The Committee on Education was called to order at 2:00 p.m., on Thursday, May 13, 1999. Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Wendell Williams, Chairman

Mr. Tom Collins, Vice Chairman

Ms. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Mark Manendo

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator William Raggio, Senate District 3

Senator Maurice Washington, Senate District 2

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards

Randy Robison, Representative, Clark County Association of School Administrators

Don Forrester, Representative, Douglas County School District

Mary Peterson, State Superintendent, Department of Education

Jerry Lusk, Private Citizen

Following roll call, Chairman Williams opened the hearing on S.B. 289.

Senator Maurice Washington, Senate District 2, presented S.B. 289. He explained the bill codified the Federal Access Act of 1995 into state statute. That act allowed students to conduct nonsecular activities on school grounds.

Debbie Cahill, representative, Nevada State Education Association, addressed an amendment to S.B. 289 to delete a particular subsection. She had been concerned the original bill would broaden the federal equal access statute. Senator Washington had accepted the amendment. She now felt she could support S.B. 289 wholeheartedly.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 289.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 289 and opened the hearing on S.B. 59.

Senator William Raggio, Senate District 3, introduced S.B. 59. Senator Raggio presented a written copy of his testimony (Exhibit C). Senator Raggio told the committee S.B. 59 as amended revised appointments and the composition of the Commission on Professional Standards in Education to include members who were not educators.

Henry Etchemendy, executive director, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified in support of S.B. 59. Mr. Etchemendy offered an amendment to the bill (Exhibit D). He urged passage of S.B. 59.

Randy Robison, representing the Clark County Association of School Administrators, presented an amendment (Exhibit E) from Doug Byington, Nevada Association of School Administrators. Also submitted, but not testified to, was a letter from Allin Chandler, executive director, and Kathy Harney, legislative coordinator, of the Clark County Association of School Administrators (Exhibit F).

Dr. Keith Rheault, deputy superintendent, Department of Education, testified against S.B. 59. Dr. Rheault submitted a written copy of his testimony (Exhibit G), in which he expressed the views of the Commission on Professional Standards in Education on which he served as executive secretary. Dr. Rheault felt to alter the membership categories was unwarranted, unnecessary, and counterproductive.

Ms. Cahill spoke in opposition to S.B. 59. She wondered how many members of the business community or parents would be allowed to serve on the State Bar which licensed attorneys in Nevada, or on medical boards to license doctors. She said the same professional standards should apply to licensing standards for education personnel. When the commission was created in 1989, no member of the public was represented. That was amended in 1991 to include a representative of the public. Ms. Cahill said S.B. 59 would alter membership categories in a detrimental fashion by lowering standards for teaching licensure.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 59 and opened the hearing on S.B. 431.

Senator Jon Porter, Senate District 1, indicated he would withdraw S.B.431 due to a conflict with A.B. 348 (Exhibit H).

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 431. The Chair requested a recess at 5:00 p.m., and reopened the meeting at 6:45 p.m. with a discussion on high school proficiency testing.

Chairman Williams explained the legislature had not intended to punish students, rather they wished to set a standard for the students to attempt to achieve. He commented he, like most legislators, had received a number of calls from parents whose children received full scholarships but stood in danger of losing those due to high school proficiency test results. It was incumbent on the legislature to see that all students were treated fairly.

Mary Peterson, state superintendent, Public Instruction, said A.B. 523 had been passed in the 1997 legislative session and required the State Board of Education to implement more difficult high school proficiency examinations for the first time in 1998. The bill also required a moderate passing score. To achieve those aims, the board did pilot testing and consulted with a testing specialist who recommended what the passing score should be to make it technically sound and legally defensible. The State Board of Education set the passing score for mathematics at a scale score of 61 for 1998 seniors in high school. The test was made more difficult and the passing score was later raised as required by law to 64 for 1999 seniors. It was thought the original test was not difficult enough.

Ms. Peterson presented information the committee had requested regarding passing rates (Exhibit I) which delineated various pass/fail results for a score of 61, and other hypothetical passing scores such as 51 or 59. Exhibit I also explained the test review process and standard setting principles.

Chairman Williams asked if school districts perhaps did not respond properly to prepare students for the exam. Ms. Peterson replied when the exam was first undertaken in1994 the school districts were shown the framework, and in 1995 when the legislature funded the program they were also included. She deferred to testimony of others for a better answer to the question.

Chairman Williams asked if the passing score on the proposed amendment was lower than the old test. Ms. Peterson replied that was the case because the test was more difficult.

Assemblywoman Cegavske wondered whether the possibility had been explored to determine first what the children should learn and teach them those things for a number of years before testing them. Ms. Peterson replied that option was explored. In 1992, the course of study for mathematics was revised based on the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards. The high school proficiency exam was based on that course of study.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if teachers were instructed in that course of study and required to teach it. She wondered why so many children were failing. Ms. Peterson replied by law the local school districts had to teach the course of study established by the state board. Teachers were trained in the new course of study. Not all students took the proper courses.

Assemblywoman Parnell asked what the process would be for students who did not pass the test. Ms. Peterson replied if students failed the test, they would not be given the standard diploma. Whether they graduated would depend on the policy of individual districts. The law allowed school districts to give a certificate of attendance. She understood in Washoe and Clark counties if a student met all other requirements such as the correct number of credits but had not yet passed the high school proficiency exam, that student might be given a certificate and be allowed to participate in graduation. The student would then be able to take the test again. If the student passed the exam at that time, he or she would be given a standard high school diploma.

Assemblywoman Parnell commented it might be possible to request a uniform response from the school districts statewide. Ms. Peterson responded due to the impending graduation dates, anything along those lines needed to be done quickly.

Chairman Williams said some of the students listed in the statistics as failing were special education students who would not be getting a regular diploma in any event. Ms. Peterson replied some special education students elected not to go for an "adjusted diploma", which was an option.

Assemblywoman Koivisto asked how many Nevada students attended the universities in the state and had to take remedial classes. Ms. Peterson responded 38 percent of high school graduates in Nevada went on to post-secondary training. Of that 38 percent, 36 percent were in some kind of remedial freshmen classes.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked if the 33.2 percent of students who failed the first attempt at the new test score would be assumed to pass when they took it again. Ms. Peterson said the students had four chances to pass. If the student failed, they could enter the adult high school diploma program where they would have an unlimited opportunity to take and pass the high school proficiency exam. They could also pursue a general education certificate.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked, since there was no bill before the committee, what procedure the committee would follow with respect to the present discussion. Chairman Williams explained there had been three bills heard on the previous day which results of the current discussion could affect. An amendment could be attached to S.B. 21, S.B. 22, or S.B. 5.

Jeanne Botts, fiscal analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, reminded the committee she had suggested if the committee wished to address the issue of the passing score, it would necessitate amending the transitory language at page 2772 of section 6 in A.B. 523 from the 1997 legislative session. That bill set the passing score in place for 1999, and increased the score for following years. Language was suggested which set the scores in statute to be broken down for each phase of the examination as follows:

YEAR READING SCORE MATHEMATICS SCORE

1999 70 61

2000 71 64

Ms. Botts said she had received direction for drafting a suggested amendment which would require a scale score of 57 for mathematics, and a scale score of 70 for reading for 11^th graders who would graduate in 1999.

Chairman Williams asked if other states had made changes in increments. Ms. Peterson replied different approaches were used, such as series of exams. It was recommended that 2 to 4 years notice be given to students and parents of what was expected of them and what the format would be for testing.

Ms. Botts explained various sections of the proposed amendment. There was an amendment proposed to S.B. 104 which had suggested beginning with those students in the ninth grade at present, who would graduate in 2003, would be tested on the new standards.

Assemblywoman Koivisto suggested a test had been created on subjects students were not required to study. She thought it was unfair. Ms. Peterson replied the course of study for mathematics had been adopted in 1992 for testing in 1999. There was a core curriculum for every high school student which required basic algebra and geometry, and basic probability statistics. That course of study had been in place for quite some time.

Assemblywoman Koivisto commented if such was the case, there was a breakdown somewhere in the system, because the children did not learn what they were being taught.

Assemblywoman Chowning wondered what percentage of students who had or were currently failing the test were black or Hispanic. She thought lawsuits might be possible from such an issue. Ms. Peterson replied it was a higher percentage. A complaint was filed in 1997 regarding students who had English as a second language. The standard was to ensure those students were given an equal opportunity to learn. There was no guarantee of equal achievement.

Assemblywoman Cegavske thought some system to help those students who failed, such as paying for a class in junior college, or letting them take the 12^th grade over. She was concerned again about teaching the teachers. Also, if there was no problem with reading, there should not be a need to amend language which dealt with that subject.

Ms. Botts replied current law had the State Board of Education setting the passing scores. She was directed to draft an amendment to specify the legislature should set the scores for both math and reading.

Assemblywoman Parnell said the committee had looked at issues all session about discipline, attendance problems, habitual truancy, and students who did not take school seriously. Students with those behavior patterns seemed to pass anyway, but now because of the test requirements, the students could not graduate. She said the school board had made a policy decision to raise the level of skill needed to graduate. The children were used to being passed no matter what they had learned or how they had acted. Chairman Williams said he had received calls from the other end of the spectrum as well. He thought there were 2,000 children in Nevada who were victims of a test for a subject they had not been taught.

Chairman Williams suggested S.B. 104 might be an appropriate vehicle for an amendment, since there was no fiscal note attached and it became effective on passage and approval.

Ms. Peterson agreed. She said S.B. 104 required development of a new high school proficiency exam based on new standards and administer it for the first time to the class of 2003.

Jerry Lusk, private citizen, suggested if a child could pass the test at the end of the senior year, they might not have to do anything else. Another child might be great throughout school and fail the test. He suggested perhaps an evaluation percentage on the test might work.

Chairman Williams closed the discussion group and opened the hearing on S.B. 9.

Kelan Kelly, committee policy analyst, presented an amendment to S.B. 9 submitted by Debbie Cahill of the Nevada State Education Association. Mr. Kelly explained the amendment was a change in language in section 1 from "shall" to "may" to make the provision permissive. Subsection 1(d) on page 2 of the bill changed the designation.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 9.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE AND GUSTAVSON VOTED NO.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 9 and opened the hearing on S.B. 15.

Assemblyman de Braga commented the committee had heard testimony that S.B. 15 was not needed.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 15.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED. ASSEMBLYMEN CHOWNING AND GUSTAVSON VOTED NO.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 15 and opened the hearing on S.B. 21.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 21.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING.

THE MOTION PASSED.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 21 and opened the hearing on S.B. 41.

Assemblyman Collins commented there had been some expression of concern that some children would be able to take advantage of the measure and others would not. He commented the bill used a lottery basis, and there were lawsuits addressing that issue already.

Assemblywoman Cegavske said one problem with zone variances had been that school principals could pick what students they wanted. S.B. 41 would eliminate that problem.

Assemblywoman Koivisto said poor children without transportation could not participate. Assemblywoman Cegavske replied there were transportation possibilities available, such as bus passes. Assemblywoman Koivisto responded transportation costs were not required to be paid by the board of trustees. Assemblyman Manendo wondered what transportation would cost.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 41.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE AND GUSTAVSON VOTED NO.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 41 and opened the hearing on S.B. 104.

Mr. Kelly told the committee an amendment to page 1 of S.B. 104 changed dates for development of standards. Page 2 of the bill would be amended to change dates for examinations. Section 3 on page 2 changed dates to allow meetings to continue to a certain date. Section 4 changed the grades affected and dates for examinations statewide. Subsection (d) of section 4 added language about selected grades commencing in the 2001-2002 school year. A new section discussed the high school proficiency test standards.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO ADD AN AMENDMENT TO S.B. 104 TO REFLECT A CHANGE TO SECTION 6, SUBSECTION 2, OF NEVADA REVISED STATUTE 569 IN REFERENCE TO THE PROFICIENCY TEST.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED. ASSEMBLYMEN BROWER, GUSTAVSON, CEGAVSKE AND PARNELL VOTED NO.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 104 WITH THE AMENDMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 104.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN BROWER AND PARNELL VOTED NO.

Chairman Williams recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m. until the call of the chair.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Lois McDonald

Transcription Secretary

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: