MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Education

 

Seventy-Second Session

April 2, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Wednesday, April 2, 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:

 

Assemblyman Richard Perkins, District No. 23

Assemblyman Joe Hardy, District No. 20

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Corbett, Committee Manager

Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Brock Wilke, Student, Basic High School, Henderson

Jeff Walker, Student, Basic High School, Henderson

Bryan Stiles, Student, Basic High School, Henderson

Britney Randall, Student, Basic High School, Henderson

Megan Darlington, Student, Basic High School, Henderson

Doug Byington, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Association of School Administrators

John Wallace, Teacher, Basic High School, Henderson

Ellen Fockler, Library Media Technology Coordinator for the Washoe County School District

Martha Gould, Chairwoman, United States National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

Mary Anne Jennings, Concerned Grandparent

Sean Gamble, Librarian, Storey County School District

Rose McKinney-James, Legislative Advocate, Clark County School District

Roxanne Boyce, Librarian, Boulder City High School

Duncan McCoy, Director of the Boulder City Library District

Ray Bacon, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Manufacturers Association

Randy Robison, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Association of School Boards

Al Bellister, Legislative Advocate, Nevada State Education Association

James W. Penrose, Legislative Advocate, Nevada State Education Association

Sheila Moulton, President, Clark County School District Board of Trustees

Joyce Haldeman, Clark County School District

 

 

Chairman Williams:

I’d like to call the Committee to order, please.  [Roll was called.]  Please mark members present as they arrive.  We have several members on the Health and Human Services Committee, and they’re still meeting.

 

The first bill on the agenda we’d like to hear today is Assembly Bill 345.  Speaker Perkins, welcome.

 

Assembly Bill 345:  Requires libraries in public high schools to be open to general public. (BDR 34-1307)

 

Speaker Richard Perkins, Clark County, District No. 23:

[Introduced himself.]  I’m here to present Assembly Bill 345, of which I am the prime sponsor.  I feel that one of the voices often absent during the policy debates in our capitol is that of the students.  Their unique perspective can provide an extremely useful viewpoint as policies are drafted in our state.

 

In order to create interest and foster civic involvement of students, I created a public policy contest called Democracy in Action.  For the second straight session, this contest was open to all high school students in my district.  The only requirement for eligibility was to be attending government or social studies classes at Foothill or Basic High Schools.  Subsequently, the students had to present a suggested public policy modification that would require a change in the law.  Mr. John Wallace’s Basic High School Government Advanced Placement Honors Class students, Brock Wilke, Megan Darlington, Jeff Walker, Britney Randall, and Bryan Stiles, had the winning proposal.  The result of their idea is Assembly Bill 345. 

 

This is a document used for the competition.  These grant guidelines (Exhibit C) had an introduction, who the participants are, what kind of entries there would be, the format in which the entries had to be submitted, suggestions for them to prompt interest, how the winners would be chosen, an entry form, and the like.  This was distributed between the two high schools.  We had several entries, and this (Exhibit C-1) was the one chosen to be drafted as a bill and to have the students who created the winning entry come to Carson City.  A formal pamphlet was later developed [based on the PowerPoint presentation]. 

 

At this point, I’ll introduce the five students who flew here from southern Nevada to testify in favor of Assembly Bill 345.  They are sitting behind me, and they are, again, Mr. Brock Wilke, Ms. Megan Darlington, Mr. Jeff Walker, Ms. Britney Randall, and Mr. Bryan Stiles.  These are their thoughts and their ideas, and they have met with people prior to this hearing who had concerns about some portions of the bill.  They discussed their positions and whether or not they found some middle ground.  I’m sure your hearing will bear this out.  I think this is an extraordinary opportunity for these students and many others to come here, testify, and help shape our public policy. 

 

Chairman Williams:

Are there any questions for Speaker Perkins?  I think there are parents at the Grant Sawyer Building in Las Vegas; we can’t start the teleconference until the Health and Human Services Committee adjourns.  We’ll explain that to those in Clark County.

 

Speaker Perkins:

We appreciate your kind attention, and hopefully we’ll have a good hearing and learn from the experience.

 

Brock Wilke, Student, Basic High School, Henderson:

[Introduced himself.]  Today we are going to present Assembly Bill 345.  We would like to begin with Jeff Walker’s public response video. 

 

Jeff Walker, Student, Basic High School, Henderson:

[Introduced himself.]  I asked five questions around the community about A.B. 345.  I’ve had positive answers from every single person questioned.  Our community wants to see libraries open so the percentage in literacy will increase dramatically with people having access to reading material.  Before going on, I would like to read a quote:  “If we encounter a man of great intellect, we should ask him what books he reads.”  Basically, the more libraries we have, the more books we will have.  The more books we read, the more knowledge we will gain.  The more knowledge we have, the more intellect there will be.  Therefore, if we open libraries to the public, the literacy will go up, because people will be able to read and have access to libraries.  Now we’d like to preview the video. 

 

These are some of the questions on the video:

 

1)         Should libraries be kept open?

2)         Should libraries be locked up during the summer?

3)         What do you think about the library system today?

4)         How do you feel about spending $3 million on one library, versus keeping 72 school libraries open?

5)         Why would it be important to open school libraries?

 

[Students on the video attempted to answer the above questions.  The following are some comments from the video.]

 

“A lot of education is in books, and opening the doors to that sort of thing.  Reading definitely has a positive impact on the lives of people.”

 

“Yes, I do, because I know that students want to learn, and they want to grow.  They’re looking for avenues to do so.  If libraries are open, people can get access to books and other reading materials, movies, CDs, and different things to help them with learning.  That’s all for the betterment of the community.”

 

“I think it could, yes, because more books would be available to the public.”

 

“Well, yes.  Why would you open a library for nine months out of the year, and close it another three, just to sit around and do absolutely nothing.  If you’re going to have three months that nothing happens in those libraries, you might as well make all the public libraries the libraries for schools, as well.”

 

“Yes, definitely, because that three-month period is when people who are in school have the most free time, it seems like.  If libraries are open, that person who wants to read and wants to learn and grow during the summer can have access to books and whatever else he or she wants.”

 

“Yes, what’s it good for?  You can go, but you can’t go in them and you can’t use them.  Why should they be locked up?”

 

“Yes, I really don’t use libraries that often.  When I try to use them is when I really need to, but if it was open and they had more resources, I’d probably use it more.”

 

“I think it would be very awesome if you had more material to go to, because if you want to challenge students to work together and go one step further, you have to foster academic achievement, you have to develop citizenship and lifelong learning.  You have to promote community involvement in a rigorous and challenging learning environment.  Without those materials, you can’t access your goals and your achievements without pertaining to what is in the libraries at school.”

 

“It makes no economic sense.  I think that is somewhat a waste for just one library, when you can go to 72 other libraries and help them out.  It seems like the 72 libraries would be impacting more people than just one library.”

 

“Well, with that in mind, it seems like it would be more beneficial to just open up those [school] libraries, rather than build something new.”

 

“Because people want to learn and read.  If the libraries are closed, you can lose that.  You don’t give people the opportunity to grow and learn, and just advance in life.  So it’s a necessity to have libraries open and available.”

 

“Important?  I’m not sure how I can judge that.  Beneficial?  I would say yes.”

 

Jeff Walker:

As you can see, a lot of footage wasn’t taken because of the noise consideration on the roads, in the malls, and on the UNLV and CCSN campuses.  But a lot of positive reaction was on this.

 

Bryan Stiles, Student, Basic High School, Henderson:

[Introduced himself.]  I will be running the presentation and speaking at the beginning of the PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit C). 

 

Why is this a good idea?  It will save money for the communities.  We have calculated that for 73 libraries and high school to be opened would cost less than it would to build one public library.  The public is already paying for the libraries and schools.  It would be reasonable to open school libraries for public use if the public is paying for them.  The bill will give more education for the public, who will have access to books that aren’t available at other libraries.  I have gone to a library a number of times and they haven’t had my books.  Maybe the Gibson Library doesn’t have it, but the Tropicana Library has it; however that’s a good 30 miles away, and I can’t get out there very easily.

 

A.B. 345 has more education for the students.  Students will have more access to the Internet because there are a lot of computers at school libraries.  They will also have access to the Clark County network log-ins, or if the other counties have log-ins, they have access to those.  Students can save files onto the network and they have their own log-in password.  The libraries at high schools are going to be closer.  There are a lot more schools than there are libraries, especially in the Las Vegas Clark County School District area, so the proximity to home is greater.

 

I would like to end with a quote:  Libraries will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no libraries. 

 

Britney Randall, Student, Basic High School, Henderson:

[Introduced herself.]  I’m going to talk on the benefit to the public of passing A.B. 345.  For one thing, it’s more convenient.  High schools are usually a place for a boundary of a school, and it’s easier for the elderly and students to go to that one location than a library.  For me, I could go to two high schools before I got to a library.

 

[Ms. Randall continued.]  Another benefit is that most students after school do sports and are involved in other clubs.  They don’t have time during school to go to a library, because they have to be in class.  After school when the library is opened for that short period, they have other activities.  This way, they’re coming out from sports and activities, and their library is still open to get the resources to do reports.  I did not have a computer at home for a long time, and I was required to type papers.  I usually had to go to a friend’s house, but if I was already at school, I could go to the library after school and use a computer to type up my papers.

 

School libraries have easier access, are closer and are easier to walk to.  If you don’t drive, most high schools are usually within walking distance and there are more books for independent study.  It’s another place to go.  As Bryan was saying, if they don’t have a book, you can go to the high school or the public library.  There are high schools in Henderson and Las Vegas that are located close together because there are so many students.  If one high school doesn’t have the necessary material, it’s not too far to the next high school, compared to a library.

 

Also it is cheaper.  They were saying that 72 high school libraries could be opened for the price of one new public library.  It would provide more resources for study, more books, and easier access to get to the library since it is open after school and after activities.  They won’t have to miss class time to go to the library. 

 

You can hold tutoring classes or any kind of service for the public there at the school library, to help kids, to get them off the streets, and to help them find a way to better spend their time.  Also, I feel more comfortable going to my high school library than to the public library because I’ve already been around my high school library and I know it better.  In Henderson, they’re thinking about building a new library off Boulder Highway by Heritage Museum.  Heritage Museum is also located midway between two high schools, so why not open these two high school libraries so there are two different libraries instead of one general one in the middle?

 

I’d like to end with a quote:  “The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read.”  Mark Twain.

Megan Darlington, Student, Basic High School, Henderson:

[Introduced herself.]  I’d like to talk about the property tax increase in June 2001.  It would raise property taxes $2.38 per year for an owner of a home worth $100,000, and it proposed that half of the funding for libraries would go toward operations, such as lighting, heating and cooling, janitorial needs, security, and so on.  The other half of the funding would go toward building six new libraries in the next ten years.  Of all the voters, 61 percent rejected the idea of the library bond.  This same proposal failed three times to get through the Debt Management Commission to place such a tax measure on the ballot.

 

The Chairman of Libraries of Clark County, Anne Baron, stated, “When you pay for libraries, you are getting something in return, and our taxpayers don’t feel that they are getting anything in return.”  As a group, we came up with an estimated cost of our idea.  If we paid $9.78 per hour for the clerk, plus $9.55 for the hall monitor for security reasons, this came to a total of $19.33 per hour.  We multiplied that by 28 hours at 4 hours per day, 7 days a week.  This came to $541.24 per week, and multiplied by 52 weeks, this came to $28,144.48 per year.  We multiplied that figure by the 73 possible high schools that could be opened, and this came to a grand total of $2,054,547 per year, statewide, which is about $950,000 cheaper than building one library.  Even after adding in the cost for cooling and heating, lighting, and electricity, the 73 high schools would come out to an equivalent cost of just one library.

 

Brock Wilke:

I’m talking about President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.  In this, he had four basic principles.

 

1.  Stronger accountability for results.  He wanted all the students in this nation to be able to learn and gain more knowledge; therefore A.B. 345 would give more students better chances.  Everywhere, you hear “we want more education, more funds.”  This is one of the ways that we can address that.

 

2.  Increased flexibility and local control.  It’s just one more option for the school districts to reach the students.

 

3.  Expanded options for the parents.  Certain kids might not feel comfortable about going to the public library by themselves, or even with their parents.  Their parents might not feel comfortable being at a public library by themselves.  It’s a lot easier and feels safer when you’re somewhere familiar rather than going to somewhere different.  It’s also good for the students because a lot of English teachers assign summer reading.  If you can’t find that book at a public library, then the school library is somewhere else to look for the book.  Many teachers base their lists on books that they know are around, and students can look in the high schools or the public library for those books. 

 

4.  Emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work.  One of the most essential things in life is the ability to read and write.  Enabling public access to school libraries would give more options and help people to be able to read as much as they wanted.

 

[Mr. Wilke continued.]  I’d like to start off with a quote:  “A library is a hospital for the mind.”  I have looked into the matter, and I’m hoping that under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, certain grants might be [available] to us.  I’m going to give a brief overview of grants that we’ve looked into.

 

Section 1118, Parental Involvement – Local agencies be able to receive funds for parent involvement in certain programs.  That could apply if the libraries decide to open up certain literacy programs to help not only the students, but people who don’t speak English well. 

 

Section 1203, Establish Reading and Literacy Partnerships – It is about getting together as a community to help the many different nonprofit organizations donate towards this idea.  That would provide more money instead of the school district having to pay that much more.

 

Section 1234, Help Family Literacy Programs – Helping as a family to get together and do a family activity towards literacy.

 

Section 1236, Eligible Participants – Help those who participate in adult education and literacy.  Opens up more programs to people already involved in the literacy programs going on right now.

 

Section 5101, Purpose State and Local Responsibility – This is talking about supporting local education and meeting educational needs for the students.

 

The main one I would like to focus on is Improving Literacy through School Libraries.  It gives a brief overview of what we are presenting today, helping to get more libraries overall.           

 

I would like to end with one last quote, by Walt Disney:  There is more treasure in books than in all the pirate’s loot on Treasure Island.  I really believe that this is beneficial, not just to the public, but to students.  A lot of kids can’t get to all the sources that they need because their parents work, or maybe they have to work.  When they go to school, it’s right there.  They can’t go to the school library because it’s closed, they have to drive that much farther to a public library.  I know for myself it’s about 10 miles to one library, when I can hop on the freeway and get to the Foothill High School Library in a matter of a minute or two.  We feel that passage of A.B. 345 would help our educational needs.

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

I certainly appreciate the video and PowerPoint presentation.  You ladies and gentlemen, with the presentation, are obviously taking an interest in your government at work.  This is essential and we appreciate that.  One of the speakers on the video said something about not having access to the library at school.  I was concerned about why you don’t have access to your library at school.  If you’re already there, why wouldn’t you just stay and go to the library right after school?  They don’t kick everybody out and close the doors right away.  You obviously have a little time to take advantage of the library system in your school right after the bell rings.

 

Bryan Stiles:

I personally have a sport.  I run track right after school.  My school gets out at 2:10, and I have track practice that starts right at 2:40.  I have to pick up my brother for track practice, also.  A lot of people have to go to the locker room and change, or talk to their teachers, and there is not enough time to get everything you need done in the library in that half hour before your sport.

 

Britney Randall:

During school and class, most teachers won’t excuse you to go to the library.  If it’s something for that particular class assignment, you can get a pass from the teacher and go to the library, but it’s not open to leave whenever you want during school.  When teachers are teaching a class, they don’t usually let you leave because they don’t want you to miss out on their lectures.  In most assignments where you need a computer, or you need to do research, it’s considered your homework to do on your own time.  If you have a sport or after-school activities, you don’t have time when the library is open.  When you come back, it’s closed.

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

I was wondering if extending the library hours themselves would solve the problem for the immediate needs of the students in that school.

 

Chairman Williams:

There are no other questions.  You did a very good job.  [The Chairman invited other testimony on A.B. 345.]

Doug Byington, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Association of School Administrators:

[Introduced himself.]  I signed in opposed to A.B. 345, but in favor of your next bill, A.B. 407.  I think they are companion bills, and while I feel there are many good things about A.B. 345, I think it has baggage that is a problem.  The major problem is the word “shall.”  It makes it mandatory that all high schools open their libraries.  Assemblyman Manendo suggested a minute ago to extend the library hours.  Under this bill, it would extend library hours for four hours after school.  I heard one of the students say their school closes at 2:10, so up until about 6:10, the library would be open for the students and for the community.

 

A.B. 345 says “it shall be opened.”  Then it says, “they may enter into an agreement with the library authority to provide personnel . . .”  If this bill were to pass, and if the county, city, township, or whatever did not want to enter into an agreement with the school district, then the school district would be mandated to open the library for those four hours after school, and on weekends when there’s Summer Session all day long.  If you have a year-round school, you would have to provide that the library be open at that time.  It would mean that you must provide personnel, custodial support, and the necessary things that go on.  That’s basically the problem that we have with A.B. 345. 

 

[Chairman Williams temporarily left the meeting and Vice Chairman Horne chaired.]

 

John Wallace, Teacher, Basic High School, Henderson, Nevada:

[Introduced himself.]  I will cover some of the things that were brought up about A.B. 345.  If the libraries are open after school the way they are talking about, you would have to pay the librarian already at that school their hourly rate of pay, which is a lot more than a clerk would make.  As far as custodial, the custodians are already cleaning.  There is no reason they can’t clean the library at the very end of the day.  As far as this bill being mandated, librarians, just like teachers, are very territorial.  “It is my classroom; these are my books; therefore, I don’t want anybody else in here using them when I’m not here.”  Of course, that does not work because is it not “my” classroom and these are not “my” books; they belong to the taxpayers.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

I didn’t hear all of the students’ testimony, but what I did hear was impressive, and we really thank you for taking all the time and thought that you put into it.  What is the cost associated with this bill to the school districts, and most especially to the schools that are involved?  I don’t see any backup here as to how much that would cost for security, for maintenance, and naturally for the books themselves.  That’s my first question.  My second is what would happen if the public receives this idea enthusiastically and goes to the libraries, and checks out so many books, materials, et cetera, that there aren’t enough supplies left for the students?  After all, the first priority is that the materials are supposed to be there for the students. 

 

John Wallace:

As far as the cost, did you receive one of these?  [He indicated the printed copy of the PowerPoint presentation.] 

 

Vice Chairman Horne:

The students gave a nice presentation on the perceived costs, but we do have a fiscal note.  That fiscal note shows $13.5 million for Clark County.

 

John Wallace:

The cost was $2,054,547 per year, statewide.  As far as all the books being checked out, I don’t think that’s going to happen.  In fact, librarians who I know have had to purge some of their books because they haven’t been read in so long they are just sitting on the shelf.  To make room for new books, they have to purge the old ones.  A lot of these books have not been read by anyone, depending on the age of the school. 

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

I think, as far as purging books goes, it probably happens at every library.  I’m sure there are cases where books are not read, and they purge them for new ones that folks are more interested in reading.  I understand what my colleague Mrs. Chowning is saying.  I don’t think we need to be worried about every single book being checked out of school libraries, but obviously we have to be conscious about the priority that it’s the school library and students should get first crack at those books. 

 

John Wallace:

If all you were claiming were to happen, that would be great, because that means that people are reading.  Also, if the parents or siblings come in and check out books, then maybe the high school student will come in and check out books also.  Our goal is to get people to come in and check out books, and to read, and use the knowledge from those books, or use the computers there.  Adult literacy classes in the school libraries could be taught by some of the teachers willing to teach this, or even some of the students, because we do have clubs on campus that go to some of the elementary schools and help with the reading programs.  It would be the same thing to do at the students’ own high school library.

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto:

Maybe this was discussed before I got here, but if this happens that the libraries in the high schools are opened to the general public, and the public comes in and can check out books and such, how are you going to be able to track them?  Are you going to have to put in a computer system like they have at the public library, so you can track those books?  Do you already have that computer system?  How is that going to work?

 

John Wallace:

The computer system they have can be tweaked so that the school and the public can use it.  Also, regarding the Clark County School District computer system, I have been told by librarians that it can be tweaked so that they can be used for both the schools and the public.

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto:

The computer system that the libraries use, I believe, is a special system built just for libraries for circulation and so on.  I’m not sure how that would work with your system in the high schools.

 

John Wallace:

I’m not a computer person or expert, I’m just going by what I’ve been told by the librarians, that yes it can work.  In fact, at one time this program was used, but it’s been about ten years ago.  There were certain high school libraries that were in the Clark County Library System.  Those schools were Clark High School, Southern Nevada Vocational and Technical High School, and I believe Valley High School was on it.  The Library District got tired of it and cut it out altogether, but it was a great advantage to these schools to be on the system, especially in some of the libraries that are very small.  Vo-Tech would be a smaller high school because of the students that go there.  This bill would give them a greater advantage to be able to use the books from other libraries.  A courier would bring those books to the library, and then when the books came back, he would be there to pick them up.  It was a daily courier that came. 

 

Vice Chairman Horne:

[There were no further questions.]  We’ll move to the opposition of A.B. 345. 

 

Ellen Fockler, Library Media Technology Coordinator for the Washoe County School District:

[Introduced herself and spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit D).]  First and foremost, let me say that even though I very strongly oppose A.B. 345, I certainly commend the students who put together the bill.  It is obvious that they spent a good deal of time and effort in doing so.  I do think, though, there are things they did not take into consideration, and I wanted to talk to you about some of those.

 

[Ms. Fockler continued.]  I have no argument with the idea that reading more produces a greater level of literacy.  We could point to studies in Alaska, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Texas, and New Mexico that have shown that well-stocked libraries are definitely correlated with an increase in test scores for students in literacy.  I think the student presenters here today are talking more about access for students at their own high school libraries than public access to the libraries.

 

There are three areas of consideration that I would like to have you think about, as you talk about public access to a high school library.  The first is personnel, and with all due respect to the math done by the students, you can never staff a library for public use with a single person.  For security reasons, for service to patrons, and for management of the library, that simply is not wise to do. 

 

Second, the person who is there should be a highly trained person.  If it is not possible to hire a high school certified teacher who is also a librarian, then we do need people who are trained in library sciences.  I did some calculations, based on the salaries of a high school librarian and a clerk who would be considered as a library assistant, with or without training.  In Washoe County alone, the cost would run about $800,000 to open just 11 high school libraries, quite a bit more than the $9.78 per hour.

 

I think it would be difficult to find trained personnel who would work four hours in the evening, and four hours a day, seven days a week, during the summer.  That’s another issue:  finding the people who would staff the library.  I think we need to consider some of the other difficulties presented in the facility in terms of utilities.  Most of our high schools are not built with a library open for public access.  There is no outdoor access to the school library.  It would mean that patrons would be traveling through the school building, very often through areas near the school office, exactly where the public shouldn’t be during off-hours.

 

Another consideration that one of our plant facility people brought up, which frankly I hadn’t thought of before, is most schools are not designed to heat or cool a single room at a time.  This would mean that, during the summer with air conditioning, or during the winter with heat, it would be necessary to cover perhaps 40 to 60 percent of the building, and in some cases perhaps the whole building, to keep one room comfortable.  That’s another issue, and it’s an issue of cost. 

 

[Ms. Fockler continued.]  The issue of the library collection to me is the most important.  Students who presented A.B. 345 were very concerned about having access to the materials needed to do what they are required to do in their schools.  Even though I sincerely doubt that all books in the school library would be checked out, I can certainly see a time when the books needed for a specific project could be unavailable for the students because they were out to public patrons.

 

A library collection in a high school is built to support its curriculum and the needs of its students and staff.  It’s not built for public support.  If you encourage public access to a high school library, you would also have to build a collection that would provide for those public patrons.  You would have to stock easy books for younger children and adult books for parents and older patrons.  All of a sudden, the money spent for your school library collection is now subdivided in ways that do not necessarily support the curriculum.

 

The cost of replacing lost or damaged books and the difficulty of getting books back from public patrons need to be addressed.  However, more than anything, the one single greatest cost to the district, students, and teachers is the fact that sharing resources with public patrons will significantly and negatively impact the school library’s ability to provide students with what they need. 

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

The students brought up the No Child Left Behind money as a way of funding.  Could you address that?  I know the funding issues are paramount for you, and I was wondering if that might be a resource.  Also, I was on a school board in Nye County, and we used to do this quite a lot.  Our school libraries were our public libraries, so they were open all the time, and we dealt with these concerns.  I’m wondering if there is a cooperative, because that’s what we set up with the county in order to help the schools fund the libraries for public use. 

 

Ellen Fockler:

I’d be glad to address that.  In Washoe County, there are several partnership libraries, and these school libraries formed a partnership with Washoe County Library.  In many ways, those are very successful and a “win-win” situation, but they are not cheap, and they are not free.  One of the issues I believe that you addressed is the issue of the computer system.  The Washoe County School District and the Clark County School District use the Follett Library Automation System.  Public libraries use the Dynix or Epixtech Library Automation System.  They are not compatible.  It would not be possible to tweak one library system to make it compatible with the other.  One or the other would have to predominate, and in most cases, that would be the public library system.

 

[Ms. Fockler continued.]  In Washoe County, in our partnership libraries, the Dynix system is used.  There are advantages to that, because every high school student has a public library card, but there would be a distinct disadvantage and cost to our high school libraries to make that conversion.  I don’t have specific figures, but based on the two schools that I’ve been involved with when we have moved from the public library to the school library, I would suspect that the cost would be between $18,000 and $20,000 per school to make that changeover.

 

There is a great deal to be said for partnership libraries.  The libraries where there is a cooperative relationship between a school and the public library are planned and staffed with that in mind.  It is not a simple transition, but it’s a great thing to do when it can be done and when it’s planned correctly.  You ask about No Child Left Behind.  I don’t know the provisions of the No Child Left Behind bill well enough to say whether or not there would be grants available to staff libraries.  I rather think not, because No Child Left Behind addresses school needs, rather than public needs.  Does that help?

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

It helps, but I was under the impression that No Child Left Behind was for literacy, and this seems like a literacy issue to me.

 

Ellen Fockler:

It is indeed, and it promotes literacy strongly.  However, I’m not sure that the funding, because it is intended primarily for use by K-3, would be allowed for public access to a high school library.  It doesn’t seem to me that it would be a very good fit with the bill.

 

[Chairman Williams returned to the meeting.]

 

Martha Gould, Chairwoman, United States National Commission on Libraries and Information Science:

[Introduced herself.]  I am the retired director of the Washoe County Library System, and the person who negotiated the contracts with the Washoe County School District for our partnership libraries.  In the materials that I have provided to you (Exhibit E), I give you the key findings from the hearing that we held on school libraries, which was also made available to the White House Conference on School Libraries that was held by the First Lady, Laura Bush, in June 2002.

 

I also serve on the State Council on Libraries and Literacy, and I have spent 20 years in Washoe County working on developing the public school library partnership.  The intent of A.B. 345 is laudable.  I commend the students for the work they have done.  However, I also see this bill as an egregious unfunded mandate that will have a negative impact on already stressed school budgets.

 

[Ms. Gould continued.]  The mission of a school library is very different than the mission of a public library, even though the patrons that both libraries serve are pretty much the same.  Resources that are available today in school libraries are woefully inadequate.  We know that from information that we provided to the Legislature in the Seventieth Legislative Session of 1999, when we enacted the first state funding for school libraries.

 

Regarding the comment that was made earlier about school librarians purging their collections, school libraries must have a certain number of titles in order to keep the high school accreditation.  Therefore, and I know this for a fact, there are principals who will not allow books to be purged, because they need the physical numbers in order to meet the accreditation standards.  You have books that aren’t being read because they have 20- and 30-year-old copyright dates.  If you want to provide resources for students, then you have to provide them current information.  They’re not going to take a geography book, a current events book, or a book on space, if it has a 30-year-old copyright date.  That’s a very serious problem.

 

On the question of staffing, I think Ellen Fockler adequately covered that, but I would like to talk about security, most particularly if the libraries are going to be open on weekends and during the summer when the general building is closed.  You cannot have one person running a library.  I don’t know how it is in Clark County, but I do know there is an issue of the homeless, and you are looking at probably the only library director in Nevada who was mugged by one of the homeless because we did not have security.  I have to tell you now we do have security, especially after the phone call I made from the emergency room at Washoe Medical Center.

 

If you have only one room open, and you don’t have adequate security and at least a minimum of two staff, you leave the entire building at risk for vandalism.  In terms of the operational costs, the students recommending passage of A.B. 345 didn’t quite understand what is involved in running a library.  At no time did I hear anyone talk about the costs of collection development and maintenance.

 

Regarding our partnership libraries in Washoe County, we have two collection development policies, which mean the public library puts money into the collection, and the school district hopefully has money to put into the collection.  We already have the ability for students to network and access, through the Internet, resources from the public libraries in the state of Nevada.  In fact, we are unique in the state of Nevada in that we have had statewide licensing for major information databases.  Somehow the funding for that from the state disappeared out of the budget this year, and we do hope that it will be restored.  If the funding is not restored, that access will be denied to students.

 

[Ms. Gould continued.]  Public libraries serve literally from the cradle to the grave.  High school libraries have a primary responsibility to students.  We know in Washoe County, from the use of the partnership libraries, that there is an enormous demand from the general public for materials that normally would not be carried in a high school library.  This is why we provide the materials.  I could go on, but you get the picture.  The bottom line is, it’s a great idea and it works, but only if funding is available, and if the building can be easily adapted for use by the public.  There are a lot of high school buildings today that would not be easily adapted for use.  It is necessary to have the money for the telecommunication costs, for maintenance, and for the upkeep and replacement of technology.  School districts are putting aside infrastructure maintenance because they don’t have the money.

 

The bottom line is it works when you carefully plan, when you provide the funding and the staff, and when you understand all the ancillary issues that go with doing this type of partnership.  One of the things we did in Washoe County was create a Citizen Advisory Committee on Partnership Libraries that worked with both the school district and the public library in creating the policy manual and the procedures manual, so that everybody knew their responsibilities.  I loved the idea of public school library partnerships.  You get a bigger bang for the buck. 

 

You say you don’t have to build more public libraries, but that’s a fallacy.  The more people use libraries, the more they realize the need for libraries.  A perfect example is Washoe County where the use of two of our partnership libraries was so great that they actually ended up building separate facilities:  one to serve Traner Middle School and Duncan Elementary School as a school community library, and the other in Verdi that is a community library, a school library, and also a nature resource center.  We ended up building a facility.  There are a lot of people who want to use libraries.

 

What I heard from the students, more than anything else, is they need their school libraries open longer hours to meet their needs.  They need more and better resources, which translate in my mind to a need to truly fund school libraries in the state of Nevada, not only for books and materials, but for staff to keep them open longer hours.  That is the prime message that I got from the students, and they’re right.  They need access to these resources.  You will have my actual formal testimony and the key findings from the hearings that I chaired for the National Commission back in 2001 (Exhibit E). 

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

I want to make some clarifications here.  You believe that this would be an unfunded mandate?

 

Martha Gould:

There is no money available in this bill.  It is mandating that school libraries be kept open, and I think there was something at the very end of the bill that there would be no money made available.  The other thing is, it says you may go into partnership with a public library.  The public library doesn’t want to go into partnership, because the school library has no money to put into it. 

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

That was my second part of that question, permissive language.  You were saying if this were more permissive, it might work.

 

Martha Gould:

You know what I would really like, more than anything else?  If we are serious about educating the future citizens of this state, I would like to see more money put back into this budget, not only to support school library development, but also for public libraries.  Right now, public libraries are affected by students who can’t find materials in their school libraries.  What can I say?  I have 20 years of experience dealing with partnership libraries, and gray hair to show for it.

 

Chairman Williams:

We have two bills that are similar today:  A.B. 407, Assemblyman Hardy’s bill, and as the people who testified against A.B. 345 also signed in opposition of A.B. 407, we will allow Mr. Hardy to make his own pitch for his bill today.  After Mr. Hardy makes his presentation, if you come up and testify on either one of these bills, be sure to indicate if you are testifying in favor of both, or opposition of both.

 

Assemblyman Joe Hardy:

I appreciate the students for setting the table, and I appreciate the person I would call the pioneer of partnership libraries who just testified.

 

Chairman Williams:

Before you get to your testimony, we have temporarily closed the hearing on A.B. 345, and we’re opening the hearing on A.B. 407.

 

Assembly Bill 407:  Authorizes school districts to open public school libraries to general public. (BDR 34-1183)

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

The genesis of A.B. 407 started when I was a child going to the Reno library on Center Street.  Those are fond memories.  I continued to go to libraries over the years, and now I have the opportunity to go as a grandpa, check out books, and have my grandchildren read on my lap.  I served on the Debt Management Commission in Clark County as an elected official, and about two years ago we rejected an opportunity to build five more libraries in Clark County.

 

Henderson voters rejected assessing themselves to build libraries three times.  When you put that in context with No Child Left Behind, and the goal of reading by third grade, we recognize that the best time to teach children is when they are very young.  Therefore, knowing that children learn best when they are young, I think it behooves us to look at the reality of how we can access reading materials when a child is young.

 

I started thinking of what I could do that would help children and their parents, because we find that sometimes the parent doesn’t read, or is not as literate as they would like to be, and they feel uncomfortable reading a book.  If they were given the opportunity to read a book to their child, they would be reading at the same level as their preschooler.  As the preschooler got older, the parent would be reading at a higher level, just with the normal continuation of life.

 

We need more libraries.  If the voters don’t want them, as that would mean more taxes, then what exists in every neighborhood that has a library in it?  A school that a preschooler will be attending and that a parent can take the child to, so they can take out a book, go home, and read to that child on their lap.  That led to the Local Library Literacy Program, or LLLP.  As some will doubtless point out, A.B. 407 has no mandate and no fiscal note attached to it.  No school, no town, and no entity is obligated to participate.  In times of tight finances, governmental entities would do well to share resources, as we are currently doing, so there are already interlocal agreements with school districts and entities sharing recreational facilities, ball fields, and the like.

 

I came up with this brilliant idea of LLLP and discovered to my amazement that someone beat me to the punch.  That is why my hat is still off to Martha Gould who, with the schools in Washoe County, has a task force and people who have written the book on how to put together a partnership library.  They are to be commended.  They have done it; it works; it is awesome; and it is pretty impressive.  When I shared my new idea with people, I discovered that all sorts of people had this same idea.

 

[Assemblyman Hardy continued.]  Duncan Elementary School is next to Traner, which was the junior high school I attended in Reno.  Now it has a library literally between the two that serves the public and the schools, so Washoe County has led.  In further talking to people, I discovered Smith Valley High School in Lyon County has a project that will be open for the public and the school in December of this year.  They have received funding from three different sources in approximately equal shares, equaling a total of $900,000 from the county, the school, bake sales, and private donations.  So you have this little town of 2,000 people, which has actually raised for their community a public school shared library, a third of a million dollars.  It’s pretty impressive what happens when they’re motivated.

 

Likewise, I’ve had the opportunity to be involved with Boulder City High School.  You may hear comments of what we have done in Boulder City in that regard from the Boulder City community librarian.  Columbus, Ohio, is doing a similar kind of thing, inviting families to come in and check out the books.  Reading to the kids, taking books home and opening their schools for public use increase the literacy opportunities.

 

In fact, when I looked at what is happening in the Clark County School District, there are some librarians who are already opening up the libraries in the schools before and after school, and allowing parents to come in and check out books for their students. 

 

Chairman Williams:

At this point, those who have signed in to speak on these two bills can direct your testimony to either one of the bills. 

 

Mary Anne Jennings, Concerned Grandparent:

[Introduced herself.]  What could happen with A.B. 345, should it happen to pass?  All my concerns have been addressed, and I would be taking up more time than you would want if I started to reiterate any of them.

 

Sean Gamble, Librarian, Storey County School District:

[Introduced herself.]  The school district in Storey County actually shares a library with the county already.  They have hours set for public use and for student use.  The hours in A.B. 345 actually are in excess of the current hours that the county has the library open for the public; therefore, there would be a fiscal impact on the school district to have to have the hours as stated in A.B. 345.

 

[Ms. Gamble continued.]  I am one of the people who spoke with the Basic High School students beforehand, and they were willing to be permissive with the language on the number of hours set; however, I’m not sure they’re lifting the mandate.  Another problem that the Storey County School District has is the mandate because it is unfunded.  Dr. Hardy’s bill we love.  There’s no mandate on it; we’re happy to do it; we’re already doing it; and that’s it.

 

Assemblyman Andonov:

In Storey County, or even in Washoe County, the cooperative agreement is already in place and it is happening, but who winds up paying those additional costs?  How is that arrangement set, and what are the incentives for the library district to be willing to pay the additional cost, or vice versa?

 

Sean Gamble:

I’m not sure there would be an incentive.  I don’t have an answer to that.  I know that the county pays for set hours, and the library is not open every day to the public.  It’s only open Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.  I believe it’s a cost matter, and that’s why they’re only open that amount of hours for the public. 

 

Assemblyman Andonov:

Right now, does the school district pay the additional staff hours and all the other operational costs, or is that the library district that ends up paying?

 

Sean Gamble:

That is the library that pays for that; the public library pays for the hours there.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

I would like you to speculate on the No Child Left Behind funds.  Do you think that, because the school is the hub of the community and they have the library there, it could be a bridge to this No Child Left Behind funding for K-3 libraries?

 

Sean Gamble:

Since I actually don’t work with the school district, I probably shouldn’t answer that question.  It’s possible, but if you look at A.B. 345, it does state, “The Board of Trustees of the school district may not request a reimbursement for costs.”  That is what we are addressing in this bill.

 

Rose McKinney-James, Legislative Advocate, Clark County School District:

[Introduced herself.]  I appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding A.B. 345.  Before I begin, I would like to extend our appreciation to Speaker Perkins for this initiative, and in particular, based on the testimony that has been provided here this afternoon, we extend our appreciation to Brock, Jeff, Bryan, Megan, and Britney.  I had the opportunity to meet with them in advance of this hearing and to discuss with them the concerns the Clark County School District had with respect to their measure.

 

[Ms. McKinney-James continued.]  We spent some time together; we talked about the process; we even talked about the possibility of some language to amend the bill.  The students feel very strongly about their measure, and depending on how the Committee decides to process this bill, there is the possibility that, upon reconsideration, the district might be able to revisit its decision.  However, we feel that the bill has been developed and presented in a way that supports all that is good about public education.  We have reviewed the measure in detail, and while we believe it has merit conceptually, there are several fundamental problems that I would like to bring to your attention.

 

We received comments from our fiscal staff, which indicate calculation of a cost of about $5.5 million per year.  This deals with personnel and utility costs that would be required to implement the bill.  The use of the phrase “shall” in Section 1 of the bill has already been mentioned; we view this as an unfunded mandate.  That sets the tone for this measure.  I believe it was referenced by Ms. Gould that Section 5, subsection 2, absolutely prohibits the Board of Trustees from requesting any reimbursement for these costs.  As a result, the Clark County School District cannot support this measure in its current form.

 

I would like to defer for a moment to Mr. Stan Fuke; he’s in Las Vegas.  Mr. Fuke is the coordinator of K-12 Library Services.  [Ms. McKinney-James was informed that Stan Fuke in Las Vegas had to leave for another meeting.]  I believe issues that the Clark County School District feels strongly about have already been articulated by other individuals, in particular Ms. Fockler and Ms. Gould.  I don’t think we need to go further, so that is my testimony with respect to A.B. 345.

 

A.B. 407 is a measure we believe is consistent with the concept, but provides the district with far more flexibility to determine the extent to which we can provide this type of service.  As a result, we support A.B. 407.  I’d like to respond to a question from Mrs. Angle regarding the potential funding from outside grants, in particular the federal bill, No Child Left Behind.  To the extent that this concept is permissive, and language would be inserted that would allow the district the flexibility, we could then perhaps participate in a competitive grant process.  The fact that it is a competitive grant means that we cannot be assured the funding would be available.  It would be very difficult for us to make a commitment based on that possibility. 

Roxanne Boyce, Librarian, Boulder City High School:

[Introduced herself.]  I am speaking today in support of A.B. 407.  [She spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit F)].  However, I am not against A.B. 345.  I believe the modifications of A.B. 407 are very good, and I heartily agree with the high school students that the libraries do need to open for longer hours.  Assembly Bill 407 is a good idea because many high school students in Las Vegas have to travel far away to get to a library, especially school weekends and days.  Our library collections are built specifically around the curriculum, and we generally have the books the students need.

 

One positive information aspect is that students who have a computer at home have access to online databases purchased by the state of Nevada.  These provide students with access to information 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  I believe in online libraries, which are never closed.  I’d like to see the state of Nevada not simply support the funding that was available for online databases, but, if possible, to expand the online databases.

 

I realize that many students and adults don’t have a home computer with Internet access; therefore, a need does exist for a library to be within close proximity to adults and students.  Also, not all information sources are available online.  There is still a great need for books, and there will continue to be a great need for books, both informational and fiction.

 

We’ve had a unique situation in Boulder City.  Due to the support of Dr. Hardy, Boulder City High School and the City of Boulder City opened our high school to students and the public for two years.  We opened from 2:40, immediately after school, to 5:00 p.m.  The funding for staff was provided by the City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department, and I wonder if that is an avenue that might be explored with the library districts.  The funding provided one adult library aide, who was a trained library aide, and one student aide, who was a real “techie,” in order to help the patrons with computers.

 

The purpose of this arrangement was to give the public and students access to computer workstations and books, because the Boulder City Public Library was moving into a new facility from a very old, small facility.  We experienced no problems and found the experience enjoyable.  Adults used our online computers and received assistance from students using the online computers, but very few adults chose to check out any of our books because we don’t have much adult fiction.  We don’t have many nonfiction titles of adult interest, and we have very few periodicals.  Patrons or adult city patrons who did wish to check out books were made a patron in our current library catalog in our Follett software program.  We did require that they give us a license, just as the public library does, and we made them an actual patron.

 

[Ms. Boyce continued.]  This year, we did not continue the after-school program because our new public library is in very close proximity to our high school, and the new public library has adequate online computer workstations.  However, I would highly recommend that school libraries be open to the public in areas where public libraries are not easily accessible.

 

I’d like to add to the funding concerns.  As an example, funding for the Clark County School District for libraries is very small, especially for libraries-in schools that only have 700 students.  The book budget for the Boulder City High School library is $3,255 a year.  Please note that book budget funds must also purchase periodicals.  The average cost of a high school circulating book is $22.  The average cost of reference books ranges from $75 to $140.  Our library has allocated funds to purchase less than 150 new books per year.  We do solicit donations to purchase magazines and newspapers, so that we may purchase additional books.  Additionally, the Boulder City High School collection is very old because of years of the inadequate funding.  Four years ago, the average copyright date of library books in the Boulder City High School library was 1967.  Significant fund-raising efforts have been continued; however, we need to see school libraries funded.

 

Staffing issues have been addressed, and security has been addressed.  I’d also like to address computer access in high school libraries.  Most high school libraries in the Clark County School District have 15 workstations.  This is insufficient for a high school class, especially when we have 2 or 3 high school classes at one time in our libraries.  It certainly would not meet the needs of patrons and students during extended library hours.  I’d like to recommend a minimum of 32 patron library workstations in each high school library, and perhaps this could be part of the plan.  I feel that allowing public access to high school libraries is a good, necessary idea, but please consider adding a funding component to A.B. 407. 

 

Duncan McCoy, Director of the Boulder City Library District:

[Introduced himself.  Spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit G).]  I’ve held the position of Director for the last 14 years.  I’ve served continuously as a public library director since 1978, and I’m speaking today in support of A.B. 407.  While not providing a mandate for creating joint-use school/public libraries, the bill does provide an encouragement for their development in locations and situations where such development makes sense. 

 

In geographic areas, which are underserved by public libraries, joint-use facilities have been shown to be a viable option when construction of new public library facilities is not feasible.  The Washoe County experience with their partnership libraries has shown that most, if not all, problem issues with joint-use can be dealt with, given an appropriate level of commitment on the part of the agencies involved.  I have toured several of Washoe County’s partnership libraries over the years, and I wish to note for the record that the ones I’ve toured are positively the strongest school libraries I’ve seen in all my years as a librarian.  These libraries are, at the same time, very nice neighborhood libraries for the public to use.  Clearly, partnership libraries have benefited from the cooperative arrangements between Washoe County School District and Washoe County Library System.

 

[Mr. McCoy continued.]  I would be less than candid if I did not mention that the missions of school and public libraries are very different, and that the general level of funding in school libraries is probably not, in most school libraries, adequate for their main mission of curricular support, much less an additional mission of service to the general public.  In keeping with their main mission of curricular support, school libraries tend to collect materials that directly relate to levels of their students’ reading abilities and classroom teaching units.

 

The school library will not usually collect best-sellers, general adult fiction, materials of special appeal to senior citizens like large print books, audio books, retirement investment information, medical dietary information, et cetera, or any of the host of other informational topics which must be collected by a public library in order to provide adequate service.  As an example of comparative materials acquisition budgets between school and public libraries, the material budget of the Boulder City High School library, one of the better school libraries in our area, is $3,255 per year.  Mrs. Boyce does an admirable job of supplementing her budget through active community fund-raising, but purchase of one new set of Encyclopedia Americana can wipe out half of her year’s allocation of book money.

 

Boulder City Library District, on the other hand, in the same community of about 15,000 people, will expend approximately $130,000 in books, periodicals, audio/visual material, and digital information resources this year.  Even an outstanding library such as the one at Boulder City High School does not have the financial “horse power” to provide materials for the general public.

 

If joint-use materials are to be seriously considered, the issue of how to handle greatly expanded materials purchasing must be seriously considered.  It costs a lot more to provide materials for the general public than is currently being provided by the school districts for curriculum-related collection development in the school libraries.  For the above reasons, I think that the encouragement of joint-use libraries would be far more effective if a financial support component of A.B. 407 were to be added to help the joint-use library bridge the gap between low-level school district materials funding and that required for adequate public coverage.

 

[Mr. McCoy continued.]  Secondly, I feel that an appropriation should be made to encourage the Washoe County Public Library System and the Washoe County School District to publish their created manual, based on their collective experience with joint-use libraries, so that the edification of school districts and public libraries which might wish to contemplate development in such facilities would be accomplished.  I realize that meaningful financial support from the state is probably not feasible at this time.

 

There are a variety of issues that must be addressed if the joint-use library facility is to succeed.  Materials funding has been mentioned and is accompanied by personnel funding, governance administration, and security issues, to mention a few.  The Washoe County experience has shown us that, given an appropriate level of commitment among the agencies involved, these issues can be dealt with.  Joint-use library facilities can be an option in areas which are not served, or which are underserved, by local public library jurisdictions.

 

The Washoe County Public Partnership library program has shown that such cooperation is both possible and beneficial to the patrons of both the school library and the public library system.  I believe this option is deserving of exploration in situations in which new public library construction is desired and contemplated.  While this may not be the ideal solution in every case, it may be in some cases.  Washoe County has provided the people of Nevada with an outstanding model of cooperative service, which should be closely studied.  It is a model, which shows that the problems can be addressed and effective service can result.

 

I applaud Dr. Hardy and the sponsors of A.B. 407 for their interest and initiative, and I urge passage of the bill with a funding component for collection development and study manual, if possible.  I also wish to congratulate the Washoe County Library System and the Washoe County School District for showing all of us how joint-use libraries can work. 

 

[Stanley Fuke provided testimony via facsimile (Exhibit H) but did not speak.]

 

Chairman Williams:

[There were no questions.]  Is there anyone else here who would like to testify on either A.B. 407 or A.B. 345? 

 

Ray Bacon, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Manufacturers Association:

I was in the community that was doing this a few years ago.  I support it.

 

Martha Gould:

When I discussed this with Dr. Hardy, I actually was not in favor of the bill, because I questioned why it was needed.  We already have the ability in the Nevada Revised Statutes to do the interlocal agreements.  In retrospect, if you had a funding component that would be available to the school districts and public libraries that wanted to do the partnership, then I think this is a very nice way to go.  I have to tell you that a few years ago, in the state of California where for many years they had withdrawn funding for school libraries, the reading scores went way down.  When they passed their funding bill a few years ago for school libraries, they tagged onto it that the first funding would be available to school libraries and public libraries that created partnerships.  I think they call this the “carrot on the stick.” 

 

Also, I would like to point out that the National Commission is attached directly to the Executive Office and provides policy advice on library information needs of the nation to the President and Congress.  We’ve talked a lot about the need for this type of cooperation.  We did weigh in No Child Left Behind, and we did manage to have the funding component set at $250 million; Congress chose to fund it at $12.5 million.  You must have a platform of $100 million in order to do block grants to the states, which means that all of the libraries in the nation are going to be competing for a miniscule pot of money.  We are not addressing the funding issue.  If A.B. 407 is to be passed, it must be passed with some kind of funding component.

 

Chairman Williams:

Thank you very much.  We’ll close the hearing on A.B. 407 and A.B. 345, and open the hearing on Assembly Bill 509. 

 

Assembly Bill 509:  Revises provisions governing review of decision of board of trustees to close or change use of particular school. (BDR 34-1294)

 

Randy Robison, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Association of School Boards:

[Introduced himself.]  This issue is one that doesn’t come up often, but when it does, it turns into a big issue.  The last time it came up, after the decision was made, I was contacted by a couple of members of the State Board of Education as well as the local School Board of Trustees, and I was invited to see if we could come to a resolution on a different process.  Let me walk you through the current process, and then I’ll speak to the bill in terms of how it changes that process.

 

[Mr. Robison continued.]  Currently, if a school board makes a decision to close a school following a public hearing on the matter, the process then goes to Section 1.  Section 1 says that any one resident of the school district who has agreed to abide by that decision may petition the board for a reconsideration hearing, and the board must hold that hearing and reconsider the matter.  After that hearing, if just one resident is aggrieved by that decision, currently he petitions the State Board of Education to review the matter.  The State Board is required to go into the school district, review the matter yet again, and then render a decision.  That decision is final, subject to judicial review.

 

The process that we’ve placed before you for your consideration remains essentially the same, except for the last step.  If a school board makes the decision to close a school following a public hearing on the matter, one resident of the county school district who is aggrieved by that decision may request the school board to reconsider the matter, just as Section 1 provides.  If, after that time, one resident of the school district is still aggrieved, Section 2 would be changed to allow that individual to petition the local School Board of Trustees to reconsider the matter again.  However, the change that we are requesting here is that one individual, in attempting to balance the interests of both the district and the constituents it serves, takes the responsibility to ensure that the matter is truly one that deserves yet another hearing.

 

This is why we’ve asked for the language, beginning on page 2, line 5, “petition the board of trustees for a hearing to review its decision.  Such a petition must be signed by a number of registered voters of the county in which the school district is located that is equal to 10 percent or more of the number of voters who voted at the last preceding general election in the county.”  This language was pulled directly from the statutes governing initiative and referendum.

 

The reasoning is this:  First, the State Board of Education has no direct fiscal responsibility over that local school board.  A local school board does not make the decision to close a school without some serious, thoughtful consideration and taking into counsel weighty matters.  As you might imagine, it often becomes quite an emotional issue.  Folks are pretty attached to their local schools, but at the same time the school board is responsible for servicing the schools of the entire district and has to keep the needs of the entire district in mind as they make these decisions.

 

However, if after two hearings on the matter, an individual or group of individuals equal to 10 percent of the voters who voted in the last election have signed a petition asking the school board to review the matter yet again, we believe it would be proper as well as incumbent upon the school board to hear that matter again.  This would provide ample opportunity for the public to voice its opinion if they feel they have not had that opportunity.  It would provide ample opportunity for the school board to make its case why it reached the decision it has.  We believe it would be a better process, rather than bringing in the State Board, who does not have some of that direct connection, as the local school board does.  It oftentimes puts them in a difficult position, as you might imagine.

 

[Mr. Robison continued.]  We believe this is a much better process and a much more public process that invites discussion and dialogue on the issue, so that the members of that school district have a much fuller understanding of the issues that were considered in reaching that conclusion.  Finally I’ll just say that, as you’ll see on page 2, line 21, even that decision is not absolutely final.  The final decision is still subject to judicial review as provided by law. 

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto:

As I’m reading this, a resident can make a written request for a hearing for reconsideration within 30 days.  The board needs to schedule a hearing, or publish a notice of a hearing, and then if a resident doesn’t like that decision, they can again petition for another hearing.  Doesn’t this get pretty costly if they have one hearing after another?

 

Randy Robison:

It can become somewhat costly, although it could be viewed in terms of relative cost in rural areas where you have one paper, so the cost to publish that in the paper may not be a determining factor.  It does seem thorough to have that many hearings.  But again we believe that, while the process may be cumbersome, it may be a better process to make sure that the decision that has been made, if not fully accepted or appreciated, at least is better understood so that the public is more informed about the decision.  I guess the cost involved, which we think will be minimal because this situation doesn’t arise on a regular basis, can be justified by the intent of the public purpose.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

How long does the petitioner on the second go-around have to gather signatures?  Is there a deadline for that?

 

Randy Robison:

I believe that the time line is contained in the reference on page 2, line 11, Nevada Revised Statutes 295.250 and 295.290, but I will double-check that and get back to you.

 

Chairman Williams:

We’ll close the hearing on A.B. 509 and open the hearing on A.B. 512.

 

Assembly Bill 512:  Prescribes requirements for privatization agreements between school districts and contractors for certain educational services. (BDR 34-840)

 

Al Bellister, Legislative Advocate, Nevada State Education Association:

[Introduced himself.]  On my left is Jim Penrose, our legal counsel.  I want to thank the Committee for its introduction of our bill, which we believe addresses some significant policy considerations.  They are the accountability and oversight of private companies that now can come into the public schools and operate those public schools for significant financial gain.  We believe school districts have a duty to promote the welfare of their students and to operate the schools.  We now have private companies operating public schools, primarily in the Clark County School District.  This bill provides a layer of oversight and accountability for that operation.

 

In 2001, the Clark County School District entered into a five-year agreement with the Edison Corporation to run seven schools.  The stated purpose of that contract was, “To give the opportunity to improve student achievement.”  Now let’s take a look at what we’ve accomplished since they entered into the agreement.  Of the seven schools that the Edison Company runs in the Clark County School District, six of the seven are now designated as “needing improvement.”  Of those six schools, only one had previously been so designated.  Since Edison has come into place to operate these schools, more schools have now been identified in need of improvement than previously had been so identified, while at the same time Edison’s bottom line take-home is $10 million.  This is $10 million that we believe the Clark County School District could have just as easily appropriated for textbooks, supplies, or much needed increases in teacher and public school employee salaries.

 

I think it’s also important to put their performance into the context that the Edison schools operate on a longer instructional school day.  Yet, within that context of a longer instructional day, they still managed to put six out of seven schools into the “needs improvement” designation.  Under the current contract between the Clark County School District and Edison, the school district really doesn’t have a way out from the contract.  This bill, we believe, would provide significant opportunities for them to take advantage of poor performance and would show how to get out of the contract.

 

A.B. 512 also is asking you to consider an important policy consideration, and that is how do we weigh the benefits to the schools and to the students in the public schools, versus a private company’s drive for financial gain? 

 

[Mr. Bellister continued.]  Let me conclude my remarks with research that came from Arizona State University’s Education Policy Studies Laboratory, in which they found that school districts and state legislatures should institute monitoring systems to ensure that for-profit companies fulfill the obligations they undertake when they contract to manage local schools.  This bill is consistent with the conclusion of this independent research.  .

 

James W. [Jim] Penrose, Legislative Advocate, Nevada State Education Association:

I don’t propose, unless there are specific questions, to go through the bill section by section.  I will point out some of the major provisions of the bill.  Basically it lays out a process for entering into a contract of this nature.  It requires that the board of trustees of the school district take certain factors into consideration, and that they get notice of the intended contract to the public and to those employees of the district who will be affected by it.  It establishes certain reporting requirements; it imposes a requirement of legislative approval for contracts that exceed a certain threshold of expenditure; and as the contract goes forward, it requires the board periodically to reassess what’s going on with the contract and report to the community and to the legislature about the status of the contractor’s performance under that agreement.

 

There are various provisions of the bill that are intended to address what we saw as shortcomings of the Edison contract.  Foremost among those shortcomings, in our view, was the fact that the Edison contract did not establish a clear-cut objective standard of academic performance to be met by Edison schools.  The contract also is deficient, in our view, because it substantially impaired the ability of the Board of Trustees of the Clark County School District to terminate the contract if the Board determined that, in fact, Edison’s performance was inadequate.  Just by way of example, Section 13 of the bill requires that, in the case of a contract like the Edison contract, the privatization agreement has to set forth an objective quantifiable standard of academic achievement, and it has to provide that the school board can terminate the agreement quickly, economically, and effectively, if it determines that the standard is not being met.

 

In our view, that’s one of the deficiencies of the existing Edison contract.  Again, by way of example, the bill requires that if the contractor is given the use of school facilities, that provision be made for the district to be reimbursed for the fair market value or fair rental value of those facilities.  Another feature of the Edison contract is that Edison schools are given the use of the Clark County School District’s buildings.  In fact, substantial expenditures were made by the school district to upgrade those buildings without any provision for the district to be reimbursed for that cost.  In our view, that’s a windfall to, in this case, Edison Schools, but it is a windfall to any contractor who’s in the situation that’s paid for by the taxpayers.

 

[Mr. Penrose continued.]  Unless the Committee has questions about particular sections of the bill, there are a number of minor technical amendments that need to be made to A.B. 512, in our view.  I have distributed to you a handout, which reviews those (Exhibit I).  The first is in Section 4 of the bill, and this is also for the benefit of the folks in the audience.  In Section 4, lines 36 and 37, we propose that the phrase “related to education” be deleted.  The bill talks about services related to education that have been performed by an employee of the school district; in the case of some services, there may be room for debate about whether or not it’s a service that’s related to education.  We think that they clearly are, in the case of food service or groundskeeping, but in order to eliminate any uncertainty along those lines, we have asked for that phrase to be deleted.

 

Section 9 of the bill relates to legislative approval.  You’ll see, if you look at subsection 1 of that section, it mandates that certain privatization agreements, once they pass that threshold of expenditure and if they’re approved by a board of trustees of the school district, don’t become effective until they are submitted to and approved either by the Legislature, if it’s in session, or the Legislative Committee on Education.  What concerns us is the language that appears in subsection 2 of Section 9.  That indicates the Board of Trustees of the district, on line 39, may submit a written request for approval.  In the next sentence, there’s the phrase, “If a board of trustees chooses to submit such an agreement for legislative approval.”  I think I know what was going on in the bill drafter’s mind; I used to do this for a living myself.  I would suggest that the word “may” be deleted; the word “shall” be substituted for “may”; and that the prefatory phrase that appears at the beginning of the next sentence be deleted.

 

Finally, the last amendment relates to Sections 21 and 23 of A.B. 512.  In Section 23 it amends NRS 386.560, which is an existing statute that authorizes the governing body of a charter school to enter into a contract with either the board of trustees of the local school district, or the University and Community College System of Nevada.  It was not our intent in enacting Section 21 of the bill to inhibit the existing ability of a charter school to enter into that kind of contract.  In order to resolve that conflict, we would suggest that Section 21 be amended along the lines I’ve indicated in the handout, to indicate that a contract entered into under NRS 386.560 is permissible.  With that conflict resolved you can delete Section 23, because there is no longer a conflict between those two sections.

Assemblyman Horne:

A concern:  Are we interfering with an existing contract with these changes?

 

Jim Penrose:

That’s dealt with in the transitory language at the end of the bill.  Certainly, you may hear some testimony today from people who are parties to existing agreements that we are interfering with those agreements.  What we are doing with respect to those agreements is a provision that was taken verbatim from A.B. 351 of the Seventy-First Legislative Session that was introduced by Chairman Williams.  Basically, what this transitory language does is state, with respect to any existing contract that doesn’t comply with the requirements of this bill, that you can maintain the contract in force; you simply can’t spend money that you get through the Distributive School Account for the support of the contract. 

 

Assemblyman Horne:

Excuse me if I’m lost, but we’re changing duties.  If you’ve entered into a contract, and you do this, “X” will pay you “Y.”  Now, while that contract is in operation, you say “X” is no longer “X”; it’s “X” + 1, which to me is a substantive change.  I’d hate for us to go through this whole routine for it to be overturned.

 

Jim Penrose:

I understand that’s an argument that may be made against the bill.  All I can tell you is that exactly the same provision was included in A.B. 351 of the Seventy‑First Legislative Session.  As I see the kind of situation you describe, all we’re doing with respect to a contract of that nature is imposing additional reporting requirements that have to be complied with.  We’re enhancing the ability of the school district to terminate a contract under certain circumstances; I don’t believe that we’re inhibiting the rights of any contracting party to an existing contract.

 

Even if an argument along those lines could be made, it’s clear as a matter of constitutional law that the Legislature can, in an appropriate case, modify the rights of the parties to an existing contract where there is an overriding public need to do that.  Ultimately, if the Committee becomes concerned that there is an existing contract we may be interfering with, of course it’s possible to amend the bill to make it apply purely prospectively. 

 

Sheila Moulton, President, Clark County School District Board of Trustees:

Like you, I am an elected official; I represent over 200,000 voters in Clark County.  I am in office, just as you are, to make decisions that best reflect the interests of the families that I serve.  While we rely on your judgment to establish laws that govern the entire state, my constituents rely on me to act in the best interest of Clark County Schools.

 

[Ms. Moulton continued.]  Among the decisions trustees face are those pertaining to awarding contracts for various projects and services, which is the subject of A.B. 512.  Education in this country is at a crossroads.  H.R. 1 [No Child Left Behind Act] and S.B. 191 both impose significant new expectations on education.  The charter school movement in Nevada has been gaining momentum since the late 1990s.  This session we see, as we have for each of the recent past sessions, that another bill to establish a school voucher program in the state of Nevada has been presented.  Clearly, across the country there is a sense that public education must become more innovative, more responsive, and more creative, as it seeks out new and better ways to deliver more comprehensive services to a greater spectrum of our students.

 

Charters, vouchers, and privatizations are all components of the changing face of education.  Will they all work?  Will they all be good alternatives to the current system of public education?  I think we’re already seeing evidence that, in many cases, these alternatives are not necessarily succeeding.  Voucher programs continue to be contested and litigated in other states.  Here in Nevada, we’ve revoked charters and seen others struggle.  Privatization has had mixed results.  Some places are finding great success, and others are seeing the experiment fail.

 

The point is, we would be, and have been, as roundly criticized for not looking at new ways of delivering instruction as we are when one of the alternatives fails.  The fact is that a portion of the tax-paying public across the U.S. and in Nevada wants to see public education experiment with systems outside of the traditional model.  If our experiences show us that some of these efforts are failures, that is still a lesson it has been necessary to undertake, I believe. 

 

In Clark County, we approach the privatization experience with the understanding that it would have to be followed carefully, and the reaction to our contractor’s performance has been measured and will continue to be measured.  Although the option existed to expand the contract to include other schools after the first year of operation, I can tell you that option is not under consideration at this time.  In fact, if the performance is less than promised, I can assure you that the contract will not be renewed.  If it were necessary, we would seek termination of the agreement prior to the expiration of the contract.

 

The concern has been raised that some of our contracted schools are now on the “need of improvement” list.  We are very concerned about that, too.  The unfortunate reality is that about 10 percent of our schools are now on that list, and we are concerned about each one of them.  With the implementation of S.B. 191, which is predicated on federal law, the projection has been made that within the next several years, half of Nevada’s schools might be on that list.  The central concern with A.B. 512 is that it goes beyond a single privatization contract.  Nevada law clearly establishes local boards as the governing body granted authority to make decisions in the best interest of local school systems.

 

[Ms. Moulton continued.]  While we fully respect anyone’s right to disagree with a board decision, the fact is that there are also those who agree.  We embarked on the privatization effort on a limited pilot basis, and we are fully prepared to either expand or terminate the program on the basis of its performance.  That decision appropriately rests with the trustees, who have been elected locally to oversee education issues.  I respect your authority to establish statutes that affect education at a statewide level.  The parameters you set, as overarching policy for Nevada’s districts, provide a necessary framework for the delivery of services in each county.  At the same time, I respect the thousands of people who put me in office to attend to matters such as this.

 

Education is the singular priority of all trustees.  We are committed to serving our communities.  I listened to the speakers before me, and I will comment on a statement made about the take-home of $10 million.  Please understand that during the privatization of the contract that is in current effect, they receive the per-pupil amount, and they are asked to maintain and facilitate those schools to the level they were when Edison took occupancy of them.

 

We also were very diligent in this contract.  It took weeks and weeks for our attorneys to review the contract.  I’m not an attorney and I’m not as familiar as our attorney is, but he would be available to testify if you have questions.  I want you to know this decision was not taken lightly; it was to look at other experiences and to see what we could do to promote student achievement, which is the number one task we have as a school board.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

Ms. Moulton, the concern you may argue with is we haven’t gotten the “bang for the buck” for the schools; seven schools.  You say six out of seven are in this category, and you categorize it as a “pilot program.”  It’s not uncommon for a pilot program to make changes, changes that are perhaps being suggested now.  What objections do you have in having some type of oversight that is not present currently?  Does it make sense if we have two years, and we are arguably showing that those two years haven’t worked the way we hoped it would work?  Test pilots make adjustments; they come back and make changes.  Isn’t that what we’re proposing here?

 

Sheila Moulton:

My real concern is that we are a local body elected by individuals to make those decisions.  This contract or any others in the future would have the possibility to always have legislative oversight; that’s a concern that I have.  A pilot program does have that ability to change or to move with the needs.  I also have to state that, of the seven schools that Edison took over, all of them were at-risk in the year 2001-2002.  Regarding the data we’ve gathered that put them on the list for this year, we have one year of scores coming off those schools.  I always contended that it would take several years to see if those schools were really able to produce.  Please know that we’re very concerned and we’re monitoring them very carefully, but those were very at-risk schools when Edison took them over.  We had many schools come on the list for needing improvement this year, which is not our desire.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Are we getting more at-risk?  Are more schools borderline because we’re changing the criteria of the evaluation, or is it the downward trend of the educational process?

 

Sheila Moulton:

The criteria have changed.  This year we took a new test, which was part of the process.  We also added, following the No Child Left Behind legislation, all students, meaning our special education population as well as those children with our English Language Learning, which I believe should be tested.  Interestingly enough, when we pull out those two criteria, our students do extremely well, although we need to have that documentation so that we address them all.

 

Regarding the criteria under No Child Left Behind and S.B. 191, I just returned last week from a conference of Council of Great City Schools.  This involves the 60 largest school districts in the nation, and every one of them has seen significant increases in their schools on the “needs improvement” lists.  They expect that to increase because the bar is being raised, as it should be.  We agree that should happen, and that is something we are asking our district to do, in order to increase student achievement.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

You’re in support of the bill?  Did I read that right?  No, you are not.  It is not unanticipated that this criteria change has led to more schools falling out of the “I’m a good school” category.  Therefore, we’re looking at keeping, according to what you would like to say, on track with what we’ve already started.  You, as the school district, are not supporting A.B. 512.

 

Sheila Moulton:

It goes against the nature of our ability as elected public officials to make those decisions on contracts, and we suffer the consequences as well.  If those decisions are not pleasing to our public, then all of us in elected positions have a very close scrutiny by our constituents.

 

Joyce Haldeman:

I wanted to add one thing to the testimony that Ms. Moulton provided, and that is when the Edison school contracts were negotiated, the schools that were selected by them were chosen specifically because they were schools that were at-risk, already on the “needs improvement” list, or on the bubble to become on that list.  It was one of those approaches that we thought we would see if there’s another approach that might work with this population.  If they’ve got a better way that they can deliver education to this student body, let’s give it a try and see if it would work.

 

I think the school board has taken a very close look at it.  They are looking at the progress of the schools, and listening to the teachers.  I would remind you that when Assemblyman Hardy asked the question if it is because the population is changing or because the criteria is changing, the answer is it really is a little bit of both.

 

Ms. Moulton explained to you the difference in the criteria that we are facing now, as we deem who goes on an inadequate school list, but the population in Las Vegas is changing considerably also.  Our at-risk population, students who live in poverty and students with English as a second language; is our fastest-growing population in Clark County.  Many of those students attend these schools, and very likely regardless of who was in charge of the schools, they would also be facing the same kinds of challenges they are now.  I’d like you to take that into consideration.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

Having sat on a school board, I found A.B. 512 to be quite a broad document.  We used privatization in different areas in order to conserve on funding and create funds.  I would like you to comment on that.  I don’t find this to be related to at-risk schools.  I find it to be very overreaching to relate to any kind of privatization or contracting that you might do.  Am I reading this wrong?

 

Joyce Haldeman:

We agree, the attorneys who took a look at this for the school district thought that it was micromanagement in nature.  In all honesty, we use the tracking system to keep track of the bills, and I didn’t see this bill until this morning, or I would have had our attorney here today to discuss with you some of the concerns that he has about the language in the bill, and some assumptions that were made about the contract with Edison schools.  If the bill is going to be heard again, I will make sure that he is here to address those matters.

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto:

For those of us who were on the Education Committee in the last session when this Edison School thing happened, my recollection is that we wanted to have a little more input.  This is millions of taxpayer dollars that come from the state.  You can’t just write a check and say this is what we’re going to do.  Your new person running the school district down there didn’t see fit to share these plans with the Legislature; he sort of thumbed his nose at us, quite frankly.  I think this leaves us with a lot more questions than answers.  This is a moneymaking concern for this Edison group.  How are they making money on this if all they’re getting is the per-pupil funding, and how many states have kicked them out?

 

Sheila Moulton:

I don’t know if you want me to respond to that, or if that was a comment, but I’d be glad to respond.

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto:

If you could tell me how many states have kicked them out?

 

Sheila Moulton:

I know there have been some, and I also know that there have been some political reasons for that, as well as other concerns.  I, along with other trustees, visited two states that have very successful programs in this, and Edison is not making money here in Nevada.  They’re not making money anywhere.  If you follow the statistics on Edison, they’re not making money at this time.  They’re using a lot of money from great donors.  I respect your feeling on being a part of that, but I strongly feel that they’re going to do some good things with kids.

 

We’ve had one year of test scores, and we’re watching them very carefully, and we will continue to do so.  I know that often in education, we just start something long enough and then we pull back on it.  A five-year contract, we felt, would give us some really good strategies or statistics in showing improvement.  I visited the schools and I see some good things going on, but we’ll be glad to keep you informed and I appreciate your comment on involving you in our decision-making.

 

Chairman Williams:

Mrs. Koivisto, I can tell you that regarding the last two school districts that pulled out, they pulled out very recently.  One was in Dallas and one was in Boston.  The school district in Boston contracted the exact same number of schools that we did in Clark County.  Six of their schools failed the test scores; those are two of the most recent schools that have pulled out.  When Clark County entered into their contract, Edison stock was $37 per share; they went down to $2 per share; currently they are 15 cents per share.

 

[Chairman Williams continued.]  In reference to the question of the $10 million that Ms. Moulton corrected, Edison promised that they would raise, through charitable donations, $10 million.  In Las Vegas they could not raise that, so they are on the hook for the $10 million.  These two latest pullouts were done prior to the expiration of the contract.  They ended the contract early.  Now their stocks are down to 15 cents per share.

 

I did not intend to speak on A.B. 512 because this bill mirrors a bill I had last session.  I could probably speak until midnight on this bill.  One of the concerns I had is that Edison demanded over $1 million from the district for each one of these seven schools.  That’s almost $10 million we could be applying towards music, athletics, and sports that we don’t have now.  I think if this bill had passed last session, the Legislature would have wanted a guarantee of that $10 million they were going to raise.  They would have taken a look at the $1 million plus for every school that Edison went into.

 

Sheila Moulton:

That $10 million – I know that we went in and put some technology into the schools, and we moved up some timetables.  Is there something that I have missed?

 

Chairman Williams:

I meant the $10 million that they promised they were going to raise and they couldn’t, so they are on the hook.  That’s what I meant.

 

Sheila Moulton:

They did come through with it.  They are meeting their schedule.  It was tight, but I can get you that documentation to make sure.  That’s something we’ve monitored as well.  In fact, we said the $10 million comes up or Edison is gone.  There were certain payment plans that they had, but I’ll get you that information.

 

Chairman Williams:

Regardless of political, academic, or education philosophies, I think everybody wants to see Nevada’s schools succeed.  My bill was withdrawn last session; A.B. 512 pretty much mirrors that bill.  At one of the schools in my district that was on the “needs improvement” list, which was a school on the list prior to Edison, folks were excited because they were told the kids would get laptops.  A lot of kids in those schools don’t have books, and the laptops never surfaced.

 

Sheila Moulton:

I know they didn’t surface in the first semester, but we just had Edison come about four weeks ago and commit to us, like I’m saying to you, that they were now in the schools as of the second semester.  I will check on that to make sure to get it in writing because we had that same question.  I thought they were coming in the first semester, but it stated in the contract that the laptops were coming in second semester.  The parents don’t have to put anything else down, but they do have to come in for six hours of training.  I can document that or check on the criteria, but the criteria before the computer can go into the home is the training of the adults in the home, which I think is satisfactory and should take place.

 

Chairman Williams:

That was one of the problems that occurred in one of the states.  The home computers were promised, and when they came in the parents weren’t really capable of setting them up.

 

Joyce Haldeman:

If I could “dovetail” on what Ms. Moulton said, the laptop computers are there and I think that there has been disappointment.  Quite a bit of fanfare was made about the fact that the computers had arrived.  The training schedule was set up, and it is a fairly minimal amount of training the parents had to have in order to take the computers home.  The parents are not coming in for the training, and there are laptops still sitting in the school, unused.  I think Edison is developing some strategies to make sure those parents are fully aware of how easy the training is, as well as the time schedule, so we can get those laptops into the homes of the students.

 

Sheila Moulton:

We’re leaving you some packets (Exhibit J).  We did a survey, and these are the results of that survey.  There are about $12 million of things that the community could live without, but overall 93 percent of them said, “Increase my taxes and maintain education the way it is.” 

 

Ray Bacon:

This is one of those rare times when I actually come forward to support the school district’s position on a bill.  The key thing you put in A.B. 512, which to me is intriguing, is Section 13.  The criteria in Section 13, subsection 2, ought to be in every one of those contracts across the board. 

 

[Mr. Bacon continued.]  I think the fundamental essence of measuring what’s truly coming out of any school at-risk, that’s in this bill, is the one piece that truly should be left in there.  I agree with the school district that this is overstretching and delving into local control, beyond where you need to, because I see this clearly getting into janitorial contracts, food service contracts, and any other thing that makes sense to privatize.  If you’re going to put in those kinds of constraints, take a look at the fact that those are elected officials.

 

Perhaps there should be an IFC (Interim Finance Committee) review to make sure the contract makes sense from a state standpoint.  If you want to put additional constraints into the contracts, that’s fine, but you ought to make it a broad scale.  As the board president testified, we know we have schools that are in trouble; we know that, because of the changing criteria, we’re going to have more schools on the “needs improvement” list.  Let’s set up the criteria and set the expectation at the right level.

 

Chairman Williams:

[There was no further testimony.]  We’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 512.  Is there anything else to come before the Committee?  There was a subcommittee that was going to meet after this Committee; we’re going to reschedule that, because the Health and Human Services Committee is meeting upon adjournment of this Committee, right around the corner.  If there is no other business, we’re adjourned [at 6:35 p.m.].

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Victoria Thompson

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman

 

 

DATE: