The Committee on Education was called to order at 4:00 p.m., on Wednesday, February 17, 1999. Acting Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Acting Chairwoman

Mr. Tom Collins, Vice Chairman

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Mark Manendo

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Wendell Williams, Chairman

Mr. Don Gustavson

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District

Juli Ann Parker, Representative, Administration of Summer School, Washoe County School District

Ruth Joseph, Attendance Administrator, Clark County School District

Tilisa May, Chairman, Carson City Truancy Advisory Board

John B. Simms, Juvenile Systems Program Coordinator, Carson City Juvenile Probation

Al Bellister, Representative, Nevada State Education Association

Jane Moyle, Representative, Nevada Rural Alliance

Leonard Pugh, Director of Juvenile Services, Washoe County District Court

Lucille Lusk, Representative, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Betty Barker, Program Coordinator in Counseling and Attendance, Washoe County School District

Charlene Bybee, Chairman, Attendance Advisory Board, Washoe County School District,

Henry Etchemendy, Representative, Nevada Association of School Boards

Douglas Byington, Representative, Nevada Association of School Administrators

Assemblywoman Chowning announced she would Chair the meeting in the absence of Chairman Wendell Williams. She opened the hearing on A.B. 13 at 4 p.m.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District 9, presented A.B. 13 and handed out Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit E and Exhibit F. She drew attention to some amendments listed within Exhibit C, which consisted of adding Saturday schools. It also listed some sections of A.B. 13. Section 2 defined intersession school and summer school. Ms. Giunchigliani said if the committee decided to add Saturday schools, section 2 would be the appropriate area to add that definition. Exhibit E listed costs for summer schools for some counties, even though the committee did not want to deal with fiscal matters.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning asked if the appropriation of $2 million per year could change. Ms. Giunchigliani responded it could be enough money. If there was surplus funding, it could be used for teacher recruitment. She explained parents currently paid for summer school and was the same for all counties in Nevada. That could have a huge impact on families with financial problems. It would prohibit some students accessing summer school for either credit shortage or for additional course work. She personally believed summer school should be financed by the state.

Section 6 established a budget category as a state program.

Section 7 required establishment of a program locally and criteria for schools to participate. The key was it allowed for remediation. The criteria would be for pupils to earn academic credit for purposes of promotion to the next grade or graduation from junior high school, middle school, or high school by completing either coursework in intersession school or in summer school. Ms. Giunchigliani explained there was discussion about what could be done to make sure students who did not pass or were in jeopardy of not passing or not obtaining their credit requirements. She believed that situation would be a perfect opportunity for funding.

Section 8 would allow schools to submit applications for funds. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested an amendment to add language after line 42, which could read, "applications shall be developed jointly by teachers and site administrators." She informed the committee they could change that language, for example, "teachers support personnel and site administrators." She said the school would develop a plan for funding either intersession school or special summer school. The board would approve the application and apportion the money. She asked the committee to make sure the language allowed districts to offer centralized summer schools, which most of them already did, because every school would not need to have an individual site. The committee might want to consider having some of the schools combine certain sites, maybe through a triage. She wanted the bill to allow flexibility.

Section 9 clarified what the program would need to prioritize, as listed below:

1. Students with disciplinary problems should be a priority. A student who constantly acted up in class, continually got kicked out, or simply had not completed the coursework, would be someone that should be mandated to go to summer school or a Saturday school;

2. Lack of course work or credit for middle or high school graduation should also be a priority;

3. Students who simply wanted extra help or needed extra credits should qualify; and

4. Referrals made by a teacher or a counselor for extra assistance should qualify.

Section 9 also prohibited fees from being charged for summer school or intersession school; however, subsection 4 allowed for a $15 fee to be charged or school service could be ordered if a student was deemed financially unable to pay. The student who was ordered to attend a program because of their behavior or misconduct, which prevented them from being able to earn their credits, would have to pay the $15 fee. The fees collected would be allocated back to the school to be used either for field trips or to offer additional coursework if there were not enough funds for that school to be able to hire a teacher for extra hours. The school would create an account to utilize those funds.

Section 10 would set up the criteria to assure how the money was spent by the school districts.

Section 11 would appropriate $4 million over the biennium.

Section 13 stated the bill would become effective immediately. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the committee hear from the school districts later in the year, or possibly January of the year 2000.

In conclusion, Ms. Giunchigliani wanted free summer school and free intersession school, but also certain criteria would need to be in place. She wanted to give an alternative to school districts, even though students were currently being charged.

Mrs. de Braga asked for a percentage of students who wanted to participate in the program. She noticed that one of the poorest school districts had not charged students and wondered if the reason was a smaller population of students.

Ms. Giunchigliani responded she did not have any percentages. She explained Washoe County targeted their summer school for literacy and that was what some of the districts had done. Washoe County had almost 1,000 enrolled students with waived fees for 320 middle school students. She referred to Exhibit F, which listed some figures for Clark County. She apologized the exhibit did not list the number of students enrolled, however, it indicated the costs were from $700,000 to $800,000.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated, in her opinion the state had passed an unfunded mandate, which was; summer schools were needed, necessary, and expected by many parents. School districts originally went into their own budgets for funding and cut out other services or programs in order to fund summer schools. The school districts currently charged students and over the years the costs had increased. The districts no longer subsidize summer school. If the fee were waived, then it would be called subsidization and an unfunded mandate. Four million dollars would be allocated from the state to the school districts, instead of the districts or parents having to pay for the program.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning said the schools in her district requested funding for after-school programs, as there were so many students who needed extra assistance of some kind. Since the Education Reform Act was passed, which accomplished great things, the standards had been raised. There were going to be some students who would need extra help. In her opinion, there would be students who would "fall between the cracks" and would not meet the standards. That was going to be a risk when the Education Reform Act was passed, however, it was something that needed to be done. Therefore, tougher standards could not be passed without being able to deal with the "fallout." Somehow the districts would have to pay for it, or the state would have to participate in that partnership in some way.

Mrs. Angle asked how A.B. 13 would fit in with the cities and counties before and after-school programs. She also asked how public-private partnerships, which also provided intersession type programs, would fit in with the bill

Ms. Giunchigliani stated A.B. 13 would not take public-private programs away, but in cases where students needed to earn credits, they could only earn them from the school district. Most public-private organizations provided physical activities, versus instructional, although tutoring had occurred. Most of the school districts obviously offered some form of summer school. Not all schools were year-round; therefore, they had not needed intersession programs. Ms. Giunchigliani thought the state should pay for public-private programs. She suggested if private foundations donated money for needy children, the state could match a certain dollar amount. That could be part of the funding mechanism, so there would be more public-private participation. She explained the interim subcommittee felt intersession school and summer school should be funded so parents would not have to pay for it. She had not seen the school districts draft but knew they had been long committed to having summer school financed.

Legislation passed in the 1997 session, allowed school districts to set up a credit structure or determine which courses had to be passed to graduate from middle school before students went on to high school. That would go into effect in 1999. Unfortunately, many students had not graduated because they did not take middle school seriously. Those students needed a message, and that message would start to make a difference within the next 2 to 3 years once they understood middle school was serious and they had to apply themselves. If any student had not met middle school requirements, they could qualify for the intersession school or summer school. Retention had not necessarily worked for most students; therefore the focus needed to be on the issue of remediation.

Martha Tittle, Clark County School District (CCSD), read from prepared text of Exhibit G and was in favor of A.B. 13. She asked if the committee would consider an amendment deleting section 9, 1, (a), because CCSD had some concern regarding the provision of using the program as a penalty for disciplinary problems.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning stated she did not think the intent was to have intersession school or summer school be a penalty, but rather as an alternative to help students make up material they had missed. She asked Ms. Tittle if she interpreted something different.

Ms. Tittle agreed if a student was missing class and academic coursework for disciplinary reasons, they would need to make up that coursework; however, she could foresee summer school becoming a place where a lot of disciplinary problem students would be enrolled. Students who wanted to go to summer school for other reasons would be limited in the availability.

Juli Ann Parker representing Washoe County School District (WCSD) spoke descriptively on what had been experienced in Washoe County. Specific to the growth and need of summer school, Washoe County in the summer of 1998, served 7,022 individual students at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. The high school students were charged a fee and were most likely able to pay. WCSD had no fee charged relative to those students who were in inadequate schools of grades 3, 4, 7, and 8. She said the need had grown in Washoe County. Administration of summer school had an increase of 92 percent in student services over the past 9 years, while WCSD had grown 33 percent. She felt A.B. 13 would help many more students be able to participate. WCSD had a fee waiver schedule based on eligibility for the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, which included free or reduced hot lunch for those students who participated in the program. There were several students, specifically at the elementary level, who would definitely take advantage of free summer school programs.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning wanted Ms. Parker to clarify if the increase in the school population was approximately 30 percent, and if the increase in the summer school program was 90 percent. Ms. Parker replied that growth was correct over the past 9 years.

Ms. Parker explained WCSD enrolled 450 students for summer school in 1998. WCSD predicted a minimum of 3,000 students would need summer school in 1999 because of the C or better mandate. That would be a significant impact financially.

Mrs. Angle asked Ms. Parker to explain how WCSD determined who would be eligible for free or reduced hot lunch. Mrs. Angle said it appeared WCSD did not do any means testing and it would be available to any student who wanted to take advantage of it regardless of their ability to pay.

Ms. Parker explained in Washoe County because of the growth and also the number of locations, it would be impossible for the present office to do any screening, nor was it appropriate. The present structure of summer school in WCSD had an open enrollment to any undergraduate student who basically met the requirement of immunization. The principal of the school, at which the student previously attended, would look to see if there was a circumstance that warranted a percentage or reduction. A student would not be discriminated or disallowed enrollment based on financial status. If there were an available seat, the appropriate waiving would be done. She explained the district did not reimburse any money and there was a large deficit. The number of fees that were not collected was significant.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning asked if WCSD had concerns with section 9 as CCSD did. Ms. Parker stated she did not view summer school as punitive, but thought it could be interpreted that way.

Mrs. Angle asked if Ms. Parker found working parents using the summer school programs as childcare and if there could be an increase in enrollment because it was now offered at no charge.

Ms. Parker replied parents could use summer school as childcare due to low or waived fees. However, WCSD had the philosophy of summer school being a structured positive experience for students. She said it should be viewed as a way to provide some learning experiences and to create positive feelings about school itself.

Al Bellister with the Nevada State Education Association testified in support of A.B. 13. Section 8.3, for example, was one reason they supported the bill because it was about targeting additional money for schools that were demonstrating inadequate achievement or for pupils who were at risk. Research seemed to indicate when school districts could shift their resources to students who were disadvantaged they could make significant gains in student achievements. It also targeted an appropriation from the state general fund. He understood the governor’s proposal on remediation relied heavily on state tax, which had not accumulated as hoped and estimated. That could be another resource available to continue to sustain those kinds of programs for remediation.

Jane Moyle represented the Nevada Rural Alliance and wanted the committee to take into consideration when looking at the $2 million dollar appropriation, that it would be based on pupil population throughout the entire state. There were some school districts within Nevada that had only 100 to 200 students, and when it was calculated those smaller districts would be looking at an appropriation around $2,000 to $3,000 a year for intersession school and summer school. The districts Ms. Moyle represented all supported free summer school and intersession school if there was any way more money could be found so smaller districts could afford to provide those services for students. Ms. Moyle asked when the committee made its deliberations, could the members keep in mind those small school districts. With an appropriation based on the number of students in the state, smaller districts would not receive very much money at all.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning asked if Ms. Moyle supported A.B. 13 with the reservation to allocate the money more appropriately per district. Ms. Moyle responded in support with that reservation.

Ms. Moyle commented that S.B. 145, which was the school boards bill addressing the same issue, made the same appropriation of $2 million, but was based on programs submitted to the Department of Education for approval.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning stated there would be no action taken on A.B. 13, and Chairman Williams would possibly want to address all of the bills through a subcommittee.

Henry Etchemendy represented the Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB) and lent his support for A.B. 13. NASB had proposed several bills similar to that in past sessions, therefore, they were very happy to see the interim subcommittee come up with a similar proposal. Mr. Etchemendy mentioned A.B. 145 and S.B. 187 were similar bills proposed. He hoped there could be some kind of correlation between all three bills.

Douglas Byington with the Nevada Association of School Administrators testified in favor of A.B. 13. He supported anything that would help the intersession school and summer school programs.

Mrs. Angle wondered how it would affect the negotiations for teacher contracts throughout the year. She believed teachers negotiated for approximately 183 days currently and asked if the school boards had any input on that kind of situation.

Mr. Etchemendy understood teachers that worked in summer school would be paid so much per hour and so much per day if one worked outside of the contract of 183 days.

Mrs. Angle asked if he could foresee that affecting any negotiation process. Mr. Etchemendy responded he could not see that happen. Ms. Giunchigliani explained it would not have a contractual effect because the school boards would arrange to pay anyone who worked an extra duty, therefore, it would not have an impact on any negotiations.

Ms. Giunchigliani appreciated the questions and concerns regarding A.B. 13. She suggested talking to the Chair of The Ways and Means Committee to determine if A.B. 145 should have started in The Committee on Education so both bills could be considered in the same house.

Ms. Giunchigliani responded to Ms. Moyle’s testimony. She thought setting a dollar amount for rural area schools based on the number of pupils serviced in the past, as opposed to based on the state population, was a great idea because it had been done previously.

Mrs. de Braga agreed with CCSD that the bill was not intended to be a punishment and there needed to be a clarification in the language. Ms. Giunchigliani agreed and thought by recommending Saturday schools, as her amendment suggested, those students who were conduct disordered could attend. Saturday school would be a more appropriate place for those students with conduct problems rather than summer school.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning stated the committee would be happy to tie all of the bills together and see what could be done in the best interest of the children, which was always the goal of the committee.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 13 with no action taken and opened the hearing on A.B. 14.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, presented A.B. 14. She provided Exhibit H, which listed suggested amendments to the bill. She explained some suggested language had been presented to her, as some kind of "qualifier" would need to be included. There needed to be some screening process and she neglected to include it. She read from item (a) on line 7 of the bill, which said, "The pupil has threatened or extorted, or attempted to threaten or extort, another pupil or a teacher or other personnel employed by the school." She explained there was not a threshold within that item, however item (b) and (c) both had a threshold. She suggested the committee might want to modify item (a) to state at least two occasions of that type of misbehavior would be considered a habitual discipline problem. She explained item (a) should also have a "qualifier" for the extortion or the threatening. Those were the three areas to which the committee agreed in the 1997 session as defining what a discipline problem was.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning asked who recommended a student be considered a habitual discipline problem after two occasions of that type of misbehavior. She said if a pupil had threatened or extorted or attempted to threaten or extort another pupil or a teacher, it would be very serious and disrupting. Ms. Giunchigliani agreed, but the suggestion was presented to her from deans who were concerned if thresholds were set for the other two infractions, maybe a threshold for that one should be considered. She explained it would be totally up to the committee. She only wanted to convey the concerns brought to her.

Ms. Giunchigliani explained the legislation attempted to let the school districts know before a student was deemed a habitual discipline problem, they would not just be expelled or mandated to attend a separate school. Those students would be prohibited from attending any public school. They either would have to be home schooled for that semester, or enrolled in a private or parochial school for the semester. That was different than a suspension process because after the student was suspended he/she would still be referred back to another school or alternative program within the school district. It was for the committee to decide if there were "a handful of bad apples" that could ruin an entire school population, those students needed to be removed because they had lost the privilege of attending a public school for that period of time.

The interim subcommittee wanted something that would stand constitutional muster because a student could not be stricken of their rights to attend a public school without some kind of mechanism for them to receive instruction. The interim subcommittee felt it was appropriate the parent be notified their child was in risk of becoming deemed a habitual discipline problem and there should be a uniform way to let the parents know. Once the parental notice was mailed, the school districts needed to talk with the parents and figure out a plan. Whatever the problem, some kind of intervention should be arranged. Maybe the child would agree to attend an after-school program, for example the Boys and Girls Club, or maybe the student could be referred to school counseling. If that did not work, then the student would be expelled upon the next infraction, which would qualify him/her to be deemed a habitual discipline problem. A.B. 14 would force the schools to look at students as individuals and try to come up with something to help them become successful again. However, some students would come in bad and leave bad, no matter what was done to try to rectify the situation.

Ultimately, parental and student involvement was needed. There would be a behavioral contract stating exactly what the student agreed to do. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the student could attend counseling, or the parent could agree to follow their child in school for a week, which would be very embarrassing and irritating to the student. She tried to give some suggestions that could be utilized by the schools as the contract was crafted. Therefore, none of those ideas were mandatory, but suggested criteria to be utilized.

Ms. Giunchigliani commended Kelan Kelly, Senior Research Analyst on the excellent job he did in trying to pull together all the different ideas that the interim subcommittee suggested, as to, what was workable and would not add additional paperwork to the school district. She admitted it would add more paperwork, but if the schools targeted and focused on those students who were the most abusive, the message would get out because it would only need to be done "a handful of times."

Mrs. Angle asked why voluntary contracts, that had always been available for disciplinary problems needed to be put into statute. If it were considered voluntary, why would a $100 fine be imposed if a student violated their contract.

Ms. Giunchigliani explained she was a special education teacher and had been required to reconvene the Industrial Education Plan (IEP) to develop a behavior plan when a student had a conduct problem. That plan would become a part of the IEP. Therefore, it was a mandate for her circumstance. For other circumstances, until school districts thought creatively and understood there were tools available to them, they might not think of that idea because it took time. If a parent or student refused to enter into a contract, the student would be kicked out upon the next infraction. Section 5 stated, "Before a school deems a pupil a habitual disciplinary problem and suspends or expels the pupil, the school may develop, in consultation with the pupil and the parent or legal guardian of the pupil, a contract of behavior for the pupil. Such a contract must be designed to prevent the pupil from being deemed a habitual disciplinary problem and may include, without limitation, a voluntary agreement." If a parent did not have time to take of work or did not want to come to the school for another conference and decided to be fined, that was their option, therefore it was voluntary language. It was absolutely not a mandate, but only suggestions the contract could contain if the parties involved agreed.

Mrs. Angle did not see the importance of a $100 fine if they had not entered into a contract. Ms. Giunchigliani responded by giving an example. If a student agreed he/she would not curse their Sixth period teacher out, in order for the contract to work, that student would have a special pass in Sixth period. Therefore, if the student found themselves getting angry they could take that pass and go directly to the counselor to talk about it and return to class. If that did not work other interventions could be used, such as; the student could be sent to "time out" or the student could sit in the dean’s office. If still none of the proposed interventions worked, the student would agree to be fined or could work off the $100. It was no more than a suggestion, but if the committee had discomfort, different language could be implemented. If a fine were issued, the money could go to the attendance review board or be used for offsetting the costs to a conduct disorder program or a discipline program, if those types of programs were created.

Ms. Parnell was surprised there was not earlier parental notification than after the student had received four suspensions. She asked if that was something the committee could examine because students were deemed habitual truants after five instances and yet there was no parent contact until the fourth. She said the second instance would be more appropriate.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that was a very valid question. She clarified the parents were notified because a fight would automatically require a parent conference, either in person or by phone. She believed it was that way on all school campuses. She understood if the committee decided to change the amount of suspensions needed to notify the parents, however, that was just a reminder to the parents they had already been involved in four parent conferences and if their child got one more they would be expelled from school.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning made it clear that none of the bills were specifically for one student population. They were not specifically for special education students, but were for all students.

Mr. Brower thought behavioral contracts sounded interesting and thought it would be something schools ought to have investigated as a way to address problems; however, he wondered why the matter should be included in the Nevada Revised Statutes.

Ms. Giunchigliani explained contracts were used, but they still were anomalous in many cases. They were used more within the special education field, but general education populations were also using them. The interim subcommittee thought two things were of importance. First, it was absolutely important that parents be notified. Second, there would be a responsibility to let districts know they were empowered to do something. More often than not, there were school districts concerned about doing something and if statute did not say they could do it, they would not. She said if testimony stated it was absolutely not workable, then it would be the committee members’ responsibility not to proceed. If the decision was not to proceed with putting in that language, but at least making sure there was parental notification, that would be reasonable.

Martha Tittle, Clark County School District (CCSD) read from prepared text of Exhibit I. She said the CCSD opposed the mandatory section of A.B. 14 and expressed concern about the possible fiscal impact to their school district. They were also concerned with the contractual penalty of $100 because a parent might not have the resources to pay that fine.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 14 with no action taken and opened the hearing on A.B. 15.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, said A.B. 15 was recommended to the interim subcommittee to clean up some of the truancy statutes that were changed from the 1997 session. She recommended replacing the language that was repealed. The whole intent of the truancy statute was to make it enforceable, useable, and clear for parents. Some testimony to the interim subcommittee was from individuals who worked in the juvenile court and the district attorney’s offices. They had suggestions on how to tighten up language and include language that was repealed in the 1997 session. The review boards and district attorneys’ who dealt with juvenile issues were concerned the committee defeated the whole purpose by removing a single word in the 1997 session.

The laws had always required school districts to deem a student a truant if they had three absences. School districts had never recognized the delineation between approved and unapproved absences. The interim subcommittee surveyed other states’ language regarding approved and unapproved absences and that language was used within the Nevada Revised Statutes.

Ms. Giunchigliani referenced Exhibit J, which outlined most of the sections in A.B. 15. She explained most of section 3, which included language recommended from the 1999 session. A student would be deemed a truant after six unexcused absences. At that time the school could refer the student to the School Attendance Review Board (SARB).

She explained section 4 would set up how the board was to handle its hearings.

Section 5 through 7 clarified what occurred if more than one board existed in a county. There should be at least one board established per county, and larger counties could establish more than one review board.

Section 8 clarified only unapproved absences would trigger truancy rather than just any absence. That section also covered the issue of partial day absences. She explained there was attendance law and truant law. If a student ditched a class and he/she was absent for part of a day, he/she should be marked truant. If a student’s car broke down and he/she missed first period, but still showed up for the remainder of the day, he/she should not be deemed a truant. School districts currently counted both of those cases as partial day absences for attendance purposes, not truancy purposes. The school districts were asked to come up with policies on how to decide what was a partial day absence and when it would be marked on a student’s record. Ms. Giunchigliani believed some of the districts had begun working on that and many of them restructured attendance policies. The language offered to the committee was to make sure attendance would not be confused with truancy. She did not believe students should be marked absent the whole day as they had a flat tire and only missed one class because there would not be any incentive to show up for the rest of the day.

Ms. Giunchigliani sent that idea to some of the district attorneys’ offices. She provided Exhibit K, which was from Bob Teuton, the Clark County Chief Deputy in the Juvenile Division. The exhibit addressed five major provisions of A.B. 15.

Ms. Giunchigliani suggested a prearranged absence should not exceed 5 days in a school year and must be approved if the student completed the prearranged absence form and completed any required makeup work assigned within 1 week of returning to school. If the absence form was not completed, the absence would be unexcused rather than excused (Exhibit L). Several parents had written notes for their child, even though the student told Ms. Giunchigliani they had ditched school, which was something that would have to be accepted even though it defeated the intent. She knew A.B. 15 would probably wind up in a work session, but she gave the committee a place to start.

Mrs. Cegavske asked how to address illnesses. She wanted to know what section of Exhibit J addressed illnesses and did the committee need to make changes. She also asked if personnel in the schools were being trained the same way so everyone was on the "same page."

Ms. Giunchigliani explained she had not received comments either from the interim subcommittee or otherwise that physically or mentally unable did not fit the definition of illness, therefore that language was not changed. She thought all schools should have the same standard, the same rules for attendance and absenteeism even if a parent had a child in elementary school and one in high school.

Mrs. Angle asked what exactly the difference was between approved and unapproved absences. She was concerned if a parent wanted to take their child on a trip, which in some cases would be longer than 5 days, would that absence be excused or unexcused.

Ms. Giunchigliani explained "prearranged" would be different from "approved." A physical or mental illness would have to be an approved absence. If the absence was not either prearranged or due to a physical or mental illness, then the absence would be unapproved, which was all contained within one section. She suggested a prearranged absence should be allowed, which would not count against the total number of absences unless the student did not complete the makeup work, at which time it would be converted to an unexcused absence. She suggested 5 days, but was flexible with that number. She commented upon a student’s eighth absence, whether excused or unexcused, they would fail that class per Clark County’s current policy for middle school.

Ms. Ohrenschall stated some constituents told her Clark County said the policy of failing a class after eight absences was state law. Ms. Giunchigliani responded it was county policy and the school board adopted it as part of its attendance policy.

Ms. Giunchigliani was sure if a work session was scheduled, Mr. Teuton would be happy to discuss it from the juvenile court’s perspective on how the review board could work more "cleanly." Carson City had an active board and its input would be helpful as well.

Mrs. Cegavske wondered if there had been any feedback on A.B. 15. She asked if there had been an impact for children to stay in school and had there been an emphasis made to parents on how important it was their children go to school.

Ms. Giunchigliani thought there had been an impact and used the school at which she worked during the interim as an example. The school’s attendance previously had been approximately 80 percent and had a 98 percent attendance rate since the idea of A.B. 15 had been enforced and parents were notified. She commented the schools had not been notifying the parents until recently. Most importantly, once the elementary students received the message, there would be a "total tapering off" because it had been built in as an expectation. She thought in the next 2 to 3 years there would be a "leveling out of a great deal of this."

Ruth Joseph represented the CCSD as the district’s attendance administrator. She said the CCSD endorsed the intent of A.B. 15, but opposed the bill in its current form. She read from Exhibit M, which outlined five major provisions.

1. "This section requires that schools must take reasonable actions designed to encourage, enable or convince the pupil to attend school and further provides for the referral of students to a board to review attendance."

2. "This bill requires the school to make a referral to a board to review school attendance if the student has 6 or more unapproved absences, or upon request of a parent, if the student has 3 or more unapproved absences."

3. "A.B. 15 prescribes the content of the written referral to a board to review attendance."

4. "A.B. 15 establishes the mechanism for review boards to obtain jurisdiction over the pupil and the parents, requires that the hearing be scheduled within 10 days of the referral by the school, and allows for the creation of more than one board to review school attendance in each county."

5. "These sections restrict the referral of students to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to the chairman of the board to review school attendance by repealing the authority of schools to refer habitual truants to law enforcement for the issuance of a misdemeanor citation for habitual truancy, and by giving the chairman of the board to review attendance the authority to sign a petition that a pupil is a child in need of supervision."

She highlighted some suggestions the district had been examining because they believed with some revision, the bill could be a "very valuable supplement to the legislation passed in 1997."

Mr. Collins asked if Ms. Joseph thought a student who was physically or mentally able, should be in class with no exceptions, to which she replied, "no." Mr. Collins also asked if Ms. Joseph would consider a funeral an excused or prearranged absence, to which she replied "yes."

Betty Barker, Program Coordinator in Counseling and Attendance for WCSD, provided her written testimony of (Exhibit N). The exhibit outlined 11 recommendations regarding A.B. 15, which was based on WCSD experiences.

1. "Keep the School Attendance Advisory Board (SAAB) as an oversight Board as is written in statute."

2. "Maintain the new enabling legislation for the School Attendance Review Board (SARB)."

3. "Place all SARBS as programs under SAAB."

4. "Continue the school referral process for citation by law enforcement (including school police) that is in the current statute. It will overwhelm the SARB process to require every truant to attend. SARB is extremely labor intensive and inappropriate for many of the older students."

5. "Use the direct citation process for 10^th - 12^th grades, when appropriate."

6. "Use SARB to focus on elementary – 9^th grade students."

7. "Do not change to a more judicial process as proposed in A.B. 15. We have a good system in place that accomplishes the goals without burdening lay board members with judicial action they will not feel confident with. (Creating an additional process that includes subpoena and court petitioning actions is unnecessary."

8. "SARB can continue to have law enforcement cite students who either do not attend SARB or do not implement the recommended interventions."

9. "Add the possibility of community service up to 8 hours as a consequence for the first truancy and 16 - 32 hours as a consequence of the second truancy."

10. "An unapproved absence should become truancy only when it has been confirmed. It is inappropriate to send students to the court system based on lack of information."

11. "Both the SARB and citation process are labor intensive. There is an extensive fiscal note for the schools as well as juvenile services and the courts."

Ms. Barker also mentioned WCSD was proud of the truancy program and process created based on the current legislation.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning asked if anyone from the school districts had presented those same concerns to the interim subcommittee. Ms. Joseph replied they had not but could in the future.

Charlene Bybee, Chairman of the School Attendance Advisory Board (SAAB) at WCSD, agreed with Ms. Barker’s testimony on A.B. 15. She stated it took 8 months of weekly meetings to create truancy procedures, which she provided in Exhibit O. She urged the committee to retain the steps they had taken regarding citations. The SARB was working, but it was very labor intensive and time intensive. They targeted younger students because they found they had very high success rates and "the numbers that we have to get through are very time intensive," therefore, she recommended funding because it was an unfunded mandate.

Ms. Bybee was concerned, especially because she was chairman, she would be given the power to petition and subpoena. She was not comfortable with that and most people who served on the panel would agree. She suggested other avenues to accomplish petitions and subpoenas, such as school police or law enforcement officials.

She supported the prearranged parental absence because most parents who had made those arrangements for their children would be sure the makeup work got done, which was not the problem. If WCSD found there was a problem with parents who abused their ability to write excused notes for their child, the district had opted to use the avenue already in statute, which was educational neglect.

Mrs. Cegavske heard those bills last session and did not recall any of the schools who testified being present. She said Ms. Giunchigliani had been talking about those items for years and none of the school districts had given feedback until bills were introduced, therefore, she urged them to be involved in the work session.

Ms. Bybee stated WCSD had given input to the interim subcommittee on issues they had with the original legislation. They provided those concerns to Ms. Giunchigliani for recommendations for the 1999 session.

Tilisa May, Chairman of the Carson City Truancy Advisory Board, had some concerns regarding A.B. 15. She said A.B. 46 from the 1997 session sent a strong "tough on truancy" message to students and families. The board had created programs and policies, which were already in place. A.B. 15 would "throw us back a loop." She wanted to be involved in the committee work session to provide input.

Truancy advisory boards were created during the 1997 session with specific duties. She was concerned the new proposed language would remove the advisory status of those boards to a more legal and punitive body. The main goals and objectives of the board were as follows:

1. To identify factors that contributed to truancy.

2. To create programs in our communities and evaluate those programs.

3. To create policies and procedures on how to comply with A.B. 486.

4. To weigh the issue of enforcement and accountability along with providing services and programs to those families in order to keep them out of the court system.

A.B. 15 would create advisory boards to make findings, designate terms and conditions with families, issue subpoenas, file petitions, submit documentation, and make recommendations to juvenile court. That would take the enforcement to the advisory boards and create judicial responsibility as opposed to having them be more advisory in nature. Ms. May encouraged keeping the enforcement with the proper authorities and keeping the repealed tax that was on the last page.

Ms. May stated one of the items of concern was the bill allowed a student to have six or more truancies before a referral was made. That allowed students at least twice as many opportunities to miss school before intervention and prevention services were offered. Currently, any time a student was truant in Carson City, they were referred to the Family Resource Center. The Family Resource Center had truancy prevention programs in place since 1995. They had received 150 referrals for students in Carson City alone in 1999 to date. Through the prevention efforts, only five of those children had gone to court. Those children were not sent to court with only three truancies. They usually had a minimum of 20 before they actually went to the court process, therefore, the schools and the Family Resource Center gave those children every opportunity to stay out of the court process. Ninety-seven percent of those students had been taken out of the court process and were able to get back into school.

Parental accountability was another very important concern Ms. May felt was not being addressed. All of the penalties incorporated in the bill were for students to have their driver’s license suspended or revoked or to impose fines on the students, but there were no legislative measures to make the parents accountable. Truancy did not start when children were able to drive, it started at the elementary school level. Parents needed to be accountable and also offered the same services that were offered to children.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning said there were parental neglect statutes, but those concerns also needed to be brought forward to the interim subcommittee.

John Simms, Juvenile Systems Program Coordinator with Carson City Juvenile Probation, worked with Ms. May on the Truancy Advisory Board and was also the Chair of the Family Resource Center in Carson City, stated some concerns with A.B. 15. Issuing subpoenas and calling witnesses was something that had never been brought into the truancy arena and he thought it never should be. A few years ago, the whole idea of making truancy and other status offenses different than delinquent type offenses occurred and if A.B. 15 remained the same, it would defeat the whole purpose because truancy would be back in the arena of delinquency. The bill suggested if a child’s problems were not resolved, that child could actually be declared a delinquent. To be declared a Child in Need of Supervision (CHINS) according to chapter 62, stated all services basically needed to be extinguished, therefore everything in the community had to be tried before a child could be declared a CHINS.

A lot of language in A.B. 15 suggested the parents’ failure to respond would result in a petition against the child. Parent accountability was definitely missing. Mr. Simms understood there was a statute regarding educational neglect, but that was a very tedious task and thought there needed to be more specific ideas and language to require parents’ to be more accountable for their children in school. Truancy did begin at the elementary level. Most of the children with which he worked had attendance problems when they were in elementary school. Those schools dealt with parents on a superficial level. Children needed to be targeted at a young age and parents’ should be dealt with at a younger age also. If a student’s drivers license was revoked, he/she would not be able to get to school, which would only cause them to be credit deficient or academic deficient. He was in favor of diversions not consequences when it came to truancy.

Truancy and review boards should be using citations or asking students and parents to participate in counseling. Those boards should not be issuing subpoenas or petitions. He stated truancy was just a symptom of something else. A lot of agencies like the Juvenile Probation Department received federal grant money, which required them to separate status offenders from delinquent behaviors. A.B. 15 might infringe on the right to grant money because they would be dealing with status offenders on a delinquent level.

Mr. Manendo asked if Mr. Simms participated in the interim subcommittee on A.C.R. 44. Mr. Simms replied he participated and watched on a very superficial level A.C.R. 57, but not A.C.R. 44.

Leonard Pugh, Director of Juvenile Services for Washoe County District Court, had a primary concern the language within A.B. 15 could delay the process of getting a child or their parents before the court if required. He thought there should be language changes that could possibly place children on informal supervision agreements requiring them to obey the same conditions that were passed in statute in terms of fines, drivers license suspensions, work programs, or community service projects. Only those cases where the fine was paid would be forwarded to the court. That would serve as a filter and would also expedite the ability to help children before they had sanctions imposed, which he believed was the intent of the law.

The SARB process that had been in place in Washoe County should focus on elementary, middle, and high school students who had gone through that process. If those high school students still had not changed their behavior or attendance through that process, then sanctions would be the best approach.

Mr. Pugh stated he was not director during the 1997 session, but part of the problem with testimony regarding the fiscal impact was because there were two bills combined at the end of the 1997 session. The rules were suspended and people lost track of the bill. Depending on the number of truants handled the juvenile services division could require additional staff. For example, if 800 to 1000 truants were in custody, another probation officer and clerical staff to track how those cases were being handled, would need to be hired, therefore it would have a fiscal impact on the department.

Lucille Lusk represented Nevada Concerned Citizens and spoke from the perspective of parents, grandparents, and citizens. She supported some provisions of A.B. 15, such as schools must take reasonable actions to keep a pupil in school. She also liked the requirement that school boards set policy for a student who had an approved absence for part of the day and would not be deemed absent for the full day. That had been a problem for years, such as dealing with dental appointments and being marked absent for the entire day. It would leave flexibility because it did not say precisely what the policy had to be. It merely said there must be a policy.

She also had considerable concerns about turning the attendance review board into a "quasi-court" with power to set penalties that were beyond some criminal penalties. She felt if that type of penalty was going to be allowed it would be better to deal with the courts than to deal with a body that was not trained in that level of penalty. One idea she had was the possibility the school board could be the first review level and possess the power to refer a student to the judicial system if necessary.

Mr. Collins asked if Ms. Lusk could see all truants being locked up instead of educated since the board would have that authority.

Ms. Lusk replied if the bill were passed as written, it could happen. However, she did not see "any expressions on the faces of this committee" that would be the intention.

Acting Chairwoman Chowning declared no action taken on A.B. 15 and adjourned the meeting at 6 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Acting Chairwoman

DATE: