there were 16 tests during a school year, and S.B. 191 would increase the number to 17 tests. He stated the “white paper” would require 20 tests.

 

Senator Raggio said anyone suggesting an amendment to the bill is required to submit it in writing and with an explanation of what is accomplished by the amendment.

 

Anne Loring, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Association of School Boards, stated Nevada’s 17 school boards and superintendents agree with goals of the NCLB to increase achievement of all students and to close the achievement gap that exists among children of different races, economic backgrounds, and English proficiency. Ms. Loring addressed sections 66 and 68 of S.B. 191, the nature of the testing system that Nevada will use to implement the federal requirements. It is upon this testing system that the accountability program will be based. The type and timing of the testing will play a fundamental role in increasing student achievement in Nevada. She said the Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB) and the Nevada Association of School Superintendents (NASS) support the CRT testing program that was initiated through NERA, the national Norm Reference Test (NRT) that was put into place prior to the Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997 (NERA). She urged the expansion of the CRT program using federal money to cover Grades 3 through 8 and to continue to administer those tests in the spring.

 

James L. Hager, Chairman, Nevada Association of School Superintendents, presented a “white paper”, entitled “Nevada Assessment and Accountability in the Era of No Child Left Behind” (Exhibit I). There are five main conclusions to the report that Dr. Hager highlighted. First, the State testing program must help make decisions to improve classroom instruction as well as provide accountability if student achievement is expected to improve. Second, Statewide Criterion-Referenced Tests (CRTs) aligned with Nevada standards and given annually in Grades 3 through 8 are the best way to do that. Third, Norm Referenced Tests (NRTs), given annually in Grades 4, 8, and 10, as required for years, can compare the performance of our students, schools, school districts, and State to that of national norms. Fourth, CRTs should be given in the spring to test what our children have learned that year. Spring testing gives the most useful information to teachers and timely information to parents so they can help their child’s success before the next year begins. The NRTs should be given in the fall. Fifth, it is urged that augmented NRTs given in the fall should not be used for Statewide tests as proposed in this version of S.B. 191. This is an inefficient use of children’s and teachers’ time and this type of testing is not the best way to improve achievement in Nevada’s schools. Dr. Hager urged the committee to amend S.B. 191 with regard to the type of testing. He stated a proposed amendment was provided to that effect.

 

Senator Raggio asked, assuming that testing is done in spring and the results available in summer, if the appropriate annual progress analysis could be performed in both urban and rural schools. His voiced concern if testing was not done in the fall there would not be enough time to compile the reports required under the bill and also be able to distribute the reports before the beginning of the next school year.

 

Ms. Loring said in drafting the white paper with all 17 of the districts having concerns with both urban and rural districts being able to meet this timeline, it would be anticipated that if the tests were in a March to April 15 window, the test results would be returned and made public by the State and returned to parents approximately June 1, depending on how much is spent on the contractor. The superintendents were concerned about meeting the timelines for different reasons. The rural ones were concerned because they do not have much staff, the urban ones, because of the high number of reports to get out. The sentiment of the superintendents was so important to have testing in the spring immediately after instruction, in order to have results available to parents so they can help the children over the summer and summer school might be an option. She said the superintendents were willing to do whatever it takes to get those reports out on the timeline required by federal law.

 

There were three specific areas that were concerns about the requirements of federal law. Ms. Loring stated, assuming they were into the implementation of the bill, under what is proposed in S.B. 191, the children would not be tested to find out if they had learned the standards until the following October, and the results would not be available to parents until the end of November.

 

Senator Raggio asked how a responsible decision of choice is made and if a delay under that law would be their choice.

 

Ms. Loring stated under the statute being proposed, that is correct. If there is a problem now in a class, the parents will not choose to leave, and the schools will not submit their school improvement plans until about 1.5 years from now under what is currently in this bill. If testing was done in the spring, at the end of the school year the parents would be able to make a choice to change to new schools by next fall, not a year from next fall. The school improvement plans would have to be developed by early next fall.

 

Senator Raggio stated he would draft some questions from the committee and ask for written response to the questions. Ms. Loring agreed. Dr. Hager stated that he too, agreed.

 

Dr. Hager requested to make a statement as Superintendent of the Washoe County School District (WCSD). He said Exhibit J includes a discussion of the provisions in S.B. 191 supported by the WCSD, provisions which are supported by the board of trustees, and suggestions by WCSD for revisions.

 

Senator Raggio said a meeting will be held in the near future to address the complex issues with adequate time for full testimony and discussion of some of the issues. He asked fiscal staff to review the fiscal notes.

 

Senator Raggio stated the Public Utilities Budget will be rescheduled.

 

Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education, provided the committee with a list of department recommendations and concerns. Senator Raggio asked that the written document be highlighted and placed in the record (Exhibit K). Mr. Rheault stated the department considered S.B. 191 the most important bill in the session that will affect school districts within the State. He said there were some substantive issues raised, including paraprofessional certification, and fall testing included in the exhibit.

 

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Rheault’s position on the augmented NRTs and Mr. Rheault said the department’s position agreed with the “white paper” which was presented, which requires an additional test and a cost factor.

 

Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Rheault had reviewed the various fiscal notes provided by the school district. Mr. Rheault stated he had reviewed the notes, but because he wanted to be accurate, had not yet submitted his fiscal note.

 

Mr. Kadlub said the district recognized the amount of work in the bill, and it was appreciated. He stated that though there were good aspects of the bill, there was concern about the costs associated with achieving the goals, specifically, remedial programs and tutorials before and after school and during the summer, the mentoring program for teachers, staff development for teachers and administrators, and potential payroll implications. There is concern as well with that part of the bill that mentions the provisions of the NCLB will be exceeded in some areas, and the complexity and cost of the existing legislation is enough with which to deal. Senator Raggio requested Mr. Kadlub review his fiscal note and discuss it with the fiscal division.

 

Senator Tiffany said she had received many e-mails from the Clark County School District parents indicating there is a shortfall. She asked for information on the shortfall. Mr. Kadlub stated he would comment relative to S.B. 191, and the fiscal implication is related to the implementation of the provisions of the bill. He stated he did not know if the parents’ comments were in regard to the remainder of this school year or the next biennium. Senator Tiffany clarified the e-mails regarding shortfall did not necessarily relate to the NCLB.

 

Lynn Vertner, Professor, Community College of Southern Nevada, stated she taught college studies skills to all of the paraprofessionals at the Title I schools. Ms. Vertner submitted letters for the record from her students with input as to their needs in the Title I schools (Exhibit L).

 

Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated several concerns. He said he recognizes H.R. I as the law, but is concerned that S.B. 191 goes beyond the requirements of H.R. I. The paraprofessional requirement is a concern. Mr. Bellister stated it goes beyond the requirements for H.R. I, and puts a burden on paraprofessionals in the school districts who are not highly paid, to meet the new certification requirements and pay licensure fees. The requirements at Title I schools are to be similarly qualified in all schools and that goes beyond the requirements of HR I. Mr. Bellister said the requirements in S.B. 191 are applied to all schools. Senator Raggio said the idea is to improve all schools, not just Title I schools, and asked if there was a reason to differentiate the two. Mr. Bellister said cost was a factor, but school districts are currently engaged with members of NSEA through the State in their own school-improving process. He stated concern that the Regional Professional Development Program (RPDP) would not be able to provide the professional development opportunities for paraprofessionals as required by H.R. I, and the highly qualified teacher requirement under the timelines provided in S.B. 191. He stated section 97 shows inconsistencies with H.R. I. He said H.R. I allows teachers to become highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Senate Bill 191, seems to accelerate that timeline. Mr. Bellister said section 56, S.B. 191 seems to delete the current provision that allows middle school teachers to teach with an elementary and secondary endorsement in middle school and junior high schools, and that provision deletes the ability to teach with that licensure. That would have a significant impact with current staff and be contrary to the provisions of H.R. I that creates a “house” provision that allows teachers to become highly qualified by the end of 2005-2006. Senator Raggio stated the goals were identical: to have teachers highly qualified in areas of instruction in which they teach. Senator Raggio also disclosed that his daughter is a teacher.

 

Mr. Bellister stated his concern with S.B. 191, section 22, seems to override the corrective actions to all schools, whether Title I funded or not. The corrective action provisions will have disruptive and cost impacts on schools. He said to expand that beyond the requirements of H.R. I is cost prohibitive.

 

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Bellister for suggestions. Mr. Bellister said he felt K‑12 education funding should be raised. Under H.R. I, lengthening the school day and year and creating a mentoring program will be costly. With inadequate

resources to help the schools succeed, and a rush to label schools as failing, a no-win situation is created. Section 1116 of H.R. I, contains a “savings clause” which is omitted in S.B. 191. This clause says there is nothing in the federal act that supercedes collective bargaining agreements, memoranda of understanding, and existing State laws. Mr. Bellister said S.B. 191 omits that and grants the school districts unilateral authority, which would supercede or delete collective bargaining prerogatives. The rule making that occurred with H.R. I, back in November 2002, deleted the proposed rule to implement the savings clause, which would have been even more restrictive on public school employee organizations, and states that only those collective bargaining agreements were in place as of January 2002, would have protections afforded to employees which would prohibit our ability to bargain prospective impact of the implementation of H.R. I. That rule was not adopted. The secretary made comment about the rule being inconsistent with the broad provisions of the savings clause in section 1116. He said he believed it essential that S.B. 191 incorporate the same protections that are found at the federal level and bring implementation in the context of collective bargaining.

 

Senator Raggio stated he had asked research to check on that issue, but he understands the fact that the agency did not adopt a proposed regulation would not be interpreted as a repudiation of the regulations imposed. On June 14 of last year, a guidance letter was issued by the U.S. Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, who said collective bargaining has not been withdrawn or modified in any way. Section 1116 states, “does not exempt State education agencies, local education agencies, and schools from compliance with Title I based on prospective collective bargaining or similar agreements or changes in state and local law.” Mr. Paige continues, “state and local education authorities as well as state legislatures and local governing boards, need to ensure that all changes in state and local laws are consistent with Title I requirements and that any changes to collective bargaining agreements or new agreements are also consistent with Title I.” This information was provided to Senator Raggio after his discussion with Mr. Paige. Mr. Bellister noted the time frame is significant. The letter was written in June, and the rule making occurred in November. Senator Raggio stated he was making Mr. Bellister aware that it was the response he received.

 

Senator Raggio closed the hearing and adjourned the meeting at 10:54 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

                                                           

Julie Walker,

Committee Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

 

 

DATE: