MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-First Session

April 4, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:53 p.m., on Wednesday, April 4, 2001.  Vice Chairwoman Bonnie Parnell presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     Wendell Williams, Chairman, present in Las Vegas

Ms.                     Bonnie Parnell, Vice Chairman

Mrs.                     Sharron Angle

Mrs.                     Barbara Cegavske

Mrs.                     Vonne Chowning

Mr.                     Tom Collins

Mrs.                     Marcia de Braga

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Mrs.                     Ellen Koivisto

Mr.                     Mark Manendo

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mrs.                     Debbie Smith, excused

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, representing Assembly District 21

Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, representing Assembly District 15

Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, representing Assembly District 24

Assemblyman David Parks, representing Assembly District 41

 


STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Mary Drake, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Michael Hillerby, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor

Steve Williams, Representing Washoe County School District

Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District

Barbara Clark, Representing the Nevada Parent Teacher Association (PTA)

Bill Welch, President/CEO, Nevada Hospital Association

Doreen Begley, Nurse Executive, Nevada Hospital Association

Cynthia Bunch, Nevada Nurses Association

Dr. Michael Harter, Coordinator, Health Care Education Program, University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN)

Christine Sawyer, Chair, Service Employees International Union Nurse Alliance

Theresa Morrow, a Registered Nurse

Carin Franklin, Registered Nurse and Representative of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, Health Care Division

Dr. Joe Crowley, Assistant to the Chancellor of UCCSN for Legislative Relations

Bobbie Gang, Representing National Association of Social Workers and Nevada Women’s Lobby

Erica Barton, a Social Work Student

Rose McKinney-James, Representing Clark County School District (CCSD)

Ruth Johnson, Clark County School District Board of Trustees

Jan Gilbert, Representing Progressive Leadership Alliance in Nevada

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Debbie Cahill, Director, Government Relations, Nevada State Education Association

Dr. Dotty Merrill, Government Affairs Representative, Washoe County School District (WCSD)

Theo Small, Fifth Grade Teacher, Mountain View Elementary, Clark County

Gary Peck, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Nevada

Alex Boykins, TMCC Student

Lyndi Cooper-Schroeder, Teacher, Washoe County School District, and Member, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and Leader, Washoe County Safe Schools Coalition

 

Assembly Bill 450:  Makes appropriations for purchase of textbooks and for other educational purposes. (BDR S-1164)

 

Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, representing Assembly District 21, introduced A.B. 450, which resulted from A.B. 241 of the Seventieth Session, a portion of which mandated a statewide audit of textbooks.  In reading the audit report, Ms. Tiffany considered action on the textbook, training and technology sections.  She, along with the fiscal division, researched the school districts and the audit department to structure the first part of the Governor’s $20 million one-time allocation. 

 

The bottom line presented two issues to solve.  The first was to eliminate the textbook sets so every pupil had access to a textbook and other instructional materials.  Across Nevada, 2 percent of the textbook sets were in the elementary schools, 33 percent were in the middle schools and 33 percent were in the high schools.  Washoe County and Clark County schools assisted with determining the cost of the textbooks and inserting an estimated growth factor for the four-year time frame.

 

The process asked the districts to submit to the Department of Education a four-year plan of textbook requirements for grades 1 through 12.  The state superintendent had the final word on which schools were funded.  The ordering process was over the four-year period.  The budget was for $12 million of the $20 million.

 

The remaining $8 million was earmarked for the purchase of technology or training on top of budgeted monies.  The same process applied—submission of a four-year plan, review and final decisions by the state superintendent of education.  The money could be released to a district in the first year or over the four-year period. 

 

Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst for the Legislative Counsel Bureau, reported on the fiscal portion of A.B. 450 at the request of Ms. Tiffany (Exhibit C).  The first section of the bill appropriated $12 million from the state General Fund to the Department of Education for allocation by the state superintendent to school districts to eliminate book sets and provide textbooks for every pupil.  The Legislative Counsel Bureau Audit Division, the Clark County and the Washoe County School Districts determined the funding formula.  The approximate per-pupil costs for textbooks and related instructional materials was $164 for elementary, $180 for middle school and $220 for high school (Exhibit D).  Growth estimates were 5 percent.  The input data determined that about $10.1 million would be needed to eliminate book sets across the state, with an additional $800,000 needed to provide textbooks to the five percent of pupils in need.  The remaining $1.1 million would compensate for increased costs over the four years.

 

The second section of A.B. 450 appropriated $8 million from the state General Fund to purchase textbooks and educational technology, and to provide professional development for teachers. 

 

Michael Hillerby, Office of the Governor, declared the provision of this $20 million for textbooks, training and technology, was one of Governor Guinn’s priority projects.  He was very supportive of Ms. Tiffany’s plan and A.B. 450.

 

Steve Williams, representing Washoe County School District, commented that as welcome as these funds would be, the district hoped the Legislature would focus less on the single issue of textbooks and more on a meaningful supplement to the Distributive School Account.  The district appreciated the committee’s attention to that.

 

Vice Chairwoman Parnell closed the hearing on A.B. 450 and opened the hearing on A.B. 374.

 

Assembly Bill 374:  Revises provisions relating to school textbooks. (BDR 34-851)

 

Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, representing Assembly District 15, explained it was her bill, A.B. 241 of the Seventieth Session, that called for the audit and analysis of the instructional costs and materials available to students in the Nevada schools.  The report revealed some disturbing findings, she stated.  A.B. 374 served two goals:  1) to insure there were enough textbooks for each pupil in any class where they were appropriate, and 2) to require within the school district that the same textbook be used for all core subjects that were offered district-wide.  A.B. 374 mandated the Department of Education determine the amount of money each school district must spend on books, expressed in an amount of per-pupil allocation, preferably “as a percentage of a per-pupil allocation allocated by the state.”  In addition to the specified amount, the school districts were required to spend no less than the average preceding three years’ expenditure on textbooks.  The school districts were mandated to report to the Department of Education the actual expenditure for textbooks. 

 


Constituents complained to Ms. McClain about the lack of consistency in textbooks; children who transferred to another school within the district and at the same grade level had entirely different textbooks.  The requirement of proficiency exams at the very least demanded a consistent teaching model, especially in regard to instructional materials such as textbooks. 

 

Mr. Williams stated that the Washoe County School District could not support A.B. 374 because the requirement that the school district purchase a given dollar amount of textbooks each year ignored the reality of textbook adoption and acquisition cycles.  As to the requirement in Section 5 that the same textbooks be used at all high schools for the same core academic subjects, the Washoe County School District did that, but believed it should be a district option, not a statewide mandate.  There were some circumstances in which it would be advantageous to have a different textbook for a core course.  For example, to pioneer a new teaching technique in one high school, a different textbook would be required.  Another problem might be the availability of textbooks for purchase.  Mr. Williams concluded by stating the dollar amount was a big problem. 

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked Mr. Williams if he had read the textbook audit.  He admitted he had not, but had heard a presentation on it.  She encouraged him to read it and discuss it with her afterward. 

 

Martha Tittle, legislative representative for the Clark County School District, addressed their concerns with A.B. 374, specifically Sections 1 and 5.  They appreciated both the focus of the bill on the importance of funding textbooks and the information that the audit provided.  The issue with Section 1, which required the Department of Education to prescribe the minimum amount of money the district should spend for textbooks, was the rapid growth of the Clark County School District and the differences in the number of new schools opened each year, particularly when there was a new high school, that caused a variation of the average determined by the General Fund.

 

Ms. Tittle stated they supported Section 4, subsection 1(d), regarding the report for expenditures for textbooks.  In Section 5, subsection 2, she pointed out that Clark County did textbook selections for every high school course.  The practice was to select three textbooks to recommend for each.  To limit that would eliminate the instructional flexibility teachers needed to appropriately address the learning needs of their students.  Using the same textbook for a course throughout a district would not necessarily resolve the problems pupils faced when transferring from school to school in the county.

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske told Assemblywoman McClain she noticed in the audit that no money was specifically designated for special education students.  She was pleased to see in Section 5 of A.B. 374, subsection 2, the board of trustees might select different textbooks for use by people with disabilities, gifted and talented people. 

 

To Vice Chairwoman Parnell, Ms. Cegavske pointed out the testimony they had heard for both A.B. 450 and A.B. 374 concerned the appropriation of money.  With the Chair’s permission, she wished to motion to move both bills to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.  Ms. Parnell replied they would consider this at the close of the hearing.

 

Barbara Clark, representing the Nevada Parent Teacher Association (PTA), concurred that the lack of textbooks was the number one issue with parents.  She understood the problems but stated she had not heard the districts’ solution.  For the record, Ms. Clark stated the PTA was “in support of money for textbooks and that money be allocated for textbooks and be used for that purpose,” but she did not wish to commit her full support for both bills, in response to a direct question from Assemblywoman Von Tobel.  When pressed further, Ms. Clark revealed she had not read, nor did she hear testimony on, A.B. 450

 

Vice Chairwoman Parnell closed the hearing on A.B. 374.  She suggested that since both bills were the same subject matter and both concurrently referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means as well as to the Assembly Committee on Education, she entertained a motion to move both.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOTIONED TO DO PASS AND MOVE A.B. 450 AND A.B. 374 TO THE CONCURRENT COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY OF THOSE PRESENT.  ASSEMBLYWOMEN CHOWNING AND SMITH WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

 

Assembly Bill 378:  Provides for establishment of program to promote profession of nursing. (BDR 34-852)

 

Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, representing District 24, introduced A.B. 378,explaining Nevada’s rapid growth and the general lack of nursing required proactive measures to recruit young people to pursue this career.  A.B. 378 created an advisory committee appointed by the Governor for an outreach program at the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN).  An appropriation for $250,000 would provide the service.  If a student graduated, he or she could apply for a loan from the Jan Evans Public Health Trust Fund for further education.

 

Bill Welch, president and CEO of the Nevada Hospital Association, supported A.B. 378.  He read from a prepared statement (Exhibit E).  According to a report titled “The Nursing Workforce and Nursing Education in Nevada,” the nursing shortage in Nevada had reached the crisis level (Exhibit FOriginal is on file in the Research Library.).  A.B. 378 proposed to expand the Millennium Scholarship Program eligibility criteria to include those who were pursuing a nursing degree and who graduated from a Nevada high school from 1985 forward, increase the funds to nursing school programs to permit the UCCSN to double enrollments, improve the image of nursing throughout the state, and provide loan scholarships from the Jan Evans Public Health Trust Fund. 

 

Doreen Begley, Nurse Executive for the Nevada Hospital Association, read her testimony from Exhibit E.  She emphasized the reason patients stayed in a hospital was for nursing care.  Nurses were the frontline caregivers of any hospital and were the largest sector of hospital employees and health care professionals in the state.  The aging workforce was not replenished; nursing school enrollments had declined.  The average age of nurses was 42.  Tremendous population growth caused the nurse shortage in Nevada to be greater than the national average (Exhibit G).  Nevada ranked 50th in the nation for a nurse to population ratio.  The American Association of Colleges of Nursing suggested that a “vacancy rate” of 8 percent or higher among registered nurses indicated a crisis; Nevada’s vacancy rate was at 13 percent.

 

A.B. 378 was a comprehensive, long-term solution to the crisis.  It would require several years of the proposed programming and funding to create an adequate number of registered nurses to care for Nevada’s expanding and aging population.

 

Mr. Welch stressed they were committed to this effort and would continue to provide resources; however, nearly every state was considering legislation as they recognized this was a serious problem.  In closing, he believed the data they had presented unequivocally showed Nevada must respond to the nursing shortage to remedy this public health crisis. 

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske spoke of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), which had come up in discussion at another committee meeting.  She had asked why WICHE did nothing for teachers and nurses, the two biggest shortages in the state.  Ms. Cegavske felt the funding source was there and Nevada needed to tap into it.  There were six nursing programs in the state, but still the number of nurses was low.  Assemblywoman Freeman met with Mr. Welch, Senator Rawson and WICHE to discuss the situation and develop a possible solution involving the commission.  Ms. Freeman gave some reasons for the shortage of nurses:  low salaries, more choices for women, availability and difficulty of education, hard work, long hours, and tremendous responsibility.  Recruitment and retention of nurses was a portion of the $250,000 appropriation requested by A.B. 378.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel wanted to know what the waiting list was.  Mr. Welch revealed that the Orvis School of Nursing in Reno was in a position to double the nursing program with qualified students and instructors.  Ms. Von Tobel requested the number on the waiting list, and added she was in the Health Care Administration program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.  Three of her classmates left the nursing program with very little positive comments about the program.  She wished to know how many students started and then dropped out.  Ms. Begley responded she did not have the dropout statistics, but knew that Orvis had 43 openings this semester and 87 qualified applicants. 

 

Mr. Welch addressed several issues that had been raised.  The work environment of nurses was an issue in retaining nurses.  The association had no authority over any hospital but, in an attempt to bring focus to areas of improvement, nurses from around the state were invited to participate in forums and exit interviews.  Mr. Welch pointed out that over 50 percent of medical and law students were female, which highlighted the point Assemblywoman Freeman made. 

 

In Las Vegas, Cynthia Bunch of the Nevada Nurses Association (NNA) responded to the question regarding waiting lists by stating she had been told in southern Nevada there was no waiting list.  In fact, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and the community college, had not filled all slots for several semesters. 

 

Ms. Bunch testified from Las Vegas about the shortage (Exhibit H).  She stated the Nevada Nurses Association convened a nursing summit in 1999 in order to assemble the nurse leaders in the state and identify priority problems.  It was their intention to arrive at solutions in a united way.  They called the summit because of the impending nursing shortage, staffing issues, and health care facilities. 

 

Relative to A.B. 378, the NNA recommended a statewide taskforce on nursing and the allied health education and workforce requirements to be instituted and funded in the 2001 Legislature.  She thanked Assemblywoman Freeman and requested the committee’s support. 

 

Dr. Michael Harter, Coordinator of the Health Care Education Program for the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), also responded to the waiting list question.  In southern Nevada, he said, UNLV and the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN) produced the largest number of nurses throughout the state.  Both expanded their capacity and UNLV graduated about 7 percent more students and CCSN 30 percent more than in 1995.  This eliminated the waiting list.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked how many students dropped out.  Dr. Harter replied it was a very low number.  The graduation rate was approximately 85 percent.  Dropout normally occurred in the first year.  Students were older and often family or career issues caused the discontinuance.  Few dropped out due to academic difficulties.  Ms. Von Tobel stated the three classmates she had were young and were dissatisfied with the nursing program.  She hoped everything was done to have a “student friendly” program. 

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto asked about the difficulty associated with attracting qualified instructors for the nursing program.  Dr. Harter said there were three responses:  1) the programs were becoming more aggressive in recruiting; 2) the Southern Nevada Nursing Taskforce recruited in tandem with the UCCSN masters-prepared clinical nurse specialists to work part-time at Sunrise Hospital and to teach part-time in one of the nursing programs; 3) both universities were encouraged to recruit students into the clinical nurse specialist (advanced practice nurses) programs to produce masters-prepared nurses who had a specialty in education and leadership. 

 

Christine Sawyer, Chair of the Service Employees International Union Nurse Alliance, Nevada, supported A.B. 378.  She expressed, however, the bill did not address the concern of the current state of the profession and the issue of retention.  The work environment must change to retain nurses and attract more people to the profession.  Section 3 did not specify the inclusion of a front line practicing nurse on the advisory committee, even though it specifically identified a health care industry representative.  She requested such action. 

 

Theresa Morrow, registered nurse, supported A.B. 378.  She felt young persons could be enticed with scholarships.  In her experience as a preceptor in her hospital working with nursing students, the most common complaint of the students was the lack of clinical training.  She granted, though no one could be totally prepared for “reality shock,” UNLV had developed a clinical skills lab, which has been very successful.  Ms. Morrow understood this was funded by a grant from a local hospital.  She appreciated their response to the nurses’ concerns about the clinical training.  Patient rolls for nurses were so high that they had little time to train and mentor students and new nurses.  The increased training assisted the new nurses to feel more comfortable with the work. 

 

Ms. Morrow said after recruiting and training persons for the health care of others, retention could not be ignored.  She herself left the profession after “several painful years participating in health care politics.”  It had become increasingly more difficult to focus on high standards of care.  “The politics and the money and the money in politics” overwhelmed her. 

 

Michael Harter had two other issues to address.  An important provision of A.B. 378 dealt with doubling the capacity of UCCSN to produce nurses.  The financial implications of increasing the total enrollment from 623 to 1,246 were around $7.1 million for the first year, about $4.5 million for the second year with ongoing costs estimated at $5.4 million (Exhibit I).  Dr. Harter also noted the Board of Regents had not included addressing the nursing shortage or related funding in its current budget request.  He felt the board and the campuses would respond positively to the legislators’ directive if sufficient funding were available.  Doubling the enrollment would not happen immediately.  Qualified applicants had decreased significantly across the country.  Four of the six UCCSN programs enrolled all of the qualified students.  In order to double the enrollment, strategies were needed to encourage more qualified students to enter nursing.  Some of the provisions of A.B. 378 were designed to accomplish that goal. 

 

Carin Franklin, a registered nurse and representative of the Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 Health Care Division, presented their support of A.B. 378 as a “great step forward” to solve Nevada’s nursing crisis.  This was a “chronic disease process” and A.B. 378 was a treatment, not the cure.  Assemblywoman Koivisto referred to Ms. Morrow’s belief that there should be front-line nurses on the advisory committee, and asked Ms. Franklin how she felt about that.  Ms. Franklin supported the suggestion. 

 

Dr. Joe Crowley, Assistant to the Chancellor of UCCSN for Legislative Relations, signed in as a neutral though he supported the concepts of A.B. 378.  The idea of providing funding for the promotion and recruitment to the nursing programs was laudable, as was the concept of more scholarship funding for nurses.  He stated that UCCSN was bound by the decisions of the Board of Regents in terms of the legislation that “we explicitly support.”  Yet, UCCSN did not propose this program in the budget request, which they limited due to the state’s revenue situation. 

 

Assemblywoman Chowning asked Dr. Crowley what the university system was doing to encourage more students to solve the critical shortage of nurses.  He felt the best person to address the question would be Dr. Harter.  Ms. Chowning wanted to know, on the record, that the university strongly addressed the problem and had included in the budget funds to accomplish this.  Dr. Harter said UCCSN had done a number of things.  Since 1995, some of the units had reallocated resources within their budgets to expand the nursing programs significantly, though not enough to keep up with burgeoning population increase.  The system had worked closely with the Nevada Hospital Association to identify means for recruiting students and faculty.  There were brochures for distribution to school children and a videotape for nurses to promote the profession in schools. 

 

Assemblyman Manendo requested to know the starting salary and the average salary of nurses.  Ms. Franklin said Washoe Medical Center started nurses at $16 per hour and the average was $21 per hour.  The average annual salary was, in her estimate, $36,000 to $40,000.  The average age of nurses was older because they worked longer; most had no pension plans. 

 

Vice Chairwoman Parnell closed the hearing on A.B. 378.  She entertained a motion on the bill. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO DO PASS AND REREFER A.B. 378 TO WAYS AND MEANS.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED.

 

THE MOTION PASSED BY THOSE PRESENT.  ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

Assembly Bill 459:  Requires adoption of policies to provide safe and respectful learning environments in public schools. (BDR 34-1286)

 

Assemblyman David Parks, representing Assembly District 41, spoke on A.B. 459.  Many students were deeply hurt by harassment encountered from other students, teachers or school employees.  Students harassed teachers.  Harassment encompassed a range of harmful conduct including violent crimes, vandalism, and persistent abusive name calling, even in the elementary grades, which deprived students of equal educational opportunities.  If ignored, it jeopardized achievement, undermined physical and emotional well-being, provoked retaliation, damaged a school reputation, and exacerbated community conflicts.  A.B. 459 directed the Nevada Department of Education to develop and provide school districts with practical guidance to protect students from harassment and violence based on race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, disability, religion and other grounds.  The superintendent of public instruction would be required to develop policies and procedures for all school districts to prevent harassment and to respond to it effectively when it occurred.  Such policies and procedures would help school districts to avoid legal claims. 

 

Mr. Parks stated because A.B. 459 came late to the Legislature, with little time for revisions, he welcomed amendments.  He did not intend to make the bill onerous.  One recommendation he received was to make A.B. 459 a resolution rather than a bill; however, the Legislature was already considering S.C.R. 18, a resolution developed by the Commission on School Safety and Juvenile Violence. 

 

Though the bill carried a fiscal note, Assemblyman Parks believed it could be passed without a fiscal note.  He requested the committee consider the cost that would be incurred if a Columbine event were to occur in Nevada.  Lastly, Mr. Parks stated there were a number of instruction documents.  He mentioned one titled Protecting Students From Harassment and Hate Crimes: a Guide for Schools, developed by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, in association with the National Association of Attorneys General, and endorsed by the National School Boards Association.  Mr. Parks believed A.B. 459 built upon the success the Clark County School District had with their policy. 

 

Vice Chairwoman Parnell revealed she served on the Interim Committee for School and Juvenile Violence.  A.B. 459 appeared similar to the intent they developed on the state plan, to be sure the students in Nevada schools were not harassed, intimidated or bullied.  Recent events had added more truth to the argument that bullying and intimidation were the basis of school acts of violence.

 

Assemblyman Collins asked Mr. Parks what he saw as the shortcomings.  Mr. Parks had received comments from teachers about the problems they had seen:  1) the program was distributed and viewed, but there was little interaction among the teachers; 2) some principals had merely passed the login sheet around and had the teachers initial it before returning it to the superintendent’s office; 3) many teachers could not apply the information they had learned from the videotape; and, 4) many teachers doubted they had the support of their principal or the administration. 

 

Bobbie Gang, representing the National Association of Social Workers and the Nevada Women’s Lobby, introduced Erica Barton, a social work student.  Erica told the committee that feeling safe in school was important for all students.  In high school, she said, she hated herself because she was in love with her best friend, and she heard bad things said about herself as she walked down the hall.  She attempted suicide to escape the hatred.  Her story was not unique, she said.  Gay youth were two to three times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual peers.  They were 75 percent more likely to be threatened or injured with a weapon at school.  This “hostile environment,” Ms. Barton testified, intimidated these students and set them up for failure. 

 

Bobbie Gang went to Washington, D.C., as a delegate from the Nevada Women’s Lobby to the Summit on the States Conference, sponsored by the Center for Policy Alternatives.  Peter Yarrow, of the Peter, Paul and Mary group, dedicated himself to presenting a special program titled Don’t Laugh at Me across the country, aimed at teaching tolerance.  Alex Atchison and Howard Haas, consultants who recently addressed this committee, visited with students all around the country attempting to discover why children killed children.  Some reasons included the administration not doing enough to stop the problems and too much residual anger from teasing and disrespectful treatment.  There were three common themes among all teens:  they faced tremendous peer pressure and stress to be accepted, they did not respect one another, and they did not accept individual differences.  Recently, in a 4-H group, almost every other child admitted their biggest issue at school was the fear of threats and harassment and the lack of administrative support.  Part of the solution, she suggested, should involve the teens.  Teens wanted adults to listen to them. 

 

Chairwoman Parnell had seen the program at the same conference, obtained the video and used it in her middle school health classes to “resounding” success.

 

Rose McKinney-James, representing the Clark County School District (CCSD), introduced a board member Ruth Johnson to speak to A.B. 459.  Ms. McKinney-James indicated she heard Mr. Parks refer to some “shortcomings” in their policy.  She pledged to work with him and took under advisement some of the issues he raised. 

 

Ruth Johnson commended the work the committee did in support of children.  In 1998, Clark County developed a policy (Exhibit J).  The committee also created a video in coordination with the community groups involved in the policy planning, including the student advisory board comprised of students from throughout the district.  The video taught how to identify harassment and how to determine if the conduct constituted harassment.  The video guide (Exhibit K) explained the policy in detail.  Ms. Johnson testified that workshops were conducted with all principals and training for new principals would be conducted every six to eight months.  In addition to the other exhibits, she provided four sets of minutes from the public hearings of the Clark County School District Board Policy Committee (Exhibit L, Exhibit M, Exhibit N, and Exhibit O). 

 

Ms. Johnson agreed there were some shortcomings to the policy, but these were complex issues and time was needed to work through them.  The district brought the community together on this issue; their concern was they would need to do it all again with A.B. 459.  She felt the district had fulfilled the requirements outlined in Section 4, subsections 3 to 8.  In a year with no resources, the district did not wish to have additional costs to go through the process again.  On behalf of the board, she stated they could support a resolution, but the policy belonged at the local school board level.  More funding was needed for the training.  If the video was passed on and signed off, it was not used appropriately and she welcomed information that would lead her to know where to strengthen that training for all employees.

 

Vice Chairwoman Parnell asked whether this program was used in a particular curriculum.  Ms. Johnson replied every student orientation used it, every year.  Assemblywoman Von Tobel remarked that she was a strong supporter of local control and she believed CCSD had done a “superb job” with this difficult issue. 

 

Chairman Williams stated that most reporting agencies that followed schools in Nevada, listed it as No. 4 in its progress to eliminate school violence, but this was judged by what the Legislature passed, such as a bill to create a safety council and commission.  No consideration was given to what was done at the local level.  He felt the Legislature should have input into the policies made at the local level.  The Legislature had to be mindful of the nonimplementation of many bills they passed.  In the past two sessions, over 32 of the bills dealing with school campuses and school activities passed, but were not enforced, including the discipline bill.  He did not believe the issue of money was a factor; if the district already had a policy, they would not need another.  Statewide uniformity on this issue was good because families moved around, and they had the right to expect the same protection in each district. 

 

Assemblyman Manendo asked what the policy on intimidation was.  Ms. Johnson replied this was a difficult issue because so much of what happened occurred in a small group.  Administrators could not be privy to every conversation.  Intimidation was part of harassment, and would not be tolerated.  Whenever the student went to a teacher or administrator with a complaint, and it was not resolved, there was an appeal process. 

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel made the point that Ruth Johnson was an elected official, so she did not believe the Legislature should take local control from other elected officials.  She believed this bill did that.

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske commended Ms. Johnson for the work she did on this project.  She had heard many positive comments about the program from students and parents.  Why reinvent the wheel?  Perhaps enhancements were needed or some issues were missed. 

 

Jan Gilbert, representing the Progressive Leadership Alliance in Nevada, spoke in support of A.B. 459.  As a former teacher, she appreciated the school district’s attempt to achieve a safe environment, but she thought there were different levels of problems.  Problems that arose at the elementary school were quite different, she believed, from those at the high school level.  Some groups in southern Nevada felt they had been left out of the process.  Lastly, she felt A.B. 459 addressed the issues of support staff.  The secretaries and nurses were often the first to realize there was a problem.  Support staff did not see this video or receive the training.  The problem should be addressed at the state level, she concluded. 

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel revealed that her “other life” was as a substitute teacher in the Clark County School District.  She believed the support staff was very qualified, sensitive and very supportive of the needs of students, and this sensitivity existed in every school from custodians up through the support staff and faculty.  Jan Gilbert responded that she had substituted for 15 years and agreed there were many on the support staff who were very sensitive, but the training was necessary for everyone who interacted with the children. 

 

Vice Chairwoman Parnell interrupted the hearing and stated that when they had taken the vote on A.B. 374 and A.B. 450 one member of the committee had slipped away and there was no quorum present.  She asked for a motion to rescind the action on each, and then make a motion to do pass.  There was a quorum present.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO RESCIND THE ACTION TAKEN ON A.B. 374 and A.B. 450.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED.

 

THE MOTION PASSED BY THOSE PRESENT.  ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH WAS NOT PRESENT.

 

**********

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 374 AND A.B. 450 AND REREFER TO WAYS AND MEANS.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL SECONDED.

 

THE MOTION PASSED.  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS ABSTAINED.  ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA VOTED NAY.  ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH WAS NOT PRESENT.

 

 

The hearing on A.B. 459 continued.  Assemblywoman Cegavske asked the Clark County School District if they could verify whether or not support staff received any training.  Ms. Johnson understood they did but she would check.

 

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, supported the goal to achieve a safe and respectful learning environment in the schools.  The definition of harassment in A.B. 459 did not protect some who suffered bullying and intimidation.  If the bill included zero tolerance of harassment and bullying, and the adoption of the actual policy at the appropriate local levels, she could then support A.B. 459.

 

Debbie Cahill, Director of Government Relations, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), lent their support to A.B. 459.  It was important for Nevada to make a policy statement regarding zero tolerance for harassment activities.  She proposed an amendment (Exhibit P) to define the terms “discrimination,” “harassment” and “intimidation.” 

 

Assemblyman Manendo interjected this was what he was looking for when he asked his question about intimidation.  Just because someone complained about a teacher did not mean the intent was to harm him.  A teacher should not be afraid to say, “Do your homework.”

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill, Government Affairs Representative for the Washoe County School District (WCSD), admitted the conceptual framework of A.B. 459 was important for all of Nevada’s educators and children because it was designed to ensure that the classroom and school environments were free from harassment, intimidation and discrimination.  It was so significant that the Washoe County School District enacted regulations and procedures (Exhibit QOriginal is on file in the Research Library.), which were adopted by the board of trustees.  The students of McQueen High School produced a video intended for use with other students to eliminate harassment, intimidation and discrimination at school and at school-related activities, and to provide students with information about what they should do in the event they experienced these.  Reportedly, this video was more popular than others shown in the high schools. 

 

Ongoing in-service workshops were in place for all the educational staff.  The procedures developed from an extended period of public engagement.  WCSD strongly supported the provisions of Sections 1, 2 and 3 of A.B. 459.  Section 4, however, contained two points of contention.  First, it mandated the Department of Education (DOE) establish a policy for all school districts, and it mandated the DOE set forth a model training program for each district.  It was the position of the district that this was the responsibility of local school districts’ boards of trustees, not the DOE.  The second point of contention of Section 4, subsection 2(d), was that the policy would include methods to teach skills to pupils so they could replace inappropriate behavior with positive behavior.  The fiscal note for this could be quite profound in order to accomplish a credible program of student behavior modification.  They sought to work with Assemblyman Parks to remove subsection 2(d), and with this amended language, which provided local school districts with the authority to create and control the policies, they would strongly “support the implementation of programs to achieve these goals.”

 

Chairman Williams, in Las Vegas, reiterated this was an issue he felt the state should deal with.  He hoped that people could realize this was a serious issue that generated in small groups and often resulted in criminal malice. 

 

Theo Small, fifth grade teacher at Mountain View Elementary in Clark County, talked about his harassment training.  In 1999-2000, the teachers of his school assembled to view a ten-minute video where they signed off that they had been trained in harassment issues.  There was no follow-up, no discussion, and no clarification regarding the video.  He discovered this to be true at other schools.  This year the video was not shown; it was not shown to support staff, nor to any employee at all.  Mr. Small also pointed out he had spoken with counselors and teachers who dealt with harassment daily.  One counselor told him he handled about six bullying incidents per day.  This was a national problem that states needed to discuss and provide quality training to combat.  There were a number of programs that could be used:  Lions Club Skills for Growing, Neighborhood Justice Peer Mediation Program, GLSEN’s Lunchbox Program, Office of Civil Rights Harassment Program, Southern Poverty Law Center’s Teaching Tolerance Program, and more.  A.B. 459 would bring more curriculum to end harassment.

 

Gary Peck, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Nevada, informed the committee that former state Senator Laurie Brown would submit her testimony in writing.  Mr. Peck supported A.B. 459.  He participated in the dialogue to develop the CCSD policy.  Mr. Peck felt it common sense that there was no more important issue for the school district and the Legislature than the issue of ensuring that children had safe space in which to grow and learn.  He claimed to have received dozens upon dozens of calls in the past year from teachers, faculty, parents and student that made it clear to him that, while the intentions were there, the execution was not.  It was sensible to him that local school districts should have control, but the state held some responsibility for establishing standards and a system of accountability to ensure there were proper programs, and that they were properly implemented.  He encouraged the committee to pass A.B. 459, perhaps in amended form but with its essence intact. 

 

Alex Boykins, TMCC student, testified (Exhibit R) in strong support of A.B. 459.  Several incidents of harassments were presented.  The state had an obligation to do whatever it could to make all students feel welcome and safe at school.

 

Lyndi Cooper-Schroeder spoke in support of A.B. 459 as a teacher in the Washoe County School District, a member of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and as a leader of the Washoe County Safe Schools Coalition (Exhibit S).  Nevada had the highest school dropout and teen suicide rates.  She believed a direct connection existed between students who suffered harassment, intimidation and discrimination from their peers and those who dropped out or committed suicide.  There was also the issue of “kids killing kids.”  A.B. 459 would help students understand that difference did not mean distrust.  Nevada was more diverse than it had been.  Ms. Cooper-Schroeder encouraged the committee to make schools safer by passing A.B. 459.

 

Ms. Johnson announced she would report to the CCSD board of trustees what she had heard here, and they would conduct a “full investigation” of what was happening compared to what they thought was happening, to ensure that the mandates from the board were actually implemented.  She encouraged Mr. Peck to forward those complaints he knew of to the board so the trustees could discover the weaknesses.  She felt strongly that more must be done to keep the schools safe.  However, if budgets were cut, they could only implement less.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson realized A.B. 459 would be an unfunded mandate if it passed.  He asked Ms. Johnson how much of a financial burden this would bring to CCSD.  She replied she could not provide a number, but it involved going through the same procedures again—public hearings, meetings, development of the video, script, and handbook—and preparing and providing new training materials and more training which competed with other professional development time, all a costly process. 

 

Assemblywoman Angle thought a policy “probably” was needed statewide, and she asked for a copy of the CCSD policy (Exhibit J) and the WCSD policy (Exhibit QOriginal is on file in the Research Library.) to assist Mr. Parks with amendments to A.B. 459

 

Vice Chairwoman Parnell closed the hearing on A.B. 459

 

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)

 

Chairman Williams, representing Assembly District 6, from Las Vegas introduced A.B. 659, which addressed issues that arose from A.B. 368 of the Seventieth Session.  At that time, the CCSD was uncertain whether a school could be replaced using bond money.  Attorneys settled the question.  A.B. 659 clarified that bond money could be used to replace and renovate existing school buildings.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 659

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL SECONDED.

 

THE MOTION PASSED BY ALL PRESENT.  ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS AND ASSEMBLYWOMEN CHOWNING, DE BRAGA AND SMITH WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked to distribute a suggested amendment for A.B. 459 (Exhibit T).

 

 

Vice Chairwoman Parnell adjourned the meeting at 7:02 p.m.


 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Mary Drake

Committee Secretary

 

 

 

Linda Lee Nary

Transcribing Secretary

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

 

 

DATE: