The Committee on Education was called to order at 4:00 p.m., on Wednesday, May 26, 1999. Vice Chairman Tom Collins presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada and the meeting was video conferenced to Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building in Las Vegas, 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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Vice-Chair Collins convened the meeting in Carson City with video conference to Las Vegas.

Vice Chair Collins stated no one had signed in as yet to testify on A.C. R. 72 and announced as a courtesy, action would not be taken on the resolution until the arrival of Chairman Williams.

Vice Chairman Collins opened the meeting to discussion on high school proficiency exams.

Kathy King, Reed High School math teacher in Sparks, Nevada, testified she had taught two sections of the proficiency math preparation and remediation classes for a year to seniors and juniors who had failed the proficiency test.

Ms. King stated she would explain the problems that had been created in the process. She noted mathematics had never seen so much press, but that was a positive issue. Ms. King stated she and fellow teachers with whom she had spoken were thrilled that mathematics standards would be raised.

Ms. King stated the issues that concerned her had been revealed as she taught remedial math during the past year. Students and teachers were caught unaware when new proficiency tests were implemented.

When students entered high school in 1995 they were made aware of mathematics requirements at that time. The requirement at that time simply stated a need for 2 years of mathematics without further limitation. The remedial students had found math difficult and uninteresting. It had not been a talent, skill, or gift for those students and they took an "easy-out" by signing up for lower level classes (cores A and B). Some had taken core B and C and some had taken algebra and geometry but did not take it as seriously as they might have, had they realized they would be tested at a higher level. Students had met requirements just enough to pass in the courses they had chosen.

Suddenly in the students’ junior year a test was administered that was much more difficult than had been anticipated.

Ms. King stated it seemed unfair to change the "rules of the game." She noted she spent every school day with precisely those students who had been hit hard by the change. Ms. King commented there were only two remediation classes taught in the Washoe County School District, one at Reed High School and one at Wooster High School. Other schools had tried various innovations such as lunchroom classes or volunteers to help tutor the students who needed remediation.

Very little teaching material was available when the classes were started.
Ms. King stated she was given a list of sample questions provided by the state Department of Education. Students had worked hard and tried to make up for the fact they had taken the easier path in meeting the 1995 math requirements. Ms. King commented many students had a math memory problem and until the proficiency exam, it had not been that important. Such students had chosen future careers and goals that were attainable with the level of mathematics they had already achieved. Both parents and students saw it as unfair that the new requirements were sprung on students halfway through their high school years. She added, no matter what the legislature did, it would not please everyone.

Ms. King asked the committee to err if they must on the side of humanity for those students caught up in the issue halfway through their high school studies.

Ms. King stated the mathematical standards of future Nevada students could be raised. She concluded teachers and students alike were blind-sided by the difficulty of the proficiency exam. She noted the students in her remedial classes had tried very hard. Some students were dropping out of school as a result of the math test and she related the story of one student who went to live with an uncle in California to graduate. The student had come to Nevada from California where he had already passed the math portion of the proficiency test in California and the reading and writing portion in Nevada. California would accept Nevada’s test results but Nevada would not accept the California test the youth had taken.

Three students had been offered scholarships, two in athletics and one in band, but they could not accept the scholarships until they knew if they could pass the math proficiency exam. Ms. King noted they were not too far away from passing currently.

Vice Chair Collins asked how long Ms. King had taught the program at Reed High School. Ms. King responded she had taught at Reed for 16 years and had a total of 23 years in mathematics education. The remedial class had only been implemented during the current school year.

Vice-Chair Collins asked if Reed High School had counselors and if those counselors advised students that to enter a trade or enter college they should have at least one semester of algebra. Ms. King responded Reed did have counselors and that core C provided pre-algebra and algebra courses. A "one-two" credit in algebra was given to those who completed core C and counselors did advise the students in that manner.

Assemblywoman de Braga noted Ms. King had commented some students were near passing and might have to give up scholarships because of the math test. She noted the students could take the test again in June. Ms. King responded the students would be taking that test. She had offered the students additional help-sessions to further their preparations for the test.

Assemblywoman de Braga asked what Ms. King’s opinion was regarding allowing students who did not quite pass the test to "graduate" with an empty diploma. Ms. King said the students’ feelings regarding a diploma that was actually a certificate of attendance would not look good to future employers. Additionally, she said students felt they had done everything required to graduate because they had attended class and achieved the 22.5 credits as well.

Assemblywoman de Braga said the students would still have the opportunity to get a diploma through the remedial classes and Ms. King agreed. She added many of the students were willing to do that.

Assemblywoman Koivisto asked if Ms. King felt the students who had taken the math proficiency test a number of times were feeling a little panic to be facing it again, thus creating more difficulty for the students. Ms. King agreed, adding the math proficiency test issue took test anxiety to a new height. She commented the test available on the internet of which most everyone had seen copies was "light years" easier than the actual test the students had just taken 2 weeks prior. Each test was tougher than the last one the students took.

Assemblywoman Koivisto asked if the proficiency tests had any purpose other than showing Nevada’s placement in the multi-state ranking. Ms. King replied she had very strong feelings about the issue. Teachers did want students to meet minimum requirements and to be educated when they went into the work force. She also felt many of the items on which students were being tested were not realistic in the Nevada economy. Ms. King commented she did not believe a forklift driver needed the ability to solve simultaneous equations or factor trinomials. No calculators were allowed during testing. Ms. King asked when the last time was that anyone even tried to balance a checkbook or figure taxes without using a calculator. Ms. King concluded a learner who did not learn fast or remember long was left standing by "the train passing on by."
A proficiency test was needed, but the right things were not being tested to determine proficiency.

Assemblywoman Chowning commented the Clark County School District had offered one-on-one tutoring to any parent of a student who had not passed the latest math portion of the proficiency test to prepare the student for the next testing. The feeling was the tutoring would help students grasp the concepts they were missing that caused them to fail. She asked if Washoe County was offering a similar type of opportunity. She also asked what the best solution might be. Assemblywoman Chowning asked if Ms. King felt the current group of students should be "grandfathered" in because the test was more difficult and the standard had been raised without their having had the proper training. Should more opportunities to take the test be offered. She asked if a "contingency" diploma should be given. She commented Clark County had stated students would be given several opportunities to take the test over the summer months.

Ms. King noted Ms. Merrill would be the best person to ask if Washoe County offered one-on-one tutoring because she represented testing services in the county. Personnel and financial constraints had not allowed Washoe County to offer tutoring to-date. She commented that was the more powerful way to teach students and ensure their obtaining the needed knowledge.

Ms. King opined that it was awfully hard to right something that was done wrong from the start. The proficiency issue should have been phased in. It could have been a pride issue if it was started with the sixth graders and they were told that by the time they were eleventh graders they would be taking a really hard math test, it would have become a challenge.

Ms. King suggested perhaps the students could still receive diplomas if they had met all other requirements and their diploma was stamped, "Has not passed the math portion of the proficiency test." In that way future employers would see that students had taken all required classes but had not passed the math test. She worried about some of the students who had skills in many areas and were being held accountable in one specific area. Ms. King noted she had one student whose grade point average was 3.9 if her math grades were not considered. She added the student had a true math disability. She reminded committee members students were individual people with one specific problem. She recommended graduation for the class of 1999 with a stamp on those diplomas for students who had not yet passed the math proficiency exam.

Assemblyman Brower asked if the current class of high school seniors knew when they were freshmen of the type of math problems that would be required on the proficiency test. Ms. King responded the freshmen of 1995 had not known that information. Mr. Brower stated the committee had received some conflicting testimony in that area.

Assemblyman Brower asked if the requirements on the math portion of the test had changed since the current seniors were freshmen. Ms. King replied affirmatively. Mr. Brower asked when the seniors knew of the change.
Ms. King responded in October of their junior year, students had to take a test that did not "count." Students were told it would "count," but that test had actually been used for statistically norming the test.

Assemblyman Brower stated previous testimony from a State Board of Education member had indicated that the standards had not changed during the current seniors’ high school careers. Ms. King stated all the topics on the test were included in the mathematics curriculum, but the degree to which they were emphasized and addressed was lacking in the core A, B, and C. Specifically geometry pieces were mentioned but not to a degree that would cause a high school teacher to cover them as fully as must be done. A student could take math core A and B classes and never have seen some of those concepts.

Assemblyman Brower asked if it was true that the test included some subject material (specifically algebra and geometry) that a high school student was not required to take in course work. Ms. King responded that was true. Mr. Brower followed up by asking if there was any other subject matter on the test in which a high school student was not required to have course work. Ms. King replied she would not have knowledge about the reading and writing sections of the test.

Dotty Merrill, director of Testing Services, Washoe County School District testified Ms. King had spoken eloquently about the dilemma that her students, particularly, were facing.

Ms. Merrill stated at each of the high schools in the Washoe County School District, many efforts had been made to work specifically with students to provide intensive remediation. Ms. King taught a yearlong course of remedial math at Reed High School. At other high schools classes were implemented for the spring semester, opportunities were made available at lunchtime, after school, before school and other time for tutoring. Some of the opportunities included one-on-one or one-on-two tutoring. A number of teachers and administrators at various schools worked diligently with students on both reading and math to provide the kind of focused, intensive review or first-time learning necessary for students to pass the test.

District-wide at present, 94.6 percent of the class of 1999 had passed the test Ms. Merrill noted. That occurred through efforts of high school administrators and teachers. She added that 94.6 percent of students who had passed the test should get as much attention as those who had not yet passed. Those students had shown a level of commitment, diligence, and achievement to get to that point. She recommended greater acknowledgement of those students who had passed the reading and math exams.

Ms. Merrill stated summer school plans included four sections. Each section would have 28 students with a teacher and an adult aide to focus solely on math remediation. It was expected those sections would accommodate the seniors in Washoe County School District. Two summer school sections were planned for remedial reading classes as well. If the legislation passed, those students would then have opportunities in July or August to re-take the exams after summer school.

Assemblywoman de Braga asked if remediation was available for those students to prepare for the proficiency exam to be given in June. Ms. Merrill responded it had been a real problem because students were preparing to take their final exams in regular classes and many of those students would have completed 22.5 credits and were looking forward to graduation. She added those students’ degree of motivation was not at a peak at the present time. Schools were willing to work with students.

Assemblywoman de Braga noted that was one reason school districts might at least want to consider allowing such students to go across the stage at graduation. Mrs. de Braga asked if it had not raised "red flags" to educators when students failed the exams in their junior year and if nothing could have been done in the 2 intervening years. Ms. Merrill replied a number of students went to summer school and some took additional math classes in the fall of their senior year. In some cases the learning that needed to be done could not happen in 4 weeks, and it had taken a longer period of time to achieve a competency level.

Assemblywoman de Braga commented the legislators had heard some testimony that students either got terribly alarmed when they first took the exams or they had buckled down and taken care of the problem. She recalled Douglas County had actually planned ahead and told students, "This is what you are going to need to know when you take proficiency exams." She stated the issue was a tough one, but if standards were to be raised, educators could not say, "oh well, if no one can get there, we’ll just back down." She commented some school districts had made the standards work while others had not. If some districts had made it work, she was encouraged that others should be able to do so as well.

Assemblywoman Parnell said her calculations came to 5.4 percent of Washoe County seniors who would not be graduating. She asked if that percentage was based solely on the results of the proficiency exam or if there were other factors that played a part. She asked how many students would not have been graduating anyway. Ms. Merrill replied she did not have that answer. In some cases it would depend on if the students passed or failed their final exams because some students were very close. In that group were special education students who would not receive a standard diploma and would opt for an adjusted diploma.

Assemblywoman Parnell asked if at the end of the semester, after final exams would the district then do an analysis of who did not graduate solely based upon the lack of ability of students to pass the math proficiency. Ms. Merrill responded Washoe County had done a preliminary analysis of 104 students who failed the both reading and math proficiency exams in April 1998, October 1998, February 1999, and April 1999. The analysis had revealed over
75 percent of the 104 students had not taken the most rigorous courses, had not moved past algebra I or II, and some had not passed pre-algebra. The average grade point in just the math portion was below a 2.4 for the entire group. Based upon that small sample it appeared students were taking less rigorous courses and doing more poorly in those courses. The group of
104 students also had excessive absenteeism. An overall study would be done.

Assemblywoman Parnell expressed concern for how many students had already dropped out in their senior year after having taken the test two or three times and decided to quit. Ms. Merrill noted in the group of 104 students, only one had dropped out between the February and April tests. Eight students were not in class for the April test.

Assemblyman Gustavson noted Ms. King had taught math for 23 years and asked how the proficiency test given today would compare to one that might have been given when Ms. King first started teaching. He asked if the teaching standard had gone down and asked if the same test had been given 20 years ago if the students would have passed it then. Ms. King responded when she began teaching in 1968, exit proficiency tests were not being given. She stated she understood Nevada began proficiency testing in about 1979 with a test that tested more on basic skills than on algebra, geometry, and probability. She noted it was difficult to say what would happen if today’s test was given
20 years ago. Mr. Gustavson pursued the issue asking, although tests were not required in 1968, what was Ms. King’s opinion regarding how many would have passed if the test was given then. He asked why teaching levels had not increased to provide students the expertise to pass the exit exams. Vice-Chair Collins clarified that when Mr. Gustavson was referring to teaching levels he was referring to material taught. Ms. King replied education swung back and forth over periods of time. She added it swung back and forth between practical application and theoretical. The current curriculum was at the height of theoretical. Current high school curriculum did not teach a student to balance a checkbook, how to complete a tax return, or how interest worked on a loan. Students were young and needed guidance and did not make connections as easily as might be desired. Curriculum was moving toward the practical again at the current time.

Assemblywoman Angle stated it was her understanding of the history of the high school proficiency exam was that it began in 1977. In 1992 the state began the curriculum shift toward the current test. In 1995 the test was given for the first time, but it had not counted. Ms. Merrill responded students took the test for the first time as a pilot in October 1997. Ms. Angle asked if 1999 was the first year the tests had counted. Ms. Merrill explained the tests had counted for the 1999 graduates beginning in April 1998 as juniors. If a student failed the test at that time, they could take it again in October 1998, February 1999, April 1999, and finally on May 11, 1999.

Assemblywoman Angle noted 1998 seniors had to pass a proficiency test and asked which one it was. Ms. Merrill replied the test taken by 1998 seniors was the exit exam established in 1990. Ms. Angle noted both tests had been given in 1998, but 1998 seniors were responsible for the 1990 test only. Ms. Merrill commented 1998 seniors who still needed to take the test in April 1998 had taken the 1990 test version, while juniors had taken the new test.

Assemblywoman Angle asked what percentage of 1998 seniors had not passed their proficiency test. Ms. Merrill replied in her district (Washoe County), 94.6 percent of students had passed the test. Assemblywoman Angle asked if the 1998 version was administered to current seniors they would be able to pass that test. Ms. Merrill responded not all students would pass the test, but students in the 94 percent range would pass the test.

Vice-Chair Collins commented it seemed between school boards and the legislature curriculum was constantly being changed and asked what difficulty was experienced by teaching staff trying to do their jobs. Ms. Merrill opined it would be wonderful for teachers, students, and parents if when students started in first grade, they knew what would be expected of them as they took an exam at fourth grade, eighth grade, tenth grade and eleventh grade. That didn’t however, seem to be the way the world worked. She commended the 1997 legislature for raising the educational ante for all schools. All students had benefited from that. There was always difficulty as new implementation overlaid the old expectations.

Ms. King also commented there was difficulty in the "changing of the guard" and the overlay. The other aspect was that teachers were late in finding out the result of tests. She pointed out that when the exit exam was given to the Class of 1999 as juniors, the results were not received until close to the end of the school year. Letters went out after school was over to their homes and many students already had their senior class course work picked out. Many students were simply not able to rearrange their schedules to accommodate the remedial math classes.

When the class took the test again in October 1999, those results were not received until December 1999. She asked how teachers were supposed to remediate because it was not known until then what the low points were, especially on an individual basis. The result was students got the news in time for Christmas vacation and students came back to school with 3 or 4 weeks to get ready for the February test. As a classroom teacher, it was a real handicap to not know the status of students and where help was needed for 3 months.

Vice-Chair Collins asked how and where the tests were graded. Ms. Merrill replied in Washoe County school administrators took the tests with the test booklets to the county central office from which they were delivered directly to the State Department of Education for grading.

Assemblyman Williams asked when the tests were changed, how many directives were given to the school district in reference to the new materials that could be taught to the students and provided to parents. He asked if teachers were adequately informed about the test changes. Ms. Merrill asked if Mr. Williams was referring specifically to notification about the test or item content. Assemblyman Williams stated he was referring to notification, adding some counties seemed to do far better than others and the conclusion had to be drawn that perhaps some districts had not been properly informed.

Assemblyman Williams asked if it was felt teachers had received sufficient time and information to in turn provide adequate information to parents and students. Ms. Merrill responded in her district school administrators had worked very hard to notify teachers, parents, and students about the test. Letters were sent home to parents before the testing in April 1998. The brochures provided by the Department of Education had also been sent home to all sophomores and juniors. In September of 1998, prior to the October testing, she had written a letter that was sent home to parents of all juniors and seniors who still needed to take the test. The letter also went to parents of all sophomores who would not be taking the test until fall 1999. Newsletter articles had been written. In her perspective every conceivable effort for proper notification had been made. She commented the second issue was whether teachers were the recipient of information which would have allowed them to adequately prepare students in the classroom. Ms. King addressed the second issue. She stated teachers were provided with sample questions from the State Department of Education that were helpful. Of course teachers had noted that every question had been couched in words that had to be deciphered causing nonreaders to also become nonmath students. Ms. King emphasized remediation could not be completed in just a few weeks.

Assemblyman Williams stated he had posed the question not to point blame at any one entity. He opined the first thing that needed to occur in the dilemma was that all those involved had to first admit that students were in a very uncomfortable situation. He emphasized he was not pointing blame at any one entity, although his personal opinion was that legislators bore some of the blame because the stricter testing had not been phased in.

Assemblyman Williams stated the issue kept being raised but the problem could be solved to some degree. The intent of the current work session had been to gather ideas that would not allow the situation to occur again and try to deal with the current situation.

Vice-Chair Collins noted nine people had signed in from Las Vegas to speak and asked them to come forward in groups of three.

Phyllis Cardona, parent of a 1999 senior testified from Las Vegas that her son had taken the test five times and had not yet passed. She testified her son had met all the requirements the school district had specified when he was a freshman. But because he could not pass the geometry portion of the proficiency exam, he could not receive his diploma.

Ms. Cardona stated when her son was a freshman he was told he needed two credits in math and was currently in an algebra class. She added he had worked his way up to graduation and his diploma was pulled back right at the threshold. She added there were other students in the same situation.

Ms. Cardona stated she did not oppose testing, only that it had not been phased in. The freshman class should have been told what would be required in their senior year.

Gina Fountain, parent of a 1999 Green Valley High School senior testified from Las Vegas that for 13 years she had been pushing her daughter to do the very best she could possibly do. Only at the end of that time was she given an exam that blind-sided her and was told that although she had met her graduation requirements, she could participate in the graduation ceremonies, but could not receive a diploma. Ms. Fountain stated she refused to accept that dictum. She added she had not gone through 13 years of getting her child to attend school on a regular basis, to maintain a 3.5 grade point average and have her be told she could not receive a diploma that was rightfully hers.

Ms. Fountain further testified that the school district had not supplied her daughter with the ammunition she would need to pass the test. She commented a child could not be given a test in their junior year for which they had never been provided the materials and concepts. Ms. Fountain added she would not accept her daughter’s receiving a "diploma containing a certificate of attendance."

Ms. Fountain stated if the same standard was to be applied to future students, administrators needed to look at grade school and middle school children and begin changing curriculum at those levels. She suggested the proficiency exam should be used as a test of how well the district was doing. She commented the current problems told her the school district was not doing its job. The curriculum was not designed to prepare students for the test they had taken. She commented a high school junior could not be tested, fail the test, and then in addition to other requirements they had yet to meet, expect them to go back in time and learn concepts in math to graduate.

A situation was being created in which more tax dollars would have to provide tutorial services when the concepts should have been provided prior to the student reaching high school.

Ms. Fountain said the situation disgusted her, although she applauded the students who had passed the proficiency exams. The situation caused students to not be motivated to take the final exam. There were students currently in tenth or eleventh grade who were facing the same thing without proper preparation.

Ms. Fountain urged the committee not to allow the children to be whipping posts by withholding diplomas.

Tanya Knight, parent, testified from Las Vegas and urged the committee to take another look at the issue. She commented those at the hearing were adults with job requirements and were given performance reviews. She asked what would happen if a boss provided a job assignment and then after 2 or 3 years the worker was told, "You can’t get a raise because we have changed the requirements of the job." She asked if the committee would find that fair.

Ms. Knight stated her son had never given her any trouble during his school years and each time he had taken the test and failed it by one point it had taken away from his self-esteem.

Ms. Knight said her son had never missed an after-school one-on-one tutoring session and she had seen him disciplining himself with the telephone, television, giving up working in his senior year, and basketball and instead studying because he knew he had to pass the test.

On the May 11 test, Ms. Knight’s mother was on her deathbed and subsequently died on May 13, and yet her son had gone to school to take the test. Their family was very hurt at the present. She asked if the lessons of Littleton, Colorado had been forgotten so soon.

Ms. Knight had talked to other parents who had told her their children were suicidal over the situation. She noted her son, for the first time that day, had not called her to say he was home from school and that hurt her as a parent because she had been involved.

Ms. Knight asked how a child could be an average student for 4 years, take algebra I and algebra II, and yet because the child had not taken geometry, they were not allowed to receive a diploma upon graduation. She echoed previous testimony that commended students who had passed the proficiency tests, however, she added she knew her son could do some things those who had passed the test could not do.

Ms. Knight commented her son was a thespian who could read a script and memorize it within a matter of hours. Her son was an eloquent speaker and she asked how anyone could say her son was not good enough to graduate.
Ms. Knight stated she resented the action and asked the committee to rescind the requirements for the 1999 seniors.

Assemblywoman Chowning thanked each of the parents who had provided testimony. She asked if any of the parents were in agreement with the opportunity that Clark County was giving parents and students and whether the parents had or were willing to take advantage of the one-on-one program. Ms. Knight stated a teacher at Rancho High School had been terrific in working with her son after school and was as hurt as if he were the parent when her son failed the test the last time. Her family had taken advantage of every opportunity. She added every person was not good in every subject whether it was math, reading, sewing or basketball. She noted those same people were good at other things and if the student had passed all other requirements, how could they be told, "You didn’t do this quite good enough, so you’re being rejected."

Ms. Fountain commented that she and her daughter had taken the tutorial and an additional math class. She stated the committee seemed to be missing the point that students took certain classes because they were interested in them. She had taken pre-algebra, algebra I, trigonometry, and geometry because she was interested in math and becoming an accountant. She noted a year’s worth of concepts could not be taught in a brief tutorial class. Children could not be expected to grasp the concepts taught in algebra and geometry in a tutorial kind of situation.

Ms. Cardona added her son had also taken the tutorial program and was still not passing either.

Assemblywoman Koivisto asked parents the same question she had asked of the math teacher. She asked if the parents felt their children were currently feeling some extreme test anxiety that made it even more difficult for them to pass the test. Ms. Knight stated that was an obvious conclusion. She had seen her son’s shoulders shrink more and more after each test. She had not talked to her son on that day for the first time in 4 years and that hurt. She did not want to see her son’s spirit crushed. It was painful to see a student studying and working so hard at something. She commented students were told one thing as freshmen and then another as it came time for graduation. Ms. Knight commented on the test in the junior year where students were told the test counted and then that it had only set the standard and was not counted. She asked how fair that was.

Ms. Cardona said she too had seen her son so emotionally upset that he had broken down crying because of the test. He had been accepted into a college and was scheduled to leave at the end of July and everything was on hold because of the test, and it was emotionally tearing him apart.

Assemblywoman Koivisto asked Ms. Cardona if her son took any math classes in high school, other than basic math and if he had not, how was he accepted into a college. Ms. Cardona responded her son was currently enrolled in an algebra class and would complete it in approximately 2 weeks.

Paul Howarth, representing Parents and Educators for the Opportunity to Learn (PEOPLE), testified from Las Vegas. He explained there were really two new tests. There was the current year’s new test and also the new test for the coming year. The 1997 legislature by virtue of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 568 imposed the timing of the current year’s new test and through NRS 473 had created an even more difficult test for the coming year.

Mr. Howarth testified he supported higher standards, expectations and an adequate opportunity to learn. He stated he had seen and taken the sample test released in May 1999. He noted the only thing he needed was a refresher course on permutations and combinations so that he could do question 16 without drawing a picture. The only thing children needed was an adequate opportunity to learn. He added a crash course in summer school would not be adequate for all the students. He reminded the committee that approximately 10 percent of seniors and 45 percent of 1999 juniors had failed the current year math test.

Mr. Howarth stated on Monday of the current week a senator had asked him what the legislature was doing for the 1999 juniors, almost half of which had failed the current year’s test. The answer was that the test for juniors would be even more difficult in the coming year.

Mr. Howarth had provided committee members with a memo from PEOPLE (Exhibit C), which he said would resolve the unfairness that had resulted from the good intentions of the legislature. Amendment 973 to Senate Bill (S.B.) 104 would have given the class of 2003 and thereafter an adequate opportunity to learn before being tested. He supported that amendment, which would have postponed the test, scheduled for 2001 until 2003.

Exhibit C urged the legislature to make few easy changes to Amendment 973 that would give students who were overlooked, including 1999 seniors, the same opportunity to learn before being tested.

S.B. 104 had been heard on the floor of the Senate on May 25, 1999 and Amendment 973 had not been approved. He knew it was wishful and naïve on his part, but the Senate had proposed a floor amendment to include the PEOPLE memo changes offered. He suggested perhaps the Senate had sent the bill back to the Assembly so that the changes in Exhibit C could be incorporated into Amendment 973.

Mr. Howarth stated as he had studied how the situation had evolved. He had heard a mix of hearsay, speculation, and hopefully a small amount of fact. He had heard that the legislature had tired of waiting for the Department of Education to raise standards so the legislature took over. He had heard about math teachers who had resigned from standards subcommittees in complete frustration.

Vice-Chair Collins asked Mr. Howarth to direct his comments to the proficiency exam under discussion.

Mr. Howarth stated he did not know if anything good would come from the hearing. The only good he could think of was to be fair by giving all students an adequate opportunity to learn before being tested. The PEOPLE memo (Exhibit C) provided a way for that to be accomplished for the current seniors as well as the Class of 2003 and thereafter in his opinion. It would allow the 1999 seniors to take the 1990 version of the proficiency exam. He urged committee members to find a way to incorporate those changes into S.B. 104 before the completion of the session.

Marlene Monteolivo, representing El Mundo, the largest Hispanic newspaper in the state of Nevada, testified from Las Vegas. Approximately 3 weeks previous the newspaper had become aware of a special situation that occurred at Rancho High School, which was situated in a Hispanic community.

Ms. Monteolivo testified the records showed that of 204 Rancho High School seniors that took the test on April 12, 1999, only 20 seniors passed all three tests, (math, reading and writing). She noted that constituted a 90 percent failure rate for Rancho High School seniors. Also, 67 percent of the students at that school were Hispanic. Of those who failed the test, nearly 85 percent were Hispanic Americans. Ms. Monteolivo stated that situation showed without a doubt that the major cause of failure at Rancho High School was the Clark County School District’s inability to put together the resources to teach English reading, writing, and speaking to Hispanic American students.

The majority of those students would receive certificates of attendance rather than diplomas upon graduation and those certificates were basically useless. Ms. Monteolivo stated the problem faced by Rancho High School students was radical and the solutions must be equally powerful. Corrective actions must take place and she wondered if such a graduation rate occurred in a major Midwestern or Eastern state, whether the public would demand immediate corrective legal action under the federal law. On behalf of the Hispanic students of Clark County Ms. Monteolivo asked respectfully that immediate, corrective action be taken.

Patricia Cunningham, representing Concerned Parents, testified from Las Vegas. She opined the speakers before her had adequately discussed the fairness of the test. She directed attention to the more technical aspects of the issue. She noted education was not her field or profession.

Ms. Cunningham asked committee members to answer certain questions:

• The validity and the reliability of the test results;
• What committee constructed the test questions;
• Did the test meet the construct validity portion;
• Were taxpayers and parents allowed to review the resulting data; and
• Was there any instructional validity to the test.

She stated to what her last question referred was there instructional validity in high poverty, high crime, inner city—mostly minority, under equipped, and over stressed schools. Ms. Cunningham stated her belief that at least in Clark County and she suspected all over the state, that different children were taught different things.

Ms. Cunningham stated she did not believe anyone viciously or maliciously set out to under educate anyone’s children. However, if the expectation in certain children in certain groups was lower, was there not the possibility that the instructional level was not as rigorous in some classes either.

Ms. Cunningham noted the current discussion regarded high school juniors and seniors and the changes to higher standards had not occurred yet in the lower levels when the present juniors and seniors were in the lower grades.

She asked if perhaps there had been a lack of instruction in the early years of a child’s education that had resulted in children not being prepared by the time they reached junior high school. She noted that low scores dictated the suggestion of course study that teachers and counselors made to students for their high school studies. She asked if there was a disproportionate number of children being referred to basic math classes they might never get to algebra classes, then that issue went back to instructional validity.

Ms. Cunningham asked if there was a technical manual for the high school proficiency tests, and if committee members were aware of the importance of a technical manual.

Ms. Cunningham stressed education was not her field, but what she had learned was that if there was no technical manual, how could everyone be absolutely sure that the skill the test makers were attempting to measure was in fact, appropriately asked though the test questions. Without a technical manual there was nothing to compare against.

Ms. Cunningham acknowledged the people establishing the test were dedicated, hard working people, but they might not have had the background to construct valid test questions. A great deal of money was spent on consultants to hopefully achieve a good result. She asked if the test process could withstand a legal challenge. She suggested it would not.

Gary Peck, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (ACLU), testified at the request of numerous parents who had called his office to express dismay at the fact their children were being treated so unfairly. He asked if there was a way the ACLU could intervene on behalf of the students to help them receive justice.

Mr. Peck noted he was somewhat jaded and skeptical because it was very late in the legislative session to make substantive changes. He stated he feared the matter would end up being resolved by the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education and possibly even in the context of a lawsuit, all of which he felt was unfortunate.

Mr. Peck explained his background as a long-time professor of sociology, and a career in public policy and law. He stated some of the questions raised by
Ms. Cunningham regarding the reliability and validity of the test were very important questions that needed answers after careful consideration.

Mr. Peck stated he believed the 1997 legislature had good motives. Those motives were principally to ensure educational institutions did a better job of preparing children for the everyday realities with which they were going to be confronted. It had been hoped the proficiency test was a good instrument to help achieve that goal. Mr. Peck felt positively about those efforts.

On a less positive note, Mr. Peck stated in the current situation the actions of, or lack of action on the part of the legislature gave a less generous view.

Mr. Peck stated the bottom line was that there was a fundamental fairness issue at stake. The issue was that students had not had an adequate opportunity to learn those skills that were required to pass the new proficiency exam and the situation would continue until the year 2003.

Mr. Peck opined the school districts entered into a contract with the students by providing in their freshmen year, graduation requirements for a diploma. He noted most of the students had done that and in the middle of their educational careers the rules were changed. He stated no one else would tolerate that on his or her jobs, and it should not be tolerated for the students.

Mr. Peck stated the school system had failed the children, not for lack of effort or good faith. Teachers had made a good faith effort but the rules could not be changed in the middle of the game and then punish the child for failure to meet standards and expectations they had not been aware they would be asked to meet.

Mr. Peck stated the purpose of proficiency tests was saying to students, "Be responsible, learn what we ask you to learn so that you can go out in the world and contribute to society." Mr. Peck stated that was a two-way street. He expressed a fear that the current situation was being driven far more by politics than by careful policy considerations or a concern for the welfare of students.

He stated the situation was very painful, especially for students who maintained a 3.5 grade point average and/or had been accepted at a college of their choice only to have failed the proficiency exam. Mr. Peck stated his hope that people could see the absurdity of the situation, acknowledge it, and do whatever they could to right the wrong. He added if the test, which had been imposed in a profoundly unfair way, disparately impacted students who were from lower socio-economic backgrounds or children of color, it posed a very serious legal problem for the state, the educational system, and the legislature.

Wayne Tanaka, principal, Clark High School in Las Vegas, testified he was present because of the letter that all high school principals in Clark County had signed. He stated the letter implored legislators to find a way to impose an instrument with a good intent and not impose a punitive action for students who were "offered the bar to jump over, but after their feet had left the ground, the bar was raised and caught them right on their foreheads and stunned them."

Mr. Tanaka stated he wished to pose some questions that might not have immediate answers but were based on his philosophical position. For all the
27 years he had served Clark County School District and the state, teachers and educators had been licensed by the state with the authority to issue grades and credits in the high schools. Those grade and credits were based on state and county mandated curriculum.

Mr. Tanaka asked if there was now an exit exam that was the only method to receive a diploma, what good were the efforts of licensed teachers who taught from approved curriculum. The credit was only a symbol of what students had studied, only to fail at a proficiency exam. Mr. Tanaka added the grades were earned in classes based on class work, daily assignments, participation, reports, quizzes, tests, and homework. The grades levels from an A to a D, earned that student a certain amount of credit.

If the proficiency test really measured exit level skills and truly met the standards for life-readiness, should the only students to graduate then be those who could simply pass the exit exam. Mr. Tanaka stated if all juniors who were required to take the exit exam passed, should they not be graduated and sent on to colleges, universities, apprenticeships, jobs, and the armed forces.

Mr. Tanaka continued his presentation specifically addressing the math portion of the exam. He stated he had become aware there were 14 questions on the exam that never counted; however, students were required to put time and effort into answering those questions never knowing which questions would count for the final grade. He stated his fear that many of the questions on which students worked that were not graded may have been the very questions students answered correctly and might have made the difference between passing and failing the test.

Mr. Tanaka referred to the verbal portion of the test and asked what about language different students whose entire American education was their 4 years of high school. He asked legislators to consider student refugees from Bosnia or the newcomers just entering Nevada schools.

Mr. Tanaka stated if the tests were reliable in both math and verbal skills in determining proficiency, what really was the ultimate score desired. Would it be 100 percent, 90 percent, 81 percent or some other number. He stated he needed to know as a principal who was going to ask counselors to guide students and teachers who taught the subjects. Mr. Tanaka explained he was not privileged to the contents of the exam and therefore it was hard for him to guide the actions of his staff.

Mr. Tanaka quoted the philosopher Seneca in 64 AD, "If a man doesn’t know to which port he is sailing no wind is favorable." He said from a humanistic side, teachers, counselors, and even students in the math club, Mu Alpha Theta, had been reaching and teaching students who were nonproficient. Two of his teachers had even spent time during Easter break to tutor and assist those students.

Mr. Tanaka testified he had seen one student go outside to throw up in a trash can before he took the last exam. He emphasized in his high school, students would be allowed to march in graduation ceremonies because his staff believed teachers could help those students reach proficiency. He promised to never give up on the students.

Mr. Tanaka said what teachers were requesting of the legislature was a sense of humanity and an ability to do something good for the students in the class of 1999.

Jose Torres, student, Las Vegas High School testified on behalf of students. He noted he was the only student present. He stated there must be more time given to students, including him, to be prepared for the proficiency exam. He asked how the legislature expected students to perform well on something they had not been taught how to do.

Mr. Torres stated he was currently taking algebra II and trigonometry and asked what would happen if he was then given a calculus exam. He doubted he would pass under that circumstance. He commented he would one day be to the point where he could answer calculus questions, but he was not to that point yet, and he could not be tested at present.

Mr. Torres asked legislators to consider that by changing rules at the last minute, which was basically what had happened, it put too much pressure on the student to pass the exam. Mr. Torres commented as a senior getting ready for graduation there was too much going on to concentrate, yet the pressure of the need to pass the proficiency test was ever-present.

Mr. Torres noted he was a Hispanic who had only been in the United States for 5 years, and he had passed all three portions of the proficiency exam. He stated some of his fellow students had only been in the United States 2 years and they had not passed the exam. Those same students had amassed 26 or 27 credits and some students even had 5 credits over what was required, yet they had failed the math proficiency exam. Mr. Torres stated he passed the test because he had taken the courses necessary to do so such as algebra, geometry, algebra II and trigonometry. He asked what if he had not taken those courses. If he had only taken essential math or contemporary math there was no way he could have passed the exam. Mr. Torres said although he had passed the exam he was present because of his concern for his fellow students and especially about the Hispanic community.

Vice-Chair Collins called for questions. Mr. Collins asked Mr. Peck to explain from his testimony how 95 percent of students had passed the proficiency exam. Mr. Peck replied he was not sure the 95 percent pass rate was an accurate statistic. Mr. Peck said a corollary question was why some students passed and some failed at dramatically different rates. Mr. Peck reiterated the real issue was one of fairness. Students were being tested in subject areas they had not been required or advised to take and the tests had impacted different groups of students at radically different rates.

Mr. Collins stated he agreed with Mr. Peck concerning students not having courses that would have prepared them for the test. He asked why nearly 95 percent of students had passed the test. Mr. Peck responded a principal was present and perhaps Mr. Tanaka could better answer that question. Mr. Peck stated he did not believe the 95 percent pass rate was correct, particularly in Southern Nevada. Even if 95 percent was correct, that simply indicated
95 percent of students were able to scramble with the good help of fellow students and teachers who were willing to do extra work and because they had taken those courses that were required to pass the test. He said that belied the fundamental issue of fairness. Failure of the exam would have dramatic, profound consequences for students and their life-chances in the real world.

Vice-Chair Collins asked Mr. Tanaka, if those students at Clark High School, who had passed most of their credits but had yet to pass the proficiency test, and who would likely pass the test during the summer months would receive a diploma from Clark High School upon success in the proficiency exam.
Mr. Tanaka replied they would. Mr. Collins said he asked the question because statements had been made that if students had not passed the test by the end of their senior year, they could not receive a high school diploma. Mr. Tanaka said many opinions had been offered about the type of diploma the affected students would or would not receive. He stated if the students put forth the effort during summer to pass the exam, his school would insist they be given a diploma from their own high school. He added the kind of efforts needed were not just those on a local school level. Some students had gone to the community college and University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Some students wanted more of a one-on-one relationship and parents had hired tutors in specific areas. The item analysis that accompanied proficiency exam scores told educators the areas in which students were deficient. The tutors and remedial programs concentrated on those weak areas.

Assemblyman Williams asked if currently those students, who did not receive a traditional diploma, but obtained a General Education Diploma (GED), were listed as "dropouts." Earlier testimony had revealed students who received 3.5 or
3.8 grade point average and he had even gotten calls saying some students had gotten 4.0 grade point averages and yet they had not done well on the math proficiency test. He asked if those students would be listed as dropouts. Mary Peterson, superintendent of Public Instruction replied if a student received a high school diploma by the end of summer that student would not be counted as a dropout. Changes were being made in the way dropouts were being counted. If a student received a verified GED they would also not be counted as a dropout. She noted that was a recent change. Assemblyman Williams commented it was a welcome change.

Assemblyman Williams stated the legislature was looking at several proposals such as millenium scholarships in which students who maintained a B average would qualify. He asked if that was a contradiction since a B scholar could receive a scholarship to go to college and yet if the same student did not pass the math proficiency test they could not receive a diploma and go to college. Ms. Peterson responded passage of the proficiency test should probably be considered as another requirement for the millenium scholarships.

Ms. Peterson stated the 1999 juniors would become seniors and by a law passed by the legislature in 1997 be required to pass the proficiency test with an even higher score than 1999 seniors. The 1999 seniors were required to attain a passing score in math of 61 and in 2000 it would be 64. The required 1999 reading score to pass was 70 and in 2000 the passing score would be 71. Ms. Peterson added the test itself would not be more difficult, but the passing score by law had been raised.

Assemblyman Williams said Mr. Tanaka had raised a number of questions as had Ms. Cunningham. He requested Ms. Peterson to respond to those questions. Ms. Peterson provided committee members with a written response to some of the concerns raised in previous weeks (Exhibit D). She opined it offered a response to most of the questions raised by Mr. Tanaka and
Ms. Cunningham. She noted the letter (Exhibit D) would go to all legislators, the Governor, the superintendents of schools and to the major newspapers in the state.

The purpose of the letter was to set the record straight regarding the technical and legal adequacy of the high school proficiency exam (HSPE) as a graduation test for Nevada students. The HSPE was consistent with good testing practices and in many instances it went beyond what other states were doing.

Ms. Peterson drew attention to specific bullets in Exhibit D. The second bullet stated, "All test items are reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the courses of study." The state board was required to adopt a course of study and school districts were required to implement that course of study. The math course of study was adopted by the state board in 1992 and in 1994 the state board adopted the framework for the new HSPE. Since 1994 school districts had been required to implement that Course of Study. A core curriculum in math was required of all students. That core curriculum included:

• Problem solving;
• Basic algebra;
• Basic geometry;
• Probability; and
• Statistics.

That was the core curriculum that had been required of all students since 1994. It had first been adopted and became available to school districts in 1992.

Ms. Peterson strongly expressed her desire to set the record straight on the perception that the 1999 HSPE was based on the standards adopted by the Standards Council only 2 years ago. She stated that was not true. The recently adopted standard council standards did not go into effect in schools until the fall of 1999. If S.B. 104 passed the HSPE would be based on those standards and graduating students in 2003 would have to pass an HSPE based on those standards.

Bullet 3 answered a reference made to the difficulty that some ethnic minority students might be having in passing the test. In an effort to make sure the test was nonbiased a bias review committee was convened for every form of the test who looked at each item on the test to see if in fact there was anything in the item that might discriminate against a student based on gender or ethnicity. Items found to be biased were thrown out.

The last bullet on page 1 of Exhibit D noted the Board of Education had convened committees of educators and business representatives to recommend passing scores to the state board. Those committees had looked at the test and determined what would be proficient for a high school senior and made recommendations of passing scores to the state board.

A question had been raised about the reliability of the test. The first bullet of page 2, Exhibit D indicated Nevada students had been given five opportunities to pass the test. Given the number of opportunities students had to pass the test, the likelihood of a student being misdiagnosed as nonproficient was close to zero.

The final bullet related to the technical advisory committee that had been convened that had included people from both Nevada and other states to review and approve all the statistics. If an item appeared on a test and a large percentage of students had not answered the item correctly, that might have been 1 of the 14 items tossed out of a particular form of a test.

Ms. Peterson quoted from Dr. Stanley Rabinowitz, technical advisor "I have been personally involved in the state testing programs of more than a dozen states over the past 2 decades including serving as State Testing Director in New Jersey, a state with an extensive history of graduation testing. I have participated over the past 2 years in the implementation of the HSPE, working with the state board, Department of Education, and local district test directors to ensure that the test is reliable, valid, and fair to all students. I stand behind the technical adequacy of the HSPE and hold it up for a model for other states to consider as they begin development of their own graduation testing programs."

Ms. Peterson stated some of the current testimony had been heart wrenching and she had heard other sad stories as well. She reminded committee members that the legislature made it very clear they were raising the expectations for what students should know and be able to do by the time they graduated from Nevada high schools. The HSPE did that and was valid and reliable.

Ms. Peterson noted there were only approximately 1100 high school seniors who had not passed one or both portions of the test.

Assemblyman Williams stated he had seen several newspaper articles from other states giving reference to those states that had similar standards and requirements. Those states were currently backing away from the fact that HSPE tests were not phased in so that students would be able to take classes that would parallel the tests, were not backing away from the test, the commitment to it, or the commitment to impose standards for high school students. He asked Ms. Peterson’s opinion on that stance.

Ms. Peterson responded there were other states that were going through similar situations. In visits with the Office of Civil Rights from the United States Department of Education it was found that Nevada really was on the forefront of high school graduation testing. Many states had talked about such testing and were on the verge of implementation. Nevada was further along than many others were.

Regarding phasing in of the requirement, Ms. Peterson repeated her earlier comment that the core curriculum was what had formed the basis of the HSPE. School districts were required to ensure that students were taught the core curriculum. The math core required basic algebra, geometry, probability, statistics, problem solving, and logic. She added if students knew how to do percentage, ratio and proportion, sum probabilities, how to find the area of a geometric shape and volume, they should be able to pass the test.

Vice-Chair Collins commented part of the impact lay with businesses that complained about what they needed in a student ready for the workforce. He recalled when he was in school he had taken algebra and a business math class that was a combination of geometry and business math including balancing checkbooks and learning to pay bills.

The Vice-Chair noted another question had been what if a junior passed the first test and then decided they would simply "cruise" through their senior year. Where was the balance that seemed to be missing in the plethora of legislative changes. Ms. Peterson responded the HSPE was not the only requirement for graduation. Many districts had raised the requirement beyond the 22.5 credits established by the state. She opined if a student did have sufficient credits and had passed the HSPE, perhaps they were ready to go on to a college or university.

Mr. Collins said he had been thinking more of a student who simply took less difficult courses the last year and coasted on through.

The Vice-Chair noted some parents had testified students were taking algebra in their last semester of school. A minimum of algebra was required in most trades or to continue education through college. He asked if students were just determining what they wanted to do in their last semester of school or were those who were not taking the classes not planning to attend higher education. Ms. Peterson replied part of the needed analysis was that of course taking patterns because if students took basic math classes as freshmen and sophomores that covered the required core curriculum. If students had no math classes in their junior or senior years it would require intensive remediation to pass the HSPE. Course taking patterns were a real issue.

Vice-Chair Collins commented if so many students were passing the HSPE, even though a large group had failed the test several times, then at least between school and their personal lives they were learning how to figure things out. He added the large number of students who failed still needed to be addressed.

Assemblyman Brower stated he had asked a question earlier regarding the relationship between courses required to be taken by students and the subject matter on the HSPE. He asked if it was possible that a student got every question on the test wrong in areas they had not been required to have course studies, could he or she still pass the test. Ms. Peterson replied the core curriculum covered all the areas covered in the HSPE. She added every student was required to take that core curriculum.

Assemblyman Brower confirmed Ms. Peterson would disagree that there were certain subjects on the test that were not included in courses required to be taken by students. Ms. Peterson replied the Department of Education related the HSPE back to the core curriculum. She added the new standards would identify the "difficulty" of the questions to be asked on the HSPE. She noted the old course of study simply covered the "topics" needed to be covered in instruction.

Assemblywoman Angle asked if it was true that students who continued their education by attending college were required to pass a college entrance examination. She noted when she, and later her children, attended college she did not recall ever taking a high school proficiency test.

Assemblywoman Angle asked if it was true that to enter the military students were also required to pass an entrance test. Ms. Peterson responded both groups of tests Assemblywoman Angle had mentioned were correct. The HSPE trend had been something that had started in the last 15 to 20 years. She commented more and more states were adopting such a test as the demand from the business community rose to graduate students who could read, write, think and compute. She was unaware of a particular test for the military but she had been told that students could not enter the military unless they had a high school diploma. In Nevada, that meant the student had to pass a high school proficiency exam to obtain a high school diploma.

Assemblywoman Angle noted neither a HSPE nor a high school diploma was required to enter college. Ms. Peterson responded universities required a high school diploma, but students could enter a community college with a GED diploma.

Assemblywoman Angle asked how many questions were on the HSPE.
Ms. Peterson explained the math portion of the test contained 72 questions,
58 of which counted in determining passage of the test.

Assemblywoman Angle noted testimony had indicated that algebra and geometry questions had been the real troublesome areas of the HSPE and asked how many of the 58 math questions that determined passage were based upon algebra and geometry knowledge. Ms. Peterson replied questions were evenly distributed among the various disciplines tested in the exam.

Assemblywoman Angle asked if a student had not taken algebra or geometry and could not answer those questions, but could answer questions in the other areas would the student pass or fail the test. Ms. Peterson replied her speculation would be that if a student could not answer any of the algebra or any of the geometry questions, the student might fail the test.

Ms. Peterson noted earlier testimony that had mentioned trinomial factoring as an item on the test and she emphasized trinomial factoring was not included on the HSPE. Neither were advanced algebra or calculus.

Vice-Chair Collins noted all committee members were given one copy of the HSPE for reference.

Assemblywoman Angle stated her point had been that if a student passed all other areas of the exam, but did not correctly answer any questions in either the algebra or geometry sections, whether they would still pass the test.
Ms. Peterson referred the question to Tom MacIntosh who had joined the Department of Education in October 1998.

Tom MacIntosh, team leader for the Standards, Curriculum and Assessment, Department of Education explained the part of the HSPE testing geometry contained area problems such as figuring the area of a floor, and understanding that if measurements of the floor were in feet and recognizing the problem included purchase of carpet which was sold in square yards. Volumes were mostly rectangular solids and questions had to be read carefully to arrive at an answer. He stated it would be highly unlikely for a student to miss every single problem in geometry and algebra because the algebra and geometry concepts were basic.

Assemblywoman Angle asked what would happen if a student did miss all those questions. Mr. MacIntosh replied there were 20 questions regarding algebra and geometry. Ms. Peterson added if a student missed all 20 questions they would need to get virtually every other question on the test correct so it would be very difficult to pass under those circumstances.

Assemblywoman Angle commented a student would have to have problems in some of the other areas as well to actually fail the test.

Seeing no further testimony, Vice-Chair Collins closed the discussion on high school proficiency exams. A.C.R. 72 would be voted upon later at the bar of the Assembly.

With no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cindy Clampitt

Transcribing Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: