MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      March 1, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Education was called to order by Chairman Wendell P. Williams at 3:33 p.m., March 1, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman

      Mr. Ken L. Haller, Vice Chairman

      Mrs. Vonne Chowning

      Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.

      Mrs. Marcia de Braga

      Mr. William D. Gregory

      Mr. James W. McGaughey

      Mr. Roy Neighbors

      Mr. Michael A. Schneider

      Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom

      Ms. Sandra Tiffany

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None.

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Assemblyman Stephanie Smith

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Pepper Sturm, Research Analyst

      Donald Williams, Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Sherri Lakin

      Lynn Chapman

      Douglas Byington, Nev. Assoc. of School Administrators                         

      Gail Parsons, Nevada PTA

      Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards

      Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association

      Eugene Paslov, State Department of Education

      Carolyne Edwards, Clark County School District

      Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum

ASSEMBLY BILL 154 -     Revises requirements for equipment that must be installed on school buses.

 

Assemblyman Stephanie Smith, Clark County District 20, explained AB 154 was the result of the death of a student who was killed by her own school bus.

 

Ms. Smith referred to the language in the bill alluding to the "arm" and clarified it could not be 10 feet long since the buses were 10 feet wide.  Ms. Smith provided a live demonstration on how the swing arm would extend in front of the bus, forcing the students to walk in front of the bus within the visibility of the bus driver.

 

Ms. Smith pointed out there was a fiscal note attached to the bill; however, the impact was very minimal when compared to a child's life.

 

Mrs. Segerblom questioned how long the extended arm would be.  Ms. Smith replied approximately six feet and she stated there would be proposed amendments to the bill clarifying the language.

 

Mr. Neighbors asked what the cost per bus would be.  Ms. Smith responded $78.13 for the equipment for each bus and the larger counties would be able to utilize their own labor people for installation.  The rural counties might incur an additional expense if they had to hire individuals for the installation. Ms. Smith pointed out Clark County was already installing the swinging arms on its buses except for the ones used for special education.

 

Carolyne Edwards, Clark County School District, spoke in support of the bill and referred to the proposed amendment clarifying AB 154 (Exhibit C).  Ms. Edwards acknowledged the specifications for the length of the arm needed to be changed, along with the section regarding special education children who were individually escorted from the bus.

 

Ms. Edwards stated she had been empowered on behalf of the Washoe County School District to support the bill.  Ms. Edwards remarked within a two-year period, 85 percent of the cost of each arm would be reimbursed to the districts.

 

Ms. Edwards commented Exhibit C specified each arm would measure approximately five feet, six inches long in order to fit on the bumper of an eight foot wide bus.

 

Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, spoke in support of AB 154.  Mr. Etchemendy referred to line 13 and indicated the devices would need to be approved by the state board and installed at the expense of the school districts.  Mr. Etchemendy pointed out Question 8 from the November 1992 election had passed acknowledging mandates could not be passed down from the state to the local level unless there were funds attached to each mandate.  Mr. Etchemendy justified the school districts would be reimbursed for 85 percent of their transportation expenses, making the devices affordable for all the school districts.

 

Douglas Byington, Nevada Association of School Administrators, presented testimony in support of the bill and the proposed amendments.

 

Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, spoke in support of AB 154.

 

Gail Parsons, Nevada PTA, expressed support of the bill.  Chairman Williams asked Mrs. Parsons' opinion on using the swinging arm device compared to using teacher aides on the buses.

 

Dr. Eugene Paslov, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, presented testimony in support of the bill and the proposed mechanical mechanism.  In his opinion, Dr. Paslov felt the cost of an aide would be considerably more expensive than the swinging arm.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on AB 154 and indicated the committee would vote on the bill when the amendments were drafted.

 

ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 16   -      Supports national educational goals for State of Nevada.

 

Pepper Sturm, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, read from prepared testimony to provide a background of the resolution (Exhibit D).  The resolution expressed the legislature's support for a modified version of the national education goals to serve as the basis of education reform efforts in the state.

 

Mr. Sturm referred to the six national education goals to be achieved by the year 2000 (Exhibit E).  The goals represented the first national consensus standards for education and called for significant changes and improvements in the current system.  Mr. Sturm remarked the National Governors' Association and President Bush had issued the goals jointly.  Mr. Sturm concluded the National Governors's co-chairman was Bill Clinton and therefore, the national goals would most likely continue to be part of the national agenda.

 

Chairman Williams pointed out during the 1991 legislature, the Assembly Education Committee had passed ACR 85 of the sixty-sixth session which called for an interim study on education.  During the interim, ACR 16 had been suggested and drafted and, if passed, the resolution would go to the state board of education.

 

Sherri Lakin, parent, spoke in opposition to the resolution.  Mrs. Lakin was concerned America 2000 would create a feeling of conflict between those who felt education should be left to state and local governments and those implementing the national goals of the program.

 

Mrs. Lakin remarked the power of special interest groups would have a voice in Washington through lobbyists which could alienate those who had faith in the individual American.  When kept at a local level, each school district could adapt to the policies and characteristics of its population.  Mrs. Lakin pointed out America 2000 would reward those who work with and for at-risk students; it would not, however, reward those who taught the same at-risk students how to achieve and no longer be at-risk.

 

Mrs. Lakin expressed concern regarding the conflict which could be caused between religious groups, ideologies, special interest groups, teachers and administrators and, in her opinion, she thought the resolution would accomplish nothing worthwhile.  Mrs. Lakin maintained the expense to educate one child in America had grown two-and-a-half times in thirty years, yet children were poorly educated.

 

Mrs. Lakin concluded teachers should be left to do the job they were trained to do; reading, writing, and arithmetic in order for the students of today to be tomorrow's leaders.

 

Mrs. Segerblom asked Mrs. Lakin to provide a specific instance which might cause a conflict in regard to helping a student.  Mrs. Lakin replied the goals were very unrealistic and referred to the specific goal of students ranking in the top 10 of the nation.  Mrs. Segerblom emphasized it was a goal which should be strived for.  Mrs. Lakin was concerned with how the goal would be implemented and she disagreed with "blanket" curriculums.

 

Mr. McGaughey questioned Mrs. Lakin as to where the conflict was in goal number 1 which stated, "All children in this state will start school ready to learn."  Mrs. Lakin responded she agreed with the goal in principle, but was concerned it was not practical.  According to Mr. McGaughey, the goal would require parents to be responsible to help their children become ready to begin school.

 

Mrs. Lakin asked for clarification of line 14 which stated, "...and every school will ensure that students use their minds well."  Mr. McGaughey stressed the goal was one of the purposes of education; to teach children how to think, how to analyze, and how to be successful after graduation.  Mrs. Lakin interpreted the resolution as leading children to think the same way, not to be individuals, and not to be able to express themselves.   Mr. McGaughey determined the resolution would encourage each child to use his mind as an individual to the best of his ability.

 

Chairman Williams emphasized the resolution would not mandate anything in reference to what students would be required to have before entering school.  The resolution only suggested striving for excellence in all students. 

 

Dr. Paslov acknowledged in addition to the national education goals, there were also certain goals being contemplated by Nevada 2000.  Dr. Paslov indicated there was a general consensus among the population at large and business leaders throughout the United States, elementary and secondary education lacked any type of goals.  Approximately two years ago, Governor Miller established the Nevada 2000 coalition/task force which had discussed the following additional goals:  physical education; parental involvement; arts; occupational education; foreign language; and civics.

 

Dr. Paslov pointed out the goals were not meant to be a standardized curriculum and he fully supported ACR 16.

Dr. Paslov concluded none of the 17 school districts would be compelled to do anything if the resolution was passed; however, all the goals should be considered by the districts.

 

Lynn Chapman, parent, was opposed to the resolution, but would support the proposed goals Dr. Paslov had discussed.  Mrs. Chapman was concerned with the possible results if the national goals were not reached.

 

Mr. McGaughey asked specifically which goals were unrealistic and could not be achieved.  Mrs. Chapman responded the goals were "utopian" and she was concerned with how they could be reached.  Mr. McGaughey commented goals should be slightly higher than what might actually be achieved.  Mr. McGaughey emphasized ACR 16 was only a resolution and would not become a statute if passed.  Mr. McGaughey pointed out the resolution would not be enforceable if not adhered to.

 

Mrs. Chapman questioned how the resolution would affect parents who were home schooling their children.  Mr. McGaughey replied such children should be as able to learn as children in public schools.

 

Mr. Byington emphasized at a recent conference, the national goals had been thoroughly discussed.  Mr. Byington concluded the implementation of the goals would present a challenge to all educators and parents; however, the association would endorse the concept of the goals.

 

Mr. Etchemendy spoke in support of ACR 16 and he acknowledged the goals would help retain education as a number one priority.

 

Mr. Collins questioned how the State of Nevada would achieve a 90 percent graduation rate and how all the adults in the state would become literate by the year 2000.  Mr. Etchemendy replied the dropout rate throughout the state had been a major problem, but with new strategies developed by the state board, currently the problem was showing improvement.  Regarding adult literacy, Mr. Etchemendy felt making all students literate would help compound the problem.

 

Mr. Byington added the school districts throughout the system were attempting to obtain the 90 percent graduation rate by offering different programs such as occupational and vocational education, etc.  Mr. Byington referred to a program at Truckee Meadows Community College composed of volunteers working with illiterate adults.

 

Mrs. Cahill presented testimony in support of ACR 16 and referred to a document written in 1984, "A Nation at Risk."  Mrs. Cahill pointed out over two million members of the National Education Association had endorsed the national goals and she urged passage of the resolution.

 

Mrs. Parsons spoke in support of the resolution on behalf of the Nevada PTA.  Mrs. Parsons commented the PTA had added "parental involvement" to the goals.

 

Assemblyman Stephanie Smith presented testimony, not as a legislator, but as a teacher.  Ms. Smith expressed concern regarding the omission of the "arts" being addressed in the resolution and she suggested expanding the goals.

 

Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum, spoke in opposition to the resolution.  Mrs. Hansen referred to America 2000 as an education strategy, specifically page 13.  Mrs. Hansen pointed out in conjunction with the national education goals a nationwide examination system would be based on the five-course subjects and tied to world class standards.  Mrs. Hansen maintained the American achievement test would be implemented throughout the country and the standard for curriculum might become too nationalized.

 

Mrs. Hansen expressed concern with colleges and employers using the American achievement test for admissions and hiring purposes.  Mrs. Hansen maintained there should not be just one national standard and she suggested amending the resolution with language stating, "The best standards and the best education is developed through local control and local input."  Mrs. Hansen stated by implementing the American achievement test, the standards would become mandatory.

 

Mrs. Hansen referred to line 11 and indicated she had a particular problem with number 1 which stated, "All children in this state will start school ready to learn."  Mrs. Hansen was concerned with how the goal would be implemented. 

 

Chairman Williams suggested Mrs. Hansen submit an amendment to the committee clarifying her concerns.

 

A discussion referring to world class standards ensued between Mrs. Hansen, Mr. McGaughey, and Chairman Williams.  Mrs. Hansen's primary concern with ACR 16 was regarding how it would be implemented and the lack of local control.  Mr. McGaughey justified the resolution did not tell anyone how to accomplish the goals.

 

Mrs. Hansen was convinced the resolution endorsed America 2000 which would undermine local control.  Chairman Williams emphasized the resolution only endorsed the six goals, not the entire agenda of America 2000.  Mr. McGaughey pointed out the resolution was extremely general and did not deal with implementation.  Mr. McGaughey suggested Mrs. Hansen determine the good in the resolution, rather than trying to find only the bad.

 

Mrs. de Braga referred to lines 6, 7, and 8, which returned local input to the resolution by encouraging the states to raise their educational standards.

 

Mr. Gregory emphasized support of the goals did not endorse any specific implementation and, in his opinion, the goals were good.

 

Chairman Williams ascertained if the resolution was passed, it would go directly to the state department of education, who would then pass it on to the school boards which were locally controlled.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on ACR 16 and announced any amendments should be ready for the committee by March 15th.

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

 

                                    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

 

 

 

                                                                    

                                    Marilyn Cole, Committee Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Education

March 1, 1993

Page: 1