The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:50 p.m., on Monday, March 22, 1999. Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 4100 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:

Kathy McClain, Assembly District 15

Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

After roll call, Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 348.

Assemblywoman Kathy McClain representing District 15 said she felt fortunate to have been introduced to the deaf community. The deaf community had a very special interest in providing an environment where deaf children would be able to succeed both academically and ultimately as independent and self-sufficient adults in society. She said members of the Las Vegas deaf community, local business leaders, educators, and parents of deaf children joined together to establish a charter school for the deaf. The charter school would teach American Sign Language (ASL) and would provide an educational choice not currently available within the public school system. She said ASL was an interaction that was lacking in mainstreaming often leaving deaf children in an isolated state in classes with hearing teachers and hearing children. The charter school would utilize teachers and administrators with professional training in deaf education and would work cooperatively with parents to provide a learning environment and curriculum that would ensure deaf and hearing impaired students academic proficiency equal to their peers. The school would foster personal development and self-esteem for deaf children and would provide support and education for hearing parents about their deaf child’s language and culture.

Mrs. McClain said the deaf community had formed a committee to pursue the formation of a charter school for the deaf. The committee submitted a letter of intent to the Department of Education and had applied for their 501 (c) 3 status with the Internal Revenue Service. The committee was currently working towards having their application to form a charter school submitted by April 1, 1999.

Mrs. McClain said there were several members of the deaf community who wanted to testify on the need for the charter school, the progress of the application, and some of the stumbling blocks they encountered so far. She provided an informational packet on the Las Vegas Charter School for the Deaf (Exhibit C). She said A.B. 348 was an attempt to remove one of those stumbling blocks and would amend the current charter school law to allow the charter school proponents for the deaf school to negotiate with the school district to house their charter school in an existing public facility. The preamble of the bill provided the rationale for the need to provide deaf children a more specialized educational experience. She said the language was patterned after the deaf child’s bill of rights passed in many other states.

Mrs. McClain drew attention to page 2, lines 38 through 43 of the bill, and said the language basically stated if a charter school for hearing impaired children was established, the charter school could use school buildings during regular school hours upon the approval of the board of trustees. In other words, the bill would allow the organizers of the charter school to enter into negotiations with the school district to contract for classroom space in an existing school for their program.

Mrs. McClain researched the difference among states’ charter school laws and was disturbed Nevada was ranked lowest. Nevada’s charter school laws were considered the ninth weakest of the 34 states that enacted charter school legislation as reported by the center for education reform. Arizona was ranked first and was exemplified as an effective and progressive charter school law. One striking difference between Nevada’s law and Arizona’s law was the lack of ability to house a charter school in an existing school facility. She explained Exhibit C had more information on the study of the charter school laws across the country, which was performed by the center for education reform.

Mrs. McClain said section 2 of the bill was a request for startup money, but asked the committee to delete that section of the bill. The deaf community established a fund raising committee and was aggressively pursuing grants as well as donations to help fund their charter school. Mrs. McClain was personally committed to the project and made a $1000 donation to them out of her legislative pay.

In addition to deleting the appropriation section, Mrs. McClain asked the committee to amend the effective date for passage and approval to a closer date. It would allow the charter school committee the ability to enter into negotiations immediately.

Mrs. Cegavske thanked Assemblywoman McClain for bringing the legislation forward and thanked the individuals testifying.

Christine Moody, chairperson of the Las Vegas Charter School for the Deaf Committee, provided her written testimony (Exhibit D). Her passion was to create a school where teachers and administrators with professional training in deaf education would work cooperatively with parents to provide a learning environment and curriculum that would ultimately result in her deaf son, and children like him, achieving academic proficiency equal to their hearing peers. The largest obstacle with which the charter school’s committee was faced was the requirement to provide an appropriate facility and property for school children. Her testimony indicated A.B. 348 would make a charter school possible by allowing those involved to negotiate with the school district to lease school district property as many other states had already done.

Linda Warburton, a teacher for the deaf, provided her written testimony (Exhibit E). Her testimony provided an in depth history of deaf education and why it was currently necessary to have a charter school for the deaf in Nevada. She explained education for the deaf had been viewed as a failure over the last 100 years because the measure of success was based upon the acquisition of speech and reading skills. However, deaf children could not acquire English, speech, and reading skills without the prerequisite of communication, language skills, and an understanding of the meaning of things. Deaf children needed to be educated in ASL by providing direct learning from teacher to student and taught academics through a visual learning environment, not an auditory one.

She informed the committee that charter schools were being established all over the United States. There were two charter schools for the deaf in Minnesota, one in Colorado and Arizona, and three more scheduled to open in the fall of 1999 in Texas, Florida and Utah. Charter schools for the deaf provided education for deaf children they way it should be for children who were ASL users. The Las Vegas Charter School would provide a wonderful opportunity for Nevada to prove itself a leader in education by offering more placement options for deaf students.

Mrs. Cegavske wanted more information on the other charter schools mentioned because she was aware of the school in Minnesota. She wondered if Minnesota had charter schools or asked if Ms. Warburton referred to the Minnesota school as a charter school.

Ms. Warburton explained the schools to which she referred were charter schools for the deaf only and some ranged from kindergarten through grade 12 and some were kindergarten through grade 5.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if those charter schools were located on public school property. Ms. Warburton stated some of them were located on public school grounds.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if some of those charter schools for the deaf allowed nondisabled students to attend. To Ms. Warburton’s knowledge those schools were for the deaf only.

Mrs. Cegavske directed her next question to the maker of the bill and asked if there would be any opposition in having the charter school allow students who wanted to learn sign language attend the school.

Mrs. McClain had not thought about that idea and thought it was a good one because she thought ASL was currently considered a foreign language in public schools.

Chairman Williams said the legislation before the committee asked if the Las Vegas Charter School should be allowed to be housed on existing school grounds, which was currently prohibited by state law. He reminded the committee of the overcrowded population of students currently on Las Vegas school properties. He said the debate on services and educational opportunities for children with disabilities was obviously separate from the question the bill asked. He thought all committee members were very supportive of expanding to furthest degree possible of offering services to children with disabilities, which was not the proposed legislation. He wondered if the school district had been confronted to ensure proper education for deaf students.

Mrs. McClain replied there had been several arguments regarding the bill. One argument was that schools were currently overcrowded. Her premise was no students would be displaced, they would only be moved from one classroom to another.

She addressed the question regarding only deaf students being allowed access to the charter school. She asked the committee to view it as a pilot project because if it did not work then it could be up for discussion in future legislative sessions with some kind of parameters to work within.

Mrs. McClain had spoken with some parents of deaf children and from what they stated the current program offered through Clark County School District was not working.

Chairman Williams stated testimony indicated charter schools should be an alternative to public schools. He reminded all those involved that the charter school would still be under the "umbrella" of the Clark County School District.

Mrs. McClain said it was her understanding that charter schools were considered public schools, but it would allow an alternative program for deaf students.

Ms. Moody stated the charter school was viewed as another educational choice that would be the best choice for certain students. Several parents of deaf students were interested in a charter school for the deaf that would use ASL as its primary language with innovative teaching methods geared toward the deaf child. She said over the years there had been discussions with the school district, which did not make any headway. The way the charter school would be different would be to show the school district that different teaching methods could be successful.

Ms. Moody referred to the earlier asked question regarding allowing nondisabled students to be admitted to the charter school to learn sign language. She explained the charter school committee had given the idea a lot of thought, however, the charter school would be teaching with methods the deaf child would learn from best. A hearing child would not learn best from the teaching methods and curriculum that a deaf child would learn from best. Therefore, she thought it could create a difficult situation to have nondisabled students attend the charter school.

Ms. Moody reiterated the bill was about having the ability to negotiate with the public school district to use part of their facilities for the charter school. Students would not be added to the schools, but only moved to another location as students that already existed in the system. It was never the intent of the charter school’s committee to add children to the already overcrowded and overburdened school district. She reminded the committee how difficult it would be to find and purchase a proper facility. Some charter schools in other places had just opened up an office space, but the committee for the charter school for the deaf decided that would not be an appropriate facility for their children.

Chairman Williams wondered who had the commitment for deaf children whose parents did not want them to attend the charter school for the deaf.

Ms. Moody did not know the exact answer to the question but assumed in Clark County School District they would continue to have an oral/aural program for children who did not use sign language. For those parents who were not interested in a charter school for the deaf they would continue to have the total communication program that was currently in place but would be smaller because many parents and students were interested in the charter school.

Cece Rosen, a deaf parent of two daughters, one hard of hearing and one deaf, provided her written testimony (Exhibit F). Ms. Rosen had experienced attending day schools and residential schools for the deaf in both Europe and America, as well as being mainstreamed in a New York high school. While she and her family lived in Europe, she learned French Sign Language. Once they moved to America, she was able to learn English by learning ASL, which enabled her to communicate much better without any misunderstandings.

Ms. Rosen was shocked when she visited the Ruby Thomas Elementary School because most of the deaf students thought they would eventually be able to hear because they never had met any deaf adults or never had been exposed to the deaf community at all. She was upset to see the children communicating in sign language because they signed very poorly using bad grammar and with no structure. The children were very intelligent but lacked the opportunity to use new vocabulary and were unable to expand their language. Ms. Rosen worried for the deaf children in Las Vegas because they were not receiving the language and education they needed to be successful as deaf adults in the hearing world. She knew children were being forced to be mainstreamed by people who did not understand how deaf children learned and they thought by forcing deaf children into a hearing classroom they would learn the same way and act more like hearing people, when in fact they would not. She did not want deaf children to grow up thinking it was normal for them to be left out.

She strongly believed in the charter school for the deaf because deaf students would be enabled to learn at an early age by giving early intervention and having qualified deaf teachers or hearing teachers who were fluent in ASL. She did not believe deaf students should learn through an interpreter because oftentimes the interpreter would become the deaf child’s teacher. Deaf children should be able to communicate directly with their teachers, as opposed to a third party. The charter school would also help hearing families develop communication and language interaction at home.

In conclusion Ms. Rosen urged the committee for vote in favor of A.B. 348. The charter school represented all that should be in educating deaf children.

Mrs. McClain thanked the committee for the opportunity to bring the bill forward. She said it was a time sensitive issue because deaf children needed to be provided a quality education that would be available to them through the charter school. As heard from testimony, there was a need for a specialized program for deaf children and there was a commitment on the part of the deaf community to provide that specialized program. Mrs. McClain urged the committee to pass A.B. 348 with the suggested amendments to help facilitate the establishment of the charter school for the deaf in a public school facility.

Mrs. Cegavske asked how many parents had shown interest in the charter school.

Mrs. McClain thought there were approximately 30 parents currently, but the letters of interest were recently sent out to parents. There were several more who wanted more information before they made their decision.

Chairman Williams asked if they had given up on the school district doing more to help deaf students in the current environment.

Ms. Moody stated they were a group of parents who would fight to make the charter school happen but in the meantime would not give up on education for their children and would continue to make the school districts approach work better for their deaf children.

Mrs. McClain asked Ms. Moody to explain how many hearing impaired children were within the Clark County School District

Ms. Moody replied there were approximately 300 hearing impaired children within the school district but some of them were in the oral program and therefore did not utilize sign language. The bulk of hearing impaired children were in the total communication program at Ruby Thomas Elementary and of course there were students already mainstreamed at home schools for various reasons. One reason parents decided to take that approach was because they were unhappy with their child attending Ruby Thomas Elementary and therefore chose to home school their child and put up with using only an interpreter. She thought there were approximately 60 deaf children attending Ruby Thomas Elementary School.

Mrs. Koivisto asked how many different classes were available at Ruby Thomas Elementary. She wanted to know if there were only children in some grades or in all.

Ms. Moody responded there were two preschool classes morning and afternoon, a kindergarten class, approximately three other classrooms that were self-contained, two co-enrolled classrooms, and in grade 4 and 5 there were some mainstreamed students.

Mrs. Cegavske wanted to know what grades would be taught at the charter school. She wondered if it would only be elementary grades.

Mrs. McClain said it would first depend on the grade levels of students who applied for the school. There had been response from pre-school age, elementary age, and middle school age so far.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 348 with no action taken. He asked if there was a current update on A.B. 307 as it was heard in a previous meeting.

Mr. Brower said the subcommittee conducted a hearing and took only opposed testimony. Basically students from Las Vegas who testified at the original hearing had the same position as being opposed to the bill. Representatives from Nevada Bell and AT&T reiterated the same position as they expressed during the original hearing, which was also opposition to the bill.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOTIONED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 307.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Koivisto asked if the bill was indefinitely postponed would the committee be condoning school children to illegally use beepers and cellular phones.

Chairman Williams thought the answer was no because the law currently prohibited use of electronic devices. He said the bill mainly imposed sanctions.

Mrs. de Braga said she did not agree with fining students for use of electronic devices; however she hated to give up the portion of the bill that required pupils

to forfeit the device. She thought there needed to be some sort of statement made regarding the issue because there were individuals all over Nevada who were ignoring the law as it currently stood. She said maybe not in the law, but in some way the point needed to be made clear that it was against the law to use electronic devices on school property because students were currently not being told or stopped from doing it.

Chairman Williams said testimony from students explained they were not informed there was an ability to solicit for a waiver to be able to use electronic devices if absolutely necessary.

Mr. Manendo wondered if the committee could write a letter to the school districts expressing the concerns.

THE MOTION PASSED (ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA VOTED NAY).

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 37 and recognized Assemblywoman Giunchigliani.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, representing District 9, said A.B. 37 was a recommendation from the interim subcommittee that studied school discipline and special education. The bill would insure that when laws or regulations were passed by the legislature, they were actually implemented and communicated to parents and faculty. She provided suggested amendments in writing (Exhibit G).

A.B. 37 required the state superintendent of public instruction to provide a synopsis to the local school districts within a specific time period. She drew attention to page 2, subsection 3, line 7, of the bill and suggested deletion of the words "without limitation, a concise" and insert "a brief plan" if the statute or regulation pertained to the state board of education. She drew attention to line 14 and said "a brief implementation plan" would also be inserted as stated within Exhibit G. In addition, she suggested giving the individuals affected by the bill at least until October 1, 1999, to implement the provisions.

Ms. Giunchigliani said year after year laws were passed that were not implemented or communicated to those affected by them. She said something within statute was needed that said the state superintendent would communicate information to the local districts. Based on receiving that information, the local districts and the board of trustees would develop a brief implementation plan and communicate with their faculty, students, and parents about new laws. That was the intent of A.B. 37. She stated the bill was not an attempt to micromanage, but an attempt to look forward into the future regardless of what was done or not done in the past.

Mrs. Cegavske asked how A.B. 37 would affect any other bills in the committee as far as having to change the effective dates. She was concerned if A.B. 37 was changed to be in effect in October. She thought it was too long for superintendents to communicate with local districts on any legislation passed from the current session.

Ms. Giunchigliani said October 1, 1999, would simply get them up and running. She thought Mrs. Cegavske’s concern should be answered in section 3 of the bill. The state superintendent would notify local districts based on when the state statute and regulation described in the memorandum became effective; therefore notification could be staggered. For example, if legislation became effective 2 years out, the superintendent would notify local districts, but the local districts would not necessarily have to implement a plan until that regulation was ready to go into effect. She did not think every date in every other bill would have to be modified.

Mrs. Cegavske was concerned with the date because sometimes legislation specified an effective date 2 years out. She agreed section 3 answered her question. She recommended changing the effective date to August instead of October because she felt the timeframe was too long after session ended.

Ms. Giunchigliani said the key point was notification of any laws that went into effect before the beginning of the school year. She said the committee might want to change the effective date to July or August.

Mrs. de Braga said when the Education Reform Act was passed in the 1997 legislative session, she knew the superintendent’s office sent a binder containing all of the new laws pertaining to education to all of the school districts. She said clearly "we are spinning our wheels" by continuing to pass bills to which nobody was paying attention.

Ms. Giunchigliani believed the state superintendent currently notified the local superintendents. Unfortunately, there was finger pointing at the local level towards the state superintendent for not notifying them. Ms. Giunchigliani verified with the state superintendent that local districts were notified in a timely manner. She thought a binder or booklet with effective dates and

ramifications listed would satisfy the intent of the bill. It would insure everyone was properly notified, because someone should not be held accountable for something if they did not know.

Mr. Brower said it was strange districts did not know about laws passed because there were so many lobbyists from the districts in the legislative building during sessions. Mr. Brower referred to a letter from Steve Mulvenon, who would testify in opposition to the bill. One of the concerns listed had to do with the bill opening up school libraries to the general public during school hours and the possible security issues that could arise.

Ms. Giunchigliani said that was a good point. She thought school libraries were currently where most of the districts housed their regulations and policies and that was why making them available in libraries was proposed.

Mr. Brower asked if school libraries were currently opened to the general public during school hours.

Ms. Giunchigliani thought school libraries were mainly open to parents but also thought anyone from the general public would be allowed into a school with a visitor’s pass from the school principal. She did not think the intention was to open the school to anyone. The library was just a central location within the school facility. This seemed to be the standard practice for contractual language.

Dr. Keith Rheault, representing the Department of Education, said the department supported the need to provide information to the local districts. He said the Department of Education had provided a synopsis of legislation passed to the school district superintendents in the past.

Prior to hearing the proposed amendments from Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, the Department of Education had some concerns with the language, but with the amendments most of those concerns were addressed. The department had a concern with what was meant by a "concise plan" and what would be done with the bills that required local district flexibility and control of those plans. By deleting that piece of the section, the department would not have any concern with the language. There was also a concern with the complexity and number of plans that might have to be distributed in a 30-day period. He informed the committee the Department of Education tracked 51 bills that had statute changes within them from the 1997 legislative session. For the most part they were minor changes. However, the Education Reform Act and the charter school legislation affected just about every chapter of education in the statutes. To do a concise plan for those two bills alone took a lot of time. He said the Department of Education was going to suggest 60 days for the effective date. He was content with an effective date in the end of August of 1999 or the proposed effective date of October of 1999. Dr. Rheault said sometimes bills required the Department of Education to ask for an attorney general’s opinion or the legislative Legal Division’s opinion as to what the bill meant. The Department of Education asked both the legislative Legal Division’s opinion and an attorney general’s opinion on legislation passed in the 1997 session. By the time the department received the bill and the opinions, it was already October of 1997. Therefore he asked for some flexibility for extenuating circumstances with those types of occurances.

Ultimately, the Department of Education supported A.B. 37 because the districts needed to know about laws and be able to get the word out. Dr. Rheault stated the department had done that for the last two legislative sessions.

Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), testified in favor of A.B. 37. She said the NSEA took very seriously their obligation to inform their members about changes in statute and regulation whenever possible. An example of reporting past changes would be when teachers were required to report suspected child abuse. They could be held personally responsible for making the reports and they might face criminal prosecution for failing to do so. Therefore, there would be serious implications if teachers and other employees did not receive information in a timely manner.

Martha Tittle, representing the Clark County School District (CCSD), supported A.B. 37 and provided written testimony (Exhibit H). She mentioned a concern with section 1, subsection 3, regarding the specified timeline for distribution of information to parents and guardians. She requested the committee consider amending the language in subsection 3, page 2, line 13 to read, "to the extent possible, not later than 60 days after receipt of the memorandum from the superintendent." Meaning the district would have not more than 60 days unless there were extenuating circumstances. She explained Clark County School District estimated the cost of printing and mailing a pamphlet to the homes of over 200,000 students would be approximately $150,000. With the suggested timeline, they could include information in district publications that were mailed to each student’s home at the beginning of the school year. The CCSD believed the suggested timeline would provide effective communication of information and could reduce the fiscal impact to the district.

Ms. Angle wondered if Ms. Tittle knew what the fiscal impact would be if the bill was not amended. Ms. Tittle replied a rough estimate would be 50 to 75 cents per student depending on the cost of the mailing and printing.

Angle asked if that was the current mail out cost. Ms. Tittle answered it was not and could get the information to her at a later date.

Ms. Angle asked if CCSD currently printed information in different languages. Ms. Tittle said information was also printed in Spanish, but the district could provide an interpreter if necessary.

Mr. Collins asked if the matter of concern was really the timeline rather than the fiscal impact. Ms. Tittle reiterated if the required information could be included in The Back to School Report that would be mailed in August of 1999, then additional cost could be avoided.

Ms. Giunchigliani agreed with Ms. Tittle and said the law currently required a pamphlet be provided. The pamphlet used to be called "school law," but now it would be called the codified statutes. She did not think the language within the bill specified where the information needed to be included. The point was if the law became effective, there had to be a plan to implement it, the law needed to be up to date, and made available on school campuses.

Mr. Collins said every school property had a sign posted that stated visitors must visit the principal’s office. He asked if the school library was for those affected, not for the general public.

Ms. Giunchigliani said visitors had to check in with the principal’s office in every school. She opined the bill would require schools to have the information available in the school library. She said it would be acceptable if some language was changed to delete "for public reference" on page 1 of the bill. She said the interim subcommittee wanted to insure there was some flow and accountability in making sure that when a law went into effect, there was no choice about the information being available.

Mrs. Koivisto said if the requirement of information being communicated was already in statute, why were there fiscal concerns.

Ms. Tittle thought if the timeline allowed for inclusion of the information in mail outs that would be sent regardless of the new law, there would not be a fiscal impact in Clark County. If the timeline was, for example, August 1, 1999, to have the information mailed, that date would be prior to the typical mailing and would mean an additional mailing would be necessary. The additional mailing was where the cost would come from. All she was asking for was some flexibility in the time to communicate information.

Mrs. Koivisto asked how it was currently done or if the new law information was not shared in the CCSD.

Ms. Tittle said CCSD included the information in communication documents that were currently being used, but there was not a legal timeline. The timeline was the big difference.

Mr. Brower had a concern with the scope of the information dissemination requirement. He asked if the superintendent of the districts would be required to brief parents on a lot of bills that would not actually affect them. Therefore, he wondered if more paperwork would be created which might be too burdensome or too broad in scope.

Ms. Giunchigliani believed that what the interim subcommittee wanted to accomplish, without going to the extreme, was notifying parents about laws going into effect that the parents needed to know about. She said not every single piece of legislation needed to be part of the implementation plan. The little changes could be included in a newsletter from each individual school and it would not be a part of the implementation plan. She said the fear of the interim subcommittee was like when the truancy law was passed, for example, parents and students were not notified. There were students who could have been in jeopardy of being filed as a truant.

Mr. Brower asked if Ms. Giunchigliani thought her proposed amendment addressed his concern. Ms. Giunchigliani responded it was close, but it probably did not capture the whole idea. She would be happy to work on tightening the language because she did not want anyone hurt by something that was passed if they had no knowledge of it or how to implement it.

Steve Mulvenon, representing the Washoe County School District (WCSD), provided written testimony (Exhibit I). He stated the Board of Trustees had not taken an official position on A.B. 37, but he spoke on behalf of the district regarding some serious impacts the legislation could have on the district. He said the bill proposed to improve the flow of information to parents and staff about education legislation and accompanying administrative codes, which WCSD supported. Mr. Mulvenon said one concern with the bill was the requirement that education laws be kept in school libraries "for public reference." The district believed it was "ill-advised" to have school libraries open to the general public while students were in the library. He proposed a better idea would be to require the plans be kept in all public libraries including joint-use school libraries. He thought the prior suggestion to change the language to indicate the libraries would be used for staff use, not for public use, would be acceptable.

He said there was a larger problem with which the district would be faced if the bill was passed. If he understood the requirements correctly, the district would be mandated to mail to each parent household an explanation of each newly enacted statute or departmental regulation and changes to existing statutes and regulations. He suggested there could be 100 new statutes and regulations and/or changes to existing ones from the current legislative session. Since laws would take effect at various times, the district could have 100 different deadlines each requiring its own mailing. There were approximately 35,000 parent households in the WCSD, which one mailing would cost $4,200 at a bulk rate of 12 cents each. If there were 100 mailings, postage alone would cost $420,000.

WCSD was also required to provide information in the parent’s native language. There were 22 languages spoken by students in the English as a Second Language Program. One hundred translations into 22 different languages would produce 2,200 different brochures. If a single translation took 4 hours at a minimal cost of $5 per hour, there would be an additional cost of $44,000. Printing costs for only the English brochures, at a ½ cent each, would total $175,000, therefore having an unfunded mandate of more than $500,000. Mr. Mulvenon suggested giving school districts some latitude in deciding which legislation would be of sufficient magnitude that parents, students, and staff needed to be informed. Ultimately the district was willing to work on producing something more workable.

Mr. Collins asked if his testimony was based on the bill or the amendment proposed to the committee.

Mr. Mulvenon was not sure the amendments proposed would affect the timelines. He said the state superintendent would be required to transmit to local school districts within 30 days notifications of changes in statutes or new statutes or regulations that their department promulgated. School districts would then have 30 days in which to communicate the information to parents. If districts were lucky and had a regular school district newsletter being mailed that would meet the timeline, then the information could be included into the newsletter, which WCSD currently did anyway. Mr. Mulvenon said the specificity of the 30-day timeline was bothersome. He heard an earlier suggestion that perhaps the timeline could be 60 days, but was not sure that would solve the problem either. There would still be a time specific deadline by which to communicate to parents everything the legislature did that dealt with education. He thought it seemed to be overly burdensome, particularly taking into consideration the foreign language translations, which was the point he was trying to make. He reiterated the WCSD was not opposed to communicating with staff or parents about legislation, which they tried to do.

He mentioned WCSD included in their back to school administrator workshops the 1997 legislation information sent by the superintendent. The district made sure principals had copies of the legislation and encouraged them to include it in school newsletters as well. Ultimately, the WCSD was committed to the general concept of A.B. 37, but was concerned the timelines would only get in the way. Mr. Mulvenon welcomed Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s suggestion to try to reach some sort of a compromise on the timeline.

Henry Etchemendy, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards, thought the language in A.B. 37 as currently written was too inclusive. He referred to page 2, lines 3 through 5, which basically stated the memorandum would refer to the regulations that were adopted by the state board and all legislation that would affect a school district. He said there were many pieces of legislation that would affect school districts that he did not believe were pertinent to what parents needed to know. He thought the way the current language was drafted meant anything that would affect the public schools needed to be communicated. He thought it could be resolved with some changes in the language, which would be more specific to the types of issues that affected education. Otherwise the report would be entirely too extensive. He wanted the committee to understand the scope of what he was addressing and stated there were approximately 1,550 bill draft requests at the beginning of the current session, of which approximately 270 to 280 could affect education. If the language was changed and the timeline issue was addressed, then the NASB would be in favor of A.B. 37.

Francis Gillings, representing the Independent American Party of Washoe County, drew attention to lines 20 and 21 of the bill. He suggested deleting "in a language that the parent or legal guardian can understand or, if necessary, provided" so the line would read, "must be provided orally to the parent or legal guardian in a language he/she can understand." He suggested the amendment because it would do away with tremendous costs for printing in a foreign language. He thought notifying parents who spoke a different language orally would be a sufficient way of communication.

Vice Chairman Collins thought the legislation was simply stating parents and staff needed to know what the new laws were and how it would affect them. He said the bill did not require the superintendent to communicate every single piece of legislation presented to the committee. He opened the floor for a motion on the bill.

Mr. Brower thought the bill needed to be refined further to address all of the issues brought up during testimony.

Mrs. Cegavske said the sponsor of the bill agreed to change the effective date to August 1, 1999. Mrs. Cegavske understood the sponsor did not have a chance to hear testimony from WCSD and wanted to make sure the language was amenable.

Mrs. Chowning said the committee should consider the amendment brought forth by CCSD on page 2 regarding the date that would state "to the extent possible not later than 60 days". She also thought the committee needed to work on some sort of change for parents or guardians of a pupil who did not speak English. Somehow the language needed to be changed so if possible it could be offered in another language but at the very minimum provided orally. It was not mandated that any documents be provided in any language other than English.

Vice Chairman Collins asked the committee if the bill was not clear enough, because he thought it was clear by stating, "the notice must be provided in a language that the parent or legal guardian can understand or, if necessary, provided orally to the parent or legal guardian in a language that he can understand."

Mrs. Chowning stated by the way it was worded it was a mandate that stated documents had to be provided in a language other than English and only if necessary provided orally. She said somehow the language needed to be changed so school districts would have flexibility to provide notice in other languages, but not mandated to do so.

Mr. Gustavson said it was earlier stated in testimony that the English as a Second Language Program had individuals who spoke 22 different languages. He wanted to know how many students were in each of the different language groups because if there were only a few that spoke a particular language then obviously it would not be cost effective to print material. He suggested making the language permissive, therefore giving latitude to print in a certain language or notifying parents orally.

Vice Chairman Collins understood the bill meant notice must be provided in the language the parents spoke or understood. He mentioned the bill stated it could be done orally.

Mr. Brower thought everyone involved with the issue ultimately had the same goal and he wanted some time spent on the bill to be sure the sponsor was comfortable. Therefore, he did not want to make any premature decisions.

Vice Chairman Collins asked the committee to consider the timeline being not more than 30 days before and not more than 60 days after August 1, 1999 to complete requirements of the bill. He suggested that timeline because it would enable districts to mail the required information with their normal correspondence and would give time for extenuating circumstances. He asked if there was anyone who opposed his suggestion. No one responded, therefore Vice Chairman Collins assumed the timeline problem was solved.

Mr. Brower said he had problems with not only the language and the timeline, but also the scope of which the superintendent had to notify the parents. He asked if they would have to notify parents on every education issue or on legislation passed that would directly affect parents and students.

Kelan Kelly, Committee Policy Analyst, thought there was some room to work on Mr. Brower’s concern. The current language within the suggested amendments stated each regulation that was newly adopted by the State Department of Education and each statutory change enacted by the legislature which affected public schools or pupils who were enrolled in public schools had to be communicated. Therefore, he said there could be some major legislative changes. He opined an interpretation that very minor issues that might not have major impacts on the operation of public schools could be made.

Mrs. Chowning drew attention to line 18 regarding the notice being in other languages. She suggested changing the last sentence to, "If the parent or legal guardian of a pupil is non-English proficient, the notice may be provided in a language other than English or may be provided orally to the parent or legal guardian in a language other than English." She opined "in a language that he can understand" was very awkward, which was the current language in the bill.

Vice Chairman Collins asked Mrs. Cegavske to meet with the sponsor of the bill and bring it back to the committee for the next meeting. To which Mrs. Cegavske agreed.

With no further business before the committee, Vice Chairman Collins adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: