ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

MINUTES

OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

Seventy-First Session

April 2, 2001

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:57 p.m., on Monday, April 2, 2001. Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was also videoconferenced 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:

Assemblyman Doug Bache

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Mary Drake, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Pat Zamora, Director of Accounting, Clark County School District

Gloria Dopf, Director of Special Education, Nevada Department of Education

Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Instructional, Research and Evaluative Services, Nevada Department of Education

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

Dr. George Ann Rice, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School District

Al Bellister, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Education Association

Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Debbie Cahill, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Education Association

Thomas Rodriquez, Executive Manager for Diversity and Affirmative Action, Clark County School District

After roll call, Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 499.

Assembly Bill 499: Authorizes use of certain proceeds of bonds for continuation of pilot program for replacement of schools in certain school district. (BDR S-861)

Pat Zamora, Director of Accounting for the Clark County School District (CCSD), testified on A.B. 499. He said the CCSD was in general support of the legislation. He clarified the total number of schools designated for replacement was five, with an estimated replacement cost of $90 million. In addition, the CCSD supported changes amending the bill to increase the amount of bond proceeds used for reconstruction from $15 million to $18 million, and changing the completion date to “as soon as is practicable.” On behalf of the CCSD, Mr. Zamora asked for additional amendment incorporations into A.B. 499 that would revise NRS 387.335 to allow bond proceeds to be specifically used for the following:

Equipment of school buildings;
Furnishing of school buildings;
Equipment used for transportation of students; and
Replacement of existing school buildings.

Mr. Zamora said the CCSD bond counsel was currently preparing an amendment to incorporate those requests.

Chairman Williams commented that from his standpoint, the amendments outlined by Mr. Zamora sounded workable. He asked that Mr. Zamora submit the amendments in writing to the committee, to the attention of Mr. William’s intern, Noel Fisher. Mr. Zamora said he would comply with the request.

Chairman Williams provided background information on A.B. 499. He said the bill was a continuation of a pilot program for replacement of older school buildings within the Clark County School District financed by bond money from the school district. A.B. 499 would expand the program from one replacement school to five replacement schools. Chairman Williams said the cost increase from $15 million to $18 million for the project resulted from the need to demolish the older school buildings. The original legislation from last session [A.B. 368 from the Seventieth Session] did not anticipate the removal costs or the cost for furnishings and equipment.

Mrs. Chowning asked for clarification between A.B. 499 and a bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to replace older schools. Mrs. de Braga explained Assemblywoman Giunchigliani recently presented two bills to the committee on Ways and Means: One bill, A.B. 272, changed the Distributive School Account (DSA) distribution to allow for maintenance and repairs; the other bill, A.B. 300, created a revolving loan fund for reconstruction that assisted counties that did not have bonding capacity, or could not repay the loan. Chairman Williams added A.B. 499 was strictly directed to Clark County and did not involve state funding.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 499. Mr. Manendo asked if the committee was looking for any additional language to A.B. 499. Chairman Williams clarified there were two amendments already included in the bill; the other amendments proposed by Mr. Zamora would be forwarded to the committee by the CCSD.

Mr. Manendo said he was ready to make a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 499. He felt Clark County needed to refurbish its older neighborhood schools and bring them up to par with the new growth areas.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 499

Chairman Williams explained when there was a motion such as that one, it was not final until all committee members saw the final draft of the amendments, even though the motion might pass or fail. In a case where it passed, once the amendments were drafted, final action was pending final committee approval. Mr. Manendo said the committee needed to look at those amendments soon to get action on the bill moving. Chairman Williams asked for a second on the motion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Chowning asked Chairman Williams to restate for the committee what the amendments would conceptually be. Chairman Williams asked Mr. Zamora to restate the amendments. Mr. Zamora reiterated CCSD requested an amendment to A.B. 499 changing NRS387.335 to allow the use of bond proceeds specifically to include: equipment for school buildings, furnishings for school buildings, equipment used for the transportation of students, and the replacement of existing school buildings.

Chairman Williams asked Mr. Zamora to elaborate on the transportation item. Mr. Zamora said it referred specifically to purchasing school busses. Chairman Williams asked if that was for each individual school. Mr. Zamora said school busses were potentially used for all school buildings, not an individual school that might be covered by the bond program. Chairman Williams asked if the bond program covered transportation now. Mr. Zamora said it did not. Chairman Williams asked why CCSD was moving in that direction. Mr. Zamora explained school busses were generally a significant capital investment for the school district. The CCSD had approximately 1,050 busses. The cost of a new, full-sized school bus was a little over $100,000. Mr. Zamora said the total value of all the busses represented $100 million in capital investment at their current replacement cost. Chairman Williams asked Mr. Zamora if they would consider the possibility of looking at that change in other pieces of legislation. Mr. Zamora said he felt CCSD would be opened to that. Chairman Williams then asked Mr. Zamora to forward all amendments to the committee.

Mrs. Chowning said as the “second” of the motion, she was willing to keep equipment, furnishings, and building replacement in the motion, but she would have to delete transportation. Mr. Manendo was agreeable to the change.

Mrs. Cegavske said the premise on which the bill came forward was based on information discussed during the interim, which was the committee wanted to have a pilot school or schools that needed to be refurbished. She asked for clarification that her understanding was correct. Chairman Williams said the premise came from A.B. 368 of the Seventieth Session. A.B. 499 expanded that pilot program. Mrs. Cegavske said she did not remember discussing the equipment, furnishings, and transportation. She said even if the transportation component was removed, she still had problems with the amendment and therefore could not vote in favor of A.B. 499.

Mrs. Smith asked for clarification on the amendment changing NRS 387.335. She asked if the amendment changed how bond monies could be spent on all bonds, or just the CCSD pilot project. Chairman Williams said his understanding was the change was for that particular pilot project; the increase from $15 million to $18 million came about because the costs calculated last session for replacing the schools did not include new furnishings. He asked Mr. Zamora if that was correct.

Mr. Zamora confirmed Chairman Williams’ understanding was correct. He explained the original $15 million figure was also for construction of a new school, and did not include the demolition of the old school building.

Mrs. Smith asked again for clarification. She queried if amending the language to add equipment, supplies, and possibly transportation applied only to the bonds for the CCSD replacement project, or other bonds for other projects. Mr. Zamora said his understanding was it applied to all school bonds, including the CCSD school replacement bonds, and all current and future bonds. Mr. Zamora said in regard to those projects for which the district had already issued bonds, the CCSD must still fill the requirements of that bond issue before it could do anything additional.

Mrs. Smith said if that were the case, it opened up a bigger discussion if the committee was asked to change the way bond money could be spent in the state. She said she was not necessarily against the idea; however, she felt it changed the discussion about moving from what had been done historically to spending bond money on other items.

Chairman Williams said, as the primary sponsor of A.B. 499, he was not aware of those changes. He said the concept was to allow particular spending only in the pilot itself. It was not the intent of the legislation last session or this session to open it up to other bond issuances. Chairman Williams requested the maker of the motion and the maker of the second to withdraw the motion; the committee needed to look at the amendment and have further discussion on it.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO WITHDREW HIS MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 499.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO WITHDREW HER SECOND.

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 499. He said once the committee received the amendment, he would ensure the members had time for review. Chairman Williams asked each committee member to keep in mind it was a pilot concept; he was unaware of any attempt to open it up to other school projects.

Chairman Williams then opened the hearing on A.B. 224, which made various changes to charter schools.

Assembly Bill 224: Makes various changes regarding charter schools. (BDR 34-833)

Susan Scholley, Policy Analyst for the Committee on Education, presented A.B. 224. A copy of the written testimony was attached as Exhibit C. Exhibit D was a copy of written statement from Dr. Dotty Merrill, Government Affairs Representative with the Washoe County School District (WCSD). Dr. Merrill was unable to attend the committee meeting, and provided written testimony outlining the WCSD’s concerns with issues raised in A.B. 224.

Mrs. Scholley explained during the interim period the Legislative Committee on Education heard about several issues that had arisen with charter schools. A.B 224 provided a number of amendments to the charter school statutes to address the issues raised during the interim. A.B. 224 was a result of several meetings involving representatives of charter schools and school districts, as well as the Nevada Department of Education (NDOE). In that respect, she said, it was a consensus-type proposal. Mrs. Scholley then addressed the various sections of the bill.

She explained that Section 1 of A.B. 224 required that the application to form a charter school would now include a mechanism for removal of a governing body member for cause. She said that addressed what was believed to be an oversight in the earlier statute. Section 1 also included a requirement that a charter school application now contain an assurance the charter school would comply with all federal laws and regulations applicable to special education, and that the charter school application would include a written procedure for documenting such compliance. She advised it was felt this was necessary to address the issue that the school districts still had the primary responsibility for complying with special education regulations. The charter schools needed to provide assurances to the school district they were complying with federal regulations.

Mrs. Scholley continued that Section 3 of A.B. 224 clarified charter schools were not considered a Local Education Agency (LEA) under the federal laws relating to special education, which related back to Section 1 of A.B. 224. She explained the LEA was the entity responsible under federal law for compliance with the special education statutes. Section 3 of A.B. 224 stated what was believed to be the current view of the law, which was that charter schools, because they were sponsored by the school districts and were public schools, were not the LEA; the school districts remained and had the primary responsibility for special education compliance.

Mrs. Scholley said Section 4 clarified an existing provision of the charter school statutes that allowed for reemployment of school district employees who took a leave of absence to work at a charter school if the charter was revoked. She explained a question was raised as to whether, as written, the statute might be read to include individuals not employed by the school district prior to employment by the charter school, thus creating a right of reemployment by the school district. If there was a gap in employment between the school district and the charter school, that employee would not be eligible for reemployment.

She said Sections 5 and 6 of A.B. 224 addressed the inclusion of charter schools within the Statewide Management for Automated Records Transfer (SMART) system. Those sections clarified that charter schools would be included in the SMART system. Mrs. Scholley said if the committee members had any questions regarding the status of the appropriations for that inclusion, the Department of Education was present at the meeting to explain. It was, however, her understanding there was no appropriation involved.

Section 7 of the bill clarified that charter schools were subject to the statutory requirements currently in place for independent study programs. She said a question arose during the interim over a particular school, and whether the school was subject to independent study requirements as spelled out in the NRS; this section clarified charter schools were subject to statutory requirements.

Section 8 proposed an appropriation of $10,000 for evaluation of up to eight charter schools. The Legislative Bureau of Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation would be the entity responsible for contracting for those evaluations. The bill spelled out what the evaluation would include. It would also require that an evaluation report be submitted to the Legislature in 2003.

Mrs. Koivisto asked if the local school district was responsible for ensuring the compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Mrs. Scholley answered it was. Mrs. Koivisto asked if a charter school did not comply, who assumed the responsibility and what could happen. Mrs. Scholley said it was her understanding that would cause problems for the school district. She said the Educational Equity Team Leader from the Department of Education was present at the meeting, and could address any questions concerning that.

Chairman Williams said he also had concerns with that issue; there was nothing addressing what happened if the assurances were not maintained and the obligations were not there. Mrs. Scholley said the most obvious consequence would be the revocation of the charter; beyond that, presumably there would be some corrective action taken. She explained the NDOE was present at the meeting and could address repercussions to the school district if a member school did not comply with IDEA.

Referring back to Section 4, Chairman Williams asked why a teacher would need to take a leave of absence if the charter schools were operated and monitored by the school district. Mrs. Scholley said since she was not involved in the creation of that provision, she was not sure she could answer the question except to say charter schools were public schools, so teachers did retain their continuity under the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) in the state-wide systems. The statute was set up so teachers took a leave of absence from their current position, and had protection for a period of time to go back to that job under certain circumstances. Chairman Williams asked if that meant the employees were not then taking a leave of absence from the school district, but rather a leave of absence from their employment site. Mrs. Scholley said that was correct.

Gloria Dopf, Director of Special Education for the Nevada Department of Education and Team Leader of the Educational Equity Team, addressed Mrs. Koivisto’s question concerning consequences to the charter school and the school district for noncompliance with IDEA. She said the recommendations within the language of the bill treated the charter school as a public school site within the school district; the NDOE felt that was the governing structure the state statute set into place when charter schools were established. The federal law identified two types of relationships in governance under IDEA. One type was the type recommended, and the one the NDOE currently acted under. The other type was to make the charter school a direct district, and, as such, the charter school would then act as a district under federal law and receive money directly, have its own governance structure, and be held accountable to the state for its governance. That was not the structure recommended.

Ms. Dopf said charter schools operated as another school site within the school district and were monitored for compliance with the school district’s requirements. As with any other site circumstance, Ms. Dopf explained, if the NDOE found a noncompliance issue, it would be identified in a report to the school district, a timeframe for corrective action would be set, and a follow-up on the corrective action would be performed. Should corrective action not occur, Ms. Dopf said, there could ultimately be a withholding of state and federal funds. She noted state funds were also involved in special education, thus requiring the programs to operate under state and federal law. Withholding funds gave the school districts incentive to ensure the charter schools were in compliance or, ultimately, to consider revocation of the charter because it could jeopardize the school district’s continued receipt of funds.

Chairman Williams asked Ms. Dopf if her department had the leverage to revoke the license. Ms. Dopf said the school district, as the sponsor, could revoke the charter. Chairman Williams asked if NDOE found a violation in a charter, how could NDOE be assured the school district would revoke the license. Ms. Dopf explained the school district had the opportunity to bring the situation into compliance first. Since the school district held ultimate responsibility for ensuring federal law compliance, it could lose not only the charter school money for education, but also the district’s total special education funding if corrective action was not performed. That, she emphasized, was a large incentive for the school district to bring the site into compliance. Ms. Dopf said the NDOE also had a compliance process used for evaluation on a school, as well as the monitoring. She pointed out she had never had a site resist compliance.

Chairman Williams asked what would happen if there was a violation of the charter not directly dealing with federal dollars. Ms. Dopf said she knew there was language for the revocation of charters under specific circumstances, and she would defer to NDOE staff more knowledgeable on that topic.

Chairman Williams referred to page 3, Section 1(p) of A.B. 224 concerning charter schools offering a program of independent study, and asked if NDOE had a problem if language was included to clearly identify in detail the difference between the independent study proposal and home schools.

Dr. Keith Rheault, Assistant Superintendent, Nevada Department of Education, addressed that question. In regard to independent study, Dr. Rheault said the bill language clarified charter schools had the same authority that public school districts had in offering independent study. He said “independent study” was spelled out specifically as to what that included; it was very clear that it was not “home schooling” or “home study.” Independent study programs required a signed contract with the school district, regular weekly meetings, and other areas identified that would not be met in a home study situation. If NDOE received a charter school application where NDOE felt it was actually home schooling, they would deny the application at the state level.

Chairman Williams then asked Dr. Rheault how many charter school applications were received from local educators and community members as opposed to out-of-state applicants. Dr. Rheault said he was aware of three charter school requests from outside groups, not specifically within the district. For the most part, the other applications were at least initiated by individuals in the district. Dr. Rheault said NDOE did have some amendments for future charter school bills in current legislation [S.B. 243, S.B. 292 and S.B. 399]. NDOE would like to see some tightening up of regulations dealing with the governing bodies, fully licensed teachers within the district, and other areas.

Chairman Williams said some local school board members felt once they received the charter application from NDOE, the school board of trustees would automatically approve the application. He asked what could be done to let school board members know that the fact NDOE had forwarded the application did not automatically ensure approval by the school board.

Dr. Rheault said since 1999, and since the hiring of a half-time charter schools consultant, NDOE was now providing more in-depth information to the school districts and checking to ensure the applications met the minimum requirements of the statutes. He felt NDOE was now providing better direction to school districts. There were areas, however, where only the school boards could decide whether the charter school fit within their own districts.

Dr. Rheault then addressed Section 5 of A.B. 224 dealing with charter schools within the SMART system. He said at its last two meetings, the State Board of Education considered regulations incorporating charter schools into the SMART system. There was a difference of opinion as to who should pay the costs to sign up and purchase the software. Numbers had ranged anywhere from $10,000 to $23,000 per site license, but recent updates brought the fiscal notes closer to $40,000 for currently operating charter schools. The NDOE would recommend that the State Board of Education hold off on regulations until it was clear and specific that the legislators wanted charter schools included in the SMART system. He said Section 5 of NRS 386.650 currently read, “The system must be designed to improve the ability of the department, school districts, and the public schools in this state.” The NDOE was assuming charter schools were included in that language because they were a public school in the state. He said the inclusion of the language “including, without limitations, charter schools” as proposed in Section 5 of A.B. 224 provided cleaner language, and allowed the state board to finalize their regulations. In terms of the fiscal impact for the SMART system, Dr. Rheault said at this time the charter schools would consider it an unfunded mandate. The school districts did not want to pick up the costs either, believing it was the charter schools’ responsibility. Most of the districts did concede to providing a central location in a site both charters and the district could use to input information; however, there still was the issue of the fiscal cost of the site license for the software to input the data.

Mrs. Smith asked Dr. Rheault if every school in Washoe County had to pay the $23,000 site licensing for the SMART system. Dr. Rheault acknowledged they did; it was a one-time fee with a small cost for software updating after the first year. The NDOE did not designate what system the school districts used. The only requirement was the charter schools used the same software as the school district.

Referring to page 8, Section 7 of A.B. 224 concerning the independent study programs, Ms. Parnell asked if all high schools in Nevada offered independent study programs. Dr. Rheault said to his knowledge they did not because the wording in the statutes said “may” offer; it had to fit into the district’s plan of operation. Ms. Parnell inquired if the students in independent study programs were counted as “pupils” and therefore funded. Dr. Rheault said they were; independent study was equivalent to one course as part of the attendance policy.

Ms. Parnell voiced a concern with Section 7, subsection 3. The new language read, “a governing body that chooses to allow such study.” In terms of a governing body, she asked for an example of whom else would be responsible other than the school board of trustees. Dr. Rheault said he could not provide an example other than the governing body would now refer to the charter school, or whoever would oversee the charter school. Ms. Parnell said in looking through the bill that was the only section in which “a governing body” was referenced. She said she would speak against that section of the bill. Dr. Rheault pointed out on page 8, line 15 of Section 7, subsection 3, the wording “the governing body of a charter school” was used, so he felt that was who it referred to.

Mrs. de Braga directed Dr. Rheault to the new language in Section 1, subsection 2(e)(4) regarding the removal of a member of the governing body, and asked how the governing body was selected now, and what criteria would be used to determine whether that person should be dismissed.

Dr. Rheault conceded he would have to defer on the questions. He noted any group could form a charter; they were not elected. He thought those determinations were made when the charter was formed. The only requirement was including three licensed teachers. Mrs. de Braga said part of the problem was lack of a requirement that teachers lived or taught in the Nevada. She said she also had a problem that a board, not elected, was handling public money, and that an administrator had the ability to hire and fire those individuals. Mrs. de Braga asked who was liable if lawsuits were filed against charter schools. Addressing the last question, Dr. Rheault said he was about 99 percent confident if a charter school had a problem and was sued, the school district was not liable. He said that issue was cleared up with legislation in 1999.

Mrs. Smith asked to go back to the issue Ms. Parnell raised concerning Section 7, subsection 3, relating to independent study programs and approval by the governing body. She asked the language eventually be amended and clarified. She felt the board of trustees was the only body that could actually approve the program; the governing body of the charter school could then agree to implement the program. Mrs. Smith said the language was not very clear. She asked that the committee to take another look at it.

Dr. Rheault commented if that language were included the charter schools would then be prohibited from offering independent study if the school district was opposed to it.

Mrs. Smith said the only way she could see the charter school governing body having any real authority was if the governing body decided not to implement an independent study program approved by the board of trustees. She asked if the regulation did not already give the local school board authority to approve the independent study program.

Dr. Rheault confirmed that it did. He said the only reason amendments to Section 7, subsection 3, were added to A.B. 224 was that under the current regulations the NDOE did not believe the charter schools had the authority to offer independent study. The language in A.B. 224 was attempting to add that authority. He agreed the wording could be better, and could be cleaned up.

Mrs. Chowning told Dr. Rheault she still had a problem with the special education issue. She asked if a charter school was sued, and the school district was not held responsible, how could the school district be held responsible if the charter school did not comply with IDEA.

Dr. Rheault responded there might be exceptions, and one of those exceptions was special education. He would, however, have to review the statutes amended in 1999, which he thought held the school district harmless for most, if not all, actions that the charter schools carried out. He said he would provide additional information to the committee on that issue.

Ms. Parnell asked why a community needed independent study through the charter school if it were offered at a public high school. It seemed to her that was a very unnecessary layer.

Dr. Rheault told Ms. Parnell she was probably correct in that a home school student or charter school student could request to take part in independent study through the public high school if there was space available. He said it depended on whether it was available in the district.

Following up on Ms. Parnell’s question, Chairman Williams said one of the objectives of charter schools was to allow some flexibility, and in exchange for that flexibility, the charter schools would have the opportunity to experiment and do things differently. If successful, the traditional public schools could emulate those successes. He asked how home school independent study measured up in terms of experimentations that could be duplicated in traditional schools.

Dr. Rheault answered it could be argued if others were using the practices, it would not be considered new and innovative. Other than independent study having a place for specific students who needed to pick up a course or some other benefit, it would be the legislators’ decision whether it did or did not enhance the charter school.

Chairman Williams said he would feel more comfortable if in Section 1, subsection 2(p), requiring a written statement for independent study, the charter application specified the circumstances under which independent study would be applied.

Chairman Williams said he wanted to cover the revocation of charters issue. Under current law, there was a prescribed period of not less than thirty days during which the charter school must correct deficiencies. He suggested putting a time frame of “not more than sixty days” in that provision to prevent the corrective action from being drawn out one to two years. Dr. Rheault said that would be dependent upon the deficiency being corrected. Chairman Williams asked what types of deficiencies would require more than 90 days to correct. Dr. Rheault cited as an example fiscal deficiencies that might need correction over a series of quarters.

Dr. Craig Kadlub, legislative representative for the Clark County School District, addressed the CCSD’s concerns with A.B. 224. He said CCSD supported fine-tuning the existing charter law; however, the CCSD questioned Section 3 on page 4. He asked if the provision now made the districts responsible for due process hearings resulting from violations that occurred in charter schools, even though the district had no control over who was hired or how the programs were implemented. Dr. Kadlub also asked if districts were responsible for resolution of disputes when parents had complaints about charters. He noted existing law forbade school districts from interfering with the operation of charters, yet the new provision in Section 3 required the school district to monitor and provide direction to the charter schools if there were IDEA compliance violations. CCSD believed the provision would impose an additional burden on the district to assume responsibility for programs and staff over which the district had no control and for which they received no funding.

Dr. Kadlub’s final comment was in reference to Sections 5 and 6. Although the CCSD believed there was a necessity to include charter schools as public schools in the SMART system, there were concerns about the costs associated with the requirement, whether those costs were imposed on the school district or the charter school. He said that with two charters and four more pending in the school district, implementing the SMART system would represent a substantial unfunded mandate if districts were expected to pick up the costs.

Chairman Williams asked Dr. Kadlub if he had language in reference to his testimony. Dr. Kadlub said he did not, but he would work with Mrs. Scholley to draft the language.

Ms. Von Tobel asked Dr. Kadlub what the licensing costs were for the SMART system. Dr. Kadlub said he was told in Washoe County it was over $20,000; in Clark County he believed the minimum was $6000 per site. Hardware, training and maintenance would be ongoing expenses.

Chairman Williams asked if Clark County School District granted a charter, could the governing body of that charter school turn management responsibilities over to a private company. Dr. Kadlub said it was his understanding the department was working on some regulations that may address the relationship between a charter school and a management company. He said under the current circumstances, he believed the charter would be issued to the applicants or the governing board. It would not be CCSD’s expectation that they would, in effect, assign that responsibility. Chairman Williams said that was good to hear, and suggested some language be included in the bill to address that issue as well.

Ms. Von Tobel said she was concerned about Keystone Academy charter school in Sandy Valley. The charter school served as the high school for that community, and it was possible to put the school out of business if it were forced to pay the licensing fee.

There being no further questions, Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 224 and opened the hearing on A.B. 380.

Assembly Bill 380: Revises provisions governing educational personnel. (BDR 34-1272)

Assemblyman Bache, District 11, presented A.B. 380. He explained on page 2 of the bill, a new paragraph was added to Section 3 of NRS 391.160. Previous legislative changes allowed teachers to move from one school district to another and retain the same salary schedule. However, because of the differences in salary schedules between districts, there was a gap. The new language was added as paragraph (c) to read, “Place the teacher on the schedule of salaries of the school district in a classification that is comparable to the classification the teacher had attained on the schedule of salaries of his former employer.” Assemblyman Bache said the language was intended to try and address comparable steps between school districts.

Assemblyman Bache continued Section 2 added new language to NRS 391.31965 dealing with post-probationary teachers who had left the district and returned to a school district. The amendment allowed that a post-probationary employee who voluntarily left employment, and within five years after that date was rehired by any school in a comparable position, not be required to serve the probationary period. Assemblyman Bache noted he had added a caveat to Section 2, subsection 2, which was the provision did not apply to a post-probationary employee who voluntary left employment during the pendency of a proceeding for the suspension, demotion, dismissal or refusal to reemploy the post-probationary employee.

Ms. Parnell asked Assemblyman Bache if there was any bill pending that addressed the situation of a school district not being able to fund the five percent increase guaranteed in the 1999 legislation for teachers holding a certification issued by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Assemblyman Bache said he was unaware of any bill to that effect.

Mrs. Angle said when she sat on a school board, she found there were problems with teachers transferring at the same level. Some teachers did not transfer because of loss of benefits, and some school districts did not want teachers transferring in because they had to pay more for an experienced teacher. She asked Assemblyman Bache to expand on how the new provision in NRS 391.160 would affect the hiring situation. Assemblyman Bache answered he did not feel the new language in Section 1, subsection 3(c) affected the hiring of teachers in the state because there were provisions giving teachers credit for previous teaching service received from a former employer within the state.

Dr. George Ann Rice, Assistant Superintendent with the Clark County School District, addressed Ms. Parnell’s question concerning the 5 percent increase for teacher certification through the National Boards. She said there were two other bills before the 71^st Legislature [S.B. 140 and S.B. 148] that addressed the September 15 deadline called for in NRS 391.160. That section currently provided the school district may not pay a teacher who gained the certification unless they had notified the school district of current certification by September 15. A bill proposal in the 71^st Session [S.B. 148] changed the date to January, allowing the school district to pay the teachers who had gained the certification in the current year.

Chairman Williams asked Dr. Rice if A.B. 380 would help the Clark County School District. Dr. Rice said it had no substantial benefit because the CCSD recognized the salaries of those employees hired from other Nevada counties.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, District 9, spoke in support of A.B. 380. She first addressed the issue brought up by Dr. Rice and Ms. Parnell concerning the 5 percent certification pay for teachers. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the language in NRS 391.160 did not recognize how universities and colleges issued transcripts. The committee might wish to change the language in A.B. 380 in Section 1, subsection 2(a) and strike “on or before September 15 of the school year” and change the language to read, “the teacher has submitted evidence.” The same change could be made in Section 1, subsection 2(b).

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the intent of A.B. 380 was that employees should at least make the same dollar amount they had within their original position when transferring, regardless of what the “lane change” title was. The bill was attempting to recognize that teachers in Nevada should not be penalized because they moved from one county to the other.

Referring back to her previous question, Mrs. Angle said her experience in Nye County was they could not afford some teachers because they needed a higher rate of pay. She asked if the bill made it harder for school districts to hire who they wanted, and for teachers to get employment and have that versatility of moving throughout the state.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani agreed with Mrs. Angle that there could be a barrier. She noted teaching was one of the few professions where years of experience were not recognized. She also acknowledged there would be a fiscal impact, which would be a part of the funding debate this legislative session. She emphasized, however, that experience needed to be recognized, and she had to rely on the districts to treat teachers equitably.

Chairman Williams posed the question if a teacher with fifteen years of experience could accept fewer years if they chose to if the district could not afford the salary. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that by current contract, they could. She said on an average, most counties only counted five years of experience when teachers come in.

Dr. Rice had additional testimony on A.B 224. She pointed out that in terms of equivalency, recognizing a masters degree of a teacher from another school district would mean that CCSD would be recognizing something that, under current negotiated agreement, they would not be doing for their own county teachers with the same equivalency. She added Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s efforts to recognize years of experience would help in the teacher recruitment effort, and the CCSD supported both the concept and the effort in A.B. 380. It would, however, require substantial funding.

The CCSD did a short study to determine the fiscal impact to the district by recognizing both five and ten years of experience. The CCSD found it would cost $14 million just to recognize the ten years of experience for both staff hired this year and teachers previously hired who were not yet up to the ten years, even though there was equivalent experience in other districts

Mrs. Angle asked Dr. Rice if each school district negotiated its own employee contracts. Dr. Rice answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Angle questioned if it would not be better to have the State Department of Education negotiate all contracts across the board. Dr. Rice said she felt the teachers and administrators would have a great deal of difficulty turning over the obligation to someone outside the county.

Chairman Williams asked Mrs. Angle to clarify whom she suggested do the negotiations. She proposed if the State Board of Education negotiated for the 17 counties, that would allow everything to be uniform throughout the state, which seemed to be the direction the state was moving toward. She felt it made more fiscal sense to make it uniform. The districts would not have to hire negotiating teams, which would allow cost savings.

Al Bellister with the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) spoke in support of A.B. 380. He directed the committee’s attention to page 3 of A.B. 380. NSEA felt the change in Section 2, subsection 2, which struck the word “another” and replaced it with “any” was a significant change. The change from “another” to “any” allowed teachers to leave the employment of one district, return to that district after a one to two year leave, and retain their post-probationary status. Mr. Bellister reiterated NSEA supported the measure.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if this measure provided any help to substitute teachers. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the bill did not include substitutes. Substitutes were not recognized in most of the statutes; it was up to each school board to determine salary rates for substitutes.

Mrs. Cegavske asked why A.B 380 did not address the issue of teachers coming from other states. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said it was partially because of the fiscal impact addressed by Dr. Rice. It was more of a glitch that was not caught when making certain reciprocity was offered within the state for transferring. There would be another bill dealing with out-of-state teachers. In answer to Mrs. Angle’s question, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she did appreciate the issue of negotiations, and she would be amenable to amending the bargaining law to go back to the original bargaining law of 1969, establishing the bargaining issues as wages, hours and working conditions. That was what every other employee union in Nevada bargained under except teachers. She then could support delineating certain basics that had to be contained within a negotiated agreement, regardless of the county. She said Mrs. Angle’s point was well taken that there should be some consistencies with negotiations.

Chairman Williams said he would accept a motion on A.B. 380.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOTIONED TO DO PASS.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if the bill was being referred to Ways and Means; the fiscal note on the bill indicated an effect on local government. Chairman Williams said there was not a concurrent referral. Mrs. Cegavske said she was uncertain if the Clark County School District was in favor of the measure. Chairman Williams said CCSD supported the bill. Assemblyman Bache said he would point out the fiscal note to Chairman Arberry of the Committee on Ways and Means and ask if he wanted to review the bill. Chairman Williams said if Ways and Means wanted to review the bill, the Committee on Education would rerefer.

Mrs. Chowning, following Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s suggestion, offered that in Section 1, subsection 2(a), the words “on or before September 15 of the school year” be deleted; the paragraph would start, “The teacher has submitted evidence.”

Assemblyman Bache said he would support that amendment. Dr. Rice said she wanted to point out that the unfunded mandate related to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s bill for out-of-district recognition of experience had a major fiscal note.

Assemblyman Bache related that Mr. Bellister had just apprised him the amendment proposed by Mrs. Chowning was taken care of in other legislation [S.B. 140 and S.B. 148], so it need not be dealt with here. Assemblyman Bache felt it would be cleaner not to add that amendment to A.B. 380.

Mrs. de Braga wanted further clarification on the fiscal note for A.B. 380. She asked if it would create a substantial financial burden to the local school districts if passed. Assemblyman Bache said he did not believe it would impact the local districts substantially. The impact, he said, would depend on whom the school district hired and where they were from. He said when the school district hired the individual, the district would know up front they were taking that financial impact with them. Chairman Williams added if there was a potential financial burden, the school district would have the right not to offer the contract. Assemblyman Bache further added, as stated by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, the district had the ability to offer the position at a lower contractual rate on the salary schedule.

Chairman Williams called for a vote on the motion to do pass A.B. 380.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (MRS. SMITH WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

Chairman Williams opened the hearing on A.B. 214.

Assembly Bill 214: Establishes certain requirements pertaining to certain examinations administered in public schools and reporting of alleged irregularities concerning such examinations. (BDR 34-836)

Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst with the Legislative Counsel Bureau, made the presentation on A.B. 214. He provided a written copy of his testimony (Exhibit E) and a written copy of the background for potential amendments to A.B. 214 (Exhibit F). Dr. Dotty Merrill, Government Affairs Representative with the Washoe County School District (WCSD), was unable to attend the committee meeting, and provided written testimony in support of A.B. 214, which included a copy of A Primer for Testing: Policies andProfessional Expectations, 2000-2001 for the Washoe County School District (Exhibit G).

Mr. Sturm explained he was present to provide background information on A.B. 214, which was a result of an interim study and was concerned with test security issues. During the interim, the Legislative Committee on Education heard testimony on test security issues, and data was presented to the committee concerning various test security breaches and test irregularities. Mr. Sturm outlined the incidents of test security breaches presented to the committee:

Ten security breaches since 1996 on the TerraNova test, not including seven incidents of test irregularity;
Twenty-nine breaches in security with the high school proficiency exam, not including two incidents of test irregularities;
Several reports of compromise pertaining to the administration of the Nevada Proficiency exams, which included four reports received in reference to the high school proficiency exam and two reports with regard to TerraNova.

Mr. Sturm continued the committee heard testimony and endorsed the concept that the use of student test results for comparative purposes automatically raised the issue of improper releases of copies of test and the need for improved test security. Mr. Sturm emphasized the Nevada school districts took the issue of test security very seriously because it dealt with the honesty and integrity of staff members.

Mr. Sturm said another purpose of a student assessment program was to provide schools and students with a true picture of academic achievement and to improve the quality of learning. Mr. Sturm stressed the only way to accomplish that goal was through reliable data. He said breaches of test security might affect schools’ test results, but they might also affect individual students, and the parents who believed the scores were a true representation of ability when, in fact, they might not be. Mr. Sturm noted with the high school proficiency test, in particular, the student who needed remediation might not receive help because the test scores did not indicate that need.

Mr. Sturm explained that A.B 214 consisted of three separate major issues, all relating to testing. The first portion of the bill required state and school districts to establish specific plans for testing irregularities. The second issue contained in the bill concerned the application of penalty clauses for late reports from test vendors. The third component provided whistle-blower protection for personnel reporting test irregularities.

Mr. Sturm said the members of the Legislative Committee on Education heard testimony on the efforts in other states to protect test security. The most effective method of avoiding test security breaches was prevention. The NDOE issued a test security publication called Test Security Procedures for Nevada Proficiency Examinations in an effort to strengthen test security. The latest report was reviewed by the Legislative Committee on Education on August 19, 1999. That and other related documents constituted the state’s plan for testing security.

On November 10, 1999, Legislative Council Bureau staff polled all seventeen school districts with respect to test administration and test security policies and procedures in place at the district level. Of the eleven districts responding, four districts had no policies or procedures in place regarding test administration or test security. Mr. Sturm said among the districts that did not respond there might be additional districts lacking policies and procedures.

Mr. Sturm then addressed the section of A.B. 214 dealing with state and district plans. He said at the state level, security procedures might not be sufficient to protect test security. Mr. Sturm said that Sections 2, 4 and 7 of A.B. 214 required that the NDOE and each school district’s board of trustees establish and enforce a plan containing test security procedures for all statewide and district-wide student achievement tests. The plans must include plans for reporting possible testing security and administration irregularities. Procedures must be included to ensure the security of test materials and, for secondary schools, the method by which school districts would verify the identity of students taking statewide proficiency exams. As provided under Sections 2, 4, and 25 of A.B. 214, copies of the plans and procedures would be submitted to the State Board of Education and to the Legislative Committee on Education on an annual basis.

Further, A.B. 214 provided school districts and the NDOE may compel witnesses to provide information when they investigate such matters. Those provisions were found in Sections 3 and 5 of A.B. 214.

Mr. Sturm continued Section 23 and 24 provided that the willful neglect or failure to observe and carry out the requirements of the test security plan was grounds for disciplinary action for teachers and other licensed employees.

Mr. Sturm addressed the second component of the bill, which was the penalty clause for late reports. That arose from concerns expressed by the Clark County School Districts about long turn-around times between the date tests were sent to the vendors for scorings, and the time the individual student scores were then received by the districts. For high stakes testing, time was of the essence in providing needed remedial assistance to students prior to the next test administration. Mr. Sturm stressed that the NDOE should enforce those provisions currently in the vendor contracts containing penalty clauses for late deliveries. To that end, the Legislative Committee on Education included a provision in Section 6 of A.B. 214 that required the NDOE to enforce any pertinent penalty and sanction set forth in contracts for late delivery of test results by the test vendor.

The final portion of the bill dealt with whistle blower protections. The members of the committee heard testimony alleging significant school-wide incidents of test cheating and workplace pressures from school administrators to teach to the test. Those persons testifying also argued many school employees, students, and other persons were reluctant to come forward with allegations without some sort of statutory whistle blower protections such as those that applied to state employees. The committee agreed that test security breaches were harmful to students, parents and schools, and to the integrity of the accountability system; there should be clear protections for school district employees balanced with disincentives for providing untruthful information. The committee agreed to use the key provisions of the state employee whistle blower law and apply it to district employees making reports concerning test security breaches or testing irregularities. Based on those concerns, the committee recommended that Sections 10 through 22 of A.B. 214 provided whistle blower protections. Those provisions included:

· A declaration of public policy that encouraged disclosure and protected the rights of the employee (Section 16);

· Prohibiting district employees influencing or interfering with such disclosures (Section 17);

· Providing for a hearing process to be conducted by the State Board of Education concerning appeals filed alleging reprisal or retaliation occurring within two years of a disclosure (Section 18);

· Prohibiting the use of disclosure statutes to harass another employee (Section 20);

· Providing that disciplinary action against employee for untruthful information about alleged improper government was not prohibited (Section 20);

· Providing each employee annually with a summary of the disclosure law (Section 21);

· Defining the effect upon criminal law (Section 22).

Mrs. Chowning asked why the bill did not have a fiscal note on the state, since the bill required the State Department of Education to do several things. She said she supported all the bill was trying to accomplish. She commented on the need for school districts to implement a student ID program to prevent students taking tests for other students. Mrs. Chowning felt teachers were reluctant to come forward because of the lack of whistle blower protection.

Chairman Williams said he believed the Clark County School District was developing a plan to address the student identification issue. He then passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Parnell who chaired the meeting.

Mrs. Cegavske said she thought it had been made very clear that the Legislative Committee on Education wanted some form of student identification and questioned if the bill provided any provisions for that. Mr. Sturm said there was a provision in the bill requiring secondary schools administering the high school proficiency exam to develop a way to verify the identity of a student.

Mr. Sturm reviewed the staff findings adopted by the committee and forwarded to the Assembly Committee Education in the form of amendments to the original bill. Mr. Sturm outlined the findings:

District staff had not received adequate training;

Most of the incidents of test security and irregularity involved staff lapses in following protocols already in place;

Reports of incidents were timely, although test administrators were often informed prior to state administrators;

Certain investigative protocols needed to be established, and consideration should be given to providing for uniform disciplinary procedures.

Mr. Sturm continued, stating the twelve findings of the report (Exhibit F) were divided into two different categories, eight of which could be accomplished in statute, four of which might be better handled in a letter of intent from the committee. He reviewed the eight findings to be covered by statute:

The Legislative Committee on Education recommended statute amendments, primarily in Section 2 of A.B. 214, requiring school districts to establish policies and procedures delineating specific duties, responsibilities, and steps to take during the investigative process for a potential irregularity in testing administration and security, and identifying which administrator, department, or agency was responsible for a specific procedure in that process.

Requiring within statutes, primarily in Section 4, that school districts inform students and personnel involved in the testing process concerning the full spectrum of consequences to employees and students for irregularities in testing administration and testing security, and to provide that information in a readable format such as was used in the State of Wisconsin (Exhibit F).

Requiring by statute the districts pay the cost to retest students in schools for which the Nevada Department of Education found a consistent pattern of irregularities in testing security or testing administration. Mr. Sturm said there was a parallel provision requiring retesting in the accountability law for schools that consistently tested less than 90 percent of their eligible students.

Requiring by statute that the NDOE develop objective criteria to determine the conditions under which schools or districts must file corrective action plans for irregularities in testing security and testing administration. Mr. Sturm said the NDOE required by its own administrative procedures that districts fill out the corrective action plans. That would now codify it in statute. The districts must file corrective plans with the NDOE, and the NDOE would establish a reporting process to document the implementation and outcome for school districts in which said plans were required.

Requiring by statute the NDOE documentation established a uniform system to document and monitor the status of reports or irregularities in testing security or testing administration. Mr. Sturm said the status of the NDOE records needed organization. He said the records of investigation should be professionally prepared and maintained.

Requiring that the NDOE review and approve the statewide test prep program so that all test prep materials were consistent among the districts to ensure the actual tests were not inadvertently incorporated into test prep materials. In addition, the department must establish a uniform policy regarding the amount of time spent on state proficiency test preparation. Mr. Sturm said that was a big issue with the members upon learning some districts spent a lot of time in test prep. Schools would often provide their own test prep packets and some had inadvertently included the actual tests in error.

The NDOE must establish a training program for test administration and test security for the statewide proficiency program. School districts must ensure that all district personnel involved in state testing received the training annually, and that training was available for teachers of nontested grades and for other personnel.

Requiring by statute that the NDOE create an end-of-school-year report indicating the number and type of irregularities in testing administration and testing security by type of exam, as well as corrective actions taken. The report should include the status of actions from incidents first reported in previous school years. The NDOE must submit the report to the State Board of Education and Legislative Committee on Education by January 1 of each year.

Mr. Sturm then outlined the remaining four findings that could be covered by a Letter of Intent from the Assembly and Senate Committees processing the bill:

Procedures listed as “recommended” for school sites in the Test Security Procedures for Nevada Proficiency Examinations (Attachment B, Exhibit F) would be better if made mandatory. Mr. Sturm said if the procedures were required instead of recommended, many of the test irregularities could have been avoided. He also suggested the NDOE clarify reporting requirements and timelines and provide that information to district staff.

The NDOE should establish a mechanism for soliciting suggestions from school site personnel responsible for testing in order to improve the test administration process.

The NDOE should take steps to ensure that any test shipments from the NDOE were properly packaged and counted.

The NDOE, in consultation with the school districts, examine whether there were intermediate disciplinary actions for personnel concerning irregularities involving testing security.

Mrs. Chowning said she wanted to raise a caution on Attachment A to Exhibit F, which was an excerpt from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s Guidelines for Appropriate Testing Procedures. She said one of the sanctions mentioned for educator violation of security measures was “public embarrassment.” She spoke against using that type of a sanction in Nevada.

Mrs. Cegavske said A.B. 214 was one of the best bills she had seen. She said the issues covered in the presentation and addressed in the bill were things the committee thought were being done all along, which reinforced some of the public concerns heard by the committee.

Vice Chairman Parnell noted the committee received written comments from Washoe County School District (Exhibit G) showing no opposition to A.B. 214.

Debbie Cahill, Legislative Representative with the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), said on page 3, Section 4 of A.B. 214, NSEA wanted some type of requirement that proper notification to school district employees be made and that training was provided. She indicated those concerns were addressed in the amendments presented by Mr. Sturm. NSEA felt some of the breaches addressed in Mr. Sturm’s presentation resulted from a lack of training and information on the policy.

Ms. Cahill raised a question on page 3, Section 4, subsection 4(b) regarding “irregularity in testing administration.” She asked if there had been any discussions or record of what vendor expectations were.

Ms. Cahill also addressed page 9, Section 14, subsection 3, covering the issuance of the letters of reprimand. She said NSEA would like to see the addition of the word “admonition,” with the subsection, which would then read: “The issuance of letters of reprimand, admonition, or evaluations of poor performance.” She proposed that change as another amendment.

NSEA also wanted to address page 12, Section 23, subsection 1(r). The new language states “willful neglect”; NSEA wanted an explanation of that term. In a discussion with Mindy Braun, Educational Program Analyst with the Legislative Council Bureau, it was felt the wording could be interpreted as an intentional act and not an inadvertent act; NSEA would feel more comfortable with a clarification to that language in both Section 23 and Section 24. NSEA requested the language be changed to read, “willful or intentional act to violate the requirements of a plan to ensure the security of examinations adopted pursuant to Section 2 or 4 of this act.”

Dr. Rheault addressed the committee in support of A.B. 214. He felt the NDOE could live up to everything requested in the bill. The NDOE strongly supported Section 3, which gave them subpoena power. They did ask that in Section 8, subsection 2(c), which required the NDOE to monitor the compliance of school districts and individual schools, some expectations on the intent of the monitoring be included. He read it as a physical body doing unannounced visits to school sites when testing was being conducted to check on compliance. He felt there could be less formal monitoring, such as announced visits on random site selection or phone calls. He said the fiscal note the NDOE provided with A.B. 214 to a large extent covered the monitoring requirement and assumed the monitoring component took on travel and staff time.

Mrs. Cegavske asked Dr. Rheault what the NDOE had done to monitor testing throughout the state. Dr. Rheault answered the NDOE had either monthly or every six weeks met with the testing directors; in addition, the NDOE staff and auditors performed site checks. They did not, however, go out every testing period and monitor the testing process.

Mrs. Cegavske asked Dr. Rheault to clarify that the NDOE had never gone out and monitored sites in the state. He said they had monitored by spot checks at school sites; however, the language in A.B. 214 seemed to indicate the NDOE monitor consistently all the time in order to issue a report. Mrs. Cegavske said the language said the NDOE should monitor the compliance of the school districts and individual schools with the plan adopted by the department. Dr. Rheault said the NDOE had no issue with developing and adopting a plan for monitoring; his concern was the need to do actual site checks during the administration of the test to determine if the plan was being followed. Mrs. Cegavske said she could not understand why it seemed so complex. To her understanding, the language only asked the NDOE to develop a plan; the legislators were attempting to provide leeway to the NDOE in developing that plan.

Dr. Kadlub, legislative representative for Clark County School District (CCSD), testified that the CCSD was in full support of A.B. 214.

Vice Chairman Parnell closed the hearing on A.B. 214 and said she would accept a motion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 214,

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. de Braga asked if the amendments answered the questions about proper notification and the concerns raised by the NDOE on the intent of Section 8, subsection 2(c), with site monitoring; she also questioned if the amendments addressed NSEA’s request to add “admonition” in Section 14, subsection 3, and NSEA’s concerns with the wording in Section 4, subsection 4(b) concerning “irregularity in testing administration” and Section 23, subsection 1(r) regarding “willful neglect.” Mrs. de Braga thought the issue about proper notification and training was already incorporated as an amendment.

Mrs. Cegavske said her motion to amend and do pass only included the staff amendments as presented by Mr. Sturm.

Mrs. Koivisto asked if the committee would consider the amendments suggested by Ms. Cahill for NSEA. Chairman Parnell clarified the motion only included staff amendments. Mrs. Cegavske said the only additional amendment she would agree to was the amendment proposed by NSEA requesting the addition of “admonition” in Section 14, subsection 3. There were no other amendment requests raised that had actual language spelled out, with the exception of the amendment addressing “willful neglect.”

Vice Chairman Parnell asked Mrs. Cegavske as the maker of the motion if she was then willing to add the NSEA amendment change to Section 14, subsection 3, and Section 23, subsection 1(r).

Mrs. Chowning said the amendment proposal by NSEA split apart the term “willful neglect,” and further defined it to mean “willful or intentional act.”

Mrs. Cegavske said her understanding was NSEA wanted the language defined by LCB Legal Division. There was a question about the interpretation or clarification of the term.

Susan Scholley said her understanding of the issue was whether it would be “intentional” versus defining the term “willful neglect” more carefully. Ms. Cahill, who was out of the meeting room, returned to explain NSEA proposed the wording change to “a willful or intentional act to violate the requirements of a plan to ensure the security of examinations.” She said that language change was requested in both Section 23, subsection 1(r) and Section 24, subsection 9.

Vice Chairman Parnell said she would return to the main motion and include, as part of the amendments, changes on page 12 referencing “willful neglect”; changes on page 9, subsection 3, adding the word “admonition”; changes on page 3 regarding notification and training; and the staff changes.

Mrs. Cegavske said as the maker of the motion she agreed on the changes clarified by Ms. Cahill.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

Vice Chairman Parnell then introduced Tom Rodriquez, Executive Manager of Diversity and Affirmative Action for the Clark County School District (CCSD), who made the presentation on the CCSD’s Diversity and Affirmative Action Program. Mr. Rodriquez made his presentation from the Grant Sawyer Building in Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit H was a written copy of his presentation, with charts illustrating the demographic breakdown of the student population in the CCSD.

Mr. Rodriquez said the CCSD was a leader in the area of affirmative action. The CCSD was one of the most racially and ethnically diverse employers in the state of Nevada. He said the CCSD had a workforce of 22,300 employees. Of those employees, the following breakdown illustrated the diversity of the workforce:

26.9 percent of the workforce was minority;

72.7 percent of employees were female;
31.7 percent of minority employees were in the administrative ranks;
57.8 percent of employees in administrative ranks were female;
18 percent of licensed employees were minority.

He said some factors which had a negative effect on the school district’s ability to recruit teachers was the low enrollment of minorities in the teaching program; noncompetitive teacher salaries; and the lack of incentives to offer teachers.

Mr. Rodriquez then addressed the issue of diversity in the student population. He said in the 1980-81 school year, there were 87,242 students enrolled in the CCSD. In the current 2000-2001 school year, that figure was 231,000 students. In comparing the diversity of the student population, in the 1980-81 school year, there were only 20,762 minority students enrolled; in the current school year, that figure rose to 115,815 minority students.

He said statistically, the most dramatic growth in the student population was the Hispanic and Asian student population. In the 1980-81 school year, there were only 4636 Hispanic students; in the current school year the enrollment was 66,646. The Asian student population in the 1980-81 school year was 2116 students; in the current school year, enrollment was 15,176 students. Black students increased in number from 13,218 in 1980-81 to 32,200 in the current school year.

In conclusion, Mr. Rodriquez said he believed the CCSD had done a remarkable job in all diversity and affirmative action areas.

Mrs. Chowning thanked Mr. Rodriquez for his statistics and commented the information provided the committee much more accurate numbers. It also illustrated how underserved the Hispanic student population was, along with the Asian students.

Mr. Rodriquez referred Mrs. Chowning to the charts attached to Exhibit H which he said illustrated the population changes in Clark County and all of Nevada within the last twenty years. He said those figures paralleled the 2000 census numbers.

Chairman Williams asked Mr. Rodriquez if he had documentation on how the numbers fluctuated in the past twenty years in the breakdown of employees, and if there was any information in reference to employee promotions.

Mr. Rodriquez said there had been a proportionate increase in the number of teachers within the school district over the past twenty years relative to the growth in the student population.

Chairman Williams asked if there was any information within the last seven years relative to employee promotions. He said he wanted to see how employees had fared in terms of career building within the CCSD. Mr. Rodriquez said in terms of administration, 31.7 percent were minorities, which was phenomenally high. In terms of support staff, there were 41.4 percent minorities. The numbers were lower for licensed employees; however, given the factors that influenced licensed employees, which were predominately teachers, the CCSD was fortunate to have that high of a percentage.

Chairman Williams said given the difficulty of teacher recruitment and lack of other incentives, he felt the only way to compete was to promote existing employees when the opportunities arose. He said because of the diversity of the student population, it might be better to have employees working with students that understood the culture, and spoke and looked as the students did.

Mr. Rodriquez said it might be difficult to raise the number of Hispanic and Asian employees given the rapid growth rates in those population areas. The CCSD was in danger of losing ground in those areas because of the lack of incentives.

Chairman Williams said background culture sometimes hindered the involvement of some parents in school activities. Since almost every issue the committee addressed included some form of parental involvement, the committee needed the type of information Mr. Rodriquez provided.

Mr. Rodriquez said another issue hindering parental involvement was the lack of education with the parents. Reaching those parents and involving them in their children’s education was part of the challenge in keeping students in school.

Vice Chairman Parnell thanked Mr. Rodriquez for the presentation and informed the committee A.B. 659, scheduled to be heard at the meeting, would be heard at the April 4 committee meeting.

Assembly Joint Resolution 1: Urges President and Congress of United States to increase federal funding for special education to level authorized by Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (BDR R-924)

Vice Chairman Parnell said the committee would do a work session on A.J.R. 1 concerning the funding for special education. She asked for a motion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOTIONED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 1.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

Vice Chairman Parnell adjourned the meeting at 6:38 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Mary Drake

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman

DATE: