MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
March 17, 2003
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 4:02 p.m., on Monday, March 17, 2003. Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada and via simultaneous videoconference in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Wendell 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 Giunchigliani, District No. 9
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
June Rigsby, Committee Secretary, Taxation Committee
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robin Collins, Student, Reed High School, Sparks
John Wagner, Representative, The Nevada Republican Assembly
Chris Galyean, Counseling Coordinator, Western High School, Las Vegas
Tracy Flatt, Parent of a Vo Tech High School student, in Las Vegas
Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District
Lucille Lusk, Representative, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Doug Bache, Parent and Clark County School District Teacher
Susan Moore, Director, Millennium Scholarship Program
Eric Pesquira, Student, Community College High School, Las Vegas
Cassandra Lubic, Student, Community College High School, Las Vegas
Tiffany Mate, Student, Western High School, Las Vegas
Omar Lopez, Student
Rachel Riedel, Student, Mohave High School, Las Vegas
Julie Jackson, Student, Mohave High School, Las Vegas
Rebecca Cowan, Senior, Vo Tech High School, Henderson
Terry Hickman, Nevada State Education Association
Roll was called and the Chairman indicated that Mrs. Chowning was in the Commerce Committee testifying. She came to the Education Committee meeting when her testimony was finished.
Chairman Williams remarked that there were two bills on the agenda, Assembly Bill 179 and Assembly Bill 234, indicating that he would open the hearing first on Assembly Bill 179. He asked that, if anyone wished to testify on either of the bills, either for or against, would they please sign in on the sign-in sheet and check the box indicating that they wished to speak. He also asked that they print their names so they could be easily read when their names were called. He welcomed Assemblywoman Giunchigliani.
Assembly Bill 179: Revises provisions governing education. (BDR 34-22)
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that she was the representative for District 9 and was here to testify in support of Assembly Bill 179. She remarked that A.B. 179 caused major changes: one was to recommend the deletion of four standing committees that had been in effect since the 1997 or even earlier. She said these committees had concluded their business and she recommended the deletion of the following:
· Legislative Committee on Education
· Legislative Bureau of Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation
· Commission on Educational Technology
· Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools
Ms. Giunchigliani declared that, due to budget constraints, part of what she was looking for was increased efficiency. Regarding the four programs, she said they were created in response to certain factors that no longer required the committees to remain active. For instance, the Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools was created when standards were being created; that had been accomplished. She felt that the Legislative Bureau of Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation should never have been created, as it undermined the state Department of Education and the State Board of Education, who were staffed by duly elected officials. She informed the Education Committee that the Technology Committee had not met in the last year, and since funding was not allocated in the same mechanism as it was when the Technology Committee was created, that Committee should be deleted. She believed that the Legislative Committee on Education was redundant. The savings by eliminating the four committees would be over $500,000 in staff costs and impacts upon the Department of Education (Exhibit C).
Ms. Giunchigliani went on to describe the key component of the bill as similar to legislation that she introduced last session, and the intention was, without reducing standards, that no single “high stakes” test should be a barrier to students who graduated from high school. She divulged that there had always been a minimum competency exam in Nevada, at least for the 24 years that she had lived here, and the students were usually in the 98 to 99 percentile.
Ms. Giunchigliani related that, due to reactions to “A Nation at Risk” and other reports, the tests were changed and the percentile went down until the students were educated to that particular test. Reacting to national standards, Nevada embarked on the creation of a proficiency exam that students would have to pass in order to graduate from high school and receive a diploma. However, she felt that learning was a life-long experience and Nevada’s young men and women were smart and did a good job; just one test should not make or break those students.
Ms. Giunchigliani went on to relate an attempt to pass a similar bill last session in a tiered form, from a Certificate of Attendance to a standard diploma to an advanced diploma, but she could not get the bill heard. In her research for this bill, she looked at a law recently passed in Wyoming that used endorsements. She strongly believed that if a student took all the required credits and passed all tests related to those credits, they should earn a standard diploma; if A.B. 179 were passed, it would add endorsements to the diploma for passing the proficiency test, taking honors courses, or doing advanced course work.
As it was now, Ms. Giunchigliani stated that, if a student did not pass all three portions of the proficiency exam, all he or she could receive was a Certificate of Attendance. She expounded that those students did far more than simply attend school for four years; they did everything that was asked of them except to pass one high stakes exam. Under A.B. 179, if all a student did was show up but did not earn all the credits necessary, they could receive a Certificate of Attendance. However, a special education student or a general education student could earn a high school diploma with various endorsements noted on it.
Ms. Giunchigliani extrapolated that community colleges around the state accepted Certificates of Attendance, adjusted diplomas and regular diplomas; universities did not. She noted that as a special education teacher for 23 years, if her students attempted to pass the proficiency exam but had not by grade 12, she could reconvene their Individual Education Plan (IEP) and formulate an adjusted diploma. That diploma would allow them to go to a four-year college. A regular student who did not pass the proficiency exam would not have the same option and could only go on to a community college. She reiterated that the students who did not pass were not “loafers”; they completed all other required work but could not pass the proficiency test, and that should not be a barrier when they had learned all the standards that they were expected to learn.
Ms. Giunchigliani informed the Committee that she had handed out actual suggestions (Exhibit D) to make the bill flow better in a section-by-section analysis. She commended the bill drafting department for doing a very good job and had no recommendations for amendments. She also brought other articles for the Committee, such as “Do High Stakes Tests Boost Student Achievement” (Exhibit E); “Flawed Exams Don’t Pass the Test” (Exhibit F); “Test Scores Widening Between Races” (Exhibit G); a copy of similar legislation in Wyoming (Exhibit H); and what states required exit exams (Exhibit I). She advised that some of the states’ exit exams affected the opportunity to access a diploma, while others did not.
Assemblywoman Angle remarked that on the back of the handout, it stated that eligibility for the Millennium Scholarship would not be based on the proficiency test. She had heard problems with Millennium scholars requiring remediation and asked how those students who were not really eligible for the scholarship could be caught.
Ms. Giunchigliani asserted that remediation was being debated in this Committee as well as Ways and Means, and she believed that if a student needed remediation, it made more sense for them to begin in a community college, which the Governor also recommended. She remarked that when the standards were created, there was no concept of a K-16 system; high school teachers did not interact with the colleges and universities to ensure that high school standards were coordinated with the expectations of the colleges and universities.
Ms. Giunchigliani then disclosed that she was on leave from her position at the Community College of Southern Nevada, and that she had also worked for, and was on leave from, the Clark County School District. She then expressed her belief that there should be a “peer-to-peer” program to ensure that the high school standards were sufficient to prepare students for entry into colleges or universities. She mentioned working with “Eisenhower Grants” before she went on leave, which provided that community college instructors work with the middle school English teachers to be sure that students were being properly prepared for the college curriculum. She was unsure of a solution, but felt the issue was important to discuss because the students and the faculty were not being properly served if they were not all “on the same page.”
Assemblywoman Angle commented that if the proficiency tests were excluded, issuing a diploma would depend only on the students’ grades from school and the 3.0 average required for the Millennium Scholarship.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the current practice was not to use the proficiency exam for the purpose of rewarding the Millennium Scholarship.
Mrs. Angle remarked that the bill spoke only to current practices. Her second question was if the $500,000 in savings would go into the General Fund.
Ms. Giunchigliani replied that the portion which was funded by the General Fund would go back to the General Fund; another example of savings was Department of Education staff who would no longer be used to cover meetings. She promised to provide a copy of the memo from the staff for the Chairman. She then asked if she could invite Robin Collins, a student from Sparks, to speak on her situation, commenting that it was Robin’s birthday.
Robin Collins introduced herself as a senior at Reed High School in Sparks. She informed the Committee that she was taking all honors classes and had been since her junior year, and those included Algebra 3 and 4, Probabilities and Statistics, Honors English, and AP Government. She was maintaining a B average in all classes. She was currently a helicopter refueler for the Army National Guard, Detachment 1, Company D, 140th Aviation, and she planned to go to the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), in the fall of 2004 when she returned from basic training and AIT (Advanced Individual Training). She planned to major in law and minor in psychology, and she worked at a daycare center part-time to earn money for school. However, because she had not passed the math portion of the proficiency test, she could not go past basic training in the military. She pointed out that she had passed the reading and writing proficiency tests the first time and currently had an A in Algebra 4, a B in Probability and Statistics, a B in Honors English, and a B in AP Government.
Chairman Williams thanked her for her testimony and congratulated her on all the good work she had accomplished.
Assemblywoman Angle asked Robin if she had failed the math portion of the proficiency test two or three times.
Robin replied that she failed the math portion three times.
Mrs. Angle commented that Robin had an A in Algebra, which Robin acknowledged was correct, also pointing out that she had a B in Probability and Statistics, and both classes were honors classes.
Mrs. Angle asked Robin if she failed the tests due to a lack of knowledge; were the questions too hard, or if she “blocked” on tests.
Robin replied that the closer she came to graduation, the more nervous she became taking the proficiency test, so she agreed that stress was definitely a factor. She felt it was not right to base one test on four years of work. She was also depressed as she could not go to UNR, could not get a good-paying job, and could not take her advanced training in the military without a high school diploma.
Assemblyman Andonov asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani if she knew how many students were in a similar situation, either the number or the percentage.
Ms. Giunchigliani regretted that she did not have that information and suggested that the school districts could possibly answer the question. She had spoken to one mother whose 19-year-old son was on his fifth try to pass the test, and he was 20 when he finally passed. She agreed with Robin that one test should not be a measurement of everything learned in four years and that classroom tests which were constantly given to students should carry some weight.
Mrs. Chowning inquired how many more opportunities Robin had in order to pass the proficiency test.
Robin replied that she had one more opportunity in May; she would receive the Certificate of Attendance in June if she still had not passed the test. She said she thought she might be able to take the proficiency test while she was in basic training, but once she graduated from basic training, she could not be promoted without passing the test and obtaining her diploma.
Mrs. Chowning wondered how Robin was able to enter military service because she thought a diploma was necessary to enter the military.
Robin replied that she was in the Guard, which involved one weekend a month and two weeks a year, and she could perform her duties for her drill weekend because she did not have a unit to be attached to yet. If she did not receive her high school diploma, she could not go past her basic training for any further schooling or be attached to a unit.
Mrs. Chowning revealed that Robin was not alone and stated that the Committee members had heard that testimony on the math portion of the proficiency test many times, and that even students with almost a 4.0 average had problems passing the math portion of the test. She noted that Committee members had endured much criticism for their stand on the testing but it was worth it, because it was appalling that students with Robin’s qualifications should not be able to continue and were castigated as failures when they obviously were not failures. She elucidated that when she graduated from high school there were no proficiency exams to pass, and yet she became a teacher and good citizen. She commended Ms. Giunchigliani for her courage in bringing forth the bill, but she was concerned about how it would affect Nevada in relation to the requirements for “No Child Left Behind.”
Ms. Giunchigliani explained that the bill allowed for the proficiency exam to remain in place, and students were encouraged to take the test, which could be added to the diploma as an endorsement. She asserted that the No Child Left Behind Act required a state test, which would still be in place; it did not require the test as a condition for graduation, and not all states required the test as an exit in order to receive a diploma. She believed that it would be prudent to look at how much funding was going to remediation for one test rather than remediation for standards. She illustrated that Robin was exactly the type of student to lead us into the future: She was in honors classes, she was a student volunteer, she was a participant in the community, and she was a member of the National Guard.
Mrs. Chowning asked if Nevada would risk losing federal funding tied to HR 1 if the bill was passed, and Ms. Giunchigliani said she did not believe that would happen; as long as there was a state test, it was not required for the issuance of a diploma.
Mrs. Angle asked Robin if she had taken her ACT and SAT for college entrance.
Robin confirmed that she took her ACT for college and applied to Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) for the spring 2004 semester because she would not be back in time to attend UNR. She wished to go to UNR when she returned from her training.
Mrs. Angle queried if Robin could confirm that she did well on her ACT, and Robin replied that she did “all right” on the ACT.
Chairman Williams asked for additional questions from the Committee but there were none. He thanked Ms. Giunchigliani for her testimony and he indicated that there were others who had signed in to speak on A.B. 179; they would be called to testify in the order they had signed in.
John Wagner represented a volunteer group called The Nevada Republican Assembly and was also a school board member for the Capital Christian Center School in Carson City, and he remarked that they had testing; they did not plan on eliminating the testing; and their students passed the tests. He expressed his belief that students should be tested as they went through school so they could receive training in any deficient areas, and in his experience there were students who were lazy and did not complete the class work but they tested well so they were pushed into the next grade.
Mr. Wagner observed that the true final tests were after you graduated, and those were the tests given by employers, which was one part of his career. He stated that part of the bill deleted some of the English requirements, and he detailed his travels and careers throughout the world, pointing out that he was able to go anywhere and teach in English because of his education. He felt that testing was a fact of life, because the boss would sooner or later give an evaluation, which was a test. He said he was against the bill in several areas.
Chris Galyean introduced himself as the Counseling Coordinator at Western High School in Las Vegas and indicated that he had worked with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani. He stated for the record that he was a Republican and supported Assembly Bill 179. He spoke partly from a prepared statement (Exhibit J) and indicated that he worked with at-risk students at Western High School. He reported that over half of the senior class had not yet passed the proficiency exam, specifically the math portion. He stressed that many of those students were in honors’ classes, but the closer they came to graduation, the more the stress factor noticeably rose until some of the students just “shut down.” He received the results on some of the students today and had already told a few students that they did not pass the test, and he described how much it hurt to watch those students break down. He felt it was unfair that the students could be accepted into universities and the military based on their grades, but their progress was halted by the state of Nevada.
Assemblyman Mabey asked what the passing score for the math test was and what percentage passed it.
Mr. Galyean understood that a passing score was 64 percent, or 304 on a sliding scale. Of his senior class, less than half had passed the math proficiency test, and he opined that many other high schools were in the same situation. However, since he taught at an at-risk school, that situation could influence the scores detrimentally.
Assemblyman Andonov inquired what the reason was for students not to pass the proficiency test. He commented that the students were in honors classes so they were presumably meeting the standards in the classroom and learning the material, and he asked if it was nervousness or other factors that contributed to failing the test.
Mr. Galyean replied that it could be nervousness, as the more times a student took the test, the worse he or she did. He also reported that when he was proctoring the tests, he observed that many of the math questions were actually word questions, and many of his students’ primary language was not English, so that could affect the test results.
Assemblyman Horne expressed his concern that the proficiency tests were in a completely different format than the format the students were instructed on in class.
Mr. Galyean expressed his regret that, as an ex-college professor and ex-naval officer, he could not address high school instruction, but he said that many people behind him were shouting that the tests were not in the same format as the instruction in class.
Chairman Williams commented that Mrs. Chowning had mentioned that problem as well when the Education Committee attempted several times to address or correct the issue, which was that the law was enacted immediately for students who were at a particular grade level. That meant that students were told they had to pass those tests when they were not given classes as freshmen, sophomores or juniors which would prepare them for those tests. He asked Mr. Galyean what Mr. Galyean told his students so the students could move on.
Mr. Galyean reported that he pushed the students toward remediation or tutoring. He described programs from the community college in Las Vegas and also the university that provided tutoring for approximately $30 to $40 before the proficiency exams were given, but he noted that many students could not afford the cost. He also declared that there was tutoring at the school where he was employed, and the math teachers would meet with the students after school eight to ten days before the proficiency exam.
Mrs. Angle mentioned that when she graduated from high school, it was not a requirement to have a high school diploma in order to attend college. She asked Mr. Galyean if that was still the case.
Mr. Galyean responded that, although it had been a few years since he was in the university setting, he believed that it was necessary to have a high school diploma to go to college.
Tracy Flatt, parent of a student at Vo Tech High School in Las Vegas, related her situation. Her son Chris was a special education student since third grade and had attended resource classes and summer school every year. As a junior, he took Algebra 1A which was one-half year of basic algebra, so he did not have the educational opportunities to be able to pass the math proficiency test. He was now a senior and, even though he had been tutored by algebra teachers and had also taken the classes that the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), had offered, he had failed the test again. He was currently enrolled in the proficiency test class for remedial work. His attendance had always been exemplary and he was a good student who planned to follow a career in culinary arts by attending the culinary arts program at the local community college, but there was the problem of a diploma.
Karyn Wright then introduced herself as the representative for the Clark County School District and stated that, in reference to Assembly Bill 179, the Clark County School District supported accountability for student performance. She acknowledged the district’s support for students acquiring all credits required for graduation; however, they felt that the student needed a high school exit document that included the word “diploma” in order to lead productive lives. She voiced support for the concept of local control for districts and asserted that the Clark County School District would consider renaming the Certificate of Attendance so that it included the word “diploma.” She also established that, in reference to Section 11, subsection 2, she recommended that the passage of a high school proficiency exam continue to be a condition of eligibility for attaining the Millennium Scholarship.
Chairman Williams solicited, in reference to Clark County School District’s position on including the word “diploma” in its Certificate of Attendance, if the certificate would then read “Diploma of Attendance.”
Ms. Wright clarified that what she had discussed with the Clark County School District was a type of exit diploma to fill a student’s need to enter the military or obtain certain jobs. She reiterated that the district would consider renaming the Certificate of Attendance to include the word “diploma.”
Chairman Williams inquired if the Clark County School District would support the concept of the diploma that Ms. Giunchigliani described in the bill.
Ms. Wright replied that a diploma that was differentiated would be acceptable.
Chairman Williams queried if the district was in support of A.B. 179 from that aspect.
Ms. Wright asserted that the district supported looking at and perhaps working with some additional language to look at the term “diploma.”
Chairman Williams expressed his desire to clarify the issue and confirmed with Ms. Wright that she was in disagreement with Ms. Giunchigliani but was open to discussion.
Ms. Wright agreed that she was open to discussing the language in the bill the way it was written to look at ways of differentiating and perhaps changing certain language and including the word “diploma” on the current Certificate of Attendance.
Assemblyman Geddes asked Ms. Wright if, regarding Section 6 of the bill, it would be a problem for the Clark County School District to administer and install the proficiency exam in other languages.
Ms. Wright replied that she now had Section 6 and requested that Mr. Geddes repeat his question.
Mr. Geddes restated that his question was regarding the ability to implement that section of the bill. Ms. Giunchigliani was stating that it was federal law.
Ms. Wright agreed that it was federal law.
Assemblyman Mabey queried Ms. Wright if it were possible to receive a diploma from an American high school and not speak English fluently.
Ms. Wright replied that she was not the person to answer that particular question but she could get the answer for Mr. Mabey.
Chairman Williams asked if Mr. Mabey meant a high school located in the United States of America, or was he asking if a person could graduate from a Clark County high school without speaking English. Mr. Mabey indicated that it was the first question. Chairman Williams asserted that Ms. Wright would obtain that information for the Committee.
Lucille Lusk, with Nevada Concerned Citizens, opposed A.B. 179, although she admitted to having mixed feelings about the proficiency exams. She stated that the exams appeared to be misnamed from what she was told they were supposed to accomplish. Her opinion was that the tests should reflect what public school students should learn in order to graduate after a 13-year K-12 education; if that was the case, then the tests should not be bypassed to graduate or to achieve scholarships. She felt that bypassing the tests would be admitting that a B student, which was above average, was not learning the minimum that students in a K-12 education program should learn.
Ms. Lusk believed, however, if the proficiency tests were testing on information that a high-performing student should learn, then those tests should not be a minimum competency exam nor an exit exam. She noted that the Education Committee, the Legislature, and the State Board of Education still had much work ahead to determine whether the tests were accomplishing what they were instituted for. She reiterated, however, that if the proficiency tests were identifying what all regular students should learn in order to graduate from high school with the minimum skills required, then they were valid as exit exams and there was a lot of remediation necessary to bring the students up to that level.
Ms. Lusk opined that, from what she had seen of the exams, largely they had identified what students should learn, but she felt the form of the exams needed work. She agreed that tests engendered a stress factor, citing test-taking experiences she had with the IBM Corporation, which placed her as an accountant even though she had not been a good math student.
Ms. Lusk then informed that Committee that in S.B. 191, which she described as the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, there were provisions related to the requirements for testing students in their native language, which she believed were also in A.B. 179. She was unclear if the No Child Left Behind Act required the test in the native language to be as long or extensive as the test was in English, and she went on to expound on the benefits of English immersion programs for non-English-speaking students. She responded to the question asking if a student could go entirely through school in the U.S. without being able to speak English with an unqualified yes, and she cited students in an El Centro school where she had taught who never learned to speak English. She commented that those students struggled mightily and the school system failed them by being too kind and making it too easy to get through school without learning English, thereby cheating them out of something they seriously needed in order to be competitive in the future.
Ms. Lusk related that her last comment dealt with the abolition of the four committees. She doubted that so many committees were necessary and believed that the State Board of Education should be empowered to do its job, and the Education Committee should make clear what that job was. If the Education Committee and the Legislature had completed adequate research to determine what those tests should be, the information should be shared with the State Board of Education, and Ms. Lusk felt that too many agencies did not know what the other agencies were doing. She then reminded the Committee that, when considering all the new requirements, to remember that ultimately the goal was to prepare Nevada’s youth to be successful in the challenges of life; testing was a part of life that should not be ignored.
Doug Bache stated that he was speaking in favor of A.B. 179 as a parent and as a teacher in the Clark County School District. He explained that he had a 16‑year-old daughter who was learning disabled and had reading comprehension difficulties. His concern was that, even though she was a C student and passed classes, and she did take both semester and final exams for each of those classes to show that she passed them, when she took the various proficiency exams she would not be able to pass them due to her reading problems. His daughter wondered why she should continue her education, when she could pass all of her classes but not receive a diploma at the end of four years of high school. Mr. Bache cited his daughter’s driving test as an example, stating that the first two times she failed it, but the third time she went to a DMV location where they had headphones for the test-takers to hear the questions orally and she passed the test with a 97 percent. The reason she passed was that she was an aural learner who had reading comprehension problems; it was not that she could not pass the test, it was how the test was administered that made the difference.
Mr. Bache went on to relate that, as a teacher in the Clark County School District, he currently taught at the Morris Academy, a behavioral program for students who were behavioral problems in their regular middle school. Most of their problems were due to being underachieving students, and many of them had voiced the opinion to Mr. Bache that there was no reason for those students to finish school, because they would never be able to pass the proficiency exams. Even if they completed their course work, passed their classes, and achieved the required credits, they felt that the way the tests were formatted, the students could never pass them.
Chairman Williams solicited questions from the Committee; there were no questions. He informed those testifying in Las Vegas that three witnesses at a time should come up and sit in the three seats provided, make themselves comfortable, state their names for the record, indicate whether they were in support or opposition, and give their testimony.
Susan Moore introduced herself as the Director of the Millennium Scholarship Program, with the Office of the State Treasurer. She disclosed that she was there to comment on earlier testimony and to provide a clarification. She had heard testimony on the Millennium Scholarship that stated the proficiency exam was not a requirement to receive the Millennium Scholarship, and she reported that information was incorrect. She advised that the proficiency exam was a requirement in order to receive the Millennium Scholarship, whether the student was a public school graduate, private school graduate, home-schooled student, or GED recipient.
Chairman Williams thanked Ms. Moore for her information, and he asked if home-schooled students received the standard diploma when they graduated, whether they took the proficiency test or not.
Ms. Moore asked the Chairman if he was directing that question to her.
Chairman Williams said that he was, but that there were representatives from the Department of Education in the audience in Carson City, and the Committee would wait and ask those representatives that question.
Eric Pesquira, a Community College High School student, expressed his support for the bill. He noted that he had attended Community College High School in Las Vegas for the last two years; he was taking Small Business Management, Business Law, Communications, and English 107; and he was passing all courses with “flying colors.” He reported that he would not be able to go to UNLV due to the proficiency tests, even though he would be receiving an Associate Degree in Business Management at the end of the year.
Cassandra Lubic also had attended Community College High School in Las Vegas for the last two years. She advised that she was taking Business 101 and Hotel Management, and she had applied to the University of Johnson and Wells in Rhode Island as well as the Art Institute in Pittsburgh, but her education was pending the results of the Proficiency Test, which she had not passed. She would not be able to go to either college unless she received a diploma, even though she was an A and B student all through school, and she felt it was unfair that a proficiency exam could take away everything that the students had worked so hard and so long for.
Assemblyman Manendo inquired if either Eric or Cassandra had passed the proficiency exam yet.
Eric replied that neither he nor Cassandra had passed, even though they had taken the test five times.
Chairman Williams asked if Eric would receive an associate’s degree from the college without receiving a high school diploma.
Eric responded affirmatively but indicated that he would not be able to go any further because he could not enter UNLV without a diploma, so he could not earn a bachelor’s degree.
Tiffany Mate described herself as a senior at Western High School in Las Vegas and stated her support for the bill. She took the math proficiency test for the fourth time and failed the test by 15 points. She was competing for a swimming scholarship at the University of Arizona, and the only thing holding her back was the proficiency test, which over 50 percent of her class did not pass. She admitted that, due to her IEP, she received more time for the math proficiency test than the regular students, but she was so stressed by the realization that she only had two more chances to pass the test before she graduated that she “blocked” when the test was given. She personally knew students who graduated in 2000 and were still attempting to pass the math proficiency test to acquire their diplomas.
Mrs. Chowning asked the three students if it was just the math proficiency test that they could not pass, or if there were other areas.
Tiffany indicated that for her it was the math test. She mentioned a question she had heard earlier in the testimony which asked if the test was different each time. She said that was correct, that each time you took the test it was worded differently, and some material was from four years earlier when the student was a freshman. She reported that she was a B student, and she took a pre-calculus honors class, but she still could not pass the math proficiency test, which was holding up her college plans.
Cassandra advised that she passed the writing and reading proficiency tests the first time she took them. She was considering moving to California so that she would be able to receive her diploma, because she was afraid she would never pass the math proficiency test and would not receive her diploma. She asserted that she had worked too hard to only receive a Certificate of Attendance, and that she had taken many tests, and she did not believe that her diploma should be based on just one test.
Chairman Williams had one request: each time someone gave testimony, he asked that they state their names for the record to ensure that the correct remarks were attributed to the correct speaker.
Omar Lopez commented that he was in the 12th grade, he had a 3.6 Grade Point Average (GPA), and he had taken accelerated classes from middle school through high school. He had been accepted to UNLV and qualified for the Millennium Scholarship and the President’s Award for Educational Excellence, and he was bilingual with English as his second language. Yet he had been unable to pass the math proficiency, missing it by just one point the last time he took the test. If he graduated, he would be the first person in his family to graduate and the first person in his family and extended family to go to UNLV. If he did not pass the math proficiency test, he would not be able to go to the university or get a good paying job. He reported that many kids in his school were dropping out of school, knowing they would not be able to pass one of the proficiency exams. He stated that he was in favor of the bill.
Assemblyman Mabey asked Omar if he received a 25 on the math portion of his ACT, and Omar replied that he could not remember, but he believed it was an 18.
Rachel Riedel from Mohave High School in Las Vegas spoke next and stated her opposition to the bill for many reasons. She passed the proficiency tests the first time for math, reading and writing, and she believed that the reason some students could not pass the tests was that they had cheated in school and therefore had not learned the material. She felt that the contents of the proficiency exam were based on basic knowledge and if a student could not access basic knowledge, they did not deserve a diploma and would not be proficient in society. She opined that the failure rates of the test should not reflect the test; the failure rates should reflect the quality of the teachers and the material. She expressed her opinion in more detail in the printed material she presented (Exhibit K).
Julie Jackson from Mohave High School in Las Vegas asserted that one test should not determine whether the student earned the diploma. She related that she passed her proficiency tests, but nevertheless felt it was unfair for one test to dictate a student’s ability to graduate. She did not object to having tests, but she believed that each test should correspond to each class that students had to pass to graduate.
Rebecca Cowan, a senior at Vo Tech High School in Henderson, elucidated that she completed all her credit requirements necessary to graduate in October of 2002; the requirement was 22½ credits to graduate, and she had achieved 27½ credits, as well as being an honor student with a 3.5 GPA. The only reason she was still attending high school was to pass the math proficiency test. She noted that the test had a great deal of focus on geometry, even though geometry was not a required class for graduation, and calculators were prohibited but the test was designed to be taken with calculators. She questioned how she could have maintained an A and B average in math all through high school and not have learned anything. She emphatically stated that students should not have to worry about a diploma versus a Certificate of Attendance. At that point in time she would not be receiving a diploma, which impeded her intended career in health occupations and deterred her plans to become a nurse. She worried that she would never be able to obtain a decent job, and it was all due to one test.
Assemblyman Horne commented that Rebecca had one of the most cogent arguments that he had heard, particularly when she divulged that geometry was a large part of the exam but was not a required course for graduation from high school. He asked if that was really true and noted that Mr. Hickman in the audience was nodding his head affirmatively. Mr. Horne remarked that this should be an area of concern if most students had not taken, and had not been required to take, the courses necessary to pass the exam. He did not believe Rebecca could have cheated to get as far as she had in school.
Rebecca declared that she had failed the math proficiency three times and the failures were all in geometry, because she had never been introduced to geometry in junior high or in high school. She observed that there was already a great deal of stress the closer the students came to graduation; having a subject on the proficiency test that the students were not acquainted with exacerbated the stress. She felt it was unfair that she would graduate with only a Certificate of Attendance when she had worked so hard.
Three other students, Ernestina Lucero, Gabriela Camacho, and Buenela Ortiz, submitted joint written testimony (Exhibit L) but did not offer verbal testimony.
Mr. Horne noted that he took geometry in school and still did poorly in it.
Terry Hickman, of the Nevada State Education Association, believed that the fundamental question was whether four years were more important than four hours, and he asked if the proficiency test made the students’ four years in high school meaningful, or meaningless. In startling contrast, he related that when students went to college, they were not given a pass or fail test to enter college; they were given placement tests called the SAT and ACT. If they did well, they were allowed to skip particular classes and even move on to higher level classes. If they did not do well, they were placed in remedial classes. But they were not usually told they were not worthy of going to college.
Mr. Hickman pointed out that his most recent assignment was as a counselor at Centennial High School in Las Vegas, where barely half the juniors passed the proficiency test the first time. He said Eldorado High School in Las Vegas and even Carson High School in Carson City had similar results, and he described the test as very difficult, notwithstanding the concern Assemblyman Horne raised of having a test that did not relate to what was taught in the classroom. He questioned if the proficiency exam really summarized the entire high school experience, and he could not believe the state would punish the students for the rest of their lives because they did not pass the proficiency test; not only did it prevent students from attending a university, but they could not even qualify for financial aid without a diploma. He felt that the proficiency exam as stated in A.B. 179 was an excellent way for students to demonstrate that four years of school was more important than four hours of testing in order to be successful; he said he knew of no single exam that could predict success. He reiterated that the proficiency test indicated to students that they were a failure, and that four years was far more significant than four hours.
Assemblywoman Koivisto was concerned that everything she had heard in the three previous sessions and today made her feel as if the students were being set up for failure. She asserted that if A.B. 179 were passed, it would improve that situation.
Chairman Williams thanked Mrs. Koivisto for her comments and remarked that it could be the last chance for the Committee to make adjustments. He remembered four years ago when changes were attempted, the Committee was told they would “dummy down” education in Nevada. He cited the students who testified that they had more credits than required and high grade point averages, and he felt their accomplishments showed quite the opposite of the “dummy down” theory. He reported that the Assembly members were being called into a Floor Session, and he apologized to those people in Las Vegas who were waiting to testify and also those offering testimony on A.B. 234, but he explained that today was the last day to submit bills to the Legislature and the Assembly and they had no choice but to attend the Floor Session. He offered to continue the testimony on A.B. 179 and A.B. 234 at the next posted meeting.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani apologized to the Chairman and Assemblywoman Angle, regretting that her testimony on the Millennium Scholarship was inaccurate. She appreciated Susan Moore for offering clarification on that matter.
Chairman Williams apologized to those in the audience who would not be able to testify and adjourned the meeting at 5:21 p.m.
Victoria Thompson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
DATE: