The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:55 p.m., on Wednesday, May 12, 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:

Senator William Raggio, District 3

Senator Maurice Washington, District 2

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Williams announced Senator Raggio would present all four of his bills that were on the agenda.

Senator William Raggio, representing District 3, said all of the bills were recommended from the Legislative Committee on Education during the interim, on which he served as Chairman. He presented S.B. 15 and provided his testimony in writing (Exhibit C). The bill, as amended, created an advisory committee to oversee the Nevada High School Proficiency Examination, which was the state mandated test pupils must pass in order to receive a standard high school diploma. He explained the test was administered to all eleventh graders and if they failed the exam in that grade, they would be given five additional opportunities to pass the test by the end of the twelfth grade.

Senator Raggio said the bill was amended by the Senate Committee on Finance to make the advisory committee consist of 10 members appointed by the governor and the legislature. The governor would appoint six members and five of his appointees would be school district employees, such as test directors or administrators, who oversaw the administration of the state test in their school districts. No more than two of the four school district representatives would be from one school district, but at least one had to represent a school district with a population less than 100,000 to be certain some of the smaller counties were represented on the advisory committee. At the request of the Nevada State Education Association, at least one member must be a teacher with knowledge and experience in the assessment of pupils. The governor would also appoint a representative of the University and Community College System of Nevada (nominated by the Board of Regents), who was knowledgeable and experienced in assessing pupils. He said that was the key to the structure to be sure there were people on the advisory committee who had that kind of knowledge and experience.

The remaining four members of the advisory committee were appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of Assembly. To increase participation of groups that currently had no input in the area of testing, each of the two legislators would appoint a parent of a pupil enrolled in a public school in the state and a representative of private business or industry.

Senator Raggio further noted the advisory committee would be required to meet at least four times per year and one of those meetings would have to occur before the proficiency examination was administered. The advisory committee’s duties included reviewing the following:

• Test questions;

• Data used to establish passing scores;

• Percentage of pupils who passed or failed the test;

• Cost of the testing program; and

• Whether the examination adequately measured pupils’ knowledge of the state’s content and performance standards.

The advisory committee would report on its activities quarterly to the State Board of Education and annually to the Legislative Committee on Education. The advisory committee would be exempt from the open meeting law to maintain the security of test materials, to the extent necessary. The state board, the state department, and the state superintendent would be required to provide the advisory committee with the information necessary.

Senator Raggio said the reasons the Legislative Committee on Education determined it was necessary that an advisory committee should be put in place was primarily because previous test development efforts did not include a number of key participants, including parents, business and industry representatives, representatives of the state Budget Division, and legislators. The Department of Education involved teachers and school administrators in committees to select and write test items, and there was nothing in the bill that would deter that, so it would continue to happen. The Legislative Committee on Education agreed that statewide assessments were an important component for educational accountability, which was the underlying theme of all of the recommendations. The interim subcommittee also felt that more participation was needed from sectors that currently had no input in the area of testing and thought there should be a more organized process, which was what the bill was directed to accomplish.

The interim subcommittee directed its staff to meet with school district testing directors, department staff, and others to discuss testing problems. A number of those problems concerning the high school proficiency exam, were as follows:

• Lack of practice test materials;

• Test security problems and procedures;

• Legal defensibility;

• Delays in implementing tests;

• The format of score reports; and

• The errors and delays in reporting test results.

The interim subcommittee believed the testing program would benefit greatly from the perspective of parents and business representatives, who were not usually consulted on testing matters. Teachers and curriculum experts would continue to be involved in writing test items and selecting tests, as well they should, but other interested parties currently had no role. Therefore, he urged the committee to support S.B. 15, which was unanimously approved by the Senate.

Chairman Williams asked Senator Raggio to present S.B. 21.

Senator Raggio reiterated S.B. 21 was another measure forwarded to the committee by the Legislative Committee on Education and provided his written testimony (Exhibit D). He said the legislature became increasingly involved in testing issues by mandating statewide testing and providing funding to pay for those tests. He reminded the committee that Nevada currently used norm-referenced tests administered in grades 4, 8, and 10; writing assessments administered in grades 4, 8, and 11; and the High School Proficiency exam. He said S.B. 482 of the 1997 legislative session increased the legislature’s involvement in testing and increased the importance of those tests. Therefore, schools were currently rated on their performance on the norm-referenced tests ("TerraNova") in grades 4, 8, and 10.

Senator Raggio explained the legislature noticed problems occurring in the areas of budgeting, test security, delays in implementation of new tests, and errors and delays in scoring of tests. Due to the number of questions that arose during the 1997-98 interim with regard to testing concerns, the Legislative Committee on Education directed staff to meet with school district test directors, state Department of Education staff, and others involved with assessment issues. In response, the testing advisory committee was created. Most of the changes contained in the bill were requested by the testing advisory committee and most of them were technical in nature.

He drew attention to page 2, at line 18 of the bill, and said there was a technical correction that amended A.B. 523 of the 1997 legislative session. He said the duty of certifying test results had been transmitted to each school within the required timeframe and should be the responsibility of the superintendent of each school district, not the superintendent of public instruction, which was an error in the final version of the 1997 bill.

The language on page 2, line 20 of the bill, increased the number of days, from 10 to 15, a principal had to certify that parents had been notified of their child’s test results. The current law provided that principals must make the certification within 10 days following his/her receipt of the results. School districts made the case for more flexibility due in part to the large volume of transmittals involved, especially in the larger districts.

He highlighted page 2, lines 29 through 35, and also on page 4, and said it dealt with the issue of testing of students with disabilities. Those provisions amended statutes concerning Nevada’s achievement and proficiency examinations and pupils with disabilities. It would allow pupils with disabilities who were unable to take the mandated proficiency exams under regular conditions, or with modifications and accommodations that were approved by the test publisher, to take the exam with accommodations that were not approved by the test publisher. However, their scores would not be included in the average scores for the school, district, or state. Those scores would only include the scores of pupils tested without accommodations or pupils with disabilities tested with accommodations that were approved. Therefore, the accommodations would be made for those who could not, but still retain the validity of the test scoring. That change was requested to provide uniformity on how exemptions were reported statewide.

Page 3, at lines 30 through 35, allowed additional district personnel access to the statewide proficiency tests. It also added school district superintendents, curriculum directors, and test directors to the list of individuals allowed to review the statewide proficiency examinations. Committee members were assured they would not threaten test security and were necessary to ensure the tests were aligned with the standards.

Senator Raggio drew attention to subsection 8 of section 1 (beginning on line 41 of page 3 and ending on line 4 on page 4). That subsection required the state Board of Education to prescribe the accommodations and modifications that could be used if pupils with disabilities were unable to take exams under regular conditions.

He also said there was an exemption in the bill for English language learners and that the current language in statute caused some confusion. He stated the law should allow an exemption from the mandated proficiency examinations for any pupil whose primary language was not English if that pupil demonstrated a lack of proficiency in the English language. It would be measured by the test of proficiency as designated by the department. The current wording could be interpreted to allow an exemption to a pupil who was performing below the average for his grade level, even a pupil whose native tongue was English, or one who already developed proficiency in English as a second language. The proposed amendments on page 5 would then clarify that situation. Lines 28 through 31 on page 5 required the State Board of Education to prescribe a test to make the determination.

The last change was on pages 6 and 7, in sections 3 and 4, which would include specific references to test security breaches for Nevada’s proficiency testing program as grounds for revocation of professional licenses and grounds for dismissal from employment. Such violations could be implied under unprofessional conduct provisions within those sections, but test security breaches were not specifically referenced.

Chairman Williams asked Senator Raggio to present S.B. 22.

Senator Raggio stated S.B. 22 was another recommendation from the Legislative Committee on Education and provided his testimony in writing (Exhibit E). Part of the committee’s activities was to conduct a hearing to review issues associated with teaching to higher standards. Following that hearing, the committee directed a series of four regional workshops be conducted to provide information and recommendations on what was needed to teach to higher standards. Those workshops produced several recommendations concerning teacher licensing that were contained in the bill.

Senator Raggio drew attention to section 2 of the bill, which concerned teacher licensing based upon content knowledge. The interim subcommittee learned about the process of licensing high school science teachers in the State of Utah. Such teachers had to complete specific college level course work to receive a science endorsement on their teaching license. An evaluation of the applicant’s transcript lead to an individual plan for study with a 2 year time limit to obtain needed college level courses from a list of specific courses and institutions approved by the state. The teacher’s science endorsement was conditional until the plan had been completed. He further noted Utah used its federal Eisenhower Program funds to pay for the training.

The interim subcommittee agreed that subject matter coursework at the college level was an important component if quality teaching and teaching to higher standards would ever be developed, in light of the more rigorous academic standards that Nevada adopted for students. Therefore, section 2 of the bill established a tiered licensing system under which a beginning teacher could receive a preliminary license, be evaluated for needed content area instruction, and be required to successfully complete additional coursework prior to receiving full licensure. The Commission on Professional Standards in Education would be responsible for adopting regulations to carry out the tiered licensing system.

Sections 3 and 4 of the bill concerned reading skills and phonic instruction. The push toward phonics had a lot of discussion in the interim subcommittee. According to "Education Week", since 1990, 101 bills pertaining to phonics had been proposed in more than half of the state legislatures, 67 of them in the past 2 years. Some states, such as California, tied funding for teacher training to whether workshops dedicated enough attention to the skills outlined in that state’s phonics law.

He said many interim subcommittee members had heard from a number of elementary school teachers who stated they had received little, if any, instruction in the actual techniques of teaching children to read until they participated in the Reading Recovery Program. As a result, sections 3 and 4 required elementary teachers to provide evidence that they received instruction in teaching basic reading skills, including phonics instruction.

School representatives suggested amendments with reference to experience for administrators, which were in subsection 6 of section 4. The amendments allowed experience as a teacher, school counselor, or school librarian to count toward experience required for obtaining an administrator’s license.

He said an area that was new was the middle school licensure, which was contained in sections 5 and 8. Currently there were two categories of teacher licenses in Nevada: one for elementary teachers and one for secondary teachers. There were specific regulations in place concerning the types of endorsements and educational requirements. Since high school teachers typically were responsible for teaching in a discrete subject area such as English or history, licensing for secondary teachers was specifically linked to coursework and proficiency tests. However, many districts used a middle school model (typically for grades six through eight or nine), in which teachers were also assigned specific subjects and taught primarily in those subjects during the school day. Since such teachers currently required an elementary school license, regulations pertaining to the specific content of a subject were not applicable. He said the bill addressed the issue.

He said there were schools that did not use the middle school model for grades six through eight or nine. Instead they retained the elementary school model using one teacher for all subjects for those grades. Therefore, as part of the measure, sections 5 and 8 required the Commission on Professional Standards in Education to adopt, by January 1, 2000, regulations to establish a middle school license for teachers in schools in which core subject areas were taught by different teachers. The committee’s intent was also to "grandfather" in existing middle school teachers, and bill drafters indicated it was not necessary to specify that language in the bill. However, amendments were added to clarify that intent.

There was also a provision in the bill for annual evaluations of teachers, which was in section 9. Testimony concerning the issue indicated that district evaluators should provide at least 120 minutes of direct observations for post-probationary employees and at least 180 minutes for newer probationary employees. In that section annual evaluations accomplished exactly that and it required the direct observation by the evaluator of the teacher engaged in classroom instruction. As a matter of practicality, the Senate amended the bill to allow a local school board to designate a number of class periods, equivalent to the specified number of minutes for observation.

Senator Raggio said the last major issue was teacher tenure, which was in section 11 of the bill. The regional workshops advised a review of Nevada’s tenure laws. He said the regional workshops were primarily attended by teachers and others who had input. Over the past several years, states addressed the issue of teacher dismissal in various ways. Some eliminated the term "tenure", some repealed tenure and tightened the due process timelines, others retained tenure provisions but streamlined due process, and in the State of Wisconsin, stipulated the collective bargaining process as the means for determining tenure policies at the local school district level. In all but four states, the probationary period for teachers was specified within statute. As of 1998, the Education Commission of the States reported 31 states required a 3 year probationary period, 10 states required a 2 year probationary period (Nevada being included), 4 states required a 4 year probationary period, and 1 state required a 5 year probationary period.

Therefore, the committee included provisions to amend statutes to lengthen the probationary period for educators to 3 years. Under current law, tenure was granted after 1 to 2 years, depending upon whether a notice of a 2^nd year of probation was made.

Chairman Williams asked Senator Raggio to present S.B. 49.

Senator Raggio reiterated S.B. 49 was another measure recommended by the Legislative Committee on Education. He provided his written testimony (Exhibit F). He explained members of the interim subcommittee noted high academic standards were a central component of the 1997 education reform package. He could not overstate the importance of those standards, nor the interim subcommittee’s appreciation of the tremendous amount of work performed by the members of the panel that produced the standards.

The Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997 created the Council to Establish Academic Standards. As members of the interim subcommittee reviewed the proposed "phase II" work plan for the academic standards council, including its charge to create standards in those subject areas. Although members endorsed the council’s plan to establish standards in those subjects, several clarifications were proposed to the descriptions of those standards.

The term "social studies" created some controversy in some of the states adopting such standards. Testimony to the interim subcommittee indicated the term might not be specific enough, leading some people to believe that history and geography were no longer important, or were not a part of social studies. Therefore, it was thought that a specific mention of "government" was needed to assure those concepts would be included. The interim subcommittee agreed to alter the reference to social studies standards to specify that standards be developed in history, geography, economics, and government.

He further mentioned there was testimony from members of the standards council that raised the question as to whether the required standards for computer education should be broadened to include technology in general. Committee members agreed the broader approach would provide more flexibility to address the educational applications of future technological innovations.

Senator Raggio thought the changes in the bill were self-explanatory and therefore did not go into detail in that regard. He mentioned the council requested the law be amended to extend the period over which they could hold meetings through the end of June 30, 2001, which was the date when the council "sunsets" under current law.

Mrs. Cegavske referenced S.B. 21 and asked if there were means to assist students in the areas they were deficient if and when a student failed the high school proficiency exam.

Senator Raggio replied, as he was told, all of the school districts had in place procedures to give students personal attention if they failed the test.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if school districts were keeping track of what areas students were deficient to be able to look at the state as a whole.

Jeanne Botts, senior program analyst with the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, responded to Mrs. Cegavske’s first question whether there was some assurance that school districts were helping students who failed the proficiency exam. She said many districts that started before or after school programs tried to focus the attention on students who failed the exam, but she was not aware of any specific program established statewide, and it was left to the districts and schools. The remediation funding that was provided in S.B. 482 from the 1997 legislative session was for schools that had low achievement, which were, for the most part, elementary schools.

She referred to the second question about whether the department or the state was gathering information on the areas in which students had specific weaknesses and said she asked Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent of the Department of Education, who explained they would be gathering that information.

Mrs. Cegavske referenced S.B. 22 and asked if there were any discussions in reference to the universities including phonics in teaching.

Ms. Botts replied there were four regional workshops held around the state and in every one of those parents, school board members, and teachers expressed concern that the university system had gone away from phonics. She believed the two colleges of education definitely got the message from the school districts that they expected it to be included. As a result of the input received at the workshops that lead to the bill’s requirements that phonics be a part of any approved college preparation program for teachers and that teachers had to demonstrate they had taken the course.

Mrs. Angle said there were three different words pertaining to tests, which were assessment, achievement, and proficiency. She wanted some clarification and definition of those terms.

Ms. Botts thought "assessment" was a broader term than "test" and could mean something other than a pencil and paper test. She said those terms had been used interchangeably. In the lower grades 4, 8, and 10, a norm-referenced test was used, which meant it was a national test administered to a reference group that was typical of the nation and allowed for comparisons with other states and other districts. The high school proficiency exam was primarily given to demonstrate to the public that a child who obtained a high school diploma was proficient at what people agreed upon was the high school level for reading, math, and writing. She explained the term "achievement" generally measured how a student was achieving in relationship to what was taught. She thought it was important to know there were two separate testing systems. One of which was the long standing system as outlined in Nevada Revised Statute 389.015, which was called Tests of Achievement and Proficiency. The new tests were to determine how students measured up to the new standards.

Mrs. Angle asked if the TerraNova test was an "assessment" test.

Ms. Botts replied the TerraNova test was considered to be an "assessment" test.

Mrs. Angle wanted to see phonics "a bit nailed down" because there seemed to be some discussion about implicit and explicit. She wanted to see phonics based on scientific reading research and wondered if Ms. Botts could explain the differences in phonics.

Ms. Botts replied she did not know the differences in the phonics programs and said she could get information to Mrs. Angle if necessary.

Mr. Collins thought statistics on testing only made Nevada look bad. He thought there were other factors that should be involved in those statistics and currently were not, such as how long the student lived in the area, family income, and family background to name a few.

Ms. Botts thought he made a very good point with some of the tests used because data was not returned on an individual student or school. However, the TerraNova test could examine the individual student, transiency, and other factors. She thought there were tests currently being coded with information on how long a student had been in Nevada. School districts had that ability because they had access to each individual child’s information, but the coding could not be done statewide. She further noted that when the Statewide Management of Automated Record Transfer (SMART) system of student records would be activated, which she thought would be in 2 to 4 years, it would give that same ability to do an analysis of such information.

Chairman Williams said there was a panic, especially in Clark County, over the high school proficiency exam specifically the math portion because there were many students who were not able to pass it successfully. He said legislation to change that test was passed in the 1997 legislative session. He thought the seniors of 1999 were somewhat victimized to some degree because of the enactment of the new part of that test. He felt those seniors should have been "grandfathered in" or should be able to take the test administered when they were in grades 9, 10, and 11. He wanted to get Senator Raggio’s opinion about amending one of the bills to "grandfather" the current seniors to enable them to take the test prior to the changes made from the 1997 legislation.

Chairman Williams opened the hearing for testimony on S.B. 22.

Lynn Chapman, representing Nevada Eagle Forum, said she was speaking on behalf of Janine Hansen, the state president. She spoke in favor of S.B. 22 and said the National Adult Literacy Survey, which was commissioned by the United States Department of Education, found that 90 million American adults possessed only the most rudimentary reading skills. The study ranked Americans into five levels, and it related actual reading skills to daily life and work. Forty nine percent of the adults fell into the lowest two levels and only 25 percent of the illiterates in the lowest two levels were immigrants just learning to speak English. The education department found only 25 percent of fourth graders, 28 percent of eighth graders, and 37 twelfth graders mastered reading materials for their grade levels. She said there was a big problem because children were not being taught how to read. She wanted to see phonics in reading programs and urged the committee to support the bill.

Henry Etchemendy, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards, drew attention to page 7, section 11, of the bill and said it essentially changed the tenure portion of a school district employee, particularly administrators and teachers. It established a 3 year probationary period, which he thought was extremely important. He said there was a current 2 year evaluation period in Nevada and if in the first year a probationary employee had three satisfactory evaluations then the second year would be waived. Therefore, he thought it was truly a 1 year probationary period for a lot of people, but for others it was a 2 year probationary period.

He said Senator Raggio indicated 31 states had a 3 year probationary period, 10 states had a 2 year probationary period, 4 states had a 4 year probationary period, and 1 state had a 5 year probationary period. He thought a 3 year probationary period seemed to be the standard around the country and said the association thought the 2 year probationary period, as it was currently enacted in law, did not work. The association thought a 3 year probationary period, as envisioned in the bill, would be a great help to the school districts, employees, and the administration. The association strongly urged the committee to support that portion of S.B. 22.

Mrs. Angle understood under current law after a teacher had three satisfactory evaluations then he/she would be tenured after the first year. But, with the new 3 year probationary period she wondered if a teacher would have to get an unsatisfactory evaluation to move them further into the probationary period or could a teacher get a satisfactory evaluation and still be on probation for those next 2 years.

Mr. Etchemendy said as the bill was currently written, a teacher would have to complete the 3 year probationary period no matter what their evaluation was in between.

Mrs. Koivisto said everyone heard so much about what a problem it was to recruit teachers and how there was such a great teacher shortage. She understood the bill to read, teachers would only have 1 year to prove themselves to a school district.

Mr. Etchemendy understood a teacher would have 3 years as long as their evaluations were satisfactory and then they would be tenured after that amount of time. He did not think it would be any different than the current 2 year probationary period because the 2 years were not currently guaranteed either.

Dr. George Ann Rice, assistant superintendent of the Human Resources Division of the Clark County School District, spoke in opposition to S.B. 22 specifically because of section 5.3 on page 3 and section 8.2 on page 5. Those provisions stated only those who held a license to teach middle school or junior high authorized the holder to teach in his/her major or minor field of preparation. Since the section did not refer to a secondary license but to a license to teach middle school, she said the district assumed that it referred to the current optional middle school license.

She said there had been only one person in the entire state who applied for the middle school license. In the last 2 years, the college of education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) had to cancel three classes it offered in methods of teaching in the middle school for lack of enrollment and interest. She said teachers currently took the secondary courses, which enabled them to teach grades 7 through 12 and create more options for themselves. To require those who taught in middle school to have the middle school license would create a critical problem for everyone. She said, without hesitation, there would not be enough candidates who would be willing to go back and seek the new license. She reminded the committee that Nevada hired 75 percent of new teachers each year who were from other states.

Currently, there were 2,244 teachers assigned to teach in middle schools in Clark County. Of those teachers, approximately 949 held a kindergarten through grade 8 (K-8) license, which allowed them to teach the core subjects of math, science, language arts, and social studies in the middle or junior high school. Each of those teachers had preparation in the content as part of their elementary education and in specific methods for each subject. All other subjects currently in middle school required the grade 7 through 12 license, which was already in place.

She had sent an e mail to middle school principals and asked how many K-8 licensed teachers were teaching in their schools and why they had hired those people. She said it was the fastest response she had ever gotten. The principals replied explaining why they thought it was important to retain the ability to hire K-8 to teach those core subjects. She read some of the principal’s comments, which were as follows:

• "All elementary teachers are trained in reading. Some students enrolling at the middle school have reading problems. K-8 teachers are trained to help them help the students with reading in various disciplines. K-8 teachers are trained in elementary methods. Often we have immigrant students enrolling with minimum schooling. They need a person with elementary training."

• "Taking a child from where ever he is and methodically leading him/her along the way is a process. K-8 teachers have training which will help them assist with the developmental needs of students as they transition from elementary to middle school. That continuum addresses the social development, the academic development, as well as the age appropriate learning activities from kindergarten through grade 8. Requiring a middle school license only, would not provide teachers who can help students transition from elementary to middle to secondary."

• "There is a need to have a combination of educators who are trained in elementary and secondary teaching methods in the middle school. Both levels of training are needed to have the two styles compliment each other. The elementary teacher can show the secondary teacher how to nurture students and integrate all subjects into their instruction. They have had the training to build upon the concepts relating to all subjects. The secondary teacher can share the expertise in subject content knowledge, thus enhancing the elementary teacher’s skills."

• "It is not what one teaches, it is the methodology one utilizes. Elementary teachers have had more training in the methodology of teaching all subject areas then teachers at the secondary level."

Dr. Rice said a principal at an "at risk" middle school replied as follows:

• "Presently, approximately 35 percent of my teachers are licensed K-8. Although, licensed K-8 they are just as competent and knowledgeable in the subject areas they teach. These teachers are particularly strong in pedagogy and teaching strategies. It takes a unique and special teacher to teach effectively in the middle school setting, specifically in an "at risk" school. I have found that these teachers have the heart, desire, and commitment to teach these students and in many instances have devoted their professional careers to this specific group. Don’t take that discretion from us."

Ms. Parnell asked if seventh and eighth grade students in Clark County, in a middle school setting, needed to be certified in their major or minor field.

Dr. Rice replied teachers with a K-8 license could teach language arts, math, science, and social studies, which were the four core subject areas. All of them as part of their elementary training took classes in those subjects and had also taken specific methods in those subjects. However, they must have the 7-12 grade license if they taught in any other area.

Ms. Parnell asked if a teacher with a K-8 license could teach eighth grade U.S. history, even without a specialization in history.

Dr. Rice said the principal would have the option of selecting either a teacher with a 7-12 license with a specialization in history or a teacher with a K-8 license. She said principals were making that decision based upon the needs of their students and in the school.

Ms. Parnell thought Dr. Rice’s comment was interesting because she taught at a middle school and had a K-8 license in history. She understood, the way the Carson City School District was doing it, that if a teacher taught sixth grade he/she could teach with a K-8 license with no specialization. But, if a teacher was teaching seventh or eighth grade, he/she would need a specialization. Therefore, she assumed it must not be uniform throughout the state.

Dr. Rice replied the district had the option with a K-8 grade licensed teacher. She said the principal would be the one looking at teachers who wanted to transfer or if someone new wanted to teach. Therefore, the principal would know specifically what their needs were and would be able to determine if that teacher should have a K-8 license because the district would approve the principal’s decision. When it was a surplus situation where the principal had no authority, the district said a teacher could have a K-8 license, but would need 10 credits in the specific subject area, which was to protect the school.

Mrs. Angle opined one of the more difficult areas to fill was at middle and junior high school level. She wondered what effect the bill could have on teacher recruitment.

Dr. Rice did not think people deliberately set out to be middle school teachers and did not think most of the universities offered a program for a middle school license. When the district was recruiting, she said they were competing against districts that offered down payments on houses, higher education financed, and all sorts of different perks. She said Clark County School District offered a good climate, a supportive community, and a dynamic school district. She thought the district’s efforts would seriously be hampered if they required a teacher to have 15 extra courses in order to qualify for a middle school teaching license.

Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), said the association had several concerns regarding S.B. 22 and was therefore, in opposition. She drew attention to section 2, which required a review of transcripts for applicants for initial licensure to teach. She said the review of the transcripts "flies in the face of a resolution" the legislature passed in the 1997 session. The resolution urged the Commission on Professional Standards to put into place reciprocity, which meant a teacher would have to meet minimum standards in Nevada, if he/she held a license in another state. She said it would require going line by line through transcripts of those applicants for initial licensure. She thought the Department of Education also had some concerns because they did not have enough people on staff in the teacher licensure office to go line by line through transcripts.

She drew attention to section 4, subsection 6, and said the Commission on Professional Standards already dealt with an issue regarding the qualifications to become licensed as an administrator in Nevada. Currently, in order to become licensed, someone interested would need 3 years of classroom teaching experience to become an administrator. She said it would require the commission to allow a person who was a counselor or a librarian to qualify to be an administrator. That situation happened before and the commission said they were not currently ready to open that up to those individuals. Other teachers, with whom Ms. Cahill had spoken, did not have confidence in a counselor or a librarian, who did not have any classroom experience, having the ability to evaluate teachers in the classroom.

Ms. Cahill said the association shared the concerns about the mandatory middle school license Dr. Rice addressed. In fact, the Commission on Professional Standards implemented the voluntary middle school license. Therefore, the commission was trying to address some of the issues and in some cases had already responded. She explained the NSEA had a longstanding position that they opposed any legislation that would mandate the commission make changes. The association wanted those issues to be addressed at the commission level.

Section 9, subsection 7 of the bill had language that was in A.B. 332, which was passed out of committee earlier in the current session. She said the language was about the amount of time an administrator would spend in the classroom. She said the association supported the concept.

Ms. Cahill brought up the issue regarding the 3 year probationary period and said the association’s strongest objection to S.B. 22 was going from a potential 1 year probationary period to an automatic 3 year probationary period. She said the NSEA strongly believed if a flat 3 year probationary period was given, there would be more teachers who were not performing to satisfaction and would linger in the classroom for the full 3 years before the district would move against them. Currently, if an administrator knew a teacher was going to achieve tenure after 2 years they would move against that teacher in the second year. She reiterated if a 3 year probationary period was given there would be teachers in the classroom for 3 years who should have been gone at the end of the second year.

Ms. Parnell said if the bill passed as a whole there would be principals being responsible for probationary teachers for a 3 year period. Most of the principals, she knew, had a hard enough time getting through the evaluation process. She thought the bill would at least triple that time.

Dr. Keith Rheault, deputy superintendent for the Department of Education, said he was testifying on behalf of the Commission on Professional Standards because he served as their executive secretary. He said the commission held a recent meeting to review S.B. 22 and did not support sections 2, 3, 4, and 5. The commission believed they were currently complying with the information required in section 2 where they set the coursework requirements for specific endorsements. He said the analyst at the licensing offices reviewed those and the commission believed they were currently looking at how well individuals met the endorsement.

The particular concern with section 3 was related to the review of coursework. Language stated, "he posses sufficient knowledge in teaching basic reading skills including without limitation providing instruction in phonics." In order for the department to verify they had evidence, he said they could not just look at a transcript in the reading methods courses. He said they would have to ask each elementary person who applied for a license to get evidence from the school they attended and show the department somewhere either in the course syllabi or the course description that they provided instruction in phonics. He said that would be the very basic minimum evidence for which the department would probably look.

Dr. Rheault said the concern with section 4 had to do with allowing some leeway in who was issued a school administrator endorsement. As mentioned by Ms. Cahill, the Commission on Professional Standards had the issue before them twice, and they reviewed it thoroughly. They believed an interested individual needed school experience in teaching in order to issue a school administrator endorsement, which was 3 years of teaching experience. He further noted there were program administrator endorsements someone could receive. A counselor could currently receive a program administrator endorsement but could not be a principal or vice-principal with that endorsement.

He drew attention to section 5, which dealt with the middle school license. As stated in earlier testimony, there was currently a voluntary middle school license available. He thought one reason there was only one person in the state who obtained the license was because it was voluntary and it cost them $40. He also said most teachers could not get the coursework or did not have incentive to get it. The commission said they were collecting information and looking at other states. They were also looking at having a task force for middle school that would review all of the information available and determine whether it was worth pursuing going beyond a voluntary middle school license.

Mrs. Angle said her question had to do with phonics and said the issue came back to the university level. If the department knew a teacher graduated from a university that taught a phonics course, she thought the department would not have to look any further than where they got their degree.

Dr. Rheault replied Mrs. Angle was correct and said one of the state board requirements, for graduates in Nevada, was to review their programs. At that time, the department reviewed them in their reading methods courses to see if phonics was included, which was real easy to accomplish. However, in 1998 as an example, 78 percent of teachers hired in Nevada were from out-of-state and he estimated they probably came from 2,500 different universities. He said the department could not keep track of every reading methods course. He mentioned in order to obtain the elementary license in Nevada, it was changed from six credits in reading and literacy to nine credits. He thought Nevada had one of the higher standards across the country in that area. Even up until 2 years ago, most states only required three credits in reading for the elementary level. Nevada was already at six credits at that point. He also noted the department reviewed out-of-state teachers’ transcripts when they moved to Nevada, the one provision put on their elementary license was an additional three credits of reading methods courses. Therefore, he said the issue had been addressed in Nevada. He further noted the courses had to be taken at a regionally accredited school and most of those required there be a balanced method of teaching reading.

Mrs. Angle wondered if there would be any problem with tacking a clarification onto the language regarding phonics by saying it would be based on scientifically researched reading.

Dr. Rheault replied he did not have a problem with adding language of "scientifically researched reading" to the bill.

Doug Byington, representing the Nevada Association of School Administrators, said he had 32 years of experience in junior high and middle school and had a doctorate in middle level education. He said the association testified on S.B. 22 in the Senate and had objections to the bill. He said the association opposed allowing a counselor or librarian to be able to receive an endorsement as an administrator. Currently, the law said an individual must have 3 years of teaching grades kindergarten through grade eight in a public school or a regionally or nationally accredited and recognized private school. The association believed an administrator had to have worked in a classroom to be able to do a good job evaluating teachers.

Section 5.3 would establish a middle school license. In 1973, he said a number of people attempted to get a middle school license because Washoe County was moving into that area and would have nothing but middle schools starting in 1975. Had that been done then, he thought some of the problems would have already been solved. He said the association was also concerned with what kind of impact it could have on small rural schools if it was required for anyone who was teaching middle school to have heavy duty requirements to teach.

He stated section 9 was amended, which was an initial concern of the association. The amendment said the local district could specify a number of periods rather than a number of minutes that would be required for an evaluation. He said the association felt it was more agreeable than going with 120 and 180 minutes.

Mrs. Angle asked if Mr. Byington could explain the difference between the education required for school counselors and librarians. She wondered if they both had master degrees.

Mr. Byington thought it varied with each individual person and said many counselors he knew started in a classroom and furthered their education in guidance and counseling. He said it would be the same with librarians and said many of them started as teachers and took additional training to become librarians. He said there were some individuals who went through school in library science and were looking to work in large libraries and so forth. Also there were individuals who went directly into counseling after their education instead of teaching.

Mrs. Angle said it was already noted that the legislature passed a bill that dealt specifically with minutes in regards to class periods. She thought all legislation would have to be made consistent so language in statute was the same.

Mr. Byington said the bill to which Mrs. Angle referred was amended also and thought it was 1 hour for a minimum for a post-probationary teacher. He said it was different for a probationary teacher.

Randy Robison, representing the Clark County Association of School Administrators, echoed the concerns raised by Dr. Rheault and others who testified specifically regarding the administrative endorsement applying to school counselors and librarians, the middle school licensure, and the 3 year probationary period.

Chairman Williams opened the hearing for testimony on S.B. 15.

Dr. Keith Rheault, representing the Department of Education, commented on the experience they gained from the 1997 legislative session where they worked with the Technology Commission and Academics Standards Council. He said the department knew an advisory committee was very valuable. He said the department felt they could accomplish everything required in S.B. 15 without the advisory committee and the bill passing. He said the state board could currently give recommendations, which was what the advisory committee would be doing.

If the committee passed the bill, he said the department would ask it to be amended under section 5 where it had language for funding. He said that funding could currently only be used for per diem expenses and travel reimbursement. Since the department would be expected to administer it, they asked the bill be amended to at least allow contracting for clerical support. If the bill was passed with the $30,000 funding, the department believed everything could be accomplished including the clerical support.

Dr. Rheault further referenced subsection 6 on the top of page 5 and said he knew students who had not been able to pass the high school proficiency exam. He responded if a student could not pass the exam, the department was mandated to say the student could be issued a certificate of attendance in lieu of a diploma. He said the language in that subsection did not say the certificate of attendance counted as a diploma. He said the certificate did not satisfy most people, for one reason was because it was not enough to even enroll in the military. If there was to be a consideration to give some flexibility for the 1999 seniors, he suggested subsection 6 be amended. He agreed with Chairman Williams’ earlier comment regarding the 1999 seniors being caught in the shift of the new and more difficult exam they had to pass.

Chairman Williams said it was his intent to try to accommodate the 1999 seniors who he believed were victims of the new changes. He realized S.B. 15 would have to go the Committee on Ways and Means because of the fiscal impact. He hated to have it jeopardized and wondered if S.B. 21 would accommodate the concern.

Kelan Kelly, senior research analyst, thought it might be better to add a separate section rather than amending the subsection to which Dr. Rheault referred because it was currently in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He said the committee was looking at accommodating one group of students for 1 year and thought transitory language would be better. Therefore, he thought any bills dealing with NRS chapter 389 would probably work as a vehicle.

Dr. Rheault agreed with Mr. Kelly’s comment and said the issue would be addressed in the statutes of Nevada rather than in NRS. He further mentioned the department put out a press release on May 5, 1999, regarding the April testing. Prior to the April testing, there were 2,221 students who had not yet passed the math portion of the proficiency exam. As a result of the April testing, 442 seniors passed the exam. Before looking at the test given on May 11, 1999, there were still 1,779 seniors who had not passed the math portion. Of 1,779 seniors, it approximated 90 percent of seniors passed the math test.

Ms. Botts, senior program analyst, said A.B. 523 of the 1997 legislative session had transitory language that provided for a moderate passing score for the first class of students and a more difficult score for the next class. Therefore, she believed that was the section that would have to be amended.

Mr. Kelly thought any of the bills amending chapter 389 of NRS could be used as a vehicle.

Ms. Botts said transitory language would be added if the committee wished. She said the transitory language from A.B. 523 of the 1997 legislative session would also have to be amended. At the time, the legislature was contemplating two steps. The framework for the test was adopted in 1994 and the legislature required that the test be given starting with juniors in the 1997-98 school year with a moderate passing score and that passing score be increased to match the framework.

Mr. Kelly wanted clarification and asked if the committee would postpone the implementation of the new test and go back to the old test.

Ms. Botts did not think the old test could be used because students were already taking the new test. She thought the issue was the passing score or whatever the committee wanted to change.

Ms. Parnell drew attention to page 5, subsection 6, and asked why it said completion of grade 11 when most of the students where taking the exam in grade 12.

Dr. Rheault replied students were required to attend school between the ages of 7 and 17. He thought the language was inferring that at the end of grade 11, students would probably be 17 and they could not graduate until they passed the exam. He said juniors were currently allowed to take the exam, but were not required to take it until they were in grade 12.

Ms. Parnell asked what the peak level was of problems given on the math portion of the proficiency test. She wondered to which grade level it would be equated.

Dr. Rheault said it was currently based on the math course of study adopted in 1994 and said there were some algebra questions, but not at the high end where asked to solve complex quadratic equations. He said the type of relation to algebra in the exam was figuring the square footage in a room to be able to explain how much carpet would be needed. He knew the department was accused of having trigonometry and geometry questions. He thought there were some questions that could be considered geometry, but formulas were provided with the test. Therefore, students did not have to memorize, but instead only know the process of solving the problem. He said the department recently released the version that was given for the first time in spring of 1998. He said he could provide a copy of that test to the committee.

Ms. Parnell shared Chairman Williams’ concerns regarding the proficiency exam, especially the math portion. Her concern was similar to a discussion the committee had earlier in the session regarding students being tested on materials they had not learned. She said it was like being tested on eighth grade U.S. history curriculum in September of eighth grade. Her concern was with how many students were failing the test and how many of them had never been taught the curriculum covered in the math portion. She thought the issue was being sure students were taking those classes because it would be mandatory they take a test.

Dr. Rheault said the department found students who failed the test the first time either took math as freshmen or as sophomores and lost some of the skills by the time they were seniors. The department also noticed that since there were only two math credits required for graduation, sometimes students might have taken a contemporary or basic math as freshman and then waited until they were seniors to take the second required course. In that case, those students would not have the knowledge because they took it as seniors.

Mrs. Chowning had a copy of the Nevada High School Proficiency Exam regarding math because she had a constituent call and say her son was currently taking algebra as a senior. Therefore, he did not pass the math portion of the exam and consequently would probably not graduate even though he had all of the required credits and attended all 12 years. She said the point was no one ever told him he should have taken algebra earlier. She did not think he should be held from graduating when he passed all of the other portions of the proficiency exam. She wanted the committee members to review the math test because she thought there were some very tough questions such as, "what is the volume of a right circular cylinder in terms of pie with radius equal 4 and height equal 10." She thought there were several other difficult questions for someone who might not have had the necessary curriculum.

Dr. Rheault added that the current passing score was 61 percent and said a student could probably miss all of those difficult questions if they knew basic math and still get 61 percent. He was not trying to make an excuse but only explaining there was some leeway for some higher level questions.

Debbie Cahill, representing the NSEA, reiterated the comments made from Senator Raggio regarding the amendment on page 2 beginning on line 2 of the bill. The association requested if the advisory committee was formed that there be at least one representative who was specifically a teacher. She said that request was submitted to the Committee on Finance in the Senate and subsequently the request was added to the bill. With that amendment, the association did not have any objection to the bill and therefore supported it in its current form.

Chairman Williams opened the hearing for testimony on S.B. 41.

Senator Maurice Washington, representing District 2, presented S.B. 41 and said it set forth a mechanism for parents to apply for any available space in public schools located outside a student’s attendance zone/boundary. It provided for a notification process specifying how a student shall be counted for school finance purposes. The bill specified parents were responsible for the transportation of their children attending the school in any other attendance zone/district. The bill also provided that parents of students who resided within the school district zone may apply for attendance in any public school within that district on a space available basis. The bill specified each school district or school board trustee must establish an application form and a deadline for submitting the application. Further, it gave procedures for the board to show them how to process the applications based on a space available basis and contractual procedures. It also provided a notification process to the parent, school, and joining district for the applicant. A pupil who attended a school of his/her choice outside the established zone must sign a written agreement concerning the conditions of behavior. The agreement must include maintenance of a minimum grade point average (GPA). It also provided for a mechanism for the pupil to return to a public school that he/she would otherwise be required to attend, should space become unavailable in the school of choice. If a student violated any conditions of those agreements, the student must be returned back to the original school in his/her zone. Students that wished to return to their original schools must state in writing and notify the school district and school board they wished to do so.

Mr. Washington said other states had already provided mechanisms for students to have their choice of school on a space available basis, which had been very successful. He further mentioned the Education Commission of States found that 29 states sought out for open enrollment laws to be placed on their books. He said there was currently great interest from students and parents in Las Vegas who wanted to be able to attend the school of their choice. He said there were several positive reasons for the bill, which were as follows:

• Teachers tended to remain in the school of choice longer than other public schools because they were committed to the kind of education being offered and preferred working conditions.

• Schools of choice shared visions of commitment among staff, parents, and students.

• Students with average reading scores who entered in magnet schools by lottery tended to improve their reading achievement, grade point averages, and attended school on a regular basis.

• He said there were positive results in several areas including more diverse students, staff instructional content of teachers, teaching methods, more sensitivity to individual student needs, increased student attendance, and parents were more involved in their children’s education.

Mr. Washington further mentioned there would be testimony disputing the fact that school choice did not work and that there were currently attendance variances. When the bill was heard in the Senate, questions surface such as, "How many variances were granted? Who receives the variances? What procedures would one need to go through to receive a variance?" He said variances were minimal and there was a lot of "red tape." He did not think there would be a large number of students who wanted to move to a school of their choice. However, there would be a few students who would take advantage of moving to a different school if they had the opportunity.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if there was a cap on the amount of students who could apply to different schools because of the overpopulation in Clark County. She said students were currently allowed to have zone variances, which was supposed to have a cap on the number of students that could be accepted. One of the concerns in Clark County was teachers who were teaching at a school were able to have their own children attend and they were not actually counted as someone who had applied for a zone variance. She thought there would be some individuals in Clark County who wanted language within the bill regarding a cap on the number of students allowed to attend a school.

Senator Washington said he wanted to be sure the bill was based on space available and had permissible language. He thought each school district could put a cap on how many students would be allowed to attend because it would then be based on each district’s needs.

Mrs. Chowning drew attention to page 3, line 2, of the bill and said she did not understand the mechanics. The bill stated if space was not available, then the student would return to the original school he/she was required to attend by zones. However, she did not feel the student should have already gone to the school of choice if the whole application process was not approved.

Senator Washington said the language allowed a student to be able to apply out of his/her attendance zone and if the space was not available he/she could apply to another school of choice. If space was not available at the second school of choice the student would have to return to their original zoned school. He said a student would not have left the original school until after submitting an application and it was approved.

Kris Jensen, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, spoke in support of S.B. 41. She had the opportunity to attend a national education conference which included members of the ministry of education from Singapore. She said Singapore rated first in math and science. They also had open enrollment for students. She understood the bill did not go as far as open enrollment, but allowed choice of school under certain circumstances. She said open enrollment for Singapore encouraged stronger academic programs in the original schools because they wanted to draw the students back to the school.

She said there were magnet programs currently in Clark County on a limited basis. She said people were "crying" for strong academics and choices. She said almost 100 students had been turned away for admittance to those programs. Therefore, she knew the desire and need existed. She felt any step in that direction would help encourage stronger and better academics in schools.

Amy Hill, representing the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, supported the concept of S.B. 41. She said the chamber supported anything that would bring more innovation and competition to the schools because it would produce better students who were better prepared for the workforce.

Ann Loring, president of the Board of Trustees of the Washoe County School District (WCSD), spoke in opposition to S.B. 41. She said there were a number of cases in schools where students and parents had a desire to attend a different school from the one which they were zoned. The one reason she heard most being a board member was because of growth and when a new school would be opened. Therefore, parents and students wanted to stay in their existing school, which she thought was a legitimate concern. Another reason was because of childcare reasons and necessities, for instance grandparents who lived in another school zone. She mentioned other reasons parents might want to choose other schools.

She said there were currently over 3,000 students in Washoe County who were not attending the school for which they were zoned. They applied for and received a variance to a different school. For the first time, the county had to restrict variances in 1998 under the same conditions the bill proposed, which was due to overcrowding. There was a policy that when the county’s schools reached 100 percent of capacity the principals no longer had leeway to grant unlimited variances and only on very exceptional occasions would variances be granted at all.

She said the school board opposed the bill because they believed the issue would be better handled at the local level and because there were different concerns for each county. She also mentioned the district currently had a variance policy to address the issue. The district currently gave preference to individuals with the following reasons for wanting a variance:

1. When a parent and their student felt one high school had curriculum offerings that were advantageous for the student. Particularly at the high school level and for foreign language courses.

2. When a student wanted to participate in Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC), which was only offered at one high school in Washoe County.

3. When a student wanted to take an advanced science course that only a few high schools might offer.

Under the bill, applicants would be put into a lottery if there were several variances requested at a school at the same time. Therefore, there would not be any preference made, as it was currently being done. She said the lottery process was the principal concern of the board because it would eliminate the opportunities currently given to students for specific reasons.

Steve Williams, representing the Washoe County School District, spoke in opposition to S.B. 41 and provided written remarks (Exhibit G). He said the district thought the current mechanism in place for granting variances addressed the issue, which was done at the local level. He further noted the lottery process would limit use of variances for siblings of students who had variances and who wanted to attend the same school.

He mentioned another avenue of choice at the high school level, which was provided through programs such as the Truckee Meadows High School, the Glenn Hare Occupational Center, and the International Baccalaureate Program at Wooster High School. All of those specialized programs were available to all students throughout the school district regardless of where they lived.

Mr. Williams mentioned the bill provided that a request to attend a particular school must be submitted no later than 3 months from the commencement of the school. He said that was an inadequate amount of time to allow the district to allocate teachers as necessary for the students attending. He said the district needed planning time to know how many teachers would be needed.

Mr. Manendo mentioned he heard testimony on how difficult it would be to obtain waivers. However, he heard testimony on S.B. 213 that stated how simple the process was to have home, private, and charter schooled students participate in public school programs. Therefore, he was not sure if the process was difficult or not and if more administrative support would be needed to go through a screening program.

Mr. Williams said the district thought the current variance process worked just fine. He said the district had a number of problems with S.B. 213 that did not relate directly with the variance process.

Mr. Manendo said he was getting frustrated because current testimony indicated it was a terrible process and yet the same model was used in S.B. 213.

Dusty Dickens, representing the Clark County School District (CCSD), testified in opposition to S.B. 41 and provided her written testimony (Exhibit H). She said section 2 of the bill created a lottery system for granting zone variances without concern for the effect of zone variances on grade level, ethnic diversity, growth within an attendance zone during the school year, or continuation of students currently attending on zone variances. The board of trustees had 14 separate options currently in place to allow students and their families’ choice about specific situations affecting them. Those options were approved with guidelines that allowed families, the school district, and the community to plan for potential impact.

She said the 1998-99 Out of Zone Summary Report for the 227 schools in Clark County indicated nearly 15,000 students in attendance at schools other then those to which they were assigned by attendance zones. Almost 7,000 of those individuals were on zone variance as regulated by the district’s policy and regulation 5112. 7,600 students during the school year exercised options and an additional 549 students attended out of zone to allow them to take advantage of special programs. She said CCSD was already providing choice for students and was always looking for opportunities to establish more within funding constraints.

She said the district’s opposition to the bill was not a question of choice but a question of procedure and equity. The lottery system of granting zone variances had potential issues associated with federal civil rights violations due to the potential impact to the ethnic/cultural diversity of a school population.

She mentioned the requirement for a pupil on a zone variance was to maintain a minimum GPA, which would establish two different standards for students attending the same school; one for those residing in the zone and another for those on a zone variance. Since students who did not maintain the minimum GPA would be removed and returned to the zoned school, the zoned school would be required to retain only low achieving students while the academically talented would be allowed to remain on zone variance. She wondered if the board could be required to hold a public hearing for revoking a zone variance due to GPA. Also, if the bill could have the potential to open the door to lawsuits from parents who felt the school or district had discriminated against their child.

Ms. Dickens further noted a list of negative impacts to a lottery system of granting zone variances was included in the earlier mentioned Exhibit H. The exhibit also included copies of regulation 5112, a summary of students attending out of zone, a list of magnet schools and programs, a list of board approved options, and a sheet identifying the reasons for which a students might attend a school outside of the attendance zone.

Henry Etchemendy, representing Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), said the association felt S.B. 41 was unnecessary and would only complicate the current systems which were developed to meet the local needs, which currently worked. He said school districts had systems of zone variances and inter-local agreements between other districts. He also thought the issue needed to be addressed at the local level.

He provided a handout to the committee, which had information from 15 of the 17 county school districts (Exhibit I). The handout listed the number of variances granted, denied, and the number of students in another district for the 1998-99 school year. He said the information indicated there was a lot of activity in variances. He explained most of the reasons variances were denied were because of capacity. He said the bill would not cure that problem.

Barbara Clark, representing the Nevada Parent Teacher Association (PTA), agreed with the fact that virtually every parent would like to have the opportunity to choose the school their child attended. However, the association did have concerns regarding equity. She said equity was about everyone having the equal opportunity to access school choice. She asked the committee if all children in Nevada would have that equal opportunity.

She said many programs in Nevada were either federally or state funded such as Title 1, English as a Second Language (ESL), and others. She mentioned one of Nevada’s highest rated schools, which did not have most of those programs available. If a child was tied to a specific school because of language or specific needs and the school was receiving federal or state funding, she wondered if that child would have the same opportunity to move to another school. She did not think all schools would have the same funding for the same programs that met the specific individual needs of all children. She thought vast populations of students could be left in certain schools who would forever have to stay in those schools because of their specific needs that could not be met at other schools due to financial and other legitimate reasons.

Another issue about which the association was concerned was transportation. Not everyone had the financial resources or enough time to be able to drive their child to a different school. She said in Nevada, 55 percent of the female- headed families lived in poverty, which did not necessarily mean they would be incapable of doing it, but she wondered what their chances were.

Sandra Douglass, intern to Chairman Williams, spoke in opposition to S.B. 41. If the bill was truly about school choice and giving students better and more opportunities for education, she thought the opportunity should be offered to all students regardless if their parent/guardian was able to provide transportation.

Senator Washington said the legislature was trying to reform education in Nevada and said the two main issues were how to get parents more involved in their children’s education and how to provide a better education for children. As policies were set to try to answer those questions, he said, "we have to try to allow ourselves to move outside of the box." He thought all of the individuals who testified in opposition to the bill conformed themselves to "thinking within the box." A lot of those people thought it was status quo and did not think anything everyone was used to should be changed because it seemed to work. He said he was not trying to disqualify any teacher, administrator, or school board trustee and thought they did an admirable job under the circumstances and the situation within which they had to work. However, he thought the bottom line was whatever needed to be done to provide the best education for Nevada’s children needed to be done. He only thought the bill was asking to give the best opportunity for children.

With no further testimony, Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 41 and opened the hearing for testimony on S.B. 49.

Dr. Keith Rheault, representing the Department of Education, said the Council to Establish Academic Standards requested the modifications to S.B. 49 and therefore supported the bill in its current form.

Debbie Cahill, representing NSEA, said the association was in support of S.B. 49.

Amy Hill, representing the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber was in support of S.B. 49.

Ray Bacon, representing the Nevada Manufacturers Association, said the association took the opportunity to attend almost all of the Council to Establish Academic Standards’ meetings. He said the association was in full support of S.B. 49.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOTIONED TO DO PASS S.B. 49.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams opened the hearing for testimony on S.B. 21.

Scott Craigie, representing Harcourt Brace, a company that produced tests, spoke in support of S.B. 21. He said the use of tests had taken on a heightened importance because testing decided who would and would not graduate from high school. He said teachers would be evaluated based on the performance of their children on tests. He said some schools were already graded as inadequate based on the performance on tests. Therefore, the management of individual differences that were handled in the bill was an essential component. He said it had to be made sure that everyone was testing the same group of children inside each school so some schools were not leaving lower performing students out of the loop.

Mr. Craigie drew attention to page 3, subsection 7, and said it required the state board to prescribe the examinations of achievement and proficiency and talked about how it would be handled. Line 21 stated, "The questions contained in the examinations and the approved answers used for grading them are confidential, and disclosure is unlawful except: a) to the extent necessary for administering and evaluating the examinations and b) that the disclosure may be made to certain individuals." He suggested replacing "related to" with "necessary for" on lines 27, 30, 32, and 34. He did not think those individuals would misuse the tests, but thought the greater amount of people who had access to them could lose the tests. He said there was a case on how one of the tests was available on the internet. He said protecting the security of the tests was essential to the system and fairness to students.

With no further testimony, Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 21. He accepted a motion on the previously heard S.C.R. 2.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOTIONED TO DO PASS S.C.R. 2.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams accepted a motion on the previously heard S.C.R. 3.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOTIONED TO DO PASS S.C.R. 3.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

*********

Chairman Williams accepted a motion on the previously heard A.C.R. 15.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.C.R. 15 WITH THE AMENDMENT BEING A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION BEING SENT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if the Senate had something similar to units or wondered if it was for something special.

Ms. Botts, senior program analyst, said that recently the joint subcommittee of Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance voted to add five special education units for gifted and talented students. However, it had not cleared the full committees.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if it would affect anything in A.C.R. 15.

Ms. Botts replied it would not affect the resolution.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

*********

Chairman Williams asked Mrs. Chowning to introduce A.J.R. 25.

Mrs. Chowning provided a copy of the resolution (Exhibit J). She thanked several committee members and other legislators for their help with the resolution. The language came with a lot of collaboration and caring for citizens of Littleton, Colorado. She said some people felt the last clause on the first page was too strong and that it lent a tone of placing blame. She said the goal was only to express sympathy, empathy, and state how important it was for legislators to protect society and its children by teaching tolerance and respect for everyone. Therefore, she proposed deleting the last clause on the first page of the exhibit because everyone knew what happened concerning the tragedy and she felt the resolution did not need to further explain. She also wanted to delete "of this great state" and insert "of Nevada" in the first resolved paragraph because she did not want to say Nevada was greater than any other state.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOTIONED TO INTRODUCE A.J.R. 25 WITH THE DESCRIBED AMENDMENTS.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Williams said the State Department of Education would look at some possible language regarding the high school proficiency exam, particularly addressing the math portion and the current seniors. He said the committee would examine the possibilities to address the growing concern of the math portion of the test in the next committee meeting.

With no further business before the committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 7 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: