The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:35 p.m., on Monday, March 29, 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:

Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Williams announced A.B. 217 would not be heard due to time constraints and per the request of the sponsor.

Mrs. Cegavske said she had the pleasure of working with Martha Tittle from the Clark County School District who had proposed amendments for A.B. 217. She suggested the committee members examine the amendments at a later date because she was in support of those amendments.

After announcements and roll call, Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 294.

Sharron Angle, representing District 29, presented A.B. 294 and said the bill was subtitled "Nevada Reading Excellence Act." She said the bill was about children having the ability to read. She provided a copy of the United States Bill of Rights and thought it was a misconception that every citizen had the innate right to read (Exhibit C). She also provided a documentation packet regarding the bill and described the different sections in detail (Exhibit D). An excerpt of those sections she highlighted were:

• "Section 1 amends current statutes (NRS 385.110) to prohibit the State Board of Education from prescribing a course of study in reading unless the decision to prescribe the course of study is supported by scientifically-based research that shows the course of study is successful. Section 1 also makes it a misdemeanor for a member of the State Board of Education to violate the provisions of this section."

• "Section 2 amends current statutes (NRS 386.350) to prohibit the Board of Trustees of a local school district from prescribing a course of study in reading unless the decision to prescribe the course of study is supported by scientifically-based reading research that shows the course of study is successful. Section 2 also makes it a misdemeanor for a member of the Board of Trustees of a school district to violate the provisions of this section."

• "Section 3 prohibits the State Board of Education from approving a course of training to prepare persons to teach elementary education unless such a course of training provides instruction in the methods to teach basic reading skills including the use of systematic phonics."

• "Section 4 requires the governor to establish an advisory partnership on reading and literacy in accordance with the Federal Reading Excellence Act on or before July 1, 1999."

• "Section 5 requires the State Department of Education to comply with the Reading Excellence Act and apply for a grant of money pursuant to this act on or before October 1, 1999."

• "Section 6, prior to January 1, 2002, the State Board of Education shall review the courses of study in reading prescribed by it to determine if such courses are in compliance with the provisions of section 1."

• "Section 7, prior to January 1, 2002, the Boards of Trustees of each school district shall review the courses of study in reading prescribed by them to determine if such courses are in compliance with the provisions of section 2."

• "Section 8, the provisions contained in sections 1 and 2 of this bill do not apply to offenses committed before July 1, 2002."

• "Section 9, effective dates:

a). Sections 4, 5, and 9 become effective upon passage and approval;

b). Sections 3, 6, and 7 become effective on July 1, 1999; and

c). Sections 1, 2, and 8 become effective on July 1, 2002."

Robert W. Sweet, Jr., the author of the National Reading Excellence Act, testified in support of A.B. 294 and provided his written testimony (Exhibit E). He said the bill could change the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of children in Nevada schools for the better. If A.B. 294 was passed, Nevada would be placed on the cutting edge of reading reform and the most current research based practices in reading instruction would be part of Nevada’s classroom teaching.

Mr. Sweet said after more than a year of debate, hearings, research, and a national discussion, the Federal Reading Excellence Act passed by unanimous consent. It was a bipartisan bill, supported by the United States Department of Education, The White House, and both houses of Congress. He said A.B. 294 was patterned after the federal legislation and it was important to understand why there were such high hopes that the new federal initiative would serve as a catalyst for states like Nevada.

Mr. Sweet informed the committee of several research studies conducted over the last half of the twentieth century. The United States Department of Education "First Grade Studies", Learning to Read: The Great Debate by Harvard researcher Jeanne Chall, and the one billion dollar federal "Follow Through Study," made it clear that scientific research findings supported sequential, systematic instruction in the alphabetic principle, or in laymen’s terms, phonics. The studies found sequential phonics instruction should be an essential component of any high quality reading program. Despite the research, textbook companies and schools of education refused to apply the new findings either in college classrooms or in elementary schools.

Another source of valid reading research conducted by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) methodically and carefully conducted longitudinal research in reading instruction. Since NICHD research was the most recent and comprehensive, it served as the basis for development of the Federal Reading Excellence Act. The NICHD findings converged on the following:

• "Good readers are phonemically aware."

• "Good readers understand the alphabetic principle."

• "Good readers can apply these skills to the development and application of phonics skills when reading and spelling words."

• "Good readers can accomplish these applications in a fluent and accurate manner."

Mr. Sweet illustrated two false assumptions held nationally and, what he thought was currently happening in Nevada.

1. "Children learn to read naturally without specific instruction in phoneme awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension." If that was true, there would be no "non-readers." Yet, the assumption was readily accepted and fiercely defended by many educators.

2. "Children should be taught to read using context clues, rather than by applying decoding and word recognition strategies in order to read unfamiliar words." Children, who were taught to read using context clues and guessing strategies to read unfamiliar words, often had the most trouble mastering the skill of reading. Those approaches appeared to impede the process of learning to read even more.

Mr. Sweet asked the committee to keep in mind that Nevada was not alone in considering legislation like A.B. 294. Since 1993, more than 30 states considered legislation to accomplish similar objectives as outlined in the bill. California, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, New Mexico, Washington, Wisconsin, Florida, and Ohio were only few of the states where laws changed to insure students learned the vital skill of reading.

In conclusion, Mr. Sweet asked if A.B. 294 could serve as one more step in restoring full literacy to all children, it should be worth the committee’s consideration to pass the bill. He said the benefits would be many. Teachers would be satisfied that their hard work was resulting in children who read. Parents would be pleased the schools were doing a good job. Taxpayers would be happy the cost of education was not increasing as rapidly. Most importantly, Nevada would be doing the right thing for children.

Mr. Manendo asked if Mr. Sweet knew how many states rejected the Reading Excellence Act.

Mr. Sweet said he did not know which states had rejected it, but knew some states were still considering it.

Leslie Porter, a private citizen, thought A.B. 294 was a critical bill. She said Washoe County was currently using programs that would not pass muster if they had to go under NICHD research standards. Her concern was not only in the primary grades, where children were not getting the education they deserved, but also in the remediation of the secondary students. She said some high schools were currently using programs such as Reading Renaissance, which according to the research cited in other testimony did not include systematic phonics. She was also concerned that Nevada was failing to remediate high school students effectively, which was why 25 percent of graduates who entered college had to take a remedial English course. She suggested the remediation list prepared in 1998 be reviewed against scientific findings by NICHD research. She said Nevada did not need expensive programs to teach phonics and did not need to continue to replace programs that did not work. Ultimately, she urged the committee to pass A.B. 294.

Janine Hansen representing Nevada Eagle Forum supported A.B. 294. For many years the organization supported the phonetics reading approach. She said in February of 1998 there was a big controversy at a Washoe County School Board meeting over whether or not they should teach phonics or teach by the whole language method. She cited part of a newsletter, which she provided (Exhibit F), which said, "The fundamental flaw in whole language instruction philosophy is that it teaches children to read English as if it were an ideographic writing system like Chinese instead of an alphabetic sound-symbol system."

Ms. Hansen was always very interested in the issue because she was taught to read with phonics, as well as her own family. Before being taught basic phonics, her daughter thought she was dumb because she could not read. Ms. Hansen thought it was so important for Nevada’s children to have the opportunity to read by learning phonics. She also thought dropout rates would be lower because most children who dropped out of school simply could not read.

Lynn Chapman, representing Families for Freedom, was in favor of A.B. 294. She had been a home school consultant for 6 years and talked to parents about different reading programs. A program called, "First Reader" was one she highly recommended. She provided an informational pamphlet on the program (Exhibit G). She also provided a copy of a "Phyllis Schlafly Report", which was written by the developer of the "First Reader" program (Exhibit H).

Ms. Chapman introduced the "First Reader" program to a parent whose second grade son could not read. After 10 days of using the program he learned to read. Ms. Chapman also taught her own daughter phonics, which enabled them to learn to read very quickly.

Patricia Coocher, a retired teacher after 36 years of teaching, supported A.B. 294. Ms. Coocher had an extensive education in teaching, including special training at a dyslexia clinic. She also received a remedial reading credential from the University of Nevada, Reno. She not only taught in the United States, but also 2 years in Japan. She also taught English and remedial English courses for 12 years at Truckee Meadows Community College.

When she starting teaching, teachers were required to train in systematic phonics. As time went by, little or no phonics were a part of teaching programs used by teachers. After parents demanded a more structured reading program, phonics was thrown back into teaching methods. She informed the committee there were programs that said phonics were being taught, but in reality they were not. Educators who advocated whole reading approaches left students to guess at words and be inaccurate.

Ms. Coocher worked for years with adults who could not read and write. Because of their illiteracy, they could not keep jobs and their lives were seriously affected. She said it was time to get back the basics and be formal with teacher training and student instruction. She thought American education had become too experimental. She highly advocated using systematic phonics and urged the committee to pass A.B. 294.

Barley Nightbaum, a private citizen, testified in support of A.B. 294. His daughter was unable to read and was told by teachers she could be mentally retarded. She eventually learned to read by learning phonetics. He also mentioned his own grandson could not spell very well, which was another reason he thought the bill was needed because it just proved current education was not working as it should.

Rose Yochum testified as a private citizen and for the Carson City Literacy Volunteer Group and was in favor of A.B. 294. She had been a tutor for the last 3 years and used the "Lawbuck Method", which was a phonics-based program. The volunteer group taught only adults who could not read. She also volunteered her time at an elementary school. If a student stumbled on a word then the phonics method of "stretching out the word" was done. The student would sound out the word and look up the meaning so he/she would know the word for future use. She said it was very gratifying to teach anyone to read. She urged the committee to pass A.B. 294.

Juanita Clark, a private citizen and a retired teacher, testified in favor of A.B. 294. She taught reading by explaining what the letter was and what sound it made. By sounding out a letter it would enable anyone to learn to read. She found that often times parents of her students could not read the notes she sent home. She thought the bill would also urge some of those parents or adults to come forward and learn to read.

Kris Jensen representing Nevada Concerned Citizens testified in support of A.B. 294. She drew attention to page 1 of the bill and suggested adding the word "independent" after "scientifically-based." She also suggested inserting "to include skills development through the use of literature with appropriate decodable text" after the words "systematic phonics" in the beginning of line 4 on page 2. She thought without the appropriate decodable text included, the bill would be of no value. She also suggested including the definitions of what phonics was because it would make the bill more effective and stronger.

Sheila Ward representing the Nevada Christian Coalition testified in support of A.B. 294. She said studies from the United States Department of Justice had shown adolescence adults in correctional institutions had one thing in common, which was they could not read. She said a representative from The United States Department of Justice came to the chilling conclusion that reading failure was a major cause rather than just a correlation of anti-social behavior.

She also said 20-year-old studies had shown that phonics were the scientifically based and successful way to teach children to read. She thought if America taught based on those studies and was not allowed the experimentation of whole language, the entire nation would not have as many occurrences of criminal behavior.

Martha Tittle representing the Clark County School District testified in support of A.B. 294 and provided written testimony (Exhibit I). She said the district was very aware of the importance of implementing effective reading programs for students in kindergarten through grade 12 and the district strongly supported the inclusion of explicit phonics instruction in the teaching of reading.

The district did, however, have specific areas of concern regarding some sections of the bill. They requested the bill address the course of study provisions regarding literacy either in Chapter 389 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), which included courses of study and instruction required to be taught in public schools, or address those literacy provisions through the Council to Establish Academic Standards. She said other areas of the bill involved language the district thought could strengthen and enhance the intent, including phonics and reading instruction of kindergarten through grade 12 in public schools of Nevada.

Bill Hanlon, a member of the State Board of Education, testified in support of A.B. 294 and said he believed in phonics instruction. He said all the research studies he had read supported phonics instruction particularly for disadvantaged students. He also agreed with the section of the bill that required phonics to be taught at the university level.

He did, however, have two concerns with the bill. One concern was assessing a penalty to a board that did not comply. He said the Council to Establish Academic Standards addressed the English language arts. He thought the bill would only enhance what the council had already established.

Mary Peterson, superintendent of public instruction for the Department of Education, said many things contained in A.B. 294 were consistent with good practice. The requirement for courses of studies to be based on scientifically based reading research and to include phonics was something the department would support. She thought it was important to know many of Nevada’s teachers used scientifically based approaches to literacy instruction, which included systematic phonics.

She also pointed out there was an ongoing debate in the area of phonic instruction. The National Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, urged educators to discard the either or mentality in teaching reading and urged educators to focus on individual needs and individual reading instruction. She believed that was what the Council on Academic Standards had accomplished. She provided a copy of the Nevada English Language Arts Standards (Exhibit J). The Nevada English Language Arts Standards addressed a complete spectrum of language arts instruction, including phonics. The Council to Establish Academic Standards approved those standards on August 20, 1998, in compliance with the Nevada Education Reform Act. Also in compliance with the Nevada Education Reform Act, the State Board of Education adopted those standards and school districts were required to implement them in their schools for the 1999 school year.

Ms. Peterson had some concerns with the section of the bill that would impose penalties for state and local board members who failed to comply. She thought it was overly punitive and did not think board members would willfully act to violate the law. She said the section of the bill that established an advisory partnership should be noted that the Reading Excellence Act was a competitive grant program. There was no guarantee the State of Nevada would receive those federal funds, even though it was intended to submit an application.

Elaine Lancaster representing the Nevada State Education Association said she was on a leave of absence from teaching public education for 33 years. She said her teaching was to first grade students learning how to read. She thought there were many good points in A.B. 294, but thought every child did not learn how to read the same way. She had taught many children who could not learn to read phonetically because they could not hear the sounds and therefore had to find another way to teach them how to read. Her concern was that it was not limited to the kinds of correctional decisions made in classrooms and that phonics was clearly one flexible way to teach reading.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 294 with no action taken. He opened the hearing on A.B. 466.

Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, representing District 21, presented A.B. 466 and provided written testimony (Exhibit K). She said nobody was more concerned about the quality of education for children than parents. Parents were more concern than dedicated teachers or the vast "army" of educational administrators. She realized that the first time she knocked on a door. The first question she was asked was, "What are you going to do about the quality of education in our schools?" She also remembered a common complaint from parents, which was they were unable to effect change and get answers. One parent complained bitterly about her child not having a math textbook until 2 months after classes began. Although the teacher had ordered books, the bureaucrats made them wait until there were enough orders for the same textbook before issuing a purchase order because they wanted the best price. Another example was a teacher who was frustrated with her inability to gain approval for innovative teaching techniques. From those complaints, Ms. Tiffany realized the school district was too big.

She reminded the committee of Jeff Burr who successfully ran for the school board because his platform was deconsolidation. Having achieved no relief from the county school board, a citizen advocacy group was formed called Citizens for Community Schools. The group advanced the cause of deconsolidation from the school district to the legislature. In 1993, Ms. Tiffany’s resolution urging deconsolidation was approved and in 1995 Senator Porter’s bill for a study of deconsolidation was approved. She said it was time to go beyond resolutions and studies and set deconsolidation into motion.

In conclusion, Ms. Tiffany said A.B. 466 would trigger deconsolidation when student enrollment in Clark County reached 300,000, which was estimated to happen in the year 2005. The effort to deconsolidate the district began in the waning years of the current millennium. She suggested not to wait until the closing years of the next millennium to get the job done.

Mrs. Cegavske appreciated Ms. Tiffany bringing the bill forward because she had been one of those concerned parents in the school district. She asked if Ms. Tiffany could give a couple of highlights from the bill that would show the committee the means of how to achieve deconsolidation.

Ms. Tiffany reiterated when the student enrollment in Clark County reached 300,000, the school district would have to notify the legislature. At that point, the Legislative Commission would form a committee. The committee would include two advisory groups, one from the local government and the other would be the fiscally technical advisory group. Depending on when the bill would be triggered and the commission decided to meet either before or after the session, there would be anywhere from 1½ to 2 years after the committee was formed to bring the plan to the legislature. The legislature would have the opportunity to also make changes if necessary and the bill would allow 5 years for the implementation.

Mary Beth Scow, a member of the Clark County School Board, said she was speaking as an individual trustee because the school board had not yet taken a position on A.B. 466. She represented an area in the southeast corner of Clark County, which included the cities of Henderson and Boulder City. She said the area had great interest in reconfiguration. The main comment she had heard from constituents was the responsiveness and the ability to affect change. Often times the question asked was, "How big is too big?" She had not found a clear-cut answer to that question. She said at some point in the near future, the issue before the committee needed to be addressed.

Ms. Scow said the bill provided a 2-year period to look at the issues and see the affects. She had been asked what costs would be involved, and what would be done with future contracts. She appreciated the work of the Las Vegas community and their concern for education.

Sherrie Jorgensen, a retired teacher and concerned parent, testified in support of A.B. 466. She had an opportunity to teach in two school districts in Yuma Arizona where there were three school districts in the small city. After 1 year in Arizona, she returned to Clark County and taught for 4 years. In that time, she did not have the same opportunities as in Arizona, which left her not knowing how teachers in other schools were teaching. She said in the same school sometimes third grade would be on a different program than second grade and therefore did not have consistency.

Ms. Jorgensen said her other concern had to do with her child, Aubrey, who had Down’s Syndrome and would be entering the school district in 1½ years. Ms. Jorgensen had an assignment from a class she was taking to find out her district’s policy on educating children with disabilities. She called the district offices and was transferred four times because nobody could clearly answer what the policy was, although she explained herself very clearly and was in no way threatening. She finally spoke with a woman on the phone who was very helpful and said she could give her a booklet to help her understand the district mission statement on educating children with disabilities. Ms. Jorgensen received the information from the district and said the title was "Explanations of Procedural Safeguards Available for Parents of Children with Disabilities." The booklet explained several things a parent could do, such as how to move forward with due process, how to receive an accommodation plan, and how to go outside of the Industrial Education Plan (IEP) to find services, but she was not asking for that information. She was only asking, "How are you going to educate my child?" She wondered if Clark County schools had such huge numbers that the county was managing rather than educating children. She wanted to know how they would teach her child, but instead she felt like she was given her rights as a parent. She urged the committee to pass A.B. 466 so the district could get back to the art of educating instead of just managing.

Bryan Combs, a private citizen and a parent, testified in support of A.B. 466. His five children ranged from a kindergarten student to a freshman in high school. In the 11 years he had lived in the Las Vegas area, he was shocked the first time he came up against the zoning issue. Having been from a city in Utah roughly the same size as Las Vegas, he and his siblings went to one school their entire life. He realized he moved into a growing area, but what became apparent to him quickly was the large school district did not have the ability to address unique problems. There were different needs for students in Las Vegas than students in Boulder City or Henderson. He was afraid to see the district being unable to accommodate those differences in a fair and equitable manner. Consequently, schools in his neighborhood were taking away from books and other things that might be needed in other areas. His children had experienced not being able to bring home books, and it was very hard to complete homework without a book. He heard the main concern with deconsolidation was the possible cost, but as a parent he was willing to pay extra and thought others would also, to see their children were educated properly.

Mrs. de Braga wondered if there would be more funding for books and supplies if the school district was reconfigured.

Ms. Tiffany said when Senator Porter’s bill examined deconsolidation as a plan the financial aspects were discussed. There was not any specific number of savings that would come from deconsolidation. She said there should be more effectiveness and efficiency with the costs and timeliness of books.

She also mentioned horror stories she heard regarding the inefficiency of the way services were provided and the lack of services provided. She said the school district reverted money back to the general fund every session and she believed in the 1997 session there was between $140 and $170 million.

Mr. Manendo said during the 1995 legislative session he had a bill to require a study from every school district and would provide to the legislature exactly what was needed as far as revenue to have adequate textbooks and supplies. He said the bill passed through the Assembly, but died in the Senate. Therefore, there had been fights to get some true numbers to bring to the public. If A.B. 466 passed and deconsolidation was done, he wondered if those testifying could let him personally know how they felt about the idea of having the richest area and the poorest area combined into one district because it could bring some balance. He said a district would not have to be geographically next to each other.

Ms. Tiffany said that idea was addressed in Senator Porter’s bill. In her bill she was very firm in the constitutionality of deconsolidating the school district. She thought socio-economic status had to be addressed and the ethnic mixtures had to be considered also. She said the constitution mandated a diverse population in school districts. She also mentioned the bill was written to address statewide needs because there had to be uniformity. She had heard an idea where grades rather than location could separate the districts.

Mr. Manendo said he saw people shaking their heads no when he proposed the idea of the poorest and richest areas being together in one district.

Melissa Garcia, a senior at Las Vegas Academy, said she lost a scholarship and almost did not qualify for graduation because of "bureaucratic red tape" in a district that was too large, and where students were just numbers. Just before her last semester, she was informed she did not have the required computer literacy credit to graduate. She had taken the course, but according the school’s records it did not properly transfer. Therefore, after many attempts at going through the proper channels, she eventually had to go back to the teacher who taught her the course to verify she had the credit. Even though she had a 3.8 grade point average, it was not until it was too late that her counselor notified her that she had to have a specific science course to qualify as a "medallion graduate." As a result she was unable to be a "medallion student" and lost scholarship opportunities. She worked hard for 4 years taking specified classes, but in her last year she lost it. In such a large school district, students were statistics and not individuals. She thought the county needed much smaller districts to be able to serve students in the best way possible. She urged the committee to vote in favor of A.B. 466

Marcia Garcia, a private citizen, remembered testifying in previous legislative sessions regarding reconfiguration of the Clark County School District. She said her reasons in supporting the issue had not changed. If anything the situation had grown worse. Student population was up with no signs of slowing down. Dropout rates continued to rise and test scores were the same or lower. Those who supported A.B. 466 would not abandon the children in Nevada and would not just disappear. As a taxpayer she was angry and as a mother she was outraged. Nevada’s children were not receiving an education that would prepare them for the challenges for the future. She had personal experience proving that point. Her eldest son who was gifted took several advanced placement classes and always scored high on national tests. He was a Green Valley distinguished scholar and had a very difficult time at the University of Michigan because he was inadequately prepared academically to deal with the riggers of one of the top schools in the country. He came home to finish school at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV). If a student with his abilities had problems, she thought many others could have suffered the same fate.

As the chairman for Citizens for Community Schools, Ms. Garcia saw a district run by crisis management and applied "band aid solutions to hemorrhaging problems." The idea of tearing down crumbling, older schools was pitched to parents as part of winning their support for the bond issue. Since the bond issue passed, the district would attempt to "fix up the schools to be equitable with the rest." She said there was no amount of paint, wiring, and equipment that would ever make those schools equitable to the rest. If residents in those areas had school board members and staff who represented their community, the decision to tear down would be automatic.

Ms. Garcia’s children attended a school district in the past with approximately 32,000 students enrolled. The district was nationally rated for years and continued to display a level of academic achievement that far surpassed the Clark County School District. Knowing the importance placed on education in that community if they thought consolidating the three districts into one would improve the education they would have made those changes years ago. Members of Citizens for Community Schools were currently looking at creating a plan that would be the new district and would use the nationally rated district as a model.

The organization wanted all of the children in Clark County to receive an excellent education not just pockets of success. She said A.B. 466 would enable them to take the time to carefully plan the breakup and the implementation of new district structures, which completely abided to all constitutional requirements and would be fiscally responsive to the taxpayers. Quality, not quantity was their cry and in the issue before the community, bigger was definitely not better.

Brenda Kennedy representing the Nevada Parent Teacher Association (PTA) spoke in support of A.B. 466 as long as the best interest of all children was considered. The PTA felt the interim study portion of the bill was a very important issue when looking at reconfiguration. The PTA was glad to see parents included on the advisory committee and the study would consider and address the following issues:

• Racial and ethnic composition;

• Educational effectiveness;

• The organization structure and effect on the existing district;

• The effect on the community including parent participation;

• Financial equity; and

• The ability of the proposed new school district to generate money for maintenance, repair, and construction.

The Nevada PTA currently had a resolution in its platform with support in redistricting legislation which would not compromise the quality of education or restrict accessibility to local school district decision makers and would provide for equitable funding to local school districts. The PTA felt the bill looked at those equity issues and also included parental input. The main concern, as always, was the educational opportunities would be equitable for every child in the State of Nevada.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if Ms. Kennedy’s remarks were heard overwhelmingly from PTA members or parents. She also asked if the issue was brought up over the past years.

Ms. Kennedy replied she did not have the exact date of the resolution but it was an issue brought up at past PTA conventions. She provided a copy of the resolution (Exhibit L). The reconfiguration debate always included equity issues.

Dr. Brian Cram, Superintendent of Schools for the Clark County School District, said he would be retired by the time of the effective date on the bill and therefore, testified as a product of the school system, citizen, and observer of the political process. In 1996, the legislature commissioned an interim subcommittee assisted by the Management Analysis and Planning (MAP) consultants to study the same issue proposed in A.B. 466. The subcommittee completed the study and prepared a comprehensive report on what would occur if the proposed legislation would be implemented. The subcommittee wanted school districts to score reasonably well on the criteria used, which would meet the following:

• Educational effectiveness;

• No racial or ethnic group would be isolated;

• New districts would be of a size that would maximize economy of scales; and

• Citizens would enjoy greater access.

Dr. Cram said the conclusion to the subcommittee’s findings was the process should at least do no harm and be reasonably invulnerable to legal challenge. Their statement concerning that issue was, "It would seem fair to conclude that is unlikely that any plan would measure up to such expectations. Also, it is fair to conclude that it may be possible to create smaller districts that score well on scale, educational effectiveness, but not without some risk of legal challenge based on unequal resources or racial segregation. Other possible costs may include inadequate school facilities." The subcommittee concluded with the question of, "why is this so difficult?" Dr. Cram said it was difficult because Clark County’s revenue was concentrated in the hotels and casinos. It also lay

in housing patterns where dense clusters of whites, Hispanics, or African Americans lived and was further complicated by the size and locations of schools.

Dr. Cram said the interim subcommittee examined all of the possible ways the school district could be divided. He said they knew some districts would want to divide so it could have white students enrolled and it and could have a higher income. He thought they dealt with that issue fairly and conclusively. The subcommittee attempted various alternative boundary configurations. The information was based on eight districts of similar enrollments, none of which had a minority population equal to or greater than half of the total enrollment. It was possible to create districts without majority/minority populations; however, a number of individuals wanted the division to represent higher income in white districts. Dr. Cram said the implication on that in the remaining districts would create disparity where the federal law and ethical behavior would be encountered. The report from the subcommittee went on to say the deconsolidation of Clark County would be a complex and difficult process. The task would be complicated by extreme concentration of wealth and complicated by the size and location of schools. Dr. Cram stated the report gave the following warnings:

• "Only a district of substantial size can accommodate the incredible growth and diversity of Las Vegas and the ways it provides equity among the many citizens."

• "A number of smaller districts which would further isolate the particular groups may increase existing inequities in school facilities and instructional resources."

• "Special education programs which draw upon a large cross section would be placed in jeopardy."

• "Breaking into large numbers of smaller units inevitably increases a cost of doing business by duplicating existing administrative functions thus siphoning money away from instructional programs."

Dr. Cram believed deconsolidation would result in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. He thought it would increase the racial and economic isolation and would result in some districts hoarding seats, while other districts were left without. He also believed it would dramatically increase the opportunity for some districts to pass additional bonds to pay for additional seats while "right across the street" other districts would be unable to do so. He said the duplication of services would result in increased cost, which he thought should be a concern to everyone because of minimal educational funding, some $800 to $900 below the national average. He opined the worst result that could come out of deconsolidation was there would be a situation of eight competitors battling for scarce resources. He sadly believed it would result in "a them against us philosophy", which was typical of multi-district cities where they all competed with each other for those scarce resources. The districts would lobby against each other in the legislature for extra money in revenue, resources, and grants.

Dr. Cram asked how would monies be allocated for enrollment in magnet schools, special education schools, and alternative schools. He wanted the citizens to look at the political nightmare that would occur when district equipment, schools, transportation, and services were divided and duplicated. He felt obligated to ask the members of the legislature to read the result of the report from the interim subcommittee. He said the subcommittee reported citizens being satisfied with their individual schools with 85 to 97 percent approval rates. Therefore, the problem was not how people felt about school but might have been what they wanted and who they wanted in their school.

Dr. Cram’s answer regarding students waiting for textbooks was every school received a textbook allocation and if they did not arrive, it was because that school chose not to allocate. He could not understand why anyone could think it would be less expensive to buy textbooks as eight individual districts. He knew it would not be less expensive, just as it would not be less expensive to try and recruit 2,000 more teachers for those individual school districts. Ultimately, Dr. Cram thought A.B. 466 would pose tremendous potential harm. He said if suburban areas were permitted to withdraw and take all of their resources with them, they would be permitted to resegregate the school district.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if Dr. Cram knew when all of the school districts were originally consolidated and if he knew what the population was at that time. Dr. Cram did not recall that information. Mrs. Cegavske wondered where Clark County would currently be if there still were smaller districts. If the Clark County School District was divided into two or three sections, there could be different lines to divide it so everyone could share the different populations.

She had a problem with Dr. Cram’s comments regarding equity becoming worse because she thought it could not get any worse. She had personally visited schools in North Las Vegas where there were crumbling buildings that had layers after layers of paint thrown on them. In her opinion, air conditioning ducts were a health hazard to the point that the Health Department should be called.

Mrs. Cegavske was concerned about some of the comments Dr. Cram made because schools did not have textbooks available. The schools have reverted to site-based management and unfortunately what the legislature wanted in site-based management was not happening. The legislature allocated money to the schools and required them to continue maintenance on the buildings, which they had chosen not to do. The legislature also allocated textbook money, which some schools had chosen not to buy. She opined decisions were being made that were not in the best interest for Nevada’s children.

Mrs. Cegavske said all of the accomplishments that should be currently happening were not and therefore said some kind of change needed to happen. Either the schools had to be handled the way the different hotels were handled by blowing them up to start all over again, or there needed to be some fast analysis on how to make things better. Something needed to be done to help the children of Nevada because band-aid after band-aid was not going to fix the problems.

Dr. Cram responded the solution to the hotels was not building small hotels, which anyone could see, and the same applied to schools. He said if everyone was so worried about textbooks then why was there no inflation money in the textbook budget for 1998-99. He also wondered why Nevada was funded $800 to $900 below the national average if everyone was so concerned about education. He said the truth was, for whatever reason, Nevada had chosen to fund the pupil funding somewhere between 11^th to 17^th from the bottom of a national list, when the per capita income was anywhere from 8^th to 4^th from the top of that list. He said if Mrs. Cegavske was really concerned about textbooks, then he hoped she would be the first to point out to the governor that there was no inflationary money for textbooks in the budget. He thought that was part of the solution. The second solution was some schools had full complement of textbooks because someone in another school made a choice not to buy them.

Dr. Cram thought if districts were permitted to fund their own capital in the future then he thought problems with older schools would worsen. He said other communities that had multiple school districts, for example Phoenix, Arizona, had schools with new buildings, new supplies, and highly paid teachers, but "across the street" there was the exact opposite. He agreed there were some things that needed to be considered, but he asked if education was really so important in Nevada then why was it funded $900 below the national average.

Mrs. Cegavske had a real problem with the school districts talking about per pupil ratio because she thought it was nonsense. She said parents were lead to believe so much money was given toward each student, but that per pupil ratio was actually allocated towards staffing, salaries, maintenance, operation, and those types of things. That per pupil ratio was not being spent on students for textbooks. She said it was a fallacy that parents were being told that money was spent on their children and thought it needed to be stopped. She said Nevada was not such a bad place to live, as it did not charge a state income tax. She thought everyone needed to refrain from whose blaming whom and start looking at something proactive, instead of looking in the past. She was sorry Dr. Cram was testifying in opposition to A.B. 466 because the idea of the bill would give an excellent chance to examine, study, and get some new ideas to address the problems. She thought there were some great things going on including fantastic teachers, but something different needed to be done to help the children because they were not receiving the education they deserved.

Dr. Cram said the only viable measure of how well schools were funded was per pupil funding. It was the only constant way to accomplish it and no matter how anyone looked at it, for the last decade Nevada had been at the top of the bottom third in the nation as far as funding education. He said people could say whatever they wanted about money not going to the children, but that was all the money allocated and it needed to be used to buy textbooks, run buses, and all of those kinds of things. He mentioned the Distributive School Account (DSA) was $1.5 million lower than in 1997 and the schools had not received inflation money either, which actually would drain instructional dollars.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if Dr. Cram viewed deconsolidation as an endeavor that would cost extra money instead of viewing it as taking the current resources and splitting them between different districts. She was having difficulty with his way of looking at it because the money would transfer with the child.

Dr. Cram believed the operating cost would not be the same with eight districts. He thought by having eight different districts there would be a need for hiring more teachers and superintendents, which would ultimately cost more money.

Mrs. Cegavske was actually looking forward to having a decrease in administration.

Dr. Cram said there was a 3 percent cost in administration, which was approximately half of what was in the private sector. He said that old saying about all those management layers was not true. When compared to the private sector, using Department of Commerce figures, the school district had about half as many managers.

Mary Huntington, private citizen, said reconfiguration did not necessarily mean the district had to be divided to get the results everyone wanted. She realized money was always an issue especially since Nevada’s tax base was concentrated in certain areas.

She thought there would be many problems in dividing the school district such as: money, consistency of curriculum, the magnet schools, building special education, horizon schools already in existence, and the duplication of services. She wondered why schools could not be set up similar to the government, for example, the local areas under the umbrella of the state and the state government under the umbrella of the federal government. She thought the county could be kept under the large umbrella of the school district with the smaller districting that was currently in place. Decisions would then be made at the local level, which would help, especially with concerns about principals being able to act when a problem occurred in that particular school.

So often parents were frustrated because of the large chain of administrators. She said everyone needed to think in terms of how it could work in different ways because she did not think anyone had thought of the idea of having the county umbrella to work with magnet schools and building horizons special education. If necessary, a student count could be done every fall to figure out how many students there were and determine which school needed more teachers and which school did not need as many teachers. She wondered why the schools could not take that same number and divide up the money that went into one pot (the county) per pupil, using formulas for the different programs that required different funding. She wondered why that would not make it equitable no matter which part of the county students were in. She thought everyone was looking at an either or situation when there could be something in the middle that would more effectively address the frustrations of parents, students, and concerns of administrators. She said there was a superintendent of elementary schools over the southwest area and a superintendent of elementary schools over the northeast area, therefore some of that was already in place and she did not think it was duplicating services. She also thought 300,000 student enrollments was too high for it to be enacted because it was 100,000 students away and there were current problems that needed to be addressed.

She was also concerned with the configuration of the subcommittee, which consisted of the mayor, the superintendent, the county commissioner, someone from the taxpayer association, someone from the retail association, and two parents. She thought there needed to be at the very least three parents sitting on the subcommittee.

Ms. Huntington was in favor of doing something, not necessarily dividing the school district into eight districts. She thought the idea behind the bill was to look at all of the ideas and from what she understood her proposed idea currently worked in another district in some other state. By being under the large umbrella of the larger school district it would enable textbook buying power because there would be a lower price. She thought the district should take advantage of the things that came from being a large district, but control needed to be given to the local level.

Ray Bacon, representing the Nevada Manufacturers Association, said A.B. 466 was not necessarily the right solution but the association had heard frustration from members, which was something needed to be done that would address the local issues and make the board more sensitive to parents regarding student problems. He thought the bill was broad enough and offered enough flexibility to clearly do something as simple as increase the size of the board. Currently, 28 different legislators represented Clark County and yet there were only 7 members of the Board of Education. He did not mean to have 28 members on the board, but at least more members would give more representation. He agreed with the comments made regarding other ways to solve the problem other than breaking the district up into eight different pieces.

Janine Hansen, representing Nevada Eagle Forum, long supported the idea of deconsolidation. She said poor parents wanted the same thing as rich parents wanted for their children. The districts were not responsive to the concerns of parents, which was an existing problem. She said years ago Sparks, Nevada had their own school district and therefore was able to respond to the people. Once the district consolidated into the Washoe County School District, the people no longer had their own schools.

Ms. Hansen also supported deconsolidation in Washoe County at Incline Village, not because they had more resources, but because those people had different problems than those in Reno or Sparks. It would have been very useful for them to be a separate district, just as it would be for Las Vegas.

She received phone calls constantly from parents because they did not know where to start to solve the problem their child was having in school. She thought one of the reasons was because the school district was just too big. She encouraged the committee to consider how important it was for a school district to be responsive to the concerns of parents and students.

Bill Hanlon, representing the Nevada State Board of Education, referred to the comments made regarding satisfaction with schools and said most of the research did not address size of a district, but instead it addressed the size of a school.

He mentioned a new term called "adequacy funding", which had been in literature for the last 6 to 8 months. Adequacy funding came from the Federal Government and it would break up a large school district and certain districts would receive larger amounts of money and other districts would receive smaller amounts of money on per pupil expenditure. As that idea approached state levels, he thought Nevada needed to be aware of it because he thought when the state dealt with people from more affluent communities they would be less apt to want to give up funding to students who lived in less affluent areas.

Ms. Tiffany said the Clark County School District was a bureaucrat’s dream. She thought the district was entirely too big and thought it was time to break it up. She referred to Dr. Cram’s testimony and clarified there was never any study or findings that said the district would break up into eight different districts. She did not advocate eight different units and the bill did not even state the district would break up into that many units.

She saw the ability to have common services if the district were broken up, for example, common purchasing, common data processing, and common people. Because the district was so large the accountability was lost and so were the scales of economy. By having smaller school districts, Ms. Tiffany envisioned it being smarter and more efficient. She reminded the committee that anyone interested in deconsolidation would have 5 years to reach innovative ideas and research other schools that had deconsolidated.

Chairman Williams declared the hearing closed on A.B. 466 with no action taken.

With no further business before the committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: