MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-First Session
March 14, 2001
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Acting Chairman Mark Amodei, at 1:50 p.m., on Wednesday, March 14, 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 Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Valerie Wiener
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah D. Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Cynthia Cook, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Joyce Haldeman, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Carlos Garcia, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Walt Rulffes, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Ricci Elkins, Lobbyist, Alliance for Children’s Educational Excellence
Tom Clark, Lobbyist, I Can Do Anything Charter High School
Kitty Bergin, Principal, I Can Do Anything Charter High School
Steven Horsford, Lobbyist, Agassi Foundation
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
Matthew Davis, Attorney, Christian Law Association
Bob Gunn, Grace Community Church
Bonnie Krupa, Legacy Christian School
Frederick Harris, Calvary Baptist Church School
Acting Chairman Amodei:
We will open the meeting with a presentation by the superintendent of the Clark County School District, Carlos Garcia.
Joyce Haldeman, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
I will begin by introducing Carlos Garcia and Walt Rulffes, of the Clark County School District. They will be making the presentation.
Carlos Garcia, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
I am passing out documents to illustrate the proposed reorganization of the Clark County School District (Exhibit C). The proposal is to take the district and divide it into five regions. We took into account geography, location, and ethnic makeup. Each region will have between 39,000 to 50,000 students. Regional offices will actually be on campus, and parents needing services will find the regions to be user-friendly. Everybody in the district will be working for the regional superintendents, and the superintendent of each region will do the evaluations. Another major change is each region will be for grades kindergarten through 12. A product of this is it has trimmed over half a million dollars from the budget. Our goal is to provide money directly to the regions, and allow each region to be somewhat autonomous.
Senator Mathews:
Are there areas around the nation that have similar models?
Mr. Garcia:
There is a little bit of both. The Los Angeles Unified School District is divided into eleven regions, with a superintendent for each region. There is still one major superintendent. We want our superintendents to function fairly autonomously. There will be parameters for each of the superintendents. This will go into effect on July 1,2001. Our whole reorganization is called “Achievement Plus” and the three factors are achievement, access, and accountability. Student achievement is the number one factor. Achievement and access go together, so that every student has equal access to the core curriculum. We tell people that although we are implementing this July 1, change is something that takes time. The process will have a lot of bugs to be worked out.
Senator Mathews:
How does this fit into the petition that was circulating in the state to divide Clark County into two districts?
Mr. Garcia:
We believe this a lot more cost-effective.
Senator Mathews:
Is it also more efficient?
Mr. Garcia:
Absolutely. The resources are still centralized, and people use them.
Last week at the school board meeting, a resolution was passed to clearly spell out to me that my job is to describe to the Legislature the Clark County School District’s educational needs, and the willingness of the district to work along side the Legislature to produce the resources that will enable every student of the district to achieve to their utmost abilities.
The first item, on a handout titled “Nevada Educational Stability Plan” (Exhibit D), shows a 2 percent annual cost-of-living adjustment. We have already modified that to 3 percent. When you review this, it is a starting point for our discussion. I believe it is my responsibility to alert you as to the seriousness of our fiscal situation in Clark County, and throughout the state. We would like to have the luxury of awaiting an interim study, but in order to do so, the cuts we would have to make would be dangerous. The community has clearly said to us that these issues need to be addressed right away.
The second item on the list will add 19 minutes to the school day. We have one of the shortest school days and school years in the world.
Senator Amodei:
When you say we have one of the shortest school days in the world, are you talking about Nevada?
Mr. Garcia:
Correct. American schools have one of the shortest school days throughout the world. The problem exists throughout the county.
We also propose five additional school days each year to be used for staff development. Our school year is too short, and the only way we can do staff development is to not have school days. We do not think that is fair to our children.
Next are incentives for teachers in special education, math, science, and bilingual education. These are areas we are not able to recruit in, and if we were to provide incentives, then we could draw more people. Throughout the United States, you will find that is fairly common.
I am sure all of you have heard there is not enough money for textbooks, and I am sure that needs to be a priority. Additionally, the literacy initiative is something we would like to see happen, because every child needs to be reading at the end of the third grade.
Free summer school for qualifying students, there are many students who cannot afford the fees, and all students should have the opportunity to attend.
Recruiting initiatives are being offered throughout the country, along with incentives for teacher retention at high-needs schools. We have a revolving door of teachers who come in for a year, and then transfer to a higher-paying job. Finally, a proposed student enrichment program to ensure music and art programs are protected. Looking at the last page, if all the points were implemented, Nevada would realize 59 hours added to the student’s year, 89 hours added to the teacher’s yearly contract, and increased teacher salaries. The per-pupil expenditure would increase by $604 to $5,899, which would bring us significantly closer to the national average of $6,189 per student. Nevada would then rank as twenty-seventh, up from our current thirty-seventh in the nation.
Senator Washington:
Have you had an opportunity to read the bill presented by Senator Rawson? It concerns salary increases and proposals for teachers. It sounds as if what you are proposing here is in conflict with his ideas.
Mr. Garcia:
I do not believe there is a conflict. I believe this compliments that proposal. We have heard people talk about most of the items on this list in various committees and meetings.
Ms. Haldeman:
We did have discussions with Senator Rawson. His bill does not require funding for the first 2 years. We believe the two proposals would dovetail.
Senator Washington:
You are asking us to take a look at this plan, and that of Senator Rawson’s and implement some of these ideas. You are not actually requesting this right up front now. Is this correct?
Ms. Haldeman:
We feel these are issues that need to be addressed right away. Senator Rawson’s plan will not help the situation we are in for at least another 2 years. In our initial discussions with him, we did not work out the details, but we feel there are some things on this list that probably would be replaced by his plan, and could result in both increased hours for teachers and better education for our students. We see this as two plans that would lead us to the same place, eventually.
Senator Washington:
If I understand the concerns of Senator Rawson, it is that we are always putting money into additional programs and not really receiving anything in return. I was not privy to your conversation with him, but it would be of interest to find out.
Ms. Haldeman:
I really appreciate your bringing this up. That is one of the reasons the 19 minutes and the 5 days are there, because they are tangible things that are in exchange for part of the salary increase.
Senator Washington:
I remember during the interim we discussed expanding days.
Mr. Garcia:
We feel that if we are going to wait 2 years, our school district will look like something that none of us here will be happy with. What happens if we are 500 teachers short? We are working on contingency plans right now.
Senator Schneider:
In redoing the district in smaller formats, many believe it is a reaction to the signature initiative. I understand that, but when parents send their kids through the system and as they matriculate along, how many of these parents want to see a superintendent about a problem. Do they not just want to see a teacher or the principal? This could be conceived as a plan to placate a lot of people that think they need to break up the district.
Mr. Garcia:
Our intent is not to break up the district, but to break the district into regions which we think could be more effective, based on the theory: smaller is better. Through the appeal process, many people do come to see the superintendent, even in a district as large as ours. The appeal process needs to be streamlined in order to resolve complaints more quickly than we currently do.
Senator Schneider:
On the recruitment bonus in your initiative, along with on-site child care, does private industry possibly support this concept? Under this plan, will you be able to compete here in the Southwest?
Mr. Garcia:
Under this plan, we still will not be at the national average for per-pupil spending. We will still be at somewhat of a disadvantage, but we will be better-off than we currently are.
Senator Schneider:
If we just scrap this for 2 years, what is your situation?
Mr. Garcia:
I think my responsibility is to let you know we will have to start cutting programs that are dear to everyone’s heart. We are down to the bone, and we have gone through an item-by-item analysis of our budget. With utility costs escalating and other things coming our way, we will have no other choice but to make huge cuts. When the cuts are made we are all going to hear about it.
Senator Schneider:
During the teacher tax initiative, I heard a lot of businesspeople say you are overstaffed with administrators. I heard several times there is one administrator for every four employees. For the record, are there any numbers you can relate to us for the district?
Walt Rulffes, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
We have throughout the entire district, approximately 800 administrators, including principals. This is a ratio of 30 employees for every administrator. We have dealt with the myth of too much administration and statistically, that is not true.
Senator Schneider:
I receive that question all the time, and I wanted your answer to be on the record. The incentives on the chart include an additional 5 percent for teachers in special needs areas. Have you asked the business community if they support such an idea?
Mr. Garcia:
We have, and they are very supportive of the concept.
Senator Washington:
In going through this list, I see some things have already been initiated. These include the literacy initiative, textbook allocation, technology, retirement incentives, and hiring incentives. I am sure we are going to put more money into these programs. You are asking us to take a big bite right now, without regard to how these programs are actually working. I am not on the finance committee, but you are proposing $426 million over the next biennium, and we are already working on these programs in our reform package.
Mr. Garcia:
I agree with you, and we recognize most of these programs are on the list because people are talking about them. We wanted to take the opportunity to put it all down. We are going to have to look at the tax structure in the state, and it is my responsibility, to you and the citizens, to make you aware of the problems. I have carried out that responsibility by illustrating these issues to you.
Senator Washington:
We have been pretty creative in trying to initiate programs to augment our educational system. As legislators, we have somebody to answer to the voice of the people. We get concerns from parents or the business community that you are producing students who are inept in reading and math. We have to be careful about how we spend money. I just want you to know that we are not against you, but there has been forward thinking expended already.
Senator townsend:
What is the annual budget of the Clark County School District?
Mr. Garcia:
$1.1 billion.
Senator Townsend:
On your sheet where you stated you prefer to change the 2 percent annual cost-of-living adjustment to 3 percent, does that change your total figure proportionally?
Mr. Garcia:
You are correct.
Senator Townsend:
Please help us with the 19 additional minutes per school day. How does that effect change?
Ms. Haldeman:
Currently we have an 11-minute configuration that we are dealing with. Our school day is 7 hours and 11 minutes. With the additional 19 minutes, the day would be 7 hours and 30 minutes.
Senator Townsend:
Please explain the meaning of 5 additional school days per year.
Mr. Garcia:
All of our staff development days would take place on these days. We would not use any instructional time.
Senator Townsend:
Is the incentive for teachers in special education, math, science, and bi-lingual education an additional 5 percent on the base salary?
Mr. Garcia:
This is a proposal by Senator Raggio. We are just putting everything together on this document.
Senator Townsend:
The textbook allocation, is that $100 per student, incrementally?
Mr. Garcia:
Yes. Keep in mind that the reason we added textbooks, equipment, and technology is we did not just want to be Clark County saying what we think ought to happen. We opened it up so other districts may want to use the money differently, according to their needs.
Senator townsend:
There are some who would believe the Legislature provides money for textbooks, equipment, and technology and then, subsequently, it is negotiated into other categories once it gets to your level. Do you have a sense of that?
Mr. Rulffes:
The state just conducted a textbook audit. I can only speak for Clark County; in general, we were spending in excess of the allocation that would have been designated as the portion for textbooks.
Senator Townsend:
Sometimes monies intended by the Legislature to use for certain things that sometimes districts decide to do other things with.
Mr. Rulffes:
Last session, the Legislature passed a law to reduce the non-personnel portion of its budget. We have a legal lock right now, and cannot convert those monies for salary use.
Senator Mathews:
The textbook audit did find some monies used for other things. Part of the problems with not having enough time in the day is that students do not have enough books, and must use a part of the school day to do studying in class for homework.
Senator townsend:
I am just saying we cannot have the Legislature dictating every pencil and paper clip. Sometimes you have to make decisions on the spot. We just want to make sure that there is a need when monies are spent for other things.
Senator Mathews:
All of the state, not just Clark County, has textbook problems.
Senator Townsend:
The literacy initiative is always something we are sensitive to. This is a concern, because we question why we are not getting it the first time around. Coming back a second time, perhaps, is not as cost-effective. Is this plan to go into the actual grade the student is in, or is it to help the student catch up?
Mr. Garcia:
It is two different things. One is to provide training to every single teacher to be a literacy specialist.
Senator washington:
We put money into the regional training centers. Are they not developing teachers and helping them to select appropriate materials? You are asking for $10 million over the biennium. Is this for the classes or the regional training centers?
Mr. Garcia:
For the Clark County School District, you would want to send the money to the district. We need to get out and train people as quickly as possible.
Senator Washington:
If we are just expending monies to certain districts, then we negate what we are trying to do for the state as a whole through the regional training centers. Wouldn’t it be better if we put the money into the training centers and send the teachers back to their respective districts?
Mr. Garcia:
That is a great plan for those districts that are smaller than us. For Clark County, we need to do all of the above, because we have so many teachers.
Senator Townsend:
Perhaps you can come back to us over the next month, with a more rounded version of the literacy initiative. Of all the things on this list, I believe the literacy portion is the most important. What is the definition of the reference titled, “Grow Your Own, Alternative Route to Licensure”?
Mr. Garcia:
For example, there are a lot of classroom aides in our school district interested in becoming teachers. We would like to be able to work with them in order to see them through programs to become teachers. Also, many highly qualified retirees would like to teach. We would like to be able to expedite that.
Senator Townsend:
We need to look at alternative ways to do what you have described. If we can be helpful, we will. Under the heading on the list “Teacher retention at high needs schools,” please explain the benefit stated as “funds for school discipline, campus environment . . . .“ Is that becoming the reason why the teachers leave the classroom?
Mr. Garcia:
For some, absolutely, and graffiti, vandalism, and a safe environment for students are additional reasons.
Senator Wiener:
One issue I brought to the Legislature, and was interested in, is the need for all students to learn algebra. Where does that kind of early remediation fit in this plan?
Mr. Garcia:
Staff development. In our school district, we are 1200 teachers short to teach math, so we are going to have to train our own.
Senator Washington:
The Sixty-ninth Session of the Legislature passed Senate Bill 482, which initiated setting the standards of accountability in certain core subjects. As we implement these studies throughout the state, perhaps the money would be better spent to focus in on these standards.
SENATE BILL 482 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION: Makes various changes governing education. (BDR 34-1783)
Mr. Garcia:
I am a firm believer in standards-based curriculum. The standards are in place, and should be followed. All the way from kindergarten through twelfth grade, we need benchmarks. If we did that, we would change the capacity for algebra in the fourth, fifth and sixth grades.
Senator Schneider:
In your document (Exhibit D) it states the average statewide teacher salary is over $40,000. If our teachers start at $26,800, do we have a wave of teachers who are looking at retiring? If we are 500 teachers short next year, do we have a large number who may be going to retire, also?
Mr. Garcia:
We are going to have a large number of retirements in the next 5 years. Last year we had 166 retirees, and it grows by 25 or 30 each year.
Senator Schneider:
Can you tell me, if we adjourn and do nothing for education, what will you cut?
Mr. Garcia:
There are many unknown factors, including utility rates. It would depend on how severe the cuts would have to be. We are preparing to be ready, and looking at all our programs.
Senator Schneider:
What are your five top priorities if you needed to cut?
Mr. Garcia:
We would like to keep the most sacred programs of art and music. They, too, have a price tag attached. Our athletic program and transportation would be looked at, too.
Mr. Rulffes:
It is pretty safe to say, additional cuts would have to be in people. Class size would be increased. Custodians, maintenance, and the business finance area would be looked at for cuts, and we then have to reduce the services.
Mr. Rulffes:
In closing, the bottom line is these are all student achievement issues.
Senator Wiener:
As I look at the restructuring of the districts, one of my concerns is of the older schools in the inner city, with additional needs.
Mr. Garcia:
That is why we have the item for teacher retention for high-needs schools. It is a must, and we need to keep great teachers there.
Senator Schneider:
For 10 years, the legislative position has been to ask the schools to cut expenditures. It seems to me we ought to now try throwing some money to education. A bill I am submitting on Friday requests that we fund education at the national average.
Acting Chairman Amodei:
I ask for committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 40-1489.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-1489: Excludes wholesale dealer of nonalcoholic beverages from regulation as food establishment. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 352.)
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 40-1489.
SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
I am here to express support of Senate Bill 243.
SENATE BILL 243: Makes various changes concerning charter schools. (BDR 34-348)
Mr. Kadlub:
Essentially, the bill proposes to change the charter school law in two ways. It clarifies conditions of reemployment of charter teachers, and it provides for the costs associated with the oversight responsibilities within the district.
Currently, a teacher deciding to return from a charter school is promised his former teaching position, even if it causes the district to fire the replacement teacher. The district believes it would be more fair to offer returning charter schoolteachers any vacant positions for which they are qualified, rather than guaranteeing protections that exceed those provided teachers who never leave the district.
Senate Bill 243 seeks compensation for the oversight responsibilities that the charter law imposes upon sponsoring districts. The 3 percent of each apportionment to a charter school is consistent with the amount typically permitted in grants for administrative costs, and is also comparable to amounts retained by districts in other states to help defray costs associated with charter school oversight.
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
Our opposition is to section 1, subsections 6 and 7 of the bill. We have not had any trouble with the reassignment of teachers who leave charter schools to return to the district. We really do not see a problem with existing language as it appears in statute. I would like to remind the committee, this language was designed to encourage existing faculty to work at charter schools, and in the event they found the charter schools experiment unsuccessful, there was a safety net. When the school closes, there is a right to return. Under the language of subsection 6, a right to return is defined: “as soon as practicable . . . .” The right really disappears under this proposal. Secondly, in subsection 7, if a teacher chooses to return, as proposed there would be no guarantee whatsoever. The whole notion of bumping rights should not be a problem to the Clark County School District, given what we know about the shortage of teachers.
Ricci Elkins, Lobbyist, Alliance for Children’s Educational Excellence:
The alliance supports S.B. 243. We are recommending the committee consider two changes. In exchange for the 3 percent charge, we would like to see a defined set of services the district will be providing. Other states do have that kind of overhead allocation, and it is a reasonable amount. Although 3 percent may seem a small amount to districts, it represents a great deal to a charter school. We would like to be able to access some Title I funding [Title I, a compensatory program of federal aid for K-12 education to provide remedial education for low-achieving children]. This seems reasonable to us, particularly in light of the 3 percent coming off the top.
Senator Amodei:
The committee would appreciate it if you and Mr. Bellister would provide staff with your suggested changes.
Tom Clark, Lobbyist, I Can Do Anything Charter High School:
With me today is Kitty Bergin, the principal of the I Can Do Anything Charter High School.
Kitty Bergin, Principal, I Can Do Anything Charter High School:
Section 2, subsection 4 states “Each time that an apportionment is paid to a charter school pursuant to this section, 3 percent of the amount of that apportionment must be set aside and included in the apportionment that is paid to the school district which sponsors the charter school for the administrative costs associated with sponsoring the charter schools.” I feel fortunate as an administrator; we have a very positive relationship with our sponsoring district. As Ms. Elkins emphasized, I do believe 3 percent can be devastating to charter schools, especially in the first couple of years of operation. I would like to suggest we look at another way to determine how the district can be compensated for their required administrative services to support charter schools. I disagree that a tariff on the apportionment that we have to stretch over a lot of costs is the most appropriate way.
Steven Horsford, Lobbyist, Agassi Foundation:
We are here to speak in opposition to section 2, subsection 4, of S.B. 243. Our concern is this ongoing assessment on our charter school is not needed or warranted in the long term. The language that “each time as apportionment is made to the charter school” is problematic to us in that we try to provide many of the services ourselves. We think that 3 percent is too much, and we would like to provide the committee with some language to address that.
Acting Chairman Amodei:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 243, and open the hearing on S.B. 223.
SENATE BILL 223: Revises provisions governing private elementary and secondary educational institutions. (BDR 34-1151)
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education:
The background of this bill came from the department, along with exempt school administrators. Last fall, some concerns were brought to staff regarding our process for exempting religious schools in the state. Hearing the concerns, we held meetings in Carson City and Las Vegas. Over 50 administrators from within the state attended. The primary concern seemed to be how the state was exempting religious schools within the state, and the reason is, if you look at the old regulations, the only place where religious-exempt schools could qualify was under the fraternal and benevolent institutions category. We were able to make them fit under the attorney general’s guidelines in that area. If you look at the definitions of fraternal and benevolent, we had to go from the department standpoint and determine what membership is. That is not something the state should be involved with. We need to determine they are a bona fide church or faith-based ministry, but to go in to determine who exactly is a member and who is not is tricky. This bill is to clean up the language in statute. It will add a clear one-item exemption for religious or faith-based schools in the state. We already license them, but this will save a lot of red tape. We will still require making application for exemption, assuring the state that all the inspections of the buildings, fire, and safety are in place. Before a child enrolls in an exempt institution, the parent or legal guardian will be provided written notice that the institution is exempt from the Private Elementary and Secondary Education Authorization Act of 1975.
Matthew Davis, Attorney, Christian Law Association:
Private education is my specialty within our firm. Our office represents nearly 10,000 private church schools around the world. We support S.B. 223 without any amendments. I would like the legal opinion provided (Exhibit D) entered as a part of the record of this hearing.
Bob Gunn, Grace Community Church:
Our school has 160 children enrolled. We support S.B. 223 because, in trying to comply with the existing language, we could not in good conscience submit an application for exemption because we teach more than religious subjects, and we do not require membership in our church to enroll in the school.
Bonnie Krupa, Legacy Christian Church:
Our organization supports S.B. 223. The bill will assure all religious schools can enroll students from other churches into their schools.
Frederick Harris, Calvary Baptist Church School:
I am in favor of the passage of S.B. 223.
Acting Chairman Amodei:
This concludes the discussion of S.B. 223, and the meeting is adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cynthia Cook,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark Amodei, Acting Chairman
DATE: