The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:50 p.m., on Wednesday, February 24, 1999. Chairman Wendell Williams 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:

Mr. Wendell Williams, Chairman

Mr. Tom Collins, Vice Chairman

Mr. Greg Brower

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Mark Manendo

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Steve Williams, Representative, Washoe County School District

Marcia Bandera, Superintendent, Elko County School District

Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards

Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum

Lynn Chapman, Representative, Families for Freedom and Silver State Education Association

Debbie Smith, President, Nevada Parent Teacher Association

Lucille Lusk, Representative, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District

Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, District 21, presented A.B. 152. She handed out a letter from Joe Lanuti, a constituent who started a computer training company (Exhibit C). The Commission on Post Secondary Education told him the company had to be licensed, and he did get licensed by the city of Henderson. The Commission on Post Secondary Education informed him the company had to be licensed by the state. Ms. Tiffany explained lines 4 through 16, both in statute and in the bill, described the type of companies required to be licensed. Mr. Lanuti’s company provided self-improvement classes and did not fall under any of the categories that required licenses. Ms. Tiffany said that was what prompted her to get involved. She was asked to work with a post-secondary education group. They had a few meetings and came up with a compromise, which resulted in the language on page 2, lines 6 through 9. Ms. Tiffany was not representing the Post-Secondary Education Institute. She did, however, talk to the director and he was still trying to get a consensus from the commission before he took a position.

Those meetings also resulted in a language change, which would limit the software training to 12 hours. The Commission on Post Secondary Education had a charter to make sure the consumer was protected. There were a lot of "fly by night" companies who held seminars, took money from people, and did not deliver, which was exactly what the commission tried to prevent. Ms. Tiffany understood there were "fly by night" companies, but Mr. Lanuti owned a business that tried to provide software training for self-improvement. As a result of being required to comply with Nevada Revised Statute 394, it was necessary to keep attendance logs, transcripts, and conform to many other administrative and record keeping requirements, such as a catalogue showing all school holidays. All for classes that were by appointment only, contained 8 hours of material, and were completed in 2 consecutive days, 4 hours a day. Ms. Tiffany said the purpose of A.B. 152 was to encourage small businesses to be involved in computer training, but limit the hours. They tried to eliminate the concern of the consumer and the problems that could happen.

Mrs. Koivisto asked how the bill would affect CompUSA, which was a company that offered computer classes on an ongoing basis.

Ms. Tiffany responded that type of company usually advertised their training for a job promotion, charged a fee, and trained persons other than their own employees. That type of company would fit into the categories listed within line 1 through 4. Large companies usually had a very broad scope of the market and might actually go to another company and offer to train its employees. Job promotion, job classification, and job improvement was a different market than the home self-improvement market. Mr. Lanuti’s company was strictly for self-improvement or for people who wanted to take an Internet or a Microsoft class.

Mr. Collins was curious if stores that sold computers and offered some side training would fall within the categories listed within the bill.

Ms. Tiffany was not sure but understood if a company sold a computer and, for example, was only trying to teach how to boot a floppy or load a CD it would not require them to apply for a license.

Mr. Collins said it was possible to spend several hours learning a program from a company who sold it, for example, Quicken. He asked if the difference was a company that taught someone how to use a program or computer bought somewhere else.

Ms. Tiffany replied that was exactly the difference. If a company was not charging a tuition, not educating or training people outside of their employees, not doing it for employment, credentials, or continuing education credit, they would be exempt from licensing.

Mr. Collins knew some large companies had signed people up for their training program and followed up with a phone call to coach them through the program, which could take many hours of training by video and computer e-mail. He wondered if those types of training would be exempt because they were inter-state.

Ms. Tiffany said they were not exempt, but most companies had "slid through" and were not licensed. By definition of law, those types of large companies with longer training sessions were supposed to be licensed.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOTIONED TO DO PASS.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 245.

Marcia Bandera, superintendent of schools for the Elko County School District (ECSD), said A.B. 245 was submitted by ECSD in conjunction with bills for the Nevada Association of School Boards. She wanted to request some changes to the bill as written. Section 1, lines 6 and 7, had a deletion that said, "or upon the request of a parent or legal guardian of the pupil." She asked for that deletion to be kept in the language. Since the Nevada Association of School Boards examined the bill over a year ago, ECSD had the opportunity to put into effect the minimum days in attendance policy, which dealt with controversy concerning excused and unexcused absences. She said the process was working well for ECSD. There were processes for appeals and there was an attendance advisory committee as other school districts had, therefore, she felt there was no need to delete that language from statute.

She drew attention to section 1, line 11, which said, "at least one period, or the equivalent of one period for the school." The reason for that language being inserted was because legislation from 1997 set up a statewide expectation in the statute but did not provide definition, therefore at least one period was provided as some basis for identifying an absence. Some districts might identify a greater amount of the day, but ECSD felt "any part", which was language being deleted, was rather nebulous. She wanted to provide at least some definition to what "any part" meant.

In section 1, line 16 there was a deletion of providing an excuse "orally." The way the bill read with the deletion in place would require excuses for absences to be in writing within 3 days after the student returned to school. That would provide a track record in terms of the excuses as they accumulated, and if someone had a question about how absences got excused, they could refer to some written document.

Section 2, lines 20 through 23 was a request to clean up some language from legislation that was passed in the 1997 session, namely a perpetrator of a sexual assault on another student who was not allowed in the same school as the victim would have to be transported. If the parent did not reimburse the district for the transportation costs, ECSD preferred not to go to court. They would rather submit the cost for pupil transportation to the distributive school account.

Another attempt to provide some definition to legislation from the 1997 session was within section 3, lines 31 through 33, which read, "The pupil has been suspended from the school that he regularly attends for at least 3 hours of a school day for provoking, attempting to engage in or engaging in at least two fights on school property." Ms. Bandera explained the school districts could identify that portion of the day for which the pupil would be suspended.

Paragraph 3, which followed provided definition for fighting and provoking. Ms. Bandera explained the language was comparable to the language that defined fighting and provoking fighting in other portions of the statute, for example, the criminal code.

Prior to changes put in place in the 1997 session, even if there was a second violation of Nevada Revised Statute 392.466, individual circumstances could be considered by the local board of trustees. The student could still be placed in another type of program off campus. With those changes in the 1997 session, the only alternative for a student up on a second violation would be home schooling. ECSD wanted the option back, either for the student to be placed in another type of educational program or to receive equivalent instruction through home schooling, addressed in section 4, lines 11 and 12. Lines 15 through 17 continued that thought in terms of being able to allow some options to the expulsion requirement based upon special circumstances the board of trustees might discover.

There were deletions in section 5, paragraph 3, which continued the opportunity to allow options for students to have some sort of educational experience by the public school other than being sent only to home schooling, even though the parent may or may not be willing, interested, or even capable of doing home schooling.

Mr. Manendo drew attention to page 1, lines 11 and 12 and asked if deeming a student a truant for the day when absent for at least one period was the current policy in Elko County.

Ms. Bandera replied that was the current policy and how they interpreted the legislation passed in 1997, which specified "any part" of a day.

Henry Etchemendy, executive director of the Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), testified in favor of A.B. 245 because it did clarify and expand some of those things that were passed in the 1997 session.

He mentioned NASB held a conference with 16 school districts in attendance and all 16 voted to support A.B. 245 as written. He also mentioned there was at least one school district that had taken a position opposing the bill because there was language deleted on page 1, lines 6 and 7. He would not have any objection in putting that language back in, which would clear up at least one opposition to the bill. As Mr. Etchemendy understood, that school district had another objection with page 1, line 16, that notification must be in writing. He explained NASB fully supported that section because school districts must have excuses in writing for future reference.

He drew attention to page 3, lines 15 through 18, which stated there could be an exception to expulsion allowed by superintendents upon the approval of the board of trustees. He informed committee members that language was already in current law with respect to a student who brought a firearm onto school property. There was federal law started a few years ago, for the local superintendent to allow exceptions on a case by case basis. Therefore, he felt if there were exceptions for firearms, there certainly ought to be exceptions for battery or fighting. NASB felt the bill had merit and clarified a lot of things that occurred in the 1997 session.

Lucille Lusk with Nevada Concerned Citizens was in favor of A.B. 245 with the amendments proposed by Ms. Bandera. It was her strong opinion there did needed to be some flexibility for schools to deal with a student other than simply remove him from school upon a second offense. Second offenses obviously showed a pattern of behavior and there was a great concern, but total inflexibility when dealing with another elected body was probably not a good idea. Consequently, she spoke in support of those aspects.

Another concern she expressed was on page 2, which was the change in the language relating to fighting. The current language was initiating at least two fights. There was a big difference between initiating a fight, provoking a fight, and engaging in one. It would be possible that a person who had no intent to be involved in a violent conflict could be brought into one, or engaged in one because someone else initiated it. She requested the language be deleted relating to engaging in fighting to make it clear the person to be punished would be the person who was guilty of the offense and who initiated the fight.

Mr. Collins stated if a juvenile was suspended and had an option to attend the Spring Mountain Elko Youth Camp or return to school, the parents might be able to ask the school board to make an exception. He wanted to know if Ms. Lusk considered that example an exception.

Ms. Lusk said she did see that as an exception but did not think it was a choice between going to jail or going back to school. If it was that severe, she did not think they would even have the choice of going back to school. However, there had been situations where a student committed a second offense and did not go to jail but went out on the streets, as there was no other option and no other type of educational facility available.

Mr. Collins explained if a battery on a school ground occurred and charges were filed, it had to be reported to the metro police.

Ms. Lusk understood a battery would be reported when charges were filed; however, if the metro police acted on it, they would send the student to a facility and then that student would be in another type of school because all of the juvenile facilities had schools.

Ms. Lusk mentioned it would be a good idea for an excuse to be in writing for the protection of the student, the parent, and the schools. The school should keep the written record in the student’s file for at least that full school year. She was not recommending the law require schools keep it in the file, but just indicated schools should be encouraged to do so to avoid any future misunderstandings.

Mr. Collins had problems with page 1, line 11 because a student who was just late to school but did not miss all of first period, would not be considered a truant ever. Also regarding page 1, line 16, he thought a phone call would work and should be an adequate way to give an excuse. Ms. Lusk understood that point of view but did not agree.

Steve Williams, with the Washoe County School District (WCSD), stated the school board in Washoe County voted to oppose A.B. 245 on the basis of two changes. Regarding the ability of the parent or legal guardian to provide an approval for an absence on page 1 and regarding the applicability of an oral excuse or a written excuse on page 2. Mr. Williams was pleased to hear from Ms. Bandera of the change to lines 6 and 7 on page 1, which would not be changed. The two exceptions he noted were the only stated reasons from the board in opposing the bill, therefore with that change he was going to take the bill back to the board and ask what they would like to do. He thought the objection to the elimination of the oral excuse would still stand. The board heard from a number of parents who wanted the flexibility of being able to call in, rather than do the excuse in writing. WCSD understood "the flip side of the coin," of the school district needing some way to keep track of what was said to whom if the child was going to be deemed a habitual truant. However, that could be handled through some record keeping and logs for telephone calls.

Janine Hansen, president of the Nevada Eagle Forum, was in favor of A.B. 245 with the changes brought forth to keep line 7 on page 1, which restored parental rights. She had recent experience that caused her to be very concerned with the kind of abuse parents faced from the schools. She met her daughter at a school function and wanted to take her home afterwards, but the coach told her she could not go home with her. She said there were five other parents who wanted to take their child home with them but could not because they had not gotten permission from the administrator. That was the kind of thing that could happen to parents when there was no protective language. She said parents did not realize they were the final authority with their children. Ultimately the parent or legal guardian needed to have that final authority.

Ms. Hansen also spoke in favor of the oral excuse. When her daughter was in elementary school, it was important to be able to call in with the excuse. She did, however, advocate every parent send a note but even notes were not foolproof and were sometimes lost. She said it was important to allow flexibility.

She also spoke on the section regarding fighting. Many children were being harassed and if they were going to be penalized for defending themselves, there would be a real problem. Therefore, she wanted to be sure the student who openly initiated the fighting would be punished not those who were the victims.

Mrs. Cegavske said the committee needed to address that issue because she told her children to defend themselves and hoped they would not just let somebody beat them up because they thought they were going to be expelled. Ms. Cegavske understood school districts were currently releasing both children who were fighting, no matter who was the initiator or the victim.

Mrs. Koivisto addressed the children fighting issue also. When her youngest daughter went to school, she was involved in an altercation with another child who was picking on her. When her daughter finally responded to the abuse, Mrs. Koivisto was called to school to pick her up, and the dean told her they knew she was being victimized but for her protection both children were sent home.

Mr. Collins said the policy he knew was everyone involved in a fight got sent home. He mentioned the old saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." Based on that saying, children were not being provoked and the language would not need to be included. He thought parents needed to raise disciplined children and the fighting problem would not exist. He asked if that would correct the provoking situation for Ms. Hansen.

Ms. Hansen said a lot of provocation existed and it was a problem. She did not know the solution but did not think children should be punished who were engaged in self-defense. She realized sometimes it was hard to tell who provoked a fight, which would be a judgement call by the school. If children lost credits because they were suspended from school for being involved in a fight but were not guilty, that would be a serious problem with the strict attendance policies in place.

Lynn Chapman represented Families for Freedom and Silver State Education Association and was in favor of A.B. 245 with the proposed amendment on page 1, which would leave the language in lines 6 and 7. She stated parents needed to be involved with their children not excluded. She also mentioned she received several phone calls per week from parents who wanted to pull their children out of public school because they were a victim in some kind of altercation. Those parents had enough because their children were being blamed and losing credits. The major problem existed with the high school students.

Mrs. Cegavske commented if children were just sent home to be separated, they would eventually be together again. She thought the committee should find some way for the schools to help students, with some type of conflict resolution on how to work through their problems.

Debbie Smith, president, Parent Teacher Association (PTA), stated their primary opposition to A.B. 245 was also based on the deletion of lines 6 and 7 and was very glad that amendment was proposed.

Ms. Smith also had a concern with oral versus written excuses. She said there was very competent staff in schools who could develop some kind of a system to track oral excuses. Staff and parents had worked long and hard to try to make things easier for communication. That portion of the bill seemed to throw "a little bit of a wrench in it" and would make it harder for the student, parent, and staff to deal with handling the written excuse versus oral.

Martha Tittle represented Clark County School District (CCSD) and had a few concerns regarding A.B. 245. CCSD was in favor of parents and legal guardians retaining the option of requesting pre-arranged absences and therefore, agreed that lines 6 and 7 of section 1 remain in the statute.

She said another concern was in section 1, line 11, which talked about absence for at least one period and deleted "any part of one period." Perhaps the student that was tardy every morning to first period might be tardy because they were truant. For example, a student who was playing video games every morning before school and did not get to first period on time should be truant, not just tardy with an excuse.

CCSD supported school districts maintaining the option for oral or written excuses. She felt the statute was permissive language and allowed school districts to have an option. In other words, it allowed districts to set policies and procedures within the district that either oral, written, or both depending on the situation would be sufficient notification.

Mr. Gustavson said provoking for one student could be different for another, therefore it was questionable how "provoking" was defined. He also mentioned most students were engaged in fights in school. When he went to school, if any student was involved in a fight, regardless who was at fault, they were both paddled.

Ms. Bandera understood the concerns with the definition of "provoking" and "fighting." She referred the committee members to Kelan Kelly, the committee senior research analyst, who could bring forward those definitions, which already existed in statute and had been there for a number years and was one of the reasons those terms were selected. That way there would not be any question about what they meant. Ms. Bandera also supported the recommendation brought forth by Ms. Lusk regarding fighting.

Chairman Williams declared no action taken on A.B. 245 and adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: