The Committee on Education was called to order at 5:45 p.m., on Thursday, April 8, 1999. Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 3161 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

Mrs. 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:

David Humke, Assembly District 26

Kelly Thomas, Assembly District 16

Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9

John Carpenter, Assembly District 33

Kathy McClain, Assembly District 15

Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 216.

Assemblyman David Humke, representing District 26, said A.B. 216 created a trust fund for geography education. He said there was an opportunity through the National Geographic Society Foundation to match $500,000 in their foundation money to establish a $1 million fund, which could accrue to the benefit of the State of Nevada kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) education in the area of geography.

Mr. Humke said A.B. 216 was concurrently referred to the committee and to the Committee on Ways and Means. If the committee passed the bill, he said he would seek to amend the appropriation to a minimal level in the Committee on Ways and Means. He said fundraising would be done to attract gifts and grants in order to make up the difference of $500,000 so K-12 teachers in Nevada could benefit from having assistance to increase their competency in the area of teaching geography.

Dr. Gary Hausladen, chair of the Department of Geography at the University of Nevada Reno (UNR) and coordinator of the Geographic Alliance in Nevada (GAIN), had been working for 10 years on improving the quality of geographic education. Currently, the program was funded through the Department of Education’s budget for $50,000 per each year of the biennium. The $50,000 was matched dollar for dollar by the National Geographic Society, which was used to fund the program.

He said the National Geographic Society made $8 million available several years ago for endowments to states, $500,000 to be raised by the state, and the society would match another $500,000, for an endowment total of $1 million. That money would fund geographic education in Nevada in perpetuity. To date, six states had taken advantage of the endowments. He was not sure the program would be extended to increase the number of endowments, but knew of two remaining endowments. He was seeking to begin the process of raising $500,000 from Nevada, which would be matched by the National Geographic Society, which would then fund the geographic education program. Once that was done, it would take the burden off the Department of Education to fund the program.

Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), testified in support of A.B. 216. She said the GAIN project embraced some of the fundamental concepts of professional development that the association thought was very important. She urged the committee to pass the bill.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOTIONED TO DO PASS A.B. 216.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS BROWER AND CEGAVSKE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 568.

Assemblyman Kelly Thomas, representing District 16, said there was a problem with the bill that existed with regard to the off-site school construction cost. Unfortunately, he knew it was such a large and complex issue that he felt there was not enough time to properly address it statutorily. Therefore, he withdrew A.B. 568 and extended an offer to all interested parties to work out the issue during the interim.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOTIONED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 568.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 507.

Mr. Gustavson said the Senate had an identical bill and because of the lack of time he withdrew A.B. 507.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOTIONED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 507.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 313.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, representing District 9, submitted written amendments for A.B. 313 (Exhibit C). She said the amendments basically gutted and rewrote the bill, which deleted any fiscal implication. The heart of the original bill lengthened the school year, in which she still firmly believed and would attempt to address in future legislative sessions.

She drew attention to the exhibit and explained the various amendments as outlined below:

• Page 2 stated the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team could not assume a behavior problem child was automatically a special education child. She said there was pressure during the hearings to place students, who were more conduct disordered or socially maladjusted, as an emotionally disturbed child.

• Page 3 simply referred to the IEP. Everything else that was in that section of the original bill was deleted.

• Page 5 had language regarding charter schools and the IEP.

• Page 6 also had language, which stated a socially maladjusted student could not automatically be assumed a special education student. She explained there were various statutes in reference to the issue, which was why it occurred various times within the bill.

• Section 5 was in the original bill, which was an attempt to take the current course of study adopted by the State Board of Education and include it into regulation. She thought courses without curriculums should no longer be allowed because schools were required to have certain standards. Therefore, the intent of section 5 was to define what the high school, middle school, and junior high school courses of study would be.

• The last line on page 6 caused concern for some of the rural counties that did not have access to a driver’s education program, which was why schools with 200 or less students were exempted. She said the State Department of Education suggested the number to be 200.

• Page 10 of the amendment simply eliminated the contractual language that would have been included if the school day was lengthened.

• Page 11 had enabling language, which came from the interim subcommittee. Each district was encouraged to provide a provision that special education teachers would be granted two class periods per day or the equivalent to prepare for the instruction of students, to review and complete the IEP’s, and to properly plan.

• Page 12 included language requested by the State Department of Education. Some students were ready to leave high school at age 16 to take an adult education program to receive their diploma, which statute allowed with parental permission. Ms. Giunchigliani said those students were being counted as dropouts, which was not the case. She felt it was not fair to call or label them as such. Nor was it right to make it count as part of the accountability piece. Therefore, new language said, "Students who enroll in adult education programs are counted as dropouts unless the elementary/secondary school system remains responsible for the student." For example, a student who prepared to take a course to receive their General Education Diploma (GED) and a student who was in an alternative educational setting would not be considered a dropout. A student who left an elementary or secondary school, but enrolled in an adult education program would be considered a dropout if he/she did not complete the program.

Mrs. Chowning drew attention to the new section 5 on page 7 of the exhibit and said she agreed it was necessary to include foreign language as part of the curriculum, but asked why it was necessary to include it in the bill. She also referred to the top of page 6 and asked if line 146 should state "The superintendent of public instruction shall not approve, nor shall revoke his approval" rather than "shall not approve, or" because "nor" and "or" had two different meanings.

Ms. Giunchigliani addressed Mrs. Chowning’s first question and said the course of study in the section were currently part of the curriculum and standards in the state. She stated it was ultimately up to administrators to delete a course of study and reiterated those courses were only added because they were the state’s course of study to be sure students had access. She understood if rural school districts did not want foreign language included in the course of study because they might not have access to a course of that nature. Ms. Giunchigliani referred to the other question and stated the superintendent of public instruction "shall not approve or shall revoke his approval" was correct language because he/she might have approved something "or" he/she might revoke it.

Mr. Gustavson had a problem with mandating courses of study which were not as critical as the basics such as: reading, writing, and math. He thought it was unnecessary to mandate such courses as listed in the amendment.

Ms. Giunchigliani drew attention to the bottom of page 6 of the amendment, which stated, "In addition to the courses of study required by statute" was where the basics were already included. She explained parents were frustrated because site administrators could make a determination on what electives would be available. She said it did not take away from the basic courses, but instead only ensured students access to those other courses.

Jane Moyle, representing the Nevada Rural Alliance, appreciated the committee’s consideration in limiting the courses of study for the smaller schools that did not have access to specialized teachers or facilities. Therefore, she was in favor of A.B. 313 with the proposed amendments.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 313 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FROM ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE AND GUSTAVSON VOTED NAY. ASSEMBLYPERSONS BROWER AND CEGAVSKE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 13.

Steve Williams, representing the Washoe County School District (WCSD), said he was substituting for Henry Etchemendy, from the Nevada Association of School Boards, with regard to proposed amendments on A.B. 13, which he provided (Exhibit D). At the beginning of the session there were three different bills regarding summer school and intersession school, which were A.B. 13, A.B. 145, and S.B. 187. He said the Education Coalition met and decided to compile all three bills into one, which created the new A.B. 13.

Mr. Williams said the bill provided for a state funded summer school program for districts that wanted it implemented. He mentioned it was not required. He said the State Board of Education would administer the program, develop forms, develop an application process, and find a way to evaluate the success of the program. He said the bill also specified which target groups would benefit from the summer school programs, such as those who attended inadequate schools, whose primary language was not English, who demonstrated inadequate achievement on achievement tests, and low income families. The bill also provided $4 million for funding in the 2-year period, which was identical in all of the individual bills that were compiled.

Ms. Parnell wanted to know if the summer school program was open for all students, not only remedial students.

Mr. Williams referenced page 3 of the proposed amendment, which listed those who would qualify to attend the program. He stated the program, as it was identified, would allow essentially anyone to attend with special emphasis on those who needed additional help.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 13 AND REREFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

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

Mr. Manendo asked the committee to consider sending a letter to the school districts and school boards expressing the committee’s concerns in reference to the intent of the bill. The letter would ask the districts to make sure they were careful in the following:

• Choosing programs in which students could participate;

• Choosing which items/goods would be sold;

• Making sure students did not solicit door-to-door; and

• Not requiring children to participate in fundraising activities.

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

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS CHOWNING AND BROWER VOTED NAY. ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

Chairman Williams announced the committee would compose a letter in reference to the safety aspects within A.B. 90, which he would make sure every member reviewed before it was sent to the school districts.

Mrs. Chowning complimented Washoe County because their policy had very relevant statements included, which addressed the safety of students regarding fundraising. She thought their policy could be used as an example in reference to the letter.

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 243.

Craig Banko, private citizen, testified in opposition to A.B. 243 the way it was written. He asked the committee to read through the bill line by line because he thought it presented several problems. He wondered why truancy was the main focal point of the bill if it was supposed to address accountability for public schools. He also did not agree with the idea of a panel consisting of 7 people out of 11 invested in the system because he felt it was not accountable.

He drew attention to page 3, which made provisions for teachers to be considered "in attendance" if the teacher was excused for being ill. He thought excusing teachers when he/she was out ill was completely against the idea of making the bill in any way accountable.

He had several questions regarding the bill from a taxpayer and parental view. He drew attention to page 10 referencing inadequate schools and a review panel. If a principal in a school became inadequate, the review panel would send a new principal and appoint an administrator according to Mr. Banko’s comprehension of the bill. He did not understand why two people had to replace one and thought that section needed to be clarified.

The last page discussed programs for reducing truancy, but descriptions of those programs were not included. He thought other information needed to be included to be encouraged to vote for the bill.

Kris Jensen, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, said the organization had several concerns regarding A.B. 243. She said the most blatant concern was on page 3, subsection 3, beginning on line 32, which said a teacher would be deemed "in attendance" when in reality he/she was not in attendance. In other words a teacher would be marked present when they were absent. She thought it was disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

Debbie Cahill, representing the NSEA, said the association’s interest in A.B. 243 was relative to language that dealt with the criteria used to label schools. The current criterion used was student test scores, the attendance of students, and the attendance of teachers. She said the association supported S.B. 70, which actually eliminated the reference to teacher attendance as one of the criterion. Therefore, the association wanted the language within A.B. 243 to match the language in S.B. 70, which would require deleting the following language on page 5, line 2, the phrase, "and the teachers who provide instruction at the school." The same phrase was used on lines 16 and 30, which would also need to be deleted.

By having teacher attendance as one of the criterion it was putting enormous pressure on administrators and teachers dealing with the fact that teachers could take leave, which was provided in contract. She said instances had happened where teachers were called at home when ill and told not to be sick the following day. Ms. Cahill said the association felt teacher attendance was critical, but believed teachers were accountable and teacher attendance was not at a low rate. Clark County did a study of teacher attendance and found they were at 95 percent of teacher attendance. Therefore, the association did not think it was an issue.

Mrs. de Braga asked where S.B. 70 was as far as processing.

Ms. Cahill replied S.B. 70 was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance, and was heard but still remained in the committee.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON MOTIONED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 243.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 244.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOTIONED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 244.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 217.

Martha Tittle, representing the Clark County School District (CCSD), provided her written testimony, which included amendments that mirrored Mrs. Cegavske’s amended version of A.B. 217 (Exhibit E). Ms. Tittle prefaced her remarks by saying Mrs. Cegavske worked very closely with the district on the language included in the bill to address a concern shared by many parents regarding the use of instructional materials in classrooms. While at the same time being sure the language met the needs of teachers and administrators in the district.

Ms. Tittle highlighted each individual section with the proposed amendments included in the exhibit, which were as follows:

• The district recommended deleting lines 3 through 5 in section 1, subsection 1, ending with the word "schools" and replacing the following word "the" with the word "A."

• Ms. Tittle said the thought on subsection 1 (a) was schools already provided opportunities for parents to visit the classrooms and see what materials were being used through open house opportunities, back to school affairs, and newsletters. Therefore, the language in that item would only be an extension of that process. Item (b) in subsection 1 gave an opportunity for parents to be provided with some kind of written communication regarding supplemental textbooks proposed for instructional use if he/she would like the option.

• Several amendments were offered in subsection 2 of section 1, which read, "A public school of the school district shall not implement a supplemental textbook unless the school has afforded the parents and legal guardians of pupils who are enrolled in the school an opportunity to review the supplemental textbook and submit written comments." She felt the essence of the amended subsection would ensure parents the opportunity to review and submit written comments prior to implementation of instructional materials or supplemental textbooks.

• Section 2 defined a basic textbook and a supplemental textbook.

• The district recommended deleting most of section 3, which basically outlined the provisions for final selection of textbooks in public schools, which was from chapter 30 of the Nevada Administrative Code.

• The original language within section 4 did not change except in subsection 3. Language was added, which stated, "The superintendent of public instruction shall not grant his approval for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection 2 unless the school district submits proof that it complied with the requirements of section 1 of this act in selecting the supplemental textbooks."

Steve Williams, representing WCSD, concurred with the amendments proposed by CCSD. He wanted clarification under section 2, subsection 2, which defined "supplemental textbook." He felt the definition could preclude a teacher from using a daily newspaper in his/her instruction, although he did not think it was the intent of that section.

Ms. Tittle responded that if current events were incorporated into the instructional program then it should relate to the curriculum and be communicated to parents. She said it would not require communication for every single article used.

Mr. Williams wondered if a teacher decided to use a magazine as he/she walked by the magazine stand could he/she still use the magazine without prior parental communication.

Ms. Tittle thought some of the language was still open to clarification for the definition of a "supplemental textbook."

Kelan Kelly, committee policy analyst, assumed Mr. Williams was questioning the existing law as opposed to the suggested amendments. He said "supplemental textbook" meant any medium or materials as stated in state statute, and he had not heard of any problems using that statutory language.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the language in the new amendment was agreeable to the sponsor of the bill, Mrs. Cegavske. Mrs. Cegavske agreed with the amendment in its entirety and appreciated Ms. Tittle’s work on the bill.

Lonnie Shields, representing the Washoe County Education Administrators Association, signed in to testify in opposition to A.B. 217, but was in full support as it was amended.

Janine Hansen, representing Nevada Eagle Forum, testified in support of A.B. 217 and provided copies of different articles in regard to textbook errors (Exhibit F). She drew attention to the first page of the exhibit, which discussed textbooks that had blatantly made factual mistakes. For example, one textbook said the United States ended the Korean War by using the atomic bomb, when in reality it ended World War II. Another textbook said the Soviet Union’s Sputnik was the first intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead, when in reality it was the first space satellite ever launched. It went on to identify many other mistakes found in textbooks that were used in public schools.

She felt the bill was very needed because it would at least provide a good place to start with textbook review. Most of the people, who found the mistakes mentioned in the exhibit, were parents who needed a place to review textbooks. She thought an open house was not the time, nor the place for parents to review textbooks and be able to discover many of the errors that existed.

Kris Jensen, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, understood there were deletions of the first three lines and wanted to be sure the bill still allowed the ability to review textbooks and make comments prior to adopting textbooks.

Ms. Tittle explained districts did not purchase textbooks before they were adopted. She said textbooks went through an extensive review and evaluation process involving committees of parents, teachers, and administrators. However, supplemental textbooks, meaning any additional materials used to supplement the basic textbook program, included all kinds of materials such as computer software programs, videos, tapes, literature, or library books, to name a few. To go through an adoption process of supplemental materials was not possible because of the vast array of materials available from which a teacher could select in order to meet the individual needs of students.

Mrs. Cegavske understood the section was to enable parents to review what materials would be utilized for the school year. She thought Ms. Jensen was talking about the original language, which was amended.

Mrs. Chowning drew attention to page 3, section 3, lines 23 through 26, and said most of the language was still included, which would satisfy the concerns. She said the superintendent of instruction "shall" not grant approval unless the school district showed they complied with the requirements of section 1.

Ms. Jensen supported the addition of software for computers because she felt there was excellent software available. She said the bill specifically stated a "supplemental textbook" meant any medium or material, including, without limitation, software for computers and videos. She thought it was only fair to have software and videos available for review prior to adoption, as well as textbooks.

Ms. Parnell believed every school district in Nevada had parents included in the textbook selection committee. In cases where a committee actually selected software to supplement the curriculum, she supported parents also being on that committee. However, she thought it was a very gray area because she was a social studies teacher who might decide to show a video on "Greece", for example. She did not think there would be a chance to preview the video as a curriculum piece prior to showing it and with the current language she felt nervous in doing so.

Craig Banko, a private citizen from Carson City, thought the bill gave an opportunity to review textbooks and supplemental textbooks. He asked at what point would a written comment from a group of parents objecting to certain materials override a superintendent or another administrator. He felt the bill allowed parents to comment, which would not necessarily make a difference because schools did not have to listen to the comment. He also asked if parents would have access to the cost and availability of textbooks.

Ms. Parnell thought it was important to understand the superintendent was not part of the textbook selection committee, but instead it would be teachers who taught the subject and parents who hopefully looked at things like the information presented and the cost of the textbook. She thought the bill provided a vehicle to address some of the issues in the Carson City School District.

Mr. Banko did not see anything that gave that mechanism any clout. He wondered how many individuals it would take to decide a book was not good enough to be used in schools.

Ms. Parnell said all of it was determined by the textbook selection committee. She thought there was already a statute about parents being on the committees but wondered if it was a local school district policy.

Ms. Tittle understood it was an expectation to have parents sit on the committee stated within the Nevada Code and then each district was required to adopt regulations and procedures for including parents and community members in the textbook adoption process.

Mr. Banko wanted to be sure the committee understood he supported the bill.

Ms. Jensen supported the bill, but was concerned with the language about prior review and approval being deleted. She said other sections were deleted which talked about what happened before final selections were made. She said the intent was not to scrutinize every little thing, but perhaps was to cover the concern in the area of supplemental textbooks, software, and the prior review.

Mr. Collins thought "proposed" meant before, which meant the committee would review textbooks before adopting them.

Ms. Jensen said that was her first question of clarification, but based on Ms. Tittle’s testimony she became less and less comfortable with their intent versus what she felt the intent of the bill was.

Ms. Tittle thought "proposed" could mean either before bought or it could already be purchased. In other words, if something was purchased to be utilized as classroom instruction materials and was used year after year, the materials could not just be discarded to start with new materials at the beginning of every school year. She referenced section 2, subsection 2, and said supplemental textbook did not necessarily mean "textbook" as in the traditional sense. She said the definition in that section was in statute for many years, and the only thing being changed was adding language to include software for computers and videotapes. She said a supplemental textbook could be an instructional reading kit or paperback books for literature, which was how "supplemental textbook" was defined as in statue.

Chairman Williams asked if it would help if the committee continued with the agenda and brought A.B. 217 back at the end of the meeting to be sure everyone was clear with the intent. Mrs. Cegavske appreciated the time to discuss it further with those involved.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 217 and announced he would reopen the hearing later in the meeting. He opened the hearing on A.C.R. 25.

Assemblyman John Carpenter, representing District 33, said he brought forth A.C.R. 25 with some ideas he hoped the Legislative Committee on Education would study during the interim. If standards were going to be set for students, teachers, and administrators, he thought it was best to let the local levels decide how they would reach those objectives. He said it had proved to be quite successful in other states. He thought the Department of Education micromanaged the school districts too much over the years.

Mr. Carpenter said he had always been concerned about the way Nevada approached class size reduction. He said Elko County School District did not have available facilities to have only 16 or 15 children in each class, therefore classes had 32 to 34 students attending, with 2 teachers instructing. If Nevada had used the money that was spent on class size reduction, which he thought was approximately $300 million, on facilities, each class could have had 22 to 24 children per class. He felt Nevada had put "all of its eggs in one basket" and test scores proved it was not helping students. He hoped school districts would eventually be able to use the money where they best saw fit because every district had different needs. He said education was a priority to him and knew the legislature was doing a lot to try to improve the current situations. Therefore, he urged the committee to pass A.C.R. 25.

Mrs. de Braga mentioned she was a member of the Legislative Committee on Education during the interim, which discussed some of the topics within A.C.R. 25. One topic she felt was very important was in regard to all day kindergarten. She knew the idea was not very popular with a lot of people, but even when she visited schools in her district, teachers felt they needed the children in class for at least 2 more hours per day. She opined extended class days were more important than class size reduction.

Mr. Carpenter felt longer class days in kindergarten benefited students. He still thought all of the money was spent on class size reduction, which did not leave any for other things such as longer class days or night schools.

Debbie Cahill, representing the NSEA, said the association’s largest concern with A.C.R. 25 was with the language being mandatory for the Legislative Committee on Education to have certain items on the agendas. She said representatives from the association attended almost every meeting of the Legislative Committee on Education and felt setting the agenda items should be left up to the chair and the members of that committee. While the association thought many of the items listed in the resolution were valuable and important to discuss, the association did not think the resolution should dictate to that committee what the agenda should include.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.C.R. 25 and opened the hearing on A.B. 466.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOTIONED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 466.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Angle had received several e-mails stating CCSD wanted to see A.B. 466 passed. She wanted to offer another motion to the bill if the motion to indefinitely postpone failed.

Mr. Manendo received a few e-mails from individuals, who were not in his Assembly District, regarding A.B. 466. He took an informal poll on people’s thoughts of breaking up the school district, and most individuals who responded were not in favor of doing so.

Mrs. Koivisto said the issue was studied and those who studied the idea recommended against breaking up the district. She said it would only help out one small area in the entire district to the detriment of the rest of the county.

THE MOTION PASSED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE AND GUSTAVSON VOTED NAY. ASSEMBLYPERSONS BROWER, CEGAVSKE, AND CHOWNING WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 576.

Mark Brown, representing the Howard Hughes Corporation and member of the Superintendent Steering Committee in Clark County, submitted an amendment, which was based on a comment by Chairman Williams regarding the need to have a deputy superintendent for academics if a nontraditional superintendent was chosen (Exhibit G). Mr. Brown said the Board of Trustees approved the proposed amendment. The amendment would be a new section 2 of the bill, which read as follows:

• "If the board of trustees employs a superintendent who is not licensed for the position of administrator, the board must approve a person who is licensed for the position of administrator as the deputy superintendent for academics."

Mrs. de Braga asked to which board of trustees was being referred. Mr. Brown replied it was the board of trustees for CCSD. He mentioned there was an issue brought up in committee by teachers and they were concerned about the smaller school districts and that the language might be permissive where the custodian could be appointed. If it was a serious concern he would be willing to put a population limitation on the amendment.

Mrs. de Braga said the same idea was proposed to the Legislative Committee on Education, which did not succeed. She would not be supporting the proposed amendment before the committee. She mentioned another amendment submitted by Ms. Cahill from the NSEA, which she could support (Exhibit H).

Mr. Brown read the proposed amendment submitted by Ms. Cahill, which stated as follows:

1. "The board of trustees of a school district may:

(a) Employ any person

(1) licensed for the position of administrator, or

(2) who was licensed as an administrator within the last 5 years.

The commission may require the superintendent of any school district to hold a master’s degree."

Mr. Brown said the board of trustees in the CCSD did not support the amendment by Ms. Cahill, nor did the Superintendent Selection Committee.

Mrs. de Braga asked if the bill only addressed Clark County. Mr. Brown explained the bill applied to the entire state as it was currently written. He reiterated a population limitation could be included to address the smaller districts.

Mrs. Angle was very pleased with A.B. 576 in its original form and agreed with the proposed amendment by Mr. Brown. She referred to the concern of rural districts and said she sat on a rural school board. She thought the issue before the committee would have helped that school board tremendously in the search for someone who would be very qualified and willing to work in that rural area.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 576 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. BROWN.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED (ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA VOTED NAY).

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 180.

Mr. Manendo, appointed chairman of the subcommittee on A.B. 180, said there were several suggested amendments offered by different individuals (Exhibit I). He asked the committee to examine the lengthy amendments before voting on the bill.

Chairman Williams announced the committee would move forward with other bills, therefore giving the committee a chance to review the amendments. He asked if the subcommittee recommended to amend and do pass with the proposed amendments within the exhibit.

Mr. Manendo explained the subcommittee recommended using all of the proposed amendments within the exhibit.

Ms. Parnell thought she could expedite the process because she was one of the makers of one of the proposed amendments. She drew attention to the preamble on page 1 of A.B. 180 and said the intent of the bill still existed because the only new change was the deletion she recommended, which was the part that had a student’s drivers license suspended until he/she reached age 21. She thought the most important part of the bill was to have detention for students who were found on campus possessing a firearm and to be sure a student did not go directly home. She said there was an incident where a student was allowed to go home after being found with a firearm at school and shot his/her parents later that night. She also felt evaluation of the student was an important aspect of the bill. She thought the bill could move forward if the aspects of detention and evaluation were covered and if the loss of drivers licenses were relinquished.

Mrs. de Braga drew attention to page 2, item (c), of the bill and asked if that section was deleted within the amendments. She remembered testimony stating that section was not needed. She also drew attention to page 7, section 6, item (b), of the bill and said there was testimony that the item took options away from the county. She also asked if the amendments provided detention or house arrest as an option.

Mr. Manendo opined item (c) was still included as part of the bill. He wondered if Ms. Berman, the prime sponsor of the bill, could be contacted to answer some of the questions since the bill would be handled at the end of the meeting.

Chairman Williams announced someone would try to contact Ms. Berman to enable the committee to vote on A.B. 180.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 180 and opened the hearing on A.B. 220.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOTIONED TO DO PASS A.B. 220.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Collins thought one of the best things that could happen in Henderson was to have a 4-year college and hoped the committee could find a way to pass the bill.

Mr. Gustavson asked if there were any amendments to the bill. He felt the study to find land for a college should include all of southern Nevada, not just in Henderson.

Chairman Williams replied no amendments were submitted to the committee. He announced the committee would entertain any prepared amendments that had not been submitted.

Mrs. Cegavske said there were other places mentioned for the new college during the original hearing. She had visited Summerlin, which was the only area showing interest in having a college or sites from a college in the area. She found out there were only 80 acres available on the site, and the individuals involved had already discussed having sites from the community college in the area. She commended Henderson because not only did they develop four different land proposals, but also had matching funds to be made available.

Mr. Gustavson remembered hearing testimony at the original meeting that discussed other possible sites, but it was never mentioned how large those sites were. He was concerned if Henderson actually had a site, which he assumed they did if the money was available.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 294.

Mrs. Angle said there were some suggested amendments by Kris Jensen, representative from Nevada Concerned Citizens, which were withdrawn because her concerns were already addressed in the bill by the Reading Excellence Act (REA). She also had a summary of the fiscal note, which was $5,000 for travel of the advisory panel to attend four meetings per year. She offered to donate the $5,000 from her personal funds if the committee felt there was a problem with the fiscal note because she felt it was so important to teach children to read.

She mentioned the National REA was signed by President Clinton in October of 1998 and the act provided $262 million in grants to states that had or wanted to initiate reading programs based on scientifically proven research. The money was available for teacher training and curriculum, and because of budget shortfalls Nevada was unable to additionally fund those two areas. When the provisions of the act were implemented there was more money available for teacher training and curriculum plus additional proven benefits.

Forty percent of students in special education were placed there because they could not read. The statistic was supported by 30 years of research available from the National Institute of Health. By teaching students to read with the guidelines of REA, she felt Nevada would realize more money from special education, which was the first benefit. The second benefit was within the juvenile justice system. When the guidelines of REA were used to teach juvenile offenders to read, the recidivism among juveniles was cut significantly thus saving money within that system.

Mrs. Angle said there was no opposition to the testimony on the bill and REA at the national level was supported by many organizations. Mr. Sweet, the author of the National REA, told her about a conversation he had with Senator Edward Kennedy who also supported the act. During Mr. Sweet’s stay in Nevada he looked at the curriculum list, as well as the teacher’s edition of first grade texts, and evaluated them against the REA criterion. Although the texts mentioned phonics as an element, none of them met the requirements of the REA for scientifically researched reading programs. She said the university system in Nevada did not train teachers in that methodology and she did not feel Nevada would qualify for the REA money without the bill. The committee that awarded the national grants was looking for evidence of compliance with the REA. Without current curriculum or teacher training based on scientifically researched reading programs, Nevada had no evidence of compliance.

She felt the punitive sections of the bill ensured the serious nature of Nevada’s effort to teach children to read. She spoke to the state school board trustees and some local trustees who had no objection to the punitive aspect of the bill. In fact Bill Hanlon, State Board of Education member, felt it was well placed giving the boards more authority to meet the requirements of REA.

Mrs. Angle said A.B. 294 placed Nevada in the lead for REA grants, and if it was not passed, Nevada would have to stand in line with the other states. She thought the bill had to be passed if Nevada cared about children having the right to read. She thought some individuals might say it was a drastic bill, but Nevada’s children were 45th in the nation in reading. Seventy nine percent of Nevada fourth graders and 76 percent of eighth graders read below basic level. Therefore she thought it was time to mandate something in education besides attendance.

Chairman Williams said there was a question during the original hearing about the federal appropriations for Nevada and that it had to be multi-faceted to receive those dollars. He asked if the bill would cover that request.

Kelan Kelly, committee policy analyst, said Mark Stevens, Assembly fiscal analyst, asked for some research to be done and one of the requests was to determine if A.B. 294 required the Department of Education to apply for competitive grant or federal money available under REA. According to department officials that process was already started, which meant the department was in the process of applying for that act. He said it was a competitive grant, therefore there was no guarantee that Nevada would receive those funds.

Mr. Manendo asked if there was a fiscal note on each county or some of the counties to give him an idea if there was an unfunded mandate.

Mr. Kelly replied Douglas County School District submitted a fiscal note of approximately $370,000 per year, which was determined by the research done by the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

Mrs. Angle said Kevin Welsh, deputy fiscal analyst, explained to her there was absolutely no reason why that fiscal note should exist. She said there was a lot of difficulty getting fiscal notes signed. The latest fiscal note of $5,000 was the only one and did cover the statewide cost. She wanted the committee to remember the grants would bring $1 to $4 million into Nevada for teacher training and curriculum.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON MOTIONED TO DO PASS A.B. 294.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Koivisto asked if the act mandated the colleges of education in Nevada to teach their education students only phonics. Mrs. Angle explained the bill did not pertain to the university system. It merely stated in order to get the national appropriations, Nevada had to adopt reading programs that were scientifically researched and proven to work.

Mrs. Koivisto asked who did the scientific research. Mrs. Angle replied the research had been done over the last 30 years by the National Right to Read Foundation, by the National Institute of Health, and also by the National Committee on Education in the Work Force. She said the idea was accepted and supported at the national level by everyone.

Mr. Manendo said if one school district had a fiscal note of $370,000, he wondered what the other 16 districts would have. He asked if the grant would even cover that amount of money from the Douglas County School District.

Mrs. Angle reiterated there was no basis for the $370,000 fiscal note per Kevin Welsh. Therefore, she did not think it was a true figure. She said there was $262 million available, but the first and second year Nevada could receive up to $4 million. If Nevada built an alliance with another state, such as New Mexico, who was already in the process of campaigning for the grant and had a very good assurance they would receive it, Nevada could receive even more funding.

Chairman Williams said he was concerned with section 5 where members of the State Board of Education could be guilty of a crime with noncompliance. He could not support the bill if the motion was not to refer it to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mrs. de Braga was also concerned with section 5 regarding the criminal penalty. She said teachers had testified that everyone could not learn by the methods within the bill. Therefore, because of those two problems, she hesitated to support the bill.

Mr. Collins said the interim subcommittees, the school districts, and the state board worked in cooperation to rearrange such things as responsibilities and curriculum over the last 5 years. He wondered if any of the subcommittees discussed anything related to phonics.

Mrs. Angle responded to the objection to the punitive section of the bill and said she discussed it with school board members, and they did not have any problem. In fact, members said it would give them more authority to direct the curriculum, especially in reading. Currently, schools based the entire reading program on whole language and supplemented it with phonics. The bill stated schools would use the researched and scientifically proven method, phonics, as the foundation and supplement it with anything else such as whole language. She said research had shown that special education children could be taught with phonics. She said 40 percent of Nevada’s special education children were designated as learning disabled purely because they could not read.

She responded to Mr. Collins and said the bill dovetailed with what was being done as far as accountability in Nevada. She said some of the changes in Nevada included some phonics elements. She explained the bill only enhanced those changes and would enable Nevada to get money to implement the phonics element as the foundation of reading programs, which was why she brought the bill forward.

She mentioned that Mr. Gustavson provided the phonics game for teachers in his district, and the teachers had been responding very positively.

Chairman Williams asked Debbie Smith to discuss the current standards in Nevada in reference to the phonics issue.

Debbie Smith, chairman of the Council to Establish Academic Standards, said she did not know all of the details of A.B. 294. She wondered if it would conflict with the standards and the writing teams that developed standards. She said standards were adopted for English Language Arts and particular attention was focused on phonics being strong throughout those standards. She asked if the bill would conflict with the work that was already done and the direction the council set for the school districts as they began to implement the standards.

Ms. Ohrenschall kept hearing about phonics and special education students. She wondered how it could be used to help a deaf child.

Mrs. Angle had questioned that issue with one of the individuals who sponsored REA. In a lot of ways, deaf children were already being taught to read phonetically. She said phonics was only decoding the sounds of letters, which was more difficult for the deaf child, but they still related to the vibration and the formation of the sounds.

Ms. Ohrenschall said it was not just exclusively phonics, but instead other things were added into phonics. She said no two children learned exactly the same way and no matter how good phonics was there were bound to be some children that would not respond completely to phonics and would need to have other stimuli attached.

Mrs. Angle agreed with Ms. Ohrenschall and said phonics would be the foundation and then other things would be used to enhance the curriculum.

Mr. Gustavson said he had invited teachers from five elementary schools to participate in a phonics program. He said 60 teachers from those 5 schools showed up on fairly short notice because they were very interested in phonics and wanted to see it back into the schools. Therefore, he felt phonics was something in which teachers were interested and the demand was present.

THE MOTION FAILED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE, CEGAVSKE, AND GUSTAVSON VOTED YEA).

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 413.

Mr. Brower said testimony at the original hearing indicated some feelings in the Lake Tahoe communities both in favor and opposition to the idea. He reminded the committee it was enabling legislation only, and it would allow the communities, if they voted in the general election in the year 2000, to create community school boards but would not mandate that they do so.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER MOTIONED TO DO PASS A.B. 413.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Chowning admired Mr. Brower for trying to provide for the wishes of his constituents, but was concerned with the effect on local government. She understood it was enabling language, but only 1 to 2 percent would be left out of the budget for the local school district to allocate funds, which concerned her greatly.

THE MOTION FAILED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE, BROWER, CEGAVSKE, AND GUSTAVSON VOTED YEA).

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 61.

Chairman Williams said Assemblyman Perkins presented A.B. 61 to the committee earlier in the current session. He said testimony indicated there was a conflict on the status of the school police and metropolitan police and whether school police could actually do what was required in the bill.

Mr. Collins believed those who testified did not represent the entire police force of the school district. He felt it would be very beneficial to pass the bill because it would enable them to use their abilities and coordinate their activities better. He said testimony was given that school police had actually helped metro police officers in their duties.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOTIONED TO DO PASS A.B. 61.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Angle had a concern regarding the safety of the school police. When their jurisdiction was expanded, they would be exposed to more danger and especially in Washoe County where the school police were unarmed. She felt they would only be put in jeopardy by expanding their jurisdiction.

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

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 376.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 376 WITH THE AMENDMENT BEING THE ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTION BY THE MAKER THAT THE SCHOOL POLICE WOULD ANSWER TO A CHIEF OF SCHOOL POLICE THAT WOULD REPORT TO THE SCHOOL BOARD, NOT TO THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE SCHOOL. THE AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO CHANGE THE WORD "SHALL" TO "MAY" ON PAGE 2, LINES 7 AND 18.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Angle agreed with the bill in its original form. She was concerned with the amendment to have school police answer to the school board because it was having non-law enforcement people supervising law enforcement people. She said that was one of the reasons the bill was brought forward because there were people who did not understand law enforcement and were supervising law enforcement officers.

Mrs. de Braga thought Mrs. Angle was correct and wanted to ask the maker of the bill if the intention was to have the chief of school police be a law enforcement officer.

Chairman Williams said the maker of the bill, Assemblyman Bache, was in the audience and nodded affirmative.

THE MOTION PASSED (ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE VOTED NAY).

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 348.

Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, representing District 15, said that during the original hearing there was a committee already formed to create the charter school for the deaf in Clark County. Her original testimony also suggested an amendment to delete section 2 of the bill, which was the appropriation section. She said section 1 of the bill was also not needed because she was working with the district to reach alternative arrangements.

She said the Andre Agassi Foundation had a request to include some language for charter schools to help them in their pursuit. Therefore, she offered to amend the bill based on the language provided by the representative from the Andre Agassi Foundation, Morgan Baumgartner. She also requested the committee to remove the preamble from A.B. 348 and incorporate it into the deaf child’s bill of rights (Exhibit J).

Steven Horsford, representing the Andre Agassi Foundation, was honored to address the committee on the important education issue before the committee. He said the legislature worked very hard over the last two legislative sessions to craft a charter school law that would provide for innovation and flexibility in education while preserving the integrity of the public school system.

Mr. Horsford said the Andre Agassi Foundation would become a model for what a good charter school should be and could be in Nevada. He said there was a unique partnership that had evolved between the foundation, the Boys and Girls Club, and the Community College of Southern Nevada. In 1995, tennis superstar, Andre Agassi donated $1.25 million to build the largest Boys and Girls Club ever constructed in public housing to be funded solely by private donors. Mr. Agassi’s vision and generosity inspired several foundations and major corporations to support the project, which opened in 1997. The club offered programs that included informational and referral service for families. The Clark County School Board Trustees also had an office located in the building as well as Community College of Southern Nevada classes. The center was currently looking to enhance the educational accessibility to students who lacked the resources necessary by creating a charter school to meet the unique needs of their education. The foundation already committed to contribute $750,000 for the charter as well as the housing and urban development, which committed another $750,000. The money was currently available to be used to construct the facility.

He said the foundation needed the committee to pass enabling legislation, which would provide the flexibility to make the charter school a success. He thanked Assemblywoman McClain for allowing the foundation an opportunity to amend the provisions within the bill. He also thanked the Nevada State Education Association for working with the foundation on the legislation.

Morgan Baumgartner, general counsel for R & R Advertising, said the provisions offered to the committee were fairly straightforward (Exhibit K). She said the reason for the amendments was to add flexibility that the nontraditional education form would need to achieve the maximum results. Therefore, she suggested to the committee that there be a very small piece of the collective bargaining agreement to which the teachers were subject when teaching at public schools.

Ms. Baumgartner said the first section of the amendment would exempt the charter school to be flexible in the number of days and hours a teacher could work per week and the number of days and hours a teacher could work per year. She said it gave the teachers and the charter school the flexibility to work around the needs of the students of that school.

The second amendment also allowed flexibility to amend the charter during formative years and would still be in accordance with the open meeting provisions that were allowed during the application process. She said the goal was to provide flexibility and was not to disrupt the charter school statutes currently in place.

Mr. Kelly, committee policy analyst, pointed out to the committee that subsection 4 of Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 386.525 allowed the governing body of a charter school upon approval of the board of trustees to amend the contents of the charter. Therefore, the second proposed amendment was already in existing statute.

Ms. McClain thanked everyone who signed onto the charter school bill and was happy to help the Andre Agassi Foundation.

Chairman Williams reminded the committee that the proposed facility was already a multi-million dollar facility and operation. He thought the approach the foundation took with charter schools committing $3 million to the charter school project alone was the type of charter he thought would exemplify what Nevada was all about. He also believed any changes in the charter school law should take place with reference to the type of projects proposed before the committee.

CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 348 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY MS. BAUMGARTNER, BUT DELETING THE SECOND AMENDMENT LISTED.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Collins drew attention to the amendment and read the first line, which stated, "A charter school shall be exempt from the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement that control the number of hours and times a day a teacher may work." He therefore assumed any collective bargaining agreement that controlled the hours a teacher worked would exempt them from the contract. He wanted to be sure what the intent was in the amendment.

Ms. Baumgartner said that was not the intent and replied the collective bargaining agreement was intact with the exception of the provisions that dealt with workday issues such as hours, days a teacher could work, and total number of days worked in a year.

Mr. Collins said the amendment did not state that.

Ms. Baumgartner said, "it shall be exempt from the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement that deal with those articulated issues." She was sure the legal counsel would make sure the intent was carried out.

Mr. Manendo supported the motion and hoped members of the committee could visit the charter school at a later date, possibly during the interim or the 2001 legislative session. He was extremely disappointed in the charter school the committee visited in Reno earlier in the current session. He hoped the charter school in Las Vegas would be better than the one in Reno because he saw students in slippers, sleeping in class, not adhering to the dress code, and watching cartoons in science class.

Ms. McClain also invited the committee to visit the Charter School for the Deaf in future legislative sessions.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams announced he would accept a motion on A.C.R. 25.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOTIONED TO DO PASS A.C.R. 25.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams reopened the hearing on A.B. 217.

Ms. Tittle, representing CCSD, reviewed the original language and the proposed amendments to the bill. She did not think the language that was deleted should be amended back into the bill and therefore was still comfortable with her proposed amendments.

Mrs. Koivisto asked if parents could currently review textbooks. Ms. Tittle replied it was currently being done site by site and on a request basis.

Mrs. Koivisto asked if parents could review any of the supplemental materials. Ms. Tittle said many schools currently had a process in place to enable parents and community members to review what was available. She said it was a site-based decision.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 217 WITH THE AMENDMENTS PRESENTED BY MS. TITTLE.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams announced that Assemblywoman Tiffany wanted to make a statement regarding A.B. 466.

Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, representing District 21, was aware the committee indefinitely postponed the bill and thanked the committee for considering it. As a result of the original hearing, she had received some overwhelming and surprising expressions of support and interest from parents who felt very strongly about the deconsolidation effort. Parents wanted the people to establish the direct policy on the issue through an initiative process. She had immense faith in the wisdom of the people and therefore, believed the issue should be put in their hands. She intended to join the parents in an exploratory effort to determine if there was sufficient support to place the issue before the voters.

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: