MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-second Session
April 3, 2003
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 4:24 p.m. on Thursday, April 3, 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 Bernice Mathews
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Bob Coffin (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Denise Davis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
Dr. James Hager, Lobbyist, Superintendent, Washoe County School District; Chairman, Nevada Association of School Superintendents
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Dorothy L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability and Assessment, Washoe County School District
Gloria Dopf, Educational Equity, Department of Education
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards
John Soderman, Superintendent, Douglas County School District
Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Association of School Boards
Karlene Lee, Assistant Superintendent, Research Accountability Innovation, Clark County School District
Senator Raggio:
Senate Bill (S.B.) 34 was heard in this committee on March 24, 2003.
SENATE BILL 34: Revises provisions governing pupils in public schools. (BDR 34-639)
Senator Raggio:
This bill revises the provisions governing the admission of pupils to kindergarten and first grade; it will mandate that children at least 4.5 years of age, but less than 5 years, are to be admitted. At the previous hearing, it was pointed out there was considerable cost to this bill as written. I asked staff to review the bill and prepare a “mock-up” (Exhibit C) with no age mandated. The bill gives school districts the authority to make decisions on individual cases.
H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
The proposed changes in the “mock-up” of S.B. 34 are colored green. Revisions to the bill specify a school district may grant exceptions to the September 30 deadline for entry into kindergarten. We contacted another state with a similar law; people there urged that we specify the exception is for gifted children, as defined by the State Board of Education.
Senator Raggio:
This language was added to Section 1, subsection 2; it is the main purpose of the amendment.
Senator Cegavske:
Who is going to pay for the evaluation to determine whether a child is gifted and talented?
Senator Raggio:
Staff indicates the evaluation will be permissive and the school district can make that determination. We are trying to accommodate the concern expressed that at least gifted children should have this opportunity available.
Senator Cegavske:
I agree with permitting the accommodation, but I believe payment for the appropriate evaluation should be the responsibility of the parent.
Senator Raggio:
We can add that language to the amendment. Would amending language stipulating the evaluation is “at the cost of the parents” be appropriate?
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 34 PER EXHIBIT C AND ADD THAT THE COST OF EVALUATING A CHILD AS GIFTED WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARENTS.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
Moving on to S.B. 191, I suggest we consider some of the major issues that are still unresolved; I understand there are other amendments being suggested for this bill.
SENATE BILL 191: Makes various changes governing education to facilitate implementation of federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (BDR 34‑635)
Mr. Sturm:
We have completed the requests made at the previous hearing on S.B. 191. Senator Cegavske asked that a copy of No State Left Behind: The Challenges and Opportunities of ESEA 2001 (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.) be distributed to the members of the committee.
Senator Mathews requested a revision of the comparison of items required by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) versus S.B. 191; this is the “Senate Bill 191 – Major Components (Revised 4‑3‑03)” chart (Exhibit E). Only major components of the bill are listed; the red dots identify NCLBA requirements and the purple dots are S.B. 191 requirements. Parentheses indicate parallel requirements. For example, school support teams are required under S.B. 191 for all low‑performing schools; NCLBA requires this level of intervention for Title I schools not making adequate yearly progress (AYP). Qualified paraprofessionals are required by NCLBA for all Title I schools; S.B. 191 requires qualified paraprofessionals for all schools. Federal law requires school districts to ensure that children in low‑performing Title I schools have qualified and experienced teachers. The requirement in S.B. 191 is a ratio of experienced teachers to students in all low-performing schools. These are the major differences; you will note other differences between NCLBA and S.B. 191 as you get into detail.
Senator Raggio:
We will first consider the issue of certification for paraprofessionals. By the end of the meeting tonight, I would like to see a workable version of S.B. 191 so we can process the bill and amend as necessary. Concern has been expressed regarding requirement of a statewide certification program for paraprofessionals. We need to specify the school districts will ensure that the Title I schools have qualified paraprofessionals as mandated. The State Board of Education needs to approve a single statewide test and set the figure required for a passing score. There are three ways for a person to be designated as a qualified paraprofessional. Is this procedure understandable and agreeable to everyone?
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education:
The State Board of Education has certification for paraprofessionals as an agenda item at their April 12, 2003, meeting. One test is going to be recommended and the required passing score identified. The regulation will also state that if other means and methods are developed that are equivalent, valid, and reliable, the board will consider additional ways to permit certification of paraprofessionals. At this time, it will be one test.
Senator Raggio:
If this committee allows that concession, it will be on the condition that accountability is assured. I think it is important that we require the school districts and the schools to list in their State accountability reports the percentage of paraprofessionals that do not qualify pursuant to requirements under House Resolution (H.R.) 1, 107th Congress (2001). That information should be available to parents and the public. We will request a report to the next session of the Legislature on this issue so we can revisit it if necessary. These requirements will at least meet the mandate and recognize that information may be very pertinent to future actions. This will reduce the fiscal note by $4.1 million in fiscal year (FY) 2003-2004 and $7.7 million in FY 2004‑2005, for a total reduction of $11.8 million.
Senator Tiffany:
Does the test eliminate any academic certification requirements from S.B. 191?
Senator Raggio:
No, it does not.
Mr. Sturm:
The three ways a paraprofessional can meet the requirements of NCLBA are 2 years of college, an Associate of Arts (A.A.) degree, or pass a test demonstrating his or her qualifications.
Senator Tiffany:
Who pays for the test?
Senator Raggio:
I do not know the answer to that question.
Dr. Rheault:
Paraprofessional certification options are an A.A. degree or equivalent, which is defined as 60 credits, or a passing test score. If a person passes the test, an A.A. degree is not required.
Senator Tiffany:
Do the school districts absorb the cost of the test?
Dr. Rheault:
At this point, the school districts are considering two options. Some districts may require the aide to pay for the test since salaries will be increased. There are some federal funds available for certification of paraprofessionals.
Senator Tiffany:
Is there any provision for “grandfathering” paraprofessionals?
Dr. Rheault:
The only “grandfathering” will be the stipulation that a person has a 3‑year period in which to become highly qualified; NCLBA has a June 30, 2006, deadline. We had 100 people take the pilot test as part of the educational testing service validity program; those individuals will be “grandfathered” in.
Senator Raggio:
We will look at the school improvement plan process for non-Title I schools.
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
The school districts felt the school support teams were mirroring the old panel process for schools “in need of improvement”. It was a very formal process with large reporting requirements, which is not the intent of S.B. 191. The intent is to have a standard form completed by a group of individuals to strictly add support to the school and to look at those items with less detail than the wording of S.B. 191 currently specifies. We are looking at revising the language to make it clear, and to list the duties expected for each of the schools; this should also alleviate the fiscal note.
Senator Raggio:
Can we agree we will rewrite those requirements in the school planning provisions to simplify and clarify the process for the non-Title I schools and provide a standard form or checklist?
Dr. James Hager, Lobbyist, Superintendent, Washoe County School District; Chairman, Nevada Association of School Superintendents:
I want to thank Ms. Braun and Mr. Sturm for the opportunity to meet with them to clarify issues and prepare this significantly-reduced fiscal note. Further language clarification could reduce the fiscal note even more.
Senator Raggio:
Will the school superintendents work with staff on the new language to simplify and clarify the school improvement and school planning provisions?
Dr. Hager:
We will be happy to do that.
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
The Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) has offered amendments on that section as well, but the association has not had the benefit of discussions with the Legislative Counsel Bureau staff.
Senator Raggio:
Will NSEA also work with staff? We want to accommodate everyone’s concerns. The other major issue is AYP and the norm referenced test (NRT) scores. A suggestion has been made to remove NRTs as a determining factor for school designations such as “in need of improvement”. We could remove the NRT scores for that purpose, but they will probably be required to determine the high-performing and exceptional schools. The NRT designations can be moved to a separate section concerning eligibility for State remediation funds for effective programs.
Mr. Sturm:
The NRT seems to be one of the biggest areas of concern and confusion. In the bill, funds are provided 1 year early for schools that do not perform well on the NRT. The early designation is only for the purpose of getting funds to the school and has nothing to do with AYP. Eliminating the sections concerning AYP and school designation will make the bill less confusing and will get the remediation funds to the schools based on NRT scores. It will also eliminate confusion surrounding the time issue; NCLBA provisions do not start a year earlier for these schools.
Senator Raggio:
Will the language change satisfy these concerns? I see nods of approval. The next issue is the requirement to convert schools to charter schools in the sixth year of restructuring. If that language is dropped from the bill, will that satisfy immediate concerns?
Mr. Bellister:
Yes, those changes will ease some of NSEA’s concerns.
Senator Raggio:
Revisions are needed in the statewide management of automated record transfer (SMART) system to reflect broader accountability program needs due to the new requirements in NCLBA.
Mr. Sturm:
Some of the changes are dependent on the actions of this committee with reference to the SMART portion of the budget. Student information systems are addressed in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 386.600. Teacher databases that can be linked to individual students are required by NCLBA, as well as school‑level financial systems that track expenses down to a very narrow level in each school. Certain school-wide issues, such as safety, must also be linked as part of the overall State accountability system.
Senator Raggio:
What revisions will we have to make in this bill to accommodate those requirements?
Mr. Strum:
We can work with the department to come up with broad language that will correspond to the committee’s decision.
Senator Raggio:
The next issue is the required ratio of experienced teachers in the low‑performing schools. Is the ratio required for Title I schools?
Mr. Sturm:
I believe the language in the bill requires each school district to ensure that children in low-performing Title I schools be taught by qualified and experienced teachers.
Senator Raggio:
If we delete the required ratio in S.B. 191, and each school district submits a plan to ensure that experienced and qualified teachers are teaching students, will that accommodate the concerns expressed? Each school district will report to the Legislative Committee on Education concerning its plans and proposed recommendations prior to the next session of the Legislature.
Dr. Rheault:
Your proposal will satisfy the department’s concerns. I reviewed the current teaching staff level of experience and found 50 percent of the teachers statewide have 5 years of experience or less.
Senator Raggio:
We will still require each school district to submit a plan to the Legislative Committee on Education to ensure the requirement is being addressed.
Mr. Bellister:
I believe S.B. 191 expands the requirement for balanced staff at all schools; NSEA suggests the requirement should be limited to Title I schools. Additionally, S.B. 191 appears to have a definition of “experienced teacher” that is not contained in NCLBA. A major concern of NSEA is how balanced staffing will occur. As previously indicated, NSEA believes any method used should be consistent with the association’s bargaining rights.
Senator Raggio:
The intent and language of our proposed amendments should accommodate current concerns.
Mr. Bellister:
I wish to reserve judgment until NSEA has an opportunity to review the proposed language.
Senator Raggio:
The committee’s goal tonight is to get approval to have these amendments drafted. The drafts will be distributed and all comments will be considered.
Senator Cegavske:
Returning to Section 84, subsection 1, line 17, does NSEA want the words “or charter school” deleted from the bill?
Senator Raggio:
No; we were discussing schools designated as “in need of improvement” that were in the sixth year of a restructuring program. An option in the bill allows low‑performing schools to convert to charter schools. The language was removed from the bill because the issue is contentious.
Mr. Bellister:
I believe Senator Cegavske is referring to Section 27.
Senator Cegavske:
I know there is also something in Section 20; I just wanted to clarify what section we were discussing.
Mr. Bellister:
One of the consequences of failing to make AYP is restructuring.
Senator Cegavske:
Does NSEA oppose that stipulation?
Mr. Bellister:
Yes, it does.
Senator Cegavske:
May I ask why NSEA is in opposition?
Mr. Bellister:
Existing Nevada law, since the implementation of charter schools in the State, has said we do not convert existing public schools to charter school status.
Senator Cegavske:
But this bill will remove that.
Mr. Bellister:
That is why we are opposed to it.
Senator Cegavske:
Why do you object to it?
Mr. Bellister:
Frankly, NSEA is unsure about the success of the charter school movement in our State at this time. Another concern is where will students unwilling to attend a charter school go? Most of our State’s public schools are already overcrowded.
Dorothy L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability and Assessment, Washoe County School District:
Returning to the issue of the experienced teacher ratio, if Section 85 is changed, will the reporting requirements in Section 41 also be changed?
Senator Raggio:
The committee is requesting that a plan be submitted to ensure that all students are being taught by experienced and qualified teachers. This is a minimum request; the report will be given to the Legislative Committee on Education. Even though the experienced and qualified teacher mandate is for Title I schools, it is a goal we want all schools to pursue.
Mr. Sturm:
I believe portions of Section 41 will remain for Title I schools because there is a federal requirement for reporting the ratio to parents and others.
Senator Raggio:
Is there some specific language you wish to see used?
Dr. Merrill:
No, there is no specific language. I just needed clarification.
Senator Cegavske:
To clarify, is the language on page 48 correct?
Dr. Merrill:
I was referring to reporting requirements in Section 41. Mr. Sturm just clarified the reporting requirements will reflect the other changes.
Senator Raggio:
Previously, the question of continuing the pilot program to pay bonuses to school staff working in schools designated as “in need of improvement” was raised. The pilot program is discussed in Section 130, page 152. We also have an existing Nevada law that gives an incentive bonus of one-fifth of retirement pay to teachers who remain at these schools. We have been informed that provision could be a big cost item because of NCLBA. It has been suggested that the existing bonus based on retirement pay could become increasingly high in the second fiscal year of the biennium because we expect an unusually large number of schools designated as “in need of improvement.” It is a sad commentary that we are anticipating 150 schools will be designated as “in need of improvement.” We are also considering a bill for stipends as an incentive for teachers to stay in these schools rather than transfer out to other schools.
In my opinion, we should consider substituting the language in this proposed bill to at least provide stipends for the schools “in need of improvement.” If we are anticipating more schools being designated “in need of improvement,” I believe it is all the more imperative that we have the stipends. If we repeal the existing statute regarding the retirement pay bonus, we could substitute language to give a $2000 bonus to teachers, principals, and other designated personnel to remain at the schools designated “in need of improvement.” I believe this option will be less risky from a fiscal standpoint, but it will still provide a meaningful incentive. I know NSEA does not consider $2000 as much of an incentive, but these are tight fiscal times.
Mr. Bellister:
The bonus pay is a concern for NSEA. We recognize the mandate contained in NCLBA that requires voluntary transfers of experienced teachers and incentives for experienced teachers to work at schools designated as “in need of improvement.” An Assembly bill will be offering a “laundry list” of compensation systems; one will be incentives for experienced teachers to work in schools designated as “in need of improvement.” Incentives do not necessarily have to be cash bonuses; other alternatives could be retirement credit, a longer day, a longer year, or professional development opportunities. We will maintain our objection at this point to the whole notion of stipends.
Our other objection to Section 130 is the whole concept of exemplary teachers. I was unable to find a definition of “exemplary” in the bill.
Senator Raggio:
My suggestion is in lieu of Section 130. To deal with the fiscal issues and maintain the Legislative Committee on Education’s recommendations, this is the best solution.
Mr. Bellister:
That is fine.
Senator Raggio:
I would like to get the amendment drafted. I understand Senator Cegavske has a reservation on one issue.
Senator Tiffany:
Could I get an explanation about the changes relating to the NRTs?
Mr. Sturm:
There are sections of the bill that state a school will receive its designation based on meeting AYP, as defined by the State Board of Education, or a school may be designated as “in need of improvement” if students score 40 percent or less on all four subjects in the NRTs. If a school receives a designation on the basis of the NRTs, it is eligible for money. The criterion referenced test (CRT) is the only test used to determine AYP under NCLBA. Because of the confusion, the proposal is to remove all references to percentages on the NRTs for determining a school’s designation. The NRT scores will still be necessary to determine high and exemplary designations because the State Board of Education has not set a passing score on the CRTs to differentiate high and low scores. Basically, the proposal shifts the NRT provisions to another section of the NRS which says schools that have performed poorly on the NRT may, under certain circumstances, apply for approval of acceptable school-wide programs for remediation from the Department of Education and the Interim Finance Committee.
Senator Raggio:
I will accept a motion to amend S.B. 191 in the manner we have discussed to this point, including charter schools. The amendment will cover the certification program for paraprofessionals, the school improvement and planning process for the non‑Title I schools, the necessary revisions to the SMART system, the ratio of experienced teachers, the incentives for teachers and personnel at schools designated as “in need of improvement,” and the repeal of the retirement incentive.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 191 TO REQUIRE CERTIFICATION FOR PARAPROFESSIONALS AS MANDATED BY NCLBA AND APPROVED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TO REPORT THE PERCENTAGE OF PARAPROFESSIONALS NOT QUALIFYING IN STATE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTS AND TO AMEND LANGUAGE CONCERNING THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND PLANNING PROCESS FOR NON-TITLE I SCHOOLS AND TO AMEND LANGUAGE CONCERNING THE USE OF NRT SCORES FOR DETERMINING “IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT” DESIGNATIONS AND TO AMEND LANGUAGE CONCERNING EARLY REMEDIATION FUNDING AND TO AMEND LANGUAGE TO REVISE THE SMART SYSTEM TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF NCLBA AND TO AMEND LANGUAGE CONCERNING THE RATIO OF EXPERIENCED TEACHERS IN LOW-PERFORMING SCHOOLS AND TO REQUIRE A REPORT TO THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION FROM EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT ENSURING EXPERIENCED TEACHERS ARE TEACHING STUDENTS AND TO AMEND LANGUAGE CONCERNING CHARTER SCHOOLS AND TO SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE SPECIFYING $2000 BONUSES OR STIPENDS INSTEAD OF BONUSES OF ONE-FIFTH OF RETIREMENT PAY FOR TEACHERS AND OTHER DESIGNATED PERSONNEL WHO REMAIN AT SCHOOLS DESIGNATED AS “IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT” AND TO REPEAL THE RETIREMENT PAY INCENTIVE IN NRS 391.165.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
I would like to discuss a couple of issues that remain unresolved; the handout with the heading “Separate NRTs and CRTs” (Exhibit F) lists major concerns and questions for these issues. I would like to start with separate NRTs and CRTs. I know no one wants to make any changes, but if the committee specifies two separate tests in S.B. 191, then the NRT will be used in Grades 4, 7, and 10, and the CRT will be used in Grades 3 through 8. For the record, the committee would like assurances from the school districts, the school boards, and the Nevada Department of Education (NDOE) that the testing schedule agreed upon will not result in the overtesting of students. Information at the last hearing indicated more testing is required with this plan than is currently being done. I do not want people to come back and say we created a burden on students by requiring too much testing. Is this testing going to result in an overtesting of students?
Gloria Dopf, Educational Equity, Department of Education:
The department says it will not be an overtesting of students.
Dr. Hager:
I am representing the Nevada Association of School Superintendents (NASS); we have studied this and do not believe it will result in the overtesting of students.
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards:
The Nevada Association of School Boards does not believe this will result in the overtesting of students.
Senator Raggio:
If the committee makes the change in the bill and specifies two separate tests, the CRT and the NRT, can NDOE assure the committee that all the revised CRTs can be piloted and implemented by the 2005-2006 school year?
Ms. Dopf:
Yes, NDOE will comply; it is an NCLBA requirement.
Senator Raggio:
Dr. Hager, can you assure us that the school districts will use the State CRTs for the purpose outlined in your white paper, “Nevada Assessment and Accountability in the Era of ‘No Child Left Behind’”? The State CRTs will effectively replace the school districts’ CRTs. Will there be a cost savings to the school districts?
Dr. Hager:
I can answer “yes” to the first question, but I will have to do some analysis on the testing.
Senator Raggio:
This is what you requested. Are you going to use the test for the purposes outlined in the white paper? Is this going to eliminate the local CRT?
Dr. Hager:
I cannot give you an absolute yes. We are waiting to see the State plan, then each school district will have to determine whether it wants to administer more tests than those required by the State.
Senator Raggio:
Do not come back and say it was mandated. I would like to address the issue of the spring versus fall testing schedule. The educational organizations have indicated spring testing is their choice; if the committee votes to amend S.B. 191 to shift the testing period from the fall to the spring, it will have a significant impact on all of the deadlines that NDOE and the school districts have to meet under NCLBA. We have reviewed the revised accountability timeline submitted by NDOE and the school districts, “No Child Left Behind‑Accountability Timeline Revised March 31, 2003–NASS and NASB” (Exhibit G. Original is on file in the Research Library.) and some questions remain. I asked staff to review the revised timeline as objectively as possible to see whether we can accommodate your proposal.
The revised timeline’s spring testing schedule indicates the school, district, and State improvement plans will be developed, revised, and completed by November 15. Implementation of the plans will begin on January 15; full implementation will begin the following school year. Staff received information from the U.S. Department of Education stating this timeline will not satisfy the requirements of NCLBA. The federal representative assured staff that H.R. 1 and recent regulations are very clear on this issue. Specifically, Section 6316(b)(3)(c) of NCLBA requires the plan for improvement be developed and implemented by the start of the school year after the school year in which the tests were administered. Those requirements are not fulfilled using this timeline. Your timeline shows students taking the test in the spring of 2003. Schools designated as “in need of improvement” will be identified by July 1, 2003. The plans for improvement must be developed and implemented by the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year.
A testing company has been contracted to develop and implement the CRT to provide results to NDOE within 28 days. Does NDOE really believe the testing company will complete and deliver the finished product in 28 days? Considering all this information, is NDOE still requesting an amendment to move the testing from fall to spring?
John Soderman, Superintendent, Douglas County School District:
I worked on the testing task force and we took the committee’s questions very seriously. Although our accountability timeline is aggressive, we still believe spring testing is the best for accountability.
Senator Raggio:
I understand that you think that, but can you meet the start of the new school year deadline required by NCLBA? Development and implementation of the plan has to be done by the start of the new school year. The reports based on CRT results also have to be done. Can the testing company do its work in that length of time?
Mr. Soderman:
I will say yes.
Senator Raggio:
The testing company is going to perform in 28 days. Are you sure of that?
Mr. Soderman:
That is what we have discussed with them.
Senator Raggio:
Does everyone else still want the amendment for spring testing with all these requirements in mind?
Ms. Dopf:
We just completed a peer review. We met with peer reviewers who are members of the U.S. Department of Education, as well as other experts in the field that the federal government brought in. We explained this timeline with the proposal for spring testing and school identification to them and we were not given any indication that it would not be in compliance with NCLBA. We believe this accountability timeline is compliant with NCLBA.
Senator Raggio:
I want all the comments on the record.
Mr. Sturm:
Sue Rigney is the peer reviewer staff contacted. We asked if testing is done in the spring of 2003, schools are identified as “in need of improvement” by July 1, 2003, and school begins in late August or early September of 2003, must the plan be ready to go and be fully implemented for the 2003‑2004 school year? She answered yes, according to Section 6316(b)(3)(c) and Code of Federal Regulations 200.32(a)(2).
Ms. Dopf:
I am not contesting the requirement. The identification of schools and options for choice will be done at the beginning of the school year. There is a 3‑month period after school identification for the development of the plan. The difference is in the plan development rather than the school designation. We can research it and work out the details.
Senator Raggio:
We are concerned that you think you do not have to meet the federal law requirements.
Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Association of School Boards:
As we prepared the revised timeline, we discussed our outline with Paul LaMarca. Our understanding is the school designation has to be made, and choice has to be offered, before the beginning of the school year. At the point the school is designated as “in need of improvement,” the school has 90 days to develop the school improvement plan.
Senator Raggio:
Your information conflicts with the information staff was told.
Ms. Loring:
We need to get clarification, but it is important to realize the vast majority of states are choosing spring testing. They are also obligated to meet the federal requirements of NCLBA.
Senator Raggio:
Are you still requesting the committee amend S.B. 191 to provide for springtesting?
Ms. Dopf:
Yes, that is our request.
Dr. Hager:
This is the first time NASS has heard of a conflict. We still support spring testing, but we would like to work with staff; it is obvious we have different peer reviews.
Senator Raggio:
Staff asked if this was a requirement and were told in no uncertain terms it is. Now I am being told it only applies to the notice to parents, and it will not be enforced because all the other states are doing it this way. Do the school boards still want the testing in the spring?
Ms. Loring:
We definitely support spring testing, but in light of this information, which differs from the understanding we used to develop the revised timeline, we need to get absolute clarification. None of us wants to create a situation that does not work. There is no question that a spring timeline will work for school designation and choice before the start of the school year.
Senator Raggio:
I am not trying to put you on the spot; I am trying to address all the concerns and discussions regarding the Legislative Committee on Education’s recommendation for a fall testing schedule. We need your assurance that all parties involved will meet the deadlines specified, particularly those that are federally mandated. If spring testing is approved, federal law requires distribution of accountability report cards to the public prior to the beginning of the school year after the examinations are administered. Does everyone understand that? I am going to ask you to put assurances in writing if we change this. Can you develop, revise, and fully implement the school district improvement plans? Can you perform any necessary reviews of the AYP designation data?
Ms. Dopf:
Yes, the AYP data can be provided.
Senator Raggio:
Can all the planning needed for school choice, supplemental services, and corrective actions for the affected schools be completed as required if we approve spring testing?
Dr. Hager:
Yes, it can.
Senator Raggio:
Can you inform parents in a reasonable period of time to give them the school choice option that is required? I want a written assurance for the record.
Dr. Hager:
Yes, we can.
Senator Raggio:
Can you perform all the requirements without any additional cost? Your spring timeline requires that a lot of the work be completed over the summer. I want your assurance that no additional costs will be incurred because you are crowding all this into the summer.
Ms. Dopf:
The department will have no additional costs since we work year-round.
Mr. Soderman:
None of our discussions indicated any additional costs to meet the requirements.
Ms. Loring:
Yes, we concur.
Senator Raggio:
Are you comfortable with changing the system from a “diagnostic” process to an “evaluative” process? Will you find it useful to know whether a fourth grade student met third grade requirements versus discovering what can be done to help the student meet third grade requirements?
Mr. Soderman:
Yes.
Ms. Loring:
Yes.
Senator Raggio:
In accordance with your white paper and revised timelines, will spring test reports be delivered to teachers prior to the end of the school year? It is supposed to help the teachers address any shortcomings. How will a teacher address the needs of the students in that class in the short time remaining before the end of the school year? Will the report be useful to teachers for that purpose?
Mr. Soderman:
The information will not be useful for the classes they taught, but it will be useful for assessing the degree to which a student meets the standards in the grade they are in.
Senator Raggio:
Is the teacher in the next year going to have the individual test scores in time to make them useful?
Mr. Soderman:
Are you asking if the scores from the previous year get “pushed forward” to the student’s new class?
Senator Raggio:
Will the next teacher have the time and opportunity to address the individual needs of the student that following year?
Mr. Soderman:
The student would be in a different class the following year.
Senator Raggio:
Will the new teacher of that student have the individual scores available from the prior year’s testing to know what to do with that student?
Mr. Soderman:
Yes, the new teacher will have the scores.
Senator Raggio:
Do teachers not have lesson plans prepared before the start of the new school year? If they have developed lesson plans, will the plans have to be changed?
Mr. Soderman:
Teachers know the curriculum expected based on the standards provided by the State. The information will help direct their teaching towards standards where the students in their class may be deficient. Data will also show areas where the students have made adequate progress, so less attention will be directed to those areas.
Senator Raggio:
Is there any concern that parents will not know how their student is performing until the end of the school year? The advantage of fall testing is that parents will know whether or not their child is achieving. Is there any concern about that?
Mr. Soderman:
Fall testing does not assure that parents will know their student’s progress. The fall test scores will be coming in to the schools in November, December, or January. By then, those results are far less than effective and they test what the teacher taught the year before.
Senator Raggio:
My concern is the parents seem to be left out of the process. A big concern to us is that parents be kept informed; this information comes late, and they are not going to know about this until shortly before school starts. Do parents really have a good opportunity to make a decision about choice?
Mr. Soderman:
Based on the plan we have, and the commitment to have school improvement plans at all schools, we believe we will be notifying parents as soon as the school has trouble. There is a “warning year”; we will make that information public. School improvement plans will be in place; they will simply have to be adjusted based on new data. I do not know why the revised timeline indicates fall implementation is required by September of the next year; we believe the data will allow us to adjust existing plans and implement them in January. There is a 1-year advance notice; parents will know a school is having difficulties.
Senator Raggio:
When will parents receive the formal notice that is required?
Mr. Soderman:
Parents will have that notice before the beginning of the school year.
Senator Raggio:
How long before the start of the school year will parents receive the formal notice?
Mr. Soderman:
Parents will receive the formal notice the first week of July.
Senator Raggio:
Will they get the formal notice that soon?
Mr. Soderman:
Yes. There are 15 schools in Washoe County that will notify parents formally even earlier; 7 of the schools are Title I schools.
Senator Raggio:
Does the teachers’ association understand there are some implications if we go to the spring testing schedule because the scores will be a reflection on the performance of the teacher that year?
Mr. Bellister:
It is my understanding that spring testing best reflects the performance of the current teachers. At the last hearing on the bill, the president of NSEA went on record in support of the Nevada Association of School Boards’ position regarding spring testing.
Senator Cegavske:
This issue has been a “sore spot” with me for years. I am not concerned about the overall status of the school; I am concerned about the child. The only reasons we should be testing are for the teachers to know how they are doing, and for parents to know how their students are doing. If we test in the spring and do not report any results until fall, I believe we are wasting our money. You are shaking your head no, but my understanding is teachers will not receive results for students in their classes until fall.
Senator Raggio:
Using the spring schedule, teachers will receive results a short time before the school year ends.
Senator Cegavske:
I am saying that is a real problem. We talked with some of the testing companies; some of those we talked to said they could produce or get us information for a faster assessment. Will the CRT and the NRT both be administered in the spring?
Mr. Sturm:
Because the school remediation funds are linked to the plan that now has to be developed based on the CRTs, it would be best to have both tests administered at the same time of the year. The secondary purpose of the tests is as a check on whether or not the CRTs are reflecting proficiency levels.
Senator Cegavske:
Assuming we test in the spring and spend the summer doing remediation or other necessary actions, what type of testing is proposed at the beginning of the school year?
Senator Raggio:
Is there any testing at the beginning of the school year if we approve this?
Ms. Loring:
There seems to be some confusion between the white paper and the comments Mr. Sturm just made. The recommendation in the white paper was to do NRTs in the fall and CRTs in the spring. To specifically answer Senator Cegavske’s question, using the spring testing timeline, testing will occur from mid-March to mid-April. The results will come back to the school district by the end of May. We agree there has to be a fast turnaround. The teachers get the performance results for the students they taught at the end of the school year. The test scores are intended to be used for teacher self-evaluation to note areas of deficiency in instruction and revise teaching methods for the following school year. Parents also receive student test scores at the end of the school year so they can help with summer remediation. Teachers in the fall will get the test results for the incoming students.
Senator Cegavske:
If a child receives remediation during the summer and testing is not done in the fall, how will the teacher know if the student has improved or not? I have some concerns and I do not get a good feeling from the people here to discuss testing. The period from March to May is too long.
Mr. Soderman:
The teachers will receive the information and utilize it in their classrooms. We have heard concerns about overtesting; teachers are very good diagnosticians. They will know where students finished the previous year and start from there.
Senator Cegavske:
Teachers will not know if they do not get the information until May.
Mr. Soderman:
The system we envision has teachers receiving test scores in May to evaluate their own performances. Teachers will not learn in the fall how other teachers performed. The data will “move forward” with the students coming into the class.
Senator Cegavske:
We want the teachers to know that information, but we absolutely need for parents to know how their students performed. We need to work with the teachers currently teaching those students to work on remediation before the end of the school year. If we are going to spend this “astronomical” amount of money on testing, we need a faster turnaround for the results, and we need to have all involved parties receive value from the testing.
Ms. Loring:
We need to remember that a fall schedule tests what students learned the previous school year; those results will not come back until December. At that point in the school year, it is too late to have any effective remediation. That is the benefit of receiving test results at the end of the school year.
Mr. Soderman:
Two important issues need to be considered; one issue is providing choice, and the other is the school improvement plan. With spring testing, a student is tested in the third grade on the third grade standards in the spring; choice, if necessary, will be provided as a fourth grade student and the school improvement plan will be in place mid-year through that fourth grade school year. With fall testing, a third grade student is tested on third grade standards in the fourth grade; choice, if necessary, will be provided by the fifth grade. A fall testing schedule means actions will occur much later. One of the strengths of spring testing is that school improvement happens the next school year.
Senator Raggio:
I am going through this process and trying to be realistic. I know you are all “dead-set” against the fall testing schedule in S.B. 191. We need to process a bill of some kind. The reason I have asked each of you here for assurances is to avoid having the testing schedule become an issue when the bill goes to the Assembly. There seems to be more concern about measuring teacher performance than learning about student needs early enough to address them.
Ms. Dopf:
The federal law requires NDOE to set up an assessment system that is aligned with the standards and determines whether students have accomplished the standards at each of the grade levels. The proposal is to use CRTs for this assessment and to do the testing at a time when students have been exposed to the content of that grade level. If tests are given in the fall, they will be measuring performance on material students have not covered. If tests are given in the spring, the students have completed the grade standards and are being tested on them. Speaking as a parent, this is not to measure teacher performance; this measures what my daughter has learned in a certain grade against what she was supposed to have learned in that grade.
Senator Raggio:
What if a student has not learned the standards for that grade level by the time the tests are given?
Ms. Dopf:
If that is the case, students have the option of going to summer school. Parents have the opportunity to work with their children to get their performance up to grade level by the beginning of the new school year.
Senator Raggio:
As I understand NCLBA, the main goal is to improve student performance, not measure other performances. Who is representing the Clark County School District? You have heard all my questions. Does the Clark County School District have any concerns?
Karlene Lee, Assistant Superintendent, Research Accountability Innovation, Clark County School District:
We can give you the same assurances and we will provide our answers in writing.
Senator Raggio:
This bill is exempt because it has appropriations in it. I am asking that prior to April 10, 2003, all parties here review the testing schedule timeline and provide assurances in writing that all deadlines will be met if spring testing is approved. We are not going to gamble; we will not pass a bill that does not meet the mandates of the federal law. If you need to change your position, update the timeline.
Dr. Hager:
In response to your request, we also believe very strongly in NCLBA. The federal law is not a debatable issue.
Senator Raggio:
To make the process easier, work with staff to develop a single assurance document and have all parties sign it.
Dr. Hager:
Like you, we still have some concerns about S.B. 191, but we will work very closely with staff to finalize the bill.
Senator Raggio:
I asked staff to analyze the fiscal note and I would like to hear their report of the real fiscal impact of this bill.
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
My comments are included in the April 3, 2003, memorandum regarding S.B. 191’s fiscal note (Exhibit H). On March 20, 2003, the committee requested that school districts review submitted fiscal notes. Staff has received two revised fiscal notes to date. The table at the bottom of page 1 summarizes total statewide costs for implementing S.B. 191. After reviewing the first revised fiscal note, staff noted several costs that were already funded by the State, already required under the Nevada Education Reform Act (NERA), or were required by NCLBA and not S.B. 191. Staff met with representatives on April 1, 2003, and asked that the fiscal note be reviewed and revised. Staff received the second revised fiscal note; some costs were removed as discussed, but some inappropriate costs appear to remain.
In regard to assessments, accountability, and reporting, it is staff’s understanding that NCLBA requires disaggregation of assessment data which is completed by NDOE. It is unclear why additional costs for district-level staff are associated with S.B. 191. Since accountability report cards are required by NERA, it is unclear why there are additional costs for the development of accountability report cards for S.B. 191. During the meeting on April 1, 2003, Dr. Hager noted no sections included in S.B. 191 could be removed to eliminate the fiscal impact. Staff’s conclusion is the fiscal impact of S.B. 191 for assessments, accountability, and reporting should be minimal or zero.
In regard to technology data collection, it does not appear that any section of S.B. 191 requires school districts to hire one data entry position for each elementary school in the Clark and Washoe County School Districts. The districts may believe they need these positions for NCLBA requirements, but these costs should not appear as a fiscal effect of S.B. 191. Although a system such as the Grow Network would be useful, there are no sections in S.B. 191 requiring such a system to be implemented statewide. There appears to be no need for a district-level data warehousing system if the System of Accountability Information for Nevada was implemented appropriately by NDOE. Dr. Hager indicated this cost was included because the districts do not believe the current SMART system has the capacity to provide the district-level data needed. Staff’s conclusion is the fiscal impact of S.B. 191 for technology data collection should be minimal or zero.
In regard to school improvement plan development, support, and implementation, it is unclear why the school districts are estimating increased costs due to S.B. 191 since school-level improvement plans are already required by NERA. At this time, it is unclear whether a portion of these costs is attributable to implementation of school support teams; at the meeting on April 1, 2003, it was explained that S.B. 191 does not add a peer review process for plans for non-Title I schools. If a portion of these costs is attributable to the implementation of school support teams for all low‑performing schools, minimal costs for substitute pay and development of a standard form would be justified. Staff’s conclusion is that the fiscal impact of S.B. 191 for school improvement plan development, support, and implementation should be minimal, $500 per school, for a total of $27,000 in FY 2003-2004 and $95,500 in FY 2004-2005, based on district estimates of the number of non-Title I schools designated as “in need of improvement.”
In regard to district improvement plans, it is unclear why the school districts are indicating development costs due to S.B. 191 since development and implementation of district-level improvement plans is already required by NERA. Staff’s conclusion is the fiscal impact of S.B. 191 for district improvement plans should be minimal or zero.
In regard to highly-qualified teachers, Section 85 of S.B. 191 requires the board of trustees of each school district to ensure the percentage of experienced teachers in schools designated as “in need of improvement” is the same as or higher than the percentage of experienced teachers in schools not designated as such. The estimated costs are based on NRS 391.165, which requires school districts to purchase one-fifth of retirement credits for licensed teachers in schools designated as “in need of improvement.” With the estimated increase in the number of designated schools, costs to districts and the State would substantially increase. Amendments have been proposed that would repeal NRS 391.165 and remove Section 85 from S.B. 191; if these amendments are approved, staff’s conclusion is the fiscal impact of S.B. 191 for highly qualified teachers would be reduced to zero.
Senator Raggio:
We will still have the stipend costs of $2000 per teacher, principal, or other designated personnel assigned to schools designated as “in need of improvement.”
Ms. Braun:
Those costs could be a one-time appropriation built into S.B. 191. Staff has determined that the total fiscal impact of S.B. 191 would be $27,000 in FY 2003-2004 and $95,500 in FY 2004-2005.
Senator Raggio:
Is that in addition to the appropriations already specified in S.B. 191?
Ms. Braun:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Cegavske:
Going back to technology data collection on page 3, you indicated no back-up information had been received. What does that mean?
Ms. Braun:
For the revised fiscal notes, the only information I received were the two sheets from discussions at the April 1, 2003, meeting that appear as Attachment I and II at the end of the memorandum. I have pieced together the back-up information from information I have heard at the meeting. I believe it is fairly accurate.
Senator Cegavske:
Did you request information and not receive it?
Ms. Braun:
I asked for the fiscal notes and hoped back-up information for each of the school districts would be included so I could determine statewide totals. All I was provided with were the two attachments at the end of the memorandum.
Senator Cegavske:
Are you saying each of the school districts did not comply with your request?
Ms. Braun:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
Since all this information is new to you representatives tonight, I will give you an opportunity to respond to it at a later date.
Dr. Hager:
The response Ms. Braun just made about the school districts is not true. Every school responded to the fiscal note. It was obvious the response was not very well received by many people. We held two full meetings of all the school district superintendents in the State following the original fiscal note, then we met with the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) and made modifications yesterday with the demand that we have it to you by 3 p.m. yesterday. We said we could give you the State requests, but we could not get all the fiscal notes because there were clarifications and modifications to S.B. 191. We have responded by intent and literally with all of the demands of this. There have been changes as we have gone along. I cannot accept the response that we did not respond to the LCB fiscal note request.
Senator Raggio:
You have staff’s analysis now. It does seem that many of the items staff identified are already being done, and S.B. 191 does not require any additional costs to comply in those areas.
Dr. Hager:
With all due respect, I will respond as you and Senator Rawson did to me by saying the first fiscal note was way out of line. I will contend that by LCB standards, S.B. 191 does not cost us anything. I do not believe that is an acceptable position that we can put the schools in.
Senator Raggio:
I suggest we review the items outlined in the memorandum and reach a reasonable accord. If the costs for some of these items are already required by other legislation, they should not be included in S.B. 191’s fiscal note. Please review this in a congenial and compatible manner with staff; we need to process this bill, but we do not want to distort costs.
Dr. Hager:
We have not seen the memorandum.
Senator Raggio:
I thought you had a copy of it.
Dr. Hager:
No, we do not have copies of it.
Senator Raggio:
We will make this information available to you.
Senator Cegavske:
I have already discussed this issue with Mr. Sturm; Section 67, subsection 7, page 88 of S.B. 191 specifies tests. Concerns have been expressed to me regarding the Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test (PSAT). I understand there is an alternative test called “PLAN.” Could we have a copy of each test distributed to the committee for review? I do not know how NDOE or the school districts feel about the two tests, but I have received considerable information from schools in my district about concern with the PSAT. I would like to discuss this issue sometime.
Senator Raggio:
Do we have some additional amendments to S.B. 191?
Dr. Merrill:
I have provided a letter (Exhibit I) from the Washoe County School District with four suggested amendments to address concerns that existed prior to the start of this hearing.
Senator Raggio:
Before you begin your presentation, will any of these suggested amendments require additional funds or are they of a technical nature?
Dr. Merrill:
I guess they would cost money because someone from LCB will have to write the amendments in the appropriate legal language. On page 2, we are concerned because we do not see language in S.B. 191 regarding students in attendance for less than 1 full academic year. Such language is included in NCLBA and we believe that language should be added to S.B. 191. Our second suggested amendment concerns school improvement plans; we have already discussed the language with staff.
Senator Raggio:
Are you suggesting that the language in S.B. 191 be the same as the language used in NCLBA?
Dr. Merrill:
Yes, that is correct. We suggest the same action regarding technical assistance; staff provided me with language from the supplement to the United States Code for this section. Prior to the beginning of this hearing, I did not have that information, so staff information should replace my language.
Our fourth suggested amendment concerns the issue of shared responsibility for high student academic achievement. In NCLBA Section 1118, pages 124 and 125, there are specific shared responsibilities for high student academic achievement. In NCLBA, this concept is called the “school-parent compact.” We believe this is an important element of NCLBA and encourage you to include it in S.B. 191.
Senator Raggio:
What effect would your technical assistance amendment have?
Dr. Merrill:
Technical assistance could be provided by the board of trustees or by the State to a school. The language in the supplement to the United States Code addresses our concerns.
Senator Raggio:
Will your suggested amendment for the school improvement plan significantly “water down” what is in S.B. 191?
Dr. Merrill:
I do not know about “watering down” S.B. 191, but I do know these are the federal requirements.
Senator Raggio:
We will consider your suggestions. Are there any other suggested amendments?
Dr. Rheault:
Most of the proposed amendments have addressed a lot of our technical concerns, which we listed in “Nevada Department of Education Recommended Revisions to be Considered for SB 191” (Exhibit J) at a previous hearing. Only two concerns have not been addressed. One issue concerns the language in S.B. 191 Section 63, page 80 regarding the testing of students in English. We suggest using language from NCLBA Section 1111. The second critical technical correction is in regard to the results of alternate assessments. It appears the language in S.B. 191 Section 64, page 81 is less restrictive than the language in NCLBA, which requires we report the results of all alternate assessments as part of the AYP.
Senator Raggio:
Does staff have a copy of your suggested amendments?
Dr. Rheault:
We gave them to staff at a previous hearing on S.B. 191.
Senator Raggio:
I will ask staff to review them. Are the changes compatible with federal law?
Dr. Rheault:
Yes; we are asking for compatibility with federal law.
Senator Raggio:
The committee has also received a letter (Exhibit K) and a copy of a news release (Exhibit L) from Ray Bacon. I appreciate all the work everyone has done on this bill. It is an important issue and we want to make sure that what we do
is what is best for everyone involved. Please work together and come to an acceptable solution. This meeting is adjourned at 6:22 p.m.
Denise Davis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: