MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-second Session
February 12, 2003
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Vice Chairman Barbara Cegavske, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, February 12, 2003, in Room 2135 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 Barbara Cegavske, Vice Chairman
Senator Maurice E. Washington
Senator Dennis Nolan
Senator Joseph Neal
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Valerie Wiener
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 3
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst
Patricia Vardakis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Dorothy L. (Dotty) Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Rita Hemmert, Early Childhood/Kindergarten Program Coordinator, Washoe County School District
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
We will hear two bills today, Senate Bill (S.B.) 33 and Senate Bill (S.B.) 34. After Senator Raggio presents those bills we will hear further testimony.
SENATE BILL 33: Revises provisions governing charter schools and distance education programs. (BDR 34-642)
SENATE BILL 34: Revises provisions governing pupils in public schools. (BDR 34-639)
Senator William J. Raggio, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 3:
I am commenting on these bills as chairman of the Legislative Committee on Education. The committee recommended both bills. Senate Bill 33 concerns two new forms of schools, charter schools, and distance education.
The charter school provisions of this bill were suggested by the school districts to address some minor issues which arose after the Seventy-first Legislative Session. Currently school districts are required to retest students if less than 90 percent of the students take the statewide test, or in the event of certain breaches of test security or test administration. Under the statutes, if a charter school is required to retest its students, the school district is responsible for the cost of retesting.
Sections 1 and 10 of this bill would reallocate the cost of retesting to the charter school. The committee reasoned since the school district does not have control over the testing at the charter school, the school district should not be charged for a transgression on the part of the charter school.
Section 2 requires charter school employees to submit fingerprints for a criminal history report. This provision makes charter school employees subject to the same requirements as other public school employees. In section 3, the provision referencing the hiring of a teacher or administrator with a criminal history is the same standard applicable to the licensing of teachers and administrators in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 391.033.
In the Seventy-first Legislative Session, the charter school law was amended to authorize the State Board of Education to be a sponsor for a charter school. The per-pupil payment for students in State board-sponsored charter schools is the school district per-pupil amount, or the statewide average, whichever is greater. Any difference is to be paid by the school district. It was pointed out by the school districts it was not appropriate for them to pay for students they were not serving. Section 4 of the bill makes the Department of Education responsible for any additional payments for such charter schools.
The remainder of the bill concerns changes necessary in distance education. Senate Bill 399 of the 71st Session authorized distance education. Reviewing the draft regulations, the Legislative Committee on Education became aware of several cleanup measures needed. First, while a governing body of a charter school may submit an application for a program of distance education, a committee to form a charter school was not listed. This oversight is corrected in sections 5 and 9.
Sections 6 and 7 change some deadlines by 30 days as suggested by the Department of Education. Section 8 addresses the issue of licensure for teachers providing distance education courses. The Department of Education brought to our attention the inconsistent treatment of college and university faculty in the statutes related to concurrent enrollment in higher education courses and distance education.
If a high school student enrolls in a community college course, the student can receive both high school and college credit for the course taught by the postsecondary faculty. Under the current statutes, postsecondary faculties are not eligible to teach distance education courses in the core academic courses such as English, math, social studies and science, unless they have valid teaching licenses, which most of them do not. The provisions of section 8 remedy this disparate treatment and permit Nevada students to take distance education courses, approved by the Department of Education, from college and university faculty either in Nevada or elsewhere.
Senator Raggio:
On-line courses are a growing share of the education market and there is no reason why a student should be denied the opportunity to take a college level course because it is offered on-line. Some of our best colleges and universities offer such courses. The lack of a Nevada teaching license should not foreclose this educational option. The remainder of the bill is simply changing cross‑references necessitated by the substantive provisions of the bill. The committee believes the provisions of this bill are necessary and appropriate to improve our current charter school and distance education laws, and recommends support of S.B. 33.
The Washoe County School District addressed a letter to me on February 11 in which they expressed their concerns. It contained an amendment to section 6, which concerns deadlines on written agreements on distance education. The district was concerned that changing the deadline from September 1 to October 1 would result in students being counted incorrectly for purposes of the school account payments. Therefore, they suggested the October 1 deadline be changed to correspond to the count day. As a member of the committee I agree with the proposed change. I recommend the amendment be provided in the bill.
Also, Washoe County School District expressed opposition to allow post-secondary faculty to teach distance education in the core academic subjects because they do not have a K-12 teaching license. They suggested section 8 of the bill might not meet the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. I would think the college and university faculty have the subject area competence, which is really the focus of the federal bill’s requirement and the term is used in the federal law, “These must be highly qualified teachers.” It would be open to question whether the federal regulations intended in any way to foreclose dual enrollment options for students. If the district has some specific information, they should provide it. I request the Legislative Council Bureau staff look into the issue and see if there is guidance from the U.S. Department of Education. We felt very strongly it should not be precluded.
Senator Raggio:
Senate Bill 34 was an attempt to address an issue brought to the committee’s attention. Parents were frustrated by their inability to enroll children in kindergarten or first grade because the child’s birthday was a few days, weeks, or months after the current cutoff dates. The bill, as written, would permit parents of children with a birthday up to 6 months after the September 30 cut off date to ask the school district to consider their child for early admission to kindergarten or first grade. The committee felt this was an important issue.
The bill also addresses retention in the eighth grade. It was brought to the committee’s attention the statute concerning this issue conflicted with another statute prohibiting retaining a student in a grade for more than 1 year. In the Seventy-first Legislative Session a law was enacted stopping social promotion from the eighth grade to high school. Students must pass a certain number of credits in reading and mathematics to obtain a social promotion. There was another statute which stated you could not hold back a student for more than 1 year. The Office of the Attorney General has issued a legal opinion to reconcile the two statutes, but the committee felt there should be an amendment to resolve the issue. Section 2 of the bill is the clarifying provision.
We received a fiscal note with reference to the admission to kindergarten. The information provided in the fiscal analysis is they received backup information concerning the potential fiscal impact for the Department of Education and all school districts except Douglas and Lyon Counties. The fiscal impact for 2004, if you implement this bill, would be $21 million. It could not be estimated for the year 2005. Washoe County School District only reported for 2004, and almost the total amount of $21 million was for Clark and Washoe County School Districts. Because there would be a $40 million to $50 million fiscal impact, I would suggest this committee re-refer this measure to the Senate Committee on Finance.
Senator Neal:
On page 4 of S.B. 33, “A charter school may employ a teacher and administrator whose criminal history from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Repository for Nevada Records for Criminal History indicate that the applicant has been convicted of a felony or an offense involving moral turpitude….” The charter school board has the authority to make the determination as to whether those individuals can be employed. On page 3, the language says at least 70 percent of the teachers who provide instruction must be licensed teachers, but in no event may more than 50 percent of the teachers who provide instruction at the school be unlicensed teachers. Could 50 percent of the teachers who teach in charter schools have felonies?
Senator Raggio:
This would bring them in line with the same requirement as other public schools with reference to their background.
Senator Neal:
At present, can public schools employ felons?
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
For the record, the district is supportive of S.B. 33 and the date changes proposed by the Washoe County School District.
Senator Neal:
Does the language in section 3, page 3 apply to the districts?
Mr. Kadlub:
The percentages do not apply to the public schools. All our teachers must be licensed.
Senator Neal:
But the charter schools can have 50 percent unlicensed teachers.
Mr. Kadlub:
In the charter law none of the teachers who fall in the unlicensed 50 percent category can be teachers in core curriculum areas. They can teach in vocational programs or the arts.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
Senator Neal, committee staff has the NRS to show you and will clarify the first question you asked.
Dotty L. (Dotty) Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District:
I am here on behalf of the Washoe County School District to support many of the provisions governing charter schools and distance education programs as embodied by S.B. 33. In our letter to Senator Raggio we indicated our support of the mandatory fingerprinting of employees of charter schools. We believe this is critical to ensure the individuals having the greatest contact with children be appropriately screened. We strongly support the inclusion of the language in section 2 of S.B. 33 on lines 37 through 45. We also suggested the Legislative Committee on Education consider language mandating the body of the charter school rather than the sponsoring school district pay for any and all costs associated with retesting pursuant to NRS 389.015. We appreciate the inclusion of the language in section 1, lines 15 through 19. We did provide an amendment (Exhibit C) concerning the dates contained in sections 6 and 7. The intent was school districts would be provided information about students participating in distance education programs. If those students were not to be counted on count day, they could be appropriately withdrawn and there would be no confusion about the apportionment itself.
We also want to bring the committee’s attention to the language at the top of page 10 of S.B. 33. We do not oppose the language. School districts are concerned with having qualified teachers. We did not want to find ourselves later in a Catch-22 situation where teachers, instructors, or professors could provide instruction for a dual-credit course, but would not be considered a highly qualified person.
Senator Neal:
Senator Raggio said charter school language was the same for public schools. The language states a person could be employed if the records do not indicate the person has a criminal history. This says a person may be employed if the person has a criminal history.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
Senator Mathews wants a recap. Senator Neal is reading from the current language on page 4.
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education:
It is similar to current law. The statute change here only addresses teachers not licensed. All licensed teachers come through the Department of Education. We get the fingerprint reports from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History. The next section of the bill gives the discretion to the State superintendent if the felony is an unrelated charge to the position for which they would be hired. As an example, there was a case of vehicular manslaughter, but the incident happened 12 years prior.
Senator Neal:
How do you define unrelated?
Mr. Rheault:
It is defined in law for dismissal or revocation of license. There are certain statutes which include laws involving moral turpitude or sexual offenses with juveniles. There is a separate section in chapter 391 of NRS that lists possible revocation offenses.
Senator Neal:
Are there standards in place to make that determination, or is it solely at the superintendent’s discretion?
Mr. Rheault:
The determination is made on an individual basis. For example, how long ago the offense occurred. If it were a drug-related offense with a felony, we would not consider it. Marijuana charges are misdemeanors. We do not have specific criteria. We take them on a case-by-case basis.
Senator Neal:
How did this become a bar to employ individuals to teach?
Mr. Rheault:
It has been in existence since I have been involved with teacher licensing, perhaps 20 years. We started fingerprinting in 1977. Checking fingerprints clarified whether an applicant had a felony; therefore, they would not get licensed. The superintendent had discretion in certain cases.
Senator Neal:
Can a person applying at the district level appeal to the State superintendent’s office?
Mr. Rheault:
It would not come from the district. It would occur when they apply for a teaching license. If they do not clear fingerprinting, the license is revoked. At the present time it is at the discretion of the State superintendent to deny a license. This bill concerns non-licensed employees and is giving the authority to the governing board. To make it consistent, they could submit the application for approval by the superintendent even though they are not licensed.
Mr. Rheault:
The Department of Education is in full support of S.B. 33 and the amendment. We agree with the count day, the last day of the first school month.
At present if a student enrolls in a dual-credit course and goes face-to-face in Western Nevada Community College, a school district can use the credit. If it is part of the distance education program, that same course will not count because the distance education law states the teacher must be licensed in English, mathematics, science or social studies. It was an inconsistency. Beginning this year, federal law refers to highly qualified teachers, these are not newly hired teachers. The district does not hire university faculty. By 2005 or 2006 the law defines a highly qualified teacher as an elementary or secondary teacher. These would not meet the criteria.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
Is there a definition of a highly qualified teacher?
Mr. Rheault:
I have the definition.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
We will distribute copies of the definition to the committee. What administrative fee do charter schools pay school districts? Is it 1 or 2 percent?
Mr. Kadlub:
It is 2 percent the first year and 1 percent every year thereafter.
Senator Neal:
I would like to return to the language in section 4. What this will do is give charter schools authority to employ a teacher who has been convicted of a felony for moral turpitude if the charter school determines the conviction was unrelated to the position. Am I looking at this incorrectly?
Mr. Rheault:
If this law were to pass, the first thing I would do is send letters informing charter schools there are existing laws which prohibit employment of an individual who has committed certain sexual offenses.
Senator Neal:
You would not have the authority if this law passed.
Mr. Rheault:
We could provide them with guidance if it was a related felony they should not consider. To be consistent, we know at the State level what the State superintendent would or would not approve. The charter schools have the liability if something happened.
Senator Neal:
What do you mean by liability? Do you mean they could be sued?
Mr. Rheault:
Yes.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
Are you going to prepare some language?
Mr. Rheault:
It was just a suggestion. Hopefully, there would not be many and they could submit the applications to the superintendent for consideration. Therefore, everyone would be treated based on the same criteria even though it would not be spelled out.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
We will consider your suggestion along with the other recommendations.
Senator Mathews:
What was the impetus for this?
Mr. Rheault:
It was a clarifying point to remind charter schools they are required to fingerprint all employees. This is a requirement of all school districts and private schools. We do not tell school districts whom they can hire for the unlicensed staff. We say they must take fingerprints and it is their decision whether they hire the individual based on the fingerprint report.
Senator Mathews:
Is this for teachers?
Mr. Rheault:
This is specifically for teachers. This is referring to the 50 percent of unlicensed teachers charter schools may hire.
Senator Mathews:
I am not feeling comfortable with the language as it is.
Mr. Rheault:
I previously suggested they be submitted to the State superintendent. We have approved licenses for applicants with felonies. One was felony embezzlement from 25 years ago and the individual has since had a clean record.
Senator Mathews:
Does that apply to teaching English?
Mr. Rheault:
We would treat them on the same basis as considering approving a licensed teacher with a felony.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
Senator Mathews do you have anything further?
Senator Mathews:
I am still perplexed.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
We will not make any motions on this bill today. We will listen to and look at other avenues.
Senator Neal:
How many charter schools are there?
Mr. Rheault:
There are 13.
Senator Neal:
There are 13 boards and 13 decisions that will be made in reference to this statute. Based on your suggestion they go to the superintendent and there will be one standard for all.
Mr. Rheault:
Correct. I would imagine it would only be one or two per year.
Senator Mathews:
Once this law is passed there will be many because the law would then protect them. Since there is a shortage of teachers, you will have a lot more than ever before.
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
We are not for or against S.B. 33. We will submit an amendment to the committee regarding the issue concerning section 3, lines 5 through 12. Under the existing law the current standard of review is the fingerprint check. If records come back, the standard of review is the State superintendent. In the interest of uniformity we would offer an amendment unlicensed teachers be subjected to the same standard of review.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
Committee staff and the Department of Education will work together on that issue. We will close S.B. 33 and open the hearing on S.B. 34, but will discuss the policy issues only. The recommendation is to send the bill to the Senate Committee on Finance because of the fiscal note.
Mr. Kadlub:
I am speaking on behalf of the Clark County School District. In addition to the funding issue, we had other issues such as facilities, equity, program quality, and staffing. I am reading from prepared testimony (Exhibit D). For the reasons cited, the Clark County School district respectfully asks you not to support S.B. 34.
Senator Wiener:
Some Head Start officials have stated early childhood experts say 4- and 5-year-old children are developmentally too erratic to provide meaningful test results. Should social development be a test component as well as academic testing of children?
Mr. Kadlub:
Based on comments from people in our district, it is an unresolved question. There was an assumption we may use a BRIGANCE assessment inventory. I am not certain the test would show a level of social maturity.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
Is there an appeal process for parents to pursue?
Mr. Kadlub:
To my knowledge there is no appeal process. We rely on the dates specified in law because we would always have requests for exceptions.
Senator Neal:
How did you arrive at the figures you cited?
Mr. Kadlub:
The numbers were based on students currently in kindergarten and first grade, approximately 20,000 per grade level. Based on the assumption 10,000 of those children will be born in a 6-month period, we calculated by moving the birth date back 6 months making an additional 10,000 kindergarten children eligible for the early testing. Ten thousand first grade children would be eligible for the early testing. We assumed all parents would not apply to have their children enrolled early. For the purpose of calculation, 2000 of the eligible 10,000 kindergarten children and 2000 of the eligible 10,000 first grade children could seek early enrollment.
Senator Neal:
Did you take into account the whole process must be triggered by a request from the parents?
Mr. Kadlub:
Yes, we did. We calculated only 2000 out of every 10,000 children might end up in the program.
Senator Neal:
Eventually all children will be enrolled in school. What will be the difference in the cost? If a child starts early, will it add to the cost?
Mr. Kadlub:
Yes, it will add to the cost.
Senator Neal:
It is a simple matter of budget. Eventually you will get the students.
Mr. Kadlub:
The additional cost for facilities would be a first-year cost to provide classroom and seat space for every student. The per-pupil allocation would help fund supplies, equipment, and staffing. The only additional cost would be testing. As the law indicates, children are required to have testing conducted prior to the start of the school year. We would need staff on hand to conduct the testing outside their current contract; therefore, we would need to extend the contract to accommodate testing.
Senator Neal:
Based on language on page 3, lines 43 through 45, and on page 4, lines 1 through 6 of S.B. 34, the parents must request the test.
Mr. Kadlub:
You are correct.
Senator Neal:
Do your figures include the second request?
Mr. Kadlub:
The testing would be initiated by the parents’ initial request to have their child enrolled early. Testing automatically follows. Once the parents enroll their child, it is incumbent upon the district to test the child.
Senator Neal:
Is there something special about the 6-month date?
Mr. Kadlub:
There is nothing special about the number. Public schools are trying to provide an education for children between K-12. Our preference would be to strengthen the existing kindergarten program, not reach further into the population for more children.
Senator Neal:
The child would not be accepted if the standards were not met.
Mr. Kadlub:
I agree there is a lot of gray area which is the reason we prefer the existing statute. It sets a clear age limit. It does not address a student’s social or academic skills. It simply states public education begins at the age of 5 and continues through the grade levels.
Senator Neal:
There are some children who are ready to enter school at an early age. In the Head Start program, for example, the children tend to do well at an early age.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
Would $7.5 million be an additional cost?
Mr. Kadlub:
Based on 2000 children applying for kindergarten and 2000 for first grade for early admission, the first-year cost for Clark County School District would be $16 million. Approximately 4000 students, some at the kindergarten apportionment, and some at the full-day apportionment would generate about $12.5 million in Distributive School Account. There are several million dollars difference for the school district to launch the program in the first year.
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
In the fiscal note the testing amount was low.
Mr. Kadlub:
I was told the test is relatively inexpensive, but manuals for each person proctoring the test are $90.
Rita Hemmert, Early Childhood/Kindergarten Program Coordinator, Washoe County School District:
I speak in opposition to S.B. 34. I ask you consider other aspects of this bill, reading from prepared testimony (Exhibit E).
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
We will close the discussion on S.B. 34 and introduce Bill Draft Request (BDR) 40-540.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-540: Provides for designation of State Plumbing code by State Public Works Board. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 115.)
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 40-540.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Vice Chairman Cegavske:
There being no further testimony, this concludes the hearing on S.B. 33 and S.B. 34. The meeting is adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patricia Vardakis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Barbara Cegavske, Vice Chairman
DATE: