MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY SUBCommittee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
April 8, 2003
The Subcommittee on Educationwas called to order at 5:57 p.m., on Tuesday, April 8, 2003. Chairman Kelvin Atkinson presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
NOTE: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson, Chairman
Mr. William Horne
Mr. Jason Geddes
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Assemblywoman, District No. 9
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Assemblywoman, District No. 28
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Laura Mijanovich, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
Terry Hickman, High School Counselor, President of the Nevada State Education Association
Richard Siegel, Ph.D., President, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
[The Assembly Subcommittee on Education was called to order by Chairman Atkinson at 5:57 p.m.]
Chairman Atkinson:
Madam Secretary, please call the roll. [Roll was called.] We are here this evening to discuss Assembly Bill 179 in the Subcommittee.
Assembly Bill 179: Revises provisions governing education. (BDR 34-22)
This bill was brought before the Education Committee last week, and this Subcommittee was asked to meet and discuss this bill. We heard a lot of testimony last week on the bill, and, to not have to go back over it all, we wanted to give people who are here the opportunity to briefly give us their statements. I think we all remember what happened; if we don’t, some of us will have to catch up.
I don’t have a sign-in sheet, but I know people by name, and I can just call you up here. [The sign-in sheet was provided to Chairman Atkinson.] But, if you didn’t sign in, I’m not calling you. We’ll ask Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to come up first, because she is the sponsor of this bill.
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District No. 9:
[Introduced herself.] On Assembly Bill 179, I’ve re-presented amendments (Exhibit C) for the Committee to consider that I mentioned during the initial hearing, along with an article (Exhibit D) that was sent to me regarding the proficiency testing policy that could also lend itself to sexual discrimination in the gender bias area, because of the way young men and women are actually instructed in the area of math. Math, if you recalled from the hearing, seemed to be one of the major areas people were having difficulty with.
I’m suggesting, after having talked to Chairman Atkinson, that we separate these into two separate bills so that the proficiency issue can stand on its own versus the budgetary issue of eliminating the committees. That issue is more of a Ways and Means issue, potentially saving close to a million dollars over the biennium. That might be a suggestion for the Subcommittee to consider. The secondary issue is the Proficiency Exam. I recognize that I will have difficulty with this over on the Senate side with one particular individual. I respect that, because it’s a difference of opinion. This Assembly, last time around [A.B. 64 of the 71st Legislative Session], did promote eliminating the Proficiency Exam, and it passed overwhelmingly, but we never got a hearing on the Senate side.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continues.] That’s part of why I went back to the drawing board. This bill does not get rid of the Proficiency Exam; it still has the young men and women taking it. What it does is provide two suggestions. The first is that we create a linear model for a standard diploma and allow the young men and women to have endorsements. If you take honors classes, you can add that as an endorsement. If you pass the English portion of the proficiency, you add it as an endorsement. If you excel in sports, or in other ways, it recognizes the young man or woman as a whole person. Several states have gone to that.
The second thing that I’m suggesting to you in this amendment is taking a look at not making the young men and women retake the entire Proficiency Test over again. Let’s segregate it out, so they’re only retaking the portion they failed. That gives me an opportunity to argue some positions over on the Senate side. However, I think it’s also fair for the young men and women. Test-taking standards go into a decline the more you fail. I’m not a good test-taker; I would need to do oral exams, and, in fact, I had to for my master’s degree, because I totally blew one section. My professor came to me and said, “I know you know this.” You tense up, and I know these young men and women; this is what their diplomas are resting on.
The concept here is to recognize what they did do well but not use it as a barrier for being able to get a diploma. Community colleges around the United States will accept young men and women without a high school diploma; they’ll take a Certificate of Attendance, a GED [General Education Diploma], or a correspondence diploma. Universities will take a correspondence diploma, a standard diploma, or an adjusted diploma. They won’t accept a Certificate of Attendance, so we’re blocking a whole bunch of young men and women from going into a four-year institution. Those students had all of the other credits, classes, and scores, but they’re forced to have to start at a community college.
Even though I work there, that still isn’t the best idea for all young men and women to start out their career. As I pointed out, as a special education teacher, I can reconvene my kids’ IEPs (Individual Education Plans) and get them an adjusted diploma. They could go to the four-year college, but the regular education kids can’t. At a hearing tomorrow, I’ll discuss the homeschooled population who can get a correspondence diploma because they’re homeschooled, and that is accepted at both community colleges and universities. I’m just trying to level the playing field. If we want young men and women to go on to college, then this ought to be something that promotes quality education. You don’t dismiss everything else they’ve done for their four years in high school.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] I think one gentleman brought up the issue about language regarding the ELL (English Language Learners) students and the special education students. That is to comply with the federal No Child Left Behind Act; that is why that language is in here. I eliminated the Millennium Scholarship at the back, because I was in error on that testimony.
Chairman Atkinson:
You said, very early on, something about separating the two bills so that one dealt with the Proficiency Exam, and one dealt with the other portion of the bill. How do you propose doing that?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Basically, Section 12 becomes part of a new bill, and they’ll draft it with those repealed sections. Then, we amend Section 13, and request that it be deleted from A.B. 179 and placed into a bill of its own. That new bill will come back to the Education Committee.
Chairman Atkinson:
Is it too late to do that?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
No, because I’ll take it up in Appropriations. I wouldn’t worry about that part of it. The main part of this is the Proficiency Exam issue.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I like the idea of the different diploma, but if we remove the Proficiency Exam for the diploma, and universities don’t require it, why do we do the test?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Good question. Universities require a standard diploma, but community colleges don’t. I truly don’t believe in the Proficiency Exam; I’ve never supported that. I believe that when we had the Statewide Competency Test, it was a minimum standard. That was acceptable because the young men and women had to meet a minimum, but it did not block them from graduating. At least it was tied into the curriculum.
When the Proficiency Exam came about, especially the math portion, the standards had not been changed. They did not comply with it or follow it. I think Ms. Chowning could talk to that from her position on the Council to Establish Academic Standards. What happened was, especially on the math portion, that certain classes were not even required for graduation. They were not even getting the curriculum content that the test was testing on. This was really a national push; it was allegedly showing that our young men and women were learning.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continues.] I don’t mind a test, as long as it is not a barrier, if it’s something I, or the young men and women, could use to learn something more from. That’s why I said to leave it in; they can still use it as a guide, measuring what they think they’ve learned, and they can still make sure that the curriculum is tied to it. A final fallback is maybe to delay the math portion. I’m looking strategy-wise, very truthfully, on how to deal with it.
Chairman Atkinson:
Are there any more questions from the Committee? Thank you. We have a few people signed in. Assemblywoman Chowning, I believe, wanted to speak. Welcome to our Subcommittee.
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, District 28:
I do apologize, I just gave the sponsor of the bill my proposed amendment language (Exhibit E) for discussion, or however you want to look at it.
I’m a former secondary schoolteacher, and I have been on the Education Committee each and every one of my seven terms as a legislator. Trying to better students’ lives has been one of my ardent goals as a representative. I’ve been proud to have been a member selected by two different governors to be on the Academic Standards Council. I’ve been very much in favor of working together and raising the standards. I was in support of proficiency testing so we would have a clearer “end-of-the-twelve-years” goal for our students, and so that everyone would be able to see what the lesson plans were.
This started in 1997. We’ve worked very hard in the Academic Standards Council and helped to write the standards. When we passed the Education Reform Act in 1997, we were promised that there would be funding that would follow. That funding would be for teacher training and for student remediation. As you know, that funding did not follow. Then the federal government got into the act. HR 1 (federal legislation that created No Child Left Behind in 2002) occurred and brought with it an even tougher set of standards for our Nevada students to meet.
I’m very concerned about the set of requirements that are coming, and I do not want our students to fail. I want our students to be able to be as successful as possible. Each and every time we have heard that students are having a tough time passing the Proficiency Test, the math portion has been the dilemma. It breaks my heart when I see students who have the rest of their lives on hold, and in some cases, who are irreparably harmed. They cannot go into the military, and, in some cases, they cannot go on to college.
[Assemblywoman Chowning continues.] I know students who walked through the graduation ceremony and never said a word. To this day, four years later, they have never said anything to anyone. Only their mother or their father knew they didn’t graduate. Their Grandma and Grandpa came, and relatives from all over the country – they don’t know to this day that the student didn’t really graduate. Students are too embarrassed, too immature, to face that, and they never go back; it’s too hard to go back. I know several young people who have gone on; they are working, and they are going on with their lives.
In some cases, we’ve been told that thoughts of suicide entered the minds of young people who failed the Proficiency Test. One of my constituents was taking the test for the next-to-the-last time, and some wonderful people in the school district helped this young man with tutoring, as did some of his college-going siblings. They worked and worked, he finally passed, and he went into the military. His life was not harmed.
When I graduated from high school, there was no such thing as a High School Proficiency Exit Exam. I think I, along with many people, have been an honorable citizen of our country, of this state, and of this Legislature. What I bring to you today is a thought, a solution, that would begin, for school districts that wish to do this, to put in place a procedure for a basic diploma. As you can see, it would only be for students who have not passed the Proficiency Test after taking the test five times or more.
There are several criteria that would have to be part of the decision, and that would be as stated here. There would be a screening panel, a committee that would be put into place. There would be a process so that you couldn’t say, “I don’t want to take this test anymore.” The students’ citizenship record would have to be discussed. Their attendance record would be a part of it. The course work attempted through high school, the number of credits received, and the grade point average received would be part of the review process. This would put into place a process to award basic diplomas in those rare instances for those students, such as the young lady who testified in our Committee, actually two young ladies, one who was a pre-law student and one who had 27½ credits, who were unable to pass or to finish the math portion of the Proficiency Exam.
The committee would be comprised of people such as a high school counselor, a principal, a dean, a highly qualified teacher of math, a highly qualified teacher of English, a highly qualified teacher of special education, and others. Then, on the second page, in school districts where a majority vote of the board has established a basic diploma upon recommendation of the screening committee, the Board of Trustees may award a basic diploma to students who completed a minimum of four years of high school.
[Assemblywoman Chowning continues.] The lady who completed more than four years of high school and earned her 27½ credits is credit-sufficient. This can’t be for people who do not have the credits. This is for students who met every requirement for high school graduation with the exception of the passage of the High School Proficiency Exam, which they attempted unsuccessfully, five times or more, to pass. Only then, with the majority vote of the board, may they be granted a basic diploma. The term “standard diploma” may be changed to “comprehensive diploma” to further distinguish between the two exit documents.
This has a lot of input from people trying to reach a solution to stop students’ lives from forever being harmed. I bring this amendment to you, with your indulgence, Ms. Giunchigliani. I didn’t know the Subcommittee was going to meet today. I apologize that I didn’t get this amendment to you before. I give this to you in the spirit of helping and caring. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Atkinson:
I don’t have any questions, but I saw Mr. Horne writing, so I assume he has questions.
Assemblyman Horne:
First of all, Mrs. Chowning, you have in here four years of high school, but you mentioned that the young woman who testified in here had 27½ credits. Some students choose to graduate early; clearly she could have graduated her junior year. Would we require somebody in his or her junior year who is able to graduate, to take this test five times, and then still bar them from a basic diploma, when they satisfied everything but the four years of attendance? Do you see what I’m saying? It seems inequitable; if you have one student who chose to graduate early because they wanted to go in the military, for instance, but couldn’t because we’re not going to give them this basic diploma simply because they didn’t go to school for the senior year. They chose to exit early because they had enough credits, but we hold them back.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I brought this amendment to you to address the needs of a minority of the students in our state. It is frightening to me when I see that 39 percent of our high school seniors in one county had not passed the Proficiency Exam. I see this problem growing, and I think it’s important for us to address the senior-year students who are not able to pass the Proficiency Exam. Otherwise, it may be viewed that we’re not taking this as seriously as we should, and we’re allowing a solution for someone who does choose to get out of school early. I think this basic diploma should be taken seriously, and given under very rare circumstances. I believe it should be for students who completed four years of high school and have not been able to complete the Proficiency Exam successfully.
Assemblyman Horne:
I agree. I would want to take this basic diploma very seriously. However, for students such as that junior who took the Proficiency Exam five times and wasn’t able to pass, I would like him or her to have redress. I would like that student to say, “You know, I’ve done it all. I’ve got the credits, I’ve taken the test five times, and I think I’m deserving of a basic diploma, if that’s the avenue I have to go.” Speaking of the five failures, that seems like a lot, especially for a young person. I remember when I was that age. Would I have taken a test five times, and failed it each time? Not likely. I failed the bar exam; I can’t imagine taking it five times, and I’m forty-one years old. Three times seems more logical. Can somebody refresh my memory on how often it is given?
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Mr. Horne, I believe that the total possible is eight times to take the Proficiency Exam.
Assemblyman Horne:
I meant in a year. How many times in the period of a year is the Proficiency Test given? Is it given every quarter?
Assemblywoman Chowning:
No, the first opportunity is in the sophomore year. I think there are three times in the senior year that it’s given, but I’m not sure. If it’s eight times total, that represents about two-thirds of the opportunities that are given to a student.
Just for the record, when a student, especially a young person, thinks about suicide, it’s largely because of his or her immaturity and age. To a teenager, it is a life-changing experience if there are bad grades; it is almost as traumatic as losing a job. If there’s a breakup in a relationship, it’s as strong to teenagers as a divorce. I’ve done a lot of study on suicide in young people. They don’t have the maturity to go from A to Z and realize that there are bumps in the road, and they’re going to get over them.
[Assemblywoman Chowning continues.] It is extremely traumatic to one’s psychological makeup to have to face this test again and again. What we’ve heard in our testimony in the Education Committee, session after session, is that each and every time students take the test the scores tend to get worse, because they’re so concerned and worried. The stakes are so high that once they fail, it gets worse.
Assemblyman Horne:
I had one closing question, Assemblywoman Chowning. Regarding your amendments that were submitted, I think you said that Ms. Giunchigliani had not seen them. As the sponsor of the bill, is she aware of them? [To Assemblywoman Giunchigliani] Are you aware of these? [She indicated that she had just seen them.]
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I would like her to be able to look at these amendments and be in agreement, of course.
Chairman Atkinson:
We have three other people who signed in, and I’m going to give them the opportunity to speak. They can come up to the table at the same time, because they all checked that they are speaking for the same bill: Terry Hickman, Laura Mijanovich, and Richard Siegel.
Laura Mijanovich, representing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada:
I’m here, on behalf of the ACLU, to support and urge you to pass Sections 4 through 6 of A.B. 179. I’m speaking not only on behalf of the ACLU, but also from the perspective and experiences that I gathered through many years of working in the Hispanic community, which totals more than 18 years.
I was the cofounder, and, for several years, President of Nevada Hispanic Services. This is a social services agency, which has education as part of its mission. I’ve also been a member of other education committees such as the Ronald McDonald House Charities/Hacer Education Program Committee, the Finish Line Project, sponsored by Washoe County School District, also focused on education, and the Hispanic Education Task Force, which has been a passion of mine for many years. Although I’m not an expert on the issue, I’ve been in contact with and had the opportunity to discuss many issues pertaining to Latino students in Nevada. I realized that they faced difficult problems when their proficiency in English was limited, and there were many of these kids in our school districts.
[Ms. Mijanovich continues.] This bill seems to be what the Latino community has been looking at for many years. It is something that will remove the requirement of passage of the High School Proficiency Exam when the other conditions to graduate are met. I urge you to pass Sections 4 through 6; that would remove this requirement. I want to emphasize, in closing, that there is a definite need for individualized learning programs. With consistent testing, there would be consistency with the programs.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I was wondering if anybody in the audience had a chance to look at Mrs. Chowning’s amendments yet?
Laura Mijanovich:
No, I have not.
Terry Hickman, High School Counselor and President of the Nevada State Education Association:
I wanted to re-emphasize that we support this bill. I think it brings fairness. When asked how did the testing started, I believe there was a movement across the United States that high stakes testing was the best way to determine whether or not students had actually assimilated the knowledge they needed. Having looked at the Proficiency Exam many times as a counselor, and having met with others who had actually written the Proficiency Exam, the Proficiency Exam does cover the state standards, which is a very good thing. Unfortunately, the Proficiency Exam does require a student to know a certain level of math. That level of math is not required for graduation.
We have a major conflict between the state standards which the Proficiency Examination purports to and, I do believe, does, test, and students not having to take classes such as Algebra I, or Geometry, or Algebra II to graduate. Therefore, we have a major conflict in terms of the math, resulting in a Proficiency Test failure rate that is so high. I believe it is directly attributable to the fact that the test is actually testing students on classes they do not need nor take for graduation. Many students, for the first time, are seeing geometry and geometry word problems that are very difficult. I meet with students many times about the issue of how to improve scores on the test, and the students are given classes to help them. Some of them even go to a university, or other places, to learn how to take a test.
Still, the basic knowledge has to be there in terms of classroom experience. A student cannot take the Proficiency Exam and suddenly be able to do the math work. That is why I believe the math failure rate is so high. There is a difference between the graduation requirements and the Proficiency Exam requirements, because when we say, “three years of math,” it does not say which three years of math you have to have. A school district could definitely change that and say Algebra and Geometry are requirements for graduation. This might be more in line with the Proficiency Exam. However, there are very few things we do that are high-stakes testing.
[Terry Hickman continues.] If a student in class doesn’t pass a particular test, many times the teachers allow them to make it up or give them some kind of assistance. High-stakes testing is a concept that has caught on in the United States as a way to verify the fact that the students have a given level of knowledge. An interesting fact, though, is that you’re testing students perhaps two years after they’ve had the class. A student may have taken Geometry in the ninth grade, and then be tested on it in the eleventh grade. What an interesting situation that is—to take a class two years before you take the outcome test to be sure that you know the material that was taught in that class.
One of the most difficult parts of the math exam is fractions. How many times do we use fractions? The answer is almost none. On my calculator, I don’t see a fraction button; I do see decimals. That gets into one of the questions that we have. Even though fractions are part of the state standards, very few math classes go into a lot of detail about fractions. Students have to go back and relearn how to do fractions, because in the math classes, especially in Geometry, you’re not going to find many fraction problems.
Also, if I could move to the amendment from Ms. Giunchigliani, speaking to the math portion of the Proficiency Exam, which seems to be the focus of attention, there are several subsections. I cannot tell you how many, but there are approximately six to eight subsections. The test has around 50 questions, but the subsections do not go one after the other. The subsections are, in essence, throughout the test. So questions 1, 10, 18, 24, and 33, when they are eventually graded, go to one subsection, and other questions go into other subsections. The Proficiency Exam would need to be written in a way that each subsection was clearly understood or defined. The student then would take that section over according to this amendment.
The passing score on the math proficiency is 64, but that does not mean 64 percent. That score of 64 out to approximately 80 percent; you must pass 80 percent of all questions. If you do not pass a certain subsection, you can still pass the Proficiency Exam, but you have to get 80 percent of the total questions correct to pass it. Of the three tests that are given, writing is a section that the majority of students pass the first time; on the reading exam, over half pass; with the math exam, less than half pass. Eventually we get to the point where many students at each high school have to take only the math section.
[Mr. Hickman continues.] When a student takes the math section or any part of the test that they failed, they have to take the whole test again. They are not allowed to work on the part they didn’t complete. What is so frustrating for many students is the fact that, if they’ve missed passing by only one point the first time or two, or even by two or three points, when they take it again, the likelihood of them passing is not high. That is because they’re taking the same type of test, but the questions are not the same questions. Therefore, the student could actually have a test that has more algebra, or more geometry, one time or the other. That, again, is a challenge, and the writers of the test would have to be sure to make clear which portion of the test the student had not passed.
That is possible, I believe. One thing that I knew as a counselor, when students took a test and had passed a section of the test, it was critical that we did not have them take that portion again. I remember when a student actually slipped by at the high school I was at and took the entire test when he should only have taken two of the three sections. When that student took the previously passed section again, the student actually failed the section. With a great deal of effort we corrected that mistake, but the last score the student earns is the one that is on the computer. It’s very important that students retake only the section(s) that they failed.
If we’re going to get into the subsection issue, I do believe that the writers of the test can get there, but it would take some effort and transition time for them to rewrite the test. I do believe it would give our students an area of focus. When you’re preparing for the Proficiency Exam, you literally have two to three years of math to assimilate in a few weeks. If they knew which sections they had the most trouble with, it would help them and certainly their tutors, to focus on that and the other things they need to prepare, so they would have a greater chance of passing this exam.
I believe the total opportunities a student has to pass the exam, this is from memory, is six times, by state law. After a student has taken the exam six times, they are not allowed to take it again. The school district, as well as the counseling department of the high school, tries very hard to stay on top of that, because we want to comply with the law. Their opportunities used to be almost unlimited, but I believe that now the number is set at six.
Assemblyman Geddes:
Mr. Hickman, a lot of this relates back to what we’ve heard in other testimony for other bills. You’ve mentioned that you need three years of math to graduate. The scenario of being two years out of that math course and taking the test for that course in the eleventh grade shouldn’t apply if you have three years of math to take, should it?
Terry Hickman:
It depends on which math classes you took. You could take Algebra in eighth grade, and, if you are really “dynamite,” you could take Geometry next. Some students actually took Geometry in ninth grade. If they took the test in eleventh grade, it would be a couple of years since they took that class.
Assemblyman Geddes:
They would still need that third year. If they took Geometry and Trigonometry, and a third year of math, they wouldn’t be that far out. Any “dynamite” kid who has taken Geometry in ninth grade probably is going to pass the math. Geometry seems to be the key to passing this test.
Terry Hickman:
It’s one of the keys. Abstract reasoning is definitely a key, and certainly that helps. If students take Geometry in ninth grade and don’t pass, generally they’re not going to take Geometry again. They could be in twelfth grade and not remember how to do the Geometry. Teachers tutor students after school, but it can be three years between taking the classes and actually taking the test.
Assemblyman Geddes:
They’re doubling up somewhere so that in that freshman year they would take two math classes. Is that how they get the three-year gap?
Terry Hickman:
A typical freshman could take Pre-algebra or Algebra 1. If he took Algebra 1 in ninth grade, he could be in Geometry and Algebra 2 in his sophomore year. However, if he is a basic math student, he could be taking Algebra 1A in ninth grade, Algebra 1B in tenth grade, and some form of Geometry in eleventh grade.
Assemblyman Geddes:
The course could be something like Business Math, something besides Geometry?
Terry Hickman:
It depends upon the graduation requirements of that district exactly what that third year of math could be. It is definitely, in my judgment, a major discrepancy in the curriculum. If the test is following state standards, but the high school graduation requirements do not follow that, you have a discrepancy. I would not urge this Subcommittee to say that everyone should have Algebra, Geometry, and Algebra 2; I’m just saying that’s where the test is. Even students in Algebra 2 have failed the Proficiency Exam, so that is not an automatic relationship. There are fewer students in Algebra 2 who fail the math proficiency, but there are definitely many throughout the state that fail it the first time.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I’m going to take exception to the fractions. I know every time I fill up my gas tank, do my taxes, or pay a sales tax, I’m dealing with fractions. I think that’s very important for everybody to know. I’m a math geek; I’ve already admitted that on the record. As I was building and filling my child’s sandbox this weekend, geometry came in very handy in calculating the amount of sand I needed to purchase.
On the ACT (American College Test) or the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test), do they allow you to retake sections? I can’t remember what bill it was, but when we were looking at acceptance rates and placements in the remedial classes at the university level, the majority of it was based on math. It was regarding automatic placements at UNR (University of Nevada, Reno) and UNLV (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) based on your ACT or SAT math score. I was wondering if they had the opportunity to take just a portion of the ACT or SAT?
Terry Hickman:
No, when you retake the ACT or SAT, you have to take the entire exam. The only exception is when you take the higher parts of the SAT, which are the subject exams. Outside of that, you take the ACT, and the university takes the highest score. I have had students take the ACT four times, and, if they hit that magic number in math of 19, then they were allowed to take a regular math class. If the score was 18 or below, students were put into remedial math.
Assemblyman Geddes:
In the ACT section, if you take it four times, they take your highest score from each section, is that correct?
Terry Hickman:
No, they take the highest composite score. That’s true, generally, for admissions. One of the few exceptions to admissions, based on the highest composite score, is the Naval Academy, where they actually put all the composite scores together. Generally, UNR and UNLV will take the highest composite test score. Some universities that are really reaching out for students can actually take subcomponents of the test score and make a higher score if they want to, but, generally, they take the highest composite score.
Chairman Atkinson:
To get us out of here at a reasonable time, I think we have one more speaker. I don’t have anyone else signed in to speak, so we’re going to let our last speaker talk.
Richard Siegel, Ph.D., President, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada:
I’ve been a professor of political science at UNR for the last 37¾ years. That’s how I count carefully, in fractions. If the Chairman would indulge me, I would like to have a conversation and do something a little bit unusual. I would like to pretend that Senator Raggio is up there and make some comments that I would make to him, if he were with you at the Committee, because I think that could be of some utility to the sponsors of this bill. Let me put it in that form.
First of all, Senator Raggio, A.B. 179 is not a bill to abolish the Proficiency Exam. It’s a bill to reform our approach to the Proficiency Exam. You know, Senator Raggio, that when you pushed this Proficiency Exam, and you proposed this and urged its passage four or five years ago, I believe I was one of your supporters. I believed that we desperately needed to raise standards in secondary schools, but, Senator, I took it on faith that our system would adapt itself and take care of the more glaring discriminations and inequities of this exam.
The ACLU was approached by several minority communities from Clark County in 1997 or 1999, when this bill came through. I was kind of the hard-nose; I was the one speaking for the ACLU who said, “Let’s give them more coaching, let’s give them more assistance, and let’s give them a summer program.” I like this idea of making them get through the Proficiency Exam, and I have now had four years, Senator and Committee members, to reconsider my position on this issue. I’ve done it for a number of reasons. First of all, I think the law has changed. I think our responsibility to the disabled and to those students with special needs has been clarified, as the bill notes in terms of the interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and with the No Child Left Behind Act, in such a way as to clarify that we cannot go with “one size meets all.” We just cannot do that with any sense of credibility and fairness.
[Mr. Siegel continues his testimony as though he were speaking directly with Senator Raggio.]
Second of all, look at what’s happened in Nevada, Senator Raggio. We have not moved up in educational funding, we have not moved up in the resources we have provided for our schools, and we have fallen down into the 40s, $1,000 below the national average, in per-student assistance. There are two sides to this high-stakes game of proficiency. On one side is the student who bears up and takes that exam and does the absolute best he can. [On the other side is the state.] Can the state of Nevada honestly say it’s done the best it could possibly do for the students in Nevada, in terms of teacher funding?
In the last few months, we’ve seen a host of cutbacks in K-12 education. They’ve tried to salvage the core areas that are on this Proficiency Exam, but there’s no question that students are affected by all kinds of cutbacks in terms of extra-curricular activities, keeping their interest in school, and other things that are failing and fading in terms of the schools. With these and with other elements, I say to you, Senator Raggio, and to this Committee, let’s take a pause now. Let’s look at what’s going on very carefully; let’s look very carefully at the alternatives, including the original bill. Assemblywoman Chowning’s proposal, which I think is very much middle-ground, you may want to consider very seriously in terms of the fundamental issues of equal treatment of all students and fundamental fairness.
Chairman Atkinson:
Thank you, Dr. Siegel. I think we all understood where you were going with the “Senator Raggio” thing, but there was a security guard that walked by out there, and I think he was looking for Senator Raggio. I just wanted to let him know it wasn’t me. Do any of the Committee members have any questions for Dr. Siegel? Mr. Hickman?
Terry Hickman:
I wanted to bring up one further point. The Proficiency Exam was never intended to be a college entrance exam. The college entrance exams are the ACT and the SAT, and, unless we’re going to totally align our curriculum to be college-bound for everyone, I think we need to be cognizant of the fact that the exams for entrance into college are already there. The state of Nevada does not need to get into the business of trying to get closer and closer to the Proficiency Exam being utilized as a college entrance exam. The colleges use the ACT and SAT because they have a long history with those tests. They place their students in certain classes because of those tests.
[Terry Hickman continues.] A student who does not pass a Proficiency Exam, with 22 or 24 credits—I have even had students with 26 credits who could not pass that exam—are denied entrance into the university, and they are denied federal financial aid because of this exam. I do not think the state of Nevada should be in the business of saying this one exam is the determiner of your future. The ACT and SAT are not pass/fail exams; they are placement exams. I believe the attempt to make a pass/fail exam, as we have made this high-stakes Proficiency Exam, goes contrary to what we know to be in the best interests of our students.
Therefore, I would like to be sure that the Committee understands and would support the concept that the Proficiency Exam is not to be closer and closer to a college entrance exam. If we do that, then our curriculum must mandate that all students take college preparatory classes. That is not what we should be doing, determining everyone’s future based upon the belief that everyone goes to college. I don’t believe that’s what we should be doing to the citizens of Nevada.
Chairman Atkinson:
Thank you, Mr. Hickman. Are there any questions from Committee members? Again, out of fairness, I don’t have anyone signed in to speak against the bill, so is there anyone in opposition? I wanted to give those folks an opportunity to come up if they wanted to say anything. Ms. McKinney-James? [She indicated she did not wish to speak.] I don’t think we have anything else to discuss with this bill, unless another Committee member has something that they want to add. Mr. Horne, no more “fraction” statements?
Assemblyman Horne:
Ms. Giunchigliani, have you had an opportunity to review Mrs. Chowning’s proposed amendment?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Yes, I have, thank you very much. I commend Mrs. Chowning, because I know her heart is in the right place trying to do something for education. I think what she’s trying for is a concept that we call a “portfolio.” My fear is about what would happen if the school board chooses not to adopt this? Then you have different standards for 17 different counties.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continues.] That’s part of our problem, the lack of uniformity and consistency. I do think it is another approach, or a middle ground, for something down the road. It does take into account the same thing that we are all trying to get to, that you don’t dismiss all four years of your high school experience for one test. I think, sometimes, the simpler method, recognizing what the young men and women have accomplished, but not placing a barrier, gives students the encouragement to take the Proficiency Exam, without letting that stop them from getting a diploma. I would still urge the recommendation I made, but this is another strategy that might be “down the road,” depending on how we deal with portfolios. I’ve tried portfolios in the past; unfortunately, they have not been successful.
Assemblyman Geddes:
In looking at that option, your bill basically removes the Proficiency Test as a requirement for graduation, correct? Then you could get the stamp of approval for passing the Proficiency Exam. In this case, I’m a little lost as to how many times a student would have to take it. If it’s not a requirement for graduation, they may take it once, and if they fail, they’re done, and they don’t ever have to take it again. Or, they would just take the math portion, if that’s the portion they failed. Could you explain that?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
The intent is that every student, if they passed all their classes, earned all their credits, and did everything else the districts required for purposes of graduation, would earn a standard diploma. What was on that standard diploma, based on what portions of the Proficiency Exam they passed or other types of courses they took, would be determined by the State Department of Education, because they would set the endorsement categories.
Last session, what we tried was a tiered approach, as I think I mentioned in the early testimony. I still think it was a better idea, at least once you got to the Proficiency Exam. Maybe that’s something to consider; you get the Standard Diploma, you add your endorsements, but, if you do pass all three sections of the Proficiency Test, you get a higher standard diploma. I think that should be recognized for students who pass all three sections. Maybe that’s the motivation to create a second tier of a diploma, once they do pass all three levels of the Proficiency Exam.
Assemblyman Geddes:
You wouldn’t even need to take it once, if this passes?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Correct.
Assemblyman Geddes:
That’s where I get lost in being able to retake just the math section. If we’re going to remove it…
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I think students should be encouraged to take it. I was trying to deal with it so we’re not eliminating the Proficiency Exam. If there’s language that says that the students will take the Proficiency Exam, and then note what they passed, that would be fine and in keeping with what the idea is.
Assemblyman Geddes:
We could still use the test results as a state evaluation tool but not require it of the students to graduate?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Correct.
Assemblyman Geddes:
Being new to the process, in looking at where we eliminated the competency exam and went to the Proficiency Exam, when the requirements were ratcheted up, was there any discussion to have a competency score, and then the comprehensive score? On the math portion, you need an 80 percent to pass. Was there any discussion about putting in a 50 percent pass rate, or a 40 percent pass rate, to demonstrate competency without being proficient?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Not that I recall, but that’s an excellent point. When they were determining the cut-off scores, I don’t think they got into that issue. That was our frustration as teachers, because, when we had the minimum competency exam, generally 98 to 99 percent of our kids, statewide, passed. Unfortunately, they changed the test in two years, and then you had about a 93 or 94 percent passage rate. Within two or three years, the kids would get their scores back up because the curriculum would modify the exam. I see what you’re saying about a minimum threshold and then, if you do go beyond, a comprehensive exam.
Assemblyman Geddes:
It’s not really a question, just general concerns. Do you want to hear them now or later?
Chairman Atkinson:
We can hear your concerns. Go right ahead.
Assemblyman Geddes:
If I implied that the Proficiency Exam should be required of every student and that we should be using that for college, I did not mean to. If we’re looking at how the ACT scores are used for placement, we’re looking at students going to the university and where they’re being placed in the university. Because of math, 38 percent of students are in remedial classes. In Chancellor Nichols’ first presentation on the UCCSN (University and Community College System of Nevada), she said the number one indicator of college success was taking math in your senior year. She said, more than anything that determined how well you were going to do. She didn’t specify Geometry or anything else, she specified math in your senior year.
What brought up the concern is, in looking at this bill, looking at the different school districts all having different requirements for the amount of math and the levels of math. I feel like we may be shortchanging our kids, before we get them to the university level, by not having those math requirements, and I think the comprehensive exam is bearing out the problem we’re seeing in the university now. It’s a big issue now. The math isn’t where it needs to be, and I think the idea of a tiered level, or a different level for achievement, is entirely fine.
I think not everybody needs to go to college, wants to go to college, or should be geared towards college. I’m one of three brothers; the other two had no interest in college, and that’s entirely fine. There needs to be a level of math understanding, and I agree it shouldn’t be a requirement for graduation. If we’re trying to figure out how we’re doing in K-12 in getting kids into the universities, I think it’s showing that we’re not giving them the math skills in high school to get them in at the university level.
That’s my only concern about doing this, and I think Dr. Siegel made an excellent point. This is indicating we have a problem that we should be addressing. Those are my general thoughts and my concerns about moving forward with this, although, if we went forward with this bill or didn’t, I’m not sure it would change things as far as the math that’s being taught. Thanks for the fractions.
Assemblyman Horne:
I understand what Mr. Geddes is saying, and I believe there was a comment earlier that our curriculum shouldn’t be geared to sending all our students to college. I was taken aback by that comment. I would love it if we had the hope of sending every student in our schools to college and to educate them accordingly, not to consider them a failure if some chose not to go or were unable to, but to have that as a goal.
[Assemblyman Horne continues.] I took Geometry in ninth grade. It was said if you’re bright enough, take it, and I was bright, but it was the “Peter Principle” in practice when I took Geometry. Yes, I excelled; I took Geometry, and I slaved and sweated and stayed up late at night to get my C. I was happy for it. I didn’t want to take another geometry class ever again. I think I did okay, and I took Algebra again in college.
I don’t think that, the way we have it now, we should have a Proficiency Exam. I think it is operating as an admissions test for college, and also into the military. We’ve heard testimony that the current system is precluding students who are more than capable of getting into colleges or universities or the military, and I think that’s where the problem lies. I think that this bill is trying to even the playing field like Ms. Giunchigliani said, and trying to get some of these students across that threshold. I support it, in that sense.
Assemblyman Geddes:
We discussed a flat-out elimination versus a requirement to take it, not necessarily pass it, but to take it, so we could keep those scores coming in. We could keep the Proficiency Test as an evaluation tool, but not make it a requirement.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That’s the intent; I want the kids to be encouraged. Right now, that is the standard. Until we decide we want the Proficiency Test, or that we don’t want it at all, the language needs to read, “They will make the attempt to pass the Proficiency Exam.” Whatever sections they passed would be noted as an endorsement, but everyone would be entitled to a standard diploma.
Assemblyman Horne:
Are we going to abandon the “take only the portion that you fail?”
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I think it’s a good idea. From what Mr. Hickman said, I think we could at least get the test writers and scorers to redirect how they line up their subsections. I think that’s valuable to the kids. What do we want? Do we want them to flunk, or do we want to measure what they know? If we measure what they know, that’s where the tutoring really makes the difference, because then the students and tutors can target where their weaknesses are. In special education, we always taught to their strengths in order to bring up their weaknesses, and it’s the same thing. If you can find out that a kid is good in spatial relations but weak on another part, then you can integrate and help them understand Geometry, which I never had to take, thankfully.
Chairman Atkinson:
I believe we are ready, without the fractions, to entertain a motion.
Assemblyman Horne:
If I understand this correctly, we’re making a motion to amend keeping the Proficiency Test. You have deleted Section 11, and students only have to retake the portion of the exam, which they failed. I’m just making sure there wasn’t anything else in all this discussion. Also, delete Section 12.
Chairman Atkinson:
This is pretty much the motion.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Delete Section 12 completely, except to add Mr. Geddes’ suggestion that they would still have to take the Proficiency Exam, and passage of sections would be noted as an endorsement on a standard diploma.
ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE MOVED TO RECOMMEND AMEND AND DO PASS TO THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION.
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Atkinson:
Are there any questions on the motion? Hearing none, all in favor?
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
[Chairman Atkinson continues.] Is there any other information for this Subcommittee? Seeing none, we are going to adjourn. [The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Victoria Thompson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Kelvin Atkinson, Chairman
DATE: