The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:50 p.m., on Monday, April 5, 1999. Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Wendell Williams, Chairman

Mr. Tom Collins, Vice Chairman

Ms. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Mark Manendo

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Joe Dini, Assembly District 38

Merle Berman, Assembly District 2

Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9

John Carpenter, Assembly District 33

Doug Bache, Assembly District 11

Gene Segerblom, Assembly District 22

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following Roll call, Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.C.R. 37.

Dr. Jill Derby, chair of the Board of Regents for the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), testified in support of A.C.R. 37. She said there was a committee formed at the board level called Campus Environment, which focused on the issue of supporting diversity on college campuses, and more recently supporting diversity and multi-culturalism in the curriculum. She said the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) faculty senate had recently voted a requirement into the core curriculum to include a course that included multi-culturalism as well as a course that had an international focus.

She said the UCCSN had been looking for ways to support diversity and reflect the diversity in the population for a number of years. The system did assessment efforts years ago and found out it was not doing a good enough job and therefore a committee of the board was formed to look for opportunities to support the campuses to make strides in the direction of diversity. She said the board appreciated the kind of support the resolution represented and felt it would support them to further the goals set forth by the board.

Dr. Robert Dickens, director of governmental relations for the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), said he appeared before the committee on behalf of the UNR campus and president, Dr. Joseph Crowley, who intended to testify but had to attend an emergency.

Dr. Dickens drew attention to Exhibit C, which he submitted for Dr. Crowley. In 1993, UNR set out as a part of the academic master planning process a very ambitious goal to increase the number of ethnic minority students by 50 percent in the year 2000. In 1998, the university experienced a 39 percent increase. A variety of programs were established, which were aimed at making the campus a more hospitable place to ethnic minority students ranging from an ethnic student resource center to providing counseling services with individuals who had expertise in minority student counseling. Most importantly the university had a diversity requirement within the core curriculum, which offered more than 100 courses that all undergraduates had to select from in order to succeed in the western traditions sequence. He said Dr. Crowley wanted him to specifically reassure the committee that he maintained an open door policy to sit down and talk with students in either his office or elsewhere on the campus.

In the most recent accreditation visit, the visiting committee commended UNR for its continuing efforts and for its success in recruitment of women and minorities. The university was also commended for its faculty and the self-study report that set very ambitious goals. The committee also noted the increase in the number of minority students attending the university, the diversity courses in the core curriculum, and the expanded diversity reflected by international students.

Dr. Richard Jarvis, chancellor of the UCCSN, said he would take A.C.R. 37 to the next meeting of the council presidents and ask them to help develop a report on the course offerings and programs that the system currently had in place. He thought that report would serve as a good benchmark against which they could measure progress to share with the committee in future legislative sessions.

Chairman Williams reminded the UCCSN representatives of the students from the UNR campus who made a presentation to the committee earlier in the current session. After their presentation the committee voted to draft A.C.R. 37 with hopes that the Board of Regents could listen to a presentation from those students. He asked the representatives from the system to schedule an appointment with one of those students. Sandra Douglass, a member of the Black Student Organization at UNR, was present to do so.

Dr. Derby said the chair of the Campus Environment Committee, Regent Howard Rosenberg, was present at the meeting. Having heard Chairman Williams’ comments she was sure they could schedule some time for those students.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.C.R. 37 and opened the hearing on A.B. 521.

Assemblyman Joe Dini, representing Assembly District 38, presented A.B. 521. In 1997, the legislature passed the Nevada Education Reform Act, which included the following issues: academic standards, student assessments, technology, and accountability for schools. During the interim there was discussion of qualifications of teachers and the importance of quality education in the classroom. Speaker Dini said there was no discussion about the one thing that could bring learning to a complete standstill in many classrooms, which was the disruptive student. Whenever a teacher would have to stop instruction in a classroom to deal with a misbehaving pupil the majority of students would lose valuable instruction time. Teachers who had no real power or authority to deal with disruptive students experienced enormous frustration and sometimes embarrassment when pupils who were sent out of the classroom were not punished, and sometimes nothing was done to address the problem.

Speaker Dini said A.B. 521 gave authority to teachers to remove disruptive pupils and the authority to determine when and if that pupil could return to the classroom. The bill established programs of alternative education for students who had difficulty functioning in the classroom. It required the involvement of parents and the behavioral problems of all students to be addressed. Most importantly, the bill stopped the endless "merry-go-round" of disruptive students coming in and out of the classroom disrupting the learning process for everyone else. The programs of alternative education would stress both academic learning and self-discipline. Those programs were not intended to glamorize the punishment of disruptive students but to remove them from the classroom to deal with their problems, to enable them to return to the classroom, and become productive students. Until the issue before the committee was addressed, Speaker Dini thought education reform would not truly be implemented. He thought current classrooms were a shame compared to what it was like 50 years ago when he went to school. He thought teachers needed the authority to help administration in solving discipline problems in schools throughout Nevada and urged the committee to support A.B. 521.

Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association, wanted to express the association’s very sincere appreciation to Speaker Dini for introducing the important piece of legislation before the committee. The association had endeavored to meet with all of the members of the committee individually to give a summary of the bill and to try to discuss some of the technical details. Ms. Cahill said many individuals throughout Nevada were present in the audience who were teachers and other school personnel who had experiences they wanted to share with the committee to highlight the need for the kind of legislation before the committee.

Clyda Anderson, president of the Washoe County Teachers Association, testified in support of A.B. 521 and submitted her written testimony Exhibit D. She thought many teachers could explain the impact a discipline problem child had on an entire class of students. She said A.B. 521 would mandate students, principals, parents, and teachers to meet and become aware of the possible consequences to an action by a student. Students and parents would also become aware of alternatives that might be required if the panel decided a student was a candidate for an alternative program.

Ms. Anderson said recently in Washoe County, a disruptive fourth grade student was sent to the principal and refused to leave the classroom, therefore the principal had to come to the room. The principal was also unable to remove the student and had the teacher and the rest of the class leave the room. Those students had their learning environment interrupted for 30 to 40 minutes and their attention was diverted away from the academic material. That disruptive student was removed for the remainder of the day but was back the next day as if nothing had happened.

She said principals and deans could only do so much. There was no alternative setting for those disruptive students. A.B. 521 would put some responsibility on parents and administrators as well as teachers to create a learning environment for all students without the continual interruptions of an undisciplined child. She urged the committee to support A.B. 521.

Jean Newman, a teacher from the Clark County School District (CCSD), taught a fourth grade class and was threatened earlier in the current school year by a student who said he would shoot her. Luckily, the school had hall monitors, which assisted her in removing the student from the classroom. That same student returned to class 2 days after the incident as if nothing had happened. Ms. Newman said a second grade teacher was also recently threatened by a student who said he/she would shoot her. Before spring break, she overheard a child stating he was going to do a "drive by" and shoot two students. Even though she was talking about young elementary school children whom might not be serious about shooting other people, she thought they should be taken very seriously. When students disrupted a classroom other students could not concentrate because sometimes they were afraid of them, to which Ms. Newman admitted she was also frightened at times.

Ms. Newman was concerned about the time it took to remove students from the classroom when disrupted. Sometimes discipline problem students stayed in the classroom until something could be decided, for example, his/her parent could not be located or something of that nature. There was no other place to send those students because they could not sit in the office all day. She asked the committee to pass A.B. 521.

Davida Abbott, a secretary to three deans at a high school in CCSD, believed the schools needed to be empowered to implement a strict discipline policy where parents could not call someone to have the discipline policy adjusted to suit their child. She said CCSD needed more alternative placements for students with discipline problems. When students were in ninth grade or higher sometimes they were not accepted in some of the alternative placement programs, which made it very hard on everyone because the students had to stay in the school. She thought the alternative placement program should teach discipline, respect, and how to be ready to go out into the world.

Donald Ulino, representing the Educational Support Employees Association (ESEA), spoke in support of A.B. 521. Just prior to spring break, a sixth grade student carried a loaded flare gun onto a school bus. He said that student was taken at gunpoint by the Henderson Police Department after the student tried to run. The administrator of the school chastised the bus driver because in her words, "it was only a flare gun." Mr. Ulino reminded to committee that a flare gun could do a great deal of damage especially inside of a school bus. He thought the bill needed to be expanded to give more authority to all employees. Had that bus driver not found out the student was carrying a gun, that student could have gone into the classroom with the gun.

Mr. Ulino was a retired police officer from New York City with 21 years of experience. He said his partner saved his life by grabbing a 10-year-old child who intended to shoot him in the back with a fully loaded 45 automatic, therefore he felt age did not make any difference when it came to use of a gun. He strongly suggested the committee support A.B. 521.

Valerie Warway, a first grade teacher at an elementary school in Clark County, said it was a duty of the schools to pass on to the coming generations the values of society. She thought schools were currently doing a great disservice to students and especially when misbehavior was allowed to occur. The child was receiving a very unrealistic idea of what life would be like in the real world. If a child could talk back to a teacher or hit other people, she wondered what kind of idea that child would have as he/she approached adulthood of how to behave in a workplace. Ultimately she thought schools needed to examine what needed to be passed on to children who would one day be running the world. She exhorted the committee to support A.B. 521.

Eunice Frost, an instructional aid at a middle school in Clark County, spoke in support of A.B. 521. She said a long letter opener was found on the floor of a class, with which a student intended to do harm. Fortunately, a student dropped it instead of hurting someone else. She said students needed to understand something would be done when they misbehaved. Many times children made the complete circle to the counselor, the dean, and back to the classroom. Students also needed to try to learn in order to help themselves in the future because she thought education would be their best defense.

Kaye Grant worked at a kindergarten through fifth grade school and testified in support of A.B. 521. She worked as a counselor for 17 years and a teacher for 8 years in five different states. She thought students needed to understand there were limits because schools allowed misbehavior to happen every day. She thought it would be helpful for students, who were serious about learning, to feel safe in the classroom. A plan was needed for teachers so they knew there was a solution if a student was disruptive for a long period of time. A lot of times students returned to class after misbehaving, which made teachers look like they did not have any power. Parents came to school very confused and did not know what to do with their children. She thought schools needed to be very clear about what behaviors would be accepted and what behaviors would not be accepted. She suggested some kind of in-house suspension to be developed for elementary grade students, which would help parents who had to work or did not have anywhere to leave their child. She thought administrators would appreciate knowing what would happen to discipline problem students when they were not available. Being a counselor, she would appreciate a plan also. She hoped the committee would give A.B. 521 their most careful consideration.

Carol Mueller, a second grade teacher in CCSD, hoped the committee would support A.B. 521. She said students needed to understand there would be consequences to their actions. When there were no other alternatives, students did not learn there were consequences to their actions. She was in a team teaching situation with 34 children in her class, which meant if there was one disruptive student that took her time or her team partner’s time then it would shorten the amount of time for other students who were willing and ready to learn. She said the bill would enable schools to have an in-house place to go, which seemed to be more effective in many instances because children who were sent home would sometimes not have any consequences. Therefore anything said by the school would not have a lot of clout to it. She felt there was valuable time lost in learning. As a state, everyone was very concerned about test scores and when valuable time from the classroom was taken for a disruptive student, time was taken away for learning that would increase those scores everyone was interested in seeing raised.

Linda Norris, a first grade teacher in the CCSD, had seen a lot of disruptive students even at 5 and 6 years of age. When a child was disruptive it took away everything from everybody, which she considered to be educational theft. She said theft was not allowed in any other area of society and she did not think it should be allowed in school.

Sue Strand, president of the Clark County Education Association (CCEA), said she could parade all 10,000 members of the association to urge the committee to support A.B. 521. She said there were teachers who were not present to testify because of intimidation from their administrators. She thought students, no matter what age, needed to come to school prepared, and it would be easier to control disruption of students in primary grades than in middle school or high school. She said everyone needed to work together as a team, including, teachers, counselors, administrators, parents, and students. She did not think placing the blame on someone else was getting anyone any further. Everyone needed to accept some responsibility for the fact problems needed to be corrected by giving parenting skills where needed and try to figure out what was causing the problem with children.

Ms. Strand said CCSD had some conduct disorder classrooms that just began in 1998. She believed there were two classrooms in two different schools where disruptive students were being assisted, which determined it the student was a habitual discipline problem or if he/she was just overly exuberant.

She said students had attacked teachers with scissors, which was very well known to happen in CCSD. Those kinds of issues really needed to be addressed and she believed the recommendations within the bill would at least get schools on the right track in starting to handle some of those problems in the district. She urged the committee to support and consider A.B. 521.

Leslie Fritz, representing the Nevada State Education Association, reviewed two types of programs that could address the problem of not having anywhere to send discipline or behavior problem students. The first program was a longer term, off-site program, which was referred to as "Alternative Programs of Education" within A.B. 521. She said Texas had a very strict student discipline law and Nevada had been modeled very closely after that law. It did require that students who were removed from the classroom for discipline reasons be provided with some type of behavior management support or education. One of the programs was based in Fort Worth, Texas, and was a middle school program for students in grades six through eight. It was considered an early intervention program because students were referred for a minimum 9-week stay and the length of the stay would be based on the nature of the student’s offense. Various criteria would also apply, such as: students with attendance problems, behavior discipline, hostility, anger problems, students with low academic achievement, or oftentimes students who were over age for their grade. The goals of the program were bringing student behavior under control, remediating academic deficiencies, and returning students to a regular classroom. A high priority was focused on helping provide support to families of students. The program was highly structured and it was based on a system called, "The Crane Reynolds" and it also borrowed from the "Boys Town Motivation System." It used points and levels so students earned their way through the program and back into the regular classroom.

Ms. Fritz said the second program in Texas was for students in grades one through five, which were referred to as "Special Opportunity Schools." She said students who were in the school district in Texas took a school bus to the regular campus and the district provided shuttle transportation to the actual opportunity school. The school district had 60,000 students in attendance with 3 of the opportunity school sites currently in place. The students typically had a 15 to 18 week stay within a very structured program with levels and point systems put in place so students could set goals for themselves and earn their way back into the regular classroom. The school provided weekly parent training, which was mandatory and available to the entire family. The school also worked very carefully to continue communication and support coming from the regular classroom so students would not feel completely cut-off from that situation. The program’s overall goal was to try and change everyone’s perception of the child in addition to changing that child’s perception of him/her self.

Ms. Fritz said there was an off-site program currently in place in Clark County, which was called the "Area Education Improvement Center." It was housed in an elementary school in Las Vegas and students in grades two through five could attend. The school only allowed a maximum of 48 students and was currently full. She said several teachers had told her they were aware of the program, but if they had a student who was a chronic discipline problem oftentimes the program would not allow that student to attend. The district provided transportation to the program and there was a 1 to 8 teacher student ratio. The program did not allow special education students to attend. The focus was on students from regular classrooms with behavioral problems. The program also borrowed from the "Boys Town" model with a heavy focus on character development, anger management, and conflict resolution. It also had a very strong focus on parent counseling.

Ms. Fritz thought there needed to be a short-term program, which the bill referred to as "in-school suspension" or sometimes referred to as "in-house suspension." She found an interesting program in place in Elko County at the Spring Creek Middle School with a length of stay based on the discipline problem. Students stayed in one room all day and took three breaks throughout the day, which were closely supervised. Students took their lunch into the classroom, were isolated from other students, and were strictly forbidden from participating in extra-curricular activities. She believed that part of the program showed it was not a positive event and showed students they would not want to have to spend a lot of time in that kind of program. She said the principal of that school thought everyone should be careful in developing those kinds of programs and to also provide a positive aspect, which was where the counseling came in. The counseling staff prepared packets and activities, which corresponded directly with the rules set forth in the student handbook. Therefore if a student was truant he/she would participate in an activity the counselor developed dealing with truancy.

The program had a very structured environment and students also had to earn points to get out of the in-house program and back into the regular classroom. For instance, students might earn one point for showing up to class dressed appropriately, for being on time and being prepared, or students might earn two points for treating others with respect, or performing their academic work at an acceptable level. There was also a classroom aide who supervised the class and regular classroom teachers provided the work. She was concerned with that because every time a student was sent out for discipline reasons there would be 1 to 2 hours of re-writing lesson plans. She thought it would just add to the burden that discipline problems represented to teachers. She wanted to raise that as an issue of examining what real solutions and real programs would be as discipline concerns were addressed.

She thought one of the most important things to know about all of the programs, whether on-site or off-site, there was a very strong emphasis not only in behavior management, building self-discipline, and self-esteem, but also always a focus on academics. Therefore, the program would serve as a place where students would continue to work on academic achievement, oftentimes with a focus on remediation or bringing students up to grade level in their academic performance. She urged the committee to support A.B. 521.

Charlotte Brothwell, executive director of the Nevada Classified School Employees Association, represented the individuals who sometimes tutored the students who got sent out of the classroom. She said in her 18 years as a middle school secretary and the last 5 years in Northern Nevada, there was an opportunity program that worked on the point system. Students were isolated from the rest of the school. They did not have their lunch at the same time as other students and they took an early bus home. The program did not offer elective courses, but only offered the essential courses. She thought the program worked very well and hoped the committee would support A.B. 521.

Dan Porath, a fifth grade teacher, taught for approximately 10 years and was in Carson City for approximately 8 years. In 1998, he had a student in his classroom with continual problems throughout the year. The student gave Mr. Porath some trouble, and therefore he told the student to calm down. Another student turned to the undisciplined student and asked if he was afraid that Mr. Porath would send him to the office. The discipline problem student said, "they won’t do anything." Mr. Porath knew he was right and nothing would happen to him because he would always return to the classroom.

He explained another problem that occurred in the current school year. A teacher was having a problem with a student and the administrator questioned the teacher about sending the student out in front of her class. The teacher went outside of the room with the administrator and threatened to resign if something was not done about the student. He said teachers had gotten to the point of quitting in order to have disruptive students removed from classrooms. Mr. Porath said A.B. 521 was very necessary and long past due.

Dick Mesna, a fourth grade teacher in Lyon County, testified in support of A.B. 521 and submitted his written testimony Exhibit E. He thought the bill pointed out a real concern by teachers across Nevada, provided solutions, and continued learning for students who were unable to control themselves in a social setting.

Mr. Mesna gave several examples of student discipline problems in the school at which he taught. Some students enjoyed reflecting a laser pointer in the rear-view mirror of a school bus, while another student enjoyed releasing the air from the pressure tank of the brake system in a school bus. A second grade student convinced a teacher he intended to stab her with a broken pencil. More recently, a third grade student hit a teacher in the head when the teacher reached down to pick up a hat the student had thrown on the floor. That student’s outrage was understandable when the school found out there was no money for the student’s medication. However, that was rarely the case. There was also an elementary student who brought a pornographic magazine to school, the student’s father denied ownership of the magazine and the mother blamed the father, ultimately not solving anything.

He said Lyon County had a tough discipline policy, but not always carried out by all administrators at all levels of education. He stated it would take everyone including every student, every teacher, every bus driver, every aide, every custodian, every secretary, every administrator, and every parent to make discipline effective. There could not just be a high-stakes test for seniors, accountability for teachers, standards for curriculum, and an attendance policy. A higher expectation for students’ behavior had to exist at all levels. He thought A.B. 521 was a step in that direction.

Mrs. de Braga asked if Mr. Mesna knew how Lyon County School District would fund alternative schooling if it was not funded by the state. She wondered if they could use existing resources.

Mr. Mesna said Lyon County took a proactive approach to the issue with a program that affected middle and high school students. He said the program was effective with 80 percent of students because it was not a pleasant experience.

Mrs. de Braga said it was clear from testimony heard there was a need for a program in more than just middle or high school grades. If she had the opportunity, she would ask every school district if they were willing to move forward with those programs with or without funding.

She also asked about teacher responsibility because she had visited a high school class where a student asked the teacher what they would be doing that day. After the teacher responded to the student, the student cursed at him/her. Therefore, Mrs. de Braga asked if it was to the point where that kind of behavior was irreversible.

Mr. Mesna replied, "not where I live and play."

Ms. Parnell said the school district in which she taught during 1998, spent thousands and thousands of dollars on conferences for each school to meet and determine what their most immediate needs were. The middle school at which she taught, when she was not helping to legislate, discovered its most immediate need was some kind of an alternative classroom. After spending all of those thousands of dollars on hearing teachers discuss what was important, that middle school was still without any form of an alternative classroom. She thought another reason teachers were upset, which she had not heard from testimony, was children who disrupted class were expressing some kind of special need themselves. By making arrangements to get assistance to children with disruptive behavior, not only would that child benefit from it but also those left in the classroom.

Veronica Skuse, a fourth grade teacher in Clark County, said her teaching career consisted of approximately 14 years, not all in Nevada. She said no matter where she had taught discipline had always been a very important issue in the classroom. Years ago, teachers went through training programs, which included disciplining students. No matter how many different discipline plans teachers were taught to use in classrooms, inevitably there was at least one student who could not be helped with any type of disciplining system. She was concerned because it was not fair to take away valuable teaching time to have to address the same sort of discipline or behavioral problems every day at the sacrifice of other students. She had a classroom of 35 students, 2 of whom could not sit still and behave. She reiterated time was taken away on a daily basis to address just those two students who could not sit still, learn, and show appropriate behavior in the classroom. She felt it was terrible two students got more attention and more of her time in a negative way than the other 33 students in a positive way. She thought a student who could not behave was crying out for some sort of help, and if that student’s records were examined, anyone could see similar problems throughout their early school years. Every year discipline problem students were not addressed, and she thought it would only get progressively worse. She wanted to thank the committee members who supported A.B. 521 because that meant they also supported her as a teacher.

Debbie Cahill, representing NSEA, thought testimony was an indication of how strongly Nevada citizens felt about A.B. 521 and hoped to work with everyone to address their concerns. She provided a summary that outlined provisions of the bill (Exhibit F). She said the goal was to get a recommendation from the committee to refer the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Doug Byington, representing the Nevada Association of School Administrators, was aghast in 1993 when Nevada became the last state to rule out corporal punishment. Mr. Byington submitted a copy of a recent article in Education Digest, which talked about problems with discipline (Exhibit G). As an administrator who was in charge of discipline for 14 years in a middle school, he strongly believed in discipline. In those years as a vice-principal in charge of discipline he was allowed to use a paddle. Once that changed, he thought a lot of things changed. During the 14 years as an administrator, he was often accused by teachers of not doing anything to punish students. He did not think any student would return to class and admit he/she got paddled. He said students were suspended after two swats.

Mr. Byington said A.B. 521 presented a number of problems. The bill did not require any prescriptive action to be taken prior to a student being referred to the principal. He wanted to know what had been done on the part of the classroom teacher to alleviate the situation, such as phone calls or parent conferences. He thought those things needed to be documented so it would be available for parent conferences. The bill stated after a student was referred to the principal, the principal would suspend the student for 3 days, would notify the parents, and then the process for a parent conference would be started. If a parent could not come in at the end of the 3-day suspension, the bill allowed that student to return to the classroom. However, the teacher could refuse to have the student return to the classroom. At that point, the committee to review the placement of pupils would decide whether the student would return to the classroom or be placed in an alternative program. He felt there could be some problems and did not think small schools had separate classrooms for in-house suspensions.

He was concerned with lines 42 and 43 on page 6, which read, "the high school principal shall establish a plan to ensure that the pupil graduates from high school." He suggested inserting language of, "the high school principal shall take steps necessary to enable or assist the pupil in graduating from high school."

Having been a classroom teacher he understood there were problems with discipline. Ultimately, the association believed in discipline and wanted to help teachers. He thought the bill could be worked out with some changes and money.

Henry Etchemendy, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards, agreed there were discipline problems within classrooms. He said if A.B. 521 was passed those problems would continue to happen. He did not believe the mechanics within the bill would address the issue. He thought principals could listen and help teachers with problems without invoking a committee through state statute. He said once a statute was in place, it would be very inflexible until it could be resolved in future legislative sessions. He thought the provisions of the bill should not erode administrators’ authority and decision making. If the bill remained as printed, teachers would be out of the classroom more often because he/she would have to work on the committee to review placement of pupils. Therefore, that class would need a substitute teacher. He did not think a committee to review placement of pupils should be created. Currently there was a lot of concern around Nevada regarding teachers being out of the classroom for parent conference days or teacher academy days. Therefore, people would also be concerned if teachers were taken out of classrooms to be part of the discipline committee.

Earlier testimony indicated there were successful alternative school programs around Nevada. There were some school districts that did not have those alternative programs where discipline problem students could be placed. He wondered if the appropriation was enough for those districts. He also wondered if those districts that already had alternative programs would get additional funding. The bill did not state how the funding would be appropriated and if it was appropriated like most education bills, which was based on pupil enrollments in a school district, he knew of two school districts in Nevada that would receive almost 85 percent of the funds. He thought the bill should be discussed further in the Committee on Ways and Means regarding those issues.

Jane Moyle, representing the Nevada Rural Alliance, said with the exceptions mentioned by Mr. Byington and Mr. Etchemendy, the alliance supported A.B. 521. The alliance took exception to the funding because each district would receive approximately $53,000 per district if the $900,000 were split evenly throughout Nevada. She thought the legislation before the committee was good, but the lack of money would jeopardize any effectiveness.

The bill gave the principal and the discipline committee three alternatives, and she thought some of those alternatives would not be very realistic in rural districts. Most rural schools did not have other classrooms in which to place discipline problem students. For example, there was only one third grade class or only one sophomore English class. There were requirements that students would study under the supervision of a teacher and would be located someplace in the building other than the regular classroom. The alliance felt those kinds of requirements were going to be very expensive and the $53,000 would not even cover the cost of the one teacher, especially if there was a disruptive student in each school within each district. She said an alternative program of education had even more requirements than the period of suspension in school, which was schools must provide intensive supervision and counseling, emphasize instruction in language arts, math, science, and history, and emphasize training and self-discipline. In closing, she said the alliance wanted to see A.B. 521 passed, but wanted to see the suitable funding proceed with the bill, which would ensure its success.

Chairman Williams reminded the committee the funding concerns would have to be debated in the Committee on Ways and Means if the bill was passed from the committee.

Martha Tittle, representing CCSD, testified in opposition to A.B. 521 and provided her written testimony, which included the district’s publications that integrated behavior guidelines for students (Exhibit H). The district strongly supported appropriate student discipline programs that encouraged positive student behavior. Each school principal was expected to involve staff and parents in the development and implementation of disciplinary procedures for the school.

In addition to classroom student behavior incentives and consequences, a variety of student disciplinary options were currently available in the district. Students could lose privileges, receive required parent conference notices (RPC), suspensions, and expulsions. Middle schools had in-house suspension programs and secondary schools could refer students to opportunity school. In addition to in-school discipline, the elementary education division established Area Educational Improvement Centers (AEIC) to address short-term behavior intervention and student success in school, especially for students in grades 2 through 5.

Since additional resources were needed in the district to continue and expand student behavior and discipline programs, the appropriation within the bill was appreciated. However, the district did not feel the appropriation proposed would address the district’s fiscal needs for implementation of the requirements within the bill.

The district had a number of questions and concerns regarding the bill that related to language clarification, school administration roles and responsibilities, staff time and related expenses, facilities issues, staff relationships, and student and parent rights. However, the district thought the section addressing the program requirements, which included intensive student supervision, counseling, and emphasis on training in self-discipline was good. She was willing to work with the sponsor of the bill in developing amendments that would address the district’s concerns.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOTIONED A.B. 521 TO DO PASS AND RE-REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Angle agreed with testimony regarding the need for discipline because she was a substitute teacher for 25 years. In one instance, she tried to separate two children who were fighting and one child hit her in the eye and nearly broke her nose. She called the police and reported it as an assault and battery. She thought law enforcement was left out of the bill, which was an important element. She said 90 percent of the instances stated within testimony were criminal offenses, which she thought needed to be reported to law enforcement. She thought the committee and those interested in the issue needed to examine and develop more alternatives that perhaps were already funded. For example, A.B. 314 was just passed, which was a juvenile facility just for the kinds of discipline problems described in testimony.

Mrs. Cegavske asked why the committee wanted to send A.B. 521 to the Committee on Ways and Means before any of the amendments or recommendations proposed were considered.

Chairman Williams explained he did not receive any amendments from anyone who testified.

Mrs. Cegavske said there were several people who mentioned there were possible amendments to the bill.

Chairman Williams announced if those people had the amendments in writing the committee would entertain them, but with the deadline of having to pass assembly bills out of committee approaching, he thought individuals with amendments would have submitted them to the committee.

Mr. Manendo thought A.B. 521 was a very important piece of legislation because schools were getting more dangerous by the day. Teachers, support staff, and students needed to be protected. He said with the 120-day session, committees were not receiving amendments and did not have the appropriate time to discuss them, therefore, he was perfectly comfortable to move forward with the motion. He was glad that all of the parties including parents, teachers, and principals were coming together to address the issue.

Ms. Parnell wanted clarification that if the motion on the floor passed it would not preclude the parties from meeting while the bill moved over to the Committee on Ways and Means to present amendments at that point.

Chairman Williams said that was correct and the timeline was not in effect in any of the money committees.

Mr. Gustavson agreed there were some serious problems with discipline, but he was not sure the bill would solve those problems. He wanted to see the issues of discipline addressed directly with parents before children were put into separate classrooms. He did not agree with the bill the way it was written.

Mr. Brower said he would be voting no on the motion. Not because he did not agree with the intent of the bill or any language, but because he heard the chief spokesperson for the proponent of the bill testify that her association looked forward to further discussions with respect to some problems and proposed amendments. He viewed the motion to do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Ways and Means as signifying the committee’s approval of the content of the bill, but not necessarily the appropriation involved. He thought further discussions regarding the proposed amendments should take place in the committee, not between lobbyists outside.

THE MOTION PASSED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE, BROWER, CEGAVSKE, AND GUSTAVSON VOTED NAY).

**********

Chairman Williams announced he would accept a motion on A.C.R. 37.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOTIONED TO DO PASS ON A.C.R. 37.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 90.

Assemblywoman Merle Berman, representing District 2, said she was waiting for a phone call from Edward Werner, from New Jersey, who would give testimony regarding A.B. 90. While the committee waited for the phone call, Ms. Berman presented the bill, which proposed to prohibit certain fund-raising activities. Because of the amount and types of complaints she received regarding the bill, she submitted a proposed amendment (Exhibit I). She said the original bill had two parts regarding door-to-door sales, one highlighted safety and the other highlighted incentives. The incentive section of the original bill spoke to prizes children received when going door-to-door selling goods. She said the amendment deleted all of the incentive clauses, which left the "new A.B. 90." The new bill only included the safety section to elementary schools.

Ms. Berman explained that each year schools and private groups throughout the nation enlisted students to sell candy, gift wrap, magazines, and other items to pay for such things as computers, library books, and field trips. She said fund-raising groups offered incentives to students, principals, and schools. School children who sold the most were offered prizes such as ice cream, class parties, and Sony Play Stations.

Ms. Berman researched the issue before the committee and found that seven children had been murdered by going door-to-door selling goods, which was mainly done by luring children into the house and happened in several states. She became interested in door-to-door sales during the 1997 legislative session when she had a pedophile bill and had an anonymous child, testify by telephone that he was going door-to-door selling candy. The child went to a door and the man who answered it asked him if the child wanted to sell 50 candy bars and if so he could take the child to his friend’s house. The little boy was very excited and went with the man. She thought the committee could imagine how the rest that story ended.

Ms. Berman wanted children safe. Even though fund-raising did serve a purpose, she did not think it should overwhelm every other factor. Violence was occurring more frequently around the nation, not only in big cities, but also in small rural towns. Ms. Berman wanted to make it clear she was not looking to push fund-raising out of schools. She reiterated the bill would only eliminate in elementary schools the door-to-door aspect. She approved of such things like direct mailings, car washes, garage sales, and lunch-ins, which she thought were great ways for schools to raise funds. The bill also opened up an area for alternative fund-raising activities lead by children, such as book sales, dances, and craft fairs. Activities such as band competition and cheerleading were not frills; they were important programs that helped students develop their talents.

The first responsibility for the funding of public schools lay with government, both federal and state working together. Businesses and corporations also could play a big role. She said there had been misinformation regarding the bill. It would not ban all fund-raising. There were many funding needs that were desirable and important to students in their school activities. Group fund-raising, where a parent would sit in front of a food store would be a fine alternative. Ms. Berman wrote to five large corporations and got responses that they were comfortable with children sitting in front of the stores with either parents or older siblings.

Ms. Berman received a ballpark figure from the Clark County School District of student generated funds. The approximate total was $25.3 million, which she thought was "just a drop in the bucket." She thought student generated funds totaled at least $50 million per year throughout Nevada. The Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) and the Parent Teacher Organizations (PTO) were not willing to provide information on the amount of money generated by their activities for schools in Clark County or Washoe County.

Ms. Berman also submitted a copy of a letter that went to journalism students regarding required selling of ads for the school’s newspaper (Exhibit J). The exhibit also included a list of the total student generated funds from different schools throughout Nevada.

Eddie Werner, who was on the telephone, had a chilling story regarding his own son who was murdered. Ms. Berman provided a copy of a newspaper article regarding that tragedy (Exhibit K).

Mr. Werner said that on September 27, 1997, in New Jersey, his son was 11½ years old and went door-to-door in their own neighborhood selling gift wrapping for a school fund raiser. His son knocked on a door at a home where there was a 15-year-old boy who lured his son into the house where he raped and murdered him. He strangled him and then hid his body. Mr. Werner said there was a manhunt for approximately 2 days when police found his son’s body buried across the street from the murderer’s house in the backyard. That 15-year-old pled guilty to murder and would be sentenced in the coming week.

Ms. Berman asked if Mr. Werner knew what the penalty was in New Jersey and if it had any laws regarding door-to-door sales.

Mr. Werner said he testified at the New Jersey Legislature in favor of proposed legislation to ban door-to-door selling. At the current time, the bill was in "limbo." It was introduced some time in 1998.

Mr. Werner said schools did not need to use children to raise funds by going door-to-door selling goods because he thought it was simply wrong. He thought it was just too dangerous. He understood the funds were used for nice things, but it simply was not worth the risk. He said a lot of corporations were behind the selling and were making profits, which he thought was very distasteful.

Ms. Parnell asked if the bill had a definition for "sponsored by a public school." She asked how the PTA was "sponsored by" because they did not receive funding from schools.

Ms. Berman said it was "a public school or an organization."

Ms. Parnell said she still was having difficulty reading how that would work. She could understand school band or a school club because those activities were directly related to the school and sponsored by the school. She did not see the PTA as the same thing.

Ms. Berman said some Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts went through public schools and held their meetings at public schools. Therefore, the portion of the bill Ms. Parnell asked about spoke to, "an organization sponsored by the public school." She reiterated the amendment changed the bill to address elementary school students only.

Chairman Williams said obviously the case of Mr. Werner was a very sad situation and he sympathized with the family. In reading Exhibit K, the young man who committed the crime was involved with an adult who had been in other crimes. He asked if Ms. Berman would agree that situation could have happened anywhere and wondered if it really had anything to do with door-to-door sales. Had door-to-door sales not been involved, the crime still could have been committed because the victim lived in the same neighborhood as the assaulter.

Ms. Berman said she could not answer "would of, could of" and only answered from her own involvement in the issue. She reiterated the boy who testified for her pedophile bill during the 1997 legislative session also went door-to-door selling goods and also met up with the wrong person at the wrong door. She did not think Eddie Werner was trying to be the high salesman in the classroom. She did think children would go door-to-door selling goods had they not had a specific purpose, which was selling candy and getting a prize for themselves, the school, and the principal. She thought children did it because they wanted to participate in their classroom’s activities.

Chairman Williams said there were stories just as bad where children were killed at carnivals and even in church. He was sure the children who were killed in a church would not have been killed had they not gone, but he wondered if every possible negative situation should be banned. He thought parents should become protective of their children by going door-to-door with them.

Ms. Berman thought that was a great observation but said she was personally looking for the safety of elementary school children. She could not speak regarding churches and other places because children were always at risk when they were alone. She wanted to take out the risk factor from elementary school children and give them a safe environment and safe activities to raise money.

Chairman Williams asked if high school and middle school children deserved that same right.

Ms. Berman replied A.B. 90 was a very tough bill and many people were very upset with her bill, therefore she backed down to the part of the society who really could not speak for themselves, which was elementary school children. She did agree all children should be protected.

Mrs. de Braga asked if elementary school children were required to sell goods or did they have the option.

Ms. Berman explained how the programs worked and gave an example. She said a representative from a company came to a school and presented the program to the class or the auditorium. That same representative came back to the school 2 weeks after the program was introduced twice a week to collect subscriptions (if magazines were sold) and sometimes gave money to whoever sold the most subscriptions. Each time the representative came back to the school he/she handed out more presents. She said in essence representatives were enticing the children with gifts. She was against gifts and thought if children were working for computers for the class they should work because of that reason only, not because the highest sellers would be picked up in a limousine and taken to a lunch-in. She reminded the committee the incentive part of the bill was deleted because it was not acceptable to most people.

Mrs. de Braga wanted to be sure all the bill did was prevent door-to-door sales by elementary school students.

Ms. Berman agreed and said it did not prevent sales all together and said it only prohibited door-to-door sales for elementary school children.

Betty Johnson, private citizen from Las Vegas, testified in support of A.B. 90 and submitted her written testimony (Exhibit L), which included articles regarding the case of Eddie Werner. She did not believe children who were mandated to be in school should be inundated with advertising while in attendance. Children simply did not have the discretion to find the truth behind advertising. Yet, on nearly a weekly basis, another form of advertising was forced onto children at school. She said professional fundraisers whipped children into a selling frenzy, displaying prizes that could be won by selling their products/goods. She thought children were unable to discern the quality of the prizes, or understand the difference between "selling to friends and neighbors" and going "door-to-door." She understood parents were responsible for their children, but asked how they could be held responsible when they were not given any warning, or even asked permission to allow their children to be removed from class for a blatant advertising scheme.

She wrote to Senator Raggio last session expressing her concern regarding her son who had been asked to participate in 18 fundraisers for his elementary school. Her concern was both school time being utilized and student safety. At that time, her son was only 5 years old and recess had been removed from the curriculum due to loss of class time. Yet he was removed from class for at least five of those fund raising activities without her permission.

Senator Raggio replied to Ms. Johnson by stating the funds were to be utilized for such things as maps, books, and pencils, which were adequately funded by the legislature. She then wrote to Brian Cram, superintendent of Clark County School District, who informed her those items were budgeted, but the principal could decide to utilize those funds for other purposes, and it was necessary for students to raise more money to fund their educational needs. He compared that type of fund raising to scout troops who sold popcorn and cookies. Ms. Johnson said scout troops were not mandatory groups as school was mandatory. Ms. Johnson was not opposed to all fundraising efforts, but believed it was time to place the burden of paying for children’s education on parents and taxpayers, not on 5-year-olds with catalogs, walking from door-to-door.

Ms. Johnson had the opportunity to be a part of a committee created in Clark County to look into fundraising. She was dismayed at the attitude of most of the committee members because they stated the money was needed. She frankly asked at the last meeting, "Setting aside financial and legal responsibility, if a child were to be killed while selling items for your school, would you feel any moral responsibility." One of the principals looked her directly in the eyes and said, "no." Ms. Johnson felt responsible and asked the committee to pass A.B. 90 to protect children. If she were to send her 5-year-old out to sell candy door-to-door to support the family, child protective services would certainly step in. She exclaimed it was the responsibility of adults to provide for the needs of children and to protect them.

Vicki McGill, private citizen from Las Vegas, testified in support of A.B. 90 and provided her written testimony (Exhibit M). The exhibit also included a copy of the CCSD policy for fund raising, which she thought was too vague. It also included three newspaper articles, two of which were letters to the editor from individuals who supported the same view as she.

Two weeks after her son started school in Las Vegas, he took part in a school-based fundraising assembly. He was given the opportunity to sell magazine subscriptions in hopes of winning a limousine ride, a balloon ride, and/or other prizes. Ms. McGill was not notified of the assembly, nor was her permission granted for her son to participate. Her son was very excited and decided to forgo his usual routine of riding the bus home and went with a friend, on foot, to sell subscriptions in the neighborhood around the school. He tried to call home before leaving school to get permission, but unfortunately the phone was busy, therefore he decided to go anyway. As a concerned parent, she called a friend, his father at work, and went to the school to find an administrator who contacted school patrol for attendance records. She did not get any information; therefore, she called the metro police. He was missing for 4 frantic hours, until a police officer spotted him walking home. She said some people thought it was a case of poor judgement on the part of her son and/or poor parenting. The school principal accepted no responsibility for the activity because it took place off school grounds, even though the motivational assembly that took place on school campus was the cause of the incident. If those responsible for the activity had told students there was to be no door-to-door selling, and they were to report to their parents first, the entire incident could have been avoided.

Ms. McGill understood if A.B. 90 were passed, it could cause a significant change among those who produced and subscribed to such activities. She thought creativity and refocusing energies could improve the parent, student, and school relationship with regard to fundraising.

Mrs. de Braga asked if Ms. McGill or any other parents approached CCSD to create a policy on the issue.

Ms. McGill stated she was on the same committee that Ms. Johnson spoke about. Ms. McGill said that committee had held two meetings and she wrote down the changes she wanted to see made and submitted them to the elementary division. She said the issue was being discussed at the elementary level, but it was not a priority. Frankly, she did not see much of anything being resolved and did not have much hope. She opined the current policies in place were fairly vague. She thought the changes she hoped could be made would strengthen the responsibility the schools had when conducting a fundraiser to at least include parents in the decision-making process about whether children would participate or not.

Mrs. de Braga asked if she knew if the issue was ever put onto a school agenda.

Ms. McGill said it was not on an agenda yet, but was currently going through the policy committee. She said the committee members were in such a hurry to leave at the end of the last meeting that a date was not even set for the next meeting. She said it had taken 9 months to even conduct two meetings.

Cathy Blackham, a private citizen living in Las Vegas, urged the committee to pass A.B. 90 and wanted something similar to also apply to secondary schools. She said one of the things disturbing about the types of fundraisers discussed, besides the fact they seemed to encourage children to go door-to-door, was they also encouraged children to have their parents take order forms to work to encourage co-workers to buy from catalogs. Her husband was disturbed by it because he was a partner in an accounting firm. He felt it was not something in which he could ever engage as he did not want to have anything appear to be a type of coercion where employees must buy because he was their employer. She also thought it was hard to have relatives buy those items because her family did not live close by.

Another thing that disturbed her about the fundraisers was the poor quality of prizes. One of her daughters participated in a jog-a-thon fundraiser in which she wanted to earn a hand-held mini fan. After she received the prize it did not work.

Besides the obvious risks and physical dangers, the problem of children losing money and losing track of orders also existed. She did not think it was a good idea to rely on children to do it properly because problems would arise.

Ms. Blackham encouraged students to use other types of fundraisers that could be school-based such as student stores, dances, or T-shirt sales. Those other types of fundraisers would keep children from going door-to-door, from badgering family members, or from employers asking employees to buy.

Every time her children came home with more information about another fundraiser, she could not keep from wondering why people paid taxes if children were trying to raise money for supplies. She also wondered about the accountability of school districts. She urged the committee to vote for A.B. 90.

Mr. Collins said parents needed to get to know their neighbors before they allowed their children to go door-to-door around the neighborhood. He said a lot of individuals helped the PTA, but if the PTA’s were not organized they would have a faulty campaign drive or fundraiser. He thought bake sales worked well and students could sell cakes to neighbors just as successfully as on campus. He was not promoting child labor, but he thought other ways needed to be found to obtain the facilities needed. He simply did not want everyone to give up on the good things that occurred at schools for children.

Ms. Blackham wanted to clarify she was no longer a member of the PTA and would never join again.

Lucille Lusk, representing the Nevada Concerned Citizens, was greatly concerned with the issue raised in A.B. 90. She said the group was not sure the amended bill responded to those concerns because the largest concern was with the incentives and pressure system that was created. Although, school districts said they discouraged door-to-door sales, there were continued reports, even at the elementary school level, of tremendous pressures placed on children to sell by offering prizes and incentives, peer pressure, and personal embarrassment in front of peers in the classroom.

Many families purchased candy, wrapping paper, or whatever their child was selling for $25 or $50, but many young families could not afford to buy those items and did not have family or friends nearby who had the discretionary income to buy generally frivolous items. She informed the committee the group had heard of reports of children who cried and begged their parents to allow them to go out and sell for fundraising activities. But when some responsible parents did not allow it the children pleaded to not even have to go to school because "everyone will be mad at me because it will be all my fault my class won’t get a party." Ms. Lusk said the group thought it was very wrong to pressure children into those situations by the promises of prizes, class parties, and the fear of being singled out because children would be emotionally stressed and distracted from classroom learning. She said when prizes were extra credit or something that affected student’s grades; the instructional program was compromised. The group also recognized A.B. 90, as it was originally drafted, probably went too far. Consequently, she provided some conceptual amendments for the committee to review (Exhibit N). The amendments did not eliminate fundraisers, but served the following purposes:

• "To provide for the safety of children;"

• "To preserve instructional time for the approved curriculum;"

• "To ensure that student grades and class standing are determined by their academic achievement and not by fundraising objectives; and"

• "To reduce unwarranted pressure on students, teachers, and families to participate in fundraising activities at the expense of student safety and time for academic studies or family activities."

She said the following were proposed concepts regarding the issue:

1. "Participation in fundraising activities shall not be a condition for a student to participate in any class, school, or school related activity."

2. "Sales or participation in fundraising activities shall not be a consideration in awarding student grades, extra credit, citizenship, or class standing."

3. "All members of a class, group or school may not be required to participate in a fundraising activity as a condition of any award, prize, or incentive for that class, group, or school."

4. "Instructional time shall not be used for fundraising activities."

5. "Students who do not participate in fundraising activities must not be singled out or subjected to embarrassment in any manner."

Ms. Lusk announced if any one of the five proposed conceptual items were adopted it would be a step in the right direction in reducing the pressure system on students and families who were not in a position to spend that kind of money. She said the group believed those items would help in ensuring the integrity of the instructional program and in protecting classroom time for appropriate instruction.

Mr. Collins explained that students at his high school, in the 1960’s, had to use another school’s football field because his school did not have one. However, due to fundraising efforts by the junior high schools that fed into that high school, students raised funds by selling green stamps, orange stamps, canned foods, car washes, and many other things. He said those students at the junior high school raised over $5,000 of the $25,000 the students raised in the Western High School zone boundaries in Clark County. Without the children putting forth effort to raise that money, that high school would not have had their own football field for many years later because of funding problems in the school district. Therefore, he did not think fundraising should be banned altogether. He thought the issue was whether fundraising was administered correctly or not.

Ms. Lusk indicated that she did not disagree with Mr. Collins’ comments, which was why the proposed amendments from the group did not ban fundraising. She said the amendments simply asked the committee to take some steps to eliminate some of the unnecessary pressures that were created as a result, such as a party given to a classroom if every child in classroom sold the products/goods. She thought there would be situations in which individual children could not meet those requirements without compromising their safety. She thought it was fine if children were not pressured into it and whose parents could afford to spend $25 or $50. However, the pressure system needed to be reduced, and she hoped the committee would take some steps in that regard. She realized there was no intention in eliminating fundraising all together, but thought the committee could make it a little more reasonable.

Assemblyman John Carpenter, representing District 33, testified in opposition to A.B. 90. He was not aware of the proposed amendments submitted by Ms. Lusk and therefore had several individuals from Elko County come to testify. He said A.B. 90 would effectively curtail fundraising activities in Elko County, even it was going to apply to elementary school children. There were many activities in which those children participated, such as band, football, baseball, soccer, and many other activities that were financed by fundraising. He truly believed the issue before the committee was best controlled at the local level with parents, school administrators, and teachers being involved. He understood there were "horror stories" of children being murdered, and he agreed they should be curtailed. However, he did not believe it was a job of the Nevada Legislature to accomplish it.

Ann Gustin, a member of the Elko County School Board and a legislative liaison, spoke in opposition to A.B. 90 because felt the issue should be handled at the local level. Therefore, individuals, who actually cared about students and who could best ensure the safety of students, could be involved. She said there were a lot of wonderful and positive programs in Elko County, which were also used statewide and nationally, that would stop if the bill was passed. The only way students had those programs available was by additional fundraising because taxes could only be raised so high.

Ann Melcher, a second grade teacher and the co-president of the PTA, said students in Elko County were told they could never go door-to-door; however, the way the bill was written it would not allow students to ask friends or relatives outside of their home to sponsor their fundraising activities. She said the fundraising in Elko County was never mandatory and certainly never tied to academics. The district had done away with any of the national fundraising groups. They had participated in a walk-a-thon where the money raised was 100 percent profit and therefore were not selling any merchandise to the public. The fundraising was providing things for the schools, which were not included in the budgets, such as computers, assemblies, bringing in cultural activities, field trips, and many other things. The students would be the ones missing out if those funds could not be raised. She also agreed the issue should be dealt with at the local level.

Mrs. Cegavske said she personally gave money to her children rather than allowing them to go door-to-door. She asked if students in Elko County went out to sell with adult supervision because she knew the distance between homes was larger in that county.

Mr. Carpenter believed his own children used to sell products/goods by going door-to-door or by telephone; however, it was a long time ago and without the violence in today’s society. He said the Future Farmers of America Association (FFA) instructor was always a part of it and controlled it very well.

Ms. Melcher stated children were currently told they could not go door-to-door at the elementary school level, but she saw others things within the bill that would prohibit students from even asking people they knew outside of their home to sponsor their fundraising activities.

Mrs. Cegavske wanted to know whether or not Elko County encouraged parents to accompany children. She also proposed an amendment, which was not being able to engage in fundraisers by going door-to-door without parental supervision. She asked if the individuals from Elko County could live with that proposed amendment.

Ms. Gustin understood there were problems with fundraisers; however, by putting it into law, she would never know what would happen in the future and what positive things would be stopped from happening. She reiterated it needed to be monitored, starting with parents and followed up at the local level.

Mr. Carpenter commented he owned a business in Elko and believed the way A.B. 90 was written, although it applied to only elementary schools, he could also see a lot of positive things being stopped from happening. A lot of children came into his business and asked for donations for fundraisers, with which he did not have a problem. He had seen some parents accompany their children when asking for donations, which many children were upset by. He thought it was best that children did it on their own, especially when coming into businesses. He did not like calling it "door-to-door sales"; he liked calling it "children coming in and asking business and people to contribute to a specific activity that students would not be able to have without those kinds of fundraising activities.

Dennis Digenan, an instructor at Spring Creek High School in Elko County, testified in opposition to A.B. 90 because of the loss of opportunities to students to be able to travel to state and national competitions. The bill would also prevent the raising of approximately $6500 a year, which was given to students in scholarships. It would also basically deny the people who wanted to buy products and donate to the cause.

He did not have any experience with fundraising at the elementary school level, but had 20 years of experience in Elko County School District. Knowing the quality of the Elko County School Board, administrators, and superintendent he could not see the type of abusive behavior mentioned in earlier testimony regarding elementary school children. Therefore, he did not think Elko County needed A.B. 90 to control the situation of fundraising.

Katie Johnson, a sophomore at Spring Creek High School and an active member in FFA, said she attended the state convention in which she was the chairman of the state winning parliamentary procedure team, and without fundraising she would not be able to attend a national convention. She was not only speaking about FFA, but also about being involved in sports and other activities through the high school. Ultimately, students would not have been able to do as many things as they had done without fundraising.

Mrs. Cegavske asked what types of fundraising she had done.

Ms. Johnson stated her chapter of FFA sold things like nuts, jerky, and oranges and she only sold to her friends, family, and people she knew. She was also on the volleyball team, which worked at a concession stand at the high school and also went around to businesses for donations.

Jamie Stone, representing Spring Creek High School, the Silver Sage FFA Chapter, and the Nevada State FFA as state treasurer, had many opportunities due to fundraising throughout her 4 years in high school. Every fundraiser she had done was her choice. She was never pushed into doing it by anyone. Because she chose to fundraise, she was able to travel all over the State of Nevada, was able to visit Kansas City, Missouri, twice and would be going to Louisville, Kentucky, in the near future. She remembered fundraising always being her choice, even when she was in elementary school.

Mr. Manendo asked if she had any younger siblings who helped in her fundraising efforts.

Ms. Stone said she had one sister and together they fundraised, especially since they both were involved with FFA and they were able to benefit from each other by going together. She also said they did not go door-to-door, but instead went to family, friends, and businesses asking for donations.

Mrs. Koivisto asked what type of fundraising she did while in elementary school and if she did it by going door-to-door.

Ms. Stone remembered doing candy sales and sold gift-wrapping paper at Christmas to raise money for books and such, which were the same types of fundraisers mentioned in earlier testimony. She remembered participating for incentives such as winning a piggy bank if she sold certain amounts. She said it was always by her choice. At that time, she still did not go door-to-door. She sold through church and friends of the family.

Jim Cooney, an educator at Elko County High School, taught there for 22 years and said he had the fortunate job of being the advisor for the FFA chapter at that high school. He thought it was very difficult to get the community and parents involved with school activities. If A.B. 90 were passed, he thought students would be disserviced.

He believed students were being taught some very valuable life skills when incentives were offered. It encouraged students to communicate with people, which was a very difficult thing for younger children especially when selling something. A lot of career choices students would make would involve sales and their communication skills. He urged the committee to kill A.B. 90 and allow the local school districts to have the opportunity to decide if and how fundraising would be utilized.

Chad Venters, president of the FFA chapter at Elko High School, thought incentives were not always so terrible, if the incentives had good intentions. He said it cost a lot of money to attend such things as national conventions. The FFA chapter at the school developed a travel account, which was based on each individual student’s sales on certain items to receive a certain amount of money that went into that account. He knew the convention the chapter just attended cost each of the members $125 for registration and a motel room, which did not include any food or spending money for an entire week.

Brandie Krenka, vice-president of the FFA chapter in Elko, said some of the sales she had done were fruit and jerky sales and also a farmer’s market held during the summer. She lived in Ruby Valley and basically sold to everyone in that area. If A.B. 90 was passed she did not think she could continue to sell there because it could be considered door-to-door selling.

Kyle Blackburn, representing the Elko High School Band, had been a band member for 4 years and was a part of almost every organization in the band, such as jazz band. Without fundraising he would not have had the chance to go to the Orange Parade in Florida. In 1998, he was able to represent the State of Nevada and lead the Elko High School Band in the Rose Parade. Therefore, fundraising did a lot, not only for his community and high school but also the entire state.

Kim Miller, a parent and a member of the PTA, was strongly opposed to A.B. 90. She said the elementary school did a walk-a-thon, which was not done by an outside company. It was voluntary and the children loved participating. She said information about the program went home to parents and students and parents were told not to go door-to-door to strangers. She felt the bill would eliminate going door-to-door to friends, family, and businesses. She said the walk-a-thon raised approximately $20,000 per year and provided for much needed things such as equipment, technology, field, trips, and assemblies. She understood children were not to approach strangers on the streets or in their homes, and she did not allow her children to go door-to-door to stranger’s homes or by themselves. She thought her child was put in potential danger even when allowing him to walk two blocks to a friend’s house, but he could not be kept a prisoner in his own home. As a parent, she took responsibility for her children and did what she could for all of the other children in the school to keep them safe during fundraisers. She said fundraisers provided for children, the community, and gave valuable learning experiences. Without being able to raise funds children would not learn community service, would not be able to participate in Jump Rope for Heart, or collect canned goods for the needy. The high school would not be able to put on the community-wide steak dinner in the park, which was a community event. The Elko community enjoyed supporting students in their efforts.

By passing A.B. 90 she felt it would have far reaching negative impacts both financially and community wide. With budgets being cut and if A.B. 521 was passed without funding, there would be an even bigger need for fundraising. She suggested the committee kill A.B. 90.

Walt Lovell, the director of the band at Elko High School, a professional fundraiser, a parent, a grandparent, and an educator for 31 years, said A.B. 90 would do a great deal of damage. It would remove things which were necessities in the Elko community and would damage high school programs because he knew people who would read the bill the way it was written and read section 4, item (b) as applying to high schools. People would be confused because the language did not "match up" from the first part of the bill to the second part of the bill, even in the amended form.

He was greatly opposed to the bill, as a person who raised $90,000 per year on average outside of school budgets to take students to New York, London, The Tournament of Roses Parade, bowl games, and other activities. He also was able to allow students the opportunity of having professional musicians come to their school. He agreed with every testimony in opposition to the bill and hoped the committee would not pass A.B. 90.

Kim Mileo, a resident of Minden in Douglas County, testified in opposition to A.B. 90 and provided her written testimony (Exhibit O). Ms. Mileo was employed in the fundraising industry and was president of her son’s elementary school Parent Teacher Organization (PTO). One of the PTO’s concerns was the district’s budget restraint for such items as computer software, science and math projects, educational assemblies, and playground equipment. That school used fundraising successfully and supplemented the school budget. Sales were larger when students were offered incentives, which in turn gave the school greater buying power.

Every parent and teacher she knew was in support of the no door-to-door sales requirement, which most school districts already stated a policy of that nature, including Douglas County schools. Schools sent notes home to parents instructing them not to allow their children to go door-to-door and not to talk to strangers. She thought A.B. 90 would only micromanage current school boards and school districts.

Ms. Mileo was bothered with a comment made by Ms. Berman regarding students who were rewarded by going door-to-door. Ms. Mileo exclaimed that was not what fundraising was about. She knew selling door-to-door was very dangerous, which was never encouraged in Douglas County School District. She thought the issue before the committee should be governed at the local level, not at the state level.

Paul Mileo, a student at Carson Valley Middle School in Gardnerville, Nevada, spoke in opposition to A.B. 90 and submitted his written testimony (Exhibit P). He had been participating in fundraising activities for 9 years and had never gone door-to-door selling items, therefore always selling to close friends and family. Without fundraising, students would be without money for computer software, educational assemblies, art supplies, science programs, and field trips to name a few. He believed the schools were doing their job by not letting children sell door-to-door. All of the fundraising pamphlets he had ever received always said in bold letters, "NO DOOR TO DOOR SALES."

He found it interesting that a bill could be passed restricting students to go door-to-door to raise money to help schools, even though he had never seen students actually go door-to-door. However, there seemed to be little concern about allowing children to go door-to-door at night begging for candy on Halloween.

Charlotte Brothwell, Nevada Classified School Employees Association, testified in opposition to A.B. 90 and provided her testimony in writing (Exhibit Q). She said the association worked on a daily basis for the safety and wellbeing of children in public schools. Without fundraising activities there would be several worthwhile programs that would not occur due to the fact that educational funding did not come anywhere near what was required to maintain various programs.

Ms. Brothwell worked for school districts that required students to have their parents return signed permission slips regarding safety issues of fundraising activities. She also remembered when children were getting abused while trick-or-treating at Halloween, which encouraged parents to go with their children. Trick-or-treating was not banned, but instead people were more cautious and smart when allowing children to participate.

Karen Gregersen Rudd, an American Heart Association staff member, testified in opposition to A.B. 90 and felt lucky to be responsible for servicing American Heart activities in schools throughout Northern Nevada for over 15 years. She said the association was a nonprofit organization dedicated to reduce heart disease and stroke and worked in partnership with schools for both fundraising and educational activities.

Jump Rope for Heart was a fundraising and educational event, which gave students an opportunity to raise funds and be rewarded with thank you gifts. She felt the Jump Rope for Heart program taught children community service. Orientation assemblies were conducted in schools prior to the event and it was made very clear not to go door-to-door, which was also printed in informational brochures. Jump Rope for Heart program provided crucial funds that supplied quality educational materials and physical educational equipment to schools. Children were proud and had fun participating in community service.

Ms. Parnell wondered how A.B. 90 would affect the Jump Rope for Heart program.

Ms. Rudd stated the first proposal she had seen would exclude fundraising in schools.

Ms. Parnell asked if the newly proposed language would deter the program.

Ms. Rudd stated the new amendment would not prevent the program in schools because the material given to students stated no door-to-door sales. Although she thought the new language stated students could not ask anyone for donations except in a public place.

Maureen Brower, representing the American Heart Association, provided her written testimony, which included a permission slip parents had to sign (Exhibit R). She said informational brochures were sent home with student so parents could understand the program in more detail, which was also included in the exhibit. She said the association strongly stressed volunteerism, community service, and teamwork.

Ms. Brower had concerns, even with the proposed amendment, regarding the definition of door-to-door sales. She asked the committee to examine the amendment further and thought further amendments were necessary.

Steve Williams, representing the Washoe County School District, provided his written testimony in opposition to A.B. 90 (Exhibit S). He said the district was very concerned with the safety of children. The district had a very strong policy in place regarding a fundraising manual, of which a couple of pages from the manual were a part of the provided exhibit. The policy stated selling door-to-door was prohibited for elementary and middle school students without parental supervision. The district thought the issue before the committee was best handled on a local basis, believed it was adequately addressed, and no additional law was necessary.

Martha Tittle, representing the Clark County School District, testified in opposition to A.B. 90 and provided her written remarks (Exhibit T). She said the district was very concerned about the safety and welfare of all students. The district had adopted regulations that prohibited encouragement or promotion of door-to-door fundraising activities by elementary school students. Elementary student participation in off-campus fundraising activities also required written consent from their parent/guardian. The regulation also stated students who did not participate in school sponsored fundraising were not to be discriminated against in any way. She attached a copy of that regulation to the exhibit.

Henry Etchemendy, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards, provided his testimony addressing the original bill (Exhibit U). He did not think the proposed amendment changed the concerns of the association and felt they were still in opposition to the enactment of A.B. 90 even with the amendment. He stated the local school districts were in the best position to enact and insist upon adherence to policies which regulated or prohibited fundraising activities. He had conversations with numerous school officials, which made it apparent to him that many discouraged door-to-door solicitations by pupils.

He did not agree with the section of the bill which suspended the school from all fundraising activities for a period of at least 1 year, if one violation occurred. He did not think worthwhile and necessary activities should be threatened by the potential penalty occasioned by the acts of others involved in unrelated actions.

Mr. Etchemendy said the process stipulated in paragraph 2 of section 1 did not conform to any administrative procedures inherent to the operation of school districts. The bill required principals to report violations to the Board of Trustees and to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, which was not the way it was currently done. Currently principals reported to the county superintendent of schools, a designated assistant, or area superintendent. In turn, the superintendent reported to the Board of Trustees, which ensured a consistent method of operation.

Ultimately, he did not think the bill was necessary because the issue should be handled at the local level. He said the stated penalty was too severe for those who were not involved in the action. For those reasons, he asked the committee not to process A.B. 90.

Ms. Berman was proud to say Elko County School District raised $500,000 last year. She was also interested in knowing why Elko was the only community that came to testify against the bill, which indicated it was not very important to other areas. She said the revision to the bill was done because everyone was concerned it was too stringent. She reiterated the bill, as written with the proposed amendment, was only speaking to door-to-door sales for elementary school students. It would not stop any other form of selling. She asked the committee to consider A.B. 90 as a policy statement for all counties in Nevada.

Chairman Williams stated there were other communities who signed in to testify in opposition to the bill; however, due to time constraints he had to close the hearing at some point.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 90 WITH AMENDMENTS PROVIDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL.

Mrs. Chowning thought there were problems with the proposed amendment submitted by Ms. Berman. She understood Ms. Berman’s intentions were to only have the bill apply to elementary school students going door-to-door without parental supervision. Mrs. Chowning agreed with the problem stated by Mr. Etchemendy regarding section 1, subsection 2. She thought the procedure would have to be changed in order to meet the procedure currently in practice. She also thought there was a problem with subsection 3 regarding the penalty in having all fundraising activities suspended when a violation occurred, which she felt was too harsh. She also felt there was another problem in subsection 4, which eliminated students traveling from one business to another. She would hesitate passing A.B. 90 with those problems.

Chairman Williams said section 3 of the proposed amendment caused him to be concerned regarding an entire school being banned from fundraising for 1 year if it were to be violated. He did not think it was fair to punish an entire school when only one individual or group violated the provisions of the bill.

Mrs. de Braga thought children should not be in danger of being coerced into selling. She did, however, believe rural school would be in a lot of trouble without fundraising. She encouraged each individual school district to address the issue to be sure regulations were in place to protect children. She thought it should be controlled at a local level and did not support the bill.

Ms. Berman addressed Mrs. Chowning’s concerns and stated the Legal Division went from school level, to local level, to state level, which was why the current language was in place. She thought the bill was written that way to go along with other chapters in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). She said paragraph 3 stated the superintendent of public instruction "may" determine it appropriate to suspend the school from engaging in fundraising, therefore it was permissive language. She stated the bill did not prohibit students from selling to specific persons to which the general public had access if a prearranged appointment was made.

She also addressed and appreciated Mrs. de Braga’s comments regarding rural districts needing different policy procedures, but felt the policy statement should address the entire state.

THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN’S AMENDMENT FAILED (ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE VOTED YEA AND ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

Mrs. Chowning proposed a new amendment and thought section 2 should be cleared to address Mr. Etchemendy’s concerns. She also believed there should be a penalty less severe, even in its permissive language, to not include suspension from all fundraising activities. She also wanted "from one business to another" deleted from section 4 because students went from one business to another, especially in a small community and thought adult supervision was always necessary. She did not have the proposed amendments in writing but thought the issues raised should be addressed.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 90 BY CLARIFYING THE PROPER PROCEDURE IN SUBSECTION 2, RESTATING OR DELETING THE PENALTY IN SUBSECTION 3, AND ELIMINATING LANGUAGE "FROM ONE BUSINESS TO ANOTHER" IN SUBSECTION 4.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION FAILED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE, CEGAVSKE, CHOWNING, AND GUSTAVSON VOTED YEA. ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOTIONED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 90.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA.

Mr. Manendo wished there was more time to work on A.B. 90 and was almost prepared to support the last motion but did not think there was time to see the amendments in writing. He was not able to support the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill because he wanted to work on it at a later date.

THE MOTION FAILED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS DE BRAGA, GUSTAVSON, KOIVISTO, COLLINS, AND CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS VOTED YEA. ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 90 due to not being able to reach a consensus of votes. He opened the hearing on A.B. 3.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, representing District 9, announced her intern would present A.B. 3.

Jennifer Rains, intern to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, provided written testimony (Exhibit V). She stated the bill was a very simple piece of legislation that improved Individualized Education Programs (IEP’s) used in special education. The bill was a response to major problems identified by teachers, parents, administrators, and other interested parties.

Those major problems were as follows:

1. "A large amount of redundant paperwork is required of special education teachers and support staff;"

2. "Type of paperwork used in special education programs varies from school district to school district;"

3. "IEP development process is very time consuming and there is no standardized format used across schools or school districts;"

4. "Methods used to assess a student’s specific disability are often not accurate, and these methods are not consistent across school districts; and"

5. "Volume of paperwork serves to intimidate parents instead of promoting a dialogue with teachers."

She informed the committee the State Board of Education regulations currently required students to pass the Eleventh Grade Proficiency Examination before receiving a standard diploma. Most special needs students would not receive such a diploma and could end up dropping out of school.

Section 1 provided for the department to establish a uniform IEP form that would be available in formats like computer disk and also required the board to establish minimum standards for special education pupils. Restrictions were placed upon state money for school districts and charter schools, that failed to provide instruction, which met the minimum standards established. Section 2 and 3 outlined implementation.

Mrs. de Braga asked who could have access to the IEPs.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated the parents, the special education teacher, regular education teacher if the child was referred to a regular classroom, and the school psychologist that might have administered testing.

Mrs. de Braga asked if an outside group that cared for special education children could have access to the IEPs with parental permission.

Ms. Giunchigliani replied the only time an outside group could have access to that information would be if that group was the child’s advocate or guardian.

Mrs. Cegavske stated parents were required to sign in to see their own child’s report and had to have somebody present to even look at it. She wondered if that was still the case.

Ms. Giunchigliani did not see that happening at the school at which she worked. She said a parent could come in and review the report anytime without someone else in the room.

Mrs. Cegavske knew it was required several years ago for an administrator or someone from the school to sit with a parent because they were afraid of altering the documents.

Ms. Giunchigliani did not think that should be the practice. As a special education teacher, she would sign for the folder of information so the facilitator at the school knew where the folder was located.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if schools charged parents for copies of the documentation.

Ms. Giunchigliani had never charged for copies in her 20 years of teaching. She also wanted to let the committee know the bill would allow teachers to talk with parents about their child, not talk at them. She said several people who were a part of education in some way were very interested in working in streamlining the process and saving time regarding the large sum of paperwork.

Mrs. Cegavske wondered if the Federal Government mandated any forms or was it all required by the school district.

Ms. Giunchigliani understood the forms were from the district but said certain information included in the IEP was designated through the Federal Government. She said several states had gone to computerized forms.

Mrs. Cegavske knew the amount of paperwork she had seen over the years was very cumbersome and confusing for parents. Therefore, she really appreciated the bill being brought forward.

Ms. Giunchigliani said the issue was to keep it simple and make sure it worked. She also said the issue was figuring out what the IEP would do for parents and children.

Ms. Angle wanted information regarding the fiscal concern. She thought saving time would save some money.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she was not provided with an actual fiscal note, but assumed it would only be in the development of the regulation. Ultimately, it would save money on all of districts especially if they did it on a disk. If a parent moved, the IEP could transfer with them rather than developing an entire new plan, as it was currently being done. She said an IEP took at least 2 hours to complete and thought her instructional and preparation time was being consumed by developing IEP’s.

Charlene Green, representing the Clark County School District, spoke in support of A.B. 3. While identification of a common set of components within an IEP was beneficial, such a benefit was readily available by referring to federal regulations. The Federal Government did not mandate development of a state IEP. The lack of focus on a statewide model allowed individual districts to respond more quickly to changes in regulations or procedures. It also offered local districts the ability to incorporate elements from settlement agreements and/or other legal directives. While some states provided districts with sample IEPs to be utilized at their discretion, many larger districts developed their own format based on additional requirements imposed as a result of identified compliance issues.

There was an understandable desire on the part of teachers to reduce the time and paperwork involved in the development of IEPs. She said the March 24, 1999, issue of Education Week discussed the overwhelming requirements of paperwork and documentation of the IEP, which had become a disincentive to teachers entering and remaining in special education.

She stated Clark County was extremely sensitive to the issue before the committee and also to the need to fully comply with federal mandates of what must be included in IEPs. The length of an IEP should be a result of the needs of an individual student rather than the length of the form itself. While some students might require fewer goals and benchmarks to meet their needs, others might need many more. The IEP process was meant to "level the playing field" for students with disabilities and often became a voluminous document full of unrealistic goals that could never be achieved in the time specified. IEPs then became legal documents, which parents held districts responsible for meeting. Rather than attempting to reduce the verbiage by limiting the size of the form, it appeared participants needed to be trained in doing a better job in developing effective IEPs.

One technological approach to an IEP development was the use of a computerized template to facilitate document construction. Clark County was currently in the process of identifying vendors or consultants for such an endeavor. She pointed out that technology could expedite the development of the document, but would not necessarily limit the number of pages. She reiterated the length of the IEP was driven by the individual student needs. She said it appeared A.B. 3 would "reinvent the wheel" for large districts that already had or in were in the process of finalizing IEP formats.

She highlighted some obvious fiscal issues relating to the development of a state mandated IEP, which were as follows:

• Districts could face exceptional costs for reprogramming the current data collection models.

• Depending on the hardware and software required, funding for the components would be required.

• Retraining personnel in the use of another new document.

No compelling student need seemed to offset the financial and operational impact on local districts. It did not appear that a large number of students transferred between districts in Nevada and when they did they generally provided a copy of the most recent IEP when registering. As long as the elements of the IEP remained consistent, the cosmetic presentation did not seem critical.

Assemblyman Doug Bache, representing District 11, addressed the issue as a parent of a special education child and as a regular classroom teacher who interfaced on IEPs. He said there was a "maze" of paperwork both as a parent and as a regular education instructor. He thought it was very overwhelming and frustrating. If an IEP was done correctly it could take at least 1½ to 2 hours to go over everything and develop a plan. He thought A.B. 3 would help in streamlining the process.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA MOTIONED TO DO PASS ON A.B. 3.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.C.R. 16.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, representing District 9, said there was a concern that students with a disability, based on the new proficiency exams, would be sentenced to only being able to qualify for an attendance diploma rather than a standard diploma. The resolution would create a task force to develop some other alternatives being granted to enable special education students to receive a standard high school diploma if they had met every other need.

She said throughout the educational experience of a special education student, he/she was allowed to have modifications or accommodations made, for example, a teacher could read the directions on a test. In some cases special education students would be able to use a calculator once they showed they knew how to do the process. Those modifications or accommodations were allowed until he/she had to take the proficiency exam. She said there was testimony from parents whose child could pass every test with certain allowed accommodations, but were not allowed those same accommodations while taking the proficiency exam, which he/she had to pass to receive a standard high school diploma.

Ms. Parnell applauded the resolution because she had been dealing with a parent of a special education child for some time. The IEP allowed his child to use a calculator throughout school taking tests, but not on the high school proficiency exam.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Parnell to keep the name of that child because he/she could be recommended to the State Department of Education for the task force. She said parents and students asked for the resolution. Teachers recognized it was very frustrating to write up an accommodation and then not be continued throughout the student’s education.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MOTIONED TO DO PASS ON A.C.R. 16.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 352.

Joan Taylor, a fifth grade teacher in Washoe County on leave to the Department of Education as a writing assessment consultant and a member of the National Writing Project Task Force, testified in support of A.B. 352. She said the National Writing Project was a national network of 172 sites nationwide with the model of teachers training teachers in partnership with universities and local school districts to provide improvement of the teaching of writing and student achievement in writing.

In current nonpartisan federal legislation, the National Writing Project was the only federal program to improve writing in America’s classrooms. She said the Northern Nevada Writing Project (NNWP) and Southern Nevada Writing Project (SNWP) were two of the National Writing Project’s most exemplary sites. The National Writing Project was instrumental in helping teachers develop better teaching skills to help students improve in reading, writing, and thinking. Teachers in all subjects benefited from the success of students who were taught by writing project teachers. Students scored better, not just on writing exams, but also in reading, mathematics, and in other areas. She said other models have copied the project, but none had been sustained over a long period of time nor had they been as successful. She submitted several pages of information regarding the projects (Exhibit W).

Launie Gardner, director of NNWP and an English teacher at Reno High School, testified in support of A.B. 352. Her most extensive job for NNWP was to continue the implementation of annual "in-service." The "in-service" during the traditional school year was primarily implemented by a program called, "The Activity Series" where teachers could attend up to 70 hours of "in-service" provided by over 20 teacher consultants and nationally respected speakers. In addition to the Activity Series, the writing project also offered other courses through several northern Nevada school districts, totaling 6, 834 contract hours for the 1997-98 school year. The project also ran four graduate classes in the spring and summer of 1998 where 111 teachers met for over 8,500 hours. It was all done at a total cost of $1.39 per contract hour. The figures were also found in the annual review and report, which was a part of the earlier mentioned Exhibit W.

Since NNWP was based on a teachers training teachers model, a select group of highly recommended teachers were chosen to develop a presentation of their best classroom practices that could in turn be shared with other teachers. There were currently over 300 consultants that could provide "in-service" instruction using the English Language Arts across all curricular areas.

With the northern Nevada English teachers, the project published an anthology of teacher writing annually in The High Desert Review. The project also provided the following support services for teachers:

1. The Secondary Writing Guide, which was in its second edition since 1984.

2. The Elementary Writing Guide, which was in its second edition since 1986 and would be available to teachers in the fall of 1999.

Those guides were products of proven classroom activities and the most recent research in teaching writing. Washoe County School District was a partner in the guide and published one for every English Language Arts teacher in the district. Additionally those guides were tied into the state standards and assessments, which also made the State Department of Education a partner as well.

Besides what was offered to teachers, the project also held at least eight writing camps at UNR and school sites for northern Nevada students during summer. Over 300 students participated annually in 1 to 2 week sessions with writing project consultants. At the end of each session each participant left with his/her own copy of his/her writing published in the camp’s anthology. Four of those camps were held at no charge to students attending at risk schools.

In March of each year, the project also held the "Book-out" where over 100 third to eighth grade students came early on a Saturday morning to take a piece of writing through the writing process. After working through a piece with the project’s consultants, the authors participated in physical education and drama activities while their writing was being published. At the end of the day, they returned home with an anthology including their writing.

The project also offered several parent nights to schools where consultants went in teams to take families through collaborative writing activities or parents were informed on the writing traits to better educate them on the new state writing assessments. She invited the committee to visit any of the consultant’s classrooms anytime, and/or the activities sponsored.

Ms. Taylor stated NNWP teachers developed a group to study team teaching, which was picked up by a national firm and was currently available from one of the largest publishing companies in the United States. In the last 4 years, the project made an effort to reach out into the rural areas by volunteering to teach a distance education class with partners from UNR. From that, the project wrote grants to host an invitational institute in Elko in the summer of 1998. The project was currently in the position to petition the National Writing Project for additional funding so Great Basin College could be established as a partner institute and thereby a new site for Nevada.

Currently NNWP was working on ways to network teachers in Nevada to provide support to at risk schools and to help teachers achieve board certification. She said there were states where the only teachers that received national board certification were writing project teachers.

Rose Mary Holmes-Gull, a teacher in the Clark County School District and the director of the Southern Nevada Writing Project, testified in support of A.B. 352. When she was introduced to the writing project she came as a very tired, disillusioned, and discouraged teacher. She found the inspiration, encouragement, and enthusiasm to return to the classroom and teach in a much more effective way. She felt returning to the classroom was nothing short of a career changing moment and was grateful for the influence the writing project had in her life and career. She was very proud of teachers sharing their best practices in helping each other to improve and to become better in the profession.

She reminded the committee of the phenomenal growth in southern Nevada. SNWP had original funding of $50,000 in 1987 and did not have any increase in funding since. In that time the enrollment had doubled from more than 100,000 students to no more than 200,000 in the Clark County School District. In that same period the county went from over 5,000 teachers to 13,000, which sometimes seemed overwhelming to her, as a director, to be servicing that many teachers with the current funding. She said over 50 schools were built in the last 4 years. She said the project was petitioning for funding to help with the increase in not only student enrollment but also the increase in the number of teachers. Because of the growth in teachers, another institute was created for teachers who worked on a year-round schedule, which impacted the need of funding even more.

Ms. Taylor submitted an amendment for the committee to address, which she provided in writing as part of the earlier mentioned Exhibit W.

Marilyn McKinney, from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and co-director of SNWP, clarified the two pieces of the amendment. The first change specified the funding would go to the writing projects in the north and south rather than just any program, which would allow the projects to accomplish all of the wonderful programs mentioned in earlier testimony. She said the second change related to allocating funding to the projects in northern and southern Nevada as opposed to Clark County and Washoe County. The writing project funding was never intended to go to only two school districts. It would allow the projects to do the outreach in regards to other districts, including rural areas.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 352 WITH THE PROVIDED AMENDMENTS.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if the projects received grant money since the original funding of $50,000 in 1987.

Ms. Taylor stated the funding was continued in a university budget at the discretion of the college of education. She mentioned there was only 1 year in which the dean decided the projects did not need any other funding. She clarified there had not been an increase in funding since 1987.

Mrs. de Braga asked if the appropriation went to the Board of Regents because they were administering it.

Ms. Taylor said it went through the granting portion of the university system and then they allocated the funding.

THE MOTION PASSED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE AND GUSTAVSON VOTED NAY).

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 43.

Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom, representing District 22, submitted two proposed amendments on A.B. 43 (Exhibit X). She drew attention to page 3, section 3, subsection 2, of the bill. The following lines replaced lines 21 through 33:

• "An admonition issued to a licensed employee who, within the time granted for improvement, has met the standards set for him by the administrator who issued the admonition must immediately be removed from the records of the employee together with all notations and indications of it having been issued."

She drew attention to page 4, section 4, subsection 1 of the bill. The following lines replaced lines 8 through 18:

• "If a superintendent has reason to believe that cause exists for the dismissal of a licensed employee and the superintendent is of the opinion that the immediate suspension of the employee is necessary for (a) employees who present an immediate danger to the safety of the students or other employees (b) the evidence supporting the existence of this present danger is set forth in the notice of suspension and (c) if the dismissal proceeds to hearing, the hearing officer specifically finds the suspension was warranted under the "immediate danger" standard. Absent such a finding, the employee must be made whole for any lost salary."

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 43 WITH THE AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN SEGERBLOM.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE AND CEGAVSKE VOTED NAY. ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON ABSTAINED).

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 307.

Assemblyman Doug Bache, representing District 11, said the school districts needed to enforce the current law and provide notification to students. He explained when a teacher or school personnel apprehended a student using a beeper or cellular phone without the appropriate waiver he/she would turn the case over to the school police or appropriate police agency instead of turning it over to administration. He wondered if it would be necessary to have a statute on the matter or if it could be done through a letter from the committee urging school districts to enforce the current law.

Ms. Parnell thought the school districts should be allowed to enforce the matter because most districts already had policies in place. She did not think anyone who sat on the subcommittee on A.B. 307 agreed with subsection 2, with which had fines included. Therefore, she suggested deleting that language or sending a letter or resolution to the school boards.

Mrs. Cegavske remembered when the bill was asked to be reconsidered the committee was told a letter would be submitted, which was why she recalled her original vote to indefinitely postpone. Since the committee never received that promised letter, she wondered if the committee should go back to the original motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 307.

Mr. Bache said a letter from the committee to the 17 school districts directing them to enforce the current law and suggesting the procedure of providing it to the school police would address his concerns because it was not currently being enforced.

Chairman Williams asked Mr. Bache to submit an outline of what he wanted to see included in that letter to the committee. He said if the committee agreed with Mr. Bache’s suggestions, then a letter could be submitted to the districts regarding the enforcement of the current law.

Mr. Collins wanted to clarify if Mr. Bache would be satisfied with a letter. Mr. Bache replied he would be satisfied with a letter regarding the matter.

Kelan Kelly, committee policy analyst, explained standing policy committees of the legislature could and had issued letters of intent to direct agencies.

Mrs. Chowning thought the waiver in the existing law should be mentioned in the letter to remind the schools it was available to students.

Chairman Williams also thought the letter should be directed to the districts reminding them there was a law prohibiting the use of electronic devices. The letter should also state the districts should make parents fully aware they could request and possibly receive a waiver for their children to use the devices.

Mr. Bache trusted the committee could develop an appropriate letter.

Mr. Manendo stated he was a member of the subcommittee on A.B. 307 and thought the main intent of the bill was to get people’s attention, which he thought had been accomplished. He thought a letter addressing the school districts letting them know the matter was something serious to educators because of the disruptions in classrooms was a great idea.

Mr. Bache said because of the 120-day session he was agreeing to the letter of intent. If it had been a longer session, as others had been, he would have requested a resolution because he thought it would have been the appropriate way to address the matter.

Chairman Williams announced the letter would be drafted for the committee to review and if the letter was agreed upon, it would be mailed to all 17 school districts.

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 366.

Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association, submitted an amendment to the committee (Exhibit Y). She thought there was some discomfort with the bill because of the unfunded mandate to school districts with the requirement that when mentor teachers were utilized they would have to be paid or bought out, which would have a fiscal impact. She said the amendment basically made that section permissive and stated districts "may" provide compensation, which in some cases was already being done, and "may" provide buy out time for those mentor teachers. Therefore, there was no obligation, but she hoped districts would find resources to compensate teachers for their mentoring work. She said the rest of the bill still provided very critical protections for people who were functioning as mentors in the districts.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 366 WITH THE AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY MS. CAHILL.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Cegavske had spoken with representatives from CCSD and found out they already provided the service. She did not think the issue needed to be in statute because it was already being done and therefore said she would be voting against A.B. 366.

THE MOTION PASSED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE, CEGAVSKE, AND GUSTAVSON VOTED NAY).

**********

With no further business before the committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: