The Committee on Education was called to order at 4:15 p.m., on Monday, May 10, 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

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:

Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, District 15

Senator Ann O’Connell, District 5

Senator Maurice Washington, District 2

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.C.R. 60 and announced it was a result of the previous bill, A.B. 348.

Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, representing District 15, said the committee had already heard testimony when the original bill was heard in relation to the charter school for the deaf. She mentioned that deafness involved the most basic of human needs, the ability to communicate with other human beings. She said many deaf and hard of hearing children used an appropriate communication mode, sign language, which could be their primary language while others expressed and received language orally/aurally with or without visual signs or clues. Still others, typically young deaf and hard of hearing children, lacked any significant language skills. She said it was essential for well-being and growth of deaf and hard of hearing children that educational programs recognized the unique nature of deafness and assured all deaf and hard of hearing children had appropriate ongoing and fully accessible educational opportunities.

Ms. McClain further noted A.C.R. 60 urged all school districts in Nevada, including all of the administrators and school personnel involved in the development of Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) to consider to unique needs of deaf and hard of hearing children. The resolution also provided the basic guidelines for educational personnel to follow in order to ensure that parental involvement provided an education to deaf and hard of hearing children to be tailored to their unique needs for a learning environment that allowed the child to develop their fullest academic capacity.

Debbie Gonzalez, a sign language interpreter who had 16 years of professional experience, said she worked both for the Community College of Southern Nevada and in private practice. She worked with many deaf students who graduated from the Clark County mainstream program, many of whom were not able to communicate in American Sign Language (ASL) or English. Many of them were unable to complete a job application or explain to an emergency room doctor that their chest pain was a dull pain as opposed to a sharp pain, which was something a doctor must know to perhaps save their lives. She said ASL was a foundation necessary to communicate basic needs. She explained deaf children and parents learned ASL and acquired language just as hearing children and parents did from the age of 6 months to 3 years with no formal instruction.

She further mentioned that the charter school for the deaf would provide a linguistic and cultural environment for deaf children. She said language did not exist without cultural role models and necessary special services. She hoped the committee would assist those involved in finding and establishing free and accessible education for deaf and hard of hearing children in future legislative sessions.

Shirley Williams, a teacher for the deaf, spoke in favor of A.C.R. 60 and said children learned language by hearing spoken language from their parents, siblings, and others in the outside world. Hearing children had thousands of words in their vocabulary by the time they started kindergarten. They had access to everything through hearing their peers, teachers speaking throughout the school day, and by conversing with their families after school. She said deaf children did not have access to language through their auditory channel. Since deaf children learned language visually they needed to be taught language through a visual means. For most deaf children, it was necessary to learn language skills through using ASL, a language that was different than English. It had its own syntax, phonology, morphology, semantics, and pragmatics. Deaf children with deaf parents almost always had superior language, reading, writing, and English skills than deaf children with hearing parents because deaf children with deaf parents learned ASL by seeing it used by their parents every day. She said it was the premise for the bilingual/bicultural deaf education philosophy that schools for the deaf utilized. Deaf children were taught ASL in the bilingual/bicultural environment and all teachers and other staff taught and conversed in ASL throughout the day to enable deaf children to learn it as their native language. After deaf children learned ASL as their native language, English was taught as a secondary language. Reading and writing skills were shown to be superior for deaf children in deaf schools using the bilingual/bicultural philosophy.

Ms. Williams further mentioned that fifth grade students from the Indiana School for the Deaf were tested in 1998, and they were reading at a fifth grade reading level, some of whom were reading at a fourth grade reading level. She said the school implemented the bilingual/bicultural program in 1987. The national average reading level for deaf students graduating from high school was at a third grade reading level. The bilingual/bicultural programs in deaf schools were changing those averages. Deaf children in those schools using the bilingual/bicultural programs taught their deaf students to be proud of who they were. The schools taught deaf culture and hearing culture, which she believed greatly built the deaf student’s self-esteem.

She said deaf children who attended public schools often were taught in general education classes using interpreters where they did not have direct communication with their teaches or classmates. Sometimes students in public schools were educated in self-contained deaf education classes. Most of those self-contained classes were taught using simultaneous communication (Sim-Com), which meant the teacher spoke English and signed at the same time when educating deaf students. She said Sim-Com did not provide deaf students with any language, which had been documented in many articles over the past 10 years. Those deaf children were not exposed to ASL or English and as a result, the deaf students had delays in language skills, academic skills, and socialization skills. It caused lifetime obstacles the deaf students had to face. Many of those deaf students graduated from high school without the reading and writing skills to be accepted into a college or university. Many deaf students did not have the necessary skills to work after they graduated.

Ms. Williams thought the best place for deaf students to learn was in a deaf school with other deaf peers. Such schools provided full communication access through the bilingual/bicultural model of education. She said deaf children in Las Vegas had the right to be taught in the same environment as deaf children in every other state in the country. The bilingual/bicultural model could not be implemented in a school with hearing students because pure ASL would not be used and deaf children would not have the opportunity to learn ASL as their native language. She said deaf children had the right to learn ASL, be taught with their deaf peers, learn deaf culture, hearing culture, English, and academic skills to help them be successful deaf adults and the deaf leaders for the future.

Ms. McClain stated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) made appropriate education available for all children with disabilities. A.C.R. 60 was an attempt to urge school districts to understand the unique needs of deaf children and to make sure there was parental involvement in whatever type of educational program was offered. She urged the committee to support the resolution.

Martha Tittle, representing the Clark County School District, testified in support of A.C.R. 60 and said the district’s original concern was that perhaps it would limit the qualified teachers that would be available. However, after speaking with Assemblywoman McClain, the district currently felt the intent of the bill was not to limit opportunities but to ensure that deaf and hard of hearing students had opportunities for appropriate instruction.

Chairman Williams thought A.C.R. 60 was the first step in Assemblywoman McClain’s efforts in servicing students with disabilities. He thought the deaf community was very lucky to have Assemblywoman McClain address the issue because she was a true advocate.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO DO PASS A.C.R. 60.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS DE BRAGA AND COLLINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

Chairman Williams announced S.B. 15 would be rescheduled for May 12, 1999.

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on S.B. 213.

Senator Ann O’Connell, representing District 5, presented S.B. 213 and said it addressed service for children who were not students enrolled in the public school system. In other words, children who were either home schooled, attending a private school, or a charter school. She said Nevada was currently one of only five states that did not allow children who were in attendance at private schools or being home schooled to use public services.

Mrs. O’Connell said the main changes in the law were found in sections 1 and 2 of the bill. The language provided the means by which parents were required to petition the school board of trustees to authorize their child’s attendance for taking part in special education and related services as well as extracurricular activities. She mentioned it was on space available only and thought the issue was one of fundamental fairness. Parents of children who were being schooled by means other than the public school system were paying for the public schools, yet they could not receive any benefits.

She said the original bill showed there was a fiscal note. However, she said the committee would hear testimony explaining there would not be a fiscal impact, but instead the bill offered opportunity for schools to receive more money. The bill would afford the opportunity for all children to reach their potential whether playing in the band or getting help with a disability. It also could give opportunity for children not attending public schools to attend summer school.

Mrs. Chowning thought people would look at the bill and think students would have too many options. For example, if a student in attendance at a private school was allowed to participate in athletics at a public school, that public school could be viewed as recruiting an athlete as a member of their team while he/she was not truly in attendance every single day of the year.

Mrs. O’Connell said the constituents that brought the bill to her attention were specifically concerned about their child who had a speech defect. That home schooled child came from another district that allowed him/her to use the program for speech therapy through the public school system. She said Mrs. Chowning’s concern had already been raised and it seemed to be the one thing on which the districts that were not in opposition to the bill wanted to focus. Mrs. O’Connell saw so many other benefits that could be offered to families. She was very saddened that everyone had concerns about athletics instead of realizing there could be a situation where a parent who preferred to home school their child did not feel they were qualified to teach in areas such as chemistry or calculus. She said those people were still paying for the service through their tax dollars, yet their child was being discriminated against and unable to benefit from that service. She wanted the committee members to understand how important it was that every child hopefully reached their potential and had an opportunity for an education. She thought the law in place was very archaic because it did not allow any child in Nevada to benefit from public schools. She reiterated it was on space available only, and it was being funded with tax dollars. She reminded the committee it would be ultimately be up to the school boards to make the determinations. She hoped a child who had a disability could use services in a public school.

Chairman Williams believed parents should have the choice to decide where and how to school their children. He said some of the individuals who testified in reference to home schooling in the past testified that public schools were horrible and unsafe. However, those same individuals currently wanted to selectively go into those same conditions they felt were unsafe and in some cases morally degrading.

Mrs. Chowning said she brought up the issue of excellent athletes because she had heard concerns where outside schools would want to recruit an especially talented athlete from a private school or home school. In a sense, that student would be abusing the privilege of being able to be educated in one particular school while being recruited specifically for an athletic ability in another school. She also asked if the bill limited any number of classes. For example, if a student needed an extra math class to graduate, he/she would be able to use a public school for that service. Mrs. Chowning also wondered if a student could attend a public school for a year if he/she needed to take three or four classes.

Mrs. O’Connell agreed with the examples Mrs. Chowning gave as the intent of the bill.

Mr. Manendo asked if there was anything in the bill that would mandate the school district to pick up the entire cost if there was a lab fee for a particular class a student wanted to take.

Mrs. O’Connell replied the parent would pay for a type of fee of that nature.

Mr. Collins asked if the bill mandated that a student who wanted to use a public school, for whatever reasons, would have to choose one in the boundaries/zones of their home.

Mrs. O’Connell replied there was not a provision regarding districting because the school would not have to provide transportation. She said the parent would petition the school board and the board would make the determination.

Ms. Parnell wanted to know how the home schooled child would be serviced by the public school special education teacher.

Mrs. O’Connell responded that the parent of the child would also petition the local school district board telling them of their need and asking if there was space available for their child to attend a class that was currently presenting such service. The school board then would make the determination if space was available.

Larry Spitler, representing the Clark County School District (CCSD), said there were some details that needed to be addressed. He said the bill addressed the rules that students would have to meet, which were set up by the board of trustees. It also addressed any other rules imposed by an association of interscholastic activities on the athletic issues. He said the district did not see the bill as opening a door to harming, in any way, a public school. He looked at it as the opposite and thought there would be more participation if those children were included in public school programs. He thought it was a win, win situation for people who preferred home schooling but could not deliver on some of the more complicated courses or when labs were attached. He said the nice thing was the bill stated, "on space available only." He said the school district would have to set up the rules in terms of the students attending.

He referenced earlier questions regarding attending any school regardless of boundaries, and said it would be the same thing as a student asking for a zone variance. He said it was obvious districts would have to work with the children enrolled full-time, but he thought there was a population to which the district could provide service when space was available.

Ms. Parnell opined the physical placement of a special education student needed to be at the public school site full-time to reap the benefits of that program. She did not know if a student could attend such a program for 1 hour per day and find success in special education.

Mr. Spitler could not think of all the reasons why a parent of a special education student would want just one service from a public school. He thought it could be programs such as speech therapy or occupational therapy. While the district would rather have such a child attending full-time to be able to deliver such a program successfully, he thought a parent might feel that they were providing all of the other services and only needed the one component. He said the district felt they would like to deliver that with space available.

He also mentioned another nice thing about the bill was for the first time the district could be compensated for the services provided. He thought the school board was more than willing to work out any of the problems that would arise. He did not think there was anything that could not be resolved.

Chairman Williams thought the committee would feel comfortable working some of those issues out before moving forward with the passage of S.B. 213. He was not very comfortable relying on the school districts to comply with the bill if it passed. He asked how CCSD would feel if students who were in attendance took classes at private schools when space was available. He thought students should be allowed to go both ways if one way was allowed.

Mr. Spitler said that issue had not been addressed in discussions regarding the bill.

Mrs. O’Connell did not see a problem with public school students utilizing private school programs if their parents paid for the service. However, she said it was not the purpose of the bill nor did the bill address the issue.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked how the bill, if enacted, would affect the school districts’ insurance policies and coverage as students from private schools came onto property of the school district and participated in some parts of extracurricular activities but were not actually subject to all of the rules and regulations. If there was a liability she also wondered if it would increase insurance liability for the school districts.

Mr. Spitler believed it would be addressed in the rules. He said it would have to be addressed in the regulations if any student was on school grounds. He did not think there would be any significant increase in insurance liability. He reiterated the bill would allow school districts, for the first time, to be compensated for allowing those students to use different programs.

Ms. Ohrenschall suggested including some kind of provision in the bill that the parents of the child doing the "cross over" would provide some sort of insurance coverage if the child was in any way injured. Thereby alleviating any possible impact on the school district.

Mr. Manendo asked if the principal of each individual school would have the task of determining the space available. He also wondered how it would be evaluated because there could be several parents wanting their children to utilize certain programs at the same time.

Mr. Spitler replied it would be determined as it was done currently. For example, if a parent wanted a variance for their child, the parent would contact the school where they wanted the variance to occur. He said the request for the variance would be reviewed by the staff at that site and they could not authorize the variance until after the full enrollment component was established for that academic school year. At that point, if the school had 100 applications and only 5 spaces they could address it by lottery or on a first come, first serve basis. Ultimately, it would be worked out procedurally with the regulations adopted by the school board.

Mr. Manendo wondered what the timeframe was for parents to submit their application.

Mr. Spitler said currently it was in May that parents could apply for variances to another school. He said parents usually would receive a reply in June, whether the variance was approved.

Mr. Manendo asked if the people who did the zone variances would be approving it and wondered if there would be a need for more administrative support.

Mr. Spitler did not think it was an issue of more administration so much as a process because he did not think there would be a huge need. He thought the types of programs in which students would want to participate would be in very specialized areas.

Chairman Williams thought the area superintendents currently granted zone variances, and knew there were times where one parent was denied the variance for some reason, but one was granted to another parent, sometimes in the same day, for the same school. Therefore, he thought it was obvious that process was flawed, and it was another area of policy he thought the committee wanted to see solidified before moving forward with the bill.

Mrs. de Braga asked if the extracurricular activities included sports. She asked if a student from a charter school or who was home schooled would be entitled to any awards and would be able to represent the school for which he/she played sports.

Mr. Spitler replied it included sports and said there was a provision on page 2, line 17, that stated it could not be in opposition, "to any rules or regulations adopted by an association for interscholastic activities." He thought the hard part was remembering that those were students participating in a program on a space available basis.

Mrs. de Braga was still concerned with some issues. For example, a school would depend on a student’s participation if he/she was selected for a team. She said she had dealt with that issue for 25 years and her experience had not been good with home schooled students. She said home schooled students were not held to the same standards as public school students, no matter what rules or regulations were in place. The public school students earned their right to participate in those types of activities because of rules regarding grades, attendance, and other things to which they had to adhere.

Mr. Spitler drew attention to page 2, beginning on line 12 in subsection 4, and thought it might address that concern for the first time in law. It stated, "the board of trustees of a school district may revoke its approval for a student to participate in a class or extracurricular activity at a public school." He did not think a child would be treated differently under any circumstances and said all students would have to live up to the same standards.

Mrs. de Braga wondered how the district would know if a home schooled child went to school Friday afternoon before a game. She said that was only one example of the standard to which home schooled students could not actually be held.

Mr. Spitler replied it would only be the district’s responsibility when that student was on the district’s property. He said it would be the responsibility of the district to provide a good program to that student just as to every student. If that student’s grade were not up to par, then he/she would not be allowed to participate in the program. He mentioned the bill allowed the school districts to enact regulations to accommodate Mrs. de Braga’s concern.

Mrs. de Braga responded to Mr. Spitler’s remarks and hoped the regulations would then be changed so it would be the same for everybody whether home schooled or attending public schools.

Chairman Williams gave an example of a full-time public school student being involved in an extracurricular activity. He said teachers had the power to tell the principal that a student was showing poor citizenship in class, which could result in the student not being able to participate in the activity for a certain period of time. He thought that was also a standard that was different for public school students.

Harvey Whittemore, a parent of five children, spoke in favor of S.B. 213. He mentioned that when the matter was presented to the Senate, his 15-year-old daughter Natalie, testified as to her experiences associated with her request to participate in summer school classes to allow her to graduate early from a private school. He said his daughter’ s situation was unique because the class, which was being sought, was one that required the payment of additional funds. It was a situation of a taxpayer’s daughter who happened to attend a private school, was seeking to attend a summer school, and willing to pay the extra fees associated, but being denied the opportunity to further her education.

He thought the bill covered a number of very specific areas, which he thought needed to be addressed. With respect to the extracurricular activities and the athletic programs, he assured the committee that from his family’s perspective and he thought from Senator O’Connell’s perspective, the intent of the bill was to mainly cover academic activities. Therefore, if it was the will of the body to remove the provision for extracurricular activities, he thought to most people it would be acceptable. He thought there were still some concerns in removing the language for extracurricular activities. One of which he referred, was a recent case in a federal district court in California involving the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) and young twins, who attended a private school, and sought to participate in extracurricular activities which were not available through their school. The federal courts mandated that they participate.

He further noted the policy in Nevada was not uniform with respect to the issue before the committee. He also mentioned that Clark County already allowed individuals who were similarly situated to his daughter’s circumstance to participate in a certain program. He stated he would be providing a legal opinion to the committee in the next meeting with respect to the constitutionality of the bill from his law firm. He said there were some recent developments that suggested the legislation was constitutional. He also believed the original concern was there might not be sufficient funding to the various school districts with the extra participation in those space available classes. However, with the mechanism established in the bill on page 4, subsection 6, and page 5, subsection 3, there was a process by which individuals who participated in those programs for at least one semester were included for purposes of determining the allocation of funds to the various school districts. Therefore, there was not a question of whether the funding would be appropriate.

Mr. Collins asked if Mr. Whittemore’s daughter thought about taking a correspondence course to accomplish her goal.

Mr. Whittemore explained that was what his daughter tried to do, and she was denied the opportunity.

Mr. Collins thought a university could grant her request.

Mr. Whittemore replied that the requirements for graduation were set by standards and obviously they had to be approved courses by the school district. He said his daughter was allowed to take other courses but unfortunately would not allow her to graduate early, which was the whole point of taking classes during summer. He further noted it was a problem to do such in Washoe County, but it was not a problem in Clark County.

Mr. Collins referred to the language in the bill regarding associations for interscholastic activities and asked how they would affect home, private, and charter schooled students.

Mr. Whittemore replied the regulations which were anticipated to be drafted by both the board of trustees and the Association for Interscholastic Athletics were designed specifically to allow the flexibility of those two associations to develop a process to ensure the compliance of the home schooled students and that the individuals who attended charter and private schools met the conditions established by those two bodies. He said that was the reason for the language within the bill on page 2, lines 17 through 20, which stated, "if the board of trustees so revokes its approval, neither the board of trustees nor the public school are liable for any damages relating to the denial of services to the pupil." He said it was anticipated that people would be afraid that somehow it would expose the school districts to damages if access to those services was denied. He said the language was to make it clear that was not the intent of the legislation.

Mr. Collins further asked if those regulations would address the boundary jumping and recruiting for athletics.

Mr. Whittemore replied the regulations included boundary jumping and recruiting. He stated the whole process was to allow the Association for Interscholastic Athletics the greatest degree of flexibility to ensure compliance with the regulations. He said the bulk of the support of the legislation was for the academic portion of the bill. If there was an issue with respect to extracurricular activities, specifically sports, he thought most people would want to see if it worked with academics and then see if there was an issue with extracurricular or sports activities. He also mentioned failure to act in that area would not avoid the possibility of lawsuits with respect to participation on sports teams, which was why he mentioned the issue was already appearing in numerous federal courts throughout the country.

Chairman Williams asked if Mr. Whittemore had a problem with the sunset on the bill. He also wanted clarification as to Mr. Whittemore’s opinion on eliminating the language regarding extracurricular activities.

Mr. Whittemore replied he did not have a problem with the sunset on the bill and thought it would be appropriate to review it in 2 to 4 years. He replied to Chairman Williams’ second question regarding extracurricular activities and said he could not speak for the sponsor of the bill, but thought it would not be a problem deleting the language dealing with extracurricular activities if that was the first step that needed to be taken. He reiterated the only problem he could see would be from a lawsuit perspective.

Chairman Williams asked if Mr. Whittemore agreed the intent of the legislation was to allow more academic opportunities and not athletics.

Mr. Whittemore replied he thought the bill would allow more opportunities for academics.

Julee Armstrong, a home school parent, testified in support of S.B. 213. Mrs. Armstrong and her husband decided to home school their children because they wanted to be responsible for their education. She mentioned they did not think there was anything wrong with the public school system.

Mrs. Armstrong did not want the athletic privileges deleted from the bill. She looked at school for children, whether in private, home, or public schools, as a well-rounded education, which she did not think was simply academics. She personally wanted her children to at least have the opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities if they chose. She said her daughter currently wanted to play volleyball and did not have the opportunity. There were also rocket science clubs in which her children were interested and could not be participants.

As a parent, Mrs. Armstrong said she had a greater concern for the well-being and the behavior of her children than any teacher in public or private schools. Therefore, if her children did not have the proper citizenship in the home school, she would be the first person to pull them out of an extracurricular activity. She also thought most home schooled parents were very in tune with what was going on with their children.

Mrs. Armstrong agreed there was a problem with the recruiting of students from other kinds of schools for athletics if the bill was passed in its current form. She also did not want to see the whole bill rejected because of that one aspect.

Mr. Manendo asked Mrs. Armstrong how often she had to submit her child’s progress reports.

Mrs. Armstrong replied currently she did not have to submit a progress report in the State of Nevada if she chose to teach her own curriculum. She mentioned that a couple of years ago there was a state test requirement of all home schoolers, but she believed it was currently not required. She currently submitted to the state in either June or July a full report of all of the books she would use, all of the education goals, and how she would reach those goals.

Mr. Manendo commended Mrs. Armstrong and her husband for taking on the responsibility of home schooling their children. He asked if she would be opposed to submitting weekly reports to the school district if her child was involved in extracurricular activities.

Mrs. Armstrong replied she would not have a problem submitting a weekly report to enable her children to participate in extracurricular activities.

Mr. Manendo suggested some type of weekly evaluation for home schoolers could be amended into the bill to address the concern.

Michael Polish, a parent of children attending public school, stated he had some concerns with S.B. 213 as it was currently written. He mentioned that his brother home schooled his own children. He said it tore him apart to see a student who was not a part of a public school represent that school in athletics. He said it was a spiritual thing to be able to participate in sports. His own children got up every morning before the sun was up to go to school, and he did not think home schooled students had those same standards to which they had to follow.

Mr. Polish also had a concern with the language of "space available." If there was a 7 foot tall home schooled student, he thought that student would be playing basketball. He said that team would make room for the student, regardless of "space available" and if other members were sitting on the bench. He further noted he did not have a problem with those students taking classes for academic purposes available through the public school system.

Steven Balkenbush, representing the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and Silver State Education Association (SSEA), spoke in favor of S.B. 213. He was a home school parent and the president of SSEA. He said the SSEA was a group of home schooling families who kept track what was happening at the legislature and the State Board of Education to be sure home schoolers knew what was happening in terms of regulations. He provided a copy of a letter from Michael Smith, with the HSLDA (Exhibit C). He said the letter addressed what the association believed to be the genesis of the bill.

Mr. Balkenbush thought A.C.R. 60 was similar to S.B. 213 because deaf and hard of hearing children would be allowed to use the public school system to help with their disabilities. He said private schooled students currently had the ability to use the public school system for special education, but home schooled students did not have that option. He thought that was an anomaly under current Nevada law, and he said home schooled students were defined differently in that law than privately schooled students. He thought the bill would essentially cure that problem. He did not think the committee could deny a student the opportunity to sit in an empty chair in a school.

He further noted the extracurricular activities might have to be deleted from the bill to pass it. He thought home schooled, handicapped students, with parents who might not have sufficient funds, should not be denied the opportunity to be all they could be. He hated to see the bill dropped when it could do so many good things for so many students.

Being a home school parent for 13 years in Nevada, Mr. Balkenbush thought he was accountable by getting his children up at 6:30 a.m. and teaching them before he went to work. If parents could not be trusted to raise their own children right as far as educating them, he did not think the public school system needed to accomplish that task. The main thrust of his testimony was for those home schooled students who were less fortunate and could utilize the system and thought the bill could provide that avenue.

Mrs. de Braga asked if Mr. Balkenbush was only interested in the extracurricular activities or if he was also interested in the academic classes for his own children.

Mr. Balkenbush replied his concern was for academics for students who could fill an empty seat, but most importantly, he was concerned for handicapped students. He understood the extracurricular activities were important to a lot of people, including his own son. Those activities were also important to individuals in rural areas because they did not have the opportunities to participate in those activities that larger cities provided.

Joseph Balkenbush, a home schooled student, testified in support of S.B. 213. He said the bill would provide needed assistance for special education students who were home schooled. It would also give educational opportunities and a choice to participate in extracurricular activities for home schooled students. He thought all of those opportunities would be good for home schooled students of Nevada.

Mr. Manendo asked if Joseph Balkenbush personally wanted to take academic classes or if he wanted to participate in sports or clubs.

Mr. Balkenbush replied he wanted to participate on the golf team and possibly band.

Mr. Collins asked if Mr. Balkenbush thought home schooled students would be just as loyal to athletic teams as those students who attended the public schools.

Stephen Balkenbush replied with respect to his own children and said they were devoted and loyal. Therefore, he did not think there would be a difference whether they attended the public school system or not. His recollection of athletics was a team was a team regardless of what individual academic endeavors were. He thought team spirit had to do with the understanding and trust of each teammate.

Mr. Collins said if Joseph Balkenbush was playing for a sports team of a high school and was home schooled would he be playing for the team or himself. He wanted to know if his commitment level would be any different than those students who attended the high school all day.

Joseph Balkenbush replied he would be playing for the team and did not think his commitment level would be any different than any other student at that high school.

Mr. Manendo mentioned at high schools on a game day, whether football or basketball, students wore jerseys or something to indicate they were a part of the school. He envisioned Mr. Balkenbush missing the school spirit and would only show up to play the game. He thought a team sport brought the school together and that it was very important. He asked Mr. Balkenbush if he thought that was something he would miss.

Mr. Balkenbush responded he did not think he would miss out on the spirit of it all.

Anne Loring, representing the board of trustees at Washoe County School District (WCSD), spoke in opposition to S.B. 213 and said it was not as simple as it might have appeared. She said it had been said that because parents of private, charter, and home schooled students paid taxes their children should be able to use selected public school services. But, that ignored the fact that in Nevada, unlike other states, the schools were funded based on the number of students enrolled, not simply on the number of tax dollars received. She said the argument also ignored the fact that everyone paid taxes for such public needs as fire protection and yet that did not guarantee that everyone could have a fire truck.

She stated that one of the concerns of the board with the bill as it originated in the Senate was that no funding was provided to pay for costs of additional students for that part of the day. The board appreciated the bill was amended to add funding, at least as far as it related to classes of special education.

There had been a lot of discussion about choice in education and she felt it was fortunate parents in Nevada could choose between public, private, charter, and home schooling for their children. However, choices involved consequences and that should be true regarding the issue before the committee. Some parents did not like the diversity in public schools, which was why they chose other avenues to teach their children. Yet, it was that size and diversity of public schools that allowed them to offer the range of classes and extracurricular activities that were not available in private, charter, or home schools. Ms. Loring further noted that approximately 5 percent of Nevada’s students would benefit from the bill.

Another concern the board had was in regard to extracurricular activities. She said participation in extracurricular activities was a privilege that was earned by students maintaining certain grade levels, attendance, and citizenship. The standard applied to all students in the school. But, by letting home, charter, and private schooled students to participate, it would be impossible to be certain they were being held to those same standards. Therefore, the board suggested at least deleting the reference to extracurricular activities from the bill.

In conclusion, she commented it was represented to the board when they discussed the bill that the statistic Nevada was one of five states that did not provide service to nonpublic school students specifically referred to only special education. She stated the board was very sympathetic to that portion of the bill if adequate funding was provided.

Janine Hansen, representing the Nevada Eagle Forum, spoke in favor of S.B. 213 and said she had been the parent of public, private, and home schooled children. She thought any parent tried to make a decision about where their child would attend school based on the individual needs of the child. She mentioned that after her son attended 4 years of public education there arose some significant problems in his classroom and she felt it was best to remove him from the school and to home school him. At the age of 15, her son had some needs she could not fulfill in home school, such as auto mechanics or welding. Therefore, in looking for ways to fulfill those needs she enrolled him classes at Truckee Meadows Community College, and those were available to him at age 15. She further noted her daughter attended public schools for 2 years and after that time had never learned to read, therefore, she also removed her from that school and taught her to read at home.

Ms. Hansen mentioned she had a friend in Utah who home schooled almost all of her children. However, in Utah they had an open enrollment program and all of her children chose to take different classes such as choir, drama, debate, chemistry, computers, orchestra, and band. That state worked out all of the problems currently mentioned in testimony, and the program there had worked for many years.

Ms. Hansen opined some extracurricular activities were more important than some academic courses such as debate, which she had taken when she was in school. After she had been on the debate team for a while, the activity was formed into a separate class, which enabled the team to compete in debate tournaments. Although it was considered to be a class, it was also an extracurricular activity. It was the same for a band class, which also incorporated extracurricular activities. Therefore, she did not feel it was so easy to separate academic classes and extracurricular activities.

Ultimately, she encouraged the committee to give the opportunity to those who were willing to make the commitment to their own children and were willing to pay the price of home schooling their children, as well as the taxes to be able to access those things for which they already paid. She thought both public and home schools would benefit from the legislation before the committee. It could be possible that home schooled students would feel comfortable at public schools and decide to attend on a full-time basis.

Al Bellister, representing the Nevada State Education Association, spoke in opposition to S.B. 213 because of section 6, subsection 3. He said the proponents of the bill, as heard in earlier testimony, indicated that the main focus of the bill was the academic area, which was the very nature of the association’s opposition.

The bill allowed private or home schooled students to enroll in public schools for a class of their choice. He said the majority of Nevada’s private schools were religious schools. The nature of the association’s opposition was the Nevada State Constitution. Article 11 of the State Constitution clearly prohibited the use of any public funds of any kind or character to support any sectarian purpose, which was exactly what the bill would accomplish. He suggested the committee to think about the religious school that could take advantage of the public school system to offer English and thereby would receive the indirect financial support that would free up that money for the religious school for public purposes other than the offering of English.

He further noted the association had the attorney general’s opinion, which was the parents had a right to make a choice in a school of their choosing, whether it be public, private, or parochial. Those who chose private or parochial school could not be heard to complain when their children were denied programs, which were offered in public schools. The solution would be to enroll children in public schools, instead of asking the public schools to subsidize the operation of the parochial school. He understood that opinion was old, but thought it was still the guiding principle around the interpretation of that particular article of the Nevada Constitution and was still a footnote in the Nevada Revised Statutes.

Mr. Gustavson was not quite sure he understood Mr. Bellister’s opposition. He opined people who chose to send their children to religious schools helped the burden of the public school system by not using those tax dollars. He thought the bill was only asking to utilize those tax dollars that were currently being used in the public education system. He did not understand how the two were tied together because the bill was not asking for tax dollars to go to private schools.

Mr. Bellister replied the nature of the association’s opposition was while the tax dollars of those parents were going toward the public schools and their children were attending private schools, what they were asking to do was send their children from the religious school to the public school. He said that private school could then choose not to offer those classes any longer and thereby use the monies they had at that private school for other purposes, which was how public schools would end up subsidizing the operation of the religious school. He reiterated the association believed that was clearly prohibited by the Nevada Constitution.

Mr. Gustavson did not agree with Mr. Bellister and thought they were assuming something like that could actually happen. He was sure the core curriculum would always be offered in those private schools and therefore, did not find a problem with the bill.

Chairman Williams wondered if Mr. Bellister could consider it a voucher under that scenario.

Mr. Bellister replied it was a voucher concept to the association.

Henry Etchemendy, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards, stated he testified in opposition to S.B. 213 in the Senate because it did not have any funding. The association did not have any objection when funding was amended into the bill in the Senate. He thought a lot of parents and others in the communities would also object to private, charter, and home schooled students utilizing extracurricular activities, such as sports, through the public school system, as many who testified felt the same way. He thought the bill could be amended to delete the references to extracurricular activities as it reflected athletics only. He referred to page 2, line 9 of the bill, which stated, "participate in a class or extracurricular activity," and he suggested a comma be inserted and state, "other than an extracurricular athletic activity." On line 17, he suggested inserting a bracket and deleting any reference to "an association of interscholastic activities." That same amendment would have to then be made on page 7 at lines 14 and 29.

Finally, he made a suggestion for page 7 at line 24, which established the procedures under which a school district "may" disapprove an application or could even expel a student from attending a class. He said the language on line 28 stated, "if they violate the applicable rules and regulations of the board of trustees or public school." He thought that would infer the district had such rules. Previous testimony from Senator O’Connell and others indicated the rules would be under the local board. In order to be more specific in that regard, he suggested inserting a statement such as, "each school district shall adopt policies to provide for the administration of the provisions of this act", which would be on line 33 in subsection 5.

Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction with the State Department of Education, explained the department’s original concern with S.B. 213 was that it allowed charter, private, and home schooled students to enroll in a class at a public school on a space available basis, but did not allow any reimbursement to school districts. However, the first reprint of the bill allowed for reimbursement to school districts for part-time enrollment of charter, private, and home school students.

Another major issue in the bill appeared on the bottom of page 6, beginning with subsection 2 of section 6, which gave home school students with disabilities access to special education and related services in accordance with the same requirements as set forth in IDEA. Under the federal law private school students with disabilities who were voluntarily placed by their parents did not have an individual right to special education and related services. That law required that a district spend a proportionate amount of federal funds it received to provide some services to some students. Districts were also required under those regulations to meet with private school representatives before making decisions about how those federal dollars would be spent.

Ms. Peterson said subsection 2 of section 6 would require districts to meet with representatives of home school students with disabilities in the same manner as they were required to meet with private school students. Then they would determine how and for whom a proportionate amount of federal dollars would be spent to provide services to home school students. If that was the interpretation of S.B. 213 then the department believed the impact on special education was manageable. If on the other hand, the intent of the bill was to give home school students with disabilities an individual entitlement to special education and related services, in other words being eligible for all services as if they were enrolled in public schools, then the cost would be more significant.

Mrs. de Braga knew there were some cases where students with special needs almost had to have a one on one aide to supervise them. She asked if the reimbursement would pay for that kind of service.

Ms. Peterson replied those kinds of services would not be provided through the federal special education funds. If the intent was to provide those kinds of services, then subsection 2 of section 6 would be going beyond what it required. She said there was some earlier discussion that local school districts would develop their own regulations and if they wanted to provide special education services on a space available basis and go beyond it, she supposed it would be allowable. However, that would have an additional fiscal impact.

Mrs. de Braga said "space available" was a generic term. She did not think all of the committee members were clear on what exactly that meant. As earlier testimony indicated, public school students would lose the advantage of the small classes in those cases if "space available" was not more carefully defined.

Ms. Peterson said if "space available" applied to special education, then it would become a different interpretation then what the department had originally made on the bill.

Ms. Parnell was familiar with how special education worked and said the identification process would have to be completed. Once a child was identified as a student in special education, the school then had to find space, which was not an issue of space available. She wondered who would become accountable for the Individualized Education Program (IEP) if a child was only attending for a portion of the day.

Gloria Dopf, Director of Special Education with the State Department of Education, clarified that utilizing the standard for private school students in IDEA would not entitle those students to receive an IEP of special education. The IEP was not the standard for those students. So, if the standard in the bill was the same as private school students, they would merely be eligible to receive what was called a service plan, which would allow services to be selected based upon the assessment of all the students through the individual consultation. With the parent of home school students the amount of federal funds those students would generate would have to be examined to decide which students would be serviced with that limited amount of money through a service plan.

She further mentioned Ms. Peterson’s testimony was to highlight the fact that it would not open the door under the same standard for private school students for the total array of services that a student would be entitled to receive through an IEP. It would be a much lesser amount of service and particularly if limited to what the federal support was, because it was a very small amount per pupil and would not go very far. She said it would not purchase one seat in speech therapy for one student for the entire school year. Therefore, there was a level of complexity, not that the department was saying they did not want every student to receive every service from which they would benefit, but the issue was the management of it relative to special education students. She wanted to be sure the committee understood it would be a very limited amount of service under the private school model as opposed to just opening the door to the full array of services.

Lynn Chapman, representing Families for Freedom, spoke in support of S.B. 213 and said she was a home school consultant for 6 years. She talked to many parents to help them get started with home schooling. She said some people thought that home school children stayed in bed until noon and maybe if they felt like it would do some schoolwork, which was not the truth. Parents would be harder on their children than any other teacher would be. She mentioned that she home schooled her own daughter and even made her do schoolwork when she was sick.

She mentioned her daughter had friends who attended a public high school and participated in the band. Her daughter went to school games routing for that high school even though she did not attend. Therefore, her team spirit existed even though she did not participate in the activity.

Ms. Chapman further noted that home and private school parents paid for teachers, classrooms, supplies, salaries for administrators, benefits, building maintenance, and many other things. Yet classes and activities through the public school system for those children were denied. She thought all children should have opportunities available to them. She urged the committee to support S.B. 213 so no child would be denied the services and opportunities.

Lezlie Porter, a member of the Alliance for Children’s Educational Excellence and a school board trustee in Washoe County, testified in favor of S.B. 213. She explained that Anne Loring gave the official district position on the bill, which was in opposition. However, Ms. Porter spoke separate from that because Nevada’s future was Nevada’s children, not just those in public schools. As a school board member, she believed that part of her charge was to help educate all children and help them receive the best education possible. To deny those students utilization of services the public school system could provide to all children when districts would be compensated, she felt was unfair and discriminatory. She thought the bill would rectify that situation.

She mentioned other states already accomplished it, California being one of them. She had grandchildren who had attended charter, private, and home schools and who had access to public school extracurricular activities as well as special academic courses. Other states accepted responsibility of educating all children in their communities.

She stated the enactment of the bill would benefit the public schools. If there were not enough students in a class, the class was frequently cancelled because teachers were funded on a 25 to 1 ratio. If classes were open to other students who wanted to take those classes, they would not be cancelled because there would be necessary enrollment to make them viable. She felt another benefit to the community would be fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers.

Ms. Porter further mentioned a program in Washoe County at a couple of high schools called Nova Net. The district was paying for a computer network that allowed students access to a variety of courses from the University of Illinois. Students could take math, history, English, or any kind of course except for lab related courses. She said those computer labs for Nova Net were thousands of dollars, and yet they were not utilized full-time. Those classes ran 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, but they were only used from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. If those kinds of classes were open to all students there would be full utilization of that financial investment. She explained Nova Net did not charge per student, but instead per computer station.

Dorothy Dermody, a member of the Washoe County School Board, explained the board voted against S.B. 213 in its original form. However, the board never addressed the bill again after it was amended. As a parent, Ms. Dermody supported the bill because public schools received tax dollars from the parents of all children no matter where they attended school. She said the bill would give school boards the flexibility needed in Nevada. If space was available and school districts received funding for students for services provided, she wondered why their access would blocked.

Mrs. de Braga asked if Ms. Dermody, as a school board member, would support an amendment to the bill that would remove any of the requirements for participating in extracurricular activities from public school to which home schoolers and others could not be held.

Ms. Dermody replied she had not given it any consideration until the meeting started. However, she was fed up with the discussion regarding sports. She said Nevada had almost the highest teen suicide rate in the nation, a high school dropout rate of which she was ashamed, and a minimal amount of students going on to college after high school. As a school board member she received phone calls from parents asking where their child could attend certain specialty classes. She hoped there would be some more room in building new high schools.

Mrs. de Braga said there was a lot of discussion about lawsuits and said people in public schools needed to be treated fairly also. She thought Ms. Dermody, as a school board member, needed to give that issue some thought.

Kris Jensen, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in support of S.B. 213. The bill specifically stated, "The board of trustees of each school district shall provide programs of special education only if they are eligible." The same was true with the federal law on students with disabilities based on space availability, if the child qualified, and no transportation was provided. She said it was fashioned with the basic school support based on percentage of time participating and the amount of services provided. She could not understand how the committee could say no to children.

Ms. Jensen reminded the committee about A.C.R. 60, which was heard at the beginning of the current meeting. She rephrased some statements made toward the resolution and wanted to apply them to the bill directly, which were as follows:

• "Understand the unique needs of each individual child;"

• "The rights of students with disabilities;"

• "The opportunities for appropriate instruction;" and

• "The intent is not to limit opportunities."

She thought the committee would be doing the opposite of all of those statements if voting in opposition to the bill. She stated it broke her heart because the issue had been addressed by the Clark County School District (CCSD) for many years and they came to the conclusion to accept children on a space available basis.

Ms. Jensen addressed the concerns regarding sports and recruiting especially talented athletes and said if the committee truly had problems with that, she asked the committee to address the current problems with public schools on two issues. She said there was an option in the CCSD that permitted certain children to move to other schools, and they were recruited for sports teams. The other issue was the coaches in the public schools assuming guardianships for other people’s children in order to get them zoned into their schools for their sports programs.

She also responded to the questions regarding loyalty to the sports programs. She said Clark County had magnet schools, and sports were not provided at those schools. Therefore, the students were allowed to participate in sports at other schools, and they were loyal to those teams.

Barbara Clark, representing the Nevada Parent Teacher Association (PTA), spoke in opposition to S.B. 213. She stated the PTA had always advocated for the benefit for all children and equitable educational opportunities for all children. Based on that premise, the association had a few concerns with the bill.

The association firmly believed private schools would be supplemented with public monies. Private schools would be able to utilize money for additional enrichments the association believed would benefit those schools.

She did not want the committee to be deterred by giving children the opportunities or families who chose the alternative method the ability to choose. By the absence of language in the bill, they could choose any school in a district, any program, any teacher, and any extracurricular activity. She thought it was creating a privileged few and the ability to take advantage of the best of both worlds. Equitably, 98 percent of children in Nevada would not be able to benefit from the best of both worlds.

Ultimately, Ms. Clark thought the committee should base their decision on a principle. The principle not of what the other states did, but for what Nevada stood. She stated Nevada stood for equitable funding in education and many states had areas where they were not equitably funded and children suffered the consequence. She asked the committee to remember the need was to benefit all children, not just a small or privileged few.

Mr. Manendo asked if the PTA voted on the issue at the convention.

Ms. Clark replied they did not vote on it at the past convention. She stated the association had a platform and had over 130 resolutions on which were balloted for over 60 years. Over that period of time the association established the platform which included all of their positions. She said public monies for public schools and equal opportunities for all children were issues within the platform.

Glenn Ziese, a home schooling parent and a member of the Board of Directors of Northern Nevada Home Schools (NNHS), spoke in favor of S.B. 213. NNHS was an organization that represented approximately 300 families living in northern Nevada in different school districts. The organization banded together and did a lot of things to support one another, to support parents in education, and to support children in their education. However, there were areas the organization could not cover such as special education. As a board member, he regularly heard about parents who were looking for those services. Generally speaking, if they were going to receive those services, they would have to pay for them. He thought that was unfair being that privately schooled children had access to such and home schooled children did not. The special education children of which he was aware were chosen to be educated at home because parents believed the one on one attention gave their children much more of a benefit and would advance them in their needs while at the same time the parents might not be able to provide all of the needs. If would be of great benefit to those parents and children if that area was open in the public schools where home schooling parents could access certain items.

He referenced the extracurricular activities and agreed they were not as important. He thought the advanced academic areas that would be accessible were where most home schooled parents wanted to have access. Lab classes were another area that would benefit those individuals. Parents chose to home school their children for a variety of reasons, most importantly what they thought was the best education for their children. If having access to an advanced class, to a special education class, or to a service could help advance the education of that child, he could not understand why people opposed that.

Mr. Ziese referred to arguments such as being taxpayers and having a fire department not everyone uses. If he had a fire at his house he would use that service. If his child needed an advanced class and it was available, he would use that class. If the fire department was not open to him to use then he would not use it. He did not understand why public schools were not open to the advancement of all children in the state. Another argument was made that private schools would be supported by the bill. He did not know of a private school that would not offer a class if they were able and force their students to access it in another school on a space available basis. He thought that was a silly argument.

In closing, he urged the committee to support the bill. He agreed with some of the previous testimony and said if the extracurricular sports activities were a problem, he felt it should be deleted. He thought the special education issues and the advanced academics were extremely important if any child could benefit from it.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 213 with no action taken and opened the hearing on S.B. 126.

Senator Maurice Washington, representing District 2, presented S.B. 126 to the committee and said it was a fairly simple bill. He said the bill prohibited school districts or charter schools from placing children into programs for pupils with disabilities solely because the child was a disciplinary problem in the school. He said the bill only codified what had been in practice.

Chairman Williams mentioned the committee heard testimony on a previous bill with some of the same language as S.B. 126. Therefore, the committee heard some of the testimony.

Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), spoke in favor of S.B. 126. She stated the committee heard testimony on A.B. 521 regarding alternative placements for students with discipline problems. She said the association thought it was important to make that distinction and said they did not favor it with relation to the bill.

Chairman Williams announced Henry Etchemendy, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards, was in favor of S.B. 126, as he had to leave the meeting.

Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State Department of Education, stated current regulations made it not permissible to determine if a student was eligible for special education solely based on a disciplinary problem. She said the regulations were consistent with S.B. 126 and the department believed that reiterating it in statute would not change the current requirement but would only add emphasis, and for that reason the department supported the bill.

Mrs. Cegavske thought S.B. 126 was a great bill and mentioned Assemblywoman Giunchigliani brought up some good points during testimony for A.B. 313 relating to some of the behavioral problems with students not being diagnosed correctly. She mentioned the prison system had more advanced methods of screening some of the adolescents that came into the system. She wondered if the state department had any comments regarding that issue because Assemblywoman Giunchigliani wanted Nevada to have some of that screening for students who were considered to have extreme behavior or discipline problems.

Gloria Dopf, Director of Special Education for the State Department of Education, explained Mrs. Cegavske referenced some language that was being contemplated in A.B. 313 which looked at utilizing some screening tools to differentiate between students who had conduct disorders and social maladjustments from students who had emotional disturbances. She said the current regulations for special education did not allow the identification of a student for emotional disturbance if that student was merely showing signs of social maladjustment or conduct disorder. The student must be eligible and fulfill the criteria for emotional disturbance. School districts currently had the option and availability to utilize some tools that were available, but were not mandated to use a particular tool. If a school thought a child was emotionally disturbed, they looked at differentiating between social maladjustment and emotional disturbance through multiple disciplinary tests and batteries, not one specific screening device.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOTIONED TO DO PASS S.B. 126.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

With no further business before the committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: