MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-First Session
March 16, 2001
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 11:20 a.m., on Friday, March 16, 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 Bernice Mathews
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Valerie Wiener
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Mark Amodei (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst
Patricia Di Domenico, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Douglas Byington, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators
Raymond Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Al Tiltra, Pastor, Seventh-Day Adventist Church
Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
Elizabeth M. Pederson, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards
Richard L. Siegel, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
Chairman Rawson opened the meeting and introduced Bill Draft Request (BDR) 54-1230.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-1230: Revises provisions relating to dentistry and dental hygiene. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 378.)
SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 54-1230.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS AMODEI AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson introduced Bill Draft Request (BDR) 38-316.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 38-316: Revises provisions governing payment of hospitals for treating disproportionate share of Medicaid patients, indigent patients or other low-income patients. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 377.)
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 38-316.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson opened a work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 208.
SENATE BILL 208: makes various changes to provisions concerning public dental health. (BDR 40-738)
Chairman Rawson presented the “Work Session Document” (Exhibit C), and explained the various amendments proposed by the Nevada Dental Hygienists’ Association, the Health Division of Nevada’s Department of Human Resources, Nevada’s state Board of Dental Examiners, and Saint Mary’s Health Network.
Senator Mathews called attention to page 6 of Exhibit C, and requested an explanation of the increase in the amount of appropriation.
Chairman Rawson explained the original fiscal note was for a single year and too low; the corrected amount is for the biennium.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AND RE- REFER S.B. 208 TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson opened the hearing and invited testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 235.
SENATE BILL 235: Establishes program of voucher schools for certain pupils. (BDR 34-9)
Senator Washington gave a presentation on S.B. 235 which would change the present system of education. He said vouchers, school choices, public and private partnerships, private schools, home schools and long-distance learning offer alternatives to the present public education system. Senator Washington quoted Dr. Howard Fuller, ”Public education is no more public than any particular church. There are lots of ways to deliver public education. We just have to go outside the box, rethink how we want to see that system.”
Senator Washington asserted the involvement of parents was key and freedom of choice will promote parental involvement. He stated education cures poverty, accountability will cure the educational system, and there is no accountability unless there is true freedom of choice with our dollars. Concluding his remarks, Senator Washington challenged the committee “to look beyond the political vouchers and take this opportunity in history to create a system of learning opportunity.” Senator Washington urged the passage of Senate Bill 235.
Chairman Rawson asked Senator Washington to highlight S.B. 235.
Senator Washington explained sections 3 through 7, of S.B. 235, define the terms that are in the bill; section 8 establishes the voucher program and requires that the Department of Education adopt regulations; sections 9 through 10 refer to private schools that wish to apply for the voucher program; section 11 reviews the application and sets procedures. Continuing, he pointed out section 12 addresses discrimination and civil rights, and that voucher schools shall not charge fees or tuition to low-income families; sections 13 and 14 deal with enrollment and withdrawal; religious activities are addressed in section 15; and section 16 addresses pupil participation based on income level and the failure of inadequate schools to stay inadequate for 3 years.
Senator Wiener noted lines 27, 28, 32,and 33 on page 2, and lines 21 and 22 on page 3 do not parallel each other.
Chairman Rawson explained lines 32 and 33 require a statement on all forms specifying language for equal opportunity and nondiscrimination.
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst, clarified lines 27, 28, 32, and 33 on page 2 are the application process and lines 21 and 22 on page 3 refer to a declaration that voucher schools comply with all laws and regulations once the application is approved.
Senator Townsend stated the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) do not allow discrimination on any basis.
Senator Washington reiterated the intent of section 9 of S.B. 235 is for private schools to become voucher schools and they cannot discriminate on any basis of race or ethnicity. And, section 12 states voucher schools must comply with all laws concerning ethnicity or race.
Senator Wiener recommended there be consistency in the language of S.B. 235.
Chairman Rawson asked Senator Wiener to explain her concern.
Senator Wiener replied the language “. . . discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity. . . “may not cover all types of discrimination that would be covered by, “…will not discriminate or violate civil rights. . .” She stated the later language covers all discrimination.
Chairman Rawson recommended bill drafting be contacted to look into the matter.
Senator Wiener disputed the use of the word “revoke” on line 5, of page 3,and the word “withdraw “ on line 34, of page 4 of S.B. 235.
Chairman Rawson recommended this issue be referred to bill drafting also.
Douglas Byington, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators, stated the association supports choice but had concerns with S.B. 235. He declared S.B. 235 would place the burden of accounting and paying the vouchers on the Department of Education. Continuing, Mr. Byington referred to lines 18 through 20 on page 4, and questioned whether the money paid to the voucher school would be refunded to the public school when the child returns after the count day. He said there is no mention of special education in Senate Bill 235 but is alluded to in section 16, lines 42 through 47 on page 4.
Chairman Rawson questioned Senator Washington about addressing the issue of special education.
Senator Washington explained the current statute allows charter schools to take special education students and receive appropriation for those students. It states if the school cannot meet the needs of the special education student then the student can return to the sponsoring district. And, the same provisions under the statute would apply to voucher schools.
Mr. Byington remarked that a private school would be different than a charter school and when it is not specifically mentioned in law then special education students could be deferred.
Chairman Rawson stated the discrimination statute would address that issue.
Senator Washington added, when a private school applies to become a voucher school then they would be held to the same regulations as a public entity.
Raymond Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association, testified in support of S.B. 235. He stated the association’s viewpoint is, children should not be held captive in a failing school and the choice should be with the parents to get the child into a better situation.
Mr. Bacon submitted the following suggested amendments (Exhibit D) for the committee’s review: delete the phrase “. . . for 3 consecutive years. . . “ on line 39, page 3 of S.B. 235 because children should not be required to stay at a failing school. He expounded on the results of a high-turnover rate of students or faculty and the stability of the student body as a key factor in the stability of each student.
Senator Mathews asked Mr. Bacon to clarify his testimony concerning taking children out of failing schools. Mr. Bacon explained every school in the “needs improvement” category was listed as an overcrowded school. If the voucher is open to anyone in that school, the parents that are concerned with their child’s education will be the first to ask for a voucher. He commented that a student who moves from an overcrowded inadequate school to an overcrowded public school is still a major step up. Concluding his remarks, Mr. Bacon exclaimed the voucher should be open to anyone in a failing school and that will help the school also.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, voiced support of S.B. 235. She expressed her views on children in “at-risk schools” and provided a news article from the USA Today dated, Fri/Sat/Sun, February 16-18, 2001 (Exhibit E), about the positive results of vouchers offered to students in Florida’s schools.
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), said he opposed S.B.235. Mr. Bellister stated NSEA believes S.B. 235 is unconstitutional. He referred to Article 11, section 2 of the Nevada Constitution which says ”. . . any school district which shall allow instruction of a sectarian character therein may be deprived of its proportion of the interest of the public school fund . . .” and compared it to page 7, lines 23 through 27 of S.B. 235. He opined the proponents of the bill meant “no portion of the money can be a direct use or benefit of any sectarian institution.”
Mr. Bellister claimed it would be impossible to monitor whether the monies were being used for a direct benefit. He asserted when local government monitors religious institutions you contradict the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and contradict the bill itself as depicted by the language on page 15, lines 8 and 9, which prohibits interference by the authorities to give religious instruction.
Mr. Bellister expressed concern over the meaning of “family of low income” in S.B. 235. He opined it would refer to the children who participate in the free and reduced lunch program. Mr. Bellister estimated the voucher program would cost $5.2 million a year. Referring to page 3, lines 48 and 49 of S.B. 235, he quoted, ”. . . not more than 10 percent of the children who reside within each school district. . . “ theorizing that 10 percent of 330,000 children who are currently enrolled in our public schools would equate to approximately 30,000 eligible students or taking $125 million from public schools giving that money to private schools.
Mr. Bellister stated with no reporting requirement in S.B. 235, NSEA would not be aware of how students would be performing or how the money was being spent because private schools do not have accountability standards.
He remarked that Catholic schools refuse 2 of 3 voucher applicants, and 93 percent of the private schools in Florida have rejected the voucher, therefore he opined, that choice is a false argument for the voucher program. Mr. Bellister stated prioritizing efforts on what works is the best policy. He stated good, qualified teachers, adequate supplies, smaller classes, and technology would work in public schools. Mr. Bellister said only 7 out of 485 schools in Nevada are designated as “needing improvement.” Senate Bill 235 would target the schools that need the resources the most. He emphasized that abandoning those schools will not make them better, but working with them would make a difference.
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, expressed opposition to S.B. 235.
Al Tiltra, Pastor, Seventh-Day Adventist Church, said he favors giving children every advantage to learn. He noted the language on page 4, lines 39 through 41, makes it permissible for a parent or guardian to request the voucher school not require a pupil to participate in religious activity. Pastor Tiltra voiced concern about requesting such an exemption if the pupil was attending a religious school. He stressed the emphasis should be on the children not the money.
Senator Washington reiterated that religious schools participate of their own volition. Chairman Rawson questioned whether the removal of reference to religious schools would jeopardize S.B. 235. Senator Washington answered in the affirmative.
Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit F) in opposition to S.B. 235. She expounded on the utilization of the existing variance procedure in Washoe County. Ms. Loring explained the misconception of low-income schools not being popular or effective, because Desert Heights Elementary School and Bernice Mathews Elementary School are two of the most popular Washoe County schools for the variance procedure.
Ms. Loring said the Washoe County School Board had concern with the separation of church and state issue and tax dollars being used to finance religious education. Another issue was using tax dollars to pay for students to attend a school that is not required to meet the state’s academic and accountability standards. She emphasized the issue is not choice but how the education dollars are spent.
Senator Townsend queried whether S.B. 235 would be acceptable with the removal of those portions referring to private schools, faith-based or not; remove references to low-income pupils, and allow any child who wishes to attend another school do so. With that kind of structure the funding could stay in place for the district, but the parents could participate in a more “market-driven solution” while the Legislature tries to find the necessary funding.
Ms. Loring said there were thousands of Washoe County students electing to attend other schools by the current variance system. Senator Townsend requested a percentage figure of the number of Washoe County students. Ms. Loring approximated the figure at 7 or 8 percent district-wide.
Senator Townsend requested the requirements of the Washoe County variance policy. Responding to Senator Townsend, Ms. Loring listed various board regulations where preference is shown, such as siblings attending another school, child care considerations, academic issues. However, when a school reaches 100 percent capacity the principal no longer has the discretion to grant variances.
Senator Townsend asked whether a targeted curriculum would allow a principal to grant variances after reaching capacity. Ms. Loring explained Washoe County has just changed to multi-tracked year-round schools and in that case the capacity would increase.
Mr. Bellister stated Clark County has a similar variance policy. He reminded the committee that most urban schools are at their capacity and the counties are doing as much as possible with the funding available.
Mr. Kadlub testified, presently there are 12 mechanisms that allow students to transfer out of a school and there are 18,000 out of 231,000 students that are attending a school other than their zoned school.
Senator Schneider commented the New York Catholic Dioceses subsidizes the education of students but the Bishop requires parents to pay a minimum amount so that parents have a vested interest in their children’s education. He stated that S.B. 235 would not generate parents to have a vested interest.
Senator Washington noted other religious schools do not have the financial funding of Catholic schools, therefore they could not subsidize a tuition program. Senate Bill 235 is specific that a private school cannot charge tuition because doing so would violate the separation of church and state.
Ms. Loring reported the variances for the school year 1998-1999 in Washoe County School District were 3,031 elementary, middle, and high school students combined.
Elizabeth M. Pederson, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada, testified that the league from the national to the local level is opposed to vouchers. She emphasized more resources and funding should be provided to improve the present educational system.
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education, stated the department has not reached a decision on S.B. 235. He clarified for the committee’s information that most religious-based schools in Nevada are exempt and not considered licensed but could be licensed if they agreed to meet the criteria. Mr. Rheault stated the department’s concern would be to meet the intent of the law and be able to process the applications in a timely manner.
Referring to lines 29 through 34, on page 16 of S.B. 235, Senator Washington asked whether the department would have adequate time if the effective date were changed to July 1, 2003? Mr. Rheault replied it would depend on the amount of interest generated and whether applications for low-income families would have to be submitted annually.
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, voiced opposition to S.B. 235. He stated S.B. 235 was not about choice, equality of opportunity, and is not true education reform, but is about student achievement. Research has not been conclusive that private school students achieve more than public school students. Mr. Robison opined private schools’ class sizes are smaller, their teachers tend to be less qualified and are underpaid. He said that giving a qualified teacher fewer students would increase student achievement.
Richard L. Siegel, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said he opposed S.B. 235. He declared concern that the voucher concept will violate Nevada’s Constitution of the separation of church and state. Mr. Siegel stated that Nevada citizens want to keep public money in public schools.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:43 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patricia Di Domenico,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: