MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-First Session

May 16, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:54 p.m. on Wednesday, May 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

Mrs.                     Ellen Koivisto

Mr.                     Mark Manendo

Mrs.                     Debbie Smith

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

 

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Mary Drake, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

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

Steve Williams, Legislative Representative, Washoe County School District

Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent of Instructional, Research and Evaluative Services, Nevada Department of Education

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens

John Gwaltney, Representative, Legislative Committee for the State Board of Education

Mr. David Perlman, Administrator, Commission on Postsecondary Education

Dr. Joe Crowley, Legislative Relations, University and Community College System of Nevada

John Clark, Principal, Washoe High School

Mr. Ernie MacKenzie, Director of Adult Education for Carson High School

Ben Blinn, Citizen, Carson City

Tom Mayer, Citizen, Washoe High School

Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association

Steven Horsford, Agassi College Preparatory Academy

Mr. Daniel Grimmer, Legislative Affairs Manager, MGM Mirage

 

Chairman Williams called the meeting to order as a subcommittee and noted once a quorum was present, the committee could take action as necessary.  He opened the hearing on S.B. 311.  

 

Senate Bill 311:  Requires Clark County School District to establish special planning committee to plan for construction of smaller schools. (BDR S-969)

 

Dr. Craig Kadlub, Legislative Representative for the Clark County School District (CCSD), said the first reprint of S.B. 311 was a measure the CCSD could endorse and they felt the planning committee was appropriate.  The CCSD had recently applied for and received a U.S. Department of Education one-year planning grant for smaller learning communities.  The grant allowed them to pursue concepts such as “school-within-a-school” and other small programs that facilitated more personal environments in existing and future schools.  Dr. Kadlub concluded the CCSD would report to the committee at the specified times required by S.B. 311.

 

Chairman Williams asked whether the bill presented any problems to CCSD.  Dr. Kadlub said the first reprint did not.  Chairman Williams then asked about the fiscal note.  Dr. Kadlub said his interpretation was the measure requested a planning committee be established to evaluate construction of smaller schools and report any recommendations to the Assembly Committee on Education.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 311 and opened the hearing on S.B. 165.

 

Senate Bill 165:  Makes various changes regarding education. (BDR 34-218)

 

Susan Scholley, Policy Analyst for the Committee on Education, presented S.B. 165 on behalf of the Legislative Committee on Education.  The bill was one of ten bills submitted by the committee resulting from testimony heard during the interim, and included five major recommendations.  Mrs. Scholley explained the topics included:

 

 

Addressing the reports by panels of schools on academic probation, Mrs. Scholley explained under Nevada’s accountability program, any school classified as needing improvement for two consecutive years was placed on academic probation and evaluated by a special panel.  The Legislative Committee on Education identified a potential policy gap in the manner reports were prepared and reviewed.  They recommended a number of changes to the contents of the reports.  Under S.B. 165, the reports were now required to contain the following additional information:

 

 

Additionally, S.B. 165 required:

 

 

Mrs. Scholley explained part of the Senate amendments to S.B. 165 removed eligibility for state remediation funds for schools needing improvement based solely on poor attendance.  District level accountability reports needed to include information regarding teacher professional development.

 

Mrs. Scholley clarified adult and alternative education included adult high school diploma, adult basic education, prison education, and alternative education.  During the last interim, the Nevada Department of Education (NDOE) convened a task force comprised of representatives from adult programs, business interests, legislators, and staff from the State Board of Education, Department of Education, and the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation.  The task force addressed the issue of directing students into appropriate programs so they could take advantage of state funding and improve the low graduation rate of adult high school diploma.

 

The Legislative Committee on Education considered several recommendations of the task force, including certain technical clean-up provisions.  S.B. 165 amended the statutes to make certain program changes to Nevada’s system of adult and alternative education programs increased retention and completion rates.  Specific changes included deleting reference to “part-time” when describing students in adult high school diploma programs and removing requirements for reporting average daily attendance of pupils in those programs.

 

Mrs. Scholley said the committee considered a proposal by two school districts to provide local control over the General Education Development (GED) test for students desiring to drop out of high school.  The current law allowed a 16-year old to apply to the State Board of Education to take the GED, and that statute conflicted with Nevada’s Compulsory Attendance Law that set 17 as the minimum age for schooling.  The committee agreed local jurisdictions should have precedence over students.  The bill amended the statute and allowed any student between the ages of 16 and 18 to petition the local board of trustees to take the GED.  The petition had to have guardian or parental written permission.  A section in S.B. 165 provided an exemption from the Compulsory Attendance Law for those pupils.

 

Nevada’s school districts received their share of state education funding based upon student enrollment within their districts.  At a recent meeting in Fallon, the committee members received information regarding budget cutbacks made by the Churchill County School District because of impacts from declining enrollment and last year’s fiscal budget.  A newly established charter school in the Churchill County School District had drawn a significant number of students away from the traditional high school.  That occurrence, coupled with shrinking enrollment in other schools in the district, had led to significant budget cuts.

 

Mrs. Scholley explained under current law, a school district that experienced enrollment declines had a one-year “hold harmless” provision that authorized districts to base the guaranteed level of funding for the current year upon the previous year’s enrollment.  School boards had time to address enrollment issues and make appropriate adjustments to the budget.  The new provision extended the “hold harmless” clause to two years and gave the school districts an extra year to deal with budget adjustments for declining enrollment. 

 

The fourth component of S.B. 165 related to test administration and reporting.  Mrs. Scholley explained a technical amendment was requested by the NDOE to address the state reporting requirements for certain statewide proficiency examinations.  Due to contract clauses and practical considerations, the NDOE requested the reporting dates, set forth in NRS Chapter 389, be revised to give the school districts and charter schools an additional two weeks to forward test results to the NDOE for accountability purposes.  Since the dates for issuing the accountability reports had not changed, the committee agreed to forward the proposal to the full legislature and revise the statute reporting requirements.  The dates were changed from November 1 and December 1 to November 15 and December 15, respectively.

 

Mrs. Scholley addressed the last topic in S.B. 165, which was the American government and American history requirements.  She said the original version of the bill allowed flexibility and removed the one-year requirement for courses of instruction in American history and American government.  A Senate amendment restored the requirement and added the study of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  The Academic Standards Council (ASC) had asked for some flexibility in the one-year requirement so they could incorporate other social study standards in those courses.  The Senate amendment restored the language in statute and added the additional documents.

 

Steve Williams, Legislative Representative for the Washoe County School District (WCSD), said the district supported most of the legislation, particularly Sections 7 and 9.  He was concerned with the subject matter in Section 16 and objected to the one-year time frame.  The WCSD proposed that Section 16, subsection 2, be changed from “high school” to “secondary school.”  Middle school students would be exposed to the topic and count toward satisfying the provisions of the bill.  He felt the issue needed flexibility.

 

Mrs. Cegavske commented the language left it open by stating “ . . . must be taught in all the public schools in the state of Nevada for a period of at least one year.”  She asked Dr. Rheault if he could interpret the provision.

 

Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent of Instructional, Research and Evaluative Services with the Nevada Department of Education, said the NDOE supported the measure with the exception of Sections 16 and 17.  He provided a written copy of his testimony (Exhibit C) with proposed amendments.

 

Dr. Rheault explained the Legislative Committee on Education had recommended the revisions to NRS 389 at the request of the State Board of Education, and they had been reviewed by the ASC.  The provision limited what school districts could do to incorporate the new social study standards developed and adopted last year by the ASC.  The new time requirements limited how districts could organize the curriculum to meet the science standards.  The one-year requirement for American government and American history placed a two-year requirement on geography and economics.  The State Board of Education requested the changes to allow flexibility.  Dr. Rheault felt the district would have to add another high school social studies credit.  By deleting the one-year requirement, all school districts would adhere to the new social study standards.  The new ASC social study standards included the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Nevada, and the Declaration of Independence (Exhibit D).  The school districts could either integrate some of the new courses, such as geography and economics into social studies, or leave it the same and add another required credit to meet the district social study standards.

 

Dr. Rheault said the recommended amendment in Section 16 deleted subsection 2, lines 17 to 19, which referred to teaching time requirements.  The changes in Section 17, subsection 3, deleted the wording “for a period of at least one year” and ended the line with a period after “all of the public schools in the State of Nevada.”

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked Dr. Rheault if he had submitted the recommendations to the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.  He replied he had.  The primary concerns expressed were from veterans’ groups and others who felt the bill was an attempt to weaken, or delete, the Constitution by not teaching American government and American history.  Dr. Rheault emphasized that was not the case.  The original bill had deleted the one-year requirement.  After hearing testimony, the committee deleted NDOE’S request and included the Bill of Rights in Sections 16 and 17, along with the Constitution of the State of Nevada, and the Declaration of Independence.  

 

Mrs. Chowning noted she was a member of the ASC and asked Dr. Rheault to clarify what the State Board of Education brought to the council.  Dr. Rheault said the board had requested the deletion of the one-year requirement for American government and American history.  Mrs. Chowning felt it was not necessary to designate a specific time period, as long as the standards could be taught in one-half year.

 

Mrs. Chowning asked Dr. Rheault if the amendments in Sections 16 and 17, which required instruction on the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of Nevada, and the Declaration of Independence, were Senate amendments.  Dr. Rheault confirmed that was correct.  The school districts provided instruction on those topics because they had to meet the social study standards by the end of twelfth grade.  He was requesting language that provided flexibility to the districts to meet those standards.

 

Ms. Parnell stated the schools taught American history in the eighth grade, U.S. history in the eleventh grade, and American government in the twelfth grade.  If “high school” were changed to “secondary school” then one of those two years would be eliminated.

 

Dr. Rheault said that would not be the case.  The standards the ASC adopted for history and civics set the benchmark at grades two, three, five, eight, and the end of high school.  The eighth grade standards included geography, economics, history, and civics.  He was not advocating the elimination of any subject that was adopted in the standards.

 

Ms. Parnell said she was comfortable with the language “without limitation.”  She felt the districts would be able to teach a multitude of subjects, including the essential points of American government and history in the eighth, eleventh, and twelfth grades.  She was concerned about specifying “secondary” because it could combine secondary and high school classes together.  She felt the language the WCSD proposed could compromise the eighth grade year of history and government.

 

Mr. Williams said the intent was not to “water down” the standards, but provide a longer period of time to fulfill the requirements.  They wanted the ability to modify some of the courses, but did not feel the one-year standard was the correct way to go.  He noted Dr. Rheault’s amendment was acceptable to them.

 

Mr. Collins was concerned about cutting back on course material and wondered how school districts could teach comprehensive courses in American government and history to larger classes in a shorter period of time.  One of the teachers who received the Teacher of the Year Award had commented teachers were losing their ability to simply “teach” because of the limitations and restrictions placed on them.  He felt teaching time was being “interrupted.”

 

Dr. Rheault said the adopted state standards spelled out exactly what the students needed to learn and flexibility was needed to meet those standards.  History had over 150 areas to cover. 

 

Mr. Collins said it sounded like the school district curriculum was being “interrupted” too much by the legislators and too much time was taken away from teaching.

 

Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, said the Senate committee felt strongly they did not want to see a reduction or “watering down” of government or history instruction.  Veteran groups had suggested the added language and the specific topics of study.  Ms. Lusk said the reason existing law was retained was to prevent the insertion of other topic areas into the curriculum, as suggested in today’s testimony.  American government and history were important in developing the civic consciousness of the students, and should not be set aside in favor of other subjects.

 

Ms. Parnell said that throughout S.B. 165 and NRS 386.605 no reference had been made to charter schools in the accountability sections.  Ms. Parnell proposed amendments (Exhibit E) to S.B. 165 to add language relative to charter schools.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 165 and opened the hearing on S.B. 113.

 

Senate Bill 113:  Makes various changes to provisions governing program for millennium scholarships. (BDR 34-433)

 

Chairman Williams explained S.B. 113 was passed out of the Assembly Committee on Education on April 30.  The initial intent of the bill was to remove Millennium Scholarship eligibility from inmates attending school through the adult education process.  Inadvertently, the committee had removed all adult education from Millennium Scholarship eligibility and he wanted to rehear the bill and address those concerns.

 

Dr. Rheault stated he had an amendment to S.B. 113 (Exhibit F) that addressed the elimination of adult high school diploma students from receiving the Millennium Scholarship.  He reviewed his amendment proposals.  Section 4, subsection 1, would read: 

Graduated from a public or private high school in this state or was enrolled as a pupil at a public or private high school in this state with a class of students that would have graduated,

(1) After May 1, 2000, and

(2) Was issued a high school diploma within five years after the time the pupil was scheduled to graduate.

 

Dr. Rheault explained the language gave students who did not graduate, but were in a class that should have graduated after May 2000, five years to earn their adult high school diploma and be eligible for a Millennium Scholarship.  He indicated the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) had agreed with the amendment. 

 

Mr. Collins asked how age was relevant if the Millennium Scholarship money was used for education and increased college enrollment.   

 

Dr. Rheault answered the objective was to get more students into college and target younger students who were not going from high school to college.  The state had projected the Millennium Scholarship program would last ten years, but there would be no funds available beyond that.

 

Mr. Collins felt the current provisions could possibly trigger an age discrimination lawsuit.  Dr. Rheault responded the amendment gave an additional five years to achieve a high school diploma for those students motivated to pursue it.  The new language did not specifically bar anyone incarcerated from being eligible for the Millennium Scholarship.  The school districts were required to serve incarcerated students and help them earn diplomas.

 

Chairman Williams asked Dr. Rheault what would happen if a high school student committed a crime, served prison time, and returned to complete high school.  Would that student qualify for a Millennium Scholarship, if all other requirements were met?

 

Dr. Rheault said, based on the amendment language, any student sentenced to serve time for four years with no access to an adult diploma program, would meet the requirements.  Chairman Williams wondered what the difference was between a student incarcerated for 14 months and released and a student who committed a crime after high school graduation and was ineligible for the program.  He asked if the difference was the circumstances of the crime or the crime dates.  Dr. Rheault said the current language did not penalize a student who was incarcerated for 14 months, enrolled in alternative programs after release, and earning an adult diploma.  Chairman Williams asked if the student could enroll in a traditional high school.  Dr. Rheault replied any student that earned credits after being allowed back into the system, passed the proficiency exam and received a diploma, would be eligible for a Millennium Scholarship.

 

Mrs. Smith commented there needed to be balance with the Millennium Scholarship program.  Chancellor Nichols had indicated during her testimony on April 30 that over 13,000 people were enrolled in adult high school diploma programs.  Students who graduated before the program was implemented were not eligible and she believed the original intent of the program needed to be looked at.  She supported the new amendment language that allowed students in an adult program, within the five-year time frame, to achieve a diploma and remain eligible for the scholarship program.  She felt the possible addition of 13,000 students would place a strain on the program.

 

Ms. Von Tobel said she was reimbursed for two years of her tuition when she returned to school as an adult, through the Hope Scholarship, and she felt there were many financial opportunities available to students.  She did not believe the intent of the Millennium Scholarship was to make it available to every individual in the state.

 

Dr. Rheault clarified an adult high school diploma was equal to a standard high school diploma.  The standards were the same, with the exception of the two physical education credits.  Adult high school diplomas were closer to high school standards than the GED.

 

Vice Chairman Parnell felt there were misunderstandings about regular high school diplomas, adult high school diplomas, and GEDs when S.B. 113 was first heard.  The high school proficiency exam was a requirement for the Millennium Scholarship and she questioned how it was addressed within the three groups.

 

Dr. Rheault said statute gave authority to the Board of Regents to set priorities for students who had not graduated from high school.  A student earning a GED certificate did not have to take the proficiency exam, but was required to take the ACT or SAT and meet minimum requirements.

 

Vice Chairman Parnell felt the proficiency exams should become a policy question for legislators during the interim hearings.  Some high school students met all the criteria for graduation, but could not graduate because of their proficiency exam test scores.

 

Mrs. Smith asked Dr. Rheault how the issues of cumulative GPAs for adult high school students were addressed.  Dr. Rheault replied all previous high school work, and courses completed after leaving high school, were included in the GPA.  The cumulative grades had to be a “B” or better.  Mrs. Smith thought previous testimony had determined the cumulative GPA for adult students was different than regular high school graduates.  Dr. Rheault said it should not be different.

 

Mrs. Chowning agreed with Mr. Collins that the Millennium Scholarship was another education tool and the age of the student should not matter.  The goal was to have Nevadans complete higher education.  Not all of the 13,000 students in adult high school diploma programs would meet the scholarship requirement of a 3.0 GPA.  She felt the scholarship should be available to everyone.

 

Mr. John Gwaltney, representing the Legislative Committee for the State Board of Education, commented he had recently testified before the committee about the need to expand the potential pool of teacher education or teacher “creation” institutions.  His research on the issue of expanding teacher population by borrowing from other states would no longer work.  The number of teachers retiring was staggering and would hamper Nevada’s ability to recruit teachers.  Expanding the teacher pool through the use of private education would cost Nevada less.  He asked David Perlman, Administrator for the Commission on Postsecondary Education, to address the issue.

 

Mr. Perlman said the commission had worked closely with the NDOE to ensure private school teacher education programs were approved by the NDOE and met all their qualifications.  Applicants for the program were required to possess a four-year degree and receive a teaching education component through one of the five schools.  Exhibit G listed the private postsecondary institutions that offered the approved curriculum.

 

The program took approximately 20 months to complete and required 16 weeks of student teaching, which made it difficult to have a full-time job.  Mr. Perlman felt the Millennium Scholarship program should include students who wished to attend private school and earn their teaching certificate.  The language “. . . is licensed to operate an approved teacher education program in Nevada by the Commission on Postsecondary Education . . .” could be added to Section 1, subsection 2, to broaden the definition of Millennium Scholarship eligible institutions.  The language would eliminate using Millennium Scholarship funds for programs other than teacher education.  It was a beginning to have private schools help with the teacher shortage problem.  The current language in Section 1, subsection 2(c), ensured the school would be accredited by a regional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.

 


Mr. Collins asked Mr. Perlman if he thought it would be more economical to use private schools for teacher accreditation.

 

Mr. Gwaltney responded it would save Nevada money to use private colleges as opposed to building and staffing colleges.  Students attending private colleges paid their own tuition.  He believed opening the Millennium Scholarship to students in private institutions would attract more people into the field of public education.  The number of students in education programs could double if the financial assistance was available.

 

Mr. Collins stated there were scholarships available for students in private colleges.  Mr. Gwaltney said Millennium Scholarships had two benefits.  First, it was a prestigious scholarship that identified private institutions as quality institutions, and, secondly, the scholarships were not based upon need.

 

Mrs. Koivisto asked if tuition was higher at private colleges.  Mr. Perlman acknowledged it was, with the average credit costing $316.  Mrs. Koivisto commented a student might be better off going to a college with lower tuition if they wanted to receive the Millennium Scholarship.

 

Mr. Gwaltney agreed cost was an issue.  A private college program might meet the needs of some students better than universities or community colleges could.  Nevada was experiencing the largest teacher crisis in its history.  The financial problems in education had detracted from teacher shortage problems, which might be the single most important issue in public education.

 

Ms. Von Tobel commented some students attending private colleges were pursuing master’s degrees and that was not the intent of the Millennium Scholarship.  The program would quickly run out of money if it was offered to a wider audience.  There were numerous ways for adult students to fund their education.

 

Mr. Perlman clarified the graduate programs outlined in Exhibit F were for teachers who returned to school specifically to get their master’s degree.  The teacher certification program was for individuals with a four-year degree who were seeking the certification component. 

 

Mr. Gwaltney remarked the Hope Scholarship, along with other scholarships, had been available for a long time and had not fixed the teacher shortage problem.  As a representative of the State Board of Education Legislative Committee, he was there to remind the committee something else needed to be done.  His proposal was a small step in that direction.

 

Ms. Von Tobel felt more students would go into teaching if it paid more.  Mr. Gwaltney did not disagree.  Ms. Von Tobel commented teaching colleges had few applicants because the pay was so low.

 

Mr. Collins asked Mr. Perlman if the proposal used private schools for teacher certification only and not for master’s degrees.  Mr. Perlman said that was correct.

 

Mrs. Koivisto concurred with Ms. Von Tobel that it was the low pay in Nevada that forced teachers to seek positions out of state.  The only benefit she could see to opening private institutions to the Millennium Scholarship would be the financial gain for the private institution itself.

 

Chairman Williams suggested a stipulation requiring students who accepted the Millennium Scholarship to commit to teach in Nevada. 

 

Mr. Gwaltney commented the issue was related to salary and a limitation might be possible.  The financial assistance was modest and it might be questionable if a teacher could be bound to any type of commitment.

 

Mr. Collins asked Mr. Perlman if there were grants and other financial aids for students at private colleges.  Mr. Perlman answered the U.S. Dept of Education Title IV program had some grants, but the Hope Scholarship and tuition saving accounts were the most used. 

 

Mrs. Angle believed the discussion had strayed from the original intent of the Millennium Scholarship, which was to provide ways for Nevada children to stay in Nevada and attend school.  The teacher shortage had other factors that had not been discussed.  She reiterated Mrs. Smith’s comments that the Millennium Scholarship was not for everyone and a balance must be found.

 

Dr. Joe Crowley, Assistant to the Chancellor of the UCCSN for Legislative Relations, offered his observations on the Millennium Scholarship program as it related to adult education.  He agreed there was a teacher shortage in Nevada and felt the problem needed to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner than using Millennium Scholarship funds toward teacher certification programs.  The original intent of the Millennium Scholarship program was to get Nevada high school graduates to go to college in Nevada.  Nevada had one of the lowest percentages in the nation of high school students entering college and had a history of students leaving to attend college in other states.

 

Dr. Crowley remarked the objectives of the scholarship had been met the first year of implementation when over 4,000 high school graduates attended state institutions of higher learning.  Many of those students would not be attending college except for the financial incentive the program offered.

 

Adult education was a complicated issue and the first draft of S.B. 113 tried to meet a standard of fairness as defined by the UCCSN.  It was impossible to resolve every situation in terms of adult education, and he believed the five-year window was agreeable to all parties concerned.  Speaking on behalf of the UCCSN, Dr. Crowley supported the compromise proposed by Dr. Rheault.

 

Steve Williams, Legislative Representative for the Washoe County School District, said the school district supported the compromise language.  The proposal was reasonable and workable.

 

Mrs. Smith asked how the five-year limitation was determined.  Dr. Crowley replied the first proposal was three years.  After evaluating concerns about the impact on students, the three years was stretched to five years. 

 

Mrs. Angle asked how many students would be affected by the five-year change in the adult high school diploma program.  It seemed to be more of a Washoe County School District issue since other districts had not spoken on the issue.  

 

John Clark, Principal of Washoe High School, said Washoe High School had 11 students who graduated last year with an adult diploma and qualified for the Millennium Scholarship.  He understood there were 38 adult diploma graduates statewide who qualified for the scholarship.

 

Dr. Crowley felt it was a statewide issue and the NDOE was involved in the discussion. 

 

Mr. Ernie MacKenzie, Director of the Carson High School Adult Education Program, explained he operated a night school class with approximately 550 adult education students and approximately 1,600 students from the correctional institutions in Carson City.  He believed the proposed five-year plan was an improvement over the initial proposal that eliminated adult education students from the program.  He wanted to see adult education students eligible for Millennium Scholarship monies when they qualified for them.  However difficult it might be to get into college, it directly benefited students to have a chance to go back to school.  

 

Mr. MacKenzie believed the primary reason students did not finish school was they sought jobs or had children; it was not because of drug addiction or incarceration.  He had granted two Millennium Scholarships out of his 550 adult education students, and 15 correctional education students had applied for the scholarship.  He was uncomfortable granting the scholarships because the regulations were “fuzzy.”  He wanted to go on record as supporting adult education students going to college, even in a diminished capacity.

 

Vice Chairman Parnell asked Mr. MacKenzie if he felt Dr. Rheault’s proposed amendments eliminated some of the “fuzziness.”  Mr. MacKenzie felt it did.  He said the ability to “test in” with the ACT/SAT at anytime was the standard to look for.  There were no accurate comparisons to what a 3.0 GPA equated to and he felt the ACT/SAT tests determined the true foundation of knowledge.  He did not feel any student, at any age, should be eliminated from the scholarship because of when their class graduated.

 

Mr. Collins asked Mr. MacKenzie how many adult education students had sought help getting diplomas from their original high school.  Mr. MacKenzie explained the student received their diploma from the school district in which they graduated.  The adult education programs were great opportunities for students because they guaranteed every Nevada resident an opportunity to get a high school diploma, no matter what age.  Vice Chairman Parnell added some regular high school students chose to take adult education courses at night and the program served many purposes.

 

Mr. Ben Blinn, representing himself, said he disagreed with excluding anyone from an opportunity to receive the millennium scholarship.  Prison inmates, in particular, were affected by the restrictions and he did not support excluding anyone from the education process. 

 

Mr. Tom Mayer, an employee with Washoe High School, spoke as a concerned individual.  He thanked Chairman Williams for rehearing S.B. 113 and felt the proposed amendments offered a better piece of legislation.  He believed older students deserved a chance at scholarship money, and he supported the inclusion of adult students in the program.

 

Vice Chairman Parnell closed the hearing on S.B. 113 and said she would accept a motion.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS

S.B. 113 WITH THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY DR. RHEAULT.

 

               ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Collins asked for clarification on Dr. Rheault’s amendments.  Vice Chairman Parnell responded the amendments deleted the provision in Section 4, subsection 1, that removed persons in educational programs for adults from Millennium Scholarship eligibility, and added language to Section 4, subsection 1, stating a high school diploma must be issued within five years after the time the pupil was scheduled to graduate.

 

Chairman Williams asked if the amendments ensured inmates were also eligible if they met the five-year time frame.  Vice Chairman Parnell said that was correct.

 

Mrs. Chowning said she was pleased the adult education portion was back in the bill and felt the scholarship should be offered to any student who was issued a high school diploma.  She was opposed to the five-year limitation and felt many students would not meet the criteria for the scholarship because it was so high.  She did not agree students should be eliminated because they had a break between high school and college.

 

Mrs. Chowning asked if the committee had to vote on the motion before she could make another motion.

 

Vice Chairman Parnell said the committee would vote first on the “amend and do pass” motion.

 

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING, ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA, AND ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS VOTING NO.  ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO AND ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON WERE ABSENT.

 

Mrs. Chowning said she wanted to make another motion to delete the “within five years” provision as offered in Dr. Rheault’s amendment.

 

      MRS. CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 311 DELETING THE “FIVE-YEAR” PROVISION.

 

               MR. COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Williams said he could support Mrs. Chowning’s motion because there were too many circumstances under which a person could miss the five-year window of time.  He felt if they were Nevada residents and paid taxes, they should be included.

 

Mr. Collins agreed with Chairman Williams.  Five years was an arbitrary number and the scholarships should be for all Nevadans regardless of age.  The issue ensured more college graduates in Nevada. 

 

Mrs. Smith said that attitude made the scholarship available to anyone wishing to return to college.  She asked where the state should draw the line and how far the state could afford to expand the program.  The program may have only drawn a limited number of participants to date, but it had the potential to grow.  The state could not assist everyone wishing to attend college and she would vote “no” on the second motion.

 

Vice Chairman Parnell said she would also vote against the motion because of her previous comments.  She was concerned there were students currently in high school that would be eligible for the Millennium Scholarship because of their GPA, but would not pass the proficiency exam.

 

Vice Chairman Parnell called for a roll call vote on Mrs. Chowning’s motion.

 

MOTION FAILED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO, VICE CHAIRMAN PARNELL, ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL VOTING NO.  ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

Chairman Williams then opened the hearing on S.B. 399 and asked Al Bellister with the Nevada State Education Associating (NSEA), to make the presentation.

 

Senate Bill 399:  Revises provisions governing charter schools and authorizes programs of distance education. (BDR 34-859)

 

Mr. Bellister, Legislative Representative for the NSEA, explained that Senator Care, the bill’s sponsor, was not available to make the presentation.  S.B. 399 was introduced at the request of the NSEA to address the concerns with charter schools.  It was the intent of the measure to place a greater amount of oversight and regulations around the experiment in charter schools and not put them out of business.  Mr. Bellister circulated the NSEA‘s amendment proposals (Exhibit H) to S.B. 399 and outlined the provisions.

 

Mr. Bellister said the NSEA believed the majority of members who served on the organizing committee of a charter school should be residents of the state, to ensure a vested interest in the community and establish a degree of continuity between the charter school organizers and the charter school operation.  Amendment No. 1 proposed to add a new section to NRS 386.520 placing a residency requirement.

 

Amendment No. 2 outlined that teachers, who served on the organizing committee, had to possess a valid Nevada teaching certificate, have a minimum of three years’ teaching experience, and not be a substitute teacher.  The charter school itself could hire whomever they wanted as teachers, regardless of the years of experience.

 

Amendment No. 3 prohibited financial assistance to private schools or home study programs.  Mr. Bellister contended the amendment provided a more specific and clear statement of what charter schools could and could not do.  The charter schools could not provide any type of program for home schooling.   

 

Amendment No. 4 dealt with collective bargaining.  The NSEA clarified that charter schools had bargaining rights under NRS 288, but they did not automatically become members of the bargaining units that existed in school districts.  Employees of charter schools did not have automatic access to collective bargaining grievance processes.

 

Mr. Bellister said amendment No. 5 addressed the issue of distance education.  The NSEA continued to support the concept of distance education and believed there needed to be funding for that.  The amendment provided some type of apportionment to the school district or charter school if they provided distance education.

 

Amendment No. 6 addressed methods to calculate the financial support for a distance education program.  The original version of S.B. 399 had proposed funding on the basis of “six-tenths of a student” because distance education programs did not require facilities or the transportation components of basic support.  The new amendment required the NDOE to develop a component for student transportation when they calculated basic support.  The statewide student transportation average was about $278 per student.  Students in programs of distance education would receive the full basic support less the amount attributed to student transportation.

 

Amendment No. 7 defined “distance education” and explained it should be focused, supplemental, and not replace regular classroom experience.  The suggested definition would read:

 

Distance education should be for students;

 

1. Participating in a program for pupils who are at risk of dropping out of high school.

 

Mr. Bellister explained that would include students who were pregnant, already parents, chronically ill, or self-supporting.

 

2.  Participating in a program of independent study pursuant to NRS Section 389.155.

 

Mr. Bellister clarified independent study programs were limited to six credits.

 

3.  Are enrolled in a public school that does not offer advanced courses.

 

Mr. Bellister said the NSEA thought it appropriate to offer advanced placement courses through distance education for school districts lacking advance placement programs.

 

4. Have a physical or mental condition that would otherwise require an excuse from compulsory attendance pursuant to NRS 392.050.

 

5.  Would otherwise be excused from compulsory attendance pursuant to NRS 392.080.

 

Mr. Bellister explained the provision applied to students who lived in the remote rural areas of the state where it was unsafe, or unpractical, to be transported to school.

 

6.  Are otherwise prohibited from attending public schools pursuant to NRS 392.264, 392.4642 to 396.4648, inclusive, 392.466, 392.467, or 392.4675.

 

The final provision covered students who had run afoul of the law or had been placed in alternative programs because they were disruptive in the classroom.

 

Mr. Bellister stated amendment No. 8 required the State Board of Education to adopt all rules and regulations relative to the implementation of distance education and amendment No. 9 added “charter schools” to the definition of “local government employer” in NRS 288.060.

 

When charter school legislation was passed in 1997, the schools were basically an experiment and, if successful, those successes would be replicated in regular public schools.  Mr. Bellister commented that, to the best of his knowledge, no charter school had yet produced something to be “replicated” in public schools.  Amendment No. 10 would reconsider the original population caps of 1997 and allow five schools in Clark County, two in Washoe County, and one school per rural county.  If charter schools were targeted to serve at-risk populations, there would be an unlimited number of schools in the state.  The 1997 session changed the statute to “sunset” those caps, so that by the year 2003, there could potentially be an unlimited number of charter schools in the state.  Mr. Bellister urged the committee to return to the original caps passed in 1997.

 

Amendment No. 11 added financial viability to the criteria when approving a charter school application.  Many charter schools had small enrollments and it was questionable whether they could survive financially.  The NSEA felt it was appropriate for the school board to consider the financial viability of the schools.

 

Mr. Bellister stated the NSEA believed the majority of the members of the charter school governing body should be residents of the state of Nevada and proposed to add that requirement to NRS 386.549.  Charter school governing boards handled hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money, and amendment No. 12 required they meet quarterly.

 

Amendment No. 13 was an affirmative statement that charter schools had to comply with all the rules and regulations applicable to distance education programs.

 

Mr. Bellister explained amendment No. 14 was introduced to the Senate Human Resources and Facilities Committee and covered the issue of charter school administrative fees for school districts.  School districts were required to report and provide assistance to charter schools without receiving any administrative fees for the service.  The amendment allowed school districts to collect administrative fees for the services they provided to charter schools.  All parties had agreed to the provision during the Senate hearing on S.B. 399.

 

Amendment No. 15 added a new section to NRS 386 that read, “Any charter school having established graduation requirements which are less than those of the school district where the charter school is located shall issue to students meeting its graduation requirements a diploma which is clearly labeled ‘Charter School Diploma.’”

 

Amendment No. 16 stated charter schools had to operate as “nonprofit“ and amendment No. 17 outlined existing public schools could not convert to charter school status.  Ms. Von Tobel asked why there were so many amendments and if they had all been proposed before the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.

 

Mr. Bellister explained the amendments were, for the most part, in the original bill, but they had not survived the Senate hearing.  The sections not presented to the Senate addressed the issues of charter school diploma, nonprofit operation of charter schools, and the conversion of existing school facilities. 

 

Mrs. de Braga asked if amendment No. 5(d) allowed pupils in noncontiguous districts to enroll in distance education programs.  Mr. Bellister replied it did.  Mrs. de Braga was not in favor of that.  She felt amendment No. 11 needed to be broadened to allow the board of trustees the option of declining any school application that might cause a financial hardship to the existing public school system.  She found it “strange” the charter school board handled that amount of public money and felt the accountability issue needed to be addressed.

 

Mr. Bellister commented the NSEA felt it was necessary to create a situation where charter schools could provide legitimate services to students outside the county where there was a need.  Amendment No. 5 gave funding to the providers of distance education.  Mrs. de Braga noted that would work if the portion of the bill requiring charter schools to operate as nonprofit passed.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked Mr. Bellister if Senator Care had approved of the amendments just presented.  Mr. Bellister replied he had shared them with him, and to the best of his knowledge, the Senator approved of them.

 

Mr. Collins asked Mr. Bellister to clarify amendment No. 3.  Mr. Bellister explained the amendment made an explicit statement, consistent with the original intent of charter school legislation that financial assistance would not be provided for private schools or home study programs.  The amendment stated the prohibition more clearly.

 

Mr. Collins wanted to know why charter schools, that were technically classified public schools, could not provide distance or home school education.  Mr. Bellister understood the concept of charter school legislation provided opportunities to explore various instructional techniques and innovative programs.  The legislation prohibited charter schools from continuing the operation of public schools that had closed, converting public schools to charter schools, and providing financial assistance to programs of home study.  Charter schools and distance education were not designed to provide home study programs for students who had chosen to leave the traditional school program. 

 

Mr. Collins asked about amendment No. 4.  Mr. Bellister explained that charter schools were public schools and public employees had the right to bargain under NRS 288.  The amendment made it clear charter school employees were not automatically members of existing bargaining units.

 

Mr. Collins asked Mr. Bellister to clarify how charter schools were to be more fiscally accountability and still be nonprofit.  Mr. Bellister answered amendment No. 11 allowed a school board the ability to consider the charter school’s financial viability.  The issue of profit was tied to the belief that businesses or corporations should not come in and take over schools and run them for profit.  The school was expected to realize an ending fund balance.  Ending fund balances were not viewed as a profit.

 

Mr. Bellister explained amendment No. 12 did not interfere with nonresidents serving on the board, but stated the majority of board members needed to be residents.

 

Mr. Collins asked if there was agreement on amendment No. 14 that gave school districts the ability to charge-back for administrative services provided to charter schools.  Mr. Bellister indicated there was agreement.

 

Ms. Von Tobel said the Keystone Academy charter school was the only high school in the Sandy Valley area and probably could not afford to pay administrative fees.  They might not have been able to open if they had been required to demonstrate financial viability prior to receiving approvals.  She strongly felt Keystone fulfilled a need in the community and asked if there could be exceptions to the fee requirements.

 

Mr. Bellister responded he could not address the Keystone Academy issue directly.  The parties who drafted the amendments agreed the fee was fair and appropriate and would not put any school out of business. 

 

Ms. Von Tobel expressed concern the language in amendment No. 14 would prevent schools, such as Keystone, from starting up.  She asked him to explain the need for the provision.

 

Mr. Bellister replied amendment No. 14 was discussed in the Senate and the Nevada School Board Association had agreed financial viability should be considered at the time the charter school applied for operation.  The Washoe County School District had occasionally provided financial assistance to their charter schools.

 

Ms. Von Tobel wondered if a level could be set because the bill did not set a financial standard.

 

Mr. Collins asked Mr. Bellister to clarify what NSEA amendments would be added to the bill.  He requested an explanation of Section 1, subsection 1, that addressed gifts or payment of money to members of a school board of trustees by charter school committee members. 

 

Mr. Bellister said the language resulted from an incident that happened with a charter school applicant in Lincoln County.  The applicant felt they could operate the charter school for less than the basic support provided and offered to give Lincoln County the difference.  S.B. 399 prevented those inappropriate proposals.

 

Steven Horsford, representing the Agassi College Preparatory Academy, proposed a “friendly amendment” (Exhibit I).  The academy neither supported nor opposed the proposed NSEA amendments to S.B. 399, but they wanted a provision in the bill that addressed occupancy permits issued to charter schools.  The State Board of Education outlined that occupancy permits must be received 30 days prior to a school start-up.  The construction of Agassi Academy would be completed on July 30, with an August 30 anticipated opening date.  If they did not receive their occupancy permit by August 1, they would not meet the requirements set forth by the State Board of Education.  His amendment proposal made the provision permissive and gave flexibility to the board of trustees to determine when the time was most appropriate.

 

Dr. Craig Kadlub, representing the Clark County School District (CCSD), commented on the NSEA amendment proposals.  The CCSD wanted to see the students meet certain criteria before being accepted into a distance education program, specifically the ability to read and guide them through a self-tutorial program.  They also wanted to make sure the program had room for the students that were applying.

 

Dr. Kadlub said the CCSD supported the requirement that charter school applicants demonstrated financial viability.  The school board of trustees felt their hands were tied because current law did not allow them to factor financial viability into the decision process.

 

He explained the reimbursement for administrative costs had been part of S.B. 243, the CCSD’s bill.  The original proposal was for 3 percent annually and was predicated on research from other states.  After discussions with charter school operators and other interested parties, the provision was reduced to 2 percent per-pupil the first year, and 1 percent every year after that.  The language stated, “if the district so desired,” and he emphasized the CCSD had the option to not impose fees on schools such as Keystone Academy, where it would clearly be a hardship. 

 

Chairman Williams asked Dr. Kadlub if he was agreeable to Mr. Horsford’s amendment proposal.  Dr. Kadlub replied the CCSD would support flexibility within a time frame.  Past experience had demonstrated there needed to be a deadline imposed to prevent schools from opening after the beginning of the sponsoring district’s school year.

 

Chairman Williams asked Mr. Horsford if there was any way to speed up the opening of the Agassi Academy.  Mr. Horsford replied they were working as fast as they could to meet the deadline.  Chairman Williams commented that, with all due respect, some committee members felt the Agassi personnel had “whined“ too much and they should concentrate on getting the project done.

 

Ms. Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, apprised the committee they had been involved with the original S.B. 399.  Many people had expressed concerns with the NSEA proposals when it was heard before the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, and that was why they were no longer in the bill.  Many of the people who testified in the Senate were not here today because they were unaware the NSEA would be presenting those provisions to the Assembly Committee on Education today.

 

Steve Williams said many of the amendment proposals were consistent with the Washoe County School District’s (WCSD) position on charter schools.  The WCSD favored the distance education purpose clarification.  They had requested amendment No. 15 because graduation requirements for charter schools often differed from regular school districts.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on S.B. 399 and said because of the late hour and the number of committee members who were absent, he would hear S.B. 243 on Monday.  He then opened the work session and asked Policy Analyst Susan Scholley to pass out the work session documents (Exhibit J).

 

Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on S.B. 115 which had gone to subcommittee.  The subcommittee had recommended a “do pass” with no amendments.

 

Senate Bill 115:  Revises provisions governing suspension and expulsion of pupils. (BDR 34-381)

 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 115.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.  ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL, ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL, ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE, ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS, AND ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON WERE ABSENT.

 

Chairman Williams called for a motion on S.B. 236.

 

Senate Bill 236:  Requires certain entities that employ children in entertainment industry to pay for tutoring. (BDR 34-1035)

 

Mrs. Scholley noted there was an amendment proposal from the MGM Mirage that allowed for alternative education.  Dr. Rheault had requested language be included that allowed:  (1) An agreement providing for alternative education services or instruction if parents agreed to an arrangement other than tutoring, and, (2) Alternative arrangement or agreement would be equivalent to tutoring services.  He noted the bill assumed the child was already exempt from compulsory attendance, and there might be some cases in which the child was attending public school at the time of employment.  Dr. Rheault suggested making the bill apply to all situations where children fit into the “more than 90 days of an employment contract in the entertainment industry.”  The contract for alternative educational services and compulsory exception process could be contracted at the same time.

 

Mrs. Chowning remarked Senator Care had not seen the language change suggested by the Department of Education.  She felt he would agree to “If the parent agrees to some arrangement other than tutoring, the agreement must provide for alternative educational services or instruction.  The alternative agreement must be at least equivalent to the tutoring services.”  She felt alternative agreement should be defined as another form of education because the language did not allow for agreements other than educational.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 236.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Williams asked Mr. Daniel Grimmer, Legislative Affairs Manager, representing MGM Mirage, if he had any problems with the amendment proposal.  Mr. Grimmer replied he had not seen the new language or the new amendments.  After his discussion with Senator Care, the MGM Mirage had prepared to withdraw their original amendment request.  Chairman Williams did not believe Dr. Rheault was strongly connected with his proposed amendments.

 

Mrs. Smith felt Dr. Rheault’s language was an improvement over the original bill because it clarified the intent to provide children an education.

 

Chairman Williams noted the motion would include both amendments.  Mrs. Scholley clarified the motion included the amendment originally proposed by the MGM Mirage and the two amendments proposed by Dr. Rheault that qualified alternative arrangements and redrafted the statute to apply to any child, not just children who had been through the compulsory attendance excuse process.

 

Mrs. Chowning asked if the committee could vote on S.B. 236, and then review the new language at Monday’s meeting.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.  ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL, ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL, ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE, AND ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON WERE ABSENT.

 

Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on S.B. 237

 

Senate Bill 237:  Removes commission on postsecondary education from department of education. (BDR 34-1145)

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 237.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.  ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL, ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL, ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE, AND ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON WERE ABSENT.

 

Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on S.B. 289.

 

Senate Bill 289:  Makes various changes concerning responses to certain crises involving violence on school property, at school activities or on school buses. (BDR 34-200)

 

Mrs. Scholley noted the Washoe County School District had proposed an amendment that was included in the work session document (Exhibit I).

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO DO PASS S.B 289.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.  ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL, ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL, ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE, AND ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON WERE ABSENT.

 

Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on S.B. 311.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO DO PASS

S.B. 311.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.  ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL, ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL, ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE, AND ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON WERE ABSENT.

 

Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on S.B. 399.

 

Mrs. de Braga wanted to amend and do pass S.B. 399 with all the amendments presented by Mr. Bellister.  She wanted the school district to have the ability to turn down any charter school application that would adversely impact the local school district.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 399 AS OUTLINED.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mrs. Chowning felt the amendments proposed by the NSEA included the provision and felt the motion should be changed to “amend and do pass” with the amendments proposed by the NSEA.

 

Mrs. de Braga explained NSEA’s amendment No. 11 asked the school district to consider the charter school financial viability.  She wanted the school district to have the ability to reject any charter school application if the school would adversely impact the existing public school system.  The language needed to protect rural schools that might face program cuts if the charter school drew students away from the regular school.

 

Mrs. Smith asked Mrs. de Braga if her motion included Mr. Horsford’s amendment.  Mrs. de Braga said it included Mr. Horsford’s amendment.

 

Mr. Collins asked Mrs. de Braga and Mr. Manendo if they would consider changing amendment No. 7, subsection 3, to allow school districts to define criteria that allowed students to participate in the distance education program.  He also felt the administrative fees in amendment No. 14 should be at the discretion of the school district.

 

Mrs. de Braga felt the language was already in the amendment.  Mr. Collins noted the language said “may be required to pay” and withdrew that portion of the request.

 

Mr. Bellister felt Mr. Collins’ concerns about amendment No. 7 were already addressed in amendment No. 8, which stated, “The State Board of Education shall adopt regulations that prescribe . . . the process whereby a student may enroll in a program of distance education . . .”

 

Mr. Collins thought amendment No. 8 meant another school district or another charter school.  If the language made the intent clear that it was “enabling,” that was acceptable.  He wanted to ensure some criteria was included.

 

Mr. Bellister asked Mr. Collins if the language “the process whereby a student may enroll in a program of distance education” would be acceptable.  Mr. Collins said it would be fine if the language was not limited to another school district or charter school.

 

Dr. Kadlub suggested the wording could read “the process whereby a student may qualify for enrollment in a program of distance education in the local district or another district.” 

 

Mr. Collins wanted to ensure the language was not limited to those two items.  Dr. Kadlub said the district should establish what the qualification standards were.

 

Mrs. Scholley felt adding “to qualify and enroll“ to Dr. Kadlub’s suggestion would cover both.  She felt amendment No. 8, subsection 2, should read, “The state board may adopt regulations as it determines are necessary to carry out the act.”  The new language would give the board the flexibility to adopt any regulations they felt necessary.

 

Mrs. Chowning wanted to change amendment No. 15 to read,  “Any charter school having established graduation requirements which are less than those of the school district. . . .”

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.  ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL, ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL, ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE, AND ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON WERE ABSENT.

 

Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Mary Drake

Committee Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: