MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-First Session

April 16, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Monday, April 16, 2001.  Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     Wendell Williams, Chairman

Ms.                     Bonnie Parnell, Vice Chairman

Mrs.                     Sharron Angle

Mrs.                     Barbara Cegavske

Mrs.                     Vonne Chowning

Mr.                     Tom Collins

Mrs.                     Marcia de Braga

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Mrs.                     Ellen Koivisto

Mr.                     Mark Manendo

Mrs.                     Debbie Smith

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, District 21

Assemblyman David Parks, District 41

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Mary Drake, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Al Bellister, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Education Association

Dr. Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Nevada Department of Education

Lynn Chapman, State Vice President, Nevada Eagle Forum

Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District

Dr. Dotty Merrill, Legislative Representative, Washoe County School District

Theresa Malone, Member, Nevada State Board of Education

Georgia Hettrick, Retired Teacher

Daryl Clark, Teacher, Fremont School

Dr. Shane Templeton, Professor of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, University of Nevada, Reno

Kami Dempsey, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce

Ray Bacon, Executive Director, Nevada Manufacturers’ Association

Dr. Craig Kadlub, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District

Michael Kerr, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws

Dr. Joe Crowley, Assistant to the Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada

Richard Bennett, Director of Government Relations, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Warren Hardy, Clark County Association of School Administrators

Allin Chandler, Executive Director, Clark County Association of School Administrators

Frank Brusa, Nevada Association of School Administrators

John Gwaltney, Co-Chairman of the Governmental Relations Committee, Nevada State Board of Education

Debbie Cahill, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Education Association

John Massey, Nevada Republican Assembly

 

 

Seeing no quorum, Chairman Williams announced the meeting would start as a subcommittee.  He opened the hearing on A.B. 405.

 

Assembly Bill 405: Revises provisions governing literacy in public schools. (BDR 34‑652)

 


Assemblywoman Angle commenced testimony on A.B. 405.  A documentation packet (Exhibit C) containing letters of support, tutorial information on phonics, and an article on illiteracy was distributed.  She stated all parties had agreed upon amendments.  The intent of the bill was to provide methods for the instruction of reading by utilizing good science, with a stated goal of proficiency at the third grade level.  Assemblywoman Angle asked audience members to stand as demonstration of their support of the bill.

 

Due to time constraints, Chairman Williams requested that testimony be brief.

 

Al Bellister, representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), distributed a copy of the proposed amendments to A.B. 405 (Exhibit D).  The amendment would completely replace the original language and become the bill.  It was modeled after the federal reading excellence bill in order to ensure compliance and the receipt of federal funding in Nevada.

 

Dr. Jack McLaughlin, Nevada Superintendent of Public Instruction, made a one-line statement in support of the amendments as proposed by NSEA.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel offered her support of the bill as amended.

 

Statements of support for A.B. 405 were received from multiple witnesses.  Lynn Chapman, representing the Nevada Eagle Forum, distributed a one-page report on illiteracy (Exhibit E) and shared her personal experience in home schooling her daughter and their success in utilizing the phonics method.  Martha Tittle, representing the Clark County School District, asked to be on the record in support of A.B. 405 as amended.  Dr. Dotty Merrill, representing the Washoe County School District, called the committee’s attention to a packet of tutorial information on phonics instruction (Exhibit F) and voiced her support of the bill.  A letter of support (Exhibit G) was received from Nancy Maslach, a member of the Nye County School District Board of Trustees.

 

Chairman Williams requested clarification of the fiscal note attached to the bill.  Assemblywoman Angle was reasonably sure the fiscal note was unchanged, and she emphasized teacher training and textbook purchases would still be required.  The amendment represented the “skeleton” of the Reading Excellence Act (REA).  As such, additional language would be drafted later to clarify terms of the legislation.  Assemblywoman Angle added that funds from the Governor’s budget for teacher training and textbooks were being requested.

 

Theresa Malone, an elected member of the Nevada State Board of Education, testified from Las Vegas.  She complimented the united efforts of all parties and encouraged the passage of A.B. 405 as amended.

 

Georgia Hettrick, a retired teacher, gave testimony in opposition to A.B. 405.  Ms. Hettrick explained she had contacted the school superintendents in each of Nevada’s rural counties in order to seek their opinion of the bill.  She summarized her findings as negative.  Districts stated a preference that the legislators clarify the authority of local school districts to make their own laws in the area of public education.  Ms. Hettrick voiced great concern over the testing of first-grade students, which she viewed as intimidation.  She failed to understand the preoccupation with phonics as an issue.  In her experience, phonics had been successfully blended with other reading methods for many years.  There were multiple forms of phonics instruction, and Ms. Hettrick did not understand the emphasis on just one method over the others.

 

Ms. Hettrick summarized the bill as a means to grab money from the federal government.  She encouraged seeking financial grants for purposes of supporting state education laws.  The establishment of a professional grant committee could tap into millions of dollars in grants currently available.  She viewed the passage of a new law as the wrong vehicle for funding a reading program.  Ms. Hettrick underscored her testimony with her own ability to read Spanish without any understanding of the meaning of the words.  In her judgment, phonics helped a student pronounce words; however, it did not guarantee the student would comprehend the words.  In conclusion, she voiced strong support for utilizing combinations of reading methods that could be tailored to meet the needs of the individual student’s learning style.

 

Daryl Clark, a reading teacher at the Fremont Elementary School, voiced opposition to A.B. 405.  He described his teaching assignment as working with the lowest 20 percent of first grade reading students.  Mr. Clark had researched the issue and cited Ohio as an example of a state that had granted funds for phonics-based instruction to 38 schools.  Of those schools, 17 had reading scores that declined.  In Washoe County, five schools had initiated a program that met all the requirements of A.B. 405.  The schools were Allen, Anderson, Lincoln Park, Veteran’s, and Booth.  Since implementing that reading program several years ago, reading scores had declined.  Mr. Clark encouraged the committee to look at those reading scores.  Despite the expenditure of more than $500,000, it had failed. 

 

Assemblyman Gustavson complimented the witness, Georgia Hettrick, on her contribution to education for more than 37 years.  Assemblyman Gustavson viewed educational grants as a desirable source of funding for all school districts, and he asked for the listing of educational grants mentioned in her testimony.

 

Joan Taylor, representing the Nevada Department of Education, offered to share a list of reading excellence grant application denials from the previous year as well as a copy of the current year’s Nevada Reading Excellence Act (REA) grant.  Ms. Taylor introduced Dr. Shane Templeton, a leading national expert in phonics instruction.  He co-authored the phonics textbook Words Their Way, purchased for every teacher in the state of California using REA funds.

 

Dr. Shane Templeton, currently with the University of Nevada, Reno, was formerly a first and second grade teacher.  He was encouraged by state and federal efforts to improve the literacy levels of beginning readers.  Dr. Templeton voiced general support of A.B. 405 as amended.  Clarifying language of the legislation would be needed, and he offered his assistance with that effort.

 

Dr. Templeton noted that, at the university level, there had been intense efforts to teach word study to education majors.  The students were required to purchase a copy of his book Words Their Way that, in his view, provided a solid research foundation for teaching reading and spelling.  His embrace of “whole language constructs” was not without criticism; however, the use of phonics did not invite that criticism.  He acknowledged that embedded phonics was not the only method.  Various phonics methods (e.g., synthetic, analytic, analogic), if systematically taught by trained teachers, would be successful.  In conclusion, Dr. Templeton encouraged the passage of A.B. 405 as amended.

 

Kami Dempsey, representing the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, made a brief statement in support of A.B. 405.

 

Ray Bacon, Executive Director, Nevada Manufacturers’ Association, echoed support of A.B. 405

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 405 and opened the hearing on A.B. 364.

 

Assembly Bill 364: Requires annual reporting by regional subdistricts in certain school districts. (BDR 34-1163)

 

Assemblywoman Tiffany, sponsor of A.B. 364, introduced Dr. Craig Kadlub from the Clark County School District and stated she had reached agreement with him on amendments to the bill.  She commenced testimony with an explanation of what the equitability in the community-based programs would be for reporting.  The equitability of staffing, zone changes, number of administrators, teacher training, and the number of substitute teachers were among the parameters reviewed.  On the community-based side, communications and extra public meetings were examined.

 

Assemblywoman Tiffany called attention to Section 1 and the reporting date of August 1.  It had been agreed to change that date to April 15 in order to synchronize the report with others from the school district.  Additionally, in Section 1, number 6, the reference to the percentage of pupils eligible for free or reduced lunch would be changed to read “participants” as opposed to “eligible,” because that was how the school district reported that figure.  The September 1 reporting would be changed to June 15.

 

Dr. Craig Kadlub, representing Clark County School District, reiterated the need to revise reporting dates.  He fully supported the concept of regionalizing the school district and, once accomplished, reporting on the success of those school regions would follow that effort.

 

Chairman Williams stated that the Clark County School District would be the only one affected by A.B. 364.  He closed the hearing on A.B. 364 and opened the hearing on A.B. 253.

 

Assembly Bill 253:  Enacts Uniform Athletes’ Agents Act. (BDR 34-992)

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske, sponsor of A.B. 253, stated the National Conference of State Legislatures had asked all of the states to enact the legislation for the sake of unity and consistency nationwide in dealing with sports agents.

 

Michael Kerr, representing the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, distributed a 3-page summary of the Uniform Athletes’ Agents Act (Exhibit H) and commenced testimony in support of A.B. 253.  In 1996 the President of Florida State had requested research into the problem of agents recruiting college students, causing the students to lose eligibility.  The Uniform Athletes’ Agents Act was the culmination of three years of work.  It was introduced in 25 states and enacted in 4 states since January.

 

According to Mr. Kerr, the bill ensured uniform definitions and rules for dealing with athletic agents.  Basically, the agent would be required to register with the Secretary of State in at least one state.  His registration would then be transferable to other states with the law in place.  The act provided significant protection for student athletes by giving them an information resource at the state level that revealed the ethical background of the prospective agent.  It further allowed the student to remove himself from the contracts within 15 days.  The student and the agent would be required to notify the student’s collegiate institution within 72 hours or before the next scheduled athletic event.  The forewarning would enable the college to remove the athlete from the roster, thereby avoiding sanctions. 

 

Mr. Kerr summarized the act as providing a uniform set of rules by which sports agents could more easily comply with the regulations governing each state.  It provided protection for all parties.  Mr. Kerr added that the University of Nevada had asked that amendments to A.B. 253 be considered.  The amendment would retain current rules against booster misbehavior.  He called the committee’s attention to page 7, Section 28, starting at line 27 stating he could see no problem with retaining the majority of that language.

 

Dr. Joe Crowley, Assistant to the Chancellor of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), voiced strong support for A.B. 253.  Indirectly, the University of Nevada in Reno and in Las Vegas had participated in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) efforts to achieve uniformity across the nation.  In reference to Section 28, which was deleted in the current bill, Dr. Crowley recommended moving the section to the end of the bill and amending the language to assure student athletes were not included in the section.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel requested clarification of the situation where a student athlete chose to exercise the 14-day cancellation of a contract, but would not be reinstated as eligible for college sports.  Mr. Kerr offered to explain and stated the loss of eligibility was an NCAA rule established for that college.  It was not a force of law.  The student who chose to void a contract with an agent was one factor the NCAA would consider in deciding whether or not to strip the student of eligibility.  As it stood, signing an agency contract was a permanent exclusion of eligibility in the eyes of the NCAA.  That student could, however, retain a scholarship and, in some sports, the student could apply for re-eligibility.  He predicted that clause would be reexamined as more states adopted legislation.

 

Dr. Crowley added that the NCAA was considering an alteration of the rules regarding eligibility in the case of signing with agents for football and basketball drafts.  He expected an easing of that restriction to be announced with the increasing passage of legislation across the nation.

 

Assemblyman Manendo asked how many states had enacted legislation.  Mr. Kerr replied there were 28 states that had legislation that affected the relationship between sports agents and student athletes.  Those statutes varied widely.  The Uniform Athletes’ Agents Act had been adopted in four jurisdictions.  An additional 15 states were expected to adopt legislation by year-end, with a goal of all 50 states within 2 years.

 

In response to Assemblyman Manendo, Dr. Crowley called attention to Section 28 and explained the intent of that language from previous legislation was to have it apply to boosters who crossed an ethical line.  The focus was not on agents or student athletes.  Dr. Crowley labeled the legislation in 28 states as confusing, and illustrated the need for uniform legislation across the nation.

 

Assemblyman Manendo stated he had believed a student athlete could not have an agent until after graduation or leaving the college.  Mr. Kerr replied that student athletes were adults with a right to enter legal contracts.  The possible consequences for signing with an agent were the loss of scholarship money and eligibility to compete in the sport.

 

Chairman Williams requested clarification on the fiscal note for A. B. 253.  Assemblywoman Cegavske explained she had requested a fiscal note, but had not received it.  Dr. Crowley interjected he could see no significant costs attached to the administration of the bill.  The college would absorb costs involved for registration.

 

Chairman Williams asked if the Nevada Attorney General’s Office concurred.  Mr. Kerr replied the fiscal process had been introduced in 25 jurisdictions, and the general consensus was costs depended upon the number of agents registered.  Usually the state hired one-half to one-and-one-half full-time positions in the registration section of the Secretary of State’s Office.  Additional costs could include execution of subpoenas and criminal background checks.  The overhead would be counterbalanced by an administrative penalty of $25,000 that was available in the event of legal action.  Overall, states had been paying fees at an annual cost of $80,000 to $120,000.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked if the penalty of $25,000 would keep some agents out of certain states, thereby denying opportunity to student athletes in those states.  Mr. Kerr stated it was a policy judgment.  Agents of questionable character would not be of much benefit to an athlete seeking legitimate representation.  The threat of a $25,000 penalty could keep some agents out of a state, but he did not see it as a significant factor.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked if there had been incidents at the University of Nevada.  Dr. Crowley stated he was not aware of any problems with agents at either campus location.  Generally, agents did not gravitate to Nevada.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked if the $25,000 penalty was standard across the nation.  Mr. Kerr replied it was a uniform provision.

 

Assemblyman Manendo posed a question about Section 14 on page 2 which referred to a “nonresidential, nonresident natural person” and if that related to an out-of-state agent.  Mr. Kerr replied it was a standard “long-arm statute construction” whereby the Secretary of State registered the agent as well as received service.  The act did not make a distinction between in-state and out-of-state agents, according to Mr. Kerr.  There was a possible benefit to out-of-state status because that agent’s registration was being brought in from another state on a reciprocal basis.  As such, the cost of reciprocal registrations could be less.  He concluded by saying he had worked on that subject since 1996 and was confident of the objectivity of the National Conference of Commissioners.

 

Rick Bennett, Director of Government Relations for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, issued a brief statement in support of A.B. 253.  He also voiced his agreement with Dr. Crowley’s recommendation to retain the current language in NRS 398.85 related to boosters.

 

Seeing no additional witnesses, Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 253 and opened the hearing on A.B. 130.

 

Assembly Bill 130:  Requires boards of trustees of school districts to offer certain contracts of employment to probationary administrators and principals who are not reemployed in those capacities as post probationary employees. (BDR 34-1048)

 

Warren Hardy, Clark County Association of School Administrators, spoke in support of A.B. 130, which was designed to codify in statute a practice that occurred in all school districts that rehired employees.  Section 6 specifically addressed the post-probationary teacher who was offered a position as an administrator but returned to the former faculty position.  Mr. Hardy pointed out to page 2, line 42, that dealt with offering a contract to the teacher for the ensuing school year.  Displacement of an existing teacher was not the intent, thus an amendment had been proposed that read, “if a position is available.”

 

Allin Chandler, Executive Director of the Clark County Association of School Administrators, explained the proposed language of A.B. 130 captured current practices in Clark County that had been in place since 1997.  The language addressed the treatment of a good employee whose past performance resulted in that employee being promoted to an administrative position.  At that point, a two-year probationary period began.  There were cases where the promotion was not successful.  Mr. Chandler defended the right of that probationary administrator to return to the position from which he was promoted.

 

Mr. Hardy stated he was not aware of any opposition to A.B. 130 as amended.

 

Frank Brusa, representing the Nevada Association of School Administrators, voiced support of the bill on behalf of himself and Lonnie Shields of the Washoe County School Administrators.

 

Seeing no additional witnesses, Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 130 and opened the hearing on A.B. 357.

 

Assembly Bill 357:  Revises provisions governing organization and membership of state board of education. (BDR 34-786)

 

Assemblyman Hettrick, sponsor of the bill, explained A.B. 357 was the result of interim discussions with the Governor’s Fundamental Review Committee of which he was a member.  He described the issue as a “political hot potato” that was being handed off to the Legislature.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick offered background information on boards of education in other states.  He described 34 states as having an appointed board of education, and of that group, the governor made the appointments in 24 of the states.  In three other states, the legislature appointed the members.  In Mississippi, there was a blended appointment system whereby the governor appointed five members, and the legislature appointed the balance.  A.B. 357 essentially proposed that system.  It had an added advantage of allowing student representation on the board.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick, on the issue of qualifications, stated that A.B. 357 did not require appointees to be educators; however, direct input from school boards was required.  He called the committee’s attention to page 1 of the bill that deleted a great deal of language regarding districts.  Page 2, lines 14 to 25, specified that the Governor would appoint 5 members of the board, with the remaining 6 members appointed by the Legislature.  Five appointments would be made in 2003, and the balance of six appointments would follow in 2005.  More direct input from local school districts would be achieved.

 

With the departure of Chairman Williams, Vice Chairman Parnell assumed chairmanship of the meeting.

 

Vice Chairman Parnell posed a question about the current Board of Education, specifically if it would preclude a local school board member from attending a state board meeting for purposes of sharing local concerns.  She viewed the option as currently available but was not often exercised.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick agreed that a local board member could be heard at a state board meeting.  It would be far more difficult, in his judgment, to sit on the state board, vote for an unfounded mandate, and then have to return to your local school district with the bad news.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked if there were any states that did not have a state board of education.  Assemblyman Hettrick replied there were two states, Minnesota and Wisconsin, which had no school boards.

 

John Gwaltney, Co-Chairman of the Governmental Relations Committee for the Nevada State Board of Education, spoke in opposition to A.B. 357.  He stated, without hesitation, current board members were committed to a consensus-building philosophy in dealings with the Legislature.  He cautioned that a nationwide trend in appointed boards was not necessarily the best system for Nevada.  The witness emphasized his 37 years in educational settings had given him experience in working with both appointed and elected boards.  In his judgment, a great board was a great board, regardless of appointment or election.  The introduction of partisan politics into the education community in Nevada could not be avoided if A.B. 357 was passed into law.  He appealed to the committee to keep the state board of education out of partisan politics.

 

Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association, questioned the testimony of Assemblyman Hettrick in which he referred to unfunded mandates.  She recalled the issue centered on class size and caseloads for special education teachers and speech therapists.  There was a request to implement reduced ratios, especially in the areas of occupational and speech therapies.  The State Board had indicated it would be an unfunded mandate passed back to the local school districts.  There was federal money available to implement the reduced ratios if the board took action.  The state board declared the reduced ratios would be in effect only while the federal funds were made available.  The local school districts would not inherit the burden of funding.

 

Because of the complexity, the regulations were sent to the Interim Finance Committee to provide opportunity for review and to negate, if necessary.  Ms. Cahill stated they were forwarded to the Legislative Commission.  At that hearing, Senator O’Connell reviewed the regulations in detail and succeeded in getting agreement the regulations would be in effect only if the federal money was available.  In Ms. Cahill’s view, there was not an unfunded mandate and, if that was the reason for the discussion, she disagreed with Assemblyman Hettrick’s testimony.

 

Ms. Cahill summarized her opposition to A.B. 357 by saying the appointing of persons who had been elected to boards at the local school district level would create a conflict of interest for those appointees.  The mission of the State Board of Education was to establish statewide policy, and the addition of local school board members could interfere with that bigger view of issues.

 

Theresa Malone, an elected member of the Nevada State Board of Education, distributed a packet of documentation (Exhibit I) and commenced testimony on behalf of all 11 members of the board.  The official stance of the board was opposition to A.B. 357, as reflected in a letter from Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction (Exhibit J).  She called the committee’s attention to Exhibit I, the list of elected members of the State Board of Education.  She emphasized the word “elected.”

 

Ms. Malone reminded the committee that, as elected members, there was accountability to the voters of Nevada.  She then called attention to a copy of Commentaries, a newsletter published by the National Association of State Boards of Education (Exhibit K).  The article was entitled “Sustaining the Unique Role of State Boards of Education.”  Ms. Malone noted that for every attempt in one state to change an elected board to an appointed board, there was an opposite proposal in another state to change it back.  She described much of the furor as political, rather than the result of a thoughtful analysis.

 

In conversations with Governor Guinn, Ms. Malone had asked his opinion of changing the organizational structure of the Nevada State Board of Education.  The Governor declared it was not one of his priorities.  In her judgment, providing the highest quality education for children in Nevada was the highest priority.

 

Continuing, Ms. Malone referred to a letter (Exhibit L) issued by Brian Davie, Legislative Services Officer with the Legislative Counsel Bureau.  The letter was an historical perspective of the State Board of Education (SBOE) and the University Board of Regents (BOR).  Ms. Malone found it notable the SBOE was 90 years old.  Since her election in November, she had been greatly impressed with the input from constituents and the involvement of the public in board proceedings.  An elected membership guaranteed the public and all stakeholders would continue to have direct input.

 

In conclusion, Ms. Malone voiced concern that the passage of A.B. 357 could establish dangerous precedent.  It could seriously damage constituency input and accountability to voters.  She encouraged the committee to seriously consider the ramifications if the bill was passed.

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske offered several comments.  In regard to the two states cited as having no board of education, she was aware those two were educationally friendly states that invested significant funds in educational programs.  Through the years, Minnesota and Wisconsin had been resources for teacher recruitment in Nevada as well as for information requests on state-of-the-art educational techniques.  Assemblywoman Cegavske voiced concern over the public’s lack of knowledge of the workings of the State Board of Education (SBOE).  During the campaign, her constituents appeared to be in the dark about the membership and the functioning of the SBOE.  Of all of the state’s elected officials, those were the least known.

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske admitted the hearing on A.B. 357 had served to introduce her to some of the SBOE members and to some of their responsibilities.  If the bill did not pass, she expressed her hope that the dialogue would continue between the State Board of Education and all of the stakeholders.  The need to improve education for Nevada’s children was the common ground on which all players could be united.

 

John Gwaltney, a member of the State Board of Education, reminded the committee that Minnesota and Wisconsin must still structure their educational programs for compliance with federal funding requirements.  Of the 120 employees in the Nevada Department of Education, the federal government funded approximately 80 employees.  As such, the need for a structured approach was essential to preserve funding.

 

Mr. Gwaltney commented on the exchange of ideas about governance was a healthy process.  Many of his colleagues on the SBOE were inspired to run for election due to a desire to make a contribution.  Mr. Gwaltney and many of his fellow board members were scheduled for speaking engagements that would enhance dialogue with the community.  He failed to see how an appointed SBOE would differ with regard to the interaction with constituents.  He speculated that campaigning for office required a candidate to display up-to-date knowledge, whereas an appointed official would not have the same burden.

 

John Massey, representing the Nevada Republican Assembly, offered a brief statement in opposition to A.B. 357.  It was important to keep the SBOE members accountable to the public by requiring their election.  He urged the legislators to do what was right and not be intimidated by the fear of not being elected in the future.

 

Lynn Chapman, State Vice President of the Nevada Eagle Forum, voiced opposition to A.B. 357.  In her view, the appointment of board members contradicted the encouragement of parents to become more involved in the public education system.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick offered closing comments on A.B. 357.  He acknowledged it was commonly accepted that election of an official kept that person closer to public scrutiny; however, he challenged anyone to be able to name or recognize one or two members of the State Board of Education.  Assemblyman Hettrick, elected to a two-year term, was fully aware of the burden to remain close to the voters and to be fully informed.  The appointments to the SBOE would be made by five members of both political parties, making the decisions bipartisan and balanced.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 357.  Seeing the presence of a quorum, he called for a motion on A.B. 130, as amended with the language submitted by Al Bellister.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 130.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

********

 

Chairman Williams called for a motion for indefinite postponement of A.B. 145.  Assemblyman Brower had withdrawn the bill.

 

Assembly Bill 145: Expands program for millennium scholarships to provide for disbursement of scholarships to students of certain additional colleges and universities in this state. (BDR 34-581)

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 145.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

********

 

Chairman Williams called for a motion on A.B. 253, as amended.  Assemblywoman Cegavske explained the amendment would restore the language regarding the ethical conduct of boosters.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 253.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

In response to Chairman Williams, Assemblywoman Cegavske reiterated she had requested the fiscal note for A.B. 253 and had not yet received it.  Dr. Joe Crowley had estimated the fiscal impact to be relatively minor.

 

********

 

Chairman Williams called for a motion on A.B. 357.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 357.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Collins voiced his reasons for being unable to support the bill.  There were six or seven boards throughout the state, with combinations of appointments and elections of members.  He described the situation of some boards as hindered by “buck-passing.”  Assemblyman Collins failed to see how political appointments would enhance the State Board of Education.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson echoed the concerns of Assemblyman Collins and stated the members should be elected and held accountable directly to the people.  As such, he would not support passage of the bill.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning explained she had worked closely with the State Board of Education in the past four years.  The interaction at all levels was significantly enhanced with the passage of the Education Reform Act.  The failure to recognize the names and faces of board members was, in itself, not a serious indictment of the system.  Assemblywoman Cegavske was not comfortable with half of the Board being appointed by the Governor, and therefore, she could not support passage of the bill.

 

Chairman Williams asked if the bill passed what would happen with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction position.  He believed he would still be selected by the SBOE.  He called for a vote on the motion.

 

THE MOTION FAILED. 

 

Assemblyman Manendo called for a motion of indefinite postponement of A.B. 357.  Following informal comments, Chairman Williams described the bill as dead.

 

********

 

Chairman Williams called for a motion on A.B. 364, as amended using the language submitted by the Clark County School District.  There was no opposition to the bill.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 364.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto requested clarification of the amendment.  Dr. Kadlub explained the amendment synchronized reporting dates, changed the language on the number of students participating in the free or reduced lunch program, and deleted two sections.  The first deletion related to the manner in which public concerns would be reported.  The second section amended language so that all subdistricts would abide by a uniform set of policies.

 

Chairman Williams asked if there was a fiscal note.  Dr. Kadlub estimated the costs at $30,000 to $40,000 for administrative overheard in each of the subdistricts.

 

Chairman Williams called for a vote on the motion to amend and do pass A.B. 364.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

********

 

Chairman Williams called for a motion on A.B. 405, as amended using the language proposed by the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) and the State Board of Education.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 405.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblywoman Smith requested clarification of the amendment and asked if the NSEA handout (Exhibit D) contained the total contents of A.B. 405.  Chairman Williams replied “yes.”

 

Assemblywoman Parnell stated support for the bill, but voiced concerns over the number of committee members who were detained in another hearing during the earlier discussion of A.B. 405.  She also took notice of the number of e-mails and phone calls she had received from constituents who had been misled into believing the current standards in the state did not already address the issue of phonics.  An issue that should have been strictly an educational one mushroomed into a political controversy.  Nobody could win with that situation.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning, as a member of the Standards Council and a member of the English Language Writing Arts Team, expressed feelings of pride of the work accomplished by parents, teachers, and business leaders in the construction of the standards document.  There was no suggestion of political pressure in that effort to include phonics in the manual.  She applauded the use of phonics, currently in use in schools, and she voiced support for the bill as amended.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel declared her support of the bill.  She reminded the committee of the receipt of federal dollars that would follow with the passage of A.B. 405.

 

Chairman Williams called for a vote on the motion to amend and do pass A.B. 405.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 459: Requires adoption of policies to provide safe and respectful learning environments in public schools. (BDR 34‑1286)

 

Chairman Williams called the committee’s attention to an information packet (Exhibit M) summarizing the bill and proposed amendments.

 

Assemblyman Parks, sponsor of A.B. 459, informed the committee that three amendments had been proposed since the first hearing on the bill.  The first amendment was submitted by the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) and would add a new section to include definitions as set forth on page 3 of Exhibit M.  A legal review judged the language to be acceptable.

 

The second amendment on page 2 of Exhibit M was proposed by the Washoe County School District.  Assemblyman Parks voiced concern over allowing each of the 17 school districts to adopt an individual set of policies, as suggested in the amendment.  The uniformity that would be guaranteed by a single body, the State Board of Education, appeared to be more desirable.

 

Assemblyman Parks had just viewed a policy videotape of the Clark County School District, and called it outstanding.  As good as it was, however, he detected some shortcomings.  One improvement would be to extend the policy to all school employees and not just to the administrators and teachers.  Secondly, there was the need for a handbook for administrators, principals, and teachers that would document the contents of the videotape.  Conversations with teachers revealed to him there was no follow-up action after viewing the videotape of school policy.

 

Assemblyman Parks’ next recommendation was that programs needed to be more age-specific.  Training for the three major levels of students, elementary, middle, and high school, was needed.  The videotape appeared to be predominately directed at the high school level. 

 

Assemblyman Parks’ final point was to delete language on page 3, lines 7 to 9.  The sentence “The training must require the participants to use techniques and skills such as role-playing.”  He would prefer to delete that and allow the schools to determine the best methods to accomplish the training.

 

Assemblyman Collins agreed with a handbook to support the videotape.  He requested clarification on which of the three amendments would be utilized.  His second question was whether the addition of all school employees, in particular the adult employees, had been handled by A.B. 311 of the Seventieth Session.

 

Assemblyman Parks viewed A.B. 311 of the Seventieth Session as having addressed a different issue.  He clarified the bill under discussion, A.B. 459, addressed training of school employees and not hiring or employment practices.

 

Assemblyman Collins asked if the videotape should be utilized as a prototype for other districts.  Assemblyman Parks responded it had great potential as a model for other school districts in Nevada.  He reiterated the need to enhance the video for elementary and middle school policy issues.

 

Assemblywoman Angle referred to Exhibit M and asked if the amendment submitted by Assemblywoman Cegavske had been considered.  Assemblywoman Cegavske had informed Assemblyman Parks that it had been handed to her by another party and she was not the author.  Although the emphasis was on the ability of each school district to determine its own program, Assemblyman Parks felt there was good argument to develop only one program for all districts in the state.  That would help those areas that lacked resources to develop highly sophisticated programs.

 

Chairman Williams asked Assemblyman Parks to summarize the amendments before calling for a motion on A.B. 459.

 

Assemblyman Parks stated the first change would be the creation of a new Section 3, using the contents of the memo from Jim Penrose, Attachment A of Exhibit M.  The previous Section 3 would be renumbered Section 4, and previously labeled Section 4 would become Section 5.  Starting on line 42 of page 2, the wording “positive methods” would be replaced with “a written plan that outlines a number of positive methods and resources teachers may use.”  On line 45, the word “methods” would be deleted and replaced with the words “written lesson plans that outline positive methods that teachers may use to teach skills to pupils so that pupils are able to replace inappropriate behavior with positive behavior.”  On page 3, lines 7 to 9 would be deleted.

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske acknowledged she was also impressed with the Clark County videotape; however, she did not want to require Clark County to redo what had already been accomplished.  She concurred with Assemblyman Parks that all employees needed to be included, and the videotape should be enhanced to address younger students.  Assemblywoman Cegavske voiced concern that Clark County might be forced to overhaul their efforts of the past year.

 

In response to Assemblywoman Cegavske’s concern over additional witnesses, Chairman Williams clarified that, because the discussion on A.B. 459 was a work session, witnesses would not be invited to testify.  Response to specific questions would be allowed.  There was a motion on the floor, and Assemblyman Parks’ testimony was for purposes of clarification before voting.

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske reiterated her question about whether Clark County would be required to redo their work of the past year.  Assemblyman Parks voiced his hope that the bill would not be interpreted as requiring Clark County to “reinvent the wheel.”  Chairman Williams summarized that Clark County would be asked to merely expand what they had already done.

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske argued for those portions of the amendments that would allow each school district to have the autonomy to develop its own plans, with the Superintendent of Public Instruction serving as an umbrella to merely oversee the process.  Assemblyman Parks stated he also viewed the State Department of Education as a coordinating body that would network and share materials across all school districts.  The department would not dictate specific policy.

 

Chairman Williams asked the State Superintendent if he agreed.

 

Jack McLaughlin, State Superintendent, stated he was very supportive of the approach and would be happy to be a resource.

 

Assemblyman Collins made reference to the amendment from Jim Penrose (Exhibit M) and asked if the bill language under Section 2 was a combination of old and new wording.  Assemblyman Parks clarified the entire section was originally left out of the bill.  Following a review by Mr. Penrose, he felt adding those specific definitions to the amendment would strengthen the bill.

 

Assemblyman Collins summarized by saying removal of the practice from local regulation and placing it into state statute would enhance consistency.  However, he did not fully understand how the Superintendent could accomplish unique policy in the rural areas.  He asked if the policy contents would be unique or just the implementation of that policy.

 

Chairman Williams declared the Nevada Department of Education would be coordinators and would assist when able.  He called for a motion.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 459.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblywoman Smith asked for clarification of Section 4 on page 2, subsection 1, where it said the “department shall prescribe.”  She asked if that was too stringent.  Assemblyman Parks replied the wording had not been changed and he agreed it was rather stringent.  Assemblywoman Smith suggested the use of “coordinate” and, once again, stated “prescribe” was too strong.  Assemblyman Parks stated he would amend the language to replace “prescribe” with “coordinate.”

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel remarked it was unclear whether the language on page 2, lines 35 to 37, would remain in A.B. 459.  Assemblyman Parks replied it was not his intention to delete that language.  Assemblywoman Von Tobel disclosed she was a substitute teacher and failed to understand how she would be trained to accept differing beliefs.  She voiced confidence in her ability to be a good teacher and still have beliefs that differed from her students.  That language caused her concern, and she declared she would vote against the bill.

 

Assemblywoman de Braga called attention to Section 4, subsection 1.  She felt the insertion of the word “coordinate” would fail to meet the intention of the language.  If “prescribe” was too harsh, she recommended a word with similar intent be used, because it clearly referenced it as a regulation.  She did not feel the words “coordinate through regulation” were compatible.

 

Assemblyman Parks suggested the word “establish” could be a possible alternative.

 

Assemblywoman Parnell remarked the language was reminiscent of her work with the School Safety and Juvenile Violence Commission.  It was the intent to make the State Department of Education ensure the placement of a safety plan in all 17 school districts, with some recommendations from the state.  It would not have been so authoritative that the same plan would have been prescribed for all 17 districts.  It was to ensure there was a plan with some commonalities.

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske requested confirmation of the deletion of Section 3 on page 2.  Assemblyman Parks replied it was not a deletion.  It was his intent to replace Section 3 with new language from Mr. Penrose and renumber subsequent sections.  Assemblywoman Cegavske voiced concern over being able to decide without seeing the full text of the amended version of A.B. 459.  She asked to reserve her right to change her vote on the Assembly Floor.

 

Assemblywoman Smith voiced confusion over Section 4 and suggested if the wording should be “the department shall prescribe by regulation a suggested policy.”  It would allow some latitude to school districts.  Assemblyman Parks responded in the affirmative and found the wording agreeable.

 

Assemblyman Parks interjected a comment on Section 4, subsection 2, and attempted to clarify the intent was to address concerns over religious beliefs and the need to be respectful of differing views.

 

Assemblywoman de Braga made reference to Section 4.1 that read, “Policy must include a model program for use by the school districts.”  She argued it did not establish everything that would be in the policy.  The word “model” implied flexibility and, in her judgment, it was okay as written.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson voiced concerns over mandating the school districts to establish another program, when they were already overly burdened with programs.  He recommended the schools stay with the basics of teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic.  He concluded by saying he could not support A.B. 459.  He was willing to read the amendments again after being rewritten.

 

Chairman Williams reviewed the motion on A.B. 459 to amend and do pass.

 

THE MOTION PASSED BY A 7 TO 5 VOTE.  ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE, ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS, ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL VOTED “NAY.”

 

********

 

Chairman Williams called for a motion to indefinitely postpone action on A.B. 633.  He explained the reason was because of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) bill, A.B. 555.

 

Assembly Bill 633: Revises provisions governing public employees’ retirement system to authorize certain retired employees to accept employment as teachers. (BDR 23‑1300)

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 633.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

********

 

Chairman Williams called for action on A.B. 142.  The Professional Standards Commission had declared the issue would be handled through regulation.

 

Assembly Bill 142: Requires superintendent of public instruction, in certain circumstances, to waive passing scores otherwise required on examinations for initial licensure of teachers and other educational personnel. (BDR 34‑975)

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 142.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

********

 

Chairman Williams called for a vote on A.B. 124.

 

Assembly Bill 124: Requires boards of trustees of certain school districts to provide transportation for certain pupils. (BDR 34‑37)

 

Assemblyman Manendo, the bill’s sponsor, stated there was no amendment on the bill.  Originally, discussion had centered on the fiscal note.  One proposal was to decrease the mileage threshold from 2 miles to 1.5 for younger students and increase the mileage for high school students from 2 miles to 3 miles.  The threshold for middle school students would remain at 2 miles.  Overall, there would be no fiscal impact.  Assemblyman Manendo said there were two options.  The first was to make the mileage adjustments he had described.  The second option was to send the bill to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.

 

Chairman Williams called for a summary of the amendment and a motion on A.B. 124.

 

Assemblyman Collins stated the amendment would specify a mileage threshold of 1.5 miles for elementary students, 2 miles for middle school students, and 3 miles for high school students.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND, DO PASS, AND REREFER A.B. 124 TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Williams added the bill was concurrently referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

 

********

 

Chairman Williams called for a vote on A.B. 188.

 

Assembly Bill 188: Makes appropriations to Clark County School District for expansion of distance education. (BDR S‑349)

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 188.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Williams called for a discussion of the motion.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel declared that distance education was working well in Clark County.  The bill was merely a request for appropriation of funds from the State General Fund.  To indefinitely postpone the bill would send a message that the policy was not working, contrary to evidence.  As such, she could not support the motion.

 

Assemblywoman Parnell voiced confusion since A.B. 127, a policy bill that included distance education, had been passed.  She requested clarification on how A.B. 188 differed from A.B. 127.  Chairman Williams interjected that a fiscal note had just been received earlier that day.

 

Assemblywoman de Braga stated she would have voted against A.B. 127 as well.  The reason she was opposed to A.B. 188 was due to concerns over spending funds on one specific program.  If the program was successful and being supported statewide, she could not see why there was a need for an individual appropriation of money.  The school district should fund it, especially with the apparent success of the program.

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske clarified that A.B. 188 was designed to continue and expand the program in the high growth areas of Clark County.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning voiced her opposition to the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill.  In 1995 there were 618 students, whereas in 1999 there were 5,234 students.  The program offered solid opportunities to students who would most likely dropout of school.  If the money was not available, that would be up to the Committee on Ways and Means to decide.  She viewed A.B. 188 as excellent and a strong policy.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson made a brief statement in opposition to the motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 188.

 

Chairman Williams recalled there were approximately 3,000 high school students and 3,000 college students utilizing the program.  He voiced some confusion over spending the money on college students and recalled he had not received an answer to that question.

 

Chairman Williams called for a vote on the motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 188.

 

THE MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 188 FAILED.

 

Chairman Williams called for a new motion on A.B. 188.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 188.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA VOTED “NAY.”

 

********

 

Chairman Williams called for a motion on A.B. 226, the Ritalin bill.

 

 

Assembly Bill 226: Makes various changes relating to pupils who engage in disruptive behavior. (BDR 34‑88)

 

Chairman Williams called the committee’s attention to a summary of amendments for A.B. 226 (Exhibit N).  Assemblywoman Angle presented the amendment at the original hearing.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 226.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA, ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING VOTED “NAY.”

 

The meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

Mary Drake

Committee Secretary

 

______________________________                        June Rigsby

Transcribing Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

 

 

DATE: