MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Sixty-seventh Session
May 3, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Education was called to order by Chairman Wendell P. Williams, at 3:38 p.m., on Monday, May 3, 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 Jan Evans, District 30
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Donald Williams, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dr. Eugene Paslov, Department of Education
Patrick McHenry, Nevada Classified State Employees Association
Douglas Byington, Nevada Association of School Administrators
Sherry Loncar, Nevada PTA
John Soderman, Meneley Elementary School
Greg Betts, Rural School Districts
Sheila Ward, Nevada Eagle Forum
Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association
Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards
Marcia Bandera, Elko County School District
Kristine Jensen, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens
Ashlee Jensen
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens
ASSEMBLY BILL 290 - Requires state board of education to establish pilot program for increased management of public schools by educational personnel.
Assemblyman Jan Evans, District 30, pointed out there was a similar bill in the Senate, SB 91, which was currently in committee. Mrs. Evans explained the Senate bill contained the same general subject matter and concept as AB 290; however, her bill was a "mild-mannered" proposal by comparison.
Mrs. Evans read from prepared testimony in support of the bill (Exhibit C). Mrs. Evans explained the bill dealt with a proposal for pilot programs to evaluate the feasibility of transferring the responsibility for management of public schools to the administrators and faculty members of those schools. The activity was referred to as "Site-based Management."
Mrs. Evans emphasized individual schools should be given more latitude in implementing new strategies and approaches to learning and should be allowed to take initiative, solve problems, and be responsible for outcomes. Mrs. Evans clarified site-based management demanded careful thought and planning and would require the cooperation, collaboration, support, and mutual understanding by the school board, the superintendent, the principal, teachers, parents, and the community. Mrs. Evans suggested adding language to the bill which would include the involvement of parents and the community.
Mrs. Evans pointed out AB 290 was voluntary, not mandatory and was limited in scope and required the approval and participation of all relevant parties. According to Mrs. Evans, Nevada currently had several schools involved with site-based management.
Mrs. Evans referred to a comprehensive book regarding site-based management which was a Rand Report available through the Legislative Counsel Bureau Library.
Chairman Williams asked Dr. Eugene Paslov if he had testified in favor of the Senate bill. Dr. Paslov replied he had testified in favor of the concept. Chairman Williams questioned which of the two bills the state department would be more likely to undertake. Dr. Paslov responded he was more inclined to support AB 290 since it was more permissive and allowed site-based decision making from the bottom up.
Dr. Eugene Paslov, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, read verbatim from prepared testimony in support of the bill (Exhibit D). Dr. Paslov justified site-based management was a form of shared decision making which made the schools, not the central office, the place where most decisions regarding schooling occurred. Dr. Paslov explained the cost for site-based management was approximately $2,000 per site; however, if there was no money, in his opinion, site-based management should still be implemented due to the potential improvement for all schools.
Dr. Paslov concluded he supported Mrs. Evans' proposed amendment and he urged the committee to support the bill.
John Soderman, Principal, C.C. Meneley Elementary School, Douglas County, presented testimony in favor of the bill. Mr. Soderman stated Meneley Elementary was a K-6 school with 825 students on a multiple track, year-round schedule.
Mr. Soderman read from prepared testimony in support of the bill (Exhibit E). Mr. Soderman explained his school had become involved in the School Improvement Project (SIP) in 1990 which was funded and sponsored by the Nevada State Department of Education. Mr. Soderman pointed out the SIP team became the Decision Making Council (DMC) and since the team was formed, 54 decisions had been made between 1991 and 1993. The DMC made decisions relating to teaching and learning, and the council consisted of seven teachers K-6, one resource specialist, one classified representative, the parent-faculty advisory committee chairperson who would have to be appointed due to the lack of any volunteers, and Mr. Soderman who served as the secretary.
Mr. Soderman emphasized anyone could attend any meeting at anytime and every staff member had to be involved and/or informed; decisions were made on a written action plan. Any members not in attendance were an automatic "Yes" vote.
According to Mr. Soderman, the transition from school based decision making to school based management was a developmental one which could begin with school improvement projects, site-based decision making, practice, developed policies, and finally site-based management. Mr. Soderman was concerned site-based management could pit schools against districts causing the state board of education to become the referee.
Mr. Soderman concluded AB 290 would allow flexibility to develop decision making processes at each site, and the bill assumed school personnel to be responsible, responsive professionals who could work out the specifics of shared governance.
June Gronert, Principal, Smithridge Elementary School, Washoe County, agreed with Mr. Soderman's views on SIP and spoke in support of the bill. Mrs. Gronert explained Smithridge had chosen the Carl Glickman model for the Professional League of Schools in Georgia and it had taken well over one-and-a-half years to develop a constitution.
Mrs. Gronert read verbatim from a position paper regarding the bill relating to the attributes of AB 290 (Exhibit F). Mrs. Gronert emphasized the restructuring process was best served when developed at the individual school site.
Mrs. Gronert indicated the bill supported individual schools in their efforts to address their unique needs by not mandating a prescriptive, universal solution, but rather, by encouraging a forum for creative, collaborative problem-solving. Mrs. Gronert concluded the only reservation she had regarding the bill was with the additional requirements which could be placed on individual schools from the state department. In her opinion, the vision of change should occur at the local level within the individual schools.
Mr. Collins questioned if schools might become "pitted" against other schools in anyway. Mr. Soderman responded depending on the staff at each school, there would probably be differences; however, AB 290 was an important move forward and could be positive rather than negative.
Patrick McHenry, Nevada Classified School Employees Association, submitted prepared testimony regarding concerns of AB 290 (Exhibit G). Mr. McHenry indicated his association was willing to participate should the bill pass; however, they suggested certain amendments for clarification purposes.
Mr. McHenry proposed the following decisions be made at the district level: collective bargaining; providing district-wide services, i.e., maintenance, custodial, food service, etc.; the screening and hiring of candidates for classified positions; capital expenditures, new construction, and renovation; and supervisory authority over those site employees not involved in the curriculum.
Mr. McHenry concluded site-based management could offer an attractive alternative, but the concept should be limited to curriculum related programs and problems.
Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, presented testimony in support of the bill and suggested changing the language in the bill from "site-based management" to "site-based decision making." Mr. Etchemendy agreed with the proposed amendment of adding the inclusion of parents involvement.
Greg Betts, Rural School Districts of Nevada, spoke in support of AB 290. Dr. Betts pointed out the bill was a "good first step," legislatively speaking, of an extremely important concept for any state. In his opinion, Dr. Betts felt the bill avoided the pitfalls of over-prescribing a mandated, particular way in which things should be done.
Mr. Neighbors asked what kind of administrative functions would remain with the districts. Dr. Betts replied the vast majority of predominant decisions would remain with the districts. The distribution of non-categorical discretionary funds for each school could be left to the site-based committees directly involved in such decisions if the bill passed.
Mr. Collins referred to bargaining agreements and questioned if school staff currently involved in site-based management programs were going beyond their curricula. Dr. Betts responded the staff would not be allowed to violate anything set forth in collective bargaining, nor could the local school board or the state board.
Sherry Loncar, Nevada PTA, stated the PTA had neither a blanket endorsement or opposition to the bill. Mrs. Loncar agreed with the suggestion of adding parental involvement to the proposed language of AB 290.
Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, indicated any model of site-based decision making should be within the context of the negotiated agreement within the school district. According to Mrs. Cahill, as long as there were no waivers of contracts, NSEA supported the bill.
Doug Byington, Nevada Association of School Administrators, spoke in support of the bill; however, he emphasized site-based decision making should be approached slowly. Mr. Byington concluded his association supported AB 290 over SB 91 because the bill allowed the school districts to develop a model program subject to approval by the state.
Carolyne Edwards, Clark County School District, presented testimony in support of the bill and the proposed amendment for parental involvement.
Sheila Ward, Nevada Eagle Forum, emphasized the importance of academic achievement in schools. Mrs. Ward justified any public entity which used taxpayers money should accept citizens surveillance of its decisions and performances of duties which applied directly to all school personnel and elected officials.
According to Mrs. Ward, there was no assurance test scores would be raised due to site-based management. Mrs. Ward pointed out the schools in Britain were moving away from regional educational bureaucracy, and the decisions for many schools were made specifically by the headmaster and a parent-dominated school council.
Mrs. Ward concluded the parents should have the right to "opt" out of a school, regardless of the zone, if they were unhappy with the way things were happening with site-based management and currently, that was not possible.
Kristine Jensen, Education Chairperson for the Nevada Coalition of Conservative Citizens, read verbatim from prepared testimony in opposition to the bill (Exhibit H). Mrs. Jensen expressed concern the parents, citizens, taxpayers, and voters would apparently lose their voice in the decisions on how their children would be educated or how their taxpayer dollars would be spent. In her opinion, Mrs. Jensen believed waivers of school board rules could result in the educational program at each school differing markedly with the possibility education opportunities could be decidedly unequal in the schools.
According to Mrs. Jensen, parents should have the majority voice in any governing body of a school. Mrs. Jensen proposed amendments 1-5 on page 2 of Exhibit H. Mrs. Jensen concluded the amendments would assure adequate parent/citizen voice, a fair election process, an appropriate appeal process, and sufficient details to be able to evaluate any such programs.
Ashlee Jensen, student, read verbatim from prepared testimony in opposition to the bill (Exhibit I). Miss Jensen maintained no one cared more about children than parents, so it was important for the schools to include the input of parents on decisions regarding what children learned.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, was concerned with the intent of the bill. Mrs. Lusk commented she had missed the testimony on the proposed amendment involving parents; however, her concern was with the amount of parents, whether the amount would be equal or only a token involvement.
Mrs. Lusk referred to page 1, lines 11-14, and she expressed concern regarding the waiver clause. Mrs. Lusk indicated there was no objection with the site-based management program as long as it involved school personnel within the context of the decisions made by the elected bodies who were responsible to the people. According to Mrs. Lusk, AB 290 would allow the local school boards to waive their rules which could mean certain decisions would be lost in the bureaucracy.
Mrs. Lusk concluded if the intent of the bill was only to expand what was currently being done, there would be no need to waive the school board rules.
Chairman Williams announced he would form a subcommittee on the bill chaired by Mr. Collins and including Mrs. Segerblom and Mrs. Chowning.
Chairman Williams closed the hearing on AB 290.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Marilyn Cole, Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Education
Date:
Page: 1
Assembly Committee on Education
Date: May 3, 1993
Page: 2