The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, March 1, 1999, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman

Senator Mark Amodei

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator Michael Schneider

Senator Valerie Wiener

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator Randolph J. Townsend (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Patricia Di Domenico, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ( SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 40-437.

SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Chairman Rawson invited testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 169 and turned the meeting over to Senator Washington.

Mary L. Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit C). She stated S.B. 169 was submitted by the State Board of Education and the State Department of Education to accomplish four major purposes: one, establish tighter, realistic timelines for analyzing and reporting information; two, change the names of two categories of school designations; three, add a fourth category of school designation: four, section 16, line 37, change the responsibility for certifying that the results of exams have been transmitted to each school from superintendent of public instruction to the local school district superintendent. Ms. Peterson noted page 3, section 3, of S.B. 169 amends Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 385.363 to require Nevada State Department of Education to evaluate and designate schools by April 1, rather than December 15. She said school districts must publish their accountability data by March 31. Ms. Peterson acknowledged this would be consistent with the current practice.

Ms. Peterson indicated page 6, line 18, requires the department to prepare and submit improvement plans for schools in need of improvement, for the second consecutive year, by June 15. Ms. Peterson stated this would allow the department to work with schools during the summer and throughout the school year. Ms. Peterson said section 10, subsection 1, changes the date from January 15 to August 1 for the department to establish a panel to supervise the academic probation of a school. She explained the panel would be in place from the beginning of the school year following the school’s placement on academic probation. Ms. Peterson noted subsection 4, on page 7, changes the date from February 15 to June 1 for the department to publish a list of waivers that have been granted. She said section 11, subsection 1, paragraph (d), and section 12, subsection 1, changes April 1 to November 1 and changes the dates for panels assigned to schools on academic probation to release their findings and recommendations, including the recommendation to appoint an administrator.

Ms. Peterson called attention to page 3, section 3, subsection 2, paragraph (d) of S.B. 169, which changes the name of low-performing schools from "Demonstrating inadequate achievement," to "Demonstrating need for improvement." She indicated section 3, subsection 2, paragraph (a), and section 4, subsection 1, changes the name of schools from "… demonstrating high achievement ..." to "… demonstrating exemplary achievement …." Ms. Peterson stated section 4, subsection 2, changes the criteria for high achievement schools and addresses student attendance issues. According to Ms. Peterson, section 16, subsection 3, changes the responsibility for certifying the results of exams from the state superintendent to the local school superintendent.

Senator Wiener asked how many high-achieving schools would qualify as exemplary schools. Ms. Peterson replied four or five schools would qualify. Vice Chairman Washington stated a bill submitted by the education committee to the Senate finance committee would accomplish the same goals. Ms. Peterson responded she was aware of the bill submitted by the education committee but has not compared them. Vice Chairman Washington suggested Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst Research Division, Legislative counsel Bureau, analyze the two bills.

David S. Cook, Member, State Board of Education, voiced support of S.B. 169. He emphasized the need to change the category of schools. Mr. Cook stated the State Board of Education’s goal was to emphasize the positive by addressing a school’s problems and also recognizing a school’s achievements. Senator Wiener asked if schools felt changing the category to demonstrating need for change offered them hope. Ms. Peterson replied the recommendation came from the schools in question.

Francis Gillings, Concerned Citizen, referenced page 4, line 30 of S.B.169 and requested the verbiage "Less than 60 percent …" be changed to "Less than 90 percent …" and on line 32, the verbiage "… at least equal to the 26^th percentile …" be changed to "… at least equal to the 75^th percentile." He emphasized using the national reference group of pupils would be a defeatist way of treating our schools. Mr. Gillings stressed the importance of setting higher achievement goals. Senator Schneider queried whether students would achieve more by putting higher standards in writing. Mr. Gillings opined children must be required to do great. He said children need challenge to achieve. Vice Chairman Washington called attention to page 4, section 5, line 35, which addresses the average daily attendance of pupils and teachers at the school is 90 percent for 3 or more consecutive years. He told Mr. Gillings there might be a misinterpretation on your part. Mr. Gillings replied in the affirmative.

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Director, Government Relations, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated her comments would be focused on a provision not addressed in S.B. 169 but is in Senate Bill (S.B.) 70.

SENATE BILL 70: Revises provisions governing program of accountability for public schools. (BDR 34-248)

Ms. Cahill said S.B. 169 would add a new section that will hinder a teacher’s ability to take leave because of the impact absenteeism has on a school’s classification. She noted testimony was brought by NSEA to the Interim Committee on Education and requested teacher absentee provisions be removed from the criteria used to determine a school’s category. According to Ms. Cahill, S.B. 70 makes that deletion. She referenced page 3, line 40; page 4 lines 11-12, 25-26, and 36 as verbiage not included in S.B. 70. She explained, because of the statute administrators told teachers that they should not or could not take leave. Ms. Cahill expounded on cases where teachers were called at home and told to come to school the next day to avert an impact on the school’s rating. Vice Chairman Washington noted the education committee decided to remove language referring to teachers’ attendance requirements but continue to keep attendance records. Ms. Cahill responded it is important to keep records of attendance but not as criteria for a school’s category.

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, stated the association proposes amendments (Exhibit D) to S.B. 169. He indicated the adoption of the amendments would conform S.B. 169 to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 243.

Mr. Etchemendy called attention to section 1 of S.B. 169 that amends Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 385.351. He said A. B. 243 amends a preceding statute NRS 385.347.

Mr. Etchemendy noted paragraph (i) and subparagraph (3) on page 2, of Exhibit D. He explained a teacher should not be deemed absent for the following reasons: acquisition of knowledge or skills relating to the professional development of the teacher; or assignment of the teacher to perform duties for extracurricular activities of pupils. Mr. Etchemendy mentioned renumbering section 1 as section 2 and in like-fashion sections 2 through 17. He drew attention to page 7, line 3 of Exhibit D and asserted the need for an 11- member panel and line 14 would define the appointments. Vice Chairman Washington inquired as to the progress of A.B. 243. Mr. Etchemendy replied the bill had not been scheduled.

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, expressed concern over the proposed amendments. She stressed apprehension about removing teacher absenteeism from the criteria that constitutes an exemplary school. Ms. Lusk emphasized the importance of the consistency of teacher involvement with students, especially younger students. She said the same arguments to exclude teacher absenteeism from the criteria could be applied to student absenteeism. Ms. Lusk requested the committee take no action until the proposed amendments are made available for review. Vice Chairman Washington stressed it is the custom of the committee to make available for review any amendments and consider all recommendations prior to making a decision. He emphasized teacher quality is achieving accountability of standards in our educational system. Vice Chairman Washington iterated reports of teacher absenteeism will continue and strong consideration will be given to those reports. He stated the concerns of the Nevada Concerned Citizens are duly noted.

Vice Chairman Washington closed the hearing on S.B. 169 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 41.

Vice Chairman Washington stated S.B. 41 (Exhibit E) changes current law to address public-school choice programs that give parents the opportunity to choose schools that best meet the needs of their children. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit F), Vice Chairman Washington pointed out some states already allow parents to choose schools inside their districts, while other states allow choice outside their districts. Vice Chairman Washington elaborated on the evolution from "alternative schools" and magnet schools programs to the passage of charter school legislation in several states. He identified and enumerated on five topics generally taken into consideration when discussing school choice which are: equity; parental choice; impact on staff; students with special needs; and dynamics of competition.

Vice Chairman Washington referred to pages 2 and 3, of Exhibit E, stating, parents of students who reside within the school district or adjoining districts have the opportunity to choose the school their children will attend based on availability. He continued, subsection 4 establishes an application process for students within a school district; subsection 5 provides an applicant-notification process; subsection 6 provides an application for continuance in the school district. Vice Chairman Washington noted page 4 of Exhibit E addresses the inclusion of the pupil in the count of pupils for the purposes of apportionment and allowances from the state distributive school account, and restricts the pupil from transferring to another public school within the county until after the completion of the school year. Referring to lines 10–15 on page 4 of Exhibit E, Vice Chairman Washington said there have been two proposals to delete this section. He pointed out deletion of this section would require parents to incur the transportation costs of students attending school in an adjoining district of their residency. Vice Chairman Washington stated the effective date of S.B. 41 is July 1, 1999.

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, voiced support of Senate Bill 41. Ms. Hansen applauded the bill as providing choice in public schools. Reading from the publication Education Reporter (Exhibit G), she quoted:

Ms. Hansen explained the decision went beyond public school choice including voucher programs that included religious choice. She emphasized the U.S. Supreme Court’s support of families, parents, and children having choice in education. Ms. Hansen emphasized choice in education is consumer friendly because it answers the needs and concerns of families and children. She indicated school choice provides diversity in education and promises greater parent and student participation, commitment, and responsibility. Ms. Hansen stressed public school choice will help the poor and minorities by giving them the same opportunities as others.

Lynn P. Chapman, Lobbyist, read from the publication, Goldwater Institute (Exhibit H), expounding on the necessity to meet the educational needs of families and children. She stated her support of S.B. 41.

Mr. Etchemendy voiced opposition to S.B. 41 because school districts have adopted variance policies based on their need. He said there are numerous agreements between families living on the fringe of a school district of their adjoining county. Mr. Etchemendy indicated a long-standing practice is to make accommodations based on people apportionment, which benefits the parents as well as the school districts. He emphasized school choice is already practiced and the only purpose served by this bill is to make a statement of school choice. Vice Chairman Washington questioned why there has been repetitive submission of this issue to the Legislature if there are practices and accommodations in place. Mr. Etchemendy iterated his position. Senator Wiener asked if data concerning the number of variances requested and granted by school districts could be provided to the committee. Mr. Etchemendy responded in the affirmative.

Jerry Hughes, Executive Director, Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association, voiced the association’s opposition to S.B.41. He stated the issue was surveyed in-depth amongst principals and administrators statewide and the results were not to change the rules and regulations in Nevada. Mr. Hughes indicated that by permitting open transfers students could transfer for athletic reasons. He noted this results in long-term conflict between schools. Vice Chairman Washington asked if allowing parents and students to choose a school was not a better solution than families moving to a different zoning district or creating an underground recruitment to attend a school for athletic considerations. Mr. Hughes responded the recruitment would worsen. He stated the association felt "the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer" philosophy would occur. Vice Chairman Washington commented there may be validity to those arguments but without substantiating data they are just arguments. Mr. Hughes stated similar laws passed in Colorado and Minnesota have caused problems that they currently are trying to correct.

Thomas H. Olivero, Coordinator of Student Activities, Washoe County School District, testified about the existing policy in the Washoe County School District, and stated that the district does not automatically grant athletic eligibility to students on a variance. He said students appear before a principal’s committee who makes the determination, based on their individual circumstances, and their athletic eligibility.

Ms. Debbie Cahill expressed the NSEA’s concern was for school overcrowding. She said granting variances is difficult for schools who are at capacity. Ms. Cahill pointed out a parent’s decision may be made for convenience or other reasons not the quality of the school. She stressed this could displace students living near the school and force them to be bused to a school across town. Senator Schneider asked what percentage of students apply for variances. Ms. Cahill replied she would provide that information for the committee. Vice Chairman Washington iterated the importance of obtaining such information.

Shiela M. Ward, Lobbyist, Regional Coordinator, Nevada Christian Coalition, read her testimony (Exhibit I) urging the committee’s support of S.B. 41. She stated school choice would provide an incentive for all public schools to improve their academic standards. Ms. Ward cited the accomplishments of New York City’s District 4 highlighting the district’s math and reading test scores. She said there was a direct correlation between the number of choice schools in District 4 and the test scores. Ms. Ward emphasized the more freedom people are given the more enthusiastic they will be to financially support the needs of the public school system. Senator Schneider stated the people of Clark County passed $4.5 billion in bonds for education in the last 2 years. He pointed out school choice did not affect their standing on bonds.

Nat Lommori, Superintendent of Schools, Lyon County School District, iterated there is a variance policy in place but is difficult to administer. He said people pay for bonds within there own school district boundaries, which is determined by voters’ choice. Mr. Lommori stated Lyon County’s goal is to provide adequate facilities for students that are not overcrowded. He indicated Lyon County’s population is growing and is predicted to surpass Clark County School District on a per capita basis. According to Mr. Lommori, S.B. 41 would impact all parts of the Lyon County School District. He noted taxpayers in Lyon County might choose not to support future bond issues if seats are being given to students from outside the district. Mr. Lommori stressed a greater concern is the paying back of bonds which is governed by state law.

Charlotte Brothwell, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Classified School Employees Association (NCSEA), testified the removal of the transportation provision of S.B. 41 has alleviated one of NCSEA’s concerns. She pointed out parents should not bear the expense of school transportation because there is no space available in the district’s school in which the student resides. Senator Wiener questioned if students zoned for the district had first option to seating over variance applicants. Vice Chairman Washington answered in the affirmative. Senator Wiener clarified, the intent of the bill is not to displace students zoned for the school. She said variance applicants only could fill seats that were available.

Ms. Brothwell remarked there have been occasions when a new student moving in to the area during the term was assigned to another school in the district because all student seats were full in their zoned school. Senator Wiener opined the situation might arise in any event if the school was at capacity. Addressing Ms. Brothwell’s concern, Senator Wiener commented if seats are made available to "choice" students there may not be seats for students who move into the zoned school district during the school term. Senator Wiener remarked the school might be full in any event, therefore the passage of the bill would not impact on this situation. Vice Chairman Washington pointed out it is incumbent upon the principal or administrator of the school to make the determination if space is available to accept more students.

Carolyn A. Nelson, Lobbyist, Navada Families Eagle Forum, testified a parent or student may have more than one reason to apply for a variance but the form only allows one reason. Referencing page 2, lines 6 through 11, of S.B. 41, Ms. Nelson questioned the meaning of "… must be not sooner than 3 months before the commencement of a school year." She pointed out in the Washoe County School District the cutoff date to submit a variance is the end of March and Senate Bill 41 would impact that policy. Ms. Nelson added, parents usually start thinking in terms of education in the spring. Ms. Nelson called the committee’s attention to page 2, line 22 of S.B. 41 and asked if the verbiage referred to the school district. Vice Chairman Washington answered in the affirmative. Ms. Nelson explained her opposition to lines 3 and 4 on page 3. She related a personal experience of her child having extreme difficulty in third grade and the benefits of being granted a variance during the school year. Ms. Nelson urged the committee to delete or amend lines 3 and 4 on page 3. Ms. Nelson told the committee of being denied a variance and described an extremely volatile situation concerning her son while attending elementary school.

Ms. Nelson noted one argument against S.B. 41 was county funds being used to educate children not residing in the county. She indicated 53 or 54 percent of the state budget goes to education, therefore a significant amount of budgeting for the county school districts comes from the state.

Ms. Lusk stated zone variances can be requested but are not easily obtained. She said student and parent preferences usually are not an acceptable reason for obtaining a zone variance under the current system. Ms. Lusk expounded on the benefits public school choice has for parents and students. Vice Chairman Washington asked if public school choice would affect the support of school bond issues. Ms. Lusk replied there has been testimony that students from another county would be taking seats and creating an overcrowding situation. She explained S.B. 41 allows for students from another county only if seats are available, therefore this would not occur.

Lezlie Porter, Concerned Citizen, stated she is a Washoe County School Board Trustee but was testifying as a concerned citizen because the board had not taken a position on S.B. 41. She read from prepared testimony (Exhibit J), listing the benefits the Alpine School District, in Utah, has experienced with open enrollment and their similar parameters with S.B. 41. She indicated choice in schools causes attendance and graduation rates to increase; vandalism and absenteeism to decrease. Ms. Porter stressed the need for S.B. 41.

Dorothy Dermody, Concerned Citizen, stated she is a member of the Washoe County School Board but was testifying as a concerned citizen because the board had not taken a position on S. B. 41. She voiced her support of S.B. 41. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit K), Ms. Dermondy pointed out school choice would broaden and expand student educational opportunities. She listed the advantages that school choice may promote such as: the school dropout rate may lower by giving students education choices; parent who are now teaching children at home may consider re-entering their children in public school; accountability; and less bureaucracy. Vice Chairman Washington asked the number one complaint the school board hears from parents. Ms. Dermody replied parents want to know what is happening at the school and requests for students to attend another school. Vice Chairman Washington questioned whether zoning was an issue. Ms. Dermody responded, zoning was a nightmare!

Shayla Stitser, Concerned Citizen, Student Representative, Students of Washoe County, testified the students of Washoe County support S.B. 41. She pointed out students who are given a choice will be motivated to learn and that will be an incentive to teachers. Ms. Stitser noted the school’s environment will be improved because students will have more pride, motivation and be excited to learn. She opined there would not be a mass migration because of athletics because students want to be with friends. Ms. Stitser made the following suggestions: a student who has been granted a variance be required to maintain a minimum grade point average (GPA); and variance students must sign a behavioral contract with the principal. She stated students will work harder to live up to greater expectations. Ms. Stitzer applauded Vice Chairman Washington for his insight introducing S.B. 41. Senator Schneider asked several questions. In response to Senator Schneider queries, Ms. Stitser said her zoned school was Reno High School but she was granted a variance to McQueen High School. She indicated the student‘s school spirit, attitude and pride influenced her decision to attend McQueen High School.

Barbara Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teacher Association (PTA) stated she represented 32,000 Nevada PTA members in the state. She voiced the PTA’s concern with S.B. 41 because of equity issues. Ms. Clark stated there are federal and state programs to increase student achievement. She said schools receive funding to provide these programs. Ms. Clark stated parents whose children need these services would not be able to participate in this mechanism. School districts will not be able to make available such programs at all schools. Ms. Clark outlined the makeup of the student population at an "at-risk" Washoe County school as: English as a second language (ESL), 24.4 percent; migrant, 1.5 percent; and free and reduced lunch, 78 percent. She compared the "at-risk" school with a "high-achieving" school which had a population of: 0 percent ESL, 0 percent migrant; and 2.6 percent free and reduced lunch. Ms. Clark indicated over 25 percent of the at-risk student population would not be able to take advantage of the remedial educational programs at the high-achieving school.

Ms. Clark noted that a large number of students are impacted when the school does not provide transportation. Ms. Clark pointed out in Nevada 28 percent of families are single parent, and female head-of-families in poverty is 55.9 percent who may not be able to take advantage of school choice. She said school districts already have variance programs; and it is the parents who can provide transportation for their children and students who do not need special programs who avail themselves of this process. Ms. Clark stressed the need for all children to have an equal opportunity. Vice Chairman Washington questioned how many of the 32,000 PTA members voted against S.B. 41. Ms. Clark responded their platform was distributed to the membership, who elect delegates to the convention where voting takes place on the issues, therefore, an exact number of members would not be possible.

Mr. Gillings, suggested the following changes: page 1, line 10, delete "if" and change the verbiage to read"…the board of trustees of a school district must approve…"; and page 2, line 27 of S.B. 41 change "if" to "when" to project a positive approach. He stressed S.B. 41 will provide an equal opportunity for students. Mr. Gillings emphasized the need for competition, and praised Senate Bill 41.

Kristine K. Jensen, Lobbyist, Chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens, spoke in favor of S.B. 41 expounding on the need for school choice. Ms. Jensen opined the number one issue of parents is school zoning. She stated parents attend zoning meetings in large numbers and want to be involved in the process.

Douglas M. Byington, Lobbyist, Chairman, Nevada Association of School Administrators, testified 54 percent of the General Fund budget is for education; however, 32 percent of that amount goes for Grades K-12, and 22 percent goes for higher education and other sources. He addressed the issue of the counties building and paying for schools within their districts. Mr. Byington pointed out Resolution 18 of the platform of the Nevada Association of School Administrators does support choice if guidelines are followed. Mr. Byington queried what would happen to choice when schools reach capacity. Vice Chairman Washington questioned why secondary education is restricted but higher education is not. Mr. Byington replied the comparison is apples and oranges. Senator Mathews clarified by stating Grades 1 through 12 are mandatory but a college education is by choice.

Lonnie F. Shields, Lobbyist, Washoe County Education Administrators Association (WCEAA), voiced opposition to S.B. 41 but stressed the association is in favor of school choice. He said the association views S.B. 41 as a statewide variance plan; not a school-choice plan. Mr. Shields stated people who have spoken in favor of S.B. 41 are under the impression this bill will allow every variance request to be granted. Mr. Shields explained the current variance policy of Washoe County School District. He stated 2966 variances were granted in the last year: 1949 were for elementary schools; 281 in middle schools: and 736 in high school. Mr. Shields stressed this should be left at the local level and to the local school board. Vice Chairman Washington asked why variance requests are not recorded. Mr. Shields replied there has never been a request for such documentation.

D. L. (Dusty) Dickens, Director, Demographics, Zoning and Reality Department, Clark County School District, testified the Clark County School District supports choice but does not agree zone variances should be legislated. She emphasized the Clark County School District has procedural and equity concerns. Ms. Dickens referred to Clark County School District‘s policy and Regulation 5112 (Exhibit L), which addresses zone variances, magnet schools, and board- approved options. Vice Chairman Washington iterated there would be no need for S.B. 41 if our variance programs were working. Ms. Dickens responded Utah’s programs are reflective of our magnet programs and are addressed in our regulations for magnet programs. She said Clark County School District uses criteria that address the issues of student hardship such as, parental working conditions, childcare, and parental custody matters. Ms. Dickens stated the lottery issue does not address siblings, grade level or students who enrolled in a school on their own variance because it places them back in the pool.

Michael D. Jabara, Lobbyist, Chairman, Tahoe Citizens Committee, read the committee’s proposed amendments (Exhibit M) to sections 3 and 4 of S.B. 41.

Jeanne Simons, Concerned Citizen, voiced her support of S.B. 41 but stated she did not support the deletion of subsection 8, especially for low-income families.

Randy C. Robinson, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators, speaking from his experience as a former legislative liaison to the Governor’s Office of Ethnic Affairs in the State of Utah, focused on constituents concerns regarding school reform and school choice. He urged the committee to do a social and economic analysis of the areas that have been given as examples of S.B. 41, such as the Alpine School District in Utah.

There being no further testimony, the meeting was adjourned at 4:44 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Patricia Di Domenico,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

DATE: