MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-First Session
February 28, 2001
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, February 28, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Valerie Wiener
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko County Assembly District No. 33
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst
Cynthia Cook, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Marcia R. Bandera, Superintendent, Elko County School District
Danny A. Gonzales, Director, Institutional Research and Assessment, Great Basin College
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Steve Williams, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Barbara Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teachers Association
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Dotty L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women’s Lobby
David L. Howard, Lobbyist
Ricci Elkins, Lobbyist, Alliance for Children’s Educational Excellence
Penny Brock, Concerned Citizen
Dr. John Gwaltney, Member, State Board of Education and State Board for Occupational Education, Department of Education
Theresa Malone, Member, State Board of Education and State Board for Occupational Education, Department of Education
Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 127.
SENATE BILL 127: Authorizes certain school districts to carry out demonstration projects in lieu of complying with class-size reduction program. (BDR S-172)
Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko County Assembly District No. 33, stated the Elko County School District class-size reduction demonstration project for Grades 1 through 6 is working well, and he fully supports S.B. 127.
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, presented an overview of the class-size reduction program. Referring to a report titled, “Background Paper 01-2 Nevada’s Class Size Reduction Program,” prepared by the Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.), Mr. Sturm said page 7 of the report summarizes the six evaluation studies done to date. Page 2 of the report features a table displaying actual pupil-to-teacher ratios, and page 5 refers to the program costs. Mr. Sturm said by the end of the fiscal year, Nevada would have expended approximately $571 million for direct costs of funding the class-size reduction program. In the most recent report from the Clark County district for fourth grade students, the Legislative Counsel Bureau looked at two elements, classroom configuration and teacher characteristics.
Marcia R. Bandera, Superintendent, Elko County School District, referred to a report titled “Elko County School District Class-size Reduction Demonstration Project” (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.), which was prepared by Great Basin College with assistance from the Legislative Bureau of Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation. In 1999, the Legislature authorized the Elko County School District to use class-size reduction funding to carry out a demonstration project in fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.
Danny A. Gonzales, Director, Institutional Research and Assessment, Great Basin College, offered a slide presentation outlining the implementation and evaluation of the class-size reduction project in Elko County. The result is an objective third-party observation to examine the effectiveness of the reduction, and report to the Elko County school trustees. Mr. Gonzales continued that the baseline information could be used for further studies. The methodology used for the study included classroom observations, test scores, parent focus group sessions, teacher interviews, principal interviews, teacher surveys, teacher journals, and student cumulative cards.
Ms. Bandera explained the fiscal notes included in Exhibit D reports $8544 spent for teacher training. The money was obtained from a special revenue fund provided by the federal government. Fiscal year 2000 required the addition of eight modular classrooms leased at a cost of approximately $860 each per month. Total cost related to implementing the demonstration project is $655,248, she said.
Mr. Gonzales reported that results of classroom observations reveal many of the goals of lowering classroom size are occurring; however, there is little evidence that first and second grade class sizes of 16:1, pupil-to-teacher ratio, performing better in testing than students who have had first and second grade class sizes of 22:1, pupil-to-teacher ratio. Parent focus group sessions show the majority of parents believe reduced class-size and student-teacher ratios were advantageous. Mr. Gonzales continued, teacher interviews conducted in March 2000, indicated that Grades 1 and 2 were more likely to see positive or no effects. During the teacher interviews in December 2000, the teachers noted a positive-effect increase. The majority of principal interviews reflect a positive effect associated with reduced class size. Mr. Gonzales said the evaluation recommends the continuation of the Elko County class-size reduction demonstration project, with research assistance from Great Basin College, Nevada Department of Education, and Legislative Counsel Bureau, and to require the Elko County School District to disseminate the report and findings to all of the school districts in Nevada.
Ms. Bandera stated the Board of Trustees, Elko County School District, wish to follow the recommendations, and report to the Legislature in 2003, with interim reports as necessary. In answer to a question by Senator Schneider, Ms. Bandera said there was no difference in performance based upon school size. However, there are three schools that have a significant population of students with English language learning challenges.
Chairman Rawson commented that this modified study is for a 22:1 pupil-to- teacher ratio, Grades 1 through 6. The report indicates class-size reduction is worthwhile. Ms. Bandera agreed. Chairman Rawson asked if fewer new classrooms would be necessary under the 22:1 pupil-to-teacher ratio for Grades 1 through 6, than 16:1 pupil-to-teacher ratio, Grades 1 through 3. Ms. Bandera answered she did not know, but such a projection could be prepared. Chairman Rawson inquired if higher grades have been considered. Ms. Bandera responded there has been a great deal of interest expressed by parents of students included in the study who are moving up to the seventh and eighth grades.
Senator Washington testified that the study reinforces the theory that if school districts have flexibility, they are creative. If such a program is successful in Elko County, it should be successful statewide.
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, and Steve Williams, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, affirmed their support for S.B. 127. Mr. Williams commented flexibility for each district should be expanded beyond the 22:1 student-teacher ratio.
Chairman Rawson inquired how far the district would like to go with that idea. Mr. Williams responded that the pilot program in Elko has been successful, and other districts may come up with some innovative pilot programs.
Chairman Rawson articulated a willingness to look at alternatives; however, the state must be careful not to lose ground, since initial funding depended upon a 16:1 student-teacher ratio. He expressed a potential danger about moving too fast and losing what has been gained. Chairman Rawson invited others to come forward to evaluate the effect of any plans.
Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, testified that the district supports the concept of the bill, but would suggest the language should offer greater flexibility. She suggested a variation between a 16:1 student-teacher ratio to a 22:1 student-teacher ratio.
Chairman Rawson said that during all of the discussion on class size, one idea put forward was to have a smaller ratio in reading and mathematics, and a larger one for other classes. He added that each district must face the facility problem. If existing classes average 30 children, 16 children will require two classrooms, or double the facilities.
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, testified in opposition to S.B. 127. She stated although the association realizes the facility problems, it is reluctant to abandon the original class-size reduction. The association supported the Elko project because it was laid out completely in advance, which provided a level of comfort. Ms. Cahill continued, instead of telling each district “here is the money, now go and do a pilot program,” the districts should be required to put forth proposals. The association supports flexibility, but believes the Legislature should have oversight, and not just turn the money loose.
Chairman Rawson said he is also not comfortable with the concept of just turning over the funding. He said he supported the Elko project, since they felt so strongly about it they were able to present their idea successfully. He reminded the committee that the original concept for class-size reduction was 15:1 student-teacher ratio for Kindergarten through Grade 3, and the next step was a 20:1 student-teacher ratio, with a maximum of a 25:1 student-teacher ratio anywhere. This was stopped by a lack of resources, and the will of the Legislature to be that courageous.
Barbara Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teacher Association, stated the association has the same concerns about S.B. 127 as those expressed by Ms. Cahill and Chairman Rawson.
Chairman Rawson noted the Elko County School District has taken a step ahead of the rest of the state. It is known there are classrooms in the state that have 30 or more students, and this is not the way to go.
Senator Washington reiterated that the bill is not designed to abolish class-size reduction. He agreed there are benefits to class-size reduction, particularly for students with learning problems. Senator Washington said he advocates allowing each district presenting a program that codifies the intent of the legislation.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 127, and opened the hearing on S.B. 115.
SENATE BILL 115: Provides exception under certain circumstances to requirement that certain pupils be suspended or expelled. (BDR 34-381)
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, presented the committee a proposed amendment to the bill (Exhibit E). The amendment will not change compliance with federal guidelines, but will include “a dangerous weapon” to the bill wherein the superintendent of a school district may, for good cause shown in a particular case in that school district, allow an exception to the expulsion requirement, he said.
Ms. Bandera distributed the Elko County student-suspension code of conduct. (Exhibit F. Original is on file in the Research Library.) Elko County uses a process to ensure that while there may be some independent decisions, due process and notification requirements are followed.
Senator Townsend asked what triggered the need for S.B. 115.
Chairman Rawson responded the bill was requested since there were instances reported of students who had to be taken out of school because they were accused of having a weapon, and it was questionable whether is was actually a weapon. For example, a nail file if used in a threatening manner could be defined as a weapon, but if used as a nail file, it is not.
Ms. Bandera drew attention to page J-36 of Exhibit F. The document points out a typical process used by the state prior to the imposition of transfer, long-term suspension, or expulsion. Ms. Bandera said that under current legislation the superintendent of schools could make an exception relating to the policy of the carrying of guns if warranted, but not for dangerous weapons. There have been instances when the circumstances are questionable as to whether or not a student intended harm. She said the case is made to the local superintendent and the local school board, and they might agree to an alternative plan for the youngster rather than follow the actual letter of the statute. Yet legal advice is the board could be in violation of the statutes. Ms. Bandera said the local superintendents and school boards need to be trusted to look at extenuating circumstances, and take appropriate action.
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District; Dotty L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Nevada Washoe County School District; and Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women’s Lobby, each expressed their of support of S.B. 115.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 115, and opened the hearing on S.B. 128.
SENATE BILL 128: Provides for gubernatorial appointment of superintendent of public instruction. (BDR 34-679)
Senator Washington testified on behalf of S.B. 128. He stated since it is the Governor who sets the agenda for the state, the superintendent should be accountable to the Governor. Senator Washington continued that the selection by the Governor gives a direct line of communication to the governor’s office, and since the Governor is more in the public eye than the state board of trustees, the public equates success or failure with the governor’s office. A national survey done by the Legislative Counsel Bureau reveals superintendents of schools are selected in the following manner: 10 states appoint by governor, 25 states appoint by board of trustees (in 10 of these 25 states, the state board of trustees are appointed by the governor) and 15 states select by election.
David L. Howard, Lobbyist, representing Sparks Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of S.B. 182. He said the profile of the state board is low, and is not an office the public pays much attention.
Ricci Elkins, Lobbyist, Alliance for Children’s Educational Excellence, testified that S.B. 128 would allow the sitting Governor to be responsible for the educational platform, and limit the propensity for the status quo. Ms. Elkins said that 30 states have their entire school boards appointed by the governor. Wisconsin and Minnesota have no state boards at all.
Senator Townsend asked if eliminating the state board would affect federal funding.
Ms. Elkins replied that Minnesota has a specific body to take care of the education element, and she does not know about Wisconsin.
Ms. Chapman stated that the Nevada Eagle Forum is neutral on the bill, however, the organization has some concerns about one person having so much power.
Penny Brock, Concerned Citizen, testified in opposition to S.B. 128. She affirmed her concern of giving governors sole authority, which will take away from local control. She also said there will be no accountability, would undermine the system of checks and balances, and bypass the Legislature.
Dr. John Gwaltney, Member, State Board of Education and State Board for Occupational Education, Department of Education, stated as a newly elected member of the state board he looks forward to working with the new superintendent. Dr. Gwaltney said he worked under an appointed board while in Illinois. The situation degenerated into a political nightmare. He continued that a compelling argument against the appointment of the superintendent by the governor is the sorry state of education in some states with such a plan.
Theresa Malone, Member, State Board of Education and State Board for Occupational Education, Department of Education, said she has been reassured by the governor’s office that doing away with the state board of education is not a high priority. She continued the majority of her constituents oppose gubernatorial control. Ms. Malone referred to the Constitution of the State of Nevada, Article 11, section 1, which states that the Legislature is directed to provide for a superintendent of public instruction and by law prescribe the manner of appointment, term of office, and the duties thereof. She said staff prepared a list of public instruction boards and commissions the superintendent serves (Exhibit G). She opined that campaign donations might influence choice by the governor. She reviewed the process of selecting the current superintendent which required many hours. Beginning with over 25 applicants, the list was narrowed down to 4; open meeting laws then applied and each applicant was given 1½ hours to testify. Ms. Malone wondered if a governor would have that much time to devote to the process. Ms. Malone said she would be willing to serve on a subcommittee to study this issue, and urged the committee to support the retention of the board of education.
Senator Schneider commented that elected members of the board of education are far more accessible to the public and less isolated than the Governor.
Ms. Cahill testified that the Nevada State Education Association opposes the bill. She added that state board members are elected in a nonpartisan race, with the interest of the students being their primary concern. The association is concerned a gubernatorial appointment might put a superintendent in a partisan position, that of having to serve two masters. The state board seldom sees a spokesperson for the Governor at policy discussions and meetings, and would invite representatives to approach the board on policy issues.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 128, and adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cynthia Cook,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: