MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-First Session

February 26, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:53 p.m., on Monday, February 26, 2001.  Vice Chairman Parnell 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

Ms.                     Sharron Angle

Mrs.                     Barbara Cegavske

Mrs.                     Vonne Chowning

Mrs.                     Marcia de Braga

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Mrs.                     Ellen Koivisto

Mr.                     Mark Manendo

Ms.                     Debbie Smith

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT

 

Mr.                     Tom Collins

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Mary Drake, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

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

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

            Mr. Douglas Thunder, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative and                          Fiscal Services, Nevada Department of Education

 

 

Vice Chairman Parnell called the meeting to order.  After roll call, Vice Chairman Parnell introduced Dr. Jack McLaughlin, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, who presented the Department of Education’s status report.  Prior to presenting the report, Dr. McLaughlin introduced Deputy Superintendents Keith Rheault and Doug Thunder.  Dr. McLaughlin provided the committee with copies of the Superintendent’s Report to The Governor and Legislature:  Nevada Department of Education 1999-2000 (Exhibit C) and “The State Department of Education Status Report” dated February 26, 2001 (Exhibit D).

 

Dr. McLaughlin began his presentation by explaining he assumed the superintendent position February 1, 2001.  In light of his short period of time as superintendent, he chose to make his committee presentation in the form of a status report (Exhibit D), reviewing what he perceived as the Department of Education’s major strengths, challenges, and the short-term and long-term tasks ahead for the department.  The status report would be presented to the State Board of Education on March 3.

 

Dr. McLaughlin contended that when studying the Department of Education the focus would be centered on the number of students and the teachers.  In 1995, K-12 enrollment in the State of Nevada was 250,000.  By the year 2010, student population was projected to exceed 500,000.  In 1995, the limited- English-proficient students represented 19,682; by 2010, that number was anticipated to increase to 137,376.   Dr. McLaughlin said since classroom teachers were the key to student achievement, their recruitment, training, and retention would be the top priority.

 

Dr. McLaughlin stated there were 120 staff members within the Department of Education, with 40 employees funded through the state General Fund.  The remainders of employees were funded through other funding sources.  He asserted State Department of Education employees had a high level of commitment, a high work ethic, and demonstrated a high degree of knowledge, professional skills, and teamwork.  He referred the committee to the Superintendent’s Report to the Governor and Legislature:  Nevada Department of Education 1999- 2000 (Exhibit C), which covered the many accomplishments of the Department of Education.

 

In terms of the status of K-12 education in Nevada, Dr. McLaughlin informed the committee that within the 17 school districts, he had witnessed an outstanding public school system in place, and that the educational programs were very strong.   He felt the Nevada State Legislature had demonstrated extraordinary leadership pushing forward the K-12 agenda and providing necessary funding for those programs.  He added the Millennium Scholarship Program was an exemplary example of the commitment to improve the future of Nevada.

 

Dr. McLaughlin then outlined the challenges he saw going forward in K-12 education. The first was departmental organization and location.  He felt there was an issue in terms of the location of the majority of the population versus the ability to provide direct services to schools.  He wanted to continue to look at that scenario.  He noted the members of the teacher licensure staff as an example, with seven of the ten members of the staff located in Clark County because that was where the need existed.

 

Dr. McLaughlin said organizationally he was not convinced the current team approach was the best way to organize staff, and he would look at that issue.  He felt the emerging student population issues, the program development issues, training, and possible compliance issues might require a different organizational structure.

 

He cited as the second challenge the need to improve communication between the department, other agencies, the Governor, legislators, school districts, and the public.  To date, there was no formal mechanism in place to do that.  He wanted the department to take a leadership role in that area.

 

The third area cited was the issue of attitude.  From what he had observed, an attitude existed beyond the department about the department.   There was a perception that the department was not as responsive as it could be, and in some cases almost passive-aggressive.  He stated the department did need more staffing in terms of responding to issues, and the lack of response could be a technique or a desire on parts of the department to acquire more staff.  He said that approach did not lead to cooperation from decision makers but rather led to frustration.  He would work on turning the attitude around in an effort to be more positive and accepting of recommendations.

 

The fourth issue was resource development.  There were funding opportunities available to enhance what the department provided Nevada students, and he would be looking at ways to pursue grants and other funding.

 

The fifth challenge was in the area of research.  There was currently little capacity to do research beyond the required data gathering.  The department needed to take the next step by providing effective research into best practices in order to develop solutions that resulted in the highest achievement. 

 

Dr. McLaughlin said the sixth challenge was compliance.  The department was involved in compliance activities such as federal funds, special education, Title I, and the Office of Civil Rights.  The department did, however, deal with questions outside of those areas.  He indicated he had developed a proposal, as requested by the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, for a compliance mechanism to address areas beyond those required by special education or federal legislation.   He would be discussing that with the State Board of Education in the near future

 

Dr. McLaughlin said the seventh challenge was the assessment system.  The system currently in place was good and was being further developed.  He saw the major issue as the department’s failure to request the necessary funding to implement the social studies portion of the Criterion Reference Test (CRT) at the third and fifth grade levels as per NRS 389.550.   He said if social science and science were to be tested as part of the CRT in the spring of 2002, funding must be added.  He understood the directive from legislators was social studies testing should be delayed, although no enabling legislation has been produced to modify NRS 389.550.  That issue must be dealt with.

 

The eighth challenge was the Statewide Management of Automated Records Transfer (SMART) system.  There were features about the system that needed to be realized.  In particular, the system could be in constant need of resources.  All additional information requests might require additional equipment, software, upgrades and necessary downtime.  He said the legislature had been good about funding what was needed; however, as with all programs, the question must be asked if that was the best way to spend the money.

 

Dr. McLaughlin cited relevance to student population as the ninth challenge.  There were major issues with English Language Learners and the difficult issues of poverty, race and class.  Students and their families had serious issues that must be dealt with before effective instruction could take place.  Not dealing with those issues would be reflected in the achievement levels.

 

Dr. McLaughlin said the commitment to excellence was the tenth challenge.  The department was extremely proud of those students designated as National Merit Semi-finalist and those students that earned National Merit Scholar status.  He emphasized the department must assist districts to provide more accelerated classes and increase the high-end courses and the academic caliber of the students.  He felt the student population could excel if given the chance.  The department did not have one funded employee that dealt with Gifted and Talented Education. 

 

The eleventh issue was local control versus state control.  He cited the textbook audit as an example of an area where the issue of jurisdiction needed clarification.  He asked in his status report’s recommendations that the Attorney General’s Office help the department compile and clarify those areas in local school districts where the state had a role and those areas where it did not.

 

The twelfth issue was the fragmentation of the K-12 education decision-making process.  Dr. McLaughlin said there had been excellent studies conducted in Nevada that impacted K-12 issues.  There were also approximately 180 bills before the 71^st Legislature addressing the K-12 education.  He stated K-12 education continued to be subjected to much fragmentation.  He suggested that a committee be formed to finally pull all the studies together and push forward a K-12 master plan, allowing that to be the clear vision.

 

Dr. McLaughlin then offered his recommendations to meet the challenges.  He said this was his first cut at the short-term and long-term tasks he would recommend for consideration to the State Board of Education.  The short-term tasks were:

 

• Examine department organization;
• Develop regular communication channels;
• Through positive performance, develop stronger, positive relationships with the Governor, legislature, other agencies, school districts and schools;
• Work with legislative proposals;
• Explore several methods to secure grant funding;
• Activate the Nevada Public Education Foundation and begin raising funds for foundation purposes;
• Fulfill recommendations from audits;
• Work with State Board of Education to clarify responsibilities, refine the strategic plan, and calendar key policy actions;
• Work on the CRT to either secure funding or delay action;
• Look at the high school proficiency exam and the opportunity to learn and equity issues related to standards, assessment, and graduation and develop recommendations accordingly;
• Work with the Attorney General’s staff to clarify areas in which the state had a role in the local operation of a school or school district;
• Work with SMART to ensure its implementation;
• Develop a mechanism to address the questions posed in the Legislative Committee on Education’s Comprehensive Review of Education Reform in Nevada;
• Work at maximizing federal education funding for Nevada.

 

Dr. McLaughlin then addressed the long-term tasks for the State Department of Education:

 

·        Work with the Governor, legislators, higher education staff, parent organizations, school boards, district staff, and employee organizations to review programs and methods to meet the needs of the students.   Some methods to achieve that goal would be:

 

                  -         Review the success of Professional Development Centers;

                  -         Explore the possibility of establishing a privately funded                                        Achievement Gap Study Center;

                  -         Support district efforts to eliminate the student dropout rate;

                  -         Explore the expansion of successful models for instruction                      for English Language Learners;

                  -         Develop recommendations for the accelerated academic                                  preparation of Nevada students;

                  -         Explore the use of support systems such as academic                                  focused preschools, increased teacher training, reading labs,                               regular and          summer school, intersession remediation and                        acceleration, integrated services;

                  -         Partner with higher education, the business community, and                        K-12          schools to expand technology education;

                  -         Review alternative educational programs for students in                                    trades and vocational career paths and develop                                               recommendations.

 

·        Assist in the establishment of a K-12 master plan committee to look at the future of education.

·        Put together a requirements/standards/assessment and accountability program to be in place in a ten-year period.

·        Look at the compliance systems and make a decision to go beyond federal, state, nutrition, and special education compliance issues into instructional issues.

·        Work with schools and school districts on charter schools, academies, and small schools-within-schools to enhance student interest and achievement.

·        Partner with Nevada higher education in research and development efforts.

 

Dr. McLaughlin summarized his presentation by stating he saw the components of a strong K-12 system.  There was in his estimation willingness and a passion to further strengthen the system.  He asked for questions or suggestions from the committee members.

 

Mrs. Chowning welcomed Dr. McLaughlin and said the list of short and long term goals was impressive.   She said the English Language Learners issue had not been given the attention it needed; Nevada was the fastest growing state in the nation in terms of Hispanic growth.  She commented that Dr. McLaughlin’s presentation indicated a 400 percent growth in that area, which was not reflected in the funding.  Nevada was running the risk of setting up its students to fail.  A lot of effort had gone into setting up standards so all students could have the same goals and be able to strive for excellence.  She said she was disappointed to learn during the budget process that Nevada had not been the recipient of grants for English Language Learners, as had other states, although it was not from lack of trying.  Mrs. Chowning said Dr. McLaughlin’s presentation was a strong wakeup call, and she asked him to incorporate in the department’s short-term goals a means to address the English Language Learners issue more aggressively.  She felt the students could pass the proficiency test in the long run, but they needed the instruction.

 

Ms. Von Tobel related an experience she had when substitute teaching a first grade class with few English-speaking students.  She was alarmed that there was not a reading program in place for those students.  She said most of the students in the class were able to understand and communicate in English, yet they were not given the same opportunities as other first graders.  She asked if there was a different program in place for English Language Learners.

 

Dr. McLaughlin said it could be the trap that happened some times where students were not expected to learn.  The state could take a strong leadership role dealing with those issues.  It needed to be done in a research orientation, heavily involving teaching staff and parents, and then backed up by funding.  There were programs Nevada could model that taught students how to speak English but kept the academics going.  Dr. McLaughlin emphasized Nevada needed to move quickly on that issue to prepare for what was coming.

 

Ms. Von Tobel mentioned she had taught a special education course where a student with Downs Syndrome was taught to read after much time devoted to his learning.   She said those Spanish-speaking first-graders were very sharp and quite capable of learning to read both English and Spanish.  They had every right to be taught to read.  

 

Vice Chairman Parnell commented to Dr. McLaughlin about a communication issue with the Department of Education.  She said many people in the teaching field called her to complain about the phone system at the department.  She suggested if there was a means to simplify the phone system to make it easier to get through, it might go a long way to improve the public perception of the department.  On behalf of the committee, Vice Chairman Parnell then wished Dr. McLaughlin well with the challenges ahead of him.

 

Vice Chairman Parnell then asked Dr. Keith Rheault to present the charter schools report.

 

Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent with the Nevada Department of Education, explained the “Charter School Progress Report NRS 386.500 and Educational Performance, Fiscal Analysis and NRS 396.600(1)(a) Reports – February 1, 2001” (Exhibit E) was a three-part report that covered educational performance, fiscal analysis, and the summary progress reports for each of the charter schools in operation.

 

Dr. Rheault provided the committee members with some background on the charter schools.  In school year 2000, there were five charter schools in operation:  one in Churchill County, two in Washoe County, two in Clark County.  This past year, the State Board of Education approved five more charter schools. Of those, only two were currently in operation, and both were in Washoe County.   Tech World in Clark County closed down; two were scheduled to start next year in Carson City and Clark County.

 

The report covered the testing requirements as mandated by statute.  Dr. Rheault cautioned the committee members that the testing data was very preliminary.   Student testing was conducted after only two months of enrollment in charter schools, so the low scores indicated more the type of student being accepted into charter schools.  It was good for baseline data, and could be used in later years to track student performance. 

 

Dr. Rheault further cautioned the committee about the Sierra Nevada Academy testing data.  In reading scores, the fourth graders were only at twenty-seven percent of the national average.  There were only twenty-seven students in the class, so the lower number of students made a difference when dealing with averages.

 

Since only one charter school was in operation in 1999, and five schools in the year 2000, Dr. Rheault acknowledged all the data was not available.   Statutory requirements demanded charter school performance evaluations provide a comparison between charter schools and regular schools.  At this point the comparisons were very limited; however, on the average, charter schools were below state averages for performance.

 

The report also compared charter school grades 8 and 10 with regular schools.  For grade 10, three of the charter schools could be compared.  Of those three, Gateway to Success was a school designated as needing improvement because it was under the 25 percentile in the four subject areas.

 

The next section of the report, the fiscal analysis of the charter schools, broke down the budget expenditures and revenues for each school in operation.  Dr. Rheault summarized that in the first year of operation, all but one charter school ended up in an operating deficit.  Since there were no startup funds for the schools, the first year of operation was very difficult because the financial burden fell on the school itself.  Dr. Rheault stated that having analyzed the financial reports for the first two years of operation, the Department of Education realized far greater attention must be given to the financial management of charter schools, with everything from budgeting to financial accounting to auditing.

 

In terms of the progress reports for the charter schools, the report outlined the progress the schools made in achieving their goals.  The report also outlined the enrollments by grade and number of teachers and teacher salaries.  He noted teacher salaries were below state average.  The highest salary for a teacher at the Nevada Leadership Academy was $33,922.  Dr. Rheault informed the committee the important points to note in this section of the report were the stated school goals and their actual achievements.

 

Dr. Rheault apprised the committee the Nevada State Education Association’s booklet entitled The Directory of Charter Schools (copy available at the offices of the Nevada State Education Association in Carson City, Nevada) covered all the operating charter schools within the state and gave a lot of detail on the schools.

 

Mrs. de Braga said she had heard some reports about the low testing and need for improvement from the charter school in Fallon.  The majority of their students were students highly at-risk for dropping out.  She asked how that was tracked.

 

Dr. Rheault related the only way the Department of Education had to track at-risk students was through test assessment results.  He did not have good figures about Churchill County’s charter school makeup in terms of socio-economic or ethnic backgrounds.  He felt the department could get that information.

 

Mrs. de Braga asked if there was currently a formula available to factor in the individual student’s problems, or at least a means to categorize the students as at-risk.

 

Dr. Rheault said since it was only the second year of operation for charter schools the Department of Education would look at initial test score trends to determine if the schools met their educational objectives.  Charter schools must provide programs for students in order to pass the high school proficiency exam.   Dr. Rheault indicated he would have someone look into that for Mrs. de Braga.

 

Mrs. de Braga inquired if the Department of Education had dropout figures for the charter schools.  Dr. Rheault indicated the next dropout report would be out in approximately thirty days.  The department had all the data, which would be incorporated into the state summary report.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked if the Department of Education’s audits were similar to the audits conducted in the public schools, or were the audits different?

 

Dr. Rheault verified the audits conducted in charter schools were identical to the audits conducted in regular schools.  The audits consisted of counting students on count day and ensuring evidence was available that students were enrolled at least one day prior to count day.  The audits referred to in the “Charter School Progress Report” (Exhibit E) were the independent outside audits required of all schools, school districts, and charter schools.  When the Department of Education performed its student count audit at charter schools, it was conducted the same as within a regular school district.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked for confirmation that the Department of Education was not using different formulas when auditing charter schools as opposed to regular schools.

 

Dr. Rheault confirmed that the standard audit was performed going in; however, based on the audit findings, the Department of Education found other areas in the charter schools they felt required corrections.  He cited as an example Odyssey Charter School, where the auditors discovered problems with current statute and regulations in confirming enrollment.  The auditors also encountered problems with incomplete logging, and the Department of Education had to negotiate an agreement with Odyssey Charter School on what the department expected after the first year and what the charter school needed to provide.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked if the Department of Education had gone into a public school and made similar findings, would they perform the same procedure?

 

Dr. Rheault confirmed that was correct.  He cited as an example problems encountered in White Pine and Washoe County schools where the department had disallowed students.  Dr. Rheault explained the department made those types of findings in regular schools every year; they just were not that evident because the findings were mixed in with the whole district.

 

Mrs. Cegavske said the committee might be hearing a bill from Clark County School District this session (S.B. 243) asking for additional funds to assist the school district with their administration costs for charter schools.  She indicated she had some concerns with the funding request for the charter school administration fees because the Department of Education had not requested additional fees for the schools they oversaw. 

 

Dr. Rheault responded the department was researching other states to see if that was even allowed, and they would have that information prior to the first charter school bill hearing. 

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked if her understanding was correct that the Clark County School District wanted to increase the fees.

 

Dr. Rheault indicated his understanding was at this point there was mutual agreement between the charter school and the school district that if a charter school could not provide a service that was required in the accountability report, and the school district could provide it cheaper or work with the school to provide the service, then the school district and the charter school could agree on a type of payment.  He understood the Clark County School District bill (S.B. 243) would be an automatic 3 percent assessment on what funds might go to the charter schools.

 

Mrs. Cegavske confirmed the current bill would ask for 3 percent.  She was trying to determine if there was at this point a contract in place, or was it a verbal agreement between the charter schools and the local school districts.  Dr. Rheault indicated that at this point it was only a verbal agreement.

 

Vice Chairman Parnell asked Dr. Rheault for clarification on the last paragraph in the fiscal analysis section of the report.  The report indicated Gateways to Success Charter School owed the Distributive School Account (DSA) $77,000, which was scheduled to be repaid by September 25, 2000.  She asked if that had been repaid.

 

Dr. Rheault requested Mr. Doug Thunder, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative and Fiscal Services, to address that question.  Mr. Thunder said Gateways was notified that the Department of Education overpaid the school.  The portion of the overpayment was a result of the disallowance of nine students because the school lacked adequate documentation that the students were appropriately enrolled on count day.  The other part of the overpayment resulted from the fact that Gateways had students in both Churchill and Lyon Counties and, as a result, they were double paid for one quarter.  As of this date, it had not been repaid.  Mr. Thunder explained the department was waiting for Gateways’ audit; upon receipt of the audit, the department would pursue the issue further.

 

Vice Chairman Parnell inquired, dependent upon the information received in the audit, if the money was not reimbursed in a timely fashion from this point forward, what would happen?

 

Mr. Thunder replied that with charter schools, everything was a first; consequently, the department must determine what the next step would be.  For regular school districts, overcharges were assessed against the current year.  The department may pursue that as an option in the case of Gateways.

 

Vice Chairman Parnell said the 1999 legislation, A.B. 348 of the Seventieth Session, called for greater fiscal accountability of charter schools.  She asked if the legislation had gone far enough.

 

Mr. Thunder explained the experience with each of the charter schools was that the fiscal aspects were problematic.  In most cases, charter school staff had good ideas about the school formation; however, the business operation side was not where it should be.  The Department of Education was seeking additional staffing for charter school oversight, which should address some of those issues.

 

Dr. Rheault added that at a Joint Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee meeting, issues were brought up to add to the charter school bills, and Chairman Arberry of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means had asked the Department of Education to submit those changes.  One of the issues was to keep the money received from the DSA.  The money from the closure of Tech World in Clark County was transferred directly from Nevada into Florida, which meant it would be more difficult to collect the money owed when the school closed.  One of the recommendations to a bill would be if the school received state money, the money would be housed in a financial institution in Nevada.

 

Mrs. Chowning said the Nevada funds needed to stay in Nevada.  She added the statistics shown were very distressing.  She felt the parents of the charter schools students needed to know the students were not performing, although in each and every case the parents probably thought students were in a much better place than in the state schools.  She asked when the next evaluation would take place, and if any of the schools that underwent evaluation had been judged one of the “needing improvement” schools.

 

Dr. Rheault answered the progress reports were annual.  Regular school progress reports were due April 1.  The charter schools were also required, as with all public schools, to put out an accountability report.  The Gateways to Success Charter School in Churchill County was designated a low performance school. 

 

Mrs. Chowning said the committee needed to watch the progress of the charter schools.

 

There being no further business, Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:02 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

Mary Drake

Committee Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

 

 

 

DATE: