The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:55 p.m., on Wednesday, March 10, 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

Ms. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Mark Manendo

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Williams opened the hearing with a presentation from the Commission on Education Technology.

Michael Kinnaird, Chairman of the Nevada Commission of Education Technology (NCET) said the presentation would include accomplishments of the commission since their first meeting on October 1, 1997. He said there were several educators and students who would be part of the presentation. They were from different areas in Nevada and from both small and large school districts. He provided Exhibit C, which listed some of the presenters before the committee.

Mr. Kinnaird said NCET was created by the passage of S.B. 482 in the 1997 legislative session. The commission consisted of 11 voting members, 2 non-voting members and held 24 meetings, which included 15 full commission meetings as well as 9 subcommittee meetings. The commission had many major responsibilities over the last 18 months. One of the most critical responsibilities was distributing funding provided by S.B. 482. He said without the help of the Department of Education in reviewing applications and helping submit guidelines the goal would not have been accomplished.

He said S.B. 482 also instructed the commission to develop technology standards and a state technology plan, which would guide school districts on how to use technology in the classroom. The plan was to give leadership and guidance on how the commission perceived technology and how it should be incorporated into education. The plan was titled "State Plan to Implement Technology to Support Student Learning", which was provided (Exhibit D). The commission wanted the state to annually review the plan because as the districts changed on how they implemented technology, the technology plan for the state needed to be changed to show progress that had taken place in the districts.

He said the commission was also required to allocate monies to school districts from a trust fund for educational technology. He highlighted the areas of expenditure, which were:

• To buy computer technology;

• To develop infrastructure into the school districts;

• To repair and maintain equipment;

• To buy software;

• To contract technical service; and

• To train teachers.

Mr. Kinnaird said the funding was primarily allocated to school districts to buy computers, which was a laborious process because the monies were allocated to districts based on need.

The plan mentioned earlier was finalized in December 9, 1998, and was delivered to the governor’s office, the Legislative Committee on Education, and the Nevada Department of Education. He said it was important to understand when the commission went through the different phases of developing the plan. The Department of Education held many public meetings to have districts that received copies of the preliminary plan review it and provide feedback. More presentations were made to different district committees, including Nevada Parent Teacher Association (PTA) board and the Academic Standards Council.

The commission worked as a subcommittee to develop the "Hardware, Software, and Wiring Standards Document", which was part of the earlier mentioned Exhibit D. Mr. Kinnaird recognized Fred Dugger, Gary Grey, Moises Denis, and John Snyder because they worked on the subcommittee which developed the document. He also gave credit to Greg Halopoff of the Clark County School District (CCSD) who worked very hard to provide his expertise in developing the document. He said the document would also be reviewed annually because changes in technology would occur every year and it needed to reflect the change.

Mr. Kinnaird said there were three levels of technology the commission wanted to see in schools, which would help allocate funds. School Districts were still at level one and were required to provide annual reports. The levels of technology were highlighted within the earlier mentioned Exhibit D. One area of the level one functionalities in which he highlighted were:

1. "Students have at least 1 hour of direct use of technology per week."

2. "Teachers have access to a computer, printer, video display device, and VCR in their classroom."

3. "Teachers receive basic training in the use of technology."

4. "Technology is integrated into the curriculum."

Mr. Kinnaird said it was so important over the long-term for the commission to institute an evaluation process for school districts. The goal of the evaluation process was to focus on evaluating many components. He highlighted the category process of the components, which were:

• NCET and school districts would evaluate professional competency of teachers with the use of technology.

• NCET would evaluate the effectiveness of learners as far as the use of technology.

• NCET would evaluate the learning environment, which meant the standards in the curriculum.

• NCET would evaluate the system and the technology capacity, meaning the infrastructure, the electrical, and the wiring status of the school districts to make sure those standards were being upgraded to accommodate any changes that occurred in technology.

• NCET would evaluate the accountability and would determine if the transiency rate reduced.

• NCET would determine if daily attendance improved as a result of technology being incorporated into the curriculum.

• NCET would determine if there were reductions in dropout rates.

• NCET would determine if there were impacts on student achievements on TerraNova test scores.

In conclusion, he stated the Department of Education requested school districts submit documents showing certain levels of growth as far as implementation of technology, growth in student achievement, and growth in teacher accountability. He stressed it was important to understand a lot of the goals had been accomplished, and he felt there was a lot of momentum created in Nevada by the support received through S.B. 482.

Mrs. Angle wondered if any statistical evidence showed how successful the program was.

Mr. Kinnaird replied there was a document that was part of a legislative report the Department of Education had developed and compiled (Exhibit E). He said school districts had accomplished different levels of success as far as implemented plans. The document would show some academic growth and change in teachers’ abilities to use technology in classrooms due to new training requirements. He also said the document would show school districts had been successful in the implementation of the computer technology buildings in making sure wiring and electrical was in place, which was part of the infrastructure requirements.

Mrs. Angle asked if Mr. Kinnaird found that teachers used the one computer per classroom more often than students. She wondered if computer labs could be used because she had heard sometimes one computer in the classroom setting was not the most effective way to train students.

Mr. Kinnaird said his comments would be biased based on his experiences. He believed that one computer per classroom could be effective as long teachers were trained how to use it properly, which was also a shared belief by NCET. He also believed computer labs were important, but thought teachers were put into a situation of moving from one classroom setting to another and many times it would not give an adequate amount of time for teachers and students to be in an academic environment. He mentioned the computers had internet access, the ability to run sophisticated software, and therefore were multi-functional and could be used in many ways. The commission would add to that one computer per classroom, but wanted to see what was happening with one computer as far as training and use.

Mr. Gustavson asked what the timeline was to have computers in classrooms.

Mr. Kinnaird replied each school district gave NCET a plan and many of the plans involved implementation of computers and some dealt with putting wiring in their buildings. Each school district had a timeline in their plan to complete the implementation of technology. He guessed that 80 percent of the school districts had implemented computers into their classrooms. He said CCSD had more than 9,000 computers installed. He noted Exhibit E showed evidence of how far certain districts were in implementing computers.

Mr. Gustavson said he talked with Washoe County School District (WCSD) and they reported not having received computers yet but expected them very soon. He wanted to followup for the district to figure out how "soon" they would receive the computers.

Mr. Kinnaird said representatives were present from WCSD who could respond to that question.

Mrs. de Braga said the one computer per classroom was not to be taken literally. She thought there were several options and asked if one computer per classroom was an equivalent amount of computers.

Mr. Kinnaird responded that was true and explained when the criteria for that was developed school districts did have an option, but one of the suggestions from NCET was there would be one computer per classroom or the equivalent of that process.

Mrs. de Braga understood there were some rural schools that did not have the wiring yet and wondered if that was still a problem.

Mr. Kinnaird replied that basically with rural school districts NCET had many opportunities for those districts to apply for funding for those types of needs. He said depending on the district to which she was referring; he could report for what they requested funding and if wiring was part of their request. He reiterated it was part of their guidelines for the different streams of money that was allocated.

Mrs. Chowning thanked Mr. Kinnaird and NCET for all of their hard work and said it sounded like they held 24 meetings in approximately 6 months time. She said that was more than what the legislature would expect, and yet knowing the caliber of Mr. Kinnaird and other committee members of NCET that was exactly what the legislature would expect. She reminded everyone present that Mr. Kinnaird was one of the national Milken award winners and complimented the governor for putting Mr. Kinnaird at the helm of the commission, because a person with his expertise and successful track record was certainly a benefit to the state. She said it was nice to see Mr. Dugger present as well with all of the computer work and assistance that he had done for the legislature in past years. She wanted to know about the accountability portion mentioned because she was interested in how students would be best served and asked when the committee could expect the reports to see what was actually affecting the beneficial education for students. She also asked if there were more recommendations for funding.

Mr. Kinnaird answered her question regarding accountability and said the school districts were supposed to submit an annual report and they understood that was part of their obligation of accepting funding from S.B. 482. He knew as of January 1999, school districts had submitted a status report and hoped there would be another report possibly 6 months from now, but he would definitely provide the information at the closing of the presentation. He replied to her question regarding funding and said there was no funding for NCET at the current time, and that was the reason they were before the committee, to solicit their support for funding from the legislature to continue the work needed. He said the state plan earlier mentioned as Exhibit D was through the next biennium, and it included a budget for that timeframe to take care of the goals, which were to work on training development of teachers in the school districts and to provide staff support. He said if teachers were not trained and technology was not supported it would not work on its own. He explained the budget was developed but not currently supported.

Mrs. Chowning asked if there was a bill currently in a money committee.

Mr. Kinnaird responded there was not a bill currently in a money committee from what he understood. He said as part of the State Department of Education’s budget; they had some enhancement in their budget presentation and the funding for NCET was included, but there was no allocation for that enhancement for the next biennium.

Mrs. Angle said her question had to do with the obsolescence of technology and said it was almost a built-in factor. She wondered if NCET was addressing that as well as the year 2000 (Y2K) problem.

Mr. Kinnaird answered her question regarding the obsolescence situation and said NCET had not addressed that. As far as the Y2K preparations, the commission was trying to get a "snapshot" from the school districts of where they currently were in accessing that situation. He said the commission had asked the districts to give a brief report on what they had done to assess the Y2K situation and what plans they had in place to address it.

Chairman Williams addressed the allocations the commission received from legislation passed in the 1997 session and said a certain amount given to each school district was quoted. He asked if those school districts had discretion on how they could use the money or were there guidelines or perimeters the districts had to work within.

Mr. Kinnaird replied each school district knew they had to apply for funding, and part of the application process was they needed to have the technology plan in place. He said part of that plan required they have a project for which they needed funding, and therefore the project submitted for funding would have a statement on the purpose of the project and include a detailed budget. Also districts knew they had to address certain guidelines that were set forth by S.B. 482 as far as how the money should be spent.

Chairman Williams asked if the money used with projects was only during the school day or wondered if some of the money could be used for before or after school programs.

Mr. Kinnaird answered many school districts had different programs and said there would be a presentation made during the meeting from White Pine County School District. The program created was called the Nova Center, which dealt with at risk students who dropped out of high school but wanted their high school diploma. Therefore, he said it was left up to the districts to decide what type of programs they wanted based on needs, which NCET supported. Districts understood they had to stay within the parameter established by the law. The commission tried to evaluate many unique programs that could be duplicated in other districts if those programs were successful because they could be used in the future for districts with similar problems.

Scott Meihack, principal of the E.C. Best Elementary School, said the school was a recipient of monies from S.B. 482 to adopt programs, which was the Reading Renaissance and Accelerated Reader Programs. The school was deemed inadequate before the funding, but was no longer. He said there were approximately 542 students attending E.C. Best Elementary and 451 were participants of the program, however 75 to 80 of those students were in kindergarten. Ninety-seven percent of students used computers in the classroom as a result of being a part of the Accelerated Reader Program and students had taken a total of 6,422 tests. Those students had completed the average test with a percentage of 88.4 percent. The percent of average correct was 80.2 percent. Students had earned a total of 6,533 points for the books and questions they answered, which was part of the program. That percentage was out of a possibility of approximately 8,123 points. He said the overall average reading level of the school was 3.18, yet there still was an at-risk student population of approximately 209 students. Mr. Meihack said those numbers had enabled the classroom teacher to know exactly where students were in the reading process, their comprehension, and their ability to take sentences apart and put them back together. He thought those numbers spoke for themselves; the Accelerated Reader Program was a great program. More importantly, the computers were used four to five times a day per student after they read a book and took a test, therefore he thought that information would answer some of the committee members’ questions as far as the progress made.

Mr. Meihack stated the school also received funding through the school district for electrical upgrades as part of the overall plan for Churchill County. E.C. Best Elementary had their electrical upgrade completed for over 2 months. They also received every computer needed as part of the legislation passed in 1997. He referred to the Y2K question and said the equipment purchased was supposed to address the problem. He stated just like automobiles, appliances, and other types of equipment, there was a continual ongoing process of keeping equipment maintained and replacing them when worn out. He said the students loved and enjoyed the computers and said there was a responsibility to keep that enthusiasm toward the educational process of the computers and how they worked in the classroom with math, reading, and English. He exclaimed the ongoing funding needed to be continued for that type of program, otherwise schools would move back to where they started.

Ken Grimes, a second grade teacher at E.C. Best Elementary School, said he was present to speak about how he used computers in the classroom, specifically about the Reading Renaissance Program and how it motivated his students to read. He found the program had challenged his students at all levels, for example, to read more materials, to read more often, and to earn points and incentives. He explained his students received incentives for computer time or every now and then a candy bar. They had to earn certain point levels to receive certain incentives. He said the biggest incentive for students was getting their "star" on the board, which could be seen school wide. The "stars" showed individual student progress, which students enjoyed actually seeing.

He said a few students in his classroom were reading fifth grade level books, with which he was very impressed and yet those students still challenged themselves to go further. The tests definitely showed comprehension of what students read because students were not just flipping through certain parts of the book. He had an idea of what students read, what they comprehended from it, and had an idea of where he needed to take them from there. He said the program was also challenging some of his lower students, and they wanted to participate and be successful. That gave him a real good knowledge base about what he could do to help students succeed at the reading level.

Mr. Grimes had other ways to use computers in the classroom. He said he was doing a project using the Iditarod Sled Dog Race that went on in Alaska at the beginning of each year. He said students filled in tables, got to know the mushers, and the only way he received the information was over the internet. He was able to bring the start of the race into the classroom and students watched it via web broadcast. He said the students were very impressed to see it over a computer, and it got them excited about the race. He said both math and reading were incorporated in that, for example, the students were reading a lot of different books relating to sled dogs and racing.

Mrs. Chowning asked if Mr. Grimes thought it was a one time program that he had been able to develop as a result of the funding or had the funding been sufficient so the program he developed would be ongoing.

Mr. Grimes said as technology would change and because it had been changing very rapidly, he thought there was a need to continue to explore what happened from those types of programs. He thought students needed to be exposed to what became available and thought he was using what was available very effectively but wanted to see that effectiveness continue.

Dave Gertson, a fifth grade teacher at E.C. Best Elementary School, said his presentation regarded some of the technology his class used as a result of legislation passed in 1997. He said the computer in his classroom was used in conjunction with a television studio the school had, which was used to broadcast the morning announcements to the entire school. He stated fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students were the anchors, news directors, computer operators, and camera operators. The students broadcast the pledge of allegiance, the weather, the lunch menu, any bulletin items, and any assignments or programs. He said Mr. Meihack used the broadcasting system to present the children who received accolades for their stars in the Reading Renaissance Program and the Accelerated Reader Program or any other achievements. He stated it had been a very effective tool and students enjoyed watching the announcements.

Alyssa Meihack, a 7 year old student who was in first grade, said the Reading Renaissance Program enabled students to use the computer five times per day. She said she had read 102 books and had received 44 points. She said the computers helped her read and she enjoyed the Accelerated Reader Program.

Kevin Grimes, a 7 year old student who was in first grade, said he had received 23 points for the incentive programs. He said the computers were fun, not only because he could play games, but also because the program helped him read.

Dexter Daum, a 7-year-old student who was in second grade, said he had an average of 48 to 50 books read because of the Accelerated Reader Program. He said it was important to have a lab at schools because students would be able to learn about computers. He liked the Accelerated Reader Program because he could take lots of tests on the computer.

Jessica Daum, a 10-year-old student who was in fifth grade, said her teacher allowed her class to use the computer. She enjoyed playing educational games, using the Accelerated Reader Program, and having internet access. She also was the news anchor on the broadcast program. She read approximately 10 books through the Accelerated Reader Program and had received 55.5 points for the incentive program. She also had received all the stars possible except two.

Mr. Manendo asked how much time she spent on a computer per day. To which, Miss Daum said approximately 10 to 15 minutes per day. Mr. Manendo asked if she thought she should have more time allotted per day. Miss Daum replied she did think there should be more time available.

Mrs. de Braga said she visited a kindergarten class at E.C. Best Elementary School for an entire morning and the point the principal, Mr. Meihack, wanted to make by having her attend was the limited time teachers actually had with students. For example, some students entered the classroom without their shoes tied, there zippers were undone, or they had not eaten anything. There were all of those problems that needed to be addressed before class could even begin. Mrs. de Braga also wanted to make sure committee members did not miss the statistic on the high concentration of at risk-students in attendance at E.C. Best Elementary. She said the point was not to make excuses for the school’s designation, but to illustrate the determination of the school to raise the standard for students in spite of obstacles.

Mr. Meihack said E.C. Best Elementary’s Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) raised approximately $20,000 over the last two years, which contributed to each classroom being able to have two computers. The kindergarten classrooms had only 1 computer per class and had a computer lab with 30 computers. Their PTO purchased CD-ROM’s to put into the older computers, therefore bringing them up to date with the technology needed. He said they made extreme efforts to make technology an important part of the curriculum and would continue in that effort. The school was exploring grants continually to receive more funding.

Mr. Meihack invited committee members to visit the school. He thought he could show them the most economic and feasible way to get the most out of technology. He said many programs were constructed to get the most from what they had by even sending some teachers to learn how to upgrade older computers.

Leslie Doukas was a member of NCET and worked at WCSD training teachers to use technology in the classroom. She said 2 years ago she came down with students and gave testimony to the committee about why they needed funding for educational technology. She was before the committee with that same message. She brought three WCSD teachers to the meeting to show some of their technology work.

Mark Skoff, a second grade teacher at Donner Springs Elementary School, said his classroom had been using computers for the last 2 years. He was very pleased to use Microsoft Office because it was an excellent program that gave students the skills of the writing process. He also was pleased with Excel for graphing purposes and PowerPoint for making multi-media presentations. He was fascinated by seeing students put together presentations on their own because they were only 7 or 8 years of age. He was also amazed with those students who were already trained because they helped train other students. He helped students who needed help with other skills or tools, but the students were capable of teaching each other computer skills better than he could.

He said Shana DeCausey, a student, would demonstrate a program called Inspiration, which was a web diagramming type of software that allowed students to brainstorm and cluster ideas. He said Shana brainstormed how technology helped her in every subject area, which she accomplished by herself. The ideas brainstormed in the classroom were transcribed by Shana and included in the presentation before the committee. Mr. Skoff stated Shana would talk about how spelling helped her with use of technology.

Miss DeCausey demonstrated use of the Inspiration program. She said the program could help with spelling and punctuation. There was a portion of the program that could also help with reading and writing.

Mr. Skoff informed the committee the program basically helped with language arts. The students did a science project in which computer access helped with graphing and internet research. He said another student, Zachary Cox, would demonstrate how their class used PowerPoint. He said Mr. Cox created all of what was in his demonstration on his own.

Mr. Cox demonstrated how the computer helped him learn by reading what was on the computer screen. He touched on several areas of the program, some of those were; language arts, work processing, spell check, reading tool bars, and math.

Mr. Skoff reiterated Mr. Cox created the entire demonstration on how PowerPoint helped him learn. Mr. Cox taught approximately 95 percent of the other students in the class how to use the program.

Brian Crosby said he was a fourth, fifth, and sixth grade teacher at Agnes Risley School in Sparks, Nevada. He had a model technology classroom and showed the committee the school’s web site on the computer screen. He explained there were eight computers hooked up by high speed internet cable which his students could utilize for research and ongoing community service projects. He said his students went on a field trip to an animal park in Reno as part of a science study. When the students returned to the class they wondered why the animal park did not have a web site, and therefore decided to design one. The animal park embraced the idea graciously and supported the effort. He said their presentation would show how they accomplished it and also said the students had been working on it for over 3 weeks.

He explained the students made treasure hunt web pages with a program called Filamentality, which was a program received from the internet through Pacific Bell. The program allowed his students to design web pages of different types through interactive means. His students designed 11 treasure hunt pages and eventually would have 21.

Jeff Coons, a sixth grade student at Agnes Risley Elementary School, said his group created the tiger treasure hunt web page, which he pulled up on the computer. He explained his group researched different internet sites in order to retrieve the information incorporated into the web page. He was very excited to do the research and work without much help from Mr. Crosby.

Justine Mahka, a sixth grade student at Agnes Risley Elementary School, said her group designed a web page called hunt for the coyote. She said her group did not want to use encyclopedias for research, but instead used the internet because it was up to date information. She explained how they found their information and demonstrated the web page. She also mentioned a project the class did in 1998, which was about Nevada. Her group did a project on mining and the students contacted the mining representatives on their own.

Mr. Crosby said the students contacted John Tyson at Channel 8 in Reno by email and talked to him on the phone. The students also involved the state archivist and three different professors from the University of Nevada, Reno. Mr. Crosby stated the students accomplished their efforts on their own and it was made possible because of their access to the internet. He said two of his fourth grade students won a poetry contest hosted by the Reno Gazette Journal. The students typed the stories on the computer, edited them, set the typefaces, and faxed them to the Reno Gazette Journal.

Mr. Crosby invited the committee members to "Marsville", which over 500 students from the WCSD would be setting up in the National Guard hanger at the Reno airport.

He also mentioned the Agnes Risley Elementary School was deemed an inadequate school until recently. He said the writing and the motivation had helped erase that stigma from the school.

Steve Brown, a biology and earth science teacher at Incline High School, said he used the computer on an average of 12 to 14 hours per day. He said the computer was the major generator of his curriculum. When he had an opportunity to join the secondary cadre, as part of the teacher-training program, he jumped at the chance. He was not only teaching workshops and classes for the Technology and Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF), but also teaching Incline High School teachers. He said hardware and computers were worth nothing unless a teacher-training program was in place. He had seen teachers learn the necessary tools in one class of a teacher-training program, for example, to give a PowerPoint presentation or to use the internet as a resource for students. He thought most teachers wanted to learn technology and said most of the opportunities in the past had not been there, but it was now provided. He thought the momentum should be kept up for the teacher-training programs.

He said he did not use a chalkboard in the classroom, but used a computer and a projector for his lectures. His students used the computer lab for internet searches and web quests. He tried to refrain from the pencil and paper reports, but used some sort of presentation either on PowerPoint or as a web site. He had his own web site and added the excellent presentations received from students to his web page, and therefore, was accessible to anyone in the world. He brought two students from his honors biology class with him to demonstrate presentations they made for one particular lab report.

Jordan Steinke and Joey Batchelor demonstrated a lab report they completed for their honors biology class. The report consisted of a home page, which was a small introduction of their report. The report also consisted of a written part, which was similar to a pencil and paper report. Mr. Steinke thought the report was written in a very eye catching way, as opposed to the traditional graphite lead on white lined paper. He said Mr. Brown set up a scanner with a separate computer along with unlimited use of the digital camera, which aided them to use graphics as part of the report. He thought the report was easier to comprehend for someone who might not understand the material because graphing enabled the results to be seen as opposed to the written word. He said the educational level of the lectures were great because it definitely held his attention. Mr. Batchelor also thought it was easier to complete the report on a computer than with a pencil and paper. He said the technology made it much more interesting for him because of pictures and graphs. He also thought it helped him retain the information much better than a traditional lecture without the use of a computer.

Mr. Brown said a computer report took much longer than a pencil and paper report, which he thought was great because the students actually learned more. Another reason he thought the students put more time into it was because they understood the entire world would see it when it was incorporated onto his web page.

Ms. Doukas pointed out the students before the committee demonstrated how they used computers as tools and thought it was one of the biggest changes in computer use compared to years ago when students used to be brought to computer labs to use a program called Oregon Trail. She said children were being taught to use computers the same way adults used them, as a tool to help them in their work. That was one of the reasons why classroom computers represented a different shift than use of computers in labs. In most schools, students were lucky to have one-half hour on the computer, which was good for some things but definitely not all.

She thanked the legislature for supporting technology in the last biennium and hoped the support would continue because there were still computer needs in Nevada schools, for example, printers were not part of the funding. She said the most critical need with which school districts were faced was to train teachers to use technology and to provide technical support to keep computers up and running. She said the teachers before the committee were extraordinary because they were self taught pioneers and probably represented less than 25 percent of the teaching force in Nevada. She said the other 75 percent of teachers, who were technology novices, needed training in computer applications and how to integrate that information into the classroom. Most teachers were very willing to learn, even from their more "techno-savvy" students.

Ms. Doukas stated research had shown knowing software was not a guarantee that teachers would figure out how to incorporate it into classroom instruction, which was the link to professional development and what needed to be accomplished. School districts were also "strapped" for technical support. Technicians often had thousands of networked computers, which were their responsibility. When you compare that to an industry with 1 to 40 or even 1 to 100, it was obvious how frustrating it was to know about adding all of the new computers across Nevada. She said the school districts needed legislative support and ongoing funding to be sure the investment in equipment would be maintained. She urged the committee to support NCET’s funding request in the current biennium.

Jhone Ebert, Technology Coordinator for the Secondary Education Division in the CCSD, distributed two handouts. Exhibit F was a copy of the PowerPoint presentation she gave and Exhibit G was the timeline handout on a project called, Education in Nevada: Technology Infusion for Curriculum Enhancement (ENTICE). She explained the second graphic on the first page of Exhibit F came from United States congressional research by the office of technology assessment and was printed in 1995. The graphic illustrated several important topics, which were:

• "Technology suited to education goals"

• "Vision of curricular applications"

• "Pre-service training"

• "Technical support"

• "Time"

• "Administrative support"

• "In-service training"

• "Access to technology"

She talked about the professional development projects funded by S.B. 482 from the 1997 legislative session. The bottom of page 2 in Exhibit F illustrated project ENTICE, which was a statewide collaborative project. Ms. Ebert said there were 17 professional development videos produced for teachers in Nevada. As part of teacher training, satellite downlink "call in" shows proved teachers wanted professional development and help with technology. Teachers called in to the shows to ask questions about certain technology issues. She said there would be four more live "call-in" shows and Exhibit G listed the schedule. Anyone interested could go to any one of the 68 downlink sites to participate in a live show.

Ms. Ebert said the last six training videos were "workshops in a box." Every school in Nevada would receive six workshops in a box. A box would consist of videotape, which would have teachers who already incorporated technology into their instruction. The box would also have "black line masters" so teachers could go to the classroom after completing the 3-hour workshop and implement some of the things learned rather than waiting for a period of time to redevelop their instruction. The instruction would already be provided from the workshop.

She said S.B. 482 provided funding for the revision of 20 secondary syllabi. There were hundreds of syllabi in the secondary division because of subject areas taught and they were on a 5-year cycle for revision. With the advancements of technology, 5 years was too long. Therefore, with funding, the core-syllabi was updated so teachers had technology suggestions written into their syllabi and could be implemented into the classroom instruction.

Ms. Ebert highlighted another project funded by S.B. 482, which was a laptop project. The project was already implemented into 12 elementary schools, 6 middle schools, 3 rural high schools, and 6 alternative education schools. The laptops were provided with 24 hours of training on how to implement technology into the classroom. The laptop project was incorporated into lower income schools, which helped retain teachers because of technology provided and therefore gave students consistency. Ms. Ebert thought the transiency rate would drop because of technology. She said the projects would not happen alone from the funding of S.B. 482. The TLCF would also contribute to spending money toward professional development. She also said grants were being submitted for more funding for professional development, help to transition obsolescence with equipment, and to help students.

In conclusion, Ms. Ebert said the projects and use of funding would not happen alone. Obviously, NCET had given excellent guidance in how to use funds effectively and efficiently. She said the Nevada Department of Education had supported their efforts. The Nevada Educational Technology Consortium and technology coordinators from different areas in Nevada said they had the same issues, for example, professional development, how to transition obsolescence, and how to get administrative support. She explained the consortium was formed and a representative from every school district in Nevada was part of that consortium and all districts had access to all of things already developed so "we are not inventing the wheel every single time." She said television stations also interacted and were used for a web site. Business partners were matching funds to help get what was needed for students.

Mark Shellinger, representing White Pine County School District, thanked the NCET members on the wonderful job they had done in helping technology for classroom instruction. He said Nevada went from being last of the states in many ways in terms of technology use in public schools to the top tier, which was very exciting. He appreciated the commitment to the funding guidelines as far as the poorest school districts receiving funding before any other districts because White Pine County was the poorest district. He said White Pine County exceeded the level one technology set forth by NCET. There were more than two networked computers in each classroom and at least one lab was in every school, which included tech specialists in each of those labs. He said there would eventually be email for every student in the district, enabling students access to the system from their homes.

Mr. Shellinger said the project he was presenting was called Nova Center. He gave his presentation via an overhead. He said the White Pine County School District had collapsed both financially and organizationally approximately 3 years ago. The board of trustees began re-organizing the school district, which was an exciting opportunity. One of the things examined during the community meetings was the fact that Nevada had the highest dropout rate in the country and White Pine County appeared to be worse in terms of students not completing high school. There was an alternative high school program and a poor success rate with the adult education program. Past alternative education efforts had not been successful with no community interest. However, because of the great school board, they decided to do a series of community meetings to discuss those issues. From those community meetings, they wanted to develop a plan for a variety of things so the school district could be improved.

His presentation before the committee would specifically focus on students who dropped out of high school. He said by February of 1997 there was a program presentation that was very expensive, which White Pine County could not afford. The board of trustees liked the program presented, but also thought options needed to be explored. Another series of community meetings were held and they came up with the idea on Nova Center. The center was opened in September of the current school year.

Nova Center’s facility was located in downtown Ely and open year-round from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. 5 days a week with additional hours on Saturday. Students could schedule appointment time or drop in. Nova Center offered a variety of services for students, which included: an electronic computer based high school program, adult education in regular class settings as well as using the electronic computer class, employment counseling and placement, continuing education, a general education diploma (GED) program, counseling services, and school to careers. He said there were 140 different high school level courses. A student would take a test via a computer and it would be over what the student already knew because it would be a waste of time to teach someone something they already knew. After a 45-minute test, the computer would assemble 18 lessons the student must pass in a 90 percent or higher proficiency rate in order to move to the next lesson. If the student had trouble with the first lesson, the computer would re-configure the lesson based on what the student knew and would propose ideas that could be completed to prepare the student to take the test again. The courses were totally individualized and the student could work on it any time they wanted. For example, they could log on for 30 minutes or 2 hours; it would be up to the student. The student would receive their credit for the course once he/she completed all 18 lessons and passed a post-test.

The Nova Center was designed for students who had been out of school for 6 months or more and out of the traditional school setting, which was the first target group. At least 15 students were needed in order to make the program work financially. When the doors were opened there were 76 high school age students who had been out of school for 6 months or longer who wanted to participate in the program. Nevada considered "high school age students" anyone under the age of 22 who had not graduated from high school. There were a lot of people who were working and had been in the work force for a long time but never finished high school; the program gave them an alternative. The second group of students the high school program served were seniors in a traditional high school, for example, they needed an additional course for graduation. The last group the high school program served were any students, kindergarten through grade 12, who wanted to take a tutorial course and not for credit, for example, students who failed a proficiency test. When graduation day came, a student would have to meet the regular district graduation requirements and pass a proficiency test. White Pine County School District had the highest requirements in Nevada, which was a requirement of 25 credits.

Mr. Shellinger showed a video of a student who graduated from Nova Center. He thought the video would give a "taste" of what the center meant to a lot of students. The student said she took courses from Nova Center because she wanted her high school diploma. She had tried adult education programs, but they were not very challenging and thought she was not learning what she needed. She felt like she deserved her diploma after going to Nova Center because she actually learned something. She said the courses taught at Nova Center were interesting and fun.

Mr. Shellinger said student support and inter-agency cooperation made Nova Center work. Nova Center was started because of help from other corporations and agencies in White Pine County. He said there needed to be an education plan after Nova Center, not necessarily college, but something for post-secondary education. The school district provided counseling and an agency connection. He said the best thing about Nova Center was it had given children an alternative and an option they would not have had otherwise. Nova Center was a good example of what could be done in a school district if everyone worked together and if there was state support.

Mr. Shellinger touched on the future of Nova Center. They were looking at having a "local dial up", which they had a grant to allow them to do. Students in the community could "dial up" and get into the center. He said they were looking at the possibility of offering Nova Center services for students in other counties that needed extra help. He thought electronic delivery of classrooms from anywhere was clearly a possibility. Possibly home schooled students were also a group that could benefit from Nova Center.

Mr. Collins agreed there needed to be a plan for students after Nova Center. He was very impressed with the progress made in the short amount of time since the funding of S.B. 482.

Mr. Shellinger expressed the appreciation that educators had for the fact that Nevada had been moved forward in terms of use of technology in education. He said the governor’s budget had a 2 percent increase for public education. He said White Pine County alone would have an increase of 2.25 percent to maintain the level of technology that was currently in place. He said that percentage was something that could not be avoided because there would be licensing fees, long distance fees, and upgrading of computers and software. He said throughout the session educators would ask committee members to look at continuing funding for education technology because the one shot approach would not work.

Mrs. Chowning wanted to know who developed the courses offered at Nova Center.

Mr. Shellinger replied Nova Center was part of Nova Net, which was a commercial provider of educational software. He said White Pine County School District was the first user of Nova Net in the way presented to the committee. Nova Net was used in other school districts in Nevada, for example, Churchill County School District was using it through Job Opportunities in Nevada (JOIN) as part of their high school program. He said one of the challenges was to make sure anything done through Nova Net was within the state standards and therefore there needed to be curriculum development in terms of expanding what was currently being done.

Mr. Kinnaird said the committee had seen how some schools had implemented programs due to funding from S.B. 482 and how NCET encouraged schools to use technology as a tool by incorporating it into the curriculum. He said NCET hoped the committee would support legislation for funding in the next biennium and said the momentum gained could not be lost. He thanked the committee for listening to the presentations.

Chairman Williams appreciated what NCET had done in terms of all their hard work and was delighted to see results from legislation passed in 1997. He opened the work session hearing on A.B. 14.

Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, had suggested amendments for the committee to take into consideration (Exhibit H). She thought the amendments proposed would agree with the school districts’ point of view. When the bill was originally heard, there was some discussion regarding the need of a qualifier on how many people should be able to start the discipline process.

She suggested including language into subsection 2(f), "any documentation of notices can be included on current forms sent home to the parent regarding the infraction." She thought some school districts had better language, but wanted to keep it simple. Some of the argument was more paperwork would be created, which was never the intention. She said it was her ongoing argument with some individuals in secondary education that required parent conferences (RPC’s) were considered before suspensions, according to statute, but she was not sure if that needed to be clarified in the bill.

She said under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), special education students, even if they were declared a habitual discipline problem, could be excluded if the team determined it was not related to their handicap and conditions. However, she thought individuals would still have to be serviced. She wanted to make sure it was clear that disabled individuals would still be serviced because she did not want school districts to get into arguments with parents. She assumed individuals would be cut off completely at home.

She also suggested in section 1, subsection 3, at line 36, to insert a new section as (d) "attend summer school or Saturday school if available" provided there would be minimal cost. She said that came up during the public hearing.

She wanted to maintain what a "fight" meant, if the committee felt it should be included.

Sue DeFrancesco, principal at Bonanza High School in Clark County, said there were a few concerns regarding A.B. 14. She agreed parents needed to be notified after the first fight and upon the second infraction, a habitual discipline status would occur. She thought it was fair to both students and parents because it provided time for behavioral change.

She said the current language asked after the fourth suspension to notify the parent and document the history of the suspensions. She suggested after each suspension parents be informed that their child might be on the pathway of being classified a habitual discipline student. She suggested it be in an RPC format or notice given to the parent to be signed at each conference.

She said the other concern addressed the $100 fine. She said it would put the school in a very difficult position because they were trying to provide intervention and redirect students’ behavior and at the same time would be trying to assess and collect a fine. The student would come back to the school from which they were suspended and schools wanted to have a positive relationship with the student. She thought if they had to deal with a fine that positive relationship would be very difficult to maintain.

She supported the terms of a contract where a parent and student would realize the seriousness of the commitment they were making in terms of trying to redirect or improve student behavior.

Kelan Kelly, Senior Research Analyst, provided Exhibit I, which was derived from Ms. Giunchigliani’s testimony when A.B. 14 was originally heard.

Mr. Collins asked if Ms. DeFrancesco would excuse a student if his/her parent explained they were going to take a trip to Washington D.C. Ms. DeFrancesco replied she would consider it excused as long as the parent came in advance with a pre-arranged absence procedure. Mr. Collins wanted to make sure that would be acceptable because he knew of some schools in Las Vegas that would not consider that an excused absence, but would take a field trip with the class to Washington D.C. He only wanted clarification if she did not consider it an excused absence by parental notification otherwise he wanted to keep the exception within the bill.

Ms. Giunchigliani said from the testimony she heard, the second bullet within Exhibit I (Section 1 Subsection 1 at line 9 page 1) ‘after the word school insert at least two times’, would not be appropriate. She thought the reaction from the committee was to leave the statute as it was, and therefore she wanted to strike the second bullet.

Chairman Williams closed the work session hearing on A.B. 14 with no action taken and opened the work session hearing on A.B. 15.

Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, said a variety of individuals assisted in constructing the language within A.B. 15. She said the documentation of both Washoe and Clark County would show the committee exactly what language needed to be cleaned up. She said the intention was to make sure hearing officers could hear cases, not just judges, so the process could be sped up. The jurisdiction of the review board was also cleared up because it was called an advisory board and was interpreted as such. There were different powers intended for the boards, but that was deleted.

Ms. DeFrancesco suggested a review board was the second level of intervention after school districts exhausted all of the avenues possible to interact with a parent and a child in helping that child attend school. She said review boards were a critical second step and supported them in having flexibility to do what was necessary in dealing with parents and children. She also said the third level was the juvenile court system. Therefore, legislation could be provided as an avenue for schools to take progressive steps in helping children, but also enforce the rules by stating children must come to school to learn. She hoped

that the committee would consider how the documentation and parent conferencing in tracking attendance would impact review board staff time. She reiterated she hoped the committee considered the staffing need somewhere in the fiscal concern.

Ruth Joseph, CCSD Attendance Administrator, said CCSD and WCSD had been working together to try to come to a consensus and clean up the language in a way everyone would feel is effective and would be an important corollary to the existing statute. She provided suggested amendments from CCSD, which was in Exhibit J. She also provided suggested amendments in which both CCSD and WCSD took part, which was in Exhibit K. She said Exhibit K shows existing language within A.B. 15 on the left hand side, and anywhere there were revisions, additions, and deletions are listed on the right hand side.

CCSD still thought there were issues, like composition of forms and referral processes, that should be left to each individual school district to delineate the processes and create the forms. CCSD was still concerned with increasing the number of truancies from three to six and thought it should stay at three occurrences. There was investigation and intervention after each truancy. Ms. Joseph thought by changing it to six times, children might perceive it acceptable to be truant, because they might think it was giving them more room for another occurrence. She said three times had worked out very well in the past for CCSD.

Ms. Joseph said CCSD believed the school board process was very important. She wanted to see the language left in the bill that had an advisory board as an oversight board that would create review boards, therefore creating consistency across large districts like Clark County.

She said CCSD did not want NRS 392.142 repealed, which allowed police officers to cite. There was a language change in the bill that would allow schools to refer students with habitual truancy either to the review board, to other programs established by the advisory board, or to local law enforcement for citation.

The only other significant change suggested had to do with the subpoena issue, which Ms. Barker from WCSD would address.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if Ms. Joseph would explain how the review board was set up. Ms. Joseph said the review boards that were currently in place, both in Clark County and Washoe County, reflected the make up of the advisory board as it was delineated in statute. Therefore, there were individuals representing school districts, probation and parole, and social services within the community.

Betty Barker, Counseling and Attendance Coordinator for WCSD, thanked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani for help during the interim and for reflecting many of WCSD’s suggestions in new legislation as well as helping implement past legislation. She wanted the committee to review what was stated within the earlier mentioned Exhibit K regarding subpoenas by adding the phrase, "may cause a subpoena to be issued". She felt if it were permissive language the courts could subpoena a parent if needed, therefore getting boards "out of the business" of issuing subpoenas, but still would leave the possibility if it were a necessary issue with a parent.

Bob Teuton, Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Juvenile Division of the District Attorney’s Office in Clark County and Chairman of the Clark County School Attendance Advisory Board, said he was part of the cooperative effort between Clark and Washoe County in developing language for A.B. 15. He did not disagree with anything in the bill currently and thought it was stronger than existing law. The critical aspect from his perspective was, particularly in Clark County, to have the ability not to refer every child to a review board before seeking court involvement because the numbers were very overwhelming. He said it was a goal Clark County wanted to eventually reach after having the opportunity to develop a culture of attendance, unlike the culture developed over the last 20 years of nonattendance. Once going to school would be considered a cultural value, review boards could handle that workload,. Until then, it would be much too difficult to deal with those issues as originally drafted within the bill.

Tilisa May, Executive Director of the Family Resource Center in Carson City and Chairman of the Carson City Truancy Advisory Board (CCTAB), said the board met directly after the first hearing on A.B. 15. One suggestion derived from that meeting was to keep the main portion of the old text for truancies. She understood the intent was to advise, create policies and procedures, examine reasons for truancy, and to create prevention programs in the community. She did not want a disciplinary board to make findings, issue subpoenas, sign petitions, and make recommendations to juvenile court. She recommended removing student attendance review boards that were not mandated by school districts but rather have advisory boards creating policies and procedures that would be applicable to their school districts. She said the current law allowed school districts with their advisory boards to create student attendance review boards or other processes in making sure families got into other services and programs before they reached the juvenile court process.

The other item with which the CCTAB was concerned was the need for consistency. For the last few school years, students had been told after three truancies they would have to go to juvenile court. She said CCTAB recommended truancies stay at three occurrences before action would be taken.

She said another concern was the bill allowed schools to refer a student at six unexcused absences and the parent to refer at three. CCTAB wanted to keep a consistent message that after three truancies the student would be referred for further intervention.

CCTAB also recommended the citation process stay in place. She said Carson City had a current process with the school district that every time a student was truant they would be referred to a truancy program, within the Family Resource Center. There were 157 students referred in February of 1999 to the Family Resource Center for the truancy program and only 5 of those students went to court. She said programs CCTAB was able to create with the existing law worked in Carson City and wanted that language kept in place. It would not preclude school districts from creating attendance review boards, but CCTAB recommended it not be mandated.

John Simms, Chairman of the Ron Wood Family Resource Center and the Juvenile Services Program Coordinator for the Carson City Juvenile Probation Department, said he agreed with testimony regarding A.B. 15. He provided a copy of his proposed amendments (Exhibit L). He agreed the advisory committee should stay as the advisory committee; that it was very important, especially for Carson City. He thought the goal of the resource center was to divert children from the justice system because it was already overcrowded and overburdened. Creating programs and diversions would be a way to help. By requiring issuance of subpoenas and witnesses, he thought the boards would be getting away from what was originally intended.

Mr. Simms said the bill suggested if a child and a parent did not continue to participate or go along with the review board panel, the child could be declared a delinquent. He thought it would be in direct conflict with current Chapter 62 provisions. He thought it was a bad idea to ever declare a child a delinquent for truancy only. At the very worst it should be Child in Need of Supervision (CHINS), which was also currently under Chapter 62.

Kelan Kelly, Senior Research Analyst, provided Exhibit M, which was derived from testimony when A.B. 15 was originally heard.

Chairman Williams closed the work session hearing on A.B. 15 and opened the work session hearing on A.B. 245.

Kelan Kelly, Senior Research Analyst, provided Exhibit N, which was derived from Marcia Bandera’s testimony when A.B. 245 was originally heard.

Ms. DeFrancesco said she had a question regarding A.B. 245 in section 4, lines 315 through 318, and it had to do with the superintendent providing an exception to an expulsion for habitual disciplinary problem students. She stated the current language for habitual discipline consequences was good. It was consistent and applicable to all students. By providing the exception, it would allow avenues for inconsistency and perhaps exceptional treatment. She was not in support of the language of A.B. 245 because statute strongly supported schools to help redirect student behavior.

Tilisa May suggested in A.B. 245 that language be changed so the teacher and principal "may" give his/her written approval for a pupil to be absent. She also wanted to keep lines 6 and 7 included because it would be important the parent have some sort of a say in requesting the excuse of their child. It would not preclude the principal from having the say as to whether that absence would be excused or unexcused.

Ms. May said one of the items added was clarifying what an absence was and she agreed that should be included.

One other item, which was part of a considerable discussion in Carson City, was whether the parents should submit written documentation or to be able to orally excuse their child. She also thought that should be included in the language. It would not preclude the schools or school districts from creating written excuse policies. Schools that had oral excuse policies currently in place should be able to continue to do so, instead of being mandated to have written documentation. She said Carson City High School said it would take an extra 3 hours per day if they had to do everything by written documentation.

Chairman Williams said several of the amendments were not in writing, therefore the bills would be discussed further in a subcommittee scheduled for the following Monday upon adjournment of the regular committee meeting. He wanted the written amendments for the subcommittee. He said Mr. Collins would be available to accept any amendments and would be able to help pull together all of the requested amendments in writing, therefore enabling the committee to take a vote. He said the committee would be ready to take action on the bills by the following Wednesday.

Ms. Giunchigliani apologized for not currently having the amendments pulled together, but would make sure one document for A.B. 14 and one document for A.B. 15 with all of the proposed amendments would be created. She said a few amendments from A.B. 245 might be pulled together, but she did not personally support the legislation.

Mrs. Koivisto wanted to be sure the Carson City contingent was included in the preparation for the subcommittee. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would be sure to include them after the meeting adjourned. She reminded the committee the advisory boards were not envisioned to be punitive in nature and therefore would work on making sure the language did not state that.

Meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: