MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-First Session
March 7, 2001
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:50 p.m., on Wednesday, March 7, 2001. Vice Chairman Bonnie 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:
Ms. Bonnie Parnell, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Tom Collins
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mrs. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Wendell Williams, Chairman (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Mary Drake, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Charlotte Curtis, School-to-Careers State Coordinator
Ron Krump, CEO, Krump Construction
Beth Reykers, Community College of Southern Nevada
Mendy Elliott, Wells Fargo Bank
Wayne Pedlar, General Manager of RTP Company
Greg Marangi, Schools to Careers Regional Coordinator
Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufactures Association
Karen Baggett, Deputy Director, Commission on Economic Development Penny Brock, concerned taxpayer
After roll call, Vice Chairman Bonnie Parnell said the committee would be acting as a subcommittee until a quorum was present.
The first order of business was a presentation by Nevada School-to-Careers (STC). Copies of a memorandum entitled “School-to-Careers Update on A.B. 191 Funds” (Exhibit C) were distributed to the committee. The committee also received a letter from Denny Martindale, President of the Education Collaborative of Washoe County (Exhibit D), which urged continued support for the School-to-Careers Program. Vice Chairman Parnell introduced Charlotte Curtis, STC Coordinator for the State of Nevada.
Ms. Curtis first thanked the legislators for hosting the legislative job-shadowing day. She mentioned the students had wished for more time with the legislators, which Ms. Curtis felt was a great compliment. She said the presentation would include an explanation of the request for additional funds, along with a review of the most recent evaluation data. Each of the STC partners would also present their comments. Exhibit E was a written copy of each partner’s testimony.
Ms. Curtis began by explaining the Nevada STC Program was a partner-driven system made up of representatives from various Nevada agencies and businesses, all of whom supported the vision of students completing their education and preparing for productive lives. In terms of the STC request for additional state funding, she emphasized federal dollars for the program was on the decline. The federal funds, however, were only intended as seed money. She stressed they needed to continue state funding for the next two years. Monies currently received from the state were a result of A.B. 191 of the Sixty-ninth Session, and would continue until 2003.
Ms. Curtis showed the committee a chart containing evaluation data compiled over the past several years (Exhibit F). The 1997 and 1998 columns in the matrix reflected that in the first year of operation (1997), 19 percent of Nevada’s secondary schools participated in the School-to-Careers Program. By 2000, almost 73 percent of the schools had established some form of career pathway system, which demonstrated students were receiving curriculum that aligned with their interests and aptitude.
Ms. Curtis continued that student career plans were centered on the student’s goals and focus. The intent was not to track students or limit them; it was to look at options and interests. Ninety-seven percent of students were designing a career plan. STC had seen an increase in the number of students in paid work experiences, as well as an increase in the number of students enrolled in advanced technical courses. Employer involvement had also increased dramatically. There were now 6200 business partners statewide supporting the School-to-Careers Program. Ms. Curtis noted since the inception of the program the dropout rate had also declined slightly. Because students did have a career plan and a focus, they were seeing more relevance in their high school and community college work.
The School-to-Careers Program system was statewide and divided into four regions. Each region was aligned with a community college system to create a feeder system among all the schools districts and their community colleges and the universities. The regions represented at the meeting were:
Ron Krump then made the presentation for the Washoe Region. He informed the committee the School-to-Careers Program would seek an additional $1 million from the legislators in addition to the $1 million presently in the state budget for School-to-Careers. STC needed additional state monies for the following activities:
· Staffing for the Career Center coordinator positions that existed in each school;
· Staffing for the School-to-Careers coordinator positions in each school district;
· Funding for the teacher externship program.
Mr. Krump explained the different services provided to STC by the school districts and the business community. Each school district contributed office space for the Career Centers, along with telephones, transportation, and administrative and in-kind services. The business community partners worked with job shadowing, internships, field trips to businesses, resource speakers, resources for career fairs, student hiring, hosting teachers for externships; and serving on the business-education partnership. He emphasized the business community was very involved in this program in terms of time commitments. Mr. Krump remarked the School-to-Careers Program was not directing students to specific trades, but merely making them aware of the broad base of career opportunities in the various trades.
Mr. Krump asserted the connection between businesses and the educators must be maintained. He felt the School-to-Careers Program was the best hope for educational reform, and concluded his presentation by emphasizing the critical need to continue funding for the program.
Vice Chairman Parnell asked Mr. Krump where the funding mechanism request was for the program. Ms. Curtis explained it was in the Department of Education’s budget.
Mrs. de Braga asked what the program’s current budget was. Ms. Curtis said current state funding was $1 million for fiscal year 2001. STC would be requesting an additional $1 million for fiscal year 2001, and $2 million for fiscal year 2002. Mrs. de Braga then inquired what would happen to the program if the funds were not approved. Ms. Curtis said since federal funding was diminishing, schools districts, particularly in the rural areas, might have to cut back on staffing and other services in the STC program. Mrs. de Braga asked if the businesses were able to provide any monetary support. Ms. Curtis confirmed there was some support in that area.
Beth Reykers, Community College of Southern Nevada, made the presentation for the southern region. She said the Southern Nevada School-to-Careers Partnership oversaw programs covering an area of over 40,000 square miles. She emphasized the development of the new academic standards and the delivery of guidance programs such as the CHOICES Program in ninth grade classrooms had encouraged business, parent and employer involvement in education. She said Nevada’s businesses were now being welcomed into the classroom.
Ms. Reykers then explained the CHOICES Program used in southern Nevada schools. Each student was dealt a card with a career and the salary range for that career stated on the card. The cards dealt covered every field from food server to CEOs. Students then calculated monthly expenses to determine what they could actually afford on the salary. The exercise served to show the students that education and training was the key to options and choices for the student’s future. Ms. Reykers emphasized guidance programs, such as CHOICES, were delivered solely by volunteers. The volunteers were parents, business members and employees. Nevada State Bank, Saint Rose Dominican Hospital, and Smiths Food and Drugs were just a few of the corporations donating time and, in some cases, funding.
Ms. Reykers noted over 1400 businesses in southern Nevada worked with the schools. She articulated most employees were also parents, so the volunteer programs fostered dialogue among schools, businesses and parents. She pointed out the Southern Nevada School-to-Careers Partnership, comprised of 51 percent nonpublic sector and noneducator individuals as required by legislation, pushed for the CHOICES program because they wanted students to see the relevance of their education.
Ms. Reykers continued her presentation by noting the southern region had the highest dropout rate in the state. School-to-Careers funding established programs that encouraged students to stay in school, such as the PAL program at Las Vegas High School. Learning and Earning was another program designed to assist high-risk students to complete high school. Ms. Reykers cited as an example of the effectiveness of the Learning and Earning program her own daughter, who could not pass the math proficiency exam. Through tutoring received from the Learning and Earning Program, her daughter was able to pass the exam and graduated with her class.
Ms. Reykers concluded by saying thousands of students were benefiting by the funds provided from the School-to-Careers Program. Some of the features of the program had ongoing costs; state funding was needed to improve and support those programs because they made a difference.
Mr. Manendo asked Ms. Reykers if her position was paid through the School-to-Careers state funds. She explained it was not. She was responsible for grant-funded programs. As part of her responsibilities, the college received grant funds for the region and then subgranted it out to the school districts in the region. School-to-Careers was only one of the programs she worked with.
Ms. Von Tobel asked if guest speakers sent to schools through the School-to-Careers Program were screened for topic content and not allowed to tout their own agenda. She related an experience she had while substitute teaching a middle school class where a geologist employed with Yucca Mountain tried to convince the students Nevada was the most important place to dispose of nuclear waste because there was already a lot of nuclear waste deposited there, and that it was too dangerous to leave the waste where it was produced. Ms. Von Tobel said she was shocked by the presentation, and presented the other side of that scenario to the students after the speaker left. Ms. Reykers said the CHOICES program was very regimented and involved a good deal of training to prevent such an occurrence.
The next speaker was Mendy Elliott, Vice President of Community and Government Relations with Wells Fargo Bank. She testified that five years ago Nevada businesses asked that Nevada schools initiate a standards-based education system with accountability to better prepare students for higher education and the work force. The result was the partnering of businesses, the Legislature, and the school districts to build a system of career opportunities. The School-to-Careers Program provided multiple activities such as career fairs, job shadowing, and internships to better prepare students for the workplace.
Ms. Elliott contended the school districts were not able to absorb all the costs for the STC program. In the large districts the growth had been too large, and in the small districts there had been declining enrollments. She stressed human capital was Nevada’s greatest natural resource; School-to-Careers developed students to their maximum potential which in turned helped attract the needed industries to Nevada.
Ms. Elliott stated she wanted to address the question of how much businesses had given back to education. She cited Wells Fargo Bank as an example of a business that from 1998–2001 had invested $3.2 million in education and education-related initiatives. That was an investment in Nevada’s future leaders, and was made in part because of the state’s emphasis on education. She urged support of the funding request.
Mr. Wayne Pedlar, General Manager with the RTP Company, said his involvement with the School-to-Careers Program began at the request of a local Dayton school. As a result, he observed first hand how a partnering of business and education could drive change. He wanted to explain the portfolio system used in several Nevada counties. The portfolio contained a compilation of a student’s best high school work, career goals and aspirations, and community service activities. The student presented the portfolio to a panel of educators and community business people. That activity gave students practice selling themselves to the real world. He observed Lyon County had made the portfolio system a graduation requirement. Carson City used a senior presentation format similar to the portfolio system. Both systems were driven jointly by business and education.
Mr. Pedlar stressed that tremendous sharing between educators and business people took place at the state and county STC partnership boards. These boards were required by legislation to have a majority representation of nonpublic sector people. He felt the sharing of best practices between counties helped break down barriers between counties. He stated the School-to-Careers partnerships developed a mechanism in which to push for change and stay involved in the process. It allowed both teachers and business people to work within each other’s environments and see first hand what the needs were in those environments.
Vice Chairman Parnell asked Ms. Curtis if School-to-Careers funded the career days held at the various schools. Ms. Curtis referred the question to Greg Marangi, the School-to-Careers Regional Coordinator for the western region, who responded career days were sponsored by the local school districts.
Mrs. Cegavske asked Ms. Curtis to provide the committee a list of the different professions students observed during career day field trips. She had heard complaints that students felt they were not allowed to observe the more interesting jobs, such as veterinarians or nurses. They felt they were viewing the less important jobs. She also wanted to know if the students were allowed to evaluate the field trips in order to get a better sense of the types of professions they aspired to.
Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association, answered Mrs. Cegavske’s question by explaining at the inception of the School-to-Careers Program, two issues of concern were how to give students an opportunity to select the types of professions they wished to observe, but how to also give them a sense of job stratification. Students needed to see the types of jobs that required a lot of education, jobs that required a mid-range level of education, and jobs that required little or no education. He said the aspiration level for the students was they wanted a high amount of pay, but they did not want a high amount of work. The objective of the field trips was to drive that connection in place. Mr. Bacon said the least enjoyable experience for the students was viewing the menial jobs.
Mr. Bacon added one issue he felt important to bring up was equity between the schools. He strongly believed the School-to-Careers Program had done more in that area than any other single program.
Karen Baggett, Deputy Director for the State Commission on Economic Development, testified she had been involved in the School-to-Careers Program for the past seven years. She remarked the mission of Commission on Economic Development was to draw new businesses into the state as well as retain existing businesses. A big problem was finding qualified employees. Given the growth in Nevada, the demand for qualified employees was very high. The STC program gave students a wide exposure to careers, both careers they were unaware of as well as providing a different perspective on careers that interested them. She added teachers had also gained a fresh perspective to teaching after participating in the externship program. She urged support of the program.
Penny Brock, who spoke as a concerned taxpayer, had several questions and concerns about the School-to-Careers Program. She understood the federal government was “sunsetting” the program this year, and that the State Department of Education would continue the funding for the next two years. She wanted clarification on the funding issue and state’s desire to continue with the program. She was also concerned about the liability issues. She asked what were the liabilities for businesses that hired students. If an accident happened in the work environment, what coverage was provided for the student? Ms. Brock continued she was concerned about possible violations of the child labor laws, and wanted to know if students were paid for their services or if they were treated as “indentured servants.”
Ms. Brock also challenged the position of expecting students to make career decisions by the eighth grade. She felt that was too young to make those decisions and then be put on a career path. Another concern was under the mandates of federal law, children were not allowed to work without a certificate. She understood the School-to-Careers Program was working with the University of Reno to develop a certificate program. She indicated many parents were concerned that students would not be able to work without the certificate. She wanted clarification on what the certificate meant.
Ms. Brock was also concerned about the academics. If students were being taken out of the classroom on field trips, or having guest speakers make presentations in classrooms, was that not taking time away from traditional academic education? What research had been conducted in Nevada to demonstrate those activities were improving the academic achievement of students? When looking at the test scores, only 21 percent of fourth graders could read at or above proficient. How was the School-to-Careers Program improving the academics of the students? Schools needed to ensure students were truly prepared and competent in the academics.
Vice Chairman Parnell asked Ray Bacon if he would address the liability issue brought up by Ms. Brock. Mr. Bacon explained School-to-Careers was started at the federal level with collaboration between the United States Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. One of the initial issues addressed was liability. The Department of Labor would not allow any leniency on child labor laws. Mr. Bacon said that in most cases, existing child labor laws would not even allow students to visit the manufacturing plants. Those issues were dealt with in a subsequent law that gave child labor laws more flexibility for tours and shadowing. There was still substantial liability on an employer to ensure students were kept safe. He further said Nevada went through considerable battles to deal with the workers’ compensation issue. He felt that issue had been dealt with at the state level effectively.
Mr. Bacon commented he also wanted to address Ms. Brock’s concerns of the impact of the program on the academics. In his mind, that was the one area where the most positive impacts were made. He said there was a period of time when 10 out of every 11 employees who applied for work failed the basic literacy test. Basic reading and math skills were lacking. He felt that, across the board, the message had been driven home to most students that academics were essential to a getting and maintaining a good job.
Mr. Bacon also asked to comment on another issue brought up by Ms. Brock, which was the career path issue. The career path program was not intended to lock students into a career; it was intended to show students that how far a person went in a career was totally a function of how much that individual worked and educated himself. It was all tied to drive and motivation. He felt the School-to-Careers Program brought light to that issue and demonstrated to the students that they had to take personal responsibility for their careers. He also found that the externship program changed the perspective for teachers on conducting more effective classes. He concluded that even though there had been execution and implementation problems in some cases, on the whole the program was a positive experience for teachers and students.
Ms. Curtis concluded the presentation by thanking the committee for their interest and support over the years.
Vice Chairman Parnell mentioned to the committee that information had been distributed to them today from Dr. Skip Wenda of the State Department of Education relative to his presentation made at the March 5 meeting. It was a packet from the Department of Education entitled “Plans to Establish Programs for the Professional Development of Teachers.”
Vice Chairman Parnell said that since a quorum was present, she wanted to take up the matter of a bill heard at the February 12 meeting.
Assembly Bill 1: Revises provisions regarding school nurses. (BDR 34-135)
Vice Chairman Parnell explained A.B. 1 was passed out of the Committee on Education unanimously on February 12 with the understanding amendment language would be worked on. The proposed amendment language (Exhibit G) was a collaborative effort between the Department of Education, representatives of the State Nursing Board, and representatives of Elko and Clark County School Districts. In Section 1, subsection 2 of A.B. 1, there was discussion about acknowledging the school districts that did not hire school nursing personnel, but contracted out with other agencies, often the community public health nurse. In particular, Dr Rheault with the State Department of Education felt it was important to allow the smaller school districts that option of contracting out. As a result, Section 1, subsection 2(a)(1) was amended to change the word “and” to “or,” and Section 1, subsection 2(a)(2) was changed to read: “Is a Registered Nurse employed by a state, county or district health office and is used to provide nursing services to the school district.”
Vice Chairman Parnell explained the Carson City School District still had concerns about the potential fiscal impacts of the bill; however, after collaborative discussions, it was decided that changes to the term “chief administrative nurse” or elimination of the need for the direct supervision of Registered Nurses would weaken the bill. She asked if there were any questions concerning the amendments to A.B. 1.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 1
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. Assemblywoman Cegavske and Assemblyman Collins were absent for the vote.
********
There being no further business before the committee, Vice Chairman Parnell adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED:
______________________________
Mary Drake
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
____________________________________
Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman
DATE:____________________________