MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-First Session

March 14, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:59 p.m., on Wednesday, March 14, 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

Mrs.                     Marcia de Braga

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Mrs.                     Ellen Koivisto

Mr.                     Mark Manendo

Mrs.                     Debbie Smith

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr.                     Tom Collins (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Mary Drake, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Carlos Garcia, Superintendent of Schools, Clark County School District

Rose McKinney-James, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District

Dr. Walt Rulffes, Deputy Superintendent/CFO, Clark County School District

Noel Fisher, Intern to Chairman Williams

Sheila Moulton, Clark County School District Board of Trustees

Dr. Lauren Kohut-Rost, Southeast Area Superintendent for the Clark County School District

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

Mr. Tom Axtell, General Manager, KLVX Communications

Jami Carpenter, Distance Education Program Coordinator, KLVX

 

 

After roll call, Chairman Williams asked Carlos Garcia, Clark County School District (CCSD) Superintendent, and Rose McKinney-James, Legislative Representative for the Clark County School District, to present a status report on the Clark County School District.

 

Superintendent Garcia began the presentation with a discussion of the recent reorganizational changes within the CCSD.  He referred the committee to the handout entitled “Clark County School District Service Provider Network” (Exhibit C), which illustrated the recent restructuring.  Superintendent Garcia emphasized the purpose of the reorganization plan, known as the “Achievement Plus” or “A-Plus” plan, was to better facilitate the goal of increased student achievement.  The A-Plus stood for achievement, access, and accountability. 

 

Superintendent Garcia explained the CCSD was now restructured into five regions:  East Central Region; Northwest Region; Southwest Region; Northeast Region; Southeast Region.  He said breaking the school districts down into five fairly autonomous regions allowed for better access and accountability.  Each region had a regional superintendent and two assistants.  The regional service centers were housed in a school in the middle of the community.  Each region was responsible for K-12 education within that region.  The objective was to provide communities easier access to school district administration.

 

Superintendent Garcia said every decision made in the CCSD was centered on student achievement.  He referred the committee to the flow chart (Exhibit C) showing the divisions within each regional center.  To ensure accountability, every division had a lead or point person reporting directly to the regional superintendent.  Superintendent Garcia contended streamlining the system eliminated the bureaucracy of being sent from one department to another. 

 

Superintendent Garcia maintained the reorganization also enhanced accessibility for parents.  Parents now could go to the regional centers for services.  He added having each region responsible for the K-12 education also improved the articulation in terms of curriculum and accountability. 

 

Superintendent Garcia continued with the report explaining each region and each school within the region would develop an action plan to meet the objective of student achievement.  The action plans would be data-driven and would identify areas of weakness based on CCSD data.  The plans would also outline a means to measure each plan’s effectiveness.  Superintendent Garcia emphasized the entire school district system, including the central departments, would be set up based on action plans.  He estimated approximately $550,000 would be saved through the reorganization.  He explained some of that savings was a result of unfilled vacant positions.  Superintendent Garcia indicated that money would be distributed to the regions. 

 

Superintendent Garcia concluded his portion of the presentation by stressing the regional process was an evolving process and subject to continued flexibility and growth.  CCSD would conduct department-wide reviews to identify possible cost savings, and analyze all programs in the district to determine what could be eliminated.  He felt CCSD had been successful so far finding ways to cut cost; $52 million had already been identified in savings.  He cautioned, however, that finding areas to cut was becoming more difficult.  Superintendent Garcia then asked Dr. Walt Rulffes, Assistant Superintendent, to give a synopsis of the transportation issues.

 

Before continuing with the presentation, Chairman Williams asked Superintendent Garcia if the regional system was geographically based.  Superintendent Garcia said that geographic areas were one consideration because the system used streets to determine the regions.  CCSD tried to design the regions in such a way that they followed street feeder patterns.  He said about 85 percent of the schools followed a feeder pattern; however, it was impossible to get them all to align.  When setting up the regions they also looked at socio-economics, ethnicity, geography, and population.  He noted as an example the southwest region.  It was the smallest region, with only 39,000 students, but it was anticipated it would be the fastest growing region in the next few years.  The CCSD tried to keep those issues in mind as the regions were developed. 

 

Chairman Williams asked if there were two superintendents in the northwest region.  Dr. Garcia explained there was only one, with two assistants.  Chairman Williams then inquired if there could be schools that were virtually streets apart but in different regions because of the feeder system.  Dr. Garcia said it was possible.  He said as the CCSD worked through it, they were trying to see what they could do with those types of situations. 

 

Mrs. Koivisto said from what she was viewing on the flow chart (Exhibit C), it appeared the northwest and northeast regions had a total of seven magnet schools, but within the other three regions combined there were only five magnet schools.  She asked Superintendent Garcia if he would address that.

 

Superintendent Garcia explained students came from all over the district to the magnet schools.  As the CCSD moved forward and built more schools, they would be revisiting that situation.  For the moment, however, the magnet schools were already in place with no other available location to move to.

 

Ms. Von Tobel said her understanding was there were some administrative costs incurred by charter schools.  She asked under what section of the flow chart (Exhibit C) charter schools fell.  Superintendent Garcia said Dr. Craig Kadlub with the Educational Accountability and Compliance Department was in charge of the charter schools and reported directly to the superintendent’s office.  Superintendent Garcia advised Dr. Kadlub would continue to work with the charter schools.

 

Dr. Walt Rulffes, CCSD Assistant Superintendent, then began his portion of the presentation addressing the transportation issue.  He said school transportation issues were a growing concern in Las Vegas.  Streets that were once safe to walk on as recent as four or five years ago were now major arterials.  There was more pressure on the CCSD to do something about transportation for students living closer than two miles to the school.  The school district still had a two-mile limit in Las Vegas and the greater Las Vegas area.

 

Dr. Rulffes continued, stating the CCSD was examining ways to reduce the elementary school walking distance from two miles to 1.5 miles.  Of the three options under consideration by CCSD, none totally solved the problem.  Dr. Rulffes then reviewed the three options. 

 

The first option was increasing the walking distance for high school students to 3 miles.  That could free up enough busses and drivers to reduce the walking distance for the elementary school students to 1.5 miles.  That option would be cost neutral, and could be done within the existing formula.  The attractive part was the elementary students would have a shorter distance; the unattractive part was the increased walking distance for high school students.

 

The second option, and the one with the most appeal to the CCSD, was developing a cooperative effort between the CCSD and the Citizens Area Transit (CAT).  The school district had a number of conversations with Jacob Snow, CEO of the Citizens Area Transit, and he was enthused about doing a pilot project.  Dr. Rulffes said it would require a reconfiguration on the part of both CCSD and CAT to work because the CAT system had fewer than 300 busses, and CCSD had over 1,000 busses.  The CCSD runs were concentrated at the beginning and ending of the school day.

 

Dr. Rulffes said that the CCSD felt an area of breakthrough with the second option was the magnet school transportation and after-school activities at the high schools.  CCSD hoped to have a pilot program in place with some type of joint venture in the not-too-distant future with CAT.  Dr. Rulffes said it only made sense to joint venture if there were CCSD and CAT busses running the same routes.  Past legislation authorized the CAT system to sell reduced tickets to students.  Dr. Rulffes stated CCSD bought enormous amounts of student passes now, but they would like to expand that even further.

 

The third option was fiscal assistance from the Legislature to reduce the elementary walking distance.  CCSD would prefer to solve this internally; however, if it could find some external source of funding, CCSD believed that an eight-year commitment of about $3.5 million a year would enable the school district to borrow money, buy the busses, and be able to reduce the elementary walking distance to 1.5 miles without affecting the high school.

 

Chairman Williams commented he often saw the large school busses at Advanced Technology Academy, a magnet school, running with no more than eight to ten students.  He asked why those students were not transported in smaller vehicles.  He said he realized magnet schools worked on a lottery system, but he understood CCSD made stipulations allowing neighborhood children greater opportunity to attend the magnet schools.  Chairman Williams added he had received two letters just that week from students wishing to enroll at Advanced Technology Academy.  He asked Dr. Rulffes if there had been any discussions on that issue.

 

Dr. Rulffes explained since the magnet schools had a different bell time, the big busses were used to transport those students in between the regular school run times.  He noted it cost no more to run the big busses than the smaller busses.  Since the CCSD had already made the capital investment for the bigger bus, it used them.  Dr. Rulffes added he would be happy to follow up on any letters Chairman Williams received from students wishing to attend Advanced Technology Academy.  Chairman Williams said there was still an ongoing concern students could not get into the magnet schools in their neighborhood.

 

Dr. Rulffes closed his presentation by announcing the CCSD had a public relations firm doing pro bono work to pull together a bus advertising package in the form of a pilot.  They hoped to take the proposal to the CCSD Board of Trustees sometime this school year.  Chairman Williams said Mr. Manendo had worked several years putting that type of a proposal together, and he asked Mr. Manendo if he had any comments.

 

Mr. Manendo said that was wonderful news and commended CCSD for looking at the issue.  He supported the idea of advertising on the busses as an opportunity to raise revenue by partnering with businesses, no matter if the revenues went toward textbooks, lab equipment, or field trips.  He pointed out the disadvantaged schools would be the first priority.  He asked Dr. Rulffes to apprise the Committee on Education of any recommendations to come out of the meeting with the Board of Trustees.  Mr. Manendo inquired if it was a wash in terms of money to increase the walking distance from two miles to three miles in high school and reduce the elementary school walking distance from 2 to 1.5 miles.  Dr. Rulffes confirmed it was a cost neutral proposal; however, it would not be well received by the affected parties.  There was an additional academic concern it could contribute to a higher drop out rate if district-provided transportation was not available to students.  Dr. Rulffes observed the CCSD had to balance the needs of the greatest number of people.

 

Chairman Williams noted his intern, Noel Fisher, had completed some work on the walking distance issue and was available to discuss it with the CCSD.  Mr. Manendo added CCSD School Board Trustee Sheila Moulton was in the audience and could also address it when she had an opportunity.  Mr. Manendo asked Dr. Rulffes if parents complained to the CCSD that two miles was too far.  He said the parents with smaller children had the most concerns.  He questioned to what extent high school busses were used.  The priority should be the elementary school students.  He said in his district he knew parents would be happy to learn that during that one shift, at least, it would be cost neutral.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked if CCSD had data on the number of high schools students riding the bus.  She felt that would be good information for the committee.  She asked Chairman Williams’ permission to allow Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to speak on behalf of a proposal Assemblywoman Giunchigliani submitted last legislative session.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, said approximately four years ago the Committee on Education passed legislation allowing transportation to use money toward mass transit bus passes.  The bus pass issue seemed to be tied to two issues.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said in her opinion transportation ran the school district instead of the other way around.  The zoning problems created the transportation problems because students lived farther away from the schools.  The second issue was changing the starting time at the schools while concurrently issuing more bus passes and allowing a staggered rate for high school and middle school students who could ride the CAT busses.  That would allow the elementary students to catch a school bus much closer to school.  She asked Dr. Rulffes about the status of the pilot bus project, if the board was moving on changing the start times and if there was a commitment to work on a bus pass system.

 

In response to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani‘s inquiries, Rose McKinney-James, Legislative Representative for the Clark County School District, asked Dr. Rulffes if he would go back to his status on the bus pass issue and the ongoing meetings between the district and Jacob Snow, CEO with the Citizens Area Transit.  Ms. McKinney-James reiterated Dr. Rulffes’ statement that CCSD had approximately 1000 vehicles while the CAT had approximately 300.  She stated that differential created some issues.

 

Dr. Rulffes said both the CCSD and the CAT were interested in developing some type of program that would eliminate duplication of transportation.  He explained the CCSD purchased and used a large number of bus passes for student transportation and was very interested in expanding the bus pass program.  CCSD believed the next areas designated for a pilot would be the magnet schools, vocational schools, and after-school high school activity busses.  That would free up busses, reduce capital costs for more busses, and give the CCSD more latitude dealing with bell times.  In response to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s comment about transportation driving bell times, Dr. Rulffes confirmed that it did.  He asserted it boiled down to fiscal issues.  If more money was put into transportation to change bell times, dollars would be taken from programs.  Chairman Williams asked where the middle schools fell into the transportation issue.  Dr. Rulffes said they would not be affected; they would remain at the two-mile limit. 

 

Superintendent Garcia then continued the CCSD presentation by providing the committee an update on the Edison Schools project.  He said there was often misunderstanding about Edison Schools because of the assumption the school district was turning school management over to a corporation.  Superintendent Garcia said in reality, it was a partnership; the CCSD had control over it.  If Edison Schools did not meet student achievement goals, CCSD would fire them.  Edison Schools helped manage a school system with its own programs.  Superintendent Garcia indicated he had dealt with Edison Schools in the past, and their programs showed, in many cases, promising data.  Edison Schools received, in addition to the per-pupil money from the school district, philanthropic money, which the CCSD did not.  Edison Schools actually put in $1.4 million additional money per elementary school that they managed.  One area of advantage with Edison Schools was their ability to provide technology.  In some cases students were allowed to take computers home.  Parents also had to go through an eight-hour in-service program through the Edison Schools project; it was found that 98 percent of all parents participated. 

 

Superintendent Garcia continued the presentation explaining CCSD was using Edison Schools for the school districts’ lowest performing schools.  He contended the CCSD could not provide all the resources that Edison Schools could.  He did indicate, however, Edison Schools was concerned about the low per-pupil allocation in Nevada, which was $5,000 per student.  He confirmed the CCSD Board of Trustees would be acting on the Edison Schools contract at the Board of Trustees meeting March 15.

 

Chairman Williams commented he thought raising extra money was the role of the Clark County Public Education Foundation.  Superintendent Garcia said that was correct for certain things, such as special projects and grants.  Chairman Williams felt the Clark County Public Education Foundation had never, with the exception of one case, given to the schools designated as needing improvement, which was why he no longer served on its board.  He asked Superintendent Garcia if donors to Edison Schools would become public information.

 

Superintendent Garcia said in some cases donors wished to remain anonymous.  For the most part, however, they went public.  In regard to the Edison Schools project, donations went to the schools Edison managed.  He said most of the Edison’s project money went toward staff development and purchasing research-based programs.  He maintained the CCSD contract with Edison gave the school district complete say over everything.

 

Chairman Williams said he felt if the money was going to public education, the public should know who was giving it.  He said he once experienced a situation where it was discovered money anonymously donated to public schools was given by donors the school did not wish to be affiliated with.  He asked if the Clark County Board of Trustees had any leverage on which schools received help from the Clark County Public Education Foundation.  If schools had obvious needs, why did the CCSD not recommend donating money where it would really make a difference?  Chairman Williams felt those schools always seemed to be overlooked.

 

Dr. Rulffes answered the question by explaining the Edison Schools fund-raising was completely independent of the CCSD; how it dealt with its donors was a corporate issue.  Furthermore, it might affect the fund-raising efforts if CCSD tried to impose the restriction that the donors go public.  The Clark County Public Education Foundation was also an autonomous, independent entity, not owned or operated by the Clark County School Board of Trustees.  Neither the CCSD nor the Board of Trustees had the authority to tell the Foundation how to distribute its funds.

 

Chairman Williams then asked Dr. Rulffes if he felt the donors to the Edison Schools should be public information.  Dr. Rulffes said he personally did not think so.  He used as an analogy an organization that the CCSD might find as undesirable or not “in sync” with the mission of the CCSD, but that paid taxes that went to the school district or on occasion made donations to the school district.  If there were no strings attached to the dollars, the CCSD typically would accept the money.

 

Chairman Williams said that example of taxpayers paying taxes that go to the school district was a different situation from someone writing an anonymous donation check.  He said a lot of grief could be saved if the school district would not contract with an organization receiving anonymous dollars.  Superintendent Garcia said he would pose that question to the Edison Schools staff at the March 15 Board of Trustees meeting to see if they were amenable to disclosure of donors.

 

Chairman Williams asked Superintendent Garcia if he had addressed the special education services issue with the Edison schools.  Superintendent Garcia indicated he had.  Chairman Williams asked who was responsible for legal costs in the event a legal battle ensued with Edison Schools over the special education services.  Dr. Rulffes said it would be a case-by-case issue.  He explained the CCSD had segregated the special education issue into two categories.  Edison Schools only dealt with a certain category of student that would be mainstreamed into the regular classroom.  The remaining special education portion continued to be the responsibility of the school district.  Edison Schools would assume liability due to any negligence on the part of the Edison Schools project.  If the liability belonged to the school district, then CCSD assumed it.  Dr. Rulffes said the CCSD had diligently tried to define that in order to identify where responsibilities lay.

 

Chairman Williams said one issue he had with Edison Schools was they looked at student achievement on an individual basis, not in comparison to other students, other schools, or other states.  He asked if that was discussed at all during negotiations.  Superintendent Garcia responded he discussed the issue with Edison Schools and confirmed Edison would use raw data to do comparison analysis.  The Edison Schools contract would be unacceptable otherwise.

 

Chairman Williams asked who paid for the CCSD portion of the partnership if Edison Schools was given the per-pupil money.  Dr. Rulffes said the services the school district provided would be in the form of “buy-backs.”  If the CCSD provided transportation, for example, the Edison Schools would buy back that service.  Edison Schools paid the CCSD a portion of their revenue for payroll and personnel administration.  Dr. Rulffes stated CCSD tried to balance it out so that Edison Schools did not receive any more funds than the regular CCSD schools received.  Where there was a central service provided, Edison Schools was billed back for that cost.

 

Chairman Williams asked Dr. Rulffes if it would not diminish the role of the CCSD Board of Trustees to some degree if a citizen were to ask at a Board of Trustees meeting who donors were to the Edison Schools, and Edison Schools representatives indicated they did not have to reveal the donors because the issue was never addressed in the contract with the CCSD.  Chairman Williams asked where that would leave the Board of Trustees.

 

Dr. Rulffes said that was a question they would raise at tomorrow night’s school board meeting when Edison presented to the Board of Trustees.  Chairman Williams emphasized that was not the only question; at issue was whether Edison’s philosophy differed from the philosophy of board members.  No matter how passionate community members might feel about their particular point, if Edison had a contract, they could refuse to disclose or discuss issues.  Chairman Williams asked whom a citizen complained to if they had an issue with Edison Schools, Edison’s board or the CCSD Board of Trustees. 

 

Dr. Rulffes responded students were still the full responsibility of the Clark County Board of Trustees; issues would be raised with the Board of Trustees, and the CCSD staff would deal with the contractual arrangements.  Chairman Williams asked if that would happen at the end of the contract.  Superintendent Garcia said that every demand CCSD made to date, Edison Schools accommodated through contract changes.

 

Chairman Williams observed different issues came up almost daily with regard to Edison Schools.  Dr. Rulffes pointed out that was the reason CCSD kept the Edison Schools project small.  The original Edison Schools proposal was to manage 20 to 30 schools; CCSD sized that down to six schools in order to go through the experience before expanding or even continuing the Edison Schools contract.

 

Chairman Williams asked how Edison Schools made a profit if the CCSD per‑pupil cost was so low.  He said his intern, Noel Fisher, researched Edison Schools and found there were a certain number of schools Edison had to manage before they realized a profit.  Chairman Williams asked Mr. Fisher to report the numbers he had found in his research.  Mr. Fisher told the committee most market analysts believed Edison Schools would have to reach over the 400-school mark before the company could turn a profit.  At this point, Edison Schools was at 113 schools.  Chairman Williams questioned how Edison Schools could make a profit. 

 

Superintendent Garcia said for the past ten years Edison Schools had not made a profit.  He emphasized, however, that businesses could do something public education could not do; they could deficit spend to make a profit in the long run.  Edison Schools continued operations in order to get to that 400-school mark.  Superintendent Garcia said it was his understanding this would be the first year Edison Schools broke even.  Edison Schools were willing to make that investment; they were, in fact, on the stock exchange.

 

Chairman Williams noted that other states using Edison Schools complained they made a lot of promises, delivered many things in the first year or two, but the delivery then dropped off after that point.  He asked Superintendent Garcia to address that issue in the CCSD’s negotiations with Edison Schools.  Superintendent Garcia said the CCSD would see that as a breach of contract.

 

Mrs. Koivisto mentioned she recently read about Edison Schools having financial problems and having to pull out of some school districts.  She asked how would students in the CCSD schools be protected should Edison Schools need to pull out.

 

Superintendent Garcia said the schools were still the responsibility of the CCSD, and funding would revert back to the school district should that happen.  He emphasized Edison was just managing the schools.  Dr. Rulffes added the CCSD was still accountable to the state to meet the academic standards.  Edison Schools had to comply with all the same standards expected of any public school system.  Superintendent Garcia also noted that was all in the contract with Edison.

 

Chairman Williams said another issue the committee had grappled with was teacher recruitment and teacher retention.  Research conducted on the Edison Schools also showed that it had one of the highest teacher turnover rates of anywhere in the nation.  He asked since the state had problems with teacher retention now, how would the high teacher turnover in the Edison schools be addressed.

 

Superintendent Garcia responded he discussed that issue with Edison Schools.  He felt what was misleading about the research was the vast majority of the teachers left after the first year.  He emphasized Edison Schools was demanding on teachers; the way they ran the schools required a lot of work on the part of the teachers.  Edison used a program called “Success For All,” which not all teachers wanted to use.  Typically what school districts did was try to recruit teachers who already had experience with the programs.  Superintendent Garcia said the CCSD was now using the program, and many teachers liked it.

 

Chairman Williams said some of the schools in the CCSD who used “Success For All” were on the list of schools needing improvement.  Since Edison used “Success For All,” would that lead Edison to select schools that did not currently use the program?  Chairman Williams felt that could discriminate against the schools that did use it.  Superintendent Garcia said Edison would welcome a school using the program.

 

Mrs. Cegavske said she received quite a few questions concerning the Clark County Public Education Foundation, and wanted to know how the foundation director position was funded.  She noted the position was reflected on the Service Provider Network organizational chart (Exhibit C) as a school district employee.  She said if information was not available now, she would like to get that information to the committee.  She would also like to review the Clark County Public Education Foundation records to see where the money was going.

 

Dr. Rulffes said the foundation financial records were available; CCSD would provide the configuration of staffing within the school district, and the foundation records would show its staffing levels.

 

Chairman Williams asked Superintendent Garcia how he should answer his constituents when asked if Clark County School District had surrendered its efforts to bring up the levels of the schools in the district.  He asked why not strive to make every school a good school; that would eliminate the need for vouchers or “choice schools.”  He noted past legislation laid out a specific plan passed by the state and adopted by all seventeen school districts that had a sequential order of movement toward school improvement.  He asked if that law had been abandoned.  The legislation made no mention of contracting out services to a public firm.  How could he confirm to the parents the district had not given up on the schools?

 

Superintendent Garcia said if CCSD had given up they would not be exploring all the options to improve student achievement.  He stated that, in fact, it was quite the opposite.  The state had not found a way to provide $1.4 million additional funds for each school.  The CCSD saw Edison Schools as an opportunity to provide children services the CCSD could not provide because of fiscal constraints.

 

Chairman Williams said the success of most schools started with the administrator, and from there the teachers.  He declared it was no secret where some of the better teachers were, and who they were.  Many of those teachers were rewarded with transfers to the newer schools.  He asked Superintendent Garcia why first year teachers with no experience were placed in the schools needing the most help.

 

Superintendent Garcia agreed with Chairman Williams that school districts needed to retain their best teachers in the schools with the highest needs.  He said he wanted to share a proposal with the committee that addressed that very issue.

 

Chairman Williams asked that Superintendent Garcia first explain what other options were explored before entering negotiations with Edison Schools.  Superintendent Garcia explained the CCSD talked to many different groups and looked at six or seven different programs.  Chairman Williams asked why Edison Schools was selected.  Superintendent Garcia answered the CCSD determined the school district needed to be research-based and data-driven.  When CCSD looked at the data and research with Edison Schools, it convinced CCSD they were a firm with a good reputation.  Superintendent Garcia remarked CCSD would do the same examination with every program that came to the school district.  The goal was to create a menu of successful programs and have schools select from that menu of research-based programs that worked, instead of spending money on programs that did not work. 

 

Chairman Williams said Edison’s own research showed because it evaluated students on an individual basis there was no real achievement increase with students.  Superintendent Garcia said CCSD’s agreement with Edison Schools was the school district would receive comparable data in order to benchmark Edison’s effectiveness.  Chairman Williams asked if that type of data had not been used yet, how could the CCSD judge Edison Schools’ success.  Superintendent Garcia emphasized CCSD had the ability to terminate the contract with Edison Schools if it was not successful and did not meet the terms of the contract.  Chairman Williams then asked why not get the data first instead of going back and getting data and making comparisons to other schools in other states to confirm Edison’s success.  Superintendent Garcia said the data Edison Schools had available was similar to the data every school district in the country had available, and that was standardized test scores that measured student progress.

 

Chairman Williams asked what the CCSD had done to show it had exhausted every possibility to handle its own business.  Superintendent Garcia said CCSD had not exhausted every possibility.  Edison Schools was just a small pilot project involving 6 schools out of the 250 schools in the district.

 

Mrs. Smith asked Superintendent Garcia if the CCSD involved parents in the decision to move to the Edison schools.  Superintendent Garcia said the CCSD was currently hosting parent meetings for that purpose.  Ms. Smith also wanted to know if Edison Schools had parent involvement programs.  Superintendent Garcia claimed Edison Schools had one of the highest parent involvement rates of any school in the country.

 

Mrs. Koivisto asked if Edison Schools had experience in a market such as Las Vegas with high minority concentrations in certain school areas, and the twenty-four hour work schedule parents maintained preventing their participation in school issues.  Superintendent Garcia said the majority of Edison schools were in heavily concentrated low socio-economic areas.  In terms of the twenty-four hour work schedule, Superintendent Garcia said that was unique to Las Vegas so he could not address that issue.

 

Chairman Williams commented the Washoe County School District (WCSD) had no schools listed as needing improvement, and they were not using Edison Schools.  He wanted to know if CCSD had exchanged ideas with them.  Superintendent Garcia said he had often exchanged ideas with the WCSD school superintendent.  He noted in relative terms, CCSD had 250 schools, and, statistically speaking, the school district could deal with the schools it had.  CCSD needed to focus on the areas needing improvement and provide the resources to make it successful.  That was what the regionalization plan allowed CCSD to do.  He stressed catching up did not work; CCSD did not need more remedial programs; the school district needed accelerated programs for students.

 

Chairman Williams wanted to know if the Clark County Board of Trustees held any meetings to gather public input on the Edison Schools issue.  Superintendent Garcia replied it had not.  Chairman Williams felt that could change how the public voted in the Board of Trustees elections if they felt Board of Trustee members were turning their responsibilities over to another entity.

 

Superintendent Garcia moved on with the presentation explaining the Board of Trustees had passed a resolution (Exhibit D) directing the Clark County School Superintendent to do everything possible to produce resources needed for students in the school district.  The result of that directive was the “Education Stability Plan” (Exhibit E), which outlined CCSD’s ongoing educational needs.  He noted on the second page of the plan, which projected the statewide costs for plan implementation, a 2 percent annual cost of living adjustment had been increased to 3 percent in a show of unity for the CCSD teachers.  That changed the estimated total costs to $473.6 million instead of $426.2 million.  It also changed the $94.8 million estimated cost of living increase to $142,203,000.

 

Superintendent Garcia said the estimates shown on page 2 of the “Education Stability Plan” included the entire state, not just the Clark County School District.  He then highlighted the ten-point plan for the committee: 

 

 

Superintendent Garcia then directed the committee to the last page of the “Educational Stability Plan” (Exhibit E), which outlined the benefits of the ten-point plan.  Those included:

 

·        Fifty-nine hours added to students’ school year;

·        Eighty-nine hours a year added to the teacher contract;

·        Six and one-half percent increase in teacher salaries the first year, 6.25 percent the second year, and an additional 5 percent for teachers in specialized areas;

·        Increase beginning salary for first year teachers to $31,772;

·        $44,887 statewide average teacher salary;

·        Increase per pupil expenditures to $5,899.  The national average was $6,189.

 

Superintendent Garcia recognized this was an aggressive plan.  It was, however, a point at which to start the discussion.  He emphasized the CCSD could not wait two more years to solve the educational problems in the state; the crisis would only grow and it could be too late to resolve.

 

Mrs. Koivisto asked of the 19 additional minutes in the school day, how much of that was student contact time.  Superintendent Garcia answered it would all be student contact time. 

 

Mr. Manendo asked how the time would actually break out.  Superintendent Garcia said there were many different ways to use it.  The CCSD would have the flexibility for methods such as block scheduling or shorten time between classes.  It would break out to one additional period per day.  Mr. Manendo asked if there was any way to pick up extra time now.  Superintendent Garcia said due to the number of pupils in the CCSD schools, recess and lunch times were very short.  Mr. Manendo asked if 19 minutes was enough for an entire class.  Superintendent Garcia explained there was currently an additional eleven paid minutes used for other activities.  The additional 19 minutes increased the time to 30 minutes.  It would require picking up an additional fifteen minutes to gain enough time for an additional class, which was what CCSD would strive for.  Mr. Manendo asked where that fifteen minutes would come from.  Superintendent Garcia said it could come from either passing time between classes, or before or after school time.

 

Mrs. Cegavske commented every state was in the same predicament as Nevada in terms of teacher recruitment and other problems in education.  She commended Superintendent Garcia and the Board of Trustees for exploring different avenues to address those issues, such as Edison Schools, and she also appreciated the issues Chairman Williams raised concerning Edison Schools.  She said in terms of the textbook issue, the school district did not seem aggressive enough in recovering textbooks or collecting fines on the textbooks.  She said one high school related to her they were $60,000 in debt from uncollected textbook fines.  She felt the school district should look at that issue.  She also inquired how many full-time grant writers CCSD employed.  She commented that in one particular year, CCSD did not request or write one grant for special education, which she felt was devastating.  She mentioned a bill will be presented out of the Senate asking for a statewide grant writer, and she asked that CCSD take a more proactive position in terms of grant writing.  She said she would like some input from the CCSD in terms of other potential funding sources; there were other avenues such as grant writing to explore.  Superintendent Garcia said he would get those answers to her.

 

Ms. Von Tobel asked when discussing teacher salary, why benefit packages were not included in the discussions.  Superintendent Garcia said nationally, when discussing base salary, benefit packages were not included because they tended to be long range.  Ms. Von Tobel asked what the benefits package was per year.  Dr. Rulffes explained the typical medical benefit was $300 per month; the retirement cost was 18 percent of salary.  Dr. Rulffes said when the CCSD recruited they always mentioned the value of the retirement, which, he added, rarely interested the younger teachers.  Rose McKinney-James added that even with the benefits, the CCSD was not competitive; many other states had a variety of other incentives offered that Nevada did not include.

 

Ms. Von Tobel then asked why the class size reduction dollars were not included in the per-pupil funding amount.  Superintendent Garcia said it was in there.  Dr. Rulffes clarified they did not add in the federal class size reduction dollars; the per-pupil amount dealt with state funded programs.  He added the federal funds were much less than the state.  Ms. Von Tobel also commented she hoped there were means to verify that students enrolled in the free summer schools had also been in attendance during the regular school year.  She felt there needed to be a buy-in from the students based on regular school attendance, or the students might not take the courses seriously.

 

In regard to retirement benefits for teachers, Mrs. Koivisto commented that unless a teacher stayed for five years, the retirement benefits were not theirs.  She said it did not make sense to count the retirement as part of the salary.  Superintendent Garcia added that, statistically, the research on teacher retention was that the great majority of teachers that leave a school district leave it after four years. 

 

Mrs. Chowning mentioned she had lost her retirement in two different states because she was not able to teach in either state long enough to become eligible for retirement benefits.  It was not an automatic benefit.  She also added that CCSD was not the only entity not receiving grants.  She learned in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means that Nevada was not receiving grants, even though the state had a paid person in Washington, D.C., working with the Department of Transportation and other departments to help Nevadans get grants.  Superintendent Garcia said he would be in Washington, D.C., that weekend and he would address the issue.  Mrs. Chowning said she wanted to applaud CCSD for the Education Stability Plan.  She commented since being on the Committee for Education, she had not seen a plan with all the dollars delineated in such a manner.  She said she appreciated that there was a component in the literacy plan to address the non-English speaking students, since Nevada was the fastest growing state in the nation in regard to Hispanic population.

 

Chairman Williams added that an audit conducted by the CCSD revealed there was a lack of monitoring of federal dollars.  He said sources indicated to him it would help in Washington, D.C., in terms of receiving grants if it were made known the CCSD was the sixth largest school district in the nation.  He said he was surprised when the audit indicated there was no monitoring of federal dollars.  He also asked if the $12 million earmarked for the teacher recruitment initiative could be used toward raising the base salary for teachers.  He felt a higher salary base would be a bigger incentive for recruitment. 

 

With the conclusion of the Clark County School District presentation, Chairman Williams then opened the hearing on A.B. 184.

 

Assembly Bill 184:  Makes appropriation to Clark County School District for creation of pilot program to extend school day of selected middle schools. (BDR S-350)

 

Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative for the Clark County School District, introduced Mrs. Sheila Moulton, member of the CCSD Board of Trustees, and Dr. Lauren Kohut-Rost, Southeast Area Superintendent for the Clark County School District.  Ms. Tittle indicated Dr. Kohut-Rost was a former middle school principal and had some background to share regarding A.B. 184.

 

Mrs. Moulton began her testimony (Exhibit F) by expressing her support for A.B. 184, which was a pilot program to lengthen the school day by twenty minutes the first year of the plan.  She said the plan would directly affect 7,200 students; an additional 46,000 in Clark County, and almost 18,000 students statewide would reap the benefits of an additional 20 minutes of instruction.

 

Mrs. Moulton then outlined the benefits.  She contended the number one focus must be on literacy and reading comprehension at grade level and the corresponding maintenance.  The second focus was improvement of education for eleven-to-fourteen-year-olds.  She maintained that age group faced several challenges, including: 

 

 

Mrs. Moulton explained CCSD had over 53,000 middle school children.  A.B. 184 would provide funding resources for six middle schools needing improvement.  The funds would help pay for teacher salary, training, and other compensations to extend the school day by twenty minutes.  Twenty minutes a day would provide for extensive remediation efforts.  The second year of the biennium would see an additional twenty minutes per day, bringing the total to forty minutes.

 

Mrs. Moulton continued that much of the preparation for the high school standards-based proficiency exam took place in the middle school years.  Math, writing and reading skills could be fortified in an extra twenty minutes per day.  Mrs. Moulton contended that increased time under the tutelage of a well-prepared teacher allowed not only for remediation, but also enhancement in all areas of study.  She concluded by stating CCSD was requesting this pilot to improve the academic status of 7,200 students over the next two years.  CCSD believed data would come from the pilot program demonstrating what could be accomplished provided the necessary resources were available to the students.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked if the twenty minutes would be added at the beginning or ending of the day.  Mrs. Moulton said it was a very flexible issue, depending on the schools.  CCSD may look at the middle schools that did not have as many bus students as walking students.  Mrs. Cegavske then complimented Mrs. Moulton for her work on the CCSD parent newsletter.

 

Dr. Lauren Kohut-Rost addressed the committee to express support for A.B. 184.  She said extending the length of the school day would compliment the efforts associated with the increased rigor of the instructional program, the emphasis on accountability, and implementation of the middle level promotion regulation.  She further maintained the six-hour instructional day limited the ability for schools to create a seven-period day.  A seven-period day would afford schools an opportunity to devote additional instructional time to content related to the Nevada State Academic Standards.  She offered as an example the ability to offer a full year of science and social studies in grades six, seven and eight.  Additional time could also be allocated to programs designed specifically to meet the educational needs of students identified at the bottom quartile of the TerraNova tests.

 

Dr. Kohut-Rost testified that along-the-way remediation programs could be implemented for middle-level students in danger of being retained due to the failure to earn the identified units of credit required for promotion to the ninth grade.  Dr. Kohut-Rost said the current school year was the first year the regulation went into effect, and to date CCSD had projected 1,740 possible retentions of eighth grade students based upon first and second semester performance from seventh grade, and the first semester of their current eighth grade year.  She noted that was just fewer than 10 percent of the eighth grade class.

 

In summary, Dr. Kohut-Rost said A.B. 184 would target six middle schools, three of which were designated as low achieving.  The bill would target students in need of remediation, intervention, and extension of curriculum being delivered.  She stated a rigorous evaluation of the pilot project would also take place.  She pointed out if Superintendent Garcia’s plan for an additional 19 minutes of class time was approved, this bill would not be necessary.

 

Chairman Williams asked Dr. Kohut-Rost the number of middle schools designated as needing improvements.  She said currently there was one in Clark County identified as low achieving/needing improvement, with several others on “the bubble.”

 

Mrs. Chowning asked Dr. Kohut-Rost to confirm 1,700 middle school students could possibly be retained.  Dr. Kohut-Rost said as of now those were the projected numbers, unless the schools worked with students through remedial, after school and summer school programs to retrieve the credits.  Mrs. Chowning said she did not think A.B. 184 would specifically help those students now, but the legislators needed to keep those students in mind when passing bills.  Mrs. Chowning felt the language of the bill needed tightening to reach the students who needed that extra time.  She said the bill was a “tough hammer” requiring at least three schools be designated as needing improvement, since now there was only one school with that designation.  She concluded by saying she liked the bill, but felt the school district needed to target more of the students who were not improving.  Mrs. Chowning also added she liked the evaluation component of the bill.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, spoke as an individual in opposition to A.B. 184.  As a special education teacher teaching in a year-round school, she felt lengthening the school day did not get the content time needed to achieve the standards added to education.  She was an advocate of a longer school year, and would continue to be because, she maintained, that was how to arrive at the content time.  She argued for the districts to look at restructuring the current day.  She said NRS389.018 called for English, math, science and social studies, and then arts, computer education, health and physical education as the core classes.  The middle schools had what was called “exploration” time that had no curriculum or licensed teachers, but was a concept of a nine- or twelve-week round-robin allowing students who needed more credits to work with a volunteer teacher to gain more units.  She felt that would be the perfect area to eliminate and then restructure the class time to get the full science or social studies.  She said if the goal was to achieve content, then schools needed to look at what was offered now and fix the existing problems.

 

She also added that, as a teacher, lengthening the day did not give her more planning or preparation time; it simply added another load.  Good planning and access to materials was what translated into instruction in the classroom.

 

Chairman Williams asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani if she had any suggestions how to restructure the school day.  She suggested taking the one 50-minute period of the day in middle school called “exploration,” divide up that time and thereby gain more instructional time.  She said “block scheduling” or more lab time in the sciences might work.

 

Mrs. Chowning said eliminating the “exploration” time sounded like an excellent idea and asked school district personnel to respond.  Dr. Kohut-Rost responded the “explorations” program was a built-in elective program that some students chose to take, so it would not hit the students taking courses such as fine arts.  She felt there would also be logistical issues with the suggestion.  Dr. Kohut-Rost added the promotion regulation became more stringent next year, moving from one unit to one and one-half units.  Students therefore could only have one semester in which they performed poorly during the two years.  A number of schools had built in their “explorations,” making them extension and remedial programs and targeting student needs based on data through the Norm Reference Test and Criterion Reference Test.  She said schools were moving in that direction

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded scheduling did drive the year-round school, not giving counselors the flexibility to “plug” students as best as they could.  She concluded there were a variety of means that could be debated; the schools could no longer do business the way they had been doing it in the past.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 184 and opened the hearing on A.B. 188.

 

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

 

Dr. Craig Kadlub, Legislative Representative for the Clark County School District, introduced Mr. Tom Axtell, General Manager of KLVX Communications Group, and Jami Carpenter, who worked with the Distance Education Program at KLVX.  They presented A.B. 188.

 

Mr. Axtell explained A.B. 188 was a two-part bill proposed by the Clark County School District.  The first part provided funding for digital television for KLVX, which was also being supported in a Senate bill by Senator Porter and an Assembly bill by Assemblyman Mortenson.  The CCSD wanted to ensure digital television funding would be provided; if other bills did that CCSD had no objection to that section being removed from the bill.

 

Mr. Axtell continued the second part of the bill provided for distance education.  He referred to S.B. 204 of the Sixty-Eighth Session, which created a program that appropriated funds to the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) to provide distance education support for K-12.  He explained Channel 10 contracted with the university, community colleges, cooperative extension and DRI as the communications service provider.  Because of its multiple technologies, KLVX was an important distribution source for the distance education courses created by S.B. 204 of the Sixty-Eighth Session.

 

Mr. Axtell said in the first part of the biennium, S.B. 204 of the Sixty-Eight Session resulted in distance education services to approximately 345 high school students and 274 college students.  Channel 10 received approximately $350,000 of the total appropriated funds to create the courses.  In 1997, the Legislature adopted A.B. 606 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, from which Channel 10 received about $600,000 annually of the total funds appropriated to UCCSN.  That resulted in a 305 percent increase in student enrollments, serving 2,446 students with a mix of college and high school courses.

 

Mr. Axtell said in 1999 the Legislature did not renew the program.  In consultation with the Clark County School District (CCSD), Channel 10 had to “gut” public television activities.  The remaining resources were put into distance education because Channel 10 strongly felt combating high school dropouts was a critical mission of educational television.  Mr. Axtell said various funding sources were utilized to keep the program going, and the results were spectacular.  At the end of the biennium, Channel 10 would have enrolled over 5000 students in the distance education courses.  Mr. Axtell contended the program would continue to grow because of its accessibility.  

 

Mr. Axtell referred the committee to Exhibit G, which outlined the courses Channel 10 produced and included charts illustrating the distance learning enrollment history.  He explained the college enrollments were initially looked at as dual credit courses; however, they found the courses were not being used as such by students.  He said in the last two years, Channel 10 had not produced courses for the community colleges.  The students who enrolled over the last two years were on exclusively repeating courses, which demonstrated the extent to which the need was there for distance education. 

 

Mr. Axtell concluded his testimony by saying this was a very successful program and the state would be wise to invest in it.  Jami Carpenter, representing the Clark County School District, and in charge of marketing the distance education program, as well as the academic integrity of the program, then spoke in support of A.B. 188. 

 

Ms. Carpenter referred to the last page of Exhibit G, which provided a brief overview of the distance learning program.  She said at the beginning of the program, her initial issue was providing courses that met the needs of the students, but also provided quality educational programs.  Each course was a CCSD approved course, developed to match traditional classroom settings, broadcast on television and cable television, then rebroadcast through video‑tape so students could access them in continuing years.  All basic core courses were covered, along with some electives.  Ms. Carpenter said Channel 10 targeted high school seniors first; they have now expanded to include ninth through twelfth graders.

 

Ms. Carpenter said the tapes were not only provided through the studio but also at public school libraries where students accessed them after they registered with Channel 10.  The students could either take tapes home or watch the televised program.  They sent in homework and took an on-site final exam.  She acknowledged she could not guarantee if the students completed their own homework, but she could confirm the students took the tests and that they must pass the test with at least 50 percent to get credit for the course.  She said the courses were taken not only by credit-deficient students, but also those with scheduling problems.  Ms. Carpenter said the distance learning program could go statewide; it was an accountable and credible program that met the needs.

 

Mrs. Cegavske commended Ms. Carpenter for her diligent work with the distance learning program and felt it would be a good statewide initiative.  She also wanted to express her thanks to Ron Maraca who was a teacher at Green Valley High School and instrumental in teaching people statewide how to be good instructors for driver education.

 

Mrs. Angle said the White Pine County School District had a distance learning program offered to everyone for which they charged tuition.  She asked how that type of program compared to the CCSD distance learning program, and if tuition had ever been a consideration to make the program self-supporting.

 

Ms. Carpenter replied they did charge tuition of $50 that covered the cost of the textbook and the salary for teachers to grade the papers.  That fee did not allow them to be self-supporting, however.  There were also fee waivers for students who could demonstrate a need.  In terms of the White Pine County virtual or distance learning programs, Ms. Carpenter explained Channel 10 had two components, which were the visual and the audiotapes and the Internet component for communication and text materials.  The White Pine County virtual high school was, as she understood, strictly text-based which, from a learning standpoint, was only one learning strategy.  She felt that the videotaped portion created a better-rounded picture, and the student actually had a teacher. 

 

Mrs. Angle stated it was her understanding the White Pine County program was very interactive and had a video component.  She said the program coordinator for White Pine County was able to plug into the per-pupil funding for students not enrolled in the classroom but enrolled in the distance learning program.  Mrs. Angle acknowledged that would only work for high school students.  She asked Ms. Carpenter if she had pursued that.

 

Ms. Carpenter said she did not have the students full-time because they were already enrolled in a public school; Channel 10 was providing additional courses.  She stated that would not qualify them for the per-pupil allocation.  The focus of the distance learning program was to address the needs of the credit-deficient students.

 

Mrs. Smith asked if the courses had been mapped with the academic standards.  Ms. Carpenter said they had, and that she worked closely with Dr. Kohut-Rost to align the program with the standards.  Mrs. Smith asked how the grading compared to regular classroom grading.  Ms. Carpenter said it was different because in a regular classroom teachers could not have a test count for more than 20 percent of the entire grade.  Distance learning was more of an independent study program so the test counted for more than the typically 20 percent in the regular classroom.  Students received a letter grade.  Mr. Axell clarified that the 50 percent passing grade referenced earlier meant 50 percent of the total grade was based on the final exam.  

 

Mrs. Smith remarked students needed to be self-motivated and self-starters to be successful in a distance learning environment.  She asked if there were any statistics on student completion of the program.  Ms. Carpenter said there was a 70 percent completion and pass rate.  She explained they also worked with the students setting completion dates for homework so the students could keep on track.  The goal was to help the students be successful.  Mr. Axell also said an adult must enroll with the child; they became the contact person when the child fell behind.

 

That concluded the testimony on A.B 188.  Before closing the meeting, Chairman Williams asked Rose McKinney-James if Mr. Rodriquez with the CCSD Diversity and Affirmative Action Division would provide a report with specific numbers addressing the diversity issue in the school district.  Ms McKinney James said she would pass that information on.

 

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m. 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Mary Drake

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

 

 

DATE: