MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Sixty-seventh Session
June 7, 1993
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:00 a.m., on Monday, June 7, 1993, in Room 223 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Diana M. Glomb
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Daniel G. Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Robert Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst
Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Eugene T. Paslov, Ph.D., Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education
Ray Bacon, Executive Director, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum
Sandy Coyle, Parent
Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards
Gregory F. Betts, Nevada Rural School District Alliance
Dr. Steve Mulvenon, Director of Communications, Washoe County School District
Lucille K. Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens (NCCC)
Jean Simons, Parent
William R. Millsap, President, Nevada State Education Association
Marcia R. Bandera, Director of Instruction, Elko County School District
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel
Senator Raggio opened the meeting with the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 511.
SENATE BILL 511: Revises provision concerning program of accountability for public schools.
Senator Ann O'Connell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, came forward to urge support of S.B. 511. She distributed copies of her testimony (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.).
Before leaving to testify in another committee, Senator O'Connell replied to a query by Senator O'Donnell. She responded an interim study that she had chaired found a critical part of making any substantive changes in the school was the involvement of parents. She opined that parents want to be brought into the system but so far there is no successful mechanism to include them. She felt the accountability program would increase their participation.
Senator Glomb inquired how the $100,000 would be spent in order to obtain the information sought. Senator O'Connell replied the funds would be appropriated to the State Board of Education to coordinate the information pertinent to "this report card." She said the initial request had been for $250,000.
Eugene T. Paslov, Ph.D., Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, asserted a program of accountability is an important part of educational reform. He voiced his commitment to accountability.
Dr. Paslov described accountability as "the collection, analysis and public reporting of reliable and accurate information about specific client groups which can be compared and which can track progress of strength and weaknesses of the delivery system over time." He pointed out there was nothing pejorative in the definition, or that would assign blame, suggest that some children do not perform as well as others or that teachers or parents are failing to do their best to help those children be successful.
Dr. Paslov declared the purpose of school accountability is to let the public know what areas might need improvement and what areas are successful. He proposed such an account should be made every year and done in a manner that could be understood and used by all parties, parents, teachers, students, administrators and policy makers.
Dr. Paslov's description of the elements of S.B. 511 are attached as Exhibit D. He provide the committee with his suggested amendments (Exhibit E).
Senator Coffin asked Dr. Paslov how often he met with trustees or superintendents of the school districts. Dr. Paslov replied he meets with them once a month. Senator Coffin asked if it would be possible to discuss development of an accountability program at the monthly meetings without the necessity of an appropriation. Dr. Paslov answered, "Sure."
Dr. Paslov stated, "Yes, it's possible, and we do this. To do it without funds will simply slow it down. It takes a long time. There are some technical issues that have to be worked out."
Senator Coffin asked for an explanation of the technical issues. Dr. Paslov replied there were technical data problems, including making sure that data is collected in a comparable manner and agreeing what data elements should be collected. He continued to say a system must be set up in which to collect and analyze the information.
Dr. Paslov admitted there are some people on his staff capable of setting up a system. He pointed out the universities have people with considerable interest and expertise to handle the program and their aid should be enlisted.
Senator Glomb inquired if the funding was included in the budget.
Senator Raggio responded that it was not included. Dr. Paslov acknowledged a request had been included in his original budget request for an enhancement of the research, planning and evaluation branch of the State Department of Education for this type of program but it was not included in the Governor's recommendation.
Senator Jacobsen voiced his concern over the expenditure of $100,000. He read a list of supporters, including the State Board of Education, the State Department of Education, Commission on Professional Standards, the Education Commission of the States and others. He suggested there is already an abundance of information; it simply has not been compiled.
Senator Callister compared the proposal to "mother and apple pie." He described a scenario in Las Vegas in which an accountability study would show wide differences partly due to the disparate life-styles of the parents, their ability to participate financially and to the equipment that has been provided to some but not all schools. He charged that teachers tend to gravitate toward schools that "have all the toys," or that are newer where class sizes tend to be smaller for the first few years. He noted some schools have an advantage if the parents have lots of spare time.
Senator Callister asked how those kinds of components could be factored into an across-the-board reporting system. If that type of reporting could be accomplished, he asked, then how could it help any particular school unless funding was available or unless more parent participation was obtainable.
Dr. Paslov responded there are examples of schools in low socio-economic communities, with high transient rates, in which assessments have shown the students do achieve at very high levels. He admitted there are not many of those schools. He acknowledged some of the reporting factors in an assessment should include the dollars available to each school, the student-teacher ratio and the experience level of the teachers in each school. He suggested that such information will result in parent and teacher demands for resources sufficient to allow their children to perform at higher levels.
Dr. Paslov said:
I refuse to believe that because kids are poor or black or Hispanic or Native American that they're going to be doomed to mediocrity in terms of their academic performance. I simple refuse to believe it.
Senator Callister inquired if Dr. Paslov was suggesting the information to be gathered should and would be utilized by local school boards to make different kinds of funding decisions. He asked if that meant the schools that are undercapitalized should be funded at a higher rate. Dr. Paslov answered that was one decision to be made in addition to others.
Senator Callister asked, "If that's the case, don't you pretty much already know which schools those...are?" Dr. Paslov replied, "You'd be surprised, no." He indicated there was some general knowledge of schools with reduced pupil-teacher ratios or where children have achieved well, but, he admitted, there is much that is unknown. He surmised there are schools in some of the more affluent neighborhoods that could use some improvement.
Senator Callister stated he was troubled to hear Dr. Paslov admit that he does not already know which specific schools are in economically blighted areas where "kids go hungry" and where single-parent homes are the norm. He opined that Dr. Paslov was suggesting the assessment would provide a tool for parents to use while "shopping" for the best school available.
Dr. Paslov responded:
I'm not opposed to...public school choice, options for parents. I think there are a lot of problems that schools would have, everything from transportation to...types of programs.... My primary emphasis is that we have these kinds of reports available to parents in a school-attendance area to help them understand how well those schools are doing...and if there need to be areas of improvement, how well those improvements are going to work over time.
Senator Callister asked if there was any nationwide data available giving results after this kind of information has been accrued. Senator Raggio concurred such information would be pertinent to any decision to be made by the legislature.
Senator Raggio pointed out after class-size reduction was enacted in 1989 both houses of the legislature agreed there should be a method of accountability. He acknowledged:
Something went awry [with]...the accountability bill. What was intended to be a...method of determining comparables between schools and school districts became watered down in the form of the present law. Based on that...and what I have seen in looking at the reports that are forthcoming as a result of that, ...I have great personal difficulty when I try to draw any comparisons, even between school districts.
Senator Raggio inquired how reports were being developed and under what form under existing state law. Dr. Paslov replied the existing law "did not require school districts to do that. It simply required the school districts to make a public report to their parents, to their constituents...."
Dr. Paslov noted the 17 reports to which Senator Raggio referred came from each of 17 school districts, but they cannot be compared to each other or to building-to-building within a school district. He declared that was done by design. He said:
If you just look at achievement test scores, there are a variety of different ways...of reporting achievement test scores. You can report them in percentiles, you can report them in NCEs, normal curve equivalents, you can report them in raw scores. ...They're reported...in all three of those different ways in districts, so there's no way that you can even compare test scores.
Senator Raggio asked how a method could be accomplished in order to make the kinds of comparisons that parents and the public are demanding. He noted that people are interested not only in funding but also in how each school is performing. Dr. Paslov replied the solution would be to pass S.B. 511 with his proposed amendments.
Senator Raggio asked if the study will result in uniformity in the types of reporting across the state. Dr. Paslov admitted people have expressed concern that information will be misused and certain children, schools or districts will be stigmatized. He opined, "I ...believe that we are, in the school community, smart enough to not have that happen and to give the information that you want as a policy maker in the legislature, that your constituents want...."
Senator Raggio voiced difficulty with the fact that there appears to be a large segment of the educational system that does not believe the public has a right to know what is occurring in that system. He pointed out that there is a uniform expectation that the public has a right to know what is going on in every other segment of the public process. He declared his only grief with the educational system is with those who do not agree that the public has a right to know. He stated, "In the case of education, as well as in everything else we do, that the public, if given the facts...will know how to deal with it."
Senator Raggio pointed out that when it has been suggested that the public might not understand, the result has been an outcry, and the charge has been made that it is an erroneous presumption that the public cannot be trusted. He noted the major portion of revenue goes to support schools and there is no reason why anything should be kept away from public scrutiny. He invited anyone coming forward to speak to enlighten him as to that attitude.
Dr. Paslov responded he was in agreement with Senator Raggio and indicated he, too, has trouble comprehending such an attitude. He said:
As soon as you start using data elements, there is tremendous opportunity for mischief and misuse. And educators, and I would be one, too, to be very concerned about that. But, on the other hand, I must admit that...we have to do what you are suggesting or we are going to unravel our system of public education.
Senator Glomb reported she has never had any trouble obtaining information from the schools. She has asked and received information and has visited classrooms. She suggested care must be used to not sound too critical. She said, "I think we want information, but we want it because we want to be better, not because we want to be punitive. ...There's a certain amount of punitiveness about this discussion that bothers me." She indicated she felt obliged to put those sentiments on the record.
Senator Raggio declared he had not intended to suggest any punitive action. He explained his aim was to suggest constructive action where necessary.
Senator O'Donnell agreed that Senator Raggio had touched upon the heart of the issue. He stated, "If we don't give some sort of accountability the public will cease to support education, and when that happens that will be a tragedy." He suggested accountability is designed to encourage the public to support education either through funding or through local participation.
Dr. Paslov concurred with Senator O'Donnell. He indicated there is nothing in the measure that should be construed as punitive, that rather it should be construed as constructive. He noted there have been tremendous changes in public schools during his over 30-years' involvement. He called himself a forceful advocate for public education and voiced the opinion the system is fragile and at risk. He reiterated action must be taken to better inform the public. He expressed confidence the public will be able to understand and use the information that would be forthcoming from the passage of S.B. 511.
According to Dr. Paslov the schools are doing an outstanding job educating students. Senator O'Donnell pointed out the public has the perception that the schools are not performing up to standard, which he attributed to lack of knowledge as to performance.
Dr. Paslov attested he would do everything in his power to use the information to gain public support should S.B. 511 pass. He observed nearly 39 percent of the General Fund was devoted to public education when he started at the Department of Education. He noted the figure today is 37 percent.
Senator Glomb voiced the opinion $100,000 would be insufficient and additional expenditures from local school districts would be needed to accumulate the information. She asked for details on what amounts would be necessary from local districts to accomplish the study. Dr. Paslov responded he would collect any additional information necessary.
Because he had to testify in another committee, Senator Raggio turned the chair over to Senator Rawson.
Ray Bacon, Executive Director, Nevada Manufacturers Association, reported he had discussed the matter with Dr. Pendery Clark, Superintendent of Public Instruction in Douglas County. He said she had expressed three concerns. She felt there should be a clear emphasis that the primary function of the report is that it should go to the local community. Her second concern had to do with the use of local funding. Her third concern was recognition that there is considerable change in progress in the public school sector and some standard achievement tests are undergoing change. Mr. Bacon reported Dr. Clark felt there should be some assurance that those involved in innovative programs should receive credit for their efforts.
Mr. Bacon offered two amendments (Exhibit F) to address the concerns expressed by Dr. Clark. He suggested the emphasis being placed on accountability was due to a study done in West Virginia in which it was claimed 95 percent of the school districts in the country reported their students were at or above the national average. He said the education community took offense at the report and the National Association of Educational Progress (NAEP) repeated the study and learned that the numbers were correct, that 95 percent of school districts were reporting that their students were at or above average. He said, "If you think about that, that means the other 5 percent is really screwed up." He attributed those reports to the fact there really is no true accountability system.
Senator Glomb asked him to elaborate. Mr. Bacon responded the study is referred to as the "Lake Woebegone affect" in which every district reports their children above average. The NAEP study affirmed the reporting cited by the West Virginia study. Senator Glomb asked Mr. Bacon to provide staff with information on the NAEP study, to which he agreed.
Referring to the disadvantaged neighborhoods alluded to by Senator Callister, Mr. Bacon said:
The actual track record, when you take a look at when the information is provided and the parents in those districts understand that they have a school that is not performing at par with other districts, is they recognize they don't have the economic power to go move.... Consequently, that's when parents get actively involved in schools, and that's when parents make monumental changes in those districts. Those districts and those schools have actually made more progress than the average school because they don't have the economic power to make those decisions.
Mr. Bacon cited the east Harlem district in New York which has gone from the bottom of academic performance to the top third because the parents got involved. He acknowledged it is still a socially disadvantaged neighborhood with violent crime.
Mr. Bacon stated he is not necessarily an advocate for public school versus private school choice. He reiterated his belief parents in low socio-economic areas have a stronger tendency to become involved when they feel improvements are needed. He commented, "You can't manage what you can't measure, and right now what we don't have is a uniform measurement in our public school system. This is a major step toward that...."
Senator Rawson asked if Mr. Bacon knew what kind of increase in expenditures was necessary to improve scoring in Harlem. Mr. Bacon replied it was his understanding that the there was no funding increase from the central district, but innovative measures were taken. He explained:
In one of their major high schools...it used to have 4,000 kids in one high school.... The same physical building today houses 7...or 8 schools. What they have...done is...redefined what a school is. A school is now an academic program and may be housed simultaneously in the same building. They are starting to take a look at--perhaps we've gotten too big with our schools and we need to get more focus.
By doing that...some of those schools within that central building may not even have a principal. They may be run by a committee of teachers.
Senator Rawson conjectured the program sounds like higher education. He said the Horizon School in Las Vegas is using the same type of alternative program in which classes are scheduled so the students can select classes the same as in a college system. He declared it appears to be making a tremendous difference in performance.
Senator Glomb asked if that meant breaking the student population into smaller units. Mr. Bacon responded it has more to do with how a school is defined. It is not defined as a building, it is defined as an academic program. He recognized the reports on the Horizon School had indicated great progress.
Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum, read a letter from Leslie Porter, Trustee, Washoe County School District (Exhibit G) in support of S.B. 511. Mrs. Hansen called attention to a series of articles that appeared in the Reno Gazette-Journal regarding the performance of students and schools in Washoe County. The articles suggested performance standards should be established for schools; it called for annual reporting from schools to include test scores and risk factors and suggested educators should reap rewards for achievement or punishment for failure. One article stated:
Taken together these three demands would revolutionize the school district. They would make it more of a people system as it is supposed to be and less a captive of professionals who run it. It would end a socialistic system under which teachers and administrators seemingly go on forever regardless of performance except for a complete collapse that forces the district to make them change or get out.
Mrs. Hansen interpreted the articles to say public support is waning for public schools due to the public perception there is a lack of accountability. She read that people feel the schools "spend far too much on glorified administration, administrative perks, instead of inside the classroom where it belongs." She said the articles conclude the administration must become "fully open" and accountable.
Mrs. Hansen noted the Harlem school district was opened to public school choice which resulted in a major change. She added that the people who were in charge of the individual schools were changed if they failed to perform within a certain amount of time. She said the Brookings Institute attributed the improvement to parent involvement. Mrs. Hansen said, "Parents can't be involved when they feel alienated by the district, alienated by the schools, because...of lack of information...."
Mrs. Hansen encouraged passage of S.B. 511.
Sandy Coyle, Parent, read a headline from the Reno Gazette Journal which said, "Most Want Proof Schools Work for Kids." She quoted a statement made by Senator Glomb (Exhibit H) with which she was in agreement.
Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, explained the original accountability statute adopted in 1989 envisioned reports to be designed by those involved in education such as school districts and cooperative associations of employees. He said the reporting system was developed by a combination of school teachers, administrators, representatives of the Department of Education and Far West Laboratories.
Mr. Etchemendy asserted school districts throughout the state complied exactly with the law. He stated the eight elements required for inclusion are listed on S.B. 511 on lines 14 through 25 on the first page and on lines 1 through 7 on the second page. He alleged those eight items have been included in the accountability reporting system that was adopted by the state and is utilized by individual districts.
Mr. Etchemendy pointed out one of the only changes in S.B. 511 is that the eight elements will be reported not only on a district-wide basis but also on a school-by-school basis. He said the new elements to be added commence on line 8 on the second page with an open-ended mandate to provide information directed by the superintendent of public instruction. Other new items are found on lines 13,14, 20 and 22. He asserted nothing in the bill would cause any concern to the school boards association.
Mr. Etchemendy described his statement as clarification to let the legislature know the school boards have been reporting as required for the past 4 years. He declared he was speaking neither for nor against S.B. 511.
Gregory F. Betts, Nevada Rural School District Alliance, indicated he, like Mr. Etchemendy, was speaking neither for nor against the bill. He confirmed that professional educators in the rural areas of the state have been performing in compliance with the mandate from 1989. He reported he had chaired the committee that put together the eight components which were deemed to be alike and understandable. He conceded if there were flaws in the 1989 legislation they may be due to the fact it was the first attempt to have statewide accountability. He acknowledged S.B. 511 might or might not work better.
Senator Jacobsen asked which school district might make the best model. Mr. Etchemendy confessed he had not seen all the accountability reports, and he was unsure if a model could be found. He voiced understanding that some districts already have accountability reports for every school.
Dr. Betts concurred there is not yet a perfect accountability data-reporting system in place. He suggested one could use the best elements of each of the 17 districts which have been reporting to formulate an ideal report. He declared that had been the purpose of the 1989 bill. He agreed that the typical national achievement tests might be as meaningful as criteria reference testing or other modes of measurement.
Senator Jacobsen pointed out there have already been groups such as the Education Commission of the States appointed to make assessments from which no report has been received as to priorities. He questioned whether the commission was representative of the state since most or all members were from the south. He noted teacher accountability had been discussed at the last session from which he had not received an accounting.
Senator Rawson admitted the Education Commission of the States, of which he is a member, has not been very active. He pointed out there had been some funding problems. He indicated a forthcoming meeting will include a workshop for educational leaders on reform in education. He agreed with Senator Jacobsen that the representation on the commission should be corrected.
Dr. Steve Mulvenon, Director of Communications, Washoe County School District, offered support for S.B. 511 while suggesting some amendments (Exhibit I) he averred would strengthen and clarify the intent of the bill. He explained he is responsible for producing the annual report. He said:
We support S.B. 511 because we believe that every public agency has responsibility to communicate clearly and effectively with its public and to respond to their information needs. However, the changes to NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) 385.347 proposed by this bill provide for school-by-school comparisons. We continue to believe that such comparisons, especially when they're made on student achievement or drop-out data, can lead to some faulty and improper conclusions.
Dr. Mulvenon referred to the newspaper articles cited earlier. He asserted one principal was forced to spend 20 to 30 minutes at a PTA (Parent-Teacher Association) meeting answering parents' concerns about why what they felt was a good school had been ranked as one of the worst in the district.
Mr. Mulvenon continued his statement on behalf of the Washoe County School District by saying:
This bill at least...requires that a school's test scores be reported over a span of several years so that parents and the public can see what growth has occurred. Currently what's important in student achievement is not so much where a child or a school is this year, but where they've come from, and are they making reasonable progress.
Mr. Mulvenon indicated both suggested amendments, which he described, applied to section 1. He declared the real issue to the Washoe County School District was whether a district has already met the goals.
Mr. Mulvenon concluded:
Although we continue to believe that comparing schools on test scores is a poor way to judge the quality of the schools' instructional programs, we're supportive of this bill. We believe that working with the state superintendent and our local employee association that we can devise ways to properly present the data to the public.
Let me be very clear. The Washoe County School District believes in accountability. So much so that our superintendent just this last week presented to our trustees the draft of a tentative 6-part accountability project.
Mr. Mulvenon read part of the brief on accountability prepared by Mary Nebgen, Superintendent of the Washoe County School District (Exhibit J. Original is on file in the Research Library. He conceded the information compiled is not always used by the public. As an example he noted the annual report had been printed in the Reno Gazette Journal one week prior to the series of articles and yet many people, including community leaders, who read the articles had not read the report. He suggested other measures must be taken to inform the public such as through public meetings or media involvement.
In response to a query by Senator Glomb, Mr. Mulvenon indicated the annual report had cost just under $10,000 to produce and print in the newspaper for 127,000 copies. He acknowledged each district will have to incur some expense to gather the data and disseminate the information.
Lucille K. Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens (NCCC), endorsed S.B. 511. She agreed there has been a quest for more information, and she acknowledged the school districts have been attempting to communicate more fully with parents since the passage of the 1989 measure.
Mrs. Lusk called the experience of the principal in Washoe County in which he responded to parent concerns for 20 or 30 minutes a positive action, not a negative thing. She declared such communication is highly desirable.
Mrs. Lusk told of concern over the cost of massive printing. She agreed many will not read the material, but she suggested the information should be available to anyone who requests it either from the local school or by mail from the district office. She called the use of slick, colorful publications totally unnecessary. She commended the Clark County School District for the bulletins sent out each year.
Jean Simons, Parent, offered support for S.B. 511 to ensure accountability. She told the committee her school district had passed a $30 million bond which subsequently had $5 million in cost overruns for which there was no accounting. She alleged parent questions and concerns are not being answered. She said there are many inconsistencies and educators should be held accountable.
Senator Rawson invited testimony from those opposed to S.B. 511.
William R. Millsap, President, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), declared he is a sixth-grade teacher serving full time as president of the NSEA. He agreed that everyone wants to know what does or does not work in the public schools, and that more parental involvement is desirable. He stated, "The question before us today is not any of these things, the question is, does S.B. 511 do that." He asserted NSEA has a proven track record of belief in school accountability and had participated in the drafting of the 1989 measure.
Mr. Millsap said:
The whole point of educational research and reporting to parents, this legislature and the general public is to give us information which will help us to improve our schools. S.B. 511 does not do this. School-by-school reporting does nothing except to reinforce what anyone with a lick of sense can tell us. Kids at schools whose parents are better off, better educated, and have more time to be involved, will perform better than kids who do not have these critical advantages. Such reporting does nothing more than make parents of advantaged kids feel good and further discourage parents of children at risk. Such reporting does not measure what our schools can do or how they can be improved, but [measures] the state of the society in which our schools must work.
The Nevada State Legislature 4 years ago decided on eight indicators of educational quality they wanted to see included in an accountability report.... Most states have adopted some form of public accountability reporting. Other states have included other factors. Some we might think important, some would not interest us at all. A few examples are an index of "advantagement" used to calculate demographic and economic factors related to student performance. Per capita income of residents. Percentage of overcrowded housing. Number of two-parents and female heads of households. Number of computers in use in classrooms. Amount of postsecondary or military training. Student mobility. Salaries of administrators. And the list goes on and on.
Mr. Millsap asserted:
Accountability will not improve by adding to our school reporting in quiltwork fashion with everyone from the Reno Gazette [Journal]'s editorial board to the NSEA to the state superintendent throwing in their 2 cents about what they would like to see in such a report. Research is currently being conducted by many groups to see what kind of information would best and most clearly report important outcomes and inputs, show true progress, strengths and weaknesses, with the goal of improving schools.
According to Mr. Millsap a study is being done by the Center for Reporting Education Accountability and Teacher Evaluation (CREATE) which should be finished in about 2 months. He indicated "exemplary" education from across the nation has been studied with the aim of providing a prototype reporting system. He suggested that report should be compared to the one currently being used.
Mr. Millsap asserted the $100,000 for S.B. 511 could be better spent for other educational needs such as books or computers or crossing guards. He declared, "Money should not be spent for something that will be little more than a cosmetic adjustment in public reporting." He urged the committee to oppose the passage of S.B. 511.
Senator Jacobsen commented he had observed that teachers are often not receptive to the suggestions made by parents because parents do not work in the schools and thus are unfamiliar with school procedures. He asked if there would be any value in trying to enhance accountability for parents. Mr. Millsap responded teachers should have the support of parents, that "parents are their children's first and best teachers." He suggested the question is how best to communicate.
Prefacing his query with an apology for missing some of the testimony, Senator Raggio asked what would be wrong with the public knowing details of the performance of a school or how it would compare to other schools. He asked why the public is not trusted to understand the information which would come from such a study. He admitted he was unable to elicit the type of information from present reporting that is needed to make proper decisions.
Regarding trusting the public, Mr. Millsap responded:
I don't think that is a question that I feel is under discussion or in question among any of us today. I think we do. I think we believe in the system of public input that we have. I don't think the question is whether or not we believe in more parental involvement. I don't even think the question is can our reports be improved, because I think they can.
Mr. Millsap reiterated the matter should not be approached in a quiltwork fashion and that there are already prototype school report studies being done. He indicated he would like an accounting regarding mobility. He opined transiency rates have a great impact. He suggested school-by-school reporting would not give direction as to how to improve schools.
Marcia R. Bandera, Director of Instruction, Elko County School District, voiced agreement with the public's right to know. She indicated her concern that S.B. 511 should make clear there should be public hearings for parent input and input from teachers, administrators and board members if past reporting has been unsatisfactory.
Ms. Bandera said the bill should insure that all persons contribute to what should be included and to accountability "in terms of who will be measured against what." She asserted the bill should be very specific. She said:
As a school district, I want to know what it is we will be held responsible for in terms of deficiencies. If the [State] Department of Education's going to do an analysis of data that's reported, then I want to know on behalf of my board what it is that will be reported that are, quote, deficient.
Senator Raggio explained his understanding that each board of trustees would make the report as to what it would determine were deficiencies. Ms. Bandera interjected that may be open to interpretation. She suggested local input and local deficiencies vary widely and what may have meaning in one school may not have the same meaning in another.
Senator Raggio asked if Ms. Bandera's school district objected to having each school in the state follow a uniform reporting system. Ms. Bandera replied, "Yes."
Senator Raggio asked her to explain her objection. Ms. Bandera answered, "The reasons our school district would object at this time is because we're not sure similar, comparable consistent information across all schools is possible."
Senator Raggio suggested that if the premise is that collecting information cannot be comparable then he could not see how any valuable information could be obtained or how conclusions could be reached. Ms. Bandera responded there seems to be lots of data on how money is spent. She pointed out there are required reports on federal funding. She reiterated her concern regarding the subjective elements which she feels can already be identified and regarding the need for specificity.
Senator Raggio asked if parents and taxpayers are able to use present reporting to identify the subjective elements reviewed. Ms. Bandera answered that each year the schools are reviewed and budget hearings are held, but she has found it difficult to induce people to turn out for such meetings.
Senator O'Donnell commented section 1, subsection 3 describes the specificity that Ms. Bandera was requesting. She responded, "I would like to ensure that the input into where we get to the point of statistical information, fairness and specificity is broad enough to ensure that a lot of individuals represented both in our communities and at the state level are heard."
In the absence of further testimony, Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 511. He opened the meeting to a discussion of possible amendments to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 430.
ASSEMBLY BILL 430: Makes various changes regarding fees of state land registrar and authorization to use state land.
Senator Raggio noted the measure had been passed out of committee last Friday. He called attention to some amendments (Exhibit K) proposed by State Land Registrar Pamela Wilcox that would change the definition of "mooring buoy" and would add a new section regarding fees. He suggested the bill probably should be put on the secretary's desk for today if the committee would like to have the amendments drafted.
Senator Rawson commented the amendment to section 14 appeared to be much more broad than necessary. He admitted he could not see the necessity for exclusion of the word "navigable" because it should not be necessary to install buoys in every body of water.
Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst, explained that Ms. Wilcox indicated the definition would bring the measure into conformity with that in another bill being processed in another committee. Senator Rawson suggested the definition should not be broadened to include any body of water that did not have boats. He interpreted "navigable" to include rivers or lakes on which a boat could navigate. He wondered why a buoy should be of concern on a body of water which was not used by boats.
Senator Glomb responded a buoy might be used to delineate a swimming area.
Senator Rawson inquired if Washoe Lake would be considered navigable. Senator Raggio indicated he thought the term navigable had some implicit meaning in federal law. Senator Rawson expressed concern people might be required to install buoys where they otherwise might not have to. Senator O'Donnell interjected the other bill mandates requirements such as lights, etc.
Senator Raggio concluded it would be a good idea to obtain more specific information. Senator Rawson indicated that would meet with his approval.
Senator Rawson reported the subcommittee on the Distributive School Account (DSA) had listened to an abundance of testimony from packed audiences. He distributed a summary (Exhibit L) of the conclusions reached by the subcommittee and explained the sums set forth on the handout.
Senator Rawson indicated the subcommittee had received an unofficial legal opinion that if there was a change in the retirement contribution there should be a corresponding change in the salary. He stressed that would be an adjustment, not a salary raise. He said if there was a change it would cause a deficit to be made up.
Senator Rawson explained there had been an error in the way in which rollup costs for the second year had been calculated. A 2 percent cost had been calculated for the first year of the biennium, but some positions were not carried forward and the rollup costs were figured at 1.9 percent for the second year. He said the question had been whether to change the figure when 2 percent has been used consistently in recent years. He acknowledged a particular district could fall above or below the figure at any given year but the committee felt it prudent to accept 2 percent and adjust the budget by adding $12,000 the first year and $527,000 the second year.
Turning to the third item, Senator Rawson said the 22 elementary school counselors hired in 1992 should be rolled into the DSA as recommended by the Governor because the original appropriation had been one-shot money. He noted the cost is approximately $1 million per year. He stated the money would remain in the DSA and can be used by the schools. If the account was added as a special account it would mean adding $2 million to the budget.
Senator Glomb acknowledged the program had been started in 1991 with an appropriation of $2 million due to the need for counselors, especially for drug education. She indicated the money may be used to some extent to offset the need for teachers so it will give school districts the option of whether to hire a teacher or a counselor. If the funds were accounted for separately, they could only be used for counselors.
Senator Rawson indicated 22 counselors would not equal one counselor for every school district which was one reason for rolling those funds into the DSA. He said Washoe County and Clark County received most of the counselors while some rural districts did not receive any counselors. He admitted continuation of that policy would have led to legitimate challenges to the equity of funding. By rolling the funds into the DSA the money will be distributed on an equitable basis. He acknowledged some small school districts may not have enough money to hire a full-time counselor.
Senator Rawson said the question arose over whether safeguards and reports would have to be required by rolling class-size reduction teachers into the DSA. Because no conclusions were reached item number 4 has not been determined as yet. He noted the concern that if class-size reduction teacher funds were rolled into the DSA the funding could be blended and lost with no accountability. However, he acknowledged, the funds could be rolled into the DSA with certain requirements regarding maintenance of class-size reductions or penalties in which the funds would revert to the state if an appropriate number of teachers were not hired. He pointed out the ultimate result would be to raise the per-pupil amount by $4.22 in the first year and $6.38 in the second year. If the class-size reduction funds were rolled into the DSA, it would raise the amount by at least $150 each year. He admitted the problem may have to be deferred until another legislative session.
As to the fifth item, Senator Rawson pointed out the number of class-size reduction teachers budgeted for the first year should be based upon the most recent estimates which show 971 teachers will be needed for a ratio of 16 to 1. He added those would be for first and second grades and selected at-risk kindergartens. He noted that would be 9.5 fewer teachers than are presently employed. Ms. Botts said the Governor had recommended 988 teachers but at a smaller amount per teacher than had been requested by the Department of Education.
Senator Rawson said funding for increases in utility rates had been changed in the Governor's budget. He explained the rates had been budgeted upon a square-footage basis and not evenly across the state in accordance with the types of heating and cooling in various buildings. He stated the formula seemed to be valid but the subcommittee had felt concern that a variability would lead to inequities that could lead to constitutional challenges. He stated, "The Nevada plan...is considered one of the better plans across the country because it meets the constitutional requirements that people want equal funding, and so we have recommended that that be funded on the basis of an equal formula."
Senator Rawson offered the opinion the revenue and expenditures outlined in item 7 associated with Medicaid should be tracked in a separate revenue account. He acknowledged it will have no effect on the amount allocated and it will bring in a significant amount of funds through federal sharing. Although Clark County is the only school district likely to participate in the Medicaid reimbursement program, it was recommended that other districts take advantage of the benefits to be obtained.
Senator Rawson indicated the special education costs delineated in item 8 should also be tracked in a separate account.
Senator Raggio interjected he would like to question Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, who had just entered. He asked Mr. Malkiewich to explain the definitions in the amendment requested for A.B. 430 and in another bill being discussed in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. Malkiewich admitted he had no expertise in the area. He explained the person who drafted the bill had some understanding and he would be able to determine the reason for the changes. Senator Raggio suggested it would be well to ask that A.B. 430 be put on the secretary's desk until the next day when the information was forthcoming.
Senator Rawson resumed his explanation of the recommendations on the Distributive School Account. He explained the reason for tracking special education costs in a separate account is due to the lack of knowledge regarding the amount of money spent. He acknowledged there is constant pressure to fund more special education units, whereas the alternative concern is that there may be a backlash when people learn how much is actually expended for special education. He declared it is appropriate to know how much really is being spent.
Senator Raggio noted at the last session there had been proponents for the state to fund all costs of special education. He asked if it would be easier to evaluate the costs of special education under the Nevada plan of shared responsibility through separate tracking. Senator Rawson concurred. He estimated the present pupil-teacher ratio in special education was approximately 14 to 1. He admitted some classrooms have a ratio of 4 to 2.
Senator Rawson explained item 9 regarding the reduction in basic support.
Senator Raggio asked if there would be a change in projections regarding local school support taxes. Senator Rawson replied there would be.
Turning to item 10, Senator Rawson admitted the committee had not determined an answer yet as to whether ending fund balances should be included in the calculation of financial need. He noted the argument had been made that the inclusion of ending fund balances might result in funds being spent down.
Senator Glomb asked if ending fund balances had been included in the past. Ms. Botts replied they had been included in the last few sessions. She said traditionally the actual ending fund balances have been close to double the amount budgeted and those funds have been spent down somewhat. She noted in 1991 the Governor recommended and the legislature approved that $10 million of the ending fund balance be spent down over the 1991-93 biennium. She said the Governor is recommending approximately $4.5 million total be spent in the coming biennium.
Senator Rawson said some districts felt that forcing them to save and then taking that sum away was unfair. He admitted the committee had considered an obligated fund balance but had come to no conclusion.
As set out under item 11, Senator Rawson said the estimates of the net proceeds from mines are due on June 15 but budgets are due on June 1. The subcommittee felt the mine estimates should be due on June 1 in order for school districts to make more accurate estimates.
Senator Rawson pointed out under item 12 school districts should be required to report total compensation for teachers, including fringe benefits. Senator Glomb agreed there should be more uniform reporting from the districts.
Number 13, he said, would require the State Department of Education to reconcile reports required by the statutes with reports from the Office of the State Controller.
Senator Rawson conceded there was a need to address how funding for the schools in Eureka County might be handled. He said with no change in method there would continue to be a shortfall to be made up in the Distributive School Account each year. He suggested the issue could be handled by an interim study.
Turning to item 15, Senator Rawson acknowledged no growth had been allowed for increases to adult high school diploma programs. He said there may be a recommendation to add more funding after the closing of the welfare budgets is complete.
Senator Rawson reported the consensus of the subcommittee was to give authority to the Governor to respond in the case of a serious fiscal emergency.
Senator Coffin stated it would be helpful to hear some of the pros and cons the staff provided to the subcommittee on the matters being presented. Senator Raggio declared no action would be taken today.
Senator Rawson concurred the rest of the report could be discussed later. He said it had been recommended that there should be an Indian consultant to the State Board of Education. He said the committee had estimated the cost would be approximately $30,000 per year. He indicated some of the problems at the reservation at Schurz could be worked out reasonably well, especially with some input to the state.
Senator Rawson admitted the GAIN (Geographic Alliance in Nevada) program would cost about $50,000 per year and there may not be funds available for it. He recommended a study regarding school and county boundaries which was estimated would cost less than $2,500.
Senator Rawson noted the committee was out of time. Senator Raggio announced the committee would continue with the subject in the morning. He adjourned the meeting at 10:52 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Judy Jacobs,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
June 7, 1993
Page 1