MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-Second Session

March 12, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:48 p.m., on Wednesday, March 12, 2003.  Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 P. Williams, Chairman

Mr. William Horne, Vice Chairman

Mr. Walter Andonov

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mr. Kelvin Atkinson

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mr. Jason Geddes

Mr. Joe Hardy

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Garn Mabey

Mr. Mark Manendo

Mr. Bob McCleary

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, District No. 27

Speaker Richard Perkins, District No. 23

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Dana Bennett, Research by Design

Dean Ketchum, The Grow Network

Jennifer Barnum Luria, The Grow Network

Bonnie Parnell, Representative, Nevada Association of School Psychologists

Tony del Vecchio, Ph.D., Nevada Association of School Psychologists

Jerry Apolito, Nevada Association of School Psychologists

Keith Croskery, President, Nevada Association of School Psychologists

Doug Thunder, Deputy Superintendent, Administrative and Fiscal Services, Nevada State Department of Education

Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District

 

Roll was called; the Chairman asked that members be marked present as they arrived.  He said there was one bill on the agenda and one presentation, and that Speaker Perkins would speak on his bill, A.B. 203.  He informed the Speaker that if the Speaker had to leave, Chairman Williams would personally go get him when it was time for the Speaker to present his bill.  That would also allow time for the remaining members of the Education Committee to arrive.  Chairman Williams then instructed that the presentation by The Grow Network should begin.

 

Dana Bennett, from Research by Design, said she was at the meeting to represent The Grow Network.  She explained that they would make a presentation to familiarize the Committee with their program which converted testing data from standardized tests into useful information for parents, teachers, and principals.  She then asked the employees of The Grow Network to describe their program.

 

Chairman Williams welcomed The Grow Network employees.

 

Dean Ketchum, from The Grow Network, introduced himself and Jennifer Barnum Luria, who would begin the presentation.

 

Ms. Luria thanked the Chairman and remarked that they wished to present to the Committee some information about what The Grow Network did.  She followed with some history, explaining that they began with New York City three years ago in an attempt to make the results from standardized tests more useful for parents, teachers, and principals.

Ms. Luria remarked that the first thing they noticed was that all the emphasis was on standardized tests, but the results from those standardized tests were not being interpreted in such a way that they could be easily utilized to help the students.  She noted that they worked for 3 years in New York City with 500,000 students, and also in the states of Illinois, California, and New Jersey, all states with hundreds of thousands of students.

 

Ms. Luria then detailed the three procedures her company performed to make the results more useful.  The first was to produce score reports.  Those reports rendered the results from the assessment tests in print to be easily utilized.  In the second procedure, the results were then linked to a Web site where more information about the test and a variety of instructional materials, could be obtained.  She felt that a great deal of attention was paid to assessment test results, but it was important to know what to do with those results, so The Grow Network produced instructional materials that linked the data back to the instruction.  The third procedure was professional development that trained teachers, parents, and principals about the first two procedures, so they could use all information provided in the most advantageous manner.

 

Ms. Luria also explained that her group felt it was important to work with everyone involved in the educational system, not just teachers and principals.  She believed that if parents and other interested parties were included and given all the reports, that all groups would work together to improve the students’ education.  She then detailed material in her handout (Exhibit C) which showed an individual student’s exam reports, and she expounded that it was very hard to interpret those reports.  That was why The Grow Network distributed their own version of a score report to parents, teachers, and principals, so the results would be clear and easy to read.

 

Ms. Luria then directed the Committee to observe the teacher report in the packet, which was a copy of a report given to each teacher throughout the school system.  She felt it was important to give the teachers something in print that they could hold onto and read, and by making it personalized, caused interest in the teachers to go online.  She reported that 95 percent of principals in New York City and Chicago were actively using the Web tools as often as 8 times a day for 23 minutes per session, a rate of use of technology at which she expressed amazement.  She stated that parents could also receive a report on their child, but the parent report was more individualized, and she related that while parents were interested in the test results, they were more concerned about what they should do with that information to help their child.  Those concerns were addressed by activities specifically detailed to the child’s particular strengths and weaknesses which were provided to both teachers and parents by The Grow Network.  The Grow Network also explained the standards in more detail online so that parents would know what their child should be learning.

 

Ms. Luria then started the PowerPoint presentation which detailed the Web site set up by The Grow Company.  She explained that it was what the teachers would see, and that it was designed to be simple and easily accessed.  She said teachers did not have a great deal of time to “surf,” and computers were not always easily accessible in the schools.  She described the design of the Web site as being as easy to use as an ATM.

 

Ms. Luria called attention to the fact that, if the teachers wished to explore any of the topics on the Web site in more detail, they could click on that topic to see additional information.  She went on to explain the PowerPoint picture on how the topics were divided into three categories:  Help with Fundamentals, Additional Instruction and Practice, and Advanced Work.  If the teacher wished to work on something under the Fundamentals category such as Character, that could provide all the information on how the class performed in the Character section.

 

Ms. Luria also wished to note that there were no numbers given; the system used data to present the information, which then was linked to teaching tools that were developed specifically for every district.  The Grow Network attempted to link the teaching tools specifically to the district’s educational goals, and their instructional staff assisted district leaders and those involved with the curriculum in identifying the key challenges to instructionally address those challenges.

 

Ms. Luria then detailed how activities were produced, stating that activities should be driven by data.  For instance, if a student learned at a slower pace, activities suited to that student would be most desirable.  She said The Grow Network was also linked to curriculum resources so that they had access to all instructional materials being used in the classroom.

 

Ms. Luria then affirmed that the Web site was also for parents.  She illustrated that parents received a printed report which contained a password and instructions on how to log in.  This allowed the parents to go online and find information about their child such as overall scores, priorities, resources, and activities tailored to the child’s strengths and weaknesses.

 

Principals were also provided for, according to Ms. Luria.  She spoke about producing print and Web tools for principals that allowed them to focus on a particular class or see individual student results.  Principals could also use the tools to set priorities for each grade.  Ms. Luria then illustrated how principals could focus on an particular student, and she showed one student’s profile, indicating where that student could use help as well as where that student excelled.  She related that teachers had found that feature to be a real breakthrough to enrich the instructional program for certain students.

 

Mr. Ketchum added that similar information was given to parents as was given to the teachers, which facilitated meetings between teachers and parents to help best guide the student’s education.

 

Ms. Luria then explained that the other part of the principal’s site, Investigate Your School’s Data, was developed specifically for Nevada based on comments from Paul LaMarca, Standards/Curricula and Assessment, Department of Education.  She related Mr. LaMarca’s concern that principals had to be able to disaggregate data.  She stated The Grow Network used that concern to give the data to the principals in a way it could be most easily utilized.  She explained that The Grow Network always listed the highest performing areas for the group, the lowest performing areas, and what she called “close the gap,” which she described as areas in which the group’s scores were most different from the school’s average.  Another advantage for principals was the ability to download the data in Excel so it could be printed out.  She then asked if there were any questions.

 

Chairman Williams asked for questions from the Committee and recognized Assemblyman Mabey.

 

Mr. Mabey expressed his enjoyment of the presentation by The Grow Network, and he asked how many states used their services.

 

Ms. Luria reiterated that they were presently working in New York City, Chicago, California, and New Jersey. 

 

Mr. Mabey asked what kind of feedback was received.

 

Ms. Luria remarked that the feedback was “shockingly good.”  She reflected that there was normally animosity towards testing, so she was surprised that The Grow Network was being thanked for making the information useful and accessible.

 

Chairman Williams noted that there were letters of recommendation and testimonials included in the packet from The Grow Network.  He then signaled Assemblywoman Chowning to speak.

 

Mrs. Chowning thanked the Chairman and asked what the lead time required by The Grow Network was, to ensure that education personnel could give their input and receive feedback.  She also wished to know who the experts used by The Grow Network were, as well as their qualifications, and what the cost would be.

 

Ms. Luria addressed the first question, indicating that they could create the program in as little as one month, but they preferred having three to six months to work with the Education Department and the various districts.

 

Mr. Ketchum offered to answer the second question and explained that the educational staff of The Grow Network was led by Dr. Jason Zimba.  He felt that the lead time was the most important question to be answered, and he indicated that The Grow Network worked in close partnership with those developing the curriculum to ensure that the curriculum developers were provided with the necessary activities and tools which were customized for their district.

 

Ms. Luria also explained that biographical and background information about everyone on their team was included in the packets provided to the Committee.  She revealed that the cost per student was approximately $7, and The Grow Network worked at the district level.  She also reported that a Senate bill under consideration, S.B. 210, had under Section 14 an appropriation for $1.25 million, with $2.5 million over the biennium, for every tested student in Clark and Washoe counties.

 

Assemblywoman Angle asked how this program fit into the funding for “No Child Left Behind.”

 

Mr. Ketchum answered that they felt it fit nicely with “No Child Left Behind,” as that mandate required states to have their assessment department in compliance with requirements according to the law, and that included reporting requirements.

 

Mrs. Angle asked if The Grow Network qualified for that grant money.

 

Ms. Luria replied that they did qualify and that there were several places within “No Child Left Behind” which would be relevant.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson then commented that he had visited with Ms. Luria the day before and, with her testimony today, he was hopeful the Committee could support the bill.  He felt that he was an intelligent person, but admitted that, as a parent, he had trouble interpreting test results he received from his daughter’s school.  He was impressed with the documents from The Grow Network and said they were easily understandable and would help, not just the teachers, but would also help the parents to decide how to better help their child, because both the teachers and the parents were responsible for helping their child to excel.

 

Chairman Williams invited Assemblyman Hardy to speak.

 

Assemblyman Hardy asked if The Grow Network would be the appropriate group to ask about testing and inquired if they were looking at standardized testing that was peer-based or performance-based.  He also asked how the testing related to “No Child Left Behind” so the Committee could understand if they met a standard versus a comparison.

 

Mr. Ketchum responded that their reports attempted to reflect the state’s intention by setting performance levels for the method they felt was best for the assessment quality in that state, in effect customizing the reports to meet the needs of the state.

 

Ms. Luria added that The Grow Network could work with all kinds of tests, and it was up to the state on how the information was to be used.

 

Chairman Williams solicited other questions but there were none.  He then opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 227.

 

Assembly Bill 227:  Requires increased salaries for certain school psychologists. (BDR 34-719)

 

Chairman Williams introduced Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, District No. 27, and Bonnie Parnell, representing the Nevada Association of School Psychologists.

 

Ms. Leslie thanked the Chairman and introduced herself as the representative of District No. 27 in Reno.  She said she was at the meeting to support A.B. 227 and remarked that Ms. Parnell would actually speak for the bill, as Ms. Parnell knew the full history of the bill.  Ms. Leslie affirmed that she fully supported the bill, which gave school psychologists the same opportunity as teachers already had.  She remembered a bill in 1999, S.B. 46 of the 70^th Legislative Session, that gave teachers increased pay if they passed a national merit exam; she believed A.B. 227 did the same for school psychologists.  She then turned over the presentation to Ms. Parnell.

 

Bonnie Parnell introduced herself and stated that Assembly Bill 227 reflected the continuing effort to set high standards within Nevada’s schools and to recognize, promote, and financially reward those who had an advanced level of professional excellence in their fields.  She remarked that when S.B. 46 of the 70^th Legislative Session was passed as an effort to reward teachers who went through the rigorous training, class work, and internship to obtain their national board certification, it increased the focus on how standards could be set higher.  She remarked that when she came back in the interim she had many calls from support staff, counselors, nurses, speech pathologists, and school psychologists who were paid on the same salary scale as teachers but who were not addressed in the 1999 legislation.  School psychologists continued to call Ms. Parnell to see how to best approach similar legislation for their group, and she said those calls resulted in A.B. 227.

 

Ms. Parnell detailed that there were only two sections in the bill that changed the current statute.  Section 2, subsection 3, would grant a 5 percent salary increase to school psychologists who received their national board certification.  In Section 2, subsection 7, the Commission on Professional Standards would set the requisite national board standards.

 

Ms. Parnell then asserted that one of the reasons the bill was being presented was to address the problems of recruitment and retention.  She remarked that these problems were prevalent regarding teachers, but the same problems impacted the support staff as well.  The problem was so pervasive that Ms. Parnell said school psychologists were referred to in the Governor’s budget as a “high impact position.”  There were already shortages in this area, especially in Clark County where she heard that the shortage was so acute that, in one instance, there was one school psychologist for 2,000 students.  Yet, with today’s societal problems, issues, and crises on school campuses, she felt the most likely person to intervene would be the school psychologist.

 

Ms. Parnell went on to inform the Committee that initially A.B. 227 would only impact 57 schools psychologists.  It was hoped that the bill would provide an incentive for more school psychologists to extend themselves and get their national board certification, and also be retained in the school system rather than losing them to private practice.

 

Ms. Parnell then introduced Tony del Vecchio, Ph.D., Legislative Representative for the Nevada Association of School Psychologists, and Dr. Keith Croskery, President of the Nevada Association of School Psychologists.  She remarked that they wished to comment on the bill, and said she would be happy to take questions.

 

Assemblyman Geddes pointed out to Ms. Parnell that the handout she gave the Committee said “87”, and Ms. Parnell asked the Committee to correct it by crossing out the 87 and inserting the number 57.

 

Mr. Geddes then noted that the fiscal impact of the bill seemed enormous compared to the pay for 57 school psychologists, and Ms. Parnell admitted that she had not seen the fiscal note.

 

Mr. Geddes stated that the fiscal note read $450,000 a year in Clark County alone.

 

Ms. Parnell asserted that she believed the actual fiscal impact would be about $150,000 across the state, but that the cost would be addressed by Doug Thunder from the Department of Education, who would speak about the fiscal note.

 

Chairman Williams asked if there were any other questions and inquired if Assemblywoman Leslie had any closing remarks.

 

Ms. Leslie replied that A.B. 227 was a very good bill.

 

Dr. del Vecchio was the next speaker to request the support of the Committee for A.B. 227.  He felt that passage of the bill would grant parity to school psychologists who attained national certification, just as teachers were now entitled to higher pay if they received such certification.  He believed it was justified because the requirements for school psychologists’ national certification matched, and to some degree exceeded, the national certification requirements for teachers.  He described the entry level requirements for school psychologists as the highest in the state and indicated that school psychologists had to complete a master’s degree plus 30 credit hours for a total of 60 graduate hours, and in addition complete a full year of internship.  National recertification for school psychologists was required every 3 years with documentation of continuing education.  In comparison, teachers could enter the teaching profession at a bachelor’s level with no graduate training.  He noted that Nevada recognized school psychologists’ national certification for entry-level employment and accepted the national certification for renewal of state certification.  Despite the high standards, he apprised that most school psychologists in Nevada were on the same salary schedule as the teachers.

 

Dr. del Vecchio expounded that school psychologists provided critical services to general and special education students, parents, and teachers, and he explained that some of those services were outlined in the pamphlet that he had brought (Exhibit D).  He described the primary role and function of school psychologists, which was to conduct assessments or evaluations for children who qualified for special education under the 13 disabling categories.  Other roles included serving as chairperson for eligibility team meetings and membership in the Individual Education Plan (IEP) program, as well as conducting evaluations for students who threatened suicide or posted a threat to the safety and security of other students and the school.

 

Dr. del Vecchio concluded that there was currently a shortage of school psychologists nationally and in Nevada, and he stated that the Nevada positions remained unfilled every year.  He asserted that including the school psychologists in A.B. 227 would greatly assist in the attraction of quality school psychologists to Nevada. 

 

Chairman Williams asked if there were any questions.

 

Assemblyman Geddes remarked that 57 school psychologists would be eligible for the program and asked what the total number of school psychologists was.

 

Jerry Apolito, Nevada Association of School Psychologists, declared there were 200 school psychologists statewide.

 

Assemblyman Hardy asked how many unfilled positions there were.

 

Dr. del Vecchio said he had not received the exact figures.  He contacted someone in Clark County and was told that they were in the most need due to unfilled positions.  He detailed that there were 7 to 10 unfilled positions in Washoe County and that some of the rural areas had problems attracting qualified school psychologists, although mid-size school districts such as Elko, Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County usually had enough resources to provide the necessary services. 

 

Mr. Hardy asked if school psychologists were traded from county to county in the rural areas.

 

Dr. del Vecchio responded that some district school psychologists had done contractual work for rural areas on their own time.

 

Mr. Hardy indicated that there was no “inter-local” agreement, and Dr. del Vecchio replied that there was not.

 

Assemblywoman Angle inquired what the average salary of a school psychologist was, assuming that they all had as a minimum a master’s degree.

 

Dr. del Vecchio replied that it differed in each district and reminded the Committee that the issue was that school psychologists on a teacher’s pay scale only wanted parity with those teachers.  In Washoe County, school psychologists were on an administrative salary scale, and he indicated that there was a $10,000 salary differential between a Washoe County school psychologist and Dr. del Vecchio’s pay.  He related that in some of the smaller districts, in order to attract school psychologists, they would be offered an administrative salary scale.

 

Jerry Apolito, of the Nevada Association of School Psychologists, remarked that he had worked in Lyon County, Carson City County, and Douglas County, and they were all different.

 

Dr. del Vecchio then asked to give an example.  He illustrated that he had been a practicing school psychologist in Nevada for 22 years and also worked in Ohio for 5 years.  He was 56 years old and approaching retirement, and he was making less than $60,000 per year.

 

Mrs. Angle queried if the bill would be retroactive in covering the 57 school psychologists that did have national certification. 

 

Dr. del Vecchio answered that his understanding was that it would not be retroactive; however, anyone who was currently certified would receive the additional 5 percent.

 

Dr. Keith Croskery, President of the Nevada Association of School Psychologists, then spoke, asserting that it was up to the Commission of Professional Standards to determine if they would accept the national certification from the National Association of School Psychologists.  If so, then those 57 would be eligible.

 

Mrs. Angle remarked that they were describing a pool of 150 school psychologists who could potentially receive this certification after the first 57 were take care of.

 

Chairman Williams then solicited questions and indicated that Assemblyman Mabey had a question.

 

Mr. Mabey observed that it might be difficult to compare a school psychologist to a psychologist in private practice, but asked if they were compared, what their salary would be in private practice versus working for the school system.

 

Dr. del Vecchio affirmed that it was a hard comparison to make but stated that psychologists practicing privately charged anywhere from $100 to $175 per hour.  If they worked 6 hours per day, and that was multiplied by how many days a year they worked, they could earn possibly $100,000 to $175,000 per year.

 

Chairman Williams thanked Dr. del Vecchio for his testimony and asked Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District, if she was going to testify or if it would be Mr. Thunder.

 

Doug Thunder, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative and Fiscal Services for the Nevada State Department of Education, stated that he had a few comments.  He articulated that the State Board had accepted the concept, and they included in their initial budget request an amount of about $285,000; however, they believed it would take the first year to implement the program, so the payments would start in the second year.  The fiscal note that was referred to included funding for both years in the amount of approximately $400,000 per year, and the amounts that the State Board worked with were based on the 5 percent increase.

 

Mr. Thunder wished to point out that this bill was a little different from the funding that was provided for national board certification for the teachers.  He said that, in that case, the money was seen as an incentive to help the teachers pay for the process of becoming board certified.  In the case of A.B. 227, the funding was designed to reimburse the school districts for those additional costs.

 

Ms. Wright spoke next on behalf of the Clark County School District.  She asserted that, in reference to Assembly Bill 227, the 17 superintendents across the state of Nevada also recognized the need to increase the salary for school psychologists as a priority.  She observed that school psychologists were included in the iNVest, a proposal from the Nevada Association of School Superintendents, in the section entitled “Fund High Impact Special Needs Pay.”  She expressed her appreciation to Assemblywoman Leslie for bringing forward the bill and offered the support of the Clark County School District.

 

Chairman Williams queried if anyone had questions for either of the two witnesses and there were no questions.  He asked Ms. Parnell if she had any closing remarks.

 

Ms. Parnell wished to answer Assemblyman Mabey’s question and mentioned that she had called the local school district and also done some numerical figuring.  Her calculation was that benefits for school psychologists made up about 27 percent of the base salary; 27 percent added to a $50,000 income would put that income at about $63,500.  In private practice, if you were billing 6 to 7 hours per day and worked 9 months as a teacher would, the earnings would come to $108,000. 

 

Chairman Williams then indicated that the hearing on Assembly Bill 227 was closed and the Committee would go into a work session.  The first issue he addressed was legislation under Tab B of the Work Session Document (Exhibit E).  He indicated that Assembly Bill 203 was Speaker Perkins’ bill, and the Speaker had prepared amendments to address some of the concerns which were raised at the last hearing.

 

Assembly Bill 203 (1st Reprint):  Creates Committee to Evaluate Higher Education Programs. (BDR S-809)

 

Speaker Perkins, Assembly District No. 23, asked if everyone on the Committee had the proposed amendment in front of them.  He then described the amount of time that he spent with Chancellor Nichols of the University and Community College System of Nevada, acknowledging that they came up with a compilation of amendments as a result.  He requested the time to go through the amendments with the Committee to show what he wished to accomplish.

 

Speaker Perkins noted that the first amendment considered Assemblyman Mabey’s request to add a student to the Committee to Evaluate Higher Education Programs.  The second amendment replaced wording in Section 2, page 2, and included “the state of Nevada’s need” which addressed the recommendation made by Dr. Nichols.  The amendment under Section 2, subsection 3, added the wording “within institutions.”  The Speaker assured the Committee that he did not want to address the funding formula and also did not want resources taken from one institution and given to another.  The last amendments Speaker Perkins described were in Section 2, subsection 5, which added the Board of Regents to receive recommendations; and Section 3, page 3, which added the Board of Regents to those receiving the reports of the Committee’s findings and recommendations.  The Speaker said these two amendments addressed the constitutional responsibility that the Board of Regents had in managing higher education in Nevada.  He also stated the last amendment addressed a concern brought up by the Education Committee that the Legislative Committee on Education should also receive the report of findings and recommendations.  He then agreed to answer questions.

 

Chairman Williams thanked the Speaker and solicited questions on the presentation or to Speaker Perkins, recognizing Assemblywoman Chowning.

 

Mrs. Chowning expressed concern that there was another amendment in the packet which was submitted by Dr. Nichols.  She asked the Speaker if he had been in contact with the Chancellor and if he agreed that Dr. Nichols’ proposal was incorporated within the amendments that the Speaker proposed.

 

Speaker Perkins suggested that he could not speak for Dr. Nichols, but he felt they had a good meeting in his office in which they merged her document and the bill, along with suggestions from the Education Committee.  He believed that the amendments he presented took into account the issues that Dr. Nichols felt strongly about.

 

Mrs. Chowning then indicated she would like to make a motion on the bill.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 203 WITH THE AMENDMENTS THE COMMITTEE RECEIVED.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Speaker Perkins thanked the Chairman and the Committee for their hard work.

 

Chairman Williams indicated that the Committee would review Tab A (Exhibit F), Assemblyman Goldwater’s bill, Assembly Bill 162.

 

Assembly Bill 162:  Requires Legislative Auditor to conduct performance audits of certain school districts and provides for formation of Business Advisory Councils. (BDR S-995)

 

Chairman Williams noted that there was an amendment proposed by the Nevada State Education Association which Mr. Goldwater indicated that he agreed with and recognized Assemblyman Manendo’s wish to speak.

 

Mr. Manendo asked if the Chairman would accept an amend and do pass motion.  Chairman Williams indicated yes, and stated that Mr. Geddes wished to second the motion.  He asked for discussion on the motion, and Assemblywoman Angle asked to speak.

Mrs. Angle inquired if there were any audits conducted in that manner where an advisory council oversaw the audits.  She commented that it seemed precedent-setting.

 

Chairman Williams replied that he did not know the answer.

 

Mrs. Angle asked if Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Policy Analyst for the Education Committee, Carol Stonefield, would know the answer and remarked that she thought having an outside advisory council oversee the audits differed from the normal method.

 

Assemblyman Geddes offered that he understood the point of the Business Advisory Council was not so much to be in the audit as to take the audit that was prepared and work with the school district to implement the suggestions and recommendations that came out of the audit.  The Business Advisory Council was not a part of the audit team or audit process; they were working with the audit team and the school district to implement the results.

 

Mrs. Angle had another question, as she was concerned if the audit team would be volunteers or if they would be paid; if they were to be paid, who would pay for them.

 

Chairman Williams remarked that it was his understanding that volunteers would be used.

 

Mrs. Angle informed the Committee that she had no more questions.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 162 WITH THE AMENDMENTS THE COMMITTEE RECEIVED.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Williams announced that the Committee would review the final bill on the agenda, Assembly Bill 218.

 

Assembly Bill 218:  Revises provisions governing temporary alternative placement of disruptive pupils. (BDR 34-1276)

Chairman Williams indicated that there was a proposed amendment that changed the bill considerably, so the Committee would go through the amendment.

 

Ms. Stonefield proceeded to describe the amendment (Exhibit G).  She began with Section 1 on page 2, line 2, which inserted a requirement that the plan would conform with a school district Board of Trustees plan which would be developed under subsection 5 later in the amendment.  Under subsection 2, the provision of support personnel would also be included so that, along with the principal and teachers, employees who were considered support personnel would be included in those who were to develop the plan.  In subsection 3, the plan that had been developed by teachers and support personnel would be reviewed by the principal and then posted in a public place and made available for public inspection at the school administration offices on or before the first of October of each year; the plan would also be submitted to the superintendent of the district by October 1 of each year.

 

Ms. Stonefield related that in subsection 4, the language in the bill had been completely deleted and new language inserted which stated that by November 1 of each year, the superintendent had to compile plans from each school in the district and report to the district Board of Trustees the names of the school principals who were not in compliance with the reporting requirements.  In the new subsection 5, the Board of Trustees would design, implement, and enforce the district plan for progressive discipline of pupils and on-site review of disciplinary decisions, and the Board’s plan would include provisions for withholding a designated portion of the principal’s salary or other compensation for each day after October 1 that the plan had not been established.  That portion of the principal’s salary would be placed in an escrow account and returned to the principal when the plan was filed with the superintendent, to the satisfaction of the superintendent.  Finally, the Board of Trustees was also required to file a copy of the district plan with the Superintendent of Public Instruction who would, under subsection 6, report annually to the Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau on compliance with that requirement.

 

Assemblyman Geddes asked the Chairman if he had received the copies that he requested from the school district at the hearing on March 7, 2003.

 

Ms. Wright, from the Clark County School District, addressed the question, advising that the deadline for the principals was March 21, so she would bring those documents to Chairman Williams by March 24, 2003.

 

Mr. Geddes thanked Ms. Wright and stated that he would not be comfortable until he acquired more data, so that he could understand the extent of the problem.

 

Chairman Williams remarked that the Committee would take action one way or the other and expressed his belief that the bill was crucial in order to address the discipline issue.  He stated that he would still like to see the information he requested, but it would have no bearing on what he believed should happen regarding the issue. 

 

Mrs. Angle revealed that she had not received information that she had requested on the rural counties and Washoe County.  She felt the discipline problem was more regional than statewide, and if the data supported that view, she would request the bill not apply to Washoe County and the rural areas.

 

Chairman Williams asked when Mrs. Angle would receive the information.

 

Mrs. Angle responded that someone in Las Vegas was to send it to her, and she did not know when it would be received.

 

Assemblyman Horne elected to address Mrs. Angle’s concerns by illustrating that the bill was to provide for those who were not complying with the law.  If they were in compliance in the rural areas and Washoe County, then the bill would not apply to those areas.  He believed that, although it was not a problem in certain areas yet, it could be a problem in the future, and if those areas were exempted from the bill, they would have no recourse or remedy if discipline became a problem.

 

Mr. Horne commented that he felt the amendment moving the deadline from October 1 to December 1 should be stricken, as it conflicted with the new Section 5 which had the date of October 1.  He moved to do pass and amend, with that particular amendment stricken.

 

Chairman Williams noted that a motion had been made by Mr. Horne and seconded by Assemblyman Atkinson to amend and do pass Assembly Bill 218 with Mr. Horne’s correction on the date, and he asked for remarks.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning indicated her support for the motion and related that there were several strong components of the amendment, one of which was adding the support personnel.  She also believed that placing the policy decision at the school board level was a strong addition.  She was relieved that, if some were not following the law, sanctions would be put into place, but she also hoped that one day the bill would become unnecessary due to compliance and could be repealed.

 

Assemblyman Geddes asked for clarification from Mr. Horne on the dates which were a problem.

 

Assemblyman Horne directed him to look at number 3 on the first page, where it said “on or before October 1 of each year,” and also on the new Section 5, where it referred to withholding a portion of the principal’s salary after October 1.  He articulated that if the date were moved to December 1, it would not make much sense and proposed to not include the first amendment to move the deadline to December 1.

 

Chairman Williams indicated that the amendment to change the date was only on the page giving the suggested amendments; it was not in the actual amendment on the following page.

 

Mrs. Angle expressed concern on the withholding of salary, as she felt it bypassed progressive discipline for a more punitive measure, and she was disturbed that it set a precedent for withholding salaries in other cases.

 

Chairman Williams solicited any other discussion on the motion and recognized Mr. Geddes.

 

Mr. Geddes was worried that there was too much work to complete before the October 1 deadline because there had to be a meeting, the plan had to be ready, it had to be posted, and then submitted.  He had heard concerns about all that work being too close to the beginning of the school year. 

 

Chairman Williams admitted that there had been discussion on that, but his feeling was that principals began their school year on August 1, so they had all of August and September to prepare the plan as well as do their other work.  He also felt that most discipline problems should be “nipped in the bud” at the beginning of the school year, and the desire was to have a unified plan at the beginning of the year so that teachers, parents, and students would understand what the plan was.

 

Assemblyman Andonov stated he had a question on Section 1, subsection 5.  The way it was worded, if the principal filed a plan but did not implement it, he would still receive his salary, and Mr. Andonov thought that was a conflict.

 

Mr. Hardy asserted that when he read it, the next sentence read “when the plan is filed with the Superintendent to his satisfaction, the salary and other compensation withheld pursuant to this subsection shall be released to the principal.”  He remarked that there seemed to be two provisions that addressed the withholding of salary: 1) the plan was filed, and 2) after satisfaction, the salary withheld would be released. 

 

Assemblyman Andonov noted that “filed to his satisfaction” did not necessarily mean that the plan was implemented.

 

Chairman Williams explained that the implementation would take place throughout the school year; it would not be possible to wait until the end of the school year to see if the implementation was successful, which was why the salary was released when the plan was filed and was satisfactory.

 

Assemblyman Hardy agreed with the Chairman and was pleased that, with passage of the bill, the Committee was not making the rules but were allowing the Board of Trustees to design, implement, and enforce a district plan so they were in the loop of holding principals accountable.  He expressed concern, however, for those teachers who were not union members and who could have problems obtaining rectification, noting that particular issue was not addressed in the bill.

 

Chairman Williams explained that the plan would be made public for anyone who wished to see it, so that any teacher, regardless of their affiliation, would have the opportunity to reveal situations where the plan was not in existence or not adhered to. 

 

Mr. Hardy asked if that meant that the plan itself would be posted so the teacher, parent, or anyone could read it and would not have to seek out a union representative to obtain that information. 

 

Chairman Williams said that was correct.  He then asked for other remarks on the motion.  There were no other remarks, and he requested that the secretary call the roll for the vote.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 218 WITH THE AMENDMENTS THE COMMITTEE RECEIVED.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. ANGLE VOTING NO.

 

Ms. Stonefield reminded the Chairman that the work session scheduled for Monday would include A.B. 175, on temporary replacement of board of trustee members when other members were in active military service; A.B. 227 on school psychologists; A.B. 234 on transportation; A.B. 52 on high school diplomas for veterans; and A.B. 138 on cell phones.

 

Chairman Williams asked for any other business to come before the Committee.  There was no further business, and the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Victoria Thompson

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman

 

 

DATE: