MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-First Session

February 28, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:51 p.m., on Wednesday, February 28, 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

Ms.                     Sharron Angle

Mrs.                     Barbara Cegavske

Mrs.                     Vonne Chowning

Mr.                     Tom Collins

Mrs.                     Marcia de Braga

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Mrs.                     Ellen Koivisto

Mr.                     Mark Manendo

Ms.                     Debbie Smith

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Secretary

Mary Drake, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Doug Peterson, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Paul Townsend, Audit Supervisor, Legislative Counsel Bureau

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

 

 

 

After roll call, Chairman Williams asked the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) Audit Division staff to present the textbook audit report.  Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, introduced Paul Townsend, Audit Supervisor, and Doug Peterson, Legislative Auditor in charge of the textbook audit.  Copies of the Nevada School Districts:  Analysis of Instructional Costs and Materials Available to Student (Exhibit C) were distributed to the committee.

 

Mr. Crews first gave background information on the textbook audit.  During the 1999 legislative session, some members of the Assembly raised concerns about the availability of textbooks and other materials in the school districts.  Issues included insufficient numbers of textbooks out in the school districts, as well as parent concerns about teacher requests for money and supplies from parents to help in the classrooms. 

 

Mr. Crews said legislation passed in 1999 (A.B. 241 of the Seventieth Session) required that LCB audit staff perform a textbook audit for each of the seventeen school districts.  The language in the bill required that the LCB Audit Division cover 10 percent of the schools within the state, which equated to about forty-five schools.  In addition, the bill required the audit touch upon at least one school within each district.

 

To begin the audit, Mr. Crews, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Townsend, along with other LCB staff, visited all the school districts in the state and compiled information that was not otherwise available to the LCB Audit Division.  The report was then presented to the Audit Subcommittee at the Legislative Commission in December 2000.  The subcommittee suggested the report be presented to the Assembly Committee on Education and the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, as well as the money committees.  Mr. Crews then asked Mr. Townsend to review the textbook audit report.

 

Mr. Townsend continued the presentation by delineating the areas of jurisdiction between the local school districts, the State Board of Education, and the State Department of Education.  He explained Nevada’s seventeen school districts were political subdivisions of the state organized by county whose purpose was to administer the system of education.  An elected board of trustees governed each school district.  Nevada statutes provided that public education in the state was essentially a matter for local control by school districts, except for those powers limited by specific provisions of law.  Each school district’s board of trustees was responsible for adopting district budgets that provided for instruction of students and the operational activities of the district.  The local boards were also responsible for insuring educational curriculum and courses of study met established academic standards.

 

Mr. Townsend explained at the State level the State Board of Education was responsible for developing policies related to supervision, management, and control of public schools.  The statutes also gave the State Board of Education authority to adopt regulations for the execution of the powers and duties conferred upon it by law, as with textbook adoption.

 

As the administrative entity of the State Board of Education, the Department of Education was responsible for the administration of elementary and secondary school education programs at the state level.  The department also administered the state’s Distributive School Account (DSA), used to transfer financial aid to the school districts. Direct financial aid to public elementary and secondary schools accounted for 35 percent of the state’s General Fund expenditures in fiscal year 2000.  That was the state’s largest single General Fund commitment.

 

The state guaranteed a basic level of financial support to each school district through a funding process called the Nevada Plan.  The goal of the Nevada Plan was to insure adequate educational opportunities for all students regardless of the wealth of the school district.  Those funding guarantees included revenue from both state and local sources.  Local sources provided the largest share of school district revenue at about 59 percent.  That consisted primarily of property tax and a local school support tax, which was a component of sales tax.

 

For fiscal year 1999, the total statewide expenditures from school district General Funds and Special Education Funds for grades K-12 was $1.5 billion.  Textbooks, supplies, library books, and software represented 2.6 percent of total district expenditures statewide.  Total operating expenditures amounted to $142 million.  Mr. Townsend said that student enrollment drove state funding to each district.  Between 1995 and 1999, statewide enrollment increased by 24 percent to a little over 300,000 students.

 

Mr. Townsend then explained the scope and objectives of the textbook audit.  As required by A.B. 241 of the Seventieth Session, the LCB examination included:

 

·        Assessment of schools in the state with at least one school in each district. 

·        Reviewing expenditures and funding levels for textbooks, instructional supplies, library books and instructional software. 

·        Examining the number of students enrolled in each subject area and program of special education, and the number of textbooks available to those students. 

·        Determining the amount of money in classroom supplies requested from parents of elementary school students during the 1999-2000 school year.

 

The LCB Audit Division also assessed the Department of Education’s adequacy of controls related to collecting, compiling, and reviewing financial information, as well as the processes employed in adopting textbooks used as the basis of instruction.  Although not specifically required as part of A.B. 241 of the Seventieth Session, the LCB audit report (Exhibit C) recommended to the Department of Education ways to address the conditions noted in the report, particularly as it related to the Department’s statutory responsibility.

 

Mr. Townsend continued that the state’s budgetary process determined the minimum funding a district received; local school districts controlled the actual expenditures.  Under the Local Government Budget Act, school districts were responsible for developing budgets that were then adopted by each district’s board of trustees.  Budgets were adopted to address local priorities.  Those priorities might not correspond to the specific funding amounts related to instructional costs in the state’s basic support guarantees.

 

Mr. Townsend continued that as part of the audit, LCB Audit Division staff reviewed school district financial records, and compared those to the information provided to the state.  They also compared it to the funding level provided for in the Nevada Plan for each of those areas.  In regard to textbooks, LCB Audit Division found that in fiscal year 1999, fourteen of the seventeen school districts spent more than the state had funded for textbooks. The state basic support guarantee was built on an estimate of $36.64 per pupil for textbooks; the average amount spent statewide was $53.25. 

 

There was a similar example for instructional supplies, which, along with stationery supplies, included such items as athletic uniforms, band uniforms, and decorations.  In fiscal year 1999, sixteen of the seventeen districts spent more than the state funded for instructional supplies.  Funding in that area was $54.27 per pupil through the Nevada Plan; the average amount spent statewide was $61.77.  In regard to library books, ten of the seventeen school districts spent more than the state funded.  Support through the Nevada Plan was $6.43; the average amount spent statewide was $8. 

 

The LCB had some issues in the area of instructional software, which generally included computer software using the instruction function.  School districts did not account for these expenditures consistently, and the LCB Audit Division made some recommendations to help improve the reporting of that information.

 

Mr. Townsend said most districts spent more on instructional costs than amounts funded by the state’s guarantee for fiscal year 1999; however, that was not always the case.  In prior years there were instances when districts spent less than funded.  For example, in fiscal year 1995, districts statewide spent about $2.3 million less than had been funded for textbooks, which followed in 1996 with approximately $900,000 less for textbooks.  Over the five years, however, school districts statewide actually spent  $6.2 million more than had been provided through the Nevada Plan.

 

Mr. Townsend said the LCB audit found some weaknesses in the reporting process that resulted in some errors in preparing budgetary documents.  Mr. Townsend stressed the importance of those errors because state funding decisions were based on estimated costs using detailed financial information reported by school districts to the Department of Education.  The Department of Education then compiled that data into the Annual Report that provided the primary information used in preparing the budget for the DSA.  The most significant error found was the misreporting of instructional supplies by $475,000 in Douglas County.

 

Mr. Townsend said another area that could be improved for budgetary reporting was the accounting guidance provided by the Department of Education.  The department provided accounting guidance to the districts through the Nevada Financial Accounting Handbook for Local Education Agencies, August 1979.  Mr. Townsend said the handbook had not kept up with changes in the educational environment and, as a result, instructional costs were not always charged to the appropriate categories.

 

Mr. Townsend noted instructional software as an example of the problems with the handbook.  Over the last twenty years, instructional software had become a more frequently used educational tool; however, the handbook did not provide instructions on accounting for those types of expenditures.  More defined guidance in the handbook would help ensure those costs were properly recorded and accounted for.

 

Another area where improvements could be made was in consumable textbooks.  Those were the textbooks students actually wrote in.  Districts were replacing textbooks on a seven-year cycle.  Consumable textbooks, however, were used up in one year.  The LCB Audit Division found some districts reported those as actual textbooks, while others reported them as instructional supplies; therefore, the quality of the numbers of the total dollar amount spent was not always accurate.

 

Mr. Townsend then turned the presentation over to Doug Peterson, who discussed the issues of textbook use and availability.  Mr. Peterson said his briefing would involve:

 

• The makeup of the different school classes that LCB reviewed in their sample;
• Those classes that used materials other than textbooks;
• The issue of booksets and shortages;
• School district policies and procedures.

 

Mr. Peterson said the audit found that many classrooms did not use traditional textbooks as the basis for instruction.  Forty-two percent of the classes in the audit sample used materials other than textbooks as the primary basis of instruction, including science kits, photocopies, computer software and videos. 

 

The audit further found that in many of the classrooms sampled, textbooks were shared among students in several classes.  Each classroom had a set of books (referred to as booksets) used by the students during the class period.  Those books were generally not allowed to be taken home by the students.  Students in four or five classes often shared a textbook.  He used as an example four periods of an algebra class, where 100 students throughout the day shared 30 books.  Some teachers allowed students to take books home, while others discouraged it for fear of losing booksets and creating shortages.

 

Mr. Peterson then said the use of booksets was more common at the secondary level.  The auditors found that of the secondary classes reviewed, 35 percent of them used booksets.  Mr. Peterson noted for the purposes of the audit report that was not considered a shortage. 

 

Mr. Crews interjected at that point to explain the issue of booksets was one the Audit Subcommittee felt very strongly about.  They were concerned that in 35 percent of the cases, there were no books for the children to take home.  That raised a red flag for the subcommittee, and that was one of the main issues the subcommittee wanted to bring forward to the Assembly Committee on Education.

 

Mr. Peterson continued his presentation, saying when the Audit Division looked at the shortages they found that, of all the classes in their sample, 5 percent experienced a textbook shortage.  He informed the committee the report contained several exhibits with more detail on the breakdown of classes with textbook shortages.

 

He then turned the committee’s attention to page 26 of the audit report that began a discussion of school district policies on textbook availability.  The LCB Audit Division found that most districts had not developed a policy on that issue; in fact, only Churchill, Clark and Douglas counties had a policy.  The auditors also found there was a wide variety of instructional materials in use among the districts.  Of the sampled elementary classes, 44 percent of them issued textbooks to each student.  That, however, varied widely:  from 34 percent of the classes in Clark County to 91 percent of the classes in Lander County.  Mr. Peterson concluded that the issue of textbook use and availability might be better addressed if the Department of Education established formal policies that provided direction and guidance to school officials in that area.

 

Mr. Peterson then reviewed the availability of textbooks for special education programs.  The auditors found that 80 percent of special education students spent the majority of their day in regular education environments, using the same textbook and subject to the same availability of textbook use as the other students.  The Individual Education Plan (IEP) was a unique plan for each special education student developed jointly by educators and parents.  The IEP determined the materials needed by special education students.  Exhibit 18 on page 28 of the Audit report (Exhibit C) provided a more detailed breakdown of the number of students in special education programs.

 

The use of textbooks was not always applicable to those 20 percent of special education students not participating in regular education environments.  Although some teachers indicated they had sufficient textbooks, other stated it was difficult to obtain even standard textbooks in schools with shortages.  The unique nature of IEPs required the availability of textbooks to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. 

 

Mr. Peterson then addressed the textbook adoption process at the Department of Education.  The auditors found the process needed additional monitoring because districts did not always purchase textbooks approved by the State Board of Education.  The process was also limited because it did not assure proper approval of materials other than the textbooks used as a basis of instruction.

 

Mr. Peterson then described the process for approving a textbook.  The process began at the district level, where a committee was formed made up of educators and parents.  It was their responsibility to then review and select a certain number of books, normally through subject area, for each year.  They then gave their recommendations to the State Board of Education, who reviewed and approved the books.

 

Mr. Peterson said the LCB Audit Division reviewed textbook purchases in fiscal year 1999.  The Audit report (pages 29 and 30) provided two examples of textbooks purchased by school districts but not approved by the State Board of Education.  The Audit Division found that better monitoring by the Department of Education would help identify unapproved books and materials.  Because the Department indicated they did not have the resources to perform on-site monitoring, Mr. Peterson said the LCB Audit Division felt some other methods should be considered.

 

Mr. Peterson said the auditors found that the existing process could not always ensure materials other than textbooks were properly approved prior to use.  If teachers or administrators decided to use materials other than a book as a basis of instruction, the process did not capture that information and ensure the materials were properly approved.  The Department was currently addressing that issue by developing procedures for approval of software.  However, of the classes reviewed, only 9 percent used computer software as the basis of their instruction.  Forty-seven percent of them were using teacher created material and 44 percent were using instructional kits.

 

The auditors then looked at the textbook adoption list, which was maintained by the Department of Education.  It contained information on textbooks approved by the State Board of Education.  They found the list was not always accurate or complete.  For example, it did not always show the correct price of books, and it was missing some information such as a price or an identifying number for approximately 300 of the 1100 books.  The audit also found that the list lacked sufficient information to determine when a book should no longer be used. 

 

Mr. Peterson said that through the LCB Audit Division survey, teachers were asked to provide information on the requests made of parents for money or classroom supplies.  They found 33 percent of the teachers indicated they requested money from parents, and 79 percent reported they asked parents for classroom supplies.  Exhibit 19 on page 32 of the audit report showed exact numbers for the averages.  Exhibit 20 on page 33 of the report provided information on the items teachers most often asked parents to provide.

 

On the issue of requesting money or supplies, the auditors found only two of Nevada’s school districts had adopted policies on requesting money or supplies from parents.  Policies adopted by the local board of trustees provided direction to the districts.  Some district officials indicated it was their responsibility to provide free education and discouraged any request of parents, while others believed limited resources made it necessary to request those items from parents.  The auditors found that 92 percent of the teachers indicated they spent their own money on classroom supplies, with $500 being the most frequent response.  The audit found that supplies were also provided from several other sources, such as Parent Teacher Associations, the business community, and various fund raising activities.

 

Mr. Peterson then asked the committee for questions.  Mrs. de Braga asked if Exhibit 19 on page 32 of the audit report illustrated teacher requests for money or supplies.  Mr. Peterson explained the chart showed, by grouping of districts, the number of teachers in each grouping that requested money or that requested parents provide supplies.

 

Mrs. de Braga asked if the chart took into consideration the schools that provided lists to parents at the beginning of the school year outlining the supplies needed.  She noted many of those types of supplies were on the auditors’ list.

 

Mr. Peterson answered that was included in the lists.  The audit found that the teachers, either themselves or through coordination with the principal, sent lists out to parents at the beginning of the school year of items the parents could provide if they wanted to.

 

Mrs. de Braga said she did not think those supplies were optional; they were required.  Mr. Peterson said from what the auditors saw there was a wide variation of how schools dealt with that issue.  In some cases, the supply lists were provided if parents wanted to contribute.  Mr. Peterson assumed it would vary by district.

 

Mrs. Cegavske mentioned she had been briefed on the textbook report prior to the committee meeting.  She emphasized she was dismayed and shocked at the findings in the report.  She said the amount of money spent on special education students, as an example, was higher because of the needs of those students.  That money also helped pay teacher salaries.  She asked that if the money was set aside for the pupils, why were teachers saying they could not get specific materials for those classes?  Why was there such a disparity on that issue?  Mrs. Cegavske said she also received complaints about students getting copied pages of textbooks where words were blurred.  She asked how the per-pupil dollar amount and the textbook money lined up.  Her understanding from the textbook audit report was that not all the textbook money was being spent in the textbook area; it was being spent in other areas.

 

Mrs. Cegavske also stated in terms of teacher requests for supply money, some parents could afford to give it and some could not.  She also asked if the supplies requested were more for elementary schools, or were those requests also received from middle and high school teachers?

 

Mr. Townsend answered that A.B. 241 from the Seventieth Session only required that the LCB Audit Division compile information at the elementary school level.  The auditors found after discussions with school principals that money requests seemed to be the case more in elementary classrooms than the secondary level.

 

Mrs. Cegavske said another area of concern was the Department of Education’s response to the LCB Audit Division.  She added she had spoken with the new Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Jack McLaughlin, who indicated he was willing to work cooperatively with the recommendations in the audit.  She said she was very concerned about the report; it indicated taxpayer dollars were not being spent in the areas with the largest concerns.

 

Ms. Von Tobel said she could confirm teachers were spending that type of money in the classrooms.  She had in the past purchased supplies and materials for the classrooms in which she had substituted.  She found most teachers did purchase classroom supplies if they wanted extra supplies for the classrooms.  She asked Mr. Peterson if he would clarify how the audit division defined classroom instructional kits.

 

Mr. Peterson said a typical instructional kit was a science kit, which did not come with a set textbook but with writing materials.  Another common instructional kit was the foreign language kit.

 

Mrs. Von Tobel wanted clarification that the report was not indicating instructional kits were less useful than a textbook.  She also asked if workbooks were considered textbooks.

 

Mr. Peterson answered the LCB Audit Division did not make a judgment on what materials were good or bad.  The report wanted to point out the number of classrooms using something other than traditional textbooks.

 

Mr. Crews also interjected that the report was not making a value judgment on the materials used; it was merely a way to inform legislators as to what was being used in the classrooms.  In regard to textbooks, when teachers indicated textbooks were their principal way of teaching, the auditors evaluated if there were sufficient textbooks; however, textbooks had to be the teacher’s principal means of class instruction.  What the auditors found was that across the state, there was a 5 percent shortage of textbooks in use in the classrooms.  Thirty-five percent of students did not have a textbook to take home.

 

Mrs. Smith asked if the audit revealed any cases where textbooks were purchased but not being used.  Mr. Peterson said they had no data on the extra books, but they did observe there were extra books in classrooms. 

 

Mrs. Smith asked if other materials were used because of the lack of textbooks or because that was the teacher’s preference.  Mr. Peterson responded the audit concentrated on the use of the materials and the textbooks.  The reasons for the use would vary by school, by district, and by teacher.

 

Mrs. Smith asked if most districts had an appropriate textbook adoption cycle, particularly in relation to the new standards adopted for that process.  Mr. Peterson indicated the audit had to consider the textbook adoption cycle in their study; however, they did not test each district’s adherence to the adoption cycle.  Typically, books fell off the adoption list after seven years, but were still serviceable for another four years beyond that.  Mrs. Smith then inquired if instructional kits went through an adoption process.  Mr. Townsend said the adoption list did have some instruction kits on it.

 

Mrs. Smith asked what happened if the district did not spend its allocated textbook money.  Mr. Crews said the districts had the flexibility to use the money for their own set priorities.  Mrs. Smith said she was concerned gaps were created in the schools when some parents expended large amounts of money purchasing supplies for classrooms whereas other classrooms did not have the same advantages.

 

Mr. Townsend continued the presentation by explaining the methodology used in the audit.  He cautioned the sampling of schools in the audit report did not represent a statistical sampling.  To determine expenditure levels, the auditors tested samples of expenditure transactions in each district.  To determine the number of students enrolled in each subject area and the number of textbooks available, questionnaires were distributed to teachers and verification procedures were conducted on the information from the questionnaires.  The questionnaires were also used to determine the amount of money requested from parents of pupils enrolled in elementary schools to purchase instructional supplies.

 

Mr. Townsend concluded his presentation by affirming the auditors did verify the number of textbooks reported by the teachers, and in most cases the auditors conducted a count of the textbooks.  A total of 1360 questionnaires were sent out; they received 1351 responses.  At the conclusion of the audit process, audit results were sent to all school districts.  The LCB Audit Division forwarded recommendations to the Department of Education related to:

 

·        Improving the accuracy of financial information;

·        Approving and monitoring the use of textbooks and materials;

·        Assisting districts in adopting policies.

 

Mr. Townsend indicated the Department of Education rejected each of the recommendations. 

 

Mr. Crews explained that although the Department of Education rejected all six recommendations, a recent letter from new Superintendent Dr. Jack McLaughlin indicated they had reversed some of the Department’s positions on the recommendations.  The Department of Education was given a sixty-day corrective action period; a response was due the middle of March 2001.

 

Vice Chairman Parnell indicated she wanted to respond to Mrs. Cegavske’s question whether teacher requests for money was primarily in the elementary schools.  Vice Chairman Parnell said as a middle school teacher, she knew those requests continued beyond elementary school and impacted families throughout all the grade levels.

 

Mrs. Smith commented that the teacher survey response was very high, which indicated what a serious situation existed in the school districts.  Mr. Townsend said the methodology used for the audit ensured a high response.

 

Vice Chairman Parnell said on behalf of the Chairman, the committee would be anxious to see the follow up report from the Department of Education on the recommendations.  She then asked Dr. Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, if he wished to respond to the report.

 

Dr. McLaughlin said his response to the audit report was outlined in his memorandum to Legislative Auditor Gary Crews dated February 16, 2001 (Exhibit D).  He emphasized the Department would pay attention to the issue, and understood teachers needed the ability to select the materials to match the needs of the students.  He indicated that in his response memorandum (Exhibit D) he noted that a new position was outlined in the Governor’s budget that would provide manpower to help the department deal with the financial reporting issue.

 

Dr. McLaughlin also stated he would be reviewing with the State Board of Education an example of a compliance model to use at the state level to ensure that adequate and sufficient instructional materials were available.  He said the Department would take the leadership roll in developing a compliance policy.

 

Mrs. de Braga asked Dr. McLaughlin if he had any sense of why the Department of Education had originally rejected all the recommendations.  It seemed on the level of a protest.

 

Dr. McLaughlin indicated he could not answer that question since he was not in the superintendent’s position when it happened.  He assured the committee it would not happen again in the future, and understood a compliance mechanism must be put into place.

 

There being no additional public comments or business before the committee, Vice Chairman Parnell adjourned the meeting at 4:47 p.m.

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Mary Drake

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

 

 

DATE: