MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-First Session

April 9, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:56 p.m. on Monday, April 9, 2001.  Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  The meeting was also video conferenced in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, 555 E. Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     Wendell Williams, Chairman

Ms.                     Bonnie Parnell, Vice Chairman

Mrs.                     Sharron Angle

Mrs.                     Barbara Cegavske

Mrs.                     Vonne Chowning

Mr.                     Tom Collins

Mrs.                     Marcia de Braga

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Mrs.                     Ellen Koivisto

Mr.                     Mark Manendo

Mrs.                     Debbie Smith

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District 9

Assemblyman Doug Bache, District 11

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Mary Drake, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Dr. George Anne Rice, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources Division, Clark County School District

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

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

Laura Dancer, Assistant Superintendent of Human Relations, Washoe County School District

Rick Bennett, Director of Government Relations, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Isaac Lowery, Bus Driver, Clark County School District

Belinda Yealy, Bus Driver, Clark County School District

Tracy Lee Baker, Bus Driver, Clark County School District

Gloria Dopf, Equity Education Team Leader, State Department of Education

Lauren Kohut-Rost, Secondary Area Superintendent, Clark County School District

Carol Lark, Principal, C.P. Squires Elementary School

Dr. Judy Costa, Director of Testing and Evaluation for the Clark County School District,

Lonnie Shields, Advocate for the Washoe County Education Administrators Association

Doug Whitner, Director of Student Support Services, Washoe County School District

Ron Dreher, President, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada

Brad Reitz, Executive Director, Clark County School District Student Support Services

Gillian Wells, Transition Services Director for Nevada Parents Encouraging Parents, Parents Empowering Parents, Professionals Empowering Parents

Karen Taycher, Executive Director for Nevada Parents Encouraging Parents, Parents Empowering Parents, Professionals Empowering Parents

Al Bellister, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Educational Association

Charlotte Curtis, Schools to Career Program Coordinator

Denny Martindale, Member, State Schools to Career Council

Kathleen Frosini, Director of Schools to Work Program, Clark County School District

Frank South, Administrator for Human Resources, Nevada Department of Education

Theresa Malone, Member, State Board of Education

 

 

After roll call, Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 311 and asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to make the presentation.

 

Assembly Bill 311:  Revises provisions governing educational personnel. (BDR 34-1084)

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, began her presentation stating she referred to A.B. 311 as an “attract and retain” bill.  Exhibit C outlined the requirements within the bill.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani summarized the bill’s provisions. 

 

She explained the bill required that school districts credit teachers for all previous teaching experience in another state or county.  She argued teaching was one of the few professions that did not reward years of experience.  On an average, school districts counted three to five years; for out-of-state teachers, five years was the average a school district would accept, which placed the teacher lower on the salary schedule.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted service credit was not dealt with through teacher contracts.

 

Another provision of A.B. 311 required that licensed teachers employed at schools identified as “needing improvement” earn one-fourth of a year of service credit for retirement.  Additionally, teachers who taught at an “at-risk” school, and who had five years of service in the school district, would earn an extra one-half year of retirement credit.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued, the bill requested two additional days of sick leave to be set aside for employees and used specifically as “mental health” days.  She explained that provision was not an unfunded mandate; the bill was concurrently referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

 

A.B. 311 also established a teacher loan forgiveness program.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani emphasized the program would be set up and funded through “tobacco money” and, therefore, would not impact the state General Fund.  She explained that component of the bill provided teachers who taught at an “at-risk” school for three years have their student loan waived completely; teachers who taught at a school in the state for five years would also have the loan waived completely.  Section 5 of A.B 311 outlined the areas such as loan awards, loan terms, and loan paybacks.

 

The measure further provided that the Board of Regents, in cooperation with school district boards of trustees, establish a program to recruit high school students into the teaching profession.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said A.B 47 of the Seventieth Session required creation of a recruitment program; however, no real program was ever put into place.  She felt the program could focus on methods to recruit in areas such as minority students, male teachers in elementary schools, and other areas.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani opined the provision, in addition to the loan forgiveness program, could help capture high school students and encourage them into the teaching field.  Students could still qualify for loans even if they went out of state to teach.  Another provision of A.B. 311 required that teachers currently teaching who were willing to receive an endorsement in any specialized area would be reimbursed for their course work costs.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she provided the committee letters from teachers (Exhibit D) citing some of the frustrations teachers faced.  She explained one of the reasons she put the retirement credit provision in A.B. 311 was to retain the experienced teachers at the “at-risk” schools.

 

Referencing one of the letters in Exhibit D, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani concluded her testimony by stating teachers were, in many instances, unsung heroes.  There was a tendency not to acknowledge teachers, not only by lack of salary increases, but also by the lack of support from administration, parents, students and peers.  Small incentives would help teachers feel there was recognition of their time, experience, and the skills they brought to a classroom.

 

Mrs. Cegavske said the bill covered many areas, and she was concerned with the fiscal element of A.B. 31l.  She asked for clarification on the collective bargaining agreements as they related to areas of change in the bill, specifically, what areas were covered in collective bargaining and what areas the Legislature could change.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the two main areas that could impact collective bargaining would be Section 1, subsection 4 and Section 3, subsection 5.  The sick leave provision addressed in Section 3, subsection 5, was already covered by statute; however, the districts would probably argue that the funding was not there for the “years of experience” provision in Section 1, subsection 4 and could therefore be affected by the collective bargaining agreement.

 

Mrs. Smith asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani if teachers were allowed to use any of their allocated sick leave as “mental health” days.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied her understanding was sick leave could only be used for illness.  She said there could be different interpretations from county to county; however her intent with that provision was to allow school personnel to use those days for whatever they deemed appropriate.

 

In regard to the loan program, Mrs. Smith asked how existing teachers felt about the provision.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani acknowledged she had not heard anything from her peers.  She felt there was a general sense among faculty of wanting qualified people in the classroom, and there was a tendency for administration to lower the standards for teachers when not recruiting.  Her perception was that caused more discomfort for faculty than giving loans to help pay for schooling.

 

Mrs. Smith queried about the incentives for “at-risk” schools.  She agreed it was better not to have too many new teachers at the “at-risk” schools; however, there now was an incentive for new teachers to go to “at-risk” schools.  She wondered if that would create a disproportionate number of new teachers wanting to go to those schools in order to have their loans waived.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the language of the bill required that teachers have five consecutive years of service, which should attract the current core-teaching force.  She clarified the provision required that the teacher be a member of PERS, had at least five years of service; and was employed as a licensed teacher in the state for at least five consecutive school years.

 

Mrs. Cegavske remarked there was a bill in the Senate proposing a national average for teachers’ salary.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the bill required per-pupil funding be funded at the national average.  Mrs. Cegavske asked if that fit into her bill.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained it was a blanket piece of legislation that increased the total per-pupil dollars.  She said it could enhance her bill because A.B. 311 mixed “tobacco money” with General Fund money.

 

Dr. George Anne Rice, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources Division, Clark County School District (CCSD), applauded Assemblywoman Giunchigliani for coming forward with A.B. 311.  She asked to bring two points to the committee’s attention.

 

Dr. Rice said the CCSD performed a study to determine what it would cost the district to recognize ten years of experience with new hires.  Currently, the CCSD had to bring in teachers who were in their fifth year or before, or teachers at the end of their careers that received a pension from another district.  They were missing the whole “middle” of potential candidates because school districts could not recognize their full number of years of service.  She noted hires for the current year would cost the CCSD approximately $2 million to recognize up to 10 years of experience.  If the CCSD went back and brought everyone else up to the range, the cost to the district would be $14 million.

 

Addressing Section 2, subsection 2, which required school districts to purchase the one-half year of service credit, Dr. Rice said the U.S. government recognized 125 Nevada schools as being “at-risk” as far as federal loan forgiveness was concerned.  Looking at the average salary for each employee, the cost to purchase one-half year would average $3709.75 per employee; to purchase one-fourth year would average $1854.88.  While the CCSD applauded the bill and what it attempted to do, Dr. Rice wanted to bring the committee’s attention to the fiscal impact.

 

In regard to Section 3, subsection 5, which granted two additional days of sick leave, Dr. Rice pointed out that with 13,000 teachers and an average cost of $80 per day for substitutes, it would cost the school district $2,080,000 for those two additional days. 

 

Dr. Rice then discussed the loan program provision of A.B. 311.  On behalf of the CCSD, Dr. Rice suggested changing Section 5, subsection 2(c) from full-time student to three-quarter-time or one-half-time student.  She said the CCSD had found that effective teachers often came from the support staff.  These were people who worked as instruction aids and took course work on the side.  The loan program would allow them to continue to work and attend school at night.  The CCSD also applauded the endorsement component of the bill to encourage teachers to specialize in other areas.  Dr. Rice noted that would allow the district to “backfill” positions.

 

Debbie Cahill, Director of Government Relations for the Nevada State Education Association, spoke in support of A.B. 311, in particular the section dealing with the credit of service for teachers at “at-risk” schools.  She noted during the SeventiethLegislative Session, efforts were made to address that provision in a Senate bill; however, the amendments were pulled at the last moment.  She said Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s language would resolve the issue.

 

Mrs. de Braga asked Ms. Cahill if she agreed there were 125 schools designated as “at-risk.”  Ms. Cahill said there were 226 eligible Title 1 schools, of which 104 received funding.

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill, Government Affairs Representative for the Washoe County School District (WCSD), on behalf of the WCSD and the Board of Trustees, commended Assemblywoman Giunchigliani for the very first paragraph of the bill, which stated:  “An effective public school system relies significantly upon the wisdom, knowledge, talent and skills provided by teachers and other educational personnel.”  She thanked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani for publicly stating that.  Dr. Merrill then introduced Laura Dancer, Assistant Superintendent of Human Relations with the WCSD, who addressed specific sections of the bill.

 

Ms. Dancer echoed much of what Dr. George Anne Rice said concerning reactions to the bill.  She related the WCSD was encouraged by the creative efforts to provide tools for recruitment and retainment of teachers, particularly in those areas of special needs.  She said the cost issue was, however, problematic.  The proposed increase for years of service for teachers coming from out of state would have an impact on Washoe County.  She noted the teacher hires from just last year would cost the WCSD $300,000.  It was a significant, ongoing cost and would require financial support.

 

Ms. Dancer also asked to follow up on a comment made about the use of sick leave.  She explained there was language in the negotiated bargaining agreement in WCSD that allow the 15 days of sick leave currently provided in the law to be used for mental health issues and doctor appointments.  In addition, there were provisions for personal leave which did not have to have a reason associated with it.

 

Regarding the cost of the additional PERS credit, Ms. Dancer again echoed the statements by Dr. Rice concerning the fiscal impacts to the school district.  She also expressed support for the loan program and assistance with obtaining specialized endorsements.

 

Ms. Von Tobel asked Ms. Dancer if an employee had built up 200 sick leave days and was having personal difficulties, could they take those days off all at one time and claim them as mental health days.  Ms. Dancer said an absence of that duration would require some sort of medical documentation of the need, but it could be from a mental health professional.


 

Mr. Rick Bennett, Director of Government Relations for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), said UNLV supported in concept the loan program in A.B. 311.  He noted there were quite a few details in the program.  He explained that currently the UNLV functioned more along the lines of a “paper processor” for loans.  The University was not the collector of loan repayments, and was not set up to do so.  He felt loan collection would pose problems.  He said UNLV staff would develop a more detailed explanation related to that component of the bill.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked Mr. Bennett how many students must be enrolled in a course to cover the cost of the instructor.  Mr. Bennett indicated he was uncertain.  Mrs. Cegavske suggested if there was a certain number, once that number was reached and the costs were covered, students considered low income could sit in the classes for no fee.  Mr. Bennett said he would pass that question along to the appropriate staff to answer.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani told Dr. Rice she was willing to amend A.B. 311 changing Section 5, subsection 2(c), to include students attending classes three-quarter or one-half time to qualify for loans.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 311 and said he would accept a motion.

 

Ms. Von Tobel asked Chairman Williams if the committee would amend the bill now or wait until it was heard before the Committee on Ways and Means.  Chairman Williams said the committee could do it either way.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 311 AND REREFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.

 

Ms. Von Tobel disclosed she was a substitute teacher.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.  ABSENT FOR THE VOTE:  ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO, ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING.

 

Chairman Williams then opened the hearing on A.B. 319.


 

Assembly Bill 319:  Makes various changes to provisions governing education. (BDR 34-784)

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, made the presentation on A.B. 319Exhibit E outlined the major provisions in the bill. 

 

As a background to the legislation, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the school at which she taught was deemed “needing improvement” this year.  She contended the TerraNova tests were really more of a reading test and did not test subject matter.  She felt reading ought to be the teacher’s focus.  Section 1 of A.B. 319 required school-wide assessments to determine the readability levels for students.  If the school was designated as “needing improvement,” and the students read below a fourth grade level, then 50 percent of the money designated for schools “needing improvement” should be directed to teaching students to read and teaching teachers to teach reading.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani contended if reading was the problem, then the schools needed to focus on reading.  There were three to four good readability programs that could help students get their reading skills up. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued, saying Section 3 placed reporting requirements on schools similar to what was required for college campuses.  She felt it was time both faculty and parents knew what was occurring on campuses in terms of student involvement in incidents such as assault, battery, and weapons possession.  That type of information was not communicated, and she believed the community had a right to know. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the crux of the bill was to incorporate what the special education taskforce had passed as part of A.C.R. 16 of the Seventieth Session.  Some of their recommendations were incorporated into the bill.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani began that discussion by reviewing the high school diploma provisions of the bill. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani expressed her belief that the high school proficiency examination should be eliminated.  The proficiency exam was set as a minimum graduation requirement; every time students met that standard the standard was increased, the bar was raised, and more students failed the exam.  She said only 14 states required proficiency tests as exit exams.  She felt most students would meet the original minimum standards for graduation, which was attaining the number of credits needed to graduate.  She observed students now, however, were having difficulty passing the proficiency exam.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani proposed that if the student did not pass the exam, but met everything else required for their courses, they be allowed to qualify for a standard diploma.

 

The second concept in the bill recommended that any student, including special education students, who through their Individual Education Program (IEP) took all required credits and passed the proficiency exam or an alternative exam, be granted a “masters diploma.”  The third level of the diploma would be an “advanced diploma.”  That was geared for students taking advanced classes and they should be recognized for such.  The “adjusted diploma” would still remain.  If, for example, there were special education students who did not meet the credits, but took as much course work as they could, they should qualify for a diploma.  The Certificate of Attendance would still remain for those general education students who did not meet all the credit requirements, failed the proficiency test, but still remained in high school.  The bill also required the creation of an “alternative assessment” which should be available to both special education and general education students. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani directed the committee’s attention to pages 7 and 8 of A.B. 319 which defined the actual issuances of the diplomas.  Section 7, subsection 4, required that the State Board of Education prescribe alternative criteria for the evaluation of pupils, including pupils with disabilities.  The criteria must comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) requirements.  She explained the intent of the bill provision was to provide alternatives instead of simply exempting students from exams.  That would be more appropriate and would recognize the students for what they had accomplished.  The bill also allowed parents whose child had failed the proficiency test three times to provide written notification to the school district to exempt the student from further testing.  The student would then be eligible for a standard diploma and not a master diploma.

 

Referring back to Section 3 of the bill covering the reporting of incidents occurring on campus, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted the bill required any incidents be reported to the county sheriffs or the city police, not the school police.  She felt it was important that the county sheriffs or city police conduct the actual investigations.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued Section 18 of A.B. 319 was tied to legislation passed last session.  A.B. 521 of the Seventieth Legislative Session empowered schoolteachers to remove a student from the classroom for discipline problems.  Citing her own experience serving on the appeals board at her school to review those cases in which a teacher disagreed with a principal’s recommendation to put the student back in the classroom, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the school personnel had drafted a behavioral plan with input from the administration, faculty, parents and students.  After submitting the plan, the faculty realized the administration was not required to follow the plan and, in most cases, did not.  The State Department of Education conducted a survey to determine what schools were complying with the intent of A.B. 521 of the Seventieth Legislative Session.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the results of that survey were “dismal” in terms of compliance.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained in an effort to “tighten up” the process so the behavioral plan was not diverted, Section 18, subsection 4, required that administrators who chose not to enforce the plan would be fined.  The faculty could grant a 30-day grace period.  Section 19 clarified the term of membership for teachers who served on the committee to review temporary alternative placement of pupils was one school year.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani remarked she chose as her “battle ground” the area of discipline because teachers could not instruct if they did not have discipline, and they must have support from administration to accomplish that.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani covered Section 21 of A.B. 319, which she explained was an attempt to prevent any more instructional time involved with testing.  She contended between the federal, state and local requirements, teachers were losing many days of instructional time.  Japan had a longer school year because they conducted tests on weekends.  If testing was required, it should not be taken from the total 184 school days a year because teachers could not cover the standards in that shortened time period.  She proposed a pilot project, to be funded by $7 million from the state General Fund, for a grant program whereby school districts could carry out pilot projects to administer achievement and proficiency exams on weekends.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued, stating one of the main purposes of the bill was to expand A.B. 521 of the Seventieth Session and the issue of discipline to include discipline on school buses.  She asked Vice Chairman Parnell to open the testimony to some of the bus drivers from the Clark County School District. 

 

Isaac Lowery, bus driver for the Clark County School District and a member of the Educational Support Employees Association (ESEA), thanked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Debbie Cahill for their work on A.B. 319.  He said Section 14 of the legislation could protect both the bus drivers and the students who rode the bus. 

 

Belinda Yealy, a bus driver with the Clark County School District for the past 19 years, said bus drivers had procedure manuals, “Safety First” rules, and guidelines posted on the school buses to assist them with discipline problems.  She submitted as Exhibit F copies of the Clark County School District Regulation I-B-2 through 5 covering safety of students in transportation vehicles; a copy of a School Bus Incident Report to Parents; “Safety First” rules; and a copy of provision 34-5 of the Negotiated Agreement with the Clark County School District and the Educational Support Employees Association (ESEA) covering health and safety.

 

Ms. Yealy felt “the system” had failed bus drivers who tried to protect themselves and innocent students on the bus.  She and her colleagues had written many citations to no avail whenever safety issues had arisen.  She related an incident where a near riot almost ensued trying to get students to follow rules and procedures on the bus.  The incident involved six students; of the six, one was very threatening.  That student eventually had his bus privileges removed for three weeks; however, it took two and one-half weeks for the determination to be made.  She indicated many of the bus routes had five and six different drivers a year because drivers would not stay where there were disciplinary problems; it made the job too unsafe.  New drivers on six-month probation were “afraid to write too many citations” for fear of criticism, although the policies and the law required issuance of citations.  She contended issuing citations was used against bus drivers during performance evaluations.  Furthermore, she said, when bus drivers did issue citations, they were often perceived to be the problem because previous drivers, often because they were new, were reluctant to issue citations.

 

She cited another incident that addressed the problem.  One bus driver for the Woodberry Middle School had students setting “camp fires” on the back of the bus.  Ms. Yealy said setting fires on the bus should have been treated for what it was:  arson.  The driver, however, was treated as the problem, and it took an extensively long letter outlining 12 separate points of violation for the administration to respond.  Ms. Yealy said that particular situation was not addressed until the following semester.  She indicated the upshot of all this was the lack of trust in the school administration and no trust in the driver’s ability to create a safe environment inside the bus and at the bus stop.

 

Ms. Yealy felt the provisions in A.B 319 addressing disruptive behavior on school buses was a good starting point to address the problem.  She emphasized disruptive incidences had to be dealt with as soon as they occurred before it turned into a criminal incident.

 

Referencing Section 15, subsections 2 and 3, Ms. Yealy asked that language be included so that the bus driver also be notified if postponements occurred for conferences between the principal and the parents of a child who had bus privileges removed.  She asked if there could be some reference to NRS 392.4655, NRS 392.466, and NRS 392.467 concerning habitual problem students.  She also asked if in all the sections that referred to “principal,” if the use of “designees,” such as “Dean of Students” or “Vice Principal” were included.

 

Ms. Yealy concluded her testimony by explaining a copy of a School Bus Incident Report citation form in Exhibit F noted three types of incidents:  Category 1, Category II, and Category III.  A Category I infraction occurred when bus drivers tried to handle a situation with a student one-on-one, similar to the “response” language in A.B. 319.  A Category II infraction was more serious; the principle could remove the student from the bus.  She saw the provisions in A.B. 319 as being directed toward both Category I and II incidents, and possibly Category III.

 

Chairman Williams explained to Ms. Yealy that at some time before the closing of the hearing on A.B. 319, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani would revisit the information and Ms. Yealy’s questions would be answered.  

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked Ms. Yealy where the majority of the behavior disruptions occur:  elementary, middle, high school, or equal at all levels.  She also wanted to know if records were kept in student files on incidents either in the classroom or on the school buses.

 

Ms. Yealy said copies of the citations were placed into student files.  All follow-up work on the incident should also be in the file.  She cited another problem for bus drivers was the lack of information on a student, even though the student might currently be under investigation for another incident.  That type of information would be helpful to the driver and, in fact, there was a law requiring that bus drivers be informed.  In answering Mrs. Cegavske’s question on where most incidents occur, Ms. Yealy said it depended; elementary students were generally the least likely to have incidents.  “Near riot” situations occur with high school or middle school students.

 

Chairman Williams commented Ms. Yealy brought attention to yet another law that had been passed, but was not being enforced.

 

Ms. Parnell commented that as a teacher at a middle school, she found just being on bus duty was terrifying enough; it was insulting to the bus drivers that children felt they could be allowed to cause problems.  She thanked all the bus drivers for what they did every day.

 

Tracy Lee Baker, bus driver for the Clark County School District, spoke in support of A.B. 319.  He provided written copies of an incident that occurred to him while driving a bus (Exhibit G).  Safety rules and regulations were clearly posted, bus drivers were constantly reminded of the safety rules, yet there was no follow-up by administration and school police to citations.  He testified to an incident that occurred to him.  While trying to enforce rules on a middle school bus, a “riot” broke out.  As a result of the incident, he sustained injuries on his face and had a permanent disability to both knees.  Mr. Lee related when the school police arrived at the scene, he was placed in the back of a police car.  The students involved said they would not pursue the incident, if Mr. Lee was not allowed to pursue it.  Mr. Lee disclosed the CCSD informed him if he pursued the case, he would lose his job.  He said if A.B. 319 had been in place when the incident occurred approximately one year ago, he believed his supervisor would have backed him and the situation would have been resolved.

 

Gloria Dopf, Team Leader for the Nevada Department of Education (NDOE) Educational Equity, testified on behalf of the A.C.R. 16 committee.  She explained A.C.R. 16 of the Seventieth Session required the Department of Education to facilitate an advisory committee on specific issues of special education, specifically graduation and the testing process.  The committee had brought forth several recommendations in the form of the A.C.R. 16 report (Exhibit H).  Ms. Dopf said some of the recommendations of the A.C.R. 16 of the Seventieth Session committee relative to graduation and accommodations were included in A.B. 319.  She then outlined those recommendations within the bill provisions.

 

Ms. Dopf began by explaining the A.C.R. 16 of the Seventieth Session committee recommended expanding some of the diploma options for students with disabilities.  Section 6 of A.B. 319 instituted a different structure for diploma options; however, she felt it was in keeping with the spirit of the committee’s intent. 

 

The committee also requested enhancing the participation of students with disabilities in existing remediation efforts.  Section 4 and Section 8(5) both identified the inclusion of students with disabilities in remediation efforts.  In addition, the A.C.R. 16 of the Seventieth Session committee requested an alternate assessment for students with disabilities that would still enable the students to receive a standard diploma if they passed the alternate assessment in the current system, or a mastery diploma should A.B. 319 be adopted.  The committee also requested funding to support the alternate assessment; Sections 6 and 22 addressed those issues.

 

The other major area the A.C.R. 16 of the Seventieth Session committee addressed was the accommodation within the testing process for students with disabilities.  Section 8, subsections 1, 4 and 8 of A.B. 319 addressed expanding the options of accommodations for students in the testing process if their disability required it and their IEP called for it.  Sections 1 and 4 addressed the issues of reading for visually impaired students.  She explained, although Braille is currently an acceptable accommodate, the Nevada Department of Education (NDOE) was hearing through the field that youngsters with visual deficiencies were not necessarily learning Braille.  Due to technological advancements, instructional information was now provided by auditory means; however, the proficiency test allowed no other option but Braille.  Therefore, the bill asked that those students with visual impairments that precluded them from receiving text from their written modality, and were not Brailled, could have the test read to them since that was their current learning mode.  Section 8 also included additional accommodations the NDOE would like the committee to consider for inclusion in statute.

 

Dr. Lauren Kohut-Rost, Secondary Area Superintendent-South Area, Clark County School District (CCSD), addressed several sections of A.B. 319.  She questioned the provision in Section 3, subsection 2(k), requiring:  “that a report be made of the action, if any, taken by the school or school district in response to the incident, including, without limitation, disciplinary action against school personnel or pupils.”  Dr. Kohut-Rost pointed out that provision required personnel information and actions which contractually could not be made public, and appeared to require information that might be contrary to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.  She noted specific information regarding disciplinary action could not be provided to faculty and others who did not have direct contact with the students.  The CCSD did make every attempt to communicate with those individuals who had contact with the students when there was a severe disciplinary action taken.

 

Dr. Kohut-Rost said CCSD supported alternative testing for special education students to help them earn a standard diploma.  She asked if special education students could earn a standard diploma rather than create another level of diploma.  She noted the CCSD currently offered the following diploma options: 

 

·        Standard diploma – students met the credit requirements and passed proficiency exams;

·        Adjusted diploma – identified through student IEPs for special education students;

·        Certificate of Attendance – used for those students who met all the credit requirements but had not passed the proficiency exam;

·        Honors Diploma – for those students who opted to take honors or other rigorous course work.  Students must fulfill credit requirements and pass proficiency exams.

·        International Baccalaureate diploma – for students involved in that program.

·        Advanced Diploma – offered through the State Board of Education – it was not rigorous course work, but required 24 credits for graduation as opposed to the 22.5 currently required.

 

Dr. Kohut-Rost asserted with all the different varieties of diplomas, there was a lot of confusion.  She said it was also her understanding higher education institutions typically looked for a “diploma” regardless of what they were called.  She said she would provide the committee a copy of an article entitled “States Ponder New Forms of Diplomas” by Len Olson.  She felt it did a good job of explaining the experiences of other states grappling with differentiated diploma issue. 

 

Dr. Kohut-Rost continued with her testimony by covering Section 11 of A.B. 319.  She said currently the CCSD school personnel encouraged parents of victims, when appropriate, to press charges with the appropriate law enforcement agencies.  The presence of school police officers on the campuses assisted greatly, and parents commented often that they appreciated the immediate presence of those individuals when incidences of assault and battery occurred.  She questioned why the proposed bill language left the school police out when they were the most accessible resource.  The CCSD furthermore did not see the need to mandate that a principal or his or her designee request a parent to file criminal charges or provide appropriate legal forms.  The incident was in the hands of police officers that were on the campus. 

 

Addressing Section 14, Dr. Kohut-Rost acknowledged bus drivers had a very difficult job, and student safety was paramount to all.  The CCSD felt they had progressive discipline in place in the school district.  She said as an Area Superintendent, she had many conferences with bus drivers, parents, students and deans to discuss progressive discipline.  They felt the language in Section 14 limited the removal of pupils from the bus to five days after the conference; the CCSD presently removed pupils for longer periods of time, sometimes up to and including permanent removal.  She related one incident where a student’s infraction was so serious, that pupil was denied bus privileges from that point on.  She remarked she recently had a veteran bus driver tell her he felt the CCSD always supported him.  She addressed Mrs. Cegavske’s question concerning student files and confirmed citations became a part of the student’s discipline folder.  She indicated the CCSD, along with all school districts, took the issue of student safety very seriously and thoroughly investigated all bus citations. 

 

Dr. Kohut-Rost voiced concern that scheduling conferences to include the bus driver would be very difficult.  The CCSD had to work around both the driver’s and the parent’s schedule, which became cumbersome.  She reiterated the CCSD did have progressive discipline; students were given the rules of conduct on the bus and expected to follow them.  In addition, all students and all parents received copies of behavior guidelines for students.

 

She then commented on Section 18, subsection 4, stating that section would violate federal law.  As written, the provision required that if a principal failed to establish, review and carry out a plan for progressive discipline, the principal’s pay was to be withheld each day the plan was not carried out.  She explained the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibited withholding pay from an exempt employee, of which principals were, as a form of discipline except for a period of five days or more.  The consequence of withholding pay on a daily basis would be that principals would lose their exempt status, and the district would then be required to pay the principal overtime for all hours in excess of 40 during the course of a week.  She said procedures for progressive discipline outlined in A.B 521 of the Seventieth Legislative Session were in place, and she could provide the committee a copy.  She assured the committee that, in terms of the schools she supervised, plans were submitted to the superintendent’s office prior to the start of the school year.  It was not a time consuming process, as indicated by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani; it was in the CCSD’s Administrative Handbook, and they did take it very seriously.

 

Ms. Parnell asked Dr. Kohut-Rost if a school did not have a structure in place to implement A.B. 521 of the Seventieth Legislative Session, what would the school district then do.  Dr. Kohut-Rost answered if it was a school under her jurisdiction, she would immediately become involved with the principal of that school and the situation would be remedied.  Ms. Parnell asked if Dr. Kohut-Rost was aware of any compliance problems at this point in the district.  Dr. Kohut-Rost said she had not heard of any; however, she could only speak for the area she represented.

 

Referencing Section 14 which discussed a driver removing a pupil from a school bus, Mrs. Cegavske asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani if the driver had to prove an infraction, or did the language of the bill allow the driver to remove the pupil from the bus until there was a hearing.  Mrs. Cegavske noted that the section stated “may remove the privileges of a pupil to ride any bus if, in the judgment of the driver . . .”

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the language in Section 14 stated the bus driver “may remove the privilege for behavior that is disruptive and threatens the safety of the driver or the other pupils.”  Other infractions would continue to be handled as they had in the past.  She emphasized the intent of A.B. 521 of the Seventieth Legislative Session was to create discipline plans in an effort to segregate the consistent and continuous threats to safety.  The provisions in Section 14 would not be used in every circumstance.  If the driver wanted to recommend that the privilege be revoked, an explanation must be provided to the student, the student must be given an opportunity to respond, the student must be safely delivered to the designated stop, and written documentation must be provided to the principal.  Within 24 hours the principal must make a determination, and set up a conference within five days.  If the principal agreed, the pupil could not ride the bus until that conference was held.  Any disagreements resulted in a hearing before the appeals committee.  There was only one appeals committee district wide.

 

 Mrs. Cegavske asked if the principal had to agree to the student being removed from the bus.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani answered in the affirmative.  She added the student could not ride the bus until the conference took place and a decision was made; that was the intent.  Section 14, subsection 3, required the principle to give a 24-hour notice to the parent and the supervisor of the bus driver.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the provision was modeled after the provision in A.B. 521 of the Seventieth Legislative Session, which addressed discipline in the classroom.

 

Mrs. Cegavske then inquired about the constitutionality of Section 18, subsection 4, as noted by Dr. Kohut-Rost.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she was not alerted during bill drafting of a problem with the provision; however, she would check on that.  Mrs. Cegavske said she did have concerns with that section; she queried if a classroom teacher did not comply with the plan, would the provision to withhold pay be enforced on the teacher as well.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the first step started with the administrator.  She felt if the administrator would not enforce the plan, they should be held to the standard.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani if she had ever seen an incident report involving weapons and assaults as required to be turned in by each school.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she was aware of one required in the Accountability Report for each school district.  She said she would be cautious about those reports, however, since she felt there was a tendency to over-react on some types of incidences and under-react on others.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani questioned how a school could fix a problem such as assaults on campus without the documentation.  She did not want the reports to be “finger pointing” but rather a signal that something was wrong.  Mrs. Cegavske agreed with the reporting requirement; she was more concerned that the reporting was done consistently and correctly on all campuses.  She suggested a form be devised for that purpose.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the goal was to be more “preventive-based” and to identify patterns of problems.  She further noted Section 11 allowed parents to file suits against a student who battered or assaulted their child on campus.

 

Mr. Collins said last session the law was changed to allow the school police to report incidents to the local area police chief instead of the school principal.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said school districts had been empowered to do many things.  Laws passed in 1989 required school districts to remove threatening or violent students from classrooms or district transportation and obligated courts to notify principals within five days when students were convicted of specific offenses, and required principals to share that information with teachers and bus drivers.  The fiscal note of $10 million in the bill would be used to look at what programs work, select those five or six programs that had a proven track record, and train staff on the programs.  She believed, as it stood now, there was too much of a “hodge-podge” of programs.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani invited Ms. Carol Lark, Principal at C.P. Squires Elementary School, to testify about the program the school used as their compliance with A.B. 521 of the Seventieth Legislative SessionExhibit I was a copy of the “Outcomes Of the A.B. 521 Disruptive Pupil Pilot Program for C.P. Squires Elementary School.”

 

Carol Lark, Principal of C.P. Squires Elementary School, explained she started in the Clark County School District as a principal at an affluent school in the northwest.  After seven years of service there, she transferred to C.P. Squires, an “at-risk” school in North Las Vegas, and took eight teachers with her.  The biggest problem she faced at the school was discipline and disruptive behavior in the classroom.  When pupils were suspended for their behavior, they simply viewed it as few days off from school.  She knew if she did not get a handle on the situation, she would lose the master teachers.  After several conferences with parents concerning their children’s problem behavior, she found the parents were just as frustrated as she was trying to control them.  She then sought help through the Administrative Leadership at UNLV and was introduced to Dr. Patty Chance, a trained leader in Choice Theory Training for the Quality School Movement.  Ms. Lark said she and 15 other teachers went through the training.  The Choice Theory was implemented school-wide at C.P. Squires and the results were extremely positive. 

 

Ms. Clark then explained how the program worked.  A room was set aside at the school for disruptive pupils who chose not to “make good choices.”  The room was not, she emphasized, a detention room or a suspension room; the students did not go in there for a set period of time.  They were allowed back into the regular classroom only when they could solve their problem and come up with a plan.  While in there, the students were provided a fully licensed teacher that assisted them with the worksheets provided; however, the students had to earn their way back into a regular classroom.  The essential difference was the students now had no audience, and they quickly realized they did not want to spend their class time in the room.  Ms. Clark indicated the first year there were 63 students sent to the room; this year there were only 26.  She said students were no longer allowed to interrupt the instruction in the classroom; the administration tolerated no disrespect.

 

Ms. Lark noted the program was a pilot project paid with state funding, and she asked for continuation of the funding to cover the cost of one teacher unit.  Academically, the school was moving up.  She also had a very strong “behavior team” and they dictated how the program ran.  She said A.B 319 would provide the funding mechanism for continuation of the program.

 

Dr. Judy Costa, Director of Testing and Evaluation for the Clark County School District, testified on Sections 1, 6 and 21 of A.B. 319.  She asked for a change in the timeline identified in Section 1, subsection 2.  Because of time and budget considerations involved with testing, the CCSD requested that the Department of Education provide school districts with the approved list of tests prior to October 1, possibly by the previous school year.  In addition, the district asked that tests be conducted at the beginning of the next school year instead of testing one month after school districts received the list of schools designated as “needing improvement.” 

 

In Section 1, subsection 3, the funding was a 50/50 split between teacher training and remediation.  Dr. Costa suggested a 75/25 split, with 75 going to remediation and 25 going to teacher training.  She felt there were other funds available for teacher training.  Additionally, the district requested that the verbiage “below the fourth grade level” be changed to read “three years below grade level.”  That would capture a broader population of students and addressed those students who needed help.

 

In Section 6, Dr. Costa suggested that rather than have an alternative assessment system for “standard diplomas,” alternative criteria should be developed that would specify, for instances, courses students needed to take and the minimum grade the needed to earn.  If a student chose, for example, not to take the proficiency exam, he could get a “standard diploma” by taking algebra or geometry with a grade of “C” or above.

 

In Section 21 relative to testing on the weekends, Dr. Costa felt that could enhance test security.  She cautioned, however, it could be very expensive because it might involve testing over more than one weekend, or testing two days in a row.  

 

Mrs. Cegavske questioned Dr. Costa’s rationale in Section 1, subsection 2 about the cost associated with testing.  She asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani if testing could be performed to determine student levels without involving costly companies to administer tests.  Mrs. Cegavske said she had issues with the use of the testing companies because of the delay in getting test results back, the inconsistencies with testing, and the overall costs.  She felt teachers were capable of administering tests.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said education tended to be a “cash cow” for many companies and agreed districts should utilize their faculty on campus to perform testing at no costs.  In terms of the timelines, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the dates were set in order to remediate a particular group of students that tested at a particular reading level without having to wait one year.  She said there might be a way to work beyond the timeline.

 

Mrs. Cegavske said she agreed with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani on the testing.  She had problems with the testing because tests were not returned in a timely manner and results were not shared with the teachers, parents and pupils.  Mrs. Cegavske continued, saying she could not support Dr. Costa’s suggestions about taking course work in-lieu of the proficiency tests.  She felt presenting a course work option to the students would not work unless the school districts dictated where students went to college.  She liked the diploma concept in the bill as proposed by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani.

 

Lonnie Shields, Advocate for the Washoe County Education Administrators Association (WCEAA), addressed his association’s concerns with the bill.  Exhibit J was a copy of his testimony.  He asked that the bill be amended by striking Section 11, subsection 1, which required administrators to request parents file criminal complaints against a student who committed an assault or battery on campus.  He indicated the administrators he had talked with said they would be nervous deciding what constituted assault and battery.  WCEAA was concerned that administrators would request that parents filed complaints on every fight at school in order not to violate the provision, which could create a backlog for law enforcement and open the school districts up to further litigation if administrators did not recommend parents file a complaint since the language in the section said “shall.” 

 

Section 18, subsection 2, was another area of concern.  The WCEAA proposed deleting that provision and offered a friendly amendment.  The WCEAA agreed principals should be held accountable for carrying out provisions of existing law, and agreed there should be consequences if they failed to do so.  The consequences, Mr. Shields emphasized, should be tailored to fit the event and severity of the offense.  The WCEAA felt to withhold salary, except upon the decision of the majority of the teachers in the school, was not fair.  Teachers should not be in charge of the discipline of principals.  WCEAA contended that job belonged to the principal’s immediate supervisor, or the board of trustees.  WCEAA suggested deleting lines 30 through 46 and offered the following amendment language: 

 

Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the principal shall have on file in the district office by November 1 a plan pursuant to this section.  The principal may request additional time to comply with this section through his immediate supervisor not to exceed thirty days.  If the principal fails to establish, review and carryout a plan pursuant to this section following the time allowed by his immediate supervisor, a letter of reprimand shall be placed in his personnel file.  If the principal has failed to establish, review and carry out a plan pursuant to this section within an additional thirty days while in the date of letter of admonition, the board of trustees may move pursuant to NRS 391.312.

 

The WCEAA said the new language put the responsibility and accountability in the proper hands, that being the principal’s immediate supervisor and the board of trustees.

 

In relation to the bus provisions in the bill, the WCEAA requested the addition in Section 15, subsection 1(d), of a transportation supervisor to attend conferences where the removal of the student from the school bus was discussed.  The conference would then include the pupil, parent or guardian, principal, bus driver, and transportation supervisor.  Mr. Shields explained the principals he spoke with felt that was necessary because principals were often asked to make alternative decisions about how to transport a child to school or to a different school.  The presence of the transportation supervisor would shorten the decision time.  In addition, the final review committee, made up under current language of two bus drivers, the principal, and an alternate with a bus driver, appeared to WCEAA to be weighted.  They felt a more fair, final committee composition would be made up of an administrator, a bus driver, a parent appointed by the PTA, or some other outside person who would have a neutral attitude toward the situation.

 

The final amendment offered was in Section 19, subsection 1.  The WCEAA requested that the term of membership for the teachers who served on the review committee be change from one year to three years.  The principals felt changing teachers every year would result in lost knowledge of committee operations and required retraining.  Mr. Shields noted Washoe County had a problem getting teachers to serve on the committee; once the teacher was trained, the school district preferred to keep them in place.

 

Dr. Dotty Merrill with the Washoe County School District (WCSD) spoke on behalf of the WCSD and affirmed the WCSD supported the amendments proposed by the WCEAA in Sections 14, 15 and 16.  Exhibit K was a copy of her testimony and included sample diplomas and a sample high school transcript as attachments.

 

Dr. Merrill began her testimony by mentioning the sections of A.B. 319 the WCSD did support.  They included Section 4, the inclusion of students with disabilities in remediation; Section 21, the allocation of funding for pilot programs to administer assessments and alternate times; and Section 23, the funding to provide facilities for alternative placement of students.

 

Dr. Merrill then outlined the sections that concerned the WCSD.  Section 1 had the potential to create what the WCSD viewed as a cumbersome, costly, and unnecessary structure.  If the Department of Education designated a school as “needing improvement,” the WCSD believed there was ample proof that students in the grade level tested were, as a group, reading below grade level.  When more than 40 percent of students were reading at the bottom national quarter, as evidenced by their reading composite scores on a norm-referenced test, that meant that one out of every two students at the grade level were reading below grade level.  She said the evidence currently received by TerraNova could then readily identify students in fourth grade who needed remediation in reading.  The WCSD suggested that the state-mandated, standards-based, criterion-referenced test in reading administered in spring to students in grades three and five be used to accomplish the intent of the bill.  Students in third and fifth grades could be identified by means of the criterion-referenced evidence tied directly to the Nevada-standards for reading.  She acknowledged how school districts ensure the remediation took was another issue; however, the school district could ensure it was provided.

 

Dr. Merrill continued, stating it was the further intent of Section 1 to provide appropriate remediation for students at middle or high schools who were reading significantly below grade level.  The WCSD proposed required remediation for all eighth and/or tenth grade students who scored on the bottom national quarter on the norm-referenced test.  In addition, remediation could be widely publicized and provided for other students at the school who received a “D” or an “F” in English, reading and language arts.  The WCSD felt that might establish greater motivation for students to achieve and read at their grade level.  The WCSD‘s position was that there were other ways to determine who needed remediation without additional costs.

 

Dr. Merrill said Section 3 of the WCSD proposal would extend the already existing reporting of incidents involving weapons and violence by focusing specifically on the issues outlined in subsection 2(k).  The WCSD could collect the data; however, they would need to make some changes within the student information system to provide additional training to the teachers about the reporting of such incidences and to provide training for administrators and staff.  The WCSD therefore requested the collection structure piece of the legislation be delayed until July 1, 2002, in order to allow for cohesive implementation.

 

Referring to the provisions in Section 6, Dr. Merrill remarked the WCSD board of trustees had always opposed alternative assessment to replace the high school proficiency exams.  Dr. Merrill referred to Exhibit K, saying she wanted to address some misconceptions about the adjusted high school diploma.  She asked the committee to examine the two copies of diplomas and to notice there was no difference between the standard diploma and the adjusted diploma.  She also provided a copy of a transcript for a student with disabilities.  She noted the courses were not identified as special education courses; the only type of label on the transcripts was “modified diploma” in the comments section.  The WCSD currently had multiple diplomas available for students:  modified, standard, advanced, honors, and international baccalaureate diploma, and a certificate of attendance.  She said revision of the diploma structure from top to bottom was an extremely important issue and was not addressed by the A.C.R. 16 of the Seventieth Session committee.  The WCSD urged either a new task force or an interim committee address the issue of restructuring the diploma.

 

In regard to Section 8, subsection 8, Dr. Merrill informed the committee that currently there was great latitude available for alternative administrative settings in the language and policy by which TerraNova and the high school proficiency exam was administered.  As long as the specific options shown in subsection 8 were shown on the next version of the recommended accommodations pages used throughout the state by IEP teams, the WCSD was opposed to the inclusion of the specific accommodations in statute.  The WCSD believed their existence in policy and in the guidelines accomplished the same. 

 

Doug Whitner, Director of Student Support Services for Washoe County School District, spoke in regard to the bus driver issue in A.B. 319.  He said he was in support of laws that protected the safety of children on school buses, and recognized bus drivers had a difficult job.  Section 13 addressed the fact that federal law, specifically the IDEA law and the Rehabilitation Act, had to be adhered to in the application of state law.  If a child in special education, who had transportation as a related service in his IEP, was removed from a bus and consequently did not get to school, those days would count as suspension days.  In particular, children with emotional problems could be “at risk” because, by law, schools could not go past ten days of suspension due to behavior related to a handicap.

 

Continuing, Mr. Whitner felt the length of time to move through the process of conference meetings and possible appeals could go beyond the ten-day limit.  The district would then have the responsibility of getting the child to school, which could incur costs.  He thought the priority of the federal law was embedded in the bill; however, Mr. Whitner suggested having a group of special educators look at the law and offer suggestions.  He was concerned about the proactivity of the process and the time it would take to address the concerns.  A quicker process and more guidelines for bus drivers in terms of removing students from the bus was needed.

 

Ron Dreher spoke for the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada and the Professional Peace Officers of the State of Nevada on A.B. 319.  Exhibit L was the “Position Paper for the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada.”  Their only opposition was with Section 11.  Mr. Dreher submitted that the proper agency for the school principal to advise the parents or guardians was the school police having jurisdiction over the school.  In the event a crime occurred outside the jurisdiction of the school, then the school police agency would provide the appropriate information to the parents so a complaint could be initiated.  He asked that school police be included under Section 11, subsection 2(c), “Local law enforcement agency.”

 

Brad Reitz, Executive Director of the Clark County School District Student Support Services, and a member of the A.C.R. 16 of the Seventieth Session committee, wanted to underscore some of the issues for the CCSD.  He pointed out the work in the bill was generally consistent with the A.C.R. 16 of the Seventieth Session committee.  The committee recommended alternate assessments for approval of a standard diploma, which the Student Support Services Division supported.  The concept of a tiered diploma system, or a master diploma, was not something that the A.C.R. 16 of the Seventieth Session committee specified.  He explained the committee discussed ideas such as an occupational diploma, or some other standard diploma with which appropriate course work and a lower cut score on the proficiency exam could be used to gain a standard diploma.  He said he neither supported nor opposed the concept of a mastery diploma; it was a new idea and different from what the committee recommended.

 

Mr. Reitz related the CCSD was concerned with Section 11 and the lack of discretion the school principal could exert over assault and battery situations on a campus.  He said there were batteries some parents would want to pursue in the juvenile justice system, and there were other batteries where suspension and possibly removal may be appropriate.  The CCSD did not feel it should take responsibility for informing parents of what was already their right in the juvenile justice system. 

 

Mr. Reitz underscored what Mr. Shields testified to regarding Section 13, which was that federal regulations clearly specified the protections students with disabilities had in terms of discipline.  He wanted to ensure that Section 13 was left as written, and that provisions in Sections 14 through 17 were incorporated with the understanding federal laws must be followed.

 

Ms. Gillian Wells, Transitions Services Director for Nevada PEP, said she had heard many stories of frustration from parents concerning the proficiency exams and the “one size fits all” education.  She asked if students who passed the proficiency were more successful in adult life.  As a member of the A.C.R. 16 of the Seventieth Session committee, she said the group came together as best they could to represent the best interest of students.  She asked that the committee’s hard work not go to waste.  Education was a process and needed constant change to meet the needs of students.  The system currently in place promoted dropping out and low self-esteem for students, and prevented teachers from teaching.  Ms. Wells thanked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani for being part of the solution, and not the problem.

 

Karen Taycher, Executive Director for Nevada PEP, explained Nevada Parents Encouraging Parent (PEP) was a parent training and information center for families of children with disabilities.  She said herself, Gillian Wells and Brad Reitz all worked on the A.C.R. 16 of the Seventieth Session committee, and she thanked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani for putting some of the recommendations into the bill.  Children with disabilities learned differently, and therefore needed a different way to demonstrate their knowledge.  She believed A.B. 319 accomplished that.  Citing several celebrities with learning disabilities such as dyslexia, Ms. Taycher said students with difficulties reading and learning words had no opportunity to earn a standard diploma in Nevada.  The A.C.R. 16 of the Seventieth Session committee could not come to a consensus on modifying the reading portion of the proficiency test so that students with reading disabilities could have the test read to them.  The majority of the work group felt strongly that the use of that accommodation should be allowed for students with documented reading disabilities.  She urged consideration for including children with reading disabilities into the proficiency testing provision.  She related the experience of her blind son and the devastation he felt when he learned his proficiency test scores and the affect that had on his self-esteem.  Ms. Taycher concluded her testimony asking what society was doing to children by not providing an alternative way to shown the knowledge they had.

 

Mrs. Cegavske thanked Ms. Wells and Ms. Taycher for their input and for the hard work they performed for parents, teachers, and students.

 

Mrs. Smith stated she had spent much time reflecting on the testing issue.  The Academic Standards Council would be working during the summer on recommendations made by the Nevada PEP.  Second-language learners also encountered the same difficulties.  Ways to accommodate those students needed to be identified.  Alternative assessment was a huge philosophical discussion in general.  She agreed with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani that educators in Nevada needed to have a dialog on whether Nevada would continue to tie graduation to an exam.  The committee needed to make careful decisions as it moved forward because two years from now the same discussions would be taking place.  Some students would never meet certain requirements for the exams. 

 

Chairman Williams said many amendments were suggested during testimony on A.B. 319.  He suggested those with amendments contact Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s office and provide copies. 

 

Ms. Von Tobel asked why not pass the bill out of committee and, since it was a concurrent referral, allow the suggested amendments to follow the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 319.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said based on what was suggested at the meeting, she had no problems with the 75/25 split suggested by the school districts; it only involved six schools.  She could work with Policy Analyst Susan Scholley on flexible language for reading below established grade levels.  She was also willing to entertain the amendment for Section 7, subsection 4, that addressed students doing a standard high school diploma with a portfolio or “prescribed individual.”  Currently, English language learners were allowed exemptions, so Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that might be an appropriate place to insert second language learners in addition to students with disabilities.  Further, as mentioned by Ms. Taycher in Section 8, subsections 1 and 4, there could be inserted “or disability in reading.”  She said that was part of the intent.  In reference to the suggestions by Mr. Shields, she was willing to accept revisions to the administrative penalties, and compromise on the terms of committee membership for teachers from one year to two years.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked for a legal opinion on the provisions on Section 3, subsection 2(k)(7); she was willing to add that change.  She further indicated she was also willing to include the suggestions by Mr. Shields in Section 18, subsection 4 and Section 14.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the revision suggested for Section 14 would be handled in Section 11.  She was willing to include reporting to the school police, but still felt the Metro Police should do the investigation.

 

Chairman Williams questioned whether the amendments should be made immediately or at the Committee on Ways and Means hearing.  Mrs. Cegavske said with all the amendments proposed, if the committee could concur on them, they could be made before the bill was passed out of the Committee on Education.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani suggested amending and passing A.B. 319; she would work with Policy Analyst Susan Scholley on getting a clean draft of the amendments before the bill went to the Committee on Ways and Means.

 

Chairman Williams agreed with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s suggestion.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Williams notified the committee that if the motion passed, they would see the amendments before the bill moved out of committee.

 

Mrs. Smith said she would abstain from the vote; she felt there were bigger issues that were not solved.

 

Mr. Gustavson said he would also abstain from the vote; he would prefer to see the amendments before the bill was passed out of the Committee on Education.

 

Chairman Williams said for the record the amendments might not be ready for review until April 16.  He asked for a vote on the motion.

 

THE MOTION PASSED.  ABSTENTIONS WERE ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH, ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE, AND ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON.  ABSENT FOR THE VOTE WAS ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING.

 

Chairman Williams then opened the hearing on A.B. 409.

 

Assembly Bill 409:  Makes various changes regarding education and educational personnel. (BDR 34-301)

 

Mr. Manendo, Assembly District 13, presented A.B. 409.  Before making his presentation, he said for the record he supported A.B. 311, although he was absent for the vote because he had presented a bill in the Committee on Commerce and Labor.

 


Mr. Manendo began his testimony stating education was a top priority in Nevada, and that quality schools were critical for the well-being of children.  A.B. 409 proposed significant enhancements for public education by providing modern equipment and materials and quality education programs.  In the classroom that meant providing reasonable class-sizes and addressing current technology needs.  Proven educational programs would help guarantee success for all students.

 

Mr. Manendo outlined the important provisions of the bill.  Section 2 required the budget include an adjustment for inflation for textbooks, library books and supplies and materials relating to instruction.  That should help alleviate the textbook shortage by requiring the state to adequately adjust the increased cost of textbooks when building the budget.  Section 3 expanded class-size reduction to the fourth grade, proposed reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio to 22 to 1 where the core curriculum was taught.  He emphasized the bill reduced class-size without increasing class-size in grades K-3.  Research indicated smaller class-sizes had a positive impact on student achievement. 

 

Mr. Manendo continued that Section 7 of the bill proposed $1.8 million for special education program units for charter schools.  Section 8 proposed $47 million in additional funding for special education.  Mr. Manendo emphasized the state and federal governments had not adequately funded special education; therefore, the funding burden had fallen to the school districts.  Section 9 required an appropriation of $8.3 million to pay for reduction in the number of special education cases per teachers.  Section 10 would appropriate $15.8 million for programs of remedial study.  Section 12 addressed the Commission on Educational Technology’s proposed $108 million of new spending to ensure adequate technology infrastructure and professional development for teachers to integrate technology into the classroom.  That proposal was not included in the Governor’s budget.  A.B. 409 ensured the full continuation and implementation of the Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997.  

 

Continuing, Mr. Manendo said Section 13 proposed continued state support of the Schools-to-Careers Program.  The program impacted dropout rates and motivated students to learn and reach higher standards because they saw the relevancy of their studies.  Over 5000 employers participated in the program.  Section 14 proposed $12.6 million for school districts to hire more school nurses, or approximately one nurse at each school site in Nevada.  Section 15 proposed $4 million to hire additional school psychologists in order to reduce the caseload to the national recommended caseload.  Section 17 proposed $11 million for students whose success in school depended on their mastery of English.  The number of students classified as English language learners had increased over 500 percent in the last ten years.

 

While A.B. 409 required significant proposed appropriations, Mr. Manendo contended it was also the case that K-12 education had many unfunded needs.  He asked for the committee’s support in moving the bill forward to the Committee on Ways and Means.  He also noted he received an email from Kathy Williams, President of the Nevada State Association of School Nurses, in support of A.B. 409.

 

Mrs. Angle noted the class-size stipulation in A.B. 409 for fourth grade, which was 22 to 1, fell in line with the presentation to the committee from Elko County stating that ratio worked well in their district.  She asked if he had considered amending Section 3, subsection 1(a), which designated a ratio of 15 to 1 for grades 1 to 3, and making the ratio 22 to 1 so it lined up with the report from Elko County.

 

Mr. Manendo responded he had not considered that; the intent was to extend the 22 to 1 ratio to fourth grade only, although the committee could debate that.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked how many teachers in the state of Nevada were certified.  She noted the bill requested an increase in salary for teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

 

Al Bellister, representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), addressed Mrs. Cegavske’s question saying he believed there were 24 teachers who had just obtained their National Board Certification.  Section 6 of the bill was designed to address the date by which certification had to be filed so the teachers could obtain their salary increase upon completion of national board certification.  The current September 15 date prohibited teachers who earned their certificate from gaining the salary increase because the national board did not issue certifications until October or November.  That was the reason for the proposed date change.

 

Mr. Bellister further explained the NSEA had two amendment requests to A.B. 409 (Exhibit M).  One amendment proposed a change to Section 16, subsection 1, to increase the appropriation to the Department of Education from $100,000 to $150,000 in order that 75 public school teachers could receive a stipend to go through the national board certification process.  The process ran about $2,300 to $2,400 per person.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked the length of time to acquire a certification.  Mr. Bellister said the process itself was several months in terms of preparation.  Mrs. Cegavske said she would like to know how many actual hours that translated to.  Mr. Bellister replied he would supply that information.  She inquired if the National Board professional certification covered teachers, school nurses, and psychologists.  Those categories were mentioned in the bill summary.  Mr. Bellister said the national board certification portion of A.B. 409 covered only teachers who pursued the certification. 

 

Mr. Bellister than outlined some of the bill provisions.  He explained Section 2, subsection 3(b), was designed to ensure that the Distributive School Account (DSA) would include an adjustment for inflation for certain operating items related to textbooks, library books, supplies and materials.  The budget currently before the Legislature did not include an adjustment for inflation.  The textbook audit recognized the textbook shortage in the state, and that school districts exceeded the DSA allocation by about $6 million over a 5-year period.  Mr. Bellister contended including an adjustment for inflation in the DSA could alleviate the textbook shortage.

 

Mr. Bellister said Section 3, subsection 1(b), which allowed the class-size reduction to expand to fourth grade, accomplished what was originally intended with the passage of class-size reduction in 1989.  The original program would have eventually reduced class-sizes up to 12th grade; however, due to budget shortages, the program had stagnated at 3rd grade and had never fully funded grades K-3.  The bill proposed to maintain existing ratios and expand the program to fourth grade.  About 35 percent of Nevada’s 4th grade classrooms had 25 or fewer students; the national average was 71 percent.  He said class-sizes had steadily crept up as districts were faced with fewer and fewer resources.

 

Section 7 was an allocation for special education program funding for charter schools.  Mr. Bellister said charter schools needed to offer the same types of services to students as regular schools, yet there were only so many units.  A.B. 409 proposed to add to the size of allocations for special education units; those units would be specifically allocated to charter schools.

 

Section 8 addressed special education funding.  Mr. Bellister noted in 1988, special education funding received 56 percent of its funds from the state.  State funding was currently about 29.4 percent.  A greater burden of special education funding fell to the school districts.  Section 8 proposed an allocation of $47 million for increased funding for special education.  That would free up more General Fund revenue for the school districts to operate additional programs at the local level.

 

Section 9 continued funding for reduced caseloads for special education.  Mr. Bellister pointed out the federal monies currently available may be eliminated.  The provision proposed to provide permanent funding to continue the reduction in caseloads. 

 

Section 11 proposed an allocation for educational technology.  Mr. Bellister remarked in 1997 the Commission on Educational Technology was created by the Nevada Educational Reform Act.  That commission presented a budget proposal to the legislature for $108 million to continue to provide technical resources in an effort to:  bring all schools up to a minimum level of technology; upgrade and maintain the technology; and provide professional development.  Mr. Bellister commented no funds were allocated this budget cycle for educational technology.  A.B. 409 provided for the funding as proposed by the Commission on Educational Technology. 

 

Section 13 continued the Schools to Career program funding with a request for $2 million from the state General Fund for the biennium.  Section 14 requested an allocation of $12 million to add school nurses to the school districts.  Mr. Bellister said of the 485 schools in the state, there were only 290 nurses.  In the interest of health and safety, the bill proposed to put a nurse in every school.  Section 15 dealt with school psychologists.  The caseload was about 1 to 1,900 students.  This provision proposed to go to the national recommended level of 1 to 1,200.  Section 17 was requesting an $11 million appropriation to fund additional programs for English language learners.  That group represented approximately 11 percent of the school enrollment in the state.

 

Mr. Bellister concluded his testimony saying schools needed greater financial support, and he urged the committee’s support of A.B. 409 so the bill could move forward to the Ways and Means Committee where the fiscal impacts could be addressed.

 

Mrs. Cegavske addressed Mr. Bellister’s comment on Section 2, subsection 3(b), concerning textbooks and supplies.  She noted the textbook audit specified that the money was there for textbooks; it just was not spent “properly.”  Schools were using textbook allocations in other areas.  She noted, however, there were two textbook bills this session that she felt should take care of that concern.  She told Mr. Bellister she was “thrilled” that he was looking out for charter schools.  On the educational technology issues, Mrs. Cegavske commented several years ago the state of Idaho implemented technology statewide, and she would like to see Nevada do the same.

 

In response to Mrs. Cegavske’s comment on the findings in the textbook audit, Mr. Bellister noted the textbook audit reported that over a 5-year period, school districts spent $6 million more than was allocated to them from the DSA for textbooks, supplies and materials.  Furthermore, the audit indicated the out-of-pocket expenses of teachers for supplies and materials averaged $500. 

 

Mr. Gustavson said he saw many reports, both nationwide and in Nevada, on class-size reduction statistics, yet he had not seen any big advancement in academic achievement.  He queried why put millions of dollars into a program that was not showing significant improvement; the money could be better spent elsewhere in education.

 

Mr. Bellister said there were studies that showed significant gains in student achievement for those students who participated in a program of class-size reduction.  He cited as an example the Tennessee Star Program, which concluded those students who participated had lasting achievement gains throughout their school career.  The Wisconsin Sage Program was another example of a program that reached similar conclusions.  He reminded the committee that Nevada had never fully funded a full-blown analysis of class-size reduction efforts, nor had the state ever fully funded class-size reduction programs as originally intended.  The original intent was for a 1 to 15 ratio; that changed to 1 to 16.  Due to lack of facilities, the ratio was finally changed to 1 to 22.  The report issued by the Nevada Department of Education in 2000 concluded those students who participated in Nevada’s program of class-size reduction had more achievement gains than students who did not.

 

Mr. Gustavson said the reports he referred to were also nationwide, and indicated that nationally other school districts had funded programs without showing significant improvement.  He realized funding affected Nevada’s abilities to study the program.

 

Mrs. Angle asked what the current caseload was for special education.  Ms Gloria Dopf, Equity Education Team Leader for the Nevada Department of Education, addressed Mrs. Angle’s caseload reduction question.  She said the specific caseload reductions adopted by the board was from 24 to 22 for the learning disabilities resource generalist program, to go from 24 to 22 for the early childhood resource program, and to go from 60 to 50 for the speech and language therapy program.  Those amounts were also included in the state agency request from the State Board of Education to sustain the caseload reduction, but utilized state funds to accomplish that. 

 

Ms. Parnell asked Ms. Dopf what happened if a teacher had a student on their responsibility list, but the teacher did not see that student because they were in inclusion classes all day.  She asked if that student still counted.  Ms. Dopf said the total number of students the teacher was responsible for, either consultative or direct instruction, was 22. 

 

Charlotte Curtis, Schools to Career Coordinator, introduced Denny Martindale, Chairperson of the Education Collaborative in Washoe County and a member of the State Schools to Career Council, who testified in support of A.B. 409.  Ms. Curtis provided the committee a copy of a report entitled “Schools to Careers A.B. 191 Funding Request” (Exhibit N).

 

Mr. Martindale addressed Section 13 of A.B. 409, which was the Schools to Career portion of the bill, and emphasized that career education and career development had changed over the past few years.  Schools to Career wanted to ensure that all students understood the importance of the adopted state standards process.  In Washoe County, all high schools would be staffed with career centers; currently half of the middle schools in Washoe County had career centers.  Mr. Martindale told the committee the investment the legislature made in the Schools to Career Program was an investment in the state and the communities because the education of students was economics; all new economic development enterprises that entered the state wanted to know first and foremost what the education system was in the state.  If the state wanted to diversify its economy, education must be the front issue.

 

Mr. Martindale continued that Schools to Career was often criticized for turning its money over to businesses.  Mr. Martindale emphasized that businesses had taken their role seriously, and demonstrated they would take just as much responsibility for all phases of education, including the career education. 

 

Mr. Martindale referenced a letter he received from Jerry Lambert, a Transition Counselor for Washoe County School District, regarding the career centers in Washoe County.  Mr. Lambert’s letter noted there were 1865 special education students being serviced by the career centers.  Those students now had the same opportunities to investigate careers.

 

Mr. Martindale cited as two examples of the success of the program his own daughters, both of whom had opportunities through the career days sponsored by their high school career centers to observe the nursing and teaching professions.  The experience helped convince his daughters to pursue those professions.

 

Mr. Martindale concluded his testimony by stating the most important issue in the Schools to Career concept was the joint public and private funding.  The business community had stepped up with both time and resources; the state needed to do the same.

 

Kathleen Frosini, Director of Schools to Work Program for the Clark County School District, spoke in support of Section 13 of A.B. 409.  She said the Schools to Career Program was an excellent opportunity for students to put into practice what they learned in the classroom.  It reinforced their academic skills and exposed them to real-world experiences.  She applauded the Legislature for its previous support and asked for continuance of that support.

 

Mrs. Smith asked Ms. Curtis the amount of the last funding received from the state.  Ms. Curtis explained last biennium’s funding was $2 million.

 

Mr. Frank South, Administrator for Human Resources with the Nevada Department of Education, spoke on behalf of Moises Denis, Chairman of the Commission on Educational Technology.  He submitted a copy of the Commission on Educational Technology’s Status Report to the Legislative Committee On Education (Exhibit O).  He called attention to pages 23 and 24 of the report, which was a breakdown of the educational technology budget for 2002-2003.  The commission was prepared to scale the budget in any direction necessary based on the amount of funds available; however, the budget outlined in the status report was based on actual needs of the state.

 

Mr. South explained the commission’s priorities were:  professional development, infrastructure, evaluation, timely technical support, and high-quality content.  He thanked the bill’s sponsors for including the educational technology component.

 

Mr. Brad Wright, Executive Director of Student Support Services Division of the Clark County School District, said the school district wanted to go on record as in full support of A.B. 409.

 

Dr. George Ann Rice, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources with the Clark County School District, proposed one change in Section 16.  That section provided for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses up to $2000 for teachers who completed the national board’s certification.  Dr. Rice suggested the teachers could seek the money up-front, after paying the initial $300 for supplies and materials, and demonstrating a good faith effort to continue with the certification process.  If the teacher did not pass, they would reimbursement a portion of the money.  She said it was to everyone’s advantage in education for the teachers to go through the process.  She asked that Section 16 be revised to make the money available to the teachers in January of the year they were seeking certification.  In that way, teachers would not be out-of-pocket the entire $2,300.

 

Ms. Theresa Malone, member of the State Board of Education, said she represented 350,000 people, which was the largest State Board of Education district in Nevada.  While she was on the campaign trail, she found the number one issue was education.  She felt Assemblyman Manendo, along with the cosigners on A.B. 409, demonstrated leadership by bringing the legislation forward.  She urged the Committee on Education to support the measure and move it to the Committee on Ways and Means so that State Board of Education could fight for the funding.

 

Continuing her testimony, Ms. Malone informed the committee that in August 2000 the State Board of Education put in a bill draft request for a $220 per student increase in K-12, for a total of approximately $222 million.  She said 15 days later the bill draft was refused.  A.B. 409 helped get the same funding as requested by the State Board of Education through bill draft.  The measure, in particular, made appropriations for special education, provided appropriate and effective programs for limited-English learners, and enhanced educational technology.  She emphasized A.B. 409 helped support S.B. 466 of the Seventieth Legislative Session, which also increased the various goals from the Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997. 

 

Ms. Gloria Dopf with the Nevada Department of Education said she wanted to underscore support for the provisions relative to enhanced funding for special education.  In addition, the Special Education Advisory Committee supported the requests for special education.  Ms. Dopf emphasized the dire needs for those enhancements.  The State Board of Education also had a request for enhanced funding for English language learners to help them acquire language.  If the English language learners were to be tested in their proficiency in the English language, those students needed to be given the opportunity to learn it.  She emphasized any amount of funds that could be identified for the additional support for English language learner students was critical; those students must learn the language in order for them to succeed in other areas.

 

Laura Dancer, Washoe County School District (WCSD), expressed on behalf of the Board of Trustees of Washoe County one area of concern.  She said there were many ways to improve student achievement other than class-size reduction.  Section 3, which requested reducing class-size in Grade 4 to 22-1, would be approximately a $1.3 million provision for Washoe County alone.  The board of trustees felt the money could be put to better uses such as teacher training; that would have a greater impact on student achievement.

 

Doug Whitner, Washoe County School District, commented the school district supported the initiative for enhanced funding for special education.  In regard to Sections 14 and 15 of the bill, which would fund a grant program to increase the numbers of nurses and school psychologists, Mr. Whitner said the Washoe County School District applauded that effort.  In Washoe County, school psychologists were staffed at about 1 to 2,000, with the national norm being 1 to 1,200.  Increased staffing levels translated to quicker assessments and better intervention, particularly for the “at-risk” student.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 409 and opened the hearing on A.B. 416 and asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to make the presentation.

 

Assembly Bill 416:  Revises provisions governing special education and class-size. (BDR 34-1085)

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, said the majority of A.B. 416 dealt with special education funding, and she disclosed that she was a special education teacher in Clark County.

 

She began her presentation explaining many school districts had added extra administrative duties to special education that she did not feel the state should be responsible for paying.  A.B. 416 proposed a formula consisting of a “60/40 split” so that the state would move commensurately 1 percentage point from the current 56 percent funding to 60 percent funding over the next 4 years.  Pending federal legislation for special education could eventually provide full federal funding, which could result in a “70/30 split down the road.”  Section 2, subsection 2, provided for special education funding to achieve a 60 percent partnership between the state and the local school districts. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the other special education provision in A.B. 416 addressed the issue of special education students who had been mainstreamed and assigned to regular education classrooms.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she believed that it was in violation of the law, and the general education teacher then had more students in the classroom than a special education teacher would typically have.  Based on that, Section 4 of A.B. 416 created the requirement that special education students could not exceed 30 percent of the total number of students in a general education classroom.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani contended that would prevent “dumping” special education students into a classroom with a general education teacher who did not have the background or resources to assist the students.

 

The second issue addressed in A.B. 416 was in regard to class-size reduction.  Section 7, subsection 1(a), required funding for class-size reduction for kindergarten; the ratio would be 16 to 1.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani felt it was “shameful” to have 35 five-and-six-year-old children in a classroom with one teacher.  Section 7, subsection 3, required that physical education teachers at elementary schools would not be responsible for more than 30 students unless they had an aide, in which case they could go to 40.  In southern Nevada, physical education teachers in elementary schools typically had 60 students in a class.  She contended it was an issue of safety as well as a burden placed on the teacher to instruct that number of children.

 

The third issue addressed in the bill was early childhood programs.  Section 8 requested a $2.5 million appropriation from the state General Fund for school districts and community-based organizations to continue with early childhood education.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani felt there was not enough being done in that area; there was a minimal number of headstart programs in the state.  The funding would allow more students to access the program.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she would provide Mr. Gustavson a copy of an article from a 1999 edition of Learning magazine entitled “Small Class Sizes Produce Long-term Benefits – A 14 Year Study of K-3 Class Sizes.”  The article provided a summation of what had occurred with class-size reduction.  She also provided the committee information about the gap in special education funding (Exhibit P) and articles about seeking time for the younger student (Exhibit Q).

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked if special education students were still being counted for full funding.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said they were; kindergarten was still at a .6 funding because of bussing and the fact they were not in a full-day program.

 

Ms. Von Tobel asked if the physical education class-size provision in Section 7, subsection 3, was for special education students only.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said it was general education students, with possibly some special education students in the class.  Ms. Von Tobel said her experience had been Physical Education (PE) classes usually consisted of two to three classes at one time and typically with two teachers and an aide; she felt that was the norm.  She said PE classes always went over 30 pupils.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani confirmed two to three classes at a time was the norm with two teachers.  A.B. 416 would limit the number of students to 30 per teacher; any students over that, up to 40, would require assistance from an aide.  She acknowledged that would have a budget impact.

 

In terms of the total number of special education students assigned to a classroom, Mrs. Smith asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani if the “least restrictive environment” or “inclusionary” regulations had any jurisdiction over that.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani answered she thought it was no more than 50 percent of special education students to be mainstreamed into a general education classroom.  Ms. Dopf with the Department of Education interjected the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) placed no cap; at this point; “least restrictive environment” talked to the fact that special education students should be taught in the environment most close to the student’s regular classroom.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she was unaware there was no cap; she felt allowing over 50 percent of special education students in a general classroom was inappropriate because it took instruction time away from the other students.

 

Dr. Merrill, speaking on behalf of the Washoe County School District (WCSD), said they were generally supportive of the bill; however, they had one issue with Section 4.  That section restricted the total number of pupils with disabilities assigned to a regular education classroom to 30 percent.  She explained in certain of the WCSD schools with inclusionary programs, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to observe the mandatory 30 percent because of the number of students with particular disabilities.  It would also present a problem at certain high schools which had, for example, science classes that included a majority of the students with disabilities and a number of students achieving at low levels, but not students who were receiving special education services.  WCSD asked for the language of that provision to be “permissive.”

 

Ms. Dopf with the Department of Education spoke in support of Section 2, subsections 2 and 4, which increased funding for special education.  In 1980, the amount funded for the special education program unit covered 95 percent of the licensed teacher salary plus fringe benefits.  The current funded amount only covered 55 percent.  She emphasized school districts did not have ways to generate additional funds.  She referenced the handout addressing enhanced special education funding (Exhibit P), which documented how school districts would utilize the additional funding freed up from general education.  The bill attempted to set a standard for state funding by which the encroachment into the school district’s general education funds would not continue every year.

 

Brad Reitz with the Clark County School District (CCSD) noted the district had a concern with Section 4, which limited the number of disabled students in a classroom to 30 percent.  A class-size reduction classroom of 16 students would equate to five students with disabilities in a room.  He commented many of the disabled students had only minor disabilities.  The CCSD was willing to work with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to draft new language that allowed districts to develop guidelines to approach the 30 percent as a goal.

 

Mr. Reitz further added that the CCSD did not understand why the language “gifted and talented pupils” was struck from Section 6, subsection 1.  He said approximately 25 years ago, “gifted and talented pupils” funding was separate from special education, which proved to be problematic because each legislative session funding of the ”gifted and talented pupils” programs became subjective to the competitive demands of the legislative session.  Mr. Reitz said if that was the intent of Section 6, the CCSD wanted to registered their concern because use of special education funding allowed the CCSD to have stability with their “gifted and talented pupils” programs.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani addressed Mr. Reitz concerns saying striking that language was intentional.  She emphasized funding for the “gifted and talented pupils” programs should not be coming out of special education funding; it was not federally mandated.  When that program was created, it was not funding; the funding came from special education, which, she felt, was “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said school districts that wanted a “gifted and talented” program should pay for it themselves.

 

Karen Taycher with the Clark County School District spoke in support of increased unit allocation funding for special education.  She was concerned about the 30 percent cap.  Although she understood Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s concern with placing special education students in regular classrooms, she felt the cap might be discriminatory in that it might keep students with disabilities from accessing certain types of programs and courses.  That provision of the bill should be amended in order not to deny children with disabilities opportunities to access courses.

 

Chairman Williams asked that Mr. Reitz and Ms. Taycher contact Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to work on possible amendments.  He closed the hearing on A.B.  416 and opened the hearing on A.B. 660.

 

Assembly Bill 660:  Prohibits boards of trustees of school districts from requiring certain licensed employees to submit fingerprints. (BDR 34‑1457)

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, District 9, and Assemblyman Doug Bache, District 11, presented A.B. 660.  Both disclosed they were public school teachers on leave-of-absence.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the bill might affect both she and Assemblyman Bache.  Exhibit R was a copy of a memorandum from the Department of Education relative to fingerprinting requirements for licensed personnel. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the intent of the legislation was to clear up what was viewed as “an error in judgment” by the Clark County School District.  They were the only school district that required teachers returning from a leave-of-absence to be re-fingerprinted.  She said she and Assemblyman Bache had dealt with the issue after every legislative session when they returned to their respective teaching positions.  However, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted, women returning from maternity leave were affected most by the policy, which, she felt, was discriminatory. 

 

Assemblyman Bache continued the presentation by explaining he and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani had both refused to be re-fingerprinted in 1993 after returning from the legislative session, which the CCSD accepted.  However, when they returned from the 1995 session and refused to be re-fingerprinted, they both were threatened with dismissal for insubordination, and subsequently filed a grievance against CCSD.  Assemblyman Bache explained the negotiated settlement with CCSD was he and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani agreed to be fingerprinted one time, and that was to cover both of them for all the successive legislative sessions they served.  He said in 1997, 1999, and 2001 they were asked to be fingerprinted, in spite of the grievance resolution negotiated in 1995.

 

Assemblyman Bache said he did not believe the school district had the statutory authority to request the fingerprinting.  The language under Section 1, subsection 3 in NRS 391.100 exempted teachers from fingerprinting by the school districts.  He explained that was because licensed teachers’ fingerprints were collected by the State Department of Education; they were the entity authorized to fingerprint, not the school district.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the CCSD adopted the regulation through the school board, which they did not have the authority to do.  They were the only school district that had the requirement, and it applied only to the 100 to 200 individuals who took a leave-of-absence.

 

Dr. Rice, Clark County School District, spoke in opposition to A.B. 660.  She said it was important the districts were aware whether a person on leave had engaged in any activity or been arrested for any felony, either drug-related or sex-related, or involved in a domestic violence event during their leave.  She emphasized this was not the time to decrease vigilance.

 

Dr. Rice briefed the committee on the CCSD’s fingerprinting policy.  She explained during the 1995 legislative session, the CCSD had advocated a change in law, which was adopted, that would notify the district if there was a subsequent arrest for a person whose fingerprints had been checked at the request of a school district prior to that arrest.  The intent was to catch people who had been fingerprinted and then subsequently arrested for an offense the school district should know about.  They found there was no record kept of whose fingerprints had been checked, and no attempt to notify a school district that there was a subsequent arrest.  When the law was changed, they found it was the western states that “fed back” to each other arrests in the various western states.  California and Arizona were not part of the compact.  In addition, since 1995, the CCSD had not been notified of one arrest, even with 25,000 employees.  From 1995 onward, the CCSD could have, under the law, been notified of a subsequent arrest if a person was fingerprinted after 1995.  In addition, there were no fingerprints for those individuals hired before 1980.  The central crime repository would not have any record of an offence outside the western compact area.  The fingerprints taken by CCSD were sent to the FBI.  She concluded by saying the CCSD had a right to know if individuals in their employment had engaged in any activity harmful to a child.  Fingerprints were all they had.  She said they could change the legislation to exclude state legislators.

 

Mr. Collins asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Bache if they were willing to consider an amendment that anyone not covered by a collective bargaining agreement for any school district in the state that testified before the Legislature be fingerprinted before returning to work.  That proposal would force the school administration to go through the fingerprinting process and see the unfairness of the requirement.

 

Chairman Williams added the question was also should district employees lobbying during the legislative session be subject to fingerprinting.

 

Mrs. de Braga asked Dr. Rice if the CCSD fingerprinted all employees every two years.  She wondered how else the school district would know whether the employee had behaved immorally.  Dr. Rice said the 1995 legislation was intended to feed back arrest information, but had not done so.  There was no mechanism in place to determine subsequent arrests because it was only a western state’s compact of which California and Arizona were not participants.  She offered that the CCSD could amend the provision to allow them to fingerprint more often, but they needed something in place for security reasons.  Recent events proved that even the security in place was not enough.  Mrs. de Braga said if fingerprinting was that vital, then all employees should be fingerprinted yearly when returning from vacation.

 

Mrs. Smith related she had a friend who was murdered by a teacher who was on vacation from another state.  She commented school districts could not solve all the problems unless you fingerprint everyone once a month, which was not reasonable.  Districts needed to look at what was prudent, reasonable, and fair to everyone involved.  She could not see judging the leave of absence as different than a summer vacation.

 

Mrs. Koivisto asked if the employees of the Edison school would be fingerprinted.  Dr. Rice replied in the affirmative.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked Dr. Rice to confirm that there was no means the state repository, which is a national clearing house with fingerprints, could not be used.  Dr. Rice explained that when the fingerprints were submitted to the Central Crime Repository, their records were checked.  The prints were forwarded to the FBI.  When people were arrested in the western states that were part of the FBI compact, the FBI notified the Nevada Crime Repository.  The fact that states outside the compact did not report information back required the CCSD to do the FBI additional check.

 

Mrs. Cegavske said there needed to be common sense relative to these situations.  Unless individuals were actually prosecuted, the school district would not know that the teacher had committed any crimes during their leave.  Dr. Rice explained arrests were also recorded.  If someone, for example, was arrested for any offense in Wyoming, as part of the western state compact, Wyoming would report back to Nevada.  However, California and Arizona were not members of the compact that Nevada accessed.  She also emphasized the CCSD had between 300 and 400 leaves of absence each year.

 

Mrs. Cegavske commented she appreciated the problems, but she felt there needed to be some type of rational recognition for what was going on.  She indicated she wanted to speak directly to the National Crime Repository because she felt that was where the problem lay.  Dr. Rice said she would be happy to meet with Mrs. Cegavske and Dennis DeBacca with the Central Crime Repository.

 

Mr. Manendo asked Dr. Rice how many days constituted an average sick leave.  She said the discussion was not about sick leave or time off for which sick leave was granted; the discussion was about people who left their positions in the district for an extended period of time and did not receive a paycheck for that period of time.  Mr. Manendo asked who paid for the fingerprinting.  Dr. Rice answered the person being fingerprinted; it was a $39 charge.

 

Mr. Collins told Dr. Rice the CCSD might not be requesting information under the correct chapter of NRS, which was why the school district had never been notified of any arrests.  Dr. Rice responded that the change of law in 1995 required the Central Crime Repository to notify districts that had previously checked on a person related to district business if that person had been arrested.  With 25,000 employees, the district could not keep checking on each employee.  If there was a subsequent “hit” for someone whose fingerprints had been checked by a school district, then the Central Crime Repository was to notify the district.

 

Ms. Von Tobel asked how substitute teachers were handled in the fingerprinting process.  She disclosed she was a substitute teacher.  As a substitute teacher, she could take herself out of the system for 120 days.  Would she be considered “on leave?”  Dr. Rice said a substitute was considered an independent contractor, and therefore, could be inactive for short periods of time.  If a teacher left substituting, however, and then wanted to return to the district, they would be fingerprinted.  The district also fingerprinted volunteer coaches and student teachers.

 

Ms. Von Tobel said she did not understand the CCSD’s reasoning because substitutes could be gone for months at a time if they chose not to put themselves in the system and not be required to fingerprint, yet individuals serving as legislators were required.  She felt elected officials should not be excluded if not everyone else was excluded.  That constituted a double standard.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said if there was a problem for the CCSD not getting “hits,” re-fingerprinting select groups of individuals would not fix that problem.  There should be a policy in place that affected everyone.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 660.  He said he would accept a motion on A.B. 409.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 409.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.  ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

********

 

Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on A.B. 660.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 660.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Before voting, Ms. Von Tobel disclosed she was a substitute teacher, but since the measure should not affect her any more than other substitute teachers, she would be voting on it.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.  ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

There being no other business to come before the committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m.

 


 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Mary Drake

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

 

 

DATE: