MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-First Session
March 28, 2001
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:37 p.m., on Wednesday, March 28, 2001. Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Wendell Williams, Chairman
Ms. Bonnie Parnell, Vice Chairwoman
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Tom Collins
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Mark Manendo
Ms. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Sharron Angle, excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, representing Assembly District 39
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Mary Drake, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dr. Michelle Trusty-Murphy, Private Citizen
Don Forrester, Past President, Douglas County School Board
Pendery Clark, Superintendent, Douglas County School District
Dotty Merrill, Legislative Representative, Washoe County School District
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Nevada Department of Education
Barbara Clark, Parent
Dee Dee Foremaster, Private Citizen
Annie Reese, Parent, Douglas County School District
Mary Kay Dale, Parent
Laurie Nichols, Parent
Judy Costa, Director of Testing, Clark County School District
Noel Fischer, Intern for Assemblyman Williams
Kathy Hamel, Representing Edison Schools
Rose McKinney-James, Representing Clark County School District
Debbie Cahill, Representing the Nevada State Education Association
Assembly Bill 64: Provides exemption for pupils from certain achievement and proficiency examinations upon request of parent. (BDR 34-163)
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, representing Assembly District 39, sponsored A.B. 64. He introduced Michelle Trusty-Murphy, a former candidate for the Nevada State Board of Education, who presented the bill.
Michelle Trusty-Murphy, speaking on her own behalf as a private citizen, stated she was concerned about parents’ rights, especially regarding standardized examinations. In Nevada, she said, any district could “throw out” a battery of tests that she was unable, as a parent, to see to determine their validity, reliability or relation to the child’s curriculum. However, she said, these tests were used to determine grade promotion and graduation.
Dr. Trusty-Murphy told the committee A.B. 64 was similar to bills in California and Wisconsin. A.B. 64 provided that parents were informed a standardized exam would be given, parents were allowed to remove their children from a standardized exam, and school districts would provide alternate assessment of those children that did not include another test.
According to Dr. Trusty-Murphy, her child’s fourth grade class spent six weeks preparing for and taking state, national and local tests. During that time she felt her child had not received an “excellent education.” A.B. 64 did not affect those parents who preferred the exams for their children.
Don Forrester, past president of Douglas County School Board though no longer a board member, opposed A.B. 64. Test scores ascertained the child’s position in the scale of learning and determined the need for remediation or advanced placement.
Pendery Clark, Superintendent of the Douglas County School District, also opposed A.B. 64. Testing occurred in a variety of ways in local, state and national exams. Nevada used the TerraNova exams as an accountability test to compare its students’ achievement against those of other states. Each district used tests such as the Achievement Level Test (ALT) to calculate gains and growth each year, to target areas where additional assistance was needed, and to ensure the basic skills competence of graduating seniors. Ms. Clark said the state was developing another exam to measure the students’ performance against the standards of the state. She believed these tests were critical since the districts, the administrators, the teachers and board members were held accountable for ensuring that students met high standards and graduated with a meaningful diploma. In order to know what the students needed for better instruction, assessment tests were necessary.
Assemblywoman Cegavske asked about the provision that allowed parents to remove a child from testing if that child was in special education. Ms. Clark responded that special education students were tested in a variety of ways. If the standardized testing was not appropriate, “scan testing” for students with severe disabilities was done. The Nevada Revised Statutes mandated the accountability testing for the state and required school districts to develop a program of assessment to provide the appropriate level of instruction for a student. Ms. Cegavske understood the school district was required, but she asked whether a parent was required by law to have the child take the test. Ms. Clark felt that was the case, hence Ms. Trusty-Murphy’s appearance before the committee with a bill to change the law. It was determined this required a legal opinion and would be forwarded to Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Legal Division. In response to Ms. Cegavske’s question, Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst, referred her to Chapter 389.015 and 389.017. There were special provisions for assessing special education and “language limited proficient” students for the TerraNova exam.
Assemblywoman Koivisto asked if students were still given tests of their coursework and, if so, were these other tests duplication. Teachers assessed on a daily basis, Ms. Clark testified. However, the state adopted the standards and all school systems were required to ensure that students learned to those standards. This was a consistent method to measure the proficiency of the students. Ms. Koivisto felt that if there was an established curriculum for each grade level, more effort could be directed to teaching rather than testing. Ms. Clark stated curriculum had not been consistent statewide so that all Nevada students would be prepared for the modern workforce upon graduation. She urged the Legislature to consider possible funding.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel requested that Ms. Clark present a synopsis of the testing process. As testified earlier, six weeks preparation for the exam seemed excessive. Ms. Clark said that at the elementary level the students were tested in reading, math and language for about an hour during one week. The TerraNova schedule was given during a week determined by the state. She stated she would be very surprised if the class spent six weeks preparing for an exam.
Assemblywoman Smith understood the high stakes for the proficiency exam, graduation for instance. But the TerraNova was used for grading the school; it was not used for promoting or holding a student back. Ms. Clark affirmed that was correct.
In the Trusty-Murphy case, neither the parent nor the school district in Douglas County (Exhibit C) took legal action. The attorney wrote a letter to the parent, which cited the Nevada Revised Statutes and explained the law. According to Ms. Clark in response to a question from Ms. Cegavske, the parent was told the district was legally required to test the student and they would attempt to do that.
Dotty Merrill, legislative representative on behalf of the Washoe County School District (Exhibit D), reminded the committee that they and others had worked diligently to establish and endorse high academic standards for all Nevada students. The expectations were challenging and emphasized the importance of classroom instruction. The Washoe County School District Board of Trustees believed it was appropriate for all students to pass the high school proficiency exam in order to receive their diplomas.
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Nevada Department of Education, opposed A.B. 64 because of its widespread exemption to all tests.
Barbara Clark, concerned mother, spoke in favor of A.B. 64. She had two children in the Douglas County Schools; one had a learning disability and was very bright, potentially gifted, yet repeatedly suffered tests that revealed he was not able to pass or receive a diploma, which was terrible for the child and for the family.
Dee Dee Foremaster, representing children with disabilities, supported A.B. 64. Reflecting on her childhood experiences with school exams, she spoke of parents from the disabled community who talked with her about their children’s anxieties and depressions prior to the exams. It was the parents’ right to decide whether their children should participate in testing.
Annie Reese, parent of eight children in Douglas County School District, several of whom were in special education, had no complaints about the district. She was pleased with the special assistance the district gave her children in the testing process. Accommodations were made; those could be worked out within the district.
Laurie Nichols testified that she, as a mother of three children in Douglas County, looked forward to the testing. The tests indicated to her how her children compared to others in a standardized situation. The experience with these tests prepared them for the testing in a college situation.
In Las Vegas, Judy Costa, Director of Testing, Clark County School District, opposed A.B. 64 (Exhibit E). She conveyed that several years before in Nevada parents were permitted to see their child’s exam, but this involvement was discontinued. She felt parents had the right to review their children’s tests. However, the achievement tests were not high stakes for the students but for the schools’ accountability program. If parents were allowed to exempt their children from testing, parents of children in schools in need of improvement might find themselves under subtle pressure to exempt their children to potentially change the designation of the school.
Mary Kay Dale, a parent of an elementary school student, opposed A.B. 64 because she felt that each child should be tested.
Assemblywoman Parnell thanked all who spoke. As a teacher, she said there was as much controversy among the teachers about testing as among the parents. She applauded the parents for bringing the issue forward and putting it on the table. It was the first step in coming to a sound resolution.
Assemblywoman Cegavske reviewed the information. The attorneys, she said, took some liberties with the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). She disputed what J. Thomas Susich, Attorney at Law, wrote in his letter dated May 4, 2000 (Exhibit C); the NRS stated the school must report the number of pupils required to take the exam, the number of pupils who were not exempt, and the number of pupils who were absent. She took exception to what the letter stated and advised the school district to review what the attorney sent out to parents. Some students were diagnosed with testing anxiety and emotional concerns; they were exempt. Special education students could be exempted if requested. A minimum of 90 percent of the students had to be tested. But she found no consequences in the NRS for a parent who prevented his child from testing. The reasons for testing, she thought, were to determine what the child had learned, how the teacher was doing in the classroom, and provide feedback for the parents.
Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 64.
Assembly Bill 318: Provides exemption for pupils from high school proficiency examination. (BDR 34-1301)
Chairman Williams turned the gavel over to Vice Chairwoman Parnell. Chairman Williams, representing Assembly District 6, introduced A.B. 318, which, he said, dealt with an entirely separate component of the testing issue, the high school proficiency test. Unlike other states that enacted proficiency tests and gave the schools and students three to four years to prepare, Nevada implemented the requirement immediately. As a result, many students, even with outstanding grade point averages, with scholarships and appointments to military academies, failed to receive their diplomas because of poor performance on the exit exam. A.B. 318 directed the State Board of Education to develop criteria equally challenging academically as the proficiency exam, but not another test, to determine if a student had the academic ability to receive a high school diploma. Chairman Williams did not suggest the elimination or the “dumbing down” of the exam, but felt there should be an alternative option to the exam. Additionally, in Clark County, some breaches to the security of the test had been uncovered. As this was the single factor of the twelve years of academics in determining graduation, such breaches lead to exploring options.
Assemblywoman Cegavske mentioned Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s bill, A.B. 319, which would provide for three types of diplomas—mastery, standard, adjusted—or a certificate of attendance. Mr. Williams supported the concept because the high school proficiency test, and most of the curriculum of the schools, was designed for college bound students, yet only 30 percent of Nevada’s graduates attended college. It was unfair to expect students who faced other careers to pass a test for college bound students. As it was, a student with high achievement and grade point average but without the passing grade on the high school proficiency exam had less chance of obtaining employment than a discipline problem drop-out with a GED. Mr. Williams felt that A.B. 319 should be supported but pointed out it was a little different from A.B. 318.
Vice Chairwoman Parnell had studied this problem and found that a number of states had reversed their decision to use the exit exam as a criterion to receive the diploma due to lawsuits. Having looked at the Nevada scores, she felt the state was vulnerable due to the continuing low scoring of the minority and special education populations. Her second concern was the decision of some school districts to not permit students to walk through the graduation ceremony. Scoring took more time than expected so that students would not know whether they could participate even up to within five or fewer days before. She hoped that this could be resolved without weakening expectations or lowering standards.
Chairman Williams intended neither. Considering the substantial documentation of breaches of security in Clark County, families should have options.
Assemblywoman Chowning applauded Mr. Williams for sponsoring this bill. Too many lives had been ruined because of this one high stakes test. Those hurt by this had suffered a broken morale. In the breach of security, no form of identity was required at the exam, so someone other than the graduating student could take the exam in that name. The system was imperfect and broken, she said, and it must be fixed. She asked whether the student who was at that last moment, five days before graduation, would have enough time to accomplish the alternative option before graduation.
Mr. Williams said if the bill passed, parents would have enough time to decide between the test and the alternative. He said this paralleled what they heard from the teachers who requested an alternative to the teachers’ exam.
Dr. Keith Rheault supported alternative assessments. The Department of Education supported S.B. 459 to request funding for alternative assessments for limited English proficient students. He had a concern that A.B. 318 should be done on a limited basis starting with special populations. Also, alternative assessments would be more expensive and subjective. The key to alternative assessments was the criteria the state board developed. Dr. Rheault said he supported alternative assessments. There was a need for them, especially in special populations. On a limited basis, he felt it would be helpful, particularly since the high school proficiency exam was a high stakes test.
Assemblywoman Koivisto asked how many states required a proficiency exam to graduate from high school. Dr. Rheault did not have the number but said he was aware that it was increasing in recent years due to the standards movement.
Assemblywoman Cegavske told of a young female in Clark County who was on the honor roll and passed the proficiency test with high marks. She went to one of the Nevada colleges and had to take remedial math. Ms. Cegavske asked Dr. Rheault what he thought of that scenario. He responded by stating there was good correlation between the proficiency exam scores and what could be achieved on the SAT or ACT college entrance exams. He felt he needed to know more about the situation. Ms. Cegavske said the young woman had scored very high in all areas on the proficiency tests. Assemblywoman Koivisto worked at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and stated that with all the millennium scholars in UNLV last fall the remedial classes also increased considerably.
Assemblywoman Smith said that grades opened a “can of worms” because even within a school, teachers did not have the same basis for grading students. From school to school a student may have high grades, but that did not measure the proficiency. She understood that the proficiency exam today was not based on the new standards. The cut score was increased but the new standards had not been tested. So, what grade level did the old proficiency exam meet for math? Dr. Rheault felt it was the 1994 course of study for math, at about the tenth grade level. The new standards, at twelfth grade level, will be used next fall.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel spoke from experience about the beginning college math class she had which required nearly all students to take the non-credit first semester as a “remedial” class, but it was simply the first half of the text for the credit class. It was just the way the system was created.
Vice Chairwoman Parnell mentioned the discussion on the phase-in time, which Nevada skipped. She was curious if other states had more success by waiting. She had heard of one state that waited six years to implement the proficiency test. Dr. Rheault affirmed Nevada was faster than other states, meeting the minimum opportunity-to-learn time of three years. Part of the reason was Nevada had an existing high school proficiency exam. Some states built the longer timetable because they had no existing exam.
Dotty Merrill, legislative representative on behalf of the Washoe County School District, acknowledged they were confused about the intent of A.B. 318 with regard to what it covered. Section 3 subsection 3(c) referred to achievement and proficiency assessments. The achievement assessments were not the high school proficiency exams. Due to the Chairman’s explanation of his intent, she asked the committee to disregard the written testimony (Exhibit F) because it only applied in one particular way. An alternative assessment option “as challenging as the high school proficiency exam” would interest the Washoe County Board of Trustees. However, portfolio assessment was not the method they supported. She mentioned the upcoming issue of science, which would become a requirement for seniors in the class of 2003. The same issues of opportunity to learn applied to those students. The Washoe County Board of Trustees concluded that the requirement should not apply until the senior class of 2005. If an alternative assessment was developed, they felt it would be useful for that context as well.
Vice Chairwoman Parnell asked Dr. Merrill if she was familiar with the senior projects at Carson High and if there were any similar programs in the Washoe County Schools. She replied there were projects in many of their high schools but she was unfamiliar with Carson’s and could not compare them.
Dr. Judy Costa, Director of Testing, Clark County School District, agreed with most of Dr. Rheault’s presentation. Actually, the number of states with proficiency testing programs that prevented students from earning a diploma was fewer. Many states merely recorded the grades but did not withhold the diploma. Also, Nevada did jump into the testing very quickly. Dr. Costa believed there were flaws in the testing process, but they revealed that the children had not acquired a good math education. Rather than faulting the test or the program, she felt that math remediation should occur as low as the ninth grade if necessary. Changes were needed but so were the math skills.
Assemblywoman Chowning inquired if the problems of the testing system were addressed. Dr. Costa believed that they were. The breaches occurred on a limited basis by one or two students. Student identifications might be required.
Vice Chairwoman Parnell closed the hearing on A.B. 318.
Assembly Bill 351: Makes various changes regarding delegation by school district of its responsibility for management of public schools. (BDR 34-1292)
Chairman Williams, representing Assembly District 6, summarized that A.B. 351 dealt with the contracting of services and management of schools of schools by school districts. Contracting with for-profit companies to manage schools was opposed to S.B. 482 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, The Education Reform Act of 1997, which put into place standards and proficiency tests and established a method to deal with schools that needed improvement. Nothing in the legislation suggested using for-profit companies to manage schools. When approached by contractors, officials in the Clark County School District (CCSD) spoke of bidding the job. However, Mr. Williams pointed out one instant in which a company had competitors but was selected as a single source.
Another concern Mr. Williams harbored was that the superintendent of the school district, when asked a number of questions by this committee in reference to the contract, had no answers and said he would supply them, but the very next night the district accepted the contract.
Because of S.B. 482 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, the Legislature had the duty to ascertain whether the school districts had exhausted all their resources and intellect to handle the situation. A.B. 351 did not prohibit contracting to a for-profit company but rather set a procedure to be followed.
Chairman Williams proposed an amendment to A.B. 351 (Exhibit G), which included full disclosure of individuals, companies or groups that donated money to the contracting company and school district employees and family members who owned stock in the contracting company.
Noel Fischer, intern for Assemblyman Williams, presented his research on Edison Schools, Inc. (Exhibit H). In March 2001 the Clark County School Board approved a contract with the company to manage seven schools to improve student achievement. By this action, he testified, the school district sought to spend state money without legislative approval.
Mr. Fischer referred the committee to his full report but mentioned the disadvantages of the project as follows: the Success for All program had not been implemented as intended by Edison, the majority of teachers were inexperienced, teacher turnover rate was very high, and classes were large. In a quantitative study, test score gains were closely mirrored by those of students in public schools. The findings in a qualitative study showed that teachers were stressed-out, but for the most part were positive about Edison schools. In recent developments, in San Francisco the Edison Company was given 90 days to fix problems within the school. The key allegations were high teacher turnover, misleading test scores, elimination of a bilingual program, and replacement of a free after-school program with one that cost $200 per month.
In summary, the significant findings were Edison’s lack of demonstrated student improvement and high teacher turnover rate. A.B. 351 provided a safeguard against such questionable decisions by requiring the Legislature to approve these contractual agreements.
Chairman Williams commented with regard to the revocation of the Edison contract by the San Francisco Schools, the company’s vice president said there had not been enough time to explore the allegations of the investigation. Mr. Williams felt the Clark County School District acted too hastily when it contracted with Edison without input from the community. He further stressed the school district should prove they had exhausted other opportunities before contracting a for-profit company. San Francisco would pay $250,000 to break the contract with Edison.
Assemblywoman Koivisto was concerned that the seven Edison-managed schools in Clark County would no longer be included in the proficiency and qualifications of the schools. Mr. Williams said that was the most unusual aspect of the situation. Only one of the seven schools was on the list for needing improvement. This was not about education, it was about business. The situation was that taxpayer dollars went to a private company for an uncertain outcome, not addressing the schools that needed improvement.
Assemblyman Chowning was distressed by what she had heard. She asked Mr. Fischer how many states used Edison Schools, Inc. He replied 21 states and the District of Columbia (Exhibit H). Ms. Chowning recognized that these school management firms were profit-driven businesses with a goal of making money. She was quite upset that so much work went into passing The Education Reform Act, which provided safeguards so that when a school failed to serve the students, the state would take it over. That was the promise made to the parents, teachers and students of Nevada. Very few schools, maybe six, needed this improvement. A.B. 351 was not onerous or difficult for a school district to meet. If the Legislature was not in session, the Legislative Counsel Bureau could take the issue to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC). She wondered how much this contract would cost the Clark County taxpayers, when it would begin and in which schools.
Assemblyman Williams revealed those were questions they had posed to the superintendent the day before the school board voted and the superintendent had promised to supply the answers. Mr. Williams contended the whole plan was vague, and he had heard nothing yet from the superintendent, except through his remarks in the press. If Nevada employed for-profit school management companies, he felt it would surely be in the six schools that needed improvement, yet only one of those was selected. He stressed that A.B. 351 would not prohibit these companies but would put safeguards in place.
Assemblywoman Smith commented on the parent involvement component. Especially in a school where help was needed, a focus on parent involvement was important. The Success For All program was used in schools already; why pay more money, for a middleman, to implement it, she wondered. She proposed amendment language to Mr. Williams that would require shared decision-making within the school environment between the staff and the parents. No one knew the schools’ needs better than staff and parents.
Mr. Williams stated that Ms. Chowning might have ignited the answer to the question why schools that needed improvement were not selected. Nevada law required the state to manage schools that were listed as not meeting the standards; if the district or the company selected schools that were not on the list, then that circumvented the law. Assemblywoman Smith pronounced she erred in assuming that only schools that needed assistance would be contracted out. But even in that environment she emphasized the importance of parental involvement.
Chairman Williams reiterated the blatant disregard of the law was what made this situation suspect and prompted the committee to submit A.B. 351. He suspected undisclosed activities and relationships that caused a disregard of the obvious—parent and community input.
Assemblywoman Smith was “very uncomfortable” with the lack of required parent involvement in the decision-making process. Mr. Williams agreed to an amendment.
Assemblyman Williams cited the San Francisco case, which lead him to believe there was no one to whom to voice concerns. Would it be an elected trustee or the company? With a contract, the company might refuse to listen. To revoke the contract cost money as well as lost time, teachers, and resources. Lastly, he stated, the district should know who the people were who donated money to a public school via a private company.
Mr. Fischer stepped in to respond to Ms. Chowning’s questions. There was no knowledge of when Edison would begin managing the schools in Clark County. The contract was provisional; the district needed to finalize it. Mr. Fischer understood the cost to taxpayers would not increase. However, Edison needed $1.5 million per school and sought private donations. Mr. Williams retorted that even if it was the same amount, the district still had to place the employees. Therefore, it was paying double.
Assemblyman Manendo commented on Ms. Chowning’s observation that this was a business. He asked what would happen if a year from now the company wished to show more profit. What cuts would occur and how would they affect the children and employees? He also asked, “Did the Clark County School District hold a public hearing on the Edison schools when they were making their decisions?” Mr. Williams was aware of none. He asked for one for the schools in his neighborhood and was told they would get back to him. Parents still called asking why it never happened. Mr. Manendo was disturbed by this; a public hearing on something like this was needed, he said.
Assemblyman Collins opined the state was already six years behind in funding programs, especially education. This caused the situation. The projects were not adequately funded, charter schools opened, but just recently the state paid $650,000 to bail out one that closed. He asked several questions: Why deal with the charter schools laws? Why deal with the Edison outfit? Did money need to be wasted to determine they did not work? Why was there no vote to fund an increase for the school districts? “Why are we doing all this other stuff instead of just doing what’s right?”
Assemblyman Williams felt it was clear education in Nevada was under-funded. How could we recruit teachers with a base salary of $23,000 to $24,000? How could we retain teachers? The average teacher stayed three years. He agreed they were “back pedaling.” He contended A.B. 351 would provide safeguards to require the school district to exhaust all possibilities before testifying to the committee their need to hire a for-profit organization.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked how the school districts would function under this legislation if the Legislature met only biennially. She did not believe an interim committee could approve a contract. Mr. Williams admitted he did not know the answer. He heard the Edison contract was not finalized. If it was not finalized, there was a possibility the situation would be affected by A.B. 351. Ms. Von Tobel declared she had served on the Assembly Ways and Means Committee and the IFC approved fiscal matters through the contingency fund, but not the approving of contracts. Mr. Williams had not wished to include that, believing the biennial session provided the district time to submit their request per Section 1, subsection 2 of A.B. 351.
Ms. Chowning stated the Board of Examiners—the Governor, the Secretary of State, etc.—approved contracts that agencies entered into. Perhaps they could approve these contracts if no language was drafted for A.B. 351.
Rose McKinney-James, representing the Clark County School District, testified the district had no formal position on A.B. 351. As indicated, the district had entered into a provisional contract with Edison Schools with caveats, which included: the ratification of career ladders, principal evaluations and contract issues related to labor, the identification of the investment money and ear-marking it for local schools, a guarantee that a minimum of $1.5 million per school in philanthropic funds would be raised prior to the opening of the school, and the designation of the board as appointee for contractual issues with that designation applied to the superintendent at a future time.
Kathy Hamel, representing Edison Schools, submitted that school districts often entered in to contracts. What differentiated this partnership was that Edison would stay and be accountable for student performance. The company was willing to state in contract that if students did not show improved performance, Edison would cancel the contract with no penalty. These schools remained public schools serving the same students and fully accountable to the school board. If the schools did not perform well, the school could and would revoke the charter. She claimed Edison had never had a contract canceled due to student performance, not even in San Francisco.
The academic program and school design had many features important for the at-risk student. For instance, the school day was longer, foreign language instruction was begun in kindergarten, monthly tracking of student performance benchmarked against the state standards. The assessment consisted of 25 questions delivered and answered on-line. Parents received a three-page report of the child’s performance at a quarterly learning conference between teachers, students and parents. Average attendance at these conferences was approximately 97 percent. Edison’s philosophy of technology was “Technology as a second language.” Access was an important component.
The process began when school board, parents and teachers from interested schools visited Edison schools and reported their findings to the community. Teacher staff meetings and parent meetings were held at each interested school. Edison’s surveys from the parents were presented to the school board. Ms. Hamel noted that 100 percent of the parents who attended the parent evening approved of the program.
Ms. Hamel mentioned that at the San Francisco Board Meeting, which she attended, every parent who spoke was in favor of the partnership with Edison. She cited an article in the March 26, 2001, U.S. News and World Report, which proclaimed state rankings showed that Edison Charter Academy was the third most improved school of 71 San Francisco elementary schools. In terms of parent involvement, parent satisfaction and student achievement, Edison was doing very well. She agreed there was an ideological divide in San Francisco that caused concern. She “categorically” denied any special education students had been counseled out.
Assemblyman Collins asked Rose McKinney-James if it was her opinion that the Clark County Board was attempting to show the county how schools were supposed to be run. Ms. McKinney-James believed that was the intent. She understood that the $1.5 million from private funding would work with the per‑pupil funding available through this process to enhance the efforts undertaken at the seven schools. She recollected the superintendent commented that Edison would provide a new and broader opportunity for a number of schools that the Clark County School District under its current funding could not provide. For the record she indicated the seven schools: Ronnow, Park, Crestwood, Cahlan, Lincoln, Lynch and West. The latter two were considered low performance schools.
Mr. Collins also asked Ms. James about the caveats of the contract and whether Edison had agreed to these in contracts in other states. Ms. James understood the CCSD would follow all the guidelines with respect to labor requirements but deferred to Ms. Hamel with respect to Edison. Ms. Hamel answered:
We are working out MOU [Memorandum of Understanding] with each of the associations with regard to moving forward and that would be presented to the district board on Monday. That’s the state of the process.
Ms. James responded to a previous question posed by Assemblywoman Von Tobel. She could not speak fully to the manner in which the district handled contracts between sessions, but she pointed out Section 1, line 8 of A.B. 351 that required approval from the Legislature by concurrent resolution, which, she held, must be approved during the tenure of the Legislature.
Assemblyman Williams believed within the fact that Edison testified before this committee laid the existing problem: residents were not receiving answers to their questions from the Clark County School District. Edison’s presentation should have been made to the people of Clark County. The school district’s superintendent should answer the committee’s questions. Mr. Williams stated the teachers were given untrue promises by the company. The company was profit driven; their priority was to make money, expand, and open a college. This was Nevada, not New York and Mr. Williams wanted to hear from the Clark County School District, not somebody from New York.
As a representative of the district, Ms. James declared her obligation to carry his message back to the board and her willingness to do so.
Assemblywoman Smith commented for the record a philosophical thought. She had a dilemma over the entire situation. If all Nevada’s schools had an extra hour in the day and $1 million, they too would “rise to the occasion.” Comparing the amounts spent, though it was privately raised, seemed to widen the gap between the schools and the ones who had and those who did not.
Ms. James, realizing Ms. Smith had offered an important perspective, believed the consistent position of the CCSD was they needed the funding to raise per pupil funding to the national average. The Edison initiative was an effort to address a circumstance over which CCSD had limited control—its revenue stream. Assemblywoman Smith assured Ms. James she was not attempting to shoot the messenger, but responded she personally preferred funds that could be raised and distributed equitably, perhaps via a foundation doing something that benefited the majority of the students in a district and not a selected number, which furthered the gap.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked if the Board of Trustees supported or opposed A.B. 351. They were neutral.
Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association, stated for the record their strong support for A.B. 351 and the amendments presented. She had spoken with executive director of the Clark County Education Association, who stated to her that consistently since discussions with Edison had begun, it had been represented to union officials that the faculty and staffs at the proposed Edison schools favored the contract. Union officials and leadership had visited with those faculty and staff and did not find the level of support for the Edison contracts represented to them. The union expressed concerns about moving forward with the MOU that was referenced.
Assemblyman Collins supposed to Ms. Cahill, if the agreement with Edison was not good, they would not do their job well and would not be around. So Edison really needed to “come to the table” and make a deal that worked. Ms. Cahill understood, based on her research, with respect to labor issues, that when the agreements had been worked out, generally there were no problems. The union stated that if the length of the day or year was increased, teachers would receive appropriate compensation. Despite that, the faculty and staff in those schools were expressing serious concerns about moving forward with Edison.
Assemblywoman Chowning wanted to know if the teachers in the schools would be permitted to remain there if they wished to. Ms. Cahill believed the transfer language needed to be addressed in the MOU. Edison was insistent in desiring to have the teachers they wanted.
Vice Chairwoman Parnell closed the hearing on A.B. 351. Since there was a quorum present, she revisited A.B. 318 and asked for a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 318.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY OF THOSE PRESENT.
Vice Chairwoman Parnell asked for a motion on A.B. 351.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 351 WITH THE AMENDMENTS THE COMMITTEE RECEIVED.
Vice Chairwoman Parnell asked if that would also include Ms. Smith’s proposed amendment. Assemblywoman Smith was uncertain of the wording but wanted to insert in Section 1 after “board of trustees” some language indicating “after a shared decision-making process.” Mr. Manendo accepted that.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED WITH A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY OF THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 499: Authorizes use of certain proceeds of bonds for continuation of pilot program for replacement of schools in certain school district. (BDR S-861)
Not heard.
Assembly Bill 659: Revises provisions pertaining to contents of policies adopted by certain larger school districts concerning reconstruction, renovation or replacement of older buildings. (BDR 34-872)
Not heard.
Vice Chairwoman Parnell adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m. A memo from the Nevada Manufacturers Association (Exhibit I) in opposition to A.B 64 and A.B. 318 was entered into the record.
Mary Drake
Committee Secretary
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda Lee Nary
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman
DATE: