MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
March 24, 2003
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:56 p.m., on Monday, March 24, 2003. Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada and via simultaneous videoconference in Room 4406 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.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
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:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Assemblywoman, District No. 9
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tracy B. Cotton, MBA, DBA, Executive Director, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Center for Academic Enrichment and Outreach
Zhanna Aronov, Center for Academic Enrichment and Outreach, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
John Pappageorge, Representative, University and Community College System of Nevada
Joyce Haldeman, Representative, Clark County School District
Chairman Williams:
Call the roll, Madam Secretary. Please mark members present when they arrive. We have two bills on the agenda today; we’ll start with Assembly Bill 186. This bill was concurrently referred to this Committee as well as to the Ways and Means Committee. Today we’ll talk about the policy aspect of this bill, and we’ll leave the financial aspect for the Ways and Means Committee, and Chairman Arberry.
Assembly Bill 186: Makes appropriation to Board of Regents of University of Nevada for establishment of Nevada Educational Support Program. (BDR S-909)
Tracy B. Cotton, M.B.A., D.B.A., Executive Director, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Center for Academic Enrichment and Outreach:
[Introduces himself] I’m here to speak on the Nevada Educational Support Program. [He spoke from Las Vegas from prepared testimony (Exhibit C)]. The Nevada Educational Support Program, NESP for short, is a program largely based on the philosophy of the federally funded TRIO programs [TRIO programs are Educational Opportunities for Low-Income Disabled Americans] in the states of California and New York. Those Educational Opportunity programs are state-funded initiatives that utilize the TRIO philosophies to expand services to populations that do not meet the federal qualifying guidelines of TRIO, but are, nonetheless, in need of the valuable services performed by the TRIO programs.
What are the TRIO programs? The TRIO programs are part of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Initially, there were just three programs [thus the term, trio], but, now, there are eight programs, commonly known as TRIO.
[Dr. Cotton continues.] There are approximately 2000 TRIO programs across the country, and they serve nearly 850,000 low-income and first-generation Americans between the ages of 11 and 30. Over 1200 colleges and universities across the country have TRIO programs. For the past three decades, TRIO programs have posted impressive performance records. Students in the TRIO Upward Bound programs are four times more likely to earn an undergraduate college degree than those students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in TRIO programs. Students in the TRIO Student Support Services program are more than twice as likely to remain in college than those students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in the program.
There are a total of 16 TRIO programs currently operating at four of the institutions of higher education within the state of Nevada. In 2001 and 2002, the retention rate for participants in the TRIO Student Support programs at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), was nearly 95 percent, significantly higher than that of the institution’s general student body, which was 71.9 percent. Additionally, the TRIO Upward Bound participants at UNLV graduated at a higher rate, 95 percent, than their peers within the state at 70.1 percent, and, more specifically, at the Clark County School District, which was 76 percent. Those numbers come from numbers presented by the Clark County School District to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Using the TRIO infrastructure, the Nevada Educational Support Program will assist more than 15,000 low-income and first-generation college students with the matriculation processes of secondary and post-secondary education. For example, the Nevada Educational Support Program will provide concentrated support services to high school students who, due to academic deficiencies, perform poorly on standardized tests such as the SAT, ACT, and the High School Proficiency Examination. Likewise, the Nevada Educational Support Program will focus on assisting high school students with completing financial aid scholarship and admission applications. Finally, the Nevada Educational Support Program will offer services to support students after they arrive at their respective college or university within the state. The Nevada Educational Support Program services will include:
The Nevada Educational Support Program will be staffed by full-time professional counselors and advisors committed and trained to provide disadvantaged students with academic, career, and personal counseling. Counselors will be seen by appointment and during walk-in hours. The Nevada Educational Support Program Outreach will be targeted toward schools with high concentrations of at-risk students, at-risk being defined as students who are at risk of not completing their high school education or at risk of not going to college. The Nevada Educational Support Program Center for Academic Assistance and Training will offer workshops that will help secondary and post-secondary students successfully meet competence requirements, as well as improve learning skills.
There is much more written in the text. I won’t read through all of the documents; I assume that you have them before you. But, I will say that some of the services will include tutoring for individuals and small groups, writing labs and math workshops, learning skills workshops with everything from time management, test taking, note taking, how to prepare for the final exam, memory skills, concentration, personal growth, test preparation activities which include entry level mathematics, competency exams, grammar, spelling and punctuation tests, and college entrance exam preparation.
The Bridge Program is designed to assist students in the most critical period between graduating from high school and preparing to go into college. Students will actually live on the campuses of the universities during that summer, so that they can become acquainted with the environment and adopt institutional mentors and contacts to assist them with their transition. The Nevada Educational Support Program’s First Contact Program will ensure that every student who comes through the program will have someone on the campus to be his/her advocate. Also, it will ensure that every student receives appropriate academic advice. I think the rest of it I will leave for questions. I do want to point out some statistics.
For students who participate in the secondary programs of TRIO, 94 percent of those students continue in school in ninth grade through twelfth grade, compared to a reported 69.9 percent within the community, and 73.2 percent within the state. Of the students who participated in the TRIO programs, which is the model for the Nevada Educational Support Program program, 93 percent graduated from high school. When we look at the post-secondary enrollment, the TRIO students are enrolled in two-year institutions at 54 percent, and in four-year institutions at 34 percent of those who graduate from high school. Regarding post-secondary graduation rates of those students who participate in the TRIO programs on a five-year calendar, 82 percent of the students graduate within five years. That’s compared to the general population of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), from which 39 percent of the students graduate on a six-year calendar.
[Dr. Cotton continues.] The TRIO programs are very well known within the educational community, and they have been contributors to success, especially for those students who come from at-risk environments. We strongly support the P-16 Educational Support Programs, because they are what will help our students, especially those students from at-risk communities, succeed. I offer myself as an example of the success of these programs and the many thousands of students who have graduated from our programs.
Chairman Williams:
Are you going to be there for a while, Dr. Cotton? We may have questions later. [Mr. Cotton indicated that he would be there to answer questions.] Mr. Geddes?
Assemblyman Geddes:
I just had a question regarding the priority registration for the first two semesters. Can you tell me what other groups are in priority registration? I know the honors program and athletics program both have priority registration. Is that it, or are there more?
Dr. Tracy Cotton:
No, in priority registration right now as a system, only those two groups have priority registration. However, statistics have shown that when priority registration is given to this particular group of students, they tend to act quickly in getting into their classes, and it is a motivator for them to continue on with their studies. One of the problems that this group typically faces, when they are trying to get their courses, is that they are often advised erroneously to wait until financial aid is cleared. By the time they are ready to enroll, they’re locked out of their courses. When they are locked out of their courses, because there is not a history for educational attainment within the family structures, this group typically will enroll in classes that do not benefit their degree program. This, therefore, extends their degree program and lends to an unsuccessful completion of degrees.
What we are advocating for, as part of this program, is that they have priority registration, which can get them into the first two semesters. We want them to get their foot in the door. We also have shown through studies that this particular group of students, by the third semester, understands the system. They are really well-versed in what steps they need to take in their academic progress, and they don’t need the priority registration after that point. They understand what courses they need to take, and they understand how important it is to get in early.
Assemblyman Geddes:
Thank you, Dr. Cotton. Looking at the list of activities such as academic advising and free tutorial assistance, I know some of those are provided by the institutions already, so is this supplementary to what is being provided? Would these students be diverted out of the current programs, or are the current programs going far enough, and would these activities be beyond that?
Dr. Tracy Cotton:
The current programs are not going far enough, because right now there is little focus on the students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. These are students who come from first-generation college attendees where they are not used to, and there is no mentor within the family for, pursuing a college degree. Many of the advisors don’t understand where the students are coming from. No, it is not available like this; it’s not as intrusive, and it’s not as comprehensive.
Typically, a low-income, first-generation student would meet with an advisor in the undeclared college or the student government center. They would be rushed through the necessary requirements. What this does is provide a very intrusive program, probably 115 students for each counselor, as opposed to as many as 500 students per counselor otherwise. That means the counselor actually has time to sit down with the student and evaluate the program, because this student is much more at risk of not completing the program. The extra effort is needed. Did you ask a question about tutoring?
Assemblyman Geddes:
You answered it in the general answer. Thank you, Dr. Cotton.
Assemblyman Andonov:
In your testimony, you have impressive statistics on the success of the TRIO program. Secondary retention rates, graduation rates, and the enrollment percentages are all significantly higher than those of the Clark County School District and of Nevada as a whole. I was wondering, do you have similar information, or was there a similar success rate in California and New York, when they implemented the Educational Opportunity Programs?
Dr. Tracy Cotton:
I didn’t bring any, but there are similar success stories. The reason that we would like to model this program after a combination of the TRIO and the Educational Opportunity Programs of California and New York is that they are the most successful programs in the country. There are also Educational Opportunity Programs operating in Maryland, Virginia, and a few other states, but the New York and California programs are the most successful. You are correct that we have much higher success numbers than the general population. Currently, we serve 370 students at UNLV through our Student Support Services program. The eligible population would be close to about 7,000 students. That’s one of the reasons why an Educational Support Program would be so beneficial; it would allow us to reach many more students who can benefit from these services.
We’re funded currently through the federal government, and we can’t serve the eligible population. In the high school and middle school grades, we currently serve another 8,500 students who benefit from our services, but, again, that is only a fraction of those who could benefit from these programs. The California programs don’t operate at the secondary level; however, that is where we can take our current infrastructure with our TRIO programs. We can begin to expand these services and the Outreach portion to those students if proper funding is made available.
Assemblyman Andonov:
Whenever you start a new program, you want to be able to determine, in the future, whether it was successful or not. You want a performance indicator. I imagine these stories would be part of your set of performance indicators as to the determination of success.
Dr. Tracy Cotton:
Yes, we use as our performance indicators, improvement on grades marked by the teachers in the schools, standardized test performances, averages, college entrance rates, and college and high school retention rates. We also use college graduation rates, and we do add other performance measures such as parental involvement contact. We use reports or surveys from students as indicators of success. I will state that all performance measures that we use in our program are based on the federal government reporting requirements. We find that we would most likely continue to use that set of performance measures, because they are very stringent and hold us accountable for what we do.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Is this $1.4 million entirely state-funded that you are asking for? Are there matching funds from federal dollars? Doesn’t this program qualify for some of the funding regarding HR1, because it certainly seems as though a tested program with such achievement goals that are already met would certainly tie in with the mandates from the federal government regarding the No Child Left Behind Act. If every child is supposed to achieve success, then this type of program does achieve that.
Dr. Tracy Cotton:
As I stated earlier, we are currently 100 percent funded by the federal government through a series of 16 TRIO programs, as well as two Gear-Up programs within the state. The 16 TRIO programs are from Title IV of the Higher Education Act, which is complementary to HR1, but is not included within HR1. The TRIO programs’ funding is at about $7.5 million per year, operating within the state at this time. What this program would do is complement with state dollars and allow the TRIO programs to expand. That is one of the reasons why we suggest that we use the current infrastructure of the TRIO programs, because what we would like to see is an expansion of these services beyond what the federal dollars allow us to do, rather than creating a new program from scratch.
I agree with you that if we tried to create a new program from scratch, it would actually be much more costly than the $1.4 million that you mentioned. Because there are already federal dollars at work, we think that an expansion would be less expensive. For instance, we have a staff at the Center for Academic Enrichment and Outreach at UNLV of about 95 people who already work to this end, but our staff cannot work with people who are not qualified under the federal guidelines of 150 percent of poverty. However, many of the students at UNLV who could benefit from this program may be at 160 percent of poverty, or 170 percent of poverty, so they still need the services; they just can’t qualify under these rules. What we can do is leverage the federal and state dollars to cover a much greater population.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
How many students are you reaching now? You say this would assist more than 15,000 low-income students?
Dr. Tracy Cotton:
We currently serve, with the programs at UNLV, 12,000 individuals each year.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
You serve 12,000? You currently do?
Dr. Tracy Cotton:
We currently serve 12,000; 370 are of college age, 8500 are in the middle and high schools in Clark County, and the rest are adults who are returning to school in the Clark County area.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
We would appreciate is a little more detail and breakout of what this $1.4 million would be used for. The information we would like includes how many students, what level of age, how many elementary students, how many secondary students, and how many college students.
Chairman Williams:
Again, this bill is concurrently referred to this Committee and the Committee on Ways and Means, so we can face that barrage when it gets to Ways and Means. Are there other questions from the Committee?
Dr. Tracy Cotton:
I’d like to introduce a product of the TRIO programs, Zhanna Aronov, if she could have a moment to share her story with you.
Zhanna Aronov, Assistant Director for Operations, Center for Academic Enrichment and Outreach, UNLV:
I’m an alumna of two TRIO programs: Student Support Services and Upward Bound. I came to the United States in 1992 without knowing English, and I met representatives from the UNLV TRIO program. I became involved in the Upward Bound program, which helped me tremendously to achieve my educational goals. I graduated from high school, went to college, and became a member of Student Support Services. I must tell you that the level of involvement, and the level of intrusiveness of the services the counselors provided to me from the TRIO programs, were much greater than what I could have received from high school or the university, and I was in the College of Business. The programs are very valuable, and they played a huge role in my life. I am currently the Assistant Director for Operations within the Center, and I’m in the MBA program. Most of my success is attributed to the TRIO programs at UNLV.
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District No. 9:
I’m here in support of Assembly Bill 186. I will note again, for the record, that I am not currently working for the Clark County School District, but I am employed, but currently unpaid, by the Community College of Southern Nevada. Dr. Cotton came to me during my first or second month on the job and explained to me about TRIO, Gear-Up, and a variety of other programs. I know you’ll deal with the money issue, because I don’t even know how the money was formulated for the bill; I didn’t participate in that part of the drafting. The concept is that we have a lot of programs where, if we simply enhance the support for young men and women, we will help them graduate from high school and also move into the college arena.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continues.] Not everyone needs a four-year degree, and that is not my promotion. My promotion is that I think young men and women don’t realize what is available to them, either, in a two-year degree. They should at least understand how the process works so that in later years, they may choose to come back into a college or a university situation.
On a community college campus, the average age of our student population is 27, so this is a life-long learning situation. The key piece to me in A.B. 186 will be if the TRIO program supports are expanded. We don’t need to duplicate; we have a program that works, and it works very well. If we can add some additional revenue to it in order to expand the number of students and young men and women whom we’re attempting to support, that would be key.
I will bring up in the Ways and Means Committee that it’s time we review all the after-school programs that we have in high school. It’s time to say, “Who is the one who can deliver the service best?” It’s not always K-12 that can do it, yet a lot of things have been placed into their realm to do. If, in this case, we have a business plan and we capture, or recapture, the dollars that are already in the budgets and put them into an after-school or support program, we can expand the number of students and ease the number of dollars that are asked for in this bill.
I do commend this bill, and I welcome working with Dr. Cotton and the Chairman of this Committee to make sure that we are helping young men and women access education that they had never thought of. A key piece is the first generation. I argue it ought to be first-generation high school graduates, because many of these students’ parents never even graduated from high school. We tend to talk about first generation students who graduated from college. We need to catch that other core, and I would like to see this program focus on young men and women who never thought they had the opportunity or the ability to go to school. They need more shadowing, more mentoring, and more coaching.
These are adults; they want to succeed, but they need a lot more nurturing through the process, because if they “hit a wall,” they’ll just drop it. They don’t know how to use the system. That’s not in their nature. That’s not anything they’ve ever been exposed to, and it’s not anything their parents have been exposed to. This gives those students a real support but empowers them to work in a better manner so they can be successful.
John Pappageorge, Representative, University and Community College System of Nevada:
Chancellor Nichols could not be here this afternoon, so she asked me to convey her support for A.B. 186. I’m not very familiar with the program, but if there are any questions for her, I can take them back to her.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions for Mr. Pappageorge to relay to Dr. Nichols? Is there anyone else here in Carson City to testify on A.B. 186, for or against? Is there anyone else in Las Vegas to testify on this bill? With that, we’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 186. The chair will accept a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 186.
ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Williams:
We will now open the hearing on Assembly Bill 396. Mr. Horne, we need you right now. [Vice Chairman Horne took over the meeting at this time so Chairman Williams could testify on A.B. 396.]
Assembly Bill 396: Requires Clark County School District to continue pilot program for replacement of certain schools. (BDR S-1007)
Vice Chairman Horne:
Proceed, Mr. Chairman.
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Clark County Assembly District 6:
I’m here for Assembly Bill 396. This particular bill is a continuation of Assembly Bill 368 of the Seventieth Legislative Session, which started a pilot program to rebuild older schools in Las Vegas. The Clark County School District was to select one school out of three that they evaluated, and this was done for a number of reasons. The schools were very old, with exposed wiring and a lot of unsafe conditions that could cause health problems. We wanted to take the opportunity, not only to rebuild these old schools, but for the rebuilding to serve as a pilot to experiment and do things that we hadn’t done in the Clark County School District, that we could duplicate through other parts of the district.
[Assemblyman Williams continues.] In 1999, when the first bill passed, with the first school that was replaced, we used solar heating, natural lighting, windows, parent centers as opposed to a teachers’ lounge, things that we could duplicate. That particular school became the first two-story elementary school in Las Vegas, and now the district is building a second, and maybe more, two-story schools because of space usage. This pilot program allowed a number of things that I want to mention, because earlier this session, the Clark County School District reported to the Committee the progress on reconstruction of old schools.
The other thing the bill did in 1999 was to establish, for the first time, a replacement policy by the district, pursuant to NRS 393.103, which established a list of criteria for replacing all the schools. We continued with A.B. 499 of the Seventy-first Legislative Session, which was a continuation of the pilot that replaced five schools in Las Vegas. Again, the idea was to go “outside of the box” of the normal building program to do things that will enhance and be cost-effective. We found out that natural lighting and solar heating actually had a return on that money with the cost savings.
The money that is used to replace the schools comes from Clark County School District’s bond money; none of this money comes from the state Legislature. The language in A.B. 396, page 1, line 7, says “not to exceed $135 million” increased funding this time because of the prospective rebuild of a high school for the first time. The district asked for an increase from $90 million to $135 million, because high schools are a lot more costly.
When the report was given to the Committee earlier this session, one of the representatives said that, on the list that they established according to the law, the Trustees might have played politics on which schools were to be replaced. It is my understanding that the list is already established, so it should be in sequential order. Maybe the Trustees can answer that once they testify. I know Ms. Haldeman is in Las Vegas, and if there are any technical questions, I’m sure she can address those.
Assemblyman Hardy:
On the pilot program, has there been discussion on the flexibility of the grade schools vis-à-vis the class size reduction, whether we’re looking at all schools to be 15 to 16 in a classroom or having some flexibility of walls, so that those classrooms could change? With the older schools having 32 pupils to the classroom, and the newer schools allegedly having 15 pupils to a classroom, is there a plan to have a portable wall or something that can be changed, so if there is class size “de-reduction,” we have the flexibility to do that.
Assemblyman Williams:
I know in the replacements that have already taken place, the classrooms are a lot larger. That was one of the things I noticed when I walked into the newer schools. They have the capabilities to divide those classrooms into additional rooms temporarily. One of the things that stands out is that the district has been very creative in doing things that we have not done in the past, including designing areas where several classes could get together, to allow for flexibility in decreasing or increasing the population. If there are any more technical designs along those lines, the district will have to answer, but what I’ve seen so far in the replacement program is that they’re doing things “outside the box” that will make accommodations for increases or decreases. I think they’re doing a pretty good job.
Assemblywoman Angle:
I want to know how this fits into bonding. I thought we constructed schools based on a bonding initiative; so I’m assuming this is more for remodel, and yet this word “reconstruct,” I’m not sure how that fits. Are we building new schools, or are we remodeling? If we’re remodeling, how does a remodel compare in cost to actually tearing down what we have and building a new school?
Chairman Williams:
The last part of the question I’ll respond to, and Ms. Giunchigliani wants to respond to it as well. We found out that the cost of replacement, in most cases, is a lot less than the continued rehabilitation of those schools. It’s like my old Volkswagen; I could paint it every year but it still ran like the same old car. You go to the voters with a bond question. They’re all taxpayers, so you’d have some communities who would get new schools built for the bond money, and you have some communities who have schools 25, 30, or even 50 years old, and they only get a facelift and a paint job.
That’s why we decided to go with a pilot, to differentiate between the cost of rehabilitation and the cost of replacing schools. Now the codes have changed so much compared to when these schools were built in the 1930s and 1940s, it is more expensive to bring the schools up to code than to replace them. The district, according to the 1999 law, established a policy on just what you’re saying, Mrs. Angle: to look at the cost of replacement compared to rehabilitation. In many of those cases, it was a lot cheaper to tear it down and build a new school.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9:
To further expand on that, Assembly Bill 353 of the Sixty-ninth Legislative Session, which I wrote and we passed in 1997, did allow for both remodel and new construction. In addition to that, the money that we were able to capture came, for the bonding purposes, with a bond rollover. If you recall, we expanded it last session so the other local governments could take advantage, because originally Washoe did not want to. Instead of retiring their property tax debt for previous bonds, they could roll it over. It did not increase anyone’s taxes, but it no longer lowered them.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continues.] That generation, plus the additional room tax money that we were able to get, along with the real estate transfer tax money that I was able to get paid for, built construction through 2008. That included both remodel and rebuild, and new construction. With this pilot program, it segregated some of that bond money specifically for rebuilding. The public testimony from most contractors was that in the private sector, if building costs with remodeling and maintenance get to 40 to 50 percent of replacement cost, bulldoze it. You’re better off with a brand new building, making it more energy-efficient and redesigning your program-use.
What was designed 50 years ago was for programs that don’t even exist anymore. Regarding Dr. Hardy’s question, we always attempted to be flexible in construction. My dad was an architectural engineer, and I used to argue, “Why aren’t we doing pull-outs to be able to modify classrooms?” They’ve gotten a little bit better about that, but we’ve never built them for the square footage of 1 to 15 [1 teacher to 15 pupils] because we never really got to 1 to 15, and with the team teaching that occurs, you have 36 kids in a classroom, and you can’t fit them in there.
Many of the classrooms are still in violation of the square footage allowed for fire department safety ingress and egress, but that’s another matter. I hope, Mrs. Angle, that answers the bond question. I don’t know if Washoe County adopted it or not; they opposed it at first. Then we allowed the rural counties, because they didn’t have the room tax, to increase their sales tax by a certain percentage to help with their school construction so everybody could participate in some type of a program.
This school construction and remodel was unique to Las Vegas, though, because the Chairman and I, and many members of this Legislature, have been pushing that our kids in the older schools in urban areas deserve as much quality education as kids in a brand-new area. The parents haven’t even paid the taxes; they just moved to town, and it takes three to five years, on average, to generate enough sales tax in the state of Nevada to pay for police, fire protection, and schools.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continues.] What we were saying is, don’t just put on a paint job; the contractors had to tear out half of the stuff that they put in. It was difficult getting the school board to focus on the fact that these kids were having an inequitable education. When we talked about the state possibly being sued for an inequitable education, they’re still in that potential framework. This forces them to move further, although I don’t think the bill goes far enough.
Rancho is the next school to be rebuilt, and we wanted to make sure that commitment was there. We did hear testimony that it took about $45 million to build Rancho. They supposedly had $35 million still left from the count, but they told us they had to raise it to $135 million from $90 million to build Rancho, and those numbers did not quite add up, but we’ll look at those. If this is still a policy that the Committee believes in, we could have them expand the number of rebuilds, but not beyond what’s included within this bill.
Chairman Williams:
I think the district will, in the future, go out for another bond question, and I think this building program will enhance the chances of getting the overall bond passed. We do need to build a lot more schools throughout Las Vegas. Convincing voters to vote for a bond question will be a lot more enticing to neighborhoods who haven’t seen a new school in 50 or 60 years, who now can go to the polls with a reason to vote and support the bond question. I know that when the replacement of Madison Elementary School happened, people in that neighborhood are still talking about how delighted they are, and that school changed the whole scope of their community.
Several years ago, there were two questions on the ballot; one passed and one didn’t. I know that a lot of the voters who voted “no” on that question were from older neighborhoods who hadn’t seen a new school building for 50 years. Folks would be happy, I believe, and I surely intend to suggest it to my constituents, to vote for a bond question, because now they have something they can vote for. When it passes, that gives us the opportunity to build a lot more schools throughout the Las Vegas Valley that we so desperately need. Old neighborhoods and new neighborhoods need new schools, and I think legislation like this helps to support the next bond question.
Joyce Haldeman, representing the Clark County School District:
I am testifying in support of Assembly Bill 396. As was presented to you, A.B. 499 of the Seventy-first Legislative Session allowed the Clark County School District to use an amount not to exceed $90 million for the replacement of five schools, with a completion date of July 1, 2005. The district has completed two of those replacement schools: Sunrise Acres Elementary School and the Wendell P. Williams Elementary School, both of which are now open and serving students. Two additional elementary school replacements have been approved: Virgin Valley Elementary School, scheduled for a completion date of August 2004, and Booker Elementary School, programmed for completion in 2005. The total cost of these four schools, when completed, is expected to be approximately $58.8 million, leaving approximately $31.2 million for the construction of the fifth replacement school.
When A.B. 499 of the Seventy-first Legislative Session passed, the focus was on replacing elementary schools. If the fifth school selected for replacement were to be another elementary school or even a middle school, the $90 million cap and the 2006 time frame, as outlined in the bill, would be sufficient. However, through the methodology outlined in the district’s policy on school reconstruction, it has been determined that the next school to be replaced should be Rancho High School. The estimated cost of Rancho High School replacement, the turnkey cost, is approximately $75 million, requiring nearly $43 million more than is left in the cap.
For that purpose, the Clark County School District supports A.B. 396, which would increase the cap to not exceed $135 million, and would extend the completion date of the fifth replacement school to August of 2006. I would like to go on the record about one thing related to the completion date. The school itself will be completed by August 2006, but the completion of the playing fields will require an additional year, and they are expected to be ready for use by August 2007.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Ms. Haldeman, I have a question for you. Rancho, you say, is one of the schools that you want to replace. There’s nothing in this bill that mentions Rancho specifically, and I would really like to see that. This is very important to me. Could you possibly change your mind later and do something else?
Joyce Haldeman:
The school district has already sent to the Committee on Education a letter stating its intent to make Rancho the fifth replacement school, contingent on passage of this bill. The only thing that is prohibiting them from designating this school is the $90 million cap. It is the school that the Trustees had designated.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I still don’t see that you have to stick to that list. I’m concerned about that, and also another question. I want to know that, if you do replace Rancho, will it still be called Rancho?
Joyce Haldeman:
I can’t make that decision, but I do know that the Trustees have gone through another situation several years ago with Las Vegas High School. They never would inflict that pain upon themselves again. I’m sure they would want to keep Rancho as the name.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I won’t support this bill unless it says specifically that Rancho is going to be on that list, and that Rancho will be the name of that high school.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Along the same lines as when we started talking about bonds, I recognize that in southern Nevada they have a concept of having more libraries. Recognizing that there are libraries in every school, are the pilot projects in the new schools looking at the reality of having access to the library from the outside, so we can decrease our dependence on public libraries, and increase our accessibility to school libraries?
Joyce Haldeman:
I can tell you that, if we use the prototype design, the libraries are on the inside of the school. That does present a problem. I can certainly relay your concerns back to the school district and let them know your issues related to the library.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Thank you, Ms. Haldeman. Also, I think it is important to realize that, when we’re dealing with schools, general public access to our libraries on our campuses could be problematic. I think that is something the school district takes into consideration: where our children are going to school, and having the general public coming and going into libraries where they also attend. Mr. Andonov?
Assemblyman Andonov:
I was just curious as to what the average life cycle is of a new school. Let’s say Rancho is rebuilt and is named Rancho, what would be the expected life cycle? Chairman Williams, you mentioned that some schools are 40 or 50 years old. I imagine that’s considerably more than we would expect a school to last.
Joyce Haldeman:
The life expectancy of the school is a minimum of 50 years.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That’s what the testimony had been before our Committee, so it’s fairly consistent. We do get a good “bang for our buck,” and if you design the school well, you can use it with the flexibility that Assemblyman Hardy was talking about. That’s why we have gone to prototypes. If you begin to add labs because we changed the standard, at least have it plumbed for stub outs, in my opinion.
But I do commend the district for both the move into the second story solar, and placing windows back in the schools. Windows are absolutely key; I personally would like to mandate that in any school in the entire United States. All the studies have shown that direct lighting does increase test scores and instruction for the students, and you can install safe windows that also will deal with your lighting as well as making sure your classroom is conducive to the instructional piece. I’ve got some books in my office, if anybody is ever curious, about day lighting. Solar is a wonderfully underutilized tool in this state, but it benefits the kids and could actually help their test scores.
Assemblyman Williams:
Regarding Mr. McCleary’s question, on A.B. 396, starting with line 9 on section 1, it says, “The Board of Trustees shall select schools designated for reconstruction in accordance with the policy adopted pursuant to NRS 393.103 . . . ” When the district came in to give their progress report, they gave us a list of the schools according to how they were surveyed, and that sequential list is already in policy, which includes Rancho. The district has already put together the list for replacement, which includes Rancho, and according to this bill, they have to follow that list. I would suggest that if any members of the Committee would like to attend a school board meeting, as we did in the past, to assure that Rancho is on the list, I would surely go down with you, Assemblyman McCleary, to pose that question to the Board.
One thing that we wanted to do from the very first bill in 1999 was to acknowledge the importance of replacing old schools to give children an adequate facility that they can bond with. I purposely did not get into naming schools in the Legislature. We did not want to tell them what to do, but to give them some parameters to work from. That’s why we put in the first bill that they had to come up with a list of schools, based on the need. If you look at that list, the sequential list includes those schools that have already been picked. Rancho is next in line, and it says to reconstruct Rancho High School, not to wipe it away or change the name.
Vice Chairman Horne:
I grew up in Las Vegas and have lived here my whole life, and I’m a Western alumnus. I would not agree to sidestep Rancho. I know there was a need for this replacement of Rancho High School when I was in high school, and that was quite some time ago. I’m sure Chairman Williams would be an advocate for Rancho taking its proper place and being served next.
Assemblyman Williams:
Rancho High School is on the list next, which I support. Western High School is in my district, but Rancho is on that list; I went down to look at Rancho High School, and I would suggest that the district made the right decision.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Let me explain my concerns. I have seen Rancho also; three of my kids attended school there. It is in a horrible condition; it is also in my district. The reason I want it to be specified is that we have earmarked funds for other things in this Legislature, and they have been changed. I don’t want to have the Trustees change their minds and decide to do more elementary schools or a different high school. That would irritate me tremendously. If they’re committed to Rancho, let’s attach that to this bill and be done.
Vice Chairman Horne:
I believe that Chairman Williams covered it; it is in statute and in policy. I’m comfortable believing that Rancho is next on the list. Mrs. Angle?
Assemblywoman Angle:
Since we have someone who has some institutional history with us, I was wondering if you could tell me how old Rancho is?
Joyce Haldeman:
I’m checking, and I’ll have that information for you in just a moment.
Assemblywoman Angle:
Would you say it is over 50 years old?
Joyce Haldeman:
I think it is in the late 40s, to tell you the truth.
Assemblywoman Angle:
It has then gone past the longevity that you expect from a school; it’s over 50 years old; they were built for 50 or more years. Is that correct?
Joyce Haldeman:
He has just confirmed for me that the school was built in 1954; that means that at the time that we replace it, it will be 50 years old. The schools we build now have a longer life expectancy than schools built in other time frames. The schools that we currently are building have a minimum life expectancy of 50 years.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Many times we have put forth a letter of intent when we pass a bill. If that could be done this time, that would be a very strong position of intent from this Committee to reiterate the policy that is stated by the school district. I request that we do that.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you for your indulgence this afternoon. We’ll have a few more things to add.
Assemblyman Williams:
I want to go down to the opening of the new Rancho High School with Assemblyman McCleary.
Vice Chairman Horne:
Is there anyone else here to speak on A.B. 396? Is there any one in opposition, here or in Las Vegas, to A.B. 396? If there is no one else, we’ll close the hearing on A.B. 396. I will accept a motion.
Assemblyman Manendo:
I wanted to mention that when I attended the opening of the Wendell P. Williams Elementary School, the excitement of the community was overwhelming. The people had tears in their eyes, not only the parents and the teachers, but also the community in general. People from the business community, the principal, everybody was just so excited that they were having a new landmark for their community. I was humbled to be able to attend that opening. Actually, there are some elementary schools that have been recently opened in my district, and you can see the excitement of the older neighborhoods in having a new institution in which to teach these kids for the future. It’s so wonderful, I’m grateful that we’re doing this.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 396 WITH A LETTER OF INTENT THAT RANCHO HIGH SCHOOL IS THE FIRST SCHOOL TO BE REPLACED.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I would like to say that my husband was part of the planting of the original trees at Rancho High School, when they went to seventh and eighth grade; the tree planting group graduated from there in 1960. To this day, they have a very proud alumni group that is working with the school district, and they are proudly and anxiously looking for the reconstruction of the old school. It will not only instill pride in the community and keep the support of the alumni group, but for the current students, it will give them great relief from all of the problems with the construction. I am very proud of the work that the district has done, and this will go a long way to help the community.
Vice Chairman Horne:
All those in favor? Those opposed? The bill passes unanimously. Madam Secretary, note the unanimous passage of A.B. 396.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
[Chairman Williams returned to chair the meeting at this point.]
Chairman Williams:
We have another BDR for introduction before we go back in.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-861.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Williams:
As there is no other business to come before the Committee, the meeting is adjourned [at 5:02 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Victoria Thompson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
DATE: