The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:50 p.m., on Wednesday, May 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

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Mark Manendo

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Mark James, District 8

Senator Maurice Washington, District 2

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Williams opened the hearing on S.B. 104.

Mary Peterson, representing the Nevada Department of Education, said S.B. 104 recommended several changes to the Nevada Education Reform Act (NERA) of 1997. It recommended the following:

• The dates for adoption of content and performance standards be adjusted slightly, which was recommended by the standards council.

• The time for administering tests align with the new standards of content and performance to be changed from the next school year to the school year 2000-2001 and that in the first year of the test administration the results be used solely to evaluate the examination.

• The requirement to administer examinations of achievement and proficiency in social studies be changed from the 2001 school year to the 2002 school year.

Ms. Peterson provided a revised first reprint of the bill to the committee (Exhibit C). She drew attention to section 1, line 13, and explained it just changed the dates for the adoption to January 15, 2000. Page 2, line 16, of the revised reprint changed the dates for the adoption for achievement tests from November 1, 1999, to January 15, 2000. Line 28 on page 2 changed the dates slightly as well, which were the fairly minor changes.

She drew attention to the major changes, which began on page 3, line 10. It stated that examinations of achievement and proficiency to be administered statewide in selected grades, kindergarten through grade 8, would begin in the 2000-2001 school year. She explained the standards in the original NERA were to be implemented in school districts in the year 2000 and the original reform act would have tested students the same year. However, the department believed, for a variety of reasons that was not sound practice. The section stated the Criterion-Referenced Test (CRT) for grades 3 and 5 would be administered for the first time in the school year 2000-2001. The department believed that was sound practice. She said the CRTs in grades 3 and 5 were not what the department called high stakes assessments. The tests did not determine whether a child would move on to the next grade, therefore by having the standards implemented in the year 2000 and then tested the following year made sense.

She drew attention to lines 26 and 27 and said the language referred to the CRT based on the new standards, to include social studies. She said it would have the social studies standards implemented in the 2000-2001 school year and then testing for the first time would be in the 2001-2002 school year. She reiterated CRTs would be used for grades 3 and 5 only and they were not high stakes tests.

She drew attention to the highlighted section on line 38 of page 3, which stated beginning in school year 2001-2002, the high school proficiency examination required by subsection 6 of Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 389.015 required pupils to pass in order to receive a standard high school diploma. It "shall" measure pupils performance on the standards of content and performance adopted by the board pursuant to that subsection. The high school proficiency examination "shall" incorporate the standards adopted, pursuant to the subsection, and "shall" be first administered to students in grade 11 in the 2001-2002 school year who must pass the examination before the end of grade 12 in order to receive a standard diploma in the school year 2002-2003. She said it simply stated that the high school proficiency examination, which students must pass to receive a standard high school diploma, needed to be aligned with the newly adopted standards. The test that was aligned to the newly adopted standards would be administered to juniors in the year 2001-2002. In other words, the graduating class of 2003 would be the first class that would have to pass the high school proficiency exam based on the new standards. That meant the year 2000 entering freshman would have to pass the new high school proficiency exam based on the new standards because they would be seniors in the year 2003.

In closing, Ms. Peterson explained the bill intended to clarify when exactly the new test would go into place and when the new standards based test would become effective. She said the department believed it was consistent with recommendations for legally and psychometrically defensible tests.

Mrs. Koivisto asked if Ms. Peterson proposed the amendments in the Senate. Ms. Peterson replied the department did not try to amend the bill in the Senate. She said the amendments reflected some work the department had done with the Legislative Counsel Bureau staff. She also mentioned that Dr. Rheault, the deputy superintendent from the state department, gave testimony on the bill on the Senate side, and he said the dates for the high school proficiency exam needed to be clarified further, which was what the recommended amendments would accomplish.

Mrs. Cegavske asked what would happen to the third grade students if they failed the test that was being proposed. Ms. Peterson replied that the CRT was a low stakes test and would only be used as a diagnostic tool to assist with remediation of students where needed and to determine whether or not students met the standards. She said the department was not recommending that promotion and retention decisions be made based on that test.

Mrs. Cegavske wanted to know in which month would the students be tested. Ms. Peterson replied the CRTs would probably be given in the spring of the year 2000.

Mrs. Cegavske asked why students were tested and what was done with the results of those tests, which she had asked several times in the past. She opined that testing students in the spring did absolutely no good for the teachers, the administrators, or the students. She thought money was being wasted if statistics were the only results the department was after. She thought testing students in the fall and giving the information to teachers, parents, and students to let them know what they needed to work on was the only way to do something beneficial for children. She said no followup was done when students were tested in the spring. During the summer, parents and students did not even know what they needed to work on when they went to the next grade in the fall, which she thought was a huge mistake.

Ms. Peterson understood her argument, which was why the department had, in the past, used Norm-Referenced Tests (NRTs) in the fall. She said the purpose of testing in the spring was because the standards were written such that the standards defined what students should know and be able to do by the end of certain grades. Therefore, to test students on those standards at the end of third grade would not be fair to the students.

Mrs. Cegavske understood what she said but said the problem was testing was done at the end of the school year and the results were not returned to anybody and all the state department was using them for was to show where Nevada was in meeting the standards. She said everyone already knew where Nevada was in education and thought testing needed to be administered that would be beneficial to students.

Mrs. Cegavske requested, with Chairman Williams’ permission, two reports that had been published, one of which was the Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (MCREL) study, which was a new standards review. The other was called the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS), which was something 40 other countries utilized. She thought they were two very important studies the committee members needed to review, to which she did not think the members had access.

Chairman Williams asked how soon Mrs. Cegavske wanted those reports and wondered if Ms. Peterson had direct access. Ms. Peterson said the department had the advanced briefing of the MCREL Report and could submit it to the committee right away. She said Bill Hanlon, State Board of Education member, was present at the original hearing on the Senate side and could answer some of the earlier questions regarding S.B. 104.

Ms. Parnell wanted to know what time of the year the tests would be administered. She said students would be tested on specific questions from the curriculum they had not learned. She thought teachers would have to teach students the prior year’s curriculum if testing would be done in the fall. As an eighth grade teacher, she had difficulty with students being tested in October because they had not yet learned what was being tested. Therefore, if students were going to be tested in the fall, she thought they should be tested on everything they needed to know upon entering a particular grade level. She understood the frustration Mrs. Cegavske had, but thought teachers could have the information at the beginning of the year and be testing on the appropriate material.

Mrs. Chowning said she was a member of the Council to Establish Academic Standards and said the council worked very diligently over the last 2 years to establish standards for English, math, and science, to which the entire state would have to adhere. She hoped the standards would be in the best interest of all children in Nevada. She thought it was unfair to ask students to pass a test with a new curriculum and new set of end of year goals. She said it was "putting the cart before the horse." Students would need to be taught the new curriculum first then they could be tested on the material learned. She was anxiously waiting for an answer on why the Senate had not passed it that way.

Mrs. Chowning also mentioned the CRTs and said the council examined them extensively. She also understood Mrs. Cegavske’s frustration and said several people had voiced the same concern regarding students being tested in the fall. Some form of test had to be administered at the end of the year in order to see what students learned. She said a CRT was a much fairer form of testing because students were tested on content. She hoped parents would be able to see the results of the tests. For the first time students would have an end of the year goal to reach.

Ms. Peterson said the department raised the concern the bill did not clarify exactly when the new high school proficiency exam, aligned to the standards, should be given or must be given. The department thought there was some confusion in the way NERA was written and thought that it could be interpreted to mean the new high school proficiency test, based on the new standards, would have to go into effect immediately. Therefore, the department sought clarification, and when testimony was given on the Senate side the Legislative Counsel Bureau staff explained the new high school proficiency test would not have to be aligned to the standards immediately. She said the bill had been written in its latest form to make that clarification, and the department believed it was consistent with what was legally and psychometrically defensible.

Chairman Williams asked Ms. Peterson for an update on the progress of the charter school situation in Nevada. He said that after the approval of a particular charter school, there were a number of questions concerning the need for transportation dollars for the computer charter school. He said there were several other questions such as merit pay, evaluations, attendance, and religious activities to name a few. Ms. Peterson said she would appreciate a list of questions and would be happy to respond upon receiving that list.

Bill Hanlon, State Board of Education member, said NERA clearly stated the new standards would be implemented and tested in the year 2000. He said the board was concerned that Nevada would not meet what was referred to as the opportunity to learn standards and it would be grossly unfair. He mentioned Senator Rawson spoke with staff, and they indicated they would allow the state board to make a determination when those new standards would be implemented within the new tests.

Mrs. Chowning asked what would be done with the CRTs. Ms. Peterson understood the tests would be used to measure student’s progress on the standards and as a diagnostic tool to help teachers determine exactly where a student had strengths, weaknesses, and needs. Ultimately, she thought it should be considered for accountability purposes. Currently, it had not been incorporated into the accountability statute, but she thought somewhere in the future, when the CRTs were up and running, it should be considered as part of the accountability report.

Mrs. Chowning asked who would have access to the results of the CRTs. Ms. Peterson said the department would report the results of the tests but would not necessarily use them to designate schools, for example, as "adequate" or "inadequate" because that part of the law was not changed.

Mrs. Chowning understood the results would be reported to the state as a whole and asked if an individual parent would be able to see the results of the test for their individual child. Ms. Peterson replied it would be the intent to allow a parent to view their individual child’s test score.

Dave Cook, State Board of Education member, thought it was very important to test students at appropriate times. When it came to high stakes high school proficiency exams, he thought the testing date for the new standards should be when students had been taught to the new standards, not prematurely. He said the entire board supported Ms. Peterson’s testimony.

Chairman Williams asked if the board had entertained any conversations on test security. To which, Ms. Peterson asked if there was a particular instance he was questioning.

Chairman Williams said there was not a particular instance but said there were schools that were very anxious about being placed on the "needing improvement" list. He said there had been alleged instances of schools teaching the tests or not reporting all of the students who took the test. Therefore, the scores were not appropriate in some people’s eyes.

Ms. Peterson understood the concern and said one of the changes to the accountability law required schools and school districts to report the percentages of students who were actually tested, the number of students who were excluded from testing, and what the reason was for those students who were excluded. Therefore, if there was an inordinate percentage or number of students who were excluded from testing, that particular school would be reviewed. She also mentioned if a school did not test at least 90 percent of their students, the department would have to examine it to determine the reasons for not testing those students.

Chairman Williams announced that the committee would entertain Mrs. Cegavske’s request to review the reports she had mentioned.

Mrs. Chowning added that the TIMSS study, to which Mrs. Cegavske referred, was brought to the Council to Establish Academic Standards’ attention and those results showed the United States in substandard status in certain areas. However, it was because of those results that Nevada "stepped up to the plate" to try to implement rigorous academic standards so students would be more successful in the workplace and in life. She thought those studies would just tell committee members that Nevada’s students were not where they should be.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 104 and opened the hearing on S.B. 285.

Senator Mark James, representing District 8, presented S.B. 285 and submitted a copy of an editorial article regarding the bill after it had passed the Senate (Exhibit D). He said the bill was very simple and it would add to the list of things currently required to be taught in government classes in public schools. Those items were as follows:

• The Bill of Rights;

• The Declaration of Independence;

• The Federalist Papers;

• Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address;

• The Emancipation Proclamation; and

• George Washington’s Farewell Address.

Senator James said he got the idea for the bill from his own experiences. When he went to public schools in Nevada, which was most of his life, those items were not emphasized enough. He ended up fashioning an independent study for himself and studying those documents in great detail.

Senator James understood many people thought there needed to be tougher laws, especially for children who took part in violent crimes, and he had supported a number of "tuff on crime" measures. However, he thought everyone needed to sit back and pause every once in a while to think about what was happening in today’s society. For example, the voter turn out got lower every year, which he thought was terrible. It was that kind of disaffection and lack of understanding of the basis of America that he thought was the cause of the problems in today’s society. He thought the kind of patriotism that came from within and that sprung from one’s heart was due to caring and understanding about the freedom that everyone enjoyed. He thought that was the kind of patriotism one received by participating in a patriotic exercise and from having a deep and abiding understanding of what was in the documents within the bill. He thought everyone knew and understood the importance of each and every one of those documents and the freedoms they enshrined. He chose the list of documents because every one of them had something to do with the formation of America. He did not think those documents should be the only things taught, which was why the bill was not exclusive and it stated, "including but not limited to those important documents."

Senator James mentioned he was asked to give a speech during an induction ceremony for naturalized citizens from all parts of the world. He had the chance to look up the questions that those individuals had to know in order to become naturalized American citizens, which were as follows:

• "What is the Bill of Rights?"

• "Who becomes president of the United States if the president and vice-president should die?"

• "Who is the main writer of the Declaration of Independence?"

• "What is the basic belief of the Declaration of Independence?"

• "Where does Freedom of Speech come from?"

• "What did the Emancipation Proclamation do?"

• "Name three freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."

• "Who has the power to declare war?"

• "What year was the Constitution written?"

• "Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution?"

• "What is the most important right granted to United States citizens?"

• "Name one right guaranteed by the first amendment."

He said there was a whole host of other questions, almost all of which he thought could be answered with a very basic study of those documents listed in the bill. He thought graduating high school students should be able to answer every one of those questions because naturalized citizens who came from other countries with great pride to take the oath to be American citizens had to understand and answer those questions.

Senator James did not think there would be opposition to the items listed within the bill but thought the only opposition would be individuals who thought the legislature should not micromanage the education system. He said the Constitution of the State of Nevada stated that the responsibilities of the legislature was public education. He was not saying micromanage the education system by mandating schools to teach new math versus old math, to use a new book in science, or to teach phonics versus the traditional form of teaching children to read. He exclaimed nobody ever died for new math versus old math or for phonics, but many Americans died for all of those documents listed in the bill.

He commended the work of the committee for coming up with the education standards council and all of the great things they were doing for accountability. However, there were a few areas that were imbued with such importance for the future of Nevada and America that legislators should not have compunction about making a statement, which was what S.B. 285 accomplished. The bill stated those documents were very important and needed to be part of the education structure and stated the legislature was going to ensure they were a part of the education structure. Therefore, he did not think the bill was saying the legislature would be setting a precedent for every future legislative session with a new bill to micromanage education. But instead, he thought the bill was saying the legislature would be stating a few specific things such as the history and the formation of the free principals under which all Americans lived would be required as part of the education structure.

In conclusion, he mentioned he had received many letters from high school students and teachers all over the state who were glad to see the legislature had discussed such an important bill. He said he would feel successful in at least bringing up and debating the issue if the bill was not passed out of the committee.

Chairman Williams referenced Mr. James’ comments regarding his school not emphasizing those documents enough and because of that he had educated himself. Chairman Williams said that when he was in sixth grade all students had to learn certain documents even though their parents could not vote by law and were segregated because they were African Americans. He thought those documents had very little meaning to students at that time because of the realities their families faced, even though he currently knew all of those documents were very important to America. He mentioned he also had educated himself later in life and found that the Emancipation Proclamation truly did not free any slaves, but instead was only a political move. He said schools were currently faced with diverse school populations and wondered what in the bill would peak interest and elevation of patriotism to students in a diverse population. He asked what was currently in the bill that would give students a real burst of energy and realize how it felt to be an American. Even though he grew up in a segregated environment and did not understand the true meaning behind those documents, he still grew up being proud to be an American.

Senator James replied he did not know what better thing could motivate people. He said the only reason America had a civil rights movement was because there were people who were educated and motivated enough to look at the Constitution and realize there were provisions in the document that should apply to all people. He said it was understanding the documents and understanding they were being misinterpreted and that they were not being granted to all people was what made people realize the problems and thought education was what could make change for the better. He thought the whole idea of having people from other countries who wanted to become naturalized American citizens be required to learn certain things about the government before they could claim citizenship was that they should have an appreciation for America. He opined that kind of knowledge people had to have to claim their citizenship should be the same kind of knowledge natural born citizens should possess. He thought the point Chairman Williams brought up supported the legislature making a statement that those documents ought to be taught. If society was still a place where everyone was not treated the same, he thought children needed to be educated so they could right those wrongs in the future.

Chairman Williams was not saying those documents should not be included and agreed most of them should be included in the list. He said the civil rights movement came about because of the lack of inclusion and the lack of equal treatment of people. As a result of that realization, amendments came to the constitution and he was sure someone asked why those amendments were not presented somewhere else in the original document. He asked if Mr. James was comfortable that those documents listed were enough. He understood the bill did not limit it to those documents and that others could be added into the curriculum. He said there was an involvement of people who had certain values and who looked like him and it made him even prouder to say he was an American. He asked if there was anything in the bill that could make children feel that way.

Senator James thought the documents listed in the bill would make children proud to be Americans. He said the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were what guaranteed all of those freedoms about which Chairman Williams spoke. He did not think the legislation would micromanage teachers. He thought that was where creativity took over to inspire people to really care about what the documents meant. He thought those documents would be emphasized in the curriculum if they were included in statute.

Chairman Williams mentioned that 22 students from the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) testified to the committee earlier in the current session. He said the students had high academic marks and were great children. They expressed their pleasure in attending UNR, but each one of them testified they were excluded from access to things to which other students on the campus had access. The students also felt it was because of their ethnicity those things were happening. They did not think people were purposely excluding them and sometimes were not aware that in many cases, students needed to have those who were in charge look beyond their present comfort zones and look at including things that could make everybody feel the same comfort zone. He thought the documents in the bill were great but did not think they went far enough.

Ms. Parnell said the wonderful thing about America’s Constitution and government was students could come to the legislature to voice their opinions. Those students very clearly stipulated what they thought was wrong with UNR. She said Mrs. Chowning made a motion to have a resolution to address the issue, and they used the system to help create change to improve campus life. She thought change could be created because of the government’s foundation.

Chairman Williams agreed the students did use the system to create change but said there were students on the campus who did not have to testify to the legislature to express how they were excluded. He thought it was unfortunate that those students had to come to the legislature to express their concerns and said if the system worked correctly, those students would not have had to do it that way.

Mrs. Cegavske was excited to be a joint sponsor of S.B. 285 because she thought it was an excellent bill. She said one of the reasons she wanted to express support for the bill was because she had visited a government class in Clark County. At the time she visited the class, the students were asked to recite the pledge of allegiance and observe 30 seconds of silence afterwards. When those students had the moment of silence there were students who did not observe it and were not quiet for the others. Several students made comments to her that it was the first time that week, which was after the tragedy in Littleton, Colorado, that all of the students stood up and recited the pledge. Prior to that tragedy the students had not been recognizing the pledge. Therefore, she was concerned and wondered why students felt they did not need to recite the pledge. She was very bothered by that and wondered whose fault it was if students did not want to recognize the United States flag and observe the moment of silence.

Mrs. Cegavske thought the bill was an answer, among other things, that needed to be addressed in today’s society. She had heard that a lot of students who had committed terrible acts, such as those in Colorado, did not feel like they belonged to anything. Ultimately, she was so glad Senator James brought such an important and necessary bill forward because students needed to know what America was all about and from where America’s forefathers came. She agreed with Chairman Williams’ comments that the bill could possibly have more documents or histories included. However, she also thought it was just the beginning to be able to explain it all to those students. She encouraged the passage of S.B. 285 and encouraged everyone to talk to teachers, administrators, and schools to tell them they had to recite the pledge and observe the moment of silence. She was also pleased to see members from the Clark County School District and the State Board of Education present at the meeting.

Ms. Ohrenschall understood what Senator James was trying to accomplish with the piece of legislation before the committee and applauded his efforts. She thought anything that could be done for Nevada’s schools to emphasize to students they should be proud and thankful to be Americans was important and necessary. She asked if Senator James had any idea at what grade levels those different materials would be taught. She also asked about some of the materials. For instance, her recollection of the Federalist Papers was of many arcane arguments centering about such things as the infamous Three-Fifths Clause and why was it the founding fathers decided that five African Americans, for census count, were equal to three Caucasian Americans. She thought some of those concepts, at least in the Federalist Papers, were more appropriate for college level.

Senator James said the Federalist Papers were very relevant because they were the fundamental arguments that were made to support the Constitution. He said not everything in those papers had to be taken literally for today’s society. He mentioned the recent impeachment hearings that occurred in Washington D.C. and said he referred to the Federalist Papers at that time and found out how amazing the insight of those papers were. He explained there was a discussion of why the founding fathers handled the impeachment and the Constitution in the way they did and there was a deep discussion of the way in which the political question of impeachment would be played out in the country.

Ms. Ohrenschall understood what Senator James was saying but also said he was a law graduate who could understood such context. She was still wondering at what grade level the information would be taught because she thought some of that information was too complex for some younger students. She also mentioned the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave living within the territory limits of the Union, the area that President Lincoln actually controlled. It only declared that slaves living in the confederacy, the area that President Lincoln did not control at that time, were declared free in the hopes that those slaves would revolt against the Confederate Government. She said it was not as great a thing as it seemed. She said the 13^th Amendment which made the slaves citizens and gave them a status in the United States and the 14^th Amendment that gave them the right to vote were much greater accomplishments.

Senator James said the bill included the 13^th and 14^th Amendments because it included the Constitution. He said he made the point about the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation in his opening remarks and said he agreed with Ms. Ohrenschall about that effect. He only thought the children in schools should know that kind of information as well. He said the bill stated, "the essentials of these documents." He did not think school children needed to learn every single one of the Federalist Papers. He thought students needed to understand what the book was all about because it was a reference guide.

Chairman Williams asked if the bill should state the 13^th and 14^th Amendments were the cause of slaves receiving their rights. He thought any African American who still believed the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves should still be considered a slave today.

Senator James answered that all of the amendments to the Constitution were included in the bill because an amendment to the Constitution was a part of the constitution. He thought any student who learned the constitution ought to learn them all and should know the numbers to the amendments and for what those numbers stood.

Chairman Williams agreed with Senator James but thought children should learn the points in history that truly formed America and the changes that took place. He also thought children should know there was a double message being sent, which was the Constitution granted everyone all of those rights and yet not everyone had those rights. He thought those amendments would at least teach students specifically what happened in that time period and would bring the mentality of understanding of how America evolved to where it was today. Therefore, he suggested possibly including all of the amendments into the bill. He also asked how many Federalist Papers existed.

Senator James replied there were 95 Federalist Papers and said those papers were a cohesive book to which he thought could be referenced because they were published in a volume. He thought that all of the amendments to the Constitution should currently be taught because it was in existing law.

Mrs. Chowning was proud to be a co-sponsor of the bill and said the language in the bill stating "but not limited to" was very important. She mentioned she lived in segregated housing when she was a young child and when she went to college she was told not to let certain people make a reservation at a Las Vegas hotel at which she worked. She did not abide by that rule and fortunately was not fired for taking a stand for what she believed. She said there were several things that needed to be taught in addition to the items listed in the bill and thought the language of "essentials of" meant the cliff notes version. She said it depended on the teachers in how they interpreted all of those documents and how far they would go to instill those lessons in students of what it truly meant to be an American.

Mrs. Chowning also mentioned that she was a member of the Council to Establish Academic Standards and said the council had been working very diligently. She thought all of the items in the bill before the committee were included in those standards established by the council. She did not think it would hurt to pass the bill and said it was not the first time teachers were told what to teach. She thought the issue before the committee was already being addressed in the standards established by the council.

Mr. Brower thought the committee needed to return to the basics he thought the bill was addressing. He was also proud to be a co-sponsor of the bill and saw the list of documents as being a foundation to the core documents that dealt with the creation of America. He also thought there were other documents that should be taught relative to U.S. government and U.S. history, which he hoped, was already being done. Not every aspect that everyone wanted to see implemented could be addressed in the bill. He saw the documents listed in the bill as "color blind" documents, granted they were all drafted by Caucasian males and that African Americans and women did not participate in the process at all by law. If those documents had been interpreted properly throughout America’s history, he thought nobody would have ever gone to a segregated school in America and the Civil Rights Act would not have been necessary.

Chairman Williams said the bill was asking for eight specific items and he understood the bill could not address everything. However, he suggested reducing those items to four or five and include some other issues such as Hispanic culture since it was currently the fastest growing population in schools in Nevada.

Ms. Parnell wanted to clarify something in social studies curriculum since she had a kindergarten through grade 8 credential in social studies. She said eighth grade had a very complex and detailed U.S. history and government curriculum and said she taught the Federalist Papers as well as everything else included in the list within the bill. She said students would learn some of the items listed within the bill because eleventh grade curriculum included U.S. history and twelfth grade included government, both of which taught most of those items. She wanted to be sure there was some coordination between the bill and what had been discussed as social studies curriculum in the Council to Establish Academic Standards, no matter the outcome of S.B. 285.

Senator James would be pleased if one of the results of the bill was that those items got greater emphasis in the standards council. He suspected it was already happening as a result of the introduction of the bill.

Mr. Collins thought most of those documents listed in the bill were already being taught in schools and wondered what the benefit was.

Senator James thought the documents were grossly under emphasized and thought the bill was a statement the legislature needed to make. He said there were lots of societal ills that stemmed from apathy and disaffection of youth and thought a statement made through the education system could only help.

Mr. Collins said there were so many different bills to change teaching every legislative session and thought there needed to be a consistent pattern in teaching to enable children to actually learn and retain information. He wondered how far the legislature could keep going in writing all of those new bills. He agreed curriculum needed to emphasize the items in the bill because they made the United States a free country but thought it needed to be left in the hands of the educators.

Senator James thought his testimony answered Mr. Collins’ question and said he articulated the reason, distinction, and difference between the bill and other mandatory education legislation. He said there had been too many children and adults who asked him what it was like to be in Washington D.C., since he was a state Senator. He thought it happened too often and thought the legislature was the appropriate place to address the issue.

Mrs. Angle commended Senator James and was happy to see the bill brought forward. She said the items listed in the bill were living documents and were the things that kept America apart from the rest of the world. She mentioned she visited a private school and said the students had memorized the Bill of Rights. She believed that was the reason learning to read was so very important because it was the only way to know what people’s rights were.

Senator Maurice Washington, representing District 2, testified in support of S.B. 285. He said all of the documents in the bill were so important to the foundation and history of America. He said he grew up as an angry young man, just as Chairman Williams had, because he was isolated and did not understand why he should be part of America because he felt he was robbed of his heritage. He said if a person did not understand the documents he/she would always be misled by the illusion America was not just or fair to anyone of color, which he thought was not true. He turned his bitterness into something constructive and learned the documents, which enabled him to learn what it meant to be an American. He had thought about his patriotism to America as he was growing up and decided, at one point in his life, he would never fight or die for America because it was not worth it. But, because he had the opportunity to read the documents within the bill and because of something intrinsic he understood there was something to America and something to the documents. After understanding those documents, he would be the first to pick up and go fight for America and his beliefs. He said freedom was not something that was just given to people, but was fought for and paid with the blood of many men. He did not mind if other histories were added to the list in the bill but thought all of the documents currently listed had to be kept in that list because they were the fundamentals of America.

He said each generation had to fight for its own survival, but if that generation was not given the tools with which to fight, it would only be enslaved, and he thought it could happen again. He said it would not only be black men in today’s society. He thought everyone would enslave themselves because of not understanding the documents which made America free. He urged the committee to make sure the fundamental documents within S.B. 285 were taught.

Chairman Williams corrected Senator Washington and said he did not grow up bitter and said he had a very happy childhood. He said he only realized there was a difference after reading and understanding the documents. He agreed those documents were important and did not think America would have had the Civil Rights Movement if America’s forefathers had the foresight and vision to include the information of the 13, 14, and 15 Amendments when the Constitution was originally written. He thought the legislature currently had the opportunity not to make the same mistake America’s forefathers made by not including language that would include all Americans. He thought the bill should be passed but also thought more information should be amended so future legislative sessions would not have to amend the statute to include other ethnicities. He said he could still show anyone disparities in his district when it came to economic development and the existence of schools that were different than other parts of Las Vegas. As long as those types of things were still in existence, he thought the legislature needed to be mindful when creating legislation that would promote the inclusion of what the bill really meant. He said it was one thing to say and write it, but he thought it was another thing to have to live it. He wanted to be sure everyone understood he was not arguing the bill and only thought America was more diverse than when the documents were written originally. He thought the legislature currently had the opportunity and responsibility to see things differently and thought the legislature should do the right thing by addressing all Americans in today’s society.

Mr. Washington did not argue with Chairman Williams and said there currently was not an emphasis on those documents, which was why the bill was brought forward. He said schools currently taught why African Americans looked different than Caucasians as opposed to the fundamental principals of free enterprise, opportunity, how to achieve, how to numerate, and other important things. He said everyone was currently living in the same society, whether diverse or not, and had to live by the same documents and laws. He said Americans spent too much time emphasized on why people were different than alike, and those documents were some of the reasons everyone was alike.

Mr. Collins said very few people knew all of the laws in the Nevada Revised Statutes but for the most part lived by those laws.

Mr. Washington thought most individuals with self-discipline could live by those laws without having read all of them, but said, "as we deliberate and continue to make laws we erode even the very freedom that we espouse to."

Kristine Jensen, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in support of S.B. 285 and provided her written testimony (Exhibit E). She stated statute currently required instruction in American government, including the essentials of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Nevada. It also called for teaching a history of the constitutions and the study and devotion to American institutions and ideals. She explained that instruction must currently be given during at least 1 year of elementary school grades and for a period of at least 1 year in all high schools. She said the bill would not change that but would simply enhance and clarify what should currently be taught.

She said American institutions and ideals were embodied in the documents listed in the bill. She thought they needed to be enhanced in education because she had recently spoken to several high school government classes that lacked the knowledge relating to America’s past history and those particular documents. She was saddened when she asked those students, who were seniors getting reading to go out into the world, from where American’s rights came, and she was given such answers as, "Bill Clinton."

Ms. Jensen realized the Council to Establish Academic Standards could and probably would look at including those documents in the bill into the standards, but she thought there was a problem in doing that because standards constantly changed. She said those core documents would never change and needed to be included in statute. She urged the committee to pass S.B. 285.

Mr. Manendo asked if Ms. Jensen had the opportunity to visit the local school districts and ask them to create some types of requirements as opposed to legislative action.

Ms. Jensen replied she had not specifically asked the Clark County School District but mentioned she had reviewed the textbooks and curriculum. She said the bill was something, regardless of the districts, she felt should be embodied in the entire curriculum.

Janine Hansen, representing Nevada Eagle Forum, spoke in support of S.B. 285 and was truly inspired by the discussion in the committee because the interchange in debate was what she thought America was all about. She said the founding fathers of America did not win all of the battles, but were only able to begin battles. Those individuals set down the basic principles that would always remain the same. She provided a copy of the Gettysburg Address, (Exhibit F), and recited a line in that speech made by Abraham Lincoln which read, "It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced." She said the unfinished work was what the bill concerned.

She said people could not be participants in their government if they did not know what its foundations were about. She appreciated the fact that there were many people who had not enjoyed all the blessings of liberty, which the founding fathers originally envisioned. She said everyone had been victims of those who abused the liberty set down by the forefathers in those documents. However, she said it did not mean that today’s people could not accept and revere those documents.

Ms. Hansen said that every year for the last 20 years she had spent time speaking to five high school classes. Oftentimes, she asked them what she felt to be very simple questions about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Inevitably, those students knew very few answers and were not well acquainted with what was in those founding documents. Therefore, she encouraged the committee to pass S.B. 285.

Lynn Chapman, representing Families for Freedom, testified in support of S.B. 285 and said it was imperative all school children be taught historical facts and documents about how America became a nation and grew to be its present size and greatness. She referenced an article in the Education Reporter that was about high school students who flunked history tests. She said the study by the National Assessment of Educational Progress tested children in grades 4, 8, and 12. Only 43 percent of students in grade 12 were able to reach at or above the basic level of achievement. For the first time, the majority of scores of students in grade 12 fell below the designated basic level of knowledge in history. Only 1 to 2 percent of all 3 grades tested reached the advanced stages.

She said experts explained poor results might have been because the test was much more rigorous than what most students were used to seeing in school. Those experts said the tests required greater historical knowledge and more writing and application of analytical skills.

She thought Americans were very lucky because the U.S. had documents, letters, and papers that linked everyone to their pasts. She said change could only come about through knowledge. She was not sure how the next generation could lead America to greater heights if they did not know where the country had been or how it got there. She asked the committee to support S.B. 285.

Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, said the premise had been raised in the course of testimony that it was not necessary to teach the documents in the bill because they were all inherently in everyone’s hearts and did them automatically. She thought anyone could clearly see that was not so through the condition of today’s society. Therefore, she thought that premise was completely invalid and should not be considered.

Richard Ziser, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in support of S.B. 285 and provided written remarks (Exhibit G). He said the concept of reading the Constitution gave him enough information to solve a major problem he had encountered in the past. Therefore, he urged the committee to pass S.B. 285.

Mary Peterson, representing the State Department of Education, spoke in opposition to S.B. 285 and said her argument was very practical. She felt the documents outlined in the bill were very important and all students should be thoroughly knowledgeable about them and the form of American government by the time they left high school. However, the approach to mandate instruction seemed to be inconsistent with the intent of NERA passed in the 1997 legislative session.

She said NERA recognized the importance of high rigorous standards for all Nevada students in core subjects including history and civics. The act formed the Council to Establish Academic Standards in public schools and then directed them to develop standards for what students should know and be able to do in social studies. She said writing teams had been meeting throughout 1999 to establish the standards for grades 2, 3, 5, 8, and end of high school in the following areas of social studies:

• World history

• Nevada history

• Geography

• Economics

• Civics

• U.S. History

Ms. Peterson provided Exhibit H, which included the first draft of the standards for U.S. history. She said they were standards that were drafted in January of 1999. She brought them to the attention of the committee because the topics outlined in S.B. 285 were included in those standards. For example, the Bill of Rights were addressed in standard 4.8.3, the Constitution was addressed in standard 4.12.2, the Declaration of Independence was addressed in standard 3.12.2, and the Federalist Papers were addressed in standards 4.12.2. and 3.12.5.

Even if S.B. 285 did not pass, she assured the committee the information would be shared with the standards writing teams. She was sure they would incorporate anything that was missing from the first draft of standards.

Ms. Peterson said the point was that when the legislature passed NERA it made a bold statement, and it gave very clear direction regarding standards. The education community took the message seriously and worked hard to develop standards of which everyone could be proud and support. She said school districts had to implement social studies standards in the 2000-2001 school year.

In conclusion, she said the process for developing standards in core subjects was working well. The department hoped the legislature would continue to support the process and continue to raise the expectations for what students should know and be able to do. She thought the passage of S.B. 285 would unnecessarily blur the clear message and direction established by NERA. With the passage of NERA the legislature set a clear course for education improvement. She said the state was on a course on which she hoped Nevada could stay.

Doug Byington, representing the Nevada Association of School Administrators (NASA), testified in opposition to S.B. 285 and suggested changing the bill into a resolution to encourage the standards council to include the documents in the standards. He thought the bill would only micromanage schools.

He said the association was concerned the issue would be brought back up in future legislative sessions as it had already happened in the past. The issue was already addressed in statute as he referenced NRS 389.020, which stated, "the essentials of the Constitution must be taught."

Mr. Byington brought several textbooks Washoe County School District used, which included all of the documents listed within the bill. The textbooks he brought were used in junior high school through high school. He thought the individuals who were appointed to the Council to Establish Academic Standards should deal with the issue.

Chairman Williams said the bill was already established and asked why Mr. Byington thought a resolution would help.

Mr. Byington replied it would resolve that the legislature encouraged the standards council to ensure those documents were included in the standards. He said all of those documents were already being taught in schools, which was the main reason for suggesting a resolution.

Mrs. Cegavske wanted clarification if Mr. Byington was representing himself or NASA. She also asked if the association requested the resolution.

Mr. Byington replied the association was in opposition to the bill. He said the idea for a resolution had just been suggested during the meeting that he thought would solve the problem. He said the association agreed all of the documents needed to be taught but was not in favor of them being dictated to the schools via the legislature.

Mrs. Cegavske said if the documents were already included in the curriculum, she did not think there was a problem with legislation that emphasized and strongly recommended that those documents were a part of the curriculum. She only thought statute would ensure that every teacher was teaching the information. She mentioned she was very disappointed and surprised in the school administrators and the state superintendent for not embracing the idea.

Mr. Manendo wondered if the state had the money for textbooks to teach all of the information. He mentioned that a constituent emailed him complaining she wanted to move out of Nevada because the schools did not have textbooks. He wanted to be sure everyone understood he was in favor of S.B. 285 because he was very interested and enjoyed learning U.S. history as he went through school. He was also confused as to what grade levels the information would be taught to students. He wondered if teachers would have the time to cover every issue listed in the bill and if other subjects would suffer. He thought all of the issues were very important to learn and thought they all should be taught but only worried there was not enough time or money to teach everything.

Mr. Byington responded that the governor announced at a recent conference that he earmarked approximately $10 million specifically for purchasing textbooks. He understood the money was needed because there was a tremendous expense for textbooks. He mentioned some schools had moved away from teaching from textbooks and started using computers and those kinds of different vehicles to teach.

Chairman Williams wondered if the bill passed, would the documents be added to textbooks or included in supplemental materials.

Lonnie Shields, from the Washoe County Education Administrators Association, said he was testifying on behalf of Henry Etchemendy with the Nevada Association of School Boards who could not be present due to a convention he had to attend. He provided Mr. Etchemendy’s written testimony, which was in opposition to the bill (Exhibit I). The exhibit also included excerpts from the Nevada Administrative Code specifying courses of study in social studies through various grade levels and comments from a couple of school districts regarding the issue. The association agreed students should receive instruction in the topics identified in S.B. 285 sometime in their public school experience. The association supported the notion instruction should include those topics and many more.

He said the principal objection to a bill such as S.B. 285 was that many citizens could, as a result, form an opinion that the topics listed were not currently being taught. His testimony and testimony from others would show that state courses of study, local curriculum, and textbooks covered instruction on the documents identified in the bill. The association thought the bill would be extreme micro-management.

Mr. Shields further noted there were writing teams currently working to establish standards on social studies, which would include topics wherein study of those documents listed in the bill and all their elements would be a part of the curriculum. The 1997 legislative session resulted in a program established to develop standards and assessments, which the association felt, should not be impeded.

Mr. Gustavson understood those documents should already be taught in public schools, but he was concerned those topics were not being taught as they should be taught. He thought the legislature needed to send a clear message to the school districts and boards that those documents would be taught and understood by students when they graduated from high school.

Mr. Shields said the materials for teaching the documents were in the schools and the association felt that most of the time they were currently being taught. He knew of specific classes that Mr. Gustavson would be very amazed at how the curriculum included in-depth information on the documents. He thought the association’s only concern was not against those documents being taught, but it would send a message to the public that those items were currently not being taught by pinpointing those specific items.

Mrs. Angle wanted to know some parts of the curriculum that were currently mandated by the legislature.

Ms. Peterson said there was a large list in NRS 389 of what was required. Some of which were:

• Sex education;

• Adult roles and responsibilities;

• Suicide prevention;

• Drivers education; and

• Environmental education.

She believed the committee would consider S.B. 445 that was passed on the Senate side which would serve to streamline what was currently in statute and focus on the important core subject areas such as English, math, science, and social studies.

Mrs. Angle was not sure all of those courses not of the basic core curriculum even belonged in the purview of education. She thought they belonged in the home as a part of parental instruction. She thought the legislature should be willing to mandate something that was so basic as the Constitution if all of those other courses had been mandated.

Senator James wanted to point out a few things to the educators who were present at the meeting. He said Ms. Peterson omitted that S.B. 445 would preserve the documents listed in S.B. 285. He also wondered why Mr. Shields did not come with a bill to repeal the things already in there because it was already a mandate from the legislature to teach the Constitution of the United States and the State of Nevada. He said schools were able to teach that and not feel micromanaged. He reiterated it was not micromanaging to state broadly that schools had to teach certain things.

Mrs. Angle was concerned that Senator James wanted to mandate it, but said there were no sanctions in the bill. She wondered what would make a school have to teach the items if they did not want to. She said it seemed discretionary to her without a sanction.

Senator James did not feel there needed to be a sanction because it was the law. He felt it just needed to be included in statute so educators would abide by it, and then they would be subject to the accountability standards showing they accomplished something by teaching it. He understood there were some great teachers who were teaching the materials, but for every one of those there was a case where it was not being emphasized enough.

Mrs. Koivisto was very upset that the committee members had been sitting in the meeting for a very long time, much of that time being harangued by the very people who talked about less government intervention, but yet those same people currently wanted the legislature to mandate. She also mentioned that her comment was not directed at Senator James or his bill.

With no further business before the committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: