The Committee on Education reconvened at 2:40 p.m., on Friday, May 14, 1999. Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Wendell Williams, Chairman

Mr. Tom Collins, Vice Chairman

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Mark Manendo

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

After roll call, Chairman Williams asked the committee to consider S.B. 22.

Chairman Williams summarized the testimony. He reminded the committee it received a great deal of opposition. The Legislative Committee on Education recommended the bill.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 22.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYPERSONS CHOWNING, DE BRAGA, GUSTAVSON AND COLLINS WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE).

**********

Chairman Williams asked the committee to consider S.B. 50.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 50.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblywoman Parnell disclosed, as a teacher approaching retirement the bill would effect her. Therefore, she would not vote on the bill. In addition, she called attention to what she saw as a money saving measure. She observed if teachers who made $45,000 annually were encouraged to use a year of sick leave to purchase retirement, the district would save twice. First, they would save on the sick leave buyout. Second, they would save on the salary reduction when they replaced the teacher with one who would make $25,000 annually. She thought the bill was good fiscally and it boosted morale. It was also an incentive for those discouraged senior teachers who were ready to leave but stayed because they needed to get 30 years in to retire.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if the bill would allow a teacher to donate their sick days to another teacher who was extremely ill. Ms. Parnell explained each district had a sick leave bank. Mrs. Cegavske’s question was unrelated to the issue in the bill, because most teachers put their sick leave in the sick leave bank and if a teacher became ill they could request time from the sick leave bank.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. ASSEMBLYPERSONS CHOWNING, DE BRAGA, GUSTAVSON AND COLLINS WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE).

**********

The committee turned their attention to S.B. 51.

Assemblyman Manendo thought the bill was a splendid piece of legislation. However, the bill would further improve if they amended it back to its original version on page 2, line 4, making it mandatory. Chairman Williams clarified the language of the bill was changed from "shall" to "may." He wondered about the reason for the change.

Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), thought the language was address because it effected teacher recruitment. Requiring the school districts to pay the full salary was an unfunded mandate. The main concern was the different policies from district to district. Teachers relocating from other states could receive 2 years of credit in some districts. If the state mandated the school districts pay the full service credit amount, there would be a considerable disparity. It would cause morale problems within the school district. By making it permissive, it allowed the school districts to allocate it, which would elevate the risks of great disparity. The NSEA approved of the change from "shall" to "may." Mr. Manendo remarked he wanted the original language in the bill, but he did not want a fiscal note to impede the bill.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B.51.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Williams did not recall how the school district indicated how they would implement it. He asked if the representatives of Clark County or Washoe County testified on the bill.

Martha Tittle, Clark County School District (CCSD), related she testified in support of the bill with the permissive language in section 1, subsection 3. Chairman Williams asked Ms. Tittle if she knew how the school district would handle implementing the bill. Ms. Tittle explained in critical shortage areas, they currently adjusted salary placement. The issue was subject to negotiations with the NSEA. She concurred with Ms. Cahill’s testimony regarding the potential problems with immediate placement of new hires at a higher salary grade than teachers working up 1 year at a time and the fiscal impact. Chairman Williams asked when would the school district enact the bill. She thought it would develop over time and through a negotiated process. She thought they would phase it in gradually. Ms Cegavske asked Ms. Tittle if the CCSD testified in favor of the bill on the Senate side. Ms. Tittle said she was unsure. They did support the bill with the permissive language in the reprint.

Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association, stated the CCSD had already begun to react to the need to grant greater out-of-state experience to credit for placement on the salary scale. Through the collective bargaining process over the term of the agreement, he thought they moved from 2 years of out-of-state credit to 3 years. He thought by the end of the of the term of the agreement they would be up to 4 or 5 years of credit on the payment schedule. They had gradually increased the credit on the payment schedule.

Mr. Manendo informed the committee he reviewed the minuets of the Senate hearing on S.B. 51 and the CCSD representative did testify in support of the bill.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYPERSONS CHOWNING, DE BRAGA, GUSTAVSON AND COLLINS WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE).

**********

The committee considered S.B.59.

Chairman Williams reminded the committee they heard the bill on May 13, 1999.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVE TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B.59.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblyman Collins said he missed the testimony on the bill. He asked if the bill created an additional commission on professional standards in education to the one already in place. Chairman Williams informed him it changed the structure of an existing commission. Mr. Collins asked if it changed the election procedures of the members. Mr. Williams said it did not address elections. Mr. Collins announced he would abstain on the vote because he did not hear the testimony.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYPERSONS CEGAVSKE, ANGLE, AND BROWER VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS ABSTAINED. ASSEMBLYPERSONS CHOWNING, DE BRAGA, AND GUSTAVSON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

The committee considered S.B. 213.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 213.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall expressed her concern about the fiscal notes attached to the bill. She felt they should amend the bill requiring parents of children taking such services to carry separate insurance to absolve school districts from any potential liability. She proposed a similar format several sessions ago in a bill allowing juvenile courts to sentence children to graffiti detail. The bill did not pass until she added such an amendment.

Mr. Manendo explained the bill troubled him. The criteria suggested in S.B. 213 was the same criteria for judging who was acceptable in another bill the committee had heard. The testimony declared the criteria atrocious. He wondered if using an ineffective process as a model for their format was reasonable. He felt uncomfortable supporting a bill which proposed such a process. He stated he would vote against the motion.

Mr. Collins asked if Mrs. Cegavske would consider deleting part of the language regarding interscholastic activities. He felt the students who already moved around cause enough disruption. He suggested the bill only refer to academics and not the athletics programs. He contended students changing schools for athletic purposes already caused problems. He inquired as to why the amendment discussed at the hearing was not presented.

Chairman Williams presented an amendment proposed by the NSEA (Exhibit C). It limited the services to those not offered by private schools, charter schools, and home schools.

Chairman Williams stated they were waiting for the legal position, which Mr. Whittemore said he would provide the committee. However, when they spoke, Mr. Whittemore said he did not get it. Chairman Williams expressed his disappointment about not seeing the legal proposal. Ms. Ohrenschall remarked without the legal opinion the committee ran the risk of passing an unconstitutional law, which could embroil the state in litigation costing the state a large amount of money.

THE MOTION FAILED (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE, BROWER, AND CEGAVSKE VOTED YES. ALL OTHERS VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYPERSONS CHOWNING AND GUSTAVSON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE)

**********

The committee would reconsider S.B. 59.

Chairman Williams informed the committee the vote on S.B. 59 did not receive the required majority therefore the motion failed. The Chair called for a motion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 59.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION FAILED. (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE, BROWER, AND CEGAVSKE VOTED YES. ALL OTHERS VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYPERSONS CHOWNING AND GUSTAVSON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

The committee considered S.B. 285.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 285.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Manendo asked if there were any proposed amendments. He referred to discussion at the hearing. He thought they should included Dr. King’s speeches. He believed the other members also wanted to include additional requirements.

Mr. Collins stated he had also heard other events added. He felt there was no need for the bill. However, he spoke to two of the Senators who sponsored the bill and they did not want any amendments to the bill. For that reason, I seconded the motion without any amendments.

Assemblywoman de Braga believed she missed the testimony on the bill. She questioned the need for the bill because she had heard the schools taught the subject matter already. Chairman Williams related the testimony given by the Nevada State Board of Education. It indicated the social studies standards currently taught included the information. Mr. Brower clarified the testimony. The information was included in the social studies standards. However, some schools did not teach it. In addition, the schools which taught it, did not teach it well enough. Chairman Williams asked Mr. Cook if he would explain the social studies curriculum.

Dave Cook, member, State Board Education, replied the commission on educational standards was revising the curriculum in the area of social studies in all the fields including government civics. He was unsure of which documents were included in those standards. He could not guarantee the list of documents proposed in the bill were in the curriculum. Mrs. de Braga asked if the passage of the bill would preempt the standards commission.

Mr. Cook felt the students should study the listed documents. However, there were two arguments. First, The 1997 legislature passed S.B. 482 identifying the required school curricula. He supported S.B. 482 and did not want anything to interfere with it. Equally, Senator James’ remarked the documents were uniquely crucial to American government. They helped shape the nation which placed them in a separate class. Perhaps his argument addressed a particular concern. Mr. Cook declared if anything fell into a special curricula those listed documents did. Mrs. de Braga suggested urging the commission on educational standards to include the listed documents in the new social studies standards, as an alternative to passing a law. Mr. Cook agreed it was an alternative.

Mrs. Koivisto expressed her disapproval about the bill’s narrow focus. For example, women’s suffrage was not included in the list. Mr. Manendo felt the list was important. Schools should teach the listed documents. He felt the committee could make a separate list of equally important documents, which were not included on the list in the bill. He wondered if each session they would make lists of documents which they should require the schools to teach. He stated every document listed in the bill was important. However, he felt passing the bill would send the people a message saying those were the only documents important to American Government.

Mrs. Angle thought the bill set forward the foundational documents of American Government. The constitution did discuss women’s suffrage in the 19^th Amendment. It was a living document. She believed from the questioning of its absence further promoted the need for the bill. She noted seeing 7 and 8 year olds in private school who memorized the bill of rights. She thought, as citizens, the public school children needed to memorize the bill of rights.

Keith Rheault, deputy superintendent, Instructional, Research, and Evaluation Services, Department of Education (NDE) informed the committee of the status of the items in the bill. Social studies standards were drafted in January. He reviewed the standards assessing the initial content. At that time, the first draft included most of the listed documents. The NDE testified they would bring all the items listed in the bill back to the subcommittee. They met in March and Mr. Rheault thought the subcommittee was considering the items. The writing team consisted of 55 members drawn from the schools and the communities. The department provided the information on what the legislature felt was important. The next draft would go to the council who would hold public hearings. They would accept input and they could revise the standards.

Mrs. de Braga suggested indefinitely postponing the bill to give the standards committee a chance to develop standards which included the listed documents. Instead, they could draft a resolution encouraging the committee to include the listed items in the standards as well as those documents the committee found appropriate. She felt it would produce better results.

Ms. Parnell agreed with Mrs. de Braga. She felt it was in the best interest of the teachers and students. She pointed out the legislature had appointed committees and formed commissions to implement certain things. The standards commission was the one appointed to review the social studies curriculum. She would support a resolution urging consideration of those items.

THE MOTION FAILED. (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE, BROWER, AND CEGAVSKE VOTED YES. ASSEMBLYPERSONS MANENDO AND OHRENSCHALL ABSTAINED. ALL OTHERS VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYPERSONS CHOWNING AND GUSTAVSON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION IN REFERENCE TO S.B. 285 TO THE WRITING TEAM FOR THE COMMISSION OF EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS, RECOMMENDING THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LISTED DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS ANY APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE PRIMARY TO THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE AND BROWER ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. ASSEMBLYPERSONS CHOWNING AND GUSTAVSON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

The committee considered S.B. 445.

Chairman Williams reminded the committee the bill repealed sections of the curriculum. The testimony indicated other statutes mentioned the items in the repealed sections.

Kelan Kelly, committee policy analyst, explained the intent of the bill was to streamline the statute dealing with courses of study. It did not repeal all of the sections in the Nevada statutes relating to teaching certain courses. It repealed the one specified on page 4. Section 3 amended Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 383 to include subsection 1 the designated course subjects English, math, science, and social studies. Subsections 2 and 3 listed other courses of study. They consolidated the required courses of study into one format. He stated the problem with the bill was by repealing sections in NRS 389.040 on patriotic exercises, it conflicted with a bill passed earlier in the session. He emphasized the intent was not eliminate courses of study but to streamline their appearance in the NRS.

Mrs. de Braga asked if within the process did it repeal the drivers education and patriotic exercises. Mr. Kelly replied that was correct.

Mr. Collins related some concerns Mrs. Chowning had about the bill. She worried it repealed the suicide and violence prevention education. They put it back into the bill. Mrs. Cegavske was concerned about drivers’ education. Another chapter covered it. Mr. Collins thought the bill was contrary to S.B. 285.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 445 BY INSERTING THE LANGUAGE FROM A.B.144 IN REFERENCE TO PATRIOTIC EXERCISES IN SECTION 4.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairmen William explained the amendment would end the conflict with A.B. 144.

Mrs. Chowning requested if she could amend the amendment. She explained the bill repealed the suicide prevention education. Mr. Kelly explained it required schools to teach the core courses listed in section 3, subsection 1. Additionally, it designated previously required courses and allowed the Nevada State Board to adopt regulations to the Nevada Administrative Code.

Mrs. Chowning argued Nevada had the second highest suicide rate in the nation. The suicide prevention taught in health classes was the avenue to reducing Nevada‘s suicide rate. It had proven results of preventing teen suicide. She contended taking it out of statute and placing it in a board administrative code diminished its huge importance. If teenage suicide rates dropped dramatically then they could remove it from statute.

Chairman Williams called attention to the listing of health as a core class on page 3, subsection 2. He asked Dr. Rheault to explain how the department planned to implement the changes. Dr. Rheault observed the bill stated the state board "shall" establish study including the suicide prevention. The department did not plan to change any of the subject matter. The bill still required schools to teach the subject matter. He felt the bill simply cleaned up the language of the chapter putting the requirements under one title.

Mrs. Cegavske agreed with Mrs. Chowning's comments. She felt the same way about the importance of driver education. She also did not want the section repealed.

Mr. Cook stated the state board did not have a position on the bill. In his personal opinion, he agreed with Mrs. Chowning and Mrs. Cegavske. By keeping the subjects in statute, it elevated their status, which would not remain if they were removed.

Mrs. de Braga mentioned the testimony indicated the bill simply consolidated the provisions it repealed into the same chapter. She felt the bill did not remove the requirement of suicide prevention. They also removed patriotic exercises, but it was in another statute. It repealed the drivers’ education. Yet, the testimony specified the state board should not set the criteria. Chairman Williams agreed with her summary of the testimony.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the new language eliminated the suicide prevention course as a graduation requirement. She reiterated her earlier comments about the important part suicide prevention education played in the students’ lives. She felt the bill removed it as a graduation requirement diminishing its significance and effectiveness.

Mr. Manendo agreed suicide prevention was a vital part of the student education. He described the discussion on the Health and Human Services committee’s efforts to appropriate a suicide hot line. He believed educating the youth on suicide prevention could lower Nevada’s national suicide standing. If the bill repealed the suicide prevention course, he would not support it.

Dr. Rheault confirmed Mrs. Chowning’s statement about repealing the provision removed the mandate. Currently, teachers taught a suicide prevention course in health class and a half credit of health was required for graduation. There would be no indication it was required in statute other than the connection to the required health course.

Chairman Williams restated the proposed amendment only dealt with the patriotic exercises.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if the maker of the motion would consider the addition of the suicide prevention and the drivers’ education courses to her amendment. Mrs. Chowning suggested they insert the suicide prevention and drivers’ education courses on page 3, line 7, after the word health. Ms. Parnell agreed to include Mrs. Chowning’s suggested in her motion.

Mrs. Angle expressed concern about the time constrictions placed on the health classes.

Mrs. Koivisto inquired whether they could delete NRS 389.085 on page, 4 line 19, listing the repealed section instead of placing it behind health. Chairman Williams remarked it was the same way Ms. Parnell proposed to remove patriotic exercises from the list. He asked Ms. Parnell to restate her motion with the additional amendments.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 445 BY REINSTATING NRS 389.085 REGARDING DRIVER EDUCATION, NRS 389.063 REGARDING INSTRUCTION ON PREVENTIONS OF SUICIDE, AND NRS 389.040 REGARDING PATRIOTIC EXERCISES CORRECTING THE CONFLICT WITH A.B. 144.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN COLLINS AND GUSTAVSON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 445 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE FROM PAGE 1, SECTION 1, LINE 5 THROUGH PAGE 2, SECTION 1, LINE 2 OF S.B. 285 AS A COURSE OF STUDY, UNDER SOCIAL STUDIES ON PAGE 2, SECTION 3, LINE 42.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Cegavske explained she thought the two bills corresponded well to each other. Chairman Williams asked her to confirm where the language would go in S.B. 445. She replied it would go under page 2, section 3, line 42, in the same NRS chapter.

Mrs. de Braga stated the same arguments still applied. The committee had passed a motion to draft a resolution asking the social studies standards committee to consider including the listed documents in S.B. 285 in the new social studies standards. She would not support it.

Mrs. Chowning noted S.B. 445 referenced subjects on particular documents. She found the proposed addition awkward although she did not think it hurt to have it included. The new standards would include the list. She did not think the list fit because it was not a subject. Mrs. Angle remarked the bill drafters could correct any flaws in the language of the bill making it less awkward. She felt the list was also important enough to place in statutes. The subject fit with the bill.

Ms. Parnell reiterated the list of documents was already within the curriculum. The Carson City School District used a document, which listed the required subject matter to be taught in that grade level. She provided copies to parents. Mrs. Angle asked why it was such a problem placing the list in statute. Chairman Williams replied the purpose of S.B. 445 was to repeal sections of the law; the intent of S.B. 285 was to revise courses of study. Ms. Parnell remarked the NDE intended to reduce the number of subjects to the core subjects. The standards commission’s assignment was the listing of specifics. She believed the fear was that the law became too specific. Mrs. Angle felt the listed documents were the core requirement. If S.B. 445 defined the core requirements, the list was consistent with the bill.

Mrs. de Braga inquired if the vote on the amendment failed, would S.B. 445 fail. Chairman Williams stated they would vote to include the proposed amendment on the bill. If the amendment failed, the bill would still pass.

Ms. Ohrenschall contended the committee would spend all their time drafting requirements and mandates if they tried to micromanage the education curriculum. She stated trying to include everything was absurd.

THE MOTION FAILED. (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE, BROWER, AND CEGAVSKE VOTED YES. ALL OTHERS VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

**********

Mrs. Angle wanted the words "supported by scientifically based research," added to the reading requirement. She discussed her amendment with Dr. Rheault and he agreed to the amendment. They would insert the phrase after the word reading on page 2, line 38, part (a).

Chairman Williams asked Dr. Rheault if the NDE wanted the language in the bill. Dr. Rheault replied the NDE did not suggest the amendment. He stated Mrs. Angle had asked him if it was an appropriate amendment. He thought it would not hurt to have the phrase in the bill. The NDE currently used a great deal of scientifically based research and they planned to continue the practice as they implemented the federal application for the Reading Excellence Act.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 445 BY INSERTING THE PHRASE, SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH, ON PAGE 2, LINE 38, ON PART (A), BEHIND THE WORD READING.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION FAILED. (ASSEMBLYPERSONS ANGLE, BROWER, CEGAVSKE, CHOWNING, AND COLLINS VOTED YES. ASSEMBLYPERSONS DE BRAGA AND GUSTAVSON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS ABSTAINED. ALL OTHERS VOTED NO).

**********

Mrs. Cegavske discussed the committee’s action on S.B. 104. She questioned the action considering the students were unsuccessful because of the inadequacy of the administration and the system. She felt the committee should explore what the students needed to succeed. She proposed exempting the 1999 high school seniors from the proficiency test. She argued the high schools would not allow the senior who did not pass the test to return in the fall. They would not receive any remediation classes and would not receive their diplomas.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO RESCIND ACTION ON S.B. 104, WHICH AMENDED THE BILL BY REDUCING THE PASSING SCORE ON THE STATE PROFICIENCY EXAM FROM 61 TO 57.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Cegavske explained her rationale for the motion. She reiterated her concern about lowering the test scores. She related an earlier discussion with a state board of education member about exempting the seniors. The board member indicated exempting the seniors was deliberated by the board but never presented it to the committee. It was dismaying the state allowed the schools to substitute woodworking for math credits and then expected the students to know the math elements in the test. She asked the committee if they had been fair to the students. She noted the success of the testing in the State of Virginia and their implemented phases. Nevada raised their requirements without providing the students the material.

Chairman Williams believed the major concern was the students and their position. He observed the 1999 senior class faced three new requirements set forth by the 1997 legislature. First, they mandated the graduation requirement at 22 ½ credits. Second, they set a higher passing score for the proficiency exam. Third, they implemented a more difficult test.

Chairman Williams articulated the contentious element of the situation. He reviewed testimony. Some school districts stated there was slow implementation in informing students of required classes. More organized school districts could not allow students to take or retake classes needed to pass the test because of time constrictions. He reminded the committee the legislature did not phase the test in over time as recommended by the state board of education.

Chairman Williams remarked the legislature would not have the opportunity to contend with the situation until the 2001 Legislative Session. He thought Mrs. Cegavske’s suggestion was probably the fairest for the students. In addition, the standard score would remain in place and effective for the upcoming year. He supported the motion.

Mrs. Angle presented information to the committee concerning the proficiency exam (Exhibit D). The state implemented a high school proficiency exam in 1977. She reviewed the fluctuation of passing scores between 1977 and 1999. She discussed the implementation of the new test in 1997 and the high percentage of students who failed. She stated her concern over the high amount of failing scores and the continual fluctuation of the passing scores.

Mrs. Angle asked the committee to review the information concerning the Nevada reading scores on the Terra Nova and National Assessment of Education Progress tests (Exhibit E). She cited only 48 percent of the Nevada fourth grade could read at that grade level. She called attention to paragraph 4 of the article on page 3 of Exhibit E discussing the call to scale down or dismiss the exams.

She voiced her objection to lowering the passing score without examining the causes of the failing scores. By lowering the test scores, they harmed students by sending them into the world without the basic skills needed. She declared the committee should stop lowering scores and dismissing the test. She suggested implementing programs to teach the students the needed skills.

Chairman Williams thanked Mrs. Angle for her comments. He suggested sending a letter to each school district indicating the districts’ responsibility to require students to take classes parallel to test content.

Mr. Collins discussed his doubt the prescribed curriculum did not include the new test’s content. Mrs. Angle concurred with Mr. Collins' point regarding the curriculum. She remarked they spent a majority of the meeting discussing what the curriculum would entail. She referenced several bills heard by the committee during the session which would help correct the situation, yet the committee defeated the bills. She expressed her frustration over the inability to pass legislation which would increase the success of Nevada’s students.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 104 EXEMPTING THE CLASS 1998-1999 FROM REQUIREMENTS OF THE HIGH SCHOOL PROFICIENCY EXAM FOR GRADUATION.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Kelly explained the Legal Division would need to draft the language of the amendment to assure the implementation of intent of the motion. He advised the committee they could not exempt the students from the required proficiency examination. Chairman Williams clarified the intent of the motion, stating the committee would remove the requirement of the proficiency examination scores for graduation for the 1998-1999 class. Dr. Rheault agreed they could not repeal the required examination, only the required scores for graduation.

Mrs. Angle asked if it was a possibility to use the old version of the proficiency test until they could implement a curriculum parallel to the new test. Dr. Rheault explained they replaced the old test because it did not measure the student’s expected knowledge. He felt they could not go back to the old test. Mrs. Angle also expressed concern about the classes of 2000 and 2001 and their potential failure. She felt those two classes were not prepared to take the test either.

Mrs. de Braga objected to exempting students who would not have passed any test they gave. She suggested the committee leave the bill as drafted and send the letter suggested by Chairman Williams with the additional item explaining that it was the school’s responsibility to prepare students to pass the test. She expressed trepidation about the school districts repetitively asking for exemption from the proficiency test.

Mr. Collins stated not every student would pass the proficiency test. There was only one reason he would consider exempting students. He doubted whether they were testing the students on the material they were teaching. He listed other problems with which the schools contended daily. He believed the exemption for the 1998-1999 class was fair only because they were not prepared for the changes implemented. He argued the legislature continually moved dates back for different entities enabling those entities to meet requirements. Therefore, they should give the same opportunity for the students. He was willing to exempt the students for 1 year. He reiterated some students would still fail no matter what the legislature did.

Mrs. Koivisto agreed with Mr. Collins. However, she expressed concern about the requirement for graduation. She wanted to ensure the students successfully completed the graduation requirements. Dr. Rheault addressed Mrs. Koivisto's concerns by assuring her the students would only graduate if the students completed the 22 ½ credits. If the committee exempted the proficiency exam scores, any student with the 22½ credits would graduate, whether the student passed regular, English as a second language, or special education classes.

Mr. Cook asserted the substantial failure rate of the proficiency test was a difficult situation. The old version of the test was not a rigorous test. They based the current test, implemented in the last 2 years, on the 1992 course of study requirements. It was not based it on the new standards. He declared as difficult as it was to cope with the failure of students who did not learn the material taught in the curriculum for the past 6 years, he disagreed with reducing the passing score of the proficiency test or absolving students from the requirement. He believed the test was appropriate.

Mr. Cook asked the committee what it meant to enforce standards. He contended it was not supplying excuses. He felt the committee should address successful math education. He suggested competent teachers, appropriate curriculum, and high expectations. The students could accomplish the standards set by the state. The schools needed to focus on the students who did not meet the standards. However, absolving the students from the standards was wrong. He exclaimed it lowered the bar.

Mr. Cook stated the board of education removed the cap limiting the number of times a student could take the test. The students who faced the final challenge and did not pass the test could continue to try until they passed. They could receive their diploma. He felt the local school districts were obligated to remediate the students until they passed the test.

Mrs. Chowning stated the state legislature made a strong commitment to raising standards. However, those plans were for future classes. They were not for the class who did not have the opportunity to learn the material. It was intolerable to penalize the students caught in the transition.

Mrs. Chowning reviewed the three new requirements the class had faced. She asserted too many students failed the test. A large percentage of students who failed the test received above average scores in classes. According to her sources, the students did not have an unlimited opportunity to take the test. They only had one chance to take the test once they finished in June and then they would have to pay to take the test. She felt it was unfair. She contended the students fulfilled their responsibility by attending 12 years of school and earning 22 ½ credits.

Mrs. Chowning added it was the responsibility of the legislature to question what went wrong. She agreed with Chairman Williams and Mrs. de Braga’s idea of drafting a letter to the school districts. It was important to realize they were responsible for preparing the students for the test. She also agreed with Mrs. Angle’s point about the need for quality teaching and high standards. She asserted they were setting those requirements with the recent legislation, which would supply the schools with an outline of standards to follow. She supported the motion.

Mr. Collins agreed it was time the students confronted the reality of not knowing the basic skills they were responsible for learning. He also wondered how a student could pass a math class and fail the test. He asked for clarification about the relationship between the current test and the 1992 curriculum, which they changed since implementation. Mr. Cook said the curriculum had been in place for the math since 1992. The previous test was based on the same curriculum. There were expanded levels of difficulty for the questions when they revised the test in 1997. They also raised the passing requirement based on the expansion of questioning, however it was still based on the 1992 math curriculum. Mr. Collins summarized the curriculum remained the same since 1992 but they enhanced the test and raised score. He asked how long the 22 ½ credits were required for graduation. Mr. Cook replied the requirement was implemented with the freshman class of 1989. He corrected the committee stating the graduation credit requirement had not changed, only the test and the passing score.

Mr. Cook stated if the legislature exempted the senior class of 1998-1999, they would corrupt educational standards. He suggested helping students become proficient in math, not absolve them from math proficiency. First, they needed to instill a high expectation for math proficiency, then they needed proficient math teachers. Finally, they needed to question the curriculums of the local school districts. He exclaimed they should have explored those issues in 1992.

Mrs. de Braga reviewed the testimony from school districts that recognized and resolved potential problems. Some districts informed parents about needed classes for passing the proficiency exam. Other schools with a high percentage of test failures on the first try supplied their students with study courses to ensure passage on the second try. She stated she voted for the measure which lowered scores for a year because some school districts did not prepare their students for the test properly. She felt the passage of the new proposal would result in students who could not read and calculate mathematical problems. She felt the new measure undermined any attempt to raise standards.

Mr. Collins asked Mr. Cook how often the students could retake the test. Mr. Cook replied the state board removed the cap limiting the number of times a student could take the test. Currently the test was offered three times a year, once in fall, the spring, and summer. Dr. Rheault added they scheduled an extra test for the seniors who did not pass a few days ago. Mr. Collins asked what other subjects were tested in proficiency exam. Dr. Rheault explained the test was on math and reading. There was also a separate writing requirement as well.

Mr. Collins asked for the test score statistics. Dr. Rheault reported 96 percent of the seniors passed the reading portion and approximately 20 percent of the 2,200 individuals who still needed to pass the math portion probably would not pass, which was the trend with the last three tests. State wide, 10 percent of seniors failed the math portion of the test. 20 percent of those individuals would not pass the next test. Of 2301 seniors who failed the math portion, 800 had failed the reading of the test as well. Of the 800 who did not pass either portion, 756 were special education students who could qualify through their Individual Education Plan (IEP) for an adjusted diploma. Mr. Collins stated if he had known the exact numbers sooner, he would not have supported lowering the test scores in the first place.

Mrs. Chowning clarified several points. First, she stated 10 percent not 4 percent of students failed the math portion. Second, the 22½ credit requirement already effected six classes. She agreed they should retain any student who did not pass the test. However, it was not happening.

Mrs. Chowning asked for the failure percentages for the classes of 1998 and 1997. Dr. Rheault reported the 1997 class took the old version of the test. When they took it as juniors 17 percent failed the math portion. Of the juniors who took the new test in the spring of 1998, 33.9 percent of them failed the math portion. Mrs. Chowning inquired about the seniors. Dr. Rheault explained they allowed 1997 seniors to take the old exam. 98.5 percent passed the exam by the time they graduated. Mrs. Chowning stated the comparison of the 1.5 percentage of failing seniors in 1997 to the 10 percent in 1999 represented a major problem.

Mrs. Angle related her experiences as a student in the Washoe County School District. She inquired about the credibility of the test the students were taking. Dr. Rheault explained the state developed the test based on the course of study passed by the state board of education. Teachers internally within the state and other committees developed the questions. They developed the test for Nevada schools based on Nevada’s curriculum. Mrs. Angle observed the exam tested the curriculum not the students. Dr. Rheault said it was a criteria reference test, developed to measure the amount of content taught. She explored the logic of the test. They were holding students accountable for the curriculum. Dr. Rheault replied the students were accountable for the information taught to them. They based the test on the course of study objectives. They used the objectives to build the high school exam. They had 2 years to achieve the 34 objectives. They tested the students on the 34 objectives.

Chairman Williams postponed further discussion on S.B. 104 and asked the committee to consider S.B. 435.

Mrs. Koivisto reminded the committee about Clark County School District’s request to amend the bill on page 3, section 4, subsection 4. Mr. Williams asked for motion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 435 ON PAGE 3, SECTION 4, SUBSECTION 4.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Koivisto asked if they appointed a subcommittee for the bill. Chairman Williams informed her they did not.

Mr. Collins announced he would abstain on the vote because he still had concerns about the inspections.

Mrs. Chowning inquired about the impact costs to the school districts. Mr. Kelly replied there was $16,800 fiscal note from the NDE for each fiscal year indefinitely. However, none of the school districts submitted fiscal notes. Mr. Collins believed they testified they could absorb the cost. Dr. Rheault thought it was for travel and expenses for the advisory committee. However, he was unsure and asked if he could check his records. Ms. Tittle called attention to page 2, line 12, noting the school district would absorb the fiscal impact. CCSD was willing to absorb the cost.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE).

**********

Chairman Williams recessed the meeting at 5 p.m.

Chairman Williams reconvened the committee at 6:15 p.m.

Chairman Williams reviewed the discussion about exempting the 1998-1999 class from the high school proficiency test. The issue of the uncertain future of the 800 to 2000 students was complex. The students who satisfied their 22½ credit requirement yet did not pass the exam would not graduate. Those students were not just numbers to the committee. They were faces with families and people who care about them. Those students were constituents of the 63 Nevada legislators. The committee committed themselves to work through the situation. They understood the dilemma faced by the NED, state board of education, local school boards, and teachers.

Chairman Williams expressed his respect for the understanding, commitment, and sensitivity of the members of the committee. He appreciated the committee’s dedication to the issue. Instead of dismissing the struggling students as failures, they worked for a fair solution to unanticipated problems. He asked the committee to extend themselves beyond what they already had done. They should seek the advice of their colleagues, including the Senate. The issue warranted the suggestions, comments, and dialogues of both houses of the legislature. He thought the students and their families deserved the articulation, deliberation, and wisdom of the committee and their colleagues. He asked the committee to collectively consult colleagues and deal with the issue before the end of the session.

Chairman Williams announced he wanted to adjourn the meeting and start fresh the next morning. They still had options to move legislation forward without abandoning the issue. They would act on the issue in the morning. He asked Mrs. Cegavske to rescind her motion to exempt the 1998-1999 class from the proficiency test scores as a requirement for graduation.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO RESCIND HER MOTION WHICH AMENDED S.B. 104 EXEMPTING THE CLASS 1998-1999 FROM REQUIREMENTS OF THE HIGH SCHOOL PROFICIENCY EXAM FOR GRADUATION.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

**********

Chairman Williams discussed the wasted time trying to place the blame during the past legislative session. He declared when they entertained the issue, they would welcome the opinions of the members of the state board of education, personnel employees from the NDE, and anyone who was interested in resolving the issue. They planned to solve the problem in the best interest of the students before the end of session.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS S.B.104 WITH DELAYED DATES FOR THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

**********

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Lori Fitzgerald,

Transcribing Secretary

Hilary Graunke,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: