MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-First Session
March 21, 2001
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Wednesday, March 21, 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
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Mary Drake, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Barbara Clark, Representing Nevada Parent Teachers Association (PTA)
Teri Cantley, Representing Silver Sage Council PTA, Carson City
Chuck Price, President, Hunsberger Elementary School PTA
Dotty Merrill, Government Affairs Representative, Washoe County School District (WCSD)
Steve Mulvenon, Director of Communications and Community Outreach, WCSD
Lynn Chapman, Vice-President, Nevada Eagle Forum
Debbie Cahill, Representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA)
Ron Flores, Superintendent, Churchill County School District
Leanne Vonarx, Representing the Nevada Association of Realtors
Don Lindeman, Churchill County School District
Danny Gonzales, Director of Institutional Research and Assessment, Great Basin College
Assembly Bill 201: Requires state board of education and school districts to adopt policies encouraging parental involvement. (BDR 34-846)
Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, representing Assembly District 30, presented A.B. 201 and stated it required the State Board of Education to adopt a parent involvement policy by December 1, 2001; local school boards to adopt a parent involvement policy by March 1, 2002; and both the state and the local boards to adopt policies consistent with the National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs approved by the National Parent Teachers Association (Exhibit C).
Parent involvement increased student achievement. In May 2000, Ms. Smith participated on a parent involvement panel at George Washington University, reviewing approximately 25 well-known remedial programs used throughout the country. Not one of them had a significant level of parent involvement. Some had strong communication or student learning components, but, though they were innovative and expensive, none involved parents in the decision-making process. Parent involvement was a win-win situation. Children attended and performed better when parents were involved. Support for schools increased when parents and the public were involved. Nevada must take this issue seriously.
Chairman Williams asked Ms. Smith to clarify that this bill asked the local districts to formulate the policy, not the Legislature. Ms. Smith replied affirmatively and added it included the State Board of Education.
Assemblywoman de Braga said that Speaker Perkins had a similar bill, A.B. 57, but his included an appropriation for activities that involved teachers after school. Ms. Smith felt that funding to support parent involvement was good, but she believed the first step was to establish policies and consistencies of expectations. She sought a bill with no fiscal impact.
Barbara Clark, representing Nevada Parent Teachers Association (PTA), praised educators for the many accomplishments they achieved. A.B. 201 built parent involvement based on proven effective standards.
There were schools in Nevada, Ms. Clark declared, that would not permit parent organizations to be formed. School districts had sent out school board agendas that were incomprehensible and prevented parents from participating in the decision-making process. Some teachers did not admit parents into the classrooms, while others might only communicate between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. via phone. The PTA sought a comprehensive environment that permitted parents to be involved at whatever juncture. A.B. 201 would help establish communication to achieve it.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel mentioned the security fence and policies at schools that prevented parents from walking onto the campus without signing in and wearing a badge. Ms. Clark replied some districts had developed that policy, but that was not a problem. The atmosphere could be friendly and encourage parent involvement. Ms. Von Tobel said in some schools it just was not conducive to have parents walking in. From a teacher’s perspective, she felt it would be better to have the parents set up an appointment to come in. Ms. Clark agreed.
Assemblywoman Angle wished to know how the effects of A.B. 201 would fit in with other organizations. Whatever PTA achieved was for all parents, students, teachers and organizations, Ms. Clark replied. She foresaw school districts and all parents holding conversations about developing parent involvement policies.
Teri Cantley, representing Silver Sage Council PTA in Carson City, testified the Carson City School District had been proactive in involving parents, but the proactivity seemed selective and diminished when the project was smaller and the media was absent. However, the board of trustees had implemented association reports at the board meeting. She believed, despite the inconvenience or unpopularity, parents should be involved at all levels of decision-making.
Chuck Price, president of the Hunsberger PTA, encouraged the committee to vote yes for A.B. 201. The Hunsberger PTA enjoyed a very good relationship with the school administration, but it had not been consistent in the past. At one point a different principal mandated new policies without input from the faculty or parents. After collaborating with them, he developed a set of principles and guidelines, which worked well for all.
Assemblywoman Parnell related that one problem of education was that the teachers, administrators and parents had not learned to play as a team. Parents had wonderful ideas and abilities and wanted to work with the schools to make them the best place their children could be in. A.B. 201 addressed this desire for teamwork. Assemblywoman de Braga said it sounded like these people wanted to be part of the process, but another component was to involve parents who had not been involved because they did not understand the process. Assemblywoman Smith replied that Ms. de Braga was “absolutely correct.” Getting parents involved meant the consideration of a number of issues and factors. A.B. 201 provided the next step to accomplish that.
Assemblywoman Angle asked if the Carson City parent involvement program was mentioned in the bill. Ms. Cantley explained the Carson City School District had redefined its mission statement and included their desire for parent involvement. However, a policy had not been drafted to effect the involvement.
Dotty Merrill, Government Affairs Representative, Washoe County School District (WCSD), offered strong support for this proposal. Steve Mulvenon, Director of Communications and Community Outreach for WCSD, said the school board had long supported the concept of parent involvement in education. He read from a recent resolution of the district in which it pledged to encourage, foster and support parent involvement (Exhibit D). WCSD had published a newsletter, Parents (Exhibit E), for about ten years. Each issue gave parents practical information for becoming full partners with educators. A new policy required that parents were involved in the hiring of new administrators, and that each interview committee included at least three parents. Principals were required to involve parents when moving dollars around within the budgets for their schools.
Lynn Chapman, state vice president of Nevada Eagle Forum, was neutral on A.B. 201, but voiced a concern that Section 1, subsection 1, did not mention individual parents not affiliated with an organization. She would like to see the word “parents” included. Chairman Williams pointed out subsection 1(b) did mention parents. Ms. Chapman would like subsection 1 to specifically say “parents.” Assemblywoman Smith intended to include the parents, but the language of the bill was structured for the state-level policy. Assemblywoman Cegavske agreed, too. Some schools did not have local organizations so she preferred to have the word “parents” included.
Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated that parental involvement was one of the four pillars of the NSEA quality schools plan. NSEA asked Speaker Perkins to introduce A.B. 57, embedded in which were the standards for parental involvement programs. They supported A.B. 201 as the first step to getting the policies in place so the programs funded by A.B. 57 could go forward.
With no further testimony, Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 201. [A vote was taken at the end of the meeting.]
Assembly Bill 28: Revises provisions governing sale of certain school property. (BDR 34-822)
Assemblywoman de Braga, representing Assembly District 35, presented A.B. 28, which allowed school districts to sell houses built by student construction trades programs in the same manner as other houses sold in the community. The changes included the elimination of multiple appraisals and the ability of the district to select a real estate broker to represent it. The selection of the broker would be by lottery from a list of interested brokers licensed to sell property in the county in which the school district was located.
Assemblywoman Angle questioned how the lottery worked. Mrs. de Braga understood that any interested real estate broker could submit the name of his firm for a drawing.
Ron Flores, Superintendent, Churchill County School District, explained that A.B. 28 benefited students and school districts. The students received the hands-on experience of construction and the district used the profits of the sale to continue the program.
Dotty Merrill, Washoe County School District, supported A.B. 28. The Construction Trades Program of WCSD was one the most successful vocational technical programs offered in the district. The program was administered by an experienced contractor/instructor. The completed homes were equal to or better in quality than comparably priced homes on the market. The 50 to 60 students who completed the high school program each year were qualified to continue their construction education as apprentices or employees. Approximately 50 percent were female. One awkward aspect of the program was the sale of the finished house, a transaction accomplished in accordance with the Nevada Revised Statutes sections governing the sale of surplus school district land, a process not suited to the sale of a student-built house. Because the law prohibited an exclusive real estate lister, the house could not be included in the multiple listing book, so few potential buyers were aware of its availability. The passage of A.B. 28 increased awareness of the Construction Trades Program and might encourage greater student participation. The provisions of A.B. 28, she testified, safeguarded the public by providing an independent appraisal and the selection of a real estate broker by lottery.
Assemblywoman Angle asked if the appraised value would be less since they were student built, or could these have a reduced value to provide housing for lower income or first time buyers. Ms. Merrill understood that the house was appraised based on the market value, which ignored who built the house. She further explained that, as costs increased, the program became more expensive. Any profit went back into maintaining the program.
Leanne Vonarx, representing the Nevada Association of Realtors, supported A.B. 28 because it benefited their association and allowed them to support the public schools and the students of the program. Ms. Vonarx stated the fact that these homes were built by students was not a concern since they were built to code and met the regulations.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked if the realtors would donate their commission, certainly a very generous offering. Ms. Vonarx could not answer. Ms. Von Tobel hoped a better commission was negotiated so that more money went back to the program.
Assemblywoman Chowning disclosed that she was a licensed Nevada real estate agent and her husband, a broker. Many agents, she said, were affiliated with companies, which gave them no flexibility in commissions. Smaller, privately owned real estate firms had more discretion. She stated, since it was not specific in the bill, Nevada had a disclosure law and the owner of the home, the school district, must be responsible to complete the form. She thought it should be made very clear that the school districts did not want to sell a property under laws different from those for other owners.
Mrs. de Braga replied certainly A.B. 28 followed the same process that other real estate transactions must. She then asked the Chairman if the committee would consider an amendment to Section 3, subsection 3(a), to say “has” or “maintains an office in the county in which the school district is located.” Assemblywoman Chowning did not understand the necessity of the amendment. Assemblywoman de Braga responded the school district requested this, so that those included in the lottery were agents in the county. Mrs. Chowning did not feel this was needed in statute. Don Lindeman, Churchill County School District, asked for the amendment so that someone within the community received the listing and did the showing. Mrs. Chowning said that problem would be solved by the multiple listing service (MLS). A member of the MLS in Clark County was forced to work with a member agent in another county. But, Mrs. de Braga explained, if not all agents were members of the MLS, that problem needed to be addressed. Mrs. Chowning contended this need not be in statute: the school district would not choose an agent that was not a member of the MLS because nonmembers offered limited service. Mrs. de Braga reminded the committee that the school district would not choose, the lottery chose. Theoretically, every agent in the state could be in the lottery. Therefore, it needed to be clear that the real estate agent was from that county.
Assemblywoman de Braga said the aim was to have a broker licensed in the state, with an office within the county, eligible to submit an entry into the lottery. If A.B. 28 was not clear, it would be open to all brokers in the state. She requested an amendment.
Chairman Williams entertained a motion for amend and do pass.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 28.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Williams invited the Elko County School District to give the presentation on class size reduction.
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Nevada Department of Education (NDOE), opened the presentation using two documents he had distributed. From the first, he discussed the class size reduction summary, pointing out the average was district-wide not classroom (Exhibit F. Original is on file in the Research Library.). Occasionally the average might get larger as more children arrived mid-year and new teachers were not added. This had not occurred too frequently in the state as eleven of the districts were losing students rather than gaining them. Exhibit F also contained classroom configurations: self-contained, team teaching, and other. Most of the team-taught classes were in Washoe County and Clark County. The “other” category included multi-grade classrooms. He reminded the committee that the statutes still stated districts must meet the class size numbers of 15 students to one teacher in kindergarten and grades one, two and three. The law required that any district that could not meet the ratio must request a variance from the State Board of Education.
A second exhibit (Exhibit G) evaluated the effects of class size reduction on student achievement exams. In all cases there were slight increases in math scores. Scrutinizing classroom configuration, they attempted to determine the differences between students from team-taught classes versus individually taught classes. Regarding test scores, there was no significant difference between the types of classrooms. Considering teacher characteristics (experience and education), the comparison showed schools with high proportions of teachers with less experience and schools with a low proportion of teachers with advanced degrees tended to have students with lower scores. However, he continued, it appeared young, inexperienced teachers were placed in at-risk schools and the students scored lower on the tests. The longer teachers taught, the more effective they became, the more inclined they were to move to a better school in the district.
Lastly, Dr. Rheault said NDOE had requested $330,000 in the Governor’s Budget for a comprehensive study of student achievement to support or discredit class-size reduction.
As Chairman Williams had to leave, he turned the meeting over to Vice Chairwoman Parnell.
Assemblywoman Smith asked Dr. Rheault whether the students tracked for the evaluation were actually those who had been in the district for the years of the study. Dr. Rheault referred Ms. Smith to page 3 of Exhibit G, and pointed out the correlation of transience to test scores. The new coding would better track students to determine their school and class for the years studied. Ms. Smith shared information she learned at a conference for new legislators:
In December, when I was at a conference for new legislators, there was a speaker there that did an education presentation and we were talking about some class size reduction issues. And, one program they talked about, I think it was in Milwaukee where they have some strong success identified from class size reduction, and I talked to him after the conference and he knew Nevada’s class size reduction very well and his point was that Nevada never did fund evaluation from the beginning and that hurt us significantly because that’s one of the things their program did was fund evaluation from day one on class size reduction. But the other thing he mentioned is they have a lot of team teaching. In fact, they have mostly team teaching in their class size reduction program and they are showing a lot of success but they have massive professional development on the team teaching situation and they have demonstrated strong results because of both of those items. So, just for the record, thank you.
Kevin Melcher, Director of Instruction, Elko County School District (ECSD), presented a brief summary (Exhibit H) of the report compiled by Great Basin College, the Department of Education, and the Legislative Bureau of Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation (Exhibit I. Original is on file in the Research Library.). In 1991, the Legislature approved the class size reduction program. During school year 1999-2000, the class sizes on average were 23.7 in kindergarten to 19.1 in third grade. A.B. 700 of the Seventieth Session, Section 9 authorized Elko County schools to implement a demonstration project to reduce student/teacher ratios.
Danny Gonzales, Director of Institutional Research and Assessment, Great Basin College, explained the evaluation of the program, beginning on page 7 of Exhibit H. Fiscal notes for FY2000 revealed a total expenditure of $183,592. Primary findings included, but were not limited to: students did not necessarily perform better academically, parents preferred the increased individualized attention and parental involvement, reduction in disciplinary problems, facilities were less disruptive and more conducive to learning, improved social interaction among students, hands-on activities, and enrichment activities.
In their closing remarks, Mr. Melcher and Mr. Gonzales emphasized this study provided only baseline information. Their recommendations were to: continue the demonstration project, require further evaluation, require another report of the project to be submitted to the 2003 Legislature, and require ECSD to disseminate the report to all school districts in Nevada and provide technical assistance to other interested districts.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel felt this was very encouraging, but it showed what they had felt — keeping the small classes at the lower levels and not spreading the dollars upward was hurting the fourth, fifth and sixth grades. She believed little differences were observed when there were classes of 16 in the third grade that jumped to 30 or so in the fourth.
Kevin Melcher agreed with her comments. For the kids to go from a small class to a very large class, no matter if it was third or fourth grade, was a shock to them. During this school year, the smaller fifth and sixth grade classes allowed a more spacious classroom and speedier movement through the curriculum.
Assemblywoman Smith thanked them for the good parent involvement as shown in the evaluation.
Assemblyman Collins conveyed that the Nevada Legislature had received criticism for wasting money on class size reduction. Many states had reported no benefits, so how could it fail in so many places and work in Elko? Mr. Melcher felt that the evaluation contained far more than just test score results and this fact contributed to a better baseline. By 2003, there would be far more definitive information to present.
Assemblywoman Angle asked if the ratio of 22:1 was an average or actual in each classroom. Mr. Melcher referred her to Attachment A of Exhibit F, which showed Elko’s average was much lower for most of those grades. Ms. Angle asked how the classroom space worked out. Mr. Melcher said they had brought in modular units where needed. Ms. Angle realized the availability of money was a problem for the rural districts. Mr. Melcher said it had come from their general fund, not any bonds. There was a long-range facilities plan, which addressed future facility needs.
Vice Chairwoman Parnell assumed the district had done some cost comparisons as to what they spent on class size reduction at the previous level versus what the 22:1 cost. Mr. Melcher did not know, but opined that they saved no money because they used the same funds available. Ms. Parnell spoke of team teaching in particular; in some classrooms of 30 students, two teachers taught and that had to be expensive. Mr. Melcher did not believe it saved money because when they went from 30:1 to 22:1, they had to add teachers, so the difference was negated because the program was extended to kindergarten and fourth to sixth grades. Assemblywoman Angle asked if she heard correctly, there was more expense beyond what the Legislature provided because of the expense of facilities. Because of the modular buildings and pads, Mr. Melcher replied, adding that it was a district choice.
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst, pointed out a background paper distributed to the committee, an overview of program data and a summary of evaluation reports (Exhibit J), which pulled together the two more specific reports (Exhibit G and Exhibit I).
Vice Chairwoman noted there was still a quorum, Chairman Williams had returned, so she brought back A.B. 201. She read the amendment to Section 1 subsection 1, line 5, and also Section 1 subsection 3, line 15, that after the word parents added “and individual parents.”
ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 201.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked why there was the need to amend with the words “individual parents.” Assemblywoman Smith replied some parents had been concerned that when it came time to develop a policy, only parents who were part of an organization would be involved in that development. She was happy to add the amendment to make it very clear.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked to make an additional amendment to Section 1 subsection 2 (d) to add the words “and safe” to assure parents they were welcome but safety had to be maintained.
Vice Chairwoman Parnell asked the maker of the motion if she accepted the additional amendment. Assemblywoman de Braga agreed to it. The motion was to amend and do pass A.B. 201 with three amendments.
THE MOTION PASSED BY THOSE PRESENT. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Seeing no further business, Vice Chairwoman Parnell adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Mary Drake
Committee Secretary
Linda Lee Nary
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman
DATE: