MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
March 31, 2003
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 4:01 p.m., on Monday, March 31, 2003. Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4412 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:
Chris Giunchigliani, Assemblywoman, District No. 9
Lynn Hettrick, Assemblyman, District No. 39
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association
Belinda “Bo” Yealy, School Bus Driver, Clark County School District
Don Altum, School Bus Driver, Clark County School District
Lenora Alandzes, School Bus Driver, Clark County School District
Henry M. Campbell, State President, Nevada Classified School Employees Association
Susan Hastings, President, Washoe Chapter, Nevada Classified School Employees Association, AFT #6181
Ardis Anderson, School Bus Driver
Dr. Craig Kadlub, Director, Public Affairs, Clark County School District
Dr. Mary Pierczynski, Superintendent of Schools, Carson City School District
Lonnie Shields, Advocate, Washoe County Education Administration Association, representing Washoe County School District
Frank Brusa, representing the Nevada Association of School Administrators
Dr. Andre B. Denson, Principal, Mohave High School, Clark County School District
Jerry Boles, Principal, Mervin Iverson Elementary School, Clark County School District
Stephen Augspurger, Clark County Association of School Administrators
Shannon Evans, Field Supervisor, Transportation Department, Clark County School District
Terry Hickman, High School Counselor and President of the Nevada State Education Association
Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District
Jane Kadoich, Director of Guidance and Counseling, Clark County School District
Anne K. Loring, Board of Directors, Education Collaborative of Washoe County, Inc.
Dr. Dotty Merrill, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability and Assessment, Washoe County School District
John Pappageorge, Government Affairs Consulting, University and Community College System of Nevada
Ben Blinn, Carson City resident
I’m calling the meeting to order [4:01 p.m.]. Madame Secretary, please call the roll. [Roll was called]. Please mark members present as they arrive. We’ll start as a subcommittee, and, as members arrive, we’ll go to the formal quorum. Ms. Giunchigliani, we’ll start with Assembly Bill 507. [All members are now present.]
Assembly Bill 507: Revises provisions governing transferability of certain community college credits to university. (BDR 34-254)
Chris Giunchigliani, Assemblywoman, District No. 9:
[Introduced herself.] Assembly Bill 507 was requested in July 2002, long before I went to work at the Community College of Southern Nevada. I met with two college presidents, one from the northern part of the state. As we were moving to more of the 2+2 program, the Tech Prep program, there was concern regarding articulation, making sure those classes transferred over. The community colleges issue not only an A.A. degree, but also, also, an A.A.S., which is an Associates of Applied Sciences. That’s more for technology.
What they’re finding is that many of those young men and women get their A.A.S. degree, work for a couple of years, and then decide they want to get their bachelor’s degree (B.A.). The intent of A.B. 507 is to make sure they don’t have to start over again, and those credits will be transferred.
I have handed out an amendment (Exhibit C). I may not be exact on the language, but I want to make sure that those credits connected with the associate’s degree from the community college will transfer for access to a bachelor’s degree within the system, if otherwise qualified for transfer with full counting of credits and their completed courses. That way, the Articulation Board, which the Regents already have, could recognize those courses and, if Nevada State College is still there, they could offer the B.A., and then recognize the A.A.S. That’s the intent of the language.
I’m trying to make sure that we don’t make people start all over again when they graduate from one college in the system, then go to another college in the system to then seek out a bachelor’s degree.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
With this language, you’re trying to stipulate that these credits have to be on track to a bachelor’s degree. Somehow the connection has to be stipulated there; if you want to be an air-conditioning repairperson, there is no hope for a bachelor’s degree in that honorable field. Is that what you’re trying to stipulate with this amendment? [Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated she was correct.] We have been trying to get this accomplished ever since I’ve been elected. Maybe A.B. 507 will finally do it.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I don’t know if this will resolve all of it, but I think it is a start. I talked to the Speaker of the Assembly this morning, because there are still areas where the articulation does not work. You could be in English 105 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and transfer to Reno [University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)], and the class number is 301, but they don’t match. Yet it’s the same course work, the same content, and the same book.
I focused on A.B. 507, because I had been approached by one of the college presidents who is working with individuals going into the A.A.S. area, to make sure that they have a linkage to go on to a B.A. degree, if they decide to enhance their education to a four-year degree.
Assemblyman Geddes:
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, I remember lobbying you on this specific issue back in 1989 or 1991. I’m trying to get a sense of how big a problem it is, if we’ve been working on it for 12 years. Is this a big issue that the articulation committees aren’t working out, and do they agree with this bill, or do they think they can handle it through the articulation?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
From what I’ve heard and understand, it is still a problem, especially now that the community colleges have moved into the A.A.S. area, which was a newer phenomenon with the 2+2 programs. There was no recognition of going on to a B.A., so that was a problem. With the Nevada State College, that would be a perfect niche to plug into, as the State College is looking for other four-year degrees, and leave the universities with more of a research or master’s basis. This would allow for that flow to go much better. However, I still hear concerns and complaints about whether the Board is really dealing with the articulation issue.
I have a document here that I’ve gotten from my president, and I think they are making a good faith effort. I don’t think they have quite arrived there yet. That is the purview of the Regents, and I have a comfort level that they’re still moving forward; that’s why I didn’t bring the other language regarding exact matches. Exact matches are this Committee’s decision, but I felt this was a more important area, to make sure individuals that did get an A.A.S. had another option to go back into school, if they decide, later, to do so.
Chairman Williams:
On one or two occasions, we tried to address this issue. Each time we did, they changed the rules on us. The last time, we had the classes we thought were transferable. Many times, as you mentioned, these classes had the same instructor, and the same book, but they changed the numbers of the courses. Even though the class was transferable, it didn’t carry the same weight from one school to the next. Will this address that issue at all?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
It would in this very narrow way, but it does not go beyond that issue. That is still the option of this Committee.
John Pappageorge, Government Affairs Consulting, representing the University and Community College System of Nevada:
[Introduced himself.] I’m here to give a “Me, too” for the University and Community College System of Nevada and Chancellor Nichols. If you have any questions, I probably couldn’t answer them, but I will try.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions for Mr. Pappageorge? We appreciate it, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on Assembly Bill 507, either in support or opposition? Is there anyone in Las Vegas who would like to testify on Assembly Bill 507, either in support or opposition? With that, we’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 507 and open the hearing on Assembly Bill 234.
Assembly Bill 234: Revises provisions governing school bus transportation. (BDR 34-811)
Mark Manendo, Assemblyman, Assembly District No. 18:
[Introduced himself.] It’s always a pleasure to sit next to you in two of my three committees, Mr. Chairman. I’m here on Assembly Bill 234. In 1999, A.B. 521 of the 70th Legislative Session was passed; it was a student discipline bill that gave authority back to teachers to remove disruptive students from the classroom. It was significant, because too many students were sent from the classroom only to be returned, without any serious intervention from the administration or the involvement of the students’ parents.
A.B. 234 seeks to address the same problem, but on our school buses. I’ve heard from bus drivers, and there are several in Las Vegas, that they would report serious discipline problems on our buses, only to have the students reappear with no real consequences for their infractions. Disruptions in the classroom are an annoyance and are harmful to the positive learning environment of all the students, but disruptions on the school bus are downright dangerous.
[Assemblyman Manendo continues.] A.B. 234 is modeled after A.B. 521 of the 70th Legislative Session in that it provides a process that involves the driver who has removed the student from the bus, along with the principal, the parents, and the student in a conference to resolve the problem. If, after the conference, the principal recommends that the student be returned to the bus, and the driver disagrees, a Committee on Bus Transportation, referred to in Section 4, will review the matter and make a final determination. In short, bus drivers who really believe that a problem has not been resolved in the conference will still have recourse to address the problem further.
We have some bus drivers in Las Vegas who wish to testify on Assembly Bill 234. I appreciate the Chairman rescheduling this bill, and I appreciate the Committee’s time in hearing this bill.
Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association:
[Introduced herself.] I see in Las Vegas that Bo Yealy is moving to the microphone; she will be testifying about the need for this bill. You are being given a copy of the policies from Clark County along with the citation form (Exhibit D), and I want you to know that we acknowledge that the districts have policies and procedures in place. What is missing is the ultimate fail-safe mechanism that gives a bus driver, who truly believes that the problem is not being resolved and not being handled by the administration, the opportunity to be proactive and to say, “I am not satisfied, and I want to take this matter further.” That’s what we’re looking for in A.B. 234, and I think Bo Yealy and the other bus drivers in Las Vegas will explain why we think this extra step is needed.
Chairman Williams:
Thank you, Ms. Cahill. At this time, we’ll move to Las Vegas. We have two witnesses prepared to start; you can start at your leisure.
Belinda “Bo” Yealy, School Bus Driver, Clark County School District:
[Introduced herself.] I’ve been the school bus driver for the Clark County School District since August 21, 1981, two of those years as a substitute, and many more years after that as a regular employee.
I want to offer my thanks to Assembly members, Chris Giunchigliani, Mark Manendo, and others who put together A.B. 234. I’ve submitted a typewritten report (Exhibit E) from at least six drivers who experienced problems getting appropriate action at the school. I’m expecting these six drivers to speak to you today; however, route times being what they are, most of the school bus drivers will not be off duty until well after 4:00 p.m. They may be joining us then. I did bring one of them with me.
[Bo Yealy continues.] We believe in a free public education. We want you to know that. But, we do not believe in transportation abuse. Transportation is a privilege. Drivers and innocent students should not be held hostage on a moving 40-foot vehicle with limited vision to traffic. Many times, as in the six cases I’ve sent up to you, drivers never even meet the parents of the students, let alone get to talk to an administrator.
Another issue is that drivers are seen as not adequately trained in how to deal with the kids, or that the only authority on student behavior is the principal. We have Safety First rules and other rules regarding bus riding. I did send up the Safety First rules to you (Exhibit F). Nevada also has laws that require us to have the students follow the rules of conduct. What sort of dangerous situations are set up whenever no action happens, or the driver has to literally fight for any action? This is when students learn that drivers and rules have no regard or importance in their world of education.
I, as a driver, want and need accountability and intervention, so that students who disrupt, hurt others, or otherwise create dangerous situations in the bus do not get a free ride. Here is the positive take I have on A.B. 234:
1) The driver can ask for bus riding privileges to be removed when the ride becomes unsafe for all aboard.
2) The removal provides a cooling-off period for all, so that order can be restored.
3) For a short time, the ride will be safer. I’m talking about a short time for mischievous behaviors, or it could be longer for extreme situations.
4) The parent has to share the responsibility for teaching safe bus riding, if he or she wants the student to be able to ride the bus.
5) The student is not put off the bus, as some would have us believe, in an unsafe place. This will take place only at school, and only at bus stops, as is already in our procedures here in Clark County. This will take care of a possibility of predators getting to the kids.
6) The conference will bring the parties together who comprise what we call “the team,” the team being the driver, parent, student, and school administration.
I would like to see this bill, if it becomes law, taught to the principals and other school administration. We have the problem disciplinary definition in accountability language that our citation category information is based on in the 1999 legislation, I do believe. The problem is, the administration either hasn’t been taught about it or is ignoring it, in many cases. I fear that some administrators will still do what they want with us and give no credence to our cries for help when we need help. I also hope that the conferences held with special needs students will give information to the IEP (Individual Education Plan), because our input as drivers is important. Even though we have an administrator who goes to these meetings, the school does not hear the driver, in many cases.
[Bo Yealy continues.] I appreciate the chance to be able to speak like this. I want to leave you with a thought. The teacher who teaches bus safety to bus riders is a qualified, licensed school bus driver. One other thing: I applaud the language of S.B. 230, which puts A.B. 234 into training. That means the bus driver would be trained in the situations that would warrant this sort of removal, and, as with anything else, changes and their implementation must be taught to the ones that use the new laws.
I thank you, and I brought with me a driver named Don Altum. He would like to speak to you as well. If you have questions for me, I’ve been involved in many situations with students. I am what you call an “extra board” driver at this time and have been for many years. I’ve been exposed to just about everything you can have over the 22 years that I’ve been here.
Don Altum, School Bus Driver, Clark County School District:
[Introduced himself.] I have been a driver for a little over two years. I’m driving a student in a middle school that has eight citations from me and other drivers. He was finally given some time off my bus, but, since he’s back, nothing else has been done to deal with the student’s annoying and unsafe behavior. His mother should be worried about where he goes, because he rides any bus he chooses without permission and against Transportation Department policy. We are no longer allowed to take notes from the students to get off and on at other stops beside their own, or to ride another bus besides their own. Nevertheless, the student does this and more.
Here’s a rundown of the citations, which include annoying behavior. The student had a one-on-one conversation with me regarding his gum chewing, and he decided to discard my warning about his unsafe practice and the possibility of dropping the gum on the floor where another student could sit or step in it. A dean’s detention was received; this was a Category 2. On October 3, 2002, the student was bus-hopping to another route. The student was told to get on and off at the same stop by the school in a conference. He was told that he rides bus number 1037, as if he did not know this. He was given my route to ride to help him out, because he was being hurt on another bus. The citation was written by another driver of the bus the student hopped on to ride.
[Mr. Altum continues.] On October 8, 2002, there was more gum chewing, and there were more warnings. On October 14, 2002, there was more gum chewing, and the student refused to stop. A Required Parents’ Conference (RPC) notice was received, but the student was back on his bus right away. On November 20, 2002, the student was bus-hopping and going to the wrong bus stop. On November 21, 2002, the student was still bus hopping, and nothing was done. On December 6, 2002, the student was bus-hopping; the dean caught the student shooting paper with rubber bands after the school held an assembly regarding this behavior.
The student was suspended from the bus from December 9, 2003, through December 20, 2003. His eighth citation was March 7, 2003. The student assaulted another student with a stuffed monkey and pulled another student’s hair out by the roots. I have tried everything, including reporting on citations, having a transportation investigator handle this problem, relating it to my supervisors, et cetera. The school has a new dean, who says that none of the citations prior to March 7, 2003, are in the computer. I have my copies, but I am just a driver who has been annoyed and is trying to do his job. I am in favor of A.B. 234, because it is very difficult to do the driving safely and promote a safe environment, when one student is allowed to get away with everything he chooses. Who will he hurt next, or what behavior will he exhibit so that I cannot concentrate on the road and my students?
Lenora Alandzes, School Bus Driver, Clark County School District:
[Introduced herself.] I have been a bus driver in the Clark County School District for 12 years. I am in favor of A.B. 234, because I feel it will help us to deal with the students that we are trying to transport. In a lot of instances, there is one student allowed on the bus, although he/she has many citations. That student disrupts the bus and distracts the driver, to the point where there could be an accident.
One incident in particular comes to mind, when I issued a student 17 citations, and he was never once taken off the bus. I went to my supervisor several times. There is really nothing we can do, because the principal is in charge of that. I talked to the principal several times, and her response was that she gave the student a Gameboy on the 13th citation. I was writing his 14th citation two days later when she came up and asked me where the Gameboy was. “I don’t know,” I answered. The principal said, “Well, I thought it would keep him busy on the bus.” This student had done everything; he had hit other students, he had called me names, he had called other students names, and he knew he could get by with this. When he was absent, the rest of the bus was very happy, because they knew they wouldn’t have to listen to his verbal abuse or deal with his antics such as crawling over and under the seats, hitting other students, or whatever he might do.
[Ms. Alandzes continues.] Finally, he was sitting in the front seat. He jumped up and grabbed the steering wheel and almost wrecked the bus. At that point, I went to my supervisor’s supervisor, and told him I could not drive the bus with this student on board. He asked me if I had given the student citations. I said, “Yes, this will be his 18th citation, and on his 13th citation, the principal gave him a Gameboy.” What did this say to the other 66 kids on board? It might say, “If I’m good, I get nothing; if I’m bad, I get a Gameboy.” I thought this was quite remarkable.
When my supervisor called the principal and told her the student would be denied transportation for two weeks, he was removed from the bus, and, as I understand it, there was a rude reaction from the principal to my supervisor. However, that action brought a great relief to the bus. At least I knew I was able to get the students home safely without this student interfering. Needless to say, he did come back, and he got more citations, but it did get better. These things keep happening all the time, and they put the other students in jeopardy. It could actually cost the other students, the driver, or other people, their lives, and it is time we did something about it.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions for the three witnesses in Las Vegas? There may be some later. Thank you, we’ll come back to you. Mr. Campbell?
Henry “Mike” Campbell, State President, Nevada Classified School Employees Association:
[Introduced himself.] The stories you’ve heard from these people in Las Vegas are heard time and time again across northern Nevada. I don’t think there’s a week that goes by that our state office doesn’t receive concerns from bus drivers about the lack of support from administrators in regard to discipline. Our drivers are faced with the monumental task of transporting students to and from school and transporting them safely. Without the proper discipline in place, and without support from the administration, the job of our drivers really turns into a real chore for them.
I’ve heard several complaints of administrators putting students back on buses within 24 hours after they have been removed. The administrators haven’t consulted the bus drivers; they haven’t talked to the parents; they haven’t talked to anyone. They arbitrarily put pupils back on the buses because “these are good kids, and they are not going to do that again.” The administrators haven’t even talked to the students about it. I would strongly urge that you support A.B. 234. I think it is important that we send a message to our drivers that we’re here to back them up as they safely transport the students of the state of Nevada.
Susan Hastings, President, Washoe Chapter, Nevada Classified School Employees Association, AFT #6181:
[Introduced herself.] I also have driven a bus in Washoe County, and even though Washoe County has a system in place for progressive discipline, and their drivers are highly trained in student management, what I have found, in Washoe County, is that there is inequity from site to site in how the administrator handles citations and discipline on the bus. There is inequity from one driver to another, also. If a driver is not as popular as another driver, they may not get as much support as another driver.
I also see that drivers are pressured because of complaints from parents. Drivers are pressured not to write citations and are required to have them reviewed by a supervisor before they can turn them in. If you have ever driven a school bus, you would understand how unsafe it could be to have a disruptive student on the bus. I feel that, even with a system in place, as we have in Washoe County, it is important for the driver to have that additional recourse provided by A.B. 234, so, when they feel they have not been supported, and if they still feel that the situation is unsafe, they have additional recourse.
Chairman Williams:
Does anyone have any questions? Have you tried to address these problems with the principals and the administrators?
Susan Hastings:
Like you say, it varies from site to site. We had been instructed that once we pulled away from the school, we were not to stop for students, because there were 17 buses leaving the school. The students would then run to the bus and get on the bus, with 17 buses moving. We were instructed that once the doors were closed and the bus was moving, we were not supposed to let the students on the bus.
I had a student grab my rearview mirror on the outside of the bus, and he was swinging with his feet off the ground from my rearview mirror. When I stopped the bus, he got off, and I ordered him back to the curb. When I started to move again, he would jump on my mirror again; he was swinging on my mirror. He finally kicked the door when he realized he was not going to get on the bus; he broke the door, yet this student was not removed from the bus. I had to continue to drive with this student on the bus, and I could see him in the rearview mirror glaring at me. He was bigger than I was, and it was very frightening to see that student constantly glaring at me and being very hateful. I felt it was an extremely unsafe situation, but he was eventually removed from the bus.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Listening to these stories, it’s very upsetting, because not only the drivers’ safety is at risk, the students’ safety is at risk, too. Not only those, but the safety of those drivers on the road are at risk as well. If the bus crashes into pedestrians or other drivers on the road, there will be a lot of people who will lose. Is there not a handbook that sets out what the discipline policy is? It would seem to me that this should have to be handed to, and possibly signed, by the parents of all of the students who ride a bus. It should be just as you apply for a job; there is a handbook that is required for people to read and abide by, and that handbook is always held up as the example for reasons why someone might lose their job.
It should be the same thing here, because it is a privilege to be able to ride the bus. If students are causing danger to themselves or anyone else, then they should not be able to continue with that behavior. It would seem to me that, at the beginning of the school year, this should have to be a requirement. I’m wondering if it isn’t a requirement, and if not, why not?
Susan Hastings:
In Washoe County, there is a bus contract that the student and the parents have to sign. In the beginning of the year, they’re not supposed to be transported until they have read the bus rules and signed the contract. The primary bus rules are posted inside the bus where they can be seen; the driver is also given some latitude on additional rules that can be implemented on the bus. However, what I have observed is that the policy is not uniformly implemented from one school site to another. You may have one administrator who is very lenient. Also, as soon as the parents get aggressive, administrators tend to back off.
The driver is the one who suffers, along with the rest of the kids on the bus. If you’ve ever been on the freeway when a fight breaks out on your bus, it’s a pretty scary thing. Where do you pull over? What do you do? You have to avoid traffic, you have to keep the bus safe, and, yet, the students are not safe in the back of the bus. You have your back turned, in some cases, on 84 students, and there is no way for you to get up and deal with the situation when you’re driving down the freeway. When you have an administrator who will not remove students from the bus, it is very difficult, and, from what I’ve observed, it is typically the driver who is not supported.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
The contract is signed; if a provision or a clause in the contract is broken, is that administrator supposed to take action? Is that the process, and is that what is not occurring?
Susan Hastings:
Right. Usually the administrators make some sort of site determination on how many citations they will accept. If the student has too many citations, what I have observed, and what I have experienced personally, is that pressure is put on the driver not to write citations. Even though Washoe County drivers are highly trained in student management, and there are many ways of being assisted in place, that information is not given uniformly from one driver to another. I’ve had a field supervisor refuse to come to my bus when I had a fight on my bus.
Mike Campbell:
I would like to add that most districts in our association do have the contracts in place, but, for some reason, it seems easier for an administrator or site supervisor to pull off the driver when the parent becomes irritated. They don’t want to confront the parents; they would rather confront an irritated employee, because they think they can deal with them easier. It’s a great concern, because our drivers are out there, and, if they don’t get the backing they need, soon their control and authority on that school bus is undermined.
Chairman Williams:
Did you say that the outcome of these incidents differs at almost every school? Is there a school-by-school procedure, or does the district have a set procedure for every school? I could imagine they don’t, and if you have substitute drivers, the substitute drivers wouldn’t know which procedure to use. What are the citations for? That driver in Las Vegas with a student having 18 citations, what good are the citations, what weight do these citations carry, and who respects them?
Susan Hastings:
The procedure is the same throughout the district; it’s how the procedure is implemented. In other words, one administrator might say, “I’ll take a student off the bus after three citations.” Another one might let it go to four citations. Fortunately, in Washoe County, I have never seen it go to 17 or 18 citations.
Bo Yealy:
Chairman Williams, you are exactly right regarding what you said about a standby driver. That’s what I do. Ms. Alandzes, who was speaking, also does that at this time, and she has been a regular route driver, as have I. That is a problem that we find, school-to-school. They’re not implementing the same policy all over. I sent up to you, previously, Regulation 3533 (Exhibit G) that we have in Las Vegas, which talks about the Category 1, 2, and 3 infractions, and what is supposed to happen with those infractions.
We’re finding that principals here are not acquainted with this, even though it’s been in effect since June 2001. That is a problem, and I have been personally met with indifference by some of the administrators at some of the high schools in Las Vegas and Henderson. I’ve even had my own people that I work with, who are supposed to be there to help me, tell me, off the record, not to write these citations and to call them on the radio to come and help me.
When you’re being ganged up on, it can start with one student who mouths insults at you. When you’re ganged up on by six, seven, or sometimes as many as the whole bus of kids, because someone else doesn’t enforce these rules the way you do, it can be frightening. The rules are in the bus; they are primary rules, and then there are the rules the kids know about from their school handbooks, and whatever.
What we’re finding is that a lot of principals and deans don’t even know what a nuisance item is. I read a handbook where it said the pupil couldn’t have a nuisance item. The driver I was riding with, to help determine what was going on, was being reported by the students that his cologne was gagging them. What was happening was that the students were bringing a big bottle of cologne and were saturating the bus seats as they went to their own seats in the back of the bus. This driver was looking at having disciplinary action on his record if this was true.
I thought that was ridiculous, and when we got to school, I found that the administrator was not even familiar with his own handbook rule that said a nuisance item is something that can be confiscated at the school, and that the parents must come to get the item. The administrator wasn’t familiar with what a nuisance item even was. Obviously, this kind of cologne, used that way on the bus, would be a nuisance item, as it created a very unsafe situation. We were on double sessions; the driver brought these kids about 15 miles one-way on the freeway, and then down to the school. At a certain point going to the school, you had to put your windows a certain way. The kids didn’t like that, so they decided that the driver was the one to blame, instead of the administration that put this on the kids.
[Bo Yealy continues.] It is difficult school-to-school. Many times, because I don’t drive that particular school bus every day, they don’t want to honor my citations. I’m just a substitute. I have five kids and two grandchildren; I think someone would be really upset if I didn’t come home. There is another driver here who submitted a statement to you; her name is Ardis Anderson. Could she speak at this time? [Permission was granted.]
Ardis Anderson, School Bus Driver:
I have been a school bus driver for three years; I also drove for CAT (Citizens Area Transit), our transit system here, for six years before that. I’m well acquainted with people, children, parents, and the general public. My first question is on the citations and the categories for the citations. On the back of every citation, and on the back of the copies of the citations, the categories are listed. These are totally ignored.
I have one student as an example. He has four citations: two are Category 2 citations, and two are Category 3 citations. Category 3 citations are supposed to be where he no longer has the privileges of riding the bus to school. These were not frivolous citations. The one citation was when he unzipped my purse and went into my purse, and he stole my cell phone. I didn’t know which of the kids took it. I caught him by surprise, and he admitted to me that he had taken it, that it was at his home. He did make calls on it. In the meantime, I had to discontinue my service. I was fearful of how many calls were made, and if they were long distance. He got two days of suspension, and it was not really a suspension. They had to contact the parent first.
His other citations included one when he wrote with a pen on a girl’s new slacks at Christmas time, and he put holes in her backpack. I know these seem like frivolous things, but they’re not frivolous when you deal with over 60 children every day. The “snow” in the back of the bus was also a problem. The “snow” is where they tear paper off their books as fast as they can, and squish them up. They wad them up and throw them around the bus. It’s just a riot, except it blocks the back of my window, and I can’t see to drive.
I would not want one of my children riding in a bus with a driver who was distracted; it would be extremely unsafe. I would just as soon have my child walk to school. This student is still riding the bus, and the message that these students are getting is this: “I can do anything I want on the bus, because if I get a citation, it doesn’t make any difference; I’m still going to be riding the bus. They may tell my parents, but, big deal, my parents aren’t going to do anything.” We have to try to drive this bus in a safe manner, with these kids in the back, and with our backs to the students who are doing anything they want to do.
Chairman Williams:
Any questions? Maybe we should have the school-wide discipline plan include the buses and fine the administrator. Is there anyone else in Las Vegas or Carson City who would like to testify in favor of this bill? We’ll move to those who oppose it.
Dr. Craig Kadlub, Director, Public Affairs, Clark County School District:
I’d like to say that we all agree that disruptive students have to be dealt with. However, I would like to take a slightly different tack. [He spoke from written testimony (Exhibit H).] By way of background information, A.B. 234 mirrors a portion of A.B. 319 of the 2001 Legislative Session. Although that bill didn’t pass, I told the sponsor, Ms. Giunchigliani, at the time, that it wasn’t necessary for us to wait two years to deal with the problem. I would work on it in the interim, which I did.
I convened a committee comprised of school administrators and transportation staff, including bus drivers, field supervisors, the assistant director, and others. We reviewed the concerns that A.B. 319 of the 71st Legislative Session was intended to address. In essence, the transportation members of the committee concluded, and the others concurred, that it was not necessary to rewrite policies or regulations, or seek changes to statutes. It was necessary for both bus drivers and school administrators to do a better job of following the procedures that were already in place.
After arriving at this conclusion, it was agreed that the transportation staff would work with the drivers on student discipline, and that the policies and procedures would be reviewed with all principals at the administrative meetings at the start of the year. The meetings with all principals occurred in September, and the information was provided and reviewed as promised. I sent a letter to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani in October outlining the process, identifying the participants, and explaining the outcome of our efforts. For the record, I’ve provided a copy of that letter (Exhibit I), and our policies and procedures (Exhibit J), to the secretary.
When this bill was introduced, I followed up with field supervisors to see if they felt that progress had been made as a result of our efforts in the interim. Field supervisors are the transportation employees who approve all citations related to student conduct, before they are submitted to the schools. They are in the best position to know whether or not the drivers feel that schools are responding to their discipline problems. Without exception, the field supervisors I spoke with stated that things have improved since reviewing the respective responsibilities of drivers and administrators at the start of the year, and they stand by the original conclusion that there is still no need to change policy, regulation, or statute.
[Dr. Kadlub continues.] I believe employees concerned about this matter should make some effort to work within the system to resolve their issues before bringing them to the Capitol. There is no evidence that this issue has been brought to the head of the Operations Division, the head of the Instruction Division, the Superintendent, or to the School Board. For those who believe that anonymity is essential when making a complaint, the heads of all employee organizations raise issues at School Board meetings on behalf of their members without mentioning names. Even this hasn’t happened. The fact is, this matter has not been raised in the available forums at the local level.
In summary, the district has a process in place, which includes policy, regulations, and progressive discipline for students, and procedures for drivers and school administrators. The committee, which included transportation staff, concluded that what we currently have is sufficient. We addressed the concern in the interim with positive results, and we are willing to continue to address issues, if they are raised. Those in the district who continue to be dissatisfied with the current procedure should make some effort to work within the system, so that we are aware of and can address these concerns. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that you not pass A.B. 234. Also, in addition to those folk at the table in Las Vegas, there are a couple of field supervisors who planned to attend the meeting in Las Vegas and testify in support of this bill. I believe they are present; they are Shannon Evans and Charles Brown. Thank you.
Chairman Williams:
Do the same standards apply for an offense in the classroom as they do on a bus? For instance, if a teacher was in a class teaching, and a student went into her purse and stole her cell phone, would that outcome be the same as what was described earlier?
Dr. Craig Kadlub:
Mr. Chairman, there are some school administrators who can address that better. I can tell you that when I was a dean, the same standards would apply. The kid would have been taken off the bus, the parents would have been contacted, and that example may have been one for theft more than being a constant annoyance on the bus. For the students who were persistent problems on the bus, as many times as was necessary, I would remove the students’ privilege to ride the bus, and sometimes revoke it permanently.
Dr. Mary Pierczynski, Superintendent of Schools, Carson City School District:
[Introduced herself.] We are opposed to A.B. 234 for very similar reasons that my colleague pointed out to you. We have rules and regulations in our school district, and if members of the school district and the administration arm of the school district are not adhering to those rules and regulations, then that must be addressed. We don’t need more legislation; we need to follow the guidelines that we currently have. For that reason, we don’t see the necessity of passing additional legislation.
Assemblywoman Angle:
I was wondering about special education students on buses, because I signed onto this bill. I know what the problems are with school bus drivers, and I really am very empathetic with their situation. However, when I first saw this, I thought, what is the implication to special education students? They fall out of the whole disciplinary range in a lot of areas. I was wondering if you could speak to that issue.
Dr. Mary Pierczynski:
We have, on our special education buses, specific aides who are assisting on those buses. It’s not just the driver, especially on our buses that handle our severe and profoundly handicapped students. Regarding our students who are learning-disabled riding a regular bus, the same rules apply as for other students, at least in the Carson City School District. Students are white-slipped; they are warned; and the bus driver talks with parents. Employees of our school district who are involved in the issue have the ability to have hearings with the transportation supervisor and with the principal. The same rules apply; the students are taken off the bus, and, if they do something like stealing a cell phone, we deal with that as theft. You’re not only off the bus, you’re suspended from school. We realize we have the 10 days and the special education law, and we have to deal with that as well. We try to apply it evenly throughout.
Lonnie Shields, Advocate, Washoe County Education Administration Association, representing Washoe County School District:
[Introduced himself. He spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit K).] I speak in opposition to A.B. 234, because I believe there should be policies in place to withdraw a disruptive or dangerous student from a bus, and because I believe those procedures are already in place in Washoe County.
Let me explain the procedure that is followed. I spoke with Mr. Gary Luchetti, the Vice Principal of Mendive Middle School in Sparks, and I asked him to walk me through the procedure for removing a disruptive student from the bus. He said that, regarding the buses that visit Mendive, each bus driver keeps a log of student behaviors. When the student has reached a point where the bus driver feels he should be removed from the bus, a citation is issued. The vice principal or principal then suspends the student from the bus for three to five days, depending upon the circumstances.
[Mr. Shields continues.] The parent is immediately called and given the choice of accepting the suspension or setting up a conference between the parent, administrator, the bus driver, and the bus driver’s safety supervisor. At this conference, the decision is made to uphold the suspension, to modify it, or to rescind the decision. The process involves the parent, administrator, bus driver, and safety supervisor, much the same type of committee that is suggested by A.B. 234.
The law protects the bus driver from the accusations of removing a student for minor reasons or no reason at all, or the first offense of a minor occurrence. In speaking with Mr. Curt Svare, the head of the Washoe County School District Transportation Department, he agreed that this process is followed in almost all cases, except a log is not required by every driver. That is something they do at Mendive, and he thought it would be a great idea. He said the process in Washoe County works 99 percent of the time. Of all the cases that go to suspension, he probably deals with about 1 percent of those that reach his level.
In large districts, we’ll always have individual instances that will need special intervention by an area superintendent or bus supervisor. We feel our process is working.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions? We’re hearing two stories; we’re hearing stories of a problem, and then we’re hearing stories that everything is fine. Mr. Mabey?
Assemblyman Mabey:
You hit the nail on the head. That’s what I was going to say.
Assemblyman Manendo:
I would tend to believe the folks that are on the front line, who do the job every day and see the problems first-hand.
Frank Brusa, representing the Nevada Association of School Administrators:
I, too, Mr. Manendo, was on the front line for 30 years. I hold bus drivers in very high regard; they were part of my school team, and we worked very closely with those people. They were on the front line as well. Every school district in the state has policies and regulations to deal with this concern. I urge you to oppose A.B. 234 at this time, because every district has the policies and regulations in place.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Mr. Brusa, what about the instances that have been stated, like the 18 citations? Naturally, some of these have come from the north, and some from the south, but how does one explain that there was no follow-through? What do you think happened? Is it the driver’s fault? Did he not take it to the school board, or what is the explanation?
Frank Brusa:
As a school representative, I would hate to see 18 citations. As a school principal, I would be on that situation immediately. These are individual cases; we have thousands and thousands of routes run every day in the state of Nevada. We have heard some horror stories here; we, as school representatives, need to address the horror stories. I don’t believe that you need another piece of legislation to deal with this problem. We have the policies and procedures in place; let the school boards, administrators, transportation people, and bus drivers deal internally with these problems, and you’ll get the problems straightened out.
Assemblyman Manendo:
How much longer do you think these folks need to wait for this policy that is supposedly in place to work? We’re talking about our student safety and that of the people on the roads. If kids are acting up on the buses, that’s a public safety issue; that needs to be addressed yesterday, not in another two years.
Frank Brusa:
I agree with you 100 percent. As a school representative, we would be on it. School representatives should be on these problems; but you don’t need more legislation to deal with this problem.
Assemblyman Manendo:
What do we need then, exactly?
Mr. Brusa:
You need people working together, like the Washoe County School District does. We’ll probably hear what the transportation people are going to tell you down south. These are the practitioners down there; we should give them some opportunity to express to you what they feel.
Assemblyman Manendo:
I would be interested to hear that; they might need more money.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
Maybe what we need to put in place is a system of fines for the administrators who don’t administrate.
Chairman Williams:
Any other comments or questions? We’ll go back to Las Vegas. Dr. Denson?
Dr. Andre P. Denson, Principal, Mohave High School, Clark County School District:
I’m speaking on behalf of the high school principals; I’m only one principal. I’m also speaking as a parent whose son rides the bus in the Clark County School District. I, too, support the bus drivers in having a safe and orderly ride to and from school. That is essential. They are the mainstays in bringing the students to school and getting them home. I also support their intentions to deal with disruptive students, and it saddens me this afternoon to sit here and hear some of the horror stories in dealing with disruptive students and in not having tough consequences.
As a principal of a high school, and the principal of a middle school prior to that, I know that we work directly with the bus drivers. In those one or two cases, I’m sure there were things that happened, and I was hoping that I would hear some consequences from the principals. I would like to speak on some concerns that I have with regard to this bill, and why I speak in opposition to A.B. 234. First and foremost are parents’ rights and due process. As the bill is stated now, the student can be removed for five days without giving parents the right to get in and solve the situation, and discuss what to do later on. That is the problem with due process; we have to give the parents an opportunity to find out what the major concerns are.
The Clark County School District, as you heard, has a plan in place right now to address behavior, and the district has progressive disciplinary procedures. For example, there was a situation where gum chewing was a concern. To a principal, a parent, and to one bus driver that may be a major issue where you can’t chew gum, and you can’t talk; we’re going to remove the student for five days for that reason. For another bus driver, that may not be an issue whatsoever, as long as the students are acting well on the bus and riding home. We can have inconsistent implementation of this law, but this concerns me as a principal. We should be sitting down and talking with the parent, and rectifying a problem.
I think everyone has to be held accountable. In some of the bus drivers’ testimony, the principals have to be held accountable. When you have 18 bus citations, and no one has dealt with that situation, my question would be, was the principal addressed and was that principal’s supervisor addressed? I know that as a principal, if someone brought to me 18 citations that hadn’t been dealt with, that administrator would be dealt with.
[Dr. Denson continues.] The other concern I have is that we have to work together to make it work and put in a procedure that’s workable, manageable, makes sense, and is able to be implemented effectively. Right now, as the bill is written, bus drivers would have to attend meetings. They should attend meetings with parents, if they can, but those meetings, 90 percent of the time, would have to be outside of the workday. That includes money, and I don’t know how the bill is written, or if there’s money attached to this bill, but I know that would have to be in place. And, the bus drivers must have knowledge about the students. Some students have what they call IEPs (Individual Education Plans), and those IEPs are unique situations that we definitely want to share with the bus drivers.
Also in A.B. 234, there’s something missing that’s very important. This meeting does not include the bus driver’s supervisors; we, as principals, do not supervise, evaluate, or reprimand the bus drivers. We work with them. In the meetings that are called, they talk about meeting with the principal, the parent, and the bus driver. It is very difficult, if the supervisor is not involved in those meetings.
I speak against this bill because of inconsistency in implementation. We are in the field of correcting behavior. Sometimes, in correcting behavior, you want to effectively put in a progressive disciplinary step. As a principal, I go to our bus drivers, and we have 20 buses that run at Mohave High School, and I ask the bus drivers to be a little tougher than what they are right now. That’s because we understand the safety that has to occur on the buses. I hope that we’ll be able to work this out without having more laws in place.
Chairman Williams:
About that example you gave on gum chewing, as a former teacher, I’ve been in schools where there is no gum chewing allowed in classrooms, even though I may feel, as a teacher, that I could let students chew gum in my class if they disposed of it properly. But the principal would come back and say, “No gum chewing, period.” An example would be some bus drivers who allow kids to chew and some who won’t. I think is part of the problem; there’s no continuity across the board for everybody. If it works in the classroom, it should work on the bus.
Dr. Andre Denson:
Exactly. In the classroom, are the rules consistent across the board? They are. With regard to minor offenses, we do minor consequences. With regard to major offenses, such as fighting on the bus, being disruptive, or not listening to the bus driver, the consequences are implemented, from my standpoint. I’m speaking as one principal, just as these bus drivers were speaking as one bus driver. Those things do occur.
Assemblyman Horne:
This is not so much a question as a notation on your due process concerns. In Section 3, it states, not later than five days. At any time in one day, the parent can seek a hearing. Also, paragraph 2 deals with due process; it provides oral and written notice to the parent, and paragraph 4 does as well. I think the due process section is covered in that concern. I don’t want to reiterate what others said here. I think we’re focusing on procedures that may be in place, but, for a large number of bus drivers, they’re not being implemented.
Dr. Andre Denson:
I respectfully submit that, thank you for pointing that out to me. Also, I have a concern. When I say due process, I mean some type of progressive disciplinary measures. Since you pointed that out, Assemblyman, there is an error or a problem; in Section 3, in the due process section, before removing the privilege of riding the bus, they must contact the parent “within 24 hours.” What happens if that’s on a Friday afternoon? Does someone have to come in on a Saturday to make that correction? Should that state “24-hour school day” in that due process section?
Jerry Boles, Principal, Mervin Iverson Elementary School, Clark County School District:
I’ve been a principal for about ten years. It is my belief that the key to making this work is cooperation. The question asked earlier related to the rules applying at school and applying on the bus. I grabbed a couple of citations that had been processed this year at my school, and I’d like to give you an example of how they were handled. On one citation, the bus driver writes, “James turned around in his seat and yelled ‘f*** you’ to another student sitting several seats behind him.” If that were to happen in a classroom, the parent would be hearing about that right away. That is exactly what happened; the parent was called, and that student repeated what he had said. That happened on February 6, the parent took care of that situation, and we have not heard anything like that from James since.
In November, there was an incident on a bus, and the driver writes, “After being warned, Justin kept standing in the aisle and refused to stay seated while the bus was traveling and stated that he didn’t care if he was written up.” What happened when I received that is I immediately called the parent. I required a parent conference and kept the student off the bus for 3 rides of the bus. The parent came in late the second afternoon, and we addressed that, just as we would have if the incident had occurred in a classroom. The students must listen to that teacher; they must listen to the driver. I think the problem is inconsistency.
[Mr. Boles continues.] One of the issues we sometimes face as principals is not getting the citations. Some bus drivers are very good; these two that I read were from the same bus driver, and he is very good at writing those citations. As the building principal, I need those citations. They help me to do my job; they help me to support that driver, because I want all those kids to get to and from school safely. I do not want the driver to be distracted or have this kind of problem, but I need those citations. What I am typically saying to them is to please write the citation. That’s what I need, because when I talk with the parent, I need that support and documentation. I keep these, and I don’t care if they are Category 1 citations, which includes poor language, excessive noise, or things like that. After three citations, that child is off the bus until the parent comes in, and that, typically, is three days.
I am more than willing to enforce these, and I have over ten years as a principal. It is very helpful to me when there is paperwork; I want to support that driver. I have two children who have ridden buses in the Clark County School District, and they have told me about kids’ behavior. I know that there are bad things that happen on buses from time to time. I would not question the accuracy of the things that were mentioned today at all. I just think that those are more the anomaly, more the exception, and I think that they can be handled well within the system that we have. I speak, obviously, in opposition to A.B. 234.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions from the Committee? I have one. I have a copy of the Clark County School District school bus incident report to parents. Category 1 includes rude, discourteous and annoying conduct, profanity, name calling, any behavior relating to the safety, well being, and respect to others, excessive noise, improper boarding or departing procedures. In a classroom, with a Category 1 violation, normally the teacher would do some counseling.
Then you move on to Category 2: hanging out the window, throwing objects in or out of the bus, refusing to obey the driver, spitting or littering, bringing objectionable articles aboard the bus, eating or drinking on the bus. In a classroom, when you get to the second stage, that’s when the child goes to the counselor or to the dean.
[Chairman Williams continues.] Category 3 lists these infractions and stated that an immediate administrative response is required: lighting matches, smoking, fighting, pushing, tripping, destruction of property, tampering with bus equipment, verbal assault, physical assault, possession of a weapon. In a classroom setting, when you get from the counselor to the dean, then it goes to a Required Parent Conference (RPC), but in Category 1 and Category 2, the bus driver is expected to handle all of those infractions. On the school grounds, there is a progressive discipline plan that goes from the teacher to the counselor to the dean to an RPC.
I’ve heard testimony today that the bus drivers are viewed as an extension of the school grounds, but when it comes down to the categories, the bus driver is expected to do much more than what the teacher in the classroom is expected to do. Do you think that may be where the breakdown is? A teacher would never have to go through all these categories to get a response from the administrator, as opposed to the bus driver having to go through ten different infractions on the list in categories 1 and 2.
Jerry Boles:
I’d like to respond to that. The example that I read of the citation, when a student used profanity, I was involved with that immediately. As soon as the bus driver submitted that paperwork, I met with that student, and within 45 minutes of receiving this, that young man and I were on the phone to his parents. We helped him immediately with that. That was February 6, James continues to ride the bus, and we have not had any further incidents. If I didn’t know about it, if I’m not made aware of it, I can’t help. If you can make me aware of it, I can help, and I’ll do it immediately.
Stephen Augspurger, representing the Clark County Association of School Administrators:
I’m speaking today against passage of A.B. 234. I think we all agree that bus drivers have a very difficult and stressful job. We’ve heard today a number of very poignant stories illustrating some very serious problems, which have occurred on the bus. I think the thing we have to keep in mind with those incidents, as has been previously mentioned, is that we literally transport thousands of students across this state to schools. We’ve also heard, in contrast, stories about of principals’ involvement trying to support those bus drivers in getting kids to school safely. I myself have three children who collectively have over 30 years of bus riding, so I feel that as a parent and a former school administrator, I am very sensitive to the issues, which occur with school buses.
[Mr. Augspurger continues.] If a student is disruptive on the bus, there are existing procedures and mechanisms that school principals and bus drivers use every single day to deal appropriately and effectively with misbehavior. The mere fact that we have thousands of students who are able to get to and from school safely testifies to the effectiveness of those procedures. It’s the anomalies and isolated incidents that sometimes rise to the top. I believe it has been previously stated that we do not need additional legislation to govern those activities; the current mechanisms and procedures we have in place are certainly appropriate to deal with the problems, which are occurring on the bus.
It’s also important to realize that I do believe our parents have made an assumption that, if their children are not able to attend school that the decision is made by an administrator after careful and thoughtful consideration of the problem. That is not a decision made by bus drivers operating outside of the scope of their responsibility and their authority. Again, we believe that authority for how best to resolve student misbehavior on the bus must reside with the school principal and the school administrative staff. We also believe that parents believe that those decisions must be made by the school principal. The Clark County Association of School Administrators respectfully requests that the Committee not pass A.B. 234.
Shannon Evans, Field Supervisor, Transportation Department, Clark County School District:
[Introduced herself.] I oversee and coordinate the hiring, training, retraining, and evaluation process of the bus drivers. We’re all concerned with the same thing, and that’s having a safe bus. That’s our main priority from the time the driver steps on the bus in the morning until the time they step off the bus in the afternoon. Whether the bus is loaded or empty, we want that bus and that driver safe, period. That’s our goal.
I want to throw out a couple of figures for you. We transport, on a daily basis, 120,000 students. Multiply that, and within a month, we transport 2.4 million students. I took a survey and counted the number of citations issued each month; we have approximately 500 citations issued on a monthly basis. That seems like a lot, but when you do the math, it equals less than 1 percent of our student population as having problems on the bus.
There is a procedure in place, and we feel that it works. I have a field supervisor here who will state that Regulation 3533, in the Clark County School District, is working for us. Obviously, if you work with children long enough, you are going to have a horror story or a situation where something didn’t work out your way. That’s what we’re here for, the supervisors and the training department; if a driver is having problems with students, let us know. We’ll go out, and we’ll personally help you. That’s all we want is a chance to make this regulation work and make our buses safe.
Chairman Williams:
Are you saying that the drivers are not making the incidents known enough? This information is not getting to you?
Shannon Evans:
What I’m saying is, if drivers are not getting the results that they feel they should be getting, let us know. If they’re not getting results from their immediate supervisor, there’s an assistant director, a director, and there is always the training department. Our door is always open to anyone who needs help.
Charles Brown, Field Supervisor, Transportation, Clark County School District:
[Introduced himself.] I’ve been working personally with Regulation 3533. I started in the fall of this year working with this regulation. I went to the principals in the area where I work, Henderson and Green Valley, and personally talked with them and found out why they’re not using this regulation. I found out they were not aware of Regulation 3533. I have made them aware of this regulation, and, with the people who are aware of it, it is implemented.
When students act up, we go by Regulation 3533, which means that, with the first citation, the parent comes in. With the second citation, we have a parent come and have a conference with the driver, and the student is removed. In fact, just this morning I had a meeting in Henderson at Burkholder Middle School with a parent concerning this regulation. This student was removed for the remainder of the school year for threatening my bus driver, so this regulation is working. We need to educate the administrators on this regulation, and, if they are not using this regulation, we need to know why.
Chairman Williams:
So the administrators are not aware of the regulation.
Charles Brown:
That’s what I’m finding.
Chairman Williams:
The administrators are telling us everything is fine.
Charles Brown:
Once they’re made aware of the regulation, and they go over the regulation, then it works. But everyone must implement this regulation. Regulation 3533 does work.
Chairman Williams:
I appreciate that, but it appears as though the bus drivers have a position that they’ve laid out today. The administrators have told us that we don’t need anything in addition to what we have. Now you have to look at the position that we’re in. None of the administrators of the school districts offered any amendments to the bill, to give us anything to work with to fix it; so the only thing we have left is Assembly Bill 234 to decide to be voted up or voted down. We’re placed in a very uncomfortable position. I think that, in the wisdom of the academic minds of this state, we’ll hold the bill a couple of days. Maybe there will be an amendment or some suggestion brought to us by the districts or administrators that will help alleviate some of the problems that the drivers faced. Without pointing any fingers at the administrators, drivers, or supervisors, obviously there are problems that exist that are not being addressed.
At least, Mr. Brown, you gave us some insight into what is going on. Some of the administrators are not fully aware of the policy, and maybe that is a start, but this is a problem. If I had 84 students, and had to turn my back on them for 15 or 20 minutes on the freeway, that’s a safety issue that we shouldn’t take lightly. By the same token, I know the school districts do have policies that they feel will address the problems, but obviously some of these are not being implemented. If we can play a role here in this Committee to help, we sure would like to. Mr. Manendo, it’s your bill, and all the witnesses have spoken. Do you have a closing comment?
Assemblyman Manendo:
I appreciate the comments of the Chairman. Honestly, I’m disappointed that some folks came up here and tore apart the bill but had no suggestions other than “it works fine.” We’ve heard from the people in the front line that it is not working fine. With respect to you, Mr. Chairman, and this Committee, if some folks want to see if they can come up with solutions in the next few days, I think everybody would be grateful. We want to make the best public policy decisions that we possibly can, and since we do have a little time, I would say let’s hold off and not vote on it today.
Chairman Williams:
We are reaching deadlines; what I would suggest is, if anyone has suggestions on ways to make this legislation more effective, or give us more reasons why the legislation is not needed at all, I would suggest they meet with Mr. Manendo in the next couple of days, and try to get those suggestions to him. Otherwise, we’ll have to vote on the bill as is. With that, we’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 234. We’ll open the hearing on Assembly Bill 426.
Assembly Bill 426: Requires school districts to reimburse University and Community College System of Nevada for cost of required remedial education of certain graduates of high schools in district. (BDR 34-1200)
Lynn Hettrick, Assemblyman, Assembly District 39:
A.B. 426 is the product of an idea that we should establish a policy that we shouldn’t pay for education twice in the state of Nevada. We feel that if we have kids graduating out of the school system with a diploma, having been in a school for at least a year, that when they reach the University System, the public shouldn’t have to pay for their education to be repeated in remedial classes at the college level. That is exactly what this bill tries to address, and I will run through the bill very quickly and explain the various sections.
Section 1 indicates that the University System is entitled to receive, from the school district, the cost of remedial education provided to a student, so it specifies that indeed the school would be responsible for the cost of remedial education. Subsection 2 says there would be a School Accountability Trust Fund. The State Board would administer that fund, and split the money appropriately that was available for expenditure from that fund, based on the need from the individual school districts.
Subsection 3 says that the schools will pay the money, along with whatever other money is required, to satisfy the obligation created by this bill. Subsection 4 defines what the cost of remedial education is to include.
Section 3, subsection 1, creates the fund and says that the State Board will administer the fund; it will be held by the treasurer. Section 3, subsection 2, says the Board can accept gifts, grants, and donations from any source for deposit in the fund and specifies that only interest and income earned can be spent to carry out the provisions. Subsection 3 says that if the money is not spent to pay for remedial education, then the school districts can apply for the money and use it to enhance education, or to further education in other ways.
A.B. 426 isn’t intended to be a punishment; it is intended to recognize that we shouldn’t be paying for education twice. We really would like to see the University System and the school system mesh better on requirements. We know there are some concerns, that there are “crisscrosses” that are unintentional, and that causes some people to end up in remedial education. I think the intent is clear. If the students earn a diploma, they ought to be able to go into the University System and not be in remedial education.
[Assemblyman Hettrick continues.] Obviously this bill will be dual-referred to Ways and Means, as well as Education, Mr. Chairman; it’s one of the famous “black hole” bills. This calls for a transfer of $20 million from the DSA (Distributive School Account) into the School Accountability Trust Fund. The interest earned from that $20 million could be split and expended by the schools to pay for the remedial education.
Chairman Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Hettrick. Should the school districts also repay the state for the Millennium Scholarship recipients? Most of them are taking remedial classes as well.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I believe we ought to put something into the Millennium Scholarship that addresses that. To be on the scholarship, students shouldn’t be in remedial education.
Chairman Williams:
You’ll have high school students who graduate with a 2.0 or 2.5 average that go to the university and take remedial classes. If we’re going to have them reimburse the school districts, surely students with 3.0 averages who are receiving the Millennium Scholarships should pay the state back for the money that we’re paying for their remedial classes.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
A.B. 426 doesn’t differentiate between those students, so the school district should be paying for those who had Millennium Scholarships as well. I understand that your point is to pay back to the state in regard to the scholarship. I am saying that this doesn’t differentiate, so we would not say that a Millennium Scholarship student should not be paying this. Now, I understand, some students choose to take remedial classes occasionally, and there might have to be some exception made. But, the reality is that for those who have to go into remedial education, the public should not have to pay for that twice.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I agree that the public shouldn’t have to pay for education twice, but A.B. 426 assumes that everything is perfect. Everything isn’t perfect; we have worked very hard to get academic standards in place so that there will not be as much of this remedial education happening, but it takes a few years for this to be effective. Also, we have such a high transient rate. I know that the bill says the student has to be enrolled in the Nevada education system at least one year before graduating, but how do we know, regarding the student from Massachusetts or Kansas, that the student’s lack of knowledge has not come from some other state? That is my first concern.
Second, who pays for those remedial classes? When they are at the university, the students themselves have to pay for that class. Nobody pays for the class for them. Who are we reimbursing here? Certainly the university has to pay for the teacher to teach the class, and for the supplies, but the student does have to pay for that class.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Let me address the issue of students coming from elsewhere. Indeed, the bill requires one full year, and there might be some students that have some small difference in what they have learned. I would point out to the Committee that this is a $20 million trust fund that would earn, even at low interest rates today, $800,000 to $1 million per year. If we ended up with a small number of students who had to have remedial education, there would actually be money left over that the schools could apply for, as grants, to enhance education. If we got the number of remedial students down to a small, reasonable number, this would actually benefit the schools. Give me your second point again, Mrs. Chowning, please.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Is the student, who has to pay for this remedial class out of their own pocket, going to be reimbursed?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
The basis for establishing these numbers and the fund was a compilation done by the university that showed every school district and every student from every school district that is in remedial classes. That cost, according to the University System compilation, was $2 million last year. That is over and above, I presume, the costs that were funded by the student fees. Therefore, that is the additional cost to the university, and that is the cost we’re talking about reimbursing. That’s the cost over and above the actual amount that they’re getting funded, according to the numbers I got.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that A.B. 426 can be a two-way street. This fund allows gifts, donations, and grants to be accepted; if this fund were to grow and get very large, this is enhancement to education. The other way they can make it an enhancement is to work with the University System to minimize the number of students who have to go into remedial education. If the school districts do that, this benefits the school districts.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
What about the good partnership, the work that is being put in place with the P‑16 Council? Does the university system have to reimburse the school districts? I was a former teacher who came out of the university system, and I think I was a good teacher, but people could say the product coming out of the university wasn’t so great, either. Should the university system have to reimburse the school districts as well? It is a two-way street.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I don’t understand how the university system would reimburse the school district. They’d have to reimburse the employer of the teacher or of the graduate, I would presume. I think, at that point, because it’s a “hire and fire” situation, the employer could say that the person hired, who graduated from the university system, was not sufficient or satisfactory, and I could fire them. I don’t see how you would go back to the K-12 system and reimburse for that lack of knowledge or skills.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions for Assemblyman Hettrick? Is there anyone else here to testify in favor of this bill? We’ll go to the list of those in opposition.
Terry Hickman, High School Counselor and President of the Nevada State Education Association:
We are in opposition to Assembly Bill 426 for several reasons. First of all, we do share the concern about remedial students. But, we do not think that you should take $20 million from the distribution of the school fund, which would actually penalize the entire system to fund the remedial activities. We do not feel that is positive. We think this would set a dangerous precedent for problems in public education, to take money away from public education. Also, I would like to point out a couple of items.
The Millennium Scholarship requires two years of residency for students to become eligible to receive that scholarship. This bill requires only one year. Apparently, the school district has to take longer for the students to earn the privilege of attending the school and to receive money from the state, but yet it only takes one year for them to lose money. The community college programs are set up on an open enrollment basis. Open enrollment means, if you graduate from high school, and sometimes there are exceptions to that, such as a GED (General Education Diploma) or other means, a student can enroll in a community college. Those students are not always prepared, and they have to take remedial classes. I would hate to see the state of Nevada say to all students, “If you do not meet the standards of being admitted, you will never be successful.”
[Mr. Hickman continues.] Also, at the university system, they do have a system where they do allow remediation for many students. The school I attended had that program. I do not believe it is a sign of absolute failure, for the university system does make an effort to reach out to all students. Just as all students are not capable, or not “on-line” at the same time, there are those who are not prepared at the same time when they are freshmen. To state to them that they are not allowed to be in our system because they did not meet this standard is something the university may well say. If the university does say that, it would be an interesting problem for them to deal with, because only students who meet certain standards will be allowed. That is fine. Then the university system, for example, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), also needs to say that only students who meet certain standards can be allowed in. I find it quite remarkable that we’re going to take money away from students, that $20 million, in order to provide them with the remediation that some need.
Lastly, higher education is a privilege, and many students want to strive to reach that level of achievement, but to say that all students start at the same level is something that we know in education is not possible. We want our students to be eligible to graduate from college and receive their diplomas. There is a wide difference between those students who are leaving our high schools. High school generally does not require that you have taken Algebra 2, for example. Yet, when you apply to the university, it is almost always expected that you have done so. To complete a university degree program, most universities now require that you take college algebra. That is a very advanced algebra class, and that is not a graduation requirement from high school.
If we are to match those requirements, then we will have a very small graduation class, or very small number of students who attend college, because that would be a very different situation than currently exists. Mr. Chairman and fellow members of the Committee, I want you to know that we are concerned about remediation for students, but we do not feel that this should be taken from other students through the $20 million. We think that there should be a joint effort, and we think there is an effort in this state, through the P‑16 Council, to better articulate the flow from junior high, to high school, and on to college. We support the fact that students’ dreams need to be realized through advanced education; we do not see A.B. 426 as a way to advance that dream here in the state of Nevada.
Assemblywoman Angle:
Mr. Hickman, our Chairman brought up the question about the remediation for Millennium Scholarship recipients. Could you address that? How do you think it is happening that we’re having to provide remediation for those students? I’m thinking that, assuming they’re college-bound, if they’re applying for these scholarships, they should be preparing their coursework for that. I would like to know what you think is causing that remediation to happen, and how you propose to correct that at the high school level.
Terry Hickman:
The Millennium Scholarship does not have, for example, a math requirement. It has the requirement of graduation. It does mean there is definitely some work that could be looked at, in terms of graduation and the Millennium Scholarship being more aligned. But let me also point out that the entrance exam into college does require a very advanced level of math. Many students just miss, or significantly miss, the cut-off. For example, when I was a counselor, the score on the ACT had to be 19. If you scored below 19, regardless of what classes you took, you were eligible to go into remedial math class. Remedial math class is not what it sounds like; it is a very hard-working algebra class for students, because the point is for students to get through college algebra. Again, that points out the fact that not all students who graduate from high school, even if they have a 3.0 average, are required to take algebra for the Millennium Scholarship nor are they required to take what is meant in terms of academic preparation.
Assemblyman Geddes:
Mr. Hickman, I’m synthesizing the debate that we’ve put together over the last couple of weeks on this issue. It sounds like not having Algebra 2 is what is causing the failures on the Proficiency Exam. It is also, according to Chancellor Nichols, the number 1 indicator that people aren’t going to succeed in the university system. It sounds like Algebra 2 is what is needed to cut back the level of remediation at the university system. With all that information coming out, would you agree that it makes no sense not to require Algebra 2 of all students?
Terry Hickman:
I believe the issue that we’re talking about here is graduation from high school versus entrance into college, and there is a great deal of difference. Having been a counselor for many years, I can assure you that many students who had trouble on the Proficiency Exam were in Algebra 2 classes, so the correlation is not exactly one to one. It certainly would be something to consider for the Millennium Scholarship, that a 3.0 average is certainly one requirement, but Algebra 2 would also be something to consider as a requirement. Even though most students are not in a math major, if college algebra is a requirement for graduation from college, it certainly should be considered for every high school student planning to attend the university.
Assemblyman Geddes:
You mentioned that many universities require college algebra to get in or to get out of there. Does the University of Nevada system require it? If we were sending people from Nevada high schools to Nevada universities, wouldn’t it make sense to require college algebra?
Terry Hickman:
It’s been two years, but I do believe Algebra 2 is a requirement for entrance into the University of Nevada System; it is not a requirement into the community college system. There is a huge difference.
Assemblywoman Angle:
I know the purpose of A.B. 426 is to bring some accountability between the two systems, and I know, from your testimony, you don’t think this is the vehicle for that, but do you have some suggestions on how we might bring that accountability between the two systems? We’re hearing it from both directions, that there is no accountability. The high schools are graduating students who are not prepared, and the college is saying it’s costing a ton of money to prepare these students, and they should have been prepared beforehand. I would like your comments on that.
Terry Hickman:
You see the colliding of two different systems, the high school graduation system and the college entrance system. I definitely think, in the Millennium Scholarship, you should see a blending of the requirement, since the Millennium Scholarship is generally for the college-bound. There definitely needs to be a movement towards a more college-bound Millennium Scholarship.
I believe that when we look at remediation, there needs to be more effort at the high school level to inform the students exactly what is going to be required of them in college. If, for example, when you take a college entrance exam, that is your first introduction to that level, perhaps that is saying we should have done something sooner. I don’t really have an answer for you, but I certainly say that there needs to be a “beefing up” of the Proficiency Exam when it comes to reading and to math. Sitting on the P-16 Council, I can assure you that is the direction the P-16 Council has taken, moving toward a more demanding Proficiency Exam.
[Mr. Hickman continues.] I guess that’s my best answer, not to answer it directly, but I believe that we need a close relationship between the high school curriculum and the college curriculum. I think we’ll find it much more successful. We have two systems that are very isolated, and when they don’t talk with each other, it is tough to say what is expected from one, when the other is not saying what that they are expecting. That articulation is crucial, and I believe that it is something we should be asking for between our high schools and our college systems.
Chairman Williams:
Thank you, sir. Is there anyone in Las Vegas to testify on A.B. 426? I think there’s one person still there. We’ll take Ms. Wright here in Carson City, and then we’ll go to Las Vegas.
Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District:
The Clark County School District is not in support of school districts being required to reimburse universities and community colleges in Nevada for the cost of required remedial education of certain graduates from high school. A.B. 426 does not appear to create standards to determine whether remedial classes were not necessary, nor does it define a remedial class.
Based on the executive summary prepared by the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), there would 2,582 recent high school graduates enrolled in remedial courses in the fall and summer of 2002. This total is less than 3 percent of full-time enrollment students at UNLV. Of these students, 75 percent were 19 years old or younger, and it is our understanding that some of the courses were taken by student choice and not due to an assignment by that university.
At this time, I’d like to introduce Jane Kadoich. Jane is the Director of Guidance and Counseling for the Clark County School District.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I just wanted to confirm that number. You said 3 percent? I thought the testimony we received earlier had the percentage of remedial education much higher.
Karyn Wright:
Ms. Kadoich is also going to speak about this, but our records show that 2,582 students were recent high school graduates enrolled in the remedial courses for the fall and summer of 2002. This total is less than 3 percent of the total enrollment at UNLV.
Assemblyman Geddes:
What percent is it of the freshman class?
Karyn Wright:
Ms. Kadoich is going to speak to that.
Assemblywoman Koivisto
Just to point something out, the total enrollment at UNLV is between 20,000 and 25,000; 2500 is a lot more than 3 percent.
Jane Kadoich, Clark County School District:
I represent the Clark County School District in opposition to A.B. 426. We, as a district, share the same concern of making sure our students are academically prepared to be successful at the university level. What we were trying to do is put the numbers into perspective for you. There were a little over 2,500 students that, across the state, were in remediation courses. Of that number, it represents, on the UNLV campus, less than 3 percent. We’re talking about a state number, but less than 3 percent at the local university level.
To put it into more perspective, there were only 754 students across the state that needed remediation in both the English and the math areas. I‘m not quite sure $20 million is a realistic number when you look at remediation and how much it costs. I thought that Assemblywoman Chowning’s comments and questions were very appropriate. The executive summary that they have put together with the cost factor contains a little over $2 million for remediation; that money was based on what the student has actually paid for that course. They use the figures of $300 per credit at the university level, $296 per credit at the college level, and $190 at the community college level.
The difference is between what the student pays and what the state provides funding for. It is my understanding, and maybe someone is there from the university system to correct this, but, starting with the 2006 graduating class from high school, the Board of Regents are no longer going to provide state funding to make up the balance between what the students pay and what the state pays.
I’m happy to see that the state no longer will be funding remediation, starting with the class of 2006. They’ll continue to offer those courses, but not where state funding will be used. There will be a separate account set up for that, and I think that’s a good thing. I also think, as one of you had mentioned, that it’s probably a good idea to begin looking at the concept that Millennium Scholarship funding cannot be used to pay for remediation courses, too.
[Ms. Kadoich continues.] Some of you may be concerned about why the number is so high. I’m sure you’ve heard testimony that the numbers are much higher than 3 percent; it’s closer to 30 percent or higher. You have to remember that with baby boomers like myself, our children are now in college. It will be the largest wave of children to be in college in the history of this country. As the numbers increase for kids going to college, so will the numbers of kids increase who will be looking at remediation. They do go hand in hand.
I’m concerned about how we define a child as in need of remediation in this state. The Regents set that, and they use the ACT and SAT cutoff scores to determine that. It is subjective; right now in Nevada they use 21 for the ACT score and a 500 to 520 on the SAT. We did some checking around the sister states in our part of the country, and also further away, to see if that holds true, consistently, as far as what other states use as a label to consider a child in need of remediation.
I found it very interesting that, in Utah, their cutoff score for the ACT is 16, where ours is 21. That is for math. Nevada requires the students who had less than a score of 21 to take a remedial math course. In New Mexico, their cutoff was also 16. In Colorado, they won’t use a test score to determine if a student needs remediation. In Idaho, the cut-off score was 18. I’m concerned, and I’m wondering what research is that has supported the university system’s use of the cutoff score at 21, because 21 right now is the national college-bound average across the country.
One last comment I want to make before I stop to answer questions. It concerns one of the comments Assemblywoman Chowning made about the new articulation that we’ve been working on with the P-16 Council. We have recently begun dialogue with the presidents of the universities in southern Nevada, along with our superintendent, and we’re very excited that one of the things we’re doing is sharing data with each other. I know that sounds like a novel thought, but the fact that we will be making decisions, not on urban legends, but on data, really does help us out. UNLV has created a wonderful report that they’ll be providing our high school principals with, that pretty much “slices and dices” the graduates of that school that come to the university. This will provide us input to know how successful our students are at the university setting.
One of the examples I look forward to from the university is to find out what the curriculum’s expectations are for an English course. If we could have a handle on what the standards are at the university level in the English area, that would assist us in working with curriculum and our academic standards to make sure our students are prepared to meet the expectations set by the state.
[Ms. Kadoich continues.] Please keep in mind that about half of our students in Nevada go on to college. We would all like that number to be higher, but we are a service industry in Nevada, so even though we talk about possibly increasing graduation requirements, please keep in mind that half of our students will not go to college; they’ll go directly into the work force.
My last comment and my biggest concern is, if we set precedents with A.B. 426, and start asking for reimbursement, where does it stop? If a student takes a calculus class, and the university doesn’t feel that the student has been prepared, does the university come back and ask for a refund? If students take four years of a foreign language, such as Spanish, and the university doesn’t think the students do well, does the university ask for a refund? I thought the comment, do the employers get to come back and ask for a refund at the university level, was probably appropriate. I’m really not sure where it would stop once this begins.
Assemblyman Andonov:
I had one question. In your testimony, you mentioned that, starting in 2006, the state will not be subsidizing or paying for remedial education. I didn’t fully understand why that is the case. Could you briefly repeat that?
Jane Kadoich:
My understanding is that the Board of Regents recently voted that they would not be subsidizing remediation coursework from the state level to the universities, starting with the class of 2006. At that point, the student will be paying for that completely.
Assemblyman Andonov:
Every single course that a student takes at a Nevada university or community college is subsidized by the state. I don’t see how that decision could be the case. Student fees cover a very small portion of the actual cost of administering a course.
Jane Kadoich:
Is there someone in the north from the university system who could elaborate on that? I’m here by myself, so I don’t have anyone down here to help.
Chairman Williams:
Not at this time. We’ll get that information. Mr. Geddes?
Assemblyman Geddes:
I’m not sure if my first question was answered. What percentage of University of Nevada freshmen is attending either or both remedial courses?
Jane Kadoich:
It is approximately 38 percent.
Assemblyman Geddes:
Of incoming freshmen this year, 38 percent are taking remedial education in either math or English. Is that correct?
Jane Kadoich:
Yes, that is correct. That includes, also, a 9 percent increase in enrollment overall in freshmen attending college, which is a good thing.
Assemblyman Geddes:
My understanding of the university policy on the ACT score of 21 is, if you’re below 21 on the ACT, it is recommended that you go into remedial math, but it is not a requirement to go into remedial math. I wonder if you could confirm that. Also, are the policies in the other states you cited mandatory into remedial education or recommendations into remedial education?
Jane Kadoich:
It is my understanding that it is required in our system. They can challenge that decision and take a department placement test for the math, but my understanding is they don’t have a choice as a student. We know we have lots of students who opt to take the remediation courses, even though they don’t have to. In the states that we contacted, they require, as we do, a student to take remediation, but their cutoff scores are much lower than ours.
Assemblywoman Angle:
You mentioned there was no definition for remedial or remediation in the bill. That seems to me to be a legitimate request that we do define our terms. Could you give a definition of what remedial does mean when we get to the university level?
Jane Kadoich:
My understanding is that, by policy, the Board of Regents defines, in the state, what remediation means. I can only give you their perspective as far as what I understand is in their code, and they have made that decision of the cutoff scores. That’s the subjective part. That number does fluctuate from state to state, with what the Boards of Regents of particular states have determined to define remediation, or in need of remediation.
Karyn Wright:
As Ms. Kadoich has mentioned, we are looking forward to the P-16 collaboration that has started statewide. We actually feel that this topic of remediation can be discussed, and an agreement can be made upon the whole notion of remediation. Not only the P-16 Council, but also the school districts working in conjunction with the community colleges and the universities, can address this issue.
Anne K. Loring, Board of Directors, Education Collaborative of Washoe County, Inc.:
[She spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit L).] Please let me take a moment to describe what the Education Collaborative is, and the work that it is doing relating to the issues of students enrolling in remedial college classes.
The Education Collaborative was formed several years ago as a result of a merger of two previously existing organizations in Washoe County: the Washoe K-16 Council and Partners in Education. The Collaborative Board of Directors must be composed of 51 percent of private sector members representing businesses, community, and parents. The remaining 49 percent of the directors include the Superintendent of the Washoe County Schools, the Presidents of UNR and TMCC, and others representing K-12 and higher education.
One of the Collaborative projects is the annual publication of a report called the Data Profile Report, which provides data about graduating classes from the Washoe County School District, and their continuation into UNR and TMCC. Data on the need for remediation by our students has been a key component of the Data Profile Report for the past five years. Because we noticed an increase in the percentage of Washoe County School District students needing remediation at UNR and TMCC from 1999 through 2001, this year’s report is focusing on more detailed information about that are taking remedial classes and the characteristics of their high school performance.
I have provided for you a draft outline (Exhibit M) of the 2003 Data Profile Report, which is expected to be published this fall. It is the last three pages of the copy of my testimony that you’ve received. That’s the outline of the research we’ll be doing this year on remediation for Washoe County School District students. The Collaborative shares the concern of the sponsor of A.B. 426 about this issue. What we’ve learned so far is that the issue of students taking remedial classes in college is more complex than it first appears, and it is related to a number of policy issues at various levels. Please allow me to list just a few for you that we have identified; then I would like to suggest an alternative strategy for this bill.
[Ms. Loring continues.] The following two are higher education issues relating to the issue of remediation. Policies on placement of students into remedial math or English classes vary among institutions in the UCCSN system, particularly among the different community colleges. There may be good reasons for differences in policies among the two universities and the community colleges. The various community colleges use different placement tests and cut scores, they vary in how strictly they enforce the taking of placement tests, and they vary in whether they require a student who fails to make the cut score to take a remedial class. Given this situation, the same student might have to take a remedial class at one Nevada college, but not another. How can we hold the students’ K-12 district financially responsible for varying college placement policies?
As has already been stated, the mission of our community colleges is dramatically different from that of our universities. Community colleges currently serve as a “safety net,” or second chance, for a high school graduate who did not successfully complete a college preparatory curriculum but then decided to enter college. Community colleges offer a second chance to the student who never took second year algebra, but now wants to become an engineer, or who failed second year algebra, but is now motivated to try again. That is one reason why the need for remediation by students at TMCC is almost twice that of students at UNR. That is an important and a valuable mission of our community colleges, but should school districts have to pay for those students’ remediation classes?
Here are two issues relating to our terrific Millennium Scholarship program. First, the GPA required for the Millennium Scholarship is based on every subject a student takes in high school, not just the core academic subjects. A graduate could have received As and Bs in occupational education classes, art, music, or even weight training, but have received very low grades in math or English, and yet that student will qualify for the Millennium Scholarship. That student will need remedial math or English, yet why should the school district pay, when the Millennium Scholarship may have inadvertently encouraged that ill-prepared student to go on to college.
The Millennium Scholarship was designed to encourage students to go on to college, but it does not require that the student complete a college preparatory curriculum as a condition for the scholarship. Should a school district pick up the tab for that student to take remedial college classes that the student chose not to take when he or she was in high school?
Here’s an issue for our state’s business community to consider. Some in the business community support A.B. 426 as a measure of accountability for our school districts. Yet, when school boards, or the State Board of Education, discuss increasing the number of math or science credits required for graduation, or they discuss requiring students to take higher level math classes or not permitting Occupational Education classes to count for science, math or English classes, it is often the business community that objects, saying not everyone is going to college. Do they want the school districts to pay when those students, who did not take college preparatory classes, decide to go to college and need remedial math or English?
[Ms. Loring continues.] Are there issues for K-12 policy makers, too? Of course, and here are some. Are counselors and teachers challenging all students to take high-level classes with a view toward college preparation? Are course content and expected outcomes in K-12 math and English classes aligned with expectations for college and university math or English?
There are some questions that need to be asked in general, and we’re looking into them through the Education Collaborative in Washoe County. How many students taking remedial math or English in our colleges have self-selected those classes, even though they could have been successful in college classes? How many remedial students did not want to take college preparatory classes in high school or decided not to take math in their senior year, or goofed off and cut class and passed their classes, but just barely? Should school districts be required to pay for remedial classes for those students?
This issue of college remedial classes is a serious one, as you all have noted, but there are also questions to answer and policy issues that impact the situation. We also understand that the Board of Regents has instituted new policies related to this issue, including working with K-12 to reduce the need for remediation, and eliminating state funding for remedial education classes at the universities beginning in 2006. We applaud their actions. I have a copy of what I believe was their Board of Regents’ packet. The recommendation that they passed on March 19 includes this statement:
Beginning with fall semester, 2006, and the implementation of Phase 1 of the increased admissions standards scheduled for that year, eliminates state funding for remedial education classes at the universities. So as to minimize inconvenience and expense for students, this policy change should be understood to encourage universities to offer these classes on a self-supporting basis, and/or to partner with area community colleges or the state college to offer remedial education classes at university sites.
That’s the policy the Regents passed on March 19, 2003.
[Ms. Loring continues.] The Education Collaborative of Washoe County respectfully suggests that you consider making this bill a resolution and direct our newly formed Nevada P-16 Council to research this issue during the interim. The Council includes legislators. I believe Chairman Williams serves on that, so do the Governor’s Office, higher education, the State Board of Education, the Nevada Association of School Boards, K-12 educators, and the business community. The Council is currently directing Nevada’s participation in the American Diploma Project. They are in an excellent position to pursue this issue on your behalf and report back to you in the next session.
Dr. Dotty Merrill, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability and Assessment, Washoe County School District:
The Washoe County School District has concerns about A.B. 426, and we have discussed those with Mr. Hettrick. We understand his underlying issues in making this proposal. I’d like to spend just a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, describing three students for you. I’ve changed the names, but the students that I’m describing are students that I knew when I was a high school administrator. I believe that their experiences demonstrate the complexities that Ms. Loring has described, and the reasons why this bill needs further study.
The first student I’m going to call Jeremiah. Jeremiah ended up, when he graduated from high school, in a remedial math course. He is one of about 15 percent of students who self-selects. As a senior, Jeremiah decided that he was not going to take math his senior year. He thought he had some good reasons for that. He was involved in three sports, he was the yearbook editor, and he decided that he could not stand the pressure of a math class in his senior curriculum. When he entered the university, he recognized that he needed a review, so he took remedial math. It would seem to me that certainly a student of that sort is not a student for whom the school district should be reimbursing the University and Community College System.
A second student, I will call her Miranda, decided very late that she wanted to enter the university. At the beginning of her senior year, she made the decision to go to the university. She knew that the courses there would be challenging. She also knew that she had not been engaged in a college preparatory curriculum, and she decided that she would go to the community college the first year, take remedial math and remedial English, and then move forward. Again, this is a decision that a student made; she decided very late in her high school career to attempt the college experience. Should that have been denied to her? Of course it should not. But, should a school district pay for her remedial courses? I would say, “No.”
[Dr. Merrill continues.] A third student I will call Marcia. She is a student who came to Nevada in her third year of high school, as a junior. She had taken Algebra 1 as a freshman, and she got a C-. She took Geometry as a sophomore in her previous state, got a D, came to Nevada, took Probability, and got a D-. She took no math as a senior, although she was counseled to do so. She admitted to me that math had never been her strong suit, and she should have studied harder along the way. As an entering freshman, she ended up in remedial math. Again, I would submit that this is the kind of student for which we should not be asked to provide a reimbursement. I think there are certainly others.
There has been discussion this evening about the Millennium Scholarship, and the students who receive the Millennium Scholarship who are taking remedial or developmental courses. Certainly, there is no requirement that would prevent the Millennium Scholarship from requiring higher course expectations than are required for high school graduation. It could be that students who earn a Millennium Scholarship must have four units of math, for example. To return to a question that Assemblyman Geddes asked, it is our understanding that UCCSN does not require Algebra 2, but requires three units of math, one of which must be Algebra 1, and the second must be Geometry. The third could be whatever the third is, as long as it meets a math graduation requirement.
We have concerns about the Millennium Scholarship. We believe that, as Ms. Loring has mentioned, consideration can be given to the calculation of the grade point average on the basis of content area courses rather than all courses. On behalf of the school district, I support the proposal that Ms. Loring has presented to you about using the expertise of the P-16 Council to study this during the Interim and report back to this Committee.
John Pappageorge, Government Affairs Consulting, representing the University and Community College System of Nevada:
Chancellor Nichols could not be here, so she asked me to convey her opinion. She is not supporting A.B. 426, but she is not objecting to the bill. She is walking a “tightwire,” and she supports the concept of what Mr. Hettrick wants to do, which is to drive down the cost of remedial education and accomplish the education of our students as they graduate from high school. I would be happy to take any questions back to the Chancellor or would try to answer them if I could.
Ben Blinn, citizen:
Mr. Hettrick’s utopian plan makes everything balance out, with finger waving, blaming, and shaming, when schools at the lower level only have a 62 percent success rate, and 38 percent have to take remediation. My problem with this, first as an educator, is that the attitude should be cooperation, not competition, and the state supplies money for all these institutions. That’s your job, to say that one is not prepared for college. We already know the different spins in the ugly duckling turning into the swan and succeeding from college; we’ve seen that happen, because professional growth in all of you has been by degrees.
Why would that be any different than someone who starts out at kindergarten and works his way all the way through college? Everything is by degrees, and everybody has a different rate. We all have one thing; we’re all valuable as Americans. I think that, in professional growth, we should look at the requirements for what it takes. When I went to school, we called it bonehead English; we didn’t have a fancy name. We also had bonehead math, and some people had to take both remedial math and English. You see people that wind up in prison, and finally they have a sober moment and realize they need to grow in education so they can stay out of prison. We give than $10,000 for education so we don’t have to put $20,000 and “3 hots and a cot” on their life. That’s success.
I don’t know which is most important, the kindergarten teacher or the college professor, but I know that, as a teacher, I looked at my class and my kids, saying, “I am all things to all men, that I might win some.” I didn’t win every kid who was in my class. Everybody wasn’t a winner when I was ready for him or her to win either; some of them won later. Some of them are still working at the project of becoming winners. It would be ideal to be able to put the degree of responsibility back on whoever taught the student, rather than to say, “I take the kid from the known to the unknown, where he needs to go to be successful.” Maybe these Millennium Scholarships should all be loans, and we should let the IRS [Internal Revenue Service] collect the money on their end. There should be a way to cancel how much they owe.
I thought the idea of our president was a pretty good one, when he said to leave no one behind. Let’s let everyone have the ability to have a degree of professional growth. The more education you establish within a person, the more likely it is for him to succeed and have an income to pay taxes. They have tutors in college now. These remedial programs, even with other classes, enable students to learn what you need to learn to get out of school. I think that everybody isn’t ready at the moment that you’re ready to teach him or her, just because you‘re a great teacher. You want to include, in your objective, more people for education with your Millennium Scholarship than looking at a guy to do Algebra 2. It’s all in the teaching and in the readiness of the pupil to learn.
[Mr. Blinn continues.] It’s important that the student sees perspective, like this one that had everything in high school so he left his math out, and then he said he needed math to complete his education. The bottom line is, let’s give everybody an opportunity. Let’s ask the universities to cooperate with their lessers who are twice as successful—they get over 62 percent of their students ready to leave—because the college makes more money, and the university makes more money, when they do have those 38 percent, because some of those succeed. I think we should look at our successes, rather than our “could’ve, should’ve, and would’ves.”
Lynn Hettrick, Assemblyman, District No. 39:
First, in terms of the $20 million, I want to make the statement that it certainly doesn’t have to come out of the DSA [Distributive Schools Account]; the intent was, if funding is provided, it would be put into the DSA, and it was intended to be controlled by the State Board of Education. The language makes it sound like we’re saying, “Cut the DSA by $20 million, whatever the amount is, and put it in here.” That is certainly not the intent; it could be funded outside the requirement for the DSA.
One of the comments you heard in testimony is we should not ban anybody from attending college. Nothing in A.B. 426 would ban anybody from attending college. It simply says that the cost of the remediation classes would be paid for; it wouldn’t stop anybody from attending if 100 percent were going to remediation. Another comment was made about remediation, and it sounded like you had to be up to a standard for the graduation requirement going in. Certainly, that is not what remediation is about. Remediation is bringing you up to the minimum standard that you should have been at before you got there. We’re talking about different things.
Mr. Chairman, I don’t know what you and the Committee might have planned for this bill, but, with a $20 million fee to fund it, it is going to go to Ways and Means. This isn’t a great year to find money to fund anything. If you have an interest in putting this to the P-16 Council, to see if they’d like to work with this and come up with suggestions, I would be happy to work with whomever on the language.
The point that I am trying to emphasize here is that when we hear a number, 38 percent—and I’m not condemning anyone for anything—you realize not all students went to school or went on to college, but what percentage of students coming out of the schools in Nevada are not up to the minimum standard, based on the diploma they receive? What percentage is below what we would expect our graduating high school seniors to know? I think the university would agree that 38 percent is not acceptable. We are trying to address that issue. We need to get the university and the schools better meshed on what the requirements are, so there is no doubt that if the students know what they have to take, they should be able to take it. When they get to the university, they should be prepared for classes there. This is about improving education for the kids in the state of Nevada.
Jane Kadoich:
I fully appreciate the comments from Ms. Loring of the highly regarded Education Collaborative, and I would be very interested in supporting a resolution to study this issue. They are very data-driven, and I think they have an excellent suggestion for a compromise that gets us to the same end.
Chairman Williams:
We’ll take a look at all those options; I think Mr. Hettrick has identified that his purpose is to get the problem resolved and work things out. We’ll take a look at each option that was laid out. With that, we will close the hearing on A.B. 426. Mr. Manendo?
Assemblyman Manendo:
Just for the record, I wanted to disclose that I work for the Community College of Southern Nevada, and, since we heard A.B. 426 and A.B. 507, I just wanted to disclose that for the record.
Chairman Williams:
Before we leave, I would like to appoint a subcommittee for Assembly Bill 179.
Assembly Bill 179: Revises provisions governing education. (BDR 34-22)
We’ll appoint the Honorable Kelvin Atkinson as Chairman, the Honorable Mr. Geddes and the Honorable Mr. Horne as Subcommittee members for A.B. 179.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any other business to come before the Committee? The meeting is adjourned [at 6:31 p.m.].
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Victoria Thompson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
DATE: